Science

[aharvey]

Originally posted by bob b

I am agnostic regarding global reversals since there are no truly simultaneous data which would document their reality beyond question.

Interesting standard!

Originally posted by bob b

Rock measurements cannot do this because of the difference in presumed timescales, i.e. reversals are said to be possible every 7000 years and dating of rocks is not precise enough to support the simultaneity of samples from around the world. Thus, it is still possible that what is being called global reversals are actually local reversals that are occurring at different times and locations.

Yes, that would explain their symmetry on either side of a spreading zone , wouldn't it? But do us clueless ones a favor and explain how. Keep in mind that spreading zones tend to be very long, very thin, and not necessarily very straight.

 

[bob b]

Originally posted by aharvey
Yes, that would explain their symmetry on either side of a spreading zone , wouldn't it? But do us clueless ones a favor and explain how. Keep in mind that spreading zones tend to be very long, very thin, and not necessarily very straight.

I have seen the measurements from the MidAtlantic Ridge and it doesn't look to me to be too promising for the long ages theory. I would say it favors local magnetic disturbances and rapid motion.

Of course nobody would dare suggest a process in a grant proposal or PhD thesis.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by bob b

I have seen the measurements from the MidAtlantic Ridge and it doesn't look to me to be too promising for the long ages theory. I would say it favors local magnetic disturbances and rapid motion.

Talk about a weak appeal to authority (your own, of course!)! Since you a priori know that the world is young, I can't pretend to be shocked that you wouldn't see support for long ages anywhere, including magnetic striping patterns! It's impossible for you to see that evidence could support long ages, or deep common ancestry. But that's not what I'm inquiring about, so let me try again. Magnetic striping patterns are symmetrical on either side of spreading zones pretty much anywhere in the world. Spreading zones, kinda by definition, are long and thin, and don't move in uninterrupted straight lines. So how is this symmetry, sustained over such long and winding distances, explainable as a local phenomenon? Does the "local disturbance" actually track the spreading zone for hundreds, even thousands of miles? Perhaps the spreading zone itself, or its mysterious inhabitants, is the cause of the magnetic disturbance. Or by "local" do you mean "up to half the planet or more"?

Originally posted by bob b

Of course nobody would dare suggest a process in a grant proposal or PhD thesis.

And of course this is because we're all cowards, afraid to suggest the obvious, not because there is no obvious process to suggest, right?

 

[bob b]

Originally posted by aharvey

Talk about a weak appeal to authority (your own, of course!)! Since you a priori know that the world is young, I can't pretend to be shocked that you wouldn't see support for long ages anywhere, including magnetic striping patterns! It's impossible for you to see that evidence could support long ages, or deep common ancestry. But that's not what I'm inquiring about, so let me try again. Magnetic striping patterns are symmetrical on either side of spreading zones pretty much anywhere in the world. Spreading zones, kinda by definition, are long and thin, and don't move in uninterrupted straight lines. So how is this symmetry, sustained over such long and winding distances, explainable as a local phenomenon? Does the "local disturbance" actually track the spreading zone for hundreds, even thousands of miles? Perhaps the spreading zone itself, or its mysterious inhabitants, is the cause of the magnetic disturbance. Or by "local" do you mean "up to half the planet or more"?

In the case cited by Coe the disturbances were perhaps hundreds of miles in extent if not more, but certainly not global. That is the only data point I have.

And of course this is because we're all cowards, afraid to suggest the obvious, not because there is no obvious process to suggest, right?

You have objected to me suggesting motivations.

In my own case I have always lived under a curse of foreseeing technical outcomes that appear to me to be obvious, but apparently not obvious to others.

At my retirement dinner my boss of many years mentioned two things: [1] He said that I was the smartest person he had ever known, and [2] I was also the most frustrating person he had ever known because I would state my opinion about a proposed project and say that the outcome would "obviously" be so-and-so.

Since nobody else could see it, a many month project was undertaken to scientifically determine the answer.

The frustrating part for him was that after expending all that time and effort the results, in his recollection, had always validated my off the cuff initial assessment, which I had always accompanied by "it's obvious".

Although this may sound like boasting to many, I really do not completely understand why some things seem obvious to me, and why they don't seem obvious to others. I also do not completely understand why almost always (if not always) it has turned out that the "obvious" has turned out to be correct.

I really can not remember when it wasn't, but will admit that this could well be a quirk of selective memory on my part.

 

[noguru]

Originally posted by bob b

In my own case I have always lived under a curse of foreseeing technical outcomes that appear to me to be obvious, but apparently not obvious to others.

I can certainly relate to that. Wisdom and perceptiveness are often a double edged sword.

Originally posted by bob b
At my retirement dinner my boss of many years mentioned two things: [1] He said that I was the smartest person he had ever known, and [2] I was also the most frustrating person he had ever known because I would state my opinion about a proposed project and say that the outcome would "obviously" be so-and-so.

Since nobody else could see it, a many month project was undertaken to scientifically determine the answer.

The frustrating part for him was that after expending all that time and effort the results, in his recollection, had always validated my off the cuff initial assessment, which I had always accompanied by "it's obvious".

Ah yes, the prodecures that professionals must take to obtain a hard copy verification of ideas are often quite frustrating. In my profession we call the result of such research "documentation". We use it so the less astute can visualize these brilliant concepts. And so that those who follow do not have to cover the same ground. Just imagine what your profession would be like now, if all your knowledge and experience were only in your head.

Perhaps you should have just dictated your "obvious" conclusions to a typist. So that it could have served as documentation.

Personally, I don't see how they can make it without you.

Originally posted by bob b

Although this may sound like boasting to many, I really do not completely understand why some things seem obvious to me, and why they don't seem obvious to others. I also do not completely understand why almost always (if not always) it has turned out that the "obvious" has turned out to be correct.

I wouldn't call it boasting. It just means that you are not as astute as you believe. Since in your own you words, you say you "do not completely understand", I am left with an obvious conclusion. You do not have a good grasp of this normal part of life. But don't fret Bob. Most if not all of us are not completely competent in all aspects of life. That is why we often need to consult others.

Originally posted by bob b
I really can not remember when it wasn't, but will admit that this could well be a quirk of selective memory on my part.

I agree. In my experience you do have a very selective memory. :thumb:

"They say every man can be replaced"

Bob Dylan