Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
0 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
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 130 (26959)
12-17-2002 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by edge
12-17-2002 12:09 AM


Why not post an excerpt from your 30 yo book?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by edge, posted 12-17-2002 12:09 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by edge, posted 12-17-2002 1:06 PM Tranquility Base has replied

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


Message 108 of 130 (27010)
12-17-2002 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Tranquility Base
12-17-2002 7:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Why not post an excerpt from your 30 yo book?
Actually, I think I have. But I will try to find it again soon. It is on the same pages as one of TC's quotes from Blatt and others. For some reason, TC didn't seem to read this part or paid it little heed because he found something to support his just-so story and dropped everything. It states something to the effect that we know sands can be deposited more rapidly than silts and muds. This has been known for a long time as I have seen pictures of trenches in sand deposited by storm surges.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-17-2002 7:53 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by TrueCreation, posted 12-17-2002 5:43 PM edge has replied
 Message 110 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-17-2002 5:54 PM edge has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 130 (27072)
12-17-2002 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by edge
12-17-2002 1:06 PM


"Actually, I think I have. But I will try to find it again soon. It is on the same pages as one of TC's quotes from Blatt and others. For some reason, TC didn't seem to read this part or paid it little heed because he found something to support his just-so story and dropped everything. It states something to the effect that we know sands can be deposited more rapidly than silts and muds. This has been known for a long time as I have seen pictures of trenches in sand deposited by storm surges."
--Oh really? Please cite this reference and the post where I made the quote or even a quote like it, I have no text authored by a 'Blatt'. Until then this is completely false.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by edge, posted 12-17-2002 1:06 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by edge, posted 12-17-2002 9:22 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 130 (27074)
12-17-2002 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by edge
12-17-2002 1:06 PM


Edge
I am the one who has read Blatt et al.
I am still intereseted in the quote if you can find it but yor summary of it does in no way detract from the novelty of Bertahult and Julien's work! You are incredibly biased Edge. Their work shows step by step the mechanisms of sorting by which layers of differnet compositons can be simultaneously and rapidly laid down under varied regimes of particle size and currents.
You are like the party poopers at the departmental coffee table where you tell them about a new paper and they say
'Oh but that's been known for years'.
And then I say: 'Funny how it got into PNAS this week then isn't it?'
They say 'Oh?'.
And I say, 'Maybe their work significantly added to the field'?
Then they don't say anything.
It's nothing short of jealosy.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by edge, posted 12-17-2002 1:06 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by edge, posted 12-17-2002 9:45 PM Tranquility Base has replied

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


Message 111 of 130 (27113)
12-17-2002 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by TrueCreation
12-17-2002 5:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Actually, I think I have. But I will try to find it again soon. It is on the same pages as one of TC's quotes from Blatt and others. For some reason, TC didn't seem to read this part or paid it little heed because he found something to support his just-so story and dropped everything. It states something to the effect that we know sands can be deposited more rapidly than silts and muds. This has been known for a long time as I have seen pictures of trenches in sand deposited by storm surges."
--Oh really? Please cite this reference and the post where I made the quote or even a quote like it, I have no text authored by a 'Blatt'. Until then this is completely false.
Sheesh! A little bit of a chip on the shoulder here? I was pretty sure it was you, but I guess it was TB. After all, you both have the same stubborn streak with a liberal delusion of grandeur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by TrueCreation, posted 12-17-2002 5:43 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by TrueCreation, posted 12-18-2002 12:52 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 112 of 130 (27114)
12-17-2002 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Tranquility Base
12-17-2002 5:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I am the one who has read Blatt et al.
I am still intereseted in the quote if you can find it but yor summary of it does in no way detract from the novelty of Bertahult and Julien's work!
Well it isn't going to say that exactly. It just points out that some deposits occur rapidly. Since it doesn't say exactly what you need to hear, I will not post it. I should know better than to deal with absolutists on things like this. It starts out saying, "Some strata must have been deposited very rapidly..."
quote:
You are incredibly biased Edge. Their work shows step by step the mechanisms of sorting by which layers of differnet compositons can be simultaneously and rapidly laid down under varied regimes of particle size and currents.
There is nothing really new here. If it was so ground breaking, Berthault would be cited in every publication and textbook about sedimentation. Nothing biased about it. Just a fact.
quote:
You are like the party poopers at the departmental coffee table where you tell them about a new paper and they say
'Oh but that's been known for years'.
And then I say: 'Funny how it got into PNAS this week then isn't it?'
They say 'Oh?'.
And I say, 'Maybe their work significantly added to the field'?
Then they don't say anything.
It's nothing short of jealosy.
Or amusement. Actually, there are a lot of publications that don't really break ground. They simply rehash old experiments or data. In fact, have one like that... old stuff, but it got some press.
[This message has been edited by edge, 12-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-17-2002 5:54 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-17-2002 11:19 PM edge has not replied
 Message 115 by TrueCreation, posted 12-18-2002 12:56 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 130 (27119)
12-17-2002 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by edge
12-17-2002 9:45 PM


^ I'm sorry I'm not as cynical about mainstream publication as you. There are too many papers and journals but PNAS is not one I would be removing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by edge, posted 12-17-2002 9:45 PM edge has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 130 (27220)
12-18-2002 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by edge
12-17-2002 9:22 PM


"Sheesh! A little bit of a chip on the shoulder here? I was pretty sure it was you, but I guess it was TB. After all, you both have the same stubborn streak with a liberal delusion of grandeur.
"
--Well you have made this exact mistake quite a few times now edge. I wasn't actually very vitriolic in my response, just stated that it was false. Also, it isn't very sufficient to display your thoughts [pertaining to the 'you both have the same stubborn streak with a liberal delusion of grandeur'] when it is only supported by what is (unbeknownst to the world) in your mind.
--Don't you think scientists get upset when their work is misquoted?
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by edge, posted 12-17-2002 9:22 PM edge has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 130 (27221)
12-18-2002 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by edge
12-17-2002 9:45 PM


"There is nothing really new here. If it was so ground breaking, Berthault would be cited in every publication and textbook about sedimentation. Nothing biased about it. Just a fact."
--I would expect there is isotopic analysis of the formation and its inclusions. I don't think that even if Berthault is right on the ability to rapidly deposit such strata that it would be excepted by the mainstream.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by edge, posted 12-17-2002 9:45 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by edge, posted 12-18-2002 11:39 PM TrueCreation has replied

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


Message 116 of 130 (27299)
12-18-2002 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by TrueCreation
12-18-2002 12:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"There is nothing really new here. If it was so ground breaking, Berthault would be cited in every publication and textbook about sedimentation. Nothing biased about it. Just a fact."
--I would expect there is isotopic analysis of the formation and its inclusions. I don't think that even if Berthault is right on the ability to rapidly deposit such strata that it would be excepted by the mainstream.

What? What formation? Why would there be an isotopic analysis of it?
Actually, we do except Berthault's experiment. It works for some sandstone, except it is not universally applicable.
And no, we categorically do accept rapid sedimentation. Just not in EVERY case. You have been told this repeatedly by several of us. I think you are well into the 'willful ignorance' category at this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by TrueCreation, posted 12-18-2002 12:56 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by TrueCreation, posted 12-19-2002 2:13 PM edge has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 130 (27385)
12-19-2002 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by edge
12-18-2002 11:39 PM


"What? What formation? Why would there be an isotopic analysis of it?"
--The Tonto group. I have no specific reason, though it is a very large slab of the geologic column and I simply stated that it is likely that it has been subject to some dating work.
"Actually, we do except Berthault's experiment. It works for some sandstone, except it is not universally applicable.
And no, we categorically do accept rapid sedimentation. Just not in EVERY case. You have been told this repeatedly by several of us. I think you are well into the 'willful ignorance' category at this point."
--Your still confusing me and TB(or at least your thoughts on TB).. I never argued against anything. I understand that Berthault's experiments are accepted on small isolated scales. That it wouldn't be 'universally applicable' is exactly what I was getting at. We disagree on nothing here and you've accused me of willful ignorance?
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by edge, posted 12-18-2002 11:39 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by edge, posted 12-19-2002 9:09 PM TrueCreation has replied

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


Message 118 of 130 (27420)
12-19-2002 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by TrueCreation
12-19-2002 2:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Your still confusing me and TB(or at least your thoughts on TB).. I never argued against anything. I understand that Berthault's experiments are accepted on small isolated scales. That it wouldn't be 'universally applicable' is exactly what I was getting at. We disagree on nothing here and you've accused me of willful ignorance?
Maybe your statement,
quote:
I don't think that even if Berthault is right on the ability to rapidly deposit such strata that it would be excepted by the mainstream.
wasn't very clear. Perhaps if you didn't abuse the word 'accepted', it might help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by TrueCreation, posted 12-19-2002 2:13 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by TrueCreation, posted 12-19-2002 10:46 PM edge has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 130 (27432)
12-19-2002 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by edge
12-19-2002 9:09 PM


"wasn't very clear. Perhaps if you didn't abuse the word 'accepted', it might help."
--Not really, I think it was that 'such strata' segment which would need the clarification if anything because I made my statement in reference to the Tonto group.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by edge, posted 12-19-2002 9:09 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-20-2002 12:54 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 130 (27448)
12-20-2002 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by TrueCreation
12-19-2002 10:46 PM


Hey, TC, do you realize that you use 'excepted' when you mean 'accepted'? That's what Edge is talking about and I have to agree that you seem to be competing with Brad in lack of clarity on occasions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by TrueCreation, posted 12-19-2002 10:46 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2002 10:55 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1955 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 121 of 130 (27472)
12-20-2002 10:15 AM


I'm a little late in the discussion here, but just a quick question - did Berthault's (sp?) demonstrate that this layering can produce cyclical laminae?
Here is what I mean.
Each number represents a type of material. Were the sediments like this:
1
2
3
4
or like this:
1
2
1
2
1
2
?
just curious.

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by derwood, posted 12-22-2002 5:07 PM derwood has not replied
 Message 127 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-22-2002 5:21 PM derwood 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