 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Earth Science / Geology / July 2008...Giant Impact might explain Mars Oceans and Tharsis Uplift....Nature.com article
Published online 25 June 2008 | Nature | Asteroid smash turned Mars into 'takeaway pizza' planet Not long after the planet was born, it was altered forever by a meteoric blast, as this computer-simulated video shows. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080625/full/news.2008.916.html Long interview with researchers and more detailed impact simulation footage. http://www.nature.com/nature/videoarchive/megaimpactonmars/ "Water throughout the history of Mars would've flowed north". s > Published online 25 June 2008 | Nature | > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > "Water throughout the history of Mars would've flowed north". That would explain the late term loss of a large fraction of the atmospheric and water burden of the planet too. Plus, the soil appears to be overtly alkaline. Curiouser and curiouser. Astrobiology just took a great leap forward. Hopefully they'll be able to get a few more experiments done on Phoenix, before they fry all the electronics. Earth appears to be right on the border of mass required to retain something from these final planetary recombinations which occur. > > Published online 25 June 2008 | Nature | > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Earth appears to be right on the border of mass required to retain > something from these final planetary recombinations which occur. Titan seems to be doing just fine and dandy. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth >> Published online 25 June 2008 | Nature | >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Earth appears to be right on the border of mass required to retain something > from these final planetary recombinations which occur. So what happened to all the carbon? Maybe we need to do more than 'scratch' the surface to find it? The alkaline soil is rather friendly to life they say. I bet somewhere underground, the various chemistries and radiation combined to let a layer melt and freeze ...over and over.. I mean soil like that, clay-like alkaline life-friendly soil can't..all...fall from the sky right? Between the octagon patterns, the soil properties and underground ice, there has to be, or was, an active water cycle there. If the sun drives it, this must be happening fairly near the surface I would think. > Published online 25 June 2008 | Nature | > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > s Researchers ? oh I see , those highly paid sterile dudes who never find ! ... in any case they can afford to say anything and its contrary, since this is the way the research business works ! By the way Mars never got a big impact and its axis normal to ecliptics indicates it ...and this is not the case of the Earth ... Did ever one of those famous researcherzz come to such concluzionzz ? Wondering ! Jean-Paul Turcaud Australia Mining Pioneer Discoverer of Telfer, Nifty & Kintyre Mines in the Great Sandy Desert Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant Bus ph + 33 6 50 17 14 64 Founder of the True Geology ~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~ >By the way Mars never got a big impact and its axis normal to >ecliptics indicates it ...and this is not the case of the Earth ... >Did ever one of those famous researcherzz come to such concluzionzz ? >Wondering ! ...Jean-Paul - and all you guys on s.geo.geology - "jonathan" is a known troll. Most of us with any sense on sci.space.* killfiled him *years* ago. Do yourselves - and us - a favor and killfile him as well. You'll be putting him out of our misery as well as your own. Thanks! OM  Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >> By the way Mars never got a big impact and its axis normal to >> ecliptics indicates it ...and this is not the case of the Earth ... >> Did ever one of those famous researcherzz come to such concluzionzz ? >> Wondering ! > > ...Jean-Paul - and all you guys on s.geo.geology - "jonathan" is a well known poster on the science hierarchies, where everybody is on a first name basis here except for you a.sholes, Mosley. Even George and Jonathan talk nice about Mars nowadays, and Stu already has a unit of catastrophe named after him. Everybody is always welcome here, so ... f.ck off. > >> By the way Mars never got a big impact and its axis normal to > >> ecliptics indicates it ...and this is not the case of the Earth ... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Jonathan talk nice about Mars nowadays, and Stu already has a unit of > catastrophe named after him. Yeah, ..here:- http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/rubber.html > Everybody is always welcome here, so ... > > f.ck off. > ...Jean-Paul - and all you guys on s.geo.geology - "jonathan" is a > known troll. Most of us with any sense on sci.space.* killfiled him > *years* ago. Do yourselves - and us - a favor and killfile him as > well. You'll be putting him out of our misery as well as your own. > What I want to know is: _What the frack is going on with Alan Erskine this week!_ ...a few days back he was posting neat stuff to the newsgroup, but now all his postings are again related to that guy who is insulting him. Sounds like a "Baltar blood test" might be in order. :-) Admiral Flannery Blunderstar Patrica >>By the way Mars never got a big impact and its axis normal to >>ecliptics indicates it ...and this is not the case of the Earth ... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > *years* ago. Do yourselves - and us - a favor and killfile him as > well. You'll be putting him out of our misery as well as your own. Either that, or cut out the sci.space newsgroups. >>> By the way Mars never got a big impact and its axis normal to >>> ecliptics indicates it ...and this is not the case of the Earth ... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Either that, or cut out the sci.space newsgroups. Sure, that's the fascist response. First you complain to everyone's ISP with whom you don't agree, and then failing that, you propose to ban certain newsgroups, or even better in your fascist world, the usenet. Ain't gonna happen, fascist. > Ain't gonna happen, fascist. God forbid I become like OM, normal and decent and polite all the time. Conforming, to me, is like blending into the crowd. Conforming, is a deliberate attempt to become invisible. The Internet should NOT simply be a microcosm of society. It should be the exact antithesis, where words, ideas and thoughts matter most, and our station and place in society matters the least. To bring into usenet the vices and limitations of the real world is like bringing the snake into the garden, it's a shear ...ACT OF LUNACY. Even evil....dammit! I won't allow it. Doesn't anyone here have an abstract bone in their body? Doesn't anyone think science should be more about what...could...be? And you're right, it'll never happen. > Doesn't anyone here have an abstract bone in their body? > Doesn't anyone think science should be more about > what...could...be? So you're upset because scientists don't do what you want them to do. Sorry to disappoint you, but science is about what is. But don't misunderstand that to mean that scientists don't have imagination. It takes imagination to come up with an explanation that fits the facts well and makes predictions about what ... could be. Then the scientists go back and see if they can find those things that ... could be. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. >> Doesn't anyone here have an abstract bone in their body? >> Doesn't anyone think science should be more about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sorry to disappoint you, but science is about what is. Actually, no, sorry, that's only one aspect of science. We use what we know about what is, to think up things that could be, in order to continually test our understanding of the former. In other words, we use our knowledge to build instruments to calibrate our theories. Nature does the same thing when it constructs life forms. We're just mimicking nature because we too are of nature. Get it? Don't let the creationists get wise to it, ok? > >> Doesn't anyone here have an abstract bone in their body? > >> Doesn't anyone think science should be more about [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > words, we use our knowledge to build instruments to calibrate our > theories. I believe that's what I said in the parts you snipped: > > Sorry to disappoint you, but science is about what is. But don't > > misunderstand that to mean that scientists don't have imagination. It > > takes imagination to come up with an explanation that fits the facts > > well and makes predictions about what ... could be. Then the scientists > > go back and see if they can find those things that ... could be. > Nature does the same thing when it constructs life forms. I'm not sure about that last bit. > We're just mimicking nature because we too are of nature. I don't buy it. "Nature" tries everything without knowing what will work. Humans (scientists) try things based on observation and theory. > Get it? Don't let the creationists get wise to it, ok? Okay. Whatever. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. >>>> Doesn't anyone here have an abstract bone in their body? >>>> Doesn't anyone think science should be more about [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>> well and makes predictions about what ... could be. Then the scientists >>> go back and see if they can find those things that ... could be. It goes much farther than that, we BUILD things based upon that information, and then we have to TEST those devices for functionality. It's an active process based upon duality. And furthermore, your information comes in the form of an abstract model and in no way conforms to what 'really is', most of what really is, is flying by you so fast you only get a little restricted glimpse of it here and there. >> Nature does the same thing when it constructs life forms. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't buy it. "Nature" tries everything without knowing what will > work. That couldn't be farther from the truth, nature picks one evolutionary path over all others, nature is severely restricted from the get go. You don't know what you're talking about. About the only thing nature is keen on is maximizing entropy, but observationally we do not live in an isotropic homogeneous universe, those kinds of places simply do not create observers. Our gaps in understanding are large and many. Humans (scientists) try things based on observation and theory. You're conversing at the kindergarten level. >> Get it? Don't let the creationists get wise to it, ok? > > Okay. Whatever. Make sure to drink your milk and eat your cookies! > You're conversing at the kindergarten level. Who with? Not me.. The Woof doesn't talk to me. Neither does that other geezer, Rubber Trolleydosser. >Okay. Whatever. ...Would you please quit responding to trolls like "kT" and "jonathan"? They're known trolls, and "kT" is really Tommy Lee Elfritz, known and self-confessed neoNazi whose anti-semitic drivel can easily be found on google groups. Do yourself and us a favor and killfile the little bastards. Or, at least, keep your replies to them off of sci.space.*. Thanks! OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >> Okay. Whatever. > > ...Would you please quit responding to trolls like "kT" and > "jonathan"? They're known trolls, and "kT" is really Tommy Lee > Elfritz, known and self-confessed neoNazi whose anti-semitic drivel > can easily be found on google groups. And I've invited you many times to give us a SINGLE google link to my so called 'anti-semitic drivel', but you can't, can you. Not a single one. That's because there isn't any. You are a liar and a fascist, Robert Mosley III of Austin Texas. > Do yourself and us a favor and killfile the little bastards. Or, at > least, keep your replies to them off of sci.space.*. Go f.ck yourself, fascist. > In other > words, we use our knowledge to build instruments to calibrate our > theories. That's technology, ..not science > Nature does the same thing when it constructs life forms. > > We're just mimicking nature because we too are of nature. > > Get it? Don't let the creationists get wise to it, ok? >That's technology, ..not science ...Jeez, Don! You've been around Usenet long enough to know you can't talk sense to a troll. Especially a known, self-confirmed neo-Nazi! Just killfile the dograping bastards and put them out of our misery, eh? OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ > >That's technology, ..not science > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Just killfile the dograping bastards and put them out of our misery, > eh? But Jonathan's not a troll. He's just fed up with people knitting while Rome burns. Like me. > OM > -- [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ > ]=====================================[ > > >That's technology, ..not science > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But Jonathan's not a troll. He's just fed up with people knitting > while Rome burns. Like me. The mainstream status quo that's in charge of your private parts doesn't like trouble makers like jonathan or yourself. They'd much rather see Rome burn. (it's another faith-based and New World Order kind of thing) - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth >> Doesn't anyone here have an abstract bone in their body? >> Doesn't anyone think science should be more about [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > well and makes predictions about what ... could be. Then the scientists > go back and see if they can find those things that ... could be. I'm upset because the current state of the art wrt scientific methods is clearly at the Dark Age level. What 'science' doesn't get is that 'what is' is the same as 'what could be'. Nature creates and problem solves using a very specific process. An evolutionary process. That process is not only the source of all 'that is' but it's also the answer to the perfect solution for any given real world problem. Up to and including the ideal societal system, or the ideal problem solving system, or the ideal future. As evolutionary systems ...converge..naturally on the best possible solution. As the process capable of producing intelligence defines the ultimate or ideal creative process. What 'science' doesn't get is that the simplicity of the universe is best seen by the most ...complex...the universe has to offer.....LIFE. Not the other way around. Today 'science' looks to reduce to the part...to simplicity.. to derive fundamental law. Somehow assuming that the simplicity of the universe is best seen by the lowest common denominator or the ...simplist...the universe has to offer, as in particle physics. NO, that is wrong. Science today has it all so entirely backwards. Life...Darwin...is the path to understanding the simplicity of the ....physical...universe. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. How much more backwards or ignorant can science be??? Answer....it's not possible to be MORE WRONG that the modern science that is generally practiced today. Hence, we get the twentieth century, where technology almost buries us from our ignorant use of 'modern' scientific discoveries. Scientifically...we now live in the Dark Ages. The fundamental laws of the universe are to be derived from the most complex the universe has to offer....LIFE...DARWIN. Not...PARTICLES....or quantum theory or Einstein etc. Look at is this way, in a market system, it's the emergent system properties that result in the system self tuning and converging on the optimum. Such emergent properties only exist as a result of a complex adaptive...system. A very complex system where the emergent (self tuning)properties not only cannot be physically seen or touched, they cannot even be accurately measured. Yet those emergent forces guide the whole towards the best answer, the create that which cannot be understood. They give the universe it's direction defining time while also defining creation and beauty. Yet they cannot be reduced, the minute you stop a complex system, those emergent properties vanish into thin air. Poof! They cannot be quantified. Until you can explain a 'market force' you can't know anything about reality. > >> Doesn't anyone here have an abstract bone in their body? > >> Doesn't anyone think science should be more about [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > that the modern science that is generally practiced > today. No, your description is wrong. Yes, there is the principle of OCcam's Razor, which states that, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is probably the best. But I think you misrepresent what that's about ... > Hence, we get the twentieth century, where technology > almost buries us from our ignorant use of 'modern' > scientific discoveries. What? It's the scientific method that brought that technology about. Science certainly has got some things right. > Scientifically...we now live in the Dark Ages. Uh, no. The application of the scientific method and seeking naturalistic explanations rather than mystical or supernatural ones is what differentiates modern science from medieval thinking. > The fundamental laws of the universe are to be > derived from the most complex the universe > has to offer....LIFE...DARWIN. That's an interesting definition of "fundamental". > Not...PARTICLES....or quantum theory or Einstein etc. Why not? > Look at is this way, in a market system, it's the emergent > system properties that result in the system self tuning [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > a 'market force' you can't know anything about > reality. That all sounds like philosophical balderdash to me. You set up a caricature of science and say it's wrong, then talk about how the only way to really understand the universe is to investigate things that can't be understood. What sense does that make? SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. > >> Doesn't anyone here have an abstract bone in their body? I have an astral bone if that's any good... > >> Doesn't anyone think science should be more about > >> what...could...be? ..In fact I probably have a few... > > Doesn't anyone here have an abstract bone in their body? > > Doesn't anyone think science should be more about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sorry to disappoint you, but science is about what is. Whether you like it or not, science to the career scientist is about consensus - and publication. The science is only a vehicle which can always have a respray. A missed publication opportunity is like a nail in the coffin. But if it's consensus, t'aint science.. <the usual citation here> > But don't > misunderstand that to mean that scientists don't have imagination. It > takes imagination to come up with an explanation that fits the facts It takes even more imagination to come with interpretations that don't. But that doesn't make you a scientist. > well and makes predictions about what ... could be. Then the scientists > go back and see if they can find those things that ... could be. ("Could be/ what if..") Who gives a sh.t about modeling. (something like yodelling...) Just get the parameters in the right order at the right scale and you don't need any (...Blinking tomato sauce to simulate mantle flow..) I mean... (where's my knitting...) And you go brush your shapely legs Woof, ... before you talk to me. > Doesn't anyone think science should be more about > what...could...be? That's metaphysics, ..not science. > And you're right, it'll never happen. >>>By the way Mars never got a big impact and its axis normal to >>>ecliptics indicates it ...and this is not the case of the Earth ... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Either that, or cut out the sci.space newsgroups. How is it off topic? How is exploring Mars off topic to space history, space policy or geology? I'd...I mean..a lot of people might find your explanation enjoyable. If you don't like seeing my threads...spread, why dontcha start some ..more interesting...threads of your own? You're the ones saying these ng's are dying, but then flame anyone that tries to start a conversation or a debate. You can't have it both ways, having little of your own to say aside from jr high flames, then crying there's nothing but flames to read. I'd rather talk about Mars or Politics or the Future. Or how to design a goal for NASA that could add a very big zero to it's budget someday. Why anyone here would be bothered by that is beyond me! Unless..of course...you're Anti-American or some other kind of internet deviant~ > Published online 25 June 2008 | Nature | > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > s An impact? Where is the evidence of the crater, or where are the striation marks? How come Jupiter and its influence on Mars doesn't explain it better? Surely the Asteriod Belt is a result of a planet not being able to form due to its proximity to Jupiter (see Asmimov's book on Jupiter for that one). Why wouldn't a formed Mars farther away have things like a huge canyon and an uplifted group of volcanoes nearby just because of Jupiter as well? Someone saw striations on Jovian satellites and went nuts with the theory elsewhere, like our moon and now Mars. Eric On Jun 26, 8:29 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote: > Published online 25 June 2008 | Nature | > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > s >An impact? Where is the evidence of the crater, or where are the >striation marks? Towards the end of the second link, they show some maps that are fairly convincing. I don't think their evidence is conclusive though. Asteroid smash turned Mars into 'takeaway pizza' planet Not long after the planet was born, it was altered forever by a meteoric blast, as this computer-simulated video shows. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080625/full/news.2008.916.html Long interview with researchers and more detailed impact simulation footage. http://www.nature.com/nature/videoarchive/megaimpactonmars/ Eric > On Jun 26, 8:29 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Asteroid smash turned Mars into 'takeaway pizza' planet Where is the evidence of impact? > Not long after the planet was born, it was altered forever > by a meteoric blast, as this computer-simulated video shows.http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080625/full/news.2008.916.html Or, Jupiter has been working on it since it was born. > Long interview with researchers and more detailed impact > simulation footage.http://www.nature.com/nature/videoarchive/megaimpactonmars/ There is no doubt that Mars' grand canyon runs in the same direction as it's equitorial plane. No doubt it is loose beneath the surface to cause this huge gash. Likewise, why wouldn't an uplifted area or areas nearby not be exposed to forces more narrowly upliftied from below to cause volcanic action which is gradual as we see? This all tied into the huge canyon system. Mars can be explained by Jovian tidal forces on it better than from a single asteriodal impact, IMO. There is irony when comparing Mars to Northern Arizona on Earth, as there is a canyon (Grand Canyon), volcanic remains (in Flagstaff - San Francisco peaks) and a crater (Metor Crater - though small), nearby. Where is the Martian crater? Anyway, I do believe that the remains of a volcano, from San Franciso peaks, and the Grand Canyon are related like the Tharis region and Valles Marineris are on Mars. Eric > > "Eric Chomko" <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > peaks, and the Grand Canyon are related like the Tharis region and > Valles Marineris are on Mars. Oh, I forgot to mention Meteor Crater nearby Flagstaff. That was a coincidence as it came about way after both the Grand Canyon appeared and the volcano which the remains are the San Francisco peaks. Eric > > "Eric Chomko" <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Eric Mars likely once had a single large enough moon. Without a significant moon or a significant lithobraking surface impact/ encounter, Mars would have been a whole lot smother. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth In article <219fbf70-1305-4ae0-a463-b5fa3878f72e@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > Mars likely once had a single large enough moon. On what evidence? > Without a > significant moon or a significant lithobraking surface impact/ > encounter, Mars would have been a whole lot smother. On what evidence? SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. On Jul 6, 4:45 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote: > In article > <219fbf70-1305-4ae0-a463-b5fa3878f...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > On what evidence? It's of my deductive logic, and the fact that those two little moons of Mars were likely part of a much larger moon. Once that large moon was impacted and having lost most of it's mass, it stands to reason that the tidal flexing of Mars came to an end, and so did the internal geothermal energy driving or sustaining the thermal core of Mars, with subsequent failure of its magnetosphere and ultimate loss of atmosphere. (aka, end of whatever life on Mars) Indications are that the surface volcanic process of venting lava, muds and vapors came to an abrupt halt, rather than a gradual process. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth >>> On Jun 26, 8:29 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote: >>>> Published online 25 June 2008 | Nature | [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth I think that scientific theories bother brad. he does not like consensus. it means a conspiracy decided the science. it means he thinks we just makeup our science so he can too. that is why Brad makes such bizarre statements like 'lithobraking' or stone stopping what ever as an explanation for the way things are. that is why Brad rails against NASA and ARPA. a delusion by any other name. josephus SignatureI go sailing in the summer and look at stars in the winter, "Everybody is ignorant but on different subjects" --Will Rogers Its not what you know that gets you in trouble its what you know that aint so. --josh billings. >> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > I think that scientific theories bother brad. he does not like > consensus. it means a conspiracy decided the science. it means he > thinks we just makeup our science so he can too. that is why Brad makes > such bizarre statements like 'lithobraking' or stone stopping what > ever as an explanation for the way things are. that is why Brad rails > against NASA and ARPA. That's a pretty fair an unbiased analysis. It puts the phenomonon into a better perspective. > a delusion by any other name. Guthism. You need to publish in a prestigious psychological journal. > josephus > >> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > > I think that scientific theories bother brad. he does not like [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > > josephus Yourself as yet another unbiased coauthor? - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > >>> On Jun 26, 8:29 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote: > >>>> Published online 25 June 2008 | Nature | [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > a delusion by any other name. An original lie that's government published as the truth begets another lie and yet another lie. Are you suggesting it's ever any other way? Excluding evidence is the same if not far worse than telling a lie. Are you suggesting it's ever any other way? - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > >>> On Jun 26, 8:29 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote: > >>>> Published online 25 June 2008 | Nature | [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > consensus. it means a conspiracy decided the science. it means he > thinks we just makeup our science so he can too. It should bother you too, if you have anywhere close to half a brain left http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/fraud.html#consensus > that is why Brad makes > such bizarre statements like 'lithobraking' or stone stopping what > ever as an explanation for the way things are. that is why Brad rails > against NASA and ARPA. And quite rightly too when they can cite the Himalayas as the type area for crumpled crust -------------------------------------------------------- "... Among the most dramatic and visible creations of plate-tectonic forces are the lofty Himalayas, whichstretch 2,900 km along the border between India and Tibet. This immense mountain range began to form between 40 and 50 million years ago, when two large landmasses, India and Eurasia, driven by plate movement, collided. Because both these continental landmasses have about the same rock density, one plate could not be subducted under the other. The pressure of the impinging plates could only be relieved by thrusting skyward, contorting the collision zone, and forming the jagged Himalayan peaks...." http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.html ------------------------------------------------------------- Both of them say the same thing (the USGS and NASA despite there being *NO* *CRUMPLING* http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/mtbldgcollis.html 'tain't so, ..what you think you know, Joe. > a delusion by any other name. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > its what you know that aint so. > --josh billings. > > >>> On Jun 26, 8:29 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote: > > >>>> Published online 25 June 2008 | Nature | [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > *NO* *CRUMPLING* http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/mtbldgcollis.html > 'tain't so, ..what you think you know, Joe. But according to the mainstream status quo, them foldie mountains are the only kind Earth has, and apparently there's not one such antipode generated mountain to behold, much less any outside cause of our seasonal tilt or any good reason for those pesky ice ages that this Earth w/moon will never again see. They don't even have a good swag of an idea or viable notion as to why and how so many diatoms managed to populate and do their impressive thing of getting rid of CO2 and creating all of that nifty DE, and without benefit of ever having another sun. Besides their being faith-based screwed up, what the hell is wrong with these mainstream or bust kind of morons? - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.