Apologies - I meant to discuss this privately with Falk and not plague the currently overused GEOTECTONICS group. However, now that I made the mistake of sending an email (that was meant to Falk direcly) to the whole community, I feel obliged to explain:
My late father was a physicist and material scientist of international reknown and spent some 8 or 9 years ago a day with Falk Koenemann and his theory. Ever since - until his death 4 years ago - he reminded me (probably secretly smiling abut us Earth scientists) of Falks visit, with wisdom that reminds me very much of Ernie's and Janos' arguments:
Its not the point about having a right or wrong theory ! Theories are never RIGHT or WRONG. Theories are only CONSISTENT or INCONSISTENT with observations and theories are only USEFUL or NOT USEFUL. In order to be useful, a theory must explain observations in nature in a simplified way so that the student of the problem feels he/she understands something he/she has observed. If one has learnt something, the theory is useful, if not then it is not. If the learning itself has been useful (or not) is proven by the test of time. For that, ALL theories must be useable as a tool to make predictions about observations that have not been made yet and ALL theories need to be testable by experiments.
I have been able to use continuum mechanics (and so has my father and millions of us) widely to help us understand lot of things that we have seen in rocks. I have NOT found this about Falks arguments. I therefore suggests that - if we are to continue this - Falk shows us an observation in rocks that cannot be explained by continuum mechanics or designs an experiment for us that illustrates to use of his thinking for the mere mortal. I also feel that we can ask Falk for that experiment or observation to be simple enough to be understandable to all Earth Scientists with a PhD in Tectonics (if this discussion is to remain in the TECTONCIS discussion group).