Dear Eman,
That's a pretty brutal email.
I'll attempt to answer your points one by one.
NUMBER ONE: You state "there was widespread supposition that the Deccan Traps WERE an antipodal eruption before (studies) showed that the (Deccan Traps) erupted over several million years and the eruptions started before Chicxulub."
There were volcanic eruptions in the general area of the Deccan traps 68 MYA, but not necessarily connected to the Deccan Traps. These eruptions were significantly smaller and not contiguous to the Deccan Traps.
The Deccan Traps occurred 65 MYA and then the hotspot continued under the western side of India towards the tip, creating a large underlayment of basalt. It reached the tip 60 MYA and then disappeared! Unless, of course, you look at my analysis in chapter eight of my book at www.solvingthemajorextinctions.com, where I show it then starting the creation of the Indonesian Island chain, leading up to, most recently, Lake Toba in Sumatra, where it does stop, because that is where the plume is now.
I have not seen studies which definitively rule out the Deccan Traps as an initial event, rather than an event that is merely part of a sequence beginning prior to 65 MYA. If those studies exist, I would like to know about them.
If there was widespread agreement that the Deccan Traps were antipodal, why didn't we see India shown far to the east of its supposed location off Africa 65 MYA, according to the Standard Theory? I've never seen anything showing India India anywhere near where I locate it 65 MYA (at the antipode). Everything I have seen shows India located off of Africa 65 MYA, moving over the Reunion hotspot to create the Deccan Traps and then moving to its present location.
NUMBER TWO (your number one) -- You ask for the present coordinates for the Chicxulub and antipode centers at time of impact. You say, "State your CPE."
I don't know what you mean by "CPE". You don't explain it. I looked it up on Google and Wikipedia. I couldn't find anything that seemed to fit.
As far as the present coordinates for the Chicxulub and antipode centers at the time of impact, I state in chapter six of my book that the initial antipode position of the Chicxulub impact was 30 degrees south and 132 degrees west. Of course, this means that the Chicxulub impact itself had to be at 30 degrees north and 48 degrees east.
Furthermore, I provide a complete series of maps showing the antipode and the movements of plates in the antipodal area from 65 MYA to present day at the end of chapter eight.
You ask for information that I have already provided before in emails (the maps and the book both provide the antipode location). Have you even read the book? It's posted free of charge.
NUMBER THREE (your number two) -- You note that it isn't the "Standard Theory" but Plate Tectonic Theory.
I use the phrase "Standard Theory" because my presentation could be classified as going beyond Plate Tectonic Theory to include Impact Theory, Extinction Theory, or some other designation. When I use the term "Standard Theory," I want the reader to understand that I am referencing the currently accepted scientific doctrine, regardless of how it is classified.
NUMBER FOUR (your number three) -- You write of examining polar locations, validated vectors, etc. I have looked for this sort of information as it relates to the location of India 65 MYA and I don't find anything that is relevant either way. Do you know something about this that I don't? I would be interested in hearing of it. The only thing that I did find was Dr. Hetu Sheth's finding that the Deccan Traps were formed at 30 degrees south ... bad news for the Standard Theory.
NUMBER FIVE (your number four) -- You complain that I do not address your responses.
I argue that I have. In fact, I have been forced to significantly revise parts of my theory in response to your comments and those of ChuckB. I have noted the changes. What are you talking about when you say that I haven't responded?
NUMBER SIX (your number five) -- You ask for something concrete and say that I have been asked six times for this but have not responded.
I believe that I have responded. Specifically, what are you talking about?
You say that I have an agenda. In one sense that is true. My agenda is to figure out the best case for the Standard Theory and the best case for my theory so that I can present the pros and cons properly. I thought that was what science was supposed to be all about. Even though I don't agree with the Standard Theory, I believe that I have presented its arguments fairly. If there other aspects of the Standard Theory that I do not understand, I am eager to understand them.
NUMBER SEVEN (your number six) -- You suggest that I should start my own Yahoo group.
I have already posted the entire book on the internet for easy access. I have asked for comments. I have responded to the comments and I am incorporating suggestions into my next revision and I will acknowledge the help.
Why do you have such a problem with this?
ONE OTHER NOTE -- You were asking about the location of the antipode of the Chicxulub impact 65 MYA.
The Princeton Study of 2011 is relevant here. Although I do have one significant disagreement with the diagram of the Chicxulub impact and the antipode 65 MYA as shown in the second map in the article that was forwarded to the group, mostly I agree with the locations shown in the study.
My significant disagreement comes in the latitude reading of the impact and, consequently, of the antipode. The Princeton study shows it at 21 degrees north and 21 degrees south respectively.
I believe that the impact occurred in the tail of the Eastern North American Continent just off what is now the Gulf Coast of Florida (at 30 degrees north). I believe that the force of the impact caused the tail to split and move to the south and west, and eventually to its current location at 21 degrees north.
As I note in Appendix III, the thumb area of the Yucatan has been linked tectonically to Florida across the Gulf of Mexico (footnote 57, page 2). There are also magmatically similar CAMP regions both in the Yucatan and in southern Alabama and Georgia (footnote 103, page 4). Both of these factors would be explained by the scenario of the impact moving land from 30 degrees north to 21 degrees north.
Therefore, I believe that the Chicxulub impact area and antipode should be at 30 degrees north and 30 degrees south respectively, 65 MYA.
If you look at the Princeton study map at 65 MYA, you will see that moving the antipode to 30 degrees south would put it just off the coast of Australia ... right where India, turned 90 degrees counterclockwise, would fit in ... with the Deccan Traps right there at the 30 degree south location. My map for 65 MYA at the end of chapter eight would be virtually identical with that of the Princeton study, except for the location of India and the islands to the north of Australia (for which I have offered a different scenario as already described).
There are an awful lot of coincidences that are explained by my theory. Certainly, it is possible that it is wrong. But, it might be mostly right (after I have adjusted it for things that I am learning that are not geologically sensible, as I have already noted).
Regards,
Ben Fishler
From: MEM <mstreman53@yahoo.com>
To: "geology2@yahoogroups.com" <geology2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Geology2] Re: The Earth Moved
Ben wrote:
"Sure, the Princeton study says that the Deccan traps were not at the antipode of the Chicxulub impact, but that study merely accepts the Standard Theory( sic) at face value".--WRONG There was a wide spread supposition that the Deccan Traps WERE an antipodal eruption before this (and a few other) studies that showed the DTs erupted over several million years and the eruptions started before Chicxulub!
Ben also wrote:
"Although my theory does not agree with the Standard Theory(sic) regarding the location of the Deccan traps in relation to the antipode of the Chicxulub impact, I regard this disagreement as a disagreement based upon reasoned and knowledgeable analysis, rather than disagreement based upon ignorance of other relevant arguments."
WRONG: Firstly, "Denial" is not a river in Africa. Show me! What are the present coordinates for the Chicxulub and antipode centers at time of impact? State your CPE. I want to see in writing your knowledgeable analysis. (Given the errors I have also seen in your theory It would add credibility to who assessed it as knowledgeable).
Secondly, it isn't "Standard Theory" it is Plate Tectonic Theory=PTT.
Thirdly, some researchers actually did the math, correlated magnetic orientations , calculated polar locations, ages of rocks and validated vectors( speed and direction) for plate movement. I loathe your flippant blow off of legitimately developed science when you have deluded yourself that you somehow--without a modicum of personal research in evidence -- have the "truth"!
Fourthly, Regarding your post: You change the focus of your responses without ever addressing our responses and go on to ignore answering the deficiencies. (Spoiler Alert: The list has accidentally entered the troll banquet zone).
Fifthly, you've been asked at least 6 times before for something concrete other than the muzings of your "rationale" and at least 6 times you have ignored them. This means you've a hidden agenda and it also means that there is nothing to be gained other than irritation by continuing to indulge your rather one way need to express your faulty logic, "ad nasuem".
Finally, my advice is go form a yahoo group to discuss your theory--Make sure you give it a snappy name and let us know when it is up for business. You claim to want constructive criticisms and to be shown the errors in your theory. See how many takers you get. If you do this, we'll know that you are sincere in what you say you want.
Eman
WRONG: Firstly, "Denial" is not a river in Africa. Show me! What are the present coordinates for the Chicxulub and antipode centers at time of impact? State your CPE. I want to see in writing your knowledgeable analysis. (Given the errors I have also seen in your theory It would add credibility to who assessed it as knowledgeable).
Secondly, it isn't "Standard Theory" it is Plate Tectonic Theory=PTT.
Thirdly, some researchers actually did the math, correlated magnetic orientations , calculated polar locations, ages of rocks and validated vectors( speed and direction) for plate movement. I loathe your flippant blow off of legitimately developed science when you have deluded yourself that you somehow--without a modicum of personal research in evidence -- have the "truth"!
Fourthly, Regarding your post: You change the focus of your responses without ever addressing our responses and go on to ignore answering the deficiencies. (Spoiler Alert: The list has accidentally entered the troll banquet zone).
Fifthly, you've been asked at least 6 times before for something concrete other than the muzings of your "rationale" and at least 6 times you have ignored them. This means you've a hidden agenda and it also means that there is nothing to be gained other than irritation by continuing to indulge your rather one way need to express your faulty logic, "ad nasuem".
Finally, my advice is go form a yahoo group to discuss your theory--Make sure you give it a snappy name and let us know when it is up for business. You claim to want constructive criticisms and to be shown the errors in your theory. See how many takers you get. If you do this, we'll know that you are sincere in what you say you want.
Eman
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment