A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old September 11th 06, 10:40 PM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,sci.astro,talk.origins
Jonathan Silverlight[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox

In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 23:04:08 -0700, Timberwoof
wrote:

In article ,
"J. Taylor" wrote:

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:14:13 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:00:46 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

You aren't just nitpicking, you're actively
avoiding the question of how an ocean 2000km wide can appear and
disappear.

The article said 600 miles. Apparently you did not read it.

I found an article that quoted a width of 2000km Apparently you did not
read _that_.
BTW, according to this article the ocean basins have always been about
3.5 km deep
http://www.earth.rochester.edu/ees201/labs/paleogeography.pdf

And to know that, you would first have to believe the radius has been
constant.


What's the problem here? That's a perfectly reasonable assumption.


"according to this article the ocean basins have always been about 3.5
km deep"

Fine, lets correct the statement

According to this article the ocean basins have always been (assumed
to be) about 3.5 km deep
Maybe, you think an assumption is knowledge I do not.


You can claim anything you want when the evidence for it does not
exist.


Yeah, like the Earth gaining mass from some unknown source.


No, if the Earth gained mass in the last 200my, it is a fact it has to
be from an unknown source.


Quite. "If". And if the Earth didn't gain mass you don't need a source.
Occam's Razor goes back a long way :-)


No evidence for it, but plenty against, yet you go on making that
faulty assumption.


You do not have plenty of evidence against mass from an unknown source
because you do not know where mass comes from. All sources are
unknown, yet we have mass. Check out Higgs Field


Irrelevant. Even more irrelevant than your argument about dark matter.
Because we aren't talking about mass but about matter - protons,
neutrons and electrons in well-defined arrangements. Disregarding the
problem of producing those arrangements, the relationship between matter
and energy is well understood, and you can't have that amount of energy
in the Earth.



There is no evidence for deep ocean crust previous to what exist
today.


You're claiming that since there is no evidence for it, it never
existed.


Just more of you perverted thinking. No evidence means no evidence
nothing more


But there is good evidence. I've already mentioned eclogite, and a
search for "Archaean ocean crust" gives DE Jacob and SF Foley,
“Evidence for Archean Ocean Crust with Low High Field Strength Element
Signature from Diamondiferous Eclogite Xenoliths,” Lithos 48 over and
over again, but I was interested to read that "little Archean ocean
crust survives, nearly all subducted"
www.kean.edu/~csmart/Lectures/chapter20p.ppt
That naively suggests that some has _not_ been subducted.
According to
http://www.schweizerbart.de/pubs/books/bo/pipertheig-003003000-desc.html
you can find Mesozoic ocean crust in Northern Greece!
Ophiolites have been dated as Cambrian and are usually thought to
represent ocean crust - presumably you have an alternative explanation.

  #502  
Old September 12th 06, 12:55 AM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,sci.astro,talk.origins
J. Taylor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 236
Default The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:40:42 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 23:04:08 -0700, Timberwoof
wrote:

In article ,
"J. Taylor" wrote:

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:14:13 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:00:46 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

You aren't just nitpicking, you're actively
avoiding the question of how an ocean 2000km wide can appear and
disappear.

The article said 600 miles. Apparently you did not read it.

I found an article that quoted a width of 2000km Apparently you did not
read _that_.
BTW, according to this article the ocean basins have always been about
3.5 km deep
http://www.earth.rochester.edu/ees201/labs/paleogeography.pdf

And to know that, you would first have to believe the radius has been
constant.

What's the problem here? That's a perfectly reasonable assumption.


"according to this article the ocean basins have always been about 3.5
km deep"

Fine, lets correct the statement

According to this article the ocean basins have always been (assumed
to be) about 3.5 km deep
Maybe, you think an assumption is knowledge I do not.


You can claim anything you want when the evidence for it does not
exist.

Yeah, like the Earth gaining mass from some unknown source.


No, if the Earth gained mass in the last 200my, it is a fact it has to
be from an unknown source.


Quite. "If". And if the Earth didn't gain mass you don't need a source.
Occam's Razor goes back a long way :-)


And I am sure Occam never intended to over look the obvious, the earth
EXIST! Either it is eternal, or it gained mass.

JT

  #503  
Old September 12th 06, 01:48 AM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,sci.astro,talk.origins
Boris Mohar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:02:06 -0700, (Charles Cagle)
wrote:

HH-30 is generating mass in front of your
eyes. Planets grow.


Dos the new planarity mass come with necessary momentum to keep the observed
orbital and rotational periodicity in synch with your claims?

--

Boris Mohar



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from
http://www.teranews.com
Warning: Do not use Ultimate-Anonymity
They are worthless spammers that are running a scam.

  #504  
Old September 12th 06, 03:00 AM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,sci.astro,talk.origins
Ken Shackleton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox


J. Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:40:42 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 23:04:08 -0700, Timberwoof
wrote:

In article ,
"J. Taylor" wrote:

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:14:13 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:00:46 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

You aren't just nitpicking, you're actively
avoiding the question of how an ocean 2000km wide can appear and
disappear.

The article said 600 miles. Apparently you did not read it.

I found an article that quoted a width of 2000km Apparently you did not
read _that_.
BTW, according to this article the ocean basins have always been about
3.5 km deep
http://www.earth.rochester.edu/ees201/labs/paleogeography.pdf

And to know that, you would first have to believe the radius has been
constant.

What's the problem here? That's a perfectly reasonable assumption.

"according to this article the ocean basins have always been about 3.5
km deep"

Fine, lets correct the statement

According to this article the ocean basins have always been (assumed
to be) about 3.5 km deep
Maybe, you think an assumption is knowledge I do not.


You can claim anything you want when the evidence for it does not
exist.

Yeah, like the Earth gaining mass from some unknown source.

No, if the Earth gained mass in the last 200my, it is a fact it has to
be from an unknown source.


Quite. "If". And if the Earth didn't gain mass you don't need a source.
Occam's Razor goes back a long way :-)


And I am sure Occam never intended to over look the obvious, the earth
EXIST! Either it is eternal, or it gained mass.


Right...which has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that earth has
doubled its radius in the past 200 million years. Earth has been its
present size for at least 4 billion years.



JT


  #505  
Old September 12th 06, 08:56 PM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,sci.astro,talk.origins
Jonathan Silverlight[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox

In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:40:42 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

Quite. "If". And if the Earth didn't gain mass you don't need a source.
Occam's Razor goes back a long way :-)


And I am sure Occam never intended to over look the obvious, the earth
EXIST! Either it is eternal, or it gained mass.


Not a word about eclogite or ophiolite, I see.

Rats! I thought "selective refutation" might be my own invention, but a
quick search shows that it isn't.

I'm quite happy to accept that the Earth gained mass during its
formation, 4500 million years ago. There is no evidence that it has
gained mass in the last 200 million years, except for a negligible
amount from meteoroids (it is Lawrence Myers who is either fooling
himself or trying to fool others).

  #506  
Old September 14th 06, 11:10 PM posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,sci.astro
don findlay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 513
Default The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox


Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:40:42 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

Quite. "If". And if the Earth didn't gain mass you don't need a source.
Occam's Razor goes back a long way :-)


And I am sure Occam never intended to over look the obvious, the earth
EXIST! Either it is eternal, or it gained mass.


Not a word about eclogite or ophiolite, I see.


Eclogites exist as minor nodules and lenses in migmatitic gneissic
terrains or trapped in kimberlitic plugs. That you cite them shows you
don't now what you're talking about.

Ophiolites are small slices of mantle caught up at the base of the
collapsing edifice of the crustal pile as it slides out over the
foreland (e..g. Asia over India). That you cite this one shows you
have no sense of scale in the issue, and a misplaced sense of geology.
The ocean floor (and previous ocean floors according to Plate
Tectonics) takes up two thirds of the Earth's surface. You are arguing
for total closure with peripheral obduction and citing these silly
piddling little slices as evidence, when they are part of overthrust
collapse belts, and from the 'wrong' side. You might as well cite some
pyroxene/ garnet assemblage in your favourite thin section. The
physical existence is meaningless in terms of 'closing oceans'. I
suspect you read about it somewhere. You certainly have never thought
about it, have you?

You're shooting yourself in the foot and missing the issue by a mile.
Try for the head.


Rats! I thought "selective refutation" might be my own invention, but a
quick search shows that it isn't.

I'm quite happy to accept that the Earth gained mass during its
formation, 4500 million years ago. There is no evidence that it has
gained mass in the last 200 million years, except for a negligible
amount from meteoroids (it is Lawrence Myers who is either fooling
himself or trying to fool others).


Lawrence seems also to suffer from a sense of scale. Why don't you
tell him so?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.