Subject: Re: Write-in vote Archimedes Plutonium, next US president !!
From: Mpower
Date: 15 Sep 1996 06:12:16 GMT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Lucas wrote:
!He don't know snot about science, but his humorous prose
!is just brilliant. "PUT A HEAVY ELEMENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE THIS FALL"
!bumper stickers??? Hee hee hee. (ROTFL) What a knee-slapper!
>
***********************************************************************
>
=Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>
>>
>>
?? So write in your vote of Archimedes Plutonium
>>
!! Sponsored by the Eric Lucas, David Bromage, and Dan Evens , and the
>> League of Women
>> campaign to elect AP to the Oval Office
>>
!! PUT A HEAVY ELEMENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE THIS FALL bumper sticker will
>> be sent to the Plutonium for President
>>
=> Archie can be seen in the Debate televized on CNN next month.
>>
=> Archie's campaign slogan is
>>
>>
!! Vote for the man who will stay right there with you and see this thing
!! through to the end.
>>
!> So please write in your vote ,
>> no matter if you are a foreigner or not,
> in fact post your vote to the newsgroup sci.chem and show your
>> support for the Next to be Elected President of the United States -- =- Archimedes Plutonium
>>
ELect Archimedes Plutonium as the next president of the US
?! U.S. Presidency ? Archimedes Plutonium ?? !!!?!!!
A more perfect match of imperfection
we are not likely to see in this millenium.
He gets my vote
I hope he gets yours....
Subject: Re: Mankind's next step
From: "Rene v. Rentzell"
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 14:36:18 -0700
Henry wrote:
>
> Ronald E. Thomas wrote:
>
> > Year 2000 is the end of a millenium, the year 2001 is the start of the
> > next millenium. So, the world peace crowd has an extra year to get their
> > act together. :)
'xactly. The Islamic world is still in the Middle Ages (in more than one
sense...); something like 1350 or so, I believe. The Buddhists are advanced
(again, I tend to think they have a point); something like 2200. Japan is
currently in the year 8, in words: *eight*.
So, what gives? All this 2000 hullaballohh seems to make very little sense.
Subject: Re: continental plate motion
From: gerard@hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer)
Date: 10 Sep 1996 21:23:20 GMT
In article <3234D312.36AE@navix.net>, "Robert D. Brown" writes:
[...all mountains created by asteroid impact idea deleted...]
I don't have much to add to Chuck Karish's reasoned response, except
that Brown repeats a commonly misunderstood aspect of elementary
geology when he says (of Hawaii) that
>(C) The magma chamber appears to originate only some 25-30 km deep
>into the interior (not extending into the core-mantle boundary).
This underscores a misconception I run into repeatedly in Intro Geology
as well as in the news media. People have little trouble understanding
the effect of temperature on melting, but few seem able to comprehend
the effects of pressure. Both pressure and temperature increase with
depth from the surface of the Earth. At shallow depths the temperature
effects predominate, and as you descend deeper and deeper the rocks are
getting closer and closer to the solidus, the temperature at which they
start to melt. But once you are down much deeper than a hundred
kilometers the pressure effects begin to predominate, and although
temperature is rising, the solidus is rising even more rapidly, so the
rocks are getting further and further from their melting point. In
other words, the vast bulk of the Earth's mantle is solid; it is only
at shallow depths that conditions are anywhere near melting (the outer
core is a different story because that's made of different stuff --
predominantly iron rather than the mantle's silicates and oxides).
The only people who seem able to grasp this simple idea instantly are
mountaineers. Anyone who has attempted to cook a meal at high altitude
without a pressure cooker knows that water boils before it has had much
of a chance to heat things up. Apply the same logic to the Earth.
--
Gerard Fryer
gerard@hawaii.edu http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/~gerard/
Personal views only.
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12
From: russ@seismo.demon.co.uk (Russ Evans)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 10:28:13 +0100
The following article appeared in news.groups, but regrettably, it was not
cross-posted to s.g.g and s.g.e. It contains important factual information
which should be considered carefully by those currently engaged in pulling
those newsgroups apart.
Followups set appropriately.
Russ
=============================================================================
In article <1996Sep13.210316.16063@giant>, cwestbury@giant.intranet.com
(Chris Westbury) wrote:
> In article <323998DC.36D9@oro.net>,
> Richard Adams wrote:
> >
> > Being aware of the fact that my above crosspost may not appear for a
> > while, I posted the RFD to the groups that should be involved in the
> > discussion, which is the correct procedure when a reorganization is
> > specified.
>
> No, that is _not_ the correct procedure.
>
> The correct procedure is to wait until the RFD appears in the specified
> newsgroups.
>
> Note particularly the following excerpt from "How to Format and Submit a
> New Group Proposal" in news.announce.newusers at your site:
> >
> > Messages intended for news.announce.newgroups should not publicly
> > appear anywhere -- not in news.groups or other groups, not on mailing
> > lists -- before they are published in news.announce.newgroups. The
> > time of publication of an article in news.announce.newgroups is the
> > official time by which the beginning of each stage of the group
> > creation process is measured. The admonishment against submitting the
> > message elsewhere is to combat confusion that can be caused by it,
> > especially if some discussion with the group-advice crew leads to a
> > change in the proposal.
>
>
> --
> Christopher Westbury, Midtown Associates, 15 Fallon Place, Cambridge, MA 02138
Subject: Re: Lost City of Ubar Lecture
From: bcgray@ix.netcom.com (Barry C Gray)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 05:28:25 -0700
In article <51a61i$9sp@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, will@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
(Will Morse) wrote:
> We presume this is no relation to the famous lost city of Fubar.
>
>
> Will
It is in fact part of NASA's secret long-term agenda to prepare the public
for an announcement that the government has known for years about
intelligent life on Earth.
Barry.
>
> In article <12SEP199622511279@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>,
> Ron Baalke wrote:
> > Jet Propulsion Laboratory's
> > Public Information Office
> > von Karman Lecture Series
> >
> >
> > "The Road to Ubar"
> > a film directed by
> > Nick Clapp
> >
> > Introduced by Dr. Ron Blom & Nicholas Clapp
> >
> > Thursday, September 19, 7pm
> > JPL's von Karman Auditorium
> > 4800 Oak Grove Blvd.
> > Pasadena, California
> > Free admission
> > (818) 354-5011 for information
Subject: Re: Theory of Land and Life
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: 15 Sep 1996 13:58:29 GMT
>
> If it's not too much to ask, where's the evidence that things
> happened this way?
There is a contradiction between two sets of observations:
(1) The co-simultaneous formation of mountains that constitute an oceanic
impact's crater rim; and
(2) Radiometric rock dates that differ for the age of formation for
different arc segments of the crater's rim.
The rock dating techniques are not invalid, they simply need to be adjusted
for the anisotropic elemental abundance shifts imparted by the
plasma-mediated mechanisms for the first creation of land after lunar
genesis. The "proof" is geometrical realization that empirically derived
rock dates display N-S and E-W mirror symmetries across Pangaea's central
magnetic axis (CMA) and magnetic equator, respectively.
Pangaea is that structure one obtains when the modern plates are rotated
from their current positions back to their original positions as the were
in the aftermath of land-forming events associated with lunar genesis. The
CMA (of Pangaea) is identified by the straight line that is formed by the
four spots on Earth's surface that constitute 95% of Earth's mineable iron
ore deposits (Lake Superior region of NA, African Transvaal, Krivoli Rog
(Ukraine), Australia's Hammersley Basin). The iron ore in these locations
is present as "Banded Iron Formations" (BIF's). The workings of the TLL
provide a mechanism that can account for the bandings observed. RDB
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution (or science Vs religion)
From: soliver@capecod.net (Suzane Oliver)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 18:53:36 GMT
On Sun, 15 Sep 1996 02:58:35 GMT, eddy3@ix.netcom.com (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
>-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)
So your deity is able but unwilling to save his followers from hurricanes?
(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)
If no thought your mind does visit
make your speech not too explicit.
Piet Hein, 1966
(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)
Subject: Re: IMPACT OROGENY ON EARTH (Shocked Plagioclase)
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: 15 Sep 1996 16:33:27 GMT
> Try pushing on the tablecloth instead of pulling it, and you'll
> understand how ridiculous this sounds.
>
Dear Chuck: now try adding a little starch to the tablecloth. You seem to
have a problem with abstract reasoning and analogies. Try this one:
Evolution is the law of policies: Darwin said it, Socrates endorsed it,
Cuvier proved it and established it for all time in his paper on “The
Survival of the Fittest.” These are illustrious names, this is a mighty
doctrine: nothing can ever remove it from its firm base, nothing dissolve
it, but evolution.
Mark Twain (1835–1910), “Three Thousand Years Among the Microbes,” ch. 8,
in Which Was the Dream? (ed. by John S. Tuckey, 1967).
Subject: Pinpoint Extension
From: rshannon@comtch.iea.com (Bob Shannon)
Date: 15 Sep 96 16:47:27 GMT
Due to the ongoing activity at Gorda region, we will conclude window time
at 24:00PCDT this evening, but will extend-without-prediction, the time
frame. It is still quite possible taht a singularity as per the Pacific
Plate Twist-Off Theory could occur at or near the MTJ soon.
For more information about the PPTOT you may visit:
http://bbs.ert.com/pinpoint/new.html
For more information about our ALERT page you may visit:
http://bbs.ert.com/pinpoint/alert.html
The Newsletter has been updated and may be read at:
http://bbs.ert.com/pinpoint
--
<<<:::<<>>:::>>>
Peaceful Pines-Mountain Wind Family
Mendocino, Ca./Malo, Wa/EWU, Cheney Wa.
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, version 6
From: Richard Adams
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 10:54:41 -0700
Chuck Karish wrote:
>
> 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.
I believe that very little time will be spent conducting
"popularity polls". My impression is that most of the posts
to be bounced would require almost no discussion at all due
to a landslide majority consensus that they are off topic.
Can you identify some potential cases where, in your opinion,
the group will have difficulty in coming to an overwhelming
...say 90% majority? These would be the ones that could cause
a controversy. If there is a discussion, should it take place
in an unmoderated area such as news.groups?
Totalitarian? Perhaps if there was a human moderator and we
were under that person's whim; that's not what I'm proposing.
Popularity contest? Okay, there is a potential for any voting
system to be a popularity contest, and there is a distant yet
very unlikely possibility that the actual votes favor posts that
were far off topic, especially when there are so many places
on the net that people can already go to be a part of that
discussion.
Richard
Subject: Re: CME-Fried Comets
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Date: 15 Sep 1996 13:43:46 -0500
>> No real journal would take it, eh?
>We have never submitted the Fried Comets Hypothesis to any journals. The
>Internet has a sufficient distribution without creating copyright problems.
Not to mention the little problem of getting all those howling
errors past knowledegable reviewers.
> BTW, have you ever published anything at all, or is your
>specialty graffiti?
I would not attempt to publish outside my field of expertise.
How nice for you that you feel no such restraint.
>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
And yet you want to play one on the Net?
>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
The Good Doctor should take his own advice.
Subject: Re: Theory of Land and Life
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: 15 Sep 1996 18:47:30 GMT
> If fractionation of this sort had occurred, it would not have
> significantly affected any radiometric dating techniques I'm
> familiar with.
I don't know which radiometric techniques, if any, you are familiar with,
Chuck, but I'll give a shot at trying to explain how I think anisotropic
shifts have occurred. I will use a generic argument applicable to any
radiometric technique, recognizing that there are already hundreds, if not
thousands, of "adjustments" that cognoscenti use for different rock types,
different geological circumstances, and different radiometric techniques.
All radiometric rock dating techniques assume that there are no effects
operative that systematically affect their interpretation. The anisotropic
shifts in the point-specific deposition of elements and isotopes "atom by
atom" as depicted by the TLL model for the first creation of land in the
aftermath of lunar genesis suggests that there was, in fact, a mechanism
operating over the course of this process that did produce a systematic
effect, e.g. a shift that will show up in all radiometric parent-daughter
isotopic families and it does not matter if one is using isotope abundance
or ratio techniques, though the effect may be greater or smaller depending
upon which series one is using.
Radioactive elements lose energy to the environment when they undergo
nuclear decay. The total mass of a parent nucleus is equal to the mass of
the daughter isotope(s) formed by the decay process, plus the mass
equivalent (e=mc^2) of the energy lost to the environment. For the
purposes of this discussion, the most significant consequence of this
relationship is that the nuclear mass of all daughter isotope(s) is always
less than the mass of the respective parent isotopes. Because of the mass
difference between a parent isotope and its daughter(s), even if they bear
the same electrical charge, they will follow different paths when moving
through a magnetic field. This principal provides the basis for their
separations from samples, and the degree to which one can attain good
separations of parent-daughter lines is a direct function of their
respective mass differences: it is easier to obtain a total quantitative
separation using mass spectroscopy for elements that have widely differing
nuclear weights than those whose weights are not very different.
Now, when one does perform a radiometric age determination on a sample, the
respective half lives of the radiometric elements and isotopes are used to
calculate how much time must have passed for Parent(A) to transform into
Daughter(B), with the quantities of A and B having most usually been
determined by quantitative mass spectroscopy techniques. This provides a
first order approximation which in most instances is cross-checked by a
separate parent(C)-daughter(D) series to exclude chemical processes that
may have added or leached either A or B in some chemical manner that does
not disrupt the crystal lattice of the sample being studied.
The systematic shift that I have in mind is one that will foil the
cross-checking routine because all of the radiometric series have trajected
through a common (shared, singular) magnetic field (Earth's core-derived
field, which was deshielded by the lunar-forming impact). We can produce
"better", e.g. more stable, more homogeneous, less error-inducing, magnetic
fields in our laboratory equipment than was present in Earth's vicinity in
the aftermath of lunar genesis, but we cannot come close to duplicating the
very long trajectory paths that the Earth's natural spectrometer (the
plasma torus of lunar genesis) employed. The statistical errors of our
best spectrometers obscure the anisotropic shifts experienced over the
course of land formation via the "atom by atom" (plasma deposition)
technique. The best we can do is make the measurements, move the
continents back to their original locations in Pangaea (the land form
created on Earth by lunar genesis) and note that there are
mirror-symmetries (N-S and E-W) present in the rock dates obtained. It is
that symmetry itself that confirms the operation of the plasma-mediated
mechanisms postulated by the TLL.