Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution (or science Vs religion)
From: mwfisher@cts.com (Michael W. Fisher)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 03:36:32 -0700
In article <3234245e.68926941@news.esinet.net>, Shack Toms says...
->spwebb@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) wrote:
->
->>Just one question ..
->>
->>How many creationists are non religious ??
->>
->>If the answer is very few, if any (the most likely answer) , then its
about religion,
->>nothing to do with science.
->
->But actually it turns out that you are wrong. There is very
->little correlation between a person's religion and the likelihood
->he thinks that God created the Earth less than 10,000 years ago.
->
->cite:
-
>http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/physics/faculty/sokal/afterword_v1a/footnode.
html#167
->
->[In the above reference, Professor Sokal has complained about the
->poor quality of science education in the schools and uses the
->widespread belief in creationism to document his case. He is
->*not* a creationist himself.]
->
Be very cautious about the inferences you try and draw from a
footnote. There are too many unaswered questions.
What did Gallup consider a religion? How was the question asked? How
was the data reported? E.g., was each different major protestant
denomination a "different religion" in the report? How many different
religions were actually part of the survey? Just how was the question
asked? (It can make a huge difference)
How many resoponses were provided? I.e., a multiple choice response can
give extremely skewed results if the responses aren't chosen carefully--and
sometimes even if they are. (ever written a multiple choice test and been
stunned by the way one question was answered? No matter how careful you
are, you just can't always predict how others will interprite the
question.) How were unanswered questions handled? Have you ever answered
some survey type questionare and wanted to write your own response in
because none of the choices applied? Did you pick an answer or skip it, and
if you picked an answer, how cloe was it to what you really
thought/felt/believed, etc.
Ciao.
--
Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., lawstudent
http://www.sonoma.edu/cthink/Library/intraits.html
* * *
He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty,
he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine
Subject: Re: The deepest?
From: Nick Hoffman
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:44:14 +1100
SHIN wrote:
>
> Hi, does someone know the depth human has ever reached?
> The information I have is,
> Kola scientific borehole, 10 Km ?
> Mine (South Africa), 3Km ?
> But I am not so sure about the above, so I want to be sure and also
> I want to know the following.
> Coal mine, ? Km
> Oil drilling, ? Km
> Geophysical survey, ? Km
>
> Thank you for your attention.
> shin@criepi.denken.or.jp
Try the Guinness book of Records
Nick Hoffman
Subject: Re: How can I stop the rotation of the earth?
From: "John Tauxe"
Date: 11 Sep 1996 13:10:46 GMT
s1045099@iplabs.ins.gu.edu.au wrote in article
...
> >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.)?
>
> This is fate. I've just walked out of a lecture all about rotational
kinetic
> energy so I should be able to calculate energy of Earth's rotation and
hence
> what work must be done to bring the planet to the planet to a halt - In
> theory of course. O.K. here goes:
>
> radius of Earth, r = 6370 km;
> period = 24 hrs = 86400 s;
> So angular velocity, w = (2*pi)/86400 = 7.27*10^-5 rad/sec
> Moment of inertia, I, of a sphere about it's axis = 2/5 mr^2
> Putting all these into the equation of kinetic energy, KE = 1/2 I w^2
>
> I get the energy in joules is roughly 43,000 times the mass of
> the Earth in kg's. Although I don't know what the mass of the
> Earth is, I think I can safely say that the product will be a HUGE
figure;
> beyond anything mankind has conrol over. That sort of energy would
> require some sort of cosmic mechanism.
The mass of Earth is about 6e27 g, or 6e24 kg, so by your calculations,
so the kinetic energy of Earth is 4.3E4 x 6e24 = 2.6e29 J. Wow!
To make your problem more interesting, you need to throw out the implied
assumption that the density of Earth is uniform, and is better considered
as a series of concentric shells of variable density. Since most of the
mass is concentrated at the center, the above number of 3e29 J is an
overestimate.
There would also be a LOT of heating going on in the planet if you actually
tried to do this. But for the purposes of fiction, the original poster
could use something like 3000 YJ (that's yottajoules, or 1e27 joules).
And that's a yotta joules! ;*)
Subject: Re: Stephen Hawking; one professor's evaluation
From: "Gerard T. Curd"
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 09:42:42 -0400
Eric Lucas wrote:
>
> John Chandler wrote:
> >
> > In article <50vqki$m7j@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >In article <50qk1s$11n@news.cis.okstate.edu>
> > >jpc@a.cs.okstate.edu (John Chandler) writes:
> > >
> > >> Come on, guys. Let's be accurate.
> > >
> > >> Come on, guys. Let's be accurate.
> > >> APH is _not_ a dishwasher at the Cambridge Inn,
> > >> he's a POT smoker (really!) at the Cambridge Inn.
> > >> (The Cambridge Inn is owned by Oklahoma State Univ, it's true.)
> >
> > [munch]
> > >
> > >> APH = Antisemitic Potsmoker Hawking
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> John Chandler
> > >> jpc@a.cs.okstate.edu
> >
> > Whoops!
> > There he goes again, Archimedes Plutonium intentionally
> > misquoting (lying). He just can't help himself, apparently.
> >
> > How pathetic.
> >
> > --
> > John Chandler
> > jpc@a.cs.okstate.edu
>
> And in the process, Archie has done nothing short of ripping apart one
> of the most brilliant young minds in physics. I guess Archie really
> does feel threatened by such greatness!
>
> Eric Lucas
Why are you in this newsgroup? Who care what Archie does.
Cut the misc.invest.stocks group out of your header. We don't care.
GTC
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: myers@netaxs.com (Paul Myers)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 20:59:01 -0400
In article <51522a$son@natasha.rmii.com>, Wissneschaftler wrote:
> In article <50sp1a$afu@nw101.infi.net>, tomitire@vegas.infi.net says...
> >
> >
> >
>
> >He is saying that intelligent is not possible as a first cause
> >because any first cause would, according to that premise, would
> >also require a first cause.
> >It is still a situation where you either believe it all is an
> >accident or designed. I choose not to believe it was an
> >accident.
> >
> >Tomi
> >
> >
> If you had sufficient intelligence to define accident, you might (not
likely though)
> understand why life was NOT an accident - - - NOT was there an external
designer.
> There IS nothing external to our space-time.
>
> You are a mother-fucking moron. I choose to believe that you suck Jesus cock
> in your spare time trips to hell.
>
> You - and all the other superstitious morons on the NG - do not have
sufficient intelligence
> to deserve a rational reply.
>
> At least the Romans discovered a good use for you - - you make adaquate
cat food.
>
> Now go fuck your mother.
>
> Wissenschaftler
Hey, guy -- your hate-filled posts are WAY over the top, and have as little
rational content as those of the religious ignorami you profess to despise.
Spewing venom as you do does not constitute logical discourse, and isn't
going to convince anyone that your position is right.
You've made your way into my killfile right next to all those other religious
nuts who think quoting the bible is sufficient proof of any assertion. Perfect
company for you, eh?
--
Paul Myers Department of Biology
myers@netaxs.com Temple University
http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/ Philadelphia, PA 19122
Subject: Re: How can I stop the rotation of the earth?
From: cherrett@cambridge.scr.slb.com (Adam Cherrett)
Date: 11 Sep 1996 09:08:02 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: gclab049.ins.gu.edu.au
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]
>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.)?
This is fate. I've just walked out of a lecture all about rotational kinetic
energy so I should be able to calculate energy of Earth's rotation and hence
what work must be done to bring the planet to the planet to a halt - In
theory of course. O.K. here goes:
radius of Earth, r = 6370 km;
period = 24 hrs = 86400 s;
So angular velocity, w = (2*pi)/86400 = 7.27*10^-5 rad/sec
Moment of inertia, I, of a sphere about it's axis = 2/5 mr^2
Putting all these into the equation of kinetic energy, KE = 1/2 I w^2
I get the energy in joules is roughly 43,000 times the mass of
the Earth in kg's. Although I don't know what the mass of the
Earth is, I think I can safely say that the product will be a HUGE figure;
beyond anything mankind has conrol over. That sort of energy would
require some sort of cosmic mechanism.
Well, would I make my physics tutor proud? Can anyone verify this?
Perhaps, tonight I'll work out how many apple pies you'd have to eat to
do this job!
/*
The Moment of Inertia of the Earth is about .338 mr^2, if I remember right.
(This is one of the simpler pieces of evidence that the Earth has an
overall density concentration towards the centre - .4 mr^2 is for a
uniform sphere).
This leads me on to my (somewhat daft) suggestion for slowing the
rotation of the Earth. Build _BIG_ storage tanks on huge towers
all round the Earth. Drill through to the outer core, and pump
the liquid whatever-material-it-is into the aforemetioned tanks.
Because of Kepler's Law and Angular Momentum being I*omega,
the increase in I will necessitate a decrease in omega.
Hmm. Not very practical, I suppose....
-Adam
*/
Subject: Re: Chicxulub structure and dinosaur extinction
From: cherrett@cambridge.scr.slb.com (Adam Cherrett)
Date: 11 Sep 1996 12:59:04 GMT
In article <50kakh$4l5@hecate.umd.edu> "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." writes:
ethan@grendel.as.utexas.edu (Ethan Vishniac) wrote:
% >
% > I've been looking through a book `Dinosaurs, Diamonds, and Things
% > from Outer Space' by David Brez Carlisle. The author is a geochemist
% > and is described on the back leaf as `Chief Scientist of Environment
% > Canada'. (I don't know anything about this organization.) I met
% > him when I gave a talk at the University of Toronto a few years ago.
% > The publication date for his book is 1995.
% >
% > In the chapter on `Bolide Impacts and Vulcanism' he gives the current
% > coordinates of the Deccan traps as 13 to 20 N and 75 to 80 E, and the
% > impact center in the Yucatan as 20 N 87 W, both of which sound about
% > right.
% >
% > He then adds that the Yucatan is moving west (slowly) and that India
% > is moving north (more rapidly), both of which are right.
% >
% > Then he says that their positions at the time of the impact (circa
% > 65 million years ago) were at 20 N 84 W (Yucatan) and 21 S 95 E
% > (Deccan traps, the center?). Of course, these numbers are almost
% > precisly antipodal. He doesn't say where he got these numbers from,
% > but his book doesn't have the density of footnotes you'd expect in
% > a professional publication. It's a popularization of his ideas.
%
% Nevertheless, the Deccan Traps began a few million years prior to
% the K-T impact, and some of the lower intertrappean beds contain
% dinosaurs and other latest Maastrichtian dinosaurs. The iridium layer
% is well above the base of the Traps.
%
% Despite the almost amazing coincidence of geography, the eruption of
% the Deccan Traps preceded the K-T impact. Unless the shock wave could
% travel back in time, the Chixculub impact was not the cause of the
% Deccan eruptions.
/*
The view that a large impact was responsible for the Deccan Traps
was stated many years ago (although I can't remember for the life
of me by whom - I shouldn't have left my university notes at home,
I guess). Most people do not adhere to this nowadays - there is
plenty of good evidence that they resulted from a hotspot/rifting
episode a little before the K-T boundary.
Geographical studies of drainage patterns across northern India show
almost all medium-sized rivers that originate near the west coast
to run across the sub-continent, and join the sea in the East
(K.G.Cox) - this is consistent with the 'half-dome' geometry one
would expect of a continental mass that lay over a major hot mantle
upwelling (hotspot), and was subsequently rifted.
The possibility that this huge outpouring of basalt could be due
entirely to a small(ish) increase in upper mantle temperature in
the locality is not too outlandish. Many authors demonstrate
the physical and geochemical consequences of elevated mantle
temperature. (D.P.McKenzie among them) - the petrography of
the traps supports this hypothesis.
The eruption of the traps also coincides rather nicely with the
supposed time of rifting, and the hotspot continues to make
its presence felt.
As to any spatial relationship between the Deccan and Yukatan,
none of the global reconstructions I have seen place them
near each other (unfortunately, the constraints on plate
tectonic reconstructions in the Caribbean region are not good).
To pose an interesting question - suppose that the eruption of
the Deccan, with the enormous volume of outgassed volatiles
put into the atmosphere, was a contributary factor in the
environmental crisis of the Late Cretaceous. Would this
account for, partially at least, the observations of decline
in animal species over a finite, measurable amount of
geological time, rather than the expected sudden extinction
that would be caused by a large meteorite impact alone?
I remember a very interesting BBC documentary on the origin
and environmental consequences of the Deccan eruption. It was
an episode of their 'Horizon' series entitled 'The Day the
Earth Melted'.
I apologise for a lack of detail, but I have (as previously
alluded to) none of my notes or geological texts with me.
Also, I am trying very hard at the moment to become a
geophysicist, and must therefore at least be seen to have
forgotten most of my geology!
Adam Cherrett
*/
Subject: Re: IMPACT OROGENY ON EARTH
From: Archae Solenhofen (jmcarth1@gtn.net)
Date: 11 Sep 1996 01:11:19 -0700
In article <3236142D.758E@navix.net>, "Robert says...
>Chuck Karish wrote:
>You're the one who posited something
>> that's not falsifiable with any data I'm familiar with. If
>> you know something more, please share it with us.
>Excuse me, Chuck, but You are the one who brought up
>Olympus Mons, and I agree that it is fairly difficult to
>sort out its cosmic nature as this relates to some hypothetical
>impact event occurring in the distant past as
>its "causal" event. Were one to find a impact crater rim
>surrounding the volcano's center, however, one might
>reasonably conclude that an impact had created the rim as
>well as the volcanic outflow. I am not sufficiently
>familiar with Martian topography to comment further re
>Olympus Mons.
>My discussion thread relates to the global system of
>mountains (Rockies, Central America, Andes,
>trans-Antarctic, western Australian Rise, Phillipine
>Island Chain, Kolyma Range of Asia, Brooks Range of
>Alaska, and McKenzies of Canada)
Why are the ages of the main mountain building phase of these belts
different? Some are much older than 65 ma?
>that, in fact, forms
>a great circle (correcting for 65 million years of plate
>motions)
I think you mean a small circle distribution on the earth’s surface.
A great circle is a stereographic projection of a plane; a small circle
is the projection of a cone.
>centered on the world's largest igneous-enriched
>volcanic mountain, e.g. Hawaii. Estimates in the
>literature for the age of the volcanism at the Hawaii
>mantle site range from 65 to 70 million years, placing
>its temporal origins near or at the KT boundary.
>My contention is that Hawaii (the primary volcanic
>site) was created by a very large impact occurring at
>this site, and that the mountains named above represent
> the impact crater's rim.
Structural interpretation (both macro and micro) of these mountain
systems do not support the conclusion you have made. Fast strain
rate plastic and brittle deformation leaves its signature wherever
it occurs. The signature of shock metamorphism and impact deformation
is quite diagnostic (thanks in part to the large volume of work that has
been done in the Sudbury basin area as well as other areas).
> I am not the first to assert
>that volcanism in oceanic locations is due to cosmic
>collisions, but I do believe that I am the first to
>attribute terrestrial orogeny to large bolide impacts
>in oceanic sites. I feel very confident about the Hawaii
>site because I have a detailed model of plate tectonic
> motions (going back to the first creation of a
>veneer or continental crust via plasma deposition
>mechanisms following the planetary-scale collision
Interesting, does that plasma veneer include the Canadian Shield?
I know of a few localized accretionary lappilli tuff deposits; but I
do not think that that constitutes a meteoric impact origin. Please
explain this plasma deposition mechanisms a little better?
>that
>functions as the standard astrophysical model for the
>origin of the Moon) that correlate all of Earth's other
>major mountain (the exception being the Urals) systems
>with other impact sites in other locations.
How about the Appalacians or the Grenville oroginy for a starter.
How does the present day Innuitian orogenic system fit ito this model
(Northern Canada and Greenland)?
>I recognize that it is not easy for others to comprehend
>the mechanisms of this/these models, particularly in
>the absence of diagrams and visual aids (which exist).
Most structural geologist and structural geophysicist can do it in
their heads, so don’t stop on our account.
>The problem is compounded when one's larger audience is
>unfamiliar with the very concept that large impactors hit
>Earth and generate major, long-lived consequences
>when they do.
We are reasonably aware of what will happen in a large meteor impact
structure. The question is are you; since all we have seen is a
morphological discussion.
> I have pointed out that geophysics is filled
>with controversies, almost to the point of being a
>"soft" science ("For every geophysicists there is an equal
>and opposite geophysicist", Caltech men's room
>wall graffetti, 1993).
Geophysics is a big field with lots of sub-disciplines, care to be a
little more specific. Don’t forget structural geology as well; which is
a little less "soft" (so it is an important consideration in your model).
> Younger students don't recall
>that (until Gene Shoemaker's lifetime work) most
>planetologists thought the impact craters of the other
>planets/moons of the solar system were caused by
>volcanism.
Old history.
> Younger students do not recall that the
>American branch of geophysics vigorously fought against the
>geophysicists of every other continent re plate motions,
Old history
>arguing that it was silly t event think that the
>plates move over time. That opposition collapsed in
>the early 1960's, almost overnight, by the studies of
>sea-floor spreading
Really, over night and you were there, how interesting.
> (Preston Cloud's book "Oasis in Space"
>has a nice discussion of this history and is
>available in many libraries).
>By the time the American geophysics "union" came over
>(in the 1960's) to the side of "the plates MOVE!", they
>did so in the traditional Yankee Doodle style:
>over-compensation. One began seeing new models of plate motions
>that had the continents sliding all over the place, first
>one direction then the other for billions of years.
>Since the magnetic signature of MORB's had been used to
>overthrow the "old guard" of American geophysics, the
>"new guard" rubbed the old guard's noses in magnetic
>interpretations of the past, giving rise to the discipline
>of paleomagnetics, apparent polar wandering, etc.
>Paleomagnetics became the tool that this new guard used to
>fabricate these models of plate motions back in time
>beyond Pangaea 250+ mya. What one saw were transitions in
>the magnetic vectors of magma flows that gave the
>"appearance" that the planetary magnetic poles were changing
>position over time, sometimes very quickly. The
>"standard model" for these observations was not that the
>magnetic poles were really changing over time, but that
>the plates were moving over time.
>I'll say it again: embed a large iron asteroid (92%
> pure iron on average) in a subcrustal oceanic location, and
>it will "appear" in the surrounding continental rock record
>as a brand magnetic new surface pole for the
>planet. After the impact site has volcanically degassed,
>the main iron remnant of the impactor will aggregate
>and then undergo gravitational demise as it sinks
>through the mantle. That magnetic surface pole will then
>"disappear".
Any evidence of this?
>If one's position is: impacts don't occur on Earth,
>then none of the above makes any sense at all. Within
>THIS context, let me remind you that the week
>prior to the SL-9 comet fragment impacts with Jupiter (only 2
>years ago), nearly all of the major journals of science had
>editorial positions that this up-coming event would
>be the biggest "non-event" in the history of
>observational astronomy, taking the position that the impacts
>would be too puny to detect from Earth. Then, one by one,
> relatively small (1-3 mile diameter
>aggregates/rocks)comet fragments created fireballs the
>size of Earth.
Lots of big impacts have occurred on this planet but they left
more then just a morphological expression. Why is this not the case for
your model? Meteorites leave more then just morphological expression
of their existence
BTW, on your next post set your Newsreader to 80 characters it would
be easier to read that way.
Thanks
Archae Solenhofen (jmcarth1@gtn.net)
"..every structure in a rock is significant,
none is unimportant, even if, at first sight
it may seem irrelevant."
-- Ernst Cloos , 1946
>> --
>>
>> Chuck Karish '81 Guzzi CX100
>> karish@well.com '83 Guzzi Le Mans III (Fang, RSN)
>> DoD #89
Subject: Re: Chicxulub structure and dinosaur extinction
From: "henry l. barwood"
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:58:00 -0700
Adam Cherrett wrote:
Discussion removed.
>
> To pose an interesting question - suppose that the eruption of
> the Deccan, with the enormous volume of outgassed volatiles
> put into the atmosphere, was a contributary factor in the
> environmental crisis of the Late Cretaceous. Would this
> account for, partially at least, the observations of decline
> in animal species over a finite, measurable amount of
> geological time, rather than the expected sudden extinction
> that would be caused by a large meteorite impact alone?
>
I am also curious if the Deccan eruptions coincide with the often cited
decline of species in the late Cretaceous. It would seem that Chicxulub
may indeed have been the bullet that finished off the Dinosaurs (and many
other species), but only because the system was already very stressed.
Other large impacts do not seem to accompany huge extinctions (I'm
working from memory here), yet a non-impact extinction at the
end-of-Permian was arguably the largest of all.
Henry Barwood
Subject: Re: continental plate motion
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:51:16 -0500
Brian Hutchings wrote:
>
> In a previous article, cjones@mantle.colorado.edu (Craig Jones) says:
>
> very interesting; anyway, doc.Brown's question
> about the volcanists of 30ya, re the topos of Moon, are exactly
> what Patrick Moore, FRAS gets into in his books on the moon,
> with the proviso that the 2 editions that I read put a different spin
> on it, considering that there'd been such a jerk
> toward the other extreme, of assuming that they're *all* impacts;
> it just doesn't wash with the nonrandom features, he thought.
I think I read the Moore work many years ago. As for "nonrandom features",
the "non-random" character of impacts on Earth is one of the major theses
entertained by Herb Shaw in his new book "Craters, Chronologies, and Cosmos:
A New Theory of Earth (Stanford University Press, 1995, 688 pages, 2000+
references). I became familiar with the work after I was asked to review it
for the Journal of Geologic Education about a year ago. It is a fascinating
work, chock full of ideas of the type around which seminars and graduate theses can
be framed. For those who don't know Herb Shaw, he is a geologist with the
USGS in Menlo Park, CA... widely recognized by his peers as a specialist in
the application of non-linear dynamics and chaos theory to geological
processes.
This aside, Herb claims that Earth's impact record reflects a series of recurrent
events that can be traced back to lunar genesis. These impact events are so
spread out in time and so traumatic to the planet that we are only now reaching
a "critical mass" in our ability to comprehend their relatedness. I think the
book he wrote is a "must read" for anyone interested in Earth's geological
history. Even if one doesn't "buy" his line of reasoning, the book is perhaps
the single best reference work for impact-related phenomena on Earth. I don't
sign on to everything he advocates, but my hesitancies are more related to my own
cognitive deficiencies than to obvious flaws in his reasoning. I'm now trying to
re-read the work for the third time. There are "Newton" class thinkers in our era,
and he is one of them.
RDB
> anyway, I don't see how you can escape the verdicts
> of the Emperor Seamounts that were mentioned, doctor.
There is very little re the Emperor Seamount literature that
I find objectionable. I simply note that the volcanic spot we
call Hawaii is an impact artifact that marks the mantle
coordinates of the impact that occurred at the KT boundary,
as opposed to being caused by a rising plume of magma coming
off Earth's core-mantle boundary. The impact paradigm explains
the paleomagnetic record far better than does the "magma-plume"
thesis, and it is also consistent with our understanding of
cosmic hazards.
RDB
> I'd like to know if the force *of* the rifts' acreting magma,
> which has been compared to a shoptool called a _________, are enough
> to shove the plates into the trenches, *if*
> they're melted, there, rather than subducted, as is assumed. (unfortunately,
> I've forgotten the name of the machine-tool, but
> it essentially generates huge pressures from 2 thick plates
> that are edge-on .-)
> Could you try to be a little more specific. RDB
The keyboard is mightier than the sword. RDB
Subject: Re: wind caves
From: jcorn@unlgrad1.unl.edu (James F Cornwall)
Date: 11 Sep 1996 17:31:28 GMT
Dan Snyder (dtsnyder@usgs.gov) wrote:
: In article <09960808221956.OUI29.moorek@sprynet.com>, moorek@sprynet.com () writes:
: > Hi: I would like to correspond w/ a professional in the feld of
: > geology/and or park ranger re; the subject of wind caves. Specifically I
: > would be interested in some more technical aspects of their
: > formations,characteristics;etc.
: You may want to talk to the park rangers at Jewel Cave National Monument in
: Custer, South Dakota or Wind Cave National Park in Hot Springs, South Dakota.
: Both caves are barometric cave systems formed in limestone and respond
: to barometric changes outside by inhaling or exhaling. A small amount
Just as another note: Lewis & Clark Caverns State Park in Montana
isn't a 'wind cave' as above, but when I took their tour this summer,
the guides said that they had to install an 'airlock' system of
doubled doors at the exit. Apparently when they blasted a lower
opening (some 600' vertical diff. from the upper natural entrance),
they got a wind blowing about 60 mph out the new entrance due to
pressure and/or temperature differences between inside & outside air.
Hence the airlock system and strict procedures to keep one door closed
while the other is open.... Don't know if this is relevant, but
thought I'd toss in my $0.02.
Jim C.
: of work has been done to estimate cave volumes at these caves by measuring
: the volume of air moved into or out of the caves during a specific change
: in outside barometric pressure. A little of this work is described in
: a very interesting book (primarily from the viewpoint of cave exploration)
: titled "The Jewel Cave Adventure" by Herb and Jan Conn (or is it Jan and Herb?).
: They were the key explorers at Jewel Cave and found a significant break
: through at Wind Cave. I believe these caves are both among the world's
: 10 longest caves at 80+ and 50+ miles in explored passages.
: Good Luck.
: -Dan
: --
: Daniel T. Snyder U.S. Geological Survey (503) 251-3287
: Water Resources Division--Oregon District dtsnyder@usgs.gov
: This message is being posted to obtain or provide technical information
: relating to my duties at the U.S. Geological Survey.
Subject: Re: good engineering
From: richhall@seanet.com (Richard F. Hall)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 11:34:49 MST
In article spwebb@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) writes:
>From: spwebb@iafrica.com (Sean Webb)
>Subject: Re: good engineering
>Date: Wed, 11 Sep 96 10:25:03 GMT
>On 9/9/96 12:11AM, in message <50vga2$ck5@niflheim.rutgers.edu>, Michael
>Huemer wrote:
>> mwfisher@cts.com (Michael W. Fisher) writes:
>>
>> > And nature doesn't give one tiny shit about the phenotypes opinion
>> >in the matter, even if the phenotype has achieved the self-consciousness
>> >necessary to have an opinion.
>>
>> Well, since nature isn't conscious, nature doesn't really give a shit
>> about anything. But I take it the metaphor is that the organism's
>> opinions don't affect the likelihood of its reproducing. Actually,
>> this doesn't seem to be true. If the organism, if it's
>> self-conscious, *wants* to reproduce copies of itself, then it is much
>> more likely to do so than if it doesn't want to.
>>
>> > Women achieve full physical maturity alightly earlier than men, but
>> >even for men, final physical maturity is achieved at about 25. Measurable
>> >physical deterioration sets in after 30--which if you recall is the mean
>> >age of adult death in pre-technological societies.
>>
>> I suspect the first figure is high, and the second one low (not that
>> it really makes much difference). It seems to me that men are
>> physiologically mature at the age of about 16 (we're not talking about
>> emotionally). Also, isn't 30 a little young for deterioration? I
>> would think it would be more like 30. And remember that the life
>> expectancy was low mostly because of infant mortality, not because
>> people had heart attacks at 30. (Remember that if half the people
>> died at 1 year old, then the true life expectancy, if you removed all
>> of those babies, would have to be around 60. I do not know what the
>> infant mortality statistics actually are, though.)
>>
>> --
>> ^-----^
>> Michael Huemer / O O \
>> http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~owl | V |
>> \ /
>FYI
>Physical deterioration sets in at appx 26 yrs of age.
>From that age onwards , the rate of cell death exceeds cell replacement in the
>human body.
>Sean Webb
Having experienced "middle-aged spread" I don't think this is true, Sean.
There may be something that's true about the brain after 26 yrs of age. May
be you could research this and set us straight! Cheers!
richard f hall
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism
Subject: Re: Chicxulub structure and dinosaur extinction
From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr."
Date: 11 Sep 1996 18:39:38 GMT
"henry l. barwood" wrote:
>
> Adam Cherrett wrote:
> >
> > To pose an interesting question - suppose that the eruption of
> > the Deccan, with the enormous volume of outgassed volatiles
> > put into the atmosphere, was a contributary factor in the
> > environmental crisis of the Late Cretaceous. Would this
> > account for, partially at least, the observations of decline
> > in animal species over a finite, measurable amount of
> > geological time, rather than the expected sudden extinction
> > that would be caused by a large meteorite impact alone?
> >
>
> I am also curious if the Deccan eruptions coincide with the often cited
> decline of species in the late Cretaceous. It would seem that Chicxulub
> may indeed have been the bullet that finished off the Dinosaurs (and many
> other species), but only because the system was already very stressed.
> Other large impacts do not seem to accompany huge extinctions (I'm
> working from memory here), yet a non-impact extinction at the
> end-of-Permian was arguably the largest of all.
>
During the last two stages of the Cretaceous (Campanian and Maastrichtian)
there is considerable turnover among the dinosaurs where they are known.
There are dramatic changes in the western U.S., somewhat less dramatic
in eastern Asia, and compelling work on the Campano-Maastrichtian dinosaurs
in Europe. The rest of the world is not well enough understood
at this time.
These changes seem to occur within the Campanian, at the Campano-Maastrichtian
boundary, within the mid-Maastrichtian, and (of course) the K-T event.
Whether the mid-Maastrichtian changes are related to the Deccan is
uncertain (it might be too early, but does seem to correlate with
the regression and the death of the inoceramids and terrestrial
floral changes).
Some work (at admittedly coarse levels of taxonomic resolution) suggest
that the late Maastrichtian fauna of western North America was stable
in and of itself. It is depauperate with regards to the number of
lineages which had been present in the Campanian (although more diverse
than most published accounts would leave you to believe).
However, the level of stratigraphic and taxonomic resolution is currently
insufficent (and may be insufficent over all, for rare animals like
dinosaurs) to see if the Deccan vulcanics greatly affected life
for the Lancian dinosaurs. However, the much, much smaller Tambora
eruption of the early 19th Century had quite dramatic effects for
humans as individuals (although not any whole species, so far as is
known), so the ash and gasses from the Deccan must have made life
pretty tuff, er, tough during the last million years or so of the
Cretaceous.
Subject: Re: The deepest?
From: David Nobes
Date: 11 Sep 1996 21:42:21 GMT
shin@abiko.denken.or.jp (SHIN) wrote:
>Hi, does someone know the depth human has ever reached?
>The information I have is,
> Kola scientific borehole, 10 Km ?
> Mine (South Africa), 3Km ?
I think you will find it is a good deal deeper than that, and there are
other deep mines around the world.
>But I am not so sure about the above, so I want to be sure and also
>I want to know the following.
> Coal mine, ? Km
> Oil drilling, ? Km
> Geophysical survey, ? Km
As for geophysical surveys, what do you count? If you allow "passive"
sources (i.e., not artificially generated), then from the propagation of
seismic waves generated by earthquakes, we have information about the
coarse structure of the interior right down to the inner core. Adam
Schultz has analysed magnetic observatory data, and has derived a profile
of the electrical properties to depths of the order of 1200 km.
On the other hand, if you only allow active sources, then that allows
active seismic (generally using explosives or large arrays of Vibroseis
machines) or very large scale EM sources (which are rare and expensive).
The depths in those cases are of the order of 40 to 50 km, although I
faintly recall seeing depths quoted that were deeper. The quality of the
sources and of the processing is always improving, so those depths will be
getting deeper.
>
>Thank you for your attention.
>shin@criepi.denken.or.jp
da nada.
DCN