Re: 9,81 and the "Expanding Earth"

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:37:52 -0600, josephus <dogbird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

J. Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:55:01 -0800, J. Taylor
<nchiwana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:48:56 -0600, josephus <dogbird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

J. Taylor wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:52:49 -0600, josephus <dogbird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

J. Taylor wrote:

<snips>

I agree

Get it now??
I do....you, however...do not.

But please.....keep ranting against a point that I do not disagree
with [while ignoring the real point] and then claim victory.
Not claiming victory. I so much want to know what is going on, am more
than willing to admit I am wrong and grant you every exception, but I
cannot in good consciences accept logic which is flawed.

The logic here is there are multiple possible configurations which
could give the day and month ratio if G is not constant.

JT




I cant refer to a message id like google but I can cut and paste the
whole message


and this message makes JT A LIAR.
JT said G was not constant.
What a dope, you missed "if"

When you learn how to read, then you can work on your spelling.

JT
SO I can say IF PT IS TRUE then EE is a delusion. since I said if it
is ok to say EE is a deluion. and people will notice that it really
means EE is imaginary.
You cannot read, cannot spell and cannot think.

You can say what ever you want, but for it to be a statement which is
both valid and sound one must follow the other.

If not constant then variable is the only option

or

If constant then variable is not an option

One follows from the other.

None of which changes the fact you claimed I said something I did not,
and your changing the argument does not conceal your very obvious lie.

JT


The logic here is there are multiple possible configurations which
could give the day and month ratio if G is not constant.


this was your statement that If G IS NOT CONSTANT you can justify
multiple configurations. all of which are impossible if G is constant.
and G is a fixed constant. impossible mostly for reasons not having
anything to do with G.
I know what I said, it is you that lied and claimed I said something I
did not.

How can any one trust you?

JT
JT says that posing a condition has no consequences.
Just another lie. Please provide a quote where I said that


so there is reason to believe JT does not know hat he is talking about.
You should proof read, better yet just learn how to read, am sure that
is not what you intended to say

He does not understand algebra and he does not understand logic.
Of course, to your way of thinking, those whom cannot read, spell or
think are always in the best position to evaluate things more
advanced.


JT says his made up configurations are true if G IS NOT CONSTANT.
What configurations? If something is NOT constant it MUST be
variable

Are you this stupid?


that binding statement means the configurations are not possible.
and G is a fixed constant.
What in the hell are you talking about?


so JT said G was not constant.
No

IT is an EE claim.
No, it is just j0sHEpHuS stupidity, claiming something which was never
said.



because JT will continue to claim his made up configurations
without any corroborating evidence and despite the fact that physics
negates EE.
You really are sick and twisted, get help

JT
very simple. JT said if the conditions are true then G is variable.
What conditions? What are you talking about?

I said
"The logic here is there are multiple possible configurations which
could give the day and month ratio if G is not constant."

if G is not constant then calculating past planet configurations is
not possible, without direct observations.

You claim to know it is constant beyond question. Yet, there are
questions. Without answering those questions what ever is built on it
will also be in question.


the logic is that since G is a fixed constant then conditions are not
true and since the subject is EE credibility it matters.
That is not logic talking but you making an assertion that G is a
fixed constant.


you imply that various things are true or false and claim that you
did not say that stuff.
If G is not constant then it is variable, and is a true statement.

It is you claiming I said it is not a constant, which I did not.
Whether it is constant or not, DEPENDS on answering the questions
which indicate it is not, before it can be known the value of
something built on it being constant.

At the risk of confusing j0shePhus further,
"something built on it being constant"

Should read

something built on it being KNOWN


you prevaricate and then claim you dont lie.
You are just confused by basic logic.

JT


<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant>

this is the Wikipedia article on the constant. and they use the word
CONSTANT any fufuraw by JT is just that. G is a fixed constant.

the assertion that it has changed in geological time is not justified.


I did not assert it had changed, and is just another of your lies.

You are a liar. You make things up and say someone said it, and you
lie about who you are, and you continue to lie.

The issue here is you saying I said something I did not. You being a
liar.


http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/MazumderESR2004.pdf
"Recent experimental
results have produced conflicting G values, and there
remains today no universally accepted way of
predicting the absolute value of G and also its
uncertainty limit. Gillies (1997) clearly stated that
??In the absence of a bona fide theoretical prediction,
and with the experimental results exhibiting the scatter
that they do, the question becomes largely one of
deciding on an algorithm for weighting (if appropriate)
and averaging a set of existing measurements that
satisfy suitable selection criteria.??
The most intriguing and hitherto unsolved question
about G is that of whether or not it is truly a constant at
all, or if instead its value might be changing slowly with
time (cf. Gillies, 1997). If so, the length of the year and
Earth?s moment of inertia was different in the geological
past. The question is a fundamental one, and has
been the focus of much thought over the last several
decades. Without it, the calculated absolute Earth?
Moon distances and Earth?s palaeorotational parameters
in the distant geologic past are highly speculative."
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 9,81 and the "Expanding Earth"
    ... The logic here is there are multiple possible configurations which ... and G is a fixed constant. ... Just another lie. ... 3.7E6 solar masses was the mass of the super black hole. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: 9,81 and the "Expanding Earth"
    ... The logic here is there are multiple possible configurations which ... and G is a fixed constant. ... Just another lie. ... m is a fundamental distance near a black hole. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: 9,81 and the "Expanding Earth"
    ... The logic here is there are multiple possible configurations which ... and G is a fixed constant. ... Just another lie. ... the assertion that it has changed in geological time is not justified. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: 9,81 and the "Expanding Earth"
    ... The logic here is there are multiple possible configurations which ... and G is a fixed constant. ... Just another lie. ... the assertion that it has changed in geological time is not justified. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: 9,81 and the "Expanding Earth"
    ... The logic here is there are multiple possible configurations which ... and G is a fixed constant. ... Just another lie. ... the assertion that it has changed in geological time is not justified. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)