I did not say more than I did because I don't know enough about it. And, I have not even tried to present compelling evidence. I tried to discuss my feelings about the situation.
Sweetie, if you want to talk about your feelings, come talk to me.
[Holds Madame Sissyl's head to his shoulder and strokes her hair]
There there, now, there there.
And, friends, if I can take having my views ridiculed for years by the entire leadership and media of the country where I live, you do understand you aren't going to batter your views into my head either, don't you?None of us are looking to batter our views into your head. Because in the long run, it makes absolutely no difference to me what you believe. What we're trying to get you to recognize is the absolute and arbitrary double-standard that you're applying to the way you process data.
You've taken a viewpoint very similar that to fundamentalist religion. You've accepted practically on faith, the almost religious notion that Human affected climate change is a fake, a conspiracy, the same way that a subculture has formed around ideas such as the flat earth, the moon-landing conspiracy, and others of it's nature. Conspiracies formed of uncritical thinking and preconception. And you've let them become a perception filter on what data you will and you won't process. Not that I really blame you. That world you live in is a nice comfortable one, one that assures you that endless and unchecked material acquisition is the God-Given right of Mankind. Problem is.... that world is an illusion and the projection is getting rather tatty.
If there's anything we're trying to knock.... it's those blinders you've become overly fond of.
Exactly my thoughts.
Sissyl, you can't say there isn't any argumentation from any of us, as we kept throwing elements and pieces of evidence without getting any in return.
You can't either holding against us that we are unwilling to discuss something that doesn't exist as far as we are concerned, such as "the rather dubious stuff that the IPCC has done, their medial strategy in bashing unbelievers , and the proposed solutions to the CO2 issue which are more a hindrance than a help".
Because, for us : 1) the IPCC has done nothing of the sort ; 2) have no medial strategy to bash anybody ; 3) do not propose any solutions, as clearly stated in their mission (collating data).
In short, you are angry with us because we are not willing to discuss the details of a conspiracy in which we don't believe. You see the illogism ?
Awww, gobbo, you really shouldn't stroke my hair... fingers get cut that way. And that puncture wound at your neck looks pretty bad...
Why, Madame Sissyl, whatever do you mean?
[Tries to look at his neck.]
(runs a finger down her skullcap thingy, ending by drawing blood by touching one of the spikes lightly)
This.
You wear that thing in the house? How do you get through doorways?
Doorways always get bigger after a while. Besides, awesome.
It is a nice hat.
[Continues to talk about ladies headwear until he passes out from blood loss]
I guess we should get him to the hospital... Nah, who am I kidding? The people there would probably congratulate me on the xp. Hmmm... Okay, it ain't broken if you can fix it with duct tape.
(Makes an impressionist statue of gobbo and green stuff and duct tape)
There, that should help.
My current (completely unproven) theory is that it's a cultural development from being trapped inside homes together for months on end. Sort of a defense mechanism to prevent arguments from causing homicides during the winter months.
Yeah, Sweden seems to be a very consensual society. My sister in law is swedish, and at first didn't understand the french love for loud arguments and debate (and how we could get heated...Hypothesis! Hypothesis! That's a fricken hypothesis you just described!!
'Kay, I'm done now, sorry everyone had to see that . . .
*Hugs*
My current (completely unproven) theory is that it's a cultural development from being trapped inside homes together for months on end. Sort of a defense mechanism to prevent arguments from causing homicides during the winter months.
Yeah, Sweden seems to be a very consensual society. My sister in law is swedish, and at first didn't understand the french love for loud arguments and debate (and how we could get heated...Hypothesis! Hypothesis! That's a fricken hypothesis you just described!!
'Kay, I'm done now, sorry everyone had to see that . . .
I'm not sure if you're aware, but in English, words sometimes have multiple meanings.
I am not a scientist, by profession or training. So I am more likely to use a colloquial, or non-scientific meaning of a word. I understand what you're saying, and if I had tried to publish a scientific paper, my word choice would have changed.
I am sure Hitdice gets that, but the fact is that their is a fairly serious problem with the general public misunderstanding what Theory means, when discussing science.
"It's only a theory"
Honestly, those of us who do understand the difference have a part to play in combating the problem by trying to avoid using terms like theory, when what we mean is hypothesis.
Plus, there are few things more aggrivating than someone who doesn't understand thing one about the scientific method saying 'its only a theory', save that you get to quote montoya's law of Misused Words.
|
As far as holding the atmosphere, reducing pressure doesn't equate with absolute loss of atmospheric mass, though atmosphere is contantly be lost due to solar winds, radiation, etc, and while the extra speed would result in greater loss of atmosphere, it probably wouldn't be at an alarming speed. The atmosphere basically just got thicker in depth, but thinner in density.I asked you for a mechanism to explain the allegedly MUCH thicker atmosphere, because you had no evidence for it and only a tenuous argument.
You gave me a mechanism that would THIN the atmosphere.
Ginko trees pre date the dinosaurs. By everything I can find, they're the same size all the way back. They SHOULD have been bigger than sequoias by what you're saying.
Duh! The atmosphere is thinner now then what is being proposed for back then, there isn't a mechanism to make it thicker, it is taking the mechanism of it being thinnere and backtracking.
A thicker atmosphere results from having a greater weight and/or greater mass. The former can be altered by having an alteration in gravity, the latter can only be altered by gain or loss of material.
Plenty of other ways exist to change pressure but those require closed systems and earth is anything but a closed system (except maybe biologically speaking, and that could be disrupted)
]
I already stated the logical follow up to an expanding earth, would be plate tectonics, so what is there to explain?
How the expansion is occurring
Why the expansion occurs anywhere but at the equatorWhy the magnetic alignment of ferrous rocks indicate a present sized earth 400 million years ago
Why subduction occurs when an expanding earth should be able to accommodate the extruded lava
Why india is still crashing into asia, driving the mountains higher when an expanding earth should have stretched them apart.
Why has the expansion stopped?
There a plate called the fallon plate, under our plate, and yet it hasn't given us shear drop offs.
Put a comforter next to a thin blanket with the thin blanket tucked under the comforter: sheer drop off
Put a large comforter over smaller comforter: no sheer drop off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sure Hitdice gets that, but the fact is that their is a fairly serious problem with the general public misunderstanding what Theory means, when discussing science.
"It's only a theory"
Honestly, those of us who do understand the difference have a part to play in combating the problem by trying to avoid using terms like theory, when what we mean is hypothesis.
Plus, there are few things more aggrivating than someone who doesn't understand thing one about the scientific method saying 'its only a theory', save that you get to quote montoya's law of Misused Words.
Misuse of such terms in also particularly pertinent in a thread which has spent the better part of 700 posts discussing whether AGW is a valid theory or some sort of conspiracy.
Personally, I think misuse and lack of scientific literacy is a greater threat to our civilization than global warming. I'm not being flip when I say that; I honestly think that there's very little to be done about global warming at this point, and that dealing with the effects will require the sort of education that explains the difference between hypotheses and theories.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sure Hitdice gets that, but the fact is that their is a fairly serious problem with the general public misunderstanding what Theory means, when discussing science.
"It's only a theory"
Honestly, those of us who do understand the difference have a part to play in combating the problem by trying to avoid using terms like theory, when what we mean is hypothesis.
Plus, there are few things more aggrivating than someone who doesn't understand thing one about the scientific method saying 'its only a theory', save that you get to quote montoya's law of Misused Words.
Misuse of such terms in also particularly pertinent in a thread which has spent the better part of 700 posts discussing whether AGW is a valid theory or some sort of conspiracy.
Personally, I think misuse and lack of scientific literacy is a greater threat to our civilization than global warming. I'm not being flip when I say that; I honestly think that there's very little to be done about global warming at this point, and that dealing with the effects will require the sort of education that explains the difference between hypotheses and theories.
Except I didn't misuse the word. My definition is perfectly acceptable usage of the word, outside of scientific terminology. Part of reading something is understanding context, to further assist you I will restate: I am not a scientist.
.
Darklight]Duh!
You have a Looooong way to go before you can "duh" anyone elses questions about the convoluted and contradictory hypotheses you are throwing out there an not following up on. I am not an epic level ranger, I cannot track your thought process or whatever creationist blather it is you're parroting.
The atmosphere is thinner now then what is being proposed for back then, there isn't a mechanism to make it thicker, it is taking the mechanism of it being thinnere and backtracking.
and yet the ginkgo trees have been the same sized the entire time. Why?
In science you try to change as few variables as possible. Doing a comparison of "plants and animals of the jurassic" vs "plants and animals of the present" is fundamentally and obviously flawed because of the basic fact that the DNA of a mouse is a weeee bit different from that of an apatasaurus.
Now ideally you'd like to time travel back with a barometer. We can't do that. We can't go back and put a modern mouse and see if it grows up to be enormous... but thankfully the noble ginko has traveled all this way via the slow path, by all appearances not very much changed.
And it says your hypothesis is false.
A thicker atmosphere results from having a greater weight and/or greater mass. The former can be altered by having an alteration in gravity
Which you haven't demonstrated has ever happened. Furthermore by all appearances it HASN"T happened. We can see light bent around objects in deep space the same way that light is bent around us now. That light took millions of years to get here, so we can conclude that gravity worked the same millions of years ago as it does now.
the latter can only be altered by gain or loss of material.
Which has not occurred.
Estimate for the mass of asteroid that took out the dinos: 1,310,000,000,000 tons
mass of the earth: 6,585,000,000,000,000,000,000
For the earth to have doubled in mass through accretion we would need 2,513,358,778 impacts: thats a bit over 38 of those asteroids hitting every year for 65 million years.
It. Didn't. Happen.
You do not get to start with the idea that your hypothesis is true and than make up an increasingly convoluted series of events in order to prevent it from being falsified while simultaneously not making the merest effort to learn how alleged contradictions in accepted science actually work. Simply throwing out so many excuses that you forget your previous ones in a mad dash to avoid answering anything that you wind up chasing your own tail is not an excuse: its willful ignorance. There is NO reason why someone thats gone to school and has internet access should be this clueless about something they allegedly care about.
|
|
Second, look at other planets, none (that I know of, and I like, and have studied some astronomy) have the same kind of sudden drop offs like our continental shelfs, nor the kind of tectonic activity we have. Volcanic, sure, but not tectonic.Dude, this is NOT a mystery. This is not a conspiracy. This is not an unknown. "we don't know how this works, therefore GOD" is lazy thinking all of the time but it is outright inanity when we DO know how it works.
.You need to separate "I don't know something" from "Something is unknown". There is a gap between the two for anyone, but for you its even bigger. Its going to STAY that way because you refuse to learn, at all. Any information that you can't shoehorn into your preconceptions you ignore or drown in a torrent of barely pseudo intellectual gobblygook that's so convoluted YOU get lost.
Continental rock is lighter and thicker than oceanic rock.
. Oceanic crust is formed at sea-floor spreading centers, and continental crust is formed through arc volcanism and accretion of terranes through tectonic processes; though some of these terranes may contain ophiolite sequences, which are pieces of oceanic crust, these are considered part of the continent when they exit the standard cycle of formation and spreading centers and subduction beneath continents. Oceanic crust is also denser than continental crust owing to their different compositions. Oceanic crust is denser because it has less silicon and more heavier elements ("mafic") than continental crust ("felsic").[9] As a result of this density stratification, oceanic crust generally lies below sea level (for example most of the Pacific Plate), while the continental crust buoyantly projects above sea level (see the page isostasy for explanation of this principle).wiki
So, if you have one thick plate next to a thin plate you get the "mysterious" sudden drop off....
First, everything is a theory. And a theory is "I have a bunch of results and the only thing we can think of to produce all these results is this concept"
400 years ago it was a known truth that you could not send something high enough to not come back down.
Think about the different densities for a moment, if you put a drop of oil on water, does it float up high with shear edges down to the water? No, it has very little rise above the water.
Consider what oil does on water in significant portions, it layers. Now think that in the birth of the earth, lighter granite would make a layer above the heavy basalt. Eventually things harden. Plate tectonics are believed to have started about 3 billion years ago. So what triggered them to start? How did it go from having granite evenly distributed to having granite completely lopsided on the planet? (This is what would need to happen to have pangea on current sized earth)
It makes more sense that plate tectonics started with some major event, possibly something that started expanding the earth for a period, the rock at this point would be stiffer and less flowing thus as the planet expanded the lighter granite stayed floating on top of the basalt while being stiff enough to maintain the profile on the edge (aka the cliff), these pieces would float around like leaves on a lake even occasionally running into each other. The basaltic plates being the primary plates the move and subduct, supports this.
Just how do you expect granite to form as a plate anyway? Where would the granite come from since the plates being made right now are all basaltic?
For a granite plate to be made in the your concept of plate creation, then granite would need to be under the basalt and be all together before coming up to the surface., So how would the granite not already be above basalt? What would happen if you took oil and water and slowly filled a pan with then and wattched as they met? Would the oil be subducted beneath the water? No, the water would be subducted beneath the oil. So the granite plates have gone through a lot but they are likely still the remenents of the surface of the earth at the beginning of plate tectonics. So how would you explain the granite? It is lighter and would thus start at the top and wouldn't be subducted under basalt, and what forces are in play to raise granite so unevenly as a pangea on a current sized earth?
Next, since wikis can be edited by anyone they don't make for solid sources, only a general overview.
Also, that picture is wrong. The crust IS the lithosphere, it isn't something on top of the lithosphere.
Crust = lithosphere.
Part of the reason plants may be bigger is that CO2 levels were higher. It's been shown that even current era plants tend go grow bigger when exposed to higher levels of CO2. There is evidence that CO2 levels here higher during previous geological eras.
Back to climate change, I'm slightly skeptical of some of the AGW doomsayers. Not because of anything specific they have done, but because humans in general seem to like predict coming apocalypses. At the same time, there is enough evidence that it does make me worry. Which is why it would be nice to stop having to constantly repeat the 'debate' on AGW and instead just shift to the debate on what to do about it.
Think about the different densities for a moment, if you put a drop of oil on water, does it float up high with shear edges down to the water? No, it has very little rise above the water.
Oil and water act that way because water is polar and oil is not, not because of different densities.
You do not understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is functionally no different than a fact. You are using the regular english definition of "some whacky idea". THIS is why zombie was having a brain chewing epileptic fit.
Creationist misinformation doesn't hold up against a middle school education.
Part of the reason plants may be bigger is that CO2 levels were higher. It's been shown that even current era plants tend go grow bigger when exposed to higher levels of CO2. There is evidence that CO2 levels here higher during previous geological eras.
Back to climate change, I'm slightly skeptical of some of the AGW doomsayers. Not because of anything specific they have done, but because humans in general seem to like predict coming apocalypses. At the same time, there is enough evidence that it does make me worry. Which is why it would be nice to stop having to constantly repeat the 'debate' on AGW and instead just shift to the debate on what to do about it.
I would be far more willing to doubt AGW if the opposition group could find someone other than the creationists, fox news, and oil companies to back their science.
Seriously, is there NO halfway decent argument against it?
Think about the different densities for a moment, if you put a drop of oil on water, does it float up high with shear edges down to the water? No, it has very little rise above the water.Oil and water act that way because water is polar and oil is not, not because of different densities.
You do not understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is functionally no different than a fact. You are using the regular english definition of "some whacky idea". THIS is why zombie was having a brain chewing epileptic fit.
Creationist misinformation doesn't hold up against a middle school education.
In fairness, I thought I was rather well behaved about it. I means I didn't chew through his skull or anything.
Except I didn't misuse the word. My definition is perfectly acceptable usage of the word, outside of scientific terminology. Part of reading something is understanding context, to further assist you I will restate: I am not a scientist.I am sure Hitdice gets that, but the fact is that their is a fairly serious problem with the general public misunderstanding what Theory means, when discussing science.
"It's only a theory"
Honestly, those of us who do understand the difference have a part to play in combating the problem by trying to avoid using terms like theory, when what we mean is hypothesis.
Plus, there are few things more aggrivating than someone who doesn't understand thing one about the scientific method saying 'its only a theory', save that you get to quote montoya's law of Misused Words.
Misuse of such terms in also particularly pertinent in a thread which has spent the better part of 700 posts discussing whether AGW is a valid theory or some sort of conspiracy.
Personally, I think misuse and lack of scientific literacy is a greater threat to our civilization than global warming. I'm not being flip when I say that; I honestly think that there's very little to be done about global warming at this point, and that dealing with the effects will require the sort of education that explains the difference between hypotheses and theories.
And that would be fine, if the population of the world was you, me, BNW, kirth, meatrace and maybe another handful of the regular posters in these threads. We understand the differenced.
Unfortunately, we are far outnumber by the DarkLightHitomi's of this world who don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between common usage theory, and scientific theory.
Honestly it shouldn't matter. It would still bug the shit out of me when ever people got it "wrong"., but lots of things bug me, which i don't argue we shouldn't do as a culture (country and western music, squirty cream, and Piers Morgan, to name but a few).
But here is the thing. Their are a number of unscruplous or ignorate people who use that lack of understanding as a weapon in public discourse, and people buy their false arguments.
Fortunately they aren't winning the various debates as a general rule, but they do make a bloody mess of things as they loose.
There are two ways to solve the problem, either we educate everyone as to the difference, and how to tell them apart, or we work to make the common usage of theory into an archaic term through conciousness raising.
I happen to think that the later is more realistic.
Thank you, gobbo. =) I am glad to see you're feeling better.
Gobboes never die. They just smell worse for a spell, then go better. It's a tried and true theory.
[@ZN: hope I didn't misuse the word !]
There are two ways to solve the problem, either we educate everyone as to the difference, and how to tell them apart, or we work to make the common usage of theory into an archaic term through conciousness raising.
I happen to think that the later is more realistic.
I can think of a third way. If the vernacular use of 'theory' is corrupting the scientific use, why not use another term for a scientific theory? I suggest best-possible-explanation-of-the-facts-thingummy.
You do not understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is functionally no different than a fact. You are using the regular english definition of "some whacky idea". THIS is why zombie was having a brain chewing epileptic fit.
Interestingly, the origin of the term is the exact opposite. Greeks spoke of "Theoria" when refering to mostly contemplative/speculative stuff, in contrast to the practical knowledge of artisans.
Interestingly, the origin of the term is the exact opposite. Greeks spoke of "Theoria" when refering to mostly contemplative/speculative stuff, in contrast to the practical knowledge of artisans.
You do not understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is functionally no different than a fact. You are using the regular english definition of "some whacky idea". THIS is why zombie was having a brain chewing epileptic fit.
See where it led them ?
|
Part of the problem is the fact that the concept of 'scientific theory' itself contains different levels of 'factiness'.
That is, given that 'theory' means 'explanation which fits all the known facts', the more which is known about a subject the closer to 'fact' the 'theory' is. In the field of subatomic particles there are often multiple theories which fit the known facts... because we're still just beginning to understand that subject. However, there is no 'other theory' which fits the known facts covered by evolution or AGW.
Thus, at a certain point something becomes the ONLY theory which explains the known facts. It is always still possible that there is some other explanation which no one has thought of yet, but that is a far cry from 'one of several possible explanations'.
There is no 'alternate theory' to AGW. Which is why you can't find scientists saying that AGW is wrong, or even in question. Nobody disputes it because nobody has another explanation which fits the past 100+ years of climate research. The only areas of uncertainty are the precise impacts which AGW will have... and even there the 'skeptics' can't identify any mechanism which would prevent serious problems, they merely hope that one exists.
See where it led them ?Interestingly, the origin of the term is the exact opposite. Greeks spoke of "Theoria" when refering to mostly contemplative/speculative stuff, in contrast to the practical knowledge of artisans.
You do not understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is functionally no different than a fact. You are using the regular english definition of "some whacky idea". THIS is why zombie was having a brain chewing epileptic fit.
Note that the Greek thought Natural Philosophy (which more or less would be what we'd call Physics and Biology) were all about Theoria, as it required speculation based on observation, rather than observation based in experience (they could talk about indivisible atoms but couldn't see them, estimate the size of the planet but couldn't encompass it).
The artisan knew fire was useful for breaking stones because he could put it into practice, but without necessarily knowing why; the natural philosopher could theorize about why fire was useful for breaking stones by observing and contemplating the effects and implications, but without being able to practice it directly.
Thank you, gobbo. =) I am glad to see you're feeling better.
Gobboes never die. They just smell worse for a spell, then go better. It's a tried and true theory.
Merci, mdes. et msrs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to stop the trend of appalling country music: There be Goblins, too.
Interestingly, the origin of the term is the exact opposite. Greeks spoke of "Theoria" when refering to mostly contemplative/speculative stuff, in contrast to the practical knowledge of artisans.
You do not understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is functionally no different than a fact. You are using the regular english definition of "some whacky idea". THIS is why zombie was having a brain chewing epileptic fit.
Which doesn't surprise me, since the greeks (or at least the ones whose writings we have) seemed to have thought that the contemplative stuff was the purer form of knowledge.
|
|
Part of the reason plants may be bigger is that CO2 levels were higher. It's been shown that even current era plants tend go grow bigger when exposed to higher levels of CO2. There is evidence that CO2 levels here higher during previous geological eras.
Back to climate change, I'm slightly skeptical of some of the AGW doomsayers. Not because of anything specific they have done, but because humans in general seem to like predict coming apocalypses. At the same time, there is enough evidence that it does make me worry. Which is why it would be nice to stop having to constantly repeat the 'debate' on AGW and instead just shift to the debate on what to do about it.
Interesting connection, you claim the CO2 levels were much higher back then and that it made plants larger. So why aren't plants getting larger today? In fact there is a global crisis of dying trees.
Also, if the CO2 levels were high enough to have plants so much larger then modern day, wouldn't that be an indication that high CO2 levels are normal for the planet? Thus supporting the idea that global warming is natural? (Really, I only question humanities effect on global warming, not global warming itself)
Also, when they make an estimate of global temp, are they taking into account other effects, such as the fact the northern europe is only as warm as it is, because of ocean currents? (Maybe the jet stream too but not sure about it), thus any temperature measurements in europe would throw off the result because if those ocean currents changed the temperature in europe would drop quickly.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Think about the different densities for a moment, if you put a drop of oil on water, does it float up high with shear edges down to the water? No, it has very little rise above the water.Oil and water act that way because water is polar and oil is not, not because of different densities.
You do not understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is functionally no different than a fact. You are using the regular english definition of "some whacky idea". THIS is why zombie was having a brain chewing epileptic fit.
Creationist misinformation doesn't hold up against a middle school education.
I would very much prefer if you stopped calling me creationist.
I am not even religious.In case you didn't notice, not once in any of my arguements did I point to god, divinity, or holy texts.
Theory is not called fact for a reason, even in the event they no known alternative, there remains the fact that it can't be proven, and the possibility of an unknown alternative. That chance gets slimmer as they find out more, but before newton, many would have called it a fact that you couldn't go high enough to not fall down.
That is why they are theories, because sometimes people can see no reason to believe their idea is false even when doing experiments, yet the chance always remains that they just didn't think of certain possibilities.
|
|
Plate tectonics are believed to have started about 3 billion years ago. So what triggered them to start? How did it go from having granite evenly distributed to having granite completely lopsided on the planet? (This is what would need to happen to have pangea on current sized earth)There are a lot of popular misconceptions about plate tectonics.
1. Pangea was the original super continent that contained all lands and the start of plate tectonics was the event that literally cracked it up.
This is false. there actually have been multiple times when the earth's landmasses have come together and then split apart. In fact the process of new cracks forming can actually be observed in the Rift Valley of Africa which is one of the few places we can see sea floor spreading on land. Within a few million years, a new body of water will be formed when a section of Africa is carved off.
2. The earth was quiescent until plate tectonics "started".
Plate tectonics has been a function of the Earth since it last cooled down from the era of heavy bombardment and formed a solid crust. The Earth's crust is in motion because of convection currents in the liquid mantle, driven by Earth's heat engine of radioactive decay mostly from a combination of residual heat from planetary accretion (about 20%) and heat produced through radioactive decay (80%). The major heat-producing isotopes in the Earth are potassium-40, uranium-238, uranium-235, and thorium-232. In fact given that the Earth's interior was actually hotter in ancient times, plate tectonic was more active in the past then it is now and some day in the distant future, the activity will stop when Earth's heat engine finally gives out the way it did on Mars. The end of plate tectonics and vulcanism would most likely have dire consequences for life on this planet, save that other events will make that a moot point long before then.
What is known is that there have been in effect, several Pangeas and re-separations in...
Having things move around is only expected but at some point things harden. It is possible that once it has harden something happens to make things start moving again. An expanding earth would have this effect, as well as a large enough impact of an asteroid or similar. The heat causing currents in the mantle is only one thing that has an effect.
Look at ice on water, currents in the water have an effect based on the strength of those currents. Weak enough currents will not break a solid crust, and can even allow a solid crust to form, but even when that weak, if something else breaks the crust, then those currents are still strong enough to move the pieces around.
I never claimed pangea was the first, though I have not developed a positive or negative opinion the possibility of prior super continents I have not seen or heard any kind of evidence to their existance.
You also need a new source on the heat of the planet. Pressure causes heat, in fact it is the heat from pressure that sparks the start of fusion in a star. So since you didn't even include pressure in your list of things that cause you need to find another source.
Well its -15 F right now....I'm all for more Global warming...Really the only places that would become hellishly hot would be the Middle east...who cares?...let them burn up...they contribute nothing anyway. Look at all that land in Siberia that would open up for agriculture...better days.
|
|
Interestingly, the origin of the term is the exact opposite. Greeks spoke of "Theoria" when refering to mostly contemplative/speculative stuff, in contrast to the practical knowledge of artisans.
You do not understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is functionally no different than a fact. You are using the regular english definition of "some whacky idea". THIS is why zombie was having a brain chewing epileptic fit.
Which doesn't surprise me, since the greeks (or at least the ones whose writings we have) seemed to have thought that the contemplative stuff was the purer form of knowledge.
In way this is false, but also true. Being told things by others, colors your thoughts, even if you disagree, it has an effect on your thinking. Basically, current known information is what set the borders of the "box" people always say you should think out of.
A much clearer image is developed when you and someone else have no communication on a topic, both see the results, then ponder, think, make new experiments, then trade info. This would lead to better info in total, because each would develop an axis of thinking and would follow on that axis, looking to prove or disprove a concept, while the other would have a completely different concept axis, thus they would get different conclusions, perform different experiments and get different results. When the concepts are put together then a clearer image emerges.
Take the Nature vs Nurture argument. Scientists squabble over how much is what. But get someone who has not heard of these concepts and ask them to figure out what makes a persons personality, what makes them think in certain ways. He could very likely come to a diiferent idea then current ones, and if he did his experiments correctly, his information fit with any results gained by the Nature vs Nurture scientists, and probably clear up many things that still confuse current scientists.
Thought itself is purer then knowledge, because thinking is dynamic, while knowledge is static. Knowledge often corrupts thinking because reduces the possibilities that thinking can produce.
This is seen clearly in those robot olympics, the universaty guys usually lose to amateurs, because the universaty guys are told what works and what doesn't, while the amateurs have no such knowledge, they need to figure it out themselves and they try different things and get different results.
Trying to stop the trend of appalling country music
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well its -15 F right now....I'm all for more Global warming...Really the only places that would become hellishly hot would be the Middle east...who cares?...let them burn up...they contribute nothing anyway. Look at all that land in Siberia that would open up for agriculture...better days.
Texas and Oklahoma could become unlivable as well pretty quickly. The average temperature is already in the mid-90's during the summer in south Texas, but that could easily go up by 5 degrees in the next 20 years, plus rain falls will probably decline. Basically all current agriculture in Texas will be impossible within 50-75 years.
The drought that hit Iowa, Illinois and Indiana could become a much more common occurrence. It's a return of the Dust Bowl, but permanent and most likely more severe.
And if you think human's can't cause climate change, the Dust Bowl is actually a really good example that has been documented. The dust storms that covered nearly 75% of the continental US probably wouldn't have happened if not for human interference.
The Pacific Northwest relies on snowpack for much of its water supply. As it is, a lot of their snow falls right around the 30 degree mark, which means a couple degree increase in temperature will change that to rain. Rain is really good at melting snow, so not only will there be less snow, but the rain will sweep away some of the snow that does fall, creating drought like conditions for areas.
Also, current water temperatures are pretty much ideal for salmon spawning, and salmon fishing is a major industry in the region. A couple of degree increase will vastly reduce salmon populations, eliminating thousands of jobs in the region.
Another thing, snow pack actually cools a region off. So a reduction in snow pack (which has been measured) means that temperatures increase, which reduces snow pack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would very much prefer if you stopped calling me creationist.
I would prefer if you would stop being one.
You use the same discredited geology as creationists
You make it sound like things that are well known are some mysterious unknown that science is covering up the same way creationists do.
You use the same rhetorical technique of spamming things that are blatantly wrong and ignoring when its demonstrated that they're wrong
You use the same "its only a theory" equivocation as a creationist.
You resort to the same epistemic nihlism as a creationist: you claim that any malarky you can think up is just as good as the results of learned, intelligent study and experimentation
and you combine a dismal understanding of even the most basic understanding physics, geology, hydrology, chemistry, and biology that make the above possible with an unfounded arrogance that you're better than all of those scientists because you know that no idea can be better than anyone elses.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, swims like a duck and sells supplementary accident insurance like a duck, its a duck.
I am not even religious.
So is it "spiritual" or "its not a religion its a relationship" ?
In case you didn't notice, not once in any of my arguments did I point to god, divinity, or holy texts.
No, your ideas just ran into such a mess that you would have needed a god to change the gravitational constant for you.
Theory is not called fact for a reason, even in the event they no known alternative, there remains the fact that it can't be proven, and the possibility of an unknown alternative.
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience.
Experiments are how science proves something corresponds to experience.
What you're trying to do is equate your ideas with those of science. It. does. not. work. The entire point behind science is get ideas that explain and predict the natural world around us. The ability to do that isn't for its own sake, its to catch errors in the very faulty powers of human reasoning by comparing an idea to the objectively existing conditions in the real world. This results in ideas that have more explanatory and predictive power, and yes, I'm sorry, are simply better than the stuff you just think up based on some very poor knowledge of the subject AND refuse to change upon receiving new information.
Science works. You know this or you wouldn't be trying to cloak your creationism with the appearance of science. So when this same process starts telling me that what we're doing is heating up the earth and we're going to be in serious trouble: when the only arguments against it are the same inanity that creationists had to come up with to drive a wedge between science and the American public, you can bet I'm worried. We have better things to worry about than defending a process that's brought us advancements unparallelled by anything in human history.
Science says we're screwed unless we change. We probably are. Time to change.
Trying to stop the trend of appalling country musicI'm sorry, what? You want more country music?
I'd always thought connectivity was a bigger problem than global warming but after that ted talk I'm not sure.
Either way, anyone want to chip in and buy some land in northern canada? Put in some extra money for extra water chips...
It should be noted that one should never confuse a Theory with a Fact. Theories require Facts in the form of premises to be considered scienfitically valid, but they are by definition not facts. Once they start being Facts, they are no longer Theories.
-Things fall down to the ground. That's a fact, as we can observe and measure it.
-Bodies made of mass cause things to fall into them. The higher the mass, the stronger this effect is. Also a fact we can observe and measure.
-Bodies fall because of gravity. This is a Theory, as we cannot properly observe gravity (at least not currently). We can observe its effects, but so far we have not been able to find what exactly makes this phenomenon happen.
Now, some Theories have accumulated so much factual evidence throughout the years that for all practical purposes we can treat them as facts in everyday life. But if we are goin to be precise, we must separate between facts supporting a theory and the theory itself.
Remember that many facts supported the Liminiferous Aether Theory for well over a century, until people started finding out new facts that didn't quite fit into it.