Re: evidences against subduction theory

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:23 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <5gev931burifj76g1573r9l23r9521t5gj@xxxxxxx>,
J. Taylor <nchiwana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:18:22 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <1i1h416.r3fagflkwtbrN%first_name@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
first_name@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian) wrote:

Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Surface increased then volume increased.

Do you mean "then" to denote two distinct events in time, or to mean
"therefore"?

I stand corrected: Surface increased therefore volume increased.


Two possible explanations for a
volume increase:

1 - Volume increase is due to density decrease. But it means that
density was much higher in the past which means that gravity was also
much higher. That hypothesis is ruled out by the gigantism of past
fauna/flora.

Also, there's no way for matter to have been 8x as dense.

Though, James Herndon published a paper supporting this hypothesis.

http://understandearth.com/WEDD.pdf

I don't buy it, because I don't think that decompression would occur
over billions years. Moreover, decompression would be unique to Earth
while there are some clues of expansion of other telluric planets (Mars,
Ganymède, Europa...)

I don't buy it either. He ignores the physical chemistry and provides no
mechanism for an 8x compression of matter.

2 - Volume increase is due to matter creation. It follows that gravity
changed with a rate depending on the density of created matter.

So how was the matter created?

Don't know. More Science is needed to figure it out.


Considering d the average density and g the gravity at the surface,
then
g=Gm/r^2=G.d.V/r^2=(G.d.4pi.r^3)/(3.r^2)=4/3.pi.d.G.r

It follows that if d remained approximatively constant, then the
gravity
increased linearly with the radius of the planet.

But you have no independent evidence for that.

Independant from biomechanics? No. But If people were seriously looking
for direct evidences of gravity increase, they may find some.

So in other words, you accept some non-evidence from the biomechanics of
dinosaurs as support for your hypothesis, but you don't accept
contradictory evidence from physics and chemistry. Well, I'll give you
points: You consistently pick and choose the data that seem to support
your position and ignore what doesn't.

You and George are just two perverts. You twist and distort so much
of what is said, it is beyond recognition, to make claims and
arguments which were never said.

The two of you are good examples of how to pervert science into a
religion, and you should not be at all surprised when religion sees
what they believe as be as good, as your science. They can see no
difference.

I see you didn't actually deny the facts I presented;

Please show the facts!

"So in other words, you accept some non-evidence from the biomechanics
of dinosaurs as support for your hypothesis, but you don't accept
contradictory evidence from physics and chemistry. Well, I'll give you
points: You consistently pick and choose the data that seem to support
your position and ignore what doesn't."

Just one!! There are NONE because it is pure inference.


you just fell back on a sleazy personal attack.

And you feel it was completely undeserved!

Whereas I have examined your position and
asked questions and listed the types of proof I'd need to believe you,

My position is really simple, true or false. The ocean floor shows
expansion. Until you examine it and answer that question for your
self there are no other questions. Period!

you act more and more like a dogmatic follower of religion.

Well, I don't think so, but one thing is for sure, it ain't your
religion.


What kinds of evidence would it take to change your mind about EE?

Have answered this question before, show a process, other than
expansion, which produces the pattern on the ocean floor. Simple

JT

.

Quantcast