It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

tectonics - it's time we remove this nonsense from our schools

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Until you can come up with a better explanation that you provide now, beforebc, i'll just stick to plate tectonics.
Seems to me PT makes way more sense, and your theory, (whatever that is?) has yet to be proven, or at least given some credibility.
So how can you convince us that we are all wrong, and just you are right?

Explain.




posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
basing this on High School text books?


Hey .. my daughter's fifth grade science book has a very
good description of tectonics. I can't think of any school
in America that wouldn't have this in their science class.

Well ... except for some fundamentalist religious schools who
teach that the world is only 7,000 years old (or some
number like that).

BTW - my daughter is in Catholic school and tectonics is
taught along with Mendel's natural selection.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Toadmund asks] So how can you convince us that we are all wrong, and just you are right?

bc here] If you'd read the posts you'd have seen that I've presented the science. You're obviously responding to subject titles - OR - the first word you can pronounce correctly!

It is your error in thinking "just you are right?" .. as I have stated this new science was developed with supporting principles and mathematic formulations.

If you are interested in real earth science - then ask your questions, and I'll show you why the core spins at a different rate because of physics .. and not because of nonsensical twin streams of molten iron.

But you have to be willing to learn .. and not go google'ing off into cyber space!

bc
.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Hello FlyersFan and all,

FlyersFan wrote] daughter's fifth grade science book has a very good description of tectonics

bc here] I apologize for that FlyersFan! Tectonics is nonsense and they shouldn't be trying to indoctrinate the minds of our children - particularly at such a vulnerable age.

You were right tho' "the book has a very good description of tectonics," because "description" is all you get - because "description" is all there is.

Not one single "principle" (of the type we find with Archimedes, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein, Bernoulli, Boyle and Charles (i.e., the gas laws), Gay-Lussac and Gauss, etc).

Not one equation is provided .. not one example of the ability to predict!

It is description, description, description!

Again I apologize that we see it taught at such a vulnerable age.

bc
.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Lets start there...
and beforebc...
you have to understand the main conflict here, is that you come across as a creationist at first (as most challengers to science on ATS) that will spawn doubt in most users minds...
I can see now where you are proposing some alternative physics, and respect that...

I do want to understand this theory more...
but can you take away one of the most basic understandings of the present theory for us?

You seem to beleive in the "plates" but dissagree on why and how they move...
I can somewhat follow this, but explain the gaping in the continents (the puzzle can be put back together with present theory), and why the contemporary belief offends you so much (also a creationist red flag).
Am i correct in assuming that you only seem to differ by what forces you think are at work. If so, the present theory allows much more expansive research than taking the idea out of schools/books altogether.
Rather than convection, you believe that ? causes the continental drift... (fill in the question mark please)
thank you


[edit on 25-4-2006 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
beforebc said:



bc here] If you'd read the posts you'd have seen that I've presented the science. You're obviously responding to subject titles - OR - the first word you can pronounce correctly!

It is your error in thinking "just you are right?" .. as I have stated this new science was developed with supporting principles and mathematic formulations.

If you are interested in real earth science - then ask your questions, and I'll show you why the core spins at a different rate because of physics .. and not because of nonsensical twin streams of molten iron.

You have provided almost nothing to explain your view, especially not any science that explains why you believe as you do.

and what 'supporting principles and mathematic formulations'? You have provided non of that. And where did they come from? The Vatican?!


I do believe the core spins at a different rate, but I mentioned nothing of it in this thead. Don't presume I did. And if you plan to show me, I hope it's a better explanation that you have given us here, non of us are convinced of your theories.

Can you convince us we are wrong?



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
LazarusTheLong asks]

Ques 1.] Are you a creationist? -

Ans 1:] Religious beliefs don't enter the scene. We are teaching our children nonsense. That should be of concern to all of us!

Ques 2.] can you take away one of the most basic understandings of the present theory for us?

Ans 2:] Let's take mountain building .. we should be able to look at a mountain and marvel at the forces that formed it! [Were they formed by tectonics?] Only if you think you can push a slab sideways and have it pop up 29,000 feet...

One further point: Structural foundations in all nations around the world, are designed on the established knowledge that compression forces [hence their associated compression stresses] are dissipated through shear by a leading "compression cone:" How is it then that tectonics is able to push up mountains in apparent defiance? Answer: They can't - it's in violation of every physical principle ever written!

Ques 3.] explain the gaping in the continents

Ans 3:] The continents are under stress from the gravitational forces that hold us in solar orbit - and to some extent those gravitational forces that hold our moon in earth orbit

Ques 4.] (a) Am I correct in assuming that you only seem to differ by what forces you think are at work. (b) If so, the present theory allows much more expansive research than taking the idea out of schools/books altogether.

Ans 4a:] YES - I differ by what forces are acting

Ans 4b:] The RB-Effect is supported by a complete set of principles and mathematical formulations. It has the power to predict .. by example earthquake changing time, and why the core spins at a unique rate. So we have to get to those whose DUTY it is to teach our children science, not contrived doctrine.

That'll take time - but it will happen.

Ques 5.] Rather than convection, (what) causes the continental drift

Ans 5:] Your question is a prime example of the REAL DAMAGE tectonics has wrought upon the population. Convection is a means of heat TRANSFER it is not a force and cannot be converted to a force.

But tectonics blinds folk to the science they should be pursuing .. and so questions like your's and others continue to cloud the issue. The plates move because to the immense forces from our orbital circumstance.

bc
.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
You have this amazing ability to misdirect theory to support your own.
You say how can a mountaious bulge form from plates moving sideways? I say well, why not, and who is to say the force doesn't come strait on?

Yes, I agree, gravity does affect things, like internal friction and stuff like that, and it does influence plates especially when the moon is involved, but how does that nullify plate tectonics and very real physical forces on Earth, like lava building new continental matter pushing it aside and forcing up mountains?

You are being intellectually stubborn, if you believe plate tec is false, however, if you can get to the point of proving how you are right, instead of PROVING HOW PT IS WRONG, I, or we may be less intellectually stubborn.

But we have YET to hear any theory of yours that we can grasp, the onus is on YOU!



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

snip
Convection is a means of heat TRANSFER it is not a force and cannot be converted to a force.
snip
.


Yet it is able to rustle my curtains when the (hydronic) heater kicks on. Ok, maybe something other than the original convection is moving them, such as the "updraft" created by the buoyancy induced convection, but still, if there is movement, is there not force?? Whether it's second hand force or not, to me, seems irrelevant when arguing that convection can't move anything. Am I missing something?



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Actually, I think i can help present a visual for us...

If you take two peices of carpet, and start pushing them together (the carpet is the continental plates). Then what happens...
amazingly, they push up, because it is so much easier than pushing down, or left or right...
or they push under the other (subduction)

what happens in your theory when we push these two plates together?
maybe that would help us get the gist better...

and I would have to say, Toadmud is right in essence... you haven't really taught your theory yet.
while you have stated : the cause of continental movement is from the same forces that keep our planet in orbit, and the moon in orbit... scientists have explained those forces satisfactorily for decades... and your theory is different, you are expecting us to know what that mysterious method is...

and convection cells are presently considered the cause of plate techtonics... not that it is required for plate techtonics to work though, sorry for any semantic problems.

let us cut to the matter...
Do you beleive in continental plates?
Do you believe they "float" or move, on some layer of crust or mantle?
Do you beleive that they interact sometimes with each other, and form faults, volcanic hot spots, and even mountains?
If so, then great, you beleive in Plate techtonics, regardless of what force moves them
if not, then great, explain the geologic record in reference to geo magnetic angles, and layers of magnetic fields.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
By example - the forces that act on the crust alone (it acting independent of the inner mantle because of the existance of two weakened zones - the MOHO and the "Plastic Zone") are as follows: 2.38305E21 pounds over the first 100 miles of latitude. That's 2.38 followed by 21 zeros. We calculated values for each 100 mile increment.

Those forces cause the crust to bend, and the bending moment (again for the first 100 miles of latitude) are as follows: 5.37277E27 ft lbs. That's 5.3 followed by 27 zeros..


No, you are not a scientist. No scientist would ever quote five decimal places after the decimal point, in a calculation as prone to systematic errors as this one. Trademark of an amateur. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Hello Aelita and all

Aelita wrote] No, you are not a scientist. No scientist would ever quote five decimal places after the decimal point, in a calculation as prone to systematic errors as this one. Trademark of an amateur. Thanks.

bc] Oh! Boy! Aelita those are not decimal places - it is scientific notation. If you prefer I could have written it 2,383,050x10^15 - The actual number is:

2,383,050,000,000,000,000,000

Decimals, Aelita, go that'a a way -----> 0.000000

bc
.

[edit on 25-4-2006 by beforebc]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by beforebc]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
beforebc,

I think some of the trouble we're all having with your theory here is that it's split up across multiple posts. The actions of the Earth's crust, whether caused by traditional plate techtonics, or by your own theory, are still pretty complex (as I'm sure you well know). So to have to assemble the theory, a piece at a time, from posts widely separated by others' commentary, isn't working for most of us.

I know you said that an online forum isn't the place for extended posts, and you're probably right. Anything over about half a screen will probably be only lightly skimmed. However, you mentioned you'd worked with a mathematics professor on this theory. Did you ever manage to get your theory published in a journal or presented at a conference? Basically, is there some way for us to get the full text of the theory, proofs included, to review it for ourselves?

My reluctance to take you at your word here isn't due to any institutionalized love of the current theory of plate techtonics, just a knowledge that the Internet is full of nuts and it's always best to ask for proof of radical claims



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Hello Whiskey Jack

You asked / commented:\

1.] theory was split up across multiple posts - Yes! I agree but we're not allowed to post our own websites to promote theory - whether scientific or otherwise

2.] the crust is complex ? No I don't think so. It's only complex when you apply a theory (like tectonics) that offers only description.

When you have scientific principle and equations to work with things get pretty simple

You might want to look at this post that I made here on ATS restoring the original beauty - as the earth orbits This thread gives a short overview

3.] .. you mentioned you'd worked with a mathematics professor on this theory. Did you ever manage to get your theory published in a journal or presented at a conference?

I am not associated with University - and I didn't want to lose ownership of the RB-Effect by having the professor publish it. It is in my book that was published in 1989, however.

4.] the Internet is full of nuts and it's always best to ask for proof of radical claims

I agree, and if you have an honest interest - there is a lot to learn - by example earthquake (as I published in 1998) is earthbound lightning. Universities and NASA are beginning to pick up on this.

Let me know of your interests -

bc
.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
We developed the science now known as the RB-Effect.

This was published in 1998 - and we've been carrying this info to all media that we can.



We just have to talk to people who don't have to "google" all they know!



so you were published? where's the link?

btw the guys who claimed cold fusion were also published and where are they today?

on another note. i dont google any science, i don't have to

but how do you explain the great rift valley in africa.

its funny how you have ignored all of the solid, measured facts i have referenced. you have yet to reference any fact, all you do is say what you think with out backing up anything with a second or third verifiable source



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   
1) What happens when the plates push together if not to create mountains then beforebc?

2) How do you explain the measurements of plate movement using GPS sensors?

3) How do you explain the clearly visible fault lines?

4) How do you explain the fact that mountains seem to form where plates meet and push together, or is this coincidence?

5) If Earthquakes are caused by lightning or whatever you were getting at, what causes volcanos?

And out of curiosity, what are your theories on Continental Drift, or is the fact that all the landmasses clearly fit together actually just an illusion...?

It may help if you publish your theory on here in more detail, rather than a few vague sentences. It depends on whether or not you are interested in simply provoking a reaction or seriously discussing the subject with other people. So far it looks like you are more interested in creating controversy..

Belittling comments like this:


We just have to talk to people who don't have to "google" all they know!


Almost give the impression that you think you are superior to everyone else, and we wouldn't want that would we?
Besides, if that is your opinion of people on here, why bother publishing your so incredibly complex findings where there are only dumb people like us?

I'm sure publishing your theories in detail so we can all analyse and discuss it objectively would be no problem for someone who has published a book on the subject.

It's not like you have to worry about people 'who have to Google all they know' being some sort of threat is it?

[edit on 27-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
Hello Whiskey Jack

You asked / commented:\

1.] theory was split up across multiple posts - Yes! I agree but we're not allowed to post our own websites to promote theory - whether scientific or otherwise


Sure, if you'd like to U2U me with it, though, I'd be quite interested in checking it out.



2.] the crust is complex ? No I don't think so. It's only complex when you apply a theory (like tectonics) that offers only description.

When you have scientific principle and equations to work with things get pretty simple


I think "elegant" would probably be a better descriptor than "simple" for the interaction. With multiple plates, whether they're moved by friction from cycling magma, or the RB-Effect you propose, there are multiple points of interaction for each plate. On their own, they're pretty simple, but irregularly shaped objects moving against eachother is pretty complex, at least for a layperson


As I said, I think that elegant is probably a better adjective. Though there are multiple points of interaction, that interaction can be described neatly with mathematical expressions. Much the same way that a large, well-written piece of computer code may look quite complex to an observer, but in action does exactly what it is intended to with no waste -elegance.



3.] .. you mentioned you'd worked with a mathematics professor on this theory. Did you ever manage to get your theory published in a journal or presented at a conference?

I am not associated with University - and I didn't want to lose ownership of the RB-Effect by having the professor publish it. It is in my book that was published in 1989, however.


While it's true that the professor's name would probably headline any article or conference paper, it should be apparent from the writing that it was a collaborative effort. You will likely get a lot of pushback from the academic establishment for not being a professor yourself, but you'd get that same reaction from any group of professionals when suggesting something radical. Heck, try calling a tech support line and saying that your computer won't work because the RAM needs to be oiled


The important thing about getting an article published, or the paper presented at a conference, is that it opens the theory up to review by the people who are experts in that very field. If your proof of the RB-Effect is mathematically based with, I'm assuming, some dips into the physical sciences, it will be the experts in those fields who are best able to look at what you're proposing and point out any flaws in it. Some of them will be cruel, true, but if your theory is sound it should attract enough open minded folks to your side. (plus it won't hurt if they get to prove rivals wrong. I think, sometimes, that the only thing that professors like better than proving themselves correct, is to prove their enemies to be wrong
)



4.] the Internet is full of nuts and it's always best to ask for proof of radical claims

I agree, and if you have an honest interest - there is a lot to learn - by example earthquake (as I published in 1998) is earthbound lightning. Universities and NASA are beginning to pick up on this.


I'd also be interested in hearing more about this "earthbound lightning" description of earthquakes. Is this just a metaphore to describe the earthquake, or are you departing from the "plates grinding against eachother" theory for earthquakes that has held for so long?

Also, is your RB-Effect the same as was quoted in issue 18 (1999 or 2000-ish) of the Atlantis Rising magazine?



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
beforebc
If you would answer the questions that i posed in my post above, it could make your theory much clearer for me...

I understand that you have much to overcome here... if my questions are answered sufficiently, I maybe able to help breach these impasses...



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Questions form Whiskey Jack & LazarusTheLong

bc here] Your questions are too diverse of the subject to answer. So let me ramble a few comments. The MSU professor is named in my book, and all the communications we had with one another are there. As for review - that is impossible outside of University. As for their ability to review it - there is no precedent for earth processes originating from the very forces that bind us into solar orbit!

Earthquake as earthbound lightning. It took three chapters to portray the physics .. but one methodology (among about five that I used) was to show that earthquake (over a magnitude of 6 on the Richter scale) changed the earth's rotation - hence time. To do this I compared "the primary length-of-day" data kept by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, titled, A Combination of Earth Orientation Measurements -- to the United States Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center's, Epic Retrieval Software for the Global Hypocenter Data Base.

This comparison showed that an earthquake of magnitude of 6 or greater on the Richter scale would change time.

This was finally demonstrated by the Indian Ocean earthquake/tsunami as shown here:

Sumatran quake sped up Earth's rotation

bc
.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
beforebc,

this is getting tiresome. You don't publish your formulas or physics foundations of what you think is the basis of your theory, and all you are saying is "I have a really powerful theory that explains the plate tectonics. It's called RB-theory. It's the best theory ever." This is so totally lame!

By the way, the subthread on decimal places -- I know full well what scientific notation is. You, however, do not understand the concept of a decimal place as an indicator of assumed precision of the number being quoted. If I asked what your body weight was, you pulled out your bathroom scale and told me it's 149.2342840 lbs, that would be laughable (then again we are being presented laughable insinuations of a pseudo-scientist here, so anything goes).



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join