In article <1150994137.838631.55900@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:

( "don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote: )

The missing blueprint is The Whole Body - the Earth itself - being
round and spinning - and the way that global geology is encrypted in
that shape and spin. The way I see it, this view that it "doesn't
exist" is a determination to deny that such an obvious thing can have
been overlooked. Difficult to believe isn't it, ..A worldful of
scientists, ..the earth Spinning, and the encryption of that in the
geology missed. You would think it would be easy to falsify (knowing
nothing at all about the 'proof' for enlargement)

Eh. The effects of the Earth's rotation (and the fact that the core
rotates at some other speed) can be worked into the model. I don't
expect that that would change it significantly.

It's not a question of working rotation into the model.

Yes, it is.

It's a
question of working it into the geology.

Same thing.

Earth science has had enough
of models for one century.

Especially the "Expanding Earth" model.

On the other hand, one thread in the Expanding Earth discussion has
directly to do with the Earth's spin, yet you have consistently failed
to explain why the Earth continues to rotate (and orbit the Sun) as it
gains mass. Earth's rotation has been shown to cause serious problems
for EE, but it hasn't been shown to cause much of anything for PT.

Earth Expansion is centred in the Earth's spin. Are you saying that
after half a century Plate Tectonics can maybe think of shifting its
goalposts (again), this time to include the Earth's rotation. How did
Plate come to be alerted to the fact that the Earth's spin, that it can
persuade itself to do this metamorphosis?

That's what good scientific theories do: they adapt to new data or to
new questions. A theory that doesn't conform to what else is known is
not a good one. in other words, there's nothing at all wrong with
scientists growing and refining a theory through the years to
accommodate new data. The problem comes in when in trying to fit the
data, the resulting theory is a tortured caricature or makes exceptions
for everything.

For instance, there's a lunatic theory about geology that its proponents
claim is exempt from the observed laws of physics. For some strange
reason it doesn't have to observe conservation of mass or conservation
of energy. And despite there being no direct evidence for it, its
adherents loudly proclaim it.

Nobody can say substantiation doesn't exist. I have a substantial
website outlining the encryption of spin in global geology, ..which
Plate Tectonics not only ignores, but *cannot* accommodate in its
ragbag collection of drybones.

I don't think "encryption" means what you think it means. In any case,
you have failed to defend any of the serious flaws in EE that have been
described here. Show us the proof...

In the sense that it's kind of like 'Da Ca Thinci Vode' so far as Earth
Scientists go, and they apparently need some help to work out what's
staring them in the face, I think I just might have a grip of the
meaning of the word you're implying is meaning less than the meaning
you think I think it means.

None of the newsgroups you're posting to is an appropriate venue for
second-rate attempts at postmodernist cut-up poetry.

Can it work with current ideas? You do not need to falsify one in
order to prove another.

If I have given that impression then I must state most forcibly it to
be untrue. I fully agree that falsifying Plate Tectonics does nothing
to *support* Earth Expansion. I repeat, it just withdraws support
from Plate Tectonics. The Case for Expansion is a stand-alone
enterprise.

In any case, you started with the intent to falsify plate tectonics.
Every objection you have raised has been answered. Sometimes you turned
to EE for a better explanation ... but that failed because you never
satisfactorily answered the objections to EE.

No. I started asking people to falsify Earth Expansion - and I see
today after making it round the first lap (on the outside) (and still
being in front)

No, you're not. Dozens of people have explained to you exactly where
your thinking is flawed, yet you cling to your mistaken beliefs as
though they were a life vest on a vast ocean.

we have actually got somewhere with that - And I don't
think it *HAS* been answered.

I did, in my first post. I listed about half a dozen phenomena which are
readily explained by plate tectonics and which would not occur in its
absence.

I have just been accused of "quote
mining", implying that there is nothing wrong with what's said, your
only complaint seems to be the context in which it is represented.
....Well it's the context that we are about to fill out. So, we'll
see.

Let me explain quote mining to you, just so you never have a legitimate
excuse to do it again. You read some respected scientific paper on some
subject, but instead of taking each sentence in its proper context --
perhaps an introduction to the actual point being made, or an example of
faulty reasoning -- you read each sentence as if it were the hole of
what was being said. The most famous example is the one in which a
famous evolutionary biologist is quoted as saying he could not believe
that the eagle's eye could have evolved ... but he goes on to explain
exactly how.

So. Don't do that.

Hell, if you prove plate tectonics is wrong, and
"they" prove expansion wrong, then what? Intelligent geological design?
Continents, oceans, fossils, basalt...6 days. Bye Bye earth expansion
your web site and this thread.

I don't see it that way at all, Will. I don't see 'proof' being an
issue at this stage, which is more a stage inviting re-appraisal. I
see it as a rather exciting time for the Earth sciences actually, and
something of an indictment that people are not prepared to step outside
their comfort zone and consider something that has not yet been
incorporated into consensus theory.

None of that is a good reason for incorporating EE into geological
theory. Now if you had any evidence, then things wold be different.

We're not talking about incorporating anything into theory,

Yes, the hell, you are! You just said it yourself: "consider something
that has not yet been incorporated into consensus theory"! (The entire
quote is presented above.)

..we're
talking about just looking at the evidence.

What evidence? You haven't presented any.

That's what's been
entirely wrong with Plate Tectonics 'theory' in the first place, which
has led it right up the garden path - jumping the gun, ..being too
quick to make one. Fancy making a theory without looking at the
evidence of the way the planet's spin is inscripted in the geology,
..and then being in the corner position of having to defend it, when
all of that (and more) is pointed out. If that's not daft, what is?
(careful, ..that's a leading question, inviting you to straighten up.)

If you would write a scientific paper that explained exactly what
effects you think the Earth's spin was supposed to have on the Earth's
surface features and how plate tectonics fails to address or predict
them, then maybe people would pay attention. However, while you have
written incomprehensible claims that there would be effects, you have
never explained what those effects would be.

Expecially something that is such
an obvious and glaring omission !! It's a complete and utter nonsense
for people to make a comparison with creationism ( - a refuge of fools
in fact, I would say, ..and biggots every bit as much as the
creationists they are railing against). If I could see any logical
problem with expansion (and I don't count as logic the view that
everything of physics is already known, on which grounds expansion must
be false), then I would be the first to drop it.

People have presented a lot of physical problems with Earth Expansion.
You can't just throw away fundamental laws of nature if they happen to
interfere with your pet hypothesis. EE demands some serious changes to a
number of natural laws and is thus an extraordinary claim. Got any
extraordinary evidence? Nope ... just some whining about how those damn
geologists aren't comfortable.

You're still not getting the point, are you? Earth expansion has no
theory (yet) -

Well, in that case, forget it. Just drop the whole thing. Never mind.
You want to falsify plate tectonics to make room for ... what?

It strikes me as somewhat amusing that in complete contrast to your
inability to present any kind of coherent description of what plate
tectonics theory is[1], you are unable to present any kind of kind of
coherent description of what Earth Expansion theory is.

Wait a moment ... that's not a contrast. I guess that's why it's
amusing.

[1] meaning is now, not was fifty years ago.

and won't have one until the question what mass is, and
how it is created is properly answered.

It may interest you to know that physicists have a pretty damn good
answer, one which serves very well in all other sciences. Your pet
not-even-a-hypothesis is pretty weak if it depends so critically upon
another science completely and unambiguously defining mass.

We are at the moment (re-)
appraising the evidence before us

How can you appraise it when you can't even summarize it or us?

that leads to a conclusion what sort
of a world we are standing on. The question that's being asked is,
what do we see in the geological record that prevents us thinking that
the Earth has got bigger since the Mesozoic, which is what the
geological evidence points us to.

What evidence?

And I forget how I phrased it, but
taking into account that bit about subduction zones being zones of
recycling was always (and still is) a convenient assumption.

No. It's a conclusion.

Nothing's
changed on that score, just that assumption has morphed into 'fact' by
common (convenient) consent. It's still the assumption that it always
was. Nobody, but nobody is looking at the obvious alternative - that
it is just the broken edge of the lithosphere, right down to the
transition zone, ...stretching.

Since you haven't even defined your theory, you've got nothing to
falsify. Worse yet, it makes no predicittons ... it' not in any shape to
replace plate tectonics.

Any uncertainty with
regard to the current state of physics (and I gather there are some)
doesn't bother me one whit.

Oh. How silly of me. Somehow I was under the impression that any new
hypothesis had to conform to applicable laws and principles from other
sciences. It must be convenient for you to be able to turn off
conservation of matter and conservation of energy like that. How is that
done? Those could be very useful, you know.

hypothesis/ theory again. If you can't approach it from a geological
perspective, why do you feel competent to approach it from a physics
perspective? Do you think the geology has to be forced into a physics
straightjacket, and whatever ad hoc assumptions are necessary made in
order to fit?

Your objection lies somewhere between silly and meaningless. Geology is
strictly bound by the laws of physics and those of chemistry.

My posts over here in t.o. are directed at falsification (of both
theories), not confirming expansion.

all right, then. You've worked on falsifying PT and have pretty much
failed. Folks here have pretty much demolished EE, except that for some
reason, you just told us that it's some special kind of hypothesis that
doesn't have to observe basic physical laws. What makes it special? How
is it granted this exception? (BTW, if it is not granted the exception,
then it fails.)

I would have thought that
commendable grounds for approach. (For anyone who wants to read the
support for expansion, it's on my site.)

I asked you some very specific, easy questions about it, but you refused
to answer. What's that about?

In approaching t.o. I was
taking the view that there may be some with enough of a geological
background to be capable (on geological grounds) of falsifying the
premise that the Earth has doubled in size by the creation of the ocean
floors - without refering to 'The Book' 's unashamed *convenient
assumption* that the structures known as 'subduction zones' are zones
of recycling.

That was actually done here. May times. I don't have to say anything
about subduction zones to falsify earth expansion. All I have to say is
"Where does the mass come from and how does it obtain its required
momentum and inertia?" Of course, I forgot. You're not bound by the laws
of physics. Why is PT bound to follow those laws and EE is not?

Plate Tectonics doesn't even follow the simple laws of buoyancy, unless
you can come up with a better reason than Nasa or the USGS, or that
bloke at Arizona
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tck/latlong1.html...who is the only
other bloke to register the word-string on the net "how subduction
zones form" out of 4million + sites on <plate Tectonics>, why the ocean
plate begins to turn down where it does, and why there are no
subduction zones in the Atlantic Indian Oceans (Java being part of the
Pacific). It's a
pretty neat trick for science to enquire into the problem, without ever
using that work string. (*****, ...from knowing nothing at all about
the problem even I have had to use it...**continually**)

If you map where the spreading centers and subduction zones are, along
with the known motions of the continents across the surface, then you
get a neat, self-consistent picture of a system of convection in a
highly viscous mantle driven by core heat.

It's interesting to see you complain that plate tectonics does not
follow one of the laws of physics (in this case, bouyancy), yet you also
claim that Earth Expansion doesn't have to follow the laws of physics.
You can't have it both ways.

http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html
The balance of dynamics of subduction zones with the supposed partners
of ridge-fracture and *****-intrusion is (logically :-) ) unworkable.

Let's see now. You've taken some outdated and misstated features of the
theory, shown them to be ... false ... and now you want us to believe
that the whole theory is wrong?

"Outdated features of the theory"? You'd better take that one up with
Grumbine there. And anyhow, ..No, ..I said I was just starting. And I
maintain there's nothing outdated about it. Meanwhile we wait for you
to fill us in with The Reason Why subduction occurs where it does (and
nowhere else) (in a way that accommodates the planet's spin).

Assuming for a moment that you understand late tectonics at least as
well as I do (which is only polite, though obviously very optimistic),
perhaps you could explain to us all how plate tectonics is affected by
the laws of curvilinear motion. Having done that, you can explain to us
why Expanding Earth is not bond by some those same laws and is by
others.

Where doe she added mass come from? That's the heart of Earth Expansion,
yet you have no answer!

You need to get rid of this hang-up. Whilst that sort of bigotry might
be healthy enough for the purposes of answering questions in an exam,
it is not a mindset condusive to enquiry. You need to put that
particular difficulty aside until physics answers for you exactly what
mass is and how it comes into being, while you do your job as a
geologist and look more closely at the geological evidence before
jumping the gun, closing your eyes, and saying you're bigotry allows
you to see nothing.

I must admit I have never before seen the word "bigotry" used in quite
this sense before. By context it seems to mean "acceptance of the known
laws of physics and requirement of proposed theories to either conform
to them or to provide compelling reasons to modify or abandon them."

And if there aren't (people) (as appears to be the case) then the
post(s) will stand for the record for anyone interested in the points
made.

What were you saying about insults before? Oh, I forgot, you're not
subject to the same rules as everyone else is. Or was that that just
your hypothesis isn't subject to fundamental laws of physics?

Now what are you feeling insulted about? Because I said it didn't look
like there was anyone capable of falsification (on geological grounds).
Had a fraction of the energy that went into playing the man gone into
playing the ball then I might not have said that. It's there for
whoever the hat fits. I look forward to being shown to be wrong.

No, you don't. Dozens of people have shown you to be wrong, but you have
ignored them.

Look Timber, .. Seriously. A bit of advice here.

Pardon me while I try to suppress giggling.

If you are a
college freshman doing geology (particularly as a mature student), then
excuse yourself from any and all correspondence to do with this thread
for the duration. It could seriously injure your equilibrium necessary
to pass exams. I'm not kidding. There's nothing like the insight
that the subject you're studying is ***** to the core, to make it
difficult to swallow and regurgitate. In the short term at any rate.
Once you've slept with it for a while and get used to its (PT's)
idiosyncrasies, you could maybe then step out of the mold and
capitalise on it and work it for publication credits. But I sense that
is a long way down the track.

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

You think that plate tectonics does not work because it violates some
unstated law of physics of curvilinear motion and doesn't properly
describe some unstated geological evidence. And you want me to believe
in some unbaked idea that's not even a theory yet even though it has
been claimed to be exempt from many of the basic laws of physics and
there's no evidence for it.

By the way I found your lemon post
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/8faa13e69e459b28?hl=en&
but the only question I found in it was had I ever taken the peel of
half a lemon and tried to fit it onto half a grapefruit? the rest was
assertions, as well as an observation that you knew what I was getting
at. So tere didn't seem much to answer. Insofar as there may be
another question encrypted in it relating to how the Earth behaves like
the skin of a lemon when you fit it on to a grapefruit, I'll answer it
with the others.

You keep talking about wanting me to step out of molds and capitalize on
new ways of thinking, yet you are singularly incapable of doing exactly
that. (This underscores your difficulty with the concept of a "model" I
alluded to earlier.") Here's what that example illustrated: If the Earth
doubled in diameter, then the local curvature of any point on it would
have correspondingly decreased. The problems of stretching the small
earth's crust onto the large earth's surface is akin to the problems
encountered by mapmakers in trying to stretch it onto a cone or cylinder
or plane. The shapes of surface features would just not maintain their
integrity over that kind of stretch.