Uncle Davey wrote:
> 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
>
>
Davey,
Look here; Noelie is quite correct, and is 'cheating' in your favor:
http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/AskGeoMan/geoQuerry57.html
Tom McDonald
P.S.: I got this in about 30 seconds with a simple google of
'earth' and 'density'. Got Google?
TSM
|
|