falsification - trying again - no slide rules please.

In article ,
David Iain Greig wrote:

Robert Grumbine wrote:
In article ,
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:16:51 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins , David Iain
Greig in
wrote:

Robert Grumbine wrote:

So in addition to the terrestrial problems above, there's an
earth-moon orbit problem. The added mass must increase angular
momentum of the earth by just the right amount (as viewed by
earth rotation observations), at the same time it is decreasing
the angular momentum of the moon's orbit (else the moon escapes
due to its excess angular momentum).

I'm over in talk.origins. We can trim newsgroup line to that plus
your group.

What about an earth-sun orbit problem?

Wouldn't the planet start spiralling inwards towards the primary
as its mass increased with no net gain of orbital momentum?

So the mass arrives with exactly the right momentum to maintain both
orbit and rotation. I mean, if we are creating mass at will it is a
small step to creating it with the right momentum.

If anything, a harder problem. There are 3 different angular
momentum constraints. It is likely impossible that material
which would satisfy one would be able to satisfy the other
two as well (earth rotation, earth-moon orbit, earth-moon-sun
orbit).

How far back can we see Milankovic cycles in the geological record?

That'd complicate the bounds on the orbital parameters to hell,
you can't vary the orbit at all, eh?

If the new matter is coming from INSIDE the planet (clearly the earth
hasn't been resurfaced a la Venus in the last 300Myr) then it's pretty
much got to be matter-energy conversion. Maybe the geodynamo interacts
with... uhhh.. solar neutrinos to create .... well... silicon. I mean
if the planet increased mass 8x in 300Myr, and given the composition
of the planet, most of the new matter was basically oxygen, silicon,
and what have you. If anyone wants to posit a mechanism for creating
*silicon* from *anything* (matter or energy) emitted from the Sun to
reach the earth, please feel free.

You'd have to create iron, not silicon, and that's harder. Lots harder.

The problem with the idea of solar neutrinos interacting with the
Earth's magnetic field -- excuse me, geodynamo -- to create hadrons (let
alone large nuclei -- and where do the electrons come from?) is that
those same neutrinos would interact the same way with ordinary dynamos,
generators, alternators, motors, transformers, power lines, CRT
deflection coils, loudspeakers, and doorbells. So you've really got two
problems: First, hadrons are not observed to form from interactions of
neutrinos with magnetic fields. Second, nobody knows how that should
occur. So I think that this mechanism is a pretty big stretch.

So where's your evidence for this increased mass, anyway?

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com

Kermit wrote:
don findlay wrote:
wrote:
Robert Grumbine wrote:
snip

In respect of elevation, ambital split, volcanism, and extrusion of
water from a subcrustal 'bubble', Mars as it is now shows remarkable
similarity of structure with Earth as it was in the Early Mesozoic.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/mars/index.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/cpr/valles.html

There is also some similarity with Venus. (And Europa) (That's why
I'm not that keen on Moon capture, although I propose it)

Anyhow, why are you calling me a crank at the same time as doing your
arithmetic around what I'm saying? That's a bit rude, is it not?

He explained why; it's an interesting exercise. Rather like figuring
out what would be necessary to produce fire-breathing dragons, or warp
drive for space ships.

Ah, ..I see, ..so that's it. You want to lay off the computer games,
Kermit. I'm telling you, ..they're bad for your mental health. I saw a
fellow in the queue in the supermarket today, ..there was a beautiful
princess just in front of me. She touched him on the leg with her
trolley, and he turned and tore her limb from limb before I could even
reach for my Luke Skywalker lightstick. Next time I see you I won't
wait, do you hear? It will be a pre-emptive strike for The Force. So
you better look out!


It's also a way of clearly refuting your silliness in a confirmable
manner.

Saying you're wrong because it doesn't look right would be as simple or
perverse as saying that you're correct because it does look right.


Why is it 'crank' to show that PT has no credible mechanism?

Because you haven't, and it's been explained to you why.

Plate
Tectonics *is* a furphy. You have to fish for it mind you, but the
bottom line of the best of the current mold of thinking is that the
crust pushing the mantle down drives subduction drives convection
drives Plate Tectonics. In that order.

No, it doesn't. You hunted down quotes out of context which could be
misconstrued to mean each of those steps, if you didn't care about
honesty and a shift in emphasis or meaning when paraphrasing them.

How could they be misconstrued? They mean what they say. To the
letter. What *IS* misconstrued is your idea of what convection is
about. Let's put it to the vote then. All in Favour of Kermit here,
that I am misrepresenting the flow-chart of plate Tectonics say "aye" .
But there's a catch. You have to say why the oceanic lithosphere
sinks on a line when it meets a continental margin. And
"spontaneously" won't do. There's a guy in Arizona has copyright on
that particular bit of nuttyness.


Books and other sources clearly explain the driving force behind plate
tectonics is the convection of the mantle, upon which the continental
plates float. Saying otherwise is dishonest or stupid or pathological.
Those are not exclusive "ors".

If that's not unparalleled
spectacular superlative 'crank' nuttyness I don't know what is. It
certainly beats anything I might come up with, and you have to admit
there's some show of hands supporting it.

Of course, you *did come up with it.


Anyhow, that is not the reason for proposing the Earth has got bigger.
The reason for that is in global geology, not any fancy unworkable
model that ignores the two most salient aspects of the planet - that it
is round, and spins.

So does your head. What, exactly is supposed to be significant about it
spinning? We all know that it is round (the only shape it could be),
and spins. And these have implications - for instance, it's not
*perfectly round. What do you think you see as a result of these
obvious facts which we (or more importantly, the experts) have missed?

The experts? Now, Bow Wow! Next to phase-change as a component of
convection this is clearly another one for our Bob. Having considered
the perplexing question of 'flatness' Bob is splendidly poised to
answer this one for you, since (for some perverse reason to do with my
education) you refuse to listen to me..


If thinking 'outside the box' makes me a crank
then it's a badge I'm happy to wear. (We could do with a few more
around in the name of 'science'.

No. Thinking outside the box only works in science when the creative
mind is able to test his/her ideas against reality. You are rigid and
inflecible; you had an idea once and you arre incapable of letting it
go, despite reality. That is not creativity; that is obssession and
low-level pathology.

....and the reason you keep stalking me, right? Why don't you team up
with Aidan. He's looking for company since adopting his brand
spanking new pair of personas


What difference would it make anyway, if I were to show that Plate
Tectonics is untenable through and through, from go to wo? Would
anybody bother? (And why would/ wouldn't/ shouldn't they.

Sure. Geologist were reluctant to accept plate tectonics. they didn't
when it was first proposed as continental drift, because there was no
explicable mechanism. No it's mainstream, because of the data. Not
becasue it looked that way to someone who hadn't done his homework, who
couldn't do the math, and had no testable model.


Care to share your "non-trivial" reasons with the punters?

So, what is spin supposed to do that we don't know about?

Zigackly, ...! I couldn't have put it better. See, .. ... ...you
*CAN, ...after all. All you need to do is get one leg out, heave the
other one after it, get a bit of dry land, and give it big licks.


Kermit

(Are you sure you're not George? ) ( I wouldn't like to think we've
lost a hooter off the arse end of Plate Tectonics... )

In article ,
David Iain Greig wrote:
Robert Grumbine wrote:
In article ,
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:16:51 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins , David Iain
Greig in
wrote:

Robert Grumbine wrote:

So in addition to the terrestrial problems above, there's an
earth-moon orbit problem. The added mass must increase angular
momentum of the earth by just the right amount (as viewed by
earth rotation observations), at the same time it is decreasing
the angular momentum of the moon's orbit (else the moon escapes
due to its excess angular momentum).

I'm over in talk.origins. We can trim newsgroup line to that plus
your group.

What about an earth-sun orbit problem?

Wouldn't the planet start spiralling inwards towards the primary
as its mass increased with no net gain of orbital momentum?

So the mass arrives with exactly the right momentum to maintain both
orbit and rotation. I mean, if we are creating mass at will it is a
small step to creating it with the right momentum.

If anything, a harder problem. There are 3 different angular
momentum constraints. It is likely impossible that material
which would satisfy one would be able to satisfy the other
two as well (earth rotation, earth-moon orbit, earth-moon-sun
orbit).

How far back can we see Milankovic cycles in the geological record?

That'd complicate the bounds on the orbital parameters to hell,
you can't vary the orbit at all, eh?

The current cycles, meaning cycles whose period and relative
amplitude can be computed accurately against the chaotic orbital
dynamics, go back 5-10 million years.

If, however, you look into the geologic record, you find
that periodic variations with similar relative behavior
(something of a 1:2:5 stacking, approximately 20 ky, 40 ky,
100 ky) extend back much farther. The Green River formation
shows millions of years worth of them, but I forget its
date. Likewise the ?New Jersey Supergroup? (Studied by
Paul Olsen in the 1980s) which, iirc, is even farther back
in time, possibly precambrian.

The limit to computability is chaos, but (and this was
an interesting paper itself, mid 90s) chaos of a bounded
sort. That is, though the earth's orbital parameters
are indeed chaotic on that 5-10 million year time scale,
they are well bounded. Orbits remain pretty much as we
expect, we just can't predict the precise details.

So, yes, the Milankovitch cycles provide yet another line of
constraints on absolute and relative masses and angular momenta
of major bodies in the solar system. On top of the angular
momentum constraints, the earth can't have been much less or more
massive or the interactions (largely with Jupiter and Saturn, but
also Neptune, Uranus, and the Sun) which lead to the Milankovitch
cycles would have been quit different than they were.

Digress a moment: It's relatively obvious how other
planets would perturb the earth's orbit. Less so how
the sun would, given that the sun is the body around
which the orbit is defined in the first place. The
thing is, two of the cycles are regarding the tilt of
the earth. The sun exerts a torque on the earth because
the earth is not a perfect sphere. That torque leads
to precession (the moon does this too), as it attempts
to make the earth aim a pole towards the sun (change
in obliquity). The planets also exert torques on the earth
and earth-moon system, which lead to cross-talk between the
solar effects and the planetary.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:26:46 -0000, in talk.origins ,
(Robert Grumbine) in wrote:

In article ,
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:16:51 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins , David Iain
Greig in
wrote:

Robert Grumbine wrote:

So in addition to the terrestrial problems above, there's an
earth-moon orbit problem. The added mass must increase angular
momentum of the earth by just the right amount (as viewed by
earth rotation observations), at the same time it is decreasing
the angular momentum of the moon's orbit (else the moon escapes
due to its excess angular momentum).

I'm over in talk.origins. We can trim newsgroup line to that plus
your group.

What about an earth-sun orbit problem?

Wouldn't the planet start spiralling inwards towards the primary
as its mass increased with no net gain of orbital momentum?

So the mass arrives with exactly the right momentum to maintain both
orbit and rotation. I mean, if we are creating mass at will it is a
small step to creating it with the right momentum.

If anything, a harder problem. There are 3 different angular
momentum constraints. It is likely impossible that material
which would satisfy one would be able to satisfy the other
two as well (earth rotation, earth-moon orbit, earth-moon-sun
orbit).

To which, of course, I ask *you* to show your math. Then, after you do
all that work (please don't bother), I will find some minor point and
re-direct the discussion.


--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:07:28 -0700, in talk.origins , Timberwoof
in

wrote:

[snip]

You'd have to create iron, not silicon, and that's harder. Lots harder.

I am sorry, but I don't see this. If I am engaging in the ex nihlio
creation of matter iron can't be lots harder than silicon. If you
insist I will do some hand waving pointing out that iron doesn't fiss
or fuze, but that is not important.


--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

In article ,
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:26:46 -0000, in talk.origins ,
(Robert Grumbine) in wrote:

In article ,
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:16:51 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins , David Iain
Greig in
wrote:

Robert Grumbine wrote:

So in addition to the terrestrial problems above, there's an
earth-moon orbit problem. The added mass must increase angular
momentum of the earth by just the right amount (as viewed by
earth rotation observations), at the same time it is decreasing
the angular momentum of the moon's orbit (else the moon escapes
due to its excess angular momentum).

I'm over in talk.origins. We can trim newsgroup line to that plus
your group.

What about an earth-sun orbit problem?

Wouldn't the planet start spiralling inwards towards the primary
as its mass increased with no net gain of orbital momentum?

So the mass arrives with exactly the right momentum to maintain both
orbit and rotation. I mean, if we are creating mass at will it is a
small step to creating it with the right momentum.

If anything, a harder problem. There are 3 different angular
momentum constraints. It is likely impossible that material
which would satisfy one would be able to satisfy the other
two as well (earth rotation, earth-moon orbit, earth-moon-sun
orbit).

To which, of course, I ask *you* to show your math. Then, after you do
all that work (please don't bother), I will find some minor point and
re-direct the discussion.

I may actually do it. But not today, and I realize the jest.
The milankovitch issues are interesting. I might be able to do
something with that in my work.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

In article ,
Matt Silberstein wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:07:28 -0700, in talk.origins , Timberwoof
in

wrote:

[snip]

You'd have to create iron, not silicon, and that's harder. Lots harder.

I am sorry, but I don't see this. If I am engaging in the ex nihlio
creation of matter iron can't be lots harder than silicon. If you
insist I will do some hand waving pointing out that iron doesn't fiss
or fuze, but that is not important.

But David Iain Greig suggested ex neutrino creation of silicon. That
requires somewhat less handwaving and has the advantage of being almost
but not quite not even wrong.

Iron doesn't fiss or fuse in ways that release much energy.
Nevertheless, heavy stars sometimes make it. (I once added a note to the
MSDS for Hydrogen: NEVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES store more than 5 solar
masses of this stuff in once place. Consequences include Type II
Supernova in ~ 35 M.Y.)

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com

Robert Grumbine wrote:
In article ,
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:26:46 -0000, in talk.origins ,
(Robert Grumbine) in wrote:

In article ,
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:16:51 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins , David Iain
Greig in
wrote:

Robert Grumbine wrote:

So in addition to the terrestrial problems above, there's an
earth-moon orbit problem. The added mass must increase angular
momentum of the earth by just the right amount (as viewed by
earth rotation observations), at the same time it is decreasing
the angular momentum of the moon's orbit (else the moon escapes
due to its excess angular momentum).

I'm over in talk.origins. We can trim newsgroup line to that plus
your group.

What about an earth-sun orbit problem?

Wouldn't the planet start spiralling inwards towards the primary
as its mass increased with no net gain of orbital momentum?

So the mass arrives with exactly the right momentum to maintain both
orbit and rotation. I mean, if we are creating mass at will it is a
small step to creating it with the right momentum.

If anything, a harder problem. There are 3 different angular
momentum constraints. It is likely impossible that material
which would satisfy one would be able to satisfy the other
two as well (earth rotation, earth-moon orbit, earth-moon-sun
orbit).

To which, of course, I ask *you* to show your math. Then, after you do
all that work (please don't bother), I will find some minor point and
re-direct the discussion.

I may actually do it. But not today, and I realize the jest.
The milankovitch issues are interesting. I might be able to do
something with that in my work.

Except the 'new' mass, if it's not infalling to the planet... how
does it acquire momentum, at least in non-random direction?
Given the lack of terran resufacing events, the matter must be created
in the core. Hence it can't be anything that would be stopped by
the crust, right? That leaves energy or non-interacting particles
like neutrinos. I suppose various muons/etc. could contribute.
Can *any* high-energy photons make it down to the core? Even if
it was photons, the amount of solar energy making it to the core of
the planet must be a vanishingly small fraction of total solar
energy output, FURTHER complicating the 'Don needs 100,000,000 times
the amount of energy received by the Earth from the Sun to power his
model (which he denies having)'.

Ugh. Then this new matter, where does it get momentum from to maintain
the earth's precise orbital mechanics? Ugh.

--D.

David Iain Greig wrote:

Except the 'new' mass, if it's not infalling to the planet... how
does it acquire momentum, at least in non-random direction?
Given the lack of terran resufacing events, the matter must be created
in the core. Hence it can't be anything that would be stopped by
the crust, right? That leaves energy or non-interacting particles
like neutrinos.
(snip)

You left out miracles.

Do you think Don excludes miracles as a possible mechanism?

In article , David
Iain Greig wrote:
I suppose various muons/etc. could contribute.
Can *any* high-energy photons make it down to the core? Even if
it was photons,

How many photons of any energy make it through a metre of
basalt? Any sort of basalt. Consider an incoming stream of radiation
with everything from 10km wavelength radio waves (30kHz approx - what
radio time stations use, as well as submarine communications systems)
to gamma rays that would form proton-anti-proton pairs given the
slightest excuse ; any distribution (equal energy per 1Hz bucket of
frequencies, or equal photon counts, whatever). Beam this at a metre
block of basalt and see how much gets through to the other side.
Assuming that you're not throwing so much energy at the poor lump of
rock that you vaporise it (or if you do vaporise it, you keep all the
materials in place, as they would be a few tens of km down in the upper
crust), how much of that energy is going to get through to the other
side. A little radio, maybe. A little soft x-ray, maybe. Not a lot
else.
Combine that with the fact that beyond your first metre of
basalt are another (approximately) four million stacked all in a row
before you get to the core, then another couple of million similar
lumps of dirty iron before you get to the inner core. Not a lot of
photons will get through. Two tenths of bugger-all, as they say in
Dundee.
The neutrinos that go cascading gaily through the planet and pop
out the other side are *spectacularly* unreactive compared to photons,
which are totally different kettles of fish to neutrinos. Photons
interact with matter by the electromagnetic force ; neutrinos by the
"weak" nuclear force. Then there's the *really weak* gravitational
force, a good few powers of ten weaker yet.
In the other direction there's the strong nuclear force. It's
interactions with metre-thick chunks of dirty liquid water tend to give
the dirty water cancer (if it's dirty enough to be considered a
Metazoan organism).

the amount of solar energy making it to the core of
the planet must be a vanishingly small fraction of total solar
energy output,

(bugger_all)^[2/10]

FURTHER complicating the 'Don needs 100,000,000 times
the amount of energy received by the Earth from the Sun to power his
model (which he denies having)'.

Low grade net.kook - he's even got a faint hint of superficial
reasonableness to his ideas, unlike high-grade net.kooks . He wouldn't
be able to keep an Infinite Improbability Drive going without a flask
of hot tea.

[Pockets slide rule next to the rock hammer.]
--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:54 +0100, but posted later.