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

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

"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..."

wrote:
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.

Interesting analogy! Here's another. What happens when you boil a pot
of water with radioactive isotopes with a half life of 1.3 billion
years? Every 1.3 billion years the energy output will be reduced by
half. If there is enough isotope mass then critical temperature can be
sustained for 10s of billions of years and you can essentially boil
that pot of water forever, despite the fact that it is also cooling.

How this analogy fits into Earth's geology is more complex. Obviously
we're not boiling water, we're boiling rock. And when rock cools it
does not remain liquid. Thus it has varying degrees of viscosity and
this also contributes to cooling. What I just described was
radioactive decay of Potassium 40, but this is not the only heat source
available to the Earth. Decay of other particles including Uranium
contribute. The gravitational stress of our proportionally large moon
may play a small part as well. As a result the energy output near the
core was about twice it is today nearly 2 billion years ago. So it is
cooling, and it is hot enough to remain liquid, and will be for
billions of years to come.


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?

How do you reconcile this argument with the fact that "cooling" does
not preclude "heating"? The interior of the planet is still being
heated, it's just being heated at a lower rate than before. "Turning
off the heat" is not how the geology of Earth works. Your analogy was
flawed.


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?

In a nutshell:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/dynamic.html


Are the 'details' things like plate movement, volcanic
activity, excess heat output of all the big planets?

How can the largest and most obvious things be thought of as "details"
in this context? Don't obfuscate his words. You knew exactly what he
meant. And if you didn't, well then I'm sorry for you.


John

Kermit

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.

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?

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

..

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

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?

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