BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    How Biofuels will help destroy the planet: debate me
Page 1 2 3 4 5 

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
How Biofuels will help destroy the planet: debate me
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
Sorry which bits were conflicting?

I'm still assuming your timing issues are a desire to make creationism fit and for the Earth and presumably the universe to be no more than six thousand or so years old?

If that's not it then please tell all.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I didn't mean anything you said was conflicting. I need to clarify I will "tell all" Give me a day or so to research my point, I want to give you accurate information for my example.
 
Location: new england | Registered: July 08, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Ok I look foward to that and promise to be as objective as I can when reading it.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I had a very busy weekend (I'm still building my system) I started my leg-work but didn't get to far.I will continue, as far as your being "objective" I have a new respect for you that you would at least give me that.
 
Location: new england | Registered: July 08, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Thank you, that is very kind of you to say.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Ok Ant sorry it took so long but here goes.
In 1942 during WW II a squadron of P-38 planes was traveling to Europe via Greenland they ran out of fuel and had to land. Before landing they radioed there location and where promptly rescued (all planes landed safely on the snow pack no injuries or damage)the planes where abandoned.


In 1990 a man by the name of Bob Cardin from Middleboro Kentucky,USA who is an aviation enthusiest decided that it would be a good idea to retrieve these planes for restoration. Apparently they are somewhat rare, and an intact squadron would be quite a score. So he went there and the planes where nowhere to be found. After several attempts over a few years they eventually used ground penetrating radar to find the planes.

The planes where found miles from were they had landed,and 263' under!!!! With a combination of digging and heat they reached one of the planes it was perfect! Exactly as it had landed, with further investigation using the radar and such the rest of the planes were found but because of cost they were not retrieved.However it was determined that they were still in the same orientation as reported when they landed.

Now 263' in 48-50 yrs is an average of approximatley 5'+/- per year (sorry I didn't convert to metric).It was determined the planes did not sink into the snow,had they sunk they would be in the snow nose down as the engines are in the front making them nose heavy. they were in fact in a normal landed position.Now there is a book written on this story (nothing to do with creationism).And you can read an excerpt from it or buy it at WWW.thelostsquadron.com The man Bob Cardin restored the P-38 at his aviation museum ph# (606)248-1149 hold this thought.

Scientist have core drilled holes in the ice pack as deep as 10,000' and claim that there are dark and light rings in these layers.They say the rings represent annual layers summer, winter, summer, winter etc. And they further speculate that this represents erratic climate changes from 135,000 yrs ago. Well isn't it possible that these rings are in fact only days or weeks?

Let's go back to the planes if they got buried at the rate of approximatly 5'+/- and you divide 10,000 feet by 5' it would be only 2000' yrs. So how can they be so sure that 10,000 feet equals 135,000 yrs.? I used this example becuase it would be easy for you to double check my work that's why I gave you places and info. you can easily check.

This is only one example of why I question science time issue's. This is something in our lifetime that we can measure without guessing (the planes getting buried in 50 yrs.) versus drilling ice cores and assuming that there 135,000 years old. What do you think?
 
Location: new england | Registered: July 08, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
The basic facts of the planes being there is true but some details may have been fudged or exagerated somewhere to make the story you repeat; the orientaion for example. They were frozen in a moving slab of ice subject to glacial drift. The slab could have sunk at some spot it moved to. Another glacial sheet could have ridden over it. Just two possiblities amongst many.

The problem is we don't know exactly and without knowing we cannot assume it is representative given that many more other facts and data from many more locations and time periods do not fit that assumption but do fit a common assumption that explains the vast majority of them consistantly.

"In 1990, the Greenland Expedition Society melted a shaft in the ice to one of the B-17s, only to find it had been crushed under the pressure of all that ice."

"Considering the stress the Glacier Girl had endured, it was decided to completely dismantle her, change all her rivets and rebuild her, using every original piece possible. The only piece that wasn't broken, crushed or bent was the lower portion of the main spar, the rough equivalent of the plane's keel - a thin piece of metal six inches wide and 18 feet long."

Link to the above quotes.

"The Atlanta team built the "Super Gopher," a cone-shaped probe that was filled with hot water. It melted the ice and slowly carved a shaft 256 feet down to the big B-17.

In The Lost Squadron, Hayes writes that once they reached the plane, they quickly saw there was no way they could ever fly it. Under the tremendous weight of the ice, Big Stoop had become "a jumble of crushed and mangled junk." ".

link for above comment

"Everything appeared to be going smoothly for the first two hundred yards or so, but the front landing gear buckled under the pressure, immediately flipping the P-38 onto its back."

"The Allies were forced to abandon the wounded planes, unable to retrieve them as they slowly disappeared under drifting snow. "

"Those parts which were too damaged acted as templates for the fabrication of replacement parts. The heap of wreckage, which was slowly beginning to resemble an airplane again, was affectionately nicknamed "Glacier Girl." Many individuals and organizations donated time and materials to the historic project, and over nine years the airframe was transformed from a wad of crushed remains into a beautiful, working airplane. "

link to above

Does that sound like planes found exactly as landed, orientation and all, definitely no falling down?

Without knowing the conditions that lead to the result we cannot know what the result means. I haven't looked up glacial drift to see what commonly happens but you could try that if you wanted to. I would be interested in the result.

The fact is that it is not just light and dark layers that the scientist look at. They examine things like the isotope content of the air in trapped bubbles to see what the atomosphere was like and tie that in to geological periods in the Earth's history. They generally study the ice in a great deal of detail.

It it not really probable that all the different evidence from different fields of study would all tie together to come to the same conclusion and yet all be so totally wrong.

Sure any theory is just a best approximation of truth as we know it but sucessive appoximation gradually hones the theory to a robust approximation that can be relied upon to a know extent.

It is more likely that the story is not exactly as you have been told it and that normal actions of glacial movement were responsible for the depth they were found at.

Are the areas normally drilled by scientists subject to glacial movement of the same kind? This is the kind of question you have to ask yourself and find out the answer to. Otherwise you may not be comparing like with like.

If you can do this and research the nature of glacial movement in the area of the planes I would be happy to discuss your findings with you further.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by MercGreaseBus:
More global warming. If you are using waste oil, carbon is being released into the atmosphere that was trapped in oil that would have gone into the ground.


Putting stuff in the dump doesn't mean the end of the line for the product.

There are a lot of bacteria in the dump. Methane is produced... which some companies recapture for energy (EPUD, Short Mountain, near Eugene Oregon). But, often is vented into the atmosphere, and can be as bad as CO2.

Aerobic Metabolism produces CO2.
Anaerobic Metabolism produces Methane. I'm not sure if CO2 is produced or consumed... but probably is more of a wash. But, the Methane is an equally potent greenhouse gas.
 
Location: Oregon | Registered: October 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Methane is an equally potent greenhouse gas.


Actually it is worse but are you sure that motor oil gets digested if you return it to an oil recycling point at your local council dump? Or do you not have them? We do and we are just a small island. I would imaging you must have.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ant:
The basic facts of the planes being there is true but some details may have been fudged or exagerated somewhere to make the story you repeat; the orientaion for example. They were frozen in a moving slab of ice subject to glacial drift. The slab could have sunk at some spot it moved to. Another glacial sheet could have ridden over it. Just two possiblities amongst many.

The problem is we don't know exactly and without knowing we cannot assume it is representative given that many more other facts and data from many more locations and time periods do not fit that assumption but do fit a common assumption that explains the vast majority of them consistantly.

"In 1990, the Greenland Expedition Society melted a shaft in the ice to one of the B-17s, only to find it had been crushed under the pressure of all that ice."

"Considering the stress the Glacier Girl had endured, it was decided to completely dismantle her, change all her rivets and rebuild her, using every original piece possible. The only piece that wasn't broken, crushed or bent was the lower portion of the main spar, the rough equivalent of the plane's keel - a thin piece of metal six inches wide and 18 feet long."

Link to the above quotes.

"The Atlanta team built the "Super Gopher," a cone-shaped probe that was filled with hot water. It melted the ice and slowly carved a shaft 256 feet down to the big B-17.

In The Lost Squadron, Hayes writes that once they reached the plane, they quickly saw there was no way they could ever fly it. Under the tremendous weight of the ice, Big Stoop had become "a jumble of crushed and mangled junk." ".

link for above comment

"Everything appeared to be going smoothly for the first two hundred yards or so, but the front landing gear buckled under the pressure, immediately flipping the P-38 onto its back."

"The Allies were forced to abandon the wounded planes, unable to retrieve them as they slowly disappeared under drifting snow. "

"Those parts which were too damaged acted as templates for the fabrication of replacement parts. The heap of wreckage, which was slowly beginning to resemble an airplane again, was affectionately nicknamed "Glacier Girl." Many individuals and organizations donated time and materials to the historic project, and over nine years the airframe was transformed from a wad of crushed remains into a beautiful, working airplane. "

link to above

Does that sound like planes found exactly as landed, orientation and all, definitely no falling down?

Without knowing the conditions that lead to the result we cannot know what the result means. I haven't looked up glacial drift to see what commonly happens but you could try that if you wanted to. I would be interested in the result.

The fact is that it is not just light and dark layers that the scientist look at. They examine things like the isotope content of the air in trapped bubbles to see what the atomosphere was like and tie that in to geological periods in the Earth's history. They generally study the ice in a great deal of detail.

It it not really probable that all the different evidence from different fields of study would all tie together to come to the same conclusion and yet all be so totally wrong.

Sure any theory is just a best approximation of truth as we know it but sucessive appoximation gradually hones the theory to a robust approximation that can be relied upon to a know extent.

It is more likely that the story is not exactly as you have been told it and that normal actions of glacial movement were responsible for the depth they were found at.

Are the areas normally drilled by scientists subject to glacial movement of the same kind? This is the kind of question you have to ask yourself and find out the answer to. Otherwise you may not be comparing like with like.

If you can do this and research the nature of glacial movement in the area of the planes I would be happy to discuss your findings with you further.

Ok I can see My info may have been off by some of the smaller details but the point was how they got buried so deep, so fast! Location and glacial movement I totaly agree on that one. As far as the light and dark ice I understand that there are things in the ice that would cause this besides freezing and melting cycles. The isotope content? I know what that means but can you elaborate on that point?
 
Location: new england | Registered: July 08, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The small detail is a crucial one when you consider it was being used by whoever told you the story to paint a false picture in order to bolster up their story and make their interpretation seem true. Anyone who does that forces us to question the validity of their theory as if it was a good one it would not need false facts and exagerations to strengthen it. It would stand on it's own. And you can't trust people who lie to try and gain your belief.

If they just got carried away and mixed up memory and imagination without deliberately lying then it shows they have an inbuilt bias that makes them an unreliable source of information as they are trying to make the facts fit the theory rather than the theory fit the facts.

I found out the facts as posted in half an hour of research. You should try and do that for yourself when anyone gives you any argument on any subject; even if they are saying what you want to hear and want to be true. Always check the facts. That way your internal model of truth can be as accurate as possible.

So deep so fast given they were not perfectly preserved in any way could have just been dropping down some change in the gradient and getting ridden over by another sheet of ice. It could be that the surface depths are achieved quickly but it is not a linear scale and as more ice crushes everything below it more and more change is much slower down below. There are various possiblities.

I think you should genuinely look up glacial movement and see how it works. Then you can tell me about it. I will be happy to work with you on it if you do.

Regarding Isotopes it was off the top of my memory so I hope I am right.

I will do a quick search hang on...

OK the isotopes of Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen trapped in the ice all vary according to the temprature at the time. In this way they record the seasonal variations of temp and identify the layers year by year.

This data has been tied in to know volcanic events that left ash in particualar layers and to Atomic testing events which left radiation in the layers. This calibrates and confirms the validity of the method. We can date as far back as 10000 years very reliably.

If you want a detailed read try this

Reading around also confims that older layers are pressed thinner so depth and age is not a linear relationship. Also that some areas are higher depositation rates than others. So the mystery of your planes is not really such a mystery after all. Surface layers only a few decades old are much thicker than lower layers where the pressure from the weight of ice above becomes immense. Areas subject to a lot of storms and snowfall can create a lot of cover fast at the top but this all gets crushed down thin as time goes by. The top 50 meters or so can all be relatively recent but not represantative of depth and time relationships.

I also remember something about the carbon isotopes telling us about the atomosphere at the time but can't find it right now.

In addition radiocarbon dating of radioactive isotopes can date layers back as far as about 50000 years.

One type decays over time the other builds up over time as it is formed by cosmic ray exposure over time.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Ant it has been very interesting conversing with you. And some time I would like to continue, but frankly I have been working seven days a week and I am stretched real thin. I just don't have the time to research some of the items that we have been discussing.That's why it took so long for me to answer you.I don't want you to think I'm putting you off I just need to keep the conversation light. I will stay on the site,and maybe in a few months we can pick up where we left off if you are still interested.
 
Location: new england | Registered: July 08, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
The pleasure and interest has been entirely mutual. Any time you want me to come and join you in conversation just PM with the thread you want me to join and I will be more than happy to come and chat with you.


mathematical elegance -- desired result achieved with minimal complication
 
Location: Manchester UK | Registered: June 03, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
That would be awesome,I do value your thoughts,and there are other subjects that I think would be fun to kick around.I will still be checking the site everyday I just have less time to spend. Duty calls!
 
Location: new england | Registered: July 08, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
actually,we are blaming the wrong stuff
is the wipe out of trees and entires forest
what is cousing the inability of purify the air back.and the main wipe out is to race livestock
we have to deforest to grow the cattle,and besides deforest more to grow grains to feed them,and the chickens.
we are using the primary food "veggies"to feed the animals so the animal can feed us
just drive on the country side and look arround,
the bigguest spots with out trees are the cattle fields.
maybe we should use the veggies to feed out selfs instead of use them to feed cows to feed us 75% of the enviromental polution problem is caused by livestock production
more info suprememastertv.com
 
Registered: September 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
my theory of Evolution was once i paid for fuel now i have evolved to not pay
 
Location: Florida | Registered: April 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    How Biofuels will help destroy the planet: debate me

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014