The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox

On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 10:06:53 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

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


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

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


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

If he tries changing his email address around here he will soon get
his marching orders.

--
Bob.

In article om,
"don findlay" wrote:

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

don findlay wrote:
Petra wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:

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

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

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

Petra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To begin with such an assumption (when you don't even know - like
everyone else doesn't know - exactly what mass is)

It is true that we don't know what mass "is" but we do know an awful lot
about how it behaves ... and how it doesn't. But with a PhD in geology,
you should know that.

It's interesting that you offer up all kinds of detailed explanations
everywhere except in the one question that everybody wants to know the
answer to, and there you deny that it's important, or you conveniently
leave it for someone else to figure out for you. No, you figure it out.

places you
squarely in the centre of the box you are trying to break out of (if
your question is genuine).

One easy way to break people out of their little boxes would be for you
to explain to us all what it is about matter that everybody has been
overlooking over the past 200 years that allows for your claimed
expansion. But since you can't, people are understandably skeptical.
Conservation of mass and all that other inconvenient stuff has worked
remarkably well in all other sciences and even exceptions to the rule
have been found to observe yet another level of conservation laws.

You have some geological evidence and an explanation for it. There is
another explanation, and it nicely unifies the formation and geology of
the planet. Your explanation doesn't do that. Worse yet, it has some
serious problems and violates many other well-established principles. It
makes sense to reject that hypothesis in favor of a theory that has much
evidence supporting it. And you can't get away with disparaging that as
being stuck in a box.

Let's see now ... this system of investigation and theorizing we call
"science" has worked remarkably well‹better than any other system‹and
you want us to abandon it on some flimsy evidence and violation of
principles derived from a whole lot of other evidence? That's not going
to happen.

Everything we see of the ocean floors and
the geology of the continents (especially mountain belts continental
margins and stratigraphic sequence) is testimony to enlargement and
growth.

No, it isn't. It surely doesn't explain the compressional folding of
mountain ranges. (Yes, I've seen that photo of one place in Tibet where
strata appear to be nice and horizontal. You ignored the other photos
other people showed where things are not like that at all.)

I.e., everything we can see. Why do you put such store for
negation in what can't be seen, the destruction at subduction zones,
..when conceptually it is manifest nonsense.

For one thing, it's plausible, unlike your expanding earth, which relies
on processes which can't be seen and are manifest nonsense.

Transform faults, the
expression of creation of the ocean floors, don't even reach to the
Western Pacific margin.

You could have asked people about that at that geodynamics conference
you didn't attend. Except, of course, that you're the world's only
leading expert in the field, and everybody else in the world doing work
on that is deluded by conservation of mass.

Speaking of boxes, have you considered that the earth expansion may have
happened without requiring new mass, but resulting from a decrease in
the Earth's density? That would result in a decreased surface gravity,
of course, not an increased one as you seem to have claimed elsewhere.
What is your evidence for change in surface gravity?

So what, then, about subduction? And the
Eastern pacific is "overriding". And what about subduction anyway,
when it is 'crust-pushing- everything- down' manifest nonsense?

Of course it's nonsense. That's why you keep repeating it although
you've been told many times by a number of experts in the field that
that's not how it works.

The ocean floors grow by cell division - the cells being the segments
between transform faults.

Manifest nonsense.

People thought Tesla was a nut

People thought Bozo was a nut, too.

for measuring
his **** and his ****, v. his food intake. Who knows, ..maybe he was
onto something.

Maybe he was relying on the law of conservation of mass in his
experimental design.

So if you want to get scientific about it, about
'origins, and talking about them, then you could do worse than apply
for a grant, ..it should be well received in this quarter..

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

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

Waaaaa!

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

Timberwoof wrote:

Let's see now ... this system of investigation and theorizing we call
"science" has worked remarkably well‹better than any other system‹and
you want us to abandon it on some flimsy evidence and violation of
principles derived from a whole lot of other evidence? That's not going
to happen.

"Not going to happen"? Of course it will. It already is:-
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...aed345/?hl=en#
....though I'm not sure why they claim that recognising the weakest link
in the chain is a weak zone is some sort of new realisation. But
'Everything-Old is New-Again' is typical of the not-invented-here hype
when having to back-track. Add it to the growing realising of the
importance of spin (also back-tracking), and we might yet see Plate
Tectonics back up to that hundred-year-old cross-roads, and confront
what it has never been prepared to do, ... that the ocean floors are
growing, ..not moving.


Everything we see of the ocean floors and
the geology of the continents (especially mountain belts continental
margins and stratigraphic sequence) is testimony to enlargement and
growth.

No, it isn't. It surely doesn't explain the compressional folding of
mountain ranges. (Yes, I've seen that photo of one place in Tibet where
strata appear to be nice and horizontal. You ignored the other photos
other people showed where things are not like that at all.)

Mountains are eroded plateaus - nothing to do with crumpling of the
crust. You weren't paying attention in geomorphology. And globally
distributed Plateaus (to several kilometres in height above sea-level)
result from the changing curvature of the Earth as it slows and gets
bigger.... (You read it first here.) (as does tectonics) (which you
also read first here.)


Speaking of boxes, have you considered that the earth expansion may have
happened without requiring new mass, but resulting from a decrease in
the Earth's density? That would result in a decreased surface gravity,
of course, not an increased one as you seem to have claimed elsewhere.
What is your evidence for change in surface gravity?

Talking about gravity density and volume anchors you securely in the
box you need to break out of. First you need to know what mass is.
Then how it comes into existence. Neither of those questions are
answered within geology. How it behaves once it does *IS* the business
of geology, and *that's* what you should be addressing.


Of course it's nonsense. That's why you keep repeating it although
you've been told many times by a number of experts in the field that
that's not how it works.

That's the nonsensical corner PT has painted itself into - the crust
pushing the mantle down (to cause subduction zones) at the same time as
the mantle pushes the crust up - to cause the Eastern Pacific
Cordilleras. Neat trick, eh? ( "To every action there is an equal and
opposite reaction") ( Ptero-logic.)


The ocean floors grow by cell division - the cells being the segments
between transform faults.

Manifest nonsense.

Transform faults define along-ridge growth by successive segmentation
of the ridge:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/transforms.html
(Another one you read here first.)

Ridges grow by exhumation of underplating, not dyke intrusion
(And yet another one..)

You've a lot to learn, Woof. But first you'll have to discard
everything you already are.. Your teachers have a job to do, that's
all. They're not interested in the veracity or otherwise of what
they're teaching. It's just 'curriculum'. And the Geological Society
of London for one at least, is concerned about it.
"This confusion extends beyond the National Curriculum into A/AS level
teaching. The problem that teachers and, for that matter, authors of
school text books have to face up to is that geologists need to employ
two different concepts of layering within the outer part of the Earth
to understand and explain geological processes"
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere

The "confusion" they're talking about is the confusion that is arising
within Plate Tectonics and its proper articulation - not mine. I'm
only drawing attention to it. It's the "confusion" that leads to such
nonsensical ideas as crustal collision giving mountains, and mantle
pushing crust up (or is it crust pushing mantle down?)

....And netiher by the way are academics particularly interested in the
veracity of it either. Their only interested in getting their papers
published, and the more confusion there is, the more it suits them to
do that. You can publish any rubbish provided you remain within the
jargon. Read Stuartie on "The Gift that Keeps on Giving" - straight
from the Horse's mouth:-
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...b8e4fe6b316aae
..."keeps on giving..." - no matter how much you need to change it.

The goose that lays the golden egg. That's the 'science' you're
talking about - the science of consensus, though it seems you are not
aware of it. ("If it is consensus it is not science")
http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...s_quote04.html

Yeah, ..well, ..that shut you up, didn't it... Like most around here,
you don't seem to understand what this business of science (/consensus,
enquiry, career scientists etc etc) is all about. You only think
you're learning something worthwhile 'cos you've exams to pass, and who
knows, ..maybe you want to be a teacher and teach all that garbage to
have other newslates lap it all up. Ask that Wiseguy how he's getting
on with his beachballs, ..and the assumptions that need to be made
there to make all those strike-slip faults strike-slip. ...and the
assumptions that need to be made to make subduction zones subduct.




(Bloody Hell, ...Ocean floors by dyke intrusion, ..that never cut
transform faults, ...A worldful of 'scientists' walking the walk,
talking the talk, ... I ask you..) (I mean I don't) There's
nothing in it even worth the time of day, it's so much garbage.

In article . com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Yeah, ..well, ..that shut you up, didn't it... Like most around here,
you don't seem to understand what this business of science (/consensus,
enquiry, career scientists etc etc) is all about. You only think
you're learning something worthwhile 'cos you've exams to pass, and who
knows, ..maybe you want to be a teacher and teach all that garbage to
have other newslates lap it all up. Ask that Wiseguy how he's getting
on with his beachballs, ..and the assumptions that need to be made
there to make all those strike-slip faults strike-slip. ...and the
assumptions that need to be made to make subduction zones subduct.

Oh. A Proof by Harangue. Boy, that will convince people.


(Bloody Hell, ...Ocean floors by dyke intrusion, ..that never cut
transform faults, ...A worldful of 'scientists' walking the walk,
talking the talk, ... I ask you..) (I mean I don't) There's
nothing in it even worth the time of day, it's so much garbage.

You're certainly not interested in any recent developments in
geodynamics, else you would have attended that conference. You could
have asked leading scientists some tough questions, but instead you just
went on posting your proofs by assertion, argument from incredulity, and
strawman arguments. I guess you do think you're the only smartest person
in the world, if you think you can get away with presenting your case
that way.

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

Timberwoof wrote:

You're certainly not interested in any recent developments in
geodynamics, else you would have attended that conference. You could
have asked leading scientists some tough questions,

Leading scientists eh? You mean about the blind? Or do you mean
something about a variation on 'bums' and sniffing them?

don findlay wrote:

Yeah, ..well, ..that shut you up, didn't it... Like most around here,
you don't seem to understand what this business of science (/consensus,
enquiry, career scientists etc etc) is all about. You only think
you're learning something worthwhile 'cos you've exams to pass, and who
knows, ..maybe you want to be a teacher and teach all that garbage to
have other newslates lap it all up. Ask that Wiseguy how he's getting
on with his beachballs, ..and the assumptions that need to be made
there to make all those strike-slip faults strike-slip. ...and the
assumptions that need to be made to make subduction zones subduct.




(Bloody Hell, ...Ocean floors by dyke intrusion, ..that never cut
transform faults, ...A worldful of 'scientists' walking the walk,
talking the talk, ... I ask you..) (I mean I don't) There's
nothing in it even worth the time of day, it's so much garbage.

The Earth isn't expanding; rather, your brain is shrinking.

--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen

In article
,
Timberwoof wrote:

In article
,
(Charles Cagle) wrote:

In article . com, "Ken
Shackleton" wrote:

don findlay wrote:
Petra wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:

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

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

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

Petra

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

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

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

That's precisely the question.

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

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


Sure..here's an equation for neutron genesis....

�P(subH)(subsubtau)/�t=Del X H(sub tau) = n^o = neutrons

Where P=Poynting vector density, The H sub sub tau = is indicating that
this Poynting vector density change is occurring on an H flux toroid
structure.

Since such a structure is closed then the evolution of the vector field
indicated means that as it expands on the equipotential surface of the
flux toroid and that it must self intersect and that self intersection
will occur most predominantly at the inner equator that is at the quantum
scale. In a compact flux torus this produces tiny flux toroids at the
quantum scale that are neutrons.

Poynting vector density change indicates motion and since all motion
between quanta is relative then this can be compared to a partial
E/partial t.

Compact large scale flux toroids can produce matter...they make neutrons.
A flux toroid also is a gravitational source since any flux toroid can be
ideally reduced geometrically to a charge and its conjugate in
superposition. The neutrons so produced typically will accumulate along
the flux toroid's toroidal axis which is the gravitational terminus of any
flux toroid. Since a gravitational field is really a time rate gradient
structure any particles near the terminus will, from the viewpoint of any
outside observer, overlap in the same momentum space. When elmentary
charged particles are overlapping in the same momentum space they will
behave opposite to the expectations of Coulomb's law. Don't fight this
because this is easy to prove using Maxwell's equations and known
experimental data. You just never had anyone before who could look at the
data correctly. Therefore, any gravitational field of sufficient
intensity will produce a strong charge separation effect. Any neutrons
that decay while along the gravitational terminus loop will have their
emitted beta particle (electron) excluded from the gravitational terminus
region. The matter that accumulates, therefore, along that gravitational
terminus, will be undifferentiated into normal atomic species. I've
called such matter 'Isaacium' since the name Isaac in Hebrew means the
'laughter of disbelief' ...and I'm sure naysayers upon hearing of the
existence of Isaacium rings in the cores of stars and planets will laugh
in disbelief ...even if the physics associated with this actually answers
a host of questions in astrophysics and geophysics. When a flux torus
undergoes a mode change back to the Del X E vector field mode the
gravitational terminus loop rapidly expands. If the accumulated Isaacium
cannot rapidly accommodate itself to this expansion then it will be left
outside of the gravitational terminus region and will rapidly acquire
electrons (since the charge separation effect associated with the
gravitational loop isn't strongly present outside the terminus region) and
the Isaacium will begin to rapidly differentiate into a variety of atomic
species undergoing at least a 10e6 volumetric expansion from nuclear
volume to atomic volume. The acquisition of electrons by the Isaacium
produces a huge flux of gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet and the entire
visible spectrum. When this happens with a star we see a supernova and we
see that the primary signature of a supernova is a an expanding ring of
material. We should see that to get such an expanding ring we must start
with a ring in the first place. When the Earth's field returns to the Del
X E vector field mode the Isaacium explosively expands in the same fashion
and this produces a strong curvature differential at the mantle /
lithosphere boundary. Earth growth is cyclic and does not take aeons.
Gravity will collapse the cupping that occurs because of the rapid
curvature change and produce entire mountain chains almost overnight.
Other regions that have mountains will pull apart and entire mountain
systems will begin descending at the rate of hundreds of meters per hour.


To really understand all of this requires a completely new physics that
starts off with a completely new model for the unit charge. I can show
you how to derive the unit charge from first principles...meaning form a
simple set of nine quantum - quantum motion axioms. We can do it
deductively. Step by step and we end up with a unique model for the unit
charge and you actually completely understand the nature of charge and
once you understand the nature of charge it becomes absolutely
straightforward to unify electromagnetism and gravity. All we have ever
lacked is a proper model for the unit charge of a charged particle. A
bright high schooler can learn this and all he has to have is a basic
understanding of vector calculus. Once you know truly how relational the
universe actually is you'll come to a completely different vision of the
universe...one that works, one that will change just about everything you
now believe.

There's a very good 1886 Sci American account of a ball lightning event
(Curious Phenomenon In Venezuela
Cowgill, Warner; Scientific American, 55:389, December 18, 1886
) that upon modern analysis we can see that it was producing an intense
thermal neutron flux that severely injured nine persons.. the radiation
from that BL, because of its effects could only have been neutrons..not
gamma radiation, nor x-rays, nor ultraviolet nor beta particles but only
neutrons could have done what this event did. That account doesn't prove
neutron genesis but it was a great clue.

During plasma pinch experiments during Project Sherwood (1951-1958) huge
bursts of neutrons (10e8) were generated. They never figured out the
source of those neutrons though they tried hard. By the time the closed
down the program in 1958 they still hadn't solve the mystery of the orgin
of those neutrons ...and they had nearly identical results at multiple
labs that were involved in the program. The problem was that they were
looking for a conservative process instead of an electromagnetic new
geometry creating process.

Did your mother or father or some witless physics professor teach you that
if no one has yet seen a thing then it cannot exist?

You people have no clue as to the physics of ball lightning... one that
was two meters in diameter passed by a house in front of witnesses and
blew the nails out of the side of the house and pulled the nails out of a
door frame it came near.

Pace VanDevender of Los Alamos recently sent me an account of a 2 ft
diameter ball that excavated 200 cubic yards of wet peat in under 20
minutes. This was a well documented eyewitness account from Ireland in
1868. What?..you want to claim that you know all about physics... about
the orgin of mass? You want to explain how that ball managed to excavate
200 tons of wet earth in under 20 minutes with your crap physics that is
masquerading for wisdom these days in academia?

A frequent signature of BL is a loud humming... Why? because it is
oscillating between modes... For crying out loud, what do you think the
solar cycle is all about but a large scale flux loop system that is
oscillating between modes. Why is the output of HH-30 cyclic? What?
What? You can't put these pieces together? Why not?

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. 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.

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

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.

Charles Cagle



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

A what?

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

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

No...you don't see. You probably cannot see. You are not among the
target audience. You are unable to correlate data in a logical fashion
even when it is handed to you on a platter. Don't worry about this. You
can't see because the truth is probably not in you and I've had enough
experience with the blind to know that I can't heal you. You have to
want to be healed. You have to want the truth more than anything else..
If you don't ...then you never will come into the possession of it. You
don't know about the solar cycle and its dipole reversals?

Next, I doubt that you even have a clue about what 'evidence' really is.
So, discussing it with you would be futile. Evidence is an unspecified
amount of data that an individual takes or accepts as being consistent
with an hypothesis. Proof is an arbitrary an unspecified amount of
evidence. But in logic ...proof has another meaning ...and you can
prove..using deductive logic quite a few things. But we always must start
with some sorts of axiom or postulates. How about you provide me with
the foundational postulates for existence? When you can do that ...feel
free to ask me for evidence or proof...Until... don't even entertain the
notion that you are half as clever as you think that you are.


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

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.

(Psalms 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in
secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.)

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 -

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?

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 -

In article .com, "don
findlay" wrote:

Ken Shackleton wrote:



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

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

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

Don...

I'm in your camp and admire your integrity. You are driven by a powerful
intuition of the Truth and this is something that your detractors have
little experience with. You don't know the source of the matter that
causes Earth growth and that is fine. Carey didn't know either but often
got sucked into playing the silly game of conservation physics. There's
lots of really plain 'evidence' of EE processes and you don't need to
provide a source for the new matter that makes the Earth grow ...let's be
fair...shall they tell you the source of the matter or the monad from
which emerged their own hypothetical 'Big Bang'? Of course, not...but
because of a 2.7 K background radiation they believe in the Big Bang...
there's far more geomorphological evidence for Earth growth than there is
for a Big Bang but these facts won't shut these hounds of hell up.
You're not dealing with men with a moral conscience, Don, not for the most
part... you're dealing with people who don't understand the raw intuitive
power of a truly operational intellect that can subconsciously arrive at
the truth far ahead of the evidence chain. You can assemble a diverse
quantity of data and they cannot. They are not able. And you have to
realize this one thing... they hate you for that power of yours. Think
about it. Why the anger and ridicule from them? Because you are like a
man with an axe at the base of the tree they are living in. They hate
you and every person like you who represents the slightest threat to their
belief system. Why do they hate you? It is pretty simple. They believe
they consist entirely of that which they believe and if you threaten what
they believe in...then you threaten them indirectly... They have no
foundation outside of their own egos.

Here's a nice equation that explains:

Objectivity is seeing the universe how it really is.

Subjectivity is seeing the universe from a narrow viewpoint.

Objectivity = 1/subjectivity

Subjectivity = ego

Obj=1/ego

The more you can reduce the ego...the need to see things from a strictured
narrow paradigmatic viewpoint then the greater access you have to seeing
the universe the way that it truly is. So, those who hate
you...well...Don...they are ego people...and you're threatening them.
They can't get off of the road that they are on...they are unable to let
go of what they think they know for sure to actually grab ahold of
something true.

They lack courage. They lack character. Consider them tares.

I used to get into flame wars with these people and people like them...
At first I ignored them...then I fought back; then I heaped as much abuse
on them as they did on me and I found that if I tirelessly kicked these
dogs then they'd actually go away for awhile but then I had to look at
myself and I realized I had become just like they were...vicious,
hateful... nasty... Wow! I had to stop... I withdrew ...mostly...from
posting for a couple of years... no point in becoming like those people.
So, the best thing is to not address their ad hominem comments because
.....really ...what is the point?.. They hate me, we're not ever going to
become friends nor ever enter into a substantive discussion...so let them
post their vitriol and ignore them. They hate everything I stand for.
They hate truth...They hate the idea that deductive processes ought to
rule scientific inquiry. They hate God. These people, for the most
part...especially those who are your antagonists with degrees... are rule
learners. They are able to learn complex sets of rules and because they
learned those rules in an academic setting that rewarded that sort of
behavior they believe all the rules they learned are true and they never
think deeply about them nor question them. So, Don...don't you know that
you are attacking the very foundation of these peoples souls by suggesting
something outside of their comfort zone? You are not a rule learner...
you have to understand the truth and are not satisfied with less. Rule
learners are always satisfied with less until peer pressure forces them to
expand a bit.

Best Regards... and keep going guy!

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 -