Newsgroup sci.geo.earthquakes 6680

Directory

PORTABLE BATTERY POWERED EARTHQUAKE ALARM AVAILABLE. "U.S. PATENTED"
LICENSEING AGREEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE TO MANUFACTURE AND MARKET THIS
PORTABLE BATTERY POWERED ALARM. IF INTERESTED IN A LICENSE AGREEMENT 
CONTACT THE BELOW ADDRESS. SEND E MAIL ADDRESS AND NUMBER TO
NICEHACK@AOL.COM

In article <19970127131701.IAA27367@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
miklwillms@aol.com wrote:
>In article ,
>gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
>
>>>They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
>>
>>And they stopped laughing at Wegener.
>>
>>
>
>Well, we're still laughing at you and Tim.
Everybody has their day.  But it takes character to take the
lumps as well as the accolades.
Dennis

In article <32ECD9A0.7C35@gps.caltech.edu>, lucy_jones@caltech.edu wrote:
>Dennis Gentry wrote:
>> 
>> In article
>> ,
>> timberwoof@the*mall.net (timberwoof) wrote:
>> 
>> >In article ,
>> >gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article , jewett@netcom.com (Bob Jewett)
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Which he seems to be doing without any understanding of the physical
>> >> >processes that Tim has included in his theory.  Neither of them
>> >> >is any Wegener.
>> >>
>> >> I know I'm getting to sound like a broken record, but you guys seem
>> >> to keep conveniently forgetting that back in Wegener's day the same
>> >> thing was thought of him.
>> >
>> >They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
>> 
>> And they stopped laughing at Wegener.
>
>No, they didn't. Wegener was wrong. He thought that continents plowed
>through the oceans like spoons through a bowl of pudding. His theory was 
>absurd, laughed at by geophysicists who knew that the ocean crust was 
>denser than the continents and couldn't be plowed through, and still 
>laughed at by geophysicists. Wegener was right only that the fossils and 
>rocks matched up across the Atlantic but WRONG about how it was 
>accomplished. 
Huh?  I thought that is what I said somewhere.
The point is, though, that he was right about it occurring.  He was
only wrong in how it occurred.
Which tells me a great deal about how science works.  :-(
Dennis

In article <19970127131700.IAA27368@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
miklwillms@aol.com wrote:
>In article ,
>gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
>
>>Your choice.  But if a person doesn't look at things from all angles,
>>progress will continue its grudgingly slow pace.
>
>If people don't use a little discrimination in their thinking progress
>will reverse. Tim's theory is complete hooey, every little piece of it.
>You display a complete lack of analytical thought, and an abundance of
>credulity in defending it as well as insisting that scientists not dismiss
>it.
So what is wrong with that?
I thought I was showing a lot of analytical thought by coming up
with other possible, and plausible, alternatives.  Something that
nobody else has been doing.
Dennis

> "Does everybody in California think that American taxpayers are going to
> subsidize our lifestyle forever, that we can just present them a blank
> check every time we have a mudslide or a flood?" Hayden asks. "It's not
> going to happen. The rest of America has troubles too."
   Well then, I guess no sufferer of any natural disaster in any
location prone to those disasters should be offered government
assistance in rebuilding their homes.  This would, of course, include
the residents of the east coast who are subjected to repeated
hurricanes, those who live in the midwest who have to contend with those
nasty tornadoes, and let's not forget those idiots who choose to live in
places where it snows heavily.
   And hey, as long as we're on the subject, what about all those
idiotic humans that live in cities prone to tsunamis.  I mean, they're
just asking for it, aren't they?  And why should my tax dollars go to
stupid people who actually risk leaving their homes in the morning just
to be run over by a car or something.  I mean...really...the autacity of
it all.
-- 
                                 Bill
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
¦If everything possible, then it is impossible to know anything¦
¦with a substantial degree of confidence worth building upon.  ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------+

In article <5cj8gu$ko7@news.Hawaii.Edu>, gerard@hawaii.edu wrote:
>In article <32ECD9A0.7C35@gps.caltech.edu>, Lucy Jones
 writes:
>>Dennis Gentry wrote:
>[...]
>>> 
>>> And they stopped laughing at Wegener.
>>
>>No, they didn't. Wegener was wrong. He thought that continents plowed
>>through the oceans like spoons through a bowl of pudding. His theory was 
>>absurd, laughed at by geophysicists who knew that the ocean crust was 
>>denser than the continents and couldn't be plowed through, and still 
>>laughed at by geophysicists. Wegener was right only that the fossils and 
>>rocks matched up across the Atlantic but WRONG about how it was 
>>accomplished. 
>
>Agreed. There is tremendous revisionism applied the Wegener history. He
>did not propose anything like plate tectonics, he only proposed that
>there was such a thing as continental drift. He was also far from
>ignored. South African and Australian geologists accepted Wegener
>almost immediately. Others found his suggestions disquieting, but
>nobody tried to suppress his ideas. On the contrary, his case was
>repeatedly argued at meetings of the Geol Soc Am and elsewhere. The
>fact that there was so much argument meant that Wegener had vocal
>supporters (mainly among the field geologists). A chapter in James
>Trefil's book "Meditations at 10,000 feet: a scientist in the
>mountains" has a reasonable (if somewhat northern-hemisphere-parochial)
>reconstruction of the Wegener history. Now if Dennis had said "And they
>stopped laughing J. Harlan Bretz," then perhaps he'd have a point...
Oh well!  Informative post Gerard although I was under the impression
that it wasn't until the 50's before his case was accepted.  Close
to 50 years after he had came forth with it.  That sure was a lot
of meetings and arguments.
But then again, those discussions probably is what kept his theory
alive and not forgotten.
Not to change the subject but the above scenario sounds like history
is being repeated with the VAN method.
I wonder how the UC Berkeley project is doing with their research
on electrical currents and magnetism as precursors?  Anybody know?
Dennis

In article <32ECCF49.5719@nts.ohn.hydro.on.ca>, Harold.W.Asmis@hydro.on.ca
wrote:
>Dennis Gentry wrote:
>> ,
>> timberwoof@the*mall.net (timberwoof) wrote:
>
>> >They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
>> 
>> And they stopped laughing at Wegener.
>
>'They' stopped laughing at Wegener after he was dead.  You making an
>offer here, Dennis? (in a virtual sense :)
Sorry.  But I'm too into this to bow out.  :-)  Sorry to ruin
your day though.
>You guys have been driving me nuts with this, so I dusted off my old
>plate tectonics books.  This was not the case of an 'anti-science'
>outsider up against the establishment of 'Science.'  This was just
>another scientific controversy, such as the real cause of cancer.
Problem with books is that they usually are biased with the
opinions of the author.  So we have to be careful here.
>In 1855, Antonio Snider made the first reconstruction of the continents.
>Nothing much was done with it (ie. nobody 'laughed', probably nobody
>even saw it), until 1910, when there was quite a school of 'drifters' vs
>others.  Then there was a whole bunch of scientists who had various
>theories of what happened: 
>-catastrophic tidal action caused by the supposed capture of the moon
>from space.
>-Earth and Venus nearly collided  ..... etc.  (I can't find any
>reference on 'laughing'.)
Yes, and then we have Jules Vernes.
According to a certain Haroun Tazieff, his hypothesis was met by
"condemnation or derision".
Hmmm....I wonder what derision means.
Exactly the stuff we get out here on this ng.  But, thats usenet.
>Wegener is merely credited as the most important single early advocate
>of Continental Drift.  He drew on evidence from geology, geophysics,
>biology, and climatology in developing the most complete and influential
>early statement of the drift theory in 1912 (sounds rather scientific to
Or to use other words; paleontology, stratigraphy, petrography, and
geomorphology.
>me!).  As for mechanism, Wegener believed that the continental blocks
>just 'flowed' through the upper mantle.  Only shortly before his death
>(around 1928?) did he start to mention convection currents.
>
>Since there was no evidence for a plausible mechanism, scientists just
>agreed to disagree for the next 40 years, and went on to other things. 
>Only in the 60's did the great 'Plate Tectonics' intellectual explosion
>start.
>
>I was lucky to have many conversations with the great J. Tuzo Wilson
>before he died.  He told us that he backed many wrong theories before he
>gave us transform faults, and many of these were 'laughable'.
Which goes to show practice makes perfect.
Dennis

In article <32EB9346.39E2@earthlink.net>, obrlndr@earthlink.net wrote:
>Dennis Gentry wrote:
>
>
>> Your choice.  But if a person doesn't look at things from all angles,
>> progress will continue its grudgingly slow pace.
>> 
>> Dennis
>
>Some angles are not worth looking at and if these are pursued, science
>would really slow down.  Science tends to be clipping along at an
>especially fast pace compared to even 20 years ago.
I agree.  But then, what is worth looking at and what isn't?  What
can be looked at in a different light?
Dennis

In article <32EB918A.543A@earthlink.net>, obrlndr@earthlink.net wrote:
>Dennis Gentry wrote:
>> 
>> In article
>> ,
>> timberwoof@the*mall.net (timberwoof) wrote:
>> 
>> >In article ,
>> >gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article , jewett@netcom.com (Bob Jewett)
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Which he seems to be doing without any understanding of the physical
>> >> >processes that Tim has included in his theory.  Neither of them
>> >> >is any Wegener.
>> >>
>> >> I know I'm getting to sound like a broken record, but you guys seem
>> >> to keep conveniently forgetting that back in Wegener's day the same
>> >> thing was thought of him.
>> >
>> >They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
>> 
>> And they stopped laughing at Wegener.
>
>
>But they still laugh at a hundred other "semi-scientists" who put forth
>countless other theories like the "Dew Point Theory" and the "Moon is
>Cheese Theory." and will continue to do so, especially if the proponent
>of said theory does not put forth any kind effort to carefully document
>it to those which he wishes to convince.
This is getting funnier by the minute!
That is exactly what Wegener did.  And they still *laughed*.
I'm willing to bet that no matter how refutable the evidence is
that is presented, if it ever is :-( , somebody will find a way
to disprove it.
Dennis

Harold Asmis wrote:
> "Does everybody in California think that American taxpayers are going to
> subsidize our lifestyle forever, that we can just present them a blank
> check every time we have a mudslide or a flood?" Hayden asks. "It's not
> going to happen. The rest of America has troubles too."
> --
> Harold W. Asmis        harold.w.asmis@hydro.on.ca
> tel 416.592.7379  fax 416.592.5322
> Standard Disclaimers Apply
Take away the Cal economy(4th largest in the world at last count) and
the US loses one of few regions of the country that runs a trade surplus
with the world.
Paul Oberlander
-- 
"There are only two races on earth: the decent and the indecent"  Viktor
Frankl

In article <32ED842A.5EB1@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Oertell  writes:
|>    Well then, I guess no sufferer of any natural disaster in any
|> location prone to those disasters should be offered government
|> assistance in rebuilding their homes.  
... snip ...
I have thought much about these very issues.  I do not think federal 
bailouts are appropriate in all disasters.  For example, many of those in
California who whine for government help after a seismic event would
not consider leaving California because they like the climate, mountains,
and ocean all in one small area.  Well, the reason why the mountains are
there (and right next to the ocean) is the same tectonic forces that 
cause the earthquakes.  In addition, a lot of the climatic advantages
(maybe I should not make that case this year) reults from the orographic
(or topographic) effects.  Without the earthquakes, the geography and 
climate of california would not be as nice.  
Similarly, the person who lives next to the river and enjoys regular
boating and all benifits from the river except when it floods.
The people along the east coast enjoy the beach except when the 
hurricanes or nor'easters hit.  
My point is that there are benifits to living in a disaster prone
area that are DIRECTLY RELATED to the disaster.  You don't want to be in
a flood? Don't build in a flood plane.  You don't want a storm surge to
wipe out your house?  Don't build near the beach.  You don't want your house
destroyed by an earthquake?  Either 1) do not build in an earthquake prone 
area (move east) or 2) build a house that will handle an earthquake.
David
-- 
David Salzberg                salzberg@seismo.css.gov
Sliding down the slippery slope to oblivion...
All opinions are mine unless otherwise noted.
THIS POST REFLECTS ONLY MY OPIONION

>There's a familiar pattern: The governor declares a disaster area and
>the president follows suit. Then billions of tax dollars are poured into
>helping victims rebuild where nature has just proved it dangerous to
>live. 
Its not like the government hands you a big pile of cash with no strings
attached.  They give you a *loan* you have to pay back.  A bank would
either not give you that loan or charge you 2-3x the interest rate
of a safer location.
However, do consider:
- The reconstruction cost is often a small fraction of the housing value
in scenic areas like coastal CA where the land itself is worth a lot.
- You get a partial income tax subsidy writing off the loss, i.e.
about a quarter to a third of it depending on your income.

In article <5cktq8$t3p@seismo.CSS.GOV>, salzberg@seismo.CSS.GOV (David
Salzberg) wrote:
>In article <32ED842A.5EB1@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Oertell
 writes:
>
>|>    Well then, I guess no sufferer of any natural disaster in any
>|> location prone to those disasters should be offered government
>|> assistance in rebuilding their homes.  
>
>... snip ...
>
>I have thought much about these very issues.  I do not think federal 
>bailouts are appropriate in all disasters. 

Out of curiosity, who approves the building permits?
We probably need some mechanism where the buyer becomes
aware of the potential problems in respect to that particular
location and sign a release prior to being allowed to
purchase that property.
Dennis

In article <...> gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
 > Oh well!  Informative post Gerard although I was under the impression
 > that it wasn't until the 50's before his case was accepted.  Close
 > to 50 years after he had came forth with it.  That sure was a lot
 > of meetings and arguments.
So?  As I have remarked earlier, science is a skeptical and conservative
philosophy.  It takes a lot of work to convince a skeptical audience of
a new idea.  50 years is enough time to build up a convincing case and
refine the hypothesis to the point where it provides a better
explanation than existing thought.  The entire period of argumentation
is what the scientific process is about.
-- 
Thomas A. Russ,  USC/Information Sciences Institute          tar@isi.edu    

Dear Netters:
Currently I am looking for finding a contact product for S-wave velocity measurement of rocks. It is said that there are some special oil-like materials for shear movement resistant. If someone knows it, please tell me the detail. 
Thank you in advance.
Gangyan Gong

hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
> 
> In article <32ECB4AD.1AF5@nts.ohn.hydro.on.ca>,
> Harold Asmis   wrote:
> >Quotes of the day.  I just read in the Economist that 9 out of 10 US
> >Federal welfare dollars go to rich people.  This is probably the reason
> >that Americans will never build basements! :)
> >**********
> >SACRAMENTO -- Nobody's safe, it seems. Rich people watch the raging surf
> >smash their beach homes. Hillside dwellers with sunset vistas see their
> >houses mauled by mudslides. Or torched by brush fires. Everyone in the
> >L.A. Basin or San Francisco Bay Area--privileged or poor--is the
> >potential target of a sudden earthquake.
> 
> [diatribe deleted]
[snip]
> 
> Um. You're a Canadian. Butt out.
Um, looks like Harold was reposting something he found from another
source, something that was written by a Californian, as indicated by
the following quote, elsewhere in Harold's article:
> >To be a Californian is to live with lurking calamity. And the more
> >Californians--we're now 32 million, twice that of 1960--the more
> >calamitous.
Anyway, last time I checked, Canadians were allowed to comment on
happenings in California.  Of course, painting a negative image of
California might encouarage more of the to move here, so perhaps it is
best that we only say nice things about California on the net...
-- 
Greg Wimpey             Western Geophysical, Div. of Western Atlas Intl, Inc.
greg.wimpey@waii.com    Denver Processing Center

In article ,
Greg Wimpey   wrote:
>hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
[...]
>> Um. You're a Canadian. Butt out.
>
>Um, looks like Harold was reposting something he found from another
>source, something that was written by a Californian, as indicated by
>the following quote, elsewhere in Harold's article:
>
>> >To be a Californian is to live with lurking calamity. And the more
>> >Californians--we're now 32 million, twice that of 1960--the more
>> >calamitous.
>
>Anyway, last time I checked, Canadians were allowed to comment on
>happenings in California.  
Yep. And I'm an American (who was once a Landed Immigrant in Canada)
and I'm allowed to tell them to "butt out". Ain't free speech
wonderful.
But you should hear Canadians when Americans comment on their
country...
>Of course, painting a negative image of
>California might encouarage more of the to move here, so perhaps it is
>best that we only say nice things about California on the net...
It is a well-known fact that Colorado is the best damn place in the
world to live. 
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

In article , gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
[...]
>According to a certain Haroun Tazieff, his hypothesis was met by
>"condemnation or derision".
Wegener's ideas were met with derision in the northern hemisphere, but
they still had influence because, despite Wegener's outlandish driving
mechanism and some of his more extreme claims, there were a lot of data
that seemed to fit.
You have to take Tazieff's writing with a grain of salt, however.
Tazieff has gone a bit off the deep end in his uncritical embracing of
the VAN method. While he isn't an anti-science wacko, he was perhaps
the first person to hide behind the statement "They laughed at Wegener
too." Now everyone does it. (No insult intended here to Dennis, who
tries very hard to grab at precursors which may be forever just beyond
his reach, but there are plenty of others here, including Dr. Beepbeep,
who have invoked Wegener in vain).
-- 
Gerard Fryer      
gerard@hawaii.edu        http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/~gerard/
Personal views only.

I have one point and one unrelated comment to make.
timberwoof (timberwoof@the*mall.net) wrote:
: You could change my mind, however. Tell me, just what anomalies are 
: there in LA that make your Dew Point Theory work there and not in Texas? 
I've pointed out in the paper a condition called atmospheric e-field 
dielectric modification. When high tides combine with swells (e.g. a 
storm off the Mexican coast) there is a considerable amount of ocean 
spray that enters the atmosphere. The combination of effects changes the 
dielectric constant of air in the surrounding area. The salt acts as an 
electrolyte and increases the conductivity of airborne charges. Because 
the Atlantic has smaller tides and because the Gulf Stream pushes the 
water along the Atlantic seaboard, there is less of this activity on the 
east coast and the Atlantic Ocean region. Correct me if I'm wrong but 
the surfers in Texas don't have much to ride on unless a hurricane is on 
the way.
Comment:
I currently don't have access to a LA Times microfiche. I've looked at 
_The Oregonian_, but that doesn't give me the information I need. If 
someone at the LA Times wanted to send me a microfiche machine and the 
fiche for the years 1980 to 1995, I'd be happy to pull the data.
Regards,
Tim
kellyt@peak.org  

Nicehack wrote:
> 
> PORTABLE BATTERY POWERED EARTHQUAKE ALARM AVAILABLE. "U.S. PATENTED"
> LICENSEING AGREEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE TO MANUFACTURE AND MARKET THIS
> PORTABLE BATTERY POWERED ALARM. IF INTERESTED IN A LICENSE AGREEMENT
> CONTACT THE BELOW ADDRESS. SEND E MAIL ADDRESS AND NUMBER TO
> 
> NICEHACK@AOL.COM
How does this work?  Does it tell you the earth is shaking?  I think we
can figure that out for ourselves.
Paul
-- 
"There are only two races on earth: the decent and the indecent"  Viktor
Frankl

Tim Kelly (kellyt@PEAK.ORG) wrote:
: I've pointed out in the paper a condition called atmospheric e-field 
: dielectric modification. When high tides combine with swells (e.g. a 
: storm off the Mexican coast) there is a considerable amount of ocean 
: spray that enters the atmosphere.
Dielectric constant is easy to measure by several methods.  Which
have you used?  Of course this question is unfair, since you have no
intention of actually making measurements or even guessing at the
magnitude of the change.
The dielectric constant changes the speed of light in the medium.  This
is a very strong effect.  The speed of light (and radio waves) does not
change significantly in areas that have a lot of sea spray.  The
conclusion is that the dielectric constant is fixed within much better
than 1% of its average value, and the wild hypothesis of "dielectric
modification" is entirely wrong.
Bob

DaveHatunen wrote:
> 
> In article ,
> Greg Wimpey   wrote:
> >hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> Um. You're a Canadian. Butt out.
> >
> >Um, looks like Harold was reposting something he found from another
> >source, something that was written by a Californian, as indicated by
> >the following quote, elsewhere in Harold's article:
> >
> >> >To be a Californian is to live with lurking calamity. And the more
> >> >Californians--we're now 32 million, twice that of 1960--the more
> >> >calamitous.
> >
> >Anyway, last time I checked, Canadians were allowed to comment on
> >happenings in California.
> 
> Yep. And I'm an American (who was once a Landed Immigrant in Canada)
> and I'm allowed to tell them to "butt out". Ain't free speech
> wonderful.
> 
> But you should hear Canadians when Americans comment on their
> country...
It's ok! (I don't want this thread getting any longer!)  I understand
Dave after all these years. :)  But actually, at work we just had a
bunch of *very* serious Americans take over Nuclear Operations, so any
suggestion that I offended all of the U.S. would probably get me exiled
to Quality Assurance!  Thus, I have to say good-bye for a while (in an
active sense). (and this piece was copied from Newsedge)
Harold Asmis

In article ,
gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
> In article <32ECD9A0.7C35@gps.caltech.edu>, lucy_jones@caltech.edu wrote:
> 
> >Dennis Gentry wrote:
> >> 
> >> timberwoof@the*mall.net (timberwoof) wrote:
> >> >They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
> >> 
> >> And they stopped laughing at Wegener.
> >
> >No, they didn't. Wegener was wrong. He thought that continents plowed
> >through the oceans like spoons through a bowl of pudding. His theory was 
> 
> Huh?  I thought that is what I said somewhere.
> 
> The point is, though, that he was right about it occurring.  He was
> only wrong in how it occurred.
> 
> Which tells me a great deal about how science works.  :-(
Timberwoof wrote:
The lesson here is that though Wegener was wrong about the underlying
mechanism of continental drift, his field work presented incontrovertible
evidence for the drift. 
What differs between Wegener's hypothesis and the Dew-Point speculation
is that speculation is all that it is. There's no cohesive evidence for it, and
there's even strong circumstantial and physical evidence against it (namely
that the weather conditions described do not correlate with observed earth-
quakes, and that the direction of earthquake shaking does not correlate with
what would be expected to happen from the speculated mechanism).
-- 
timberwoof@the*mall.net
(Take the * out to email me. It's for the benefit of spammers.)
1989 Honda CB400f CB-1; 1991 Honda Civic Si; Macintosh Centris 610

In article ,
gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
>Which tells me a great deal about how science works.  :-(
Extremely well when you get the big picture.
Michael Williams
Arroyo Grande, California, USA                       T/$ = 1

> 
gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >According to a certain Haroun Tazieff, his hypothesis was met by
> >"condemnation or derision".
> 
I think that Jeffrey's describes the more common attitude inhis book
"The Earth" written over the period of 1924-1958. "It is argued that if
evidence from paleontology and meteorology proves that continental drift
has taken place, evidence from geophysics that it is impossible is
beside the point. If I admitted the premises I might accept the
conclusion, while still maintaining that it is remarkable that the
advocates of continental drift have not produced in 30 years and
explanation that will bear inspection. But I must reject the whole
attitude that maintains that any type of scientific evidence can by
itself be so completely demonstrative as to require the rejection of any
evidence that appears to conflict with it. If evidence is conflicting,
the scientific attitude is to look for a new idea that may reconcile
it." He goes on to say that he wold look to the mechanics of the earth
for the solution because it is more mathematically based and can less
subjective conclusions than the other relevant fields. 
This is a pretty reasonable summary of the arguments against accepting
continental drift at the time, and doesn't sound like derision or
laughter to me. The conflict was solved when a feasible mechanism was
developed, (by some pretty clever people armed with surprising data). I
think science worked pretty well. Theories aren't much use until you can
use them with confidence to make useable prodictions. The detection of
evidence for ridges, transform faults and subduction zones provided the
means to make this a useful theory.
i think "they" didn't laugh at Wegener. As others have said, "They" were
pretty respectful of the observations, which could be discussed,
analyzed and criticised,  and intolerant of the physically unfounded
explanation for how it happened. That is a good way for science to
operate. 
Footnote. The "drifters" also conflicted with the "expanding earth"
crowd. I attended a NATO conference in Newcastle in the 60's which had a
one day session on the hypothesis that the Earth's radius had doubled,
pulling the continents apart. One speaker was Ott C. Hilgenberg, who
traveled all over Europe for many years with a set of 7 globes of
different sizes (basketball to beach-ball size) illustrating the
evolution of the continental masses as the earth expanded. He (and
others) used "unique" theories of relativity to explain the expansion.
We did laugh at Hilgenberg, but that was because he was not allowed off
the channel ferry for several hours until he could prove that he wasn't
smuggling dope inside his globes! The problem with the expanding earth
theory was 1) it required unknown physics in order to be true (like
original Earth densities of 25-30 gm/cc) and 2) it made no testable
predictions, because it only explained the observations on which it was
based. 
-- 
====Paul Kasameyer (510)422-6487 Fax (510) 422-3925
Hazards, Energy and Field Programs Group 
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
kasameyer1@llnl.gov
These are me personal views, not those of my employer
-- 
====Paul Kasameyer (510)422-6487 Fax (510) 422-3925
Hazards, Energy and Field Programs Group 
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
kasameyer1@llnl.gov

In article <5clk83$1m6@news.Hawaii.Edu>, gerard@hawaii.edu wrote:
>In article ,
gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>According to a certain Haroun Tazieff, his hypothesis was met by
>>"condemnation or derision".
>
>Wegener's ideas were met with derision in the northern hemisphere, but
>they still had influence because, despite Wegener's outlandish driving
>mechanism and some of his more extreme claims, there were a lot of data
>that seemed to fit.
>
>You have to take Tazieff's writing with a grain of salt, however.
>Tazieff has gone a bit off the deep end in his uncritical embracing of
>the VAN method. While he isn't an anti-science wacko, he was perhaps
>the first person to hide behind the statement "They laughed at Wegener
>too." Now everyone does it. (No insult intended here to Dennis, who
>tries very hard to grab at precursors which may be forever just beyond
>his reach, but there are plenty of others here, including Dr. Beepbeep,
>who have invoked Wegener in vain).
That may be so Gerard.  But I base my opinions on my own personal
experience, and observation of remarks on both the earthquake ng's,
which closely match what Tazieff has written.
From my perspective, its very hard not to accept what Haroun had
written.
Sure their has been a few people who have been very helpful while
providing guidance.  But they are in the minority.
Dennis

In article <32EEB294.40A7@llnl.gov>, Paul Kasameyer 422-6487
 wrote:
>> 
>gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> >According to a certain Haroun Tazieff, his hypothesis was met by
>> >"condemnation or derision".
>> 
>I think that Jeffrey's describes the more common attitude inhis book
>"The Earth" written over the period of 1924-1958. "It is argued that if
>evidence from paleontology and meteorology proves that continental drift
>has taken place, evidence from geophysics that it is impossible is
>beside the point. If I admitted the premises I might accept the
>conclusion, while still maintaining that it is remarkable that the
>advocates of continental drift have not produced in 30 years and
>explanation that will bear inspection. But I must reject the whole
>attitude that maintains that any type of scientific evidence can by
>itself be so completely demonstrative as to require the rejection of any
>evidence that appears to conflict with it. If evidence is conflicting,
>the scientific attitude is to look for a new idea that may reconcile
>it." He goes on to say that he wold look to the mechanics of the earth
>for the solution because it is more mathematically based and can less
>subjective conclusions than the other relevant fields. 
Yes it sounds reasonable.  Seems to me, though, that the evidence that
he presented should have been accepted with further research into
what the actual mechanism was.
>This is a pretty reasonable summary of the arguments against accepting
>continental drift at the time, and doesn't sound like derision or
>laughter to me. The conflict was solved when a feasible mechanism was
>developed, (by some pretty clever people armed with surprising data). I
>think science worked pretty well. Theories aren't much use until you can
>use them with confidence to make useable prodictions. The detection of
>evidence for ridges, transform faults and subduction zones provided the
>means to make this a useful theory.
You mean to say that the evidence Wegener presented wasn't usefull?
That it didn't show that something was going on?
>i think "they" didn't laugh at Wegener. As others have said, "They" were
>pretty respectful of the observations, which could be discussed,
>analyzed and criticised,  and intolerant of the physically unfounded
>explanation for how it happened. That is a good way for science to
>operate. 
As Gerard pointed out, their were two sides to the fence which
brings me to a question.
At what point is it defeating to be too careful?  Or has anybody
thought about that?

Dennis