Science/Technology

[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]


  


4799


Date: February 26, 2014 at 17:15:57
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: a proposed "Kossmat effect" (the scientific strawman)



setting up a straw man and knocking it down

"The so called typical 'attacking a straw man' implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., 'stand up a straw man') and then to refute or defeat that false argument, ('knock down a straw man,') instead of the original proposition."

reaction to Wegener's "continental drift" theory

"In his work, Wegener presented a large amount of observational evidence in support of continental drift, but the mechanism remained elusive. While his ideas attracted a few early supporters such as Alexander Du Toit from South Africa and Arthur Holmes in England ... the hypothesis was initially met with skepticism from geologists who viewed Wegener as an outsider, and were resistant to change. ... The opponents argued, as did the Leipziger geologist Franz Kossmat, that the oceanic crust was too firm for the continents to 'simply plough through.'"

I find no record in the literature available on-line where Alfred Wegener ever suggested that, "The continents 'simply plough through' the oceanic crust." By making the statement, Kossmat implies that it was made by Wegener and represents Wegener's theory, but the suggestion made by Kossmat is a straw man and a canard of the most vicious kind. In truth, Wegener could not provide a mechanism for continental drift, though, at one time, he had considered the idea of sea-floor spreading.

"From 1912, Wegener publicly advocated the existence of 'continental drift,' arguing that all the continents were once joined together in a single landmass and have drifted apart. ... Wegener also speculated on sea-floor spreading and the role of the mid-ocean ridges, stating: '... the Mid-Atlantic Ridge ... zone in which the floor of the Atlantic, as it keeps spreading, is continuously tearing open and making space for fresh, relatively fluid and hot sima [rising] from depth.' However, he did not pursue these ideas in his later works."



Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only be reached by combing all this evidence. ... It is only by combing the information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to determine "truth" here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore has the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw.
-- Alfred Wegener, The Origin of Continents and Oceans


Responses:
[4818] [4819] [4821] [4822] [4810] [4802] [4803] [4804] [4807] [4813] [4816] [4820] [4837] [4838] [4824] [4825] [4829] [4832] [4833] [4828] [4831] [4836] [4834] [4835] [4823] [4806] [4812] [4809] [4815] [4817] [4808] [4805]


4818


Date: February 28, 2014 at 11:16:08
From: Moho, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a proposed "Kossmat effect" (the scientific strawman)

URL: http://earthboppin.net/talkshop/science/messages/4407.html


Back in November (see link) I provided a citation that refutes your contention. I quote:

No "straw man". Wegener wrote:
“… it seems an inevitable deduction that we are dealing with two different layers in the crust when we refer to the continents and the oceans. To put it in rather picturesque terms, the two layers behave like open water and large ice floes.”

Reference:
Wegener, Alfred, The origin of continents and oceans, translated from the 4th revised German edition by John Biram, Dover Publications, New York, 1966, p. 37.


Your comment that "I find no record in the literature available on-line..." is somewhat disingenuous. Even though I found a copy in a nearby university library, a simple Google search reveals that the book is available on-line at
http://books.google.com/books?id=xogEaAfvsnsC&pg=PR1&lpg=PR1&dq=Wegener,+Alfred,+The+origin+of+continents+and+oceans,+translated+from+the+4th+revised+German+edition+by+John+Biram,+Dover+Publications,+New+York,+1966&source=bl&ots=i3BmOujy4c&sig=CR6AOnzzhKR-5_bZqAVX-Gzu9YE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Fd8QU6SAGYjooASQ9oIg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Wegener%2C%20Alfred%2C%20The%20origin%20of%20continents%20and%20oceans%2C%20translated%20from%20the%204th%20revised%20German%20edition%20by%20John%20Biram%2C%20Dover%20Publications%2C%20New%20York%2C%201966&f=false


Responses:
[4819] [4821] [4822]


4819


Date: February 28, 2014 at 11:20:50
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: don't see "The continents 'simply plough through' the oceanic crust."


thus you perpetuate the canard


Responses:
[4821] [4822]


4821


Date: February 28, 2014 at 16:18:56
From: Moho, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: don't see "The continents 'simply plough through' the...


You are fixating on an imperfect metaphor in order to obscure the actual scientific debate between Wegener and his detractors. At the center of the debate was the dynamics of continental drift. Wegener's detractors claimed (incorrectly, as it turned out) that there was not enough internal energy within the Earth to generate the forces necessary to move the continents around. Wegener countered (also incorrectly) that the forces needed were not as great as those demanded by his detractors. Hence the comment that "in rather picturesque terms [ie., getting back to the metaphor], the two layers behave like open water and large ice floes." Which, dynamicaly and metaphoricaly speaking, is pretty much the same as "the continents 'simply plough through' the oceanic crust". Wegener may or may not have said the latter, but he most certainly said the former.


Responses:
[4822]


4822


Date: February 28, 2014 at 17:27:54
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: you can exchange notes with Kossmat when you see him (NT)


(NT)


Responses:
None


4810


Date: February 28, 2014 at 05:52:30
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the fact is that Harry Hess himself "bought" the "Kossmat effect"

URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=2kwpSOMctlEC&pg=PA158&lpg=PA158&dq=Harry+Hess+quotation+continents+plough+through+crust&source=bl&ots=iW-PyeKU7n&sig=6l_qXP7pDVAl_HCt3GlIiZTgGk4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WZIQU82PLKfv0gHkrIGIAg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Harry%20Hess%


in that he repeated the very straw man words that Kossmat et alia had erected to mis-characterize Wegener's theory

"... Hess (1962,609) takes pains to make clear: 'The continents do not plow through the oceanic crust impelled by unknown forces ...'"

the lesson here is powerful ... once the establishment in any field decides to tar you with their straw man brush ... no amount of washing can make you clean in the minds of those who want to believe the lies made up about you

such is the power of an entrenched and powerful academia that even "Saint Harry" was infected by the virulent disease


Responses:
None


4802


Date: February 27, 2014 at 14:16:55
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a proposed "Kossmat effect" (the scientific strawman)


Hi HG,

Interesting post. But I am curious about curious about your thoughts on the quote at the end.

Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only be reached by combing all this evidence. ... It is only by combing the information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to determine "truth" here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore has the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw.
-- Alfred Wegener, The Origin of Continents and Oceans


Do you agree that the only way to find truth is to look at all the Earth sciences? I ask because looking at the variety of Earth sciences shows Velikovsky style catastrophism is impossible.

For example ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica shows Velikovsky's catastrophe's just a few thousand years ago didn't happen. There is no sign of the sudden temperature changes or any sign of the dust from Venus or Mars.

How do you reconcile such evidence with your belief in Velikovsky's catastrophes while advocating Alfred Wegener's view that evidence from all Earth science must be considered?

Cheers

Jim


Responses:
[4803] [4804] [4807] [4813] [4816] [4820] [4837] [4838] [4824] [4825] [4829] [4832] [4833] [4828] [4831] [4836] [4834] [4835] [4823] [4806] [4812] [4809] [4815] [4817] [4808] [4805]


4803


Date: February 27, 2014 at 16:17:02
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the ice cores prove nothing


it's clear that you don't understand anything about "World in Collision" ... otherwise you wouldn't make such uninformed comments ... read the book and then we might have some basis for conversation ... otherwise you just waste your time and mine


Responses:
[4804] [4807] [4813] [4816] [4820] [4837] [4838] [4824] [4825] [4829] [4832] [4833] [4828] [4831] [4836] [4834] [4835] [4823] [4806] [4812] [4809] [4815] [4817] [4808] [4805]


4804


Date: February 27, 2014 at 23:23:15
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the ice cores show Velikovsky style catastrophism never happened


Hi HG,


> it's clear that you don't understand anything about "World in Collision" ... otherwise you wouldn't make
> such uninformed comments ... read the book and then we might have some basis for conversation ... otherwise
> you just waste your time and mine

Well that's a problem as I first read Worlds in Collision more than 30 years ago and have reread it since. The ice cores are a major problem for Velikovsky style catastrophims as they show the global castrophes Velikovsky writes about never happened.

You see that's the problem with speaking out about scientific mavericks such as Alfred Wegener. While his theories were against the mainstream in the beginning he eventually was shown to be correct based on the evidence... and as he put it combining evidence from all the Earth sciences.

Yet as a Velikovsky supporter you have to speak out against such evidence as the evidence shows Velikovsky was completely wrong on global catastrophes happening in the past few thousand years. As a Velikovsky supporter you have to speak out against evidence from all the Earth sciences which is the opposite of a true maverick such as Alfren Wegener.

I see this as a good illustration of the difference between a scientific maverick and a pseudoscience poser. The maverick welcomes ALL the evidence while the dogmatic supporters of an old pseudoscientist have to speak out against actual evidence as it obviously won't support the lame fiction of the poser.

Cheers

Jim


Responses:
[4807] [4813] [4816] [4820] [4837] [4838] [4824] [4825] [4829] [4832] [4833] [4828] [4831] [4836] [4834] [4835] [4823] [4806] [4812] [4809] [4815] [4817] [4808] [4805]


4807


Date: February 28, 2014 at 05:21:20
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: in order for material to be found in ice cores ...

URL: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/in-situ


the material must remain "in situ" ... but ... if that's not the case ... then of course there will be no material found in the ice cores

the problem with you seems to be that you can't seem to conceive of all the possibilities involved in such a planetary close encounter

it seems to be that you read something somewhere ... and that's it ... case closed

but ... if your brain is "stunted" ... i can't help you ... you'll just have to "make do" with your limited perceptions

"... in situ ... in its original place ..."


Responses:
[4813] [4816] [4820] [4837] [4838] [4824] [4825] [4829] [4832] [4833] [4828] [4831] [4836] [4834] [4835] [4823]


4813


Date: February 28, 2014 at 07:44:39
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: in order for material to be found in ice cores ...


Hi HG,

> the material must remain "in situ" ... but ... if that's not the case ... then of course there will be no
> material found in the ice cores

The important thing is there is great consistency between the ice cores taken from multiple locations in Greenland and Antarctica. These records show temperature change as well as volcanic eruptions dating back thousands of years. One example is the Mt. Toba eruption from 74,000 years ago which is seen in ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica.

Scientists have also found an increase in platinum from ice cores in Greenland dating from 12,900 years ago matching the timing of the Younger Dryas and the possible North American comet impact.

> the problem with you seems to be that you can't seem to conceive of all the possibilities involved in such
> a planetary close encounter

No, the problem is there is zero evidence for Velikovsky style planetary close encounters. Greenland ice cores date back at least 150,000 years and Antarctica ice cores date back almost a million years. Yet there is no evidence of the red dust from Mars that supposedly turned everything red.

You like to speak about these scientific mavericks such as Alfred Wegener but then want to ignore the scientific principles that allowed them to prevail and their ideas to gain wide acceptance. The fact that people such as Wegener prevailed despite initial resistance from the scientific community shows that the scientific process works. The same process shows the ideas of pseudo-scientist Velikovsky never happened.

You fail to support your pseudoscience favorites by comparing them to real scientists while ignoring the wealth of evidence showing Velikovsky was wrong.

Cheers

Jim



Responses:
[4816] [4820] [4837] [4838] [4824] [4825] [4829] [4832] [4833] [4828] [4831] [4836] [4834] [4835] [4823]


4816


Date: February 28, 2014 at 09:40:16
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: i won't waste time on you if you can't follow simple logic (NT)


(NT)


Responses:
[4820] [4837] [4838] [4824] [4825] [4829] [4832] [4833] [4828] [4831] [4836] [4834] [4835] [4823]


4820


Date: February 28, 2014 at 11:44:33
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Logic? You?


Hi HG,

> i won't waste time on you if you can't follow simple logic

You know it would be much more graceful to just admit you are wrong when the evidence doesn't support you. Saying stupid things like this is rather lame.

Cheers

Jim


Responses:
[4837] [4838] [4824] [4825] [4829] [4832] [4833] [4828] [4831] [4836] [4834] [4835] [4823]


4837


Date: March 02, 2014 at 09:48:37
From: mr bopp, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Logic? You?


Saying stupid things like this is rather lame.


Responses:
[4838]


4838


Date: March 02, 2014 at 13:51:10
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Exactly!(NT)


(NT)


Responses:
None


4824


Date: February 28, 2014 at 17:38:43
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: read again what i wrote regarding "in situ" placement of material


the material deposited on a surface of the ice must remain "in situ" to be incorporated into the ice ... but ... if that's not the case ... then of course there will be no material found in the ice cores

repeating over and over again that a particular dust is not found in the ice cores proves nothing if some agent ... such as a moving mass of water ... swept the dust from off the surface of the ice

in order to think logically about a problem ... one must consider all the possibilities ... you've chosen the one possibility that suits your bias ... and have not considered any other possibility ... therefore both your logic and your thinking are faulty


Responses:
[4825] [4829] [4832] [4833] [4828] [4831] [4836] [4834] [4835]


4825


Date: February 28, 2014 at 18:46:29
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: sure, but it's not relevant

URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core


Hi HG,

Your "in situ" argument doesn't make sense. Perhaps you would care to elaborate?

And perhaps you should read up on ice cores. These are studied layer by layer and can be dated precisely by known events such as volcanic eruptions that leave traces. For some reason your "in situ" position seems to be these great catastrophes occurred and then all traces were miraculously removed from ice cores all over the world. Not only Greenland and Antarctica but mountain glacier ice cores from Alaska, China and Chile date back several thousand years which would capture signs of these great catastrophes. These ice cores record global events such as volcanoes, meteor impacts and changes in climate as well as the composition of the atmosphere.

Cheers

Jim


Responses:
[4829] [4832] [4833] [4828] [4831] [4836] [4834] [4835]


4829


Date: March 01, 2014 at 11:50:50
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: see post "waters standing 'as a heap ... above the mountains'"

URL: http://www.earthboppin.net/talkshop/cbibrel/messages/9331.html


see the link for what Holy Scripture says about the "close approach" event ... which by the way ... Velikovsky quoted ... as he did many more correlative passages from other cultures which speak of the same catastrophic event

but ... which you ... in your blind and arrogant ignorance ... have chosen to dismiss as "comparative mythology"

why not label the correlation of the written and oral records as "coincidence" and really give us a laugh?


Responses:
[4832] [4833]


4832


Date: March 01, 2014 at 13:15:58
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: This is about evidence


Hi HG,

This is about evidence. Remember Alfred Wegener? His ideas were not accepted by the scientific community and as you quoted Wegener advocated looking at evidence from all Earth sciences. And looking at all the evidence from all areas of science his ideas held up and were accepted because the case was strong.

Velikovsky catastrophism is literally the opposite. Instead of openly looking at all the evidence from all the Earth sciences you are forced to dogmatically believe the words of Velikovsky and ignore the evidence. You come up with silly ass reasons for every trace of Velikovsky's catastrophism detected in Earth sciences all over the planet.

This is why you don't help yourself in bringing up scientific mavericks such as Alfred Wegener who openly advocated for the evidence he felt would support his theories. Velikovsky was a pseudoscientist and as with all pseudoscience his dogmatic followers have to run from the evidence they know won't support them.

Cheers

Jim


Responses:
[4833]


4833


Date: March 01, 2014 at 16:12:10
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: jeers to you ... believe what you want and i'll do the same


just don't expect me to respond to your posts


Responses:
None


4828


Date: March 01, 2014 at 11:24:54
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: your self-righteous insistentence is irrational

URL: http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/wtr_mtn.htm


again ... you cannot seem to think for yourself ... and you cannot seem to see beyond what establishment science has told you is possible

i ascribe no miraculous agent for such a catastrophic event ... it's physics in action ... it's what would result from a close encounter with another planetary body

the exchange of charge ... as plasma ... between the two planetary bodies would draw available water from one planetary body to the other ... and once the charge states of both bodies reached equilibrium ... the water columns following the two Birkeland current would collapse and the waters and wash over the earth

by the way ... you can do this at home with a full glass of water and a statically charged rod ... the water will "mount up" and follow the charge toward the rod


Responses:
[4831] [4836] [4834] [4835]


4831


Date: March 01, 2014 at 13:03:33
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: this is about science and evidence and not fairy tales


Hi HG,


> i ascribe no miraculous agent for such a catastrophic event ... it's physics in action ... it's
> what would result from a close encounter with another planetary body

Ahhh.... this ought to be good.

> the exchange of charge ... as plasma ... between the two planetary bodies would draw available water from
> one planetary body to the other ... and once the charge states of both bodies reached equilibrium ...
> the water columns following the two Birkeland current would collapse and the waters and wash over the earth

Well that's one of the dumber things you've ever said.

So you think these massive never before seen planetary charges caused water from Earth to rise up to Venus and then Mars during their encounters... and when it stopped the back wash cleaned the Earth squeaky clean without leaving any sign of the catastrophes or the flooding that miraculously cleaned every sign from every spot on Earth?

OK HG... you are neither intelligent nor well grounded but even you can't believe that whopper. Velikovsky's catastrophe's should have left signs of petroleum or meteoritic dust that were supposed to fall on Earth in huge amounts. No sign of the manna that shrouded the planet in darkness for 40 years as it fell, feeding the Israelites, no layer of soot from worldwide catastrophes. No sulfates such as would be produced from the simultaneous eruption of thousands of volcanoes, no sign of any exchange of atmospheres with other planets in bubbles of ancient air trapped in the ice, no layer of salty, bubble-free ice from a giant wave.

And this isn't even about a single event as Velikovsky's tale is of a series of catastrophic events of a period of a couple of thousand years. Yet ice cores show volcanic eruptions and climate in great detail from the period these encounters are claimed to have happened without a single sign of Velikovsky's fair tale.

Cheers

Jim



Responses:
[4836] [4834] [4835]


4836


Date: March 02, 2014 at 09:30:03
From: mr bopp, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: this is about science and evidence and not fairy tales


tick tick tick...


Responses:
None


4834


Date: March 01, 2014 at 16:14:20
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: you ride your ice core hobby horse into the sunset


i'll not try to communicate with you further


Responses:
[4835]


4835


Date: March 01, 2014 at 17:30:16
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Your surrender is accepted!


Hi HG,

> you ride your ice core hobby horse into the sunset

Sure, your surrender is accepted.

Just remember that praising those who had difficultly in being accepted by the scientific community such as Alfred Wegener doesn't help the case for the pseudo-scientific crap you cherish. Wegener's ideas were accepted only based on the evidence... something the pseudoscience crowd needs to avoid since it shows how baseless their ideas really are.

Velikovsky supporters in particular are typically careful to avoid any scientific evidence from most any field of science over the last 100 years as it isn't consistent with their beliefs. I believe they call that dogma and since you are so fond of definitions:

dogma : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted

As you've demonstrated with the case of Alfred Wegener science changes as new evidence is brought to light. Velikovsky style catastrophism is dogma in that regardless of multiple lines of evidence in virtually every field of science supporters such as yourself dogmatically cling to belief never willing to change or be open to consider the evidence if it isn't in your favor. And it never is.

Cheers

Jim


Responses:
None


4823


Date: February 28, 2014 at 17:30:11
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: it would be logical for you to follow the line of reasoning


for my exposition on the term "in situ" ... but ... apparently you are incapable of understand the concept


Responses:
None


4806


Date: February 28, 2014 at 05:16:40
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the ice cores show Velikovsky style catastrophism never happened


Jim;

You're right.

They also disprove Noah's flood.

Roger


Responses:
[4812] [4809] [4815] [4817] [4808]


4812


Date: February 28, 2014 at 07:02:46
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the ice cores show Velikovsky style catastrophism never happened


Hi Roger,

> You're right.

> They also disprove Noah's flood.

Very true. But HG doesn't want to hear that. He likes to preach about people such as Alfred Wegener who prevailed despite their ideas not being initially accepted by mainstream science. Yet then he wants to cover his ears when concepts such as Wegener's view of considering all the evidence show how wrong his pseudoscience favorites are.

He just doesn't want to consider that those who prevailed despite their ideas not being accepted by the scientific community did so based on scientific principles.

Cheers

Jim


Responses:
None


4809


Date: February 28, 2014 at 05:36:25
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: also ... please explain how "they ... disprove Noah's flood"

URL: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/in-situ


astound us with your powers of reason and your encyclopaedic grasp of the subject ... but ... while you're at it ... remember those two words "in situ" ... they are very important because the ABSCENCE of something in an ice core does not prove it was never there ... just like the PRESENCE of something in an ice core does prove that it remained "in situ"

"... in situ ... in its original place ..."


Responses:
[4815] [4817]


4815


Date: February 28, 2014 at 08:58:38
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: also ... please explain how "they ... disprove Noah's...


The ice cores go back 600,000 years or more.

A global flood would have floated the ice off or melted
it or both.

Roger


Responses:
[4817]


4817


Date: February 28, 2014 at 09:41:30
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: another unsubstantiated assertion ... where's the proof? (NT)


(NT)


Responses:
None


4808


Date: February 28, 2014 at 05:27:07
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: no ... he's not "right" ... not by any measure of proof


it's just one more instance of faulty logic on his part ... and yours also if you agree with him ... dust and detritus will not be found in ice cores if some agent moved that material to some other location


Responses:
None


4805


Date: February 28, 2014 at 05:08:01
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: you may have read it but you surely didn't understand it (NT)


(NT)


Responses:
None


[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]

Generated by: TalkRec 1.17
    Last Updated: 30-Aug-2013 14:32:46, 80837 Bytes
    Author: Brian Steele