The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
will1
write,his mind was full of ideas, and for all practical
purposes, he believed he was a writer. But had nothing published. His room
mate would encourage him, to the point of nagging, to
write his novels and cook books. His number one excuse was that he did not
have a decent typewriter, (this was long before
computers and word processing for the masses). For years that was his
excuse, he needed a good typewriter. Finally one day, his
room mate not only bought him a very nice IBM Selectric, but also set him up
with a cool trailer/writer's pad by the beach .So now
my friend could be a writer, no more excuses. Well after a few months,
NOTHING! No manuscripts, no outlines, no words, only
blank sheets of typewriter paper. He passed away about 10 years ago without
publication, all that talent gone.
There were many possible reasons for his problem (usually fear and/or lack
of the basic "How To"), and we can come up with
hundreds of suggestions and fixes . Except, for one case, when the "desire",
the "wanting",and the day dreaming is a stronger
force than the 'doing' and creating RESULTS. You will not fix this problem.
Just let the Don Fs. and Cagles and Ed C.s and other
delusionals have their daydreams. We can respond to a few flaws in their
logic or point out mistaken observations, even offer
suggestions , but that is all. Their minds and egos cannot handle the TRUTH
and are therefore, blind to it. The irony in Don's case
is that in the past, competent scientists have proposed the idea of earth
expansion as a possible cause for observed features on
the surface of our planet. They confronted their fears and peers and
published. They also had their ego under control and when the
arguments against their theories were presented, they accepted those
arguments based on logic and good science. And those
poor souls that did not accept ,or at least listened to the arguments, were
subducted and assimilated into the convecting mantle.
Occasionally one pops up as a xenolith, like Don...
I found this whole thread a fascinating study of the effects of cross
posting, as well as personal observation my reactions to
statements made by various players here. Data mining occasionally will take
you into stagnant pools, and even then, stirring up the
mud can bring to light some life forms that were hidden just beneath the
surface. The only danger that we face are the traps of being
mired in a "Folie a' Deux"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_%C3%A0_deux .
Regards, Will E.
malibu
The Earth absorbs (gravitational) energy.
This collects at its center until it
imbalances the magnetic field.
When the poles reverse the energy gets spun into matter.
The Earth grows
bigger and there is an increase in gravity.
This has a *profound* effect on genetic expression;
some life becomes extinct, other life
changes radically; other life loses capacity
(to fly, for instance, like the Dodo).
Periodic world-wide extinctions and evolutions
are the result.
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
don findlay
Ah, so you're a writer as well, ..Will.. (You're not 'the friend' by
any chance..?)
Folies a deux. Hmm. The point to be taken from that one I think is
the historical fact that the 'folies' are the ones that move us, and
the 'two' - or rather the one of the two - are many. Surely you are
not upholding the white noise critque of t.o. and their excursions
into crass banality as the way discussion (of anything) should be
carried out? That surely ensures much, much worse than a fad :- idiocy
talking to itself.
How many points are you going to award yourself for that one? :-)
Timberwoof
"malibu" <veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> The Earth absorbs (gravitational) energy.
> This collects at its center until it
> imbalances the magnetic field.
> When the poles reverse the energy gets spun into matter.
> The Earth grows
> bigger and there is an increase in gravity.
"That's not even wrong."
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship,
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
malibu
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <1151789457....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "malibu" <veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> > The Earth absorbs (gravitational) energy.
> > This collects at its center until it
> > imbalances the magnetic field.
> > When the poles reverse the energy gets spun into matter.
> > The Earth grows
> > bigger and there is an increase in gravity.
>
> "That's not even wrong."
>
much energy as it receives from the Sun.
The 'official' story is
that it is still cooling.
Is Earth still cooling?
Is Earth expanding?
What's *your* 'right' story? Got one?
John
Kermit
malibu wrote:
> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article <1151789457....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "malibu" <veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > The Earth absorbs (gravitational) energy.
> > > This collects at its center until it
> > > imbalances the magnetic field.
> > > When the poles reverse the energy gets spun into matter.
> > > The Earth grows
> > > bigger and there is an increase in gravity.
> >
> > "That's not even wrong."
> >
> Jupiter gives off 2.6 times as
> much energy as it receives from the Sun.
>
> The 'official' story is
> that it is still cooling.
Even official stories are often correct.
>
> Is Earth still cooling?
Yes.
> Is Earth expanding?
No.
>
> What's *your* 'right' story? Got one?
>
There is really only one that fits the data, altho many details have to
be worked out. Unfortunately, it is not your story.
> John
Kermit
Kermit
will1 wrote:
> I once had a friend that had talent and truly wanted to publish. He could
> write,his mind was full of ideas, and for all practical
> purposes, he believed he was a writer.
>
> Regards, Will E.
All true. But our "job" here in talk.origins is to confront the
anti-science minions of darkness and confusion and keep them out of the
hair of folks wanting to do or discuss real science in informal fora.
Personally, I am not a scientist, and this is one small way I can
contribute to civilization. It is not incidental that I learn to think
and speak more clearly on these issues, and develop the tools I need to
confront (in the big blue room) my fellow citizens who sometimes seem
hell-bent on destroying the little progress we've made in the last
couple of lifetimes.
And we have a had a few folks show up who were simply misinformed and
ignorant, and when pointed in the right direction, or had a few
misconceptions cleared up, joined us in defending and presenting the
scientific method. The effort is not wasted.
Kermit
Kermit
malibu wrote:
> will1 wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > Regards, Will E.
>
> The Earth absorbs (gravitational) energy.
No, it doesn't. Can you cite or link to some data that suggests to you
that this happens?
What *is gravitational energy - can you describe it? Here is an
introduction to it. Can you explain why it would be absorbed by the
Earth?
http://www.cpast.org/Articles/fetch.adp?topicnum=24
> This collects at its center until it
> imbalances the magnetic field.
Why at it's center? What holds it? Why would it affect magnetic fields?
Why is the magnetic field imbalanced if the "gravitational energy is in
the center?
> When the poles reverse the energy gets spun into matter.
Can you show your math? The physicists have calculated that it would
tale about 1/4 of the sun's output to produce the mass needed by Don's
imagined Earth expansion. Could you explain the mechanism by which a
shift in a magnetic field turns any energy into matter?
> The Earth grows
> bigger and there is an increase in gravity.
But if the accumulated gravity is used to make the matter, how can the
gravity increase? You seem to have suggested (against all known
physics) that the amount of gravity is unrelated to the mass.
>
> This has a *profound* effect on genetic expression;
Do you mean directly? (If things weigh more, they obviously must adapt
of die. And quickly, apparently.) How?
And why does the fossil record not indicate these changes?
Did you know that the added mass would change both the revolution of
the Earth and it's rotation? Do you know the difference without looking
them up?
> some life becomes extinct, other life
> changes radically; other life loses capacity
> (to fly, for instance, like the Dodo).
But not crows. Why? Evolutionary theory has very good explanations why
the dodo didn't fly, but crows do. Can you explain why one and not the
other?
>
> Periodic world-wide extinctions and evolutions
> are the result.
Curiously, the mass extinctions as shown in the fossil record did not
happen at the same time as the shifts in the magnetic poles. Can you
explain this?
>
> John
> Galaxy Model for the Atom
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
Kermit
Kermit
don findlay wrote:
> will1 wrote:
> > I once had a friend that had talent and truly wanted to publish. He could
> > write,his mind was full of ideas, and for all practical
> >
> >
> > Regards, Will E.
>
> Ah, so you're a writer as well, ..Will.. (You're not 'the friend' by
> any chance..?)
>
> Folies a deux. Hmm. The point to be taken from that one I think is
> the historical fact that the 'folies' are the ones that move us, and
> the 'two' - or rather the one of the two - are many. Surely you are
> not upholding the white noise critque of t.o. and their excursions
> into crass banality as the way discussion (of anything) should be
> carried out? That surely ensures much, much worse than a fad :- idiocy
> talking to itself.
>
> How many points are you going to award yourself for that one? :-)
As usual Don, you show yourself to be more skillful - presumably more
practiced - at dispensing insults than presenting data or answering
questions.
So when are you going to present a paper? Attend a conference? Write a
book?
...take a class?
Kermit
don findlay
Kermit wrote:
> don findlay wrote:
>
> As usual Don, you show yourself to be more skillful - presumably more
> practiced - at dispensing insults than presenting data or answering
> questions.
I was a wide-eyed ingenue - till I met you (and the white noise like
you). It's not so much practice, Kermit. The exchanges speak for
themselves. I am your mirror.
> So when are you going to present a paper? Attend a conference? Write a
> book?
I am/ I have. It will cost you less than a pizza.
> ...take a class?
I'm doing that too, but they're all as dumb as you, ...(bunch of
no-hopers.) You'd think they'd welcome the opportunity of a different
perspective, but that's the last thing they seem to want. Why is that?
Why do you regard yourself as the guardian of bullshit. Test it. Ask
a question. The more you get to know about something the more
questions there are to be answered. So ask your plate Tectonic gurus
for there 'secret question'. No doubt they have many,..but one will
do. See if you have any better luck than me.
I've asked them politely enough many, many times. That was where I
came in, ..as an ingenue. And you know what? None of them,
..nobody, ..not one, ..*ever* replies.. You only ever get these
denizens rising like spectres from the swamp, with their mouths full
of slime drivelling shit. True. I'm not joking. Why do you think
that is? Why are they afraid, ..to let their ignorance show? That's
why. Because the 'secret questions' they have are the ones that used
to have answers for them - before they thought about them - the ones
that everybody else 'knows' the answer to and they're afraid of looking
foolish.
That's why you'll get no answer, no matter how polite you are. And
incidentally, you'll get called a troll into the bargain, and told to
get back to the forest where you belong.
> Kermit
veg...@accesscomm.ca
Kermit wrote:
> malibu wrote:
> > Timberwoof wrote:
> > > In article <1151789457....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "malibu" <veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Earth absorbs (gravitational) energy.
> > > > This collects at its center until it
> > > > imbalances the magnetic field.
> > > > When the poles reverse the energy gets spun into matter.
> > > > The Earth grows
> > > > bigger and there is an increase in gravity.
> > >
> > > "That's not even wrong."
> > >
> > Jupiter gives off 2.6 times as
> > much energy as it receives from the Sun.
> >
> > The 'official' story is
> > that it is still cooling.
>
> Even official stories are often correct.
>
> >
> > Is Earth still cooling?
>
> Yes.
Have you ever boiled a pot of water?
What happens when the heat gets turned off?
The boiling stops.
There are active volcanos everywhere on Earth.
They release huge amounts of heat.
2/3 of Oregon is 3000 feet deep of 'fresh' volcanic output.
As I write this homes are evacuated because of imminent
volcanic eruption in numerous places on Earth.
You think the boiling has stopped?
Why? Because that's what you are told?
> > Is Earth expanding?
>
> No.
>
> >
> > What's *your* 'right' story? Got one?
> >
>
> There is really only one that fits the data, altho many details have to
> be worked out. Unfortunately, it is not your story.
In a nutshell- what is it?
Are the 'details' things like plate movement, volcanic
activity, excess heat output of all the big planets?
>
> > John
>
> Kermit
veg...@accesscomm.ca
Kermit wrote:
> will1 wrote:
> > I once had a friend that had talent and truly wanted to publish. He could
> > write,his mind was full of ideas, and for all practical
> > purposes, he believed he was a writer.
> <snip sad but common story>
> >
> > Regards, Will E.
>
> All true. But our "job" here in talk.origins is to confront the
> anti-science minions of darkness and confusion and keep them out of the
> hair of folks wanting to do or discuss real science in informal fora.
>
> Personally, I am not a scientist, and this is one small way I can
> contribute to civilization. It is not incidental that I learn to think
> and speak more clearly on these issues, and develop the tools I need to
> confront (in the big blue room) my fellow citizens who sometimes seem
> hell-bent on destroying the little progress we've made in the last
> couple of lifetimes.
And why do you think the progress in the
last hundred years has been so minimal?
Is the Earth in better or worse shape because
of the our en'light'ened science?
As a non-scientist, why are you in a position
to do a 'job' defending positions taken which preclude
investigations in other directions than those deemed
'right'?
John
will1
toils. With an anxiety
that almost amounted to agony, collected the instruments of life around me,
that I might infuse a spark
of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in
the morning; the rain pattered
dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the
glimmer of the
half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it
breathed hard, and a convulsive
motion agitated its limbs." Dr. Frankenstein
Lets see, click my heels together three times and say,
"There's no place like home, there's no place like..."
Deadrat
news:1151850334....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
He in the position of distracting ignoramuses because he can exercise his
rational faculties. He defends scientific investigation from the
ignorance of fundies as a hobby. Neither Kermit nor science has any
capability to "preclude" investigations by the ignorant into their
ignorance. Take IDiocy. No one, scientist, t.o poster, or anyone else,
can stop IDiots from presenting a firm scientific foundation for IDiocy.
Yet they haven't done it. Why do you suppose that is?
Deadrat
<snip>
>> Kermit
coaster
> Kermit wrote:
> > malibu wrote:
> > > Timberwoof wrote:
> > > > In article <1151789457....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "malibu" <veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The Earth absorbs (gravitational) energy.
> > > > > This collects at its center until it
> > > > > imbalances the magnetic field.
> > > > > When the poles reverse the energy gets spun into matter.
> > > > > The Earth grows
> > > > > bigger and there is an increase in gravity.
> > > >
> > > > "That's not even wrong."
> > > >
> > > Jupiter gives off 2.6 times as
> > > much energy as it receives from the Sun.
> > >
> > > The 'official' story is
> > > that it is still cooling.
> >
> > Even official stories are often correct.
> >
> > >
> > > Is Earth still cooling?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Have you ever boiled a pot of water?
> What happens when the heat gets turned off?
> The boiling stops.
Interesting analogy! Here's another. What happens when you boil a pot
of water with radioactive isotopes with a half life of 1.3 billion
years? Every 1.3 billion years the energy output will be reduced by
half. If there is enough isotope mass then critical temperature can be
sustained for 10s of billions of years and you can essentially boil
that pot of water forever, despite the fact that it is also cooling.
How this analogy fits into Earth's geology is more complex. Obviously
we're not boiling water, we're boiling rock. And when rock cools it
does not remain liquid. Thus it has varying degrees of viscosity and
this also contributes to cooling. What I just described was
radioactive decay of Potassium 40, but this is not the only heat source
available to the Earth. Decay of other particles including Uranium
contribute. The gravitational stress of our proportionally large moon
may play a small part as well. As a result the energy output near the
core was about twice it is today nearly 2 billion years ago. So it is
cooling, and it is hot enough to remain liquid, and will be for
billions of years to come.
> There are active volcanos everywhere on Earth.
> They release huge amounts of heat.
> 2/3 of Oregon is 3000 feet deep of 'fresh' volcanic output.
> As I write this homes are evacuated because of imminent
> volcanic eruption in numerous places on Earth.
> You think the boiling has stopped?
> Why? Because that's what you are told?
How do you reconcile this argument with the fact that "cooling" does
not preclude "heating"? The interior of the planet is still being
heated, it's just being heated at a lower rate than before. "Turning
off the heat" is not how the geology of Earth works. Your analogy was
flawed.
> > > Is Earth expanding?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > >
> > > What's *your* 'right' story? Got one?
> > >
> >
> > There is really only one that fits the data, altho many details have to
> > be worked out. Unfortunately, it is not your story.
>
> In a nutshell- what is it?
In a nutshell:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/dynamic.html
> Are the 'details' things like plate movement, volcanic
> activity, excess heat output of all the big planets?
How can the largest and most obvious things be thought of as "details"
in this context? Don't obfuscate his words. You knew exactly what he
meant. And if you didn't, well then I'm sorry for you.
> > > John
> >
> > Kermit
Jonathan Silverlight
findlay <d...@tower.net.au> writes
>
>Kermit wrote:
>> don findlay wrote:
>>
>> As usual Don, you show yourself to be more skillful - presumably more
>> practiced - at dispensing insults than presenting data or answering
>> questions.
>
>I was a wide-eyed ingenue - till I met you (and the white noise like
>you). It's not so much practice, Kermit. The exchanges speak for
>themselves. I am your mirror.
>
>
>> So when are you going to present a paper? Attend a conference? Write a
>> book?
>
>I am/ I have. It will cost you less than a pizza.
I won't be buying, even if the book appears (we know that "I am/I have"
does not apply to writing a paper or attending a conference). You might
start by writing that article for Wikipedia, so the world outside a few
Usenet posters can comment on your ideas.
Timberwoof
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Where does the extra mass come from?
Timberwoof
veg...@accesscomm.ca wrote:
> Kermit wrote:
> > will1 wrote:
> > > I once had a friend that had talent and truly wanted to publish. He could
> > > write,his mind was full of ideas, and for all practical
> > > purposes, he believed he was a writer.
> > <snip sad but common story>
> > >
> > > Regards, Will E.
> >
> > All true. But our "job" here in talk.origins is to confront the
> > anti-science minions of darkness and confusion and keep them out of the
> > hair of folks wanting to do or discuss real science in informal fora.
> >
> > Personally, I am not a scientist, and this is one small way I can
> > contribute to civilization. It is not incidental that I learn to think
> > and speak more clearly on these issues, and develop the tools I need to
> > confront (in the big blue room) my fellow citizens who sometimes seem
> > hell-bent on destroying the little progress we've made in the last
> > couple of lifetimes.
>
> And why do you think the progress in the
> last hundred years has been so minimal?
It was a rhetorical tool. Given the astounding ignorance of science that some
people unashamedly exhibit, I quite agree with the intent.
> Is the Earth in better or worse shape because
> of the our en'light'ened science?
This is a fair question. But it's not quite part of this discussion. The
question at hand is whether any old crackpot can contribute to science; you're
asking whether science is "good." (People have always been figuring out how
things work and how to get things to work for us. In that regard, the science of
the past hundred years is qualitatively no different from what went on before.
It was always a question of the uses science has been put to. One of them, for
instance, is to enable us to talk about this.)
> As a non-scientist, why are you in a position
> to do a 'job' defending positions taken which preclude
> investigations in other directions than those deemed
> 'right'?
I don't grant your premise: you can do all the investigations you want in
whatever direction you want. But if those investigations are based on flawed
assumptions or lead to conclusions that have been elsewhere demonstrated to be
wrong, then you' have to expect people who know about such things to correct
you.
Consider the OP's babble about gravity and magnetic fields and pole reversals
and expanding earth. Is that your idea of an investigation in other directions
than those deemed 'right'? There's so much wrong that that to set it straight
would require a high school physics class. The usual response to that sort of
criticism is to deny that mainstream science has any truth to it at all ... yet
these "alternate" "theories" always use the terminology of mainstream science
but in ways that show that the "theorist" doesn't grasp the most basic concepts.
You want to call that an investigation? No, it's word salad. It's made-up
magical thinking.
> John
>
> >
> > And we have a had a few folks show up who were simply misinformed and
> > ignorant, and when pointed in the right direction, or had a few
> > misconceptions cleared up, joined us in defending and presenting the
> > scientific method. The effort is not wasted.
> >
> > Kermit
--
don findlay
WoOargh, ...OooOOOhhh, ..Will, ..what are you doing wakening that
monster? I know it's cyberspace, ..but I don't know if I want *THAT*
particular monster in my movie. What's wrong with the ones we've got?
Marc
don findlay wrote:
> Kermit wrote:
> > don findlay wrote:
> >
> > As usual Don, you show yourself to be more skillful - presumably more
> > practiced - at dispensing insults than presenting data or answering
> > questions.
>
> I was a wide-eyed ingenue - till I met you (and the white noise like
> you). It's not so much practice, Kermit. The exchanges speak for
> themselves. I am your mirror.
You are a lay-person geo-wannabe with a chance to get the latest
information from those with the data. Your credibility would benefit
from going to Melbourne NOW, rather than playing word-games
here with us. It takes three or four years for new ideas and data to
get into textbooks. It takes six months to a year for those ideas to
come out in peer-reviewed papers. Abstracts to this meeting would
have been submitted three or four months ago, but people can and
do write "between the lines" in their abstracts to cover data they
are *about* to analyse, so talks at such meetings are covering
ideas that might not be published for another year or so. And, Don,
this meeting also has field trips on offer - if you go, you can go
on one of those too. Why not go, Don? Why not? Tomorrow is
the main session for your area of interest - you can still get there.
http://www.earth2006.org.au/index.shtml
(signed) marc
.
malibu
And another is drowning polar bears.
>
> > As a non-scientist, why are you in a position
> > to do a 'job' defending positions taken which preclude
> > investigations in other directions than those deemed
> > 'right'?
>
> I don't grant your premise: you can do all the investigations you want in
> whatever direction you want. But if those investigations are based on flawed
> assumptions or lead to conclusions that have been elsewhere demonstrated to be
> wrong, then you' have to expect people who know about such things to correct
> you.
>
> Consider the OP's babble about gravity and magnetic fields and pole reversals
> and expanding earth. Is that your idea of an investigation in other directions
> than those deemed 'right'? There's so much wrong that that to set it straight
> would require a high school physics class. The usual response to that sort of
> criticism is to deny that mainstream science has any truth to it at all ... yet
> these "alternate" "theories" always use the terminology of mainstream science
> but in ways that show that the "theorist" doesn't grasp the most basic concepts.
> You want to call that an investigation? No, it's word salad. It's made-up
> magical thinking.
>
Mmmm-hmmm.
It wasn't suspected until 1986 that our galaxy has humongous magnetic
poles at right angles to its center.
Wow. Good grasp of magnetic fields guys.
'Predictive' actually does imply *some* sense of the structure
of reality around you.
>
> > John
> >
> > >
> > > And we /snip/
the royal 'we'?
:-)
John
will1
is the mob of angry village people bearing torches and wooden pitch forks
marching up my castle drive way at 2: in the morning. Instead, I see it
as a matter of choice. I do not need angry villagers beating down my front
door to validate my creations or for that matter, to validate my existence.
In my movie I have choices. In my movie I am the producer and editor, camera
man and sound engineer, actor and script wri... well, I am not sure WHO is
writing the script. I guess that is what science is trying to find out and
the spiritual already knows. You know, the meeting that Marc suggest you
attend could be a lot of fun. I've been to a few of them in the past and
learned things that were never taught in the class room. Will E.
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:1151880944.2...@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Petra
will1 wrote:
I guess that is what science is trying to find out and
> the spiritual already knows. You know, the meeting that Marc suggest you
> attend could be a lot of fun. I've been to a few of them in the past and
> learned things that were never taught in the class room. Will E.
Will,
And destiny fly's in the face of convention! There are two sides, but
one is so far ahead of the other and it makes one wonder how long does
it take to get from there to here? Too long in my book.
I too have attended and found most of it a snoozer. Not that the
material wasn't any good, just the presentations. I'd love to teach a
class on Pump It Up a bit because it gets to quiet in there. While the
rest of the world is focused on selling ideas and actually selling
them, science isn't that way. It's still a sale, but in the most
unusual way. It may be difficult for some to realize that a person has
less than 30 seconds, that's right less than 30 seconds in which the
person who sees them makes an assumption about them and it sticks
forever. So if one were to impress and they knew they had only less
than 30 seconds how might one prepare? Wear something other than
brown.
Brown is a an efficient color, but not one that attracts attention or
sells them. If all else fails, wear light blue. It has a nice eye
appeal, one that some might find sexy and be what puts them over the
top and certainly they won't blend into the background of a nearly full
house of "brownsters."
Of course I love to walk into a room full of men, but if it looks like
a sea of khaki you have to wonder who left their personality at home or
certainly who shops for them. I guess I should appreciate it's still a
mans world and even the women who attend seem to want to wear the same
apparel. Umm, that is a real problem. I've talked to some of them
about it and they said that is what attracted them to the occupation.
I say, Put A Skirt On! Get a blazer and shave those legs and don't
forget the under-arms as well.
Science needs a lift, but not the kind that you deliver to the seat of
the pants. It needs some pizzaz, a little hype and a voice that sounds
interested and interesting, like there was real life in the material.
There could be, but in the "we do" and so forth I think some of it gets
lost.
One hint: Always dress like you were going out on a date. Believe me,
your thoughts will be totally different than thinking you were going to
work or to a conference and those thoughts will be what makes you more
attractive than anyone else.
Just the humble opinion of a woman who thinks she may have seen it all.
Actually, I saw more than I wanted to and now I can't forget it.
Petra
Timberwoof
"Petra" <petr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Science needs a lift, but not the kind that you deliver to the seat of
> the pants. It needs some pizzaz, a little hype and a voice that sounds
> interested and interesting, like there was real life in the material.
> There could be, but in the "we do" and so forth I think some of it gets
> lost.
It does?
Try some PBS: Nova and Scientific American Frontiers are pretty
interesting. And there are tons of specials on cosmology all the time.
For that matter, have you read Scientific American or Discover lately?
Kermit
veg...@accesscomm.ca wrote:
> Kermit wrote:
> > malibu wrote:
> > > Timberwoof wrote:
> > > > In article <1151789457....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "malibu" <veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The Earth absorbs (gravitational) energy.
> > > > > This collects at its center until it
> > > > > imbalances the magnetic field.
> > > > > When the poles reverse the energy gets spun into matter.
> > > > > The Earth grows
> > > > > bigger and there is an increase in gravity.
> > > >
> > > > "That's not even wrong."
> > > >
>> > Jupiter gives off 2.6 times as
> > > much energy as it receives from the Sun.
> > >
> > > The 'official' story is
> > > that it is still cooling.
> >
> > Even official stories are often correct.
> >
> > >
> > > Is Earth still cooling?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Have you ever boiled a pot of water?
> What happens when the heat gets turned off?
> The boiling stops.
What happens when you turn the heat down? It is still hot, but not as
hot.
>
> There are active volcanos everywhere on Earth.
> They release huge amounts of heat.
> 2/3 of Oregon is 3000 feet deep of 'fresh' volcanic output.
> As I write this homes are evacuated because of imminent
> volcanic eruption in numerous places on Earth.
> You think the boiling has stopped?
> Why? Because that's what you are told?
I don't think that. Why would you think I think that?
>
> > > Is Earth expanding?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > >
> > > What's *your* 'right' story? Got one?
> > >
> >
> > There is really only one that fits the data, altho many details have to
> > be worked out. Unfortunately, it is not your story.
>
> In a nutshell- what is it?
Ummm... the mainstream story.
Google "plate tectonics" Most of the links will be helpful. The front
page is sure to have a synopsis with pictures.
> Are the 'details' things like plate movement, volcanic
> activity, excess heat output of all the big planets?
Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking.
It *sounds like you're asking if I think Punatubo is the result of
Jupiter's heat radiation, but that wouldn't make any sense.
> >
> > > John
> >
> > Kermit
still Kermit
Kermit
veg...@accesscomm.ca wrote:
> Kermit wrote:
> > will1 wrote:
> > > I once had a friend that had talent and truly wanted to publish. He could
> > > write,his mind was full of ideas, and for all practical
> > > purposes, he believed he was a writer.
> > <snip sad but common story>
> > >
> > > Regards, Will E.
> >
> > All true. But our "job" here in talk.origins is to confront the
> > anti-science minions of darkness and confusion and keep them out of the
> > hair of folks wanting to do or discuss real science in informal fora.
> >
> > Personally, I am not a scientist, and this is one small way I can
> > contribute to civilization. It is not incidental that I learn to think
> > and speak more clearly on these issues, and develop the tools I need to
> > confront (in the big blue room) my fellow citizens who sometimes seem
> > hell-bent on destroying the little progress we've made in the last
> > couple of lifetimes.
>
> And why do you think the progress in the
> last hundred years has been so minimal?
What makes you think it has been minimal? I think it's been grand. It
could have been better.
> Is the Earth in better or worse shape because
> of the our en'light'ened science?
I hope it will be better soon; but it will take changes in the way we
collectively think. And I don't mean by rejecting mainstream science, I
mean by behaving responsibly (ir not toward the planet, at least to the
future generations).
>
> As a non-scientist, why are you in a position
> to do a 'job' defending positions taken which preclude
> investigations in other directions than those deemed
> 'right'?
Not being a scientist *limits me in what I can do, not enables me. I
can't teach science, for example, or investigate this scientific puzzle
or that one. But I can fight scientific illiteracy in the general
population. I *do have a day job.
Quack science causes death, misdirects the little money available for
research and practical applications, and delays learning. It
contributes to general scientific illiteracy, and social decisions are
disastrous enough from greed and fear and ignorance; we don't need
wrong information famuddying the waters.
One example: Tom Bethell, author of "Politically Incorrect Science",
had convinced the former president of South Africa that HIV did not
cause AIDS. The result was a delay of years for effective treatment for
the disease, and steps for controlling the epidemic.
Plus, knowledge is valuable for its own sake.
Kermit
veg...@accesscomm.ca wrote:
> Kermit wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > There is really only one that fits the data, altho many details have to
> > be worked out. Unfortunately, it is not your story.
>
> In a nutshell- what is it?
> Are the 'details' things like plate movement, volcanic
> activity, excess heat output of all the big planets?
D'uh! I read the post five minutes later, and the little voice in my
head (no, not the psychosis, the one that reads other people's posts)
shifts the accent a little, and it becomes sensible.
Yes, those details. Altho I don't know why the big planets are
relevant, assuming you mean the gas giants.
If you really need a link, this one is pretty good:
http://www.platetectonics.com/book/index.asp
> >
> > > John
> >
> > Kermit
Petra
Timberwoof,
I don't much care for reruns, but at least on television and in
publications they are good enough to leave some of the digusting parts
as film on the floor or deleted from their computers so "we, the
public" don't have to see it.
As for current reading material, I recently chose to re-read QB VII by
Leon Uris because I wanted to read something that had some sense that
someone cared much about something. As we near the Fourth of July it's
a perfect read because a gripping tale about how million of persons
lost eveything they had, under circumstances which were dire, we who
live in a place which is supposed to have so much, frequently goes
unacknowledged.
While Americans are slowly losing their rights one after the other, we
should appreciate what we have and attempt to make this once great land
something worthy of being proud of. Heaven Help Us.
Petra
Petra
Timberwoof
"Petra" <petr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article <1151916566.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Petra" <petr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Science needs a lift, but not the kind that you deliver to the seat of
> > > the pants. It needs some pizzaz, a little hype and a voice that sounds
> > > interested and interesting, like there was real life in the material.
> > > There could be, but in the "we do" and so forth I think some of it gets
> > > lost.
> >
> > It does?
> >
> > Try some PBS: Nova and Scientific American Frontiers are pretty
> > interesting. And there are tons of specials on cosmology all the time.
> > For that matter, have you read Scientific American or Discover lately?
>
> Timberwoof,
>
> I don't much care for reruns, but at least on television and in
> publications they are good enough to leave some of the digusting parts
> as film on the floor or deleted from their computers so "we, the
> public" don't have to see it.
What are you talking about?
> As for current reading material, I recently chose to re-read QB VII by
> Leon Uris because I wanted to read something that had some sense that
> someone cared much about something. As we near the Fourth of July it's
> a perfect read because a gripping tale about how million of persons
> lost eveything they had, under circumstances which were dire, we who
> live in a place which is supposed to have so much, frequently goes
> unacknowledged.
And this has to do with giving science a "lift" how, exactly?
> While Americans are slowly losing their rights one after the other, we
> should appreciate what we have and attempt to make this once great land
> something worthy of being proud of. Heaven Help Us.
Heaven Help Us is exactly what the fundamentalists and other religious
political radicals have in mind.
Petra
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <1151992970....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Petra" <petr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Timberwoof wrote:
> > > In article <1151916566.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Petra" <petr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
Timberwoof, (see notes below)
>
> What are you talking about?
>
> > As for current reading material, I recently chose to re-read QB VII by
> > Leon Uris because I wanted to read something that had some sense that
> > someone cared much about something. As we near the Fourth of July it's
> > a perfect read because a gripping tale about how million of persons
> > lost eveything they had, under circumstances which were dire, we who
> > live in a place which is supposed to have so much, frequently goes
> > unacknowledged.
If you're looking for something to read which is "empowering" you'd
have to look outside of Scientific American you know.
>
> And this has to do with giving science a "lift" how, exactly?
>
> > While Americans are slowly losing their rights one after the other, we
> > should appreciate what we have and attempt to make this once great land
> > something worthy of being proud of. Heaven Help Us.
Your answer is one question past the last answer.... No Comment.
>
> Heaven Help Us is exactly what the fundamentalists and other religious
> political radicals have in mind.
Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?" For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.
Petra
don findlay
Petra wrote:
> Timberwoof wrote:
> Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"
Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)
Timberwoof
"Petra" <petr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article <1151992970....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Petra" <petr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Timberwoof wrote:
> > > > In article <1151916566.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "Petra" <petr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
>
> Timberwoof, (see notes below)
> >
> > What are you talking about?
> >
> > > As for current reading material, I recently chose to re-read QB VII by
> > > Leon Uris because I wanted to read something that had some sense that
> > > someone cared much about something. As we near the Fourth of July it's
> > > a perfect read because a gripping tale about how million of persons
> > > lost eveything they had, under circumstances which were dire, we who
> > > live in a place which is supposed to have so much, frequently goes
> > > unacknowledged.
>
> If you're looking for something to read which is "empowering" you'd
> have to look outside of Scientific American you know.
I didn't say I was looking for something "empowering". You said
> > > Science needs a lift, but not the kind that you deliver to the seat of
> > > the pants. It needs some pizzaz, a little hype and a voice that sounds
> > > interested and interesting, like there was real life in the material.
> > > There could be, but in the "we do" and so forth I think some of it gets
> > > lost.
> > And this has to do with giving science a "lift" how, exactly?
::Crickets chirping:::
> > > While Americans are slowly losing their rights one after the other, we
> > > should appreciate what we have and attempt to make this once great land
> > > something worthy of being proud of. Heaven Help Us.
>
> Your answer is one question past the last answer.... No Comment.
> >
> > Heaven Help Us is exactly what the fundamentalists and other religious
> > political radicals have in mind.
>
> Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?" For those of us
> who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
> intelligence than what's here on Earth.
Can you provide an objective test for identifying a "true believer"? I
submit that it can't be done.
Ken Shackleton
Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.
So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?
don findlay
Ken Shackleton wrote:
>
> Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
> You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
> anyone.
>
> So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?
I don't know how many times I've answered that one. Piss off, clever
dick.
Timberwoof
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
You've never answered that one. You've given some fairtyale "maybe"
answers, but nothing that can be demonstrated to work.
Ken Shackleton
Sorry...you have never provided any explanation for how the mass gets
into the core beyond some vague mass/energy conversion bullshit.
Ye Old One
You have NEVER answered it. So where does the mass come from Don? Put
up or shut up.
--
Bob.
Charles Cagle
Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
I can't tell by the terseness of the question if you suppose that if mass
appears that it must come from or be converted from some other form or
substance as in a conservative process or if you're simply interested in
the mechanism by which the universe is able to furnish itself with new
mass?
First let us address a couple of issues about the authority of a
question. We may wish to insist on conservation ruling everything but
that is a bit arrogant to insist that we have to have something to make
mass out of in the first place because, if in fact, you don't really know
what mass is... in the first place. It is true that all known
processes...chemical and nuclear are conservative. But is it likely there
are processes which we don't fully know about. But because we don't have
an answer then concerning the present mass that exists in the univerese...
where did it come from? So you have to insist rather weakly that all the
mass that exists has always existed.
So, let us just suggest that the universe has a mechanism to furnish
itself with new mass. I think HH-30, that Herbig-Haro Object, a stellar
jet system, is simply a large matter creation engine and it is spewing out
huge chunks of matter cyclically, in blobs that are about twice the size
of our entire solar system. Spitting them out one by one like big
machine gun bullets.
The mechanism that HH-30 uses is the same that the Earth uses... at the
core of our planet is a large scale flux loop structure and it is like a
big magnetic donut structure and it oscillates between the two modes of a
Del X E vector field and and Del X H vector field mode. HH-30 is going
through regular oscillations while the same type of structure that is in
the Earth is 'stuck' in the Del X E vector field mode and will be until it
is stimulated by the impact of several large solar flares or coronal mass
ejections in rapid succession. Then it will compress the field rapidly
enough to stimulate it into a mode change. So, when it reaches the Del X
H vector field mode it will be creating quantum scale copies of its basic
structure which at the quantum scale are simply neutrons. The sun's
standing wave boson structure the oscillation of which produces the solar
cycle ...solar minumum and solar maximum...goes through a mode change
about every 5.5 years. 11 years for a reversal and 22 years for a
complete cycle.
That's the basic picture. How do flux loop systems make those copies? By
having Poynting vector density changes that produce vector fields that
expand on the closed toroid's surface until they self intersect. At the
inner equator of a compact Del X H vector field the inner equator is of
the quantum scale so tiny little flux loops that are the same as neutrons
are produced in prodigious quantities. the neutron can be broken down to
produce an electron, a proton and an antineutrino (that is very likely a
photon). And I am suggesting that a fundamental charged particle like a
proton or an electron really consists of a finite number of dynamic or
changing one dimensional relationships between other 'bundles' of such
things. There is no hard marble there at all... these particles are
simply bundles of relationships and we've even had top physicists intuit
that matter is probably nothing more than that. Consider Lee Smolin's
words:
łTo understand what we mean when we say that space is discrete, we must put our
minds completely into the relational way of thinking, and really try to
see and feel the world around us as nothing but a network of evolving
relationships. These relationships are not among things situated in space
they are among the
events that make up the history of the world. The relationships define the
space, not the other way around.˛ (Smolin, 96)
The essence of this argument is that relationships can be established
symmetrically and the symmetry would be the basis of the conservation of
its attributes so that any process, whether or not we completely
understand it, even obeys or is consistent absolutely with Noether's
Theorem. The net momentum of the universe, for example, is easily seen to
be zero... yet momentum involves motion and then we come to the idea of a
wave function of the universe...
Quoting from Evan Squires of Univ. of Durham: "Lorentz-invariant Bohmian
Mechanics" [quant-ph/9508014 dtd 21 Aug 95 - avail from LANL preprint
archives] page 3: <begin quote>"Before proceeding we note, however, that
there is a simple case where the neglect of the final term is rather less
'natural'. This is when psi, and hence rho, is independent of time. Then
the rhs of eq. 1.2 is zero, which would suggest zero velocity as the
natural solution. The fact that the Bohm model need not give zero velocity
in such a situation may be significant in quantum cosmology (Valentini,
1992, Vink, 1992: Squires, 1992, 1994). Here, according to the
Wheeler-deWitt equation, the wavefunction of the universe (which is the
only wavefunction that actually exists!) is independent of time. This is a
consequence of the fact that the theory must be invariant under
reparameterisation of time. For any real solution of this equation, the
straightforward generalisation of Bohmian mechanics to quantum cosmology
predicts zero velocities, i.e., a universe in which nothing ever moves.
Presumably this is not a good prediction! There is of course an analogous
prediction in the microscopic world where for example the model predicts
that an electron in the ground state of a hydrogen atom does not move. In
this case, however, the result is not a problem because we know that
predictions for the results of measurements of the electron velocity,
which will be related to positions of certain probes, will be correct.
There is no similar escape in the cosmological case - a stationary
universe is simply a stationary universe! Thus it is essential to select a
(non-trivially) complex solution of the Wheeler-deWitt equation, and to
use the fact that such a wavefunction can give non-zero velocities, even
if the wavefunction itself is constant."<end quote>
Even though I think that Squires at that point wasn't necessarily buying
into the idea of all activity summing to zero (saying 'Presumably this is
not a good prediction!") he at least recognizes that possibility. The
reality is that we can say the same thing in a variety of ways and no one
actually objects until we try and make sense out of it in a unified
comprehensive whole of the universe.
Ultimately, we can say that relationships are mental constructs or that
all intellectual functions are based upon estabishing and maintaining and
altering relationships and making subsequent comparisions between prior
sets of relationships to even emerge with the concept of time. In the end
we can suggest that standing wave bosons are bundles of relationships and
hence are in and of themselves intellectual beings that are creative just
in creating new relationships. While we may try to tie it all down to
mathematics or establish a visual metaphor so that we may understand this
creative process... we may have to look no further than to our own
intellectual processes where we may under the watchful gaze of our own
Mind's Eye erect worlds and mansions and people. But in the meanwhile
the final verdict will be rendered when the Earth's standing wave boson is
stimulated into a mode change and in that state begins producing hundreds
of billions of tons of mass per second as it is evident that it has done
at least a 171 times with each dipole reversal event in the ancient past.
There is no real way to separate physics from philosophy and no way to
have philosophy without mind and the inscrutable thing we call mind is
that which we all (presumably... I can only speak for myself in this
matter) directly experience yet is the one thing which we have been unable
to quantify in normal physical terms like size and density and mass and
weight...
We'll just have to see, won't we? We'll come again once more to the place
of Mount Carmel and have a contest once again to see that the children of
this world can be reacquainted with the Living God who is able to manifest
fire to consume the sacrifice and consume the stones of the altar and to
lick up the water in the ditch. But instead of Mount Carmel... we will
have a mass generation episode in the core of the planet and instead of
taking the priests of Baal down to the brook and slaying them with the
Sword... we will resolutely stand fast and see the Words of all the
prophets manifested upon the disobedient upon the mockers and upon the
profane... The great solar maximum will finally arrive and the sun will be
clothed in blackness like a sackcloth of hair as swarms of sunspots cover
the face of the sun... The redshifting of the flux loops that make up the
sunspot loops comes about as a function of the charge separation effect
along the flux loop termini that occurs because each loops system produces
its own strong gravitational field. The resulting red shifted light shall
make the moon appear red (Joel 2:31 The sun shall be turned into darkness,
and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD
come.) then...Acts 2:20* The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the
moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
Revelation 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo,
there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of
hair, and the moon became as blood;˛
Then because the Earthšs magnetic field is down... solar flaring will be
able to come right down to ground level.
Revelation 16:8 ś And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun;
and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
9* And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God,
which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him
glory.
The mass generation occurring in the core will begin to be articulated in
a rapid increase in lithospheric tension... as the plates fail they will
produce great earthquakes that will throw down the buildings of thousands
of cities on the same day and produce tremendous tsunamis.
Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in
the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the
sea and the waves roaring;
Whole mountain systems will be pulled apart at their bases and will begin
to descend.
Ps 114:4* The mountains skipped like rams, and the little hills like lambs.
Isa 40:4* Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall
be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places
plain:
Island chains will disappear into the sea.
Rev 16:20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.
So, wešll see wonšt we? Wešll see if there is a physics that can account
for the Earth growing; for Europašs growth, for Ganymedešs growth, for
Enceladusš growth, for the growth of Mars and of the Earthšs moon.
Therešs one huge circular mountain chain on the far side of the moon that
is definitely not an impact crator (no splash trails) but rather the
natural effect of the collapse of portion of the spherical lithosphere due
to a curvature differential between the growing mantle and the
lithosphere; on a spherical surface it must collapse to a circular
mountain chain. S. Warren Carey called these kirkogens or circle
generators.
For those of you who believe that physics and God are incompatable
concepts... Well sure...the way that the academic community has been doing
physics, using illogical procesess... using a posteriori reasoning...
trying to establish the general based upon the specific. Yes.. God is all
about logic and reason and the rational mind. Intuition is the ability to
subconsciously extrapolate the data into a vision of the future...some men
are more blessed with that than others. The rational man uses deductive
logic because arriving at certainties has a greater survival value than
falsehoods and speculations... deductive logic is a thing the general
community of physicists have eschewed and demonstrated a disdain for
using. It is as if they truly do not want to know. Wešll soon see,
wonšt we? But there shall be no priests of Baal taken down to the brook
and slain with the Sword... instead theyšll be killed in a different way
this time.
Charles Cagle
--
for email delete underscores
"I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed Hid privily,
a measureless resource For man, and mighty teacher of all arts."
- Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus -
Ye Old One
I looked, very hard, for any real science in your article. There was
none - a load of rubbish.
--
Bob.
Timberwoof
<s_k_y_bolt99-0...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.mn.comcast.net>,
s_k_y_...@singtech.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
> In article <1152039807....@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
> Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > don findlay wrote:
> > > Petra wrote:
> > > > Timberwoof wrote:
> > >
> > > > Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"
> > >
> > > Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)
> > >
> > > > For those of us
> > > > who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
> > > > intelligence than what's here on Earth.
> > > >
> > > > Petra
> >
> > Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
> > You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
> > anyone.
> >
> > So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?
>
> I can't tell by the terseness of the question if you suppose that if mass
> appears that it must come from or be converted from some other form or
> substance as in a conservative process
That's precisely the question.
> or if you're simply interested in
> the mechanism by which the universe is able to furnish itself with new
> mass?
Nope. If the Earth is getting bigger, then either it is becoming less
dense by some unknown mechanism or it's gaining mass by some unknown
mechanism. Either way, it must be plausibly explained and evidence for
the process identified.
> First let us address a couple of issues about the authority of a
> question. We may wish to insist on conservation ruling everything but
> that is a bit arrogant to insist that we have to have something to make
> mass out of in the first place because, if in fact, you don't really know
> what mass is... in the first place.
That doesn't matter, so to speak. People have been doing experiments
with mass-conservation laws for two centuries and have found only
certain well-defined exceptions, and those still observe conservation
laws: matter plus energy is conserved.
> It is true that all known
> processes...chemical and nuclear are conservative. But is it likely there
> are processes which we don't fully know about.
Well, if the expanding-earthers think they've found such a process, then
it's up to them to demonstrate it in a laboratory.
> But because we don't have
> an answer then concerning the present mass that exists in the univerese...
> where did it come from? So you have to insist rather weakly that all the
> mass that exists has always existed.
So what? The question of the origin of the universe is separate from the
question of the origin of the mass for expanding earth.
> So, let us just suggest that the universe has a mechanism to furnish
> itself with new mass. I think HH-30, that Herbig-Haro Object, a stellar
> jet system, is simply a large matter creation engine and it is spewing out
> huge chunks of matter cyclically, in blobs that are about twice the size
> of our entire solar system. Spitting them out one by one like big
> machine gun bullets.
>
> The mechanism that HH-30 uses is the same that the Earth uses... at the
> core of our planet is a large scale flux loop structure
A what?
>and it is like a
> big magnetic donut structure and it oscillates between the two modes of a
> Del X E vector field and and Del X H vector field mode. HH-30 is going
> through regular oscillations while the same type of structure that is in
> the Earth is 'stuck' in the Del X E vector field mode and will be until it
> is stimulated by the impact of several large solar flares or coronal mass
> ejections in rapid succession. Then it will compress the field rapidly
> enough to stimulate it into a mode change. So, when it reaches the Del X
> H vector field mode it will be creating quantum scale copies of its basic
> structure which at the quantum scale are simply neutrons. The sun's
> standing wave boson structure the oscillation of which produces the solar
> cycle ...solar minumum and solar maximum...goes through a mode change
> about every 5.5 years. 11 years for a reversal and 22 years for a
> complete cycle.
Ah. I see. And your evidence for all this is what, exactly?
Now the rest of what you wrote is completely off into the weeds. Where
science falls short you turned to the Bible. Oh, and where's your
evidence that outer planets and moons grew? Does the Bible mention any
of that?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
Tom McDonald
Charles Cagle wrote:
<snip>
> But there shall be no priests of Baal taken down to the brook
> and slain with the Sword... instead theyšll be killed in a different way
> this time.
>
> Charles Cagle
Bingo! Re-reading this old thread, I was thinking that something
(really, someone) of the sorta physics nutbars was missing--but I
couldn't think who it might be.
And then Chuckles posts! Don't you love it when the Universe just falls
in place? :-)
Ken Shackleton
Charles Cagle wrote:
> In article <1152039807....@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
> Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > don findlay wrote:
> > > Petra wrote:
> > > > Timberwoof wrote:
> > >
> > > > Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"
> > >
> > > Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)
> > >
> > > > For those of us
> > > > who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
> > > > intelligence than what's here on Earth.
> > > >
> > > > Petra
> >
> > Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
> > You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
> > anyone.
> >
> > So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?
>
> I can't tell by the terseness of the question if you suppose that if mass
> appears that it must come from or be converted from some other form or
> substance as in a conservative process or if you're simply interested in
> the mechanism by which the universe is able to furnish itself with new
> mass?
It's a simple question really....I am not interested in how "the
universe is able to furnish itself with new mass", I am interested in
knowing HOW the earth could have expanded.
IF earth has expanded, then there must be a mechanism to explain that
expansion. I have assumed in my question that the average density of
the planet has remained unchanged....and if it has become larger while
maintaining density, then it has increased in mass.
So.....where did the mass come from? How did it get into the core?
If my initial assumption is incorrect and the earth has not increased
in mass, simply volume.....then it has reduced in density.....and if
that is the case....what happened to explain this [mechanism please]?
<snipped the blather>
don findlay
To begin with such an assumption (when you don't even know - like
everyone else doesn't know - exactly what mass is) places you
squarely in the centre of the box you are trying to break out of (if
your question is genuine). Everything we see of the ocean floors and
the geology of the continents (especially mountain belts continental
margins and stratigraphic sequence) is testimony to enlargement and
growth. I.e., everything we can see. Why do you put such store for
negation in what can't be seen, the destruction at subduction zones,
..when conceptually it is manifest nonsense. Transform faults, the
expression of creation of the ocean floors, don't even reach to the
Western Pacific margin. So what, then, about subduction? And the
Eastern pacific is "overriding". And what about subduction anyway,
when it is 'crust-pushing- everything- down' manifest nonsense?
The ocean floors grow by cell division - the cells being the segments
between transform faults. People thought Tesla was a nut for measuring
his piss and his shit, v. his food intake. Who knows, ..maybe he was
onto something. So if you want to get scientific about it, about
'origins, and talking about them, then you could do worse than apply
for a grant, ..it should be well received in this quarter..
(Now let's see if I'm still excluded from posting to t.o.)
Yup, ..it looks like I am.... (their loss)
Jonathan Silverlight
<timberwoof.spam-0E...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberw...@infernosoft.com> writes
Haven't you encountered Chuckie before? He also uses the name Ace
Schallger, among other aliases, and changes his email address to get
round kill files. Long time Usenet troll and kook.
Ye Old One
If he tries changing his email address around here he will soon get
his marching orders.
--
Bob.
Timberwoof
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
It is true that we don't know what mass "is" but we do know an awful lot
about how it behaves ... and how it doesn't. But with a PhD in geology,
you should know that.
It's interesting that you offer up all kinds of detailed explanations
everywhere except in the one question that everybody wants to know the
answer to, and there you deny that it's important, or you conveniently
leave it for someone else to figure out for you. No, you figure it out.
> places you
> squarely in the centre of the box you are trying to break out of (if
> your question is genuine).
One easy way to break people out of their little boxes would be for you
to explain to us all what it is about matter that everybody has been
overlooking over the past 200 years that allows for your claimed
expansion. But since you can't, people are understandably skeptical.
Conservation of mass and all that other inconvenient stuff has worked
remarkably well in all other sciences and even exceptions to the rule
have been found to observe yet another level of conservation laws.
You have some geological evidence and an explanation for it. There is
another explanation, and it nicely unifies the formation and geology of
the planet. Your explanation doesn't do that. Worse yet, it has some
serious problems and violates many other well-established principles. It
makes sense to reject that hypothesis in favor of a theory that has much
evidence supporting it. And you can't get away with disparaging that as
being stuck in a box.
Let's see now ... this system of investigation and theorizing we call
"science" has worked remarkably well誼etter than any other system蟻nd
you want us to abandon it on some flimsy evidence and violation of
principles derived from a whole lot of other evidence? That's not going
to happen.
> Everything we see of the ocean floors and
> the geology of the continents (especially mountain belts continental
> margins and stratigraphic sequence) is testimony to enlargement and
> growth.
No, it isn't. It surely doesn't explain the compressional folding of
mountain ranges. (Yes, I've seen that photo of one place in Tibet where
strata appear to be nice and horizontal. You ignored the other photos
other people showed where things are not like that at all.)
> I.e., everything we can see. Why do you put such store for
> negation in what can't be seen, the destruction at subduction zones,
> ..when conceptually it is manifest nonsense.
For one thing, it's plausible, unlike your expanding earth, which relies
on processes which can't be seen and are manifest nonsense.
> Transform faults, the
> expression of creation of the ocean floors, don't even reach to the
> Western Pacific margin.
You could have asked people about that at that geodynamics conference
you didn't attend. Except, of course, that you're the world's only
leading expert in the field, and everybody else in the world doing work
on that is deluded by conservation of mass.
Speaking of boxes, have you considered that the earth expansion may have
happened without requiring new mass, but resulting from a decrease in
the Earth's density? That would result in a decreased surface gravity,
of course, not an increased one as you seem to have claimed elsewhere.
What is your evidence for change in surface gravity?
> So what, then, about subduction? And the
> Eastern pacific is "overriding". And what about subduction anyway,
> when it is 'crust-pushing- everything- down' manifest nonsense?
Of course it's nonsense. That's why you keep repeating it although
you've been told many times by a number of experts in the field that
that's not how it works.
> The ocean floors grow by cell division - the cells being the segments
> between transform faults.
Manifest nonsense.
> People thought Tesla was a nut
People thought Bozo was a nut, too.
> for measuring
> his piss and his shit, v. his food intake. Who knows, ..maybe he was
> onto something.
Maybe he was relying on the law of conservation of mass in his
experimental design.
> So if you want to get scientific about it, about
> 'origins, and talking about them, then you could do worse than apply
> for a grant, ..it should be well received in this quarter..
>
> (Now let's see if I'm still excluded from posting to t.o.)
>
> Yup, ..it looks like I am.... (their loss)
Waaaaa!
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
don findlay
Timberwoof wrote:
> Let's see now ... this system of investigation and theorizing we call
> "science" has worked remarkably well‹better than any other system‹and
> you want us to abandon it on some flimsy evidence and violation of
> principles derived from a whole lot of other evidence? That's not going
> to happen.
"Not going to happen"? Of course it will. It already is:-
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/aabd694aa0aed345/?hl=en#
...though I'm not sure why they claim that recognising the weakest link
in the chain is a weak zone is some sort of new realisation. But
'Everything-Old is New-Again' is typical of the not-invented-here hype
when having to back-track. Add it to the growing realising of the
importance of spin (also back-tracking), and we might yet see Plate
Tectonics back up to that hundred-year-old cross-roads, and confront
what it has never been prepared to do, ... that the ocean floors are
growing, ..not moving.
> > Everything we see of the ocean floors and
> > the geology of the continents (especially mountain belts continental
> > margins and stratigraphic sequence) is testimony to enlargement and
> > growth.
> No, it isn't. It surely doesn't explain the compressional folding of
> mountain ranges. (Yes, I've seen that photo of one place in Tibet where
> strata appear to be nice and horizontal. You ignored the other photos
> other people showed where things are not like that at all.)
Mountains are eroded plateaus - nothing to do with crumpling of the
crust. You weren't paying attention in geomorphology. And globally
distributed Plateaus (to several kilometres in height above sea-level)
result from the changing curvature of the Earth as it slows and gets
bigger.... (You read it first here.) (as does tectonics) (which you
also read first here.)
> Speaking of boxes, have you considered that the earth expansion may have
> happened without requiring new mass, but resulting from a decrease in
> the Earth's density? That would result in a decreased surface gravity,
> of course, not an increased one as you seem to have claimed elsewhere.
> What is your evidence for change in surface gravity?
Talking about gravity density and volume anchors you securely in the
box you need to break out of. First you need to know what mass is.
Then how it comes into existence. Neither of those questions are
answered within geology. How it behaves once it does *IS* the business
of geology, and *that's* what you should be addressing.
> Of course it's nonsense. That's why you keep repeating it although
> you've been told many times by a number of experts in the field that
> that's not how it works.
That's the nonsensical corner PT has painted itself into - the crust
pushing the mantle down (to cause subduction zones) at the same time as
the mantle pushes the crust up - to cause the Eastern Pacific
Cordilleras. Neat trick, eh? ( "To every action there is an equal and
opposite reaction") ( Ptero-logic.)
> > The ocean floors grow by cell division - the cells being the segments
> > between transform faults.
>
> Manifest nonsense.
Transform faults define along-ridge growth by successive segmentation
of the ridge:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/transforms.html
(Another one you read here first.)
Ridges grow by exhumation of underplating, not dyke intrusion
(And yet another one..)
You've a lot to learn, Woof. But first you'll have to discard
everything you already are.. Your teachers have a job to do, that's
all. They're not interested in the veracity or otherwise of what
they're teaching. It's just 'curriculum'. And the Geological Society
of London for one at least, is concerned about it.
"This confusion extends beyond the National Curriculum into A/AS level
teaching. The problem that teachers and, for that matter, authors of
school text books have to face up to is that geologists need to employ
two different concepts of layering within the outer part of the Earth
to understand and explain geological processes"
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere
The "confusion" they're talking about is the confusion that is arising
within Plate Tectonics and its proper articulation - not mine. I'm
only drawing attention to it. It's the "confusion" that leads to such
nonsensical ideas as crustal collision giving mountains, and mantle
pushing crust up (or is it crust pushing mantle down?)
...And netiher by the way are academics particularly interested in the
veracity of it either. Their only interested in getting their papers
published, and the more confusion there is, the more it suits them to
do that. You can publish any rubbish provided you remain within the
jargon. Read Stuartie on "The Gift that Keeps on Giving" - straight
from the Horse's mouth:-
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/44b8e4fe6b316aae
.."keeps on giving..." - no matter how much you need to change it.
The goose that lays the golden egg. That's the 'science' you're
talking about - the science of consensus, though it seems you are not
aware of it. ("If it is consensus it is not science")
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
don findlay
you don't seem to understand what this business of science (/consensus,
enquiry, career scientists etc etc) is all about. You only think
you're learning something worthwhile 'cos you've exams to pass, and who
knows, ..maybe you want to be a teacher and teach all that garbage to
have other newslates lap it all up. Ask that Wiseguy how he's getting
on with his beachballs, ..and the assumptions that need to be made
there to make all those strike-slip faults strike-slip. ...and the
assumptions that need to be made to make subduction zones subduct.
(Bloody Hell, ...Ocean floors by dyke intrusion, ..that never cut
transform faults, ...A worldful of 'scientists' walking the walk,
talking the talk, ... I ask you..) (I mean I don't) There's
nothing in it even worth the time of day, it's so much garbage.
Timberwoof
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> Yeah, ..well, ..that shut you up, didn't it... Like most around here,
> you don't seem to understand what this business of science (/consensus,
> enquiry, career scientists etc etc) is all about. You only think
> you're learning something worthwhile 'cos you've exams to pass, and who
> knows, ..maybe you want to be a teacher and teach all that garbage to
> have other newslates lap it all up. Ask that Wiseguy how he's getting
> on with his beachballs, ..and the assumptions that need to be made
> there to make all those strike-slip faults strike-slip. ...and the
> assumptions that need to be made to make subduction zones subduct.
Oh. A Proof by Harangue. Boy, that will convince people.
> (Bloody Hell, ...Ocean floors by dyke intrusion, ..that never cut
> transform faults, ...A worldful of 'scientists' walking the walk,
> talking the talk, ... I ask you..) (I mean I don't) There's
> nothing in it even worth the time of day, it's so much garbage.
You're certainly not interested in any recent developments in
geodynamics, else you would have attended that conference. You could
have asked leading scientists some tough questions, but instead you just
went on posting your proofs by assertion, argument from incredulity, and
strawman arguments. I guess you do think you're the only smartest person
in the world, if you think you can get away with presenting your case
that way.
don findlay
Timberwoof wrote:
> You're certainly not interested in any recent developments in
> geodynamics, else you would have attended that conference. You could
> have asked leading scientists some tough questions,
Leading scientists eh? You mean about the blind? Or do you mean
something about a variation on 'bums' and sniffing them?
Art Deco
The Earth isn't expanding; rather, your brain is shrinking.
--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
Charles Cagle
<timberwoof.spam-0E...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
Sure..here's an equation for neutron genesis....
襲(subH)(subsubtau)/春=Del X H(sub tau) = n^o = neutrons
Where P=Poynting vector density, The H sub sub tau = is indicating that
this Poynting vector density change is occurring on an H flux toroid
structure.
Since such a structure is closed then the evolution of the vector field
indicated means that as it expands on the equipotential surface of the
flux toroid and that it must self intersect and that self intersection
will occur most predominantly at the inner equator that is at the quantum
scale. In a compact flux torus this produces tiny flux toroids at the
quantum scale that are neutrons.
Poynting vector density change indicates motion and since all motion
between quanta is relative then this can be compared to a partial
E/partial t.
Compact large scale flux toroids can produce matter...they make neutrons.
A flux toroid also is a gravitational source since any flux toroid can be
ideally reduced geometrically to a charge and its conjugate in
superposition. The neutrons so produced typically will accumulate along
the flux toroid's toroidal axis which is the gravitational terminus of any
flux toroid. Since a gravitational field is really a time rate gradient
structure any particles near the terminus will, from the viewpoint of any
outside observer, overlap in the same momentum space. When elmentary
charged particles are overlapping in the same momentum space they will
behave opposite to the expectations of Coulomb's law. Don't fight this
because this is easy to prove using Maxwell's equations and known
experimental data. You just never had anyone before who could look at the
data correctly. Therefore, any gravitational field of sufficient
intensity will produce a strong charge separation effect. Any neutrons
that decay while along the gravitational terminus loop will have their
emitted beta particle (electron) excluded from the gravitational terminus
region. The matter that accumulates, therefore, along that gravitational
terminus, will be undifferentiated into normal atomic species. I've
called such matter 'Isaacium' since the name Isaac in Hebrew means the
'laughter of disbelief' ...and I'm sure naysayers upon hearing of the
existence of Isaacium rings in the cores of stars and planets will laugh
in disbelief ...even if the physics associated with this actually answers
a host of questions in astrophysics and geophysics. When a flux torus
undergoes a mode change back to the Del X E vector field mode the
gravitational terminus loop rapidly expands. If the accumulated Isaacium
cannot rapidly accommodate itself to this expansion then it will be left
outside of the gravitational terminus region and will rapidly acquire
electrons (since the charge separation effect associated with the
gravitational loop isn't strongly present outside the terminus region) and
the Isaacium will begin to rapidly differentiate into a variety of atomic
species undergoing at least a 10e6 volumetric expansion from nuclear
volume to atomic volume. The acquisition of electrons by the Isaacium
produces a huge flux of gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet and the entire
visible spectrum. When this happens with a star we see a supernova and we
see that the primary signature of a supernova is a an expanding ring of
material. We should see that to get such an expanding ring we must start
with a ring in the first place. When the Earth's field returns to the Del
X E vector field mode the Isaacium explosively expands in the same fashion
and this produces a strong curvature differential at the mantle /
lithosphere boundary. Earth growth is cyclic and does not take aeons.
Gravity will collapse the cupping that occurs because of the rapid
curvature change and produce entire mountain chains almost overnight.
Other regions that have mountains will pull apart and entire mountain
systems will begin descending at the rate of hundreds of meters per hour.
To really understand all of this requires a completely new physics that
starts off with a completely new model for the unit charge. I can show
you how to derive the unit charge from first principles...meaning form a
simple set of nine quantum - quantum motion axioms. We can do it
deductively. Step by step and we end up with a unique model for the unit
charge and you actually completely understand the nature of charge and
once you understand the nature of charge it becomes absolutely
straightforward to unify electromagnetism and gravity. All we have ever
lacked is a proper model for the unit charge of a charged particle. A
bright high schooler can learn this and all he has to have is a basic
understanding of vector calculus. Once you know truly how relational the
universe actually is you'll come to a completely different vision of the
universe...one that works, one that will change just about everything you
now believe.
There's a very good 1886 Sci American account of a ball lightning event
(Curious Phenomenon In Venezuela
Cowgill, Warner; Scientific American, 55:389, December 18, 1886
) that upon modern analysis we can see that it was producing an intense
thermal neutron flux that severely injured nine persons.. the radiation
from that BL, because of its effects could only have been neutrons..not
gamma radiation, nor x-rays, nor ultraviolet nor beta particles but only
neutrons could have done what this event did. That account doesn't prove
neutron genesis but it was a great clue.
During plasma pinch experiments during Project Sherwood (1951-1958) huge
bursts of neutrons (10e8) were generated. They never figured out the
source of those neutrons though they tried hard. By the time the closed
down the program in 1958 they still hadn't solve the mystery of the orgin
of those neutrons ...and they had nearly identical results at multiple
labs that were involved in the program. The problem was that they were
looking for a conservative process instead of an electromagnetic new
geometry creating process.
Did your mother or father or some witless physics professor teach you that
if no one has yet seen a thing then it cannot exist?
You people have no clue as to the physics of ball lightning... one that
was two meters in diameter passed by a house in front of witnesses and
blew the nails out of the side of the house and pulled the nails out of a
door frame it came near.
Pace VanDevender of Los Alamos recently sent me an account of a 2 ft
diameter ball that excavated 200 cubic yards of wet peat in under 20
minutes. This was a well documented eyewitness account from Ireland in
1868. What?..you want to claim that you know all about physics... about
the orgin of mass? You want to explain how that ball managed to excavate
200 tons of wet earth in under 20 minutes with your crap physics that is
masquerading for wisdom these days in academia?
A frequent signature of BL is a loud humming... Why? because it is
oscillating between modes... For crying out loud, what do you think the
solar cycle is all about but a large scale flux loop system that is
oscillating between modes. Why is the output of HH-30 cyclic? What?
What? You can't put these pieces together? Why not?
Why do you suppose the cores of Sunspots are black except that there is a
gravitational terminus along the toroidal axis of a sunspot loop and that
produces a charge separation effect. The collapse of the loop produces a
huge radiation flux because electrons can now be acquired by the matter
along the loop. We call that a solar flare. How do you suppose all that
planetary debris managed to be in an orbit between Mars and Jupiter.. As
early as 1802 the scientists looking at the Asteroid belt correctly
intuited that it was the remains of an exploded planet.
Nobody had a mechanism for how a planet could explode so they begin to
disbelieve what their razor sharp intuition had already subconsciously
deduced.
I can hardly believe I live in such dark ages of physics that you people
cannot put all this together. HH-30 is generating mass in front of your
eyes. Planets grow.
Charles Cagle
No...you don't see. You probably cannot see. You are not among the
target audience. You are unable to correlate data in a logical fashion
even when it is handed to you on a platter. Don't worry about this. You
can't see because the truth is probably not in you and I've had enough
experience with the blind to know that I can't heal you. You have to
want to be healed. You have to want the truth more than anything else..
If you don't ...then you never will come into the possession of it. You
don't know about the solar cycle and its dipole reversals?
Next, I doubt that you even have a clue about what 'evidence' really is.
So, discussing it with you would be futile. Evidence is an unspecified
amount of data that an individual takes or accepts as being consistent
with an hypothesis. Proof is an arbitrary an unspecified amount of
evidence. But in logic ...proof has another meaning ...and you can
prove..using deductive logic quite a few things. But we always must start
with some sorts of axiom or postulates. How about you provide me with
the foundational postulates for existence? When you can do that ...feel
free to ask me for evidence or proof...Until... don't even entertain the
notion that you are half as clever as you think that you are.
> Now the rest of what you wrote is completely off into the weeds. Where
> science falls short you turned to the Bible. Oh, and where's your
> evidence that outer planets and moons grew? Does the Bible mention any
> of that?
What a silly question.. I'm not turning to the bible for proofs but for
hints. I can get hints of solar radiation scorching the earth from the
ancient Greek legend of Phaeton. It isn't proof but it points to the
truth. Likely solar flaring came to ground level during a dipole
reversal. Same thing happened anciently all over the world. See William
Toppings work on paleoindian sites that show 70,000-80,000 high energy
proton track per cm^2 in chert tailings from resharpening arrow and spear
heads. A solar flare came right down to ground level and according to
Topping probably reset all the radiocarbon clocks in the region (Northern
Michigan) by at least 10,000 years. That could only happen during the
period when the Earth's dipole magnetic field was down.
(Psalms 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in
secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.)
Charles Cagle
Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
How about from an an electromagnetic process that introduces new geometry
into the universe? Where does a new thought come from? If matter is
entirely relational like Lee Smolin postulates below... why must you
insist that it is somehow created out of something that must come from
somewhere as if its primary ingredients had to exist before it appeared?
³To understand what we mean when we
say that space is discrete, we must put our
minds completely into the relational way
of thinking, and really try to see and feel
the world around us as nothing but a
network of evolving relationships. These
relationships are not among things
situated in space they are among the
events that make up the history of the
world. The relationships define the space,
not the other way around.² (Smolin, 96)
Charles Cagle
Charles Cagle
findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Don...
I'm in your camp and admire your integrity. You are driven by a powerful
intuition of the Truth and this is something that your detractors have
little experience with. You don't know the source of the matter that
causes Earth growth and that is fine. Carey didn't know either but often
got sucked into playing the silly game of conservation physics. There's
lots of really plain 'evidence' of EE processes and you don't need to
provide a source for the new matter that makes the Earth grow ...let's be
fair...shall they tell you the source of the matter or the monad from
which emerged their own hypothetical 'Big Bang'? Of course, not...but
because of a 2.7 K background radiation they believe in the Big Bang...
there's far more geomorphological evidence for Earth growth than there is
for a Big Bang but these facts won't shut these hounds of hell up.
You're not dealing with men with a moral conscience, Don, not for the most
part... you're dealing with people who don't understand the raw intuitive
power of a truly operational intellect that can subconsciously arrive at
the truth far ahead of the evidence chain. You can assemble a diverse
quantity of data and they cannot. They are not able. And you have to
realize this one thing... they hate you for that power of yours. Think
about it. Why the anger and ridicule from them? Because you are like a
man with an axe at the base of the tree they are living in. They hate
you and every person like you who represents the slightest threat to their
belief system. Why do they hate you? It is pretty simple. They believe
they consist entirely of that which they believe and if you threaten what
they believe in...then you threaten them indirectly... They have no
foundation outside of their own egos.
Here's a nice equation that explains:
Objectivity is seeing the universe how it really is.
Subjectivity is seeing the universe from a narrow viewpoint.
Objectivity = 1/subjectivity
Subjectivity = ego
Obj=1/ego
The more you can reduce the ego...the need to see things from a strictured
narrow paradigmatic viewpoint then the greater access you have to seeing
the universe the way that it truly is. So, those who hate
you...well...Don...they are ego people...and you're threatening them.
They can't get off of the road that they are on...they are unable to let
go of what they think they know for sure to actually grab ahold of
something true.
They lack courage. They lack character. Consider them tares.
I used to get into flame wars with these people and people like them...
At first I ignored them...then I fought back; then I heaped as much abuse
on them as they did on me and I found that if I tirelessly kicked these
dogs then they'd actually go away for awhile but then I had to look at
myself and I realized I had become just like they were...vicious,
hateful... nasty... Wow! I had to stop... I withdrew ...mostly...from
posting for a couple of years... no point in becoming like those people.
So, the best thing is to not address their ad hominem comments because
....really ...what is the point?.. They hate me, we're not ever going to
become friends nor ever enter into a substantive discussion...so let them
post their vitriol and ignore them. They hate everything I stand for.
They hate truth...They hate the idea that deductive processes ought to
rule scientific inquiry. They hate God. These people, for the most
part...especially those who are your antagonists with degrees... are rule
learners. They are able to learn complex sets of rules and because they
learned those rules in an academic setting that rewarded that sort of
behavior they believe all the rules they learned are true and they never
think deeply about them nor question them. So, Don...don't you know that
you are attacking the very foundation of these peoples souls by suggesting
something outside of their comfort zone? You are not a rule learner...
you have to understand the truth and are not satisfied with less. Rule
learners are always satisfied with less until peer pressure forces them to
expand a bit.
Best Regards... and keep going guy!
Ken Shackleton
Charles Cagle wrote:
> In article <1152039807....@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
> Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > don findlay wrote:
> > > Petra wrote:
> > > > Timberwoof wrote:
> > >
> > > > Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"
> > >
> > > Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)
> > >
> > > > For those of us
> > > > who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
> > > > intelligence than what's here on Earth.
> > > >
> > > > Petra
> >
> > Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
> > You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
> > anyone.
> >
> > So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?
>
> How about from an an electromagnetic process that introduces new geometry
> into the universe? Where does a new thought come from? If matter is
> entirely relational like Lee Smolin postulates below... why must you
> insist that it is somehow created out of something that must come from
> somewhere as if its primary ingredients had to exist before it appeared?
Ok...fine....don't explain where the mass comes from then.
Try this then...what empirical evidence exists that shows that the
earth has become more massive over time on a scale sufficient to
explain the proposed doubling of the radius over the past 300 million
years....that would be a 8x increase in mass....or additional mass of
5.25 x 10^24 kgs....that works out to [if my math was accurate] about
2x10^12 kgs of additional mass every hour for the past 300 million
years.
That's 2 billion tonnes per hour....
What evidence is there that the earth has gained this additional mass
every hour for the last 300 million years?
don findlay
Why do you assume it happens every hour? Couldn't it four billion
tonnes every two hours? Or one billion every half an hour? Why do you
think your minutes and hours and tonnes are of interest to Mother? Why
do you think quantifying it like that is telling you anything more than
is obvious anyway?
So *you* don't know how it's happening. What's that got to do with the
fact that it is?
Jonathan Silverlight
<s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.or.comcast.net>,
Charles Cagle <s_k_y_...@singtech.com> writes
nonsense snipped
>Earth growth is cyclic and does not take aeons.
>
The problem with this sort of pseudo-scientific nonsense is that its
last point is easily disproved by observations of the Moon. The length
of the day is accurately known back to about 400 million years. A recent
paper looks at the orbit soon after the Moon (and the Earth) formed
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/313/5787/652> Therefore the
mass of the Earth-Moon system has remained roughly the same as it is
now.
And we don't need any exotic theories, because plate tectonics is a
reality and has probably been active for 3 billion years
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7102/edsumm/e060803-13.html>
Geological evidence for a geologist, Don.
>What a silly question.. I'm not turning to the bible for proofs but for
>hints. I can get hints of solar radiation scorching the earth from the
>ancient Greek legend of Phaeton. It isn't proof but it points to the
>truth. Likely solar flaring came to ground level during a dipole
>reversal. Same thing happened anciently all over the world. See William
>Toppings work on paleoindian sites that show 70,000-80,000 high energy
>proton track per cm^2 in chert tailings from resharpening arrow and spear
>heads. A solar flare came right down to ground level and according to
>Topping probably reset all the radiocarbon clocks in the region (Northern
>Michigan) by at least 10,000 years. That could only happen during the
>period when the Earth's dipole magnetic field was down.
>
You don't include a citation for Topping's work, probably because you
seem to be misrepresenting what he and Richard Firestone are saying. So
here is one
<http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nuclear.html>
What they actually claim is neutron bombardment, possibly from a
supernova.
Richard Firestone, at least, is a respectable scientist who has posted
his work on a US government web site
<http://ie.lbl.gov/Paleo/paleo.html> but are their ideas widely
accepted?
don findlay
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> In message
> And we don't need any exotic theories, because plate tectonics is a
> reality and has probably been active for 3 billion years
> <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7102/edsumm/e060803-13.html>
> Geological evidence for a geologist, Don.
You mean the light floating crust pushing the dense sinking mantle
down?
Or the dense sinking mantle pushing the light floating crust up? :-)
I hope you're not posting from talk origins are you?, 'cos if you are
they don't like you talking about geological stuff there. Well they
don't like me talking about. Evidently if you are then they like it
when you do it, but not when I do. Watch them shoo you off.
Anyway, .. that thing in Nature is pure B.S. I see JF Moyen puts his
name to it. We haven't heard from him since Stuart put him right about
convection cells not existing,
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/591f693772206dec
And that was years ago. Hurray for Stuart.. (And buoyancy). Stuart
the Subduction-Slayer. ( Mind you, we don't here much from Stuart
either these days..) And here he is (JFM) shouting about it in the
Archean, on account of what? "circumstantial evidence for subduction
processes, including possible accretion-related structures2" and
mineral assemblages suggesting temperature pressure gradients. To true
believers every blinking foliation plane in the Archaean is a
subduction zone. How do you go into the Barberton, and recognise a
subduction zone? Have you seen the scale of that thing on a map? And
compare it with any bit of any present-day subduction zone?
J. Taylor
<j...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>In message
><s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.or.comcast.net>,
>Charles Cagle <s_k_y_...@singtech.com> writes
>
>nonsense snipped
>
>>Earth growth is cyclic and does not take aeons.
>>
>
>The problem with this sort of pseudo-scientific nonsense is that its
>last point is easily disproved by observations of the Moon. The length
>of the day is accurately known back to about 400 million years. A recent
>paper looks at the orbit soon after the Moon (and the Earth) formed
><http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/313/5787/652> Therefore the
>mass of the Earth-Moon system has remained roughly the same as it is
>now.
Talk about babble
The article says, "Moon may have...."
Jonathan Silverlight says, "known"
Sorry, I will take the evidence from 70% of the Earth's surface over
your evidence any day.
As for the rest of your evidence in support of LOD and moon orbit in
the past, it is so limited one could and they have, make just about
anything they want out of it, and since it is used to support what you
think you know, you do not question it.
>And we don't need any exotic theories, because plate tectonics is a
>reality and has probably been active for 3 billion years
><http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7102/edsumm/e060803-13.html>
>Geological evidence for a geologist, Don.
Never mind the Pacific Paradox, in the mind of the faithful all
miracles are real.
JT
Jonathan Silverlight
<nchi...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> writes
I had to do some searching to find anything about the "Pacific Paradox"
and it's only mentioned in a geological context in a handful of
"expansionist" web sites. Could you point me to an independent document
that shows that "the circumference of the Pacific has actually increased
by nearly fifty per cent."
<http://microlnx.com/expansion/rogue_scientist.htm>
There's no reason for the Pacific to expand, because it's currently
contracting, as shown by GPS measurements
<http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html> - yes, I know I've posted
this before - and suggested by subduction. It was the discovery of
subduction in the Pacific that led most people to abandon expansion,
which had been proposed to explain the expanding Atlantic.
A more general point. Expansionists always talk about the last 200
million years, because that's the dates of the oldest sea floor. What
happened in the 4000 million years before that?
J. Taylor
<j...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <6og7e25vfsf498u35...@4ax.com>, J. Taylor
><nchi...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> writes
>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:04:04 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
>><j...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>And we don't need any exotic theories, because plate tectonics is a
>>>reality and has probably been active for 3 billion years
>>><http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7102/edsumm/e060803-13.html>
>>>Geological evidence for a geologist, Don.
>>
>>Never mind the Pacific Paradox, in the mind of the faithful all
>>miracles are real.
>>
>>JT
>
>I had to do some searching to find anything about the "Pacific Paradox"
>and it's only mentioned in a geological context in a handful of
>"expansionist" web sites.
And that in some way makes questionable its validity?
Are you suggesting a matter stands or falls by the number of people
endorsing it and has nothing to do with an objective standard? Of
course you are!
Why do you even bother yourself with the matter? It is obvious you do
not want to know what is going on, but to stand squarely in the middle
of the most popular view, regardless of whether it actually reflects
anything more than group think.
> Could you point me to an independent document
Hey, I have an idea, what if you just thought independently and
evaluate the matter and came to a conclusion from the facts. I know
that is just to kooky for you.
>that shows that "the circumference of the Pacific has actually increased
>by nearly fifty per cent."
><http://microlnx.com/expansion/rogue_scientist.htm>
>There's no reason for the Pacific to expand, because it's currently
>contracting, as shown by GPS measurements
><http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html>
Just give it a little thought. Everything in the Western Pacific is
less than 200my and presumably on a constant radius, the half east of
the ridge would have spread an equal amount. Yet, most of it is not
there.
Which means, on a constant radius, as the ridge in the Atlantic
spread, N. America and S. America were moving to the east, (Never mind
on Scotese's animation the ridge in the Atlantic is also moving east
because the problem is complicated enough) at the same time as the
ridge in the Pacific is spreading, and at nearly twice the rate of the
spread in the Atlantic.
Now using either slab pull or push you run into a problem, a paradox
to be precise. If slab pull and same subduction zone, then both
should be of equal rate. If slab push then N. & S. America should
have went the other way.
If slab pull and two different subduction zones, the subduction zone
pulling the spreading in the Atlantic would need to be at the exact
point where the spreading in the Pacific is taking place to have
pulled to its present location and the other subduction zone would
need to be back somewhere near where N. America was before the
spreading to subduct all the old ocean floor which would have been
between the ridge and N. America. Clearly, a complicated deal, if not
an impossible one.
>- yes, I know I've posted
>this before - and suggested by subduction. It was the discovery of
>subduction in the Pacific that led most people to abandon expansion,
>which had been proposed to explain the expanding Atlantic.
I do not know if that is true, nor does it make a bit of difference,
the paradox still exist.
>A more general point. Expansionists always talk about the last 200
>million years, because that's the dates of the oldest sea floor. What
>happened in the 4000 million years before that?
Hey, you cannot see 200 my back, what hope do you have of seeing
anything 4000 mya?
JT
don findlay
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> In message <6og7e25vfsf498u35...@4ax.com>, J. Taylor
> <nchi...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> writes
> >On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:04:04 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
> ><j...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>And we don't need any exotic theories, because plate tectonics is a
> >>reality and has probably been active for 3 billion years
> >><http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7102/edsumm/e060803-13.html>
> >>Geological evidence for a geologist, Don.
What reality?
> >Never mind the Pacific Paradox, in the mind of the faithful all
> >miracles are real.
> >
> >JT
>
> I had to do some searching to find anything about the "Pacific Paradox"
> and it's only mentioned in a geological context in a handful of
> "expansionist" web sites. Could you point me to an independent document
> that shows that "the circumference of the Pacific has actually increased
> by nearly fifty per cent."
> <http://microlnx.com/expansion/rogue_scientist.htm>
> There's no reason for the Pacific to expand, because it's currently
> contracting, as shown by GPS measurements
> <http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html> - yes, I know I've posted
> this before - and suggested by subduction. It was the discovery of
> subduction in the Pacific that led most people to abandon expansion,
> which had been proposed to explain the expanding Atlantic.
No it wasn't. It was as it still is, the belief that there was no way
it could happen. It was more acceptable to make to make an assumption
that validated current 'knowledge' - that there must have existed an
expanse of ocean equal in area to what we see at the present day, and
that has been destroyed to make way for the present one. The
transforms faults of the Western Pacific do not reach to the Asian
subduction zone. And in the Eastern Pacific the Americas are
*overriding* due to the opening of the Atlantic (the Pacific is not
subducting) ..as all the now-so-called *flat subduction* and *suspect
Terrains* to the north show.
> A more general point. Expansionists always talk about the last 200
> million years, because that's the dates of the oldest sea floor.
That's because the expansion is most obviously recognisable
(emplacement of the ocean floors) (amazing how what is so obvious to
anybody disappears when you make a scientific assumption according to a
scientific belief.)
> What
> happened in the 4000 million years before that?
The entire build-up of stratigraphic sequence is an expression of
outwards growth of the Earth's surface and the balance with sea-level,
which also moves outwards. Do you think it's taken 4,000my for erosion
to get to where it is now? What do *You* think keeps causing uplift of
the land? Continental collision? Just about everywhere on Earth out of
the Archaean and Proterozoic the strata are *flat*. Do you know just
how much of the Earth's surface is taken up by mountain belts?
(beginning in the oceans,..for example, ..the biggest mountian belts on
the planet, etc etc ..extensional ..etc etc..)
Or maybe you could have it as Isostatic uplift - Bounce? In Plate
Tectonics, what makes the Earth bounce up, ..*GLOBALLY* ?
So, ..one for you, ..what is it that does that? Got an ansa? in Plate
Tectonics? The Jewel in the crown of the Earth Sciences?
J. Taylor
Sorry, not trying to make this any more complicated than it is, but N.
& S. America and the ridge all move to the west.
Timberwoof
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
That happens a lot. I know this guy Don Findlay who "knows" that the
Earth expanded between 200 million years ago and now, and he's perfectly
willing to assume that everything learned about the behavior of mass
over the past two hundred years is wrong.
Oh., that's you, Don! Hi, there. I thought you were tired of talking to
geologists.
don findlay
I am. It fatigues me no end, ..having to talk to *such* bloody idiots,
..if they can't work out what the emplacement of the ocean floors means
without having to make up all sorts of absurd assumptions, ..and
recognise *THAT* for what it is - *THE* opportunity for more research,
..not all those other piddling idiocies that they try to pass off as
Earth Science - Like "Blobtonics", "Mantle Wind", "Ridge-push,"
"Subduction", .."light crust pushing dense mantle down" "mantle suck"
.. etc etc.. idiocies that never go anywhere except round in a
circle.
If you or anybody else can come up with a type area for continental
collision for example
http://tinyurl.com/pcuo8
- to go with all the ocean floor dilation - and how that collision is
manifested, we'd all be pretty glad to hear it.
And when you've done that, come up with a global reason how you get
global uplift to preserve the global monty of global stratigraphic
sequence since the Cambrian to preserve it on the continental crust.
Globally.
If you can do that we'll forgive you thinking about why that event
coincided (more or less) with the explosion of life on the planet.
(Or maybe you'd rather just go and read the book everybody's been
reading for the last half century, and consider yourself supping from
the Well at the World's End, ....and educated. Like that dope
'George'.
:-)
Timberwoof
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Like Earth expansion that started only in the last 200 million years and
stopped right before we started looking. That's pretty absurd.
> ..and
> recognise *THAT* for what it is - *THE* opportunity for more research,
> ..not all those other piddling idiocies that they try to pass off as
> Earth Science - Like "Blobtonics", "Mantle Wind", "Ridge-push,"
> "Subduction", .."light crust pushing dense mantle down" "mantle suck"
> .. etc etc.. idiocies that never go anywhere except round in a
> circle.
Especially with your straw-man arguments which you have repeated so many
times you confuse them with facts.
> If you or anybody else can come up with a type area for continental
> collision for example
> http://tinyurl.com/pcuo8
> - to go with all the ocean floor dilation - and how that collision is
> manifested, we'd all be pretty glad to hear it.
>
> And when you've done that, come up with a global reason how you get
> global uplift to preserve the global monty of global stratigraphic
> sequence since the Cambrian to preserve it on the continental crust.
> Globally.
I don't agree with the premise of global uplift.
> If you can do that we'll forgive you thinking about why that event
> coincided (more or less) with the explosion of life on the planet.
So the Cambrian event happened on Earth 450 million years ago and the
Earth started to expand 250 million years later. I think I can see the
connection.
> (Or maybe you'd rather just go and read the book everybody's been
> reading for the last half century,
No ... modern articles written in the last half decade or so.
> and consider yourself supping from
> the Well at the World's End, ....and educated. Like that dope
> 'George'.
>
> :-)
--
don findlay
Nah, ..you've got the wrong end of the stick. Nobody's saying it
started with the opening of the oceans. Once the mantle was
penetrated, it *accellerated*, ..that's all. Imagine keep eating and
getting really, really fat, and then suddenly you can't any more and
you pop and your guts splurge out. And keep splurging out. Are you
saying it's OK not to count the getting-fat bit in the damage, but just
count the mess? That's the opiate of the obese. ("..I'm not fat, ..
There's no mess yet." ) ("..Once there's mess, I'll maybe think think
about it, ..maybe, ..) That's a real cop-out! No copping-out
allowed. If you're going to insist on getting fat, you have to count
the eating part, not just the mess. See? And the eating bit is the
layers and layers of stratigraphic sequence.
> > ..and
> > recognise *THAT* for what it is - *THE* opportunity for more research,
> > ..not all those other piddling idiocies that they try to pass off as
> > Earth Science - Like "Blobtonics", "Mantle Wind", "Ridge-push,"
> > "Subduction", .."light crust pushing dense mantle down" "mantle suck"
> > .. etc etc.. idiocies that never go anywhere except round in a
> > circle.
>
> Especially with your straw-man arguments which you have repeated so many
> times you confuse them with facts.
> > If you or anybody else can come up with a type area for continental
> > collision for example
> > http://tinyurl.com/pcuo8
> > - to go with all the ocean floor dilation - and how that collision is
> > manifested, we'd all be pretty glad to hear it.
> >
> > And when you've done that, come up with a global reason how you get
> > global uplift to preserve the global monty of global stratigraphic
> > sequence since the Cambrian to preserve it on the continental crust.
> > Globally.
>
> I don't agree with the premise of global uplift.
Well, that's at least something. There's hope for you yet. Or do you
really mean you don't agree with global drop in sea level? (Careful
now.)
> > If you can do that we'll forgive you thinking about why that event
> > coincided (more or less) with the explosion of life on the planet.
>
> So the Cambrian event happened on Earth 450 million years ago and the
> Earth started to expand 250 million years later. I think I can see the
> connection.
Take it easy now. Do the simple one first.
> > (Or maybe you'd rather just go and read the book everybody's been
> > reading for the last half century,
>
> No ... modern articles written in the last half decade or so.
'Modern' articles framed in the current paradigm of plate tectonics are
virtually valueless, serving the interest of careers only, not science.
A science that is built on a theory underpinned by the assumption that
is its conclusion, is *Junk*
Timberwoof
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Something I have asked for since I got in on this conversation was
essentially a graph of the supposed size of the Earth over the past 4.5
billion years. But nobody has ever provided the information, let alone
any evidence of a mechanism that would explain it, or what the current
rate of expansion is.
Never mind that you can't remember when I first asked the question. So
tell me: how big was the Earth for every 50 million years over the past
4500 million years?
> Imagine keep eating and
> getting really, really fat, and then suddenly you can't any more and
> you pop and your guts splurge out.
Where does the mass come from?
>And keep splurging out. Are you
> saying it's OK not to count the getting-fat bit in the damage, but just
> count the mess? That's the opiate of the obese. ("..I'm not fat, ..
> There's no mess yet." ) ("..Once there's mess, I'll maybe think think
> about it, ..maybe, ..) That's a real cop-out! No copping-out
> allowed. If you're going to insist on getting fat, you have to count
> the eating part, not just the mess. See?
Velikovsky suggested that Jupiter puked Venus. Maybe Earth eats
planetoids to gain the mass it needs to gain weight.
> And the eating bit is the
> layers and layers of stratigraphic sequence.
So the new mass gets added on top? That doesn't make sense if the Earth
expanded form the inside.
> > > ..and
> > > recognise *THAT* for what it is - *THE* opportunity for more research,
> > > ..not all those other piddling idiocies that they try to pass off as
> > > Earth Science - Like "Blobtonics", "Mantle Wind", "Ridge-push,"
> > > "Subduction", .."light crust pushing dense mantle down" "mantle suck"
> > > .. etc etc.. idiocies that never go anywhere except round in a
> > > circle.
> >
> > Especially with your straw-man arguments which you have repeated so many
> > times you confuse them with facts.
>
>
> > > If you or anybody else can come up with a type area for continental
> > > collision for example
> > > http://tinyurl.com/pcuo8
> > > - to go with all the ocean floor dilation - and how that collision is
> > > manifested, we'd all be pretty glad to hear it.
> > >
> > > And when you've done that, come up with a global reason how you get
> > > global uplift to preserve the global monty of global stratigraphic
> > > sequence since the Cambrian to preserve it on the continental crust.
> > > Globally.
> >
> > I don't agree with the premise of global uplift.
>
> Well, that's at least something. There's hope for you yet. Or do you
> really mean you don't agree with global drop in sea level? (Careful
> now.)
I don't agree with either.
> > If you can do that we'll forgive you thinking about why that event
> > > coincided (more or less) with the explosion of life on the planet.
> >
> > So the Cambrian event happened on Earth 450 million years ago and the
> > Earth started to expand 250 million years later. I think I can see the
> > connection.
>
> Take it easy now. Do the simple one first.
Yeah, they both supposedly happened on the same planet.
> > > (Or maybe you'd rather just go and read the book everybody's been
> > > reading for the last half century,
> >
> > No ... modern articles written in the last half decade or so.
>
> 'Modern' articles framed in the current paradigm of plate tectonics are
> virtually valueless, serving the interest of careers only, not science.
> A science that is built on a theory underpinned by the assumption that
> is its conclusion, is *Junk*
That's just a stupid ad-hominem attack. You've got to come up with
something better than that.
Charles Cagle
Silverlight <j...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.or.comcast.net>,
> Charles Cagle <s_k_y_...@singtech.com> writes
>
> nonsense snipped
>
> >Earth growth is cyclic and does not take aeons.
> >
>
> The problem with this sort of pseudo-scientific nonsense is that its
> last point is easily disproved by observations of the Moon.
An absolutely empty claim.
> The length
> of the day is accurately known back to about 400 million years.
Reasonable discourse requires that you know when you are articulating a
fact vs. a highly speculative opinion. You don't. The reality is that
you should consider that the existence of a mass generation mechanism
means that the very foundational basis of the radiometric dating of rock
has no merit.
A recent
> paper looks at the orbit soon after the Moon (and the Earth) formed
> <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/313/5787/652> Therefore the
> mass of the Earth-Moon system has remained roughly the same as it is
> now.
What you accept as authoritative is generally without any true scientific merit.
> And we don't need any exotic theories, because plate tectonics is a
> reality and has probably been active for 3 billion years
> <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7102/edsumm/e060803-13.html>
> Geological evidence for a geologist, Don.
>
> >What a silly question.. I'm not turning to the bible for proofs but for
> >hints. I can get hints of solar radiation scorching the earth from the
> >ancient Greek legend of Phaeton. It isn't proof but it points to the
> >truth. Likely solar flaring came to ground level during a dipole
> >reversal. Same thing happened anciently all over the world. See William
> >Toppings work on paleoindian sites that show 70,000-80,000 high energy
> >proton track per cm^2 in chert tailings from resharpening arrow and spear
> >heads. A solar flare came right down to ground level and according to
> >Topping probably reset all the radiocarbon clocks in the region (Northern
> >Michigan) by at least 10,000 years. That could only happen during the
> >period when the Earth's dipole magnetic field was down.
> >
>
> You don't include a citation for Topping's work, probably because you
> seem to be misrepresenting what he and Richard Firestone are saying. So
> here is one
> <http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nuclear.html>
Don't always assume the worst about people. My failure to provide a
citation doesn't mean a thing. You are attempting to impose the dishonest
workings of your own mind (upon which you are an authority because you
daily experience it) on to others.
I cut this some years ago.
http://topping.www-user.imagiware.com/PIFLARE.htm
Cosmogenic radiocarbon as a source of error at Paleo-Indian sites and
evidence for a giant solar flare in prehistory.
William Topping
Rt. 2, Box 2779, Baldwin, Michigan 49304 USA
partial quote "The evidence from Paleo-Indian sites leads to the
conclusion that a giant flare increased the proportion of radiocarbon in
charcoal at archaeological sites in place at the time of the event, up to
a certain depth with more shallow deposits affected the most, and led to
the retention of young dates by modern researchers. A giant flare (or CME)
would cause a large shockwave. The partially distorted atmosphere would
act as a funnel in which a pulse of heavy ions and/or micrometeoritic
material streamed into a particular geographic area. As the earth turned,
other particles would bathe terrain in more westerly regions above a
particular latitude until the effects of the flare subsided. "
> What they actually claim is neutron bombardment, possibly from a
> supernova.
It is possible that Topping has come to other conclusions and I've not
read any other papers of his recently. I found this one years back and
what he expressed at that time was a belief in solar flaring as he wrote
above.
> Richard Firestone, at least, is a respectable scientist who has posted
> his work on a US government web site
> <http://ie.lbl.gov/Paleo/paleo.html> but are their ideas widely
> accepted?
You only demonstrate your propensity to be a sheep. Consensus is the
foundation of your belief system. Science, actual science which is about
knowledge, not opinion is the thing that you should be keying in on. It
shouldn't matter if an idea is widely accepted. Galilio's ideas were not
widely accepted at one point. So according to your standards his ideas
weren't science while the Ptolmaic system was. It is grevious that there
is such confusion about what is scientific.
C Cagle
Charles Cagle
<timberwoof.spam-F1...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
You cheapen what you have to say by your dishonesty. Findlay isn't
willing to assume that everything learned over the last two hundred years
about the behavior of mass is wrong. But you're basically saying by
implication...even though we don't truly know the origin of mass nor the
nature of mass nor of charge that there is nothing new more to learn.
Stuart
Charles Cagle wrote:
> In article <pG75i2nU...@jsilverlight.freeserve.co.uk>, Jonathan
> Silverlight <j...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In message
> > <s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.or.comcast.net>,
> > Charles Cagle <s_k_y_...@singtech.com> writes
> >
> > nonsense snipped
> >
> > >Earth growth is cyclic and does not take aeons.
> > >
> >
> > The problem with this sort of pseudo-scientific nonsense is that its
> > last point is easily disproved by observations of the Moon.
>
> An absolutely empty claim.
Only if one can't fathom basic classical physics Chuckie..
>
> > The length
> > of the day is accurately known back to about 400 million years.
>
> Reasonable discourse requires that you know when you are articulating a
> fact vs. a highly speculative opinion.
Chuckie, I'm still waiting your refutation of George Williams' works.
And I know you have the references.
You don't. The reality is that
> you should consider that the existence of a mass generation mechanism
These is no more reason to consdier that there is to consider the
existence of pink unicorns and what that means for evolution.
> means that the very foundational basis of the radiometric dating of rock
> has no merit.
So Chuckie, not that spacecraft have collided with a comet, do you
still claim they are simply whirling magnetotorids?
Another Chucky claim up in flames?
>
> A recent
> > paper looks at the orbit soon after the Moon (and the Earth) formed
> > <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/313/5787/652> Therefore the
> > mass of the Earth-Moon system has remained roughly the same as it is
> > now.
>
> What you accept as authoritative is generally without any true scientific merit.
That was about as substantial as most of your refutations.
By the way, hows that Sky-Blue reactor project of yours coming?
Stuart
Timberwoof
<s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.mn.comcast.net>,
s_k_y_...@singtech.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
In fact, he is. I asked him a few months ago where the added mass comes
from and he talked about how we don't really know what mass is. I
pointed out that over the past two hundred years or so people had worked
out quite about how mass behaves and that a lot of what expanding earth
demands violates those laws and principles. His response was that
they're obviously wrong.
> But you're basically saying by
> implication...even though we don't truly know the origin of mass nor the
> nature of mass nor of charge that there is nothing new more to learn.
No, I'm saying that if you think there is more to learn about mass than
physicists, who have been studying it intensely for quite a while, know,
then you should provide some hard, solid evidence. Concluding that their
principles黍n which all of the rest of science and engineering have
quite successfully developed蟻re wrong because they don't fit in with
your hypothesis implies that physicists don't know anything.
So. Where does the mass come from? How does it acquire the correct
chemical and dynamic properties?
Timberwoof
<s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.mn.comcast.net>,
s_k_y_...@singtech.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
> In article <pG75i2nU...@jsilverlight.freeserve.co.uk>, Jonathan
> Silverlight <j...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In message
> > <s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.or.comcast.net>,
> > Charles Cagle <s_k_y_...@singtech.com> writes
> >
> > nonsense snipped
> >
> > >Earth growth is cyclic and does not take aeons.
> > >
> >
> > The problem with this sort of pseudo-scientific nonsense is that its
> > last point is easily disproved by observations of the Moon.
>
> An absolutely empty claim.
I'd say that "earth growth" is an empty claim, as is "is cyclic and does
not take aeons".
Post a list of Earth size and mass for every 50 million years since the
initial formation. Explain where the mass came from and explain how it
acquired its correct chemical and dynamic properties.
> > The length
> > of the day is accurately known back to about 400 million years.
>
> Reasonable discourse requires that you know when you are articulating a
> fact vs. a highly speculative opinion. You don't. The reality is that
> you should consider that the existence of a mass generation mechanism
> means that the very foundational basis of the radiometric dating of rock
> has no merit.
So what is the mass generation mechanism?
> A recent
> > paper looks at the orbit soon after the Moon (and the Earth) formed
> > <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/313/5787/652> Therefore the
> > mass of the Earth-Moon system has remained roughly the same as it is
> > now.
>
> What you accept as authoritative is generally without any true scientific
> merit.
If the Earth increased its mass, how then did this affect the moon's
orbit?
> > And we don't need any exotic theories, because plate tectonics is a
> > reality and has probably been active for 3 billion years
> > <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7102/edsumm/e060803-13.html>
> > Geological evidence for a geologist, Don.
> >
> > >What a silly question.. I'm not turning to the bible for proofs but for
> > >hints. I can get hints of solar radiation scorching the earth from the
> > >ancient Greek legend of Phaeton. It isn't proof but it points to the
> > >truth. Likely solar flaring came to ground level during a dipole
> > >reversal. Same thing happened anciently all over the world. See William
> > >Toppings work on paleoindian sites that show 70,000-80,000 high energy
> > >proton track per cm^2 in chert tailings from resharpening arrow and spear
> > >heads. A solar flare came right down to ground level and according to
> > >Topping probably reset all the radiocarbon clocks in the region (Northern
> > >Michigan) by at least 10,000 years. That could only happen during the
> > >period when the Earth's dipole magnetic field was down.
> > >
> >
> > You don't include a citation for Topping's work, probably because you
> > seem to be misrepresenting what he and Richard Firestone are saying. So
> > here is one
> > <http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nuclear.html>
>
> Don't always assume the worst about people. My failure to provide a
> citation doesn't mean a thing.
The general failure of earth expansionists to provide any kind of
history of size/mass or any kind of mechanism for the appearance of mass
means that the hypothesis is dead.
<snip>
> You only demonstrate your propensity to be a sheep. Consensus is the
> foundation of your belief system. Science, actual science which is about
> knowledge, not opinion is the thing that you should be keying in on. It
> shouldn't matter if an idea is widely accepted. Galilio's ideas were not
> widely accepted at one point. So according to your standards his ideas
> weren't science while the Ptolmaic system was. It is grevious that there
> is such confusion about what is scientific.
They also laughed at Bozo.
Galileo's claims were always experimentally verifiable. Here, look in
this telescope.
But the claims made by earth expansionists are not. Whenever I ask,
"Where does the mass come from" all I get is static about how physics
doesn't know anything and that I'm some kind of sheep for believing it.
Charles Cagle
Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Charles Cagle wrote:
> > In article <1152039807....@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
> > Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > don findlay wrote:
> > > > Petra wrote:
> > > > > Timberwoof wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"
> > > >
> > > > Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)
> > > >
> > > > > For those of us
> > > > > who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
> > > > > intelligence than what's here on Earth.
> > > > >
> > > > > Petra
> > >
> > > Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
> > > You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
> > > anyone.
> > >
> > > So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?
> >
> > How about from an an electromagnetic process that introduces new geometry
> > into the universe? Where does a new thought come from? If matter is
> > entirely relational like Lee Smolin postulates below... why must you
> > insist that it is somehow created out of something that must come from
> > somewhere as if its primary ingredients had to exist before it appeared?
>
> Ok...fine....don't explain where the mass comes from then.
I could explain the origin of mass... but not in terms of 'where it comes
from' if implicit in that question to which you're attempting to find the
answer is some antecedent form of matter or energy that you require or
insist that subsequent forms (the created matter) must have been derived
from. And then, my explanation might be in terms, so simple that your
complex adulterated thinking cannot and will not stoop down to grasp. The
trip to the Truth isn't like you think... it first begins with you
realizing that you don't know squat. But as long as you have a storehouse
of psuedoknowledge that you think you know for sure simply because you're
a typical rule learner and have never had a heart to actually know the
truth... you simply cannot be taught. The clue from Lee Smolin could have
got you thinking but instead of cogitating on what he was suggesting it
became more suitable for your egotistal mind to simply eruct a flippant
response. Face it fellow, the truth isn't for you. You're firewood,
you're simply a prop, a weed, a tare that was made as a heuristic teaching
device; the destruction of which is for the instruction of others who
really are on their way to the truth. If you can demonstrate that you
actually have a heart to learn then I'm sure you'll find a way to show
that. In the meanwhile...go away, will you?
J. Taylor
<timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
>In article
><s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.mn.comcast.net>,
> s_k_y_...@singtech.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
>
>> In article <pG75i2nU...@jsilverlight.freeserve.co.uk>, Jonathan
>> Silverlight <j...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > In message
>> > <s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.or.comcast.net>,
>> > Charles Cagle <s_k_y_...@singtech.com> writes
>> >
>> > nonsense snipped
>> >
>> > >Earth growth is cyclic and does not take aeons.
>> > >
>> >
>> > The problem with this sort of pseudo-scientific nonsense is that its
>> > last point is easily disproved by observations of the Moon.
>>
>> An absolutely empty claim.
>
>I'd say that "earth growth" is an empty claim,
Easily proven false. The question in no one's mind but yours, is not
whether the Earth has grown, but the rate and at what points in time.
> as is "is cyclic and does
>not take aeons".
>
>Post a list of Earth size and mass for every 50 million years since the
>initial formation.
There are a limited number of possibilities
Same size same mass
Same size more mass
Same size less mass
Larger size same mass
Larger size more mass
Larger size less mass
Smaller size same mass
Smaller size more mass
Smaller size less mass
>Explain where the mass came from and explain how it
>acquired its correct chemical and dynamic properties.
Explaining where the mass came from is possible, the correct chemical
and dynamic properties is an impossibility since it assumes every time
a particular process is run it will produce the exact same results.
The fact there are differences in the planets shows variables. If
this is not true every class M sun should have exactly the same solar
system as this one and is not observed.
>
>> > The length
>> > of the day is accurately known back to about 400 million years.
>>
>> Reasonable discourse requires that you know when you are articulating a
>> fact vs. a highly speculative opinion. You don't. The reality is that
>> you should consider that the existence of a mass generation mechanism
>> means that the very foundational basis of the radiometric dating of rock
>> has no merit.
>
>So what is the mass generation mechanism?
The first order question is why even look? Because the surface of the
Earth shows it has gotten bigger.
And spare me the reply PT explains everything and there is no reason
to look, because that just is not so.
>
>> A recent
>> > paper looks at the orbit soon after the Moon (and the Earth) formed
>> > <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/313/5787/652> Therefore the
>> > mass of the Earth-Moon system has remained roughly the same as it is
>> > now.
>>
>> What you accept as authoritative is generally without any true scientific
>> merit.
>
>If the Earth increased its mass, how then did this affect the moon's
>orbit?
It will effect it substantially, especially if we make the assumption
what happens to the Earth is something in isolation not effecting
anything else and is absurd, because it assumes the Earth is special.
>
>> > And we don't need any exotic theories, because plate tectonics is a
>> > reality and has probably been active for 3 billion years
>> > <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7102/edsumm/e060803-13.html>
>> > Geological evidence for a geologist, Don.
>> >
>> > >What a silly question.. I'm not turning to the bible for proofs but for
>> > >hints. I can get hints of solar radiation scorching the earth from the
>> > >ancient Greek legend of Phaeton. It isn't proof but it points to the
>> > >truth. Likely solar flaring came to ground level during a dipole
>> > >reversal. Same thing happened anciently all over the world. See William
>> > >Toppings work on paleoindian sites that show 70,000-80,000 high energy
>> > >proton track per cm^2 in chert tailings from resharpening arrow and spear
>> > >heads. A solar flare came right down to ground level and according to
>> > >Topping probably reset all the radiocarbon clocks in the region (Northern
>> > >Michigan) by at least 10,000 years. That could only happen during the
>> > >period when the Earth's dipole magnetic field was down.
>> > >
>> >
>> > You don't include a citation for Topping's work, probably because you
>> > seem to be misrepresenting what he and Richard Firestone are saying. So
>> > here is one
>> > <http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nuclear.html>
>>
>> Don't always assume the worst about people. My failure to provide a
>> citation doesn't mean a thing.
>
>The general failure of earth expansionists to provide any kind of
>history of size/mass or any kind of mechanism for the appearance of mass
>means that the hypothesis is dead.
This is only true if you have all the answers, which you don't.
>
><snip>
>
>> You only demonstrate your propensity to be a sheep. Consensus is the
>> foundation of your belief system. Science, actual science which is about
>> knowledge, not opinion is the thing that you should be keying in on. It
>> shouldn't matter if an idea is widely accepted. Galilio's ideas were not
>> widely accepted at one point. So according to your standards his ideas
>> weren't science while the Ptolmaic system was. It is grevious that there
>> is such confusion about what is scientific.
>
>They also laughed at Bozo.
>
>Galileo's claims were always experimentally verifiable. Here, look in
>this telescope.
So is the evidence for expansion
>
>But the claims made by earth expansionists are not.
Wrong!
> Whenever I ask,
>"Where does the mass come from" all I get is static about how physics
>doesn't know anything and that I'm some kind of sheep for believing it.
All questions are not answered and your willingness to believe they
are shows you to be nothing but an individual with your head up
against the rump in front blindly following.
Charles Cagle
"Stuart" <bigd...@aol.com> wrote:
Grow up Stuart.... That you call me "Chucky" or "Chuckie", just shows how
juvenile you are... I was thinking that if I was gone for a couple of
years that you might miraculously mature. But I see not I gave you a
benefit of the doubt that you didn't deserve.
First, I've never claimed that comets are simply whirling magnetotoroids.
Your retranslation of what I did actually write doesn't obligate me to
correct you. I've claimed that some comets have at their core an
electromagnetotoroid that can be stimulated into mode changes during the
times we've been able to observe them. Cometary outbursts, sudden tail
dropping, and extreme ion trail signatures that were never expected to be
found are good clues. That they have bow shocks that are similar to what
a satellite might encounter as it runs into a planetary magnetic field is
another clue. But if one can't possibly imagine how a small body might
have a magnetic field then one isn't necessarily even going to equip a
probe with all of the necessary instrumentation.
There is a good reason to think that a mass generation mechanism might
exist but you have to be little ahead of the intelligence curve here
....and you're not. You're a rule learner, Stuart. You're good at that
and the academic community has been taken over by people of that mien.
You're good worker ants...excelling in regurgitating what you believe is
authoritative ..but true talent in critical thinking is not your forte and
is quite beyond you. You really should stay out of the arguments because
your usefulness as a foil is just about over.
I have no idea of who George Williams might be or why I would have an
interest in refuting his works. The fact that you claim that you know
that I have references with regard to him is ludicrous and presumes that
you have access to my personal collections of references on various
subjects and the fact is, there is no truth in that at all. Besides being
antagonistic you seem to be just as dishonest today as you were several
years ago. Why don't you tell me about him?
As far as my own work or technology, Stuart...that's actually none of your
concern now is it? Are you one of my investors? No... you're not...so my
obligation to keep you informed is only in your own deranged thinking.
Timberwoof
<s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.mn.comcast.net>,
s_k_y_...@singtech.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
> In article <1155757835.0...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
> Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > Charles Cagle wrote:
> > > In article <1152039807....@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
> > > Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > > don findlay wrote:
> > > > > Petra wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone...
> > > > > (!)
> > > > >
> > > > > > For those of us who are true believers at least we know
> > > > > > there is something of greater intelligence than what's here
> > > > > > on Earth.
Oh, boy, now that's really scientific.
> > > > > > Petra
> > > >
> > > > Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
> > > > You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
> > > > anyone.
> > > >
> > > > So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?
> > >
> > > How about from an an electromagnetic process that introduces new geometry
> > > into the universe?
Show us the math. Show us equations that describe the process in such a
way that physicists could reproduce it.
> > > Where does a new thought come from? If matter is
> > > entirely relational like Lee Smolin postulates below... why must you
> > > insist that it is somehow created out of something that must come from
> > > somewhere as if its primary ingredients had to exist before it appeared?
Uh ... because it behaves that way everywhere else, and the alternative
is magic?
> > Ok...fine....don't explain where the mass comes from then.
>
> I could explain the origin of mass... but not in terms of 'where it comes
> from' if implicit in that question to which you're attempting to find the
> answer is some antecedent form of matter or energy that you require or
> insist that subsequent forms (the created matter) must have been derived
> from.
Well, I guess that wraps it up for expecting a rational answer out of
you. And now for the ad-hominem attack on the one asking the question...
> And then, my explanation might be in terms, so simple that your
> complex adulterated thinking cannot and will not stoop down to grasp.
And instead of providing that simple explanation, you prevaricate.
> The
> trip to the Truth isn't like you think... it first begins with you
> realizing that you don't know squat. But as long as you have a storehouse
> of psuedoknowledge that you think you know for sure simply because you're
> a typical rule learner and have never had a heart to actually know the
> truth... you simply cannot be taught. The clue from Lee Smolin could have
> got you thinking but instead of cogitating on what he was suggesting it
> became more suitable for your egotistal mind to simply eruct a flippant
> response.
You don't have a clue either, and you hope that you can trick someone
smarter than you into coming up with the answer for you.
> Face it fellow, the truth isn't for you. You're firewood,
> you're simply a prop, a weed, a tare that was made as a heuristic teaching
> device; the destruction of which is for the instruction of others who
> really are on their way to the truth. If you can demonstrate that you
> actually have a heart to learn then I'm sure you'll find a way to show
> that. In the meanwhile...go away, will you?
Just in case "too simple for you to comprehend" won't work, back it up
with "too esoteric for you to comprehend."
Bill Snyder
<nchi...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
[nothing of interest to anyone sane]
If you're going to sock-puppet, Cackles, you really ought to learn how
to fake the headers.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
J. Taylor
Bill Snyder wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:36:59 GMT, "J. Taylor"
> <nchi...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> [nothing of interest to anyone sane]
Not that you supplied any evidence you would know!
>
> If you're going to sock-puppet, Cackles, you really ought to learn how
> to fake the headers.
>
Strike two, wrong again!
JT
Timberwoof
"J. Taylor" <nchi...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:28:15 -0700, Timberwoof
> <timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.mn.comcast.net>,
> > s_k_y_...@singtech.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <pG75i2nU...@jsilverlight.freeserve.co.uk>, Jonathan
> >> Silverlight <j...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In message
> >> > <s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.or.comcast.net>,
> >> > Charles Cagle <s_k_y_...@singtech.com> writes
> >> >
> >> > nonsense snipped
> >> >
> >> > >Earth growth is cyclic and does not take aeons.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > The problem with this sort of pseudo-scientific nonsense is that its
> >> > last point is easily disproved by observations of the Moon.
> >>
> >> An absolutely empty claim.
> >
> >I'd say that "earth growth" is an empty claim,
>
> Easily proven false.
Well, then. Let's hear it.
> The question in no one's mind but yours, is not
> whether the Earth has grown, but the rate and at what points in time.
Yeah, I've been asking that question for a while now, and no one has
answered it.
> > as is "is cyclic and does
> >not take aeons".
>
>
> >
> >Post a list of Earth size and mass for every 50 million years since the
> >initial formation.
>
> There are a limited number of possibilities
>
> Same size same mass
> Same size more mass
> Same size less mass
>
> Larger size same mass
> Larger size more mass
> Larger size less mass
>
> Smaller size same mass
> Smaller size more mass
> Smaller size less mass
No shit, Sherlock. How about a real answer to the question, then? While
you're at it, how did the core, mantle, and crust grow over this period?
It's not a hard question, and the answer would seem to me to be central
to the whole hypothesis.
> >Explain where the mass came from and explain how it
> >acquired its correct chemical and dynamic properties.
>
> Explaining where the mass came from is possible, the correct chemical
> and dynamic properties is an impossibility since it assumes every time
> a particular process is run it will produce the exact same results.
Well, that is how science works.
> The fact there are differences in the planets shows variables. If
> this is not true every class M sun should have exactly the same solar
> system as this one and is not observed.
Duuh. That's a result of two things: the sun is a class G star (or are
you thinking of Class M planets?) and planet formation is a chaotic
process.
I think you don't understand the question, though, otherwise you would
not have deflected the conversation to planetary formation.
The question I have is this: If the Earth is gaining mass, then how
does that mass so nicely fit in with existing geochemistry -- that is,
how come the whole planet isn't homogeneous? And each new atom would
have to have all the right movement vectors so that the Earth can
continue to rotate and orbit the sun.
> >> > The length
> >> > of the day is accurately known back to about 400 million years.
> >>
> >> Reasonable discourse requires that you know when you are articulating a
> >> fact vs. a highly speculative opinion. You don't. The reality is that
> >> you should consider that the existence of a mass generation mechanism
> >> means that the very foundational basis of the radiometric dating of rock
> >> has no merit.
> >
> >So what is the mass generation mechanism?
>
> The first order question is why even look? Because the surface of the
> Earth shows it has gotten bigger.
You're saying that some magical process has created new mass within the
earth. By implication, it has all the right properties to be
indistinguishable form matter having been there all along. That's pretty
neat and has all sorts of implications or physics and chemistry.
> And spare me the reply PT explains everything and there is no reason
> to look, because that just is not so.
PT explains an awful lot about the Earth's surface geology. It is better
at it than EE and it has the added advantage of not violating
conservation laws and what's know about matter form physics and
chemistry.
No reason to look? You're the one telling me there's no reason to look
at the process for generating the additional matter.
> >> A recent
> >> > paper looks at the orbit soon after the Moon (and the Earth) formed
> >> > <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/313/5787/652> Therefore the
> >> > mass of the Earth-Moon system has remained roughly the same as it is
> >> > now.
> >>
> >> What you accept as authoritative is generally without any true scientific
> >> merit.
> >
> >If the Earth increased its mass, how then did this affect the moon's
> >orbit?
>
> It will effect it substantially, especially if we make the assumption
> what happens to the Earth is something in isolation not effecting
> anything else and is absurd, because it assumes the Earth is special.
Oh. "A lot." No shit, Sherlock. How much? At what rate? Has anyone
worked out the math?
No, I don't have all the answers, but that's not the problem. The
problem is that I have simple questions (and I keep coming up with more)
and the best you can come up with is, 'It id and it affected things a
lot.'
> ><snip>
> >
> >> You only demonstrate your propensity to be a sheep. Consensus is the
> >> foundation of your belief system. Science, actual science which is about
> >> knowledge, not opinion is the thing that you should be keying in on. It
> >> shouldn't matter if an idea is widely accepted. Galilio's ideas were not
> >> widely accepted at one point. So according to your standards his ideas
> >> weren't science while the Ptolmaic system was. It is grevious that there
> >> is such confusion about what is scientific.
> >
> >They also laughed at Bozo.
> >
> >Galileo's claims were always experimentally verifiable. Here, look in
> >this telescope.
>
> So is the evidence for expansion
No, it's not. How come continents aren't all torn up at the edges and
point in the middle?
> >But the claims made by earth expansionists are not.
>
> Wrong!
So where did the mass come from? If there was some explanation of the
mechanism for that, that could be experimentally verifiable. But you
offer no mechanism, so there can be no verification of that part of the
theory.
> > Whenever I ask,
> >"Where does the mass come from" all I get is static about how physics
> >doesn't know anything and that I'm some kind of sheep for believing it.
>
> All questions are not answered and your willingness to believe they
> are shows you to be nothing but an individual with your head up
> against the rump in front blindly following.
Oh, thanks, I needed some clever new ad-hominem attack instead of an
honest answer to my question.
So instead of asking you to convince me by providing answers to my
questions, you'd prefer it if I stuck my head up your ass and followed
you blindly?
You know, any real geologist on this ng or elsewhere would answer
questions I asked him. He'd never respond with the kind of insults that
you and Don Findlay are so quick to hand out.
Ken Shackleton
Try me....what is your evidence for an earth that has increased its
mass 8x in the past 300 million years? I don't care about where it came
from, I just would like a list of measureable effects that you can
point to that indicate that the earth has become more massive.
> The trip to the Truth isn't like you think... it first begins with you
> realizing that you don't know squat. But as long as you have a storehouse
> of psuedoknowledge that you think you know for sure simply because you're
> a typical rule learner and have never had a heart to actually know the
> truth... you simply cannot be taught.
So I need to abandon all I know in order to learn something new? That's
looney.
> The clue from Lee Smolin could have
> got you thinking but instead of cogitating on what he was suggesting it
> became more suitable for your egotistal mind to simply eruct a flippant
> response.
It seems like a reasonable request to me.
> Face it fellow, the truth isn't for you. You're firewood,
> you're simply a prop, a weed, a tare that was made as a heuristic teaching
> device; the destruction of which is for the instruction of others who
> really are on their way to the truth. If you can demonstrate that you
> actually have a heart to learn then I'm sure you'll find a way to show
> that. In the meanwhile...go away, will you?
Go away? What's the matter....the question too tough for you?
J. Taylor
<timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
>In article <0iefe2ptm5uh6odh2...@4ax.com>,
> "J. Taylor" <nchi...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:28:15 -0700, Timberwoof
>> <timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.mn.comcast.net>,
>> > s_k_y_...@singtech.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <pG75i2nU...@jsilverlight.freeserve.co.uk>, Jonathan
>> >> Silverlight <j...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In message
>> >> > <s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.or.comcast.net>,
>> >> > Charles Cagle <s_k_y_...@singtech.com> writes
>> >> >
>> >> > nonsense snipped
>> >> >
>> >> > >Earth growth is cyclic and does not take aeons.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > The problem with this sort of pseudo-scientific nonsense is that its
>> >> > last point is easily disproved by observations of the Moon.
>> >>
>> >> An absolutely empty claim.
>> >
>> >I'd say that "earth growth" is an empty claim,
>>
>> Easily proven false.
>
>Well, then. Let's hear it.
If it has NOT grown larger then it MUST have been the same size
ALWAYS!
The very fact it gained an ounce of space dust today proves it was NOT
ALWAYS the same size.
Not what you meant? Then try thinking first!
>
>> The question in no one's mind but yours, is not
>> whether the Earth has grown, but the rate and at what points in time.
>
>Yeah, I've been asking that question for a while now, and no one has
>answered it.
And is just a lie.
>
>> > as is "is cyclic and does
>> >not take aeons".
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Post a list of Earth size and mass for every 50 million years since the
>> >initial formation.
>>
>> There are a limited number of possibilities
>>
>> Same size same mass
>> Same size more mass
>> Same size less mass
>>
>> Larger size same mass
>> Larger size more mass
>> Larger size less mass
>>
>> Smaller size same mass
>> Smaller size more mass
>> Smaller size less mass
>
>No shit, Sherlock. How about a real answer to the question, then? While
>you're at it, how did the core, mantle, and crust grow over this period?
>It's not a hard question, and the answer would seem to me to be central
>to the whole hypothesis.
No! What is central to expansion is whether the surface of the Earth
supports it. It does!
>
>> >Explain where the mass came from and explain how it
>> >acquired its correct chemical and dynamic properties.
>>
>> Explaining where the mass came from is possible, the correct chemical
>> and dynamic properties is an impossibility since it assumes every time
>> a particular process is run it will produce the exact same results.
>
>Well, that is how science works.
Science does not produce correct results, it is about reproducing the
same results, correct results are moral judgments for true believers.
>
>> The fact there are differences in the planets shows variables. If
>> this is not true every class M sun should have exactly the same solar
>> system as this one and is not observed.
>
>Duuh. That's a result of two things: the sun is a class G star (or are
>you thinking of Class M planets?) and planet formation is a chaotic
>process.
Nope, just wrong, class G, and how does chaotic then require expansion
to then have to be precise?
>
>I think you don't understand the question, though, otherwise you would
>not have deflected the conversation to planetary formation.
>
>The question I have is this: If the Earth is gaining mass, then how
>does that mass so nicely fit in with existing geochemistry -- that is,
>how come the whole planet isn't homogeneous? And each new atom would
>have to have all the right movement vectors so that the Earth can
>continue to rotate and orbit the sun.
Because it does!
>
>> >> > The length
>> >> > of the day is accurately known back to about 400 million years.
>> >>
>> >> Reasonable discourse requires that you know when you are articulating a
>> >> fact vs. a highly speculative opinion. You don't. The reality is that
>> >> you should consider that the existence of a mass generation mechanism
>> >> means that the very foundational basis of the radiometric dating of rock
>> >> has no merit.
>> >
>> >So what is the mass generation mechanism?
>>
>> The first order question is why even look? Because the surface of the
>> Earth shows it has gotten bigger.
>
>You're saying that some magical process has created new mass within the
>earth. By implication, it has all the right properties to be
>indistinguishable form matter having been there all along. That's pretty
>neat and has all sorts of implications or physics and chemistry.
The other alternative is dismiss the evidence to fit with what you
believe. Either the evidence exists or it does not.
Maybe we should examine the evidence to see where it leads.
>
>> And spare me the reply PT explains everything and there is no reason
>> to look, because that just is not so.
>
>PT explains an awful lot about the Earth's surface geology.
It should be half right, it recognize's spreading.
>It is better
>at it than EE and it has the added advantage of not violating
>conservation laws and what's know about matter form physics and
>chemistry.
Who should be surprised, those whom do not know anything about it and
are unwilling to objectively examine it would construct situation
which cause it to fail, then hold this up as proof there is no way?
The only thing shocking is the depth of deception.
>
>No reason to look? You're the one telling me there's no reason to look
>at the process for generating the additional matter.
Must have missed where I said that.
>
>> >> A recent
>> >> > paper looks at the orbit soon after the Moon (and the Earth) formed
>> >> > <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/313/5787/652> Therefore the
>> >> > mass of the Earth-Moon system has remained roughly the same as it is
>> >> > now.
>> >>
>> >> What you accept as authoritative is generally without any true scientific
>> >> merit.
>> >
>> >If the Earth increased its mass, how then did this affect the moon's
>> >orbit?
>>
>> It will effect it substantially, especially if we make the assumption
>> what happens to the Earth is something in isolation not effecting
>> anything else and is absurd, because it assumes the Earth is special.
>
>Oh. "A lot." No shit, Sherlock. How much? At what rate? Has anyone
>worked out the math?
To do the math requires you know the numbers being plugged in and they
have not changed for the period of time used in the calculation. It
is thought the Universe is expanding and acceleration, but this will
not change the math?
What do you have for evidence the Earth has remained not affected?
Yes, evidence interpreted from the view the Earth has remained the
same size and ignored the evidence, which is considerably greater, it
has increased in size.
Then you do not know what you are talking about.
>
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> You only demonstrate your propensity to be a sheep. Consensus is the
>> >> foundation of your belief system. Science, actual science which is about
>> >> knowledge, not opinion is the thing that you should be keying in on. It
>> >> shouldn't matter if an idea is widely accepted. Galilio's ideas were not
>> >> widely accepted at one point. So according to your standards his ideas
>> >> weren't science while the Ptolmaic system was. It is grevious that there
>> >> is such confusion about what is scientific.
>> >
>> >They also laughed at Bozo.
>> >
>> >Galileo's claims were always experimentally verifiable. Here, look in
>> >this telescope.
>>
>> So is the evidence for expansion
>
>No, it's not. How come continents aren't all torn up at the edges and
>point in the middle?
Why should they be? Oh yes, because you imagine this is how it must
work.
>
>> >But the claims made by earth expansionists are not.
>>
>> Wrong!
>
>So where did the mass come from? If there was some explanation of the
>mechanism for that, that could be experimentally verifiable. But you
>offer no mechanism, so there can be no verification of that part of the
>theory.
Not knowing how something works does not invalidate an observation.
Earth shows expansion
>
>> > Whenever I ask,
>> >"Where does the mass come from" all I get is static about how physics
>> >doesn't know anything and that I'm some kind of sheep for believing it.
>>
>> All questions are not answered and your willingness to believe they
>> are shows you to be nothing but an individual with your head up
>> against the rump in front blindly following.
>
>Oh, thanks, I needed some clever new ad-hominem attack instead of an
>honest answer to my question.
To get an honest answer requires first being honest in seeking the
answer, nothing shows you even hold this as an essential requirement.
>
>So instead of asking you to convince me by providing answers to my
>questions, you'd prefer it if I stuck my head up your ass and followed
>you blindly?
No!
>
>You know, any real geologist on this ng or elsewhere would answer
>questions I asked him. He'd never respond with the kind of insults that
>you and Don Findlay are so quick to hand out.
When you stop with the deception you are looking for answers, but
rather validation for what you believe you will be closer to finding
them.
JT
don findlay
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article
> <s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.mn.comcast.net>,
> s_k_y_...@singtech.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
> > You cheapen what you have to say by your dishonesty. Findlay isn't
> > willing to assume that everything learned over the last two hundred years
> > about the behavior of mass is wrong.
>
> In fact, he is. I asked him a few months ago where the added mass comes
> from and he talked about how we don't really know what mass is.
That's right. Neither we do.
> I pointed out that over the past two hundred years or so people had worked
> out quite about how mass behaves and that a lot of what expanding earth
> demands violates those laws and principles. His response was that
> they're obviously wrong.
No it wasn't. I take the view that physics has a future, and that not
everything about mass and how it relates the charge and space is
already known at all. And there are other alternatives to conventional
physics. There comes a point when the science has to move forward.
What is PT based on? The Wet Leg of Archimedes? (And look where that
led us "The crust pushing the mantle down" ... "The mantle pushing the
crust up")
> > But you're basically saying by
> > implication...even though we don't truly know the origin of mass nor the
> > nature of mass nor of charge that there is nothing new more to learn.
>
> No, I'm saying that if you think there is more to learn about mass than
> physicists, who have been studying it intensely for quite a while, know,
> then you should provide some hard, solid evidence.
They're not "studying mass", ..they're writing papers for career
advancement. If they were "studying mass" they couldn't help but come
up from time to time with revolutionary alternatives (if they're
thinking that is). But they know if they do that they get sidelined.
Happens all the time. It's in the nature of thinking, to come up with
alternatives, some more radical than others. But alternatives are
not welcomed by consensus. They are sticks through the spokes in the
wheel that keep it going round. You have an immature view of what
science and 'study' is about.
> Concluding that their
> principles‹on which all of the rest of science and engineering have
> quite successfully developed‹are wrong because they don't fit in with
> your hypothesis implies that physicists don't know anything.
One day, ..one day, ..when you arrive there, ..at the Well at the
World's end, ..it will seem exactly like that. And (when you get
there) you will be the first to acknowledge it.
> So. Where does the mass come from? How does it acquire the correct
> chemical and dynamic properties?
That's a good question. (Don't forget the electrical/space components
of mass either, ..will you?) But as a geologist, that should not be
your first concern. Your first concern should be to assess the
veracity of the geological evidence, not speculate about where it
leads. First things first. You show too much proclivity to jump to
conclusions, and readiness to rely on what others say, to warrant the
mantle of science.
don findlay
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article
> <s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.mn.comcast.net>,
> s_k_y_...@singtech.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
> > Don't always assume the worst about people. My failure to provide a
> > citation doesn't mean a thing.
>
> The general failure of earth expansionists to provide any kind of
> history of size/mass or any kind of mechanism for the appearance of mass
> means that the hypothesis is dead.
Your first duty as a geologist, whatever it is, it is certainly not to
speculate on matters of mechanism. No marks.
don findlay
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <1155967702.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > Nah, ..you've got the wrong end of the stick. Nobody's saying it
> > started with the opening of the oceans. Once the mantle was
> > penetrated, it *accellerated*, ..that's all.
>
> Something I have asked for since I got in on this conversation was
> essentially a graph of the supposed size of the Earth over the past 4.5
> billion years. But nobody has ever provided the information, let alone
> any evidence of a mechanism that would explain it, or what the current
> rate of expansion is.
That's because there isn't one. You need to make it up. Just think,
Woof, ...that could be your contributution to bespattering the walls of
the Church with blood. All you have to do is *FOCUS*. We expanders
focus on the part since the emplacement of the ocean floors because
that's the most obvious. The next bit is the putting together of what
went before that, before the crustal split reached to the mantle. Now,
the crustal split *DID* reach to the mantle, didn't it? And the
biggest one of all recognised (by Pteros at least) is the Atlantic one.
And there's no gainsaying that was symmetrical with rotation is there?
( Hell, its pivot is centred on the north pole - what more do you
want?) And the one before that is centred on the equator (or also the
poles, if you like). (So more there too). What's that got to do with
'plates' - that move independently? I mean where is the justification
for separating the North American Plate from the South American Plate
in a context of "moving independently about", when they obviously moved
together? Why do you think a chronology would be already available in
Plate Tectonics?
I'll put one together when I've got time, but you might be waiting a
few years.. Why don't you do it, if you're interested? If one were
produced you'd find some way to negate it anyway. Wouldn't you?
> Never mind that you can't remember when I first asked the question. So
> tell me: how big was the Earth for every 50 million years over the past
> 4500 million years?
Well it's doubled in the last whenever. That's a start. And it's that
that leads you back to thinkoing that the planet must have been pretty
small to 'begin' with. No bigger ('then') than the Archaean shields, I
reckon.
> > Imagine keep eating and
> > getting really, really fat, and then suddenly you can't any more and
> > you pop and your guts splurge out.
>
> Where does the mass come from?
You mean all that collection of electrical charges and whatever else
supposedly makes up 'mass'. There's an awful lot of space in that
mass. Do you want to know where the space comes from too? Or are you
OK with that?
> >And keep splurging out. Are you
> > saying it's OK not to count the getting-fat bit in the damage, but just
> > count the mess? That's the opiate of the obese. ("..I'm not fat, ..
> > There's no mess yet." ) ("..Once there's mess, I'll maybe think think
> > about it, ..maybe, ..) That's a real cop-out! No copping-out
> > allowed. If you're going to insist on getting fat, you have to count
> > the eating part, not just the mess. See?
>
> Velikovsky suggested that Jupiter puked Venus. Maybe Earth eats
> planetoids to gain the mass it needs to gain weight.
Dunno, ..work on it if you feel there could be something in it. That's
what it's about, ..not reading what Velikovsky or anybody else says..
> > And the eating bit is the
> > layers and layers of stratigraphic sequence.
>
> So the new mass gets added on top? That doesn't make sense if the Earth
> expanded form the inside.
Of course it does. It's not all going up at the same millimetre rate
like you want your ocean floor growth to be doing, is it. It doesn't
go 'up' at all anyway, ..it goes 'out'. You need to reconfigure your
reference frame away from your feet.
> > > > ..and
> > > > recognise *THAT* for what it is - *THE* opportunity for more research,
> > > > ..not all those other piddling idiocies that they try to pass off as
> > > > Earth Science - Like "Blobtonics", "Mantle Wind", "Ridge-push,"
> > > > "Subduction", .."light crust pushing dense mantle down" "mantle suck"
> > > > .. etc etc.. idiocies that never go anywhere except round in a
> > > > circle.
> > >
> > > Especially with your straw-man arguments which you have repeated so many
> > > times you confuse them with facts.
> >
> >
> > > > If you or anybody else can come up with a type area for continental
> > > > collision for example
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/pcuo8
> > > > - to go with all the ocean floor dilation - and how that collision is
> > > > manifested, we'd all be pretty glad to hear it.
> > > >
> > > > And when you've done that, come up with a global reason how you get
> > > > global uplift to preserve the global monty of global stratigraphic
> > > > sequence since the Cambrian to preserve it on the continental crust.
> > > > Globally.
> > >
> > > I don't agree with the premise of global uplift.
> >
> > Well, that's at least something. There's hope for you yet. Or do you
> > really mean you don't agree with global drop in sea level? (Careful
> > now.)
>
> I don't agree with either.
What do you mean? Do you think the sea can drop here without dropping
there? Land is one thing, ..but sea's another.
> > > If you can do that we'll forgive you thinking about why that event
> > > > coincided (more or less) with the explosion of life on the planet.
> > >
> > > So the Cambrian event happened on Earth 450 million years ago and the
> > > Earth started to expand 250 million years later. I think I can see the
> > > connection.
> >
> > Take it easy now. Do the simple one first.
>
> Yeah, they both supposedly happened on the same planet.
>
> > > > (Or maybe you'd rather just go and read the book everybody's been
> > > > reading for the last half century,
> > >
> > > No ... modern articles written in the last half decade or so.
> >
> > 'Modern' articles framed in the current paradigm of plate tectonics are
> > virtually valueless, serving the interest of careers only, not science.
> > A science that is built on a theory underpinned by the assumption that
> > is its conclusion, is *Junk*
>
> That's just a stupid ad-hominem attack. You've got to come up with
> something better than that.
It's not ad hominem at all. It's a fact Plate Tectonics is entirely
founded on the assumption that the Earth cannot be getting bigger.
That's why you need to presume a Panthalassa. It's where Plate
Tectonics starts from. From the Panthalassa you get to the subduction
zone (as a carrying down) - and all that crap about the ocean floors
"shrinking" at this side to compensate for it "growing" at that side,
..and "moving" in between. Anybody with half a wit can see that
*displacement* belongs to the continental side - not the oceanic side.
don findlay
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <0iefe2ptm5uh6odh2...@4ax.com>,
> "J. Taylor" <nchi...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> PT explains an awful lot about the Earth's surface geology.
You mean like colliding plates crumpling the crust to throw up
mountains? Have you got a type area? Or maybe you mean pulling apart
to throw up even bigger ones (type area spreading ridges)?
You have a good question about mineral paragenesis. (Oh dear, another
box to think outside of..)
> No, I don't have all the answers, but that's not the problem. The
> problem is that I have simple questions (and I keep coming up with more)
Yup. Keep going, ..and see how you go providing answers. The mark of
a good answer is in the question.
> No, it's not. How come continents aren't all torn up at the edges and
> point in the middle?
Come again? (Not a good question.)
> You know, any real geologist on this ng or elsewhere would answer
> questions I asked him. He'd never respond with the kind of insults that
> you and Don Findlay are so quick to hand out.
(Now just wait a minute, ..what's this...?)
Wakboth
J. Taylor kirjoitti:
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:28:15 -0700, Timberwoof
> <timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.mn.comcast.net>,
> > s_k_y_...@singtech.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
>
> >> An absolutely empty claim.
> >
> >I'd say that "earth growth" is an empty claim,
>
> Easily proven false. The question in no one's mind but yours, is not
> whether the Earth has grown, but the rate and at what points in time.
Ahem. Only you and a handful of other crackpots believe that Earth's
size has significantly changed over, say, the last two billion years.
-- Wakboth
Jonathan Silverlight
Taylor <nchi...@earthlink.net> writes
>
>J. Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Which means, on a constant radius, as the ridge in the Atlantic
>> spread, N. America and S. America were moving to the east, (Never mind
>> on Scotese's animation the ridge in the Atlantic is also moving east
>
>Sorry, not trying to make this any more complicated than it is, but N.
>& S. America and the ridge all move to the west.
Quite. Meanwhile, Australia and Asia are moving east. If the Earth was
expanding they should be moving apart.
<http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html> shows that Easter Island
is moving west, but that's because it's on a different plate. Meanwhile,
neither you or Don have answered my simple question about what happened
600 million years ago, when your theory would say the Earth has zero
volume.
Jonathan Silverlight
<s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.mn.comcast.net>,
>In article <pG75i2nU...@jsilverlight.freeserve.co.uk>, Jonathan
>Silverlight <j...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message
>> <s_k_y_bolt99-1...@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.or.comcast.net>,
>> Charles Cagle <s_k_y_...@singtech.com> writes
>>
>> nonsense snipped
>>
>> >Earth growth is cyclic and does not take aeons.
>> >
>>
>> The problem with this sort of pseudo-scientific nonsense is that its
>> last point is easily disproved by observations of the Moon.
>
>An absolutely empty claim.
Show me.
>
>> The length
>> of the day is accurately known back to about 400 million years.
>
>Reasonable discourse requires that you know when you are articulating a
>fact vs. a highly speculative opinion. You don't. The reality is that
>you should consider that the existence of a mass generation mechanism
>means that the very foundational basis of the radiometric dating of rock
>has no merit.
>
ROFL. You've got that exactly 180 degrees wrong, Chuckie. There is no
accepted mass generation mechanism, and there are multiple radiometric
methods which agree <http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html>
> A recent
>> paper looks at the orbit soon after the Moon (and the Earth) formed
>> <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/313/5787/652> Therefore the
>> mass of the Earth-Moon system has remained roughly the same as it is
>> now.
>
>What you accept as authoritative is generally without any true
>scientific merit.
Peer review says otherwise :-) As you should know, because Usenet
provides its own form of peer review.
>
>> And we don't need any exotic theories, because plate tectonics is a
>> reality and has probably been active for 3 billion years
>> <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7102/edsumm/e060803-13.html>
>> Geological evidence for a geologist, Don.
>>
>> >What a silly question.. I'm not turning to the bible for proofs but for
>> >hints. I can get hints of solar radiation scorching the earth from the
>> >ancient Greek legend of Phaeton. It isn't proof but it points to the
>> >truth. Likely solar flaring came to ground level during a dipole
>> >reversal. Same thing happened anciently all over the world. See William
>> >Toppings work on paleoindian sites that show 70,000-80,000 high energy
>> >proton track per cm^2 in chert tailings from resharpening arrow and spear
>> >heads. A solar flare came right down to ground level and according to
>> >Topping probably reset all the radiocarbon clocks in the region (Northern
>> >Michigan) by at least 10,000 years. That could only happen during the
>> >period when the Earth's dipole magnetic field was down.
>> >
>>
>> You don't include a citation for Topping's work, probably because you
>> seem to be misrepresenting what he and Richard Firestone are saying. So
>> here is one
>> <http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nuclear.html>
>
>Don't always assume the worst about people. My failure to provide a
>citation doesn't mean a thing. You are attempting to impose the dishonest
>workings of your own mind (upon which you are an authority because you
>daily experience it) on to others.
>
>I cut this some years ago.
>
>http//topping.www-user.imagiware.com/PIFLARE.htm:
>
>Cosmogenic radiocarbon as a source of error at Paleo-Indian sites and
>evidence for a giant solar flare in prehistory.
>William Topping
>Rt. 2, Box 2779, Baldwin, Michigan 49304 USA
>
>> What they actually claim is neutron bombardment, possibly from a
>> supernova.
>
>It is possible that Topping has come to other conclusions and I've not
>read any other papers of his recently. I found this one years back and
>what he expressed at that time was a belief in solar flaring as he wrote
>above.
You've been posting that for eight years. Isn't it time you got up to
date? That link is not merely dead but never made it into the Way Back
Machine <www.archive.org/>
The idea of a giant solar flare was originally proposed to explain
localised melting in rocks brought back by Apollo 11 (it inspired Larry
Niven's short story "Inconstant Moon" that became an "Outer Limits"
episode). But AFAIK the icy moons in the outer solar system don't show
any sign of melting, which casts doubt on both a solar flare and a
supernova.
Ye Old One
>The first order question is why even look? Because the surface of the
>Earth shows it has gotten bigger.
It shows nothing of the sort.
>
>And spare me the reply PT explains everything and there is no reason
>to look, because that just is not so.
Sorry, but it is just so.
If you have anything you think Plate Techtonics does not explain then
all you have to do is ask and I'm sure someone will be able to explain
what you are missing.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
More or less.
>
>The very fact it gained an ounce of space dust today proves it was NOT
>ALWAYS the same size.
>
>Not what you meant? Then try thinking first!
Although a lot of space dust and the like settles on earth every year
it is a tiny amount when compated to the mass of the planet. In the
last 3.5 billion years it may amount to a fraction of a percentage
point.
Then you have to allow for the mass lost due to dissipation into
space.
>
>
>>
>>> The question in no one's mind but yours, is not
>>> whether the Earth has grown, but the rate and at what points in time.
>>
>>Yeah, I've been asking that question for a while now, and no one has
>>answered it.
>
>And is just a lie.
Pardon?
>
>
>
>>
>>> > as is "is cyclic and does
>>> >not take aeons".
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Post a list of Earth size and mass for every 50 million years since the
>>> >initial formation.
>>>
>>> There are a limited number of possibilities
>>>
>>> Same size same mass
>>> Same size more mass
>>> Same size less mass
>>>
>>> Larger size same mass
>>> Larger size more mass
>>> Larger size less mass
>>>
>>> Smaller size same mass
>>> Smaller size more mass
>>> Smaller size less mass
>>
>>No shit, Sherlock. How about a real answer to the question, then? While
>>you're at it, how did the core, mantle, and crust grow over this period?
>>It's not a hard question, and the answer would seem to me to be central
>>to the whole hypothesis.
>
>No! What is central to expansion is whether the surface of the Earth
>supports it. It does!
It does not.
>
>
>
>>
>>> >Explain where the mass came from and explain how it
>>> >acquired its correct chemical and dynamic properties.
>>>
>>> Explaining where the mass came from is possible, the correct chemical
>>> and dynamic properties is an impossibility since it assumes every time
>>> a particular process is run it will produce the exact same results.
>>
>>Well, that is how science works.
>
>Science does not produce correct results, it is about reproducing the
>same results, correct results are moral judgments for true believers.
"Science does not produce correct results" - yeh, sure, we believe you
(not!)
>
>
>
>>
>>> The fact there are differences in the planets shows variables. If
>>> this is not true every class M sun should have exactly the same solar
>>> system as this one and is not observed.
>>
>>Duuh. That's a result of two things: the sun is a class G star (or are
>>you thinking of Class M planets?) and planet formation is a chaotic
>>process.
>
>Nope, just wrong, class G, and how does chaotic then require expansion
>to then have to be precise?
Pardon?
>
>
>>
>>I think you don't understand the question, though, otherwise you would
>>not have deflected the conversation to planetary formation.
>>
>>The question I have is this: If the Earth is gaining mass, then how
>>does that mass so nicely fit in with existing geochemistry -- that is,
>>how come the whole planet isn't homogeneous? And each new atom would
>>have to have all the right movement vectors so that the Earth can
>>continue to rotate and orbit the sun.
>
>Because it does!
Does what?
>
>
>>
>>> >> > The length
>>> >> > of the day is accurately known back to about 400 million years.
>>> >>
>>> >> Reasonable discourse requires that you know when you are articulating a
>>> >> fact vs. a highly speculative opinion. You don't. The reality is that
>>> >> you should consider that the existence of a mass generation mechanism
>>> >> means that the very foundational basis of the radiometric dating of rock
>>> >> has no merit.
>>> >
>>> >So what is the mass generation mechanism?
>>>
>>> The first order question is why even look? Because the surface of the
>>> Earth shows it has gotten bigger.
>>
>>You're saying that some magical process has created new mass within the
>>earth. By implication, it has all the right properties to be
>>indistinguishable form matter having been there all along. That's pretty
>>neat and has all sorts of implications or physics and chemistry.
>
>The other alternative is dismiss the evidence to fit with what you
>believe. Either the evidence exists or it does not.
>
>Maybe we should examine the evidence to see where it leads.
Plate techtonics.
>
>
>>
>>> And spare me the reply PT explains everything and there is no reason
>>> to look, because that just is not so.
>>
>>PT explains an awful lot about the Earth's surface geology.
>
>It should be half right, it recognize's spreading.
And subduction.
>
>>It is better
>>at it than EE and it has the added advantage of not violating
>>conservation laws and what's know about matter form physics and
>>chemistry.
>
>Who should be surprised, those whom do not know anything about it and
>are unwilling to objectively examine it would construct situation
>which cause it to fail, then hold this up as proof there is no way?
>
>The only thing shocking is the depth of deception.
On the front of creationists, sure.
>
>
>>
>>No reason to look? You're the one telling me there's no reason to look
>>at the process for generating the additional matter.
>
>Must have missed where I said that.
Then provide evidence to back up your claims.
>
>>
>>> >> A recent
>>> >> > paper looks at the orbit soon after the Moon (and the Earth) formed
>>> >> > <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/313/5787/652> Therefore the
>>> >> > mass of the Earth-Moon system has remained roughly the same as it is
>>> >> > now.
>>> >>
>>> >> What you accept as authoritative is generally without any true scientific
>>> >> merit.
>>> >
>>> >If the Earth increased its mass, how then did this affect the moon's
>>> >orbit?
>>>
>>> It will effect it substantially, especially if we make the assumption
>>> what happens to the Earth is something in isolation not effecting
>>> anything else and is absurd, because it assumes the Earth is special.
>>
>>Oh. "A lot." No shit, Sherlock. How much? At what rate? Has anyone
>>worked out the math?
>
>To do the math requires you know the numbers being plugged in and they
>have not changed for the period of time used in the calculation. It
>is thought the Universe is expanding and acceleration, but this will
>not change the math?
>
>What do you have for evidence the Earth has remained not affected?
>Yes, evidence interpreted from the view the Earth has remained the
>same size and ignored the evidence, which is considerably greater, it
>has increased in size.
Strange that you seem unable to provide said evidence.
>
>
Please explain how you think it works.
>
>
>>
>>> >But the claims made by earth expansionists are not.
>>>
>>> Wrong!
>>
>>So where did the mass come from? If there was some explanation of the
>>mechanism for that, that could be experimentally verifiable. But you
>>offer no mechanism, so there can be no verification of that part of the
>>theory.
>
>Not knowing how something works does not invalidate an observation.
>
>Earth shows expansion
It does not.
>
>
>>
>>> > Whenever I ask,
>>> >"Where does the mass come from" all I get is static about how physics
>>> >doesn't know anything and that I'm some kind of sheep for believing it.
>>>
>>> All questions are not answered and your willingness to believe they
>>> are shows you to be nothing but an individual with your head up
>>> against the rump in front blindly following.
>>
>>Oh, thanks, I needed some clever new ad-hominem attack instead of an
>>honest answer to my question.
>
>To get an honest answer requires first being honest in seeking the
>answer, nothing shows you even hold this as an essential requirement.
>
>
>>
>>So instead of asking you to convince me by providing answers to my
>>questions, you'd prefer it if I stuck my head up your ass and followed
>>you blindly?
>
>No!
Then produce your arguments, give the evidence. What! You can't find
any evidence? How come I'm not surprised.
>
>
>>
>>You know, any real geologist on this ng or elsewhere would answer
>>questions I asked him. He'd never respond with the kind of insults that
>>you and Don Findlay are so quick to hand out.
>
>When you stop with the deception you are looking for answers, but
>rather validation for what you believe you will be closer to finding
>them.
>
>JT
Evidence. Until you produce some you kust look like a kook.
--
Bob.
Tom McDonald
Charles Cagle wrote:
<snip>
> Why do you suppose the cores of Sunspots are black except that there is a
> gravitational terminus along the toroidal axis of a sunspot loop and that
> produces a charge separation effect. The collapse of the loop produces a
> huge radiation flux because electrons can now be acquired by the matter
> along the loop. We call that a solar flare.
Sunspots are not black; they are very intensely luminous. It is only
that they are not as bright as the surrounding solar surface that makes
them look dark.
Does that affect the mechanism you propose here?
> How do you suppose all that
> planetary debris managed to be in an orbit between Mars and Jupiter.. As
> early as 1802 the scientists looking at the Asteroid belt correctly
> intuited that it was the remains of an exploded planet.
AFAIK, the asteroid belt is better explained as a bit of
proto-planetary material that Jupiter's gravity did not allow to form
into a planet.
IIRC, the mass in the asteroid belt is sufficient only for a very tiny
planet. Although, under the newly-proposed naming rules, it almost
certainly would have been classed as a (probably rocky) planet.
> Nobody had a mechanism for how a planet could explode so they begin to
> disbelieve what their razor sharp intuition had already subconsciously
> deduced.
Such a mechanism is not needed. See above.
But say that you wanted to test the exploding planet hypothesis. How
would you do it? And how would you deal with the Occam's Razor issue?
The Jupiter's gravitation explanation is simple, elegant, and
well-supported. If you propose a HH-30-like mechanism, you have to
explain not only why that particular planet exploded, but also why all
the other planets (and stars?) with magentic fields did not also
explode.
> I can hardly believe I live in such dark ages of physics that you people
> cannot put all this together. HH-30 is generating mass in front of your
> eyes. Planets grow.
You propose that the same mechanism that is causing HH-30 to expel jets
of energetic matter is occuring on other bodies with a magnetosphere.
If I am incorrect on this, please correct me.
If this is so, the evidence of HH-30 is that the mechanism would be
destructive to the body that was undergoing it. Do you have evidence
that there is something in the makeup of planetary bodies, the
occasional comet, and stable stars such as Sol that prevents the mass
creation system you think HH-30 represents from destabilizing the body
experiencing it?
<snip>
J. Taylor
wrote:
I would dare to say virtually everyone believes it has significantly
changed in size over the last 4.5 billion years and makes the
statement "I'd say that "earth growth" is an empty claim" false, and
then shifts the focus from whether it has grown to when and how much.
But you would have caught that if you were not an idiot hiding behind
an alias so you can give a public display of your stupidity.
JT
J. Taylor
>On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:36:59 GMT, "J. Taylor"
><nchi...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>The first order question is why even look? Because the surface of the
>>Earth shows it has gotten bigger.
>
>It shows nothing of the sort.
You can stop with providing evidence you do not know anything and
never will, got the picture from your first post.
>>
>>And spare me the reply PT explains everything and there is no reason
>>to look, because that just is not so.
>
>Sorry, but it is just so.
And what nursing home are you writing from?
>
>If you have anything you think Plate Techtonics does not explain then
>all you have to do is ask and I'm sure someone will be able to explain
>what you are missing.
How you doing on reconciling reality and Santa Clause?
JT
J. Taylor
<j...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <1155864046....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, J.
>Taylor <nchi...@earthlink.net> writes
>>
>>J. Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> Which means, on a constant radius, as the ridge in the Atlantic
>>> spread, N. America and S. America were moving to the east, (Never mind
>>> on Scotese's animation the ridge in the Atlantic is also moving east
>>
>>Sorry, not trying to make this any more complicated than it is, but N.
>>& S. America and the ridge all move to the west.
>
>Quite. Meanwhile, Australia and Asia are moving east. If the Earth was
>expanding they should be moving apart.
Depends on the rate of expansion and whether all points expand equally
and at the same time. What evidence do you have expansion must ONLY
be this way?
><http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html> shows that Easter Island
>is moving west, but that's because it's on a different plate. Meanwhile,
>neither you or Don have answered my simple question about what happened
>600 million years ago, when your theory would say the Earth has zero
>volume.
That would be your theory. The true problem is becoming apparent, you
have little to work with but that mind of yours and you think those
thoughts in your head belong to others. No! They are yours!
I do not know how big the Earth was 600 mya because I do not know what
causes the expansion and whether it is a constant, or a cumulative
process, or whether it goes on all the time but the balance between
gain and loss is tipped after a certain mass and the rate increases,
or if a combination of factors of location, source and ability.
JT
Ye Old One
<nchi...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:01:16 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:36:59 GMT, "J. Taylor"
>><nchi...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>The first order question is why even look? Because the surface of the
>>>Earth shows it has gotten bigger.
>>
>>It shows nothing of the sort.
>
>You can stop with providing evidence you do not know anything and
>never will, got the picture from your first post.
Funny that, but the one thing that is so very conspicuous by its
absence from your argument is evidence for an expanding earth.
>>>
>>>And spare me the reply PT explains everything and there is no reason
>>>to look, because that just is not so.
>>
>>Sorry, but it is just so.
>
>And what nursing home are you writing from?
The same oen your are locked up in - the difference is I'm staff.
>
>>
>>If you have anything you think Plate Techtonics does not explain then
>>all you have to do is ask and I'm sure someone will be able to explain
>>what you are missing.
>
>How you doing on reconciling reality and Santa Clause?
Better than you are reconciling the daft idea of an expanding earth
with reality.
So? Are you going to produce any evidence for your claims? Can you in
fact find any evidence for your claims? Indeed, can you even get your
claims to make sense?
--
Bob.
Timberwoof
"J. Taylor" <nchi...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
I've been reading and talking with people about this expanding earth
hypothesis. At first, I was doubtful. I had a lot of questions, and I
posted them here. They were all thoughtfully and honestly answered, and
slowly the EE people created a cohesive theory that explains the Earth's
structure and appearance. And, marvel of marvels, they never ever
stooped to petty name-calling when faced with questions they could not
answer. No one reading responses from J. Taylor, Don Findlay, and others
would ever conclude that they are just crackpots.
Sorry if I broke your irony meter.
J. Taylor
This is odd, you claim to have evaluated it as a daft idea, then claim
to have done this evaluation with no evidence.
Of course, you would like for me to see you as being intelligent but
nothing you have shown indicates this as even a possibility.
JT
Timberwoof
Jonathan Silverlight <j...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
That's assuming that the expansion rate has been constant. Neither Don
nor J. have ever provided a graph or chart of the Earth's diameter and
mass over the past 4.5 billion years. I'd consider that a fundamental
part of any expanding earth hypothesis.
Timberwoof
"J. Taylor" <nchi...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:31:38 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
> <j...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In message <1155864046....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, J.
> >Taylor <nchi...@earthlink.net> writes
> >>
> >>J. Taylor wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Which means, on a constant radius, as the ridge in the Atlantic
> >>> spread, N. America and S. America were moving to the east, (Never mind
> >>> on Scotese's animation the ridge in the Atlantic is also moving east
> >>
> >>Sorry, not trying to make this any more complicated than it is, but N.
> >>& S. America and the ridge all move to the west.
> >
> >Quite. Meanwhile, Australia and Asia are moving east. If the Earth was
> >expanding they should be moving apart.
>
> Depends on the rate of expansion and whether all points expand equally
> and at the same time. What evidence do you have expansion must ONLY
> be this way?
Oh, so now you have to hammer the hypothesis into some other shape by
invoking uneven expansion. What causes the unevenness? Do you have any
geologic evidence of past uneven expansion? If expansion is uneven, how
does the Earth happen to be a nearly perfect sphere now? (No, the
equatorial oblateness doesn't count; that's perfectly well explained by
the Earth's rotation.)
> ><http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html> shows that Easter Island
> >is moving west, but that's because it's on a different plate. Meanwhile,
> >neither you or Don have answered my simple question about what happened
> >600 million years ago, when your theory would say the Earth has zero
> >volume.
>
> That would be your theory. The true problem is becoming apparent, you
> have little to work with but that mind of yours and you think those
> thoughts in your head belong to others. No! They are yours!
You're really clever. No matter who asks you questions about your
hypothesis: you always figure out an excuse not to answer.
> I do not know how big the Earth was 600 mya because I do not know what
> causes the expansion and whether it is a constant, or a cumulative
> process, or whether it goes on all the time but the balance between
> gain and loss is tipped after a certain mass and the rate increases,
> or if a combination of factors of location, source and ability.
You have no way to deduce from geological evidence the rate of expansion
or localized differences in that rate. In other words, when it comes to
earth expansion, you don't know squat.