Expanding Earth
Eigenvector
knowledge to do so. However, it would seem that this theory would be
incredibly easy to prove or disprove based on some observations readily
available to the astronomy field.
1) If the earth were expanding the day would get longer - unless the earth
were speeding up its rotation.
2) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the moon phase cycle
would change.
3) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the position of the
moon would change as well.
4) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the orbital position
of the earth "might" also change - conservation of energy might apply here.
Really, geology isn't even necessary to prove that the earth is expanding,
simple astronomical observations should prove or disprove it. Given the
amount of data collected since the start of the space program in the US, all
that information should be readily available.
Does that sound like a reasonable way of eliminating the expanding earth
theory to you all - or am I missing something fundamental about the theory?
Hank Oredson
news:KQZBd.21$eo2....@news.uswest.net...
Perhaps missing the main point: the theory is simply bogus.
There are many many (i.e. "all") observations that disprove the thesis.
There are very very few (i.e. "no") observations that support the thesis.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net
Jonathan Silverlight
<rYZBd.1211888$Gx4.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Hank
Oredson <hore...@att.net> writes
>"Eigenvector" <m44_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:KQZBd.21$eo2....@news.uswest.net...
>> I'm not defending nor attacking the viewpoint myself, I don't have the
>> knowledge to do so. However, it would seem that this theory would be
>> incredibly easy to prove or disprove based on some observations readily
>> available to the astronomy field.
>>
>> theory to you all - or am I missing something fundamental about the
>> theory?
>
>
>Perhaps missing the main point: the theory is simply bogus.
>There are many many (i.e. "all") observations that disprove the thesis.
>There are very very few (i.e. "no") observations that support the thesis.
>
a lot of Usenet discussion, there are on-line and paper books, and
there's probably stuff I haven't seen.
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
Eigenvector
"Hank Oredson" <hore...@att.net> wrote in message
news:rYZBd.1211888$Gx4.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
So then why does the community even argue with the EE people? I have an
opinion on the subject, I won't voice it and contaminate my question, but it
seems like there has been a lot of sniping back and forth between
conventional Geologists and certain individuals. Seems like simply
publishing the data and conclusions would end it.
What I was trying to ultimately do was end the pointless back and forth.
Instead I may have only exacerbated it. Perhaps the geology community could
pair up with the author of the BadAstronomy homepage and create the
BadGeology homepage? Sort of a clearinghouse for debunking bogus theories,
misconceptions, and items of interest.
Hank Oredson
I do not understand the term "conventional geologists".
The observations I mentioned are published, in peer-reviewed journals.
Anyone who is a geologist will have no trouble finding them.
I'm a scientist, but not a geologist, and it was easy to find the data.
Google works wonders ;-)
> What I was trying to ultimately do was end the pointless back and forth.
> Instead I may have only exacerbated it. Perhaps the geology community
> could
> pair up with the author of the BadAstronomy homepage and create the
> BadGeology homepage? Sort of a clearinghouse for debunking bogus
> theories,
> misconceptions, and items of interest.
Naw, there are herds of kooks here. They love to chatter on about
silly ideas, without having any clue what they are talking about ;-)
Some are even entertaining. Got a real kick out of the post with all
the equations that basically said "Assuming the earth is expanding,
we can then prove it is getting larger."
Don't get me started on the issue of the change in rotation due to
the quake. Most of the posts have clearly no clue about the
difference between transient change and secular change. This
is so fundamental that I find it amazing that anyone with even
a high school education would get it wrong. But they do.
George
Unfortunately, it doesn't cover the Expanding Earth balony that keeps getting
posted here.
My favorite bad geology web site is this one:
My favorite quote from that web site:
"Eventually Mankind will be forced to migrate to a new home on Mars before Earth
grows to the size of Neptune. "
Bhwhahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Well, at least he might become a friend of the Planetary Society , once they
stop laughing their asses off!
David Ford
> I'm not defending nor attacking the viewpoint myself, I don't have the
> knowledge to do so. However, it would seem that this theory would be
> incredibly easy to prove or disprove based on some observations readily
> available to the astronomy field.
>
> 1) If the earth were expanding the day would get longer - unless the earth
> were speeding up its rotation.
Geophysics has measured a SECULAR trend in the slowing of Earth's
rotation since modern precision measurements have been logged, which
usually requires the addition of 1 second each year to UTC. (See my
post an hour ago to sci.geo.earthquakes)
> 2) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the moon phase cycle
> would change.
It isn't speeding up rotation as a secular trend, only in transients
does it reverse the usual slowing trend.
> 3) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the position of the
> moon would change as well.
Yes, not applicable though, as the long-term trend is a slowing.
> 4) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the orbital position
> of the earth "might" also change - conservation of energy might apply here.
Not applicable, the inverse would be though.
> Really, geology isn't even necessary to prove that the earth is expanding,
> simple astronomical observations should prove or disprove it.
Geology is the study of Earth, of which Geophysics is a sub-branch,
which incorporates space geodetic systems that are calibrated by
observation of quasars. Space-based precision observations of +/- 1 mm
are a routine aspect of geological observing now, and has been for decades.
> Given the
> amount of data collected since the start of the space program in the US, all
> that information should be readily available.
It is, and in recent years it has been discovered that not only is the
rotation of earth showing a secular slowing, that formally published
analysis of precision vertical component vectors from geodetic systems
confirm Earth is currently measurably NET expanding at a rate of 3-4 mm
per year.
> Does that sound like a reasonable way of eliminating the expanding earth
> theory to you all - or am I missing something fundamental about the theory?
It is the logical means to do so, unfortunately, it hasn't done so yet.
--
(NOTE: BTW Lawrence S. Myers of http://expanding-earth.org/ is a
uber-twit, and I've explained to him in detail how comprehensively wrong
and fantastic his nonsense is, he has ZERO formal geological training,
and was previously a apparently US Naval officer ... I hold him in
contempt of observational reality, as you do)
George
"David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:41d8...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980421b.html
The interaction of the Moon and the tides is pumping angular momentum out of
Earth's spin and into the Moon's orbit.
Currently the day is lengthening by about 1.5-2 milliseconds per century.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
This is thought to be higher than normal due to resonance frequencies in the
slosh time of the current configuration of oceans (which changes with
continental drift). If this were to continue forever, the Earth and Moon would
end up tidally locked so that they kept the same faces towards each other
throughout each day=month which would be about 50 of our current days long.
However, the Sun will expand and incinerate the Earth well before that happens.
It has nothing to do with "earth expansion".
Hank Oredson
>
>> I'm not defending nor attacking the viewpoint myself, I don't have the
>> knowledge to do so. However, it would seem that this theory would be
>> incredibly easy to prove or disprove based on some observations readily
>> available to the astronomy field.
>>
>> 1) If the earth were expanding the day would get longer - unless the
>> earth
>> were speeding up its rotation.
>
>
>
> Geophysics has measured a SECULAR trend in the slowing of Earth's rotation
> since modern precision measurements have been logged, which usually
> requires the addition of 1 second each year to UTC. (See my post an hour
> ago to sci.geo.earthquakes)
Yes, and the cause is well known.
>> 2) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the moon phase
>> cycle
>> would change.
>
>
>
> It isn't speeding up rotation as a secular trend, only in transients does
> it reverse the usual slowing trend.
Exactly.
>
>
>> 3) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the position of
>> the
>> moon would change as well.
>
>
>
> Yes, not applicable though, as the long-term trend is a slowing.
>
>
>
>> 4) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the orbital
>> position
>> of the earth "might" also change - conservation of energy might apply
>> here.
>
>
>
> Not applicable, the inverse would be though.
Via spin-orbit coupling?
>> Really, geology isn't even necessary to prove that the earth is
>> expanding,
>> simple astronomical observations should prove or disprove it.
>
>
>
> Geology is the study of Earth, of which Geophysics is a sub-branch, which
> incorporates space geodetic systems that are calibrated by observation of
> quasars. Space-based precision observations of +/- 1 mm are a routine
> aspect of geological observing now, and has been for decades.
>
>
>
>> Given the
>> amount of data collected since the start of the space program in the US,
>> all
>> that information should be readily available.
>
>
>
> It is, and in recent years it has been discovered that not only is the
> rotation of earth showing a secular slowing, that formally published
> analysis of precision vertical component vectors from geodetic systems
> confirm Earth is currently measurably NET expanding at a rate of 3-4 mm
> per year.
Cite please.
>> Does that sound like a reasonable way of eliminating the expanding earth
>> theory to you all - or am I missing something fundamental about the
>> theory?
>
>
> It is the logical means to do so, unfortunately, it hasn't done so yet.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net
David Ford
> "David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
> news:41d8...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
>>Eigenvector wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm not defending nor attacking the viewpoint myself, I don't have the
>>>knowledge to do so. However, it would seem that this theory would be
>>>incredibly easy to prove or disprove based on some observations readily
>>>available to the astronomy field.
>>>
>>>1) If the earth were expanding the day would get longer - unless the
>>>earth
>>>were speeding up its rotation.
>>
>>
>>
>>Geophysics has measured a SECULAR trend in the slowing of Earth's rotation
>>since modern precision measurements have been logged, which usually
>>requires the addition of 1 second each year to UTC. (See my post an hour
>>ago to sci.geo.earthquakes)
>
>
> Yes, and the cause is well known.
Nope, evidentently it is NOT as well understood as was previously
thought. I did refer you above, to the post I made in sci.geo.geology
Here is the relevant section from that post which illustrates that the
cause is obviously NOT well known, it was only ASSUMED:
"... The one significant reservation I do have about what Dr Richard
Gross [JPL] has said in the article I posted is;
--
[quote]
“…Overall, the Earth's rotation tends to slow down as the Moon's gravity
pulls on its seas and continents, causing bulges that give the opposite
effect of Sunday's compacting quake. …” – Gross [end]
Now, I have never bought into this standard bulging ‘drag’ explanation
of the observed routine slowing of Earth’s rotation, because it is also
consistent with NET upward movement of MASS in Earth, and thus
indicative of Earth expansion (which I quantified in August 1999 to be
3.0 mm/yr from the VLBI data set … which again, was far less than the 18
mm/yr I was seeking … this is what Earth is telling us, so be it - but
this still means a measurable above noise Earth expansion is actually
present within the VLBI dataset, nonetheless …). So when Dr. Gross goes
on to make the following closing remarks below within the Nature
article, it confirms and reinforces my previous view regarding the
Earth’s rotational slowing;
[quotation]
“ …This is partly because, when the atomic clock system was adopted in
1967, physicists chose 1900 as the year with the best average data on
how fast the Earth spins. This meant that, because of Earth's natural
slowing, the atomic clock was already running fast when it was set up.
On average, just over one leap second is needed every year, O'Brian
says. That makes the fact that we haven't had one since 1998 something
of a surprise. "Since the last leap second the Earth's rotation seems to
have been changing at a very slow rate," he says.” - Gross [end]
Now, I think we can all find quick agreement that Gross’s explanation
the, “…Moon's gravity pulls on its seas and continents, causing bulges
…”, did not suddenly end in 1998. i.e., the moon is still in its usual
orbit and tides still occur as ever before, and there have not been any
notable MASS slumps off continental margins, nor unusually large
earthquakes like this current event in the 1998 to present interim, that
could have otherwise counteracted the rotational slow-down process of Earth.
This tends to falsify Gross’s previous explanation for what actually
causes this usual (but patently very unusual) continual slow-down of
Earth rotation, and this fact that the moon and tides have not gone
away, leaves us with the much more logical interpretation that this
routine slow-down of Earth’s rotation is due to NET UPWARD MOVEMENT OF
MASS IN EARTH, and thus serves to reinforce the expanding Earth theory’s
interpretation of the slow-down (which, as already mentioned, is
confirmed to be a feature of global geodetic dataset’s vertical vector
component analysis).
So, we are left with a Plate Tectonic Theory, and Expansionary theory,
neither of whish presents a synthesis that adequately and fully accounts
for the extraordinary observations being uncovered. ..."
--
As you see it is not understood well at all, or else this would not be
so "surprising" to Gross himself.
>
>>>2) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the moon phase
>>>cycle
>>>would change.
>>
>>
>>
>>It isn't speeding up rotation as a secular trend, only in transients does
>>it reverse the usual slowing trend.
>
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>>
>>>3) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the position of
>>>the
>>>moon would change as well.
>>
>>
>>
>>Yes, not applicable though, as the long-term trend is a slowing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>4) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the orbital
>>>position
>>>of the earth "might" also change - conservation of energy might apply
>>>here.
>>
>>
>>
>>Not applicable, the inverse would be though.
>
>
> Via spin-orbit coupling?
Any answer to that would be too assumption loaded, please excuse me if I
refrain.
>
>
>>>Really, geology isn't even necessary to prove that the earth is
>>>expanding,
>>>simple astronomical observations should prove or disprove it.
>>
>>
>>
>>Geology is the study of Earth, of which Geophysics is a sub-branch, which
>>incorporates space geodetic systems that are calibrated by observation of
>>quasars. Space-based precision observations of +/- 1 mm are a routine
>>aspect of geological observing now, and has been for decades.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Given the
>>>amount of data collected since the start of the space program in the US,
>>>all
>>>that information should be readily available.
>>
>>
>>
>>It is, and in recent years it has been discovered that not only is the
>>rotation of earth showing a secular slowing, that formally published
>>analysis of precision vertical component vectors from geodetic systems
>>confirm Earth is currently measurably NET expanding at a rate of 3-4 mm
>>per year.
>
>
> Cite please.
It was widely reported in mainstream reports in mid 2002
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-magnetic-02b.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/equator_bulge_020801.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/08/01/earth.pumpkin/
See this PDF:
"Time-Variation Gravity and Ocean Connections"
Authors B. F. Chao, C. M. Cox, A. Y. Au, J-P. Boy
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/documents/swt/presentations2003/PIs_12_ocean_gravity_chao.pdf
Their 'Conclusions' (they actually used the inverted commas, because
they can not actually conclude or attribute the true cause)
'CONCLUSIONS':
Large 1998-2002 anomaly in J2 rate
.
Appears to be short term - returning to “normal” (prior trend)
•
Not atmosphere
•
Ice melting scenarios have issues:
–
Needs several hundred km3 of ice melting per year!
–
Implying too much GSL change - Where does the water go?
–
J2 returning to “normal” - Implies rapid ice accumulation
–
Conversely, they can’t be ruled out entirely
.
The Greenland and West Antarctica data imply fairly rapid changes
•
Ocean?
–
Extratropic Pacific 1998-2002 anomaly
.
Following the big 1997-98 El Nino (tropical) but manifesting in
extratropic North and South
.
Consistent with timing of PDO and extratropic SST, salinity, and SSH changes
–
Recent changes in SSH implied J2 commensurate in magnitude
–
ECCO model only explains ¼ to 1/3 of the J2 anomaly
•
Open issues: Ocean steric effects, Mass conservation, Hydrology, Polar
Sea influences, Core mass flow, Other gravity harmonics, Earth rotation…
>
>
>>>Does that sound like a reasonable way of eliminating the expanding earth
>>>theory to you all - or am I missing something fundamental about the
>>>theory?
>>
>>
>>It is the logical means to do so, unfortunately, it hasn't done so yet.
>
It would be wonderful if things were so simple as a few basic
astronomical observations and conclusions, but it isn't. In science you
have to look at all the available possibles, not just the favorites.
George
The problem, Davey, is that no one has ever 'quantified' your alleged "net
upward movement of mass (whatever the fuck that means) in earth", but they have
quantified the movements of the tides and it's effects on the earth's rotation
for many years. Oops.
Hank Oredson
> Hank Oredson wrote:
>
>> "David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
>> news:41d8...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>
>>>Eigenvector wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm not defending nor attacking the viewpoint myself, I don't have the
>>>>knowledge to do so. However, it would seem that this theory would be
>>>>incredibly easy to prove or disprove based on some observations readily
>>>>available to the astronomy field.
>>>>
>>>>1) If the earth were expanding the day would get longer - unless the
>>>>earth
>>>>were speeding up its rotation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Geophysics has measured a SECULAR trend in the slowing of Earth's
>>>rotation since modern precision measurements have been logged, which
>>>usually requires the addition of 1 second each year to UTC. (See my post
>>>an hour ago to sci.geo.earthquakes)
>>
>>
>> Yes, and the cause is well known.
>
>
> Nope, evidentently it is NOT as well understood as was previously thought.
> I did refer you above, to the post I made in sci.geo.geology Here is the
> relevant section from that post which illustrates that the cause is
> obviously NOT well known, it was only ASSUMED:
I repeat, the cause is well known.
Some article you might have posted on usenet is not of
interest in refuting something well known from peer reviewed
articles. If you can cite something peer reviewed it would interest me.
> "... The one significant reservation I do have about what Dr Richard Gross
> [JPL] has said in the article I posted is;
Much blah blah elided.
Argument by reference to "expert" is not very convincing, sorry.
> As you see it is not understood well at all, or else this would not be so
> "surprising" to Gross himself.
"... himself .." ??? Some diety? Religious argument?
Cites please. Real papers in real peer reviewed journals.
>> Via spin-orbit coupling?
> Any answer to that would be too assumption loaded, please excuse me if I
> refrain.
You do not understand what I said?
There is some OTHER explanation?
Why raise the issue then, if you won't discuss mechanisms?
You mention a possible observation that implies spin-orbit coupling.
How would that work?
Perhaps via the interaction between the earths magenetic field
and the solar wind? Need something like that, right?
>> Cite please.
> It was widely reported in mainstream reports in mid 2002
>
> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-magnetic-02b.html
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/equator_bulge_020801.html
> http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/08/01/earth.pumpkin/
Um ... yeah ...
Much blather elided here, mostly not to the point.
>>>>Does that sound like a reasonable way of eliminating the expanding earth
>>>>theory to you all - or am I missing something fundamental about the
>>>>theory?
>>>It is the logical means to do so, unfortunately, it hasn't done so yet.
> It would be wonderful if things were so simple as a few basic astronomical
> observations and conclusions, but it isn't. In science you have to look
> at all the available possibles, not just the favorites.
Now let's see what there is left to explain.
Nothing.
It's all explained by well understood mechanisms.
Ok, move along now, nothing to see here.
Our planet is not about to become as large as Neptune.
David Ford
Something tells me nothing would suit your needs chagalug.
Hank Oredson
news:41d8...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> Something tells me nothing would suit your needs chagalug.
You are incorrect.
References to actual scientific work would be most helpful.
Posting long diatribes containing gibberish and "proof by authority"
will not be helpful to me. I'm curious, I'm a scientist, I'm retired and
I have an interest in the topic. Short explanations would be helpful.
Cites would be helpful ... if they are to peer reviewed journals.
Geophysics (and more of interest to me directly: upper-atmosphere
physics, but they relate) is tangential to what I did before I retired,
but is of interest now that I can study whatever I wish ;-)
David Ford
Try a library.
George
In other words, Hank. He hasn't a clue.
T
<snip>
> My favorite bad geology web site is this one:
>
> http://expanding-earth.org/
>
> My favorite quote from that web site:
>
> "Eventually Mankind will be forced to migrate to a new home on Mars before Earth
> grows to the size of Neptune. "
>
> Bhwhahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
>
> Well, at least he might become a friend of the Planetary Society , once they
> stop laughing their asses off!
>
>
The evidence is empirical and the conclusions obvious—the Earth ~200
million years ago was a single planetary landmass ~40% smaller than it
is today, and at that moment in geologic time there were NO OCEANS!
---------------
OMG! It's on the Internet, it Must be TRUE!
TBerk
geraldk...@hotmail.com
Eigenvector wrote:
> I'm not defending nor attacking the viewpoint myself, I don't have
the
> knowledge to do so. However, it would seem that this theory would be
> incredibly easy to prove or disprove based on some observations
readily
> available to the astronomy field.
>
> 1) If the earth were expanding the day would get longer - unless the
earth
> were speeding up its rotation.
> 2) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the moon phase
cycle
> would change.
> 3) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the position
of the
> moon would change as well.
> 4) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the orbital
position
> of the earth "might" also change - conservation of energy might apply
here.
>
Geologists discovered that the Equatorial bulge is a terrestial feature
generated by the Earth's astronomical motions hence a good indication
that crustal movement has also a astronomical component based on the
imbalance between axial and orbital motion. It is that simple.
You are your astro colleagues are stuck with Newtonian ballistics and
do not calculate the Earth's astronomical axial and orbital motions as
independent of each other but as a single average sidereal figure where
no imbalance exists.It is that simple.
There is no doubt that EE is initially an assault on the eyes however
there are elements of it that ring true as long as the mass of the
Earth remains more or less constant which would determine that any
expansion is from normal transfer of denser material to lighter crust
or variations of that theme.
The current mechanism for crustal motion is simply too weak to account
for geological surface features and consequently earthquakes,volcanoes
ect,I suspect geologists are beginning to recognise that the physics
community allied with their astronomical messenger boys have been going
along an undisciplined route for so long that they could'nt recognise
the connection between the astronomical motions of the Earth and the
geological consequences to save their lives.
2005,grow up and get used to the connection,it is here to stay.
J. Taylor
wrote:
i.e. - Latin - id est, is an abbreviation and means, that is
e.g. is an abbreviation for Latin exempli gratia, for example
Many, many, to infinity does not mean all, nor does very, very few
equal no, or none, so that it would mean, that is.
If an example was what you intend, this is a generalizations and could
hardly be considered a proof.
You exhibit the same lack of precision in your thought which George
does in his.
This shows your lack of exactness in your thinking. The fact, you
speak of observations, but exclude others, like the spreading around
Africa, and Antarctica makes your statement false.
EE continues to be argued because of observations on the surface of
the Earth, which are best explained by expansion due to the
limitations length, width, height, and time places on these
observations.
Ignoring these is proof, only, of your lack of desire to honestly
evaluate what is happening.
JT
Hank Oredson
news:8rhht0lhc9s1aao2e...@4ax.com...
Here it is in a simple form you can understand.
All published observations disprove the hypothesis.
No published observations support it.
> This shows your lack of exactness in your thinking. The fact, you
> speak of observations, but exclude others, like the spreading around
> Africa, and Antarctica makes your statement false.
Eh what?
Local spreading proves global expansion?
As they say in Minnesota "Ya, Sure"
Contraction at subduction zones exactly balances spreading.
Next.
> EE continues to be argued because of observations on the surface of
> the Earth, which are best explained by expansion due to the
> limitations length, width, height, and time places on these
> observations.
>
> Ignoring these is proof, only, of your lack of desire to honestly
> evaluate what is happening.
Lessee ... what might we observe.
First off, local observations are not of much use, since one would
need ALL the possible local observations to draw a conclusion.
But that is not required. We can do something simpler.
Consider mass gain / mass loss balance.
Where would we go to find out about that?
Upper atmosphere physics, right?
Some comes in, some goes out.
Let's check. Yes, it is probable more comes in than goes out.
So the earth does appear to be gaining mass. At what rate?
Perhaps a mm or maybe a few mm per year, perhaps much less.
But there DOES appear to be a net mass gain.
Will that slow the spin? Yes, it will. How much?
Aw gee, these are tiny tiny effects. Oh well.
Hank Oredson
Well thank you for your very helpful suggestion.
What a novel idea!
Hank Oredson
news:xS5Cd.68047$k25.31489@attbi_s53...
I know ;-)
Slowly sorting out the various posters to the two groups.
Have been lurking here for a long time, there have been in the
past some good discussions that pointed me toward the current
state of things. The recent events sure brought out the kooks,
charlatans, trolls as well as the ignorant (big grin).
Bet there will be some very interesting papers in a few months
once the data from the big quake has been fully analyzed.
If nothing else it was a good energy source for some tomography.
J. Taylor
wrote:
>"David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
Maybe you would like to provide some cites for your "i.e. all" and
"i.e. no" statements
These serve as proof you like to make statements which exceeds your
actual studies.
You are just another George willing to make things up, to sound like
you know something.
It is not apparent what you have retired from, since you still employ
stupidity to waste time.
JT
David Ford
It's amazing, old Hank hasn't studied geology and has no experience in
it, but shoots his mouth off to people who have!
WTF is that about then? You sure you aren't just a kook Hank?
Hank Oredson
And perhaps I have and do, but how would anyone know?
> WTF is that about then? You sure you aren't just a kook Hank?
Just sorting out the various posters, thank you for your help.
Not That George
How about a list of EE supporters and posters in this newsgroup who have not
studied geology and have no experience in it, but shoot their mouth off to
people who have. Several jump off the screen immediately. Whoops!
> WTF is that about then? You sure you aren't just a kook Hank?
WTF about them. Has JT studied geology and have experience in it? Is he a
kook?
There are others. Would you care to explain their background in the study
and experience in geology?
The other George
Eigenvector
Eh, well this post didn't work out as planned. On one hand I did come to
find out that David Ford and J. Taylor aren't kooks, just losers.
Its a real shame that there aren't forums where scientists can get together
to discuss current events and theories. Inevitably those forums always get
inundated with schizophrenics with a delusion, trolls, or worse - a
schizophrenic troll. That's sad too, the newsgroups were invented for the
purpose of aiding the scientific community. Now they are just places for
people like David Ford and J. Taylor to publicly masturbate. However that
is like everything else of beauty - some people can't stand looking at it
because they feel jealous.
George
"T" <tb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6P9Cd.6797$yV1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Hahahahaha!
George
Lack of precision? Lack of exactness? Pot-kettle-black. I have posted very
clearly and many times why earth expansion is a load of horse shit.
Interestingly, instead of defending it with concise, well thought out answers
based on verifiable evidence, virtually every EEer I've ever discussed this
issue with has either avoided answering those questions at all by simply
deciding to killfile me, or have simply relied on their tried and true method of
addressing hard questions put to them - they simply insult the questioner ot
otherwise change the subject entirely.
is...@earthlink.net
>
> So then why does the community even argue with the EE people?
Because science must be defended lest it be voted out of office like
those trying to vote out evolution in favor if creation science.
Andy
George
Coming from you, J. as those statements do, I just have to laugh.
George
<is...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1104783043....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
That and more. We must also insist that those who make such claims as an
expanding earth defend their claims with verifiable, peer-reviewed data. Why
should the rest of the scientific community be required to do so, but not them?
They have no special connection to some 'earth mother' that lets them get away
with not using the scientific method.
Wally Anglesea™
Strange, isn't it then that the mountain ranges aren't all at the
equator, made up of light rocks.
>
>The current mechanism for crustal motion is simply too weak to account
>for geological surface features and consequently earthquakes,volcanoes
>ect,I suspect geologists are beginning to recognise that the physics
>community allied with their astronomical messenger boys have been going
>along an undisciplined route for so long that they could'nt recognise
>the connection between the astronomical motions of the Earth and the
>geological consequences to save their lives.
>
>2005,grow up and get used to the connection,it is here to stay.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Really, geology isn't even necessary to prove that the earth is
>expanding,
>> simple astronomical observations should prove or disprove it. Given
>the
>> amount of data collected since the start of the space program in the
>US, all
>> that information should be readily available.
>>
>> Does that sound like a reasonable way of eliminating the expanding
>earth
>> theory to you all - or am I missing something fundamental about the
>theory?
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
Not That George
"Not That George" <geo...@expressohdt.net> wrote in message
news:crbua...@news2.newsguy.com...
Oh, my goodness! It seems that if one looks into the backgrounds of a number
of the most vocal EE proponents it appears that quite a number of them
haven't studied geology and have no experience in it. I guess it shouldn't
disqualify them from expounding on their beliefs, but it seems that David
Ford just made an issue of it. He wouldn't want them shooting off their
mouth to people who have.
I would hope that those who support PT, or those that seem to argue on a
regular basis with David Ford, archive this little outburst from David Ford,
so that they can use it later. Again, and again, and again.
That other George, again.
Hank Oredson
And as the saying goes: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs."
Rod Burns
"Eigenvector" <m44_m...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:KQZBd.21$eo2....@news.uswest.net...
> I'm not defending nor attacking the viewpoint myself, I don't have the
> knowledge to do so. However, it would seem that this theory would be
> incredibly easy to prove or disprove based on some observations readily
> available to the astronomy field.
>
> 1) If the earth were expanding the day would get longer - unless the
> earth
> were speeding up its rotation.
> 2) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the moon phase
> cycle
> would change.
> 3) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the position of the
> moon would change as well.
> 4) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the orbital
> position
> of the earth "might" also change - conservation of energy might apply
> here.
>
> simple astronomical observations should prove or disprove it. Given the
> amount of data collected since the start of the space program in the US,
> all
> that information should be readily available.
>
> Does that sound like a reasonable way of eliminating the expanding earth
> theory to you all - or am I missing something fundamental about the
> theory?
>
>
Mmmmh.. In my view, this EE issue is not really a scientific one, but rather
a dialectic one. Some people obviously are taking a chance of questionning
the way science operate, in general. This EE quizz is a sophism, much like
Achiles and the turtle, save that it addresses science at large. I would say
the answer is dialectic, not scientific.
First, the main assertion has an ambiguous formulation. Is Earth supposed to
have been smaller with the same density and a smaller mass, or a higher
density and the same mass, or none of the above ?
This in itself is a clue that though it seems sheer stupidity at scientific
level, it is probably smart dialectics.
It is also obviously a communication on the theme that Earth is a center (of
expansion), so why not a center of the expansion of the Universe.
Then next issue. Dinosaurs. Why then ? Well if you look at it from a
communication angle, it compares an idiotic hypothesis ("Since the Earth was
smaller") to one of the bases of darwinian evolution ("the dinosaurs were
able to live so big"), as a way to suggest that maybe "the dinosaurs" were
the idiotic hypothesis.
As a result, science jabbers, which I think is the objective of the trick :
prove that science is jabbering.
Adding dinosaurs to EE also allows EEists to post this in geology,
astronomy, paleontology, etc. and have fun seeing the Babel of Science
jabber and bicker all around.
What I would do is give the issue to students as an exercice, put the best
answers on a blog, send EEists to that blog and stop loosing time on the
issue, since you're not just loosing your time.
I'd say that it is also a reminder that science is fragile, still. The
Greeks measured the Earth radius, but a couple of centuries later, the Earth
was flat again. Because there are people that have an interest in it, much
of what we know today may still be lost to irrational beliefs in case of a
grave social upheaval. Which we cannot be sure will never happen (Although
we would not like to call for Latest Day either)
I'm sure you know this one :
Three friends are out for a beer.
The sit for a while, ask for a snack, and it all amounts to 30 bucks.
Each give 10 bucks, so that it makes 30 bucks.
The waitress takes the money, goes back to the cash register, and there she
realises that it only costs 25 bucks. She turns back, and give them back 5
bucks of change.
As the three guys have no change to split 5 bucks in 3, and as they are
happy with the waitress, they tip her with 2 bucks, and keep one buck each.
As they had given 10 bucks each, and got back one buck each, they paid in
all 9 bucks each, which makes for 3x9=27 bucks.
Although, they gave 30 bucks at the beginning.
Where is the missing buck ?
don findlay
Wally Anglesea™ wrote:
> >Geologists discovered that the Equatorial bulge is a terrestial
feature
> >generated by the Earth's astronomical motions hence a good
indication
> >that crustal movement has also a astronomical component based on the
> >imbalance between axial and orbital motion. It is that simple.
That's right. The first-order deformation of the planet - related to
spin. And so is the second and third and fourth order deformations.
As Carey said: "Gravity is the driver: rotation the helm" Eat your
heart out Wally, and get convection, I mean indigestion.
> >You are your astro colleagues are stuck with Newtonian ballistics
and
> >do not calculate the Earth's astronomical axial and orbital motions
as
> >independent of each other but as a single average sidereal figure
where
> >no imbalance exists.It is that simple.
> >
> >There is no doubt that EE is initially an assault on the eyes
however
> >there are elements of it that ring true as long as the mass of the
> >Earth remains more or less constant which would determine that any
> >expansion is from normal transfer of denser material to lighter
crust
> >or variations of that theme.
I keep saying to people, "All you have to do is drop that most
inconvenient of assumptions, that there used to be a huge big ocean
called Panthalassa, and just see the Earth as it is - where the
continents have been split and ripped asunder by the growth of the
ocean floors - which happens from time to time - a bit like we just saw
- and not by the whispering tumbleweed of fingernail growth, as plate
tectonics would have it. "Punctuated Equilibrium, indeed"
What's happening is obvious. Trust academics to make it as complicated
as they see it, rather than as simple as it is.
> Strange, isn't it then that the mountain ranges aren't all at the
> equator, made up of light rocks.
They *USED TO BE*, Wally, *THEY USED TO BE" that's the point. Five
metre lift at Aceh on Sunday? Multiply it up and have a gander at the
Himalyas, ..youo know, ..with all those flat fossiliferous sediments on
top. And noooOOooo crumpling. ! Just one great big lift. ((and a bit
of spreading down the bottom of course, because the whole edifice just
got far too high). How high did it used to be by the way? Have you
had a look at the satellite immage and seen how they're all filed down
to teeth, that would bite your balls off if youo slipped?
George
Exactly.
Rod Burns
>> > I'm not defending nor attacking the viewpoint myself, I don't have the
>> > knowledge to do so. However, it would seem that this theory would be
>> > incredibly easy to prove or disprove based on some observations readily
>> > available to the astronomy field.
>> >
>> > 1) If the earth were expanding the day would get longer - unless the
>> > earth
>> > were speeding up its rotation.
>> > 2) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the moon phase
>> > cycle
>> > would change.
>> > 3) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the position of
> the
>> > moon would change as well.
>> > 4) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the orbital
>> > position
>> > of the earth "might" also change - conservation of energy might apply
>> > here.
>> >
> expanding,
>> > simple astronomical observations should prove or disprove it. Given
>> > the
>> > amount of data collected since the start of the space program in the
>> > US,
>> > all
>> > that information should be readily available.
>> >
>> > Does that sound like a reasonable way of eliminating the expanding
>> > earth
>> > theory to you all - or am I missing something fundamental about the
>> > theory?
>>
>>
>> There are many many (i.e. "all") observations that disprove the thesis.
>> There are very very few (i.e. "no") observations that support the thesis.
>>
>>
>> ... Hank
>
> So then why does the community even argue with the EE people? I have an
> opinion on the subject, I won't voice it and contaminate my question, but
> it
> seems like there has been a lot of sniping back and forth between
> conventional Geologists and certain individuals. Seems like simply
> publishing the data and conclusions would end it.
>
> What I was trying to ultimately do was end the pointless back and forth.
> Instead I may have only exacerbated it. Perhaps the geology community
> could
> pair up with the author of the BadAstronomy homepage and create the
> BadGeology homepage? Sort of a clearinghouse for debunking bogus
> theories,
> misconceptions, and items of interest.
AS they ALSO gave 2 bucks to the waitress, they've spent in all 29 bucks.
don findlay
Hank Oredson wrote:
> Eh what?
> Local spreading proves global expansion?
> As they say in Minnesota "Ya, Sure"
Certainly, ..the summation of growth at the spreading ridges causes the
Earth to get bigger
> Contraction at subduction zones exactly balances spreading.
No no, ..hang on. What plate tectonics says is that contraction ("the
cooling shringking getting-more-dense plate) drives plate tectonics.
Heard it before ?the shrinking earth? Expanding at the ridges
("depressurisation and uplift)
and shrinking in subduction zones? Since when is movement the same
thing as growth and shrinkage?
> Next.
Yes, what next?
>
> > EE continues to be argued because of observations on the surface of
> > the Earth, which are best explained by expansion due to the
> > limitations length, width, height, and time places on these
> > observations.
> >
> > Ignoring these is proof, only, of your lack of desire to honestly
> > evaluate what is happening.
>
> Lessee ... what might we observe.
Plate tectonics hinges on the observation (?) that there used to exist
a Panthalassa - an ocean equal to that of the present day. Get the
structure of your argument right. It's an assumption of course, which
is it';s conclusion. JUNK SCIENCE.
> First off, local observations are not of much use, since one would
> need ALL the possible local observations to draw a conclusion.
> But that is not required. We can do something simpler.
There's nothing local about the summed growth of the ocean floors. The
pool of blood is massive, though granted, it's a small scratch.
>
> Consider mass gain / mass loss balance.
> Where would we go to find out about that?
> Upper atmosphere physics, right?
> Some comes in, some goes out.
> Let's check. Yes, it is probable more comes in than goes out.
> So the earth does appear to be gaining mass. At what rate?
> Perhaps a mm or maybe a few mm per year, perhaps much less.
> But there DOES appear to be a net mass gain.
> Will that slow the spin? Yes, it will. How much?
> Aw gee, these are tiny tiny effects. Oh well.
Forget all that stuff. Get the geology right first and all that will
follow.
>
don findlay
George wrote:
> Lack of precision? Lack of exactness? Pot-kettle-black. I have
posted very
> clearly and many times why earth expansion is a load of horse shit.
> Interestingly, instead of defending it with concise, well thought out
answers
> based on verifiable evidence, virtually every EEer I've ever
discussed this
> issue with has either avoided answering those questions at all by
simply
> deciding to killfile me, or have simply relied on their tried and
true method of
> addressing hard questions put to them - they simply insult the
questioner ot
> otherwise change the subject entirely.
George stop being silly. You've done nothing of the sort. All you
post is the drivel above, and appeal to "peer review". Do you think
change comes from behind, just becaue the rest of the crap you post
does? Sit down and listen. You're not capable of logical thought.
don findlay
Hank Oredson wrote:
> "David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
> news:41d8...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
> > Something tells me nothing would suit your needs chagalug.
>
> You are incorrect.
> References to actual scientific work would be most helpful.
>
> Posting long diatribes containing gibberish and "proof by authority"
> will not be helpful to me. I'm curious, I'm a scientist, I'm retired
and
> I have an interest in the topic. Short explanations would be helpful.
> Cites would be helpful ... if they are to peer reviewed journals.
>
> Geophysics (and more of interest to me directly: upper-atmosphere
> physics, but they relate) is tangential to what I did before I
retired,
> but is of interest now that I can study whatever I wish ;-)
Looks like you're another who thinks change comes from behind, out of
the archives of of what people already know, and accept and understand,
and that there is nothing new for them to look at. In my experience
peer review doesn't handle change very well. Probably yours too.
Though it is nice to think otherwise. (The 'patch-protection' issue)
So, ..Simple exercise: It is a given, recognised in plate tectonics and
Earth expansion (though not made a lot of in PT) that spreading doesn't
just go across the ridges, but along their length as well. Think what
that means in terms of subduction and time, and the implication for
runaway growth whichever way you look at it. Plate tectonics just
prefers to ignore it. Find a PT site on the web making as much a meal
out of along-ridge spreading as across-ridge spreading. The volume on
the web is just the school curriculum. It means nothing except there
are a lot of schools. (That crib from each other)
Looking for a cause is obfuscating till the geology is in place in the
right way. The emphasis should be on the geology. How final a cause
do you want to look for anyway? When you get down to it, plate
tectonics doesn't have a viable driver. Its best assessment right now
(and it's shifted its goalposts many times) is because it is cold in
space. Sinking slabs drive convection and cause ambient rise in the
mantle - like when you put your and in the dishwater and the water
rises up the side of the sink. It's as simple as that (in plate
tectonics) Believe it if you like. Oh, and don't forget the
Panthalassa. that needs to be assumed to make all this happen in the
first place.
Wally Anglesea™
So let me get this right. all the mountain ranges used to be at the
equator, made up of light rocks, and they just "Migrated". Why did
they migrate, and how fast did they do so, and why aren't the
mountains all at the equator NOW?
That includes the ranges along the coast of South America?
I just wanted to be sure that what's you meant.
> Five
>metre lift at Aceh on Sunday? Multiply it up and have a gander at the
>Himalyas, ..youo know, ..with all those flat fossiliferous sediments on
>top. And noooOOooo crumpling. ! Just one great big lift. ((and a bit
>of spreading down the bottom of course, because the whole edifice just
>got far too high). How high did it used to be by the way? Have you
>had a look at the satellite immage and seen how they're all filed down
>to teeth, that would bite your balls off if youo slipped?
So is this how volcanoes form on Mars, and Venus as well, or is there
something "special" about the Earth?
Turtles, turtles.
David Ford
Look kiddo, the Thread, titled "RE Earth Expansion", was started by
***YOU*** Eigenvector, ... and then you come out with this poop calling
me and JT trolls!
Yeah, right.
David Ford
No, you aren't in a quest to defend "science" hero, you are just
defending a mere transient theory of Plate Tectonics; get some
perspective kid.
Aidan Karley
> ts a real shame that there aren't forums where scientists can get together
> to discuss current events and theories. Inevitably those forums always get
> inundated with schizophrenics with a delusion, trolls, or worse - a
> schizophrenic troll.
>
the reason you suggest).
Take a look , if you are interested in a comparison, at sci.astro
versus sci.astro.research. The latter is a moderated newsgroup, and while the
kooks do sometimes come in, they generally bugger off pretty quickly when the
moderator(s?) kills their posts and they don't get their public masturbatory
fix.
--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
David Ford
‘equator’? … 'light rocks'? … WTF? ...
Sorry, try observing Earth instead of a concept, start with MOR
structures, their locations, and magnetic isochrons. Strange thing
about PT subducters, they know where their alleged subduction zones are,
but they don't seem to know much about where all the spreading centres
are that are making the new crust that is to be (allegedly) subducted.
David Ford
LOL So true Don, but not completely flat laying sediments, Tethy's seds
with weak regional folding events of many km wavelength, but flat marine
limestones at the top of Mt Everest ... and the orogenesis uplift is
extremely young in geological terms, just a toddler for an orogen ... So
much for the UTTER BULLSHIT of compressional orogenesis, what a joke!
LOL ... and speaking of Carey, he did a terrific job of pointing out the
lack of discontinuity between the alleged Indian "subcontinent" and what
stands to the north, east and west of it - even the palaeontology
matches up! And yet Plate Tectonics zombies keep crapping on with there
silly meme, without a clue about any of these basic facts.
David Ford
> George wrote:
>
>>Lack of precision? Lack of exactness? Pot-kettle-black. I have
>
> posted very
>
>>clearly and many times why earth expansion is a load of horse shit.
>>Interestingly, instead of defending it with concise, well thought out
>
> answers
>
>>based on verifiable evidence, virtually every EEer I've ever
>
> discussed this
>
>>issue with has either avoided answering those questions at all by
>
> simply
>
>>deciding to killfile me, or have simply relied on their tried and
>
> true method of
>
>>addressing hard questions put to them - they simply insult the
>
> questioner ot
>
>>otherwise change the subject entirely.
>
>
> George stop being silly.
heh, you jest Don, … I concluded it was impossible for George to stop
being a twittering little troll so I plonked him, never plonked anyone
before this, and I have met some galloping idiots from the PT crowd in
here ... just that one hopeless troll.
David Ford
> Hank Oredson wrote:
>
>>"David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
>>news:41d8...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>
>>
>>>Something tells me nothing would suit your needs chagalug.
>>
>>You are incorrect.
>>References to actual scientific work would be most helpful.
>>
>>Posting long diatribes containing gibberish and "proof by authority"
>>will not be helpful to me. I'm curious, I'm a scientist, I'm retired
>
> and
>
>>I have an interest in the topic. Short explanations would be helpful.
>>Cites would be helpful ... if they are to peer reviewed journals.
>>
>>Geophysics (and more of interest to me directly: upper-atmosphere
>>physics, but they relate) is tangential to what I did before I
>
> retired,
>
>>but is of interest now that I can study whatever I wish ;-)
>
>
> Looks like you're another who thinks change comes from behind, out of
> the archives of of what people already know, and accept and understand,
> and that there is nothing new for them to look at. In my experience
> peer review doesn't handle change very well. Probably yours too.
> Though it is nice to think otherwise. (The 'patch-protection' issue)
What amazes me is they don't seem to realise that so many recent and
currently active spreading zones are situated right beside or WITHIN
their alleged subduction zones! South Sandwich trench, Kermadec Trench,
even the north Sumatra ‘trench’, site of this recent tragic earthquake
sequence, has a bloody SPREADING CENTRE and TRANSFORMS, immediately east
of it, just a few hundred kms! And yet, the PT zombies keep crapping on
about compressional subduction mechanisms when these SAME areas are
MAKING new crust! gawf! It’s the PT blind leading the consensus
blind, and they both fall down the alledged ‘subduction’ trench meme …
Tom McDonald
I think they migrated because of population pressure, and
snobbery. There were just too many low-class, raggedy-ass
mountains for the "better" class of mountains. In some parts of
the equatorial mountain belt, the elite shoved the crumb-bum
mountains north and south; while in other parts, the snooty
mountains sailed off to hang out in better neighborhoods.
That's what I think, anyway. The sociology of orogeny.
<snip>
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
David Ford
gawf, yeah, sure, I have yet to see any person claim Earth is situated a
the centre of cosmic expansion - don't be daft.
> Then next issue. Dinosaurs. Why then ? Well if you look at it from a
> communication angle, it compares an idiotic hypothesis ("Since the Earth was
> smaller") to one of the bases of darwinian evolution ("the dinosaurs were
> able to live so big"), as a way to suggest that maybe "the dinosaurs" were
> the idiotic hypothesis.
Sorry bud, just west of here you can stub your toe on a dinosaur fossil
id you don't watch your step. I have formal Geological training and
experience, as do many geologists who are fairly sure earth is
expanding, or are at least that Plate Tectonics is more or less
bollocks, and have studied palaeontology as do all trained geologists,
and I’ve yet to see any trained geologist, PT, or EE; "...suggest that
maybe "the dinosaurs" were the idiotic hypothesis."
So just WTF are you babbling on about you bloody loony?
> As a result, science jabbers, which I think is the objective of the trick :
> prove that science is jabbering.
Read some detailed scientific history accounts in various fields, the
consensus and the 'heretics' of the day always took part in this type of
"jabbering" over details; it aint pretty, and it ain’t neat, like the
pop-history versions you make have once lapped up as a boy (or girl, as
it may be).
> Adding dinosaurs to EE also allows EEists to post this in geology,
> astronomy, paleontology, etc. and have fun seeing the Babel of Science
> jabber and bicker all around.
Forums are for discussion, and science is about the detailed
investigation and discussion of ALL OBSERVATIONS, and the assessment of
ALL POSSIBLE views of those OBSERVATIONS--science has ZERO to do with a
consensus view, because consensus can only start, when inquiry has STOPPED.
So, again, WTF are you crapping on about then kid?
> What I would do is give the issue to students as an exercice, put the best
> answers on a blog, send EEists to that blog and stop loosing time on the
> issue, since you're not just loosing your time.
>
Funny, I have been arguing for years that BOTH, PT and EE, should be
presented, in equal terms and time to Earth science students to assess
for themselves.
> I'd say that it is also a reminder that science is fragile, still.
It ALWAYS will be but, because knowledge can always be added to, as new
observations occur! WTF did you expect, neat little stories for all
time? Grow up.
The
> Greeks measured the Earth radius, but a couple of centuries later, the Earth
> was flat again.
And I can likewise counter that stupid attempt at a slur with the man
who first detailed the notion of what is now called ‘subduction’. In the
late 1940’s, Professor S. Warren Carey, who then soon abandoned it as a
physically unworkable model in 1956 (!), and instead adopted Earth
expansion as the only option that sufficiently accounted for direct and
indirect physical observations and measurements. Then along comes the
PT crowd in the 1960’s and sift through his rubbish bin, find the
subduction proposal, then run-off and re-name it to Plate Tectonics and
call it their own original invention, and pretend to have found the
geotectonic “truth” LMAO
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/SWCarey.htm
How is that any different to a Greek measuring the radius of Earth
through trig, and that model or view of Earth then being abandoned in
favour of a flat Earth consensus? Your slur backfired kid. LOL
Because there are people that have an interest in it, much
> of what we know today may still be lost to irrational beliefs in case of a
> grave social upheaval. Which we cannot be sure will never happen (Although
> we would not like to call for Latest Day either)
>
> I'm sure you know this one :
> Three friends are out for a beer.
> The sit for a while, ask for a snack, and it all amounts to 30 bucks.
> Each give 10 bucks, so that it makes 30 bucks.
> The waitress takes the money, goes back to the cash register, and there she
> realises that it only costs 25 bucks.
$25 split three ways equals $8.33 (recurring) ... not $9
She turns back, and give them back 5
> bucks of change.
> As the three guys have no change to split 5 bucks in 3, and as they are
> happy with the waitress, they tip her with 2 bucks, and keep one buck each.
> As they had given 10 bucks each, and got back one buck each, they paid in
> all 9 bucks each, which makes for 3x9=27 bucks.
They paid $9.33 each, and someone of the three got an extra 1 cent of
change back. Dumb story btw.
David Ford
> "Eigenvector" <m44_m...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:ZF%Bd.26$eo2....@news.uswest.net...
>
>> "Hank Oredson" <hore...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:rYZBd.1211888$Gx4.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>>> "Eigenvector" <m44_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> Perhaps missing the main point: the theory is simply bogus.
>>> There are many many (i.e. "all") observations that disprove the thesis.
>>> There are very very few (i.e. "no") observations that support the
thesis.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ... Hank
>>
>>
>> So then why does the community even argue with the EE people? I have an
>> opinion on the subject, I won't voice it and contaminate my
question, but it
>> seems like there has been a lot of sniping back and forth between
>> conventional Geologists and certain individuals. Seems like simply
>> publishing the data and conclusions would end it.
>>
>> What I was trying to ultimately do was end the pointless back and forth.
>> Instead I may have only exacerbated it. Perhaps the geology
community could
>> pair up with the author of the BadAstronomy homepage and create the
>> BadGeology homepage? Sort of a clearinghouse for debunking bogus
theories,
>> misconceptions, and items of interest.
>>
>>
>
> Mmmmh.. In my view, this EE issue is not really a scientific one, but
rather
> a dialectic one. Some people obviously are taking a chance of
questionning
> the way science operate, in general. This EE quizz is a sophism, much
like
> Achiles and the turtle, save that it addresses science at large. I
would say
> the answer is dialectic, not scientific.
> First, the main assertion has an ambiguous formulation. Is Earth
supposed to
> have been smaller with the same density and a smaller mass, or a higher
> density and the same mass, or none of the above ?
> This in itself is a clue that though it seems sheer stupidity at
scientific
> level, it is probably smart dialectics.
> It is also obviously a communication on the theme that Earth is a
center (of
> expansion), so why not a center of the expansion of the Universe.
gawf, yeah, sure, I have yet to see any person claim Earth is situated a
the centre of cosmic expansion - don't be daft.
> Then next issue. Dinosaurs. Why then ? Well if you look at it from a
> communication angle, it compares an idiotic hypothesis ("Since the
Earth was
> smaller") to one of the bases of darwinian evolution ("the dinosaurs were
> able to live so big"), as a way to suggest that maybe "the dinosaurs"
were
> the idiotic hypothesis.
Sorry bud, just west of here you can stub your toe on a dinosaur fossil
id you don't watch your step. I have formal Geological training and
experience, as do many geologists who are fairly sure earth is
expanding, or are at least that Plate Tectonics is more or less
bollocks, and have studied palaeontology as do all trained geologists,
and I’ve yet to see any trained geologist, PT, or EE; "...suggest that
maybe "the dinosaurs" were the idiotic hypothesis."
So just WTF are you babbling on about you bloody loony?
> As a result, science jabbers, which I think is the objective of the
trick :
> prove that science is jabbering.
Read some detailed scientific history accounts in various fields, the
consensus and the 'heretics' of the day always took part in this type of
"jabbering" over details; it aint pretty, and it ain’t neat, like the
pop-history versions you make have once lapped up as a boy (or girl, as
it may be).
> Adding dinosaurs to EE also allows EEists to post this in geology,
> astronomy, paleontology, etc. and have fun seeing the Babel of Science
> jabber and bicker all around.
Forums are for discussion, and science is about the detailed
investigation and discussion of ALL OBSERVATIONS, and the assessment of
ALL POSSIBLE views of those OBSERVATIONS--science has ZERO to do with a
consensus view, because consensus can only start, when inquiry has STOPPED.
So, again, WTF are you crapping on about then kid?
> What I would do is give the issue to students as an exercice, put the
best
> answers on a blog, send EEists to that blog and stop loosing time on the
> issue, since you're not just loosing your time.
>
Funny, I have been arguing for years that BOTH, PT and EE, should be
presented, in equal terms and time to Earth science students to assess
for themselves.
> I'd say that it is also a reminder that science is fragile, still.
It ALWAYS will be but, because knowledge can always be added to, as new
observations occur! WTF did you expect, neat little stories for all
time? Grow up.
The
> Greeks measured the Earth radius, but a couple of centuries later,
the Earth
> was flat again.
And I can likewise counter that stupid attempt at a slur with the man
who first detailed the notion of what is now called ‘subduction’. In the
late 1940’s, Professor S. Warren Carey, who then soon abandoned it as a
physically unworkable model in 1956 (!), and instead adopted Earth
expansion as the only option that sufficiently accounted for direct and
indirect physical observations and measurements. Then along comes the
PT crowd in the 1960’s and sift through his rubbish bin, find the
subduction proposal, then run-off and re-name it to Plate Tectonics and
call it their own original invention, and pretend to have found the
geotectonic “truth” LMAO
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/SWCarey.htm
How is that any different to a Greek measuring the radius of Earth
through trig, and that model or view of Earth then being abandoned in
favour of a flat Earth consensus? Your slur backfired kid. LOL
Because there are people that have an interest in it, much
> of what we know today may still be lost to irrational beliefs in case
of a
> grave social upheaval. Which we cannot be sure will never happen
(Although
> we would not like to call for Latest Day either)
>
> I'm sure you know this one :
> Three friends are out for a beer.
> The sit for a while, ask for a snack, and it all amounts to 30 bucks.
> Each give 10 bucks, so that it makes 30 bucks.
> The waitress takes the money, goes back to the cash register, and
there she
> realises that it only costs 25 bucks.
$25 split three ways equals $8.33 (recurring) ... not $9
She turns back, and give them back 5
> bucks of change.
> As the three guys have no change to split 5 bucks in 3, and as they are
> happy with the waitress, they tip her with 2 bucks, and keep one buck
each.
> As they had given 10 bucks each, and got back one buck each, they paid in
> all 9 bucks each, which makes for 3x9=27 bucks.
They paid $9.33 each, and someone of the three got an extra 1 cent of
change back. Dumb story btw.
> AS they ALSO gave 2 bucks to the waitress, they've spent in all 29 bucks.
don findlay
In the Earth's case, the Moon, with speed, not spin. The others? Oh,
..the usual gravitational instabilities I guess. Tell you what, it
certainly what they had for dinner yonks ago.
Hank Oredson
news:1104796856....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hank Oredson wrote:
>
>> Eh what?
>> Local spreading proves global expansion?
>> As they say in Minnesota "Ya, Sure"
>
> Certainly, ..the summation of growth at the spreading ridges causes the
> Earth to get bigger
>> Contraction at subduction zones exactly balances spreading.
>
> No no, ..hang on. What plate tectonics says is that contraction ("the
> cooling shringking getting-more-dense plate) drives plate tectonics.
> Heard it before ?the shrinking earth? Expanding at the ridges
> ("depressurisation and uplift)
> and shrinking in subduction zones? Since when is movement the same
> thing as growth and shrinkage?
Ridges expand, subduction zones contract.
Really pretty simple.
>> Next.
>
> Yes, what next?
Stick to the topic?
>> > EE continues to be argued because of observations on the surface of
>> > the Earth, which are best explained by expansion due to the
>> > limitations length, width, height, and time places on these
>> > observations.
>> >
>> > Ignoring these is proof, only, of your lack of desire to honestly
>> > evaluate what is happening.
>>
>> Lessee ... what might we observe.
>
> Plate tectonics hinges on the observation (?) that there used to exist
> a Panthalassa - an ocean equal to that of the present day. Get the
> structure of your argument right. It's an assumption of course, which
> is it';s conclusion. JUNK SCIENCE.
This is not an observation.
Stick to the topic.
>> First off, local observations are not of much use, since one would
>> need ALL the possible local observations to draw a conclusion.
>> But that is not required. We can do something simpler.
>
> There's nothing local about the summed growth of the ocean floors. The
> pool of blood is massive, though granted, it's a small scratch.
There is nothing local about the measured contraction.
>> Consider mass gain / mass loss balance.
>> Where would we go to find out about that?
>> Upper atmosphere physics, right?
>> Some comes in, some goes out.
>> Let's check. Yes, it is probable more comes in than goes out.
>> So the earth does appear to be gaining mass. At what rate?
>> Perhaps a mm or maybe a few mm per year, perhaps much less.
>> But there DOES appear to be a net mass gain.
>> Will that slow the spin? Yes, it will. How much?
>> Aw gee, these are tiny tiny effects. Oh well.
>
> Forget all that stuff. Get the geology right first and all that will
> follow.
You are joking, right?
The earth is not a closed system.
What comes in minus what goes out IS the expansion ... or
the contraction if the sum is negative. Geology is not involved.
Now if you think it is a closed system, then expanding or
contracting can only happen via density change.
Of course I'm presuming you know enough science to understand
what I'm talking about here, and are not bound up in some sort
of religious view of what "should be" and thus blind to "what is".
You did not answer any of my questions, why is that?
--
Hank Oredson
>
> Hank Oredson wrote:
>> "David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
>> news:41d8...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>
>> > Something tells me nothing would suit your needs chagalug.
>>
>> You are incorrect.
>> References to actual scientific work would be most helpful.
>>
>> Posting long diatribes containing gibberish and "proof by authority"
>> will not be helpful to me. I'm curious, I'm a scientist, I'm retired
> and
>> I have an interest in the topic. Short explanations would be helpful.
>> Cites would be helpful ... if they are to peer reviewed journals.
>>
>> Geophysics (and more of interest to me directly: upper-atmosphere
>> physics, but they relate) is tangential to what I did before I
> retired,
>> but is of interest now that I can study whatever I wish ;-)
>
> Looks like you're another who thinks change comes from behind, out of
You should "look" a bit better.
> the archives of of what people already know, and accept and understand,
"... on the shoulders of giants."
> and that there is nothing new for them to look at. In my experience
> peer review doesn't handle change very well. Probably yours too.
Not my experience.
> Though it is nice to think otherwise. (The 'patch-protection' issue)
>
> So, ..Simple exercise: It is a given, recognised in plate tectonics and
> Earth expansion (though not made a lot of in PT) that spreading doesn't
> just go across the ridges, but along their length as well. Think what
> that means in terms of subduction and time, and the implication for
> runaway growth whichever way you look at it. Plate tectonics just
> prefers to ignore it. Find a PT site on the web making as much a meal
> out of along-ridge spreading as across-ridge spreading. The volume on
> the web is just the school curriculum. It means nothing except there
> are a lot of schools. (That crib from each other)
You did not address my comments.
> Looking for a cause is obfuscating till the geology is in place in the
I did not suggest looking for a cause.
> right way. The emphasis should be on the geology. How final a cause
Why should geology be involved at all?
Did you read what I posted?
> do you want to look for anyway? When you get down to it, plate
> tectonics doesn't have a viable driver. Its best assessment right now
Did I mention plate tectonics?
> (and it's shifted its goalposts many times) is because it is cold in
> space. Sinking slabs drive convection and cause ambient rise in the
> mantle - like when you put your and in the dishwater and the water
> rises up the side of the sink. It's as simple as that (in plate
> tectonics) Believe it if you like. Oh, and don't forget the
> Panthalassa. that needs to be assumed to make all this happen in the
> first place.
You never responded to anything I posted.
Why all the drivel about minor and unimportant details?
They have nothing at all to do with expansion, nor contraction.
Perhaps the simple concepts are too difficult for you, or perhaps
you have a religious fixation on minor and unimportant details.
But heck, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Read it again,
think it through, and try to respond to what I posted.
--
David Ford
Yes, indeed there is. On earth there is ~70 persent of the surface
covered with water, then there are masive water ice sheets, glacials and
inter-glacial cycles, evaporation, precipitation and run-off of water,
eroding topography, rivers following natural weaknesses and anisotropies
in the bedrock, and of course, this all adds up to a planetary scale of
sedimentation that just doesn't exist on Venus, and is very poorly
represented on Mars, where aeolian deposition processes dominate,
instead of fluvial-marine.
Venus is basically the sort of thing Earth would roughly look like, if
there were no water and sediments, and thus you could directly view the
bedrock itself, rather than just the bit sticking up out of the
surrounding obscuring sediments on top of them. I.e., a clearly primary
tensional planetary bedrock, at all scales.
>
>
> In the Earth's case, the Moon, with speed, not spin. The others? Oh,
> ...the usual gravitational instabilities I guess. Tell you what, it
David Ford
Stop talking stupid crap Hank, you clearly know nothing about geology or
petrology, structural geology, or geological history of Earth.
>
>>>First off, local observations are not of much use, since one would
>>>need ALL the possible local observations to draw a conclusion.
>>>But that is not required. We can do something simpler.
>>
>>There's nothing local about the summed growth of the ocean floors. The
>>pool of blood is massive, though granted, it's a small scratch.
>
>
> There is nothing local about the measured contraction.
Nor do you know squat about relative geodetic measurements or seismic
observation.
>
>
>>>Consider mass gain / mass loss balance.
>>>Where would we go to find out about that?
>>>Upper atmosphere physics, right?
>>>Some comes in, some goes out.
>>>Let's check. Yes, it is probable more comes in than goes out.
>>>So the earth does appear to be gaining mass. At what rate?
>>>Perhaps a mm or maybe a few mm per year, perhaps much less.
>>>But there DOES appear to be a net mass gain.
>>>Will that slow the spin? Yes, it will. How much?
>>>Aw gee, these are tiny tiny effects. Oh well.
>>
>>Forget all that stuff. Get the geology right first and all that will
>>follow.
>
>
> You are joking, right?
> The earth is not a closed system.
> What comes in minus what goes out IS the expansion ...
Well, fool, you better go tell this to the authors of the actual
peer-reviewed papers of OBSERVED ANOMOLOUS G variations and associated
measured ANOMOLOUS changes to the radius of Earth (I even gave you one
of those yesterday boy, that 2002 PDF, with you snipped you bloody
clown) who have suggested (but not concluded) several possible physical
multi-component solutions to these ANOMOLOUS OBSERVATIONS, none of which
involved stuff coming in from space to Earth through the atmosphere,
because the OBSERVED rate of matter in-fall is ***WAY TOO LOW***, and
thus a is a ***KOOK*** suggestion ... so stop talking utter crap Hank.
You have not a clue of what you speak man.
or
> the contraction if the sum is negative. Geology is not involved.
Well thanks for that, go write a paper along those lines and get it
peer-reviewed then. Should be a piece of cake! LMAO
>
> Now if you think it is a closed system, then expanding or
> contracting can only happen via density change.
>
> Of course I'm presuming you know enough science to understand
> what I'm talking about here, and are not bound up in some sort
> of religious view of what "should be" and thus blind to "what is".
>
> You did not answer any of my questions, why is that?
>
Stick to barking at stars and HAM radio kid.
David Ford
No Hank, *YOU* go check on recent published in-fall rates of matter to
Earth from space, then do some elementary calculations you bloody
sci.astro tool.
Wally Anglesea™
<Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>
>Yes, indeed there is. On earth there is ~70 persent of the surface
>covered with water, then there are masive water ice sheets, glacials and
>inter-glacial cycles, evaporation, precipitation and run-off of water,
>eroding topography, rivers following natural weaknesses and anisotropies
>in the bedrock, and of course, this all adds up to a planetary scale of
>sedimentation that just doesn't exist on Venus, and is very poorly
>represented on Mars, where aeolian deposition processes dominate,
>instead of fluvial-marine.
>
>Venus is basically the sort of thing Earth would roughly look like, if
>there were no water and sediments, and thus you could directly view the
>bedrock itself, rather than just the bit sticking up out of the
>surrounding obscuring sediments on top of them. I.e., a clearly primary
>tensional planetary bedrock, at all scales.
So you are saying the Earth inflates, and Venus and Mars don't?
David Ford
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 13:45:48 +1000, David Ford
> <Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>
>>Yes, indeed there is. On earth there is ~70 persent of the surface
>>covered with water, then there are masive water ice sheets, glacials and
>>inter-glacial cycles, evaporation, precipitation and run-off of water,
>>eroding topography, rivers following natural weaknesses and anisotropies
>>in the bedrock, and of course, this all adds up to a planetary scale of
>>sedimentation that just doesn't exist on Venus, and is very poorly
>>represented on Mars, where aeolian deposition processes dominate,
>>instead of fluvial-marine.
>>
>>Venus is basically the sort of thing Earth would roughly look like, if
>>there were no water and sediments, and thus you could directly view the
>>bedrock itself, rather than just the bit sticking up out of the
>>surrounding obscuring sediments on top of them. I.e., a clearly primary
>>tensional planetary bedrock, at all scales.
>
>
> So you are saying the Earth inflates, and Venus and Mars don't?
>
Not at all, I'm saying all other planets and moons, where sufficient
clear surface details have been resolved, display an abundance of
tensional (extending) surfaces, and no evidence of a crustal consumption
process to go with it, and this implies they are all expanding--as is
Earth (Earth is covered fluvial-marine sediments is the only real
difference here).
SEE:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/1.htm
David Ford
Besides the above mentioned in-fall rate question, a couple of other
little points and hints to send you on your way Hank, and to illustrate
to you the depth of your lack of comprehension of the basic issues of
such a mass accumulation from space (as you suggested);
1) The 3-4 mm OBSERVED radial expansion of Earth is not fantasy silly
man, it is a formally published and fully recognised actual geodetic
observation; whose cause has not been concluded.
2) 3-4 mm may seem like a piddling amount to a person like yourself who
is COMPLETELY unaware of the details and implications of the scale of
geological time, but a 3 mm radius increase per year equates to 13,800
km of Earth radius (!) in 4.6 billion years. ... are you getting the
picture here yet Hank? How does that fit into orbital mechanics of the
solar system kiddo? LOL
3) Have you ANY idea of the average rate of sedimentary deposition to
deep-marine abyssal plains of Earth's oceans, over a thousand year
period of drilled ocean core?
That's your homework kid, now go find a library and read some of these
peer-reviewed papers you so pompously called for, and stop being a kook.
Hank Oredson
> Hank Oredson wrote:
>> You did not answer any of my questions, why is that?
>>
>
>
> Stick to barking at stars and HAM radio kid.
Kid?
I was probably publishing in peer reviewed journals before you were born.
Thank you very much for validating my points.
I am now convinced that the expanding earth society is in fact a religion
and has nothing to do with science. Your reply made the case.
What a giggle!
Hank Oredson
> Hank Oredson wrote:
>> But heck, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Read it again,
>> think it through, and try to respond to what I posted.
> No Hank, *YOU* go check on recent published in-fall rates of matter to
> Earth from space, then do some elementary calculations you bloody
> sci.astro tool.
My oh my David.
I've done those calculations, have you?
Guess I must have attacked your religion.
Will stop doing that.
Hold to your belief if you wish, ignore elementary science.
George
Spoken like a true lamer.
George
Many Geologists? SO far I've counted 19 people who subscribe to EE, and most of
them ARE NOT geologists.
> So just WTF are you babbling on about you bloody loony?
>
>
>
>> As a result, science jabbers, which I think is the objective of the trick :
>> prove that science is jabbering.
>
>
>
> Read some detailed scientific history accounts in various fields, the
> consensus and the 'heretics' of the day always took part in this type of
> "jabbering" over details; it aint pretty, and it ain’t neat, like the
> pop-history versions you make have once lapped up as a boy (or girl, as it may
> be).
>
Sadly, you aren't even a heretic, because that would be making the assumption
that you actually know anything about the subject at hand.
>
>> Adding dinosaurs to EE also allows EEists to post this in geology,
>> astronomy, paleontology, etc. and have fun seeing the Babel of Science
>> jabber and bicker all around.
>
>
>
> Forums are for discussion, and science is about the detailed investigation and
> discussion of ALL OBSERVATIONS, and the assessment of ALL POSSIBLE views of
> those OBSERVATIONS--science has ZERO to do with a consensus view, because
> consensus can only start, when inquiry has STOPPED.
>
> So, again, WTF are you crapping on about then kid?
So when are you going to start discussing data and stop insulting anyone who
disagrees with you?
>
>
>> What I would do is give the issue to students as an exercice, put the best
>> answers on a blog, send EEists to that blog and stop loosing time on the
>> issue, since you're not just loosing your time.
>>
>
>
>
> Funny, I have been arguing for years that BOTH, PT and EE, should be
> presented, in equal terms and time to Earth science students to assess for
> themselves.
>
Hmmm. No link to creation science, eh? This is EXACTLY the argument
creationists make. And you say that you aren't a religious man. Yeah, right!!!
>
>> I'd say that it is also a reminder that science is fragile, still.
>
>
> It ALWAYS will be but, because knowledge can always be added to, as new
> observations occur! WTF did you expect, neat little stories for all time?
> Grow up.
>
>
>
> The
>> Greeks measured the Earth radius, but a couple of centuries later, the Earth
>> was flat again.
>
>
>
> And I can likewise counter that stupid attempt at a slur with the man who
> first detailed the notion of what is now called ‘subduction’. In the late 1940’s,
> Professor S. Warren Carey, who then soon abandoned it as a physically
> unworkable model in 1956 (!), and instead adopted Earth expansion as the only
> option that sufficiently accounted for direct and indirect physical
> observations and measurements. Then along comes the PT crowd in the 1960’s
> and sift through his rubbish bin, find the subduction proposal, then run-off
> and re-name it to Plate Tectonics and call it their own original invention,
> and pretend to have found the geotectonic “truth” LMAO
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/SWCarey.htm
Gee, another advertisement for your warped views? I'm not surprised.
>
> How is that any different to a Greek measuring the radius of Earth through
> trig, and that model or view of Earth then being abandoned in favour of a flat
> Earth consensus? Your slur backfired kid. LOL
>
Learn how to read.
>
> Because there are people that have an interest in it, much
>> of what we know today may still be lost to irrational beliefs in case of a
>> grave social upheaval. Which we cannot be sure will never happen (Although
>> we would not like to call for Latest Day either)
>>
>> I'm sure you know this one :
>> Three friends are out for a beer.
>> The sit for a while, ask for a snack, and it all amounts to 30 bucks.
>> Each give 10 bucks, so that it makes 30 bucks.
>> The waitress takes the money, goes back to the cash register, and there she
>> realises that it only costs 25 bucks.
>
>
> $25 split three ways equals $8.33 (recurring) ... not $9
So who gets the $0.01?
>
> She turns back, and give them back 5
>> bucks of change.
>> As the three guys have no change to split 5 bucks in 3, and as they are
>> happy with the waitress, they tip her with 2 bucks, and keep one buck each.
>> As they had given 10 bucks each, and got back one buck each, they paid in
>> all 9 bucks each, which makes for 3x9=27 bucks.
>
>
> They paid $9.33 each, and someone of the three got an extra 1 cent of change
> back. Dumb story btw.
$9.33? Earlier you said it was $8.33! Naturally, you missed the moral of the
story.
George
That's hilarious coming from a person who has a web site that contains 95%
irrational spew about how wrong PT is but very little actual data in support of
his own ideas. Conratulations on becoming a new candidate for the "Bad Science
of the year" award.
George
Island arcs in the region under question are like that, Davey, and occur in that
way because of the deep angle of subduction zones in the area. If the angle of
subduction was shallow, you'd see those "spreading centers" occur farther away
from the subduction zone, such as is seen along the Pacific Northwest. What you
and many EEers fail to recognize is that these "spreading centers" (which are
actually Island arc volcanics), as your like to call them, are not pumping out
MOR-type magnmas, but are extruding andesitic and tholiitic magmas (calcalkaline
volcanics) which are characteristic of Island arcs that form over subducting
oceanic crust. This is in agreement with and predicted by plate tectonics. EE
doesn't account for the difference in the petrology. In fact, it conveniently
ignores the petrology altogether. When you do that, you can make up any old
scheme you like. Fortunately, the rocks don't lie. People like you do.
George
They never do.
>> Looking for a cause is obfuscating till the geology is in place in the
>
> I did not suggest looking for a cause.
>
>> right way. The emphasis should be on the geology. How final a cause
>
> Why should geology be involved at all?
> Did you read what I posted?
>
>> do you want to look for anyway? When you get down to it, plate
>> tectonics doesn't have a viable driver. Its best assessment right now
>
> Did I mention plate tectonics?
>
>> (and it's shifted its goalposts many times) is because it is cold in
>> space. Sinking slabs drive convection and cause ambient rise in the
>> mantle - like when you put your and in the dishwater and the water
>> rises up the side of the sink. It's as simple as that (in plate
>> tectonics) Believe it if you like. Oh, and don't forget the
>> Panthalassa. that needs to be assumed to make all this happen in the
>> first place.
>
> You never responded to anything I posted.
> Why all the drivel about minor and unimportant details?
> They have nothing at all to do with expansion, nor contraction.
> Perhaps the simple concepts are too difficult for you, or perhaps
> you have a religious fixation on minor and unimportant details.
>
> But heck, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Read it again,
> think it through, and try to respond to what I posted.
>
This is how they operate. Ignore the petrology, ignore the structural evidence,
and then they can make up anything they want. And when called to task on the
data, they make snide remarks and insults about your intelligence (how ironic),
and change the subject entirely.
George
The problem with that argument is that if the rate of cosmic dust falling on the
earth had any significant affect on causing the earth to become large than it
was in the past, it would also have had the same affect on the moon. Since the
surface of the moon is EXACTLY the same as it has been for billions of years,
that argument falls flat on its face. If cosmic dust raining down on the earth
caused the earth to become larger, it would necessarily throw out ALL of the
arguments that EE puts up that the expansion occurs from withinm, and not from
without!
Point, set, and match!
George
This is incorrect, no matter how badly you'd like it to be so.
J. Taylor
wrote:
>"J. Taylor" <jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>news:8rhht0lhc9s1aao2e...@4ax.com...
>> i.e. - Latin - id est, is an abbreviation and means, that is
>>
>> e.g. is an abbreviation for Latin exempli gratia, for example
>>
>> Many, many, to infinity does not mean all, nor does very, very few
>> equal no, or none, so that it would mean, that is.
>>
>> If an example was what you intend, this is a generalizations and could
>> hardly be considered a proof.
>>
>> You exhibit the same lack of precision in your thought which George
>> does in his.
>
>Here it is in a simple form you can understand.
>All published observations disprove the hypothesis.
>No published observations support it.
It is a simple form I can understand, and just as simple to show
whether it is true, or false.
Carey published observations which did not disprove the hypothesis,
but were in support. Even if he was the only one, which he is not, it
does make both of your statements false.
Like I said, you exhibit the same mental caliber as George.
>
>> This shows your lack of exactness in your thinking. The fact, you
>> speak of observations, but exclude others, like the spreading around
>> Africa, and Antarctica makes your statement false.
>
>Eh what?
>Local spreading proves global expansion?
>As they say in Minnesota "Ya, Sure"
>Contraction at subduction zones exactly balances spreading.
>Next.
It is not my position to prove global expansion, but explore the many
areas of the Earth, which have feature which do not fit with the view
of subduction balancing spreading.
Since you do not know of these features, shows, once again, the scope
of your examination and the breadth of your reading.
>
>> EE continues to be argued because of observations on the surface of
>> the Earth, which are best explained by expansion due to the
>> limitations length, width, height, and time places on these
>> observations.
>>
>> Ignoring these is proof, only, of your lack of desire to honestly
>> evaluate what is happening.
>
>Lessee ... what might we observe.
>First off, local observations are not of much use, since one would
>need ALL the possible local observations to draw a conclusion.
>But that is not required. We can do something simpler.
>
>Consider mass gain / mass loss balance.
>Where would we go to find out about that?
>Upper atmosphere physics, right?
>Some comes in, some goes out.
>Let's check. Yes, it is probable more comes in than goes out.
>So the earth does appear to be gaining mass. At what rate?
>Perhaps a mm or maybe a few mm per year, perhaps much less.
>But there DOES appear to be a net mass gain.
>Will that slow the spin? Yes, it will. How much?
>Aw gee, these are tiny tiny effects. Oh well.
I have considered these things, and think they are very much things
which must be answered, but I do not reject the evidence, which points
to expansion because it is something which does not fit with present
knowledge, but try to find how the Earth works in the known four
dimensions.
Hank, if you wish to be a George, don't let anything I have wrote stop
you, but based on your above remarks, it puts you in the same idiot,
liar category.
JT
George
His "religion" is "biblical geo-chronolgy". Biship Ussher would be proud.
J. Taylor
The guy is a bozo and has nothing to offer, but his utter stupidity!
JT
George
"Wally AngleseaT" <wang...@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote in message
news:ubqjt0hu4i5mm1hmq...@4ax.com...
>
> --
>
> Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
>
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
He likes to ignore the huge amount of deformed strata in the himalayas, and the
fact that the entire region is still rising and deforming:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo5xx/geo527/Himalayas/geology.html
J. Taylor
>
>Hank Oredson wrote:
>
>> Eh what?
>> Local spreading proves global expansion?
>> As they say in Minnesota "Ya, Sure"
>
>Certainly, ..the summation of growth at the spreading ridges causes the
>Earth to get bigger
>> Contraction at subduction zones exactly balances spreading.
>
>No no, ..hang on. What plate tectonics says is that contraction ("the
>cooling shringking getting-more-dense plate) drives plate tectonics.
>Heard it before ?the shrinking earth? Expanding at the ridges
>("depressurisation and uplift)
>and shrinking in subduction zones? Since when is movement the same
>thing as growth and shrinkage?
>
>> Next.
>
>Yes, what next?
>
>
>>
>> > EE continues to be argued because of observations on the surface of
>> > the Earth, which are best explained by expansion due to the
>> > limitations length, width, height, and time places on these
>> > observations.
>> >
>> > Ignoring these is proof, only, of your lack of desire to honestly
>> > evaluate what is happening.
>>
>> Lessee ... what might we observe.
>
>Plate tectonics hinges on the observation (?) that there used to exist
>a Panthalassa - an ocean equal to that of the present day. Get the
>structure of your argument right. It's an assumption of course, which
>is it';s conclusion. JUNK SCIENCE.
>
>> First off, local observations are not of much use, since one would
>> need ALL the possible local observations to draw a conclusion.
>> But that is not required. We can do something simpler.
>
>There's nothing local about the summed growth of the ocean floors. The
>pool of blood is massive, though granted, it's a small scratch.
>
>>
>> Consider mass gain / mass loss balance.
>> Where would we go to find out about that?
>> Upper atmosphere physics, right?
>> Some comes in, some goes out.
>> Let's check. Yes, it is probable more comes in than goes out.
>> So the earth does appear to be gaining mass. At what rate?
>> Perhaps a mm or maybe a few mm per year, perhaps much less.
>> But there DOES appear to be a net mass gain.
>> Will that slow the spin? Yes, it will. How much?
>> Aw gee, these are tiny tiny effects. Oh well.
>
>Forget all that stuff. Get the geology right first and all that will
>follow.
>
Hank makes me thankful he is retired from what ever it was he damaged
in the past, hope he now does not have access to sharp objects, and
the jackets he wears are kept on the most binding notch.
JT
George
The problem with that, Davey, is that the moon hasn't changed in at least 3.5
billion years. No expansion, no contraction. It's a dead world, geologically.
It's just like it was after the bombardment 3.5 billion years ago. Oops.
George
> Wally Anglesea™ wrote:
>
>> On 3 Jan 2005 03:28:17 -0800, geraldk...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Eigenvector wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm not defending nor attacking the viewpoint myself, I don't have
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>knowledge to do so. However, it would seem that this theory would be
>>>>incredibly easy to prove or disprove based on some observations
>>>
>>>readily
>>>
>>>>available to the astronomy field.
>>>>
>>>>1) If the earth were expanding the day would get longer - unless the
>>>
>>>earth
>>>
>>>>were speeding up its rotation.
>>>>2) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the moon phase
>>>
>>>cycle
>>>
>>>>would change.
>>>>3) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the position
>>>
>>>of the
>>>
>>>>moon would change as well.
>>>>4) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the orbital
>>>
>>>position
>>>
>>>>of the earth "might" also change - conservation of energy might apply
>>>
>>>here.
>>>
>>>generated by the Earth's astronomical motions hence a good indication
>>>that crustal movement has also a astronomical component based on the
>>>imbalance between axial and orbital motion. It is that simple.
>>>
>>>do not calculate the Earth's astronomical axial and orbital motions as
>>>independent of each other but as a single average sidereal figure where
>>>no imbalance exists.It is that simple.
>>>
>>>There is no doubt that EE is initially an assault on the eyes however
>>>there are elements of it that ring true as long as the mass of the
>>>Earth remains more or less constant which would determine that any
>>>expansion is from normal transfer of denser material to lighter crust
>>>or variations of that theme.
>>
>>
>> equator, made up of light rocks.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry, try observing Earth instead of a concept, start with MOR structures,
> their locations, and magnetic isochrons. Strange thing about PT subducters,
> they know where their alleged subduction zones are, but they don't seem to
> know much about where all the spreading centres are that are making the new
> crust that is to be (allegedly) subducted.
>
>
Of course, you'd like everyone to believe that, but seem to forget about all the
research efforts that are ongoing along the MORs. You also conveniently forget
to mention that the petrology (i.e., the magma) along the MORs is completely
different than what is seen at the island arcs that are located at the
subduction zones. Plate tectonics explaiins these differences very well. EE
hasn't a clue as to why they are so different.
J. Taylor
<geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>
>"J. Taylor" <jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>news:8rhht0lhc9s1aao2e...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 21:45:59 GMT, "Hank Oredson" <hore...@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Eigenvector" <m44_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:KQZBd.21$eo2....@news.uswest.net...
>>>> I'm not defending nor attacking the viewpoint myself, I don't have the
>>>> knowledge to do so. However, it would seem that this theory would be
>>>> incredibly easy to prove or disprove based on some observations readily
>>>> available to the astronomy field.
>>>>
>>>> 1) If the earth were expanding the day would get longer - unless the
>>>> earth
>>>> were speeding up its rotation.
>>>> 2) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the moon phase
>>>> cycle
>>>> would change.
>>>> 3) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the position of the
>>>> moon would change as well.
>>>> 4) If the rotation of the earth was speeding up, then the orbital
>>>> position
>>>> of the earth "might" also change - conservation of energy might apply
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>> Really, geology isn't even necessary to prove that the earth is expanding,
>>>> simple astronomical observations should prove or disprove it. Given the
>>>> amount of data collected since the start of the space program in the US,
>>>> all
>>>> that information should be readily available.
>>>>
>>>> Does that sound like a reasonable way of eliminating the expanding earth
>>>> theory to you all - or am I missing something fundamental about the
>>>> theory?
>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps missing the main point: the theory is simply bogus.
>>>There are many many (i.e. "all") observations that disprove the thesis.
>>>There are very very few (i.e. "no") observations that support the thesis.
>>
>> i.e. - Latin - id est, is an abbreviation and means, that is
>>
>> e.g. is an abbreviation for Latin exempli gratia, for example
>>
>> Many, many, to infinity does not mean all, nor does very, very few
>> equal no, or none, so that it would mean, that is.
>>
>> If an example was what you intend, this is a generalizations and could
>> hardly be considered a proof.
>>
>> You exhibit the same lack of precision in your thought which George
>> does in his.
>>
>> This shows your lack of exactness in your thinking. The fact, you
>> speak of observations, but exclude others, like the spreading around
>> Africa, and Antarctica makes your statement false.
>>
>> EE continues to be argued because of observations on the surface of
>> the Earth, which are best explained by expansion due to the
>> limitations length, width, height, and time places on these
>> observations.
>>
>> Ignoring these is proof, only, of your lack of desire to honestly
>> evaluate what is happening.
>>
>> JT
>>
>
>Lack of precision? Lack of exactness? Pot-kettle-black. I have posted very
>clearly and many times why earth expansion is a load of horse shit.
>Interestingly, instead of defending it with concise, well thought out answers
>based on verifiable evidence, virtually every EEer I've ever discussed this
>issue with has either avoided answering those questions at all by simply
>deciding to killfile me, or have simply relied on their tried and true method of
>addressing hard questions put to them - they simply insult the questioner ot
>otherwise change the subject entirely.
George, your playing the victim is pathetic at best, dishonest at
worst.
However, cannot help wonder what is causing this mental imbalance you
demonstrate now. It seems the questioning of the certainty of the
world around you undermines the faith you have in what you believe you
know.
Maybe, a profession of absolutes and divine intervention would be more
to your liking.
JT
George
> don findlay wrote:
>
>> Wally Anglesea™ wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> feature
>>
>>>>generated by the Earth's astronomical motions hence a good
>>
>> indication
>>
>>>>that crustal movement has also a astronomical component based on the
>>>>imbalance between axial and orbital motion. It is that simple.
>>
>>
>> spin. And so is the second and third and fourth order deformations.
>> As Carey said: "Gravity is the driver: rotation the helm" Eat your
>> heart out Wally, and get convection, I mean indigestion.
>>
>>
>>
>> and
>>
>>>>do not calculate the Earth's astronomical axial and orbital motions
>>
>> as
>>
>>>>independent of each other but as a single average sidereal figure
>>
>> where
>>
>>>>no imbalance exists.It is that simple.
>>>>
>>>>There is no doubt that EE is initially an assault on the eyes
>>
>> however
>>
>>>>there are elements of it that ring true as long as the mass of the
>>>>Earth remains more or less constant which would determine that any
>>>>expansion is from normal transfer of denser material to lighter
>>
>> crust
>>
>>>>or variations of that theme.
>>
>>
>> inconvenient of assumptions, that there used to be a huge big ocean
>> called Panthalassa, and just see the Earth as it is - where the
>> continents have been split and ripped asunder by the growth of the
>> ocean floors - which happens from time to time - a bit like we just saw
>> - and not by the whispering tumbleweed of fingernail growth, as plate
>> tectonics would have it. "Punctuated Equilibrium, indeed"
>>
>> What's happening is obvious. Trust academics to make it as complicated
>> as they see it, rather than as simple as it is.
>>
>>
>>>equator, made up of light rocks.
>>
>>
>> metre lift at Aceh on Sunday? Multiply it up and have a gander at the
>> Himalyas, ..youo know, ..with all those flat fossiliferous sediments on
>> top. And noooOOooo crumpling. ! Just one great big lift. ((and a bit
>> of spreading down the bottom of course, because the whole edifice just
>> got far too high). How high did it used to be by the way? Have you
>> had a look at the satellite immage and seen how they're all filed down
>> to teeth, that would bite your balls off if youo slipped?
>
Hmmm. No crumpling? Let us know what meds you are taking so we can avoid them
in the future:
http://www.100gogo.com/geo.htm
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo5xx/geo527/Himalayas/geology.html
http://www.cseg.ca/conferences/2000/2000abstracts/132.PDF
>
> LOL So true Don, but not completely flat laying sediments, Tethy's seds with
> weak regional folding events of many km wavelength, but flat marine limestones
> at the top of Mt Everest ...
Look at the geology at the base of the mountain sometime.
> and the orogenesis uplift is extremely young in geological terms, just a
> toddler for an orogen ... So much for the UTTER BULLSHIT of compressional
> orogenesis, what a joke! LOL ... and speaking of Carey, he did a terrific job
> of pointing out the lack of discontinuity between the alleged Indian
> "subcontinent" and what stands to the north, east and west of it - even the
> palaeontology matches up! And yet Plate Tectonics zombies keep crapping on
> with there silly meme, without a clue about any of these basic facts.
>
The joke is on you, Don, and Carey.
David Ford
> "David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
> news:41da...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
>>Hank Oredson wrote:
>
>
>>>But heck, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Read it again,
>>>think it through, and try to respond to what I posted.
>
>
>>No Hank, *YOU* go check on recent published in-fall rates of matter to
>>Earth from space, then do some elementary calculations you bloody
>>sci.astro tool.
>
>
> My oh my David.
> I've done those calculations, have you?
> Guess I must have attacked your religion.
> Will stop doing that.
> Hold to your belief if you wish, ignore elementary science.
>
BULLSHIT to your claim you checked on the peer-reviewed published annual
average in-fall rates in kg/year! ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT you did, for if you
had, you would not still be talking utter ka-ka. And yes, I went right
through those published rates and calculations 6-7 years ago, while
talking to another geologically ignorant crank like you, who made the
very same claims you are now Hank old boy.
You are many orders of magnitude out of the ball-park star-boy. So you
are either lying, or have not got a clue what you are doing; those are
the only two options.
David Ford
I don't mind if he is just ignorant, he can learn, but when he is both
ignorant and pretentious (and apparently probably lying) as well as he
debates geologists at their own game ... well then, Hank = Bozo.
J. Taylor
<Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>Eigenvector wrote:
>> "Hank Oredson" <hore...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:45eCd.62767$uM5....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>>>"George" <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
>>>news:xS5Cd.68047$k25.31489@attbi_s53...
>>>
>>>>"David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:41d8e1d4$1...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>>>
>>>>>Hank Oredson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:41d8...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Something tells me nothing would suit your needs chagalug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are incorrect.
>>>>>>References to actual scientific work would be most helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Posting long diatribes containing gibberish and "proof by authority"
>>>>>>will not be helpful to me. I'm curious, I'm a scientist, I'm retired
>>
>> and
>>
>>>>>>I have an interest in the topic. Short explanations would be helpful.
>>>>>>Cites would be helpful ... if they are to peer reviewed journals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Geophysics (and more of interest to me directly: upper-atmosphere
>>>>>>physics, but they relate) is tangential to what I did before I
>>
>> retired,
>>
>>>>>>but is of interest now that I can study whatever I wish ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Try a library.
>>>>
>>>>In other words, Hank. He hasn't a clue.
>>>
>>>
>>>I know ;-)
>>>
>>>Slowly sorting out the various posters to the two groups.
>>>
>>>Have been lurking here for a long time, there have been in the
>>>past some good discussions that pointed me toward the current
>>>state of things. The recent events sure brought out the kooks,
>>>charlatans, trolls as well as the ignorant (big grin).
>>>
>>>Bet there will be some very interesting papers in a few months
>>>once the data from the big quake has been fully analyzed.
>>>If nothing else it was a good energy source for some tomography.
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>> ... Hank
>>
>>
>> Eh, well this post didn't work out as planned. On one hand I did come to
>> find out that David Ford and J. Taylor aren't kooks, just losers.
>>
>> Its a real shame that there aren't forums where scientists can get together
>> to discuss current events and theories. Inevitably those forums always get
>> inundated with schizophrenics with a delusion, trolls, or worse - a
>> schizophrenic troll. That's sad too, the newsgroups were invented for the
>> purpose of aiding the scientific community. Now they are just places for
>> people like David Ford and J. Taylor to publicly masturbate. However that
>> is like everything else of beauty - some people can't stand looking at it
>> because they feel jealous.
>>
>>
>
>
>Look kiddo, the Thread, titled "RE Earth Expansion", was started by
>***YOU*** Eigenvector, ... and then you come out with this poop calling
>me and JT trolls!
>
>Yeah, right.
They guy starts off by saying "On one hand," then concludes with
public masturbation gives a good idea of what he has a grip on!
JT
J. Taylor
wrote:
>
>"Eigenvector" <m44_m...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje
>Mmmmh.. In my view, this EE issue is not really a scientific one, but rather
>a dialectic one. Some people obviously are taking a chance of questionning
>the way science operate, in general. This EE quizz is a sophism, much like
>Achiles and the turtle, save that it addresses science at large. I would say
>the answer is dialectic, not scientific.
>First, the main assertion has an ambiguous formulation. Is Earth supposed to
>have been smaller with the same density and a smaller mass, or a higher
>density and the same mass, or none of the above ?
>This in itself is a clue that though it seems sheer stupidity at scientific
>level, it is probably smart dialectics.
>It is also obviously a communication on the theme that Earth is a center (of
>expansion), so why not a center of the expansion of the Universe.
>Then next issue. Dinosaurs. Why then ? Well if you look at it from a
>communication angle, it compares an idiotic hypothesis ("Since the Earth was
>smaller") to one of the bases of darwinian evolution ("the dinosaurs were
>able to live so big"), as a way to suggest that maybe "the dinosaurs" were
>the idiotic hypothesis.
>As a result, science jabbers, which I think is the objective of the trick :
>prove that science is jabbering.
>Adding dinosaurs to EE also allows EEists to post this in geology,
>astronomy, paleontology, etc. and have fun seeing the Babel of Science
>jabber and bicker all around.
>
>What I would do is give the issue to students as an exercice, put the best
>answers on a blog, send EEists to that blog and stop loosing time on the
>issue, since you're not just loosing your time.
>
>I'd say that it is also a reminder that science is fragile, still. The
>Greeks measured the Earth radius, but a couple of centuries later, the Earth
>was flat again. Because there are people that have an interest in it, much
>of what we know today may still be lost to irrational beliefs in case of a
>grave social upheaval. Which we cannot be sure will never happen (Although
>we would not like to call for Latest Day either)
>
>I'm sure you know this one :
>Three friends are out for a beer.
>The sit for a while, ask for a snack, and it all amounts to 30 bucks.
>Each give 10 bucks, so that it makes 30 bucks.
>The waitress takes the money, goes back to the cash register, and there she
>realises that it only costs 25 bucks. She turns back, and give them back 5
>bucks of change.
>As the three guys have no change to split 5 bucks in 3, and as they are
>happy with the waitress, they tip her with 2 bucks, and keep one buck each.
>As they had given 10 bucks each, and got back one buck each, they paid in
>all 9 bucks each, which makes for 3x9=27 bucks.
>Although, they gave 30 bucks at the beginning.
>Where is the missing buck ?
>
I concede this moron does not even belong on the PT team.
JT
J. Taylor
wrote:
>
>"Eigenvector" <m44_m...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje
>news:ZF%Bd.26$eo2....@news.uswest.net...
>>
>> "Hank Oredson" <hore...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:rYZBd.1211888$Gx4.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>> "Eigenvector" <m44_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> Perhaps missing the main point: the theory is simply bogus.
>>> There are many many (i.e. "all") observations that disprove the thesis.
>>> There are very very few (i.e. "no") observations that support the thesis.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ... Hank
>>
>> So then why does the community even argue with the EE people? I have an
>> opinion on the subject, I won't voice it and contaminate my question, but
>> it
>> seems like there has been a lot of sniping back and forth between
>> conventional Geologists and certain individuals. Seems like simply
>> publishing the data and conclusions would end it.
>>
>> What I was trying to ultimately do was end the pointless back and forth.
>> Instead I may have only exacerbated it. Perhaps the geology community
>> could
>> pair up with the author of the BadAstronomy homepage and create the
>> BadGeology homepage? Sort of a clearinghouse for debunking bogus
>> theories,
>> misconceptions, and items of interest.
>>
>>
>AS they ALSO gave 2 bucks to the waitress, they've spent in all 29 bucks.
>
>Although, they gave 30 bucks at the beginning.
>Where is the missing buck ?
>
>
Posting twice this same crap equals flushing twice?
JT
J. Taylor
Still pretending you get rid of the stuff by spewing it on the
surface?
JT
George
I see that you also don't have any answers for him. No spurprises here.
J. Taylor
An you did it all without a hand from Eigenvector!
JT
George
Victim? Who said anything about playing the victim? Oh right. You did. I
simply pointed out what you guys do, and that is that you don't post any
evidence to prove your arguments, and simply engage in isults wherever someone
questions their validity. Those are the facts. If you can't stand the heat,
stay out of the kitchen.
> However, cannot help wonder what is causing this mental imbalance you
> demonstrate now. It seems the questioning of the certainty of the
> world around you undermines the faith you have in what you believe you
> know.
Thanks for proving my point. You've done a fine job of it.
George
>>>
>>
>>Island arcs in the region under question are like that, Davey, and occur in
>>that
>>way because of the deep angle of subduction zones in the area. If the angle
>>of
>>subduction was shallow, you'd see those "spreading centers" occur farther away
>>from the subduction zone, such as is seen along the Pacific Northwest. What
>>you
>>and many EEers fail to recognize is that these "spreading centers" (which are
>>actually Island arc volcanics), as your like to call them, are not pumping out
>>MOR-type magnmas, but are extruding andesitic and tholiitic magmas
>>(calcalkaline
>>volcanics) which are characteristic of Island arcs that form over subducting
>>oceanic crust. This is in agreement with and predicted by plate tectonics.
>>EE
>>doesn't account for the difference in the petrology. In fact, it conveniently
>>ignores the petrology altogether. When you do that, you can make up any old
>>scheme you like. Fortunately, the rocks don't lie. People like you do.
>>
>
>
> Still pretending you get rid of the stuff by spewing it on the
> surface?
>
> JT
Still pretending that the petrology is the same when it isn't?
J. Taylor
Those guys!! How dare they insult your intelligence. You could lend
a hand to Eigenvector's arguments.
JT
George
Like I've said, when confronted with a dissenting view, the insults come out.
Typical earth expansionist response. Davey, try explaining why the moon is
exactly the way it was 3.5 billion years ago (as evidenced by the fact that it
is a long dead world that hasn't seen much change to its' surface in all that
time)if the earth has expanded due to accretion of cosmic dust. Try explaining
why cosmic dust falling on the surface of the planet causes the earth to expand
"from within"!!!
George
I take it that you don't disagree.
George
By all means. Lend a hand to Davey's arguments. By the way, please explain,
using EE as a guide, why the petrology of the MOR is not exactly the same (or
even have a close resemblence) as the petrology seen along the Indonesian Island
arcs, if, as Davey claims, the "spreading centers" he sees in the region of
those arcs are akin to those at the MORS.
George
>>
>>>Hank Oredson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Eh what?
>>>>Local spreading proves global expansion?
>>>>As they say in Minnesota "Ya, Sure"
>>>
>>>Certainly, ..the summation of growth at the spreading ridges causes the
>>>Earth to get bigger
>>>
>>>>Contraction at subduction zones exactly balances spreading.
>>>
>>>No no, ..hang on. What plate tectonics says is that contraction ("the
>>>cooling shringking getting-more-dense plate) drives plate tectonics.
>>>Heard it before ?the shrinking earth? Expanding at the ridges
>>>("depressurisation and uplift)
>>>and shrinking in subduction zones? Since when is movement the same
>>>thing as growth and shrinkage?
>>
>>
>> Ridges expand, subduction zones contract.
>> Really pretty simple.
>>
>>
>>>>Next.
>>>
>>>Yes, what next?
>>
>>
>> Stick to the topic?
>>
>>
>>>>>the Earth, which are best explained by expansion due to the
>>>>>limitations length, width, height, and time places on these
>>>>>observations.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ignoring these is proof, only, of your lack of desire to honestly
>>>>>evaluate what is happening.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Plate tectonics hinges on the observation (?) that there used to exist
>>>a Panthalassa - an ocean equal to that of the present day. Get the
>>>structure of your argument right. It's an assumption of course, which
>>>is it';s conclusion. JUNK SCIENCE.
>>
>>
>> This is not an observation.
>> Stick to the topic.
>
>
>
> Stop talking stupid crap Hank, you clearly know nothing about geology or
> petrology, structural geology, or geological history of Earth.
>
>
What do you know of petrology, Davey? You make a connection bewteen Mid-oceanic
ridges and the volcanic arcs in Indonesia as if they are the same. they aren't
the same. They don't have the same structure, and the petrology is totally
different. Plate tectonics predicts this. EE can't even fathom that there is a
difference.
>>
>>>>First off, local observations are not of much use, since one would
>>>>need ALL the possible local observations to draw a conclusion.
>>>>But that is not required. We can do something simpler.
>>>
>>>There's nothing local about the summed growth of the ocean floors. The
>>>pool of blood is massive, though granted, it's a small scratch.
>>
>>
>> There is nothing local about the measured contraction.
>
>
> Nor do you know squat about relative geodetic measurements or seismic
> observation.
>
Argumentative conclusion with no supporting evidence. Typical EE response.
>>
>>
>>>>Consider mass gain / mass loss balance.
>>>>Where would we go to find out about that?
>>>>Upper atmosphere physics, right?
>>>>Some comes in, some goes out.
>>>>Let's check. Yes, it is probable more comes in than goes out.
>>>>So the earth does appear to be gaining mass. At what rate?
>>>>Perhaps a mm or maybe a few mm per year, perhaps much less.
>>>>But there DOES appear to be a net mass gain.
>>>>Will that slow the spin? Yes, it will. How much?
>>>>Aw gee, these are tiny tiny effects. Oh well.
>>>
>>>Forget all that stuff. Get the geology right first and all that will
>>>follow.
>>
>>
>> You are joking, right?
>> The earth is not a closed system.
>> What comes in minus what goes out IS the expansion ...
>
>
>
> Well, fool, you better go tell this to the authors of the actual peer-reviewed
> papers of OBSERVED ANOMOLOUS G variations and associated measured ANOMOLOUS
> changes to the radius of Earth (I even gave you one of those yesterday boy,
> that 2002 PDF, with you snipped you bloody clown) who have suggested (but not
> concluded) several possible physical multi-component solutions to these
> ANOMOLOUS OBSERVATIONS, none of which involved stuff coming in from space to
> Earth through the atmosphere, because the OBSERVED rate of matter in-fall is
> ***WAY TOO LOW***, and thus a is a ***KOOK*** suggestion ... so stop talking
> utter crap Hank. You have not a clue of what you speak man.
>
No links to the 'peer-reviewed papers', I see. not surprising.
>
> or
>> the contraction if the sum is negative. Geology is not involved.
>
>
> Well thanks for that, go write a paper along those lines and get it
> peer-reviewed then. Should be a piece of cake! LMAO
>
Where is your peer-reviewed paper on EE?
>>
>> Now if you think it is a closed system, then expanding or
>> contracting can only happen via density change.
>>
>> Of course I'm presuming you know enough science to understand
>> what I'm talking about here, and are not bound up in some sort
>> of religious view of what "should be" and thus blind to "what is".
>>
>> You did not answer any of my questions, why is that?
>>
>
>
> Stick to barking at stars and HAM radio kid.
Stick to having sex with kangaroos. It's what you do best, Davey.
George
> I was probably publishing in peer reviewed journals before you were born.
>
> Thank you very much for validating my points.
> I am now convinced that the expanding earth society is in fact a religion
> and has nothing to do with science. Your reply made the case.
> What a giggle!
>
> --
>
> ... Hank
>
> http://horedson.home.att.net
> http://w0rli.home.att.net
Wow. And you came to that conclusion without my help. And they say that I
don't know what I'm talking about!
George
So, JT, when have you ever answered anyone's questions regarding EE or plate
tectonics?
George
Geologists? You're not a geologist. You're a snake oil salesman. So when are
you going to address the differences in petrology at the MORs as opposed to the
Island Arc volcanics?
George
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:01:18 GMT, "Hank Oredson" <hore...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"J. Taylor" <jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>All published observations disprove the hypothesis.
>>No published observations support it.
>
> It is a simple form I can understand, and just as simple to show
> whether it is true, or false.
>
> Carey published observations which did not disprove the hypothesis,
> but were in support. Even if he was the only one, which he is not, it
> does make both of your statements false.
>
> Like I said, you exhibit the same mental caliber as George.
>
Carey was ostracized for his ruminations on EE because he presented it as a
theory. The problem is that theories make predictions. EE only makes
conclusions that can't be supported by the evidence at hand, nor can it make
predictions.
>>> This shows your lack of exactness in your thinking. The fact, you
>>> speak of observations, but exclude others, like the spreading around
>>> Africa, and Antarctica makes your statement false.
>>
>>Eh what?
>>Local spreading proves global expansion?
>>As they say in Minnesota "Ya, Sure"
>>Contraction at subduction zones exactly balances spreading.
>>Next.
>
> It is not my position to prove global expansion, but explore the many
> areas of the Earth, which have feature which do not fit with the view
> of subduction balancing spreading.
The problem, if you ever got your head out of Davey's arse long enough to see
it, is that plate tectonics, doesn't make such a claim to "balanced" spreading
and subducting centers, contrary to what snake oil Davey would have you believe.
> Since you do not know of these features, shows, once again, the scope
> of your examination and the breadth of your reading.
Since you aren't even a geologist (nor a scientist, for that matter), why would
any geologist believe anything you have to say in the matter?
>>
>>> EE continues to be argued because of observations on the surface of
>>> the Earth, which are best explained by expansion due to the
>>> limitations length, width, height, and time places on these
>>> observations.
>>>
>>> Ignoring these is proof, only, of your lack of desire to honestly
>>> evaluate what is happening.
>>
>>Lessee ... what might we observe.
>>First off, local observations are not of much use, since one would
>>need ALL the possible local observations to draw a conclusion.
>>But that is not required. We can do something simpler.
>>
>>Consider mass gain / mass loss balance.
>>Where would we go to find out about that?
>>Upper atmosphere physics, right?
>>Some comes in, some goes out.
>>Let's check. Yes, it is probable more comes in than goes out.
>>So the earth does appear to be gaining mass. At what rate?
>>Perhaps a mm or maybe a few mm per year, perhaps much less.
>>But there DOES appear to be a net mass gain.
>>Will that slow the spin? Yes, it will. How much?
>>Aw gee, these are tiny tiny effects. Oh well.
>
> I have considered these things, and think they are very much things
> which must be answered, but I do not reject the evidence, which points
> to expansion because it is something which does not fit with present
> knowledge, but try to find how the Earth works in the known four
> dimensions.
Ok, try to find the answer to this. Why does Davey make the claim that the
"spreading centers" in the region of Indonesia (which are actually Island arc
volcanics) and mid-oceanic ridges are the same (or related) feature when the
structural geology and the petrology of these features are totally un alike?
> Hank, if you wish to be a George, don't let anything I have wrote stop
> you, but based on your above remarks, it puts you in the same idiot,
> liar category.
>
> JT
If I'm a liar, prove that what I say above is incorrect.
George
"Aidan Karley" <ai...@mynameplus1.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:VA.0000042...@mynameplus1.demon.co.uk.invalid...
> In article <GvfCd.4$N33....@news.uswest.net>, Eigenvector wrote:
>> ts a real shame that there aren't forums where scientists can get together
>> to discuss current events and theories. Inevitably those forums always get
>> inundated with schizophrenics with a delusion, trolls, or worse - a
>> schizophrenic troll.
>>
> the reason you suggest).
> Take a look , if you are interested in a comparison, at sci.astro
> versus sci.astro.research. The latter is a moderated newsgroup, and while the
> kooks do sometimes come in, they generally bugger off pretty quickly when the
> moderator(s?) kills their posts and they don't get their public masturbatory
> fix.
>
> --
> Aidan Karley,
> Aberdeen, Scotland,
> Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
Which begs the question: Why can't we geologists get a moderated newsgroup?