Ping Don Findlay's strike game players

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.

"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

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.

She'd be even sadder if she knew her old man couldn't read:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/
Why are you keeping up this farce of saying I'm not presenting my
ideas?

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?

That's right. That's about the size of if. It *does* look like it.
The *proof* / or the support if you like / is in the next century of
consolidating the data. ( There's a lifetime's work for a worldful of
geologists in it. ) I don't know what's holding them up. If they have
all the answers up front, there's nothing left to do, is there? What's
on my site is the framework and the rationale, where it's come from
from, where it's going, and the pointers to test it. I can't fault it.
That's what I'm asking everybody else to do. And as I say, it's not
rocket science. It's as much a question of logic and rearranging the
data as anything, ..And we bgin with taking the false assumption out
from underneath the inverted pyramid of PT - namely the initial
assumption of a Panthalassa, based on the even more fundamental
assumption that they earth can not get bigger. I don't know if it can
or it can't but I think it terribly hubristic to say that because
current physics can't think of a way therefore it can't. Expecially
when the geology is shouting at us in great big capital letters that it
is. And why is everybody not listening? (to the shout I mean, not to
me - it's under their own nose), ..is because 'science' is not about
science, .. it's about publications and careers. Ask Marc (when he
gets down from the podium.)


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

Certainlyt terminology is a good place to begin, ..then internalise the
reasons why that terminology is used. Words are powerful things.
"terminology can hijack a concept".

1. presenting a strawman of plate tectonics, by piecing together bits
of disparate versions of the PT model, and attacking that;

The point is, Kermit, ..that Plate Tectonics *IS* a disparate 'model'.
There is nothing cohesive about it. And that is *not* a credit too it,
no matter how many opportunities for correction present themselves.
Would you choose lies, as the underpinning of society, because it gives
an opportunity to discover the truth? Or do you think truth in the
first place would be better? If that carries a religious connotation
then maybe it highlights the parallels between them as the *SHOULD*
should be, .. not the corruptions of them that the polloi so easily
overlook (and indeed encourage.) (wiifm).

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,

I don't think those are directly geological questions.

3c. why it is not directly observed here or elsewhere;

Mars shows very close parallels with what the Pangaean Earth may hve
been like (minus the cratering)

4. far more practiced at language play and insults than in clear
presentation of the data supporting your ideas.

Sadly ( *sadly*) the mirror is often the best way to let people see
themselves.


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 don't think I claim to be doing 'science' in the way you imagine.
Science is reductionist, about breaking things down. Synthesis,
'wholism' is metaphysics. A leap of of 'faith', if you want to call it
that is very necessary when making logical constructs, .the logic that
bears on our rationalism - 'ratio' - our sense of proportion. The
hysterical outbursts evidenced by the white noise of t.o. (e.g.),
trumpeted in the name of science, is facile.


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.

http://users.indigo.net.au/don/
Read it this time, .then come back and say what you find wrong rather
than making general blandishments. Or better still, ask your daughter
to read it. (Cos You've had it mate. You're over the hill. :-) ))
New tricks? New seasons.
"There is a time
for watermelon wine."

I tell you Kermit, if you wanbt to embark on something new, .you have
to abandon the old. *THAT's* the difficult bit, isn't it? I'm not
criticising on that score. It's a very real thing. Too much invested.
Too much to lose. Not for you, ..if your not in the loop, but
evidently your prejudices are very much ensconced with those who have,
... 'Science' of your sort, is very much a partisan enterprise.
(Conferences and lumber.)


..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?

*SIMPLY DISCARD THE GRATUITOUS ASSUMPTION OF A PANTHALASSA* - and see
where that leads.


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,

Science is particularly suited to autism.

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.

There already are. What youngster worth their salt would put up with
the notion promulgated by Plate Tectonics, that everything of the Earth
is known, and we're just patching up corners?


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".

Strong words you put in mouth. It's not a question of me. I'll put
it this way. "Look carefully at that part of physics concerned with
the creation of mass, because the geological evidence is telling us to
do so." (Not me.)


Ad hoc handwaving dismissals of fundamental physical laws when

How do you know they're fundamental, and not derivative?

questions are raised cannot be ignored

There are a lot of people ignoring the questions I'm asking.
I do my best to answer every geological question. I'd answer those of
phyiscs too if I could.



Kermit

In article .com,
"don findlay" 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.

She'd be even sadder if she knew her old man couldn't read:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/
Why are you keeping up this farce of saying I'm not presenting my
ideas?

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?

That's right. That's about the size of if. It *does* look like it.
The *proof* / or the support if you like / is in the next century of
consolidating the data. ( There's a lifetime's work for a worldful of
geologists in it. )

So in other words, we have a plausible theory that doesn't violate any
laws of physics but does explain very well all kinds of geologic
features of the planet, but you want us to abandon it an implausible
theory that has no mechanism, that violates most of the fundamental laws
of physics, and that has a serious lack of corroborating data.

I don't know what's holding them up.

A thin crust floating on top of a slowly convecting mantle surrounding a
liquid iron core.


If they have
all the answers up front, there's nothing left to do, is there?

Well, you could have gone to the geodynamics conference to find out what
questions they're working on, but no, you're too good for that.

What's
on my site is the framework and the rationale, where it's come from
from, where it's going, and the pointers to test it. I can't fault it.
That's what I'm asking everybody else to do. And as I say, it's not
rocket science. It's as much a question of logic and rearranging the
data as anything, ..And we bgin with taking the false assumption out
from underneath the inverted pyramid of PT - namely the initial
assumption of a Panthalassa,

No, that's not an assumption but a conclusion based on decades of
careful fieldwork. Besides, Expanding Earth starts from pretty much the
same assumption, but its initial arrangement of the continents doesn't
match the geomagnetic data.

based on the even more fundamental
assumption that they earth can not get bigger.

In the absence of any kind of mechanism that doesn't violate the laws of
physics, that is reasonable.

I don't know if it can
or it can't but I think it terribly hubristic to say that because
current physics can't think of a way therefore it can't. Expecially
when the geology is shouting at us in great big capital letters that it
is. And why is everybody not listening?

They can't hear that because of all the discussion about compression
deformations all over the place.

(to the shout I mean, not to
me - it's under their own nose), ..is because 'science' is not about
science, .. it's about publications and careers. Ask Marc (when he
gets down from the podium.)

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

Certainlyt terminology is a good place to begin, ..then internalise the
reasons why that terminology is used. Words are powerful things.
"terminology can hijack a concept".

Much like you have done in creating bogus explanations of what PT is.

1. presenting a strawman of plate tectonics, by piecing together bits
of disparate versions of the PT model, and attacking that;

The point is, Kermit, ..that Plate Tectonics *IS* a disparate 'model'.
There is nothing cohesive about it.

Well, the way you deliberately misrepresent it, true.

And that is *not* a credit too it,
no matter how many opportunities for correction present themselves.
Would you choose lies, as the underpinning of society, because it gives
an opportunity to discover the truth? Or do you think truth in the
first place would be better? If that carries a religious connotation
then maybe it highlights the parallels between them as the *SHOULD*
should be, .. not the corruptions of them that the polloi so easily
overlook (and indeed encourage.) (wiifm).

You've gone off into the weeds with that argument. Where does the extra
mass come from? You don't know? I'll stick with a theory that work
better.

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,

I don't think those are directly geological questions.

That doesn't make them irrelevant. The Earth is a planet; the changes
you're talking about affect its orbit.

The only reason you're so eager to find ways of brushing off those pesky
questions is that you have no answers.

3c. why it is not directly observed here or elsewhere;

Mars shows very close parallels with what the Pangaean Earth may hve
been like (minus the cratering)

The example I saw was of only one part of Mars, along with the lame
excuse that the author couldn't find a map of the whole planet. And I
didn't see the kinds of differences in cratering that I'd expect if
Mars' expansion paralleled Earth's.

4. far more practiced at language play and insults than in clear
presentation of the data supporting your ideas.

Sadly ( *sadly*) the mirror is often the best way to let people see
themselves.

if your purpose is to present and defend your hypothesis, then you
should not confuse the conversation with armchair psychoanalysis of the
people asking questions about it.

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 don't think I claim to be doing 'science' in the way you imagine.

I cannot argue with that logic.

Science is reductionist, about breaking things down. Synthesis,
'wholism' is metaphysics. A leap of of 'faith', if you want to call it
that is very necessary when making logical constructs, .the logic that
bears on our rationalism - 'ratio' - our sense of proportion. The
hysterical outbursts evidenced by the white noise of t.o. (e.g.),
trumpeted in the name of science, is facile.

Word salad. Especially in light of your attempts to sever geology from
physics. Plate Tectonics is a synthesis of geology, fluid dynamics,
thermodynamics, physics, chemistry...

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.

http://users.indigo.net.au/don/
Read it this time, .then come back and say what you find wrong rather
than making general blandishments. Or better still, ask your daughter
to read it. (Cos You've had it mate. You're over the hill. :-) ))
New tricks? New seasons.
"There is a time
for watermelon wine."

I tell you Kermit, if you wanbt to embark on something new, .you have
to abandon the old. *THAT's* the difficult bit, isn't it? I'm not
criticising on that score. It's a very real thing. Too much invested.
Too much to lose. Not for you, ..if your not in the loop, but
evidently your prejudices are very much ensconced with those who have,
.. 'Science' of your sort, is very much a partisan enterprise.
(Conferences and lumber.)


..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?

*SIMPLY DISCARD THE GRATUITOUS ASSUMPTION OF A PANTHALASSA* - and see
where that leads.

Hmmm. I wonder why these rocks have their magnetic fields in these odd
angles. It's almost as though this continent was somewhere else when
they cooled. And later on it was here, and then it was here. And that
other continent ... it has that history ... and quite obviously those
two fit together. Hmm. Based on *observations* it looks like all the
continents were stuck together a long time ago, but broke up and moved
around.

Panthalassa is a conclusion, not an assumption.

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,

Science is particularly suited to autism.

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.

There already are. What youngster worth their salt would put up with
the notion promulgated by Plate Tectonics, that everything of the Earth
is known, and we're just patching up corners?

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that notion. I could see how at
some time in tie future we'd *know* how the Earth works, and we'd
explain it to kids ... Sure. Be upset if you want to. That's not going
to change the law of gravity.

Now one of the things you once pointed out about plate tectonics
theorists -- that they're constantly changing their theory and can't
keep their story straight -- simply means that the answers aren't all
known, but they're still being worked out.

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".

Strong words you put in mouth. It's not a question of me. I'll put
it this way. "Look carefully at that part of physics concerned with
the creation of mass, because the geological evidence is telling us to
do so." (Not me.)

First, you can't do that and demand, as you did above, that earth
expansion be discussed purely in geological terms. Second, the creation
of matter is fairly well understood: well enough to cast an awful lot of
doubt on the standard EE hypothesis.

Ad hoc handwaving dismissals of fundamental physical laws when

How do you know they're fundamental, and not derivative?

Nice red herring, there. It makes no difference which flavor they are;
they're being violated. In all the rest of science they have been shown
again and again to be correct.

questions are raised cannot be ignored

There are a lot of people ignoring the questions I'm asking.

Even if we did answer your questions, you'd probably not answer ours.

I do my best to answer every geological question.

What's with all these compression folds in mountains all over the place?

I'd answer those of
phyiscs too if I could.

The problem is that you can't answer the questions of physics and you
try hard to pretend that they don't matter.

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

"Timberwoof" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

There are a lot of people ignoring the questions I'm asking.

There are also a lot of people correctly answering your questions as well.

Even if we did answer your questions, you'd probably not answer ours.

I do my best to answer every geological question.

Answer these questions, Don. If Subduction doesn't occur, why do the
earthquakes shown on the map at the link below occur where they do - both
horizontally and vertically? What is the mechanism for their occurrence?
If subduction doesn't occur, please explain the mineralogy/petrology and
the volcanology that is unique to these zones and nowhere else without
using subduction.

http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_psap_h.html

George

Timberwoof wrote:
In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:


So in other words, we have a plausible theory that doesn't violate any
laws of physics but does explain very well all kinds of geologic
features of the planet,

In saying that the subducting slab drives Plate Tectonics. PT violates
its own law of flotation.

Case closed.

don findlay wrote:
Kermit wrote:

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

She'd be even sadder if she knew her old man couldn't read:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/
Why are you keeping up this farce of saying I'm not presenting my
ideas?


Plate tectonics seems to have no major trouble fitting the pieces
together. shrug

Here's from your site:
"The obvious empirical geological one as in the figure verified by gps
below, or the clever, finagling, palaeomagnetic one in the link above,
...which contradicts gps movements and is based on the assumption that
the Earth must remain a constant size? "

Well, the claim that the Earth expands is a *major claim, one that has
*major repercussions in physics, astronomy, and geology. yet all you
have for it is the claim that you can fit the continents together
better if we make the outrageous assumption that the Earth expanded.

It is not a piddling little detail that can be worked out later.

Do you have any examples of mass being generated on a large scale since
the big bang?
You have presented neither overwhelming evidence for this (which you
would need, considering the size of the claim), nor a conceivable
mechanism for it happening.

And from what I've heard, the engineer-scientists who built the GPS
system are happy with the performance.

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?

That's right. That's about the size of if. It *does* look like it.
The *proof* / or the support if you like / is in the next century of
consolidating the data. ( There's a lifetime's work for a worldful of
geologists in it. ) I don't know what's holding them up. If they have
all the answers up front, there's nothing left to do, is there? What's
on my site is the framework and the rationale, where it's come from
from, where it's going, and the pointers to test it. I can't fault it.
That's what I'm asking everybody else to do. And as I say, it's not
rocket science.

No, it couldn't be. If your claim were true, then rocket science would
fly out the window.

It's as much a question of logic and rearranging the
data as anything, ..And we bgin with taking the false assumption out
from underneath the inverted pyramid of PT - namely the initial
assumption of a Panthalassa, based on the even more fundamental
assumption that they earth can not get bigger.

An assumption that the universe is reliable, that we can depend on the
accumulation of observations as old as human history. Since the days of
Galileo, up thru Newton, Einstein, Fermi, and Feynman, there are a
wealth of observations which refute this possibility. It cannot all be
tossed out the window because you fit a jigsaw puzzle together
differently.

I don't know if it can
or it can't but I think it terribly hubristic to say that because
current physics can't think of a way therefore it can't.

It's not just matter turning up without cause.
It's the necessary disassociation of matter from gravity and inertia.
It's the claim that it happened when we ween't looking, and isn't
happening anywhere else that we've noticed.
It's the way this new matter shows up without destroying the
intervening surface of the Earth, and that it seems to turn into mantle
(why not cotton candy?).

Expecially
when the geology is shouting at us in great big capital letters that it
is.

But *it isn't - you're the one who uses all caps, and profusely, on
your site.

The data isn't clearer for it.

And why is everybody not listening? (to the shout I mean, not to
me - it's under their own nose), ..is because 'science' is not about
science, .. it's about publications and careers. Ask Marc (when he
gets down from the podium.)

Yes, your accusation of science as being one big conspiracy isn't
helping either. These are the tools of the net loon, even if you are
better educated than most, and still functioning at your day job.



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

Certainlyt terminology is a good place to begin, ..then internalise the
reasons why that terminology is used. Words are powerful things.
"terminology can hijack a concept".

Yes. Here's one concept: extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence.


1. presenting a strawman of plate tectonics, by piecing together bits
of disparate versions of the PT model, and attacking that;

The point is, Kermit, ..that Plate Tectonics *IS* a disparate 'model'.
There is nothing cohesive about it. And that is *not* a credit too it,
no matter how many opportunities for correction present themselves.
Would you choose lies, as the underpinning of society, because it gives
an opportunity to discover the truth? Or do you think truth in the
first place would be better? If that carries a religious connotation
then maybe it highlights the parallels between them as the *SHOULD*
should be, .. not the corruptions of them that the polloi so easily
overlook (and indeed encourage.) (wiifm).

Biolgical evolution is a messy business, too. There are underlying
principles, but teasing out the details is complicated, from what I can
see. The basic concepts of plate tectonics make sense to me; I do not
see it as a legitimate weakness that the actual movement of mantle,
plates, accretion on the edges, new and diasappearing subduction zones,
etc. are complicated. Like weather, or an ecosystem, this is a chaotic
system.


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,

I don't think those are directly geological questions.

No they aren't. But they're deal breakers, aren't they?

All scientific models have to fit together where behavior overlaps. We
can't just ignore physics when we do biology, or ignore astronomy when
we study meteorology. If they don't fit, then something has to give.
And your data is merely an interpretation of data that mainstream
people are comfortable with, on the whole. What you have is not enough
to make anyone want to toss physics out the window.

If physics were not an issue, then I would not know enough about this
to have a strong opinion. You posting a website instead of publishing
papers, your use of all caps, your accusations of political unity
keeping out geniuses, would make me suspiscious, however.


3c. why it is not directly observed here or elsewhere;

Mars shows very close parallels with what the Pangaean Earth may hve
been like (minus the cratering)

OK. How is that evidence for planet expansion?


4. far more practiced at language play and insults than in clear
presentation of the data supporting your ideas.

Sadly ( *sadly*) the mirror is often the best way to let people see
themselves.

But it sounds more like gangsta wannabe trash talk. This is better
suited for a pickup game of basketball (or whatever you do in Oz) than
science.



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 don't think I claim to be doing 'science' in the way you imagine.
Science is reductionist, about breaking things down. Synthesis,
'wholism' is metaphysics. A leap of of 'faith', if you want to call it
that is very necessary when making logical constructs, .the logic that
bears on our rationalism - 'ratio' - our sense of proportion. The
hysterical outbursts evidenced by the white noise of t.o. (e.g.),
trumpeted in the name of science, is facile.

Hmmm. Wholistic science, eh?

Newton, Galileo, Einstein, Fermi - did they get bogged down by the
details? True, they worked with details (they *did the math), but
without enough details there is no picture to see the whole *of.

The whole picture has to explain the details. I agree, reductionism can
be the refuge of OC scientists, but we need them. Not all scientists
are reductionists.

And the little question of where the mass came from is not a niggling
detail. It is a hole in your model big enough to sail a clipper ship
thru.



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.

http://users.indigo.net.au/don/
Read it this time, .then come back and say what you find wrong rather
than making general blandishments. Or better still, ask your daughter
to read it. (Cos You've had it mate. You're over the hill. :-) ))
New tricks? New seasons.
"There is a time
for watermelon wine."

I don't see much in the way of new data there. I suspect that
mainstream geologists have access to it just fine. I can't critique
your interpretation of, say, the magnetic striping in Madagaskar. But I
can evaluate this:

Mainstream: we can fit the data together just fine.
Don: I can fit the data together better, you just have to throw out
everything you know of physics.


I tell you Kermit, if you wanbt to embark on something new, .you have
to abandon the old. *THAT's* the difficult bit, isn't it? I'm not
criticising on that score. It's a very real thing. Too much invested.
Too much to lose. Not for you, ..if your not in the loop, but
evidently your prejudices are very much ensconced with those who have,
.. 'Science' of your sort, is very much a partisan enterprise.
(Conferences and lumber.)

When I was young I was intelligent, and had no grounding in science. I
had rejected the biblical literalism I was raised with, because it
didn't fit reality. But that left ...well, all kinds of New Age
nonsense, martial arts silliness, rumors, conspiracy theories, etc. But
as my world became more "filled in" by knowledge, I found that
scientists had done much of the ground work for me. I found myself
playing the house odds, and if I don't know much about a field, I found
that mainstream science has the best chance of describing it usefully.

I still disagree with the mainstream in some areas, but I can offer the
data to back up my opinions, my ideas are usually supported by some
major players, I do not ask for entire sciences to be discarded or
ignored, and I am willing to give up my cherished notions as new data
comes in.

People who ask me to open my mind are usually people who inisist on
ignoring large numbers of reliable observations.



..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?

*SIMPLY DISCARD THE GRATUITOUS ASSUMPTION OF A PANTHALASSA* - and see
where that leads.

Thousands of questions in physics, with no possibility of interpreting
the accumulated data so it fits.



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,

Science is particularly suited to autism.

Yes, some scientific activities, anyway. And yet it's the social
normals who head the departments. I don't know how this could possibly
be avoided, or that it should be.


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.

There already are. What youngster worth their salt would put up with
the notion promulgated by Plate Tectonics, that everything of the Earth
is known, and we're just patching up corners?


So your argument boils down to: it's true because it's really cool?

I think telepathy would be really cool, but all investigations into the
matter, sadly, seem to indicate either sensitivity to body language or
trickery


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".

Strong words you put in mouth. It's not a question of me. I'll put
it this way. "Look carefully at that part of physics concerned with
the creation of mass, because the geological evidence is telling us to
do so." (Not me.)

There are at least two other geologists who share these ideas.



Ad hoc handwaving dismissals of fundamental physical laws when

How do you know they're fundamental, and not derivative?


They always seem to hold true; the models which explain them (general
realtivity, and QM) describe them as fundamental.

questions are raised cannot be ignored

There are a lot of people ignoring the questions I'm asking.
I do my best to answer every geological question. I'd answer those of
phyiscs too if I could.

Perhaps you need a physicist ally; one who can offer a sensible model,
or supportive data. If you can't find one, perhaps that should be
considered a clue.




Kermit
Kermit

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