Subject: Re: info on expanding earth claim sought
From: "Louis Hissink"
Date: 15 Nov 1996 13:39:36 GMT
This thread, after missing it for a few months, has not changed very much.
It reminds me much of the debate between the evolutionists and
creationists: the debate between irreconcilable differences.
Arguements for plate tectonics on one hand, and earth expansion on the
other hand, are essentially steady state hypotheses. History, whether
human, or geologic, is essentially non-repeatable. Essentially
evolutionary.
The factual evidence is always interpreted by one's scientific
conditioning, so it is, perhaps, important, to be free of that bias, and
comment, dare I say it, objectively.
Louis Hissink
Subject: Earth Expansion
From: "Louis Hissink"
Date: 15 Nov 1996 13:39:35 GMT
I return after a few months in the field and find this thread still active.
I refer to Charles Cagle's postings, most of which I could not have read,
but from which I suspect he advocates "earth expansion".
Now, it is important to realise that earth expansion, the Carey model, is
proposed as an active process; there is no evidence for this actvity.
From what little data I have been able to glean, evidence for earth
shrinkage seems more likely. This interpretation does not contradict plate
convergence measurements made in recent times. These data support both
plate tectonics, and , a shrinking earth.
Rather than get involved in semantics, I propose the novel idea that the
earth's geological history, like human, is non repeatable, and therefore
unpredictable. I propose that, assuming arbitrarily, today being time zero,
and using radiometric dates as means to rank rocks in terms of relative age
rather than abosolute age, that the earth has. historically, undergone at
least 3 periods of expansion, each followed by a period of cooling, and
that at present the earth is in a cooling phase.
That is, the earth is neither expanding uniformly, the Caryiam model, nor
the steady state model of plate tectonics. I suggest that historically that
the earth has experienced periods of expansion, followed by periods of
cooling, all events related to an earth that has, overall, expanded in
comprehensible history.
This idea, I suspect, is heretical.
Subject: Re: What is the gravitational force in the center of the Earth?
From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 15:36:07 GMT
In article <56g2t5$jkl@hickory.westol.com>,
Kevin Wilson wrote:
[...]
>Forgive me if I am passing along incorrect information but as far as I
>know gravitational attraction can still be defined by Newton's law:
>F=G(m1*m2)/r^2
>where F is the gravitational force exerted on an object, G is the
>gravitational constant, m1 is the mass of one body and m2 is the mass
>of the other, with r being the distance between them. Thus, as r (the
>distance between them) becomes smaller (approaching the center of the
>earth) the gravitational force becomes stronger. I believe this is
>the reasoning that is used to describe the generation of fusion
>reactions in the sun. That is that the attraction between the
>particles of the sun become great enough at some depth below the
>surface to produce the heat necessary to start the reaction.
>In regards to your stone arch analogy unless someone changed plate
>tectonic theory the outer "hard" shell of the earth is actually
>thought to be 'floating' on a semi-liquid layer called the
>asthenosphere where there are no supports for your so called arch. In
>fact the theory suggests that at rift zones the plates are actually
>pulling apart which would not allow an arch such as described to form.
>I hope this doesn't cause more confusion. Kevin
As I said, the form of the gravitational field inside a spherical body
is a relatively simple calculus problem, and leads inexorably to the
conclusion that the gravitational field is zero at the center of a body
of constant density on spherical shells of thickness d-theta.
This is NOT the same as sying that somesort of magical hole can exist
at the cener, since there is still the sum of all the downward forces
of the rock above being exerted at the center; i.e., the pressure will
be very high.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************
Subject: Re: What is the gravitational force in the center of the Earth?
From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 15:28:12 GMT
In article <56gedq$oeo@news.hawaii.edu>,
Gerard Fryer wrote:
>
>In article <328c88ca.9701512@te6000.otc.lsu.edu>, rwinsto@lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu (Richard B. Winston) writes:
>>hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>
>>>The gravitational field inside the earth is linear with respect to
>>>radius, with a zero field at the center and reaching g at the surface.
>>>
>>
>>The latter statement would be true for a homogeneous earth or any
>>sphere with a homogenous density. However, the earth's nickel/iron
>>core has a higher density than the average density of the earth so
>>gravity would not vary in a perfectly linear fashion in the real
>>earth.
>
>Ha! A chance to redeem myself for my earlier blunder.
>
>In an Earth of constant density g would indeed be proportional to
>radius r so you would get a linear decrease in g from the surface to
>the center. But the Earth is not of constant density - density changes
>because of self-compression (the weight of everything above squeezes
>the rock). That alone would mean that there would be some depth in the
>Earth at which g is a maximum.
No. The value of g will continuously decline from the surface to the
center. I.e., the maximum is at the surface.
In fact mass is concentrated in the core
>of the Earth, so the way g varies with depth is to stay pretty constant
>with depth until you start to get near the bottom of the mantle, then g
>rises to a maximum of about 11m/(s**2) at the core-mantle-boundary.
>Below that g decreases almost linearly to zero at the Earth's center.
Sorry , but no. The value of g at any internal radius will always be
equal to the gravity of the hypothetical geoid below that radius; since
the mass of this geoid increases with r, the value of g also
continuosly increases.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: ssimpson@cnwl.igs.net (IG (Slim) Simpson)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:25:05 GMT
Judson McClendon wrote:
>IG (Slim) Simpson wrote:
>>
>> Judson McClendon wrote:
>>
>> >> Judson McClendon wrote:
>> [big snip]
>> >So the God who created this vast universe, and us, has put up with a
>> >rebellious bunch of humans for thousands of years, watching us kill,
>> >steal, lie, cheat and so on. So He sends His own Son Jesus to take our
>> >sins upon Himself and die a horrible death on a Roman cross to pay the
>> >penalty for those sins. Then He tells us that all we have to do is
>> >believe on Jesus and receive Him as Savior and Lord and God will
>> >completely forgive us all our sins and give us eternal life as a
>> >reward. And you call that God a 'kill-joy'.
>>
>> Judson, god hasn't told *me* anything of the sort! If your post,
>> including the snip, were to have "God" replaced with ET, you would be
>> judged insane by many people. Myths hold no compulsion with me.
Why quote from a book that , for the most part, I don't accept. If I
quote from the Koran (Sp?) will it make any difference to you??
Slim
>Romans 1:18-32:
>18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
>ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in
>unrighteousness,
>19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has
>shown it to them.
>20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are
>clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His
>eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
>21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God,
>nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their
>foolish hearts were darkened.
>22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
>23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made
>like corruptible man-- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping
>things.
>24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of
>their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
>25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and
>served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.
>Amen.
>26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their
>women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
>27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned
>in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is
>shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which
>was due.
>28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God
>gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not
>fitting;
>29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,
>wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife,
>deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
>30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of
>evil things, disobedient to parents,
>31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
>32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice
>such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve
>of those who practice them.
>--
>Judson McClendon
>Sun Valley Systems judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
Beowulf How ceaselessly Grendel harassed.....
Subject: Re: What is the gravitational force in the center of the Earth?
From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 15:31:48 GMT
In article <328BB454.388@dal.mobil.com>,
Steve Michnick wrote:
>Melanie Roberti wrote:
>> A particle within the earth at some radial distance from the earths
>> center would experience the gravitational force due only to the mass of
>> earth which is inside that radius. At the center, there is no remaining
>
>... SNIP ...
>
>> earths radius, the gravitational force would decrease in proportion
>> whith the square of the distance from the earths center. The earth is
>> not of uniform density, but that doesn't change the conclusion that at
>> the center of the earth there is no gravitational force.
>
>Wouldn't it be technically more correct to say that the gravitational
>force vectors exerted on a particle at the center of the earth are in
>equilibrium and sum to a zero accelaration vector? There is
>gravitational force exerted on a particle there but in that reference
>frame there is no acceleration vector due to it.
That would seem unnecessarioy pedantic, and would force one to always
state that the gravitational force vectors at the surface of the earth
are not in equilibrium and sum to the value g.
In fact, though, if the acceleration vector is zero, then so is the
force (F=ma and all that).
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Jim Batka
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:06:08 -0500
steve eric cisna wrote:
>
> On 12 Nov 1996, Alan Weiner wrote:
>
> > Name and publisher of book pls. What evidence do they use to support
> > this conjecture?
> >
> > In article <32853A38.38E7@gte.net>, ashes@gte.net says...
> > >
> > >I read in a science book that there is a greater posibility of a
> > >printinng press exploding and forming webster's dictionary completly by
> > >accident; as opposed to the world being created from some dead matter.
> >
>
> But you're assuming that we are a planned creation. If a printing press
> exploded, chances are excellent that something would be formed, even if
> it was just gibberish. But every conceivable bunch of letters has the
> same chance as every other bunch of letters. I'm sure that the printing
> press story does have about the same possibility as the earth exactly as
> it is being formed. But the way it is now is just one of many
> possibilities. It's just the one that happened.
I believe that this is referred to as "anthropomorphism". Basically it
is the problem of having our conclusions regarding our origins somewhat
colored by our point of view.
For example is the presence of a large moon required for a planet to
evolve intelligent life? The only example of (presumably) intelligent
life that we can observe (ourselves) has a large moon orbiting its
planet. However, we can't tell if its presence was necessary or
incidental to the formation of intelligent life).
Back to your printing press analogy...
Say you were in a print shop the first time a printing press exploded.
Let's say that it formed Webster's Dictionary. From your observation
would you conclude that whenever a printing press exploded it would
result in a printing of Webster's Dictionary? Perhaps you'd make the
assumption that it may not specifically form Webster's Dictionary but
would form some sort of reference book. Is your conlusion correct?
So you go back to evolution vs. creation. Say the odds of life forming
in a solar system is 1 / 100 billion. Well there are between 100
billion & 1 trillion starts in our galaxy! Statistically it would be
likely (though not definitely) 1-10 solar systems in this galaxy with
life in them. If you say the odds are 1 / 100 septillion that life
would form in a solar system. Well there are innumerable galaxys
with billions of stars each. It'd still be likely that there would
be life in at least on solar system (that's us!). Time is also the
evolutionists ally in this. Life could not have evolved into humans
in the span of 4000 years quoted by some creationists.
BTW, since we are here, the probability of life forming is not 0.
> Do you see what I'm saying? I'm aware that that last paragraph was a bit
> confusing. What I mean to say is, the analogy of the printing press and
> Webster's Dictionary really isn't appropriate, because Webster's
> Dictionary is a book written by somebody. That means that somebody made
> sure that all the words are the way they should be. How do you know that
> the universe the way it is is the way it should be? The current universe
> is just one of many possible things that could have happened.
>
> Steve
>
> P.S. By the way, you said that the universe couldn't have been created
> out of "dead matter." But isn't most of the universe composed of
> nonliving material, which I assume is what you mean by "dead matter."
> Your body is made mostly of carbon, right? So are diamonds and
> graphite. Wouldn't you classify that as "dead matter?"
Take that analogy farther...
Plants take minerals & nutrients "dead matter" from the soil (they've
grown plants in lunar soil). Humans eat those plants for nutrition.
If that human happens to conceive a child and only eat plants grown
from lunar soil, you've "created life out of dead matter".
BTW, a laboratory experiment took "dead matter" placed it in a sealed
(& sterilized) container and subjected it to conditions that attempted
to mimic the early Earth. Over the course of *months* the experiment
formed very complex building blocks of life.
Life took over 12 billion months to develop from these blocks. Since
chemical reactions take on the order of milliseconds this allowed each
chemical about 31 quadrillion combinations (31 with 18 zeros).
Multiply that by the number of these complex chemicals on the surface
of the earth (very much greater than 6 with 32 zeros)* and you end up
with >180 followed by 50 zeros chemical reactions for life to develop.
Those odds concerning the dictionary don't seem so long now do they?
* 1 x 10^13 grams of 1000 mole weight organic molicules times
Avagodro's number (6.022 x 10^22). Currently the Earth's biosphere
is estimated to weigh 1.148 x 10^19 grams. This number would yield
6 x 10^38 molecules & 180 x 10^56 combinations (ref the 71rst ed. of
the CRC Handbook of Physics & Chemistry)!
--
Jim Batka Email: jim.batka@sdrc.com
Contrary to popular opinion, the word "gullible" is not in
(American) Dictionaries.
Subject: GEOQUEST CONSULTANTS REGISTER
From: dyeropac@rad.net.id (Jeremy Dyer)
Date: 15 Nov 1996 15:28:59 GMT
Announcing the formation of the Jakarta-based GEOQUEST CONSULTANTS REGISTER
The Register is open to all consultants active, or wishing to be active, in the
South East Asia region. After approval of membership by Geoquest's Jakarta
office, Members will be will be entitled to receive a range of benefits
including:
1. Certification in one or more Geoquest software applications
2. Free training at least once per year on a scheduled Jakarta Geoquest
Training Course
3. Free subscription to the Schlumberger Oilfield Review; other Schlumberger
literature available by arrangement.
4. Priority selection to work on Geoquest Field Studies in Jakarta, Geoquest's
regional centre.
5. Subject to availability, GCR consultants will be able to use, free of
charge, Geoquest workstations in Jakarta to maintain and advance their skills
in their own time.
Active oil industry consultants who are resident in SE Asia or who have worked
in the region, are invited to submit their applications.
Please note that putting your name forward will not obligate you in any way.
Should you be accepted for GCR membership, it will not in any way restrict you
from seeking or taking other employment in any way.
No, I am not a Geoquest employee, but a consultant active in the region for
several years.
Best Regards
Jeremy Dyer
Manager of the Jakarta GEOQUEST CONSULTANTS REGISTER
Please reply to: dyeropac@rad.net.id
Subject: Re: Evidence of Life Found in 2nd Mars Meteorite
From: Patrick Reavis
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:42:48 -0800
John Ladasky wrote:
>
> In article <32838370.1388@ro.com>, Patrick Reavis wrote:
> >Why send Astronouts, why retunr soil samples? Would it not be less
> >expensive to send an automated biology lab and transmit the results?
>
> This is exactly what Viking attempted to do, and people argued
> over the results for years. Did living organisms or zeolite clays effect
> the catalysis seen in the Viking results? There are too many unknowns
> involved in remote experimentation of this nature. If you send a package
> that looks for stereospecific amino acids and nothing else, how will you
> interpret a negative result? Life based on other chemistries might still
> be present, or might once have been present. The method of preparation
> used to obtain the sample from the soil by the robot might induce the
> loss of sterospecific structures. Given our current results with poly-
> aromatic hydrocarbons from the ALH meteorite (*not* stereospecific as I
> recall), I don't think that we would gain much from yet more tinkering at
> the margins with questionable results from a one-shot experimental appar-
> atus 100,000,000 kilometers away. It's much better at this point to bring
> the scientists and the rocks together, so that rigorous and flexible ex-
> periments can be performed.
>
> --
> Unique ID : Ladasky, John Joseph Jr.
> Title : BA Biochemistry, U.C. Berkeley, 1989 (Ph.D. perhaps 1998???)
> Location : Stanford University, Dept. of Structural Biology, Fairchild D-105
> Keywords : immunology, music, running, Green
John,
While I agree with you about the ambiguity of the telemetered results, I recall
(from somewhere) that the equipment sent to Mars was obsolete for two decades
before even being launched...(slow goes the gov'mt). Could we not send a full
complement of equipment to carry out experimentation semi-autonomously? Not that I'm
against a manned mission,(I'm actually in favor of this; I see it as our destiny),
but perhaps a success of a robotic discovery of past/present life would spark
enough excitment in the general public that we would not *freak-out* at
the price tag.
Also, the comments about polyaromatic hydrocarbons (stereospecific or
otherwise) were not mine. I don't know what they are, and would not recognize
them if I met them on the street. I'm a non-scientist...
Yours,
Patrick V. Reavis
--
The Double Naught Spy
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: harrisws@carleton.edu (HazChem)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 15:53:18 -0500
In article <328C0F1F.3CFE@flash.net>, elias@flash.net wrote:
> Who cares how God created the universe??? All that matters is that he
> did. However he accomplished it, is beyond my need to know. He did
> that is all that matters.
You see, here is the fundamental (pardon the choice of words) difference
between the fundamentalist and the scientist.
The fundamentalist says: "God did it, and that's all I want to know."
The scientist says: "Hmmm...let's see if we can find out more about this."
I think that the two sides are, in all likelyhood (sp), completely
irreconcilable.
But note that it's the scientists that end up providing us with fun things
like the Internet. If we had stopped at "God sends lightining, and that's
all I want to know," the world would be rather different right now.
--
HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages/hazchem/hazchem.html
"Cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." (Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_)
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: caj@sherlock.math.niu.edu (Xcott Craver)
Date: 15 Nov 1996 21:52:20 GMT
Judson McClendon wrote:
>IG (Slim) Simpson wrote:
>> Why quote from a book that , for the most part, I don't accept. If I
>> quote from the Koran (Sp?) will it make any difference to you??
>
>"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any
>two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and
>of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of
>the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)
Mr. McClendon,
I'm not sure you got the point of Slim's post. His point was,
(and it's quite valid, I believe) that if someone does not accept the
Bible as the truth, isn't quoting *FROM* the Bible quite obviously the
least effective way to convince him of anything?
I have seen some reasonable arguments for the upholding of
Christian principles, or for the accuracy of the Bible or other holy
books; none of them rested on the actual book's _content_, because it
was the validity of said content that was in question.
If I wanted to convince you that natural selection created
humankind (that is, if I *wanted* to), I would perhaps point to the
current body of evidence that supports it, or at least to the
scientific principles violated by different versions of creation
theories. I most certainly wouldn't try to convince you by
liberally quoting the wit and wisdom Charles Darwin, the person
whose opinions on origins you are completely opposed to, a person
whom you wouldn't trust to begin with! Isn't this obvious? You're
doing more or less the same thing by quoting the Bible.
Perhaps a less dogmatic approach would be more effective.
>Judson McClendon
>Sun Valley Systems judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
Hugs and Spiff!,
Caj
