But it is the appropriate one, because they tell each other it is. While not writing papers for peer-reviewed publication in major journals.

Florian wrote:I strongly suggest to the scientists, i.e. people with a strong scientific background and who understand how science works (Observations->Theory->Prediction->Experimental validation of the prediction and so on...), to go and share their scientific work to an appropriate forum.

You're suggesting that they join an echo-chamber, populated by people whose scientific competence has been demonstrated to be nil during the course of this thread? Wouldn't they be better off sharing it with, you know, scientists?

And yes, discussions in between scientists with expertise in the field and peer-reviewed publication is still the only way to make science moves forward...

Can't wait. When do you publish?

we, the scientists

ETA: I note that the last post there was back in March... a post that links back to here! Oh, and that this thread has seen more action in the last month than your forum has since its inception 3.5 years ago...

Not even a echo chamber so much as an anechoic chamber. Some 'appropriate forum' you have there Florian.

Weaver wrote:
I eagerly await the peer-reviewed publications, in major journals, definitively demonstrating that some version of EE is correct.

Me too!

Weaver wrote:Until that happens, however, I'm not holding my breath.

Me neither...

Florian wrote:

Weaver wrote:
I eagerly await the peer-reviewed publications, in major journals, definitively demonstrating that some version of EE is correct.

Me too!

Weaver wrote:Until that happens, however, I'm not holding my breath.

Me neither...

So - when do you publish?

As soon as he can get a real scientist to take him seriously. Unfortunately, there aren't too many influential scientists with advance dementia around. That number is likely to increase in the coming years with the advances being made in real science with regard to longevity. I suspect he's waiting for a quorum of influential fuckwits, which is what it would take to accept this wibblicious bollocks.

Okay one thing I have thought about expanding earth...

Assuming that you can create something out of nothing inside the earth to make it expand.

And assuming that there is no subduction and this all happened more or less in the past 200 myr thus explaining max age of the ocean floors.

How do you explain that the oldest oceanic crust is 3.8 billion years old as preserved in ophiolites?

Hopeful Monster wrote:Okay one thing I have thought about expanding earth...

Assuming that you can create something out of nothing inside the earth to make it expand.

And assuming that there is no subduction and this all happened more or less in the past 200 myr thus explaining max age of the ocean floors.

How do you explain that the oldest oceanic crust is 3.8 billion years old as preserved in ophiolites?

Usually they brush it aside as either a misinterpretation of the rocks (ie they are just some surface flood basalts, not mid ocean ridge), or that there were occasional continental rifts in the past that opens and closed again.

This thread could go on forever if it confined itself to the details of geology. The real killers for the increasing mass version of EE are the requirements that new matter is being created at the centre of the earth and that Newton't law of gravity should somehow be circumvented by the receding moon (which would have to be coming rapidly in towards the earth if EE was correct). As for the constant mass version of EE, it fails to account for why the earth hasn't become hollow, or highly porous. It also fails on the EE claim that the dinosaurs were getting too heavy as gravity increased, because g must be decreasing in the constant mass EE.

Interestingly, the two flavours of EE referred to above never used to argue with each other, only with the rest of us.

This isn't up to my normal standard for calculation but just a quick thought before I go to bed. If we assume .5G on a smaller earth and from that we can take that half the amount of atmosphere can be retained by the gravity of earth then shouldn't the pressure be 25% of today. Then during the Mesozoic era, Triassic in particular the earth was hotter.

So going off this rough data the boiling point of water for half radius earth at sea level would be ~76 c and average temperatures were ~60 c. A difference of 16 c.

Now I know my original figures were Petty well winged, and the boiling water would mean greater air pressure and cooler temps. Just a half baked thought but interesting.

how in the world is it 22% voted as they did?. the fact that this thread goes on and on breaks my confidence on future of humanity.

cavarka9 wrote:how in the world is it 22% voted as they did?. the fact that this thread goes on and on breaks my confidence on future of humanity.

Cavarka, it wasn't 22%, it was 22 people! Even the 14% figure is misleadingly high, because it is a percentage of respondents only, not of the site membership (which is ~6700).

Snapshot polls are often fairly indicative of the opinions of larger populations, David.

Only if they reach a representative sample size, James.

ETA: Online polls are especially dubious, as it's easy for people to drop in and screw up the representativeness of the poll, as in this case.

Made of Stars wrote:Only if they reach a representative sample size, James.

How large is a representative sample size?

It depends on the size of the membership, but would asymptote around 1,000, IIRC. For this forum, you could probably get away with 40-50 at a guess. However, as it's an online poll you'd want some way to filter out drop-ins. Minimum duration of membership, or number of posts, for example. We don't have that option here.

I suspect that a small percentage of individuals would be itching to spoil any poll, online or not. But I acknowledge and accept your points.

Agreed.

cavarka9 wrote:how in the world is it 22% voted as they did?. the fact that this thread goes on and on breaks my confidence on future of humanity.

Self selected. When we get people like Maxlow and Adams coming to the site it's not surprising. Look at the post of the people who voted yes. A lot of them have made 90+% of their posts in this thread.

jamest wrote:Snapshot polls are often fairly indicative of the opinions of larger populations, David.

Only if the sample size is adequate. This one was clearly not.