"AC" <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc25j72.os.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:30:19 +0000 (UTC),
> Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com> wrote:
> >
> > news:slrnc258bp.1ck.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
> >> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 19:34:04 +0000 (UTC),
> >> Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >
> >> > It seems pretty clear from Gen 7 vv 19-20 that what they called
> > mountains
> >> > then were very small in comparison to today's mountains.
> >>
> >> Have you pondered for a moment how much energy would be required to lift
> > up
> >> mountains from hills in just a few thousand years? The surface of this
> >> planet would be molten.
> >
> > Please show your workings.
>
> Well, let's ask the experts, Davey.
>
> So, anybody have some rough calculations on just how much energy would be
> required to raise the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andies and the Rockies from
> hills to the heights the reach today in say, 4,000 years? And just what
> would the surface of the planet be like with that much energy?
To be conservative, start with giving the mountains a low average
density, say 2.2 g/cm^3 ==> 2.2 tonnes/m^3.
Noelie
--
"It's nice to be nice to the nice." --Maj. Frank Burns
|
|