Plate Tectonics And Continental Drift., And I thought I knew all about it... Options

[lunk]

Omega, I think that we both agree
that all the continents were once together,
and they still are on the same globe,
with a lower crust, covered by oceans in between them, today.
New, lower crust is being added to the ocean floors,
at the mid ocean rifts, from within the Earth,
and India breaking away from Africa.
And that some erosion has taken place,
like volcanoes, floods, landslides,
since then.

...and it would be a good idea to figure out
a safe, long term, way to dispose of nuclear waste.

[lunk]

Hmm, what else do I think we agree upon...
(Correct me if I get something wrong.)

The Blue Whale is the biggest single mammal that has ever been known, to exist on Earth.
The African Elephant is the most massive mammal, living on land, today.
The Tyrannosaurus rex was much bigger then the Elephant of today,
and there have been dinosaurs even bigger than that.
The, even more ancient, pre-dinosaur insects, were very much larger than the similar looking bugs, of today.

(edit) added the word "if"

This post has been edited by lunk: May 31 2009, 05:52 PM

[lunk]

Geometry:
The sum of the interior angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees,
except if it is superimposed on a sphere.

The same size triangle, superimposed on different size spheres,
will have different total sums, to its' interior angles,
always greater than 180 degrees.

A strait line, on the exterior surface of a sphere, is always a curve.

...so far so good?

[Omega892R09]

A strait line, on the exterior surface of a sphere, is always a curve.

...so far so good?

Good.

Which leads us into back island arcs and Benioff Zones.

I have often pondered this one:

If you were placed inside a sphere the interior surface of which was a perfect mirror and with an all pervading light source, what would you see?

[lunk]

You're jumping away ahead of me,
...I haven't got to this point yet.

Ever since I read, Jules Vernes' Journey to the Center of the Earth, I always wondered what it would be like to live on the inside of an eggshell.
...I mean, if it were possible, to live on the underside of the crust of the Earth.
If the Earth were hollow, that is...purely hypothetically, of course.
but in this situation, gravity would be appearing to pull up, being upside down, on the underside of the crust....

And what would happen, in the very gravitational center of the planet?
Gravity would be pulling outwards, in all directions,
as the mass of the planet would be all around, the very center...
If you moved a little in any direction, the gravity, in that direction, should exert a greater pull.

...just, trying to keep centered.

(edit) resolving my pronoun problem

This post has been edited by lunk: Jun 2 2009, 01:57 PM

[lunk]

This is sweet!

It took me a while, but take a look at this picture, closely:
(IMG:http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp210/rongrite/trench-tree-embossed.jpg)

Do you see any similarities between the two sides of this picture?

(edit) added comments, instead of new post.

Notice how the upper relief looks like it all fits together?
...but doesn't quite?
And the lower relief is smooth, and connected
while the higher relief is rough, and broken up?

Does anyone see any more similarities?

I know, I didn't get the contrast quite the same,
but I think it would be hard to tell the two sides apart otherwise.

This post has been edited by lunk: Jun 2 2009, 05:42 PM

[lunk]

(IMG:http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp210/rongrite/stuconreleif.jpg)

Compare the sides of this picture.
Notice, that it, too, shows 2 distinct levels,
the lower layer connects, and the upper layer is in,
spread out, flattened chunks, like islands.

Do you notice anything else different, structurally,
or, in the relative geometry of these "islands?"

This post has been edited by lunk: Jun 3 2009, 03:07 AM

[dMz]

The following forums provide interesting and enlightening exchanges:

Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

In this next one read the replies by SkinWalker
SciForums.com

In that above the banned Oil is Master is responsible for a web site promoting Expanding Earth and Abiogenic oil. Hum!:

oilismastery.blogspot.com

I could go on in similar vein but that would be to over-egg the pudding at this stage.

Are you sure "lively and friendly" wouldn't be a more apt description O892? You do know that both of those are "debunker"-moderated forums that don't allow open, unbiased discussion of 9/11 don't you (perhaps the BAUT is more of a "sister site" to the Illusionist site- google for BAUT, 9/11, and that other forum together sometime). I noticed quite a few characters at SciF that posted disturbingly like members of the J-CULT too.

Let's look shall we?

9/11 [under Pseudoscience, thread locked]
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92066

Sorry but the hammers dropped Scottx.

These threads have been done and done again and if anything it's chased legitimate members away from the forum because of how intolerable they've become. If you want 9/11 as a pet subject, I'd really suggest getting yourself a website to house a forum for your rantings and invite others to participate over there.

This basically means 9/11 threads are an Autolock now, you've had your fun, leave the floor open for someone else.

WTC Collapses [under Pseudoscience, thread locked]
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=87960

Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job? [under Formal Debates, thread locked]
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90779

Proposal- Was 9/11 an inside job? [under Formal Debates, thread locked]
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90335

Clarifying when mods are entitled to delete posts [under SF Open Government, re: this "Skinwalker" moderator]
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92080

So now I get a post deleted and a warning from Skinwalker because he believes that I engaged in "Trolling / Meaningless Post Content". This post is not about Skinwalker per se, but about when moderators should delete posts and issue warnings.

Skinwalker states that the post in question is "clearly trolling". All I said was that, in response to someone speaking of the fine line between science and pseudoscience, I believed that the problem was that too few people, including some moderators, don't truly understand the scientific method. -That's- trolling? That's simply voicing a view of mine, in a civil manner no less.

deleted posts. [under SF Open Government]
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=93439

i propose that anyone posting a recovered deleted post be warned once then permanently banned on the second occurrence.

deleted posts are not public domain.

site transparency can be handled through the formal debates forum where reports go to all mods.

edit:
bad idea. site transparency cannot be maintained like this.

More on "Skinwalker:"

Skinwalker banning Scifes unacceptable
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=93263

I am writing this post and opening this thread to bring to attention to the injustices of this moderator Skinwalker who is nothing more than an Atheist troll. His whole purpose for giving warnings and banning individuals is to cripple debate which is critical of Atheism. Furthermore, when the members try to debate this moderator for his views, they are given warnings and may be banned. Kadark was banned permanently while debating with Skinwalker.

Skinwalker should be removed as moderator. I have never had any problems in this thread with any other moderators, but I have been given 5 warnings by Skinwalker, one of which I forced him to reverse. My posts have constantly been deleted, and when this moderator sends me PMs, it is always insulting against my religion, i.e. in a PM to my 'Assalam Alaikum, here is a warning.'

Debate between Atheists and Religious people should be even and fair, and I believe by allowing Skinwalker jurisdiction in this forum, it severely curtails debate on the subject. I believe completely in freedom of speech, especially in regards to intellectually beneficial debates held on this forum as regards tot he nature of religion and atheism.

I don't believe any posters have problems with Scifes, as this person has always been polite and engaging in any debate on this forum.

This moderator needs to be removed. If any of the readers agree with my point, please add to this discussion so that the moderators can see that we want this moderator removed.

Thanks for your time.

Skinwalker's had his share of opponents for some time now (I'm one of them). I solve the problem by not posting in forums he moderates. I suggest that if you find someone saying something interesting in one of the forums he moderates, just PM them.

It is interesting that the non-pinned threads in that "Open Government" forum only go back one month- almost like they have been deleted or something. I also found considerable discussion of paedophilia at that "Sciforums" while searching for the locked 9/11 threads under "Pseudoscience." Hmmm...
-------------------------------------------
On to this "Bad Astronomy" forum:

New Change for Conspiracy Theory section: only space and astronomy [under Conspiracy Theories]

Phil and I have talked it over, and we feel that the Conspiracy Theory section of the forum is starting to get out of hand. If you take a look through the CT section, easily half of the stories on the homepage are about 9/11, and have nothing to do with space and astronomy.

So, effective immediately, we're instituting the same policy that we have for the Against the Mainstream Section...

... only post topics relating to space and astronomy.

We'll start closing up topics on Friday, and from this point on, any threads which aren't specifically about space-related conspiracy theories will be closed immediately.

Thanks!

--------------------------------------
It almost sounds a little like that Fascist book-burning to me, not even allowing discussion of 9/11 events. They seem to have inordinate numbers of ad hominem "debunkers" and appeal to ridicule- you won't need to look far to find any.

Here is another "debunker"-moderated forum where all things 9/11 are verboten:
"Scepticism & Debunking"
http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5

Are you going to quote "Debunking 9/11" next O892? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[dMz]

Wouldn't erosion be worst/progress fastest down at the tip of South America? I've heard Tierra del Fuego/Patagonia described as the "most violent" weather on the planet. The winds can achieve insane velocities, and I would expect that the ocean currents are extreme as well. Then there is the whole "curvature" issue of Cape Horn/SA/TdF vs. the Cape of Good Hope. Perhaps O892 has been down there before on a ship (I got much of my information about the region from USN sailors that I know about that near-Antarctica region).

[Omega892R09]

...just, trying to keep centered.

(edit) resolving my pronoun problem

Ah! But!

The earth and moon form a coupled system whith a centre of orbit within the earth's oblate spheroid known as the barycentre.

Another puzzle, maybe?

Given that in photography a correct exposure is a combination of size of hole letting in light - the aperture and the length of time the shutter is open if either of these two is inflated then overexposure results.

Similarly if one looks at a bright light for too long one gets a blind spot in the retina because too many photons have been allowed to hit.

Now if one is moving rapidly towards a bright light source would not this increase the rate at which photons strike the retina. Would this place a visual limit on astronauts travelling into space, i.e. their speed of movement would cause blindness if they looked towards a bright light without using shades?

On a lighter (excuse the pun) note:

A man walks 10 miles due south then 10 miles due west and 10 miles due north arriving back at the place from which he started.

What colour was the bear?

[Omega892R09]

Are you sure "lively and friendly" wouldn't be a more apt description O892? You do know that both of those are "debunker"-moderated forums that don't allow open, unbiased discussion of 9/11 don't you

No I didn't know that, but then I have not engaged there.

Whatever 9/11 was not the topic here.

We all have different conceptual frameworks and just because a person who debunks 9/11 truth sites does not mean that they do not have valid knowledge and opinions on other topics.

None of us know all there is to know. We all have to filter a vast amount of information from diverse sources in order to form a working model of the universe we inhabit.

TBH I find OIM rather strange and the idea of an expanding earth, at least in the extent of the dimensions required by the ideas that lunk has aired, preposterous.

Abiotic oil is another no no.

To be sure as carbon deposits were laid down millions of years ago (at different geological periods which in the case of coal is why there are various types) then so they are being today. The point is we are extracting it and consuming it on a much reduced time scale to that of its deposition. And that is the problem.

[lunk]

Actually, the reason I am covering this subject of the theory of plate tectonics vs the theory of Earth Growth is because of 9/11.

This is an example of an unproven theory that has been posed as indisputable fact, when it isn't.

I could have a theory that the world has been shrinking, but all the surface clues and geometric shapes of the continents proves that this cannot be so.

And if the Earth didn't grow then the continents would have had to drift around a static globe, to be in the shapes, and positions, that they are in today.

So we are left with two possible choices;
Either; the Earth has remained the same size and the continents are drifting around on the solid crust;
or the Earth grew or expanded, with the oceans floors rifting and widening between them, giving them the appearance that they have moved.

In both cases, the continents are assumed to have been connected in the past, because of their shape, geology and fossil records.

So my question is,
can we tell from the shape of the continents,
that we agree, at one time, were all together,
which of these two theories can be dismissed?

Yes!

Let's begin with my last picture.
This shows 2 layers of crust, an upper and a lower layer.
The upper layer, unlike the continents of the Earth, do not show any matching "shorelines" on any of the "islands".
There are no signs of drifting of the upper broken layer,
or widening of the lower layer. This is true in this case.
no drifting, no widening.
(IMG:http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp210/rongrite/stuconreleif.jpg)
This is stucco on the outside of a house.

Now, the next picture is more interesting.
There is an upper and lower layer,
but the upper crust, in both sides of the picture,
shows small short horizontal fractures, and the lower layer is smooth,
and shows longer vertical paths.
The shapes, in the upper layer, all look like they fit together, almost,
but not quite, as they have been torn apart from growth of the lower layer, between.
This is not the case for stucco on a house.

The same features can be seen in both sides of this picture:
(IMG:http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp210/rongrite/trench-tree-embossed.jpg)

Jaw drop, now:
(IMG:http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp210/rongrite/trench-tree-real.jpg)

I shall conclude from my presentation here,
that we must dismiss the theory of plate tectonics,
as the Earth grew.

Cheers, lunk

This post has been edited by lunk: Jun 3 2009, 10:15 AM

[dMz]

TBH I find OIM rather strange and the idea of an expanding earth, at least in the extent of the dimensions required by the ideas that lunk has aired, preposterous.

Abiotic oil is another no no.

To be sure as carbon deposits were laid down millions of years ago (at different geological periods which in the case of coal is why there are various types) then so they are being today.

How can we be "sure-" were you there when the "carbon deposits were laid down millions of years ago?" Were you there when the continents drifted apart? Were you there when Lloyde's cab was "speared" with a lightpole? (The 9/11 relevance)

I see talk of "no-no's" and "preposterous." I listened to lectures about "electric charge q" for years without a proper definition ever provided- it was simply q₁ (or sometimes q₂). My older sister was told "that is a stupid question" when she inquired about charge in collegiate physics class (possibly because she is female), so I never asked that question in my classes (in the interests of "status quo" and "making the grade.") Keep in mind that my father was a collegiate professor of physics, and he never could define electrical charge either.

I prefer to stay true to my Aristotelian/Socratic heritage (avoiding the beatitudes of the Platonic in the middle- he kinda pissed me off with his arrogant "forms" and "divine right" thing). Socrates is roughly quoted as saying "I know that I know nothing- therein lies my wisdom." I mostly concur- I have no dogmas and beliefs (or religion) left anymore, mostly just cynicism/realism based upon my firsthand observations and research. That and a sh*t-load of books (plus a few oscilloscopes, sundry equipment, about 1.5 tons of tools, a full hard disk, and many archived CD's and DVD's). (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Sanders]

...Socrates is roughly quoted as saying "I know that I know nothing- therein lies my wisdom."

Wow, that's a great quote.

[dMz]

Well that's my paraphrase of it (a little Middle English/Baconspeare? style, maybe). You know how the translation thing goes Sanders (and I don't trust those f*ckers either (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ).

Here is a webpage with the "original" version:

True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3382.html

[dMz]

Here is my favorite arrogant science/engineering quote of all time:

Everything that can be invented has been invented.
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899 (attributed)

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/22779.html

Just WOW!!!

[lunk]

That's like saying, all the best music has already been written.

...but I thought about that one day,
and still haven't bothered composing a song about it.

[Omega892R09]

How can we be "sure-" were you there when the "carbon deposits were laid down millions of years ago?" Were you there when the continents drifted apart? Were you there when Lloyde's cab was "speared" with a lightpole? (The 9/11 relevance)

Pretty week arguments there dM. Of course I wasn't there but my own eyes have seen fossils weathering out of the cliffs nearby. I have noted the lie of the land with the Triassic-Jurassic-Cretacious progression from west to east along our southern coast. I have noted the folded rocks as mountain building happened in Scotland (where some of the oldest rock formations on earth are located), and North Wales, and the Jurassic remnants that are the Malvern Hills. I have also seen the folded rocks in Cornwall where tectonic forces have been at work.

Can you explain these features by an expanding earth theory?
I don't think so.

I don't need to take on faith the mappings of William 'Strata' Smith as I can understand this for myself.

If our understanding of the earth's structure were not fairly true to the reality then most of the oil, and other mineral, reserves would never have been found and the growing ability to forecast where earthquake 'storms' will next strike, if not when, would be making no progress.

Using your logic.

I have fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Can you prove that I do not?

I can make an elephant scaring whistle. I know it works because I have never seen an elephant in my garden. Can you prove otherwise?

[Omega892R09]

I shall conclude from my presentation here,
that we must dismiss the theory of plate tectonics,
as the Earth grew.

Cheers, lunk

Mere artifacts of light and shade as any artist or photographer knows only too well. Much like the renowned 'face' and 'pyramids' on Mars - Cydonia.

No. Messrs Picknett and Prince failed to convince me otherwise.

Images such as those are no proof at all.

[lunk]

Back to things that, I think, we can agree upon,

There is no subduction,
there never was, and there never will be,
within the layers of stucco, on a house.

A piece of un-buttered, cold, toast, will buckle on one side
and rip apart, on the other side, if slowly bent.

The pieces of a flattened eggshell, will not exactly fit,
back together, if glued to a flat piece of cardboard,
even with the help of the all kings horses and men.