Re: The pseudo miracles of Plate tectonics Zealots

On Aug 20, 5:44 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Florian) wrote:
brad <lbjohnson1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Or Plate Techtonics. With laboratories all over the world
able to reproduce pressures equivalent to core pressures;
why do they not see a hint of matter creation?

If you know all the conditions required and the expected yield, then
don't wait for us... Go on and check if something happen.
Something tell me that you know neither.

Abrogating your responsibility to your paradigm ? This is your idea ,
remember ?
I'm just trying to get something substantive out of you. You certainly
are more
knowledgable than the other three.



Why do stars have to start with H and He ; and planets can somehow
accrue heavier elements without resorting to neucleosynthesis ?

So you assume that planets accrue heavy elements (up to iron for
exothermic fusion) without nucleosynthesis? Bad assumption.
Besides, what happens in planets likely happens in stars.

Where are the neutrinos that originate inside the planet ? They don't
exist ! Bad assumption on your part..




It has changed. Tidalites do not allow the determination of absolute
values as it is assumed that the solar system did not evolve at all.
Obviously it did evolved.
That false notion that the solar system barely evolved in the 4.5 Gy is
reminiscent to creationism that advocates an absence of evolution in
lifeforms. Both notions share that same deep religion root and must be
discarded.

Tidalites must exhibit bimodalism . Those particles have a mass and
that mass must obey fundamental mechanical limitations as regards to
the forces acting upon them. Discounting the fact they are extremely
difficult to identify  ; those that are known show no deviation from
modern tidal studies.

Check the work by Williams who is the expert.  He assumes that the
orbital period of Earth never changed (constant orbital radius/velocity
and/or constant solar mass) and calculate every values (Earth's rotation
speed, moon orbital velocity, moon orbit radius) using that assumption.
But that assumption does not hold in an evolving solar system.


That doesn't change the fact that sediment responds to the energy of
its
depositional environment. It's reasonable to assume that the character
of ancient
sandstones would not be the same as more recent deposits. We could not
use
modern observations to infer ancient environments.

Weathered minerals that contain their own geoclocks ( zircons ) would
require
longer periods or more energetic environments to exhibit any rounding.
Do you want to change the age of the Earth ? Or , do you want more
energy
on a smaller planet ?


False. This has been debunked. See Chudinov chapII for a discussion:

 Magnetic particles in ancient rocks show no deviation of mean field
strength at time of deposition.

That is not the point at all. The point is the determination of
paleoradius. Read chapter II for a detailed description:


That is exactly the point. If you assume a constant magnetic field ;
the lines of force will be tighter ,closer together, on a smaller
planet. The only
way around this problem is to assume the field grows as the mass
increases.


<http://books.google.com/books?id=MI4FtNlgnaQC&printsec=frontcover&sig=A
CfU3U2TaXpPB2p8QrnRSspyic83nPp3Gw&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&cad=3_2#PPA3
,M1>

Planetary growth is universal, but the rate of growth is factually
different and change with time (increasing or decreasing) for each
planets/moons.

 Why does a planet grow and a star doesn't ? Same elements.

What evidence do you have that no stars grow? none to date.

Throw out neucleosynthesis then. We now need a new theory of fusion.



Besides, planets should evolve into giant gas, brown dwarf, yellow
dwarf...


So Jupiter is what Earth will look like , someday ? By the way , when
did Jupiter
stop adding heavy elements and start accumulating He and H ? And
why ?




The true question is: Why is there currently active growth of some
planets/moons (Encelade, Earth, Venus, Io...) and at the same time very
slow growth from other (Moon, Mercury, Mimas...)

Obviously, We won't get a clear answer until we figure out the
mechanism.

 To be accepted ... a mechanism is vital !

A mechanism is not vital at all for a theory as long as it is compatible
with observation.
The classical example is Newton's gravity. Newton had no mechanism to
explain the attraction but his theory was in agreement with
observations.


That's a Force theory . You're advocating a matter theory.


Why not concentrate on that ; now you've proven to yourself growth occurs?

Because I'm pragmatic. You have to be naive to imagine that a single
person could figure it out. That's a team work and a team that would
reunite a lot of talents!
Advocacy is already sufficiently challenging


But the geological data (age of the ocean floor ) allow to quantify the
growth over the last 200 My with good accuracy.

That's a stretch. You know that relies only on your interpretation.

Nope. That relies partly on the correct interpretation of eduction zones
which I share with a bunch of specialists (chudinov, Ollier, Scalera,
Kugler to name a few)
Actually, the age pattern in the north pacific and the history of the
zodiac fan are already sufficient to refute the possibility of large
amount of seafloor recycling.

Old subducted plate has been seismic imaged and could only
have originated from closure of N. Pacific subduction zone.



So ancient "eductions" produced only continental crust; whereas,
recent " eductions " produce only oceanic crust ?

No. Eduction always produce continental crust. Oceanic crust is produced
at the MORs not at the eduction zones. Each volcanic arc contribute to
the increase in continental crust surface.


Yes, when final accretion occurs and ocean closes.


False. Paleontologists and biogeographs have data showing that India has
never been completely isolated from Asia, thus refuting the hypothesis
of a thousands km-wide ocean (Tethys) between India and Asia. The data
are compatibe with the existence of an epicontinental sea or a *narrow*
oceanic basin north of India, depending on the periods.

Greywackes in NW india seem to belie that statement. They require a
continental shelf.

Do you assume that narrow oceanic basins such as that of the red sea
don't have a shelf?
That would be a wrong assumption.

I assume smaller oceans are more energetic near shore .
Sources are closer to depositional point. So, deep water deposits
reflect more energetic deposition prior to graywackeization. ( larger
average grain sizes )




Anyone who has ever raised fish in an aquarium knows that fish, at least ,
respond to the volume of the container by staying smaller in smaller
enclosures. Put the same fish in larger aquariums and they grow larger.
Mammoths survived as dwarf species on restricted space of isolated islands
after the rest of the species went extinct. These results imply that a
smaller paleoenvironment (as EE insists ) would result in smaller ancient
species giving rise to larger modern species as expansion created more
room.

That is ludicrous. Even if earth was 4 fold smaller in surface about 250
millions years ago, it was still orders of magnitude larger than islands
where dwarfism develop due to the lack of ressources.

Mammoth dwarfism due to lack of resources. Fish size directly related
to volume of environment. I think it's an adequate argument either
way.


Miracle 9: Why are competent geologists not expounding on the expanding
earth, especially since it was such a hot topic 35 years ago? [...]

For the very same reason that competent geologist were not expounding on
Wegener's continental drift in the 50s, despite it was a hot topic in
the 20s.

  Actually EE and Continental Drift were competing theories and many
ingenious ideas were volunteered to prove EE . No evidence was found.

It was probably too early. Plate tectonics was already a big catfish to
swallow at that time, Planetary growth was too much. But we're in the
XXIst century now. It's time to move on thanx to the evidence that are
accumulating since the 70s.


Your evidence is only misinterpretation.

   Any amateur can read the evidence . They can weigh your
interpretations against any discipline they like . EE violates too much
science to be accepted.

There are no violations for people who understand physics. For example,
there are no proof that conservations laws are violated whatsoever as
one can always make one hypothesis to explain the accumulation of matter
in planets without violating those laws.

It's the physics we're trying to get you to explain.!?! Where does
that matter come from?


I remind you that according to modern cosmology theories, the universe
is made of 74% dark energy, 24% dark matter and 4% only of our visible
matter. That leaves room for a lot of hypotheses.

No, the Universe is expanding. That is why DE is invoked . No one
knows why.
There's a subtle distinction there .

Galaxies have peculiar rotational qualities . Most easily explained by
postulating DM ,
if current theories of gravity aren't modified. That is not proof of
DM. Only an easy out.

I would remind you that GR is a theory of spacetime and its
relationship with matter.
Just as Newtonian Gravity was superceded by Einsteinien Gravity DE and
DM
will be shown to be aspects of spacetime not anticipated by current
disciplines.
Don't try to invoke unknowns as props for your Paradigm.






Besides, Planetary growth is a beautiful unifying theory as implications
concern many disciplines from paleontology to cosmology.

Only if you discard most everything ever done


--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée..
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More useless information on the origins of life.
    ... This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life appeared ... on Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus. ... environmental conditions on those planets are much different, ... further proof that life is an emergent property of matter, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More useless information on the origins of life.
    ... This still doesn't answer the age old question as to how life appeared ... on Earth and not, let's say, on Mars or Venus. ... further proof that life is an emergent property of matter, ... present on other planets. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Zero Geodesic Deviation
    ... >the expansion of the earth, then we have a problem according to ... >of matter of thickness dr at a radius r < R. The outward acceleration ... >of a particle in this shell is of magnitude less than that at the ... us to view motion as velocity, and acceleration as ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OT: Jefferson?????????????????????????????????
    ... Now as to Newton, J. D. Bernal wrote: "In fact, modern science was actually born out of the Christian belief that God was rational and personal. ... "Next we come to the proposition that agreement on the part of the Fathers, when they all accept a physcial proposition of the Bible in the same sense, must give that sense authority to such a degree that belief in it becomes a matter of faith. ... But the motion of the earth and stability of the sun is not an opinion of that kind, inasmuch as it was completely hidden in those times and was far removed from the questions of the schools; it was not even considered, much less adhered to, by anyone. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: The important question for the Expanding Earth believers.
    ... bulk composition that you thought Herndon addressed and supported... ... to guess what was the past composition of inner earth because the ... The matter detected is detectable since it forms most ... recycling it into the mantle, those constraints imposed by your own ...
    (sci.geo.geology)