Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by bombus

  1. 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?


  2. You missed a key reference, Ophiolite.


    M.W. McEhinny, S.R. Tayor, D.J. Stevenson (1978) Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant, Nature 271, 316-321.

    New estimates of the palaeoradius of the Earth for the past 400 Myr from palaeomagnetic data limit possible expansion to less than 0.8%, sufficient to exclude any current theory of Earth expansion.


    bombus: You need to refute this paper.


    0.8% seems quite a lot to me!


    Correction: Adams cherry picks data already in existence. He uses only data can be contorted in a way the bolsters his conjecture. Data that contradicts hist conjecture ((e.g. the Burgess shales, subduction) don't exist.


    Can you prove this?


    Bzzzt, wrong. We do not like fallacies at this site. You are intentionally conflating fusion and fission here. 'Normal' geologists post nuclear fission, not fusion, in the inner core of the planet.


    How old are you?



    EET has been investigated and has been falsified. It's proponents are mostly cranks, religious nuts, and comic book artists.

    There also exists a tiny, tiny handful of scientists who ascribe to this failed conjecture. Guess what? That is true of any breakthrough theory. It takes a long time to become proficient in a field of science. This can make scientists who invested their entire career in a falsified concept forget they are supposed to be scientists. This happens all the time.



    There is no mechanism for EET that doesn't break the laws of physics, there is tons of evidence against it, and there is no evidence for it that isn't explained by the prevailing theory. EET has had its day, and it failed. There is a difference between being open minded and being stupid. You are demanding that we be stupid.


    No. That you be open minded. You CLEARLY have not even bothered to read up on the subject.

    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged

    Try here instead http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6520/GETtext.html#Contents

  3. If he doesn't show the data, then he's a fraud. That's how science works - you report your data.


    He uses data already in existence from geologists, i.e., the ages of the areas of crust.

    Is it too late for a refund on those classes? Because I'm fairly sure "we've watched it happen" counts as 'proven'.


    Also, what about Earthquakes? Plate Tectonics predicts that they happen, where they happen, and how often. Expanding Earth predicts that earthquakes are impossible, yet they happen.


    '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.




    1) if it was space itself expanding, the frame of reference would expand too, yielding no change in perceived shape.


    Ok well if that is the case maybe it can be scrubbed.


    2) If planets expanded like stars, they'd have fusion in their core, and thus gasseous cores. We KNOW from seismic density readings that this is not the case.


    It is much speculated by 'normal' geologists that the Earth does indeed have a nuclear reaction occuring at the core which 'powers' plate tectonics.


    3) No other moon or planet is expanding. Bullshit. Show me evidence.


    see here:http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/1.htm and scroll down a bit.


    Wrong. Geological uplift is also predicted by plate tectonics.


    Not wrong - I am not trying to disprove that plate tectonic theory could result in these effects, merely that EET could have the same.




    Then why can we trace the edges of pangaea's coastline by the boundary of marine vs terrestrial fossils? That means there were seas at the edges, not in the middle.


    Yes, there would have been even with EET, but they would have been smaller seas. Warm shallow seas in fact.


    Or maybe you think coral lives on land, and trees live underwater?

    Now now, no need to be rude



    Geological uplift. We have marine fossils going back over 3 billion years. I've dug fossils out of the ground in Cincinnati that showed marine organisms over 450 million years old.


    Face it, you're WRONG.

    Yes but this does not disprove EET as the fossils are on continental plates - which actually fits nicely with EET.


    So trees and rats live on the bottom of the ocean? Because we have terrestrial fossils from all over pangaea, including things that cannot live underwater.


    Yes, just as EET would predict. These examples you give would occur with both EET and the current paradigm.


    You claim we refuse to see evidence. You're the one claiming palm trees lived 1000 feet under the sea.


    Ahem. I don't think I have claimed anything of the sort.











    Ok, this is getting assinine. You clearly don't have the slightest clue about geology, paleontology, biology, physics, biogeography, or how science works in general.


    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.


    We have presented you with HEAPS of data that your theory cannot explain, or that flatly contradicts your theory. Instead of actually thinking about this, you either ignore these points, whine about persecution, or present a hand-waving explanation that defies all known laws of physics.


    Well actually you have not, as my replies demonstrate


    Stop and *think* about Expanding Earth Theory. Think about all the things this theory predicts about geology, paleontology, biogeography. Think about how such a world would work. Don't look at reality - just extrapolate, based on your idea.


    Yes I have - and the data equally fits EET! That's the point!


    Now find a prediction of EET, one that DIFFERS from PT. For instance, EET predicts that plate material should never be lost/subducted, while PT predicts that it does. Or that EET predicts there should either be no coastal ecosystemson Pangaea or (if water was on top) that the coastlines should not match with modern coasts at all, while PT predicts that coastal ecosystems would have occured at the edges of Pangaea and those should align with modern coasts, give or take a bit due to sea level change.


    Give a prediction in which the two DIFFER. For which we can test the predictions, and for which you DO NOT ALREADY HAVE A PRE-MADE EXCUSE.


    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 merged



    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
    This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch.


    The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open.


    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.




    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

  4. First of, people already answered you -- if you "shrink" the Earth, the continents will fit one another to form a single continent (just like plate tectonics, that is actually proven by other facts). The continents will *NOT* cover the entire earth.


    They seem to.


    Second, those videos by Neal Adams are *NOT* based on actual data, they're based on his own imaginative hypothesis that has absolutely NO support in reality.


    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.


    So, to summarize, we have a "mechanism" that doesn't disprove the current theory. However, the current theory is proven by countless evidence (just read the entire thread, you'll see some, plus look up the forum for similar threads, unfortunately we had a few).


    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.


    Not only that, but "earth expansion" raises more problems than it's worth (what's the MECHANISM FOR EXPANSION? did the Earth eat beans? -- is merely a silly representation of only one of them).


    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?


    So one theory is utter ridiculous antiscientific crap by a cartoonist that doesn't want to actually relate to factual data, and one theory has evidence from multiple fields, predictability and support.


    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.



    Plate tectonics, however, is one of those theories that have so much support to them, so much overwhelming evidence, so much repeated support by outside fields, that it will take *QUITE* a competing theory to replace it.


    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
    I think it's worth mentioning that no one has ever found a mechanism for this expansion over the last 150+ years. It was rejected for that very reason too :rolleyes:.

    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
    A mechanism is actually required to take this seriously, as we already have something that fits the available data AND has a mechanism, so you need new data that fits the shrinking earth better AND a mechanism, else the existing theory still wins.


    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
    I can't believe I forgot one of the best refutations: fossils.


    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.


    We know when Pangaea occured (about 250 million years ago) based not just on geological evidence, but also on fossil evidence, namely the type and distribution of fossils.


    Yes but maybe pangea encompassed the entire earth and the seas were shallow and warm.


    Contrary to those videos, there was NO period in which there was no ocean, as evidenced by unambiguously marine organisms in very large areas.


    How would we know? The oldest oceanic plates are only around 180 milion years old.


    Furthermore, we know of unambiguously marine fossils prior to Pangaea, in some cases predating it by hundreds of millions of years.




    On top of that, it's pretty much certain that life itself originated in the water, and indeed, there are NO terrestrial mulitcellular fossils until about 450 million years ago.


    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!!:)


    Of course, if the water was already there, it would have been so deep it covered the whole world, meaning terrestrial life could not have begun until well after Pangaea, which is clearly false as well.


    This is a good point - but maybe there was less water on Earth then.



    The fossil record proves this theory wrong, and there's no way around it.


    As said above, it doesn't. The fossil record would not prove it either way.

  5. 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:





    you gotta admit, even if it's wrong, it's put across very well.


    Also this:




  6. Ok: It's not true.


    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
    Ok, this is getting assinine. Time for hardcore science:


    Bombus, you have a hypothesis. In order for it to be even remotely useful, it must make predictions about the natural world, predictions we can test. The hypothesis must also have a criterion for falsification - some piece of data which could not possibly occur if your hypothesis is right, thus if we find it, the hypothesis is wrong. These are the entire basis of science.


    1) What are your predictions? And how do they differ from the predictions of plate tectonics?


    2) What would test your theory? What experiment or study could be done that would yield different results if your hypothesis is true vs if plate tectonics is true?


    3) What would falsify your hypothesis?


    Without good answers to all 3 of the above, we're wasting time on pseudoscience. If it cannot make predictions, or the predictions cannot be tested, or there is no criterion for falsification, it simply isn't science.


    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.

  7. 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
    If there are no possible mechanisms, then a theory is worthless speculation.


    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
    However, that's already happened - seismology proves you wrong. If the earth were expanding, it would be hollowing out, yet seismic waves traveling through the center of the earth show *no* evidence of a drop in density due to any sort of 'hollow'.


    But human timescales are tiny! We ain't been around long enough to notice!

    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
  8. Hi bombus, I do not think you can prove any theory once and for good. You can have 100's of "proofs" to support a theory, but if you find one experiment which disagree with it, your theory is wrong.


    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.

  9. 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?

  10. Your time machine is just a plot device which allows you to tell the characters' stories. There's no particular need for it to be explained in any great detail.


    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...

  11. That's not why Cat Stevens wasn't allowed into the US, bombus. He was accused of giving money to Hamas, and later cleared and admitted to the country.


    I didn't know that. Glad he was let in eventually.

  12. If you are soliciting alternative explanations this should be asked in the Speculations forum. Otherwise, the responses should reflect mainstream physics


    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
    Yes there is, as mentioned above, space-time is nicely related in general relativity. The expansion of the universe can also be included in that, but as the expansion rate is increasing it is clear we are missing some bit of physics...

    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged



    If it was too rashly you would have been able to defend is suitably well.


    Not me, Dr Khan...

  13. 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:-)


    I don't think we can do this in America. We would have to reject some "category" of person, and then include some kind of criteria that puts someone like Savage in that category. We can't just pick on a single individual, or a list of folks our government doesn't like, unless of course they're guilty of some sort of crime or would be crime in our country. At least I think that's true.


    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.

  15. If the universe only exists "now" everything in it must experence the same "now".


    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!

  16. I'm also very skeptical of Green parties as they just seem to be cloaked socialists, and are more concerned like other statists of finding reasons to increase state power than consider other ways and approaches to tackle enviromental problems.


    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 think a lot of ideas can be good in principle, but they are inherently flawed because they fail to account for human incentive problems.

    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.


    And with your comment about capitalists: If you have a state that can and does interfere in a market system it's only rational for capitalists to try and use it for their own benefit. What's more, the ones who do this would survive. Blaming our current problems on greed is like blaming an airplane crash on gravity.


    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!:)

  17. Despite the fact I see this as a kind of grand excercise in futility, I've registered to vote, and will probably vote for anybody that will get the UK out of the EU, because I see it as nothing more than a racket.


    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.

  18. 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!



  19. 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
    Our current system is as socialist in-effect as the NHS, well, for the ones that can afford it that is.


    That's a good'un!

  20. WAS IT FREE?. Who paid for those Doctors/Surgeons Educations, the Hospitals or the high tech equipment in the. Who paid for your office calls, medications, your hospital stay and no doubt some cost while recovering?


    If Good Health is a right, then doing anything not considered healthy should be a criminal offense. Playing some sport (you might get injured), driving a car (might be involved in an accident), working (pick a problem) eating/drinking (pick the product) over indulging per your personal physical structure. Top this off with parental responsibility who should have aborted you, knowing some genetic combination might have given a 10% possibility of this or that. Your health issues are personal and the responsibility should be yours (once 18 or so) to get the best of what you were born with, in the world you live in...



    Of course it's not FREE (hence my use of inverted commas), but I didn't have to actually pay for it myself at the point of delivery. Everyone in the UK pays National Insurance, essentially a tax paid direct to the government to fund the National Health System, welfare payments and govt. pension.


    For most of us it works out far cheaper than private medical insurance - basically because the NHS is run not-for-profit. As a proportional tax the richer one is the more one contributes so it takes into account ability to pay (even people on welfare contribute). Despite some problems, it really is a fantastic system. Whether you have an ingrowing toenail or cancer, all treatment is 'free'.


    Re personal responsibility, there are debates about this (should smokers get treatment for lung cancer, or fat people get heart operations etc) but one thing it does do is encourage the government to look at ways of encouraging people to lead healthier lives. It doesn't stretch as far as encouraging people to stop people playing sports or enjoying their lives though!

  • 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.