I am still hoping the author/publisher will join us here. I told him it
might be a short discussion without someone who could defend
its thesis.
A few comments on your comments:
>>What was this "unnatural event" ?
The author has a partial answer (speculation) to this question. He is
more interested, however, in examining the evidence left behind by the
event than describing it. If the evidence can be explained as being from
natural causation, his thesis collapses. If it cannot be -- we have an
interesting "gap" which some will say is a "God of the Gaps" argument and
others (Johnson, perhaps) would say is direct evidence of something
outside our known science. Which still does not make it (necessarily)
supernatural, of course.
>>Burgeson: "The author claims a doctoral diploma and mentions graduate
research in physics, as well as attendance at the University of Berkeley.
He spent most (all?) of his working life in Research/engineering
activities in =
the semi-conductor industry.
Pim: Of little relevance.>>
Not quite. Credentials do point to some understanding. He does not say if
his doctorate in from Berkeley; I suspect not, nor does he say where he
spent his working career (he is in his 60s now). Such questions are of
interest and, I think, some relevance.
>>Burgeson: "He mentions several at the outset -- data which admittedly
is
difficult to explain, but data which has, none-the-less, admitted
of natural explanations. Frozen mammoths, ice ages, reversals of
the earth's magnetic field, atmospheric extremes, these are four
situations he asserts cannot be explained by
"normal science." But these are but minor players in his book"
Pim: "Why not ? I would claim that most of these 'phenomena' can be
explained
by science. Even more importantly, assume that they could not yet be
explained by science, does this mean that there is therefor only an
unnatural explanation possible ? Or is it due to our incomplete
understanding of science, the data etc ?"
I have no disagreement here. I'm just a reporter in this case.
>>Burgeson: "(page 5). "...I had long been puzzled by a
group of odd-looking hills
within walking distance of my home (in Phoenix) which by no stretch of
the imagination could have been formed by processes acting conformably
with the laws of physics. I was, therefore, confident to a certainty
that the Uniformity Principle was not strictly valid -- that otherwise
unknown processes had at times been active in forming the earth."
Pim: "Claim from personal incredulity. The fact that this person could
not
imagine, does not mean that he is correct.">
Again, no disagreement. Remember, though, that the author is writing this
as a "detective story", and as such this is simply part of the narrative.
It is not a part of his defense of his thesis. As such, while it is a
"claim," it is not part of the thesis.
>>Burgeson: "This chapter continues with the discoveries in the 19th and
early 20th century of a vast ancient canal system in the Phoenix area
which was
capable of supporting a population of 200,000 people in the cities. What
had happened to these people?"
Pim: "Who knows ? Plagues. volcanic eruptions, a climatic shift, drying
up of
the source of water... ? There are plenty of good and natural
explanations before one has to resort to 'unnatural ones'. What happened
to the Mayans for instance ?"
Well, the author does claim to know. They were killed by the "unnatural
event."
>>Burgeson: " Ch 4. Dead Men.
Petersen here describes the considerable
problems of dating the remains, and understanding the canal system. The
problems
are such, he concludes, that they cannot be resolved without postulating
a major catastrophe. According to POU thinking, the canals had to have
been useless since 1000 B.C. -- yet Marcos had encountered them thriving
and Kino had discovered ruins which were, in some attributes, a few
decades old!"
Pim: "Why should these canals have been useless ?>>
I don't know. I'm not a geologist, and I was not able to unpack the
arguments
here. Part of these arguments seemed to be that the canals (at least part
of them) ran the wrong way.
>>Burgeson: "(page 116) "Without a doubt these residues
testify to a phenomenon
beyond the reach of known physics and chemistry."
Pim: Does it ? Or does it testify to a phenomenon more commonly
encountered
in science as incomplete understanding of the author of these sciences
?>>
I assume you mean Peterson by the last sentence. Perhaps. Or perhaps he
has really uncovered something new.
When the Curies discovered that radium could cause pictures of bones in
the hand, they could have said "Oh this is some gap we don't yet
understand; all our current science is OK. Or they could have said "Our
current science is not OK -- it is incomplete. Peterson, to give him
credit, says the latter.
>>Burgeson: "(page 118) "...various residues from the ice ages also
show a bimodal
distribution in particle size, and this odd feature is no more plausible
in glacial debris than in our present material."
Pim: "Interesting but no more than that."
The author suggests that the distribution goes beyond "interesting."
As a non-geologist, I'd agree with you. I am looking forward to seeing
what Steve or Glenn might write. Glenn -- would you like me to send you
the book?
>>Burgeson: "Ch 7. Opening the Door. Petersen returns to an attack on the
POU,
arguing (because of chapters 1-6) that (page 150) ""...mechanisms have
operated in the past which were not only unlike those operating today,
they even defied the laws of physics AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM (Caps mine).
This is not to say that the mechanisms acted contrary to nature; it is
only to recognize that our understanding of nature ... is somehow
incomplete."
Pim: "Possibly but we can look back into the past in many ways and there
is
little evidence to suggest that our laws of physics have changed.">>
It is the author's expressed thesis that he has found exactly such
evidence.
>>Burgeson: "By page 163, Petersen is finally ready to state his
thesis. He writes:
"We conclude that there exists
an added dimension of space
which can come into play
abnormally at times. Under such
circumstances palpable material
can enter our world along that other
dimension, in violation of the
customary conservation laws."
Pim: "Cool, somewhat similar to 'Deus ex machina" >>
That was my reaction, too. In posting this review, I am more interested
in an evaluation of the specific data (evidence) that Petersen has than
in his speculation above, which is, of course, just one of many that
could be dreamed up. If the evidence would hold, then it is time for
evaluation of various speculations.
>>Burgeson: "There are parallels in the book to Velikovsky's writings of
a few
decades ago, but, all in all, the author has done a much more credible
job. Tell me his geological arguments are correct and -- Houston -- we
have a problem!"
Pim: "Possibly. But then again the problem hardly needs to be
'unnatural'.
Perhaps our understanding of geology needs updating.">>
As a non-geologist, this is also my opinion.
>>Pim: I find it always fascinating that when something is found which
appears
to be or is claimed to be unexplainable by known science, that one jumps
to the conclusion that it is 'supernatural' when in fact it could also
point to 1) failure of the observer to understand the observation 2)
failure of the observer to understand the science 3) failure of science
to understand the observation....etc...etc.">>
To give the author credit, he does not claim "supernatural" (I think) in
the book at all, rather he claims what he has found is outside known
science (as Curies' discoveries were 100 years ago).
Thanks for the dialog, Pim. I appreciate it.
Author Petersen -- it is time for you to jump in (if you are ever going
to do so!.
Burgy
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]