Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 92

Thread: Geologic Galactic Chronology

  1. #1

    Post Geologic Galactic Chronology

    Abstract:
    Period Stratification in the late Pre-Cambrian through Phanerozoic Eons has Galactic Origins. The chronology is recorded in the ICS Geologic Time Scale in a covariant 417M-year interval set of Periods. The nine Period Set has separate interleaved three Period set also with a 417M-year fundamental, at repeating interleave points. This analysis comprises the eleven Phanerozoic Periods, and includes a Pre Cambrian as well as post-Phanerozoic Periods. The eight Period Group aligns to Sol Galactic Arm (GA) passage. The interleaved triple set aligns to Sol Central Bar (CB) alignment. Milky Way Sol CB alignment and GA passage controls geologic period chronology; the geologic pattern is stable and repeats.

    Discussion:
    The ICS Phanerozoic Eon geologic periods consist of two processes. 1) Central Bar extension bisecting three Phanerozoic period groups, Paleogene-Oligocene [34M], Permian-Triassic [251M] and Ordovician-Silurian [446M]. 2) Remaining Arm interceptions cross the remaining eight Phanerozoic Period terminator’s with a repeating sequence of intervals. Arm interceptions have a near zero deviation ‘sixth arm’ 417M-year Geo-Galactic periodicity in the ICS Geologic Time Scale.

    Four ‘sixth arm’ intervals are found the ICS/USGS Phanerozoic and Pre-Cambrian stratographic interval. Three Phanerozoic 417M-year intervals interleave in the Phanerozoic ICS ‘International Stratigraphic Chart’. A fourth 417M-year interval reaches the Vendian (Ediacaran:Varangian) 563M date published in the ICS papers.
    Code:
                                             Time(million-years)
    
       GA           Period       Date       Interval      6th Interval
    Sagittarius                  -58
                 Borgzoic                      57
    Orion Spur                    -1
               Cenozoic                        72
    Perseus                       71
                   Cretaceous                  75
    Norma-Cygnus                 146
                  Jurassic                     54
    hidden-spur                  200
                Permian-Triassic               86
    Scutum-Centaurus             286
                Carboniferous*                 73              417
    Sagittarius                  359
                Devonian                       57              417
    Orion-spur                   416
            Ordivician-Silurian                72              417
    Perseus                      488
                 Cambrian                      75              417
    Norma-Cygnus                 563
                 Vendian                       54              417
         (Ediacaran-Varangian)
    hidden-spur                  617
                 Proterozoic 
           (Cryogenian-Ediacaran)
    Borgzoic is a projected (fictitious) period. Cenozoic is a compendium of Periods from Cretaceous to present. ICS 2004 shows two periods, ICS 2008 four periods. Paleogene-Neogene (2004) shows more constraint and allows the CB effect (Oligocene notch conundrum).

    Cretaceous 7M-yr Discrepancy:
    References [3] and [4] indicate multiple glaciating (cooling) events in the early Maastrichtian preceding the accepted 65M Cretaceous Yucatan bolide event. The Geo-Galactic interval indicates 71MA as the end Cretaceous causal date. It appears From general reports (NAT-GEO et al), geologists report dinosaur bones have not been found dating to 65M. Signor-Lipps effect does not apply [10]. Opinion: This discrepancy exists because of the notoriety of the Chicxulub Meteorite, which is contrary to geologic Maastrichtian stage studies, and is competing with reptilian extinction causality science.

    Carboniferous 13M-yr Discrepancy:
    Carboniferous contested date persists in present web sights, one being the Canadian Museum. The USG has recently updated in compliance with ICS [6]. This article statistically contends the 286M date is accurate based on repeating Arm intervals. Some what related, Pre-Cambrian Eon dates[C] are more unconstrained [7]. The tilde Pre-Cambrian entries are within ranges supported by published datum. All contested dates are not fabricated, but previous published date changes[9]; consequences of stratographic state-of-the-art as well as scientific democracy. The Carboniferous is 417M-yr paired to the Scutum-Centaurous, (Borgzoic). These Carboniferous dates harbor geologic uncertain dating, but which the JPL Galactic Map projects precision 417M-yr arm Sol interception angle(s), formula shown below.

    Borgzoic Projection:
    The Italicized date is projected as the next Geologic Period[E] Sol is about to enter as we exit the ORION Arm. Statistically, in another 58M-year the Borgzoic Period (authors license) is projected to end in the Sagittarius Arm. Borgzoic represents integration of technology with the organic, ‘present day’ biotechnology.

    Geologic Congruence to the Galactic Arm structure.
    The end of the Cenozoic (Holocene Extinction) is coincident to our current egress of the Orion Arm. Intra-Arm travel time (Orion to Orion, Norma-Cygnus to Norma-Cygnus, Perseus to Perseus) having the same precision as the Geologic zero deviation 417M-year period pattern. The geologic angles project the Sol orbital arm to arm intercepts, given by a 417M-year cycle through the NASA Milky Way Galactic Arm map. For clarity, the Geologic derived milky way map is shown in figure 1. Figure 2 shows the NASA Geologic overlaid map.
    Figure 2 http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z...tic_Galaxy.jpg



    Angular Interception Formula:
    For European language/visual sense, right is forward time. The bar rotates to the right in the Georgelin map. The arms pass Sol outwardly. Orion is Spur-O, the next arm Sagittarius is 48 degrees into the future. The Equation repeats indefinitely end to end in positive time to the right, negative time to the left. Equation subscript-O marks the Orion Arm. Angle (degrees) between arms is used. Due to BAUT presentation limits, 64o = 64 degrees.
    Equ 1: [Spur-O +48o Minor +64o Major] (68.2 degrees +6 degrees) [Spur +48 degrees Minor +64 degrees Major] (68.2 degrees -6 degrees)

    Geologic Terminus Formula:
    Geologic sense of time is M for Million Years Ago. Thus the equation is reversed in orientation and polarity to angular version. Left to right is positive M, back in time. Right to Left is negative, forward in time. The SpurO is end Cenozoic. The Cretaceous is 79-7 in the past; -1M + 79 –7 =71M (1). The Equation repeats indefinitely end to end in past time to the right, future time to the left. The subscriptO marks the present geologic period terminus. Time between arms is used.
    Equ 2: [Major +74M Minor +55.5M Spur-O] (79-7) [Major +74M Minor +55.5M Spur] 79+7

    Geo-Galactic Sets are associated through the 2+2+2 galactic class structure as:
    (Spur, Minor, Major)=>(Proterozoic, Vendian, Cambrian); 79-7Myear, (Ordovician-Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous); 79+7Myear,(Permian-Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous); 79-7Myear; (Paleogene-Neogene, next Borgzoic, unnamed). Equation 2 generates all (non-CB) Geologic Period terminuses to within +/- 2M-year. This is the first equation ever to order the Geologic Time Scale of the Phanerozoic Era, and it extends into the Pre-Cambrian as well.
    1) The Milky Way Galaxy Central Bar is rotating 0.863 degrees per million-year faster than our Sol Galactic Orbit. The Oligocene temperature notch aligns to a Central Bar 26(3) degree in advance of Sol orbital position. The Central Bar has a 6-degree bend (23 and 29 degrees). The Kvet Planetary Equidistant Rupture (PER) [1] is generally aligned to the Galactic Central bar.
    The Geo-Galactic Chronology pattern suports the Cretaceous Paleogene date occurring 6M-year earlier than the Chicxulub 65Mya KT bolloid: ref [3] and [4].
    2) The ICS Geologic Time Scale major period date pattern is now formulated!
    3) Using http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/milkyway.html consensus map as a reference structure: Period Arm pairing follows: end Paleogene-Silurian [Orion], Cretaceous-Cambrian [Perseus], Jurassic-Pre-Cambrian [Cygnus], Triassic Proterzoic [un-named Orion symmetric pair], and Carboniferous [Scutum-Centaurus]. Devonian [Sagittarius].
    4) This Geo-Galactic Chronology does not predict a Cambrian Explosion [5].
    I added the Cambrian Explosion to cap the extent of these assertions. I presently see no periodic galactic correlation with this event, although ‘something’ [5] did occur.

    Closing:
    Two major stratification processes structure geologic chronology, CB [1] and Galactic Arms. Stratification structure is a repetition of CB plus three GA egressions. The galactic repetition has an alternating interval ascertained from geologic chronological dating. The three exceptions, Paleogene-Neogene and Odovician-Silurian are themselves 417M apart. The remaining P-Tr has a diametric at 668M, the Harland 1982 Varangian 670M start date [7].
    Definitions:
    M: million years ago. M is in earth annum intervals (year), Ma refers to a time span scaled to million years. Ma is different that M (years ago).
    Phanerozoic: Scientific: ‘make life appear’. Geologic: Present to 542M.
    Chronology: Temporal sequence of events.
    Geo-Galactic Chronology: Galactic temporal geologic stratification. Geo-Galactic Chronology stratifies the Phanerozoic Eon with Periods


    References:
    [1]Kvet, Complete Periodical Geological Timetable, GeoJournal 24.2 417-420, August 1991.
    [2] ICS Phanerozoic Geologic Time Scale
    [3] Thorn: Terminal Cretaceous climate change and biotic response in Antarctic; USGS OF-2007-1047 Extended Abstract 096.
    [4] Barrera: Global environmental changes preceding the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary: Early-late Maastrichtian transition. Department of Geological Sciences, Univ Michigan Ann Arbor 48109-1063.
    [5] Evidence for a large-scale Reorganization of Early Cambrian Continental Masses by Inertial Interchange True Polar Wander. Joseph L. Kirschvink, et al. Science 277, 541 (1997); DOI 10.1126/science.277.5325.541.
    [6] http://park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/homepg.html
    [7] http://www.palaeontologie.uni-wuerzb...tuff/casu6.htm
    [8] The Spiral Structure of Our Galaxy Determined from Hii Regions. Y.M.Georgelin and Y.P.Georgelin Observatoire de Marseille, Observations de Haute Province. Astron & Astrophysics. 49, 57-70(1976).
    [9] 'The Chronology of the Geologic Record' N.J.Snelling 1985 ISBN 0-632-01285-4
    [10] Evolution on Planet Earth-The impact of the physical environment; Rothschild-Lister ISBN 0-12-598655-6; 2003.

    morbas




    PS: This has been edited 20April2010 in partial due to the following comments. Some of the above statements can be interpreted as opinion, especially in a paradigm context.
    Last edited by morbas; 2010-May-12 at 01:47 PM. Reason: JPL removed, NASA Map is referenced

  2. #2
    morbas

    Are you the author?

  3. #3
    Yes, usgov copywrite version of this in submission since very first of the year. (11Feb2010 USGov Copyright claim 1-332087031)
    I submitted an attachment, will it be available to the viewers?
    If not, how do they privately get a copy?
    Last edited by morbas; 2010-Apr-16 at 01:59 PM. Reason: Added Information and Copyright number

  4. #4
    I would like to see the whole paper after the copyright has been issued---but I am not a trained geologist . . . If you like I will PM my email address?

  5. #5
    OK, What I understand about copyright is I can post the item on line. Since I have sent this to notable professionals, I do not perceive any problem sending it to you. They have replied that facets of this are outside their expertise as well. And, this thread will be archived long before the standard 9-month copyright process period. I need your (plural) comments please.
    -morbas-

  6. #6
    morbas:

    (1) Statistical analysis of the data? I am having trouble finding it?
    (2) My impression is when correlations are drawn from sources that are not your own---> and please correct if I am in error? there probably should be some type of "self-correcting" mechanism that backs up any of your assertions. In short, is the model repeatable or can it predict an outcome from a set of circumstances that are self-consistent.

    So in short:

    (3) If I am to understand what I see in your abstract: you have devised (?) or come up with a model based upon data that predicts an outcome? Is that correct?

  7. #7
    1) Statistical data is organized in the table, which I cannot get to you. Once I get this to you, you can reference the ICS to verify the datum.
    2) a) Yes, The fact that the resulting KT discrepancy is indicated in published peer reviewed Maastrichtian field studies.
    b) Jaksichi: "In short, is the model repeatable or can it predict an outcome from a set of circumstances that are self-consistent."
    I have adhered to this criteria. If and when you see table, the inferred Galactic Map and the ovelay of the JPL map, you will see that all Sol orbital intercepts (save the unnamed arm) are coincident. Learning the double triple pattern from each arm end, you will see exact replication of this pattern in the ICS dates for both sides of the Central Bar. I have used only this averaged general pattern to maximize the statistic base repetition count. Without repetition I have no statistic base. Much of this is in notes. You are indicating that I should formalize these, KUDOS I will.
    3) Yes, When I saw this pattern, it pointed to descrepancies, One the KTwith Geologic Issues, Two the Carbiniferous with a recent change histogram. Three, expanding into the Pre-Cambrian, we see internal ICS discussions on poorly constrained dating. So this proposal highlights(uncovers) these serious geologic issues; and implies an outcome.

    For a picture to be a solution, all the puzzle must fit together without a void. TSKuhn

    Please PM me your email.

  8. Would be it overly pedantic to point out that neither the Precambrian nor the Phanerozoic are eras?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,355
    Um, why not just present this to a professional science journal and let them review it?

    Though to be honest, it's hard to get a handle on what you're talking about here. I think you're claiming to find link between mass extinctions and the sun's passage through spiral arms in the milky way, but if so then it's not very well presented.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by distraction tactics View Post
    Would be it overly pedantic to point out that neither the Precambrian nor the Phanerozoic are eras?
    IMO--at least there would be a way to assure that are there fewer loose ends prior to submission... it is difficult to ascertain how a referee may respond or if they do... for that matter

  11. #11
    distraction tactics: (thank you):
    My offer to volunteer the table and figures extends to all.

    EDG_: The central point of this thread is that the Galaxy stratified Phanerozoic Eon Periods. Significantly, an (almost) zero deviation pattern of date sets are found in the ICS Geologic Time Scale. Association with the Galaxy is two fold: 1) the date pattern has near zero deviations and 2) recent Galactic maps correlate (finger print) this pattern. A pattern equation is derived for your familiarization. I stand ready, this is my responsibility. Send me a PM if you wish.

    Most Kind of You to take the effort to Critique
    morbas

    PS: jaksichj was sent the table and figures.
    Last edited by morbas; 2010-Apr-17 at 02:11 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,458
    I don't understand a thing.
    First of all, where did you submit this so called paper that it is "copy righted?" I have no idea what you mean with "11Feb2010 USGov Copyright claim 1-332087031"
    Secondly, I find the writing very very hard to understand, e.g. The ICS Phanerozoic Era geologic periods consist of two processes. How am I to understand this, how can a "period" consist of "two processes?" It might contain evidence (in some form) that during that period two processes were active, or something.
    Another example: All contested dates are not fabricated, but previous published changed dating; consequences of stratographic state-of-the-art as well as scientific democracy. "fabricated" usually means that it is fake "made up" so I am glad it is not fabricated, but "scientific democracy?" Does something like that exist at all?

    So, it is hard to come to a conclusion of a "paper" if you only get the abstract and the conclusions, so how about making a preprint available?

    Very very confused here.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  13. #13
    The ICS Phanerozoic Era geologic periods consist of two processes. Periods in plural Form. The Phanerozoic Periods are stratified from two processes.
    Explaining this paradigm is hampered by the absence of the evidential form (table) that lead me to it. I volunteered this table, the figures, arranged in the above text.pdf, to allow you the same opportunity. Send me a PM (forum Personal Message) with your email address, just as Jaksichj did. Or, you can tell me how to put a table in this forum. The copywrite information is to prevent you from copying this work as your own.
    I ask only professional respect.
    morbas

    Scientific democracy is how controverisal objections are resolved.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,355
    Quote Originally Posted by morbas View Post
    EDG_: The central point of this thread is that the Galaxy stratified Phanerozoic Eon Periods. Significantly, an (almost) zero deviation pattern of date sets are found in the ICS Geologic Time Scale. Association with the Galaxy is two fold: 1) the date pattern has near zero deviations and 2) recent Galactic maps correlate (finger print) this pattern. A pattern equation is derived for your familiarization. I stand ready, this is my responsibility. Send me a PM if you wish.
    Whatever it is you're trying to say (and I still don't follow really), you need to significantly improve your explanation (also, it doesn't seem like English is your first language) and then if you seriously want to stand by it you should submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal , not throw it out in incomplete form on an internet discussion board. Otherwise, it just looks like you're trying to present an ATM idea.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,355
    And I note that morbas has attempted to present this idea before, elsewhere:
    http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums/t/3832.aspx

    This looks more and more to me like an ATM idea, that should be relocated to that board (as such I've reported it to the mods for their consideration). At least the folks there will be able to dissect it fully.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by EDG_ View Post
    And I note that morbas has attempted to present this idea before, elsewhere:
    http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums/t/3832.aspx
    No, this is significantly different. This is a paradigm issue, and I can address it. Let me!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,355
    Oh, I'm not stopping you from addressing it - I'm just suggesting that you do it under the withering scrutiny of the folks at the ATM board. If your idea is up to snuff then it'll be all the better when it comes out of the other side of that.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    5,413
    Quote Originally Posted by morbas View Post
    Cretaceous 7M-yr Discrepancy:
    References [3] and [4] and others support the end Cretaceous 71MA contested date. It appears that multiple glaciating (cooling) events preceded the accepted 65M Cretaceous Yucatan bolide event. From general reports (NAT-GEO et al), geologists report dinosaur remains have not been found dating to 65M, asserting Dinosaurs went extinct in the previous Maastrichtian. The Cretaceous is paired with the Cambrian, which has also recently changed. This discrepancy exists because of the notoriety of the Chicxulub Meteorite, which is contrary to geologic study of the Maastrichtian stage, and is displacing reptilian extinction causal science.
    I'm not sure I have this straight. You're claiming that the dinosaurs went extinct before the K-T extinction event? Your references [3] and [4] don't seem to support that--so your argument is based upon "NAT-GEO"? Is that National Geographic?

  19. #19
    From my notes:
    According to the Department of Geological Sciences, University of Michigan Ann Arbor Michigan, 18O results and late Maastrichtian rise in the seawater 87Sr/86Sr, indicate major changes in the climate and ocean 4 to 6 Myr prior to the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary. The 13C values reflect changed and eustatic sea-level fluctuation, contradicting common representation of a stable environment in late Cretaceous before the K-T event. Accordingly, Thorn, Francis, Riding and others British Geological Survey University of Livermore, at Seymour Island found significant cooling 70-65Myr-ago, well before the K-T Bolide 65Myr-ago.

    The decline of the Dinosaur has not been linked to the bolide (meteorite), a professional opinion 1984 and 1996 (Galvin). I could quote 'Evolution on Planet Earth' Rothschild, Lister and MacLeod in the chapter 'The Causes of Phanerozoic extinctions'. My understanding of the Maastrichtian stage is Large Dinosaurs remains are not present in the late Masstrichtian. MacLeod (1997) indicates any number hypothetical extinction casuals carry equivalent weights.

    Per Rothschild The Maastrichtian represented a stage of general decline. The extinction argument treats the co-extinction as an assumption at the outset instead of a conlcusion to be tested and proven. She thus yields to opposition on the Chixculub KT claims.

    Relative to this article, the earliest changes in the environment are relevant to the end ot the Cretaceous causal and so mark the Cretaceous Tertiary transition. Any papers marking the transition are thus fair game for dating causals. Secondly, some where in my files, I have a paper about the lack of remains in the late Masstrichtian causing dating issues in the study of this stage. I beleive it was in the Hell Creek report.
    I mentioned NAT-GEO (yes you were correct), perhaps you feel this is not appropriate. Information is increasingly appearing in televised forms. I would assume NATGEO is a quotable source?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    5,284
    I'm not sure National Geographic is an acceptable reference for substantial input. It's OK for general information, which may be how you are using it.

    By the way, copyright protection attaches the moment you put down your words in a tangible form. Prior registration with the US Copyright Office provides certain advantages if you need to defend the copyright.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    5,413
    Quote Originally Posted by morbas View Post
    Secondly, some where in my files, I have a paper about the lack of remains in the late Masstrichtian causing dating issues in the study of this stage. I beleive it was in the Hell Creek report.
    Dig them out!

    Yes, I'd like to see title date authors.
    I mentioned NAT-GEO (yes you were correct), perhaps you feel this is not appropriate. Information is increasingly appearing in televised forms. I would assume NATGEO is a quotable source?
    Again, title date authors would be nice tho

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,458
    Quote Originally Posted by morbas View Post
    The ICS Phanerozoic Era geologic periods consist of two processes. Periods in plural Form. The Phanerozoic Periods are stratified from two processes.
    Well I forgot an "s" okay, but still there is the little language thingy here, as apparently English is not your first language, which is not a problem, mine is not either. But you have to be careful what you write.
    It should read (maybe): "XXX periods are characterized by two processes" or something in that trend.
    It should read: "XXX periods' LALALALA are stratisfied by (or through) two processes" where LALALALA is something that can be stratisfied.

    Quote Originally Posted by morbas View Post
    Explaining this paradigm is hampered by the absence of the evidential form (table) that lead me to it. I volunteered this table, the figures, arranged in the above text.pdf, to allow you the same opportunity. Send me a PM (forum Personal Message) with your email address, just as Jaksichj did. Or, you can tell me how to put a table in this forum.
    Unfortunately, the upgrading of the forum has left us without the possibility (at the moment) to upload attachements. The administrators are working on it.
    A table can "easily" be typed in by using the code and /code commands between [ ] which will not reformat your text but show it as it is.
    You can send the pdf to me to my username here but then at yahoo, but I am not sure whether I will have time to go through it, because I am very busy at work and this is most definitely not my area of expertise. But it would be interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by morbas View Post
    The copywrite information is to prevent you from copying this work as your own.
    I ask only professional respect.
    morbas
    I know what copyright is (without a "w") I have to transfer it all the time when I publish a paper. But if YOU wrote it and it has not been published yet, you still get to send so-called pre-prints out, and in my business (planetary/space physics) most of the time you get to put the last version in "referee mode" (i.e. double spacing) up on your website, also after the paper has been published. So. then the question remains, it is your work and if so where did you submit it to, that you "lost" the copyright.

    Quote Originally Posted by morbas View Post
    Scientific democracy is how controverisal objections are resolved.
    No, scientific evidence resolves "controversial objections" not a bunch of scientist "vote" on what is correct or not.

    ETA: I have googled for US Gov Copyright claim 1-332087031 and the only things I came up with was BAUT and astonomy.com.
    And actually, I am thinking that Morbas is hiding his "evidence" behind the copyright claim, because on the other forum (same topic, more pictures) he claims in post 746 on 31st January 2009 The above table will be replaced when the copywright is processed. So, he has been working on "processing" it well over a year!
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    You can send the pdf to me to my username here but then at yahoo, but I am not sure whether I will have time to go through it, because I am very busy at work and this is most definitely not my area of expertise. But it would be interesting.



    I know what copyright is (without a "w") I have to transfer it all the time when I publish a paper. But if YOU wrote it and it has not been published yet, you still get to send so-called pre-prints out, and in my business (planetary/space physics) most of the time you get to put the last version in "referee mode" (i.e. double spacing) up on your website, also after the paper has been published. So. then the question remains, it is your work and if so where did you submit it to, that you "lost" the copyright.



    No, scientific evidence resolves "controversial objections" not a bunch of scientist "vote" on what is correct or not.
    Actually, English is my first and only language, outside of VHDL, C, C++, ASSY on and on. No demeanor taken. My lingual base is different from yours, a different viewpoint at the source. I should check my spelling more closely.

    Scientific vote (show of hands consensus) is prevalent. "The analysis has been discussed at the 41st Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (LPSC) in the US." Dinosaur extinction link to crater confirmed. The result of this 'vote' was an absolute scientific sham. They published (or allowed to be published) that the Dinosaur extinction was absolutely caused by the bolide 65M. Absolutes in science are a big thing. Secondly, the issue is controversial and I have shown you notes to that end. Thirdly, I have not hidden anything. I have chosen to delay showing the 'chart' until a month after the copyright office opened the case. Your reply that you have little time to investigate is quite common to all the professionals I have communicated with (P.Frisch, J.Rothschild, others and ICS itself.). Openly, I wanted to find out why, which brings me to your attention. I take it I can still edit the above text to include these clarifications without causing issue with readership.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,458
    Quote Originally Posted by morbas View Post
    Actually, English is my first and only language, outside of VHDL, C, C++, ASSY on and on. No demeanor taken. My lingual base is different from yours, a different viewpoint at the source. I should check my spelling more closely.
    I guess I was wrong then, but don't only check your spelling, but also your sentence building.

    Quote Originally Posted by morbas View Post
    Scientific vote (show of hands consensus) is prevalent. "The analysis has been discussed at the 41st Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (LPSC) in the US." Dinosaur extinction link to crater confirmed. The result of this 'vote' was an absolute scientific sham.
    I was not at that conference, but the only thing I can imagine "show of hand consensus" would be asked for would be during conference dinner entertainment.

    ETA: at which session was that LPSC 2010?

    Quote Originally Posted by morbas View Post
    They published (or allowed to be published) that the Dinosaur extinction was absolutely caused by the bolide 65M. Absolutes in science are a big thing.
    Please support yourself with links to the published papers, as asked before by e.g. _EDG above.

    Quote Originally Posted by morbas View Post
    Secondly, the issue is controversial and I have shown you notes to that end.
    Thirdly, I have not hidden anything. I have chosen to delay showing the 'chart' until a month after the copyright office opened the case.
    You have shown an "abstract" and a "conclusion" of a paper that apparently has been under "copyright" blockage since January 2009. And apparently you do not want to disclose why there is this "copyright" blockage of your work, nor where you submitted this work. However, your wording is now different in that "the copyright office opened the case" (questions questions - this might even indicate that you are accused of copyright infringement)

    Quote Originally Posted by morbas View Post
    Your reply that you have little time to investigate is quite common to all the professionals I have communicated with (P.Frisch, J.Rothschild, others and ICS itself.).
    Well at the moment I have a deadline for a paper coming up (June 1st), I have a poster to make for the EGU (in 2 weeks) on a different topic, I need to prepare a talk for a conference at ESTEC (in 4 weeks) on again another topic, so one might say I am a wee bit busy. However, I am willing to look at what you have created. (Un)fortunately, that's the life of a scientist.

    Quote Originally Posted by morbas View Post
    Openly, I wanted to find out why, which brings me to your attention. I take it I can still edit the above text to include these clarifications without causing issue with readership.
    I would NOT edit the text above, as that will lead to confusion in the parts which are quoted. You are naturally welcome to present (a little bit clearer than in the OP) how your model/data/hypothesis works.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  25. I haven't read your entire article because I tend to discount unpublished research (though I think it's admirable that you've stepped up to take a stab at it), but I've noticed some key issues in what I have read. For example:

    Cretaceous 7M-yr Discrepancy:
    References [3] and [4] and others support the end Cretaceous 71MA contested date. It appears that multiple glaciating (cooling) events preceded the accepted 65M Cretaceous Yucatan bolide event. From general reports (NAT-GEO et al), geologists report dinosaur remains have not been found dating to 65M, asserting Dinosaurs went extinct in the previous Maastrichtian. The Cretaceous is paired with the Cambrian, which has also recently changed. This discrepancy exists because of the notoriety of the Chicxulub Meteorite, which is contrary to geologic study of the Maastrichtian stage, and is displacing reptilian extinction causal science.
    It might seem perfectly reasonable to ask why fossils are not present up to the impact layer, but any specialist is immediately going to realize that you do not understand the Signor-Lipps effect, and will conclude that you have formal background in geology. Your chances of being taken seriously or published? Unfortunately, zero.

  26. #26
    The Signor–Lipps effect is a paleontological principle proposed by Philip W. Signor and Jere H. Lipps which states that, since the fossil record of organisms is never complete, neither the first nor the last organism in a given taxon will be recorded as a fossil. Wiki

    You need to read 'Evolution on Planet Earth' Rothschild and Lister to even understand objections to the KT sudden extinction hypothesis. Tell me you have...
    Last edited by morbas; 2010-Apr-18 at 04:12 PM. Reason: SPELLING

  27. Quote Originally Posted by morbas View Post
    You need to read 'Evolution on Planet Earth' Rothschild and Lister to even understand objections to the KT sudden extinction hypothesis. Tell me you have...
    I haven't. I think it's more useful to read primary research than an introductory text.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,458

    After moderator discussion and member input, it was decided that this topic belongs in ATM.
    You have 30 days to make your case, Morbas, please be sure to read the rules for ATM.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  29. Quote Originally Posted by distraction tactics View Post
    I haven't. I think it's more useful to read primary research than an introductory text.
    My apologies - it occurred to me a few minutes ago that this sounds like a cheap shot, but that was not my intention.

    As I get on in my degree, I find that I am increasingly frustrated with the required textbooks (exceptions include Winter's Igneous petrology, and Faure's Geochemistry). I've discovered the best way to use them is as expensive reference guides - select my topic, track down the references, and read the papers myself. Typically this strategy yields the best results and understanding, and provides a wealth of discussion on the topic that includes a sense of history about how the research has evolved over the past decades. This, along with important details, is often missing from textbooks because they typically employ a broad scope - which is nice if you're in the initial stages of learning, but largely useless if you're looking for some meat.

    Hence my bias.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,514
    I don't understand the copyright issue: if you wrote it, you own it. (until you assign it to someone else.)

Similar Threads

  1. need some help with a geologic problem
    By novaderrik in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2010-Apr-20, 01:38 AM
  2. Chronology of education outside the US
    By Tog in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2007-Jun-25, 10:25 AM
  3. Galactic Geologic Interval Theory
    By morbas in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 2007-Apr-16, 01:41 AM
  4. Galactic Geologic Interval Theory
    By morbas in forum Life in Space
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 2007-Apr-10, 05:08 AM
  5. Mars: Time for a New Chronology?
    By ToSeek in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-17, 09:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: