Colostomy bag break-out ( sausages )

(Blog for website at http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ )

Remember? .. what we said about when you get a log-jam in the natural flow of things? .. and everything gets clogged up? .. and a breakout happening further back upstream so that the flow can find a better course to continue on, and leave the stagnation behind?  (link)  Well, .since we are into profanity, scatology and bad puns when it comes to plate tectonics, .. and in the name (believe it or not) of trying to clean things up, I want to have another go at floating a certain geological word past everybody, .. firstly because it is so delightfully risible, causing (as it frequently does) everything from a polite grin to an uproariously coarse cackle of unrestrained guffaws that helps to earn the Earth sciences the reputation of a romance that you can't take seriously, and secondly because i.m.h.o. it rates as *THE* most important structure in geology, such is the simultaneously holistic, scale-invariant simplicity/complexity that the structure offers as a key to understanding geology at all scales. 

And the word is? ..

Boudinage.  Or, as it is increasingly known by its larger-than-life expression - lithospheric boudinage.

 Boudinage is ...

"....a rare geological phenomenon.  There is no mention of this type of deformation in any works in English, so far as the writer is aware, nor does it seem to have had consideration from any but thegeologists of Belgium... There seems to be nothing in the arts or in nature which can be compared in mechanical origin to boudinages, which makes them the more interesting and the more worthy of study." (Quirke, T. 1923. Boudinage, an unusual structural phenomenon. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, v.34, pp 659-650 

Quirke was wrong.  The structure was described nearly a century earlier by MacCulloch, J. 1816, A
geological description of Glen Tilt.  Geological Society of London Transactions, v.3, p.259-337.]

It is nearly a century since Quirke eulogised its importance, and I would agree with him. Completely.  The way I see it, the dearth of attention paid to it in the interim decades is the reason Plate Tectonics has gained such a foothold.  Anyone cognisant of its holistic qualities of boudinage cannot help but be awed by its (quirky) explanatory power when it comes to understanding crustal deformation, particularly when it comes to relating domains of extension to compression on all scales ( link )

A 'boudin'(French word) is a sausage, defined (once-upon-a-time), not as your end-to-end links-type British sort piled in a heap, but the bigger continental salami sort that you often see "side-by-side on a butcher's slab or hanging up in the window (though the way the sausages are packaged these days for the supermarket there's not a lot of difference. 

The arrangement is a bit like the hand with the fingers firmed up for a karate chop (sort of like a layer of rock. The closed gaps /'breaks') between the fingers are like fractures.  If you cut the fingers off (as a butcher might), and and put some mince around them and squeeze them flat on the table, the fingers separate, with the mince squeezing into the gaps between them, but keep their orientation relative to each other.  That's the sort of separation that happens when a layer is compressed by gravity. If the fingers are extended (sideways) then the mince is mobilised relatively passively into the gap. With the compression being gravitational force, and the fingers free to spread then the separation is like what happens when a sequence of rocks that is riddled with fractures is 'spread'.

It happens at all scales, from micron-scale muds to the scale of the lithosphere, and at all levels in the crust. Given that two-thirds of the Earth's surface is ocean floor (/mantle emplacement,compensating for spreading), boudinage (as abyssal hills) provides a good analogy by which to understand this emplacement as well as what's happening in the overlying continental crust. However, geologists in the dining car of the gravytrain of free lunch would far rather have this simplicity (first coined by Lohest, Fourmarier and others more than a century ago as just "sausages") dressed up as something like "non-homogeneousl lithospheric stretching structures". Which is what you do when you don't much care to be labelled 'Johnnies-come-lately' - first you change the language, then you label it as 'new' (and hope nobody notices).

Boudinage combines brittle and ductile structres on all scales applies from unconsolidated sediments on continental shelves to the highest temperature regimes in the crust. It provides the most comprehensive framework there is by which to understand geological structure.

"Boudinage is a result of compression and consequent elongation which, in large complexes must yield truly large-scale plastic transfer of rock matter; this is of obvious significance for large-scale tectonics." (Hans Ramberg, 1955. Natural and experimental boudinage and pinch-and-swell structures, Journal of Geology, p.513.)

"Boudinage occurs on all scales." (Dennis, J.G., 1972.. Structural Geology, Ronald Press, New York, 532pp.) (Student text book.)

And indeed Lohest interpreted the uplift of the Batogne region of Belgium as due to large-scale boudinage, an interpretation that was later (1980) applied to the metamorphic core complexes of the Basin and Range province of North America.

If all roads lead to Rome (Earth expansion) then the shortcut is lithospheric boudinage. But going by the bullshit that is building up under the rubric of Plate Tectonics, it will certainly be interesting to witness what happens when there is a breakout and the *importance* of it for understanding the larger-scale framework for global tectonics (as well as physics) hits the fan.

Why the delay (of half a century at least)? Because Plate Tectonics got in the way, and however much that paradigm is wrong it serves a purpose - which is that of 'scientists' (not of science), who, when the game isrumbled, just shrug their shoulder and say, well, being wrong is how science moves forward. But do you see any of them accenting the negatives with a pinch of Popper? Never. To a man (and woman) they will only publish in the name of consensus ('coz that way, you get the money).

Simple. And understandable. And it must be said, necessary. But scientists will only take cognisance of the 'facts' (in context) when they are forced to. Theories, on the other hand offer much better return on investment.

From go. ..

 Fig.1.  Asymmetrical boudinage in ferruginous muds.  Specimen is about 5cm across

 .. to woh :-

Fig.2. H. Fossen modelling lithospheric boudinage, citing Gartrell, 1997, .. also modelling.  Crustal thickness is between 20-40 km -  an order of magnitude more when the lithosphere is referenced.  [ Note the *asymmetry of boudinage structure chosen for the illustration.]

"Scale invariance" - the most important phenomenon encountered by astrophysicists exploring the universe and by (some) geologists noticing the crustal structure on Earth. )

 ".. One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.  The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.  The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.  All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full: unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.  Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after."   (Ecclesiastes :  "All is vanity, .. a chase after wind.") 

And more than wind it certainly will be, when that bag breaks. ...  ...  You know, I get the feeling it already has, which is why everybody is keeping their head down on this topic.  The calm before the clamouring storm?  Nope.  It will all creep in the back door as the train clatters over the points at walking speed, to save everybody falling off - as the above figure is doing.  There are no marks for making a noise when it comes to the memes of change that everybody discovers they already know, .. nor for drawing their dormancy to attention - like mountains are erosional features, and that there is a belt of them going all around the Earth's Pangaean equatorial zone, and that it split around the middle to let the mantle out, and that subduction is really overriding, and that rollback is silly, .. etc., etc. ..and that the Earth is getting bigger (because of all that obvious ocean floor, the ridges, the transform faults, the mountains etc etc.)

It is absolutely amazing, is it not, .. that given the magnetic and gravity detail of the ocean floors available today there isn't a structural map of it coming out of any of our institutions.  Anybody got any idea why the only one we do have is that multi-hued rainbow map-of-ages?  What's that?  There really *is* a pot of gold at the end of it?  (Oh, .. right, .. I see ee.)

Joke?  I don't think so.  I think that is *precisely* the reason. Nobody's game to upset it.  They're all working out how to cannibalise the new stuff from satellites and gross regional compilations into the old, so that nothing of the old ideas changes, .. very quickly at any rate.  First you have to milk the golden eggs for what they're worth, *before* they lose their attraction, even if it is becoming much tarnished.  From the consensus veiwpoint there is nothing acceptable-to-purpose to put in its place.  When it comes to resurrecting old stuff as redolent and on the nose as Earth expansion, .. well, .. that is very risky business.

It will have to be done though, before geology makes sense again though.  The bubble needs to burst.  The boil needs lanced.  Breakout needs to happen to clear the stagnation.


"Mash with your sausages, sir?"

Contradicting consensus

No Prizes

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stanczyk_Matejko.JPG

Mostly, there are no prizes for contradicting consensus.  Prizes are for consolidating an existing consensus in a way that will allow it to roll better, not (to use a railroad analogy), for switching the points that make it turn sharp left, or stops it in its tracks, or, as is the case here, go into reverse.  Not only are all the bandwagoners likely to fall off, but the vehicle is likely to be so severely damaged it is only fit for the scrap heap.  Even moreso there are no prizes for blowing whistles while doing so. If significant deviation is the intention it is usually better to adopt a quieter, more sober, and more surreptitious (political) approach by canvassing opinion and building a consensus, so that with time the bandwagon (and the people on it) are able to take the curve at a more acceptable pace.

It is half a century since Plate Tectonics left the station, and has been gathering momentum ever since as the framework for interpreting geology.  The increase in momentum however is due more to its path being downhill, helped by the weight of conjectural baggage, than it is to to do with any fuel stoking its firebox, which at every test turns out to be more damp squibs than anything else.  "Downhill all the way" ('subduction'), is Plate Tectonics default acknowledgement of the imperative of gravity.  It would surely far rather have a primary mechanism tangential to the Earth's crust whose full force could better make plates collide and crumple crust. 

It's actually something of a discomfiture for Plate Tectonics (not at all highlighted), that its *primary* mechanism *is* vertical - as in Earth Expansion.  The difference is simply that Earth expansion's primary verticality acts in the opposite direction from subduction. It is not down (towards the Earth's core, but  up, away from it, and has an accompanying signature related to the Earth's rotation and its first-order deformation (its oblate shape), and the way that oblateness has been modified in the dilation of the crust.  The big question for Earth expansion, which it can't yet answer (because it is a question for theoretical physics, not geology), is how rotation and energy are linked to create the material of the mantle (with its magnetic signature).

There is a further irony for Plate Tectonics too,  in that the more directly its primary downward dynamic is actioned (as in slab 'rollback'), the less collisional crumpling and moving plates can happen, and the more crustal extension is increased (e.g. the 'back-arc basins of the Western Pacific).  But crustal extension is what happens at the ridges where the supposed convection cell is rising. So no matter which way Plate tectonics turns, gravity-driven extension is its primary dynamic (as in Earth expansion).

In Plate Tectonics gravitational adjustment (by falling mantle slabs) is the motive force, .. the driver, .. the *cause* of plate movement.   In Earth expansion downwards gravitational adjustment is a *result* of upwards (/'outwards') global enlargement, that has a symmetry of inscription linking it to Earth's rotation - which Plate Tectonics ignores.  What precisely is causing the enlargement is not known, but it is materially manifest in the creation of the  mantle (including water).

Earth expansion thus *empirically* (not hypothetically) links the Earth's gravitational field with rotation and the creation of planetary material, and is a pointer to the physical reality of the quantum world at a scale that is directly accessible to us.  It is an exciting perspective on a subject that for half a century has shown no inclination to progress.  Plate Tectonics on the other hand remains mired in the *assumptions, speculations and escapes* of goal-post shifts of half a century in order to avoid exactly this conclusion, and even then is forced to recognise gravitational collapse (of the mantle) as its primary dynamic (subduction /return to the mantle), despite its yearning for a dominantly tangential one (to crumple continents).

...........................

Of course there's a cost. Financial and health are uppermost.  The time (mis-)spent working through something like this is substantial and negatively affects income in a number of ways.  And a desk job is a pain, literally.  There is also the psychic cost of being irked by the corruption and the threat to free speech that contrived conformity induces.  Encountering corruption in science (our "truth-teller"), is not good for you. Scepticism is insidious and leads to cynicism, which tends to spill over into other areas of life.  The often spectacular, errant behaviour of our commanders of societal institutions generally, doesn't help.  And of course if you're going to indulge in what others see as a foolish enterprise, then there's the cost of having to dress the part too. Well, .. it allows some concession to their view - but if they don't understand the nuttiness of the target subject(s) I doubt they'd see the irony in the fancy dress adopted to hob-nob with the walkers and the talkers.

Others, scientists among them who should know better, typically trot out the shibboleth, "If you have something to say, you should say it within the pages of scientific discourse and test it with peer review, .. scientists would give their right hand to say something new..etc etc."   This of course is a myth.  To bring any alternative message to the attention of a monolithic consensus (particularly when it reeks of corruption) is simply an invitation to be shot.  As has been demonstrated over the period of some ten years ["ten" refers to my old website; today (20200522) it is more like twenty]of posting about this on the internet, scientists are *not* interested in questioning the cardiac health of consensus, especially when that consensus appears increasingly like a cadaver. The reasons are not on account of any geo-logic, but on account of their own personal professional security.  Despite its logic and scientific credentials, Earth expansion is a professional poison that, by the evidence, virtually all academics will not touch however much they might be inclined, or even want, to do so.  And be sure there are no prizes for drawing attention to the courage of their convictions.


Finally, a word of caution for others who think they might be in a position to go forward with this.  Make no mistake, there will be no prizes.  Geology today is far too ensconced in its own convictions and the (unwarranted) institutional kudos that supports it. Previous advances in the field followed crises of sorts, when things weren't working.  There were questions about what to do with the ocean floors.  Were they submerged continents?  Did landbridges exist? Exactly how were the vertical movements of orogenesis, taphrogenesis and epeirogenesis related? And what about the thousands of kilometres of trans-Atlantic displacement (Continental Drift")?  And the heat source apparently necessary to do that?  And (to cap it all) the astounding discovery of recent sea-floor spreading.  All of these represented advances from a position gained.  Earth expansion represents nothing of the sort, but a return to an earlier position already discarded. Investigating it means undoing everything that has been assembled to support a false consensus, and by implication to a considerable extent, the reputations of those who have built it.  Despite the  manifest contradictions of Plate Tectonics, and the vistas offered by the alternative of expansion, the advocates of Plate Tectonics will do everything in their power to maintain its current status.

After the war and the triumph of theoretical physics in the creation of The Bomb, the whole way science was done, changed.  Natural philosophy was replaced by more quantitative and theoretical methods to which the principle of multiple working hypotheses was seen as better adapted.  It allowed focus, .. a more reductionist, 'scientific' approach.  Logic took a back seat.  Overnight it was acceptable to allow illogical contradictions, because if you scratched beneath the surface (with a little more arithmetical scribbling based on a 'good idea') you might find (at best) they were not contradictions at all, or (at worst) have another 'piece-of-the-jigsaw' to add to the mix.  In geology, neither proved to be true.  There has been no conceptual advance since Plate Tectonics was first formulated, only goal-post-shifts of the 'escape' sort.  Of course, these are not seen as such by a new generation who have learned the litany (and the method), but as proof of the theory.

Is this why (Earth) science is failing?  Because its core principle of logic has been usurped by theory?  Because theory has come to be maladapted?  ..  and, in the case of the Earth sciences at least, made it possible for those who inherently cannot see the difference between the two, to hog the driving seat?

Sam Carey (on Earth expansion; interviewed in 2002 just before he died).

"Through the 30s and 40s and 50s if you dared to propose this sort of thing [EE - d.f.] in America you'd be laughed at, you're a ratbag flat-earther. And there was no chance of getting a job if you had that kind of idea. But by about 1956 I could see the glimmerings of the recognition that something was wrong."   http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/tribute-to-sam-carey-and-peter-hunt/3508908#transcript

The present cohort, demonstrating obeisance to consensus.   Paradoxically, those who can, and should, and who are ostensibly in the best position to do so, .. will not, because like ingenues coerced to the sex trade, their hands are tied by the threat of retribution.  Even when the door is opened to set them free they cannot escape.  The risks are too great.  They are prisoners of the politics of consensus.

"Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-- science and the nation will suffer."    (Michael Crichton quoting Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences.)

Plainly, the worst of it is that the science is not the issue. Rational argument is irrelevant. The subtext, 'consensus' and the politics of one sort or another that attend it, is the issue.  

Why science is failing? - willing idiotry in the driving seat, incompetence stoking the firebox, and consensus politics in the guard's van.

[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :-
http://www.platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com/ ]

Consensus Science

(Michael Crichton quote:- ".. If it is consensus it is not science.") :- 

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

"In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

He's quite right, but I would put it a bit differently.  Science is concerned with getting right answers to questions when the natural world doesn't match with the template of knowledge and understanding we have of it.  It's a work in progress.  If we have a consensus along the way then it effectively dampens the fire, .. puts it out. We might never get there. The 'science' would be short-circuited.  We would put up with a half-answer. 

< read more >


[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :-
http://www.platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com/ ]

Geologists 'R Us

Geology rules
( .. you bet! .. )

---

Students contemplate a basalt dyke and appear to be expressing manifest disinterest. But I don't think they are. I think they're being very diplomatic.

[This image was taken from the web a while back; can't remember where from.  If anybody objects to me using it I'll remove it, but in view of the subject of these posts it seems to illustrate a nice point (see footnote*)]

Being centre-stage, the subject of this photo is almost certainly the dyke. but I do wonder at the apparent disinterest, .. and why that might be.

It must be the first or second field trip when students get taken to look at a dyke, because like mountains (and valleys) a dyke is one of the simplest, yet most interesting things to contemplate in geology and is instructive for a number of reasons.  We won't cover them all here, .. just to say that when looked at properly (i.e., from the viewpoint of the most incisive question - being, "How the Hell did it get there?"), one look is all it takes to dismiss Plate Tectonics in an instant.  Less incisively perhaps are some others that are more 'circumlocutory' steps along the way to an answer, and are therefore equally valid.

It would have to be the most representative expression of the Principle of Structural Superposition in that it is clearly cutting through, and is therefore later than, the host rock, which in this case looks like granite.  The dyke, which is probably of dolerite (slightly coarser than basalt but of the same composition) is cutting, and therefore younger than, the granite.  So properly speaking we should refer to The Principle of Stratigraphic, Structural, and Magmatic Superposition. This is the triumvirate of Earth processes operating at different scales and different levels in the crust that allows proper time-sequencing of geological events and interpretation of Earth history. The other reasons relate to larger questions of global significance as sketched below.

What seems interesting to me about this picture is why somebody is taking it.  That somebody is probably the group leader, who has decided to take a picture in order to save himself the bother of saying a thousand words about something to do with this particular pit-stop, and which is self-evident.  And maybe something too about the apparent disinterest on show, for that dyke epitomises a fundamental point of logic that the "outsiders" of Plate Tectonics ("without a geological clue") ignore.

So let's consider what it is by asking some of those leading questions.

Did the granite body move sideways to let the dyke in, or did the dyke (being magma) (an incompressible fluid) intrude and forcefully heave the host-rock aside?   Ostensibly the students appear to be looking for an answer.  One at least seems to be convinced it lies underfoot, whilst the others seem to think it lies somewhere off to the side.  [Well, .. at least they're looking at the right side - looking at it my way, that is.]

So, .. pit stop, ..questions, .. thinking, .. photograph.   Here's my take on it (it goes  like this) :-

(Team leader) :-
"Here's a dyke, .. etc., etc., .. with a chilled basaltic margin (both sides) (indicating cooling) (etc.,  etc.)," .. and .. (applying best teaching practice by using leading questions the class can answer themselves, .. "Which was first and which was second, the dyke or the host rock?"

"..Well obviously the granite is first, and the dyke is second".

Then the next question follows :-
"So where did the granite come from?"  To which the answer is, well, .. it's coarse grained, .. it cooled slowly, and there's a great mass of it, so it must have originated at depth and cooled slowly. .. .. 
<  ... >
"So what's the answer?"
"Deep."
"And where did the dyke come from then?"
"Deeper."
"But the dyke is fine-grained and chilled quickly, so where did it crystallise in relation to the granite, and how did it lose its heat?"
"The dyke intruded, .. lost its heat to the granite as it came up, which must have therefore been cooler than the dyke."
"So how did the granite get from being in a hot place to being in a cold place?"
"It must have been uplifted."
"Right? Who thinks that's right? ... How much granite have we got here?"
< .. The whole country .. >
"So how did the whole country get uplifted from a hot place to a cold place?"

You can see here the students beginning to shuffle a bit at this point.  This is not what was expected from a simple dyke in a simple granite. Anyway, it was supposed to be about the dyke, not the granite.

"And what about the dyke?  Where did it come from, what was it feeding? And where is all of that 'feeded-stuff'  now?  And if the granite cooled at depth and got uplifted so we can stand on it, what happened to what was on top of *it*?  Erosion?  Who said 'erosion'? Did someone say erosion?  And how did *that* erosion, relate to the dyke's erosion that we see now - and what it (the dyke) was feeding?  And how do we think this uplift happened exactly, if it applies to the whole country, and the dykes (and that little sill over there - out of the picture) are not folded?  And what do you think uplift means for the 'sideways' aspect of this intrusion shown by the separation of the walls of the dyke?  Did this 'sideways behaviour crumple anything?  And where did the *granite* come from in relation to the basalt, if it was at depth long enough to cool down and be coarse grained? .. And if the basalt was below the granite in the first place, why did it come up?  Why didn't it just stay down there and likewise be coarse-grained?  And since it did come up, why did it come up in such skittery bits as this dyke, instead of in a big country-wide mass like the granite.  Fracture?  Who said fracture?   How deep was it, and how laterally extensive might it have been? Can we map it and find out?  What was the spatial and temporal relationship of the respective melts?  And which do you think was under the greater pressure to come up? "  Why did the granite 'come up' on the scale of the whole country while the basalt is just coming up what is essentially a hairline fracture - or less?

This is the bit where the students begin to look right and left, and realise that what he's going to say next is ...

" And let me have your thoughts by Monday."

Fig.2.  Filaments of NW-striking dolerite dykes intrude a diapiric granite pluton.  (Pilbara region, Western Australia.)  [GoogleEarth Location :-   -22.822591°, 117.341177°]

[*Footnote :- The point here being (apart from the obvious one of erosion) the importance of fracturing as indicative of scale of crustal penetration, and the likely importance of incremental upwards movement as a means of creating sideways space rather than (as Plate Tectonics has it) ~3,000km of (sideways) movement such as are said to build the Himalayas and, further away, deform the Russian Peninsula ["far-field tectonics"].

Truly, we live on a flat ('sideways') Earth according to Plate Tectonics.  This, I think, could well be what is occupying the collective minds of the students in the picture, which is why they're shuffling and contemplating their boots.  But how are they going to weasel such cleverness into their class exercise on which they'll be judged at the end of term?  It's all very well for the group leader to be asking suchlike questions implying 'up', but they know perfectly well that 'im indoors, .. their professor, waxes lyrical about sideways Plate Tectonics being the best thing since sliced bread and deserving a Nobel prize, with five centimetres of dyke three thousand kilometres away heaving up the Himalayas and all..  The students are no doubt wondering why three thousand sideways kilometres are needed at all if just a few centimeters of on-the-spot 'up' will do the job anyway.  Or even better if the global distribution of dykes in general are the issue, just lithospheric stretching - as the crust adjusts to outwards movement from the centre - like Earth expansion says?  Why the need for all the sideways hyperactivity?

Let's hope that's what they're doing anyway (contemplating).  We need a whole new crop of geologists apparently.  Otherwise another generation is (well and truly) screwed., and screwed up.

Geology.  It's all a question of scale. Observation / Logic /'Science'. And not getting carried away by anthropomorphic-homo/eccentric fantasy and speculation (/'models'). ["India came running full speed at Asia and boom, they collided," - said.]  Communicating to the public on the level of three-year-olds is one thing, but precisely what is being communicated is another.  A mindset is a mindset.  And the mind of Plate Tectonics is set in a both naive and zombie-like cast.  (And a few other adjectives as well, i.m.o.,  when it comes to questions relating to the biggest 'dyke' intrusions of all - those  (as Plate Tectonics would have it) constituting the sheeted dykes of the ocean floors.)  

.. "and Ice-Cream Castles in the air."

.. Built by the Big Chill.
( Blog for website at hhtp://users.indigo.net.au/don/ )

Fig.1.  Mount Everest and the Himalayan front as seen from Alice's Tardis.  (Wikipedia)

Chomolungma.  Qomolangma if you're Chinese.  Everest - or (as we learn from the wiki) 'EEv-rist' if you are the man himself, .. or Peak15 if its a matter of cata-logic.  Draped in ice and snow, .. rocks that are today chiselled to a peak that were therefore once even higher.  Yet they formed in the deepest recesses of ancient seas.  What cataclysmic event was it turned those chilly watery deeps of  five hundred million years ago of Ordovician time, into the freezing hell of today's Heavenly Holy Mother in her icy throne on the roof of the world - eyeballing her adopted daughter with the 'attitude', on cloudless nights?

You'd think there would be an answer to that one by now, wouldn't you?  And so there is.  It is the chill of those ancient seas soaking up heat from the sea bed, or, since those seas are themselves losing heat to the atmosphere (and thence to outer space), it's the chilly night air.

And that's the best answer modern 'science' can give as a mechanism for mountain building, .. the chilly night air is causing subducting mantle slabs to drag continents from one side of the planet to the other, and crash them into other continents, likewise but oppositely pulled, to 'build' mountains - "by plate collision", ..and buckling to form the highest tracts on the planet. Because, .. "Subduction is driving the plate machinery".

Now it might be asking for some child-like credulity from us to believe that colliding plates build mountains, but it's quite another to ask us to believe it's the cold night air doing it.  And yet  that is precisely what is being said, coded in platespeak and straight-faced as you like.   And that's even not allowing for a breeze.  You could understand it (a bit) if there was a chill factor in it, .. some friction, .. but no, .. nothing so complicated.  It's just the chilly night air standing there doing nothing,  moving the crust around and crumpling it up into mountains.  Well! .. everybody had just better look out, and not open their fridge doors all at the same time or the consequences could be dire indeed  - every bit as devastating as my shaving cream knocking a hole in the ozone layer, or anthropogenic (that means you and me by the way) bad behaviour causing global warming.  (Spin, .. and couching rubbish in big words to confuse the issue.  They're at it all the time, .. in the name of 'science'. )

"Tossed high by colliding plates." So the story goes.   A high toss indeed, considering that the forces for the requisite crumpling reside deep in the crust, .. as does the heat that mostly accompanies it.  So the question stands.  How did all that (metamorphosed) sea floor get up there?  Well, .. so the story goes, .. and considering Mr Uyeda's proposal (mentioned above) of subduction driving the whole Plate Tectonic gravytrain, the cold night air ('cooling') makes the mantle sink and at the same time makes the continental crust rise up into mountains, ..that is, the air draws heat out of the mantle to give wholesale convective mantle overturn, and at the same time (via the exigencies of moving plates) puts heat into the continental crust to give folding and thrusting and metamorphism (and mountain building).  When you look at the sum total of nonsenses in that lot, maybe it's best just to stick with 'tossing' for peace of mind.

The extensive pediments that flank the mountain chains are the eroded products of the mountains and show no folding (Fig.3 here) The folding that is being exhumed in the mountainous terrain (from the Alps to the Himalayas and the Americas as well) therefore did not take place during elevation from the surface of the sea floor to the present mountain tops..

We are left with the only reasonable and logical conclusion that folding happens deep in the crust.  But the only way there can be folding (accompanied by heat and pressure)  is if the crust buckles *down*, .. not up.  And it's not so easy to crumple crust down, because there is no space for 'down', so to speak, to occur.  Pushed stuff crumples *up*, where there *is* space, not down where there is none.  The only way there can be crumpling down is if there is a hole of sorts for the crust to 'fall' into.  And holes are not formed by crustal 'collision', but by extension.  And extension (on the scale of mountain belts) happens when the crust as a whole is being stretched, not compressed.  That is, except for smaller-scale second-order effects at the toe of collapse structures, such as was mentioned before in that post about collapsing, folding by-and-large is due to *extension*.  And wholesale extension happens with the crust having to continually take up an ever enlarging surface area. 

And so we are returned to the considerations that plagued geologists of a century ago, considerations that led to the questions of geosynclines and orogens, epeirogenesis and taphrogenesis, but with the added caveat of scale:  How, really, do mountains form, and the answer most certainly is, *not* by the collision of any "moving plates", which can't get their act together to push up a global-scale mountain belt any more than their proponents can get theirs together to come up with a coherent story.
 
 And with equal certainty (going by the distribution of the present-day mountain belts of the Earth) it may be stated that they form by erosion of the crust as this is exhumed by the relentless drop in sea-level as the Earth's surface is extended and takes up an ever-increasing surface area - *Globally*.

And in the passing we should note that the above gobbledegook about colliding plates crumpling the crust is promoted by the foremost teaching and research institutions in the world - and all others as well.  What's the deal? How far are people willing to let themselves be led up the garden path (by other people who are not Elvis)?   What's their agenda?  It can't be the geology when their concoction of it is so patently deficient and the simple alternative so obvious.

Well, the answer is really quite simple : the objective is to remain within consensus and 'do science', because to not remain so is high professional risk, i.e., the point is not the doing, but the remaining within.

When academics are rated according to the number of publications they can notch up, preferably in prestigious journals, and number is best met by staying within consensus, what else *can* be the reason?  It contradicts even the basic intelligence necessary to do science if you don't obey its rules.  It's not just the scientist himself that's the issue, but his family and place in the community as well, not to mention how his wayward behaviour might affect his colleagues.  What value truth in science then?  So long as career is founded (/funded) on publications, the answer is "not much".  It's an oxymoron: no bang for the buck.


[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :-
http://www.platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com/ ]

Moonstruck

( ..Loony tunes? ..)


Readers of this blog will know that it is a documentation of support for an expanding Earth, a 'catch-up diary' of sorts that grew out of my time as a geologist over a period of some forty years.

Now, I can't claim employment for all of that time.  Far from it.  And not that the employment I was lucky enough to secure would lend a whole lot of gravitas to the proposed motion tabled anyway since the rote machinations of  industry do not take too kindly to geological pontificating about the origins of rocks.   That belongs in a different department.   Exploration is about yakka, rocks 'n socks, 'n boots, .. heat and dust, flies and isolation, .. or mozzies, ice and snow and freezing, .. sampling soils and rocks and testing them for anomalies and drilling them, then more drilling, and then (if you're lucky - 'cos that could mean you might have a job next year), digging.  And increasingly as a concession to propriety (because traditionally we're a bunch of rednecks who don't give a fig about health *or* safety and think having women on the job is just a great idea), about a whole lot of regulation by beaurocrats whose mission in life is to dictate and control everything and issue death certificates before the fact, and to generally remind everybody that a certain person is alive and well and going among us with a lot of let and not a lot of hindrance. .. (And I don't mean Elvis.)

But I can claim that if there was any question of pontificating, or navel-gazing on questions of geological import, then it was mostly done at night, ..under the stars, .. gazing at the naked cool beauty of the huntress Diana as she strode the night sky looking like she owned the place.  And why shouldn't she after all because she'd been doing it for about four billion years and by the looks of those battle scars paid her dues too. 

Draw breath, .. and see as she strings her bow and asks the unvoiced question, "Who are you, .. born of the Hadean hell I suffered, to win my right to stride this starry sky looking like I own the bloody place?  .. And what will become of you?  Look at me!!  And hear the silent scream of your oblivion as I pierce you., for we are one, you and I, and your destiny faces me as I face you."

Shit!  You'd think she'd just shut up for a fucken minute while you think about that.  And stop pointing that thing.  Her child?  What Hadean hell?  What's she talking about?  And what was all that about blood?  Was it true?  Was I?  Would I? .. follow undone from that 'hell'(?) to that starry night? Ashes-to-ashes, dust and all that?  Jeez, ..  The only Hades I know of is the fiery heat of every summer in this place, ..doing this job, ..that's for sure.  Forty-eight in the shade and rising.  What sort of Hades did she know about, .. what agony did she suffer that made her turn her scarred face to her conqueror, and four billion years later lay her toy aside, reach for her accoutrements of war,  and take aim?  Why me?

Hang on, .. was *that* what she was on about? ..  about suffering to make life easy for us?  - all that banded iron formation we were looking at earlier before pulling up for the day - rythmic accumulations of iron dust spewed from the cauldron of creation, .. settling every day, every month, every year in those primal seas.  Gaseous clouds of iron and silica?  Was that how she got those scars, .. Hadeas Corpus from impacts to the core? .. the Earth dragging its envelope of millenial cosmic dust - global-scale ignimbrites - right from the core?  So cosmic it enveloped the Earth for hundreds of millions of years and settled with every turn of the Earth, with every cycle of the seasons, with every advancing year.  Spinning through that dust cloud for zillions of years.  Wonder who will make the splash with that one :-  "Hey, look everybody, what I just guessed about the origins of the Earth-Moon system, banded irons as the terrestrial expression of lunar impacts.  And now let's see if we can turn it around and make a story people will buy."

 [ Added 20130616 :-  "..the whole point of the equivalence of mass and energy is that it’s every bit as valid to call the interaction energy “mass” as it is to call individual particles “mass.” And, in fact, 99% of the mass associated with everyday objects comes from exactly the same source as the energy released in nuclear reactions.  http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/01/27/energy-from-mass-mass-from-ene/  ]

Seems pretty obvious does it not, when you think of the different rates of iron and silica dust settling in the primal seas - globally.  And the ages virtually correlate with the lunar impacts, give or take a bit of homo(ex)centricity, ..  Makes you wonder, does it not, .. .. about origin, .. and again about science and how it's done, .. about guessing on multiple working stories, or standing back and taking things in the context of the time-sliced bigger picture.  Algal blooms and iron dissolved in sea-water indeed. You can take all this global warming stuff a bit far, in the punt for funds.  There's nothing like keep being wrong as a reason for keep (not) trying to be right!

No guns, no battleships, no knives, forks, spoons, or weapons of war, and especially not the wherewithall to make anything (much) at all, but for the tribulations of that doxie with the bow and the arrow and the certain aim... looking after us.  But for that scarred face where would 'civilisation' be? And think of the cost if modernity had to be contrived from alternative sources..  More likely we'd still be in the bronze age.

[ Image reproduced with thanks 
to  Kevin Radthorne
www.KevinRadthorne.com ]








Some Kookie. Doesn't look like a bout of Hadeas Corpus to me..
Unerring of aim and right on target whatever the intention.
and scar or no scars, .. a bit of all right.
Not sure about the convolution though, ..
Distraction? (So you don't get the message till it hits you?)
Probably.
( "Bows and flows of angel hair"..)

Bet it's right though, .. about the Moon and the origin of the Banded Iron Formations.  I've come across nothing to contradict it in the decades since it occurred to me.  Everything's still up the smushy garden path of consensus waffle. How does it help exploration?  This way, which is to say, .. by looking at context.

( Crikey! .. I see they're asking nearly forty dollars.) (Jeez!) (Crims!)  (Why not support your local global protest instead and with the help of the internet and the New Deal in World Insemination we'll sink this rust bucket, ..despite its best efforts to drown us in garbage.)

[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :-
http://www.platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com/ ]

Magical Mystery Tour

Through the Looking Glass

("Starry night with Tardis")

by Alice





You know how when you get a flyer through the door selling something, ..and there's bullet points, and you want to see what it is they're actually saying, .. how you have to skip to the bottom line to see what it's all about .. and then you wonder why they made you wade through all the crap to get there and why didn't they just put it right up the top and say it - like, .. "The Earth is getting bigger". Maybe in bold if they want to catch your attention. And just leave it at that. Why do they have to hype it up when there's nothing in it but the obvious? Why don't they just start off with the bottom line then go, blonk - blonk - blonk with the facts and just leave it to you? Why do they have to turn it upside down and make such a meal of it into the bargain?
Well, it's true is it not? And what's more, the difference in the way you read it is exactly that between the S.M. ( sado-masochistic) Scientific (/hypothetical) Method way of doing science and the unscientific (no-probs) Natural Philosophical , observational way of doing it - like here.

In the scientific method (as Feynman says), with a few facts and an apparent correlation you make a guess about what it means, and then see if you can back it up with support. And if there's a 'Hey Presto' in it you think you can sell, then you turn it all around and make it look like a respectable conclusion that follows from those blonks. It's a kind of short-cut way of trying to look at things, one that elevates thinking over looking, and makes you look clever.

For example, you might pick up a grain of sand and say, "Ah-hah, this is a beach," and set about trying to prove it according to rules about beaches. So you see if it is round, and of a certain size, .. at which point you decide you might need a bit more data, so, you go, and you look, and see if you can find another one and you do and so hey, .. now you have *two* grains of sand, .. and they're both just exactly round, .. and so on. (Pretty smart, huh?) Then with a straight face you can say with confidence, "This is a beach", and hope everybody will buy one. Doesn't matter about the water. That's different and can be dealt with later, .. this is about science, sand and beaches, right? (Reductive.) ["Elemental, my dear Watson."]

The No-Probs method is different. In this one you get in your tardis and zoom out and look at everything else *but* the sand, .. and once you've got the framework right and everything in its rightful domino-place then Bob's-your-Uncle. You can zoom in on the sand and check out the boulders and the other flotsam lying around if you like. No guessing needed. In fact you might not even bother that much (about 'beach') because a beach is a beach. Seen one you've seen 'em all. Go a bit further and you might find something quite interesting - like a whale, .. lying on top of a grain of sand. And what do we do about that then, .. (on the beach)? .. Well, we get in the tardis again and ... .. .

See what I mean? No guessing, .. no 'science' (of the guessing /hypothesising /theorising sort) needed, .. Just finding that things just are in their natural rightful order, when you look at them the right way, .. which is in context. And how do you do context right?

Well, ... you just go forth, .. get in the Tardis .. and, ... look through the glass.

Easy. You don't have to molecate everything to be scientific. Alice's No-Probs Tardis is just fine. In fact it's where science begins. Or should begin -with the contemplated life and the considered observation. All sorts of problems arise if the 'molecules' are not in the right order. And that's where the tardis comes in handy, .. it gets you right up there (with Cazaly, a round of leather and a jar of vegemite). Everything just falls into place - right, bright and shiny, .. and speaking for itself.

So, .. all aboard?
=>  *(basketables) rm/genesis.html

(Who said the Earth was flat) (like a plate)  .. ?
=>  *one plate or several nonsense/plate.html =>  *House of collapsing cards nonsense/cards

(next)
[Yeah, .. but so what? ]====================



[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :-
http://www.platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com/ ]

Putting Trolling in Perspective.

( or, .. What do you do when you perceive science to be failing? ..)


The question of trolling has arisen again on Rationalskeptics Discussion Forum.

[  Quoting Theropod:- 

" ... Jesus fucking Christ on a stick, can't you read? What part of "if they haven't published" can't you grasp? Now, having made that really fucking clear, how the hell is anyone supposed to know of these "authorities" unless they have published in reputable journals?

"I know for a fact there are several professional scientists that participate on a regular basis here on ratskep. [ .. I have enough professional qualifications in earth sciences to see through this EE smoke and mirrors.. ] That professional training allows me to adjudicate these citations as sorely lacking in direct support of an EE.

"My opinion is based on the historical facts of this thread. I've been here since day one.  The topic was started to specifically troll this forum.

"In case you haven't noticed I have no desire, or intent, to be helpful in regards to this topic on any level. It's ALL bullshit, and the whole intent of this thread was, and is, to troll this forum. I've already listed my concerns with your "facts". I really don't give a rats ass if the EE folks have their feeling hurt, or if I piss them all off. This EE crap isn't about the science. It's about what folks will believe even in the face of overwhelming evidence telling them they're notion is totally fucking nuts. Exactly like creationism in that regard isn't it? I am not a humanitarian, or even a very nice man. As far as I'm concerned these folks came into my house and shit right in the middle of my living room floor. I'm really supposed to now be helpful to any aspect of this insanity? I don't think so. Even defending this tripe in a passing manner deserves scorn AFAIC." ]

This point, about the forum being assailed by "nuts" obsessing about Earth expansion, has been raised from the beginning.  Under no circumstances could S.Athearn, the subject of the above abusive attack be accused of trolling, and neither could the original poster of the thread.  Below is the original post by 'Brainman',  a cognitive scientist interested in the emotional response of people to views that contradict their own beliefs, and how consensus ('Groupthink') therefore arises - the Groupthink in this case being the monolithic belief of Plate tectonics. :

['Brainman' :-   Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere
#1  Post by Brain man » Jun 14, 2010 12:27 pm

"Most people are familiar with neal adams interesting animations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PQSrsy9xg70
My interest is actually psychological regarding this. I am training in neuropsychology and am interested in the mechanism behind the reaction of disbelief itself. I am presuming there will be not be many here in favour of expanding earth hypothesis.

The point is, can this thread force readers to answer the primary question of the thread first. i.e. Can the poll question itself actually be answered with a yes or no ? EDIT. The question is "Do the continents "look" as if they wind back to a sphere ?"

So this thread is primarily about psychology. You can post on how the video itself made you feel. Conflicted, angry etc.

I would also like to make these following points to introduce that the topic has an educated, reasoning and respectable proponent. The point of this thread is not to debate the geology though. These points are just stated to offset the damage having an artist proposing the subject has done. It should be remembered though that in spite of his background Neal Adams claims that the plates were not shrunk or altered in the 3d modeller. The ins-and-outs of geology is a different subject from this and should be started on the earth sciences section.]

...from which it is quite clear that the intention of the post is exactly as it says -  nothing to do with the for-or-against geological  arguments of Earth expansion but simply to test emotional reaction to that video.  It's difficult to see how it can be read otherwise.

Neverthless apart from the few respondents who did answer within the guidelines but noted that a response would obviously be tempered by initial belief and the scientific merit of the video, by far the majority appeared to consider their intelligence confronted and scientific acumen abused, and Brainman was shortly banned for being a "troll" for exactly the reason Brainman specifically stated, and what Theropod says in somewhat more colourful vernacular :- "This EE crap isn't about the science. It's about what folks will believe even in the face of overwhelming evidence telling them they're notion is totally fucking nuts".

Evidently the fine point of Mr Adam's video (and Brainman's intention in posting the question) escapes the Theropod - that the italicised "nuts" in question are in fact those believing in Plate Tectonics - and how might it feel to be labelled a nut, even just on the basis of a space/time-traveller's cursory glimpse of an enlarging, rotating Earth such as that video illustrates.

Today Plate Tectonics is standard teaching in schools colleges, universites, and even kindergartens. as well as used in top-level media presentations to the public.  And there is even the view that it is deserving of a Nobel prize.

But what do you do when you perceive it to be simply wrong in critical aspects and think it appropriate to say so?  Do you present your hopeful case to what you see as the arbiters of scientific respectability in the expectation they have a duty to listen?  .. maybe even too in the expectation (if reason and logic is applied) that there might possibly be some capitulation to your illuminated insight?  Well, .. if you're naive you might, but you certainly won't get any marks for pointing out to the scientific community at large that the Earth is round and rotating, and that the consequences of this is something everybody's been missing all along.  Theropod has a point.  It *is* something like dumping right in the middle of the living-room.  No matter how much you might try to persuade and say, "No, .. but look, .. seriously, .. it's all good, and it goes so much better with your furniture than the junk you have strewn around."  You could even add that every living room should have a pile of it right up to the ceiling, ... and (getting really bolshie) add further  .. "So what's wrong with *you* then?" 

Even on a sliding scale from wheedling to belligerent, somehow I don't think that cuts it.  Some other strategem is called for.  But what?  What do you do when even  'peaceful proselytising' elicits the antagonistic odium and abuse that has been the history of Rationalskeptic's response since day 1 - and some other forums as well, and (though somewhat better dressed) the scientific literature too.   Everybody likes to arrange their living room the way that suits them - because there are friends that turn up from time to time who like a cozy corner to relax in where they don't have to consider their place in the world.  Living is a social enterprise after all, and it helps if everybody is like me.

Well, there are two things you can do.  The first is simply putting it out there for whoever is inclined to look at it - passive proselytising /gentle persuasion for those who may be persuaded, but in the full knowledge that there will be hecklers at the rear who will take every opportunity they can to shout you down and try to make a fool of you.

And the other thing you can do is recognise therefore what it is you're up against and 'fight fire with fire', .. stir-'em-up and dump some reflective 'troll-shit' in the living room and leave them to the consequences when it hits the fan, and the public, seeing finally that their tax dollars are being consumed on a gravytrain ("in the dining car of free lunch"), insists on a better deal.

(Mirror mirror on the wall..)

"Many people here are home-schooling because our education system has them come out dumber than they went in."  J.T - USA.

"Children have this habit of thinking for themselves, and the point of education is to cure them of this habit." ~ Bertrand Russell.

[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :-
http://www.platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com/ ]

Florian Stirs the Pot

(Trackin' the Sackin')

2013-02-13  : Too Funny

Having been banned from the discourse because I was deemed not to be engaged in reasonable and rational debate, but nevertheless tracking the gladiatorial contest between the Greatest Scientific Achievement since Sliced Bread with Jamonit, and poor old unscientific Earth expansion, I couldn't help noticing this funny one today by one of the Pteros -  :-

"I imagine about the same time you realize that posting on a web forum that is dedicated to far far more than your silly version doesn't provide you any protection from having it pointed out that if this insanity held any merit it could be published in a major geology journal. Get it?

... to which the obvious reply (which would get me banned again for sure) (as being a remark offensive to the forum) would be that a lot of insanity *is* published in major geological journals, even insanity that has *no* merit (acknowledging however that some of the greatest expressions of human intellect have been deemed 'insane' until Jo Blog dinosaurs "get it", whereupon it overnight becomes pedestrian,  swamp-squelching, commonplace cud-munching for the tribe).

You can swear to your heart's content, abuse contributions in the vilest invective - provided you use cuss-words and don't attempt anything more literary.  Literary merit would be deemed offensive to the forum these days of mis-spelling and tortured syntax masquerading as acceptable scientific communication.  The above point would be deemed, not to be replying to what's said, but to be being offensive to the forum at large, namely, .. it would be referred to general cogitation and they all would throw a tissy fit, feel diminished and squeal.

 (How 'science' purports to conduct itself ) (giggle and point).  Which of course is why judgement is anonymous.

And that's not even mentioning the content of the rest of the forum he's taking about.  This one has now gone to P429, and looks like it might even get to P430, when Florian gets back.  I wouldn't even bother to check what the rest of them have gone to, given the claim of skepticism.  They're certainly a very skeptical bunch on this one, even when it comes to the simplest observation, like the crust collapsing BIGTIME (bigtime) .. mountains resulting from erosion of the dirt, and mountain belts resulting from collapse of the crust.  Evidently they find collapse in the mantle is ok, but not in the crust, even though it's the collapse in the crust we *can* see, and collapse in the mantle that we *can't*.

Nothing like some home 'pseudoscience' truths is there?  (about not offending the forum or the sobriety of science.)


(Bunch of fixers)  ...  Here (trumpeting one of those truths again), .. save you googling :-

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."   

I think some of these guys hold themselves to be Earth scientists  .. 'Hold'  (amongst other things like venerating 'subduction' /"sucking-and-pulling" and oh-yes, mantle wind) being the operative word.

(Oh dear, .. Banned again..)

(Fixers.)

Booing and Jeering

(Answering Stephen Hurrell comment here.)


(Transparent indeed.)  Metaphorical face-pulling and jeering,  ridicule and denigration is a standard tactic in science to reject unpalatable findings, though not usually so blatant.  Google  [Rationalskeptics + "point and laugh"] to see it pervades the whole forum.  'Pointing and laughing'  >> 'booing and jeering'.  Not quite sure what the next stage is.  Fisticuffs probably.

So much for Moderation, eh?  Under such protection it wasn't possible to get even close to having Plate Tectonics recognised as  "Just a Theory" in order to compare with Earth expansion.

Nevertheless,  it is fairly confronting to be faced all at once with evidence for Earth expansion, evidence that the Plate Tectonic paradigm is probably wrong, and evidence that the entire issue is coloured by politics at various levels.  It really is scratching at the underbelly of consensus, and a fine example how the 'scientific method' crudely applied with partisan interest, has led us up the garden path - (Craig Venter :- "I think the way science is conducted around the world, we probably waste over 90% of the money.)

That's quite a threesome to have to deal with, so you can understand the "point-and-laugh" response, because there is nothing else of much substance that can be raised in defence.  It's all it has.  Plate Tectonics *is* only a theory.  It *does* contradict itself whichever way it turns (and is therefore unworkable), there is *ample* evidence for Earth expansion, and Earth expansion *does* explain global geology much better.  (And the literature is replete with the dodgy shenanigans of practicing scientists in general.)

And it's all  substantiated.

Plate Tectonics *is* a big lie.  *That* is the story that can never be written because there are too many ramifications that these days of litigation are too risky to probe too deeply.  As we have just seen institutional  interest can be ferociously brutal (e.g. academic, in the way that young fellow Aaron Schwartz was recently hounded to his death for making available to the public, information that the public had already paid for; political in the way that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is similarly currently being hounded for 'political' transgression. (Who can forget that video of those helicopter killings done in our name?)).

"Oh yeah?  What about the helicopter that killed Osamabinladen then?"

And as I write, that other Bin Laden, ..Obama, ..under fire from the National Rifle Association for having a bodyguard for *his* children and denying their call for all children in American schools to be similarly protected. (And just in case of any autistic interpretation here, let me make it very clear I think Obama compared to the alternative is just fine.  God save us from *rampant* protectionism (Google 'Lenore Skenazy') (or here if you'd rather listen) that appears to afflict America from "knee pads for crawling babies" (google images) to automatic assault weaponry for drivers and home owners.

See?   It's all about scale and sense of proportion.
 
I'm not optimistic about public freedoms in the face of those who see their role in policing them.  One thing seems certain though - in today's world individuals are very much targets for attention if they step out of line.

The whole area (PT / EE) just needs a good clean-up, beginning (I think) in the schools as an object lesson in the way science works (or rather doesn't), ..but I don't know if it can be done.  Only the geological subtext will eventually creep out-from-under as a casualty survivor, but the aegis that buried it will be left untouched as "not the issue". 

But it is entirely the issue, and it was what allowed the lie to develop and flourish. In this case it doesn't much matter, because it is only geology. There are no real pecuniary interests such as there are in pharmaceuticals or biotech.  The closest we get is questioning the lengths institutions will go to to secure their kudos.  So there are no serious ramifications (if we count our children's education as of no consequence). However it is precisely because of this that it has thrived, and is therefore a prime example of  'science gone wrong'.  It's a corruption.  There's a lot to say about it.  (Society going wrong is another (but similar) story :: Scale, cause-and-effect, and sense of proportion.  There's one for quantification: how do you model that lot?

I see the thread is still locked. With four hundred and twenty pages of Booing-and-Jeering I think it has proved itself to be too adversarial. There are other ways.



[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :-
http://www.platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com/ ]

Banned ! (The day the music died?)

(..The marching band that refused to yield.. )


[Click on images below for bigger ones.]

[I'm posting this to refute the charge on Rationalskeptics that I was "a disruptive influence incapable of reasoned and rational debate".  If you read my collection of "offensive behaviours" see if you find them justified given the context.  You might even wonder (as I do) if the targets to whom they are directed might not enjoy a degree of moderator protection.]




CERTIFICATE OF BANISHMENT
P418 Post #8350

..authenticating my credentials. (You can make that red-card image bigger by the way if you just click on it but here's the link down the bottom (save you typing it.)

Judgement
handed down

by Kiore
For what?  "..An intention to be not here to engage in reasoned and rational debate".
Why banned ?   Because hanging around will only prolong the disruptive posting(s)


Kiore  is a moderator on Rationalskepticism.org.  If you click the link at the bottom of the red card it will take you to an admirable project to use the latent power of computers connected to the web as a supercomputer to aid scientific research - a very laudable enterprise indeed - with which Kiore is closely associated, if not steering.  If he/she is steering, then that's not bad (for a mouse) (a hundred and one years old) (from South Sudan), eh?

Not that we're being ...  or animalist, .. or ageist, .. or nationalist you understand, .. just drawing attention to the anonymity that scientists prefer when they're indulging themselves in the company of news-and-views and people they would otherwise prefer not to be seen with - like Earth expansion for example. And/or the cabal who would like to sink it.  In such situations it does seem advisable not to let your real identity show.  You just never know who might be looking, .. or when you might be called upon to change hats, .. reverse your position, .. and it wouldn't do to be seen sporting a skunks bum. Might be ok when out hunting, .. but not when the scientific fashion (and needs for justifying grants submissions) requires something a bit more sophisticated.

So why banned?  Because, says Moderator Kiore,  I'm not there to "engage in reasoned and rational debate".

Now, .. I would dispute that entirely, as I think my postings in response to any 'reasoned and rational' points raised show.  In fact I might be credited with making a few (but that's easy for anybody to check). It's just that there's so little that would qualify as reasoned and rational to respond to.  When so much of the so-called 'reason and rationality' is pejorative and puerile comment, exchanges are rarely constructive.  But I do (/did) my best.

(Disruptive /stirring 'em up)   Mm-Mmm?  Now, .. I would agree with that wholeheartedly!, and would say that if anything,  congratulations would have been in order, .. *anything* (!) to disturb the so-called 'rationalism' that supports the turgidity that Plate Tectonics wallows in would have been welcome surely, but no, .. rather it seems to mean that anything that detracts from that stagnation is considered 'disruptive'. Quirky world.  I had already received my fourth red card by the time this blue note (below) showed up, which marks the beginning of 'the troubles'.  I didn't experience it.   I wasn't there.  I was already banned. But neverthless I got blamed for it.  My fourth warning (/month's suspension) was withdrawn and converted to a ban.

This was the start of  "The Troubles".

P418, post #8342



(A bit further down the same page is my banned notice, shown here at the top of the page.)

"Highly emotive today," says blue note.  So  what was happening?  Well, .. what was happening was that Spearthrower was feigning a tissy-fit over me having called him a nig-nog on my blog (note: not on the forum).  A what?  Yup. He'd read my blog you see, where I was commenting on the Kangaroo Court that had just awarded me my fourth red card (below) banning me for a month for "abusing" Gingko, and I had said he (Spearthrower.) was a bit of a dill.   I think it possible he was the one drawing my "insult-to Gingko" to the attention of moderators, since he said I had been reported so quickly after the fact (how would he know otherwise?)  He's forever creating diversions and lighting fires. Seems it's the only way he can contribute to discussion - "throwing spears around". Read any of his posts.   And note that it *was* on my blog and not on the forum.)  I called him a nig-nog specifically because of his propensity to use ridicule ("pointing and laughing") and it being the apparent limit of his repertoire in debate.  Not ridicule on account of illogic that can be discussed but simply just making faces and jeering (metaphorically speaking).  Others' responses typically add swearing to their accoutrements.  Gets a bit jading - hence the 'nig-nog'.  But apparently swearing and jeering is ok under the rules of the forum, and goes under the aegis of 'robust debate'.  It seems to be a case of the management having these attack dogs on the front line to do the savaging - the "willing idiots".  I wouldn't be surprised if half the time they don't understand their role in this 'Rationalskepticism'.)  Or maybe they just feel a natural predisposition to fulfil a role that is happily symbiotic..

So there he is, .. feigning umbrage and creating a stir and distorting the word - claiming copyright on it because he lives in England.  (Crikey, it might even be Scotland ! except no true Scot would do such a thing).  Well if that's the case he should know nig-nog has got nothing to do with Deep-Tan, and goodness only knows where the eggnog connection comes from.. Anyway, .. I had to post an explanation on the origin of the term as best I understand it, though some modern meanings appear to have arisen on the urban dictionary as people bandy it around.  Saves them inventing new ones and why bother when there are plenty already (clown, nig-nog, dill, dope, idiot..etc etc), and why get picky over which one applies to you, unless you want to wear it like a badge (for some reason - like, .. to show people "what-he-just-did").


So there we are.  I called him a nig-nog on my blog.

And he feigned a tissy fit on the forum, dragging in others.

And so my month's suspension for insulting Ginko was withdrawn and I was banned instead (for "being disruptive and having no intention to engage in reasoned and rational debate."

Here's my fourth red card, a bit further down the same page as that blue note above banning me for a month (for "insulting" Gingko). The othersr follow in reverse order, so you can see how I got my black belt in 'insulting behaviour'.

 FOURTH ACTIVE WARNING (P416 post#8320)
 The offence cited goes to Post #8259 on P413.

(In which Gingko escapes with a caution) (the blue note just above the red one) Why shouldn't there be a first time penalty for truly abusive invective.  One might ask, but Moderator View appears to be, "It's not what's said that matters, if you want to be offended by it that's your business."  Exactly this point is the substance of the first and fourth warnings - and those in between as well.


 THIRD ACTIVE WARNING (P391, post #7802)
The offence cited goes to post #7760 on  P388.

(Paul changed his avatar since the mention.  Here's Paul, suffering from homeopathy)

SECOND ACTIVE WARNING, (P379, post #7566)
Offences cited are  1.  post #7425 on P372, and 2. post #7419 on P371

(Note that the enquiry regarding infection was a reference to a virus alert on the frontpage of the forum at the time, in conjunction with the gobbledegook posting to which it referred.) ("Please be aware this is a witless zone.  Any posts that can in anyway be construed as a joke will be deemed offensive due to the cognitive incapacity of the resident cabal to understand this form of communication.")

FIRST ACTIVE WARNING,  (P367, post #7324)
(The link refers to a couple of posts just higher up the same page, ..post #7321 )

So you can see how I went from bad to worse, and how the forum was seriously endangered by my "insults", culminating in my fourth red card being "awarded", then summarily withdrawn in my absence and replaced with a ban : I was being abusive, they were engaging in reasoned and rational debate.  Though I repudiate entirely calling any of them "scum" and "vermin".  That again was Shakespeare wrestling with his flea-infested straw, and using poetic licence to represent my reference to a 'kangaroo court' as vermin, a term I do believe has respectable currency and which refers exactly to this situation, .. and that is not _ of _ my _ making.  (Though I carried the can.)


Well, it was an experience in the world of reasoned and rational debate.  The best bit I thought was where they all jumped out and detonated themselves, when I said I had just learned that the Earth was oblate ( post #7541 and following few responses).  That was really quite funny.  What was not funny however was what it revealed - an astonishing inability to see through a leg-pull given that most of their 'degredation-posts' are themselves mostly leg-pulls (to the best of my reading), not really meant to apply personally.  One misguided jihadist I could understand, .. but several, .. and all pushing each other out of the way to detonate first.  (Holey Moley!!).  It was virtually an exact copy of the nig-nog furore - except I think the nig-nog response was so surely feigned, the oblate Earth one most certainly was not.  All of a sudden I understand the Koran jihadists's response to cartoons - and why I was banned..   Is Salman Rushdie still in hiding?  Are women in the west treated any better than in Pakistan?  (Going by some women's experiences this side of the dark, it's debateable.)

Judgement :-

(Kangaroo) :- "No madam, simply because he punched the wall, kicked the cat, .. broke all the plates and stuck a knife through the bread fixing it to the table whilst informing the neighbours at large of his great good fortune in having married you, does not mean he was being abusive towards you in any way. He was merely expressing a robust domestic view, just as you were exemplifying domestic bliss by sipping your wine and reading your book whilst he did so. To this court's way of thinking both of you are the epitome of domestic harmony.  I am of the opinion that you are being abusive of your spouse by expecting to lodge a complaint.  I therefore issue you with a blue card and suggest you return home and put the dinner on so you do not, if you so object, have to witness a repeat of what we can only regard (as indeed your husband declared to the neighbours), as a somewhat excited affirmation of your virtuous qualities.  But in no way threatening to your person as you suggest.  No true Scotsman would ever contemplate abuse.."

"Award" :-   (I must say, I was really struck by the "being awarded" my fourth red card.)

"Now, .. Do the right thing and stand still please, while I award you this bullet as a reward for your contribution to making this forum a better place by your absence."

The really strange thing (about the oblate Earth) was the way it went right over their heads.  If a leg-pull like that is too subtle, what chance for them seeing the flaws in Plate Tectonics?  Would they have the wit to question it?  Or see the questions if put to them?   And if, as I think, most of the 'abusive banter' is not really meant to be abusive, but simply obstructive and disruptive (to which I was to an extent mirrorring), then all things considered it seems highly possible that *THAT* was the charge of being disruptive - not just for joshing them out of their literalist comfort zone, but in being too close to the bone in mirroring their reflection back to them.  (Or was what was revealed in the mirror for real?)  (Oh, Gee..) (Australia's future, .. hairdressers and make-up artists, late-stirrers and sunny-sellers.)

Some swamp that rational place.

(Think I'll go down the sea-side for a paddle and contemplate where all that sand and water came from, and why the Earth isn't just a big beach.)


[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :-
http://www.platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com/ ]

Banned ("The day the Music died")

( Holding page for what was revealed.)


Hmm, ... Looks like the Black Spot's turned up today.  This doesn't look good.  The Thwoth is an apologist for rough language.   It will be interesting to see what he makes of this in the context of the few following posts addressing 'rough language'.

[Addendum, 14th January, 10am.  I see the Thwoth has changed his avatar today.]

MOD. THWOTH YESTERDAY
(click the images for bigger ones)

MOD THWOTH TODAY

Make of it what you like, .. but I think he's trying to put a different complexion on things. ( Oi moight be wrong, but T'aats what oi t'ink.  An' Oim nat two broight.)