falsification - trying again - no slide rules please.

Klaus wrote:
Inez wrote:
don findlay wrote:

Inez wrote:

don findlay wrote:

Inez wrote:

don findlay wrote:

Inez wrote:

It's a bit silly for you to require your theory to be falisfied by
geologists using specific methods. I should think any falsification
that falsifies would be useful.

It most certainly would. But what do you consider would falsify it?

I haven't read all of your threads, but I should think it depends on
what you're specifically proposing. For example, I shouldn't be at all
surprised if the mass of the earth is slowly increasing from picking up
meteorites and space dust, or what have you.

If your theory is that the earth has mysteriously expanded by 1/16th of
an inch in the last million years by growing from within, I'm sure I
would have no idea how to falisfy that but would wonder what made you
propose the theory in the first place.

If your theory is that the earth is mysteriously expanding by a foot
day, I would expect you could falsify that theory by using various
sensitive instruments to measure.

Logically though, I do not see the reason to falsify an unsupported
theory. One does not generally propose that one's flowerbed is the
magical realm of pixies and run around with a chip on one's shoulder
daring everyone to falsify it unless one can produce a pixie or two by
way of evidence.


And what is the underlying premise/ assumption, ..that all matter was
created in a big bang in four seconds flat? By
'Nature_in_a_white-coat'? (or was it minutes?) You know, ...as an
underlying theory for physics I think that probably rates worse than
the crust pushing the mantle down being the driving force for Plate
Tectonics. ( If you want to talk about being silly, that is.)

A pixel or two? Madam, ..I give you, ..The Earth, ..and trust it
moves for you. And when it does, maybe you could enlighten this mob
about why they shouldn't go chasing ageing whores in fishnet, just
because they're sailors on the Good Ship Plate Tectonics.


I'm sorry if my post got to you during your regular hour for bathtub
gin. But now that last night's thrill is gone and all kidding aside,
do you have an actual hypothesis? Or is just a general feeling that
the earth is growing when no one's looking? I do not think you can ask
for falsification until you can be specific about what you want
falsified.


Well, he did admit that the only person who keeps saying "the crust
pushing the mantle down being the driving force for Plate Tectonics." is
silly.

It's not me saying it. That's the point.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...c7a6c81?hl=en&
Your call. Now don't duck out, you're doing just fine with your
assertion that phase change has nothing to do with the convective
cycle. Keep going.


Klaus

Aidan Karley wrote:

By the time I showed up in sci.geo.geology, he'd already worn out
most respondants.

... or we'd decided that he was either delusional, or was
deliberately trying to cause people to waste their time. Unlike some
other posters to this group, I'm not *sure* that he's delusional. I am
however sure that I have more interesting things to do with my life other
than reply to his burblings. Killfile.
Your patience is appreciated, if not shared.

Go wiggle your butt at George, and spin your new knockers.


Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:01 +0100, but posted later.

Kermit wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Kermit wrote:
don findlay wrote:
snip

We pretty well understand convection. You have not yet explained why
it's supposed to be a problem.

No you don't. not if you incorporate phase-change.

Ummm... transition from solid to liquid & back? Why is this a problem?

Rock, like butter, steel, and many other substances, gets noticeably
softer as it approaches the melting point. It's not an abrupt or
complete transition at any one point. The mantle is also a mix of
various substances, all of which react slightly differently at various
temperatures and pressures.

If this is a problem, then you are claiming that (if subduction were
part of the process) there would be consequences which we don't see, or
consequences which we see which we shouldn't. Could you be specific?
Your innuendoes may work for gossip, but it's difficult to respond
unless you say what the actual problem is supposed to *be.

Come off it. It's you who says you understand convection, and who says
I don't understand the first thing about it. And you're going to
listen to what I say? Pull the other one. Right now we have a whole
heap of informed people arguing about cornstarch and bottleglass and
you want to introduce butter and steel?

Look,, ..just shut up and wait for it to pass. Meanwhile get a good
grip of your pencil, and listen to the teacher. OK? ( If he manages
back up over the cliff, that is.)

Come on Teach, ..we're waiting...


snip
Kermit

Aidan Karley .group wrote:
In article , Robert Grumbine wrote:
Oldest known rocks show minerals of ca. 4 billion years age.
Some evidence for a touch older than this - Jack Hills zircon
cores may go up to 4.1 gigayears.

Old
parts (cratons) of the continents exceeed 2 billion years iirc.
*Extensive* parts of continents. Let me take you hill walking on
the Scottish fringe of the Laurentian Shield one of these days G.

I live just south of the Canadian Shield thanks. To know it is to
know scrub pine, muskeg and lichen.

--D.

David Iain Greig wrote:
Aidan Karley .group wrote:
In article , Robert Grumbine wrote:
Oldest known rocks show minerals of ca. 4 billion years age.
Some evidence for a touch older than this - Jack Hills zircon
cores may go up to 4.1 gigayears.

Old
parts (cratons) of the continents exceeed 2 billion years iirc.
*Extensive* parts of continents. Let me take you hill walking on
the Scottish fringe of the Laurentian Shield one of these days G.

I live just south of the Canadian Shield thanks. To know it is to
know scrub pine, muskeg and lichen.

Come on you two sailors, ..away from your romantic walks, scrub pine,
muskeg and lichen, and come back to the point of global geology,
...which underpins how we see stratigraphic sequence, species
correlation and evolution which is supposed to be what talk.origins is
about. Why is the Canadian Shield full of Canadian Shield, whilst
Eurasia which is more than twice as big, only got a little fringe
showing along its western edge?


--D.

In article oup,
Aidan Karley .group wrote:
In article , Robert Grumbine wrote:
Oldest known rocks show minerals of ca. 4 billion years age.
Some evidence for a touch older than this - Jack Hills zircon
cores may go up to 4.1 gigayears.

Old
parts (cratons) of the continents exceeed 2 billion years iirc.
*Extensive* parts of continents. Let me take you hill walking on
the Scottish fringe of the Laurentian Shield one of these days G.

Sure. Then come back here and go for a stroll around the
north american Laurentians.

Oldest
sea floor, however, is only around 200-250 million years.

... under the NW Pacific.

By the time I showed up in sci.geo.geology, he'd already worn out
most respondants.

... or we'd decided that he was either delusional, or was
deliberately trying to cause people to waste their time. Unlike some
other posters to this group, I'm not *sure* that he's delusional. I am
however sure that I have more interesting things to do with my life other
than reply to his burblings. Killfile.

There's plenty of that from the t.o. regulars too. Rather more
folks here know geology than are responding.

Your patience is appreciated, if not shared.

Have to do something while the runs for my next paper are
grinding away ...

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

don findlay wrote:
Klaus wrote:

Inez wrote:

don findlay wrote:


Inez wrote:


don findlay wrote:


Inez wrote:


don findlay wrote:


Inez wrote:

It's a bit silly for you to require your theory to be falisfied by
geologists using specific methods. I should think any falsification
that falsifies would be useful.

It most certainly would. But what do you consider would falsify it?

I haven't read all of your threads, but I should think it depends on
what you're specifically proposing. For example, I shouldn't be at all
surprised if the mass of the earth is slowly increasing from picking up
meteorites and space dust, or what have you.

If your theory is that the earth has mysteriously expanded by 1/16th of
an inch in the last million years by growing from within, I'm sure I
would have no idea how to falisfy that but would wonder what made you
propose the theory in the first place.

If your theory is that the earth is mysteriously expanding by a foot
day, I would expect you could falsify that theory by using various
sensitive instruments to measure.

Logically though, I do not see the reason to falsify an unsupported
theory. One does not generally propose that one's flowerbed is the
magical realm of pixies and run around with a chip on one's shoulder
daring everyone to falsify it unless one can produce a pixie or two by
way of evidence.



And what is the underlying premise/ assumption, ..that all matter was
created in a big bang in four seconds flat? By
'Nature_in_a_white-coat'? (or was it minutes?) You know, ...as an
underlying theory for physics I think that probably rates worse than
the crust pushing the mantle down being the driving force for Plate
Tectonics. ( If you want to talk about being silly, that is.)

A pixel or two? Madam, ..I give you, ..The Earth, ..and trust it
moves for you. And when it does, maybe you could enlighten this mob
about why they shouldn't go chasing ageing whores in fishnet, just
because they're sailors on the Good Ship Plate Tectonics.


I'm sorry if my post got to you during your regular hour for bathtub
gin. But now that last night's thrill is gone and all kidding aside,
do you have an actual hypothesis? Or is just a general feeling that
the earth is growing when no one's looking? I do not think you can ask
for falsification until you can be specific about what you want
falsified.


Well, he did admit that the only person who keeps saying "the crust
pushing the mantle down being the driving force for Plate Tectonics." is
silly.


It's not me saying it. That's the point.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...c7a6c81?hl=en&
Your call. Now don't duck out, you're doing just fine with your
assertion that phase change has nothing to do with the convective
cycle. Keep going.

The link you posted did not support your point at all. In fact, the
quotes ALL confirmed that natural convection of the mantle drives plate
tectonics. The only dispute is which of the two legs , hot or cold, has
greater effect on the Earth's surface features. Professor Uyeda seems to
think subduction has a greater role. That is what he was talking about
when he said subduction drives plate tectonics. However, he never made
the silly statement that "the crust pushing the mantle down being the
driving force for Plate Tectonics.". That is a silly mischaracterization
of his quotes. People, including me, have repeatedly asked you to learn
about natural convection. Are you proud of your ignorance? Are you too
stubborn to spend 5 minutes looking up information (especially when you
have been given links with good diagrams)? Perhaps you actually did
learn about natural convection and feel you are too invested in your idea.

Natural convection is simply heat transfer be circulation in a fluid,
caused by gravity acting on fluids of differing density. There is a heat
source at the bottom and a heat sink at the top. Hot fluid is generally
less dense than cold fluid. The hot fluid rises, and the cold fluid
sinks. These motions usually spontaneously set up currents. This can
easily be oserved in a pot of water being heated on a stove, prior to
boiling. The material of the mantle is hot enough to flow slowly as a
fluid; it can undergo plastic deformation indefinitely.

The Tectonic plates float on top of the surface currents of tha mantle.




Klaus

Robert Grumbine wrote:

... or we'd decided that he was either delusional, or was
deliberately trying to cause people to waste their time. Unlike some
other posters to this group, I'm not *sure* that he's delusional. I am
however sure that I have more interesting things to do with my life other
than reply to his burblings. Killfile.

There's plenty of that from the t.o. regulars too. Rather more
folks here know geology than are responding.

Whew! Well that's a relief, and in line with what I thought must be,
.... I was beginning to wonder, .. At least that justifies posting to
talk.origins. Well, with *that* confirmed all we need now is winkling
them out and confirmation that they can actually read for what is it?
...'comprehension' - rather than just confirming or denying bias.


Your patience is appreciated, if not shared.

Have to do something while the runs for my next paper are
grinding away ...

....And even an insight into what I've been calling for yonks the real
machinery of science - publishing papers. (I wonder what sand grain
Aidan is publishing on this year.) Thanks Bob. Kick you heels up and
be sharp about it, ..and whatever you do , don't be controversial, or
you could find yourself having to do it aaAAll over again, ..and that
would never do, would it? Why, if you're really controversial (why
not treat them to your great idea about 'flat') you might get yourself
demoted to Kook and have to bash some corn starch with a recondite
spoon for a while.


Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Klaus wrote:
don findlay wrote:

It's not me saying it. That's the point.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...c7a6c81?hl=en&
Your call. Now don't duck out, you're doing just fine with your
assertion that phase change has nothing to do with the convective
cycle. Keep going.

The link you posted did not support your point at all. In fact, the
quotes ALL confirmed that natural convection of the mantle drives plate
tectonics. The only dispute is which of the two legs , hot or cold, has
greater effect on the Earth's surface features. Professor Uyeda seems to
think subduction has a greater role. That is what he was talking about
when he said subduction drives plate tectonics. However, he never made
the silly statement that "the crust pushing the mantle down being the
driving force for Plate Tectonics.". That is a silly mischaracterization
of his quotes.

You are wrong. It's not his quote at all. Read the post. It is jpl
nasa. But it could equally well be USGS and a dozen other
institutionalised gets. One thing is certain, and I repeat this, it is
*NOT ME* saying it. I happen to think it is as stupid as you.
Though I have absolutely no doubt that once you clue on to who is
behind it you could find it in you to rearrange your position on that
one, couldn't you?

But something needs to push that plate down, to stop it floating and
start it sinking. What can it be? ( If it's not the crust pushing it
down.)

People, including me, have repeatedly asked you to learn
about natural convection. Are you proud of your ignorance?

Umm, ..you have just spectacularly demonstrated that you are not only
ignorant of the consensus position of Plate Tectonics, but that you
cannot read. You win the big wooden spoon. Go beat some corn starch
with it.


Are you too
stubborn to spend 5 minutes looking up information (especially when you
have been given links with good diagrams)? Perhaps you actually did
learn about natural convection and feel you are too invested in your idea.

And the Moorlands School science page is your reference too for Plate
Tectonics? (Oh dear...)


Natural convection is simply heat transfer be circulation in a fluid,
caused by gravity acting on fluids of differing density. There is a heat
source at the bottom and a heat sink at the top. Hot fluid is generally
less dense than cold fluid. The hot fluid rises, and the cold fluid
sinks. These motions usually spontaneously set up currents. This can
easily be oserved in a pot of water being heated on a stove, prior to
boiling. The material of the mantle is hot enough to flow slowly as a
fluid; it can undergo plastic deformation indefinitely.

('viscous', ..it's viscous) (not plastic) So, ..again, ..the burning
question which everyone wants to know the answer to, is (wait for it)
....why does the oceanic plate sink when it reaches continental crust?
(which is the point of the quotes.)

Have you got it now? Once it reaches the continental crust it gets
pushed down, and the falling slab then drives convection, ..which
drives plate tectonics.

(We'll deal with the silly heat aspect breaking up the crust later)



The Tectonic plates float on top of the surface currents of tha mantle.




Klaus

Strip away all the polished prose and you are still working with a
stationary Earth mechanism for crustal motion,personally I would be
genuinely embarrassed to be caught discussing something which has
equal validity as an 'expanding earth' when a more satisfactory link
can be made between the dynamics behind the Earth's shape and the
motion of the component fractured plates.

All this crank calling must be getting in the way of the intuitive
processes which will affirm,even in rough outlines,that differential
rotation of the flexible interior of the Earth along the entire length
of the axis conditions the planetary shape and also the motion of the
fractured crust.

I can stand back and watch you make fools of yourselves unecessarily
but then again if intelligence was present I would not have to keep
demonstrating the fundamental basics of rotational dynamics and its
affect on terrestial surface features to an audience which actually
celebrates stationary Earth mechanism with no link to the planetary
shape.

I will know when you reach my level of understanding on this matter and
indications are that for the usual dumb reasons,mantle
convection/stationary Earth models are now being forced through
aggresively when intelligent men should be running away from it.

So Rob,I will not be unkind and call you one thing or another except
misguided but you can draw satisfaction that there are many more just
like you.



Robert Grumbine wrote:
In article . com,
don findlay wrote:

Robert Grumbine wrote:

[snip, also snip of most personal attacks]

Have to do something while the runs for my next paper are
grinding away ...

...And even an insight into what I've been calling for yonks the real
machinery of science - publishing papers.
Thanks Bob.
...and whatever you do , don't be controversial, or
you could find yourself having to do it aaAAll over again, ..and that
would never do, would it? Why, if you're really controversial
you might get yourself
demoted to Kook ...

The paper I was referring to there is relatively uncontroverial.
I'll be applying a known technique (from a different field than
mine) to a known problem and getting a somewhat better answer
than was previously possible. And get it more easily. The purpose
being more one of introducing the new technique to my field, as
it has good general characteristics for what we do. This one is
only controversial insofar as some people are resistent to ideas
from outside. Aside from being sure to explain the new technique
well enough, it isn't a difficult paper to write.

Another one I've been working on, on my own time, _will_ be
controversial. Knowing that, I'm doing what's normal in science --
beating on it to make sure that it really does hold up as well
as it seemed to at first glance. Amazingly, as I collect more
information, it holds together even better and has _more_ general
application than I thought at the start. But I still haven't
gotten all the details documented, nor ensured that the magnitudes
of the effects ultimately work out. There are still some gulfs
between correlation and causation that need to be filled. So
I am filling them. It's work, but that's what makes it science
rather than self-admiration.

If it does hold up, it'll solve a problem that has been outstanding
for over a century. Not Nobel kind of work, but if you can solve
a problem that's stood for over a century, you've done somethng
pretty good. Claiming to solve such a problem is immediately
controversial. Turns out, if my notion works, that it will also
have interesting implications far from that particular problem,
which makes it even more probably controversial. Both mean that
I, like anyone claiming to resolve long standing problems, have
some extra requirements to ensure that the work is truly solid.
After publication (assuming it withstands my own attacks that
long), it will then be beaten on by the professionals in the
relevant fields some more. If it stands up to those attacks as
well, _then_ we'll know that I really did have a good idea.

I require much more of my own work than some pretty pictures
followed by 'looks right to me'. I see no reason to give you
an easier standard.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences