The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox

In article
emailer.net,
"David Chapman" wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:

You've presented this argument many times before, and it has been
refuted many times before. What's the point?
--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

Is that why it was still being done on the Monday[1]? It maybe
that it was *intended* to be abandoned, but it certainly wasn't
by some members of the Assassins Guild.

In what way is "Could I see your licence for those black
clothes." "Eh?" "You've got to have a different relative
velocity wrt me than you had before.

Did you attend a summer program for high school students at the
University of Iowa in 1977?

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

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:

In article ,
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

How do you work that out? You aren't just nitpicking, you're actively
avoiding the question of how an ocean 2000km wide can appear and
disappear. How do you explain that in terms of a "theory" that says the
present-day Atlantic opened as a result of the Earth expanding?

It's not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's just the first wild
guess based on limited evidence that JT ran across, and he refuses to
give it up in favor of a real theory with real scientific data backing
it up.

As far as I can tell, the only evidence consists of QuickTime
animations.

Aren't they fun? I particularly like the one of Mars, and the guy's
excuse that that's the only area he could get maps for.

Heh, I missed that one.

This is apparently what constitutes an "observed fact" to
Findlay.

He's got some trouble defining basic terms of science.

When asked hard questions, Findlay responds with verbal diarrhea, and
Taylor goes off into psychoanalysis.

This expanding Earth stuff reminds me a lot of the hollow Earth urban
legends, most of which start with the discovery of a large hole in the
Arctic by early explorers, especially Robert Byrd. In both cases, none
of the proponents bother to take the time to consider the implications
of their ideas.

Implications, schmimplications. Evidence from the ocean floors proves
that 200 years of physics research has to be abandoned!

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

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:47:05 -0700, Timberwoof
wrote:

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:

In article ,
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

How do you work that out? You aren't just nitpicking, you're actively
avoiding the question of how an ocean 2000km wide can appear and
disappear. How do you explain that in terms of a "theory" that says the
present-day Atlantic opened as a result of the Earth expanding?

It's not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It's just the first wild
guess based on limited evidence that JT ran across, and he refuses to
give it up in favor of a real theory with real scientific data backing
it up.

As far as I can tell, the only evidence consists of QuickTime
animations.

Aren't they fun? I particularly like the one of Mars, and the guy's
excuse that that's the only area he could get maps for.

Heh, I missed that one.

This is apparently what constitutes an "observed fact" to
Findlay.

He's got some trouble defining basic terms of science.

When asked hard questions, Findlay responds with verbal diarrhea, and
Taylor goes off into psychoanalysis.

This expanding Earth stuff reminds me a lot of the hollow Earth urban
legends, most of which start with the discovery of a large hole in the
Arctic by early explorers, especially Robert Byrd. In both cases, none
of the proponents bother to take the time to consider the implications
of their ideas.

Implications, schmimplications. Evidence from the ocean floors proves
that 200 years of physics research has to be abandoned!

And Twiddle Dee said to Twiddle Dum

Ken Shackleton wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Ken Shackleton wrote:
J. Taylor wrote:
On 28 Aug 2006 18:57:51 -0700, "Ken Shackleton"
wrote:


Today's distance to the continental shelf is hardly relevant.

Yes, if you wish to ignore what is known.

What is known is that coastlines change over the millenia....and to
assume that the distance that you measured with a ruler on a globe
would not have changed in any significance during the past 430 million
years or so is foolishness.

Is it?

Yes.....erosion can make dramatic changes to coastlines in a few
millenia.

Well, so you say. Can you give an example? The present coastlines are
by and large the age of the oldest ocean floor.


Tectonic forces dramatically reshape continents over tens of
millions of years...so it is foolish of JT to assume that his present
day measurement would hold for the same location 430 mya.

Ken

You're the one being obviously foolish here Ken,
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ng/inchworm.html
You're operating from theory, ..not fact. How else do you think the
continental margins can be retrofitted?

What? ... No comment? ?? This is the type example that refutes
what you say. Or you can similarly fit Australia to Antarctica,
Australia to India, ..India to Africa, Antarctica to both.... And of
course retrofit across the north Atlantic Where do you have evidence
of "tectonic forces" reshaping continents - other than the say so of
others who so say, purely as a wish according to the theory. The point
is, ..in practice, there is nothing. The to-and-fro of shorelines is
not the same as "reshaping a continent".

Ken Shackleton wrote:
J. Taylor wrote:
On 28 Aug 2006 20:21:22 -0700, "Ken Shackleton"
wrote:

What we have is an ocean floor less than 200mya which shows expansion.

Chop off the last three words and I would agree.


You want to assume ALL the previous ocean crust was destroyed without
a trace and further assume the few bits of evidence for ocean crust,
which exist, was deep ocean, when it shows it was either formed along
the continental margin, or was a shallow sea.

I never said, and I doubt that anyone would propose....that ALL
previous ocean crust was destroyed.

But they do, ..and they have to, to maintain what Plate Tectonics is
about, namely the cycling of the oceanic crust: ocean floor is returned
to the mantle in the same measure as it is created. The anomalies
termed 'ophilites' are an embarassment to Plate Tectonics which would
rather they were not there, because being more dense they should have
sunk, rather than being thrust up, in just the same way as India
'subducting' under Asia is an embarrassment, because by definition
lighter continental crust cannot subduct. And if both can do the
opposite of what their definition via buoyancy entitles them to, then
what value the definitions of buoyancy in regulating this 'engine' of
plate tectonics? (None, if you ask 'Plumes').

Ancient ocean sediments are found
everywhere, particularly on the tops of mountains. Mountains tend to
appear on continental margins in the form of curvilinear arcs.

Exactly, ...not only that, ..the entirely of stratigraphic sequence
occurs above a life on the ocean wave. That is, the whole of the
geological column globally has been 'exhumed' *GLOBALLY* - a behaviour
that has no explanation in the colliding plates of Plate Tectonics.

I live in western Canada, and I like to hike in the mountains. I have
frequently seen marine fossils in the shale and limestone deposits that
make up the Rockies in Alberta. I once found a piece of coral at the
summit of a peak near Canmore....8,500 feet ASL.

I take it you mean the Rocky Mountains? .... a veritable paragon of
"crustal crumpling by plate collision, ..yes/no? :-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/rockies.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/mtbuild.html


These mountains are made of marine sediments/limestone that were laid
down in the Paleozoic, many have been dated to the Cambrian....how can
EE explain this? PT does a pretty good job of it.

How do see the absence of crustal crumpling then?
(This sort of elevation is not only a natural consequence of Earth
expansion, ..it *DEFINES* it.

Ken Shackleton wrote:
J. Taylor wrote:
On 29 Aug 2006 10:57:25 -0700, "Ken Shackleton"
wrote:


Is it?

Yes.....erosion can make dramatic changes to coastlines in a few
millenia. Tectonic forces dramatically reshape continents over tens of
millions of years...so it is foolish of JT to assume that his present
day measurement would hold for the same location 430 mya.

Make me laugh. With erosion the distance then could have been the
full 600 miles. It is your case you are defeating with this argument,
not mine. :-)

I did not make an argument, I only pointed out that your assumption
that the distance between the mountains and the sea has remained
constant for the past 430 million years might be in error.


No. With the penetration to the mantle and the consequent shift in
deformation to the creation of the ocean floors, the continents are
pretty dead. Erosion is by far and away a vertical phenomenon,
....much more than it is a lateral one (sea). The continents are
'fossilised' crust. It's the ocean floors and continental margins that
are doing the job of 'tectonics' now. The time of the continental
interiors being tectonically active (except for a couple of major lines
that describe hemispherical adjustment to enlargement and spin) are
over. The continents are simply being rubbed down. The major river
systems of the world were (and still are) ancient (Pangaean).

Ken Shackleton wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Ken Shackleton wrote:
J. Taylor wrote:
On 26 Aug 2006 12:38:43 -0700, "Ken Shackleton"
wrote:

That's right. The light continental crust pushes the denser mantle
crust down, wherever and whenever it finds any
"Floaties" again, Ken.

"Light" continental crust is indeed less dense that the oceanic basalt
[2.75 s.g. vs. 3.30 s.g respectively]. However, oceanic basalt is
*thin*, less than 6 miles thick; whereas the continental crust is up to
25 miles thick.

So...it is quite easy to imagine two oceanic plates, driven by
convection, pushing towards one another.....one of the plates carrying
with it a large chunk of continental crust.....what happens? Precisely
what has been observed....one of the oceanic plates subducts beneath
the continental crust...which is both less dense, and far more massive
than the oceanic crust that it is colliding with.

Ah, but the piece of crust doing the colliding is India. Why should
India be forced under Asia, and as a consequence lift the whole of Asia
up? Now, you know, ... it used to collide with Asia and crumple it,
...but there's nothing crumpled about Asia. All the 'mountains' are
eroded plateau. Now it's supposed to be forced under Asia (every
year, ..by ten centimetres of dyke intrusion at the Indian Ocean
ridge). Now, do you get that? Ten centimetres of dyke intrusion (a
year) is forcing India along and thrusting it underneath Asia and as a
conseuqence, lifting up the Himalayas, which is also being affected by
global warming and growing grass (according to professors at Yale (or
is it Harvard) to slow it all down: Sunlight slows mountain growth.
I'm sure there's a numbers man somewhere who could calculate the energy
dissipated in this little exercise, and see just what the residual
effect of this ten centimetres intrusion actually is, ...(when it comes
to lifting up the whole of Asia..)
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/whatis.html#horns

(Come on Ken, ..Get the floaties on and jump (ship). It's sinking
faster than 10cm of dyke intrusion. ) What I don't understand is how
ordinarily sensible people can resolutely vest their belief in
'authority', simply because it *is* authority, .. I'm afraid like
many others, you misapprehend the necessities of academia. )

Henry Schmidt wrote:
On the long hot summer day of Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:07:22 +0000, J.Taylor
dribbled:

It doesn't matter who I am, since you wouldn't know anything about me
anyway, beyond anything I've ever posted online, which is only hearsay.
Identity is very difficult to expose on the net.

Nobody's interested in identity - only the readiness of people to
reveal it. That says a lot. A measure of "dribble", if you like.

On the long hot summer day of Wed, 30 Aug 2006 04:30:50 -0700, don findlay dribbled:
Henry Schmidt wrote:
On the long hot summer day of Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:07:22 +0000, J.Taylor
dribbled:

It doesn't matter who I am, since you wouldn't know anything about me
anyway, beyond anything I've ever posted online, which is only hearsay.
Identity is very difficult to expose on the net.

Nobody's interested in identity - only the readiness of people to reveal
it. That says a lot. A measure of "dribble", if you like.

So I can make up a name out of whole cloth, and as long as it looks
"real", that's all that matters? Because this is usenet, and I can do
that. So can you.

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:04:15 GMT, Henry Schmidt
wrote:

On the long hot summer day of Wed, 30 Aug 2006 04:30:50 -0700, don findlay dribbled:
Henry Schmidt wrote:
On the long hot summer day of Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:07:22 +0000, J.Taylor
dribbled:

It doesn't matter who I am, since you wouldn't know anything about me
anyway, beyond anything I've ever posted online, which is only hearsay.
Identity is very difficult to expose on the net.

Nobody's interested in identity - only the readiness of people to reveal
it. That says a lot. A measure of "dribble", if you like.

So I can make up a name out of whole cloth, and as long as it looks
"real", that's all that matters? Because this is usenet, and I can do
that. So can you.

All of which means, if such a simple question as a name cannot be
honestly answered, what hope is there for having an honest discussion
with someone on a complex issue like the Earth's history.

What is known, from the beginning, they have no intention of dealing
in facts.

JT