Crackpot Identified: Towing a Magnetometer East-West Across the Atlantic

[Andre]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=123832 has been identified as a

"speculative" (crackpot) topic

I didn't realize that this was a crackpot organisation:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse.php[/URL]

Curiously enough the crackpot has managed to publish here:

[url]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v337/n6204/abs/337254a0.html[/url]

http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1130%2F0091-7613(1989)017%3C1119:NAFZDA%3E2.3.CO%3B2

It occurs that the crackpot did nothing but...

[quote]Towing a magnetometer east-west across the mid-Atlantic Ridge, [/quote]

...for his whole scientific carreer.

Is it the objective of this forum to prevent it's members to view some genuine Popperian refuting?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Some Bodily Malformations Attributed to Previous Lives
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v19n3a2.php

Certainly not mainstream material. They have a nice database of UFO papers as well.

 

[Andre]

So I see,

I'm not happy with the fallacy density of this case being well above PF average.

1. This is non mainstream so it's a crackpot (appeal to authority - band wagon)

2. This paper also publishes metaphysicaloney implying that everything it publishes is wrong (circumstantial ad hominem)

3. The guy has published in Science and GSA Geology so he is an authority (another appeal to authority)

There is a lot of controversy in Earth science there is not a lot that is totally explained. On the contrary, numerous hypotheses are based on affirming the consequent type of fallacies. There will be a lot of mainstream refuted when more controversial evidence becomes available in due time. There is a lot already, which is conveniently ignored . If we go with fallacy number one consequently, we will not get anywhere. Therefore I would encourage to drop all fallacies and judge only if scientific methods have been used rigourously, to see whether or not something makes sense.

 

[Bystander]

Okay, Andre, I called him a crackpot. What makes me conclude he's a crackpot? He does a decent job summarizing the history of mainstream tectonic theory in the first 4 1/2 pages --- then he strips his gears:

1) he cites the inequality in the length of spreading and subduction zones as a basis for questioning the existing model --- meaning he's never boiled water --- he's insisting that the circumference of the rising water column in the cylindrical convection cell of a pot of boiling water equal that of the sinking water in the cell --- that's a very peculiar topological argument;

2) he then rambles on, on, and on, and on, on, and on about a miscellaneous mish-mash of data, and gets to page 489 (25 of the PDF file) where he makes an assertion "That the Earth is cooling is a given," without specifying a cooling rate, or referring to crustal heat flows measured in mW/m², or the cooling time required for 1 K changes in temperature (O(10¹¹ - 10¹² a) necessary to produce a single km scale feature --- not paying too much attention to the physics, is he?​

Bottom line? He might have done some fantastic work in his days towing a magnetometer, but he's slipped his moorings for the last voyage --- I don't like seeing such things, and I hate to have to point it out (that day's coming for me --- not soon, I hope --- Mother Nature does to us all whatever she's going to do), but that's what this particular hypothesis amounts to --- senile, or Alzheimer's, maunderings of someone who's lost it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So I see,

I'm not happy with the fallacy density of this case being well above PF average.

1. This is non mainstream so it's a crackpot (appeal to authority - band wagon)

2. This paper also publishes metaphysicaloney implying that everything it publishes is wrong (circumstantial ad hominem)

3. The guy has published in Science and GSA Geology so he is an authority (another appeal to authority)

There is a lot of controversy in Earth science there is not a lot that is totally explained. On the contrary, numerous hypotheses are based on affirming the consequent type of fallacies. There will be a lot of mainstream refuted when more controversial evidence becomes available in due time. There is a lot already, which is conveniently ignored . If we go with fallacy number one consequently, we will not get anywhere. Therefore I would encourage to drop all fallacies and judge only if scientific methods have been used rigourously, to see whether or not something makes sense.

I follow some of the work at the Society for Scientific Exploration, but I also know that it is considered fringe. Since I know the difference, it stays in the S&D forum. To the best of my knowledge this has never been allowed as a reference in any other forum here. You are welcome to post in S&D within the context of unexplained phenomena.

 

[Bystander]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000B7BF5-9CFF-14BE-9CFF83414B7F0000&ref=rss