news:c03nk7$121j5a$1@ID-117948.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "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
In what way is that low when it is so much higher than than of sandstone,
chalk or coal?
Uncle Davey
|
|