| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Geology Forum » Age of the Grand Canyon questioned...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Jo Schaper |
 Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Robert Flory |
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jo Schaper" <jo34schaper31@s9oc21ket.03net> wrote in message
news:13t3trlekrsbhb7@corp.supernews.com...
Heard an old timer call in on Science Friday today, really upset swearing it
was all bull. As I understand what I read, it is only the age that is being
changed, It just says the Capture stream is older than thought.
I'll have to hassle them about archiving the old pamphlet on geology for the
current worthless one when I visit this spring.
Bob |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jo Schaper |
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Robert Flory wrote:
cave convention, and Dr. Carol Hill is one of the principals of the
"speleogenesis through sulfuric acid" theory of Carlsbad and the
Guadalupes. She's also written two killer books on cave minerals, Cave
Minerals and Cave Minerals of the World (with Dr. Paolo Forti of Italy)
which cover all sorts of minerals (rhodochrosite, malachite, quartz
sinter, ores, etc., not just carbonates.) She's not afraid to go on limb
if the data lead her there-- having already taken mondo heat over
sulfuric acid, and been proven right to the extent that only a few
fossils doubt it anymore.
I, too, heard the old timer; and was a bit flabbergasted, not that he
disagreed, but that he couldn't put up a cogent argument against their
data. I think their dating is ok; as several people have noted, the
mammillaries could have formed in perched water tables, and until we see
the actual strat levels of the caves, it's hard to say one way or the
other. Caves often form on several levels simultaneously, but generally
the water at deeper phreatic levels is too corrosive (and corrasive)to
lay down speleothems-- it's too busy cutting rock. The other question I
have is the rise of the Colorado Plateau, and possible tilting in an odd
direction, causing early debris to be elsewhere than where the old timer
expected. I don't think it is fair to assume a constant uniform rate of
downcutting,either; Old Prof Bretz and the Missouri River in the flood
of 93 cured me of any concept of strict uniformitarianism in the
behavior of a river. Heck, even my tufa study site showed me the 'easy
come, easy go' of erosion under 5 inches of rain and scouring gravel.
Creationists aside, there are also a bunch of relatively scientific
mass-wasting catastrophists who argue for a Grand Canyon even younger
than 6 million years. An acquaintance of mine was studying some aspects
of this for a Ph.D dissertation, which I have never heard the outcome of.
I'd probably be bored, but the Grand Canyon is one reason I'd love to
live several millennia, or at least have time travel...perhaps these
speleothem dates can give us a peek at what happened. Can't wait for the
Science to arrive!
Jo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John Kepler |
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: I, too, heard the old timer; and was a bit flabbergasted, not that he
disagreed, but that he couldn't put up a cogent argument against their
data. I think their dating is ok; as several people have noted, the
mammillaries could have formed in perched water tables, and until we see
the actual strat levels of the caves, it's hard to say one way or the
other.
Personally, I loved the data they collected....and while certainly not
rejecting their conclusions out-of-hand....thought they'd made a "5-Dollar
conclusion out of 50 cent's worth of data". The sedimentary data extant
requires a LOT more Mojo than they've provided so far....and I've SEEN
seasonal springs/perched water-tables in the canyon! Fun stuff in any case!
John |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:05 pm |
|
|
|
|
On 9 mar, 02:44, Aidan Karley <aidan_kar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Quote: In article <13t3trlekrsb...@corp.supernews.com>, Jo Schaper wrote:
Yes, these are some of my cave peeps...
... and so what John Kepler & Aidan Karley ??? ... do you think
anything at all can bring closer to both the understanding of the of
the Great Canyon Stratification process & the huge opening of that
trench in Earth Lithosphere ( far from the wondrous Tsampo Gorge
though )
Don't you realise that you fraudulent Rock Surveyors beuuulieve in
Carbonate sedimentation through Bones ( marine & land )
degradation ....
I will tell you something, conceited ignorant babbling fools & mark my
words :
Just put One million beasts over one kmē ( that is one per mē) over
one million years each year day after day .....
Do you know what the result will be ?
Do you know what the end layer of Carbonate rock or say Limestone will
be ? Hey ?
I will give your the answer here now /
NOT A FUCKING INCH IN HEIGHT
What about of your datations & Time column based on fossils then ...
and by consequence of your whole science of fools : That present
Geology !
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Discoverer of Telfer, Nifty & Kintyre mines in the Great Sandy Desert
Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
Founder of the True Geology
~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Aidan Karley |
| Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <13t3trlekrsbhb7@corp.supernews.com>, Jo Schaper wrote:
Quote: Yes, these are some of my cave peeps...
Interesting. So your colleagues have U-Pb-series-dated these
speleothems. Which is a solid technique. The controversial bit is going
to be relating those speleothems to the formation of the Canyon.
I'll see if I can get hold of the paper. Sounds worth a read.
--
Aidan Karley, FGS,
Aberdeen, Scotland |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| josephus |
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jo Schaper wrote:
differential uplifting. specifically one end rose first then the
other. maybe this was wrong? or?
josephus
--
I 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 ain so.
--josh billings. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| jonathan |
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jo Schaper" <jo34schaper31@s9oc21ket.03net> wrote in message
news:13t49kse6c25119@corp.supernews.com...
Quote: I'd probably be bored, but the Grand Canyon is one reason I'd love to
live several millennia, or at least have time travel...
To see how it started, or ends?
I feel like I've travelled back in time a couple of centuries
when I hear these kinds of conversations.
How old is the Grand Canyon?
Keep in mind nature has the following property.
If the initial conditions are relevant to the future of a system
then that system will behave chaotically. It's past, present or
future cannot then be quantified or predicted in any
meaningful way.
If a system displays self similarity across scale, as the Grand
Canyon most certaintly does, then the system is self organized
or displays edge of chaos behavior, and initial conditions and
future behavior have no direct relationships between each other.
This is a point too few appreciate, higher level order cannot
be defined in terms of its initial conditions.
Yet it seems all of our 'science' is obsessed with precisely
defining initial conditions, or smallest part properties.
When that information in fact only applies to that which
....matters...the...least. ALL higher order is robust to changes
in initial conditions.
Once cyclic behavior sets in, initial conditions become irrelevant.
They become erased.
In the third attractor, the dynamic, in which we are immersed, we
must learn a new way of comparing or measuring things.
Instead of measuring things to ...other things...whether it's other
objects or yardsticks of some kind, we need to measure something
against....itself. Against it's own opposite extremes in possible
behavior.
Is the Grand Canyon at equilibrium or moving towards one
opposite extreme or the other
A static, dynamic or chaotic future?
Dying, growing/self organizing or dissipating?
This is the solution to the problem of subjective observations.
Which allows different subjective observations to agree so
that the observer can be reintroduced to the problem.
As Einstein did with relativity, the observer must be accounted
for if we are to understand the true nature of our reality.
Only to the unchanging, unimportant and uninteresting
does the question 'how old' applies with any scientific
meaning.
To everything else (that matters) the questions are all
about the present and future.
Natural Fractals in the Grand Canyon
http://www.public.asu.edu/~starlite/SlideNotes.html
"As by the dead we love to sit,
Become so wondrous dear,
As for the lost we grapple,
Though all the rest are here,
In broken mathematics
We estimate our prize,
Vast, in its fading ratio,
To our penurious eyes!"
s |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:57 pm
|
|
