Ophiolite

I can't find anything on desert elephants yet, but I have found another sub-species. The elephants on Borneo are confirmed as different from the Asian elephants found on the mainland and Sumatra. http://www.wwf.hu/en/sajtokozlemeny.php?id=261

I understand that this is the correct explanation. There are several groups doing research with finite element analysis to simulate the formation of planets. I've waded my way through a few of their research papers in the past and don't recall that the issue is specifically addressed, but the implication is as you say.Ooops I've left in the wrong explanation. Earth would have gots its mass from both closer in and further out, though intuition would suggest a larger portion from further out.

KT is shorthand for Cretaceous-Tertiary, which is where the extinction event occured. The objective truth is that we still do not know with certainty what eliminated the dinosaurs. I find it convenient to remember that science moves towards truth, but may not necessarily be truth. It is common for a new theory to be refined, adapted and finall either accepted or discarded, based on the evidence. I think it is a fair statement that most scientists in this specific field feel that an impacting body made a major contribution to the demise of the dinosaurs. Some of them undoubtedly feel this was the sole cause, while some cite other factors, such as massive volcanic episodes, or climatic change, perhaps associated with the latter, perhaps independent of it. A small proportion think the impactor had no more than a local effect in space and time. The numbers in these different camps varies almost daily, as it should, in response to new evidence and re-interpretation of the old. That's what makes science exciting. Artrorius has noted the evidence for marine incursions at the KT boubdary. That is somewhat different from global flooding. Floods could and would be generated by a large ocean impact. This would yield a single layer of sediment in the effected areas. The marine incursions represent an actual rise in sea level, so would not be associated with an impact.

Kinetic energy, the energy of motion, is determined by this equation: Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv^2 Where m is the mass in kilograms and v is the velocity in metres/second Take a typical bolide, say 50m in diameter, with a mass in the region of 200,000,000 kgs, coming in at say 30 kms/second. That computes to a K.E. of 9E+16 joules. Convert from joules to megatons(I megaton = 4.18 E+15 joules) gives you a yield of approximately 20 megatons TNT equivalent. Problem solved?

Did civilisation begin earlier than is currently believed by authorities? Possiby. Have authorities gneraly underestimated the skills and knowlege of early civilisations? Probably. Are the more radical views, such as those espoused by Hancock and those even farther out, likely to be true? Alas, probably not. Hancock, more than most of that school, asks good critical questions. It's his answers which lack same critical examination. I'm comfortable that the various global flood myths may well relate to the sea level rise at the end of the last ice age. I see no connection between these and any flooding at the KT boundary. Would you cite one of your books that mentions extensive KT events please. Are these flood events or marine incursions?

Apa kabar saudara InovFX, can you be more specific. Are the cars travelling towards each other, or in the same direction? When you ask 'how do they look to each other' are you thinking about the effects of relativity on their apparent lengths, or something else?

While channel hopping about a year ago I stumbled on to a program that was, at least in part, about the Sphinx. Regretably I cannot remember the program name or even the channel, so I can't prove this. They showed natural rock formations, produced by erosion, in the Western Desert that bore an uncanny resemblance to the Sphinx. It would have taken only minimal carving of these objects to have created another Sphinx. The program makers argued that this was exactly what had happened at Giza. So those who thought there was evidence [the water erosion]that the Sphinx was very old were correct: the basic form was old. Those who thought it was young [comparatively], constructed at the time of the Great Pyramid, were also correct. I find this explanation plausible and preferable to ignoring the erosion evidence or positing that Giza is a much more ancient site than conventional wisdom would hold to be the case. Edit: Artorius, could you point me in the direction of the data supporting a global flood at the KT boundary. There are certainly disputed flood deposits in the vicinity of the Mexican crater [i'm not going to try to spell it], but I am not aware of global data.

Hell, us.2u, look up the definition of mercurial will you? Can we try too stay on one topic. It's entertaining jumping all over the place but I am getting dizzy. I'm not sure where this one came from, but, no there is no proof the Sphinx was ever submerged. Nobody that I know of has ever claimed it was. It has been claimed that it show signs of erosion by water, as in rainfall. The projection from that is that since it is eight thousand(?) years plus since the Western Desert was not a desert, then the Sphinx must be that old. I find the erosion information moderately convincing. However, the Sphinx was quite possibly carved from an existing natural rock formation that had the general outline of the final statue, so that the bulk of the body was already in place. It is then quite reasonable that it would show signs of water erosion. No. Definitely not. A global flood would have left global flood deposits, filled with drowned dinosaurs, exactly as you suggest it should. They aren't there. There is very clear evidence of a major impact that is almost certainly involved to some extent with the end of the dinosaurs. Here is the key one for the dinosaurs again (with thanks to Coquina)- http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/images/chicxulub.htmIt is possible that it was not the impact alone that was responsible. Huge volcanic eruptions occuring at around the same time (in geologic terms) may have been equally to blame.

Ignorant, highly paid scriptwriters.

Not so. The Command Module, the only component to return to the earth had an ablative heat shield. The material was designed to peel away during re-entry carrying excess heat with it. You can see the scorched effect if you go look at one of them up close. I've seen the ones at NASA in Houston and the Science Museum in London. I know there is one in Washington [The Smithsonian?]. I don't know where the others are.

How long did it take the astronauts to reach the moon from Earth?Approximately three days. For example here are some details from the timeline for Apollo 12, the second manned landing. The S-IVB stage was re-ignited at 19:15:14 UT on 14th November for a translunar injection burn of 5 min. 45 sec. putting the spacecraft on course for the Moon. A six minute SPS burn on 18 November at 03:47:23 UT put the Apollo 12 into lunar orbit. So that is an elapsed time from earth orbit to lunar orbit of 3 days 8 hours 32 minutes. You may find this site useful. It contains details of all the manned and unmanned lunar missions:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/lunartimeline.html What was the average speed of their craft? The moon is roughly 230,000 miles away and it took just over three days to get there, so this might look lik a simple calculation. 230000/80.5 = 2850 mph. That, however, is misleading. The spacecraft does not move in a direct line. It sets out from earth orbit in a curve towards the point where the moon will be in just over three days time. So the distance traveled is further. To get into Earth orbit the spacecraft was accelerated to 17,500 mph by the three stages of the Saturn V rocket. After a number of orbits the third stage accelerated the craft to 24,500 mph. This is sufficient to move away from Earth orbit and into the moon’s gravitational influence. At first the spacecraft slowed down, until, under the influence more of the moon than the Earth, when it accelerated again. My skills at orbital mechanics are practically non-existent, so I am unable to work out for you what the average speed may have been. Who made their engines & what are they & how do they work? I am running out of steam here. The main rocket that got them into space was the three stage Saturn V, in my opinion the finest rocket ever constructed. A marvelous beast that put more mass into Earth orbit at lower cost and with greater reliability (100%) than anything before or since. There were smaller rockets on the CSM (Command and Service Module), for mid course corrections, for entering and leaving lunar orbit. The LM (Lunar Module) had a descent engine and an ascent engine. You can find all kinds of technical information about these here: www.astronautix.com And you asked how they navigated. Here is a link that explains that side of things. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/ch2-4.html

Problem is you have asked so many questions that to attempt to answer them properly would take a considerable amount of time. I'll take a look at a couple for you now, and hopefuly someone else can come in too.

Not quite, but very close. The pole stays tilted towards the same point in the heavens - currently occupied by Polaris, the Pole Star. During the summer (northern hemisphere) that means the northern continents are facing the sun more directly. Six months later the tilt of the pole is exactly the same, but the earth is on the other side of the sun, so that the northern continents are angled away and receive less sunnlight.OVer the course of 26,000 years the direction of axial tilt slowly changes, making a complete revolution. Not something we motice on a day to day basis!

It doesn't have to be a constant. It's just that when you make it a constant lots of other things fall nicely into place, which didn't when you allowed its speed to be relative. So having a constant light speed works better for all kinds of physical theories than having a relative light speed.

Wasn't it this business of control surfaces that was the real breakthough the Wright brothers made? Other experimenters could have got heavier than air machines of the ground, but with absolutely no control. They figured out the principals that remain in use today.

Without the tail surely yaw would be all to possible, but unpredictable and uncontrollable? Which is why we call them stabilisers.

Dov, has Artorius accurately summarised your thinking in the first two sentences of his post? It makes sense, but I'd like confirmation. Surely the best way to answer this is to find out if there is life elsewhere and to determine its characteristics? Exobiology and SETI have these as goals. What is so wrong about that? How does it detract from the larger question of 'what is life'?

And don't think we don't appreciate it. The current waves of anti-Americanism in the UK are simply an amusing ploy on our part to make Tony Blair feel paranoid and unloved. Back on topic: YT if you scroll back to an earlier post (#19) you will see I refer to a guy in the 60s promoting the decaying vegatable matter explanation.

We still resent the loss of our Empire.

Quite possibly, but I am intrigued by the process by which people decide to believe A rather than B. Often, I suspect, good science, done by good scientists, begins with an almost random decision to go with A or B. (Of course, good science then requires that the consequences of A be thoroughly tested.) You rightly point out that Artorius probably hasn't modelled the positions of earth/sun/moon to justify his claim. But neither have we. It seems reasonable that the standards set for one side of the argument, should be the same for the other.

Artorius, both you and atinymonkey (I think) have raised interesting points in relation to the apparent 'double lighting' of the landing site photogrpahs. At my leisure I may look into this further, but don't expect me to reach a conclusion this side of Armageddon. That said I would like to try to understand why you have chosen to explain this anomaly as being due to a conspiracy. Let me expand on this somewhat. Science relishes anomalies because they lead, eventaully, to new discoveries, some trivial and some fundamental. When confronted with an anomaly it is generally accepted that the application of Occam's razor is a wise process. In short, we should favour the simplest hypothesis. It seems to me that the simplest explantion in this case is to seek for a physical explanation directly related to the photograph. [it occurs to me in passing that virtually all our photographic experience is based within the Earth;s atmosphere, so we should not be too surprsied if unusual phenomena arise outside it.] It seems to you that the simplest explanation is to invoke a conspiracy. I suppose I am interested in what leads you to this particular choice. If this attempt to understand your psychology is intrusive please say so, but I would be interested in your answer.

No, I don't believe so, if of nothing else because of the time delay. I definitely recall a plan for little rovers on the moon and it was a private enterprise concept. If I find it on a google I'll post.

So how are you defining an information layer?

It's strangely comforting to know nothing has changed in forty years. (Or four thousand)

Yes, but as I am sure you are aware it was a documentary. (The proof of that being that it is the only program to come up with a credible explanation for the assassination of JFK.)