Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 32903

Directory

On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Terran wrote:
> nikolay@scws40.harvard.edu (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_.
> 
> Anyone who thinks arguing with creationists is tiring, try arguing
> with evolutionists.  A religion is a religion is a religion...
> 
> Terran
> 
> 
> 
This view shows as much knowledge about the nature of science as the view 
of those socialites in the 20s who thought that the theory of relativity 
held that "everything is relative".
Leonardo

In  Anthony Potts
 writes: 
>
>
>
>On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Johnny Marr wrote:
>
>> Terran wrote:
>> 
>> > Anyone who thinks arguing with creationists is tiring, try arguing
>> > with evolutionists.  A religion is a religion is a religion...
>> 
>> ...is not a scientific theory.
>> 
>Of course, the major difference between the two is the falsifiablity
of
>them.
>
>Ask a creationist what they would accept as proof that the Creation
story
>is untrue, and they would not be able to give you any example. This is
>because their faith very conveniently works independent of evidence,
so no
>evidence is able to contradict their faith.
>
>Evolutionists, on the other hand, could give you hundreds of examples
of
>possible finds which would blow the theory of evolution out of the
water.
>
>For example, finding a fossil of a dinosaur with a human in it's
>intestines would probably do the job.
>
>This tells us that the theory of evolution is not a religion, whereas
>adherence to the creation story, is.
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  The fossil would be announce on american news by Tom Brokaw
as proof of tme travel wth an iinterview of Carl Sagan to explan how it
is possible.
'cin

PLEASE remove sci.astro.amateur from your newsgroup header before
further responding to this thread. The subject is well outside the scope
of the newsgroup. Thank you for helping keep the usenet useable!

coredal@ix.netcom.com(Melanie Dunn) writes:
>
>Mike Munsil <75561.1231@CompuServe.COM> writes: 
>>
>>First you have to define "lake".  There are a LOT of oxbow lakes 
>>in Texas, all (or most anyway) of which are natural.  Many are 
>>called "resacas".  Anyway, why should a manmade lake not be 
>>natural?  Are we not part of nature?  
>>
>The gentleman merely asked the question whether or not all the lakes in
>Texas were formed by natural processes.  Your comment was way out of
>line.  Yes, we are part of nature but the lakes that were constructed
>by the Core of Engineers are not "natural" phenomenon.  To reiterate,
>Caddo lake is the only "natural" lake (not made by CoE).
Er, Melanie, you might want to look up the definition of an
oxbow lake.  Simply put, oxbow lakes are created when a river
meander cuts itself off, leaving a stagnant loop behind.
(Yes, I know - this is a bit of an oversimplification.)
These *are* natural lakes - I can assure you that the CoE
doesn't go around making them!   So, given that there
are meandering rivers in Texas, there are also other natural
lakes.
John DeLaughter

Hi,
I am doing some research on a book I am writing. Is there anyone who can
give me some clues about how a bad guy may stop the earth from rotating
around its axis (making China forever dark e.g.)?
If the answer is somewhat infeasible, that is no problem. What magnitude of
strength is necessary for something like that?
Thanx,
Anne.

After reading and analyzing George Bonser's ongoing
contribution to discussion of the new news groups
I've proposed, the following is presented as a
suggestion to organize his and other responses.
The discussion is broken down into three categories.
  1) Discussion about the positive aspect of the
     existing proposal.
  2) Discussion about the negative aspects of the
     existing proposal.
  3) Attempts to enhance the poster's negative
     argument by attacking the persons rather
     than discussing the issues.
Items 1 & 2 above are usefull to the group as a whole
since they promote progress in the discussion.  Item 3
is useful to a more limited set of persons and tend
to reflect back on the person making the attack rather
than contribute to the progress in the discussion.
Many e-mail messages I receive remind me that perhaps
there is some hidden underlying agenda for those that
often resort to item 3.  One guess would be that those
with a hidden agenda pop up asking questions, include
personal attacks, and yet never respond to the questions
asked of them.  I don't think George is in that group
though...
I view my role as the proponent to including proposing,
listening to and analyzing the discussions, and
revising the proposal to that which coresponds to the
interests and needs of the whole group.  As such,
all of the items 1 through 3 are invited.
--------------------------------------------------------
Now I'll apply items 1-3 to the recent discussion with
George Bonser.
  1) Discussion about the positive aspect of the
     existing proposal.
      [George offers none]
  2) Discussion about the negative aspects of the
     existing proposal.
    George says: (I've reworded and organized this) 
      A) The new groups will draw away traffic from
         ca.earthquakes.
      B) I already have a way to ignore or delete
         posts I don't like so I don't need what
         you're proposing.
         Suggestions include retro-moderation, kill
         files, filters, etc.
      C) There's insufficient traffic in the existing
         groups to justify the new groups.
      D) There's insufficient kook traffic to justify
         the new groups.
  3) Attempts to enhance the poster's negative
     argument by attacking the persons rather
     than discussing the issues.
    George says:
       A) The discussion doen't belong here, move it
          far away.
       B) Adams has a need to be in charge of creating
          and controlling the group.
       C) Adams is a newbie, hasn't been around long
          enough to accomplish what he's talking about.
       D) Adams is an egomaniac.
       E) I'm suspicious of Adams.
---------------------------------------------------
I'll address the personal attacks first.
Thinking back, it seems that I challenged George's
recomendation to use retro-moderation.  If I
hurt your feelings by this, I most sincerely
apologize.  It wasn't my intention to attack
you personally.  Is there some other reason why
these personal attacks by you against me have
occurred in every post since then?
----------------------------------------------------
Now to George's contribution to the discussion.
 A) Why is it bad that the new groups draw
    traffic away from ca.eq?  Please
    answer why its bad for you, and why
    its bad for the news groups population
    as a whole, either or both.
 B) Yes you are correct in that there are
    other ways to ignore or delete posts.
    The need for the new groups I'm proposing
    offers a more universal method that will
    fit the need of many people to organize
    the discussion into two groups.
 C) & D) also:
    Yes you are correct in that there isn't
    much traffic by kooks or good posters here.
    [here being ca.eq]  Take a look at all of
    the off topic stuff going on in s.g.geology.
    Its coming here too soon, I promise.  Many
    people have complained about the dimished
    quality of the posts everywhere.  I'm willing
    to listen to any suggestion you have to
    enhance what's already going on and I'll
    update my proposal if there's a consensus.
That's all there is.
Richard

wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) wrote:
>In article  richhall@seanet.com (Richard F. Hall) writes:
>>Science is the discovery of God.  What we have done since Biblical days is to 
>>discover God.  
>"Science is the discovery of God."  Yes!!!  It could be a bumper sticker. I 
>have immersed myself in chemistry and biochemistry all my professional life.  
>But no matter how much we discover about Nature and life, in whatever detail, 
>the goosebumps never go away.  Knowing the details of how my cells 
>reproduce, live, and die doesn't make me appreciate the fine architecture 
>of the human body any less.  When I am filled with love for my wife, my 
>children, my grandchildren, I can understand that love probably  evolved as a 
>sociobiological mechanism for ensuring the survival of my genes.  But knowing 
>this doesn't make the emotion any less intense.  Why can't God be the 
>motivating force behind the miracle of the Universe?  It's as valid as any 
>other explanation, and has a comfortable commonsense appeal to it.  Everything 
>else, choice of religion, degree of belief in absolute truth of holy writings, 
>belief in afterlife, etc., are all froth.
>Bill
>********************************************************
>Bill Penrose, Sr. Scientist, Transducer Research, 
Bill,
 I more or less share your views in that the possibility of God's
existence can't be ruled out a priori. I don't , however, see the need
of a 'motivating force behind the universe', nor the proof value of 'a
comfortable commonsense'.  Why don't we simply stop thinking about
gods, immortality & the like and begin accepting nature 'as is'?
Javier

In article <3222078C.5251@notes.ipl.ca>,
   Tim Blackmore  wrote:
>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
A wise posting indeed!  I have had to resort to this, and it 
was very effective.  Regarding censorship: Censorship exists 
when I do not have the right to say or type my opinion.  
However, once I have this right, no one else in the whole 
world has any obligation to either read or respond to my 
comments, because they have just as much right to ignore me. 
I may not like being ignored, but that is still "the way it 
is".

Leonardo Dasso  wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Terran wrote:
>> nikolay@scws40.harvard.edu (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_.
>> 
>> Anyone who thinks arguing with creationists is tiring, try arguing
>> with evolutionists.  A religion is a religion is a religion...
>> 
>> Terran
>> 
>> 
>> 
>This view shows as much knowledge about the nature of science as the view 
>of those socialites in the 20s who thought that the theory of relativity 
>held that "everything is relative".
>Leonardo
I make no claim to great knowledge of science (I'm a poet) but I have
read 'Origins of Species' and Einstein's writings (in the layest
contexts).  Darwin himself stated that without the discovery of an
intermediate form much of his theory falls apart.  Granted, when
pressed evolutionists will admit that Evolution is a theory, yet it is
taught by lesser minds in our schools as fact.  How many windswept
whale bones have been produced from the Indian Ocean to prove that
whales became Peacocks?  Granted my comment was flip.  I came 
across this thread in a poetry newsgroup after all and had no idea I
might rise the ire of the adherents to this debate.  Do your work if
you're a scientist.  Prove Darwin right and I'll write a poem in your
honor.  Deal?
Terran

In article <32232B57.5842@world.std.com>,
   The ONE  wrote:
>> 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
>
>My thought is that it's a great idea in theory, but in order 
for it to
>be an effective practice we'd need an email destination that 
had a non-
>artificial life-form at the console.
>
>> Plutonium:  useless as the fifth tit on a cow.
>
>
>Cows have six tits don't they? And aren't they ALL equally 
useful?
>Please leave these innocent creatures out of this or I'm 
gonna
>have to get upset or something... 
>
>*
I wonder if that poster knows how many "tits" a human has?

Anthony Potts  wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Johnny Marr wrote:
>> Terran wrote:
>> 
>> > Anyone who thinks arguing with creationists is tiring, try arguing
>> > with evolutionists.  A religion is a religion is a religion...
>> 
>> ...is not a scientific theory.
>> 
>Of course, the major difference between the two is the falsifiablity of
>them.
>Ask a creationist what they would accept as proof that the Creation story
>is untrue, and they would not be able to give you any example. This is
>because their faith very conveniently works independent of evidence, so no
>evidence is able to contradict their faith.
>Evolutionists, on the other hand, could give you hundreds of examples of
>possible finds which would blow the theory of evolution out of the water.
>For example, finding a fossil of a dinosaur with a human in it's
>intestines would probably do the job.
>This tells us that the theory of evolution is not a religion, whereas
>adherence to the creation story, is.
I make no claim to great knowledge of science (I'm a poet) but I have
read 'Origins of Species.'  Darwin himself stated that without the
discovery of an intermediate form much of his theory falls apart.
Granted, when pressed evolutionists will admit that Evolution is a
theory, yet it is taught by lesser minds in our schools as fact.  How
many windswept whale bones have been produced from the Indian Ocean to
prove that whales became Peacocks?  Granted my comment was flip.  I
came across this thread in a poetry newsgroup after all and had no
idea I might rise the ire of the adherents to this debate.  Do your
work if you're a scientist.  Prove Darwin right and I'll write a poem
in your honor.  Deal?
Terran

In article <322A6A6C.3D12@ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Oertell   wrote:
>   It's my opinon that these Indian basalts are the result of the
>refocusing of the impact shock waves at the antipod of the impact site.
>The Indian subcontinent was nearly opposite the Yucatan impact location.
Within about 1000 miles, anyway.  I'd expect the "refocusing"
to be more precise than that.
--
    Chuck Karish          '81 Guzzi CX100
    karish@well.com       '83 Guzzi Le Mans III (Fang, RSN)
    DoD #89

In article <509jo8$o3d@herald.concentric.net>,
Ralph Sansbury   wrote:
>  I was looking for a more through argument. The following is based on a 
>few geology and physics books I have. Please confirm or correct:
Try the new edition of Gunther Faure's _Principles_of_Isotope_Geology_
if you want a more detailed introduction.
The short answer to your question about zircon U-Pb is that
the intermediate isotopes are much shorter lived than the
parent uranium isotopes, and it's straightforward to correct for
their presence.
>I gather that rocks having
>> formed from slowly cooled molten elements inside the earth did not
>> contain any argon at the beginning since only rocks chilled rapidly
>> as lavas erupting on the ocean floor would be able to trap an
>> elusive unreactive gas like argon.
Rocks do often incorporate argon when they're formed and when
they're altered.  This is corrected for by using the non-
radiogenic isotopes of argon as a guide.  Faure explins
this, too.
--
    Chuck Karish          '81 Guzzi CX100
    karish@well.com       '83 Guzzi Le Mans III (Fang, RSN)
    DoD #89

Chuck Karish  wrote:
>Bill Oertell   wrote:
>>   It's my opinon that these Indian basalts are the result of the
>>refocusing of the impact shock waves at the antipod of the impact site.
>>The Indian subcontinent was nearly opposite the Yucatan impact location.
>
>Within about 1000 miles, anyway.  I'd expect the "refocusing"
>to be more precise than that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Deccan traps exactly opposite
the Chicxulub structure 65 million years ago (within the error introduced
by estimating continental drift rates)?
Of course, it certainly isn't at the antipodal point now, but that's
not relevant.
"Quis tamen tale studium, quo ad primam omnium rerum causam evehimur,
tamquam inutile aut contemnendum detractare ac deprimere ausit?"-Bridel
Ethan T. Vishniac ---> http://grendel.as.utexas.edu/Welcome.html
Dept. of Astronomy      also Associate Professor of Astrophysiology
The University of Texas      G.G. Simpson Hereditable Chair of Evilution
Austin, Texas, 78712         University of Ediacara                   
ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu    `Knowledge, Wisdom, Beer'

In article <322A6A6C.3D12@ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Oertell   wrote:
>   It's my opinon that these Indian basalts are the result of the
>refocusing of the impact shock waves at the antipod of the impact site.
>The Indian subcontinent was nearly opposite the Yucatan impact location.
What reconstruction is being used here? Yucatan and India were at least
30 deg away from being antipodal according to Smith et al "Phanerozoic 
paleocontinental world maps" Cambr Univ Press 1981. Subsequently Molnar 
et al 1988 (Basin Res. 1 23) redid India relative to Africa, and
Klitgord & Schouten 1986 (The Geol. of N. America, vol. M, Geol. Soc.
Am., Boulder CO) redid Africa relative to the Americas, but this work
didnt change things vastly.
The antipodes of Yucatan seem to have been in the Indian Ocean between 
India and New Guinea.
John Harper Mathematics Dept. Victoria University Wellington New Zealand

Ken Navarre wrote:
> 
> Richard Adams (happypcs@oro.net) asked:
> : One question is: why do you feel I want to control
> : a newsgroup?
> 
> Pullllleeeeeessse! You're constant hammering to bring in moderation is
> the FIRST clue! Why don't you just start an earthquake mail list? It'd be
> infinately easier on everyone involved. Then you could crosspost to
> whatever newsgroups you wanted to, could include or exclude whatever
> authors or topics that you wanted and anyone who wished to subscribe to
> your group could!
> 
> : Where in the proposal does its say that
> : I'll be doing that?  Both of the proposed groups are
> : controlled by the groups members, not by an individual.
> 
> Control is *C*O*N*T*R*O*L* no matter who does it. If you want a protected
> newsgroup environment the simplest way to form one is thru the listserve
> software. The end result would be the same as a moderated newsgroup and
> we'd be free of this topic (hopefully!). I'm sure that most of us would
> welcome a weekly or even daily post in ca.earthquakes that informed new
> readers of the mail list if it'd cut the S/N from you about this issue.
> 
> Ken
> --
Hi Ken,
I provide the following general breakdown to
responses about the proposal and discussion.
The discussion is broken down into three categories.
  1) Discussion about the positive aspect of the
     existing proposal.
  2) Discussion about the negative aspects of the
     existing proposal.
  3) Attempts to enhance the poster's negative
     argument by attacking the persons rather
     than discussing the issues.
Items 1 & 2 above are usefull to the group as a whole
since they promote progress in the discussion.  Item 3
is useful to a more limited set of persons and tend
to reflect back on the person making the attack rather
than contribute to the progress in the discussion.
I view my role as the proponent to including proposing,
listening to and analyzing the discussions, and
revising the proposal to that which coresponds to the
interests and needs of the whole group.  As such,
all of the items 1 through 3 are invited.
--------------------------------------------------------
Now I'll apply items 1-3 to the recent discussion with
Ken Navarre.
  1) Discussion about the positive aspect of the
     existing proposal.
    Ken agrees somewhat with moderation, but says
    to start a new moderated mailing list rather
    than a new moderated news group.
    (paraphrased)
  2) Discussion about the negative aspects of the
     existing proposal.
    Ken is against a new moderated news group.
    (not really stated but implied by him)
  3) Attempts to enhance the poster's negative
     argument by attacking the persons rather
     than discussing the issues.
     Ken says Adams is hammering us and this is
     proof that Adams wants control.
     (paraphrased)
My response to 1&2 is that the same benefit that
moderation provides to a mailing list can also
provide to a news group.  A mailing list is not
a news group.  Both have their own purpose of
communication, moderation can benefit the focus
and quality of both.
My response to item 3 is that any perception there
is of hammering or attempts control is in the mind
of the beholder.  All that I've been doing is
proposing, listening to and analyzing the discussions,
and revising the proposal to that which corresponds
to the interests and needs of the whole group.
I invite your contribution to refine the proposal.
Richard

Terran@pwshift.com (Terran) writes:
> I make no claim to great knowledge of science (I'm a poet) but I have
> read 'Origins of Species.'  Darwin himself stated that without the
> discovery of an intermediate form much of his theory falls apart.
> Granted, when pressed evolutionists will admit that Evolution is a
> theory, yet it is taught by lesser minds in our schools as fact.  
What do you think is the difference between a theory and a fact?
This isn't a rhetorical question: it's quite fundamental to
epistemology, and reasonable people can and do disagree about
the answer.

Oliver Seeler wrote:
> 
> Richard Adams  wrote:
> 
> >  B) The existing discussion is not limited to topics
> >     solely about Calif.
> 
> Nor, thanks to Mr. Adams, does much of the existing discussion have
> anything to do with earthquakes but rather with his own endless
> Byzantine scheming,  condescending and patronizing rationalization and
> (attempted) manipulation of this and related newsgroups.
> 
> Oliver Seeler
Hi Oliver,
I provide the following general breakdown to
responses about the proposal and discussion.
The discussion is broken down into three categories.
  1) Discussion about the positive aspect of the
     existing proposal.
  2) Discussion about the negative aspects of the
     existing proposal.
  3) Attempts to enhance the poster's negative
     argument by attacking the persons rather
     than discussing the issues.
Items 1 & 2 above are usefull to the group as a whole
since they promote progress in the discussion.  Item 3
is useful to a more limited set of persons and tend
to reflect back on the person making the attack rather
than contribute to the progress in the discussion.
I view my role as the proponent to including proposing,
listening to and analyzing the discussions, and
revising the proposal to that which coresponds to the
interests and needs of the whole group.  As such,
all of the items 1 through 3 are invited.
--------------------------------------------------------
Now I'll apply items 1-3 to the recent discussion with
Oliver Seeler.
  1) Discussion about the positive aspect of the
     existing proposal.
    [Oliver offered nothing]
  2) Discussion about the negative aspects of the
     existing proposal.
    [Oliver offered nothing]
  3) Attempts to enhance the poster's negative
     argument by attacking the persons rather
     than discussing the issues.
    Oliver says,
    "Nor, thanks to Mr. Adams, does much of the
     existing discussion have anything to do with
     earthquakes but rather with his own endless
     Byzantine scheming,  condescending and
     patronizing rationalization and (attempted)
     manipulation of this and related newsgroups."
So we're left with nothing said about the proposal,
just more attacks against the proponent.  Hearing
from Rev. Bob about the close friendship between
Oliver and the Rev., perhaps Rev. Bob & Oliver
view the proposed new groups as a negative from
their perspective.  They haven't revealed why this
is a negative in their own application.  When
brought forward, I'd give any such concerns
complete consideration.
I have nothing against Rev. Bob Shannon or Oliver
Seeler.  If we met in person, we'd probably all
find a common interest and enjoy each other's
company.
Actually, not having anything positive or negative
to say about the proposal means that it has evolved
to the point where the only thing the opponents
have left to do is attack the proponent.  I believe
that's a good indication.
Richard

"Jon E. Trevathan"  wrote:
 I believe that Religion and Science
>are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated as both
>reveal complementary aspects of a single truth.  
 If a scientific
>teaching appears to differ from a spiritual truth, consider that
>the criterion of science is the senses which can be defective. 
>Because science may be liable to mistake, it cannot be infallible
>and cannot be a true standard of judgment.
totally wrong. there are many agnostics and atheists who are
scientists...religion is NOT necessary for science. Science makes
mistakes? so what? do you think religion is invulnerable? science is
self checking...religion is not.
In addition, religion predates science by millenia, so science is not
necessary for religion.
Science and religion are 2 aspects of the human experience. there is
no necessary connection between them. Scholasticism tried to combine
the two ideas as science developed, but was overwhelmed by the
challenge.
This neoscholastic idea contributes nothing to the debate over science
and religion. Put it to rest.

For reference I need some data on the insitu density (dry and/or wet) of 
Calcareous (10-30%) GYPSUM Sand. Any data or reference would be most 
helpfull.
Kind Regards,
Jurgen Herbschleb

In article <50cauk$602@excelsior.flash.net>, burnaman@flash.net (mike
burnaman) wrote:
> 
> It could also be that this was remnants of a large pegmatite with the red clay
> the result of weathering of the potassium feldspar which would have made up  
> the preponderance of the volume of the pegmatite.
> 
> mike burnaman
Yes, but...red clay is very high in iron. That doesn't sound like a K-feldspar
to me.  More likely (but not in any way the only possible explanation) the
orogeny was pushing up seabed, turning the sediments into soft metamorphic
rock full of iron, and there were igneous intrusions through this. I see this
kind of thing in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada out here in California. Not
quite the same sort of thing (Ca has terranes patched onto continental edge, 
rather than continent/continent collision as raised the Alleghenies originally)
but both involved crushing/metamorphising/raising seabed.

> Within about 1000 miles, anyway.  I'd expect the "refocusing"
> to be more precise than that.
> --
   Actually, with all the defraction and refraction occuring between the
two point, I'd expect about what happened.  Since shock waves travel at
different speeds through different parts of the earth's interior, one
would expect that the various shock waves would arrive at the antipod
out of sync instead of all at once.
                                    Bill

In article <50fiao$ce8@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
Ethan Vishniac  wrote:
>Chuck Karish  wrote:
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Deccan traps exactly opposite
>the Chicxulub structure 65 million years ago (within the error introduced
>by estimating continental drift rates)?
No, they weren't.  Undoing continental drift would probably
move the Deccan Traps farther from the antipode of the
Chicxulub structure, not closer to it.  The speculation
that the Deccan Traps were due to the antipodal focusing of
the energy from a meteor impact was done before the
Chicxlub structure was identified, so the proper location
of the postulated antipodal volcanism was not known.
The Deccan Traps may have been adjacent to the structure
ringed by the Seychelle Islands when they were formed.
--
    Chuck Karish          '81 Guzzi CX100
    karish@well.com       '83 Guzzi Le Mans III (Fang, RSN)
    DoD #89

> What reconstruction is being used here? Yucatan and India were at least
> 30 deg away from being antipodal according to Smith et al "Phanerozoic 
> paleocontinental world maps" Cambr Univ Press 1981. Subsequently Molnar 
> et al 1988 (Basin Res. 1 23) redid India relative to Africa, and
> Klitgord & Schouten 1986 (The Geol. of N. America, vol. M, Geol. Soc.
> Am., Boulder CO) redid Africa relative to the Americas, but this work
> didnt change things vastly.
> 
   Actually, I don't recall what sources were used to speculate that the
Indian subcontinent was antipodal to the Yucatan 65 million years ago. 
Certainly, were I actually putting forth a valid scientific claim, I
would have those references, but this is just enternaining conjecture. 
It seems worth considering, especially since an impact powerful enough
to create the Chicxulub crater (180 Km--one of the largest impact
craters in the solar system) should have caused an antipodal formation
of some sort.  The Deccan Trapps seem a likely canditate.
                                   Bill

Anne Veling wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am doing some research on a book I am writing. Is there anyone who can
> give me some clues about how a bad guy may stop the earth from rotating
> around its axis (making China forever dark e.g.)?
> If the answer is somewhat infeasible, that is no problem. What magnitude of
> strength is necessary for something like that?
> 
> Thanx,
> 
> Anne.
   Are we looking at stopping the earth dead in its tracks or slowing it
down over a period of time.  If the latter, how long a period of time?
   BTW, I don't believe mankind would be capable of generating the
energy necessary to accomplish this feat.
                                   Bill