Ping Don Findlay's strike game players

"Bill Hudson" wrote in message
oups.com...

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,

Though what it is, he refuses to say. I suspect that Taylor is still
knitting sweaters that aren't there.

George

In article ,
"George" wrote:

"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.

Hmm. Are you going to indict all universities with post-doctorate
programs in geology because one of them awarded a PhD to Don Findlay?

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

"Timberwoof" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"George" wrote:

"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.

Hmm. Are you going to indict all universities with post-doctorate
programs in geology because one of them awarded a PhD to Don Findlay?

If he was the only example I had, I'd say no. Sadly, there are all too
many out there just like him. But it isn't just PhD programs. The problem
is systemic throughout the system, from elementary school on up. In many
cases, it seems that we just pass people to the next grade just to move
them out the door.

George

George wrote:
"Bill Hudson" wrote in message
oups.com...

J. Taylor wrote:
Kermit wrote:

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,

Though what it is, he refuses to say. I suspect that Taylor is still
knitting sweaters that aren't there.



Very good George! Nothing like a little public humiliation to bring
the wayward back into the flock.

Would you mind repeating, what it was you wanted me to believe without
question?

Kind of says it all, doesn't it? Well, maybe not to you

JT

J. Taylor wrote:
George wrote:
"Bill Hudson" wrote in message
oups.com...

J. Taylor wrote:
Kermit wrote:

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,

Though what it is, he refuses to say. I suspect that Taylor is still
knitting sweaters that aren't there.



Very good George! Nothing like a little public humiliation to bring
the wayward back into the flock.

Would you mind repeating, what it was you wanted me to believe without
question?

Kind of says it all, doesn't it? Well, maybe not to you

Do you avoid legitimate questions at all costs? Or perhaps you need
them posed as questions. How about this:

George wrote, in reply to you saying that there was something to EE,
that you refused to say what that 'something' was. Instead, you picked
up on his slam and ran with that.

Now how about answering this question:

What is the 'something' you see in EE that makes you want to continue
to explore it?

If you give me two questions, I'd also like to ask:

How long, and how intensively, have you been exploring EE?

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.

It's a common myth that having a Ph.D. in a field means you know a lot
about that field. I have personally known Ph.Ds who knew practically
nothing about anything except how to get through school. I have also
known Ph.Ds who were very much experts. Having a Ph.D. is neither a
necessary nor sufficient criteria for knowing what you are talking
about. You might, you might not.

Lee Jay

Lee Jay wrote:


It's a common myth that having a Ph.D. in a field means you know a lot
about that field. I have personally known Ph.Ds who knew practically
nothing about anything except how to get through school. I have also
known Ph.Ds who were very much experts. Having a Ph.D. is neither a
necessary nor sufficient criteria for knowing what you are talking
about. You might, you might not.


Ph.D. only means you met some institution's requirements somewhere
sometime. Ideally it means a lot more... but, sadly, is no guarantee
of anything.

Sam Wormley wrote:
Lee Jay wrote:


It's a common myth that having a Ph.D. in a field means you know a lot
about that field. I have personally known Ph.Ds who knew practically
nothing about anything except how to get through school. I have also
known Ph.Ds who were very much experts. Having a Ph.D. is neither a
necessary nor sufficient criteria for knowing what you are talking
about. You might, you might not.


Ph.D. only means you met some institution's requirements somewhere
sometime. Ideally it means a lot more... but, sadly, is no guarantee
of anything.

And the history of science is littered with the destroyed reputations
of those who stepped outside of their field of expertise without
attempting to understand the subject. Hoyle, Shockley to name but
two...

Tom McDonald wrote:
J. Taylor wrote:
George wrote:
"Bill Hudson" wrote in message
oups.com...

J. Taylor wrote:
Kermit wrote:

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,

Though what it is, he refuses to say. I suspect that Taylor is still
knitting sweaters that aren't there.



Very good George! Nothing like a little public humiliation to bring
the wayward back into the flock.

Would you mind repeating, what it was you wanted me to believe without
question?

Kind of says it all, doesn't it? Well, maybe not to you

Do you avoid legitimate questions at all costs?

"Though what it is, he refuses to say" Is not a question, legitimate,
or otherwise, but a statement, which was followed by derogatory
speculation, for the purpose of humiliation.

Or perhaps you need them posed as questions.

This does not make any sense. First, you assert, disguised as a
question, I avoid questions, especially legitimate ones, at all cost,
then you acknowledge what George wrote was not a question.

As for your question, "Do you avoid legitimate questions at all costs"
is a loaded question. It assumes part of the answer and cannot be
answered in the negative without affirming the assumption.

To say, no, gives a possible meaning, questions are avoided but at no
cost.

Of course, to say, yes, gives the answer fully assumed in the question.

So your question is not legitimate.



How about this:

George wrote, in reply to you saying that there was something to EE,
that you refused to say what that 'something' was. Instead, you picked
up on his slam and ran with that.

Because it was not stated does not equate to a refusal to say.


Now how about answering this question:

What is the 'something' you see in EE that makes you want to continue
to explore it?

The age gradient in the Pacific and Indian is very similar to what is
found in the Atlantic. They all have similar proportion of a
particular age. i.e. 180 my ocean crust is 11% +/- 2 and carries
through for all ages to zero.

Removing this crust, in sequence, by age, allowing the radius to
decrease brings all the continents together at their margins, just like
for the Atlantic. It also causes a better fit between Africa and South
American then can be done with a fit on the current radius.

The ridge in the Atlantic has a shape similar to the continents on
either side.

The East Pacific Rise has a shape with as a similarity for what is
found in the Atlantic for the west side of South America.

Many of the transform faults in the Atlantic between Africa and South
America, if followed, allow both Africa and South America to be brought
back to the point on the ridge which matches the point on the continent
of the same shape. This can be done for the west coast of South
America to the East Pacific Rise. However, there are not as many
transform faults because of the spreading ridge in between.

Which brings up triple junctions which needs no explanation with
expansion for their existence which have the ridges move apart as the
radius increases.

Which brings us to ridges which are themselves moving over the face of
the planet with PT but is explained by expansion with an increasing
radius. The ridges are not moving, nor the continents it is the radius
of the Earth which is increasing.

Then there is Antarctica nearly encircled in ridges and no subduction
zones inside the circle.

Then there are many subduction zones which have less sediment then the
surrounding ocean floor, yet have been in supposed operation for
millions of years and have never faultered.

Half of all subduction zones are younger than the 65 my and could not
have been the points which subducted the previous ocean floor and
causes a problem getting the pattern in the crust age map to match.

In addition there is a very active ridge in the Pacific, which means
not only does all the old ocean crust need to be subducted, but nearly
50% of the new ocean floor of the Pacific, some place west of N.
America. The Atlantic is spreading, N. America is moving to a point
where the subduction zone would need to be, over rides it, then over
rides a portion of the spreading ride. (Sorry, not explain this very
clearly, pictures would be better)

There is also fossil, flora and fauna connections between Asia and the
Americas.

Since it has never been my intent to convince any one of the topic, but
to explore it for my own curiosity, have not put together documents
which would lay out the above much more clearly.




If you give me two questions, I'd also like to ask:

How long, and how intensively, have you been exploring EE?

The first I heard of it was about five years ago and nearly fell on the
floor laughing. Thought I had encountered the ultimate in net-kook
ideas. My reason for even reading sci.geo.geology was to ask a
question about erosion.

What changed was my exposure to the crust age map. It did not fit with
my expectations for ridge spread and subduction. What the map shows is
a process which is similar for all ocean floors and subduction within
the Atlantic is not the determining component for what is found in the
Atlantic, yet the Pacific and Indian have nearly the same pattern.

EE explains it and has demonstrated it. PT claims it but has yet
demonstrate the pattern while even speculating on where subduction
zones would need to be to accomplish it. The work by Scotese's does
not show where the old crust was subducted. Actually using his method
the radius could be even larger and shrinking.

Any way, have tried to answer your question in this short format,
hopefully it is reasonably clear.


JT

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
ups.com...

J. Taylor wrote:
George wrote:
"Bill Hudson" wrote in message
oups.com...

J. Taylor wrote:
Kermit wrote:

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,

Though what it is, he refuses to say. I suspect that Taylor is still
knitting sweaters that aren't there.



Very good George! Nothing like a little public humiliation to bring
the wayward back into the flock.

Would you mind repeating, what it was you wanted me to believe without
question?

Kind of says it all, doesn't it? Well, maybe not to you

Do you avoid legitimate questions at all costs? Or perhaps you need
them posed as questions. How about this:

George wrote, in reply to you saying that there was something to EE,
that you refused to say what that 'something' was. Instead, you picked
up on his slam and ran with that.

Now how about answering this question:

What is the 'something' you see in EE that makes you want to continue
to explore it?

If you give me two questions, I'd also like to ask:

How long, and how intensively, have you been exploring EE?

Thanks, J.T. for proving my point. He'll never answer your question about
"what is the something", because he doesn't know. None of them do.

George