Re: evidences against subduction theory


"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-C8A24A.22332005072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <5rer8312o0nacl90ui6jtmj9kpvgtk1hl9@xxxxxxx>,
J. Taylor <nchiwana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

"We do not know the ultimate nature of matter, therefore the Earth
expanded" is one of the silliest arguments I've heard in a long time.

The rest of what you write is not even up to that standard.

Actually, it's the exact same argument that creationists make.

George


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Getting out of this world?
    ... no physical laws, no big bang, only thought-entities that make ... It seems to me that you've been using the term "physical laws" as ... _No matter_, no big bang, ... That's where the 'higher' dimensions come in. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
    ... >> At any instant in time, matter and energy occupy a specific frozen ... coordinates of a measured momentum of a particle. ... hence the impossibility of finding a single spatial ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Getting out of this world?
    ... physical laws, no big bang, only thought-entities that make whatever ... interactions we can correlate them and derive consistent rules about ... their matter and energy rearranging as ... That's where the 'higher' dimensions come in. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Getting out of this world?
    ... So assume the destination is a kind of anti-reality. ... It matches how I see the matter (but not ... magic is what doesn't obey our physical laws - that it ... with sort of a goal, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: A Theory of Everything: Geometric Generalization is updated
    ... "physical laws" is somehow blurred itself. ... the laws of Nature exactly? ... Geometric Generalization discusses "The Exact Meaning of Relativity - ... universe and the size of the wavelength of matter quantum. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading