Re: evidences against subduction theory

In article <1i13fvk.1psygv71abxfaN%first_name@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
first_name@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian) wrote:

Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


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.


Not at all!

Science is always based on observations and a model built from the
observations. The best model is the one that fit the best the
observations.
EE is obviously the best model accounting for the change of Earth's
surface, like RG is the best model for gravity, despite there is no
known mechanism for both.

You can't build a mechanism of EE if you don't have the proper data to
do so. The best that can be done is to make model and estimate
growthrate from the data we have. That what's Maxlow did.

That's all.

That's all fine and good, but you've created a hypothesis that requires
a lot of other things to be answered. Specifically, the problem of
creation of matter. Whenever someone mentions that, you stick your head
in the sand and say "Go talk to the physicists!" You have zero workable
hypotheses or theories, and no observations to back up that assumed
process. And you have not explained either the moon's origin nor its
continued orbit around the Earth despite the Earth's 8x increase in
mass.

When comparing EE and PT, EE fails because it requires too much magical
stuff for it to work, and some of its most basic predictions just don't
match up with reality. PT has some holes as well, but none that
disqualify it from consideration.


J Taylor accused me of following PT religiously (or at least
dogmatically). I told him very specifically what questions I'd need
answered before I'd accept EE, and asked him the converse questions:
what data he'd accept as proof of PT. Not surprisingly, he never
answered.

So. Do you follow EE religiously, as a matter of faith, or is there
some line of reasoning or evidence that could change your mind?

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ?Chris L.
an important web site: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: paleomagnetism and EE
    ... Earth has always been considered static in size it has not been ... Where the additional mass comes from is therefore a valid ... The ultimate cause of Earth expansion must however be considered ... Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com ...
    (talk.origins)
  • NASA Scientist Finds a New Way to the Center of the Earth
    ... NASA Scientist Finds a New Way to the Center of the Earth ... Knowing the location of the center of mass, ... Scientists currently define Earth's center in two ways: ... "The past two international estimates of the motion of the Earth ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • Re: johnreed take 1D --- 2006
    ... of mass and the rate of acceleration accompanying the attraction, ... sets weight equal and opposite to the action caused by the earth ... not affected by the earth attractor in a manner that is intuitively ... quantitative behavior of inertial objects, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • johnreed take 1D
    ... of mass and the rate of acceleration accompanying the attraction, ... sets weight equal and opposite to the action caused by the earth ... not affected by the earth attractor in a manner that is intuitively ... quantitative behavior of inertial objects, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: johnreed take 1D
    ... of mass and the rate of acceleration accompanying the attraction, ... sets weight equal and opposite to the action caused by the earth ... not affected by the earth attractor in a manner that is intuitively ... quantitative behavior of inertial objects, ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)