|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#71
August 20th 06, 03:36 AM
posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,sci.astro,talk.origins
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:28:15 -0700, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , (Charles Cagle) wrote: In article , Jonathan Silverlight wrote: In message , 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. And spare me the reply PT explains everything and there is no reason to look, because that just is not so. 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. 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/v442/n7102/edsumm/e060803-13.html 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. 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 But the claims made by earth expansionists are not. Wrong! 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. 
|
|
#72
August 20th 06, 03:42 AM
posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,sci.astro,talk.origins
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
In article .com,
"Stuart" wrote: Charles Cagle wrote: In article , Jonathan Silverlight wrote: In message , 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. Only if one can't fathom basic classical physics Chuckie.. 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. Chuckie, I'm still waiting your refutation of George Williams' works. And I know you have the references. You don't. The reality is that you should consider that the existence of a mass generation mechanism These is no more reason to consdier that there is to consider the existence of pink unicorns and what that means for evolution. means that the very foundational basis of the radiometric dating of rock has no merit. So Chuckie, not that spacecraft have collided with a comet, do you still claim they are simply whirling magnetotorids? Another Chucky claim up in flames? 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. That was about as substantial as most of your refutations. By the way, hows that Sky-Blue reactor project of yours coming? Stuart Grow up Stuart.... That you call me "Chucky" or "Chuckie", just shows how juvenile you are... I was thinking that if I was gone for a couple of years that you might miraculously mature. But I see not I gave you a benefit of the doubt that you didn't deserve. First, I've never claimed that comets are simply whirling magnetotoroids. Your retranslation of what I did actually write doesn't obligate me to correct you. I've claimed that some comets have at their core an electromagnetotoroid that can be stimulated into mode changes during the times we've been able to observe them. Cometary outbursts, sudden tail dropping, and extreme ion trail signatures that were never expected to be found are good clues. That they have bow shocks that are similar to what a satellite might encounter as it runs into a planetary magnetic field is another clue. But if one can't possibly imagine how a small body might have a magnetic field then one isn't necessarily even going to equip a probe with all of the necessary instrumentation. There is a good reason to think that a mass generation mechanism might exist but you have to be little ahead of the intelligence curve here .....and you're not. You're a rule learner, Stuart. You're good at that and the academic community has been taken over by people of that mien. You're good worker ants...excelling in regurgitating what you believe is authoritative ..but true talent in critical thinking is not your forte and is quite beyond you. You really should stay out of the arguments because your usefulness as a foil is just about over. I have no idea of who George Williams might be or why I would have an interest in refuting his works. The fact that you claim that you know that I have references with regard to him is ludicrous and presumes that you have access to my personal collections of references on various subjects and the fact is, there is no truth in that at all. Besides being antagonistic you seem to be just as dishonest today as you were several years ago. Why don't you tell me about him? As far as my own work or technology, Stuart...that's actually none of your concern now is it? Are you one of my investors? No... you're not...so my obligation to keep you informed is only in your own deranged thinking. -- 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 -
|
|
#74
August 20th 06, 04:40 AM
posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,sci.astro,talk.origins
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:36:59 GMT, "J. Taylor"
wrote: [nothing of interest to anyone sane] If you're going to sock-puppet, Cackles, you really ought to learn how to fake the headers. -- Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
|
|
#75
August 20th 06, 04:53 AM
posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,sci.astro,talk.origins
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
Bill Snyder wrote: On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:36:59 GMT, "J. Taylor" wrote: [nothing of interest to anyone sane] Not that you supplied any evidence you would know! If you're going to sock-puppet, Cackles, you really ought to learn how to fake the headers. Strike two, wrong again! JT -- Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
|
|
#76
August 20th 06, 05:38 AM
posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,sci.astro,talk.origins
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
Charles Cagle wrote: In article . com, "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? How about from an an electromagnetic process that introduces new geometry into the universe? Where does a new thought come from? If matter is entirely relational like Lee Smolin postulates below... why must you insist that it is somehow created out of something that must come from somewhere as if its primary ingredients had to exist before it appeared? Ok...fine....don't explain where the mass comes from then. I could explain the origin of mass... but not in terms of 'where it comes from' if implicit in that question to which you're attempting to find the answer is some antecedent form of matter or energy that you require or insist that subsequent forms (the created matter) must have been derived from. And then, my explanation might be in terms, so simple that your complex adulterated thinking cannot and will not stoop down to grasp. Try me....what is your evidence for an earth that has increased its mass 8x in the past 300 million years? I don't care about where it came from, I just would like a list of measureable effects that you can point to that indicate that the earth has become more massive. The trip to the Truth isn't like you think... it first begins with you realizing that you don't know squat. But as long as you have a storehouse of psuedoknowledge that you think you know for sure simply because you're a typical rule learner and have never had a heart to actually know the truth... you simply cannot be taught. So I need to abandon all I know in order to learn something new? That's looney. The clue from Lee Smolin could have got you thinking but instead of cogitating on what he was suggesting it became more suitable for your egotistal mind to simply eruct a flippant response. It seems like a reasonable request to me. Face it fellow, the truth isn't for you. You're firewood, you're simply a prop, a weed, a tare that was made as a heuristic teaching device; the destruction of which is for the instruction of others who really are on their way to the truth. If you can demonstrate that you actually have a heart to learn then I'm sure you'll find a way to show that. In the meanwhile...go away, will you? Go away? What's the matter....the question too tough for you? Try this then...what empirical evidence exists that shows that the earth has become more massive over time on a scale sufficient to explain the proposed doubling of the radius over the past 300 million years....that would be a 8x increase in mass....or additional mass of 5.25 x 10^24 kgs....that works out to [if my math was accurate] about 2x10^12 kgs of additional mass every hour for the past 300 million years. That's 2 billion tonnes per hour.... What evidence is there that the earth has gained this additional mass every hour for the last 300 million years? 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) 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 - -- 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 -
|
|
#77
August 20th 06, 07:11 AM
posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,sci.astro,talk.origins
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
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 , 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! 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. 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! 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. 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, and how does chaotic then require expansion to then have to be precise? 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! 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. 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 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? The only thing shocking is the depth of deception. 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. 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? 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. 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/v442/n7102/edsumm/e060803-13.html 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. 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. 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. Earth shows expansion 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. 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! 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. JT
|
|
#78
August 20th 06, 07:57 AM
posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
Timberwoof wrote: In article , (Charles Cagle) wrote: You cheapen what you have to say by your dishonesty. Findlay isn't willing to assume that everything learned over the last two hundred years about the behavior of mass is wrong. In fact, he is. I asked him a few months ago where the added mass comes from and he talked about how we don't really know what mass is. That's right. Neither we do. I pointed out that over the past two hundred years or so people had worked out quite about how mass behaves and that a lot of what expanding earth demands violates those laws and principles. His response was that they're obviously wrong. No it wasn't. I take the view that physics has a future, and that not everything about mass and how it relates the charge and space is already known at all. And there are other alternatives to conventional physics. There comes a point when the science has to move forward. What is PT based on? The Wet Leg of Archimedes? (And look where that led us "The crust pushing the mantle down" ... "The mantle pushing the crust up") But you're basically saying by implication...even though we don't truly know the origin of mass nor the nature of mass nor of charge that there is nothing new more to learn. No, I'm saying that if you think there is more to learn about mass than physicists, who have been studying it intensely for quite a while, know, then you should provide some hard, solid evidence. They're not "studying mass", ..they're writing papers for career advancement. If they were "studying mass" they couldn't help but come up from time to time with revolutionary alternatives (if they're thinking that is). But they know if they do that they get sidelined. Happens all the time. It's in the nature of thinking, to come up with alternatives, some more radical than others. But alternatives are not welcomed by consensus. They are sticks through the spokes in the wheel that keep it going round. You have an immature view of what science and 'study' is about. Concluding that their principles‹on which all of the rest of science and engineering have quite successfully developed‹are wrong because they don't fit in with your hypothesis implies that physicists don't know anything. One day, ..one day, ..when you arrive there, ..at the Well at the World's end, ..it will seem exactly like that. And (when you get there) you will be the first to acknowledge it. So. Where does the mass come from? How does it acquire the correct chemical and dynamic properties? That's a good question. (Don't forget the electrical/space components of mass either, ..will you?) But as a geologist, that should not be your first concern. Your first concern should be to assess the veracity of the geological evidence, not speculate about where it leads. First things first. You show too much proclivity to jump to conclusions, and readiness to rely on what others say, to warrant the mantle of science. Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
|
|
#79
August 20th 06, 07:59 AM
posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
Timberwoof wrote: In article , (Charles Cagle) wrote: 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. Your first duty as a geologist, whatever it is, it is certainly not to speculate on matters of mechanism. No marks.
|
|
#80
August 20th 06, 08:00 AM
posted to sci.geo.geology,sci.physics,sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
Timberwoof wrote: In article .com, "don findlay" wrote: Nah, ..you've got the wrong end of the stick. Nobody's saying it started with the opening of the oceans. Once the mantle was penetrated, it *accellerated*, ..that's all. Something I have asked for since I got in on this conversation was essentially a graph of the supposed size of the Earth over the past 4.5 billion years. But nobody has ever provided the information, let alone any evidence of a mechanism that would explain it, or what the current rate of expansion is. That's because there isn't one. You need to make it up. Just think, Woof, ...that could be your contributution to bespattering the walls of the Church with blood. All you have to do is *FOCUS*. We expanders focus on the part since the emplacement of the ocean floors because that's the most obvious. The next bit is the putting together of what went before that, before the crustal split reached to the mantle. Now, the crustal split *DID* reach to the mantle, didn't it? And the biggest one of all recognised (by Pteros at least) is the Atlantic one. And there's no gainsaying that was symmetrical with rotation is there? ( Hell, its pivot is centred on the north pole - what more do you want?) And the one before that is centred on the equator (or also the poles, if you like). (So more there too). What's that got to do with 'plates' - that move independently? I mean where is the justification for separating the North American Plate from the South American Plate in a context of "moving independently about", when they obviously moved together? Why do you think a chronology would be already available in Plate Tectonics? I'll put one together when I've got time, but you might be waiting a few years.. Why don't you do it, if you're interested? If one were produced you'd find some way to negate it anyway. Wouldn't you? Never mind that you can't remember when I first asked the question. So tell me: how big was the Earth for every 50 million years over the past 4500 million years? Well it's doubled in the last whenever. That's a start. And it's that that leads you back to thinkoing that the planet must have been pretty small to 'begin' with. No bigger ('then') than the Archaean shields, I reckon. Imagine keep eating and getting really, really fat, and then suddenly you can't any more and you pop and your guts splurge out. Where does the mass come from? You mean all that collection of electrical charges and whatever else supposedly makes up 'mass'. There's an awful lot of space in that mass. Do you want to know where the space comes from too? Or are you OK with that? And keep splurging out. Are you saying it's OK not to count the getting-fat bit in the damage, but just count the mess? That's the opiate of the obese. ("..I'm not fat, .. There's no mess yet." ) ("..Once there's mess, I'll maybe think think about it, ..maybe, ..) That's a real cop-out! No copping-out allowed. If you're going to insist on getting fat, you have to count the eating part, not just the mess. See? Velikovsky suggested that Jupiter puked Venus. Maybe Earth eats planetoids to gain the mass it needs to gain weight. Dunno, ..work on it if you feel there could be something in it. That's what it's about, ..not reading what Velikovsky or anybody else says.. And the eating bit is the layers and layers of stratigraphic sequence. So the new mass gets added on top? That doesn't make sense if the Earth expanded form the inside. Of course it does. It's not all going up at the same millimetre rate like you want your ocean floor growth to be doing, is it. It doesn't go 'up' at all anyway, ..it goes 'out'. You need to reconfigure your reference frame away from your feet. ..and recognise *THAT* for what it is - *THE* opportunity for more research, ..not all those other piddling idiocies that they try to pass off as Earth Science - Like "Blobtonics", "Mantle Wind", "Ridge-push," "Subduction", .."light crust pushing dense mantle down" "mantle suck" .. etc etc.. idiocies that never go anywhere except round in a circle. Especially with your straw-man arguments which you have repeated so many times you confuse them with facts. If you or anybody else can come up with a type area for continental collision for example http://tinyurl.com/pcuo8 - to go with all the ocean floor dilation - and how that collision is manifested, we'd all be pretty glad to hear it. And when you've done that, come up with a global reason how you get global uplift to preserve the global monty of global stratigraphic sequence since the Cambrian to preserve it on the continental crust. Globally. I don't agree with the premise of global uplift. Well, that's at least something. There's hope for you yet. Or do you really mean you don't agree with global drop in sea level? (Careful now.) I don't agree with either. What do you mean? Do you think the sea can drop here without dropping there? Land is one thing, ..but sea's another. If you can do that we'll forgive you thinking about why that event coincided (more or less) with the explosion of life on the planet. So the Cambrian event happened on Earth 450 million years ago and the Earth started to expand 250 million years later. I think I can see the connection. Take it easy now. Do the simple one first. Yeah, they both supposedly happened on the same planet. (Or maybe you'd rather just go and read the book everybody's been reading for the last half century, No ... modern articles written in the last half decade or so. 'Modern' articles framed in the current paradigm of plate tectonics are virtually valueless, serving the interest of careers only, not science. A science that is built on a theory underpinned by the assumption that is its conclusion, is *Junk* That's just a stupid ad-hominem attack. You've got to come up with something better than that. It's not ad hominem at all. It's a fact Plate Tectonics is entirely founded on the assumption that the Earth cannot be getting bigger. That's why you need to presume a Panthalassa. It's where Plate Tectonics starts from. From the Panthalassa you get to the subduction zone (as a carrying down) - and all that crap about the ocean floors "shrinking" at this side to compensate for it "growing" at that side, ...and "moving" in between. Anybody with half a wit can see that *displacement* belongs to the continental side - not the oceanic side.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
