Date sent: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 11:25:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: HUMBPEIS <B.J.PEISER@livjm.ac.uk>
Subject: Gentlemanly Conduct on the Internet
Gentlemanly Conduct on the Internet
HEINRICH VS BARBIERO
Can I kindly remind members of the Cambridge-
Conference network to avoid offensive or inflammatory
language. Since neither Dr Heinrich nor Dr Barbiero
are members of this list, a reminder of the
intellectual standards of this network is essential
should they wish to contribute any further messages.
Benny J Peiser
From: Leroy Ellenberger <email@example.com>
To: HUMBPEIS <B.J.PEISER@livjm.ac.uk>,
Subject: Re: Gentlemanly Conduct on the Internet
Date sent: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 09:07:53 -0500
Gentlemanly conduct also includes acknowledging well-
considered criticism. Evidently Dr. Barbiero does not consider
the two criticisms posted by me last week to be such, or else
he somehow did not receive them. In any event, do not let
the allegation that Heinrich missed Barbiero's point persuade
anyone that Bartbiero's model somehow retains credibility,
much less validity. I say this because the model in question
requires that a new equatorial bulge form as the present one
relaxes, all on the time-scale of the impact event. This is
preposterous on its face because the mantle is too viscous/stiff
to deform to such a degree on such a short time-scale--besides
the fact that it takes ca. 85 minutes for any impact to propagate
its effects over the entire body of Earth. The daily luni-solar tides
of ca. 18 inch amplitude do not justify the requirement that a new
ca. 11 km bulge form as the present one relaxes because the
mantle is still rebounding in Laurentia and Fennoscandia from the
melting of the last ice cap ca. 10,000 years ago. The 1/e time
for the relaxation of a mantle deformation is ca. 3,400 years,
which is borne out by the observed, ongoing post-glacial rebound
in the aforementioned regions. What is wrong with this criticism?
I am also still impressed with the immplications of the scaled-down
Barbiero model wherein a 1.0 mm grain of sand impact a 25 meter
diameter granite sphere. This, by itself, suggests the utter
impracticality of Dr. Barbiero's model. One other aspect of Heinrich's
criticism deserves reinforcement: there is NO VALID EVIDENCE
that the Earth experienced a pole shift in the early Holocene. All
of Hapgood's so-called evidence can be, and has been, explained
in terms that require no shift; plus, as Burns noted, the work of
Laskar published in 1993 shows that Earth's obliquity is stabilized
not only by the equatorial bulge, but also by the presence of the
Moon, in distinct contrast to the case with Mars which has no
large satellite and shows distinct physical evidence for ca. 90 degree
polar wander on geological time scales, as opposed to time scales
on the order of less than a day. What is wrong with this criticism?
--C. Leroy Ellenberger, "vivere est vincere"
ftp://ftp.primenet.com/pub/lippard/; 9 cle-files
> From: HUMBPEIS <B.J.PEISER@livjm.ac.uk>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Gentlemanly Conduct on the Internet
> Date: Thursday, April 17, 1997 10:25 AM
> Gentlemanly Conduct on the Internet
> HEINRICH VS BARBIERO
> Can I kindly remind members of the Cambridge-
> Conference network to avoid offensive or inflammatory
> language. Since neither Dr Heinrich nor Dr Barbiero
> are members of this list, a reminder of the
> intellectual standards of this network is essential
> should they wish to contribute any further messages.
> Benny J Peiser
Subject: RE: Comments by Paul Heinrich on Barbiero's pole
shift paper (fwd)
Date sent: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 03:09:26 -0500 (CDT)
Emilio Spedicato passed on to me a reply from Flavio Barbiero to
Paul Heinrich's criticism of Barbiero "pole shift" paper. I append Mr.
Barbiero's comments below. I have forwarded a copy to Mr. Heinrich.
-- Phil "Pib" Burns
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
> Anwer by Barbiero to your criticism. Regards. Spedicato
> I am surprised by the violence of the reaction of Dr. Paul V. Heinrich
> to my paper and even more by the inconsistency of his arguments:
> 1) He starts striking at a wrong target. Clearly he didn't understand,
> or didn't bother to read, the mechanism I propose for the shifting of
> the poles. He spends the first part of his intervention demonstrating
> that Hapgood's theory about the shifting of the Earth's crust is wrong.
> Many thanks: this is exactly the starting point of my theory, which has
> nothing to do with the shifting of the crust, as he wrongly assumes. He
> should get at least the flavour of my theory before criticising it. It's
> a matter of intellectual honesty.
> 2) The rest of his arguments is biased by this wrong initial assumption.
> The essence of his criticism against what he supposes is my theory is
> that the impact of an asteroid doesn't develop any torque at all,
> because ... "the energy of the impact is dissipated in the subsequent
> explosion". I am amazed. Torque and energy are two completely different
> things. Dr. Heinrich should go back to his Physics' books, and get
> the right sense of basic concepts like action and reaction, force,
> acceleration, energy and so on.
> 3) His final arguments are focused on the estimated size and depth of
> the crater (evidently the only part of my paper that he has read). I am
> ready to accept his remarks. If he could provide more accurate data (or
> methods) helpful for a more realistic evaluation of the asteroid's peak
> acceleration, he would be welcome. In any case I don't expect values of
> a different order of magnitude.
> Finally, I would suggest to Dr. Heinrich not to take any hypothesis
> related to catastrophism as a personal insult. After all, asteroids do
> hit the Earth from time to time and they do provoke catastrophes. The
> discussion is only about the size of the catastrophe. Let it be a serene
> discussion, not an uncivil quarrel.
> In any case, thanks for the attention.
CCCMENU CCC for 1997