Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bombus

  1. Indeed - I concur! Also, an interesting fact - in biomass terms there is more cow on the planet than human. I think there may also be more wheat than either! Also also, the 'evolutionary' value of intelligence has yet to be determined! It could be a bad idea for the long term.
  2. Firstly, just gotta say - Ophiolite, you have just provided us with an example of excellent Forum moderation and management! Secondly, just to be clear, EET is not a pet theory of mine, and I would actually be relieved for it to be proven false and for PTT to be proven as fact. However, I am skeptically open-minded, and enough doubts about PTT have been raised for me to question this (recently adopted) paradigm. If we are to question PTT I consider it also worth revisiting EET, as it was not (from what I have been able to ascertain) proven false so much as abandoned due to it being considered implausible, especially so once PTT became widely accepted. I am not so much arguing that EET is right and PTT wrong, more that both may still be valid and require further research. In this thread I don't wish to discuss EET as it gets nowhere fast (as Ophiolite has pointed out). I would rather concentrate on doubts concerning the PTT. Do they point to real serious holes in the PTT? Thirdly, if David Pratt is a crank - and he might well be - it doesn't affect his arguments if what he saying is correct. Even idiots can ask very good questions. Shall we start with the issues concerning moving plates and subduction as described above? As an example of some of the issues, can anyone explain what is happening around Antartica? We can see the rifts, these are well known. We can also see which direction the oceanic plates are spreading. Where are the subduction zones around Antartica and how can all this oceanic plate squeeze into a smaller area than the rifts themselves?
  3. As an EET thread has been banned, i will, on the advice of a moderator, approach the issue from the other direction. Now this site can explain issues with plate tectonics far better than me (if you are interested, please see below). http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/lowman.htm#su Do we have something worth investigating?
  4. 0.8% seems quite a lot to me! Can you prove this? How old are you? No. That you be open minded. You CLEARLY have not even bothered to read up on the subject. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedTry here instead http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6520/GETtext.html#Contents
  5. He uses data already in existence from geologists, i.e., the ages of the areas of crust. 'Some' subduction probably does occur IMO, but the issue is really whether the entire plate slips underneath a continental plate over time, or whether most of the plate expansion results in earth expansion. EET would not necessarily affect the examples you point out. Ok well if that is the case maybe it can be scrubbed. It is much speculated by 'normal' geologists that the Earth does indeed have a nuclear reaction occuring at the core which 'powers' plate tectonics. see here:http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/1.htm and scroll down a bit. Not wrong - I am not trying to disprove that plate tectonic theory could result in these effects, merely that EET could have the same. Yes, there would have been even with EET, but they would have been smaller seas. Warm shallow seas in fact. Now now, no need to be rude Yes but this does not disprove EET as the fossils are on continental plates - which actually fits nicely with EET. Yes, just as EET would predict. These examples you give would occur with both EET and the current paradigm. Ahem. I don't think I have claimed anything of the sort. ------------------- So suppose 'A' levels in Physical Geography and Biology, plus a 1st Class Honours degree in Applied Ecology doesn't count? I know my stuff thank-you. That is why I know that EET should be considered and not laughed out of court. Well actually you have not, as my replies demonstrate Yes I have - and the data equally fits EET! That's the point! The twe theories do not differ much at all. That;s why EET was given a lot of credence once upon a time. It was the lack of belief that the earth could be expanding, plus a lack of a mechanism that resulted in the formation of the current theory. But actually the current theory is more complex. The only prediction I would guess is simply that the Earth is expanding. That's it. Unfortunately the rate of expansion is so slow that it is unlikely to be detected anytime soon. By the way, what is a 'pre-made excuse'? Is that the same as an answer? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOphiolite Thanks for your post. I hope this thread does continue as I'd like to know your thoughts on the EET. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That's a bit unfair! I am simply trying to point out that EET should be investigated further rather than simply being dismissed by those without the patience to look into it. The following is a link to a site. It answers just about all of the questions raised so far in this post. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/1.htm also here is a site by Dr. James Maxlow a geologist and proponent of EET http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6520/GETtext.html#Contents
  6. They seem to. Well he claims they are based on the data. Why would he make this up? It could so easily be disproved. He's not stupid. There IS NOT that much evidence for plate tectonics. There really isn't! I studied geology and know that it is FAR from being proven beyond all doubt. Expansion of the universe. Suns expand before they collapse. Maybe planets are just 'suns with crusts'. We aint been around long enough to know. How do you explain the expansion of the other moons in the solar system? Like I said, I can hear these words coming out the mouths of those that criticized wegener - and are now thought to be wrong. Open your minds people! Accepted scientific theories are often wrong - no need to take it personally you know:-) I have watched those vids, and the FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. The 'evidence' is plain to see. What is your explanation for the Europa and Ganemede expansion? That ain't camera tricks! Something is happening and needs explaining. It sounds to me that people just refuse to take it seriously as a proposal right from the start. That is unscientific. The ONLY reason it was not accepted as the paradigm is because people refused to beleive that the earth could be expanding - because they couldn't come up with a mechanism. It actually fits the data better than PT! Even ID gets a fairer hearing. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, you are right. That is my main issue. What a daft reason to reject a theory IMHO! If the facts fit EET then a mechanism can be investigated. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Darwin had no mechanism for Natural Selection - that is - he did not know how characteristics were passed from one generation to the next. A lack of a mechanism is very weak reason for not considering the evidence. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged It doesn't actually prove plate tectonics at all, and the evidence actually better fits EET. Sea fossils on Mt everest prove that it was once a sea bed. Yes but maybe pangea encompassed the entire earth and the seas were shallow and warm. How would we know? The oldest oceanic plates are only around 180 milion years old. Yup - from CONTINENTAL ROCKS! The water would have still been around, on top of what is now continental crust. Dear oh dear, you haven't actually read up on EET have you!! This is a good point - but maybe there was less water on Earth then. As said above, it doesn't. The fossil record would not prove it either way.
  7. OK, let me be clearer. I am not saying I believe in the theory. I am, however, saying that the thing we should worry about LEAST is the explanation for a mechanism. That can come later! The impoortant issue is whether a 'shrunken' earth lets the continents fit together perfectly. I.e., is the film in the link below based on computer models (that are based on scientific facts) or simply a 'fictional' animation. If they are based on facts (e.g. expansion rates of the oceanic plates etc) then I would suggest that we have a bit of problem, as it fits better than the current paradigm. Look at the links below and get back to me with your thoughts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fcc3Simcoo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m10UA3u6qiY&feature=related you gotta admit, even if it's wrong, it's put across very well. Also this: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6520/
  8. Can you point me to proof of that? I ask as I have seen computer animated simulations that suggest it is true. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged 1. That if the supposed expansion of the earth is run backwards all the continents match up more or less exactly. 2. The above would test the theory. 3. The above being proven false would falsify the proposal.
  9. I thought everyone knew about the communist party question!
  10. Well, allegedly, if one runs the sequence of plate expansion backwards (something which can be done as we know the ages of the oceanic crust and the rates of expansion) the continents of the earth join up exactly. Not just America fitting with Africa/Europe, but fitting North/South too. If this is true, can that really be coincidence? If it is not true, well, that's the end of the argument, but if it is true we can't seriously ignore this becasue we can't come up with a mechanism. That would be silly. I find it amusing that people can be so certain of things being wrong. I imagine the same types of people in another time mocking Wegener, Einstein, Darwin et al... Be careful! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Darwin had no idea about the mechanism of inheritance (genes) but figured that it was happening based on the circumstantial evidence - even though he could not explain how. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged But human timescales are tiny! We ain't been around long enough to notice! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged
  11. Well that's not quite true. Newton was not really 'wrong'. Newtonian physics still works perfectly well in most scenarios and applications. Even rocket science is mostly Newtonian physics (relativity tends to only play a significant part when huge distances, or very high speeds are involved). Similarly, I doubt Einstein will ever be thought of as wrong, but new discoveries might modify his theories.
  12. OK, but if the gravity is so strong, how come magma can't wait to come to the surface when the crust splits? I am still not convinced... Is it not conceivable that the earth is hollowing out - or becoming less dense at its core, as a result of gravity being weakest at the core and strongest at the surface plus the spin of the Earth, plus possibly the gravitational pull of the moon? The trouble is the evidence better fits earth expansion than continental drift. Is it really only the mechanism that is the missing part of the equation? If so, rather than dismiss the proposition, we should be investigating possible mechanisms - IMHO! Can you think of any?
  13. I concur! Who cares! Ian M Banks stuff are full of pseudo-science but still a great read! Just make sure you are vague enough about the details to be plausible...
  14. I didn't know that. Glad he was let in eventually.
  15. Rubbish! Where else would someone post this simple question? Maybe the theory my link leads to can be discussed in speculations and pseudo-science, but this is a perfectly valid place to ask the question. I don't appreciate the warning I recieved either. My answer was strictly ON TOPIC!!! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Not me, Dr Khan...
  16. Yes. Soundly criticized on this forum - perhaps too rashly? http://www.timephysics.com/
  17. Einstein was not wrong. He was undoubtedly correct. However, new discoveries could modify his theories, or at least put them into a new context, much as Einstein's theories did to Newton's (who was not 'wrong' per se!) I personally think the next revolution in science will come from the study of consciousness and may put everything in a very different context indeed - but that's just speculation:-)
  18. Not so sure. Cat Stevens wasn't allowed into the US a couple of years ago, basically coz he now has a 'muslim' name. Now THAT really can't be justified.
  19. No, that is incorrect - think... Time slows in a gravity field or when one is moving. Time is subjective. I think this was one of the things Einstein proved - something to do with two observers seeing the same event but having different observations due to time differences... Time to get out my book 'Einstein for the layman' again!
  20. Is not gravity just due to the effect of matter curving space and slowing time (actually the same thing)? There is no anti gravity so you can't go back in time, just like you can't move negatively...or am I mistaken.
  21. This is a common accusation and IMHO an excuse by some to reject green principles. The truth is that capitalism and green issues can rarely live side by side. The pursuit of profit whatever the cost to society or the environment is what unregulated capitalism ends up being, so the idea that (god forbid) some things are more important than profit and need protecting by regulation appear to be 'socialist' - and I suppose in a way they are. Traditional socialism is not really any greener than capitalism but green and red seem to be coming together these days, which is good news for the environment. I agree with that, but it doesn't mean there can't be any regulation and limits to private profit. It's not an all or nothing situation. Agreed, but that doesn't mean we should be complacent and let them get away with it if its damaging to society and the environment!
  22. Funny how creationists trust the scientific process that provides them with computers to talk nonsense on forums, but don't trust the same scientific process that comes up with evolution by natural selection.
  23. I agree with the principle of the EU, but not the practice. It's becoming a 'playground for capitalists' and the result is the part privatisation of our postal service - if not ultimately the NHS. However, due to the fact that many interests are represented by the EU Parliament, the Greens and the Left can (and do) have a big influence. E.g. Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive, etc. So, I agree with the creation and purpose of the EU, but not with its current direction.
  24. Wow, good post JohnB! I recently half watched (I had to wrote a report so didn't see it all) a documentary about the US healthcare system on UK TV. I must say, I was appalled. In one case it appeared that a young woman with cancer couldn't get treatment because she didn't have medical insurance (she was too poor to afford it - living in a trailer etc). Does that really happen in the US? I missed the ending so maybe everything was OK and the documentary was just trying to up the drama! If such things do happen, how can the richest nation on earth justify that sort of behaviour? One might as well be poor and ill in a third world country. Apparently Cuba, despite it's poverty, has one of the best health systems in the world, basically because the Government thinks that healthcare is a fundamental right and takes top priority. I know that the British NHS and Cuban 'NHS' have collaborated on research projects. The British NHS has also been asking how can Cuba give such good healthcare for just £7 per head in 2000 (!?). The article below is worth a look. It reckons Cuba has as many Doctors as the UK but with a fifth of the population! http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2000/oct/02/NHS.futureofthenhs
  25. The following short excerpt comes from democracyandsocialism.com. Interesting reading: The first ever American Human Development Report launched on July 17, 2008, by Oxfam America, finds that although the US spends more per capita on health care than any other nation in the world (5.2 billion dollar daily), its citizens live shorter lives than citizens of virtually every western European and Nordic countries. The US has a higher percentage of children living in poverty than any of the world’s richest countries. The US ranked 34th in the survival of infants to age. There are huge gaps in living standards and quality of life among different US states. The US ranked 42nd in global life expectancy. Some Americans are living anywhere from 30 to 50 years behind others when it comes to issues we all care about: health, education and standard of living. Suicide and murder are among the top 15 causes of death in the US. Although the US has 5% of the global population, it contains 24 % of the world’s prisoners. The report concludes that even though the US is one of the most powerful and rich nations in the world, it is woefully behind when it comes to providing opportunity and choices to all Americans to build a better life. Despite an almost cult-like devotion to the belief that unfettered free enterprise is the best way to lift Americans out of poverty, the report points to a rigged system that does little to lessen inequalities. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That's a good'un!
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.