Subject: Re: Theory of Land and Life
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: 17 Sep 1996 01:50:30 GMT
> You haven't told us about any evidence that demonstrates this.
> The process of plating of elements onto the surface of the Earth
> from orbiting plasma must have produced deposits with distinctive
> characteristics that could to distinguish them from rocks produced
> by the processes we observe today. Until you provide proof that
> such deposits exist, I will consider that this process is totally
> hypothetical.
Chuck, the MOON exists, OK. Its rocks are compositionally similar to Earth
rocks, except depleted of siderophillic elements. Magnetic fields separate
siderophiles from non-siderophiiles. There is very old continental
cratonic shield land on Earth and there are oceanic basalts. The shields
are 70% covered by sediments: those sediments got to their land-locations
via impacts. It is a cycle: impacts throw sea-sediments onto land, erosion
takes it to the seas. Define igneous and you will find good candidates for
post-lunar rock. RDB
>
> >> These conclusions are at odds with observations that show
> >> consistent isotopic ratios of non-radiogenic isotopes
> >> in samples from all over the world.
> >>
> >Consistency is anticipated by the model. I am not saying the rock dates
> >are wrong. I am saying they require adjustments based upon the fact
that
> >plasma motions in Earth's vicinity in the aftermath of lunar genesis
> >produced a systematic effect on all elements and ions. Consult the
> >simulations of lunar genesis.
>
> My understanding of the impact models for lunar genesis is that
> they envision bulk transfer of already-differentiated material
> from the Earth into orbit. I find it difficult to credit the
> notion that the published models include electromagnetic
> separation as a major part of the redeposition process.
>
> >Approximately 5% of the impacting mass was
> >converted to materials having temperatures ranging between 10,000 and
> >100,000 K. That stuff is plasma. Plasma confines magnetic flux.
Magnetic
> >flux contains plasma. It cooled, much of it came down to Earth.
>
> In what form? Protons from the solar wind follow lines of magnetic
> flux to the Earth and cause the auroras. Are you suggesting that
> heavy ions could do the same, and produce rocks at the end of the
> magnetic rainbow?
The existing model simulations DO envision bulk transfers of mass. That is
what happens to 95% of the planetary matter. The hottest stuff is the last
stuff to accrete. The existing models indicate that 5% of the planetary
mass (core and mantle components combined) is heated to temperatures
ranging from 10,000 k to 100,000 k, the definition of plasma. Little of
this material is proton mass. These are iron atoms and silicates and the
other elements from which Earth's continental crust is made.
You are correct in noting that the existing models do not depict
electromagnetic forces acting in the aftermath of lunar genesis. They do
not because these forces are irrelevant to the creation of the Moon, per
se. At the same time, I do believe electromagnetism existed prior to the
human discovery of it. These forces were present, powerful, and formative
in the vicinity of Earth throughout lunar genesis. This is why the Moon's
rocks display any remanent magnetization at all.
Furthermore, plasma induces its own currents, its own magnetically-coupled
currents. Earth's core field was deshielded by the impact of lunar
genesis. There are theoretical models that explain the convection patterns
of plasma in planetary magnetic fields, and a real planet (Jupiter) whose
large mass plasma system convects the way these theories anticipate it
should. Look at the provided references and see for yourself. I am not
making these things up, I am not that intelligent. Look in the published
literature, it's all there. RDB
>
> >It was
> >the last stuff to cool: it is the continental pre-Cretaceous rock of our
> >planet.
Robert D. Brown, M.D.
Subject: Re: PRAYER 15/9, Jesus give the Schroedinger Equation on the Cross
From: Saint Pyotr
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 18:54:48 -0700
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> I believe that happening of Jesus crucifixion was a normal human who
> was 1 in thousands who were crucified but that a myth story was written
> about him. He performed no miracles that violated physics or biology
> science laws. Point blank he was a normal human that was crucified and
> this myth story of son of god was manufactured around him.
I suppose you are entitled to your own beliefs, like everyone else. What proof do you
have that Jesus performed no miracles? Were you there? Where did you get the idea that a
myth story was written about Jesus?
>
> If he , Jesus were a diety, then he could have forwarned humanity in a
> spectacular way. On the cross , instead of saying empty words he could
> have shouted F = MA
>
> or better yet the Schroedinger Equation
>
> or something like e^(i x pi) = -1
Why would he have shouted physical formulas? Would you if you were Jesus? Jesus was not
a physicist. Were there physicists or astronomers in the audience? Who would have
understood him? God made scientists to utter scientific truths, not dieties.
>
> Why is the Bible utterly deplete of the best wisdom that humanity
> has-- science or physics? Why? Because Jesus was another normal
> ordinary revolutionary against the Romans who was crucified.
The best wisdom is in the Bible. "Seek and ye shall find..." The wisdom of science and
physics originates from God and is a gift to mankind. It is wisdom (knowledge) alright
but not the only or the best. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
pass away." (Matthew 24:35)
>
> If Jesus's message was to get believers, surely , he could have
> persuaded the whole world by broadcasting or made to be broadcast some
> science that was 2 millenium ahead of his time. But no. There are only
> secondary accounts of Jesus performing questionable miracles.
Biblical truth is for everyone, not just scientists. Altogether, how many people have
ever thought of God as a scientist or highly trusted in science? Jesus came to
"broadcast" a different kind of message, one of salvation--for the benefit of all
mankind. Science has never saved anyone from ultimate death, either physical or
spiritual. If Jesus himself had written the New Testament or the Bible, would you or
others believe any differently?
>
> If Jesus had given us the Schroedinger Equation on the cross, then
> this man was really superhuman, but he did not
Was Schroedinger superhuman? If you believe so, then why did he die like every other
mortal?
>
> The PU theory holds that god= Atom. And that all thoughts , deeds ,
> actions are ordered up by the Nucleus of 231Pu. For good reason, the
> 231Pu atom ordered up that humans would mythologize Jesus and distort
> his real human life so way out of proportion and out of truth. But now
> that humanity has the PU theory, science subsumes religion.
If the Nucleus of 231PU=god and orders up "all thoughts, deeds, actions" then why would
it order up a myth about Jesus and that distorts the truth and then order up counter
arguments, that expose and challenge the myth? For what "good reason" would god=Atom do
such a thing? Why not just dispense with Jesus and proclaim itself god from the start?
No wonder it is called the PU theory.
Subject: Re: LIFE IN THE EATH'S CRUST!!!!
From: "John R. Hogg, P. Geol."
Date: 17 Sep 1996 02:48:14 GMT
Joseph Zorzin wrote in article
<323D3591.6410@vgernet.net>...
| I just finished reading "Mirobes Deep inside the Earth" in
| the latest Scientific American.
|
| I'm shocked that this mind bogling research hasn't gotten
| more attention. It may not seem as exciting as the organic
| compounds found in the Mars rock in Antartica, but I think
| it is far more exciting.
| If someone 10 years ago had said that there may be fossils
| on Mars, nobody would be that surprised except of course for
| the typical brain dead Creationist. But if an earth
| scientist had said that the crust of the earth was almost
| filled with living organisms, down several thousand feet,
| including solid granite, that scientist would have been
| locked up in Bellevue with the key thrown away.
|
| The implications of this research are staggering.
| 1.The biosphere isn't just a thin layer of air, water and
| soil- it now includes a massive layer of the solid earth.
| 2.The Earth's biomass is now much larger than anyone could
| have imagined. But how much? The author didn't attempt to
| quantify the total biomass bound up in the rocks.
| 3.This fact must have implications on evolutionary theory.
| I'm not sure what as I'm not a earth scientist.
| 4.Not even a nuclear war could destroy all life on earth.
| Once life gets started it becomes deeply rooted. This
| implies that old planets whose surface is no longer viable,
| may still have a huge biomass.
| Why aren't you earth scientists thrilled by this? This
| deserves a webb page. This subject deserves some deep
| pondering.
|
The facts you are discussing are not new.
Further to your reading of the SA article, the June 1995 issue of Earth
goes into great detail about drilling the "sedimentary" biosphere in
western Colorado's Piceance Basin.
Petroleum Geologists have endless tales of biodegraded oils, oils with
lower
than expected API gravity, due to microorganisms that survive down to the
2,000 metre range. These types of oils have caused many oil exploration
targets to be ranked as uneconomic, thanks to the microorganisms ingesting
the "finer organic aromatics" found in the natural oils within an oil pool.
Regards,
JR Hogg, P. Geol.
jhogg@petro-canada.ca
Subject: A Summary of TLL: GUT-Wrenching Reality
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: 17 Sep 1996 02:17:19 GMT
> Which is exactly what we'd expect on the basis of the current wisdom
> in the geologic community. The Precambrian shields wind up in
> the center of the reconstructed continent, and the younger rocks,
> added to the continental crust by processes that take place at plate
> margins by their very nature, are at the edges.
Thank you once again, Chuck, but you've got it precisely backwards: the
youngest rock dates are near the central magnetic axis, the oldest are at
the margins of Pangaea.
There are several fundamental problems that I have with your version of
"current geological wisdom". The contemporary "standard model" of the
Archean era entirely ignores the reality that we have a Moon, a lunar
structure formed by impact with the proto-Earth. The geological community
has not yet begun to integrate the terrestrial implications of this event,
an event of such magnitude that it could not help but shape the subsequent
course of all of geological history. Meanwhile, the impact model for the
origin of the Moon has become well integrated into the astronomical
community's understanding of our home planet's past.
Secondly, all of the existing models of plate tectonic motions take the
continents back to a common land form: Pangaea. The Pangaea of all these
more "standard" models is tapered toward both poles and widest at the
equator. Different models use slightly different time constants, but they
all show Pangaea in this geometrical arrangement approximately 250 million
years ago, attributing its geometry to random or incomprehensible "chance"
events of mantle convection over time. Beyond circa 250 m.y.a. these
several different more standard models diverge in their teachings because
they all result in different motions for the plates before Pangaea was
formed. The most useful "tool" in the formulation of these models has been
the paleomagnetic record. The distinctions between the various models in
their depiction's of the alternative motions and positions for the plates
in
more distant times arise through humanly inspired alternative weightings of
geographically provincial paleomagnetic determinations. "Geographically
provincial paleomagnetic determinations" can be explained by the spatially
focal nature of bolide impacts on Earth as this affects planetary magnetic
phenomena at its surface.
A key point that no one challenged over the course of this exchange is the
reality that there are very large iron asteroids out in space. These hard
rocks occasionally collide with Earth. In the TLL model, hard iron
"bullets", a form of "cold, dark, matter", strike oceanic bodies of water
2/3 of the time they hit Earth. When they do this, they perforate the
oceanic basalt, penetrate the upper mantle, and volcanically degass over
time. This creates a "new" magnetic surface pole at that mantle location
because the magnetic permeability of oceanic salt water is quite low and
the magnetic susceptibility of the iron asteroids (92% pure iron) is
proportionately high. Impacts on Earth have occurred "at random" in
respect to the equator, a statistical reality that can, within the above
described context, cause core apparent magnetic polarities to flip back and
forth as a function of the impact record itself. Because geologists have
observed the "wandering" of the planet's magnetic poles (which are to be
distinguished from its polarity reversals), but neglected all
"other-worldly" influences as their cause, they have produced dozens of
mutually conflicting models of plate tectonic motions beyond 250-300 mya to
explain why the magnetic vectors have "apparently wandered" off to new
locations.
To accommodate the apparent polar wanderings as recorded in the stones, all
paleogeocartographers have assumed the fixed flipping poles don't really
move, its the plates themselves that have gone skittering across the
planet's surface. All these models, therefore, depict continental plates
that have "bubbled about" on erratic, suddenly altered, yet perpetual
motions of such an enormous energetic magnitude that no Earthly force has
been shown suitable to the task. The "standard model" of the geological
record has disavowed all previously proposed motive forces, but we have
continued to assume their existence because we know that the plates did
once exist as Pangaea and that they have moved since that time, the
relatively recent past. Because we know the plates have moved, we have
entertained all varieties of motion without cause. Scream at Jupiter if
you will, impacts on planets are very real.
Iron asteroidal impacts in oceanic locations do not generate "apparent"
magnetic poles; they create true surface poles in upper mantle locations.
These impact sites gradually attain a maximal state of magnetic
susceptibility under the steady inductive influence of Earth's stable
core-derived dipole field. This gradual re-accretion of an impactor's mass
is the natural consequence of deep crustal pressures that cause an
outgassing of the oceanic waters that have been hammered into its depths by
the cosmic collisions. The impact sites volcanically degass, the
impactor's iron accretes, and then this new magnetic pole just
"disappears". In a non-linear manner their magnetic flux attains maximum
and then they "disappear". This is because the same physical process that
magnifies magnetically susceptibility leads to a density inconsistent with
a buoyant residence in a subcrustal location. At maximum magnetic
susceptibility they disappear from Earth's surface because they gravitate
toward its core. These "lost continents", as they have been called, have
shown up on every seismic study of the deep and middle mantle structures,
and the community of scientists who study deep geomagnetic phenomena of
Earth's core refer to them as "core spots". These are the metallic
remnants of the impacts of our past, the transient cause of "apparent polar
wandering", the reason to understand that the plates have not, in fact,
gone skidding about Earth's surface in some "magical" energetically
incomprehensible manner.
The TLL, in contrast to the "standard model" of geology, integrates the
astronomical community's understandings in a way that provides an
alternative understanding of what happened on Earth in the aftermath of
lunar genesis: it outlines a link between the formation of the Moon and the
consequences of that process as experienced by Earth. The TLL provides an
alternative understanding of plate motions, what has caused them, and how
these motions have been powered: impacts all the way, gravitational
accretion a powerful motive force throughout the universe. The TLL
explains an entirely new way to look at Earth's partnership with the other
inhabitants of the Solar System, and how those objects have caused true
polar magnetic "wanderings" to occur.
It is not a particularly abstract idea, the notion that our planet has been
profoundly affected by impacts over time, the same way other planets have
been shaped and formed by these same types of events. At the same time,
our planet is uniquely different from these other locations: Earth has
liquid water on its surface and this factor markedly alters the mechanical
signature of large impacts. Large impacts in the oceans widely distribute
the shock throughout the planet's crustal layers, forming circular
fractures in its circumference that we call mountains. This mechanism of
shock distribution has spared the evolutionary journey called life from any
total annihilation, though freezing cold ice-covered ages be their wake.
Beyond all of this, the TLL shows how the rocks of this planet may have
first created life. No other model of plate motions does this. No other
model of orogeny does this. No other model of rock dating does this. No
other model of lunar genesis does this. Similarly, no other model for the
origin of life on Earth so profoundly links abiogenesis to the planet's own
evolutionary history. I think that had Charles Darwin not privately
speculated that life began in "some warm little pond", e.g. in the oceans
or some other aqueous body of water, perhaps geologists may not have
separated their study of rocks from the study of life's first creation, as
nearly all have done in our modern era. Should it not be a ritualized
requirement for any geologist who denies the link of the land to
abiogenesis that they must first explain how life was created from
something other than the dust of this Earth? Would not this requirement
place the "mystical" burden on their own shoulders. The fact of the matter
is that every peptide bond that is made in vivo, every mononucleotide that
adds to a growing chain of DNA or RNA, does so by virtue of the elimination
of a single molecule of water from the linear extensive bond so formed.
Water degrades peptide bonds and the links between nucleotides: it does not
facilitate their formation. Bone dry land was the cauldron for life,
because in water it could not be done. In the TLL, hard, cold,
elementally pure iron of a type only prepared by planetary core processes
performs the critical impact-catalyzed dehydrating function as life's
first, only, and very ancient manger. No other theory explains how to do
this again with our own hands.
The TLL is crude, simplistic, complex, and rich. It is young, new born,
not yet "hoary with age", as Plato would have it. It is as arrogant as
youth itself, but filicitous in its recognition of the value of
historically older models, models whose mechanisms have defined those
problems that the TLL purports to resolve. Countless participants to these
electronic panels have said, in various ways: how can we end this constant
noise of a 300 year old debate between evolutionists and Biblical
creationists. I have suggested a way that, incidentally, can be understood
to satisfy both sides: life was created so that it could evolve. That, I
do believe, was a miracle worthy of any god. May God forgive me if I know
not what I do.
My sole purpose in this series of posts has been to share insights that
have come from decades of study under many of the finest teachers our
civilization has produced. Some of us have been blessed with an
intellectual obsession, a cognitive potion that keeps boredom at bay. My
obsession has been the study of life, the care of life, and the
understanding of the creation of life. Throw all the rocks of contemporary
geological understanding at this story: it is the responsibility of
science to do so. When all the rocks have been thrown, look at the ground
around the models that are the TLL and realize that a new foundation of
understanding of our world and ourselves has thus been built.
Robert D. Brown, M.D.
Pelorus Research Laboratory
"One can readily recognize a pioneer by the arrows in his back". Raymond
Damadian, M.D. Inventor of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Founder of the FONAR
Corporation.
Subject: SURVEY - all voters kept secret - here's your chance to have a say & make a difference without being flamed -for sci.geo.geology and sci.geo.earthquakes
From: Richard Adams
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 22:06:48 -0700
ATTENTION:
* Here's your chance to make a difference.
* All survey respondees will be held private.
* If the majority says NO, the proposed reorganization will cease.
* There will be no follow up to your survey response.
* No one will be told of your response.
* The survey itself has no direct force to change any newsgroup
but the proponent will use the information to mold the
proposal so your answers will affect the outcome.
* This is not an official Call For Votes (CFV). You cannot
vote to implement these changes at this time.
* Please vote in all cases, The group needs the votes
from all observers and contributors, all should vote!
IMPORTANT, Please be sure you have the whole survey.
Your survey should end with the "END OF SURVEY" line
You don't have to answer all the questions. I'll
consider anything you are willing to share with me.
email to happypcs@oro.net, No surveys accepted after 9/23/96
===============================================================
Which group(s) are you primarily concerned with?
Please mark one or both
( ) sci.geo.geology
( ) sci.geo.earthquakes
================================================================
( ) Check here if you'd like to be added to the proposal as
another proponent. I'll contact you by e-mail in that case.
( ) Check here if you'd like to be one of the persons listed
as a moderator. I'll contact you by e-mail in that case.
==================================================================
( ) Changes to moderate the sci,geo.geology group are fine but
don't change the sci.geo.earthquakes group, not one bit!
===================================================================
A recommendation has been made by a respected mentor in news
group matters to use the name sci.geo.earthquakes.moderated
rather than sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world. This is more
consistent with current naming standards for moderated groups.
It is our right to choose a group name that we want and we
do not have to comply with the suggestion of the mentor.
Please vote for one name for the moderated group previously
proposed as sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world:
( ) sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world
( ) sci.geo.earthquakes.moderated
( ) sci.geo.eartquakes._________________________________
(write in a group name extension)
==================================================================
A recommendation has been made by a respected mentor in
news group matters to add an extension to the name for the
existing sci.geo.earthquakes group (which is NOT moderated)
in order to keep all the earthquakes groups on the same level
in the hierarchy. The following suggestions were presented
each with a logical reasoning.
The .news extension identifies that the group is for posting
of up to date news about earthquake events and predictions.
This would be the most accurate name to agree with the
charter now proposed for the group.
The .unmoderated extension identifies that the group is the
unmoderated one.
The .misc extension identifies that any earthquake topic is
accepted here. The .misc is equated with the term "general".
Continued usage is still available as an option to us, but adds
confusion to the hierarchy structure for users, news servers
and others, it should be AVOIDED.
Please vote for one of the following names to rename the
existing unmoderated sci.geo.earthquakes group to.
( ) sci.geo.earthquakes [please read above about problems]
( ) sci.geo.earthquakes.unmoderated
( ) sci.geo.earthquakes.misc
( ) sci.geo.earthquakes.news
( ) sci.geo.earthquakes._________________________________
(write in a group name extension)
==============================================================
A suggestion has been offered on numerous occasions to
continue to offer a unmoderated sci.geo.geology group
when the moderated group is formed. This preferred naming
would be that if there is both an unmoderated group and a
moderated group that they both be on the same level of hierarchy,
which means they only differ in their final extension name.
Please fill in only one of the below combinations between
the delimiters.
==============================================================
( ) Changes for earthquakes groups are fine but don't change
the sci.geo.geology group at all, not one bit!
..............................................................
( ) The unmoderated sci.geo.geology group should be replaced
with a moderated group and there should be no unmoderated
group.
If you check this box, please select one of the following
names for single moderated group.
( ) sci.geo.geology [same name as existing group]
( ) sci.geo.geology.moderated
( ) sci.geo.______________________________
(fill in one or two word name)
.............................................................
( ) There should be both a moderated and unmoderated group
for sci.geo.geology. Unless otherwise indicated, the
conventional names are okay which are:
sci.geo.geology.unmoderated
sci.geo.geology.modererated
If you prefer another pair of names, please fill in:
Please: if one has an extension the other should also!
sci.geo.geology._____________________________________________
(fill in extension to name unmoderated group)
sci.geo.geology._____________________________________________
(fill in extension to name moderated group)
==================================================================
Some things to note:
There are two schools of thought on the issue of the "Rationale"
in the RFD, one says there should be a historical description
arguing for the need for the group. The other says that it
is simpler to just outline what the ongoing rationale for the
group is without having a history lesson. I go along with
the latter.
Several people have raised concerns over the lack of precise
detail within the RFD for the moderation policies. I note
that when there is a moderator, we are really in the moderators's
hands no matter what the charter says. I think it would
be misleading to list all the details out in the charter
when there is almost no mechanism to enforce this upon the
moderator except to do another RFD and CFV.
When I previously submitted a very detailed set of
moderation policies a mentor knowledgable in such matters.
He balked at the detailed list. However, he did find that
the current policies in the rev 6 proposal were acceptable.
==================================================================
Here are some issues regarding the robot moderation system and
voting for the exclusion of certain posts. These items are
not intended to be in the charter but will be in a document
the moderator shall make available to the group for public
inspection in the proposed system.
..................................................................
Should the proposed robot moderation system be scrapped and
replaced with a more usual one where a human reads each post?
( ) Yes
( ) No
..................................................................
Should the proposed moderation system be updated to provide
that no post should be declined until a human first reads it
and verifies the robot's decision to decline and include the
option to appeal to an appeals committee?
( ) Yes
( ) No
..................................................................
Should the proposed moderation system provide for the exclusion
of specific individuals on the basis of their e-mail address or
should the system be limited to the exclusion of posts that are
detectable as "off topic" via the cross post list (for example)?
( ) Should permit exclusion of specific individuals.
( ) Should NOT permit exclusion of specific individuals.
( ) Other_______________________________________________________
...................................................................
What voter majority should be used to establish the criterion
to exclude certain posts?
( ) Suggestion for 90% majority and minimum of 30 votes
( )_______________________________________________
(write in majority and minimum number of votes)
...................................................................
For what period of time shall posts be excluded when so voted?
( ) Suggestion: 6 months
( ) ________________________________________
(write in amount of time)
===================================================================
( ) I will never agree to any of this, STOP NOW!
[The proponent doesn't take this personally and
greatly appreciates your honesty]
===================================================================
===================================================================
Write in whatever you want!
===================================================================
END OF SURVEY (whew, you and your server made it!)
Subject: Re: PRAYER 15/9, Jesus give the Schroedinger Equation on the Cross
From: "Aaron S. Adelman"
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 01:00:20 -0400
On 16 Sep 1996, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> The PU theory holds that god= Atom. And that all thoughts , deeds ,
> actions are ordered up by the Nucleus of 231Pu. For good reason, the
> 231Pu atom ordered up that humans would mythologize Jesus and distort
> his real human life so way out of proportion and out of truth. But now
> that humanity has the PU theory, science subsumes religion.
Although I have to agree with you on the non-divinity of Jesus (I am an
Orthodox Jew), your PU theory sounds like the worst theology I have ever
heard of since I read of how in _The Last and First Men_ the last of the
First Men worshipped energy. If you really believe that G-d = the atom,
you are a pagan, worshipping a power of nature. As atoms are completely
nonsentient, without any pretense of having any free will or being able to
do anything except bond to one another, fall apart, or play tug-of-war
with electrons, my guess is that either you have extremely low standards
in choosing a deity to worship, you have a severe psychological problem,
or you are trying to pull a practical joke and not doing a very good job.
I recommend that you try a light bulb joke next time.
Aaron Solomon (ben Saul Joseph) Adelman ףסוי לואש ןב המלש ןרהא
adelman@yu1.yu.edu