Re: Expanding Earth?
- From: Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 13:29:15 -0700
In article <34t2d31r5f7sk73an0unqa33r7sepfsh16@xxxxxxx>,
Augray <augray@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 09:04:38 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
<5jcpq1F3ssq9cU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :
"Michael Siemon" <mlsiemon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mlsiemon-D755E0.23444825082007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Observation:There's always the possibility that I am an idiot, but until that is proven,
1. At the mid-Atlantic ridge, ocean crust is spreading at 5-10 cm/year
2. At the east-Pacific rise, the spread is ~13 cm/year
Hypotheses:
A. The earth is expanding
B. The crust "recycles" as in convection cells [aka plate tectonics]
C. <whatever>
Consideration:
If A. is true (and B. is not) then the earth' radius is expanding
(at least) on the order of 20/pi cm/year.
Non-observation:
There is zero observation of any radial increase. There is the
counter-observation that GPS (which is based on math assuming a
constant earth radius[*]) works.
Fudging:
Attempts to say "other things are going on to hide the expansion"
are attempts by lunatics to deny their lunacy.
--
[*] You can't escape into the Gaussian equivalence of a spherical
mass with the entire mass at the center, because tidal effects will
intervene. If the earth is expanding, there _will_ be (unobserved)
effects on satellite orbits, and on the data-reduction of their
signals to calculate ground positions. That is aside from the
_serious_ questions about density changes [if the earth's mass
is unchanging] or conservation [of anything physically important]
if not.
Would _any_ of the expanding earth proponents care to actually
address the issues, instead of indulging in verbal diarrhea? All
of you look like crackpots from where I am sitting and reading.
I assume that I am not, and that what I think I understand really has
something going for it. Like the Big Bang, expanding universe, red shift,
the particle/wave dichotomy, black holes, black energy, black matter,
lasers, klystrons, yagi antennas, vacuum tubes, transistors,
microprocessors, supernovas, chemistry, genetics, nuclear physics,
radiometric dating, and much more.
I do not claim to be an expert on any of these subjects, but my point is,
that science/scientists have been able to expalin this stuff to me in terms
that I think I understand.
So why can't these EE crackpots tell me anything that makes sense about
their mad hypothesis? I belive, and IIRC I recently also read somewhere, a
scientist saying that it is possible to explain everything to regular
people. Meaning, you do not have to be a nuclear physicist to understand
what nuclear physics is all about, how it works, what it means. That doesn't
make John Doe a physicist, but he may arrive a satisfactory understanding.
His curiosity will be rewarded, satisfied, and he may return to his regular
business of making ends meet.
While not everything said above is literally 'true', I hope I've made my
point. And here is the bootom line:
If all those things and then some may be explained in terms that the average
citizen can understand if he is interested, why can't EE be explained in
terms that makes sense? I am annoyed by the word salad and verbal diarrhea
and am asking for some down-to-earth words that explains the hypothesis for
me. Measurements, observations, mechanisms, theories.
Is matter added to the planet? How much? What kind? Where? When? From? How?
How is it detected?
Since the addition of matter to the planet in ways we cannot observe, and
also looks as if it would be inconsistent with known physics so far, isn't
it reasonable to think that whatever observations the EE crowd think they
have made are better explained by other theories, without introducing new,
unknown, illogical mechanisms that overturns current uderstanding of how the
universe works? Too bad for EE, I don't believe a word of it, because it
does not make sense.
To be honest, I don't have a problem with the E-Earthers not being
able to explain where the matter's coming from, at least at this
point. I'd be happy if they could demonstrate an increase in the
Earth's diameter. The source of the matter, at least for those who
claim such an increase, can come later. After all, 300 years after
Newton we still don't know what gravity *is*, but we can observe its
effects.
That doesn't matter, so to speak. We know well enough through two or
three centuries of experiment, with how matter behaves ? and doesn't
behave ? that even in the absence of explanatory theory, the descriptive
laws work perfectly well in *all* *other* areas of science.
EE is lacking in a great many things, and they're all vying for
attention as the final nail in the coffin.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ?Chris L.
an important web site: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/
.
- References:
- Expanding Earth?
- From: Michael Siemon
- Re: Expanding Earth?
- From: Rolf
- Re: Expanding Earth?
- From: Augray
- Expanding Earth?
- Prev by Date: Re: Expanding Earth?
- Next by Date: Re: natural selection
- Previous by thread: Re: Expanding Earth?
- Next by thread: Re: Expanding Earth?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
