Arete Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) For clarification, you're suggesting that somehow, pebbles accrete material in concentric layers? If so: First pebbles with no striations and no evidence of depositional history: Lateral, rather than concentric striations in this pebble: Oh noes, cross bedding in a pebble... Concentric accretion hypothesis broken! Basic geomorphology to the rescue Igneous rock: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Igneous_rock Beaches: http://w3.salemstate...s214_beach1.htm Vertical Accretion: http://sepmstrata.or...-Formation.html Cross bedding: http://en.wikipedia....i/Cross-bedding Pebbles, can be made up of any rock material, containing striations, or not. Most rocks of sedimentary class will contain signatures of accretion which - being not concentric, contradict your hypothesis. We have a series of theories which substantiate all observed patterns. Without meaning to disrespect in any way, your hypothesis is rather strongly and conclusively refuted through field observation and is thus a speculation. Edited October 28, 2011 by Arete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Ball Posted October 29, 2011 Author Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) When asked if pebbles have rings inside if they were built up from accreted sandstone, you replied, "Yes, however, the symmetrical rings are broken rings because of the grinding of the waves between each layer." I find this answer inadequate. If the waves grind up the pebble between layers of accreted sandstone, how would pebbles get any bigger? Are you suggesting that the waves erode the pebbles enough to break up the rings but not enough to hinder their growth through sandstone attachment? Also, you failed to answer my last question. If your idea is true, why are pebbles not essentially made of sandstone? I hope you don't consider this question one of "the most stupid ones". I Do consider this question one of the most stupid ones because you're not listening - as I have said before 'input is greater than output' and as for saying why aren't pebbles made of sandstone … well' … what sandstone has to do with beach pebbles leaves me at a loss, again' you are not listening possibly because you don't want too, see my first post. It does seem that I've been talking to people who can't think for themselves … and you call yourselves "scientists" … Crikey! … You should relish the challenge of new ideas, or at least keep an open mind to new ideas … but you lot take the biscuit It would be easier to start your journey of enlightenment from the easy end rather from the most difficult end Edited October 29, 2011 by Christopher Ball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 I'm fairly open minded, as long as someone is prepared to provide me with evidence and as long as their idea is not at odds with my past experience. I know that buildings made, essentially from rock, fall down. They get old and worn out. Anyone who wants to can verify this: you just need to look at an old building and see that the corners are not as sharply square as they used to be. In particular, I can see it all too well with my garden wall. Your idea is that they (or at least the pyramids) get stronger over time. Since I know that they don't do that, I know that you are wrong. It's not something I can be open minded about because the evidence tells me the truth. As I have said many times on this forum, if your ideas don't agree with reality then it's not reality that is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 I Do consider this question one of the most stupid ones because you're not listening - as I have said before 'input is greater than output' and as for saying why aren't pebbles made of sandstone … well' … what sandstone has to do with beach pebbles leaves me at a loss, again' you are not listening possibly because you don't want too, see my first post. It does seem that I've been talking to people who can't think for themselves … and you call yourselves "scientists" … Crikey! … You should relish the challenge of new ideas, or at least keep an open mind to new ideas … but you lot take the biscuit It would be easier to start your journey of enlightenment from the easy end rather from the most difficult end ! Moderator Note Clearly your explanation was not good enough, I'd strongly recommend rewording and explaining your answers to these questions in more depth. You are also required to read an follow the speculation forum rules: http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums§ion=rules&f=29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 It does seem that I've been talking to people who can't think for themselves … and you call yourselves "scientists" … Crikey! … You should relish the challenge of new ideas, or at least keep an open mind to new ideas … but you lot take the biscuit I have explained to you, in some considerable detail, on another forum, why your ideas are wrong. When we approach something with an open mind then we do with the view that the concept may be valid. How do we assess its validity? We seek to determine whether or not the facts support the hypothesis. We gather the observations objectively and measure the hypothesis against those observations. Let's look at your hypothesis in that way. You claim that pebbles build up in size rather than diminishing in size, over time. What do observations tell us? Well, you have observed that in some instances, on the tidal stretch of a beach, material can build up on the surface of pebbles. This is a good observation. Wholly valid. Does this mean that all pebbles grow in this way? If they do so then we would expect to see a series of rings, like growth rings on a tree, when we broke open a pebble. We don't see this. It doesn't happen. You live on the south coast of England and many of the pebbles there are chert with an outer layer of adhering chalk. I think you may have been misled by this appearance to think the pebbles have accreted that extra layer. I recommend you take your head out of the pebbles and go look at the cliffs. Remove some chert pebbles from there and you will see the same layering. You have also failed utterly to deal with this rather detailed consideration. We have tens of thousands of studies covering the weathering, erosion, transportation, deposition and diagenesis of rocks and rock fragments. We know, through detailed observation by thousands of researchers over a century or more how these processes vary with topography, climate, mineralogy,etc. From this we know with a certainty as great as can be humanly achieved in any sphere, that rock fragments get smaller not larger, bar some specific exceptions. Carbonate fragments can accrete more carbonate material to them - oolites are a good example. And you have noted another minor incidence of this kind where a thin layer of 'crud' adheres to the surface of the pebble. But you have taken this single minor exception and build a palace of insanity upon it. The closed mind here is yours. I know you will not open it, since you have invested a significant part of your life in developing this hypothesis. That is your loss and it saddens me to say it, but it is a monumental one. You are throwing your life away on close minded nonsense. Wake up! Open your mind! Use your brain productively for once. Please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Ball Posted October 30, 2011 Author Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) As I have said many times on this forum, if your ideas don't agree with reality then it's not reality that is wrong. It is reality pebbles reduce to sand, it is a fact, but it is wrong, and quite the reverse. And when the pyramids were built the limestone started as a manageable material and hardened over time and eventually will crumble just like your garden wall. Edited October 30, 2011 by Christopher Ball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 It is reality pebbles reduce to sand, it is a fact, but it is wrong, and quite the reverse. And when the pyramids were built the limestone started as a manageable material and hardened over time and eventually will crumble just like your garden wall. ! Moderator Note Restating your position is not addressing the concerns of other posters. Again, read the rules, follow the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 It is reality pebbles reduce to sand, it is a fact, but it is wrong, and quite the reverse. Then how do you account for the thousands of studies I referred to that show your argument is faulty? I have spoken repeatedly to you in another place about the complexity of individual pebbles and the variety of pebbles types to be found on a typical beach. (Brighton beach is not typical.) These are clear proof that your idea is faulty, yet you continue to ignore this contrary evidence and hammer away with your self indulgent assertion. That is not science. That is not how you will convince anyone of anything, other than the possibility that you are a fool. You jmust take the questions head on, not bury your head in the sand (or pebbles, as the case may be). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 It does seem that I've been talking to people who can't think for themselves … and you call yourselves "scientists" … Crikey! … You should relish the challenge of new ideas, or at least keep an open mind to new ideas … but you lot take the biscuit You presented a hypothesis, which makes a prediction which people on this board suggested could be verified by observation. Observation yielded results contrary to prediction and thus you hypothesis is not supportable. Welcome to science, where the trash can of ideas that didn't work out if considerably fuller than those that do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 It is reality pebbles reduce to sand, it is a fact, but it is wrong. Seriously, you wrote a book!? What you have fundamentally said in that quote is that facts and reality are wrong. The statement clearly contradicts itself and if believed as written is a proof of insanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Thank you for your compliment The moderators, who are speaking for science, seem very frightened of the Reverse Theory. On the science forum.com, they, like you, pushed my thread out of sight, away from Earth Science to Pseudoscience, and when I started another thread on the religion forum I was instantly banned, not for a matter of a few days but forever. This forum,science forum.net, is doing the same; you have pushed my theory out of sight, again from Earth Science to Speculations, and when I started a new thread on the religion forum, ie, nothing to do with science, it was instantly closed down. I can only presume therefore that the moderators are sweeping my theory under the table because they are frightened of it. And I'll say it again' there is nothing to be frighten of as both theories tell their own story, although both paint a different picture. If pebbles are formed by erosion' it tells the story that we all live by today, ie, evolution, and if pebbles are formed by the process of tidemark' then that tells another story. The latter however, explains how the pyramids were built, and solves many other mysteries, whereas your erosion theory leaves questions unanswered. Again' thank youfor your compliment … albeit in a strange way Christopher, I am likely to be censured for what comes next - and rightly so, but I simply will not tolerate any more mind numbing stupidity from you. You have been shown that your idea has all the scientific rigour of a used condom just above the tide mark. You have the arrogance to claim that tens of thousands of intelligent, dedicated, experienced obervers have made exactly the same basic mistakes and failed to notice what you have noted. You have refused to take a look at any of the contrary evidence. You have not understood or attempted to understand the counter arguments. Your writing is turgid, your logic as structured as a kangaroo's fart and you appear to have the intellectual capacity of a brain damaged armadillo overdosed on heroin. Sadly, these are your strong points. The sight of intransigent ignorance at my age is bad for my health. Enjoy your delusions - I'm out of here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Consider yourself duly censured for saying "but I simply will not tolerate any more mind numbing stupidity". Unless you actually plan to do something about it, you plan to tolerate it. Ignoring it may well be the best thing to do. Also, I personally feel that you are being unfair to kangaroo farts and disadvantaged armadillos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I simply will not tolerate any more mind numbing stupidity from you. ! Moderator Note This part of your post is a personal attack and is against the rules. Please don't resort to attacking the person, especially when you can be so accurate describing the faults in his ideas. I normally don't attempt moderation in threads where I've replied as a member, but this is a blatant violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 ! Moderator Note Normally it would be suitable to allow a member to respond to questions, but I feel ample opertunity has been given.This thread is over with, do no reintroduce the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts