Fossils on mountains and the hydroplate theory

[RickG]

You remind me of another poster here: Thaumaturgy.

He was a scientist that used to post here and fish for scientific debate.

He eventually wandered into the area of global warming and Glen Morton showed up and those two went head-to-head big time.

Thaumaturgy left shortly after that, and I suspect it is because he finally got what he wanted: an intellectual, scientific challenge.

I'm afraid the same thing is going to happen to you, and I'd hate to see you leave.

Hopefully I'm wrong.

I did leave for a year, remember? I wonder if Glen Morton still holds those same views on GW. Its been awhile but I remember trying to access his site pertaining to GW and it was gone. The GW denial community is much like the creation science community, Almost no experts in the area, and most of the denial coming from blogs or news organizations that side with one political party's views. Almost all GW denial involves politics and association with politically conservative organizations, while the actual scientific literature, over 97% not only affirms GW, but attributes it to anthropogenic sources. As well, I don't think I have encountered any creationist here that doesn't have the GW denial veiw (anti science view).

 

[RickG]

I thought fossils were impressions in rocks?

Am I wrong?

Pretty much so. They are mineral replacements of the organic material of the life form. That is not to say the fossil impressions don't exist, they do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fossil is rather a broad term. In some cases, the bones or even the soft parts of the body are slowly permineralized, where empty spaces in the organism are filled with hard minerals, so that the actual body is replaced by (or maybe reinforced by) rock.

Okay, thanks.

I forgot about the permineralized fossils.

In other cases, yes, fossils are more like impressions or casts. (Though in both cases, the rock is made of rock, and the fossil, the thing in the glass case, is made of rock.).

I'm still not sure what you're saying.

Are fossils impressions in rock, or are fossils only like impressions in rocks?

It seems to me that, if a fossil was an impression in a rock -- a hole -- that the actual thing that made the impression would be a pile of dust inside the hole.

In addition, if something dies because it got covered with sedimentary rock, how on earth could its details still be intact?

If I covered a horse in cement, then 100,000 years later someone broke that cement open, wouldn't he find 1) an impression of a pancake, and 2) a pile of dust?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is all sorts of nonsense in Brown's hydroplate WAG. One of my favorite claims of his is that the asteroids themselves are products of that cataclysmic event. This is an easily refutable idea. Since it was a very violent event according to Brown the objects should be rotating in all sorts of random ways. They should almost all be tumbling, at least when the event happened. We can observe that most larger asteroids do not tumble. They are what are called principal axis rotators. An analysis of why this would happen can be done using simple Newtonian physics. It turns out given enough time the asteroids will stabilize their spins, the problem for Brown is that it would take too long for them to stabilize their spins. In fact what we see is that the asteroids tell us that the Solar System is billions of years old. Asteroids with settling times of less than several billion years are not tumbling. Those with settling times longer than 4.5 billion years are still tumbling:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103504002568


And a couple of videos that make understanding this easier:

 

[AV1611VET]

I did leave for a year, remember? I wonder if Glen Morton still holds those same views on GW. Its been awhile but I remember trying to access his site pertaining to GW and it was gone. The GW denial community is much like the creation science community, Almost no experts in the area, and most of the denial coming from blogs or news organizations that side with one political party's views. Almost all GW denial involves politics and association with politically conservative organizations, while the actual scientific literature, over 97% not only affirms GW, but attributes it to anthropogenic sources. As well, I don't think I have encountered any creationist here that doesn't have the GW denial veiw (anti science view).

Those guys threw four-syllable words back and forth between charts and grafts and whatnot.

One would show a thermometer (I forgot what they're called) next to an air conditioner, then the other would say the city doesn't go by just one thermometer, but takes the average temperature of all the thermometers, then the other would ask why one city says one thing, while just ten miles away, another city shows a sizeable difference -- and so on.

I'll see if I can hunt it up for you.

 

[RickG]

Okay, thanks.

I forgot about the permineralized fossils.I'm still not sure what you're saying.

Mineralized is fossilization, replacement of organic material by minerals is.

Are fossils impressions in rock, or are fossils only like impressions in rocks?

Impression are just that, impressions of fossils, not fossils.

It seems to me that, if a fossil was an impression in a rock -- a hole -- that the actual thing that made the impression would be a pile of dust inside the hole.

Again, replacement of organic material by minerals makes a fossil.

In addition, if something dies because it got covered with sedimentary rock, how on earth could its details still be intact?

Again, replacement of organic material by minerals.

If I covered a horse in cement, then 100,000 years later someone broke that cement open, wouldn't he find 1) an impression of a pancake, and 2) a pile of dust?

That would be mineralization, not fossilization. Mineralization merely covers or encases. Fossilization is replacement of organic material by minerals, or more specifically, dissolved minerals.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm still not sure what you're saying.

Are fossils impressions in rock, or are fossils only like impressions in rocks?

Fossils are "are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms from the remote past"

A fossil is a thing you dig up -- a rock. If you have a rock with an impression of something, the fossil is the rock, not the hole or the air inside the impression. Of course, the rock is only interesting because of the hole. But the thing you find is a rock (and contra PeterDona, the rock does not need to be kept frozen).

It seems to me that, if a fossil was an impression in a rock -- a hole -- that the actual thing that made the impression would be a pile of dust inside the hole.

In addition, if something dies because it got covered with sedimentary rock, how on earth could its details still be intact?

If permineralization occurs, some of the spaces that get filled with mineral can be as small as individual cells, preserving structure quite nicely.

"Permineralization is a type of fossilization involving deposits of minerals within the cells of organisms. Water from the ground, lakes, or oceans seeps into the pores of organic tissue and forms a crystal cast with deposited minerals. Crystals begin to form in the porous cell walls. This process continues on the inner surface of the walls until the central cavity of the cell, the lumen, is completely filled. The cell walls themselves remain intact surrounding the crystals."

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll see if I can hunt it up for you.

Ah, I see you've already met him.

Mr. Morton is still an active skeptic, but his blog has not been updated for a while:

The Migrant Mind

Frankly I entered into the debate with Glenn because he was kind of a hero of mine for his stance on YEC. He's worked as a geologist and his story is legendary about how he moved away from YEC, even while still retaining his faith and his science.

However, after the bruising battle between us over global climate change I began to realize there were aspects about him that I didn't quite realize were there or like much.

It was actually quite sad. Glenn is a smart man, no doubt, but debating him on global climate change was a painful reminder that because you may agree with someone on one thing you can so strenuously disagree on another, and sometimes your heroes are not who you might wish they were.

 

[RickG]

Those guys threw four-syllable words back and forth between charts and grafts and whatnot.

Isn't science great.

One would show a thermometer (I forgot what they're called) next to an air conditioner, then the other would say the city doesn't go by just one thermometer, but takes the average temperature of all the thermometers, then the other would ask why one city says one thing, while just ten miles away, another city shows a sizeable difference -- and so on.

That would involve the urban heat effect which is much misrepresented. Temperatures used are averages withing grids, which are subdivided as well. NASA/GISS uses some 8,000 grids to obtain their global average temperature.

 

[RickG]

Ah, I see you've already met him.

Yes, I was very excited when I found the thread, then very disappointed when I found out he no longer posted here.

Hey! What do you say we get back on topic?

 

[AV1611VET]

Fossils are "are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms from the remote past"

A fossil is a thing you dig up -- a rock. If you have a rock with an impression of something, the fossil is the rock, not the hole or the air inside the impression. Of course, the rock is only interesting because of the hole. But the thing you find is a rock (and contra PeterDona, the rock does not need to be kept frozen).



If permineralization occurs, some of the spaces that get filled with mineral can be as small as individual cells, preserving structure quite nicely.

"Permineralization is a type of fossilization involving deposits of minerals within the cells of organisms. Water from the ground, lakes, or oceans seeps into the pores of organic tissue and forms a crystal cast with deposited minerals. Crystals begin to form in the porous cell walls. This process continues on the inner surface of the walls until the central cavity of the cell, the lumen, is completely filled. The cell walls themselves remain intact surrounding the crystals."

Quite frankly, I'm more confused now than ever about what a fossil is.

But before someone responds with a video, I'll say that I'm content not to know.

It's all Greek to me, as they say.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey! What do you say we get back on topic?

Fair enough.

I'm pretty much done here.

 

[PeterDona]

There is all sorts of nonsense in Brown's hydroplate WAG. One of my favorite claims of his is that the asteroids themselves are products of that cataclysmic event. This is an easily refutable idea. Since it was a very violent event according to Brown the objects should be rotating in all sorts of random ways. They should almost all be tumbling, at least when the event happened. We can observe that most larger asteroids do not tumble. They are what are called principal axis rotators. An analysis of why this would happen can be done using simple Newtonian physics. It turns out given enough time the asteroids will stabilize their spins, the problem for Brown is that it would take too long for them to stabilize their spins. In fact what we see is that the asteroids tell us that the Solar System is billions of years old. Asteroids with settling times of less than several billion years are not tumbling. Those with settling times longer than 4.5 billion years are still tumbling:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103504002568


And a couple of videos that make understanding this easier:

Very very interesting. But hmmm, it does not match up with what I was taught in my university course in newtonian mechanics. I learned, that a moving object could be always be described by
1) a general, stable speed with a direction
2) a rotation around the center of mass, and around the rotational axis, to say it like that.

Why do asteriods _not_ follow that simple formula? Are asteroids not solid objects?

 

[RickG]

Very very interesting. But hmmm, it does not match up with what I was taught in my university course in newtonian mechanics. I learned, that a moving object could be always be described by
1) a general, stable speed with a direction
2) a rotation around the center of mass, and around the rotational axis, to say it like that.

True, but does newtonian mechanics include heat generated for such a process?

 

[PeterDona]

True, but does newtonian mechanics include heat generated for such a process?

heat? They did not discuss any sort of heat in the video. Do you mean to say that there is some heat phenomenon involved?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very very interesting. But hmmm, it does not match up with what I was taught in my university course in newtonian mechanics. I learned, that a moving object could be always be described by
1) a general, stable speed with a direction
2) a rotation around the center of mass, and around the rotational axis, to say it like that.

Why do asteriods _not_ follow that simple formula? Are asteroids not solid objects?

When you get to larger objects there is no such thing as a "solid object" the way that you are using the term. The non-principal rotation puts a stress on the asteroids. The videos do a very good job of explaining how and why they settle down into principal rotation. I supplied the videos for a reason.

 

[RickG]

heat? They did not discuss any sort of heat in the video. Do you mean to say that there is some heat phenomenon involved?

You can't do newtonian mechanics without energy (force). Energy produces heat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

heat? They did not discuss any sort of heat in the video. Do you mean to say that there is some heat phenomenon involved?

Actually they did. They said that the asteroids would lose energy. The loss of energy would be in the form of heat.

 

[PeterDona]

When you get to larger objects there is no such thing as a "solid object" the way that you are using the term. The non-principal rotation puts a stress on the asteroids. The videos do a very good job of explaining how and why they settle down into principal rotation. I supplied the videos for a reason.

Uhm, but the effect should only give many years in case of a small objects. So you imply that there is a lot of spring forces / vibrations going on in the asteroids?

You can't do newtonian mechanics without energy (force). Energy produces heat.

Energy only produces heat if there is a change of the energy form. E.g. if there is a friction. But asteroids are in empty space, so no friction.

Actually they did. They said that the asteroids would lose energy. The loss of energy would be in the form of heat.

Same comment as for Ricks reply. However, they may lose energy by way of heat radiation because they were intially warm. But I did not find a discussion of such a phenomenon.

 

[RickG]

Energy only produces heat if there is a change of the energy form. E.g. if there is a friction. But asteroids are in empty space, so no friction.

Look up Newtonian Kinetic Energy.

The energy is zero at the beginning of the hydroplate process. Do you think it remains zero when the continents start moving?

F=ma It takes a force (energy) to accelerate a mass, does it not?