Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Rapid Formation of Mountain Ranges

Expand Messages
  • mike white
    a thoughtful rejection of a membership invitation. unless im mistaken, thinking is conjecture, and im told it has no place in science. very amusing! we must
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 2, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
       
         a thoughtful rejection of a membership invitation.  unless im mistaken, thinking is conjecture, and im told it has no place in science.  very amusing!  we must ignore the ruins under titicaca, dating the marine deposits on the altiplano, the nazca lines under the salar lakes, and the slight amount of erosion sediments, until science can formulate the hypothesis, and do a verifiable evaluation.  its sad that he chose not to edify our group, maybe he could have explained how the andes 'shot up' between 10 and 7 mya, lifting the giant bivalves to 4,000 m, and they lying exposed have not weathered and eroded away?   granite is somewhat harder and more durable than shells, even if they are fossilized, and would show more erosion than these bivalves in that duration, imho - but im not an acceptable scientist, not enough for my ideas to be 'considered'.  sometimes the iq of the group stays higher by such refusals. 
       
      imho
      mike
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 11:14 AM
      Subject: RE: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Rapid Formation of Mountain Ranges

      Thanks for the invitation Mike, but I don’t think I’ll be joining the discussion. Yours is the third “alternative idea” in geology that I’ve gotten in relation to the recent press release about the Andes uplift. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but your ideas are not science; they are conjecture, and unless you do actual science, you will not be taken seriously by the scientific community. If you want to be taken seriously, then you have to form falsifiable hypotheses and then collect the specific data that will support or refute them. You have to do this over and over again, focusing on each tiny element of your idea in order to limit its possibility of error. This is how science is done. It’s what you will have to do in order for your ideas to be considered by scientists. Nothing less.

       

      Good luck to you in your pursuit. – Jonathan

       

      Jonathan Sherwood

      Sr. Science Writer

      University of Rochester

      147 Wallis Hall

      Rochester, NY 14627-0033

      Tel: 585.273.4726

      Fax: 585.275.0359


      From: mike white [mailto:infoplz@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:26 AM
      To: Sherwood, Jonathan
      Subject: Fw: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Rapid Formation of Mountain Ranges

       

       

      hello dr sherwood,

       

         plz consider joining the group, posting if and when you feel compelled is ok. 

       

      mike

       

      ----- Original Message -----

      From: mike white

      Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:50 AM

      Subject: Re: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Rapid Formation of Mountain Ranges

       

       

          thanks david, very interesting, they are going the right direction, but need to come far more recent, imho.  proving that mountain ranges uplifted more rapidly and more recently is difficult.  this is new science which may be revised and recalibrated over time. 

         i think it may be better to take another route.  i think its possible to prove that man created objects before the mts were uplifted, such as nazca lines that are now high up the slopes, almost to the altiplano, in the salt lakes.  once its shown that cultured man was active before the ranges uplifted the scientists are forced to rethink it all, the age of cultured man and the time of orogeny.  they will not like to give cultured man at 7 mya!  i may get a copy of posnansky's book on tiwanaku, they are searching for it now.  im intrigued by proving the andes rose about 12,000 years ago, and think a person spending years researching the andes could find telling evidence, but am not prepared to live in the andes that long, its too shaky and unsafe.  the mere wandering of the polar axis might uplift ranges.  measuring the amount of sediments eroded should be a good gauge to show these are newly uplifted ranges.  the himalayas are only slightly older, maybe 50,000 years, and i understand that the rockies have raised even more recently than the andes. 

         niven offered some proofs that the mexican plateau was uplifted from sealevel within the last 12,000 years.  also indicating that it was occupied by cultured man before and after the event.  so often great ideas are rejected by lesser minds, and recognized much later for their merit. 

         the ruined temples and cities under titicaca should convince anyone who thinks about it long enough, that they were built before the basin was flooded by the sea and uplifted subsequently.  im firmly convinced by the physical proofs that the mystics were correct, and the legends of the tribes were accurate, the people did ride the mountains up like a ship on a wave. 

         the andes are so active moving ranges up and down, that its only a matter of time before satellites detect it, and the experts are forced to throw out their fallen theories. 

       

      mike

       

      ----- Original Message -----

      Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:43 AM

      Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Rapid Formation of Mountain Ranges

       

      Here's something I thought would interest Mike and some others here.
      http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/uor-mrr012606.php

      The implications are profound in terms of paradigm shifting.


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.