|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
Kermit wrote: malibu wrote: Timberwoof wrote: In article . com, "malibu" wrote: The Earth absorbs (gravitational) energy. This collects at its center until it imbalances the magnetic field. When the poles reverse the energy gets spun into matter. The Earth grows bigger and there is an increase in gravity. "That's not even wrong." Jupiter gives off 2.6 times as much energy as it receives from the Sun. The 'official' story is that it is still cooling. Even official stories are often correct. Is Earth still cooling? Yes. Have you ever boiled a pot of water? What happens when the heat gets turned off? The boiling stops. There are active volcanos everywhere on Earth. They release huge amounts of heat. 2/3 of Oregon is 3000 feet deep of 'fresh' volcanic output. As I write this homes are evacuated because of imminent volcanic eruption in numerous places on Earth. You think the boiling has stopped? Why? Because that's what you are told? Is Earth expanding? No. What's *your* 'right' story? Got one? There is really only one that fits the data, altho many details have to be worked out. Unfortunately, it is not your story. In a nutshell- what is it? Are the 'details' things like plate movement, volcanic activity, excess heat output of all the big planets? John Kermit |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
Kermit wrote: will1 wrote: I once had a friend that had talent and truly wanted to publish. He could write,his mind was full of ideas, and for all practical purposes, he believed he was a writer. snip sad but common story Regards, Will E. All true. But our "job" here in talk.origins is to confront the anti-science minions of darkness and confusion and keep them out of the hair of folks wanting to do or discuss real science in informal fora. Personally, I am not a scientist, and this is one small way I can contribute to civilization. It is not incidental that I learn to think and speak more clearly on these issues, and develop the tools I need to confront (in the big blue room) my fellow citizens who sometimes seem hell-bent on destroying the little progress we've made in the last couple of lifetimes. And why do you think the progress in the last hundred years has been so minimal? Is the Earth in better or worse shape because of the our en'light'ened science? As a non-scientist, why are you in a position to do a 'job' defending positions taken which preclude investigations in other directions than those deemed 'right'? John And we have a had a few folks show up who were simply misinformed and ignorant, and when pointed in the right direction, or had a few misconceptions cleared up, joined us in defending and presenting the scientific method. The effort is not wasted. Kermit |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
"IT WAS on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment of my
toils. With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs." Dr. Frankenstein Lets see, click my heels together three times and say, "There's no place like home, there's no place like..." |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
In article . com,
wrote: Kermit wrote: will1 wrote: I once had a friend that had talent and truly wanted to publish. He could write,his mind was full of ideas, and for all practical purposes, he believed he was a writer. snip sad but common story Regards, Will E. All true. But our "job" here in talk.origins is to confront the anti-science minions of darkness and confusion and keep them out of the hair of folks wanting to do or discuss real science in informal fora. Personally, I am not a scientist, and this is one small way I can contribute to civilization. It is not incidental that I learn to think and speak more clearly on these issues, and develop the tools I need to confront (in the big blue room) my fellow citizens who sometimes seem hell-bent on destroying the little progress we've made in the last couple of lifetimes. And why do you think the progress in the last hundred years has been so minimal? It was a rhetorical tool. Given the astounding ignorance of science that some people unashamedly exhibit, I quite agree with the intent. Is the Earth in better or worse shape because of the our en'light'ened science? This is a fair question. But it's not quite part of this discussion. The question at hand is whether any old crackpot can contribute to science; you're asking whether science is "good." (People have always been figuring out how things work and how to get things to work for us. In that regard, the science of the past hundred years is qualitatively no different from what went on before. It was always a question of the uses science has been put to. One of them, for instance, is to enable us to talk about this.) As a non-scientist, why are you in a position to do a 'job' defending positions taken which preclude investigations in other directions than those deemed 'right'? I don't grant your premise: you can do all the investigations you want in whatever direction you want. But if those investigations are based on flawed assumptions or lead to conclusions that have been elsewhere demonstrated to be wrong, then you' have to expect people who know about such things to correct you. Consider the OP's babble about gravity and magnetic fields and pole reversals and expanding earth. Is that your idea of an investigation in other directions than those deemed 'right'? There's so much wrong that that to set it straight would require a high school physics class. The usual response to that sort of criticism is to deny that mainstream science has any truth to it at all ... yet these "alternate" "theories" always use the terminology of mainstream science but in ways that show that the "theorist" doesn't grasp the most basic concepts. You want to call that an investigation? No, it's word salad. It's made-up magical thinking. John And we have a had a few folks show up who were simply misinformed and ignorant, and when pointed in the right direction, or had a few misconceptions cleared up, joined us in defending and presenting the scientific method. The effort is not wasted. Kermit -- Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
will1 wrote: "IT WAS on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils. With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs." Dr. Frankenstein Lets see, click my heels together three times and say, "There's no place like home, there's no place like..." WoOargh, ...OooOOOhhh, ..Will, ..what are you doing wakening that monster? I know it's cyberspace, ..but I don't know if I want *THAT* particular monster in my movie. What's wrong with the ones we've got? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
don findlay wrote: Kermit wrote: don findlay wrote: As usual Don, you show yourself to be more skillful - presumably more practiced - at dispensing insults than presenting data or answering questions. I was a wide-eyed ingenue - till I met you (and the white noise like you). It's not so much practice, Kermit. The exchanges speak for themselves. I am your mirror. You are a lay-person geo-wannabe with a chance to get the latest information from those with the data. Your credibility would benefit from going to Melbourne NOW, rather than playing word-games here with us. It takes three or four years for new ideas and data to get into textbooks. It takes six months to a year for those ideas to come out in peer-reviewed papers. Abstracts to this meeting would have been submitted three or four months ago, but people can and do write "between the lines" in their abstracts to cover data they are *about* to analyse, so talks at such meetings are covering ideas that might not be published for another year or so. And, Don, this meeting also has field trips on offer - if you go, you can go on one of those too. Why not go, Don? Why not? Tomorrow is the main session for your area of interest - you can still get there. http://www.earth2006.org.au/index.shtml (signed) marc .. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
Timberwoof wrote: In article . com, wrote: Kermit wrote: will1 wrote: I once had a friend that had talent and truly wanted to publish. He could write,his mind was full of ideas, and for all practical purposes, he believed he was a writer. snip sad but common story Regards, Will E. All true. But our "job" here in talk.origins is to confront the anti-science minions of darkness and confusion and keep them out of the hair of folks wanting to do or discuss real science in informal fora. Personally, I am not a scientist, and this is one small way I can contribute to civilization. It is not incidental that I learn to think and speak more clearly on these issues, and develop the tools I need to confront (in the big blue room) my fellow citizens who sometimes seem hell-bent on destroying the little progress we've made in the last couple of lifetimes. And why do you think the progress in the last hundred years has been so minimal? It was a rhetorical tool. Given the astounding ignorance of science that some people unashamedly exhibit, I quite agree with the intent. Is the Earth in better or worse shape because of the our en'light'ened science? This is a fair question. But it's not quite part of this discussion. The question at hand is whether any old crackpot can contribute to science; you're asking whether science is "good." (People have always been figuring out how things work and how to get things to work for us. In that regard, the science of the past hundred years is qualitatively no different from what went on before. It was always a question of the uses science has been put to. One of them, for instance, is to enable us to talk about this.) And another is drowning polar bears. As a non-scientist, why are you in a position to do a 'job' defending positions taken which preclude investigations in other directions than those deemed 'right'? I don't grant your premise: you can do all the investigations you want in whatever direction you want. But if those investigations are based on flawed assumptions or lead to conclusions that have been elsewhere demonstrated to be wrong, then you' have to expect people who know about such things to correct you. Consider the OP's babble about gravity and magnetic fields and pole reversals and expanding earth. Is that your idea of an investigation in other directions than those deemed 'right'? There's so much wrong that that to set it straight would require a high school physics class. The usual response to that sort of criticism is to deny that mainstream science has any truth to it at all ... yet these "alternate" "theories" always use the terminology of mainstream science but in ways that show that the "theorist" doesn't grasp the most basic concepts. You want to call that an investigation? No, it's word salad. It's made-up magical thinking. Mmmm-hmmm. It wasn't suspected until 1986 that our galaxy has humongous magnetic poles at right angles to its center. Wow. Good grasp of magnetic fields guys. 'Predictive' actually does imply *some* sense of the structure of reality around you. John And we /snip/ the royal 'we'? :-) John |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
Don, It is not the fear of Frankenstein's monster that concerns me, nor it
is the mob of angry village people bearing torches and wooden pitch forks marching up my castle drive way at 2: in the morning. Instead, I see it as a matter of choice. I do not need angry villagers beating down my front door to validate my creations or for that matter, to validate my existence. In my movie I have choices. In my movie I am the producer and editor, camera man and sound engineer, actor and script wri... well, I am not sure WHO is writing the script. I guess that is what science is trying to find out and the spiritual already knows. You know, the meeting that Marc suggest you attend could be a lot of fun. I've been to a few of them in the past and learned things that were never taught in the class room. Will E. "don findlay" wrote in message oups.com... WoOargh, ...OooOOOhhh, ..Will, ..what are you doing wakening that monster? I know it's cyberspace, ..but I don't know if I want *THAT* particular monster in my movie. What's wrong with the ones we've got? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
will1 wrote: I guess that is what science is trying to find out and the spiritual already knows. You know, the meeting that Marc suggest you attend could be a lot of fun. I've been to a few of them in the past and learned things that were never taught in the class room. Will E. Will, And destiny fly's in the face of convention! There are two sides, but one is so far ahead of the other and it makes one wonder how long does it take to get from there to here? Too long in my book. I too have attended and found most of it a snoozer. Not that the material wasn't any good, just the presentations. I'd love to teach a class on Pump It Up a bit because it gets to quiet in there. While the rest of the world is focused on selling ideas and actually selling them, science isn't that way. It's still a sale, but in the most unusual way. It may be difficult for some to realize that a person has less than 30 seconds, that's right less than 30 seconds in which the person who sees them makes an assumption about them and it sticks forever. So if one were to impress and they knew they had only less than 30 seconds how might one prepare? Wear something other than brown. Brown is a an efficient color, but not one that attracts attention or sells them. If all else fails, wear light blue. It has a nice eye appeal, one that some might find sexy and be what puts them over the top and certainly they won't blend into the background of a nearly full house of "brownsters." Of course I love to walk into a room full of men, but if it looks like a sea of khaki you have to wonder who left their personality at home or certainly who shops for them. I guess I should appreciate it's still a mans world and even the women who attend seem to want to wear the same apparel. Umm, that is a real problem. I've talked to some of them about it and they said that is what attracted them to the occupation. I say, Put A Skirt On! Get a blazer and shave those legs and don't forget the under-arms as well. Science needs a lift, but not the kind that you deliver to the seat of the pants. It needs some pizzaz, a little hype and a voice that sounds interested and interesting, like there was real life in the material. There could be, but in the "we do" and so forth I think some of it gets lost. One hint: Always dress like you were going out on a date. Believe me, your thoughts will be totally different than thinking you were going to work or to a conference and those thoughts will be what makes you more attractive than anyone else. Just the humble opinion of a woman who thinks she may have seen it all. Actually, I saw more than I wanted to and now I can't forget it. Petra |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|