Guy notes that all river valleys are earthquake expansion faults and we as engineers build Dams and Bridges across rivers and wonder why they fail?

Bridges have fallen into the Mississippi River, a major earthquake fault. The largest earthquake shock in North America in 1811-1812 occurred at New Madrid, Missouri on the Mississippi. Scientists are still puzzled by the New Madrid earthquake occurring, as it did, in the middle of the Continent. Guy sees the Mississippi as the most obvious fracture point for a major earthquake shock i.e. in the middle of the continent. This continental fracture phenomenon is taking place on other continents.

All landmasses are fragmenting along lines that are, in some cases, known faults or fracture lines. It is not popularly accepted that river valleys are earthquake faults but all the evidence points in that direction. ...

Seismic creep is an element of earth expansion. Fault lines continue to expand insidiously and this is the reason that many dams and bridges fail mysteriously. All dams leak around the abutments because there is no way an engineer can combat or forecast this seismic creep anomaly. Many older bridges are, just now, being retrofitted against earthquake action. This precaution was never even considered when the bridges were first designed and erected, years ago.

Guy states that the earth has expanded to almost twice its original size. The expansion ratios can be viewed on his web site. Global warming is a fact Guy says. The earth is getting hotter but the heat is coming from the earth's interior. That heat is steadily increasing. As the internal heat increases the earth expansion rate increases. Earthquakes are the manifestation of that expansion. There are approximately 25 earthquakes every day all around the world. Over a period of the average year there are approximately 20000 earthquakes. The expansion probability is more graphic if we view the amount of earthquake activity worldwide. We also know that earthquakes express tensional release of built up crustal stress. As the earth expands it is natural that sea levels must fall. That is actually what is has been happening for millions of years Guy concludes.

Link (http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/2935)

Link (http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/2935)

He's a nut. I could easily poke several holes in his - and your - idea, but I'll only mention one: land never rises, it's just sea levels that fall, eh?

Then how do either of you nuts explain the marine fossils found on the tops on mountains in Tibet???? You can't, can you????:bugeye:

He's a nut.
That's the typical reaction and language of a religious fundamentalist whose faith has been profaned.

I could easily poke several holes in his - and your - idea, but I'll only mention one: land never rises, it's just sea levels that fall, eh?
His language is somewhat confusing here because land does in fact rise.

Then how do either of you nuts explain the marine fossils found on the tops on mountains in Tibet???? You can't, can you????:bugeye:
Lake fossils are not marine fossils.

That's the typical reaction and language of a religious fundamentalist whose faith has been profaned.

Oh, really? Even if that's true, it doesn't make either of you less of a nut.


His language is somewhat confusing here because land does in fact rise.

There's nothing confusing about it. He clearly stated that land does NOT rise, it's only the seas that fall. He's a nut and so are you.


Lake fossils are not marine fossils.

Biologists can easily tell the difference.

Biologists can easily tell the difference.
Obviously you're no biologist.

Obviously you're no biologist.

Ha!

Try this - how do you explain your beloved "lake fossils" appearing on mountain peaks over 14,500 feet tall?

But they're still marine fossils - ones that cannot survive in fresh water. All marines biologists can easily tell the difference.

Try this - how do you explain your beloved "lake fossils" appearing on mountain peaks over 14,500 feet tall?
You don't believe in mountain lakes anymore?

But they're still marine fossils - ones that cannot survive in fresh water. All marines biologists can easily tell the difference.
What marine fossils are you refering to?

You don't believe in mountain lakes anymore? Certainly - but is that the best you can do? I'm talking about mountains that stand WAY above any surrounding land.


What marine fossils are you refering to?

I've already told you. If you mean types, in the Himalayas, the team found fossils of marine plankton called radiolarians. They cannot survive in fresh water.

It is not popularly accepted that river valleys are earthquake faults but all the evidence points in that direction. ...



What evidence? Do you know that water always flows from a higher level to the lowest level...sometimes called sea level? :D

I've already told you. If you mean types, in the Himalayas, the team found fossils of marine plankton called radiolarians. They cannot survive in fresh water.
Link please. If true, it doesn't make any difference to theory because there were shallow seas on the supercontinent. Planktonic as opposed to benthonic means that they were in shallow seas.

What evidence?
Earthquakes, their secondary elastic effects such as spreading/faulting, and bridge collapses.

Do you know that water always flows from a higher level to the lowest level...sometimes called sea level? :D
Shock and awe...:D

This is the Engineering section. It requires more engineering details. If not I will move it to general science section for general statements. Thank you.

This is the Engineering section. It requires more engineering details. If not I will move it to general science section for general statements. Thank you.
I figured bridges would qualify as architeture and bridge collapses are an engineering problem that need to be explained in a scientific way, i.e. based upon observation and logic. So be it.

Another crank theory.

Another crank theory.
Why? Care to use logic or reason? Or is science a religion for you too?

For someone that cries and whines "you ad hom'd me" every odd post, you certainly don't mind doing it yourself on the even ones.

Why should anyone bother attempting to use logic, reason and critical thought with someone who's only purpose is probably to spam his pseudoscience blog?

By the way, you keep quoting this apparent nutbar and his book. Perhaps you could tell us how many peer-reviewed citations and primary sources he uses within it? I'm betting very, very few if any. Indeed, I predict a book written in a vernacular as though the "author" (inverted commas intentional) were speaking. He probably also uses run-on paragraphs repeating the same themes over and over.

Such are the characteristics of crackpots who "publish" their "books" through vanity presses. IAC sent me one that exhibited nearly all these and other characteristics, and not a single genuine citation to peer-reviewed work.

Are you familiar with a geologist named Samuel Warren Carey?

How many peer-reviewed citations does Guy use?

How many peer-reviewed citations does Guy use?
How would you know? You haven't read anything of his because you're prejudiced against him. I would be to if I was a fundamentalist.

I'm just asking. If I knew, why would I ask?

Again, since you have the book, how many peer-reviewed citations does Guy use?

Is there a bibliography full of them? Chapter-by-chapter end notes? What does Guy use to source his work?

I'm just asking. If I knew, why would I ask?

Again, since you have the book, how many peer-reviewed citations does Guy use?

Is there a bibliography full of them? Chapter-by-chapter end notes? What does Guy use to source his work?
If you were interested in learning and discovering things for yourself you would know. I haven't read the book yet but I plan on reading it because I'm not a prejudiced fundamentalist like you are.

If you would like to talk about expansion tectonics in general which clearly you don't then we can talk about Samuel Warren Carey's book The Expanding Earth which is probably one of the most sourced tectonics books in world history.

OIM, do you have a job? I honestly wonder how people like you survive in day to day society since you're obviously too insane to get any job which requires logical thought.

OIM, do you have a job? I honestly wonder how people like you survive in day to day society since you're obviously too insane to get any job which requires logical thought.
That's the most scientific argument for subduction, plate tectonics, and constant size earth I've ever seen in my life.

Here is the most rigorous and logical argument for pt I had seen prior: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDjWdGZB3No

Why? Care to use logic or reason? Or is science a religion for you too?

The idea that bridges fall down because the whole Earth is gradually expanding is so nonsensical that it doesn't require a serious rebuttal.

I prefer to just sit back and have a quiet chuckle about how silly some people are.

Don't you?

The idea that bridges fall down because the whole Earth is gradually expanding is so nonsensical that it doesn't require a serious rebuttal.

I prefer to just sit back and have a quiet chuckle about how silly some people are.

Don't you?
How scientific of you. If I was a religious fundamentalist I would be afraid to debate using observation and logic too.

That's the most scientific argument for subduction, plate tectonics, and constant size earth I've ever seen in my life.I am making no attempt here to defend those mainstream views, I've done so elsewhere. I am honestly wondering if you have a job. You can PM me the answer if you don't want people to know or it to taint the discussion, I just can't think of a way you could hold the many wacko views you have and function in a company whose employees are expected to be coherent.

Yes I have a job. Do you have a brain cell?

Yes I have a job. Do you have a brain cell?

Cutting edge come back.
OIM, you are the Master!!
/kowtows, bares buttocks.

http://www.engineeringcivil.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/tacoma-narrows-bridge-collapse.jpg

So far no one has offered an explanation.

Of the Tecoma Narrows bridge collapse?

Yes they have.

Of the Tecoma Narrows bridge collapse?

Yes they have.
So why do bridges and dams that aren't located near continental margins or plate boundaries fail?

So why do bridges and dams that aren't located near continental margins fail or plate boundaries fail?

Many different reasons. In the case of the Tecoma Narrows bridge, the collapse was caused by the wind and an unfortunately mechanical resonance situation that was set up.

Some bridges collapse due to poor construction or maintenance.

Some bridges collapse due to poor construction or maintenance.
And what of the ones that collapse for other reasons?

Which other ones did you have in mind?

And what of the ones that collapse for other reasons?

He just told you about why the Tacoma Narrows bridge and why it failed. There's an excellent film of the event that shows it blowing and waving like a ribbon in the wind - which is exactly what it was.

He just told you about why the Tacoma Narrows bridge and why it failed. There's an excellent film of the event that shows it blowing and waving like a ribbon in the wind - which is exactly what it was.
Can you read?

And what of the ones that collapsed for other reasons?

:crazy:

Can you read?

And what of the ones that collapsed for other reasons?

:crazy:

Sure I can - I was responding to this exchange:

"“ Originally Posted by James R
Some bridges collapse due to poor construction or maintenance. ”

And what of the ones that collapse for other reasons?"

Where you had ONLY quoted those two reasons.


Can YOU not read and carry on a full discussion? You are always limiting yourself to addressing a single point or two when quite often more have been raised than that. In fact, your normal - and VERY dishonest - mode is to selectively ignore things that you cannot address from your extremely limited knowledge base.

Can you read?

And what of the ones that collapsed for other reasons?

:crazy:

Can you read? I asked which examples, specifically, did you have in mind?

Furthermore, you're quick to complain about the "ad hominem" but more than willing to engage in such yourself. You don't get it both ways, bub. In case you didn't know it, the little "crazy" smiley above is an ad hominem remark symbol, so what you're saying is this is not going to be a whiny, pissy complaint from you going forward. Good.

And what of the ones that collapsed for other reasons?

Which ones are you thinking of, in particular?

I suggest you consult the engineers and others who investigate bridge collapses if you need to know the details of specific collapses.

I'm certainly not about to waste my time detailing the reasons behind potentially hundreds of bridge collapses just to please you.

Off the top of my head, some bridges are washed away in floods. Some collapse in storm events. Some collapse due to poor construction or maintenance, like I said before.

What more do you want?

Which other ones did you have in mind?
As of early 2008, the NTSB has not determined the likely cause of the collapse

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_Bridge)

Gov. Tim Pawlenty said inspections of the 40-year-old bridge in 2005 and 2006 found no structural defects

And also:

the study concluded, "fatigue cracking of the deck truss is not likely"

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/01/bridge.collapse/index.html)

See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nerQhIyOwxM

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_Bridge)



And also:



Link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/01/bridge.collapse/index.html)

See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nerQhIyOwxM

It's already been pointed out (several times!!) that you are a quote-mining dummy.

What about this, Mr. Know-nothing: how about the HUNDREDS of bridges that have stood for nearly a hundred years and haven't fallen due to your nutty idea?????:bugeye:

Yes. Quote-mining is a dishonest practice employed by crackpots and nuts throughout the internet when they are attempting to promote one crackpot idea or another. OIM, you really wouldn't want to be seen as being associated with such a deceptive practice since it makes you appear to be a crackpot and a nut yourself (which, I'm not saying your are, only that it might start looking that way.

You conveniently left off a portion of the quote in your last post. It should read:As of early 2008, the NTSB has not determined the likely cause of the collapse, but did identify a design error that may have contributed to the failure. The actual citation to that quote is the NTSB's public release titled, NTSB URGES BRIDGE OWNERS TO PERFORM LOAD CAPACITY CALCULATIONS BEFORE MODIFICATIONS; I-35W INVESTIGATION CONTINUES (http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2008/080115.html), which is the paper that is linked to the footnote provided in the Wikipedia link you gave.

Such a grave and fallacious error in one of your key arguments leaves one left to wonder which of two things is going on: is OIM that ignorant?; or is OIM attempting to deceive (a.k.a. lying)?

The first implies that you're harboring a preconceived notion or conclusion to which you seek supporting data and fail to recognize non-supportive data or even the flaws in data which you believe supports your conclusions and, thus, don't even see the additional data -as though your eye stopped reading and your mind ceased comprehension after the word "collapse" in your quote-mined example above. This options absolves you from malicious intent, but makes you out to be extremely ignorant or challenged in some mental capacity. If so, then I'm sincerely sorry for this condition and the strain it must put on you to read the posts of those that disagree with you.

The second implies that you have a preconceived notion or conclusion to which you actively suppress in addition to (probably) unconsciously suppressing data that is contradictory or non-supportive. Demonstrable flaws in your ideas, notions, opinions and the underlying conclusions are denied outright, ignored, or otherwise hoped to go away. And, even though you probably convince yourself that this denials and ignorances are justified, you're still lying -to yourself and to those who read your words.

OIM, you are fast becoming the laughing stock of SciForums if not the entire Internet. Can I include you by name in the book on pseudoscience and internet crackpottery that I'm writing?

SkinWalker:

Check out his blog. It's good material.

I did. I rate it three out of three pokes in the eye (that's how many pokes I'd rather have than to have to read it again).

I think he is even better than Happeh and his theory of angled heads and hair loss due to masturbation. He is certainly more versatile.

There's a huge gaping flaw in OIM's premise that bridges may collapse due to the expansion of the earth - so large that it even contradicts the conjecture of the expanding earth.

I'm surprised no-one else has spotted it (but not the least surprised that it passed OIM by)

Expanding earth conjecture states that the earth is expanding due to a net difference between the rate of seafloor spreading and subduction (if subduction even takes place at all).

This would therefore predict that the only bridges that would collapse due to the the expansion of the earth are the ones that span spreading centres - something that would also be consistent with plate tectonic theory.

So far we haven't gotten around to building a trans-pacific or trans-atlantic bridge yet - or across any other divergent plate boundary that I am aware of.

This has quite an interesting implication - this implies that OIM doesn't in fact support the "mainstream" fringe conjecture, but in fact supoports an altogether different fringe conjecture - she's way out on the fringe of the fringe if you like - that the earth is expanding uniformly in all places and in all directions simultaneously.

This now puts OIM in the position where she has little choice but to do one of the following:

1. Retract her support for pretty much all of the links she has so far posted in support of EEC - and begin again with the "expanding uniformly in all places" conjecture.

2. Admit that the entire premise of this thread is a crock of shit brought about by the fact that she doesn't even properly grasp the basics of her new pet obsession.

3. Blather inanely and avoid answering any questions or adressing the issue.

Mods seeing as we already know that she will choose option 3, how about we just demote this to the cesspool then close the thread - its embarassing to pseudoscience to have such piss-poor garbage associated with it

So far we haven't gotten around to building a trans-pacific or trans-atlantic bridge yet - or across any other divergent plate boundary that I am aware of.
Let me tell you a story although you'll no doubt ignore it since that's your agenda.

In 1857 when the first transatlantic cables were laid on the ocean seafloor, the cables kept snapping. The problem of the cables snapping was a perrenial problem for over one hundred years.

The "experts" decided that the cables were snapping due to undersea landslides and turbidity currents...LOL.

Of course all of that changed in 1957 with the decision to map the seafloor and the discovery of the mid-Atlantic ridge...:rolleyes:

Let me tell you a story although you'll no doubt ignore it since that's your agenda.

In 1857 when the first transatlantic cables were laid on the ocean seafloor, the cables kept snapping. The problem of the cables snapping was a perrenial problem for over one hundred years.

The "experts" decided that the cables were snapping due to undersea landslides and turbidity currents...LOL.

Of course all of that changed in 1957 with the decision to map the seafloor and the discovery of the mid-Atlantic ridge...:rolleyes:

I stand corrected - you have chosen option 2 - that's brave of you - I didn't think you hand the balls - sorry I mean ovaries

of course you have pretty much asked for the thread to be closed by doing that

Unless OIM can reply to post #46, I think it is reasonable to close this thread.

Unless OIM can reply to post #46, I think it is reasonable to close this thread.

It appears she has been banned - assuming it's not a permaban, should we wait for her ban to be lifted and give her a chance to rise to the challenge that has been set?
Or should we just go by her previous behaviour, assume that she will blather inanely in an attempt to divert attention away from how badly she has been caught out (again), and just close the thread right now?

Unless OIM can reply to post #46, I think it is reasonable to close this thread.
I did reply to it but you ignored it.

So for the record I'll reply in full.

There's a huge gaping flaw in OIM's premise that bridges may collapse due to the expansion of the earth - so large that it even contradicts the conjecture of the expanding earth.

I'm surprised no-one else has spotted it (but not the least surprised that it passed OIM by)

Expanding earth conjecture states that the earth is expanding due to a net difference between the rate of seafloor spreading and subduction (if subduction even takes place at all).

This would therefore predict that the only bridges that would collapse due to the the expansion of the earth are the ones that span spreading centres - something that would also be consistent with plate tectonic theory.

The entire Earth is expanding therefore all bridges will eventually collapse.

So far we haven't gotten around to building a trans-pacific or trans-atlantic bridge yet
I refer you to 100 years of snapped Transatlantic cables: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2069617&postcount=47

or across any other divergent plate boundary that I am aware of.
Allow me to educate you.

http://www.kennislink.nl/upload/208628_962_1215724790451--Bridge_across_continents_iceland_creative_commons. jpg

http://z.about.com/d/geology/1/0/B/7/parkfieldbridgeeast.jpg

Allow me to educate you.That is not possible. There is nothing of value that you are able to communicate. You have failed here utterly to address the issue that a) you have previously claimed that Earth expansion occured from spreading centres such as mid-ocean ridges b)if such is the case only bridges spanning such spreading centres should be subject to collapses.

You have also again introduced a stupid interpretation of broken submarine cables. You have completely ignored the timing differences of the breaks. These timing differences match the effects of a turbidity current moving downslope. They do not match any imaginary (and in essence, truly dumb) explanation involving Earth expansion.

A temporary ban from the forum was, in my view, inadequate. A permanent ban from the human race would be more appropriate.

The one positive emerging from your posts is that I have been able to generate much laughter amongst colleagues at your expense.

That is not possible. There is nothing of value that you are able to communicate. You have failed here utterly to address the issue that a) you have previously claimed that Earth expansion occured from spreading centres such as mid-ocean ridges b)if such is the case only bridges spanning such spreading centres should be subject to collapses.

You have also again introduced a stupid interpretation of broken submarine cables. You have completely ignored the timing differences of the breaks. These timing differences match the effects of a turbidity current moving downslope. They do not match any imaginary (and in essence, truly dumb) explanation involving Earth expansion.

A temporary ban from the forum was, in my view, inadequate. A permanent ban from the human race would be more appropriate.

The one positive emerging from your posts is that I have been able to generate much laughter amongst colleagues at your expense.
You are lying. He said he was not aware of any bridges across divergent plate boundaries. Now it's possible that he'll be aware of them although I'm somewhat pessimistic.

The entire Earth is expanding therefore all bridges will eventually collapse.Flawed logic. It would mean that given two points on the Earth's surface a specified distance part move away from one another at a rate which is independent of their position.

As you have said, transatlantic cables snap due to the increasing distance between Europe and the Americas, yet in the same space of time thousands of bridges made of concrete have not fractured or broken or collapsed. A valley in the middle of the US would not be experiencing any expansion due to the Earth growing (even if your nonsense was right), the expansion would be occuring where the crust actually cracks and breaks. If the Atlantic widens by 1~4cm a year, why are bridges built in 1200 or aquaducts built by the Romans still in one piece? Older cities in the UK are full of bridges which date back to 1600AD, 1200AD, 800AD, sometimes even further back. A century would result in a 1~4 metre grown in a river. Yet we don't see that.

You still haven't tired of being shown to be inconsistent with even your own claims! :rolleyes:

The entire Earth is expanding therefore all bridges will eventually collapse.


I refer you to 100 years of snapped Transatlantic cables: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2069617&postcount=47


Allow me to educate you.

http://www.kennislink.nl/upload/208628_962_1215724790451--Bridge_across_continents_iceland_creative_commons. jpg

http://z.about.com/d/geology/1/0/B/7/parkfieldbridgeeast.jpg


This is consistent with plate tectonic theory - and does not explain the failure of very old bridges to collapse - even by your own very low standards it's your silliest and most child-like argument to date

This is consistent with plate tectonic theory - and does not explain the failure of very old bridges to collapse - even by your own very low standards it's your silliest and most child-like argument to date
I teach you that there are bridges across divergent plate boundaries and that's the thanks I get?

bridges sometimes also fall because their structures matches natural resonance frequency of vibrations caused by air flow

I teach you that there are bridges across divergent plate boundaries and that's the thanks I get?

I refer you to my previous post


This would therefore predict that the only bridges that would collapse due to the the expansion of the earth are the ones that span spreading centres - something that would also be consistent with plate tectonic theory.


The fact that there are bridges crossing divergent plate boundaries is irrelevant to your conjecture for several reasons.

1. The fact that bridges spanning DPBs may eventually collapse due to their expansion is consistent with plate tectonic theory - and therefore provides zero evidence of an expanding earth.

2. Expanding earth conjecture predicts that ONLY these bridges would collapse due to expansion at MORs/DPBs - not all bridges as you claim.

Therefore your claims (unsupported and inconsistent with real-world evidence as they are) are not even consistent with your own conjecture - suggesting that not only do you not have the faintest clue as to what plate tectonic theory actually is or what it predicts, but neither do you even fully understand your own fringe conjecture.

Don't feel I'm being ungrateful though - you are always good for a belly laugh when you tie yourself in intellectual knots that an 8 year old boyscout could free himself from, and you are a wonderful example of how not to do science.

I say keep it up, there will shortly be one less moronic laughing stock in the public eye from the USA, so you can fill the gap nicely - you country needs you OIM.