fb22c466c...@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>, Stuart wrote: > So what magic ingredient do you suppose keeps Mimas from expanding?
Unobtanium, in one of it's many allotropic forms. It can't be either distance or gravitational gradient, because they're too easy and don't require changing all of the rest of physics.
Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote: > If planets are expanding, filling up with new material, where > does that new material come from?
From your ass. That one was easy :-)
-- Florian "Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée; ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
Aidan Karley <name1_na...@email.provider.invalid> wrote: > In article <fd74ed08-a8ff-42ca-b4fc- > fb22c466c...@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>, Stuart wrote: > > So what magic ingredient do you suppose keeps Mimas from expanding?
> Unobtanium, in one of it's many allotropic forms.
Nope, Unobtainium is what drives subduction.
> It can't be > either distance or gravitational gradient, because they're too easy and > don't require changing all of the rest of physics.
Honey, Mimas is closer to Neptune than Enceladus and should be subject to much stronger tidal effects. You should revise your physics.
-- Florian "Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée; ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>> You obviously have no desire to debate the subject like a rational >>>> intelligent adult.
>>> For sure, I have no desire to debate the subject with a troll.
>>> Go back to your cave bad troll.
>>HAHAHHA!!! Is that the best you can do? Hell, from you, that's >>a compliment!!
>>Now, how about explaining to me this:
>>If planets are expanding, filling up with new material, where >>does that new material come from?
> If you knew any thing about the scientific method, you would know that > is irrelevant to answering the question of whether it IS.
If YOU knew anything about the scientific method, you would know that you are wrong and that my question follows most naturally from the presmis you subscribe to.
Science seeks the answer to the question of "Why".
You claim planets are expanding. To answer why, we need to know where the material comes from. It would be insufficient, incomplete, and irresponsible (if not just downright gullibly stupid) to accept a premis on face value without asking how, why, when, what, etc..
THAT is the whole business of scientific investigation.
Speaking down to the crank level, it's very fucking relevant.
Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote: > Science seeks the answer to the question of "Why".
Yes, but we can only answer to "Whys" when we get sufficient data. Lack of data to constraint a model leads to wishful thinking.
So we only focuse on phenomenon that can be reasonably described and quantified. Clearly, we don't have the data to build a coherent model that can explain why the earth or other planets are growing. So that question is clearly out of the scope at present.
But, we have plenty of data to make a good model describing how the surface of the earth is shaped by its growth.
I don't expect that a troll wants to understand the nuance. So please, just go back to your cave.
-- Florian "Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée; ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>> You obviously have no desire to debate the subject like a rational >>>>> intelligent adult.
>>>> For sure, I have no desire to debate the subject with a troll.
>>>> Go back to your cave bad troll.
>>>HAHAHHA!!! Is that the best you can do? Hell, from you, that's >>>a compliment!!
>>>Now, how about explaining to me this:
>>>If planets are expanding, filling up with new material, where >>>does that new material come from?
>> If you knew any thing about the scientific method, you would know that >> is irrelevant to answering the question of whether it IS.
>If YOU knew anything about the scientific method, you would >know that you are wrong and that my question follows most >naturally from the presmis you subscribe to.
>Science seeks the answer to the question of "Why".
>You claim planets are expanding. To answer why, we need to know >where the material comes from. It would be insufficient, incomplete, >and irresponsible (if not just downright gullibly stupid) to >accept a premis on face value without asking how, why, when, what, >etc..
>THAT is the whole business of scientific investigation.
>Speaking down to the crank level, it's very fucking relevant.
It is NOT relevant since the question CAN be answered with out it.
Take a logic course, and stop suffering from your stupidity.
>>>> If planets are expanding, filling up with new material, where >>>> does that new material come from?
>>> From your ass. That one was easy :-)
>>Damn, you're awfully cranky today. Who pissed in your Cheerios?
>>So, can you answer the question? Where does the material come >>from? It has to come from somewhere, right?
> That would be a conclusion DRAWN from the conclusion DRAWN from the > evidence.
> Logic is about sequence, and why you cannot do it. You are scatter > brained.
And you are refusing to answer the question.
Where does the material come from? Even if I were to accept for a moment that planetary expansion exists as fact, I would still want to know where it came from. Don't *you* want to know where it comes from?
>>> If planets are expanding, filling up with new material, where >>> does that new material come from?
>>From your ass. That one was easy :-)
> If Skywise has a brain, where is it?
Seriously. Is that the best you can do? You insults suck. Doesn't even make me blink. Who taught you this crap? You need to take some pointers from Findlay. At least he knows how to sling mud. (not that it proves his point any better)
> It is NOT relevant since the question CAN be answered with out it.
What question? My question is where does the material come from? Did you have a question? I thought to you it was already fact that planetary bodies expanded. Or do you question your own theory? (which would be very scientific of you to do so)
> Take a logic course, and stop suffering from your stupidity.
You and Flo really need to come up with better insults. I mean, all it does is make me laugh at you. It hurts me none, and does nothing to help your cause - which I presume is to convert us all from pagan PTer's to conforming Bible thumping EEer's
>> Science seeks the answer to the question of "Why".
> Yes, but we can only answer to "Whys" when we get sufficient data. Lack > of data to constraint a model leads to wishful thinking.
So in other words, you do not know where the material comes from.
> So we only focuse on phenomenon that can be reasonably described and > quantified. Clearly, we don't have the data to build a coherent model > that can explain why the earth or other planets are growing.
So you don't even know why they are expanding, either.
> So that question is clearly out of the scope at present.
Not necessarily. Hypothesize. That's part of science. Make a hypothesis that is testable, then do an experiment to test it and see if the new data supports the theory. If it does, then it supports the theory which in turn supports the premis of planetary expansion.
> But, we have plenty of data to make a good model describing how the > surface of the earth is shaped by its growth.
Which can also be explained by another model which not only explains how, but why, what, where, and when. Some things you readily admit you have not tried to explain.
> I don't expect that a troll wants to understand the nuance. > So please, just go back to your cave.
Ahhh...another lame attempt at insults. How disappointing.
>>>> If planets are expanding, filling up with new material, where >>>> does that new material come from?
>>>From your ass. That one was easy :-)
>> If Skywise has a brain, where is it?
>Seriously. Is that the best you can do? You insults suck. Doesn't >even make me blink. Who taught you this crap? You need to take >some pointers from Findlay. At least he knows how to sling mud. >(not that it proves his point any better)
>>>>> If planets are expanding, filling up with new material, where >>>>> does that new material come from?
>>>> From your ass. That one was easy :-)
>>>Damn, you're awfully cranky today. Who pissed in your Cheerios?
>>>So, can you answer the question? Where does the material come >>>from? It has to come from somewhere, right?
>> That would be a conclusion DRAWN from the conclusion DRAWN from the >> evidence.
>> Logic is about sequence, and why you cannot do it. You are scatter >> brained.
>And you are refusing to answer the question.
>Where does the material come from? Even if I were to accept for >a moment that planetary expansion exists as fact, I would still >want to know where it came from. Don't *you* want to know where >it comes from?
Where, how, when, what will not add or subtract one bit to the question of whether expansion is. It is completely irrelevant to answering that question, AND you only get to ask the question of what is causing the expansion AFTER accepting expansion as a FACT.
>>> Science seeks the answer to the question of "Why".
>> Yes, but we can only answer to "Whys" when we get sufficient data. Lack >> of data to constraint a model leads to wishful thinking.
>So in other words, you do not know where the material comes >from.
>> So we only focuse on phenomenon that can be reasonably described and >> quantified. Clearly, we don't have the data to build a coherent model >> that can explain why the earth or other planets are growing.
>So you don't even know why they are expanding, either.
>> So that question is clearly out of the scope at present.
>Not necessarily. Hypothesize. That's part of science. Make a >hypothesis that is testable, then do an experiment to test it >and see if the new data supports the theory. If it does, then >it supports the theory which in turn supports the premis of >planetary expansion.
Or you could do something even more basic, make a few observations, but that would require having your head some place your eyes can see.
>> It is NOT relevant since the question CAN be answered with out it.
>What question? My question is where does the material come >from? Did you have a question? I thought to you it was already >fact that planetary bodies expanded. Or do you question your >own theory? (which would be very scientific of you to do so)
>> Take a logic course, and stop suffering from your stupidity.
>You and Flo really need to come up with better insults. I mean, >all it does is make me laugh at you. It hurts me none, and does >nothing to help your cause - which I presume is to convert us >all from pagan PTer's to conforming Bible thumping EEer's
>>>>> If planets are expanding, filling up with new material, where >>>>> does that new material come from? >>> >From your ass. That one was easy :-)
>>> If Skywise has a brain, where is it? >> Seriously. Is that the best you can do? You insults suck. Doesn't >> even make me blink. Who taught you this crap? You need to take >> some pointers from Findlay. At least he knows how to sling mud. >> (not that it proves his point any better)
> You did not need to prove the point, but thanks
> JT
that is lame JT you proved the point. not brian.
and the question you are evading is WHERE DOES THE MATTER COME FORM? the quintecential question.
>>>>>> If planets are expanding, filling up with new material, where >>>>>> does that new material come from? >>>>> From your ass. That one was easy :-) >>>> Damn, you're awfully cranky today. Who pissed in your Cheerios?
>>>> So, can you answer the question? Where does the material come >>>> from? It has to come from somewhere, right? >>> That would be a conclusion DRAWN from the conclusion DRAWN from the >>> evidence.
>>> Logic is about sequence, and why you cannot do it. You are scatter >>> brained. >> And you are refusing to answer the question.
>> Where does the material come from? Even if I were to accept for >> a moment that planetary expansion exists as fact, I would still >> want to know where it came from. Don't *you* want to know where >> it comes from?
> Where, how, when, what will not add or subtract one bit to the > question of whether expansion is. It is completely irrelevant to > answering that question, AND you only get to ask the question of what > is causing the expansion AFTER accepting expansion as a FACT.
> Until then you are just mentally jerking off.
> JT
please answer the question you dont know and I know you dont know any mathematics or physics. the question is really , really hard because it means you have to tell the truth. insults are just a different way of lying.
>>>> Science seeks the answer to the question of "Why". >>> Yes, but we can only answer to "Whys" when we get sufficient data. Lack >>> of data to constraint a model leads to wishful thinking. >> So in other words, you do not know where the material comes >> from.
>>> So we only focuse on phenomenon that can be reasonably described and >>> quantified. Clearly, we don't have the data to build a coherent model >>> that can explain why the earth or other planets are growing. >> So you don't even know why they are expanding, either.
>>> So that question is clearly out of the scope at present. >> Not necessarily. Hypothesize. That's part of science. Make a >> hypothesis that is testable, then do an experiment to test it >> and see if the new data supports the theory. If it does, then >> it supports the theory which in turn supports the premis of >> planetary expansion.
> Or you could do something even more basic, make a few observations, > but that would require having your head some place your eyes can see.
> JT
EE folks are all alergic to that suggestion. the closest any of you comes to having data of ANY KIND. he misinterprets real activities and draws conclusions not supported by the data. but JT and Don just pass instults and think that passes for proof
>>> It is NOT relevant since the question CAN be answered with out it. >> What question? My question is where does the material come >> from? Did you have a question? I thought to you it was already >> fact that planetary bodies expanded. Or do you question your >> own theory? (which would be very scientific of you to do so)
>>> Take a logic course, and stop suffering from your stupidity. >> You and Flo really need to come up with better insults. I mean, >> all it does is make me laugh at you. It hurts me none, and does >> nothing to help your cause - which I presume is to convert us >> all from pagan PTer's to conforming Bible thumping EEer's
> And you complain of my insults! What a wanker!
> JT
it looks like JT is confounding the conversation. he talks about everything but the question at hand. WHERE DOES THE MATTER COME FROM ( How and Why are related questions.)
josephus --- I would rather play WOW on line than talk to you.
Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote: > > Yes, but we can only answer to "Whys" when we get sufficient data. Lack > > of data to constraint a model leads to wishful thinking.
> So in other words, you do not know where the material comes > from.
That must be a bad joke.
> > So we only focuse on phenomenon that can be reasonably described and > > quantified. Clearly, we don't have the data to build a coherent model > > that can explain why the earth or other planets are growing.
> So you don't even know why they are expanding, either.
Yet another bad joke.
> > So that question is clearly out of the scope at present.
> Not necessarily. Hypothesize. That's part of science. Make a > hypothesis that is testable, then do an experiment to test it > and see if the new data supports the theory. If it does, then > it supports the theory which in turn supports the premis of > planetary expansion.
Dude. I explained you that we don't have enough data to build a model and you want predictions? So, here is the classical scientific methods you're parroting without understanding:
1 - make observations, collect data, quantify. 2 - build a model from the data 3 - make prediction from the model that will refute or support it. 4 - make experiment to check predictions
Regarding the mechanism of planetary growth we're not even at stage one. So making prediction is clearly out of the scope.
I remind you that regarding to the mechanism driving plate tectonics, it is still stuck between stage 1 and 2 despite 40 years of research!
> > But, we have plenty of data to make a good model describing how the > > surface of the earth is shaped by its growth.
> Which can also be explained by another model which not only > explains how, but why, what, where, and when. Some things > you readily admit you have not tried to explain.
Nope. That other model fails. And you would know it if you were not too lazy to check it.
It does not explain why there is a fan that deposited in the gulf of alaska but is now just south of the aleutian island. It does not explain what happens in the philipinnes (multiple extension), it does not explain why the age of ocean floor in the pacific has a tree-ring pattern. It does not explain intraplate seisms, it does not explain large uplifts forming high plateau, it does not explain transform faults, it does not explain hotspot (mantleplumes.org), it does not explain tiny subduction-like zone like that in the area of the amirante island. It fails to make correct reconstruction using the age of seafloor and transform faults (like around antarctica), it's putative mechanism is refuted by observed mantle heterogenity, It is not even universal as it is incompatible with observations made on other planets/moons... and so on...
This model is naive and is a failure.
It was great to help people switch from fixism to a more dynamic model. But now, it's high time to move on.
> > I don't expect that a troll wants to understand the nuance. > > So please, just go back to your cave.
> Ahhh...another lame attempt at insults. How disappointing.
Insult? where? Your insistance to ask for a mechanism whereas we don't even have the data to build a model, thus ignoring basic scientific principle, proves that you're just a bad troll.
-- Florian "Toute v�rit� passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculis�e; ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'�tre accept�e comme une totale �vidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>> If planets are expanding, filling up with new material, where >>>>>> does that new material come from? >>>> >From your ass. That one was easy :-)
>>>> If Skywise has a brain, where is it? >>> Seriously. Is that the best you can do? You insults suck. Doesn't >>> even make me blink. Who taught you this crap? You need to take >>> some pointers from Findlay. At least he knows how to sling mud. >>> (not that it proves his point any better)
>> You did not need to prove the point, but thanks
>> JT
>that is lame JT you proved the point. not brian.
>and the question you are evading is WHERE DOES THE MATTER COME FORM? >the quintecential question.
The question is ONLY relevant if you accept expansion as a FACT, then, and ONLY then does it become the quintessential question.
You accept expansion as a fact? If not, you can go jerk off with Skywise.
>>>>> Science seeks the answer to the question of "Why". >>>> Yes, but we can only answer to "Whys" when we get sufficient data. Lack >>>> of data to constraint a model leads to wishful thinking. >>> So in other words, you do not know where the material comes >>> from.
>>>> So we only focuse on phenomenon that can be reasonably described and >>>> quantified. Clearly, we don't have the data to build a coherent model >>>> that can explain why the earth or other planets are growing. >>> So you don't even know why they are expanding, either.
>>>> So that question is clearly out of the scope at present. >>> Not necessarily. Hypothesize. That's part of science. Make a >>> hypothesis that is testable, then do an experiment to test it >>> and see if the new data supports the theory. If it does, then >>> it supports the theory which in turn supports the premis of >>> planetary expansion.
>> Or you could do something even more basic, make a few observations, >> but that would require having your head some place your eyes can see.
>> JT
> EE folks are all alergic to that suggestion. the closest any of you >comes to having data of ANY KIND. he misinterprets real activities and >draws conclusions not supported by the data. but JT and Don just pass >instults and think that passes for proof
I know thinking is not something you are familiar with but think of it this way, if a source was known would that imply expansion? Hell no!
Having a means does not mean an action originated from it. Inversely, having a known action does not make it now a non-action because how it is done is not known.
> Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote: > > Which can also be explained by another model which not only > > explains how, but why, what, where, and when. Some things > > you readily admit you have not tried to explain.
> Nope. That other model fails.
Evidence?
If english language is not your mother tongue, you can look at - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evidence#English "Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion." - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence "something that furnishes proof" - http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/evidence.html "sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion" -- (...) conquis toute la géologie. Toute ? Non ! Car quelques irréductibles partisans de Samuel Carey résistent encore et toujours (...)
|
