Mass Explained By Someone who knows about Science

[colubridae]

Or maybe it's just easier to allude to ones one sense of deep understanding and genius in the abstract, than commit ones ideas into a concrete form where their validity can be tested....

Of course, doesnt mean he isnt right of course, just means he has other things to do.

Objectively you cant take his work and then say its not true, because he didnt prove it for whatever reason.

sounds like an argument for the bible.

and you make it sound as if he is too busy to demonstrate (remember he cannot prove it - we talked about your error on that score before) his work.
Might be true except he's been posting page after page. Why not spend the time doing the math and making a prediction?

[lpetrich]

The expanding-Earth hypothesis would require VERY screwy physics. Furthermore, it is an unnecessary hypothesis. It also does not account for accretion of island arcs and the like, which is how how the continents have grown.

Paleogeography and Geologic Evolution of North America
Regional Paleogeography
Ron Blakey, Colorado Plateau Stratigraphy and Geology and Global and Regional Paleogeography

I followed the west coast of North America back in time, and here's what I found:
Early Cenozoic: CA largely underwater
Mid-Cretaceous: western BC, WA, OR, and much of northern CA come into place from some accreted islands - about 50 - 150 mi / 80 - 250 km
Permian: central WA and OR and much of CA come into place
Carboniferous: eastern WA and OR and western NV come into place
Before that: BC's coast was 250 mi / 400 km inland, WA, OR, and NV's coast was 300 mi / 500 km inland, with only southernmost California existing.

Or maybe it's just easier to allude to ones one sense of deep understanding and genius in the abstract, than commit ones ideas into a concrete form where their validity can be tested....

Of course, doesnt mean he isnt right of course, just means he has other things to do.

"I'm too busy to do critical tests of my theories, but I'm not too busy to advocate them." That's an extremely tired excuse.

Objectively you cant take his work and then say its not true, because he didnt prove it for whatever reason.

That's an evasion.

[Brain Man]

Or maybe it's just easier to allude to ones one sense of deep understanding and genius in the abstract, than commit ones ideas into a concrete form where their validity can be tested....

Of course, doesnt mean he isnt right of course, just means he has other things to do.

Objectively you cant take his work and then say its not true, because he didnt prove it for whatever reason.

sounds like an argument for the bible.

and you make it sound as if he is too busy to demonstrate (remember he cannot prove it - we talked about your error on that score before) his work.
Might be true except he's been posting page after page. Why not spend the time doing the math and making a prediction?

Could be that tendency to defend yourself...or that other tendency to fight for your ideas to keep them boiling on the back burner till moving on the next stage.

It cant be easy getting an idea half way through your life, then realizing it needs maths. Makes me wonder how many good undeveloped ideas are actually out there.

I think i am suddenly developing a major appreciation for sidelined theories. If people basically want ideas that are put forward by incredibly determined motivated people, fulfilling a range of complex criteria to serve up something that will only be accepted if its what we need at the time...then..thats probably about 1-5% of whats out there at most

I am curious as to what else is actually out there thats interesting ? Be if half baked, slightly mad or ahead of its time.

[Brain Man]

The expanding-Earth hypothesis would require VERY screwy physics. Furthermore, it is an unnecessary hypothesis. It also does not account for accretion of island arcs and the like, which is how how the continents have grown.

Paleogeography and Geologic Evolution of North America
Regional Paleogeography
Ron Blakey, Colorado Plateau Stratigraphy and Geology and Global and Regional Paleogeography

I followed the west coast of North America back in time, and here's what I found:
Early Cenozoic: CA largely underwater
Mid-Cretaceous: western BC, WA, OR, and much of northern CA come into place from some accreted islands - about 50 - 150 mi / 80 - 250 km
Permian: central WA and OR and much of CA come into place
Carboniferous: eastern WA and OR and western NV come into place
Before that: BC's coast was 250 mi / 400 km inland, WA, OR, and NV's coast was 300 mi / 500 km inland, with only southernmost California existing.

I posted that as a kind of test to see who would be the first to take the expanding earth hypothesis out of context and misrepresent it. Surprisingly didnt take long, even when i provide links to the best developed product. Maxlow is not replacing tectonics, you are aware right ? He integrates expansion with tectonics.

Objectively you cant take his work and then say its not true, because he didnt prove it for whatever reason.

That's an evasion.

Not really, its being logical. If somebody comes up with a scientific idea,the idea is not invalid because they didnt prove it. i.e. What if you come up with an idea outside of your area of skill, but you think its been overlooked by others in that field. You cant get resources to prove it. You are getting on too much to go back to university and retrain yourself. Does the idea become invalid ? Of course not.

I have never understood why this idea of the burden of proof has to be put on the innovator, is one of the most ridiculous get outs i have ever come across. Also it does not make any sense. If every creative idea has to be proven by its innovator, then that basically means people will only take seriously ideas put forward by people who have both the means to conceive and the rare set of skills and motivation to try to prove them.

[colubridae]

I have never understood why this idea of the burden of proof has to be put on the innovator, is one of the most ridiculous get outs i have ever come across. Also it does not make any sense. If every creative idea has to be proven by its innovator, then that basically means people will only take seriously ideas put forward by people who have both the means to conceive and the rare set of skills and motivation to try to prove them.

"I believe in christ jesus"

Therefore god exists.


It's the most pathetic mis-use of logic humans have ever done. same as your advocacy

[Twiglet]

I have never understood why this idea of the burden of proof has to be put on the innovator, is one of the most ridiculous get outs i have ever come across. Also it does not make any sense. If every creative idea has to be proven by its innovator, then that basically means people will only take seriously ideas put forward by people who have both the means to conceive and the rare set of skills and motivation to try to prove them.

The laws of physics are as they are because of the intervention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his Noodly Appendage.

I'm glad you think I don't need to justify that Brainman.

I really do hope your point was deliberately silly. I'd hate to think it was unintentional.

[Brain Man]

Yes but both of you guys are obviously taking this completely out of context to the discussion we have been having.

We are not in the fight against religion here. Thats a totally different realm. What we might be involved in, is a fight against extreme scientific restriction which is growing at an exponential rate to be ultra conservative. A lot of people in the field like that idea. Be ultra strict, but have a few outstanding mysteries to chew on forever in a hillwalking style, and enjoy doing that. Gives a challenge, something left to do, and take your time doing right.

Thats fine for physics guys. Some people in the biosciences don't want these mysteries, they want physics nice and clear well understood and resolved across all levels. That makes it far easier to work in biophysics, because there is enough mysteries in that field already...e.g. Trying to conceptualize the operation of axons, which is still not understood, with competing theories for membrane potential and piezoelectric models. Biophysicists would prefer a complete resolution of how electromagnetism operates in a wire conductor to have the solid analogy to start feeling about with neuron axon cable theory.

We have been into all this and so have other well heeled scientists. So whats the remedy when it seems like we are happy to not know the solutions ? I would think it would be Ignore the current restrictions and be open minded but cautious.

[colubridae]

Yes but both of you guys are obviously taking this completely out of context to the discussion we have been having.

We are not in the fight against religion here. Thats a totally different realm. What we might be involved in, is a fight against extreme scientific restriction which is growing at an exponential rate to be ultra conservative. A lot of people in the field like that idea. Be ultra strict, but have a few outstanding mysteries to chew on forever in a hillwalking style, and enjoy doing that. Gives a challenge, something left to do, and take your time doing right.

Thats fine for physics guys. Some people in the biosciences don't want these mysteries, they want physics nice and clear well understood and resolved across all levels. That makes it far easier to work in biophysics, because there is enough mysteries in that field already...e.g. Trying to conceptualize the operation of axons, which is still not understood, with competing theories for membrane potential and piezoelectric models. Biophysicists would prefer a complete resolution of how electromagnetism operates in a wire conductor to have the solid analogy to start feeling about with neuron axon cable theory.

We have been into all this and so have other well heeled scientists. So whats the remedy when it seems like we are happy to not know the solutions ? I would think it would be Ignore the current restrictions and be open minded but cautious.

That's the whole problem.
You want this freedom of thought to apply to FS, so why can't it be applied to baby jesus and all the other pixies.

Unless you use scientific principles and rigour you cannot tell the difference between FS and Jesus. In fact all he has done is invoke the same principles as faith healers and hoaxers down through the ages.

Tell me why you should not believe in god.

We are not in the fight against religion here.

No one’s fighting, just that there is no testable postulate. There’s no deity, just religious belief.

[newolder]

... Be if half baked, slightly mad or ahead of its time.

See Gauss.

[lpetrich]

I posted that as a kind of test to see who would be the first to take the expanding earth hypothesis out of context and misrepresent it. Surprisingly didnt take long, even when i provide links to the best developed product. Maxlow is not replacing tectonics, you are aware right ? He integrates expansion with tectonics.

The problem with his theory is that there would be very little room for continents to drift in before Pangaea. So they'd be frozen in place, while we know that is not the case -- consider paleolatitude data, and consider Rodinia. North America back then was rotated 90 degrees and at the Equator. So present eastern NA was south and western NA was north. Along present eastern NA from present north to south was northern Europe (Baltica), Amazonia, Congo, and Kalahari, while along the present western NA was Australia and East Antarctica. To the north was Siberia.

There is another VERY serious problem with the expanding-Earth hypothesis: what happens to the Sun? Using helioseismology, its present mass, the present-day values of various physical constants, and its inferred initial composition, one concludes that the Sun is about as old as the oldest Solar-System rocks: about 4 1/2 billion years old. Furthermore, the ages of the oldest globular clusters in our Galaxy approximately agree with the ages of the oldest white dwarfs. Changing physical parameters and creation of matter in interiors would disrupt both agreements.

I have never understood why this idea of the burden of proof has to be put on the innovator, is one of the most ridiculous get outs i have ever come across. Also it does not make any sense. If every creative idea has to be proven by its innovator, then that basically means people will only take seriously ideas put forward by people who have both the means to conceive and the rare set of skills and motivation to try to prove them.

Brain Man, that's just plain dumb. If you are correct, then science could never got anywhere. But it does.

Being new or heretical does NOT make an idea right. Brain Man, I dare you to read some books on pseudoscience like Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science or sites on pseudoscience like Crank Dot Net. If one was to try to accept every new theory, one would end up with a big morass of ideas, and an incoherent one at that. Is the Earth flat? Hollow? Do we live on the inside or the outside of a hollow Earth? Was Atlantis sunk by Venus nearly colliding with the Earth? Or by the Earth capturing its present-day Moon? Is Newton wrong? Or is Einstein wrong and Newton right? Can one trisect an angle with a ruler and compass? Are diseases caused by lack of orgone? Or are they caused by engrams from one's fetushood or previous lives?

Bertrand Russell had noted in "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish":

But if conformity has its dangers, so has nonconformity.

Some “advanced thinkers” are of the opinion that any one who differs from the conventional opinion must be in the right. This is a delusion; if it were not, truth would be easier to come by than it is. There are infinite possibilities of error, and more cranks take up unfashionable errors than unfashionable truths.

Placing the burden of proof on advocates of new theories helps get around that problem, no matter how much certain people may cry for them.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

You guys should try sex sometime...You'd like it, it's fun.

[Brain Man]

You guys should try sex sometime...You'd like it, it's fun.

with each other ?

[Brain Man]

I posted that as a kind of test to see who would be the first to take the expanding earth hypothesis out of context and misrepresent it. Surprisingly didnt take long, even when i provide links to the best developed product. Maxlow is not replacing tectonics, you are aware right ? He integrates expansion with tectonics.

The problem with his theory is that there would be very little room for continents to drift in before Pangaea. So they'd be frozen in place, while we know that is not the case -- consider paleolatitude data, and consider Rodinia. North America back then was rotated 90 degrees and at the Equator. So present eastern NA was south and western NA was north. Along present eastern NA from present north to south was northern Europe (Baltica), Amazonia, Congo, and Kalahari, while along the present western NA was Australia and East Antarctica. To the north was Siberia.

It depends what version of expanding earth theory you are using, how you are interpreting it, and where you got your own geological data from. As Maxlow points out much of the present model is just arbitrary fragments using outdated and inconsistent methods of collecting data.

http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/index.p ... sition=4:4

"Acceptance of Expansion Tectonics as a viable tectonic process is currently envisaged by many researchers to be thwarted by major obstacles, which supposedly “outnumber the evidence in favour”. These opinions are based on very outdated, and arguably emotive and opinionated research carried out during the 1950s to 1970s, well before the advent of modern Plate Tectonics, computer technology, global data gathering capabilities and multimedia communication. Unfortunately, these same outdated opinions are being carried through to recent literature, without proper scientific investigation, regardless of new advances made in Expansion Tectonic research."

There is another VERY serious problem with the expanding-Earth hypothesis: what happens to the Sun? Using helioseismology, its present mass, the present-day values of various physical constants, and its inferred initial composition, one concludes that the Sun is about as old as the oldest Solar-System rocks: about 4 1/2 billion years old. Furthermore, the ages of the oldest globular clusters in our Galaxy approximately agree with the ages of the oldest white dwarfs. Changing physical parameters and creation of matter in interiors would disrupt both agreements.

I dont see how, maxlows model only applies to mechanism of the planetary bodies, and not the sun.

"The proposed causal model for Expansion Tectonics, while still largely speculative, involves an increase in mass by condensation, or segregation of new matter from energy within the Earths core. This new matter accumulates at the core-mantle interface and the increase in volume results in swelling of the mantle. Mantle swell is then manifested in the outer crust as crustal extension and is currently occurring as extension along the mid-ocean-rift zones. Matter generation within the Earths core is seen as an endothermic reaction, which will ultimately result in a decay of matter formation in the core and cessation of expansion with time."

I think this is derailing the thread somewhat though, although you could tenuously say its related to mass..

I have never understood why this idea of the burden of proof has to be put on the innovator, is one of the most ridiculous get outs i have ever come across. Also it does not make any sense. If every creative idea has to be proven by its innovator, then that basically means people will only take seriously ideas put forward by people who have both the means to conceive and the rare set of skills and motivation to try to prove them.

Brain Man, that's just plain dumb. If you are correct, then science could never got anywhere. But it does.

Being new or heretical does NOT make an idea right. Brain Man, I dare you to read some books on pseudoscience like Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science or sites on pseudoscience like Crank Dot Net. If one was to try to accept every new theory, one would end up with a big morass of ideas, and an incoherent one at that. Is the Earth flat? Hollow? Do we live on the inside or the outside of a hollow Earth? Was Atlantis sunk by Venus nearly colliding with the Earth? Or by the Earth capturing its present-day Moon? Is Newton wrong? Or is Einstein wrong and Newton right? Can one trisect an angle with a ruler and compass? Are diseases caused by lack of orgone? Or are they caused by engrams from one's fetushood or previous lives?

Bertrand Russell had noted in "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish":

But if conformity has its dangers, so has nonconformity.

Some “advanced thinkers” are of the opinion that any one who differs from the conventional opinion must be in the right. This is a delusion; if it were not, truth would be easier to come by than it is. There are infinite possibilities of error, and more cranks take up unfashionable errors than unfashionable truths.

Placing the burden of proof on advocates of new theories helps get around that problem, no matter how much certain people may cry for them.

I understand that part, what i dont understand is why its taken so far. Clearly it is better that as we create ideas we test them as much as we can in our minds if we do not have any larger resources. I am not talking about that. e.g. Maxlow cannot prove the expanding earth, because he has no access to the resources to do so. Maxlow says that our current database of geology really isn't that good, but it still represents much of the entire industry of geology and all the group politics involved which ensure we go into auto protect mode for it, thinking its great data, when it might not be.All he can do is say how he tested it in his mind using his background in geology. Even then he may be taxed, as he is only one man, probably has other commitments, might even have lost motivation.

You get the idea.. When you think about it, these are major things we ought to know about ourselves. Did our earth grow, was our species partly immersed in water > are these two theories linked ? The proponents do not have the resources. Why do we not want to know more. Laziness really. Same reason why religion took hold and every other backwards idea. Most people are happy with what we have. It does the job, while the academics are busy in auto protect, rather than curiosity mode. The geologists don't ask the question.."wait a minute...why do all the parts of our planet fit so neatly back to one piece"...The anthropologists don't ask the question, why do humans have so many physiological attributes of water based life. I think i would trust these scientists more if they actually said something like "its certainly interesting how all these land masses wind back into each other in line with the ocean floor spreading....we should have a look into this, to understand how, even if its a co-incidence, it could have major implications for our understanding."

DO you ever see this happening. Never...all you will see is some scientists go into auto protect our data mode, while the rest don't care really. We get by on what we have, and thats enough. Thats why it took as so long after the evolution of language to even get to this point.

[ChildInAZoo]

Interesting you talk of Arthur Holmes, there is another geologist called James Maxlow who uses computer models to show that tectonics needs to be modified to include plate expansion.

But you must know that this guy is quote probably mentally ill, right? On his website he says that, "Earth radius has been increasing exponentially throughout time, increasing to a current rate of 22mm/year." This is something that should be detectable given the lunar ranging observations that have been available for 40 years now. But it's not detected.

[Farsight]

We are not in the fight against religion here. Thats a totally different realm. What we might be involved in, is a fight against extreme scientific restriction which is growing at an exponential rate to be ultra conservative...

I think it's very similar to fighting religion. We see people believing in things for which there is no scientific evidence, promoting mystery, and dismissing the scientific evidence and the simple logic which challenges those beliefs. When pressed, the response is essentially the "heretic" card. At no stage do we see a rational analysis of the subject of discussion. Instead what we see is denial, with inscrutable mathematics employed instead of arcane scripture to evade the issue, usually followed by deiberate diversions thence attempts at censorship. Search google on "priesthood" along with say "arXiv" or "physics" to appreciate the parallels.