The Nonsensical "Growing Earth" "Theory"

What is meant by "Growing Earth" ? (volume, mass or surface)
Reformulate the question: What can be considered constant, assuming that the earth is a closed system?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trippy . . . THANKS!

wlminex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who are you people?
It's just a rhetorical question.

 

Trippy . . . .thanks for . . . your apt response to florian . . . who was responding to my previous post . . . but be careful using those elypsis thingies (. . . ) - AlexG doesn't understand them!

Regards,

wlminex

 

I don't want to generalize, so let's say that it is "more likely" that a research scientist is more qualified than a forumer to discriminate between science and pseudosciences, even if the forumer has scientific degrees (scientific degree is not synonymous to research experience).

But they can also be stuck "inside the box" and pinned to only preconceived notions.

 

hmmm, I strike a chord...

 

You could get some info in post #51.

 

I stop you right there. This assumption is refuted by observations except if you believe in "magical matter creation ex nihilo".

 

Sorry, there is a misunderstanding. I am not asking you for reference to a post listing papers in which I "could get some info" about the Expanding Earth theory.

Which observations support the Expanding Earth theory? You can quote yourself or somebody else.

Please notice that I am giving you the opportunity to dismiss the common belief that Expanding Earth theory is not supported and not correct.

 

All: I refer you to the following link:

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/columnists/jayant-v-narlikar/frontiers-free-inquiry#comment-32200

wlminex

 

?? Many observations supporting the expanding earth theory are described in these papers, in a more accurate manner than could be done on a webforum. So why don't you just read them?

 

What's your point?

 

Florian, Post #'s 68 and 77:

Re your comment: "But they can also be stuck "inside the box" and pinned to only preconceived notions."

I have observed this exact-same attitude in many so-called scientific researchers who mentally-insulate themselves from new ideas. Re-read Nalikar's comments.

Thanks for your hearty comments/discussions.

wlminex

 

Again. I don't like to generalize, but there are too many wannabe "guardian of the temple of science" (a non sense) an their followers in these fora, that are ready to shoot down whatever theory, which seems absurd at the first sight, without even considering one single second, that may be, this one theory is correct. I can't stand this behavior, especially when these guys abuse of rhetoric, dishonesty, fallacies, arrogance...

For example, let me know what you think about this behavior: post #81

He promised apologies. I'm still waiting... his excuse being that he needs time to check "the calculation", which is a simple multiplication...
These guys do not realize that they hurt more than help to promote science.

 

Florian, Post 79:

. . . pretty much in agreement with Nalkar's comments, I think . . . . few persons (scientists OR non-scientists!) want to 'give-up' their notions (preconceived, or not) . . .they probably 'feel' that they have spent too much time and mental energy(?) concluding their ideas to have to admit that they (the ideas) are erroneous. . . . what a "whammy" to the psyche and ego! h-m-m-m-m . . seems the same for all the religious arguments made on the fora.

(tee hee, here --->) I, for one, think that MY ideas provide the CORRECT conclusions from my mental twiddlings . . . and NO ONE can convince me otherwise! . . .
(h-m-m-m . . . . . . this sounds kind of like what you are talking about!)

wlminex