Re: Expanding Earth

From: Hank Oredson (horedson_at_att.net)
Date: 01/06/05

  • Next message: Hank Oredson: "Re: Expanding Earth" 
    Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:16:27 GMT

    "don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
    news:1104969083.177903.81990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Hank Oredson wrote:
    >> "don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
    >> news:1104904788.487193.41280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >> >
    >> > Hank Oredson wrote:
    >> >> "don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
    >> >
    >> >> > and shrinking in subduction zones? Since when is movement the
    >> > same
    >> >> > thing as growth and shrinkage?
    >> >>
    >> >> Ridges expand, subduction zones contract.
    >> >> Really pretty simple.
    >> >>
    >> >> >> Next.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Yes, what next?
    >> >>
    >> >> Stick to the topic?
    >> >
    >> > What's the topic?
    >>
    >>
    >> You already posted this information about your lapse of memory.
    >> No need to post it twice. Oh, wait ... never mind.
    >
    > The question was to set the ground rules (so to speak) for the
    > discussion, not to particularly reveal anything about my memory. Was

    This is usenet.
    There are no ground rules.
    Your sense of humor is lacking.

    > it you said you had something to do with upper atmosphere physics? You

    Yes, I said that.

    > would know therefore about it being cold in space? You would also know
    > therefore that is the basic reason for the subduction of descending
    > slabs of mantle into the Earth's interior. Yes/ no? Are you really
    > going to shoot your lifetime's credibility (you did say you were
    > publishing something about something) in both feet by backing up this

    No, I'm not publishing anything about anything.
    I have, but it would not be of interest to you.
    I might, but you would not understand it.

    > idea that what's happening in the upper atmosphere is responsible for
    > the Fiery Ring of the Pacific. And therefore the circulation in the
    > mantle. I'll bet it sounds daft even to you.

    You said it, I didn't.

    > So why are you here, Hank? Surely not just to make comments on my

    Curious.

    > memory. You did say (somewhere) you were interested in this. As a man
    > versed in the necessary logic of science, have *YOU* nothing to say on
    > the FLAW in plate tectonics:-
    > http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/flaw.html
    > ? Because this is the logic of the swamp you have ventured into when
    > you side with 'George' and the rest of the "usenet kooks" propping each
    > other up. You had better be clear of the ground you are standing on.

    Why would that interest me? It's pure BS.

    > The EArth getting bigger. The strange thing is that it is staring you

    No, it is not.

    I have a degree in EE (as well as Physics and Math) so I am clearly
    an expert in this topic. The earth is not getting bigger. Do you have
    a degree in EE No? Imagine my surprise and shock. How dare you
    pontificate without an Expanding Earth degree.

    > and everyone else in the face. It might make no sense within the scope
    > of what you know about your physics, and you might think with such a

    It's not my physics nor yours.

    > large consensus behind it, that there must be some solid reasons behind

    Consensus is not proof, just as coincidence is not causation.

    > the Earth sciences: there is - the ASSUMPTION of the Faery Ocean of
    > Panthalassa that everyone believes in 9but wouldn't if they thought
    > about it), but it is geologically a demonstrable fact (reason, or no
    > reason) every bit as portentous as the change away from flat-Earthism -
    > which is what *PLATE* tectonics is all about. One way to look at it
    > in fact is that it is largely an artifact of simply having had (till
    > now) flat maps to work off. Working (thinking) off a sphere gives a
    > totally different picture.
    >
    > Think about it. Then come back and tell us how you see the FIERY RING
    > - (in terms of upper atmosphere physical, that is.) Go on, shore up
    > their beliefs that it really is a credible source of mantle convection.
    > ("negative heat")

    You, as usual, did not respond to the question.
    Where IS that factor of ten to the seventh power anyway?
    Do you shovel infall off your roof every year?
    Back to Thermo 101 for you, until you pass the course. 

    -- 
  ... Hank
http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
  • Next message: Hank Oredson: "Re: Expanding Earth"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Time to revive Emerald?
      ... Intel calls this "Physical Address Extensions". ... Intel turned the whole concept of virtual memory on its ... Harvard Physics Department ...
      (comp.os.vms)
    • Projectile Motion Problem and HP solver
      ... I thought I would save time and use the built in Projectile Motion ... solver in the Equation Library in my HP48GX. ... I have tried this with my calulator with a completely clean memory ... Of Physics Geology, and Astronomy ...
      (comp.sys.hp48)
    • Re: Tenets of naturalism: what exists
      ... continuum whose most basic elements are those described by physics. ... claim that there is much evidence. ... So "satisfactory evidence" is a bit too relative for my taste. ... Cerebral memory is what gets stored in the brain during a lifetime. ...
      (uk.philosophy.humanism)
    • Hardware/Software Dichotomy and Platonism (Re: expectations being satisfied)
      ... > If a program is loaded into memory for execution, then the memory, ... Platonism necessarily implies a dualist ... not the philosophy of mathematics that should change, ... also form a sound basis for digital physics. ...
      (comp.theory)
    • Re: Expanding Earth
      ... Hank Oredson wrote: ... > You already posted this information about your lapse of memory. ... slabs of mantle into the Earth's interior. ... about it), but it is geologically a demonstrable fact (reason, or no ...
      (sci.geo.geology)