![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:13:41 +0000, Scott wrote:
Isn't it the other way around? Ususlly the smaller rounded mountains like out East are OLDER and thus more worn down? Our "mountains" here in Wisconsin, I've heard, had peaks higher than those in the Rockies, but they lost their tops to glaciers over the years. May be an urban legend, though.... ![]() Urban was probably around then, we could ask Bob.... :-) Ron Wanttaja |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
Matt Whiting wrote: Newps wrote: Matt Whiting wrote: No, I said exactly what you said. I live in PA and our mountains are much older than the rockies and thus worn down much more. Although never as high as the Rockies to start with. Were you there when they were created? And that's relavant how? |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
Newps wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote: Newps wrote: Matt Whiting wrote: No, I said exactly what you said. I live in PA and our mountains are much older than the rockies and thus worn down much more. Although never as high as the Rockies to start with. Were you there when they were created? And that's relavant how? That is the only way to know for sure how high they were at the start. Matt |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
Matt Whiting wrote: That is the only way to know for sure how high they were at the start. No, it's not. |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
Newps wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote: That is the only way to know for sure how high they were at the start. No, it's not. Sorry, but it is. Everything else is speculation. Matt |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
Matt Whiting wrote: Newps wrote: Matt Whiting wrote: That is the only way to know for sure how high they were at the start. No, it's not. Sorry, but it is. Everything else is speculation. The sceintists have it nailed down better than that. |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
Newps wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote: Newps wrote: Matt Whiting wrote: That is the only way to know for sure how high they were at the start. No, it's not. Sorry, but it is. Everything else is speculation. The sceintists have it nailed down better than that. No, even scientists are making at best educated guesses. And faults in their techniques are uncovered from time to time as well. Scientists know nothing "for certain", they simply have evidence that supports a certain possibility or set of possibilities, but that is far from being certain knowledge. Matt |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:57:57 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
The sceintists have it nailed down better than that. No, even scientists are making at best educated guesses. And faults in their techniques are uncovered from time to time as well. Scientists know nothing "for certain", they simply have evidence that supports a certain possibility or set of possibilities, but that is far from being certain knowledge. Reminds me of the story from the first scientific measurement of the height of Washington's Mount Rainier. They worked like crazy, and their result: 14,000 feet, exactly. But they *knew* people wouldn't believe that, so they added twelve feet. They were *still* 400 feet off.... Ron Wanttaja |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
My sincere condolences on your loss Jim. Those furry critters become
such a part of our family that it really does hurt when they're gone. Been there/done that twice last year with our aging dogs. The house is strangely quiet without the clitter clatter of claws on the hardwood floors. I'll miss the left coast convoy and a chance to try meeting up at Tooele Valley for fuel on the way to OSH but there's always next year. -- Jack Allison PP-ASEL-IA Student Arrow N2104T "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return" - Leonardo Da Vinci (Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail) |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 24 May 2006 13:25:15 -0700, John Ammeter wrote: Our dog (actually, he owns us but don't tell anyone) goes to Doggie Daycare Bed and Breakfast when we travel. He gets to play for 4 hours in the AM, a meal at noon and then, at 2:00, 4 more hours until the next meal at 6:00. John -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Dear Mr. Ant Eater, Seems your "doggie" has learned a few neat tricks at day care. Your computer clock has been set ahead about 7 weeks. - Barnyard Bob - |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| EAA UWO Dorm Room (Air Conditioned) For Sale | RST Engineering | Owning | 100 | May 24th 06 10:25 PM |
| Anyone Got an Extra Oshkosh Dorm? | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 12 | June 26th 05 09:52 PM |
| 'Room Temperature' | Anthony | Home Built | 11 | August 23rd 04 08:36 PM |
| UW-Oshkosh dorm room ...FOR SALE! | Montblack | Owning | 5 | July 26th 03 05:56 AM |
| UW-Oshkosh dorm room ...FOR SALE! | Montblack | Piloting | 5 | July 26th 03 05:56 AM |