Jarrah White vs Phil Plait Jun 14, 2011 15:53:44 GMT -4
Post by lukepemberton on Jun 14, 2011 15:53:44 GMT -4
Request an interview with him? Who does he think is? Oprah? Can you provide a link to that video, as I'd like to hear him say it. I'm not ploughing through a radio interview with Jarrah. For the record, I formally request an interview with him, over a phone line. He can come here and arrange it with me.
This is how he works:
Yesterday, I wrote on this thread:
'Even then, the Fe 3+ is in trace quantities. I cannot find the paper, which is really annoying, but if I recall, the traces of Fe 3+ found in one lunar sample were formed by radiation induced changes to the electron band gap in the iron atoms.'
I also wrote this on a website I used to maintain. I dug into another of his videos that he released today, as I see from the blurb that he mentioned this quote by me. After a bit of searching I found the part of interest. JW filmed himself next to his computer in full mocking tone telling his audience that:
'I kid you not, this is what this guy has written on his website'
and then finishes by looking at the camera like some wisely sage in disbelief that someone could write something so stupid.
What he fails to seize upon is that I mention that out of all the samples tested, ONE is believed to contain ferric material due to band gap alteration. ONE sample. He makes a huge point from a minor point. it does not register in his head that the ONE sample I describe might tell him that he is wrong, and that data from that small but valuable sample set might be the nugget that tells us that the samples are not terrestrial. Maybe he can come and discuss his understanding of solid state physics, and band gap electron structures since he seems to know so much about it. I am afraid this is JW through and through. Corner him with science, and he's like a frightened dog. The only route back is to bark, growl and bite.
He spins this statement by me as 'propagandists' not being able to make up their mind about the ferric material found in lunar samples, going to great lengths to explain that some 'propagandists' claim the ferric content is due to Earth water contamination, and I have made some ludicrous claim about GCR and band gap alterations to cover up previous 'incorrect' claims about terrestrial contamination being the reason for ferric material, or statements that there is no ferric material in the lunar basalts. The reason I included that statement in my website was not Machiavellian, it was simply to give an example of ferric material in the samples. If I had said that the lunar samples are devoid of ferric material to highlight the difference between Earth and Lunar balsats in general terms, then I would have been accused of lying. It is a no win situation.
I looked at another source he quoted about 'rusty' iron in the Apollo samples, and I will look at it closer once I get chance. The source talks about ferric material due to oxidation by water (believed to be Earth contamination). When I saw the paper it struck me straight away that the authors have used the term 'rusty iron' to explain their findings in simple terms. The reason I believe this is they refer to the rust as a ferrous oxide with an hydroxyl ligand. This suggests that the 'rust' they found is a surface species that forms prior to complete iron oxidation. Again, if JW knew anything about surface oxidation processes, then he would realise that the use of ligand notation strongly suggests surface passivation rather than full oxidation of the iron in the crystal structure. Again, I need to take a close look to confirm this.
The simple fact: JW cannot understand that while there will be a single story to explain the findings, scientists are still at odds to explain the data. JW takes a bit of data here, a bit of data from there, and general statements he reads from websites or obtains from emails, and accuses everyone of being a liar that cannot tell a straight story. He fails to understand the nature of research and science. What he sees as lies are not unique to the subject of Apollo. He ought to take a look at quantum mechanics and the arguments that rage regarding the nature of the quantum world. It does not mean that his computer, reliant upon quantum processes, does not work. It just means scientists tend to spend time theorising. It is their nature. It does not occur to him that the 'rusty' sample could indeed result from surface contamination, producing ferric material on the surface of the sample, and the ferric content produced by GCR is actually deep in the crystal structure. Both reasons for the ferric content are correct if the context is understood. It is not that the story is not straight, it is that JW does not have the skills or understanding to understand what he is seeing. He also does not have the experience of working in an academic enviroment, and fails to realise that it is not a black and white world.
As I said, I'd like to see him come here and defend his claims. I'll start with several papers that compare mare basalts and terrestrial basalts. I have some questions for him about those papers, and why he seems to ignore them. Maybe it is because they don't tell the story he wants.
I guess hell will freeze over before he engages with credentialed scientists, other than getting his sister to send emails.