Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth
From: George (george_at_wtfiswrongwithyou.com)
Date: 12/25/04
- Next message: J. Taylor: "Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth"
- Previous message: J. Taylor: "Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth"
- In reply to: J. Taylor: "Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth"
- Next in thread: don findlay: "Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth"
- Reply: don findlay: "Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth"
- Reply: J. Taylor: "Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 05:12:25 GMT
"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:p7mps0tmc47781dv7nn7ev7buldvrbufko@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:50:36 GMT, "George"
> <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>news:m3cns05g7pa3e44n7939ks68s3v1rroj98@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:47:18 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
>>> <ralph-nesbitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:n9cgs0tckslse5a9j8pcedr01atqmdicap@4ax.com...
>>>>> Look at this way, for me there is evidence which appears inconsistent
>>>>> with Earth expansion, then there is evidence which seems to be only
>>>>> explained by an expanding Earth. Now the options, to remain
>>>>> resolutely faithful to a beloved theory, or just deny the evidence, or
>>>>> look for alternate explanations.
>>>>>
>>>>I agree there is much evidence against EE. There has been some blather here
>>>>re "Supporting EE" but nothing presented that withstands close scrutiny that
>>>>will support EE.
>>>>
>>>>I have asked several that aparrently support EE to post the basis of their
>>>>reasoning. As of this time the only response has been blather at best, but
>>>>mostly natural fertilizer of several varieties IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> My ISP has contracted with Supernews and it is possible its retention
>>> rate is superior to the newsgroup you are using. It is also possible,
>>> you have neglected to read what is in the archive for your newsgroup,
>>> but prefer to select isolated post for your comments.
>>>
>>> In either case, it does limit you to what you are talking about.
>>>
>>> If you are looking for fertile ground explore Antarctica, Africa and
>>> the Lena River area.
>>>
>>> JT
>>
>>Ralph is right. Several have posted EE arguments for several years in this
>>newsgroup. And they have been totally ineffectual in their presentation of
>>the
>>alleged "evidence" for EE, and have primarily presented withering comments
>>against plate tectonics and those who are its proponents, rather than actually
>>presenting valid scientific evidence. You are no exception to this rule.
>>
>
> George, I and everyone on this newgroup know one thing about you and
> your science, it is what ever is the prevailing view. Discoveries
> will never come from you.
I'm not going to sit here and wave college degrees in the air with you. Suffice
it to say that I have published findings in peer-reviewed journals. The only
thing you've discovered is the art of self-promotion of the web. You obviously
haven't published anything about Earth Expansion in any peer-reviewed journal,
and likely haven't published naythjing else in a peer-reviewed journal. By the
way, my Paleontology professor studied for a time under Carey (your theory's
messiah, if I'm not mistaken). My professor says that Carey was a "southern
semisphere plate tectonic visionary" (J.E. Conkin, 2002). So my question to you
is where all these EErs got the idea that he didn't subscribe to the theory of
Plate Tectonics?
> It is not to say you do not have value, it is to say you are not an
> explorer.
How presumptious of you to say so.
> For myself, I accept looking can lead to an empty pursuit, but the
> desire to see and test every detail is what compels me.
>
> Do not expect you to understand.
I've looked at EE in quite a bit of detail, and have found nothing printed in
peer-reviewed journals. In fact, nearly all of what I've read is posted on web
sites that primarily are created by self-serving authors who have no affiliation
with any reputable scientific organization. In the old days, people like that
would be referred to as barn stormers. In the real old days, they were called
snake oil salesmen. Today, they are Usenet kooks.
Of the web sites I've perused, the most detailed is that of DF, much of which
consists of endless rants and insults against "platies", and a whole lot of
erroneous nonsense trying to disprove plate tectonics rather than trying prove
that earth expansion has actually occurred. What little "evidence" he has
presented (despite the colorful graphics) to try to prove that expansion has
occurred is easily dismissed as nonsense by current plate tectonic theory, and
shows a distinct lack of understanding of plate tectonic theory in general. For
instance, he has repeatedly tried to engage people in conversations about
transform faults, accusing "platies" of ignoring them, when the fact of the
matter is that transform faults are the most heavily investigated of all the
faults. Billions of dollars have been spent on their research.
On his web site, he suggests that expansion is occurring along transform faults
by diapir placement, and even goes so far as to present a graphic demonstrating
how this is supposed to occur. In his graphic he shows that the transforms open
up, and that either side of the transform is being pushed aside perpendicular to
the trends of the faults and allowing diapirs to be intruded/extruded. He
considers this significant in that he claims that significant expansion has
occurred along these faults by allowing significant intrusion/extrusion of
material to occur and thus expand the earth. The problem is that when you
actually look at the transforms, there is very levidence of diapiric action,
minimal separation of the fault surfaces, and what intrusions/extrusions there
are is of a localized nature. There is not one reported case of a transform
fault have the characteristics he ascribes to them (in fact, the characteristics
he ascribes to transforms is more appropriate to spreading ridges, and even
then, the geometry is all wrong. And then he uses transform/diapiric idea to
say that it occurs at all of the transforms (which clearly would have to be the
case in order to get the 30% of so of expansion that is alleged), which is not
only not the case, but is ludicrous to even suggest, given that well-known
characteristics of transforms.
I've discussed EE at length with him on many ocassions, and have asked him why,
if he is so convinced he is right, he doesn't publish his work. His answer was
muttled in excuses and rants about a previous attempt to get something published
being basically laughed at by the publisher. I suspect he is either too lazy to
try, or he is so afraid of rejection that he simply doesn't want to deal with
it. The main reason for this is that he refuses to accept the concept of
peer-review, and considers it akin to censorship. However one views it,
peer-review is a vital part of scientific research publication, and no one is
going to get a moment's notice with out it. No one is immune to it. We all have
to be peer reivewed. So, there you have it. One of the main proponents of EE
is this really wierd guy from Australia who thinks that running a one man show
on the internet is a valid way to conduct scientific research. The fact that he
worships the ground that J.P. Turcaud (king of loonies) walks on is reason
enough, in my book, to dismiss him altogether.
- Next message: J. Taylor: "Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth"
- Previous message: J. Taylor: "Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth"
- In reply to: J. Taylor: "Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth"
- Next in thread: don findlay: "Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth"
- Reply: don findlay: "Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth"
- Reply: J. Taylor: "Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
