Ping Don Findlay's strike game players

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

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 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.

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

Gerry

"Gerry Seaton" wrote in message
...
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

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 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.

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

Gerry


Those of us who have had conversations with him over the years are well
aware of his educational/professional claims. Dr Michael Behe is associate
professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. That didn't prevent him
from making a complete fool out of himself in the courtroom in Dover,
Pennsylvania. Having a PhD doesn't ensure that one knows how to use one's
brain. Considering how poorly DF has done in these ridiculous threads over
the years, I would suggest that he contact the University of Glascow and
ask for a refund of his tuition. Obviously, he's either been ripped off or
is the victim of some heinous academic prank.

George

"Timberwoof" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"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
snip

Thanks for posting that. I am, quite frankly, surprised. And this shows
me that Don has even less reason to not attend the geodynamics
conference that's going on. Since his professional work apparently
depends on getting the underlying processes right, he should keep
abreast of the latest developments.

Given his educated background, he should be even more aware than I am of
the methods of science, and his rejection of some basic principles of
physics is thus all the more surprising.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com

That someone like Don Findlay was awarded any kind of advanced degree (if,
in fact, he was awarded such a degreea), to my mind, is a symptom of how
screwed up the education system is here in the west. It simply boggles the
mind.

George

"George" wrote in message
m...

"Gerry Seaton" wrote in message
...
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

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 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.

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

Gerry


Those of us who have had conversations with him over the years are well
aware of his educational/professional claims. Dr Michael Behe is
associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. That didn't
prevent him from making a complete fool out of himself in the courtroom in
Dover, Pennsylvania. Having a PhD doesn't ensure that one knows how to
use one's brain. Considering how poorly DF has done in these ridiculous
threads over the years, I would suggest that he contact the University of
Glascow and ask for a refund of his tuition. Obviously, he's either been
ripped off or is the victim of some heinous academic prank.

George

I met this guy named Larry Babcock at the Tucson G&M show two years ago.
Here is the link to his web site.

http://syninfo.com/Crystal/index.htmlx

He is a Doctor of Geology who is selling healing crystals. He also claims he
has discovered the energy net that surrounds the earth and is locked into
the Universal constant, or something like that. He says that aliens visit
the earth periodically to adjust the energy net and make sure it is
operating properly.

Here are some excerpts from his web site, which he thought was a must read
for me.

"A Primer On The Structure Of Space
And The Spectrum Of Life "
"The story concerning the author's discovery of the Structure of Space is
presented in the preface of the following document. An analysis of over 40
kilometers of stratigraphic section in the Portage Lake Lava Group (PLLG) in
the Keweenaw Peninsula of Michigan, USA, revealed 1) the basic two fold
structure of SPACE and 2) that thE six fold Stratigraphic Hierarchy, which
operates on the Earth's surface, is a manifestation of thE six orders of
R-space. All Existence is based upon a virtually perfect state of resonance.
Therefore, musical nomenclature is employed to elucidate the R-space
hierarchy. The Structure of Space is described in a four part outline
involving nomenclature, gross structure, suborder details on the various
dimensions of existence, and the four classes of space. Extensive
nomenclature from The Urantia Book is utilized to describe the Spectrum of
Life. Resident dimensions are cited for the four classes of sentient life in
the four classes of space."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Related Discoveries "

The Megalithic yard and the two energy grids which operate on the Earth's
surface have been unequivocally solved. The Megalithic yard, STATIC Curry
Net, and DYNAMIC Hartmann Net haveThe

"The Megalithic yard and the two energy grids which operate on the Earth's
surface have been unequivocally solved. The Megalithic yard, STATIC Curry
Net, and DYNAMIC Hartmann Net have been integrated with the SGM structure of
the BEI via solution of the Royal cubit, utilized by the builders of the
Great Pyramid Device (GPD). A summary of these revelations includes the
first 10 pages of "Babcock's Synchronization Tables" which lists over 240
equilibrium points across the structural core and symmetry center of the
SGM."



There must have been some bad weed that got smoked back in those days.

Gerry

"Gerry Seaton" wrote in message
...

"George" wrote in message
m...

"Gerry Seaton" wrote in message
...
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

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 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.

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

Gerry


Those of us who have had conversations with him over the years are well
aware of his educational/professional claims. Dr Michael Behe is
associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. That didn't
prevent him from making a complete fool out of himself in the courtroom
in Dover, Pennsylvania. Having a PhD doesn't ensure that one knows how
to use one's brain. Considering how poorly DF has done in these
ridiculous threads over the years, I would suggest that he contact the
University of Glascow and ask for a refund of his tuition. Obviously,
he's either been ripped off or is the victim of some heinous academic
prank.

George

I met this guy named Larry Babcock at the Tucson G&M show two years ago.
Here is the link to his web site.

http://syninfo.com/Crystal/index.htmlx

He is a Doctor of Geology who is selling healing crystals. He also claims
he has discovered the energy net that surrounds the earth and is locked
into the Universal constant, or something like that. He says that aliens
visit the earth periodically to adjust the energy net and make sure it is
operating properly.

Here are some excerpts from his web site, which he thought was a must
read for me.

"A Primer On The Structure Of Space
And The Spectrum Of Life "
"The story concerning the author's discovery of the Structure of Space is
presented in the preface of the following document. An analysis of over
40 kilometers of stratigraphic section in the Portage Lake Lava Group
(PLLG) in the Keweenaw Peninsula of Michigan, USA, revealed 1) the basic
two fold structure of SPACE and 2) that thE six fold Stratigraphic
Hierarchy, which operates on the Earth's surface, is a manifestation of
thE six orders of R-space. All Existence is based upon a virtually
perfect state of resonance. Therefore, musical nomenclature is employed
to elucidate the R-space hierarchy. The Structure of Space is described
in a four part outline involving nomenclature, gross structure, suborder
details on the various dimensions of existence, and the four classes of
space. Extensive nomenclature from The Urantia Book is utilized to
describe the Spectrum of Life. Resident dimensions are cited for the four
classes of sentient life in the four classes of space."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Related Discoveries "

The Megalithic yard and the two energy grids which operate on the Earth's
surface have been unequivocally solved. The Megalithic yard, STATIC Curry
Net, and DYNAMIC Hartmann Net haveThe

"The Megalithic yard and the two energy grids which operate on the
Earth's surface have been unequivocally solved. The Megalithic yard,
STATIC Curry Net, and DYNAMIC Hartmann Net have been integrated with the
SGM structure of the BEI via solution of the Royal cubit, utilized by the
builders of the Great Pyramid Device (GPD). A summary of these
revelations includes the first 10 pages of "Babcock's Synchronization
Tables" which lists over 240 equilibrium points across the structural
core and symmetry center of the SGM."



There must have been some bad weed that got smoked back in those days.

Gerry


Yeah, well, that guy sounds like he would make a great advertisement for
some clinic somewhere. Did he also knit imaginary sweaters?

George

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....

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
...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.


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


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.


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

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?

[snip]

I did, before I ever replied to you, back when you and Oriel36 were
duking it out here. So... I knew you were "Mr. Doctor Crank" before I
ever hit the 'Post Message' button.

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

Kermit wrote:
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.

Just your set of dogma. This is science BOZO. The only fundamentalist
here are IDIOTS like you that need to cling to your beliefs to give
your pathetic life meaning.

It is about exploring and looking for answers. Everything is tentative
in science, even the LAW of gravity, just need good evidence and strong
logic.

Any one thinking different is not doing science, but practising a
religion.

And guess what? I am going to continue to explore EE BECAUSE there is
something there, clueless morons like you not withstanding.


JT

J. Taylor wrote:
Kermit wrote:
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.

Just your set of dogma. This is science BOZO. The only fundamentalist
here are IDIOTS like you that need to cling to your beliefs to give
your pathetic life meaning.

It is about exploring and looking for answers. Everything is tentative
in science, even the LAW of gravity, just need good evidence and strong
logic.

Any one thinking different is not doing science, but practising a
religion.

And guess what? I am going to continue to explore EE BECAUSE there is
something there, clueless morons like you not withstanding.


JT

Bozo? Idiots? "pathetic life"? "clueless morons"?

Gee, it's a good thing EE advocates don't engage in ad-hom arguments.