Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
Venus didn't exist in the past and plate tectonics is a myth so I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that.
If it's a myth, blame the mermen.
Upvote
0
Venus didn't exist in the past and plate tectonics is a myth so I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that.
See customarily ignored peer-reviewed science posted above.What makes a magnetotail "cometary"?
Kindly explain mountains, mountain ranges, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc without invoking plate tectonics. Thor or Zeus? Cthulhu? Ents?Venus didn't exist in the past and plate tectonics is a myth so I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that.
According to the inventor of your plate tectonics myth and the rediscoverer of expansion tectonics reality, namely Samuel Warren Carey, vertical orogenic uplift (earth expansion) is caused by the the exact same mechanism as is theorized in plate tectonics, namely oceanic seafloor spreading.Kindly explain mountains, mountain ranges, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc without invoking plate tectonics.
That is one of the most important and intelligent questions being asked today.So, was the the early humans who figured that out, or was it the spacemen, OilIsMastery?
That is one of the most important and intelligent questions being asked today.
<snip> -- Enoch 8:1-2
<snip> -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century
My sentiment exactly.A pity there are no important and intelligent people answering today.
Expanding earth? You do realize that violates many laws of physics including conservation of mass. There's no viable mechanism for it. The movements of the plates, while small, is measurable. If the earth were growing even slowly we would be able to detect it.According to the inventor of your plate tectonics myth and the rediscoverer of expansion tectonics reality, namely Samuel Warren Carey, vertical orogenic uplift (earth expansion) is caused by the the exact same mechanism as is theorized in plate tectonics, namely oceanic seafloor spreading.
"The plate-tectonics advocates have produced a concept based on well documented expansion criteria and complemented by a hypothetical subduction process." -- Hugh Wilson, geologist, 1973
"There was no question in our discussion about the existence of sea-floor spreading, although neither of us was confident about it being a constant rate. Neither of us [H.W. Menard and Maurice Ewing] believed for a moment in an expanding earth, so we were left with a puzzle." -- H.W. Menard, geologist, The Ocean of Lies, 1986
"The greatest disturbance of traditional geological views came from the concept of oceanic seafloor spreading. By now, this has developed into a well-balanced theory which is in agreement with the results of geological and geophysical observations." -- Yury V. Chudinov, geologist, 1998
LOL.
Indeed.Expanding earth?
No I don't realize that.You do realize that violates many laws of physics including conservation of mass.
If that's true, then there is no viable mechanism for plate tectonics.There's no viable mechanism for it.
Exactly. And the measurements prove the Earth to be growing.The movements of the plates, while small, is measurable.
Not if you don't want to detect it.If the earth were growing even slowly we would be able to detect it.
Indeed.Expanding earth and venus as a comet.
Basically.So do you just believe anything that mainstream science rejects?
Garbage is garbage even if a PhD says it. Expanding earth doesn't work. what are sub-sub-sub atomic particles? is that a technical term? There still is no credible mechanism by which the earth could expand. Where are these sub-sub-sub atomic particles? What's making them? At what rate is this occurring? At least we have a mechanism for tectonic movement. They can deny reality all they want but they need to work on the viability of their own theory before deriding others'.Indeed.
"The causal understanding of Earth expansion is not yet fully understood, but the empirical processes involved are confirmed by such numerous and different sets of data that this should be considered fact." -- Stefan Cwojdzinski, geologist, 2005
No I don't realize that.
"There is no known physical principle, no known physics law, no known physics theory, and no known physics equation which remotely suggests that planets and stars cannot gain mass via collection of sub-sub-sub atomic particles. None. There is no violating regarding known laws of physics. Indeed, the Earth does gain some mass (a small amount) due to being pelted with solar wind, neutrinos, etc. Does this change all of physics? It does not change or alter basic physics -- or even modern physics. It merely reinterprets the equations of general relativity. It is consistent with mass conservation and energy conservation. I really can't state this any more simply." -- Dennis J. McCarthy, geoscientist, October 2003
However, I realize that plate tectonics is a violation of the laws of nature.
"More realistically, the appropriate and credible physical metaphor for subduction would be of a wooden nail being projected very slowly into a cannon ball. This is, of course, impossible, even over infinite time...." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005
"Putting aside the insurmountable mechanical problems of subduction (a solid driven by the force of gravity penetrating into another solid), this is a gross violation of the obvious and of direct observation. Heat cannot be released instantly, because it is known from petrology that the cooling rate of rocks is about 50 degrees Kelvin per billion years!" -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist, 2005
"Therefore the thermally controlled conveyor-belt subduction model, as well as any variants or hybrid models, should be discarded because they are in fundamental contradiction with direct observation and deny the obvious." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist, 2005
Good then! Have no position on any subject since all positions could be wrong."... if you say all the adopted positions are wrong, you'll seldom be wrong." -- Jeremiah P. Ostriker, cosmologist, 1996
I agree.Garbage is garbage even if a PhD says it.
In fact, it does whether you like it or not.Expanding earth doesn't work.
Well let's start with subatomic particles. Do you know what those are?what are sub-sub-sub atomic particles?
As I said, if this is true then there is also no credible mechanism by which the Earth could maintain a constant size.There still is no credible mechanism by which the earth could expand.
Throughout the universe.Where are these sub-sub-sub atomic particles?
Stars and the Sun.What's making them?
Apparently there is a magnetic flux transfer event between the Sun and the Earth every 8 minutes.At what rate is this occurring?
I thought you said we don't have a mechanism for tectonic movement.At least we have a mechanism for tectonic movement.
The same person who rediscovered continental drift also rediscovered expansion tectonics reality (Mantovani 1905).They can deny reality all they want but they need to work on the viability of their own theory before deriding others'.
That was the position of Sextus Empiricus, Pierre Huet, and David Hume...Good then! Have no position on any subject since all positions could be wrong.
Basically.
"... if you say all the adopted positions are wrong, you'll seldom be wrong." -- Jeremiah P. Ostriker, cosmologist, 1996
Correct...I guess it is safer to have no position on anything, and let other people pretend to speak for you.
It's actually quite clever -- you assume no responsibility for your ideas because you have no ideas.
Correct...
I'm not afraid to be wrong. Precisely the opposite: nothing would make me more happy than to be wrong. It's called learning...Intellectual cowardice... fear of being wrong forces a person to be nothing
I observe the opposite.I see it a lot in academia.
I'm not afraid to be wrong. Precisely the opposite: nothing would make me more happy than to be wrong. It's called learning...
I observe the opposite.
"...their theory is incorrect but they don't have an accepted theory to replace it and that I think is very psychologically bothersome to particularly scientists who have gone into science in order to be certain about the world, to be sure that they're right and so forth, and it's a very insecure position. Some scientists have joked that, well, a scientist would rather be wrong than uncertain. We sort of have to live with uncertainty which is, well, it's an interesting and challenging situation." -- Halton C. Arp, astronomer, 1998
As it is written, there is no new thing under the Sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). You'll note sometimes I express myself in my own words. I think you went so far as to post them on some other website?Then why not express something in your own words, rather than hide behind quotes of people smarter than yourself?
Aspiring towards originality is futile and pointless.Don't get me wrong many of the quotes are interesting, but surely you once had higher aspirations than being a human google.
Says who?Remember, the "experts" are supposed to support your position, not be your position.
That's why you need people like me to provide minority, alternative, dissident, and heretical views, for the sake of diversity?Amusing quote, but I'm not talking about scientists, I'm talking about students -- with so much new information to absorb, too many choose to latch on to the most outspoken, most controversial, or even just the first "expert" they hear, rather than take a stand and think for themselves.
Aspiring towards originality is futile and pointless.
I contribute truth not originality.Believing this, what would you say is your contribution towards -- well, anything?