don findlay wrote:
Gerry Seaton wrote:
Those in the strike game, being played by Dr. Findlay, who keep suggesting
that he should get an education in geology should do some homework.

Don Findlay has a doctorate degree in structural geology, and list himself
as a consultant in that field. You should check his profile page to
understand the depth of his training.

http://users.indigo.net.au/don/profile.html

..which link is right off my front page. ...Or people could just
google up don findlay . Why not? You'd think they could rise to
that at least, wouldn't you? I'm not an alias, or some unmentionable
monster who hides in the swamp of t.o. or even sci.geo for that matter.
But no, ..they're so tied up in their own agenda of hysterical denial
of anything that rubs their touchy-feely sense of peer clubhouse
cameraderie up the wrong way....

And yet you don't present your ideas to fellow scientists. This is just
sad, as my daughter would say.

You want everyone to reject the foundations of physics on your sayso;
you offer no data except "it looks like it". An extraordinary claim
such as yours require truly ordinary evidence. Where is it?

Half of the geology I know I learned in the last week, looking up
terminology you've used. But even I can see that you are
1. presenting a strawman of plate tectonics, by piecing together bits
of disparate versions of the PT model, and attacking that;
2. ignore the observation that attacking the mainstream model does not
support alternative models;
3. offer no speculative explanations for *very serious questions, such
as those refering to
3a. angular momentum,
3b. how the added mass becomes mantle, and where the mass or energy
comes from,
3c. why it is not directly observed here or elsewhere;
4. far more practiced at language play and insults than in clear
presentation of the data supporting your ideas.

There are creationists, as has been said, who are legitimate PhDs. Not
many, but some. But to the extent that they do science, they are not
doing creationism, and vice versa. A similar charge can be made of you.



I think the responses here says everything there is to be said about
'peer review'. It's where I came in, it's been my experience, ..and it
is still the regular currency. It's a sad, but living comment on 'the
consensus machine' illustrated from the front row for all those who may
be embarking on a career in science - be very careful what you do with
your 'big idea'.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/consensus.html

Of course there is politics in any human endeavor. But the consensus is
grounded in reality. If we are missing a class of data that is real,
then it is up to you to point it out.

..and it matters not whether it's in the back alleys, underpasses, or
in the dress circle, ...the accents may be different, but the intention
and responses are the same. Kill, .. Kill , ..! At all costs, kill.

You can shield yourself with data.



Why can consensus not put up with a little anklebiting,..huh?

Well, Einstein, for example, presented a testable hypothesis. How would
we test yours?



Although he has had a number of articles and papers (all apparently
regarding boudinage) published in peer-reviewed publications, it appears
that he has not been able to get any accepted that have the expanding earth
as the subject.

When I first submitted (and later) published on boudinage and ore
deposits, Large-scale boudinage "did not exist" You would not believe
the scathing reception that one got. Reception here is child's stuff to
that. Difficult to believe from today's perspective?

This *is* publication (if just 'post-it' notes) You could regard it as
an experiment in peer review. (I have never attempted formal
publication in this area, and quite frankly I think it valueless
compared to the potential of the web. Unless of course the intention
is career publication credits, for which the science is merely and
unashamedly a vehicle. "Where it counts.." ..indeed. To sit on a
dusty shelf? Is that where it counts? To walk-the-walk and
talk-the-talk? Is that where it counts? I suppose, ..depends what
you're counting.

I agree that people who are socially skilled or agressive are
unreasonably rewarded in many arenas of human activity; but even
autistics seem to make it in science, eventually, if they function well
enough to get the education and then present papers. If you had
persuasive data, I would think that there would be an increasingly
larger band of young geologists who would be taking interest in this.

I cannot possibly judge geology claims liek a geologist can. But I can
judge this one:
"dismiss physics as you know it, because I interpret the geological
evidence differently".



When he had suggested in a recent thread that he would entertain discussions
that would falsify expanding earth based on geology only, and in light of
his educational background and specialty, it does seem strange that he
hasn't confronted these issues:

1. If the earth has expanded at the rate Dr. Findlay claims over the last
300 million years, then a extremely significant portion of geological
structures formed during that period of very rapid expansion should exhibit
dilational failure, instead of compressional failure. Nearly all structural
geologists will agree that the significant portion of geological structures
formed during that period of claimed expansion are compressional in nature,
as are most of those that are active today. Or, he can claim that all of the
field work by those other structural geologists has been mapped incorrectly,
or interpreted incorrectly.

2. If the earth has expanded at the rate, over the last 300 million years,
that Dr. Findlay claims it has then a very significant portion of the stress
fields related to that expansion should have to have been oriented radially
outward from the center of the earth and coherent with dilational failure.
Nearly all geophysicists will agree that the residual stresses measured in
the rocks that represent that period of time are not oriented radially
outward, but exhibit compressional and/or gravitational domains. The same
can be said for those stresses measured in today's active structures; by far
predominately compressional, and not oriented radially outward from the
center of the earth. Or, he can claim that all of these geophysicists have
performed or interpreted their measurements incorrectly.
Of course I have. (covered on my site.)


Or he can claim that 1 and 2 were wide of the plate and not strikes against
EE.

Gerry

Ad hoc handwaving dismissals of fundamental physical laws when
questions are raised cannot be ignored.

Kermit