Posted by: graemebird | February 23, 2009

Expansion By Way Of Stretch-Marks.

The findings of the expanding earth thesis will be very hard to sweep away via alternative explanations. The findings take all the convergent evidence from the Pangea/Gondwanaland theory of continental drift and they eliminate some of the problems with this thesis. What makes the expanding thesis virtually impossible to deny for a sane person, is the way it can be demonstrated, not only on earth, but on Mars, the Moon and even on Europa.

What Neal Adams does is he rigs up animations where the lowest-lying-areas are closed, and what is found is that either side of the lower-lying areas tend to match perfectly. Of course the chances of this happening by chance come under the heading of “no chance.” The undeniable conclusion is that our geology primarily alters by way of STRETCH-MARK.

The Pacific is bigger than the Atlantic and people began to notice that the continents fitted together if the Atlantic were closed off. And this was convergent with the fossil record and what the fossil record implied of evolution. But what was not noticed, except by a few, was that the continents fitted together if you closed them off the other way. That is the continents fitted both ways. They fitted if you close off the Atlantic. But they fitted also if you closed off the Pacific.

Now if you wanted to stick dogmatically to the doctrine of the earth that stays the same mass and with the same gravity, then you could theorise that this geological evolution via stretch-mark, already proven, was balanced by subduction. But there isn’t evidence for that level of subduction. However on earth you could find a reason to believe that the subduction happened in the ocean and why not? After all if it did so we would not see it because it would be occurring underwater. So it is not something we could deduce by putting up a similar animation. We don’t see this subduction, or much of it, anywhere underwater. Instead we see rifting, that is to say development by way of stretch-mark. But it could at least be theorised that subduction somewhere was balancing development via stretch-mark.

The problem with this dogamtically inspired thesis, is when we get to the moon and mars there is the evidence of geological development by way of stretch-mark. But no evidence of a balancing sub-duction. So the only conclusion is that the planets and larger moons are expanding.

Now why is this so hard to believe?

BAD THEORY DRIVES OUT THE GOOD. LUDICROUS THEORY DRIVES OUT GOOD THEORY ABSOLUTELY.

“In the beginning there was nothing. Then it exploded”

The doctrine of planetary expansion is only hard to believe because of a constellation of wrong incumbent theories. I’m pretty fastidious with paradigms. And I cannot and will not accept a paradigm, like the big bang, that never had any convergence to it. That is to say, right from the start the big bang theory, rested on a single line of evidence.

That evidence came from the doctrine of red shift. In effect this doctrine said that red shift was caused by the doppler effect. Which is true and proven to the satisfaction of all. But it secretly says something else. The doctrine of red shift secretly says that red shift is caused by the doppler effect and so ONLY the doppler effect causes red shift.

This is wrong and has been falsified. Hence the Big Bang theory, which never ought to have got off the ground under my fastidious epistemology, is falsified totally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What happens to our assumptions when we reject the ludicrous and now falsified Big Bang theory? Well everything changes. Or if we are rational people everything must change.

Contemporary science tells us that matter and energy are equivalent in some ways. It tells us that via fission and fusion energy, and perhaps by the standard radioactive decay of pretty much all elements, that matter can be converted to energy. Now I think thats pretty good theory? What do you think? I think its good theory and I think you’ll agree.

But we are pretty light on the conversion running the other way. We are not totally DEVOID of the conversion running the other way. But we seem to think of this as a special case.

But once we deep-six the big bang, as all grown-ups must, we find that the conversion of energy to matter has to be roughly, or pretty-much-exactly as ubiquitous, as the conversion of matter to energy. Since we live in an evolving universe but not one that is on a one-way ticket to heat death as the idiotic big bang theory demands.

So from there come the interesting question. Where is all this new matter being created? Well we know that there must be fusion in the Corona of the sun. Because the Corona is very hot, we know its mostly a hydrogen atmosphere, and that at that heat there will surely be fusion going on. But are protons being created in the Corona? That I do not know.

But we can be pretty sure that they must be being created in some way at or near the centre of planets. And that subsequently some fusion must be going on at or near the centre of these planets and that simple atoms like hydrogen, oxygen, carbon (and mayhaps when the planet gets big enough maybe even iron) must be the result of all this matter creation and fusion.

And this creation, not just in stars and quasars, but also in humble planets and at least some moons, ought to be ubiquitous enough to balance out for the fact that all elements have a half-life and for the fact that we see matter being converted into energy.

Now socialist science will simply not allow this matter to be investigated. Socialist science is an obstructer of knowledge and not a mode of enlightenment. And really I would not want it any other way any more, since a functioning socialist science, would justify stealing for non-defense purposes which in the long run cannot be justified.

The other thing to note is that bad theory isn’t just somewhat ineffectual. It actively blocks out any further progress. The big bang supporters, if anything, are even more dogmatic then the Keynesian-Neoclassical Thief-Economics consensus. Even more determined to not allow the truth to interfere with their ill-gotten status as holders of the economics knowledge and keepers of the credentialist flame.

The conclusion is therefore that we must chart a smooth course to the privatisation of education and scientific research. And that will be an ongoing theme of this forum.

Its not conspiracy. Its socialist financing.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Here’s the effect of socialism in economic science for you. Humphreys says:

    “But if there is a negative externality from carbon emmissions then the obvious conclusion is to introduce a pigouvian tax at the same level of the marginal social cost. I’m not sure exactly what that level is… but I can guarantee you that it’s not changing daily based on the expectations of market traders.”

    And yet he’s been committed to this carbon tax even though CO2-release creates a clear and unambiguous positive externality.

    Same conclusion as Soon, Cambria, Davidson, and pretty much everyone else. This level of commonality in the stupidity of these people has to have a common cause. And its really all about socialism in education and the pull of consultancy fees from government. Its the influence of stolen-money in other words.

    Its not even clear that these people so much as understand what idiots they are making out of themselves.

    Many commercial growers spend a fortune on burning propane to get higher CO2 levels for their plants. Higher CO2 levels are manna from heaven and nothing to be looked askance at.

  2. Bird how do we get mountains if the earth is just expanding?

  3. How does that follow?

  4. also graeme, if the mass of the earth has increased over the last few million years, won’t that affect the orbit?

    shouldn’t we have crashed into the sun already?

    AS YOU KNOW GRAVITY IS STILL A MYSTERY TO SCIENCE. NEWTONS CALCULATIONS WERE BASED ON THE SOLAR SYSTEM. BUT WHEN EXTRAPOLATED TO THE GALAXY AND CLUSTERS OF GALAXIES THEY NO LONGER WORK AND THINGS LIKE DARK MATTER HAVE TO BE INVENTED JUST TO HOLD THESE ORBITS TOGETHER. BUT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE THE ANSWER IS NO. BECAUSE YOU CAN DOUBLE THE SIZE OF THE SATELITE AND THAT DOESN’T CHANGE ITS ORBIT AROUND THE EARTH. WE HAVE SATELITES OF DIFFERENT SIZES AND THEY MOVE AROUND AT THE SAME SPEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR DISTANCE FROM THE EARTH AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR SIZE.

    BUT THERE IS MORE GOING ON WITH THESE ORBITS THAN MEETS THE EYE. IF WE WENT WITH NEWTONS VIEW OF GRAVITY ALONE THE SOLAR WINDS WOULD BE PUSHING THE PLANETS FURTHER AWAY AND ALSO SLOWING DOWN THEIR MOVEMENT.

  5. Well how are you saying that mountains form? And is your thesis a credible one? If more matter forms constantly, at or near the centre of the earth, and is pushing up on existent matter, that would provide ample opportunity for mountains to form. It would be a matter of circumstances leading to some land area being pushed upwards. What cannot be pushed apart might be pushed upwards. I doubt that this presents a problem for the theory.

    But two continents crashing together doesn’t appear to be credible Where is the force coming from? A massive force it would have to be as well! Not credible.

  6. BB doesn’t simply rely on red shift, but on cosmic microwave background radiation and the abundance of hydrogen and helium in the universe.

    MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION WAS PREDICTED BY THE NON-BANGERS AND THE BANGERS DIDN’T PREDICT ITS MAGNITUDE. THEY JUST LIE ABOUT THAT. EDDINGTON WASN’T A BANGER AND HE GOT IT RIGHT EARLY ON. THE IDEA THAT SPACE WILL HAVE A BACKGROUND OF ZERO DEGREES KELVIN IS IRRATIONAL. THIS STORY IS A LIE ON THE PART OF THE BANGERS. A STRAIGHT LIE. THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ITS PREDICTION. IN FACT THEY ARE USELESS AT PREDICTION AND NEVER GET ANYTHING RIGHT. THEY JUST MAKE RUBBISH UP TO KEEP THEIR FAILED THEORY GOING. ITS MAKE-BELIEVE, LYING AND INTIMIDATION THAT KEEPS THE BANGER IDIOCY IN THE AIR.

  7. Its extremely harmful for socialists to be lying to the kids about the big bang. It gives them the wrong idea about science and must leave a feeling of utter hopelessness to think that the universe is flying apart and running into heat death.

    Plus its lying. And thats not a good thing to do to the kids.

  8. Another mean thing to do to the kids is to eat all of their neapolitan ice cream, greedy guts.

  9. Right.

  10. I’m saying that mountains form by collion of continents drifting on the mantle convection currents.

    I can’t see how you get steep mountains in your idea. volcano’s yes but Himalayas not so much.

    Still you have to explain this matter creation process. I have difficulty accepting there is a physical phenomena occuring on a massive scale right under our noses (literally) that we are totally unaware of when the more likely explaination that we don’t fully understand dinosaur anatomy – not haveing any soft tissue doesn’t help – is a much more likely explanation.

  11. So two continents collide right. What provides the force?

    Its easy to see what would provide the force for the mountains to rise up in the expanding earth thesis. Whereas in the colliding continents thesis no such force can be found to make the collisions.

    You could have superman on one side and Shazam on the other, and bring in every other bugger from the hulk onwards and you still wouldn’t have the force to push the continents together and raise the Himalayas as a sort of minor afterthought.

    But with new matter pressing outward its easy to understand and just stands to reason.

  12. No I don’t have to explain the matter creation process. Thats for particle physicists and astro-physicists and plasma physicists to find out through hard work. Its not for me to dream up.

    We know that matter is transmuted to energy with some frequency. And so there must be energy being transmuted the other way.

    I could say its neutrinos and birkeland currents. And I might fluke the fucking thing but thats not important. We know that its happening, if we are not mindless bigots,and so the work is cut out to find new knowledge by tracking down the mechanism.

    The chances that the process from mass to energy is one-way is next to no chance because that would mean it was a sheer fluke that we were in the tiny proportion of time where matter existed at all.

    So that therefore we must accept that matter is created from energy, we must expect it, and we ought to expect it in spades where a planet has a magnetic field. And we ought to just go out there and find out what the mechanism is.

  13. IN SUMMARY WE ARE BARELY RISEN MONKEYS, OR AT LEAST MOST OF US ARE, AND MOST HUMAN INSTITUTIONS ARE DYSFUNCTIONAL. WE NEED A SYSTEM THAT MAKES THE MORE FULLY DEVELOPED HUMANS UPWARDLY MOBILE SO THAT PEOPLE LIKE REISMAN, SOWELL, KEYES, CODEVILLA AND OTHER CIVILISED INTELLIGENT PEOPLE ARE RELUCTANTLY PUSHED UP THE LADDER AND THE BAHNISHES AND PAUL NORTONS, LARRY SUSKINDS AND THE LIKE ARE QUITE GRATEFUL TO BE PLUMBERS OR MALE NURSES OR SOMETHING.

    WHEN LARGER BUSINESS COMES OUT OF SMALL BUSINESS SUCCESS UNDER A REGIME OF GROWTH DEFLATION THEN MANY INSTITUTIONS WILL LIKELY BE POWERFULLY FUNCTIONAL. BUT WHEN ITS FRANKENSTEIN INSTITUTIONS BUILT ON TOP OF A FOUNTAIN OF COUNTERFEITING AND THEFT THESE INSTITUTIONS BRING OUT THE BABOON IN THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE THE DECISIONS FOR THEM.

  14. IN SUMMARY YOU DON’T HAVE AN ARGUMENT. WHEREAS I’VE COME THROUGH WITH CONVERGENT EVIDENCE. IMPOSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN WITHOUT SOME CONTINUOUS EXPANSION OF THE EARTH. NOW WHETHER ITS QUITE AS FAST AS NEAL ADAMS WOULD HAVE IT IS ANOTHER MATTER ENTIRE.

  15. The earth has a magnetic field. This implies electric currents and penentration of subatomic particles to the centre of the earth. So there isn’t too much queer about it. The socialist scientists ought to do some work for a change and find the mechanism for matter creation that is definitely going on in there.

  16. I’VE POINTED OUT THE CONVERGENT EVIDENCE. AND IT DOESN’T REQUIRE A REWRITE OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AS YOU WRONGLY IMPLY. IT IMPLIES A CULLING OF SOME PHONEY LAWS. AS WELL AS THE APPLICATION OF WELL-ESTABLISHED LAWS WHERE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN TRADITIONALLY APPLIED.

    AND IT REQUIRES A BIT OF SCIENTIFIC WORK FOR FUCKSAKES. ONE WONDERS WHAT WE ARE PAYING ALL THESE BLUDGERS FOR.

  17. YOU’VE ENTIRELY MISSED THE POINT YOU DICK. THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A REPUTABLE STOLEN-MONEY FUNDING BODY. THERE IS NOT ANY WORTHY MAINSTREAM PUBLICATIONS THAT YOU WRONGLY CALL REPUTABLE. CLEARLY WHAT I’VE BEEN TELLING YOU HAS GONE RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD. THESE FUNDING BODIES AND JOURNALS WILL RETARD SCIENCE AND IN NO WAY FURTHER IT.

    THAT OUGHT TO BE FUCKING OBVIOUS. AND WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT IT TO BE DIFFERENT? CLEARLY YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT HUMAN INSTITUTIONS OR HUMAN NATURE.

  18. The way to further human knowledge is to campaign for the trashing of public education and research. Thats what I’m doing here. I’m not trying to do any new science and promoting the better ideas is second to cutting off the funds.

  19. NONE OF THAT IS CREDIBLE. THE EVIDENCE FOR THE SMALLER EARTH AND LOWER GRAVITY IS THERE AND ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GET AWAY FROM. HOW MUCH SMALLER? I DON’T KNOW. BUT 2cm RADIUS INCREASE PER YEAR COMES TO A REDUCTION OF 3000KM OVER 150MILLION YEARS. SO EVEN A LITTLE BIT EVERY YEAR COULD ADD UP TO A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN GRAVITY OVER MANY TENS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS.

  20. Graeme,

    I was browsing Mr Keyes’ excellent blog (nearly as good as yours) and I came across this:

    Even in what some people regard as the scientific realm, conclusions owe more to imaginative speculation than to scientifically established facts. Did dinosaurs walk the earth? What we have as proof is a residue that imagination works upon in order to reconstruct the form, shape and likely composition of creatures no one has actually observed. Is the belief in dinosaurs crazy, or is it a reasonable conviction? But if the existence of dinosaurs can be accepted as somehow rational despite the imaginative reasoning involved in asserting that fossils are evidence of their existence, then it is reasonable to look at the world around us and reach conclusions based on the fact that we can reasonably assume that objects as we observe them now are related to objects in the past by a structure that relates cause and effect, form and substance in some way that corresponds to the rules that govern our perception and understanding. We can assume, for instance , that the size, shape and material strength of a bone indicate and limit its probable function in the body of a creature we know only from its fossilized remains.

    If such rational inference is reasonable in the context of fossils, of archaeological and geological evidence, what then of the evidence we see all around us in structures more complex than any humanly fashioned constructions. The archaeologist unearths what appear to be artificial constructions. Based on the assumption that they were produced by beings with a level of intelligence that corresponds to their complexity, and the harmony of form and function he observes in them, he posits the existence of an ancient civilization, inhabited by intelligent beings with a certain level of knowledge.

    If what the archaeologist does is not crazy, but falls somewhere in the realm of acceptable scientific activity, why is it crazy to observe a world filled with objects of unfathomed complexity, where form and function are in harmony to a degree that each advance of our strictly scientific knowledge consistently confirms, and reach the conclusion that a being exists whose intelligence corresponds to the nature of the world we thus experience? If this is crazy, then the whole endeavor of science itself is also crazy, with nothing more to justify its truth than the perishable little benefits we may momentarily derive from the gadgets that are the side effects of its discoveries.

    MAGNIFICENT!!!!

    http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1958&posts=10

  21. Yes its really rather good isn’t it? I mean I’m not saying I agree with where he’s going. But its a very sound piece of work.

  22. His reasoning within the piece is very sound. I take a different tact. I recognise that any individual inference made by some incomplete bones would be weak to say the least. The bones don’t talk to you. Its as Keyes says it is. Only by convergence can you build up a body of theory that you can be confident in.

    People who don’t realise this reality look at the Mars evidence and all sorts of alarm bells go off. If the Mars colony was peopled by hominids… how does that effect our position in evolution?

    Well the fact is we don’t know. But we never did. We have fantastic evidence for the general thrust of the theory of evolution. But our evidence for any one view of it is really quite weak.

    We may have been a coastal species of far longer standing and the evidence wiped out by the rising waters. We might have been this or that or somewhat other and even a Von Daniken-lite approach cannot be ruled out outright.

    It is the THRUST of evolution that has the full-spectrum convergence.NOT the specifics. I don’t myself think there is any intelligent intervention in our evolution. But this is my opinion only. I don’t know. How can I? The bones do not talk to me.

    Keyes is perfectly sound believing what he believes. I don’t believe it. But he is sound in doing so. And I want him to continue to be solid with the idea that our rights are not granted to us by individuals but come from a higher source. Because that way he’s likely to keep telling lying scum like Al Gore to go to hell when Al Gore keeps on getting in our face and taking action that will kill millions of people.

    Keyes is solid. Its hard to think of a sounder modern politician.

  23. RIGHT. SO YOU ARE JUST DETERMINED TO LIE LIKE PEDRO. WHAT ARE THOSE TUBES THEN DUMMY? YOU WERE JUST FUCKING LYING YOU CUNT.

  24. So what are the tubes then you stupid cunt. You have the pictures. Got to the thread and explain your lying cunt self.

  25. Right. Great explanation of the tubes. NOT. So you were lying. They are evidence. They cannnot be created by natural causes. Idiot. So thats evidence. So your case just consisted of you lying. What a pathetic idiot you are.

  26. What about what looks like open cut mining you stupid cunt? I have the pictures on this blog. What about the Big D&M structure? Look natural to you? Idiot. You are just a fucking liar mate.

  27. SO NOTHING AT ALL THEN DOPEY HEY? BUT THE FACT IS ITS EVIDENCE. EVEN IF YOU DON’T THINK ITS CONCLUSIVE, TO SAY THAT IT ISN’T EVIDENCE IS A FLAT OUT LIE.

  28. So your thesis is the thin atmosphere on Mars hollowed out banded tubes 20-30 metres across.

    You are an idiot mate. Go away.

  29. YOU ARE AN IDIOT FELLA. NOW HOW ABOUT THIS OPEN CUT MINING? THE WORMS DID IT?

    YOU ARE A BLOCKHEAD FELLA. I MAY HAVE TO BLOCK YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE A DROOLING RETARD THAT IS GOING TO COST ME TOO MUCH OVERHEAD.

    http://www.keithlaney.net/MiningMars.html

  30. CONVERTS ARE THE SILENT REMNANT. NOT THE EVIDENCE-FREE IDIOTS AND THE KEEPERS OF CREDENTIALISM THAT BY THEIR BEHAVIOUR DISPLAY TO THE REMNANT THEIR UTTER USELESSNESS.

  31. Graeme

    Who would you put on top of the ticket – Paul or Keyes?

    I think it would be good with Keyes as Pres getting people fired up and Ron behind the scenes working his magic, Dick Cheney style.

    or are you over Ron now?

    A VERY TOUGH CHOICE. PAUL IF YOU ARE WILLING TO RISK LOSING ISRAEL AND TAIWAN. KEYES IF HE WAS SERIOUS ABOUT MOVING TO 100% BACKING AND GETTING RID OF THE FED LIKE PAUL IS. THEY ARE BOTH SENSATIONAL CANDIDATES. BUT PAULS NEAR PACIFISM COULD LEAD TO AN OUTBREAK IN UNSPEAKABLE VIOLENCE. WHEREAS A KEYES PRESIDENCY WOULD BE A TIME OF PEACE. SINCE OUR POTENTIAL ENEMIES WOULD BE IN DEATHLY FEAR.

    ACTUALLY YOUR TAKE ON IT IS EXCELLENT. IF PAUL WAS WORKING ON THE DOMESTIC ECONOMY AND MONEY AND SUCH. AND KEYES WAS JUST THERE LIKE A MORE SWARTHY CAPTAIN AHAB SCARING THE SHIT OUT OF POTENTIAL ENEMIES. AND BOTH WORKING TO BRING WASHINGTON UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

  32. Graeme

    Mr Adams appears to be involved in the chat in this youtube thread.

    I am sure he would value your input regarding the links between the expanding earth and the whole science worker funding issue.

    GOOD POINT BUT MY TIME IS SCARCE.

  33. Why is everyone being so productive and helpful today? I didn’t need to wipe anything and even lyams take on the D&M pyramid was measured and by no means rude.

    Is there a hitman on his way to Gosford or something? About to intercept me on the next train.

    Look Keyes is just superb. And the shame of it is is that he’s not being utilised when he is a superior individual and may soon find himself past his prime. We are not promoting people who have talent any more.

    Notice how Keyes kept his cool when Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen) laid that gag on him about queers. Its like he was one of the very few people in that movie that Sacha wasn’t able to undermine in terms of dignity.

  34. Graeme

    The pushback against the Usurper Soetoro has commenced:

    http://www.wnd.com/static/89837.html

    Do you think this might be the start of the new civil war Keyes was looking for? I hope so!

    ITS NOT A CIVIL WAR. ITS JUST ONE CONSCIENTIOUS SOLDIER. YOU CAN HARDLY BE OUT THERE KILLING PEOPLE THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM HOME ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDERS OF A USURPER. HE AND THE OTHERS MUST TRY AND RESIST THESE ORDERS. THEY CANNOT CARRY THEM OUT LAWFULLY. THIS PROVISION EVEN COMES UNDER TRADITIONAL JUST WAR THEORY. I SURE HOPE THAT THIS KID ISN’T KILLED SOMEHOW.

    HE’S DOING THE RIGHT THING. THIS IS NO SMALL MATTER.

  35. WRONG SCALE IDIOT.

    WHAT THATS EVIDENCE FOR IS THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE. WHICH IS EVIDENCE THAT PHIL PLAIT OUGHT TO RESIGN.

  36. “…why is it crazy to observe a world filled with objects of unfathomed complexity, where form and function are in harmony to a degree that each advance of our strictly scientific knowledge consistently confirms, and reach the conclusion that a being exists whose intelligence corresponds to the nature of the world we thus experience? ”

    Maybe Keyes has a point.

  37. What makes you think that the earth is not gaining mass?

  38. If matter cannot be created then how did it get here?

    You see the matter is here. So we must assume it can be created. And if we are atheists we don’t want to be dividing things into a prosaic age and an age of miracles. Hence we ought to assume matter creation is ongoing. This follows directly from the fact that it EXISTS.

    So what is it that tells you that the earth is not growing in mass. Since that is where the evidence lies.

  39. No no dummy. Matter is here right? So it must have been created. Hence it must be capable of being created.

    Don’t give me this double-talk.

    Matter is here. Ergo it must be capable of construction, assembly, production, or whatever you want to call it.

    Something that exists must be capable of being produced somehow. Attempt not to be stupid.

  40. No its not possible at all. There is not anything that exists but that it must have been created and therefore possible of creation. These assumptions are axiomatic and follow eachother in absolutist fashion. Not much in reasoning about the world is like that.

    Since an atheist ought not separate time into a long gone age of miracles, and a current prosaic age then we have to assume that matter is being produced in an ongoing fashion.

    There is no getting around that.

  41. You did very well until your last five words and then you blew it. I mean its true what you say about time. Its not a primary concept but a derived one. But your last five words didn’t relate to the rest of what you said.

  42. For fucksakes man. Pull yourself together. We exist do we not. The planets. The stars. The post office. We have mass. We are made of matter. Therefore its wrong to say that matter cannot be created. For manifestly it has been created.

    Admit I’m right and stop being a dumb cunt.

    Now what crap are you are about? If there was no beginning? What is that suppossed to mean. Creation in this context MEANS beginning. So you being a dumb bastard have said if there was no beginning there was no beginning.And you topped this level of silliness off with condescension.

    Now just try and pull yourself together.

  43. “To return to a previous concept, matter can not be created or destroyed,”

    The existence of matter proves you wrong. Thats all there is to it. Try again.

    I’m not obsessed with creation. I don’t know anything about creation. I cannot trace anything back that far.

    You’ve recognised that the evidence seems to suggest the earth is expanding. You are going to get in all sorts of trouble if you try and graft a hollowing earth onto what seems to be a fact when your reason for doing so does not hold good in logic.

    Further an expanding earth that didn’t increase in mass would mean gravity was weakening at the surface. But the evidence tells us otherwise. With prehistoric animals that would pass out and barely be able to stand up with our gravity. It would be nice if the globe was hollow in the centre but that simply is not where the evidence is pointing.

  44. You have not OBSERVED any such thing. You’ve ASSERTED this thing which quite literally CANNOT be true.

    Matter is here. Hence it must have been created. Therefore it must be capable of being created. These are facts which follow directly.

  45. Its here. And furthermore Mass decays. I can’t offer anymore proof than that.

    If mass is here and mass decays then mass must be capable of being created. We don’t get better real world proof then the above. There is but one alternative to the above and I’ll leave it to you to think that alternative through.

    Now you tell me about your problem to do with the cult of personality. Who are you relying upon for the assertion you keep making. I’m likely to know a great deal about this person.

    Someone must have said what you are telling me one time or another. And it must have got locked in. Who was that person. I’m not saying I don’t know.

  46. Look. Matter is here YES OR NO

    Matter decays… YES OR NO.

    So that therefore matter must be capable of being PROCESSED? shall we say? Manufactured? CREATED if you like.

    But one way or another there is no getting around that. To get around that you have to invoke Genesis or the Big Bang. The Big Bang is crap. And Genesis is not part of any scientific discussion. Thats a theological matter for the most part.

  47. I’m not trying to prove that it was manufactured from nothing.

    But it must have been capable of being manufactured from SOMETHING if not nothing.

    BECAUSE IT IS HERE!!!!!

    Listen fella. Just piss or get off the pot. It was Isaac. It was Newton. And he was quite willing to leave some things up to GOD.

    So of course in all his experiments it was the case that matter can neither be created or destroyed. This is the province of MAN he woulud have thought.

    But if you are an atheist you are faced with the idea that matter decays, that it is HERE so it must be capable of being brought into existence.

    And there is really no way around that and if you want to declare Jesus as your personal saviour that would be more honest and as an atheist I’d respect that.

  48. You are lying. I don’t know anything about any creation. I can look at the evidence but I cannot trace anything back that far. I don’t have a good visual sense of anything I could trace back. I think the world is many hundreds of billions of years old at least. I’m not interested in creation that much since it is beyond me and I believe beyond the evidence I could rightly summon.

    But the fact is matter is here, it decays, which means it must be produce-able….. there is no getting around that.

  49. I didn’t say otherwise.

    But the dual fact that matter exists and that it decays is proof absolute that it must be capable of creation.

    Why are you so stupid that you cannot get that absolute reality though your thick head?

  50. Look blockhead. If matter exists and it decays then it must be capable of creation. You cannot get around that.

    Now maybe its capable of creation from SOMETHING or maybe its cabable of creation from SOMETHING ELSE.

    But either way you spin it, and you are being a complete cunt to even attempt to contradict me on this….. if it is there and it decays then it must be capable of being made in the first place.

    Or obviously you stupid cunt you and it would not be here. And there is simply no denying this fact and in fact you are being a lying cunt to even try it on.

  51. Fregeolle should be called ‘Fageolle’, this stupid Frenchman. He has emasculated version of science and physic.

  52. He’s a complete dope. I cannot cope with people that are that dumb. Its oppressive. I’ve got to assume he’s just lying and delete all his comments and leave mine in there.

    Under what circumstances might we say that my logic is faulty? Only under the circumstances of one-off miraculous creation. Matter is here and matter decays. So it therefore must be produce-able. The only exception to that in logic would be if there was a different era when the same rules didn’t apply. So you have a miraculous era and a prosaic era. In the miraculous era matter can be created in a one-off situation. And from there thats the most matter there ever was and it decays. But then we are claiming the miraculous and something out of nothing still. There is no way to walk away from the implication that existence exists.

    So if we pretend that I could even be wrong like this retard says I am, it would only be the case that matter USED TO BE CAPABLE OF BEING PRODUCED and that capability has mysteriously disappeared. I would see this as an acceptable point of view for a religious person only. Not part of any sort of scientific enquiry. Which is not to say there is something either good or bad going on here. I would just say that science has its rules. And theology has its rules as well. And its probably better to keep them apart.

  53. Explain to us again, Graeme, the physics of the magic exapnding earth and in particular how all that new matter is being produced.

    I CAN TELL YOU PART OF THIS STORY. ALL THE ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IS CONSISTENT WITH AN EXPANDING EARTH AND INCREASING GRAVITY. NOW THIS APPEARS TO BE TROUBLING AND SURPRISING. BUT IN FACT IT STANDS TO REASON. FORGET THE BIG BANG THATS ALL CRAP. BUT SUPPOSING THERE IS NO BIG BANG? WELL WE SEE THAT WE HAVE REALITY. EXISTENCE EXISTS. MATTER EXISTS. HOW DID IT GET THERE?

    THATS A BIT OF A POSER. SUPPOSING THE UNIVERSE HAS BEEN HERE A TRILLION YEARS. WE KNOW THAT MATTER DEGRADES. PRESUMABLY TO ENERGY SO WHY IS THIS MATTER STILL HERE? WE SEEM TO SEE ONE EXAMPLE OF MATTER BEING CREATED. ELECTRO-MAGNETIC RADIATION AT GAMMA WAVELENGTH APPEARS TO LEAD TO A PRODUCTION OF A ELECTRON AND A POSITRON. BUT GAMMA RADIATION IS IN SHORT SUPPLY. HENCE THE DEGRADING OF MATTER WOULD AT FIRST APPEAR TO BE GOING ON MUCH FASTER THEN NEW MATTER PRODUCTION.

    Thiis being the case the mystery continues. With matter degrading much faster then it appears to be being produced. So it scientists weren’t such dogmatic dummies they would be looking first for the location of where new matter must be being produced. If we could find WHERE the new matter is being produced we can then work on the HOW this natter is being produced.

    These are questions we ought to have been pondering about. Where is the new matter being created? It MUST BE being created. Because its being degraded. And if this was just a one-way story there would be no matter left or very little.

    So anyhow out of a clear blue sky we find out that the Earth has been growing. All this new matter creation has been going down underneath our feet. Which is why we didn’t see it. So this is a big breakthrough. And we would need research to find out HOW this works. But its a big leap forward to actually find the LOCATION at which this gear is going on.

    Neal Adams has theories about the HOW. And while thats fantastically important for the first step is finding the WHERE. And eureka we appear to have found where this extra mass, that we deduced was being produced SOMEWHERE……Well we found out where this was going on. We knew or should have known it was going on. But now we’ve found out where.

    Now we had powerful radio-telescopes and all that. And we did not seem to know where this extra matter is being created. Imagine what a magnificent thing to find where we ought to have been looking the whole time. At the centre of stars, planets and moons. But really we ought to have just looked down below our feat. Because thats where its all happeining. This is where the new matter is being created and were it not going on we would be totally mystified since the universe would make no sense.

    I think thats just bloody marvellous my self. We deduce that new matter creation must be going on. Why can we not see this? Because of WHERE it was going on. Underneath our feet. So thats why we couldn’t see where the new matter creation was happening.

    Its a beautiful things really. The way it comes together.

  54. NOT AT ALL THE CONCLUSIONS ARE UNAVOIDABLE. THE LOGIC IS UNASSAILABLE. WHICH IS WHY YOU WEREN’T UP TO TRYING. THE WRITING IS SLOPPY I’LL GRANT YOU THAT. I MAY TIDY IS UP A BIT WHEN I’VE HAD A SLEEP.

  55. You offer no mechanism by which the earth expands

    JUST KNOCKING OUT ALL THE LIES AND WE ARE JUST LEFT WITH THE ABOVE. YES THATS TRUE. NEAL ADAMS OFFERS AN INTRIGUING THEORY. BUT I DON’T OFFER ANY THEORY ON THAT. JUST AS ISAAC NEWTON DESCRIBED WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH GRAVITY BUT DID NOT SAY WHY IT WAS HAPPENING. HE DESCRIBED SOME FORMULAS THAT TENDED TO WORK PRETTY WELL. BUT HE WAS OPEN ABOUT NOT UNDERSTANDING GRAVITY.

    WE KNOW THAT THE NEW MATTER MUST HAVE BEEN BEING CREATED. IT HAD TO BE. SO WHERE WAS THIS NEW MATTER CREATION HAPPENING? SO IT WAS A MATTER OF FINDING WHERE. AND NOW WE’VE FOUND WHERE. AND ITS UP TO THE SCIENCE-WORKERS TO COMPLETE THE JOB. THE BEST THING THEY CAN DO IS TO TEST NEALS THEORY AND DEVELOP IT. THATS A STARTING POINT AT LEAST. THEN WHAT YOU’D DO IS YOU’D START DEVELOPING COMPETING THEORIES.

    MYSELF I WOULDN’T HAVE GONE FURTHER THAN THAT. BUT NEALS DONE A VIRTUOSO JOB OF PUTTING TOGETHER AN INTRIGUING MODEL IN ANY CASE.

  56. There will be no lying on this site. It remains a fact that all extant evidence fits the expanding earth theory. Leaps and bounds better than it fits any other theory.

    • You cannot come here and lie fella. Name any evidence you can think of and neals theory fits the data better. Without fail. In every case. Its one of the best supported theses in natural science ever seen.

  57. If the Earth is growing, then why has this not been measured? Scientists can estimate the amount of matter falling to the Earth every day and this is growing the size of the Earth but insignificantly.

    Satellite data has accurately measured the size and shape of the Earth so this has already falsified your theory. These measurements, however, have detected the slow movement of the tectonic plates.

    You simply peddle lies and junk science.

  58. At one stage NASA said they were getting odd measures from their satelites. The satelites were telling them that earth was growing at 18mm per year. Now it might be that they had nuanced a lot of the actual growth before coming to this figure that they had to own up to. Anyway they made the adjustments to wipe out the 18mm and we are stuck with all that.

    Another time people were saying that the satelites for weather were losing height and so the lie was that the data was no good. But the data still matched up perfectly with the balloon data. One wonders were they falling, or is it the 18mm coming out to meet them.

  59. http://geology.com/news/2007/02/gps-and-plate-tectonics.html

    Interesting link by dummy AK47. showing the different movement on the ground. A complex array of forces. He’s doing what the warmers do. Makes a link that in no way contradicts what the other fellow is saying.

  60. Not at all. Under your model everything should be moving away from each other.

    (No thats rubbish. There is only 2 pins on the whole diagram that looks out of line to me. Notice the paucity of pins on the Indian subcontinent. Under plate tectonics India is supposed to be crashing into Asia. So we ought to have seen pins all over the place showing this. We don’t. Its a straight debunking. So if it was up to me I’d check the two long outliers and see whats going on there. The picture looks closer to what Neal is about. Those two outliers alone excepted.)

  61. Not too smart are you Marcie. Get yourself a brain transplant and a slut tumour removal and get back to me if you then want to talk science.

  62. Ahh, the method of a true scientist. Censoring arguements.
    (You didn’t make an argument dummy. You wanted to know something about the last few thousand years. Why choose those years? Thats just silly. And the continents fit together both ways. Thats a longer time period that these obvious things pan out. I’m not going to fucking stop everything and research tiny incremental changes over the last few thousand years. We are talking about tens and 100’s of millions of years here you blockhead.)

  63. YOU JUST GOT TO STOP LYING FELLA. I NEVER CLAIMED THAT THE EARTH WAS ALWAYS GROWING AT 18MM PER YEAR. SO YOU JUST LIED. I SAID THAT THIS WAS WHAT NASA ANNOUNCED THEY HAD TO ADJUST FOR.

  64. […] Expansion By Way Of Stretch-Marks. […]

  65. See if this fits your idea.

    The intrinsic circadian rhythm of human beings is set at 24.8 hours. That is, take a bunch of neurons out of the SCN, 10,000 will do, and they will entrain to a 24.8 hour rhythm. This is one reason why we need early morning light to reset the rhythm. Now why at 24.8 hrs, keeping in mind that circadian rhythms are amongst the first responses to have evolved? As blue light is the principle resetting frequency of circadians the suggestion is that it first evolved in ocean organisms that had to regulate their depth so as to avoid excessive UV exposure. So perhaps way back when the earth was spinning slower or of a different diameter or a different angle to the sun hence quicker changes in the length of sunlight, this slight “overshoot” facilitating a quicker adaptation to the changing day length.

  66. Well I suppose its possible. But people say that the rotation of the earth used to be faster. That the days used to be shorter. And I wonder if it was possible to check this out. But I heard once that the 24.8 hours deal was pretty peculiar to mammals. Not a feature of any other sort of animal. I don’t know for sure if thats true or what it means if it is. Its pretty strange though. A pretty strange thing all up.

  67. Its interesting that circadian rhythm is as hard-wired as you are saying. Thats pretty extraordinary.

  68. Not hard wired Graeme, it is regulated by the ebb and flow of intra-cellular proteins undergoing degradation and renewal. I’m sketchy on it these days but it relates to molecules from BMAL, PER, CLOCK. It is a beautiful demonstration of how some very simple intra cellular processes can achieve remarkable stability and consistency.

  69. By the way dude, C has been exceeded. A 2000 experiment published in Nature claims that C was exceeded it by multiples. This does not violate relativity because photons, a particle, so the story goes, can you believe it, have no mass at C, hence no restriction on exceeding C.

    I’ll dig up some references if you like.

    John.

  70. Yeah its all lies. Once C is exceeded thats the end of relativity. No-ones ever weighed a photon and in fact there is not much to say that photons exist. It would be good if you had that link. They seem to have short legs on the net.

  71. Agreed, I have read experiments and physicists indicating that photons don’t exist.

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/faster_than_c_000719.html

    http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/265/

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12797

  72. I like your posts. Keep it up. They don’t need to be on topic. No problem.

  73. NOW YOU’RE ALL WRONG AGAIN!!!
    THE EARTH IS SHRINKING!

    (No thats not right)

    In my lataest theory I can show unassailably that the Earth is getting smaller, and that it started out the size of the SUN!

    (No you cannot show this/)

    Matter is being eaten up by a hyperhole in the earth’s center.

    (Could be! But if thats the case the process is being overmatched by new matter production.)

    Over the thousands of years the earth has shrunk. and it will eventually become a naked hyperhole that will degenerrate into a gamma ray blast.

    (No thats not right. Except possibly the deal about the gamma ray blast).

  74. “Yeah its all lies. Once C is exceeded thats the end of relativity. No-ones ever weighed a photon and in fact there is not much to say that photons exist. It would be good if you had that link. They seem to have short legs on the net.”

    Even though it is all lies, no one who knows anything about real physics uses C as the symbol for the speed of light.

    AS A LITERAL STATEMENT YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, WHO IS IT THAT YOU ARE CLAIMING KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT REAL PHYSICS?

    Its lower case c.

    RIGHT. YES. THIS SOUNDS LIKE THE CONVENTION TO ME. ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO TELL ME? WHAT YOU HAD FOR LUNCH EXACTLY SEVEN DAYS AGO? SOME OTHER IRRELEVANCY?

  75. After I originally left a comment I appear to have clicked
    the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and from now on every time a comment is added I receive four emails with the exact same comment.
    Perhaps there is an easy method you are able to remove me from that service?
    Cheers!

    • Sorry about that. I don’t know how to do it.

    • I suggest marking all that unwanted mail as “spam.”

  76. “Expansion By Way Of Stretch-Marks. | A Better World:
    Graeme Bird For High Office” in reality got myself
    addicted on your web-site! I actuallywill be back alot more normally.
    Many thanks ,Annette


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: