>Do you just make this up as you go along?
Heck no. Everything I've written here I've already worked out and written down months or years ago. I wouldn't come here without my guns loaded.

>Ah, so it's just those few 'underwater fish' that would negate your comment
Yes. but i was just playing along with u. I'd missed out an impicit 'land' in my writing " all ( land ) life as we know it ". Thought that'd be obvious, and a learned fellow like yourself wouldn't need to peck at such pedantics.

>Uh-huh. So you've found something in physics which you think you can assert - without evidence - is responsible for the incredibly huge mass increase needed under your version of EE.

Yup, and bigbang theorists don't have a leg to stand on. They did exactly the same thing except their model is impossible to replicate therefore is a non science theory, otherwise known as a story. The Growing Earth theory is the only scientific theory of creation worth anything. If you value scientific principle you'd drop the bigbang garbage in response to this post. Until its falsified, the most implausible science theory u've ever heard is infinitely better than a mythical story.

Many scientists \ cosmologists didn't believe the big bang story. Hoyle was a stalwart anti bigbanger. Many scientists prefered what was known as a steady state universe, but details such as mass creation were never agreed on, so that was left open - for me to fix. Ive fixed it wouldn't u say?

And u should know there is still a large gap in our knowledge of the universe. The interior of celestial bodies , including our own planet, remain unexplored. Don't forget that all models on celestial interiors are untested, i.e. they are just guesses repeated enough times, and placed next to facts in our science books, to the effect that people adhere to them as if they were facts, which is - just dumb.
OK who here's got roped into by the bigbang and interior of Earth guesses in their science books ?

meemoe_uk wrote:According to CEBs, india and asia were separated 200million years ago. This fiction is a forced conclusion from the accepted knowledge that India was sat next to Madagascar and Africa. Yet there are land animal fossils of the same species around such time periods in China and India. This is sturdy evidence against them ever being apart. Based on this you should have another look at Growing Earth theory, and I think you'll find Constant Earth theory is wrong.

Actually it's because the geology of India and the rest of Asia differs vary greatly, the remnants of an oceanic plate in the margin and the interchange showing India was in isolation. Just to name a few.

Ah, all land life, got it. Lichens for instance.

Weaver wrote:Interesting. So there are plasmoids developing huge quantities of mass within nearly all celestial bodies, and they are associated with strong magnetic fields.

Strange that none of the spacecraft we've sent to comets and asteroids have noted these amazingly strong magnetic fields, and that we haven't detected any interaction between the magnetic fields of the smaller celestial bodies but instead find their movements with respect to each other consistent with simple gravity.

Or the neutrino flux related to nucleosynthesis.

Fun fact on the whole earth and every body is making new mater. The moons uranium/iron ratio is higher then that on earth. An accretion disk enplanes that by uranium oxcides how does panetary nucleosynthesis?

meemoe_uk wrote:>Do you just make this up as you go along?
Heck no. Everything I've written here I've already worked out and written down months or years ago. I wouldn't come here without my guns loaded.

>Ah, so it's just those few 'underwater fish' that would negate your comment
Yes. but i was just playing along with u. I'd missed out an impicit 'land' in my writing " all ( land ) life as we know it ". Thought that'd be obvious, and a learned fellow like yourself wouldn't need to peck at such pedantics.

>Uh-huh. So you've found something in physics which you think you can assert - without evidence - is responsible for the incredibly huge mass increase needed under your version of EE.

Yup, and bigbang theorists don't have a leg to stand on. They did exactly the same thing except their model is impossible to replicate therefore is a non science theory, otherwise known as a story. The Growing Earth theory is the only scientific theory of creation worth anything. If you value scientific principle you'd drop the bigbang garbage in response to this post. Until its falsified, the most implausible science theory u've ever heard is infinitely better than a mythical story.

Many scientists \ cosmologists didn't believe the big bang story. Hoyle was a stalwart anti bigbanger. Many scientists prefered what was known as a steady state universe, but details such as mass creation were never agreed on, so that was left open - for me to fix. Ive fixed it wouldn't u say?

And u should know there is still a large gap in our knowledge of the universe. The interior of celestial bodies , including our own planet, remain unexplored. Don't forget that all models on celestial interiors are untested, i.e. they are just guesses repeated enough times, and placed next to facts in our science books, to the effect that people adhere to them as if they were facts, which is - just dumb.
OK who here's got roped into by the bigbang and interior of Earth guesses in their science books ?

meemoe_uk,

You like to claim that the Big Bang Theory is similar to your version of EE - both impossible to replicate, both not showing current physical evidence.

But this is false - anyone as educated in science as you continually claim to be would know of the prediction of the cosmic microwave background which was later confirmed - with stunning accuracy - by the COBE spacecraft.

It was such an important scientific confirmation, and such a great validation of both the scientific process and the Big Bang theory itself, that Randall Munroe memorialized it in one of his early comics:



Contrast this with your version of EE, which contains no testable elements, no confirmed science, only conspiracy theories to handily explain away inconvenient contrary evidence and blind assertions of magical processes to account for impossibilities.

And now, in a major breakthrough, photographic evidence of a microplasmoid at work creating new matter.


Wot u CEBs make of that? Lulz

>You like to claim that the Big Bang Theory is similar to your version of EE - both impossible to replicate

Maybe in your bent interpretation of the EE theory, but not in my Growing Earth theory.
The Growing Earth gives testable predictions, and mass creation via over critical fields is one of them.

> anyone as educated in science as you continually claim to be
My wot a creative mind u have there. I haven't continually claimed to be educated in science in all my 62 of prior posts .

prediction of the cosmic microwave background which was later confirmed - with stunning accuracy - by the COBE spacecraft.

Oh dear. If u believe that then you're screwed. Numerous accurate predictions of universal background radiation were made without the bigbang model and there's many other ways to make microwaves besides a 14bn year old cosmic redshifted explosion. The bigbang model is one of the worst theories of all time in terms of post-data ad-hoc modifications to get the theory to fit new evidence, microwave background measurements included.

>It was such an important scientific confirmation

Not only is cosmic background microwave radiation a failed test for bigbang theory, its also a near useless piece of info. What use is it in understanding the physics of the universe? None, and to believe that somehow everything in cosmology impinges off it shows a general lack of understand amongst the popular science community. Generally, ubiquitous heat from an explosion doesn't reveal much about the nature of the explosion.

> Randall Munroe
Never heard of him. I guess he's either a clueless popular dogma believer like ureself or onboard the gravy train of modern dogma so its in his interest to hype up garbage results.

>Contrast this with your version of EE, which contains no testable elements, no confirmed science
How would you know? You haven't tried to think of any.

only conspiracy theories to handily explain away inconvenient contrary evidence and blind assertions of magical processes to account for impossibilities.

BigBang ( 1st there was nothing, then nothing exploded into something in a non physical, unrepeatable event, and we know cos space has some uniform heat in it ) believer accuses others of baseless belief in magical processes. It's funny and sad.
You don't know it but u are part of a dogma derived from god belief.

lucek wrote:

Weaver wrote:Interesting. So there are plasmoids developing huge quantities of mass within nearly all celestial bodies, and they are associated with strong magnetic fields.

Strange that none of the spacecraft we've sent to comets and asteroids have noted these amazingly strong magnetic fields, and that we haven't detected any interaction between the magnetic fields of the smaller celestial bodies but instead find their movements with respect to each other consistent with simple gravity.

Or the neutrino flux related to nucleosynthesis.

Fun fact on the whole earth and every body is making new mater. The moons uranium/iron ratio is higher then that on earth. An accretion disk enplanes that by uranium oxcides how does panetary nucleosynthesis?

Actually its not that strange those satellites haven't detected neutrinos, because we've never sent satellites with neutrino detectors to any asteroid or comet.
Direct detection of neutrinos typically requires a thousand tons of water or ice and typically the detector is underground, not in a satellite.
Lucky u've got a visitor like me to spot these glaring errors in your posts.

How rude, you guys are having a party without me!

Oooh, palaeontology assertions.... shiny!

meemoe_uk wrote:>Finally, you can drop the pretense: you're no palaeontologist
Already told you my qualification. Palaeontologists dig up the bones and speculate the climate the dino lived in. That dinos were too big for current gravity came from physicists + engineers, not paleys. You guessed wrong there.

Whoa! Slow down there, buddy! Most of the vertebrate palaeontologists I know and work with have degrees in vertebrate anatomy and physiology, which is essential in working out how to reassemble the bones into the original skeleton. It also allows them to work out how it all worked together, including the strength of the whole system (sure it needs knowledge of physics, but just physics would be useless).

meemoe_uk wrote:This is why some physical modellers appear to have room to say dinos could support their own weight, they do it by ignoring the fact all animals have to be pretty dynamic, rather than just concentrating all their strength on holding their own body weight.

you have a knack apparently of knowing just how these palaeos work. Except you don't. They are very much aware of how movement and the massive increase in physical forces that entails need to factored in. There are tons (pun intended) of papers that model all this - shall we google them for you?

meemoe_uk wrote:22mm is the figure obtained when all the constructive rifts are added up. Its subduction that is a myth. In all the years I've been studying geology I've never seen a paper on the direct measurement of a subduction rift. It's all assumed \ modelled \ indirect. I repeat, there are thousands of papers on subduction, and not a single one is a study of direct measurement. There is no list of subduction rates on wiki, unlike constructive rift rates.

Oh the irony.

Of course they are directly measured, with GPS of relative plate movements; with seismic data showing the descending slabs; with measurements of stresses withing continents; with data from structural geology; etc.

You would be marginally more credible if you didn't flat out deny subduction completely - heck even Neal Adams admits it's occurring.

meemoe_uk wrote:I went back and looked at the basis of my believe in coal being a fossil fuel, one of the things I took as evidence was fossils found in coal. I realised immediately I had been tricked. Objects submitted as coal fossils are in fact man-carved coal figures of leaves , grapes etc, and look absurd to anyone with some experience with fossils. Then I un-earthed a community of people that had said, that calling hydro-carbons - fossil fuels was a trick by the energy companies to make them sound finite and rare, like they might run out any day.

Oh, you're serious?!?

Well tell that to the company that donated a 3m long tree trunk from the Victorian coal measures to our museum, after it had gotten caught in their machinery and jammed it up real good. You're calling them all liars and frauds?

Tell that to our palaeobotanists who have directly extracted plant fossils out of rock and coal here in the lab. You're calling them all liars and frauds?

Tell that to the palynologists who extract spores and pollen fossils from cloals and sediments to date them, extrapolate palaeoenvironments, do biostratigraphy, etc. You're calling them all liars and frauds?

This is becoming a very elaborate conspiracy right under my nose!

meemoe_uk wrote:According to CEBs, india and asia were separated 200million years ago. This fiction is a forced conclusion from the accepted knowledge that India was sat next to Madagascar and Africa. Yet there are land animal fossils of the same species around such time periods in China and India. This is sturdy evidence against them ever being apart. Based on this you should have another look at Growing Earth theory, and I think you'll find Constant Earth theory is wrong.

I'm sure you have assembled a list of these species on your computer, so you can just copy/past it here so I can find out about them. I'm very interested in biogeography (just gave a talk to students about AR Wallace at uni a couple weeks back), so this sounds fascinating.

>Ah, all land life, got it. Lichens for instance.
I take it back. Both the 'all' bit, and my hopes you'd be above being pedantic. Makes no difference to the gist of what I was saying. Triple todays gravity would be a big deal, even if lichens and fish don't notice.

How about using your intellect to question some of the key aspects of Earth theory instead of pecking at crumbs?

ginckgo wrote:How rude, you guys are having a party without me!

Oooh, palaeontology assertions.... shiny!

meemoe_uk wrote:>Finally, you can drop the pretense: you're no palaeontologist
Already told you my qualification. Palaeontologists dig up the bones and speculate the climate the dino lived in. That dinos were too big for current gravity came from physicists + engineers, not paleys. You guessed wrong there.

Whoa! Slow down there, buddy! Most of the vertebrate palaeontologists I know and work with have degrees in vertebrate anatomy and physiology, which is essential in working out how to reassemble the bones into the original skeleton. It also allows them to work out how it all worked together, including the strength of the whole system (sure it needs knowledge of physics, but just physics would be useless).

Good. Any of them that study physics and dino physiology critically instead of just feeding the info into computer while mindlessly humming the flintstones theme tune are good candidates for growing Earth converts. I'll be contacting some such groups after I've finished my visit here.

ginckgo wrote:

meemoe_uk wrote:This is why some physical modellers appear to have room to say dinos could support their own weight, they do it by ignoring the fact all animals have to be pretty dynamic, rather than just concentrating all their strength on holding their own body weight.

you have a knack apparently of knowing just how these palaeos work. Except you don't. They are very much aware of how movement and the massive increase in physical forces that entails need to factored in. There are tons (pun intended) of papers that model all this - shall we google them for you?

>knack
Yes, its called studying the subject b4 debating.
You can google some if u like. But since you seem to be taking a position of relative expertise on this subject u should retrieve the ones u studied already, perhaps as a student, ones that u know to be instructive and clear.

I'm getting deja-vu of not getting any substance in response to posts.

ginckgo wrote:

meemoe_uk wrote:22mm is the figure obtained when all the constructive rifts are added up. Its subduction that is a myth. In all the years I've been studying geology I've never seen a paper on the direct measurement of a subduction rift. It's all assumed \ modelled \ indirect. I repeat, there are thousands of papers on subduction, and not a single one is a study of direct measurement. There is no list of subduction rates on wiki, unlike constructive rift rates.

Oh the irony.

Of course they are directly measured, with GPS of relative plate movements; with seismic data showing the descending slabs; with measurements of stresses withing continents; with data from structural geology; etc.

You would be marginally more credible if you didn't flat out deny subduction completely - heck even Neal Adams admits it's occurring.

Don't sound direct to me. For sure, its not possible to directly measure stresses within continents. Thats done with models. 'data from structural geology' is vague, I don't know the method there. Sesmic data : sending a vibration down thru the continental plate and recording the echos might suggest there's layers of rock with different attributes, fine, but don't kid yourself that its possible to detect sliding movements on the order of millimetres per year this way.
GPS data is rigged to fit the Constant Earth Model. Even so, GPS detected Earth's growth when they were trying to detect isostatic rebound from the last iceage. The results didn't match the prediction so they were buried. There's a paper written by the GPS team saying they were setting the growth measurements to stay at 0 because thats closer to the result they wanted.

If u think u got a really convincing one then link to it.

>even Neal Adams
He's not hardcore enough. And he's isn't a scientist. He did some nice animations though.

>I'm getting deja-vu of not getting any substance in response to posts.

Me too. Nearly every post by CEBs avoids debate, instead opting for derision. Yours are ok though.