Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 6

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

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../313388a0.html

"As a result of the collision of India with Asia..."

Sounds to me like the continents collided.

Have you written the authors of the article to explain to them that their
assumptions about continental drift and plate tectonics are incorrect,
and that
the *collision* of India with Asia was caused by Earth expansion? Could you
explain to us why if things on a sphere that's getting larger are getting
farther apart, India should collide with Asia? How does Expanding Earth
explain
that collision?

IIRC, Don doesn't believe that the collision is happening - the
Himalayas are all too flat.
I'm surprised he hasn't used the analogy of colliding galaxies in an
expanding universe, but perhaps he's aware that if the plates undergo
motion separate from expansion you don't actually need expansion (hope
that makes sense !)

Kermit wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Kermit wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



Kermit,
who is confident he knows how Don will answer.

Well, you spotted the deliberate error, ..how did you go this time?

don findlay wrote:
Kermit wrote:
don findlay wrote:


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

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


Don....

Drop what you are doing and make some quick plans for the
2006 Australian Earth Sciences Convention in Melbourne next week
at the Melbourne Convention Centre (from July 2nd - 6th)
http://www.earth2006.org.au/ with the opening drinks on Sunday
http://www.earth2006.org.au/socialevents.shtml

There will be a session you *must* try to get to on the
Geodynamics of Earth's Evolution. It's in Melbourne, dude!!
http://www.earth2006.org.au/progthemes.shtml

How can you plan to spend the next week making stupid posts to
talk.origins when the world's best geologists will be in Melbourne?

Book a flight. Book a hotel room. Blow a grand on the registration
(or just $325 if you tell them you are retired or a student or both).
Go and listen to the talks, read the damn abstracts and walk around
the poster boards meeting students and such. Go to the dinner!

Don't post again on talk.origins until after the meeting, then tell
us who you spoke with and what they said.

(signed) marc

...

In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Kermit wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Kermit wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phlogiston. Lysenko. Einstein striking his universal constant. Expanding
earth.

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

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

If you would actually present plate tectonics as the theory stands now
instead of how it was 30 years ago, and if you would answer some of the
criticisms of expanding earth that have been presented, we might welcome
your efforts. By the way, scientists modifying their theories (as in
*away* from subduction driving convection towards the modern view) is
evidence of exactly that sort of thing, which you have tried so hard to
either ignore or ridicule scientists for changing their minds.

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

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

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

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

Oh, have you indeed (thought), ...? Well, ..I have given more than
passing thought to the consequences, but regard them not directly
within the ambit of geology, and certainly not germane to the
discussion here regarding the conclusion that the Earth has got bigger.

This is important for any backer of EE to do because the consequences
arise from the fundamental laws of physics, which you have a tough time
understanding or reconciling with EE.

You are talking theory as to mechanism, and I keep saying, put that
aside for the time being. What *IS* on the table, and will be for the
next number of decades is the veracity of the geological 'evidence' -
not the theory of the dynamics.

Oh, yes, let's not complicate EE hypothesis by complicating it with
discussions of exactly how and why the expansion happens. Let's not
bicker and argue over who hilled whom; this is supposed to be a happy
occasion! Let's stick to the fact that the Earth has expanded and just
learn to accept that without tedious questions about why or how.

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

The version of plate tectonics you present makes no sense. That has been
pointed out to you many times, with more modern versions of the theory.

Kermit,
who is confident he knows how Don will answer.

Well, you spotted the deliberate error, ..how did you go this time?

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

In article .com,
"Marc" wrote:

don findlay wrote:
Kermit wrote:
don findlay wrote:


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

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


Don....

Drop what you are doing and make some quick plans for the
2006 Australian Earth Sciences Convention in Melbourne next week
at the Melbourne Convention Centre (from July 2nd - 6th)
http://www.earth2006.org.au/ with the opening drinks on Sunday
http://www.earth2006.org.au/socialevents.shtml

There will be a session you *must* try to get to on the
Geodynamics of Earth's Evolution. It's in Melbourne, dude!!
http://www.earth2006.org.au/progthemes.shtml

How can you plan to spend the next week making stupid posts to
talk.origins when the world's best geologists will be in Melbourne?

Book a flight. Book a hotel room. Blow a grand on the registration
(or just $325 if you tell them you are retired or a student or both).
Go and listen to the talks, read the damn abstracts and walk around
the poster boards meeting students and such. Go to the dinner!

Don't post again on talk.origins until after the meeting, then tell
us who you spoke with and what they said.

(signed) marc

..

::crickets chirping::

I bet Don't won't go. He's a crackpot and a pussy. he's afraid that if
he goes he'll learn stuff that will force him to change his mind. If he
doesn't go he can whine and pretend they wouldn't have let him in.

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

In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Kermit wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Kermit wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Thanks,

earle
*