Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 32525

Directory

Mike Voorhees wrote:
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.geo.hydrology, sci.geo.petroleum,
> sci.environment,sci.geo.geology,
> sci.engr.civil,alt.business,alt.business.misc,sci.energy,sci.agriculture,sci.engr.chem,misc.invest,misc.invest.stocks
> 
> CC: scook@hydrosystems.com,azureainc@aol.com, bduncil@aol.com,
> ECONSW@aol.com,E
> SUBJECT: Leader in Horizontal Wells Deploys Java(tm) ONLINE DESIGN
> SYSTEM for Testing
> 
> *********************************************************************
> The Java-based Horizontal Technologies horizontal well design system
> has been deployed (Version DEMO Alpha 0.1) for testing at
> http://horizontal.com/Rwalk.html. Please visit our site and
> return frequently as we test the system for InterNet online
> design and continue to upgrade its capabilities! Horizontal, the leaders
> in Construction and now leaders in the analysis of horizontal well
> designs. Features Drag-and-Drop wells.
> 
> *********************************************************************
> 
> Horizontal Technologies, Inc., Cape Coral, FL, the leading provider of
> horizontal trenched wells, for environmental remediation, water supply,
> and wasterwater injection, has re-designed and upgraded their WWW
> pages recently. Detailed project descriptions as well as technology
> details have been added. Included is the Horizontal Techno
> Java (tm) Slide Projector which this month highlights Horizontal's
> Polywall technology which creates flow barriers to depths greater
> than 30-feet at a fraction of the cost of slurry and sheet-pile.
> 
> In addition, the free horizontal well Java on-line design system,
> developed by Horizontal Technologies, is presently being tested
> and deployed on our Web Site.  If you would, please visit our site
> at URL http://horizontal.com and put it in your "hot" bookmarks for
> sites to visit.
> 
> Contact (Investor Relations Contact Same):
> Don Justice (The Inventor of the Horizontal Well Systems)
> President
> dan@horizontal.com
> Phone: 941-995-8777
> FAX:   941-283-2222
> Horizontal Technologies, Inc.
Usenet is not for commercial promotions. Thanks.

re: K/T extinction....Alvaraz....passe?
	I've just stumbled onto this group & have read all entries (as of 
8/25) concerning this post, but not one of them mentioned iridium. While 
very rare on Earth, iridium is found quite commonly in asteroids; 
according to Luis Alvarez (nobel laureate) and his son, Walter, the 
amount of irridium at the alv. site was 30X what it was in adjacent 
layers. 
	" Similar results have now been obtained from all over the world. 
In Haiti, there is roughly 300X more irridium at the K/T boundry than in 
adjacent layers; in New Zealand 120X more; on the shores of the Caspian 
sea, 70 times; in Texas, 43 times; and in the deep ocean of the northern 
Pacific, 330 times."	"Comet" Sagan/Druyan 1985 chap. 15
	could it have been a volcano? Sagan continues:
	"Occasionally, volcanoes can produce anomalously high 
concentrations of iridium, but material from the K/T boundary shows 
alteration of the form and chemistry of minerals that are consistent only 
with an enormous shock- which can be produced by a cometary [or 
asteroidal] impact, but not by a volcanic eruption."
	Any problems with that theory? Well, yes. Sagan himself says that 
the iridium was layed down not instantly, but over the course of 
10-100,000 years. To deposit that much iridium, the asteroid (or comet) 
need only have been 10 km across; typical for either. The fallout from an 
asteroid or comet of this size would have settled in ~ 1 yr. However, a 
series of asteroids or comets would have done nicely. This isn't so crazy 
when you take into account the solar system bobbing up and down through 
our galaxy every 26 my or so; this would disturb the Oort cloud and rain 
comets down upon the inner solar system. We are now 12 million years 
through that cycle (ref. sagan comet) and comets would take a million 
years to get here from the Oort cloud. Does the math work? Let's look at 
2 cycles ago:
	26 my (1 cycle) + 26 my (2nd cycle) +12my (this cycle til pres) + 
1 my (travel time) = 26+26+12+1 or 65 million years ago! Well, lookie here!
	Dr. Robert Baker, who I hold in very high regard doesn't believe 
in the impact theory, but believes instead that dinosaurs evolved into 
modern day birds. He has a lot of good evidence to back him up, but I 
think that the fact there was one or more impacts then is the most 
prosaic answer that explains all the evidence. 	
	I also believe the two theorys are not mutually exclusive, but 
that's another page altogether.
	I just realized I should have subtracted, not added the one year 
travel time giving an answer of 63my, but it's still pretty darn close.	
					Jim
					jmaynard @ sover.net

In article ,
   spwebb@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) wrote:
>Just one question ..
>
>How many creationists are non religious ??
>
>If the answer is very few, if any (the most likely answer) , then its about 
religion,
>nothing to do with science.
>
What is science?
Does the theory of evolution meet the criteria for a scientific theory?

In article <4vnv1p$8ff@tierra.santafe.edu>, Adam Bates
 writes
>Actually, Aria, if you think you can even get close to understanding
>America from visiting it a couple of times...... What parts have you
>visited. Been to Chicago and New York? Saw the Grand Canyon? Maybe (I
>don't know) someone visiting your country can figure it out but let me
>tell you. If you haven't been to all 50 states, cities and country,
>seashore and mountains, pueblo reservation to NASA visitors center.
>You don't know this country or its culture.
>
>Adam Bates
>
>
Wow, what a get-out.  Now we have an explanation of why there are only a
handful of Americans that know the country or its culture!
I've spent about 20% of the last fifteen years in the US for one reason
and another and spent much of my spare time during that period touring
the country to find out more about it.  I can honestly say that the only
individual I have met who has been to more states than I is an
Englishman!  (spit ;=)  (Ok his wife is American!)
_______________________________________________________
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers

In article <01bb91c7$bf3d36c0$625048c2@roncom.mannet>, "R.Bevitt"
 writes
>
>
>Kennedy  wrote in article dym.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
>> writes
>> >In article , Kennedy 
>> >emon.co.uk> writes:
>> >>In article , daan
>> >>Strebe  writes
>> >
>> >>>You silly twit, the U.S. isn't supposed to, and doesn't want to, sustain
>> >>>its current position if its most fundamental and important policies work.
>> >>>And so far they *are* working. In the long run, the United States secures
>> >>>its safety and future by seducing the rest of the world into similar
>> >>>governmental and economic 
>Sir!
>     Kindly remove youself,and your ludicrous philosophy,not to mention foul
>language,to "alt.anarchism"where you can meet and "flame" similar folk to 
>yourself.
>     Any further transgressions, and the retroactive moderator will be employed.
>Look at news.admin.net-abuse.misc for info.
>
I resent being accused of posting the above quotation - please learn to
edit your quotations correctly before making idle threats!
_______________________________________________________
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers

David Henderson  wrote:
>Aaron Price wrote:
>> 
>> I am having a debate with a friend, please help us settle this. He claims
>> that every lake in Texas is man made. He bases his argument on rumor and
>> on the fact that every lake with a dam means that it was man made.
>> 
>>  I feel both of those sound ludicrous. How could we build that many lakes?
>> Is there an online resource where we can research this? Does anyone know
>> off hand?
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------
>> Aaron Price
>> http://www.ultranet.com/~price/
>> "It's not the end of the world."
>If you made a bet, get ready to pay up (almost).  Yes, all lakes in Texas
>are man-made reservoirs.  But, here is how you might get out of paying up:
>There is one lake, Caddo Lake, that lies on the border of Texas and
>Louisiana that is the only "natural" lake here.  But it's not entirely
>in Texas.
>How  could we build that many lakes?  Lots of help from the Army Corps of
>Engineers.  I don't know where you live, but it can get pretty dry here
>(as it is now).  Droughts are common.  So are massive floods.  Most of the
>lakes were built for flood control, although some were built primarily for
>water supply.
>I don't know of any online resources (the State of Texas home page has 
>nothing), but you might root around for sites relating to the following:
>1.  Trinity River Authority
>2.  Lower Colorado River Authority
>3.  Brazos River Authority
>Hope this helps!
>*===================================================================*
>David Henderson, Ft. Worth, TX, USA
>	email:     rdavid@flash.net
>	home page: http://www.flash.net/~rdavid
>By sending unsolicited commercially-oriented e-mail to this address,
>the sender agrees to pay a $100 flat fee to the recipient for 
>proofreading services.
>*===================================================================*
>Nothing can be made foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
>					-- Murphy
Actually, I grew up on Caddo Lake, near Uncertain, Tx which is near
Karnak, Tx which is near Marshall, Tx.
The Caddo Lake dam is at Mooringsport, LA.  ...just across the state
line.
Sorry about that.
Dick

In article <321E323E.31DF@ptdcs2.intel.com>,
Karl Andrews   wrote:
:James G. Acker 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?
:
:If memory serves, Sky & Telescope magazine did an article on this a few
:years back, and their conclusion was that less than 2% of the Earth's
:population have stood in the shadow of the moon. If nothing else, you could
:track down that article and see what their assumptions were, to assist you
:in your investigation.
I recall a number, but it was decades ago, and I have no idea of
the source:  that *on the average* any given point on the globe will
experience a total solar eclipse every 360 years or so.
Your mileage may vary!  My memory may be wrong as well.
Cheers,
Stan.
--
Stan Ryckman  (stanr@tiac.net)

Justin M Sanders (jsanders@jove.acs.unt.edu) 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?
[Previous analysis snipped]
It turns out that my caveats were well made-- the analysis I gave was
flawed, since it ignored the rather large area covered by the track of the
eclipse.  (This has been pointed out by another poster and an e-mail
correspondent).  An amended analysis follows. 
There are 2 main assumptions in this analysis:
1.  All points on the surface of the earth are equally likely to at the
center of an eclipse's path.  I suspect that this is not the case, and 
that the more equatorial latitudes are more likely to be the center of 
and eclipse than the polar ones.  So the analysis below will, on this 
count, tend to underestimate the probability for the middling latitudes.
2.  All eclipse tracks are oriented in the same direction.  I think that
this is the case-- the ones that come to mind generally extend from NE to
SW in direction.  Again, if this should not be the case, the analysis 
below will tend to underestimate the probability of observing an eclipse.
We will take the track of an eclipse to be a length L and width W.  If 
a person confines himself to a square of side S, then he will be able to
observe eclipses whose tracks are centered in a rectangle of length 
(L+S) and width (W+S) about him.  So the area of the rectangle which give
observable eclipses is (L+S)*(W+S).
For our problem S=30 miles, and the track of an eclipse is, say, 50 miles
wide and, say, 1,000 miles long (I don't know if these are good numbers).
So the area of the observable eclipses is has an area of 1030*80 =
82,400 square miles = 213,400 sq km.  This area is approximately
1/2400 of the surface of the earth.  So the probability of observing any
particular eclipse is 1/2400.
Now, it was further stated that the period of observation would be 70
years.  My original analysis was flawed in a second way, since it over-
estimated the frequency of total eclipses at 2 per year.  Instead, a more
accurate frequency is one every 2 years.  So in 70 years there should be
35 total eclipses.  The probability that the person will see at least
one of these is  35/2400 = 1/70 = 1.4%.
Given that one of our assumptions is shaky (equal likelihood for all 
points on the surface) and tends to under estimate the probability, we
may be safer to say that the probability of observing an eclipse within
15 miles on ones home during a period of 70 years is about 2%.
Naturally, if the actual size of the eclipse track should be greatly 
different than supposed above, then the probability will similarly be 
changed, since the area covered by the eclipse track is the dominant
contribution to the probability.
--
Justin M. Sanders           "I shot an arrow into the air.  It fell 
Dept. of Physics               to earth I know not where." --Henry
Univ. of South Alabama           Wadsworth Longfellow confessing
jsanders@jaguar1.usouthal.edu     to a sad ignorance of ballistics.

Note followups.  Include an appropriate science group if you think the 
science issues need more discussion or clarification.
"R. J. Register"  writes:
>
>Science was once defined as a process for determining truth.  This
>process involved 5 steps:  
> ... data, hypothesis, experiment ... 
>repeat as needed until the theory (and its predictions) fit all the
>known facts.
Only in schoolbooks and science fair projects.  Science is a far more 
complex process whose main feature is the criteria used to reject 
theories rather than a particular way of building them. 
>In the area of origins, the use of science is very problematic.
This thread concerns the evolution of life, not its origins.  The 
abuse of science and science education (such as denying various 
observations of radioactive decay, geology, and biology and 
attempting to remove as much of them as possible from schoolbooks) 
is more problematic. 
>How do we observe things before there is an observer?
We observe things in the present, and the records of earlier 
observers.  We also compare predictions of various theories, such 
as the creation-based ones still in circulation, to present 
observations or new experiments (like DNA relationships) suggested 
by those theories. 
>How can we with intellectual honesty formulate a theory based on so few
>observable facts?
There are a lot of facts.  The question of intellectual honesty must 
be addressed by those who *ignore* facts that contradict their theory, 
absurdities like continental drift in a few thousand years that one can 
find written in perfect seriousness at places like chrisiananswers.net.
>How do we provide a control and test group?
Controls are managed differently depending on the science. 
>How do we live long enough to evaulate our theory based on perdictions
>which require "geologic ages" to transpire?
Some of them do not take that long, and for the longer ones we leave 
written records for those who come later -- like the Chinese astronomers 
who recorded a supernova date that we can use to show that claims of 
radical changes in the speed of light are bogus. 
>I frankly do not see how any theory of origins can truly be called
>scientific, be it Creation, Evolution, Panspermia, or any other.
One part of doing science is to articulate the theory you are going 
to test and the predictions it makes.  I have never met a person in 
one of these discussions, Creationist or scientist, who cannot do so 
for various theories of evolution.  I have never met a Creationist 
willing to do so for their so-called "creation science".  
Put up or shut up. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  "Tolerance is not always a 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |   virtue."                
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |            Phyllis Schlafly    
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |    

Re. Mike Nash's family argument about what states the Rockies pass
through--
I'll give my off-the-cuff answer, and then if I can check some actual map
that defines the Rockies more precisely, I'll perhaps come back with an
"improved" answer.
    I'd count the Rockies as being in: NM, CO, UT,WY,MT,ID (I'll stop at
the Canadian border).  I was a little uncertain about Utah, but I think
the ranges there would be included as part of the Rockies.  I debated
about whether any of the mountain areas in eastern (southeastern) Arizona
would be considered part of the Rockies, but I think not.  Generally, I
think the southern Rocky Mountains are considered to end at the end of the
Sangre de Cristo Mountains, near Santa Fe, NM.  I'm also a little
uncertain as to whether the Black Hills of SD would be considered a part
of the Rocky Mountains; I don't think so, though they were uplifted at
about the same time.
                               Pete Modreski, USGS, Denver CO

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Carl Wilson"  wrote:
>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?
There is a nice article in the Discover Magazine Sept. 16 issue. I
actually emaied the prof who made the discovery covered in this
article. He said there is a better description in the Aug 9 issue of
the magazine Sciene. Here the basics:
There is a fault known as the Alabama-Oklahoma transform fault. This
fault basically connects the southern part of the Appalachians with
the Quichitas. I don't have the magazine in front of me right know, so
I can't give you exact dates, but around 500 million years ago,
everything east of the Appalachians was not connected to the continent
yet. The transform form fault was not there, and the range from
Northern Texas along the Quichitas, then connected to, and along the
Appalachians was a coast line. The transform fault shifted the mountin
ranges apart, a piece of continent broke off, and made its way onto a
journey that ends in the Andes, the Precordillera actually.
The Appalachians are still coast line. Later then a landmass slammed
into the South-East corner of Laurentia (Name of North American
continent some 300-500 million years ago, before Pangea) and rises the
Appalachian mountains.
I'm no professional in Geology, just interested. But I think that
being a coastline for a while, and then being uplifted by a landmass,
may explain some of the weird Geological features of the Appalachians.
I strongly recommend that Discover Mag article. It is really
fascinating...
Regards,
Frank
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMiEsrsZP3ocmY5AlAQF8EQP+IzrghgfgMlTunUyKejJL09iIhyL7QthK
WBV6PZznXwQ3GxQAG32xUZxzx4Ui4qfV+/T8Y24kMi0k8aXXZTG4VrP9ULrQetDq
8A9ZhwRpMgz1JOiZfYfg8Ox/G8V8AlEexYAL2NlWfmrMLTrKr3i9bIspaca2JBRY
Tq5+E0e77iU=
=2CK8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
http://www.netcom.com/~fknobbe
--
WARNING: ANYONE SENDING UNREQUESTED ADVERTISEMENT WILL BE
ADDED TO A FILTER LIST, WHICH WILL AUTOMATICALLY DELETE 
EVERY MAIL FROM THE SENDER. THIS WILL INTERRUPT FURTHER 
CORRESPONDENCE. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM SENDING JUNK E-MAIL.

In article <321CC31E.5D6E@ssl.berkeley.edu>,
   Steve Geller  wrote:
>From: Steve Geller 
>Not all eclipses are total, even today.  We get annular eclipses if they
>happen at the outer parts of the Earth's orbital ellipse.  The Sun's
>diameter changes, but not by enough to affect eclipses.
>
>The theory about the Moon that I find most interesting is the notion
>that the pumping action of the tides was responsible for life.
>
responsible for terrestial life..............noi?

Like Bill Lady many of us want to get back to GEOLOGY. When I looked into the
so called geology newsgroup a week ago I made a strange discover. Among 30
continuous posts
22 belonged to the recently warmed up creationistic argueing
 5 to exults at mars life
 1 to the never explained mechanism of turis windows
 1 to science theory
but only 1 dealt with the development of atmosphere on earth.
Before the ultimate solution (=moderation) suggested by Will Howard, Ross
Brunetti & Paul
Heinrich starts inevitably - why  not a voluntary sci.geo.forum for general
discussion and ancient greek plutonium travellers, window predictions for
craftsmen & tourists, evolution of creation & creatures of evolution ? By the
way- geo.hydrology is only plagued by pyramid games. Thanks to Bill Lady, Jon
Mosar, Jim Bone, Paul Saey, Eckart Bedbur, Rob Ingram, Mj.Smith & Laurie
Green!  Roman

In article <4viadj$596@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
James G. Acker  wrote:
> Actually, no one has answered the question yet (though I did
> learn roughly when total solar eclipses would end).  However,
> I received a local name that may be able to help out.
Well, solar eclipses have been total for billions of years.
But your real question was:
# So, my question boils down to:  how long ago did the apparent
# diameters of the Sun and Moon become approximately equal (as viewed
# from Earth, of course)?
The answer depends on what you mean by "approximately equal": how
big a difference would you tolerate?  This question is not easy
to answer since there is no clear-cut limit.
One could instead ask:  "When did annular eclipses begin?", i.e.
when did all central solar eclipse stop being total and some of
them start being annular?
An estimate could be obtained like this:  the maximum duration
of a total solar exlipse today is almost 8 minutes, while the
maximum duration of an annular eclipse is some 12 minutes (on
the average, the apparent lunar diameter is slightly smaller than
the apparent solar diameter, therefore the average central solar
eclipse is annular, not total).  We know that total solar eclipses
will cease in some 50,000 years.  This imolies that annular
eclipses started some 14 / 8 * 75000 years ago.
Thus, earlier than 75,000 years ago all central solar eclipses were
total, and from 50,000 years in the future and on they'll all be
annular.  Today we're about 60% through a "window of opportuinty"
where some central solar eclipses are total and some are annular.
>         It's an interesting window of opportunity, IMO.  However,
> until I know about when they started, I can't judge how remarkable
> the window of opportunity is.
Fairly remarkable -- check among the other satellites of the solar
system -- You won't find even a single additional situation like this.
>         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?
At any one place on the Earth there will be a total solar eclipse on
the average approximately once every 400 years.  Thus that someone
would have a chance of 1/6 to witness a total solar eclipse some time
during his life.  We should really only count, say, 65 of those 70
years, because someone seeing a total solar eclipse when very young
is not likely to remember it (in 1990 I travelled with my family to
view the total solar eclipse in Finland.  My son was then only 2
years old.  We were clouded out, but even if clouded out it'll
quickly become dark during a total solar eclipse.  Today my son does
not remember this eclipse at all).
And anyone travelling more than that, even worldwide, would have the
same chance of happening to see a total solar eclipse some time
during their lifetime, as long as they don't make any attempt at all
to travel somewhere where there is a total solar eclipse.  Yes, they
may travel far from home to some place where there happens to be a
total solar eclipse, but they may as well be far from home when a
there is a total eclipse at their home.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch@saaf.se        psr@home.ausys.se

The Appalachians have undergone 3 major orogenic (mountain building)
events.  The first of which was the Taconic Orogeny starting around 650
ma.- 430 ma. (ma = million years) years.  Some folks out in cyberland might
not agree on the figs. but it is pretty ball park :)  The second event
occurred from 375 - 335 ma. and is called the Acadian Orogeny.  The third
event occurred around 300-250 ma. and is entitled the Alleghanian Orogeny. 
You are correct.  During the breaks between each of the time spans, the
mountains formed by the events were subsequently eroded.  Likewise the
later orogenic event deformed the rock units by folding and faulting.  I
don't check the newsgroup that often but if y'all found like to talk some
more please fell free to email me.
Tom
-- 
============================================================================
==============================================================
Thomas L. McClain
Email:
75233.3251@Compuserve.com
Web Pages:
http://www.uakron.edu/geology/mcclain/tlm.html
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/tmcclain
"I have three phobias which, could I mute them, would make my life as slick
as a sonnet, but as dull as ditch water; I hate to go to bed, I hate to get
up, and I hate to be alone."  Talluah Bankhead
============================================================================
==============================================================
Frank Knobbe  wrote in article
<4vrac8$p58@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> "Carl Wilson"  wrote:
> 
> >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 <3220B379.312D@vgernet.net>, Joseph Zorzin 
wrote:
> 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.
> 
The Mediterranean appears to have been desiccated during the latest
Miocene, as the deposition of evaporites indicates. The Messinian
"salinity crisis" ocurred between 5 and 5.5 million years ago and is still
thought to be due to sea-level lowering, isolating the Med. Look for a
book called "The Mediterranean Was a Desert" by K.J. Hsu, Princeton U.
press, 1983.
****************************************************************
email:     Will.Howard@antcrc.utas.edu.au
NOTE NEW PHONE NUMBERS FOR TASMANIA
           within Australia    from other countries
phone:     (03)62-207859       61-3-62-207859
sec'y      (03)62-207888       61-3-62-207859
fax:       (03)62-202973       61-3-62-202973
home:      (03)62-236667       61-3-62-236667
NOTE NEW MAILING ADDRESS
           Antarctic CRC
           University of Tasmania
           GPO Box 252-80
           Hobart, Tasmania 7001 
           AUSTRALIA
****************************************************************

Charles Cagle wrote:
> 
> >>>
> >>>>>  You have asserted that there are
> >>>>>far more plausible explanations than a Martian origin for this
> >>>>>meteorite.  Name some.  I will settle for two.
> >>>
> >>>>Well, we have debris in an orbit between Mars and Jupiter which could be
> >>>>the remenants of a planet or a moon or perhaps of both.  That there is no
:: New Person on List. Background: BS, MS, and all but PhD in Physics,
:: including PhD exams. Have had QED, QCD, GR, SR, Cosmology, and lots
of
:: material science/semiconductor physics.
I have insufficient knowledge of this now, but it certainly seems like
the
people that proposed the possibility that the details in the rock *look
like*
evidence of rudimentary life of a kind found on earth is a pretty mild
claim.
As far as I've read, I've heard no real claims of "life found" just that 
the rock evidence would be compatible with there having been similar
life
forms.
> >>>Isn't this rather ironic. Charles, the champion of non-falsifiable evidence,
> >>>anti the Big Bang despite all the evidence to the contrary,
I'm pretty anti-big bang theory too, but I have some real specific
grounds.
1) All current theories come out with very recent ages, while
astronomical
evidence indicates older matter exists.
2) Mass amounts in theory.
3) The many hacks (like the inflationary model, the inflationary model
with
assymetric matter/anti matter creation for no apparent reason, the
'bubbles', 
etc.) that must be 'added' for no reason *that is intrinsic to the
theory* just
to make the math work out even close to current observation.
4) The blackbody radiation itself is nearly a circular argument. Clearly
there
is some sort of background radiation. What is the matter associated with
this?
If this makes the universe 'closed' then the BB theory is already gone!
What if
there was something else at work. 
Let's propose a REALLY infantile theory, and like the BB theory we can
make it
fit the facts, probably just as well or better. Let's say that as 'wu',
to use
a chineese word that can be used to represent matter and energy, passes
through
space in the form of energy (but only over exceedingly long distances),
it happens
to be redshifted by it's passage. 
That's no more of an assumption than 'expanding space'. 
What does this theory say about observed astronomical data? Well, far
objects will
be more red-shifted of course, which happily explains most observations.
And some
objects that are approaching may be more blue shifted than the red-shift
for 
distance can account for.
Now, what mechanisms could we postulate? The BB theory said 'space was
expanding',
as an axiom, and posited the wonderfully original idea, as a mechanism,
"it always
has been". That's about all it says. It says "at the beginning it
started to expand
and it has been expanding since then". It really DOESN'T EXPLAIN why,
though it tries
to DESCRIBE why and how. Note the distinction.
So, though this infantile theory could be written up to *Describe* why
and how, it
would not have to actually *explain* in a self consistent way 'why and
how' - at least
if it wanted to be no better than the 'big bang' theory.
Let's postulate a 'why and how'. Let's assume that all matter, including
matter in the
form of energy being transmitted throughout space, has a
self-gravitation. This self
gravitation could be described in terms of a virtual particle
interaction between 
the particles (say photons), where the virtual particles were either the
ones, or
related to the ones, used to transmit gravitational force. This
interaction could 
be expanded to represent an extremely miniscule 'gravitational drag
coefficient' depending
on the density of matter/energy in the continuum at any given point. It
would take 
a considerable distance through this continuum before the red shift
associated with 
this drag coefficient could amount to a measurable amount, which is why
it is only
noticed over really long distances.
Now, this theory might be naive. But on *logical* grounds, in the
context of the 
semantic meaning of *logical* it is actual less axiomatic than the BB
theory, and
with less work can come out with better numbers.
I suspect given maybe 20 minutes I could come up with another two or
three such
theories, and probably most of the people out there could also.
> >>actually evidence but merely a bit of data in what surely is a very large
> >>data table.  Some rather sloppy scientists insist that it is 'evidence'
Let's not say "Sloppy". Perhaps "Entrenched". Perhaps worried about
their
Tenure. But I don't think "Sloppy" is right for all of them. The math is
usually
at least somewhat detail intensive.
> >        Interesting, what then constitutes evidence, Mr. Cagle?  Wasn't the
> >accurate prediction of Halley's comet return by edmund Halley evidence
> >that Newtonian Mechanics applied to the orbital motions of bodies in space?
ACtually, NO, it wasn't. Newtonian Mechanics DOES NOT apply to the
orbital motions
of bodies in space. To the THEN CURRENT mathamatical accuracy of
observation it
MATCHED and predicted the motions. But to todays accuracy, it FAILS.
A theory can get the right numbers to a given level of accuracy and
still be
basically crap at the fundamental level of it's axioms and basic
interpretations
and understandings. Or if not 'crap', at least not-relevant.
Too many people don't understand the difference between 'truth' and a
scientific
theory. Theories that express the result in a number are true only to a
given
level of precision. Look at all the hacks needed to make Ukawa's theory 
work to become QED! Was Ukawa wrong? The basic model used to come up
with his
equation, which is the 1st order QED term, is in direct conceptual
disagreement 
with the models used to come up with the higher order expansion terms in
QED.
Doesn't that say something about that whole theory?
> >is not evidence for the Big Bang theory.  You complained in a previous post
> >that I seemed to have a problem with reasoning.  It seems to me that
> >you might be the one with the problem.
Though the previous doubt-er might not have had any eloquence, he had
reason
to doubt, and I think the *blind acceptance* of many of the current
theories
shows a conceptual misunderstanding of the nature of scientific
reasoning, thought,
and theories in general.
> > Incidently,  I will stop making
> >        remarks like " It seems to me that you might be the one with the
> >        the problem", when you stop making this type of remarks
> 
> Indeed, Brad, you have also been a source of incendiary remarks, perhaps
> you should set an example.  Don't use my actions as a reference point to
> control your own behavior, be in charge of yourself.
It takes two people to argue. If you find someone too incendiary, IGNORE
THEM.
That's all it takes to stop an argument. Or take the argument off line
to 
private e-mails.
> >Incidently, I am still waiting on your evidence and threories related to
> >        The ability for a planet to explode.
Last month or so had a good article in Sci Am. about the origin of the
earth.
Interesting, anyway. 
David M. Union
White Tiger Software, Inc.
(508) 752-7738

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia, Moscow, 119899, MSU, Faculty of Geology, Dept. of Geophysics,
Phone and fax: (7-095) 939-49-63, E-mail: JOHN@GEOPHYS.GEOL.MSU.SU
     The laboratory of shallow-depth electrical prospecting
       of geophysical department at MSU Geological faculty
    The scientists of the laboratory are developing algorithms and
computer programs for decision of forward and inverse problems of
resistivity method. The program's products: IPI-1D, IPI-2D, IE2DL
are widely known in Russia and are applied in many countries abroad.
    IPI-1D - is a set of programs for processing and
interpretation of VES data within the framework of
horizontally-layered models.
    IPI-2D - is a set of programs for processing, visualization
and interpretation of VES data along profiles, received with the
Total Electrical Soundings technology (TES), developed in MSU.
The IPI-2D programs effectively work in 2D inhomogeneous media
and in horizontally-layered media, as their application allows to
suppress distorting influence of near-surface inhomogeneities (NSI
or geological noise) and as a result to increase considerably an
accuracy of interpretation.
    IE2DL - the set of the programs for VES data modeling in 2D
inhomogeneous media. IE2DL programs are used for study of
influence of typical inhomogeneities, to choice of an optimum
technology of investigation, to develop interpretation technology
in inhomogeneous media and etc..
    Except programs already listed above, our specialists
developed some programs for modeling, studying, visualization and
interpretation of resistivity data in anisotropic media
(anisotropic half-space, two- and multi-layered media with
anisotropic bedrock and for vertical contact of two anisotropic
media). There are also modeling programs for the case of 3D
inhomogeneous media, for inhomogeneous 3D objects in the
half-space and in layered medium.
    There are programs of modeling and interpretation of the
electrical soundings data measured on aquatorias for the cases of
floating, bottom and vertical arrays for bottom layers' sounding.
    We can model the distribution of electric current lines and
potential isolines in 2D inhomogeneous media. This modeling help
to imagine better an electrical field behavior in inhomogeneous
media and select the optimal technology for such media study.
    The investigations of a topographic effect of the earth-air
boundary over inhomogeneous 2D media are also executed.
    The main sphere of our practical interests - is the decision
of complex engineering-geological and geoecological problems. The
laboratory has experience of field researches of ecological,
permafrost, archaeological, engineering and ecological objects
(pollution by petroleum, waste deposits, study of low-amplitude
tectonics on the surface over coal deposits, study of a subsurface
at the side of profiles of investigation, including that under
buildings, research the surrounding of pipelines and so on).
    We have an experience of researches on shallow-water and
deep-water rivers and ponds, so in walking variants and from
different vessels.
    On territories with complicated conditions of electrodes
grounding it is possible to apply special technology of electrical
sounding or profiling without galvanic contacts. This technology
was developed by B.G.Sapognikov (St.Petersburg) and advanced in
MSU. Non-grounding electrical prospecting can be used both in
summer, and in winter seasons.
    On any question, mentioned in the present message we can give
the additional information. It was published in three monographs
on resistivity method, in numerous scientific publications. There
are also advertizing information and the detailed instructions to
the sets of computer programs, both in Russian and English language.
==================================================================
Please, ask directly by E-mail
Best regards,
Eugene Pervago

Mark Grubb
P.O. Box 725
Tehachapi CAS 93581-0725

Michael Noreen on Sat, 10 AUG 1996:
Thusly david ford Spake unto :
>>>> Both of these explanations are incorporated into sociobiology, a
>>>> combination of evolutionary biology & sociology.  Edward O.
>>>> Wilson, author of _Sociobiology: The New Synthesis_ (1975), is the
>>>> major proponent of this field, which is suspiciously regarded by
>>>> Gould.
> (He did a damn lot more than regard it suspiciously! The persecution
> of Wilson -including even physical threats to Wilsons family and
> eventually forcing Wilson to quit his job!-, on political, not
> scientific, grounds is a real shameful history in modern science)
>>> on to your next attempt at falsification.  It is odd that you persist
>>> in attempting to falsify something which you are insinuating to be
>>> unfalsifiable.
>> It is good that you brought this up, because I have been inexact in my
>> remarks on the matter of falsification, and welcome the opportunity to
>> attempt to make clear what it is that I have in mind.  There are two
>> claims involved here:
>> 1) As a _scientific_ theory, the theory of evolution has been falsified,
>>        or shown to be incorrect.  The theory of evolution, as a
>>        _scientific_ theory, has been shown to be incorrect in the face of
>>        genetics and of the fossil record.
> Oh? That'll surprise geneticists and paleontologists alike. Do you
> have any backing for this claim, or are we to take your word for it?
Don't take my word for anything.  Is Gould good enough for you?  I have
quoted him on the matter of the lack of transitionals out the wazoo.  Is
Niles Eldredge good enough for you?  A while back I did a piece on his
_Fossils_ (1991) demonstrating the absence of transitional fossils.  As
for the matter of genetics, have you seen my pieces on the NIEH and a
look at what happens when DNA gets changed in critical places?  You get
things like cancer and a whole slew of genetic diseases.
"The results of the last 20 years of research on the genetic basis of
adaption has led us to a great Darwinian paradox.  _Those [genes] that
are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at
the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those [genes] that
seemingly do constitute the foundation of many, if not most, major
adaptive changes apparently are not variable within natural
populations_."-U. of Georgia geneticist John McDonald.  His emphasis. 
Cited by Michael J. Behe in _Darwin's Black Box the biochemical
challenge to evolution_ (1996), 28.  Behe is Associate Professor of
Biochemistry at Lehigh U., and his book is superb.  The points he
presents greatly strengthen the argument from design and absolutely
demolish the evolutionary position.  By the end of his book, the theory
comes out looking like a piece of irradiated toast, billowing clouds of
black smoke.
"Ever since Darwin's day, the fossil record has posed a difficulty for
evolutionists--and an arguing point for creationists--because it did not
appear to confirm his notion of a slow, uniform development of species. 
Instead, some fossil organisms seem to persist through millions of years
relatively unchanged, then disappear, after which a spate of new ones
'suddenly' springs up."
break. ".... A century later, a great deal more is known about the
fossil record, and its 'incompleteness' no longer seems so convincing. 
Masses of additional data only reinforce the same story and the
worldwide record is consistent.  It no longer seems to be an 'artifact'
of chancy preservation that we see little change in species for long
periods, followed by extinctions, followed by rapid extinctions,
followed by rapid radiations."-Richard Milner, _The Encyclopedia of
Evolution humanity's search for its origins_ (1990), 375.
Darwin's theory should never have been accepted.  The fossil record
didn't bear out his claims in 1859 and the prediction was never
fulfilled in later years.  A scientific theory is supposed to make good
on some of its predictions before acceptance comes.  (Exception:
simplicity and beauty has been a strong indication of correctness when
it comes to physics and the mathematical equations involved.  Einstein's
equations of relativity are so beautiful, so elegant, that they were
thought to just _have_ to be right, even before experimental testing. 
From one concise, beautiful equation, numerous others can be derived.) 
The theory of evolution makes a large prediction, the prediction was not
met either in 1859 or later, and still the theory was accepted in spite
of the contrary fossil evidence.  The desire to be rid of God was, and
still is, strong.
>> 2) As an _unscientific_ theory, the theory is unfalsifiable, that is to
>>        say, there is no state of affairs, that if otherwise, would show
>>        the (unscientific) theory of evolution to be false.
>>        P1: If something is to be considered scientific, then it must at a
>>                minimum be capable of being falsified.
>>        P2: The theory of evolution is not capable of being falsified.
>>        C: Thus, the theory cannot be called scientific.
> See previous note. You are out on a glorious crusade against strawmen
> again. I think this would be a lot easier if you defined what you
> think Evolution IS, so we could correct you.
> Oh? That'll surprise geneticists and paleontologists alike. Do you
> have any backing for this claim, or are we to take your word for it?
>> Q: If we were to find mammals in the Burgess Shale, would the theory of
>> evolution be falsified?
>> A: No, because the theory does not say when mammals will be found in the
>> fossil record.  If we were to examine solely the theory (no peeking at
>> the fossil record is allowed), we could not predict when mammals will
>> appear in the fossil record.  Thus, since we cannot on the basis of the
>> theory predict when they will be found, we cannot consider the finding
>> of a mammal in the Burgess Shale as falsifying/showing incorrect the
>> theory.
> If we found mammals in the burgess shale, we'd, in the light of other
> finds, have to say that mammals arose rather earlier than expected.
"In the light of other finds."  Not in light of the theoretical
framework of the theory, mind you.  The theory of evolution is
essentially a particular view of history.  You have the Marxist view of
history, and then you have the evolutionary view of history.  Precious
few predictions here.  How can you have predictions when you're
discussing a view of history?  You can't.  And with no predictions,
there is no possibility of falsification.  Wages fall?  The factory
owners are trying to increasingly exploit the workers.  Wages rise?  The
factory owners are trying to buy off the workers, prevent them from
revolting.  Whichever way it goes, the Marxian view of history has it
covered: unfalsifiable.  Similarly with the theory of evolution:
whichever way it goes, the evolutionary view of history has it covered:
unfalsifiable.  Now physics, that's a real science.  For example,
consider the big bang model: numerous _predictions_, which have, btw,
been met.  And with predictions comes the possibility of being
falsified.
> It
> would also raise serious problems of how then to interpret the
> transitional fossils known as 'mammal like reptiles', which we've got
> plenty of.
Nothing that couldn't be gotten around.
> Not to mention all other early vertebrates.
> Actually finding mammals in the Burgess Shale _WOULD_ require us to
> modify our view on how evolution of mammals and vertebrates has
> progressed.
Modify our views about how evolution progressed, yes.  But the validity
of the theory itself would never be doubted.
> It wouldn't, as you say, totally destroy evolution, for
> which we have tens of thousands compelling other cases.
No, of course it wouldn't destroy the theory of evolution, for the
theory makes no _prediction_ about when mammals will appear, and thus,
would not have been shown to be incorrect if mammals were found earlier
than previously believed.  No firm prediction=total malleability in the
face of new evidence=being unfalsifiable.
>> Q: If we were to find a fossil that had not changed in basic body
>> structure for billions and billions of years, would the theory have
>> been shown to be incorrect?
> No. The normal state of affairs for any organism is to be near
> optimally adapted to its environment - unless the environment changes,
> the animal has no reason to, and if the environment changes the animal
> has to change very rapidly with it.
>> Q: Would the finding of behavior in an organism that seems to decrease
>> its chances for survival, and thereby decreases chances for continued
>> propagation of its genes, show the theory to be incorrect?
> Yes it would, if the findings were conclusive.
And under what circumstances will the findings be conclusive?  There are
so many variables, so many things that have to be accounted for, it is
impossible for mere mortals to know all the necessary information. 
Unfalsifiable.
> It WOULD force us to rework the theory of Natural Selection.
Which is a relatively painless affair.  Move a few branches on the
phyletic tree this way, reorient some others the other way-- piece of
cake.  Unfalsifiable.  
> Of course, one cannot use
> species which are in situations for which they are not adapted (ie
> moths flying into flames - the moths have not yet adapted to flames,
> which after all has only been around for a few thousand years).
Lightning bolts didn't cause fires until several thousand years ago?
>> Q: If we were to find an organ or limb that appears to us to have less
>> than the best design possible, would that show the theory to be
>> incorrect?
> Not at all. As we've tried to tell you mutation is random, and
> selection can only work on existing phenotypes. If a mutation, by
> chance, never arises, there's bugger all selection can do about it.
> Case in point: try breeding for wings in frogs.
>> Q: If we were to find an organ or limb that appears to us to have the
>> absolute best design imaginable, would that show the theory to be
>> incorrect?
> No, as with the above argument it'd just show that the animal had been
> more successful with its mutations.
>> Q: If we were to find a population of organisms, each one of which had 4
>> heads, would that show the theory to be incorrect?
> HUH? I can't see the connection with evolution at all.
I was using my imagination.  You are allowed to do that in trying to
come up with situations that, if they were otherwise, would show a
theory claimed to be scientific to be unfalsifiable, or not.
>> Q: If we were to find a population of organisms, each of which had very
>> colorful and cumbersome garb, which might make them especially
>> attractive to predators, would that show the theory to be incorrect?
> All such cases have been shown to be linked to sexual success - ie
> Peacocks.
"Shown to be"?  Try "claimed to be."
>> Q: If we were to find an organism that did not use sexual reproduction
>> to reproduce, would the theory have been shown to be incorrect?
> No, since asexual or sexual reproduction has absolutely nothing to do
> with evolutionary theory.
>> Q: If we were to find an organism that did use sexual reproduction to
>> reproduce, would the theory have been shown to be incorrect?
> See above. You could just as well ask if the colour red showed
> evolution to be correct - there is no connection.
>> Q: If we were to not presently observe organs and limbs taking shape
>> under the guidance of natural selection amidst various environmental
>> conditions, would the theory be shown to be incorrect?
>> A: The theory would not be shown to be incorrect because the theory
>> predicts that the changes occur over long periods of time, and it is
>> only when long periods of time have passed that we see the wonders that
>> have been wrought.
> Of course, we've seen this. Both in the lab and in the fossil record.
> Sorry.
Do you have a journal reference on this one I could look up? 
"Scientists observe new organ taking shape under guidance of natural
selection."  What's the reference?
>> Q: If we were to not see the numerous transitional fossils that are
>> predicted by the theory when examining the fossil record, would the
>> theory be shown to be incorrect?
>> A: Yes, it would be shown to be incorrect, if we continue to hold the
>> theory up as being scientific: a major, definite, firm prediction is
>> made, and if the prediction is not met, then the theory will have been
>> shown to be false.  However, the lack of transitional fossils need not
>> be a problem: we can merely postulate that the evolution of new organs
>> and limbs occurred so quickly (relatively speaking since the earth is
>> billions of years old), that few transitional forms were left to record
>> the transitions.  We could also blame the lack of transitional forms on
>> an incomplete fossil record, which would be all right until study had
>> determined that we had a good picture of what was happening in the
>> fossil record.
> Bullshit made up to support your theory. We have transitional fossils,
> thousands of them.
Good.  You should have no problem telling me about just 10 of those
thousands.  The info that will be required to formulate a well-founded
decision that we have transitional fossils on our hands:
a) how many samples
b) was geographic variation taken into account
c) how many features were looked at
d) what were the ages of the various samples looked at
e) were all features looked at
f) were all the available samples considered
g) what kind of changes occurred
h) this is said to be an intermediate between what and what
Thomas S. couldn't do it.  Can you?
>>> By your own actions you label yourself a hypocrite.
>>> Let me put it on the line David. Do you, or do you not consider
>>> evolutionary theory to be unfalsifiable?
>>> I am waiting with examples of solid evidence which, if found,
>>> would falsify evolutionary theories.
> Here, I'll give you one which'd absolutely falsify Evolutionary theory
> as we understand it:
> A species, which has got genetic variation for a trait, but which does
> not experience change in allelic frequency when a directed pressure
> (selection) is applied to that trait.
This is microevolution.  I'm interested in macroevolution, the idea that
new organs and new limbs can appear whereas before they didn't exist. 
That's the main claim of the theory of evolution: the claim of a blind
watchmaker constructing intricate and complicated things.  A change in
allele frequencies, as when black moths start increasing in numbers
compared with white moths because of a change in environmental
conditions, is not even close to a situation where a new organ develops. 
You don't need evolution to say that an allele frequency will change in
the case of black and white moths.  You just need genetics.  For the
development of a new organ, however, you need a lot more than changes in
percentages of population members having a certain wing color.
> It's as easy as that. Just find such a species or population, and
> you've succeeded. Good luck.
> Oh, BTW: this of course doesn't mean that _Evolution_ would be
> falsified, as it is an observed FACT, not a theory. Just like ie
> gravity.
I can see gravity's influence in action.  Can I see a new organ
developing whereas before it wasn't in that organism?  If you say "yes,"
please include a journal reference.
> What you'd be falsifying is the mechanism Darwin proposed for it -
> Natural Selection sensu The New Synthesis. Really, really good luck to
> you.

Alan Scott on Sat, 17 AUG 1996:
david ford wrote:
> >The very fact that we can subdivide geological time on the basis of the
> >types of plants and animals it contains speaks against the theory of
> >evolution.  If evolution had indeed occurred, we would expect to be unable
> >to classify organisms, since things would grade from one thing to another,
> >making classification very difficult.  The problem of why we can classify
> >things today was dealt with by Darwin by postulating that the splitting
> >off of lineages had occurred in the past, meaning that the fossil record
> >would be even more loaded with transitional fossils, if his theory was
> >true.
> If you believe that there are such firm dividing lines, then you should
> be able to easily define for us all of the kinds which are so clearly
> delineated. The fact that you find such a task insurmountable puts the
> lie to your flippant assertion.
"Define for us all of the kinds which are so clearly delineated."  You
are right.  I do "find such a task insurmountable."  I'm not a
paleontologist.  A paleontologist would be the person to ask.  You might
want to start with Charles Darwin and Jean Baptiste Lamark:
"But how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be
justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as
a fundamental fact of nature?.... Yet--and this is the irony--both
Darwin and Lamark were respected systematists who named hundreds of
species.  Darwin wrote a four-volume taxonomic treatise on barnacles,
while Lamark produced more than three times as many volumes on fossil
invertebrates.  Faced with the practicum of their daily work, both
recognized entities where theory denied their reality."[Gould, _The
Panda's Thumb_ (1980), 205.]  Instead of asking these two
paleontologists, you could look at a guide book for identifying fossils.
> 

Jim Carr (jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) wrote: 
[...]
: The story also got equally prominent coverage in the UK (which I know 
: because I read the Electronic Telegraph regularly, where it was a top 
: page story) -- and last I looked the UK has nothing to do with NASA. 
: This suggests interest in this story transcends national borders or 
: any interest in current US tax and funding patterns. 
: The same media (at least our local newspaper did, from wire services) 
: carried a story last week about the 4 July Nature article that reached 
: different conclusions.  This paper would have been studiously ignored 
: if not for the interest generated by the more recent paper, and further 
: indicates that NASA can stimulate but not control the news media. 
And NASA surely has nothing to do with the positions the media in this
country take, either.  Die Zeit had several pieces on the Mars story, as
did all the magazines (on the cover of most).  Several other papers must
have as well, but Die Zeit is the one I read.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                Congratulations to
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                    Ghada Shouaa,
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik      Olympic heptathlon champion!

George Bonser (grep@cris.com) wrote:
> The reason so
> much is seemingly for the benefit of teh US is because we are the ones
> taking the risks. It is out money and our butts on the line.
Ever thought beyond the border? I think you only 'see' the US... There are
plenty of other nations with a big science program (considered the number
of people that live there). Just that the US is big doesn't mean it's
everything.
I'm not saying the US is crap, I just say that I think that your vision is
very limited (IMHO of course). Sure, NASA is great, but the work done in the
CERN (particles) should not be forgotten... And I'm sure there are plenty
of other big (huge) projects worthwile, both in and outside the US.
-- 
Greetings from Maarten 'Elmer' Egmond
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Year Physics/Math student at the Eindhoven University of Technology
www: http://www.stack.urc.tue.nl/~ep
email: ep@dds.nl *or* ep@stack.urc.tue.nl
----------Be a friend to the Earth, and it will be a friend to you----------
Today's tagline: Biochemists wear designer genes.

wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) writes:
>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.
Ok, but do not forget, that every member has to give a tenth of his wealth to
the cieftain's of the religion and to find at least two new followers. :-)
See you!
Volker

gillan@worldchat.com writes:
>What is science?
I don't have a definition handy, but I gather it is a name for a set of
methodologies for collecting and generating knowledge.
Some of the methodologies are collecting data, reasoning about them,
make theories that have the property of beeing decidable and deciding
them (or deciding about their truth).
Unfortumately, most scientific theories can not be proven, like things in
mathematics. So the credibility raises with each experiment or
observation that supports it and falls down at all, if one experiment
or observation contradicts it.  Then the theory has to be adapted or a
new one has to be found.
Usually after a theory looks proven, it is
said that "it fits the facts within the error of measurement", which means,
it looks pretty solid according to current evidence.
>Does the theory of evolution meet the criteria for a scientific theory?
Since it can be disproven, is based on observations and experiments,
it seems to do.
Volker