Here's the layout of the cavern structure:

...and the spherical 'eggs' or pearls in the floor pockets:

These "experts" don't seem to think so:mharratsc wrote:Really hard to come up with a hydrodynamic explanation for a bunch of 'cave pearls' nestled between the folds of delicate 'cave ribbons', doncha think?![]()
This unusually large collection of stone spheres formed drip by drip over the centuries as calcite crystals left behind by water layered themselves around grains of sand enlarging over time.
If we use the image of the explorer at a floor pocket in that cave-layout image as a rough scale, I'd guess that those particular spheres are about golf-ball size.tayga wrote:The 'drip drip' explanation doesn't cut it at all. Although I haven't fully understood the size scale of these 'pearls', their appearance reminds me a lot of opal and the formation mechanism could have been similar.
http://www.gbjewelers.com/education/opa ... ation.html
http://opalsinformation.com.au/index.ph ... -opal.html
It is my understanding that the book of Joshua, in the original Hebrew, does not use the word for "hail" but rather the word "barad" which translates as meteorite. It is only in later translations such as the King James that the word hailstone is used, remember, that it wasn't until 1803 that the scientific establishment accepted that rocks could fall to Earth from space. So translators could only relate the original text to their beliefs and personal experience..."oh they say that rocks fell from the sky, but they must have meant hail!"webolife wrote:From the Hebrew "matar" [hail] morphed the Greek "meteor" from which we have both meteors and meteorology. Clearly the distinction between atmospheric and interplanetary phenomena has been blurry since the beginning of language. If the causal mechanism is auroral, one still has to explain why these formations are not widespread and recurrent throughout the Earth... or are they?
webolife wrote:From the Hebrew "matar" [hail] morphed the Greek "meteor" from which we have both meteors and meteorology. Clearly the distinction between atmospheric and interplanetary phenomena has been blurry since the beginning of language. If the causal mechanism is auroral, one still has to explain why these formations are not widespread and recurrent throughout the Earth... or are they?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests