"brad" <lbjohnson1949@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:456e7db4-c974-480e-b76a-f47ec7e26626@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 2, 5:09 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:

Androcles wrote:

"Florian" <first_name@last_name.net> wrote in message
news:1ia3mev.18sj2hk1oub01bN%first_name@last_name.net...
: brad <lbjohnson1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
: > subduction zones ( see Marianas
: > Trench ,among others ) would not form if the earth only expanded.
:
: The earth is not simply expanding, it is growing.

*plonk*

No, ..he's right. There's a semantic glitsch there that needs
correction, but the word 'Expanding' has become entrenched, and there
isn't really another that conveys the right meaning. To the best of
my knowledge Neal Adams first used the word 'growing' <http://
tinyurl.com/33kydl> - and so it is, but that could have
'difficult' (biological) connotations. (But crystals
'grow'.... ...)

So, ..a better word is needed, but we seem to be stuck with that one.

There's also the point that in using the concept of 'moving plates'
Pteros themselves don't understand their own model. Plates (in Plate
Tectonics) don't move (nor have they ever 'grown'). Plate boundaries
are stamped indelibly on the crust and do not move. Either the
conveyor belt of a mantle trundles along underneath their lid
(discarded) or the mantle skin (/lid) keeps disappearing at one side
and appearing at the other (current model). But the margins stay
fixed. Not even do the transform boundaries move; the ridges are not
offset by transform fault
movementhttp://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/transoffsets.html
Plate Tectonics will tell you that transform faults are the "third
boundary of movement" but there is no movement, ..no offsetting of the
ridges.

This royal screw-up meant inventing "a new class of faults" <http://
tinyurl.com/2vr2al> , ...faults that move within themselves, but don't
move anything around them - a contradiction in terms in other words.

Plate Tectonics says in words that plates move - and say at the ridges
they grow, but the words force illustrations and animations that state
categorically that plate MARGINS are, and always have been, fixed to
the size they are now. Which is of course a nonsense, because how
else are the continents supposed to separate (if 'plates' don't
move)? We have been led from a circulating mantle (that moves) to a
lid that 'moves', to a MAP showing plate BOUNDARIES and RIDGES that
have never moved one iota according to their 'movement' picture.

Neat trick, huh, ..conning everybody with that one: "Plates
move" (when their margins don't). They don't move in any dynamic
sense whatever, only in the advertised hype.

(Stuart will tell you. He's good at telling. Aren't you, Stuart..
Stuart knows every number there is in convection. Ask him nicely and
he'll tell you one. 'Cept me. He won't tell me any, in case I tell
him back it's a silly one.)

in any factory the conveyor belts moves . but, the ends don't. neat
trick, huh?

What, like this other neat trick :-)
http://www.northerntool.com/images/product/images/45350_lg.jpg

Because the Earth is sphere with constant surface area the African plate
is colliding with the European plate, shrinking them at there North/South
boundary and closing up the Mediterranean.

"josephus" <dogbird@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13nrnr093jrje54@corp.supernews.com...
: don findlay wrote:
: > There's also the point that in using the concept of 'moving plates'
: > Pteros themselves don't understand their own model. Plates (in Plate
: > Tectonics) don't move (nor have they ever 'grown').

I plonked findlay long ago. He doesn't understand anything, let alone
the model. The mid-Atlantic ridge is the present boundary between the
American (N and S) plates in the west and the European and African
plates in it's east, all of which have grown to include the Atlantic ocean.
Because the Earth is sphere with constant surface area the African plate
is colliding with the European plate, shrinking them at there North/South
boundary and closing up the Mediterranean. South America is
pushing the Pacific plate northwards as it rotates, the boundary
there being the Andes, and the Pacific plate is sliding past the
North American plate as it moves northward. Morons like findlay
cannot think in three dimensions and are confused by a covering
of water hiding the boundaries. The plate boundaries are nothing
like the land/sea boundaries, the fit of South America with Africa
and North America with Europe is just too good to be a coincidence,
they were once joined. Plates shrink, grow and change their shape.
findlay is a fuckhead.

josephus wrote:

don findlay wrote:

Androcles wrote:

"Florian" <first_name@last_name.net> wrote in message
news:1ia3mev.18sj2hk1oub01bN%first_name@last_name.net...
: brad <lbjohnson1949@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
: > subduction zones ( see Marianas
: > Trench ,among others ) would not form if the earth only expanded.
:
: The earth is not simply expanding, it is growing.

*plonk*

No, ..he's right. There's a semantic glitsch there that needs
correction, but the word 'Expanding' has become entrenched, and there
isn't really another that conveys the right meaning. To the best of
my knowledge Neal Adams first used the word 'growing' <http://
tinyurl.com/33kydl> - and so it is, but that could have
'difficult' (biological) connotations. (But crystals
'grow'.... ...)

So, ..a better word is needed, but we seem to be stuck with that one.

There's also the point that in using the concept of 'moving plates'
Pteros themselves don't understand their own model. Plates (in Plate
Tectonics) don't move (nor have they ever 'grown'). Plate boundaries
are stamped indelibly on the crust and do not move. Either the
conveyor belt of a mantle trundles along underneath their lid
(discarded) or the mantle skin (/lid) keeps disappearing at one side
and appearing at the other (current model). But the margins stay
fixed. Not even do the transform boundaries move; the ridges are not
offset by transform fault movement
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/transoffsets.html
Plate Tectonics will tell you that transform faults are the "third
boundary of movement" but there is no movement, ..no offsetting of the
ridges.

This royal screw-up meant inventing "a new class of faults" <http://
tinyurl.com/2vr2al> , ...faults that move within themselves, but don't
move anything around them - a contradiction in terms in other words.

Plate Tectonics says in words that plates move - and say at the ridges
they grow, but the words force illustrations and animations that state
categorically that plate MARGINS are, and always have been, fixed to
the size they are now. Which is of course a nonsense, because how
else are the continents supposed to separate (if 'plates' don't
move)? We have been led from a circulating mantle (that moves) to a
lid that 'moves', to a MAP showing plate BOUNDARIES and RIDGES that
have never moved one iota according to their 'movement' picture.

Neat trick, huh, ..conning everybody with that one: "Plates
move" (when their margins don't). They don't move in any dynamic
sense whatever, only in the advertised hype.

(Stuart will tell you. He's good at telling. Aren't you, Stuart..
Stuart knows every number their is in convection. Ask him nicely and
he'll tell you one. 'Cept me. He won't tell me any, in case I tell
him back it's a silly one.)

lest put to you this way

let the earth's mass increase the moon will approach and collide.

let the earth and moon increase proportionally, the satellite's
barycenter to the sun will move into a more remote orbit. l

let the sun increase and all the planets will tilt their obits and
approach the sun.

if all planets increase then all the orbits will move away from the sun.

this comes about because if satellite increases it will move away

let Jupiter's mass = sun then Jupiter would orbit at 6.553036 AU
instead of 5.202803

increasing satellites move away from the primary
increasing the primary causes satellites to approach and collide.

increasing all the masses would cause changes in K

k = 1.3271244E20*864002/1.4959787066E113 = 0.0172020989500000

astromical assertion: K= .0172020989500000 exactly!

all the terms of that equation depends on the mass of the sun and
indirectly the masses of the planets since the masses of the planets are
defined in terms of the sun.

Any such changes would be documented in the Astronomical Journal.

for these reasons EE cannot exist. there is no way that mass could
change and not be noticed. All calculations depend on mass being
consistent. G is constant and has not changed at all. only mass would
change and it is not noted. GMassofsun is the measure of mass in stars.

EE implies stars cannot exit. EE REFUTES ALL ASTRONOMY. EE cannot exit.

..Or, ..to put another way, ..who needs Stuart with his rubber
numbers, when subduction is proved without even considering anything
of convection - or even of the Earth's geology. All you need to know
is that the Earth's mass must have remained constant since the
beginning. That right?

And so Plate Tectonics is just an amusing diversion, and it matters
naught whether it is right or wrong? Nothing from its litany is
necessary to prove that the Earth's shells are continuously
recycling? Astronomical considerations refute all geological
observation and confirm that the Earth must always have been the same
mass.

The beginning of what? From what point forward are you saying that
the Earth was as it is?

What is the basic fact you are starting from? Not, I hope, that the
Earth is round and spinning...