January 2009 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Re: [Utah-astronomy] More on Cosmology
by zaurak＠digis.net 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Interesting that Astronomers and religious figures have had so many less than cordial disagreements through the centuries. I thought the first passage, Don relayed, described a volcano. Does not the Bible also say that the Sun is not a Star in the book of Genesis? I imagine the Koran does have a connection with the stars, as a lot of their names are Arabic in origin. Although I know little of the Koran. I also imagine without light pollution the night sky was more impressive to ancient humans. Erik --- jimgibson00(a)yahoo.com wrote: From: Jim Gibson <jimgibson00(a)yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] More on Cosmology Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:11:19 -0800 (PST) Don, Interesting subject (to me anyway). Even though you quoted from what many consider to be a religious source I don’t think those particular passages were religious in themselves. You got me thinking though; I wonder how much cosmology there is in the Koran or other eastern religious writings because cosmology seems to have been a popular topic among many early religious writers and the people in general. I was in Seagull Book and Tape one day and found and English translation of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch; a book once thought to be included in the Old Testament. In Chapter 8:5 it tells us that the angle “Barkayal taught the observers of the stars” Now listen to this as we peer into some ancient's log book as he records his observations: 14:9 Behold, in that vision clouds and a mist invited me; agitated stars and flashes of lightning impelled and pressed me forwards, while winds in the vision assisted my flight, accelerating my progress. 17: 3 3. And I saw the places of the luminaries and the treasuries of the stars 18:4 4. I saw the winds of heaven which turn and bring the circumference of the sun and all the stars to their setting. 33:33.And I saw how the stars of heaven come forth, 79:1. And now, my son, I have shown thee everything, and the law of all the stars of the heaven is completed. 79:2. And he showed me all the laws of these for every day, and for every season of bearing rule, and for every year, and for its going forth, and for the order prescribed to it every month and every week: 79:3. And the waning of the moon which takes place in the sixth portal: for in this sixth portal her light is accomplished, and after that there is the beginning of the waning: 79:4. (And the waning) which takes place in the first portal in its season, till one hundred and seventy-seven days are accomplished: reckoned according to weeks, twenty-five (weeks) and two days. 79:5. She falls behind the sun and the order of the stars exactly five days in the course of one period, and when this place which thou seest has been traversed. 79:6. Such is the picture and sketch of every luminary which Uriel ... showed unto me. Imagine the clear skies and no light pollution then. Jim --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Don J. Colton <djcolton(a)piol.com> wrote: From: Don J. Colton <djcolton(a)piol.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] More on Upheaval Dome To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 7:01 PM Whether your religious or not it interesting to note the following two verses - they sound like a meteorite. And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; Rev. 8:8 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; Rev. 8:10 -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces(a)mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jim Gibson Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:50 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] More on Upheaval Dome Rich wrote: It's nothing that those on this board haven't thought about but, the chances of a cataclysmic collision occurring in our lifetime is a reality. It is a scary reality! I wonder, is the monitoring of near earth objects as comprehensive as it needs to be? Do we have automated monitors or are we depending on human observation? Patrick will probably give the definitive answer on this but, he is still asleep I think. Patrick led me to the Yahoo Minor Planetary and something or other Yahoo group. Those boys seem to feel things are pretty well under control. Quoting Alain Maury he states: “Apart from the very very very unlikely long period comet arriving from the Oort cloud and falling just on us, there are no more objects able to "end life as we know it" anywhere in the solar system which has not been detected. We are at the 70%, 80% level on the 1km diameter asteroids (or better phrased magnitude 18 and brighter asteroids), and a "global killer" is more like a 10km asteroid, and we all know them and none is anywhere near an impacting orbit.” He goes on to say: “Very quickly (let's say another 5 years of hard work), the only worry left will be in the 200m range, i.e. "state" destroyers, not "continent destroyers". So if these guys know what they are talking about then your statement “, the chances of a cataclysmic collision occurring in our lifetime” still may be true but should not be to the point of “scary” I think. For what it’s worth Jim Gibson --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Ilove2getSpam(a)gmail.com <ilove2getspam(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Ilove2getSpam(a)gmail.com <ilove2getspam(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] More on Upheaval Dome To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 10:28 AM It's nothing that those on this board haven't thought about but, the chances of a cataclysmic collision occurring in our lifetime is a reality. It is a scary reality! I wonder, is the monitoring of near earth objects as comprehensive as it needs to be? Do we have automated monitors or are we depending on human observation? Just think, this picture was most likely the result of a deflection not an impact... [image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Tunguska.png] *Tunguska Event - June 30, 1908* *June 30, 2008:* The year is 1908, and it's just after seven in the morning. A man is sitting on the front porch of a trading post at Vanavara in Siberia. Little does he know, in a few moments, he will be hurled from his chair and the heat will be so intense he will feel as though his shirt is on fire. That's how the Tunguska event felt *40 miles* from ground zero. Today, June 30, 2008, is the 100th anniversary of that ferocious impact near the Podkamennaya Tunguska River in remote Siberia--and after 100 years, scientists are still talking about it. -Rich On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:13 PM, <zaurak(a)digis.net> wrote: > Has the park service accepted the impact crater explanation? Do they still > talk about the "salt" theory? Anyway lets hope future impact craters happen > far from where we live. > > --- ilove2getspam(a)gmail.com wrote: > > From: "Ilove2getSpam(a)gmail.com" <ilove2getspam(a)gmail.com> > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] More on Upheaval Dome > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:30:01 -0500 > > Even still, the hypothesis was controversial. I'm still not sure if the > controversy has been truly eliminated. I'll leave that to the educated > folks > on this list to determine! > > -Rich > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Not to take away anything from Kurt's work, but the Observer's Handbook > has > > for years listed the most significant impact craters in North America and > > Upheaval Dome has been on there for a while. A table lists latitude, > > longitude, approximate age, surface expression, and visible geologic > > features. A simplified map shows approximate location. The governor and > > general public can be excused, but I'm surprised that it doesn't seem to > be > > more common knowledge among those in the hobby. > > > > >From comments I've read on the list lately, I get the impression that > few > > amateurs take advantage of the Observer's Handbook every year. > > > > Patrick, how many orders did you take for the 2009 edition? Have you > > noticed a downward trend over the years? > > _______________________________________________ > > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com > > Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com > Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com > Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com > _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

1 0

How dark can a sky get?
by Richard Tenney 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Another pulled from the content filter... How dark can a sky get? Tuesday, January 27, 2009 2:00 PM From: zaurak(a)digis.net To: Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com Hi All, This link is an article by Brian Skiff from the Lowell Observatory that gives tips and factors that contribute to dark adaptation (or rather lack of) and influence darkness on a given night. I heard him speak about the subject at the Texas Star Party a few years back. http://www.astropix.com/HTML/L_STORY/SKYBRITE.HTM Erik

1 0

Frontiers of Science Lecture, U of U, tomorrow (Thurs.) 7:30 p.m.
by Richard Tenney 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Frontiers of Science Lecture: Low-cost Plastic Solar Cells Lecturer: Alan J. Heeger, professor of physics, University of California, Santa Barbara Date: Thursday, Jan. 29, 2009 Time: 7:30 p.m. Place: Aline Wilmot Skaggs Biology Building Auditorium, University of Utah FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Nobel Laureate Alan J. Heeger, professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, will discuss the development of low-cost, highly efficient plastic solar cells during a free public lecture at the University of Utah. The cells, made from organic materials, exhibit the highest energy-conversion rating for such devices. The development of renewable energy sources is one of the greatest challenges facing society because the supply of expendable resources, such as fossil fuels, is dwindling while the global demand for energy is growing. Solar energy is abundant and renewable, and can provide a significant contribution to future energy needs. "The challenge is clear: we must create the scientific foundation and develop the technology to enable the low-cost fabrication of large areas of high efficiency solar cells," says Heeger. Heeger will describe the discovery of ultrafast photo-induced electron transfer as the foundation of a technology for low-cost solar cells. The crucial initial charge separation by electron transfer from polymers to nearby fullerene molecules occurs one hundred times faster than the first stage of photosynthesis in plants. The important electron charge collection is accomplished through the self-assembly of specialized nanomaterials. "I am excited to have led a research team that created a new low-cost ‘tandem' organic solar cell with 6.5 percent efficiency, the highest record for solar cells made with organic materials. This technology is now under active development toward commercialization, and is expected to provide a major contribution to meeting the energy needs of our planet in the future," says Heeger. Heeger obtained his B.S. with high distinction from the University of Nebraska in 1957 and his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley in 1961. He is currently a professor of physics and materials engineering at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and served as director of the Institute for Polymers and Organic Solids from 1982 to 1999. In 2000, Heeger shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Hideki Shirakawa and Alan G. MacDiarmid for "the discovery and development of conductive polymers." Heeger is a fellow of the American Physical Society and a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. He has four patents issued, nine patents pending and some 750 publications to his credit. He is one of the most highly-cited scientists in his field. The Frontiers of Science lecture series celebrated its 40th year in 2007, making it among the longest-running lecture series at the U. The series is co-hosted by the College of Science and the College of Mines and Earth Sciences.

1 0

Earth's other companions
by Jim Gibson 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

The earth has other companions besides the moon. There are asteroids that have orbits similar to earth’s orbit. The following is an excerpt from an article discussing a couple of neat ones. September 2002 An international team of astronomers has found that an asteroid discovered earlier this year follows Earth's orbit around the Sun and will, in nearly 600 years, appear to orbit the Earth. In the October issue of the journal Meteoritics and Planetary Science, the astronomers announce that the asteroid, named 2002 AA29, follows a "horseshoe orbit" that makes it come near the Earth every 95 years. It will next come close on January 8, 2003, although even then it will be much further away than the Moon and only detectable using large telescopes. The combination of Earth's and Sun's gravity works so that even as Earth pulls in the asteroid, it speeds up and moves away from the Earth. In this way Earth is protected from impact, despite the similarity of the asteroid's orbit to Earth's. If you are interested, the complete article is located at the following URL http://www.astro.uwo.ca/%7Ewiegert/AA29/AA29.html Jim

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] More on Upheaval Dome
by zaurak＠digis.net 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Has the park service accepted the impact crater explanation? Do they still talk about the "salt" theory? Anyway lets hope future impact craters happen far from where we live. --- ilove2getspam(a)gmail.com wrote: From: "Ilove2getSpam(a)gmail.com" <ilove2getspam(a)gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] More on Upheaval Dome Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:30:01 -0500 Even still, the hypothesis was controversial. I'm still not sure if the controversy has been truly eliminated. I'll leave that to the educated folks on this list to determine! -Rich On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Not to take away anything from Kurt's work, but the Observer's Handbook has > for years listed the most significant impact craters in North America and > Upheaval Dome has been on there for a while. A table lists latitude, > longitude, approximate age, surface expression, and visible geologic > features. A simplified map shows approximate location. The governor and > general public can be excused, but I'm surprised that it doesn't seem to be > more common knowledge among those in the hobby. > > >From comments I've read on the list lately, I get the impression that few > amateurs take advantage of the Observer's Handbook every year. > > Patrick, how many orders did you take for the 2009 edition? Have you > noticed a downward trend over the years? > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com > Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com > _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

6 6

More on Upheaval Dome
by Canopus56 27 Jan '09

27 Jan '09

In November 2009, my Upheaval Dome image was picked up by the Lunar Picture of the Day. http://lpod.wikispaces.com/November+29%2C+2008 As an afterthought, I sent a letter to the Governor's Office requesting that he send a letter to the researcher, Dr. Thomas Kenkmann, thanking him for his six years of effort in confirming the meteor impact nature of the Dome. The Governor's Science Advisor, Dr. Tamara Geotz, reviewed the literature search I put together and indicated that she would be using the materials with Utah secondary school educators to develop cirricula materials concerning how real scientific investigations are done. Today, the Governor's Office sent a thank you letter out to Dr. Kenkmann which is reproduced here: http://members.csolutions.net/fisherka/astronote/observed/Upheaval/20090126… Clear Skies - Kurt

5 5

Re: [Utah-astronomy] More on Upheaval Dome
by Canopus56 27 Jan '09

27 Jan '09

Jim wrote: > While reading your comments and some of the articles I was > wondering how many examples of salt dome’s there were. > From this one statement If true, "Upheaval Dome would earn the distinction > of being the most deeply eroded salt structure on earth." It would seem > that the salt school guys are going to have to come up with > extraordinary evidence to back this extraordinary claim. I don't know of specific examples for Utah; I'm not a geologist. But we have enough geologists and petroleum exploration geologists on this list to answer that. The Paradox Formation beneath canyonlands is a classic example of a salt layer that is the source that forms salt domes. The salt rises from below into a diapir with dome sprouting out the top like a mushroom head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Salt_dome_hg.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_dome The wikipedia entry for "salt dome" has a picture of an "emergent salt dome" near Fisher Towers in Moab. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ken_Leonard_-_Fisher_Towers_-_Salt_Dome_P… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ken_Leonard_-_Fisher_Towers_-_IMAG0059.JPG The Fisher Towers salt dome is newly forming, e.g. - emergent. The most cited classic dome example that I have seen (when I was hunting for salt dome images a few months ago) is the Kuh-e-Namak in Iran http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6465 The Kuh-e-Namak is a salt dome in mid-life. It's fully formed and is now being eroded away, as you can see from this side view: http://www.beg.utexas.edu/news-events/news-archive2/jackson_iran_02-2004.htm There are even "salt glaciers" coming off the thing. Who would have thunk such a thing existed - salt glaciers? Considering the Fisher Towers emergent salt dome, of which I was not aware of previously, it seems the old geologic consensus that Upheaval is an eroded salt dome is not that far out of an idea. Why look for randomn rocks falling out of the sky when you can see another cause right in front of you doing the same thing in real time? As the Huntoon article says, the Dome is kind of a geologic Rorschat Blot. "[B]ut this is not simply a debate about different processes, rather it reflects deeper philosophical divisions", citing those that in their gut believe in geologic uniformism governed by slow processes and those who are willing to accept random catestrophic acts as a force of nature. Although on first impression Upheaval has always looked like an impact crater to me because of the dual concentric ringwalls. Come' on. It obviously looks like an impact crater. But here's a picture of another crater like bowl shape - dug out of gypsum by the wind - and that has nothing to do with a meteor impact - Richat Structure, Mauritania. 48 km dia. NASA Image of the Day. url: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_528.html And another well known local hole in the ground that is about a kilometer bigger than Upheaval's 3km diameter - http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8144 What that caused that "crater"? - Kurt

2 1

How dark can a sky get? (From Erik)
by Patrick Wiggins 27 Jan '09

27 Jan '09

Hi All, This link is an article by Brian Skiff from the Lowell Observatory that gives tips and factors that contribute to dark adaptation (or rather lack of) and influence darkness on a given night. I heard him speak about the subject at the Texas Star Party a few years back. http://www.astropix.com/HTML/L_STORY/SKYBRITE.HTM Erik

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] More on Upheaval Dome
by Canopus56 27 Jan '09

27 Jan '09

Chuck wrote: "[B]ut the Observer's Handbook has for years listed the most significant impact craters in North America and Upheaval Dome has been on there for a while." The RASC list is from the Earth Impact database at: http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/index.html While the list titled "confirmed impacts", an entry is based on subjective evaluation of six factors listed at the bottom of the page by one researcher - who is generally accepted as authoritative. Notwithstanding the PASSC's earliest "pro-impact" rating in its list, geologic journal literature continued to dispute that it was an impact and present the classification as a disputed matter, e.g. our own Utah Geological Association in 2000: "The origin of Upheaval Dome has been the subject of speculation in a long, highly conflicting series of academic and popular articles. Only the most substantive or exotic are cited below. The field seems to have narrowed lately to salt diapirism (doming caused by flowage of buried salt) and impact; but this is not simply a debate about different processes, rather it reflects deeper philosophical divisions." Peter W. Huntoon. Upheaval Dome, Canyonlands, Utah: Strain Indicators that Reveal an Impact Origin. 2000 Utah Geological Association Publication 28 http://www.utahgeology.org/pub28_pdf_files/UpheavalDome.pdf And currently in 2009 at our National Park Service Canyonlands website: "What caused these folds at Upheaval Dome? Geologists do not know for sure, but there are two main theories which are hotly debated. Salt Dome Theory. A thick layer of salt, formed by the evaporation of ancient landlocked seas, underlies much of southeastern Utah and Canyonlands National Park. . . . Impact Crater Theory. When meteorites collide with the earth, they leave impact craters like the well-known one in Arizona. Some geologists estimate that roughly 60 million years ago, a meteorite with a diameter of approximately one-third of a mile hit at what is now the Upheaval Dome." http://www.nps.gov/cany/naturescience/upheavaldome.htm Only PASSC criteria no. 2 is considered conclusive, irrefutable evidence of an impact by geologists: "Presence of multiple planar deformation features (PDFs) in minerals within in situ lithologies (microscopic evidence)." PDFs cannot be formed by known terresterial forces. They can only be formed by impacts. That is what Kenkmann brought to the table in March 2008 - He found the PDFs at Upheaval. Other researchers, including Kenkmann himself on his first try, failed to find definitive PDFs at the center of the impact site. He thought to look in the outer ring and found the PDFs there. Like you, Chuck, I am a long-time impact crater theory believer. But the science wasn't there until the PDFs were found last March. If there is anything I've heard from people over the years who are up on the issue and who have been to look at the Dome, it's "when can we get the Park Service to fix that stupid sign!" that they put up in the early 1990s at the south viewing area. The sign is still there. http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/dome/plaque-dome.GIF http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/dome/plaque-meteor.GIF Clear Skies - Kurt

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] More on Upheaval Dome
by zaurak＠digis.net 27 Jan '09

27 Jan '09

Kurt, I think Salt Dome Theory has some geologic momentum in that a lot of valleys in Utah were created by salt erosion. I like the meteor theory in that it does bring to the forefront the reality of meteor impacts in our future. Close up it is hard to visualize impact features, but it is one of my favorite places in Utah. Erik --- canopus56(a)yahoo.com wrote: From: Canopus56 <canopus56(a)yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy List Serv <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] More on Upheaval Dome Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:57:34 -0800 (PST) Chuck wrote: "[B]ut the Observer's Handbook has for years listed the most significant impact craters in North America and Upheaval Dome has been on there for a while." The RASC list is from the Earth Impact database at: http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/index.html While the list titled "confirmed impacts", an entry is based on subjective evaluation of six factors listed at the bottom of the page by one researcher - who is generally accepted as authoritative. Notwithstanding the PASSC's earliest "pro-impact" rating in its list, geologic journal literature continued to dispute that it was an impact and present the classification as a disputed matter, e.g. our own Utah Geological Association in 2000: "The origin of Upheaval Dome has been the subject of speculation in a long, highly conflicting series of academic and popular articles. Only the most substantive or exotic are cited below. The field seems to have narrowed lately to salt diapirism (doming caused by flowage of buried salt) and impact; but this is not simply a debate about different processes, rather it reflects deeper philosophical divisions." Peter W. Huntoon. Upheaval Dome, Canyonlands, Utah: Strain Indicators that Reveal an Impact Origin. 2000 Utah Geological Association Publication 28 http://www.utahgeology.org/pub28_pdf_files/UpheavalDome.pdf And currently in 2009 at our National Park Service Canyonlands website: "What caused these folds at Upheaval Dome? Geologists do not know for sure, but there are two main theories which are hotly debated. Salt Dome Theory. A thick layer of salt, formed by the evaporation of ancient landlocked seas, underlies much of southeastern Utah and Canyonlands National Park. . . . Impact Crater Theory. When meteorites collide with the earth, they leave impact craters like the well-known one in Arizona. Some geologists estimate that roughly 60 million years ago, a meteorite with a diameter of approximately one-third of a mile hit at what is now the Upheaval Dome." http://www.nps.gov/cany/naturescience/upheavaldome.htm Only PASSC criteria no. 2 is considered conclusive, irrefutable evidence of an impact by geologists: "Presence of multiple planar deformation features (PDFs) in minerals within in situ lithologies (microscopic evidence)." PDFs cannot be formed by known terresterial forces. They can only be formed by impacts. That is what Kenkmann brought to the table in March 2008 - He found the PDFs at Upheaval. Other researchers, including Kenkmann himself on his first try, failed to find definitive PDFs at the center of the impact site. He thought to look in the outer ring and found the PDFs there. Like you, Chuck, I am a long-time impact crater theory believer. But the science wasn't there until the PDFs were found last March. If there is anything I've heard from people over the years who are up on the issue and who have been to look at the Dome, it's "when can we get the Park Service to fix that stupid sign!" that they put up in the early 1990s at the south viewing area. The sign is still there. http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/dome/plaque-dome.GIF http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/dome/plaque-meteor.GIF Clear Skies - Kurt _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

1 0