The age of Hawaii

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

There was really NOTHING that your physics girl said that eviated from what I said, you just seem to have a bug up your ass to pick a fight with a retired geology tacher.

I never said anything about the Physicsgirl video deviating or conforming to anything you said. It is that your ego wants to make everything in a conflict and/or rivalry. I don't know why you can't just discuss things without picking fights, but it is what you do.

Quote:

If you understood how we can map with seismic traces and how we have , for years, known the structure of the core mantle boundaries youd not ask so many irrrational questions. When you ask an rrational question and then go into a rant when you dont like what I tell you, dont make me the bad guy. Set started out in scholarly fahion to which you reacted irrationally. I think your problems may go beyond your worldview.

You are not a bad guy because of anything you say about geology, but because of the mean, fight-picking things you say in between what you say about geology.

Quote:

You wish to have your worldview argued on an equal footing with science. AINT GONNA HPPEN,

I don't even think in terms of 'equal-footing.' You live in a world of status while I just read and review information. My ego might not be as tender as yours because I didn't go through an entire academic career in the ivory toward to groom me into a primadonna like you did.

Quote:

when you pick up subjects and , because our understanding is at an elementary level, you start insulting those who , to you , sound rude but are only tht way becau you dlivr a basic denial of the answers youd gotten. You hve left a trail of consistent denial of basic knowledge here on a2k, and you continue to poorly defend your poitions with neither evidence nor good solid facts .

Your arrogance becomes ruder when you express entitlement to it.

Quote:

Your use of qord salad technique is easily seen through and , after 1 or 2 ttempts at setting your unerstanding strait, I found that you jut get more and more childlike and petulant.

It is your arrogance and hostility that is childlike. It's sad that someone can retire from an esteemed academic position without ever attaining the maturity to rise above the kind of hostile aggression you spit out of your frothing attitude.

What happened to you? Did you get denied emeritus status or something and now you take it out on people who didn't make it as far as you did in academia?

Quote:

We dismiss thoughts of a moon made of green cheese , or a planet where events 2 billion years apart can have mutual cause and effect relationships. We dismiss the first of these in our pre academic years and , the second, early in them.

You find yourself such a genius when you can cite something blatantly ridiculous as an analogy for your subjective judgment of any thought or idea you can't wrap your narrow-minded head around.

Quote:

Ive read how youve been insulting others (most recently set, who has apparently been doing several other things while he was mentally eviscerating you.) Your MO is that, as academic discussions proceed you feel that you deserve some kind of thinking "alike" . It doesnt work that way. If you cannot learn from somone calling your mistakes, but instead begin to whine and name call and insult. Then your going to hve to endure critical analyses used against you. So, you will need to larn to deal with it all cause noone is going to give you a pass when you keep coming up with rather vapid arguments.
gday again

You are a totally biased person, so your opinion on things like this is moot. It'd be great if you'd withhold it, but I know you're not capable of such restraint.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Youre whining again. When I was early doing an MS inchemistry I wa 19 and I was working 12 hours a day as a lab tech in a med lab. I badlyflunked my first test cause I underestimated what I needed to know and only had a low set of skills. Nobody jumpd in and pitied me cause I neededrent mony in Conncticut.

I don't care about your life. The internet is a tool to discuss things fruitfully and you obstruct it because of your ego/status issues.

Quote:

My advisor told me to apply for a fellowship and get a cheaper apartment but just keep up with the work or get out.

Your advisor was exploiting you and other students for money, like all academic professionals do. You submitted to it and now you're one of them. Congratulations.

Quote:

I learned that, if I needed a friend in science, I should get a dog. SO I sorta took his advice and aced the course. My advisor taught the core courses in analytical analyses and micro sampling. He just figured I could do it but needed the discipline of how highr ed works.You are all you got so dont be wasting time on silly hypotheses that you should have learned the case against much earlier . He called me a collague hen he handed me my degree and we bcame great friends till his death 10 yars ago

You paid off the debt paper on your friendship and he followed through. Congrats. Some women will stay married to you for life, too, if you keep them materially satisfied. It's a good bargain to some people.

Quote:

Your problem is based on assuming the internet is based on truth.

No, but I will never validate lies and liars, on the internet or elsewhere. In Christ everything is forgiven, but that doesn't validate anything that warrants forgiveness.

Quote:

trouble with the internet is everyone is a genius in their own mind. Ive workd with REAL geniuses and am always impressed t how great the good ones are .

I don't care about your evaluation of genius. It's just part of your self-indulgent ego-trip.

Quote:

I hadda work harder but when I finished, I quickly passed many of those self aggrandizing ones who would never make a right turn and give up their original hypotheses and start over. Theyd wind up quitting and settle , saying that every one else was wrong, not them.

Do you realize how self-aggrandizing you sound when you say this?

Quote:

As far as a "well informed public", I really have no interest in that. Im a teacher of a professional core, not a bunch of hobbyists who collect rocks or memorize names of faults. If you dont accept the discipline needed, and want to contribute, youre a hobbyist, nd Id suggest you join a geology club where there are mentors of HS retired earth science teachers who know about geology, wather, cosmology etc.

This is a free online discussion board. If you don't want to serve the public for free, you're in the wrong place.

0 Replies

@CAfrica141,

CAfrica141 wrote:

Livinglava, just give it up, some people are just too clever to have a rational conversation with the likes of us. Sigh!!!!

It would be great if people were polite here, but many aren't. Some are, at least sometimes.

Quote:

Let me tackle one or two items. An early theory for the unique geology of Mars postulated that an impact near the South pole caused a shock wave which blew off enough matter from the North side of the planet to create the two close moons of Mars.

Yes, this theory has been superseded by a more robust and probably more likely proposal. That is irrelevant. The point here is that scientists were quite comfortable with the CONCEPT that the shock wave of an impact COULD cause enormous amounts of matter to be ejected from the opposite side of the planet!!! And that is all that I was referring to. Science recognizes that impacts can cause shockwaves to travel through a planet. Therefore it is an acceptable scientific theory!!!!

I believe what you're saying without citations, but it's because it doesn't really matter to me what is "an acceptable scientific theory," i.e. because merely the fact that a theory as been accepted by scientists doesn't tell me how or why it was accepted.

In other words, what I would really want to know is what logic can be applied in analyzing the possibility of such a shockwave going all the way through the planet to the other side. People can insist one way or the other without ever explaining why/how what they think is possible or impossible is or isn't.

Quote:

Farmerman has no intention of discussing the matter, all he does is to keep telling me to do more research. Then we get a guy telling me NOT to pose silly theories here? Really!! And I thought this was a DISCUSSION FORUM!!!! Obviously my interpretation of what a discussion looks like differ from other people's perceptions. I must be really dumb.

I speculate a lot on why people behave the way they do in free online forums like this one. I think it is because they somehow own stock in universities or textbook companies or somehow make money from goading people into going back to school and paying tuition, fees, buying books, etc.

So I think they know that people who go online to discuss science are people who see enough potential in themselves to enroll in a degree program so they can have as their job what they love to do, which is study and do research. So they are trying to make money by selling us our dream of doing what we love instead of whatever dead-end job we're currently stuck in; but the reality is that many people are stuck in dead-end jobs and if they take on (more) student debt, they will still be doing the same dead-end job after getting their degree because there are simply not enough academic/research jobs for everyone who wants one.

Everyone who works in academia or corporate research wants to go out to eat, travel, shop in stores, etc. so all those service jobs get created by the professors and researchers spending their big salaries, which are funded by student enrollment.

Quote:

I have news for you guys. You haven't shaken my belief in my theory by one whit. Not that you care, or should care now is it?

Your belief in your theory is irrelevant, so there's no reason for you to abandon it. What you should do is keep seeking evidence and/or potential evidence that would add rigor to it. If you can explain how a shockwave would or wouldn't go all the way through a planet, for example, that adds more rigor (critical detail) to your understanding of the propagation of wave energy through a planet due to a meteor strike, which seems to be the foundation of your hypothesis that the SA meteor caused the Hawaii mantle plume to form.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

My lat contribution. You guy dont hav a "theory" by any means. At best its a supposition based upon two separate facts that you havent been able to successfully link up except by something that comes out of a few popular science sources.
Ill take Dr Wilson's initial theory about the seismically located thermal anomaly on the outer core that has transferred thermal energy to the upr mantle and been the sources of several"hotspots"
A "real theory" in science has all the evidence supporting it and NONE that refutes it. The present "theory" has none f that.

And Ll, stop whining about how nasty I am to you. I just dont like people who dont read the available data and evidence. Hint: most science IS NOT reported on YOUTUBE.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

My lat contribution. You guy dont hav a "theory" by any means. At best its a supposition based upon two separate facts that you havent been able to successfully link up except by something that comes out of a few popular science sources.

What does it matter whether anything we talk about ever earns yours or anyone's else's badge of calling it 'A Theory?'

Why can't you just discuss content instead of trying to turn it into a status competition and subjugate people to your judgment? You want to be judge and jury so badly instead of just adding your information to discussions.

Quote:

Ill take Dr Wilson's initial theory about the seismically located thermal anomaly on the outer core that has transferred thermal energy to the upr mantle and been the sources of several"hotspots"
A "real theory" in science has all the evidence supporting it and NONE that refutes it. The present "theory" has none f that.

What you or Wilson or any other source has to contribute to any discussion here or anywhere else is only relevant insofar as it explains the claims and information that it contributes.

Merely saying there is "thermal anomaly on the outer core that has transferred thermal energy to the upr mantle and been the sources of several"hotspots"' is like saying there's an xray that shows a bone anomaly and then pretending like that's not just information to use as part of a diagnostic analysis.

Quote:

And Ll, stop whining about how nasty I am to you. I just dont like people who dont read the available data and evidence. Hint: most science IS NOT reported on YOUTUBE.

I am not whining when I stand up to your mean-spirited fight-picking. When you stop picking fights, I will stop responding to it. You have no right to say the things you do, and you deserve worse for it than I give you.

The science that's not posted on Youtube or elsewhere online is wasting the opportunity that internet provides for widely disseminating information. When I was young, they told us that science was about publishing information freely and allowing anyone to review the information. That has changed now, but it is a change for the worse that is to the detriment of science as a free/open discursive tradition.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

I believe what you're saying without citations, but it's because it doesn't really matter to me what is "an acceptable scientific theory," i.e. because merely the fact that a theory as been accepted by scientists doesn't tell me how or why it was accepted.

In other words, what I would really want to know is what logic can be applied in analyzing the possibility of such a shockwave going all the way through the planet to the other side. People can insist one way or the other without ever explaining why/how what they think is possible or impossible is or isn't.

I only gave the explanation because someone tried to rubbish my point simply because a new theory for Mars has since been formulated. I tried to show that the CONCEPT remains a scientifically acceptable model.

Isn't it interesting Ll that Farmerman claims the theory is without merit, and yet in 20 odd posts he hasn't been able to formulate ONE SINGLE argument to support his view? All he has done is to keep telling us that he believes some-one else's theory?

C

2 Replies

@CAfrica141,

Apparently youve NOT read anything about what we do know about the structure and thermal anomalies of the outer core that underlie the ascending plume of the mantle that unerlies all three o the major volcanic areas and hotspost of the Central to southern pacific. Theres PLENTY of evidence to do a reasonable argument that uses available data from Wilsons work and Santosh and Rogers.
A THEORY NEES SOM EVIDENCE TO EVEN BE CONSIDERED A THEORY. You are reciting something youve apparently erid from a Wiki. If you really are interested Id suggest that YOU go search out ci Citation , you can get em done free when you go to a Uni library. I know, it taks WFFORT and all you want is some geologist whose worked at the Hawaiian/Emperor/Tuuamoto/Austral lineaments. All of these have a travel pattern and pattern of hotspot association to give a reasonably intelligent science geek some nifty evidence that dosnt require evidence free lnking of two events separated from each other by a
1. planets diameter and ,
2. 2 BILLION years.
I endorse open unfettered thinking bt I dont endorse someone who settles on a conclusion before hes even looked at the available evidence.

To every phenomenon is a solution that is elegant, complex, and usually dead wrong---Clarence Darrow.

0 Replies

@CAfrica141,

CAfrica141 wrote:

I only gave the explanation because someone tried to rubbish my point simply because a new theory for Mars has since been formulated. I tried to show that the CONCEPT remains a scientifically acceptable model.

There's nothing wrong with mentioning it, and I agree that the fact scientists have accepted something gives an indication that a theory is reasonable, but I am just ultimately more interested in the actual reasons/reasoning the theory is built on than on merely knowing that some other people haven't dismissed it yet.

Quote:

Isn't it interesting Ll that Farmerman claims the theory is without merit, and yet in 20 odd posts he hasn't been able to formulate ONE SINGLE argument to support his view? All he has done is to keep telling us that he believes some-one else's theory?

I argue a lot with him and some other 'science'-people here about the importance of critical thinking, and they usually respond to me by telling me critical thinking is meaningless and I should go back to school.

Farmerman seems to be a retired geologist of some kind, professor maybe. He sometimes shares little barages of facts but he doesn't like to discuss and/or think about them too much; i.e. he doesn't like to unpack them, explan the logic/reasoning of why certain evidence speaks to certain theories/claims, why it disproves others, etc.

When he has a 'leading theory' in his mind, he will cite it and then give you his reason that he accepts the claim, i.e. that there are impacts closer to Hawaii that explain Hawaii and that he rejects your claim because the impact you mention happened a long time before Hawaii emerged. If you try to get him to go further in discussion, he will usually basically just keep fighting against whatever you are saying in order to side with whatever established source he is citing. I believe this is because academicians in general don't want to stake their reputations on looking like they might be siding with some unknown person or an internet crackpot over established scholars. They claim to be unbiased in their science, but the reality is that they expect to be honored for their positions and status and when/if they would question someone established in the field even just to give open-critical consideration to some other theory/thinking, they risk being questioned themselves as someone who is losing their sanity and falling to heresy.

I personally am interested in the fact the Hawaiian ridge traces back through time all the way to the Asian continent, and that there are mantle plumes (flood basalts) there that could be related to that ridge's history even further back. I can't discount your notion that the hotspot was initiated by the South African meteor strike, but that could be because I don't have enough knowledge of the field of research/theory that has been done on these types of topics.

It bothers me that more experts don't participate in online discussions like these to explain to lay people like me, who are intellectually capable of understanding, how the theoretical reasoning works, etc. I think there are so many professionals who have studied and they are either monopolized by the academic/governmental/corporate institutions they work for; or they just don't want to really milk their brains to serve the public freely in open public forums such as this. That is why I often tell Farmerman and others that the only reason they come online to discuss science is to bait people into enrolling in university and paying tuition. I want it to be just discussion and not an advertising scam to lure people into spending, but I don't know how many professionals there are who are independent enough to be able to freely serve the public without limiting their participation as a condition of not getting paid.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

I argue a lot with him and some other 'science'-people here about the importance of critical thinking

NO, you dint argue with me ABOUT anything. Your efinition of "Critical thinking" seems to be denial of anything from standard science without wven understanding what the hell youre critiquing.
THATS FANATICISM--According to brother Gardner, "Fanaticism is concluing that what you propose is correct without xploring what the others are about"

I know well about most all of the"Bolides heard round the world" There are conditions required in struture of the planet. They are not new. ACience has presented them and they seem to WORK. Wheres your evidences.?? You only have opinions and some verbiage. "Critical thinking "can often be just a title to cover up for scientific ignorance .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

I argue a lot with him and some other 'science'-people here about the importance of critical thinking
NO, you dint argue with me ABOUT anything. Your efinition of "Critical thinking" seems to be denial of anything from standard science without wven understanding what the hell youre critiquing.

See, once again you attack based on assumptions because you'd rather have arguments than critical discussion.

Critical think just means thinking and discussing a topic in detail; asking and answering questions about the hows and whys, and when someone proposes an alternative explanation, you explore why it would or wouldn't be defensible instead of just hammering it to death as fast as possible by citing some established source that says otherwise.

Quote:

THATS FANATICISM--According to brother Gardner, "Fanaticism is concluing that what you propose is correct without xploring what the others are about"

Are you sure fanaticism isn't typing, "THATS FANATICISM" in all caps?

Quote:

I know well about most all of the"Bolides heard round the world" There are conditions required in struture of the planet. They are not new. ACience has presented them and they seem to WORK. Wheres your evidences.?? You only have opinions and some verbiage. "Critical thinking "can often be just a title to cover up for scientific ignorance .

Critical thinking and discussion is how you properly and civilly add your thoughts to a discussion. If you have something you know about 'bolides,' that you want to add to the discussion, you explain what you know and how it is applicable.

You can do that without insulting anyone or accusing anyone of fanaticism or anything like that.

0 Replies

OK this thread seems to have ground to a halt. Probably because some people refuse to debate the issues.

Now I don't have access to the search engines that Farmerman brags about but using Google, I was able to check up on a few of the other hotspots in the Pacific.

No surprise to me, none of them were accompanied by a massive bulge in the sea floor. A bulge, which in the Hawaii case, exists in the layer BELOW the tectonic plate.

So it seems that the insistence that hotspots have been explained fails at the first hurdle. It doesn't explain this bulge which is different from the other hotspots.

C

2 Replies

@CAfrica141,

CAfrica141 wrote:

OK this thread seems to have ground to a halt. Probably because some people refuse to debate the issues.

Now I don't have access to the search engines that Farmerman brags about but using Google, I was able to check up on a few of the other hotspots in the Pacific.

No surprise to me, none of them were accompanied by a massive bulge in the sea floor. A bulge, which in the Hawaii case, exists in the layer BELOW the tectonic plate.

So it seems that the insistence that hotspots have been explained fails at the first hurdle. It doesn't explain this bulge which is different from the other hotspots.

C

Could the bulge simply be caused by a gravitational asymmetry due to the fact that convection has to find a way out of a situation that's being otherwise compressed from all surrounding directions?

I assume that any convection pressure is going to move in the direction of least resistance, so that path of least resistance would either be due to gravity and/or to patterns of heat/energy flow that were established through the gradual evolution of the overall planet.

Maybe a meteor changed the overall energy flow patterns within the planet, though? How could you ultimately deduce how to deduce certainty?

0 Replies

@CAfrica141,

are you talking about the ridge? Im not sure where this bulge lies. The plume tht drives the Hawaiian and other seamounts are in concordance with spherical geometry, See McColloughs equation.

0 Replies

Farmerman, The ocean floor in that region of the Pacific, is around 5000 to 5300m deep, except directly below the Hawaii islands where it is considerably shallower. This “bulge” in the sea floor is the only reason why the island actually sticks out above the water. In future, as the tectonic plate moves the island Westwards, Hawaii will also disappear below the waves.

Now as Ll said, this bulge could just be a coincidence. It just HAPPENED to form in this particular spot! I find it hard to believe though as I have the smoking gun in the form of the impact directly opposite this point on the surface of the earth. Why would one prefer to believe in an accidental confluence of events to create such a significant structure, when there seems to be a rational explanation for its existence?

C

3 Replies

@CAfrica141,

when you ay "bulge" you mean the Emperor seamount??

0 Replies

@CAfrica141,

CAfrica141 wrote:

Farmerman, The ocean floor in that region of the Pacific, is around 5000 to 5300m deep, except directly below the Hawaii islands where it is considerably shallower. This “bulge” in the sea floor is the only reason why the island actually sticks out above the water. In future, as the tectonic plate moves the island Westwards, Hawaii will also disappear below the waves.

Now as Ll said, this bulge could just be a coincidence. It just HAPPENED to form in this particular spot! I find it hard to believe though as I have the smoking gun in the form of the impact directly opposite this point on the surface of the earth. Why would one prefer to believe in an accidental confluence of events to create such a significant structure, when there seems to be a rational explanation for its existence?

Thank you for posting an example of how to respond to an idea you disagree with without insulting the other poster or otherwise provoking drama.

Now we have two competing explanations: 1) the meteor 2) spontaneous (internally-caused) asymmetry. More alternatives/hypotheses can be added to these, but at least you have simply clarified that you are leaning toward the meteor explanation, against the spontaneous asymmetry hypothesis; and so discussion can proceed without petty arguing and insults.

0 Replies

@CAfrica141,

If youre not talking about the Empror Seamount, perhaps, instead of "bulge" you mean the Mantel plume?. A mantle plume was what I was talking about from the start. It was that which was dicovered an nmed by W. J. Morgan and reinforced by J Tuzo Wilson,(workin in te mid-Pacific) waay back in the 60's and early 70's when models for coupling the mantle,asthenosphere and deep crustal tectonics were starting to be understood. That IS the principle model of hot spot geometry (coupled with tectonic plate movement.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

If youre not talking about the Empror Seamount, perhaps, instead of "bulge" you mean the Mantel plume?. A mantle plume was what I was talking about from the start. It was that which was dicovered an nmed by W. J. Morgan and reinforced by J Tuzo Wilson,(workin in te mid-Pacific) waay back in the 60's and early 70's when models for coupling the mantle,asthenosphere and deep crustal tectonics were starting to be understood. That IS the principle model of hot spot geometry (coupled with tectonic plate movement.

When you post, you do things that are basically just authoritarian gestures, such as insisting on certain terminology instead of 'bulge,' as the poster said.

You may want to discuss whether the 'hot bulge' in the sea floor should be referred to as a 'sea mount' and/or whether it is due to a 'mantle plume,' and that's fine, but you should just say that you refer to it as such because of your sources you cite, and not immediately insist that the poster must mean to use the same terms or else his use of the word, 'bulge' is meaningless. 'Bulge' is a clear, general word for what he's talking about and it is clear to anyone who understands that the ocean floor rises up there to form a volcano.

Now, look at what you say above in terms of citations vs. explantion:

Quote:

It was that which was dicovered an nmed by W. J. Morgan and reinforced by J Tuzo Wilson,(workin in te mid-Pacific) waay back in the 60's and early 70's when models for coupling the mantle,asthenosphere and deep crustal tectonics were starting to be understood. That IS the principle model of hot spot geometry (coupled with tectonic plate movement.

You cite several people and drop a bunch of fancy terminology, but you explain nothing about what you're mentioning. You are just name-dropping and posturing by saying it was "waay back in the 60s and early 70s," which just implies that you know the entire history of "the discipline" and thus you are an authority to submit to.

You have to understand that not everyone wants to play authoritarian submission games with scientific disciplinary canons. Some people are just gathering information and thinking about it and discussing their thoughts. They aren't trying to 'fit in' to any defined canon of disciplinary knowledge/information.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I think its a language difference. Weve NEVER referred to a "bulge", but the mantle PLUME that carries magma from a area of the outer core is associated with the rising "PLUME" of magma that defines the hotspot (called that because it does NOT associate itself with subduction zones or rises.).
As far as being associate with bolides, Im not familiar enough with whether there is one in the +/- time period that could initiate a"Hot spot:.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I think its a language difference. Weve NEVER referred to a "bulge", but the mantle PLUME that carries magma from a area of the outer core is associated with the rising "PLUME" of magma that defines the hotspot (called that because it does NOT associate itself with subduction zones or rises.).
As far as being associate with bolides, Im not familiar enough with whether there is one in the +/- time period that could initiate a"Hot spot:.

CAfrica said the following:

Quote:

Farmerman, The ocean floor in that region of the Pacific, is around 5000 to 5300m deep, except directly below the Hawaii islands where it is considerably shallower. This “bulge” in the sea floor is the only reason why the island actually sticks out above the water. In future, as the tectonic plate moves the island Westwards, Hawaii will also disappear below the waves.

When you call it a "plume," that implies convection, but since the topic of discussion isn't (yet) focused on convection, I don't see why you would make a point of replacing CAfrica's term, 'bulge' with 'plume' except to assert that he's not using canonical disciplinary terms; and the only reason you have to do that is to assert yourself as an authority over him, which is rude imo.

There's nothing wrong with you explaining what you have learned from your studies, but you should do it in a way that explains your POV instead of implicitly insisting that he/we must accept the 'proper' terminology or else face ridicule for deviating from it.

Terminological conformity is just not important enough to enforce. It happens automatically that people talking with each other start using common terms that make sense to them both; but when you come into discussions citing canonical authors and citing terminology in order to assert it over what someone else says, you're disrespecting the fact that using the word, "bulge" simply describes what CAfrica said about the sea floor being shallower there.

You also wanted to insist on calling it the 'Emperor Ridge,' which may be the name given to that long feature that extends to Alaska, but that is the ridge and not the 'bulge.' So what you did was like someone mentioning a specific mountain and responding by naming the range that the mountain is a part of. That may be relevant information, but you're not just presenting it as relevant by mentioning that it's part of a range and explaining why you are talking about the range. Instead, you are just debating terminology for seemingly no reason other than to assert your disciplinary language over whatever language the person is using to write their post.

You can understand the term, 'bulge,' so there's no reason to argue about it not making sense and saying, "I understand the term, 'ridge,' or 'plume,' but not 'bulge.'" You do understand 'bulge,' so don't pretend like it's meaningless just to practice disciplinary elitism and exclusion of non-standard terminology.

1 Reply

The age of Hawaii

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know