It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by JudgeSawyer
reply to post by mnemeth1
I'm still a bit perplexed by this link to cosmology and basic geology. I have a bachelors in geochemistry, and I never ran into anyone who was completely sure of Earth's very early history. I think I understand where you're coming from with some of it, but not all by any means. The accretionary formation of the planet, coming together from bits of rotating matter, has never been a sure thing in geology. No professor I've ever had taught this as an absolute, so I've always considered it a gray area. Formation of oceans, sure; it seems unlikely to me all that water came from comets as well, but the time scales of geology are not comprehensible to human life-span. Therefore, I don't know. However, you talk about "the ancient history of the Earth" as if this is all there is in the geological sciences. It is a discipline which has been around for far longer than any cosmological theories that would even be recognizable today. There were rock classifications, glacial studies, metallurgy, meteorological observations, oceanic current observations, you name it, before there was even alchemy, let alone chemistry as we perceive it. I don't quite see what this has to do with cosmology, which begs the question: do you consider geology a science, or some bastardization through the prism of human consciousness? I just don't get it. Not attacking you, but curious about your explanation. Theories are theories. You've got yours, I've got mine.
Originally posted by JudgeSawyer
I'm slightly surprised no one has commented on the OP's criticism of plate tectonics. ..snip..
Ocean floor is created at mid-ocean ridges, ..snip..
So, yes, the ocean floors are being added to the Earth from within, then swallowed at continental margins, preserving the size and mass balance of the planet. That IS plate tectonic theory, so do you agree or not? It does not have anything to do with centripetal force really. It's simple density differences. I think the question is what causes the mid-ocean ridges to open up in the first place.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Do you see what I'm getting at?
You may be well educated and understand that the geologic history may be a load of nonsense, but this is not what people are taught.
Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Wolfenz
I'm curious on how even a single G let alone bone crushing G force would interact on a person inside of an anti-gravity based space vehicle.
I would assume nothing at all. Without even mentioning any real alien U.F.O. could just as well be controlled by an artificial pilot.
A page long diatribe doesn't change the fact that LIGO hasn't detected gravitational waves, which is in direct contradiction to what was predicted.
The LIGO never would have been built if scientists weren't convinced that gravitational waves existed and the LIGO could detect them.
Scientists wasted an epic amount of tax payer dollars
The failure of the LIGO means a failure of Einstein's bogus relativity
I know, its a tough position to be in, but given your arguments those are the only two choices left for you.
Please explain how the non-detection of gravitational waves is in anyway different than the null result of the Michelson Morley experiment which resulted in Lorentz's relativity being wrongly rejected.