Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 32551

Directory

The moon repeats variations in its orbit about every 18.6 years.
Both solar lunar eclipses repeat at about his rate in a given
area of the earth.  Ancient astronomers knew about this cycle.

This post was not appropriate to sci.lang.japan.
Maarten Egmond wrote:
> 
> 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.

This post was not appropriate to sci.lang.japan, which is a group 
solely on the Japanese language.
Ryan Swift wrote:
> 
> TO THE INTERESTED:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    The National Science Foundation, in respects, serves as the US's goal
> to advancing its domestic and rarely foreign achievements.  Would it not
> be sufficient to say that when one nation is in charge of a certain aspect
> of global development, that information (based on a scientific scale)
> could, sometimes, possibly be distorted, wrong, misplaced, or worse,
> made-up, in order to further that nation's global position (we've all
> heard that knowledge is power)?
> ==============================================================================================
> 
>    What I propose, as a challenge to the scientific community, is the
> development of a centralized-yet divisional global program that would see
> to the  collection of data, research and study of scientific facts, and a
> way to provide worldwide presentation of findings; it would also publish
> proposed scientific studies for those interested, to contribute to
> worldwide research of proposed scientific studies.
> 
>    As an old proverb goes; "Two heads are better than one," why not make
> it easier for those wanting to get started on their scientific careers, or
> those that are merely contributing their time as amateurs, to come
> together, and as one literal mind, solve a common problem- and everyone
> would get recognition?
> 
>    Proposed is a global institution that would encompass these things, and
> more; a global institution that exists in vastly different forms of
> structure ranging from donated campus lab space, the internet, and your
> basements or attics.  The global contribution of such an institution,
> manifesting itself in such forms as a global magazine, to a news group on
> the internet, to a global research and development centers around the
> world- would provide unimaginable leaps in mankind's future.
> 
>    The International Scientific Community (ISC) will be a place where free
> thinking individuals came together and said "We are mankind's future in
> its present."  The present reality is that it takes years for any
> cooperative effort to get going, this would no longer be an accidental
> possibility in the future.  Instead, hundreds to thousands to millions of
> individual scientists, free thinkers, wise men, young college students,
> and the occasional brain from the pre-high school years, could all voice
> their findings, their ideas, on a volunteer basis, all for the sole
> purpose of contributing to mankind's technological evolution; whether that
> contribution would be a simple question to ponder, to a discovery that
> dramatically affects the course of human history.
> 
>    This proposed institution, to be organized and constructed before the
> new millennium, would be the start to those wanting world peace, to those
> wanting to share a common interest, and the strengthening of the human
> exploratory spirit.  This article can be looked at as a mere suggestion of
> collective opinions, or could be looked at as the keystone to a glorious
> future.
> The choice is open to the world.  I suggest it chooses wisely.  Those
> interested in joining the future; let me know. Let the world know.
> 
> Ryan Swift
> ryans@info2000.net
> 
> --
> Let there always be information flowing free...

In article <4vs792$4eg@news.unocal.com>, stgprao@sugarland.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
|> The moon repeats variations in its orbit about every 18.6 years.
|> Both solar lunar eclipses repeat at about his rate in a given
|> area of the earth.  Ancient astronomers knew about this cycle.
    As I understand it, from reports of the knowledge of ancient
astronomers we know that the present configuration of the solar
system is stable within a fraction of a percent back thousands
of years.
    Just by one of the crudest estimates, the length of the year
was known to be between 365 and 366 days ... close to 365 1/4 ...
in the days of Julius Caesar, so that's known within +- .5/365,
or +- .2 % over more than 2000 years.  (Didn't the Egyptians know
this a thousand years earlier?  When was the year recognized to be 
slightly less than 365.25 days, say within .01% of the present 
value?)
    It seems to me that this fact has some importance for the
discussions on talk.origins ... not only for the "catastrophists",
but also for the "varying speed of light".  One would think that
if any of the physical constants varied by more than a few percent
that there would be some significant effect shown in ancient
astronomy.
-- 
Tom Scharle scharle.1@.nd.edu        "standard disclaimer"
                 "Presidential hopeful Pat Buchanan's assertion ... 
                 that he personally is not descended from monkeys 
                 explains a lot to those of us who _are_ from this 
                 planet." -- Gerald L. Epstein

Research Assistantship in 40Ar/39Ar Thermochronology
The Department of Geoscience at the University of Houston is seeking a
qualified student at the Ph.D. level to fill a RA in the Thermochrology
Laboratory, under the supervision of Dr. Peter Copeland for the Spring 97
or Fall 97 semester. Research in this lab includes denudation studies of
the Himalaya, the timing of volcanic eruptions, and the use of 40Ar/39Ar
analyses to assess the thermal history of hydrocarbon-bearing sedimentary
rocks. The student who fills this position will be able to participate in
these research projects or devise one of his/her own. Desirable qualities
for this position include previous experience in geochronology, igneous or
metamorphic petrology, or structural geology and a desire to expand into
using 40Ar/39Ar analyses to solve tectonic, stratigraphic, or petrologic
problems. This position will pay up to $1250 per month (plus insurance)
during the school year and up to $1875 per month during the summer. For
more information including more details of possible dissertation  topics,
information about the department and duties of the RA, contact Dr. Peter
Copeland, Dept. of Geosciences, University of Houston, Houston, TX
77204-5503, (713) 743-3396, copeland@uh.edu.
-- 
copeland@uh.edu

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.
> 
> Now, for that coffee...
Sorry, but this was way way off....
There are 2-5 eclipses/year, but not all are total.  On the average there
are only about 0.7 total solar eclipses/year.
The zone of totality can be anywhere from 0 to 265 km wide -- let's
assume an average width is 100 km.  The length of the zone of totality
is perhaps some 70% of the Earth's diameter, or 9000 km.  Thus the
zone of totality covers 9000 * 100 = 900,000 km2 of the Earth's cross
section.
Now, what about the area of the Earth?  The cross section area of the
hemisphere facing the Sun is:   pi * (6370**2)  =  127 million km2.
The hemisphere not facing the Sun is equally large -- the total cross
section area is thus  ca 250 million km2 (note that this is half the
actual surface area of the Earth).
Thus, the zone of totality of each total solar eclipse covers, on the
average, 900,000 / 250 million = 0.0036 of the Earth's surface.  Since
there are 0.7 total solar eclipses/year, each year 0.0036 * 0.7 = 0.0025
or 1/200 of the Earth's surface will experience totality.  During 70
years  70/200 = 0.35 of the Earth's surface will experience totality.
Thus the probability of seeing totality once during a 70-year life
will be approximately 0.35 (i.e. 35%).  This figure is independent on
how much one travels around, assuming one never makes any effort to
travel to a zone of totality.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
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

Jered Moses (kidkibtz@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
: srlb@eskimo.com (Bob Berger) writes:
: >All right all you experts, is geometry (or any branch of mathematics) a
: >science? Seems to me mathematics is a game. You select a set of "rules", 
: >apply them to a set of "objects", see what happens when you do. It has
: >nothing to do with reality.
: "There is no branch of mathematics so obscure that it might not
: someday be applied to phenomena of the real world."
: --Nicolai Loebachevsky
That is to say, mathematics doesn't _necessarily_ have anything to do with
reality.  It just so happens that reality is often more imaginative than
mathematicians.  (Sorry about the teleology.)
--
Michael Agney

on 26 Aug 1996 13:02:26 GMT, stgprao@sugarland.unocal.COM (Richard
Ottolini) wrote :
>The moon repeats variations in its orbit about every 18.6 years.
>Both solar lunar eclipses repeat at about his rate in a given
>area of the earth.  Ancient astronomers knew about this cycle.
As early as the 5th century BC, Meton of Athens had drawn up a 19 year
cycle to reconcile 12 lunar months with one solar year, with extra
lunar months having to be added 7 times. This was a discrepancy of
just 2 hours in 19 years.
Quite possibly the Babylonians used this cycle in the time of
Nabonassar, long before Meton.
By contrast, the Jews had not worked this out even as late as the
second century AD. The 19 year cycle was only used by them in the 4th
century AD.
. 
       Steven Carr NW England carrs@dial.pipex.com

Paul Schlyter (pausch@electra.saaf.se) wrote:
: 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?
: > 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.
: > 
: > Now, for that coffee...
:  
: Sorry, but this was way way off....
:  
: There are 2-5 eclipses/year, but not all are total.  On the average there
: are only about 0.7 total solar eclipses/year.
:  
: The zone of totality can be anywhere from 0 to 265 km wide -- let's
: assume an average width is 100 km.  The length of the zone of totality
: is perhaps some 70% of the Earth's diameter, or 9000 km.  Thus the
: zone of totality covers 9000 * 100 = 900,000 km2 of the Earth's cross
: section.
:  
: Now, what about the area of the Earth?  The cross section area of the
: hemisphere facing the Sun is:   pi * (6370**2)  =  127 million km2.
: The hemisphere not facing the Sun is equally large -- the total cross
: section area is thus  ca 250 million km2 (note that this is half the
: actual surface area of the Earth).
:  
: Thus, the zone of totality of each total solar eclipse covers, on the
: average, 900,000 / 250 million = 0.0036 of the Earth's surface.  Since
: there are 0.7 total solar eclipses/year, each year 0.0036 * 0.7 = 0.0025
: or 1/200 of the Earth's surface will experience totality.  During 70
: years  70/200 = 0.35 of the Earth's surface will experience totality.
:  
: Thus the probability of seeing totality once during a 70-year life
: will be approximately 0.35 (i.e. 35%).  This figure is independent on
: how much one travels around, assuming one never makes any effort to
: travel to a zone of totality.
	Many thanks to ALL who've helped out on this.  I can do 
research starting next week, but I've learned quite a bit so far.
It does seem to be a reasonably complex topic.
	Personal note:  why do solar eclipses keep missing ME?!
	1970 -- Totality on East Coast;  I was in Chicago.
	College years (1977-1981):  Totality along US/Canadian
northern border (Minnesota) -- I was in Wisconsin (80% totality).
	Grad school (the "I'm an idiot" eclipse).  Totality/annularity
in Atlanta, 8 hour drive from St. Petersburg, FL.  Didn't go
because it was "annular".  Observers said it was the most unique
eclipse they'd ever seen.  (This was 1984 or 1985.)
	Fortunately I didn't go to the Big Island, because I 
probably would have been on the Kona Coast like 90% of everybody else and
would have been clouded out.
	However, I did drive to Syracuse, NY to see the annular eclipse
two years ago.  Not bad, but whetted my appetite for the full show.	
	Caribbean '98, here I come!
===============================================
|  James G. Acker                             |
|  REPLY TO:   jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov  |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.

Robert Day - Security Info Group wrote:
> Ah, the old "I will define any terms I want my way in order to win
> the argument."  Clever.  Must save an awful lot of time that would
> normally be spent, oh ... actually learning anything.
> 
> Don't tell me, let me guess.  I'll bet you've got your own definition
> of "atheism" as well.
I have no idea what "atheism" is.  However, if I were to start to
think about it, I would first look at the generally accepted definition,
find the definitions of others, and then decide on what I thought that
it meant.  This is a common procedure followed by most folks when they
deal with complex concepts.
So I have definitions for complex concepts like "life", "abortion", 
"consciousness", etc.  I use the common definitions for things like
"blue", "paper", "sunrise", etc. 
Science is a complex concept.  The commonly accepted definition does 
not seem to handle things that happen only once in the lifetime of 
the universe.  The definition that I use is intended to simply
clarify the previous definition and take sides on this issue.  This
is why I thought the previous poster might find it interesting.
-leonard
BTW, in order to define "atheism", I would have to have a workable
definition of "god" or "supreme being", which I don't have.

I sure have "thought beyond the border" and I dont mind sharing my
info with you if you share in the expense of its collection.
-- 
George Bonser -- grep@cris.com
The problem with a high-speed chase is that it is a lot like a video game; the
better you are, the longer it takes to loose. 

In article ,
William R. Penrose  wrote:
>In article <32202078.5677@mail.cern.ch> GT  writes:
>
>>Well, I have this theory that the world was actually created 3 minutes
>>ago.
[trim]
It IS a ``perfectly orchestrated illusion''! [I liked that phrase a lot].
I'd like to suggest a faster creation theory. Say in the 3 ns range. ;-)
>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.
It really is all about the parchment illumination trick, isn't it? I
should've known. Damn, the MEDIUM is the message! When will I ever
learn... Where can I get some of this Holy Illuminated Parchment (HIP)?
I have it on reliable sources that American kids don't eat food not
advertised on TV. It's just an observation that statistics makes.
Moral-of-Observation: If you advertise it, they *will* come.
Paul |meforce>	http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3178/

Hi there!
I’m seeking info on the Karakoram & Ladakh ranges, and the Shyok River
Valley.  Anybody been there lately?
How about restrictions... last I knew, travel was prohibited north of the
Srinigar to Leh road, and east of the Leh to Manali road.  Hopefully this
has changed or someone can share their experience of getting through the
red tape.
Any leads would be greatly appreciated.

While over at the library, I quickly found the article 
in Geology, Clauzon et al. (1996), concerning the
Messinian salinity crisis.  They propose that there
was two stages to it.  The first stage, from 5.75 to 5.60
millions years ago, consisted of an evaporitic phase
in which deep water evaporites accumulated in a 
Mediterranean Sea that was a restricted marine basin.
The second phase, from 5.60 to 5.32 million years ago,
was characterized by a drop in sea level of 1500 meters
within the Mediterranean Basin.  At this time, shallow
water and sabkha basinal evaporites accumulated and 
deep canyon were cut all along its margins.
Clauzon et al. (1996) also discuss the relative effects of
tectonics and eustacy in creating the Messinian salinity
crisis.  Also, this discusses the controversy over whether 
the Mediterranean dried out at all.
Reference Cited
Clauzon, G., Suc, J.-P., Gautier, F., Berger, A., Loutre M.-F., 
1996, Alternative interpretation of the Messinian salinity
crisis: controversy resolved?  Geology, vol. 24, no. 4, 
pp. 298-384.
Paul V. Heinrich
heinrich@intersurf.com
Baton Rouge, La 
Standard Disclaimer Applies

m
>Ralph Sansbury  asked a question about how we 
>
>The logic goes like this:
>
>[1] The Kaap Valley pluton has zircon U-Pb, hornblende Ar-Ar and biotite 
>Ar-Ar ages of 3226 ± 4, 3214 ± 4 and 3142 ± 20 Ma, respectively. This is 
>exactly the expected pattern for a slowly cooled pluton. The zircon age 
>reflects crystallization/emplacement, while the hornblende age is 
>probably the best indication of the magnetization age. The biotite age 
>suggests that the pluton has not been reheated above the biotite blocking temperature since 3142 Ma.
 Your argument sounds very professional but although I have read a few 
geology texts it is a little over my head and perhaps there are others 
like me who could benefit from a little clarification. If you could 
clarify a few points first re radioactive dating in this example.
  Ma is not in my dictionary or  even in my limited geology library.  I 
gather  U238 has a half life of 4.468 10^9y  so 3214.4Ma = 3.214.4 
million annae perhaps not a thousand annae or something and U-Pb refers 
to the ratio of  some isotope of uranium(238,235) to some isotope of 
lead(206,207) that the uranium decays to. It is not clear to me how the 
inference is made; that is how does one determine 1)how much lead  204, 
206 , 207, 208 there was when the rock or particular mineral like zircon 
or hornblende was crystallized or melted and recrystallized and 2)how 
much was added by the decay of thorium 232, uranium 235 and 236 up to the 
present time; as part of 2 is the question 2a) I gather laboratory 
measurments of uranium decay in certain material  is measured over a 
short time(?) and the small change in the fraction of grams of the 
uranium and decay product is measurable(how small and what exactly is the 
process and how reproducible is it?)
3) How does one know that uranium or lead has not been added or lost to 
the rock due to known long term chemical-geologic processes of breaking 
up, cementation, melting, crystallizing, melting again recrystallizing 
etc.? One of my geology books by Emiliani says that a U-Pb measurement 
can be confirmed by a Th-Pb measurement presumably because it is less 
likely that both measurements would be contaminated by one process 
characterized by presumably specfic temperatures and pressures. 
I have some questions that I am still trying to formulate about the 
basics of magnetization determinations and why the biotite age indicates 
there was no further increase in temperature sufficient to randomize the 
magnetization directions prior to subsequent cooling and remagnetization.
Will try to formulate these more clearly and post them to you later. 

GT wrote:
> 
> 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
Actually, that was one of my favorite theories. Quite a few decades ago
someone proposed that the world was created in 1932 by an all powerful
entity named "Fred". He created people with memories of the past, and
created a world with an intact fossil and archeological records, as well
as all the planets, stars, and galaxies we or our tools observe.
Wonderful logic, anyway...
I think this was back in the 40's.
Anyone out there have a definitive source?

On 8/20/96 7:33PM, in message <3219F6F9.6E34@ctyme.com>, Marc Perkel 
 wrote:
> Tired of being screwed over by the justice system? Lose everything in
> divorce court because you have a job? Done time for smoking a joint?
> Lose you car from being with a hooker?
> 
> Now you can do something about it. I have a plan to overhaul the
> justice system that is workable and acheivable. Come visit my web
> site and read the whole plan.
> 
> http://www.perkel.com/pbl
> 
> -- 
> Marc Perkel                         Voice: 417-866-1222
> Computer Tyme Software Lab        Fax/BBS: 417-866-1665
> 411 North Sherman, Suite 300        Reply: "mailto:marc@ctyme.com"
> Springfield, MO. 65802 USA       Web Site: "http://www.ctyme.com"
Sorry Bud , but the INET is not a YANK only domain.
Unless you are going to change international law , i don't think the rest of the world 
is too bothered.

On 8/25/96 4:32AM, in message , Chris 
Behnsen  wrote:
> 
> I believe the evidence of something like that would lie within the 
> theories of an super nova.  As every "planet" up till now has a molten 
> core, which means it's basically a large chocolate covered candy...  or 
> in other words, a star covered in rock.:)
> 
> 
> TY 4 D Discussion dudes:)
> -cjb
Star covered in rock ??
A rock star maybe ??
Not much in the way of nuclear reactions go on in planets of mass <0.01 Msol.
The fact that the core is molten is hardly a reason to call planets stars.
Sean Webb

david ford wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> > 
Very interesting. But why all the fuss about creationalism vs evolution
in the first place! Of course evolution is real..we can see it with
micro organisms etc. Creationalism is also real (maybe). If there is
a God does he not create us in his image in the sense that he fills us 
with virtues and
positive qualities. The mistake comes about by an initial false 
assumption about who God really is! If there is a God then he is
a spiritual being with no 'human' form. Thus comparisons cannot be made
with the world of matter. And if someone cries 'prove it' , I can
equally well turn round to a Physics researcher and say 'prove 
superstring theory'. The debates are pointless and without end..AS an 
Engineer I get worried about both camps. Are Sientists beginning to 
treat Science as a religion and some Scientists becomming the new
'priests'! And those who disagree are branded 'heretics' by both sides!!

Followups directed to sci.skeptic and talk.origins only.  Resume
crossposting at your own risk.
In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
|> The way we answer "why" questions is by using more basic concepts.
|> So, yes, there is reductionism over here, gradually the whole,
|> potentially infinite, set of possible phenomena, experiences,
|> events etc. is being explained using a smaller and smaller number
|> of concepts.  But the set of "primitives" cannot be reduced to
|> zero.  Ex nihilo nihil fit.  Somewhere you arrive at a basic set
|> beyond which there is no "why".  At least as far as science is
|> concerned, the answer is "that's the way it is".  And even if
|> suddenly you'll be able to explain part or all of this set by
|> other, yet more basic concepts, you'll still be in thesame
|> position.  This basic set is the equivalent of axioms in a
|> mathematical theory.
Not at all.  I think of them more as the dual of axioms, the way
prices and constraints are linked in linear programming models.
Mathematics starts with axioms; physics ends with "fundamental"
principles.  One cannot question axioms without leaving a system of
mathematics; physicists are seeking to conduct experiments that
disagree with the aforementioned "fundamental" principles.
I dimly recall recent experimental results (last 12 months?), that if
they stand up, indicate that {one of quarks, electrons, leptons}
contain some structure; they are not "fundamental" as the current
model proposes.  Anyone keeping up on this?
|> OK, now suppose that you still ask "but why this basic set and not
|> another?"  
The particulars are, of course, constructed and tested by human
minds.  The way particulars are phrased has both to do with the way
humans think, and the way that reasoning is constrained by the
experimental results. 
|> At this point you're beyond the boundaries of science at that's
|> what my questions and answers dealt with.  
Ah, so you don't like my answer, because you _want_ your questions to
be unamenable to scientific analysis.  Feel free.  I won't follow you
on your journey, because I know how it will end.
|> And yes, there is no unique answer and you never know whether the
|> one you believe in is right.  
On the other hand, you can find out if the answers you "believe in",
if they are scientific, are wrong.  Test answers enough times, and one
can become convinced that the answers won't ever be shown wrong.
|> Of course you can ask "so what's the point in all of this?"  Well,
|> who said there has to be a point.
Once I show that the discussion is pointless, I bow out, and look for
more interesting things to think about.  Occasionally, I have these
odd fits of questingness, and attempt to go out and convince the
heathen that I can show them the light.  Frequenlty, it's the glowing
light of their computer monitors...
Chris
-- 
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood    christw@lexis-nexis.com   cats@CFAnet.com

Maureen Soar wrote:
> 
> The trick to posts like this is to make extensive use of your
> newsreader's KILL capabilities and to simply NOT reply to these
> clearly trolling posts.  It is not censorship to choose not to
> respond - and I think you'll find having responses is very
> important to these kind of posters (and they exist in all
> newsgroups).
> 
> Mo
> msoar@pacifier.com      std net disclaimers apply: I probably didn't say it
Perhaps if everyone annoyed by junk postings were to send back a reply 
via mail (not newsgroups) the offender might be overwhelmed by the volume 
of replies and at least reduce the number of offending postings.  Just a 
suggestion, not necessarily a good one.  What's your thought on it?
-- 
Tim Blackmore    tim_blackmore@notes.ipl.ca
Plutonium:  useless as the fifth tit on a cow.

Academic research is usually published in the open and available
internationally.  Most government sponsored research (in non-military
fields) is also published and available internationally (US research
anyway).  Most private companies, understandably, regard the fruits
of their in-house research as being theirs alone (at least for the
time specified by national and international patent laws) and you're
not likely to change that anytime soon.
At least, that's the way things work here in the US.  I suppose there
must be some countries where publication is witheld.  However, it's
usually to everyone's interest that research be published - even if
such publication is accompanied with a patent claim on any related
technologies.  This is well understood and has been for some time.
How is this new proposal different?  All I can tell is it sets up some
bureaucratic nightmare that would probably inhibit rather than promote
free exchange of ideas.  Who's going to cover the cost of such an
organization?  And if I refuse to pay, does that mean I'll be denied
the data?
Libraries, postal services, phones, and internet already accomplish
more than this proposed organization.  Support those institutions and
you'll be doing everyone a greater service.
And, is there a specific newsgroup where this is actually an
appropriate thread?
J. Giles
Ricercar Software

>
>
>> >        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?
	Perhaps I am too pragmatic, but I tend to take the standpoint that
"what works to a given level of precison is good enough.   By saying that
halley's comet was a confirmation of Newtonian mechanics, I meant that
to a first level of approximation newtonian mechanics applies to 
bodies in space such as comets.  Sure, the basic "philosophy" between 
newtonian mechanics and  theories such as general or special relativity
are in disagreement, but at the speed of halley's comet and the masses
of the objects involved, newtonian mechanics gives a description that
was "good enough".  So its not that newtonian mechanics was wrong,
but rather that newtonian mechanics is only an approximate description.  As
a results it Fails under certain circumstances.  The newtonian model is better
than say a model that says something like "doubling the mass of the comet,
will double the rate at which it approaches the sun.  This statement is
an even worse description than newtonian mechanics.  In this respect 
newtonian mechanics is better than the model I described above.
	Thus, at the time Edmund Halley, did his work, Newtonian mechanics
was the best model he had to work with.  This was my whole point with my
original statements.  
	As you have stated there are some severe problems between The big Bang
thoery and some estimations of the age of some stellar objects.  That it true.
What people should be doing is trying to come up with better theories
of the origin of the universe.  Fred Hoyle, had a steady state model that
matched observations for a while, but I have heard that it no longer
mathces more recent observations as well as the Big Bang models.  Thus I 
view the Big bang model as the "best guess" we have at this time.  If you
have seen some models that do a better job of matching known observations,
please e-mail me the references.  I am perfectly willing to change my
mind, if a better theory comes along.  The Big Bang model may not be correct,
but it seems like we don't have another one yet at this time.
>
>> >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.
	I agree with you that "Blind" acceptance is a bad thing.  Informed
acceptance, on the other hand is not neccesarily a bad thing.  The conflict
between charles cagle and I came about because of difference in what we thought
most scientists who are in cosmology believe regarding the big bang.  
	One of the problems I have had with Charles Cagle, is what appears
to be a double standard.  He wants hard scientific evidence, but when it
comes to the marketing of his so called "SCYBOLT fusion reactor" he
refuses to put forth the evidence of his experiments.  He gets OUT of
the dilemma by saying that he is interesting in the marketing and selling
of the technology and naturally does not want to reveal the mechanisms.
That's all very good and well, except that I will not beleive a word of this
until he provides proof.  Furthermore, he makes sweeping statments
such as "MOST scientists do not have a desire to find truth" without providing
evidence to support it.  His way out of this was to reply that the statement
is not intended to be scientific, but he knows it to be true.  He knows these
things, so he says, because of his innate desire to love the truth.  
So, my 2nd problem with him was more along the lines of a disagreement between
whether or not one can know what is true through purely subjective means.
The incendiary remarks came out of these conversations.
							-Brad

In article <321fcf66.471023@news.cris.com>,
Darren Garrison  wrote:
>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Okay Mr. Whatcott, let's give these sonnets a go.
>>
>>    There once was a man
>>   named Stuart Monteith
>>who whistled and whistled and little by little 
>>the posts that he whistled grew littler and littler
>>He whistled so long that he became a student
>>Now how will that  do ? 
>>So he sneezed out his brain
>>and when he turned around and saw that his head was gone
>>Why, he whistled another and put that one on
>>He sneezed and whistled so long that he lost his post
>>Now how will CERN make a toast?
>>So he huffed and he puffed and he blew the little 
>>pigs house down
>>
>>
>>--- end of sonnet ---
>
>Hmmmm.  Not only do you not have a clue about science, you haven't any
>idea what the hell a sonnet is, either.  A sonnet is _FOURTEEN_LINES_,
>_TEN_SYLLABLES_PER_LINE_.  (Usually, but not always, in iambic
>pentameter.)
Quite right.  And if it's an English sonnet, the rhyme scheme is ABAB
CDCD EFEF GG, whereas if it's an Italian sonnet, the rhyme scheme is
ABBAABBA for the first 8 lines, with the rhyme scheme for the last 6
lines at the discrection of the poet.  
An example of an English sonnet (of mine) can be found at
	http://www.voicenet.com/~dgordon/chapman.html
ObMath: It is probably because I am a mathematician, and because
mathematicians appreciate the beauty of elegantly crafted intricate
patterns, that the regular structure of classical verse appeals to me
so much more than contemporary freeverse.  In fact, the classical
poets were well aware of the mathematical nature of their art, and
often used the word "numbers" in reference to their poetry.  For
example, speaking of the poet's ability to find comfort in the
creation of poetry, Donne wrote:
	I thought, if I could draw my pains
	Through Rhyme's vexation, I should them allay;
	Grief brought to numbers cannot be so fierce,
	For, he tames it, that fetters it in verse.
Speaking of the unparalleled mastery of Shakespeare's art, Milton wrote:
	... to the shame of slow-endeavouring art,
	Thy easy numbers flow...
I dare say that to the classical poets, the beauty of poetry was
derived very much from the inherent mathematical structure of
language.  Conversely, for me, the beauty of mathematics comes from
the poetry inherent in the harmonious relationships between symbolic
abstractions.  Both poetry and mathematics seem to possess an
intrinsic intelligence which transcends our own conscious creativity.
Both, in their own way, capture the essence of the universe.
Poetry.  Mathematics.  Same thing.
-- 
Frederick W. Chapman, University of Waterloo (fwchapman@daisy.uwaterloo.ca)
- Department of Applied Mathematics       MC 4008     (519) 888-4567, x5917
- Symbolic Computation Group/Maple Lab    DC 2302E    (519) 888-4567, x4474
Applied Mathematics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont., N2L 3G1, CANADA

Thanks for all the responses.  I think its firmly established that the
Mediterranean basin flooded at least some 5,000,000 years ago.  However, I
am confused.  I have read (though I can not currently recall where)
evidence of massive flooding at Malta.  Some of the evidence consisted of
the remains of various animals found usually in a large plain environment
washed into the recessed cavities of caves on Malta.  A large assortment of
bones have been discovered together as if to say that a variety of species
were washed into the caves by some flood.
I can not remember if human remains were found or not.  Additionally, I can
not remember the dates attributed to the bones.  Though I believe it was
around 10,000 to 20,000 BP.  Was there flooding in the area during the end
of the last Ice Age?  Also, was the Mediterranean significantly lower
during the height of the last Ice Age, and if so to the extent that
now-submerged land areas were then exposed?  I can not find any scholarly
material dealing with any of these subjects.
--------------------Doug Bailey-------------------
aessedai@ix.netcom.com
dbailey@bigdawg.cba.uga.edu
apocryph@adobe.chaco.com
telnet://darkages.chaco.com:9999 (Legatum Deorum)
http://adobe.chaco.com/~darkages/web/legatum.html
"You ask me why castles have moats?
I ask you have *you* ever seen a Mongol take a bath?"