Dear Janet, you have accused researcher of improper behavior, you have refused to address the questions only to respond with 'well I don't understand how it happened so the 4th dimension must have done it and I don't even understand the 4th dimension so don't bother me with these questions'.
Science does not work by accusation, especially of the kind you have made and science does certainly not work by refusing to address good questions raised by people on this reflector.
Janet: <I I would answer emphatically that Petersen has proved his thesis, in the main, elegantly and
completely. The burden of rebuttal now lies with his critics. But it should go without saying that
in order to rebut that thesis his critics must first read and understand it. Assuredly Mr. Morton
has not read Petersen's book, at least to the point of understanding, as I will now proceed to
demonstrate.>>
Another example of pseudo-science, the claim that it has been proven and that now the rebuttal lies with the critics. But when the critics address the issues, the response is, "don't ask these questions."
Janet: <<He then challenged me to explain that fact in the light of Petersen's
theory. Well, of course, I can't. >>
The first failure of Petersen's theory, the inability to explain observations.
Janet: <<I would question the evidence instead. Certainly I do not suggest that
Morton shaded the data (or the interpretation thereof) in order to make an agreeable point, but
that unseemly practice is not unknown, >>
The second failure of your argument, ad hominem remarks.
Janet: << I can understand why Mr. Morton would **wish** that those slabs did not exist; obviously they cannot be accommodated by any uniformitarian model,>>
How do you know this ? Is that not the case you have yet to make ?
Janet: <<but of course they pose no problem at all to Petersen's view of the loess. >>
Of course not, since his views do not explain nor predict.
Janet: << Central to Petersen's thesis are certain calcareous nodules known as "loess dolls". Prof.
Mastropaolo recently discussed them at length and pointed out the significant fact that each one has
a void on the inside. >>
Wow, just like geoids (sp) ? What a mistery indeed. I guess this surely proves a 4th dimension.
Janet: <<It is an irregularly shaped void which is perfectly consistent with the picture that the interior of those objects was at one time muddy while the outside was more nearly dry.>>
Wow, imagine that, the outside evaporating before the inside. What did you expect ? The inside to dry out first ?
Janet: << Then, when that internal moisture eventually diffused to the surface and evaporated a corresponding void remained behind on the inside.>>
Wow, this surely is evidence of the 4th dimension after all no proper science could explain this. Or could it. You just made a good argument that it can.
Janet: << "... Many of the nodules form around plant roots and contain large internal voids partly
filled by coarse rhombohedral calcite." To which I replied:
"I am glad to be informed of this reference,
but you might note that Pye did not offer to
explain those voids."
And then Morton answered:
"Are you unaware that when roots rot away they
leave a void?"
Janet: << Here again is persuasive evidence that Mr. Morton has not examined Petersen's work. >>
The reamrks was about Pye's findings. If you now claim that these are irrelevant then make your argument, but instead you addressed Pye's findings. So Morton correctly responded to your inquiry. Morton has shown that nodules can form around plant roots and contain latge internal voids.
Thanks for disproving Petersen's argument that the 4th dimension must be involved. You have done a great job at explaining the formation of these nodules.
So where lies the problem ?