Please Explain This

[Scylla]

3 minutes ago, FlyingRPh said:

Man, I wish I had your ability to read my thoughts. I merely tried to point out that I am firmly in the "undecided" category with climate change. My personal opinion is that it is in fact changing, I'm just not completely convinced yet that humanity is 100% the cause of it.

 

And I wasn't saying my wariness is because I think its all political grandstanding; my point being is that in the hyper-partisan environment that we currently find ourselves here in the US, I come to TFF to look at cool pics and read about other people's adventures. Nothing more, nothing less. I apologize if my typing doesn't carry as much eloquence as yours or @Scylla

I did not say anything about climate change. I made an observation about rhetorical technique. Thank you for saying I am eloquent

[FlyingRPh]

1 minute ago, Scylla said:

I did not say anything about climate change. I made an observation about rhetorical technique. Thank you for saying I am eloquent

You're welcome with the compliment. I have that disease where my brain gets ahead of my fingers and I really should go back and reread my comments before posting. But, such is life...

[Duppa]

5 hours ago, FlyingRPh said:

And yet, you still didnt saw it out yet

 

I don't have a concrete saw.... Yet lol

[Duppa]

I'm so tempted to throw fuel on the fire haha 

But nah, I know this is not the place for that

[non-remanié]

2 hours ago, FlyingRPh said:

 My personal opinion is that it is in fact changing, I'm just not completely convinced yet that humanity is 100% the cause of it.

 

No one claims that humans are 100% responsible for the current changes being observed in a geologically short period of time.  Constant fluctuation is already built into the science. 

 

But I apologize if I misconstrued your *engagement* with the topic in any way. The discourse just seemed to be playing out in a predictable format to my eye.   My hope is that, undecided as you are, you attempt to find out if both sides'  "dishonesty" with the data is real and in any way proportionate. 

[FlyingRPh]

45 minutes ago, non-remanié said:

 

No one claims that humans are 100% responsible for the current changes being observed in a geologically short period of time.  Constant fluctuation is already built into the science. 

 

But I apologize if I misconstrued your *engagement* with the topic in any way. The discourse just seemed to be playing out in a predictable format to my eye.   My hope is that, undecided as you are, you attempt to find out if both sides'  "dishonesty" with the data is real and in any way proportionate. 

My fault too, I saw the same predicable thing and was trying to head it off by saying both sides were potentially wrong. Like I said before, I'm not so great in my written words... Probably why English comp was always my lowest grade in school

[FlyingRPh]

Sidetrack aside... @Duppa, you said you went back. Did you take any more pics? I would like to see more of what you were describing...

[JohnJ]

6 hours ago, non-remanié said:

 

Summary of last few posts:

 

1) an incredibly dubious equivalency claim that challenges an overwhelming consensus is put forth

 

2) he then preemptively claims that to contradict his equivalency claim is tantamount to "politics"

 

3) mod basically clicks "like" on equivalency claim 

 

4) another poster points out the clear rhetorical trick 

 

5) above mod warns that all subsequent discussion must cease but wants dubious claim he liked to remain

 

 

If you want to shut down debate, so be it, but the only fair thing to do is delete EVERYTHING beginning with the post in which a guy made a very big unevidenced claim and then preemptively stated that if anyone contradicts him he's claiming "politics". 

 

Thanks, Steve.

[Duppa]

1 hour ago, FlyingRPh said:

Sidetrack aside... @Duppa, you said you went back. Did you take any more pics? I would like to see more of what you were describing...

Yeah mate, I went back but we got some heavy rain the night before so it was all covered in mud. I'll go back again with a bucket and brush to give it a good wash out. I'd like you to see the surrounding rocks ect. It's right in the middle of a huge slab. I'll post a picture in coming days. 

[Mark Kmiecik]

On 1/15/2020 at 12:11 AM, Duppa said:

I'm not certain this is wood. I'm not familiar with any wood in which the grain runs diagonally across it. In all the wood I've encountered the grain lies generally parallel to the length of the trunk/branch. I believe this feature is of geological origin, but even if it isn't, I doubt that it's wood.

[Duppa]

2 hours ago, Mark Kmiecik said:

I'm not certain this is wood. I'm not familiar with any wood in which the grain runs diagonally across it. In all the wood I've encountered the grain lies generally parallel to the length of the trunk/branch. I believe this feature is of geological origin, but even if it isn't, I doubt that it's wood.

Hi Mark, 

I understand what you mean. It's always going to be harder looking at a photograph than in real life. It's just odd because it's the only thing like it in a 1km radius I could find. It is partly missing but has left an impression were it was. It's right in the centre of a huge slab and the only other things trapped in the rock are rounded river stones. I'm going to head back and clean it out for a better photo. It's like there is a twist in the grain or something. I'm no expert with this, but I'm 95% sure it is wood. 

Thanks for your comment. 

[Mark Kmiecik]

10 minutes ago, Duppa said:

Hi Mark, 

I understand what you mean. It's always going to be harder looking at a photograph than in real life. It's just odd because it's the only thing like it in a 1km radius I could find. It is partly missing but has left an impression were it was. It's right in the centre of a huge slab and the only other things trapped in the rock are rounded river stones. I'm going to head back and clean it out for a better photo. It's like there is a twist in the grain or something. I'm no expert with this, but I'm 95% sure it is wood. 

Thanks for your comment. 

A ledge of rock in time can break away from an outcrop above a river and be preserved in sediment, and the cliff it came from can then be eroded completely so there's nothing left but dust. River stones would be preserved in the sediment along with the chunk of rock ledge. Voila -- the result just as you described. Unless there is documented evidence of fossilized wood from elsewhere in the same formation the only way to definitely identify it as wood is to take a sample and examine a thin slice of it under a microscope. Wood will show cellular structure, a mineral will not. A good way to determine what it is would be to bring it to the attention of a paleontologist, preferably one who specializes in flora. Is there a museum nearby that may show interest in this? 

 

I did consider twist. Twist would be very evident away from the central axis of the trunk and absent at the axis, with varying degrees of twist in between. The "twist" in the specimen shows no variation from axis to edge but remains constant, therefore eliminating the possibility of twist. In other words, if you twist something 360 degrees, the "bark" travels all the way around the piece whereas the core barely moves.

[Mahnmut]

On 16.1.2020 at 2:43 PM, minnbuckeye said:

This has been an interesting discussion, from which I learned much. But I have a SIMPLE question about the last picture. I notice that the white objects in the matrix are generally round or oval but the brown objects (lower right has quite a few) are sharply triangular. Does this help explain anything???

 

Mike

If we are looking at a river sediment including pebbles it may mean that the white objects are further downstream from their origin than the brown ones, or the brown ones are harder. Although to me the white ones look like quarz (highly speculative from a tiny picture) therefore I´d prefer the first explanation, therefore assuming that the brown shards didn´t move as far in the riverbed.

To my unassisted eye the brown triangular bits could perhaps maybe  even be related to the log in question. Maybe they are worth a look and accesible withput a concrete saw.

Best regards,

J

[Duppa]

Hi Everyone, 

I went back and cleaned it out and was excited to see some nice red colour come out

There is a mixture of quartz and iron stone in are as well as Moranbah Diamonds (hard clear quartz) 

I'll post a series of photos for you all to see. 

[Duppa]

The angle of the grain has been questioned and I understand why. It's a bit deceiving because of the odd shape. You can also see the impression of the grain left in the rock. 

[Duppa]

[Duppa]

1 hour ago, Mark Kmiecik said:

A ledge of rock in time can break away from an outcrop above a river and be preserved in sediment, and the cliff it came from can then be eroded completely so there's nothing left but dust. River stones would be preserved in the sediment along with the chunk of rock ledge. Voila -- the result just as you described. Unless there is documented evidence of fossilized wood from elsewhere in the same formation the only way to definitely identify it as wood is to take a sample and examine a thin slice of it under a microscope. Wood will show cellular structure, a mineral will not. A good way to determine what it is would be to bring it to the attention of a paleontologist, preferably one who specializes in flora. Is there a museum nearby that may show interest in this? 

 

I did consider twist. Twist would be very evident away from the central axis of the trunk and absent at the axis, with varying degrees of twist in between. The "twist" in the specimen shows no variation from axis to edge but remains constant, therefore eliminating the possibility of twist. In other words, if you twist something 360 degrees, the "bark" travels all the way around the piece whereas the core barely moves.

 

[Duppa]

[Duppa]

It's right in the centre of the photo, just to get an idea of the surrounding area. 

[Duppa]

[Duppa]

I hope this helps

[Duppa]

See how it sits proud of the rock here 

[Duppa]

I also found this a few hundred meters down stream. 

[Duppa]

This is just above where the specimen lays. 

[Duppa]

16 minutes ago, Duppa said:

 

There are only mining museums out this way. It's over 200km to the nearest city. But yeah that's a good idea, I'll do a search and see if there is any interest. Thanks