It's already been pointed out (several times!!) that you are a quote-mining dummy.
What about this, Mr. Know-nothing: how about the HUNDREDS of bridges that have stood for nearly a hundred years and haven't fallen due to your nutty idea?????:bugeye:
Why Bridges Fail
- Thread starter OilIsMastery
- Start date
It's already been pointed out (several times!!) that you are a quote-mining dummy.
What about this, Mr. Know-nothing: how about the HUNDREDS of bridges that have stood for nearly a hundred years and haven't fallen due to your nutty idea?????:bugeye:
Yes. Quote-mining is a dishonest practice employed by crackpots and nuts throughout the internet when they are attempting to promote one crackpot idea or another. OIM, you really wouldn't want to be seen as being associated with such a deceptive practice since it makes you appear to be a crackpot and a nut yourself (which, I'm not saying your are, only that it might start looking that way.
You conveniently left off a portion of the quote in your last post. It should read:
Such a grave and fallacious error in one of your key arguments leaves one left to wonder which of two things is going on: is OIM that ignorant?; or is OIM attempting to deceive (a.k.a. lying)?
The first implies that you're harboring a preconceived notion or conclusion to which you seek supporting data and fail to recognize non-supportive data or even the flaws in data which you believe supports your conclusions and, thus, don't even see the additional data -as though your eye stopped reading and your mind ceased comprehension after the word "collapse" in your quote-mined example above. This options absolves you from malicious intent, but makes you out to be extremely ignorant or challenged in some mental capacity. If so, then I'm sincerely sorry for this condition and the strain it must put on you to read the posts of those that disagree with you.
The second implies that you have a preconceived notion or conclusion to which you actively suppress in addition to (probably) unconsciously suppressing data that is contradictory or non-supportive. Demonstrable flaws in your ideas, notions, opinions and the underlying conclusions are denied outright, ignored, or otherwise hoped to go away. And, even though you probably convince yourself that this denials and ignorances are justified, you're still lying -to yourself and to those who read your words.
OIM, you are fast becoming the laughing stock of SciForums if not the entire Internet. Can I include you by name in the book on pseudoscience and internet crackpottery that I'm writing?
You conveniently left off a portion of the quote in your last post. It should read:
The actual citation to that quote is the NTSB's public release titled, NTSB URGES BRIDGE OWNERS TO PERFORM LOAD CAPACITY CALCULATIONS BEFORE MODIFICATIONS; I-35W INVESTIGATION CONTINUES, which is the paper that is linked to the footnote provided in the Wikipedia link you gave.
Such a grave and fallacious error in one of your key arguments leaves one left to wonder which of two things is going on: is OIM that ignorant?; or is OIM attempting to deceive (a.k.a. lying)?
The first implies that you're harboring a preconceived notion or conclusion to which you seek supporting data and fail to recognize non-supportive data or even the flaws in data which you believe supports your conclusions and, thus, don't even see the additional data -as though your eye stopped reading and your mind ceased comprehension after the word "collapse" in your quote-mined example above. This options absolves you from malicious intent, but makes you out to be extremely ignorant or challenged in some mental capacity. If so, then I'm sincerely sorry for this condition and the strain it must put on you to read the posts of those that disagree with you.
The second implies that you have a preconceived notion or conclusion to which you actively suppress in addition to (probably) unconsciously suppressing data that is contradictory or non-supportive. Demonstrable flaws in your ideas, notions, opinions and the underlying conclusions are denied outright, ignored, or otherwise hoped to go away. And, even though you probably convince yourself that this denials and ignorances are justified, you're still lying -to yourself and to those who read your words.
OIM, you are fast becoming the laughing stock of SciForums if not the entire Internet. Can I include you by name in the book on pseudoscience and internet crackpottery that I'm writing?
I did. I rate it three out of three pokes in the eye (that's how many pokes I'd rather have than to have to read it again).
There's a huge gaping flaw in OIM's premise that bridges may collapse due to the expansion of the earth - so large that it even contradicts the conjecture of the expanding earth.
I'm surprised no-one else has spotted it (but not the least surprised that it passed OIM by)
Expanding earth conjecture states that the earth is expanding due to a net difference between the rate of seafloor spreading and subduction (if subduction even takes place at all).
This would therefore predict that the only bridges that would collapse due to the the expansion of the earth are the ones that span spreading centres - something that would also be consistent with plate tectonic theory.
So far we haven't gotten around to building a trans-pacific or trans-atlantic bridge yet - or across any other divergent plate boundary that I am aware of.
This has quite an interesting implication - this implies that OIM doesn't in fact support the "mainstream" fringe conjecture, but in fact supoports an altogether different fringe conjecture - she's way out on the fringe of the fringe if you like - that the earth is expanding uniformly in all places and in all directions simultaneously.
This now puts OIM in the position where she has little choice but to do one of the following:
1. Retract her support for pretty much all of the links she has so far posted in support of EEC - and begin again with the "expanding uniformly in all places" conjecture.
2. Admit that the entire premise of this thread is a crock of shit brought about by the fact that she doesn't even properly grasp the basics of her new pet obsession.
3. Blather inanely and avoid answering any questions or adressing the issue.
Mods seeing as we already know that she will choose option 3, how about we just demote this to the cesspool then close the thread - its embarassing to pseudoscience to have such piss-poor garbage associated with it
I'm surprised no-one else has spotted it (but not the least surprised that it passed OIM by)
Expanding earth conjecture states that the earth is expanding due to a net difference between the rate of seafloor spreading and subduction (if subduction even takes place at all).
This would therefore predict that the only bridges that would collapse due to the the expansion of the earth are the ones that span spreading centres - something that would also be consistent with plate tectonic theory.
So far we haven't gotten around to building a trans-pacific or trans-atlantic bridge yet - or across any other divergent plate boundary that I am aware of.
This has quite an interesting implication - this implies that OIM doesn't in fact support the "mainstream" fringe conjecture, but in fact supoports an altogether different fringe conjecture - she's way out on the fringe of the fringe if you like - that the earth is expanding uniformly in all places and in all directions simultaneously.
This now puts OIM in the position where she has little choice but to do one of the following:
1. Retract her support for pretty much all of the links she has so far posted in support of EEC - and begin again with the "expanding uniformly in all places" conjecture.
2. Admit that the entire premise of this thread is a crock of shit brought about by the fact that she doesn't even properly grasp the basics of her new pet obsession.
3. Blather inanely and avoid answering any questions or adressing the issue.
Mods seeing as we already know that she will choose option 3, how about we just demote this to the cesspool then close the thread - its embarassing to pseudoscience to have such piss-poor garbage associated with it
Last edited:
Let me tell you a story although you'll no doubt ignore it since that's your agenda.
In 1857 when the first transatlantic cables were laid on the ocean seafloor, the cables kept snapping. The problem of the cables snapping was a perrenial problem for over one hundred years.
The "experts" decided that the cables were snapping due to undersea landslides and turbidity currents...LOL.
Of course all of that changed in 1957 with the decision to map the seafloor and the discovery of the mid-Atlantic ridge...
Let me tell you a story although you'll no doubt ignore it since that's your agenda.
In 1857 when the first transatlantic cables were laid on the ocean seafloor, the cables kept snapping. The problem of the cables snapping was a perrenial problem for over one hundred years.
The "experts" decided that the cables were snapping due to undersea landslides and turbidity currents...LOL.
Of course all of that changed in 1957 with the decision to map the seafloor and the discovery of the mid-Atlantic ridge...
I stand corrected - you have chosen option 2 - that's brave of you - I didn't think you hand the balls - sorry I mean ovaries
of course you have pretty much asked for the thread to be closed by doing that
It appears she has been banned - assuming it's not a permaban, should we wait for her ban to be lifted and give her a chance to rise to the challenge that has been set?
Or should we just go by her previous behaviour, assume that she will blather inanely in an attempt to divert attention away from how badly she has been caught out (again), and just close the thread right now?
I did reply to it but you ignored it.
So for the record I'll reply in full.
The entire Earth is expanding therefore all bridges will eventually collapse.
I refer you to 100 years of snapped Transatlantic cables: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2069617&postcount=47
Allow me to educate you.
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
That is not possible. There is nothing of value that you are able to communicate. You have failed here utterly to address the issue that a) you have previously claimed that Earth expansion occured from spreading centres such as mid-ocean ridges b)if such is the case only bridges spanning such spreading centres should be subject to collapses.
You have also again introduced a stupid interpretation of broken submarine cables. You have completely ignored the timing differences of the breaks. These timing differences match the effects of a turbidity current moving downslope. They do not match any imaginary (and in essence, truly dumb) explanation involving Earth expansion.
A temporary ban from the forum was, in my view, inadequate. A permanent ban from the human race would be more appropriate.
The one positive emerging from your posts is that I have been able to generate much laughter amongst colleagues at your expense.
You are lying. He said he was not aware of any bridges across divergent plate boundaries. Now it's possible that he'll be aware of them although I'm somewhat pessimistic.
Flawed logic. It would mean that given two points on the Earth's surface a specified distance part move away from one another at a rate which is independent of their position.
As you have said, transatlantic cables snap due to the increasing distance between Europe and the Americas, yet in the same space of time thousands of bridges made of concrete have not fractured or broken or collapsed. A valley in the middle of the US would not be experiencing any expansion due to the Earth growing (even if your nonsense was right), the expansion would be occuring where the crust actually cracks and breaks. If the Atlantic widens by 1~4cm a year, why are bridges built in 1200 or aquaducts built by the Romans still in one piece? Older cities in the UK are full of bridges which date back to 1600AD, 1200AD, 800AD, sometimes even further back. A century would result in a 1~4 metre grown in a river. Yet we don't see that.
You still haven't tired of being shown to be inconsistent with even your own claims!
The entire Earth is expanding therefore all bridges will eventually collapse.
I refer you to 100 years of snapped Transatlantic cables: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2069617&postcount=47
Allow me to educate you.
This is consistent with plate tectonic theory - and does not explain the failure of very old bridges to collapse - even by your own very low standards it's your silliest and most child-like argument to date
I teach you that there are bridges across divergent plate boundaries and that's the thanks I get?
I refer you to my previous post
The fact that there are bridges crossing divergent plate boundaries is irrelevant to your conjecture for several reasons.
1. The fact that bridges spanning DPBs may eventually collapse due to their expansion is consistent with plate tectonic theory - and therefore provides zero evidence of an expanding earth.
2. Expanding earth conjecture predicts that ONLY these bridges would collapse due to expansion at MORs/DPBs - not all bridges as you claim.
Therefore your claims (unsupported and inconsistent with real-world evidence as they are) are not even consistent with your own conjecture - suggesting that not only do you not have the faintest clue as to what plate tectonic theory actually is or what it predicts, but neither do you even fully understand your own fringe conjecture.
Don't feel I'm being ungrateful though - you are always good for a belly laugh when you tie yourself in intellectual knots that an 8 year old boyscout could free himself from, and you are a wonderful example of how not to do science.
I say keep it up, there will shortly be one less moronic laughing stock in the public eye from the USA, so you can fill the gap nicely - you country needs you OIM.
Last edited: