Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 12/08/2010 8:07:46 PM PST by mdraghici
Would 25,920 be an acceptable compromise? ;o)
.
Yes, about half of it anyway. (the choir didn’t wish to be preached to)
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
Interesting!
How Did Continents Split? Geology Study Shows New PictureLike pieces in a giant jigsaw puzzle, continents have split, drifted and merged again many times throughout Earth's history, but geologists haven't understood the mechanism behind the moves... Throughout Earth's history, there have been six major continental assembly and breakup events, about 500 million years apart. Currently the Earth is in breakup cycle in which the Atlantic and Indian oceans are opening, Nance said... About 650 million years ago -- when the first jellyfish evolved -- North America, South America and Africa were stuck together as one large continent called Gondwana, with some smaller islands floating on a neighboring continental plate. Over time, these islands collided with the large group of continents and were attached to it in a process called accretion. About 525 million years ago, that land mass broke apart... forming the Iapetus Ocean.
Science News
May 23, 2006
Adapted from materials provided by Ohio University
Plate Tectonics May Grind To A Halt, Then Start Again
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103144448.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/01/080103144448.jpg
Do the continents really drift?The distances between terrestrial radio telescopes can be measured with incredible accuracy by pointing the telescopes at the same celestial targets and operating them as interferometers. The distances between telescopes a continent apart can then be pegged to within 5 centimeters. For example, the distance between radio telescopes at Fort Davis, TX, and Onsala, Sweden, is 7,940,732.17 ± 0.10 meters. If North America and Europe are drifting apart several centimeters per year, this change should have been noticed since 1979, when adequate geodetic precision became available. Actually, no drift has been noted.
by William R. Corliss
Science Frontiers #26: Mar-Apr 1983
(Thomsen, D.E.; "Mark III Interferometer Measures Earth, Sky, and Gravity's Lens," Science News, 123:20, 1983.)
Comment. Of course, continental drift could be episodic, with the continents now static.
Reference. Objections to continental drift are legion. Refer to ETL6 and ETL7 in our Catalog: Carolina Bays, Mima Mounds.
...the Moon clearly could not have been the satellite of the Earth then, for a total period of about 2,000 million years... Spurr points out that the face of the Moon shows two systems of great surface fractures, or faults, lying about 30 degrees from the two poles and trending from west-south-west to east-north-east. This is explained by him as a result of the halting of the Moon's rotation... Curiously, the face of the Earth, too, shows a similar structure, with the same general trend -- the Highland Boundary Fault... The poles of the Earth would also seem to have shifted place on at least three occasions, in the Cambrian, Permian, and (lastly) Quaternary Periods, bringing ice and cold to previously warm lands... some mighty force made the crust of the Earth slip (the rotational stability of the axis of a mass as large as the Earth is enormous) and the position of the poles wobbled... there exists on the Moon a triple grid of surface fractures... perpendicular to each other within each grid, the grids being of different ages... Cambrian, Perm-Carboniferous, and Tertiary.Firsoff's basically given us a snapshot of the problems inherent with a fission origin (having settled on an overspin origin for the Moon, very early in the history of the Earth), not least of which is that the fission origin also requires in orbit formation of the lunar sphere and capture by the Earth, while showing that capture is possible. Capture of the Moon, irrespective of its place and era of formation, is the simplest model.
The “cutting edge science types” who got run out of here were very much pro-Darwinist; it was more than two years ago; and the website owner is very much NOT pro-Darwinisn. IOW don’t believe everything you read above this message. :’)
The images look compelling, but an impact causing the tilt may be a bit of a stretch.
Very interesting, none the less.
If those geographical features WERE created an impact, I bet that caused one hell of a shake!!! (wouldn’t have wanted to be on the planet that day - Well... Maybe I would.) lol
I wholeheartedly agree!
Shaded a bit in your favor, but OK with me; you are very gracious. Eighty years is only a lifetime amongst FRiends. :-)
No I mean that about 4,700 years ago, Tiamat was the pole star.
“The 23.5 degree number is the average that is the simplified version for children’s textbooks.”
Well, then, I had better put away my orbital mechanics books and rewrite some equations I wrote since they’re just cartoons and probably not working. /drippy-drippy-sarcasm
The 23.5 is a close enough number for discussions but the Earth is not going to change much from that in our lifetime.
Not very precise nor accurate for an engineer, imo.
“Uranus spins sideways.
(can you read that without grinning?)”
No, and I bet you didn’t write that without a smirk. :>
Ahhh, no. More likely climatic changes such as glaciation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
