Walt Brown and the Hydroplate theory.

[Markstrimaran]

The Moon is in Earth's gravity now. Do you mean Earth's atmosphere?

Yes. As it would have impacted.

 

[Yttrium]

Yes. As it would have impacted.

Yes, a Moon in the atmosphere would have been a very bad thing. It would have made quite an impression.


Um... I suppose I'm obligated to post the following link. No offense. It's kind of a tradition.
The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System

 

[Markstrimaran]

Yes, a Moon in the atmosphere would have been a very bad thing. It would have made quite an impression.


Um... I suppose I'm obligated to post the following link. No offense. It's kind of a tradition.
The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System

Such a complex problem. So is newtonian physics still applicable in the age of fake news and carbon sequestering for profit.

 

[Yttrium]

Such a complex problem. So is newtonian physics still applicable in the age of fake news and carbon sequestering for profit.

Only as a rough approximation for things that aren't subatomic particles and are traveling at speeds much slower than the speed of light.

 

[USincognito]

NASA put reflectors on the moon which astronomers bounce laser light off to guage distance. At the current rate the moon is moving away from earth. It would have been inside earths gravity about 1 billion years ago.

This has veen debunked for decades. The recession rate was slower in the past as evidenced by tidal laminates.

 

[Markstrimaran]

This has veen debunked for decades. The recession rate was slower in the past as evidenced by tidal laminates.

Tidal laminates. Vs Noah's flood more observational bias.

 

[USincognito]

Tidal laminates. Vs Noah's flood more observational bias.

Oh, you don't know what tidal laminates are? Might want to look them up.

And Noah's flood never happened.

 

[Strathos]

Oh, you don't know what tidal laminates are? Might want to look them up.

And Noah's flood never happened.

Yes it did. It just didn't happen in the way most YECs think it happened.

 

[USincognito]

Yes it did. It just didn't happen in the way most YECs think it happened.

We can agree that the YEC version of the Flood didn't happen.

 

[loveofourlord]

Isn't that the fantasy in which the Fountains of the Great Deep erupt with such force as to tear chunks off the Earth to form the Asteroid Belt?

And the theory that would have flash fried Noah and the ark due to the heat and pressure?

 

[Markstrimaran]

Really tidal laminates, If the facts don't match the math. Your math is missing a square root perhaps.

 

[Ophiolite]

NASA put reflectors on the moon which astronomers bounce laser light off to guage distance. At the current rate the moon is moving away from earth. It would have been inside earths gravity about 1 billion years ago.


I was related to him.

As far as the orgins of the cosmos. I observe an electrical magnetic phenomenon in the fabric of the vacuum of space. Meaning the math which describes dark energy, worm holes, quantum mechanics and the physics of time and light is wrong.

I note you have avoided further discussion on the origin of the moon. I take that as acknowledgement that your knowledge of the subject, as revealed by your posts in this thread, was deeply flawed. If you don't agree then you need to address the unanswered points in posts #129, #134, #136.

 

[Markstrimaran]

I don't need to address anything, you trust Einsteinian Physicst who speak in incoherent theory.

I trust Jesus Christ and the bible. Which is full of truth.

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't need to address anything, you trust Einsteinian Physicst who speak in incoherent theory.

I trust Jesus Christ and the bible. Which is full of truth.

Very well, but you posted a number of assertions that were false. You were happy to discuss points with me until you realised I had the facts on my side, then you reverted to "preaching". Overall, not a convincing performance.

Please stay with the "preaching". False statements regarding scientific matters will be corrected.

En passant:
1. Physics is not my strong suit. Nothing I have posted depends in any way on Einstein's theories.
2. The theory is quite coherent as long as you educate yourself in the topic.

 

[Markstrimaran]

In all openness and willingness to examine new ideas. Why does science demand such adherence to theoretical ideas. Which it then define new interpretations of any conflicting data? Along the Evolutionary assumptions.
Suppose the stars are electrical magnetic discharge phenomenon, or even possess a solid core a magnito generator producing plasma field.

Suppose light is simply a wavelength and does not exist in any form of physical particle.

Suppose elemental matter is formed without any stars exploding.

Suppose water could be efficiently converted into clean burning fuel source, based on electrical theory vs quantum theory.

Yet any alternative study is passed of as the nonsense.
Under the umbrella of everything must conform to The "1st law of Darwin" All life evolved from non living chemical processes.
When a thorough research reveals. That no one has a clue. To how the cosmos formed.
The only thing that is science fact. Is that we are here on a planet we call Earth. With the knowledge, that we can destroy it faster than we can fix it.

 

[Ophiolite]

In all openness and willingness to examine new ideas. Why does science demand such adherence to theoretical ideas.

This comment of yours suggests you do not understand what a theory is. Your statement is equivalent to saying, "Why do chefs devote all their attention to the preparation of tasty foodstuffs?"

The function of science is to create "theoretical ideas", more concisely known as theories. A theory is a an overarching explanation for a suite of interlinked observations, experiments and concepts. If the end product of a scientific endeavour is not a theory, then its not science; it's stamp collecting.

Which it then define new interpretations of any conflicting data? Along the Evolutionary assumptions.

Please pay more attention to your grammar and punctuation so I can better understand what you are trying to say. If English is a foreign language to you then accept my apology. Having struggled, generally unsuccessfully, to express myself in other languages I appreciate the difficulties.

Suppose the stars are electrical magnetic discharge phenomenon, or even possess a solid core a magnito generator producing plasma field.

If this were so then we would see substantial evidence for it. In this scenario the many observations we have made of stars would be better explained by the concept. It has been examined and found wanting.

Suppose light is simply a wavelength and does not exist in any form of physical particle.

You suggested science should welcome new ideas. This is an old idea. Is has been discarded because it does not fit the evidence. I find the easiest way, as a non-physicist, to think of it is that light is a particle and it is a wave and it is neither and it is both.

Suppose elemental matter is formed without any stars exploding.

You suggested science should welcome new ideas. I can refer you to a Scientific American article from the 1940s that outlines how that would work. Unfortunately, for the idea, later evidence failed to support it.

Suppose water could be efficiently converted into clean burning fuel source, based on electrical theory vs quantum theory.

Suppose we could capture the light reflected off migrating geese at sunset and inject it into potatoes to increase their vitamin content.

Yet any alternative study is passed of as the nonsense.

Alternative studies have either been conducted extensively in the past, or are ruled out from the beginning by solidly contradictory evidence.

It's worth noting that these ideas are not described as nonsense when they are first rejected. They are simply discarded as a good idea that didn't work out. The nonsense description is appended when ill informed people attempt repeatedly to resurrect the idea despite the mass of contradictory evidence and superior explanations.

Under the umbrella of everything must conform to The "1st law of Darwin" All life evolved from non living chemical processes.

Oh, please Mark. Don't embarrass yourself. There is no 1st Law of Darwin. Darwin's development of evolutionary theory had nothing to do with the origin of life. He made no official comment on how life might have arisen. He did not know and, this is important, he knew he did not know. His single written speculation on the matter was one paragraph in a letter to a friend (I don't recall whether this was Hooker or Asa Gray. You can look it up if you are curious.)

When a thorough research reveals. That no one has a clue. To how the cosmos formed.
The only thing that is science fact. Is that we are here on a planet we call Earth. With the knowledge, that we can destroy it faster than we can fix it.

You are free to believe this if you like, but I generally advise against believing things that are contradicted by mountains of evidence, as in this instance.

I must congratulate you on one point. It is a singular ability to be able to avoid directly addressing any point made in post after post in replying to another member. I'm not sure how you manage it.

 

[Markstrimaran]

This comment of yours suggests you do not understand what a theory is. Your statement is equivalent to saying, "Why do chefs devote all their attention to the preparation of tasty foodstuffs?"

The function of science is to create "theoretical ideas", more concisely known as theories. A theory is a an overarching explanation for a suite of interlinked observations, experiments and concepts. If the end product of a scientific endeavour is not a theory, then its not science; it's stamp collecting.

Please pay more attention to your grammar and punctuation so I can better understand what you are trying to say. If English is a foreign language to you then accept my apology. Having struggled, generally unsuccessfully, to express myself in other languages I appreciate the difficulties.

If this were so then we would see substantial evidence for it. In this scenario the many observations we have made of stars would be better explained by the concept. It has been examined and found wanting.

You suggested science should welcome new ideas. This is an old idea. Is has been discarded because it does not fit the evidence. I find the easiest way, as a non-physicist, to think of it is that light is a particle and it is a wave and it is neither and it is both.

You suggested science should welcome new ideas. I can refer you to a Scientific American article from the 1940s that outlines how that would work. Unfortunately, for the idea, later evidence failed to support it.

Suppose we could capture the light reflected off migrating geese at sunset and inject it into potatoes to increase their vitamin content.

Alternative studies have either been conducted extensively in the past, or are ruled out from the beginning by solidly contradictory evidence.

It's worth noting that these ideas are not described as nonsense when they are first rejected. They are simply discarded as a good idea that didn't work out. The nonsense description is appended when ill informed people attempt repeatedly to resurrect the idea despite the mass of contradictory evidence and superior explanations.

Oh, please Mark. Don't embarrass yourself. There is no 1st Law of Darwin. Darwin's development of evolutionary theory had nothing to do with the origin of life. He made no official comment on how life might have arisen. He did not know and, this is important, he knew he did not know. His single written speculation on the matter was one paragraph in a letter to a friend (I don't recall whether this was Hooker or Asa Gray. You can look it up if you are curious.)

You are free to believe this if you like, but I generally advise against believing things that are contradicted by mountains of evidence, as in this instance.

I must congratulate you on one point. It is a singular ability to be able to avoid directly addressing any point made in post after post in replying to another member. I'm not sure how you manage it.

I appreciate your criticism. This thread was about subduction of oceanic crusts.

Anyways I am always learning new things and keep discovering things. Like hydrogen under extreme hyperbaric phase changing into an electrically conductive metal.
Mostly at the core of the gas giant planets.
This new idea really has me pondering the Suns Gas model theory.

 

[Ophiolite]

I appreciate your criticism. This thread was about subduction of oceanic crusts.

Well, if I have your assurance that you will stay on topic, I shall address the objections to subduction that you raised earlier.

 

[tas8831]

Suppose the stars are electrical magnetic discharge phenomenon, or even possess a solid core a magnito generator producing plasma field.

Ever heard of Occam's razor?

I'm no physicist or astronomer, but if stars were really 'electric', then those advocating for this have to explain how electrical discharges emit spectral lines that seem to coincide with the presence of various gases/elements known to be associated with nuclear reactions.

It seems to me that this will require some fancy extra assumptions.

 

[dad]

I have. Walt Brown's ideas have been thoroughly debunked. Just basic physics renders his ideas untenable.

.

Correct...but since basic physics did not exist in Noah's day, it can render nothing untenable.