 |
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: d...@tower.net.au (don findlay)
Date: 20 Mar 2003 01:29:07 -0800
Local: Thurs, Mar 20 2003 8:29 pm
Subject: Re: OK - another one for the board
?conspiracy?
?Accusing diligent workers of fraud? ?...Massive academic fraud? Oh Dear. Hey, Stuart, ...you've lost the place. These are your It's easy to see how it all sort of glues together both for and Consensus is a perfectly respectable and necessary position to take - You're trying to punch a will-o'-the-wisp. Give over, you'll hurt Don You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine)
Date: 20 Mar 2003 10:26:57 GMT
Local: Thurs, Mar 20 2003 9:26 pm
Subject: Re: OK - another one for the board
How else to interpret your use of *incestuous* ?
Feel free to equivocate. >It's easy to see how it all sort of glues together both for and >It's beyond science. "Bad science". It's ideas. Nothing scientific And that's >about it. Certainly it's a big threat to community-consensus and >what holds it all together, and what makes it tick ($$$). >why there's resistance from peer review (natural too, when one's own Really? Didn't seem to trouble Einstein too much. Nor Heisenberg. Nor Feynman, >demise might be (probably is) in there). Nor even Wegner. . As I've stated before, there is plethora of journals, probably more than is good. Far more than what was available to Einstein. Claiming cencorship by peer-review is simply the excuse du-jour. The ordinary real scientist >however tends to look there [consensus] for guidance, and can't afford THats nonsense. Sorry. >to >transgress (tenure). Funny, isn't it, the pen to the sword is like >ideas to science. If you're a 'real scientist' and you get a good I see you haven't spent much time in a university as of late. >idea, then by golly, you'd better look out. Most people in Academia know they can make a *name* for themselves by breaking Extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence. You have that, you have a (!!) Yup, 'real science' >has its doublespeak too. (unquote) 7.0301251624.233ee4f3%40posting.google.com> >(or see ><http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=5f16408 >) Not as much glory either. >Consensus is a perfectly respectable and necessary position to take - So far this discussion is a non-sequiter to your remark regarding the *incestuous* nature of multiple lines of evidence. >Dissent is also a respectable position to take - though clearly not so Depends. If you're right glory be to you. If you're wrong like A. EInstein, >advantageous. glory be to you. Science values its critics who make good arguments. But after the critics have been asnwered, and yet they still repeat the same arguments then they find themselves in oblivion. The basis of democracy is for the secure majority to >allow the ideas/views of the minority to speak, ...not, intolerantly, Is that how you feel Don? You're being gagged? What journals have you submitted >to try to gag them. your ideas to? Is this forum censored? That way lies totalitarianism (of the blackest >sort). How often are today's 'nutty ideas' the basis of tomorrows Indeed. And you know what Don? They still were able to have their ideas >'good science'? Don't forget plate tectonics is/was held up in the >first instance as an "outrageous view" published. The PT revolution simmered on the back burner for a while (A. Holmes), but was essentially completed in about a decade (though it's never been much >more, really, than refurbished Wegener). Actually PT has much more to do with Holmes. Wegner was a dead end. >You're trying to punch a will-o'-the-wisp. Give over, you'll hurt evidence which support the fundamental tenents of PT, rather than dismissing them as incestuous. Now I answered your questions on the relations between ridge push, lithospheric Is there anything else? It does have to wend its way through much of the internet to get here... Stuart You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: d...@tower.net.au (don findlay)
Date: 20 Mar 2003 18:09:00 -0800
Subject: Re: OK - another one for the board
I suppose I've used it a few times. In what context are you talking
about? (equivocating) Since it's not a road I'm going down, censorship is not a problem for me. I was talking generally for the community of scientists for whom it is very necessary, if career advancement is on their mind, to stay within agreed boundaries. If one doesn't, consequences can be severe. I'm sure there's hardly need to make the point <http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/martin/1.html> > The ordinary real scientist You reckon, eh? > >however tends to look there [consensus] for guidance, and can't afford > >to > >transgress (tenure). > THats nonsense. Sorry. > Funny, isn't it, the pen to the sword is like Ah, ...the evidence, and good evidence at that, ;;; Whose? Yours? > >ideas to science. If you're a 'real scientist' and you get a good > >idea, then by golly, you'd better look out. > I see you haven't spent much time in a university as of late. > Most people in Academia know they can make a *name* for themselves by breaking Or mine? Or the 'evidence' agreed (like the 'weapons of Mass Destruction' - there'a whole lot going on right now on account of that 'good evidence') > Extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence. You have that, you have a Right, and I'm having a good time.. But as as far as subduction is > good time. concerned, which is the crux, I grant there's a problem. It's sort of like the faery ring in the grass, and trying to prove that fairies don't exist - there are other explanations, but none that grips the imagination so. > (!!) Yup, 'real science' > >Consensus is a perfectly respectable and necessary position to take - > Not as much glory either. it's like the words 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' - depends on your point of view. I suppose I meant that they're all converging lines of 'evidence':- Age dates from ocean depth (ignoring the component of gravitational collapse -or "hyraulic head" (hydraulic head? you mean less water or more water??)- basalts underneath for isotopes, and forams for the muds in between, and questioned HOW the relative importances were aportioned. I think the explanation that heat loss (cooling) being the main factor in determining ocean depth (and therefore age) doesn't square with the notion of ridge-push being the important driving force for subduction thousands of kilometres away, when, in the case of India pushing Asia, we can see (supposedly) the effect of push in brittle crust. Mantle being softer than crust, should buckle huge submarine mountain ranges. And subduction (being pull) should produce huge 'synorogenic extensional zones'. I know Plate tectonics wants to balance these (? is that right - correct?) and say "ridge-push - slab pull" is the mechanism. How come it doesn't balance in continental crust where there are lots of examples of 'imbalance'? Or Am I not saying it fast enough - (RPSP). So why then (in the oceans)isn't gravitational collapse of the ridges (I'm not sure what you mean by "hydraulic head" - - - ??water depth/ ??lack of it)the main parameter determining bathymetry, and therefore we could get work out rates of gravitational adjustment to (expansional) uplift? Is this one for another 'Nonsense' page perhpas? I reckon it could be. Do you want to add any modifiers?) > >Dissent is also a respectable position to take - though clearly not so I doubt dissent is ever welcome (read 'whistleblowers'), though it is > >advantageous. > Depends. If you're right glory be to you. If you're wrong like A. EInstein, very necessary. The job of the newspapers is to dissect the government, not support them. When publications continually support the consensus position there is something wrong (yes you guessed it) with the State of Denmark. But is the fault with the authors, or the system? I put it to you that it's both. They are 'incestuously tied'. An uggh state of affairs. > The basis of democracy is for the secure majority to No, I've got Megabytes galore. Gigabytes even <grin> Everybody gets > >allow the ideas/views of the minority to speak, ...not, intolerantly, > >to try to gag them. > Is that how you feel Don? You're being gagged? What journals have you submitted to read it - every day. With Googlease. Why would I want to put it on paper and have it shoved to the back of dusty shelves and into drawers??(!Crazy!). I'm playing a different game you see. I'm trying to communicate information. Get it? Some people are funny that way, they get what they think's a good idea and they want to share it. Others want to exploit their good ideas with a different agenda. Why else do we get the same paper repeated many times in different journals? Mind you, if somebody came along with BIG Bucks offering to shut me up, I might be tempted. I'd take their big bucks and find another way to say it. There, not entirely a boy scout. But "publishing in journals", that's for people playing the game of career advancement, but only within the consensus position. And as everyone knows, CONSENSUS IS DEAD - LONG LIVE CONSENSUS. You're naive too if you think being outside consense gets you anywhere (careerwise). I can vouch for it. Wouldn't you agree? That's why I see a whole lot of parrots around the place. Parrots are known for their intelligence. But have you ever seen how they fly? (Actually Budgies are better). I would be the cuckoo, I suppose. Have to be. > That way lies totalitarianism (of the blackest Turn turn. (revolution) > >sort). How often are today's 'nutty ideas' the basis of tomorrows > >'good science'? Don't forget plate tectonics is/was held up in the > >first instance as an "outrageous view" > Indeed. And you know what Don? They still were able to have their ideas Yes, ...there is. Gravitational collapse as a tectonic force in its own right (right there, in situ, all ready to do its stuff) v. cooling (vertical shrinkage). Vertical cooling/ shrinkage on the ridges, and vertical cooling on subduction zones. And so why not vertical cooling all the way in between. If it started to sink way back at the ridges why didn't it just keep it up, and just keep cooling/ sinking. Since 'subduction' would then be whole lot closer to the ridges, the Earth would be a whole lot smaller (wouldn't it?) But the fact that it didn't means that the ... You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine)
Date: 21 Mar 2003 05:51:17 GMT
Local: Fri, Mar 21 2003 4:51 pm
Subject: Re: OK - another one for the board
>Subject: Re: OK - another one for the board <snip> >From: d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) >Date: 3/20/03 4:09 PM Hawaiian Standard Time >Message-id: <5f164087.0303201808.4a676...@posting.google.com> >bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message >Ah, I see - 'incestuous': Was it that, that bothered you? I guess density*g*dh/dx where h is the topograpghy and x is distance from the ridge. THis is the same formula for hydraulic head. basalts underneath for >isotopes, and forams for the muds in between, and questioned HOW the Relative importances of what? You do not write clearly Don. I suggest you take >relative importances were aportioned. more time to express yourself in a way that is scientifically understandable. I think the explanation that >heat loss (cooling) being the main factor in determining ocean depth I already explained where the depth-age relation comes from. It comes from >(and therefore age) doesn't square with the notion of ridge-push being >the important driving force for subduction thousands of kilometres >away, boundary layer theory. Why you persist in talking about ridge push force and subduction, I have no At this point I leave you to your own devices.. Stuart Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: d...@tower.net.au (don findlay)
Date: 21 Mar 2003 02:23:44 -0800
Local: Fri, Mar 21 2003 9:23 pm
Subject: Re: OK - another one for the board
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine)
Date: 21 Mar 2003 20:08:32 GMT
Local: Sat, Mar 22 2003 7:08 am
Subject: Re: OK - another one for the board
No, simply stating the obvious. One can discuss the thermal characteristics of
a moving plate without having to know anything about the ridge push force or subduction. Again, and for the last time, I'll refer you to Allegre's "Behavior of The Stuart You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: "I.Warren" <ian.war...@xtra.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 20:17:05 +1200
Local: Sun, Mar 23 2003 7:17 pm
Subject: Re: OK - another one for the board
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine)
Date: 23 Mar 2003 19:30:54 GMT
Local: Mon, Mar 24 2003 6:30 am
Subject: Re: OK - another one for the board
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: d...@tower.net.au (don findlay)
Date: 23 Mar 2003 16:36:30 -0800
Local: Mon, Mar 24 2003 11:36 am
Subject: Re: OK - another one for the board
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: John Hernlund <hernl...@ess.ucla.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:55:05 -0800
Local: Thurs, Mar 27 2003 9:55 pm
Subject: Re: OK - another one for the board
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||