Mass Explained By Someone who knows about Science

[Brain Man]

Maxlows model uses more up to date data than Plate tectonics, and he is waiting for tectonics to catch up.

You are avoiding the central issue here, and I notice everybody avoids this which is extremely telling.

What could be more central to his claim that "the Earth is expanding" than our actual measurements that could detect the expansion that he actually predicts right now don't detect this expansion? The Earth is obviously not expanding as much as he claims it is. That itself should be enough to rule out his theory.

Again...why does the maxlow model work better in 4 dimensions with more up to date paleomagnetic data than the tectonics model ?

If his model fits better, it could be because he has added extra parameters to guarantee a better fit. Or it could be because he manipulated parameters to get a better fit for a choice set of parameters at the cost of not actually fitting all the parameters. The most important parameter should probably be the prediction of the current rate of expansion!

Central issue dodging again. Come on, you saw the animation, be honest now, what was your first thought on seeing the neal adams animation. Did you feel anxious as you saw the plates fit back together..was your mind racing, scrabbling for reasons why it could not be ?

I know mine was. I was completely blown away

[Twiglet]

I wasnt aware of that thread. I hope its not sitting doing maths for a day, then scanning it to prove how clever we are instead of tackling a major problem.

Yes farsight too finds it "beneath him".

I actually do have scientific problems to prove, about three papers to complete, and these are massively complex theories, I only wish a few equations could prove them. Ok there is no deadline, but lately i am wondering does anybody actually deserve such works.

Yes, the world is just unready for your genius. We are unworthy o great one!

If the community is heading towards being lazy, groupish and dishonest behaviours why should i bother.

O please come down from Olympus and bestow upon us the great bounty of your wisdom....

If they dont care, why should I. There is no payoff.

Yes, we are unworthy wretches to cast such pearls before.

Even if the work does well which it seems to be doing, i dont see why i should bother. All i seem to be getting so far is higher social status and a better job. Some people would kill for that kind of thing.

Yes, what status you have earned, that you did not seek, as a mere function of your greatness....

I know that, but I never got into science for that reason. I got into it, to be with other innovators. But where are they ? Everybody i know in this business is obsessed with social rank and money.

O the pain of separation your genius has caused you, to live amongst such mere mortals.

------------

Moving quickly along....

[Brain Man]

O the pain of separation your genius has caused you, to live amongst such mere mortals.

Yeh in a way thats true. I had not planned on it coming out that way, but it is strange the way things turn out. After being through all this i am of the opinion you cannot do real innovative work when you are concerned about such things.If you aren't willing to blow everything you have, risk it all, kick down some doors and not think of the consequences, not a lot is going to happen really. Its human nature to hold each other back.

What becomes really hard later, harder than a decade of non stop operation in such a manner is to motivate yourself for others not willing to do the same.

Its like a brick wall. I think I am beginning to understand the impatience that hardline creatives face now.

[ChildInAZoo]

Central issue dodging again. Come on, you saw the animation, be honest now, what was your first thought on seeing the neal adams animation. Did you feel anxious as you saw the plates fit back together..was your mind racing, scrabbling for reasons why it could not be ?

I know mine was. I was completely blown away

Just to be clear: In your mind, the "central issue" is how things line up in a video, not how the actual predictions of the theory work out right now?

[lpetrich]

in the case of Plate tectonics, published plate reconstructions have never been constrained by the requirements of conforming to this data.

That's demonstrably false. I've read some of the professional literature, and paleomagnetism is an important part of reconstructing continental drift.

The earth's core - Google Books lists several such tests.

That critique really says that there is no evidence, and bases its summary finding on the hypothesis that there is no expansion in mass.[/quote]
Brain Man, I don't think that you understand those tests. You find the paleopole from one place on a continent and a paleopole from another place at the same time or close to it. You then work out what angular separation is necessary to make the paleopoles coincide, and compare that separation to the present-day one. The result: there's no evidence of expansion by a factor of 2.

What would he need? He ought to write out in detail what he would need to test his hypothesis.

He has, ...?

Where???

Geologists do ask such questions. They may not come up with answers that you like. They don't simply use jigsaw fits; they look for similar rock formations.

Do they ? Where is the wealth of objectively resourced investigation into this theory. ...

In the professional literature. How much of it will I have to cite?

I'm disappointed that Mr. Maxlow has not published his continent-outline data or his continent-deformation algorithm. I have plenty of computer capability and I could easily check his simulations.

How do you know, have you looked ?

I did, and I couldn't find any. Brain Man, since you are such a big Maxlow groupie, you should have no trouble finding it for me.

Maxlows model uses more up to date data than Plate tectonics, and he is waiting for tectonics to catch up.

What "more up to date data"??? Here again, Brain Man, you should have no trouble finding it for me.

Brain Man, your attitude is why the burden of proof falls on the advocates of new theories, not those of old theories. With your careless handling of evidence and ad hoc theorizing, you'll never succeed in making a case.

[Brain Man]

in the case of Plate tectonics, published plate reconstructions have never been constrained by the requirements of conforming to this data.

That's demonstrably false. I've read some of the professional literature, and paleomagnetism is an important part of reconstructing continental drift.

Exactly you said it...reconstructing the drift...making the evidence fit the theory rather than letting the evidence lead you to the theory. Big difference as you know. To cite Maxlow on this. Striping is referring to the magnetic domain configurations from the magnetite in the earths crust. So bits of fragmented data were taken from here and there to fit the theory. Since expansion tectonics is a variant of plate tectonics, it can also be proposed conversely that PT is a subgrouping of Expansion Tectonics, so you are going to get a fit in most cases anyway.


"At this stage there are a number of very important considerations about the crustal mapping shown in the above figures that must be fully appreciated.

Firstly, the striping shown in Figure 2 shows that each of the oceans contain a mid-ocean-ridge (currently centred below the pink stripes) and each ocean is increasing its surface area with time. This increase in surface area is shown to be symmetrical within each ocean and the maximum age of exposed sea floor crust is early Jurassic – about 165 million years old (pale blue areas).
Secondly, if it were possible to move back in time, each of the stripes shown in both Figures 1 and 2 must be successively removed and the corresponding edges of each coloured stripe must be moved closer together as we move back in time – that is, the volcanic rocks (and similarly the ocean waters) within each stripe must be returned to the mantle where they originally came from.
Thirdly, as we move back in time, each of the continents must move closer together in strict accordance with the striping evidence recorded on the map in Figure 2 regardless of which tectonic theory is adhered to.
Fourthly, subduction of crusts beneath continents is an artifact of the basic Plate Tectonic requirement for a constant Earth radius. The symmetrical striping evidence shown does not support subduction and subduction is not required if the Earth were increasing its radius.

It should also be appreciated that none, or very little of this magnetic striping and age dating evidence was available when Plate Tectonic theory was first proposed. The global distribution of the magnetic striping and age dating was, in fact, completed later in order to quantify the plate motion history and, therefore, the Plate Tectonic history of each ocean.

Brain Man, I don't think that you understand those tests. You find the paleopole from one place on a continent and a paleopole from another place at the same time or close to it. You then work out what angular separation is necessary to make the paleopoles coincide, and compare that separation to the present-day one. The result: there's no evidence of expansion by a factor of 2.

So this just puts doubt on that version of the hypothesis. Its another strawman, everybody here has avoided the central question. Why do the plates fit so well back together. Ive asked this 7 times so far, nobody has replied.

why do you think nobody has replied...?

What would he need? He ought to write out in detail what he would need to test his hypothesis.

He has, ...?

Where???

on his website. Rebuild plate tectonics completely from the unesco 1990 data.

I have plenty of computer capability and I could easily check his simulations.

Could you, even if you had the processing, thats pretty confident, you could run the software ? you dont know what modules hes running or if you could replicate that. How do you know its not in house and array dependent. You need more information to even approach that kind of statement of confidence.

I did, and I couldn't find any. Brain Man, since you are such a big Maxlow groupie, you should have no trouble finding it for me.

I was just testing to see if you had even looked. I am sure he will provide you with it, if you ask him.

Maxlows model uses more up to date data than Plate tectonics, and he is waiting for tectonics to catch up.

What "more up to date data"??? Here again, Brain Man, you should have no trouble finding it for me.

Geology after the CGMW and UNESCO bedrock geology map, 1990

Brain Man, your attitude is why the burden of proof falls on the advocates of new theories, not those of old theories. With your careless handling of evidence and ad hoc theorizing, you'll never succeed in making a case.

thats not what this is about. Its about why you refuse to deny whats in front of your eyes in four dimensions from a topographic view. Not in it, like the flat earth or all the misperceptions of the stars which come from being stuck here, but looking on it.

[Brain Man]

Ill tell you what i will do here. I will make a clear observable scientific prediction.

I predict that within the next 24 hours lpetrich will deny that the continental plates fit neatly back together to one piece in line with expansion using the Unesco 1990 ocean floor data.

No matter how many times i ask, He will not answer whether the 4 dimensional animation of this is interesting at all. Even though it clearly is to anybody with an hounce of honesty.

Why ?

Pure dishonest strategy. If he answers this question he will have entered into the weak position of having to concede that expansion tectonics is a real scientific hypothesis.

Hypothesis UPDATE 1:

I will triple my bet for free by also adding childinazoo and coulabride..couldabriad... Snake man to the list of dishonest deniers.

[ChildInAZoo]

Again, just to be clear, for you "real evidence" is a youtube video? And, again just to be clear, when a scientists' theory about a specific topic is demonstrably wrong on that specific topic, that's not a serious problem?

[Twiglet]

Ill tell you what i will do here. I will make a clear observable scientific prediction.

I predict that within the next 24 hours lpetrich will deny that the continental plates fit neatly back together to one piece in line with expansion using the Unesco 1990 ocean floor data.

No matter how many times i ask, He will not answer whether the 4 dimensional animation of this is interesting at all. Even though it clearly is to anybody with an hounce of honesty.

Why ?

Pure dishonest strategy. If he answers this question he will have entered into the weak position of having to concede that expansion tectonics is a real scientific hypothesis.

Hypothesis UPDATE 1:

I will triple my bet for free by also adding childinazoo and coulabride..couldabriad... Snake man to the list of dishonest deniers.

I will also postulate a theory - that your attraction to a theory is inversely proportional to the amount of evidence supporting it, provided someone railing at the scientific community has proposed an alternative which is being widely dismissed.

[Brain Man]

Again, just to be clear, for you "real evidence" is a youtube video? And, again just to be clear, when a scientists' theory about a specific topic is demonstrably wrong on that specific topic, that's not a serious problem?

Come on you can do it..go on..break a leg..

Does the video show the continents fitting back together in line with the 1990 floor data or not ?

[Brain Man]

Ill tell you what i will do here. I will make a clear observable scientific prediction.

I predict that within the next 24 hours lpetrich will deny that the continental plates fit neatly back together to one piece in line with expansion using the Unesco 1990 ocean floor data.

No matter how many times i ask, He will not answer whether the 4 dimensional animation of this is interesting at all. Even though it clearly is to anybody with an hounce of honesty.

Why ?

Pure dishonest strategy. If he answers this question he will have entered into the weak position of having to concede that expansion tectonics is a real scientific hypothesis.

Hypothesis UPDATE 1:

I will triple my bet for free by also adding childinazoo and coulabride..couldabriad... Snake man to the list of dishonest deniers.

I will also postulate a theory - that your attraction to a theory is inversely proportional to the amount of evidence supporting it, provided someone railing at the scientific community has proposed an alternative which is being widely dismissed.

Proving my theory i see, still evading the question...

[Brain Man]

Hypothesis UPDATE 2:

I will add twiglet to the list of dishonest deniers..and bet that its now social anxiety driving his behaviour, although it would be hard to prove that.

[Brain Man]

There you go...explain please deniers..

I am going for a 12 hour cup of tea.


Thats half the hypothesis time ticking away.

[lpetrich]

in the case of Plate tectonics, published plate reconstructions have never been constrained by the requirements of conforming to this data.

That's demonstrably false. I've read some of the professional literature, and paleomagnetism is an important part of reconstructing continental drift.

Exactly you said it...reconstructing the drift...making the evidence fit the theory rather than letting the evidence lead you to the theory.

What gives you that idea? How do expanding-earth advocates "let the evidence lead them to the theory"???

(Mr. Maxlow quoted by Brain Man:)

Fourthly, subduction of crusts beneath continents is an artifact of the basic Plate Tectonic requirement for a constant Earth radius. The symmetrical striping evidence shown does not support subduction and subduction is not required if the Earth were increasing its radius.

That's an incredibly stupid argument against the existence of subduction zones. Such symmetry occurs around mid-oceanic ridges, not around subduction zones. There is lots of evidence for subduction, like Wadati-Benioff zones of earthquakes, and island arcs of volcanoes.

I live on the North American Plate, but several km beneath me is the Juan de Fuca plate, which is being subducted, and which has partially melted and formed the Cascade volcanoes. The Hawaiian Islands and Emperor seamounts extend northwestward to the Kuril-Kamchatka Trench, with the Meiji Seamount being the closest and oldest (82 million years). That chain does not extend beyond that trench, which is part of a subduction zone. So if that chain has any older mountains, they likely got subducted.

It should also be appreciated that none, or very little of this magnetic striping and age dating evidence was available when Plate Tectonic theory was first proposed. The global distribution of the magnetic striping and age dating was, in fact, completed later in order to quantify the plate motion history and, therefore, the Plate Tectonic history of each ocean.[/b]

It's the other way around, Brain Man. Continental Drift was rediscovered in the 1950's, with the discovery of paleomagnetism and seafloor spreading. European geologists had discovered that the poles had wanted relative to Europe, and they proposed polar wandering. American geologists got skeptical and they looked for polar wandering. They found it, and they found that the poles had taken a different path relative to Europe.

Brain Man, I don't think that you understand those tests. You find the paleopole from one place on a continent and a paleopole from another place at the same time or close to it. You then work out what angular separation is necessary to make the paleopoles coincide, and compare that separation to the present-day one. The result: there's no evidence of expansion by a factor of 2.

So this just puts doubt on that version of the hypothesis. Its another strawman, everybody here has avoided the central question. Why do the plates fit so well back together. Ive asked this 7 times so far, nobody has replied.

What fit? I'd have to crunch the numbers for myself -- I don't trust Mr. Maxlow's pretty pictures. In particular, he has refused to show the discrepancies in his model. Discrepancies like what this document shows. It has a picture of a fit between South America, Africa, North America, and Europe -- and it also notes discrepancies.

What would he need? He ought to write out in detail what he would need to test his hypothesis.

He has, ...?

Where???

on his website. Rebuild plate tectonics completely from the unesco 1990 data.

Link me to it, then.

I have plenty of computer capability and I could easily check his simulations.

Could you, even if you had the processing, thats pretty confident, you could run the software ? you dont know what modules hes running or if you could replicate that. How do you know its not in house and array dependent. You need more information to even approach that kind of statement of confidence.

It doesn't look like a very big computing job to me.

Maxlows model uses more up to date data than Plate tectonics, and he is waiting for tectonics to catch up.

What "more up to date data"??? Here again, Brain Man, you should have no trouble finding it for me.

Geology after the CGMW and UNESCO bedrock geology map, 1990

Since you are so familiar with it, you should have no trouble finding it for me.

Brain Man, your attitude is why the burden of proof falls on the advocates of new theories, not those of old theories. With your careless handling of evidence and ad hoc theorizing, you'll never succeed in making a case.

thats not what this is about. Its about why you refuse to deny whats in front of your eyes in four dimensions from a topographic view. Not in it, like the flat earth or all the misperceptions of the stars which come from being stuck here, but looking on it.

Brain Man, it seems like you are overimpressed with Dr. Maxlow's pretty pictures.

[Twiglet]

It's the new great thing....proof by youtube..