Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[Lasting Damage]

Originally Posted by Faid

Don't let dave fool you with semantics- that HAS been his claim for weeks now. See his previous posts here. See his discussion with Kirk Bertsche at Theology Web. This is the horse he's been betting on all along.

He just tossed that "unlikely" in there as a getaway, in case he got schooled- like he did.

What I REALLY want to know now is: Since he now claims this was NOT his "claim", what DOES he claim?

anything that isn't the standard model I suppose. What we see here is dave presenting a quite frankly ridiculous scenario. He's now talking about variations in C14 concentration on a centimetre scale (he said he would be investigating this).. but at the same time he is suggesting that the source of all the diatoms and sediment is from floods and tsunami. Recall at this point, floods are a non-starter, because the drainage basin for suigetsu is not big enough to hold significant quantities of distoms and the tsunami is out because we have brackish marine diatoms only in the top part, and substantial evidence that the sediments themselves below the 1662 layer are lacustrine, and not marine in nature. If either of these were possible however, there would be no avenue for fine scale changes in C14 concentrations of the type that dave is describing. The plant and insect material tested will be pretty much even all over in terms of C14 concentration, and so will the deposited sediments (however they were deposited) for a given time period, since the sedimentation time is very much longer than the diffusion time (in other words, no chance to set up extremely high gradients of C14 concentrations in the time allowed). The scenarios that dave suggests would be turbulent in nature (remember his fast flow sedimentation argument) and again this would involve lots of mixing of elements and not create high C14 gradients.

but then he needs those high gradients in order to back up his suggestion that the labs fiddled the results. And he still hasn't answered why, if the lab were fiddling the results, did they fiddle them increasingly less well the older the sediments got, and how did their fiddling correlate with things that hadn't even been studied back then? (but then there are increasing numbers of questions that he is not answering.... so....)

[Dave Hawkins]

WHY DO THE CORES DISAGREE?
I have been asked many times "Why do the curves agree?" and I am investigating this and I am closer to an answer than I was 6 months ago.

But I have a question for you ...

"Why do the cores disagree?"

IOW ... We have 6 cores that we know of - From Kitagawa (1995) SG (75m), SG1 (4m), SG2 (11m), SG3 and 4 (16m) and from Kato (2004) SGP-12 (4m). All of these are PISTON cores except SG which is a drill core. There is a discrepancy between Kato's SGP-12 piston core and Kitagawa's (also Kawakami's) SG2 piston core. Kato says that the 1662 Kanbun earthquake appears at 102-108cm. Kitagawa says it occurs at 29-34cm. Lasting Damage says the reason for this is that the top 70cm of Kitagawa's core was squished (or destroyed) by the drilling process, but this is incorrect because they are both piston cores.

So ... could someone please tell me ...

"Why do the cores disagree?"

[The Doubtful Guest]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

WHY DO THE CORES DISAGREE?
I have been asked many times "Why do the curves agree?" and I am investigating this and I am closer to an answer than I was 6 months ago.

Could you give us an approximate ETA on that?

Thanks,

Doubtful.

[Dave Hawkins]

RAFH ...

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Hi Tsig ... Glad for you to visit our church sometime. We are not a showcase of perfect people (you've probably figured that out by now) but rather more like a hospital for the spiritually sick ... Which happens to be a perfect description of you and I both!
I think most of us would agree you need help TGBd, that your are, in some way or another, in need of spiritual recovery, but it would appear where you are going for such is actually part of the problem. Sort of like someone with emphysema and lung cancer going to a Gauloise cigarette smoke-a-thon for a cure.

We ALL are in need of spiritual recovery, RAFH. And who better to provide that recovery that Jesus, the Creator of everything made in the form of a man? And what would you suggest as an alternative for a church for the purpose of getting to know Jesus through Scripture? Maybe you have a better solution for the world's problems than us Christians? Higher learning maybe? Elimination of poverty? A live-and-let-live philosophy perhaps? Something else? I'm open to suggestion, but the only solution for mankind that I've found is God himself as revealed through the Bible. And the church (imperfect though it is) helps me study that Bible and get to know God.

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by The Doubtful Guest

Could you give us an approximate ETA on that?

Thanks,

Doubtful.

6 more months? Hopefully less.

[Lasting Damage]

this place isn't for preaching, so please don't. Thanks.

still waiting for your answers tho.

[Wallybert]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Maybe you have a better solution for the world's problems than us Christians? Higher learning maybe? Elimination of poverty? A live-and-let-live philosophy perhaps? Something else?

YES!!!
YES!!!
YES!!!
AND YES!!!!!!!!!

Try reality sometime, it can be very useful.

[Dutch_labrat]

Dave, you are still not addressing your earlier libelous attacks on the lab-techs. Can we get an apology?

Dave, I see you in this thread. Why not say sorry for insulting a lot of people?

[The Doubtful Guest]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

6 more months? Hopefully less.

6 months is an awfully long time to wait, Dave, particularly when one expects that the final result will be a bit underwhelming. I trust that you will include at least some rough probability estimates in your explanation.

In the meanwhile, could you throw your loyal fans a bone?

It seems to me that the consilience could be explained by:
- Massive, universal and perfectly executed fraud.
- Astronomically, nay cosmologically unlikely coincidence.
- The actions of an all-powerful and deceptive deity.
- The curves faithfully represent reality.

I really don't think there are any other possibilities. Is your explanation different from any of the above, and if so, could you give us a hint as to what it is?

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by ninewands

Davey, I'd like you to explain something to me about your "discussion" of your "experiment." You say there is enough water on earth to cover the surface to a depth of 1.7 miles. I'd like to know where you came up with that figure ... especially since Ye Olde Globalle Fludde only allegedly covered the earth to a depth of fifteen cubits. Now, my "cubit" is about 17.5" long. I don't know how long yours is, but I doubt it's significantly longer than that.

Now, to simplify the calculations, let's assume the earth is a perfect sphere having a radius of 4,000 miles (6557.38 km). That would make the volume of the planet about 9448635882885939058041.56882 meters^3. Now the volume of water on earth, including the polar ice caps, is about 1,260,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters, or 1,260,000,000,000,000,000 meters^3. Add that to the volume of the planet and pull out the radius of the earth (a perfect sphere) covered with that water. This happens to be 13115337.03456, for a difference of 583 meters.

Now, Dave, I KNOW you are "challenged" by large numbers and find them difficult to understand, but 583 meters is nowhere NEAR 1.7 miles (2786.885 meters).

You may argue that my "simplifying assumption" renders my calculation invalid, and you would be correct to do so. The TRUE picture is MUCH worse when you talk about how much water would be needed to flood the entire planet to 15 cubits above the top of Mt. Everest.

So, Dave, where the hell did you come up with that 1.7 miles of water figure???

I can handle big numbers just fine thanks, but this doesn't require big numbers. 12,200 feet is 2.3 miles, right? So we have 2.3 miles of average ocean depth covering roughly 3/4 of the earth's surface. So the water volume, V = 0.75E * 2.3 where "E" is the surface area of the earth. So if this water were spread over the whole surface, then we would have V = E * 2.3 * 0.75 = 1.73 Do you follow?

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by Lasting Damage

this place isn't for preaching, so please don't. Thanks.

still waiting for your answers tho.

I'm not preaching thanks. I'm answering posts. Maybe you should admonish others who are preaching. And while you are waiting on answers from me, maybe you could answer ...

"Why do the cores disagree?"

[ninewands]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar Inexplicable

Ninewands, the reality is that Hawkins has NEVER written a scientific paper for publications or peer-review. He seems to be utterly ignorant about the mechanics or underlying principles of the entire process of 'how scientific papers get published'. <hurrumph mode>It is my considered opinion is that he is resentful of the fact that he has been rejected as unworthy of publishing anything in any peer-reviewed scientific publication and is striking out against his perceived oppressors in a childish mode wherein whatever HE says is true and whetever anyone else say is false.</hurrumph mode>

Oh, it is much worse than that! I would suggest that Dave's continually harping on this particular non-issue indicates he probably never even took Freshman Chemistry, Physics, or any other natural science taught from a purely academic (i.e., not engineering-oriented) point of view in the course of attaining his BSEE. If it were otherwise he would know the fate of those who blithely "throw out" data.

The technical papers I wrote in engineering school were in design courses. They were only concerned with the development, manufacturing characteristcs and performance of successful designs for the simple reason that, in the real world, no UNsuccessful designs were likely to be approved for production. Hmmmmmm ... maybe THAT's the source of Davey's attitude.

Hey, Davey ... in the world of engineering research ... you know ... the real, experimental stuff ... the same standards for data handling apply as in the natural sciences! You have to explain, not discard, "unexpected" data points.

[ninewands]

Originally Posted by Monkey Pants

I think I can reproduce his calculation with some accuracy:

3/4 of the earth's surface is covered by water with an average depth of 12,200 feet.

Therefore, if the water were spread out, 4/4 of the world would be covered by (12,200 / (4/4) ) * (3/4) = 9,150 feet.

9,150 feet = 3,030 yards = 1.733 miles.

Therefore if the Earth were flatter, the existing water would cover it to a depth of 1.733 miles.

Now that childishly simplistic methodology is obviously complete bollocks - but it accurately reproduces Dave's answer.

So I reckon that it (or something incredibly similar) is how he did his calculation.

Am I right, Dave?

That displays a most disturbing pattern of "analysis" for a graduate of an accredited college of engineering ... maybe they lowered the standards for analytical thinking skills between the time I was in engineering school and the time Dave was.

[ninewands]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

WHY DO THE CORES DISAGREE?
I have been asked many times "Why do the curves agree?" and I am investigating this and I am closer to an answer than I was 6 months ago.

But I have a question for you ...

"Why do the cores disagree?"

Because the lake bottom is not flat and because different coring techniques were used by different investigators.

IOW ... We have 6 cores that we know of - From Kitagawa (1995) SG (75m), SG1 (4m), SG2 (11m), SG3 and 4 (16m) and from Kato (2004) SGP-12 (4m). All of these are PISTON cores except SG which is a drill core. There is a discrepancy between Kato's SGP-12 piston core and Kitagawa's (also Kawakami's) SG2 piston core. Kato says that the 1662 Kanbun earthquake appears at 102-108cm. Kitagawa says it occurs at 29-34cm. Lasting Damage says the reason for this is that the top 70cm of Kitagawa's core was squished (or destroyed) by the drilling process, but this is incorrect because they are both piston cores.

Dave, this is not an unusual occurrence. This is exactly the reason that ALL cores are tied together by correlation of downhole "markers" rather than length measurements. You really are too ignorant to be asking these questions, but I'm going to give you an explanation, anyway.

Why is the vertical location of the top of a core uncertain? Multiple reasons, but a few really stand out:

• the lake bottom is not flat, but rather, slopes;
• the water depth at a specific location is not a constant, but varies from day-to-day;
• the top of the core is where the least consolidated sediments are. They are so soft they can be easily upset, even destroyed (swept away) by the mere lowering of the coring apparatus to the lake bottom;
• Believe it or not, depth measurement is one of the most imprecise and problematic measurements done in science. Accurate depth measurement is much more problematic, in terms of systematic and experimental error, than even 14C dating. It's not a simple matter of dropping a weighted line over the side, Dave. How far will the weight sink into the slimy mud that makes up the surface layer? If you want to use sonar, how far into the surface layer will the sound penetrate before the acoustic impedance becomes enough to cause a reflection?

Now, suppose you say, "let's re-core everything and we'll cut every core to the same subsurface depth and work from the bottom up." What happens if you cut a sixty foot long core and only recover 55 feet of core, Davey? Is the difference in core length due to a difference in water depth, destruction of the unconsolidated mud layers, or is it because some of the core slid out of the barrel during recovery?

You see, "markers" like the earthquake turbidites and the various tephras, etc., are the only way to accurately say "point A1 in core #1 is the same as point A2 in core #2." The reason they are good for doing this is they are different from the "normal sediments," they are easily recognized and they are widespread.

So ... could someone please tell me ...

"Why do the cores disagree?"

They don't, Davey, anywhere except in your own self-deluded mind. But, I've accomplished one thing ... you can stop researching "Why do the cores disagree?" because you now have the answer from someone who has pulled thousands of feet of cores out of wells that cost tens of millions of dollars to drill.

ETA:I don't want to put too fine a point on it, Dave, but if I wanted to know about the behavior of control surfaces in trans-sonic flight, who should I ask? A biologist, a geologist, or someone who has actually held the stick through the sound barrier? If you want to know the ins and outs of coring and depth measurement I'd say the people you ought to ask are either me or Coragyps since we're both "oil field trash" and those are the people who HAVE to know the answers because of the amount of money riding on them.

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

"Why do the cores disagree?"

First of all, they don't in any significant way.
Second, 9wands gave you a perfectly reasonable explanation for why they differ in minor ways.

Third - and most important -

Why do the cores AGREE in ways that are significant, like the alignment of the volcanic and earthquake episodes, and the radiocarbon dates of the cores aligned by such markers???

[Lucretius II]

Originally Posted by ninewands

Because the lake bottom is not flat and because different coring techniques were used by different investigators.

Dave, this is not an unusual occurrence. This is exactly the reason that ALL cores are tied together by correlation of downhole "markers" rather than length measurements. You really are too ignorant to be asking these questions, but I'm going to give you an explanation, anyway.

Why is the vertical location of the top of a core uncertain? Multiple reasons, but a few really stand out:

• the lake bottom is not flat, but rather, slopes;
• the water depth at a specific location is not a constant, but varies from day-to-day;
• the top of the core is where the least consolidated sediments are. They are so soft they can be easily upset, even destroyed (swept away) by the mere lowering of the coring apparatus to the lake bottom;
• Believe it or not, depth measurement is one of the most imprecise and problematic measurements done in science. Accurate depth measurement is much more problematic, in terms of systematic and experimental error, than even 14C dating. It's not a simple matter of dropping a weighted line over the side, Dave. How far will the weight sink into the slimy mud that makes up the surface layer? If you want to use sonar, how far into the surface layer will the sound penetrate before the acoustic impedance becomes enough to cause a reflection?

Now, suppose you say, "let's re-core everything and we'll cut every core to the same subsurface depth and work from the bottom up." What happens if you cut a sixty foot long core and only recover 55 feet of core, Davey? Is the difference in core length due to a difference in water depth, destruction of the unconsolidated mud layers, or is it because some of the core slid out of the barrel during recovery?

You see, "markers" like the earthquake turbidites and the various tephras, etc., are the only way to accurately say "point A1 in core #1 is the same as point A2 in core #2." The reason they are good for doing this is they are different from the "normal sediments," they are easily recognized and they are widespread.

They don't, Davey, anywhere except in your own self-deluded mind. But, I've accomplished one thing ... you can stop researching "Why do the cores disagree?" because you now have the answer from someone who has pulled thousands of feet of cores out of wells that cost tens of millions of dollars to drill.

[Dave Mode on ]

You're just saying that to cover up the fact I KNOW YOU ARE WRONG AND HAVE SHOWN IT

[Dave Mode Off]

Seriously that is a good explanation so thanks from at least one lurker (me)

By the way can we stop calling Dave a "buffoon" where I come from a "buffoon" while by definition is an idiot there is an implied "lovable" there as well as in "A lovable buffoon " Boris Johnson the Tory MP is a buffoon and an idiot but at some level you have to admit he can be fun.
DAVE is NOT

Boris Johnson for our American friends

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson

[Shirley Knott]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

RAFH ...

We ALL are in need of spiritual recovery, RAFH. And who better to provide that recovery that Jesus, the Creator of everything made in the form of a man? And what would you suggest as an alternative for a church for the purpose of getting to know Jesus through Scripture? Maybe you have a better solution for the world's problems than us Christians? Higher learning maybe? Elimination of poverty? A live-and-let-live philosophy perhaps? Something else? I'm open to suggestion, but the only solution for mankind that I've found is God himself as revealed through the Bible. And the church (imperfect though it is) helps me study that Bible and get to know God.

And there's the problem right there dave.
Christianity is all about getting right with 'god', no matter what kind of a monster you are or have been. It is never about getting right with those you've wronged and continued to wrong, it is never about stopping the wrong-doing, it is only the perfect scratch for the egopath's itch -- I have to get right with the only "being" that matters, the ultimate 'big guy'. Screw those other folks, oh, wait, already did that, but who cares as long as I'm right with "god"?
Sheesh, you are as contemptible in your religion as in the rest of your life.
And your behavior substantiates this entirely.

no hugs for delusional thugs,
Shirley Knott
Why do the curves and the cores and the tree-rings and the ice cores and and and all agree?

[Lasting Damage]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I'm not preaching thanks. I'm answering posts.

this is preaching:

http://rantsnraves.org/showpost.php?...postcount=2529

[Monkey Pants]

Originally Posted by Monkey Pants

I think I can reproduce his calculation with some accuracy:

3/4 of the earth's surface is covered by water with an average depth of 12,200 feet.

Therefore, if the water were spread out, 4/4 of the world would be covered by (12,200 / (4/4) ) * (3/4) = 9,150 feet.

9,150 feet = 3,030 yards = 1.733 miles.

Therefore if the Earth were flatter, the existing water would cover it to a depth of 1.733 miles.

Now that childishly simplistic methodology is obviously complete bollocks - but it accurately reproduces Dave's answer.

So I reckon that it (or something incredibly similar) is how he did his calculation.

Am I right, Dave?

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I can handle big numbers just fine thanks, but this doesn't require big numbers. 12,200 feet is 2.3 miles, right? So we have 2.3 miles of average ocean depth covering roughly 3/4 of the earth's surface. So the water volume, V = 0.75E * 2.3 where "E" is the surface area of the earth. So if this water were spread over the whole surface, then we would have V = E * 2.3 * 0.75 = 1.73 Do you follow?

Ha! I was right! Go me!

[JonF]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

More tomorrow morning on Lake Suigetsu: I want to look closer at C14 disparity over centimeter scales and cases of discarded dating results.

Still waiting, Davie-doodles

[The Doubtful Guest]

Dave, you might have noticed during the past couple of years that your ideas have encountered a certain amount of resistance. Now, I believe that this may partly be due to the fact that you are talking to people from cultural milieux very different to your own. You don't seem to have much ability to "put yourself in the other guy's shoes". I think I can help you with this. Imagine that an elder of a remote Amazon tribe says to you:

Originally Posted by Amazonian Tribal Elder

Dave! My grandfather is very upset with you for pitching camp next to the sacred pool, where he lives as a crocodile spirit! You must fast for 2 days, then sacrifice a white goat to appease him!

You would probably be a bit skeptical of this claim, and might want to see a bit of evidence before buying that white goat. Similarly, I feel a bit skeptical when I read something like:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

We ALL are in need of spiritual recovery, RAFH. And who better to provide that recovery that Jesus, the Creator of everything made in the form of a man? And what would you suggest as an alternative for a church for the purpose of getting to know Jesus through Scripture?

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

WHY DO THE CORES DISAGREE?
I have been asked many times "Why do the curves agree?" and I am investigating this and I am closer to an answer than I was 6 months ago.

How many times have we heard that?

So when Dave says, for instance

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

BTW ... I am very close to having a plausible mechanism for producing that yellow line.

... it might mean "I've been evading that question for months/years; I propose to evade it for several more months/years while claiming to 'investigate' it."

[JonF]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I'm not preaching thanks. I'm answering posts. Maybe you should admonish others who are preaching.

This is answering a message:

We ALL are in need of spiritual recovery, RAFH.

This is preaching:

And who better to provide that recovery that Jesus, the Creator of everything made in the form of a man? And what would you suggest as an alternative for a church for the purpose of getting to know Jesus through Scripture? Maybe you have a better solution for the world's problems than us Christians? Higher learning maybe? Elimination of poverty? A live-and-let-live philosophy perhaps? Something else? I'm open to suggestion, but the only solution for mankind that I've found is God himself as revealed through the Bible. And the church (imperfect though it is) helps me study that Bible and get to know God.

Nobody but you is doing anyhting vaguely like preaching in this thread, so you are the only one needing admonishment.

BTW, I recognize many other ways of obtaining spiritual recovery, and IMHO churches are a particularly poor way of doing it. But this is the wrong place for discussing it.

[Coleslaw]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

WHY DO THE CORES DISAGREE?
I have been asked many times "Why do the curves agree?" and I am investigating this and I am closer to an answer than I was 6 months ago.

AFDave's Second Law: One may escape intellectual responsibility on any issue merely by stating an intent to pursue it.

[ninewands]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

RAFH ...

We ALL are in need of spiritual recovery, RAFH. And who better to provide that recovery that Jesus, the Creator of everything made in the form of a man? And what would you suggest as an alternative for a church for the purpose of getting to know Jesus through Scripture? Maybe you have a better solution for the world's problems than us Christians? Higher learning maybe? Elimination of poverty? A live-and-let-live philosophy perhaps? Something else? I'm open to suggestion, but the only solution for mankind that I've found is God himself as revealed through the Bible. And the church (imperfect though it is) helps me study that Bible and get to know God.

Dave, my spirit's health is just fine. Sorry about yours. Maybe yours would be better if you dumped some of that "original sin" baggage and quit living a life based upon (non-existent) guilt and gratitude for (at best, non-existent, at worst, sado-masochistic) self-sacrifice.