Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 32498

Directory

On 23 Aug 1996 15:19:01 GMT, rpolo@sedona.intel.com (Ricardo Polo~)
wrote:
snip 43 lines
>
>wait, i want to add a couple more .... ahhhh, mad cow disease, jaguar (low
>quality vehicle), royal family (we need more of those).
>
>
snip 54 lines
You have just made a 130 line off topic post to 4 news groups in order
to add two lines of your own. This is an absurd waste of bandwidth. If
you must make these posts, you do not need to quote previous articles
in their entirety, just the bits that are relevant to your comment.
By the way, Jaguar have for some time been owned by a small American
company called Ford who imposed their own quality control standards
there, As for mad cow disease Thatcher was booted out by her own party
some years ago. And the royal family? If you want more of them, please
feel free to take as many as you like, just leave us the Queen as she
is our head of state.

dano@cyberramp.net wrote:
> 
> In <320C2B31.4D6F@iquest.net>, Mark Carroll  writes:
> >Your feeling of futility is understood.  You have no proof that
> >creationism is wrong, simply your interpretation of evidence supporting
> >evolution.
> 
> Mark, do you think Creationism should be taught in school because
> someone doesn't have proof it is wrong?  What other subjects should
> be taught in school because they aren't disproven?
Well, I have this theory that the world was actually created 3 minutes
ago.
You remember your past life because memories implanted in you at the
moment of creation tell you so.
Things were created which give the impression that the world is older
than that, but it's a perfectly orchestrated illusion.
Oo-one can disprove that either;    Shall we teach it in schools?
Or maybe we need more than "no arguments to disprove...."
Maybe creationism needs facts which PROVE it, which say that IT, rather
than evolution, is the simplest theory to describe the world.
-- 
GT
--
http://wwwcn.cern.ch/~torrieri

In article <4v9nqe$9ku@news.unocal.com>,
Richard Ottolini  wrote:
>
>Another option is a more benign, chemically neautral atmosphere such
>as carbon dioxide and nitrogen.   Mars and Venus are mostly CO2.
If we could undo the effects of life, Earth's atmosphere would
be similar to Venus's.  There's about as much CO2 tied up in
Earth's carbonate rocks as there is in Venus's atmosphere.

Please keep me informed about you mineral exploration listserver.
-- 
Charles P. Watson 
Consulting Geologist
Advanced Geologic Exploration
Voice: 702-852-0992  €  Fax: 702-852-3226 
watson@accutek.com

In article <32136689.1A7A@n-link.com>,
Brian W. Haren  wrote:
>OK, in a few weeks I will be in Kuwait to do some reconnaissance work.  
>I am taking my Brunton with me.  Do I need to get the needle rebalanced 
>or in any way adjusted before going?
Look at the needle.  Some of them have a slider, made up of a
few turns of copper wire, on one end of the needle.  This is
to balance the dip of the magnetic lines of force with which
the needle tries to align itself.
When you get to Kuwait, see whether the north end of the needle is
hitting the glass or is so far above the markings that it's hard to
read accurately.  If it is, take the cover glass off and slide the
copper wire as close to the pivot point as it will go.  If you
don't want to do this yourself, go to a jeweler.

In article <321D10BE.5C7A@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>,
Laurie and Jerry Green   wrote:
>Andrew Poulos wrote:
>> 
>> ...They not only disbelieve that an extraterrestrial body
>> impacting Earth caused the K-T extinction but claim that the Chicxulub
>> structure (crater) was caused by volcanism...
>
>Not an expert on the K-T extinction, but I have been studying late 
>Cretaceous and early Eocene formations in southern Mexico for the last 
>couple of years and have seen no evidence of volcanism on that scale.  
Walter Alvarez and his associates have located some sedimentary
features that support the idea that there was a major meteor
impact at that time.  He has also put together a fractional-orbital
model that explains the worldwide distribution of tektites from
this event.  I haven't seen this information in published form
yet.

As one sports company says "Just Do It".
I find it an embarrassment that Russia, Europe and Japan have
had SAR satellites up for years and the US is still talking about it.
Most of the important recent geophysical and archeological discoveries
have been made using *their* data.
You can always chase the "latest and greatest" technology, but it doesn't
do much good on the ground.

In article <4vlmpa$e90@herald.concentric.net>,
Ralph Sansbury   wrote:
>Two Questions?
>How does radioactive decay indicate the escaping of severe heat from the 
>time of first cooling?
The trick is to use several different radiometric clocks.
As summarized by Mike McWilliams, this study used U-Pb on
zircons, K-Ar on hornblende, and K-Ar on biotite.
U-Pb on zircons tells us when the rock started to crystallize.
This clock is not easily reset by later reheating.
The K-Ar clock can be reset by heating, since radiogenic Ar gas
is lost.  Each mineral has a characteristic temperature at which
this happens.  For hornblende this temperature is abou 500
degrees  degrees C; for biotite, about 250 degrees C.  Since the
Curie temperature of magnetite is also about 500 degrees C.,
the hornblende K-Ar age provides an indicator of the time
at which the rock last cooled to the temperature at which
the observable remanent magnatism was locked in.
>Rob Van der Voo of the U of Mich. Ann Arbor says that one has to disprove 
>remagnetization  and that is hard to do. Ive looked at hundreds of rock 
>formation and about half of them are probably remagnetized
As Mike also summarized, this is done on the basis of field
geology.  Field relationships between different rock bodies
(deposition, deformation, intrusion, etc.) can give us their
relative ages.  If the absolute age indications given by
radiometric dating are consistent with thi relative history,
we can be pretty sure that the clocks have not been reset
by regional re-heating.
Another source of information is the internal consistency of the
data.  The near-concordance of the zircon U-Pb and the
hornblende K-Ar ages suggests that the rock was not re-heated to
high temperatures.  The Ar-Ar process the authors used to date
the rocks using the K-Ar system also gives some indications of
the thermal history of the sample.

3 words: Duck billed Platypus

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: In article <$Kbg+SAtKOHyEwvw@kennedym.demon.co.uk>, Kennedy  writes:
: >In article <4vhrme$m48@news.sandia.gov>, Kent Budge  writes
: >>Kennedy  wrote:
: >>..
: >>>To quote the big E on receipt of his Nobel Prize :
: >>>"I may have seen further than anyone else, but I stood on a lot of
: >>>peoples shoulder's to do so!"
: >>
: >>I thought it was Newton who said this.  
: >
: >Na, Newton was far to arrogant to admit that others had helped him along
: >the way and, of course he couldn't have been a Nobel Laureate ;=)
: >
: Actually, it was Newton.  The quote as I recall it goes "If I have 
: seen further then others, that's because I stood on the shoulders of 
: giants".  While being arogant, he could recognize greatness in others.
When this line is quoted, it is almost always misinterpreted as being 
evidence of Newton's recognition of the "greatness of others", it was, in 
fact, a sarcastic dig at Robert Hooke, Newton's leading rival and 
considered to be England's greatest scientist before Newton arrived on 
the scene.
Hooke was short and crooked in his posture, and so was an easy mark for 
such a cheap shot.  Newton has often been paraphrased by modern 
physicists who have said, "If I have seen further, it is by looking over 
the shoulders of midgets.".
-- 
Viejo         viejo@crl.com         |Nunca entra en disputas.
                                     Pues, de vez en cuando...

>: >>	When the Moon was closer, there wouldn't have been a total
>: >>solar eclipse as we see it now.  The larger apparent diameter of
>: >>the Moon would have covered the Sun for a longer period of time.  
>: Wrong again.  When the moon was closer, there wouldn't have been the
>: annular eclipses we often see now.  The larger apparent diameter of
>: the moon would have covered the sun for a shorter period of time, due
>: to Kepler's third law.  Although the moon looks bigger, it is also
>: going faster.
>I disagree.  Even nowadays, don't the eclipses with longest totality
>occur when the moon is at perigee and moving fastest?  The percentage
>change in the excess of moon's apparent diameter over sun's apparent
>diameter far exceeds the percentage change in angular velocity.
This objection deals with Kepler's second law and is certainly a
competing factor.  It is the currently the dominant factor.  Was it
always?  It is important to note that annular eclipses currently last
longer than total eclipses, which is also an apparent diameter and
angular velocity effect.  It raises another question.  When did, or
will, total eclipses last the longest?
I consulted Owen Gingrich's article, "The making of a Prize Eclipse",
in Sky and Telescope July 1991.  He does agree about when the longest
total eclipses occur, but he attributes it to apparent size and says
nothing about angular velocity.  He also provides data that shows
there is much more to it.
Examine his diagram on page 15.  It predicted that the the July 11,
1991 eclipse should last 6 minutes and 53 seconds.  It does occur at
perigee.  It also predicted the June 30, 1992 eclipse will be shorter,
5:21, and it was not a perigee.  But, don't be too quick to judge.
The 1997 eclipse will occur at perigee and it will be shorter (2:51)
than the 1998 eclipse (4:09), which will not.  Yes, the 1997 eclipse
is off center, but so was the January 4, 1992 which lasted 11:41.
Let's not neglect aphelion.  When the earth is at aphelion, the sun
appears smaller.  The aphelion consideration means that the longest
total eclipses occur in June and July, and the longest annular
eclipses occur in December and January.
http://michele.gcccd.cc.ca.us/~ljohnson/johnson.html

>In <320C2B31.4D6F@iquest.net>, Mark Carroll  writes:
>>A note to evolutionists:  You can be an evolutionist and a creationist
>>at the same time.  They are not mutually exclusive.
How right you are.  But it seems like such an oddly conciliatory statement for 
this agonizingly endless thread.  The possibility of a "guided creation" 
cannot be dismissed or disproven (or proven) by scientific means, and is an 
easily rationalized possibility adopted by many scientists (and others).  Even 
I am tempted by it.
But evolution is not a "conviction".  If you are hit on the head by a hammer, 
the reality of the hammer is not in doubt.  It is the same for the evidence of 
evolution.  Yet it is (remotely) possible that some sharp young biologist or 
paleontologist will come along tomorrow and make an unassailable discovery 
that would topple the whole thing.  If the evidence was undeniable and 
compelling, science would have to change and adapt.  This would take time, but 
it would happen eventually by the sheer accumulated weight of evidence, just 
like the adoption of quantum physics early in the century.  Even the original 
adoption of evolutionary theory had to overcome a great deal of resistance 
from other scientists whose objections had nothing to do with religion.
This is a difference between science and religion.  A religion cannot allow 
for dissent or change, because its adherents are mainly in search of 
certainty.  Science must allow it, however reluctantly.
Bill
********************************************************
Bill Penrose, Sr. Scientist, Transducer Research, 
600 North Commons Dr., Suite 117
Aurora, IL 60504, 708-978-8802, fax: -8854
email wpenrose@interaccess.com
********************************************************
Purveyors of contract R&D; and fine gas
sensors to this and nearby galaxies.
********************************************************

In article <32202078.5677@mail.cern.ch> GT  writes:
>Well, I have this theory that the world was actually created 3 minutes
>ago.
>You remember your past life because memories implanted in you at the
>moment of creation tell you so.
>Things were created which give the impression that the world is older
>than that, but it's a perfectly orchestrated illusion.
That's funny.  I had the same theory.  Let's start a religion.  Be sure to 
write it all down, though, so it can be holy writ to our future adherents.  An 
email posting may not have the same staying power as illuminated parchment.
Bill
********************************************************
Bill Penrose, Sr. Scientist, Transducer Research, 
600 North Commons Dr., Suite 117
Aurora, IL 60504, 708-978-8802, fax: -8854
email wpenrose@interaccess.com
********************************************************
Purveyors of contract R&D; and fine gas
sensors to this and nearby galaxies.
********************************************************

Ross Brunetti wrote:
> 
> Will Howard wrote:
> >
> > In article ,
> > heinrich@intersurf.com (P. V. Heinrich) wrote:
> >
> > > We might follow the example of sci.archaeology.  They simply
> > > created a sci.archaeology.moderate while leaving the original
> > > sci.archaeology unmoderated.
> >
> > > It might be instructive to post the FAQ for
> > >sci.archaeology.moderated for people to read and think about.
> >
> > Please do. I agree here that this might be the solution.
> > I suppose if scientists REALLY want to have serious 
> > discussions, there's always the refereed literature... ;)
> 
> I just spent some time browsing sci.archaeology. There 
> were some off-topic debates, and "a little knowlege is a 
> dangerous thing" posts, but most of the bickering was
> scholar-to-scholar. If it'll give the uninformed a place 
> to express themselves, it would well be worth it. 
At the time that it was done, there were innumerable posts on
Atlantis, posts on the "Carboniferous bones" of Ed Conrad, 
many about prehistoric Africans explorers in Central America, 
magical properties of crystal skulls, Mysterious Origin of
Man claims, and so forth.  Maybe if the netloons realize
that they are just talking among themselves and cannot harrass
scientists and other interested parties, they get tired and
go elsewhere? 
Sincerely, 
Paul V. Heinrich
heinrich@intersurf.com
Baton Rouge, LA
Standard Disclaimer Applies.

Jeffrey Wu wrote:
> Weren't there several times when the Mediterranean Basin was flooded and
> dried up? One of those events is called the Messinian Event. I think it
> has to do with fall in sea-level and climate changes during the
> various Ice Ages.
> I believe you can find out more in a textbook by Lutgens and Tarbuck.
> Forgot the name but has something to do with nautral disasters.
I recall a National Geographic article on this maybe 15 years ago. I don't 
think it had anything to do with the ice age, but rather the crust in the 
straight of Gibralter keeps rising every few millions due to the African and 
Europeen plates comming together. When it rises it shuts off the flow of water 
from the Atlantic which is needed since evaporation in the Mediteranean is more 
than the flow of fresh water from rivers. After awhile the natural dam wears 
down and a humungous waterfall forms which pours into the enpty basin until it 
is filled back up. And this has happened several times.

A couple of quick questions about the geological history of the Appalachian
Mountains if I may.
When did the Appalachians begin to push up?  
I also read once that some suspect that the Appalachians we see today are
actually the remains of the most recent upheaval.  That there was even
earlier mountain building in the area which eroded down, then were later
folded back up again.  Is this still considered correct?

In article <3218EEA9.41C6@theory.chem.ubc.ca>, Richard Moss
 writes
>
>I just got back from holidays, where I collected several nice rocks
>from streams that look great when wet.  Is there any stuff (some sort
>of laquer perhaps) that you can paint them with, or soak them in, so
>they'll look "wet" all the time?
>
Try a two pack product called Crystal Coat (made in Canada) available
from craft shops. It dries to a hard clear scratch resistant finish
which does not yellow with time. It is intended for jewellery making.
I've used it several times and the result is very good.
-- 
Phil Ingham
DTS Geotek - U.K.

In article <321C7465.3C2C@qub.ac.uk>, Jim Hendry 
writes
>Does anybody out there know of companies which still manufacture 
>vibrolaps (motor-driven, vibrating laps for polishing large blocks of 
>limestone and other "soft" rocks). Companies based in UK are of most 
>use.
>
>
Try H C Evans & Sons (Eltham) Ltd, 171 Main Road, Sidcup, Kent and M L
Beach Ltd, 41 Church Street, Twickenham, Middlesex. Both make vibrolaps.
Not sure if they sell them direct but they will give you local
suppliers.
Best wishes
-- 
Phil Ingham
DTS Geotek - Geological Technology

In article <4vk8co$8lv@hermes.acs.unt.edu>,
Justin M Sanders  wrote:
>James G. Acker (jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>> 	I have a related question, but this one is probably 
>> answerable by my own research.  If someone lives 70 years and never
>> travels more than 15 miles from their birthplace, what are the 
>> chances they would witness a total solar eclipse?
>
>It's early and I haven't had my coffee yet, but how does this
>back-of-the-envelope estimate sound?
>
>If you never go more than 15 miles from home, then about 1,800 sq km of
>the earth's surface is accessible to you.  The total area of the earth's
>surface is 510,000,000 sq km.  If all parts of the earth's surface are
>equally likely to be in the path of an eclipse, then the probability that
>you will be in the path of any one eclipse is 1 in 283,000.
>
>Now there are, say, 2 eclipses per year, and you are observing for 70
>years, so that is 140 eclipses.  Your probability of seeing any one of
>these 140 eclipses is, therefore, 1 in 2000.
What your calculation lacks totally is the area on which the particular
eclipse is visible. In fact as someone said one should drop that 15 miles
and assume just that the person does not travel to see eclipses. (or
travel at all) In that way the calculation would become simpler. Of course
one needs the area that average eclipse covers. I do not have that data, but
my estimate of the probability is much higher, about 50%. In Helsinki there
was a total eclipse in 1990, the next is in 2126. I do not know of the
previous one, but it was certainly before 1945. 
Osmo

PLEASE remove sci.astro.amateur from your newsgroup header before
further responding to this and other Mars/Life threads. The subject of
these threads has grown WAY outside the scope of the group. Thank you
for helping to keep the usenet useable.

PLEASE remove sci.astro.amateur from your newsgroup header before
further responding to this and other Mars/Life threads. The subject of
these threads has grown WAY outside the scope of the group. Thank you
for helping to keep the usenet useable.

PLEASE remove sci.astro.amateur from your newsgroup header before
further responding to this and other Mars/Life threads. The subject of
these threads has grown WAY outside the scope of the group. Thank you
for helping to keep the usenet useable.

PLEASE remove sci.astro.amateur from your newsgroup header before
further responding to this and other Mars/Life threads. The subject of
these threads has grown WAY outside the scope of the group. Thank you
for helping to keep the usenet useable.

On Mon, 19 Aug 1996 03:45:40 -0700, Jerry Teach
 wrote:
>I'm no expert and correct me if
>I'm wrong but I've heard it said that if the earth would moved off it's
>axis by as much as 1/4 inch away from the sun we would be an ice ball..
>and a 1/4 or more closer to the sun we would be a dead planet.
OK, you stand corrected, since the Earth's orbit varies by MUCH more
than 1/4 inch.
> I've also
>heard that the odds of the big bang creating all the  prerequisites of a
>life sustaing planet is comparable to a print shop exploding and the
>debris forming a dictionary.
Assuming that you exploded one print shop per second for 11 billion
years, the odds would be pretty good, wouldn't you say?
-- 
Al

Hello,
This may seem foolish, but this question set off a great fight
this afternoon during a family gathering.  What states do the 
Rockies pass through?  Some of the family answers were off the 
wall (California, Oklahoma) some were dead on (Montana, Colorado)
and some are questionable (Texas, Utah).  As the only geologist
in the family, I was given the task to figure it out.  I gave 
them my answers (which of course they thought I just made up...
I did) and now I'd like to hear others impressions.
Thanks,
Mike S. Nash
sinbad@prairienet.org