ginckgo wrote:

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!

As I said earlier, I'm not 100% convinced that hydro-carbons are abiotic. I haven't finished studying it yet.
As I said, the 'fossils' in coal don't look like fossils, I current think they could be carved by man. But its possible that I'm wrong and a different process is at work. What do you think to this guys theory?
http://unconventionalgeology.blogspot.c ... -coal.html

definitely a candidate I'd consider possible.

thanks ginckgo. U were right, I was mistaken about the man carvings. The guy I link to has got it much more correct. I've actually learnt something due to visiting this forum. I'm very happy.

I quote a quote from the link

“The coal we dig is hard, brittle stuff [but] it was once a liquid, because we find embedded in the middle of a six-foot seam of coal such things as a delicate wing of some animal or a leaf of a plant. They are undestroyed, absolutely preserved, with every cell in that fossil filled with exactly the same coal as all the coal on the outside... The fact that coal contains fossils does not prove that it is a fossil fuel; it proves exactly the opposite. Those fossils you find in coal prove that coal is not made from those fossils. How could you take a forest and much it all up so that it is a completely featureless big black substance and then find one leaf in it that is perfectly preserved? That is absolute nonsense.” - Thomas Gold

meemoe_uk wrote:

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.

That's not correct. Measurements are done directly on the rocks in situ; and although that data only represents a proxy for stress, it's not just a "model".

meemoe_uk wrote:'data from structural geology' is vague, I don't know the method there.

Looking at the large scale structures in crustal rocks. Such as how differently the rocks are folded and faulted at collisional margins, as opposed to divergent or passive margins.

meemoe_uk wrote: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.

You're obviously unfamiliar with seismic geology: for deep structures that include the Mantle we rely more on earthquake waves and how they travel through the material. It allows us to distinguish different composition and structure of the rock. A subducting slab is distinctive enough from the Mantle for many 100s km to be picked up this way.

If you have a better way of probing the earth's interior, I'm keen to hear.

meemoe_uk wrote: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.

Yesyes, and climate scientists fiddle with temperature data to get the results they want. We know all the data manipulation conspiracies by now.

Even if this were true, it would be irrelevant to the issue at hand: the motion of tectonic plates relative to eachother. GPS data (and other ground based methods) can determine that even if your allegation of fraud is correct.

meemoe_uk wrote:thanks ginckgo. U were right, I was mistaken about the man carvings. The guy I link to has got it much more correct. I've actually learnt something due to visiting this forum. I'm very happy.

I quote a quote from the link

“The coal we dig is hard, brittle stuff [but] it was once a liquid, because we find embedded in the middle of a six-foot seam of coal such things as a delicate wing of some animal or a leaf of a plant. They are undestroyed, absolutely preserved, with every cell in that fossil filled with exactly the same coal as all the coal on the outside... The fact that coal contains fossils does not prove that it is a fossil fuel; it proves exactly the opposite. Those fossils you find in coal prove that coal is not made from those fossils. How could you take a forest and much it all up so that it is a completely featureless big black substance and then find one leaf in it that is perfectly preserved? That is absolute nonsense.” - Thomas Gold

Well that guy has zero idea about the conditions under which fossil form best. The low energy, anoxic environments of coal formation are ideal to preserve the fine detail of these plant and animal fossils. His supposed evidence that coal comes from elsewhere is exactly the evidence that shows the opposite, ie that the coal and fossils formed together.

meemoe_uk wrote:>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?

Or, how about I point out when you make sweeping, completely incorrect assertions?

Onyx8 wrote:

meemoe_uk wrote:>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?

Or, how about I point out when you make sweeping, completely incorrect assertions?

How long have you got?

meemoe_uk wrote:

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.

I wasn't just saying satellites. any neutrino telescope. Now are you claiming the earth shouldn't be pumping out detectable amounts?

ginckgo wrote:If you have a better way of probing the earth's interior, I'm keen to hear.

OH Oh OH I do. Gravity.

But in seriousness new gravity detectors look like they'll shed more light on the interior of the earth. Quite facilitating devices too. using the relativistic effects of mass on time to detect gravity and thus map mass.

meemoe_uk wrote: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.

Umm stop getting your information on what the big bang was and is from creationists.

The big bang theory in a nutshell is that the universe was smaller and hotter in the past. At current there is no confirmed state of the universe at t0 so speculating about there being nothing or a singularity are pointless till we do more study.

As for nothing, there are many hypotheses for what you describe as nothing. A 5th denominational black hole, a different universe with the arrow of time reverses, a single particle from a universe that suffered a big rip/heatdeath, or what is called nothing in physics (a quantum vacuum). The last being one of the more interesting as said nothing is unstable. This leads some to speculate that if there is nothing it will by it's nature form something as a universe is less unstable then the vacuum it came from.

meemoe_uk wrote:

ginckgo wrote:

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!

As I said earlier, I'm not 100% convinced that hydro-carbons are abiotic. I haven't finished studying it yet.
As I said, the 'fossils' in coal don't look like fossils, I current think they could be carved by man. But its possible that I'm wrong and a different process is at work. What do you think to this guys theory?
http://unconventionalgeology.blogspot.c ... -coal.html

definitely a candidate I'd consider possible.

Looks like someone who knows how to use the quote function has hacked meemoe_uk's account

Don't sound direct to me. For sure, its not possible to directly measure stresses within continents. Thats done with models.

That's not correct. Measurements are done directly on the rocks in situ; and although that data only represents a proxy for stress, it's not just a "model".

Whatever. You call it proxy, I call it modelling. I don't see how it detects motion on the order of mm per year.

meemoe_uk wrote:'data from structural geology' is vague, I don't know the method there.

Looking at the large scale structures in crustal rocks. Such as how differently the rocks are folded and faulted at collisional margins, as opposed to divergent or passive margins.

Or here.

meemoe_uk wrote: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.

You're obviously unfamiliar with seismic geology: for deep structures that include the Mantle we rely more on earthquake waves and how they travel through the material. It allows us to distinguish different composition and structure of the rock. A subducting slab is distinctive enough from the Mantle for many 100s km to be picked up this way.

You're too eager to rush to your desired conclusion. I know about earthquakes and there use in detecting deep boundaries within the Earth. It's impossible to read an assumed subduction rate from an earthquake vibration.

>If you have a better way of probing the earth's interior, I'm keen to hear.
In the respect of subduction rates, why not try the same methods used at the constructive ridges? One method was some transponders on the ocean floor. Over time their position moved away from the constructive rift as predicted. I don't know of any study that tries to measure construction rates using earthquakes.

Answer : Transponders were tried at assumed subduction zones, and no subduction rate was detected. Therefore the study was buried.

>Or, how about I point out when you make sweeping, completely incorrect assertions?
Go on then. So far u scored zero. That last one was sweeping, but it wasn't completely incorrect.

>How long have you got?
Not that long. I'll be leaving soon.

meemoe_uk wrote:>That's the biggest load of b*ll*cks I've ever heard of! Short lived isotopes can be created by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of the heaviest elements.


2nd sentence correct.
key word...
>can

instead of

> can only

so 1st sentence unjustified. You should know there more than 1 way of doing things.

Rubbish! My wording was correct. You don't seem to know the physics of readioactive decay very well. Perhaps it illustrates your difficulty with science.

>I wasn't just saying satellites.
You were. The context was satellites. You didn't specify anything else

...any neutrino telescope.
It seems u don't know what u're talking about. 'Neutrino telescope' is a misnomer for Neutrino detector. They are not telescopes, they are large volumes of ice or water surrounded by detectors. They don't resemble telescopes at all.

Now are you claiming the earth shouldn't be pumping out detectable amounts?
U need to better discern what I'm writing from the fiction going on inside your head. Me pointing out comet \ asteroid satellites aren't equipped with neutrino detectors does not equal a claim that earth shouldn't be pumping out detectable amounts [ of neutrinos ].

lucek wrote:

ginckgo wrote:If you have a better way of probing the earth's interior, I'm keen to hear.

OH Oh OH I do. Gravity.

...

Talking of gravity, please remind me, meemoe_uk, what your response would be to it being pointed out to you that a increasing earth mass would lead to a spiralling in of the moon towards the earth, in sharp contradiction to the observation that it is gradually spiralling outwards, at the rate of a few cm/yr.

>Rubbish! My wording was correct. You don't seem to know the physics of readioactive decay very well. Perhaps it illustrates your difficulty with science.

I know radioactive decay and decay chains fine thanks.
We disagree on your wording.

You don't seem to be aware of isotopes found in Earth's crust that are causally ascribed as 'cosmogenic', i.e. unstable istopes that can not be plausibly ascribed to any decay chain. they are assumed to be created when a cosmic ray hits a stable nucleon and splits it into unstable parts. This is an assumed alternative to unstable isotope decay as a source of unstable isotopes.

Examples are Beryllium 7 and 10, Carbon 11. As I've already said in prior posts, such isotopes are found in new igneous rocks around volcanoes, and the conventional model of cosmic rays splitting oxygen and nitrogen in the atmos into Beryllium and Carbon which then fall to the ocean floor, which then are subducted, which then resurface at constructive features such as volcanoes and mid ocean rifts is a far fetched model and I don't believe it.
It's much better to believe the Growing Earth theory and say such isotopes are products of nuclear fusion within plasmids in the Earth's interior.

>Talking of gravity, please remind me, meemoe_uk, what your response would be to it being pointed out to you that a increasing earth mass would lead to a spiralling in of the moon towards the earth

No need. I'm already aware what the conventional model says would happen, and I've posted my thought on this already. As a reminder : The mechanism that is growing the Earth and Moon is also powering the rotation and co-orbit of the Earth and Moon. One day the Moon will gain enough orbital energy to escape Earth's gravity.

meemoe_uk wrote:>Talking of gravity, please remind me, meemoe_uk, what your response would be to it being pointed out to you that a increasing earth mass would lead to a spiralling in of the moon towards the earth

No need. I'm already aware what the conventional model says would happen, and I've posted my thought on this already. As a reminder : The mechanism that is growing the Earth and Moon is also powering the rotation and co-orbit of the Earth and Moon. One day the Moon will gain enough orbital energy to escape Earth's gravity.

So, you want to re-write the law of gravity, do you? Got any references for that? Or is that another one that you've forgotten?

>So, you want to re-write the law of gravity, do you?

If I wanted to rewrite the laws of gravity, I'd write " I want to rewrite the laws of gravity ".
You have made an erroneous deduction somewhere in your interpretation of my writing, like lucek is always doing.

As another discussion starter. What do u CEBs think to Australian schools teaching kids the Growing Earth theory?
Aussis like the theory a bit more than other nations cos they had Sam Warren Carey and currently have James Maxlow, both of them are\were leading Growing Earth scientists.

Here's an example curriculum from such a school.

http://steinereducation.edu.au/files/as ... p_2014.pdf