Mass Explained By Someone who knows about Science

[Farsight]

Interesting video. I tend not to take a black-and-white view about this sort of thing. The "ring of fire" around the Pacific tells me that subduction is happening, but on the other hand the Dirac large numbers hypothesis with G reducing over time does seem to make sense. One can think of the bowling-ball-in-the-rubber-sheet analogy. If you make the rubber sheet larger, the curve between the bowling ball and the rim flattens out. That would suggest that the local force of gravity at the Earth's surface was stronger in the past, so the Earth would have been compressed. But I think it's going too far to suggest that it was so compressed and so much smaller that all the continents were contiguous. It isn't very easy to compress molten rock or iron to make it smaller.

[colubridae]

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.

His interest is not in making a case. His interest is in some sort of weird 'thing', like mandelson.

Why? search me.

His behaviour towards me was very strange and provocative.

[Brain Man]

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

very interesting, i see nobody has both the honesty and balls yet to admit that the expanding earth animations are an extremely superior 4 dimensional model to pangea. Lets see how many strawmen you decide to throw up here while you scrabble for reasons to deny the main point. There isnt a strawman icon so ill put something else in.

(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.

Strawman, hes not arguing against subduction in those regions just on the zones with symmetrical striping

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.

Strawman you are taking his point out of context. He talks about when global distribution was completed after 1970 as you well know..

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.

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

You dont trust them, even though this work have been done by about 6 different scientists now. you are paranoid because you are dishonest yourself i think is the right answer. You are going to run a simulation..right..youre just trying to be prosocial here. Lets admit it with homework threads and now saying you can run this kind of simulation. This requires serious number crunching and the work of a few trained people or you will do either a shoddy job, or a good one will take a year, unless you are currently unemployed or run a department yourself.

Have you run even a simple simulation. You don’t just get data and plug it in. You need to set up the system, have an implementation plan. Factor in problems will occur, many problems. What kind of system would you run this on ? How would you set it up for the null hypothesis ? what are you going to do that hasnt been done before ? All you have done so far is misinterpret the work, and throw up strawmen. Who would supervise your work to make sure the hypothesis is tested properly ? Thats a major project, time, money, staff, software, expertise, management, writing reports. Are you really motivated to do all this ? i mean ill call your bluff, contact maxlow and get the datasets to see if you will.

Link me to it, then.

You dont need a link, its explicit if you read his work. He bases his model entirely on the newer data.

Geology after the CGMW and UNESCO bedrock geology map, 1990

That’s it, the Unesco 1990 data will do. I mean his Geology is post Unesco 1990, because it starts from there, and presumably uses updates to that data.

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.

Im impressed with Neal adams pretty picture is more to the point. They cost a small fortune, sponsored by a comic book artist out of pure love for the subject. Neal realised science was in a pretty bad state today.

[Brain Man]

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

Still dodging the question twiggie..

[Brain Man]

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.

His interest is not in making a case. His interest is in some sort of weird 'thing', like mandelson.

Why? search me.

His behaviour towards me was very strange and provocative.

Another Question dodger...maybe we should have a thread with a poll to see how dishonest we really are.

how about.

Do the continental plates wind back smoothly into one piece, based on the 1990 Unesco Data. Yes or NO ?

It will be interesting to see if anybody will actually post a yes..will they be too scared of what other people think to risk it ?

never mind if they have problems or objections, will they actually be honest about what is plainly clear to see ?

[Farsight]

I'll volunteer a yes. But I'd also say that it doesn't constitute proof that the Earth used to be a whole lot smaller.

[Brain Man]

Interesting video. I tend not to take a black-and-white view about this sort of thing. The "ring of fire" around the Pacific tells me that subduction is happening, but on the other hand the Dirac large numbers hypothesis with G reducing over time does seem to make sense. One can think of the bowling-ball-in-the-rubber-sheet analogy. If you make the rubber sheet larger, the curve between the bowling ball and the rim flattens out. That would suggest that the local force of gravity at the Earth's surface was stronger in the past, so the Earth would have been compressed. But I think it's going too far to suggest that it was so compressed and so much smaller that all the continents were contiguous. It isn't very easy to compress molten rock or iron to make it smaller.

I am not sure of the mechanisms, maxlow and the other geologists are not sure on this, as it may be an interaction between several mechanisms. Still you dont need a mechanism to put a hypothesis into motion. All you need is the fact that we have an enigma here. When you model the plates with the 1990 unesco data, they all wind back neatly into each other, and you dont need to send india traveling half way across the planet in a ridiculous manner like Pangea. The geologists dont actually deny subduction occurs. Thats one of the major strawmen posted around the internet.

.

[PsychoSerenity]

ah well your loss guys, I guess it doesnt really matter your descendent's will be giggling at us for taking so long to twig.

"What you mean it took 100 years after the release of neal adams animation for them to finally realise planets are built on expansion..Wow...our grandparents were so slow and pedantic back then..but then it couldnt be helped, they didnt have artificial intelligence to help them think properly and had to make do with science..."".....but look our records show that "brain man" from the internet forum rationalia fought for this idea in June 2010. Lets grow a population from his DNA records and see what a town full of people with his forward looking vision can do for us now...Maybe his mutations are the correct cocktail of mental attributes we need to cure backwards vision in the human condition"

Holy fucking shit!

Are you serious?!

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

1.Get a ball.
2.Work out it's surface area.
3.Get some paper.
4.Tear up about 20 random shaped pieces that add up to the same surface area.
5.Get some glue.
6.Stick the bits of paper onto the ball.
7. For a given margin of error, THEY WILL FIT.

[Brain Man]

I'll volunteer a yes. But I'd also say that it doesn't constitute proof that the Earth used to be a whole lot smaller.

Interesting.. i definitely think its a social anxiety/face thing then.

One of the existing hypothesis for dinosaur size was reduced atmospheric pressure, which would have been present if the earth was smaller. in that sense this theory is consistent.

[Brain Man]

ah well your loss guys, I guess it doesnt really matter your descendent's will be giggling at us for taking so long to twig.

"What you mean it took 100 years after the release of neal adams animation for them to finally realise planets are built on expansion..Wow...our grandparents were so slow and pedantic back then..but then it couldnt be helped, they didnt have artificial intelligence to help them think properly and had to make do with science..."".....but look our records show that "brain man" from the internet forum rationalia fought for this idea in June 2010. Lets grow a population from his DNA records and see what a town full of people with his forward looking vision can do for us now...Maybe his mutations are the correct cocktail of mental attributes we need to cure backwards vision in the human condition"

Holy fucking shit!

Are you serious?!

now that would be telling. Ill be honest if you will.

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

1.Get a ball.
2.Work out it's surface area.
3.Get some paper.
4.Tear up about 20 random shaped pieces that add up to the same surface area.
5.Get some glue.
6.Stick the bits of paper onto the ball.
7. For a given margin of error, THEY WILL FIT.

And at the same time have all the bits of paper smoothly wind back together with the Unesco 1990 Paleomagnetic striping data...

[ChildInAZoo]

The geologists dont actually deny subduction occurs. Thats one of the major strawmen posted around the internet.

But the evidence for the denial of subduction comes from your own quotation! You wrote, supposedly quoting Maxlow, "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." This is not an argument against anything but subduction.

Given your penchant for supporting Farsight, I am not surprised that you believe in all kinds of crazy things, but surely you can see that it is foolish to believe in a scientific theory on the basis of pretty videos. And you still haven't addressed why it's not a problem for the expanding earth theory that it predicts that the Earth is currently expanding at a rate that is obviously incorrect. How can a youtube video trump what should be the central prediction of the theory? How did any scientists convince anyone before the invention of film?

[PsychoSerenity]

ah well your loss guys, I guess it doesnt really matter your descendent's will be giggling at us for taking so long to twig.

"What you mean it took 100 years after the release of neal adams animation for them to finally realise planets are built on expansion..Wow...our grandparents were so slow and pedantic back then..but then it couldnt be helped, they didnt have artificial intelligence to help them think properly and had to make do with science..."".....but look our records show that "brain man" from the internet forum rationalia fought for this idea in June 2010. Lets grow a population from his DNA records and see what a town full of people with his forward looking vision can do for us now...Maybe his mutations are the correct cocktail of mental attributes we need to cure backwards vision in the human condition"

Holy fucking shit!

Are you serious?!

now that would be telling. Ill be honest if you will.

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

1.Get a ball.
2.Work out it's surface area.
3.Get some paper.
4.Tear up about 20 random shaped pieces that add up to the same surface area.
5.Get some glue.
6.Stick the bits of paper onto the ball.
7. For a given margin of error, THEY WILL FIT.

And at the same time have all the bits of paper smoothly wind back together with the Unesco 1990 Paleomagnetic striping data...

Sure, if there is actually a reasonable amount of evidence for it, and it gives more accurate results than the current theory, it should be worth looking in to.

My point is, the youtube animation is far from mind blowing, or convincing of anything other than "oooh look, a pretty animation!". Your claim that our descendants will think us stupid, and you special, for being convinced by it, is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard - so I really hope you were joking.

As far as the geology goes, I'm happy to leave it up to the geologists who have been studding it their whole lives.

[Brain Man]

Ok peeps whats going on with the denial roadshow...

My point is, the youtube animation is far from mind blowing, or convincing of anything other than "oooh look, a pretty animation!". Your claim that our descendants will think us stupid, and you special, for being convinced by it, is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard - so I really hope you were joking.

No i wasnt joking, i was deadly serious.

As far as the geology goes, I'm happy to leave it up to the geologists who have been studding it their whole lives.

Ive been studding it to. Im a science stud in case you havent noticed.

Ok is That it...where is the denial ?

I mean come on can you not do better than this ?

[Brain Man]

The geologists dont actually deny subduction occurs. Thats one of the major strawmen posted around the internet.

But the evidence for the denial of subduction comes from your own quotation! You wrote, supposedly quoting Maxlow, "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." This is not an argument against anything but subduction.

I agree

Given your penchant for supporting Farsight, I am not surprised that you believe in all kinds of crazy things, but surely you can see that it is foolish to believe in a scientific theory on the basis of pretty videos. And you still haven't addressed why it's not a problem for the expanding earth theory that it predicts that the Earth is currently expanding at a rate that is obviously incorrect. How can a youtube video trump what should be the central prediction of the theory? How did any scientists convince anyone before the invention of film?

correct...

Any more denial ?

[Farsight]

I think the point of Brain Man's little exposition is that people believe in things for which we have inadequate evidence. Despite the lack of evidence, their belief is such that they will refuse to admit other evidence that would challenge this belief. They are locked into denial.

As an example of this, people believe that the Higgs field is responsible for mass, as per the opening post, which referred to this article:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... nce/basics

The article includes paragraphs such as this one:

"He said mass isn't a property of matter. Instead, an invisible field fills every corner of the universe, and things acquire mass by interacting with the field. The more strongly the field (called the Higgs field) interacts with a particle, the heavier it is."

However it isn't true. It's a myth. You can check this in A Zeptospace Odyssey: A Journey into the Physics of the LHC by Gian Francesco Giudice. This is a CERN professional, and he knows what he's talking about. You can do a "search inside" on "Higgs sector" and read pages 174 and 175. It tells you the Higgs mechanism accounts for 1 per cent of the mass of ordinary matter.

This means the Higgs mechanism isn't responsible for mass. And yet people continue to believe it is, even going so far as to dismiss Einstein's 1905 paper DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?. That's where he talks about a body losing mass as it emits massless photons. It's the paper that gave us E=mc², and there's a simple relationship between this and annihilation, where massive particles are converted into massless photons. There's also a relationship with "the photon in the box", which increases the mass of that system. Sadly people are so convinced about the Higgs field that they won't examine the evidence, and they won't examine Mass Explained, or discuss it. Rather strangely, they don't want anybody else to either.