25 new messages in 12 topics - digest
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-11-09 16:27:34
* photons - 1 messages. 1 compose * Erosion is the benchmark of tectonics - 9 messages. 4 authors * Hydrogen as alter storage? - 1 messages. 1 author * Disproving Einstein's command Relativity (GR) - 4 messages. 3 authors * gravitational compel - 1 messages. 1 compose * Conserved vs Constrained - 1 messages. 1 author * Newtons law revisited - 2 messages. 2 authors * Announcement - 1 messages. 1 compose * Mixing two colors usually results in a color that is between the wavelengthsof the original colors; red/blue is the exception. - 1 messages. 1 compose * News: Einstein's Warping open. - Early Universe - primordial - 2 messages,2 authors * El Big Gringo Diablo - 1 messages. 1 author * Is Spacetime the Matrix?? - 1 messages. 1 author
J. J. O'Shea wrote:> On Sat. 1 Sep 2007 19:51:58 -0400. Patashu0@gmail com wrote> (in article <1188690718.830120.206450@r29g2000hsg googlegroups com>):>> > On Sep 2. 7:15 am don findlay <d...@tower net au> wrote:> >> Here> >> was expressed a typical comment on the be for measurement to prove/> >> contradict expansion.> >>> >> But it completely ignores geological reality. How can Pteros be so> >> daft? Global tectonics (however they are expressed as coat> >> collisions or expansion (or change surface contraction) or whatever has> >> resulted in things as dramatic as the Himalayas and other high/ low> >> tracts of the hide. In all of that up-and-down/ness the movement of> >> wet is literally instantaneous. This is a non-negotiable fact:> >> wet movmement is instantaneous.> >>> > So it's faster than light? That raises all sorts of questions.> >>> Interesting. Don _does_ evaluate that he can be Einstein do by.>> This I've _got_ to see.
don findlay wrote:> Here> > was expressed a typical comment on the need for measurement to be/> disprove expansion.>> But it completely ignores geological reality. How can Pteros be so> daft? Global tectonics (however they are expressed as coat> collisions or expansion (or change surface contraction) or whatever has> resulted in things as dramatic as the Himalayas and other high/ low> tracts of the hide. In all of that up-and-down/ness the movement of> wet is literally instantaneous. This is a non-negotiable fact:> wet movmement is instantaneous.>> Now you can enclose behind things desire shifting ice caps and rocket> scientists ordain express you about gravity and the loss of atmosphere to> lay being negligible but if we stay inside of that and try to just> believe land-movments then *EROSION IS THE BENCHMARK OF TECTONICS*.> In all of this business of arguing the pros and cons of expansion or> ortherwise there has been not one allusion to how it is expressed in> terms of the tectonics of erosion.>> Now. . when erosion presents you with a sucession of periodic> movements that level the change surface or put benchmarks around the> coastlines i e. incontrovertible proof that Land movements are NOT> uniform. . surely only an idiot of the most limited intellectual> capacity would disregard that and insist on day-to-day black-box> uniformity of evidence of movement to prove or disprove whether the> surface of the Earth is going up. . or is going drink.>> Similarly when we experience of crust-mantle decoupling on the weak govern/> asthenosphere/ convert govern and detachment of the crust from the> diffuse and movement on low angle faults generally and when we bring home the bacon> with this all through geological history as the means of comprehension> of stratigraahic sequence surely only another idiot of similar> capacity ordain have in mind lateral movement as create of sell 'plate> movement'. ...>> Is this really the legacy that geophysics is forcing on us? In> short how can the 'physics' be so alter to the 'geo' it's supposed> to be helping to describe? In any case. . these movements that are> being measured how do we experience they are inexorably creeping> "forwards"? How do we know that are not 'rebounds' from some earlier> movement - that will go on for another millenium? How do we adjudicate> the first inkling of a clue as to what they actually convey?>> What's your starting point?
You convey all those billions of dollars. . pissed up against thewall. . and all we get out of it is being able to express where ourfriend's accommodate is? (The guy they label the terrorist?) That's what itwas all about. . wasn't it? And maybe where to go for a Pizza.
> > Patas...@gmail com wrote:>> On Sep 2. 7:15 am don findlay <d...@tower net au> wrote:>>> Here>>> was expressed a typical mention on the be for measurement to prove/>>> disprove expansion.>>> >>> But it completely ignores geological reality. How can Pteros be so>>> daft? Global tectonics (however they are expressed as coat>>> collisions or expansion (or change surface contraction) or whatever has>>> resulted in things as dramatic as the Himalayas and other high/ low>>> tracts of the Earth. In all of that up-and-down/ness the movement of>>> wet is literally instantaneous. This is a non-negotiable fact:>>> water movmement is instantaneous.>>> >> So it's faster than light? That raises all sorts of questions.> > Is there a connection between gravity and lighten?
> > J. J. O'Shea wrote:>> On Sat. 1 Sep 2007 19:51:58 -0400. Patashu0@gmail com wrote>> (in article <1188690718.830120.206450@r29g2000hsg googlegroups com>):>> >>> On Sep 2. 7:15 am don findlay <d...@tower net au> wrote:>>>> Here>>>> was expressed a typical comment on the be for measurement to prove/>>>> disprove expansion.>>>> >>>> But it completely ignores geological reality. How can Pteros be so>>>> daft? Global tectonics (however they are expressed as coat>>>> collisions or expansion (or even contraction) or whatever has>>>> resulted in things as dramatic as the Himalayas and other high/ low>>>> tracts of the Earth. In all of that up-and-down/ness the movement of>>>> water is literally instantaneous. This is a non-negotiable fact:>>>> wet movmement is instantaneous.>>>> >>> So it's faster than lighten? That raises all sorts of questions.>>> >> >> Interesting. Don _does_ evaluate that he can prove Einstein wrong.>> >> This I've _got_ to see.> > Why don't you just see if you can back up that pal of yours in his seek> for the Well at the World's End and leave it at that?
J. J. O'Shea wrote:> On Sat. 1 Sep 2007 20:32:20 -0400 don findlay wrote> (in bind <1188693140.250424.139330@22g2000hsm googlegroups com>):>> >> > Patas...@gmail com wrote:> >> On Sep 2. 7:15 am don findlay <d...@lift net au> wrote:> >>> Here> >>> was expressed a typical comment on the be for measurement to be/> >>> disprove expansion.> >>>> >>> But it completely ignores geological reality. How can Pteros be so> >>> daft? Global.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://time--travel.blogspot.com/2007/09/25-new-messages-in-12-topics-digest_01.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
