Re: evidences against subduction theory

In article <kmm893t2jnisp8obtvg52ugml9vipt9ufs@xxxxxxx>,
J. Taylor <nchiwana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:19:49 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <ngi893hhs24ku95v9talaiiromma217e0p@xxxxxxx>,
J. Taylor <nchiwana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:53:23 -0700, Stuart <bigdakine@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 10, 2:31 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:54:24 -0700, Timberwoof



<timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <6uo793h7s281dr4jtc1vu5i09ik9m37...@xxxxxxx>,
J. Taylor <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

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.

You are free to show the *factual* error in Stuart's statement.

Simple, the fact is I did not make the claim, so it is false.

How is that, you little toady!



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.

Yes, you are. You have demanded that I explain the precise nature of
matter and said that since this is not understood, there could be some
way for matter to appear in the Earth and make it expand.

MASS, MASS, MASS you dumbass!!

distinction without a difference

The difference is I did not say matter, but mass

It is the same with your using theory, Timberwolf using hypothesis,
when I repeatedly said demonstrated. It is these word shifts by which
you continue to change my argument to make it into something I never
argued.

Straw-man argument. You're the one claiming there's a difference between
mass and matter in this discussion, and now you say that this difference
is part of a rhetorical strategy against you.

I did not say matter, but mass, and matter and mass are NOT the same
thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
"Mass is a fundamental concept in physics, roughly corresponding to
the intuitive idea of "how much matter there is in an object".

http://www.answers.com/topic/matter?cat=biz-fin
"In quantum mechanics, mass is only one among many properties (quantum
numbers) that a particle can have, for example, electric charge, spin,
and parity. The nearest quantum-mechanical analogs of traditional
matter are fermions, having half-integral values of spin. Forces are
mediated by exchange of bosons, particles having integral spins.
Fermions correspond to classical matter in exhibiting impenetrability
(a consequence of the exclusion principle), but the correspondence is
only rough."

None of this is of any consequence to the EE hypothesis.

And for the benefit of wolfy, this is a strawman argument, making up
something then showing its failings when it was not the argument made.

Yes, the difference between mass and matter is not the argument made.

We do not know where mass comes from, to turn the argument in to, we
do not know where matter comes from is to say everything about matter
is the exact same as mass, which they are not.

It doesn't matter. Whether it's matter (as in atoms and molecules needed
to create new material for the interior of the Earth) or mass (as in a
property of atoms and molecules needed to create new material for the
interior of the Earth), you still have to account for where it came from
and how it acquired the correct velocities.

What I said, remains true, we do not know where mass comes from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
"In the Standard Model, the Higgs field consists of two neutral and
two charged component fields. Both of the charged components and one
of the neutral fields are Goldstone bosons, which are massless and
become, respectively, the longitudinal third-polarization components
of the massive W and Z bosons."

How does this help explain Earth expansion? do not know it does, not
my argument

The fact this fundamental component, mass, is not known where it comes
from, means you cannot close the set to conclude impossible. That is
the point!

Which means expansion is still possible regardless of how small you
wish to argue is the probability of its existence, and should move the
question back to the evidence for it, and what was originally stated,
the ocean floor shows expansion and has been demonstrated to show it.

Fine. Show us there is a *workable* alternative.

This can ONLY be done by first laying the foundation it is POSSIBLE.

Fine. Show us. Where does the added { matter | mass } come from? How
does it get its velocity? How does it not cause the moon to crash into
the Earth?

In addition
No evidence is a lie. It has been demonstrated

Another straw-man. No one said there's no evidence. What you present as
evidence is ambiguous.

"No evidence for expansion" - Stuart Weinstein

Sorry, once again you show your lack of understanding of words,
ambiguous means doubtful or uncertain. The demonstration by Maxlow
could not be more clear, pull the ocean crust out by age, allow the
radius to adjust, see what happens.

The result, all the continental margins came together with a fit of
99% or better.

The margin boundaries may fit, but the geologies don't. And EE does not
explain accretionary landscapes.

We do not see continents spinning around in crazy
circles, we do not see the continents for some points over lapping, we
do not see the Earth's shape change from a sphere.

We don't see continental movements matching up with paleomagnetic
evidence either.

Pretty damned conclusive the pattern shows expansion.

Only if you ignore other evidence.

Maybe, if I said it this way, pretty damned conclusive the pattern
produces the results for the requirement of the Earth's radius
increasing.

Except that the continental crust bits don't show the distortions
expected from such changes in radius.

That it can be shown by another processes does not change the fact it
was shown for expansion, however, there have been many claims, but no
demonstrations to show it can be done by another process.

So back to page one, can you show Maxlow's demonstration is flawed?

Yes. It has not been shown how the Earth expands.

Its radius increases

Trying to be a smartass doesn't convince people you're not a dumbass.

And you still have not answered what evidence you would accept that
would change your mind.

No point in arguing over this if you are not reading all the post.

You haven't answered my list of two-dozen-odd questions.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What before big bang?
    ... " Please present that evidence. ... " What properties of matter does light have? ... The energy of a photon is its mass times C. ... >> The propagation medium is what is called free space. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What before big bang?
    ... " Please present that evidence. ... " What properties of matter does light have? ... The energy of a photon is its mass times C. ... >> The propagation medium is what is called free space. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Universal Mind
    ... >> any evidence. ... >> major impact on the the mass of the earth is raining down on us all ... >> gravitational force at the surface of the earth is to increase it's ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: paleomagnetism and EE
    ... You merely assert that the earth's composition is ... not what people say it is, but you have no evidence whatsoever. ... the Earth becomes suspect, so you reactively deny what mainstream ... Why is the new matter not heterogeneous ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: The Universal Mind
    ... > produce the laboratory notebooks to support this) and never come ... > If you think that there is evidence to support your assertions, ... > increasing the mass. ... > That means it has to fall to the earth from somewhere else in the ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading