Re: Geology Question (KRS related)


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:v8oau1pcvseje07rqaqjt3qjjr2a18helk@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 19:54:44 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:



"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gv4au1pb98q997fv8v0o2rct17if7l6sc3@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 09:40:33 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Perhaps so. Yet in the case of the tombstone/KRS comparison, is there
any
data regarding the thickness of the biotite "***(s) of one versus
the
other? If so, I was unable to find it in the book. I imagine because
it
is
impossible to know what the thickness of the biotite was on either
when
each
was newly created.

You must remember that Wolter had newly fractured samples of both the
KRS and the individual Hallowell tombstones.

I don't take your meaning. Please be clearer. Are you stating that
Wolter
did in fact know the original thinkness of the biotite books on each
"stone"
when the tombstone and the KRS were "new"? If so, please explain how
and
also what the two thicknesses (tombstone and KRS) were). If not, how
does
one know that the presence of biotite on the approx. 200 year old
tombstones
and the absence of biotite on the KRS mean that the latter is at least
as
old (if not older) than the former?

The newly fractured samples would contain newly exposed biotite. The
size of the individual grains would be perfectly clear to anyone with
a microscope. See figs 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 (pages 37 to 40), Also
figs 47, 48, 49 and (pages 44, 45).

Grain size isn't what I'm trying to understand. I'm trying to understand
thickness. The biotite sheets surely have thickness, don't they?
Wouldn't
a thicker "***" take longer to weather away than a thinner one?

From the micrographs, the thickness is generally apparent in that the
flakes of biotite are overlaying each other and the thickness is
apparent.

I am more than willing to be corrected by Hyabusa but my understanding
is that the major mode of weathering is cleavage of K+ bonds between
the sheets. That is the leaves of biotite 'exfoliate'. If that is
correct the major attack by weathering will be from the ends where it
will start to separate allexposed shee-ends more or less
simultaneously.



<snip some.>

Of course there are issues. As far as I can tell there seems to be
no
precedent for the work he has been doing and one would expect many
new
questions to be raised. No doubt that is why Wolter has restricted
himself to merely expressing the opinion that the age of the
inscription on the KRS is older than 200 years.

But, even in view of your responses set forth above, surely that
conclusion
is open to question absent additional data which does not appear to be
in
the book.


But you don't know the data is absent.

Please show me where such data appears in the book. All I'm suggesting
is
that if the data is necessary, yet absent from the book, how can I
credit
the conclusions expressed in the book? Wouldn't I need to at least be
told
what the data is, if not shown the data?

I'm not claiming the data is present in the book. I'm claiming you
don't know whether or not Wolter has the data.

Well, I don't care if I'm told the data privately. The point is, without
the data, I find it difficult or impossible to support his conclusions.
The
"sub-point" is that you seem to have no problem supporting his conclusions
even if there is some data that would be needed to support those
conclusions
and you haven't been shown that data.

This is a general difference between us. When there are gaps in the
data I tend to fill it with '?' but you seem to substitute an 'X'. The
fact that I withhold rejection of a hypothesis doesn't mean that I
accept it.

First, you really ought to slow down when you read. I just finished saying
that I'll accept data filling in the gaps regardless of source. I have
repeatedly used the same ? for data gaps in the Nielsen/Wolter work
(although what use the symbol X would imply escapes me).

Second, I don't think that your posts distinguish between withholding
rejection of a hypothesis and accepting it. For example, from:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/beec0b5626d64594?dmode=source&hl=en

or

http://tinyurl.com/d8gcm

"Apart from that, Scott wolter's work seems to have established the age of
the KRS as being +2 centuries at the time of discovery. That too is
important."

In the context of the discussion in that thread, I don't think that
statement strongly indicates that you do not accept Wolter's hypothesis;
certainly without filling in the blank left by the word "seems", one cannot
come away with anything other than that you strongly believe Wolter to be
correct. There's at least one subsequent post in that thread in which you
claim to be "impartial", but your entire posting history in sci.archaeology
demonstrates to for you, "impartial" means "I accept the conclusion that
I've preselected and await evidence that it's wrong."




Eric Stevens


Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3


.

Quantcast