Greg Crinklaw wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:
It remains to be seen if there actually are widely spread spherules that
can be linked chemically and temporally to a single event. It is
possible there was a North American impact 12,000 years ago, but
_currently_ the evidence is weak. At this point, those interested in
this possibility should be out collecting evidence, not writing books
trying to explain the extinction of mammoths. Too many conclusions are
being drawn from far too little evidence. IMO that's not good science.

You make a good point there about more data. But I don't think a
popular book is necessarily a bad thing in itself. After all, a lot of
good scientists have found the time to write them.

Speaking of books (and Geology) I'm mostly through "Supercontinent" by
Ted Neild. It's a pretty good read. In addition to what appears to be
a thorough telling of an interesting scientific history, he is unusually
eloquent about the process of science in general.

Oh right,Wegener died in Greenland all but ostracised for proposing
that investigators take a wider view of matters to reach working
principles and conclusions for geological evolution -

"Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all
earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of
our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only
be reached by combing all this evidence. . . It is only by combing the
information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to
determine 'truth' here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets
out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore
has the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared
always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what
science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw." Wegener

There was and remains nothing eloquent about 'scientific
progress',not with Wegener,not with 'Piltdown Man',you had to wait
until the old guard dies to make changes but that was then and this is
now.

Wegener was right in finding different disciplines that mesh which is
why rotational dynamics works so well with crustal geodynamics.The
supposed hold-up in accepting Wegener's surface correlations for
tectonic motion was finding a mechanism and when they did,they chose
a stationary Earth 'convection cell' mechanism .While I accept it
was an ad hoc mechanism,the orientation of the mid -Atlantic ridge
with in the direction of the geographical poles and the tendency of
crust to spread apart from the ridge should have alerted people to a
rotational dynamic notwithstanding planetary sphericity.Then even
study the generalised principle of rotating bodies(such as stars) in
a viscous state without applying it to the Earth's interior and the
Earth's shape.

In all the years since I proposed a common mechanism for planetary
shape and crustal motion I never pressurised geologists to accept or
even discuss it but it is there nonetheless..












Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com

To reply take out your eye