Expanding earth miracles
Mark Isaak
are at least improbable or inexplicable enough to be called miracles.
If the model's proponents want to be taken seriously, they have to come
up with viable explanations for at least a few of these.
Miracle 1: Where does the new matter come from?
Miracle 2: How does it happen that the new matter has the right chemical
and isotopic compositions in the right quantities to be undetectable?
Changes over time in heavier elements might simply be buried deep inside
the earth, but the model also creates water and other volatiles on the
surface in the right quantities and isotopic balances to leave no trace
in the geological record.
Miracle 3: How does it happen that the new matter has not affected
earth's orbit or rotation period? The added material has increased
earth's moment of inertia, so keeping it rotating at a constant speed
(after allowing for tidal drag) is inexplicable.
Miracle 4: How does it happen that the earth's paleomagnetism is
everywhere consistent with a constant-sized earth? A smaller earth in
the past would make paleomagnetism directions very much different, if
the earth's magnetic field was roughly the same. By what incredible
conincidence did the magnetic field adjust to produce data just like one
would find on a constant-sized earth?
Miracle 5: Why is expansion not occurring on other planets? Bodies
without atmospheres, notably the Moon and Mercury, don't have erosion to
obscure stretch marks, and the Moon and Mercury show no signs of
deformation for well over a billion years. Nor is the sun, or the
earth's orbit would be affected.
Miracle 6: Why is expansion not seen occurring on Earth? Modern
instruments are plenty accurate to detect changes in both size and mass,
yet they detect neither.
Miracle 7: Why could overthrusting (subduction) not operate in the past?
We can see that subduction is happening at a fairly constant rate today.
And the expanding earth model includes subduction (they call it
overthrusting), but says that it eats up only tens, or at most hundreds,
of miles of oceanic crust. The limit makes sense only if overthrusting
started less than about ten million years ago. Why not earlier?
Miracle 8: Why is an expanding earth not detectable by paleontologists,
neither as changes in morphology from an increasing gravity, nor as
patterns of biogeography? Even if expanding earth proponents are not
looking at this issue, other paleontologists are, and they should have
noticed and pointed out patterns which do not match expectations.
Miracle 9: Why are competent geologists not expounding on the expanding
earth, especially since it was such a hot topic 35 years ago? The data
to conclusively support or refute the expanding earth has been around
for a couple decades or more, and most scientists love underdog ideas
when the evidence supports them. Why do no geologists want the laurels
of making the definitive case for an expanding earth?
Miracle 10: What do a small handful of amatuers know that the competent
geologists don't? Their knowledge of geology is only slightly greater
than that of the average layman, and their knowledge in other areas,
such as in physics and in the scientific method, may well be less than
average. Yet, they say, they know more about the foundation of the
field of geology than do people who have devoted lifetimes to studying
it.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
chris.li...@gmail.com
> The Expanding Earth model raises some issues which, if not impossible,
> are at least improbable or inexplicable enough to be called miracles.
> If the model's proponents want to be taken seriously, they have to come
> up with viable explanations for at least a few of these.
>
> Miracle 1: Where does the new matter come from?
>
> Miracle 2: How does it happen that the new matter has the right chemical
> and isotopic compositions in the right quantities to be undetectable?
> Changes over time in heavier elements might simply be buried deep inside
> the earth, but the model also creates water and other volatiles on the
> surface in the right quantities and isotopic balances to leave no trace
> in the geological record.
>
> Miracle 3: How does it happen that the new matter has not affected
> earth's orbit or rotation period? The added material has increased
> earth's moment of inertia, so keeping it rotating at a constant speed
> (after allowing for tidal drag) is inexplicable.
If the earth had gained appreciable mass, wouldn't the orbits of other
celestial bodies also be affected? Wouldn't we see effects, at a
minimum, on the orbit of the moon, and most probably Mars and Venus as
well? Maybe some asteroids too.
Chris
snip
Ye Old One
I don't think we could get a better, more concise, or more probing
summation of the current state of the Expanding Earth debacle.
Well done Mark.
--
Bob.
Slimebot McGoo
[sniplage]
>Miracle 10: What do a small handful of amatuers know that the competent
>geologists don't? Their knowledge of geology is only slightly greater
>than that of the average layman, and their knowledge in other areas,
>such as in physics and in the scientific method, may well be less than
>average. Yet, they say, they know more about the foundation of the
>field of geology than do people who have devoted lifetimes to studying
>it.
This one should be asked of every creationist every time they post,
about whatever field of science is being questioned.
McGoo
chris.li...@gmail.com
Indeed. Seconded.
Chris
Robert Carnegie
Depends on the rate of mass increase, I'll guess. If it's slow over
millions of years, and if we only have good observations since the
Renaissance if you're being picky and since Babylon if you're very
generous - and since small planets don't push other small planets
around much - it's barely measurable.
I think the earth is reckoned to acquire some tens of thousands of
tons or tonnes of matter from space each year, which is insignificant,
and indeed to have longer days year by year. But... why /would/ you
get the idea that it's inflating like a balloon? /Is/ it
creationism...
J. Taylor
>The Expanding Earth model raises some issues which, if not impossible,
>are at least improbable or inexplicable enough to be called miracles.
>If the model's proponents want to be taken seriously, they have to come
>up with viable explanations for at least a few of these.
>
>Miracle 1: Where does the new matter come from?
While dark matter/energy cannot be considered a source because of the
lack of knowledge of it properties, it cannot for the same reason be
ruled out, and since it is 96% of the Universe it has potential.
(Please quote me Timberwolf when you wish to say I am claiming it as a
source)
>
>Miracle 2: How does it happen that the new matter has the right chemical
>and isotopic compositions in the right quantities to be undetectable?
>Changes over time in heavier elements might simply be buried deep inside
>the earth, but the model also creates water and other volatiles on the
>surface in the right quantities and isotopic balances to leave no trace
>in the geological record.
How would you know what is the right anything? You are making an
assumption.
>
>Miracle 3: How does it happen that the new matter has not affected
>earth's orbit or rotation period? The added material has increased
>earth's moment of inertia, so keeping it rotating at a constant speed
>(after allowing for tidal drag) is inexplicable.
It is not great enough to change orbit, but only a minor amount.
You do not know why the Earth spins in the first place. You assume it
was the bombardment back. Second, the evidence for past rotational
speed is subject to interpretation.
>
>Miracle 4: How does it happen that the earth's paleomagnetism is
>everywhere consistent with a constant-sized earth? A smaller earth in
>the past would make paleomagnetism directions very much different, if
>the earth's magnetic field was roughly the same. By what incredible
>conincidence did the magnetic field adjust to produce data just like one
>would find on a constant-sized earth?
Because you are wrong
http://adt.curtin.edu.au/theses/available/adt-WCU20020117.145715/unrestricted/01FRONT.pdf
"For all models, an intracratonic to intracontinental spatial
integrity is maintained throughout Earth history during processes of
Precambrian and Palaeozoic continental crustal extension, Late
Palaeozoic crustal rupture, Permo-Triassic continental break-up, and
Mesozoic and Cenozoic continental dispersal to the Recent.
Palaeomagnetic pole data delineate diametrically opposed
palaeomagnetic pole clusters for each era back to the Archaean,
without the need to consider random crustal
dispersion-amalgamation-dispersal cycles. The palaeopole data is
further supported by palaeogeographic, palaeobiogeographic, and
palaeoclimatic indicators, which define palaeoequators and
palaeoclimatic zones consistent with palaeomagnetic determinations.
The distribution of latitude dependent lithofacies ii
including glacigenic strata, carbonates, coal, and faunal and floral
species is shown to coincide precisely with established palaeopoles
and palaeoequators for all expanding Earth models.
For climatic and biotic indicators a distinct latitudinal zonation
paralleling the established palaeoequator is evident and a distinct
northward shift in climatic zonation suggests that an inclined Earth
rotational axis, inclined to the pole of the ecliptic, was well
established during the Palaeozoic and persists to the Recent."
>
>Miracle 5: Why is expansion not occurring on other planets? Bodies
>without atmospheres, notably the Moon and Mercury, don't have erosion to
>obscure stretch marks, and the Moon and Mercury show no signs of
>deformation for well over a billion years. Nor is the sun, or the
>earth's orbit would be affected.
There is evidence of it on several moons and planets.
http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html
>
>Miracle 6: Why is expansion not seen occurring on Earth? Modern
>instruments are plenty accurate to detect changes in both size and mass,
>yet they detect neither.
I see no evidence it has to expand all the time at the same rate. In
fact, the evidence shows quite the opposite
>
>Miracle 7: Why could overthrusting (subduction) not operate in the past?
>We can see that subduction is happening at a fairly constant rate today.
>And the expanding earth model includes subduction (they call it
>overthrusting), but says that it eats up only tens, or at most hundreds,
>of miles of oceanic crust. The limit makes sense only if overthrusting
>started less than about ten million years ago. Why not earlier?
Do not know why you think over riding of crust would be or not
earlier.
>
>Miracle 8: Why is an expanding earth not detectable by paleontologists,
>neither as changes in morphology from an increasing gravity, nor as
>patterns of biogeography? Even if expanding earth proponents are not
>looking at this issue, other paleontologists are, and they should have
>noticed and pointed out patterns which do not match expectations.
http://adt.curtin.edu.au/theses/available/adt-WCU20020117.145715/unrestricted/01FRONT.pdf
"For all models, an intracratonic to intracontinental spatial
integrity is maintained throughout Earth history during processes of
Precambrian and Palaeozoic continental crustal extension, Late
Palaeozoic crustal rupture, Permo-Triassic continental break-up, and
Mesozoic and Cenozoic continental dispersal to the Recent.
Palaeomagnetic pole data delineate diametrically opposed
palaeomagnetic pole clusters for each era back to the Archaean,
without the need to consider random crustal
dispersion-amalgamation-dispersal cycles. The palaeopole data is
further supported by palaeogeographic, palaeobiogeographic, and
palaeoclimatic indicators, which define palaeoequators and
palaeoclimatic zones consistent with palaeomagnetic determinations.
The distribution of latitude dependent lithofacies ii
including glacigenic strata, carbonates, coal, and faunal and floral
species is shown to coincide precisely with established palaeopoles
and palaeoequators for all expanding Earth models.
For climatic and biotic indicators a distinct latitudinal zonation
paralleling the established palaeoequator is evident and a distinct
northward shift in climatic zonation suggests that an inclined Earth
rotational axis, inclined to the pole of the ecliptic, was well
established during the Palaeozoic and persists to the Recent."
>
>Miracle 9: Why are competent geologists not expounding on the expanding
>earth, especially since it was such a hot topic 35 years ago? The data
>to conclusively support or refute the expanding earth has been around
>for a couple decades or more, and most scientists love underdog ideas
>when the evidence supports them. Why do no geologists want the laurels
>of making the definitive case for an expanding earth?
The simple answer and the most obvious, they do not want to be
ridiculed by the likes of you for even exploring the topic.
>
>Miracle 10: What do a small handful of amatuers know that the competent
>geologists don't? Their knowledge of geology is only slightly greater
>than that of the average layman, and their knowledge in other areas,
>such as in physics and in the scientific method, may well be less than
>average. Yet, they say, they know more about the foundation of the
>field of geology than do people who have devoted lifetimes to studying
>it.
They don't know more, they just dare to look, and stand up to ass
holes like you.
And I have a few questions for you
1: Did you ever get convection to work so you could move North
America?
EPR ------------------------->NA*********************<----MAR
2: When can we expect you to show PT producing the pattern on the
ocean floor?
3: How does convection turn the Pacific plate 90 degrees just when you
started looking with GPS.
4: Explain where the crust inside the circle around Antarctica is
going?
5: Explain tranform faults
6: Explain triple junctions which are ridge-ridge-ridge
7: The outline of Africa in the ridge but oh so much bigger
8: The outline of South America in the EPR a place with PT it has
never been
9: Do you have courage alone, or only when you are in a pack?
JT
don findlay
Mark Isaak wrote:
>
<Snipping this lot for a good-reading laugh on the loo..>
> Miracle 10: What do a small handful of amatuers know that the competent
> geologists don't? Their knowledge of geology is only slightly greater
> than that of the average layman, and their knowledge in other areas,
> such as in physics and in the scientific method, may well be less than
> average. Yet, they say, they know more about the foundation of the
> field of geology than do people who have devoted lifetimes to studying
> it.
That's the whole point Mark. That is precisely the level to which
Plate Tectonics is pitched, ..and purposely, .. in fact with bean bags
and other bouncibles it even gets taught in Kindy... And you still
haven't got the point about the strugglers studying it. It's hard
bloody work to keep coming up with ideas. Leave it to somebody else.
There is a consensus in place that helps (yew beaut, bonzer beauty
one) to pay the rent. Why would you want to disturb it? The job is
getting on with the research, and there exists a consensus to help you
do that. It secures funding (If half was allocated to the 'other
side' you'd only ever have half the chance), pays the rent, holidays,
schools, children, ..everything. You don't understand, do you, ..the
science to 'professionals' (themasgetspaidforit) is not the
issue, ..it's getting paid, ..it's only the vehicle. It's a
precarious world these days for scientists. You gotta Listen to our
Stu Weinstein of knowitall fame, when he says "Plate Tectonics is the
Gift that Keeps on Giving". He's your professional reference on this
group, who's been studying it all his life, ..but you, ..mate, are the
only one on this forum on your side asking the questions. What do you
think about that? And what do you think about how precarious the
world is getting for scientists these days, and why they are coerced
into having to pull the wool over people's eyes? You should think
about doing something about that too, rather than supporting it.
Anyone with half a brain can see the at least *SOME* nonsenses in
Plate Tectonics, especially those who know most about it, ..but you
will never (*NEVER*) get them talking about it. Why would they?
That's consensus science you see. You think it's because everybody
thinks they're right? Bullshit. They couldn't give two fucks what's
right and what's not. It's not the issue.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <l2rmc35gois648ing...@4ax.com>):
[snip whining]
Where's the mass coming from?
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1187743275....@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
> They couldn't give two fucks what's
> right and what's not. It's not the issue.
The issue is: where's the mass coming from?
rupert....@gmail.com
wrote:
[snip]
> http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html
He disputes the conventional model and dates of solar system
formation, but does not offer alternatives. Since he believes that
Earth was half its current size 200 MYA, then presumably he believes
(and does not state otherwise) that the Earth spontaneously came into
existence at its current point in space 400 MYA.
He offers pair particles as an explanation of the source of the extra
matter. If the Earth were 50% antimatter then he might have a point.
[snip - late for a meeting]
don findlay
J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:41:15 -0400, don findlay wrote
> (in article <1187743275....@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > They couldn't give two fucks what's
> > right and what's not. It's not the issue.
>
> The issue is: where's the mass coming from?
Go and tie a knot in your tail, ..and count it.
Florian
> The Expanding Earth model raises some issues which, if not impossible,
> are at least improbable or inexplicable enough to be called miracles.
> If the model's proponents want to be taken seriously, they have to come
> up with viable explanations for at least a few of these.
Miracle is term that should reserved to religious people. Are you one of
them?
>
> Miracle 1: Where does the new matter come from?
>
> Miracle 2: How does it happen that the new matter has the right chemical
> and isotopic compositions in the right quantities to be undetectable?
> Changes over time in heavier elements might simply be buried deep inside
> the earth, but the model also creates water and other volatiles on the
> surface in the right quantities and isotopic balances to leave no trace
> in the geological record.
>
> Miracle 3: How does it happen that the new matter has not affected
> earth's orbit or rotation period? The added material has increased
> earth's moment of inertia, so keeping it rotating at a constant speed
> (after allowing for tidal drag) is inexplicable.
All of the above is speculation about yet unkown physic.
>
> Miracle 4: How does it happen that the earth's paleomagnetism is
> everywhere consistent with a constant-sized earth? A smaller earth in
> the past would make paleomagnetism directions very much different, if
> the earth's magnetic field was roughly the same. By what incredible
> conincidence did the magnetic field adjust to produce data just like one
> would find on a constant-sized earth?
That one is false. Paleomagnetic data fits very well using the EE model
(no pole wandering, pole always on opposite sides, no need to break
continent into disperse cratons, no latitude incompatible with
fauna/flora at the period etc. Plate tectonic try to make it work by
fragmenting continents a putting the piece at the spot that would fit.
typically ad hoc solution.
>
> Miracle 5: Why is expansion not occurring on other planets? Bodies
> without atmospheres, notably the Moon and Mercury, don't have erosion to
> obscure stretch marks, and the Moon and Mercury show no signs of
> deformation for well over a billion years. Nor is the sun, or the
> earth's orbit would be affected.
I show in another post that there are good clues about expansion on
other planets or moons.
>
> Miracle 6: Why is expansion not seen occurring on Earth? Modern
> instruments are plenty accurate to detect changes in both size and mass,
> yet they detect neither.
Can't be sure about that. For example GPS satellite use a constant G*M
to calculate their position. Lot of bias could result. besides, vertical
motion is not as accurate as horizontal one.
>
> Miracle 7: Why could overthrusting (subduction) not operate in the past?
subduction is diffeent from overthrusting. Overthrusting does not
destroy seafloor.
> We can see that subduction is happening at a fairly constant rate today.
> And the expanding earth model includes subduction (they call it
> overthrusting), but says that it eats up only tens, or at most hundreds,
> of miles of oceanic crust. The limit makes sense only if overthrusting
> started less than about ten million years ago. Why not earlier?
Nope, the lenght of the recovered slabs show that overthrusting
certainly occured prior to 10 millions years ago.
>
> Miracle 8: Why is an expanding earth not detectable by paleontologists,
> neither as changes in morphology from an increasing gravity, nor as
> patterns of biogeography? Even if expanding earth proponents are not
> looking at this issue, other paleontologists are, and they should have
> noticed and pointed out patterns which do not match expectations.
It does fit paleontology and paleobiogeography when people work with the
correct model:
http://www.sciencebuff.org/ftp_only/McCarthy2003.pdf
http://www.4threvolt.com/files/McCarthy2005inpress.pdf
>
> Miracle 9: Why are competent geologists not expounding on the expanding
> earth, especially since it was such a hot topic 35 years ago? The data
> to conclusively support or refute the expanding earth has been around
> for a couple decades or more, and most scientists love underdog ideas
> when the evidence supports them. Why do no geologists want the laurels
> of making the definitive case for an expanding earth?
That is just how science always worked when huge shift of paradigm are
expected. But I will certainly try to find some colleagues to publish
something ar least for a new history of the pacific. Who knows :-)
>
> Miracle 10: What do a small handful of amatuers know that the competent
> geologists don't? Their knowledge of geology is only slightly greater
> than that of the average layman, and their knowledge in other areas,
> such as in physics and in the scientific method, may well be less than
> average. Yet, they say, they know more about the foundation of the
> field of geology than do people who have devoted lifetimes to studying
> it.
Another totally wrong statement.
Carey was certainly not an amateur in the field, neither are Don, Choi,
Maxlow, Kugler, Scalera, Ollier, Suzuki, Pratt, Blinow, McCarthy and
many others. They simply don't have the good chemistry yet to convince a
majority.
You may want to look at the "News Concepts in GLobal Tectonics
Newsletter".
See. EE is not just about a small handfull of amateur. Note that I'm a
scientific myself and that I learn PT in College.
--
Florian
"Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles"
Voltaire vs Maupertuis/Leibniz/Meister
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1i38bsz.qzp8a014r5bwrN%first_name@last_name.net>):
> See. EE is not just about a small handfull of amateur. Note that I'm a
> scientific myself and that I learn PT in College.
Where's the mass coming from?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1187749088....@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>):
>
> J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:41:15 -0400, don findlay wrote
>> (in article <1187743275....@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> They couldn't give two fucks what's
>>> right and what's not. It's not the issue.
>>
>> The issue is: where's the mass coming from?
>
> Go and tie a knot in your tail, ..and count it.
Where's the mass coming from?
George
"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C2F11DA0...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:43:34 -0400, Florian wrote
> (in article <1i38bsz.qzp8a014r5bwrN%first_name@last_name.net>):
>
>> See. EE is not just about a small handfull of amateur.
Yes it is.
>> Note that I'm a
>> scientific myself and that I learn PT in College.
But apparently you failed in English composition.
George
Kent Paul Dolan
> GPS satellite ... vertical motion is not as
> accurate as horizontal one.
That is
1) false, GPS positions are done by calculating
intersection of spheres, which is an isometric
calculation, equally accurate in every spatial
direction;
and
2) irrelevant, since the same growth in radius is
linearly proportional to growth in circumference,
which would display itself as horizontal growth,
which is precisely as big a failure of your claims
as is vertical growth; it is equally unobserved in
GPS data.
None of your flailing around is having the least
impact on your thesis being debunked by every
measurement made of earth's size, and those
measurements being made by the millions, annually.
Do keep arguing about vocabulary while trying to
ignore the debunking data that proves your thesis to
be rubbish, doofus. You are as much a "scientist" as
the other claimants here to that status whose
arguments constantly ignore the scientific method.
Which is to say, you are not a scientist at all,
merely another sad-sack Usenet kook with delusions
of grandeur and an obsession with flagrantly obvious
(to everyone but you) unreality.
xanthian.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <EKNyi.10851$wN3....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>):
I think that Florian is French. One must make allowances.
Though I'd still like to know where the mass is coming from.
Timberwoof
"George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote:
And PT means Physical Training.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
an important web site: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/
Timberwoof
first_name@last_name.net (Florian) wrote:
> Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > The Expanding Earth model raises some issues which, if not impossible,
> > are at least improbable or inexplicable enough to be called miracles.
> > If the model's proponents want to be taken seriously, they have to come
> > up with viable explanations for at least a few of these.
>
> Miracle is term that should reserved to religious people. Are you one of
> them?
>
> >
> > Miracle 1: Where does the new matter come from?
> >
> > Miracle 2: How does it happen that the new matter has the right chemical
> > and isotopic compositions in the right quantities to be undetectable?
> > Changes over time in heavier elements might simply be buried deep inside
> > the earth, but the model also creates water and other volatiles on the
> > surface in the right quantities and isotopic balances to leave no trace
> > in the geological record.
> >
> > Miracle 3: How does it happen that the new matter has not affected
> > earth's orbit or rotation period? The added material has increased
> > earth's moment of inertia, so keeping it rotating at a constant speed
> > (after allowing for tidal drag) is inexplicable.
>
> All of the above is speculation about yet unkown physic.
No, it isn't. All of the above is *required* for expanding earth with
added matter to work and follow the laws of physics.
> > Miracle 4: How does it happen that the earth's paleomagnetism is
> > everywhere consistent with a constant-sized earth? A smaller earth in
> > the past would make paleomagnetism directions very much different, if
> > the earth's magnetic field was roughly the same. By what incredible
> > conincidence did the magnetic field adjust to produce data just like one
> > would find on a constant-sized earth?
>
> That one is false. Paleomagnetic data fits very well using the EE model
> (no pole wandering,
But pole wandering is required by recent computer simulations of
geomagnetism.
> pole always on opposite sides,
But as the poles reverse, there are time when there are poles
everywhere.
> no need to break
> continent into disperse cratons,
As opposed to the way the crust broke up into the seven continents we
now know.
> no latitude incompatible with
> fauna/flora at the period etc.
Argument from incredulity.
> Plate tectonic try to make it work by
> fragmenting continents a putting the piece at the spot that would fit.
> typically ad hoc solution.
Interestingly, the continental movements work and combine to create a
self-consistent theory which also follows the laws of physics.
> > Miracle 5: Why is expansion not occurring on other planets? Bodies
> > without atmospheres, notably the Moon and Mercury, don't have erosion to
> > obscure stretch marks, and the Moon and Mercury show no signs of
> > deformation for well over a billion years. Nor is the sun, or the
> > earth's orbit would be affected.
>
> I show in another post that there are good clues about expansion on
> other planets or moons.
You have posted stuff about that, but none of it is convincing.
> > Miracle 6: Why is expansion not seen occurring on Earth? Modern
> > instruments are plenty accurate to detect changes in both size and mass,
> > yet they detect neither.
>
> Can't be sure about that. For example GPS satellite use a constant G*M
> to calculate their position. Lot of bias could result.
Yeah, more violations of laws of physics.
> besides, vertical
> motion is not as accurate as horizontal one.
With four satellites, GPS can measure altitude just as accurately as
latitude and longitude.
> > Miracle 7: Why could overthrusting (subduction) not operate in the past?
>
> subduction is diffeent from overthrusting. Overthrusting does not
> destroy seafloor.
It just covers it up because two plates are squeezed together, a strange
thing to happen when the earth is expanding.
> > We can see that subduction is happening at a fairly constant rate today.
> > And the expanding earth model includes subduction (they call it
> > overthrusting), but says that it eats up only tens, or at most hundreds,
> > of miles of oceanic crust. The limit makes sense only if overthrusting
> > started less than about ten million years ago. Why not earlier?
>
> Nope, the lenght of the recovered slabs show that overthrusting
> certainly occured prior to 10 millions years ago.
Again, overthrusting is a strange thing to have happen on an expanding
sphere.
> > Miracle 8: Why is an expanding earth not detectable by paleontologists,
> > neither as changes in morphology from an increasing gravity, nor as
> > patterns of biogeography? Even if expanding earth proponents are not
> > looking at this issue, other paleontologists are, and they should have
> > noticed and pointed out patterns which do not match expectations.
>
> It does fit paleontology and paleobiogeography when people work with the
> correct model:
>
> http://www.sciencebuff.org/ftp_only/McCarthy2003.pdf
> http://www.4threvolt.com/files/McCarthy2005inpress.pdf
McCarthy requires the same kinds of movements of continental crust over
the mantle that EE disparages. Moving New Zealand out of the way to
south of Tasmania is rather ad-hoc. In order to assume that the Pacific
was once closed, he has to assume what he then pretends to conclude.
> > Miracle 9: Why are competent geologists not expounding on the expanding
> > earth, especially since it was such a hot topic 35 years ago? The data
> > to conclusively support or refute the expanding earth has been around
> > for a couple decades or more, and most scientists love underdog ideas
> > when the evidence supports them. Why do no geologists want the laurels
> > of making the definitive case for an expanding earth?
>
> That is just how science always worked when huge shift of paradigm are
> expected. But I will certainly try to find some colleagues to publish
> something ar least for a new history of the pacific. Who knows :-)
Why are competent chemists not expounding on phlogiston, especially
since it was such a hot topic 300 years ago? ... Why do no chemists want
the laurels of making the definitive case for phlogiston?
"That is just how science always worked when huge shift of paradigm are
expected. But I will certainly try to find some colleagues to publish
something ar least for a new history of the pacific. Who knows :-)"
> > Miracle 10: What do a small handful of amatuers know that the competent
> > geologists don't? Their knowledge of geology is only slightly greater
> > than that of the average layman, and their knowledge in other areas,
> > such as in physics and in the scientific method, may well be less than
> > average. Yet, they say, they know more about the foundation of the
> > field of geology than do people who have devoted lifetimes to studying
> > it.
>
> Another totally wrong statement.
> Carey was certainly not an amateur in the field, neither are Don, Choi,
> Maxlow, Kugler, Scalera, Ollier, Suzuki, Pratt, Blinow, McCarthy and
> many others. They simply don't have the good chemistry yet to convince a
> majority.
We're not talking abou tthose guys, we're talking about you.
http://www.4threvolt.com/Bio.html doesn't strike me as an authority in
geodynamics.
> You may want to look at the "News Concepts in GLobal Tectonics
> Newsletter".
>
> http://www.ncgt.org/
>
> See. EE is not just about a small handfull of amateur. Note that I'm a
> scientific myself and that I learn PT in College.
Huh. A list of some people, scientific credentials unknown, who publish
in a journal specifically set up to accept papers that don't make it in
ones such as the JGR. I can't tell you how impressed I am.
Timberwoof
"J. Taylor" <nchi...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:55:18 -0700, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The Expanding Earth model raises some issues which, if not impossible,
> >are at least improbable or inexplicable enough to be called miracles.
> >If the model's proponents want to be taken seriously, they have to come
> >up with viable explanations for at least a few of these.
> >
> >Miracle 1: Where does the new matter come from?
>
> While dark matter/energy cannot be considered a source because of the
> lack of knowledge of it properties, it cannot for the same reason be
> ruled out, and since it is 96% of the Universe it has potential.
>
> (Please quote me Timberwolf when you wish to say I am claiming it as a
> source)
No need to quote you: you haven't actually said anything. But your
percentage is off.
> >Miracle 2: How does it happen that the new matter has the right chemical
> >and isotopic compositions in the right quantities to be undetectable?
> >Changes over time in heavier elements might simply be buried deep inside
> >the earth, but the model also creates water and other volatiles on the
> >surface in the right quantities and isotopic balances to leave no trace
> >in the geological record.
>
> How would you know what is the right anything? You are making an
> assumption.
For that matter, how come it looks like rock at all? And whatever it
ends up being, how did it get that way?
> >Miracle 3: How does it happen that the new matter has not affected
> >earth's orbit or rotation period? The added material has increased
> >earth's moment of inertia, so keeping it rotating at a constant speed
> >(after allowing for tidal drag) is inexplicable.
>
> It is not great enough to change orbit, but only a minor amount.
Bullshit. We're talking roughly 3/4 of the mass of the Earth, injected
over the past 200 MY. That mass must somehow acquire the correct
rotational and orbital vectors. How did that happen?
> You do not know why the Earth spins in the first place. You assume it
> was the bombardment back. Second, the evidence for past rotational
> speed is subject to interpretation.
There are people who know more about this subject that you do, and they
seem convinced that it didn't happen that way.
Maxlow's a kook and the reference you gave supplies only the table of
contents. Can you think for yourself?
> >Miracle 5: Why is expansion not occurring on other planets? Bodies
> >without atmospheres, notably the Moon and Mercury, don't have erosion to
> >obscure stretch marks, and the Moon and Mercury show no signs of
> >deformation for well over a billion years. Nor is the sun, or the
> >earth's orbit would be affected.
>
> There is evidence of it on several moons and planets.
>
> http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html
>
> >
> >Miracle 6: Why is expansion not seen occurring on Earth? Modern
> >instruments are plenty accurate to detect changes in both size and mass,
> >yet they detect neither.
>
> I see no evidence it has to expand all the time at the same rate.
How convenient that it happens to stop right when we can really
accurately measure it.
> In
> fact, the evidence shows quite the opposite
That's not what Maxlow says.
> >Miracle 7: Why could overthrusting (subduction) not operate in the past?
> >We can see that subduction is happening at a fairly constant rate today.
> >And the expanding earth model includes subduction (they call it
> >overthrusting), but says that it eats up only tens, or at most hundreds,
> >of miles of oceanic crust. The limit makes sense only if overthrusting
> >started less than about ten million years ago. Why not earlier?
>
> Do not know why you think over riding of crust would be or not
> earlier.
sucks syntax.
> >Miracle 8: Why is an expanding earth not detectable by paleontologists,
> >neither as changes in morphology from an increasing gravity, nor as
> >patterns of biogeography? Even if expanding earth proponents are not
> >looking at this issue, other paleontologists are, and they should have
> >noticed and pointed out patterns which do not match expectations.
>
>
> http://adt.curtin.edu.au/theses/available/adt-WCU20020117.145715/unrestricted/
> 01FRONT.pdf
> "For all models, an intracratonic to intracontinental spatial
> integrity is maintained throughout Earth history during processes of
> Precambrian and Palaeozoic continental crustal extension, Late
> Palaeozoic crustal rupture, Permo-Triassic continental break-up, and
> Mesozoic and Cenozoic continental dispersal to the Recent.
> Palaeomagnetic pole data delineate diametrically opposed
> palaeomagnetic pole clusters for each era back to the Archaean,
> without the need to consider random crustal
> dispersion-amalgamation-dispersal cycles. The palaeopole data is
> further supported by palaeogeographic, palaeobiogeographic, and
> palaeoclimatic indicators, which define palaeoequators and
> palaeoclimatic zones consistent with palaeomagnetic determinations.
> The distribution of latitude dependent lithofacies ii
> including glacigenic strata, carbonates, coal, and faunal and floral
> species is shown to coincide precisely with established palaeopoles
> and palaeoequators for all expanding Earth models.
> For climatic and biotic indicators a distinct latitudinal zonation
> paralleling the established palaeoequator is evident and a distinct
> northward shift in climatic zonation suggests that an inclined Earth
> rotational axis, inclined to the pole of the ecliptic, was well
> established during the Palaeozoic and persists to the Recent."
Maxlow's a kook and the reference you gave supplies only the table of
contents. Can you think for yourself?
> >Miracle 9: Why are competent geologists not expounding on the expanding
> >earth, especially since it was such a hot topic 35 years ago? The data
> >to conclusively support or refute the expanding earth has been around
> >for a couple decades or more, and most scientists love underdog ideas
> >when the evidence supports them. Why do no geologists want the laurels
> >of making the definitive case for an expanding earth?
>
> The simple answer and the most obvious, they do not want to be
> ridiculed by the likes of you for even exploring the topic.
That's not a very convincing answer.
> >Miracle 10: What do a small handful of amatuers know that the competent
> >geologists don't? Their knowledge of geology is only slightly greater
> >than that of the average layman, and their knowledge in other areas,
> >such as in physics and in the scientific method, may well be less than
> >average. Yet, they say, they know more about the foundation of the
> >field of geology than do people who have devoted lifetimes to studying
> >it.
>
> They don't know more, they just dare to look, and stand up to ass
> holes like you.
Ah, I see.
<snip>
Timberwoof
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:55:18 -0700, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >The Expanding Earth model raises some issues which, if not impossible,
> >are at least improbable or inexplicable enough to be called miracles.
> >If the model's proponents want to be taken seriously, they have to come
> >up with viable explanations for at least a few of these.
> >
<snip>
>
> I don't think we could get a better, more concise, or more probing
> summation of the current state of the Expanding Earth debacle.
>
> Well done Mark.
Yup.
I asked many of same questions and more a year ago, and still never got
satisfactory responses.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/e0c02b2340420ba7
Timberwoof
"chris.li...@gmail.com" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
The question whether we'd see the effects is ambiguous. Yes, the orbits
of the other planets in the solar system would be affected, but since
humans have been observing the planets accurately enough to detect such
changes only in the past few centuries, it becomes a philosophical
question about observation. :-)
The whole orbital dynamics question kills EE for me. The EErs have no
way around it but to tap dance, and Stankey Kubrick showed us that it is
supposed to be a waltz.
J. Taylor
Required for what?
>
>> pole always on opposite sides,
>
>But as the poles reverse, there are time when there are poles
>everywhere.
As known by?
>
>> no need to break
>> continent into disperse cratons,
>
>As opposed to the way the crust broke up into the seven continents we
>now know.
And you know this, how?
>
>> no latitude incompatible with
>> fauna/flora at the period etc.
>
>Argument from incredulity.
No, from the evidence. Have no idea how you would think it would be
an argument from incredulity unless you think everything you think you
know is the undisputed truth. Which is exactly what you are saying.
>
>> Plate tectonic try to make it work by
>> fragmenting continents a putting the piece at the spot that would fit.
>> typically ad hoc solution.
>
>Interestingly, the continental movements work and combine to create a
>self-consistent theory which also follows the laws of physics.
That is the biggest slab of baloney. It does not work at all.
Convection does not move North America to the East pacific Rise
without making it a special case of convection. It does not explain
ridge to ridge spreading without something moving the ridge. It does
not explain transform faults. The list goes on and has been presented
before. Claiming it follows laws of physics is a feeble attempt at
covering its many failures.
>
>> > Miracle 5: Why is expansion not occurring on other planets? Bodies
>> > without atmospheres, notably the Moon and Mercury, don't have erosion to
>> > obscure stretch marks, and the Moon and Mercury show no signs of
>> > deformation for well over a billion years. Nor is the sun, or the
>> > earth's orbit would be affected.
>>
>> I show in another post that there are good clues about expansion on
>> other planets or moons.
>
>You have posted stuff about that, but none of it is convincing.
Convincing of what?
They clearly show the joining of opposite sides of planet's and moon's
surface by spreading. The remaining question is how it happened.
The options are, surface enlargement, or equal amount of surface
removal.
>
>> > Miracle 6: Why is expansion not seen occurring on Earth? Modern
>> > instruments are plenty accurate to detect changes in both size and mass,
>> > yet they detect neither.
>>
>> Can't be sure about that. For example GPS satellite use a constant G*M
>> to calculate their position. Lot of bias could result.
>
>Yeah, more violations of laws of physics.
The law which states all things are impossible, unless they think it
is so, made by those to bolster their argument?
>
>> besides, vertical
>> motion is not as accurate as horizontal one.
>
>With four satellites, GPS can measure altitude just as accurately as
>latitude and longitude.
Which means it shows a 1mm expansion and that has nothing from a known
source to explain it.
So it must be an error, but then we are to think they are so accurate.
Pick your argument and stick with it.
>
>> > Miracle 7: Why could overthrusting (subduction) not operate in the past?
>>
>> subduction is diffeent from overthrusting. Overthrusting does not
>> destroy seafloor.
>
>It just covers it up because two plates are squeezed together, a strange
>thing to happen when the earth is expanding.
Only by how you think expansion must be done.
>
>> > We can see that subduction is happening at a fairly constant rate today.
>> > And the expanding earth model includes subduction (they call it
>> > overthrusting), but says that it eats up only tens, or at most hundreds,
>> > of miles of oceanic crust. The limit makes sense only if overthrusting
>> > started less than about ten million years ago. Why not earlier?
>>
>> Nope, the lenght of the recovered slabs show that overthrusting
>> certainly occured prior to 10 millions years ago.
>
>Again, overthrusting is a strange thing to have happen on an expanding
>sphere.
Again, only by how you think expansion must be done.
>
>> > Miracle 8: Why is an expanding earth not detectable by paleontologists,
>> > neither as changes in morphology from an increasing gravity, nor as
>> > patterns of biogeography? Even if expanding earth proponents are not
>> > looking at this issue, other paleontologists are, and they should have
>> > noticed and pointed out patterns which do not match expectations.
>>
>> It does fit paleontology and paleobiogeography when people work with the
>> correct model:
>>
>> http://www.sciencebuff.org/ftp_only/McCarthy2003.pdf
>> http://www.4threvolt.com/files/McCarthy2005inpress.pdf
>
>McCarthy requires the same kinds of movements of continental crust over
>the mantle that EE disparages. Moving New Zealand out of the way to
>south of Tasmania is rather ad-hoc. In order to assume that the Pacific
>was once closed, he has to assume what he then pretends to conclude.
McCarthy shows one thing, where ever you fit the continents, a close
alignment allows a better biota movement than having them on opposite
sides of a super continent.
Which makes it an argument of where it was closed not if.
>
>> > Miracle 9: Why are competent geologists not expounding on the expanding
>> > earth, especially since it was such a hot topic 35 years ago? The data
>> > to conclusively support or refute the expanding earth has been around
>> > for a couple decades or more, and most scientists love underdog ideas
>> > when the evidence supports them. Why do no geologists want the laurels
>> > of making the definitive case for an expanding earth?
>>
>> That is just how science always worked when huge shift of paradigm are
>> expected. But I will certainly try to find some colleagues to publish
>> something ar least for a new history of the pacific. Who knows :-)
>
>Why are competent chemists not expounding on phlogiston, especially
>since it was such a hot topic 300 years ago? ... Why do no chemists want
>the laurels of making the definitive case for phlogiston?
>
Some things are clearly wrong. The ocean floor shows expansion. You
need to deal with it.
>"That is just how science always worked when huge shift of paradigm are
>expected. But I will certainly try to find some colleagues to publish
>something ar least for a new history of the pacific. Who knows :-)"
Go for it. Theories should be discarded as quickly as used tissue
paper. The objective is to find what is going on.
If you can show the pattern on the ocean floor is produced by
something other than expansion will buy it in a second.
If you offer PT will rejected it as quickly. It does not produce it
and cannot.
>
>> > Miracle 10: What do a small handful of amatuers know that the competent
>> > geologists don't? Their knowledge of geology is only slightly greater
>> > than that of the average layman, and their knowledge in other areas,
>> > such as in physics and in the scientific method, may well be less than
>> > average. Yet, they say, they know more about the foundation of the
>> > field of geology than do people who have devoted lifetimes to studying
>> > it.
>>
>> Another totally wrong statement.
>> Carey was certainly not an amateur in the field, neither are Don, Choi,
>> Maxlow, Kugler, Scalera, Ollier, Suzuki, Pratt, Blinow, McCarthy and
>> many others. They simply don't have the good chemistry yet to convince a
>> majority.
>
>We're not talking abou tthose guys, we're talking about you.
The who does not make the what. Maybe, to those accustom to using
logical fallacies, but I forget the appeal to authority, or expert
knowledge supersedes explanations which are consistent and contained
within the evidence.
>
>http://www.4threvolt.com/Bio.html doesn't strike me as an authority in
>geodynamics.
>
>> You may want to look at the "News Concepts in GLobal Tectonics
>> Newsletter".
>>
>> http://www.ncgt.org/
>>
>> See. EE is not just about a small handfull of amateur. Note that I'm a
>> scientific myself and that I learn PT in College.
>
>Huh. A list of some people, scientific credentials unknown, who publish
>in a journal specifically set up to accept papers that don't make it in
>ones such as the JGR. I can't tell you how impressed I am.
And I can tell you do not use logic or reason to find answers
JT
Ernest Major
<timberwoof.spam-D8...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> writes
We can make observations about past orbits from observations of
palaeoclimates, and things like coral growth rings.
>
>The whole orbital dynamics question kills EE for me. The EErs have no
>way around it but to tap dance, and Stankey Kubrick showed us that it is
>supposed to be a waltz.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Rolf
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:1187743275....@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
As a non-scientist, I'd be much more interested in how you deal with
Miracles1-9, than your paranoid ideas about how the bastions of science are
preventing your brainchild from being properly studied. Pure BS as far as I
am concerned, but I'd still be willing to follow your path - if indeed there
were a path to follow, but I ain't seen none yet...
BTW, the same goes for McCoy - if he only could present some reasonable
argument for how anything of the whole Flood fable could be true. Before I
see at least a glimmer of 'hope' that the story might be true, I am not
interested in dubious claims about the Ark at Mt. Ararat. But to be honest,
I believe McCoy will have just as much of a problem with proving his story
as Sisyphus have of pushing that rock uphill...
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <0rinc3p9r4kbjarh1...@4ax.com>):
> And I can tell you do not use logic or reason to find answers
Oh, the irony.
Where's the mass coming from?
--
Jim Willemin
news:1i38bsz.qzp8a014r5bwrN%first_name@last_name.net:
> Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> The Expanding Earth model raises some issues which, if not
>> impossible, are at least improbable or inexplicable enough to be
>> called miracles. If the model's proponents want to be taken
>> seriously, they have to come up with viable explanations for at least
>> a few of these.
>
> Miracle is term that should reserved to religious people. Are you one
> of them?
>
>>
>> Miracle 1: Where does the new matter come from?
>>
>> Miracle 2: How does it happen that the new matter has the right
>> chemical and isotopic compositions in the right quantities to be
>> undetectable? Changes over time in heavier elements might simply be
>> buried deep inside the earth, but the model also creates water and
>> other volatiles on the surface in the right quantities and isotopic
>> balances to leave no trace in the geological record.
>>
>> Miracle 3: How does it happen that the new matter has not affected
>> earth's orbit or rotation period? The added material has increased
>> earth's moment of inertia, so keeping it rotating at a constant speed
>> (after allowing for tidal drag) is inexplicable.
>
> All of the above is speculation about yet unkown physic.
And yet, each of Mark's points above is based on KNOWN physics, which,
in case you hadn't noticed, has so far provided a pretty damn good
framework for understanding the universe. Remember, your 'unknown
physic' needs to collapse to known physics under the conditions in which
known physics is known to work.
>
>>
>> Miracle 4: How does it happen that the earth's paleomagnetism is
>> everywhere consistent with a constant-sized earth? A smaller earth
>> in the past would make paleomagnetism directions very much different,
>> if the earth's magnetic field was roughly the same. By what
>> incredible conincidence did the magnetic field adjust to produce data
>> just like one would find on a constant-sized earth?
>
> That one is false. Paleomagnetic data fits very well using the EE
> model (no pole wandering, pole always on opposite sides, no need to
> break continent into disperse cratons, no latitude incompatible with
> fauna/flora at the period etc. Plate tectonic try to make it work by
> fragmenting continents a putting the piece at the spot that would fit.
> typically ad hoc solution.
>
Before you make this categorical statement, I'd suggest that you take a
look at the paleomagnetic history of the various 'terranes' that
comprise British Columbia, western Alberta, and southeast Alaska. To
make life easier for you, simply concentrate on the Triassic. As I
recall (it's been 25 years or more since our Regional Tectonics seminar
on the area), there are several fault-bounded blocks (each of at least
several hundred square miles in extent), seperated by sub-parallel,
high-angle faults, with wildly different paleolatitudes for the Triassic
- in particular, look up the Nicola greenstone. Oddly enough, these
different blocks also have wildly different, distinctive Permian
fusulinid faunas (and THIS was known back in the '70s).
In general, it seems to me that the devil is in the details - in this
case, the details of the regional geology of the entire globe. You seem
to have a good grasp of your Big Picture - now you need to spend some
time (possibly significant time) in the library reading up on the local
geology of those areas that are either important or problematic for your
hypothesis. I have suggested above an area whose geology is really
almost inexplicable in terms of earth expansion,but offers no such
problem for plate tectonics. I am confident there are many others.
>>
>> Miracle 5: Why is expansion not occurring on other planets? Bodies
>> without atmospheres, notably the Moon and Mercury, don't have erosion
>> to obscure stretch marks, and the Moon and Mercury show no signs of
>> deformation for well over a billion years. Nor is the sun, or the
>> earth's orbit would be affected.
>
> I show in another post that there are good clues about expansion on
> other planets or moons.
>
but why not all? And why doesn't the growth affect the orbits?
>>
>> Miracle 6: Why is expansion not seen occurring on Earth? Modern
>> instruments are plenty accurate to detect changes in both size and
>> mass, yet they detect neither.
>
> Can't be sure about that. For example GPS satellite use a constant G*M
> to calculate their position. Lot of bias could result. besides,
> vertical motion is not as accurate as horizontal one.
>
>
Y'know, about 8 years ago they invented a gravimeter that 1) was small
enough to be carried in a backpack, 2) measured the acceleration of
gravity directly by measuring the acceleration of a small mass falling
in an evacuated tube, and 3) was accurate enough and precise enough to
map local variations in gravity to within a hundredth of a milliGal
[1](http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99144e.html). These little puppies make
no assumptions about constant Mearth; in fact, they are designed to look
for variations in Mearth, and do so directly. We have known the value
of the earth's gravity through direct measurement (either by pendulum
gravimeters a century and more ago, or more direct means more recently)
for a century anyhow. No temporal change in g has ever been noticed;
thus, the quantity M/r^2 has been constant for that period of time.
(note that if EE were true, this implies mass is increasing as the
square of the radius, rather than the cube, which means the mean density
of the earth would be decreasing in direct proportion to the increase of
the radius.)
[1] For those unfamiliar with the Gal as a unit of acceleration, it is
one centimeter per second squared. The Earth's gravitational field at
the surface is about 980 Gals, so the gravimeters described above
measure the quantity M/r^2 to within one part in 10^8.
>>
>> Miracle 7: Why could overthrusting (subduction) not operate in the
>> past?
>
> subduction is diffeent from overthrusting. Overthrusting does not
> destroy seafloor.
oh dear. What stops it from destroying sea floor? If there were some
limit on the length of slab that could be overridden, one would expect
that somewhere on the planet that limit would have been reached. There
have been enough studies on the mechanics of thrust faulting to show
that when resistance to motion on a thrust fault reaches a certain
point, a new thrust propagates into previously undeformed rocks, the old
fault becomes inactive, and the thrust front advances. These
'piggyback' thrusts are characteristic of continental mountain building
(they form the 'foreland fold-and-thrust belt') and I can show you
examples from any continent you care to name.
The question is this: if the overthrusting of ocean floor follows the
same mechanics and has the same limits, then where are the piggyback
thrust stacks of oceanic crust? <snip rest>
Landy
"J. Taylor" <nchi...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:l2rmc35gois648ing...@4ax.com...
Why would anyone bother considering what a creationist has to say?
Yes he's one of them too. And how fitting that is.
By the way his thesis was never accepted.
cheers
Bill
Robert Grumbine
chris.li...@gmail.com <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Expanding Earth model raises some issues which, if not impossible,
>> are at least improbable or inexplicable enough to be called miracles.
>> If the model's proponents want to be taken seriously, they have to come
>> up with viable explanations for at least a few of these.
>>
>> Miracle 1: Where does the new matter come from?
>>
>> and isotopic compositions in the right quantities to be undetectable?
>> Changes over time in heavier elements might simply be buried deep inside
>> the earth, but the model also creates water and other volatiles on the
>> surface in the right quantities and isotopic balances to leave no trace
>> in the geological record.
>>
>> earth's orbit or rotation period? The added material has increased
>> earth's moment of inertia, so keeping it rotating at a constant speed
>> (after allowing for tidal drag) is inexplicable.
>
>celestial bodies also be affected? Wouldn't we see effects, at a
>minimum, on the orbit of the moon, and most probably Mars and Venus as
>well? Maybe some asteroids too.
We have a ca. 600+ million year record of the moon's orbit, curtesy
of tidal deposits in which we can detect daily and (lunar) monthly
cycling. The moon's orbit has changed slowly over that period, as
has the earth's rotation. But only slowly, and only a modest amount --
an amount entirely inconsistent with the earth increasing mass 8-fold.
The planets ... probably hard to tell that we'd had an effect.
Back to the moon, eclipse observations over the past few thousand years
(how few depends on what you deem to be sufficient documentation of
contemporary observation) extremely strongly constrain the mass
addition to be tiny.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
don findlay
J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:18:08 -0400, don findlay wrote
> (in article <1187749088....@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >
> > J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:41:15 -0400, don findlay wrote
> >> (in article <1187743275....@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
> >>
> >>> They couldn't give two fucks what's
> >>> right and what's not. It's not the issue.
> >>
> >> The issue is: where's the mass coming from?
> >
> > Go and tie a knot in your tail, ..and count it.
>
> Where's the mass coming from?
..And then when you've counted it, ..stick your nose up against it
then follow, ..until you come to the Well at the World's End. You'll
know it when you get there. *That's* where all the mass you're
waffling on about is coming from. (If you fall off, ..you've gone
the wrong way. )
J. Taylor
I keep seeing him accused of that, but the only evidence has been an
article where he criticized creationism.
JT
Desertphile
wrote:
>
> Mark Isaak wrote:
> >
>
> <Snipping this lot for a good-reading laugh on the loo..>
>
> > Miracle 10: What do a small handful of amatuers know that the competent
> > geologists don't? Their knowledge of geology is only slightly greater
> > than that of the average layman, and their knowledge in other areas,
> > such as in physics and in the scientific method, may well be less than
> > average. Yet, they say, they know more about the foundation of the
> > field of geology than do people who have devoted lifetimes to studying
> > it.
>
> That's the whole point Mark. That is precisely the level to which
Oops! You somehow missed the bulk of his article. Here, let me put
it back since you missed it the first time:
The Expanding Earth model raises some issues which, if not
impossible, are at least improbable or inexplicable enough to be
called miracles. If the model's proponents want to be taken
seriously, they have to come up with viable explanations for at
least a few of these.
Miracle 1: Where does the new matter come from?
Miracle 2: How does it happen that the new matter has the right
chemical and isotopic compositions in the right quantities to be
undetectable? Changes over time in heavier elements might simply
be buried deep inside the earth, but the model also creates water
and other volatiles on the surface in the right quantities and
isotopic balances to leave no trace in the geological record.
Miracle 3: How does it happen that the new matter has not affected
earth's orbit or rotation period? The added material has increased
earth's moment of inertia, so keeping it rotating at a constant
speed (after allowing for tidal drag) is inexplicable.
Miracle 4: How does it happen that the earth's paleomagnetism is
everywhere consistent with a constant-sized earth? A smaller earth
in the past would make paleomagnetism directions very much
different, if the earth's magnetic field was roughly the same. By
what incredible conincidence did the magnetic field adjust to
produce data just like one would find on a constant-sized earth?
Miracle 5: Why is expansion not occurring on other planets? Bodies
without atmospheres, notably the Moon and Mercury, don't have
erosion to obscure stretch marks, and the Moon and Mercury show no
signs of deformation for well over a billion years. Nor is the
sun, or the earth's orbit would be affected.
Miracle 6: Why is expansion not seen occurring on Earth? Modern
instruments are plenty accurate to detect changes in both size and
mass, yet they detect neither.
Miracle 7: Why could overthrusting (subduction) not operate in the
past? We can see that subduction is happening at a fairly constant
rate today. And the expanding earth model includes subduction
(they call it overthrusting), but says that it eats up only tens,
or at most hundreds, of miles of oceanic crust. The limit makes
sense only if overthrusting started less than about ten million
years ago. Why not earlier?
Miracle 8: Why is an expanding earth not detectable by
paleontologists, neither as changes in morphology from an
increasing gravity, nor as patterns of biogeography? Even if
expanding earth proponents are not looking at this issue, other
paleontologists are, and they should have noticed and pointed out
patterns which do not match expectations.
Miracle 9: Why are competent geologists not expounding on the
expanding earth, especially since it was such a hot topic 35 years
ago? The data to conclusively support or refute the expanding
earth has been around for a couple decades or more, and most
scientists love underdog ideas when the evidence supports them.
Why do no geologists want the laurels of making the definitive
case for an expanding earth?
Miracle 10: What do a small handful of amatuers know that the
competent geologists don't? Their knowledge of geology is only
slightly greater than that of the average layman, and their
knowledge in other areas, such as in physics and in the scientific
method, may well be less than average. Yet, they say, they know
more about the foundation of the field of geology than do people
who have devoted lifetimes to studying it.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
(Florian) wrote:
> Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > The Expanding Earth model raises some issues which, if not impossible,
> > are at least improbable or inexplicable enough to be called miracles.
> > If the model's proponents want to be taken seriously, they have to come
> > up with viable explanations for at least a few of these.
> Miracle is term that should reserved to religious people. Are you one of
> them?
The "expanding Earth" belief is a religious one.
Timberwoof
Past Earth orbits, yes, but other than historical records I don't know
of any earth-bound phenomena precise enough to record the positions of
the other planets.
Timberwoof
Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:
> Y'know, about 8 years ago they invented a gravimeter that 1) was small
> enough to be carried in a backpack, 2) measured the acceleration of
> gravity directly by measuring the acceleration of a small mass falling
> in an evacuated tube, and 3) was accurate enough and precise enough to
> map local variations in gravity to within a hundredth of a milliGal
> [1](http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99144e.html). These little puppies make
> no assumptions about constant Mearth; in fact, they are designed to look
> for variations in Mearth, and do so directly. We have known the value
> of the earth's gravity through direct measurement (either by pendulum
> gravimeters a century and more ago, or more direct means more recently)
> for a century anyhow. No temporal change in g has ever been noticed;
> thus, the quantity M/r^2 has been constant for that period of time.
>
> (note that if EE were true, this implies mass is increasing as the
> square of the radius, rather than the cube, which means the mean density
> of the earth would be decreasing in direct proportion to the increase of
> the radius.)
>
>
> [1] For those unfamiliar with the Gal as a unit of acceleration, it is
> one centimeter per second squared. The Earth's gravitational field at
> the surface is about 980 Gals, so the gravimeters described above
> measure the quantity M/r^2 to within one part in 10^8.
That's very cool. Thanks for writing about that. Makes this discussion
worthwhile for me. So a Gal is a Galileo? :-) He deserves a unit, and
that's a good one!
Timberwoof
"J. Taylor" <nchi...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
I've answered all of your questions before. You have never given
anything remotely like a proper answer for "Where does the mass come
from"? Until you explain where the mass came from and how it acquired
the correct chemical and dynamic properties, your hypothesis is sunk.
DougC
> The Expanding Earth model raises some issues
Having read all the (so far) 37 messages in this thread, my
incredulity is growing and growing. You guys can't be serious.
The Expanding Earth theory is a solution in search of a problem, or an
answer in the absence of a question. Who first proposed it and for
what purpose?
Time to wield Occam's razor.
Doug Chandler
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1187806484.7...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
> Everybody wrote:
>> The Expanding Earth model raises some issues
>
> Having read all the (so far) 37 messages in this thread, my
> incredulity is growing and growing. You guys can't be serious.
Read Donny Findlay's stuff. He's deadly serious.
He's also clueless.
>
> The Expanding Earth theory is a solution in search of a problem, or an
> answer in the absence of a question. Who first proposed it and for
> what purpose?
>
> Time to wield Occam's razor.
>
> Doug Chandler
>
--
Mark Isaak
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>> Miracle 10: What do a small handful of amatuers know that the competent
>> geologists don't? Their knowledge of geology is only slightly greater
>> than that of the average layman, and their knowledge in other areas,
>> such as in physics and in the scientific method, may well be less than
>> average. Yet, they say, they know more about the foundation of the
>> field of geology than do people who have devoted lifetimes to studying
>> it.
>
[Gibberish deleted. I *think* findlay said that he sees a global
conspiracy to repress anyone who doubts plate tectonics.]
> Anyone with half a brain can see the at least *SOME* nonsenses in Plate
> Tectonics, especially those who know most about it, ..but you will never
> (*NEVER*) get them talking about it.
I first learned about plate tectonics in 1972, in an article which also
pointed out problems in the theory. And I have seen geologists talking
about it ever since. You are simply lying through your teeth.
Mark Isaak
> Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> The Expanding Earth model raises some issues which, if not impossible,
>> are at least improbable or inexplicable enough to be called miracles.
>> If the model's proponents want to be taken seriously, they have to come
>> up with viable explanations for at least a few of these.
>
> Miracle is term that should reserved to religious people. Are you one of
> them?
I study folklore, hence my interest in the expanding earth.
The term "miracle" is entirely justified.
>> Miracle 1: Where does the new matter come from?
>>
>> Miracle 2: How does it happen that the new matter has the right
>> chemical and isotopic compositions in the right quantities to be
>> undetectable? Changes over time in heavier elements might simply be
>> buried deep inside the earth, but the model also creates water and
>> other volatiles on the surface in the right quantities and isotopic
>> balances to leave no trace in the geological record.
>>
>> Miracle 3: How does it happen that the new matter has not affected
>> earth's orbit or rotation period? The added material has increased
>> earth's moment of inertia, so keeping it rotating at a constant speed
>> (after allowing for tidal drag) is inexplicable.
>
> All of the above is speculation about yet unknown physic.
Not merely unknown, but miraculously improbable.
>> Miracle 4: How does it happen that the earth's paleomagnetism is
>> everywhere consistent with a constant-sized earth? A smaller earth in
>> the past would make paleomagnetism directions very much different, if
>> the earth's magnetic field was roughly the same. By what incredible
>> conincidence did the magnetic field adjust to produce data just like
>> one would find on a constant-sized earth?
>
> That one is false. Paleomagnetic data fits very well using the EE model
> (no pole wandering, pole always on opposite sides, no need to break
> continent into disperse cratons, no latitude incompatible with
> fauna/flora at the period etc. Plate tectonic try to make it work by
> fragmenting continents a putting the piece at the spot that would fit.
> typically ad hoc solution.
Fractional credit for calling "ad hoc" the fragmenting of continents.
But how much do you want to bet there is independent evidence for such
fragmenting? And that fractional credit is revoked because I have seen
an article making the point that paleomagnetic data does *not* fit the EE
model; ad hoc assumptions are needed there, too.
>> Miracle 5: Why is expansion not occurring on other planets? Bodies
>> without atmospheres, notably the Moon and Mercury, don't have erosion to
>> obscure stretch marks, and the Moon and Mercury show no signs of
>> deformation for well over a billion years. Nor is the sun, or the
>> earth's orbit would be affected.
>
> I show in another post that there are good clues about expansion on
> other planets or moons.
There is evidence for surface deformation on other moons; there is no
evidence for expansion. And we know that there has been no significant
expansion on the Moon or Mercury in the last 500 million years at least.
>> Miracle 6: Why is expansion not seen occurring on Earth? Modern
>> instruments are plenty accurate to detect changes in both size and mass,
>> yet they detect neither.
>
> Can't be sure about that.
Yes we can.
>> Miracle 7: Why could overthrusting (subduction) not operate in the
>> past? subduction is diffeent from overthrusting. Overthrusting does
>> not destroy seafloor. We can see that subduction is happening at a
>> fairly constant rate today. And the expanding earth model includes
>> subduction (they call it overthrusting), but says that it eats up only
>> tens, or at most hundreds, of miles of oceanic crust. The limit makes
>> sense only if overthrusting started less than about ten million years
>> ago. Why not earlier?
>
> Nope, the lenght of the recovered slabs show that overthrusting
> certainly occured prior to 10 millions years ago.
Then your models based on sea floor areas are wrong.
>> Miracle 8: Why is an expanding earth not detectable by paleontologists,
>> neither as changes in morphology from an increasing gravity, nor as
>> patterns of biogeography? Even if expanding earth proponents are not
>> looking at this issue, other paleontologists are, and they should have
>> noticed and pointed out patterns which do not match expectations.
>
> It does fit paleontology and paleobiogeography when people work with
> the correct model:
That wasn't the question. The question is why paleontology fits a
constant-sized earth, when conditions on an expanding earth would be so
extremely different?
>> Miracle 9: Why are competent geologists not expounding on the expanding
>> earth, especially since it was such a hot topic 35 years ago? The data
>> to conclusively support or refute the expanding earth has been around
>> for a couple decades or more, and most scientists love underdog ideas
>> when the evidence supports them. Why do no geologists want the laurels
>> of making the definitive case for an expanding earth?
>
> That is just how science always worked when huge shift of paradigm are
> expected.
Bullshit. Plate tectonics is every bit as big a paradigm shift, and it
got accepted. Expanding earth got plenty of positive coverage in science
journals up until the point where it could be measured directly, which
was before plate tectonics was established firmly enough to be called a
paradigm.
Glaciation was a paradigm shift, and it got accepted. Relativity and
quantum mechanics are bigger paradigm shifts, and they got accepted. If
expanding earth were true, there is absolutely no reason why it should
not, by now, be universally accepted.
> But I will certainly try to find some colleagues to publish
> something ar least for a new history of the pacific. Who knows :-)
I sincerely wish you luck.
>> Miracle 10: What do a small handful of amatuers know that the competent
>> geologists don't? Their knowledge of geology is only slightly greater
>> than that of the average layman, and their knowledge in other areas,
>> such as in physics and in the scientific method, may well be less than
>> average. Yet, they say, they know more about the foundation of the
>> field of geology than do people who have devoted lifetimes to studying
>> it.
>
> Another totally wrong statement.
> Carey was certainly not an amateur in the field, neither are Don, Choi,
> Maxlow, Kugler, Scalera, Ollier, Suzuki, Pratt, Blinow, McCarthy and
> many others. They simply don't have the good chemistry yet to convince
> a majority.
Perhaps they should try evidence instead.
> You may want to look at the "News Concepts in GLobal Tectonics
> Newsletter".
>
> http://www.ncgt.org/
>
> See. EE is not just about a small handfull of amateur. Note that I'm a
> scientific myself and that I learn PT in College.
--
Timberwoof
DougC <prig...@aol.com> wrote:
> Everybody wrote:
> > The Expanding Earth model raises some issues
>
> Having read all the (so far) 37 messages in this thread, my
> incredulity is growing and growing. You guys can't be serious.
Don Findlay, J. Taylor, and Florian appear to be quite serious. Turcaud
chimes in every once in a while to scream that everybody else is wrong.
> The Expanding Earth theory is a solution in search of a problem, or an
> answer in the absence of a question. Who first proposed it and for
> what purpose?
I don't know who first proposed it, but the current earliest reference
the proponents point to is James Maxlow.
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/ExpandingEarth.html
The scientific purpose is to explain mid-oceanic ridges and some
continental features that suggest they were once joined together.
But it goes into kookdom pretty quickly from there with the typical
whining about how mainstream geologists laugh at the expanding earthers
and how the EEers themselves ignore an awful lot of important
information that invalidates the hypothesis.
> Time to wield Occam's razor.
Lavoisier and Newton already took care of it.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> If the earth had gained appreciable mass, wouldn't the orbits of other
> celestial bodies also be affected? Wouldn't we see effects, at a
> minimum, on the orbit of the moon, and most probably Mars and Venus as
> well? Maybe some asteroids too.
Depends on how much mass and how fast. And when.
A bunch of mass gained some millions of years ago
probably wouldn't be detectable through such means
as looking at orbits today. A bunch of mass rapidly
gained in the last 20 years would probably be pretty
obvious. But it would be pretty obvious through other
methods far sooner.
Socks
don findlay
J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:14:44 -0400, DougC wrote
> (in article <1187806484.7...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > Everybody wrote:
> >> The Expanding Earth model raises some issues
> >
> > Having read all the (so far) 37 messages in this thread, my
> > incredulity is growing and growing. You guys can't be serious.
>
> Read Donny Findlay's stuff. He's deadly serious.
Here: http://users.indigo.net.au/don/
(First edition.)
>
> He's also clueless.
What do you mean? I told you where to find the font of all
knowledge. Are you disputing?
don findlay
Mark Isaak wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:41:15 -0700, don findlay wrote:
>
> > Mark Isaak wrote:
> >
> >> Miracle 10: What do a small handful of amatuers know that the competent
> >> geologists don't? Their knowledge of geology is only slightly greater
> >> than that of the average layman, and their knowledge in other areas,
> >> such as in physics and in the scientific method, may well be less than
> >> average. Yet, they say, they know more about the foundation of the
> >> field of geology than do people who have devoted lifetimes to studying
> >> it.
> >
> [Gibberish deleted. I *think* findlay said that he sees a global
> conspiracy to repress anyone who doubts plate tectonics.]
Conspiracy is your word, not mine. I call it for what it is:
'consensus'.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/consensus.html
(Though Stuart has put it somewhat better as "Massive academic
Fraud" )
>
> > Anyone with half a brain can see the at least *SOME* nonsenses in Plate
> > Tectonics, especially those who know most about it, ..but you will never
> > (*NEVER*) get them talking about it.
>
> I first learned about plate tectonics in 1972, in an article which also
> pointed out problems in the theory. And I have seen geologists talking
> about it ever since. You are simply lying through your teeth.
You're guilty of misrepresentation. No supporter of Plate Tectonics
will ever point out its deficiences. Only its detractors. You are
behaving like Hermann Goering in your footnote.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1187826654.6...@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
>> Read Donny Findlay's stuff. He's deadly serious.
>
> Here: http://users.indigo.net.au/don/
> (First edition.)
>
>
>>
>> He's also clueless.
>
> What do you mean? I told you where to find the font of all
> knowledge. Are you disputing?
Where's the mass coming from?
--
don findlay
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <1187806484.7...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> DougC <prig...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Everybody wrote:
> > > The Expanding Earth model raises some issues
> >
> > Having read all the (so far) 37 messages in this thread, my
> > incredulity is growing and growing. You guys can't be serious.
>
> Don Findlay, J. Taylor, and Florian appear to be quite serious. Turcaud
> chimes in every once in a while to scream that everybody else is wrong.
Yeah? And what do you contribute?
don findlay
Jim Willemin wrote:
> first_name@last_name.net (Florian) wrote in
> And yet, each of Mark's points above is based on KNOWN physics, which,
> in case you hadn't noticed, has so far provided a pretty damn good
> framework for understanding the universe. Remember, your 'unknown
> physic' needs to collapse to known physics under the conditions in which
> known physics is known to work.
The concept of a flat earth still serves 99% of people very well.
> The question is this: if the overthrusting of ocean floor follows the
> same mechanics and has the same limits, then where are the piggyback
> thrust stacks of oceanic crust? <snip rest>
They don't (follow). 'Subduction' is shorthand for Plate Tectonics,
convection, subduction. In other words, Plate descending, getting
assimilated etc etc. Overriding/ overthrusting is not. It's just
about the crust 'sliding over'. No going down implied. Plate
Tectonics skirts around this one by calling it "Flat subduction" - a
contradiction in terms.
http://tinyurl.com/2yzars
It is, in fact, Plate Tectonics on its way to shifting its goalposts
(yet again) to accommodate unpalatable facts.
don findlay
Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> > Miracle is term that should reserved to religious people. Are you one of
> > them?
>
> I study folklore, hence my interest in the expanding earth.
No you don't, ...or you find the implications in sea-level change on
population shifts more interesting than you apparently do.
> > All of the above is speculation about yet unknown physic.
>
> Not merely unknown, but miraculously improbable.
What is miraculously improbable about the Colorado Plateau (an old
erosion surface) being uplifted due to the mantle underneath it
collapsing? Tell us, do.
>
> That wasn't the question. The question is why paleontology fits a
> constant-sized earth, when conditions on an expanding earth would be so
> extremely different?
Sorry Mark, . ..You have a fundamental misunderstanding here. Both PT
and EE are exactly the same when it comes to continental separation
leading to their present locations. (PT needs some substantial
adjustment in the African/ Indian/ Australian/ Antarctic connections,
but nothing that palaontology cannot accommodate (better) in EE.)
>
> >> Miracle 9: Why are competent geologists not expounding on the expanding
> >> earth, especially since it was such a hot topic 35 years ago? The data
> >> to conclusively support or refute the expanding earth has been around
> >> for a couple decades or more, and most scientists love underdog ideas
> >> when the evidence supports them. Why do no geologists want the laurels
> >> of making the definitive case for an expanding earth?
> >
> > That is just how science always worked when huge shift of paradigm are
> > expected.
>
> Bullshit. Plate tectonics is every bit as big a paradigm shift, and it
> got accepted.
That's right, ..and the instigators of it will sink to oblivion.
> Expanding earth got plenty of positive coverage in science
> journals up until the point where it could be measured directly, which
> was before plate tectonics was established firmly enough to be called a
> paradigm.
>
> Glaciation was a paradigm shift, and it got accepted. Relativity and
> quantum mechanics are bigger paradigm shifts, and they got accepted. If
> expanding earth were true, there is absolutely no reason why it should
> not, by now, be universally accepted.
The rubbish of Plate Tectonics has gotten in the way. You want to ask
yourself why. You also want to ask yourself, .."Suppose, ...ust
suppose for a minute, that subduction really is (as is now being
recognised) overriding, and that all this business of convective
return is rubbish, and that what we see, really *IS* what we get -
Like the here-and-now- is all there is. Just suppose... How would
that alter our perspectives on geology?" Try it. Thought
experiment. Plate TEctonics is a bit life Life after Death. It might
make things a bit more comfortable, but well, ..
(Have you managd to work out the Secret of Life yet? You know, the
chicken and the egg thing?? )
> >> Miracle 10: What do a small handful of amatuers know that the competent
> >> geologists don't?
Florian makes the point below. So you could also ask yourself, "Why
is it that no competent geologist will defend Plate Tectonics?"
Because it is manifestly obvious here, that though there may be (some)
geologists present, they are either silent, or incompetent. You could
certainly usefully ask yourself "Why?" on that score.
> >> Their knowledge of geology is only slightly greater
> >> than that of the average layman, and their knowledge in other areas,
> >> such as in physics and in the scientific method, may well be less than
> >> average. Yet, they say, they know more about the foundation of the
> >> field of geology than do people who have devoted lifetimes to studying
> >> it.
> >
> > Another totally wrong statement.
> > Carey was certainly not an amateur in the field, neither are Don, Choi,
> > Maxlow, Kugler, Scalera, Ollier, Suzuki, Pratt, Blinow, McCarthy and
> > many others. They simply don't have the good chemistry yet to convince
> > a majority.
>
> Perhaps they should try evidence instead.
>
> > You may want to look at the "New Concepts in GLobal Tectonics
Free Lunch
"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in
<0001HW.C2F24C38...@newsgroups.comcast.net>:
>On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:12:47 -0400, don findlay wrote
>(in article <1187827967.3...@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>):
Does hot air increase the mass of an object?
Kent Paul Dolan
> Y'know, about 8 years ago they invented a
> gravimeter that 1) was small enough to be carried
> in a backpack, 2) measured the acceleration of
> gravity directly by measuring the acceleration of
> a small mass falling in an evacuated tube, and 3)
> was accurate enough and precise enough to map
> local variations in gravity to within a hundredth
> of a milliGal [1]
> (http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99144e.html).
> These little puppies make no assumptions about
> constant Mearth; in fact, they are designed to
> look for variations in Mearth, and do so directly.
> We have known the value of the earth's gravity
> through direct measurement (either by pendulum
> gravimeters a century and more ago, or more direct
> means more recently) for a century anyhow.
Just to add a data point, "we" (US/DOC NOAA) were
doing gravimeter measurements to a milliGal in 1974
in the open ocean, a bit of a tour-de-force for the
time. The gravimeter was a horse of a device, about
two meters by 1.3 meters squared, cast iron cased
and bolted to the ship at the ship's exact
meta-center.
[As ship's computer officer, tending the gravimeter
was one of my many collateral duties, one that made
low demands on my time.]
The gravimeter was kept recording anytime we were
underway, in a "survey of opportunity" mode, so
instead of nice neat parallel tracklines, our
gravity survey wandered around like a drunken duck
among our working locales, which had nothing to do
with gravimetery.
The up-side of this was that the wandering survey
track crossed the (fairly sparse, then) existing
regular ocean gravity survey tracks, providing
checks across time that the measured values hadn't
changed.
> No temporal change in g has ever been noticed;
> thus, the quantity M/r^2 has been constant for
> that period of time.
Indeed.
> (note that if EE were true, this implies mass is
> increasing as the square of the radius, rather
> than the cube, which means the mean density of the
> earth would be decreasing in direct proportion to
> the increase of the radius.)
Oops!
Less dense, but more mass stacked up; that makes for
some interesting contradictions,
Questions like: "What was stiffening the matter of
the earth, making it more rigid and thus less
compressible, and doing so in ways undetectable in
retrospect today?" just naturally arise in response
to the EE crowd's[2] claims.
> [1] For those unfamiliar with the Gal as a unit of
> acceleration, it is one centimeter per second
> squared. The Earth's gravitational field at the
> surface is about 980 Gals, so the gravimeters
> described above measure the quantity M/r^2 to
> within one part in 10^8.
Thanks for posting that, my personal interest in
gravity measurement has been piqued again.
xanthian.
[2] Is there a specific collective noun for a
gathering of loons? "Flock" seems so generic,
somehow.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <qrlpc351p88ekc3ah...@4ax.com>):
In Don's case, yes.
Kent Paul Dolan
> I told you where to find the font of all
> knowledge. Are you disputing?
Most of the rest of us _wipe_ the part of
the body you use as your font of all
knowledge.
xanthian.
rupert....@gmail.com
[snip]
> They don't (follow). 'Subduction' is shorthand for Plate Tectonics,
> convection, subduction. In other words, Plate descending, getting
> assimilated etc etc. Overriding/ overthrusting is not. It's just
> about the crust 'sliding over'. No going down implied. Plate
> Tectonics skirts around this one by calling it "Flat subduction" - a
> It is, in fact, Plate Tectonics on its way to shifting its goalposts
> (yet again) to accommodate unpalatable facts.
That's what successful theories do.
Timberwoof
Kent Paul Dolan <xant...@well.com> wrote:
> [2] Is there a specific collective noun for a
> gathering of loons? "Flock" seems so generic,
> somehow.
I was going to look into that, and started at Wikipedia. I ended up
finding something actually on topic for this newsgroup if not for this
thread. It turns out that loons are not actually closely related to
other species of birds considered to be ancient, but are a more recent
development and a remarkable example of convergent evolution.
Ah, here it is.
http://www.nzbirds.com/more/nounsl.html
An asylum of loons.
There are other collective nouns, but they start with letters less
interesting than 'a'.
Timberwoof
don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
To the Expanding Earth hypothesis? Why, nothing, of course.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
Timberwoof
That's heavy, man.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
Timberwoof
don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
As opposed to Expanding Earth, which ignores incompatible facts.
don findlay
Rubbish, .. Who told you that? A successful theory predicts. It
doesn't need changing (all the time). An unsuccessful one does (need
changing all the time).
don findlay
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <1187827803....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Jim Willemin wrote:
> > > first_name@last_name.net (Florian) wrote in
> >
> > > And yet, each of Mark's points above is based on KNOWN physics, which,
> > > in case you hadn't noticed, has so far provided a pretty damn good
> > > framework for understanding the universe. Remember, your 'unknown
> > > physic' needs to collapse to known physics under the conditions in which
> > > known physics is known to work.
> >
> > The concept of a flat earth still serves 99% of people very well.
> >
> >
> > > The question is this: if the overthrusting of ocean floor follows the
> > > same mechanics and has the same limits, then where are the piggyback
> > > thrust stacks of oceanic crust? <snip rest>
> >
> > They don't (follow). 'Subduction' is shorthand for Plate Tectonics,
> > convection, subduction. In other words, Plate descending, getting
> > assimilated etc etc. Overriding/ overthrusting is not. It's just
> > about the crust 'sliding over'. No going down implied. Plate
> > Tectonics skirts around this one by calling it "Flat subduction" - a
> > contradiction in terms.
> > http://tinyurl.com/2yzars
> > It is, in fact, Plate Tectonics on its way to shifting its goalposts
> > (yet again) to accommodate unpalatable facts.
>
> As opposed to Expanding Earth, which ignores incompatible facts.
And what "incompatible facts" do you have in mind?
don findlay
Except JJ. He just dribbles shit. The sun shines out of mine. Why
would I want to hide it? What's yours?
don findlay
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <1187827967.3...@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Timberwoof wrote:
> > > In article <1187806484.7...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > DougC <prig...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Everybody wrote:
> > > > > The Expanding Earth model raises some issues
> > > >
> > > > Having read all the (so far) 37 messages in this thread, my
> > > > incredulity is growing and growing. You guys can't be serious.
> > >
> > > Don Findlay, J. Taylor, and Florian appear to be quite serious. Turcaud
> > > chimes in every once in a while to scream that everybody else is wrong.
> >
> > Yeah? And what do you contribute?
>
> To the Expanding Earth hypothesis? Why, nothing, of course.
No, smartass, ....to the debate. It needs an intellect far greater
than yours to contribute even to the hypothesis (or even detract from
it), ..and to the theory? ..probably far greater than anyone here.
(Smartass.)
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
> "When you post sewage, don't blame others for
> emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
don findlay
NooooooOOO Subduction!
Does anybody know *anywhere* where subduction really happens?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1187865031.8...@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Timberwoof wrote:
>> In article <1187827967.3...@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
>> don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Timberwoof wrote:
>>>> In article <1187806484.7...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> DougC <prig...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Everybody wrote:
>>>>>> The Expanding Earth model raises some issues
>>>>>
>>>>> Having read all the (so far) 37 messages in this thread, my
>>>>> incredulity is growing and growing. You guys can't be serious.
>>>>
>>>> Don Findlay, J. Taylor, and Florian appear to be quite serious. Turcaud
>>>> chimes in every once in a while to scream that everybody else is wrong.
>>>
>>> Yeah? And what do you contribute?
>>
>> To the Expanding Earth hypothesis? Why, nothing, of course.
>
> No, smartass, ....to the debate. It needs an intellect far greater
> than yours to contribute even to the hypothesis (or even detract from
> it), ..and to the theory? ..probably far greater than anyone here.
> (Smartass.)
So where's the mass coming from?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1187866489....@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
> ..And what is the unpalatable fact?
>
> NooooooOOO Subduction!
>
> Does anybody know *anywhere* where subduction really happens?
>
Should you be able to show that subduction doesn't happen, this does not
prove that EE happens. It's not an either/or situation. You've got to show
that EE happens. I, for one, don't give a damn if PT happens or not. I _do_
note that the PT guys don't dodge when asked for data, while EE guys _do_
dodge. So... where's the mass coming from?
Tony Raymonds
<first_name@last_name.net> writes
>no pole wandering
What do you mean? Are you now claiming that the magnetic pole doesn't
move?
--
to...@wacky.zzn.com
Landy
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:1187866489....@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> ..And what is the unpalatable fact?
>
> NooooooOOO Subduction!
>
> Does anybody know *anywhere* where subduction really happens?
How about around most of the Pacific for starters.
But then you knew that.
cheers
Bill
rupert....@gmail.com
Not me. I am willing to concede all the geology to you if you'll just
tell me where the extra matter is coming from.
Of course, you could be taking a lesson from the ID guys. If you never
tell anyone what your theory is, no-one can prove you wrong.
rupert....@gmail.com
> rupert.morr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 12:10 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > They don't (follow). 'Subduction' is shorthand for Plate Tectonics,
> > > convection, subduction. In other words, Plate descending, getting
> > > assimilated etc etc. Overriding/ overthrusting is not. It's just
> > > about the crust 'sliding over'. No going down implied. Plate
> > > Tectonics skirts around this one by calling it "Flat subduction" - a
> > > contradiction in terms.http://tinyurl.com/2yzars
> > > It is, in fact, Plate Tectonics on its way to shifting its goalposts
> > > (yet again) to accommodate unpalatable facts.
>
> > That's what successful theories do.
>
> Rubbish, .. Who told you that?
Bloke called Einstein. Newtonian gravitation was an amazingly
successful theory, but it didn't explain the precession of Mercury's
orbit.
> A successful theory predicts. It
> doesn't need changing (all the time). An unsuccessful one does (need
> changing all the time).
So EE can tell me what the mass and radius of the Earth will be one
year from now? And if the prediction is slightly wrong (i.e. it shows
expansion but less than predicted) you will discard the whole theory
rather than amend it? And EE could always do this from the day it was
first proposed?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1187868178.2...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
> On Aug 23, 9:19 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>> rupert.morr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Aug 23, 12:10 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> They don't (follow). 'Subduction' is shorthand for Plate Tectonics,
>>>> convection, subduction. In other words, Plate descending, getting
>>>> assimilated etc etc. Overriding/ overthrusting is not. It's just
>>>> about the crust 'sliding over'. No going down implied. Plate
>>>> Tectonics skirts around this one by calling it "Flat subduction" - a
>>>> contradiction in terms.http://tinyurl.com/2yzars
>>>> It is, in fact, Plate Tectonics on its way to shifting its goalposts
>>>> (yet again) to accommodate unpalatable facts.
>>
>>> That's what successful theories do.
>>
>> Rubbish, .. Who told you that?
>
> Bloke called Einstein. Newtonian gravitation was an amazingly
> successful theory, but it didn't explain the precession of Mercury's
> orbit.
In general Newton's stuff has held up very well indeed. Certainly its held up
_to the limits of the data available at the time_. This is because, well,
Newton based his theories on actual real data, and showed his work so that
other people could both check it and extend it.
Meanwhile, over in EE land, data, what data? Work, what work? We don't need
any stinkin' data, and we _definitely_ don't need to show our work!
>
>> A successful theory predicts. It
>> doesn't need changing (all the time). An unsuccessful one does (need
>> changing all the time).
>
> So EE can tell me what the mass and radius of the Earth will be one
> year from now? And if the prediction is slightly wrong (i.e. it shows
> expansion but less than predicted) you will discard the whole theory
> rather than amend it? And EE could always do this from the day it was
> first proposed?
>
>
This should be good...
If one year is too close, perhaps EEs could explain why, and could give
predicted values for _some_ future date, preferably one not too far distant.
And, of course, they can say why that prediction can't be scaled back to, oh,
a year.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1187868354.5...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
> On Aug 23, 10:54 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>> ..And what is the unpalatable fact?
>>
>> NooooooOOO Subduction!
>>
>> Does anybody know *anywhere* where subduction really happens?
>
> Not me. I am willing to concede all the geology to you if you'll just
> tell me where the extra matter is coming from.
Same here. I don't care about the geology. I couldn't give a rat's patooie
about PT. I _would_ like to know where the mass is coming from.
>
> Of course, you could be taking a lesson from the ID guys. If you never
> tell anyone what your theory is, no-one can prove you wrong.
The ID guys are gonna sue you for even suggesting that there's any
association with the EE guys.
don findlay
I know it *used to be* called subduction, round the eastern side at
any rate, but no longer since everybody is now taking all their
clothes off and calling it "overriding". And those pikers only going
half way are calling it "Flat Subduction", which isn't subduction at
all.
You?
don findlay
rupert....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 23, 10:54 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > ..And what is the unpalatable fact?
> >
> > NooooooOOO Subduction!
> >
> > Does anybody know *anywhere* where subduction really happens?
>
> Not me. I am willing to concede all the geology to you if you'll just
> tell me where the extra matter is coming from.
What? Then you deserve shafted where it hurts. Why don't you cross
over to Physics and ask them then how mass comes into existence?.
They'll tell you it happed at 2.05am on tuesday morning,
everything, ..everywhere, all over the Universe. And you know what?
Peer review thought that was a beauty. You want to be a bit more
circumspect with your treasure, mate. It's guys like you let that
sort of stuff happen.
>
> Of course, you could be taking a lesson from the ID guys. If you never
> tell anyone what your theory is, no-one can prove you wrong.
Where do you keep getting this idea that it's a theory?
don findlay
Desertphile wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:43:34 +0200, first_name@last_name.net
> (Florian) wrote:
>
> > Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > The Expanding Earth model raises some issues which, if not impossible,
> > > are at least improbable or inexplicable enough to be called miracles.
> > > If the model's proponents want to be taken seriously, they have to come
> > > up with viable explanations for at least a few of these.
>
> > Miracle is term that should reserved to religious people. Are you one of
> > them?
>
> The "expanding Earth" belief is a religious one.
Somebody convince me that all those earthquakes round the Pacific mean
that the Pacific is disappearing down its own backside.
>
>
> --
> http://desertphile.org
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
don findlay
J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:25:54 -0400, rupert....@gmail.com wrote
> (in article <1187868354.5...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > On Aug 23, 10:54 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> >> ..And what is the unpalatable fact?
> >>
> >> NooooooOOO Subduction!
> >>
> >> Does anybody know *anywhere* where subduction really happens?
> >
> > Not me. I am willing to concede all the geology to you if you'll just
> > tell me where the extra matter is coming from.
>
> Same here. I don't care about the geology. I couldn't give a rat's patooie
> about PT. I _would_ like to know where the mass is coming from.
Yeah, ..but we all know about you. Some guys just settle for a nose
stud...
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1187878350....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> rupert....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Aug 23, 10:54 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>>> ..And what is the unpalatable fact?
>>>
>>> NooooooOOO Subduction!
>>>
>>> Does anybody know *anywhere* where subduction really happens?
>>
>> Not me. I am willing to concede all the geology to you if you'll just
>> tell me where the extra matter is coming from.
>
> What? Then you deserve shafted where it hurts.
Why? Where's the mass coming from, Don?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1187878383.3...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:25:54 -0400, rupert....@gmail.com wrote
>> (in article <1187868354.5...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> On Aug 23, 10:54 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>>>> ..And what is the unpalatable fact?
>>>>
>>>> NooooooOOO Subduction!
>>>>
>>>> Does anybody know *anywhere* where subduction really happens?
>>>
>>> Not me. I am willing to concede all the geology to you if you'll just
>>> tell me where the extra matter is coming from.
>>
>> Same here. I don't care about the geology. I couldn't give a rat's patooie
>> about PT. I _would_ like to know where the mass is coming from.
>
> Yeah, ..but we all know about you. Some guys just settle for a nose
> stud...
So where's the mass coming from, Don?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1187878428....@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Desertphile wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:43:34 +0200, first_name@last_name.net
>> (Florian) wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Expanding Earth model raises some issues which, if not impossible,
>>>> are at least improbable or inexplicable enough to be called miracles.
>>>> If the model's proponents want to be taken seriously, they have to come
>>>> up with viable explanations for at least a few of these.
>>
>>> Miracle is term that should reserved to religious people. Are you one of
>>> them?
>>
>> The "expanding Earth" belief is a religious one.
>
> Somebody convince me that all those earthquakes round the Pacific mean
> that the Pacific is disappearing down its own backside.
So where _is_ the mass coming from, Don?
Kermit
reycling crust:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061129151446.htm
Evolution of volcanic arc:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070412140946.htm
Sinking, melting slab:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060603092903.htm
Kermit
J. Taylor
That is a blatant lie. Would very much consider Maxlow's work work
and it is filled with data, but instead of looking at it you dismiss
it out of hand by calling him a kook.
Any that continue to believe a word you have to say deserve what they
get.
JT
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <fc6rc3dmc6g73db88...@4ax.com>):
No it's not.
> Would very much consider Maxlow's work work
> and it is filled with data, but instead of looking at it you dismiss
> it out of hand by calling him a kook.
I've actually _read_ it, which is more than, say, Florian can say. Maxie's
'thesis' was quite entertaining. It was short on facts and shorter on data,
but it was entertaining.
Where's the mass coming from?
>
> Any that continue to believe a word you have to say deserve what they
> get.
_I_ am not the one who's been dodging...
J. Taylor
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:54:49 -0400, don findlay wrote
>(in article <1187866489....@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> ..And what is the unpalatable fact?
>>
>> NooooooOOO Subduction!
>>
>> Does anybody know *anywhere* where subduction really happens?
>>
>
>Should you be able to show that subduction doesn't happen, this does not
>prove that EE happens. It's not an either/or situation. You've got to show
>that EE happens. I, for one, don't give a damn if PT happens or not.
>I _do_
>note that the PT guys don't dodge when asked for data, while EE guys _do_
>dodge.
Just another lie, you were given data for the Earth, the ocean floor,
but you continue to claim you have not received any data which shows
expansion. When in fact all you have shown is when given data you do
not know how to use it.
Liar and stupid
JT
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <6r6rc3l06dadd8r0n...@4ax.com>):
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:11:27 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:54:49 -0400, don findlay wrote
>> (in article <1187866489....@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> ..And what is the unpalatable fact?
>>>
>>> NooooooOOO Subduction!
>>>
>>> Does anybody know *anywhere* where subduction really happens?
>>>
>>
>> Should you be able to show that subduction doesn't happen, this does not
>> prove that EE happens. It's not an either/or situation. You've got to show
>> that EE happens. I, for one, don't give a damn if PT happens or not.
>
>> I _do_
>> note that the PT guys don't dodge when asked for data, while EE guys _do_
>> dodge.
>
> Just another lie,
Nope
> you were given data for the Earth,
Nope.
> the ocean floor,
Nope.
> but you continue to claim you have not received any data which shows
> expansion.
That's because I haven't.
> When in fact all you have shown is when given data you do
> not know how to use it.
Looked at the 'data'. Saw it was insufficient. Said so. Asked for more data.
Still asking for more data.
>
> Liar and stupid
So where's the mass coming from?
Timberwoof
don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> Desertphile wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:43:34 +0200, first_name@last_name.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> >
> > > Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Expanding Earth model raises some issues which, if not impossible,
> > > > are at least improbable or inexplicable enough to be called miracles.
> > > > If the model's proponents want to be taken seriously, they have to come
> > > > up with viable explanations for at least a few of these.
> >
> > > Miracle is term that should reserved to religious people. Are you one of
> > > them?
> >
> > The "expanding Earth" belief is a religious one.
>
> Somebody convince me that all those earthquakes round the Pacific mean
> that the Pacific is disappearing down its own backside.
What kind of evidence will you accept?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
Timberwoof
"J. Taylor" <nchi...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
Maxlow's work is filled with pretty pictures and speculation.
> Any that continue to believe a word you have to say deserve what they
> get.
Where does the mass come from?
Timberwoof
don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article <1187827967.3...@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> > don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Timberwoof wrote:
> > > > In article <1187806484.7...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > DougC <prig...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Everybody wrote:
> > > > > > The Expanding Earth model raises some issues
> > > > >
> > > > > Having read all the (so far) 37 messages in this thread, my
> > > > > incredulity is growing and growing. You guys can't be serious.
> > > >
> > > > Don Findlay, J. Taylor, and Florian appear to be quite serious. Turcaud
> > > > chimes in every once in a while to scream that everybody else is wrong.
> > >
> > > Yeah? And what do you contribute?
> >
> > To the Expanding Earth hypothesis? Why, nothing, of course.
>
> No, smartass, ....to the debate.
I always suspected that you only pretend to read my posts.
> It needs an intellect far greater
> than yours to contribute even to the hypothesis (or even detract from
> it)
That leaves you out entirely, then.
> , ..and to the theory? ..probably far greater than anyone here.
In article <1187878350....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> Where do you keep getting this idea that it's a theory?
> (Smartass.)
I like your new sig.
Timberwoof
don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article <1187827803....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Jim Willemin wrote:
> > > > first_name@last_name.net (Florian) wrote in
> > >
> > > > And yet, each of Mark's points above is based on KNOWN physics, which,
> > > > in case you hadn't noticed, has so far provided a pretty damn good
> > > > framework for understanding the universe. Remember, your 'unknown
> > > > physic' needs to collapse to known physics under the conditions in which
> > > > known physics is known to work.
> > >
> > > The concept of a flat earth still serves 99% of people very well.
> > >
> > >
> > > > The question is this: if the overthrusting of ocean floor follows the
> > > > same mechanics and has the same limits, then where are the piggyback
> > > > thrust stacks of oceanic crust? <snip rest>
> > >
> > > They don't (follow). 'Subduction' is shorthand for Plate Tectonics,
> > > convection, subduction. In other words, Plate descending, getting
> > > assimilated etc etc. Overriding/ overthrusting is not. It's just
> > > about the crust 'sliding over'. No going down implied. Plate
> > > Tectonics skirts around this one by calling it "Flat subduction" - a
> > > contradiction in terms.
> > > http://tinyurl.com/2yzars
> > > It is, in fact, Plate Tectonics on its way to shifting its goalposts
> > > (yet again) to accommodate unpalatable facts.
> >
> > As opposed to Expanding Earth, which ignores incompatible facts.
>
> And what "incompatible facts" do you have in mind?
Oh, only the same one I've been talking about for over a year, such as
violations of conservation laws.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
Mark Isaak
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:11:27 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> [...]
>>I _do_ ote that the PT guys don't dodge when asked for data, while EE
>>guys _do_ dodge.
>
> Just another lie, you were given data for the Earth, the ocean floor,
The ocean floor data supports plate tectonics just as well. Why do none
of the expanding earth proponents provide any supporting evidence for an
expanding earth? Why do none of them even know what "supporting
evidence" means?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
AC
> The Expanding Earth model raises some issues which, if not impossible,
> are at least improbable or inexplicable enough to be called miracles.
> If the model's proponents want to be taken seriously, they have to come
> up with viable explanations for at least a few of these.
>
Apparently this is all intertwined with the Big Bang. After all, if matter
can just come about then, then clearly this insightful notion is directly
and completely applicable with EE.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Stuart
> rupert.morr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 12:10 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > convection, subduction. In other words, Plate descending, getting
> > > assimilated etc etc. Overriding/ overthrusting is not. It's just
> > > about the crust 'sliding over'. No going down implied. Plate
> > > Tectonics skirts around this one by calling it "Flat subduction" - a
> > > It is, in fact, Plate Tectonics on its way to shifting its goalposts
> > > (yet again) to accommodate unpalatable facts.
>
>
> doesn't need changing (all the time). An unsuccessful one does (need
> changing all the time).
Um no. An unsuccesful one needs discarding. Like expanding earth for
example.
Stuart
Stuart
> ..And what is the unpalatable fact?
>
> NooooooOOO Subduction!
>
> Does anybody know *anywhere* where subduction really happens?
Yeah. Just ask those folks in Banda Aceh and Peru.
They can tell you all about it.
Stuart
George
"Stuart" <bigd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1187898866.7...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
The fact that DF doesn't understand the scientific method, as demonstrated
by his rather lame post, above, indicates that one needs to question how he
ever managed to obtain any kind of science degree at all (if, in fact, he
obtained one).
George
Martin Hutton
Nice articles. Each of them (but especially the last) a mortal
wound to EE...talk about overkill! Also, they show how real
science works. When there is new data it sometimes becomes
necessary to modify a theory so that the data is taken aboard.
--
Martin Hutton
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>..And what is the unpalatable fact?
>
>NooooooOOO Subduction!
>
>Does anybody know *anywhere* where subduction really happens?
Yes.
--
Bob.
J. Taylor
But don't you find it a bit odd that it would be folded? I mean, that
has to be 50 to a 100 million years worth of stuff and it is all just
sitting there in like toilet paper off a spool on the floor.
Cannot help wonder how convection has not scattered it all about.
JT
Cj
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote
> You're guilty of misrepresentation. No supporter of Plate Tectonics
> will ever point out its deficiences. Only its detractors. You are
> behaving like Hermann Goering in your footnote.
I've noticed that those with little or no education usually start comparing
those who disagree with them to nazis about the time they discover they've
nothing to argue with. If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't
have to call people names instead of using logic.
Cj
don findlay
Thanks for the promo, Stu:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/memory.html
Where did sea-level finally settle on Aceh by the way?
don findlay
Nahh, ..you don't want to worry about the big bang. Nobody here
believes in the big bang. Matter has always been sailing about in the
universe, ...pulling apart here and colliding there, ... Ask anybody
here.. They don't believe in miracles, Just Plate Tectonics.
>
> --
> Aaron Clausen
> mightym...@gmail.com