The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox

J. Taylor wrote:

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:39:57 GMT, Henry Schmidt
wrote:

On the long hot summer day of Thu, 31 Aug 2006 05:40:40 +0000, J.Taylor
dribbled:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:46:17 GMT, Henry Schmidt wrote:
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.

No you are not limited, but people tend to use legal names because they
have nothing to hide, or others expect them to use it so they will not
do thinks which they can hide.

Pseudonyms are a lot like hoods at a klan rally

We are all wearing pseudonyms. It doesn't matter if the name we wear looks
legal, because it can still be a pseudonym, hence the only safe assumption
is that they are all pseudonyms. Therefore, the name is not important, and
your paranoia about pseudonyms doesn't speak well for you.

It is only because you are not paying attention. Before art deco left

Where did I go?

he cross-posted this thread to alt.usenet.kooks. It is his way of
making a threat,

What threat did I post? Got a Message ID?

either agree with him or be labeled a kook, and since
he does this with an alias it is identical to how the klan operated.

Another fine example of the type of logic employed by the expanding
Earth proponents:

1) Person X posts with a pseudonym
2) Person X questions the Holy Writ of Expanding Earth Facts
3) Therefore Person X is posting threats and is a member of the Klu
Klux Klan.

Q.E.D.

As for pseudonyms, you are only fooling yourself, with an IP address
you are not hiding anything.

What is my IP address?

It is really just a matter of checking
to see if the person intends to be open and honest. Deco fails on
both accounts.

Obsession with me noted, oh great internet sleuth.

JT


--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen

don findlay wrote:
Ken Shackleton wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
In article ,
"J. Taylor" wrote:

I can confirm that I do not believe that it [EE] happened...

Belief is not the issue. You are being asked to get your critical
thought into gear. To centre your 'belief' on the bridge between
quantum mechanics and celestial mechanics when the evidence is in the
river of geology below that is wearing away the pillars of both, is
short-sighted, foolish to the point of asinine, and dishonest.

Crumpled crust, ..mountains, subduction zones, spreading ridges,
transform faults, convection, "assume-a-plume", "assume a
Panthalassa", "buoyant crust pushes dense mantle down", ..."driving
Plate Tectonics". ("Here, ..have a prize for creative thinking") - the
full geological evolution of the planet, ...*these* are the issues that
need addressed.

There's nothing "paradoxical" about it. The bridge you are standing on
is made of sand, ..and your head is in it. It will be as evident to
schoolchildren in the future as it is to any right-thinking person
today, that Plate Tectonics on the basis of an assumed Panthalassic
ocean is nonsense. Get real.

No respect will be accorded anyone who values *belief* (and the
necessity to win grants and the mutual backscratching of peer
publication credits ) over thinking, ... not in sci.geo.geology, at
least. The disgusting crap of belief you expouse needs excised like
the cancer of thought it is, and your conduct of this argument in talk
origins rather than geology, is cowardly.

As I said, Ken, ..I don't think you (or anyone else here) is interested
in answers, only in trying to divert attention away from the great
gaping hole in the hull of HMS Titanic
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...6d01578?hl=en&
that drives the nonsense of plate tectonics.

In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:00:46 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

You aren't just nitpicking, you're actively
avoiding the question of how an ocean 2000km wide can appear and
disappear.

The article said 600 miles. Apparently you did not read it.

I found an article that quoted a width of 2000km Apparently you did not
read _that_.
BTW, according to this article the ocean basins have always been about
3.5 km deep
http://www.earth.rochester.edu/ees201/labs/paleogeography.pdf


How do you explain that in terms of a "theory" that says the
present-day Atlantic opened as a result of the Earth expanding?
(2000 km from
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:...rticles.com/p/
articles/mi_qa3721/is_200211/ai_n9119455/pg_18)

They use fossil and palaeomagnetic data, the author of the article in
the link I posted used volcanic ash to determine its width.

I'm not asking how the experts determine that oceans have closed. I'm
asking how _you_ (and the whole expanding earth crowd) explain it when
your theory says that the Earth has doubled in diameter (or whatever)
over the last 200 million years and that explains the formation of the
Atlantic.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:00:46 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

You aren't just nitpicking, you're actively
avoiding the question of how an ocean 2000km wide can appear and
disappear.

The article said 600 miles. Apparently you did not read it.

I found an article that quoted a width of 2000km Apparently you did not
read _that_.
BTW, according to this article the ocean basins have always been about
3.5 km deep
http://www.earth.rochester.edu/ees201/labs/paleogeography.pdf


How do you explain that in terms of a "theory" that says the
present-day Atlantic opened as a result of the Earth expanding?
(2000 km from
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:...rticles.com/p/
articles/mi_qa3721/is_200211/ai_n9119455/pg_18)

They use fossil and palaeomagnetic data, the author of the article in
the link I posted used volcanic ash to determine its width.

I'm not asking how the experts determine that oceans have closed. I'm
asking how _you_ (and the whole expanding earth crowd) explain it when
your theory says that the Earth has doubled in diameter (or whatever)
over the last 200 million years and that explains the formation of the
Atlantic.

(Crowd 2 here) .... 'Seasy, .. Getting bigger means when it reaches
a critical radius there is a transition from latitudinal opening
(expansion/ growth/ enlargement) to longitudinal opening (spin
dislocation). This guy tried to slip it in in his paper on
"spontaneous subduction"
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tck/latlong1.html
(..."spontaneous subduction" - that's almost as good as the crust
pushing the mantle down..) ....but didn't do too good a job of it..

...That's all the 'contradiction-in-terms' "flat subduction", as plate
tectonics calls it,.. along the Eastern Pacific trying to rationalise
'overriding' (due to opening of the Atlantic) with subduction due to
convection. Opening of the Atlantic has been (more or less) at the
expense of overriding of the Eastern Pacific.

(And of course when you look at the Western Pacific - the transforms
don't even reach that far. Which is why (Are you listening Woof?)
Plate Tectonics needs to assume a pre-existing Panthalassa to make it
work.)

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:14:13 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:00:46 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

You aren't just nitpicking, you're actively
avoiding the question of how an ocean 2000km wide can appear and
disappear.

The article said 600 miles. Apparently you did not read it.

I found an article that quoted a width of 2000km Apparently you did not
read _that_.
BTW, according to this article the ocean basins have always been about
3.5 km deep
http://www.earth.rochester.edu/ees201/labs/paleogeography.pdf

And to know that, you would first have to believe the radius has been
constant.

You can claim anything you want when the evidence for it does not
exist.

There is no evidence for deep ocean crust previous to what exist
today.




How do you explain that in terms of a "theory" that says the
present-day Atlantic opened as a result of the Earth expanding?
(2000 km from
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:...rticles.com/p/
articles/mi_qa3721/is_200211/ai_n9119455/pg_18)

They use fossil and palaeomagnetic data, the author of the article in
the link I posted used volcanic ash to determine its width.

I'm not asking how the experts determine that oceans have closed. I'm
asking how _you_ (and the whole expanding earth crowd) explain it when
your theory says that the Earth has doubled in diameter (or whatever)
over the last 200 million years and that explains the formation of the
Atlantic.

To explain it first requires evidence it existed. 600km is well
within the range of a planet with half the radius.

JT

In article ,
"J. Taylor" wrote:

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:14:13 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:00:46 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

You aren't just nitpicking, you're actively
avoiding the question of how an ocean 2000km wide can appear and
disappear.

The article said 600 miles. Apparently you did not read it.

I found an article that quoted a width of 2000km Apparently you did not
read _that_.
BTW, according to this article the ocean basins have always been about
3.5 km deep
http://www.earth.rochester.edu/ees201/labs/paleogeography.pdf

And to know that, you would first have to believe the radius has been
constant.

What's the problem here? That's a perfectly reasonable assumption.

You can claim anything you want when the evidence for it does not
exist.

Yeah, like the Earth gaining mass from some unknown source. No evidence
for it, but plenty against, yet you go on making that faulty assumption.

There is no evidence for deep ocean crust previous to what exist
today.

You're claiming that since there is no evidence for it, it never
existed. But that logic is flawed. A parallel example is to say that
dinosaurs had no DNA ... there is, after all, no evidence for dinosaur
DNA. But that logic is flawed: can you tell us why?

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

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 23:04:08 -0700, Timberwoof
wrote:

In article ,
"J. Taylor" wrote:

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:14:13 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:00:46 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

You aren't just nitpicking, you're actively
avoiding the question of how an ocean 2000km wide can appear and
disappear.

The article said 600 miles. Apparently you did not read it.

I found an article that quoted a width of 2000km Apparently you did not
read _that_.
BTW, according to this article the ocean basins have always been about
3.5 km deep
http://www.earth.rochester.edu/ees201/labs/paleogeography.pdf

And to know that, you would first have to believe the radius has been
constant.

What's the problem here? That's a perfectly reasonable assumption.

"according to this article the ocean basins have always been about 3.5
km deep"

Fine, lets correct the statement

According to this article the ocean basins have always been (assumed
to be) about 3.5 km deep

Maybe, you think an assumption is knowledge I do not.



You can claim anything you want when the evidence for it does not
exist.

Yeah, like the Earth gaining mass from some unknown source.

No, if the Earth gained mass in the last 200my, it is a fact it has to
be from an unknown source.

No evidence for it, but plenty against, yet you go on making that faulty assumption.

You do not have plenty of evidence against mass from an unknown source
because you do not know where mass comes from. All sources are
unknown, yet we have mass. Check out Higgs Field


There is no evidence for deep ocean crust previous to what exist
today.

You're claiming that since there is no evidence for it, it never
existed.

Just more of you perverted thinking. No evidence means no evidence
nothing more

But that logic is flawed.

Since it is not mine, but yours, well... looks like you are wrong
again.

A parallel example is to say that
dinosaurs had no DNA ... there is, after all, no evidence for dinosaur
DNA.

There is evidence for dino DNA, but it does not matter, not making any
such argument.


But that logic is flawed: can you tell us why?

You're an idiot?

JT

don findlay wrote:
Ken Shackleton wrote:
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:
Anyway you didn't answer the question, about
how you see the absence of crustal crumpling, when crumpling (by plate
collision) is one of the fundamental tenets of Plate Tectonics.

So, ...no answer from you on the question of the crumpled crust in the
Rockies that you walk over
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/mtbuild.html
? No ? Because you have none. And worse, you are going to let Ian
there take the rap for his nonsensical indiscretion
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...717b236?hl=en&


Ah dear (and see above), ..I think too that you have demonstrated well
that in engaging in the discussion, addressing the point was never
your intention, but merely a vehicle to peddle disguised ad hominens.
Well, Ken, ..You are unmasked. The one you ohave just attempted to
deliver has back-fired I'm afraid (Hiding behind a bit of 'crumpling',
indeed) If you make out you don't understand what crumpling of the
crust means in the context of plate collision, and at the same time
purport to argue in favour of it, then you're more of a loonie than
even the George.

In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:14:13 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:00:46 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

You aren't just nitpicking, you're actively
avoiding the question of how an ocean 2000km wide can appear and
disappear.

The article said 600 miles. Apparently you did not read it.

I found an article that quoted a width of 2000km Apparently you did not
read _that_.
BTW, according to this article the ocean basins have always been about
3.5 km deep
http://www.earth.rochester.edu/ees201/labs/paleogeography.pdf

And to know that, you would first have to believe the radius has been
constant.
You can claim anything you want when the evidence for it does not
exist.
There is no evidence for deep ocean crust previous to what exist
today.

Actually there is. Eclogite is generally thought to be former ocean
crust
http://gac.esd.mun.ca/gac_2001/seven...98&form=10&abs
_no=266



How do you explain that in terms of a "theory" that says the
present-day Atlantic opened as a result of the Earth expanding?
(2000 km from
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:...rticles.com/p/
articles/mi_qa3721/is_200211/ai_n9119455/pg_18)

They use fossil and palaeomagnetic data, the author of the article in
the link I posted used volcanic ash to determine its width.

I'm not asking how the experts determine that oceans have closed. I'm
asking how _you_ (and the whole expanding earth crowd) explain it when
your theory says that the Earth has doubled in diameter (or whatever)
over the last 200 million years and that explains the formation of the
Atlantic.

To explain it first requires evidence it existed. 600km is well
within the range of a planet with half the radius.

You're still deliberately missing the point. It doesn't matter how wide
the ocean was; what matters is that it closed up
http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~conallm/Cal-App.html
How can it close up, if the earth is expanding?

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , J. Taylor
writes
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:14:13 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

You're still deliberately missing the point. It doesn't matter how wide
the ocean was; what matters is that it closed up
http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~conallm/Cal-App.html
How can it close up, if the earth is expanding?

The oceans don't close up. The *crust* 'closes' on a scale
commensurate with gravity collapse and (e.g.) the wrap-around of the
Russian Peninsula from Indonesia) (which is linked to the formation of
the back-arc basins of the western Pacific),
http:..users.indigo.net.au/don/cpr/matahari.html
...but the oceans don't close. (How much eclogite do think there is
representing closed oceans?)

And while you're at it you might give thought to the thin thread of
mountain belt there is representing opened ones (=2/3rds of the Earth's
crust).

You're not addressing the scale problem.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/flaw.html