Re: Where did the extra mass come from?
J. Taylor
auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net (Florian) wrote:
>J. Taylor <nchi...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> Stuart is not a charlatan, that would mean he knows enough to fool
>> others,
>
>I think he knows enough, by contrast to Ron who's just an idiot.
Stuart is a highly intelligent and knowledgable individual that is
scared to death of doing anything new, or original in science for fear
of being called a kook, and since he cannot rise above his own fears
he wants to drag others down to his level, but to a degree cannot
blame him, religion does that to a person.
PT is demonstratively false. Carey showed that better than thirty
years ago but they persisted with their belief and left science
behind. Even worse, the one that would not abandon science was
ridiculed for not joining the cult.
So Stuart is not a charlatan, a faker, but a priest of a religion, a
believer. Some times I think he might have enough honesty to think,
in the back of his mind, that does not make any sense, but doubt he
has the courage to ever really question his faith.
JT
Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 09:44:31 +0200,
>
> auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net (Florian) wrote:
>
> >> Stuart is not a charlatan, that would mean he knows enough to fool
> >> others,
>
> >I think he knows enough, by contrast to Ron who's just an idiot.
>
> Stuart is a highly intelligent and knowledgable individual that is
> scared to death of doing anything new, or original in science for fear
> of being called a kook, and since he cannot rise above his own fears
> he wants to drag others down to his level, but to a degree cannot
> blame him, religion does that to a person.
>
> PT is demonstratively false. Carey showed that better than thirty
> years ago but they persisted with their belief and left science
> behind. Even worse, the one that would not abandon science was
> ridiculed for not joining the cult.
>
> So Stuart is not a charlatan, a faker, but a priest of a religion, a
> believer. Some times I think he might have enough honesty to think,
> in the back of his mind, that does not make any sense, but doubt he
> has the courage to ever really question his faith.
>
> JT
Still Carey is not the originator of the Theory, still more he did
limit it to the Earth, and last but not least could not explain the
reason or mechanism of it. This said, credit has to be given to the
Newcastle Professor for taking a courageous stand on the issue.
Anyway this is where Georges, Stuart & others put the knife in the
armor, since such mechanism cannot be explained within the present
Physics laws paradigm .... that answer belongs to another discipline
called the True Geology, and indeed no extra mass is required.
It is a fact further that Carey considered such Earth Expansion took
place on Earth present orbit ! Which Is Wrong !
Correct me if this is not so.
Hence in despite of all the incoherence of the present Continental
Drift, aka PT theories, seen by many bright people of whom you are ,
the situation or awareness of what is really taking place is not known
nor accepted of course, since all detractors of EE or PE can pretend
that no Extra mass is possibly added ... as Georges for ex....
... and on that particular point, Georges is Fortunately Right
With best regards
jpturcaud
George
"Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times"
<australia.mi...@neuf.fr> wrote in message
news:6a9461fc-f180-4cae...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
And according to my Paleontology professor, who studied tectonics under
Carey in Tasmania as a Fulbright Scholar, his ideas for plate tectonics were
revolutionary, but his insistance on EE made him a nutcase.
Georgte
Florian
> And according to my Paleontology professor, who studied tectonics under
> Carey in Tasmania as a Fulbright Scholar, his ideas for plate tectonics were
> revolutionary, but his insistance on EE made him a nutcase.
People ahead of their time are often considered as crazy.
Think different: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No1MxAnHuJM>
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
J. Taylor
auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net (Florian) wrote:
>George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
>> And according to my Paleontology professor, who studied tectonics under
>> Carey in Tasmania as a Fulbright Scholar, his ideas for plate tectonics were
>> revolutionary, but his insistance on EE made him a nutcase.
>
>People ahead of their time are often considered as crazy.
>
>Think different: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No1MxAnHuJM>
Actual, after reading Carey's books, he was not different, but someone
that faithfully adhered to scientific principles, and correctly
considered such arguments as, everyone else thinks it true, so you
must be wrong, logical fallacies. His views were founded on reason,
and he knew the rules of logic do not change regardless of how much,
or how many wish to believe differently.
It took me a lot of reading and studying to understand some of his
statements against plate tectonics. One in particular is his
statement of how the area of California could have had an active
subduction zone at precisely the same point as was a spreading ridge.
He said something to the effect, this would be like a moth flying up
its own ass.
And once one tries to move North America from what would have been its
past position with PT, it is not hard to see how it would be necessary
for PT to constantly change mechanism, and require special pleadings.
EPR<--------------->NA*****<-MAR->
The only thing which is nutty is how, as recorded throughout history,
men will abandon logic and reason, and embrace religion.
JT
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> > And according to my Paleontology professor, who studied tectonics under
> > Carey in Tasmania as a Fulbright Scholar, his ideas for plate tectonics were
> > revolutionary, but his insistance on EE made him a nutcase.
>
> People ahead of their time are often considered as crazy.
Except thats not you.
Expanding Earth is a decades old discarded theory.
Thats hardly being ahead of your time.
Stuart
Florian
> It took me a lot of reading and studying to understand some of his
> statements against plate tectonics. One in particular is his
> statement of how the area of California could have had an active
> subduction zone at precisely the same point as was a spreading ridge.
> He said something to the effect, this would be like a moth flying up
> its own ass.
You should read Yu Chudinov books entitled " Global Eduction Tectonics
of the Expanding Earth " and "Eduction concept of the Earth's Expansion
theory".
He notably makes a beautiful demonstration supported by a lot of data
for the peripheral growth of the North Pacific basin.
Just brilliant.
By the way, the data for the age of the ocean floor got updated last
month. I made new overlays for Google Earth:
<http://nachon.free.fr/GE/Welcome.html>
The new data are much more complete especially in the North Pacific
basin:
<http://nachon.free.fr/iso5/Iso5Npacific.jpg>
I have to ask Dietmar if the isochrons in the Bering sea are artefactual
or correct, because if they are not, then the aleutian arc is simply
killing the subduction concept ;-)
Florian
It was so ahead of its time that everything was done to avoid it, dixit
Le Pichon. "We had to find a way to destroy crust to balance that
created at the ridges"
40 years later, the assumption used to "discard it" are proven wrong.
Paleomanetic data can be used to calculate that the radius of Earth
double since early cretaceous.
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 12:18 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > > George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> > > > And according to my Paleontology professor, who studied tectonics
> > > > under Carey in Tasmania as a Fulbright Scholar, his ideas for plate
> > > > tectonics were revolutionary, but his insistance on EE made him a
> > > > nutcase.
>
> > > People ahead of their time are often considered as crazy.
>
> > Except thats not you.
>
> > Expanding Earth is a decades old discarded theory.
>
> > Thats hardly being ahead of your time.
>
> It was so ahead of its time that everything was done to avoid it, dixit
> Le Pichon. "We had to find a way to destroy crust to balance that
> created at the ridges"
reference?
>
> 40 years later, the assumption used to "discard it" are proven wrong.
> Paleomanetic data can be used to calculate that the radius of Earth
> double since early cretaceous.
>
LOL
Stuart
J. Taylor
wrote:
>On Oct 6, 12:18 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
>(Florian) wrote:
>> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>> > And according to my Paleontology professor, who studied tectonics under
>> > Carey in Tasmania as a Fulbright Scholar, his ideas for plate tectonics were
>> > revolutionary, but his insistance on EE made him a nutcase.
>>
>> People ahead of their time are often considered as crazy.
>
>Except thats not you.
Not that you would know
>
>Expanding Earth is a decades old discarded theory.
And whose fault is that? The theories, or those that cannot except
what the evidence says because it points to something they cannot
believe?
>
>Thats hardly being ahead of your time.
Yes it is, but then again, you would not know.
JT
Florian
> On Oct 6, 12:50 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 6, 12:18 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > > (Florian) wrote:
> > > > George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> > > > > And according to my Paleontology professor, who studied tectonics
> > > > > under Carey in Tasmania as a Fulbright Scholar, his ideas for plate
> > > > > tectonics were revolutionary, but his insistance on EE made him a
> > > > > nutcase.
> >
> > > > People ahead of their time are often considered as crazy.
> >
> > > Except thats not you.
> >
> > > Expanding Earth is a decades old discarded theory.
> >
> > > Thats hardly being ahead of your time.
> >
> > It was so ahead of its time that everything was done to avoid it, dixit
> > Le Pichon. "We had to find a way to destroy crust to balance that
> > created at the ridges"
>
> reference?
<http://www.canal-u.education.fr/canalu/producteurs/universite_de_tous_l
es_savoirs/dossier_programmes/les_conferences_de_l_annee_2000/la_terre_l
es_oceans_le_climat/de_la_derive_des_continents_a_la_tectonique_des_plaq
ues>
> > 40 years later, the assumption used to "discard it" are proven wrong.
> > Paleomanetic data can be used to calculate that the radius of Earth
> > double since early cretaceous.
> >
>
> LOL
Typical reaction from a PT believer confronted with factual data.
Stuart
You mean Scalera?
Stuart
Florian
> What factual data?
The data summarized by Chudinov in Part 2 A of his book "Eduction
Concept of the Earth's Expansion Theory " ISBN 9067642991
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > What factual data?
>
> The data summarized by Chudinov in Part 2 A of his book "Eduction
> Concept of the Earth's Expansion Theory " ISBN 9067642991
>
> --
Ah well.
Thats what I get for checking the best seller list.
Stuart
Florian
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 11:51 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > What factual data?
>
> > > The data summarized by Chudinov in Part 2 A of his book "Eduction
> > > Concept of the Earth's Expansion Theory " ISBN 9067642991
>
> > > --
>
> > Ah well.
>
> > Thats what I get for checking the best seller list.
>
> Looks like you're denying more inconvenient data.
>
LOL.
Stuart
Florian
> > > Thats what I get for checking the best seller list.
> >
> > Looks like you're denying more inconvenient data.
> >
>
>
> LOL.
Yep, zero counter arguments. Thanks for confirming.
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Thats what I get for checking the best seller list.
>
> > > Looks like you're denying more inconvenient data.
>
> > LOL.
>
> Yep, zero counter arguments. Thanks for confirming.
>
Sorry, don't have time to hunt down non-peer reviewed hard to
find resources.
So of us actually have a day job.
Stuart
Florian
> Sorry, don't have time to hunt down non-peer reviewed hard to
> find resources.
Lazy boy. The references are peer reviewed.
check again: ISBN 9067642991
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, don't have time to hunt down non-peer reviewed hard to
> > find resources.
>
> Lazy boy. The references are peer reviewed.
>
But the book isn't. Right?
Stuart
Florian
A peer-reviewed book?
Dude, learn the difference between a book and proceedings.
Anyway, the references in the book are peer-reviewed.
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 11:13 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Sorry, don't have time to hunt down non-peer reviewed hard to
> > > > find resources.
>
> > > Lazy boy. The references are peer reviewed.
>
> > But the book isn't. Right?
>
> A peer-reviewed book?
> Dude, learn the difference between a book and proceedings.
I do, having edited one.
>
> Anyway, the references in the book are peer-reviewed.
>
Anyway, the references are not accessible online. Nor can I find the
book.
Stuart
Florian
> Anyway, the references are not accessible online. Nor can I find the
> book.
Jeez, I already gave you the link and the ISBN:
http://books.google.com/books?id=MI4FtNlgnaQC
And guess what? chapter 2 about paleoradius calculation is online, in
the preview. Lucky you!
It looks like you were wrong one more time.
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Anyway, the references are not accessible online. Nor can I find the
> > book.
>
> Jeez, I already gave you the link and the ISBN:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=MI4FtNlgnaQC
>
> And guess what? chapter 2 about paleoradius calculation is online, in
> the preview. Lucky you!
But the references aren't, at least not that I can find.
Stuart
oriel36
(Florian) wrote:
I will say one thing,the Chudinov guy made a global point about the
mid Atlantic ridge whereas those who organise the interior Earth
around a stationary Earth mechanism of 'convection cells' are going to
have an impossible job explaining generation of crust off the entire
length of the ridge.
Ah,who am I kidding,you are like kids playing aound with peer reviewed
articles which is the same as trying to play snooker with a rope.To
your credit,you managed to detach the guys who support 'convection
cells' from the main arguments for plate tectonics where they can now
join you at your ee level,again,that is a good thing for geology in
the long run.
The convection cell guys are trying to make themselves feel better at
your expense while being entirely oblivious to there own premises and
conclusions and while there are genuine geologists who have made
incredible discoveries,their insights will be diminished by
intransigence on the matter of the internal mechanism driving plate
motion.It is like having a Rolls Royce driven by pedal power and that
is the way I see Plate tectonics in relation to those who propose
convection cells are the dynamic for crustal evolution/motion.
Florian
Don't you have access to a decent library, including an online one at
Hawaii?
dale_peterson
Daniels down the bar plizzzzzzz?
Diddly
"oriel36" <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:73550401-a8b7-4ad8...@y29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
> I will say one thing,the Chudinov guy made a global point about the
> mid Atlantic ridge whereas those who organise the interior Earth
> around a stationary Earth mechanism of 'convection cells' are going to
> have an impossible job explaining generation of crust off the entire
> length of the ridge.
>
> Ah,who am I kidding,you are like kids playing aound with peer reviewed
> articles which is the same as trying to play snooker with a rope.To
> your credit,you managed to detach the guys who support 'convection
> cells' from the main arguments for plate tectonics where they can now
> join you at your ee level,again,that is a good thing for geology in
> the long run.
>
> The convection cell guys are trying to make themselves feel better at
> your expense while being entirely oblivious to there own premises and
> conclusions and while there are genuine geologists who have made
> incredible discoveries,their insights will be diminished by
> intransigence on the matter of the internal mechanism driving plate
> motion.It is like having a Rolls Royce driven by pedal power and that
> is the way I see Plate tectonics in relation to those who propose
> convection cells are the dynamic for crustal evolution/motion.
Hi Oriel36,
Good to see you back.fully harnessed to break spears with the Gogology
Geeks.
I thought you had deserted the battlefield, completely repelled by the
most disgusting demonstrations of Engineering & Physics laws ignorance
on the part of Yates & his mates .
Equatorial Bulge demonstrating a centrifugal migration of the plastic
masses in the mantle, and this in a very short time indeed since the
last poles shifts
Your comprehension of that Physical reality is a demonstration on its
own that there cannot be any Continental Drift at all since a
sphere :
a) No vectors of any type can exist since there is no straight lines,
at fortiori a
b) If such vectorial analysis was still implemented in no case you
would have a resolving & tangential twist of the point of application.
All points of applications would indeed end in outer space.
There are according to the True Geology two reasons in the observed
facts of faults and deep sea trenches. One is of course the Planetary
Expansion ( with the local case of EE) and secondly the consequences
of Moon Impacts on the Pacific ( Alpine folding ) & other places
indeed on Earth previously seen as Hercynian and Caledonian
Orogenesis
I hope you are keeping well
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Founder of the True Geology
~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~
True Geology Foundation document :
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/69327
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 2:42 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Anyway, the references are not accessible online. Nor can I find the
> > > > book.
>
> > > Jeez, I already gave you the link and the ISBN:
>
> > >http://books.google.com/books?id=MI4FtNlgnaQC
>
> > > And guess what? chapter 2 about paleoradius calculation is online, in
> > > the preview. Lucky you!
>
> > But the references aren't, at least not that I can find.
>
> Don't you have access to a decent library, including an online one at
> Hawaii?
>
As time permits I'll read Chapter2, as that can be accessed, or so it
appears.
Stuart
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
(Jeez, ..have you ever come across a more graphic example of 'wriggle-
squirm' !) (Such a beauty I'm inclined to thank you for it.) If this
does not confirm JT's assessment of Stu (thread leader) I don't know
what does.
Hoist by your own petard, Stuart.
don findlay
J. Taylor wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 09:44:31 +0200,
> auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net (Florian) wrote:
>
> >J. Taylor <nchi...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Stuart is not a charlatan, that would mean he knows enough to fool
> >> others,
> >
> >I think he knows enough, by contrast to Ron who's just an idiot.
>
> Stuart is a highly intelligent and knowledgable individual that is
> scared to death of doing anything new, or original in science for fear
> of being called a kook, and since he cannot rise above his own fears
> he wants to drag others down to his level, but to a degree cannot
> blame him, religion does that to a person.
>
> PT is demonstratively false. Carey showed that better than thirty
> years ago but they persisted with their belief and left science
> behind. Even worse, the one that would not abandon science was
> ridiculed for not joining the cult.
>
> So Stuart is not a charlatan, a faker, but a priest of a religion, a
> believer. Some times I think he might have enough honesty to think,
> in the back of his mind, that does not make any sense, but doubt he
> has the courage to ever really question his faith.
>
> JT
'A very perspicaceous assessment of the academic element in general.
But since there is no 'final truth', 'honesty' is irrelevant. It's
all a question of models and what 'fits' best. Attempts to perceive
'truth' are seen as naive. This leaves a football size of space
'wriggle-room'. Some (yes like Stuart) have it down to a fine art,
where they will attempt to wriggle in a straightjacket.
Stuart
Don't think so.
Can't read what I can't access.
Stuart