rupert.morr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 10, 5:30 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > Ye Old One wrote: > > > On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:57:58 -0700, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> > > > >Shame be upon you for your contribution to enlightenment here.
> > > Ever though about just growing up Desperate Don? Get yourself an > > > education, learn about real science, real geophysics and real geology. > > > Then, when you have the proper grounding in the subjects you want to > > > talk about, you can go and find the real data - the detailed > > > measurements of the Earth. You will then find that the Earth is NOT > > > expanding.
> > > Go on, with a bit of effort you could get the necessary education in > > > say ten years. It will give you something better to do that making a > > > fool of yourself on usenet.
> > > You see Desperate Don. Unless you can find some measurements that > > > actually show the Earth is expanding you have no case. You cannot go > > > around claiming the Earth is expanding and expect people to even > > > entertain the idea when you don't have a single measurement to back > > > you up. It is no wonder you are treated with such contempt and > > > ridicule on usenet when you cannot even fact the FACT that you have no > > > measurements to back you up, in fact you don't even seem to be > > > looking.
> > > Face it Desperate Don, you don't have a case and at this rate never > > > will. Give up, you have lost.
> > Pong off with your fixation on measurement,
> If we're allowed to ignore measurements we don't like, how about we > just pretend the Atlantic isn't expanding. Then we'll all be happy, > right?
> > Megadick, > > Do yourself a favour - Eat some spam, ..see if it helps. > > You'll find offers of viagra and pink medicament all-sorts.
> You really don't like it when people point out that EE is contradicted > by direct measurement of the size of the Earth, do you? Makes you all > tetchy.
Don't be daft. It's not an issue. Stop trying to make it one. Those other two old goats can be excused because sometimes they get out of their paddock, but what's your excuse?
Direct measurement of the Earth contradicts nothing of Earth expansion, unless you are prepared to wait around for a few million years. What makes you think that the Earth must have expanded today? Or last week for that matter? Or even in the last twenty years? or in this century? What assumptions are you making to assert that the process must be continuous and inexorable enlargement when everything of the geological record denies it?
So, you have a piece of string, ..and you know how to tie knots in it. Big deal.
>>>but I didn't know it was like this. Tell >>>me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling >>>the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, >>>that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate >>>Tectonics after all.
>>It is ONE of the driving mechanisms.
> Yes? How many driving mechanisms do you think there are?
you forget that the core will MELT ANY KNOWN STONE and only the precipitant METAL CORE will be solid at the bottom. As long as there is graduated viscosity the heat will move large portions of the interior to release heat. cooler parts descend and warmer part rise. remember everyting below the moho is semi molten and can move under stress like being cooler.
I think that is right but STUART can you help me?
josephus
-- I go sailing in the Summer and look at STARS in the Winter. "Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects" Will Rogers Jr. "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble it is what you know that aint so" Josh Billings.
don findlay wrote: > rupert.morr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>On Sep 10, 5:30 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>>>Ye Old One wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:57:58 -0700, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au>
>>>>>Shame be upon you for your contribution to enlightenment here.
>>>>Ever though about just growing up Desperate Don? Get yourself an >>>>education, learn about real science, real geophysics and real geology. >>>>Then, when you have the proper grounding in the subjects you want to >>>>talk about, you can go and find the real data - the detailed >>>>measurements of the Earth. You will then find that the Earth is NOT >>>>expanding.
>>>>Go on, with a bit of effort you could get the necessary education in >>>>say ten years. It will give you something better to do that making a >>>>fool of yourself on usenet.
>>>>You see Desperate Don. Unless you can find some measurements that >>>>actually show the Earth is expanding you have no case. You cannot go >>>>around claiming the Earth is expanding and expect people to even >>>>entertain the idea when you don't have a single measurement to back >>>>you up. It is no wonder you are treated with such contempt and >>>>ridicule on usenet when you cannot even fact the FACT that you have no >>>>measurements to back you up, in fact you don't even seem to be >>>>looking.
>>>>Face it Desperate Don, you don't have a case and at this rate never >>>>will. Give up, you have lost.
>>>Pong off with your fixation on measurement,
>>If we're allowed to ignore measurements we don't like, how about we >>just pretend the Atlantic isn't expanding. Then we'll all be happy, >>right?
>>> Megadick, >>>Do yourself a favour - Eat some spam, ..see if it helps. >>>You'll find offers of viagra and pink medicament all-sorts.
>>You really don't like it when people point out that EE is contradicted >>by direct measurement of the size of the Earth, do you? Makes you all >>tetchy.
> Don't be daft. It's not an issue. Stop trying to make it one. > Those other two old goats can be excused because sometimes they get > out of their paddock, but what's your excuse?
> Direct measurement of the Earth contradicts nothing of Earth > expansion, unless you are prepared to wait around for a few million > years. What makes you think that the Earth must have expanded today? > Or last week for that matter? Or even in the last twenty years? or in > this century? What assumptions are you making to assert that the > process must be continuous and inexorable enlargement when everything > of the geological record denies it?
> So, you have a piece of string, ..and you know how to tie knots in > it. Big deal.
>>[bracing myself for the inevitable rant about the perceived weakness >>of Don's misconception of PT.]
>>><snip asinine rant>
So EARTH STEADILY EXPANDED from the cretaceous to now but is not now expanding currently? if you have the MASS (bogus method) of 2 million tons a day say. it would be noticeable because Celestial Mechanics would change. and the earth's mass is known to 8 or 9 places. should the earth increase in mass, the moon would collide with the earth. instead of 1/81.3000588 that is the ratio of the two masses. When the earth increases the moon accelerates. its orbit will become highly elliptical and strike the earth.
If we shrink the EARTH, the moon will fly away. because the current velocity will exceed escape for the new mass.. if we decrease the earth mass slowly then the moon will oscillate more and more until it intersects with the earth.
You can read Bates, Mueller and White "ASTRODYNAMICS" 1971 A.E. Roy "orbital Motion" 1983 M. Forrest " Celestial Mechanics) 1910 or if you are more adept mathematically Julina Green "Spherical Astronomy". 1985 (relativistic astronomy)
for QM I suggest Messiah "Quantum Mechanics". Mass generation takes large ENERGY.
all of these kinds of science refute EE.
josephus
-- I go sailing in the Summer and look at STARS in the Winter. "Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects" Will Rogers Jr. "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble it is what you know that aint so" Josh Billings.
On Sep 11, 11:41 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> don findlay wrote: > > Ye Old One wrote:
> >>>but I didn't know it was like this. Tell > >>>me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling > >>>the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, > >>>that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate > >>>Tectonics after all.
> >>It is ONE of the driving mechanisms.
> > Yes? How many driving mechanisms do you think there are?
In addition to "slab pull", we have "ridge push" which is simply the pressure due to the elevation of the ridges. There other effects from plumes and perhaps basal drag from large scale flow in the mantle.
> you forget that the core will MELT ANY KNOWN STONE and only the > precipitant METAL CORE will be solid at the bottom. As long as there is > graduated viscosity the heat will move large portions of the interior to > release heat.
Heat flow from the core is a contribution; there is also radioactivity in the mantle.
cooler parts descend and warmer part rise. remember
> everyting below the moho is semi molten and can move under stress like > being cooler.
Well not so fast. The moho is the boundary between crust and mantle, and the mantle beneath the moho is quite solid; below the lithosphere we have have the low velocity zone and its attendant greater attenuation which suggests its a bit softe due to a little partila melt and lower viscosity. Other than that, the mantle is quite solid down to the CMB where its possible their could be a thin layer of molten mantle.
> I think that is right but STUART can you help me?
Stuart wrote: > On Sep 11, 11:41 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>don findlay wrote:
>>>Ye Old One wrote:
>>>>>but I didn't know it was like this. Tell >>>>>me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling >>>>>the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, >>>>>that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate >>>>>Tectonics after all.
>>>>It is ONE of the driving mechanisms.
>>>Yes? How many driving mechanisms do you think there are?
> In addition to "slab pull", we have "ridge push" which is simply the > pressure due to the > elevation of the ridges. There other effects from plumes and perhaps > basal drag from large > scale flow in the mantle.
>> you forget that the core will MELT ANY KNOWN STONE and only the >>precipitant METAL CORE will be solid at the bottom. As long as there is >>graduated viscosity the heat will move large portions of the interior to >>release heat.
> Heat flow from the core is a contribution; there is also radioactivity > in > the mantle.
> cooler parts descend and warmer part rise. remember
>>everyting below the moho is semi molten and can move under stress like >>being cooler.
> Well not so fast. The moho is the boundary between crust and mantle, > and the mantle > beneath the moho is quite solid; below the lithosphere we have have > the low velocity zone > and its attendant greater attenuation which suggests its a bit softe > due to a little > partila melt and lower viscosity. Other than that, the mantle is quite > solid down to the CMB > where its possible their could be a thin layer of molten mantle.
>>I think that is right but STUART can you help me?
> Help you I did.
> Stuart
thank you I was winging it. i know kind of how it works but specifically not so much. I only remember the general shape from 50 years ago.
I observe that the temperature and pressure may only be 5 to 7 thousand degrees or approximately twice what we get at the surface. wouldnt there be some insulating effect?.
could you email me some information about the ridge being suborned by NA. please. I need to know just how bozo I have been I have been trying and I really find EE distasteful.
And for irritation we should remind them that they have NO METHOD to generate MASS. It is too cold even in the CORE.
if the EARTH increases in MASS the MOON will not speed up but be going too slow and will collide with the EARTH. WHY ARE WE STILL HERE?
The moon is so big and so close -- we are a double planet.
josephus -- I go sailing in the Summer and look at STARS in the Winter. "Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects" Will Rogers Jr. "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble it is what you know that aint so" Josh Billings.
>>> On Sep 10, 5:30 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>>>> Ye Old One wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:57:58 -0700, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au>
>>>>>> Shame be upon you for your contribution to enlightenment here.
>>>>> Ever though about just growing up Desperate Don? Get yourself an >>>>> education, learn about real science, real geophysics and real geology. >>>>> Then, when you have the proper grounding in the subjects you want to >>>>> talk about, you can go and find the real data - the detailed >>>>> measurements of the Earth. You will then find that the Earth is NOT >>>>> expanding.
>>>>> Go on, with a bit of effort you could get the necessary education in >>>>> say ten years. It will give you something better to do that making a >>>>> fool of yourself on usenet.
>>>>> You see Desperate Don. Unless you can find some measurements that >>>>> actually show the Earth is expanding you have no case. You cannot go >>>>> around claiming the Earth is expanding and expect people to even >>>>> entertain the idea when you don't have a single measurement to back >>>>> you up. It is no wonder you are treated with such contempt and >>>>> ridicule on usenet when you cannot even fact the FACT that you have no >>>>> measurements to back you up, in fact you don't even seem to be >>>>> looking.
>>>>> Face it Desperate Don, you don't have a case and at this rate never >>>>> will. Give up, you have lost.
>>>> Pong off with your fixation on measurement,
>>> If we're allowed to ignore measurements we don't like, how about we >>> just pretend the Atlantic isn't expanding. Then we'll all be happy, >>> right?
>>>> Megadick, >>>> Do yourself a favour - Eat some spam, ..see if it helps. >>>> You'll find offers of viagra and pink medicament all-sorts.
>>> You really don't like it when people point out that EE is contradicted >>> by direct measurement of the size of the Earth, do you? Makes you all >>> tetchy.
>> Don't be daft. It's not an issue. Stop trying to make it one. >> Those other two old goats can be excused because sometimes they get >> out of their paddock, but what's your excuse?
>> Direct measurement of the Earth contradicts nothing of Earth >> expansion, unless you are prepared to wait around for a few million >> years. What makes you think that the Earth must have expanded today? >> Or last week for that matter? Or even in the last twenty years? or in >> this century? What assumptions are you making to assert that the >> process must be continuous and inexorable enlargement when everything >> of the geological record denies it?
>> So, you have a piece of string, ..and you know how to tie knots in >> it. Big deal.
>>> [bracing myself for the inevitable rant about the perceived weakness >>> of Don's misconception of PT.]
>>>> <snip asinine rant>
> So EARTH STEADILY EXPANDED from the cretaceous to now but is not now > expanding currently? if you have the MASS (bogus method) of 2 million > tons a day say. it would be noticeable because Celestial Mechanics > would change. and the earth's mass is known to 8 or 9 places. should the > earth increase in mass, the moon would collide with the earth. instead > of 1/81.3000588 that is the ratio of the two masses. When the earth > increases the moon <doesnt> accelerates. its orbit will become highly elliptical > and strike the earth.
> If we shrink the EARTH, the moon will fly away. because the current > velocity will exceed escape for the new mass.. if we decrease the earth > mass slowly then the moon will oscillate more and more until it > intersects with the earth.
> You can read > Bates, Mueller and White "ASTRODYNAMICS" 1971 > A.E. Roy "orbital Motion" 1983 > M. Forrest " Celestial Mechanics) 1910 > or if you are more adept mathematically Julina Green "Spherical > Astronomy". 1985 (relativistic astronomy)
> for QM I suggest Messiah "Quantum Mechanics". Mass generation takes > large ENERGY.
> all of these kinds of science refute EE.
> josephus
-- I go sailing in the Summer and look at STARS in the Winter. "Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects" Will Rogers Jr. "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble it is what you know that aint so" Josh Billings.
josephus wrote: > Stuart wrote: > > On Sep 11, 11:41 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>don findlay wrote:
> >>>Ye Old One wrote:
> >>>>>but I didn't know it was like this. Tell > >>>>>me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling > >>>>>the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, > >>>>>that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate > >>>>>Tectonics after all.
> >>>>It is ONE of the driving mechanisms.
> >>>Yes? How many driving mechanisms do you think there are?
> > In addition to "slab pull", we have "ridge push" which is simply the > > pressure due to the > > elevation of the ridges. There other effects from plumes and perhaps > > basal drag from large > > scale flow in the mantle.
> >> you forget that the core will MELT ANY KNOWN STONE and only the > >>precipitant METAL CORE will be solid at the bottom. As long as there is > >>graduated viscosity the heat will move large portions of the interior to > >>release heat.
> > Heat flow from the core is a contribution; there is also radioactivity > > in > > the mantle.
> > cooler parts descend and warmer part rise. remember
> >>everyting below the moho is semi molten and can move under stress like > >>being cooler.
> > Well not so fast. The moho is the boundary between crust and mantle, > > and the mantle > > beneath the moho is quite solid; below the lithosphere we have have > > the low velocity zone > > and its attendant greater attenuation which suggests its a bit softe > > due to a little > > partila melt and lower viscosity. Other than that, the mantle is quite > > solid down to the CMB > > where its possible their could be a thin layer of molten mantle.
> >>I think that is right but STUART can you help me?
> > Help you I did.
> > Stuart > thank you I was winging it. i know kind of how it works but > specifically not so much. I only remember the general shape from 50 > years ago.
You just got shafted, Josephus, by the person you trust most, and before bed too..!
> I observe that the temperature and pressure may only be 5 to 7 thousand > degrees or approximately twice what we get at the surface. wouldnt there > be some insulating effect?.
> could you email me some information about the ridge being suborned by > NA. please. I need to know just how bozo I have been I have been trying > and I really find EE distasteful.
> And for irritation we should remind them that they have NO METHOD to > generate MASS. It is too cold even in the CORE.
> if the EARTH increases in MASS the MOON will not speed up but be going > too slow and will collide with the EARTH. WHY ARE WE STILL HERE?
> The moon is so big and so close -- we are a double planet.
> josephus > -- > I go sailing in the Summer and > look at STARS in the Winter. > "Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects" > Will Rogers Jr. > "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble > it is what you know that aint so" > Josh Billings.
Stuart wrote: > On Sep 11, 11:41 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > don findlay wrote: > > > Ye Old One wrote:
> > >>>but I didn't know it was like this. Tell > > >>>me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling > > >>>the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, > > >>>that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate > > >>>Tectonics after all.
> > >>It is ONE of the driving mechanisms.
> > > Yes? How many driving mechanisms do you think there are?
> In addition to "slab pull", we have "ridge push" which is simply the > pressure due to the > elevation of the ridges. There other effects from plumes and perhaps > basal drag from large > scale flow in the mantle.
Stuart, give us a break! There you go josephus. Wool for your eyes. Stuart doesn't know his push from his pull, nor his wish from his wool. He forget to tell you too about the ridges shrinking as the push - I mean get pulled.
And "basal drag from large scale flow in the mantle"?. You mean from the convection currents piggy-backing stuff around you say doesn't exist any more. At least you do say "perhpas". What about saying "perhpas not"?
> > you forget that the core will MELT ANY KNOWN STONE and only the > > precipitant METAL CORE will be solid at the bottom. As long as there is > > graduated viscosity the heat will move large portions of the interior to > > release heat.
> Heat flow from the core is a contribution; there is also radioactivity > in > the mantle.
Oh, ..in the mantle is it now? Not in the outer core? What a laugh you are. Why can't you stick to one story?
> cooler parts descend and warmer part rise. remember > > everyting below the moho is semi molten and can move under stress like > > being cooler.
Come on Josephus, time for bed. put all your floaties up and let's dry you off.
> Well not so fast. The moho is the boundary between crust and mantle, > and the mantle > beneath the moho is quite solid; below the lithosphere we have have > the low velocity zone > and its attendant greater attenuation which suggests its a bit softe > due to a little > partila melt and lower viscosity. Other than that, the mantle is quite > solid down to the CMB > where its possible their could be a thin layer of molten mantle.
Is that right Stu? And all the radioactivity is in the mantle - which rises, taking all the little hot bits with it - from all that small space 'down there' to all that big space 'up top' How do all these hot bits go back down again to get recharged? By what? By the way, ..how long does it take this "volumetric heat source" to lose its 'volumetric heat'? ( Being Potassium and all? )
> > I think that is right but STUART can you help me?
> Help you I did.
> Stuart
(The blind and nonsensical leanding the nonsensical and the blind.)
>>>>>>but I didn't know it was like this. Tell >>>>>>me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling >>>>>>the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, >>>>>>that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate >>>>>>Tectonics after all.
>>>>>It is ONE of the driving mechanisms.
>>>>Yes? How many driving mechanisms do you think there are?
>>In addition to "slab pull", we have "ridge push" which is simply the >>pressure due to the >>elevation of the ridges. There other effects from plumes and perhaps >>basal drag from large >>scale flow in the mantle.
there is a religious rant here. the facts fly in the face of FAITH. this is why the EEers resemble creationists. they behave the same
> Stuart, give us a break! There you go josephus. Wool for your eyes. > Stuart doesn't know his push from his pull, nor his wish from his > wool. He forget to tell you too about the ridges shrinking as the > push - I mean get pulled.
> And "basal drag from large scale flow in the mantle"?. You mean from > the convection currents piggy-backing stuff around you say doesn't > exist any more. At least you do say "perhpas". What about saying > "perhpas not"?
We get quite a bit of consistent HEAT out of the CORE. this HEAT provides energy for all kinds of things. the Ridges creation has not been discussed by Don or even Stuart. The Fact is Don says "the continents are static rooted" and if that is so then now did NA get on top of the eastern pacific ridge. I note that eyeballing the distances it seems that the distance from NA to the Mid Atlantic ridge is about the same as the distance the WEST Coast moved toward the East Pacific Ridge. That is PT , EE does not do this. expansion would preserve the relationships of the ridges to North America.
>>> you forget that the core will MELT ANY KNOWN STONE and only the >>>precipitant METAL CORE will be solid at the bottom. As long as there is >>>graduated viscosity the heat will move large portions of the interior to >>>release heat.
>>Heat flow from the core is a contribution; there is also radioactivity >>in >>the mantle.
> Oh, ..in the mantle is it now? Not in the outer core? What a laugh > you are. Why can't you stick to one story?
>>cooler parts descend and warmer part rise. remember
>>>everyting below the moho is semi molten and can move under stress like >>>being cooler.
> Come on Josephus, time for bed. put all your floaties up and let's > dry you off.
>>Well not so fast. The moho is the boundary between crust and mantle, >>and the mantle >>beneath the moho is quite solid; below the lithosphere we have have >>the low velocity zone >>and its attendant greater attenuation which suggests its a bit softe >>due to a little >>partila melt and lower viscosity. Other than that, the mantle is quite >>solid down to the CMB >>where its possible their could be a thin layer of molten mantle.
> Is that right Stu? And all the radioactivity is in the mantle - > which rises, taking all the little hot bits with it - from all that > small space 'down there' to all that big space 'up top' How do all > these hot bits go back down again to get recharged? By what? By the > way, ..how long does it take this "volumetric heat source" to lose its > 'volumetric heat'? ( Being Potassium and all? )
>>>I think that is right but STUART can you help me?
>>Help you I did.
>>Stuart
> (The blind and nonsensical leanding the nonsensical and the blind.)
and dont forget the MASS problem. there is NO METHOD to generate all the mass required to expand the EARTH to double in MASS. The EARTH, the CORE all are too cold for the process. the idea that this is so is a religious delusion. Florian JT and Don all have FAITH that it is SO.
josephus
-- I go sailing in the Summer and look at STARS in the Winter. "Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects" Will Rogers Jr. "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble it is what you know that aint so" Josh Billings.
> Stuart wrote: > > On Sep 11, 11:41 pm, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > don findlay wrote: > > > > Ye Old One wrote:
> > > >>>but I didn't know it was like this. Tell > > > >>>me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling > > > >>>the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, > > > >>>that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate > > > >>>Tectonics after all.
> > > >>It is ONE of the driving mechanisms.
> > > > Yes? How many driving mechanisms do you think there are?
> > In addition to "slab pull", we have "ridge push" which is simply the > > pressure due to the > > elevation of the ridges. There other effects from plumes and perhaps > > basal drag from large > > scale flow in the mantle.
> Stuart, give us a break! There you go josephus. Wool for your eyes. > Stuart doesn't know his push from his pull, nor his wish from his > wool. He forget to tell you too about the ridges shrinking as the > push - I mean get pulled.
> And "basal drag from large scale flow in the mantle"?. You mean from > the convection currents piggy-backing stuff around you say doesn't > exist any more. At least you do say "perhpas". What about saying > "perhpas not"?
Depends on the how low the viscosty goes in the asthenosphere.
> > > you forget that the core will MELT ANY KNOWN STONE and only the > > > precipitant METAL CORE will be solid at the bottom. As long as there is > > > graduated viscosity the heat will move large portions of the interior to > > > release heat.
> > Heat flow from the core is a contribution; there is also radioactivity > > in > > the mantle.
> Oh, ..in the mantle is it now? Not in the outer core? What a laugh > you are. Why can't you stick to one story?
> > cooler parts descend and warmer part rise. remember > > > everyting below the moho is semi molten and can move under stress like > > > being cooler.
> Come on Josephus, time for bed. put all your floaties up and let's > dry you off.
> > Well not so fast. The moho is the boundary between crust and mantle, > > and the mantle > > beneath the moho is quite solid; below the lithosphere we have have > > the low velocity zone > > and its attendant greater attenuation which suggests its a bit softe > > due to a little > > partila melt and lower viscosity. Other than that, the mantle is quite > > solid down to the CMB > > where its possible their could be a thin layer of molten mantle.
> Is that right Stu? And all the radioactivity is in the mantle - > which rises, taking all the little hot bits with it - from all that > small space 'down there' to all that big space 'up top' How do all > these hot bits go back down again to get recharged? By what? By the > way, ..how long does it take this "volumetric heat source" to lose its > 'volumetric heat'? ( Being Potassium and all? )
Wow. Another submission for alt.crank.net.
> > > I think that is right but STUART can you help me?
> > Help you I did.
> > Stuart
> (The blind and nonsensical leanding the nonsensical and the blind.)
On 11 sep, 12:47, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> don findlay wrote: > unanswerable quetions for EE
> 1. what mechanism creates the hypothetical MASS that EE says happened
> 2. where is the DATA that displays the increase in the EARTH.
> 3. WHAT MECHANISM drives the EE without convection, subduction or > upwelling where is the DATA for this.
> 4. Qibbles are not vaid criticsm. name a REAL problem with PT or > GEOLOGY in general. There are problems but not the ones you point at.
1) There is no need of mass creation in the EE or PE ( Planetary Expansion ) model 2) The faults, trenches and imbrications of continents 3) Some mechanism which you are obviously completely unable to understand since it requires an understanding & hence working knowledge of the UPL or Universal Pressure Law. Indeed we live in a world of Pressure and all 4 forces ( Electricity, Magnetism, Gravity & Nuclear ) are the different expression of a single force maintaining our system in cohesion. 4) Correct ! The real problems are sterile people of your kind unable to differentiate reality from fiction, unable to descend from their dream world and realise indeed the limitations of their very mental process and the intrinsic weakness of their intellectual possibilities... How can your demonstrate to me indeed your superiority of investigation over a regular pig 's thinking possibility ? In my view considering on the one hand the Equatorial bulge, a migration of mass towards the Equator of every planet and on the other hand the intrinsic stability of a liquid mass of rock in fusion surrounded by a little crust spinning tangentially at 1600 km /h, the mere fact of attributing the surrection & subduction of some part of it observed here as sea trenches and there as mountain ranges reveals a crass ignorance of the fluids engineering indeed Stuart reference to some worthless superficial measures is completely ludicrous further in the light of his impossibility to understand the origin of Earth 'inner fire' in the first place... Weinstein 's confusion between nuclear decay and the generation of heat in a nuclear pile passes the borders of ignorance and verges on stupidity to say the least.
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud Australia Mining Pioneer Discoverer of Telfer, Nifty & Kintyre mines in the Great Sandy Desert
Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant Founder of the True Geology
~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~
> 2) The faults, trenches and imbrications of continents > 3) Some mechanism which you are obviously completely unable to > understand since it requires an understanding & hence working > knowledge of the UPL or Universal Pressure Law. Indeed we live in a > world of Pressure and all 4 forces ( Electricity, Magnetism, Gravity & > Nuclear ) are the different expression of a single force maintaining > our system in cohesion. > 4) Correct ! The real problems are sterile people of your kind unable > to differentiate reality from fiction, unable to descend from their > dream world and realise indeed the limitations of their very mental > process and the intrinsic weakness of their intellectual > possibilities... > How can your demonstrate to me indeed your superiority of > investigation over a regular pig 's thinking possibility ? > In my view considering on the one hand the Equatorial bulge, a > migration of mass towards the Equator of every planet and on the other > hand the intrinsic stability of a liquid mass of rock in fusion > surrounded by a little crust spinning tangentially at 1600 km /h, the > mere fact of attributing the surrection & subduction of some part of > it observed here as sea trenches and there as mountain ranges reveals > a crass ignorance of the fluids engineering indeed Stuart reference to > some worthless superficial measures is completely ludicrous further in > the light of his impossibility to understand the origin of Earth > 'inner fire' in the first place... Weinstein 's confusion between > nuclear decay and the generation of heat in a nuclear pile passes the > borders of ignorance and verges on stupidity to say the least.
> Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud > Australia Mining Pioneer > Discoverer of Telfer, Nifty & Kintyre mines in the Great Sandy Desert
> Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant > Founder of the True Geology
> ~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~
the problem with what you say is that it does not apply directly to any subject you mention. how does UPL explain the upwelling at the ridges all over the world. amid there are subduction zones EVERYWHERE. The NA continent on the WEST is sub ducting the San Juan De Fuqua PLATE. it drives the CASCADES in the USA. Further more the plate is basically stationary and the EARTH is overriding it. The Marianas Trench is pure subduction and the direction is 89 degrees straight down. In fact there is NO sea floor created that does not go down somewhere.
I would trust Stuart before I ever trust any thing a EE has to say.
you talk as if the oblate spheroid of the earth was a mystery.
josephus
-- I go sailing in the Summer and look at STARS in the Winter. "Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects" Will Rogers Jr. "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble it is what you know that aint so" Josh Billings.
> >>don findlay wrote: > >> unanswerable quetions for EE
> >> 1. what mechanism creates the hypothetical MASS that EE says happened
> >> 2. where is the DATA that displays the increase in the EARTH.
> >> 3. WHAT MECHANISM drives the EE without convection, subduction or > >>upwelling where is the DATA for this.
> >> 4. Qibbles are not vaid criticsm. name a REAL problem with PT or > >>GEOLOGY in general. There are problems but not the ones you point at.
> > 1) There is no need of mass creation in the EE or PE ( Planetary > > Expansion ) model
> how do you justify all that EXPANSION without MASS and MASS means > COLD MASS GENERATION. and the earth is too COLD.
> Th EE folk say the earth doubled in size since the cretaceous.
> > 2) The faults, trenches and imbrications of continents > > 3) Some mechanism which you are obviously completely unable to > > understand since it requires an understanding & hence working > > knowledge of the UPL or Universal Pressure Law. Indeed we live in a > > world of Pressure and all 4 forces ( Electricity, Magnetism, Gravity & > > Nuclear ) are the different expression of a single force maintaining > > our system in cohesion. > > 4) Correct ! The real problems are sterile people of your kind unable > > to differentiate reality from fiction, unable to descend from their > > dream world and realise indeed the limitations of their very mental > > process and the intrinsic weakness of their intellectual > > possibilities... > > How can your demonstrate to me indeed your superiority of > > investigation over a regular pig 's thinking possibility ? > > In my view considering on the one hand the Equatorial bulge, a > > migration of mass towards the Equator of every planet and on the other > > hand the intrinsic stability of a liquid mass of rock in fusion > > surrounded by a little crust spinning tangentially at 1600 km /h, the > > mere fact of attributing the surrection & subduction of some part of > > it observed here as sea trenches and there as mountain ranges reveals > > a crass ignorance of the fluids engineering indeed Stuart reference to > > some worthless superficial measures is completely ludicrous further in > > the light of his impossibility to understand the origin of Earth > > 'inner fire' in the first place... Weinstein 's confusion between > > nuclear decay and the generation of heat in a nuclear pile passes the > > borders of ignorance and verges on stupidity to say the least.
> > Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud > > Australia Mining Pioneer > > Discoverer of Telfer, Nifty & Kintyre mines in the Great Sandy Desert
> > Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant > > Founder of the True Geology
> > ~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~
> the problem with what you say is that it does not apply directly to > any subject you mention. how does UPL explain the upwelling at the > ridges all over the world. amid there are subduction zones EVERYWHERE. > The NA continent on the WEST is sub ducting the San Juan De Fuqua PLATE. > it drives the CASCADES in the USA. Further more the plate is basically > stationary and the EARTH is overriding it. The Marianas Trench is pure > subduction and the direction is 89 degrees straight down. In fact there > is NO sea floor created that does not go down somewhere.
> I would trust Stuart before I ever trust any thing a EE has to say.
> you talk as if the oblate spheroid of the earth was a mystery.
> josephus
> -- > I go sailing in the Summer and > look at STARS in the Winter. > "Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects" > Will Rogers Jr. > "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble > it is what you know that aint so" > Josh Billings.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
Mate, Good points to which I will reply more lenghtly tonight. Of course the crust is not swallowed by the mantle presently although it has been ... this is not a matter of Uniformism or Catastrophism but Uniformism AND Catastrophism indeed ! .. as for Stuart although I appreciate him very much as an individual & as Don's personal friend, and do trust himas well blindly in matters of art, antiques and as well as a connaisseur in good wines, unfortunately as far as Geology is concerned he has not mind of his own and repeat blindly was he has been taught since freshman years !!! ... like so many by the way !
Before one should condamn dear Stuart's lack of free will though, one should understand the underlying dogmas behind his certitudes ( belief or faith ) and consider as the poor man is in fact a slave of his thought Masters ( as poor George by the way ) Do you have any idea concerning these ? Do you have any idea re the underlying dogmas of the present Geology ? Do you have any idea further regarding where it diverges from the True Geology ?
>>>>don findlay wrote: >>>> unanswerable quetions for EE
>>>> 1. what mechanism creates the hypothetical MASS that EE says happened
>>>> 2. where is the DATA that displays the increase in the EARTH.
>>>> 3. WHAT MECHANISM drives the EE without convection, subduction or >>>>upwelling where is the DATA for this.
>>>> 4. Qibbles are not vaid criticsm. name a REAL problem with PT or >>>>GEOLOGY in general. There are problems but not the ones you point at.
>>>1) There is no need of mass creation in the EE or PE ( Planetary >>>Expansion ) model
>> how do you justify all that EXPANSION without MASS and MASS means >>COLD MASS GENERATION. and the earth is too COLD.
>> Th EE folk say the earth doubled in size since the cretaceous.
>>>2) The faults, trenches and imbrications of continents >>>3) Some mechanism which you are obviously completely unable to >>>understand since it requires an understanding & hence working >>>knowledge of the UPL or Universal Pressure Law. Indeed we live in a >>>world of Pressure and all 4 forces ( Electricity, Magnetism, Gravity & >>>Nuclear ) are the different expression of a single force maintaining >>>our system in cohesion. >>>4) Correct ! The real problems are sterile people of your kind unable >>>to differentiate reality from fiction, unable to descend from their >>>dream world and realise indeed the limitations of their very mental >>>process and the intrinsic weakness of their intellectual >>>possibilities... >>>How can your demonstrate to me indeed your superiority of >>>investigation over a regular pig 's thinking possibility ? >>>In my view considering on the one hand the Equatorial bulge, a >>>migration of mass towards the Equator of every planet and on the other >>>hand the intrinsic stability of a liquid mass of rock in fusion >>>surrounded by a little crust spinning tangentially at 1600 km /h, the >>>mere fact of attributing the surrection & subduction of some part of >>>it observed here as sea trenches and there as mountain ranges reveals >>>a crass ignorance of the fluids engineering indeed Stuart reference to >>>some worthless superficial measures is completely ludicrous further in >>>the light of his impossibility to understand the origin of Earth >>>'inner fire' in the first place... Weinstein 's confusion between >>>nuclear decay and the generation of heat in a nuclear pile passes the >>>borders of ignorance and verges on stupidity to say the least.
>>>Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud >>>Australia Mining Pioneer >>>Discoverer of Telfer, Nifty & Kintyre mines in the Great Sandy Desert
>>>Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant >>>Founder of the True Geology
>>>~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~
>> the problem with what you say is that it does not apply directly to >>any subject you mention. how does UPL explain the upwelling at the >>ridges all over the world. amid there are subduction zones EVERYWHERE. >>The NA continent on the WEST is sub ducting the San Juan De Fuqua PLATE. >>it drives the CASCADES in the USA. Further more the plate is basically >>stationary and the EARTH is overriding it. The Marianas Trench is pure >>subduction and the direction is 89 degrees straight down. In fact there >>is NO sea floor created that does not go down somewhere.
>>I would trust Stuart before I ever trust any thing a EE has to say.
>> you talk as if the oblate spheroid of the earth was a mystery.
>>josephus
>>-- >>I go sailing in the Summer and >>look at STARS in the Winter. >>"Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects" >> Will Rogers Jr. >>"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble >> it is what you know that aint so" >> Josh Billings.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>>- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>>- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
> Mate, > Good points to which I will reply more lenghtly tonight. > Of course the crust is not swallowed by the mantle presently although > it has been ... this is not a matter of Uniformism or Catastrophism > but Uniformism AND Catastrophism indeed ! > .. as for Stuart although I appreciate him very much as an individual > & as Don's personal friend, and do trust himas well blindly in > matters of art, antiques and as well as a connaisseur in good wines, > unfortunately as far as Geology is concerned he has not mind of his > own and repeat blindly was he has been taught since freshman > years !!! ... like so many by the way !
> Before one should condamn dear Stuart's lack of free will though, one > should understand the underlying dogmas behind his certitudes ( belief > or faith ) and consider as the poor man is in fact a slave of his > thought Masters ( as poor George by the way ) Do you have any idea > concerning these ? Do you have any idea re the underlying dogmas of > the present Geology ? Do you have any idea further regarding where it > diverges from the True Geology ?
> Kind regards jpt
You seem to be saying that all this EE stuff is just Intellectual Freedom? NO Stuart seems to be main stream geology, and Don seems to be off the wall wacko with geological training. I only know what I observe superficially, So I AM NOT A GEOLOGIST. But Even I know that MATTER generation is not possible Don tries to avoid the issue but I have seen him refer to it. So MASS GENERATION requires several conditions that cannot exist on EARTH or in its CORE. To convert Hydrogen to IRON requires Thermonuclear temperatures of 2 million degrees or so. To do this on a large scale would cause the EARTH to light up like a small sun.
You can believe in EE if you want Don Does, Plorian Does, and JTaylor does.
1 EXPANDING EARTH says the continents are fixed and everything on the surface has spread out symmetrically. they point to the ATLANTIC OCEAN/ but my quibble is if the NA continent is FIXED. how did it get on top of the EAST PACIFIC RIDGE.
2. EVERYONE supporting EE has always said MATTER GENERATION happens but we dont know exactly how. FUBAR, the earth is too cold and it violate physics for a start. as a celestial mechanic I know that added mass causes collisions. Try it some time. If you have two bodies orbiting and you increase one 2 times they will collide. if you reduce one by 2 times then they will fly apart. it has to do with velocity.
3. EE tries to forbid subduction (Maxlow even forbids over thrusting) the geology get very confused. BASICALLY, EE have to lie, dissemble and tell half truths. the fact is SUBDUCTION occurs in a lot of places for some;thing the does not exist.
4. Don, Florian, and Jt all claim mainstream geology is delusional
If you claim to believe EE then you get painted with the WACKO PAINT BRUSH.
jospehus
-- I go sailing in the Summer and look at STARS in the Winter. "Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects" Will Rogers Jr. "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble it is what you know that aint so" Josh Billings.
On 15 sep, 03:36, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Well I will change my plan and reply to you point by point.
> You seem to be saying that all this EE stuff is just Intellectual > Freedom? NO Stuart seems to be main stream geology, and Don seems to > be off the wall wacko with geological training. I only know what I > observe superficially, So I AM NOT A GEOLOGIST. But Even I know that > MATTER generation is not possible Don tries to avoid the issue but I > have seen him refer to it. So MASS GENERATION requires several > conditions that cannot exist on EARTH or in its CORE. To convert > Hydrogen to IRON requires Thermonuclear temperatures of 2 million > degrees or so. To do this on a large scale would cause the EARTH to > light up like a small sun.
Answer) - I am saying that the EE stuff is part of a greater scheme which in True Geology is called the PE or Planetary Expansion concept. It holds sense that if a process is valid on that planet it cannot be unique since that planet is not a special case in the whole Universe indeed. - If you are not a geologist you are all the more fit to consider geological issue with some freedom of mind and hence are highly qualified to express your thought on the matter... especially if you have Physics or Engineering background. In case you are not aware of it, people like Don are exceptional in this field since most geologist are in a fact plain & tunnel vision Rock Surveyors, unfit hence in the re-constitution of past history of Relief. Congratulations then for your interest in the most important scientific discipline on Earth - YOu are correct regarding mass generation and in the approach of the True Geology re PE or EE there is NO mass generation ... this is indeed a complete impossibility as you point it out clearly.
> You can believe in EE if you want Don Does, Plorian Does, and JTaylor > does.
A) Thank you, and I appreciate being in excellent company indeed
> 1 EXPANDING EARTH says the continents are fixed and everything on the > surface has spread out symmetrically. they point to the ATLANTIC OCEAN/ > but my quibble is if the NA continent is FIXED. how did it get on top > of the EAST PACIFIC RIDGE.
A) EE supporters have claims of their own which may not necesarily match the one proposed by the True Geology, and I put the question to you re the definition of a continent. In this light one very important one is missing indeed ...any clue where it was ? Also in the True Geology approach the precambrian era observed in the intrusive rocks here on Earth are related to the previous position of the Earth on Mercury orbit ... there is a whole process of Continental spreading over the whole Earth which was initiated not on this orbital position ( and hence local gradient of energy or cosmic pressure ) but on other & previous position of the Earth. In the True Geology approach each planet with associated satellites are born from their Mother stars and drift away in an anysobaric and anisotropic environment.
> 2. EVERYONE supporting EE has always said MATTER GENERATION happens but > we dont know exactly how. FUBAR, the earth is too cold and it violate > physics for a start. as a celestial mechanic I know that added mass > causes collisions. Try it some time. If you have two bodies orbiting > and you increase one 2 times they will collide. if you reduce one by 2 > times then they will fly apart. it has to do with velocity.
A) Forget about matter generation all the more since the overall balance of the Earth is always tending towards depletion through loss of lighter elements in outer space. No, your concern proceeds from an honnest mind and you should consider the possibility of alchemical transformation of heavier atoms into lighter ones ...and these chemical ( al- chemical in fact ) equations are well known and have been defined amongst others by the late French professor Kervran YOu must consider the coherence of all process and of all disipline to lead you up to a proper understanding of the True Geology ... the main concern in establishing the True Geology was coherence factor which the underlying tie to apparent unrelated facts or observations
> 3. EE tries to forbid subduction (Maxlow even forbids over thrusting) > the geology get very confused. BASICALLY, EE have to lie, dissemble > and tell half truths. the fact is SUBDUCTION occurs in a lot of places > for some;thing the does not exist.
A) Correct, and I understand why you are puzzled. In fact EE supporters are correct as well. In fact although you have opposting point of view you are both correct ! How is this possible ? The problem is witth the prevalent theories either Uniformism or Catastrophism and the tendancy of human mind to reject what it does not understand ! People like George or Stuart have very clear cut opinion on the subject and so have others on the opposite. In fact both are right and this is the drama that divergent opinion send people at each others ' throats. In a state of Uniformism as this is the case now there is indeed NO possible subduction, in a state of Catastrophism as it has been the case a few times in the past subduction are always in phase with surrection. ( all orogenesis are resulting from Catastrophism ...in all cases )
> 4. Don, Florian, and Jt all claim mainstream geology is delusional
A) Yes and there are quite correct indeed. One tool of the True Geology is the back engineering and with such approach you can demonstrate that NO Glaciations ever took place and further that Erosion is NOT taking place at the present time except in the sense of secondary erosion or erosion of soft matter such as Carbonates and Mag- Carbonates. Silicates and especially Al-Silicates are not possibly eroded by water ...a lot more to say on the subject
> If you claim to believe EE then you get painted with the WACKO PAINT > BRUSH.
> -- > I go sailing in the Summer and > look at STARS in the Winter. > "Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects" > Will Rogers Jr. > "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble > it is what you know that aint so" > Josh Billings.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote: > On 15 sep, 03:36, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Well I will change my plan and reply to you point by point.
>>You seem to be saying that all this EE stuff is just Intellectual >>Freedom? NO Stuart seems to be main stream geology, and Don seems to >>be off the wall wacko with geological training. I only know what I >>observe superficially, So I AM NOT A GEOLOGIST. But Even I know that >>MATTER generation is not possible Don tries to avoid the issue but I >>have seen him refer to it. So MASS GENERATION requires several >>conditions that cannot exist on EARTH or in its CORE. To convert >>Hydrogen to IRON requires Thermonuclear temperatures of 2 million >>degrees or so. To do this on a large scale would cause the EARTH to >>light up like a small sun.
> Answer) > - I am saying that the EE stuff is part of a greater scheme which in > True Geology is called the PE or Planetary Expansion concept. It holds > sense that if a process is valid on that planet it cannot be unique > since that planet is not a special case in the whole Universe indeed. > - If you are not a geologist you are all the more fit to consider > geological issue with some freedom of mind and hence are highly > qualified to express your thought on the matter... especially if you > have Physics or Engineering background. In case you are not aware of > it, people like Don are exceptional in this field since most geologist > are in a fact plain & tunnel vision Rock Surveyors, unfit hence in the > re-constitution of past history of Relief. Congratulations then for > your interest in the most important scientific discipline on Earth > - YOu are correct regarding mass generation and in the approach of the > True Geology re PE or EE there is NO mass generation ... this is > indeed a complete impossibility as you point it out clearly.
I dont know what you mean by TRUE GEOLOGY. it differs from mainstream geology HOW?
>>You can believe in EE if you want Don Does, Plorian Does, and JTaylor >>does.
> A) Thank you, and I appreciate being in excellent company indeed
I say they are flakes and try to distract criticism by pointing to real quibble and trying to say criticizing geology promotes EE. IT DOES NOT. just like the creationists, if geology was replaced with human sacrifice, EE would still be junk.
>>1 EXPANDING EARTH says the continents are fixed and everything on the >>surface has spread out symmetrically. they point to the ATLANTIC OCEAN/ >> but my quibble is if the NA continent is FIXED. how did it get on top >>of the EAST PACIFIC RIDGE.
> A) > EE supporters have claims of their own which may not necesarily match > the one proposed by the True Geology, and I put the question to you > re the definition of a continent. > In this light one very important one is missing indeed ...any clue > where it was ? > Also in the True Geology approach the precambrian era observed in the > intrusive rocks here on Earth are related to the previous position of > the Earth on Mercury orbit ...
this sounds Ravalian Celestial Mechanics I do know about and I know that the OBITS are stable over long periods. this business with Mercury in fact does not have any real evidence to support it.
there is a whole process of Continental
> spreading over the whole Earth which was initiated not on this orbital > position ( and hence local gradient of energy or cosmic pressure ) but > on other & previous position of the Earth. > In the True Geology approach each planet with associated satellites > are born from their Mother stars and drift away in an anysobaric and > anisotropic environment.
please explain this True Geology for me I do not know what it is.
>>2. EVERYONE supporting EE has always said MATTER GENERATION happens but >>we dont know exactly how. FUBAR, the earth is too cold and it violate >>physics for a start. as a celestial mechanic I know that added mass >>causes collisions. Try it some time. If you have two bodies orbiting >>and you increase one 2 times they will collide. if you reduce one by 2 >>times then they will fly apart. it has to do with velocity.
> A) > Forget about matter generation all the more since the overall balance > of the Earth is always tending towards depletion through loss of > lighter elements in outer space. > No, your concern proceeds from an honnest mind and you should consider > the possibility of alchemical transformation of heavier atoms into > lighter ones ...and these chemical ( al- chemical in fact ) equations > are well known and have been defined amongst others by the late French > professor Kervran
Matter creation requires tremendous resources. a. a sea of quarks ( fundamental matter ) b. 10 Million degrees to support the quarks. c. expansion and cooling and all the unified forces will break. d. you will get 48 % antimatter and 52 percent baryonic matter hydrogen and Helium then 3. stars are used to cook H and He into other atoms.
this is fundamental and alchemy is just not up to it.
> YOu must consider the coherence of all process and of all disipline to > lead you up to a proper understanding of the True Geology ... the main > concern in establishing the True Geology was coherence factor which > the underlying tie to apparent unrelated facts or observations
this does not define True Geology. Where are its published papers and what juried journals publish them
>>3. EE tries to forbid subduction (Maxlow even forbids over thrusting) >> the geology get very confused. BASICALLY, EE have to lie, dissemble >>and tell half truths. the fact is SUBDUCTION occurs in a lot of places >>for some;thing the does not exist.
> A) > Correct, and I understand why you are puzzled. In fact EE supporters > are correct as well. In fact although you have opposting point of view > you are both correct ! How is this possible ? > The problem is witth the prevalent theories either Uniformism or > Catastrophism and the tendancy of human mind to reject what it does > not understand !
This sounds more and more like a mental problem with imaginary qualifiers. As a religion YOU can believe anything you wish. but expect non believers to disagree.
> opinion on the subject and so have others on the opposite. In fact > both are right and this is the drama that divergent opinion send > people at each others ' throats. In a state of Uniformism as this is > the case now there is indeed NO possible subduction, in a state of > Catastrophism as it has been the case a few times in the past > subduction are always in phase with surrection. > ( all orogenesis are resulting from Catastrophism ...in all cases )
>>4. Don, Florian, and Jt all claim mainstream geology is delusional
> A) > Yes and there are quite correct indeed. One tool of the True Geology > is the back engineering and with such approach you can demonstrate > that NO Glaciations ever took place and further that Erosion is NOT > taking place at the present time except in the sense of secondary > erosion or erosion of soft matter such as Carbonates and Mag- > Carbonates. Silicates and especially Al-Silicates are not possibly > eroded by water ...a lot more to say on the subject
Boo hiss -- I have seen Glaciers up close and personal. I can imagine great sheets of ice covering the majority of the continent. I have seen the great dunes of loes in Nebraska which were left by the melting ice sheets.
>> If you claim to believe EE then you get painted with the WACKO PAINT >>BRUSH.
you sound suspiciously like some with bizarre ideas
show me you data and I will consider it. Please talk technical I speak it fluently. josephus
> With best regards jpturcaud
>> jospehus
-- I go sailing in the Summer and look at STARS in the Winter. "Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects" Will Rogers Jr. "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble it is what you know that aint so" Josh Billings.
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:18:14 -0700, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>josephus wrote:
>> or the convection cycle started first and created both. it was your >> question and it is a valid point. the checken and the egg problem. >> unless you want tell me that there is no liquid or viscous liquid in the >> EARTH. PT says there are Subducion zones and ridges. they correlate >> with convection loops. Stuart says there is data to support this.
>Stuart says the subducting slab and the spreading ridge *IS* the >convecting loop and that there *is* no other convection going on.
That is a view held by many. It is not the only view, some people favour much smaller convection "bubbles" which actually form a much more complex "conveyor" system.
[snip more crap from the ever more Desperate Don.]
On 15 sep, 12:07, josephus <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
See, we have to start it from scrap and question indeed the very basis of your certitudes ! Many people have seen Glaciers but however Glaciers have nothing to do with Glaciations. This is at this point a free affirmation but to go further on the subject could you tell me what is the basis both physical & historical of that theory, since it is indeed only a theory as the Continental Rafting held true by Stuart & the others.
The drama is that people go into the extreme of the Geology arcane and want immediate answers to nagging & important questions, while being unable to come to term to obviously fraudulent theories ( such as the Glaciations ) which never match the reality of possible engineering models. From the Engineering point of view the Glaciations tale is an impossibility indeed.
If you are so certain of the soundness of your beliefs could you please bring forth the Historic chaining of events which has led to such idiocy indeed, with its direct implication on the mental & intellectual possibility of alleged scientists to distinguish facts from fiction.
EE, or PE which is the global process which explains the local phenomena of EE, belongs altogether to another realm of understanding, and if you cannot understand indeed the folly of Glaciations & other prevalent theories ( such as generation of carbonates bedding through fossils reduction, Orogenesis through wrapping of solid rocks, strata piling by varving etc ) , it is impossible to reach on such unstable grounding of fabricated beliefs other levels of understanding of based admittedly on more hermetic concepts.
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:18:14 -0700, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >josephus wrote:
> >> or the convection cycle started first and created both. it was your > >> question and it is a valid point. the checken and the egg problem. > >> unless you want tell me that there is no liquid or viscous liquid in the > >> EARTH. PT says there are Subducion zones and ridges. they correlate > >> with convection loops. Stuart says there is data to support this.
> >Stuart says the subducting slab and the spreading ridge *IS* the > >convecting loop and that there *is* no other convection going on.
I didn't quite say that. For example hotspots are plumes are another kind of convection going on.
However PT is the surface manifestation of mantle convection, with slabs forming the descending limbs of convection cells.
>Stuart wrote: >> On Sep 10, 2:10 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: >> > Stuart wrote: >> > > On Sep 8, 6:23 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: >> > > > Stuart wrote:
>> > > > > > > Hence the buoynacy of the slab can be determined.
>> > > > > > (...at least if you had said "Well, first, we weigh it (this slab) in >> > > > > > air, ..and then we weigh it (this slab) in water," )
>> > > > > Very funny Don. And any way the above measures specific gravity, not >> > > > > density. >> > > > > As a geologist you should know the difference.
>> > > > > > ...then we might have gotten somewhere, but "wave speed >> > > > > > anomalies" (how do you know they're anomalous in the first place)
>> > > > > Anomalous in this case, means different that surrounding mantle? How >> > > > > do >> > > > > we know? By measuring the travel times for a bazillion ray paths and >> > > > > using >> > > > > the same procedure that a CAT scan uses, we can work out the detailed >> > > > > velocity structure of the medium through which these rays passed.
>> > > > So, ..the zone is more foliated than the surrounds (say), and the ray >> > > > is slower or faster depending which way the fabric is.
>> > > This has nothing to do with foliation or in this case "anisotropy"
>> > > Guess again.
>> > > How do you >> > > > know whether to attribute time to fabric or temperature (/density/ >> > > > coldness).
>> > > You pass rays perpendicular to the strike of the slab as well as >> > > parallel.
>> > > >There's all that shearing and partial melting going on, of >> > > > course there's going to be some sort of fabric.
>> > > Once again Don is desparately grasping for straws and >> > > hoping for something, anything that sticks.
>> > In Plate Tectonics, and your way of presenting it, there are no >> > straws to grasp at. It's hot air Ifs and coulds. Try answering the >> > question about how the first ridge related to the first subduction >> > zone. And if you feel up to it, try to say where it was.
>> This is incredible. Its amazing the number of parallels between eers >> and creationists..
>> When shown evidence for evolution creationists babble about >> abiogenesis.
>> What do you mean how the firast ridge related to the first subduction >> zone?
>> I guess it was a long distance relationship.
>You guess it was a long-distance relationship? Sounds pretty >dysfunctional to me. Hardly what you would call a relationship at all >in fact.
>So it's your "guess". Another 'guess' . First of all GUESS that >the Earth can't get bigger (because we don't know how it can - thereby >abrogating your responsibility to carefully assessing theinformation >that led to that conclusion in the first place rather than dismissing >it out of hand as impossible (because we don't know how)), and >therefore the CONVENIENT ASSUMPTION that subduction zones are paired >with the spreading zones in that Adam-and-Eve sort of way (which they >are not), and then all that IF-COULD FINAGLING to make it work, and >now the GUESS that it was a "long distance relationship". The more >distant the better, on account of COOLING, but there is no intrinsic >reason why a 'big boat' should be more sinkable than a smaller one. >In fact if it's a question of getting sunk by crustbergs, the smaller >boats (thinknesses of oceanic lithosphere) should go down like >ninepins, shouldn't they.
>There's an awful lot of guesses and iffy-couldy finagling masquerading >under the guise of 'fact', about this Plate Tectonics of yours.
>Here's one for you to think about. If the oceanic lithosphere sinks >because it's cold and thick (the colder and thicker the better), why >do you keep insisting in saying that the East Pacific spreading ridge >(which is hottest and thinnest) is subducting beneath North America >(rather than being overriden)? What have you got against >overriding? Everybody else talks about overriding, why don't you? >What does 'overrding' on that scale imply to you? (tell us, do..)
>Are we going to get an answer from you how this Adam-and-Eve source- >sink system of yours starts up? >http://tinyurl.com/2qfqqv >...Or don't you have a clue? >(Go on, ..tell us it was always there..)
You need measurements Desperate Don. Without measurements that actually show the Earth is expanding you do not have a case.
>rupert.morr...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Sep 10, 5:30 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: >> > Ye Old One wrote: >> > > On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:57:58 -0700, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> >> > > >Shame be upon you for your contribution to enlightenment here.
>> > > Ever though about just growing up Desperate Don? Get yourself an >> > > education, learn about real science, real geophysics and real geology. >> > > Then, when you have the proper grounding in the subjects you want to >> > > talk about, you can go and find the real data - the detailed >> > > measurements of the Earth. You will then find that the Earth is NOT >> > > expanding.
>> > > Go on, with a bit of effort you could get the necessary education in >> > > say ten years. It will give you something better to do that making a >> > > fool of yourself on usenet.
>> > > You see Desperate Don. Unless you can find some measurements that >> > > actually show the Earth is expanding you have no case. You cannot go >> > > around claiming the Earth is expanding and expect people to even >> > > entertain the idea when you don't have a single measurement to back >> > > you up. It is no wonder you are treated with such contempt and >> > > ridicule on usenet when you cannot even fact the FACT that you have no >> > > measurements to back you up, in fact you don't even seem to be >> > > looking.
>> > > Face it Desperate Don, you don't have a case and at this rate never >> > > will. Give up, you have lost.
>> > Pong off with your fixation on measurement,
>> If we're allowed to ignore measurements we don't like, how about we >> just pretend the Atlantic isn't expanding. Then we'll all be happy, >> right?
>> > Megadick, >> > Do yourself a favour - Eat some spam, ..see if it helps. >> > You'll find offers of viagra and pink medicament all-sorts.
>> You really don't like it when people point out that EE is contradicted >> by direct measurement of the size of the Earth, do you? Makes you all >> tetchy.
>Don't be daft. It's not an issue. Stop trying to make it one.
So you claim the Earth is expanding, but we can ignore the fact that there are no measurements that show this expansion? Rather a silly standpoint isn't it Desperate Don?
>Those other two old goats can be excused because sometimes they get >out of their paddock, but what's your excuse?
> Direct measurement of the Earth contradicts nothing of Earth >expansion, unless you are prepared to wait around for a few million >years.
Not needed. We can make detailed measurements and they show the plate movements that prove PT. They do not show any expansion.
> What makes you think that the Earth must have expanded today? >Or last week for that matter? Or even in the last twenty years? or in >this century? What assumptions are you making to assert that the >process must be continuous and inexorable enlargement when everything >of the geological record denies it?
So you still want to claim that the process has gone on for the last 200 million years - only to stop, dead, as soon as man comes along to measure it? You know Desperate Don, you could almost get away with that except for one minor point - PT goes on happening day after day after day. So all the plate movements that you claim are the result of expansion still happen, even though you mythical expansion has stopped???
You really are nuts.
>So, you have a piece of string, ..and you know how to tie knots in >it. Big deal.
We know how to measure plate movement to millimeter accuracy. We can measure the mass of the Earth very closely. Nothing is changing - no expansion and no extra mass. Learn to live with reality Desperate Don - you just don't have a case.
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:53:45 -0700, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Ye Old One wrote:
>> >but I didn't know it was like this. Tell >> >me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling >> >the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, >> >that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate >> >Tectonics after all.
>> It is ONE of the driving mechanisms.
>Yes? How many driving mechanisms do you think there are?
On 16 sep, 05:50, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
snip
> I didn't quite say that. For example hotspots are plumes are another > kind of convection going on.
> However PT is the surface manifestation of mantle convection, with > slabs forming the descending limbs of convection cells.
In your imagination, Stuart !
You have not a single case of mantle convection leading to tangential generation of constant force vectors over your alleged millionzz of years !!! No point of origin and no point of application, and you still dare to call this Science ? Hey ? ... and all this taking place on a 1600 km/h spinning thin hard rock surface underlain by molten material
What about admitting that you know nothing about the real world once an for all ( as your mate George ) and that you are making a living out of being a con man selling dream schemes conceived out of thin air !
A few people here are trying to sieve the Truth out of a 6000 years standing Fiction, but evidently you still have a foot in the Dark Ages supporting incoherent theories without rime nor reasons indeed. Is it not a fact that you are sterile too without any clue even regarding water if your very life would depend on it ?
|
