Re: Expanding Earth?

On Aug 28, 5:25 am, "George" <geo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1188261618.677579.154960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Aug 28, 1:16 am, rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 28, 1:04 am, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <1188258165.719303.289...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 26, 7:44 am, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Observation:
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.

What on earth are you talking about? Of course there are variations
in
satellite orbits.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p007m8777j23w577/

As predicted by EE (as opposed to standard working out of ordinary
celestial mechanics)? hmmm? :-). Are you really so dense as not to
understand the point of the question? Pay attention now:

_If_ the earth is expanding, _then_ there are different
quantitative
effects on satellite orbits versus those calculated on the basis of
a constant radius earth. All the EE nitwits have to do is show what
these differences are expected to be, and violincello! there you
have serious a proposed test for an EE. Otherwise, you have ***.
19th century physics should be enough for this (i.e., you can for
a first "proof of concept" avoid relativistic computations.)

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.

Well lets make it even simpler shall we?
Explain to me, why the calendar year from the ancient city of
Tiauanaco Bolivia, discovered at 12,000 feet above sea level, covered
in 6 feet of sediment, has a calendar, of 290 days.

Do you think they could not count the number of times that the sun
rose and set in a year, and yet they built giant pyramids, and
recorded eclipses, and solstices?

Get the boys at NASA to use ground penetrating radar to map it. 6 feet
of sediment is nothing.
They could make an accurate map of Tiauanaco no problem.

While they are at it, they could map the neighboring city found 15
miles away under Lake Titicaca.

Then you could calculate how fast Lake Titicaca is evaporating, and
examine the old shoreline for biological evidence of a yearly cycle of
beach decline, to determine, how long ago, the waters receded from
Tiauanaco, where there used to be a dock, as it was on the shores of
Lake Titicaca which can only mean one thing.

Perhaps you should read up on the Holocene climate of the Lake Titicaca
region:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFMPP12A0486R

That the city under the water in Lake Titicaca is much older, than
Tiauanaco because you don't build cities underwater.

It probably has a calendar of 260 days!

Probably? Based on what, exactly? Earlier you said it has 260 calender
days, now you are qualifying your statement? Which is it going to be? Is
it 260 or not?

<snip>

George

Well two professors who studied the calendar in Tiahuanaco over a
number of years, claimed it had a calendar consisting of 290 days.

To describe these things in detail would make a long story; it took
R. Allen and Professor Schindler-Bellamy and their helpers many years
of hard work to puzzle out the Tiahuanaco system of notation and its
symbology, and to make the necessary calculations (before the age of
computers). The result was a book of over 400 pages, The Calendar of
Tishuanaco,published in 1956.

And somewhere else in tis thread someone made reference to 260 day
year which is used in some way by the Aztecs.
Is it a remnant from days gone by, I don't know.

The point is simply this and that is that this civilization probably
predated Mesopotamia and Sumeria, and goes back to the point where a
noticeable change in calendar year is possibly recorded.

If you examine the data from the age of the rock in the ocean floor,
it appears to be regular, but it may not be linear.

However, if we could more accurately date Tiahuanacu, then we might be
able to get a ball park figure which we can use to gauge our expansion
calculations against.

In their book in 1956 American astronomer R. Allen and Professor
Schindler-Bellamy state that the people who made that calendar also
knew a few things about cosmology, and recorded the solstices, and the
eclipses of the moon, and they were able to ascertain the obliquity of
the elliptic (then about 16.5 degrees; now 23.5) and information on
Tiahuanacu's latitude (then about 10 degrees; now 16.27).

So if it was at 10 degrees latitude then, and it is now at 16:27
perhaps we can use the animation, and see where it intersects and use
that to date Tiahuancu.

We just don't have a lot of things to go on at present so we should
use what we have.

And sampling the ice at the bottom of Aitken basin, to see how it
matches up with ice core samples, may tell us where the water came
from, that caused the ice ages, and filled the oceans.

The oceans are not that old. 180 million years is not that old. That
is why there is not silt deposited in them.
It isn't because of subduction, it is because the terrain and the
oceans themselves are just not that old.
The notion that they are billions of years old is not in accordance
with the data.
Saying well the old terrain subducted and is gone, well the fairies
left too, so lets believe in them too now that they are gone.



.

Loading