Re: evidences against subduction theory

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:48:43 -0700, Stuart <bigdakine@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 10, 9:37 am, J. Taylor <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:01 -0700, Timberwoof



<timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1184092131.920348.275...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Stuart <bigdak...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 9, 9:14 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:05:04 +1000, "Landy" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"J. Taylor" <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ah36931onqi2ecj03l5g4obdbjrumabmbr@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:10:24 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <1184037598.061334.127...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Stuart <bigdak...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 9, 3:51 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:35:43 -0700, Timberwoof

<timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1i10a2x.1tc1clfupi1t0N%firstn...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
firstn...@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian) wrote:

Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Okay, then. Explain where the extra mass came from.

Yeah right. Do you really expect that one could reveal you the
secret of
the universe while physicists struggle for one century? That is
ludicrous.

So in other words, you have no clue how these violations of laws of
physics could happen. In order to do so, you have to invoke some
unknown, unverifiable, undisprovable (and therefore magic) process.
It's
indistinguishable from "God did it."

No one knows where mass comes from, period.

I guess you haven't read many books on modern cosmology.

Google "Big Bang"

The ultimate nature of matter is irrelevant, and bringing it into the
discussion on expanding earth is a smokescreen. What EEers ignore is
what *is* known about matter, and two of those things are that rocks
won't compress to 8X their usual density and matter doesn't magically
appear inside a planet (or any other experimental body).

Did not bring up matter. The way each of you mislead each other is a
study in itself.

Again - explain how you can have an increase in mass without an increase in
matter.

Good question, there is not an answer. It is not known

Look up Higgs Boson, Higgs Field

What does that have to do with expanding earth?

Nothing. It's just a smokescreen to deflect attention from the real
issue, which is that neither the Higgs Boson nor the Higgs Field can
explain it. If he knew how that could work, he'd explain it. Instead,
he's trying to figure it out and is sending smarter people than himself
to go research the answer for him.

Your ability for self-deception is phenomenal.

You have no idea what 96% of the matter in the Universe does, and have
no idea where mass come from, but you know Earth expansion is
impossible,

In this universe. Sure there are plenty of things we don't know about
the universe. However, what we do know, rules out Expanding Earth
for now. The onus is on the EEers to either come up with unambiguous
evidence
for expansion or a mechanism for it. Without either of those, they
don't have a theory.

Claiming that because we don't know everything
that therefore anything is possible is the hallmark of kookdom.

Coming from a quack would expect nothing less than an intimate
knowledge of kookdom.

First, I am not claiming, because we don't know everything that
therefore anything is possible, am showing the ludicrousness of your
position you know impossible.

Second, logic demands, something you do not have the first clue how to
use, that possible be assumed, because it is impossible for any line
of reasoning to yield possible from an assumption of impossible.

Your continual quake reply of no evidence is the result of believing
you know impossible. e.g. It just is not possible there could be any
evidence for expansion because expansion is impossible.

Nothing quite like a religious mind set cloaked in science. You are a
quake.

JT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question about the Big Bang and Dark Matter
    ... It wasn't an explosion of stuff, ... The distribution of matter at the time of the CMBR was uniform, ... believed that the expansion slowed during the first few ... matter in the Universe at the instant of the Big Bang, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Questions about the expansion of space
    ... so homogeneously and isotropically throughout the universe. ... matter, as in the now generally discredited steady-state theory. ... Since the expansion of space is occuring everywhere, ... subject to the same density decrease. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: viewing light from the earliest stages of universe
    ... > every area of the universe. ... external from the matter in the singularity. ... > assuming that the expansion is caused by a force upon every bit of matter ... >, like a kid that can walk down the aisle of a moving bus, has no problem ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Concept of Space Expansion
    ... >i.e., space devoid of matter. ... >of our universe, but there is no way to estimate the size of Absolute ... >explain it if we can show that visible matter takes a back seat to the ... >objects in space do not change as they should if the expansion process ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Concept of Space Expansion
    ... >i.e., space devoid of matter. ... >of our universe, but there is no way to estimate the size of Absolute ... >explain it if we can show that visible matter takes a back seat to the ... >objects in space do not change as they should if the expansion process ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)