Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Formations really do match detailed lab expts of sorting under rapid currents
edge
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 46 of 130 (25900)
12-08-2002 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Tranquility Base
12-07-2002 8:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge writes:
They represent only what might happen on a sandy beach.
That's not waht the flume expereiments suggest. The flume experiments simply show what sort of deposition patterns one gets when one has current flow. Very general.
No, it shows what you have when you have currents that move sand. it also does not address low velocity currents. So then, are you saying htat Berthault had limestone at the top of his flume and then muds then silts. Whatever you say TB.
quote:
Edge writes:
And this has what to do with superposition. Even in Berthault's experiments superposition was not violated.
I disagree. Some of the downstream lowest layers can form after the upstream upeer layers and yet the layers are traceable across the entire length of deposition.
More nonsense. As I have indicated to you before, the lamination is a time-bound discontinuity, not the bed. Actual professional geologists know this and would not deceive you as to the importance of it. Anywhere you draw a vertical line across the laminations, the more recently deposited grains will be above a previously deposited grain. You have been deceived by a clever professional creationist.
quote:
Have you ssen the Berthaults video of mainstream Julien's expereiments at Colorado State?
TB, I have seen the results of such flow in the field. There is really nothing new here.
quote:
It has to be seen to be believed. I still get the feeling yuo don't quite follow what is hown in these expereimetns since it proves beyond doubt that superpositon is violated for the case of sediment despotited under flow.
Good, then you can give us a quote from Julien saying that superposition is overturned. Please provide this.
quote:
Of course at point X superpositon applies. Go to point Y = X + 100 metres and layer 10 could have formed before layer 3 at X. I have seen it with my eyes in 20 minutes of footage.
I understand all this but it is nothing new. We have understood how laminae form for decades and we have understood that the bedding set in which cross-beds occur overlie older beds and underly more recent beds. At any given instant in time the deposited grains define the time-stratigraphic horizon. Anything placed on that horizon is a younger deposit. It has only recently taken a convoluted creationist interpretation to distort the meaning of laminations. I suggest you look at Blatt and others and see what they say about this.
quote:
Edge writes:
Then you point regarding Austin/Nevins calculations was not necessary.
Not really, the precise mechanism was interesting enough for the flum expereiments to be performed at Colorado State by Julien. And it all depends. What do you, or mainstream GC stratigrpahy in general, believe? Was some of the Muav laid before some of the Tapeats?
In that case my caveat that his calculations are off is not irrelevant. The Mauv is contemporaneous with the Tapeats and it also overlies the Tapeats in some locations. If you were aware of Walther's Law, you would know that this is not a mystery.
quote:
Edge writes:
I'm not sure if you are avoiding my point or just didn't get it. Austin has to do this DURING your transgression, not after.
Explain please. Austin has the current going from W to E during deposition. Do you disagree with that?
Actually, your earlier rant regarding paleocurrents goes against it. Remember your NW trending currents in that area?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-07-2002 8:07 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-08-2002 3:31 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 47 of 130 (25901)
12-08-2002 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by funkmasterfreaky
12-07-2002 8:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Isn't this how the most significant discoveries come about in science?
Actually, significant discoveries usually come about by a lot of blood, sweat, tears and hard work.
quote:
Isn't it a scientist who decides the current analysis of the data is flawed that usually makes a real breakthrough?
I agree emphatically, but usually those people know SOMETHING about the subject that they make a discovery in.
quote:
I just watched a beautiful mind again the other night seems John Nash didn't seem to keen on following along with what everyone else thought. Innovation< imagination, this is where the discovery is made. Would we ever learn anything new if everyone just took what we had and stuck with that?
Somehow, I can't equate John Nash with a creation scientist....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-07-2002 8:26 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-08-2002 12:42 AM edge has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 130 (25905)
12-08-2002 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by edge
12-08-2002 12:06 AM


quote:
Somehow, I can't equate John Nash with a creation scientist....
Wasn't what I was trying to do. You seem to have lost the whole point I was getting at in my original post. Both imagination and the bore crew are needed in science. Neither is more important to the process. All imagination, then things get out of control. Too much of the bore crew and the continue along and never learn anything new. Yes most discoveries come from blood sweat and beer but, these are the little discoveries that fit into an idea the imagination had. The actual breakthroughs the real discoveries are from the imaginative minds. The bore crew grinds along discovering the imagination is right or wrong.
[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 12-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by edge, posted 12-08-2002 12:06 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by edge, posted 12-08-2002 10:34 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 130 (25916)
12-08-2002 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by edge
12-08-2002 12:02 AM


Edge
Edge writes:
No, it shows what you have when you have currents that move sand. it also does not address low velocity currents. So then, are you saying htat Berthault had limestone at the top of his flume and then muds then silts. Whatever you say TB.
Mainstream Julien at Colorado State studied a continuous range of velocity measurements.
More nonsense. As I have indicated to you before, the lamination is a time-bound discontinuity, not the bed. Actual professional geologists know this and would not deceive you as to the importance of it. Anywhere you draw a vertical line across the laminations, the more recently deposited grains will be above a previously deposited grain. You have been deceived by a clever professional creationist.
Of course anywhere you daw a vertical line (say at X) the principle of superpositon applies. But follow two strata seperated by 300 vertical feet a horizontal distance (say to Y = X + 10 km) and the upper stratum at Y might have been layed before the lower stratum at X.
If you really knew the expereiments of Julien et al you could not say what you have said. From watching the layers form with my eyes it can be seen that the bedding planes between strata are not time-bound discontinuities as you seem to be assuming. The bed proceedes horizontally at the same time it proceedes vertically and it has to be seen to be believed. I still can't work out if that is what you agree with or not.
It is the fundamental mode of starta generation in non-zero flow. Your eons mode is very, very different. Both produce strata. The flow mode strata do not represent time units, except at fixed horizontal position, as much as they look like they do.
TB, I have seen the results of such flow in the field. There is really nothing new here.
What you have ssen in the field cannot prepare you for these video results against glass planes alongside the flumes. Your time-bound discontinuities are apparent only. I found it hard to believe but you can see it with your eyes.
I understand all this but it is nothing new. We have understood how laminae form for decades and we have understood that the bedding set in which cross-beds occur overlie older beds and underly more recent beds. At any given instant in time the deposited grains define the time-stratigraphic horizon. Anything placed on that horizon is a younger deposit. It has only recently taken a convoluted creationist interpretation to distort the meaning of laminations. I suggest you look at Blatt and others and see what they say about this.
It's really not clear if you are agreeing with me or not Edge. Do you realize that in the flume experiments a particular stratum proceededs horizontally (down stream) while other layers above have already formed on it up stream?
In that case my caveat that his calculations are off is not irrelevant. The Mauv is contemporaneous with the Tapeats and it also overlies the Tapeats in some locations. If you were aware of Walther's Law, you would know that this is not a mystery.
OK, thanks for this clarification of your viewpoint on the Tonto. As usual you are worng on my understandings however. I understand Walther's law I simply wasn't sure whether you apply it to the 1000 feet of the Tonto or not. Now I know that you do.
Actually, your earlier rant regarding paleocurrents goes against it. Remember your NW trending currents in that area?
I remember SW currents across eastern NA. The paleocurrents in the GC area I'm don't recall the details of. I'll have a look at Chadwicks pages again.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by edge, posted 12-08-2002 12:02 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by edge, posted 12-08-2002 10:24 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 130 (25917)
12-08-2002 3:53 AM


So it really seems that we are getting a mainstream consensus that some of the 300 foot Tapeats was laid at the same time that some of the 300 foot Mauv Limestone was laid down (with 300 foot of BA shale in between). I had no idea that the age of a Cambrian facies could vary by much of the total age of the Cambrian period (70 Million years).
So then the main point beomces the fact that the transgressive innundaitons forming today create formations only dozens of feet deep:
http://EvC Forum: Formations really do match detailed lab expts of sorting under rapid currents -->EvC Forum: Formations really do match detailed lab expts of sorting under rapid currents
The Tonto is 1000 feet deep. Rather than indicating more time
it actually indicates far less. It indicates faster currents to get meaningful sorting across that vertical distance and could have been laid in a few days as predicted by the particle size/velocity charts of Rubin et al. There are no beach inundation beds today forming that look like the 1000 foot Tonto group with facies sorted by particle size at verticle 300 foot intervals. If there are, post here.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-08-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by wehappyfew, posted 12-08-2002 3:26 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 130 (25918)
12-08-2002 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by wehappyfew
12-07-2002 9:53 PM


Wehappy
Thanks for tracking that down. I had no idea it was on the web as well. The start page is: http://www.geology.ref.ac/berthault/
AS regards paleocurrents they are modulated by the presence of the Rocky mountains strangely enough. To the east most are south westerly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by wehappyfew, posted 12-07-2002 9:53 PM wehappyfew has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 52 of 130 (25926)
12-08-2002 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tranquility Base
12-08-2002 3:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mainstream Julien at Colorado State studied a continuous range of velocity measurements.
Please find us a quote from Julien saying something to the effect that, "... Aha, I have refuted the principle of superposition!"
quote:
Of course anywhere you daw a vertical line (say at X) the principle of superpositon applies.
But that is the point isn't it? You could also draw a line in the direction of deposition, which would be more accurate, and say the same thing.
quote:
But follow two strata seperated by 300 vertical feet a horizontal distance (say to Y = X + 10 km) ....
You are saying that Julien had a flume 300 feet high and 10 kilometers long? TB, you need to look at the actual vertical height of the forset beds in the experiment and then determine if this scale can be expanded to 300 vertical feet in nature. Now, there may be an exception somewhere in the world, but I would say that 300 ft high cross laminations and reverse graded beds are extremely rare. You have a scaling problem here.
Are you really trying to tell us that the Tapeats actually represents the base of foreset bedding in the Muav? I am sorry, but your understanding of sedimentation is so convoluted that I cannot make sense of what you are saying.
quote:
...and the upper stratum at Y might have been layed before the lower stratum at X.
But then you are not talking about time-equivalent units. You are conflating vertical position with relative time position. This is invalid. At any given instant in time, the bottom of a stream bed is a time-stratagraphic horizon. That horizon may be flat or it may be irregular. It doesn't matter. Anything deposited on top of that horizon, in the next instant in time, is demonstrably a younger deposit. I don't know how much clearer I can make this. You have swallowed a clever and deceitful lie by creationists that this somehow defies superposition. It does not! You are the first person I have tried to explain this to but just cannot comprehend this concept.
quote:
If you really knew the expereiments of Julien et al you could not say what you have said.
Want to put money on that?
quote:
From watching the layers form with my eyes it can be seen that the bedding planes between strata are not time-bound discontinuities as you seem to be assuming. The bed proceedes horizontally at the same time it proceedes vertically and it has to be seen to be believed. I still can't work out if that is what you agree with or not.
I had this phenomenon explained to me by a professor a long (we'll just leave at that) time ago. If you had a similar explanation in an actual classroom setting rather than a creationist propaganda show, you would no be so mystified by this process.
quote:
It is the fundamental mode of starta generation in non-zero flow. Your eons mode is very, very different.
Not really. The difference is that we have this happening millions of times with non-zero time in between events. As I have tried to get this across to you, this is not a mystery.
Now, if 'non-zero' flow is so dominant, as it would be in a flood of the type you propose, when are the silts and clays and limestones ever deposited? Tell us just what grain size Julien is dealing with. Where do the finer grained particles end up?
quote:
Both produce strata. The flow mode strata do not represent time units, except at fixed horizontal position, as much as they look like they do.
And what about the 'non-flow' mode strata? When are they deposited, and how long does it take for them to settle out of suspension? You have neatly avoided this substantial part of the geological record and looked only at sandstones. You also keep skirting the question on where the silts, muds and lime particles were deposited in Julien's experiments.
quote:
What you have ssen in the field cannot prepare you for these video results against glass planes alongside the flumes.
Sorry to rain on your parade, TB, but as I have mentioned repeatedly, this is not a mystery except to the layman.
quote:
Your time-bound discontinuities are apparent only. I found it hard to believe but you can see it with your eyes.
So, if I took a picture of the process in action, there would be no difference between the deposited grains and the grains in traction? Nonsense. Besides, you are talking about processes that occur instantaneously in specific environments to specific grain sizes and then applying them to the entire geological record. This is invalid.
quote:
It's really not clear if you are agreeing with me or not Edge. Do you realize that in the flume experiments a particular stratum proceededs horizontally (down stream) while other layers above have already formed on it up stream?
Yes, as I have mentioned above and in prior posts, I learned about this process a long time ago in learning about cross beds during my first geology course. This was obviously an opportunity that you have deprived yourself of. What you do not understand is that the stratum (in this case a lamination) is no longer horizontal during formation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-08-2002 3:31 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-08-2002 6:23 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 53 of 130 (25927)
12-08-2002 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by funkmasterfreaky
12-08-2002 12:42 AM


I don't really want to get too far off topic, but maybe one more post on this issue.
quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Wasn't what I was trying to do. You seem to have lost the whole point I was getting at in my original post.
Actually, I do understand and am a big proponent of divergent thinking. I just don't want you to get too carried away with the analogy.
quote:
Both imagination and the bore crew are needed in science. Neither is more important to the process. All imagination, then things get out of control. Too much of the bore crew and the continue along and never learn anything new.
The 'what crew?' I agree, if we never used our imaginations, we would still be prescientific. In fact, the adoption of evolutionary theory is an example. We have now moved ahead and use this theory as a premise for continuing research. If we listened to creationists, we would be wasting time trying to prove evolution to an absolute certainty, never making any more progress. We would still be trying to identify 'kinds' rather than unlocking the genome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-08-2002 12:42 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 130 (25950)
12-08-2002 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Tranquility Base
12-08-2002 3:53 AM


TB writes:
the transgressive innundaitons forming today create formations only dozens of feet deep
Poor reading skills again, TB. One of those TSTs I cited for you was 220m thick. This is a common occurrence in these threads, TB. You skim our carefully prepared posts to find what you want, then ignore the rest.
TB writes:
So it really seems that we are getting a mainstream consensus that some of the 300 foot Tapeats was laid at the same time that some of the 300 foot Mauv Limestone was laid down (with 300 foot of BA shale in between). I had no idea that the age of a Cambrian facies could vary by much of the total age of the Cambrian period (70 Million years).
The Sauk transgression lasted until the early to mid Ordovician, IIRC, so the eastern part of the Tonto might be that age. Again, it requires a profound lack of geological background to be unaware of the existence of time-transgressive formations.
TB writes:
Rather than indicating more time it actually indicates far less.
Nonsense. The flume experiments generated very thin laminations, not 1000 meter foresets. The exact opposite is true. Modern transgressions of short duration produce thin TSTs, long duration = thick TSTs. You have produced no data, field studies or theoretical explanations of how Julien's flume studies apply to anything other than the very specialized parameters he studied... extremely rounded grains, bimodal grains size distributions, laminar flow, flat bottoms, etc.
So far, we have a persistent pattern of obvious objections raised to the conjecture that the Tonto is Flood produced. With your limited background in gelogy, TB, you do have not the knowledge to address these problems, and I can understand your reluctance. But you could at least acknowledge that these problems exist, yet you continue to believe that your Creationist sources have discovered a huge gaping hole in the sciences of sedimentology and stratigraphy.
Look at Berthault's drawing again... you ignored my reference to the obvious hydraulic error, how about noticing the presumed current velocities?
Do you see the Muav being deposited in water moving at <.5m/s, and the BA Shale deposited at .5 m/s ?
That is wrong. If you look at the Hjulstrom diagram in your sedimentology text, you will see that .5 m/s is sufficient to transport 5mm pebbles. Silt and shale will not be deposited. The ironic thing is that Berthault's website has a poorly labeled Hjulstrom diagram as figure 12 (new-approach). If you look closely, you can see the bottom line showing the velocity at which a particluar grain size begins to be deposited. It shows small sand grains requiring less than 1 cm/sec for deposition. Yet Berthault's scenario requires these sands to be deposited at 50 cm/sec. Errors of this magnitude are a good explanation for how Creationists can delude the gullible. GIGO.
Berhault's entire thesis is a plausible sounding (to the less knowledgeable) collection of pseudo-science dressed up with references to actual science (like Julien's flume studies). Examining the details reveals how flimsy it is, just like Humphrey's zircon/helium paper. So far you have ignored all such examinations. Sometimes I wonder if you will even read this post all the way to the bottom... are you still paying attention?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-08-2002 3:53 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-08-2002 6:20 PM wehappyfew has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 130 (25960)
12-08-2002 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by wehappyfew
12-08-2002 3:26 PM


Wehappy
Yes I did read your entire post.
I am talking about transgressions that are happening today! Not your interpretatons of the past of what could actaully be flood deposits. Show me a beach today that is part of a continuous transgression/regression producing lithofacies like that of the Tonto.
The Sauk transgression lasted until the early to mid Ordovician, IIRC, so the eastern part of the Tonto might be that age. Again, it requires a profound lack of geological background to be unaware of the existence of time-transgressive formations.
I'e admitted it is news to me that you guys apply progradation to such huge beds. I had read it in the past but had thought it was applied to a small vertical component.
So all I'm pointing out is that we have a mechanism that is based on the dynamics of sedimentation under fast currents that produces non-isochronus strata by a different mechanism to that of slow inundation. The paleocurrents reveal constant rapid flow in much of the column and so we think your slow inundations were instead flood waters that dynamically sorted material.
Nonsense. The flume experiments generated very thin laminations, not 1000 meter foresets. The exact opposite is true. Modern transgressions of short duration produce thin TSTs, long duration = thick TSTs. You have produced no data, field studies or theoretical explanations of how Julien's flume studies apply to anything other than the very specialized parameters he studied... extremely rounded grains, bimodal grains size distributions, laminar flow, flat bottoms, etc.
Why should what is found in 100 foot long flumes not be applicable to layering in the field? You just don't like what it means. You don't like that we can explain it by the flood.
Do you see the Muav being deposited in water moving at <.5m/s, and the BA Shale deposited at .5 m/s ?
Last I checked 1 cm/s is < .5 m/s. And the BA shale does include pebbles.
You keep assuming that these guys have made huge dumb errors and I'll keep siding with the President of the French Academy of Sciences opinion of the work (see next post).
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by wehappyfew, posted 12-08-2002 3:26 PM wehappyfew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by wehappyfew, posted 12-08-2002 6:48 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 62 by wehappyfew, posted 12-08-2002 9:41 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 130 (25961)
12-08-2002 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by edge
12-08-2002 10:24 AM


Edge
I have done as much as I can to summarize Berthualt and Austin's viewpoint. You guys can read it from their own mouths on
http://www.geology.ref.ac/berthault/
and we can instead discuss what they are saying specifically. I'm reading it carefully over the next few days.
You can argue with the heads of the French Academy of Sciences too:
This is original work which calls into question some fundamental principles of stratigraphy. We live on old concepts in this domain, and the author’s examination of them by means of the experimental method gives great strength to his assertions.
Jean Piveteau, President of the Academy of Sciences (and also a paleontologist)
You can keep pretending that everything these guys are saying is 'old hat'. I'll side with the President of the French Academy of Sciences that they are on to something.
Georges Millot, Member of the Institute and President of the Geological Society of France, S.G.F. said:
I agree entirely with the essentials of your work and am working on formulating them in the most rigorous and clear way. My aim is to assist you in presenting your remarkable discovery, in such a way that the geological world can embrace them unhesitatingly.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by edge, posted 12-08-2002 10:24 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 12-08-2002 9:03 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 64 by edge, posted 12-09-2002 3:02 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 130 (25963)
12-08-2002 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Tranquility Base
12-08-2002 6:20 PM


TB writes:
Last I checked 1 cm/s is < .5 m/s. And the BA shale does include pebbles.
Again you ignored most of my carefully detailed argument. The part you responded to, you got wrong.
Berthault's page shows the BA Shale being deposited in water moving at 50 cm/sec, not 1 cm/sec. It shows the "fine to coarse sand" of the Tapeats being deposited at .5 to 1.5 m/sec. Using your Hjulstrom diagram, you should easily see that "fine sand" requires a maximum of .005 m/sec to .02 m/sec for deposition to occur, and "coarse sand" implies .05 to .2 m/sec.
The part you got wrong is still unanswered - BA shale and silt deposited at .5 m/sec (not LESS THAN .5 m/sec) according to Berthault, while Hjulstrom says those grain sizes need less than .005 m/sec.
Berthault's entire thesis seems to be based on mistaking .5 CM/sec (from Hjulstrom) for .5 METERS/sec.
Still no comment on Berthault's ridiculous hydraulics? Or Austin's west-to-east currents that require the sediments to move upcurrent back to the west?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-08-2002 6:20 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-08-2002 7:03 PM wehappyfew has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 130 (25968)
12-08-2002 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by wehappyfew
12-08-2002 6:48 PM


Wehappy
Wehappy writes:
Berthault's entire thesis seems to be based on mistaking .5 CM/sec (from Hjulstrom) for .5 METERS/sec.
You are clearly trying to repeat Joe's mistake with Humphrey's of thinking these guys are idiots. You can't just look at a diagram and think you know how it all works.
These guys are not idiots. See my post to Edge above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by wehappyfew, posted 12-08-2002 6:48 PM wehappyfew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by wehappyfew, posted 12-08-2002 7:32 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 130 (25975)
12-08-2002 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Tranquility Base
12-08-2002 7:03 PM


Your post to edge, being entirely an argument from authority, does nothing to correct my apparent misunderstanding of how Berthault can posit shale deposition at a current velocity of 50 cm/sec. Until you correct my understanding of sedimentology, I will continue to think that Hjulstrom's diagram shows Berthault's claims to be "idiotic".
Humphrey's work has been shown to be equally idiotic in another thread here (which you have not responded to, BTW), although not for the reason originally claimed by Joe and myself. We are not perfect. Feel free to demonstrate using facts and equations, rather than vague argument from French authorities, that Berthault's work does not belong in the idiotic category as well. So far you have avoided Hjulstrom like the plague. Are you afraid to even LOOK in your sedimentology text?
When YOU look at Hjulstrom's diagram, how do YOU think it works?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-08-2002 7:03 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 60 of 130 (25983)
12-08-2002 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Tranquility Base
12-08-2002 6:23 PM


TB writes:
You can argue with the heads of the French Academy of Sciences too:
This is original work which calls into question some fundamental principles of stratigraphy. We live on old concepts in this domain, and the author’s examination of them by means of the experimental method gives great strength to his assertions.
Jean Piveteau, President of the Academy of Sciences (and also a paleontologist)
I believe an argument with Mr. Piveteau would prove a bit one sided as he has been dead these past ten or eleven years. The above is just Berthault claiming Piveteau said this in personal correspondence.
Georges Millot, Member of the Institute and President of the Geological Society of France, S.G.F. said:
I agree entirely with the essentials of your work and am working on formulating them in the most rigorous and clear way. My aim is to assist you in presenting your remarkable discovery, in such a way that the geological world can embrace them unhesitatingly.
These two supposed letters must be at least ten years old. How come nothing has happened?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-08-2002 6:23 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-08-2002 9:26 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024