The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox

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.

You mean we 'do' because we 'can'? ( ...is not a good moralus
operandum) I will fool you, because I can? ...is that what you
think the value of usenet to be? An allowance to parade the stage
incognito? Who cares about the doing? ... It's why you would want to,
...the 'can', ..that is encouraging elected governments to spend a lot
of money wondering about the motives of people like you then.

Now, there's George, ..has changed his loggo from wtfiswrongwith*you* -
to @yourservice, for some reason, ... But he's still incognito. So
what value is there in him parading at all? I mean, ..would you buy a
used condom from him? ....that "Willing-to-be-of-service" wallah.).

don findlay wrote:
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.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. Th oceanic basalts
subduct....the overlying sediments are what we see being upthrust in
the form of mountains.


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?

Crumpling? Deformation, yes...crumpling? what does that mean?


(This sort of elevation is not only a natural consequence of Earth
expansion, ..it *DEFINES* it.

J. Taylor wrote:
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.

How does anyone here know with any confidence that you are who you say
you are? Is Don really Don.....perhaps it's a nom-de-plume.

Ken



JT

On 30 Aug 2006 11:42:07 -0700, "Ken Shackleton"
wrote:


J. Taylor wrote:
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.

How does anyone here know with any confidence that you are who you say
you are? Is Don really Don.....perhaps it's a nom-de-plume.

Or for that matter computer generated, perhaps space aliens, who
knows!

JT

In article , Richard Herring
wrote:

In message
,
Charles Cagle writes
[...]

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

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

Gibberish. You'd do well to avoid those "scientific" equations until
you've learned the difference between vectors and scalars, and the
basics of dimensional analysis.


It is gibberish to you if you haven't a clue about the implicit geometry
in structures like Del X E which is the closest equation we've got that
suggests a flux loop structure. Normal to a toroidal flux loop surface
(really an equipotential surface) is the Poynting vector and it doesn't
matter if it is an E loop or an H loop. The Poynting vector when
integrated over the entire surface is the total power crossing the surface
in watts/m^2. Of course, there is implicit the notion of movement
related to a Poynting vector density change and from Maxwell's equations
we find that motion is required (of a charged particle) to generate a Del
X H vector field. The reality is that you don't know where matter comes
from. Of course, you might like to suggest the quite mythical 'Big Bang'
which is really a simpleton's escape to posit an event that cannot be made
subject to actual scientific scrutiny. The notion of a 'Big Bang' is, in
the end, a religious belief not scientific just as the nuclear strong
force is a religious belief that was a fudge invented because of a lack of
true logical rigor being applied to the problem of the why there could be
multiple protons in the nucleus of atoms that aren't H or an isotope such
as Deuterium or Tritium. Just because you are absolutely inept at the
analysis of vector fields doesn't mean everyone is. If you think that the
main stream scientific community has their act together maybe you could
tell me why quantum mechanics, a theory that allows high precision in the
calculation of many experiments, and general relativity, for example are
not integrated into a unified theory? Could it be that there is something
so fundamentally wrong with both of them, a quantum theory ...ostensibly a
description of descrete objects yet saddled with the intellectual concepts
of continuous structures. The fact, Richard, that you probably don't see
anything wrong with this, is related to why you're content to play the
part of a barking dog anytime some posting with reason appears. You can't
fathom that the quantum components of the universe must come into being as
conjugate charge pairs.... not necessarily matter anti-matter pairs. Thus
matter emerges in the form of flux loop system and a little analysis shows
that any flux loop can (E or H) always can be reduced to n charges and n
charge conjugates. But you didn't know that, did you? Of course, you
didn't. How could you? It isn't in any book. It isn't one of the rules
that you could have learned in academia. That's one of 'Cagle's Theorems'
(smile) that I've not published. But then I just happened to read an
article in Mathematic Magazine about 17 years ago and got a great clue.
See "Connectivity and Smoke-Rings: Green's Second Identity in Its First
Fifty Years" Mathematics Magazine, v. 62, 1989.) Green's Second Identity
was used by Helmholtz to draw some conclusions concerning vortices and
established that they must have stability under conservative forces and
that they must be closed tubes (toroids) or they must extend from boundry
to boundry (as tubes). Helmholtz established that the component of
velocity perpendicular to the boundary of such structures must be zero.
What I have done is provide a more descriptive physical modeling for such
structures but which also provides a wholly mechanistic means to assess
the boundary conditions. Now the Poynting vector is really a velocity
potential. Returning to Helmholtz's torus mentioned above for which the
component of velocity perpendicular to its boundary must be zero one has
to realize that such a velocity component has to be a net sum which is
divisible into negative and positive components each of which is the
conjugate of the other. This implies the existence of two counter
oriented equipotential surfaces which compose Helmholtz's boundary. One
of these surfaces is a sink type surface while the other is a source type
surface. Now we see that a toroidal surface with velocity potentials
normal to it is an archetype or perfect description of the fundamental
charged particle. Hence, we have two counter oriented charged particles,
one the charge conjugate of the other, which are locked on a common
poloidal and toroidal axis and which must share a common boundary. Wait a
minute...why am I talking to you or telling you this? Even if I hand it
to you on a platter you're not going to get it. That's because you're not
actually aware, not awake. And you think that I have trouble in vector
analysis? That's quite amusing. You must find yourself driven into your
standard knee jerk rant against me because you can't grasp the logic. You
came into the world as a rule learner and your nature is to hate people
who challenge rules or who care about the truth more than they care about
the consensus of people like you who have no love at all for the truth.
Ah.. I digressed... But then if you don't know what charge actually
is...oh wow! and the reality is that you don't...then you're really not
suitable as a critic of anyone who does. In fact, you simply don't get
that your function as a foil is now over. Please don't respond to any
more of my posts. You only show yourself as a petulant small minded
ranter... a one trick pony. You should be embarrassed but you seem to
lack even the conscience for even that.

C. 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 -

Ken Shackleton wrote:
don findlay wrote:
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.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. The oceanic basalts
subduct....the overlying sediments are what we see being upthrust in
the form of mountains.

You mean the once-upon-a-time Pacific Plate (with a continent on top)
met the buttress of the once-upon a time American continent, which then
acted like a chisel, peeling off the continental crustal sequence which
overrode the buttress whilst the underlying mantle part of the slab,
deprived now of its crustal floatie, sank? (And all of this due to
10cm of push at the ridge every year?)


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.

No? No explanation in Plate Tectonics? What value then Plate
Tectonics at all, if it cannot even explain the present-day
distribution of stratigraphic sequence.


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?

Crumpling? Deformation, yes...crumpling? what does that mean?

crumple:- it means to press into folds and wrinkles. You must have
missed the bit down the bottom where it says:-
"Folded Mountains are believed to have been formed when the edges of
two adjacent rock layers were pushed together causing the layers to
buckle like a wrinkled rug. " ... "The Rocky Mountains are an example
of folded mountains."
The illustrations:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/rockies.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/mtbuild.html
show the drammatic effect of this crumpling of the crust, and the
nature of the folds and wrinkles typical of plate collision everywhere/
anywhere/ (nowhere.)


(This sort of elevation is not only a natural consequence of Earth
expansion, ..it *DEFINES* it.

You can't have it both ways, Ken - the mantle holding up the crust and
the crust holding up the mantle, ...both on account of buoyancy.
Surely elevation on account of changing curvature of the Earth is
self-evident? It is what causes the arcuate form of mountain belts
(and basins) you mentioned. Nothing gets "tossed on high". It's all
"tossed on Low". ( Ask India, being 'subducted' beneath Asia.) (And
why is India being 'downthrust', ...but the rockies are being upthrust?
)

(Or do you rather see a scenario like the 'horns of India'? )

What particular rational bit of this 'Plate Tectonics' is it that is
left for you to hold on to? Only the creation of the ocean floors,
...which is expansion.

On the long hot summer day of Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:48:03 +0000, J.Taylor dribbled:
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.
snip

None at all. Better to think of it (usenet) as a big joke, a lark, an
entertainment. Keeps the blood pressure from getting too high, you see.

don findlay wrote:
Ken Shackleton wrote:
don findlay wrote:
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.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. The oceanic basalts
subduct....the overlying sediments are what we see being upthrust in
the form of mountains.

You mean the once-upon-a-time Pacific Plate (with a continent on top)
met the buttress of the once-upon a time American continent, which then
acted like a chisel, peeling off the continental crustal sequence which
overrode the buttress whilst the underlying mantle part of the slab,
deprived now of its crustal floatie, sank? (And all of this due to
10cm of push at the ridge every year?)


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.

No? No explanation in Plate Tectonics? What value then Plate
Tectonics at all, if it cannot even explain the present-day
distribution of stratigraphic sequence.

Don....have you completely lost touch with reality?...you are answering
your own words from a few days ago here and are arguing against
them....




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?

Crumpling? Deformation, yes...crumpling? what does that mean?

crumple:- it means to press into folds and wrinkles. You must have
missed the bit down the bottom where it says:-
"Folded Mountains are believed to have been formed when the edges of
two adjacent rock layers were pushed together causing the layers to
buckle like a wrinkled rug. " ... "The Rocky Mountains are an example
of folded mountains."
The illustrations:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/rockies.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/mtbuild.html
show the drammatic effect of this crumpling of the crust, and the
nature of the folds and wrinkles typical of plate collision everywhere/
anywhere/ (nowhere.)


(This sort of elevation is not only a natural consequence of Earth
expansion, ..it *DEFINES* it.

You can't have it both ways, Ken - the mantle holding up the crust and
the crust holding up the mantle, ...both on account of buoyancy.

What are you talking about here? I did not mention anything about crust
holding up mantle....

Surely elevation on account of changing curvature of the Earth is
self-evident? It is what causes the arcuate form of mountain belts
(and basins) you mentioned. Nothing gets "tossed on high". It's all
"tossed on Low". ( Ask India, being 'subducted' beneath Asia.) (And
why is India being 'downthrust', ...but the rockies are being upthrust?
)

(Or do you rather see a scenario like the 'horns of India'? )

What particular rational bit of this 'Plate Tectonics' is it that is
left for you to hold on to? Only the creation of the ocean floors,
..which is expansion.

You've demonstrated to me that you are a complete loon who likes to
argue against himself and does not even recognize his own ramblings of
a few days ago.

Good Day.....

Ken

On the long hot summer day of Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:39:08 -0700, don
findlay dribbled:
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.

You mean we 'do' because we 'can'? ( ...is not a good moralus operandum)

No. You _may be_, because you can. How do *I* know who you are? The name
you use might be yours, or it might not. OTOH, do I give a crap? Guess.

I will fool you, because I can? ...is that what you think the value
of usenet to be? An allowance to parade the stage incognito? Who cares
about the doing? ... It's why you would want to, ..the 'can', ..that is
encouraging elected governments to spend a lot of money wondering about
the motives of people like you then.

Nice meltdown. All of us can choose any nick, any nym, any alias we like
for posting. We are not limited to legalnames.

Now, there's George, ..has changed his loggo from wtfiswrongwith*you* - to
@yourservice, for some reason, ... But he's still incognito. So what
value is there in him parading at all? I mean, ..would you buy a used
condom from him? ....that "Willing-to-be-of-service" wallah.).

....I wouldn't buy a used condom. Not even from Al Gore.

In article .com,
"Stuart" wrote:

Charles Cagle wrote:
In article , Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message
,
Charles Cagle writes
In article .com, "Tom
McDonald" wrote:

Charles Cagle wrote:

snip

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.

Sunspots are not black; they are very intensely luminous. It is only
that they are not as bright as the surrounding solar surface that makes
them look dark.

Does that affect the mechanism you propose here?

Nonsense... As soon as a loop collapses then it become a lot more
luminous
because the charge separation effect essentially vanishes and matter can
allow electrons to fall down to ground states.


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.

AFAIK, the asteroid belt is better explained as a bit of
proto-planetary material that Jupiter's gravity did not allow to form
into a planet.

That's the thinking on your own that you're missing... "better explained"
is an opinion that has emerged from consenses, not facts. We'd have to
deal with facts like the geological layering seen on some of these
asteroid chunks.

Why should that be a problem? It's clear that the asteroid belt (and the
whole solar system) contained a lot of thousand-kilometer size bodies
(large enough to undergo differentiation, like Vesta) and that there
were a lot of collisions that produced kilometer-sized chunks like Eros

The fact that some meteorites are pure iron or at least
purer than any iron found on the Earth

Reference, please. Some meteorites consist of nickel/iron, similar to
that believed to make up Earth's core. Not surprising, if they came from
one of those smashed small bodies. The composition of the asteroids puts
limits on the largest possible size of their parent bodies - and the
asteroids have different compositions depending on where they are.

from :http://www.permanent.com/a-meteor.htm
"Iron meteorites", also called "irons", are usually just one big blob of
iron-nickel (Fe-Ni) metal, as if it came from a industrial refinery
without shaping. The alloy ranges from 5% to 62% nickel from meteorite to
meteorite, with an average of 10% nickel. Cobalt averages about 0.5%, and
other metals such as the platinum group metals, gallium, and germanium are
dissolved in the Fe-Ni metal. (Fe is the chemical symbol for iron.) While
most "irons" are pure or nearly pure metal, the technical definition of an
"iron" includes metal meteorites with up to 30% mineral inclusions such as
sulfides, metal oxides and silicates. The irons represent the cores of
former planetoids."

Of course, this conclusion that the irons represent the cores of former
planetoids is speculation and you are just regurgitation ex post facto
speculation yourself.

Um no. It also is based on the size of crystals found in irons which
indicate the slow cooling that one would expect if it was part of an
iron body with a silicate wrapper.

Um...yes. What a knee jerk response! An iron body in a silicate wrapper?
You can't suggest anything else? Can't conceive of anything else? 56
wrapped in 28? Surely you have enough wit to realize that simply eructing
something doesn't make it true? Care to tell me how that happened to come
about in the first place? Will you simply regurgitate the
pseudoscientific hand and arm waving theories of origin of the solar
system, and then posit that planets are the result of gravitational
accretions of clumps of matter left over from a supernova? That you're so
foolish to fall for such pseudoscience doesn't mean everyone else is.
There isn't even a decent comprehensive theory about the origin of heavy
elements that isn't based upon concepts that have never been demonstrated
to be true even in the laboratory. The fact that elementary charged
particles that are overlapping in momentum space behave opposite to the
expectations of Coulomb's law means that fusion doesn't work like you
think that does and this is precisely why no one has yet built a working
fusion reactor. I know that you can't quite put all these things
together, Stuart. You, no doubt, were born a rule learner, a foil, a
seeming tare amongst the human community of wheat. But you make for great
entertainment. Your blindness is understandable. I could hope that your
eyes might be opened but over the years you've indicated no such
propensity, no actual desire to know the truth. I find that grievously
disappointing... I mean really! After all these years you still are not on
a quest for truth but rather are simply desirous to defend a set of ideas
that are replete with physical nonsense. I must conclude, Stuart, that
you simply lack a conscience or that you have so long suppressed it that
you can no longer hear it urging you towards the truth. Since you have
no mechanism for the creation of heavy elements in the first place then
you wouldn't have a reasonable idea of how elements can be differentiated
by the charge separation effect of a gravitational source...And you
wouldn't understand that a standing wave boson structure is a
gravitational source as is any flux loop structure. And because you are
really quite incompetent in basic particle physics...as is the vast
majority of mainstream physicists your input is really just noise. Go
away.

It is true that I have been less than kind in the past to people like you
who come out like barking dogs, defending that which cannot be defended.
I took a couple of years off because it seemed I was becoming just like
you. I tried to drive the dogs off with the same behavior they were
giving me. See... even your own bad manners just come leaking out of you
in calling me "Chuckles" and then you have the unmitigated gall of
suggesting that I'm abusive. You're an ill mannered person, Stuart. You
always have been. You hate everyone who suggests that the things that you
believe in are wrong. You should examine why you hate people because they
cannot be taken in by the follies that dominate your own world view.
People innately believe that they consist of their beliefs and so you fear
that the destruction (by the truth) of the things that you believe in
represent a threat to the things that compose your intellectual self. So
you attack people with your bad manners and mockery, not with logic and
reason and data that has been substantiated but with idiotic theories that
have no basis in reason. I've just never tolerated what a phoney that you
are, Stuart. I've not tolerated your bad manners. I hoped that taking a
hiatus might give you and the rest of the dogs who have haunted this
newsgroup either a chance to go away or to change your behavior. I see,
unfortunately, that most of you are still here, still hateful, still
illogical, still regurgitating the same basic unprovable fallacious hand
and arm waving theories of the origin of elements and of the formation of
the solar system.

I find it sad that you being a Jew, reject Truth. For in rejecting Truth
you reject God.

Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are
judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

But I see that you hate Him. Likely even your parents hated Him.

The false idols are not just carvings of stone or wood but rather in this
day and age any false thing that you have given yourself over to including
false theories such as abound in physics and astrophysics and cosmology
and geophysics today... Plates descending down through matter twice as
dense as the plates themselves. Oh poor Archimedes! What an assault you
make on him and upon reason and how you show yourself to hate the Truth.

Exodus 20: 5* Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for
I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate
me;
6* And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my
commandments.

Stuart, when you actually have something of substance to say... it may be
too late.

Charles Cagle


suggests that there has even been
some gravitational elemental species separation. The existence of a
super dense form of matter (Isaacium)

Sorry, Chuckie, but Star Trek has finished its run and there's no need
for this pseudoscientific [tech] BS.

Again, your referring to me as 'Chuckie' just is straightforward evidence
of how little your parents cared for you that they would allow you to grow
up to be such an abusive adult. Likely you were very abused. Get
therapy. Learn not to be so hateful.

Chuckles, there are few on the internet more abusive than you. If you
don't like the way you are treated, I suggest you examine how you
treated others over the years.

Stuart

--
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 -