Re: What is this convection cell nonsense
- From: first_name@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian)
- Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:23:45 +0200
Darwin123 <drosen0000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 8, 12:15 am, don findlay <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Darwin123 wrote:You don't have the geology right, aside from the physics, because
On Aug 4, 2:01 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why? The geo comes before thephysicsafter all. We should
concentrate on getting that bit right first.
you ignore fossils.
Do you suggest they don't match across the pacific? Any reference?
Also, you ignore chemistry. The continental rock
and the ocean floor rock are on average chemically different, that is
why their densities are different. That is very important. Yet, you
don't discuss the chemical differences between rocks.
Why would that differ in the frame of PT and in the frame of global
expansion?
You ignore fossils, you ignore physics, and you ignore
chemistry. Basically, you are ignoring rocks. What are you calling
geology?
--
Florian
"Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles"
Voltaire vs Maupertuis/Leibniz/Meister
.
- References:
- What is this convection cell nonsense
- From: oriel36
- Re: What is this convection cell nonsense
- From: Darwin123
- Re: What is this convection cell nonsense
- From: don findlay
- Re: What is this convection cell nonsense
- From: Darwin123
- What is this convection cell nonsense
- Prev by Date: Re: What is this convection cell nonsense
- Next by Date: Re: 2006 Tectonic Plate Motion Reversal Near Acapulco Puzzles Earthquake Scientists
- Previous by thread: Re: What is this convection cell nonsense
- Next by thread: Re: What is this convection cell nonsense
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|