| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"will1" |
| Date: |
01 Jul 2006 01:13:09 PM |
| Object: |
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
I once had a friend that had talent and truly wanted to publish. He could
write,his mind was full of ideas, and for all practical
purposes, he believed he was a writer. But had nothing published. His room
mate would encourage him, to the point of nagging, to
write his novels and cook books. His number one excuse was that he did not
have a decent typewriter, (this was long before
computers and word processing for the masses). For years that was his
excuse, he needed a good typewriter. Finally one day, his
room mate not only bought him a very nice IBM Selectric, but also set him up
with a cool trailer/writer's pad by the beach .So now
my friend could be a writer, no more excuses. Well after a few months,
NOTHING! No manuscripts, no outlines, no words, only
blank sheets of typewriter paper. He passed away about 10 years ago without
publication, all that talent gone.
There were many possible reasons for his problem (usually fear and/or lack
of the basic "How To"), and we can come up with
hundreds of suggestions and fixes . Except, for one case, when the "desire",
the "wanting",and the day dreaming is a stronger
force than the 'doing' and creating RESULTS. You will not fix this problem.
Just let the Don Fs. and Cagles and Ed C.s and other
delusionals have their daydreams. We can respond to a few flaws in their
logic or point out mistaken observations, even offer
suggestions , but that is all. Their minds and egos cannot handle the TRUTH
and are therefore, blind to it. The irony in Don's case
is that in the past, competent scientists have proposed the idea of earth
expansion as a possible cause for observed features on
the surface of our planet. They confronted their fears and peers and
published. They also had their ego under control and when the
arguments against their theories were presented, they accepted those
arguments based on logic and good science. And those
poor souls that did not accept ,or at least listened to the arguments, were
subducted and assimilated into the convecting mantle.
Occasionally one pops up as a xenolith, like Don...
I found this whole thread a fascinating study of the effects of cross
posting, as well as personal observation my reactions to
statements made by various players here. Data mining occasionally will take
you into stagnant pools, and even then, stirring up the
mud can bring to light some life forms that were hidden just beneath the
surface. The only danger that we face are the traps of being
mired in a "Folie a' Deux"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_%C3%A0_deux .
Regards, Will E.
.
|
|
| User: "will1" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
02 Jul 2006 11:07:49 AM |
|
|
"IT WAS on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment of my
toils. With an anxiety
that almost amounted to agony, collected the instruments of life around me,
that I might infuse a spark
of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in
the morning; the rain pattered
dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the
glimmer of the
half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it
breathed hard, and a convulsive
motion agitated its limbs." Dr. Frankenstein
Lets see, click my heels together three times and say,
"There's no place like home, there's no place like..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
02 Jul 2006 05:55:44 PM |
|
|
will1 wrote:
"IT WAS on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment of my
toils. With an anxiety
that almost amounted to agony, collected the instruments of life around me,
that I might infuse a spark
of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in
the morning; the rain pattered
dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the
glimmer of the
half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it
breathed hard, and a convulsive
motion agitated its limbs." Dr. Frankenstein
Lets see, click my heels together three times and say,
"There's no place like home, there's no place like..."
WoOargh, ...OooOOOhhh, ..Will, ..what are you doing wakening that
monster? I know it's cyberspace, ..but I don't know if I want *THAT*
particular monster in my movie. What's wrong with the ones we've got?
.
|
|
|
| User: "will1" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
02 Jul 2006 11:15:15 PM |
|
|
Don, It is not the fear of Frankenstein's monster that concerns me, nor it
is the mob of angry village people bearing torches and wooden pitch forks
marching up my castle drive way at 2: in the morning. Instead, I see it
as a matter of choice. I do not need angry villagers beating down my front
door to validate my creations or for that matter, to validate my existence.
In my movie I have choices. In my movie I am the producer and editor, camera
man and sound engineer, actor and script wri... well, I am not sure WHO is
writing the script. I guess that is what science is trying to find out and
the spiritual already knows. You know, the meeting that Marc suggest you
attend could be a lot of fun. I've been to a few of them in the past and
learned things that were never taught in the class room. Will E.
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:1151880944.289870.250590@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
WoOargh, ...OooOOOhhh, ..Will, ..what are you doing wakening that
monster? I know it's cyberspace, ..but I don't know if I want *THAT*
particular monster in my movie. What's wrong with the ones we've got?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Petra" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
03 Jul 2006 03:49:26 AM |
|
|
will1 wrote:
I guess that is what science is trying to find out and
the spiritual already knows. You know, the meeting that Marc suggest you
attend could be a lot of fun. I've been to a few of them in the past and
learned things that were never taught in the class room. Will E.
Will,
And destiny fly's in the face of convention! There are two sides, but
one is so far ahead of the other and it makes one wonder how long does
it take to get from there to here? Too long in my book.
I too have attended and found most of it a snoozer. Not that the
material wasn't any good, just the presentations. I'd love to teach a
class on Pump It Up a bit because it gets to quiet in there. While the
rest of the world is focused on selling ideas and actually selling
them, science isn't that way. It's still a sale, but in the most
unusual way. It may be difficult for some to realize that a person has
less than 30 seconds, that's right less than 30 seconds in which the
person who sees them makes an assumption about them and it sticks
forever. So if one were to impress and they knew they had only less
than 30 seconds how might one prepare? Wear something other than
brown.
Brown is a an efficient color, but not one that attracts attention or
sells them. If all else fails, wear light blue. It has a nice eye
appeal, one that some might find sexy and be what puts them over the
top and certainly they won't blend into the background of a nearly full
house of "brownsters."
Of course I love to walk into a room full of men, but if it looks like
a sea of khaki you have to wonder who left their personality at home or
certainly who shops for them. I guess I should appreciate it's still a
mans world and even the women who attend seem to want to wear the same
apparel. Umm, that is a real problem. I've talked to some of them
about it and they said that is what attracted them to the occupation.
I say, Put A Skirt On! Get a blazer and shave those legs and don't
forget the under-arms as well.
Science needs a lift, but not the kind that you deliver to the seat of
the pants. It needs some pizzaz, a little hype and a voice that sounds
interested and interesting, like there was real life in the material.
There could be, but in the "we do" and so forth I think some of it gets
lost.
One hint: Always dress like you were going out on a date. Believe me,
your thoughts will be totally different than thinking you were going to
work or to a conference and those thoughts will be what makes you more
attractive than anyone else.
Just the humble opinion of a woman who thinks she may have seen it all.
Actually, I saw more than I wanted to and now I can't forget it.
Petra
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
03 Jul 2006 09:40:06 PM |
|
|
In article <1151916566.151910.197040@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"Petra" <petrasrcf@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Science needs a lift, but not the kind that you deliver to the seat of
the pants. It needs some pizzaz, a little hype and a voice that sounds
interested and interesting, like there was real life in the material.
There could be, but in the "we do" and so forth I think some of it gets
lost.
It does?
Try some PBS: Nova and Scientific American Frontiers are pretty
interesting. And there are tons of specials on cosmology all the time.
For that matter, have you read Scientific American or Discover lately?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Petra" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
04 Jul 2006 01:02:50 AM |
|
|
Timberwoof wrote:
In article <1151916566.151910.197040@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"Petra" <petrasrcf@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Science needs a lift, but not the kind that you deliver to the seat of
the pants. It needs some pizzaz, a little hype and a voice that sounds
interested and interesting, like there was real life in the material.
There could be, but in the "we do" and so forth I think some of it gets
lost.
It does?
Try some PBS: Nova and Scientific American Frontiers are pretty
interesting. And there are tons of specials on cosmology all the time.
For that matter, have you read Scientific American or Discover lately?
Timberwoof,
I don't much care for reruns, but at least on television and in
publications they are good enough to leave some of the digusting parts
as film on the floor or deleted from their computers so "we, the
public" don't have to see it.
As for current reading material, I recently chose to re-read QB VII by
Leon Uris because I wanted to read something that had some sense that
someone cared much about something. As we near the Fourth of July it's
a perfect read because a gripping tale about how million of persons
lost eveything they had, under circumstances which were dire, we who
live in a place which is supposed to have so much, frequently goes
unacknowledged.
While Americans are slowly losing their rights one after the other, we
should appreciate what we have and attempt to make this once great land
something worthy of being proud of. Heaven Help Us.
Petra
Petra
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
04 Jul 2006 02:07:23 AM |
|
|
In article <1151992970.608956.82700@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Petra" <petrasrcf@hotmail.com> wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
In article <1151916566.151910.197040@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"Petra" <petrasrcf@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Science needs a lift, but not the kind that you deliver to the seat of
the pants. It needs some pizzaz, a little hype and a voice that sounds
interested and interesting, like there was real life in the material.
There could be, but in the "we do" and so forth I think some of it gets
lost.
It does?
Try some PBS: Nova and Scientific American Frontiers are pretty
interesting. And there are tons of specials on cosmology all the time.
For that matter, have you read Scientific American or Discover lately?
Timberwoof,
I don't much care for reruns, but at least on television and in
publications they are good enough to leave some of the digusting parts
as film on the floor or deleted from their computers so "we, the
public" don't have to see it.
What are you talking about?
As for current reading material, I recently chose to re-read QB VII by
Leon Uris because I wanted to read something that had some sense that
someone cared much about something. As we near the Fourth of July it's
a perfect read because a gripping tale about how million of persons
lost eveything they had, under circumstances which were dire, we who
live in a place which is supposed to have so much, frequently goes
unacknowledged.
And this has to do with giving science a "lift" how, exactly?
While Americans are slowly losing their rights one after the other, we
should appreciate what we have and attempt to make this once great land
something worthy of being proud of. Heaven Help Us.
Heaven Help Us is exactly what the fundamentalists and other religious
political radicals have in mind.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Petra" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
04 Jul 2006 02:56:37 AM |
|
|
Timberwoof wrote:
In article <1151992970.608956.82700@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Petra" <petrasrcf@hotmail.com> wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
In article <1151916566.151910.197040@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"Petra" <petrasrcf@hotmail.com> wrote:
Timberwoof, (see notes below)
What are you talking about?
As for current reading material, I recently chose to re-read QB VII by
Leon Uris because I wanted to read something that had some sense that
someone cared much about something. As we near the Fourth of July it's
a perfect read because a gripping tale about how million of persons
lost eveything they had, under circumstances which were dire, we who
live in a place which is supposed to have so much, frequently goes
unacknowledged.
If you're looking for something to read which is "empowering" you'd
have to look outside of Scientific American you know.
And this has to do with giving science a "lift" how, exactly?
While Americans are slowly losing their rights one after the other, we
should appreciate what we have and attempt to make this once great land
something worthy of being proud of. Heaven Help Us.
Your answer is one question past the last answer.... No Comment.
Heaven Help Us is exactly what the fundamentalists and other religious
political radicals have in mind.
Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?" For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.
Petra
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
04 Jul 2006 11:25:02 AM |
|
|
In article <1151999797.069852.134840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"Petra" <petrasrcf@hotmail.com> wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
In article <1151992970.608956.82700@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Petra" <petrasrcf@hotmail.com> wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
In article <1151916566.151910.197040@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"Petra" <petrasrcf@hotmail.com> wrote:
Timberwoof, (see notes below)
What are you talking about?
As for current reading material, I recently chose to re-read QB VII by
Leon Uris because I wanted to read something that had some sense that
someone cared much about something. As we near the Fourth of July it's
a perfect read because a gripping tale about how million of persons
lost eveything they had, under circumstances which were dire, we who
live in a place which is supposed to have so much, frequently goes
unacknowledged.
If you're looking for something to read which is "empowering" you'd
have to look outside of Scientific American you know.
I didn't say I was looking for something "empowering". You said
Science needs a lift, but not the kind that you deliver to the seat of
the pants. It needs some pizzaz, a little hype and a voice that sounds
interested and interesting, like there was real life in the material.
There could be, but in the "we do" and so forth I think some of it gets
lost.
And this has to do with giving science a "lift" how, exactly?
::Crickets chirping:::
While Americans are slowly losing their rights one after the other, we
should appreciate what we have and attempt to make this once great land
something worthy of being proud of. Heaven Help Us.
Your answer is one question past the last answer.... No Comment.
Heaven Help Us is exactly what the fundamentalists and other religious
political radicals have in mind.
Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?" For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.
Can you provide an objective test for identifying a "true believer"? I
submit that it can't be done.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
04 Jul 2006 07:27:52 AM |
|
|
Petra wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"
Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)
For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.
Petra
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shackleton" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
04 Jul 2006 02:03:27 PM |
|
|
don findlay wrote:
Petra wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"
Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)
For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.
Petra
Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.
So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles Cagle" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
15 Aug 2006 07:14:25 PM |
|
|
In article <1152039807.097969.65590@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Petra wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"
Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)
For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.
Petra
Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.
So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?
How about from an an electromagnetic process that introduces new geometry
into the universe? Where does a new thought come from? If matter is
entirely relational like Lee Smolin postulates below... why must you
insist that it is somehow created out of something that must come from
somewhere as if its primary ingredients had to exist before it appeared?
łTo understand what we mean when we
say that space is discrete, we must put our
minds completely into the relational way
of thinking, and really try to see and feel
the world around us as nothing but a
network of evolving relationships. These
relationships are not among things
situated in space they are among the
events that make up the history of the
world. The relationships define the space,
not the other way around.˛ (Smolin, 96)
Charles Cagle
--
for email delete underscores
"I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed Hid privily,
a measureless resource For man, and mighty teacher of all arts."
- Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shackleton" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
16 Aug 2006 02:50:35 PM |
|
|
Charles Cagle wrote:
In article <1152039807.097969.65590@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Petra wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"
Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)
For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.
Petra
Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.
So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?
How about from an an electromagnetic process that introduces new geometry
into the universe? Where does a new thought come from? If matter is
entirely relational like Lee Smolin postulates below... why must you
insist that it is somehow created out of something that must come from
somewhere as if its primary ingredients had to exist before it appeared?
Ok...fine....don't explain where the mass comes from then.
Try this then...what empirical evidence exists that shows that the
earth has become more massive over time on a scale sufficient to
explain the proposed doubling of the radius over the past 300 million
years....that would be a 8x increase in mass....or additional mass of
5.25 x 10^24 kgs....that works out to [if my math was accurate] about
2x10^12 kgs of additional mass every hour for the past 300 million
years.
That's 2 billion tonnes per hour....
What evidence is there that the earth has gained this additional mass
every hour for the last 300 million years?
łTo understand what we mean when we
say that space is discrete, we must put our
minds completely into the relational way
of thinking, and really try to see and feel
the world around us as nothing but a
network of evolving relationships. These
relationships are not among things
situated in space they are among the
events that make up the history of the
world. The relationships define the space,
not the other way around.˛ (Smolin, 96)
Charles Cagle
--
for email delete underscores
"I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed Hid privily,
a measureless resource For man, and mighty teacher of all arts."
- Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles Cagle" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
19 Aug 2006 08:59:38 PM |
|
|
In article <1155757835.015682.275310@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
Charles Cagle wrote:
In article <1152039807.097969.65590@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Petra wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"
Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)
For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.
Petra
Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.
So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?
How about from an an electromagnetic process that introduces new geometry
into the universe? Where does a new thought come from? If matter is
entirely relational like Lee Smolin postulates below... why must you
insist that it is somehow created out of something that must come from
somewhere as if its primary ingredients had to exist before it appeared?
Ok...fine....don't explain where the mass comes from then.
I could explain the origin of mass... but not in terms of 'where it comes
from' if implicit in that question to which you're attempting to find the
answer is some antecedent form of matter or energy that you require or
insist that subsequent forms (the created matter) must have been derived
from. And then, my explanation might be in terms, so simple that your
complex adulterated thinking cannot and will not stoop down to grasp. The
trip to the Truth isn't like you think... it first begins with you
realizing that you don't know squat. But as long as you have a storehouse
of psuedoknowledge that you think you know for sure simply because you're
a typical rule learner and have never had a heart to actually know the
truth... you simply cannot be taught. The clue from Lee Smolin could have
got you thinking but instead of cogitating on what he was suggesting it
became more suitable for your egotistal mind to simply eruct a flippant
response. Face it fellow, the truth isn't for you. You're firewood,
you're simply a prop, a weed, a tare that was made as a heuristic teaching
device; the destruction of which is for the instruction of others who
really are on their way to the truth. If you can demonstrate that you
actually have a heart to learn then I'm sure you'll find a way to show
that. In the meanwhile...go away, will you?
Try this then...what empirical evidence exists that shows that the
earth has become more massive over time on a scale sufficient to
explain the proposed doubling of the radius over the past 300 million
years....that would be a 8x increase in mass....or additional mass of
5.25 x 10^24 kgs....that works out to [if my math was accurate] about
2x10^12 kgs of additional mass every hour for the past 300 million
years.
That's 2 billion tonnes per hour....
What evidence is there that the earth has gained this additional mass
every hour for the last 300 million years?
łTo understand what we mean when we
say that space is discrete, we must put our
minds completely into the relational way
of thinking, and really try to see and feel
the world around us as nothing but a
network of evolving relationships. These
relationships are not among things
situated in space they are among the
events that make up the history of the
world. The relationships define the space,
not the other way around.˛ (Smolin, 96)
Charles Cagle
--
for email delete underscores
"I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed Hid privily,
a measureless resource For man, and mighty teacher of all arts."
- Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus -
--
for email delete underscores
"I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed Hid privily,
a measureless resource For man, and mighty teacher of all arts."
- Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shackleton" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
19 Aug 2006 11:38:55 PM |
|
|
Charles Cagle wrote:
In article <1155757835.015682.275310@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
Charles Cagle wrote:
In article <1152039807.097969.65590@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Petra wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"
Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)
For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.
Petra
Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.
So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?
How about from an an electromagnetic process that introduces new geometry
into the universe? Where does a new thought come from? If matter is
entirely relational like Lee Smolin postulates below... why must you
insist that it is somehow created out of something that must come from
somewhere as if its primary ingredients had to exist before it appeared?
Ok...fine....don't explain where the mass comes from then.
I could explain the origin of mass... but not in terms of 'where it comes
from' if implicit in that question to which you're attempting to find the
answer is some antecedent form of matter or energy that you require or
insist that subsequent forms (the created matter) must have been derived
from. And then, my explanation might be in terms, so simple that your
complex adulterated thinking cannot and will not stoop down to grasp.
Try me....what is your evidence for an earth that has increased its
mass 8x in the past 300 million years? I don't care about where it came
from, I just would like a list of measureable effects that you can
point to that indicate that the earth has become more massive.
The trip to the Truth isn't like you think... it first begins with you
realizing that you don't know squat. But as long as you have a storehouse
of psuedoknowledge that you think you know for sure simply because you're
a typical rule learner and have never had a heart to actually know the
truth... you simply cannot be taught.
So I need to abandon all I know in order to learn something new? That's
looney.
The clue from Lee Smolin could have
got you thinking but instead of cogitating on what he was suggesting it
became more suitable for your egotistal mind to simply eruct a flippant
response.
It seems like a reasonable request to me.
Face it fellow, the truth isn't for you. You're firewood,
you're simply a prop, a weed, a tare that was made as a heuristic teaching
device; the destruction of which is for the instruction of others who
really are on their way to the truth. If you can demonstrate that you
actually have a heart to learn then I'm sure you'll find a way to show
that. In the meanwhile...go away, will you?
Go away? What's the matter....the question too tough for you?
Try this then...what empirical evidence exists that shows that the
earth has become more massive over time on a scale sufficient to
explain the proposed doubling of the radius over the past 300 million
years....that would be a 8x increase in mass....or additional mass of
5.25 x 10^24 kgs....that works out to [if my math was accurate] about
2x10^12 kgs of additional mass every hour for the past 300 million
years.
That's 2 billion tonnes per hour....
What evidence is there that the earth has gained this additional mass
every hour for the last 300 million years?
łTo understand what we mean when we
say that space is discrete, we must put our
minds completely into the relational way
of thinking, and really try to see and feel
the world around us as nothing but a
network of evolving relationships. These
relationships are not among things
situated in space they are among the
events that make up the history of the
world. The relationships define the space,
not the other way around.˛ (Smolin, 96)
Charles Cagle
--
for email delete underscores
"I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed Hid privily,
a measureless resource For man, and mighty teacher of all arts."
- Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus -
--
for email delete underscores
"I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed Hid privily,
a measureless resource For man, and mighty teacher of all arts."
- Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
21 Aug 2006 12:39:30 AM |
|
|
"Ken Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote in
news:1156048735.000731.133890@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Charles Cagle wrote:
I could explain the origin of mass... but not in terms of 'where it
comes from' if implicit in that question to which you're attempting
to find the answer is some antecedent form of matter or energy that
you require or insist that subsequent forms (the created matter) must
have been derived from. And then, my explanation might be in terms,
so simple that your complex adulterated thinking cannot and will not
stoop down to grasp.
Try me....what is your evidence for an earth that has increased its
mass 8x in the past 300 million years? I don't care about where it
came from, I just would like a list of measureable effects that you
can point to that indicate that the earth has become more massive.
Well, the dinosaurs standing up, for one!
Look, take a powerlifter like Kazmaier, see....
-JAH
One guy I almost kinda miss
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles Cagle" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
22 Aug 2006 03:54:55 AM |
|
|
In article <1156048735.000731.133890@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
Charles Cagle wrote:
In article <1155757835.015682.275310@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
Charles Cagle wrote:
In article <1152039807.097969.65590@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Petra wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"
Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him
alone... (!)
For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something
of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.
Petra
Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.
So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?
How about from an an electromagnetic process that introduces new
geometry
into the universe? Where does a new thought come from? If matter is
entirely relational like Lee Smolin postulates below... why must you
insist that it is somehow created out of something that must come from
somewhere as if its primary ingredients had to exist before it appeared?
Ok...fine....don't explain where the mass comes from then.
I could explain the origin of mass... but not in terms of 'where it comes
from' if implicit in that question to which you're attempting to find the
answer is some antecedent form of matter or energy that you require or
insist that subsequent forms (the created matter) must have been derived
from. And then, my explanation might be in terms, so simple that your
complex adulterated thinking cannot and will not stoop down to grasp.
Try me....what is your evidence for an earth that has increased its
mass 8x in the past 300 million years? I don't care about where it came
from, I just would like a list of measureable effects that you can
point to that indicate that the earth has become more massive.
Where did I ever write that the Earth has increased its mass 8x in the
past 300 million years? Since I never wrote such a thing... what would
ever make you'd think that I'd be interested in finding 'evidence' for
that?
The trip to the Truth isn't like you think... it first begins with you
realizing that you don't know squat. But as long as you have a storehouse
of psuedoknowledge that you think you know for sure simply because you're
a typical rule learner and have never had a heart to actually know the
truth... you simply cannot be taught.
So I need to abandon all I know in order to learn something new? That's
looney.
The problem is that much of what you know isn't true at all. You might
not have to abandon all that you know...but it is likely that you might
have to abandon everything that you cannot demonstrate by experimental
data couple with deductive logic to be true. Is that too tough to ask
you to give up your religious pseudoscientific beliefs?
The clue from Lee Smolin could have
got you thinking but instead of cogitating on what he was suggesting it
became more suitable for your egotistal mind to simply eruct a flippant
response.
It seems like a reasonable request to me.
Face it fellow, the truth isn't for you. You're firewood,
you're simply a prop, a weed, a tare that was made as a heuristic teaching
device; the destruction of which is for the instruction of others who
really are on their way to the truth. If you can demonstrate that you
actually have a heart to learn then I'm sure you'll find a way to show
that. In the meanwhile...go away, will you?
Go away? What's the matter....the question too tough for you?
Try this then...what empirical evidence exists that shows that the
earth has become more massive over time on a scale sufficient to
explain the proposed doubling of the radius over the past 300 million
years....that would be a 8x increase in mass....or additional mass of
5.25 x 10^24 kgs....that works out to [if my math was accurate] about
2x10^12 kgs of additional mass every hour for the past 300 million
years.
That's 2 billion tonnes per hour....
What evidence is there that the earth has gained this additional mass
every hour for the last 300 million years?
łTo understand what we mean when we
say that space is discrete, we must put our
minds completely into the relational way
of thinking, and really try to see and feel
the world around us as nothing but a
network of evolving relationships. These
relationships are not among things
situated in space they are among the
events that make up the history of the
world. The relationships define the space,
not the other way around.˛ (Smolin, 96)
Charles Cagle
--
for email delete underscores
"I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed Hid privily,
a measureless resource For man, and mighty teacher of all arts."
- Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shackleton" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
22 Aug 2006 11:59:49 AM |
|
|
Charles Cagle wrote:
In article <1156048735.000731.133890@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
Charles Cagle wrote:
In article <1155757835.015682.275310@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
Charles Cagle wrote:
In article <1152039807.097969.65590@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Petra wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"
Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him
alone... (!)
For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something
of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.
Petra
Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.
So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?
How about from an an electromagnetic process that introduces new
geometry
into the universe? Where does a new thought come from? If matter is
entirely relational like Lee Smolin postulates below... why must you
insist that it is somehow created out of something that must come from
somewhere as if its primary ingredients had to exist before it appeared?
Ok...fine....don't explain where the mass comes from then.
I could explain the origin of mass... but not in terms of 'where it comes
from' if implicit in that question to which you're attempting to find the
answer is some antecedent form of matter or energy that you require or
insist that subsequent forms (the created matter) must have been derived
from. And then, my explanation might be in terms, so simple that your
complex adulterated thinking cannot and will not stoop down to grasp.
Try me....what is your evidence for an earth that has increased its
mass 8x in the past 300 million years? I don't care about where it came
from, I just would like a list of measureable effects that you can
point to that indicate that the earth has become more massive.
Where did I ever write that the Earth has increased its mass 8x in the
past 300 million years? Since I never wrote such a thing... what would
ever make you'd think that I'd be interested in finding 'evidence' for
that?
The EE *idea* posits that earth's radius has doubled in the past 300
million years or so. It's simple math that if the density has remained
constant, then the mass has increased 8x during that expansion.
Since I cannot seem to get any details about what the EE hypothesis has
to say about the effects on earth as a result of expansion....I
dangerously assumed that density remained the same.....please enlighten
me if I have assumed incorrectly.
Ken
The trip to the Truth isn't like you think... it first begins with you
realizing that you don't know squat. But as long as you have a storehouse
of psuedoknowledge that you think you know for sure simply because you're
a typical rule learner and have never had a heart to actually know the
truth... you simply cannot be taught.
So I need to abandon all I know in order to learn something new? That's
looney.
The problem is that much of what you know isn't true at all. You might
not have to abandon all that you know...but it is likely that you might
have to abandon everything that you cannot demonstrate by experimental
data couple with deductive logic to be true. Is that too tough to ask
you to give up your religious pseudoscientific beliefs?
The clue from Lee Smolin could have
got you thinking but instead of cogitating on what he was suggesting it
became more suitable for your egotistal mind to simply eruct a flippant
response.
It seems like a reasonable request to me.
Face it fellow, the truth isn't for you. You're firewood,
you're simply a prop, a weed, a tare that was made as a heuristic teaching
device; the destruction of which is for the instruction of others who
really are on their way to the truth. If you can demonstrate that you
actually have a heart to learn then I'm sure you'll find a way to show
that. In the meanwhile...go away, will you?
Go away? What's the matter....the question too tough for you?
Try this then...what empirical evidence exists that shows that the
earth has become more massive over time on a scale sufficient to
explain the proposed doubling of the radius over the past 300 million
years....that would be a 8x increase in mass....or additional mass of
5.25 x 10^24 kgs....that works out to [if my math was accurate] about
2x10^12 kgs of additional mass every hour for the past 300 million
years.
That's 2 billion tonnes per hour....
What evidence is there that the earth has gained this additional mass
every hour for the last 300 million years?
łTo understand what we mean when we
say that space is discrete, we must put our
minds completely into the relational way
of thinking, and really try to see and feel
the world around us as nothing but a
network of evolving relationships. These
relationships are not among things
situated in space they are among the
events that make up the history of the
world. The relationships define the space,
not the other way around.˛ (Smolin, 96)
Charles Cagle
--
for email delete underscores
"I sought the fount of fire in hollow reed Hid privily,
a measureless resource For man, and mighty teacher of all arts."
- Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
22 Aug 2006 11:02:10 PM |
|
|
In article
<s_k_y_bolt99-2208060154550001@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.or.comcast.net>,
(Charles Cagle) wrote:
In article <1156048735.000731.133890@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
Try me....what is your evidence for an earth that has increased its
mass 8x in the past 300 million years? I don't care about where it came
from, I just would like a list of measureable effects that you can
point to that indicate that the earth has become more massive.
Where did I ever write that the Earth has increased its mass 8x in the
past 300 million years? Since I never wrote such a thing... what would
ever make you'd think that I'd be interested in finding 'evidence' for
that?
One of the salient features of the EE hypothesis is that roughly 200
million years ago the Earth was just small enough so that all the
continents were perfectly scrunched together over the entire surface.
Now the Earth's continental crust is roughly 25% of its surface area. To
shrink the Earth down so that only 25% of its surface area remains
requires its volume to shrink by 8x.
(Surface area varies with the square of the radius; volume with the
cube. To shrink the Earth down to 1/4 the surface area means to shrink
the radius to 1/2. 1/2 ^ 3 = 1/8.)
If you think that all the continents once comprised the entire surface
of the Earth then you must think that the earth's volume was about one
eighth of what it now is.
The trip to the Truth isn't like you think... it first begins with you
realizing that you don't know squat. But as long as you have a
storehouse
of psuedoknowledge that you think you know for sure simply because you're
a typical rule learner and have never had a heart to actually know the
truth... you simply cannot be taught.
So I need to abandon all I know in order to learn something new? That's
looney.
The problem is that much of what you know isn't true at all. You might
not have to abandon all that you know...but it is likely that you might
have to abandon everything that you cannot demonstrate by experimental
data couple with deductive logic to be true. Is that too tough to ask
you to give up your religious pseudoscientific beliefs?
What, like conservation of mass, conservation of energy, and so forth?
So where's your experimental data? And where's your deductive logic? You
really blew it when you failed to realize the geometric implications of
the hypothesis.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
23 Aug 2006 09:46:29 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:02:10 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote:
In article
<s_k_y_bolt99-2208060154550001@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.or.comcast.net>,
s_k_y_bolt99@singtech.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
In article <1156048735.000731.133890@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
Try me....what is your evidence for an earth that has increased its
mass 8x in the past 300 million years? I don't care about where it came
from, I just would like a list of measureable effects that you can
point to that indicate that the earth has become more massive.
Where did I ever write that the Earth has increased its mass 8x in the
past 300 million years? Since I never wrote such a thing... what would
ever make you'd think that I'd be interested in finding 'evidence' for
that?
One of the salient features of the EE hypothesis is that roughly 200
million years ago the Earth was just small enough so that all the
continents were perfectly scrunched together over the entire surface.
Now the Earth's continental crust is roughly 25% of its surface area. To
shrink the Earth down so that only 25% of its surface area remains
requires its volume to shrink by 8x.
(Surface area varies with the square of the radius; volume with the
cube. To shrink the Earth down to 1/4 the surface area means to shrink
the radius to 1/2. 1/2 ^ 3 = 1/8.)
If you think that all the continents once comprised the entire surface
of the Earth then you must think that the earth's volume was about one
eighth of what it now is.
That is exactly what the ocean floor shows and if you remove all the
ages in the ocean floor in sequence the continental margins all come
back together. What happens in the Atlantic happens in ALL the oceans
of the world.
JT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
23 Aug 2006 09:30:49 PM |
|
|
In article <sbqoe290fien0oqhue2ko0gke8vjriqkk8@4ax.com>,
"J. Taylor" <nchiwana@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:02:10 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote:
In article
<s_k_y_bolt99-2208060154550001@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.or.comcast.net>,
s_k_y_bolt99@singtech.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
In article <1156048735.000731.133890@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
Try me....what is your evidence for an earth that has increased its
mass 8x in the past 300 million years? I don't care about where it came
from, I just would like a list of measureable effects that you can
point to that indicate that the earth has become more massive.
Where did I ever write that the Earth has increased its mass 8x in the
past 300 million years? Since I never wrote such a thing... what would
ever make you'd think that I'd be interested in finding 'evidence' for
that?
One of the salient features of the EE hypothesis is that roughly 200
million years ago the Earth was just small enough so that all the
continents were perfectly scrunched together over the entire surface.
Now the Earth's continental crust is roughly 25% of its surface area. To
shrink the Earth down so that only 25% of its surface area remains
requires its volume to shrink by 8x.
(Surface area varies with the square of the radius; volume with the
cube. To shrink the Earth down to 1/4 the surface area means to shrink
the radius to 1/2. 1/2 ^ 3 = 1/8.)
If you think that all the continents once comprised the entire surface
of the Earth then you must think that the earth's volume was about one
eighth of what it now is.
That is exactly what the ocean floor shows and if you remove all the
ages in the ocean floor in sequence the continental margins all come
back together. What happens in the Atlantic happens in ALL the oceans
of the world.
So when, exactly, do you think water levels were low enough for animals
to conquer the continents? How did all that fern grow under three miles
of water?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
22 Aug 2006 11:16:07 PM |
|
|
Timberwoof wrote:
<snip>
One of the salient features of the EE hypothesis is that roughly 200
million years ago the Earth was just small enough so that all the
continents were perfectly scrunched together over the entire surface.
Now the Earth's continental crust is roughly 25% of its surface area. To
shrink the Earth down so that only 25% of its surface area remains
requires its volume to shrink by 8x.
(Surface area varies with the square of the radius; volume with the
cube. To shrink the Earth down to 1/4 the surface area means to shrink
the radius to 1/2. 1/2 ^ 3 = 1/8.)
If you think that all the continents once comprised the entire surface
of the Earth then you must think that the earth's volume was about one
eighth of what it now is.
And I'm curious about where all the water was. If there was no orogeny
(either via plate techtonics or mass creation), ISTM the land surface
would be miniscule or nonexistent 200 mya. Lotsa water-treading dinos;
or exceptionally crowded dino urban centers.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
23 Aug 2006 01:47:50 AM |
|
|
In article <1156306566.927683.79510@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@gmail.com> wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
<snip>
One of the salient features of the EE hypothesis is that roughly 200
million years ago the Earth was just small enough so that all the
continents were perfectly scrunched together over the entire surface.
Now the Earth's continental crust is roughly 25% of its surface area. To
shrink the Earth down so that only 25% of its surface area remains
requires its volume to shrink by 8x.
(Surface area varies with the square of the radius; volume with the
cube. To shrink the Earth down to 1/4 the surface area means to shrink
the radius to 1/2. 1/2 ^ 3 = 1/8.)
If you think that all the continents once comprised the entire surface
of the Earth then you must think that the earth's volume was about one
eighth of what it now is.
And I'm curious about where all the water was. If there was no orogeny
(either via plate techtonics or mass creation), ISTM the land surface
would be miniscule or nonexistent 200 mya. Lotsa water-treading dinos;
or exceptionally crowded dino urban centers.
Don Findlay ignores the aquatic landbound donisaurs[1] and says that all
mountain ranges were formed as a result of all that water draining away
when the earth expanded.
Let's see now. 75% of the earth's present surface is covered in a mile
or two of water. That means that the r/8 Earth, with 1/3 the
water-bearing surface area, would have to be three to six miles deep in
water. That doesn't come close to passing a sanity check.
I can hear Don Findlay yelling at me already: "This is geology! You're
not a scuba diver! Ignore the hydrology!"
[1] I'm going to leave that misspelling just because it's funny.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
19 Aug 2006 10:17:04 PM |
|
|
In article
<s_k_y_bolt99-1908061859380001@c-24-21-0-128.hsd1.mn.comcast.net>,
(Charles Cagle) wrote:
In article <1155757835.015682.275310@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
Charles Cagle wrote:
In article <1152039807.097969.65590@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Petra wrote:
Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"
Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone...
(!)
For those of us who are true believers at least we know
there is something of greater intelligence than what's here
on Earth.
Oh, boy, now that's really scientific.
Petra
Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.
So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?
How about from an an electromagnetic process that introduces new geometry
into the universe?
Show us the math. Show us equations that describe the process in such a
way that physicists could reproduce it.
Where does a new thought come from? If matter is
entirely relational like Lee Smolin postulates below... why must you
insist that it is somehow created out of something that must come from
somewhere as if its primary ingredients had to exist before it appeared?
Uh ... because it behaves that way everywhere else, and the alternative
is magic?
Ok...fine....don't explain where the mass comes from then.
I could explain the origin of mass... but not in terms of 'where it comes
from' if implicit in that question to which you're attempting to find the
answer is some antecedent form of matter or energy that you require or
insist that subsequent forms (the created matter) must have been derived
from.
Well, I guess that wraps it up for expecting a rational answer out of
you. And now for the ad-hominem attack on the one asking the question...
And then, my explanation might be in terms, so simple that your
complex adulterated thinking cannot and will not stoop down to grasp.
And instead of providing that simple explanation, you prevaricate.
The
trip to the Truth isn't like you think... it first begins with you
realizing that you don't know squat. But as long as you have a storehouse
of psuedoknowledge that you think you know for sure simply because you're
a typical rule learner and have never had a heart to actually know the
truth... you simply cannot be taught. The clue from Lee Smolin could have
got you thinking but instead of cogitating on what he was suggesting it
became more suitable for your egotistal mind to simply eruct a flippant
response.
You don't have a clue either, and you hope that you can trick someone
smarter than you into coming up with the answer for you.
Face it fellow, the truth isn't for you. You're firewood,
you're simply a prop, a weed, a tare that was made as a heuristic teaching
device; the destruction of which is for the instruction of others who
really are on their way to the truth. If you can demonstrate that you
actually have a heart to learn then I'm sure you'll find a way to show
that. In the meanwhile...go away, will you?
Just in case "too simple for you to comprehend" won't work, back it up
with "too esoteric for you to comprehend."
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
16 Aug 2006 03:56:31 PM |
|
|
Ken Shackleton wrote:
Charles Cagle wrote:
In article <1152039807.097969.65590@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Petra wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"
Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)
For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.
Petra
Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.
So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?
How about from an an electromagnetic process that introduces new geometry
into the universe? Where does a new thought come from? If matter is
entirely relational like Lee Smolin postulates below... why must you
insist that it is somehow created out of something that must come from
somewhere as if its primary ingredients had to exist before it appeared?
Ok...fine....don't explain where the mass comes from then.
Try this then...what empirical evidence exists that shows that the
earth has become more massive over time on a scale sufficient to
explain the proposed doubling of the radius over the past 300 million
years....that would be a 8x increase in mass....or additional mass of
5.25 x 10^24 kgs....that works out to [if my math was accurate] about
2x10^12 kgs of additional mass every hour for the past 300 million
years.
That's 2 billion tonnes per hour....
What evidence is there that the earth has gained this additional mass
every hour for the last 300 million years?
Why do you assume it happens every hour? Couldn't it four billion
tonnes every two hours? Or one billion every half an hour? Why do you
think your minutes and hours and tonnes are of interest to Mother? Why
do you think quantifying it like that is telling you anything more than
is obvious anyway?
So *you* don't know how it's happening. What's that got to do with the
fact that it is?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles Cagle" |
|
| Title: Re: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox |
04 Aug 2006 01:26:42 AM |
|
|
In article <1152039807.097969.65590@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ken
Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Petra wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
Have you ever heard that saying "As above, so below?"
Hey Petra, ..we've covered the woof's bowels, ..leave him alone... (!)
For those of us
who are true believers at least we know there is something of greater
intelligence than what's here on Earth.
Petra
Don....you didn't answer the question about where the mass comes from.
You have been asked that before and I have yet to hear an answer from
anyone.
So...in an expanding earth...where does the mass come from?
I can't tell by the terseness of the question if you suppose that if mass
appears that it must come from or be converted from some other form or
substance as in a conservative process or if you're simply interested in
the mechanism by which the universe is able to furnish itself with new
mass?
First let us address a couple of issues about the authority of a
question. We may wish to insist on conservation ruling everything but
that is a bit arrogant to insist that we have to have something to make
mass out of in the first place because, if in fact, you don't really know
what mass is... in the first place. It is true that all known
processes...chemical and nuclear are conservative. But is it likely there
are processes which we don't fully know about. But because we don't have
an answer then concerning the present mass that exists in the univerese...
where did it come from? So you have to insist rather weakly that all the
mass that exists has always existed.
So, let us just suggest that the universe has a mechanism to furnish
itself with new mass. I think HH-30, that Herbig-Haro Object, a stellar
jet system, is simply a large matter creation engine and it is spewing out
huge chunks of matter cyclically, in blobs that are about twice the size
of our entire solar system. Spitting them out one by one like big
machine gun bullets.
The mechanism that HH-30 uses is the same that the Earth uses... at the
core of our planet is a large scale flux loop structure and it is like a
big magnetic donut structure and it oscillates between the two modes of a
Del X E vector field and and Del X H vector field mode. HH-30 is going
through regular oscillations while the same type of structure that is in
the Earth is 'stuck' in the Del X E vector field mode and will be until it
is stimulated by the impact of several large solar flares or coronal mass
ejections in rapid succession. Then it will compress the field rapidly
enough to stimulate it into a mode change. So, when it reaches the Del X
H vector field mode it will be creating quantum scale copies of its basic
structure which at the quantum scale are simply neutrons. The sun's
standing wave boson structure the oscillation of which produces the solar
cycle ...solar minumum and solar maximum...goes through a mode change
about every 5.5 years. 11 years for a reversal and 22 years for a
complete cycle.
That's the basic picture. How do flux loop systems make those copies? By
having Poynting vector density changes that produce vector fields that
expand on the closed toroid's surface until they self intersect. At the
inner equator of a compact Del X H vector field the inner equator is of
the quantum scale so tiny little flux loops that are the same as neutrons
are produced in prodigious quantities. the neutron can be broken down to
produce an electron, a proton and an antineutrino (that is very likely a
photon). And I am suggesting that a fundamental charged particle like a
proton or an electron really consists of a finite number of dynamic or
changing one dimensional relationships between other 'bundles' of such
things. There is no hard marble there at all... these particles are
simply bundles of relationships and we've even had top physicists intuit
that matter is probably nothing more than that. Consider Lee Smolin's
words:
łTo understand what we mean when we say that space is discrete, we must put our
minds completely into the relational way of thinking, and really try to
see and feel the world around us as nothing but a network of evolving
relationships. These relationships are not among things situated in space
they are among the
events that make up the history of the world. The relationships define the
space, not the other way around.˛ (Smolin, 96)
The essence of this argument is that relationships can be established
symmetrically and the symmetry would be the basis of the conservation of
its attributes so that any process, whether or not we completely
understand it, even obeys or is consistent absolutely with Noether's
Theorem. The net momentum of the universe, for example, is easily seen to
be zero... yet momentum involves motion and then we come to the idea of a
wave function of the universe...
Quoting from Evan Squires of Univ. of Durham: "Lorentz-invariant Bohmian
Mechanics" [quant-ph/9508014 dtd 21 Aug 95 - avail from LANL preprint
archives] page 3: <begin quote>"Before proceeding we note, however, that
there is a simple case where the neglect of the final term is rather less
'natural'. This is when psi, and hence rho, is independent of time. Then
the rhs of eq. 1.2 is zero, which would suggest zero velocity as the
natural solution. The fact that the Bohm model need not give zero velocity
in such a situation may be significant in quantum cosmology (Valentini,
1992, Vink, 1992: Squires, 1992, 1994). Here, according to the
Wheeler-deWitt equation, the wavefunction of the universe (which is the
only wavefunction that actually exists!) is independent of time. This is a
consequence of the fact that the theory must be invariant under
reparameterisation of time. For any real solution of this equation, the
straightforward generalisation of Bohmian mechanics to quantum cosmology
predicts zero velocities, i.e., a universe in which nothing ever moves.
Presumably this is not a good prediction! There is of course an analogous
prediction in the microscopic world where for example the model predicts
that an electron in the ground state of a hydrogen atom does not move. In
this case, however, the result is not a problem because we know that
predictions for the results of measurements of the electron velocity,
which will be related to positions of certain probes, will be correct.
There is no similar escape in the cosmological case - a stationary
universe is simply a stationary universe! Thus it is essential to select a
(non-trivially) complex solution of the Wheeler-deWitt equation, and to
use the fact that such a wavefunction can give non-zero velocities, even
if the wavefunction itself is constant."<end quote>
Even though I think that Squires at that point wasn't necessarily buying
into the idea of all activity summing to zero (saying 'Presumably this is
not a good prediction!") he at least recognizes that possibility. The
reality is that we can say the same thing in a variety of ways and no one
actually objects until we try and make sense out of it in a unified
comprehensive whole of the universe.
Ultimately, we can say that relationships are mental constructs or that
all intellectual functions are based upon estabishing and maintaining and
altering relationships and making subsequent comparisions between prior
sets of relationships to even emerge with the concept of time. In the end
we can suggest that standing wave bosons are bundles of relationships and
hence are in and of themselves intellectual beings that are creative just
in creating new relationships. While we may try to tie it all down to
mathematics or establish a visual metaphor so that we may understand this
creative process... we may have to look no further than to our own
intellectual processes where we may under the watchful gaze of our own
Mind's Eye erect worlds and mansions and people. But in the meanwhile
the final verdict will be rendered when the Earth's standing wave boson is
stimulated into a mode change and in that state begins producing hundreds
of billions of tons of mass per second as it is evident that it has done
at least a 171 times with each dipole reversal event in the ancient past.
There is no real way to separate physics from philosophy and no way to
have philosophy without mind and the inscrutable thing we call mind is
that which we all (presumably... I can only speak for myself in this
matter) directly experience yet is the one thing which we have been unable
to quantify in normal physical terms like size and density and mass and
weight...
We'll just have to see, won't we? We'll come again once more to the place
of Mount Carmel and have a contest once again to see that the children of
this world can be reacquainted with the Living God who is able to manifest
fire to consume the sacrifice and consume the stones of the altar and to
lick up the water in the ditch. But instead of Mount Carmel... we will
have a mass generation episode in the core of the planet and instead of
taking the priests of Baal down to the brook and slaying them with the
Sword... we will resolutely stand fast and see the Words of all the
prophets manifested upon the disobedient upon the mockers and upon the
profane... The great solar maximum will finally arrive and the sun will be
clothed in blackness like a sackcloth of hair as swarms of sunspots cover
the face of the sun... The redshifting of the flux loops that make up the
sunspot loops comes about as a function of the charge separation effect
along the flux loop termini that occurs because each loops system produces
its own strong gravitational field. The resulting red shifted light shall
make the moon appear red (Joel 2:31 The sun shall be turned into darkness,
and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD
come.) then...Acts 2:20* The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the
moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
Revelation 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo,
there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of
hair, and the moon became as blood;˛
Then because the Earthšs magnetic field is down... solar flaring will be
able to come right down to ground level.
Revelation 16:8 ś And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun;
and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
9* And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God,
which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him
glory.
The mass generation occurring in the core will begin to be articulated in
a rapid increase in lithospheric tension... as the plates fail they will
produce great earthquakes that will throw down the buildings of thousands
of cities on the same day and produce tremendous tsunamis.
Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in
the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the
sea and the waves roaring;
Whole mountain systems will be pulled apart at their bases and will begin
to descend.
Ps 114:4* The mountains skipped like rams, and the little hills like lambs.
Isa 40:4* Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall
be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places
plain:
Island chains will disappear into the sea.
Rev 1 | | | | | | | | | | | |
