Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 34202

MC>Frank Harrison (ramanlab@vt.edu) wrote:
MC>: How come it never stops? Does anyone ever get prosecuted for this? I know
  >: that if you use snail mail for this it's called mail fraud, but does that
  >: apply to the net? Just asking!
MC>It is definitely fraud.  Pyramid schemes are illegal regardless of what
  >method of transport they use.  I *wish* the real-world police would take
  >some action.  If just one or two of these net pests received stiff warnings
  >from *real* policemen, word would get out and the game would be over.
These pyramid schemes can be reported to your local Post Office fraud
investigators. I called them recently (because I was a little more
pissed off than usual after recieving more junk in my personal mailbox
too) to check on a scheme that claimed some law made it legal, but the
postal investigator I talked to knew all about that law, and said that
it was definitely illegal, and that the person was deliberately
misquoting the law to try and convince people to send him their money.
She said the law was very cut and dried on that issue, and if they use
the post office to send money through, then that's what can nail them.
Call your local post office to find out who to send copies of these
messages to (you do have to send them hardcopy), and especially include
the e-mail and mailing addresses of these defrauders (you see, if they
use the mail to get checks from this fraud... Bingo! They become
criminals!). Apparently several of these cases ARE now being
investigated here in the United States.
If enough people get serious about taking out the garbage online, maybe
we can make the worst of it stop.
_   /|   Bill Thoen 
\'o.O'   --------------------------------------------------------------
=(___)=  GISnet BBS - GIS & Desktop Mapping 303-447-0927 (data line)
   U     GIS & Mapping Web  http://www.gisnet.com/gis/index.html

In a previous article, matthuse@ix.netcom.com (August Matthusen) says:
sorry to butt-in, but is this another creationist versus evolutionist
thing?...  what is the big deal about the collapse
of the last glaciation causing a relatively rapid rise of sea-level,
not to mention the gigantic shift of weather that it implies?...
there's a record of up to about 20 glacials & interglacials
of about 100Ky and 10Ky duration, respectively,
in the icecaps, sea-sediments & loess --
is that chicken liver ?!?
God doesn't play dice, nor does God fake Creation.
-- 
There is no dimension without time.  --RBF (Synergetics, 527.01)
(Brian Hutchings -- ba137@lafn.org)

Dear All
Oxford Cryosystems are pleased to announce the introduction of VRML (Virtual 
Reality Modelling Language) to Crystallographica.  This now means structures can 
be exported in VRML format (including anisotropic displacement ellipsoids, 
polyhedra and crystal planes) and with the use of any VRML Viewer it is possible 
to reproduce stunning graphics.
To celebrate this launch, we are offering a 30% discount on Crystallographica 
until the end of October.   Take the opportunity to download the new demo (with 
VRML) from our web site (http://www.demon.co.uk/oxcryo/cgraph.html).
Existing users now have their own page where we will post new scripts and regular 
upgrades.
Best regards
Richard L Glazer
Oxford Cryosystems
********************************************************************************Oxford Cryosystems   3 Blenheim Office Park   Lower Road
Long Hanborough   Oxford OX8 8LN   United Kingdom
Tel:   +44 1993 883488   Fax:   +44 1993 883988
Email:   oxcryo@oxcryo.demon.co.uk   URL:   http://www.demon.co.uk/oxcryo/
********************************************************************************

This is what I meant in my previous posts where I note that the plasma
torus associated with lunar genesis isn't as "efficient" as a lab mass
spec. system, and that there is a lot of "chaos" in the motions of
individual particles.  The mass quantities involved will make gravitational
forces important at every step.
For these reasons, one does not get individual "piles" of material,
corresponding to pure elements and isotopes.  One just gets a "shift" in
the relative distributions of elements and isotopes: enough to profoundly
and consistently affect the rock dates:  Heavier nuclei fall near the CMA
while less massive nuclei accumulate near the periphery (relatively
speaking).  Rocks near the CMA look radiometrically "younger" because they
contain more of the parent/heavy nuclei while peripheral rocks (distant
from the CMA) appear radiometricaly older because they have been shifted
toward more of the daughter/lighter nuclei.  Because the plasma torus has
symmetry across the magnetic/rotational equator, the rock dates develop N-S
mirror symmetries.  The patterns of convection about the CMA are also
"symmetrical", but one has a "leading edge" versus "trailing edge" effect
caused by Earth's rotation and the co-rotation of the plasma torus. 
Accumulation occurs in a geographically discrete region because of the
co-rotation of the torus (whose base becomes electromagnetically coupled to
Earth's surface).  The primary reason for co-rotation relates to the very
mechanisms that give rise to planetary magnetism (which require a spin).
Robert D. Brown, M.D.

Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: In article <51ms31$1s1@news.tuwien.ac.at>
: avl@fsmat.htu.tuwien.ac.at (Andreas Leitgeb) writes:
: >   There are lots of "proofs", that go like this: "A man can be 
: > born at two places at one time simultaneously, Nazareth and 
: > Bethlehem. 
Since when did the bible say Jesus was born in Bethlehem and Nazareth?
:   Good bible lesson, I should read your above out loud in Bible study
: class.
Just how far up your own arse *is* your head?
Fraser

Friends and Others:
Herbert R. Shaw, USGS Geologist, asked me to forward this email comment to
this newsgroup.  A previous version appeared, but this was edited (by him)
for these specific informal purposes. RDB
Bob:
        I was looking for a copy of William Butler Yeats "Selected Poetry"
in my stored RV trailer and ran across the following (expensive) book I had
forgotten:
        Kieffer, H. H. et al., editors (1992) MARS, Tucson, AZ,
                The University of Arizona Press, 1498 pp.
        This is obviously a huge sucker (I can hardly lift it!!). There are
at least three Chapters that should interest you: Chaps. 4, 6, and 18.
These chapters devote much discussion to the SNC meteorites. Most of it is
the same-o, same-o as you have hashed over many times. Chap. 18 has a brief
discussion of the oxygen isotopes and shows a plot of O(18)/O(16) vs.
O(17)/O(16) in units of SMOW (so much for the idea of other established
"RESERVOIRS"), from R. N. Clayton and T. K. Mayeda (1983) "Oxygen isotopes
in eucrites, shergottites, nakhlites and chassignites," Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, v. 62, pp. 1-6. See also same authors in Geochimica
Cosmochimica Acta, v. 52, pp. 925-927 (1988), "Isotopic composition of
carbonate in EETA79001 and its relation to parent body volatiles."
        I am just more bewildered than ever about what O-Isotopes might
mean. They can not be simply a function of planetary mass, because the
ratios for "eucrite meteorites" (anorthite-augite mineralogy), an extreme
end-member of the "gabbroic" terrestrial mantle-type or lunar-type rocks,
which also are (presumably) found in meteorites, plot on one side of the
"terrestrial fractionation line," whereas SNCs plot on the other. [This is
not an authoritative description of eucrites (e.g., see Asteroids II, pp.
723ff, and Index, etc., which describes eucrites as having variable
"basaltic" compositions).  Gabbro is the coarse-grained 'equivalent' of
basalt, which is, by definition, a volcanic rock)].
        Everyone speaks glibly of O-Isotope "reservoirs." Well, that works
OK for Earth's surface rocks because there really is a reservoir, the OCEAN
(present-day SMOW).  But what's the "reservoir" on a solid-state
planetesimal??
        Molten rock (magma) is the only likely LIQUID state in planetesimal
fragments (asteroids, etc.)---unless one wants to imagine a pervasive
volatile phase or liquid water phase percolating ubiquitously through the
object (no way Jose). So I insist---until I see alternative proof---that
the O-Isotope signature has to be relative to LOCAL reservoirs; i.e.,
within local mineralogical, plus-or-minus partial melting, assemblages.
        And herein may be part of the problem in trying to compare
different assemblages---like the SNCs---with the "terrestrial fractionation
line." Maybe the subparallel nature of the trends is OK (I doubt it, as a
generalization), but the terrrestrial trend refers to Earth's present outer
mineralogical states. A more appropriate comparison would have to refer to
those terrestrial rocks that were typical of Earth's Archean mantle
partial-melting events and compositions.
        Banin et al. (in MARS, Chap. 18, p. 604) observe that: "The closest
terrestrial analogues to the nakhlites are pyroxene cumulate layers in
different picrite and komatiite flows."
        Now, the latter names--picrite and komatiite--are supposedly
examples of condtions so hot in the early Earth that the normally
solid-state compositions of mantle rocks were subjected to virtually
complete melting and volcanic eruption--in a weird sort of flat volcano
that vents incandescent, quiescent, and very low-viscosity lavas so hot
that you couldn't get close enough to look at them without solar
eye-glasses. In order to recreate such a condition today, one would have to
stick a super-incandescent probe into the sub-asthenospheric mantle and
pour on the power until you got a 'magma chamber' of nearly pure ultramafic
rock composition--THEN GET IT TO ERUPT AT THE EARTH'S SURFACE.
        Thus, it would seem more logical to compare the O-Isotope trends of
picrite and komatiite LAVAS (and local CUMULATES therein) with the SNCs!!!!
        Frankly, however, I have no idea of what is known about the isotope
chemistry of picrite-komatiite flows, and/or their cumulate phases. In view
of the disorganized helter-skelter ways of SOME isotope chemists (no
offense to the science as a whole), such data may be lying fallow
somewhere. I suppose a start could be made by scanning the cumulative
Indexes of Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta.
H.

The following comment is from Herbert R. Shaw (USGS Research Geologist,
Menlo Park)
Bob:
        I was looking for a copy of William Butler Yeats "Selected Poetry"
in my stored RV trailer and ran across the following (expensive) book I had
forgotten:
        Kieffer, H. H. et al., editors (1992) MARS, Tucson, AZ,
                The University of Arizona Press, 1498 pp.
        This is obviously a huge sucker (I can hardly lift it!!). There are
at least three Chapters that should interest you: Chaps. 4, 6, and 18.
These chapters devote much discussion to the SNC meteorites. Most of it is
the same-o, same-o as you have hashed over many times. Chap. 18 has a brief
discussion of the oxygen isotopes and shows a plot of O(18)/O(16) vs.
O(17)/O(16) in units of SMOW (so much for the idea of other established
"RESERVOIRS"), from R. N. Clayton and T. K. Mayeda (1983) "Oxygen isotopes
in eucrites, shergottites, nakhlites and chassignites," Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, v. 62, pp. 1-6. See also same authors in Geochimica
Cosmochimica Acta, v. 52, pp. 925-927 (1988), "Isotopic composition of
carbonate in EETA79001 and its relation to parent body volatiles."
        I am just more bewildered than ever about what O-Isotopes might
mean. They can not be simply a function of planetary mass, because the
ratios for "eucrite meteorites" (anorthite-augite mineralogy), an extreme
end-member of the "gabbroic" terrestrial mantle-type or lunar-type rocks,
which also are (presumably) found in meteorites, plot on one side of the
"terrestrial fractionation line," whereas SNCs plot on the other. [This is
not an authoritative description of eucrites (e.g., see Asteroids II, pp.
723ff, and Index, etc., which describes eucrites as having variable
"basaltic" compositions).  Gabbro is the coarse-grained 'equivalent' of
basalt, which is, by definition, a volcanic rock)].
        Everyone speaks glibly of O-Isotope "reservoirs." Well, that works
OK for Earth's surface rocks because there really is a reservoir, the OCEAN
(present-day SMOW).  But what's the "reservoir" on a solid-state
planetesimal??
        Molten rock (magma) is the only likely LIQUID state in planetesimal
fragments (asteroids, etc.)---unless one wants to imagine a pervasive
volatile phase or liquid water phase percolating ubiquitously through the
object (no way Jose). So I insist---until I see alternative proof---that
the O-Isotope signature has to be relative to LOCAL reservoirs; i.e.,
within local mineralogical, plus-or-minus partial melting, assemblages.
        And herein may be part of the problem in trying to compare
different assemblages---like the SNCs---with the "terrestrial fractionation
line." Maybe the subparallel nature of the trends is OK (I doubt it, as a
generalization), but the terrrestrial trend refers to Earth's present outer
mineralogical states. A more appropriate comparison would have to refer to
those terrestrial rocks that were typical of Earth's Archean mantle
partial-melting events and compositions.
        Banin et al. (in MARS, Chap. 18, p. 604) observe that: "The closest
terrestrial analogues to the nakhlites are pyroxene cumulate layers in
different picrite and komatiite flows."
        Now, the latter names--picrite and komatiite--are supposedly
examples of condtions so hot in the early Earth that the normally
solid-state compositions of mantle rocks were subjected to virtually
complete melting and volcanic eruption--in a weird sort of flat volcano
that vents incandescent, quiescent, and very low-viscosity lavas so hot
that you couldn't get close enough to look at them without solar
eye-glasses. In order to recreate such a condition today, one would have to
stick a super-incandescent probe into the sub-asthenospheric mantle and
pour on the power until you got a 'magma chamber' of nearly pure ultramafic
rock composition--THEN GET IT TO ERUPT AT THE EARTH'S SURFACE.
        Thus, it would seem more logical to compare the O-Isotope trends of
picrite and komatiite LAVAS (and local CUMULATES therein) with the SNCs!!!!
        Frankly, however, I have no idea of what is known about the isotope
chemistry of picrite-komatiite flows, and/or their cumulate phases. In view
of the disorganized helter-skelter ways of SOME isotope chemists (no
offense to the science as a whole), such data may be lying fallow
somewhere. I suppose a start could be made by scanning the cumulative
Indexes of Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta.
H.
Jeff Baldwin  wrote in article
<51np13$a47@news.ios.com>...
> jnhead@suds.lpl.arizona.edu (James N. Head) wrote:
> 
> [...descussions of del vs delta, etc.]
> 
> That was good background info. Thanks. Still trudging through the
> papers. Jury duty is now the main interruption.
> 
> >I do not really understand objections based-on-paucity-of-samples
> >having anything substantial to do with the argument about common or 
> >distinct O-isotopic reserviors.  We have a well-characterized TF line.  
> >Everything terrestrial plots along it including lunar rocks and
tektites.
> >The spectacular exception is atmospheric ozone, where non-mass dependent
> >fractionation is important.  
> 
> [....etc]
> 
> Perhaps a "no brainer" to you. As I've stated before, the elemental
> data I've seen has been quite variable. I've not seen O16, O17, O18
> data.... but it seems logical to assume that if all elemental
> distributions are "all over the map", then so will be isotopic
> measurements of various elemental yeilds. As time and opportunity
> permits, I am researching the idea that such triads as the "O series"
> is "stable" and uniquely descriptive of such things as O reservoirs
> over billions of years and all that entails.
> 
> [....you answered the question about 1600c measurments]
> 
> Jeffrey L. Baldwin, Mind & Vision Computer Systems
> "Intelligent Processing Systems for the Energy Industry"
> Voice/Fax/Data: (713) 550-4534     (800) MVCSTLM
> email: mvcs@gramercy.ios.com       73051.1316@compuserve.com
>
http://www.worldenergy.solutions/WorldEnergy/Companies/Mind&Vision;/Mind&Vision.HTM;
L
> 
> 

In a previous article, mikejm@westworld.com () says:
hey, cool; is this being sent sci.geo.petroleum, as well?...
I hope so, because that is where a lot of the hardscience is uncovered!
RDB, I'd like you to clarify your assumption about "solar cycles and
ecliptic plane precession"....  you should know that
the stratigraphy that has delineated the ~20 glacial cycles
of the Quaternary Period, as it is called, is highly correlated
with mountainbuilding, as vulcanism (in general) is about 10x
during the glacial phases.
>I don't care what Plato thought.
shame upon you!
-- 
There is no dimension without time.  --RBF (Synergetics, 527.01)
(Brian Hutchings -- ba137@lafn.org)

I am still going to maintain that the notion that
bolides go unimpeaded through Sol's system is a theory,
not an observation, of astrophysics;
Kepler's Solar ring is clearly "sheperded" by Jupiter,
primarily, as can be seen by the periodicities
in the orbits of them (see the large NASA publication
by Alfven & Ahrennius).
	did anyone see the article in ... I think it was
in a *recent* NYTimes, but I could've found an old one --
about some Swedish hypothesis of the accretion of Moon
from a bunch o'smaller satellites orbitting Earth?...
just another extension of "Platonic" bolide-o-mania?
-- 
There is no dimension without time.  --RBF (Synergetics, 527.01)
(Brian Hutchings -- ba137@lafn.org)

"Peristalsis Occurs", and Turi is standing at the ready
with a pooper-scooper;
this is what happens to you, when you are repeatedly abdutced
by a UFO -- don't ride with strangers, kids!
-- 
There is no dimension without time.  --RBF (Synergetics, 527.01)
(Brian Hutchings -- ba137@lafn.org)

> When do you think this impact occured? Do you place it at the present
site 
> of the island of Hawaii, or elsewhere?
A) 65 million years ago.  B) Yes, present mantle coordinate location. RDB
> 
> Which one do you propose, and how does your process do it?
This is what I meant in my previous posts where I note that the plasma
torus associated with lunar genesis isn't as "efficient" as a lab mass
spec. system, and that there is a lot of "chaos" in the motions of
individual particles.  The mass quantities involved will make gravitational
forces important at every step.
For these reasons, one does not get individual "piles" of material,
corresponding to pure elements and isotopes.  One just gets a "shift" in
the relative distributions of elements and isotopes: enough to profoundly
and consistently affect the rock dates:  Heavier nuclei fall near the CMA
while less massive nuclei accumulate near the periphery (relatively
speaking).  Rocks near the CMA look radiometrically "younger" because they
contain more of the parent/heavy nuclei while peripheral rocks (distant
from the CMA) appear radiometrically older because they have been shifted
toward more of the daughter/lighter nuclei.  
Because the plasma torus has symmetry across the magnetic/rotational
equator, the rock dates develop N-S
mirror symmetries.  The patterns of convection about the CMA are also
"symmetrical", but one has a "leading edge" versus "trailing edge" effect
caused by Earth's rotation and the co-rotation of the plasma torus.
Accumulation occurs in a geographically discrete region because of the
co-rotation of the torus (whose base becomes electromagnetically coupled to
Earth's surface).  The primary reason for co-rotation relates to the very
mechanisms that give rise to planetary magnetism (which require a spin).
Robert D. Brown, M.D.

 bill.thoen@gisnet.com (Bill Thoen) wrote:
> These pyramid schemes can be reported to your local Post Office fraud
> investigators.
The Federal Trade Commission also is chasing Net fraud, and claims to have
brought a dozen actions against companies since March. There also is a
National Fraud Information Center on the Web at http://www.fraud.org, run
by the National Consumers League, a non-profit group which maintains a
database of all incidents.

In a previous article, pelorus@ltec.net ("Robert D. Brown") says:
awesome, man, but I still doubt the absolute requirement
of bolidal stirring, or even the impact to do [what Bob saith
upon the parting of the organic waters].  if it is so-required, then
we'll just have to appropriate the label, Brownian motion!
>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.
-- 
There is no dimension without time.  --RBF (Synergetics, 527.01)
(Brian Hutchings -- ba137@lafn.org)

Dear Reader,
We are looking for a technology (method and equipment) to monitor the 
presence and the development of cavities behind the quay walls in a 
harbour. The quay sides are covered with asphalt bitumen or stone paving. 
Quaywalls are constructed of steel, concrete and/or bricks. Due to 
deficiencies of the quaywalls, cavities can develop as tidal movements, 
currents and and other outside influences. 
First concern is to spot the presence of cavities. Secondly, an 
indication of the size of the cavity is valuable. 
A test with ground penetrating radar has been executed. The results were 
not satisfactory until now. 
We would like to have some feedback on which equipment and/or measuring 
method is suitable to “tackle” above problem.
Kind Regards,
Jurgen Herbschleb
GeoCom bv
P.O. Box 621
2501 CP The Hague
The Netherlands

don't be an idiot, Schroedinger's equation is hardly that important. On 
hindsight, perhaps man would have been better off without such knowledge.

> >[the actual author was snipped . . .]
> >On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, it was written:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >
Thermodynamics and other physical phenomena that tend toward entropy
should not be confused with the phenomenon of natural selection, which
lies at the core of evolutionary theory.
If the things that were hotter than their environment tended to survive
and have similarly hot offspring while cooler objects tended to die
without reproducing, you would have pretty quickly a world populated by
extremely hot objects that stayed hot, contrary to the laws of
thermodynamics.
Regardless of all that, so what if we do accept the premise that some sort
of higher being created life on the planet? What do we do with this
knowledge? We know absolutely nothing else about this creature, because it
doesn't talk to us or do anything else that can't be explained by natural
laws.
The reason you get such resistance to your creationist notions is that we
know that if we give in and accept your claim on faith, you'll immediately
follow up with many more claims about this higher being i.e. what his name
is, how he feels about moral issues and what rules he wants us to follow.

pbenoit@ibm.net wrote:
: I have been pouring through an article:  "Phanerozoic evolution of the
: North American cordillera" by Oldow, et all, in  _Geology of North
: America - An Overview_  Many times the phrases "transpressional
: tectonics" and "transtensional tectonics" are used.  I have tried two
: Geological Dictionaries and Twiss and Moores's _Tectonics_ and
: _Structural Geology_ and cannot find a definition or explanation.  
My german geological dictionary (H. Murawski, Geologisches W"orterbuch)
gives the following definition/explanation:
 *Transtension: If there is an transversal movement between two plates
                and if these plates are pulled apart (bilateral extension) 
                at the same time,
                the resulting movement is called 'transtension'.
                (Example : pull apart-basin; dead sea) 
*Transpression: Transversal movement and bilateral compression
                result in an action called 'transpression'.
                (Example: recent tectonical situation at the 
                          North American cordillera)   
    Transtension:
      -----------------    
                       |    ------------------
               /\      |    |
               ||      |    |    =======>
               ||      |    |    ||
               ||      |    |    ||
        <========      |    |    || 
                       |    |    \/
    Transpression:
     -----------------    
                      | ------------------
       /\             ||
       ||             ||    <======
       ||             ||         ||
       ||             ||         ||
       ========>      ||         || 
                      ||         \/
Hope this helps,
                 Gerd
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Gerd K"onemann                                                         |
| Tel ++49 5323/2381              Gerd.Koenemann@heim2.tu-clausthal.de   |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Dear Reader,
We are looking for a technology (method and equipment) to monitor the 
presence and the development of cavities behind the quay walls in a 
harbour. The quay sides are covered with asphalt bitumen or stone paving. 
Quaywalls are constructed of steel, concrete and/or bricks. Due to 
deficiencies of the quaywalls, cavities can develop as tidal movements, 
currents and and other outside influences. 
First concern is to spot the presence of cavities. Secondly, an 
indication of the size of the cavity is valuable. 
A test with ground penetrating radar has been executed. The results were 
not satisfactory until now. 
We would like to have some feedback on which equipment and/or measuring 
method is suitable to “tackle” above problem.
Kind Regards,
Jurgen Herbschleb
GeoCom bv
Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Surveying
P.O. Box 621
2501 CP The Hague
The Netherlands

On Fri, 20 Sep 1996 16:02:38 GMT, Duncun H. B. Irving ,
, threw the full weight of his
double-middle-initials into the fray with:
[snip simplistic and uncomprehending comments on moderation]
>This will allow all those saddoes who have obviously gone 
>through a half-baked education to discuss their juvenile crap in an 
>inappropriate but unmoderated forum as is now the case whilst those with 
>more academic or business orientated needs can post to the moderated 
>group.
Twenty-two minutes earlier this same individual  had wriiten, in this
same forum and in response to someone who has been vigorously putting
Mr. A in his place:
>Is it really necessary to use this tone? 
He thus has likely established a new trans-Atlantic speed record for
blatant hypocrisy.
                          O.S.

In article <01bba53b$0f4d5380$7540279e@umberto.tromso.npolar.no>, 
kjell@tromso.npolar.no (Kjell Berglund) says...
>
>1. NO
>2. NO
>
>kb
>
>Russ Evans  wrote in article
>...
>> In article <51lup7$sfe@seismo.CSS.GOV>, salzberg@seismo.CSS.GOV (David
>> Salzberg) wrote:
>> 
>> > The survey posted by R. Adams is biased.  I am conduncting
>> > a simple survey.  It is:
>> 
>> Excellent suggestion, David.  Put me down as NO to both.
>> 
Me too.
(I've always wanted to do that but thought a non-aol address didn't allow 
it.)
-- 
-- 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.

>Robert, do not be put off by Richard's pathetic replies.  He does this
>to everyone who has an original thought as he clearly has never had one
>himself and feels threatened by them.  
That might explain why I raise the objections, but it
doesn't explain why you can't answer them. So, what is
your present prediction for the value of Hubble's constant?

In article <32410782.41C6@mpa-garching.mpg.de>, Andrzei Kudlicki  writes:
> 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?
This presupposes e^(i x pi) = -1 et al would have been of any
practical use at all to them and that the best wisdom humanity has is
science or physics.  One of the flimsier anti-religious arguments I
have seen in a long time, IMO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hollebeek         | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement,
Electron Psychologist |                for sufficiently false values of true.
Princeton University  | email: tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu
----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)

> awesome, man, but I still doubt the absolute requirement
> of bolidal stirring, 
Thank you, again.
The models do not "require" bolidal stirring, they assume impacts happen on
a continuous basis.  The models describe the consequences of impacts... how
they have led to Earth's creation (CME-Fried Comets), how they have shaped
its surface and sub-surface features (impact origin of the Moon, Hawaii
Tombstone of the Dinosaurs), and how they led to the appearance of life on
this planet (Impact Origin of Genetic Material, published in 1992, Medical
Hypotheses).  Large and small comet impacts have delivered water and the
raw materials (organic molecules) needed to create life (anywhere).  
Robert D. Brown, M.D.

Bill Smith wrote:
> Dear [anybody]:
> 
> Try this one:
> 
> If you're so smart, why is it that we are all having so difficult a time
> seeing it?
> (Bill Smith)
> 
> 73 de Bill, AB6MT
> bilsmith@crl.com
Try this one instead:
If you can't handle the idea,
just attack the person.
This is the "ad hominum" fallacy.
If you can't prove the idea wrong,
maybe it isn't, and YOU are.
This is called "reasoning".

So, what is
> your present prediction for the value of Hubble's constant?
The entire notion that the Hubble constant represents a meaningful value
requires that one buy into Big Bang cosmologies.  I favor a neo-Platonic
cosmology more adequately addressed via theorems at the core of information
theory.  I do, however, remember that I once actually spent some time on
the topic,  reached some conclusion that seemed adequate for myself, but
forget now what I came up with.  I think my conclusion was quantitatively
related to the true number of angels that could fit on the head of a pin.  
I think the universe is infinitely old, without beginning or end.  Being a
human, I am more interested in our origins and our planet's destiny.  Red
shifts and elemental abundance's have alternative explanations (than the
ones provided by Big Bang cosmology), but you'd have to read more of the
classic philosophers to comprehend the discussion.  Sorry, Richard, you're
not ready for such topics and few others are interested.  Let's not clutter
the CME board with childish issues.  

> 
> From what I read clastic dikes are formed from the soft (unhardened)
> sandstone underneath the layers inwhich the dikes occur.
> It would be sorta like taking a brick with a hole in it and setting it on
> a soft mud puddle and pushing down.  The result is the mud comong up
> through the hole from the bottom.  As time goes on the clastic sand
> hardens.  
> Evidence of this *bottom up* comes from samples of the dike matching the
> samples taken from the underlying layers. The sand grains are also aligned
> in the same general direction and indicate that the dikes were not filled
> from the top but instead injected upward like toothpaste.  The dikes are
> also pretty pure in their clastic sand material, where as if they were
> results of sedimentation from above there would be other material mixed
> in.
I might add that Clastic Dikes give the Young Earth Creationist a big boost.
Clastic dikes can be found in Pike's Peak. Here the formation was
supposably formed 70 million years ago when the area was uplifted. The
problem is that the sandstone dated at 470 million years has been injected
into the granite's faults during the uplift. 
Somehow the hardened sandstone got injected into the faults. Seems to me
they lost 400 million years somewhere. But then again I never really
trusted their dates anyway.
Another example is found at the Kodachrome Basin State Park in Utah.
Instead of dikes the injection take the form of a pipes which some times
are 170 feet high and 50 feet in diameter. Seems the sandstone which was
injected from the lower (older) level was 150 million years older than the
material inwhich it was injected into. 
Once again the Flood model explains these features a whole lot better than
the uniformaterians.  In order for the lower level of clastic sand to be
injected it has to still be soft. The flood model would predict such
features seeing how all of the layers were deposited during the flood
period and still would not be in their currently hardened state yet.
-- 
see ya,
karl 
*****************************************
 Evolution is accomplished
 with smoke and mirrors.

>> What kind of sedimentary structure do these rocks, display? I have not
>> seen these rocks that were formed from sediments thrown onto the land
>> from the sea anywhere on earth.
>Ask anyone who has ever dug up a dinosaur fossil what type of material it
>is encased within.
You seem to think that catastrophically deposited units look like 
sediments deposited on sea floors, or by lakes, streams, and rivers.
They do not. They are a chaotic jumble by comparision. There are
examples of sea floor sediments catastrophically thrown up on land 
in Puerto Rico and Texas, apparently by the Chicxulub/K-T impact. 
They are quite distinctive and not like the beds you've seen on your 
California jaunts.
>My goodness, what's to become of this younger generation?
Almost anything is better than senile arrogance.

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.
> 
> 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?  Why? Because Jesus was another normal
> ordinary revolutionary against the Romans who was crucified.
> 
>   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.
> 
>   If Jesus had given us the Schroedinger Equation on the cross, then
> this man was really superhuman, but he did not
> 
>   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.
You raised an interesting point of discussion, and you did it with humor, 
for that I congratulate you.
The fundamental message of Jesus was "love everyone like you love 
yourself", this seems to me simple and perfect. It comes from a Knowledge 
of the whole Thruth.
Of corse the laws of dynamics ( F=ma ), or any phisical law, are a piece 
of the Thruth, but I think you agree with me that they are an infinitely 
small piece of It.
There are no big diferences betwen us all, we are all "the same thing", 
our individuality makes no sense when we think about the Universe 
evolution. Being so, it makes great sense to me to "love everyone like I 
love myself", doing arm to others IS doing arm to "me" (thinking of "me" 
not in the individual sense).
Sorry I'm not to good with words...
Carlos

In article <01bba65c$5d5871a0$956860cc@dial.inetnebr.com>,
Robert D. Brown  wrote:
>SKrueger: 
>> Robert,
>> You cannot know how incredibly dumb you sound to a geologist. 
>
>----> I will assume you are referring to yourself.  R U a geologist? RDB
	Bozo, you've been talking to (and insulting) SEVERAL on this 
thread.
-- 
Roger Tang, gwangung@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director  PC Theatre
	Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue: 
	http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gwangung/TC.html
Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes

In article <51qqc4$q47@news.cc.ucf.edu>, Morty <> wrote:
    
>However, I cannot see how the "theory of evolution" as a whole
>..(i.e. the theory that all earth life developed that way, and from a
>single progenitor) fits into the process.
>
>In observing and collecting data, we have data from the past, that we
>have a decent idea of how to interpret.  That data IMPLIES very much
>about the world, and the history of life on it.  However, this data is
>no direct evidence for anything.  
>
>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.
At face value, all living beings violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics;
the complex molecules from which lifeforms are made should quickly 
degenerate to simpler molecules. The maintainence of those complex 
molecules is however achieved by the utilisation of energy and the 2nd
law is not really violated. Remove the source of energy (die) and those
molecules do decay.
A single progenitor, replicating, will give rise to multiple descendants, 
all competing for sources of energy. These descendants will harbour a 
variety of mutations which can be acted on by natural selection. Some 
mutants will be better at extracting energy from a given habitat. Therefore, 
on an earth with a variety of habitats and a simple, evolving lifeform, 
there will the potential for many ways of exploiting energy resources. 
Given a few billion years, we get the variety of extinct and extant 
lifeforms we see on earth. The sun shines and there is no violation of
the 2nd law.  
>You didn't support the statement about God being non-existant, weak,
>or indifferent very well.  
>What limits the cases to those 3 options?  Why for instance, could he
>not be existant, and strong enough to protect, and care very much, but
>be held back by a stronger entity?   Or instead of being indifferent,
>why could he not be actively sending hurricanes because he really
>wants to?  For that matter, why could he not be a caring, and powerful
>entity that cares very much about the welfare of humans, but who has
>decided not to interfere?
>					-Morty
Your God could indeed be as many different things as you want to imagine, 
probably more things than there are religions (and Gods) on earth. Whether 
or not there is a god makes no difference to the process of evolution. 
Martin
Cardiff, Wales.

>In article <51lup7$sfe@seismo.CSS.GOV>, salzberg@seismo.CSS.GOV (David
>Salzberg) wrote:
>
>> The survey posted by R. Adams is biased.  I am conduncting
>> a simple survey.  It is:
>
I also vote No to both.
Lucy Jones

A physicist might have him shout Einstein's equation
equating matter and energy (to assign quantities to
the information at Isaiah 40:26).  But we would only have
used that information to blow each other up sooner.
And the sermon on the mount could have been a
lecture on mollusks for biologists.  I would be deeply
disappointed if such information were the cornerstone
of the Bible.
Matthew and John were of the 12 apostoles, so
how were there "no eyewitnesses"?
I used to read AP's quotes because I thought they
were amusing.  I now find them less and less so.
-- 
"I speak for myself and all of the lawyers of the world"
If I say something dumb, then they will have to sue themselves.
Leonard Lee Chung Jen  wrote in article
<32436897.4BB8@singnet.com.sg>...
> don't be an idiot, Schroedinger's equation is hardly that important. On 
> hindsight, perhaps man would have been better off without such knowledge.
> 

> You seem to think that catastrophically deposited units look like 
> sediments deposited on sea floors, or by lakes, streams, and rivers.
> They do not. They are a chaotic jumble by comparision. There are
> examples of sea floor sediments catastrophically thrown up on land 
> in Puerto Rico and Texas, apparently by the Chicxulub/K-T impact. 
> They are quite distinctive and not like the beds you've seen on your 
> California jaunts.
Small impacts like Chicxulub make dust, mud, tektites and chunky stuff like
your Texas/PR deposits.  Big impacts in oceans empty the oceans and create
plasmas, vapors, particulates,  sand-sized grains, and extinction
phenomena.  Shock waves from very large impacts fragment multicellular
organisms, leaving only unicelluar fossils in the geological record.  Very
large planetary scale impacts create moons and transform the planetary
bodies.
Were there no water on Earth, it would be obvious that Earth has been hit
by more  and larger impactors than has the Moon.  But then, were there no
water on Earth, we wouldn't be here, so perhaps the word "obvious" would
not apply.
Robert D. Brown, M.D.
The American ideal is youth—handsome, empty youth.
Henry Miller (1891–1980), U.S. author. The Wisdom of the Heart, “Raimu”
(1947). “In America,” Miller explained, “youth means simply athleticism,
disrespect, gangsterism, or sickly idealism expressing itself through
thinly disguised and badly digested social science theories acted out by
idiots who are desperadoes at heart.”

In article <01bba719$e46d2600$416860cc@dial.inetnebr.com>,
Robert D. Brown  wrote:
>Small impacts like Chicxulub make dust, mud, tektites and chunky stuff like
>your Texas/PR deposits.  Big impacts in oceans empty the oceans and create
>plasmas, vapors, particulates,  sand-sized grains, and extinction
>phenomena.
Which category did your Hawaii impact belong to?
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

In article , S Krueger  wrote:
>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.
Whew!  I'm glad you're not writing about me, otherwise I'd have to dismiss
you as an arrogant s.o.b. who needs to lighten up a little.  As for poorly
advertised intentions, more often than not I think that, as a science,
geology is synonymous with comic relief.
-- 
William C. Haneberg, Ph.D., P.G.                 
http://nmt.edu/~haneberg/
New Mexico Bureau of Mines & Mineral Resources    

In article <01bba70b$586df2a0$946860cc@dial.inetnebr.com>,
Robert D. Brown  wrote:
>I think the universe is infinitely old, without beginning or end.
How is this inconsistent with Big Bang cosmology?  That
paradigm doesn't claim that the universe didn't exist previously,
just that we have no access to information about its state prior
to the bang.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

Mr D.F. Steele (didla@liverpool.ac.uk) wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
> : avl@fsmat.htu.tuwien.ac.at (Andreas Leitgeb) writes:
> : >   There are lots of "proofs", that go like this: "A man can be 
> : > born at two places at one time simultaneously, Nazareth and 
> : > Bethlehem. 
> Since when did the bible say Jesus was born in Bethlehem and Nazareth?
i just want to negotiate the authorship of that crap, that AP implied
i had written.
  as most people in sci.math already know, Archimedes Plutonium (as he seems
to call himself) repeatedly mis-quotes other's postings !!
  just in case that you're new in this group:  it was _not_ me, 
avl@fsmat.htu.tuwien.ac.at ,  who has written the crap about the 
two locations of jesus' birth.

jones@bombay.gps.caltech.edu wrote:
> 
> >In article <51lup7$sfe@seismo.CSS.GOV>, salzberg@seismo.CSS.GOV (David
> >Salzberg) wrote:
> >
> >> The survey posted by R. Adams is biased.  I am conduncting
> >> a simple survey.  It is:
> >
> I also vote No to both.
> 
> Lucy Jones
Oh, geez, that's it! That's the final nail in the coffin of this overly
ambitious project.  I change my mind and vote no to both.  Not only do I
risk dragging the company into a multi-million dollar lawsuit (and
getting a big Dilbert promotion), but now this!  :)
-- 
Harold W. Asmis        harold.w.asmis@hydro.on.ca
tel 416.592.7379  fax 416.592.5322
Standard Disclaimers Apply