Acme

Edison certainly pushed DC as something of a 'system piece like your furnace', but not for any altruistic or individual security motive. He simply wanted to be the supplier of the multitude of DC generators that would be required and so rake in the dough ray ME. Edison conspired in numerous public demonstrations wherein animals were electrocuted using AC in order to scare the public off Westinghouse and Tesla's AC system. War of Currents

Understood. Nevertheless, any work entails mundane activities. Your feeling is not an adequate judgment of the usefulness of the articles. Even if only 1 person read a report/article, but used it in support of other research then the writing was worthwhile. I'd say the majority of people aren't interested in more than popular science type reading, and if they are then prompted by popular articles they will seek out more detailed information. It might be important to know certain things sooner, yes. It's also important to do a proper job of collating and analyzing facts before releasing them. You might consider writing your own blog to disseminate information you find important, as long as you do so responsibly. 'Main stream media' is such an overused term and little more than a strawman folks can feel satisfied in beating about the head and shoulders with a hefty cudgel. You're using a computer so you should know you can find darn near any important finding you want. Many things hidden behind paywalls online can still be found in a good old fashioned university library. Vision is great, but it is never achieved without putting one's nose to an elbow-greased grindstone. I'll need that statement written up in triplicate on my desk by 7am.

What evidence do you have that reports are 'barely read by anyone'? This is rather a vague question, Headlines where? Change what how? Outstanding why and to whom? Sounds like this is the crux of the issue. It's important because the results of research have their value in being shared. Listing facts may have merit, but often the facts/data require collation and analysis to manifest their value. In other words, you don't have the wherewithal to do all that is required of a researcher. Maybe you've chosen the wrong line of work.

Strange loop

Q: What is the difference between humor and odor? A: Humor is a shift of wit.

The Massacre That Wasnt, and a Turning Point for Fake News@NYT Real Fake News >> White House Announces Super Bowl Pre-Game Show Will Feature Tribute To Bowling Green Massacre Victims

Common sense, while often credited with being logical, lacks rigor. One person's common sense is another's stupidity. There's a sucker born every minute. ~Unattested

+1 StringJ! Part for the video, but most for what it led me to. After it finished, among the recommended videos was one by Sungha Jung playing a harp-ukulele. Now I'm listening to song after song by Sungha. Will be dipping in this well for days at least. 고맙습니다

From your article: Shall we calculate the odds that fivwolds collects a prize? Tries to claim the prize? Just asserts here he deserves the prize? Win, place, show?

The e-mail string following my report has grown a fair amount. My manager has the same ideas as Arc, i.e. that the boulder is an ice-rafted erratic. The regional geologist said he is unaware of any ice-rafted erratics in Washington, but that they likely exist. He also said my photo of the sample chip does look like basaltic andesite as I suggested. It will take a more detailed analysis of the rock to determine if its exotic to the region and depending on the origin, the ice-rafting might be affirmed or rejected. The geologist also gave my manager a few other geology folks to contact who have worked and mapped in the area, so the string will continue stringing out. I'm feeling more hopeful that one or more experts will come out and have a look in the field. As an amateur and volunteer, it's very gratifying to have spawned so much interest among professionals.

Nice! We've got nothing on you when it comes to 500 year old stone bridges, even over trickles. I'm ruling nothing out at this stage. Well, nothing reasonable. I'm not entertaining alien intervention or propositions of that ilk.

Me too. Definitely. I have not reported on the field stone quantity in the immediate area of the boulder so there is no basis to judge that quantity. The ground is heavily covered by grasses, sedges, rushes, and forbs, with occasional patches of Rosa sp. as seen surrounding the boulder. The recent [last ~200 years] history of the farming at the site has consisted of grazing stock and mowing hay. While ditches were cut in the 20's & 30's in attempts to drain the area, there has been no tillage noted in any of the reports and records that I have read. The only boulders that would have to be moved would be those sitting proud enough to interfere with haying. Prior to the arrival of Europeans, Native Americans regularly burned the prairies to kill off shrubs & young trees and maintain the open prairies. These prairies were a major source of food where Natives dug Camas bulbs, Chocolate Lily bulbs, and Yampah roots. I have read an archaeological report for the area that mentions fire-cracked rock evidencing this burning, but exact locations were redacted by the request of the county officials. Whether these were embedded rocks or remains of Native American roasting pits for the Camas was not made clear in the report either. The burning stopped in the late 1700s after European explorers introduced smallpox; by the time Lewis & Clark visited, nearly 80% of the native population was dead. Maybe those two are ice floated erratics and maybe not. Your conjecture is duly noted. As I mentioned, I don't know whether there are, or were, any other such large boulders in/on prairies in the county. The area is heavily developed and ecologists estimate there is only about 1% of these wet prairies remaining in the whole state. This is why the area is protected.

I sent a short report on my findings to my immediate managers; it was well received and forwarded to state geologists for review. Thanks to all who have contributed here and I'll update you on any new findings.

Nice research Arc. A flood delivered iceberg-with-erratic I might buy. Add the quake induced granular convection uplift, and voila, my boulder on top of the plain! A key bit of evidence still missing is a proper rock identification which might fix the boulder's origin. It may well be fairly local from just up the gorge. I'll be working on that, but it won't be quick. Stay tuned. I have hiked and done botanical photographic work at both Ridgefield and Round Lake. The partially buried erratic at Ridgefield is most like what is at the boulder area as it is a predominately flat terrain with sedimentary soils. That the Round Lake erratic is sitting free and clear is not surprising as the terrain there is hilly and rocky. I don't seem to have any photos of Round Lake itself or the terrain, but here is a shot from Oct. 2015 of the sign-board mentioned at your link. Alas it appears I did not get the part mentioned, i.e. " According to the signboard at Round Lake, the massive boulder's rounded surface and huge shape suggests it was rolled along by the enormous, extremely fast moving flows of the Missoula Floods." This image at the Ridgefield Preserve was taken on the Autumnal Equinox of 2015. There is one relatively short hiking trail which is only open Spring to Fall, and otherwise you have to drive through. I did hike that day, but along the drive route are a few lookout stops and this photo is from one of those wildlife viewing areas. Post Script: Looking at the flood deposits map, figure Map B shows the locations of glacier erratics and all appear to be on the Oregon side of the river, with none marked in Clark County Washington.

I disagree with both these assertions, not the least because they employ contradictive terms. 'Complexity' is not 'easy', and 'improbable' is not 'certain'. Sensei has come the closest to home when he invoked Miller & Urey in post # 29, and to that I would add self-organization and emergence as scientific principles that bear on the OP question, "how is evolution a reason to doubt creationism?".

That's an air between the ears red herring argument. Life happened here, there are valid scientific theories about how that may have happened, and just because we're in the religion forum it does not excuse you from presenting valid scientific evidence for a divine creator. Since scientific evidence for divinity is a contradiction of terms, you have no legs to stand on.

One stalagmite mnemonic is 'it might reach the ceiling'. The color changes when deposition stops and/or when the material dries. Even broken pieces can continue to grow if they are being dripped on.

Thanks Studiot! Let's see if I can continue that work in regards to Arc and his thoughts on the boulder being a glacier deposit. In post #18 Arc offered a link to a study. Find it here: > Quaternary alpine glaciation in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, Sierra Nevada, and Hawaii In post #19 I commented on it saying: The map I referenced is on pg. 6 of the document. While I still don't see any discussion of the 3 marked sites in the body of the paper, the location marked 'Lewis' looked strangely familiar. So here's the scoop, which I think is in line with my contention that no alpine glaciers came near to the area of the boulder which is +- 5 miles from the Columbia R. Anyway, some 30 years ago I was studying geology at a local college and the instructor took us on a field trip to see some glacial deposits. The deposits were not moraines, rather they were glacial lake deposits called varves. They lie between 25 and 30 miles from the Lower Columbia as it sweeps past Vancouver and turns N. I suspect that were there closer glacial deposits, the instructor would have taken us there. My mind being sieve-like notwithstanding, I'm inclined to think I would remember mention of glacial deposits near the Columbia R. I'm certainly open to any evidence contrary to my recollections. Fast forward to a few years ago when I took some young people up to see the varves and help me take some measurements, locate them with GPS, and take samples. If you all will indulge me, here are the results. So I took the coordinates of 3 exposures and they appear to correspond with the Lewis site marked on the map in the study. They are: #1 45°56'41.39"N 122°16'28.24"W #2 45°56'44.00"N 122°16'0.06"W #3 45°55'34.65"N 122°13'32.07"W Here's a shot of us measuring the height of an exposure and the measure was 30 ft. This is a wider view of the measured exposure. (The bright area is water seeping out.) Here is a shot showing erratics in the varve. These occur when a larger rock falls out onto the frozen surface of the lake, and then falls to the bottom during the seasonal thaw. Finally, this is a shot of a sample with a scale. I didn't count the layers again, but my notes say 15 layers. So 15 layers in 2.5" and with a measured exposure of 30 ft. we get a rough estimate of 1,800 years for the lakes age. Not only is this rough because the layers differ widely in thickness, but I don't know how much of the top of the deposit was eroded or how much lay below the level of the roadbed it adjoins. (Neither do I know the period of the deposits.) Well, a bit of a digression perhaps, but fun all the same.

I had some plant cataloging to do in the field today so I took time to photograph some of the typical boulders in the area. The stick is 42" long for scale. The pile is the result of past farming efforts, which were never successful at this location beyond grazing stock. The stock grazing began with the establishment of Fort Vancouver in the early 1800s and ended about 20 years ago.

That is the granular convection I have been talking about, otherwise known as 'the Brazil nut effect'. I gave a link in post #3 and Wiki has an article as well. > Granular convection What I didn't consider, and you so astutely point out, is that an earthquake can produce the effect as well as frost heave. Nice! This immediately put in mind the last Cascadia quake which occurred in January of 1700, estimated at a magnitude between 8.7 and 9.2. The field floods every year and would have been saturated at that time, and voila, lifted boulder. I like it. Moreover, the Cascadia fault ruptures at intervals of several hundreds of years: The boulder may have been lifted all at once, or in stages during different quakes. During the summer the prairie dries out and so one wouldn't expect the effect in that season. As to this boulder being the only one of its size I cannot attest. While it is the only one this large in the immediate area, there are over half-a-dozen historic wet prairies in the county and there may well be more such monoliths. Since we are overdue for the next Cascadia quake, if it comes in my lifetime I may get to witness the emergence of more boulders. A bright spot in what is going to otherwise be a monumental disaster. Thanks for the input TanMoonMan!

That's as exact as we need. Well, if you can find a geologic map or description showing/describing glacial deposits in Clark County Washington then I'll be the first to jump on board, particularly if they lie within 20 miles of the Columbia R. So far I have seen nothing of the kind on the maps or in the descriptions I have been reading. Again, the big mystery for me is why the boulder is [apparently] sitting on the surface thousands of years after the presumed glaciers and documented giant floods. (Recall that the flood deposits are known to be ~15ft. below the boulder.) Can frost heave lift a 62 ton rock as it does smaller boulders, cobbles, and pebbles?

Thanks for the input Arc. My reservation is that the geological study of the underlying material and surrounding area does not mention glacial deposits/moraines as I would expect if that's what is there. As I have quoted a couple times now, the map legend says that the boulder is underlain first by Holocene and Pleistocene lake deposits, then Missoula Flood deposits under that. Also note, that your source says that during the last alpine glaciations the glaciers were 1/2 as long as the 70-80km mark and therefore the boulder seems unlikely to have been delivered by cascades glaciers to its present location. Your source gives a map (Fig.2 Continued) wherein the closest 3 alpine glaciers are labeled Lewis, Adams, and Toutle (Toutle corresponding to Mt. St. Helens). By the map scale, Lewis is ~ 50km, Toutle ~60km, and Adams ~100km distant from the boulder's location. Unfortunately I can find no discussion of these 3 alpine glaciers in the text of the paper. Perhaps I overlooked it? So again, and assuming the boulder doesn't extend 15 ft. underground, how is it that a 62 ton rock is sitting on the surface today? The choices as I see it are that it was dredged out and moved when the nearby lake was made, or it has been lifted by granular convection. i.e. frost heave. So far no one has commented directly on the possibility of the frost heave. Have I missed an option? Thoughts? My idol idle curiosity is starting to boulder border on obsession. To scratch that itch I'm going to talk to the site manager who told me about the boulder in the first place and bring him up to speed on my investigations. I'll also propose to him that I contact the head of the local college geology department and see if I can tickle their interest, whether that be looking at the sample I collected for an ID, and/or coax them out to the site for a look-see. A proper identification of the rock ought to narrow down it's source for us at the least. Don't we love a mystery!?

Douchebaggery tense to field Gliders sour Mayans play in yard Bargilians jat syi milbing

There were no glaciers here when the Missoula floods were occurring. ('Here' being in Washington more-or-less across the Columbia from Portland Oregon) Glaciers of Washington The mystery here is why this boulder is [apparently] sitting on top of ~15 ft. of lake deposits. Since flood waters develop normal bed grading and debris flows develop inverse bed grading, perhaps one of the later floods triggered a debris flow that deposited the boulder. As I said, I don't know how much of the boulder is beneath the surface and it's also a possibility it was dug up and moved when a nearby lake was constructed. I may be able to talk to someone who knows the history of the lake construction, but it is unlikely I will be allowed to do any excavating. Addendum: There is also the other possibility that I proposed, i.e. granular convection: Is it possible that millennia of freeze/thaw cycles could lift this size of boulder?

Like this? Extent of Siberian Traps by Kaidor Russland Relief by Kaidor