The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:57:24 GMT, "J. Taylor"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:01:16 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:36:59 GMT, "J. Taylor"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

The first order question is why even look? Because the surface of the
Earth shows it has gotten bigger.

It shows nothing of the sort.

You can stop with providing evidence you do not know anything and
never will, got the picture from your first post.

Funny that, but the one thing that is so very conspicuous by its
absence from your argument is evidence for an expanding earth.


And spare me the reply PT explains everything and there is no reason
to look, because that just is not so.

Sorry, but it is just so.

And what nursing home are you writing from?

The same oen your are locked up in - the difference is I'm staff.


If you have anything you think Plate Techtonics does not explain then
all you have to do is ask and I'm sure someone will be able to explain
what you are missing.

How you doing on reconciling reality and Santa Clause?

Better than you are reconciling the daft idea of an expanding earth
with reality.

So? Are you going to produce any evidence for your claims? Can you in
fact find any evidence for your claims? Indeed, can you even get your
claims to make sense?

--
Bob.

In article ,
"J. Taylor" wrote:

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:01:16 GMT, Ye Old One
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:36:59 GMT, "J. Taylor"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

The first order question is why even look? Because the surface of
the Earth shows it has gotten bigger.

It shows nothing of the sort.

You can stop with providing evidence you do not know anything and
never will, got the picture from your first post.



And spare me the reply PT explains everything and there is no
reason to look, because that just is not so.

Sorry, but it is just so.

And what nursing home are you writing from?


If you have anything you think Plate Techtonics does not explain
then all you have to do is ask and I'm sure someone will be able to
explain what you are missing.

How you doing on reconciling reality and Santa Clause?

I've been reading and talking with people about this expanding earth
hypothesis. At first, I was doubtful. I had a lot of questions, and I
posted them here. They were all thoughtfully and honestly answered, and
slowly the EE people created a cohesive theory that explains the Earth's
structure and appearance. And, marvel of marvels, they never ever
stooped to petty name-calling when faced with questions they could not
answer. No one reading responses from J. Taylor, Don Findlay, and others
would ever conclude that they are just crackpots.

Sorry if I broke your irony meter.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:33:16 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:57:24 GMT, "J. Taylor"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:01:16 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:36:59 GMT, "J. Taylor"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

The first order question is why even look? Because the surface of the
Earth shows it has gotten bigger.

It shows nothing of the sort.

You can stop with providing evidence you do not know anything and
never will, got the picture from your first post.

Funny that, but the one thing that is so very conspicuous by its
absence from your argument is evidence for an expanding earth.


And spare me the reply PT explains everything and there is no reason
to look, because that just is not so.

Sorry, but it is just so.

And what nursing home are you writing from?

The same oen your are locked up in - the difference is I'm staff.


If you have anything you think Plate Techtonics does not explain then
all you have to do is ask and I'm sure someone will be able to explain
what you are missing.

How you doing on reconciling reality and Santa Clause?

Better than you are reconciling the daft idea of an expanding earth
with reality.

So? Are you going to produce any evidence for your claims? Can you in
fact find any evidence for your claims? Indeed, can you even get your
claims to make sense?

This is odd, you claim to have evaluated it as a daft idea, then claim
to have done this evaluation with no evidence.

Of course, you would like for me to see you as being intelligent but
nothing you have shown indicates this as even a possibility.

JT

In article ,
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

In message . com, J.
Taylor writes

J. Taylor wrote:

Which means, on a constant radius, as the ridge in the Atlantic
spread, N. America and S. America were moving to the east, (Never mind
on Scotese's animation the ridge in the Atlantic is also moving east

Sorry, not trying to make this any more complicated than it is, but N.
& S. America and the ridge all move to the west.

Quite. Meanwhile, Australia and Asia are moving east. If the Earth was
expanding they should be moving apart.
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html shows that Easter Island
is moving west, but that's because it's on a different plate. Meanwhile,
neither you or Don have answered my simple question about what happened
600 million years ago, when your theory would say the Earth has zero
volume.

That's assuming that the expansion rate has been constant. Neither Don
nor J. have ever provided a graph or chart of the Earth's diameter and
mass over the past 4.5 billion years. I'd consider that a fundamental
part of any expanding earth hypothesis.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

In article ,
"J. Taylor" wrote:

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:31:38 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message . com, J.
Taylor writes

J. Taylor wrote:

Which means, on a constant radius, as the ridge in the Atlantic
spread, N. America and S. America were moving to the east, (Never mind
on Scotese's animation the ridge in the Atlantic is also moving east

Sorry, not trying to make this any more complicated than it is, but N.
& S. America and the ridge all move to the west.

Quite. Meanwhile, Australia and Asia are moving east. If the Earth was
expanding they should be moving apart.

Depends on the rate of expansion and whether all points expand equally
and at the same time. What evidence do you have expansion must ONLY
be this way?

Oh, so now you have to hammer the hypothesis into some other shape by
invoking uneven expansion. What causes the unevenness? Do you have any
geologic evidence of past uneven expansion? If expansion is uneven, how
does the Earth happen to be a nearly perfect sphere now? (No, the
equatorial oblateness doesn't count; that's perfectly well explained by
the Earth's rotation.)

http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html shows that Easter Island
is moving west, but that's because it's on a different plate. Meanwhile,
neither you or Don have answered my simple question about what happened
600 million years ago, when your theory would say the Earth has zero
volume.

That would be your theory. The true problem is becoming apparent, you
have little to work with but that mind of yours and you think those
thoughts in your head belong to others. No! They are yours!

You're really clever. No matter who asks you questions about your
hypothesis: you always figure out an excuse not to answer.

I do not know how big the Earth was 600 mya because I do not know what
causes the expansion and whether it is a constant, or a cumulative
process, or whether it goes on all the time but the balance between
gain and loss is tipped after a certain mass and the rate increases,
or if a combination of factors of location, source and ability.

You have no way to deduce from geological evidence the rate of expansion
or localized differences in that rate. In other words, when it comes to
earth expansion, you don't know squat.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

In article .com,
"Wakboth" wrote:

J. Taylor kirjoitti:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:28:15 -0700, Timberwoof
wrote:

In article
,
(Charles Cagle) wrote:

An absolutely empty claim.

I'd say that "earth growth" is an empty claim,

Easily proven false. The question in no one's mind but yours, is not
whether the Earth has grown, but the rate and at what points in time.

Ahem. Only you and a handful of other crackpots believe that Earth's
size has significantly changed over, say, the last two billion years.

-- Wakboth

This crackpot doesn't have a clue how to answer that question:

In article ,
"J. Taylor" wrote:

I do not know how big the Earth was 600 mya because I do not know what
causes the expansion and whether it is a constant, or a cumulative
process, or whether it goes on all the time but the balance between
gain and loss is tipped after a certain mass and the rate increases,
or if a combination of factors of location, source and ability.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

In article ,
"J. Taylor" wrote:

On 20 Aug 2006 02:16:16 -0700, "Wakboth"
wrote:


J. Taylor kirjoitti:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:28:15 -0700, Timberwoof
wrote:

In article
,
(Charles Cagle) wrote:

An absolutely empty claim.

I'd say that "earth growth" is an empty claim,

Easily proven false. The question in no one's mind but yours, is not
whether the Earth has grown, but the rate and at what points in time.

Ahem. Only you and a handful of other crackpots believe that Earth's
size has significantly changed over, say, the last two billion years.

I would dare to say virtually everyone believes it has significantly
changed in size over the last 4.5 billion years and makes the
statement "I'd say that "earth growth" is an empty claim" false, and
then shifts the focus from whether it has grown to when and how much.

I do not believe that the Earth has changed its size significantly since
the original accretion (and the hypothesized impact that formed the
moon). However, because I want to understand your hypothesis, rather
than sticking my head up your ass and following you blindly around
without creating any original thoughts of my own, I ask questions about
the expanding earth hypothesis. The problem for you with detailed
questions from me and others is that your answers illuminate exactly
what the problems with the hypothesis are. For instance...

But you would have caught that if you were not an idiot hiding behind
an alias so you can give a public display of your stupidity.

This answer makes me think you're trying desperately to be mistaken for
a crackpot who can't stand being asked detailed questions about his
hypothesis and responds by trying to discredit the one asking the
question.

The problem, J. Taylor, is that that tactic doesn't work. Nobody pays
any attention to you when you say people are stupid ... especially when
you call people stupid who ask smart questions.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:31:38 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message . com, J.
Taylor writes

J. Taylor wrote:

Which means, on a constant radius, as the ridge in the Atlantic
spread, N. America and S. America were moving to the east, (Never mind
on Scotese's animation the ridge in the Atlantic is also moving east

Sorry, not trying to make this any more complicated than it is, but N.
& S. America and the ridge all move to the west.

Quite. Meanwhile, Australia and Asia are moving east. If the Earth was
expanding they should be moving apart.

Depends on the rate of expansion and whether all points expand equally
and at the same time. What evidence do you have expansion must ONLY
be this way?

Because if it wasn't the Earth would stop being a sphere :-) In plate
tectonics there's no requirement for each point to move away from every
other point, and that is what is observed. Also, GPS and laser ranging
measurements don't show substantial vertical movement (even if Ray Tomes
is right http://ray.tomes.biz/expand.html, his result of a few mm per
year is insufficient)

In article ,
"J. Taylor" wrote:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:17:22 -0700, Timberwoof
wrote:

In article ,
"J. Taylor" wrote:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:28:15 -0700, Timberwoof
wrote:

In article
,
(Charles Cagle) wrote:

In article ,
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

In message

et, Charles Cagle writes

nonsense snipped

Earth growth is cyclic and does not take aeons.


The problem with this sort of pseudo-scientific nonsense is
that its last point is easily disproved by observations of
the Moon.

An absolutely empty claim.

I'd say that "earth growth" is an empty claim,

Easily proven false.

Well, then. Let's hear it.

If it has NOT grown larger then it MUST have been the same size
ALWAYS!

The very fact it gained an ounce of space dust today proves it was
NOT ALWAYS the same size.

Not what you meant? Then try thinking first!

Most people accept that the Earth grew as it was accreting from the dust
cloud. One hypothesis is that the proto-Earth was struck by a mars-sized
object, knocking off pieces that formed the Moon. That event changed the
Earth's size. But after things settled down, there were no more
significant changes in the Earth's size ... for the past 4.5 billion
years.

That's not the same as your Earth Expansion hypothesis, which claims
significant growth in the last 200 million years. If you had any clue
about current theories of planetary formation, then you'd know this
stuff. (You have to know this stuff in order to create alternative
hypotheses!)




The question in no one's mind but yours, is not whether the Earth
has grown, but the rate and at what points in time.

Yeah, I've been asking that question for a while now, and no one has
answered it.

And is just a lie.

I've never seen an answer. You can correct my error and point me to
posts where the answer was given, or you could just give a little chart
with diameters and masses for, oh, every 500 million years since the
formation. That's only nine points.

On second thought, you better supply data points more frequently. You
have to support "Earth growth is cyclic and does not take aeons." Can
you provide any evidence for that claim?


as is "is cyclic and does
not take aeons".



Post a list of Earth size and mass for every 50 million years
since the initial formation.

There are a limited number of possibilities

Same size same mass Same size more mass Same size less mass

Larger size same mass Larger size more mass Larger size less mass

Smaller size same mass Smaller size more mass Smaller size less
mass

No ****, Sherlock. How about a real answer to the question, then?
While you're at it, how did the core, mantle, and crust grow over
this period? It's not a hard question, and the answer would seem to
me to be central to the whole hypothesis.

No! What is central to expansion is whether the surface of the Earth
supports it. It does!

No, it doesn't. The shapes of the continents are all wrong for that.

But what other evidence does support your hypothesis? (Conservation of
matter, for one.)

Explain where the mass came from and explain how it acquired its
correct chemical and dynamic properties.

Explaining where the mass came from is possible, the correct
chemical and dynamic properties is an impossibility since it
assumes every time a particular process is run it will produce the
exact same results.

Well, that is how science works.

Science does not produce correct results, it is about reproducing the
same results, correct results are moral judgments for true believers.

You just stepped on your own dick there, J. Either results are
repeatable or they are not.


The fact there are differences in the planets shows variables. If
this is not true every class M sun should have exactly the same
solar system as this one and is not observed.

Duuh. That's a result of two things: the sun is a class G star (or
are you thinking of Class M planets?) and planet formation is a
chaotic process.

Nope, just wrong, class G,

Yes, you were just wrong.

and how does chaotic then require
expansion to then have to be precise?

Formation of planets from the progenitor dust cloud is a chaotic
process. (I assume you know the technical definition of chaotic?) But
once the Earth is formed and your hypothesized process is underway, it
follows some principles. And you have utterly failed to explain those
principles.

I think you don't understand the question, though, otherwise you
would not have deflected the conversation to planetary formation.

The question I have is this: If the Earth is gaining mass, then how
does that mass so nicely fit in with existing geochemistry -- that
is, how come the whole planet isn't homogeneous? And each new atom
would have to have all the right movement vectors so that the Earth
can continue to rotate and orbit the sun.

Because it does!

You appear to be trying to be mistaken for a four-year-old. So you don't
have a clue how the new mass is formed with exactly the right chemical
and dynamic properties. That's a really, really big hole in the
hypothesis. Without that answer, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude
that it can't work that way.

The length of the day is accurately known back to about 400
million years.

Reasonable discourse requires that you know when you are
articulating a fact vs. a highly speculative opinion. You
don't. The reality is that you should consider that the
existence of a mass generation mechanism means that the very
foundational basis of the radiometric dating of rock has no
merit.

So what is the mass generation mechanism?

The first order question is why even look? Because the surface of
the Earth shows it has gotten bigger.

You're saying that some magical process has created new mass within
the earth. By implication, it has all the right properties to be
indistinguishable form matter having been there all along. That's
pretty neat and has all sorts of implications or physics and
chemistry.

The other alternative is dismiss the evidence to fit with what you
believe. Either the evidence exists or it does not.

Maybe we should examine the evidence to see where it leads.

The evidence can be explained better with plate tectonics and no
expansion. Better in this case means, among other things, "not violating
well established scientific laws and principles."


And spare me the reply PT explains everything and there is no
reason to look, because that just is not so.

PT explains an awful lot about the Earth's surface geology.

It should be half right, it recognize's spreading.

It also recognizes conservation of mass, conservation of energy,
conservation of momentum, and a lack of magical processes to create the
correct kinds of atoms in all the right places.

It is better at it than EE and it has the added advantage of not
violating conservation laws and what's know about matter form
physics and chemistry.

Who should be surprised, those whom do not know anything about it and
are unwilling to objectively examine it would construct situation
which cause it to fail, then hold this up as proof there is no way?

I AM objectively examining it and asking you some simple questions. The
problem is that you don't have the answers.

In article ,
"J. Taylor" wrote:

I do not know how big the Earth was 600 mya because I do not know what
causes the expansion and whether it is a constant, or a cumulative
process, or whether it goes on all the time but the balance between
gain and loss is tipped after a certain mass and the rate increases,
or if a combination of factors of location, source and ability.

The only thing shocking is the depth of deception.

Um, thank you. I have perceived some deep, deep holes in your
hypothesis.

No reason to look? You're the one telling me there's no reason to
look at the process for generating the additional matter.

Must have missed where I said that.

Okay, then. How is the additional matter generated?


A recent
paper looks at the orbit soon after the Moon (and the Earth)
formed
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/313/5787/652
Therefore the mass of the Earth-Moon system has remained
roughly the same as it is now.

What you accept as authoritative is generally without any true
scientific merit.

If the Earth increased its mass, how then did this affect the
moon's orbit?

It will effect it substantially, especially if we make the
assumption what happens to the Earth is something in isolation not
effecting anything else and is absurd, because it assumes the
Earth is special.

Oh. "A lot." No ****, Sherlock. How much? At what rate? Has anyone
worked out the math?

To do the math requires you know the numbers being plugged in and
they have not changed for the period of time used in the calculation.
It is thought the Universe is expanding and acceleration, but this
will not change the math?

Come on, stop bull****ting me. Do you know anything about orbital
mechanics? No, you don't. You don't know anything about what would
happen to the moon if the Earth were to expand as you claim. You have no
clue how to keep the Earth in its orbit about the sun under that kind of
expansion, or why it's a problem.

What do you have for evidence the Earth has remained not affected?
Yes, evidence interpreted from the view the Earth has remained the
same size and ignored the evidence, which is considerably greater, it
has increased in size.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you've said that and I get it. But there are all kinds
of other things that would also happen, and you're ignoring them.


And we don't need any exotic theories, because plate
tectonics is a reality and has probably been active for 3
billion years
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../edsumm/e06080
3-13.htm l Geological evidence for a geologist, Don.

What a silly question.. I'm not turning to the bible for
proofs but for hints. I can get hints of solar radiation
scorching the earth from the ancient Greek legend of
Phaeton. It isn't proof but it points to the truth.
Likely solar flaring came to ground level during a dipole
reversal. Same thing happened anciently all over the world.
See William Toppings work on paleoindian sites that show
70,000-80,000 high energy proton track per cm^2 in chert
tailings from resharpening arrow and spear heads. A solar
flare came right down to ground level and according to
Topping probably reset all the radiocarbon clocks in the
region (Northern Michigan) by at least 10,000 years. That
could only happen during the period when the Earth's dipole
magnetic field was down.


You don't include a citation for Topping's work, probably
because you seem to be misrepresenting what he and Richard
Firestone are saying. So here is one
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nuclear.html

Don't always assume the worst about people. My failure to
provide a citation doesn't mean a thing.

The general failure of earth expansionists to provide any kind of
history of size/mass or any kind of mechanism for the appearance
of mass means that the hypothesis is dead.

This is only true if you have all the answers, which you don't.

No, I don't have all the answers, but that's not the problem. The
problem is that I have simple questions (and I keep coming up with
more) and the best you can come up with is, 'It id and it affected
things a lot.'

Then you do not know what you are talking about.

No, I do know what I'm talking about. You're just resorting to your
usual crackpot tactic of trying to discredit anyone asking to
too-difficult questions about your hypothesis. You can't get away with
that; no one will believe you.

But you have been unable to answer any of my questions with any kind of
coherent, complete explanation of your hypothesis. I've demonstrated
this over and over, without even having to resort to any claims about
your intelligence, education, philosophy, or scientific process. All I
have to do is ask you a question and watch you flounder. I've given you
plenty of opportunities to explain yourself, but you haven't. The
logical conclusion is that you're a crackpot.


snip

You only demonstrate your propensity to be a sheep. Consensus
is the foundation of your belief system. Science, actual
science which is about knowledge, not opinion is the thing that
you should be keying in on. It shouldn't matter if an idea is
widely accepted. Galilio's ideas were not widely accepted at
one point. So according to your standards his ideas weren't
science while the Ptolmaic system was. It is grevious that
there is such confusion about what is scientific.

They also laughed at Bozo.

Galileo's claims were always experimentally verifiable. Here,
look in this telescope.

So is the evidence for expansion

No, it's not. How come continents aren't all torn up at the edges
and point in the middle?

Why should they be? Oh yes, because you imagine this is how it must
work.

You've already dismissed any explanation I have. Is there any point in
continuing? Do you really want an answer to that question? I'm prepared
do to some math and show you the problem. When did the expansion begin?
How big was the Earth then? You give me those two numbers and I'll tell
you why the continents should be as I say.

But the claims made by earth expansionists are not.

Wrong!

So where did the mass come from? If there was some explanation of
the mechanism for that, that could be experimentally verifiable. But
you offer no mechanism, so there can be no verification of that part
of the theory.

Not knowing how something works does not invalidate an observation.

It doesn't invalidate an observation, but it can invalidate an
interpretation.

Earth shows expansion

No, it does not.

Whenever I ask,
"Where does the mass come from" all I get is static about how
physics doesn't know anything and that I'm some kind of sheep for
believing it.

All questions are not answered and your willingness to believe
they are shows you to be nothing but an individual with your head
up against the rump in front blindly following.

Oh, thanks, I needed some clever new ad-hominem attack instead of an
honest answer to my question.

To get an honest answer requires first being honest in seeking the
answer, nothing shows you even hold this as an essential requirement.

Now you're calling me a liar. But never mind that; here's an important
question: are you saying that you will give your explanations only to
those who believe you? I don't believe you -- does that disqualify me
from your having to convince me?


So instead of asking you to convince me by providing answers to my
questions, you'd prefer it if I stuck my head up your ass and
followed you blindly?

No!

Oh! You'd rather I asked questions and formed my own conclusions based
on your explanations? That's great! I'd love to hear your explanations.

You know, any real geologist on this ng or elsewhere would answer
questions I asked him. He'd never respond with the kind of insults
that you and Don Findlay are so quick to hand out.

When you stop with the deception you are looking for answers, but
rather validation for what you believe you will be closer to finding
them.

Aww, dammit, just when I thought we were clear of the bull****, you go
on with that again.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

J. Taylor kirjoitti:

On 20 Aug 2006 02:16:16 -0700, "Wakboth"
wrote:


J. Taylor kirjoitti:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:28:15 -0700, Timberwoof
wrote:

In article
,
(Charles Cagle) wrote:

An absolutely empty claim.

I'd say that "earth growth" is an empty claim,

Easily proven false. The question in no one's mind but yours, is not
whether the Earth has grown, but the rate and at what points in time.

Ahem. Only you and a handful of other crackpots believe that Earth's
size has significantly changed over, say, the last two billion years.

I would dare to say virtually everyone believes it has significantly
changed in size over the last 4.5 billion years and makes the
statement "I'd say that "earth growth" is an empty claim" false, and
then shifts the focus from whether it has grown to when and how much.

I would dare to say that everyone with a relevant education believes,
based on the evidence, that Earth's size hasn't significantly changed
since the impact that created Moon. Which, combined with the total lack
of evidence for expanding Earth, makes your claim indeed an empty one.

Furthermore, since you obviously believe that Earth has expanded
significantly, please tell us when and how much it has grown, what the
evidence for this is, whether there is extra mass involved and if so,
where that came from.

But you would have caught that if you were not an idiot hiding behind
an alias so you can give a public display of your stupidity.

Oh, lovely. Do you think you can substitute insults for evidence?
Scatological kooks such as yourself are one of the reasons I use a
nickname on the Usenet.

-- Wakboth