Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: "Robert A. Wightman"
Date: 28 Sep 1996 23:54:27 GMT
artfam@halcyon.com (artfam) wrote:
>
> In article <7233.6840T737T1266@gulf.net>, thuxley@gulf.net (THuxley) wrote:
>
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > I don't know where you get your information but my preacher does not
> instruct me
> > in science, never has never will, but I guess just because some evolutionary
> > bias professor has told you something is a scientific fact...you just blindly
> > accept this without guestion.
> >
> > However, for someone who alledegdly has a grasp of biology as you claim,
> do you
> > not understand genetic limits...and certainly you are aware of all the
> holes in
> > the
> > theory of evolution and all of the improbabilities and impossibilities of this
> > theory. I guess you just ignore these facts like most others of the
> > evolutionary faith! (Clinging on and having much more faith in something
> > unproveable than anyone would have for a belief in God!)
> >
> > As for textbooks, the books that are used in schools, universities
> included are
> > so full of misinformation that it is pathetic...have been disavowed by top
> > evolutionary
> > scientist for over 50 years and are basically books of fairy tales..or do you
> > still believe that a human embryo goes through evolutionary stages? This was
> > disproven in the 1920 but is still in most biology textbooks as a scientific
> > fact.
> >
> > Perhaps you should open your mind to the "facts" and what they do and do not
> > prove, and perhaps some intelligent debate could happen here, but you won't
> > because
> > your mind is so closed to anything other than what "you want to be the truth",
> > that
> > you cannot even come to grips with reality!
>
> Mr Huxley, You have exposed yourself as being a complete ignoramous.
> Perhaps you should have consulted Paul Myers' signature. You would have
> discovered that he resides in the Department of Biology at Temple
> University. Temple is not likely to hire someone who "alledegdly has a
> grasp of biology". His reasoned discussion of what evolutionary science
> has wrought stands in stark contrast to your ignorant screed. The tragedy
> is that brillant people Like Paul Myers have to spend any of their
> valuable time refuting the moronic drivel fo creationists.
>
> BG
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> The following is an explanation of radioactive decay:
>
> When God the Son squeezed energy into atoms, he squeezed and held the atom so tightly that there were no unstable elements and therefore no radioactivity. At the fall [of Adam and Eve], He relaxed His grip slightly... which affected every atom and allowed some to become unstable, i.e., radioactivity!
>
> Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this Journal really exist? Perhaps they could answer a couple of question.
1 If the world was created on Oct 10 4004 BC (I never can remember that date.)
and if the Son was not created until 4000 years later how did He squeeze the atoms?
2 Who did the children of Adam and Eve marry? Where did they come from?
3 Why are there two or three different versions of the creation of the earth in
the first couple of chapters of Genisis?
Keep up the good fight. I enjoy reading your and Mr. Myers replies. My training is
in Electrical Engineering and while I may not know an iota about Biology, my professors dir
teach me the importance of following proper procedure in doing research and experimentation.
cheers:
R Wightman
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: "Robert A. Wightman"
Date: 28 Sep 1996 23:54:12 GMT
artfam@halcyon.com (artfam) wrote:
>
> In article <7233.6840T737T1266@gulf.net>, thuxley@gulf.net (THuxley) wrote:
>
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > I don't know where you get your information but my preacher does not
> instruct me
> > in science, never has never will, but I guess just because some evolutionary
> > bias professor has told you something is a scientific fact...you just blindly
> > accept this without guestion.
> >
> > However, for someone who alledegdly has a grasp of biology as you claim,
> do you
> > not understand genetic limits...and certainly you are aware of all the
> holes in
> > the
> > theory of evolution and all of the improbabilities and impossibilities of this
> > theory. I guess you just ignore these facts like most others of the
> > evolutionary faith! (Clinging on and having much more faith in something
> > unproveable than anyone would have for a belief in God!)
> >
> > As for textbooks, the books that are used in schools, universities
> included are
> > so full of misinformation that it is pathetic...have been disavowed by top
> > evolutionary
> > scientist for over 50 years and are basically books of fairy tales..or do you
> > still believe that a human embryo goes through evolutionary stages? This was
> > disproven in the 1920 but is still in most biology textbooks as a scientific
> > fact.
> >
> > Perhaps you should open your mind to the "facts" and what they do and do not
> > prove, and perhaps some intelligent debate could happen here, but you won't
> > because
> > your mind is so closed to anything other than what "you want to be the truth",
> > that
> > you cannot even come to grips with reality!
>
> Mr Huxley, You have exposed yourself as being a complete ignoramous.
> Perhaps you should have consulted Paul Myers' signature. You would have
> discovered that he resides in the Department of Biology at Temple
> University. Temple is not likely to hire someone who "alledegdly has a
> grasp of biology". His reasoned discussion of what evolutionary science
> has wrought stands in stark contrast to your ignorant screed. The tragedy
> is that brillant people Like Paul Myers have to spend any of their
> valuable time refuting the moronic drivel fo creationists.
>
> BG
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> The following is an explanation of radioactive decay:
>
> When God the Son squeezed energy into atoms, he squeezed and held the atom so tightly that there were no unstable elements and therefore no radioactivity. At the fall [of Adam and Eve], He relaxed His grip slightly... which affected every atom and allowed some to become unstable, i.e., radioactivity!
>
> Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this Journal really exist? Perhaps they could answer a couple of question.
1 If the world was created on Oct 10 4004 BC (I never can remember that date.)
and if the Son was not created until 4000 years later how did He squeeze the atoms?
2 Who did the children of Adam and Eve marry? Where did they come from?
3 Why are there two or three different versions of the creation of the earth in
the first couple of chapters of Genisis?
Keep up the good fight. I enjoy reading your and Mr. Myers replies. My training is
in Electrical Engineering and while I may not know an iota about Biology, my professors dir
teach me the importance of following proper procedure in doing research and experimentation.
cheers:
R Wightman
Subject: Re: IMPACT OROGENY ON EARTH
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: 29 Sep 1996 01:45:11 GMT
> As for the claim that the Pacific is a circular impact crater, well,
> anyone with eyes and a globe can see that the "circular" part of that
> claim is nonsense.
The claim is not that the Pacific Basin is a circular impact crater. The
claim is that the Rockies, the mountains that form Central America, the
Andes, the Trans-Antarctic Mountains, the West Australian Rise, The
Philippine Island Chain, portions of the Himalayans, the East Asian Rise,
the Kolyma Mountains, the Brooks Range, and the Mackenzie Mountains form a
great circle of the Earth as a consequence of an impact that created the
Hawaiian hot spot. This impact is linked to the impact at the KT boundary
by virtue of the distribution of fossilized dinosaur remains "outside" the
rim defined by the above named mountain systems. The model for this impact
is linked to another model for plasma motions following lunar genesis
called the Theory of Land and Life (TLL). The TLL explains the formation
of continental crust on Earth' s surface via interactions between Earth's
magnetic field and the plasma generated by the Moon-forming impact. This
land mass (proto-Pangaea) fragments, the continents move to positions near
their current positions, and then a large iron asteroid hits the Pacific
Basin. The impactor releases most of its energy at a depth beginning some
25 km below the Moho. The shock wave associated with these phenomena is
conducted in and beneath the Moho, exiting Earth along the perimeter of the
circle defined by the above noted mountains. Water rushing away from the
impact site causes the basalts to subduct beneath the continents rimming
the Pacific.
As you have noted in your post, your ideas re Hawaii's formative mechanism
is inconsistent with known plate movements. The impact model is consistent
with plate motions. Is the "cusp" to which you refer related to the wall
structures of the Bering Abyssal Plain? Could you be more specific about
the location of the cusp. Thank you. Regards, RDB
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete
From: jcorn@unlgrad1.unl.edu (James F Cornwall)
Date: 29 Sep 1996 04:50:36 GMT
danlee@gate.net wrote:
: In , david ford writes:
: [...snip...]
: >
: >Also, neither have you taken up this challenge: Genesis 1 makes very
: >specific predictions about what future study in the areas of cosmology,
: >paleontology, and geology would reveal. Show that the predicted order of
: >creation in Genesis 1 is incorrect, or that an inaccuracy is made in
: >description. Keep in mind that verse one is an overview/ summary of
: >what's coming up, and verse 2 sets the perspective of events as being
: >earthbound.
: If the book of Genesis can be taken literally, then I would still love for someone
: to explain Genesis 3: "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the
: field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath
: God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said
: unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden...etc."
: (vs 1, 2).
: What I would like to know is how a snake was able to carry on a conversation
: with Eve. Did God create serpents with superior brains than they have now?
: Did they have vocal chords then?
Maybe they conversed in Morsssssssssssssssse code? sss ssssss sss
sssss s ssssss sss sss ssssss sss sssssss .,........
: If the book of Genesis reflects literal truth of such quality that studies of
: cosmology, paleontology, and geology can be derived from it, what about
: biology? Are we leaving that out on purpose to avoid explaining that talking,
: scheming reptile?
: Dan
Subject: **THE GREAT FIRE-ASSAY DEBATE**
From: keith@kjmcap.com (keith@kjmcap)
Date: 29 Sep 1996 05:20:13 GMT
Here is our weekly update for Kilo Gold Mines.
I have been requested by Dr. W.D. Groves, Ph.D, P.Eng. to publish his
response to the Globe and Mail Article of Sept. 19, 1996.
Because the Globe Article and Dr. Groves letter are lengthy I will quote
the important issues for the purpose of establishing the viewpoints.
By: Allan Robinson, Mining Reporter - Globe & Mail
TITLE - Mineral analysts group urges lab accreditation
Allan Robinson Reports - "PETERBOROUGH, Ont. - The professional association
Canadian Mineral Analysts is taking its first step to impose credentials on
mineral laboratories in a bid to prevent stock market scandals caused by
rogue labs incompetently done assays."
Dr. W.D. Groves Responds - "At face value, good stuff....the Dominion
Assayer's Office used to circulate anonymously labelled standards that kept
Canadian labs up to par. If the Analysts Association can reinstitute this
practice, this would be a good thing. Accreditation checked by
performance."
Allan Robinson Reports - "This year Canadian investors have been stunned
by companies claiming that new assaying techniques, often from small
laboratories in the United States, show significantly richer gold readings
than those obtained by more conventional methods. The Alberta Stock
Exchange has refused to accept dubious assays done on behalf of several of
its listed mine exploration companies. Although specifically invited, no
regulatory officials attended yesterday's session dealing with
accreditation."
Dr. W.D. Groves Responds - "Assaying should be an example of the
application of science, in this case the vast science of chemistry, and not
the application of normative coercion by way of opprobrious use of buzz
words like "scam, standard, more standard and some standards being more
stand than others" (to misquote Orwell). The semi-veiled insinuation that
US labs (who tend to use a little more chemistry than their Canadian
cousins) are crooked, because of this also needs to be avoided if you want
to stay out of the courtrooms. (Ethics vs. Methods mixup)"
Allan Robinson Reports - "Wesley Johnson, professor of chemistry at
Okanagan University College in Kelowna, B.C...... said the concept that
there are significant quantities of gold in some ore samples that can only
be measured with unconventional techniques is false.
Dr. W.D. Groves Responds - "If you leaf through the table of Contents of
Standard fire assay (of gold) text books you will notice:"
1) "All have about 20 chapters, most of the later ones devoted to
necessary ADAPTIONS of the "standard" (gold quartz) assay recipe to take
into account various groups of elements which severely interfere with or
eliminate the gold determination, and have to be coped with by SPECIFIED
departures from the "standard recipe" in order to get any appreciable gold
recovery out of the rock being assayed. Among such groups are: Base metals
like Copper, Nickel and Cobalt. Metalloids like Bismuth, Arsenic,
Antimony, Selenium and MOST OF ALL Tellurium. The Platinum metals (horror
of horrors) successively complicate the issues until fire assaying is
usually abandoned in favour of flow sheet refining wet chemistry to isolate
gold from the other metal groups."
2) "Non-standard" flux ADDITIONS, a few examples: An iron nail to remove
Ir, Sb, As, S, etc.. CaF/2 to volatilize Ir, Os, Ru, as hexafluorides, NaCN
to slag metalloids, borax to help slag the PGE, extra C to carburize Ir,
Os, Ru, Pt, treatment of the lead button by boiling with rock salt to
volatilize Te as Te Cl/3 ... and so on, need to be part of the assayers
STANDARD bag of tricks to get reasonable gold recovery in the face of
various specific interfering elements. To hem him in with hobbles of
excessive STANDARDIZATION of procedure is to lose gold recovery from ores
containing these elements, HENCE, future mines."
3) "Charging or mixing collector metal from lead to silver or copper and
micro-wave pretreatment to break anionic compounds of gold (unknown until a
few years ago) also can make an enormous increase in gold recovery in an
assay of such deposits, and thus avoid missing these deposits."
Allan Robinson Reports - "Wesley Johnson, We have to flush (those
concepts) down the toilet. We have to get rid of that concept because
there is no such thing as un-assayable gold."
Dr. W.D. Groves Responds - "The mark of a good measuring stick is, does
it measure? A zero assay can be EITHER a sign of no gold or (at least as
often) the result of applying the wrong specific assaying procedure. One
must not confuse ethics with methods, by castigating (as "non-standard")
assays that get non-zero results. Very often if you measure "zip" by doing
the assayer wrong, it's the measuring stick that's wrong, not the other
assayer (who DOESN'T get 'zip') that's crooked. Mistaking chemical ability
for ethical dishonesty can be expensive legally and a waste of potential
new mines."
"I agree there IS no such thing as un-assayable gold, if you use the
appropriate assay procedure. But there IS (frequently) UNDETECTED gold,
for the above reasons, when the assay method is inadequate."
Allan Robinson Reports - "Canadian assaying laboratories are among the
leaders in the international mining business, but since there has been no
evaluation process in place there are NO accredited laboratories in this
country for assaying work, Mr. Johnson said."
Dr. W.D. Groves Responds - "If you look at the flow sheet for, for
example, a now-outmoded copper-nickel refining flow sheet for INCO (Sudbury
Operations, Canada), you will note that the standard-lead-fire for gold is
NEVER applied to gold recovery until AFTER it has been essentially isolated
from the other elements by many steps of mostly wet chemistry. If the big
producer-refiners rigorously applied the STANDARD FIRE method as a heads
RECOVERY measure for gold on complex ores they handle, they'd go BROKE."
Allan Robinson Reports - "Jean Richardson, the quality control manager at
Lakefield, said the association will study the possibility of becoming a
SELF-REGULATORY organization that will put in place an accreditation
process much like those already used in environment and health service
laboratories in Canada. Under the proposals discussed yesterday, audits
would be done on assay laboratories and test samples would routinely be
analyzed by assay companies to ensure that their techniques are up to
professional standards"
Dr. W.D. Groves Responds - "This is a useful thing to factor into ones
thinking when listening to their proposals for the use of STANDARD FIRE to
judge the gold content of OTHER peoples ores, (Caveat vendor...?...) and an
effective means of keeping new boys off the block. In current commercial
lab practice, the secret lies in FAIR circulation of assay samples of a
WIDE variety of ore types to calibrate BOTH assays and assayers."
"So much for gold"
"The Platinum group elements generally fare less well. Under current
practice samples are usually pre-scanned spectrograhically. The
spectrographic STANDARDS (reference metal samples) and interpretative
software normally used actually screen for the PGE isotopes common in South
African mines, again these being normally far less plentiful in PGE metal
from other mines, which usually have very different characteristics
"isotope mixes". (note: this isotope fingerprint effect is also present in
other heavy metals, like lead, for example), making the source mine
identifiable. This is BEFORE chemical assay. So PGE are all too often
thus all but screened out of the assay report. Whence, few new PGE mines
in North America."
"So here, the enforcement of STANDARD assays involves a question of WHOSE
standards, a DISTINCTLY Orwellian twist, no? STANDARD assaying has quite
a subtext.....submerged beneath a cry for the enforcement of ethics, the
question of METHODS becomes a submarine.....but usually STILL the main
issue. Beware of the Mullahs of science.....they are administrators in
sheep clothing."
"There IS no single answer to assaying."
Regards,
William D. Groves, Ph.D, P.Eng.
Monday, Sept. 30 should be an interesting day with the testing by Naxos/Ray
Steele/LeDoux Labs to establish its un-conventional testing method of
Micro-fine gold for the ASE representatives.
Stay tuned, I'll update as the information becomes available.
--
Keith@kjmcap.com KJM CAPITAL CORP. PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM
http://www.kjmcap.com-KILO GOLD MINES-JAY TAYLOR'S GOLD & GOLD STOCKS
Subject: Re: The Hawaii Impact: Details
From: J. McArthur
Date: 28 Sep 1996 16:27:57 -0700
In article <01bbad56$5867a200$0100007f@dial.inetnebr.com>, "Robert says...
>> Excuse me, but how did these mountains form in your model? That is at
>what
>> strain rate did the deformation occur at.
>The transition line (see below) forms very quickly. Orogeny along this
>line may take much longer to develop.
>> Look at all of the shocked quartz, shocked plagioclase, shatter cones,
>> impact breccias and lapilli tuffs (with shocked quartz). Why are these
>> not present in the rocks surrounding your impact sites?
>There are two major types of impact orogeny (mountain building) envisioned
>by the TLL. One type (continental impact orogeny) is the direct
>consequence of a very large impact that strikes Pangaea while the other
>type involves oceanic impacts (oceanic impact orogeny). Shock effects
>experienced by continental structures are "compressive" when impactors
>directly collide with the atmospheric surfaces of continental plates. In
>contrast, shock effects experienced by continental plates are "dissipative"
>when large impactors strike Earth in oceanic locations. Oceanic impacts
>transmit shock blasts radially away from the impact site within and beneath
>the level of the Mohorovic discontinuity. The shock waves generated by
>oceanic impacts follow the natural curvature of the Earth until the radius
>of the shock front equals the radius of the Earth. The radius of the
>radially-propagated shock wave continues to increase after this, but
>Earth's curvature begins to "close" and can no longer transmit, "guide",
>and "contain" the shock front. The break-away transition occurs at that
>great circle of the Earth whose plane is perpendicular to the radius of the
>Earth that passes through the center of the impact site. The shock blast
>passes out of the Earth along the circular "transition line", punching up
>from beneath the plates. Both types of plates (oceanic and continental)
>are fractured along the circular transition line, but the oceanic plates
>quickly reseal. The continental plates also fracture along the transition
>line, creating fractures in their atmospheric surfaces that geographically
>define the transition line itself via the appearance of mountain systems
>along this line (which is actually a broad "band" as opposed to a thin
>"line").
So how would you say these fracture patterns would have been original
oriented within the continental crust? That is relative to the shock
wave’s stress field orientations (were the faults in this broad zone
of brittle deformation high angle, low angle, radial). In this TTL model
what produced the fold and thrust sheets that are observed in these
mountains and how quickly did they form?
BTW, what do you think were the magnitudes of these continental crust
fracturing stresses.
Shocked quartz, shocked plagioclase, shatter cones, impact
>breccias and lapilli tuffs (with shocked quartz) are characteristic of
>compressive land-based impacts, but are not found along the
>energy-dissipative transition line associated with oceanic impacts (at
>least not on the atmospheric surfaces of the continental plates).
Why would you not find impact breccias and lapilli tuffs around any impact
site. Oceanic crust compresses just as well as continental at a few
GPa or are you suggesting that the "plastic" lithosphere cushioned the
impact.
>An example of the former (continental impact orogeny) is the impact that
>was centered in the (modern era) Congo at a time when North America and
>South America were still portions of Pangaea. The Hawaii impact is an
>example of the latter (oceanic impact orogeny).
So in this model TTL how were the Appalachian and Caledonian mountains formed?
Were they part of a series of continental or oceanic impact orogenies?
J. McArthur
Subject: PRAYER 28/9/96 Freedom of Speech > Academic Freedom?
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 29 Sep 1996 02:28:50 GMT
In article <23SEP96.13784362.0060@128.192.253.5>
"BIRT, DAWN MARY" writes:
> It's not my place to say who is right and who is wrong, but I would
> like to offer up an opinion. Suppose Jesus had spouted an equation or
> some scientific explanation. Do you believe that the people of His
> time would have believed him any more than other people believed the
> first astronomers or other scientists in other fields who offered
> explanations? Think back for jsut a minute on all of the discoveries
> that were kept secret for the scientists fear of being mobbed. Or of
> the scientists who were mobbed, discredited, and/or sent away for
> theories and ideals that, as scientists, we accept now to be constants.
> Dawn M. Birt
> ocean@music.cc.uga.edu
The point of the enquiry was to establish whether Jesus was
supernatural or normal. My opinion of the situation is that of the
described Bible miracles that violate science laws-- walking on water,
parting of the Red Sea, produce food out of nowhere, instantly curing
of disease, those miracles if true would have easily rendered a miracle
that could be verified in all times. If Jesus were the Son of God and
those miracles were not just exaggerations or drummed up falsehoods
then his power of supernatural accompanied by the power of God
himself(her/it) would have established some work that would be godlike
and not left to the tempermental humans. Such a clear sign would have
been say, an advance in math and one in biology and one in physics and
one in chemistry. For instance, Jesus would have written on the cross
Schroedingers Equation and both Jesus and God would have made the
humans keep that sign. Better yet, Jesus and God would have say turned
his cross with Jesus on it into a strange metal, a metal that can not
be easily destroyed or corroded. Those signs would have been godly
signs that this person is not of our world. That he is truly a
messenger of god and not some human fictionalized story.
I hate to say it but in a strange sense it is true that if a Koresh
or a Jim Jones of Kool-Aid fame in Guinea? If those characters had been
back their during the Biblical history years, that it is likely that
they would have gotten a chapter in the Bible as some kind of prophets
simply because they were able to get a crowd of loose thinking people
to obey them.
Your post is your opinion. My opinion is that nothing that occurred
in the Bible convinces me that Jesus or any other Bible figure was more
than a human. And nothing from the Bible convinces me that any laws of
physics or biology or science were broken. Rather, all of these
miracles bespeak of fiction, lies, myths or exaggerations. If you want
to base your worship on the Bible, you have that right, but to me, a
physics text is more truthful that the Bible.
But reading your post, I was wondering what if any difference there
is between Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom? Is the former a
larger species that includes Academic Freedom? Or is there some
elements within Academic Freedom which is not contained in Freedom of
Speech. Do the two have different meanings or definitions? Perhaps
Academic Freedom has a plane of "doing" or "activities" which Freedom
of Speech involves only language communication. Academic Freedom may
involve doing experiments.
Subject: Re: 4-country point
From: amos@nsof.co.il (Amos Shapir)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 10:52:46 GMT
Roger Wilson writes:
>Olaf Janssen wrote (crossposted to
>no fewer than 11 newsgroups, so we have a good chance of getting a
>really mixed response here)
>>
>>are there any places on Earth, where 4 or more countries (or states)
>>have a commom borderpoint.
>There is at least one paper in Nature, written by Lewis Fry Richardson
>in about 1947 or '48, which attempts to construct a quantitative index
>of political stability (the likelyhood of war) based on measurable
>quantities. He decided that triple border points were very unstable, and
>quadruple points even more so. That is one reason that they are rare.
The answer repeated here many times, of the Four Corners point doesn't
really qualify, since it's between states, not countries (and the funny
thing is, it's in a Navajo Indian reservation, so neither state has full
jurisdiction there...)
But Richardson does have a point! The place I had in mind when reading
the original query, is the tip of the Gulf of Aqaba, where the borders of
Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia abut. The meeting point is not on
land, but since the gulf is less than 6 miles wide there are no
international waters in between.
--
Amos Shapir Net: amos@nsof.co.il
Paper: nSOF Parallel Software, Ltd.
Givat-Hashlosha 48800, Israel
Tel: +972 3 9388551 Fax: +972 3 9388552 GEO: 34 55 15 E / 32 05 52 N
Subject: Re: Four Major Theories (incl. Giant Impact) : The Moon
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: 29 Sep 1996 13:35:30 GMT
*mikejm@westworld.com* wrote in article <324d98c8.4516153@news>...
> The moon, is enriched in refractory elements (that remain solid at
> high temperatures) and somewhat depleated in volatile elements. Oxygen
> isotope ratios of the earth and moon are identical.
All of the above is true. In addition, Martian atmospheric oxygen isotope
ratios (ala Viking) are indistinguishable from Earth's values. RDB
The oldest lunar
> surfaces are 4.6 b.y..
One should probably say "appear to be 4.6 b.y. old" to cover all
possibilities. RDB
A giant impact early in the earths history
> would account for the enrichment in refractory elements (the ejecta
> being primarily in a vapor state.
All elements exceed their first (at least) ionization temperatures at 3500
k. What this means is that their nuclei are positively charged and their
electrons are entirely delocalized. This is the definition of "plasma",
i.e. "an electrically neutral, highly ionized gas composed of ions,
electrons, and neutral particles. It is a phase of matter distinct from
solids, liquids, and normal gases".
The depletion of siderophiles forces
> theorists to assume that the incomming impactor had already
> differentiated into a core and mantle prior to the impact.
It forces them to conclude this, but it also forces them to conclude that
the Earth had done the same. Both had well-defined metallic cores and
rocky mantles, the minimal criteria for creating planetary magnetic fields.
There is only one other requirement, that they have spin. RDB
It is
> belived that at least half (and up to all of) of the lunar mass is
> derived from the outer layers of the impactor.
With the remainder coming from those portions of Earth's crust that were
thrown into space by the collision and from subsequent (much smaller)
impacts that increased the accretional mass of the Moon (and Earth) over
time. RDB
Siderophiles within the
> impactor's core would then have to be incorporated into the earth. One
> of the problems all this presents are the oxygen isoptope ratio
> similarities between the Earth and Moon. Since these ratios are
> similar it is diffucult to reconcile the similaities considering that
> the theory requires that the bulk of the lunar mass was formed from
> the outer layers of the impactor.
It seems fairly obvious that the significance of O-trilogy values are--at
the present time--completely misunderstood or inadequately explained. The
largest O-reservoir for the O-isotopes in the Solar System is the Sun.
Dynamic exchange with this reservoir is never considered in
geological/astronomical/meteoritic discussions of the mechanisms that
determine O-trilogy values in specific rocks. The single greatest virtue
or use of the O-trilogy values is in the determination of whether or not a
rock is derived from a body having a significantly large gravitational
mass, a determination that is just as easily made by a petrological
examination of the rock in question. A second problem with the
interpretation of the O-isotope values is the "one way thinking" that has
been characteristic of those who seem to "rest their case" on O-trilogy
values (as in the study/characterization of the planetary body of origin
for meteorite ALH84001 and the SNC-class meteorites). Small-sized (less
than 3 meter diameter) space debris in any prolonged (multi-million year)
solar orbit will have an O-trilogy profile that approaches that of the Sun.
When that object then impacts with a planetary body it will begin to
fractionate by mass-dependent (gravitational) effects. If it then gets
thrown back into space it will again revert over time to the ratios found
in the new "space reserve", i.e. that of the Sun. RDB
Most impact models do not suggest
> the moon coalased in 24 hours but over millions of years, a brief
> interval in geologic time.
Simply not true. See:
Origin of the Earth (Newsom, H.E. & J.H. Jones, eds., Oxford, New York),
pp. 1-378, 1990. This text contains the Proceedings of Lunar & Planetary
Institute Conference on the Origin of the Earth, Berkeley, California,
1988; Hartman, W.K. & D.R. Davis, Satellite-Sized Planetesimals and Lunar
Origin, Icarus 24: 504-515, 1975; Benz, W., A.G.W. Cameron, and H.J.
Melosh, The Origin of the Moon and the Single Giant Impact Hypothesis III,
Icarus 81: 113-131, 1989; Melosh, H.J., Giant Impacts and the Thermal State
of the Early Earth, in Origin of Earth, pp. 69-83, 1990; Benz, W. and
A.G.W. Cameron, Terrestrial Effects of the Giant Impact, see Origin of
Earth, pp. 61-68.
The simulations show that nearly all (in excess of 90%) of the impact
debris accretes with either the Earth or the Moon within 24 hours. In
these regards, they do not "suggest" anything at all, being very specific
of the time frame over which the accretional process transpires. The only
fraction that takes a longer period of time is that fraction that is
between 10,000 and 100,000 k, a total mass representing approximately 5% of
the total planetary mass (Earth+impactor). RDB
Entrained volatiles escaped into
> interplanetary space.
Any pre-existing atmospheres were blown off into space by the collision.
The 5% of the impacting mass that was present in thermal states ranging
from 10,000 to 100,000 k was highly ionized. We have already established
that the impactors had the attributes needed to establish planetary
magnetic fields. It is thought that the impactor's structure was
completely disrupted by the collision, but Earth's core-mantle interface
was not. The impact did (according to the sims) excavate Earth's mantle
beneath the impact site down to its core-mantle boundary, but this would
only act to deshield the planet's magnetic field and carry its flux into
space. Plasma "contains" magnetic flux and magnetic flux "contains"
plasma. This is the basis for being able to build tokomaks. The 5% figure
represents a total mass that is some 2,500 times more than is needed to
fabricate all of Earth's continental crust. Only a very small fraction of
the plasma need be contained by the planet's magnetic field to create
continental crust on Earth from that plasma once it cools. RDB
> The last major impacts to strike the moon formed the Imbrium and
> Orientale basins. These two impacts occured within a few tens of
> millions of years apart from each other about 3.85 billion years ago.
> These impacts occured during the time that cratering of the moon was
> declining rapidly. Statisticaly the odds of these impacts happening on
> the Moon and not on the Earth is low because the Earth is a larger
> target. But these ones hit the moon and are preserved there. The
> cratering rate on the moon became relatively constant about 3 b.y. ago
> along with the extrusion of lunar flood basalts. The 1 b.y crater
> Copernicus has a crosscuting relationship with the flood basalts..
You have forgotten about the Procellarum Basin on the Moon and an analogous
Procellarum Pacifica on Earth (see Craters, Cosmos, and Chronicles, Herbert
R. Shaw, Stanford U. Press, 1994, page 52 ( a text whose publication was
supported by the USGS). Procellarum Pacifica is thought to be the
ancestral "cause" for the formation of the modern Pacific Basin of the
Earth. RDB
> >What does the existing literature indicate happened to all of the
> >10,000-100,000 k plasma? Are there any models for plasma motions in
> >planetary magnetic fields? RDB, earlier post.
> Assuming there was this plasma, most of what I have read only refers
> to it as a vapor that cooled to form a rocky ring structure, I do not
> know what effects the Earths magnetic field would have on such a
> plasma. If there was such a plasma and it did not escape and dissipate
> into the solar wind, I imagine some of it may formed a thin layer
> around the Earth. At the two poles the charged paritcles (plasma) may
> have contacted the Earths surface. Who knows?
First: our model for the evolution of the Sun (and other stars) indicates
that the solar wind didn't "blow" with the same force that it does in the
modern era.
Second: There is an extremely well developed literature re plasma motions
in planetary magnetic fields. The types of motions (convection) for plasma
contained by planetary magnetic fields are divided into two types: (A) low
mass systems, and (B) Large mass systems. These two types of convection
systems are distinguished from one another by reference to whether or not
the total mass of plasma is large enough to display self-gravitation. The
differences are not simply theoretical musings. Earth's modern
magnetosphere/plasmasphere is representative of a "low mass" plasma system.
The "Io Plasma Torus" of Jupiter is representative of the convections of
the "large mass" systems. See: Hill, T.W. and A.J. Dessler, Plasma
Motions in Planetary Magnetic Fields, Science 252: 410-415. Science
magazine published this paper prior to Galileo's Jovian fly-bys as a guide
to understanding the mechanisms that sustain the Io plasma torus.
Other references that you may consult in these regards include: McGrath,
M.A., D.T. Hall, P.L. Matheson, H.A. Weaver et al, Response of the Io
Plasma Torus to Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, Science 267: 1313-1317, 1995;
Horanyi, M., Particle Dynamics in the Jovian Magnetosphere, Geophys. Res.
Lett. 21: 1039, 1994; Prange, R., I. M. Engle, J. T. Clarke, M. Dunlop et
al, Aural Signature of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 in the Jovian Magnetosphere,
Science 267: 1317-1320, 1995; Infrared Signature of Jupiter's Io
Interaction Is Detected, Eos 76: 1, February 21, 1995.
The mass of plasma generated by the impact associated with lunar genesis
was so large that it must be considered a "large mass plasma system". Plug
the data from the impact simulations of lunar genesis into the established
models for motions/convections of large mass plasma systems and one gets:
"Theory of Land and Life", as described in this newsgroup. RDB
> How do plasmas behave on the sun? They are expressed as flares that
> arc across magnetic feilds. At these poles the plasma cools
> (sunspots). Maybe if there was this plasma it cooled very rapidly. It
> may have cooled too rapidly for the magnetic field to have any effect
> at all. Maybe there was no plasma at all.
Go back to the beginning of this post and then consult any table listing of
the ionization temperatures for the elements. It is an erroneous "cop out"
to say "maybe there was no plasma". The Sun is not a particularly good
model for the study of plasma motions in planetary magnetic fields,
particularly plasma generated by a single thermal event as opposed to
continuous heating as occurs in or with the Sun (the Io plasma torus is
also a continuous (but time-mass variant) system because of the tidal
disruption of Io and the variable rates of volcanic emissions . The
question as to how long it took for the plasma (of lunar genesis) to cool
is a good one. No one (that I know of) has taken up this matter (no pun
intended) in any rigorous manner. It is a question that depends upon many
quantum resonance factors that appear beyond the scope of contemporary
human understandings and the RAM capacities of existing supercomputer
systems. In my discussions with plasma physicists I have heard estimates
ranging from a week to many millions of years. Within this broad span of
temporal range estimates, however, it should be noted that none of the
equations of motion descriptive of plasma convection paths and forces is
significantly restricted by any temporal factor except the speed of light.
The larger thesis, of course, assumes that electromagnetic forces
influenced physical processes in the cosmos (and on Earth) prior to
Marconi's development of wireless telegraphy. This last point seems
necessary, as opposed to gratuitous, because there is precious little
evidence in the most contemporary geological literature to suggest
otherwise. Don't YOU think it may be time for bright young geology
students to bring the study of Earth's Archean-era history into a
post-Marconi paradigm? RDB
Subject: Re: 4-country point
From: crs@swcp.com (Charlie Sorsby)
Date: 29 Sep 1996 19:15:57 GMT
In article , Amos Shapir wrote:
= >Olaf Janssen wrote
= >>
= >>are there any places on Earth, where 4 or more countries (or states)
^^^^^^
= >>have a commom borderpoint.
=
= The answer repeated here many times, of the Four Corners point doesn't
= really qualify, since it's between states, not countries (and the funny
Are you saying that it doesn't "qualify" as an answer to the
original question or to the post about Richardson's paper? While
it is quite possible that the orignal poster meant "states" in the
sense of nations, he did say "states" so I figure that the Four
Corners does, indeed, qualify as a answer to the original quesiont
which you, in part, quoted above. I added the underscore.
= thing is, it's in a Navajo Indian reservation, so neither state has full
= jurisdiction there...)
= --
= Amos Shapir Net: amos@nsof.co.il
= Paper: nSOF Parallel Software, Ltd.
= Givat-Hashlosha 48800, Israel
= Tel: +972 3 9388551 Fax: +972 3 9388552 GEO: 34 55 15 E / 32 05 52 N
--
Best,
Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby Los Alamos, NM "I'm the NRA!"
crs@swcp.com www.swcp.com/~crs Life Member since 1965
Subject: Accretionary Prism Growth and Forearc Subsidence
From: williams@pangea.stanford.edu (Tom Williams)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 14:18:56 -0700
In my dissertation I'm doing stratigraphic and basin analysis
in the Cretaceous Great Valley Group ('Sequence' if you work at
the USGS) in the Sacramento Basin of northern California.
For those unfamiliar, this is a thick, (4-10km, depending on
how you measure it) turbidite-dominated forearc basin fill.
The basin was constructed atop an ophiolitic fragment at its
seaward edge and adjacent metamorphic/plutonic/volcanic roots
of the arc massif, and associated accreted materal at its
landward edge.
Much of my work points strongly to a flexural mechanism for
the tectonically-driven portion of the subsidence,
at least during the (pre-Maastrichtian) Cretaceous.
(yes there probably was thermal subsidence of the
ophiolite substrate during the earliest part of the basin's
history but during most of the observed tectonic subsidence
it should've been quite cool already .)
The problem is this: What's the flexural load?
Given that the outboard half of the basin is gone due to Cenozoic
uplift and erosion, I could certainly hypothesize about backthrusting
of the accretionary prism onto the basin and/or the underlying Coast
Range Ophiolite, creating a load. This has certainly been observed
in a couple of modern forearcs (if anyone wants to give me references,
I could use some more). However, it doesn't seem that this alone could
provide a large enough load to explain the observed 'flexural' subsidence
though. (1.5-3km, perhaps up to 4km total tectonic subsidence).
There is another possilibity though, isostatic loading through
underplating due to growth of the accretionary prism.
If you consider the accretionary prism to be a part of the
overriding plate, growth of the prism, particularly underneath
the forearc basin, could create an isostatic load, that would result
in flexural downwarping of the margin of the overriding plate.
This seems to fit my data, but I have a bit of a problem with it
conceptually, since it seems that I'm asking the melange to
act as 1) mechanically-linked to the overlying plate and
2) capable of 'pulling' down on the overriding plate.
Now I know that it's not really tensile, it's a question of
least compression, etc.
So my question is this:
Does it make sense that the building of the accretionary prism,
and/or the underplating of material beneath the forearc basin
could act as an isostatic load, flexurally downwarping the
overriding plate's forearc region, or does this require assuming
an unreasonable degere of mechanical linkage between the accretionary
prism and the rest of the overlying plate?
If you can help me, thanks a bunch!
Tom Williams
--
Tom Williams williams@pangea.stanford.edu
Basin Analysis, Sequence Stratigraphy
Stanford Program on Deep-Sea Depositional Systems
http://pangea.stanford.edu/~williams/williams.html
Subject: Geomorphology/Geodynamics faculty position at UCR
From: mckibben@ucrac1.ucr.edu (michael mckibben)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 21:34:22 GMT
GEOMORPHOLOGIST
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE
The Department of Earth Sciences invites applications for a tenure
track position in geomorphology, starting July 1 1997, at the
Assistant Professor rank. The PhD and a strong commitment to research
and teaching are required. We seek a field-oriented geomorphologist
with research interests in geodynamics, who can augment our
applications of GIS and interact with existing topical strengths in
tectonics, sedimentary and faunal dynamics, and geohydrology.
Substantial opportunities exist on campus for collaboration in soil
science, landscape ecology and archeometry. The appointee would teach
graduate and undergraduate courses in geomorphology and structural
geology.
The department has 11 tenured faculty and 5 additional research
faculty. There are 35 undergraduate majors and 35 graduate students,
2/3 of whom are Ph.D. students. We offer degrees in Geography,
Geology, and Geophysics. Relevant facilities include: GIS
laboratories with Sun work stations, PC’s and graphics terminals
operated on a VAX cluster; three Trimble SSI 4000 geodetic survey
stations; an extensive air photo library; a remote sensing lab with
zoom transfer scopes; an experimental tectonophysics lab; a small
flume; a drill-truck; shallow-seismic and resistivity survey
equipment; and a light stable isotope laboratory.
Submit current curriculum vitae, reprints, and names of three
referees, by October 31 1996, to: Dr. Peter Sadler, Chair, Department
of Earth Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521.
Telephone: (909)-787-5616. E-mail: peter.sadler@ucr.edu
The University of California is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative
Action Employer.
Subject: Re: Circular Reasoning: A Brain Teaser
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: 29 Sep 1996 22:12:19 GMT
Chuck Karish wrote in article
<52k0at$nhj@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
> >> >> If the lithosphere slid away from the impact site in all
directions,
> >> >> there should be a huge scar where teh impact took place and there
> >> >> should be prominent cracks, filled with 65 MY lava, extending from
> >> >> the impact point far out into the Pacific plate. CK
> >
> >The model for the Hawaii impact that I've been advocating (and
annotating
> >in response to your excellent questions) does not represent a total
> >departure from accepted or existing models of oceanic crustal behavior.
RDB
>
> No exotic assumptions are needed to answer my question. The impact
> model as presented by RDB says that the 65 MYBP impact caused an
> abrupt movement of the Pacific Ocean crust away from the impact.
> If it moved away far enough to shove mountains up several miles,
> there'd have to be a hole at the spot it moved away from. I
> don't know where there is such a scar in the plate. CK
Chuck:
No exotic answers are needed. Let me illustrate my point (that the oceanic
crust need not move very far to create large mountains) with a simple
application of a very fundamental equation: the circumference of a circle.
I will greatly simplify matters by using lines instead of volumes.
The circumference of a circle is equal to its diameter (d) multiplied by pi
(3.14), and the radius of a circle is d/2. Earth's equatorial diameter is
7,926 mi, or 12,760 km. Do the calculation (3.14 * 12,760km) and one gets
the answer 40,066.4 km as Earth's circumference at the equator (24,887.6
miles). Now, let us imagine that we are going to "insert" a segment of
"new crust" at the equatorial line via an impact. For the sake of argument
(for now only) let us accept J. Head's estimate that it would require a 500
km ball of steel to do the required task. For the sake of simplifying the
discussion, let's say then that we are going to "add" 500 km to Earth's
circumference, e.g. we are going to forget all of the impact physics and
just imagine that the impactor divides the oceanic crust at the equator and
inserts itself at the level of the basalt, adding 500 km to the
circumference of the Earth.
Let's do the calculation of this imaginary situation and compare the radius
of the old circle to the new circle to find the difference between the two
as an estimate of how "high" above Earth's old surface the new
circumference resides (remember, we've doing an imaginary problem here and
we are not going to worry about pressure/volume/density issues). I think
the geometrical results will surprise you. The calculation:
Old circumference = 40,066.4 km. New circumference = 40,066.4 + 500 km =
40,566.4 km.
Now, the old diameter was/is 12,760, and r = d/2, so the old radius was
6,380 km.
The new radius (after the "insertion of 500 km at the equator) is:
[40,566.4 km/3.14]/2 = 6459.6 km
The difference between the old radius and the new radius is 6459.6 - 6380 =
79.6 km
Now, a mountain on Earth that is 79.6 km high would be an enormous
mountain, like nothing we know!! This isn't the calculation of how high a
mountain would be, however, it is the calculation of how high above the old
equatorial surface the new equatorial surface would reside ALL AROUND THE
EARTH!
Clearly, we would not require a 500 km diameter "insertion" to make
mountains the size (height above sea level) of the Andes, or the Rockies,
or the Himalayans, etc. AND WE DO NOT REQUIRE A 500 km INSERTION (250 km
in each direction around the equator) or total lateral motion of the
basalts to create the geometrical uplift height of the mountains rimming
the Hawaii impact site. Actually, a 10 km diameter impactor will do the
job in an adequate manner, it just has to be moving very fast.
Like I was saying before, one does not have to imagine great lateral
displacements of oceanic crust to create mountains the size of the
mountains we are dealing with in the situation of those created by the
Hawaii impact. This is why I gave J. Head an "F" for his analysis of the
size of the impactor "needed to do the job".
BTW, the above approach DOES suggest an independent way to estimate the
size of the impactor involved in the collision, and from that a calculation
of its closing velocity at impact. This exercise would require all types
of reasonable estimates for different parameters (average height of
peri-Pacific mountains immediately after the impact, how much gravitational
relaxation has occurred since, composition/density of the impactor (I'd use
92% iron, the value for most iron meteorites), how far inland the basalts
(as opposed to their shock fronts) have actually been subducted, etc., etc.
Sounds like a fast publication for any number of graduate students in
geology.
I'll respond to your other comments after you've had a chance to consider
the above geometries, see that they "work" for any Earth circumference
passing through an impact site, and then realize from this contemplation
(and the geometrical differences that I've previously mentioned re Earth's
geoidal shape and the "paths of least resistance" factors that will
determine which way the rushing waters of an oceanic impact will actually
make the basaltic plates move (east and west more than north and
south))... THAT THESE GEOMETRICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF IMPACTS CORRELATE VERY
NICELY WITH THE RELATIVE HEIGHTS OF THE PERI-PACIFIC MOUNTAINS RESIDING
EAST AND WEST VERSUS NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE HAWAII IMPACT SITE!!! RDB
Regards,
Robert D. Brown, M.D.
PS Maybe Plato was right, A circle IS a neat, comprehensible sort of thing.
Subject: A Brain Teaser
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: 29 Sep 1996 22:15:14 GMT
Chuck Karish wrote in article
<52k0at$nhj@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
> >> >> If the lithosphere slid away from the impact site in all
directions,
> >> >> there should be a huge scar where teh impact took place and there
> >> >> should be prominent cracks, filled with 65 MY lava, extending from
> >> >> the impact point far out into the Pacific plate. CK
> >
> >The model for the Hawaii impact that I've been advocating (and
annotating
> >in response to your excellent questions) does not represent a total
> >departure from accepted or existing models of oceanic crustal behavior.
RDB
>
> No exotic assumptions are needed to answer my question. The impact
> model as presented by RDB says that the 65 MYBP impact caused an
> abrupt movement of the Pacific Ocean crust away from the impact.
> If it moved away far enough to shove mountains up several miles,
> there'd have to be a hole at the spot it moved away from. I
> don't know where there is such a scar in the plate. CK
Chuck:
No exotic answers are needed. Let me illustrate my point (that the oceanic
crust need not move very far to create large mountains) with a simple
application of a very fundamental equation: the circumference of a circle.
I will greatly simplify matters by using lines instead of volumes.
The circumference of a circle is equal to its diameter (d) multiplied by pi
(3.14), and the radius of a circle is d/2. Earth's equatorial diameter is
7,926 mi, or 12,760 km. Do the calculation (3.14 * 12,760km) and one gets
the answer 40,066.4 km as Earth's circumference at the equator (24,887.6
miles). Now, let us imagine that we are going to "insert" a segment of
"new crust" at the equatorial line via an impact. For the sake of argument
(for now only) let us accept J. Head's estimate that it would require a 500
km ball of steel to do the required task. For the sake of simplifying the
discussion, let's say then that we are going to "add" 500 km to Earth's
circumference, e.g. we are going to forget all of the impact physics and
just imagine that the impactor divides the oceanic crust at the equator and
inserts itself at the level of the basalt, adding 500 km to the
circumference of the Earth.
Let's do the calculation of this imaginary situation and compare the radius
of the old circle to the new circle to find the difference between the two
as an estimate of how "high" above Earth's old surface the new
circumference resides (remember, we've doing an imaginary problem here and
we are not going to worry about pressure/volume/density issues). I think
the geometrical results will surprise you. The calculation:
Old circumference = 40,066.4 km. New circumference = 40,066.4 + 500 km =
40,566.4 km.
Now, the old diameter was/is 12,760, and r = d/2, so the old radius was
6,380 km.
The new radius (after the "insertion of 500 km at the equator) is:
[40,566.4 km/3.14]/2 = 6459.6 km
The difference between the old radius and the new radius is 6459.6 - 6380 =
79.6 km
Now, a mountain on Earth that is 79.6 km high would be an enormous
mountain, like nothing we know!! This isn't the calculation of how high a
mountain would be, however, it is the calculation of how high above the old
equatorial surface the new equatorial surface would reside ALL AROUND THE
EARTH!
Clearly, we would not require a 500 km diameter "insertion" to make
mountains the size (height above sea level) of the Andes, or the Rockies,
or the Himalayans, etc. AND WE DO NOT REQUIRE A 500 km INSERTION (250 km
in each direction around the equator) or total lateral motion of the
basalts to create the geometrical uplift height of the mountains rimming
the Hawaii impact site. Actually, a 10 km diameter impactor will do the
job in an adequate manner, it just has to be moving very fast.
Like I was saying before, one does not have to imagine great lateral
displacements of oceanic crust to create mountains the size of the
mountains we are dealing with in the situation of those created by the
Hawaii impact. This is why I gave J. Head an "F" for his analysis of the
size of the impactor "needed to do the job".
BTW, the above approach DOES suggest an independent way to estimate the
size of the impactor involved in the collision, and from that a calculation
of its closing velocity at impact. This exercise would require all types
of reasonable estimates for different parameters (average height of
peri-Pacific mountains immediately after the impact, how much gravitational
relaxation has occurred since, composition/density of the impactor (I'd use
92% iron, the value for most iron meteorites), how far inland the basalts
(as opposed to their shock fronts) have actually been subducted, etc., etc.
Sounds like a fast publication for any number of graduate students in
geology.
I'll respond to your other comments after you've had a chance to consider
the above geometries, see that they "work" for any Earth circumference
passing through an impact site, and then realize from this contemplation
(and the geometrical differences that I've previously mentioned re Earth's
geoidal shape and the "paths of least resistance" factors that will
determine which way the rushing waters of an oceanic impact will actually
make the basaltic plates move (east and west more than north and
south))... THAT THESE GEOMETRICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF IMPACTS CORRELATE VERY
NICELY WITH THE RELATIVE HEIGHTS OF THE PERI-PACIFIC MOUNTAINS RESIDING
EAST AND WEST VERSUS NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE HAWAII IMPACT SITE!!! RDB
Regards,
Robert D. Brown, M.D.
PS Maybe Plato was right, A circle IS a neat, comprehensible sort of thing.
Subject: Re: IMPACT OROGENY ON EARTH
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: 29 Sep 1996 23:02:49 GMT
Brian Hutchings wrote in article
<1996Sep28.204847.22485@lafn.org>...
>
> In a previous article, pelorus@ltec.net ("Robert D. Brown") says:
>
> dear doc.Beriberibrain,
> now, I sort-of-have an inkling of what you meant
> about the geoidal inconformities (or what ever), BH
Geoidal conformities and non-conformities were the terms. RDB
although
> I don't see why the stresses'd only build-up, apparently due
> to the residual stirring from the impact but, then,
> I think that there may actually be tectonical mountainbuilding
> etc., and that the crust is in constant dynamical equilibrium,
> with little relative build-up of stress, isostatic post-
> glacial rebound etc. BH
Then you'd be wrong. The continental plates are rigid structures and were
more so in the past than they are in the present. Impacts have weakened
them. You're trying to imagine that 1=0 (see Bertrand Russel for an
explanation of why this is NOT so). RDB
> in any case, while whole chunks of your model may soon
> be savory roadkill in sci.geology.ky-jelly,
I see you liked my comparative comments re petroleum and KY jelly in an
earlier post. Lite-side humor: How is a golf ball different from a woman's
G-spot? Answer: A man will spend 15 minutes looking for a golf ball. RDB
> the application of the thiamin shuttle to the handedness
> of our local biota is entirely intriguing!...
Thank you, Brian. All of the models are derived from the geometry of the
thiamin shuttle. The structure of the vitamin provides a Cartesian
coordinate system for understanding racemic resolution of the prebiotic
chemosphere. This issue has been recognized since the days of Pasteur as
one of the great unsolved mysteries of biophysics. He/she who comprehends
that process (racemic resolution) will "know" how to account for 50% of the
degrees of freedom utilized in the process of abiogenesis. This
understanding manifests as an understanding of the environment that allowed
the vitamin to perform its functions. This is why one can derive so much
from the model itself. RDB
personally,
> I know of no other hypothesized reason, although
> I'll look into the latest edition of Gardner's _Ambidextrous
> Universe_, and there *has* to be one.
Many mechanisms have been suggested, including chance. If you would like
some of the best references, I'll provide them. This area is the core area
of my personal expertise in science. Parity-breaking processes explain
lots of things... like the Asteroids Are CME-Fried Comets as a model for
the evolution of the solar system. RDB
his book also goes
> into the competing reasons for the apparent/supposed local inadequacy
> of antimatter, although it's apparent that
> he hadn't read to deeply into Alfven's, in the way that
> he puts it aside in his enumeration.
> what I wonder is, if the latter cosmology requires, assuming
> a necessary (and perhaps sufficient) mechanism (such as yours)
> to generate handedness, whether or not all life
> in Antimatter Universe is of the other hand, or if
> both handednesses occur in both regions of Universe. (incidentally,
> they are hypothesized to be seperated by a cosmical "leidenfrost" .-)
Please be more specific, I haven't read Gardner's book but will look for
it. My initial reaction, however, assuming that I do understand what you
are getting at is this: Thiamin is a strongly diamagnetic prochiral
molecule. It can become chiral via interactions with its environment. The
gravitational vector (up/down) is parity-breaking in the "crack" model for
thiamin's stereochemical resolution of the chemosphere. The magnetic axis
(north versus south) is NOT parity breaking because diamagnetic molecules
are blind to magnetic polarity differences (but recognize magnetic axes).
The electrical vector is defining in the system. Thiamin bears a fixed
positive charge at its thiazolium ring nitrogen and the C2-center's
carbanion is a strong cation. It is this (electrical dipole) axis that
aligns in reverse polarity in respect to the electrical vector established
(in the surface of the iron plain of the TLL) by the atmospheric electric
dynamo system (west to eat at the equator). This atmospheric vector is, in
turn (no pun), a direct function of Earth's direction of spin vis-à-vis
the Sun. On a planet spinning in the direction that Earth does, the
thiamin shuttle facilitates the co-transport of L-amino acids,
l-nucleotides, and d-sugars across membranes and into the bases of the
magnetic cracks (where they will go on to be impact-fused into genetic
polymers having individually-unique surface-complementary peptides). Were
the Earth to spin in the opposite direction, the OPPOSITELY-HANDED
class-specific enantiomers would be transported into the bases of the
magnetic cracks.
Folks in this newsgroup have not yet picked up on the reality, but the
CME-Fried Comets hypothesis can explain the reason that the Earth does spin
in the direction that it does. One would require that the Sun's rotation
be in the opposite direction to change the whole system so that life would
have been created in oppositely-handed forms. When one gets to this level
of understanding, however, one begins to realize that the whole thing is
just an "optical illusion" that depends upon our own sense of direction in
space. We have to define a specific reference frame for the spinning of
the Sun so that anything else can make sense to us. Kant used to talk
about these kinds of things, but Plato did a better job of it. Some of
these things will be discussed in my book re the biological derivation of
Planck's Constant. RDB