the impact idea has been around for at least 63 years, being published in 1950 by Immanuel Velakovski in his book "Worlds in Collision." This was an interesting read, and refutes the idea of uniformitarianism and evolution, etc. The book is a qualitative presentation, and does not provide concrete evidence to support the ideas. But it is still very interesting to read. I read this before plate tectonics and sea floor spreading had been published, although there had been some articles showing the relationship of bands of magnetic reversals parallel to the mid ocean ridge. Enjoy the debate.
John
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Kim Noyes <kimnoyes@gmail.com> wrote:
That's all fine and dandy but you have to prove there are impacts where your "hypothesis" claims there are and that they are big enough for the job and that they are of the right timing.... and that is just for starters.
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Ben Fishler <benfishler@yahoo.com> wrote:
[Attachment(s) from Ben Fishler included below]Dear Vic & Lin,The Wegener article is certainly apropos to our current situation.Although the basics of Wegener's Theory were eventually accepted, this acceptance didn't occur until 30 years after Wegener died. The biggest problem was the fact that Alfred Wegener lacked an acceptable mechanism for his theory of continental drift.It was not until after World War II that the mid-ocean ridge was discovered and the basis for a mechanism was established. At that point Wegener's Theory could be properly considered.I find myself in what I think is a similar situation in discussing my theory with you ... except that I do have a mechanism. And it is a mechanism that has been used and proven on a small scale in manufacturing plants for years.Why would two intelligent geologists have so much trouble with the geological mechanisms that I propose (i.e. the concept of continental uplift being regarded as "science fiction")?The problem may be a lack of familiarity with analogous processes that are used in industry today. I worked in the cold heading business for 16 years earlier in my life. Impact heading and its use of extrusion at the antipode of an impact is old hat for someone like me. However, it may be unfamiliar to you.Impact heading (where a mild steel cut off piece is trapped in a die) forces extrusion at the end of this solid steel piece through a hole in the die when this cut off piece is hit by a punch.This impact heading process is almost a direct analog to the event of a very large object impacting the Earth. In this much larger scenario, the pulverized weak area at the impact's antipode (due to a natural spherical concentration of earthquake waves) acts as the hole in the die, while the liquid mantle transfers the shock impact pulse (resulting from a temporary deformation of the Earth's crust at the impact point) to the antipodal area. The Earth's solid crust and the force of gravity act as the trapping agents.If the impact is large enough, then even a raging hotspot won't relieve enough of the pressure and continental uplift (similar to stamping or embossing in industrial processes) through forced crack propagation can occur.Extruding liquid rock or shearing rock through crack propagation is much easier than extruding solid steel, and yet extruding solid steel is an everyday manufacturing occurrence.I located a 12 page cold heading brochure that includes diagrams of impact heading. The brochure shows how the cold heading process works and the types of parts that can be formed by extruding solid steel at the antipode of an impact. Pay particular attention to the "1st Blow" picture under the "Two Die, Three Blow Process" heading on page 3. It illustrates impact heading. Lots of pictures. Easy to read. I am attaching this brochure to my email.Once Wegener's critics had the evidence of the mid-ocean ridge, it led to an understandable mechanism by which they could evaluate his theory.Maybe, once you understand the analogous industrial processes, my theory won't sound so much like science fiction.The real question is not whether an impact from a meteor would cause deformation at the surface of the Earth and some kind of extrusion at the antipode, but rather, how big would the impact have to be? Would a six-mile-in-diameter meteor traveling at 24,000 mph relative to the Earth be big enough to uplift the continent of India 65 million years ago? The evidence says that it would.Science is a self-correcting mechanism. While existing theory should be given a certain deference because it has become accepted, it should not automatically overrule challenges merely because of that deference.Eventually the facts will win out and theories will be revised or discarded if that is necessary. Otherwise, we would still be discussing epicycles and listening for the music of the spheres when studying astronomy.Regards,Ben Fishler
From: Lin Kerns <linkerns@gmail.com>
To: Geology2 <geology2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Geology2] Re: The Earth Moved
LOL!On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 9:23 AM, sactovic <sactovic@yahoo.com> wrote:
Fascinating piece. My only criticism: He omits any discussion of Wegener's opinons about antipodal continent creation.Vic> *This is a story I wrote for the June issue of Smithsonian Magazine. The
--- In geology2@yahoogroups.com, Lin Kerns wrote:
>
> The Earth Moved
>
> Posted by Richard Conniff on May 22, 2012
>> disagree in the comments:*
> editors there asked me to write a different lead, to make it seem more
> timely. You can read that version
> here .
> But I think the historical account stands on its own. Feel free to> arm. Hospital time gave him a chance to extend his idea into a book, *The
>
>
> Alfred Wegener
>
> On November 1, 1930, his fiftieth birthday, a German meteorologist named
> Alfred Wegener set out with a colleague on a desperate 250-mile return
> trip from the middle of the Greenland ice pack back to the coast. The
> weather was appalling, often below minus-60 degrees Fahrenheit. Food was
> scarce. They had two sleds with 17 dogs fanned out ahead of them, and the
> plan was to butcher the ones that died first for meat to keep the others
> going.
>
> Less than halfway to the coast, down to seven dogs, they harnessed up a
> single sled and pushed on, with Wegener on skis working to keep up. He
> was an old hand at arctic exploration. This was his fourth expedition to
> study how winter weather there affected the climate in Europe. Now he
> longed to be back home, where his wife Else and their three daughters
> awaited him. He dreamed of "vacation trips with no mountain climbing or
> other semi-polar adventures" and of the day when "the obligation to be a
> hero ends, too." But he was also deeply committed to his work. In a
> notebook, he kept a quotation reminding him that no one ever accomplished
> anything worthwhile "except under one condition: I will accomplish it or
> die."
>
> That work included a geological theory, first published a century ago this
> year, that sent the world woozily sliding sideways and also outraged fellow
> scientists. We like to imagine that science advances unencumbered by messy
> human emotions. But Wegener's brash intuition threatened to demolish the
> entire history of the Earth as it had been built up step by step by
> generations of careful thinkers. The response from fellow scientists was a
> firestorm of moral outrage, followed by half a century of stony silence.
>
> Wegener's revolutionary idea was that the continents had started out massed
> together in a single supercontinent and then gradually drifted apart. He
> was of course right. Continental drift, and the more recent science of
> plate tectonics, are now the bedrock of modern geology, helping to answer
> life-or-death questions like where earthquakes may hit next, and how to
> keep San Francisco standing. But in Wegener's day, drift was heresy.
> Geological thinking stood firmly on solid earth, continents and oceans were
> permanent features, and the present-day landscape was a perfect window into
> the past.
>
> The idea that smashed this orthodoxy got its start at Christmas 1910, as
> Wegener (the W is pronounced like a V) was browsing through "the
> magnificent maps" in a friend's new atlas. Others before him had noticed
> that the Atlantic Coast of Brazil looked as if it might once have been
> tucked up against West Africa like a couple sleeping in the spoon
> position. But no one had made much of this matchup, and Wegener was hardly
> the logical choice to show what they had been missing. At that point, he
> was just a junior university lecturer, not merely untenured but unsalaried,
> apart from meager student fees. Moreover, his specialties were
> meteorology and astronomy, not geology.
>
> But Wegener was not timid about disciplinary boundaries, or much else: He
> was an Arctic explorer and had also set a world record for endurance flight
> as a balloonist. When his mentor and future father-in-law, one of the
> eminent scientists of the day, advised him to be cautious in his
> theorizing, Wegener replied, "Why should we hesitate to toss the old views
> overboard?" It would be like heaving sandbags out of a gondola.
>
> Wegener proceeded to cut out maps of the continents, stretching them to
> show how they might have looked before the landscape crumpled up into
> mountain ridges. Then he fit them together on a globe, like jigsaw puzzle
> pieces, to form the supercontinent he called Pangaea. Next, he pulled
> together biological and paleontological records showing that, in regions on
> opposite sides of the ocean, the plants and animals were often strikingly
> similar: It wasn't just that the marsupials in Australia and South America
> looked alike; so did the flatworms that parasitized them. Finally, he
> pointed out how layered geological formations, or stratigraphy, often
> dropped off on one side of the ocean only to pick up again on the other.
> It was as if someone had torn a newspaper sheet in two, and yet you could
> still read a sentence across the tear.
>
> Wegener presented the idea he called "continental displacement" in a
> lecture to the Frankfurt Geological Association early in 1912. The meeting
> ended with "no discussion due to the advanced hour," much as when Darwinian
> evolution made its debut. He published his idea for the first time in an
> article later that year. But before the scientific community could muster
> much of a response, World War I broke out. Wegener served in the German
> army on the Western Front, where he was wounded twice, in the neck and
> Origin of Continents and Oceans*, published in German in 1915. Then, with> according to Naomi Oreskes, author of *The Rejection of Continental
> the appearance of an English translation in 1922, the bloody intellectual
> assault began.
>
> Lingering anti-German sentiment no doubt aggravated the attack. But German
> geologists also scorned the "delirious ravings" and other symptoms of
> "moving crust disease and wandering pole plague." Wegener's idea, said one
> of his countryman, was a fantasy "that would pop like a soap bubble." The
> British likewise ridiculed Wegener for distorting his jigsaw-puzzle
> continents to make them fit, and, more damningly, for failing to provide a
> credible mechanism powerful enough to move continents. At a Royal
> Geographical Society meeting, an audience member thanked the speaker for
> having blown Wegener's theory to bits–then also archly thanked the absent
> "Professor Wegener for offering himself for the explosion."
>
> But it was the Americans who came down hardest against continental drift.
> Edward W. Berry, a paleontologist at Johns Hopkins University called it
> "Germanic Pseudo-Science" and accused Wegener of cherry-picking
> "corroborative evidence, ignoring most of the facts that are opposed to the
> idea, and ending in a state of auto-intoxication." Others poked holes in
> Wegener's stratigraphic connections and joked that an animal had turned up
> with its fossilized head on one continent and its tail on another. They
> argued that similar species had arrived on opposite sides of oceans by
> rafting on logs, or by traveling across land bridges that later collapsed.
>
> At Yale, paleogeographer Charles Schuchert focused on Wegener's lack of
> standing in the geological community: "Facts are facts, and it is from
> facts that we make our generalizations," he said, but it was "wrong for a
> stranger to the facts he handles to generalize from them." Schuchert
> showed up at one meeting with his own cut-out continents and clumsily
> demonstrated on a globe how badly they failed to match up, geology's
> equivalent of O.J. Simpson's glove.
>
> The most poignant attack came from a father-son duo. Thomas C. Chamberlin
> had launched his career as a young geologist decades earlier with a bold
> assault on the eminent British physicist Lord Kelvin. He had gone on to
> articulate a distinctly democratic and American way of doing science,
> Drift–Theory and Method in American Science. *Old World scientists tended> historian whose biography, *Alfred Wegener's Life and Scientific
> to become too attached to grandiose theories, said Chamberlin. The true
> scientist's role was to lay out all competing theories on equal terms,
> without bias. Like a parent with his children, he was "morally forbidden
> to fasten his affection unduly upon any one of them."
>
> But by the 1920s, Chamberlin was being celebrated by colleagues as "the
> Dean of American Scientists," and a brother to Newton and Galileo among
> "great original thinkers." He had become not merely affectionate but
> besotted with his own "planetismal" theory of the origin of the Earth,
> which treated the oceans and continents as permanent features. This "great
> love affair" with his own work was characterized, according to historian
> Robert Dott "by elaborate, rhetorical pirouetting with old and new
> evidence." Chamberlin's democratic ideals—or perhaps some more personal
> motivation–required grinding Wegener's grandiose theorizing underfoot.
>
> Rollin T. Chamberlin, who was, like his father a University of Chicago
> geologist, stepped in to do the great man's dirty work: The drift theory
> was "of the foot-loose type … takes considerable liberties with our globe,"
> ignores "awkward, ugly facts," and "plays a game in which there are few
> restrictive rules and no sharply drawn code of conduct. So a lot of things
> go easily." Young Chamberlin also quoted an unnamed geologist's remark
> that inadvertently revealed the heart of the problem: "If we are to
> believe Wegener's hypothesis we must forget everything which has been
> learned in the last 70 years and start all over again."
>
> Instead, geologists largely chose to forget Alfred Wegener, except to
> launch another flurry of attacks on his "fairy tale" theory in mid-World
> War II. For decades after, older geologists quietly advised newcomers
> that any hint of the drift heresy would end their careers.
>
> Wegener himself was exasperated but otherwise undaunted by his enemies. He
> was careful to address valid criticisms, "but he never backtracked and he
> never retracted anything," says Mott Greene, a University of Puget Sound
> Work*comes out later this year. "That was always his response: Just> V ei8 -Volcanoes of the World
> assert it
> again, even more strongly." By the time Wegener published the final
> version of his theory in 1929, he felt certain that continental drift would
> soon sweep aside other theories and pull together all the accumulating
> evidence into a single unifying vision of the Earth's history. He didn't
> pretend to know for certain what mechanism would prove powerful enough to
> explain the movement of continents. But he reminded critics that it was
> commonplace in science to describe a phenomenon (for instance, the laws of
> falling bodies and of planetary orbits) and only later figure out what made
> it happen (Newton's formula of universal gravitation). He added, "The
> Newton of drift theory has not yet appeared."
>
> The turnabout on Wegener's theory came relatively quickly, in the
> mid-1960s, as older geologists died off, unenlightened, and a new
> generation accumulated irrefutable proof of sea-floor spreading, and of
> vast tectonic plates grinding across one another deep within the Earth.
> Else Wegener lived to see her husband's triumph. Wegener himself was not
> so fortunate.
>
> That 1930 expedition had sent him out on an impossible mission. A
> subordinate had failed to supply enough food for two members of his weather
> study team spending that winter in the middle of Greenland's ice pack.
> Wegener and a colleague made the delivery that saved their lives. He died
> on the terrible trip back down to the Coast. His colleague also vanished,
> lost somewhere in the endless snow. Searchers later found Wegener's body
> and reported that "his eyes were open, and the expression on his face was
> calm and peaceful, almost smiling." It was as if he had already foreseen
> his vindication.
> About these ads
> http://strangebehaviors.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/the-earth-moved/
>
> --
>
>
> Webcams
> Roxxfoxx~~Adventures in Geology
> Penguin News Today
> Penguinology: The Science of Penguins
> Gentoo Penguins of Gars O'Higgins Station,
> Antarctica
> Canis lupus 101
> Through Golden Eyes
> Follow me on Pinterest !
>
--
--
Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
Read my blog at http://eclecticarcania.blogspot.com/
My Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/derkimster
Linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kim-noyes/9/3a1/2b8
Follow me on Twitter @DisasterKim
--
John Atwell Rasmussen, Ph.D., AJP
Rasmussen Gems and Jewelry LLC
"A Time to Stop Living at Work; A Time to Start Working at Living."
__._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment