Hi Grey Cloud and Lloyd,
Grey Cloud wrote: Lloyd wrote:
Sketch, get out of here with the declining gravity, big bang, expanding Earth etc bullony. Take that stuff to the appropriate boring threads.
Or at least just provide a link and stop this constant thread-spamming with walls of text.
Sorry, if I'm giving the wrong impression here.... must be raining up there... down here the sun is shining, and I'm having fun discussing some ideas, not only my own, but stuff I've seen here...
I thought my last post was reasonably logical
I've read of an impact much further south that was the theoretical source of those tectites
"The scientists investigated sets of dunes located along the southern coast of Madagascar. These V-shaped dunes are often nested together like the chevron stripes on a military uniform — the largest of these dunes rise up to about 600 feet (185 m) above sea level and are more than 25 miles (40 kilometers) long.
http://www.livescience.com/53352-monste ... dunes.html
I looked at the Shock Dynamics site, was not convinced, and showed why with a quote and two links
One to the Burckle crater, and one to the two impacts in the Gulf of Carpentaria with the reasons they might be the real sources for the tectites...
Then I provided links to three maps to show the sea floor spreading marks and rock age
People can look at these maps and see if they fit the Shock Dynamics or Expanding Earth, or 'standard' Plate Tectonics better, we're discussing three models, rationally I hope, so we can compare them and decide which fits the observable evidence best? Isn't that what science is about?
sketch1946 wrote: In 1937 Dirac published his Large Number Hypothesis, reasoning that the near equality between the electro/gravitational force ratio and the Hubble/subatomic size ratio must be more than a coincidence. He hypothesized that G should vary inversely with Hubble radius R. A lot of people like this idea, including me.
Then I defended Jordan's theory and provided some reasons to doubt the physical constants are really constants, and provided links
I understand some people don't like lots of text, but maybe others do...
If people don't like long posts, they can simply not read them.
The reason some posts are longish is if someone is interested, they can read the most pertinent info quickly without having to follow a link
To overcome long patches of text, I usually separate the meaty bits into simpler sentences or paragraphs to let people absorb one idea at a time,
some people just glaze over at a long block of text without pictures...
and sometimes the interesting info is buried deep in documents, so I have to read quite a lot sometimes to find what may be relevant to the point I'm making.
If I select the meat from a paper or article, I am saving people time, allowing people to read some pertinent information quickly,
***if they want to.
I think it's quicker and easier to have a long post, than to have a one-liner which requires sending someone looking through a whole bunch of information which may or may not be immediately relevant, I try to provide the link after the quoted snippets, so people can check out the full text of the quoted link as they feel necessary.
For example, that open letter about challenging some basic assumptions was long, but nowhere near as long as the whole web page... the letter I posted was 3043 words long, at approx 1000 words per page, approx 3 pages, the average science paper is between 6 to 14 pages or longer...
The reason I posted the full letter was it was an organic whole, and interesting for its relevance to this thread...
the source web page had all sorts of irrelevant comments and even some quite nasty ones... I posted just a subset of all the words on the page which comprised the full letter from Mr Ostrovskii.
If the whole purpose of this forum is to discuss catastrophism, and possible implications and to test different models, what is not relevant here?
Lloyd wrote:Sketch, get out of here with the declining gravity, big bang, expanding Earth etc
Making a point about shooing away someone with an odd idea, isn't that what mainstream academia does to alternative theories and the people who propose them, like Wegener, Velikovsky, Robitaille et al? Surely we are more tolerant and open minded?:
Mainstream chookyard - Wegener:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... 1jDDSPG.99
"German geologists piled on, too, scorning what they called Wegener’s “delirious ravings” and other symptoms of “moving crust disease and wandering pole plague.”
The British ridiculed him for distorting the continents to make them fit and, more damningly, for not describing a credible mechanism powerful enough to move continents.
At a Royal Geographical Society meeting, an audience member thanked the speaker for having blown Wegener’s theory to bits—then thanked the absent “Professor Wegener for offering himself for the explosion.”
"But it was the Americans who came down hardest against continental drift.
A paleontologist called it “Germanic pseudo-science” and accused Wegener of toying with the evidence to spin himself into “a state of auto-intoxication.”
Wegener’s lack of geological credentials troubled another critic, who declared that it was “wrong for a stranger to the facts he handles to generalize from them.”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/pop ... ation.html
"When should a theory be ranked as scientific?" or "Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory?"
"The problem which troubled me at the time was neither, "When is a theory true?" nor "When is a theory acceptable?" my problem was different. I wished to distinguish between science and pseudo-science; knowing very well that science often errs, and that pseudoscience may happen to stumble on the truth."
" Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")"
"One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability."
Why did I bring up Dirac/Pascual Jordan again?
As I stated before, I needed to correct a false statement about Jordan's Expanding Earth theory that was on the front page of the Shock Dynamics home page, which claimed:
"Expanding Earth - Offers only generalizations. Precise measurements show Earth is not expanding. Cannot explain Himalayas or ocean trenches (Marianas and Tonga). Some of its continental motion does not follow transform faults, as with Australia. No rational source for new additions to Earth's mass, inside Earth!"
Jordan's Expanding Earth Theory offers quantitative analysis with equations, and a full explanation and scientific analysis. The claim about not 'following tranform faults' has no application to anything that I know of in the Expanding Earth hypothesis, if it means the visible stretch marks in the ocean floor maps, then by default they show how the earth has moved. They do *not show radial expansion from north of Madagascar.
The discussion about precise measurements, and how distance is not measured by reference to the speed of light, is relevant to the claim that measurements have and will be changed, and the expansion will be undetectable unless specifically looked for.. it's a fact that satellite technology led to a need to reinvent the measures of space and time.
The cosmic expansion of the entire universe then the special 'inflation' proposed by the Big Bang is even more radical than challenging the constant G or universal coefficient of gravity.
Neither Dirac nor Jordan propose new mass! Other EE theories do, but that's not relevant to my argument.