When you try to twist my words around at least quote my entire post.
> Is that supposed to be some kind of joke. Do you know what
> spheroidal weathering is even? It does not mean that
> concentric rings will form in the rock as you suggest. It
> simply means that the corners of the rock are attacked first
> because they have the most surface area. Since the corners
> are attacked first the rock will try to get to a sphere shape
> for its entire life. Eventually it will just be another
> small round pebble.
> I would really love to see the picture that you refer to in
> "Modern Physical Geography." I will be looking for a copy of
> it I assure you.
The type of concentric shells you refer to
> are an indication of deposition, not erosion. Deposition
> bands can be seen in minerals like agates which display
> successive periods of deposition with pauses between. A
> style of banding can also be seen in some sedimentary or
> metamorphic rocks, but not in the pattern shown in the article.
If you can read my post says that the concentric rings are a result of deposition not erosion.
To which you replied: In spheroidal weathering? I don't think so... Here is the definition of weathering:
Unfortunately when I said it wasn't erosion that eliminates spheroidal weathering entirely. Did you think I meant deposition within the spheroidal process? That simply doesn't happen as you stated. Sorry about the confusion.
> Your assertion that the people who discovered this are idiots
> is truly saddening. You seem to base this on the fact that
> these structures show a characteristic that you have seen in
> one picture in one book. This is truly ignorant, so please
> come up with some real evidence before you attack the
> people. I highly doubt that your "geologist" friends will
> find anything funny about the article, especially if you use
> the argument that you presented here.
Thank you for actually presenting evidence to go with your attacks this time. I agree that these people were very premature in calling this a manmade structure, but in the spirit of the reformed MB try to make it less personal next time. The second picture shows nothing of value to this discussion, but I am very intrigued by the bottom picture. This does indeed show a natural formation that shows concentric rings in the rock. You asked whether I think this is spherical weathering and I have to say no. I think what we are looking at here is something else, but that isn't important. What is important is the fact that you have shown a precedent for the concentric formations. This is obviously not manmade, so whether it is spherical weathering is really arbitrary. No matter what process caused the formation they found we know that there are completely natural examples, so unless they can come up with some kind of evidence of habitation there appears to be nothing manmade about the structure.
One final comment I have is: take a close look at the details of your first and third picture and tell me what differences stick out. There are a couple of them that imply that these formations may not be entirely similar.
In the top picture look at how the tops of those rings have sharp edges as opposed to the smooth ones in the bottom pic. Also as you state, the weathering of the "furnace" is still controlled by jointing. This will only hold true for a while and then the erosion will eat through the side and bottom joints as well. Both of these facts signify to me that this formation became exposed to weathering at a relatively recent date. Would you agree or disagree with that? You must admit that the erosion is not very extensive so far. This also eliminates spheroidal weathering as the cause of the rings. Keep in mind that I believe it is natural, I just think we are looking at a different process.
> Mike B