Ocean Floor Bathymetry and Plate Cooling during CPT

Ocean Floor Bathymetry and Plate Cooling during CPT

The very title of this thread and your paper is religious in nature. CPT was proposed by religious scientists in the 19th century. Yours is the first paper I have ever read with religious doctrine littered throughout.

Science and religion do not mix. I’m sure you feel the same way about atheists. You would have to search for some time in my country to find a scientist who would not laugh out loud at your paper.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

--Your changing tactics I see...

"The very title of this thread and your paper is religious in nature."
--Then why is every assertion in my paper carry potential falsification?

"CPT was proposed by religious scientists in the 19th century."
--lol, was it really? I wish it was, our theory would have 200 more years of innovation attached to it!

"Yours is the first paper I have ever read with religious doctrine littered throughout."
--lol, really? hm.. I think that your making yourself look more and more like you either cannot understand my paper, or havent read it.

"Science and religion do not mix."
--Science, and potential falsification for historical documentation, does.

"You would have to search for some time in my country to find a scientist who would not laugh out loud at your paper.
--How would you know? You aren't exactly a scientist and don't seem to know the implications of the content, let alone how to distinguish geophysical veracity in my paper.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"The centre of gravity of the Earth-Moon system is not located at the centre of the Earth, but is displaced towards the Moon. The centre of gravity of the Earth by itself is in the centre of the Earth."
--Right, though Blindman wasn't talking about the center of gravity of the earth-moon system, just the earth.

"Why is the core of the Earth located at the centre of the Earth? Because that's the point at which the centrifugal force due to the core's rotation around the centre of mass balances the gravitational pull from the Moon."
--Good answer.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

James R.
Quote from the paper explaining a probable cause of the accelerated decay..

TrueCreation

Quote from me earlier in this thread.

I think I was.

 

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

Are you not the man who thinks the center of the earth is full of gas.

 

--This wasn't something I was going to discuss directly. Others are working on the nuclear physics of that question--I have suggested that if accelerated decay can be shown a viable phenomena of the past it can be used as a likely trigger for the runaway process. But I have, as Blindman has pointed out, suggested that if it could be shown that it has happened it may not have been of natural causes. The runaway subduction process and even the initiation does not absolutely require accelerated decay.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

--Then you did not succed in being accurate with your terminology. When you first brought it up you stated:

"How do you account for the fact that <i>center of gravity <b>of the earth</b></i> moves over time.
True the center of gravity is close to the surface but most of the time it is not, half the time it is greater then the radius of the earth. Magma moves slowly. Earth moon interaction will have minimal effect. Earth sun even less…"
--The sun and the moon have absolutely no effect on the center of gravity for the earth alone, you did not express yourself rightly by not saying the center of gravity of the earth-moon <i>system</i>--forgive me for taking you literally..

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

--Of course there is a bias, everyone has a bias--its whether it is science they are doing or not. From my many somewhat recent discourses with D. John Baumgardner, I see him as much more a credible scientist as I once had--even as a YEC myself. His bias affects his work no more than S.J. Gould's bias affected his.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

--Anyways, while some of these comments have been helpful, I still have not seen any suggestive evidence that I am overstating the veracity of my paper.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

try to submit it then to a peer reviewed journal...haha...

 

--Where else would I send it..? And why would you make such a comment if you cannot point out a single inconsistency in my extensive elaboration in the paper?

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

I don't have to...it is badly written (which I did point out) and it is improperly referenced. That in itself would result in a outright rejection or a total rewrite request. If it is indeed a creationist attempt at science you will also ruin your future prospects at publishing in the particular journal. Nobody will take you seriously anymore.

religious doctrin can be very consistent (but not logical)

 

--Yes you do have to in order to back up any assertion that it isn't scientifically veracious..

--Whats so bad about the writting? I don't think that it is improperly referenced, but no matter--referencing format is an easy modification..

--You know, you make many assertions, but almost just as many are left as unsupported conjecture.

--I don't think it will..the journal I am looking into getting my paper published is <i>TJ</i> - Technical Journal and it is peer reviewed. This assertion also reveals your lack of understanding in how I understand and cooperate with the regular scientific methodology.

--Then why have multiple scientists already expressed praise for my ability to grasp these geophysical concepts and compile an impactive paper? Maybe its because <i>they</i> are scientists..

--You may have missed it but my paper isn't a paper on religious doctrin. Its on catastrophic geophysical dynamics.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

The paper is ok up to this bit:

I assume this decay you are refering to is radiometic decay? If so, why is it the best reason to explain the increase of daughtar isotopes with increasing depth? If something is older it will have more daughter isotopes and if something is older it will be at a greater depth. No need for an alternative explaination. Or have I missed something here?

Jon

 

TrueCreation..

A host of evidence that there was no accelerated decay..
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/white00/white00.html

I also like <b>Sea-Floor Depth and the Lake Wobegon Effect</b> as the best explanation of ocean depth anomalies from the half space cooling model..
http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/Texts/depthsci.html

 

--rofl. another link-and-run? Isotope Geochemistry is a recent interest of mine and I have read quite a bit on the subject. Please tell me why the heck you are referencing your link and how the contents are 'a host of evidence that there was no accelerated decay' because I don't see it.. Are you trying to take me for a rampage-poster creationist ignoramous or something--because your actions coming from this pre-conceived misunderstanding don't make you look very good..

--Good for you. So..when are you going to start reading up on the introductory material before you attempt to comprehend the more advanced? Anomalous topographic deflections from the norm don't have anything to do with what my paper is talking about and does not refute an an ioda of its content. If you have read my paper you will also note that it explains much of what your <i>Science</i> paper talks about. And nothing in there was talking about any 'Sea-Floor Depth and the Lake Wobegon Effect', I think you are merely trying to sound like you understand these issues.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

--Thank you for your comments Jon. I label this as the most plausible explanation because many factors. One being that the geochemical distribution of these isotopes couldn't have been produced merely by a global fractionation event of the relevant daughter isotopes. Thus it is a reasonable inference to say that the linear distribution of parent and daughter isotopes with depth in the geo-column is the cause of decay at whatever rate. I say this because it is unlikely that there can be any other explanation.

--Edit - To note, the next paragraph explains a little more on why I wanted to say what I said in the first paragraph of section 3.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

Still not answered my question there. In the paper you say:

In your last post, you say:

So which is it? Exponential increase of daughter isotope with depth or linear relation? Definitely cannot be both! The reason I asked this was the accelerated decay bit, i.e:

Accelerated decay? Radiometric decay is constant, so why the accelerated decay?

Jon