VOLCANO MADNESS: Re: [Geology2] Re: The Earth Moved Final Answer

Eman,

Thanks for taking the time to compose that argument in refutation of Ben's hypothesis. It was not wasted as the rest of us read it and see stuff we already know redistilled into new ways of presenting it that we have perhaps (as is the case with me) not encountered before and I always find edification in seeing stuff I know restated in ways I have not encountered as often I can derive new layers of meaning or understanding from such.

Kimmer

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM, MEM <mstreman53@yahoo.com> wrote:

Here is the short answer compromise I think Ben and the rest of us are needing:

Ben, I respect that you put a lot of work into your New Theory and organized it in an excellent manner. You went into great detail painting the picture of how you thought things worked. Real dedication to develop it so deeply!

It is unfortunate that it was written in a a partial void and without your better understanding of planetary geology regarding impacts and the body of Plate Tectonic Principle. It also is your disadvantage that you are not well versed by experience in how and when scientific theories in general are introduced and defended to experts who you must convince that your hypothesis has been proved by your collection of the knowledge of others and your personal research.

Hint: Your entire "work" is in reality an unresearched hypothesis which needs to be striped of errors and conflicts and rebuilt on a broad and deep foundation of geoscience. Any "New Theory" has to demonstrably show how it is a better fit of the basic research/knowledge and it has to be defensible to the body of science not just to your mind alone. Everyone who disagrees with you isn't doing so to be mean nor blindly sticking to existing consensus.

That is the best I can do with your work and follow up postings here. If you can live with that then don't read the rest it is frank detailed and addresses more of the errors in logic in your book and postings. I hate to drop out but I have another bucket list that needs attention. Unless snowballs start accumulating in Hades I am finished with this thread. I am taking shortcuts in not posting two separate post on this "long past any chance of resolution thread" ( aka dead horse flogging) so get a head start and flog away and this near death horse...lol

Eman

Long Answer
Ben FishlerWrote:
"That's a pretty brutal email. I'll attempt to answer your points one by one."

Apparently not brutal enough... I considered it "frank" with an example of the kind of responses needed in response to a series of weaseling answers we were getting back which continue to show that you seem to lack the applied background to argue cogent Geo-dynamic facts which identifies what is so deficient with Plate Tectonic Theory that your "un-named" theory clears up( sic). The "weak background" part can be fixed but not here and not without setting aside your assumptions to learning about the PTT which you refute without understanding. When you come here rejecting what we tell you--you've no idea how arrogant and ignorant your position appears and what it really tells us about yourself. Ergo I speak frequently about hidden agendas and those are facts not personal attacks. I am saying that your outlook seems to be blocking accepting the facts we have been sharing.

One wonders why you attempt to answer points "one by one" when you ignored the
questions in the past letters starting with the first responses. It shows that you remain determined that we offer you "respect" via your theory. How many times do you need to be told that it is phoney, bogus and, a total fail for you to be persuaded to take it back to the blank sheet and build it up from a sound foundation? I raise the issue again that you don't have a legitimate knowledge base to be proposing realistic planetary science theories--on so many levels--otherwise you wouldn't be violating so many principles of science. ( It isn't my job to list them) It may well be arrogance or ignorance or both that you keep picking and choosing what you will respond to. We-- other than Barry I guess, can see that you have failed to get out of the starting gate but are arguing why you haven't been nominated for the Hess Award for Plate Tectonic Advancement. -- What is wrong with this picture?

Your keen intellectual ego keeps you from seeing and acknowledging that which you keep restating has too many wrong assumptions. Our rejection is not that we are intolerant but, because we've shown over and over that your arguments go against established basic scientific principle. The people who seem to be getting this is everyone else but guess who?. No matter what we say, you will keep harassing..um restating to the list with these flawed posts, expecting that we owe you more detailed facts/knowledge for you to ignore so long as you find validation from a single reader. I could go on and on but it is lost on you and I don't honestly want to keep saying "frank" things about your unwillingness to listen to scientific reality.

The hidden agenda is your need to find a single soul anywhere that will validate your reasoning. Don't look in my direction, I don't see anything I have not already predicted that you've not proved. I feel slimy for having to even address it and everything I seem to be writing here is for everyone else.

I did not read your entire book but I get $120 an hour consultation fee so if you want to lay out a retainer I'll consider going you chapter and verse to your posted thesis. IN the freebie review, when I found errors compounding more errors, statistically I felt comfortable in dismissing the entire work as not worth my time to complete reading. ( You'll argue that "I" don't count because I haven't read your entire work and therefore am unqualified to offer an opinion--been there and done that)

Below I do point out another fail in your understanding of the theory you so arrogantly try to make revolve around your self centered musings but here it is and more-- continents don't slosh and wobble, the Chuicxalub crater did not migrate out from the FL-GA-SC Laurenthanian suture, two continental "terranes" can't occupy the same space at the same time and Antarctica is the only continental mass which is "pen-wheeling" to any degree otherwise plates don't pen-wheel and squeal their tires off in another direction to make anyone's theory fit.

Perhaps it went over your head but, you have responded exactly as I said you would respond. Below is a page or dozen which I drafted several exchanges ago but bit my tongue hoping you would put this theory away and I wouldn't have to feel so icky trying to get through to you. I also knew that this discussion would go this way but hoping against hope I find myself wasting the $120 when I knew inside with your very first post that trying to have an instructive discourse would be totally lost on anything said back to you. You were dishonest when you said you wanted an honest critique. You have YOUR answer and you don't want anyone else' unless it validates the one you have admitted has been rejected everywhere else you've taken it. Ergo I again state that discussing it is fruitless as we can't meet the needs of your hidden agenda.

Here tis however:
After this soapboxing-- I'll back to lurking because Ben is still arguing things which are impossible and apparently hasn't internalized "isostacy". The "Standard Theory"(sic) better known as Plate Tectonic Theory(PTT)--works in 99% of the situations we find in real life and your theory works in 0% of real life yet you think your theory should replace PTT: you offer no proof, have done no follow up reading/education, have done no field work to underpin your un-developed hypothesis, have given no argument why existing science fails short of explaining the real world. What is wrong with this picture???

When I do sit down to share I want it to be with people who want to learn and it needs to serve some "learning purpose". Explaining PTT serves a learning purpose--Repeatedly defending PTT against a theory which is wrong at its foundation does not serve a learning purpose. For example Pangaea apparently broke up owing to a heat envelope which exceeded heat radiation from the mantle or so the latest understanding of Pangaea--not from a mystery impact which unzipped a series of rift valleys along the eastern coast of what is now North America. If we have the geological record of these rift valleys where is the evidence of the like-sized craters you advocate? Where is your detailed research? Where is your personal field work for these crypto -craters? Where is your math that shows an impactor large enough to impart a momentum vector to scatter the continents? Did you even look at the links I sent on Vesta? Never mind --rhetorical point. You haven't explained why current knowledge doesn't work ( unless I really missed it in the chapters I did read) there is NO need to substitute your "theory".

To anyone who may be confused about the <ahem>"Standard Theory"(sic) or to anyone whose sense of political correctness thinks we ought to indulge any unbounded theory that comes along out of a sense of kum-by-ya-- for as long as the proposer chooses and no matter how long he ducks dealing with the answers he gets... I felt the answers were sufficient given the lack of a foundation in planetary science which Ben seems to have at this stage in his education--and it isn't a dig, just the reality that I am not going to write a book of background to illustrate each error in his theory.

Point of order: Ben was allowed to present his theory--it was critiqued and enough errors in his logic were shown to him that it would never work or that his understanding was no supported by scientific fact. In the course of that review, it became clear that Ben does not have an adequate background in geology for him to understand what he doesn't know. He asked if there was anything else he needed to learn. That was fair but the expectation that we -- or make it that I am inclined to offer him a degree in planetary science just to help him understand the error in his assumptions and assertions ...well it ain't going to happen. He was also asked for "proof" and he keeps coming back with non-realistic theory, ignoring our replies that requests he provide some proof. Bottom line is we are too far apart to even have a beneficial exchange of information on the topic, Sorry.
Example:
==>Dear Ben, Where's the proof such as this continent composed of mantle material? Exactly where is this mafic continent that magically floats above the mafic mantle/astenosphere amongst the felsic crusts? Show me your field notes where you have through your work or through other peer reviewed work can substantiate your claims. <== Illustration of a failure to defend/explain a major premise of his thesis.

Example:
An impactor cannot "break up plates" and move them around. It shoots holes into their surface. The kinetic energy of a plate--any plate, is "millions" of magnitudes larger than any impactor that the earth has in fact experienced. End of theory. Null proven. No I won't do YOUR math.

In your " suggested readings" which you may or may not be doing, as I am not getting any feedback to the points I have made regarding why your theory is a "mental exercise devoid of reality". You keep trashing the "Standard theory" trying to promote your alternate reality where physics as we know it doesn't count, apparently.

Example:
Continents don't wobble and slosh around they are anchored to the slab/plate and move with that plate.

Before you post again, I suggest you do a reality check on the physics of mass and velocity for both the impactor and the target plate. While you are at it, Occums Razor is an important concept to review. You've posted an extensive "New Theory" with aboslutely NO, NADA, NOTHING underpinning it. In fact you've skipped over it with a grand train of verbiage as if your version were reality that is just "understood" to be true so you don't have to prove anything.

Finally, I am beginning to resent the fact that two or more well informed and well experienced people on this list have been offering you a sound critique and it appears that you are blowing it off. Your theory is bogus, baseless, and bad science without a modicum of proof. There is no reason for anyone to debate it because there is noting to debate as it is "boundless" as if physical laws don't apply in your construct. I can introduce Hobbit Land / Middle Earth and "Atlantis levetation lenses" as contructs along with "Benign Alien Interventions" that make any theory work in a SciFy world--but after all is argued you still have a totally bogus/baseless theory when it comes to the world that counts. Magical thinking doesn't make physical theory work unless you are an ID zombie.

Further discussion of this "Special" New Theory is fruitless because, you are ignoring the facts we have given which shows why your theory can't work on Earth. Restating another way: You have to rework it for another critique. There can be no fruitful sharing of information because you
keep ignoring real science and keep coming back with the same impossible arguments again and again.Your points have been shown to be invalid. Move on.

I think I understand the ego type I am dealing with here and I know that my ego type is incompatible. I also know that Ben will totally ignore my message and come back with something again which fails to acknowledge the questions put to him. He is too enmeshed in his theory to accept that it is a total fail, so he will keep coming back trying to find any part of it which we will say "yeah well maybe could be" to save face. At this point this thread has become a Troll's Banquet and I suggest we all stop feeding the trolls. Even if I am wrong about motivations I am right that it isn't fixable here. If you think it is important enough to debate-- form a yahoo group and invite debaters to discuss it there.

Any responses can be directed to the hand this horse was dead at the starting gate.

Eman

PS Sorry for any tone which goes against the decorum of the list but, there is no use continuing to attempt to "render aid"--from me anyway, as it is very clear that the theorist has a hidden agenda and no amount of our discussion will ever satisfy that. I'm outta here , again....