Steve wrote:
> While I don't disagree that the list may not be the best
> venue fo airing discussions for or against creationism, is
> it nevertheless a venue for discussing how we communicate
> our science (a subject one of the earlier mails touched on)?
.......
> I see the problem here as a failure to successfully and
> accurately communicate earth science observations and
> principles to non-earth scientists. And I think its
> something we need to address more.
Now, let me ask a few questions regarding the purpose of science, since Steve
White already raised them in a context where - I suppose - most of us agree
upon. But what if questions are raised from within the community (to which I
still count myself) and they go intentionally unaddressed for over a decade now?
Isn't it the obligation of all of us to check the basics if there are questions
that touch these basics, even if profound points are called into question?
For 11 years I have done my best to attract attention to the fact that the
basics of our understanding of stress and deformation is - to put it mildly -
insufficient, and I can offer a new approach. Initially I thought that all my
colleagues involved in deformation analysis would jump on this opportunity to
find new ways to find solutions to long-known problems, such as the properties
of simple shear - and without exception they did jump, but backwards looking
for shelter. Not a single geologist so far has even made a cursory attempt at
looking at my theory; instead, everybody I approached - including the entire
past and present editorial staff of the JSG - instantly declared themselves
incompetent to judge my work, and then they continue to publish and read the
crap we have seen for 150 years.
In particular, Sue Treagus told me that what I do is no longer structural
geology, but theoretical mechanics, and would I please go elsewhere. I did
not know that these are two different disciplines. (The current chief edtitor
Jim Evans isn't any better: at the AGU meeting in San Francisco last December,
first he tried to hide his name tag when he identified me, then he was deeply
offended when I said hello, and he had no time for discussions because he
urgently had to see two posters. Evidently he did not wish to be asked why he
failed to subject my script to proper review.) Thus you have it from authority:
the basics of the science you conduct is none of your business to ponder about;
you are just expected to believe it because theories are written by the gods,
for other gods, to be discussed among the gods, and we humble earthlings have to
consider ourselves blessed to consume the crumbs that fall from the divine
tables.
I disagree.
Is it really beyond the capabilities of a PhD-holding structural geologist with
either experimental or even theoretical inclinations to consider the most
primitive principles of theoretical physics - at least at the level required
from any physics sophomore, to the point that one might at least look at the
arguments?
I have fundamental doubts about the theoretical validity of continuum mechanics.
Recently, I have published mathematical proof that the stress tensor does not
exist (4 reviewers, 3:1 in my favor). To be sure, I am not saying that stress
does not exist, I am just saying that whatever stress is, you do not have a
mathematical tool or term to describe it because the one you are used to using,
I have shown to be fundamentally flawed to the effect that the stress tensor as
a mathematical term simply does not exist. See F.H. Koenemann, "Cauchy stress in
mass distributions", ZAMM (German Journal of Applied Math & Mechanics) V.81,
suppl.2, p.S309-S310, 2001, it should be on the shelf right now. It is also
available at the Los Alamos Peprint Depository <arxiv.org/abs/physics/0103010>.
Or else you are invited to go to my homepage, URL see below. All the not-yet
published papers are available there.
Expect more trouble in the future. The understanding of deformation is up for
the most profound upheaval; in the end you will need a new way of thinking for
the entire subject. Disadvantage: you may have to learn something new (I know it
hurts badly). Advantage:
- I can give excellent predictions for the kinematics and geometric properties
of simple shear, especially S-C fabric,
- I can give a reason for the existence of conjugate joints, plus I can explain
their orientation (without invoking fudge factors such as the "angle of internal
friction"),
- I can give a new mechanism by which sheath folds in shear zones develop,
- I can predict dilatancy, ie. the observed behavior of materials to expand
during elastic simple shear,
- I can predict the _experimentally observed_ fact that elastic simple shear
costs ca.10% more energy per unit strain than elastic pure shear, whereas
plastic simple shear costs ca.30% less energy per unit strain than plastic pure
shear.
So what else do you want?
Yes, I know. You want someone else to tell you that all this is for real,
because you are not going to make a decision on this, because you are just a
humble geologist.
Surprise: so am I, and not a cent more.
Falk Koenemann
_____________________________________________________________________
| Dr. Falk H. Koenemann Aachen, Germany |
| |
| Email: [log in to unmask] Phone: *49-241-75885 |
| |
| URL: http://home.t-online.de/home/peregrine/hp-fkoe.htm |
| stress elasticity deformation of solids plasticity strain |
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| The rain, it raineth on the Just |
| And on the Unjust fella. |
| But chiefly on the Just because |
| The Unjust stole the Just's umbrella. |
|_____________________________________________________________________|
|
