Subject: Re: A question on karst
From: sents@servtech.com (John R. Sents)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 04:25:16 GMT
S Downs wrote:
>I'm a non-geologist doing some research on karst, and I'm curious about
>some information and terminology I've run across. Perhaps someone here
>would be kind enough to clarify.
>Q: Can any type of limestone form karst terrain, or only specific types
>of limestone? I understand the limestone must be both permeable and
>porous.
If the limestone has enough calcium, and the percolating water mixing
at the water table has enough potential to dissolve that calcium, sure
you could get underground solution of limestone. Would this be
reflected on the surface as karst topography? I don't know. It would
depend on how evolved the solution cycle was. But yes, solution
ususally occurs faster in the anisotropic regimes of a limestone. Do
not get the idea that solution occurs along smooth, round, and level
conduits. Usually, it happens along joints and bedding planes
controlled by the dip direction of those features. Check out Mammoth
Caves, in stages where the water table was in equilibrium, tubes level
to the water table formed. When the WT dropped, canyons were formed
down dip, perpendicular to the tubes.
>Q: Is there a difference between a doline and a sinkhole, or are they
>just different words for the same thing?
I think it's a word to add adjectives to. Don't qoute me on this but
I think doline refers to any general collapse of the overlying strata.
>Q: Would you consider the pitted, creviced limestone floor of the
>Everglades to be a good example of visible karst?
Never seen it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. Perhaps someone
else could field this one.
>Thanks for your help. E-mail me directly if possible; the postings here
>seem to be way-off-topic for geology :(
>Sandy
Subject: Re: Religion bashing, was: Jesus give the Schroedinger Equation on the Cross
From: David Kastrup
Date: 19 Sep 1996 11:11:15 +0200
wtaylor@ozemail.com.au (Warren Taylor) writes:
> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>
>
> >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 is the Bible utterly deplete of the best wisdom that humanity
> >has-- science or physics?
>
> At the risk of showing both my ingnorance and with being too closley
> associated with some of the rest of Archie's message, this is a great
> point; I've never come across it before. Excellent.
Jesus was no writer. And just who should he have dictated the theorems
to? Who would have recorded them from heresay? In fact, he probably
*gave* a lot of information about atomic power, its laws and the
future use of it, and look how Johannes garbled it all in his
apocalypse. Cosmic creation was more accurately described in Genesis,
for that matter, considering the concepts the writers had to use to
get their message to the audience.
And why should Jesus want to dictate the dogmata of something which he
would know to be the object of empty idolatry? A justification for not
putting ones' faith anywhere anymore?
Fact is that many philosophers have strained hard to argue that morals
do not need to depend on faith. "Modern" people think that this means
you can drop both faith *and* morals. In light of this general
misconception I cannot applaud attempts to ridicule religious belief
and religious morals while demanding scientific beliefs and no morals
as a general substitute. People doing so do even generally feel
superior to people having strict beliefs and morals.
Personally, I prefer living in a world where people have a conscience,
and tolerate any way in which other people get their impulse to behave
in a way making living together possible.
Personally, I think that people without religion should be like the
heartless Tin Man in "The Wizard of Oz". He would always weep when
treading by accident upon some beetle or something until rusting,
because he did not have the heart to do so.
--
David Kastrup Institut fuer Neuroinformatik, Ruhr-Universitaet Bochum
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Telephon: +49-234-700-5570
Subject: Changing sci.geo.* (was Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, version 6)
From: Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 10:09:45 GMT
In article <323FF418.30FB@nts.ohn.hydro.on.ca>, asmish@nts.ohn.hydro.on.ca
(Harold Asmis) says...
>
>The Canadian in me is glad that this discussion is finally coming around
>to the civilized side of the spectrum. I've supported Richard's
>efforts, since I can see the potential of the destruction of this
>group. The old methods of email retaliation and kill files just don't
>work anymore. So maybe we should back off from this Clintonian proposal
>of healthcare, and just discuss (in a civilized manner) how we can
>improve the health of this group. (for God's sake, don't go into a
>discussion on health care :)
OK. First, lets define the problems with the groups at present (I say groups
but I only read s.g.g). There's been a lot of rubbish about creationism, the
normal wierdness from ArchiePoo and miscellaneous junk ever since I've been
here. The last lot was almost too much but has died down now. Other noise
(Dr Turi for example) is on-topic even if it's garbage.
I see no way to prevent the Turis of this world. What he posts belongs in
s.g.*. In this case the only defence is to personally killfile him.
Most of the other crud could be handled by an automatic bot that does not
allow any post that is crossposted to more than n other groups (where n is
variable) outside of a list. It might not be a bad idea to prevent anything
cross-posted from talk.origins and some other groups.
This way nobody is prevented from posting to s.g.* if they want to. They
just can't include us in their muckspreading attempts.
If somebody wants to propose this I have no problems at all.
[news.groups removed from followups as we're no longer discussing the RFD]
--
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com or fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, version 6
From: Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 10:19:09 GMT
In article <323FBF7D.79AD@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (Richard Adams) says...
>
>
>I'm curious about the possibility of redress through the courts you've
>suggested. Who would be the defendant(s)? What would be the cause of
>action? Why does what was proposed lend itself to more exposure than
>other systems already in use?
Wow! I hadn't thought of that objection.
You were proposing that a person could be ejected from a public forum just
because the majority didn't like what they were saying. Now that would
probably be OK over here in the UK where we have no real rights, but I
thought you USAians held the concept of free speech very highly. Is it
illegal over there to prevent somebody from speaking out if it breaks no
other laws?
--
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com or fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.
Subject: Dumb gets dumber
From: S Krueger
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 22:54:36 GMT
In article <01bba3e2$193ec0e0$246860cc@dial.inetnebr.com>,
Robert D. Brown wrote:
>This, Chuck, is exactly where I say: time to bring in the professionals,
>which is what I've attempted to do with this series of posts. The
>impression of mirror symmetries is based on an analysis of extremes: where
>are the youngest rock dates and where are the oldest rock dates. When one
>rearranges the plates according to the scenario previously outlined, the
>youngest rock dates are showing up along the CMA while the very oldest rock
>dates are showing up in land formations located at the extreme east and
>west equatorial positions.
Robert,
You cannot know how incredibly dumb you sound to a geologist. Your daffy
theory is in direct contradiction with reams of hard data. It is
painfully obvious that you have read just enough geology to make yourself
look silly. The above quoted post is a classic example.
The ages of deformation in any given tract of continental crust do, in
general, get younger toward the edges of large continental masses. This
is because the less dense continental interiors cannot subduct in a
denser mantle and therefore are successively rimmed by younger and
younger material which is accreted to them from subducting oceanic slabs
and episodic plate collisions. But your argument is fatally flawed in 2
respects:
1) The younging you read about is related to age of crustal amalgamation,
not age of rocks. You can find rocks of Precambrian through Recent age in
the interior of Pangea (Central Africa, Central South America, Southern
India, Eastern Canada, Western Europe, Central Asia) as well as right at
the margins of Pangea (Coastal Peru, Eastern Australia, Southeast Asia,
Western Canada, Southern California). There is a clearly defined fossil
record of evolving organisms which span the last 600 million years, in
both the interior and exterior portions of Pangea, and the radiometric
dating of these sequences is consistent in both locations. There is no
mysterious bias in radiometric ages based on global position. To argue
otherwise is to ignore the basic data.
2) The observed younging of deformational ages doesn't only occur toward
the outer margins of Pangea, but toward many current margins which were
interior to Pangea (Pinokean - Grenville - Taconic - Appalachian toward
eastern North America, for example). The observation of younger crustal
ages towards continental margins is a global tectonic process which has
been active for at least 3 billion years, not some instantaneous
phenomenon related to the K/T boundary.
Your posts are becoming more and more ludicrous from a geological
perspective. You've laid out your theory for the whole world to see, and
now the whole world is laughing at you. Now would you please go away and
let us get back to discussing real geology. That is, unless your
intention is to provide comic relief, in which case you should advertise
your intentions better.
*******************************************************************
* S Krueger (skrueger@arco.com) * *
* This message is personal and does not * This Sace For Rent *
* reflect the opinions of my employer * *
*******************************************************************
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution (or science Vs religion)
From: Øystein Olsen
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:48:01 +0200
On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, it was written:
>=20
> Even if you go so far as to accept the data, you then have to analyze
> it and come up with the theory of evolution. This is fine, but the
> next step is to see if your conlcuded hypothesis holds. The theory
> that all earth life came from a single progenitor is anathema to all
> the laws of physics that I have come to understand.
> For instance, the entire concept flies in the face of the laws of
> thermodynamics which state that all things tend to revert toward a
> state of higher entropy. We have countless experiments in countless
> contexts that give concrete data to support this thermodynamic law.
=09It=B4s true that things tend to revert toward a state of higher
entropy, but you need to look at a system that is isolated. Let=B4s use a
simple example: Let=B4s say we have to systems that are thermal isolated.
They have different temperature. When brought into contact whit each other,
they exchange energy, and the overall entropy increases, but in the system=
=20
with the higher energy the entropy decreases, while the entropy in=20
second increases. If you look at Earth as an isolated system, you=B4ll find=
=20
that life is impossible, because it leeds to a lower entropy. The error is
that Earth is not isolated. We resieve energy from the sun. This energy wil=
l
make the net entropy increase on Earth even if the fact that the rising of=
=20
life tends to the the opposite.
=09
=09=DCystein Olsen
*****************************************************
*=09 *
*=09=09Jeg hater tirsdager! *
* *
*=09=09=09=09(Gammelt RF-ordtak) * =20
* *
*****************************************************
Subject: Re: PRAYER 15/9, Jesus give the Schroedinger Equation on the Cross
From: Andrzei Kudlicki
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:42:42 +0200
Warren Taylor wrote:
> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> >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 is the Bible utterly deplete of the best wisdom that humanity
> >has-- science or physics?
Well, no matter who wrote it and how, it was written FOR the desert
people several thousand years ago...
> At the risk of showing both my ingnorance and with being too closley
> associated with some of the rest of Archie's message, this is a great
> point; I've never come across it before. Excellent.
I don't believe, but: Maybe He did!
And then the Apostles and compilers of the New Testament removed
it for they thought it was just mumbling of a dying man and in the
Bible there shouldn't remain anything making one suspect Jesus was
insane...
Anzelm.
--
Andrzej Slawomir `Anzelm' Kudlicki N.Copernicus Astronomical Centre,
Warsaw
Now at Max-Planck-Institut Fuer Astrophysik, Garching-bei-Muenchen,
Germany
kudlicki@camk.edu.pl kudlicki@mpa-garching.mpg.de
kudlicki@astrouw.edu.pl
http://www.camk.edu.pl/~kudlicki, phone +48 22 410041 ex.110, +49
8932993248
Subject: NOAH'S FLOOD vs. EVOLUTION
From: virtfit@ix.netcom.com(ORRIN J SUNDQUIST)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 15:15:26 GMT
QUESTIONS FOR:
GEOLOGISTS, ARCHAELOGISTS, PALENTOLOGISTS,SCRIPTURAL SCHOLARS
(1) What about Dr. Gentry's halos formed and frozen in minutes (not
millions of years)on Uranium, suggesting the bedrock of granite could
also be formed in the same timeframe?
(2) Why there are sea dwelling fossils in large quantities on top of
mountains all over the world, if the whole world was not under water as
would occur in a Great Deluge?
(3) The geologic column of strata containing only fossils which are
fully developed kind(s) (certainly with variation in a specie), but
there are no birddogs, flying frogs, etc., only gaps, excluding all of
the needed transition forms -- each transition would require at least
hundreds of changes just for each improvement, with millions of fossil
remains in the subsequent strata(s) documenting the change
(particularly since millions of years would produce millons of fossils
and millions of transition fossils, is a very clever geologic column
indeed? Where are they? And how did strata after strata bury the
fossils we do find (not just sedementary layers which contain fossils,
but non-sedentary strata that contain them)? A fossil maple leaf (Acer
monspessulanum) found in the Tertiary rock in southern France, is
supposed to be millions of years old. Yet the same species
(virtually identical) today lives around the Mediterranean. Isn't the
overwhelming message of the fossil record is one of staying the same,
not evolving?
(4) Regarding the age of the rocks. Radioactive and Carbon dating
assume:
A. We know how many isotopes were around when a rock was formed.
B. There was no contamination during the millions of years, or
washed away by a cataclysmic flood, for example.
C. The radioactive clock ticked at the same rate for millions of
years.
No one was there to observe readings (doesn't science require
observation?) at the formation of the rocks and no one was there to
observe any contamination (caused by the possible collapse of the
protective watery canopy -- which might accelerate exposure to
radioactivity) or rate changes in the millions of years. To say that
the rocks are dated by the fossils and the fossils are dated by the age
of the rocks -- isn't this just circular reasoning? So, why isn't the
age of the rocks complete speculation? Since there is no hard evidence
that decay rates have remained unchanged, isn't it possible that a
Global Flood, where the fountains of the deep opened up, mountains were
created, continents moved, could dramatically alter the decay rate.
(5) If dating systems (assuming we even know how all the layers even
got made -- let alone trapping all those fossils) depend on simple
forms being in older layers and complex forms being in the younger
layers, how do you explain the following gaps and/or strata order being
out of order?
A. In central Tennesee, the Upper Devonian period lies on top of
the Ordivician -- missing the Silurian period -- a 90 million
year gap?
B. Mississippian Limestone overlies Cambrian Limestone, missing
Devonian, Silurian, Ordivician, -- 200 millions years
disappeared? No signs of erosion?
C. In Montana and Alberta Canada, PreCambrian (570,000,000 yrs.
old) on top of Cretaccous (144,000,000 yrs. old).
D. In Switzerland, the column is completely upside down. Permian
(286,000,000 yrs. old) on top of Jurassic (213,000,000 yrs.
old) which is on top of Tertiary (65,000,000 yrs old)?
Couldn't a Great Deluge which was 20 feet above the highest mountain,
covering the whole earth and completely redepositing strata and
different random orders on the earth be possible?
6. If the geologic column seen so clearly in the Grand Canyon took
several hundreds of millions of years to be laid down, then why is not
erosion visible in those in-between strata?
7. Why are the Siurian and Ordovician deposits missing in the Grand
Canyon?
8. Why can't Geologists agree on even one of the more than 15 theories
forth onset of the Pleistocene Epoch Ice Age which is only 0.053
percent of geologic time, yet they stress their confidence in events
that occurred hundreds of millions of years ago? This is analagous to
professing to know what happened a year ago, but being unable to know
what happened four hours ago.
9. Why is Kakabeckia, a blue-green alga found in the soils of Harlech,
Great Britain also found in the Middle Proterozoic Gunflint formation
of southern Ontario............supposedly 1,800 to 2,100 MY old?
10. Why is there no place on earth where more than half of the basic 34
index fossils overlie one another?
11. Why has the horseshoe crab 'Limilus' which is found in
Triassic rocks 205 to 230 MY old remained essentially unchanged in "all
that time"?
12. At least four saltwater brachiopods have not changed since Cambrian
rocks were deposited. These include Lingulella, Dicellomus, Lingulepis
and Acothele. Supposedly 500 to 600 MY old. Why?
Subject: Re: Theory of Land and Life
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: 19 Sep 1996 13:05:13 GMT
> What do you mean by the time-energy function and what is the
> significance, if any, of this statement with respect to "TLL" ?
>
> You've really lost me on that.
MikeM: The thiamin shuttle is a molecular pathway of energy transduction
that operates in every known form of life. It involves vitamin B1, a
cationic bicyclic molecule that transiently forms an electrically neutral
tricyclic molecule as the larger moieties cross phospholipid bilayer
membranes. The formation of the tricyclic specie involves the dissociation
of a single proton, and the rearrangement of the tricyclic molecule to
reform the cationic bicyclic specie requires the addition of a proton.
A "half cycle" of the thiamin shuttle involves the dissociation of a proton
on one side of a membrane, then the movement of thiamin across the membrane
to its other side, then its rearrangement to the bicyclic specie (by
pulling a proton off water). This creates a "naked" proton on one side of
the membrane and a reactive hydroxyl ion on the opposite side of the
membrane.
Thiamin can be formed spontaneously on hot iron surfaces (see
Wachtershauser references). Membranes also are minimal entropy structures
that form spontaneously from phospholipids dissolved in water.
Note that energy must be put into a system to separate opposite charges
while energy is released when opposite charges come together. The way that
cell membranes use transmembrane proton/hydroxyl ion gradients to drive
many different types of energy-coupled processes in cells is called the
"chemiosmotic theory of membrane energetics". Peter Mitchell won the 1978
Nobel Prize for his formulation of this ancient mechanism of energy
transduction in living systems.
The TLL model first arose when I realized that cracks in the atmospheric
surface of a large magnetized deposit of iron maintain magnetic field
geometries across the wedge of the crack that will geometrically orient the
thiamin shuttle such that it will facilitate the transmembrane diffusion of
l-amino acids, l-nucleotides, and d-sugars from the atmospheric surface of
the membrane into the collection of water beneath the membrane floating on
its surface. This will shield these molecules from the degradative action
of UV radiation. In contrast, the corresponding d-amino acids,
d-nucleotides, and l-sugars will not enjoy this thiamin-mediated form of
facilitated diffusion and will become degraded at a faster rate.
Carried out over time, with cycles of drying and rain, the l-amino acids,
l-nucleotides, and d-sugars that accumulate in the bases of the cracks will
crystallize in the bases of the cracks. Erosion of the iron matrix leads
to laminations of fine iron dust over layers of organic crystals. This
iron dust has an extremely high heat transfer capacity (10^10 to 10-14)
degrees K/gm/sec). Hit the laminations with a high velocity iron asteroid,
and it will cause them to further "dehydrate", e.g. they will polymerize
and the iron will form magnetite and other iron ores. One has a physical
mechanism that can create trillions of individually unique nucleotide
polymers. Because the solubility coefficients for nucleotides, amino
acids, and sugars are different, one can see that different classes of
molecules will precipitate in molecular layers. This provides the basis
for understanding how the nucleotides (which precipitate first) form a
template (in the crystals) for amino acid/sugar lattice systems. The
co-polymerization of all classes results in genetic molecules that all have
"surface-complementary" peptides. Note also that aromatic molecules are
stable to impact pressures up to 15-20 gigapascal (and given the proper
heat transfer system, higher pressures). Organic amino acids not in such a
system are converted to ketoacids, e.g. the common fuels of all living
systems.
In evolved systems like ourselves, the thiamin shuttle powers the transport
of neurotransmitters across brain synaptic vesicle membranes (as just one
example of the ways cells use the energy transducing system).
If Earth rotated vis-à-vis the Sun in an opposite direction to the way it
does now, living systems would use the oppositely handed amino acids,
sugars, and nucleotides. This is because of the way the atmospheric
electric dynamo system interacts with Earth's surface. This is a short
answer/explanation. Planck's constant... more later.
Robert D. Brown, M.D.
Pelorus Research Laboratory
Subject: Re: Clastic dikes
From: "James B. Warriner"
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 09:46:02 -0500
John Monks wrote:
>
> I am interested in clastic dikes
> Does anyone know of examples of what I describe? Any help would be
> appreciated.
I ran across several instances of clastic dikes back in the 70s while
working on the Eutaw fm at Ft. Benning GA. The few photos I still have
left show approx. 10-in. wide, smooth-sided tabular bodies oriented
nearly vertically in the sandy shale. The dike material was cream to tan
to ferrug. stained fine sand, itself crosscut by multiple
lenticular-shaped clay-cemented thin 'rinds' that had the appearance of
the pictures of standing waves in an organ pipe (if you get my drift).
The dike sand is uncemented while the 'rinds' are more resistant making
the assemblage quite unique-looking. My old references are limited to:
Eargle, D. Hoye, "Stratigraphy of the Outcropping Cretaceous Rocks of
Georgia." USGS Bull. 1014, 1955, pg 28.
which refers, in turn, to a very detailed description from very near 'my'
dikes:
McCallie, S. W., "Sandstone Dikes Near Columbus, Georgia" in _The
American Geologist_, vol. XXXII, No. 4, Oct 1903.
The gist of their hypothesized origin was earthquake-induced injection of
unconsolidated sand into fractures/joints.
Another example I saw during college field camp back in the 60s near
Greybull WY. It is NW of the very northerly plunging nose of Sheep
Mountain anticline and involved the Mowry fm as being cross-cut by the
identifiable sand of -?- fm (Lance? -- memory's shot!). That one is
also near vertical, about a meter thick, matches the local jointing
orientation, well-cemented to be resistant to weathering compared to the
cut fm so it stands like a wall about man-high. Its outer surfaces glint
in the sun and I almost want to remember they were the
biggest slickensides I've ever seen. The exposure is several tens of
feet long but I don't remember how it terminates. The people who run the
permanent geology field camp for Iowa State University will be able to
point you to more complete info; it is/was a standard stop and
interrogatory during Dr. Vondra's hike showing off the plunging
anticline. His question was: If this dike structure was a liquifaction
product that implies shearable, unconsolidated source sand; secondarily
if that, then what would be the time and sequence of events to form it,
orient it, make it resistant, and how were the slicks formed?
--
James B. Warriner
Soil & Rock Mechanics Division
US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg MS USA
warrinj@ex1.wes.army.mil
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, version 6
From: karromde@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 11:23:04 -0600
russ@seismo.demon.co.uk (Russ Evans) wrote:
>The purpose of this practice is to
>avoid the situation which has developed in regard to RIchard Adams' (sic)
>proposal i.e. that discussion of an unreviewed proposal is now, in effect,
>being conducted in a disconnected fashion across a number of fora. There
>is no guarantee (in fact, given the way in which Adams has conducted this
>matter, it would seem quite likely) that any proposal approved by tale
>will match the proposal published informally. I would go so far as to
>suggest that most of the voting constituency is now hopelessly confused.
Even under the current broken system, pre-RFD discussion is permissible in
the affected groups and has nothing to do with news.groups. The RFD has not
been posted yet. QED.
--
Ken Arromdee (arromdee@bayserve.net, karromde@nyx.nyx.net,
http://www.bayserve.net/~arromdee)
"2000 members of the vegetable kingdom and I have to work with _tomatoes_!"
Subject: On the window (as predicted!)
From: Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 16:56:01 GMT
Sample of previous posts - September 1996 will be one of the worst
month in 1996 in terms of weather development and natural disasters.
On the following windows, expect the weather to go seriously out of
hand. The upcoming nefarious energy will produce chain reaction
accidents, oil spill, sea accidents. On certain given dates expect
volcanoes eruption, tornadoes, floadings and large earthquakes.
Caribbean volcano erupts, torches abandoned structures
PLYMOUTH, Montserrat -- Spewing red-hot gravel, an erupting volcano
torched several buildings in an evacuated zone Wednesday and coated
with ash the abandoned capital of that West Indies island. It was
the largest eruption of the Soufriere Hills volcano since itrumbled to
life last year.
Yes I know, volcano erupt everyday!!! :)
Next window is for Sept. 22nd - key words are surprises and
explosions. See you then
Dr. Turi
Subject: Re: NOAH'S FLOOD vs. EVOLUTION
From: Michael Franklin
Date: 19 Sep 1996 17:24:55 GMT
In article <51ro2e$qf8@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> ORRIN J SUNDQUIST,
virtfit@ix.netcom.com writes:
>Subject: NOAH'S FLOOD vs. EVOLUTION
>From: ORRIN J SUNDQUIST, virtfit@ix.netcom.com
>Date: 19 Sep 1996 15:15:26 GMT
>QUESTIONS FOR:
>GEOLOGISTS, ARCHAELOGISTS, PALENTOLOGISTS,SCRIPTURAL SCHOLARS
>
>6. If the geologic column seen so clearly in the Grand Canyon took
>several hundreds of millions of years to be laid down, then why is not
>erosion visible in those in-between strata?
Erosion is visible between certain layers in the Grand Canyon, in the
form of river beds.
Mick
Subject: Re: Inner Core
From: "John Tauxe"
Date: 19 Sep 1996 16:23:09 GMT
E. Benton Tackitt wrote in article
<32402D3E.5BCA@concentric.net>...
> Okay. I have this question. We have resolved that there is indeed and
> inner, iron-based solid core, about the size of the moon, rotating at a
> slightly faster rate than the outer shell of the earthand between the
> two, is the molten outer core.
> Since there is no physical connection to the inner core and outer shell,
> would it be possible, due to the pull of the moon or an asteroid or
> even forces as yet unforeseen perhaps, for the outer shell to slide a
> little occasionally off center, maybe as much as 5 or 10 degrees?
> Just a thought.
>
> Ben
Why do you say there is no physical connection? Just because the outer
core is in a liquid state does not mean that it lacks physical properties,
like viscosity, momentum, and mass. If the inner and outer core have
roughly
the same density, then there would be no propensity for a gravitational
displacement of the inner core due to extraterrestrial forces. Besides, if
the inner core were denser and somehow got offset, we'd be wobbling all
over
the place.
- John
Subject: Re: Geothermal power in HI (was Re: IMPACT OROGENY ON EARTH)
From: "John Tauxe"
Date: 19 Sep 1996 16:29:56 GMT
> In article <01bba112$c58f3280$4a6860cc@dial.inetnebr.com>, "Robert D.
Brown" writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >All of what you say here is true, and I know first hand because I spent
> >most of the past decade living in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii immediately
downwind
> >from the volcanic vent that dumps 100,000 tons of sulfur emissions into
the
> >Hawaiian sunset every 24 hours. I had moved to Hawaii from New York
City
> >to help in the effort to block geothermal development on the Big Island.
> >There were some mercenary politicians and geologists who wanted to
develop
> >a 500,000 kilowatt geothermal power plant over the magma chamber,
running
> >undersea cables from Hawaii to Oahu and Maui. I'd been doing a lot of
> >reading about Hawaii because the volcano plays an important role in this
> >model I have for adjusting the use and interpretation of radiometric
rock
> >dates. Anyway, these geologists were so focused on energy production
that
> >they didn't realize that they had figured out just about the only way
human
> >activity might combine with magnitude 7 earthquakes to deshield the
magma
> >chamber, converting the island into a Krakatoa-style disaster for our
> >planet.
This is so much nonsense. The Hawai'i geothermal project was a good idea,
but for the undersea inter-island cables part. They were the weak link,
and
it didn't make sense to build the plant just for the Big Island. Too bad.
Geothermal is much more benign than the crud you're burning now to light
your
houses.
- JT