meemoe_uk wrote:>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.

Meemoe_uk, your claims concerning what follows from Newton's law of gravity are absurdly wrong. That is why it is entirely reasonable to suggest that you must have re-written it.
Anyhow, I ask again, please give a reference to a paper - any paper - that backs your strange claims in the matter.

That things can escape Earth's gravity if they have a driving force is not an absurdly wrong claim. Go rant at NASA if u believe that, they are guilty of sending objects off Earth with escape velocity. and I don't need a paper to say that. Print this webpage out if u need some paper.

meemoe_uk wrote:That things can escape Earth's gravity if they have a driving force is not an absurdly wrong claim. Go rant at NASA if u believe that, they are guilty of sending objects off Earth with escape velocity. and I don't need a paper to say that. Print this webpage out if u need some paper.

Ha! I did not say that nothing can escape the earth's gravity! You are using a straw man argument in addition to invoking magic.
The point that you still have not addressed is that there is nothing in the law of gravity that allows for mass increase without accretion.

> there is nothing in the law of gravity that allows for mass increase without accretion.

You're confusing 2 seperate theories. There's no need to modify gravity theory to propose mass increase without accretion, just like there's no need to modify thermodynamic theory to propose mass increase without accretion. Or any other theory.

You can chuck the bigbang theory in the bin though. And no u don't need to modify it b4, just chuck it away.

meemoe_uk wrote:> there is nothing in the law of gravity that allows for mass increase without accretion.

You're confusing 2 seperate theories. There's no need to modify gravity theory to propose mass increase without accretion, just like there's no need to modify thermodynamic theory to propose mass increase without accretion. Or any other theory.

You can chuck the bigbang theory in the bin though. And no u don't need to modify it b4, just chuck it away.

This is hilarious!
You cant just ignore well established conservation laws in physics on a whim, to justify a daft theory of a growing earth.

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.

And you think that shows that the earth is growing??

Meemoe, it's time you realised that volcanoes merely recycle material from deep in the earth, in a process involving thermal convection currents in the mantle. I repeat that matter was created in the big bang, 13.7Bn years ago, not in the centre of the earth, the other day.

>This is hilarious!
You cant just ignore well established conservation laws in physics on a whim, to justify a daft theory of a growing earth.

Try telling that to your crowd of big bang believers. They walked all over principles of conservation.

You can't just ignore well established non conservations laws in physics on a whim, to justify a daft adherence to principles of some other irrelevant physics. And i don't find it hilarious that you'd do this. I've seen it too many times b4.


>And you think that shows that the earth is growing??

Its supporting evidence. A concept u are conveniently ignoring because of your bias.

DavidMcC wrote:Meemoe, it's time you realised that volcanoes merely recycle material from deep in the earth, in a process involving thermal convection currents in the mantle. I repeat that matter was created in the big bang, 13.7Bn years ago, not in the centre of the earth, the other day.

I'm fully aware of the conventional model. I reject it, its crap.

meemoe_uk wrote:I'm fully aware of the conventional model. I reject it, its crap.

Right. So you reject it because you don't like it.
That's fine, but you might want to note these forums are called "rational skepticism" not "I like my pet woo theory that I can't support with evidence."

meemoe_uk wrote:There's no need to modify gravity theory to propose mass increase without accretion, just like there's no need to modify thermodynamic theory to propose mass increase without accretion. Or any other theory.

The elephant in the room is that you have to invent a whole new type of physics to accommodate a single unfounded assertion, while the currently accepted explanation works perfectly well with already established and well understood physics.

Provide evidence for this new physics and you will be taken seriously, otherwise this is just a clown act.

DavidMcC wrote:Meemoe, it's time you realised that volcanoes merely recycle material from deep in the earth, in a process involving thermal convection currents in the mantle.

Interestingly, studies of lava ejected from volcanoes near plate boundaries have provided very strong evidence that subduction is occurring.

How do we determine that oceanic crust is actually subducted into the mantle? The answer comes in the form of cosmogenic isotopes such as 10Beryllium (10Be) that are produced exclusively by the interaction of cosmic radiation with atoms in the earth's atmosphere and on the earth's surface. With a half-life of only 1.5 million years, 10Be's presence in the lava erupted in continental and island arc settings is only possible if it is carried down beneath the eruption site by subduction, and subsequently mobilised by partial melting to be incorporated into the source magma. Tera et. al. (1984), Morris (1991), Morris & Zheng (1993), You et. Al. (1994), are a sample of studies that observe the presence of 10Be in magmas produced in island arc and continental margin settings; ultimately providing the geochemical evidence of subduction.

[source]

meemoe_uk wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Meemoe, it's time you realised that volcanoes merely recycle material from deep in the earth, in a process involving thermal convection currents in the mantle. I repeat that matter was created in the big bang, 13.7Bn years ago, not in the centre of the earth, the other day.

I'm fully aware of the conventional model. I reject it, its crap.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but this is good enough for me. It is stated so assertively with unflinching confidence, it must be right.

>Right. So you reject it because you don't like it.
don't like it cos its non scientific ( can't be replicated ) and non physical ( breaks known laws of physics )

That's fine, but you might want to note these forums are called "rational skepticism" not "I like my pet woo theory that I can't support with evidence."

Better drop conventional theory then. Its been falsified so hard and often that everyone is used to the " scientists we're baffled by... " type reports to the point were none of u even notice anything's wrong.


The elephant in the room is that you have to invent a whole new type of physics to accommodate a single unfounded assertion, while the currently accepted explanation works perfectly well with already established and well understood physics

Not quite. But there's an elephant in the room i agree - we are lumbered with the most useless discredited bag of theorys we've had since we replaced religious script as our understanding of the universe.

>works perfectly well.

lulz. A true believer.


Provide evidence for this new physics and you will be taken seriously, otherwise this is just a clown act.
The Earth.

>Interestingly, studies of lava ejected from volcanoes near plate boundaries have provided very strong evidence that subduction is occurring.

Nice to see someone is following my lead to read about conventional theory but be careful. DavidMcC is loathed to admit assumed cosmogenic elements exist after I busted him on his 'can' vs 'can only' post.

The theory of cosmogenesis would be discredited if Be7 & 10 are also found in the mid atlantic ridges. 1.5 million years, might be long enough to subduct and them quicky reemerge at volcanos over an assumed subduction rift, but it wouldn't be long enough for the Be7 to be created in the atmos, settle on the ocean floor, get subducted, go thru a convention cycle, then re-emerge at the rift. As far as I know, up till 2011, no such study has found Be7&10 at mid ocean ridges. Where's my falsifying evidence?

meemoe_uk wrote:The theory of cosmogenesis would be discredited if Be7 & 10 are also found in the mid atlantic ridges. 1.5 million years, might be long enough to subduct and them quicky reemerge at volcanos over an assumed subduction rift, but it wouldn't be long enough for the Be7 to be created in the atmos, settle on the ocean floor, get subducted, go thru a convention cycle, then re-emerge at the rift. As far as I know, up till 2011, no such study has found Be7&10 at mid ocean ridges. Where's my falsifying evidence?

The fact that 10Be is found in material ejected from volcanoes near plate boundaries is evidence of subduction. According to plate tectonics, no 10Be would be expected to be found emerging from the mid-ocean ridges.

Well that was easy.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 4/abstract

Baited you.
In 2012 just such a survey was taken

J. N. Vallet-Silver F. Tera J. Klein R. Middleton wrote:
"Beryllium 10 concentrations were determined for 31 handpicked hydrothermal sulfides, six oxyhydroxides, seven basalts, and five sediments collected from the hydrothermally active areas of the East Pacific ridges... ...The oxy-hydroxides, collected on some of the Juan de Fuca chimneys, are always very rich in 10Be with concentrations reaching 125 × 106 atoms/g."

Then they bluster around trying to cook up a mechanism within convention to explain wot all the assumed cosmogenic Be10 is doing there.

They should have just concluded ...
" This Be10 falsifies conventional Earth theory, and we are now converts to the Growing Earth theory with its interior fusion reactions "

meemoe_uk wrote: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

A plain and simple lie.

The Steiner schools teach plate tectonics. Read the document you referenced - section 10.6 if you need help.

It's possible to teach 2 competing theories. And I think its a very good thing to do in teaching. I remember we learn newton's corpuscle theory of light at college. We knew it was wrong. Of course point was to try see how inaccuracies and failed predictions crepp in as u use the theory to predict stuff. An experience u lot should be finding with conventional theory but u're blocking it all out.

meemoe_uk wrote:Baited you.

Nothing in that abstract says that the finding of 10Be falsifies plate tectonics. It was unexpected, and they propose mechanisms for how it got there. None of those mechanisms involve matter being created ex nihilo in the interior of the earth, because they aren't science-denying zealots.

meemoe_uk wrote:
don't like it cos its non scientific ( can't be replicated ) and non physical ( breaks known laws of physics )

1: How is it non scientific?
2: What known laws of physics does it break?
3: How does the creation of new mass in the center of the earth fit with the known laws of physics?

You have to provide evidence to support these, otherwise why should we listen?

meemoe_uk wrote:It's possible to teach 2 competing theories...

I agree, if they're actually competing theories. They're not.