Thanks for explaining who Will Meservey is and how he calculates the “earth’s measured moment of inertia.” I read his piece. For a non scientist, though, wouldn’t you agree that the math is a bit difficult to follow? I presume that you have no trouble with it, but I’m betting that unless one has at least a PhD in physicss after his name it would be tough sledding. It was for me. I’m guessing, but maybe 1,000 people, max, out of 300 plus million Americans would qualify? For the layman, isn’t the UM a lot simpler, even though the UM is not exactly a dime store novel.
You obviously believe that as a geology professor you know much more about that subject than does Dean Sessions, even though he may have spent the last 27 years of his life reseasrching the subject–but not within the walls of academia. So where does your knowledge and expertise come from? Presumabaly from the study of the most authoritative text books and listening to the most brilliant of instructors as a start, right? How about performing your own experiments? Have you done many? Any of them original to you? To be a prof you must have a PhD after your name, right? In that case, would you share with us the subject of your dissertation? What subject within geology do you feel that you are most expert on?
I ask you these questions becauase I would like to give you a specific assignment for the benefit of our readers–should you choose to accept it. It is to focus on just 11 pages of the UM–pp. 279 to 290– and then tell us how many places, and with how many facts, Dean goes wrong. These pages all deal with the earth as a hydroplanet, which you specifically disagree with, so it should be easy for you to challenge Dean’s assertions on every page. He says, for example, that there is no consensus on where the earth’s oceans came from? True or false? If there is one, do you know what it is, or if not do you have your personal opinion about the oceanic origins? If so, what actual facts do you have to support your opinion? Dean suggests that both the comet theory as the origin, or the meteorite theory, are flawed. True or false? What do you have to say about Dean’s discussion of the Long Valley, CA failure to contact magma, as had been expected? Is there another side of that story which Dean failed to tell us about? And how about the UM discussion of the German KTB and Kola bore holes and what they found that was not expected? Is the UM account of those holes true or false? Is it factually true that the earth bulges by 47 feet at the equator, as the UM states? If so, are any of the conclusions which the UM draws from that fact true, or are they false?
These are just a few of the subjects within those 11 pages (279-290) that you should be able to debunk as an academically trained geologist if all of the evidences presented there for the earth as a hydro-planet add up to nonsense. Please no name calling and snide remarks. Those who follow this UM debate, such as myself, really want to know who is right and who is wrong, and we want to know it in language which we can understand and not just to be asked to take complex mathematical formulae, which we can’t understand, simply on faith. Dean presents a reasonable series of scientific alternatives to the established scientific dogma of our day. Even his smaller “mass of the earth” figure has to make sense if the earth is composed of more less dense water, and less more dense magma, than is currently assumed–does it not?
I think your response this time around may be of more interest than some others.
“Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind….” (D&C 9:7-8)
I’ve written about a lot of problems in the UM, and your response has always essentially been to say, gee, you don’t know about any of that technical stuff, but answer these 10 other questions, or review these 11 pages of material and find all the problems in it. Don’t waste my time if you aren’t willing to try to work through a problem, even when you have help offered.
Well, Barry, I’m sorry that you don’t want to tell us more about yourself, and neither do you want to address pp. 279-290 of the UM. Given your lenghthy previoius responses I would have thought that would be easy for you. So anyway, we are left to guess. You are evidently a professor of geology at BYU, charged with teaching your students academically produced, peer reviewed geology. You have the latest approved theories and formulae available to you, none of which presumably contain any of the dissentions which one might find in the scientific journals. And certainly none of the competing facts and assertions to be found in the UM. If you have a doctorate after your name, as we must presume that you do, then you wrote an approved dissertation on one very specific field of geology, did you not? Is it wrong for those of us who may choose to debate you to ask what your “claim to fame” is” and why you think you are much smarter than Dean Sesions, the author of the UM, who has devoted the past 27 years of his life researching and writing the UM OUTSIDE the walls of academia, with his financial support coming directly from individuals instead of the monetary “grants” which come to researchers within academia. Theirs has to be “peer reviewed”, the UM can and is being reviewed by people who just want to know what is truth and true and what is only theory.
Some of the UM is theory, granted. The idea that a celestial object, passng close to the earth, was the genesis of the Universal Flood cannot be proven unless/until the object can be identifiedd with the necessary orbit and time period. But you must surely recognise that new information reveals that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of objects beyond Pluto that might qualify. So why is it so far fetched? Say on, Barry, say on! Frank
Since you’ve made this about the scientist, rather than about the science, allow me to explain why I find Barry Bickmore’s comments to be credible. A Google search took me to his faculty web page at BYU, where I learned that he is a full professor in the Department of Geological Sciences. He earned his PhD at Virginia Tech, specializing in mineral surface geochemistry. His dissertation is titled “Atomic Force Microscopy Study of Clay Mineral Dissolution.” I gather that it is rooted in experimental work on real clay minerals. A link from his online bio takes you to a list of his publications. Counting the time he spent earning his undergraduate degree in geology, it appears that he’s been engaged in the study of geology, full time, for about 27 years—coincidentally, the same amount of time Mr. Sessions has devoted to the UM.
Armed with this easily-located information, here’s why I find his critiques of the UM to be credible. The UM makes a number of claims related to geochemistry, including sweeping statements about the chemical processes of mineral formation, stabilty of specific mineral phases under temperature and pressure, precipitation of minerals from solutions, erosion and weathering in the rock-making cycle, chemical reactions in melted rock, friction on rock surfaces, climate change, etc. On these topics, Prof. Bickmore is no mere gadfly. Bickmore’s publications address these subjects, and from the titles, one can infer that he has performed significant experimentation and laboratory measurement. You’ll see publications on the geochemistry of quartz, other silicate minerals, and oxides; research experience on friction at mineral surfaces and along faults, how minerals decompose into rocks, how crystallization of minerals occurs, and so on. To the extent that there may be “dogma” associated with the geological sciences (and I doubt that is the case), Bickmore’s work extends well outside those areas.
I’ve never met Barry Bickmore. I learned of his existence at the same time I became aware of Dean Sessions, through a newspaper article describing Bickmore’s objections to the UM’s Firm Foundation presentation earlier this year. Since then, I’ve been following the back-and-forth, as I gather you have. I’m not a geologist, but like Mr. Sessions it’s a subject I’ve been interested in for decades. While I’ve read the online material, watched the YouTube presentations, and listened to some of the KTalk interviews, I haven’t bought the book, and I don’t expect that I will.
So I wrote this to respond to one question that you asked. I don’t know whether Barry is smarter than Mr. Sessions, or whether he thinks he’s smarter. But, for myself, I conclude that Bickmore is eminently qualified to speak to the geochemical issues raised in the UM.
Oh, and one more thing. Meservy’s moment of inertia discussion is not the exclusive province of PhD physicists. I remember it appearing on the final exam in my sophomore physics class. In fact, it’s a concept and equation so basic that I expect you’d find it in high-school physics textbooks. Really, it’s basic, fundamental stuff.
This question is for Barry (Dr. Bickmore) or anyone else who can answer it. If the mass of a celestial object is known–by whatever method– does that allow us to compute how much of the object is solid (a presumably denser material) and how much of it is water ( a presumably less dense substance?) For example, the mass of Saturn’s moon Encedalus is stated to be a definitive figure. If the mass figure is correct, does that allow us to determine how much of Endedalus is liquid water and how much of it consists of a rocky core? If it does, I have not seen those two figures stated anywhere. We know factually because we have observed it from the Cassini space ship, that some of the mass of Encedalus is water and that it is escaping from the moon.
My question has relevancy because Barry and others have made anissue of the UM figure for the earth’s mass, which is much lower than the peer reviewed scientific figure. But would the UM figure be more likely to be the correct one if the UM is correct about the amount of water beneath the earth’s crust?
In other words, what comes first–the relative amounts of water and solid in a moon–or planet–as a means of determining mass,or the mass determination as a way of knowing how much of that mass is liquid and how much is solid? If mass can be determined by a mathematical equation on a blackboard, does that then lead us to a determination of the substance of the mass without having to first obsereve it? Frank
No, I’m not going to start expounding upon my academic pedigree so you can use it to accuse me of being an elitist. That’s what the internet is for, if you care about it.
Anyway, so what if there was some celestial body that once came close to the Earth? What does that have to do with a flood? One has to come up with a plausible physical connection for people to take it seriously. Dean Sessions understands this, apparently, because he tried to come up with a mechanism involving centrifugal force. That proposed mechanism cannot be correct, because it is only even hypothetically possible around the equator. Can you at least do enough research to confirm that centrifugal force becomes smaller and smaller as you decrease the spin radius? All you have to do is swing around a small weight on a string, and note that the weight tugs on your hand less and less the shorter the string is (assuming the time it takes to go around remains constant. If you can confirm that much, I would be happy to move on to discuss something else.