I’ve just seen a very good plate tectonics documentary. But its almost humourous in view of Neal Adams’ theory. That is to say in view of the theory, originating in Australia, which assumes that the planet earth is expanding.
Whereas when the documentary mentions rift zones, the camera zooms down to some fellow in South Africa or elsewhere. But they mention subduction and its always a crude animation. In the end they mentioned one subduction zone by name. The Puerto Rican trench. I went to Subduction zones in the wiki and they are dramatically and suspiciously short on examples. And when you do put together a list of alleged subduction zones they are like these small trenches. Whereas the rifting can go on for many hundreds or even thousands of miles. Ocean rift valleys and riftiing, no shortages to worry about.
They talked about the Grand Canyon. And right up there in the air there is former sea floor. Maybe Permian. The documentary talked about how the explanation for sea floor being right up there in the air is that two plates sqeezing TOGETHER!!! (not being ripped apart) forced the ocean up. From there a complicated and spurious theory suggests that this gouge that is the Grand Canyon, was the result of water erosion. I want an estimate in penti-litres of what it would have taken and why any river must have gone from side to side to cause such a wide berth of friction.
You get this bizzare explanation of ancient historical processes going on only in the minds of the theorists at the same time as you are being confronted by the present reality of this pitiful little river down the bottom. Its like wondering past the carcasses of giants only to find a dead mighty-mouse still in his underwear and attributing all the destruction to the mouse.
Another weakness showed up in the historiography. Wherein they pointed out that Wegeners work in 1912 was mocked on the grounds that neither Wegener nor anyone else could suss out how it was that the continents were moved around. Then this extraordinarily lush and detailed documentary said that in th 1960′s the cause of this movement was discovered.
Plate tectonics they said. They give no discoverers name. They were so short on detail. And so you get these weak points in this fullsome documentary. What really must have happened is that half a century of the fossil record weighing down on the Science Maffia must have finally collapsed the resistance to Wegener. Then they are forced to cobble together this explanation doing the best that they could.
The documentary-makers would have been consulting authorities on the matter and trying to understand the concepts and I think they did a conscientious job. These were people working for Australias ABC I think. Some outfit called Freemantle productions. Freemantle is in Perth. They were doing their level best I think. But the weaknesses in the theory are fully visible in the weaknesses in the documentary.
Nothing happens all at once or by immaculate conception. All processes we know of take time. Nothing happens all at once. No firing of guns like in the song, or anything else. Everything happens sequentially and in parallel. Nothing all at once and on the instant.
Matter and Energy are here. But it ought not be thought that they were produced all at once in some bizzare scientistic version of genesis. Since matter and energy are here we have to conclude that they were produced some time or other AND OVER TIME. Some folks try to tell us that these items were produced in a time-period so small that the blink of an eye would be an eternity by comparison.
Some folks try and tell us this and these folks are either ignorant of the subject, or dishonest, or plainly idiotic. Fortunately there is no evidence for such idiocy, so we have to assume that like everything else matter and energy are produced and destroyed over time.
The expanding earth theory gives us the beginnings of an answer to this mystery. The expanding earth theory suggests for us a basis for ongoing research should the mathematical posers in high physics decide that they want to be good scientists rather than bad theologians.
There may be a real need for good theology. But bad theology isn’t the latest thing. Its not on the upanup and bad theology is no salvation to the worlds problems. Particularly if its posing as science.
The particular mathematicians that I’m thinking of are not the people equipped for the job of producing good theology, so they ought to try science instead one supposes. Actually it may be too late for them to be scientists either. Susskind was trained as a plumber. It is as to a plumber he should return. But what about the others. MIGHT THEY ALL NOT RETRAIN AS PLUMBERS?
Maths teachers? Once we’ve gotten rid of government financing for education? We want to keep these people out of trouble you know.