Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere. Yes or No ?

Yes
29
16%
No
128
72%
Yes But...Add your reason
11
6%
No But...Add your reason
10
6%
 
Total votes : 178

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#8441  Postby Just A Theory » Jan 27, 2013 7:01 am

Florian wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:
Florian wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:

No, go do your own research. I linked some Geology 101 course notes a few pages back, I suggest starting there.


I showed that there are falsification tests for Earth expansion, now it is your turn to propose a falsification test for plate tectonics. I hardly believe that you can't provide a single one. So, what could falsify plate tectonics?


Please see my previous response. I'm not going to babysit you through this argument Florian.


A rational response would have been: "A falsification test of PT is..."
What you have been doing is evading the question.


Your question is not relevant to the topic. Even if PT were unfalsifiable, that does not mean that EE has any greater explanatory power or scientific validity.
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1369
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#8442  Postby Just A Theory » Jan 27, 2013 7:13 am

To reply to Florian's other recent posts:

  • slab roll-back can follow from the subduction process ie. the subduction comes first. What you're proposing is that the "roll back" (overduction) comes first. We don't see evidence of this
  • some monitoring stations are moving different rates with respect to each other. News at 11! For radial increases in crustal area (such as to keep a hotspot 'moving'), most stations would have to be moving apart with respect to each other. We don't see evidence of this
  • it's not enough to claim physicists "must have" made a mistake because the current model of particle physics explains the formation of elements (and large-scale isotropy) while our cosmological models explain solar system formation.

What EE proponents are doing is akin to training their telescope on an ant and loudly proclaiming that all life must have six legs.
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1369
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#8443  Postby Florian » Jan 27, 2013 10:32 am

Just A Theory wrote:
Florian wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:
Florian wrote:

I showed that there are falsification tests for Earth expansion, now it is your turn to propose a falsification test for plate tectonics. I hardly believe that you can't provide a single one. So, what could falsify plate tectonics?


Please see my previous response. I'm not going to babysit you through this argument Florian.


A rational response would have been: "A falsification test of PT is..."
What you have been doing is evading the question.


Your question is not relevant to the topic. Even if PT were unfalsifiable, that does not mean that EE has any greater explanatory power or scientific validity.


Still evading. It is relevant to the topic given the common root of PT and EE.
So, JoT, A falsification test of PT is...
In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind. Louis Pasteur.
User avatar
Florian
 
Posts: 1590
Male

France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#8444  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 27, 2013 10:56 am

Florian wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Florian wrote:
If it does not produce sufficient data to conclude, well, then we can't conclude. :roll:


'Conclude' makes it sound like you want to achieve an end - like that's that, all wrapped up now, science is done here, we can go home.

No I don't want to make it sound like I want to achieve an end. See how you continue to interpret what others say at your own sauce.
It's about the conclusion that can be drawn from the data. You claim that the data are sufficient to conclude that Earth is not expanding, while the reasonable conclusion is that we cannot make such a statement with the data at hand.



Either I and everyone else do as you say, or you are just not sufficiently cautious with your language.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 21866
Age: 42
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#8445  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 27, 2013 10:58 am

Florian wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Florian wrote:
There are no such thing as a God-King of geology and errare humanum est perseverare diabolicum.


Even when you agree, you have to make it seem like you are disputing what you're citing.

Following the logic you've expressed in that post - and I agree with it absolutely - you've rebutted your own earlier comments about criticizing a professional geologist's claims. If he's making a mistake, he can be corrected regardless of his alleged credentials. If he keeps making mistakes, then those alleged credentials are undermined.


Jeez, this is a yet another complete distortion.
I never made any comments about criticizing a professional geologist's claims.
What I did is pointing that "using a simplistic (and wrong) analogy to explain geology to a professional geologist is ludicrous".
Hopefully, a mod will explain you that such distortions are not tolerated in a rational discussion.


First, you say one thing then immediately repeat the precise point I was making.

Secondly, don't backseat moderate. I am perfectly entitled to comment within the remit of the FUA.

Personally, I think the notion of this being a 'rational discussion' is begging the question until you supply a rational means for the Earth to acquire mass.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 21866
Age: 42
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#8446  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 27, 2013 10:59 am

Florian wrote:
mindhack wrote:
Florian wrote:Hopefully, a mod will explain you that such distortions are not tolerated in a rational discussion.

Cool, you alerted the mods for distortions. :tinfoil:

Do you support the deliberate distortions of the purpose of a forum member? Do you believe that the moderation team does support it?



Please desist from this - you've basically stated that I am distorting your words intentionally, and that the mods do agree with you. This is clearly bullshit and inflammatory.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 21866
Age: 42
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#8447  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 27, 2013 11:01 am

Florian wrote:
mindhack wrote:
I guess I can't blame you for not seeing your own distortions, I don't want to call you dishonest after all, so I'll just say this: From my point of view " distortions" seems to fit nicely with your modus operandi.

I do not constantly distort the content of posts.
So, to which distortions are you alluding, please?


Nor do I distort your words - as I said, the simple fact is that you make incautious statements, then when someone points out their meaning, you immediately rein in your claims.

If we're going to start making accusations, then I will start accusing you too. What's the bet you'll then start whining about that and appealing to the mods again?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 21866
Age: 42
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#8448  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 27, 2013 11:02 am

Time to put up or shut up Florian.

Mechanism for alleged mass increased.

Don't have one? Then the fact that your pet theory is categorised as Pseudoscience is perfectly justified.

Evidence of increased mass is also long past due. EE is about as intelligible as geocentricism.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 21866
Age: 42
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#8449  Postby Florian » Jan 27, 2013 11:40 am

Just A Theory wrote:To reply to Florian's other recent posts:

  • slab roll-back can follow from the subduction process ie. the subduction comes first. What you're proposing is that the "roll back" (overduction) comes first. We don't see evidence of this

The proposition is that the driving force is in the back-arc. And yes, we do have evidence for this. Outward expansion is one of them. The Palau, Sulu and Banda arc in Indonesia/Philippines are prototypic example of outward expansion. These back-arcs developed without any old oceanic crust nearby, which is a requirement in PT for the initiation of subduction, or the lithosphere is not cold and dense enough to sink:

Image


Just A Theory wrote:
  • some monitoring stations are moving different rates with respect to each other. News at 11! For radial increases in crustal area (such as to keep a hotspot 'moving'), most stations would have to be moving apart with respect to each other. We don't see evidence of this

  • No. Your hypothesis is based on some assumptions:
    - The expansion is perfectly isotropic (the same everywhere, no region more active than another)
    - The crust is elastic and has the same elastic properties everywhere.
    - There are no mantle flows.
    None of these assumptions are verified.

    Just A Theory wrote:
  • it's not enough to claim physicists "must have" made a mistake because the current model of particle physics explains the formation of elements (and large-scale isotropy) while our cosmological models explain solar system formation.

  • Who claimed that physicist "must have" made a mistake? Certainly not me. The point is that they still have work to do so that we understand our universe. Nobody would deny that.

    Just A Theory wrote:What EE proponents are doing is akin to training their telescope on an ant and loudly proclaiming that all life must have six legs.

    Your perception, nothing to do whatsoever with the reality.
    In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind. Louis Pasteur.
    User avatar
    Florian
     
    Posts: 1590
    Male

    France (fr)
    Print view this post

    Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

    #8450  Postby Florian » Jan 27, 2013 11:58 am

    Spearthrower wrote:Time to put up or shut up Florian.

    Mechanism for alleged mass increased.

    You apparently confuse allegement and inference.
    The mass increase is an inference. To refute this inference, you must demonstrate that the premise (large surface expansion of Earth) is false. Unfortunately, you have largely demonstrated that you don't want to discuss the science supporting the validity of the premise.
    It seems that you are more interested by the controversial aspect than by the science. This is not wanted in a scientific discussion.

    Spearthrower wrote:Don't have one? Then the fact that your pet theory is categorised as Pseudoscience is perfectly justified.

    If you persist in claiming that a theory based on empirical data is pseudoscientific, then it shows to everyone that you still do not understand science, and as a consequence, there is clearly no point to discuss about science with you at this time.
    Of course, you're welcome to join back the discussion when you finally understand what is the difference between a scientific theory and a pseudoscientific one.
    In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind. Louis Pasteur.
    User avatar
    Florian
     
    Posts: 1590
    Male

    France (fr)
    Print view this post

    Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

    #8451  Postby mindhack » Jan 27, 2013 12:02 pm

    More of your distortions on display.
    (Ignorance --> Mystery) < (Knowledge --> Awe)
    mindhack
     
    Name: Van Amerongen
    Posts: 2650
    Male

    Country: Zuid-Holland
    Netherlands (nl)
    Print view this post

    Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

    #8452  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 27, 2013 12:13 pm

    Florian wrote:To refute this inference, you must demonstrate that the premise (large surface expansion of Earth) is false.


    You mean, the premise of EE is that earth has expanded? And the conclusion of EE is that the earth has expanded? Thanks for explaining, Florian. That means the premise of EE is its conclusion. Circular argument is circular.

    All that is missing is any observation that the earth has actually expanded on the scale that EE demands. PT, on the other hand, does not have a premise that the earth has not expanded. Only the EE fanatics need a premise that the earth has expanded. PT employs basic principles like mass and energy conservation to rule out exogenous or endogenous mystery-expansion unless it can be observed, as with a self-inflating inflating balloon, or other sort of windbag.

    If EE theory simply consists of the premise that the earth has expanded, and the conclusion that the earth has expanded, EE theory is a classic woo belief system, all of which depend on similar kinds of question-begging.

    PT theory does not need to worry about earth expansion, because physical theory adequately accounts for the recycling of oceanic lithosphere that your flimsy and scattershot arguments simply attempt to wave away with large motions of very small hands.

    If the result of your tenure here at RatSkep is the blatant question-begging I quoted, then we see a strong case that you are simply trolling an internet forum for fun. Don't use the word 'premise' to talk about an 'inference' from whatever premise you have failed to present.
    Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

    Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
    User avatar
    Cito di Pense
     
    Name: Ivar Poäng
    Posts: 26752
    Age: 22
    Male

    Country: The Heartland
    Mongolia (mn)
    Print view this post

    Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

    #8453  Postby Florian » Jan 27, 2013 1:47 pm

    Cito di Pense wrote:
    Florian wrote:To refute this inference, you must demonstrate that the premise (large surface expansion of Earth) is false.


    You mean, the premise of EE is that earth has expanded? And the conclusion of EE is that the earth has expanded? Thanks for explaining, Florian. That means the premise of EE is its conclusion. Circular argument is circular.

    No, I don't mean that. I mean that the expansion of surface is the premise that there is a mass increase. And the expansion of surface is supported by the empirical data. So no circular reasoning there.

    Cito di Pense wrote:All that is missing is any observation that the earth has actually expanded on the scale that EE demands. PT, on the other hand, does not have a premise that the earth has not expanded.

    It has. It is written in plain in the founding paper of Le Pichon (1968) JGR 73 p3661:

    "If the Earth is not expanding, there should be other boundaries of crustal blocks of which surface crust is shortened or destroyed. In the spreading-floor hypothesis, these boundaries are the active trenches and Tertiary mountain belt systems."

    Obviously, you don't even know the classics.

    So the premise of PT is that "Earth is not expanding", and the inference is that "surface crust is shortened or destroyed". Except that evidence show that crust is not significantly shortened or destroyed, showing that the premise "Earth is not expanding" is false.
    You can't beat rational logical thinking.

    Cito di Pense wrote:PT theory does not need to worry about earth expansion, because physical theory adequately accounts for the recycling of oceanic lithosphere that your flimsy and scattershot arguments simply attempt to wave away with large motions of very small hands.

    Evidence show that recycling of oceanic lithosphere at active margins is by far not sufficient to balance seafloor spreading. Hence the surface of Earth is expanding. This won't go away.

    I think you need a training exercise at this point.
    How much atlantic lithosphere was recycled during the expansion of the Scotia Sea, tell us if it is a larger surface than the surface of the Scotia Sea?

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flsAe9KmUao[/youtube]

    Cito di Pense wrote:If the result of your tenure here at RatSkep is the blatant question-begging I quoted, then we see a strong case that you are simply trolling an internet forum for fun. Don't use the word 'premise' to talk about an 'inference' from whatever premise you have failed to present.

    Did you just accuse me of being a troll?
    In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind. Louis Pasteur.
    User avatar
    Florian
     
    Posts: 1590
    Male

    France (fr)
    Print view this post

    Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

    #8454  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 27, 2013 2:10 pm

    Florian wrote:And the expansion of surface is supported by the empirical data. So no circular reasoning there.


    Constant oceanic plate surface area is accounted for by mass balance between generation of oceanic lithosphere at divergent plate boundaries and subduction of lithosphere at convergent plate boundaries. Seismic tomography shows descending oceanic lithosphere to depths of hundreds of km. What empirical data support expansion of the surface? All you have are hand-waving assertions that massive amounts of old lithosphere are not observed in the process of subduction. That's denialism. And a complete absence of a model to explain either the failure of mass balance or the mechanism of volumetric expansion in accord with knowledge of condensed-matter physics of silicate materials.

    Florian wrote:Except that evidence show that crust is not significantly shortened or destroyed


    You are now simply denying the evidence revealed by seismic tomography at convergent plate boundaries. When you do try to confront this evidence, you hand-wave, miserably, and without explanation, that the quantities of oceanic lithosphere subducted are 'insufficient'. Subduction slabs are hundreds of kilometers in extent.

    Florian wrote:
    Did you just accuse me of being a troll?


    Did anyone accuse you of being a troll? I don't think so. But your ridiculous and extremely repetitious capitulation to circular argument leaves me wondering what salutary influence you hope to have on this forum.
    Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

    Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
    User avatar
    Cito di Pense
     
    Name: Ivar Poäng
    Posts: 26752
    Age: 22
    Male

    Country: The Heartland
    Mongolia (mn)
    Print view this post

    Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

    #8455  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 27, 2013 2:47 pm

    Florian wrote:The mass increase is an inference.

    Not according to other EE-ers on this thread! They regard it as an observation! Yet other EE-ers deny it, saying (correctly) that there is no evidence for significant mass increase (probably Dinox, IIRC).
    But, even if it is an inference, it has implications for other aspects of planetary science, such as the moon's orbit. Sadly for you, the implication is that the moon should be spiralling in towards the earth!
    May The Voice be with you!
    DavidMcC
     
    Name: David McCulloch
    Posts: 14913
    Age: 65
    Male

    Country: United Kigdom
    United Kingdom (uk)
    Print view this post

    Ads by Google


    Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

    #8456  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 27, 2013 3:40 pm

    Florian wrote:
    Spearthrower wrote:Time to put up or shut up Florian.

    Mechanism for alleged mass increased.

    You apparently confuse allegement and inference.


    Yes, your claims infer an increase in mass - if you can't supply the evidence for an increase in mass, and it goes against known scientific understanding then it suggests your model is wrong because it requires something that doesn't happen or is dysfunctional.


    Florian wrote:
    It seems that you are more interested by the controversial aspect than by the science. This is not wanted in a scientific discussion.


    I've told you a number of times, but it seems you are unable to process this.

    This discussion forum is PSEUDOSCIENCE not science.

    The thread, if you go back to look at the original post, is also not expressly about geology - it's expressly about psychology.

    Ergo, your demands that this is a scientific topic and that only scientific arguments regarding geology can be brought to bear here is begging the question - it's not remotely established that EE is scientific, that's what you're trying to prove.

    So stop with the obvious handwaving already.


    Florian wrote:
    Spearthrower wrote:Don't have one? Then the fact that your pet theory is categorised as Pseudoscience is perfectly justified.

    If you persist in claiming that a theory based on empirical data is pseudoscientific, then it shows to everyone that you still do not understand science, and as a consequence, there is clearly no point to discuss about science with you at this time.
    Of course, you're welcome to join back the discussion when you finally understand what is the difference between a scientific theory and a pseudoscientific one.


    Oh I will continue talking as much as I like Florian, because this is not your forum, it's not your thread, and it's not up to you what people can or can't say.

    And everyone can note that, even though I asked you a direct question regarding the evidence for your claims, you handwaved a lot, brushed me off, tried to make out as if your claims are already established - it's transparent evasion.

    And it's question begging. You seem to think that the scientific community will be persuaded by this:

    Image
    I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
    Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

    Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
    User avatar
    Spearthrower
     
    Posts: 21866
    Age: 42
    Male

    Country: Thailand
    Print view this post

    Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

    #8457  Postby Florian » Jan 27, 2013 3:43 pm

    Cito di Pense wrote:
    Florian wrote:And the expansion of surface is supported by the empirical data. So no circular reasoning there.


    Constant oceanic plate surface area is accounted for by mass balance between generation of oceanic lithosphere at divergent plate boundaries and subduction of lithosphere at convergent plate boundaries. Seismic tomography shows descending oceanic lithosphere to depths of hundreds of km. What empirical data support expansion of the surface? All you have are hand-waving assertions that massive amounts of old lithosphere are not observed in the process of subduction. That's denialism. And a complete absence of a model to explain either the failure of mass balance or the mechanism of volumetric expansion in accord with knowledge of condensed-matter physics of silicate materials.

    There is no mass balance between generation of oceanic lithosphere at divergent boundaries and subduction of lithopshere at convergent boundaries. Seismic hypocenters distribution combined with tomography shows buried oceanic lithosphere to depths of hundreds of km in accordance with slab roll back, but it does certainly not an evidence that multiple thousands km of oceanic lithosphere have been destroyed, as required by PT.
    What you do is extrapolating the data without evidence that the extrapolation is valid.
    The extrapolation is not valid as demonstrated by the prototypic example of the Scotia Sea.
    What you do is not science, it is wishful thinking, a parody of science.

    I note that you evade the key question about the amount of recycled crust surface related to the expansion of the Scotia Sea.

    Let's give it another try:
    How much atlantic lithosphere was recycled during the expansion of the Scotia Sea, tell us if it is a larger surface than the surface of the Scotia Sea?

    Cito di Pense wrote:
    Florian wrote:
    Did you just accuse me of being a troll?

    Did anyone accuse you of being a troll? I don't think so.

    Pardon me. Do you deny you are the author of this quote?
    Cito di Pense wrote:
    We see a strong case that you are simply trolling an internet forum for fun.


    What is that if not a plain accusation that I'm a troll? Who is in denial?

    Cito di Pense wrote:But your ridiculous and extremely repetitious capitulation to circular argument leaves me wondering what salutary influence you hope to have on this forum.

    How ironic. You invented that circular argument thing. I showed that it is a fantasy.
    I'm here to debunk your shit. I remind you that we are in the "General debunking" section of the forum.
    In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind. Louis Pasteur.
    User avatar
    Florian
     
    Posts: 1590
    Male

    France (fr)
    Print view this post

    Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

    #8458  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 27, 2013 3:46 pm

    I'm here to debunk your shit. I remind you that we are in the "General debunking" section of the forum.


    That's so cute!

    Florian thinks the Expanding Earth thread is in the Pseudoscience subforum of the General Debunking forum because he's debunking PT.

    And then he complains about others 'distorting' stuff! :lol:
    I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
    Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

    Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
    User avatar
    Spearthrower
     
    Posts: 21866
    Age: 42
    Male

    Country: Thailand
    Print view this post

    Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

    #8459  Postby Florian » Jan 27, 2013 3:49 pm

    DavidMcC wrote:
    Florian wrote:The mass increase is an inference.

    Not according to other EE-ers on this thread! They regard it as an observation! Yet other EE-ers deny it, saying (correctly) that there is no evidence for significant mass increase (probably Dinox, IIRC).

    Frankly, I can't do much if others do not understand why it can't be anything else than a mass increase.
    DavidMcC wrote:But, even if it is an inference, it has implications for other aspects of planetary science, such as the moon's orbit. Sadly for you, the implication is that the moon should be spiralling in towards the earth!

    We have been there already and it was shown that this is wrong because you assume that the total momentum of the Earth-Moon system is constant, which can't be true if there is an input to the system.
    In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind. Louis Pasteur.
    User avatar
    Florian
     
    Posts: 1590
    Male

    France (fr)
    Print view this post

    Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

    #8460  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 27, 2013 3:50 pm

    If you persist in claiming that a theory based on empirical data is pseudoscientific, then it shows to everyone that you still do not understand science, and as a consequence, there is clearly no point to discuss about science with you at this time.
    Of course, you're welcome to join back the discussion when you finally understand what is the difference between a scientific theory and a pseudoscientific one.


    The problem here for Florian is that, of course I understand the difference between a scientific and pseudoscientific theory, and I have presented questions that illuminate that it is EErs who struggle comprehending this.

    Further, the geological scientific community agrees that EE is a pseudoscientific theory, which means that Florian necessarily is also claiming that the entire scientific community is also unaware of what constitutes a valid theory and what constitutes pseudoscience.

    This is how cracked a view of the situation one needs to keep protesting at others. It's Time Cube level of science.
    I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
    Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

    Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
    User avatar
    Spearthrower
     
    Posts: 21866
    Age: 42
    Male

    Country: Thailand
    Print view this post

    PreviousNext

    Return to Pseudoscience

    Who is online

    Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests