Timberwoof wrote:

In article <1158760235.333715.221050@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote:

In a previous post:-
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/3327c9070ae48c91

will1 wrote:

Don, Don,...Don,

When you go over the edge of a waterfall in a small raft, is it the raft
that is "pushing the water down the fall ,or is it the water that is
pulling
the raft down? OR, maybe NEITHER. PLEASE READ up on convection and heat
transfer. And for heaven's sake, prove your statement that Plate
Tectonics
is "indefensible". Will E.

....How am I doing?

Not very well, actually.

Your thinking is not original, it's just an old, discredited idea put in
the microwave for a minute or two. Even with the original presentation
of Expanding Earth, there was no answer to what drives the expansion, or
explains why it's supposedly exponential.

You need to stop this Woof, ..it's wearing a bit thin. As has been
said many times before, the 'how' of it as is manifested at the Earth's
surface is on my site, and is the geological manifestation of what you
yourself called Gut - "Grand Unified Theory" - the creation of mass,
the connection between the quantum and the classical world. That's not
an area for me or very likely any other geologist. And certainly not an
area probably for yourself to consider to be in a postiion to evaluate.
Carey approached it in a simple form, because in his day there were
no physicists either capable or interested, and in the last chapter of
his book stated that, and advanced his own concept of the Null
Universe, where everything is nothing, and returns to nothing.
("Theories of the Earth and Universe")

With this rehash you still
have no answer. If you were to do some serious work on finding out
answers to those questions instead of throwing poo at anyone who asks
them, then you'd be defending EE and making a contribution.

So, ..what have I done? In terms of geology, I think I have taken
things further than Carey did, ..particularly in linking surface
geology to spin, and in recongising the continuity of the circumglobal
mountain belt as the precursor of Pacific Extrusion (& various others,
don't matter) though have skipped over the many aspects that he dealt
with quite capably without any help from others - and knocked the
opposition for six, which has never been acknowledged, because he was
emeritus before (the Cancer of) Plate Tectonics got a proper hold; not
having the uniform any more is a disadvantage. You can wear sackcloth
when you're young and sexy, but old geezers don't get away with that
one too well.

Right now, you're just a case study for high school science students to
exercise their baloney detectors. You exhibit all the classic signs of a
kook.

http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

- there's no independent confirmation of your "facts"
- you don't encourage debate; instead you throw poo at people who
disagree with you

I told you before, I respond in like fashion.

- you alternate between arguments from authority (your own) and attempts
to ridicule those who do know better

Like who? 'George'? ..the anonymous alias George?

- you have exactly one hypothesis and you worship it
- you've refused to quanitfy anything
- EE fails Occam's Razor.
- you haven't provided any means to falsify the hypothesis;

It's an observation, not a hypothesis. The emplacement of the ocean
floors

otehr have

and have done

Only to the extent of making the banal staement you just do. The most
authoritative one I just posted at the head of this thread, and as you
ignore, pose all sorts of doubts and questions over the central plank
of Plate Tectonics.

You make many of the common fallacies of logic:
- you're a case study in poo-flinging; ad-hominem is your favorite tool

Not at all. It simply just doesn't stick. I'm floating like a
butterfly, stinging like a bee, spinning so fast it just ricochets off
and smacks back in the gob where it came from. Don't complain.

- you try to argue from authority
- you present only the data that supports your hypothesis and ignore the
contrary evidence
- you mistake cause and effect
- you present straw-man versions of opposing hypotheses (and continue to
do so despite being called on it, which makes you dishonest)

(Waffle.) You mean like the crust pushing the mantle down?
Ridge-push or slab pull? transforms cutting dykes or dykes cutting
transforms. See, in the world of expansion neither exist, so the point
is irrelevant. You don't get that do you, ..you want to see things in
your terms. Well, they're simply not. Not even mountain belts. Get
used to it.

I'm going to put on my flame-retardant environmental isolation suit
because I expect your response to be a shitstorm of poo-flinging with a
reich admixture of strawmen for texture. And I'm going to ignore all of
it. It's just going to be more of the same crap you've been posting al
along. And you will conclude self-satisfied that you've dealt a serious
blow to elitist science that rejects you for no good reason you can see.

Aww, ..come on Woof, ..don't be like that... What about that gear?

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

don findlay wrote:

Are you serious? There's far more mileage in going with the flow, than
swimming against the current. Career science is about publishing
papers, not being right, ..and certianly not being controversial.

Well... Yes and no. That statement is certainly correct when talking
about mediocre scientists who have trouble coming up with original
ideas. But if a scientist is really good, he knows that the only way
to really make his bones is to overthrow some conventional wisdom and
(dare I say it) be controversial.