Re: plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?

In article
<timberwoof.spam-9A8E7B.09501516092006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article
<s_k_y_bolt99-1609060418100001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
s_k_y_bolt99@xxxxxxxxxxxx (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. 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'. The notion of the
conservation of mass then would also suggest that all the mass that is
present in the universe is all that ever was and all that ever could be
(with a somewhat limited allowance for mass that is converted into energy
via fusion).

Yeah, it would, and so far that has caused problems only for those
wishing that the Earth's oil reserves were infinite and a few kooks on
some obscure newsgroups.

<snip fanciful strings of words not nearly as interesting or rigorous as
Penrose>

From these principles or heads which emerged from deductive processes
related to simple axioms of quantum - quantum motions one can obtains
solutions of the nature of matter, charge, and much much more including a
new model for fusion, the proof that stars don't work by fusion, that
supernova's are different than has been taught, and much much more.

Now you get to explain some more things.

1. What chemical elements would such newly created mass appear as?

The problem is that you don't even have a clue as to the right questions
to ask. Mass is generated in the form of neutrons, and those neutrons
immediately migrate to the gravitational terminus of the flux loop which
created them. Some decay (into a proton, electron and antineutrino) so
that populating the gravitational terminus loop are only neutrons and
protons and the charge separation effect excludes electrons... So, there
is merely a ring of material that is only protons and neutrons. There are
no electrons in the region so the material doesn't possess chemical
properties (related to electrons) and hasn't even atomic volume but only
nuclear volume. This is the heavy dark matter but I've named such matter
Isaacium. Isaac is the English translation of the Hebrew word for
Laughter of disbelief. I would think that the general community of
physicists, astrophysicists, and cosmologists will laugh in disbelief at
the suggestion of the existence of Isaacium rings in the cores of stars
and of planets.


2. How did this mass get created in exactly the correct chemical
composition so as to be indistinguishable from what's expected from
current planetary formation theories?

Once you assume that it exists as ordinary elements then you're bound to
ask questions that can only reflect your assumptions.

3. How did that newly created mass acquire exactly the correct dynamic
vectors to keep the Earth and the moon in their orbits?

You assume without any proof or data whatsoever that both the radius of
the Earth and ths size of the sun and the radius of the Earth's orbit and
the radius and mass of the moon and the radius of the moon's orbit are and
forever have been fixed to what they are presently.

4. How come the continents don't actually show the deformations
associated with having been formed on a small sphere and being stretched
onto a large one?

They actually do show such deformations. The curvature of the base of the
lithosphere becomes higher with respect to the decreasing curvature of the
top of the mantle during an expansion episode. This produces a cupping
effect of the lithosphere over the mantle but gravity rules and the
lithosphere that was the continental crust only is pulled down producing
mountain chains and ideally on a spherical surface this would tend to
produce circular mountain chains and there's a wonderful example of such a
mountain chain on the back side of the Earth's moon. At first glance it
looks like a meteor crater but there are no splash trails. The Himalayas
are an example of the results of such a kirkogen (circle generator)
process.

5. How come you haven't published your results anywhere?

Get serious. Look at your own hatred of new ideas that threaten what you
think you know for sure. Look at your inability to begin your questions
at a level that doesn't presuppose things for which you have no data and
no logically based physics. You ask questions assuming matter coming into
existence as chemical elements when the genesis of all matter is in the
form of neutrons. The genesis of chemical elements is the differentiation
of bulk Isaacium into a variety of atomic species when and if the Isaacium
is able to acquire electrons when the primary gravitational terminus loop
is displaced too rapidly from the Isaacium. Then the Isaacium can acquire
electrons from outside of what was once the electron exclusion zone and
the acquisition of electrons produces a huge flux of radiation and the
immediate transition of some of the Isaacium going from only nuclear
volume to atomic volume which may be at least a near instantaneous 10e6
fold increase in volume. This is the very process of a supernova. If it
occurs in the core of a planet then either the planet will rapidly grow or
it could even possibly detonate the planet (as in what happened to the
planet that once orbited between Jupiter and Mars). The formation of
chemicals cannot occur before the differentiation of the Isaacium into
elements. So, seeing that your own questions emerge from a set of
concepts that are completely out of harmony with reality what possible
chance do you suppose might be given to publishing a paper that is so
foreign to the set of beliefs that have dominated the whole community of
geophysicists, astrophysicists, cosmologists, particle physicists, etc.?
Academia has never been consistently dedicated to the truth but only
dedicated to the proposition that they must maintain to the public (for
their very livelihood) that they are experts with regard to the nature of
reality. You think that publishing these ideas that essentially say that
almost all that the community of physical scientists believe is nonsense
is realistic? You are seriously out of contact with any sense of
integrity and hence reality.

Charles Cagle

--
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?
    ... Mass is generated in the form of neutrons, ... protons and the charge separation effect excludes electrons... ... the suggestion of the existence of Isaacium rings in the cores of stars ... occurs in the core of a planet then either the planet will rapidly grow ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Testing the SR Concept of Mutual Time Dilation
    ... Or, to be more precise, the m/e (mass to charge ... Surplus or deficit of electrons on a 1 gm mass is much less effect, ... if it were a massless particle], many of the calculations done every ... I always know I've made my point when you deflect ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Radius of electron
    ... > inner structure of electrons. ... >> i understand that you dont understand the problem. ... > so the structure of heavy elements is rather irrelevant. ... ie if actually i took th electrons in mass acount of the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Radius of electron
    ... > inner structure of electrons. ... >> i understand that you dont understand the problem. ... > so the structure of heavy elements is rather irrelevant. ... ie if actually i took th electrons in mass acount of the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... >> is the principle of equivalence wrong, but that even inertial mass is ... Particles accelerated in a cyclotron are not free particles. ... >isolated systems, so in order to consider particles in accelerator, ... like two colliding electrons or hydrogen atom? ...
    (sci.physics.particle)