hey geos, what's on your mind?

lolis and crystal lattices

geology science is only good for examining moon rocks . everyone knows we have automated carbon dators

>>8570764
just got a job 2 days ago desu

>>8570765
that 2m2m2m loli :')

File: image.jpg (43KB, 500x294px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x294px

>>8570770
>carbon dating
>not thorium/lead dating

>>8570764
Wishing it wasn't so cold out so I could go to my local abandoned quarry to do some rockhounding

>>8570919
>not potassium/argon dating

>>8571019
I discovered a pegmatite running through my backyard this week. Nothing too interesting in it, just some medium sized feldspar and mica crystals, but it was neat following the contact between it and the surrounding bedrock.

>>8570764
quasicrystal. i dunno

I read a book by Erwin Schrodinger that claimed amorphous solids are really just liquids with extremely high viscosity. Is there any truth to this?

>>8570764
I took a class on Surface Water Hydrology last semester. My final project is unfinished: If you have slope of a river, depth and width, and lithography can you determine stream discharge?

I asked the teacher to still work on it with me, we have stream data from every river in the US for the last 100 years and lithography from most states all we need is to chug through ArcGIS but working with all that data will crash the University computers. We're trying to find solutions that'll let us limit the data to areas around gauging stations but that causes its own problems. This research will help me get into a graduate school.

Not strictly geology but it's Earth science. I only have 1 elective next semester and I graduate with an undergraduate in geology in Spring. I don't know what to take. My advisor is trying to get me into a environmental law class. All the cool elective classes, Oceanography, Meteorology, Climatology, Astronomy, Stratigraphy, I've already taken.

File: nabarro.jpg (30KB, 300x401px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 300x401px

>>8571257
Uhhhhhh, well ... part of the problem you'll get into if you study geology is EVERYTHING IS A LIQUID ON GEOLOGICAL TIME SCALES.

Even crystals have flow. Check out:

Solution Creep
Dislocation Creep
Cobble Creep
Nabarro-Herring Creep

Under any stress and stuff's not going to stay like it is forever.

>>8570764
what other fields of employment are available if I graduate during a commodities slump?

How the hell does a mantle plume move sideways? You don't see the blobs in lava lamps move sideways. I've read that plate motion is not the only thing that causes the appearance of mantle plume motion, but the mantle plume actually moves.

What are some good textbooks on Metallurgy, Rocks and Soils?

>>8571296
the discharge is usually included in the gauging station data.
To reduce your data set choose the gauging stations that have large basins and forget the gauging stations within that basin (because the water will flow toward the main gauging station anyways)

I don't know how lithography should be included. Unless you are considering erosion and sediment load, but doing that for every stream in the U.S would be an ungodly amount of work and outside the realm of a college project.

>>8571326
Thanks, but I think his point was more to do with the molecular structure. What happens at the molecular level when crystals flow?

>>8571356
>what other fields of employment are available if I graduate during a commodities slump?

Dude lithium lmao

>How the hell does a mantle plume move sideways? You don't see the blobs in lava lamps move sideways. I've read that plate motion is not the only thing that causes the appearance of mantle plume motion, but the mantle plume actually moves

The crust and/or mantle that the mantle plume is moving through aren't necessarily homogeneous, and that could cause the plume to divert to the side some.

File: mannings_equation.gif (7KB, 423x299px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 423x299px

>>8571433
>he discharge is usually included in the gauging station data
Yes we are aware. What we're hoping to do is determine a general equation for use on rivers without gauging stations.

We're hopeful. It should be better than the damned Manning Equation anyway.

>>8571521
This will probably do
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpvTwYAUeA8