PleaseReadThis wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-monkeys-idUSKCN0XH2G9

EE does not require us to believe that a breeding pair of monkeys rafted 100 miles in open ocean 21 million years ago!

It seems to require a delusion that people can just make up basic laws of physics as they see fit, regardless of the lack of either evidence or theoretical foundations.

Gord wrote:
Floating monkeys? Expanding Earths? I think the truth is so obvious that most of you have failed to see it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SESI19h4wDo

Oh please, i think this takes matters too far, but a joke is also required ...for what the minds eye cannot see (unknown/undecided physics) is half virtuous, but also half folly to our great gift of observable deduction. What we can see and observe in geology.

Solve the mass-energy paradox and I'll believe you.

Hardcoreathiest wrote:

Gord wrote:
Floating monkeys? Expanding Earths? I think the truth is so obvious that most of you have failed to see it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SESI19h4wDo

Oh please, i think this takes matters too far, but a joke is also required ...for what the minds eye cannot see (unknown/undecided physics) is half virtuous, but also half folly to our great gift of observable deduction. What we can see and observe in geology.

observable deduction???

So because we can follow the train of thought this has some barring on the accuracy of the deductions???

I think I'll stick with observable reality where the continents don't look like they wind back to a sphere, subduction is observed and most importantly no significant change in earth mass or radius can be detected over the past three and a half to four billion years by any proxy.

tolman wrote:It seems to require a delusion that people can just make up basic laws of physics as they see fit, regardless of the lack of either evidence or theoretical foundations.

THWOTH wrote:Solve the mass-energy paradox and I'll believe you.

It was solved in 1931 by Sauter : create an electric field with strength 1.3 E 18 N/C and the field will allow virtual particles to become real, hence free mass-energy from nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwinger_limit

To create such a strong electric field has been beyound mankind's ability so far, but it continues to be a motivation for research into high power lasers, and we are getting close.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4306

Expect it to be realized within the next 15 years.

The Max Planck institute have a research team working on this.
https://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/keitel/dipiazza/

>delusion
the only delusion here is the dogmatic adherence to the 'god created the universe' aka bigbang meme. Proposed by a clergyman and shrouded in mathematics, it doesn't fool anyone properly trained in physics and critical thinking. Only a fool would abide it and dismiss alternatives without consideration.

The universe is full of mass-energy, therefore physics should include a repeatable way to create mass-energy, and not palm off creation as outside the scope of physics, declaring it to be the exclusive domain of god.

I'm glad to see teams of scientists at the world's top universities and posting in the top journals are working on non conservative electric fields.

There's a fair chance the sun's corona is a non-conservative electric field, creating new mass-energy in the form of the solar wind.

kano wrote:

tolman wrote:It seems to require a delusion that people can just make up basic laws of physics as they see fit, regardless of the lack of either evidence or theoretical foundations.

THWOTH wrote:Solve the mass-energy paradox and I'll believe you.

It was solved in 1931 by Sauter : create an electric field with strength 1.3 E 18 N/C and the field will allow virtual particles to become real, hence free mass-energy from nothing..

Well, when the queue of know--nothing losers in front of you trying to revolutionise science dwindles to nothing, be sure to give us a call.

Though I have a sneaking suspicion that their ranks will mysteriously be maintained indefinitely by more of them materialising out of a giant cosmic wormarsehole.

kano wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Solve the mass-energy paradox and I'll believe you.

It was solved in 1931 by Sauter : create an electric field with strength 1.3 E 18 N/C and the field will allow virtual particles to become real, hence free mass-energy from nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwinger_limit

To create such a strong electric field has been beyound mankind's ability so far, but it continues to be a motivation for research into high power lasers, and we are getting close.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4306

Expect it to be realized within the next 15 years.

The Max Planck institute have a research team working on this.
https://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/keitel/dipiazza/

Fail. QED in a vacuum does not solve the mass-energy paradox or say anything about how the additional matter needed for an expanding Earth come about. Grasping at straws all the way down.

Fail. QED in a vacuum does not solve the mass-energy paradox or say anything about how the additional matter needed for an expanding Earth come about. Grasping at straws all the way down.

Thats because The Mass Energy Paradox is a term you've pulled out of your arse. It isn't used in physics, or found on google, or google scholar. Nobody knows wtf you are talking about. All I could do was assume you were still crying over the increasing mass of the Earth, and had cooked up a name for it to make it sound grand, and make yourself sound like a scientist.

QED in a vacuum does not solve the mass-energy paradox or say anything about how the additional matter needed for an expanding Earth come about.

On the contrary, since its the only method of mass-energy creation that QED yields, we can assert by deduction its how the Earth is gaining mass.
Its by no accident or laziness on your part that all you can do is flat contradiction of the truth. No one has yet found a way to destroy Sauter's reason.



Write your rational out properly and you would destroy a theory that has survived 85 years of theoretical attack. Thats why top teams today are working towards creating a non-conservative field to test Sauter with experiment.

kano wrote:
Thats because The Mass Energy Paradox is a term you've pulled out of your arse. It isn't used in physics, or found on google, or google scholar.

It all depends on whether you understand the mass-energy equivalence. It takes the LHC and the electrical requirements of a small city (or maybe even a large one) to produce a few trillionths of a nanogram of very-short lived mass-bearing particles at energies of a hundred GeV or so. So don't tell us about pulling things out of our arses, unless you know of a sure-fire way to create enough mass to separate the continents on the surface of a spheroid the size of the earth. The crap that you and the rest of the expanders are spouting is a heavily-disguised creationist screed. The mass-energy paradox is the fact that it is much easier to turn small amounts of matter into large amounts of energy than the reverse, which requires colliding individual subatomic particles at velocities near that of light.

kano wrote:
It was solved in 1931 by Sauter : create an electric field with strength 1.3 E 18 N/C and the field will allow virtual particles to become real, hence free mass-energy from nothing.

What, by harnessing the electrical requirements of a small village to create... What? Continent-sized piles of rubbish the expanders are generating? Yep it takes a village, and there's always a village idiot to go along for the ride.

Cito di Pense wrote:It all depends on whether you understand the mass-energy equivalence.

No it doesn't.

It takes the LHC and the electrical requirements of a small city (or maybe even a large one) to produce a few trillionths of a nanogram of very-short lived mass-bearing particles at energies of a hundred GeV or so.

So what? the LHC is a piece of junk, designed to waste money and brains. Its results have little significance for growing earth theory.

So don't tell us about pulling things out of our arses, unless you know of a sure-fire way to create enough mass to separate the continents on the surface of a spheroid the size of the earth.

Its fine by me if you lot keep cooking up your own terminologies such as the 'mass energy paradox' to sound smart. But don't cry when I point out you're making it up, likely as you go along.

The crap that you and the rest of the expanders are spouting is a heavily-disguised creationist screed.

The opposite is true. We are bringing the theory of creation into the domain of physics i.e. repeatable under correct conditions, while your lot are crying because you want it to stay in the domain of god, via the big bang in a one off, long distant event that can't be replicated, or directly observed.
Your not above the old criminal mentality of accusing others of your own crimes i see.

The mass-energy paradox is the fact that it is much easier to turn small amounts of matter into large amounts of energy than the reverse, which requires colliding individual subatomic particles at velocities near that of light.

Is that the RS cooked up definition? Or do you have a link to an agreed standard definition by physicists? I don't mind either way.

kano wrote:
It was solved in 1931 by Sauter : create an electric field with strength 1.3 E 18 N/C and the field will allow virtual particles to become real, hence free mass-energy from nothing.

What, by harnessing the electrical requirements of a small village to create... What? Continent-sized piles of rubbish the expanders are generating? Yep it takes a village, and there's always a village idiot to go along for the ride.

[/quote]

I see you haven't bothered to look at the description of Sauter's work in the link I provided. You probably won't understand anyway so don't bother.
No, not by harnessing the electrical requirements of a small village. He didn't focus on a practical way of achieving a Sauter limit field. His work was deducing it theoretically via quantum mechanics.

You can point out that people are "making it up" as much as you like, but doesn't it mean that they are or that you have presented any compelling evidence to the contrary.

Not that this will make one iota of difference to how convinced you are of your position. But, at least those of us willing to learn will get something from others pointing out the various ways in which you are wrong.

i've read parts of thread and it seems a large part of it can be summarized like this

1. The Earth is gaining mass from an internal supply of new mass energy
2. thats not possible because it breaks conservation of energy.
3. Non conservative fields allow violation of conservation of energy, therefore its theorectically possible.
4. But the Earth can't have non conservative fields inside it because x
5. No-one knows for sure. But without going there they can't be ruled out.

Number 3 is acceptable is you have a viable theory, which expanding earth proponents don't. Number 4 points to the LHC findings which you have to reckon with one way or another (prove or disprove) in order to have your pet hypothesis gain any traction. That's how science works. Hand waving isn't acceptable science.

kano wrote:i've read parts of thread and it seems a large part of it can be summarized like this

1. The Earth is gaining mass from an internal supply of new mass energy
2. thats not possible because it breaks conservation of energy.
3. Non conservative fields allow violation of conservation of energy, therefore its theorectically possible.
4. But the Earth can't have non conservative fields inside it because x
5. No-one knows for sure. But without going there they can't be ruled out.

You, like so many of your ilk, are utterly ignoring the plain fact that there is reams of evidence showing that the Earth is not expanding now, and was not expanding in the past.

Ignoring that, then inventing magic solutions to hand-wave away the problems with your hypothesis, isn't science.

felltoearth wrote:Number 3 is acceptable is you have a viable theory, which expanding earth proponents don't.

What makes a theory viable or not, and since when did science get obsoleted by the new paradigm of 'viabilism'?
Horseshit as usual. You've got no idea how to judge theories.

Number 4 points to the LHC findings which you have to reckon with one way or another (prove or disprove) in order to have your pet hypothesis gain any traction. That's how science works. Hand waving isn't acceptable science.

Growing Earth theory has absolutely nothing to do with LHC findings. You lot confound some random stuff, no wonder all you can do is follow consensus.

Weaver wrote:You, like so many of your ilk, are utterly ignoring the plain fact that there is reams of evidence showing that the Earth is not expanding now, and was not expanding in the past.

Ignoring that, then inventing magic solutions to hand-wave away the problems with your hypothesis, isn't science.

Weaver, you haven't managed to follow a simple post, I wouldn't trust your judgement on a theory of nature.
I'm not utterly ignoring anything.

You are.

kano wrote:i've read parts of thread and it seems a large part of it can be summarized like this

I was summarizing a large part of this thread. But not all of it.

then inventing magic solutions to hand-wave away the problems with your hypothesis, isn't science.

Well don't bother with me. You have more important things to do. Like phoning the Max Planck institute and telling them their efforts to reach the Sauter limit are ' inventing magic solutions to hand-wave away problems with other peoples hypothesis, and it isn't science' .
Its got nothing to do with me, its not my solution. I just follow their research and find their goal compelling.
Also you could go grave digging and dig up Sauter's corpse and hang it from a tree if you think he's a fraud, guilty of ' inventing magic solutions to hand-wave away problems '.

Perhaps you've already spent the last 3 years doing that?

Failing that, you can waste your time slinging dirt at me, like thats really going to stop research groups around the world working towards the Sauter limit and testing a theory of creation.

kano wrote:Failing that, you can waste your time slinging dirt at me, like thats really going to stop research groups around the world working towards the Sauter limit and testing a theory of creation.

Like this means anything. I mean, nothing that is said here is going to stop YEC groups around the world coming up with bollocks to explain their whacky beliefs about the age of the earth. But, what is missing is the argument that explains why we should give two shits?

kano wrote:

Weaver wrote:You, like so many of your ilk, are utterly ignoring the plain fact that there is reams of evidence showing that the Earth is not expanding now, and was not expanding in the past.

Ignoring that, then inventing magic solutions to hand-wave away the problems with your hypothesis, isn't science.

Weaver, you haven't managed to follow a simple post, I wouldn't trust your judgement on a theory of nature.
I'm not utterly ignoring anything.

You are.

kano wrote:i've read parts of thread and it seems a large part of it can be summarized like this

I was summarizing a large part of this thread. But not all of it.

then inventing magic solutions to hand-wave away the problems with your hypothesis, isn't science.

Well don't bother with me. You have more important things to do. Like phoning the Max Planck institute and telling them their efforts to reach the Sauter limit are ' inventing magic solutions to hand-wave away problems with other peoples hypothesis, and it isn't science' .
Its got nothing to do with me, its not my solution. I just follow their research and find their goal compelling.
Also you could go grave digging and dig up Sauter's corpse and hang it from a tree if you think he's a fraud, guilty of ' inventing magic solutions to hand-wave away problems '.

Perhaps you've already spent the last 3 years doing that?

Failing that, you can waste your time slinging dirt at me, like thats really going to stop research groups around the world working towards the Sauter limit and testing a theory of creation.

Creation of energy/matter in a vacuum is a vastly different critter than creating it in the middle of a planet.

And a "large part" of the discussion centered around whether or not the fucking planet was expanding in the first place, perhaps the largest single part - ignoring it then claiming that it wasn't one of the "large part(s)" you were summarizing is just more dishonesty.

Funny how so many EE proponents start off slinging mud and insulting everyone here, then accuse others of doing the same. It's almost as if being a classic Internet troll is a required prerequisite to be an EE believer.

Creation of energy/matter in a vacuum is a vastly different critter than creating it in the middle of a planet.

... hinting you are speaking from 40 years experience of matter creation engineering in both environments.
Guess what. No one knows, not even you. So when you state it without explanation or reference you betray you are pretending to be an authority in such a transparent and dumb way.

ignoring it then claiming that it wasn't one of the "large part(s)"

Where did I claim it wasn't one of the large parts? Quote me.

If you are running scared from physics theory of creation I don't mind discussing evidence of expansion.

Here's some starter topics :
1. Total failure to find any subduction zone : how all assumed subduction zones are found to be 'locked zones'.
2. similar Fossils and todays species occur on the East Asian coast and the West Americas whithout any migration fossils through Europe.
3. Super continents. Of course on a smaller globe the continents are bound to fit together. On a same size globe PT has to appeal to unknown dynamics, that can be molded to fit data, but cannot be tested.
4. Expansion of other worlds. e.g. Ganymede looks like it has expanded, but cannot have PT.
5. Growing Earth's simple explanation for the strange coincidence of sea levels and land levels being the same to about 0.3% of radius. Conventional theory just flounders to explain it.
6. Larger life 100 million years ago when Earth was smaller and had lower gravity.

Its all in favour of Growing Earth theory.

Those nonsense points have already been dealt with at length in this thread - but, of course, you know this, having reviewed it.

Subduction does exist, East Asian and Western American fossils are explained via land bridge and island hopping, Ganymede only looks like it is expanding if you are desperately hunting for something else to be expanding, I have NO idea what the hell you mean by #5 - sounds like numerology is at its core, and the larger life 100MYA also shows signs of 1g gravity, not reduced gravity.

Same bullshit, different aggressive trolling poster.