Re: plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?

In article <1158460606.942135.139780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Stuart" <bigdakine@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Charles Cagle wrote:
In article
<timberwoof.spam-BCEA96.09403809092006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


J Taylot, it seems like weeks since you offered anything remotely
resembling actual facts and observations. Lately you've focused purely
on trying to discredit everyone around here by throwing around big words
like dishonesty, desperation, and fantasy. If EE made any sense at all,
then you could answer questions that have been put to you without
complaining that the questions themselves are dishonest or deceitful.
But the simple fact is, there's nothing to EE; it's just a cherished
belief of yours, and you refuse to critically examine it. The depth of
your thinking is limited to one-liners or turgid word-salad.

Objections to EE abound but at the center of most is the claim of a lack
of a mechanism

Thats false. There are two things that are at the center of objectiosn
to EE.

No unamibiguous evidence for expansion.

This seems to be a very fallacious argument or one that you are unwilling
to apply to many other things that you believe in which have no merit
other than a consensual interpretation of data. For example, you probably
believe (and I can't truly certify what you believe without you saying so
definitively or agreeing) that the rotation of the planet's core has
something to do with the generation of the Earth's magnetic field. You
likely believe that the primary energy source of every star is nuclear
fusion. You probably believe that the solar system formed from a
pre-existing nubula that experienced a shock wave from a nearby supernova
that produced the heavy elements and then finally accreted into the sun
and planets. And none of these beliefs have "unambiguous evidence"...or
if you believe that they do then you are certainly not willing to apply
the same rules to what you believe as you are willing apply to what you do
believe. Evidence is purely a subjective interpretation of data and
history shows us that multitudes of people were capable of accepting an
interpretation as 'evidence' when in reality there was no connection to
their belief and the real physics. You're being patently unfair or at
least you should admit that from your viewpoint you see no 'evidence'
which declaration itself is not a 'scientific' evaluation but merely an
opinion.

No mechanism.

In fact, there is a mechanism but unless you are willing to learn the
underlying physics then you will be unable to accept the mechanism that
exists.

If these are your arguments, Stuart, then you really need to get some
serious training in logic and learn about the role that reasonable
epistimological tests applied to the so-called 'knowledge' that is
generated by so-called 'scientific' processes that you esteem as valid so
as to develop a quality index of that knowledge. I would venture to say
that you don't even understand the necessity of learning to critically and
logically derive knowledge let alone evaluate it. If you've been trained
(which you most assuredly have been) in purely inductive thinking (a
posteriori reasoning) then you have likely come to the conclusion that
this is the valid means to do real science. In fact, you should read Rene
Descartes essay "Rules for the Direction of the Mind". Of course, if you
do you'll see that it is an indictment of how you learned to do science
and such an indictment means that you really never understood where true
knowledge comes from.

Charles


Other than that, it is great hypothesis.



If one suggests a hitherto unknown mechanism for the
creation of mass in an ex nihilo process, laughter is the compensation,
with a claim that the laws of physics with respect to conservation of mass
and energy have some 200 years of experimental verification. What we
actually have a right to suggest is that all known chemical and nuclear
processes are conservative. The key is 'all known'.

Thats great.

FInd evidence of your new physics. Then talk.

<snip>

Stuart

--
for email delete underscores
"I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed Hid privily,
a measureless resource For man, and mighty teacher of all arts."
- Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus -
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?
    ... this Don Findlay person wrote that plate ... that I actually care what Don "200 years of physics is wrong" Findlay ... those giving evidence for it. ... The dishonesty is in EEers making wild assed guesses at how all of the ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?
    ... this Don Findlay person wrote that plate ... that I actually care what Don "200 years of physics is wrong" Findlay ... those giving evidence for it. ... The dishonesty is in EEers making wild assed guesses at how all of the ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?
    ... this Don Findlay person wrote that plate ... that I actually care what Don "200 years of physics is wrong" Findlay ... those giving evidence for it. ... The dishonesty is in EEers making wild assed guesses at how all of the ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: The Concept Now and Hyperbolic Spacetime
    ... but the physics does not at all demonstrate it to be wrong. ... Physicists in SR appear to consistently confuse the evidence with ... and the experimental evidence. ... appealing, but wrong, interpretation that supports their parlor ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?
    ... like dishonesty, desperation, and fantasy. ... No unamibiguous evidence for expansion. ... other than a consensual interpretation of data. ... their belief and the real physics. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
Loading