how can I curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-theory?
Pascal Boulerie
I need advices to curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-
theory.
Jo Schaper
Send him a bag of large steel rods. Tell him these are acupuncture
needles for the Earth. That may pop his mental balloon.
If he is an experimental type, tell him to pace off a given distance and
measure it with a meter stick. Tell him to wait one year, and measure it
again with the same stick. If the distance has not grown longer, he will
have proven that earth expansion does not exist.
The meter stick is independent of the earth. If he claims that to
measure with a meter stick proves nothing because the stick may have
expanded because all of the time-space continuum has expanded by the
same rate, tell him to step outside of space-time and try it again.
(The latter request either leaves them befuddled, or driven stark,
raving insane. Try it. *|:-))
Or you can just can be kind, but ignore him. One cannot reason with a
true believer in anyone who has accepted his/her reality on faith or
authority of another.
best wishes
Jo
J. Taylor
<Pascal....@gmail.com> wrote:
Be polite, but firm, let him know in no uncertain terms you consider
such views heresy, then tell him why your religion is better than his.
In this way you may win a convert.
There is only one true Geologic Theory and Plate Tectonics is its
prophet!
JT
Bob Eld
"Pascal Boulerie" <Pascal....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175534964.2...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
>
> I need advices to curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-
> theory.
What is the earth expansion pseudo-theory? I know in the past, they tried to
explain mountain building, folding, thrusting, etc. by earths contraction
due to cooling. Of course no amount of cooling could explain what is easily
observed. But, what is earths expansion?
SBC Yahoo
"J. Taylor" <nchi...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:qch213ht462qisd84...@4ax.com...
How about launching your own "Inquisition". After several days of absolute
torture, I am sure the subject will see the "plates".
There is a Museum of Torture in San Diego CA, a good number of the
implements on display there came from the Church's Spanish Inquisition. It
makes me feel so good that God told the Pope to do all those cruel, inhumane
acts to anyone they pleased. (Made Charlie Manson look like a choir boy.)
Ah, religion, just ain't what it used to be. Can't buy a pardon, can't
launch a good ol' inquisition, why bother?
Charles
They are even cutting back on playing with young boys. No fun at all.
Charles
<Pascal....@gmail.com> wrote:
I was surprised to see it addressed in a recent text book I bought.
"Global Tectonics" by Philip Kearey and Frederick J. Vine.
They address both the contracting and expanding earth hypothesis.
They refute both with fossil evidence dating 375 and 400 Ma.
I don't claim to understand all that they say, I'm trying to learn.
Florian
You won't get it here :-)
One more thing. I'm not a believer. I look at data and make conclusions.
--
Florian
"Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles"
Voltaire vs Leibniz
Florian
> They address both the contracting and expanding earth hypothesis.
> They refute both with fossil evidence dating 375 and 400 Ma.
Interesting. Why would fossils dating back to 375-400 Ma discredit
expansion?
Fossils actually DO support expansion.
Biomechanics tell us that dinosaurs could not run with our gravity,
while their spurs tell us they did.
Biogeography tell us that the pacific was closed 200 millions years ago,
much like the Atlantic:
http://www.4threvolt.com/files/McCarthy2005inpress.pdf
http://www.sciencebuff.org/ftp_only/McCarthy2003.pdf
George
"Florian" <firs...@lastname.net> wrote in message
news:1hvysjh.vrqz27131mq75N%firs...@lastname.net...
Ken Hovind claimed that he was doing the same. Sadly for him, he's
spending the next ten years in prison.
George
Jo Schaper
> Charles <ckr...@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
>
>> They address both the contracting and expanding earth hypothesis.
>> They refute both with fossil evidence dating 375 and 400 Ma.
>
> Interesting. Why would fossils dating back to 375-400 Ma discredit
> expansion?
>
> Fossils actually DO support expansion.
>
> Biomechanics tell us that dinosaurs could not run with our gravity,
> while their spurs tell us they did.
Biomechanics tells us bumblebees can't fly, either.
Sjouke Burry
> "Florian" <firs...@lastname.net> wrote in message
> news:1hvysjh.vrqz27131mq75N%firs...@lastname.net...
>> Pascal Boulerie <Pascal....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I need advices to curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-
>>> theory.
>> You won't get it here :-)
>>
>> One more thing. I'm not a believer. I look at data and make conclusions.
>>
>> --
>> Florian
>>
>> "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles"
>> Voltaire vs Leibniz
>
J. Taylor
wrote:
For looking at data and making conclusions? Hardly!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
And it does nothing for your argument to know even the young earth
creationists http://www.answersincreation.org/kent_hovind.htm
argued against him, but it does show what a fraud you are and your
disdain for honest inquiry.
Oh, but I forget you have said it is so and no one should question it,
or look any further into the matter.
Convince me again you are not the worst sort of religion!
JT
George
"Sjouke Burry" <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote in message
news:4611abb8$0$3748$ba62...@text.nova.planet.nl...
Go back and look at my post to so you can figure out how to properly
attribute next time.
George
Stuart
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I need advices to curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-
> theory.
Why curb them? Get a sense of humor man.
Stuart
Stuart
> Charles <ckr...@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
> > They address both the contracting and expanding earth hypothesis.
> > They refute both with fossil evidence dating 375 and 400 Ma.
>
> Interesting. Why would fossils dating back to 375-400 Ma discredit
> expansion?
>
> Fossils actually DO support expansion.
>
> Biomechanics tell us that dinosaurs could not run with our gravity,
> while their spurs tell us they did.
>
> Biogeography tell us that the pacific was closed 200 millions years ago,
> much like the Atlantic:
>
> http://www.4threvolt.com/files/McCarthy2005inpress.pdfhttp://www.sciencebuff.org/ftp_only/McCarthy2003.pdf
Wow.
Dennis McCarthy.
I am duly impressed.
Stuart
Pascal Boulerie
It is listed in the crank geology hall of fame - http://www.crank.net/geology.html
- as "crankiest"... :-)
Pascal Boulerie
> "Global Tectonics" by Philip Kearey and Frederick J. Vine.
Thanks!
PS A "recent" book according to the geological time scale :-) : the
2nd edition is from 1996, 11 years old!
J. Taylor
<Pascal....@gmail.com> wrote:
You also might enjoy a few more of the views of the creator of that
website
http://www.alcyone.com/max/writing/aphorisms/index.html
Florian
> Biomechanics tells us bumblebees can't fly, either.
Really? What's the arguments?
James
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I need advices to curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-
> theory.
Grasshopper, you know nothing. May I suggest that before you go
expressing YOUR opinion that you do your homework and actually
quantify your statement by providing factual evidence to disprove EE.
Doing your homework means putting aside YOUR preconceived conclusions
and using correct scientific principals to compare and contrast the
evidence. Contrary to what YOU believe Earth expansion IS in fact a
viable concept. It actually explains ALL global tectonic data
(geological, geophysical, geographical, geochemical) far better than
plate tectonics is capable. How do I know this? Because unlike you I
have spent the past 17 years researching and writing about EE and
contrasting it with PT. If you are serious about knowing more about
Earth expansion then may I suggest that you at least start at:
www.oneoffpublishing.com to find out more, or at least view my
animations at: http://home.websolutionswa.com/home/jamesm/album/index.html
James
George
"James" <james....@newcrest.com.au> wrote in message
news:1175646554.8...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 3, 1:29 am, "Pascal Boulerie" <Pascal.Boule...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I need advices to curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-
>> theory.
>
> Grasshopper, you know nothing. May I suggest that before you go
> expressing YOUR opinion that you do your homework and actually
> quantify your statement by providing factual evidence to disprove EE.
Grasshopper eater, before you attempt to tell others what they should and
should not do, perhaps you should point out how the rules have changed such
that people who support the current established paradigm are required to
prove or disprove anyone else's theory. It is for EE supporters to provide
not only a theory that better explains the facts than does plate tectonics
and make testable and repeatable predictions from that theory, it is also
up to EErs to provide such an explanation in such a manner that it is
falsifiable, testable, and repeatable by others. Well? We are still
waiting, Mr. Maxlow, if that is truly who you are?
George
George
"James" <james....@newcrest.com.au> wrote in message
news:1175646554.8...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Hey Jimmy. Is this you trying to fit geologic history into the biblical
account of creation?
http://www.uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/TAG.html
GEO-BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY
Dear Editor,
In all fairness we should give credit to Tas Walker (TAG 109, 110) for
enlightening us on our geological misguidance. From his webpage
introduction it would seem that in order for us to gain a fuller
appreciation of the geological sciences we need to dispense with Geology
and study Mechanical Engineering. Instead of wasting our time slogging it
out in our desolate outback inventing geological history we then need to
design and operate power stations in Queensland so as we gain an
appreciation of geo-biblical chronology.
Bearing in mind that SHRIMP isotopic data need to be re-examined in light
of biblical philosophical presumptions to be meaningful, I decided to
integrate our geological chronology into the tried and proven biblical time
frame so as we can all benefit fro this new geo-biblical revelation. The
difficulty in achieving this revelation of course depends on deciding where
to place creation within the geological time frame. I have assumed, for the
purpose of this investigation, that creation occurred at the end of the
Proterozoic when life as we know it commenced. The Archaean and Proterozoic
rocks, representing 4 billion geological years, are therefore considered to
represent rocks generated during the 6 day "creation era". Tas acknowledges
that "plankton and other tiny sea life" may have been created early in this
creation event to account for Precambrian fossils.
In his biblical chronology presented, post-creation eras have been
conveniently subdivided by Tas into "lost-world era, flood event, and
new-world era" rocks, all of which are described in detail in his website.
Now, once again considering the inherent problems we supposedly have with
SHRIMP isotopic age determinations compared with the accuracy of biblical
chronology, a decision must be made to either:
Adopt a linear transformation of geological chronology to biblical
chronology, commencing at the beginning of the Cambrian; or
Adopt an exponential transformation, whereby geological time is distorted
to link the geological data into the more accurate biblical framework.
As can be seen in the left hand graph of the accompanying figure, by
disregarding 90% of geological time, a linear transformation of the SHRIMP
isotopic data fits neatly within the biblical framework shown in the
central graph. I have some reservation with World War I occurring during
the Oligocene and World War II occurring during the Miocene though, and am
also concerned about my Pliocene age. There is no obvious demarcation
between lost-world era and new-world era rocks as one would expect from
such a cataclysmic event, fossiliferous Palaeozoic strata don't really fit
within the flood event, and the dinosaurs should have been mentioned in the
scriptures.
In contrast, the right hand graph, showing an exponential transformation,
appears to be more adaptable, with all of recorded history coinciding with
the Quarternary. There is however some conflict with the biblical model
whereby the Palaeozoic era, in particular the Permo/Carboniferous "flood
related" coal strata, appears to occur too early in the biblical record.
This of course is more than likely a mathematical transformation problem
and will no doubt resolve itself once Tas puts more effort into resolving
this geo-biblical chronological dilemma for us. The graph does however
enable the excessive Precambrian time frame to fit neatly within a 6 day
"creation event" without having to mysteriously lose 90% of time as in the
previous graph. Although it is considered that, as the rest of the Universe
was not created until late in the creation event, there may be some
flexibility with regard to time itself.
Once again, on behalf of all of us mere Geologists I would like to thank
Tas for finding time between power stations to resolve our misguided
geological chronology for us. Next time Tas has time though, he may like to
get out into the real world of rocks once in a while where he will (should,
may) realize that geological history is written in the rocks for all to
see. Geologists are trained specialists able to read this history, we do
not invent history, we apply it. Strange as it may seem the geological time
frame developed by Geologists to cover the entire 4.5 billion year history
of our Earth, since creation, encompasses the biblical history within the
most recent Holocene period, without the need for distortion of time. The
biblical history as recorded in the bible is also quantified exactly with
our dating techniques, so, what is the problem?
James Maxlow, Glen Forrest, WA
__________________________
Editor's comment:
Paul Blake could not imagine how so much geology could be explained by the
short time of Noah's Flood. Such thinking is still constrained by the
uniformitarian slow-and-gradual culture. James Maxlow used completely wrong
transformations and naturally obtained ridiculous results. For a start, he
should have used the rock-scale, not the time-scale as explained in the web
page. I sent off a letter answering all these claims. Again, the letter was
published. But the editor wanted to end the discussion, so obtained
responses from the other writers, thus giving them the final word.
_______________________
So, Max, are you or are you not a "Biblical" Geologist? Did you ever
actually get that PhD degree in Geology you've being trying to get for so
long? I know that the outline of your 'dissertation' is available online.
Are you willing to post a link to the actual full dissertation (including
the data that was presented), or was it never accepted?
George
J. Taylor
wrote:
>
>"James" <james....@newcrest.com.au> wrote in message
>news:1175646554.8...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 3, 1:29 am, "Pascal Boulerie" <Pascal.Boule...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I need advices to curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-
>>> theory.
>>
>> Grasshopper, you know nothing. May I suggest that before you go
>> expressing YOUR opinion that you do your homework and actually
>> quantify your statement by providing factual evidence to disprove EE.
>> Doing your homework means putting aside YOUR preconceived conclusions
>> and using correct scientific principals to compare and contrast the
>> evidence. Contrary to what YOU believe Earth expansion IS in fact a
>> viable concept. It actually explains ALL global tectonic data
>> (geological, geophysical, geographical, geochemical) far better than
>> plate tectonics is capable. How do I know this? Because unlike you I
>> have spent the past 17 years researching and writing about EE and
>> contrasting it with PT. If you are serious about knowing more about
>> Earth expansion then may I suggest that you at least start at:
>> www.oneoffpublishing.com to find out more, or at least view my
>> animations at:
>> http://home.websolutionswa.com/home/jamesm/album/index.html
>>
>> James
>>
>
Say hi to George, he is our pet monkey!
J. Taylor
wrote:
Ok, George, using the pattern on the ocean floor recreate the previous
position of the continents. Be sure and show old crust you claim
existed and all subduction zones needed to achieve your results.
Good luck
JT
Timberwoof
"James" <james....@newcrest.com.au> wrote:
Oh, Pascal, see what you've done?
Concisely stated, the Expanding Earth Hypothesis claims that at some
point in the Earth's past, tens or hundreds of millions of years ago,
the Earth's diameter was half what it is now. At that time, the crust
completely covered the Earth. Since then, the Earth expanded, but the
continents didn't, and ended up where they are now. The mid-oceanic
ridges are taken as evidence for this expansion.
There are several serious problems for the hypothesis. In order for the
Earth to double its diameter (4x its surface area, 8x its volume) then
some combination of an 8x increase in mass or an 8x decrease in density
is required. There is no known physical process by which either of these
things could happen.
If there was no increase in mass, then the Earth's mass was always what
it is now, and 50 MYA the density was 8x what it is now. There's no
reason to believe that it ever was that dense; meteorites that dense
have never been found; there's no way to make granite that dense.
If there was an increase in mass, this raises some difficult questions.
Where did the mass come from? The Earth is in complex motion: it rotates
on its axis, orbits the sun, orbits the center of the galaxy, and moves
with the galaxy through space. Any new atoms that magically appeared
within the Earth would have to also magically acquire *exactly* the
correct motion vectors for the instant of their creation. How did the
mass get that motion? The Earth is differentiated into core, mantle, and
crust. How did the new atoms know precisely what elements to be? How did
they have the correct temperatures? How come there is no evidence of new
atoms appearing within the Earth? How come they appear only inside the
earth and not inside the heads of people who do not believe in Expanding
Earth?
As the Earth gained mass, this would have affected the Moon's orbit. An
increase in the Earth's mass would have increased the gravitational
force on the Moon, pulling it in closer and speeding up its orbit.
Fossil evidence of tides does not support this kind of change. (In fact,
it shows the opposite change: the Moon has been receding.) The added
mass could not have come from the sky in the form of meteorites. These
would have buried everything and left far more impact craters than we
see. Studies of impact craters on the moon and other inner planets do
not support ongoing bombardment at the rate needed for this kind of
ongoing planetary growth.
The shapes of the continents do not reflect the kinds of distortions one
would expect from the core and mantle. Get a lemon and an orange, so
that the diameter of the orange is about 2x the diameter of the lemon.
Cut out a small piece of the lemon peel, about the size a continent
would be on the orange. Take the continent and stick it on the orange.
Flatten its center and do whatever you have to to the edges so it will
match the larger curvature of the orange. One solution is nice radial
tears so a continent ends up looking like a *. But continents don't look
like that.
The continents of Africa and South America do fit together rather
nicely. It's not just on a map, but also the stratigraphy across the
gaps matches. That is, geological features such as rock types and layers
match. The Expanding Earthers imagine all kinds of fanciful arrangements
for the continents to make them all fit on a 1/2-diameter Earth.
However, there's no evidence at all for the kinds of geological matches
that would be expected across any of the proposed gaps.
As the Earth's continents moved around on the surface, rocks solidifying
from volcanic eruptions picked up the Earth's magnetic field. These
magnetic imprints, along with those spreading from the mid-oceanic
ridges, tell a very specific story of the positions of the continents
over time. They do not in any way support any of the starting
configurations proposed by the Expanding Earthers.
There's no evidence that the expansion is continuing. One explanation is
that it stopped right when people started looking for it. That's just
bad science. Another claim is that it is about to start an exponential
increase ... but there's no explanation for why that would be so either.
There are an awful lot of holes in the Expanding Earth hypothesis,
ranging from particle physics through orbital mechanics to geology. I
predict that a lot of the howling you are about to hear in response to
this post will take the following forms:
* I'm not considering any of the evidence for expanding earth.
* I am blinded by formal education and the Ivory-tower status quo from
seeing the brilliance of independent thinkers.
* I have allowed results from unrelated sciences to cloud my thinking.
* I am part of a global conspiracy of geologists to try to suppress
knowledge of the EE hypothesis.
* Proofs by Declaration and Reiteration that continents don't float, the
mantle does not convect, that plate tectonics can't possibly be set into
motion by crust dragging, and any number of other straw-man
misrepresentations of how plate tectonics actually works ... as though
disproving PT would prove EE.
* Don Findlay's incomprehensible gibbering.
Please feel free to look up Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit and apply
it to everything you read in this discussion.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
Timberwoof
"George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote:
I think that it's also up to the EEers to present a concise statement of
their hypothesis. Throughout the long debate on this subject, they have
consistently left that up to others, and then screamed "straw man!" when
the hypothesis being disproved had been presented by their debating
opponents.
Timberwoof
firs...@lastname.net (Florian) wrote:
> Jo Schaper <jospamnotschaper34@5socket78dot9net> wrote:
>
> > Biomechanics tells us bumblebees can't fly, either.
>
> Really? What's the arguments?
It's not even true ... and not even true any more.
Aerodynamic theory did not understand vortexes well enough to explain
how bumblebees fly. This subtlety of point was debrainified and
sound-bitten into various urban-legendary forms, one of which we see
above.
As it turns out, just a few years ago, some college boy smarter than
many of us built a mechanical bumblebee and put it in a tank of oil with
bubbles. He did some very clever math to show that the interactions of
his scaled-up bumblebee with his oil were the same as a real bumblebee
in air (what with viscosity and scale and whatnot). Then he showed that
stroke of the bee's wings made vortexes that the bee used for lift in
the subsequent stroke.
No scientist ever "proved" that bumblebees can't fly; no other scientist
ever accepted that "proof". (Duuh. They can. See?) It was merely a
typical case of the difference between not knowing how something works
and believing that it does not work.
J. Taylor
All good points, and shows you have been paying attention. Some of
your points are not accurate, such as there is no evidence expansion
is on going, the very fact there is still movement in the continents
shows what ever is causing it is still taking place. It is just you
wish to view this as fitting another process which does not give the
results on the ocean floor. Also your lemon example suggest you have
a preconceived idea of how expansion must work.
Lastly, the evidence for past moon orbit is subject to interpretation.
JT
Timberwoof
J. Taylor <nchi...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
If plate tectonics were the correct explanation, then the same evidence
would also show that that process is still going on. Therefore this is
not strictly evidence for EE.
However, EE has never reached consensus on whether the expansion is
caused by a reduction in density or an increase in mass. (Perhaps you
could come up with some experiments to decide the issue.) It cannot be
an increase in mass because the moon is not coming closer to the Earth.
> It is just you
> wish to view this as fitting another process which does not give the
> results on the ocean floor.
Oh, that. Ocean floor gets recycled.
> Also your lemon example suggest you have
> a preconceived idea of how expansion must work.
My preconceived notion about the earth expansion hypothesis is that it
means that the earth expands. All great circles increase their length
and radius of curvature. Stationary points on the sphere get farther
apart. Material lying on the surface of the sphere gets stretched or
ripped. We'd see basin-and-range belts everywhere, not just in Nevada.
We would not see crumpled mountain ranges like the Himalayas.
> Lastly, the evidence for past moon orbit is subject to interpretation.
So do you think the Earth increased its mass over time? (Otherwise why
do you care?)
Timberwoof
J. Taylor <nchi...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
(You imply that George should use only that evidence. Why this
restriction? Oh, I forgot: other evidence such as magnetic fields in
igneous rocks supports plate tectonics.)
> Be sure and show old crust you claim
> existed and all subduction zones needed to achieve your results.
(The old crust got subducted away.)
You didn't answer the question. Why do you think that merely casting
doubt on plate tectonics supports Expanding Earth? When I pointed out
the problems with Expanding Earth in my other post, I did not try to
prove plate tectonics; merely to show problems in Expanding Earth. Even
if there was no other theory to explain Earth's geology, Expanding Earth
would still be wrong. EE can be falsified on its own terms,
independently of the existence of other hypotheses. Can you not support
EE independently?
pete
>Charles <ckr...@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
>> They address both the contracting and expanding earth hypothesis.
>> They refute both with fossil evidence dating 375 and 400 Ma.
>Interesting. Why would fossils dating back to 375-400 Ma discredit
>expansion?
>Fossils actually DO support expansion.
>Biomechanics tell us that dinosaurs could not run with our gravity,
>while their spurs tell us they did.
No no, silly, their spurs tell us they were riding horses.
Sheesh.
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
George
"Timberwoof" <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-52...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
Indeed. The entire history of this debate can be summed up exactly as you
describe.
George
J. Taylor
I do not think merely casting doubt on plate tectonics supports
Expanding Earth. I think the pattern on the ocean floor shows plate
tectonics is false and it supports only an expanding Earth
>When I pointed out
>the problems with Expanding Earth in my other post, I did not try to
>prove plate tectonics; merely to show problems in Expanding Earth. Even
>if there was no other theory to explain Earth's geology, Expanding Earth
>would still be wrong. EE can be falsified on its own terms,
>independently of the existence of other hypotheses. Can you not support
>EE independently?
Yes, the ocean floor, the fit of the continents with the pattern,
transform faults.
Your arguments against are of how it is impossible based on what is
not known, and does nothing to change a single aspect of the pattern.
JT
J. Taylor
<timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
If
>
>However, EE has never reached consensus on whether the expansion is
>caused by a reduction in density or an increase in mass. (Perhaps you
>could come up with some experiments to decide the issue.) It cannot be
>an increase in mass because the moon is not coming closer to the Earth.
>
We have gone over this and it is the same answer, present observations
do not trump evidence in the ocean floor. All you have for past moon
orbit is a few fossilized tidal patterns which are subject to
interpretation.
>> It is just you
>> wish to view this as fitting another process which does not give the
>> results on the ocean floor.
>
>Oh, that. Ocean floor gets recycled.
How? It is not convection since the Pacific Paradox shows that is not
possible. Might as well make it a magic wand, or fairies.
>
>> Also your lemon example suggest you have
>> a preconceived idea of how expansion must work.
>
>My preconceived notion about the earth expansion hypothesis is that it
>means that the earth expands. All great circles increase their length
>and radius of curvature. Stationary points on the sphere get farther
>apart. Material lying on the surface of the sphere gets stretched or
>ripped. We'd see basin-and-range belts everywhere, not just in Nevada.
>We would not see crumpled mountain ranges like the Himalayas.
It depends on whether expansion is whole Earth, or points, in the form
of bulges, with gravitation collapse, and there are some very
interesting geologic feature across the planet that show stretching, a
lot, Google Earth is a great tool.
>
>> Lastly, the evidence for past moon orbit is subject to interpretation.
>
>So do you think the Earth increased its mass over time? (Otherwise why
>do you care?)
Personally, think expansion would need to be a result of an increase
in mass, but would really like the features on the Earth to tell me.
JT
don findlay
We didn't hear you laugh when fanny thumped *your* nuts, (...Big Boy)
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ng/midnight.html
don findlay
Wow! (When Plate Tectonics is already better than thirty.... ) Also
when the said Mr Vine (one of the Fathers of Plate Tectonics) stressed
in that same lapsed interval, that subduction (the essence of Plate
Tectonics) was ever simply an assumption:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/consensus.html
and his pal, John Dennis, backed him saying it was a convenient one.
The only difference since those days is that millions of minnions
('teaching' the stuff) forget to mention (or never knew) that bit
about "assumption" ( so it comes over as fact.)
Difficult I know, ...when you're trying to learn something, ...working
out what people say against what other people say they say.
Especially when more than half of them can't understand what was said
in the first place (and the other half don't know.)
don findlay
(And Stu, ..name-dropping again!) (He's such a lad, ...is he not?)
(Gee it's good to be back, ..and see nothing's changed)
don findlay
Yes, you (Pascale)! And address our gorilla properly. See? Do you
Hear? Or you'll get very short shrift from everyone here! Our
gorilla, follower of 'Real Science' as promulgated by 'Teams of
Researchers', is an endangered species (..worse than dinos.)
don findlay
It's not necessary. Plate Tectonics does a passably good job itself.
Earth expansion is a necessary prerequisite of Plate Tectonics (ridge
creation, spreading continental separation, jigsaw fits, bio- faunal
correlations, spreading, ..etc) (I.e., spreading spreading
spreading, ..etc.). The very iffy bit (which Plate Tectonics likes to
overlook) is its partner core assumption, ...that the Earth is also
shrinking... It offers no explanation for this other than that the
Earth is cooling. The Earth cooling makes it shrink? ..which is the
driving force for mountain belts and general deformation of the
crust?
Woaargh.
So really *NOTHING"S* changed?? It really is as good as Flat Earth.
don findlay
The only person shouting "Strawman" in this debate has been you,
mate:-
http://tinyurl.com/ysxvny
...and George:- http://tinyurl.com/39u4lh
...and sundry others like Stuart - http://tinyurl.com/37lc9x
don findlay
How? It is not a hypothesis that the Earth is round: it is an
observable fact. Neither is it a hypothesis that it is not (after all)
at the centre of the solar system: that is a statement of fact. And
neither is it a hypothesis that it has increased in size. That too is
an observable fact. The only 'hypotheses' that are around (and Plate
Tectonics is an amalgamation of at least three) derive freom the
assumption that it cannot possibly have got bigger ("...Otherwise it
would be getting bigger...).
> Can you not support
> EE independently?
Of course -
http://users.indigo.net.au/don
don findlay
(Geroge tries to discredit Earth Expansion by discrediting
Creationism.)
Fuck off with your creationist bullshit, Prick, ..and stick to the
issue.
don findlay
Precisely. Therefore you need to start looking for one.
Forget your expectations. It's all about observations:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/
> Get a lemon and an orange, so
> that the diameter of the orange is about 2x the diameter of the lemon.
> Cut out a small piece of the lemon peel, about the size a continent
> would be on the orange. Take the continent and stick it on the orange.
> Flatten its center and do whatever you have to to the edges so it will
> match the larger curvature of the orange. One solution is nice radial
> tears so a continent ends up looking like a *. But continents don't look
> like that.
>
> The continents of Africa and South America do fit together rather
> nicely. It's not just on a map, but also the stratigraphy across the
> gaps matches. That is, geological features such as rock types and layers
> match. The Expanding Earthers imagine all kinds of fanciful arrangements
> for the continents to make them all fit on a 1/2-diameter Earth.
> However, there's no evidence at all for the kinds of geological matches
> that would be expected across any of the proposed gaps.
Of course there is.
>
> As the Earth's continents moved around on the surface, rocks solidifying
> from volcanic eruptions picked up the Earth's magnetic field. These
> magnetic imprints, along with those spreading from the mid-oceanic
> ridges, tell a very specific story of the positions of the continents
> over time. They do not in any way support any of the starting
> configurations proposed by the Expanding Earthers.
You remain oblivious to the fact, don't you, of the dislocation of the
upper and lower mantle across the transition zone, ...even though you
site it as evidence of Plate Tectonics and the Earth shrinking. You
really are a nutter, Timber.
> There's no evidence that the expansion is continuing. One explanation is
> that it stopped right when people started looking for it. That's just
> bad science. Another claim is that it is about to start an exponential
> increase ... but there's no explanation for why that would be so either.
What do you think the circumPacific earthquakes are all about - that
keep killing People? http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/memory.html
>
> There are an awful lot of holes in the Expanding Earth hypothesis,
> ranging from particle physics through orbital mechanics to geology. I
> predict that a lot of the howling you are about to hear in response to
> this post will take the following forms:
Rubbish.
>
> * I'm not considering any of the evidence for expanding earth.
> * I am blinded by formal education and the Ivory-tower status quo from
> seeing the brilliance of independent thinkers.
> * I have allowed results from unrelated sciences to cloud my thinking.
> * I am part of a global conspiracy of geologists to try to suppress
> knowledge of the EE hypothesis.
> * Proofs by Declaration and Reiteration that continents don't float, the
> mantle does not convect, that plate tectonics can't possibly be set into
> motion by crust dragging, and any number of other straw-man
> misrepresentations of how plate tectonics actually works ... as though
> disproving PT would prove EE.
(Wot's this? A Straw Man argument?)
> * Don Findlay's incomprehensible gibbering.
Hello, sailor... ("I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist
it.")
don findlay
Science does not need consensus. Consensus is the nemesis of
science:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/consensus.html
don findlay
No, you wouldn't. Deformation is inhomogeneous (crust
- ...mantle...) They're different and respond differently. Any child
knows this, ..or can figger it.
oriel36
> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article <hi5613d3guctirqeu85oj61ko8c6et1...@4ax.com>,
> > J. Taylor <nchiw...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 20:54:00 -0400, "George" <geo...@yourservice.com>
> > > wrote:
>
Be careful how you choose your hypothesis,if that is your thing
Empiricists, and you count yourself among them,conveniently altered to
background to the great Copernican insights insofar as they diluted
the information which flows from Ptolemaic astronomy to the dramatic
alteration by Copernicus in using the orbital motion of the Earth to
resolve the observed motion of the other planets and axial rotation to
account for the daily cycle.
Ptolemaic astromers worked from the principle of a stationary Earth
just as convection cell proponents for crustal motion here are want to
do.EE guys draw a conclusion and do not care how they arrive at it,a
particularly modern type of personality who has a good eye for novelty
without the neccessary discipline to weigh the arguments.
The Earth is not perfectly round because of the rotational dynamics of
the molten/ flexible interior and the same dynamic supplies the
mechanism for some of the surface features based on crustal evolution
and motion.Considering the Earth's shape and mid Atlantic ridge
basically shout out loud that a rotational dynamic is
involved,specifically differential rotation perpendicular to the
Earth's rotational orientation,it is remarkable to see nobody even
mention the correlation between the Earth's shape and crustal motion.
The stationary Earth/convection cell guys seem well pleased with
themselves,what with chanting the empirical mantra of 'testable
predictions' ect,ect but they may possibly be the most irritating
people ever to inhabit the once exciting discipline of geology.Who
cares about predictions !,most people love the majesty of terrestrial
geography and that is the way it should be.
And
> neither is it a hypothesis that it has increased in size. That too is
> an observable fact. The only 'hypotheses' that are around (and Plate
> Tectonics is an amalgamation of at least three) derive freom the
> assumption that it cannot possibly have got bigger ("...Otherwise it
> would be getting bigger...).
>
> > Can you not support
> > EE independently?
>
> Of course -http://users.indigo.net.au/don
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> > Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
> > Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
don findlay
oriel36 wrote:
>,it is remarkable to see nobody even
> mention the correlation between the Earth's shape and crustal motion.
As you very well know, that is because science as carried out by
scientists is not about the science, but about publication and career
interest, ..and the two are quite different. Science is about the
healthy conflict of ideas, not the mindless reiteration of consensus.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/abstact/.html
> The stationary Earth/convection cell guys seem well pleased with
> themselves,what with chanting the empirical mantra of 'testable
> predictions' ect,ect but they may possibly be the most irritating
> people ever to inhabit the once exciting discipline of geology.Who
> cares about predictions !,most people love the majesty of terrestrial
> geography and that is the way it should be.
Mountains are Big Hills. Mountains are "thrown up by tectonics
forces", but hills are simply what's left after erosion. Let's exit,
and leave it to the Georges and Stuarts to fill in the missing
blanks. The research on that one is worth a hundred years at least,
on the trusting public's money.
(Fucken Idiots.)
...She said (touting for funds) "More research could determine how
Australia got its vast mineral wealth"
Jo Schaper
> In article <1hw08sr.rq0lh1c17j7mN%firs...@lastname.net>,
> firs...@lastname.net (Florian) wrote:
>
>> Jo Schaper <jospamnotschaper34@5socket78dot9net> wrote:
>>
>>> Biomechanics tells us bumblebees can't fly, either.
>> Really? What's the arguments?
>
> It's not even true ... and not even true any more.
>
> Aerodynamic theory did not understand vortexes well enough to explain
> how bumblebees fly. This subtlety of point was debrainified and
> sound-bitten into various urban-legendary forms, one of which we see
> above.
>
> As it turns out, just a few years ago, some college boy smarter than
> many of us built a mechanical bumblebee and put it in a tank of oil with
> bubbles. He did some very clever math to show that the interactions of
> his scaled-up bumblebee with his oil were the same as a real bumblebee
> in air (what with viscosity and scale and whatnot). Then he showed that
> stroke of the bee's wings made vortexes that the bee used for lift in
> the subsequent stroke.
>
> No scientist ever "proved" that bumblebees can't fly; no other scientist
> ever accepted that "proof". (Duuh. They can. See?) It was merely a
> typical case of the difference between not knowing how something works
> and believing that it does not work.
>
I think you missed the intent of my original remark, Timberwoof. The Net
has 1001 different smiley faces--sometimes I wish it had one for *ironic
or deliberately facetious remark*. How does one indicate 'pulling
one's leg' in emoticons?
Aidan Karley
> Ken Hovind claimed that he was doing the same. Sadly for him, he's
> spending the next ten years in prison.
>
Huh?
Did I miss something important, or do trivial things (fraud, tax
evasion, whatever) not get reported for minor god squaddies in distant
countries?
--
Aidan Karley, FGS,
Aberdeen, Scotland
A light wave is more like a crime wave than a water wave.
Aidan Karley
> > Biomechanics tell us that dinosaurs could not run with our gravity,
> > while their spurs tell us they did.
>
>
Which is true. In the 50s or 60s when this urban legend got started,
the maths and computer power wasn't available to study the capabilities
of the real bumblebee's wing, but the science of aerodynamics was up to
saying that bumblebees who attempted to glide home would fall out of
the sky without even a buzz.
Aidan Karley
wrote:
> >> "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles"
> >> Voltaire vs Leibniz
> >
> Parbleu ???? explain sil vou plais(My french is quite rusty...) :)
>
worlds". Dr Pangloss, wasn't it? thought I can't claim to have read any
original Voltaire (beyond his quip about admirals).
Charles
<Pascal....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was surprised to see it addressed in a recent text book I bought.
>> "Global Tectonics" by Philip Kearey and Frederick J. Vine.
>
>Thanks!
>
>PS A "recent" book according to the geological time scale :-) : the
>2nd edition is from 1996, 11 years old!
That is old, I hadn't looked at that. It is currently being sold as a
textbook at UCSB (Santa Barbara), that's where I got it. Any
suggestions for a newer book?
Thanks
Florian
> In article <1hw08sr.rq0lh1c17j7mN%firs...@lastname.net>,
> firs...@lastname.net (Florian) wrote:
>
> > Jo Schaper <jospamnotschaper34@5socket78dot9net> wrote:
> >
> > > Biomechanics tells us bumblebees can't fly, either.
> >
> > Really? What's the arguments?
>
> It's not even true ... and not even true any more.
>
> Aerodynamic theory did not understand vortexes well enough to explain
> how bumblebees fly. This subtlety of point was debrainified and
> sound-bitten into various urban-legendary forms, one of which we see
> above.
>
> As it turns out, just a few years ago, some college boy smarter than
> many of us built a mechanical bumblebee and put it in a tank of oil with
> bubbles. He did some very clever math to show that the interactions of
> his scaled-up bumblebee with his oil were the same as a real bumblebee
> in air (what with viscosity and scale and whatnot). Then he showed that
> stroke of the bee's wings made vortexes that the bee used for lift in
> the subsequent stroke.
>
> No scientist ever "proved" that bumblebees can't fly; no other scientist
> ever accepted that "proof". (Duuh. They can. See?) It was merely a
> typical case of the difference between not knowing how something works
> and believing that it does not work.
thank you for the explanation. I'll sleep smarter tonight :-)
--
Florian
Florian
> No no, silly, their spurs tell us they were riding horses.
> Sheesh.
Jeez, there are not much serious scientists in this newsgroup.
Florian
> I do not think merely casting doubt on plate tectonics supports
> Expanding Earth. I think the pattern on the ocean floor shows plate
> tectonics is false and it supports only an expanding Earth
I looked carefully at the pattern. Here is my analysis.
First I read that webpage from Neal Adams:
http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/fromthedesky.html
He calculated the floors for each isochrons and found that it was
roughly doubling every 10 MYA.
His numbers were too much perfect, so I made all the calculations myself
:-)
First I got the isochron data from the ftp site at Uni of Sydney:
ftp://ftp.es.usyd.edu.au/pub/agegrid/
Only one file is necessary age_1.6.grd.gz
Then I built Mollweide projections of the earth using GMT
(http://gmt.soest.hawaii.edu/) and the grid file. The Mollweide
projection is great because it is an "equal area" projection.
I built maps showing the whole globe in black, then only continents in
black, and finally maps only showing black surface of oceanic crust
dating from -180 MYA to X , X being the age limit of each isochrons.
I mean, I made maps showing the floor which age ranges from -180 MYA to
-154.3 MYA, -180 MYA to -147.7, -180 MYA to -139.6 and so on...
All the maps are here, in png format:
http://nachon.free.fr/MollweideCrustAge.zip
I used ImageJ from the NIH (http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/) and its plug-in
Area Calculator to calculate the surfaces in pixels.
I got 792854 pixels for the whole globe, 226615 pixels for the
continents which is exactly 28.6%, in agreement with values from the
litterature.
Moreover, I checked the surface of Australia as a test (11810 pixels) =>
7.60 millions km2. The surface of australia in the books is 7.68
millions km2. Less than 1.1% error. Not bad at all :-)
Then I plot the surfaces of oceanics floor for the different time range
vs time. The curve did not display an exponential growth as claimed by
Adams. Still, the growth was really smooth.
So I calculated the average growth rate for each isochrons and plot it
versus time:
http://nachon.free.fr/GrowthRate.pdf
It is linear in fonction of time.
(average rate of growth)=a.t+b
a=15.8ฤ
3.2 x10E3 km2/MYA
b=2.9ฤ
0.3 x10E6 km2
correl coeff: 0.970958
0.97, a very good correlation for average rates.
So dSurf/dt=a.t+b
it follows that
Surf(t)=a/2.t^2+b.t+c
If one consider d, the origin date of rate growth (Surf(d)=0) then
Surf(t) simplifies into:
Surf(t)=a/2*(t-d)^2
I used the surfaces of oceanic floor I calculated earlier, and fit the
equation. I found:
a: 15.403234 ฤ
0.567602 x10E3 km2/MYA2
d: -186.696232 ฤ
2.802151 MYA
correl coeff : 0.999689
Corellation is 0.999!!!! Terrific!
Look at this graph:
http://nachon.free.fr/Surface.pdf
A perfect hyperbola.
Such a perfect rate is completely unthinkable with Plate tectonics,
simply because continents are not symetrics...
Yep, it looks like PT is really dead.
So expansion of oceanic floors began 186.7ฤ
2.8 MYA ago and current
surface growth is about 2.9 km2/year. That is a radius growth about 18
mm/year.
For those who wants to make the calculations themselves, all the data
are here:
http://nachon.free.fr/data.pdf
Cheers :-)
--
Florian Nachon
George
"Aidan Karley" <name1...@email.provider.invalid> wrote in message
news:VA.0000136...@email.provider.invalid...
I think he was one of the original 20th century inventors of the concept of
'lying for Jesus'. "It's ok to lie as long as it is for Jesus".
George
George
"Timberwoof" <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
> In article <hi5613d3guctirqeu...@4ax.com>,
> J. Taylor <nchi...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 20:54:00 -0400, "George" <geo...@yourservice.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
Can't be done unless you also take into consideration the stratigraphic,
geomagnetic, and petrologic similarities across the oceans and bring the
continents together so that that data is properly aligned. This was done
with great success for the Atlantic basin. It cannot be done for the
Pacific basin because the the stratigraphic, geomagnetic, and the
petrographic data do not coincide.
> (You imply that George should use only that evidence. Why this
> restriction? Oh, I forgot: other evidence such as magnetic fields in
> igneous rocks supports plate tectonics.)
Right. It does support plate tectonics. It doesn't support expansion.
>> Be sure and show old crust you claim
>> existed and all subduction zones needed to achieve your results.
No problemo:
http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/vageol/vahist/K-LatPal.html
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/finalprogram/abstract_114552.htm
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003EAEJA.....8207S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991GeoRL..18.1301K
There are hundreds more examples where those came from. Need more? Google
is your friend.
Next.
> (The old crust got subducted away.)
Not all of it. See above.
George
George
Now that you've done this, take a trip all across the Pacific basin,
travelling to every country and island arc, particularly along the rim,
collect the needed stratigraphic, geomagnetic, and the petrographic data,
and then produce a map that shows that the above calculations have any
bearing on the reality on the ground.
Geore
Florian
> In article <4611abb8$0$3748$ba62...@text.nova.planet.nl>, Sjouke Burry
> wrote:
> > >> "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles"
> > >> Voltaire vs Leibniz
> > >
> > Parbleu ???? explain sil vou plais(My french is quite rusty...) :)
> >
> Something like "all is for the best in the best of all possibly
> worlds". Dr Pangloss, wasn't it? thought I can't claim to have read any
> original Voltaire (beyond his quip about admirals).
You got it right. It was Voltaire's way to say that Leibniz was wrong
;-)
--
Florian
Florian
> Now that you've done this, take a trip all across the Pacific basin,
> travelling to every country and island arc, particularly along the rim,
> collect the needed stratigraphic, geomagnetic, and the petrographic data,
> and then produce a map that shows that the above calculations have any
> bearing on the reality on the ground.
The above calculations are based on data from the ground.
I'm waiting for your model based on PT to explain the curves I
presented.
--
Florian
"Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles"
Voltaire vs Leibniz (1-0)
Jo Schaper
> In article <1313agm...@corp.supernews.com>, Jo Schaper wrote:
>>> Biomechanics tell us that dinosaurs could not run with our gravity,
>>> while their spurs tell us they did.
>> Biomechanics tells us bumblebees can't fly, either.
>>
> Actually, biomechanics tell us that bumblebees can't glide.
> Which is true. In the 50s or 60s when this urban legend got started,
> the maths and computer power wasn't available to study the capabilities
> of the real bumblebee's wing, but the science of aerodynamics was up to
> saying that bumblebees who attempted to glide home would fall out of
> the sky without even a buzz.
>
improbable flight things--US turkey and black vultures (which are
carrion eaters, unrelated to European buzzards), can glide for hours,
but cannot get off the ground without the assistance of thermally driven
updrafts. This is rather a pain, since their dead food is typically on
the ground. Once they get aloft, they can ride thermal columns for
hours, literally hopping from thermal to thermal, but wind shear causes
them no end of trouble as they are not aerodynamically predisposed to
fly by wingstrokes. In the winter,they have to migrate even from such
mild climes as Missouri in order to keep their flight ability. George
might be familiar with this--the town of Hinckley, Ohio celebrates the
return of the "buzzards" as do people in the Ozarks--though most city
people here typically mistake the turkey vultures for eagles. Hence the
name, Ozark eagle.
This odd flight behavior resulted in several Vietnam-era med-evac
helicopter units being called this or that Vultures.
Now, y'all have had your fun factoid for the day! *|:-)
George
"Jo Schaper" <jospamnotschaper34@5socket78dot9net> wrote in message
news:1318k4a...@corp.supernews.com...
Ugh. In recent years, there have been large numbers of turkey vultures
attempting to nest in a well-to-do neighborhood here, and each time they
return, the homeowners become quite alarmed. There have been a few
instances of one or two children being attacked by them (probably got too
close to one would be my guess). I don't know much about their flight
characteristics, but they do know how so soar quite well. There is an
overabundance of them here in this part of the coutry, for sure.
George
George
> George <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote:
>
>> Now that you've done this, take a trip all across the Pacific basin,
>> travelling to every country and island arc, particularly along the rim,
>> collect the needed stratigraphic, geomagnetic, and the petrographic
>> data,
>> and then produce a map that shows that the above calculations have any
>> bearing on the reality on the ground.
>
> The above calculations are based on data from the ground.
> I'm waiting for your model based on PT to explain the curves I
> presented.
>
>
> --
> Florian
Flo, none of what you presented demonstrates what is seen on the ground
anywhere along the Pacific rim. You can do all the math you care to do,
but until you connect the dots on the ground, you're pissing in the wind.
For instance, The Appalachians can be directly connected with parts of
Northern Scotland, and Scandanavia because the stratigraphy, geomagnetics
and petrography bears out doing so. The black diamonds of South America
can be directly linked to the black diamonds of western Africa. And there
is more, a lot more. There is no such case to be made in the Pacific rim.
So you can draw all the curves you care to but until you can fit the
continents together stratigraphically, geomagnetically, and
petrographically, you're not going to get anyone's attention with this. If
it was as easy as you suppose, the argument would have been resolved long
ago.
George
Jo Schaper
>
> Ugh. In recent years, there have been large numbers of turkey vultures
> attempting to nest in a well-to-do neighborhood here, and each time they
> return, the homeowners become quite alarmed. There have been a few
> instances of one or two children being attacked by them (probably got too
> close to one would be my guess).
TVs (turkey vultures) are notoriously near-sighted-- my husband
rappelled a cliff to take photos of half-grown chicks in a rock alcove
which served as their nest, and stayed there a half hour or more before
the parents noticed or the chicks became agitated (only when he tried to
use a closeup lens on them). In aviary lab experiments, they have been
shown to find their food while flying blindfolded (presumably by smell).
Which leads to three conclusions:
a) There are ambulance-chasing lawyers in the well-to-do neighborhood,
and the vultures are only extending professional courtesy;
b) The attacked children either were WAY too close to the birds and had
them cornered them on the ground, or the birds were misidentified by
adults at the scene;
c) the kids really, really needed a bath! *|:-)
J. Taylor
wrote:
Which makes it second order. How it can be explained in relationship
to what has be shown, not that its existence, now, negates what has
been demonstrated.
Sorry George
JT
J. Taylor
wrote:
As usual, you have not shown whole Earth, but rather have taken a
selected and small number of examples. Which are specious and
circular in reasoning.
They do not show the whole, nor can it be known from their existence
it is what you are hoping to show.
JT
Timberwoof
Jo Schaper <jospamnotschaper34@5socket78dot9net> wrote:
> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article <1hw08sr.rq0lh1c17j7mN%firs...@lastname.net>,
> > firs...@lastname.net (Florian) wrote:
> >
> >> Jo Schaper <jospamnotschaper34@5socket78dot9net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Biomechanics tells us bumblebees can't fly, either.
> >> Really? What's the arguments?
> >
> > It's not even true ... and not even true any more.
> >
> > Aerodynamic theory did not understand vortexes well enough to explain
> > how bumblebees fly. This subtlety of point was debrainified and
> > sound-bitten into various urban-legendary forms, one of which we see
> > above.
> >
> > As it turns out, just a few years ago, some college boy smarter than
> > many of us built a mechanical bumblebee and put it in a tank of oil with
> > bubbles. He did some very clever math to show that the interactions of
> > his scaled-up bumblebee with his oil were the same as a real bumblebee
> > in air (what with viscosity and scale and whatnot). Then he showed that
> > stroke of the bee's wings made vortexes that the bee used for lift in
> > the subsequent stroke.
> >
> > No scientist ever "proved" that bumblebees can't fly; no other scientist
> > ever accepted that "proof". (Duuh. They can. See?) It was merely a
> > typical case of the difference between not knowing how something works
> > and believing that it does not work.
> >
>
> I think you missed the intent of my original remark, Timberwoof.
Sorry, Joe.
> The Net
> has 1001 different smiley faces--sometimes I wish it had one for *ironic
> or deliberately facetious remark*.
Here are two: };-) }: )
> How does one indicate 'pulling
> one's leg' in emoticons?
I'd *never* pull your leg! }: )
don findlay
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 22:26:53 -0400, "George" <geo...@yourservice.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
No no, ..Actually George is taking the perfectly laudable scientific
position. This is the essence of "Real Science". Just as Gerald
Whatsisname at Hawaii wanted the last current bed in the last road
cutting measured before anything positive could be said about that
flood (Badlands in Washington State), and just as that Aidan goat
(pissing in George's pocket) would back him and insist every last sand
grain be measured and counted before a beach could be called a beach,
so George is quite correct in insisting what he is insisting. Aren't
you George? It's just that it will take a hundred years of
'geological research' at least to do it. Probably more like a
thousand actually
Which is, after all and **EXACTLY** the name of the game, isn't
it, ...filling it out, milking it for all it's worth. "The gift that
keeps on giving" as that nut-cracked flowerpot in Hawaii keeps on
saying. Wegener was quite right in his correlations, against all the
naysayers, ..and also in attributing it to the Earth's rotation (..a
hundred years ago..) Everything that happened in between now has just
got to be reconfigured. It's no big deal (and everybody change hats
and get in line of course). So what? Of course everybody knows the
Earth is round. Only a fool would think otherwise. To do with
Gravity, is it not?
"Gravity, ..? .. What's that?"
"Oh it's what keeps the Earth round."
"Yeah, but what is it, ..exactly?"
"Well, ..it's a force, ..isn't it? Between stuff."
"Yeah, ..but how does it act over a distance, without being in
contact?"
"Well, it's like electricity, ..isn't it? ... Or magnetism?
Yes? And what (exactly) is that?
..And so on.. Words words words, ..used to cover ignorance and mete
out to the gullible punishing explanations that are as upside down as
the arithmetic that bears out "subduction". We're still really flat
earthers at heart. Aren't we, ..."George"? (trying to hide how
stupid he really is, ..with his alias).
The fit across the Pacific is as obvious as that in the Atlantic - if
only they would just stop looking at mountain belts as due to
continental collision and see them as related to 'uplift' (of a
sort). ( ..So close, ..and yet so far..) How something so obvious
as the dilation of the circumglobal mountain belt can be overlooked
and no comment made is simply beyond comment. ..The rush to follow
the Pied Piper, . like Lemmings over a cliff. It's written in story
for very good reason.
---------------------------
"...And so the Emperor went along in the procession under the splendid
canopy, and all the people in the streets and at the windows said,
'How matchless are the Emperor's new clothes! That train fastened to
his dress, how beautifully it hangs!' No one wished it to be noticed
that he could see nothing, for then he would have been unfit for his
office, or else very stupid. None of the Emperor's clothes had met
with such approval as these had.
'But he has nothing on!' said a little child at last. 'Just listen to
the innocent child!' said the father, and each one whispered to his
neighbour what the child had said. 'But he has nothing on!' the whole
of the people called out at last. This struck the Emperor, for it
seemed to him as if they were right; but he thought to himself, 'I
must go on with the procession now. And the chamberlains walked along
still more uprightly, holding up the train which was not there at
all. ..."
----------------------------------
(They probably even wonder why they get labelled 'idiots'.) ("Fucken
Idiots")
Or are they? There is far more mileage in being wrong, ..than being
right.. Particularlwhen they have to write so many papers a year to
maintain 'credibility'. What would they do for an encore, after
all, ..if they got it right?
Ironic, is it not? (The logic of being wrong.)
oriel36
> oriel36 wrote:
> >,it is remarkable to see nobody even
> > mention the correlation between the Earth's shape and crustal motion.
>
> As you very well know, that is because science as carried out by
> scientists is not about the science, but about publication and career
> interest, ..and the two are quite different. Science is about the
> healthy conflict of ideas, not the mindless reiteration of consensus.http://users.indigo.net.au/don/abstact/.html
>
That is a dead link .
Looking at the various replies,the only new significant point from
someone else is the sensible suggestion of the pitfalls in using
selective geological features to support a wider concept.although
there is nothing wrong with this up to a point,it fails to take into
account physical considerations and looks like somebody stumbling
towards an end rather than just appreciating the correlations that
already exist.
Crustal evolution,motion and the influence on surface features is
enjoyable and exciting as it is but then you come to the mechanism for
evolution/motion and it is incredibly poor.The background for crustal
motion looks like it was created by Walt Disney characters who never
bother to consider how the motions of the Earth actually influence the
motion of the Earth's component plates and this I cannot understand.
http://www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk/distance/strobel/starsun/strsuna_files/sun-rotation.gif
The bulk of the Earth is in a molten/flexible state and the rotation
of that mass is where I derive the common mechanism for planetary
shape and crustal evolution/motion.Do not know why a few genuine
people cannot see the same thing but obviously it appears to be more
pofitable to have an artificial argument over plate tectonics versus
earth expansion .
I have no regard for ee,it is so like the Newtonian attempt to explain
planetary motion via terrestrial ballistics in not really caring how
it arrives at the conclusion it seeks whereas plate tectonics has at
least an inter-disciplinary basis from strata fossils ect.That the
wroking principles are destroyed by the stationary Earth/convection
cell numbskulls is another matter but considering that it does not
bother them in the slightest to retain convection,it is no wonder
expanding earth guys sound better informed.
There are actually people who refer the deviation of the planet from a
perfect sphere from the dead center of the Earth,a silly arrow
pointing outwards like it was devised by a 6 year old -
http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Srotfram1.htm
That is not an isolated viewpoint,that is the majority viewpoint !!!.
No attempt whatsover to consider differential rotation in the molten/
flexible interior even after a number of years showing where it is
more productive to put crustal evolution/motion in with the dynamics
that keep the Earth from being a perfect sphere with the deviation
perpedicular to the rotational orientation of the molten interior.
jmfb...@aol.com
>I think you missed the intent of my original remark, Timberwoof. The Net
>has 1001 different smiley faces--sometimes I wish it had one for *ironic
> or deliberately facetious remark*. How does one indicate 'pulling
>one's leg' in emoticons?
One of my penpals uses :-^ to imply tongue in cheek.
/BAH
George
"Jo Schaper" <jospamnotschaper34@5socket78dot9net> wrote in message
ROFLOL! Good one, Jo.
George
Pascal Boulerie
>
> The Appalachians can be directly connected with parts of Northern Scotland, and Scandinavia
> because the stratigraphy, geomagnetics and petrography bears out doing so.
> The black diamonds of South America can be directly linked to the black diamonds of western Africa.
According to German scientists who have found a major fossile river
bed in the Sahara sands, the Amazon had its source in Western Africa.
" Hundreds of millions of years ago, the Amazon flowed west into the
Pacific Ocean. Then movements in the Earth's crust pushed up the Andes
mountains and blocked its route. So one day, the Amazon turned round.
First, it backed up to form a vast freshwater lake; then it forced its
way east, flowing into the Atlantic. To this day, its fish are more
like those in Pacific than Atlantic rivers. "
Source "Tunza The UNEP Magazine for Youth - For Young People, by Young
People, About Young People" : http://www.ourplanet.com/tunza/issue0101en/pages/waterflows2frame.html
don findlay
We know you're no gentleman, Woof, ..but there's no need to overdo
it. ....Besides, ..we doubt if you'd ever be in a position to pull
Jo's legs (Joe, maybe, but not the legs of our Jo...)
hee..ee..eee..eeeeeeee.... :-]
don findlay
Pascal Boulerie wrote:
> > George <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote:
> >
> > The Appalachians can be directly connected with parts of Northern Scotland, and Scandinavia
> > because the stratigraphy, geomagnetics and petrography bears out doing so.
> > The black diamonds of South America can be directly linked to the black diamonds of western Africa.
>
>
> According to German scientists who have found a major fossile river
> bed in the Sahara sands, the Amazon had its source in Western Africa.
>
> " Hundreds of millions of years ago, the Amazon flowed west into the
> Pacific Ocean. Then movements in the Earth's crust pushed up the Andes
> mountains and blocked its route. So one day, the Amazon turned round.
> First, it backed up to form a vast freshwater lake; then it forced its
> way east, flowing into the Atlantic. To this day, its fish are more
> like those in Pacific than Atlantic rivers. "
>From the archives:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/predict1.html
And actually, "west into the Pacific" was really *south* into the
Pacific
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/mountains.html
"Movements of the Earth's crust pushed up..." (Huh, ..they do make
me laugh. ) (Follow the link to Duke Dawson - which is about the size
of Real Science (Earth science style)
Get 'em young, and they end up like here. Wow! ...Talk about Child
Abuse!!
don findlay
oriel36 wrote:
> On Apr 4, 11:54 am, "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > oriel36 wrote:
> > >,it is remarkable to see nobody even
> > > mention the correlation between the Earth's shape and crustal motion.
> >
> > As you very well know, that is because science as carried out by
> > scientists is not about the science, but about publication and career
> > interest, ..and the two are quite different. Science is about the
> > healthy conflict of ideas, not the mindless reiteration of consensus.http://users.indigo.net.au/don/abstact/.html
> >
>
> That is a dead link .
(So it is, ..sorry) Try
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/abstract.html
>
> Looking at the various replies,the only new significant point from
> someone else is the sensible suggestion of the pitfalls in using
> selective geological features to support a wider concept.although
> there is nothing wrong with this up to a point,it fails to take into
> account physical considerations and looks like somebody stumbling
> towards an end rather than just appreciating the correlations that
> already exist.
Well, ..I don't know.. The Atlantic fit is a pretty good one and
gives the gist ok. But George and Aidan have a point on insisting on
going the whole hog and measuring all the sand grains before shooting
off their mouth. But progress doesn't happen by sand grains, it
happens on the flimsiest of connections. We need that Loveable
Pair, .. just as we need Stu to validate them.
>
> Crustal evolution,motion and the influence on surface features is
> enjoyable and exciting as it is but then you come to the mechanism for
> evolution/motion and it is incredibly poor.The background for crustal
> motion looks like it was created by Walt Disney characters who never
> bother to consider how the motions of the Earth actually influence the
> motion of the Earth's component plates and this I cannot understand.
>
> http://www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk/distance/strobel/starsun/strsuna_files/sun-rotation.gif
Absolutely! How it can happen that the Earth's rotation, so
obviously inscripted in the surface geology doesn't get a look-in in
geological theory is a classic example of what you earlier called
"homocentric hubris", ..but that's scientists, isn't it - "What we
don't know, isn't knowledge", ..and what we don't understand gets
quietly shoved under the carpet. At the same time as mouthing mantras
about being "objective". You'd think 'scientists' would make a point
of advertising the big questions they have no answer to, but the
reverse is true, in geology at least. Have you ever witnessed any
geologist once ask a question on this newsgroup about something they
don't understand? No. They're all pocket pissers.
> The bulk of the Earth is in a molten/flexible state and the rotation
> of that mass is where I derive the common mechanism for planetary
> shape and crustal evolution/motion.Do not know why a few genuine
> people cannot see the same thing but obviously it appears to be more
> pofitable to have an artificial argument over plate tectonics versus
> earth expansion .
'Profitable' is the word. Just think of the abundance of papers
getting ready to be scribbled (probably being scribbled), just waiting
for the dam to burst - just simply tying ... well (The Encyclopedia
of Life Support - Unesco)
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tck/dogli.html
> I have no regard for ee,it is so like the Newtonian attempt to explain
> planetary motion via terrestrial ballistics in not really caring how
> it arrives at the conclusion it seeks whereas plate tectonics has at
> least an inter-disciplinary basis from strata fossils ect.
Plate Tectonics is not about fossils and stratigraphy or metamorphism
or any of the other subdisciplines in geology that are based on facts
from empirical observation. Plate Tectonics is simply a theory built
on a convenient assumption
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html
...which fails at every turn. It is 'science' at its worst - Pure
Junk. Through and through. Throw it out. Bath, water, baby, ..the
lot.
> That the
> wroking principles are destroyed by the stationary Earth/convection
> cell numbskulls is another matter but considering that it does not
> bother them in the slightest to retain convection,it is no wonder
> expanding earth guys sound better informed.
They are no better informed, simply more rigorous in their logical
approach. The data is the same, the assumptions are less, and they
are more prepared to confront the unknown. Some people look up at
the Moon and the stars and wonder. Others shrug their shoulders, go
inside and have a cup of tea. And some spivs try to capitalise on
it. Stu's a Spiv. The wonder is there (in some form) but the
essence is the capital.
> There are actually people who refer the deviation of the planet from a
> perfect sphere from the dead center of the Earth,a silly arrow
> pointing outwards like it was devised by a 6 year old -
>
> http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Srotfram1.htm
>
> That is not an isolated viewpoint,that is the majority viewpoint !!!.
Well, ..that's consensus for you, isn't it?
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/consensus.html
> No attempt whatsover to consider differential rotation in the molten/
> flexible interior even after a number of years showing where it is
> more productive to put crustal evolution/motion in with the dynamics
> that keep the Earth from being a perfect sphere with the deviation
> perpedicular to the rotational orientation of the molten interior.
The point about all of that, as I see it (from a scientific point of
view) is that it's all too simple. It's obvious to anybody. It's the
Emperor factor kicking in. "How can so many 'informed scientists' be
wrong"? We have a need for an emperor, and Academia is 'it'. People
fail to see the grubby self-interest that glues it together. They
forget scientists are just people like them, same needs, ..paying off
their house, raising kids etc., They think they're doing science.
They see that too on telly, the media hype, with its own self-serving
interest, which reinforces their conviction. They even encourage
their kids to be like them, but it's like induction into the Police
Force, you soon see the line you are supposed to toe if you wish to
survive amongst your 'peers'. Anything 'good' is just secondary spin-
off. It's not the issue.
That's it, ..eh?
Florian
> Flo, none of what you presented demonstrates what is seen on the ground
> anywhere along the Pacific rim. You can do all the math you care to do,
> but until you connect the dots on the ground, you're pissing in the wind.
> For instance, The Appalachians can be directly connected with parts of
> Northern Scotland, and Scandanavia because the stratigraphy, geomagnetics
> and petrography bears out doing so. The black diamonds of South America
> can be directly linked to the black diamonds of western Africa. And there
> is more, a lot more.
Those features are predicted by EE.
> There is no such case to be made in the Pacific rim.
That's because you never looked carefully.
McCarthy showed it with biogeography, but there is more.
North east and North west Australia has common features with West canada
and North east asia, respectively. That one of the features to explain
the supercontinent Rodinia. Yet, this shared features are well predicted
by EE. Indeed Australia was nested toward North east asia and North west
America according to EE models.
> So you can draw all the curves you care to but until you can fit the
> continents together stratigraphically, geomagnetically, and
> petrographically, you're not going to get anyone's attention with this. If
> it was as easy as you suppose, the argument would have been resolved long
> ago.
At some point, paleogeographer will quit hunting supercontinent, and
realize that EE provides a better model to explain the features they
observed.
Meanwhile, the seafloor datations are in complete contradiction with PT.
don findlay
Florian wrote:
> George <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote:
>
> > Flo, none of what you presented demonstrates what is seen on the ground
> > anywhere along the Pacific rim. You can do all the math you care to do,
> > but until you connect the dots on the ground, you're pissing in the wind.
> > For instance, The Appalachians can be directly connected with parts of
> > Northern Scotland, and Scandanavia because the stratigraphy, geomagnetics
> > and petrography bears out doing so. The black diamonds of South America
> > can be directly linked to the black diamonds of western Africa. And there
> > is more, a lot more.
>
> Those features are predicted by EE.
>
> > There is no such case to be made in the Pacific rim.
>
> That's because you never looked carefully.
'George' never looks for himself at all. He's one of these people who
does things by the book because he thinks books are a thing unto
themselves, inviolate, and apart from the grubby grey mass of people.
fact he was probably Chinese in another life, ..the Chinese who hold
great regard for the brushstroke on paper, which comes alive of
itself, and signifies 'education', ..as a monkey holding a stick and
making a scratchmark in the sand is revered by evolutionists.
> McCarthy showed it with biogeography, but there is more.
>
> North east and North west Australia has common features with West canada
> and North east asia, respectively. That one of the features to explain
> the supercontinent Rodinia. Yet, this shared features are well predicted
> by EE. Indeed Australia was nested toward North east asia and North west
> America according to EE models.
>
> > So you can draw all the curves you care to but until you can fit the
> > continents together stratigraphically, geomagnetically, and
> > petrographically, you're not going to get anyone's attention with this. If
> > it was as easy as you suppose, the argument would have been resolved long
> > ago.
>
> At some point, paleogeographer will quit hunting supercontinent, and
> realize that EE provides a better model to explain the features they
> observed.
Geomorphologists have had the answer for yonks. (If they only but knew
it)
>
> Meanwhile, the seafloor datations are in complete contradiction with PT.
No they don't, if you assume 1. Subduction, ... and place another
assumption, 2. Panthalassa - on top of it. (Plate Tectonics, ..a
pyramid of assumptions.) (Assumptions proferred as proof.) (= Junk
Science!)
They are beauties, are they not? Real posers. All looking at each
others' lipstick and makeup and fashionable dress. They don't even
know why they're attending the venue. They're just there to smarm and
marm and generally walk the walk and talk the talk, in the knowledge
that everybody's like them and nobody's really listening. They're
just there, if anything, for the free lunch, and reckon that by
attending they're doing everybody a favour.
George
"Pascal Boulerie" <Pascal....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175792417....@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Umm, the Atlantic has rivers? I thought it was an ocean. Pascal, I'm not
sure what the evidence is supposed to exist for the fish of the Amazon more
closely resembling those in the Pacific than the "Atlantic rivers",
whatever they are. The fact is that South America has at least 450 species
of cichlids of which 311 species described to date. That would be about 8 %
of the South American fresh water fish fauna (estimates suggest about 5,000
species). Cichlids are a proportionally more important faunal component
numerically in Africa and Central America, but are nevertheless the major
non-otophysan group in South America and one of the four largest families,
the Characidae, Pimelodidae and Loricariidae having more or about the same
number of species.
The South and Central American (as well as the one North American species)
cichlids are more closely related to African cichlids than to any other
species, making the argument for the connection between Africa and South
America even stronger. There may be evidence that the Amazon once flowed
to the west, and possibly had it's source in Africa at one time. I
wouldn't doubt it is true. But what that has to do with fish in the Amazon
being more closely related to Pacific species escapes me. I've seen no
such evidence for it (not that it doesn't exist).
George
George
> George <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote:
>
>> Flo, none of what you presented demonstrates what is seen on the ground
>> anywhere along the Pacific rim. You can do all the math you care to do,
>> but until you connect the dots on the ground, you're pissing in the
>> wind.
>> For instance, The Appalachians can be directly connected with parts of
>> Northern Scotland, and Scandanavia because the stratigraphy,
>> geomagnetics
>> and petrography bears out doing so. The black diamonds of South America
>> can be directly linked to the black diamonds of western Africa. And
>> there
>> is more, a lot more.
>
> Those features are predicted by EE.
Well duh! EE takes the evidence that PT researchers collected to show that
South America and Africa were once connected. Big woopie. EE has not made
the same kind of connection in the Pacific basin, despite the ludicrous
maps they've produced. There is no stratigraphic, geomagnetic, or
petrographic corelation on the ground that indicates that their maps in the
Pacific are valid.
>> There is no such case to be made in the Pacific rim.
>
> That's because you never looked carefully.
> McCarthy showed it with biogeography, but there is more.
McCarthy's paper has already been refuted, Flo.
> North east and North west Australia has common features with West canada
> and North east asia, respectively.
Hogwash. Prove your point or get off it.
> That one of the features to explain
> the supercontinent Rodinia. Yet, this shared features are well predicted
> by EE. Indeed Australia was nested toward North east asia and North west
> America according to EE models.
And those models are wrong.
>> So you can draw all the curves you care to but until you can fit the
>> continents together stratigraphically, geomagnetically, and
>> petrographically, you're not going to get anyone's attention with this.
>> If
>> it was as easy as you suppose, the argument would have been resolved
>> long
>> ago.
>
> At some point, paleogeographer will quit hunting supercontinent, and
> realize that EE provides a better model to explain the features they
> observed.
At some point, you are going to realize that EE doesn't explain anything,
and quit posting this drivel.
George
Jo Schaper
>> George <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Appalachians can be directly connected with parts of Northern Scotland, and Scandinavia
>> because the stratigraphy, geomagnetics and petrography bears out doing so.
>> The black diamonds of South America can be directly linked to the black diamonds of western Africa.
Um, I just read an article which linked black diamonds to an
extraterrestrial origin.
Because some geological findings are extraordinary and astonishing does
not mean that everything extraordinary and astonishing is geology.
George
"Jo Schaper" <jospamnotschaper34@5socket78dot9net> wrote in message
Right. But they came to earth at a time when SA and Africa were joined,
which is why they are only found in eastern SA and Western Africa.
George
don findlay
http://tinyurl.com/2u4sz2
Now we know (again) how you got your straight a's in a row, and why
they were all glad to see the back of you. Bet you ride on the
running board of the tram as well, ..and don't pay your fare, ..you
old cut-and-paster...
don findlay
Well, ..you happen to be right, ..but Google's just upped the ante for
you. It's no longer good enough to sit and regurgitate, or wwing from
the tree and hoot what others are saying, or otherwise try to con
eople the words are from your mouth. You now have to think for
yourself. An alien concept indeed for your ilk.
pete
Also, ;) used to be popular to indicate a wink. Don't see it so
much any more, probably doesn't show up well in some fonts.
Variations include ;-P winking with tongue out...
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
oriel36
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 11:54 am, "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > > oriel36 wrote:
> > > >,it is remarkable to see nobody even
> > > > mention the correlation between the Earth's shape and crustal motion.
>
> > > As you very well know, that is because science as carried out by
> > > scientists is not about the science, but about publication and career
> > > interest, ..and the two are quite different. Science is about the
> > > healthy conflict of ideas, not the mindless reiteration of consensus.http://users.indigo.net.au/don/abstact/.html
>
> > That is a dead link .
>
> (So it is, ..sorry) Tryhttp://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/abstract.html
>
All I ever see from the stationary Earth/convection cells guys (they
are dominant) and anyone else with an alternative views are non
descript arrows pointing in no particular direction whether it is
convection cells ,planetary shape deviation or any other notion.
The rotational dynamics of differential rotation in a molten/flexible
interior have a definite direction with a finite speed at the Equator
diminishing to a definite state of rest at the geographical poles,the
difference between a rotating mas travelling at 1000 miles per hour at
the Equator and its state of rest at the poles is a 40 KM deviation
from a perfect sphere and the motion of a fractured crust that is in
immediate contact with the molten composition.
>
>
> > Looking at the various replies,the only new significant point from
> > someone else is the sensible suggestion of the pitfalls in using
> > selective geological features to support a wider concept.although
> > there is nothing wrong with this up to a point,it fails to take into
> > account physical considerations and looks like somebody stumbling
> > towards an end rather than just appreciating the correlations that
> > already exist.
>
> Well, ..I don't know.. The Atlantic fit is a pretty good one and
> gives the gist ok. But George and Aidan have a point on insisting on
> going the whole hog and measuring all the sand grains before shooting
> off their mouth. But progress doesn't happen by sand grains, it
> happens on the flimsiest of connections. We need that Loveable
> Pair, .. just as we need Stu to validate them.
>
Right now there are far more immediate concerns such as modifying the
explanation for global climate and subsequently hemispherical
patterns(seasons).It does eventually mesh with geology insofar as
weathering and geological features are conditioned by the climate of
the Earth.Sadly,no accurate explantion for the annual cyclical
seasonal patterns exist,specifically the pseudo-dynamic of variable
axial tilt is assigned as the mechanism for global climate and the
seasons.
I cannot stop to think why people would choose to believe in notions
which are counter-productive,contrived and otherwise useless when
there is so much productive avenues to consider.That geologists cannot
even correlate the planetary shape deviation with crustal motion using
a common mechanism does not look intellectually and intutively good.
I do not know why these people wish to believe in stationary Earth
notions when the original broad idea for crustal motions and the
geographical seperation of the continents is so good and
enjoyable.Perhaps being dominant with stationary Earth ideas counts
for something but it only means that I would wait and see if an
intelligent person could pick up on a correlation between planetary
shape and crustal motion and move on to a better mechanism that
involves actual rotational dynamics of the Earth.
Until then enjoy the company of the stationary Earth guys and their
arrows pointing nowhere in particular -
http://www.aoi.com.au/bcw/FixedorExpandingEarth9.gif
>
>
> > Crustal evolution,motion and the influence on surface features is
> > enjoyable and exciting as it is but then you come to the mechanism for
> > evolution/motion and it is incredibly poor.The background for crustal
> > motion looks like it was created by Walt Disney characters who never
> > bother to consider how the motions of the Earth actually influence the
> > motion of the Earth's component plates and this I cannot understand.
>
> >http://www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk/distance/strobel/starsun/strs...
>
> Absolutely! How it can happen that the Earth's rotation, so
> obviously inscripted in the surface geology doesn't get a look-in in
> geological theory is a classic example of what you earlier called
> "homocentric hubris", ..but that's scientists, isn't it - "What we
> don't know, isn't knowledge", ..and what we don't understand gets
> quietly shoved under the carpet. At the same time as mouthing mantras
> about being "objective". You'd think 'scientists' would make a point
> of advertising the big questions they have no answer to, but the
> reverse is true, in geology at least. Have you ever witnessed any
> geologist once ask a question on this newsgroup about something they
> don't understand? No. They're all pocket pissers.
>
> > The bulk of the Earth is in a molten/flexible state and the rotation
> > of that mass is where I derive the common mechanism for planetary
> > shape and crustal evolution/motion.Do not know why a few genuine
> > people cannot see the same thing but obviously it appears to be more
> > pofitable to have an artificial argument over plate tectonics versus
> > earth expansion .
>
> 'Profitable' is the word. Just think of the abundance of papers
> getting ready to be scribbled (probably being scribbled), just waiting
> for the dam to burst - just simply tying ... well (The Encyclopedia
> of Life Support - Unesco)http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tck/dogli.html
>
> > I have no regard for ee,it is so like the Newtonian attempt to explain
> > planetary motion via terrestrial ballistics in not really caring how
> > it arrives at the conclusion it seeks whereas plate tectonics has at
> > least an inter-disciplinary basis from strata fossils ect.
>
> Plate Tectonics is not about fossils and stratigraphy or metamorphism
> or any of the other subdisciplines in geology that are based on facts
> from empirical observation. Plate Tectonics is simply a theory built
> on a convenient assumptionhttp://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html
> ...which fails at every turn. It is 'science' at its worst - Pure
> Junk. Through and through. Throw it out. Bath, water, baby, ..the
> lot.
>
> > That the
> > wroking principles are destroyed by the stationary Earth/convection
> > cell numbskulls is another matter but considering that it does not
> > bother them in the slightest to retain convection,it is no wonder
> > expanding earth guys sound better informed.
>
> They are no better informed, simply more rigorous in their logical
> approach. The data is the same, the assumptions are less, and they
> are more prepared to confront the unknown. Some people look up at
> the Moon and the stars and wonder. Others shrug their shoulders, go
> inside and have a cup of tea. And some spivs try to capitalise on
> it. Stu's a Spiv. The wonder is there (in some form) but the
> essence is the capital.
>
> > There are actually people who refer the deviation of the planet from a
> > perfect sphere from the dead center of the Earth,a silly arrow
> > pointing outwards like it was devised by a 6 year old -
>
> >http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Srotfram1.htm
>
> > That is not an isolated viewpoint,that is the majority viewpoint !!!.
>
> Well, ..that's consensus for you, isn't it?http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/consensus.html
don findlay
Yeah, but what you're talking about is in the *mantle*, and that's
only part of the story. You have to take into account what happens
*between the crust and the mantle and *in the crust itself, which all
hangs together in the same rotational ('torsional') picture. Spin
*IS* expansion.
What happened to 'plates' Oriel? ..the core of convection theory.
Have you abandoned them yet?
oriel36
You are better served talking with the stationary Earth /convection
cells guys where you can both enjoy whatever contrived notions that
suit your respective agendas.The next thing you know you will be
throwing back planetary shape and crustal motion using a common
mechanism as your assertion and that is difficult to bear.Most here
already know rotational dynamics are involved in profiling the Earth's
shape,it goes back centuries,the only step needed was to correlate it
with crustal motion .
> What happened to 'plates' Oriel? ..the core of convection theory.
> Have you abandoned them yet?
>
I will tell you what I have abandoned and gladly.I would not have the
stomach for ee nonsense nor stationary Earth proponents ,as far as I
am concerned you can have a ball with each other and I leave you to
your vacuous notions.I do regret the absence of genuine people with a
trace of common sense but then again when does a true appreciation of
terrestrial and celestial phenomena seen that balancing common sense
faculty in men.
Now,when somebody is actually big enough to consider how crustal
evolution/motion is better explained by rotational dynamics and a
common mechanism with the shape of the planet then I will entertain a
discussion but what you both have is garbage,at least in terms of
dynamics.
> ...
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
Florian
> McCarthy's paper has already been refuted, Flo.
Then give me the link to the post.
>
> > North east and North west Australia has common features with West canada
> > and North east asia, respectively.
>
> Hogwash. Prove your point or get off it.
Whatever. It's published in Science. Look at the lower left figure on
page 1380:
http://www.geodynamics.no/VISTA/RodiniaScience.pdf
You're just a bad troll.
J. Taylor
wrote:
>George <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote:
>
>
>> McCarthy's paper has already been refuted, Flo.
>
>Then give me the link to the post.
>
>>
>> > North east and North west Australia has common features with West canada
>> > and North east asia, respectively.
>>
>> Hogwash. Prove your point or get off it.
>
>Whatever. It's published in Science. Look at the lower left figure on
>page 1380:
>
>http://www.geodynamics.no/VISTA/RodiniaScience.pdf
>
>You're just a bad troll.
George is not a troll. He is a practitioner of disguise and hopes to
fool by his clumsy acts of slight of hand.
He and all the rest of the faithful do not get to move on to past
continental positions because their current theory fails to produce
the current position of them.
It is that simple.
JT
George
> George <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote:
>
>
>> McCarthy's paper has already been refuted, Flo.
>
> Then give me the link to the post.
He has been refuted here in at least a hundred different posts in at least
a dozen different threads. The best one I recall is the video presentation
he made that was posted here and ripped to shreds. But if you can find his
entire dissertation (which was never published, by the way, and as far as I
know, never accepted for his PhD), I'll gladly do so here.
>> > North east and North west Australia has common features with West
>> > canada
>> > and North east asia, respectively.
>>
>> Hogwash. Prove your point or get off it.
>
> Whatever. It's published in Science. Look at the lower left figure on
> page 1380:
>
> http://www.geodynamics.no/VISTA/RodiniaScience.pdf
Flo, there is nothing in this paper that supports EE. In fact, the first
paragraph clearly supports PT:
"The Earth's surface is divided into a dozen (at least) tectonic plates
that either drift apart, creating new oceanic crust, or collide, generating
mountain belts such as the himalayas.".
Well, gee, he's just described plate tectonics, not EE. In addition, all of
his maps show abundant subduction zones that EE says can't exist. Whether
or not Northeast and/or Northwest Australia has common features with West
Canada (and it is certainly not clear that it does, since all we have here
is a map and no data to back it up) during the formation of Rhodinia is
irrelevant to whether or not expansion occurs. It looks to me to be his
'best fit', and since he isn't sure where Siberia goes, that entire portion
of the map may be problematic.
The author clearly indicates a large ocean existing around the periphery of
Rhodinia along with the abundant subduction zones, so obviously he
subscribes to the same non-expanding earth to which every other PT
geologist subscribes. What on earth made you think that this paper
supports EE?
> You're just a bad troll.
Yeah, how terrible of me to insist on evidence to back up claims.
George
J. Taylor
wrote:
>
>"Florian" <firs...@lastname.net> wrote in message
>news:1hw6av7.18g961dp8a43kN%firs...@lastname.net...
>> George <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> McCarthy's paper has already been refuted, Flo.
>>
>> Then give me the link to the post.
>
>He has been refuted here in at least a hundred different posts in at least
>a dozen different threads. The best one I recall is the video presentation
>he made that was posted here and ripped to shreds. But if you can find his
>entire dissertation (which was never published, by the way, and as far as I
>know, never accepted for his PhD), I'll gladly do so here.
>
>>> > North east and North west Australia has common features with West
>>> > canada
>>> > and North east asia, respectively.
>>>
>>> Hogwash. Prove your point or get off it.
>>
>> Whatever. It's published in Science. Look at the lower left figure on
>> page 1380:
>>
>> http://www.geodynamics.no/VISTA/RodiniaScience.pdf
>
>Flo, there is nothing in this paper that supports EE. In fact, the first
>paragraph clearly supports PT:
What the paper clearly shows is the geomagnetic data does not refute
EE and support PT as you claim.
Which means you are wrong.
>
>"The Earth's surface is divided into a dozen (at least) tectonic plates
>that either drift apart, creating new oceanic crust, or collide, generating
>mountain belts such as the himalayas.".
>
>Well, gee, he's just described plate tectonics, not EE.
He framed the analysis in reference to PT and found it wanting.
Which does not support your claim of having geomagnetic evidence which
refutes EE.
>In addition, all of
>his maps show abundant subduction zones that EE says can't exist.
They were put there for the purpose of showing what would need to
happen, not that they were ever there.
>Whether
>or not Northeast and/or Northwest Australia has common features with West
>Canada (and it is certainly not clear that it does, since all we have here
>is a map and no data to back it up) during the formation of Rhodinia is
>irrelevant to whether or not expansion occurs.
Oh yes, use the past to support your position until it dose not then
contend it is irrelevant for what you very much were using it for to
make your case.
What a twister!
>It looks to me to be his
>'best fit', and since he isn't sure where Siberia goes, that entire portion
>of the map may be problematic.
Of course, since it does not support what you claimed, is now,
problematic.
>
>The author clearly indicates a large ocean existing around the periphery of
>Rhodinia along with the abundant subduction zones, so obviously he
>subscribes to the same non-expanding earth to which every other PT
>geologist subscribes. What on earth made you think that this paper
>supports EE?
It was not a support paper but one analysing the data and finding the
positions of the continents for those locations could not be
constrained by geomagnetic data.
>
>> You're just a bad troll.
>
>Yeah, how terrible of me to insist on evidence to back up claims.
in this case, your claim.
JT
Krubozumo Nyankoye
choked emotion intoned:
news:1175534964.2...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
> Hello,
>
> I need advices to curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-
> theory.
>
Ask him to predict the location of an Archean copper porphyry.
Anywhere in the world. Witin 2 minutes of lat. and long.
To all of the evasive objections raised simply reply, I don't care, make a
prediction.
He'll shut up in a few hours.
Ciao
--
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.
don findlay
George wrote:
> "Florian" <firs...@lastname.net> wrote in message
> news:1hw6av7.18g961dp8a43kN%firs...@lastname.net...
> > George <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> McCarthy's paper has already been refuted, Flo.
> >
> > Then give me the link to the post.
>
> He has been refuted here in at least a hundred different posts in at least
> a dozen different threads. The best one I recall is the video presentation
> he made that was posted here and ripped to shreds. But if you can find his
> entire dissertation (which was never published, by the way, and as far as I
> know, never accepted for his PhD), I'll gladly do so here.
>
> >> > North east and North west Australia has common features with West
> >> > canada
> >> > and North east asia, respectively.
> >>
> >> Hogwash. Prove your point or get off it.
> >
> > Whatever. It's published in Science. Look at the lower left figure on
> > page 1380:
> >
> > http://www.geodynamics.no/VISTA/RodiniaScience.pdf
>
> Flo, there is nothing in this paper that supports EE. In fact, the first
> paragraph clearly supports PT:
>
> "The Earth's surface is divided into a dozen (at least) tectonic plates
> that either drift apart, creating new oceanic crust, or collide, generating
> mountain belts such as the himalayas.".
Jesus Christ, this is painful
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ng/painful.html
(It's like an elephant in the room farted, and all the apes are not
letting on...)
(This is unbelievable..)
'Mountain building', 'collision zones', 'mobile belts' etc etc. Hard
to believe all that jargon is for the gurgler, but it is.. (!).
>
> Well, gee, he's just described plate tectonics, not EE. In addition, all of
> his maps show abundant subduction zones that EE says can't exist. Whether
> or not Northeast and/or Northwest Australia has common features with West
> Canada (and it is certainly not clear that it does, since all we have here
> is a map and no data to back it up) during the formation of Rhodinia is
> irrelevant to whether or not expansion occurs. It looks to me to be his
> 'best fit', and since he isn't sure where Siberia goes, that entire portion
> of the map may be problematic.
>
> The author clearly indicates a large ocean existing around the periphery of
> Rhodinia along with the abundant subduction zones, so obviously he
> subscribes to the same non-expanding earth to which every other PT
> geologist subscribes. What on earth made you think that this paper
> supports EE?
>
> > You're just a bad troll.
>
> Yeah, how terrible of me to insist on evidence to back up claims.
>
> George
No, ..you're just an idiot.
don findlay
Krubozumo Nyankoye wrote:
> "Pascal Boulerie" <Pascal....@gmail.com> eyed the audience and in
> choked emotion intoned:
> news:1175534964.2...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I need advices to curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-
> > theory.
> >
>
> Ask him to predict the location of an Archean copper porphyry.
>
> Anywhere in the world. Witin 2 minutes of lat. and long.
>
> To all of the evasive objections raised simply reply, I don't care, make a
> prediction.
>
> He'll shut up in a few hours.
If *you* don't care how it's done, and he/she simply consults an
oracle or gazes in a crystal ball, how does that validate (or
invalidate) Earth Expansion? And even if it is the crystal ball of
EE prediction, how does *that validate or invalidate? The first one
(prediction) would be chance, the second one a flash in the pan, the
third one right for the wrong reasons. (ARchaean, Proterozoic, palaeo
or Meso or whatever)
Loose thinking there, Krumbo.
Florian
> He has been refuted here in at least a hundred different posts in at least
> a dozen different threads.
What don't you understand in "give me the link to the post". Or may be
you don't even know what is a link to a post...
> Whether
> or not Northeast and/or Northwest Australia has common features with West
> Canada (and it is certainly not clear that it does, since all we have here
> is a map and no data to back it up)
George, george, george . You're totally in denial. Do you really think
you can publish in Science without data? What about "geomagnetic data".
Guess what? These data are in agreement with EE.
Georgie, I think that whatever evidence there is in favor of EE, you
will ignore them, that's because of your irrational faith to PT.
George
> George <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote:
>
>> He has been refuted here in at least a hundred different posts in at
>> least
>> a dozen different threads.
>
> What don't you understand in "give me the link to the post". Or may be
> you don't even know what is a link to a post...
I'm not your secretary, Flo. Do a google groups search. They have every
post here archived. Where is the link I asked for to McCarthy's full
dissertation? Can't find it, eh? Yeah, no one else can, either.
>> Whether
>> or not Northeast and/or Northwest Australia has common features with
>> West
>> Canada (and it is certainly not clear that it does, since all we have
>> here
>> is a map and no data to back it up)
>
> George, george, george . You're totally in denial. Do you really think
> you can publish in Science without data? What about "geomagnetic data".
The paper contains a map and a description of the map. None of the data
that was used to make the map was included in the paper. You know what data
is, right? Charts, graphs, analysis, numbers? He talks about geomagnetic
data but doesn't include that data in the report. So how is anyone
supposed to check the data against his interpretation?
> Guess what? These data are in agreement with EE.
You're living in a dream world. EE doesn't even recognize that ancient
oceans existed much less any landmasses older than Pangea. EE says that
the earth began expanding 250 million years ago, and they use as evidence
the growth of the atlantic and Pacific oceans. They've never once
discussed Rhodinia, not in any paper I've seen. And they have repeatedly
insisted that there were no ocean basins before 250 million years ago, and
cite as evidence the fact that no ancient oceans exist (ignoring the fact
that there ample evidence of ancient oceans, as I've pointed out dozens of
times). The paper you cite shows just such an ancient ocean, and DOESN'T
show all the continents in one solid continuous landmass that circles the
globe. THAT IS WHAT EE CONTINUES TO SAY WAS THE CASE, which is patently
and self-evidentially false. Go to you EE web sites and view their
reconstructions. They have a much smaller earth starting 250 million years
ago that was one continuous continental crustal landmas (where the water
went if there were no oceans, and where it came from after, they never
explain).
George
Aidan Karley
> I think he was one of the original 20th century inventors of the concept of
> 'lying for Jesus'. "It's ok to lie as long as it is for Jesus".
>
Well, yes, he's a creationist, so we knew that already.
Your
>> he's spending the next ten years in prison.
comment made it sound like he's recently actually been caught in some other
lies (tax, marital fidelity, sexual orientation, or one of the other usual
suspects for liars-for-god) and is doing time under the care of "Big Positive
Ern" in the low-security wing of the local slammer.
Tell me I'm right. Please.
Who was that liar-for-god who got caught caught about Xmas for snorting
crystal meth off his hooker's dick? I forget his name, but I did have a good
laugh over it when I heard. Schadenfreund - lovely word. I pity the poor ho
though, having to service Johns like that.
--
Aidan Karley, FGS,
Aberdeen, Scotland
A light wave is more like a crime wave than a water wave.
Aidan Karley
wrote:
> George, george, george . You're totally in denial. Do you really think
> you can publish in Science without data? What about "geomagnetic data".
>
commentary on research commissioned by the editorial staff at 'Science',
then the writer isn't required to write a formal paper, but a summary of
the current state of thought on the topic, and probably give links to
relevant other recent papers. Personal opinions and speculations are
allowed, and sometimes even encouraged for testing where the
newly-published data might be leading research.
In this case, I think the stimulus for the article would have been
the publication of reference 12 : J. G Meert, Tectonophysics 362, "A
synopsis of events related to the assembly of eastern Gondwana" 1 (2003),
revising the reconstructed position of the Congo cratonic block.
Meert's home page is at http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/
BTW, George, I tried mailing you a paper a couple of weeks ago,
but I de-munged your email address incorrectly. Can you drop me a mail
again with a working address. (And a reminder what paper it was you
wanted.)
don findlay
You mean George has to fend off fan mail?