Re: Don's blog

From: Oriel36 (geraldkelleher_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/21/04 

Date: 21 Aug 2004 06:38:38 -0700

don@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.0408201921.7266059f@posting.google.com>...
> geraldkelleher@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.0408200551.2349a855@posting.google.com>...
> > don@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.0408191817.4d5f965a@posting.google.com>...
> > > geraldkelleher@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.0408180344.7fa5ca45@posting.google.com>...
> > > > don@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.0408171636.391e48c6@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > Sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin...
> > > > > THE ARCHITECTURE OF MOUNTAINS:-
> > > > > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/index.html>
> > > >
> > > > You are pointing out a correlation without supporting it with a
> > > > mechanism that relates orbital motion with axial rotation.
> > >
> > > I don't know what the mechanism is, ..all I see is the result, and am
> > > prepared to take a guess that the cause cannot be intrinsic to the
> > > Earth itself, but must be external.
> >
> > Sir.
> >
> > In order to ascertain astronomical causes effecting geological surface
> > feature development,it is more productive to fit them into existing
> > principles that facilitate the geological/astronomical connection such
> > as variations in the elliptical motion in the planet affecting climate
> > change which in turn shows up in strata, be it ice or rock.
>
> OoohhOO.... Well, so long as it isn't plate tectonics
>

Sir,I am isolated from astronomical contemporaries,not because I
proposed a new theory and it does not suit the approach they take,I am
isolated because in a given era they fudged astronomical methods and
insights to get their universal gravitation laws to work.Despite the
gravitational pandemic,men still manages to get work done and moreso
in geology and climatology and you would have the physics community
show up here and destroy the delicate connection between
astronomy,climatology and geology.

 
>
> > My interest
> > in the matter is that not only is the Earth's planetary history read
> > like a book in the rock but also its astronomical history,at least up
> > to a point.
> >
> > When men are faced with two seperate facts,in this case geology,one
> > relating to layering and one relating to crustal motion,the obvious
> > puzzle is that if you construct a supercontinent and a crust already
> > formed,it looks like defered creationism without any reference to how
> > the supercontinent and crust formed and this strains the
> > imagination.
>
> Deferred creationsism: yes.When we read geological history from the
> top down it seems to me that there never was a point where we could
> draw a line and say this is when the crust formed (and thereafter it
> deformed). Maybe it's still forming. Adding in the Moon factor
> (below) does help to draw a line, but ...I guess that's what I'm
> saying: it all needs looking at a bit more carefully.
>

Even if the moon is a remnant from a collision as it has been
proposed,its orbit is still conditioned by the same effects that
condition the Earth's motion around the Sun and the solar system's
motion around the galaxy.Mr Troelsgard was correct in bringing up the
coriolis force and its effects but you have never adapted anything
that was said and imagine that I am working on the same principle of
guesswork and I assure you I am not.

There are very little 'maybes' in what I have done save that in
treating large scale geological evolution in terms of physical
features as they present themselves as a record of the past,first the
present position of the continents and the positions they held in the
past,secondly the strata formation that condition development of
mountain ranges and more immediate events such as volcanoes and
earthquakes and thirdly the layering of the strata themselves.

One overlaps the other but the mechanism for crustal motion appears
too weak.I can point out that the strata layering contains not only
the history of physical formation of planetary surface structures it
also contains elements of astronomical history also.In the absence of
a suitable explanation for the origins supercontinent surrounded by
sea and crust I am not about to front a wild theory to resolve the
dilemma but neither would I pretend that the puzzle did not exist

>
> > It is a habit that when faced with a dilemma,scientists
> > cut their losses, not wait for additional data that might be helpful
> > and create a specialised vocabulary to hide the dilemma.This is no
> > exagerration despite the attempt to fictionalise that all is rosy -
> >
> > http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425
> >
> > These men were not naive,they were honest enough to admit that the Sun
> > attraction to the Earth does'nt require a mediun while the Sun's
> > illumination of the Earth does.In 1905 they simply dumped the medium
> > on Newton whether he wanted it or not and fabricated the most spurious
> > concept ever seen on the planet.
> >
> > Had they waited until stellar rotation around the galactic axis showed
> > up,much of what Newton wrote could have been altered by conditioning
> > the influences of that motion on the solar system without jettisoning
> > everything but the physics discipline had painted itself into a
> > contrived corner where it remains.
>
> Well, isn't that a good argument for pressing physics to reassess its
> position?
>

Now you are being naive and I would be delighted if they never changed
their position.

>
> > If you argue for astronomical elements affecting geological
> > evolution,you cannot appeal to the physics/astronomical community that
> > has a different agenda,final theories and things like that.They are
> > waiting for a man with a set of equations to describe everything but
> > remarkably the most productive line of inquiry should be the great
> > geological book formed in layers of rock and mountain ranges rather
> > than more powerful telescopes and satellites looking for things that
> > are not there.
>
> ...and why Geology, once it's properly sorted out, will set them on
> the right road? It wouldn't be the first time that geology has.
> It's facile to think that the last time they looked at it they got
> everything right when since then we have all the satellite data and
> computers with the facility to put all of that on round spheres rather
> than flat maps. It's as pedestrian as that ('tools')
>
>
> > Orbital motion / axial
> > > rotation? Sure., ..sounds good to me. The symmetries support it.
> >
> > Please Don,it would be offensive to continue on this matter not least
> > that it would not support your avenue.Orbital motion does not align
> > with independent axial rotation over the course of an annual orbit.We
> > have a change in seasons due to axial orientation remaining constant
> > while orbital orientation changes and the difference in the two
> > generates the change in seasons.Contemporaries say that axial tilt to
> > the Sun causes seasonal change but that is a poor interpretation.
>
> I was just meaning that crustal deformation has a symmetry with the
> polar rotation, but its trace from Pangaean times is very skewed.
> Exactly how skewed needs looked at.
>

>
> > I
> > > would have hoped the geological observations supporting it would have
> > > been of more interest than they apparently have. Which confirms to me
> > > that the essence of 'science' is not as it's portrayed. I guess
> > > there are a lot reading this that are amused at this demonstration of
> > > 'charming naivety'.
> > >
> >
> > Those who have an eye and talent for drawing conclusions from
> > correlations accurately have little time for lamenting on priority or
> > correctness.If a theory suddenly appears out of the blue that it
> > acceptable to a line of inquiry that is in itself inadequate why would
> > you wish to appeal to them.
>
> I don't really, ... I'm not appealing to them (for approval?). I'm
> here on the street with dirty jeans and bad hair, and talking the
> lingo. I thought I might be saying something people would find
> interesting, peer-to-peer, you know? ...and by rubbishing the
> shortcomings of plate tectonics we might get a bit of a reaction.

Oh great,everything I fought tooth and nail against for ultimately it
all descends into action and reaction with nobody knowing what it is
they are attacking or defending.What happens when the same guys you
are appealing to have a better lingo than yours and can reduce a valid
point to an argument over definitions.Every time you bring up an
astronomical point it is no more than what I have been dealing with
for years,men who are prepared to use astronomy as a means to an end.

> Bovver boy, you know, ... But they're all peeking out from behind
> the corner of tenth street. (Who's this geezer, telling it like it
> is?) (Heard it before?..?)
>

You operate on the surface and as is your right you can contend with
these matters as you see fit.I regret only that some aspects which are
already known are under-utilised and some completely blocked.What is
worse, a defered creationism presented as a tectonic puzzle inasmuch
as it is every bit as intriguing as its strata layering antecent or
speculation based on whatever comes into your head and having no
connection with past investigations ? .Crustal motion as expressed as
plate tectonics may not be a complete explanation and I doubt if any
would disagree with that but as a natural progression from its strata
layering roots, it far exceeds any other attempt to mesh strata
evolution with large scale surface structures.

 
>
> > The cycle of
> > astronomical/climatatological/geological evidence is already there and
> > I learn more of astronomy through geology than having them split into
> > two seperate disciplines.It is a turf problem if geologists enter the
> > astronomical arena with a different view of how to look at the 'past'.
> >
> > The current fad of the astronomer,geologist,archaeologist,ect saving
> > the planet betrays the fact that they cannot save their own
> > disciplines.
>
> I'm not getting involved in that one (turf wars). I'm just bringing
> the Good News (and trying to keep off the cross that most of them
> would try to hang me on)
>

Look around,nobody is here .

 
>
> > > > "And why are those mountains situated exactly where they are on the
> > > > planet? ....exactly where they are that is, in relation to the
> > > > Earth's rotational axis and the ecliptic? "
> > > >
> > > > From your website.
> > > >
> > > > "Earth expansion? = .The Earth's crust - a single plate, in
> > > > torsional, dilational disruption due to an imbalance in rotational -
> > > > gravitational dynamics. Plate tectonics has ignored, and continues
> > > > to ignore, this definitive torsional architecture of the Earth's
> > > > crust."
> > > >
> > > > The imbalance is not in the ecliptic the imbalance is the variable
> > > > orbital rotational speed in combination with constant axial
> > > > rotation.Having the Earth 'twist' or torsion due to axial rotation
> > > > against the ecliptic generates nothing on its own.
> > >
> > > This is why I speculated on Moon Capture ....
> > >
> >
> > Look Don,I had worked on supernova rings long before they were ever
> > discovered,the copyright being only there for the purpose of
> > demonstrating that it was a pre-discovery work in terms of being
> > visible than an explanation after the visible fact and even then I
> > regret it.It is not meant to fit into the contemporary framework of
> > stellar evolution but more an intimate relationship between the
> > tendency of forms towards a particular geometry both terrestial and
> > celestial.Like geology,we are surrounded by clues but fail to pick up
> > on them and I no more speculate on the causes beyond which is
> > necessary,the clues are there nonetheless.
>
> Yes, ..and they're usually that big that we need to stand really well
> back to see them. Also added in to the Moon capture scenario is the
> existence of the banded iron formations. I think they're linked,
> when we trace crustal evolution via that 'torsional' picture right
> back I think we end up in the Proterozoic. (And we';ve already got a
> model for the Moon that includes masses of iron dust.)
>

What did I do to have you insult me like this when I would have done
as much as possible to demonstrate that you had valid points and
concerns.I do see the introduction of a 'torsional force' in
geological principles and geologists can expect much of the same
assault,not because it is right but because there is nowhere left for
the gravitational guys to go.

It would stand to reason that the orbital motion of the Earth is
affected by the solar system's motion around the galactic axis insofar
as the dominant motion around the Sun would tend to keep the orbit
circular and motion around the galactic axis would vary it.

A person goes outside and determines that over the course of an annual
orbit,the Earth will be closer to the galactic axis than six months
later when the orbital position is further away.Sometimes the Earth
will be closer to the galactic axis than the Sun and at other times
further away.Not one single person goes outside and recognises this
and prefers the idea of 'every valid point is the center of the
universe'.You wish to introduce a torsional/dilational vocabulary that
is designed to impress but the real impressions are before men every
moment of their existence.

 
>
> > I could not afford to use speculation in a promiscuous way for the
> > whole thing would amount to guesswork and unfortunately there has been
> > too much of that.It being a matter of using older investigations in a
> > new way,scientists pay the phi and pi proportions lip service and
> > carry on with their 'profound ' matters when these things are really
> > the jewels inherited from remote antiquity.
> >
> > http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fib.html
>
> Well, ...guesswork. But surely that's where it begins with a good
> guess. I would not be afraid to guess, so long as I'm ready to
> discard.
>

They call them 'free creations of the mind' in the other community,a
peculiar way to make guesses,do experiments ,remove doubt and be left
with 'certainty'.This is what is known as empirical science,they will
have thousands upon thousands of experiments that prove a concept
correct when the founding principles of the concept do not emerge from
nature itself but in what men think nature and the universe should be
like.I'm sure you model is right up their alley.

 
>
> > > > Geologists already
> > > > know or at least should know that there is an imbalance in orbital and
> > > > axial speeds but they also know that the axial tilt has a long term
> > > > cyclical variation.
> > >
> > > ...early in the evolution of the planet - but it doesn't quite gel,
> > > doesn't quite account for the 'mass' aspect.
> > >
> >
> > I will point out to you that no attempt is being made to seperate
> > continuing geological evolutionary processes intrinsic to the planet
> > (insofar as they are more dominant that astronomical conditioning) and
> > astronomical processes that sometimes affect it abruptly such as
> > collisions.
>
> That's because desk-driven 'best authority' has it that the
> astrophysical aspects (equatorial bulge notwithstanding) are grossly
> insignificant compared to the forces generated by internal planetary
> heat. So why would anyone bother to say otherwise? Or even think
> otherwise. That's the heat by the way consequent on the dissipation
> of radioactivity and accretion - with a crust somehow in between in
> the way. But they don't like to think about that either.
>
>
> > I could speculate that the ancient supercontinent is itself
> > partly of astronomical collisional origin,or water,or the minerals and
> > elements but to affirm or reject these things requires a disciplined
> > facility which is not bounded on one side by wild speculation or on
> > the other by dullards.
>
> This is not just speculation. There is very good reason to think that
> the primordial crust is not of 'magmatic' origin, but that's in the
> field of physical chemistry - another no-go area for traditionalists.
> ('Dullards'? You mean sheep in sheepland?)
>

No.Even if I bring up the point of defered creationism and the origins
of a supercontinent meshing with strata layering,it could only be
considered perjorative if in response it was ignored.Rather than go
bananas and descend into wild speculation,it is more favorable to mesh
the Earth's geological history with its astronomical history,partly
because orbital variations do show up in strata layering emerging from
climatological changes and the need to discriminate them from sudden
astronomical collisions and partly from the ongoing astronomical
influences on surface feature evolution,not as a dominant feature but
there nonetheless.

>
> > > > The geologists also know that the Earth's Equatorial bulge is
> > > > conditioned by axial rotation but why introduce expansion as anything
> > > > but a physical transfer from mantle to crust as a process.
> > >
> > > Why? Because there's too much of it to attribute to matter as we
> > > know it.
> > >
> >
> > So go ahead and appeal to the physics community,they will find 'dark
> > matter' and cosmological osmosis to accomodate your expanding
> > earth,have a ball !.
>
> Let them. There will always be one to illuminate the circus. A
> suicide bomber. (Such trubblesum people. Listen to them? No, ..we
> need to legislate more)
>

>
> > > > Why
> > > > shortcircuit the ability to adjust the mechanism of plate tectonics
> > > > from the weaker mechanisn of convection cells to astronomical origins
> > > > by imposing an ambiguous twisting-expanding format that cannot account
> > > > for where themass for expansion comes from.
> > >
> > > Because doing that is like fiddling with an abhortion to make it more
> > > attractive/ less unattractive. Like trying to beautify the two ugly
> > > sisters. Why would you want to when Cinderella is strutting her
> > > stuff? There's nothing in plate tectonics that hangs together.
> >
> > It does'nt hang together as a complete explanation because the
> > precedence of a supercontinent and crust has at present no
> > evolutionary explanation.What would you have geologists teach ?,do you
> > want to throw Steno as well as Wegener out,no Don,I have seen what
> > happens when that occurs.
>
> I quite agree with what you say about the crust. So much really does
> need re-examined. That's the way it seems to me at any rate, having
> travelled the road and now looking back at it from this different
> perspective. So in answer to your question I would have them teach
> the field facts rather than the model. Begin with the maps. There's
> far too much that's the other way around. Just look at all the
> courses on the web and see how many of them are teaching 'plate
> tectonics as geology' It's laughable. And how much supposedly
> 'factual' stuff is framed in those terms (would make you weep).

There is always a difference between the limits of a model and its
validity or invalidity.The opposite is almost as bad insofar as I
would not be so swift to reduce everything to a molten state and
recast it,again,I have seen this happen before with awful
consequences.Why should I not determine that it is possible to learn
more about astronomy through geology than worry about whether geology
will lapse into the same condition that befell its more glamorous
counterpart where physics hijacked astronomy.It is not a matter of
telling people that the geological arena is unapproachable and
understood only by a few men but that it very much belongs to the
people as astronomy once did.

Earth expansion sounds to me like it sounds to everyone else,it has
the ring of 'warped space' about it,trying to explain what you mean
after the fact is a sure good way to introduce that remoteness that
cuts us off from the very ground we are standing on just as it did for
the motions of the Earth,on its axis,around the Sun ,around the
galactic axis or any other rotation there may be.

  It
> would almost be fair to say "come back in another decade and see
> what's new" - as I did - cos there's been nothing for the last one
> (two or three). Plate tectonics is a dawdle to teach. Why would
> teachers, with their workloads, go to the work of having to clue up on
> global geology and put it in a framework that hangs together and makes
> sense? When they've got plate tectonics? As a result, graduates
> who have been spoon fed this guff - and paid for it - think it
> actually says something. No wonder they get upset when you try to
> disabuse them. Hey, good safeguard to ensure the quality of
> information, isn't it = get them to pay for it.
>

You have heard of Copernicus and how the Earth goes around the Sun but
left to itself it is an extraneous fact.To recognise his composition
or Kepler's or Roemer's is no different than the same experience as
appreceating music and in much the same way,it requires little or no
effort and is a dawdle but it is oh so powerful even if it is only
possible to remain in the experience for a short while,especially the
initial experience.

Between this experience of the great motions of the Earth's
astronomical beneath our feet is the history of those motions cast in
rock.If the magnificence of the connection were any less, with
humanity partaking in them ,there would be no reason to show up here
and promote them.

The astronomical language which facilitates more more gentler
connection is there for those who read it but always will be remote
from those who approach it with brute reasoning.

>
> > It's
> > > a fall-about abortion and has all got to go, but something needs to be
> > > put in its place, something that includes the Earth's bigtime increase
> > > in size. It's too bad that this throws a whole lot of things that are
> > > generally accepted as 'fact' into doubt, but it is so. The ships
> > > sails are appearing over the horizon again. All Earth expansion does
> > > is accept/ assume that they belong to a ship. We're waiting for some
> > > bright spark to come up with an equivalent reason for why the Earth is
> > > round.
> > >
> >
> > I cannot go on like this.
>
> <laugh> There's a lot of unpicking to do, ..sure is. But you're
> right (obviously) about including the astronomical aspects, and yes,
> as the starting point (top down v. bottom up) I would work back from
> the present, but teachers like to begin at the 'beginning' and go
> forward.
>

Go outside before you do anything.

>
> > > > From your website.
> > > >
> > > > "So why call it plate tectonics? Why? Just so we know what's being
> > > > consigned to the archives of history. The transition from plate
> > > > tectonics to Earth expansion is imminent. Even though there is as yet
> > > > no clear understanding of the mechanism by which expansion may occur,
> > > > the empirical conclusion stands - the Earth is getting bigger, ...and,
> > > > geologically speaking, at a remarkable rate. The reason why
> > > > expansion is occurring is for the physics community to address. They
> > > > need to waken up."
> > > >
> > > > You want empirical recognition,then fine,I'm sure they will trump up
> > > > dark energy or expanding space to fit your model right into and end up
> > > > doing to geology what they did to astronomy.The same empirical crowd
> > > > that designed experiments to disprove seashells on mountaintops while
> > > > Steno was reasoning from observations of sedimentary layering is sure
> > > > a wonderful crowd to appeal to.
> > >
> > > Another 'Epicycle'? Well, .. that reflects on them, if they insist
> > > on messing about like that. Let's see how clever they are. It
> > > used to be that invention was in the hands of the Church. But now
> > > there's the web to which young people with a curious disposition have
> > > access, not only the sacred writings of the Elohim and admission to
> > > the fold. Information in itself is more powerful than the way it is
> > > used by incompetents. Everything is up for grabs (again).
> > > Interesting times.
> > >
> >
> > The 'they' happens to be the same crowd you are appealing
> > to.Information means nothing if you cannot move it about in a
> > productive way and the spirit of the original geologists who found the
> > discipline appears to be fading into the same condition as its
> > astronomical equivalent.I do not set myself up as judge and jury but
> > your concept is just the leading edge of more to follow and that sir
> > is hard to bear.
>
> Mmm, ..no, ...If I'm appealing to anybody it's the free spirit of
> enquiry, ..not any crowd. 'Crowd will be crowd' - an olympic stadium
> full of them. A great deal is made these days of science abrogating
> its responsibility to bring its science to the public. That's what I
> would rather do. Our children and youth deserve better than they're
> getting. ('firstlust')
>
>
> > > Besides, ..I don't know that I am appealing to them. If I were, I
> > > would publish. With the 'script' and ostentatious obeisance, it's not
> > > that difficult. But again, why would 'Cinderella' want to?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Nobody in their right mind is going to consign plate tectonics or the
> > > > effects at crustal boundaries to the scrapheap of history,the
> > > > mechanism for explaining crustal movement may be indeed too weak at
> > > > present but that is about all.The format for introducing astronomical
> > > > considerations into the development and continuing evolution of
> > > > physical surface features is problematic insofar as the
> > > > astrophysical-gravitational format accepts no imbalance between axial
> > > > and orbital motion,prefering to adhere to the sidereal format for
> > > > axial and orbital motion.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.absolutebeginnersastronomy.com/sidereal.gif
> > >
> > > Sure they are Gerald, ...not those committed I grant you, but they
> > > can't shove the webgenie back in the bottle. Even if half of
> > > Pterologists become pteronomers we're at least half way there.
> > > Equatorial bulge? ..mountain belts flat? .. Have a laugh at them,
> > > and just watch them rush out of the spotlight whilst they remove the
> > > red nose and the baggy pants, even if they forget about the warpaint.
> > > They're a joke. All they need to see it, is a mirror.
> > >
> >
> > Again,what would you have them do ?,what facilities are availible to
> > deal with the various threads without seeing it as turf infringement.I
> > have to keep company with the original investigators in geology and
> > astronomy via their writings who themselves suffered the same
> > indignity of accusations of priority and correctness,it is a lousy
> > deal and made more lousy by the realisation that a new insight can be
> > diluted to serve the very aims that were meant to be replaced.I used
> > supernova as distance markers against stellar galactic rotation but
> > now see it chopped up conveniently to serve different ends.You want to
> > know what sore is and I can tell you.
>
> Facilities? The web. It is the perfect forum for disseminating
> information. Publications are just notches on the post of career
> advancement. In a century there are less than a handful of
> significant ones, yet it's an industry. How come? But one being
> increasingly called to account. Turf? Career? Who needs it (when
> you're retired). (Grey power.)
>
> And the weekend press - Korner for Kids. "A funny one to ask your
> teacher".
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > You want to be the first to bring this into public view then good for
> > > > you.
> > >
> > > That doesn't matter to me one bit. Besides I'm not the first. Carey
> > > did it long ago, though sure, there were a few things he omitted/
> > > overlooked, but he very substantially paved the way, and all credits
> > > are his. And there are others. But sure, I wouldn't bother if I
> > > thought I wasn't saying something that added to the picture. As it
> > > is, I'm just marking time having some fun, while there's fun in it.
> > > It's an interesting jigsaw - though I was always hopeless at jigsaws
> > > and crosswords. I'm more interested in discovering the questions that
> > > are the obverse to the answers and letting them speak for themselves,
> > > and in between working out how that picture applies to ore deposits.
> > > Though I must say I'm getting a bit bored with it since I see how it
> > > all ties together. People's stupidity is fact enough to be not
> > > really that big a deal, ...and anyhow, ... in sheepland the one that
> > > wanders from the mob is not the one being clever.
> > >
> > > > What do you think,that Darwin brought the idea of slow biological
> > > > evolution over billions of year in a vacuum when geologists were doing
> > > > it for centuries in terms of geology even if they were forced to
> > > > condition it by denominational concerns.Naw,the spirit of
> > > > investigation is lost,too specialised/formal in language and method
> > > > with none of the free-wheeling exchange of views that facilitates a
> > > > responsible discussion,so much bravado about acceptance or rejection
> > > > that the material gets lost in the attempt to be right or first.
> > >
> > > (Sheep. Or something.) It's how things carry the essence of their
> > > own destruction. 'Big Science' and 'budgets' have killed the spirit
> > > you mention. That's a thing apart - the 'filling out', the using
> > > tools, which is real science, what JPT calls OXFED tradesmen. 'Course
> > > he's right. Very necessary when you want to get to Mars on something
> > > better than a bike, but it doesn't really square with the essence of
> > > science the way they like to say. Now *that* is all about being
> > > first in the saddle, but I don't think any of the pioneers of the
> > > other sort of 'science' are driven by 'firstlust'. Well if they are
> > > then they certainly pay for it by tying themselves to the stake. The
> > > Sacrifice Voluntary (taraaann!). Truth is a strange thing when you
> > > think of it - that 'thing' that real scientists say there is no room
> > > for in real science. It makes and destroys at the same time. It's
> > > a powerful weapon, when weapons are the issue. (A real fucker to try
> > > to wield though, I think anyone will admit when reflecting on their
> > > own excursions)
> > >
> >
> > The excursions are not an end in themselves for the passages through
> > investigation into natural phenomena often returns back to an
> > undeground history that far exceeds in riches any of the surface
> > telling proposed to the general population,if the population can be
> > called that.The return is not to seperateness of belief and science or
> > interdisciplinary divisions between geology and astronomy for instance
> > but through all the peevishness and struggle for dominance,nobody can
> > totally ignore or kill the achievement of another.
>
> Well that's right. There should be more books about the people. But
> you can only do it with dead ones. If you try it with nobel prize
> winners (say) still alive you risk a libel suit. These things are
> handed out as added security to the professions. It's an interesting
> thought that the reason for giving is not so much for the benefit of
> the recipient, as the profession. I'm told Carey's letters present
> a bit of a problem in that regard. So ...consensus again... the
> truth concealed/ revealed.
>
>
> > The Book of Job and the great answer attached to that work refers to
> > this generosity of humanity under trying conditions,living with
> > impatience rather than being patient,accepting injustice for the sake
> > of accepting nothing in return save that of the love of those close
> > by.John Harrison,who invented the clock for measuring distance via the
> > longitude problem is one such Jobian figure but in truth there have
> > been many and this is why it is more important to bring back their
> > insights and inventiveness than it is to challenge those who would
> > have it lost and subverted.Do you want to destroy Wegener all over
> > again so you can be justified ?.
>
> No, ..everybody's voice stands, and what they say is always for
> posterity to judge, ... but I couldn't agree more that the context of
> the day needs to be included. Excision of it is like missing out the
> punctuation a thousand fold (lawyers' field days). It's been pretty
> clear from the exchanges on this ng for instance, that any remarks to
> do with Carey that I've read have been from people who clearly haven't
> (but should have) read him (excepting one exchange from David Ford and
> Charles Cagle which laboured an esoteric point)
>
>
> > > > Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow;
> > > > He who would search for pearls must dive below.
> > > >
> > > > John Dryden (1631?1700)

I am not exempt from all those pressures which fall under the heading
of civilised living ,perhaps there would have been a time when the
atmosphere would have been more favorable to handle the effort
without having to suffer the indignity of calling it a hobby or a
superficial interest beyond human economic concerns but this is often
an accident of history and explains why concepts take a long time to
change.It appears that those paid to do geology are in a worse
position then I am however out of that tension between convention and
invention much of humanity's great achievements take place,for the
moment astronomy has lost the battle and baring the assault to
'revolutionise ' the way geology is done by others who already have
destroyed theirs,it will turn out with some effort to be as
magnificent as those insights which we inherited.

Quantcast