Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 33763

Directory

jadamski@usgs.gov (James C. Adamski) wrote:
>to diverge 100 MYA as well. My original question was: if a diverse group of
>birds survived the K/T boundary, wouldn't this imply that the bolide impact was
>not significant in mass extinctions considering how environmentally sensitive
>birds are?
No.
In any large group of bird species there will be one or two that are
more cosmopolitan and more hardy.
Also, the effects of an impact will be more stochastic than
finalistic.  That is many species will surivive mostly due to the
chance survival of a handful of individuals in a small protected
location, and many other species will die simply because they were
locally endemic to the wrong places.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen

Jeff Baldwin  wrote in article 
> 
> Wouldn't the parent body's orbit be so disrupted as to dislodge it?
Jeff:
I'm not sure what you mean, here.  Dislodge it from... what?  The solar
system? No.
It's self, as in "torn asunder into pieces": No.  Alter it's orbit? Yes,
depending on the magnitude of E=mv^2 and the angle of intersection.  
Please note the larger theory is now posted, followed by notes under
"Theory of Land and Life".  RDB

> 
> It is hard to imagine an impact crater almost the same diameter as the
> parent body. A collision on that scale would completely disrupt the
> impactee. Of course, it would coalesce again, but since its components
> would have been reshuffled, so to speak, there would not be any evidence
> of the impact, just a completely new crust, bare of all geologic
> features, not to mention lifeforms, and fossils.
> 
> - Karl
Karl:  A more detailed reply to this question may be found in the notes
following the post entitled "The Theory of Land and Life", this newsgroup. 
RDB
> The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
>                         - Kosh Naranek
> 
I like this one, too: 
Scientists tend to be suspicious, bristly, paranoid-type people with huge
egos they push around like some elephantiasis victim with his distended
testicles in a wheelbarrow terrified no doubt that some skulking ingrate of
a clone student will sneak into his very brain and steal his genius work.
William Burroughs (b. 1914), U.S. author. The Adding Machine, “Immortality”
(1985).
RDB

> Aha! So _thats_ why the scan platform jammed after the Saturn
> encounter :-)
>  
> So, someone finally figured it out!  You've just won the Prep H doorprize
we've been saving for this occasion.  Jonathan, the continuing saga is
posted under "Theory of Land and Life", this newsgroup.  RDB
> "Save the International Ultraviolet Explorer !"
He had been eight years upon a project for extracting sunbeams out of
cucumbers, which were to be put into vials hermetically sealed, and let out
to warm the air in raw, inclement summers.
Jonathan Swift (1667–1745), A scientist at the grand academy of Lagado, in
Gullivers Travels, “A Voyage to Laputa,” ch. 5 (1726).

> 
> At the very least, such an impact would have reworked the entire Pacific
basin. Correct 
> me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the entire Pacific is younger than 65
ma.
Basin rim portions contain sections of older eras.  A more detailed
explanation can be found in the notes to the "Theory of Land and Life", a
new post in this newsgroup.  RDB
It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet
hypothesis every day before breakfast. It keeps him young.
Konrad Lorenz (1903–89), Austrian ethologist. On Aggression, ch. 2 (1963;
tr. 1966).

 
> Indeed. The Good Doctor demonstrates that "a little learning 
> is a dangerous thing."  An enthusiastic amateur can entertain
> more misconceptions and generate more errors in an hour than 
> can be corrected in a month.
> 
Scientists have odious manners, except when you prop up their theory; then
you can borrow money of them.
Mark Twain (1835–1910), U.S. author. The Bee (first published 1917; repr.
in Complete Essays, ed. by Charles Neider, 1963).

> 	Methinks you miss the point entirely.
> 	
The mythology of science asserts that with many different scientists all
asking their own questions and evaluating the answers independently,
whatever personal bias creeps into their individual answers is canceled out
when the large picture is put together. This might conceivably be so if
scientists were women and men from all sorts of different cultural and
social backgrounds who came to science with very different ideologies and
interests. But since, in fact, they have been predominantly
university-trained white males from privileged social backgrounds, the bias
has been narrow and the product often reveals more about the investigator
than about the subject being researched.
Ruth Hubbard (b. 1924), U.S. biologist. “Have Only Men Evolved?,” in Women
Look at Biology Looking At Women (ed. by Ruth Hubbard, Mary Sue Henifin and
Barbara Fried, 1979).
The continuing saga is now posted under "Theory of Land and Life", this
news group. RDB

> Ding. Ding. Ding.  Bingo. You win the prize.
I think you're just pissed that someone else got the Prep H doorprize.  The
continuing saga is now to be found under "Theory of Land and Life", this
newsgroup.  RDB
For undemocratic reasons and for motives not of State,
They arrive at their conclusions—largely inarticulate.
Being void of self-expression they confide their views to none;
But sometimes in a smoking room, one learns why things were done.
Rudyard Kipling (1865–1936), British author, poet. The Puzzler.

Thank you so much for your assistance, Tom.  The continuing saga can now be
found under "Theory of Land and Life", in the sci.geo.geology, and
talk.origins newsgroups. RDB
A man ceases to be a beginner in any given science and becomes a master in
that science when he has learned that . . . he is going to be a beginner
all his life.
R. G. Collingwood (1889–1943), British philosopher. The New Leviathan, pt.
1, ch. 1, aph. 46 (1942).

Brian:  Set a table for two, using a table cloth.  Snap the tablecloth out
from under the settings so that the plates remain in the same places.  Now,
thick about oceanic crust being thrust during an impact under a continental
plate.  If you can imagine a relationship between these activities, you
should read the footnotes to the post "Theory of Land and Life" in the
talk.origins and sci.geo.geology newsgroups.  RDB
When a scientist is ahead of his times, it is often through
misunderstanding of current, rather than intuition of future truth. In
science there is never any error so gross that it won’t one day, from some
perspective, appear prophetic.
Jean Rostand (1894–1977), French biologist, writer. Pensées d’un Biologiste
(1939; repr. in The Substance of Man, “A Biologist’s Thoughts,” ch. 7,
1962).

See "Theory of Land and Life" for additional bases covered, this newsgroup
and also sci.geo.geology.  RDB
A body of work such as Pasteur’s is inconceivable in our time: no man would
be given a chance to create a whole science. Nowadays a path is scarcely
opened up when the crowd begins to pour in.
Jean Rostand (1894–1977), French biologist, writer. Pensées d’un Biologiste
(1939; repr. in The Substance of Man, ch. 6, 1962).

In article <323B1737.1576@oro.net>, Richard Adams   wrote:
>At issue here is the positive aspects of moderation
>where posts are accepted by a robot system as described
>by the current proposal, as contrasted with a newsgroup
>where the posts are each screened by a human moderator.
>
>Positive aspects of robot moderator being proposed
>--------------------------------------------------
>
> A) Robot moderator is faster than a human moderator.
>
> B) The proposed system allows all participants of the group,
>    contributors and observers alike to have an equal say in
>    programming the robot.  A human moderator may not provide
>    all participants an equal voice.
I'm sure that's great for people who want to spend their time on line
arguing about how to program a robot.  The whole idea of conducting
a series of popularity polls to see who should be banned from
sci.geo.* leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Richard, if you can't see the totalitarian overtones inherent
in your proposal, you are not tuned into the libertarian
spirit of usenet.
Have you rented a video of _Brazil_ yet, and watched it?
There'll be a quiz soon...
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

The story goes on under "Theory of Land and Life", this newsgroup and
sci.geo.geology.  RDB
But how is one to make a scientist understand that there is something
unalterably deranged about differential calculus, quantum theory, or the
obscene and so inanely liturgical ordeals of the precession of the
equinoxes.
Antonin Artaud (1896–1948), French theater producer, actor, theorist. Van
Gogh, the Man Suicided by Society (1947; repr. in Selected Writings, pt.
33, ed. by Susan Sontag, 1976).

Visit our Links Page for tons of good geology links
http://www.groundwater.com/links.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
 Kenneth E. Bannister
 President -        BANNISTER RESEARCH & CONSULTING
 Owner     -        GROUNDWATER Mailing List
 http://www.groundwater.com   KenBannister@groundwater.com
 Sponsor- Addison United Soccer Club - 1996 Vermont Cup Runner-Up
         U - 12 Olympic Development League Soccer 
 --------------------------------------------------------------

If it tastes good, spit it out.  Advice for all dieters. RDB
The continuing saga is posted under "Theory of Land and Life", this
newsgroup. RDB

In article <323B1C15.7A04@oro.net>, Richard Adams   wrote:
>Una Smith wrote:
>> Which of these things doesn't belong?  Changing sci.geo.geology is
>> quite separate from the reorganization of the earthquakes group.  I
>> do not think it should not be "bundled" with the reorganization.
>One reason to combine news groups that share some similar
>topic, participants, and readers into one reorganization is
>to better justify the tremendous effort needed to accomplish
>this.  The voting system allows a separate tally for each
>issue voting on.
The CFV has to spell out whether the votes are intended to
be implemented individually or as a package.  As the RFD
now reads, it's an all-or-nothing vote.
>An explicit description of the moderation policies which augments
>the outlined form which is proper for the RFD shall exist as an
>english language doucment which is available for download from
>the www, and maintained by the moderator.
It should be available from an e-mail server as well.  Not
all readers of the groups have web access.
>The initial version of this shall be posted to a web location,
>available to for e-mail upon requests made to the proponent
>and also available for ftp download when available shortly to
>get a feeling for how this would operate and promote further
>discussion of the initial policies and methods.
Good.  Let us know when it's ready, and I'll post it to
the approproate newsgroups.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

> Pangea is a very specific term that refers to a supercontinent that
> existed in the late Paleozoic.  This is a good example of where you
> confuse your readers who have geologic backgrounds.
Of the half dozen models for plate tectonic motions going back beyond
"Pangaea", mine is the only one that says: Pangaea really was the "first
land", the literal interpretation of the word.  
The subject has now been moved to "Theory of Land and Life" and can be
found in the talk.origins and sci.geo.geology newsgroups.  RDB
Nothing leads the scientist so astray as a premature truth.
Jean Rostand (1894–1977), French biologist, writer. Pensées d’un Biologiste
(1939; repr. in The Substance of Man, “A Biologist’s Thoughts,” ch. 7,
1962).

 maybe I'm confused
> about what an impact crater is.
> 
That's OK, Chuck.  I am, too.  RDB
The "Theory of Land and Life" post is now up.  I assume life science groups
will find it.  RDB
Aristotle could have avoided the mistake of thinking that women have fewer
teeth than men, by the simple device of asking Mrs. Aristotle to keep her
mouth open while he counted.
Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), British philosopher, mathematician. Unpopular
Essays, “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish” (1950).

> >
> >>Just what is "continental rock" in this model? And where can I see
some?
Continental rock is mostly the pre-Cretaceous rock that is seismically
indistinguishable.  See the publications that list as co-author Vladislav
Ryaboy.  His work consolidates Russian and American nuclear weapons tests
seismic data, which is better than earthquake data.  These studies define
the distribution of what I call "continental rock".  The continuing story
is now under "Theory of Land and Life", talk.origins and sci.geo.geology
newsgroups.  RDB
 I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting
myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than
ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.
Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727),  Memoirs of Newton, vol. 2, ch. 27 (ed. by
David Brewster, 1855).

Edward L. Mincher wrote:
> 
> soliver@capecod.net (Suzane Oliver) wrote:
> 
> >I am sorry, but I find this a total non-sequitur. I have read the bible, I
> >find it full of nonsense, and frequently full of viciousness and stupidity as
> >well. The bible is not the proof I require. The god of your bible clearly does
> >not care about everyone in this world. He is either non-existent, too weak to
> >protect his creations from things like ebola and hurricanes, or indifferent.
> 
> He is able. Have you ask?
> Eddy
  How the hell do you know he is able? Did he tell you? I agree with the 
former opinion. When you read the bible, if you keep in mind the mindset 
of society at the time, and the social and philisophical standards of the 
period, it makes perfect sense-- as a work of fiction. The bible was 
written by several different people who opted to include their two cents 
on what they thought God ought to be and how man ought to live. It is 
impossible to disprove that, and it seems a very simple conclusion to 
draw and is by far the most obvious. Since then, because of their 
inherent need to explain what they cannot understand, humans have taken 
to interpreting the bible not as a man-made thing but as work of divinity 
by an all-powerful, infinite being who simply thought we ought to know 
what the deal was before we died and spent eternity in burning flames. I 
can see why, in an age where science was infantile and understanding of 
the world was very limited, it would be possible to logically lend some 
credence to this notion. But that was 2000 years ago, and we no longer 
think the world is flat. So why do we hold on to our security blanket? 
Because man has a basic need to believe that everything will turn out 
okay. The bible provides man with a step-by-step guide to assure that 
such will be the case. Seems simple enough...
> 
> Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so
> that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For
> every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of
> Heaven."  (Didymos Judas Thomas)
 Did you intend for that to be an example of biblical sexism?
-J Ross
-- 
http://www.angelfire.com/pg1/Nivejworld/index.html

Edward L. Mincher wrote:
> 
> soliver@capecod.net (Suzane Oliver) wrote:
> 
> >I am sorry, but I find this a total non-sequitur. I have read the bible, I
> >find it full of nonsense, and frequently full of viciousness and stupidity as
> >well. The bible is not the proof I require. The god of your bible clearly does
> >not care about everyone in this world. He is either non-existent, too weak to
> >protect his creations from things like ebola and hurricanes, or indifferent.
> 
> He is able. Have you ask?
> Eddy
  How the hell do you know he is able? Did he tell you? I agree with the 
former opinion. When you read the bible, if you keep in mind the mindset 
of society at the time, and the social and philisophical standards of the 
period, it makes perfect sense-- as a work of fiction. The bible was 
written by several different people who opted to include their two cents 
on what they thought God ought to be and how man ought to live. It is 
impossible to disprove that, and it seems a very simple conclusion to 
draw and is by far the most obvious. Since then, because of their 
inherent need to explain what they cannot understand, humans have taken 
to interpreting the bible not as a man-made thing but as work of divinity 
by an all-powerful, infinite being who simply thought we ought to know 
what the deal was before we died and spent eternity in burning flames. I 
can see why, in an age where science was infantile and understanding of 
the world was very limited, it would be possible to logically lend some 
credence to this notion. But that was 2000 years ago, and we no longer 
think the world is flat. So why do we hold on to our security blanket? 
Because man has a basic need to believe that everything will turn out 
okay. The bible provides man with a step-by-step guide to assure that 
such will be the case. Seems simple enough...
> 
> Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so
> that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For
> every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of
> Heaven."  (Didymos Judas Thomas)
 Did you intend for that to be an example of biblical sexism?
-J Ross
-- 
http://www.angelfire.com/pg1/Nivejworld/index.html

In article <323B6F6B.3335@oro.net>, Richard Adams   wrote:
>It's clear that Tom is strong in many ways.  He had the strength
>to start the group, makes valuable ongoing contributions, and put
>up with an increasingly hostile and dilluted atmosphere through
>a variety of means that work for him.
Note that Tom did not get the group started by himself.
>I disagree with your claim that control would limit growth.
He didn't say that it would.  He said that it wouldn't have
grown as large and in the same unexpected ways that it has.
>The are other contributors and "would be" contributors that aren't
>as "thick skinned" as you and don't care to put up with the
>atmosphere that the group has unfortunately been evolving into.
What's this "has been evolving into"?  The content of the
geology newsgroups hasn't changed all that much over the
last few years.  A while back they were deluged (sorry)
with trolls from creationists.  Now we get post after post
from dilettantes who think that their fantasies should be
afforded equal recognition with science.  Some of it is quite
amusing, and the interactions on the group can lead readers
to question, quite productively, what science is and why
they should trust one writer over another.
The sci.geo.* groups are not intended exclusively for
professional-level discussions, and their charters reflect that.
That of less-assertive readers are scared away is not unique
to these groups and is not itself an adequate reason to
moderate the groups.  Usenet is a public forum, which means
that there's no mommy and no teacher to punish pelple
for not being nice enough.
>I know for a fact that valuable professional contributors to
>usenet are being turned off by what is going on and getting worse.
Many of us would like to have a place to express our
ideas without contradiction and without being set alongside
obvious fools.  If you want to make such a place, go ahead.
I'd expect it to be terminally boring.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

Richard Adams (happypcs@oro.net) wrote:
: At issue here is the positive aspects of moderation
: where posts are accepted by a robot system as described
: by the current proposal, as contrasted with a newsgroup
: where the posts are each screened by a human moderator.
No Richard. As usual you just don't understand. What's at issue here is 
the question of "MODERATION" - period. You want to moderate 
newsgroups that were previously chartered as unmoderated.
: Positive aspects of robot moderator being proposed...
Are irrevlevant unless we assume that your proposal will pass. 
I for one will argue to try to convince the readers of the newsgroups
that it is THEIR responsibility for what they read and NOT some robot or 
some robot-like individual or select group of individuals - especially 
when the proponets for moderation have no technical expertise in the 
disciplines in which they desire c*o*n*t*r*o*l !  If the pros can deal 
with the S/N ratio then the average joe on the info blvd ought to be able 
to do the same! Present company excluded...
Ken
-- 

Richard Adams (happypcs@oro.net) wrote:
: A most important clarification is that I do not propose that
: the group be moderated by any single human, and I don't intend
: to moderate the posts.  Please read the proposal and other
: posts on this subject recently made here.  I have volunteered
: myself to run the robot moderator but do not require that
: I am the one doing this and continue to invite others to
: volunteer as well.  If you want to join in with my proposal
: contact me.  Anyone can also start their own proposal if you
: don't want to contribute to the one I'm promoting.
: It's clear that Tom is strong in many ways.
Richard, you just HAVE to be one of the most patronizing posters that I 
have encountered. You're a really good troll! Unfortunately, I have to 
take you seriously. Because if I chose to ignore you now (as I have your 
"surveys") there is a chance that you might push this issue through.
: He had the strength to start the group, makes valuable ongoing contributions, 
: and put up with an increasingly hostile and dilluted atmosphere through
: a variety of means that work for him.
Uh. it's be a heck of a lot less polluted if we didn't have to wade thru 
your daily posts regarding moderation! As fot Tom's "strength". I'd 
prefer to call it his damn good sense to propose an open forum for 
discussion all aspects of a specific topic.
As the population on USENET increases there will certainly be an influx 
of posters who are a tad on the fringe. Most of us are quite capable of 
spending a few extra keystrokes deleting the unwanted postings.
Perhaps if you'd reserve YOUR keystrokes toward that effort you'd have 
more time for reading and less for writing! Which would be helpful for me 
!! :)
: I disagree with your claim that control would limit growth.
Of course you would. In a previous post you claimed to be a "strong 
defender of freedom of speech". Yet you're a driving force to provide a 
source to place mandatory restrictions upon the freedom of millions of 
people because you're incapable of screening you own mail!!! It's only 
natural that you'd fail to see the logic of that statement. You're a 
frightening contrast of statement and action! A typical example of a 
sector of the world's society who thiks that "THEY" know what's good for 
the rest of us.
Crawl back into a hole and censor your own mail and allow the rest of us to 
do the same!
Ken
-- 

In article <323A1BD4.599C@oro.net>, Richard Adams   wrote:
>Tom Williams wrote:
>> 
>> In article <3238E6F8.2720@oro.net>, Richard Adams  wrote:
>> 
>> > > As stated in the moderator qualifications in the RFD
>> > and a concern to Tom is that I am not a professional
>> > in the field of geology.
>> 
>> I didn't express any such concern!!!!
>> 
>> You've obviously twisted my words to make it appear as a professional
>> prejudice on my part.
>> 
>> I don't care what your profession is.  My point was that you've
>> not been a contributing part of the community that you now
>> propose to control.
>> 
>> I've not seen you post any on-topic discussion that related to
>> geology.
>> 
>> --
>> Tom Williams             williams@pangea.stanford.edu
>> Basin Analysis, Sequence Stratigraphy
>> Stanford Program on Deep-Sea Depositional Systems
>> http://pangea.stanford.edu/~williams/williams.html
>
>
>Tom,
>
>Help me to fully understand the meaning of your post.
>
>You talk about a "purpose to control" and the lack of "on-topic"
>posts on my part.  Let me see if I can extract what you may be
>attempting to insinuate.  Sorry if I wind up altering the meaning
>in doing so, but it seems you haven't specified a conclusion from
>the statements you've put forth.
>
>Do you mean to say that you feel I would be not be a good
>candidate to perform the moderator functions described
>in the proposal on the basis that I am an observer rather
>than a contributor to the geology discussion?
Richard, Tom has said several times, in several different ways,
that he doesn't trust you to do this job properly because you
have not been a participant, either as a professional or as an
interested amateur, in sci.geo.geology.  That your first
appearance on the group seems to have been with your suggestion
to exclude others from participation does not inspire confidence
in you.
>If so, what is the logic behind that claim?  Why would
>being a contributor equate with being better equipped to
>perform those functions as described?
>
>Wouldn't it actually be desirable to have the moderation robot
>programmed by a person that was independant from the contributed
>posts that are being accepted by the robot, so that there would
>be a reduced potential appearance of a conflict of interest?
Richard, IF we were looking for a moderator at all, it would be
for someone with enough knowledge of the field to be able to
understand what's on topic and what's not, and enough of a sense
of proportion to be able to tell when to intervene and when not
to.  I don't think you're qualified under either of these criteria.
IF we wanted a moderator, we'd prefer a benevolent despot who
could do the right thing to a cheerleader for occasional on-line
lynching parties to choose a new line to go into a configuration
file somewhere.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu