recently I submitted a "Comment" to a paper by Xypolias (December
2010) to the Journal of Structural Geology. My comment was rejected by
the Editor, Cees Passchier: "The reason is that [my Comment] is not
really adressing issues in this particular publication, but is an
treatise discussing a general problem". Passchier made the decision
Xypolias reviewed the vorticity analysis methods in mylonites. The
evidence most relevant in this context is the delta-sigma
porphyroclast dividing line discovered by Passchier & Simpson (1986)
which is commonly very close to 69-70° to the shear zone boundaries
(e.g. Kurz & Northrop 2008).
I think that this entire discussion is for the birds. In my Comment I
quoted 14 (fourteen) major textbooks on continuum mechanics –
including Truesdell (1954) "The Kinematics of Vorticity" on which this
entire discussion is founded – in none of which any mention is made,
directly or indirectly, that there are bonds in solids, starting with
Cauchy (1827), and ending with Holzapfel (2000). That is, according to
this theory a solid is just a very dense ideal gas without coherence.
This is only one of my reasons why I think that continuum mechanics is
a worthless theory (there are others). I want to see anyone claiming
that bonds are not important for the understanding of solids.
Furthermore, I pointed out that this fabric-dividing angle at 69-70°
is identical to a direction predicted by my theory of deformation
(published 2008) which takes bonds in account. That is, I think that
the observation by Passchier & Simpson (1986) is very important
indeed, but that it means something entirely different: it marks the
contracting eigendirection of ideal simple shear deformation in bonded
Now Passchier rejects my Comment because he believes that the "general
problem", existence of bonds in solids, is not relevant to the
understanding of vorticity.
In other words: in a discussion on how angels fly, only the flying
mechanism is relevant; whether angels exist is out of scope of the
Passchier is known for his theoretical work on vorticity. Naturally,
if my claim is correct, his papers on the matter are without
substance. He cannot defend himself against the contention that he
abuses his position as Editor to keep views out of the public which
would refute his own work.
This amounts to straightforward censorship. Arguments don't matter.
That's the last thing we need.
Everybody present at the DRT-conference in Liverpool in September 2009
– more than a year after my theory was published – will remember that
he yelled me down. He had the microphone, I was not allowed to speak.
So I do it here.
Those interested in mylonites and vorticity, and a view which
Passchier chose to suppress, can make up their own mind
<www.elastic-plastic.de/Vort_draft_101222.pdf>. It is only three pages
long. Let's see if you still trust any paper on simple shear and
vorticity after reading this.
Those interested in a paper that refutes the current theory of stress
and elasticity should download
<www.elastic-plastic.de/Koenemann2008-2.pdf>. Please let me know if
you have any questions.
In my reply yesterday evening to Passchier I have suggested that he
should invite me for a seminar talk, and thus formally open
discussion, after 18 years of refusing to communicate. It is time to
take the bull by the horns, not just for him, but for the entire
professional group. In the end it is the facts that decide the matter,
Falk H. Koenemann
| Dr. Falk H. Koenemann Aachen, Germany |
| Email: [log in to unmask] Phone: *49-241-75885 |
| www.elastic-plastic.de |