|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#461
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
In article
emailer.net, "David Chapman" wrote: Timberwoof wrote: You've presented this argument many times before, and it has been refuted many times before. What's the point? -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all. Is that why it was still being done on the Monday[1]? It maybe that it was *intended* to be abandoned, but it certainly wasn't by some members of the Assassins Guild. In what way is "Could I see your licence for those black clothes." "Eh?" "You've got to have a different relative velocity wrt me than you had before. Did you attend a summer program for high school students at the University of Iowa in 1977? -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all. |
#462
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
In article ,
Art Deco wrote: Timberwoof wrote: In article , Art Deco wrote: Timberwoof wrote: In article , Jonathan Silverlight wrote: How do you work that out? You aren't just nitpicking, you're actively avoiding the question of how an ocean 2000km wide can appear and disappear. How do you explain that in terms of a "theory" that says the present-day Atlantic opened as a result of the Earth expanding? It's not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's just the first wild guess based on limited evidence that JT ran across, and he refuses to give it up in favor of a real theory with real scientific data backing it up. As far as I can tell, the only evidence consists of QuickTime animations. Aren't they fun? I particularly like the one of Mars, and the guy's excuse that that's the only area he could get maps for. Heh, I missed that one. This is apparently what constitutes an "observed fact" to Findlay. He's got some trouble defining basic terms of science. When asked hard questions, Findlay responds with verbal diarrhea, and Taylor goes off into psychoanalysis. This expanding Earth stuff reminds me a lot of the hollow Earth urban legends, most of which start with the discovery of a large hole in the Arctic by early explorers, especially Robert Byrd. In both cases, none of the proponents bother to take the time to consider the implications of their ideas. Implications, schmimplications. Evidence from the ocean floors proves that 200 years of physics research has to be abandoned! -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all. |
#463
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:47:05 -0700, Timberwoof
wrote: In article , Art Deco wrote: Timberwoof wrote: In article , Art Deco wrote: Timberwoof wrote: In article , Jonathan Silverlight wrote: How do you work that out? You aren't just nitpicking, you're actively avoiding the question of how an ocean 2000km wide can appear and disappear. How do you explain that in terms of a "theory" that says the present-day Atlantic opened as a result of the Earth expanding? It's not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's just the first wild guess based on limited evidence that JT ran across, and he refuses to give it up in favor of a real theory with real scientific data backing it up. As far as I can tell, the only evidence consists of QuickTime animations. Aren't they fun? I particularly like the one of Mars, and the guy's excuse that that's the only area he could get maps for. Heh, I missed that one. This is apparently what constitutes an "observed fact" to Findlay. He's got some trouble defining basic terms of science. When asked hard questions, Findlay responds with verbal diarrhea, and Taylor goes off into psychoanalysis. This expanding Earth stuff reminds me a lot of the hollow Earth urban legends, most of which start with the discovery of a large hole in the Arctic by early explorers, especially Robert Byrd. In both cases, none of the proponents bother to take the time to consider the implications of their ideas. Implications, schmimplications. Evidence from the ocean floors proves that 200 years of physics research has to be abandoned! And Twiddle Dee said to Twiddle Dum |
#464
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
Ken Shackleton wrote: don findlay wrote: Ken Shackleton wrote: J. Taylor wrote: On 28 Aug 2006 18:57:51 -0700, "Ken Shackleton" wrote: Today's distance to the continental shelf is hardly relevant. Yes, if you wish to ignore what is known. What is known is that coastlines change over the millenia....and to assume that the distance that you measured with a ruler on a globe would not have changed in any significance during the past 430 million years or so is foolishness. Is it? Yes.....erosion can make dramatic changes to coastlines in a few millenia. Well, so you say. Can you give an example? The present coastlines are by and large the age of the oldest ocean floor. Tectonic forces dramatically reshape continents over tens of millions of years...so it is foolish of JT to assume that his present day measurement would hold for the same location 430 mya. Ken You're the one being obviously foolish here Ken, http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ng/inchworm.html You're operating from theory, ..not fact. How else do you think the continental margins can be retrofitted? What? ... No comment? ?? This is the type example that refutes what you say. Or you can similarly fit Australia to Antarctica, Australia to India, ..India to Africa, Antarctica to both.... And of course retrofit across the north Atlantic Where do you have evidence of "tectonic forces" reshaping continents - other than the say so of others who so say, purely as a wish according to the theory. The point is, ..in practice, there is nothing. The to-and-fro of shorelines is not the same as "reshaping a continent". |
#465
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
Ken Shackleton wrote: J. Taylor wrote: On 28 Aug 2006 20:21:22 -0700, "Ken Shackleton" wrote: What we have is an ocean floor less than 200mya which shows expansion. Chop off the last three words and I would agree. You want to assume ALL the previous ocean crust was destroyed without a trace and further assume the few bits of evidence for ocean crust, which exist, was deep ocean, when it shows it was either formed along the continental margin, or was a shallow sea. I never said, and I doubt that anyone would propose....that ALL previous ocean crust was destroyed. But they do, ..and they have to, to maintain what Plate Tectonics is about, namely the cycling of the oceanic crust: ocean floor is returned to the mantle in the same measure as it is created. The anomalies termed 'ophilites' are an embarassment to Plate Tectonics which would rather they were not there, because being more dense they should have sunk, rather than being thrust up, in just the same way as India 'subducting' under Asia is an embarrassment, because by definition lighter continental crust cannot subduct. And if both can do the opposite of what their definition via buoyancy entitles them to, then what value the definitions of buoyancy in regulating this 'engine' of plate tectonics? (None, if you ask 'Plumes'). Ancient ocean sediments are found everywhere, particularly on the tops of mountains. Mountains tend to appear on continental margins in the form of curvilinear arcs. Exactly, ...not only that, ..the entirely of stratigraphic sequence occurs above a life on the ocean wave. That is, the whole of the geological column globally has been 'exhumed' *GLOBALLY* - a behaviour that has no explanation in the colliding plates of Plate Tectonics. I live in western Canada, and I like to hike in the mountains. I have frequently seen marine fossils in the shale and limestone deposits that make up the Rockies in Alberta. I once found a piece of coral at the summit of a peak near Canmore....8,500 feet ASL. I take it you mean the Rocky Mountains? .... a veritable paragon of "crustal crumpling by plate collision, ..yes/no? :- http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/rockies.html http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/mtbuild.html These mountains are made of marine sediments/limestone that were laid down in the Paleozoic, many have been dated to the Cambrian....how can EE explain this? PT does a pretty good job of it. How do see the absence of crustal crumpling then? (This sort of elevation is not only a natural consequence of Earth expansion, ..it *DEFINES* it. |
#466
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
Ken Shackleton wrote: J. Taylor wrote: On 29 Aug 2006 10:57:25 -0700, "Ken Shackleton" wrote: Is it? Yes.....erosion can make dramatic changes to coastlines in a few millenia. Tectonic forces dramatically reshape continents over tens of millions of years...so it is foolish of JT to assume that his present day measurement would hold for the same location 430 mya. Make me laugh. With erosion the distance then could have been the full 600 miles. It is your case you are defeating with this argument, not mine. :-) I did not make an argument, I only pointed out that your assumption that the distance between the mountains and the sea has remained constant for the past 430 million years might be in error. No. With the penetration to the mantle and the consequent shift in deformation to the creation of the ocean floors, the continents are pretty dead. Erosion is by far and away a vertical phenomenon, ....much more than it is a lateral one (sea). The continents are 'fossilised' crust. It's the ocean floors and continental margins that are doing the job of 'tectonics' now. The time of the continental interiors being tectonically active (except for a couple of major lines that describe hemispherical adjustment to enlargement and spin) are over. The continents are simply being rubbed down. The major river systems of the world were (and still are) ancient (Pangaean). |
#467
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
Ken Shackleton wrote: don findlay wrote: Ken Shackleton wrote: J. Taylor wrote: On 26 Aug 2006 12:38:43 -0700, "Ken Shackleton" wrote: That's right. The light continental crust pushes the denser mantle crust down, wherever and whenever it finds any "Floaties" again, Ken. "Light" continental crust is indeed less dense that the oceanic basalt [2.75 s.g. vs. 3.30 s.g respectively]. However, oceanic basalt is *thin*, less than 6 miles thick; whereas the continental crust is up to 25 miles thick. So...it is quite easy to imagine two oceanic plates, driven by convection, pushing towards one another.....one of the plates carrying with it a large chunk of continental crust.....what happens? Precisely what has been observed....one of the oceanic plates subducts beneath the continental crust...which is both less dense, and far more massive than the oceanic crust that it is colliding with. Ah, but the piece of crust doing the colliding is India. Why should India be forced under Asia, and as a consequence lift the whole of Asia up? Now, you know, ... it used to collide with Asia and crumple it, ...but there's nothing crumpled about Asia. All the 'mountains' are eroded plateau. Now it's supposed to be forced under Asia (every year, ..by ten centimetres of dyke intrusion at the Indian Ocean ridge). Now, do you get that? Ten centimetres of dyke intrusion (a year) is forcing India along and thrusting it underneath Asia and as a conseuqence, lifting up the Himalayas, which is also being affected by global warming and growing grass (according to professors at Yale (or is it Harvard) to slow it all down: Sunlight slows mountain growth. I'm sure there's a numbers man somewhere who could calculate the energy dissipated in this little exercise, and see just what the residual effect of this ten centimetres intrusion actually is, ...(when it comes to lifting up the whole of Asia..) http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/whatis.html#horns (Come on Ken, ..Get the floaties on and jump (ship). It's sinking faster than 10cm of dyke intrusion. ) What I don't understand is how ordinarily sensible people can resolutely vest their belief in 'authority', simply because it *is* authority, .. I'm afraid like many others, you misapprehend the necessities of academia. ) |
#468
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
Henry Schmidt wrote: On the long hot summer day of Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:07:22 +0000, J.Taylor dribbled: It doesn't matter who I am, since you wouldn't know anything about me anyway, beyond anything I've ever posted online, which is only hearsay. Identity is very difficult to expose on the net. Nobody's interested in identity - only the readiness of people to reveal it. That says a lot. A measure of "dribble", if you like. |
#469
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
On the long hot summer day of Wed, 30 Aug 2006 04:30:50 -0700, don findlay dribbled:
Henry Schmidt wrote: On the long hot summer day of Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:07:22 +0000, J.Taylor dribbled: It doesn't matter who I am, since you wouldn't know anything about me anyway, beyond anything I've ever posted online, which is only hearsay. Identity is very difficult to expose on the net. Nobody's interested in identity - only the readiness of people to reveal it. That says a lot. A measure of "dribble", if you like. So I can make up a name out of whole cloth, and as long as it looks "real", that's all that matters? Because this is usenet, and I can do that. So can you. |
#470
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:04:15 GMT, Henry Schmidt
wrote: On the long hot summer day of Wed, 30 Aug 2006 04:30:50 -0700, don findlay dribbled: Henry Schmidt wrote: On the long hot summer day of Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:07:22 +0000, J.Taylor dribbled: It doesn't matter who I am, since you wouldn't know anything about me anyway, beyond anything I've ever posted online, which is only hearsay. Identity is very difficult to expose on the net. Nobody's interested in identity - only the readiness of people to reveal it. That says a lot. A measure of "dribble", if you like. So I can make up a name out of whole cloth, and as long as it looks "real", that's all that matters? Because this is usenet, and I can do that. So can you. All of which means, if such a simple question as a name cannot be honestly answered, what hope is there for having an honest discussion with someone on a complex issue like the Earth's history. What is known, from the beginning, they have no intention of dealing in facts. JT |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|