Re: Earth expansion - puzzled......
From: don findlay (don_at_tower.net.au)
Date: 02/07/05
- Next message: Hank Oredson: "Re: Earth expansion - puzzled......"
- Previous message: baalke_at_earthlink.net: "Mars Exploration Rover Update - February 4, 2005"
- In reply to: Gerard Fryer: "Re: Earth expansion - puzzled......"
- Next in thread: sapere aude: "Re: Earth expansion - puzzled......"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 6 Feb 2005 22:02:56 -0800
Gerard Fryer wrote:
> On 2005-02-06 08:08:07 -1000, Jo Schaper
> <joschapern4ospam@2socketdot.no5net> said:
>
> > 2) PT is still a 'theory'. In American English, a 'fact' is a
single
> > reported phenomenon generally accepted by all: for example:
"Diamond is
> > ranked No. 10 on the Mohs hardness scale." "Steel is harder than
soap."
> > A *mechanism* explaining observed behavior or in explanation of a
suite
> > of related facts, verified by experimentation, and usually
supported by
> > mathematical abstractions is a 'theory'. Examples of such would be
the
> > theories of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Natural Selection, and
so
> > forth. PT is not a 'fact', regardless of whether or not it is
generally
> > accepted as a reasonably true explanation.
>
> Right. Plate tectonics is a theory and will always be a theory, just
as
> relativity and natural selection will always be theories. It is a
> theory (and therefore open to question)
"open to question"? (Nice bit of afterthought parenthesis there) "Just
by the way", you mean (?), Gerard, because we certainly don't see very
much evidence of it being open to question on this newsgroup. Everyone
admits the holes in it. But there is no evidence of anyone addressing
any of the questions. It would be quite nice to see questions from
those who know most about the theory, quite nice to see those who
purport to know most, tell some of the problems about it from their
point of view. In other words, some open discussion, rather than this
pervasive consensus p-p that goes on. Do YOU have a question about
plate tectonics you would like to see answered? You presumably know a
bit about it above your average reader. Or are there no-go, problem
areas that by agreement must be left alone? Like the fact (FACT) that
the theory is wholly based on convenient assumption
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html
> for the simple reason that it
> is always going to be possible to think up some process that can
> provide an alternate explanation of all the observations. So far
nobody
> has come up with a viable alternative to plate tectonics, so plate
> tectonics is what we accept.
Google up "plate tectonics" "alternative view" and get up to date
then. Discover that the Theory is NOT all it's cracked up to be;-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/transass.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/movass.html
> But there is always niggling doubt; there
> is always the possibility that someone will make an observation
> incompatible with plate tectonics and blow the whole theory out of
the
> water.
Perhpas observations like:-
The spiral symmetry of global structure that plate tectonics ignores.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/drivel.html
The stepped offsets of transform terminations too that plate tectonics
ignores, that show that the spreading ridges in fact move away from the
continents at the same time as the ridge moves upwards,
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/ridgeup.html
That the abyssal hills (which plate tectonics doesn't know how to
interpret) are in fact are the inscription of exapansion as downwards
penetrating fracture meets uplifting mantle.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/abyshills.html
That the Earth is not "divided into a number of plates" as plate
tectonics says, but in fact is a single plate (and yes, the difference
in observation is important):-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/flaw.html
That the high mountains of the world are virtually of flat-lying layers
and NOT crumpled, as plate tectonics says they should be in a scenario
of "colliding plates crumpling the crust and throwing up mountain
belts"
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/index.html
...and numerous other suchlikes, that are obvious to anyone with half
an eye for the FACTS instead of the theory and the Boysclub that goes
with it.
> Small wonder that every scientist worth his salt is always a bit
> insecure.
Which is why they close ranks faster than your favourite football team
whenever unpalatable FACTS are put before them. Come off it Gerard,
plate tectonics as witnessed on this newsgroup is a 100% consensus
view. Where's the insecurity you are talking about? And whose the
salty dog? 'George'?
> What about the expanding Earth? It is not acceptable simply because
it
> is NOT a theory.
It does NOT purport to be. That's a dead dog you hang on it, so people
can smell. It is a three-part observation every bit as solid as the
Atlantic continental fit, 1. That the continents once fitted together
(In the Atlantic Indian ocean region and in the Pacific); 2. that the
'jigsaw fits' have been dilated by the extents of the ocean floors; 3.
that the kinetic movement picture has a symmetry commensurate with the
spin of the planet.
> It does not fit all the observations
Provide a list of observations here you think do not fit:-
___________________________________________
*******************************************
____________________________________________
> and has no
> predictive capacity.
Earth expansion predicts that plate tectonics will discover (contrary
to its current position):-
1. That the most mountainous regions of the planet are in fact
flat-lying, and not crumpled by plate collision and therefore that
uplift of the crust by "crumpling" is nonsense
2. That their axial regions are dissected by Basin-and-Range - like
spreading.
3. That an extreme example of axial dilation has been the intrusion of
the Pacific
4. That the planet-wide, 'spin-symmetry' of transforms will be
confirmed.
5. That the makeup of the ocean floors is constituted of "abyssal
hills" that are scarp - mantlelayer features and that the
intrusive-dyke model for sea-floor spreading will be discarded.
6. That transform faults will be discovered to be extensional features
after all.
7. That their apparent 'strike-slip' movement will be recognised as an
artifact of continuing upward movement of the spreading ridge.
8. That their termination offsets (i.e., not their ridge offsets) are
key indicators of along-ridge spreading and mantle enlargement (thus
far ignored).
9. That as a consequence of the above the shibboleth that "the Earth is
divided into a number of plates" will be abandoned in favour of only
one that is of any significance.
10. That all of the above will be connected in advancing plate
tectonics beyond its current infantile and moribund position of
lanetary 'indigestion' being its driving force, to its place in the
solar system being the driver for both its formation and its
deformation.
The above may of course be broken down to its several observed
components that lead to these predictions
> With enough special pleading it is possible to
> make the expanding Earth work pretty well,
Is it? First we've heard of this on this newsgroup. Care to
elaborate?
> but scientists don't like
> special pleading because it conflicts with science's innate parsimony
> (call it what you will: Occam's Razor or the elegance of nature, but
> the philosophy of simplicity has served science very well).
But not oversimplicity. The oversimplicity of plate tectonics is
assinine in its contradictions
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/index.html>
> And what is "special pleading?" Special pleading is the enforced
> modification of theories other than your target, so that your
> hypothesis can be made to fit. Expanding Earthers want to displace
> plate tectonics, but to do so they have to explain their way around
> matters irrelevant to plate tectonics. For example, the simple
> expanding Earth plugged in this forum violates the conservation of
> angular momentum.
Expanding Earth "plugged in this forum" in the last two years has been
principally by me. I have not once mentioned conservation of angular
momentum as an ingredient of the theory. Don't try to 'George' us all
on this one, Gerard. The principal mentioner of this one has been
stuart, who is not a plugger of expansion.
> You can get around that by invoking just the right
> kind of temporal variation in G, the universal gravitational
constant.
> But that doesn't solve the expanding Earth's other problems, such as
> measurements of crustal convergence on a near-hemispherical scale.
You
> can argue your way around those difficulties by invoking an ether so
> that the speed of light (and hence geodetic measurement made using
> electromagnetic radiation) varies with direction. But now you have a
> host of other problems, so you have to delve deeper and deeper into
> physics, modifying theories willy nilly. None of this tells us
whether
> the expanding Earth is right or wrong, but as special pleading is
> shovelled onto special pleading, the expanding Earth looks poorer and
> poorer in comparison to plate tectonics, which is in harmony with all
> those other theories that have stood the test of time.
Again, 'George'. The invocations you mention are all theoretical
inventions of yours. Earth expansion stands on the empirical
geological observations. The objections you mention are proposed by
the physics community, and have no place in the argument until the
geology is ironed out.
> BTW, careful scientists always avoid talking of "facts."
..until peer review passes them as ok, you mean ..like "subduction",
"convection" "strike-slip" faulting for transforms... You have no
objection to these being cited as 'facts' when Pteros mention them
(Duplicitous complicity)
> While facts
> must exist, we can never know when we have found them.
Do we take it you mean 'all'? The ocean floors are a fact.
Panthalassa is not. you don't have to get fancy about anything.
> All science has
> to deal with is observations, and all it can come up with is
> hypotheses, which, if they withstand scrutiny, become theories.
> Everything---facts, theories, whatever---is always only tentative and
> open to interpretation. If a theory were ever to be accepted without
> question, we would have left the realm of science and entered the
realm
> of faith.
And who on this newsgroup is scrutinising plate tectonics? - Or even
Earth expansion for that matter? And isn't plate tectonics accepted
"without question" ? What are the questions, and who is asking them?
>
> --
> Gerard Fryer
> Hawaii Inst. of Geophysics & Planetology
- Next message: Hank Oredson: "Re: Earth expansion - puzzled......"
- Previous message: baalke_at_earthlink.net: "Mars Exploration Rover Update - February 4, 2005"
- In reply to: Gerard Fryer: "Re: Earth expansion - puzzled......"
- Next in thread: sapere aude: "Re: Earth expansion - puzzled......"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
