| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"don findlay" |
| Date: |
03 Jun 2007 10:26:29 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Gangster Rap: The day the music died |
don findlay wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ... Holmes made another significant contribution to geology. Years
before the scientific community accepted Alfred Wegener's theory of
continental drift, Holmes hypothesized (correctly) how it could have
happened, through convection currents in earth's mantle. Yet plate
tectonics would not be widely accepted by geologists until after
Holmes's death, and Holmes himself confessed in 1953, "I have never
succeeded in freeing myself from a nagging prejudice against
continental drift."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How are we to rationalise that (confession)? Here we have a
guy, ..one of the acknowledged fathers of geology, ... first he
outlines the vast increase in the geological time scale, then
speculates on convection as a mechanism and spends a lifetime refining
it and detailing how radioactivity can produce the heat to move the
continents around, and then before he dies, ends up with a nagging
prejudice against continental drift. How come?
Well the answer is simple. The debate about Earth expansion was
already underway. If convection happens (and the Earth wasn't to get
any bigger) then the ocean floors would never open in the first place,
would they? It's as simple as that. What's more, the proposal of a
Panthalassa being destroyed to accommodate later spreading simply
highlighted the nonsense of crustal pull/push apart by convection
("oceans would never open in the first place"). No right-thinking
person could overlook that without either crass stupidity (which
Holmes was not) or (as Stuart calls it) **MASSIVE ACADEMIC FRAUD**,
which our Stu, ..being of immaculate scientific morality, and bent on
the heroic quest for scientific truth as he obviously is, ..is also
not.
Little darlings, are they not, ..when it comes to *THE GIFT THAT KEEPS
ON GIVING*.
http://tinyurl.com/2hgs3x
That right, Stuart? Are you, and everybody else just crassly stupid
instead? Is there a number you can quote supporting convection which
will exonerate you?
.
|
|
| User: "Inez" |
|
| Title: Re: Gangster Rap: The day the music died |
03 Jun 2007 12:49:21 PM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 8:26 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
don findlay wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ... Holmes made another significant contribution to geology. Years
before the scientific community accepted Alfred Wegener's theory of
continental drift, Holmes hypothesized (correctly) how it could have
happened, through convection currents in earth's mantle. Yet plate
tectonics would not be widely accepted by geologists until after
Holmes's death, and Holmes himself confessed in 1953, "I have never
succeeded in freeing myself from a nagging prejudice against
continental drift."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How are we to rationalise that (confession)? Here we have a
guy, ..one of the acknowledged fathers of geology, ... first he
outlines the vast increase in the geological time scale, then
speculates on convection as a mechanism and spends a lifetime refining
it and detailing how radioactivity can produce the heat to move the
continents around, and then before he dies, ends up with a nagging
prejudice against continental drift. How come?
Well the answer is simple. The debate about Earth expansion was
already underway. If convection happens (and the Earth wasn't to get
any bigger) then the ocean floors would never open in the first place,
would they? It's as simple as that.
<yada yada yada>
If the world were expanding, wouldn't that mean it was getting bigger,
and scientists would be able to measure it and say "gosh, the world is
getting bigger?" Would it not mean that the people at the bureau of
weights and measures would notice that their weights were getting
heavier?
As with creationism, you can't prove your theory merely by disproving
the current one. Display your actual data (preferably not to me but
rather to some sort of geological magazine or conference) and have
done with it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lorentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Gangster Rap: The day the music died |
04 Jun 2007 06:29:27 PM |
|
|
If the world were expanding, wouldn't that mean it was getting bigger,
and scientists would be able to measure it and say "gosh, the world is
getting bigger?" Would it not mean that the people at the bureau of
weights and measures would notice that their weights were getting
heavier?
The people at NIST used weight balances, and only weight balances,
to compare weights. Of course they would notice nothing since the
relative weights wouldn't change. Then they adjusting their spring
balances using the changed weights, then everybody bought those
springs from NIST and adjusted their scales to the new standard
weights. No one at any point checked a new spring balance against and
old one. Those who said something didn't get their articles through
the scientific referee system.
Real scientists are mocked and suppressed. Its like the
Emperors New Clothes, man! What do you expect from the scientific
establishment?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Gangster Rap: The day the music died |
05 Jun 2007 03:06:49 AM |
|
|
Inez wrote:
(...the <yada yada yada> bit; I asked the question)
If convection happens (and the Earth wasn't to get
any bigger) then the ocean floors would never open in the first place,
would they? It's as simple as that.
<yada yada yada>
So, is nobody going to have a go at answering that one? Seems pretty
obvious I know, but it's remarkable how many people have trouble
getting their head around it.
(repeat: if the ocean floors were being consumed at the same rate as
they're being created (which they must otherwise the Earth would get
bigger - which we know can't happen - because there is no way known
whereby it can) then the ocean floors would never open in the first
place/ spreading ridges would never be created) (The very existence of
the ocean floors denies Plate Tectonics.) (Go on, ...think about
it, ...it's not hard - then have a go... Thumbs up or thumbs down for
PT?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lorentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Gangster Rap: The day the music died |
05 Jun 2007 04:39:27 PM |
|
|
If convection happens (and the Earth wasn't to get
any bigger) then the ocean floors would never open in the first place,
would they? It's as simple as that.
I just tried to boil water in a pot. However, I was stopped by a
problem. If convection never happens and the water is incompressible,
then there could not be any inhomogeneities. The heat enters the water
uniformly. I even used a cooking thermometer, and the temperature was
homogenous throughout the pot at 100 centigrade. Even if water changes
to vapor, it would come off the surface uniformly. Therefore, there
can never be any bubbles. Therfore, the pot can never boil. In fact,
the didn't boil because boiling is fundamentally impossible. The
problem was as simple as that.
I then went outside to watch clouds. It was a nice sunny day.
However, I had a problem. The sun heated the surface of the earth
uniformly. Without variations in temperature, the air was forced to
have a uniform density. In other words, it remained the same volume.
Since there was no variation in density, there were no convective
cells. Without convective cells, there were no regions where water
vapor was carried into the upper regions of the atmosphere. Therefore,
there was no region where water condensed. Therefore, there were no
clouds. I didn't see clouds that day. Not to worry, I never have seen
clouds. Clouds are fundamentally impossible. The problem is as simple
as that.
So, is nobody going to have a go at answering that one? Seems pretty
obvious I know, but it's remarkable how many people have trouble
getting their head around it.
Its harder than it first appears because it is so stupid. I
have an answer, but even while I type it I am plagued by a feeling
that there mst be something vastly profound in the argument which I am
obviously missing. However, I will try. I will restate his argument as
I understand it. I think his problem stems from believing the earth to
be 100% homogenous in density. A derivative problem is that he can not
visualize convective cells.
Every small portion of the earth is 100% incompressible. The
earth remains the same volume because each little portion of it is
100% incompressible. Furthermore, there can be no disruption on the
surface of the earth since a disruption requires a localized
compression in the earth. In order for there to be convection, there
have to be regions of localized compression. Therefore, there can be
no convection. Therfore. there can be no convective cells. Since
continental plates are bordered by convective cells, there can be no
continental plates. Therefore, there can not be any plate tectonics.
Therefore, there is no continental drift.
However:
The separate regions of the earth ARE slightly compressible. The
earth remains the the same volume because a change in density in one
region is compensated by a change in density in another. There are
regions of compression. The earth contains convective cells with
borders between them. Just the same as dozens of similar systems where
convection holds true.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lorentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Gangster Rap: The day the music died |
05 Jun 2007 04:40:43 PM |
|
|
If convection happens (and the Earth wasn't to get
any bigger) then the ocean floors would never open in the first place,
would they? It's as simple as that.
I just tried to boil water in a pot. However, I was stopped by a
problem. If convection never happens and the water is incompressible,
then there could not be any inhomogeneities. The heat enters the water
uniformly. I even used a cooking thermometer, and the temperature was
homogenous throughout the pot at 100 centigrade. Even if water changes
to vapor, it would come off the surface uniformly. Therefore, there
can never be any bubbles. Therfore, the pot can never boil. In fact,
the didn't boil because boiling is fundamentally impossible. The
problem was as simple as that.
I then went outside to watch clouds. It was a nice sunny day.
However, I had a problem. The sun heated the surface of the earth
uniformly. Without variations in temperature, the air was forced to
have a uniform density. In other words, it remained the same volume.
Since there was no variation in density, there were no convective
cells. Without convective cells, there were no regions where water
vapor was carried into the upper regions of the atmosphere. Therefore,
there was no region where water condensed. Therefore, there were no
clouds. I didn't see clouds that day. Not to worry, I never have seen
clouds. Clouds are fundamentally impossible. The problem is as simple
as that.
So, is nobody going to have a go at answering that one? Seems pretty
obvious I know, but it's remarkable how many people have trouble
getting their head around it.
Its harder than it first appears because it is so stupid. I
have an answer, but even while I type it I am plagued by a feeling
that there mst be something vastly profound in the argument which I am
obviously missing. However, I will try. I will restate his argument as
I understand it. I think his problem stems from believing the earth to
be 100% homogenous in density. A derivative problem is that he can not
visualize convective cells.
Every small portion of the earth is 100% incompressible. The
earth remains the same volume because each little portion of it is
100% incompressible. Furthermore, there can be no disruption on the
surface of the earth since a disruption requires a localized
compression in the earth. In order for there to be convection, there
have to be regions of localized compression. Therefore, there can be
no convection. Therfore. there can be no convective cells. Since
continental plates are bordered by convective cells, there can be no
continental plates. Therefore, there can not be any plate tectonics.
Therefore, there is no continental drift.
However:
The separate regions of the earth ARE slightly compressible. The
earth remains the the same volume because a change in density in one
region is compensated by a change in density in another. There are
regions of compression. The earth contains convective cells with
borders between them. Just the same as dozens of similar systems where
convection holds true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Gangster Rap: The day the music died |
04 Jun 2007 03:39:30 AM |
|
|
Inez wrote:
On Jun 3, 8:26 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
don findlay wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ... Holmes made another significant contribution to geology. Years
before the scientific community accepted Alfred Wegener's theory of
continental drift, Holmes hypothesized (correctly) how it could have
happened, through convection currents in earth's mantle. Yet plate
tectonics would not be widely accepted by geologists until after
Holmes's death, and Holmes himself confessed in 1953, "I have never
succeeded in freeing myself from a nagging prejudice against
continental drift."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How are we to rationalise that (confession)? Here we have a
guy, ..one of the acknowledged fathers of geology, ... first he
outlines the vast increase in the geological time scale, then
speculates on convection as a mechanism and spends a lifetime refining
it and detailing how radioactivity can produce the heat to move the
continents around, and then before he dies, ends up with a nagging
prejudice against continental drift. How come?
Well the answer is simple. The debate about Earth expansion was
already underway. If convection happens (and the Earth wasn't to get
any bigger) then the ocean floors would never open in the first place,
would they? It's as simple as that.
<yada yada yada>
Now just hang on, ..there's no need to go any further until you
articulate that one a bit better. ( Simple, ..isn't it, ..?) ( But
you're not the only one who can't/ hasn't been able to, ..for the last
(near-)century...)
Try. Then we'll deal with the others.
If the world were expanding, wouldn't that mean it was getting bigger,
and scientists would be able to measure it and say "gosh, the world is
getting bigger?" Would it not mean that the people at the bureau of
weights and measures would notice that their weights were getting
heavier?
As with creationism, you can't prove your theory merely by disproving
the current one. Display your actual data (preferably not to me but
rather to some sort of geological magazine or conference) and have
done with it.
Um, ..we're not talking about expansion, ..we're talking about
continental drift (in a framework of the Gaia hypothesis and
evolution). Don't muddy the waters. (Yet.)
Where are you from Inez? What accent was that?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
