Moon craters can prove the Growing Earth; trashcan Dust Cloud
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> Take the craters on the Moon. In the Dust Cloud theory of Solar
> System origin, transverse rills make no sense.
> The Moon is a good laboratory case, unlike the Chixulub or Meteor
> craters because of Earth's erosion.
>
> Thus, if the Growing Earth theory of Dirac-Plutonium were correct,
> which posits that radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization rsnm
> grows all stars and planets, then there should be evidence of the
> growing. I had earlier mentioned that all the planets should show some
> rifts like the Earth's ocean rifts which are a direct correlation to
> rsnm. But geologists of present day just like present day physicists
> need a mountain of data before they ever get off their lazy chair.
> In the Growing Earth theory, the craters on the Moon should have
> transverse rills, that is, as the Moon grew to its present condition
> rills split on the surface. Meteors as a "control" since we know
> accurately a meteor imprint would not have transverse rills due to the
> meteor. Thus the rills are evidence that the Moon itself is growing.
>
> Any Moon experts study the craters of the moon? Are there transverse
> rills or rills of any shape not explainable by meteor impact dynamics?
With Mr. Karl Hahn showing me that lifes variations and varieties
will be a hard test of proving Growing Earth over Dust Cloud. And very
hard to find a Deciding Experiment. Karl has me hopping to look for a
Deciding Experiment. A lot of you juniors out there can learn from Karl
as how to conduct a conversation. And I very much appreciate his
presence here on Internet for I never mind science debate or science
argument. This is what science is all about. It is the 90% other
posters that are a joke because their posts are ad hominem which makes
the Internet slim pickings.
Nature 3Aug95, page 415 and the front cover
Chicxulub crater, diameter estimates range from 170 to 300 km
corresponding to an order of magnitude variation in impact energy
shows 4 transverse rills and one which appears to run the diameter of
the crater.
---
Here, here, I need some experts of the Moon's craters. The moon because
there is no erosion.
If the Dust Cloud theory of the origin of the Solar System is true then
fingerprints such as meteor craters will not have "growth rills".
If the Growing Solar System theory of Dirac-Plutonium via radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization RSNM is true, then fingerprints
such as meteor craters will have rills, transverse rills. Rills which
are not caused by the ballistic impact. The impact formation is a well
studied science. But, if the stars and all astronomical bodies which
have a magnetic field, grow, grow via RSNM (pronounced resin) is true
then the craters of meteors will be a Deciding experiment. Atom
As the NATURE report, reports by a diagram on page 415 that the
Chixculub crater shows 5 transverse rills in all.
The Earth has too much erosion, and so do the Moon's craters evince
Jeff Olson
to magnetic field. (No, I didn't save the posts!) You verify this below.
You'll have to explain how you predict expansion of the moon, when the moon
has a negligible magnetic field.
Jeff Olson
In article <43kvln$n...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:>Path:
>In article <43jidu$l...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>> Take the craters on the Moon. In the Dust Cloud theory of Solar
>> System origin, transverse rills make no sense.
>> The Moon is a good laboratory case, unlike the Chixulub or Meteor
>> craters because of Earth's erosion.
<snip>
Stephen Hildreth
> > rifts like the Earth's ocean rifts which are a direct correlation to
> > rsnm. But geologists of present day just like present day physicists
> > need a mountain of data before they ever get off their lazy chair.
Oh boy. A "growing Earth" to explain the mid-oceanic ridges, instead of
simple Earth-rotation-mantle convection? And how is this Earth "growing"
without the addition of new material? Why can we not measure the growth?
It should be simple enough using today's technology.
And what about all those keen dust clouds astonomers are now seeing with
the new and improved Hubble telescope?
Please.............a growing Earth theory is what happens when people have
too much time on their hands...............
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stephen Hildreth
hil...@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu
linv...@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
surface, unless there was enough mass added in such a way as to balance
the increased distance from the centre of the planet. All those
geologists and geophysicists must be too busy with their computers to do
any field work (big grin)
Allen Linville B.Sc.(geology)
MNR F BREUER
[much stuff deleted]
>If the Growing Solar System theory of Dirac-Plutonium via radioactive
>spontaneous neutron materialization RSNM is true, then fingerprints
>such as meteor craters will have rills, transverse rills. Rills which
>are not caused by the ballistic impact. The impact formation is a well
>studied science. But, if the stars and all astronomical bodies which
>have a magnetic field, grow, grow via RSNM (pronounced resin) is true
>then the craters of meteors will be a Deciding experiment. Atom
Say Archie,
Why would the "growth rills" appear around the craters? Why not just
everywhere? Also, you think that continental rifts are evidence for that
growth theory of yours (I think Dirac would rotate in his grave if he heard
is name missused like that). Has it ever occured to you that continental
plates are actually MOVING TOWARDS EACH OTHER in some of these rifts, that
the one plate then slides over the other? Has it also occured to you that
the drift rates have been well measured and that just as much new crust is
"created" in rifts (like in the Atlantic) as is "absorbed" again in other
rifts?
Also, if matter were created spontanously by RSNM (with protons and
electrons being formed by beta decay) then matter itself would be extremely
radioactive. In fact some other guy on the net (I can't remember who it was)
calculated this activity from the growth rate you came up with. The activity
was rather high and easily measurable, yet does not exist. Can't you take a
hint?
It is nice to have an idea, even if it doesn't work out. But just because
you (or anybody else, even Dirac) has an idea doesn't mean this idea is
necessarily correct. I suggest you read a good book called "Mathematical
Cranks" by Underwood Dudley. It describes your counterparts in mathematics.
Flo.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
- Remember to look both ways before crossing the Info Highway -
- Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my brain? -
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sun.ac.za/~s9520155
Archimedes Plutonium
s952...@cs.sun.ac.za (MNR F BREUER) writes:
> Say Archie,
>
> Why would the "growth rills" appear around the craters? Why not just
> everywhere? Also, you think that continental rifts are evidence for that
> growth theory of yours
True, rills would be other places, but for a quick appraisal, (do you
know the meaning of appraisal down in South Africa?). For a quick
appraisal of the Growing Astronomical bodies such as the Moon or Mars,
without ever going there, one should spot a meteor crater and if there
is a rill transverse, meaning that the impact could not have created
the rill would indicate that the Moon or Mars are Growing from
Spontaneous neutron materialization. Growing from inside and the
surface cracks because of the "growing". Rills and the Earth sea floor
spreading are consequences thereof.
The trouble with Continental Drift and Sea Floor Spreading and students
like you is that once you see sea floor rifts, you make no attempt at
trying to explaining them with your Dust Nebulae formation of the Solar
System. Why do you not mention your pet love of the Dust Nebulae?
Students like you never seem to understand that the Dust Nebulae
formation of Earth has the Earth pretty much as it is now way back 5
billion years ago, but we should not have any active and young sea
floor spreading which we have now according to your beloved Nebulae
Dust concoction. You should get out of the bush more and take a course
in math logic and learn how to think clearly
Stuart Weinstein
>Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
> [much stuff deleted]
>
>>If the Growing Solar System theory of Dirac-Plutonium via radioactive
>>spontaneous neutron materialization RSNM is true, then fingerprints
>>such as meteor craters will have rills, transverse rills. Rills which
>>are not caused by the ballistic impact. The impact formation is a well
>>studied science. But, if the stars and all astronomical bodies which
>>have a magnetic field, grow, grow via RSNM (pronounced resin) is true
>>then the craters of meteors will be a Deciding experiment. Atom
>
>
>Why would the "growth rills" appear around the craters? Why not just
>everywhere? Also, you think that continental rifts are evidence for that
>is name missused like that). Has it ever occured to you that continental
>plates are actually MOVING TOWARDS EACH OTHER in some of these rifts, that
>the one plate then slides over the other? Has it also occured to you that
>the drift rates have been well measured and that just as much new crust is
>"created" in rifts (like in the Atlantic) as is "absorbed" again in other
>rifts?
>
>Also, if matter were created spontanously by RSNM (with protons and
>electrons being formed by beta decay) then matter itself would be extremely
>radioactive. In fact some other guy on the net (I can't remember who it was)
>calculated this activity from the growth rate you came up with. The activity
>was rather high and easily measurable, yet does not exist. Can't you take a
>hint?
>
>It is nice to have an idea, even if it doesn't work out. But just because
>you (or anybody else, even Dirac) has an idea doesn't mean this idea is
>necessarily correct. I suggest you read a good book called "Mathematical
>Cranks" by Underwood Dudley. It describes your counterparts in mathematics.
>
>Flo.
>
Save yourself some scratch and ignore archimedes. Don't encourage him by
replying to any of his posts. As far as I can tell Archimedes is an artifical
intelligence experiment gone haywire.
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>- Remember to look both ways before crossing the Info Highway -
>- Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my brain? -
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>http://www.sun.ac.za/~s9520155
--
Stuart A. Weinstein X X X stu...@kaku.soest.hawaii.edu
Geology and Geophysics X X
University of Hawaii X X
X This X
"To err is human.. X X
But to really foul things X space for X
up requires a creationist" X X
X rent X
X X
X X
X X X
Archimedes Plutonium
Stuart Weinstein <stuart> writes:
> Save yourself some scratch and ignore archimedes. Don't encourage him by
> replying to any of his posts. As far as I can tell Archimedes is an artifical
> intelligence experiment gone haywire.
Go to hell, Acheron that is
R. Russ
> Save yourself some scratch and ignore archimedes. Don't encourage him by
> replying to any of his posts. As far as I can tell Archimedes is an artifical
> intelligence experiment gone haywire.
> >--
Seriously, I hate to be one of the legion to ONCE AGAIN remind the readers
that Archie works in the maintanence dept at the university-he's a janitor
for crying out loud. Please understand that I'm not trying to be
condescending towards Archie's job. I do wonder if the Human Resources
Dept is aware that so many of his posts are during the daytime when he
SHOULD BE WORKING!
R. Russ
Emory F. Bunn
R. Russ <rr...@sirius.com> wrote:
>Seriously, I hate to be one of the legion to ONCE AGAIN remind the readers
>that Archie works in the maintanence dept at the university-he's a janitor
>for crying out loud.
If you hate to do it, then don't do it. It can't possibly be a
constructive thing to do. If you don't like him, ignore him.
Besides, if you're going to post this kind of thing, you could at
least get it right. He's not a janitor; he's a pot-washer at the
Hanover Inn, which is owned by Dartmouth College.
>Please understand that I'm not trying to be
>condescending towards Archie's job.
Au contraire. That's precisely what you're trying to do. What other
reason could you possibly have for posting this?
I urge everyone to ignore Archimedes's posts, not because he's a
pot-washer, but simply what he writes has no scientific merit.
-Ted
Archimedes Plutonium
rr...@sirius.com (R. Russ) writes:
> In article <DJI33...@news.hawaii.edu>, Stuart Weinstein <stuart> wrote:
>
>
> > Save yourself some scratch and ignore archimedes. Don't encourage him by
> > replying to any of his posts. As far as I can tell Archimedes is an artifical
> > intelligence experiment gone haywire.
> > >--
>
> Seriously, I hate to be one of the legion to ONCE AGAIN remind the readers
> that Archie works in the maintanence dept at the university-he's a janitor
> for crying out loud. Please understand that I'm not trying to be
> condescending towards Archie's job. I do wonder if the Human Resources
> Dept is aware that so many of his posts are during the daytime when he
> SHOULD BE WORKING!
Say there Russ are you another Jed Decobert type? Path:
dartvax.dartmouth.edu!news.bu.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!chi-news.c
ic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!hilbert.dnai.com!news.zeitgei
st.net!sun.sirius.com!ppp062-sf1.sirius.com!user
From: rr...@sirius.com (R. Russ)
Newsgroups:
sci.physics,sci.geo.geology,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: A plea to ignore "Archie"
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 19:07:54 -0800
Organization: Sirius Connections
Go to hell Russ, Styx that is
In article <43mh9r$b...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
j...@BATES.MIT.EDU writes:
> You don't mind if I do, do you? Hehehehe.
>
> Aw, come on. Don't be so hard on Pluto. He's perhaps
> the first genuine crackpot I've ever seen. If nothing
> else, he's funny as hell.
>
> Plus, I here he's got terminal dishpan hands.
>
> Where could you BUY such entertainment?
>
>
> *I* think he's a poster child for inbreeding, but I could
> be wrong......
>
> No need to apologise to *me*, Dick. I had a grand time.
> The best is when it all culminated in him calling you names.
> I guess you starting making too much sense, and it scared
> him.
>
> Don't worry, Pluto, you can always burn some more inscense
> at your altar to plutonium, and get aNOTHer bottle of
> MD 20/20.
>
> I can't wait to hear what you come up with *next*.
>
> Hehehehe.
> ---------------------
> James E. (Jed) Decobert
> High pulse power/ RF Engineer
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Bates Linear Accelerator
> ----------------------
Archimedes Plutonium
t...@physics12.Berkeley.EDU (Emory F. Bunn) writes:
> In article <rruss-19129...@ppp062-sf1.sirius.com>,
> R. Russ <rr...@sirius.com> wrote:
> >Seriously, I hate to be one of the legion to ONCE AGAIN remind the readers
> >that Archie works in the maintanence dept at the university-he's a janitor
> >for crying out loud.
>
> If you hate to do it, then don't do it. It can't possibly be a
> constructive thing to do. If you don't like him, ignore him.
>
> Besides, if you're going to post this kind of thing, you could at
> least get it right. He's not a janitor; he's a pot-washer at the
> Hanover Inn, which is owned by Dartmouth College.
>
> >Please understand that I'm not trying to be
> >condescending towards Archie's job.
>
> Au contraire. That's precisely what you're trying to do. What other
> reason could you possibly have for posting this?
>
> I urge everyone to ignore Archimedes's posts, not because he's a
> pot-washer, but simply what he writes has no scientific merit.
>
> -Ted
Ted, since you are the newest sci.physics custodian, would you please
confirm that your predecessor Mr. Scott I Chase of Berkeley gave up the
helm to you because Scott began to "like" the PLUTONIUM ATOM UNIVERSE,
the One Atom Everything Totality Whole. And just after Scott came to
points of agreement to the theory, he felt he could no longer deal with
sci.physics.
Now Ted, I am sure you are much older and already have your
doctorate, unlike Scott and you will not come to reason so easily, and
isn't that what physics tenureship all across America is all about? Is
your tenureship include stocks, I know Dartmouth has a stock plan?
Since we cannot agree on physics maybe we can be friends on stock
playing, what do you say Ted?
Emory F. Bunn
Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> Ted, since you are the newest sci.physics custodian, would you please
I am? Cool! How much do I get paid?
[...]
> Now Ted, I am sure you are much older and already have your
>doctorate, unlike Scott and you will not come to reason so easily, and
>isn't that what physics tenureship all across America is all about?
Oh, come on. I just got through pointing out on your behalf that
credentials like this don't matter, and that what people post should
be judged on its merits rather than on what job they have. Why can't
you extend me the same courtesy?
Since you ask, I'll admit my secret shame: I do indeed have a Ph.D.
in physics. But at least I don't have tenure -- indeed, I don't even
have a tenure-track job. Does that improve my standing with you at
all?
>Is
>your tenureship include stocks, I know Dartmouth has a stock plan?
>Since we cannot agree on physics maybe we can be friends on stock
>playing, what do you say Ted?
My salary doesn't give me much latitude for playing the stock market.
If yours does, I can only wish you well at it.
-Ted