The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox

Timberwoof wrote:
In article . com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:04:04 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

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 reality?

Never mind the Pacific Paradox, in the mind of the faithful all
miracles are real.

JT

I had to do some searching to find anything about the "Pacific Paradox"
and it's only mentioned in a geological context in a handful of
"expansionist" web sites. Could you point me to an independent document
that shows that "the circumference of the Pacific has actually increased
by nearly fifty per cent."
http://microlnx.com/expansion/rogue_scientist.htm
There's no reason for the Pacific to expand, because it's currently
contracting, as shown by GPS measurements
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html - yes, I know I've posted
this before - and suggested by subduction. It was the discovery of
subduction in the Pacific that led most people to abandon expansion,
which had been proposed to explain the expanding Atlantic.

No it wasn't. It was as it still is, the belief that there was no way
it could happen. It was more acceptable to make to make an assumption
that validated current 'knowledge' -

That happens a lot. I know this guy Don Findlay who "knows" that the
Earth expanded between 200 million years ago and now, and he's perfectly
willing to assume that everything learned about the behavior of mass
over the past two hundred years is wrong.

Oh., that's you, Don! Hi, there. I thought you were tired of talking to
geologists.

I am. It fatigues me no end, ..having to talk to *such* bloody idiots,
...if they can't work out what the emplacement of the ocean floors means
without having to make up all sorts of absurd assumptions, ..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.

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.

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.

(Or maybe you'd rather just go and read the book everybody's been
reading for the last half century, and consider yourself supping from
the Well at the World's End, ....and educated. Like that dope
'George'.

:-)

In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:
In article . com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:04:04 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

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...e060803-13.htm
l
Geological evidence for a geologist, Don.

What reality?

Never mind the Pacific Paradox, in the mind of the faithful all
miracles are real.

JT

I had to do some searching to find anything about the "Pacific Paradox"
and it's only mentioned in a geological context in a handful of
"expansionist" web sites. Could you point me to an independent document
that shows that "the circumference of the Pacific has actually
increased
by nearly fifty per cent."
http://microlnx.com/expansion/rogue_scientist.htm
There's no reason for the Pacific to expand, because it's currently
contracting, as shown by GPS measurements
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html - yes, I know I've
posted
this before - and suggested by subduction. It was the discovery of
subduction in the Pacific that led most people to abandon expansion,
which had been proposed to explain the expanding Atlantic.

No it wasn't. It was as it still is, the belief that there was no way
it could happen. It was more acceptable to make to make an assumption
that validated current 'knowledge' -

That happens a lot. I know this guy Don Findlay who "knows" that the
Earth expanded between 200 million years ago and now, and he's perfectly
willing to assume that everything learned about the behavior of mass
over the past two hundred years is wrong.

Oh., that's you, Don! Hi, there. I thought you were tired of talking to
geologists.

I am. It fatigues me no end, ..having to talk to *such* bloody idiots,
..if they can't work out what the emplacement of the ocean floors means
without having to make up all sorts of absurd assumptions,

Like Earth expansion that started only in the last 200 million years and
stopped right before we started looking. That's pretty absurd.

..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.

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.

(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.

and consider yourself supping from
the Well at the World's End, ....and educated. Like that dope
'George'.

:-)

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

Timberwoof wrote:
In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:
In article . com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:04:04 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

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...e060803-13.htm
l
Geological evidence for a geologist, Don.

What reality?

Never mind the Pacific Paradox, in the mind of the faithful all
miracles are real.

JT

I had to do some searching to find anything about the "Pacific Paradox"
and it's only mentioned in a geological context in a handful of
"expansionist" web sites. Could you point me to an independent document
that shows that "the circumference of the Pacific has actually
increased
by nearly fifty per cent."
http://microlnx.com/expansion/rogue_scientist.htm
There's no reason for the Pacific to expand, because it's currently
contracting, as shown by GPS measurements
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html - yes, I know I've
posted
this before - and suggested by subduction. It was the discovery of
subduction in the Pacific that led most people to abandon expansion,
which had been proposed to explain the expanding Atlantic.

No it wasn't. It was as it still is, the belief that there was no way
it could happen. It was more acceptable to make to make an assumption
that validated current 'knowledge' -

That happens a lot. I know this guy Don Findlay who "knows" that the
Earth expanded between 200 million years ago and now, and he's perfectly
willing to assume that everything learned about the behavior of mass
over the past two hundred years is wrong.

Oh., that's you, Don! Hi, there. I thought you were tired of talking to
geologists.

I am. It fatigues me no end, ..having to talk to *such* bloody idiots,
..if they can't work out what the emplacement of the ocean floors means
without having to make up all sorts of absurd assumptions,

Like Earth expansion that started only in the last 200 million years and
stopped right before we started looking. That's pretty absurd.

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. Imagine keep eating and
getting really, really fat, and then suddenly you can't any more and
you pop and your guts splurge out. 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? And the eating bit is the
layers and layers of stratigraphic sequence.


..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.)


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.


(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*


and consider yourself supping from
the Well at the World's End, ....and educated. Like that dope
'George'.

:-)

--
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,
"don findlay" wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:
In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:
In article . com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:04:04 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

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...umm/e060803-13
.htm
l
Geological evidence for a geologist, Don.

What reality?

Never mind the Pacific Paradox, in the mind of the faithful all
miracles are real.

JT

I had to do some searching to find anything about the "Pacific
Paradox"
and it's only mentioned in a geological context in a handful of
"expansionist" web sites. Could you point me to an independent
document
that shows that "the circumference of the Pacific has actually
increased
by nearly fifty per cent."
http://microlnx.com/expansion/rogue_scientist.htm
There's no reason for the Pacific to expand, because it's currently
contracting, as shown by GPS measurements
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html - yes, I know I've
posted
this before - and suggested by subduction. It was the discovery of
subduction in the Pacific that led most people to abandon
expansion,
which had been proposed to explain the expanding Atlantic.

No it wasn't. It was as it still is, the belief that there was no
way
it could happen. It was more acceptable to make to make an
assumption
that validated current 'knowledge' -

That happens a lot. I know this guy Don Findlay who "knows" that the
Earth expanded between 200 million years ago and now, and he's
perfectly
willing to assume that everything learned about the behavior of mass
over the past two hundred years is wrong.

Oh., that's you, Don! Hi, there. I thought you were tired of talking to
geologists.

I am. It fatigues me no end, ..having to talk to *such* bloody idiots,
..if they can't work out what the emplacement of the ocean floors means
without having to make up all sorts of absurd assumptions,

Like Earth expansion that started only in the last 200 million years and
stopped right before we started looking. That's pretty absurd.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

..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.

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.

and consider yourself supping from
the Well at the World's End, ....and educated. Like that dope
'George'.

:-)

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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. You are attempting to impose the dishonest
workings of your own mind (upon which you are an authority because you
daily experience it) on to others.

I cut this some years ago.

http://topping.www-user.imagiware.com/PIFLARE.htm

Cosmogenic radiocarbon as a source of error at Paleo-Indian sites and
evidence for a giant solar flare in prehistory.
William Topping
Rt. 2, Box 2779, Baldwin, Michigan 49304 USA

partial quote "The evidence from Paleo-Indian sites leads to the
conclusion that a giant flare increased the proportion of radiocarbon in
charcoal at archaeological sites in place at the time of the event, up to
a certain depth with more shallow deposits affected the most, and led to
the retention of young dates by modern researchers. A giant flare (or CME)
would cause a large shockwave. The partially distorted atmosphere would
act as a funnel in which a pulse of heavy ions and/or micrometeoritic
material streamed into a particular geographic area. As the earth turned,
other particles would bathe terrain in more westerly regions above a
particular latitude until the effects of the flare subsided. "

What they actually claim is neutron bombardment, possibly from a
supernova.

It is possible that Topping has come to other conclusions and I've not
read any other papers of his recently. I found this one years back and
what he expressed at that time was a belief in solar flaring as he wrote
above.

Richard Firestone, at least, is a respectable scientist who has posted
his work on a US government web site
http://ie.lbl.gov/Paleo/paleo.html but are their ideas widely
accepted?

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.
C 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 -

In article
,
Timberwoof wrote:

In article . com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:04:04 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

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 reality?

Never mind the Pacific Paradox, in the mind of the faithful all
miracles are real.

JT

I had to do some searching to find anything about the "Pacific Paradox"
and it's only mentioned in a geological context in a handful of
"expansionist" web sites. Could you point me to an independent document
that shows that "the circumference of the Pacific has actually increased
by nearly fifty per cent."
http://microlnx.com/expansion/rogue_scientist.htm
There's no reason for the Pacific to expand, because it's currently
contracting, as shown by GPS measurements
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html - yes, I know I've posted
this before - and suggested by subduction. It was the discovery of
subduction in the Pacific that led most people to abandon expansion,
which had been proposed to explain the expanding Atlantic.

No it wasn't. It was as it still is, the belief that there was no way
it could happen. It was more acceptable to make to make an assumption
that validated current 'knowledge' -

That happens a lot. I know this guy Don Findlay who "knows" that the
Earth expanded between 200 million years ago and now, and he's perfectly
willing to assume that everything learned about the behavior of mass
over the past two hundred years is wrong.

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. 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.

--
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 -

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

In article
,
(Charles Cagle) wrote:

In article
,
Timberwoof wrote:

In article . com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:04:04 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

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...e060803-13.htm
l
Geological evidence for a geologist, Don.

What reality?

Never mind the Pacific Paradox, in the mind of the faithful all
miracles are real.

JT

I had to do some searching to find anything about the "Pacific Paradox"
and it's only mentioned in a geological context in a handful of
"expansionist" web sites. Could you point me to an independent document
that shows that "the circumference of the Pacific has actually
increased
by nearly fifty per cent."
http://microlnx.com/expansion/rogue_scientist.htm
There's no reason for the Pacific to expand, because it's currently
contracting, as shown by GPS measurements
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html - yes, I know I've
posted
this before - and suggested by subduction. It was the discovery of
subduction in the Pacific that led most people to abandon expansion,
which had been proposed to explain the expanding Atlantic.

No it wasn't. It was as it still is, the belief that there was no way
it could happen. It was more acceptable to make to make an assumption
that validated current 'knowledge' -

That happens a lot. I know this guy Don Findlay who "knows" that the
Earth expanded between 200 million years ago and now, and he's perfectly
willing to assume that everything learned about the behavior of mass
over the past two hundred years is wrong.

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. 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.

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. 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.

So. Where does the mass come from? How does it acquire the correct
chemical and dynamic properties?

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

But the claims made by earth expansionists are 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.

--
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, "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. 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. 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. 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?




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 -