Creationists, Flat-Earthers, Anti-Vaxxers.... People who reject science.

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

Biological sediments sink to the bottom. They pile up in sediments, the same as on land. By the time the Jurassic sediments make it to the subduction zone how much chemical energy has built up on and under the sea floor? Think about it.
So what??? we can do an energy balance and its not even the issue.

You say this but you don't explain what you mean. I take it you've never been a teacher.

Quote:

YOUVE NEVER explained how the damned plates move. Youve been slowly ignoring the fact that you somehow have plate movement be associate with solar energy or something like that.

I never claimed to have a complete TOE. I am trying to figure it out for myself and I've never excluded the possibility that there is information/knowledge out there that will suffice. I just have no other way to seek knowledge than to actively/critically think about the information I currently have and thus seek further input from others who are willing to read what I think and contribute input. You are contributing input, but in a very hostile and condenscending way that makes it difficult to enjoy the discussion of something that I would otherwise enjoy discussing.

Some hypotheses I have explored regarding how the plates move is that the subducted sediments mash together with other sedimentary layers that still contain fossil fuels at the bottom of the plates and that the mixture heats up to the point of forming a lubricating layer. I have read that diamonds can be found at the trailing side of plates, so that suggests to me that hot carbon was compressed until the plate slid over it and left it as diamond and/or other compacted minerals.

Quote:

See, after denying that there are many ways to create a volcano and that all plate tectonics is a result of warming from above, you now are slowly trying to occupy what my position has been all along. CONTINENTAL DRIFT AND HOT SPOTS < PLUMES< DIAPIRS tc , are ALL due to mantle convection. If youve finally accepted that , then thank you. It wasnt that difficult now was it?

I never denied anything. If you read what I wrote, I was just exploring different sources of energy for the mantle convection that I've read about. Some mantle plume events correspond with large meteor impacts, so there could be various reasons those impacts delivered energy, including the kinetic energy and friction of the meteor's momentum as it penetrated underground; and/or that the meteor contained radioactive material that added nuclear fuel to the Earth.

The thing is that if distant supernovae can send nuclear fuel to Earth across the galaxy, then we should also consider that our own sun can send energy into Earth's interior by an 'infinitesimally slow' build up of biological sediments.

In other words, different stars have different methods of transmitting energy to Earth and elsewhere, and meteors are one but photosynthesis and plate tectonics could be another.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

I never claimed to have a complete TOE. I am trying to figure it out for myself and I've never excluded the possibility that there is information/knowledge out there that will suffice. I just have no other way to seek knowledge than to actively/critically think about the information

Instead of getting all full of yourself and claiming that science is all BS, why not ask questions to better understand. If you dont believe what Im saying , go find some other geologists who are teachers or who maintain a license to practice(Most states require 12 hours a year of prof devel ed .

Quote:

Some hypotheses I have explored regarding how the plates move is that the subducted sediments mash together with other sedimentary layers that still contain fossil fuels at the bottom of the plates and that the mixture heats up to the point of forming a lubricating layer

We call these STRUT formations or glie planes. THERE ARE NOT IN ANY WAY the energy behind the movement of plates. Whoever wrote tht is just blowin it out their asses.
Strut formations allo large parcels of sediments (usually stuff like ganister of the Pine Mountain Thrust belt or organic rich units like th chattanooga shales to do slip faulting for 50 or more miles, with gravity as the "motor")
The great "beer can experiment" developed by two oil field geologists back in the 50's had proven how such formations provide glide surfaces as the coefficients of friction are overcome by pressure and high prmeabilty an saturated conditions ) This was how the models of the Pine Mountain thrust were first developed . Modelling led to field drilling and the faulted zones showing large lateral zones of slippage could be read by analyzing the cores where micro "drag faults" developed

Many shallow landslides are caused similarly.

However,]This has nothing at all to do with Tectonic plates moving from ocean ridges to subduction zones.

Quote:

The thing is that if distant supernovae can send nuclear fuel to Earth across the galaxy, then we should also consider that our own sun can send energy into Earth's interior by an 'infinitesimally slow' build up of biological sediments.

If y wanna believe that stuff, you better prepare for some pushback by undergrad students .

You realize that the sun's nergy is presented to different areas of the plnet in highly different caloric mega "Bundles" . EG, the high Arctic and Southern Oceans have similar tectonic ridges as the mid Atlantic and Pacific (eg the Menard Zone is between Antarctica and NZ and plates there dont move any differently than in places like The Azores, yet, these oceans are bathed in darkness for many month a year.) So these plates march along at about the same rate all over the planet .
Id be willing to discuss a way to monitor a "breathing planet" where plate movements are affected by geoid shrinkage or inflation. But not piles of leaves.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

You say this but you don't explain what you mean. I take it you've never been a teacher

What louy tachr dos is to read the sgment and lecture them, What a good teacher does is to lead their students and ask them for answers. What a great teacher does is have the students teach themselves. I take it youve never been associated with any great teachers.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

I never claimed to have a complete TOE. I am trying to figure it out for myself and I've never excluded the possibility that there is information/knowledge out there that will suffice. I just have no other way to seek knowledge than to actively/critically think about the information
Instead of getting all full of yourself and claiming that science is all BS, why not ask questions to better understand. If you dont believe what Im saying , go find some other geologists who are teachers or who maintain a license to practice(Most states require 12 hours a year of prof devel ed .

I don't know if you've ever taught students, but if you have, do you like it when they just listen to what you tell them and repeat it back without thinking critically and working to really make sense of the knowledge and develop an active grasp of how it works? I don't, so I try to be the student that I would want to teach by thinking actively and critically about questions I have before consulting experts.

It's not "getting all full of yourself" or "claiming that science is all BS" to approach learning using the same scientific method that scientific research is based on, i.e. formulate a question based on the information you have, develop hypotheses, and seek further information that can shed more light on your hypotheses and cause you to develop them further, revise them, and/or discard them as untenable.

What you seem to want to do, which many if not most science worshipers do as well is to jump the gun grasping at straws to reject anything that isn't in immediate agreement/submission to established academic dogma. It's like you are so afraid of upsetting someone whose career depends on a certain theory that you don't want to do proper scientific diligence and take existing knowledge/information/theory as food for thought instead of as gospel.

Quote:

Quote:

Some hypotheses I have explored regarding how the plates move is that the subducted sediments mash together with other sedimentary layers that still contain fossil fuels at the bottom of the plates and that the mixture heats up to the point of forming a lubricating layer
We call these STRUT formations or glie planes. THERE ARE NOT IN ANY WAY the energy behind the movement of plates. Whoever wrote tht is just blowin it out their asses.
Strut formations allo large parcels of sediments (usually stuff like ganister of the Pine Mountain Thrust belt or organic rich units like th chattanooga shales to do slip faulting for 50 or more miles, with gravity as the "motor")
The great "beer can experiment" developed by two oil field geologists back in the 50's had proven how such formations provide glide surfaces as the coefficients of friction are overcome by pressure and high prmeabilty an saturated conditions ) This was how the models of the Pine Mountain thrust were first developed . Modelling led to field drilling and the faulted zones showing large lateral zones of slippage could be read by analyzing the cores where micro "drag faults" developed

Many shallow landslides are caused similarly.

However,]This has nothing at all to do with Tectonic plates moving from ocean ridges to subduction zones.

Based on everything you know and think about what you know, is your opinion that the Earth is a gradually-cooling ball of magma that will someday lose its magnetic field because there is not enough energy being captured/subducted to maintain constant core/mantle conditions sustainably?

In other words, do you expect Earth will someday solidify from the crust to core completely, or do you think that fossil-fuel buildup (along with new nuclear material from meteors) will be sufficient to sustain the magnetic field?

Quote:

Quote:
The thing is that if distant supernovae can send nuclear fuel to Earth across the galaxy, then we should also consider that our own sun can send energy into Earth's interior by an 'infinitesimally slow' build up of biological sediments.

If y wanna believe that stuff, you better prepare for some pushback by undergrad students .

You realize that the sun's nergy is presented to different areas of the plnet in highly different caloric mega "Bundles" . EG, the high Arctic and Southern Oceans have similar tectonic ridges as the mid Atlantic and Pacific (eg the Menard Zone is between Antarctica and NZ and plates there dont move any differently than in places like The Azores, yet, these oceans are bathed in darkness for many month a year.) So these plates march along at about the same rate all over the planet .

What does that prove? Why couldn't there be currents/flows/rivers of energy/magma that snake around below the crust to all those places? That would be assuming there's more energy subducted in more equatorial zones than closer to the poles; but is that even a valid assumption when you consider that the boreal forests contain as much or more carbon/energy than tropical rainforests?

Mountain ranges on land act as dams where clouds get compressed and rain down, forming deserts on one side and rich forests and valleys on the other. If we look for the same phenomenon in undersea ridges, could there be similar mechanisms at work, such as biological sediments building up more thickly in some areas because of fish/etc. getting dammed in the same way clouds do over land-mountains? I feel like there's a lot we don't consider is going on in the oceans because their 'atmosphere' is liquid instead of gaseous like ours as land-dwellers.

Quote:

Id be willing to discuss a way to monitor a "breathing planet" where plate movements are affected by geoid shrinkage or inflation. But not piles of leaves.

What would cause the shrinkage and inflation then?

Biological sediments are more than just leaves. They include all the animals, fungus, and bacterial activity that converts sugars into oils and other denser compounds. Deer eat leaves, for example, and compact the sediments into dropping that are more oily because the deer has a liver that converts sugars into fats, as well as accumulating dietary oils into a denser format. People used to say that crude oil was made out of dinosaur carcasses, but there have been a lot of other animals, fungus, and bacteria operating and dropping sediments since Jurassic times besides just dinosaurs.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
You say this but you don't explain what you mean. I take it you've never been a teacher
What louy tachr dos is to read the sgment and lecture them, What a good teacher does is to lead their students and ask them for answers. What a great teacher does is have the students teach themselves. I take it youve never been associated with any great teachers.

So many that I stopped worshiping them and started just taking what I learned and doing the most I could with it, because that is the purpose of teaching students; i.e. for them to go forth with what they've learned.

Good teachers and/or students don't get spooked by being lectured. Getting defensive is an immature reaction to receiving information. The mature response is to explain what you know in response to a lecture and then ask further questions of the lecturer and/or explain to them what you consider that they've overlooked or are not taking into account.

If the lecturer doesn't have an authoritarian ego complex that can't handle critical engagement with students of various levels, they appreciate the critical engagement and use it as an opportunity to explore knowledge and logic actively. If the lecturer is hung up on the idea that students should just shut up and listen and worship him/her because he/she is at a more advanced level than they are, they are not really educating but ego-tripping on status hierarchy and the social power that comes with that.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

I don't know if you've ever taught students, but if you have, do you like it when they just listen to what you tell them and repeat it back without thinking critically and working to really make sense of the knowledge and develop an active grasp of how it works? I don't, so I try to be the student that I would want to teach by thinking actively and critically about questions I have before consulting experts.

You are slinging more bullshit about something you don't have any clue about. I have taught students, both at the high school and college level. Moreso, I have been to teacher college where studied education, psychology and research based techniques to get students to succeed.

Just like being a scientist, a surgeon or an airline pilot... good teachers don't just pull things out of their ass. Becoming a good teacher takes work. You have to study, look at research, talk to professors and peers, take tests and work at your craft.

1. Good teachers don't just wing it. When you teach a class... you start with a curriculum. In every lesson, you have a list of things you want kids to learn, a list of abilities you want them to practice. Then you design your lesson around what you want the kids to know.

2. Good teachers are experts.. The reason I am in front of the class is because I know a great deal more than the students. They know I am the expert. I know I am the expert. That is the reason that I can teach them.

3. Good teachers accept the limitations of the students. When I taught high school science, there were some things that I needed the kids to accept as fact because they weren't ready to understand. When we talk to high school kids about mechanics (the study of motion) we use the results of calculus. We hand the kids the functions that they need to use. If they ask "why" I was honest.... this is mathematically correct, but you won't have the skill to derive the math for a few years.

4. Good teachers test their students. At the end of every unit in my class (and in the classes where I was a student) there was a exam. When a student puts down the correct answer, they get a positive score. When a student puts down the wrong answer they get a negative score. At the end the scores are tallied up and the student is given a grade; A through F. This feedback is important both for the student and the teacher.

5. There are right answers in science. When students ask questions, a good teacher will explain (where appropriate) or lead the student. Sometimes teachers need to honestly say that the student isn't ready for the math.

When students have a wrong answer, a good teacher will always correct them (in my experienced opinion).

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I can give two examples that might be interesting.

1. I taught high school science in an area with a significant evangelical religious community. One of my students was a Young Earth Creationist, she was taught by her family and church that the Earth and the Universe were less than 10,000 years old.

She was in my Space Science class. Hopefully you can see the issue... I was teacher her about the formation of the Solar System, an event that took place billions of years ago. I told her that I respected her religious beliefs, but that this class was going to take a scientific viewpoint and that she should learn and be able to pass the test based on the view of scientists.

Now to be honest (and I was honest with my students too) the Astrophysicists use Spectroscopy and CMB studies... it is impossible to give high school students who don't even know what a Fourier Transform is background enough to derive the results themselves, but you give the students the basic outline that meets the curriculum goals.

My Christian student did very well in my class. She could explain (at a level appropriate for a smart high school student) how the Solar System is believed to have formed, and the tools that science uses to study the past.

I don't know if this class challenged her religious beliefs, nor do I care. My job was to teach her a science curriculum.

2. I had another student who had an absolutely brilliant mind. I have no problem saying that he was smarter than I am. However, I knew much more about Physics than he did. He would come to me after class to ask questions about the subject. He was really interested in relativity, and he impressed me with his ability to see the important issues before I even raised them.

I sat with him for hours after class. He was just starting calculus, so I could connect some of the subject matter with the math he was learning. There were something where I had to say "this is the result, this is a mathematical subject you aren't ready for yet so trust me on this." He was OK with that because that was all he was ready for.

He was getting what he wanted. I was happy because he was an excellent student. There was no other student nearly ready to tackle this material. It was a fun experience as a teacher.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Good teachers and/or students don't get spooked by being lectured. Getting defensive is an immature reaction to receiving information

I love it when students challenge the norms. Thats what Id strive for because I had a few great teachers who "leave it to the student with minimal insights".
The differences with you is that you are just flat wrong and dont accept that fact. So, why waste my time in an argument that should be much farther along with details.
When someone gets stuck on one outcome without knowing the other options available, thats the beginning of fanatacism.

Its kind of interesting that youve been parroting what Ive said above. Nope , as a teacher, we dont shy away from challenging question, those are evidence that "youve got it"!!!

Youre kinda stuck in an almost anti-science mode . Are you a past science major? or are you still looking forward to attending college??

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Piloting an airplane is done by pilots.

There are two kinds of pilots.
'Professional' pilots who learned it all in school and -
'Stick and rudder' pilots who learned in 'other' ways.

I have closely followed the investigation.
'Professional' piloting skills are what killed those 737Max passengers.
A stick and Rudder pilot would have never let that happen.

The Stick and Rudder instructor who signed my shirt tail told me “Here is your license to Learn”.

3 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

It's not "getting all full of yourself" or "claiming that science is all BS" to approach learning using the same scientific method that scientific research is based on,

I disagree with you quite strongly. You are apparently(wither by deign or just by ignorance), failing to understand a basic mechanism that is well understood, well researched and well studied in the lab.
"Where does this energy come from and how is it dissipated "was one of the very first areas of discovery as the new global tectonics was being developed. The reason it rose to the top of all other mechanisms was the development of new micro-instruments that were developed as the age of more compact field instruments opened up and compact circuitry made it possible to schlep these instruments into previously inaccessible areas.

It wasnt long after the "Magnetic stripes" of the mid oceans were understood and married to things like relict magnetism that helped seal the deal.

I got a kick out of your invocation of" Occam's Razor". Sometimes the razor needs to be fancied up with more complementary evidence from entirely diff sources of expertise. In other words, Occams Razor isnt a concrete fact. It works SOMETIMES. But in an area where many felds of investigation coalesce, Occam has to take a number. This was such an area.

New Tectonics was one of the best arenas of INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE in the last century. It took a lot of effort to understand the complete stories and unless you delve into its development as ":Settled science" (I USE this with some caution because we still cant explain all things like diapirs and hot spots Fully), youll continue to be stuck in a grove of nonsensical information.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

So your answer to the 737 Max problem is to fire all of the pilots who have been to flight school?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Boeing's greed killed those passengers.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

All the 737-Max accidents involved take-offs no? I think Boeing quietly accepts that design engineering was a big part of the issue . Pilots seemingly never had adequate time to "unlearn" what Boeing training supplied them. So perhaps they were unable to react quickly.

I have two buds who are retired United 777 pilots who always maintained "' The companies (airlines and mfrs) always hope that the pilots die so they cant dispute anything"

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I was wondering whether youve thought about a way you may "falsify" either your hypothesis or science's theory about Continental Drift.
I have.

Look at the pattern of surficial and deep "thermal gradients" in tectonic zones. Come up with a way that you may falsify either.

In other words, WHICH WAY DOES THE HEAT TRAVEL??? WHERE DOES IT OCCUR???
HOW DO WE UNDERSTAND THIS???

In either explanation there should be ways to falsify the explanations.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Your reading comprehension is as bad as your hypocrisy.

You regularly spout off on subjects in which you have no expertise while condemning others for the same thing. Biology and Information technology come to mind.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

So why did the other pilots who encountered the same problem not crash?

You know less than nothing about it if you get you data from mainstream media.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

There was definitely a problem with Boing's logic in MCAS programming. You should NEVER give the computer/machine full pitch authority based on a non redundant sensor.

The reason for my POV is that a more conventionally trained pilots would have pulled back the throttles when the plane began uncommanded pitch down. It would have been instantly instinctive. These guys went 'By the book' and left the throttles on Auto Throttle max power all the way into the ground.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Ive got no understanding of how it all work but the pilots assn had taken a position that to accomplish all the do overs and corrections would have been beyond a humans response capability?? Sound reasonable?? or is it just the lawyers for insurance carriers making their stands known for the press??

1 Reply

@farmerman,

That was a reasonable position, given the incredibly complex formal procedure buried deep in the manual which they probably didn’t have time to go through. They would have had a LOT more time if they had done the instinctive thing and reduced throttle.

That also would have reduced airspeed and aerodynamic loading on the horizontal stabilizer trim mechanism thus enabling them to operate the manual pitch trim control and regain control. At the speed they were going it was probably not physically possible for a human with normal strength.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

5. There are right answers in science. When students ask questions, a good teacher will explain (where appropriate) or lead the student. Sometimes teachers need to honestly say that the student isn't ready for the math.

When students have a wrong answer, a good teacher will always correct them (in my experienced opinion).

When you teach/learn science as dogma, there's no difference from teaching pseudo-science. Pseudoscience is fake science that doesn't actually work at the mechanical level. If you learn scientific facts as arbitrary bits of information and formulas to memorize and repeat, or in the case of math learn to calculate and work equations without understanding how the math connects with reality; it just becomes parlor tricks to differentiate yourself from other, less-educated people.

Ptolemy's astronomy was math-rich and based on observed data but it wasn't as elegant as a heliocentric model. Teachers could teach Ptolemy's astronomy and other overthrown pseudoscientific 'knowledge' using all the methods you describe regarding good teachers and teaching.

How, though, do you teach students to question and critically think about received knowledge so that they can foresee what will potentially change in science in the future and why/how? If all you do is teach people to worship existing science and accept it dogmatically, you're failing to teach the fundamental raison-d'etre of science, which is to think critically, question, analyze underlying mechanics, and determine what could turn out to change or evolve in the future of science.

1 Reply

Creationists, Flat-Earthers, Anti-Vaxxers.... People who reject science.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know