Where would the force otherwise come from? How would that force get traction? The continents are huge. And they are fully locked in since the surrounding oceans have solid sea floors. Only the huge forces generated by new matter creation could even POSSIBLY explain the movement of a body as large as Antarctica.
But before this is easily understood by even the dimmest of punters we must deal with the real reasons why they would find this hard to believe. The reason behind the reasons.
Here is some points I’ve made in support of Neal Adams elesewhere:
Gresham’s law surfaces in many varieties and certainly there is one relating to paradigms. About the time that neal was discovering his thesis, the Big Bang theory was just beginning to get locked in. This universe really isn’t large enough for both theories. And the only reason the expanding earth theory isn’t accepted already is that the Big Bang theory IS.
The Big Bang theory wasn’t quite fully locked in when I was a kid. Which makes it hard for me to be patient with real dummies like Phil Plait who adheres to this most stupid of paradigms with dogmatic zeal. Plait, lacking any evidence for his theology, seems to have monopolised the skeptic mantle and taken almost all the impressionable young idiots along with him.
There is no theory more stupid than the big bang. Even the global warming scare bows down to its flaming light of dumb.
It is easier to be a third-rate theologian than a top-flight scientist and this is the reason for the big bang theory. Our task is to proceed forward with our thinking as though the Big Bang theory has already been defeated.
The academy can wait around paralysed and it doesn’t matter. The academy can be stuck helpless in its own dogmatic poo poo and drowning in golden showers of science grant whoredom, and it ought be no concern of ours what their current idiotic consensus opinion is.
We want to proceed over the dead body of the big bang and find out how new matter is created and what moves continents.
A Better World: Graeme Bird For High Office 
Boris basically always shows good sense when he trusts his own judgement and doesn’t listen to idiots.
Here he is over at Catallaxy correctly noting that Jim Rogers is a smart guy and knows what he is talking about in this crisis.
This is Boris’ inherent good judgement coming out. He can be softheaded in the face of alleged experts:
BORIS SEZ:
I just watched on SBS a brilliant interview with Jim Rogers. Guys have a look http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline//interview_with_jim_rogers_563581
Thumbs up to SBS for bringing it on!
boris
1 Mar 09 at 6:29 am
NOW NOTICE HOW THE PERENIAL IDIOT CAMBRIA GETS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THIS ARGUMENT.
Don’t listen to him Boris. He’s long and wrong the commodity sector and long China in a big way.
This fucker is worth a lot of money so he can live with his positions for 10 years and then still count himself right.
OF COURSE CAMBRIA IS GOING TO DISAGREE WITH ROGERS. ROGERS IS TELLING PEOPLE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME GEAR AS I’VE BEEN TELLING FOLKS.
You have all got to stop listening to Cambria. The fellow lost his marbles about a year ago.
By: graemebird on March 1, 2009
at 4:19 pm
If new matter is being created, why isn’t the Earth getting bigger? And where is it coming from?
THE EARTH IS GETTING BIGGER THATS THE WHOLE POINT. ENERGY AND MATTER ARE THOUGHT TO BE INTER-CONVERTIBLE. SO THERE IS QUITE A LOT OF CANDIDATES FOR WHERE THE ENERGY COULD BE COMING FROM. THE EARTH HAS A MAGNETIC FIELD. WHICH IMPLIES AN ELECTRIC CURRENT. COSMIC RAYS ARE CHARGED PARTICLES AND MOVING CHARGED PARTICLES ARE AN ELECTRIC CURRENT. OR PERHAPS WE HAVE BIRKELAND CURRENTS COMING IN FROM SPACE. THATS WHAT WE NEED TO FIND OUT.
By: Zep on March 2, 2009
at 1:55 am
If the Earth is getting bigger, are you contending its mass is increasing?
By: Zep on March 2, 2009
at 7:05 am
Yes. Thats what the evidence says.
By: graemebird on March 2, 2009
at 7:07 am
Don’t continents float around with the tide in a continental drift?
I always pondered in my youth about dead plants and animals decomposing on the earth and thus increasing it’s matter.
What about water? Some new water creation would be nice.
By: Clinton Gale on March 2, 2009
at 10:54 am
I’m trying to decide whether or not this blog is just a huge joke…
Perhaps graemebird could expound the evidence for a growing earth?
By: Paul on March 2, 2009
at 12:00 pm
“Don’t continents float around with the tide in a continental drift?”
Well thats sort of what is said Clinton. But you think about it. Supposing we learn that the Antarctic is moving towards the Indian Ocean at 1cm per year. We note that the continent is really bloody thick. We dive all around the coast and find that the bottom of the sea is all rock solid. Except for some places on the other side to the Indian ocean where we find rifting. That is expanding pull-aparts. What are we to make off all this? Are we then to say that its floating? I mean these continents are floating. But how can they move? They are locked in. So where is the opportunity for these fabled plates to move in their fabled way? If we look at where these fabled plates are supposed to end all we are going to find in almost all cases it the ground being stretched apart.
If we saw subduction where would the force be to push one area of land under another? If one territory were merely heavier than another all we would expect was SINKING.
If one area of land is being forced under another then we have to assume is expansion and we ought to look for the rifting on the other side.
Continents are really really big. And they are fully locked in. Only expansion would produce the force and the traction for the force that could give them this appearance of movement.
“I always pondered in my youth about dead plants and animals decomposing on the earth and thus increasing it’s matter.”
By no means as foolish an idea as it may seem to some people. But this would have to be going on IN ADDITION to what I’m talking about.
“What about water? Some new water creation would be nice.”
Yes exactly. There appears to have been a great deal of new water creation over hundreds of millions of years.
By: GMB on March 2, 2009
at 12:17 pm
“Perhaps graemebird could expound the evidence for a growing earth?”
Well for one thing I’m suggesting that the movement of continents would be impossible without it. I’m kind of wondering what sort of forces people think are needed to move continents. And whether people can visualise how those forces would be applied.
By: Graeme Bird on March 2, 2009
at 1:14 pm
COME ON EDNEY. YOU CANNOT SHOW HOW THE FORCES COULD BE ALIGNED TO MOVE CONTINENTS OTHERWISE. YOU OUGHT TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
By: Steve Edney on March 2, 2009
at 11:00 pm
Listen dummy, the evidence for the growing earth is brontosaurus neck.
By: The Real Graeme M. Bird on March 3, 2009
at 2:48 am
Yes good point. Look how thick the elephants neck has to be. If the brontosaurus reached quickly for the high branches in our gravity the poor bastard would black out. Lucky the gravity was far less in those days.
By: Graeme Bird on March 3, 2009
at 2:52 am
Of course… yes, now I see!
It’s so simple, and yet so beautiful at the same time!
Thanks for the brontosaurus example. That really sealed it for me.
By: Paul on March 3, 2009
at 3:00 am
Some more questions:
1) How big was the Earth to start with?
2) How fast has the Earth been growing?
3) Where is all this new matter coming FROM?
By: Zep on March 3, 2009
at 3:08 am
Well Paul thats one example. But there is more. If the brontosaurus cannot evolve with our gravity then we cannot have had this level of gravity. There is no getting around that.
I don’t know how big the earth was to start with. But at one stage it was big enough to just barely fit the current land masses. You can see that since the continents fit together both ways.
The new matter has to be being created from energy at or near the centre of planets.
By: graemebird on March 3, 2009
at 3:41 am
The earth would have to be expanding pretty quickly to account for the known continental movement that we are seeing. At least a few centimetres in radius each year I would think.
By: graemebird on March 3, 2009
at 3:53 am
Let’s say one centimeter per year radius increase on average. Acceptable number?
By: Zep on March 3, 2009
at 4:13 am
I think it would be somewhat more than that. Because the Antarctic is supposed to be moving 1cm per year. And other areas up to 4cm per year. This would imply a faster rate of growth then 1cm per year of the radius I think. I’ll check up just how fast the continents are thought to be “moving”.
By: Graeme Bird on March 3, 2009
at 4:17 am
Where does the hydrogen theory fit in?
By: Libertas on March 3, 2009
at 4:18 am
And you accept the Google mean radius of the Earth today as being 6,378.1 kilometers, which is 637,810,000 centimeters?
By: Zep on March 3, 2009
at 4:19 am
And the current mass of the Earth is 5.9736×10^24 kg. Agree?
By: Zep on March 3, 2009
at 4:22 am
Only if its capable of audit and open to scrutiny.
By: Graeme Bird on March 3, 2009
at 4:22 am
It all has to be open to conceptual as well as calculational audit. There is no use accepting an assertion on faith.
The calculation of mass is more problematic then the calulation of radius. Since the mainstream have never managed to nail down gravity.
By: Graeme Bird on March 3, 2009
at 4:24 am
Well I don’t have any. Neal Adams has some estimates. I tried to get hold of them but couldn’t open the DOC. document.
What this if it makes you happy crapola? I just follow the evidence and compare paradigms. I am tasked to follow these things and when I see a superior paradigm my readers will be the first to know. I didn’t need to come out with the Mars stuff but it seemed like a stronger case that these were artificial rather than natural remnants.
That gratuitous poopy-pants dishonesty on your part gets wiped.
By: graemebird on March 3, 2009
at 4:31 am
The claim is being made that the Earth is getting bigger (as an explanation of non-continental drift). I’m trying to get a handle on the measurements involved in this conjecture.
If you are not prepared to use the generally agreed measurements the rest of the world uses, I’m perfectly prepared to work with those that your friend uses. I’m fully open to work with HIS numbers without question.
So may we have them now, please?
By: Zep on March 3, 2009
at 4:39 am
Well try 1cm and see what you come up with. Then try 10cm and see what that gives you.
By: graemebird on March 3, 2009
at 4:50 am
1 cm larger than…what, pray tell?
By: Zep on March 3, 2009
at 4:53 am
And since the Earth is gaining mass as well, we would do well to have some sort of baseline there too. So we can estimate this mass increase as he proposes, you understand.
By: Zep on March 3, 2009
at 4:55 am
I’m absolutely doubtful that you playing around with numbers can subtract or add to this story.
Find out how fast the Continents are moving and what that would imply.
By: graemebird on March 3, 2009
at 5:01 am
Well, if the Earth is only 1kms in radius, adding 1cm will have a much bigger effect than if it were, say, ~6400kms radius. Similarly with its mass. So unless there are some alternate numbers someone would like to provide, will you agree the Earth is the mean radius and mass commonly agreed it is now?
By: Zep on March 3, 2009
at 5:09 am
How am I supposed to agree to stuff like that zep? My agreeing to stuff in an orgy of agreement cannot change the reality outside of my own head. Now where are you going with all this sillytalk?
By: graemebird on March 3, 2009
at 5:45 am
I take it you like to see measurements of various sorts when you talk about financial stuff. Financial data is built baselines of various sorts. Otherwise you could not, at even the simplest level, actually calculate arithmetic percentages, let alone derive more complex financial metrics. Agreed?
If so, I’m merely doing the same now in dealing with this proposal about an expanding Earth. I’m trying to establish some sort of baseline for the measurements in this proposal. From that we can then get an understanding of where the proposal is heading.
Can we move on now?
By: Zep on March 3, 2009
at 5:54 am
Well we can move on sure. I’m waiting for you. But my agreement isn’t going to help matters. Since it cannot change the real world outside ones head.
So do what you think you have to do with whatever numbers you want to use. I’m interested. But I don’t really see where this is going. The real world goes about its own business and its measurements aren’t affected by human agreement or disputation one way or another.
I”m kind of waiting to see the scope of the maths-mysticism that you are about to come out with.
By: graemebird on March 3, 2009
at 5:59 am
No maths-mysticism necessary, any more than it is required for financial stuff. Just arithmetic and common sense.
And thanks for agreeing that we can use the numbers above. I just did not want to be accused of using numbers that would be unacceptable to this theory’s proponents.
By: Zep on March 3, 2009
at 6:06 am
Well go for it Zep. Piss or get off the pot. I have to deal with people all the time that think that their mucking about with numbers somehow can impinge upon reality. I don’t know if thats what we are dealing with here. But lets see your maths and find out what you think that it means.
By: graemebird on March 3, 2009
at 6:10 am
Well Zep whatever you come up with is going to be a bit of an anti-climax now. I mean you built up everyones expectations and now you don’t want to do the maths.
By: graemebird on March 3, 2009
at 6:39 am
Well fucking hell Zep. What incredible gyp were you planning? You were trying to lock me into something right? So then if I signed up you could thereafter contrive an apparent contradiction. Is that right?
It sure seems like it if you are now not able to come up with some sort of mathematical analysis as promised!!!!!!
By: graemebird on March 3, 2009
at 8:40 am
Here is James Maxlow. He reckons his own calculations would have it that the earth is increasing its radius by 22mm. He said that when the NASA data came back they determined that the radius was increasing 18mm per year by satelite. But mainstream taxeater unscientists just throw in fudge factors when they get back data they don’t wish to believe. So NASA just eliminated the 18mm. Its not out of the realms of possibility that they would already have fudged matters prior to getting rid of the 18mm which they couldn’t find lesser excuses for.
I would hypothetically go with the 22mm for now. The Neal Adams estimate is considerably higher.
By: GMB on March 3, 2009
at 11:39 pm
and neal adams is a peer reviewed scientist, right?
By: Jason Soon on March 4, 2009
at 12:00 am
Peer reviewed? Peer reviewed?!
There are only two possbile sources of this new matter:
1) all those tons of meteors and asteroids that pummel the earth each year, or
2) there’s a little man living at the centre of the earth who eats nothingness, and passes dirt.
Being a resonable chap, I obviously lean toward option 2.
By: Paul on March 4, 2009
at 1:53 am
But then, in his (no doubt true) account of the journey to the centre of the earth, Jules Verne made no mention of such a man…
I’m stumped.
By: Paul on March 4, 2009
at 1:55 am
Look stranger things have happened.
Did you realise there’s zero gravity at the centre of the earth?
If you are at the centre, which way is down, dummy?
So you don’t know which way is up or down but you theorise little men pooping dirt.
Stupid fuck.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 3:12 am
Don’t be silly Paul. New matter must be being created all the time. This follows from the theory that energy and mass are really two manifestations of the same thing. And we see many cases where mass is being converted to energy. But not many where things are going the other way.
So we would have to assume that the process is being reversed. And it therefore makes a lot of sense that the reverse process was going on beneath our feet all this time.
Bearing in mind that the Big Bang is evidence-free crap unscience, we have to then assume that energy-mass conversion is a two-way street.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 3:23 am
“and neal adams is a peer reviewed scientist, right?”
Tell us about the peer review superstition of yours SOON? A new religion you are starting perhaps? Maxlow runs a geology mining consultancy. So his scienctific ability is market-tested.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 3:36 am
Sorry for the delay. I have a life that includes actual real work, so that has priority.
So shall we now accept it is 22mm increase annually? The “unscientist NASA-ignored” value? Any other offers? I would not want to be accused of being uncooperative here. (Not that this makes a lot of difference, but hey!)
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 3:46 am
Oh, and we still haven’t settled on a value for the *current* mean radius and mass of the Earth. Any offers on that?
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 3:47 am
it doesn’t matter what we agree on Zep, you stupid fuck, because we know that any moment now a shitrain of lies is about to pour forth.
so go ahead and get it over and done with
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 3:59 am
That will do for starters.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 3:59 am
The growing earth is whatever size it is right now independent on what we agree on Zep you dummy. Just give yourself an approximate figure. We can hardly agree on an exact figure if NASA has explicitly chosen to rig the data in order to get rid of an alleged error.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 4:01 am
Zep are you JohnZ in disguise? This looks like an almighty filibuster going on here. Next thing you will be proposing a bet of some sort.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 4:08 am
Who and/or what is JohnZ? More to the point, why should I even care? No, no bets. I do not ever bet on anything.
If anyone else wants to supply some sort of numbers for this then please do. I do not want to be accused of using “unscience NASA-cobbled fudged” numbers. So if you’ve got any of your own you think I should rather use, PLEASE put ’em up. Otherwise I have no choice but to go with the official ones, as they are the only ones I can get.
Not that this matters particularly – the arithmetic is so simple you can go do the calculations yourself in the privacy of your own home. 😉
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 4:19 am
Les Jibber Jabber and more maths Zep.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 4:23 am
OK then. Please have you boy explain where all the dirt comes from each year.
— Radius increase of 22mm in one year requires creation of approximately 11,246 CUBIC KILOMETERS of “Earth” per annum, and increasing each year.
Mean radius of the Earth now = 6378.1km = 6,378,100m = 6,378,100,000mm
Mean radius of the Earth in 1 year = 6,378,100,022mm
Volume of the Earth now = 4/3*pi*r^3
= 4/3 * 3.14159265 * 6,378,100,000^3
= 1,086,832,411,937,628,837,875,003,797,140 cubic millimeters
Volume of the Earth in 1 year = 4/3*pi*r^3
= 4/3 * 3.14159265 * 6,378,100,022^3
= 1,086,832,423,184,072,047,499,383,054,683 cubic millimeters
Difference = 11,246,443,209,624,379,257,543 cubic millimeters
= 11,246,443,209,624 cubic meters
= 11,246 cubic kilometers
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 4:27 am
Like I said, a shitrain of lies.
Fuck off, cunt.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 4:29 am
So much for the Cambrian! 😉
— Radius increase of 22mm in one year implies the Earth is approximately 300 million years old only, provided it started out as a point in space. If not the age is even less.
Mean radius of the Earth 1 = 6378.1km = 6,378,100m = 6,378,100,000 mm
At 22mm increase per annum, that makes the Earth 6,378,100,000 / 22 = 289,913,636 years old.
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 4:30 am
Is that garbage what you had us all waiting for for the last week?
Is that what all your questions were leading up to?
Well fuck me.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 4:30 am
talk about anticlimax.
Bird, ban this stupid fuck.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 4:31 am
I take it you can’t actually do arithmetic. Not my problem.
Also, I’m making no judgment here. These are current real numbers. Check them out yourself.
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 4:31 am
somebody confiscate this fucker’s casio. Because he’s too immature and dishonest to be allowed to use such sophisticated technology.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 4:32 am
Great! You want to ban me for giving you an arithmetic lesson! Please explain…I did! 😀
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 4:33 am
enough lies
obviously the rate of growth has not been constant. who said it was constant? who came up with 22mm? you did, you lying fuck.
you see, you just take a lie and build on it – all for what? for confusion.
like i said, an avalanche of diarrhea is all we got from Zep. As predicted.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 4:35 am
What, all you can do is swear at me? Clearly you have no answers to the rather huge problems being outlined here. 11,246 cubic kilometers of problems, every year! So where does it come from…? Well?? And that’s just the start of them, and the most obvious.
I DID ask people for their numbers to work with. You got some others I can use? How about we pretend the Earth is only 10kms across. And it’s flat. 😀 😀
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 4:36 am
zep, tell me where you live so i can find your house and burn it down
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 4:37 am
What a memory you haven’t. Whose the stupid one now!
Here’s Graeme, not so long ago in this very topic (you just scroll up and reda, that’s how you find it): “Here is James Maxlow. He reckons his own calculations would have it that the earth is increasing its radius by 22mm.”
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 4:38 am
I live under Graeme’s place. Bring it on.
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 4:38 am
James Maxlow? Never heard of him
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 4:39 am
Graeme obviously has.
Give it up Pauline. You have 11,246 cubic kilometers of mountain to climb out from under…every year.
Oh, it’s not constant! It may actually be a BIGGER increase each year, according to some proponents of this theory. Bigger mountains to bury themselves under, I guess.
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 4:42 am
OK, would you like the calculation for 1cm each year? That’s 10mm. That’s what Graeme indicated I should use (read above) (AGAIN).
Of course, I could try 10cm, but that would have obvious consequences. 😉
Or I could use a figure that YOU supply. I DID ask before… How about you tell me your preferred figure. I’ll wait.
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 4:45 am
what’s your point, Zep? Let’s say it’s a cubit every fortnight. What difference does it make?
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 4:47 am
Stop stallin zep. Try it with 22mm then try it with 10 cm. Then 20cm. Both parties agree that its an exponential deal and that our planet is now growing faster than ever.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 4:59 am
exactly
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 5:05 am
who’s the math genius, now huh Zep?
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 5:06 am
What stalling? Please explain where 11,246 cubic kilometers of dirt comes from each year. This is the volume that needs to be created if the Earth is to expand 22mm on average in one year. That’s a cube over 22 kilometers on a side being created. Every year.
So would you like the to see the result with 10cm? 20cm? You do know it will be significantly more than that required to be created, don’t you…
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 5:10 am
how is it our responsibility to say where the earth came from?
would you say to Newton that gravity is bunk because he can’t explain how it operates?
all we know is that the convergent evidence says the earth is growing.
that’s the evidence. that’s the science.
the job now is to explain it. It’s not the other way round.
now fuck off.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 5:13 am
are you going to reply to your critics at Z’s blog, tinkerbell?
By: Jason Soon on March 4, 2009
at 5:13 am
“What stalling? Please explain where 11,246 cubic kilometers of dirt comes from each year. This is the volume that needs to be created if the Earth is to expand 22mm on average in one year.”
Well thats just magnificent if true. Lets see your working? Clearly this is new matter creation at or near the centre of the earth. Which puts the energy-mass pathway on an equal footing to the mass-energy conversion. Which clears up another mystery of science.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 5:14 am
pay attention to what’s happening, third parties
zep’s indoctrinated pea brain is closed to the possibility of matter creation through energy conversion.
so his conclusion is that all of the convergent evidence that says Earth is expanding MUST BE IGNORED
this is how science operates in the 21st century.
disgraceful.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 5:15 am
OK, let’s say the Earth is gaining mass every year (and at a constant rate of 22mm each year, for example, it WILL be exponential in volume). Let’s ask the other geniuses here – what other physical effects will a bigger mass Earth cause?
Hey Pauline, what “genius”? This is primary school stuff – looks like you never made it that far if you call this “genius”.
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 5:16 am
the convergent evidence contradicts zep’s preexisting theories.
so does Zep modify his theory? No – he throws out the evidence.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 5:17 am
and now zep has nothing but insults to fall back on.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 5:17 am
and at a constant rate of 22mm each year
who said anything about a constant rate?
THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE TSUNAMI OF FECES
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 5:18 am
“are you going to reply to your critics at Z’s blog, tinkerbell?”
Those aren’t serious critics. They are just a bunch of prancing bumsucking homos. I may not check out Z’s blog for awhile. Its hardly likely that they would have come up with evidence that the carbon tax is a consumer exise surely.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 5:19 am
Keep it up Pauline! I don’t have to do anything – you keep just changing feet in your own mouth like you are playing football in there.
I just finished showing the calculations that show what happens because the Earth IS expanding, but now you say I have said no such thing!
Your parody of a brain-dead idjit is brilliant!
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 5:20 am
Lets have a look at your working here? You make the claim. Lets see your maths calculations? If thats how much matter you need to push the continents around well thats hardly all that surprising. But lets make your act transparent in any case. How much magma gets released every year according to records of such? Do they know how much gets released underwater?
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 5:22 am
yeah I guess Zep has never heard of volcanoes.
What a turd.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 5:23 am
OK, Pauline, have it your way. It’s not a constant rate. So how about you give us the rate for 2008, 2007, 2006, and so on. Or any other significant year or period or era. You go for it, I’ll accept and work with it. How much more accommodating can I be!
Not that it matters much. I did the calculation for just ONE year using as-supplied numbers. What the results mean is up to you to explain, not me.
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 5:23 am
Zep what exactly is your problem here. Matter exists. That means it has to be created. We have seen very little evidence of its creation until now. And there we have it. Thousands of square kilometres of the stuff.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 5:25 am
exactly.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 5:27 am
Supply your numbers Zep. As well as your reasoning for why this would not be the case.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 5:27 am
look at Zep’s logic here.
We find powerful convergent evidence of matter creation.
And Zep says, hey – that must mean matter is being created!
Well, duh. dumbfuck.
Can you PLEASE ban this prick already?
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 5:28 am
A is A, Zep.
Never forget it.
A IS A and no amount of button mashing on your Casio can change that fact.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 5:31 am
Pauline knows a few swear words and threats and not much maths. What a cutie! 🙂
Uh, no, Graeme, I have not made any claim at all. The claim is at the top of this topic – an expanding Earth explaining continental separation. I am merely doing the maths based on this claim – something any educated person can do if they try.
What that means to plate tectonic theory I won’t speculate. But first, there needs to be a rational explanation of the creation of all this subterranean mass. And you would need a LOT of active volcanoes to create a 2lkm cube each year. People do tend to notice such things, despite NASA’s yells to shut them up…;)
You do appreciate that a 21km cube would be twice as high as Mt Everest? You could see it from space and stuff! 🙂
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 5:33 am
Ah Pauline! She of the threat of torching! 😀
You know that little creature that sits on Jabba the Hutt’s shoulder sniggering? 😉 🙂
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 5:35 am
what does everest have to with it?
You do realise don’t you Zep that if we strung all of your pubic hairs together we wouldn’t have enough length to strangle a hamster?
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 5:35 am
Right. But lets have your calculations anyhow. We see everywhere in the universe matter has a half-life and is degrading to energy. Or at least when it degrades to electrons and protons some mass is lost in this degradation. So we would expect this mass to be replaced at roughly the same rate. It just so happens that it appears to be in planets that this mass creation is taking place. Not the least bit strange.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 5:38 am
Yes, Graeme. A is A. Got that in year 1, plus lots more.
And 1+1=2 (please note that, Pauline! I know that’s news to you. ;))
And the volume of a sphere is 4/3*pi*r^3. Unless you have some other formula??
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 5:38 am
Right. Now put it all together.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 5:40 am
Your contentions about mass replacement notwithstanding, we are talking only volume here. This 11,246 cubic kilometers could weigh as little as a duck (or Pauline’s brain) due to whatever theory you like to employ. It is still 11,246 cubic kilometers INCREASE in volume. That requires some explanation, and “volcanoes” doesn’t cut it.
If the mass is being recycled, let’s say the total mass is not changing much. So for the Earth to get bigger in volume, the mean density of the Earth must be decreasing. Which implies that at some time in the past it was extremely dense, and some time in the future the Earth will become something of a gas-giant like Jupiter. Reasonable conclusion?
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 5:45 am
Uh, Graeme, I DID put it all together. Scroll up, please. It’s got maths and stuff.
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 5:46 am
So its precisely this sort of compression forces that you would need to push whole continents around. Bearing in mind that these continents are locked in all around by the solid sea floor. Think of any combination of forces that you can imagine to push these continents around. And you will see that they cannot do the job. But the compression forces pushing on all sides from the centre of the earth CAN create the necessary forces to do this job. And this is really the only thing that COULD create these forces and nothing else.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 5:49 am
No this is not really credible. It would have to be new mass creation. There is no mechanism by which the centre could be turning to foam or something. Thats just silly. And we can see that the gravitational force has increased a great deal. Or Mrs Argentinosaurus could barely have gotten out of bed in the mornngs.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 5:57 am
So let me get this straight: You are saying that forces on the sides of continents push them around the surface of the Earth.
Correct?
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 5:57 am
No the earth is much older than 300 million years old. This growth is exponential. So its growing much faster now than it ever did in the distant past.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:00 am
OK, so the density of the Earth is constant, but the volume is increasing. So mass creation it is, then, as you say.
(Note I’m agreeing with you right along the line here.)
As I asked above, what physical effects would you expect to happen due to an increase in mass of the Earth? Think of common effects based on this value.
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 6:01 am
“So let me get this straight: You are saying that forces on the sides of continents push them around the surface of the Earth.
Correct?”
No thats what you are saying. And its impossible. The forces must be far more comprehensive than that. Or there would be no way for them to get traction. And there is no force production that could do it.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:02 am
OK, it’s an exponential increase. What sort of rate increase are we talking about? I appreciate it may not be constant, but it appears to be heading up a fairly predictable slope (otherwise we could not say it was exponential).
For example, what might the appropriate values (delta mean radius, etc) be in 100 years from now? 1000 years?
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 6:03 am
My goodness Zep. What sort of leftist reversal tryout was THAT.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:04 am
Graeme, you just said this: “So its precisely this sort of compression forces that you would need to push whole continents around. Bearing in mind that these continents are locked in all around by the solid sea floor. Think of any combination of forces that you can imagine to push these continents around. And you will see that they cannot do the job. But the compression forces pushing on all sides from the centre of the earth CAN create the necessary forces to do this job. And this is really the only thing that COULD create these forces and nothing else.” So do the continents move, or do they not? Regardless of the reason.
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 6:05 am
Well you know what exponential slopes are like right? I couldn’t tell you that. Depending on what part of the slope you are at your calculations could be radically different.
Maxlow has the early earth starting off around the size of the moon as far back as he can trace it. And he has it growing very slowly for most of its lifetime. Just a few microns per year. Maxlow reckons we will progress to a giant gas planet like Jupiter or Saturn. And the growth will slow down and stop.
Adams thinks the progression will continue past Jupiter and the onto being a start and so forth.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:08 am
“leftist reversal tryout”??? WTF is that?! Something sexual??
The question is as it stands. You have made a statement about something and I’m simply trying to follow through with it. They do it all the time in finance, trying to predict futures. That’s all this is, but with (supposedly) more accurate figures.
I’m following YOUR train of discussion here. If that’s not to your liking then I can’t help that.
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 6:10 am
Well yes they move. But they are going to move due to the earth expanding. But the expanding earth is mostly going to manifest itself where-ever the crust is weakest. Then the totality of the forces present will break a rift open leaving everything else to move on both sides.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:12 am
OK, so there are measurements sufficient to confirm this growth curve is exponential and not a straight line?
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 6:13 am
See your theory tries to say that something is pushing these continents around on continental plates. But that cannot happen. You can imagine a continent rocking backwards and forwards a few microns here and there. But this continental drift business is utterly untenable.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:14 am
Yes of course there is measurements to confirm this is exponential. The fossil record confirms this as exponential.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:16 am
I do understand the “opening crust” theory.
Do you agree the increasing radius of the Earth means not only increasingly greater volume, it also means increasingly more surface area? (I take it I don’t have to go through the exercise of demonstrating this.)
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 6:17 am
I’m not discussing any other theory but this one. So let’s not get sidetracked with that.
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 6:18 am
Yes of course. This is about the stupidest line of questioning ever devised. There is a continuing increase in surface area. But the continents have remained largely the same the whole time. Thats why they all fit together like a jigsaw on the size of a globe about the current size of the moon.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:21 am
OK, we have it clear that the rate of increase of the mean radius of the Earth is exponential. And that rate is something in the order of (let us be conservative now) 10mm per year.
So where on the curve are we? Near the front and almost flat, or heading up the exponential slope at a rate of knots?
This leads back to my previous question: What might the appropriate values (delta mean radius, etc) be in 100 years from now? 1000 years? How about in one billion years (should we make it that far).
This should all be reasonably predictable…
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 6:24 am
“I’m not discussing any other theory but this one. So let’s not get sidetracked with that.”
You fuckwit!!! What sort of a moronic statement is that? The theory doesn’t exist in a vacuumn you dope!!!! The theory is derived STRAIGHT FROM THE FOSSIL RECORD. The theory comes from out of the fossil record and is confirmed by that. If you get two globes and you cut out the continents from the bigger one they will fit nicely onto the smaller one. And you will be able to tie up the expansion with the fossil record.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:24 am
We are heading up the exponential. As evidence for the very slow rate of change for billions of years and only really taking off about the time of the first dinosaurs. The dinosaurs would have been able to migrate back and forth between the North and South hemispheres to always be in the Summer.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:27 am
Yes, Graeme. I did say I understood the theory.
So far we have 11,246 brand new cubic kilometers of Earth per year to explain. We have an Earth that is gaining mass rapidly but no-one will explain the expected changes in physics that should ensue. And now we have a theory of continental divide that has “a few issues”.
Would you like another problem?
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 6:29 am
Whats to explain about them? You just have to live with it. There is nothing to explain. Its the other way around. If we didn’t have mass being created then this is what would take the explaining. Since as you see there is a lot of mass around.
You can say “In the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded” I my guess is you adhere to this unscientific notion. But we really want to be driven by first-rate evidence and not third-rate-theology.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:33 am
““I’m not discussing any other theory but this one. So let’s not get sidetracked with that.”
You fuckwit!!! What sort of a moronic statement is that? The theory doesn’t exist in a vacuumn you dope!!!! The theory is derived STRAIGHT FROM THE FOSSIL RECORD. The theory comes from out of the fossil record and is confirmed by that. If you get two globes and you cut out the continents from the bigger one they will fit nicely onto the smaller one. And you will be able to tie up the expansion with the fossil record.”
As I said, I’m discussing YOUR theory here, the one in the OP. Not any other continent creation theory, past, current, or future. Swearing only makes you look stupid, not me.
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 6:33 am
It doesn’t matter who LOOKS idiotic you fuckwit. Its you that are BEING idiotic. You cannot section off one theory from any other. Since knowledge is holistic. I ought not have to explain that to you you dim bulb.
Now you adhere to the creation story THE BIG BANG is that right?
Well clearly if we don’t wish to adhere to creation stories like the big bang, and instead wish to go with the evidence, then there is nothing particularly mysterious about matter creation. SINCE THE MATTER IS HERE and therefore must have been capable of creation.
Its not possible to discuss this in a vacuumn so don’t be a fuckwit.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:37 am
OK then.
No explanation is being offered for 11,246 cubic kilometers of dirt being created Ex Nihilo every year.
No explanation for the lack of expected changes in basic physical constants and measurements due to increasing mass of the Earth.
And there will be no explanations offered for the myriad of “issues” that dog the expanding crust theory of continent creation.
We are being told: “Just live with it”. And that’s religion, Graeme.
Thanks for the conversation. I have real work to do.
By: Zep on March 4, 2009
at 6:40 am
See you are going about it the wrong way. You have to compare paradigms. You go in for the floating continents idea. An idea that lacks creidibility. And you go in for the idea of the Big Bang. The stupidest idea in all of unscience. There is no way to investigate matters without comparing the implications of the competing paradigms. So you can drop that idiocy for starters.
What you are trying on is the Popperian-Faux-Falsification rort. But your own ideas have to stand or fall on the evidence as well.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:41 am
Well what is your competing explanation for the fact that matter exists?
You have no explanation at all?
So you have nothing.
And yet we know that matter is being created in the Earth from convergent evidence. We know also that everywhere matter is breaking down. So how is matter being created to balance that which is being broken down.
You have no explanation for your crankery on this matter. And no evidence for your Big Bang creation theory.
Matter must be created by some fashion or it would not be here. And here we find that it is created in the centre of planets. If it isn’t created there WHERE IS IT BEING CREATED. No answer from you on this score.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:45 am
So Zep. If you have a better theory of how matter is created lets have it.
GO!!!!!!
You see you have no theory do you? No you don’t. And yet the matter is in fact here. So your ideas on the matter are loony-toons.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:47 am
The precise way the matter is created is immaterial and not my job to discover. The fact is we know that matter is created by some mechanism, and we have found out that it is created in planets. It will be hard to figure out the mechanism when its going on thousands of kilometres in the ground but if government financing of science actually worked the poindexters would be investigating the issue right away.
But the growing earth theory does not the least bit wait on their professionalism or lack thereof. We see that there was a mystery with matter creation. And we find that the WHERE half of that mystery has been solved.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:53 am
“No explanation is being offered for 11,246 cubic kilometers of dirt being created Ex Nihilo every year.”
How is THIS!!!! for leftist projection. The idiot Zep. Clearly a big bang believer, is accusing me of saying that the matter is created EX NIHILO. No of course not. Nor was there any reason to throw me in with the basket-weaving big bang believers.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:56 am
“No explanation for the lack of expected changes in basic physical constants and measurements due to increasing mass of the Earth.”
You are just lying fella. You don’t have the data. Where is your evidence for this JIVE!!!!!
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 6:58 am
So there we have it. Ron PalineHanson was right. It was just a shitrain of lies when we had waited so long for some intelligent analysis.
Whereas HE believes in Ex Nihilo creation he wrongly did the leftist projection and said it was me. Whereas HE has to show how matter is created he wrongly projected this requirement onto me.
And whereas he claimed that
“And there will be no explanations offered for the myriad of “issues” that dog the expanding crust theory of continent creation.”
but in fact it is his explanation for the fossil record that is dogged by difficulties.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 7:02 am
“look at Zep’s logic here.
We find powerful convergent evidence of matter creation.
And Zep says, hey – that must mean matter is being created!
Well, duh. dumbfuck.
Can you PLEASE ban this prick already?”
Exacty. I share your disgust. But what else would you expect from a Big Bang Believer.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 7:06 am
No Graeme, you’re the idiot offering nothing but faux science mumbo jumbo. As usual.
By: DH on March 4, 2009
at 7:10 am
And besides, you have yet to explain geologic shearzones.
By: DH on March 4, 2009
at 7:51 am
Bullshit. You have yet to explain geological shear-zones. So go ahead and explain them?
The leftist projection of these Big Bang Believers is just staggering. A stupid cunt shows out of the blue. He has never once explained geological shear-zones. And the dumb cunt claims it was me?
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 8:02 am
OK idiot. Don’t mess around. Lets have your explanation for Geological shear-zones.
Fuck me. Its just one idiot after another hear. One idiot doesn’t explain matter creation and says that its me. The next cunt doesn’t explain ecological shear-zones and says that its me.
This is where the left is taking us. To utter epistemological confusion. Since they explain nothing yet if you point out they are wrong apparently you have to explain everything.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 8:04 am
Zep receives a Conceptual Audit FAIL.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 4, 2009
at 8:05 am
OK dumb fuck. Lets have your explanation for new matter creation and geological sheer zones. And while you are at your frenzy of leftist projection how about sort out how it is that these continents are pushed around in your moronic view.
We really are dealing with witch-doctors here.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 8:06 am
Aint that a fact. Conceptual audit. F for fail. Actually in my day he’d get a Z for Zep. But the kids have this grade inflation to help them along.
All that time and the dumb cunt had nothing. And now another dumb cunt shows up, does not explain geological sheering, and claims it was me. That silly cunt deserves a Z for Zep. Grade inflation be damned.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 8:09 am
I suspect this 11000 cubic kilometres of new mass creation that zep has discovered will be mostly hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. That way we will wind up with a lot of water and methane being produced. And by the time the methane makes it up to us it will be glorious oil and other hydrocarbons.
We might expect at least a 1000 cubic kilometres of oil each year. Marvellous. Because Australia needs to re-industrialise. “Heavy Metal Don’t Mean Rock And Roll To Me.”
What would be good is hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, boron, thorium and uranium. And the uranium and thorium particularly created atop giant bubbles of oxygen so as to expedite the delivery of these vital items right up to some faultline or other just offshore. Just offshore of all the nuclear reactors shining like bright beacons of science and reason all around the coast of Australia. With their aesthetically pleasing water vapours rising majestically into the sky from their cooling towers.
Hopefully we can then have tourists throwing money into the water so that enterprising native children can dive down for the money and while they are there bring up large nuggets of uranium and to be fed straight into the nuclear reactors, and take a breath of pure oxygen while they are down there.
In this one vision we see the solution to all known social problems in the world today.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 9:43 am
Actually I see one unplanned nasty implication in the above. But I’m without the computer necessary to edit it.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 9:50 am
As I don’t have my computer that can access my admin function, I’m going to have to log a post for a new thread here. Being as it was to the ABC and it may not get through.
“No good Jon. The government is going to reneg.
But you certainly have highlighted a valid need here. If we were on an 100% backed commodity standard, and people could lend to a 100% backed bank, at interest, then the retirement savings of our elderly would be secure. Because government promises are all just paper and thin air. But interest-bearing gold money doesn’t lose its value. Never loses its value. Doesn’t lose its value through trials by fire over 1000 years of tumultuous history. Through revolution, famine, war and dark ages, the gold coins will hold their value. And we know this because we can pull a ship from the bottom of the ocean that hasn’t seen the light of day for hundreds of years, and there will be the best coins just as valuable as they ever were.
We have robbed the current generation of retirees all their lives through government parasitism and the inflation tax, and we have to maintain their dignity and our own by helping them through. But if we can establish fully-backed private money now then younger people can plan for retirement with great assurance, and that will be good for them and good for the taxpayers of the day also, who ought to be free at last, free at last.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 10:28 am
Just to show that I don’t condenm all taxeaters. How about those cops and security people who did their job and took the heat for those criketers???
Good show. Unbelievable true grit.
By: GMB on March 4, 2009
at 12:05 pm
“OK idiot. Don’t mess around. Lets have your explanation for Geological shear-zones.”
Simple bogbrain: Subduction.
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 12:05 am
And the existence of shear zones kind of blows your ridiculous expansion theory out of the water.
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 12:08 am
Ever baked a muffin, DH?
What happens to the muffin if you over cook it?
It expands too much and cracks form on the top.
Just like shear zones.
So thanks for providing further convergent evidence for the expanding earth theory.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 1:31 am
“Subduction” is leftist for “I don’t know”.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 1:34 am
Oh, so now we have the muffin theory.
For your information, dimwit, shear zones provide some of the best evidence of plate tectonics, as opposed to your half-baked ‘science’.
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 1:43 am
Oh well if you say so it must be true, DH.
I mean please don’t bother trying to present an argument.
Just tell us how you are a science worker with all sorts of book learnin’ and degress and shit and you know better than we do, with our real world observations of physical phenomena.
Or just fuck off. Whichever. I don’t care.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 2:09 am
Well given that your real world observations apparently don’t extend much beyond the kitchen, you might try and explain how, if continents are fixed, rocks lying next to each other in major geologic shear zones were once thousands of miles apart.
You really are a dumb cunt.
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 2:43 am
rocks lying next to each other in major geologic shear zones were once thousands of miles apart
Never happened you lying fuck.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 3:02 am
Nice muffin theory. I like it.
Anyway it does raise the question that I have never seen a mountain on a muffin. Sheer zones I’ll grant you but jagged mountains never.
By: Steve Edney on March 5, 2009
at 3:29 am
Bird can you please ban these pricks already?
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 3:42 am
““OK idiot. Don’t mess around. Lets have your explanation for Geological shear-zones.”
Simple bogbrain: Subduction.’
In what way does subduction explain the phenomenon of sheer zones? These one-word answers aren’t really good enough. I’ll scroll up to see what other explanations you might have come up with.
“Well given that your real world observations apparently don’t extend much beyond the kitchen, you might try and explain how, if continents are fixed, rocks lying next to each other in major geologic shear zones were once thousands of miles apart.”
Well you haven’t explained it. You explain it first using your theory. Maybe one one of the really big blokes threw the rock. You explain this phenomenon first. How does your theory explain this business?
I can see a great big filibuster coming on here. How do you know that the rocks used to be apart? Its very easy to know that geological features used to be together and now they are apart. But how can you know that it used to be the other way around? So far it looks like you are just making it up.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 3:52 am
We are still waiting for your explanation of sheer zones. You claimed that I hadn’t explained them. But as it turns out it was you.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 3:57 am
“Never happened you lying fuck.”
Oh. Well we won’t mention the Eurasian and Indian plates then.
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 4:04 am
This must be where the dumb leftist ties up a totally independent phenomenon as proof for his idiotic theory. So for example you have the cosmic background radiation. It lends no weight whatsoever to the ludicrous idea of the big bang, everyone predicted there would be a background radiation and not the bangers, and there was never any claim that the background warmth would be zero Kelvin. But these lunatics contend that the background radiation is proof of the big bang. Now we’ve got this DH dummy claiming that sheer zones are proof of subduction….. and not only proof of subduction but proof of enough subduction to counter all the spreading we see going on.
Well actually its not the least bit clear what he’s claiming. Since he won’t explain. And of course the other dummies aren’t in a position to leap in and put up a clear explanation.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 4:06 am
Come on DH you dummy. Lets have your explanation. How do you explain sheer zones.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 4:11 am
It’s simple you cretin: Convergent boundaries.
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 4:19 am
“Oh. Well we won’t mention the Eurasian and Indian plates then.”
What about these alleged plates. Looks like you don’t have any explanation for sheer zones and have jumped to something else. So it comes across as a lot of stupid innuendo. Since you are unable to explain any phenomenon but are instead hopping from one foot to the other.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 4:19 am
“Convergent boundaries” now. Before that it was the one word answer “subduction” and now at least we are up to two word answers. So the dumb leftist is just dropping buzz-words in lieu of an explanation.
Still no explanation of shearing. So the filibuster continues with this dummy.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 4:22 am
This is what happens when you are backing an idiotic theory. You cannot come up with an explanation for aspects of it. So you are forced to be vague and evasive like this idiot DH.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 4:24 am
Well it looks like DH has got nothing. F for Fail. You failed the conceptual audit.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 4:26 am
“convergent boundaries” is leftist for “I don’t have a fucking clue what I am talking about so I will come up with something to bamboozle you”
Bird, can’t you see they are not trying to advance the debate? They are just trying to save their hides by muddying the waters.
I thought this site was supposed to be where you could have free debate. But how can there be free debate when these lying fucks are allowed to confuse everything????
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 4:28 am
Well?
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 4:31 am
No Graeme, with your crock of shit theory areas of geological stress such as shear zones, subduction, convergent plates (such as the Eurasian plate and Indian plate) etc simply wouldn’t exist. Yet they do.
You know, as observed, measurable phenomena.
In short, get your head out of your arse.
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 4:34 am
shear zones, subduction, convergent plates
Where’s the evidence? I haven’t seen it. And try to answer without lying.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 4:35 am
Put up your explanation for these things DH. One at a time now. How about trying to explain sheer zones under your threory. If all we are going to get is filibustering on our part then when I get my proper computer back I’m just going to have to thin your posts down.
You are acting precisely how we would expect you to act if your theory is no good. Vague and evasive.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 4:51 am
Come on DH. Explain how a shear zone works in your make-believe world. Its very easy to see how you can have great and consistent forces at work under the expanding earth theory. But these forces are more or less impossible under your theory, which is why you are unable to piss or get off the pot.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 4:57 am
I take it that in your view India is, by some mysterious and unknown force, colliding into the Eurasian “plate” and forcing up the Himalayas is that right? Where is the force for this fantasy coming from?
If you are unable to explain shear zones perhaps you can leap ahead to explain this mysterious force production.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 5:00 am
Well DH you are sure doing a good job of highlighting the weakness of your dopey theory. You are entirely unable to provide an answer for these things that you allege that earth expansion cannot explain.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 5:01 am
Plate tectonics 101, you lying communist knobhead. The lithosphere floats on the asthenosphere.
All you’ve done is to describe divergent boundaries.
You really are such a moronic lying liar.
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 5:07 am
The lithosphere floats on the asthenosphere.
And the kneebone’s connected to the… legbone.
The legbone’s connected to the… footbone.
And so on and so forth.
Please get back to us when you have a serious answer, DH.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 5:13 am
We are just not getting any answers from you DH. You showed up here and said I was refusing to explain how earth expansion is compatible with shear zones. From there on in you have filibusted. So its a repeat of Zeps performance only worse.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 5:19 am
What are you doing DH? Are you just sort of going backwards and forwards between this thread and the wiki and dropping a few keywords? Because thats what it looks like.
Now lets have your explanation or go away. We’ve waited long enough.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 5:22 am
Pathetic.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 5:25 am
“Bird I couldn’t care less whether you are gay, but please explain mountains.”
The thing is he can’t Steve, beyond some absurd theory about matter being created from nothing. He can’t explain simple observed phenomena.
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 5:44 am
Edney you fucking cunt
look at this:
it’s a muffin that to my eyes is indisinguishable from the south face of Mont Blanc
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 5:46 am
the only phenomenon i have observed, DH, is your inability to provide any evidence in support of your wacky theory
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 5:47 am
So we have expanding muffins that produce shear zones and mountains.
How much more convergent evidence do you need?
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 5:48 am
Ok I’m convinced. That muffin looked way to tasty to be false.
If you have two theories one tasty and one not then the tastiest one must be true?
By: Steve Edney on March 5, 2009
at 5:59 am
Absolutely obnoxious leftist filibustering and lies.
You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
But after the gulags, the Ukrainian famine, the Cultural Revolution and 100,000,000 abortions a year I suppose you don’t have any shame left do you.
By: The True True True Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 6:31 am
“Bird I couldn’t care less whether you are gay, but please explain mountains. ”
That wasn’t me dummy. Some sodomites, Keynesians and Big Bang believers have clearly caught wind of my lack of editing abilities today. You know the rules Edney. Mountains are easily explained where genuine force production is possible. How do you explain mountains under your irrational belief system. DH cannot explain shearing zones. And you are unable to explain mountaining.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 6:37 am
Easy Peasy Graeme – convergence zones.
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 6:38 am
So here we see the relentless tyranny of leftist idiocy. Edney cannot explain mountains. So he shows up saying that I cannot explain mountains. DH cannot explain shear zones. So he shows up saying its me.
Shear zones and mountains are easily explained where genuine force production is possible because of the fact that this force production need not always apply in completely even ways. Rifting and expansion on the seas on both sides could easily cause shearing or mountaing. If Asia was being forced away from the Noth Pole its mountaining that you could get. But under the stupid Edney theory there is absolutely no way that force can be produced that would squash India up against Asia.
So all of these things are easily explained under new mass creation. But cannot be explained under continental drift. The continents cannot drift anywhere. Manfiestly they are totally locked in.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 6:44 am
“Easy Peasy Graeme – convergence zones.”
Thats not an explanation you fucking moron. So lets have an explanation. So far you have proved only that your theory CANNOT explain anything. Thats the evidence you have brought. And you haven’t brought anything other than that.
So lets have your explanation you stupid cunt.
Obviously the new mass creation theory is looking better all the time. Since it can explain everything and the stupid theory cannot explain any damn thing at all.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 6:47 am
Right. We can see this is just another lefty filibuster. From Edney and DH. Their theory explains nothing at all. Whereas the expanding earth theory accomodates easily all known phenomenon.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 6:50 am
“I’m kind of wondering what sort of forces people think are needed to move continents.”
You knucklehead Graeme. The forces contained within the asthenosphere.
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 6:51 am
Look how silent and evasive the idiots side of the argument is? Edney asks me to explain mountaining. Knowing full well that his own stupid theory that he adheres to only because of mental and moral reasons specifically is unable to explain mountaining. He mentions this and then he is forced to go silent. Whereas DH jumps from here and the wiki and gives these two word explanations since he understands nothing at all about the problem. But just tries to read the wiki to absorb the keywords.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 6:53 am
“The forces contained within the asthenosphere.”
Oh thats marvellous. That answers everything. They are contained there right. There they are contained. If a force is contained dummy it cannot do a damn thing.
Stop fucking around and lets have your explanation. Bear in mind that this interpretation of the deep earth is probably working backwards from the conclusion of continental drift.
Now let me ask you a question. The material in the asthenosphere. More or less dense then the material in the continents. More or less dense. GO!!!!!!
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 6:57 am
Bird you moron, the mantle is convecting this provides a friction that pushes the plates around. When they collide they push up mountains when they seperate they create rifts.
Its all very well explains and without having to invoke some mysterious matter creation process.
By: Steve Edney on March 5, 2009
at 7:02 am
Where is all this new matter coming from? GO!!!!
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 7:03 am
“Bird you moron, the mantle is convecting this provides a friction that pushes the plates around.”
WHAT A LOAD OF IDIOCY. That doesn’t happen. Prove it. How could that possibly happen? The forces could never be large or stable enough. They would be entirely unable to move entire continents. The consistent one-way force production simply isn’t there.
So in fact your explanation is no better than DH’s. Essentially you’ve just given the one-word answer “convection”.
But thats no answer at all. Go again. How are the forces produced that could possibly move continents that are manifestly locked in by the sea surface all around them.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 7:06 am
“Where is all this new matter coming from? GO!!!!”
Where is the new matter coming from in your theory? Obviously in my theory its being produced from energy. But in your theory it appears by magic.
I can see that the two of you are just determined to not explain anything and just act like cunts.
I asked a question cunt. I asked you which was heavier. The continent or this postulated athenosphere.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 7:10 am
“And I still don’t think you can explain mountains.”
No no. Its YOU that refuses to explain it you lying cunt. Its easy to see how mountains can be produced so long as you have a serious force that can push things around. You cannot not explain mountains.
So you’ve just laid on a pathetic leftist reversal.
Explain the movement of continents. You cannot do it. Because convection does not lend itself to the production of consistent forces. So you just are fucking winging it mate.
And in your view where does matter come from? You just have it arriving through magic.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 7:13 am
“I asked a question cunt. I asked you which was heavier.”
No you dolt. You asked which was denser. Two entirely different things.
The short answer is, of course, that you are the densest matter on the planet.
Couldn’t argue your way out of a paper bag, Bird.
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 7:14 am
Right. Thats why I asked. Which is denser you blockhead cunt?
Notice the fear in these purveyors of bad science. The fear it inspires to ask them a simple question. He will not answer the question out of sheer fear. Because to even answer the question is to be caught out.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 7:18 am
So these dummies find it to be an indictment to answer which is denser. The continental mass or their postulated athenosphere.
How about you Edney? Too gutless to answer a simple question?
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 7:20 am
Every high school kiddy in the land should be compelled to read this thread from top to bottom so as to comprehend what happens when leftists are able to roam free.
Disorder, confusion, chaos, lies and the appropriation of private property.
By: The True True True True Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 7:21 am
Dumb left filibuster.
Answer the question DH you stupid cunt. Go!!!!
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 7:21 am
Answer the question DH you cunt!!!!
Where is matter coming from in your view?
Which is denser. Your hypothesised athenosphere or the continental masses.
Answer the questions you fucking moronic cunt.
You too Edney you fucking dishonest bastard.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 7:23 am
“Now let me ask you a question. The material in the asthenosphere. More or less dense then the material in the continents. More or less dense. GO!!!!!!”
Lets have that answer you pathetic cunt. We see here that my preferred theory explains everything. And theirs explains nothing, and it leaves them totally fearful of answering the most basic questions.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 7:26 am
Lets have that fucking answer DH you cunt!!!!!!
This is what these leftists are like no matter what topic. This is the same if its Mark Hill or Cambria squirming out of proving that there is a fiscal multiplier. It matters not what they are talking about. They are fucking morons, they are fucking liars, they are morally handicapped, and so they cannot answer the simpleist fucking question.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 7:28 am
wrong thread, pinko
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 7:32 am
Edney you cunt. Which is the most dense. The material in the hypothesised athenosphere? Or the material in the hypothesised continental plates???
You can see where this is going can’t you people? Clearly the theory of subduction is untenable under their ideas. Under their very ideas subduction cannot be explained. Under the expanding earth theory there are forces created which could explain subduction although you would expect it to be relatively rare. But under continental drift theory its happening all the time and yet it cannot happen.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 7:32 am
sorry – wrong BLOG you filth
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 7:32 am
OK answer the question DH you stupid cunt. Which is denser: Athenosphere or continental plates….
See how quickly we can prove that their theories are untenable if we just push beyond the various verbal bully-boy techniques of these mindless lunatics.
They cannot make good on their own claims.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 7:35 am
“Clearly the theory of subduction is untenable under their ideas. Under their very ideas subduction cannot be explained. Under the expanding earth theory there are forces created which could explain subduction although you would expect it to be relatively rare. But under continental drift theory its happening all the time and yet it cannot happen.”
Except that subduction happens all the time, is observable, and is easily explained by continental drift, rather than your magic matter blatherings.
What next Graeme? Glass tubes on Mars? I forgot, we’ve already had that.
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 7:41 am
I’ve explained how subduction can happen under my system. And I’ve explained how it CANNOT HAPPEN under your system.
Are you still filibusting on the question I asked you?
Answer the question now Which is the most dense. The hypothesised athenosphere or the hypothesised continental plates? Which is the most dense?
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 7:51 am
Lets go again you useless cunt. Bear in mind that anyone who had a case would not be filibusting on this point. Which is the most dense in your view. The athenosphere or the continental plates.
That your system claims that the athenosphere is much more dense than the continental plates clearly means that you have no explanation for subduction.
Yes the force creation produced by new mass creation would allow for some subduction. I can explain subduction, rare that it is. You cannot. Though you are forced to claim that it is ubiquitous.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 7:55 am
Lets go again you filibustering cunt. Which is denser in your view. The athenosphere or the continental plates.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 7:56 am
“That your system claims that the athenosphere is much more dense than the continental plates …”
Actually it doesn’t. The astenosphere is less dense, you idiot.
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 7:57 am
So now the dumb cunt reckons there is this layer BELOW the continents that is LESS DENSE then the continents. Well no wonder he was loathe to own up to this theory. Notice that this theory gets more and more foolish as it continues. Because if there were a flexible layer that was less dense then the layers above it there would be movement alright. The continents and the sea floor would be sinking and the lighter layer would be rising. It might take awhile but this state of affairs could never be a forever thing. But it is precisely this sort of idiocy that you need when you are committed to keeping bad paradigms alive.
“The asthenosphere is a portion of the upper mantle just below the lithosphere that is involved in plate movements and isostatic adjustments. In spite of its heat, pressures keep it plastic, and it has a relatively low density. ”
A relatively low density. RIIIIIIIGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHTTTT. Well it must do. Because this is the only way these guys can explain any subduction. Of course the whole theory is just utterly foolish. Which is why DH took so long to own up to it and my rope-a-dope play was so drawn out.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 8:18 am
I bet you guys just had no idea how shaky and untenable these ideas really were.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 8:20 am
We have seen how the doctrine of continental drift is untenable. Now here is a small youtube showing clearly how unavoidable the growing earth doctrine is. It cannot be denied except by leftist idiots.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 8:39 am
Bird
Ignore these bozos. There’s no good to come from engaging with them. They are liars and they are deaf.
Concentrate on building good theory.
My theory is that the stars are linked by an electrical field. The field accounts for dark matter and is what powers the sun.
And I believe there is probably some undiscovered element at the core of the earth which may be similar to elements at the core of the sun. Let’s call it “unknownium”.
The unknownium absorbs the electrical energy of the sun. Or anyway its plugged into the intergalactic electric field.
And electricity makes the unknownium grow. Hence the expanding earth and exploding planets.
Now what I would like to see is a serious effort to get some of this unknownium and bring it to the surface.
Imagine what sort of machines we could power with this stuff!!!! Just put some in a pressure chamber and strap that onto a turbine with a massively geared crankshaft.
Of course you would need superb engineering to contain the unknownium.
And massive capital accumulation to fund the voyage to obtain it.
But the payoff for the first country to pull it off will be OUTSTANDING.
thoughts?
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 8:52 am
delete this lying cunt SOON
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 9:32 am
I haven’t seen what betting distraction Z has come up with this time. But we don’t want to encourage these irrational betting distractions any more than we would want to encourage Scotsman to ride a tandem. Every time we have you committed irrationalists beaten then some dumb cunt produces an irrational bet and that starts another leftist filbuster. We might call this the Annan-Cycle, And its not to be encouraged. What is to be encouraged is simple faithfullness to the evidence.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 9:34 am
Notice what a complete waste of time the filibuster that Zep, DH and Edney tried on just on this one subject. Or on the global warming fraud? These people just waste time and they are liars. Now there is no way I’d want to encourage a whole new category of filibusters on top of what you Big Bang fantasists have already got on the go.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 9:37 am
“My theory is that the stars are linked by an electrical field. The field accounts for dark matter and is what powers the sun.
And I believe there is probably some undiscovered element at the core of the earth which may be similar to elements at the core of the sun. Let’s call it “unknownium”.
The unknownium absorbs the electrical energy of the sun. Or anyway its plugged into the intergalactic electric field.”
That actually sounds very good. All except for the unkownium and the dark matter. But all that other gear about the same electric field sounds like where the evidence is pointing.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 9:42 am
I knew I was onto something.
Peer review is awesome!
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 9:45 am
“We have seen how the doctrine of continental drift is untenable.”
No we haven’t dodo. One minute your saying plate tectonics can’t work because the asthenosphere is denser than the lithosphere, and when presented with the fact that it’s actually less dense, well that’s evidence against tectonics as well. Neat trick fuckwit.
And if you want evidence concerning relative density you might look up the Chile earthquake of 1960.
And gee Paultard: muffins, unknownium, and now the sun being powered externally by an electrical field. Funny, I could have sworn it was nuclear fusion.
How does it work, do you think?
Has Graeme told you about his theory of how Mars was once populated by a race of Space Lizards?
Haven’t responded to Z, Graeme. You realy are the most gutless of gutless wonders.
You pair really are cretins. No balls and no brains.
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 10:04 am
Presented with the contention that the lower layer is less dense we see how totally untenable this theory of yours is. How can this layer be flexible and LESS dense and it not rise to the top with the sea and land falling underneath it?
Your theory just gets more silly and it cannot explain any damn thing.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 10:23 am
So the cosmic background radiation proves the Big Bang (not) and the Chile earthquake proves that a lower layer is lighter than the surface layer (not). But do tell us about this non-evidence that you reckon is coming from Chile. You’ve just fucking got nothing mate.
But you are helping show how totally untenable this theory is. To even allow for subduction under this theory they have to pretend that a lower level is lighter or rather less dense. Which of course is impossilbe and flat out idiotic. But by their own admission it has to be that way or subduction would not be possible.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 10:30 am
“And gee Paultard: muffins, unknownium, and now the sun being powered externally by an electrical field. Funny, I could have sworn it was nuclear fusion.”
The evidence points in the direction of the external electric field and not by fusion. There will be fusion going on in the corona because of its extreme heat in the millions of degrees. The proof of the electric theory is that the corona is far hotter than the suns surface. Hence the energy is coming from the outside in. And must be. Or else the corona would have to be cooler than the surface. The other giveaway to the wrongness of the fusion model is the sun-spots. With the sunspots you can look right inside the sun. And you see that it is black or black in comparison to the rest of the suns surface. This would not be the case if inside the sun was hotter. So the energy is clearly coming from the outside. And manifesting itself more strongly in the corona.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 10:37 am
But Graeme – unknownium is the missing link.
How does Sun maintain his size despite burning so much fuel? He is obviously expanding.
And all the evidence converges on some electrical force providing Sun’s energy.
I think this is pushing us towards there being a new element in the core of the earth and the Sun that absorbs galactic energy waves. Maybe it’s a compound of elements already known to us. I don’t know.
But we need to find this material and harness its power.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 10:55 am
I suspect it would just build up from your hydrogen atom building blocks. Its getting from electric currents and subatomic particles to hydrogen that is where the mystery would be. There could be any number of possibilities. But the scientists won’t find it unless they look for it. And I’m not going to be able to conjure this Ex Nihilo.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 11:01 am
Well who do you think it is who wants us not to start looking for it?
Do you think maybe there are a few very large holes being dug in the Gobi desert even as we speak?
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 11:14 am
and are you with me that there is a link between galactic electricity and the expanding earth?
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 11:15 am
We have plenty of options for generating energy. We have uranium, and thorium and we have the possibility of boron fission/fusion. Boron fusion/fission is a particularly good idea because it generates electricity directly. So you don’t need to have a steam driven turbine. Which would mean a far more cost-effective energy generation. But if we cannot do things that way still we have plenty of energy production from standard fission.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 11:15 am
“An ideal universe would consist of nothing but hydrogen, carbon and oxygen.”
Discuss.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 11:17 am
Bullshit. That’s all energy creation from internal sources. I’m talking about harnessing the power of the galaxies.
That’s how you will see true interstellar travel in our lifetimes.
And I for one don’t want to see a red flag flying over Alpha Centauri. We’ve got to get on this.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 11:20 am
“and are you with me that there is a link between galactic electricity and the expanding earth?” That would appear to be the most obvious inference yes.
In the case of the sun they have false colour photos where you can actually see the birkeland currents going into the sun. So perhaps something similiar is happening with earth. But then one doesn’t really know. One can only suggest that this is a good lead.
If this is the case you would expect a planet to grow more quickly once it had developed a very strong magnetic field. So you would expect the earth to be growing quickly but mars and the moon to be growing only very slowly. But then thats all wild speculation. Its only that the earth is growing that is a fact we can be very sure of.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 11:20 am
I don’t see interstellar travel as being a cost-effective venture. Occasionally it may be forced on people if there local planets became unliveable. But I don’t see such undertakings as ever being able to pay the bills.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 11:23 am
There is something pure about H, C and O.
Uranium and plutonium are useful in certain respects but I have always considered them somewhat “cosmopolitan” elements, if you catch my drift (and I am sure you do).
I would feel most at home in an H, C and O universe.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 11:23 am
What worries me is that Earth’s growth is accelerating. Voyager produced data to that effect.
And the greenies are fixated on bullshit AGW. We should be harnessing galactic electricity and getting ready to bail on this rustbucket.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 11:29 am
Well you can stick liquified coal in your trailbike or four-wheel. The other gear is only useful in terms of making it more cost-effective to get that liquified-coal into your motor.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 11:30 am
You would expect new matter creation to be endothermic in nature. Perhaps it absorbs neutrinos, electrical charge and heat energy. Perhaps its the natural thing when you have gotten an electrical current, powerful heat and pressure and it may be happening where the majority of the material is subject to powerful positive ionisation. We know that light energy can wind up leading to pair production, essentially out of nothing. The pair is the electron and the positron. The idea would be for an environment that processed the positron into something more stable in a region somewhat electron-scarce, prior to it being destroyed by finding another electron. Who knows? Under such powerful electric charge, heat and pressure, and in the presence of neutrinos from the fusion reactions in close proximity, it may be the case that the pair production goes directly to an electron and a proton.
Obviously we just cannot know at this point the HOW of matter production. But its pretty good going that we’ve already managed to track down the WHERE of matter production.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 12:37 pm
“What worries me is that Earth’s growth is accelerating. Voyager produced data to that effect.
And the greenies are fixated on bullshit AGW. We should be harnessing galactic electricity and getting ready to bail on this rustbucket.”
Yes it should be accelerating. But look at the bright side. That means the greens have no case in terms of us having to hold back on our use of resources. The human race will never use 11000 cubic kilometres of material no matter how much fission or fusion we have going on. We can never dig and process that much material in any given year.
Our resources are basically unlimited and growing more volumnous all the time. The tough gig will be putting up with gravity a 100 million years from now. That would be a sonofabitch if the planet didn’t lose its growth spurt.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 12:44 pm
Mr Bird
You are sorely needed back in commenting on issues of everyday note. Our political opressors are back to their treasonous games
http://www.smh.com.au/national/taxpayers-last-in-asset-selloff-20090305-8q1w.html
However, a recent assessment by Merrill Lynch estimated the Government could raise nearly $13 billion from the sale of the electricity industry. The sale of the trading rights of the power generators alone would be worth $9 billion-$11 billion, and the retail assets – Energy Australia, Integral Energy and Country Energy – worth $2.6 billion.
The door is open particularly to Chinese bidders, Mr Tripodi said. “The Chinese are very much welcome,” Mr Tripodi said, who made reference to TruEnergy, which already owns a power station near Wollongong, and which is owned by China Light and Power.
By: Winchester Quartermain on March 5, 2009
at 9:31 pm
Appalling Quislings.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 10:11 pm
Going after these high sale prices guarantees a crony market form after sale. So not only do these guys want to sell out to the communists. They want to do so guaranteeing a non-competitive market afterward.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 10:46 pm
Notice that they want to sell them all off in one hit instead of in the smallest cash-flow units. Thus guaranteeing the advantage to cronytown generally and the Chinese Communists specifically. Also making absolutely sure that big business doesn’t grow out of small business success.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 11:27 pm
Chinese money is as good as anyone’s.
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 11:44 pm
Yeah I guess you are right Judas. Doesn’t matter where you get that 30 pieces of silver from one supposes.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 11:48 pm
This treachery by the NSW government just shows the need for development of private means of harnessing galactic electricity.
How ironic it would be. Mao wanted every Chinaman to have a smelter in the backyard. Imagine if every Aussie had a galactic transformer plugged into the flat screen and the jacuzzi! Then we’d show ’em.
Hard currency and private enterprise are the only way this is going to happen.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 5, 2009
at 11:52 pm
That’s right.
By: DH on March 5, 2009
at 11:54 pm
Notice that with these appalling traitors who are after all only after slush fund money for vote-buying…. notice that no attempt is made to ensure an investors market FOR PRODUCING NEW PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY. Rather these guys are all into getting a windfall of taxeater and consultant splurge-cash by selling off all the old stuff. What they are not interested in is producing an overcapacity from new capital investment. Which would require them to loosen zoning requirements for one thing and lobby the Feds for another. But they don’t want to do the hard yards. They’ll just sell off what others have built for purposes of splurging.
By: GMB on March 5, 2009
at 11:54 pm
We could start with uranium. Use the heat, electricity and hydrogen from uranium to enhance any carbon we can get hold of. Which includes wood from trees to be used in this way instead of going up in smoke in environmentalist induced bushfires. …. It includes household and commercial rubbish. It includes coal, lignite, oil shales, tar sands, perhaps algae… The whole lot can have nuclear heat, electricity and hydrogen from nuclear power applied to bring down the cost of synthetic diesel.
In the future boron fusion/fission ought to be able to bring down that cost still further to below 20c for a gallon of synthetic diesel. Free at last, free at last.
By: GMB on March 6, 2009
at 12:16 am
DH, do you have anything constructive to add? No? ok then, fuck off.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 6, 2009
at 12:24 am
DH, all of the convergent evidence points to galactic electricity.
Where do you think Sun gets his energy from, fuck for brains?
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 6, 2009
at 12:26 am
Synthetic diesel would be the biggest money-spinner this country has ever seen if we act quickly to become the lowest cost producer.
By: GMB on March 6, 2009
at 12:27 am
and don’t come back with some garbage cribbed from wikipedia about “nuclear fusion”.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 6, 2009
at 12:28 am
I wish we could start with unknownium. That would be a FANTASTIC start.
But the fact is, with our treachorous leadership, it’s gonna be Johnny Chinaman who gets his hands on the stuff first.
And then we are fucked.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 6, 2009
at 12:30 am
All the evidence points to Sun having a solid core.
THAT INDEED APPEARS TO BE TRUE.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 6, 2009
at 12:31 am
oh fer chrisssakes BAN THIS PRICK ALREADY
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 6, 2009
at 12:34 am
Mr Bird
More treason from the faux-libertarians
http://www.cis.org.au/executive_highlights/EH2009/eh78109.html
By: Winchester Quartermain on March 6, 2009
at 12:47 am
Yes. Kirchner and the CIS have decided that Chinese nationalisation is free enterprise and that being free really means being mortgaged to the organ-snatching communists. First its them buying our debt, then them buying our strategic assets, then it will be our young sheilas, then the organs of people without political power. Everything to keep an army of taxeaters from clearing their desk and getting a proper job.
By: GMB on March 6, 2009
at 1:00 am
The next obvious step for the government will be allowing Chinese cadre to kill dissidents on our territory, or even having our own agents carry out the assassinations on behalf of China.
Your point about the young sheilas is an interesting one, too, Bird. The lack of available young women is possibly the greatest internal threat to the Chinese regime, and I won’t be surprised if in the next few years they increasingly resort to coercive diplomacy in the region in order to procure enough womenfolk to redress the gender imbalance.
By: Michael Fisk on March 6, 2009
at 3:10 am
Think of the incredible scorn that the Catallaxy crowd would pour on anyone who brought evidence to bear that an odd death was a Chinese Communist assassination. You can inject someone full of plutonium and to these guys its funny and regime leadership is a conspiracy theory (and therefore oddly disproven) and out of the question. And thats the faux-libertarian side of things. Over at Prodeo they would be driving the car needed for the hit to take place. Matters really are desperate. Its soft power to be feared more than anything or in combination with hard power. Because its soft power that a dim-witted Catallaxian, or a politician, would fall for every time.
The rules have completely changed. 30 years ago no-ones planes but our allies could reach here. 50 years ago we could rely on a population that would fight to the death. Now we have none of these things, we buy our ammo from Indonesia in some cases. The people would not fight, the taxeaters would crawl all over eachother to be first to sell us out. Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra can be intimidated immediately with but a handful of nukes…. People escaping inland would not have a free labour market to employ them. The money supply would be destroyed by the slightest disruption so that an insurgency would be untenable, and yet under attack our currency would drop to a quarter of its value.
Every damn thing is wrong about our defense. Our defense position is in the process of falling away from its unassailable height in 2003. All our submariners want to go home or head down a mine. The situation has to be rescued with extreme prejudice and the last person anyone wants to consult is a neoclassical quissling.
By: graemebird on March 6, 2009
at 3:29 am
Our defense situation is fine.
YOU REALLY ARE AN IDIOT AREN’T YOU. YES YOU ARE.
By: DH on March 6, 2009
at 3:34 am
You know I never quite liked David Lleyonhelm’s idea of dudes carrying weapons. On the intellectual side of things I could appreciate his arguments and I’d tend to defer to them. But it made me uneasy at least with the younger blokes carrying. The 35+ age group I was less worried about.
But the current state of affairs is so terrible that we cannot really nuance things. I feel the need to get fully behind our shooters. And sooner or later I’m going to have to stop putting things off in this department also. I think all of us ought to be showing up to Cato’s shooting range every now and then. I’ll be pulling out the heavy stuff when I visit the old bloke next time.
Any decent political leader would be ringing up that bloke in California that makes dragon-skin and telling him he can start up a tax-free operation in one of our inland towns any time he takes the fancy. Same goes for a lot of weapons manufacture. We ought to be doing this stuff now even though it will take some years to make a difference. Just to send the message inside and out that we are no pushovers.
But mostly we need to get back to the man and his property. The man who owns his gear and doesn’t owe no cunt nothing. Its got to be the opposite of John Lennons crapola. People have got to have something to fight for above a lot of debts and taxes.
By: graemebird on March 6, 2009
at 3:39 am
If the Chinese need someone to assassinate DH, I’ll do it for free.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 6, 2009
at 3:42 am
“The next obvious step for the government will be allowing Chinese cadre to kill dissidents on our territory, or even having our own agents carry out the assassinations on behalf of China.”
Notice how even assisting the Chinese to do this is fully in keeping with Jason Soon’s avowed utilitarianism, perhaps if we charged a fee. And its also in keeping with the Humphreys cost-benefit analysis.
Neoclassical thought is a disease.
By: graemebird on March 6, 2009
at 3:45 am
“If the Chinese need someone to assassinate DH, I’ll do it for free.”
Yes every bad policy has an upside to it. But it would be a Faustian bargain Ron. A Faustian bargain.
By: graemebird on March 6, 2009
at 3:47 am
Mr Bird
I agree. I did not bleed for my country and see my comrades die or become paralysed only to see what I see today. It’s time to take back our country Mr Bird. I think the first step must be to impose significant restrictions on people from unregistered countries to even set foot in Australia. We would as a first step register certain countries as our allies obviously e.g. the US, UK, New Zealand, Canada would be a start. We would have to vet carefully the rest. I have my misgivings about even some European countries but certainly people from any countries where the Mahometan creed reigns should not be welcomed here no matter what the price.
By: Winchester Quartermain on March 6, 2009
at 3:58 am
Graeme, good counsel as always. If we take out DH, it will be as a home grown initiative for our own essential national security purposes.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 6, 2009
at 3:58 am
Ignore the purple impostulator.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 6, 2009
at 3:59 am
I think a purge of the libertarian movement is needed Mr Bird. How many of these rootless cosmopolitans are possibly secretly funded by the Rockefeller-Soros-Rothschild axis?
By: Winchester Quartermain on March 6, 2009
at 4:02 am
“The next obvious step for the government will be allowing Chinese cadre to kill dissidents on our territory, or even having our own agents carry out the assassinations on behalf of China.”
No no no. Johnny Chinaman is too cunning for something that obvious. Violent elimination of dissidents would attract too much attention. It might even get mentioned in the Good Morning Herald.
Much more likely is that the dissidents will be bought off with government grants (funded from the sale of our electricity and resources assets) and given tenure at one of our universities, where they will be well paid to inveigh against whale hunting (Johnny Chinaman despises Jeff Jappo) and to promote AGW fraud.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 6, 2009
at 4:05 am
Thank you, Mr Quartermain, for daring to use the word “cosmopolitan”.
All of our young people nowadays are only familiar with the word in the context of that fatuous “Sex and the City” show. They think of upscale drinks, not the pernicious influence of foreign elements.
You and I of course know the truth.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 6, 2009
at 4:11 am
Imposter!
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 6, 2009
at 4:18 am
Jason Soon is suffering under the epistemological delusion that to quote a person to a leftist audience is the same as a refutation.
Notice that he lied and said something about me wanting to restrict tourism. Then he quoted a lot of what I said all of which makes perfect sense. He’s in no way in a position to refute a single line of it. The fellow is a major league nutter:
“Bird now apparently wants to restrict tourism
The rules have completely changed. 30 years ago no-ones planes but our allies could reach here. 50 years ago we could rely on a population that would fight to the death. Now we have none of these things, we buy our ammo from Indonesia in some cases. The people would not fight, the taxeaters would crawl all over eachother to be first to sell us out. Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra can be intimidated immediately with but a handful of nukes…. People escaping inland would not have a free labour market to employ them. The money supply would be destroyed by the slightest disruption so that an insurgency would be untenable, and yet under attack our currency would drop to a quarter of its value.”
By quoting him quoting me people get to hear the Sermon On The Mount three times over. I think its good people quoting me. But the dumb bastard is totally delusional to imagine that such quoting constitutes a refutation.
Yes Cambria I’ve grown food before. As kids we would from time to time use a plot in our orchard. Gather the worms and old cow manure and grow lettuce and things. You need snail poison and fertiliser is useful, but a bit of an extravagance given the richness of the soil where I was.
By: graemebird on March 6, 2009
at 4:21 am
Well I don’t think it’s a secret that Mr SOON has a slight conflict of interest when it comes to discussing our relations with our dumpling munching neighbours to the north.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 6, 2009
at 4:25 am
I think the worst carnage the Europeans did to Africa is left it with paper money and fractional reserve banking. Now that this is the case, when a tribe is attacked by machete-waving Arabs or black crazies, immediately their currency will be turned to toilet paper. And they cannot get together some diesel and firearms in a great good hurry to deal with this scenario. But what many have not realised is that we have put ourselves in the exact same situation. And the spontaneous Socialist Soviet Republic of New Orleans ought to have taught us this.
At the same time in Innisfail they too were paralysed. And yet those people up there are by their nature a very resourceful and enterprising bunch. But the currency will paralyse us all without discrimination. You may want to help the insurgency but you will have no means by which to do so. Only gold bars, silver coins, four wheel drives and trail bikes, and stashes of ordnance and diesel can help you through.
Most of all when you head to the bank your silver coins have got to be there.
By: graemebird on March 6, 2009
at 4:28 am
“Well I don’t think it’s a secret that Mr SOON has a slight conflict of interest when it comes to discussing our relations with our dumpling munching neighbours to the north.”
Yes but consider the irony of it???!!!!! The lucky bastard is more fortunate than you or I because when the word goes out it will be the case that anyone of CHOGIE appearance, who is armed must be shot on sight!!!!!
The fucking lucky bastard will get to sit it out without having the responsibility of having to up and fight!!!!
By: graemebird on March 6, 2009
at 5:47 am
I promised myself I’d get a few things done and not make any more threads for a long time. But the Winchester request weighs heavily upon my conscience when we have bipartisan quislings trying to both make us dependent on mains electricity and at the same time have that power supply put into the yellow hands of organ-snatching communists.
So clearly this has been dogging my thoughts this very day and I may not be able to avoid another thread. I go to other blogs but I cannot get the boot-quisling Tripodi out of my mind.
This is what I said over at Jennifers place.
“You pinko bastards have to understand that cheap synthetic diesel is a fundamental human right and one of the basic minimum requirements of human freedom.
We have been remiss in a way that the average martial artist would not be happy about. We have been arguing at the leftist enemy. We have occasionally slapped him around the face. But the idea is to be focused on a point behind the head or body and annihilate that which comes in between with more of a zen approach.
We want a vision of nuclear enhanced synthetic diesel that is so cheap that peak use profiteering funds all our roads and government. And off-peak we are free men who can ride around until the wheels fall off.
What is left of our liberty must fall along with our access to cheap liquid hydrocarbons. Science tells us that we can burn them until the end of time and they will always be good for the biosphere.
As a compromise we might agree to a carbon tax when the level hits 2000ppm and not 1 ppm prior.”
By: graemebird on March 6, 2009
at 5:57 am
Interesting. I’ve never thought about it like that.
If there were such a thing as true justice, we would have recourse to the United Nations (I know, I know).
VERRRRRY CLOSE TO THE EDGE BROTHER. I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BUT BE VERY CAREFUL.
I can see an argument that denying us access to cheap synthetic diesel is effectively genocide under relevant conventions.
ALLS WELL THAT ENDS WELL…….
YOU BET. I’M NOT SAYING THAT EVERY LAST INDIVIDUAL WHO HASN’T GOT IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO A FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE WITH GUNRACKS ISN’T A MAN. I’M SAYING THAT ONCE THAT POSSIBILITY IS CUT OFF FOR YOUR AVERAGE JOE THATS THE END OF HUMAN FREEDOM.
BUT WE ARE NOT HERE TO PRESERVE!!!!!!!! OUR FREEDOM… BUT TO REGAIN IT…. BUT WE MUST BE MORE AMBITIOUS THEN THAT……. WE MUST GAIN TRUE FREEDOM FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME.
MAYBE NOT IN TIME FOR YOU OR FOR ME. BUT AS THE BLIND PROPHET SAYS “ONE DAY AT CHRISTMAS TIME.”
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 6, 2009
at 6:06 am
Mr Bird
I have tried to do my bit to raise consciousness of this treason
http://winchesterquartermain.blogspot.com/2009/03/infiltration-of-communism-to-highest.html
By: Winchester Quartermain on March 6, 2009
at 6:30 am
You wouldn’t believe the queer-homosexual-gay-deviants that stalk these halls of truth and reason looking to crap in any doorway.
By: graemebird on March 6, 2009
at 7:03 am
Amazingly this got through at the ABC:
Graeme Bird :
06 Mar 2009 4:15:44pm
Really Alan. The CIS and the IPA have to change their ways. You guys are posing as intellectuals of liberty but all I’m seeing is you guys acting like blood-sucker-centrals loyal opposition when it comes to important strategic matters.
We are not free men without cheap liquid hydrocarbons. Simple as that. You just have to take a long look at yourself and develop a more strident attitude. And for goodness sakes make sure that attitude is beefed up whenever you walk into meetings at the IPA.
One the one hand you alleged free marketeers would have us sell all our electricity to the communist chinese and on the other hand you would make formerly free men all dependent on the grid.
No good. Change your ways.
By: graemebird on March 6, 2009
at 7:27 am
I don’t know what I was talking about Winchester. On a second and third reading I now realise the majestry of your efforts. It was my reading that was shallow and nought other.
My apologies. I was not used to the sheer compression in your artistry before.
By: graemebird on March 6, 2009
at 7:34 am
I have a lot of respect for some of our elder homos. And also for some of our dignified homo couples.
I must admit a certain liking for a fellow name of David Marr. True journalist, though far better than the terrible rag he works for. True friend of liberty, though on the surface of things a bit of a lefty. (Bit of a Jekyl and Hyde character in my humble opinion.) But an absolutely staunch Australian when all is said and done.
I’ve known other gay people that I’ve had a great deal of respect for. The producer Barry Clarke for example who I met on his 40th.
And also there is those dignified older gay couples that were always humourous. Hudson and Halls and people of this sort.
But this evil sodomite that is stalking this part of the internet attempting to defame the righteous currency lad…… You do realise that if I caught you redhanded you would be food for the worms and nobody would miss you. And even your daddy would not enquire too hard as to your demise.
By: graemebird on March 6, 2009
at 7:44 am
STOP PRETENDING TO BE CURRENCY LAD YOU DEGENERATE. I WILL FIND YOU. AND I WILL FIND LESS HYGENIC CHARACTERS TO INJURE YOU WITH VERY LONG PIECES OF TIMBER.
By: Currency Lad on March 6, 2009
at 7:51 am
FACE FACTS MOTHERFUCKER. LOOKS LIKE SOME TAXEATER NEEDS TO WAKEY WAKEY.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 6, 2009
at 7:57 am
FRAMING THINGS IN TERMS OF CONSPIRACY IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC REFUTATION YOU STUPID FUCKING DUMBASS.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on March 6, 2009
at 7:58 am
Is there evidence supporting the Expanding earth theory?
By: Nicolas Krebs on March 28, 2009
at 2:36 pm
Yes I think so. If you consider the various theories in parallel, its the only theory consistent with the evidence in my view.
And that presents a problem. Since it implies new matter creation or conversion. Well the matter is here right? So we need an explanation as to how and where it is created.
If you believe in the big bang then you will never be happy with ongoing new matter creation and conversion.
But thats no problem for me. Because the Big Bang Theory is total crap. I mean we are looking at a really feeble paradigm.
By: graemebird on March 28, 2009
at 3:20 pm
My advice is that you ought not try and pre-empt matters if you investigate these things. I am confident that if you go through all the evidence, coming in from many convergent areas, with an open mind….. well you ought to be able to say that this theory fits better than any others.
You don’t need to say that this theory is therefore TRUE. But its a big thing to be able to say that you don’t believe something yet nonetheless it fits the data better than current alternatives.
One thing we can be pretty sure of is that Plate Tectonics theory is no good.
By: graemebird on March 28, 2009
at 3:30 pm