The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox

In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Ken Shackleton wrote:



Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.

So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?

I don't know how many times I've answered that one. **** off, clever
dick.

You've never answered that one. You've given some fairtyale "maybe"
answers, but nothing that can be demonstrated to work.

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

don findlay wrote:
Ken Shackleton wrote:



Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.

So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?

I don't know how many times I've answered that one. **** off, clever
dick.

Sorry...you have never provided any explanation for how the mass gets
into the core beyond some vague mass/energy conversion bull****.

On 4 Jul 2006 15:52:32 -0700, "don findlay"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


Ken Shackleton wrote:



Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.

So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?

I don't know how many times I've answered that one. **** off, clever
dick.

You have NEVER answered it. So where does the mass come from Don? Put
up or shut up.

--
Bob.

In article . com, "Ken
Shackleton" wrote:

don findlay wrote:
Petra wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:

Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"

Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)

For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.

Petra

Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.

So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?

I can't tell by the terseness of the question if you suppose that if mass
appears that it must come from or be converted from some other form or
substance as in a conservative process or if you're simply interested in
the mechanism by which the universe is able to furnish itself with new
mass?

First let us address a couple of issues about the authority of a
question. We may wish to insist on conservation ruling everything but
that is a bit arrogant to insist that we have to have something to make
mass out of in the first place because, if in fact, you don't really know
what mass is... in the first place. It is true that all known
processes...chemical and nuclear are conservative. But is it likely there
are processes which we don't fully know about. But because we don't have
an answer then concerning the present mass that exists in the univerese...
where did it come from? So you have to insist rather weakly that all the
mass that exists has always existed.

So, let us just suggest that the universe has a mechanism to furnish
itself with new mass. I think HH-30, that Herbig-Haro Object, a stellar
jet system, is simply a large matter creation engine and it is spewing out
huge chunks of matter cyclically, in blobs that are about twice the size
of our entire solar system. Spitting them out one by one like big
machine gun bullets.

The mechanism that HH-30 uses is the same that the Earth uses... at the
core of our planet is a large scale flux loop structure and it is like a
big magnetic donut structure and it oscillates between the two modes of a
Del X E vector field and and Del X H vector field mode. HH-30 is going
through regular oscillations while the same type of structure that is in
the Earth is 'stuck' in the Del X E vector field mode and will be until it
is stimulated by the impact of several large solar flares or coronal mass
ejections in rapid succession. Then it will compress the field rapidly
enough to stimulate it into a mode change. So, when it reaches the Del X
H vector field mode it will be creating quantum scale copies of its basic
structure which at the quantum scale are simply neutrons. The sun's
standing wave boson structure the oscillation of which produces the solar
cycle ...solar minumum and solar maximum...goes through a mode change
about every 5.5 years. 11 years for a reversal and 22 years for a
complete cycle.

That's the basic picture. How do flux loop systems make those copies? By
having Poynting vector density changes that produce vector fields that
expand on the closed toroid's surface until they self intersect. At the
inner equator of a compact Del X H vector field the inner equator is of
the quantum scale so tiny little flux loops that are the same as neutrons
are produced in prodigious quantities. the neutron can be broken down to
produce an electron, a proton and an antineutrino (that is very likely a
photon). And I am suggesting that a fundamental charged particle like a
proton or an electron really consists of a finite number of dynamic or
changing one dimensional relationships between other 'bundles' of such
things. There is no hard marble there at all... these particles are
simply bundles of relationships and we've even had top physicists intuit
that matter is probably nothing more than that. Consider Lee Smolin's
words:

³To understand what we mean when we say that space is discrete, we must put our
minds completely into the relational way of thinking, and really try to
see and feel the world around us as nothing but a network of evolving
relationships. These relationships are not among things situated in space
* they are among the
events that make up the history of the world. The relationships define the
space, not the other way around.² (Smolin, 96)

The essence of this argument is that relationships can be established
symmetrically and the symmetry would be the basis of the conservation of
its attributes so that any process, whether or not we completely
understand it, even obeys or is consistent absolutely with Noether's
Theorem. The net momentum of the universe, for example, is easily seen to
be zero... yet momentum involves motion and then we come to the idea of a
wave function of the universe...

Quoting from Evan Squires of Univ. of Durham: "Lorentz-invariant Bohmian
Mechanics" [quant-ph/9508014 dtd 21 Aug 95 - avail from LANL preprint
archives] page 3: begin quote"Before proceeding we note, however, that
there is a simple case where the neglect of the final term is rather less
'natural'. This is when psi, and hence rho, is independent of time. Then
the rhs of eq. 1.2 is zero, which would suggest zero velocity as the
natural solution. The fact that the Bohm model need not give zero velocity
in such a situation may be significant in quantum cosmology (Valentini,
1992, Vink, 1992: Squires, 1992, 1994). Here, according to the
Wheeler-deWitt equation, the wavefunction of the universe (which is the
only wavefunction that actually exists!) is independent of time. This is a
consequence of the fact that the theory must be invariant under
reparameterisation of time. For any real solution of this equation, the
straightforward generalisation of Bohmian mechanics to quantum cosmology
predicts zero velocities, i.e., a universe in which nothing ever moves.
Presumably this is not a good prediction! There is of course an analogous
prediction in the microscopic world where for example the model predicts
that an electron in the ground state of a hydrogen atom does not move. In
this case, however, the result is not a problem because we know that
predictions for the results of measurements of the electron velocity,
which will be related to positions of certain probes, will be correct.
There is no similar escape in the cosmological case - a stationary
universe is simply a stationary universe! Thus it is essential to select a
(non-trivially) complex solution of the Wheeler-deWitt equation, and to
use the fact that such a wavefunction can give non-zero velocities, even
if the wavefunction itself is constant."end quote

Even though I think that Squires at that point wasn't necessarily buying
into the idea of all activity summing to zero (saying 'Presumably this is
not a good prediction!") he at least recognizes that possibility. The
reality is that we can say the same thing in a variety of ways and no one
actually objects until we try and make sense out of it in a unified
comprehensive whole of the universe.

Ultimately, we can say that relationships are mental constructs or that
all intellectual functions are based upon estabishing and maintaining and
altering relationships and making subsequent comparisions between prior
sets of relationships to even emerge with the concept of time. In the end
we can suggest that standing wave bosons are bundles of relationships and
hence are in and of themselves intellectual beings that are creative just
in creating new relationships. While we may try to tie it all down to
mathematics or establish a visual metaphor so that we may understand this
creative process... we may have to look no further than to our own
intellectual processes where we may under the watchful gaze of our own
Mind's Eye erect worlds and mansions and people. But in the meanwhile
the final verdict will be rendered when the Earth's standing wave boson is
stimulated into a mode change and in that state begins producing hundreds
of billions of tons of mass per second as it is evident that it has done
at least a 171 times with each dipole reversal event in the ancient past.

There is no real way to separate physics from philosophy and no way to
have philosophy without mind and the inscrutable thing we call mind is
that which we all (presumably... I can only speak for myself in this
matter) directly experience yet is the one thing which we have been unable
to quantify in normal physical terms like size and density and mass and
weight...

We'll just have to see, won't we? We'll come again once more to the place
of Mount Carmel and have a contest once again to see that the children of
this world can be reacquainted with the Living God who is able to manifest
fire to consume the sacrifice and consume the stones of the altar and to
lick up the water in the ditch. But instead of Mount Carmel... we will
have a mass generation episode in the core of the planet and instead of
taking the priests of Baal down to the brook and slaying them with the
Sword... we will resolutely stand fast and see the Words of all the
prophets manifested upon the disobedient upon the mockers and upon the
profane... The great solar maximum will finally arrive and the sun will be
clothed in blackness like a sackcloth of hair as swarms of sunspots cover
the face of the sun... The redshifting of the flux loops that make up the
sunspot loops comes about as a function of the charge separation effect
along the flux loop termini that occurs because each loops system produces
its own strong gravitational field. The resulting red shifted light shall
make the moon appear red (Joel 2:31 The sun shall be turned into darkness,
and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD
come.) then...Acts 2:20* The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the
moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
Revelation 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo,
there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of
hair, and the moon became as blood;²

Then because the Earth¹s magnetic field is down... solar flaring will be
able to come right down to ground level.

Revelation 16:8 ¶ And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun;
and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
9* And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God,
which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him
glory.

The mass generation occurring in the core will begin to be articulated in
a rapid increase in lithospheric tension... as the plates fail they will
produce great earthquakes that will throw down the buildings of thousands
of cities on the same day and produce tremendous tsunamis.

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in
the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the
sea and the waves roaring;

Whole mountain systems will be pulled apart at their bases and will begin
to descend.

Ps 114:4* The mountains skipped like rams, and the little hills like lambs.
Isa 40:4* Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall
be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places
plain:

Island chains will disappear into the sea.

Rev 16:20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.

So, we¹ll see won¹t we? We¹ll see if there is a physics that can account
for the Earth growing; for Europa¹s growth, for Ganymede¹s growth, for
Enceladus¹ growth, for the growth of Mars and of the Earth¹s moon.
There¹s one huge circular mountain chain on the far side of the moon that
is definitely not an impact crator (no splash trails) but rather the
natural effect of the collapse of portion of the spherical lithosphere due
to a curvature differential between the growing mantle and the
lithosphere; on a spherical surface it must collapse to a circular
mountain chain. S. Warren Carey called these kirkogens or circle
generators.

For those of you who believe that physics and God are incompatable
concepts... Well sure...the way that the academic community has been doing
physics, using illogical procesess... using a posteriori reasoning...
trying to establish the general based upon the specific. Yes.. God is all
about logic and reason and the rational mind. Intuition is the ability to
subconsciously extrapolate the data into a vision of the future...some men
are more blessed with that than others. The rational man uses deductive
logic because arriving at certainties has a greater survival value than
falsehoods and speculations... deductive logic is a thing the general
community of physicists have eschewed and demonstrated a disdain for
using. It is as if they truly do not want to know. We¹ll soon see,
won¹t we? But there shall be no priests of Baal taken down to the brook
and slain with the Sword... instead they¹ll be killed in a different way
this time.

Charles Cagle

--
for email delete underscores
"I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed Hid privily,
a measureless resource For man, and mighty teacher of all arts."
- Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus -

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 23:26:42 -0700, (Charles
Cagle) enriched this group when s/he wrote:

In article . com, "Ken
Shackleton" wrote:

don findlay wrote:
Petra wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:

Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"

Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)

For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.

Petra

Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.

So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?

I can't tell by the terseness of the question if you suppose that if mass
appears that it must come from or be converted from some other form or
substance as in a conservative process or if you're simply interested in
the mechanism by which the universe is able to furnish itself with new
mass?

First let us address a couple of issues about the authority of a
question. We may wish to insist on conservation ruling everything but
that is a bit arrogant to insist that we have to have something to make
mass out of in the first place because, if in fact, you don't really know
what mass is... in the first place. It is true that all known
processes...chemical and nuclear are conservative. But is it likely there
are processes which we don't fully know about. But because we don't have
an answer then concerning the present mass that exists in the univerese...
where did it come from? So you have to insist rather weakly that all the
mass that exists has always existed.

So, let us just suggest that the universe has a mechanism to furnish
itself with new mass.

I looked, very hard, for any real science in your article. There was
none - a load of rubbish.

--
Bob.

In article
,
(Charles Cagle) wrote:

In article . com, "Ken
Shackleton" wrote:

don findlay wrote:
Petra wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:

Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"

Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)

For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.

Petra

Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.

So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?

I can't tell by the terseness of the question if you suppose that if mass
appears that it must come from or be converted from some other form or
substance as in a conservative process

That's precisely the question.

or if you're simply interested in
the mechanism by which the universe is able to furnish itself with new
mass?

Nope. If the Earth is getting bigger, then either it is becoming less
dense by some unknown mechanism or it's gaining mass by some unknown
mechanism. Either way, it must be plausibly explained and evidence for
the process identified.

First let us address a couple of issues about the authority of a
question. We may wish to insist on conservation ruling everything but
that is a bit arrogant to insist that we have to have something to make
mass out of in the first place because, if in fact, you don't really know
what mass is... in the first place.

That doesn't matter, so to speak. People have been doing experiments
with mass-conservation laws for two centuries and have found only
certain well-defined exceptions, and those still observe conservation
laws: matter plus energy is conserved.

It is true that all known
processes...chemical and nuclear are conservative. But is it likely there
are processes which we don't fully know about.

Well, if the expanding-earthers think they've found such a process, then
it's up to them to demonstrate it in a laboratory.


But because we don't have
an answer then concerning the present mass that exists in the univerese...
where did it come from? So you have to insist rather weakly that all the
mass that exists has always existed.

So what? The question of the origin of the universe is separate from the
question of the origin of the mass for expanding earth.

So, let us just suggest that the universe has a mechanism to furnish
itself with new mass. I think HH-30, that Herbig-Haro Object, a stellar
jet system, is simply a large matter creation engine and it is spewing out
huge chunks of matter cyclically, in blobs that are about twice the size
of our entire solar system. Spitting them out one by one like big
machine gun bullets.

The mechanism that HH-30 uses is the same that the Earth uses... at the
core of our planet is a large scale flux loop structure

A what?

and it is like a
big magnetic donut structure and it oscillates between the two modes of a
Del X E vector field and and Del X H vector field mode. HH-30 is going
through regular oscillations while the same type of structure that is in
the Earth is 'stuck' in the Del X E vector field mode and will be until it
is stimulated by the impact of several large solar flares or coronal mass
ejections in rapid succession. Then it will compress the field rapidly
enough to stimulate it into a mode change. So, when it reaches the Del X
H vector field mode it will be creating quantum scale copies of its basic
structure which at the quantum scale are simply neutrons. The sun's
standing wave boson structure the oscillation of which produces the solar
cycle ...solar minumum and solar maximum...goes through a mode change
about every 5.5 years. 11 years for a reversal and 22 years for a
complete cycle.

Ah. I see. And your evidence for all this is what, exactly?

Now the rest of what you wrote is completely off into the weeds. Where
science falls short you turned to the Bible. Oh, and where's your
evidence that outer planets and moons grew? Does the Bible mention any
of that?

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

Charles Cagle wrote:

snip

But there shall be no priests of Baal taken down to the brook
and slain with the Sword... instead they¹ll be killed in a different way
this time.

Charles Cagle

Bingo! Re-reading this old thread, I was thinking that something
(really, someone) of the sorta physics nutbars was missing--but I
couldn't think who it might be.

And then Chuckles posts! Don't you love it when the Universe just falls
in place? :-)

Charles Cagle wrote:
In article . com, "Ken
Shackleton" wrote:

don findlay wrote:
Petra wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:

Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"

Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)

For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.

Petra

Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.

So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?

I can't tell by the terseness of the question if you suppose that if mass
appears that it must come from or be converted from some other form or
substance as in a conservative process or if you're simply interested in
the mechanism by which the universe is able to furnish itself with new
mass?

It's a simple question really....I am not interested in how "the
universe is able to furnish itself with new mass", I am interested in
knowing HOW the earth could have expanded.

IF earth has expanded, then there must be a mechanism to explain that
expansion. I have assumed in my question that the average density of
the planet has remained unchanged....and if it has become larger while
maintaining density, then it has increased in mass.

So.....where did the mass come from? How did it get into the core?

If my initial assumption is incorrect and the earth has not increased
in mass, simply volume.....then it has reduced in density.....and if
that is the case....what happened to explain this [mechanism please]?

snipped the blather

Charles Cagle

--
for email delete underscores
"I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed Hid privily,
a measureless resource For man, and mighty teacher of all arts."
- Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus -

Ken Shackleton wrote:
Charles Cagle wrote:
In article . com, "Ken
Shackleton" wrote:

don findlay wrote:
Petra wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:

Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"

Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)

For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.

Petra

Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.

So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?

I can't tell by the terseness of the question if you suppose that if mass
appears that it must come from or be converted from some other form or
substance as in a conservative process or if you're simply interested in
the mechanism by which the universe is able to furnish itself with new
mass?

It's a simple question really....I am not interested in how "the
universe is able to furnish itself with new mass", I am interested in
knowing HOW the earth could have expanded.

IF earth has expanded, then there must be a mechanism to explain that
expansion. I have assumed in my question that the average density of
the planet has remained unchanged....and if it has become larger while
maintaining density, then it has increased in mass.

So.....where did the mass come from? How did it get into the core?

If my initial assumption is incorrect and the earth has not increased
in mass, simply volume.....then it has reduced in density.....and if
that is the case....what happened to explain this [mechanism please]?

To begin with such an assumption (when you don't even know - like
everyone else doesn't know - exactly what mass is) places you
squarely in the centre of the box you are trying to break out of (if
your question is genuine). Everything we see of the ocean floors and
the geology of the continents (especially mountain belts continental
margins and stratigraphic sequence) is testimony to enlargement and
growth. I.e., everything we can see. Why do you put such store for
negation in what can't be seen, the destruction at subduction zones,
...when conceptually it is manifest nonsense. Transform faults, the
expression of creation of the ocean floors, don't even reach to the
Western Pacific margin. So what, then, about subduction? And the
Eastern pacific is "overriding". And what about subduction anyway,
when it is 'crust-pushing- everything- down' manifest nonsense?

The ocean floors grow by cell division - the cells being the segments
between transform faults. People thought Tesla was a nut for measuring
his **** and his ****, v. his food intake. Who knows, ..maybe he was
onto something. So if you want to get scientific about it, about
'origins, and talking about them, then you could do worse than apply
for a grant, ..it should be well received in this quarter..

(Now let's see if I'm still excluded from posting to t.o.)

Yup, ..it looks like I am.... (their loss)

In message
,
Timberwoof writes
In article
,
(Charles Cagle) wrote:


Ah. I see. And your evidence for all this is what, exactly?

Now the rest of what you wrote is completely off into the weeds. Where
science falls short you turned to the Bible. Oh, and where's your
evidence that outer planets and moons grew? Does the Bible mention any
of that?


Haven't you encountered Chuckie before? He also uses the name Ace
Schallger, among other aliases, and changes his email address to get
round kill files. Long time Usenet troll and kook.