Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 6

In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Kermit wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Kermit wrote:

Kermit,
who has always rather relied on reality, in his own perverse way.

Hah, ..You said it, mate... :-)

Next time I see the results of what they mistakenly believe to be an
auto collision, I'll pull over, and tell the police:
"These cars didn't collide. It's obviously the result of rapid road
expansion. You twenty-year veterens of highway patrol are confused -
when a road expands rapidly, it is bound to leave auto parts scattered
over one another like this. Sure, we didn't actually *see the road
expand, and I have no explanation why it should, but the pattern of the
parts from these cars makes it obvious.

Hey, ...Kermit, ..
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ng/truck.html

Scientists consider all the time the possibility that
their favorite ideas are wrong

Well, ..I don't see much evidence of this, ...not here at any rate

- if they don't, then rivals will do it
for them.

But I do see some of this, but my efforts are rather unwelcome


We have thought more deeply, harder, and in greater detail about your
own ideas than you have. You have not given even passing thought to the
consequences.

Issue one:
Where does the added mass come from?
Why is there no indication it happens anywhere else?
How does it maintain angular momentum?
How does it know to become mantle, and not nitroglycerin or cotton
candy? (Which is most chemically complex?)
Why doesn't it destroy the surface of the Earth?
Why are there no indications Earth's mass has increased?
Why did it stop? When did it start?

Issue two:
How are spin and expansion related? You wiggled your eyebrows
mysteriously and said they were, but not neessarily causally.
How are they related?
Statistically - with a data point of one, what would the connection be?
If you include other heavenly bodies, you must have an opinion on
whether they expand or not. Do they?
What do you mean by spinning? Is the moon spinning?
If they are not connected statistically or causally, in what way *are
they connected?

There are other issues, but these two intrigue me this week. I can't
seem to find answers to either on your website. If you have answered
either of these groups of questions and I missed it, I apologize. Just
provide the link.

Oh, have you indeed (thought), ...? Well, ..I have given more than
passing thought to the consequences, but regard them not directly
within the ambit of geology, and certainly not germane to the
discussion here regarding the conclusion that the Earth has got bigger.
You are talking theory as to mechanism, and I keep saying, put that
aside for the time being. What *IS* on the table, and will be for the
next number of decades is the veracity of the geological 'evidence' -
not the theory of the dynamics.

Still it's good to see that you are prepared to lay aside the nonsense
of plate tectonics and move forward. I think there is considerable
unpicking to do in that 'PT' regard. It would be a constructive move
on your part if you would contribute to some of the nonsenses that a
lay person might see. Because it is evidently lay people,
schoolchildren and students who will point the finger at this nonsense.
Those with the most vested interest in the "gift that keeps on giving"
have no intention of educating you. Which is why they are not here.
Those interested (in education) have to do that job themselves.


*
In your 'expanding earth' model, is the mass staying constant? Is
the density decreasing?

Thanks,

earle
*