POTM: The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
- From: Shane <remarcsd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:01:39 +1000
Nominated due to the incredibly lame response from J Taylor to someone
picking up his chllenge.
<newsgroups trimmed>
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:15:31 -0700, Timberwoof wrote:
In article <trake2dgpr550nep0ibrup5o46r93b4lh4@xxxxxxx>,
"J. Taylor" <nchiwana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 21 Aug 2006 14:48:55 -0700, "Ken Shackleton"
<ken.shackleton@xxxxxxx> wrote:
J. Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:24:36 GMT, Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:51:03 -0000, bobg@xxxxxxxxx (Robert Grumbine)
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Er, haven't you noticed that Taylor _never_ presents a hypothesis?
If he did, you could test it and show it wrong. Instead, he plays
the game he is here with you -- to say that you haven't disproven
his hypothesis. Of course you haven't. He never has put forth
anything of substance.
Looks like a troll, smells like a troll....
Interesting, trolls usually put out bait in the form of questions to
lure the unsuspecting into their trap.
It is easy to see just who is doing the trolling, it is you and your
clown friends with the taunts of no evidence, no hypothesis, and begs
the question if you have nothing to go on what in the hell is your
point, but to get me to take the bait to YOUR troll.
And it just pisses you off to no end I will not play.
Aw...c'mon.....play.....please tell me the EE position on earth's
density over the past 300 million years....
And how would you know if it was true or not? You just going to take
my word for it?
C'mon Ken, just be up front and telling what evidence would you
consider to be conclusive proof. This way it will be known whether it
is even possible to answer your question and put an end to your silly
game.
I'll bite:
1. Give a list of figures for Earth's diameter, every 50 million years
for the past 4500 million years.
2. Give a list of figures for Earth's mass at the same intervals.
3. If the Earth's mass has not increased over this time, calculate its
density for every entry in the list. Explain what changes in various
physical constants would have been necessary to accomplish these changes
and what evidence there is that these changes occurred. Explain what
effects these changes in physical constants would have had on stellar
physics and explain why none have been seen in stars of the appropriate
distances.
4. If the Earth's mass has increased over this time, explain where the
mass came from, how it came to be. Explain how it appeared as exactly
the correct chemical elements as to be indistinguishable form having
been there all the time. Explain how each atom got the correct velocity
so that no matter the time of day or time of year, it did not affect the
Earth's orbit around the sun. Explain how it affected the moon's orbit.
Calculate what the Moon's orbit must have been at the formation of the
Earth for it not to have crashed into the Earth as a result of its
increasing mass.
5. Explain the existence of so many compressional features in mountain
ranges all over the Earth.
6a. Pick 1 billion years ago as a reference point. From your list from
item #1, get the radius and circumference of the Earth. Make a simple
mathematical model of a continent. Pick its radius and calculate its
circumference on that sphere. Move to the present day. On a sphere, plot
a circle of the same circumference as the circle from the first part.
Measure its radius. Describe what effects the shorter radius on a larger
sphere should have on a continent. Explain why these effects are not
seen on the Earth.
6b. Pick 1 billion years ago as a reference point. From your list from
item #1, get the radius and circumference of the Earth. Make a simple
mathematical model of a continent. Pick its circumference and calculate
its radius on that sphere. Move to the present day. On a sphere, plot a
circle of the same radius as the circle from the first part. Measure its
circumference. Given the increase in the circular "continent"'s
circumference, assuming ideal elasticity, calculate the resulting
thickness of the "continent" at its edges. Assuming some finite value of
tensional strength, predict what should happen to continental edges.
Explain why these effects aren't seen on the Earth.
6c. (Grade-school version of 6a and 6b) Think of what happens when you
try to put a boy's knit cap on an adult head and explain why analogous
effects are not seen on present-day continents.
7. Give an explanation for the mechanism of expansion which could be
verified experimentally.
8. Explain the origin of magnetic striping on the sea floor around
spreading centers. Describe its relationship to the magnetic fields of
igneous rocks. Explain what orientations these magnetic fields should
have. Based on field data, show how the continents have changed their
orientation or position (or not) on the Earth's surface.
9. Explain why Tibet looks the way it does. Explain why every continent
doesn't look like Tibet everywhere. Explain why not all mountain ranges
have deep-sea fossils at high altitudes.
10. Since all continents split up at about the same time, explain why
South America's animals are far more closely related to South Africa's
than either are to Australia's.
11. Explain where the exotic geologies of the California coast came
from.
12. Explain what's going on at what geologists call subduction zones.
13. Explain why the Appalachians and Urals have such similar morphology,
as do the Rockies and the Andes, and why the Rockies and Andes don't
look like the Appalachians and Urals. Explain why they're all different
from the Tibetan mountains.
14. Explain the San Andreas fault.
15. Explain the progression over the past century or two of earthquakes
eastward towards Istanbul.
16. Explain the Ring of Fire.
17. Explain Hawaii and other seamount chains.
The problem for you, J., is that the preponderance of evidence is vastly
in favor of plate tectonics and against expanding earth. Not only does
expanding earth fail to offer good explanations for much of what is seen
in Earth's geology, it raises an awful lot of new questions that are
seriously difficult to answer. Plate tectonics, on the other hand, does
a much better job overall of explaining the Earth's geology, and it does
that without violating half a dozen conservation laws.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Ping: Lenny Flank (OT herp care)
- Next by Date: Re: Random Materials + Random Variations + Random Environment = Random Net Outcome
- Previous by thread: RNA abiogenesis question
- Next by thread: Where evolution breaks down?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
