don, florian and JT all ignore evidence. so that is a rhetorical question.
josephus -- I go sailing in the Summer and look at STARS in the Winter. "Everybody is igernant, only on differt subjects" Will Rogers "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble it is what you know that aint so" Josh Billings.
I think you're not phrasing your question right. Try again, ..but let me suggest it for you:- "Is there evidence that the Earth has got bigger?" (past tense) - Then the answer is yes.
If on the other hand you mean:- "Is there evidence that the Earth is getting bigger?" (present tense) The the answer is much more iffy, ..because the question is extracted from what geology is all about, which is relating the present to the past. In this question the past is excluded.
In short it depends what meaning you attach to expansion - Expansion as process (verb), or expansion as a 'thing' (noun).
> > I think you're not phrasing your question right.
> You think wrong.
> > "Is there evidence that the Earth has got bigger?" (past tense) - Then > > the answer is yes.
> Which evidence (then)?
1. Distension and rupture of a panglobal Mesozoic continental crust 2. Extrusion of the mantle. 3. Mountain belts as eroded plateaus peripheral to active breakthrough of the mantle (Pacific region - not passive breakthrough - /Atlantic/ Indian/Southern) 4. Back-arc basins (Western Pacific) as the remnant of Pacific continental disruption. 5. Phanerozoic stratigraphic sequence all on the continental crust.
> > > "Is there evidence that the Earth has got bigger?" (past tense) - Then > > > the answer is yes.
> > Which evidence (then)?
> 1. Distension and rupture of a panglobal Mesozoic continental crust > 2. Extrusion of the mantle. > 3. Mountain belts as eroded plateaus peripheral to active breakthrough > of the mantle (Pacific region - not passive breakthrough - /Atlantic/ > Indian/Southern) > 4. Back-arc basins (Western Pacific) as the remnant of Pacific > continental disruption. > 5. Phanerozoic stratigraphic sequence all on the continental crust.
Thanks for the answer.
Please explain each item, and (explain) why they are evidence "that the Earth has got bigger".
> > > > "Is there evidence that the Earth has got bigger?" (past tense) - Then > > > > the answer is yes.
> > > Which evidence (then)?
> > 1. Distension and rupture of a panglobal Mesozoic continental crust > > 2. Extrusion of the mantle. > > 3. Mountain belts as eroded plateaus peripheral to active breakthrough > > of the mantle (Pacific region - not passive breakthrough - /Atlantic/ > > Indian/Southern) > > 4. Back-arc basins (Western Pacific) as the remnant of Pacific > > continental disruption. > > 5. Phanerozoic stratigraphic sequence all on the continental crust.
> and (explain) why they are evidence "that the > Earth has got bigger".
Because they show the underlying "convenient assumption" of Plate Tectonics, "that the Earth cannot be getting bigger" http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html to be false, and its default position, "If the creation of new oceanic lithosphere at oceanic ridges were the only process operating, the Earth clearly would have increased in volume and surface area at a remarkable rate in the comparatively recent geologic past", to be true.
What particular bit do you find difficult about this?
> > > > > "Is there evidence that the Earth has got bigger?" (past tense) - Then > > > > > the answer is yes.
> > > > Which evidence (then)?
> > > 1. Distension and rupture of a panglobal Mesozoic continental crust > > > 2. Extrusion of the mantle. > > > 3. Mountain belts as eroded plateaus peripheral to active breakthrough > > > of the mantle (Pacific region - not passive breakthrough - /Atlantic/ > > > Indian/Southern) > > > 4. Back-arc basins (Western Pacific) as the remnant of Pacific > > > continental disruption. > > > 5. Phanerozoic stratigraphic sequence all on the continental crust.
> > and (explain) why they are evidence "that the > > Earth has got bigger".
> Because they show the underlying "convenient assumption" of Plate > Tectonics, "that the Earth cannot be getting bigger" > http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html > to be false, and its default position, "If the creation of new > oceanic lithosphere at oceanic ridges were the only process operating, > the Earth clearly would have increased in volume and surface area at a > remarkable rate in the comparatively recent geologic past", to be > true.
> What particular bit do you find difficult about this?
> > > > > > "Is there evidence that the Earth has got bigger?" (past tense) - Then > > > > > > the answer is yes.
> > > > > Which evidence (then)?
> > > > 1. Distension and rupture of a panglobal Mesozoic continental crust > > > > 2. Extrusion of the mantle. > > > > 3. Mountain belts as eroded plateaus peripheral to active breakthrough > > > > of the mantle (Pacific region - not passive breakthrough - /Atlantic/ > > > > Indian/Southern) > > > > 4. Back-arc basins (Western Pacific) as the remnant of Pacific > > > > continental disruption. > > > > 5. Phanerozoic stratigraphic sequence all on the continental crust.
> > > and (explain) why they are evidence "that the > > > Earth has got bigger".
> > Because they show the underlying "convenient assumption" of Plate > > Tectonics, "that the Earth cannot be getting bigger" > > http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html > > to be false, and its default position, "If the creation of new > > oceanic lithosphere at oceanic ridges were the only process operating, > > the Earth clearly would have increased in volume and surface area at a > > remarkable rate in the comparatively recent geologic past", to be > > true.
> > What particular bit do you find difficult about this?
> Please explain the five (5) item above.
If you look at a map of the world, all the stratigraphic sequence - from the Cambrian to the present - lies on the continental crust. It used to lie beneath the sea (more or less), but now it doesn't. It's been uplifted. *GLOBALLY*. And it's all pretty well flat. Plate Tectonics cannot account for that. Such a situation is axiomatic in Earth expansion.
(I'm only shouting because everybody seems to be deaf on this simple point.)
> > don findlay crivit dans l'article > > news:e737b576-fb43-45ed-9957-5f94c1
> > Please explain the five (5) item above.
> No answer. What a surprise.
Ah, so there you are.. Was wondering where you had gotten to. I shouted one at you and you didn't even take the bait. So what's not an answer about it? See if you can get it when given a clue.
>>> don findlay crivit dans l'article >>> news:e737b576-fb43-45ed-9957-5f94c1 >>> Please explain the five (5) item above. >> No answer. What a surprise.
> Ah, so there you are.. Was wondering where you had gotten to. I > shouted one at you and you didn't even take the bait. So what's not > an answer about it? See if you can get it when given a clue.
typical findlay, he evades a real question and asks one in return. he has no answers just complaints about PT and geology.
josephus -- I go sailing in the Summer and look at STARS in the Winter. "Everybody is igernant, only on differt subjects" Will Rogers "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble it is what you know that aint so" Josh Billings.
> >>> don findlay crivit dans l'article > >>> news:e737b576-fb43-45ed-9957-5f94c1 > >>> Please explain the five (5) item above. > >> No answer. What a surprise.
> > Ah, so there you are.. Was wondering where you had gotten to. I > > shouted one at you and you didn't even take the bait. So what's not > > an answer about it? See if you can get it when given a clue.
> >> -- > >> You say there is evidence. We are all waiting to see it. > >> ( news:BrdOd.56750$IV5.29302@attbi_s54 2005-02-09) > typical findlay, he evades a real question and asks one in return. he > has no answers just complaints about PT and geology.
I didn't evade anything. It's you he's leading by the nose.
> josephus > -- > I go sailing in the Summer and > look at STARS in the Winter. > "Everybody is igernant, only on differt subjects" > Will Rogers > "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble > it is what you know that aint so" > Josh Billings.
> Nicolas Krebs wrote: > > > Please explain the five (5) item above.
> > No answer. What a surprise.
> Ah
An answer, in findlay's style: Come on don, where are you evidence, what are yours explanations? "Published any papers on trapdoors and mantle wind lately? Or being Christmas are you just intent for the next few days on squeezing out any wind you can?" ( news:c01aac15-a72f-4422-995c-6d3bd4c701da@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com ) Are you always dodging answering? Come on don!
> Was wondering where you had gotten to.
Learn some usenet.
> you didn't even take the bait
I don't want bait. I want evidence. If you cant answer to my geology questions, then go learn some geology.
Do you remember this? "You say there is evidence. We are all waiting to see it." "Fifty years ago, the expanding earth made sense because it had been discovered that the Atlantic was expanding. But it's time to move on."
> An answer, in findlay's style: > Come on don, where are you evidence, what are yours explanations? > "Published any papers on trapdoors and mantle wind lately? > Or being Christmas are you just intent for the next few days on > squeezing out any wind you can?" > ( news:c01aac15-a72f-4422-995c-6d3bd4c701da@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com ) > Are you always dodging answering? Come on don!
> > Was wondering where you had gotten to.
> Learn some usenet.
> > you didn't even take the bait
> I don't want bait. I want evidence. If you cant answer to my geology > questions, then go learn some geology.
> Do you remember this? > "You say there is evidence. We are all waiting to see it." > "Fifty years ago, the expanding earth made sense because it had been > discovered that the Atlantic was expanding. But it's time to move on."
What do you mean? I gave you an answer:- -------------------------------------------- "If you look at a map of the world, all the stratigraphic sequence - from the Cambrian to the present - lies on the continental crust. It used to lie beneath the sea (more or less), but now it doesn't. It's been uplifted. *GLOBALLY*. And it's all pretty well flat. Plate Tectonics cannot account for that. Such a situation is axiomatic in Earth expansion. " http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/2d0333364794aa33 -------------------------------------------- You didn't even pick me up on the bit about "the present.." which was a bit of generalisation beyond the call of duty, perhaps. But you get the point: All the stratigraphic sequence worth talking about is on the land, i.e., all the flat stuff, laid down all over the world as 'stratigraphic sequence' used to be under the sea, is now on the land, and it's still flat. How come? There is no explanation for that sort of uplift - on that scale - in Plate Tectonics.. Yet it is axiomatic in Earth Expansion. And obviously seen. You don't have to think about it, ..yet nobody seems to want to, ..any more than they want to think about the Earth rotating being responsible for the spin symmetry of global deformation.
Platies don't understand the profound implications of that (stratigraphy). Nor of the existence of mountains - why they're still around, when erosion is just about the fastest thing geological processes can do.
> An answer, in findlay's style: > Come on don, where are you evidence, what are yours explanations? > "Published any papers on trapdoors and mantle wind lately? > Or being Christmas are you just intent for the next few days on > squeezing out any wind you can?" > ( news:c01aac15-a72f-4422-995c-6d3bd4c701da@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com ) > Are you always dodging answering? Come on don!
P.S. And what do you mean that was an answer? As far as I can see it was a question. So what was the question Stu asked that prompted that as an 'answer'?
> P.S. And what do you mean that was an answer? As far as I can see it > was a question. So what was the question Stu asked that prompted that > as an 'answer'?
What are you talking about? -- « Fifty years ago, the expanding earth made sense because it had been discovered that the Atlantic was expanding. But it's time to move on. »
> I gave you an answer:- > -------------------------------------------- > "If you look at a map of the world, all the stratigraphic sequence - > from the Cambrian to the present - lies on the continental crust. It > used to lie beneath the sea (more or less), but now it doesn't. It's > been uplifted. *GLOBALLY*. And it's all pretty well flat. Plate > Tectonics cannot account for that. Such a situation is axiomatic in > Earth expansion. " > http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/2d0333364794aa33 > --------------------------------------------
> > I gave you an answer:- > > -------------------------------------------- > > "If you look at a map of the world, all the stratigraphic sequence - > > from the Cambrian to the present - lies on the continental crust. It > > used to lie beneath the sea (more or less), but now it doesn't. It's > > been uplifted. *GLOBALLY*. And it's all pretty well flat. Plate > > Tectonics cannot account for that. Such a situation is axiomatic in > > Earth expansion. " > > http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/2d0333364794aa33 > > --------------------------------------------
> PS: Learn some usenet, your quoting is hawfull. > -- > You say there is evidence. We are all waiting to see it.
You asked for an explanation to item 5 on the list. Well that's it, ..and a pretty good one too (though I say so myself). See? Evidently stratigraphy's got you beat. What about mountains? Do you want to try mountains? Here are some mountains in the making:- http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-vn3102362 I'll bet those have got you stumped too.
> > > > > 5. Phanerozoic stratigraphic sequence all on the continental crust. > If you look at a map of the world, all the stratigraphic sequence - > from the Cambrian to the present - lies on the continental crust.
No. There are stratigraphic sequences on oceanic crusts, by example in accretionary wedge and in oceanic sedimentary basin.
> used to lie beneath the sea (more or less), but now it doesn't.
What do you mean?
> It's > been uplifted. *GLOBALLY*.
What do you mean?
> And it's all pretty well flat.
What do you mean?
> Plate > Tectonics cannot account for that.
Account for what?
> Such a situation is axiomatic in > Earth expansion.
> > > > > "Is there evidence that the Earth has got bigger?" (past tense) - Then > > > > > the answer is yes.
> > > > Which evidence (then)?
> > > 1. Distension and rupture of a panglobal Mesozoic continental crust > > > 2. Extrusion of the mantle. > > > 3. Mountain belts as eroded plateaus peripheral to active breakthrough > > > of the mantle (Pacific region - not passive breakthrough - /Atlantic/ > > > Indian/Southern) > > > 4. Back-arc basins (Western Pacific) as the remnant of Pacific > > > continental disruption. > > > 5. Phanerozoic stratigraphic sequence all on the continental crust.
> > and (explain) why they are evidence "that the > > Earth has got bigger".
> Because they show the underlying "convenient assumption" of Plate > Tectonics, "that the Earth cannot be getting bigger" > http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html > to be false, and its default position, "If the creation of new > oceanic lithosphere at oceanic ridges were the only process operating, > the Earth clearly would have increased in volume and surface area at a > remarkable rate in the comparatively recent geologic past", to be > true.
> What particular bit do you find difficult about this?
> > > > > > "Is there evidence that the Earth has got bigger?" (past tense) - Then > > > > > > the answer is yes.
> > > > > Which evidence (then)?
> > > > 1. Distension and rupture of a panglobal Mesozoic continental crust > > > > 2. Extrusion of the mantle. > > > > 3. Mountain belts as eroded plateaus peripheral to active breakthrough > > > > of the mantle (Pacific region - not passive breakthrough - /Atlantic/ > > > > Indian/Southern) > > > > 4. Back-arc basins (Western Pacific) as the remnant of Pacific > > > > continental disruption. > > > > 5. Phanerozoic stratigraphic sequence all on the continental crust.
> > > and (explain) why they are evidence "that the > > > Earth has got bigger".
> > Because they show the underlying "convenient assumption" of Plate > > Tectonics, "that the Earth cannot be getting bigger" > > http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html > > to be false, and its default position, "If the creation of new > > oceanic lithosphere at oceanic ridges were the only process operating, > > the Earth clearly would have increased in volume and surface area at a > > remarkable rate in the comparatively recent geologic past", to be > > true.
> > What particular bit do you find difficult about this?
> > P.S. And what do you mean that was an answer? As far as I can see it > > was a question. So what was the question Stu asked that prompted that > > as an 'answer'?
> What are you talking about?
Your link. Where you say "An answer in Findlay's style" ("Answer" = answer.) ----------------------------------- Quoting you:-
> An answer, in findlay's style: > Come on don, where are you evidence, what are yours explanations? > "Published any papers on trapdoors and mantle wind lately? > Or being Christmas are you just intent for the next few days on > squeezing out any wind you can?" > ( news:c01aac15-a72f-4422-995c-6d3bd4c701da@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com ) > Are you always dodging answering? Come on don!
> > > P.S. And what do you mean that was an answer? As far as I can see it > > > was a question. So what was the question Stu asked that prompted that > > > as an 'answer'?
> > What are you talking about?
> Your link. Where you say "An answer in Findlay's style" ("Answer" = > answer.) > ----------------------------------- > Quoting you:- > > An answer, in findlay's style: > > Come on don, where are you evidence, what are yours explanations? > > "Published any papers on trapdoors and mantle wind lately? > > Or being Christmas are you just intent for the next few days on > > squeezing out any wind you can?" > > ( news:c01aac15-a72f-4422-995c-6d3bd4c701da@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com ) > > Are you always dodging answering? Come on don! > (unquote) > ------------------------------------
I did'n understand because you claimed i wrote "that was an answer", whic was not. You see, sometime people don't understand becouse they can't, no because the want not or are stupid.
|
