🇯🇵ぷすけつ🇪🇸

【コロナは絶対に存在しない】 分離は嘘＝コロナは嘘 これを覆せる人も科学者も病理学者も存在しない🤔 twitter.com/busunoquets/st…

@RockHoundRick 今から遠出するのでまた帰って来たら返信します😇地質学教授✨名も知らない僕にお付き合頂きそしてお優しい返信ありがとうございます☺️✨とても楽しい時間ですよ(*´ω｀*)

yonaguni is at 5 to 30m water depth, that's basically surface pressure. the ≤200 MPa scope covers shallow upper crust just fine, which is exactly where yonaguni sits. "deep km of rock" isn't the issue here at all You're also not countering my question about showing any evidence of those claims of "negative explaining negative". seems like you're grasping at straws here, trying to desperately prove your foregone conclusion. that's not a scientific discussion.

USGS dropped the 2026 Mineral Commodity Summaries. Total U.S. mineral production value went up last year, and gold and silver prices are basically carrying that. Not a surprise if you watch spot prices, but good to see the official numbers confirm it. 🧵 1/4

@RockHoundRick 地質学教授😇 この論文はダイエット番組で痩せた人だけ出演させて 『ほら全員痩せました‼️』と言うのと同じです😇 科学なら負にならない条件でも成立するかを先に確認するはずです☝ 全員が全員ダイエット成功しませんしリバウンドする人達もいます😊両方の性質から理論を重ねていくのが『本物』です

@busunoquets the "only negative data used" claim is fair IF true - but do you have evidence the sampling was filtered? asking that isn't shifting burden of proof, it's asking you to back up the specific accusation. the accusation itself needs a basis.

@RockHoundRick つまり教授と論文の主張は『浅い場所限定』のお話ですよね😇✨ ならばその限定条件のデータを使って巨大な与那国海底遺跡全体を説明するのは無理がありませんか😎❓しかも論文は『低拘束圧で負になる例』を使って『負になる』と説明しているので『科学ではなく小泉進次郎』よりのとんでも理論です😇✨

@busunoquets the paper itself gives you the answer - it says ≤200 MPa, which means the authors already scoped it to shallower upper crust conditions, not arbitrary depth

@RockHoundRick 教授対話放棄やん🥺 負のポアソン比を支持するデータ『だけ』検証材料にしないで負にならない条件も含めて『初めて理論が成立する』これが科学ではありませんか😎🤙負になるデータだけで負を出せばそれは負になります😇それを循環論法と言うのです☝反論を書け‼️と言いますが立証責任の転嫁では🤔❓

the test here is whether Fig 14 lab data was collected independently of the model, not selected because it matched. if it was, that breaks the circle. do you have reason to think the lab samples were chosen to fit? it would be awesome if you wrote a paper that claims the opposite and shows some lab data to back that

@RockHoundRick 地質学教授おはようございます🌞 教授のこの部分と論文の主張『“Auxetic behavior has been reported experimentally for several rock types under low confining pressure conditions...”』 ・低拘束圧の室内実験による負のポアソン比を地下数kmの天然岩盤へそのまま適用出来る根拠を知りたいです🥰

@RockHoundRick 地質学教授返信ありがとうございます🥰✨Potsdam specifically at joint formation time exists - it happened millions of years ago 論文は直接測定できないのになぜ『負のポアソン比だった』と断定で話しているのですか？🤔❓そして高圧では消えるのなら全てに当てはまる性質とは言えないのでは🤔

@RockHoundRick 地質学教授おはようございます🌞返信ありがとうございます😊 教授の言い分も理解は出来ますが教えて頂けた論文は『負のポアソン比を仮定していない』と言いつつ結局は『負になるデータだけ』で説明している『循環論法』ではありませんか🥰❓

interesting observation, but I don't think the theoretical model was built on the initial assumption that the Poisson's ratio must be negative. Instead, the formula was derived from general rock mechanics, and inserting the physical joint spacing ratio measured in the field (3,3) naturally resulted in a negative value. To validate this mathematical result, the authors cross referenced their field derived prediction against completely independent laboratory data shown in Fig14.

@UnearthedHQ ほえ〜

The 180-Ton Secret Buried Beneath Spain… 😳 Beneath the quiet fields of southern Spain lies something that shouldn’t exist—at least, not for its time. Hidden under a simple grassy hill is the Dolmen of Menga, a massive underground structure built nearly 6,000 years ago… long before modern machines, metal tools, or advanced engineering. At first glance, it looks like nothing. Just a mound. Easy to ignore. Easy to scroll past. But step inside—and everything changes. A narrow stone passage leads you into darkness. The air turns cool. Silent. Heavy. Towering slabs of stone rise around you, each one weighing more than you can imagine—some as heavy as 180 tons. And somehow… ancient humans moved them. Shaped them. Placed them with precision. No one knows exactly how. This wasn’t just a tomb. It feels intentional. Almost… calculated. As if it was built for something more than burial. And then comes the strangest part. At a specific time, when the sun rises just right, its light travels deep into the chamber… illuminating the interior in a soft golden glow. Not randomly—but aligned perfectly with a distant mountain on the horizon. Coincidence? Or something they wanted us to notice? Standing there, surrounded by silence and stone, one question refuses to leave your mind: How did people with no technology create something so massive, so precise… and so mysterious? Maybe they knew something we’ve forgotten. Or maybe… this structure was never meant to be fully understood.

@RockHoundRick 地質学教授やっほ✌️ もう1つ質問良いでしょうか🥰🤙 質問というより『循環論法』を見つけてしまいまして🥺こちらの部分です☝ ・J1とJ2の節理間隔比からν≈ −0.3 となっていますがこれは『負のポアソン比』を仮定したモデルで再び負のポアソン比を導いている循環論法では🤔❓ x.com/i/status/14664…

@RockHoundRick 地質学教授おはよう🌞 論文を読むに辺り気になる点が2点あります😊✨ ・ポツダム砂岩が節理形成時に負のポアソン比（≈ -0.3）を持っていたと論文では主張していますがその直接測定データは存在します🥰❓ ・天然の高圧埋没石英砂岩が安定かつ幅広くオーセチック挙動を示す実験的証拠はあります🤔❓

@historyinmemes ものごっつ葉脈ぅ🌿🌱✨

Why does Scotland have a giant line cutting through it? That’s the Great Glen Fault — a massive ancient fracture in the Earth’s crust formed around 400 million years ago during the collision of tectonic plates. The Great Glen Fault formed during the Caledonian Orogeny, roughly 420 to 390 million years ago, when ancient continents collided as the Iapetus Ocean closed. This immense tectonic collision created a vast mountain range stretching across what is now Scotland and fractured the Earth’s crust into major fault systems. One of the largest of these was the Great Glen Fault, a massive strike-slip fault where huge blocks of rock shifted past one another. The same mountain-building event also helped create the ancient Appalachian Mountains in North America, which were once connected to the Scottish and Scandinavian Highlands before the Atlantic Ocean existed. Scotland and parts of North America were once part of the same continuous mountain chain. Later, during the formation and breakup of Pangaea, new tectonic stresses reactivated the fault zone. Although this activity did not form new mountains in Scotland, it kept the structure geologically active and weakened over millions of years. Erosion eventually exploited this weakened line in the crust, carving out the long, straight valley now known as the Great Glen. The valley contains Loch Ness, Loch Oich, and Loch Lochy, and remains one of the clearest visible reminders of the ancient continental collisions that once linked Scotland to the Appalachian region of North America.

@RockHoundRick 地質学教授おはようございます🌞 ご教授ありがとうございます😊✨ 最低学歴の僕には頭が痛い『数式』から覚えないと『論文の主張が理解出来ない』という😊✨地質学の主張を正しく理解しようと思います😎🤙説明モデル等、また分からない点があれば質問致しますので懲りずにご教授お願いします🥰✨

@RockHoundRick 地質学教授ありがとうございます😊今夜隅々まで勉強させて頂きます🙇‍♀️ ̖́- ご確認なのですが1つ目の論文はこちらで間違いないでしょうか🥰❓link.springer.com/article/10.100… 2つ目の論文はこちらで間違いないでしょうか🥰❓ sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

Li & Ji (2021) in Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering is a solid one - orthogonal joints in quartz sandstone, proposes the auxetic (negative Poisson's ratio) mechanism to explain two perpendicular joint sets forming from a single stress direction. Wu & Pollard (1995) also ran actual extension experiments with brittle coating material and got consistent, repeatable joint arrays. neither is a "cornstarch demo" but the Li & Ji paper is peer-reviewed and covers exactly the rectangular block geometry you're asking about.

@RockHoundRick 地質学教授‼️方状節理の論文でも構いません😊💦ご教授頂けると助かりますm(_ _)m

@RockHoundRick 例えば柱状節理のように片栗粉の実験です😇✨与那国海底遺跡が形作られたのと同じ原理の再現性高い実験があれば知りたいです👮✨

@RockHoundRick 地質学教授ありがとうございます😊ちょっとこの部分※が分からなかったのですが何か簡単な事柄に例えて説明して頂いてもよろしいでしょうか😊✨ ※If the underwater geometry was human-made, you'd expect those onshore equivalents to look different - but they don't.

The natural formation case is really strong. The rock there is Miocene sandstone that fractures along horizontal bedding planes and vertical joint sets, and where those two intersect you get the right angles and step-like geometry everyone finds so striking. What clinches it for me: identical formations exist above the waterline on Yonaguni Island's south coast. If the underwater geometry was human-made, you'd expect those onshore equivalents to look different - but they don't. Robert Schoch dove the site multiple times and pointed this out directly. A 2019 study also did field investigations at three geosites on the island and concluded it's erosion and jointing acting on natural bedding planes, not construction. The rectangular jointing explanation is legit geology - the rock criss-crosses with parallel vertical fractures plus clean bedding separations, which is classic for this type of sandstone in a seismically active region. Yonaguni sits in an earthquake-prone zone, and regular fracturing from tectonic stress is well documented there. Nobody has ever confirmed archaeological artifacts tied to actual construction at the underwater site either, which is a big gap if someone really built this thing. I find the geology explanation genuinely compelling here, not just the "default skeptic" position.

@RockHoundRick @Rainmaker1973 いやいや納得出来ない😊😊 君がツイートする『地質画像』から君の地元まで割り当てれるぞ😎🤙 ずばりオレゴン州やろ❓ 地質学の『本物』を知りたくは無いかい？君も科学者の端くれだろbro😎🤙中卒の俺に任せんかい

@busunoquets @Rainmaker1973 I'm just an amateur geologist and a rockhound, not a professor or someone that knows people close to Nobel prize winners 😆 But I'll take it as a complement.

Fingals cave, Isle of Staffa, Scotland

@RockHoundRick @Rainmaker1973 へと紹介してくれたかい😎❓ Bro🥺俺は本気なんだ😎🤙 本気の頼みなのだがまず俺のXを君から考えうるノーベル賞に近い人物へと紹介して欲しい🙏💦 俺のXで『ラピュタ』と検索したら地質学関連が出てくる☝ そしてその人物と『シリカ』について討論終えたら晴れてノーベル賞なんだ☝頼むよbro😎🤙

@RockHoundRick @Rainmaker1973 ありがとうbro😎🤙 ・泥の乾燥収縮と溶岩の熱収縮違い ・熱収縮は別物といっているけど熱は収縮の原因にすぎないよ ・クジラと魚の見た目は一致しているけど『地質学上』形成法則そのものが同じ どの視点からも『教科書通り』に言い返す事は出来るけど本題は別😎 僕のXをノーベル賞に近しい人物