Cito di Pense wrote:

Light Storm wrote:We have had craft get into installer space...

"Installer space", eh? What's that about? Under the ducting?

*Interstellar
REf: https://www.space.com/26462-voyager-1-interstellar-space-confirmed.html

This has been around since 2014. The fact you need to be told that makes me wonder why your on a science forum.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Light Storm wrote:In case you missed it, someone asked me my stance on the EE/GE concept.

It's not as if you have come up with anything anyone should pay attention to, other than to deride.

I was responding to theropod untrue statement that subduction is flat out ignored. As his presumption wasn't true, i figured I would just give him a friendly reminder about my take on EE/GE. And if your only intend is to express contempt or ridicule brain storming ideas about EE/GE, why bother?

hackenslash wrote:My, my. Is this bollocks still going?

So that's how long a post by you looks like when you remove the swearing

Light Storm wrote:

hackenslash wrote:My, my. Is this bollocks still going?

So that's how long a post by you looks like when you remove the swearing

Actually, that's pretty much the number of words your "theories" deserve

Light Storm wrote:

hackenslash wrote:My, my. Is this bollocks still going?

So that's how long a post by you looks like when you remove the swearing

About as long as yours if you remove the bullshit.

aban57 wrote:

Light Storm wrote:

hackenslash wrote:My, my. Is this bollocks still going?

So that's how long a post by you looks like when you remove the swearing

Actually, that's pretty much the number of words your "theories" deserve

'Theories? I don't have a theories... Scientists like James Maxlow, Ivan Osipovich Yarkovsky, S. Warren Carey, Bruce Heezen, Pascual Jordan among others have actual theories on the subject. There are also very outspoken proponents for GE/EE including Denis Mccarthy and Neal Adams. I just like discussing it as it's something that makes sense.

It doesn't make sense though. Most of the continental plate boundaries are not a direct fit, the only ones which do have a striking match on shape are the Americas and Europe/Africa, but those are explained under tectonic theory anyway. To go from there to essentially rejecting all known physics is just bonkers.

Neal Adams actively and transparently lies in his videos as well (as I pointed out almost 8 years ago when this thread started, he claims that continents fit together without twisting, stretching, form fitting and so on, which is completely false), so if he makes it near the top of a list produced to explain that there are "theories", that's really not a good line.

Indeed, that's something that always fascinated me. Because it's like flat earthers. If there is a widely accepted explanation for our observations (the Earth is round), why would you spend so much energy trying to promote an explanation that doesn't (the Earth is flat and there is a giant multinational conspiracy to prevent us from knowing it because.... ????) ?

Edit : regardless of evidence of course, since clearly it's not that important for those people.

Thommo wrote:It doesn't make sense though. Most of the continental plate boundaries are not a direct fit, the only ones which do have a striking match on shape are the Americas and Europe/Africa, but those are explained under tectonic theory anyway. To go from there to essentially rejecting all known physics is just bonkers.

Most of the plate boundaries are not a direct fit on a static earth size. There is a near perfect fit when you start decreasing the earth to about the size of Mars. The fit is is uncanny and very reflective of the ages of the sea floor pushing landmasses apart from one another.

Thommo wrote:Neal Adams actively and transparently lies in his videos as well (as I pointed out almost 8 years ago when this thread started, he claims that continents fit together without twisting, stretching, form fitting and so on, which is completely false), so if he makes it near the top of a list produced to explain that there are "theories", that's really not a good line.

A picture of video doesn't falsify the actual theory. If i took some of the images for pangea and pointed out the flaws in them, it wouldn't instantly destroy the theory of plate tectonics would it.

Neal Adams isn't a scientist. I strongly recommend looking into James Maxlow as an actual scientist on the subject over the animations of a advocate. A lot of Neal Adam's scientific knowledge on GE comes directly from S Warren Carey.

Light Storm wrote:Most of the plate boundaries are not a direct fit on a static earth size. There is a near perfect fit when you start decreasing the earth to about the size of Mars.

No, there isn't. This is completely untrue.

Light Storm wrote:A picture of video doesn't falsify the actual theory.

What are you talking about? One of your best examples is to point to a string of lies. That's hardly insignificant.

Certain features of Adams's animations and claims are literally impossible to be false - if you "wind back" the sea floor then eventually all that remains is land. This is true by definition, there is no possible configuration of continents for which it's not true. The same goes for the notion that the area of land left is the same as the area of some smaller sphere, which is also true by definition of "area". The only significant parts are where he claims that this can be done with those constraints on shape regarding stretching, twisting and other deformations - and he lies about those.

Theories? This crap doesn’t even rise to the level of a hypothesis. No method for falsification. No suggested tests for validity. Pure weapons grade conjecture. Like everything else about this trash this has also been covered here.

Neal Adams came here and spouted off bullshit about the exact same species of crocodilians found in Japan and Oregon when they are not, and when called on it he blew up like a poorly made suicide bomb and left in a huff.

RS

Thommo wrote:

Light Storm wrote:Most of the plate boundaries are not a direct fit on a static earth size. There is a near perfect fit when you start decreasing the earth to about the size of Mars.

No, there isn't. This is completely untrue.

OTT CHRISTOPH HILGENBERG


using identical metal plates created globes to show how the boundaries come together on a smaller globe

JAMES MAXLOW


using the data of the sea floor and geological re-formations of the earth to re-create the earth as it dials back in time. He has one of the most comprehensive break downs of the wind back your going to find.

NEAL ADAMS


Created a computer animation to show the landmasses coming back together on a smaller planet.

Thommo wrote:

Light Storm wrote:A picture of video doesn't falsify the actual theory.

What are you talking about? One of your best examples is to point to a string of lies. That's hardly insignificant.

Certain features of Adams's animations and claims are literally impossible to be false - if you "wind back" the sea floor then eventually all that remains is land. This is true by definition, there is no possible configuration of continents for which it's not true. The same goes for the notion that the area of land left is the same as the area of some smaller sphere, which is also true by definition of "area". The only significant parts are where he claims that this can be done with those constraints on shape regarding stretching, twisting and other deformations - and he lies about those.

That is an image of Pangea rendered by Nordolord.... shall we discuss it or look to what the actual scientist behind this re-creation have to say about it?

Neal Adams advocates the GE/EE. He's got some other ideas to explain it and he discusses them like their fact. He also makes it sound like this is his idea/theory. It's not. So you can point out how wrong he is just as well as I can point out how wrong Nordolord is... the animation I'm sure you could critique until the cows come home doesn't destroy the underlining idea that went into it.

Light Storm wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Light Storm wrote:Most of the plate boundaries are not a direct fit on a static earth size. There is a near perfect fit when you start decreasing the earth to about the size of Mars.

No, there isn't. This is completely untrue.

OTT CHRISTOPH HILGENBERG


using identical metal plates created globes to show how the boundaries come together on a smaller globe

And the metal plates are inaccurate in representing the plates and do not come together perfectly anyway. Which is what I am saying. The "near perfect fit" is a fiction. It works very well in the Atlantic region, and much less well in other regions like the Indian Ocean.

Light Storm wrote:Created a computer animation to show the landmasses coming back together on a smaller planet.

In which the landmasses are stretched, deformed, twisted and otherwise manipulated, in direct violation of what he says. That's why I said it was lies.

If you allow deformation, this is literally possible with any distribution of land and ocean.

Light Storm wrote:That is an image of Pangea rendered by Nordolord.... shall we discuss it or look to what the actual scientist behind this re-creation have to say about it?

I think if you want to have a serious conversation you shouldn't deliberately find one of the most simplistic images you can. If you're only capable of rebutting misrepresentations of the science, that also speaks poorly.

Light Storm wrote:Neal Adams advocates the GE/EE. He's got some other ideas to explain it and he discusses them like their fact. He also makes it sound like this is his idea/theory. It's not. So you can point out how wrong he is just as well as I can point out how wrong Nordolord is.

No, you introduced Neal Adams as one of the best sources. Not me.

If, as the proponent, the best you can find includes the likes of him and you say so, that's a serious issue. If I as the responder had said Nordolord (whoever that is) provided one of the best rebuttals, then that too would be a serious issue. But I didn't. You introduced him (whoever he is) specifically because he drew a bad picture. This is the technique known as "attacking a strawman". I responded to what you actually said, whereas you responded to something I did not say.

See the difference?

I just expressed this astonishment on the 9/11 thread, but is this also still going?

It has been expanding.

Everything is different and yet everything remains the same

I think we ought to start up a flat Earth thread. Or a Pi = 4 thread.

There's a whole world of crackpottery out there that we just don't give equal time and attention to.

Thommo wrote:I think we ought to start up a flat Earth thread. Or a Pi = 4 thread.

There's a whole world of crackpottery out there that we just don't give equal time and attention to.

Pretty sure there are a couple... Bendy Light is still my favorite edition to any flat earth discussion

See it's nice! We can all laugh at the silliness together!

Thommo wrote:I think we ought to start up a flat Earth thread. Or a Pi = 4 thread..

We have a few threads on individual examples of flat earth crackpottery but, for some reason we don't have a dedicated discussion on that crackpottery the way we do for expanding earth.

A lack of inconsistency on the part of our little community, not in-keeping with rationalism.

Light Storm wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Light Storm wrote:Most of the plate boundaries are not a direct fit on a static earth size. There is a near perfect fit when you start decreasing the earth to about the size of Mars.

No, there isn't. This is completely untrue.

OTT CHRISTOPH HILGENBERG


using identical metal plates created globes to show how the boundaries come together on a smaller globe

I can already see massive continent-wide faults, for which there is literally zero evidence, intruduced just to make this reconstruction work. Totally dishonest.

And he seems to used coastlines, rather than continental outlines. Totally ignorant

Light Storm wrote:JAMES MAXLOW


using the data of the sea floor and geological re-formations of the earth to re-create the earth as it dials back in time. He has one of the most comprehensive break downs of the wind back your going to find.

Maxlow is probably the closest you'll ever get to a knowledgeable and data-driven EE proponent.

Sadly, even he fudges the data in the detail to get the result he wants.

Light Storm wrote:NEAL ADAMS


Created a computer animation to show the landmasses coming back together on a smaller planet.

Neal Adams is probably the most vile EE proponent in existence. He is willfully ignorant, bans anyone who disagrees, insists he has read everything but then throws it out and can never give a proper citation, etc

Never ever link to him again. Seriously

Light Storm wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Light Storm wrote:A picture of video doesn't falsify the actual theory.

What are you talking about? One of your best examples is to point to a string of lies. That's hardly insignificant.

Certain features of Adams's animations and claims are literally impossible to be false - if you "wind back" the sea floor then eventually all that remains is land. This is true by definition, there is no possible configuration of continents for which it's not true. The same goes for the notion that the area of land left is the same as the area of some smaller sphere, which is also true by definition of "area". The only significant parts are where he claims that this can be done with those constraints on shape regarding stretching, twisting and other deformations - and he lies about those.

That is an image of Pangea rendered by Nordolord....

What. The. Hell. Is. That?!?

Reverse Google search gives me no source. That is literally the worst drawing ever.

Why don't yo pose a scientific reconstruction:



Nothing alike. We need to talk about the same thing to make any progress. Not strawmen.

Light Storm wrote:... shall we discuss it or look to what the actual scientist behind this re-creation have to say about it?

Light Storm wrote:Neal Adams...

Stop citing that sociopath

Light Storm wrote:...advocates the GE/EE. He's got some other ideas to explain it and he discusses them like their fact. He also makes it sound like this is his idea/theory. It's not. So you can point out how wrong he is just as well as I can point out how wrong Nordolord is

Light Storm wrote:... the animation I'm sure you could critique until the cows come home doesn't destroy the underlining idea that went into it.

There is no reconstruction of the Pacific Basin "wound back" onto a smaller globe that actually works - literally none.

Every one I've seen distorts the continents; ignores the actual outline of the continental crust back in time; ignores the actually seafloor age data; ignores subduction and orogeny; ignores stratigraphic and paleontological data.

The Pacific Basin literally cannot be closed.