Re: Evidence *for* an Expanding Earth
- From: Mark VandeWettering <wettering@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:59:35 -0500
On 2007-08-15, don findlay <don@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
What exactly is the EE claim?
That the earth's mass is increasing?
That the earth's volume is increasing?
Both?
In most versions, both.
Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go.
You seem to be indicating that this is wrong.
If so, can you please clarify? According to EE theory, is the
Earth's volume increasing? Or its mass? Or is something else
expanding? Or do you have some private definition of expanding?
It's just that there are some rules/ laws to this discussion that
everybody seems to be transgressing/ disregarding, some unknowingly,
some wilfully. Some discipline needs to be imposed.
Sorry, but you don't get to make up rules about how others discuss
things.
Rule 1. That the EArth is getting bigger is not a theory, it is an
observation. When you see a sequence of layers in stratigraphic
sequence, it is not a theory that they were laid down sequentially, it
is an observation; perhaps more exactly an observation tantamount to
fact. Similarly the Earth getting bigger is based on the retrofits of
the continents on transform faults. It is an observation-tantamount
to fact that the Americas and Europe Africa were once closed
(similarly with the Indian and Southern Oceans). And, on the same
basis, the Pacific as well. (I describe that on my site; nobody else
does) ( Somebody has to be first). So have the Pangaean Earth covered
by the continents we see today, ruptured and dilated by the mantle.
It has got bigger/ "expanded"/ 'grown'. It's an observation
tantamount to fact. Rule: It is an observation, ...not a theory.
There certainly is an observation that there are points which were once
adjacent are now more distant from one another. But the movement isn't
something that suggests a simple expansion.
Luckily, I have an excellent example of this in my (figuratively
speaking) back yard. Wander out to the Point Reyes peninsula sometime
and stand astride the San Andreas fault. Stare at the rocks on one side
of the fault, and compare them to the rocks on the other. Even a total
yutz can see how dramatically different they are. To find the matching
rocks, you have to go to the Tehachapi mountains in Southern California,
300 miles outh. That's becaue the Point Reyes peninsula is on the
Pacific plate, while the rest of Marin county is on the North American
plate. These two plates are grinding past on another. In 1906, they
slipped nearly five meters past one another. That's why this fenceline
looks so odd.
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/seismology/images/fence.jpg
Perhaps you'd like to explain how these observations are better explained
by EE than by plate tectonics?
But I'm going to note that overall you seem to be indicating that the
Earth's radius/volume is expanding. There are all sorts of direct
evidence that shows this to be false.
Rule 2. There is no known way this 'getting bigger' can happen to the
extent apparent. It has serious implications with respect to how we
regard mass. Given that the essence of mass coming into being must be
regarded at the quantum scale, and given that the core question, how
mass comes to exist in the first place is unanswerable just now, it is
pointless discussing theory. (Rule: do not discuss theory. Yet.)
You also seem to be implying that the Earth's mass is increasing here.
Okay, yes, you are then trying to equivocate about what the term mass
means, but surely that's just a charade.
Rule 3. The important thing is to consolidate the geology that
describes the fact of enlargement. This means an evaluation of the
geological parameters describing enlargement v. those describing Plate
Tectonics. Plate Tectonics is off to a bad start in this regard,
because it has from the beginning been hobbling on crutches, and
having to hop and shift it's grip with just about every step it
takes. However people seem to be content "it's the best we have", and
seem incapable of facing up to anything that point out the illogic in
it. Rule: Forget theory, consolidate the geology.)
In what sense is plate tectonics "off to a bad start"? I sense a great
deal of air movement caused by the waving of hands, but no actual
criticism.
Those transgressing these laws simply get sent to jail. No questions
asked. No mitigating circumstances. Only by making examples of the
innocent will the worst offenders be appraised of the seriousness of
their crime and finally take heed, and stop all the bullshit
discussion of theory or lack of it whcih are pointless in the face of
this juggernaut which is bearing down on us.
I'm also curious: why did you not choose to answer my simple questions
in a simple way?
Mark
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
- References:
- Re: Evidence *for* an Expanding Earth
- From: don findlay
- Re: Evidence *for* an Expanding Earth
- Prev by Date: Re: Evidence *for* an Expanding Earth
- Next by Date: Re: Evidence *for* an Expanding Earth
- Previous by thread: Re: Evidence *for* an Expanding Earth
- Next by thread: Re: Evidence *for* an Expanding Earth
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
