bombus

I don't believe they actually exist at all, apart from as concepts created by the human mind. I think all particle physics is the same as stating that within a block of marble there exists a face, and then carving out a face and saying 'see, I told you so'. This does not mean that their 'discovery' cannot be put to good use however, just that it will not really bring us any closer to 'the underlying truth' as I am beginning to think that there is no 'underlying truth' that exists without subjectivity.

Strictly 'Ecology' deals with the 'economy of nature' i.e. the energy transfers that occur in an ECOsystem (hence the Eco part in Ecology and Economy). However, it's usually used more broadly than this.

The issue with invasive non-natives depends on ones perspective of 'natural'. To some people genetic engineering is natural as it's done by humans who are a product of nature. However, most of us conservationists draw a distinction between factors induced by (modern) man and naturally occurring factors.

So, if a species colonizes (say) another continent without the intervention of man, that's 'natural', but if it colonizes a continent because man has transferred it by mistake or deliberately it would be classed as 'non-natural'. the other issue is whether that species has a significant effect on native and naturalized species.

For example, little owls were deliberately introduced to Great Britain, and have naturalized, but have no noticeable detrimental effect on other species, so are deemed OK. American Grey Squirrels, however, have wiped out the native Red Squirrel from much of Great Britain so if we could get rid of them we would.

It is the effect they have on biodiversity that determines whether we consider them 'good or bad', not necessarily whether they are native or non-native (as many of our so-called native wild flowers were actually introduced to Britain by neolithic farmers, celts and Romans).

But are not gravity waves actually time waves? I.e. Gravity is just an effect of time differentials between slower and faster moving time?

I seem to often find the trend that ecologists and conservationists' views are slanted by the grants they receive.

As this is the field I work in , I can honestly say that I have never encountered this, ever.

What's the point of one neuron? Who would it talk to?

It reminds me of the question regarding the sign at Baker Street Tube Station in London which says it was the very first tube station. Where did the trains go to?

Dekan asks a very important and fundamental question.

I think Wildlife/Environmental Conservation is a 'religion', and in my opinion, actually all about the spirit and purpose of humanity and not ultimately to do with our own survival (although at this present time it is of course linked to our own survival).

Thanks. Would you agree that the search for 'Gravitons' is futile, as it would actually be a search for quanta of time?

Schrodinger's Hat - re: many worlds interpretation. My question is who or what chooses which universe YOU end up being in?

Particles might not exist at all. It's just that the phenomena we are examining sometimes behave as if they are particles. They can also behave as if they are waves. They are neither, of course. Scientific examination of reality is ultimately all analogy. If it wasn't we wouldn't be able to conceptualize it - and still can't sometimes!

Well I am quite familiar with GR, but I don't think it agrees with my hypothesis - at least not directly. Can you expand?

It's not strictly true (Iran and Turkey are prosperous for example) but there is some truth in what you suggest. This is mainly because the West hinders their progress by sponsoring corrupt dictatorships which essentially steal all the people's money and do the Wests bidding by selling the countries produce to the West for knock-down prices. Maybe the 'Arab Spring' will change this - but I doubt it.

Also, Before the last Iraq war and before the West put sanctions on Iraq (circa 1988) that country had a higher standard of living than Belgium by some measures. Similarly Libya had a standard of living higher than Portugal or Greece before this current war. Imagine how rich Saudi Arabia would be if the oil wealth wasn't horded by a dictatorship and banked in the West?

Also, there are many Christian countries that suffer the exact same problems, e.g. Kenya, South Africa (most people are very poor there) and many other African states, so Islam has nothing to do with it.

Here is a link to an Amnesty report on the Human Rights situation in Libya mid last year - perhaps some of the posters could acquaint themselves with the realities of life in Libya before painting it as the land of milk and honey

 

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE19/007/2010/en/65e2d9ca-3b76-4ea8-968f-5d76e1591b9c/mde190072010en.pdf

After reading that, I suggest people read the Jan 2011 UN Report on Human Rights in Libya:

http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session9/US/A_HRC_WG.6_9_L.9_USA.pdf

The report said that the Ghaddafi government protected "not only political rights, but also economic, educational, social and cultural rights," and praised it for the nation's treatment of religious minorities, and the "human rights training" received by security forces. No less than 46 delegations to the controversial Human Rights Council made positive comments, with rare criticism from, the United States and UK. It was to be approved at a vote in April but I suspect the war got in the way!

Is it conceivable that matter causes 'drag' in the flow of time which we perceive as mass? I have wondered this as:

Photons are not subject to time as they have no mass so cause no 'drag'

Gravity causes time to slow down

Mass causes gravity

Is matter/mass an effect of/on the passage of time?

Some have suggested that the path of every photon in the universe (and every particle for that matter) could be set for all time and it is only our movement through time that gives photons/particles the impression of 'moving' through space.

Stop, seriously, we're not idiots. You keep raising this bolony EVERY TIME you can. If you don't believe it, then stop talking pseudoscience as if it's science.

 

YOU posted this as a topic for debate. We've been going over this topic in multiple threads over and over again and you keep dropping it (usually out of necessity) and then coming back to it after a little while as if this forum has never dealt with the subject before. Seriously?

 

You are posting this subject as if it has merit. If you are not, then stop arguing with people who are trying to tell you that there's no evidence. You keep claiming there is, falling back on a "BUT I DIDN'T PROPOSE THIS" claim to hide behind. Gee.

 

Either put up evidence, or stop raising this subject again. We've been over it, we've been showing you over and over again why the claims are bolony. Utter brilliant crap.

 

You haven't shown us a single shred of evidence otherwise.

 

So if this "isn't your topic" and you "don't even believe it" then we've just about covered any and every possible angle of this bolony and it's time you drop it. If you do think you have something to contribute (which you obviously do, seeing your REPEATED attempts to reopen it even in threads that have absolutely NOTHING to do with it) then stop giving us empty claims and start talking science.

 

~moo

Mooeypooey, you are making insulting comments about me that are derogatory and false, and basically calling me a liar.

Maybe you should ban yourself for rule infringement.

To add to that, I was hoping maybe someone who IS a geologist may be able to shed light on the geodesic data. That's what these forums are about isn't it? Sharing information?

Merged post follows:

I shall have to carry this discussion on another time. Have to go to bed now - it's midnight here!

I'll try to source some evidence if I can find any.

for the last time: Stop debating the person arguing the theory and start debating the theory, bombus!

 

When you post the actual claims, you were shown that they're ridiculous and utter bolony.

You chose to bring forth lots of people (ahem, 2) that support utter bolony.

It means nothing other than those people support utter bolony.

 

If you want people to treat this bolony seriously, your only course of action is to give us evidence that has merit. Arguing about whether or not that specific Doctor is or isn't a crank is irrelevant. We will not accept the theory just because he says so, we will accept a theory if we see enough evidence.

 

It's time you put up valid evidence for the theory, bombus.

 

Stop running away from the responsibility YOU hold as the person claiming bolony to be true.

 

Prove us wrong. Scientifically.

~moo

Mooeypooey. I am not a geologist. How can I argue from my own research?

Also - I seem to be failing to get through to you despite saying it over and over again I AM NOT PROPOSING THIS THEORY! I am not even saying I believe it. I just want to discuss its merits or otherwise!

SHall I repeat that?

I AM NOT PROPOSING THIS THEORY! I am not even saying I believe it. I just want to discuss its merits or otherwise!

This is an appeal to authority.

 

His ideas are a very convoluted but never the less classic excluded middle fallacy. Essentially "if plate tectonics is wrong then the expanding earth must be right".

 

Not being a geologist, I can not speak to the specifics. However, the argument itself is poorly constructed and even if I granted total veracity to his critique of plate tectonics I could in no way accept his conclusion because of the obvious fallacy.

I don't think he says that. I think he's saying that his theory better fits the data.

Merged post follows:

Insane Alien.

OK. What if satellite geodesic data does show earth expansion (which according to Dr. Maxlow it does.)

Our incredulity would not matter a jot! Nor would our lack of an idea about a mechanism. We'd have to come up with one sharpish!

 

In this - and other threads -- on the matter of plate tectonics, the issue was the claims of the theory. They were dealt with and you were shown why the claims were wrong, *AND* what evidence support plate tectonics.

Some 'strawmen' were revealed. Some issues (such as the Antartica situation) were left in the 'we just don't know category'.

You were asked to supply better evidence if you still insist on claiming that the evidence on the contrary are superior.

I have not insisted on anything?

Giving another website that is not peer reviewed - REGARDLESS of the title of the owner of that website -- is insufficient under any means.

How do you know it's not been peer reviewed. The majority of stuff referred to on this forum is giiven with no proof of being peer reviewed. If that is what you require I'll do my best.

The theory you propose was shown to be crap. Bringing forth the people who still believe in that theory only serves to showcase who believes in crap, not to give more credence to the theory.

No it wasn't actually.

Now, do you have anything SUBSTANTIAL and SCIENTIFIC to add, or are we going to continue down this path where you refuse to go by the scientific method and we go 'round and 'round and 'round 'till there's nothing left to rant about?

Who's ranting?

Your choice. I recommend that before you answer, you go over the rules of the forum, and remind you that this isn't your personal website or blog, it is a community science forum. We go by the scientific method and a scientific methodology, not by who has the most sites written by a bigger title.

I am quite sure Dr. Maxlow does too. He claims to have obtained a PhD in geology.

No, he is not. He is a professional crackpot, and he is quite serious about it.

How do you know that? Or is this just your opinion?

This thread is a year old. Was it really worth revisiting it after so much time just to say that?

I was just perusing old threads and noticed a comment that I had not replied to. That's all.

The ideal form of government is AntiAmericanism. It doesn't really have any specific political philosophy behind it other than, on every possible issue, always taking the exact opposite stance of the United States.

If you say so. It wasn't what I said though.

OK, well a number of issues seem to have been addressed - thank you.

I don't think it's worth refering to that website any more as using a crank's website is not going to help.

Instead, maybe you'd like to have a look at this website.

http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/

It's Dr, James Maxlow's site. He is a professional geologist and a serious scientist. An extract to whet your appetite is shown below:

The Plate Tectonic interpretation of global data, for instance, is based on the fundamental premise that the Earths radius has remained constant, or near constant, throughout history. As will be outlined in this paper, this contrasts with an Expansion Tectonic interpretation of the same global data which is based on the fundamental premise that the Earths radius has been steadily increasing throughout Earth history.

It should be appreciated from this statement that all modern and historical global data used to substantiate both Plate Tectonic and Expansion Tectonic theories are, in fact, identical. The only reason why Plate Tectonic theory won acceptance 50 years ago was because debate on whether or not Earths radius does or does not change with time was largely hypothetical – since it couldn’t be convincingly verified or measured.

Also:

Space geodetics is modern technology that uses satellites and radio telescopes to routinely measure the dimensions of the Earth and plate motions of the continents to sub-centimetre accuracy. During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were established to form a global network, the global excess in radius was found to be 18 mm/year – i.e. the measurements showed that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year.

Why "of course?"

Well, I have read a lot about other coups in South America.

As soon as I heard about it I guessed the general situation, and it only took the most limited of research to find out that my instincts were correct.

I could smell it a mile off.