Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 32661

Directory

In article ,
Philip Nikolayev  wrote:
>In article  
>wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) writes:
>
>   This is a difference between science and religion.  A religion cannot allow 
>   for dissent or change, because its adherents are mainly in search of 
>   certainty.  Science must allow it, however reluctantly.
>
>No.  It's irrelevant whether religion @allows@ change; what matters is
>the fact that religion @itself@ changes and adapts. Therefore, science
>and religion are not different in the respect of change.
"Change" is such an overused word. I know, I use it plenty. Yet it is a
difficult word to use for it lacks rigorous meaning.
Religions do change over time. Beliefs change with Technology. I mean,
the local technology available to religious people influences what they
"believe" regarding their universe. Fortunately, the state of technology
available to mankind over history is a *known* variable. Science
Historians can and do track the TechnoWizardary available to
geographically dislocated humans over the course of time.
Science changes over time? Certainly we know that technology improves
with time. We have better computers in 1996 than we ever did before. Our
hammers are still basically "hammars". While it is true that technology
advances, I'm hesitant about whether "Scientific Principles" actually
change. This is important because of the rediscovery-of-science implied
by TLoTCoReason thought experiment (TE).
For according to this TE, we humans would *rediscover* the fundamental
principles of Physics/Science. This constancy of the underlying physics
in Nature is extremely significant. It is this property of science that
allows modern day scientists to rationally consider Planetary Alignments
in the distant past. Hell, if Newton's Law of Gravitational Attraction
can't be used in this manner, we have no other way to calibrate the
history of the Alignments of Planets.
I know what you're thinking. And it's good. Sure, Einstein replaced
Newton's Law. So that means WHAT? Try not to get mad. No one said
science was easy. Ultimately, scientific laws are a constant of Nature.
We just can't be certain if we've found that fundamental Set. Mind you,
we *could* have! We just don't know how to decide or whether the issue
is decidable.
Fact is, Planetary Motions predicted by Newton and later Einstein work
very well from year to year. It would be terribly annoying if all the
stars obeyed the Laws of Motion only to spite the humans of the late
20th Century. My point? There is something mechanistic about the
elements of Nature. No point in denying it. Science works and it works
rather well. It's even got built in criteria for selecting acceptable
propositions.
Religions vs. Science? There's only one Science. And this isn't because
science somehow lacks "imagination". Just read what real scientists
post/write/think/... The deeper metaphysical question is why does Nature
operate under the Laws of Physics we've identified? Remember, scientists
aren't in the position of creating new laws --- they are in the business
of discovering what the laws might be or are. So the metaphysical
question is simply Einstein's: Did God have a choice in setting up the
Laws of Physics?
Notice how Einstein's wording presupposes the existence of God.
Mahipal |meforce>	http://www.geocites.com/Athens/3178/

Is there a newsgroup forum for discussion of mineral and
rock collecting, identification, and classification? This one
certainly doesn't seem to be the one!
-- 
Mark Christensen				       ascom-Nexion
email: markc@nexen.com				       289 Great Road
ph: (508) 266-2315				       Acton, MA 01720

In article <4vv906$5rm@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, minsleyb@london.physics.purdue.edu says...
>The problem is finding out what professors are doing what projects 
>and where they are.If anyone could point me in a good direction, 
>I'd appreciate it.  Some listserc groups or web sites would be best.
>
My old undergraduate advisor and others at the U. of Kansas recently started a GIS lab in the 
department.  This means that they have a tremendously large database to draw from and no longer 
produce maps on paper.  This project was developed jointly by my old advisor, D. Walker 
(tectonics), R. Black (geophysics) and some folks in the Dept. of Geography.  For a review of 
their work look for their recent publication in the March issue of GSA Today.  The department 
has a web page found on the universities system (http://www.cc.ukans.edu/).  Incidently, most of 
Dougs work is in the Basin and Range of California, so there is the opportunity for field work 
in some spectacular areas, and Doug is also a part of the isotope geochronology lab in the 
department.
I did my grad work at Northern Arizona Univ., in Flagtsaff, AZ.  The department isn't as big as 
KU but it is located in a great area (for the study of geology anyway) and has some great 
dedicated young professors.  Most of their work is alao in the Basin and Range, but also in the 
Rockies, some volcanic terranes, British Columbia, and Mexico.  They have a great homepage that 
lists some of the professors research interests and their e-mail addresses.  Unfortunately I 
can't find the URL.  However, one of the various search engines should come up with the correct 
address.
-- 
Ulf Becker
ubecker@idir.net
   __O  
 ='\<,
(*)/(*)

In article <4vnm4q$lnt@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, 
edgrsprj@ix.netcom.co says...
>
>INFORMATION REGARDING HUMAN EARTHQUAKE SENSITIVITY
>
>From:  E.D.G., Scientific Consultant, edgrsprj@ix.netcom.com
>Web Site:  http://www.prairienet.org/~edgrsprj/homepage.html
>Posted To:  earthquake and geology related Newsgroups
>Date Posted:  August 24, 1996
>RICHTER SAID  -- Unless you pretend to know better (and many in this 
group do!) than the famous scientist, do not read the following.
.
"Predictions based on positions of the sun and moon have to be 
regarded a trifle more seriously, since there is evidence that tidal 
forces may occasionally act as triggers for earthquakes otherwise on 
the point of taking place; in this way the date and hours of 
occurrence  ( occurrence -two r's) may show a  slight statistical 
correlation with the tides."
Well before anyone created the word EDOUARD! I posted a "Supernova 
window" is on the way.  Watch the following dates for September and 
see Astrogeology of the future in action.  Also, Yes, there is a 
direct association with the weather development and earthquakes.  
Enjoy, explore, investigate, be patient, most of all print this post 
and JUDGE for yourself (do not let some ignorants cruising the net 
decide for you!)
Dr. Turi
.
This theory is at an early stage and is  EXPERIMENTAL only.
Next window is for Aug. 31st, 1996- A window is operational 1200 hours 
centering the given date and sometimes a few hours before and after 
the window - 
Thus 1200 Aug. 30th through 1200 hours Aug.31st - UTC is used.  This 
theory is not 
"yet" recognized by the scientific community or USGS and indicate only 
the possibility
for UNUSUAL and HIGH seismic activity.  Previous windows (see sample 
later on) have
accurately pin pointed earthquakes of a minimum of 6.0 and well above 
6.5.  " As above
as below", everything is interconnected.  The windows do not stop at 
earthquakes (HIGH)
probability/intensity but include various ways of  mother nature 
expressing herself
through destructive weather pattern.  
This negative celestial energy (cyclonic reasonance) also affects 
sophisticated electronics
equipments (planes/ boats/ trains/cars/ airport traffic control 
towers, generators/
electronics) thus the high possibility to experience 
failures/accidents leading to a lost of
general power as experienced with both "state blackouts" that struck 
inside my windows.  
Those windows do also affects "physical" computers (viruses) and 
(spiritual) computer
(brain) which is reacting with the subtle but real outside "stimuli". 
 Thus under those
windows, the worse elements of our society  will respond and act out 
(robotic
expressions) the will of the cosmos "Rodney King dilemma, Los Angeles 
riots etc.
producing dramatic news with the police force".
A Supernova month is about to unfold.  Weeks before January 1996 I 
posted my predictions for a Supernova window.Then, a few weeks later, 
as anticipated "A record breaking weather development" hit New York 
early January
1996-
September 1996 will be one of the worst month in 1996 in terms of 
weather development
and natural disasters. 
On the following windows, expect the weather to go seriously out of 
hand. The upcoming nefarious energy will produce chain reaction 
accidents, oil spill, sea accidents. On certain given dates expect 
volcanoes 
eruption, tornadoes, floadings and large earthquakes.  This energy 
will certainly affect airports electronics and thousands of travelers 
will be stucked "cancelation flights". Black out, lost of power and 
general communication is very high on my windows. If NASA decide to 
launch the shuttle, they are on for serious electronics failures and 
trouble then costly cancellations. A shuttle exploded a few years ago 
and many expansive satelites were lost during these "Supernova" 
windows. 
Here is the dates and  please PRINT THEM!
September 2nd - 
September 11th -
September 17th-
September 29th-
The next Supernova window is for December 1996.
Solid proof of previous Supernova windows are available at 1996 
Universal Predictions -
http://salemctr.cpm/newage.html
I would like to thanks all the people on this group for their 
participation.
Respectfully to all
Dr. Turi
>       All of the information in this notice represents
>expressions of personal opinion.
>
>       On August 2, 1996 a notice was posted to
>sci.geo.earthquakes by a woman who stated that based on her past
>experiences with headaches etc. she believed that a powerful
>earthquake might be about to occur.  Many people undoubtedly
>wondered if she was in fact detecting the approach of an
>earthquake.  This notice will attempt to shed some light on that
>question.
>
>       In the April, 1996 issue of "Geo-Monitor: Earthquake
>Prediction News" I published an article which outlined some of my
>theories regarding the basis of earthquake sensitivity.  The
>latest update of that article can be found at my Web site at:
>http://www.prairienet.org/~edgrsprj/116.htm
>
>       Also since April of this year I have had an opportunity to
>compare notes on a daily basis with a number of talented
>earthquake sensitives here in the U.S.  And in the process I have
>been able to conduct some informal surveys which have examined a
>number of subjects such as the relationship between the intensity
>of the experiences which earthquake sensitives have and their
>proximity to a fault zone, and whether or not earthquake
>sensitives living at different locations in the country pick up
>warning signals at the same time.  The results of those surveys
>have been used to help put together an earthquake sensitivity
>based earthquake prediction program which is discussed in another
>notice which has been posted to this Newsgroup.  Several
>conclusions which were drawn in part from those surveys will also
>be discussed in this present notice.
>
>*  My present theories and those of some other researchers
>propose that the majority of earthquake sensitives are probably
>reacting to electromagnetic energy field fluctuations, possibly
>connected with low frequency radio waves.  Those energy field
>fluctuations are produced by some as yet unknown phenomenon or
>phenomena associated with fault zones where an earthquake may be
>about to occur.
>
>*  In the days and weeks before an earthquake occurs many
>earthquake sensitives experience a gradual increase in the
>intensity of their earthquake warning symptoms which can include
>severe headaches, other aches and pains, and nausea.  Those
>symptoms then abruptly cease.  And a day to a week later the
>earthquake occurs.  It would be interesting to find out what is
>responsible for such a symptom intensity pattern.
>
>*  It appears that the majority of earthquake sensitives cannot
>easily distinguish between approaching earthquakes which are
>going to be catastrophic, and harmless ones.  And since most
>earthquakes are either too weak to do any damage no matter where
>they occur, or occur in remote areas, nearly all of the warning
>signals which are picked up by the majority of (but not all)
>earthquake sensitives will be associated with earthquakes which
>ARE NOT about to destroy some city.
>
>*  It is possible that once the original fault zone activity
>which is responsible for the experiences the earthquake
>sensitives are having has occurred, the fault zone will stabilize
>and there will be no earthquake at that location for some time.
>Or, the energy stored in the fault zone may be released through a
>series of minor earthquakes.  And the earthquake sensitive who
>was expecting to see a powerful earthquake occur will then wonder
>what happened.
>
>*  Most earthquake sensitives can apparently sense only that an
>earthquake may be about to occur, and not where it will occur.
>However, there are a few who do seem to be able to determine from
>the types of experiences which they are having approximately
>where an earthquake is likely to occur.
>
>       That August 2 Newsgroup notice which discussed a possible
>approaching earthquake could have in my opinion been accurate.
>However, it would be difficult to tell which approaching
>earthquake was being detected.
>
>       In the past, earthquake sensitives frequently had to come
>to grips with their personal experiences to a large extent on
>their own.  But thanks in part to the Internet they are now able
>to compare notes with one another fairly easily at least here in
>the U.S.  I do not know how well organized they might be in other
>countries.
>
>       One of the newest earthquake sensitivity related Web sites
>belongs to someone who has been working in this area for quite
>some time.  She has in my opinion had a number of rather
>extraordinary experiences over the years.  And it will be
>interesting to see how many of them she will be discussing at her
>Web site.  http://voyager.viser.net/~charking/
>
>E.D.G.,  Scientific Consultant
>

RICHTER SAID  -- Unless you pretend to know better (and many in this 
group 
do!) than the famous scientist, do not read the following.
.
"Predictions based on positions of the sun and moon have to be 
regarded a 
trifle more seriously, since there is evidence that tidal forces may 
occasionally act as triggers for earthquakes otherwise on the point of 
taking place; in this way the date and hours of occurrence  ( 
occurrence 
-two r's) may show a  slight statistical correlation with the tides."
Well before anyone created the word EDOUARD! I posted a "Supernova 
window" 
is on the way.  Watch the following dates for September and see 
Astrogeology 
of the future in action.  Also, Yes, there is a direct association 
with the 
weather development and earthquakes.  
Enjoy, explore, investigate, be patient, most of all print this post 
and 
JUDGE for yourself (do not let some ignorants cruising the net decide 
for 
you!)
Dr. Turi
.
This theory is at an early stage and is  EXPERIMENTAL only.
Next window is for Aug. 31st, 1996- A window is operational 1200 hours 
centering the given date and sometimes a few hours before and after 
the 
window - 
Thus 1200 Aug. 30th through 1200 hours Aug.31st - UTC is used.  This 
theory 
is not 
"yet" recognized by the scientific community or USGS and indicate only 
the 
possibility
for UNUSUAL and HIGH seismic activity.  Previous windows (see sample 
later 
on) have
accurately pin pointed earthquakes of a minimum of 6.0 and well above 
6.5.  
" As above
as below", everything is interconnected.  The windows do not stop at 
earthquakes (HIGH)
probability/intensity but include various ways of  mother nature 
expressing 
herself
through destructive weather pattern.  
This negative celestial energy (cyclonic reasonance) also affects 
sophisticated electronics
equipments (planes/ boats/ trains/cars/ airport traffic control 
towers, 
generators/
electronics) thus the high possibility to experience 
failures/accidents 
leading to a lost of
general power as experienced with both "state blackouts" that struck 
inside 
my windows.  
Those windows do also affects "physical" computers (viruses) and 
(spiritual) 
computer
(brain) which is reacting with the subtle but real outside "stimuli". 
 Thus 
under those
windows, the worse elements of our society  will respond and act out 
(robotic
expressions) the will of the cosmos "Rodney King dilemma, Los Angeles 
riots 
etc.
producing dramatic news with the police force".
A Supernova month is about to unfold.  Weeks before January 1996 I 
posted my predictions for a Supernova window.Then, a few weeks later, 
as anticipated "A record breaking weather development" hit New York 
early 
January
1996-
September 1996 will be one of the worst month in 1996 in terms of 
weather 
development
and natural disasters. 
On the following windows, expect the weather to go seriously out of 
hand. The upcoming nefarious energy will produce chain reaction 
accidents, oil spill, sea accidents. On certain given dates expect 
volcanoes 
eruption, tornadoes, floadings and large earthquakes.  This energy 
will certainly affect airports electronics and thousands of travelers 
will be stucked "cancelation flights". Black out, lost of power and 
general communication is very high on my windows. If NASA decide to 
launch the shuttle, they are on for serious electronics failures and 
trouble then costly cancellations. A shuttle exploded a few years ago 
and many expansive satelites were lost during these "Supernova" 
windows. 
Here is the dates and  please PRINT THEM!
September 2nd - 
September 11th -
September 17th-
September 29th-
The next Supernova window is for December 1996.
Solid proof of previous Supernova windows are available at 1996 
Universal 
Predictions -
http://salemctr.cpm/newage.html
I would like to thanks all the people on this group for their 
participation.
Respectfully to all
Dr. Turi

frugal@ix.netcom.com(The FRUGAL TRAVELER, Editor) wrote:
>Hello All,
>Yes, I will send you the next three (3) issues of The FRUGAL TRAVELER
>Newsletter ABSOLUTELY FREE.  No gimicks.  No fine print.
>The FRUGAL TRAVELER shows you how to save BIG BUCKS on airfare, car
>rentals, hotels, and more, both here and abroad.  Most of the deals you
>see in The FRUGAL TRAVELER your travel agent either doesn't know about,
>or won't tell you, because there is no comission in it for them.  We
>give you the names and phone numbers to call so you can book these
>specials direct and save.
>The FRUGAL TRAVELER is a monthly publication.  We send it directly to
>your home or office e-mail address.
>For your FREE three month subscription, just fill in the information
>below and e-mail it or FAX it back to us.  You will receive your FRUGAL
>TRAVELER the first week of every month.
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
>Name_____Frank Brown____________________________________________________
>Address______6 Watt Road     Hillington________________________________________________
>City______Glasgow____________________________State/Prov_____________
>ZIP(postal code)_____PA1 3AL________________________________________
>Country____United Kingdom__________________________________________________
>To send this back to us just click on your REPLY BUTTON or e-mail it to
>us at:  frugal@ix.netcom.com.
>You can also FAX your subscription request to:  303-670-3015

Oxyura wrote:
> 
> What is the current instrument-of-choice for field work with radioactive
> material or ore?  Is it a geiger counter or a scintillation counter or??
> Thanks for any help or advice.
> 
> William Lund
> oxyura@aol.comAlso, are there any sources of this equipment other than Victoreen?

Dear Harry,
There's more than Kuniholm's evidence to show that Thera's eruption was in
1628 B.C., and Renfrew's doubts seem like cold feet, given his comments
in the publication of the proceedings of the Third Thera International
Conference, in 1990. The tree ring (dendrochronological) studies of Mike
Baillie and others have found shrunken tree rings in Irish and German
oaks, as well as in California Bristlecones, that date all to the 1628/27
B.C. range in much fuller tree ring sequences than Kuniholm has in the Mediter-
ranian. There's also the evidence of ice cores, where the huge eruptions
consistently have dumped ash that leaves an acidic signature in the ice. 
These are subject to C-14 dating, so there's some wiggle room in the published
dates. What they show, also is a major event around 1645+/-20 B.C. More to
the point, the geologists have argued that such mega eruptions do not occur
on average, more than once every three centuries, and there's nothing compara-
ble to the 1628/27 B.C. signature in either tree rings nor ice cores, that
could accomodate another major eruption in the Late Bronze Age. The next
major event was Hekla III's eruption cycle, 1159-1140 B.C. This is all dis-
cussed in my upcoming paper in Dr. Edward F. Wente's Festschrift, to be
published by the Oriental Institute, Chicago.
Sincerely,
Frank J. Yurco
University of Chicago
-- 
Frank Joseph Yurco                           fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu

On 8/28/96 10:16AM, in message , Philip 
Nikolayev  wrote:
> In article  
> wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) writes:
> 
>    This is a difference between science and religion.  A religion cannot allow 
>    for dissent or change, because its adherents are mainly in search of 
>    certainty.  Science must allow it, however reluctantly.
> 
> No.  It's irrelevant whether religion @allows@ change; what matters is
> the fact that religion @itself@ changes and adapts. Therefore, science
> and religion are not different in the respect of change.
> 
> Cheers,                   I am the God of New York.
> Philip Nikolayev           I fart
> nikolay@fas.harvard.edu           _The New Yorker_.
male cow shit.
Just how has christianity adapted ??
As far as i can see, for the past millenium the bible has not been updated.
So what is the critereon for your statement ??
Sean Webb

In article <3222FB0B.1CCD@acs.tamu.edu>
eric kline  writes:
> >   The idea of fingerprints -- uniquetifying -- each human. Is there a
> > similar science identification procedure which uniquetifies rocks of
> > planets and astro bodies? 
> 
> I think, and I'm only taking a guess here, that it's called Geology.
> Recall Apollo program?  All the moon rocks?  They were studied by 
> geologists (among others).
  You are correct, it is called geology. In another post I called it
historical geology. But much of geology, perhaps 50% of it is the study
, using methods of science, the study of the past.
  However, some of geology, the other 50% is a science that does not
study the past. Such as chemical analysis.
  Even some physics is the study of the past. Science studies of the
past are never as important as science studies for the future. To study
the early universe is not as important as to be studying how to make a
room temperature superconductor. To study how the dinosaurs became
extinct is not as important as to study how to reorbit Venus or Mars
and make a second Earth.

In article , S Krueger  writes:
>In article <4vj0bt$qkc@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> Andrew Poulos,
>DocDrew@worldnet.att.net writes:
>>I recently saw a book called The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy
[...]
>
>The answer has many facets. I'll give you some examples of the shades of
>gray that surround the debate. Consider these 3 more defined questions:
>
>1) Was there an impact, or impacts, at the K/T boundary?
>2) If yes, did it cause extinctions?
>3) If yes, did it kill the dinosaurs?
[Rest of nice answer deleted.]
I think modern thinking is pretty well summarized in Peter Ward's "End
of Evolution." It seems pretty clear that there *was* a massive impact
at Chicxulub. It is also clear that the Deccan Traps began their
massive eruptions about one million years *before* the impact. People
working on the effects of effusive basaltic volcanism on climate (Steve
Self, for example), tell us that Deccan must have had an immense global
effects, that sulphuric acid aerosols, acid rain, et al., were
inevitable. The dinosaurs were apparently in precipitous decline before
the impact. The impact provided the coup de grace.
Would Deccan alone have extinguished the dinosaurs? Would Chicxulub
alone? We shall never know. What is apparent is that the dinosaurs (at
least the non-feathered ones) could not survive the terrestrial-cosmic
double whammy.
-- 
Gerard Fryer      
gerard@hawaii.edu        http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/~gerard/
Personal views only.

In article <4vvoaq$r07@news.nd.edu>,
   scharle@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas Scharle) wrote:
>In article <4vvk2m$gff@news.bellglobal.com>, gillan@worldchat.com writes:
>|> In article <4vv1u3$kns@news.sas.ab.ca>, czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () 
wrote:
>|> >[All NGs left in because I didn't know from which the below person wrote 
>|> >his question.]
>|> >
>|> >gillan@worldchat.com wrote:
>|> >
>|> >: What is science?
>|> >
>|> >: Does the theory of evolution meet the criteria for a scientific theory?
>|> >
>|> >In a word, "yes."
>|> 
>|> The word "yes" is the answer to "what is science" - I see that I'm out of 
my 
>|> intellectual league, because that makes no sense to me. 
>
>    I'm curious.
>
>    Is this what people mean when they talk about "literal 
>interpretation"?
>
You should ask someone who uses the term "literal interpretation"
Are you suggesting that scientific concepts would be more clearly communicated 
 with the use of literary devices than they would be with plain language?
Still waiting for an explanation of what science is.

I recently visited the Cotton Patch Gold Mine in New London, North
Carolina. They are open pit mining in a red clay soil for gold. (An area
about two football fields in size, excavated to 10 feet deep.) There were
some quartz veins in the red clay which also contained gold. They said that
the quartz veins intruded the clay when is was rock (sandstone?) and that
it had since decomposed into clay. After that surface weathering is
supposed to have crumbled the tops of the quartz veins releasing gold into
the clay.
Would anyone care to enlighten a novice? When did these various steps
happen? Is this explanation correct? Is this the usual pattern for alluvial
mineral deposits? Is the quartz vein a hydrothermal deposit or is it slowly
solidified magma. Perhaps there are some good amateur geology books out
there that would make things clearer?
Thanks in advance -- Gregg Shadel - gshadel@vt.edu

In article  wn181@news.freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Chris Behnsen) writes:
>Patrick Juola (patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
>: In article  wn181@news.freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Chris Behnsen) writes:
>: >Not at all true.  What about non-linear mathematics?  They involve a 
>: >certain amount of imagination, and hardly EVER have any real "rules"?
>: "Non-linear mathematics"?  I completed a degree in mathematics and
>: only one course could possibly have been described as "linear
>: mathematics."  (Intro Lin Alg, which I hated.  Something about a
>: terrible lecturer.)  What the hell are you talking about?
>
>Complexity Theory.  otherwise popularily known as CHAOS THEORY.
>Non Linear Mathematics is a sort of sub-division to that.:)
Oh, Jesus.  Iterated non-linear functions are supposed to be rule-free?
	Patrick

Followups set outside the science groups. 
spwebb@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) writes:
>
>Just how has christianity adapted ??
For one example, visit The Ecole Initiative material on Arianism 
 http://www.evansville.edu/~ecoleweb/arians/arianchr.htm
and read away.  There were also, of course, a few adjustments made 
during the Protestant Reformation, plus what Vatican II did recently. 
-- 
 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    |    

In article <4vpqv2$fbj@news.unocal.com>,
Richard Ottolini  wrote:
>As one sports company says "Just Do It".
>I find it an embarrassment that Russia, Europe and Japan have
>had SAR satellites up for years and the US is still talking about it.
>Most of the important recent geophysical and archeological discoveries
>have been made using *their* data.
  Add Canada to the list of SAR satellites.  RADARSAT was launched
(by NASA) last November.
  'Just do it', however, doesn't work well when you need to beg for
the money.  
-- 
Bob Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much 
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they 
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences 

In article  
spwebb@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) writes:
   On 8/28/96 10:16AM, in message , Philip 
   Nikolayev  wrote:
   > In article  
   > wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) writes:
   > 	This is a difference between science and religion. A religion cannot allow
   > 	for dissent or change, because its adherents are mainly in search of
   >    certainty.  Science must allow it, however reluctantly.
   > 
   > No.  It's irrelevant whether religion @allows@ change; what matters is
   > the fact that religion @itself@ changes and adapts. Therefore, science
   > and religion are not different in the respect of change.
   male cow shit.
   Just how has christianity adapted ??
   As far as i can see, for the past millenium the bible has not been updated.
Oh, it's because you don't know enough, bubba. It has been updated all
right.
   So what is the critereon for your statement ??
Gee, tough titty, bubba! Care to point out the Biblical source for the
idea of the Trinity? Or, better still, come up with a scriptural
justification for indulgencies, Purgatory, and the merry bonfires?
"The moment the coin in the coffer rings, The soul from Purgatory
springs" - is that how it goes? How dumb can you get?
Cheers,					I am the God of New York.
Philip Nikolayev			I fart
nikolay@fas.harvard.edu				_The New Yorker_.

Gerard Fryer (gerard@hawaii.edu) wrote:
: I think modern thinking is pretty well summarized in Peter Ward's "End
: of Evolution." It seems pretty clear that there *was* a massive impact
: at Chicxulub. It is also clear that the Deccan Traps began their
: massive eruptions about one million years *before* the impact. People
: working on the effects of effusive basaltic volcanism on climate (Steve
: Self, for example), tell us that Deccan must have had an immense global
: effects, that sulphuric acid aerosols, acid rain, et al., were
: inevitable. The dinosaurs were apparently in precipitous decline before
: the impact. The impact provided the coup de grace.
	THANKS!  That's what I was trying to remember!
: Would Deccan alone have extinguished the dinosaurs? Would Chicxulub
: alone? We shall never know. What is apparent is that the dinosaurs (at
: least the non-feathered ones) could not survive the terrestrial-cosmic
: double whammy.
	It may be that mass extinctions REQUIRE such a synergy.
===============================================
|  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.

gerard@hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer) wrote:
>
> 
> In article , S Krueger  writes:
> >In article <4vj0bt$qkc@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> Andrew Poulos,
> >DocDrew@worldnet.att.net writes:
> >>I recently saw a book called The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy
> 
> [...]
> 
> >
> >The answer has many facets. I'll give you some examples of the shades of
> >gray that surround the debate. Consider these 3 more defined questions:
> >
> >1) Was there an impact, or impacts, at the K/T boundary?
> >2) If yes, did it cause extinctions?
> >3) If yes, did it kill the dinosaurs?
> 
> [Rest of nice answer deleted.]
> 
> I think modern thinking is pretty well summarized in Peter Ward's "End
> of Evolution." It seems pretty clear that there *was* a massive impact
> at Chicxulub. It is also clear that the Deccan Traps began their
> massive eruptions about one million years *before* the impact. People
> working on the effects of effusive basaltic volcanism on climate (Steve
> Self, for example), tell us that Deccan must have had an immense global
> effects, that sulphuric acid aerosols, acid rain, et al., were
> inevitable. The dinosaurs were apparently in precipitous decline before
> the impact. The impact provided the coup de grace.
'Precipitous decline' is perhaps an overstatement, but there is a lot
of lineage turnover during the last 12 million years of the Cretaceous.
> Would Deccan alone have extinguished the dinosaurs? Would Chicxulub
> alone? We shall never know. What is apparent is that the dinosaurs (at
> least the non-feathered ones) could not survive the terrestrial-cosmic
> double whammy.
Triple whammy, actually.  The Maastrichtian was a stage marked by
of the greatest post-Pangaean regressions, with some really big shallow
epicontinental seaways (the Western Interior and Turgai Seaways, to
name two) drained away.  This is the reason that the highest ammonite
zone in the North American Western Interior is the Triceratops zone!
The loss of broad, shallow seas would have a great effect on surficial
climate and marine circulation.  In particular, global albedo would
have changed about as dramatically as in a glacial-interglacial cycle,
and the ameliorating effects of such seas would have been lost (leading
to more continental climates and less pole-to-pole Bahamas).
There is good evidence for the loss of some important marine invertebrate
and terrestrial vertebrate lineages at the mid-Maastrichtian (about 4
million years before the K-T boundary), as well as a documented shift
in the flora of at least the Western Interior of North America.
All in all, a time of a lot of changes!

In article  nikolay@scws40.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) writes:
>wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) writes:
>   This is a difference between science and religion.  A religion cannot allow 
>   for dissent or change, because its adherents are mainly in search of 
>   certainty.  Science must allow it, however reluctantly.
>No.  It's irrelevant whether religion @allows@ change; what matters is
>the fact that religion @itself@ changes and adapts. Therefore, science
>and religion are not different in the respect of change.
I guess I have completely missed the train of logic here.  In science, change 
is built in.  Religions change only when society forces them to (like 
eating meat on Friday or burning heretics alive).
Bill
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, Sr. Scientist, Transducer Research, Inc.
   600 North Commons Drive, Suite 117
   Aurora, IL 60504
   708-978-8802, fax -8854, email wpenrose@interaccess.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of fine gas sensors and 
contract R&D; to this and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************

wrKC2.56n@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> 
Distribution: inet
Michael Agney (magney@winnie) wrote:
: Chris Behnsen (wn181@news.freenet.victoria.bc.ca) wrote:: 
: : Michael Agney (magney@winnie) wrote:
: : : Jered Moses (kidkibtz@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
: : : 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.)
: : Not at all true.  What about non-linear mathematics?  They involve a 
: : certain amount of imagination, and hardly EVER have any real "rules"?
: : Just a question to satisfy my undying need to know.:)
: From what I've seen, a lot of the more recent interest in non-linear
: mathematics is actually _based_ on observations that reality often can't
: be adequately represented by linear approximations.  So, this is a case of
: reality suggesting mathematics, IMHO.
It's sort of a combination of the both.
No-linear mathematics   Actually do have a 
linearity..  But it's more of a cause and effect type equation...  but 
the difference is, a cause will make an effect, which is another cause, 
which makes another effect and so on.
:)

I am trying to determine the degree of reality regarding
the shift from networked UNIX workstations to Windows NT platforms. 
Are you planning, thinking about, doing, this shift?
regards
paul oman
p.oman@ix.netcom.com

In a previous article, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) says:
>	THANKS!  That's what I was trying to remember!
>	It may be that mass extinctions REQUIRE such a synergy.
hm, very interesting.  there is an old edition
of the Random House Atlas of Universe that has an interesting dyscussion
of 2 theories for the production of the craters,
one being that they're all due to impacts, of course; however,
they are not arrayed in the slightest "randomly" (and so on).  also,
find a couple of editions of Patrick Moore, FRGS (or what ever; means,
Really Good Breeteesh Astronomer)'s _The Moon_ (or _Lunar P{redelictions_
or what ever) and notice his changing (but humorous) coverage
of this issue, including some awesome walk-abouts
in terrestrial craters in Iceland e.g.;
I have no idea what the last edition of that is, or if he's alive.
-- 
There is no dimension without time.  --RBF (Synergetics, 527.01)
(Brian Hutchings -- ba137@lafn.org)

In article <501kge$fv6@news.unocal.com>, stgprao@sugarland.unocal.COM
(Richard Ottolini) wrote:
>In article <500jfu$e47@pangea.Stanford.EDU>,
>Bruce Salem  wrote:
>>       The moon is receeding from the earth at an observed rate. I don't
>>recall how much, but this would seem to result from tides raised by it
>>slowing down the earth's rotation and the moon being moved to higher orbit
>>as the system conserves angular momentum. Heat would be a byproduct.
>
>About 1.5 cm a year from lunar-laser ranging studies.
It is 3.82 cm/yr (plus or minus 0.07 cm/yr) from Apollo-derived data
(Dickey, J.O. et al., 1994, Science, v. 265, p. 482).
>>       This implies that at sometime in the distant past, billions
>>of years ago, that the earth rotated faster and that the moon was nearer.
>>In that distant epoch there would have been solar eclipses where a moon
>>with a much bigger appearent size that the sun would have blotted out the
>>sun on earth for hours instead of minutes. Lunar and solar eclipses would
>>have been more frequent. Depending on how far away the moon actually was,
>>prehaps with every lunation.
>
>An article in the science news about weeks ago estimated 481 18.2 hour days
>in the early paleozoic from counting daily and yearly growth rings,
>I forgot in either shells or sedimentation.
Our calculated parameters for the Late Proterozoic (900 Ma) were means of:
18.2 hours per day
481 days per year
>(I believe the 18.2 hour is too slow because the product of those two
numbers gives
>the same number of hours as the current year.  A year would have been a little
>shorter back then due to solar tidal friction.)
The above values were incremented 21% to account for the solar contrbution
to tidal friction.  The sun's contribution to the earth-moon problem can
be handled as a pertubation to the earth's rotation.
BTW, the original reference is:
Sonett, C.P., Kvale, E.P., Zakharian, A., Chan, M., and Demko, T.M., 1996,
Late Proterozoic and Paleozoic tides, retreat of the moon, and rotation of
the Earth: Science, v. 273, p. 100-104.
-- 
Tim Demko
Postdoctoral Fellow
Colorado State University

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: 
: In article <500m5r$70m@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>,
stix@ozemail.com.au (Stix) writes:
: >Leonard Timmons posted the following to alt.atheism,
: >
: >>Stix wrote:
: >>> Atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief.
: >
: >>What is theism?
: >
: >Huh? Theism is the belief in god or gods.
: >
: >Was this a trick question?
: >
: Not really.  I can already guess the next question.  What is god?
Thanks, Mati.
-leonard