Geological falsification - the summary position

Earth expansion and geological falsification:- the summary position
--------------------------------------
The question was:-
Using first-order structures of global deformation, how could
Earth Expansion be falsified? Can anyone think of a way?
-------------------------------------

1. Earth expansion is rejected out of hand on grounds that there is no
known physical
mechanism.
2. There is no attempt to address the question from a geological point
of view. Not even
amongst geologists.

So wowed is everyone with the YEW_BEAUT brand spanking new tool of GPS
that they think (sorry, 'BELIEVE' - because they are clearly not
thinking) ..believe that if the Earth were
expanding, then this would clearly be measurable, and ignore the simple
fallacies of that argument. First, it is a nonsense to think that the
twenty years of measuring is a suitable window of opportunity to show
anything of the sort, when the time slot under consideration is three
hundred million. Geological process is known to be far from uniform
in many instances, and the displacements that *are* measured (as 'plate
movement') can easily be related to the decollement surface of the
transition zone (asthenosphere): the crust is skating on the mantle -
every day in concert with the Earth's spin. Whilst measurement is
certainly encouraging in respect of precision, the absence of recorded
vertical displacements is by no means evidence for absence of
expansion. First, many of the stations do show upwards displacement.
Secondly, there is the question of exactly how 'upwards' displaement
would be measured (lateral displacements would seem to be easier), and
the accuracy amongst noise of a measurement intrinsically 1/6th or
thereabout of those on the surface. And thirdly strong motions that
are recorded (sudden jumps) are not incorporated in the whispering
tumbleweed of signals.

(Somebody put me right. I read somewhere that the strong motions are
removed.)

Fourthly when it does happen, the effects are devastating as earthquake
victims well know.
Moreover there are (again) geological grounds for thinking that that
'we ain't seen nuthin' yet'.
The norm of expansion may not even have taken place in the lifetime of
historical records, ..perhaps not even in the timespan of the human
species.

So. GPS. Forget it. You don't need it to know when a city tumbles
down, or a tsunami washes over. No enlargement is implied in the
motions shown. But spin is. Yet the element of spin in global
deformation has been ignored in Plate Tectonics for the last half
century, ..and still is. And spin is very much a corroborative element
of Earth Expansion. Plate Tectonics needs to catch up and recognise
that spin is an integral control on global deformation.

It is making no attempt to do this. Even worse, geologists on
sci.geo.geology, who consider themselves representative of the
profession deny that any correlation exists, although put forsward no
reason whatsoever, and try to shoot the messengers, whoever they may
be.

That's the summary position.

And why is it like that? Because there is a tectonic shift about to
happen in the consensus position of the Earth Sciences, and we are
witnessing the denial that always happens whenever a change in the
resident Paradigm appears. Stick around for the firewords. Should be
fun.

don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and geological falsification:- the summary position
--------------------------------------
The question was:-
Using first-order structures of global deformation, how could
Earth Expansion be falsified? Can anyone think of a way?
-------------------------------------

1. Earth expansion is rejected out of hand on grounds that there is no
known physical
mechanism.
2. There is no attempt to address the question from a geological point
of view. Not even
amongst geologists.

That's the summary position.

It is clear that everybody wants to talk about everything else BUT (the
question at hand) - a sure sign everything under the table is not the
way it should be.

"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...

don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and geological falsification:- the summary position
--------------------------------------
The question was:-
Using first-order structures of global deformation, how could
Earth Expansion be falsified? Can anyone think of a way?
-------------------------------------

1. Earth expansion is rejected out of hand on grounds that there is no
known physical
mechanism.

Or evidence that leads to expansion as the *best explaination*.

2. There is no attempt to address the question from a geological point
of view. Not even
amongst geologists.

That would probably be because there is no geological evidence that would
support expansion as the *best explaination* of the geological features of
the earth (mountain ranges, subduction zones, rifting, continental drift...)


That's the summary position.

It is clear that everybody wants to talk about everything else BUT (the
question at hand) - a sure sign everything under the table is not the
way it should be.

Or maybe they've decided that you are a net.loon, and not worth the time?

BTW, GPS depends upon *timeing*, and the timing is very precise. If the
Earth were expanding, it would have been detected by now.

Ya got nothin'.

Boikat
--
42
--
42

bullpup wrote:

We are two little pebble pups so merry blythe and gaye
We lol our tongues, and bark and run, and chase our tails all day
Sometimes we bury bits of stone to hide them from our frens,
And when we're big we'll dig them up, ...and bury them again.

(Hi there. I'm Bullpup ... And this is my pal Kermit. )

(Pphrrph ! )

:-)

"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...


bullpup wrote:

We are two little pebble pups so merry blythe and gaye
We lol our tongues, and bark and run, and chase our tails all day
Sometimes we bury bits of stone to hide them from our frens,
And when we're big we'll dig them up, ...and bury them again.

(Hi there. I'm Bullpup ... And this is my pal Kermit. )

(Pphrrph ! )

:-)

More evidence that drinking and posting do not mix.

Boikat

"don findlay" wrote:


We are two little pebble pups so merry blythe and gaye
We lol our tongues, and bark and run, and chase our tails all day
Sometimes we bury bits of stone to hide them from our frens,
And when we're big we'll dig them up, ...and bury them again.

(Hi there. I'm Bullpup ... And this is my pal Kermit. )

(Pphrrph ! )

That's your response? That's the best you can do?

As the man said, ya got nothin'.

don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and geological falsification:- the summary position
--------------------------------------
The question was:-
Using first-order structures of global deformation, how could
Earth Expansion be falsified? Can anyone think of a way?
-------------------------------------

1. Earth expansion is rejected out of hand on grounds that there is no
known physical mechanism.

A good reason to reject something which is refuted by some of the
evidence and supported by none.

2. There is no attempt to address the question from a geological point
of view. Not even amongst geologists.

Especially by geologists, perhaps, since they know not to waste their
time on this.

Late breaking news:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0603092903.htm

snip kookery

Kermit

In message .com,
Kermit writes

don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and geological falsification:- the summary position
--------------------------------------
The question was:-
Using first-order structures of global deformation, how could
Earth Expansion be falsified? Can anyone think of a way?
-------------------------------------

1. Earth expansion is rejected out of hand on grounds that there is no
known physical mechanism.

A good reason to reject something which is refuted by some of the
evidence and supported by none.

2. There is no attempt to address the question from a geological point
of view. Not even amongst geologists.

Especially by geologists, perhaps, since they know not to waste their
time on this.

Late breaking news:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0603092903.htm


Thanks. It's not totally new, but it's interesting. Relevant quotation
"Since there is a conservation of mass in the mantle, something must
return as the slab sinks into the Earth"

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message .com,
Kermit writes

don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and geological falsification:- the summary position
--------------------------------------
The question was:-
Using first-order structures of global deformation, how could
Earth Expansion be falsified? Can anyone think of a way?
-------------------------------------

1. Earth expansion is rejected out of hand on grounds that there is no
known physical mechanism.

A good reason to reject something which is refuted by some of the
evidence and supported by none.

2. There is no attempt to address the question from a geological point
of view. Not even amongst geologists.

Especially by geologists, perhaps, since they know not to waste their
time on this.

Late breaking news:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0603092903.htm


Thanks. It's not totally new, but it's interesting. Relevant quotation
"Since there is a conservation of mass in the mantle, something must
return as the slab sinks into the Earth"

Ah, ..a bit of mantle plate that *DID* break off and zig-zag to the
bottom. Now that'll stuff up the convectioneers *good* and proppah.
(Why doesn't it melt? And return? ..that's what I'd like to know... )
(Clearly more research is needed here. )

don findlay wrote:

Ah, ..a bit of mantle plate that *DID* break off and zig-zag to the
bottom. Now that'll stuff up the convectioneers *good* and proppah.
(Why doesn't it melt? And return? ..that's what I'd like to know... )
(Clearly more research is needed here. )

Why does a cold slab sinking to the bottom of the mantle "stuff up"
convection? Cold (denser) stuff going down and hotter (less dense)
stuff rising someplace else is the very essence of convection. No one
says that it won't eventually melt and also eventually rise.
"Eventually" just hasn't had time, yet.

There is a suspicion that this sort of sinking ribbon effect may have
swallowed up most of the surface of Venus several times in its history.