Re: evidences against subduction theory

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:07:52 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <665r8398t6n1smb42o50lgvr3l9kv8bkdj@xxxxxxx>,
J. Taylor <nchiwana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:01:06 -0500, Jo Schaper
<jospamnotschaper34@5socket78dot9net> wrote:

J. Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 10:27:17 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <1i0r6pd.1juuy84tuzl6oN%firstname@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
firstname@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian) wrote:

Jo Schaper <jospamnotschaper34@5socket78dot9net> wrote:

I don't argue for EE...no mechanism.
That's not the job of the geophysicists to find a mechanism. Their job
is to provide evidence that there is expansion and to show that geologic
features are better explained using EE.

The mechanism of EE would be related to matter creation and that's the
job of the physicists to figure it out.
The problem is that every experiment that physicists have done to better
understand the nature of matter has shown that there is no mechanism to
support EE.

Did not know they had did them all, nor that they were even actively
engaged in conducting experiments to find a mechanism for EE.

Any way, how do you show no mechanism? Sounds like a contradiction of
terms. Which it is, but to your twisted mind it makes perfect sense.

JT

Um.. the law of thermodynamics which says neither matter nor energy can
be created or destroyed, just changed from one form to another?

That sounds pretty basic to me.

Me too, to bad all the matter and energy you can see is only 4% of the
matter and energy. So talking about showing is only a small
percentage, and we really have no idea if that is the end of it, but
it does not matter because showing no mechanism is impossible.

What would be accurate, no mechanism has been shown. The other way
implies you have shown you know the entire set of possibilities and
there is no mechanism.

The EE hypothesis requires violations of all kinds of physical laws.

You mean your EE hypothesis requires violations of all kinds of
physical laws.

Just another way of saying expansion is impossible give the facts as
you know them, but ignore you would need to know all the facts.

If the set of possibilities can be shown to exclude all other
possibilities then the set is closed and impossibility can be shown.

You cannot answer where mass comes from, what effect dark
matter/energy has on anything so you cannot close the set, but you are
sure you know. Maybe in a religious sort of way.


Since those laws of physics have been shown to hold in all other cases,
there's no reason to expect some magical exception to the rules so that
EE can work.

You do not know all cases making the rest of your spiel with no bases
in fact, pure speculation, and open to all reason.


Actually, I heard today on NPR that some scientists have determined that
the earth is 5 mm smaller than previously thought. The INCREDIBLE
SHRINKING EARTH!!! *|:-)

So all those arguing about the precision of GPS were completely unable
to detect 5 mm, but wanted everyone to believe they knew the Earth was
not changing one way or the other.

You're making stuff up now. No one seriously claims that the earth has
recently shrunk by 5mm.

Did not say it shrunk, said it is different size than what GPS used
and was argued as the bases for knowing the accuracy of GPS


What is incredible is how new information shows the bull*** in old
arguments and yet they hail the new information because they think it
supports their view,

You have not shown that it does not.

It does not agree with GPS and is within the error margin for GPS,
something not acknowledged by those arguing for GPS as a proof the
Earth is not expanding

Gerald Fryer is the only one, in opposition, that admitted this error
margin would take a hundred years to determine one way or the other.


when in fact it just shows their lack of ability
to think and evaluate something.

You have not shown that either.

What is shown and you miss, GPS is not the definitive proof so many
offer. If it was the two would agree, not show smaller.

JT

.