The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox

Timberwoof wrote:
In article ,
"J. Taylor" wrote:

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

You mean like colliding plates crumpling the crust to throw up
mountains? Have you got a type area? Or maybe you mean pulling apart
to throw up even bigger ones (type area spreading ridges)?

You have a good question about mineral paragenesis. (Oh dear, another
box to think outside of..)

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)

Yup. Keep going, ..and see how you go providing answers. The mark of
a good answer is in the question.


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

Come again? (Not a good question.)


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.

(Now just wait a minute, ..what's this...?)

In message
,
Charles Cagle writes
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.

Show me.


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.


ROFL. You've got that exactly 180 degrees wrong, Chuckie. There is no
accepted mass generation mechanism, and there are multiple radiometric
methods which agree http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html

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.

Peer review says otherwise :-) As you should know, because Usenet
provides its own form of peer review.


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


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.

You've been posting that for eight years. Isn't it time you got up to
date? That link is not merely dead but never made it into the Way Back
Machine www.archive.org/

The idea of a giant solar flare was originally proposed to explain
localised melting in rocks brought back by Apollo 11 (it inspired Larry
Niven's short story "Inconstant Moon" that became an "Outer Limits"
episode). But AFAIK the icy moons in the outer solar system don't show
any sign of melting, which casts doubt on both a solar flare and a
supernova.

J. Taylor kirjoitti:

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

In article
,
(Charles Cagle) wrote:

An absolutely empty claim.

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

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

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

-- Wakboth

In message . com, J.
Taylor writes

J. Taylor wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

It shows nothing of the sort.

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

Sorry, but it is just so.

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

--
Bob.

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 06:11:30 GMT, "J. Taylor"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

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

In article ,
"J. Taylor" wrote:

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

In article
,
(Charles Cagle) wrote:

In article , Jonathan
Silverlight wrote:

In message
,
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!

More or less.

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!

Although a lot of space dust and the like settles on earth every year
it is a tiny amount when compated to the mass of the planet. In the
last 3.5 billion years it may amount to a fraction of a percentage
point.

Then you have to allow for the mass lost due to dissipation into
space.



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.

Pardon?




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!

It does not.




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.

"Science does not produce correct results" - yeh, sure, we believe you
(not!)




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

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

Nope, just wrong, class G, and how does chaotic then require expansion
to then have to be precise?

Pardon?



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!

Does what?



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.

Plate techtonics.



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.

And subduction.

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.

On the front of creationists, sure.



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.

Then provide evidence to back up your claims.


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.

Strange that you seem unable to provide said evidence.




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.

Please explain how you think it works.



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

It does not.



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

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

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

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



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!

Then produce your arguments, give the evidence. What! You can't find
any evidence? How come I'm not surprised.



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

Evidence. Until you produce some you kust look like a kook.

--
Bob.

Charles Cagle wrote:

snip

Why do you suppose the cores of Sunspots are black except that there is a
gravitational terminus along the toroidal axis of a sunspot loop and that
produces a charge separation effect. The collapse of the loop produces a
huge radiation flux because electrons can now be acquired by the matter
along the loop. We call that a solar flare.

Sunspots are not black; they are very intensely luminous. It is only
that they are not as bright as the surrounding solar surface that makes
them look dark.

Does that affect the mechanism you propose here?

How do you suppose all that
planetary debris managed to be in an orbit between Mars and Jupiter.. As
early as 1802 the scientists looking at the Asteroid belt correctly
intuited that it was the remains of an exploded planet.

AFAIK, the asteroid belt is better explained as a bit of
proto-planetary material that Jupiter's gravity did not allow to form
into a planet.

IIRC, the mass in the asteroid belt is sufficient only for a very tiny
planet. Although, under the newly-proposed naming rules, it almost
certainly would have been classed as a (probably rocky) planet.

Nobody had a mechanism for how a planet could explode so they begin to
disbelieve what their razor sharp intuition had already subconsciously
deduced.

Such a mechanism is not needed. See above.

But say that you wanted to test the exploding planet hypothesis. How
would you do it? And how would you deal with the Occam's Razor issue?
The Jupiter's gravitation explanation is simple, elegant, and
well-supported. If you propose a HH-30-like mechanism, you have to
explain not only why that particular planet exploded, but also why all
the other planets (and stars?) with magentic fields did not also
explode.

I can hardly believe I live in such dark ages of physics that you people
cannot put all this together. HH-30 is generating mass in front of your
eyes. Planets grow.

You propose that the same mechanism that is causing HH-30 to expel jets
of energetic matter is occuring on other bodies with a magnetosphere.
If I am incorrect on this, please correct me.

If this is so, the evidence of HH-30 is that the mechanism would be
destructive to the body that was undergoing it. Do you have evidence
that there is something in the makeup of planetary bodies, the
occasional comet, and stable stars such as Sol that prevents the mass
creation system you think HH-30 represents from destabilizing the body
experiencing it?

snip

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


J. Taylor kirjoitti:

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

In article
,
(Charles Cagle) wrote:

An absolutely empty claim.

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

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

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

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

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

JT

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

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

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

It shows nothing of the sort.

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



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

Sorry, but it is just so.

And what nursing home are you writing from?


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

How you doing on reconciling reality and Santa Clause?

JT

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

In message . com, J.
Taylor writes

J. Taylor wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

JT