Is the earth expanding?

I see Nasa employed a team to try every means possible to kill of the EE theory. They were also under pressure to do so, and that i notice in other fields makes for kill theory science rather than lets found out, whats what science.

Another thread for that topic i think. I may be wrong, and i dont even know if EE stills needs growth. although some claim it does.

Nasa brings awe in some, but this years, they are no different now to any other institutions. with austerity cuts and winding down the space program. When seemingly unlimited resources are withdrawn, there is a very rapid transitions in organizations from creativity to political conservatism and level business head type strategies.
 
yup it is expanding but the rate is too slow comparable to its size. meteors and dust particles, earth comes in contact with is maybe the reason.
but as there is continuous exchange of energy and mass to maintain the equilibrium, i assume, the overall mass of earth remain constant
moreover mass and energy relation justifies the constancy in mass as earth takes heat ENERGY from sun and later radiates it into the atmosphere.:rolleyes:
 
parul said:
yup it is expanding but the rate is too slow comparable to its size. meteors and dust particles, earth comes in contact with is maybe the reason.
but as there is continuous exchange of energy and mass to maintain the equilibrium, i assume, the overall mass of earth remain constant
moreover mass and energy relation justifies the constancy in mass as earth takes heat ENERGY from sun and later radiates it into the atmosphere.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

dynamic processes that are asymmetrical which EE is (mostly in the south pacific) tend to occur in phase shifts. EE is not primarily about whether currently there is expansion.

Nasa didnt really kill EE. What they did was address a long standing dispute about how their instruments get rid of errors. Ill need to pull the paper, but i think this is more about Nasa defending the competency of their instruments that has been dressed up into some kind of EE killing press release. they might also be under pressure to produce an answer, i dunno..:shrug:

when somebody answers this then we might be getting somewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13WlAhA8Wu8

lets see if trippy can watch this video and produce an answer that is not evasive.
 
Sorry I cannot comment on the video. There is no way I could make it through that much tripe, it is way too long. I guess that means you can bask in the unshakable knowledge of an expanding earth which scientist and most people find laughable.

Enjoy!:rolleyes:
 
The reason i got into EE theory in the first place is because i was interested in the psychology, games, motivations etc that underlies the battle for ideas. I found it fascinating the stories of what our current accepted science had to go through, but lately there is not a lot of this kind of major conflict for a student to see the process in action. It needs to be understood or you are going into this field flying blind.

Except EE theory.. watching the shenanigans over the years clearly it is all a game. There are a few truth seekers around, but how many people without a trust fund and endless time on their hands can afford to be truth seekers ? Yes there are the unemployed but mostly if they are competent enough to produce good science they would not be unemployed. Although thats changing under the current economic climate.

I digress. i guess i like it when you refuse to watch these videos, discuss their content etc. When i played and coached in ice hockey it was really dirty tricks, strategy games. Anything goes. Over all the tricks the key state of mind to remain dominant over the other side is that you never, ever acknowledge anything positive about the other team. They could be saints that give all their earnings to cancer research. They could promise to play the game without ever breaking a rule and even win a lot that way.

They are always bad, crazy, stupid, incompetent. Never should anything they do be considered, discussed (unless to mock or how to demoralize them)

Its just basic them and us game theory. This applies to science theories. So thats my introduction really. I am interested in strategy that goes on in these interactions. although after reading enough EE i also think its correct, and interesting for those times when we have the luxury of thinking how astronomy, geology works....
 
What is different about sports is its such a game, the emotion is not really sustained to the core (ok there are the odd grudge teams that protract over generations). At the end of the game you shake hands with the other team at the end of the game, and discuss their better players in glowing terms on the bus home. next season each others players could be playing for the other side ! You also see this good gamesmanship in science labs competing on the same area.

In controversial science with this grade of intricacy like EE, matters do not get resolved. it just protracts and protracts over generations. Perhaps EE vs plate tectonics is like the grudge teams that have allowed things to protract and fester.
 
BTW did any of you guys actually watch the video.

If not why.. One person give some lame excuse. Does anbody else have technical issues such as they cannot play due to being on mobile or limited broadband ?

With all the people using phones that cannot play the video I am thinking whether to extract mccarthy video into slides.
 
rogerharris said:
BTW did any of you guys actually watch the video.

If not why.. One person give some lame excuse. Does anbody else have technical issues such as they cannot play due to being on mobile or limited broadband ?

With all the people using phones that cannot play the video I am thinking whether to extract mccarthy video into slides.
Click to expand...
I'll watch it but not today. :)
How about using the methods in combination.
It looks like Mercury had plate tectonics and the whole planet cooled and now is shrinking due to cooling. All the plates are being forced back close together.
I haven't seen the surface features myself yet but that is the image I get from reading about it.:)
 
Robittybob1 said:
I'll watch it but not today. :)
How about using the methods in combination.
It looks like Mercury had plate tectonics and the whole planet cooled and now is shrinking due to cooling. All the plates are being forced back close together.
I haven't seen the surface features myself yet but that is the image I get from reading about it.:)
Click to expand...


Maxlows work is expansion tectonics. Even neal adams now talks of tectonic subduction lately. I dont think there are any EE proponents denying it happens. Florian posts excerpts showing massive slabs getting subducted underneath the Himalayas.

I notice EE proponents are quite flexible. Lightstorm (on ratskep) bowed out the debate conceding the Nasa results meant he had to re-appraise the entire scheme.

Where as on the "other side" its pure laziness, rigidity, dirty tricks etc.

what methods ? referring to understanding science theories in terms of game strategy ? Considering thats whats going on, i think a tougher approach is required in this field. Evidence is clearly not enough. It will just be ignored. A strategy is required to pin down opponents and back them into a corner in some kind of public arena where independent objective observers can judge whats going on.

Did you notice on the ratskep thread yesterday something interesting ? I had for over a year asked for something they host there called public debates or podcasts and they refused.Somebody posted the Nasa results and then lightstorm declared that he was bowing out the debate using the term "white flag".

Immediately out come the ratksep members declaring victory, patting on him the back for surrendering, with their moderator then feeling so triumphant in their groupishness has actually asked neal adams if he would take part in a public podcast....obviously feeling so triumphant in their win, that they could go in for the kill.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/p...tinents-wind-back-to-a-sphere-t8539-2360.html

To them its a game. They dont care about the truth of the matter. Ratskep formed from a set of strategies they used on richard dawkins forum to beat down the arguments of theists. They posted the strategies by PM to colleages and PM each other for re-enforcements on a particular theist... as a kind of kill sport where they employ enforcers. I see it as a kill sport, because they are killing somebodies cherished beliefs in the afterlife and did not check if these were vulnerable people who had those beliefs because the had lost a loved one. I viewed this is as psychopathic in a way. Especially their glee and the fact most of these people involved do not have religion imposing on them in their personal lives.

They have no good reason except an excuse for intellectual bullying. I know all this because my ex-GF was one of their team. I was pretty disgusted with all of it and we broke up eventually. Interestingly she had been bullied when younger so i think a lot of these people have issues of revenge in their background.

Richard dawkins eventually booted them off his forum for being so disruptive and foul. So they formed ratskep using the same strategies, except now they employ it on fringe scientists, seeing as the theists have flown.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html
 
It certainly is a long thread 124 pAGES. I don't like the format, all that repetition and lines of signatures, it gets boring.
 
Robittybob1 said:
It certainly is a long thread 124 pAGES. I don't like the format, all that repetition and lines of signatures, it gets boring.
Click to expand...

its part of the strategy. Somebody makes a good post, and then the usual crowd come into flood it on to another page with peurile comments that have very little to do with the points. If the thread lasts another week the enforcers come in to try and annoy the proponent to break the rules (and so be suspended) with foul language carefully constructed so it does not break the rules.

i.e. All the tense and verbs are specified to the topic and its production and not the person in general. In this manner you can basically barrage somebody with all kinds of foul insults page after page and not break a rule. Bit of an art, and who really wants to learn such an art for science ?

So the actual number of on topic points and interaction is pretty low. Seems to be improving lately though. It looks like a very respectable forum as well from the graphics, and that they also have some qualified people on there.
 
I would leave them to it, but check this out.... fringe scientists branded as pseudoscientists on google due to their aggressive google rank campaign (yes they have one)....

steve taylor neutron formation

http://tinyurl.com/bufecff

Topological Geometrodynamics

http://tinyurl.com/c5tgu4g

Quantum-Geometry Dynamics

http://tinyurl.com/czon4m9

The Infinite Universe vs the Myth of the Big Bang http://tinyurl.com/caqhqrq

http://tinyurl.com/caqhqrq

Louise Riofrio

http://tinyurl.com/d7ybm4m

paul almond articles

http://tinyurl.com/comnj2a

lee Hackett british horse society

http://tinyurl.com/cytnhty

Harley Borgais

http://tinyurl.com/bq2quf2

Arto Annila. “Least-time paths of light

http://tinyurl.com/czhq65s

Allen Liou physics

http://tinyurl.com/bljusr8
 
well OK eventually it will be realized their opinions are not to be taken seriously, but for now they damage these scientists by supplanting their peer reviewed works out of google with their useless review. their pages end up dominating that scientists online representation.

anyway this is for another thread. Its not even relevant to EE. Just trying to explain the nonsense thats going on over there in general if anybody is wondering why its so out of hand. A new form of fundamentalism. Hopefully just a blip that dissapears. These groups often end up breaking apart through internal squabbles.
 
rogerharris said:
youtube.com/watch?v=13WlAhA8Wu8[/URL

I guess screenshots are going to have to be extracted into a PP format for a forum or nobody will address this.
Click to expand...

You can link Dennis McCarthy's website such 4threvolt.com/EEEvidence.html or 4threvolt.com/Evidence/Table.html.
 
rogerharris said:
I see Nasa employed a team to try every means possible to kill of the EE theory. They were also under pressure to do so, and that i notice in other fields makes for kill theory science rather than lets found out, whats what science.
Click to expand...

I knew that sooner or later this would move into the conspiracy theory arena. Ooohh scary stuff.:D
 
rogerharris said:
I would leave them to it, but check this out.... fringe scientists branded as pseudoscientists on google due to their aggressive google rank campaign (yes they have one)....

steve taylor neutron formation
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Fringe scientist? This is more like some uneducated kid coming up with a bong induced fantasy.

Your conspiracy theory is looking pretty typical of these sort of things...:rolleyes:
 
origin said:
I knew that sooner or later this would move into the conspiracy theory arena. Ooohh scary stuff.:D
Click to expand...

I dont believe in conspiracies. Well they do happen. Most business behavior is of that ilk. Generally People with a similar interest self organize emergent conforming behavior by instinct. We know that much from neuropsychology studies. Even us into EE will do it. Hence I am always happy to see there is intense debate going in between EE proponents.

The scientific method is a design to isolate those instincts from process, but it can still happen in larger organizations, when research groups are fragmented and parts of the work are farmed out from a central supervisor who is isolated and perhaps does not fully understand the issue.

i.e. The most common fault i noticed over the years, and i would guess happened here is that a group are under pressure to falsify something, but they fail to understand what they are trying to falsify and end up doing half a job. However its enough for a press release to at least say something hyped up. The other side are too under-resourced to come back with a retort study. End of story.

Happens a lot. but usually only in big business or government areas. There are changes in the law due to chemical companies messing around with this process. Ghostwriting. Hiring a dozen labs, then only releasing the studies which went their way.

In this case its nothing like that. the Nasa scientists (quite a few of those in this paper are not even from Nasa) just failed to understand what they were trying to falsify.
 
origin said:
Are you serious? Fringe scientist? This is more like some uneducated kid coming up with a bong induced fantasy.

Your conspiracy theory is looking pretty typical of these sort of things...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

did you see his google profile. Hes a published cambridge astronomer.

This is just a partial list taken from page one of the ratskep pseudoscience section. The point is the majority of these are fringe scientists. Not pseudoscientists. They publish papers. Many are tenured, affiliated to universities long term, they retract their ideas when corrected, have many projects hence they may not do one rigorously and leave it half done... etc etc..

i.e. The point is they are involved in the scientific process as fringe. Pseudoscience is basically labeling them as dishonest.

If i had a mind to, i could pull out about 100 academics from each top university, that ever had an offbeat idea published, stick it into ratskep (they never move a thread out of there) and the next thing their google results are littered with them branded as liars.

Do you think that is fair ?
 
Gneiss2011 said:
You can link Dennis McCarthy's website such 4threvolt.com/EEEvidence.html or 4threvolt.com/Evidence/Table.html.
Click to expand...

thanks... i like the way dennis just simplifies straight to the deal breaker points with attention grabbing presentations. He is like a bridge between maxlow and neal adams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top