Welcome back, Margiani ...

"Mammoth Caves were dug by mammoths..." ...

Mammoth Caves are an excellent example of karstic formation

karstic formations have nothing to do with plate tectonics ...
they are hydrogeochemical erosional features ...
found in carbonate (limestones, dolomites, marbles) or evaporite (gypsum, anhydrite, halide) deposits...
they form slowly (ie, over tens or hundreds of millions of years) ...
but can be subject to rapid change, especially collapse or flooding ...
they are found in many parts of the world,
and the larger examples are some of the most popular tourist attractions ...
they have been studied instensely by geologists, hydrogeologists, geochemists, geochronologists (the stalactites are a common dating tool), palaeontologists, and palaeobotanists ...
and most have been explored by spelunkers ...

a brief explanation of karsts can be found here:
http://www.gcrio.org/geo/karst.html

__________________

Well, you got that right. Good for you!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

It's an invasion of the Tartanic Aliens! Look out! They're hurling haggis!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

What does any of this have to do with Edwin Hubble's discoveries and theories?

Giant worms? Too much Frank Herbert, it would seem. Burrowing mammoths? Too much Jean Auel perhaps.

Although I guess wild speculation can be entertaining up to a point. It seems we've passed that marker...

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Cran giant worms traces proves that, floor of the caves was ancient continent surface million and million years ago. During one of the event this surface was destroyed by enother ocean lithosphere tile. was formed giant caves. During million and million years was formed as the karstic formation, reason was underground water circulation through geolayers...

Mammoths' souls have already received applauds for their work, thousand and thousand years ago. They were digging 560km caves by this time. I'm waiting applauds for my modern difficult work too...

Everything you can read in the my site www.cosmogeology.ge

Everything you can discuss to me after new year. Now I don't have many free time for science.
sorry...

"giant worms"? ...

question: what sort of giant worms? ... terrestrial (like those of Gippsland in Australia) or marine (like those around the smoker vents) or imaginary (like those of Frank Herbert's Dune stories)?

question: where are these "traces" and who confirmed that they were made by "giant worms", and how was the confirmation made?

question: who decided that the floor of the caves was once an "ancient continent surface"? ...
which "floor of which caves", by the way? ... there are numerous levels of caves ...
and when was this supposed to have been?
(the geology of the deposits (CaCO3 marine detritus) indicates that the area was a continental seafloor)

question: who determined that this "continent surface" was destroyed by oceanic crust? ...
and how did the oceanic crust destroy the surface? ...
and when was this supposed to have happened?
(keep in mind that oceanic crust can be uplifted, but it cannot override continental crust ... density differences make continental crust more buoyant, and in every case studied, continental crust has overridden oceanic crust)

question: you say now that the caves were formed by destruction of the "continent surface" by "ocean lithosphere tile" ... what does this have to do with your earlier statement that mammoths dug the caves? ...
how do either of these events explain the formation of speleothems, which give very precise ages and rates of formation?
(remember geochronology, the science you rely upon to date the mass extinction of 65Ma BP, and the other "geocatastrophes"?)

... by the way, how did mammoths dig caves?

question: if mammoths used these caves for nesting, why are there no mammoth fossils found anywhere in the area? ... why are there mastodon fossils instead?

__________________

Well, I think we're dialing in on the hypothesis. Now we just need to know what the fallacies in modern geology are, how this theory is a better and simpler explanation, and some evidence to back up the extrodinary claims.

And to find out more about Mammoth souls.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

And giant worms!

As Margiani has indicated he will be able to answer questions about this ATM idea, as presented here, only "after new year"*, this thread will be closed until 2 Jan 2007.

If Margiani reads this before then, and wishes to answer the direct, pertinent questions on his idea, as presented, please send me (or any other moderator) a PM (Private Message), and this thread will be re-opened.

*I assume this means 1 Jan 2007.

Thread re-opened, at Margiani's request.

Thank you, have a good year!
Margiani

Readers and posters!

I wish you all the best and happy new year!

I have important question to my posters!

Question is about originator forces our Moon's mountain chains.

Without drift, without subduction zones, without interaction between plates,

unknown forces have already created very many ridges on the moon's surface.

Please decode to me unknown forces.

Especially I'm waiting answers by Cran, John Mendenhall, Serantude, Ozzy.

Not unknown.

The majority probably are clearly impact features. There are other flow features that arose billions of years ago, when the moon hadn't cooled. That's about it. I think that there are a few head-scratchers maybe (like crater chains which might be multiple impacts), but not many.

PS: don't you have some homework to turn in?

The majority probably are clearly impact features.
I think you want to say about huge asteroids' impact. Because small and micrometeorites impacts could not created such big ridges.
There are other flow features that arose billions of years ago, when the moon hadn't cooled But why was flowing on the Moon's surface so much magma and created very many "sea of magma" by this different impacts time. ancient small meteorites' impact craters was covered by sea of magma... and were created big ridges on the outer margins of all seas...
I had question about originator forces!.. Asteroid impact was one of the force!...
We are near one of the important discovery in the Astronomy and Geology.

Sorry Margiani. I've been nursing a migraine for a couple of days, and haven't made any posts requiring brainpower in that time I'll post something thoughtful as soon as I feel better

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Discussing the formation and evolution of the Moon is straying quite a way off-topic in this thread, Margiani ... and by the rules and conventions, your posts should be addressing the questions already put to you, not by putting more questions forward ...

by the way, I hope you had a good Christmas and New Year ...
and how did your worm research go?

There are a number of hypotheses ... some called theories ... about the formation of the Moon ... the one with the strongest evidential support suggests that it is the result of a large scale planetesimal impact with the Earth around 4.4 billion years ago ... the impactor, called Theia, is thought to have been about the mass and size of Mars, and is thought to have collided with the proto-earth, resulting in the virtual destruction of Theia and a substantial amount of proto-earth matter being lifted from the planet ... the debris which wasn't annihilated or blasted beyond the influence of the Earth then either rained back to Earth or collected in orbit to form the Moon ...
From 4.6 to 3.9 billion years ago (roughly) was the era of primary accretion ... the formation of planets and major satellites from smaller agglomerations of matter ... it ended in a phase called the "Late Cometary Bombardment" ...
We know from observation and experiment that boloidal impacts generate a lot of energy ... from this we deduce (and mineralogical studies confirm) that both the Earth and Moon were virtually (if not literally) molten and hot ...
Lacking the mass or other means to retain a substantial atmosphere, the Moon cooled relatively quickly from the outside in (ie, the surface cooled first) ... it went through a brief period of mantle convection (and surface eruptions) but eventually its internal temperature decreased, its density increased, and its volume reduced ...
Much of the large scale ridging we can see on the Moon (and also on other bodies like Mercury) results from subsidence due to internal cooling ... we can see the same thing here on Earth at smaller scales ...

edited to correct a number ...

__________________

Hi Cran!
Cran thank you for your last private massage. It means my theory has FUTURE...
together we have already found first interesting implications for my theory, traces into Mammoth caves.
I have a lot of interesting implications for my theory: Sedimentary layer into high mountains of Caucasus...Tethys ocean-sand with a lot of cochlea, Tethys ocean-sand' hills, karstic formation caves into high mountains of Caucasus "NEW ATONE", etc. we'll discuss everything later.
I'll finish discuss about Moon soon, as I'll receive all answeres about Moon's ridges formation. Here is clue of geocatastrophes.
and how did your worm research go?
-We are near at the one of the strong evidence, for my theory...

only as fiction, based on what you've presented so far ...

that means you haven't followed up the research on the ancient worms, or you would understand that they were marine creatures ... and the implications are that your theory is not a theory; thus far there is not one piece of scientific evidence to support any of your original claims ...

all good things to study ... and the first thing you'll learn if you study them properly is that all of it is felsic and carbonate material (ie, continental and marine deposits) and none of it is mafic (original ocean crust ... basaltic) ...

I seriously doubt it ...

__________________

This is worthy of Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams....

you don't want answar...
Question is about originator forces our Moon's mountain chains.

Without drift, without subduction zones, without interaction between plates,

unknown forces have already created very many ridges on the moon's surface.

Please decode to me unknown forces.

The forces aren't unknown. All lunar mountains are the rims of major impact features.

Only asteroid impact could not created arc-ridges, where is deleted part of arc-ridges
billions of years ago Moon's astenosphere's inner pressure could created only volcano eruption and crustquake. Moon's astenosphere's inner pressure was not enough to create magma's seas and ocean...
Asteroid impact force is only one of forces, can you decode second main force...

I have no idea what the above means.

All the lunar mountain ranges are associated with impact basins and form their rims. For example on the nearside we have:

Montes Alpes, Caucasus, Apenninus forming the rim of Mare Imbrium.

Montes Haemus and Taurus forming the rim of Mare Serenitatis.

Montes Pyrenaeus on the rim of Mare Nectaris.

Montes Riphaeus on the rim of Mare Cognitum.

Montes Jura on the rim of Sinus Iridum.

You can find them here

Jon

Jon this unknown second force is one of the strong evidence of the Cosmogeolical Theory. Please read first letter of my thread...
You can understend ...
If you can decode, send me only private letter because I'm waiting answer of another readers.
We are near at the one of the important discovery...

Your first thread says nothing about the Moon, neither do the links.

You seem to be sating that lunar mountains cannot be produced by impacts.

If you think that the lunar mountains are not produced by impact you need to explain the observation association much better than the explation that they are the rims of giant impact basins. Questions you must address include:

1) The association of mountains with the rims of very large basins.

2) Why the best preserved basins have mutiple concrentic mountain ranges, exactly as predicted by impact theory. Mare Orientale is a good example of this.

3) Why the mountains are generally highest close to the inner side of the rim and diminish in altitude away from it, exactly as expected if they were formed from impacts.

4) Why the mountains are formed of uplifted deep lunar crustal rocks (anorthosites, norites, and gabbros)

5) The concentric and radial fracture systems associated with the mountains. Again, Mare Orientale is a good example, so is the Apline Valley.

6) Demonstrate that a singificant number of lunar mountains, in particular major mountain ranges are not associated with impact basins.

7) Demonstrate why the major lunar basins can not formed be formed by impact.

Jon

Margiani mentioned PM discussions from late last year, with the inference that I have helped prove his "theory" ... it is only fair to the other participants here that those discussions be included ... there were two exchanges; this is the first:


Well ... strictly speaking, I think private discussions and debates are against the guidelines, but if it will help you to understand that there is a lot of tested evidence that you need to look at first ...
Actually, I know of quite a number of scientific investigations into the Mammoth Cave system; but I don't know of any that confirm your ideas. And you have yet to provide, or even point to, any documented proofs.

No ... every biologist knows that remains of flora and fauna creates humus - a component of soil ... and every biologist knows that a number of physical and chemical processes go into soil formation ...
Every biologist, certainly every palaeontologist, will also tell you that worm casts (fossil worm trails) are found in sedimentary deposits; these are sub-aqueous or marine deposits, just like the deposits in which the Mammoth Cave system are found ... these same biologists can show you tables and images of marine worms, both ancient and modern.
Fossil soils are also found in a number of settings, but detecting worm casts in these is almost impossible, due to compaction from overburden.

If that was the case, then two new types of rock would be found in the sedimentary deposits; firstly, the igneous intrusion (rock formed from magma) ... and surrounding that, a region of metamorphosed host rock (physically and chemically distinct rock formed by contact with magma).
Worms can live in all sorts of places ... including the intestinal tracts of animals ... earthworms live in soil ... marine worms live in and on marine sediments ...

No ... giant earthworms in Gippsland don't need very deep soil profiles ... giant tubeworms don't need soil at all.
You still haven't specified which floor of which cave ... the cave system has many levels ... the lowest level is still being formed today, and is the focus of some of the scientific investigations that you've claimed I don't know about ... by the way, the upper caves are the oldest, even though they are formed in the second youngest sedimentary layer ...
the geology of the deposits ... the layers of rocks that the caves are formed in ... requires the surface to have been a shallow sea ... sedimentary limestone does not - can not - form on an exposed land surface ... how do we know this? ... well, apart from the investigations of the layers which show that they are made of fossils and microfossils of marine creatures ... extensive studies of limestone plains show that the upper exposed portion is hardened ... it is chemically changed to calcrete by interacting with the atmosphere (wind and rain and evaporation)

as I said before, oceanic crust can be uplifted ... but it does not override continental crust ... if it did, there would be geological indicators (like a line of rhyolitic-trachytic volcanoes or rift extrusions) surrounding and within the basalt ...

from: en.wikipedia.org


It is proved by scientists? ... can you provide one document written by a scientist, and published in anything with credibility, who claims this?
one who claims that Hawaii, for instance, was formed "by destroyed lithosphere tiles"?
or the Deccan Traps?
or the White Cliffs of Dover? ... or who claims that limestone deposits formed on exposed continents?
What about the Tibetan Plateau? ... that comes closest to what you want, but it still doesn't have oceanic crust overriding continental crust ...

There is a branch of science called speleology ... specifically, the study of caves ... it combines geology, geomorphology, geochemistry, palaeontology, biology ... and a lot of other disciplines ... the science is tested and sound, and speleologists will tell you that magma and lava do make some caves, but most are karst or pseudokarst sytems ... and the Mammoth Cave system is a textbook example (and the most studied example) of a karst system cave network ...

You need a lot of hard independent evidence to disprove what is already documented, and to prove what you believe actually happened ... you won't get agreement from me about worms, or any of the other points without it ... your wanting something to be so doesn't make it so; there's a whole world of real science that must be convinced ... if you do it right, you will become famous and win prizes, but until you truly understand the science you are fighting against, you will only lose ...

__________________

This was the second exchange:

Quote:
Originally Posted by But Margiani, you are fighting against science ... whether by ignoring the science that has been established, or by simply refusing to believe it ... claiming that theoretical or scientific support does not exist, when it does ... and has for many years - that is fighting against science.

I know something about those worms you've described ... it would be a very good idea for you to study as much as possible about those worms, about when they existed, and what conditions they lived in; that will have some very important implications for your ideas ...

There is no need to send me samples of Caucasus rocks ... I can study them here at university or at the museum ... and I can get all the information I could want about them; how old they are, how they formed, even what minerals are in them, or what fossils are associated with them ... because the science has been done, and tested, and is now part of the body of knowledge ... any new discoveries about them will also be scientifically tested ...

Before anyone can "know" something, they must first "learn" about it ... learn about those worms, Margiani, it will help you ...

Cran

__________________