Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Robert Schunk, Aug 15, 2011.
What's your PhD in?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
No, I did not came up with this. Geophysicists and geologists came up with this, and I wanted to know why they did, because I'm curious. So I check their claims, the observations on which they rely, and I found that their conclusion were mostly correct.
Being a research scientist, I think I'm qualified to recognize if the scientific methods is rigorously used, or if it is just pseudoscience bullshit. Right?
The conclusion from the observation is that earth and some other planets/moon grow in surface and thus in size, that this growth is from inside, and unlikely at constant mass. And that's all, no magic, just good old logic. I told you, you're way too much emotional.
This is what I'm doing, but evidently not here. Hopefully, you know that this does not happen on scientific forum, right?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is not a conjecture. If you believe it is one, then you don't know what is a conjecture. Read again my previous posts. And no, I' not a "believer" either.
I already said why I'm here. To debunk fallacies.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
An expert may be, but in what? Hopefully, as a research scientist, you are somewhat an expert in the application of the scientific method and in the discrimination between sciences and pseudosciences, right? Because, this is what I claim to be and nothing else.
Careful with our terminology. It is only a "hypothesis" until it has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt.
And yes, may shame and hemorrhoids befall the language-handicapped scientists who come up with layman-confusing terms like "string theory," for a whimsical arm-waving hypothesis that will be replaced by a trendy new one next decade.
How about more sense than to assume that a person could harbor enough aggregate delusions to support such an absurd conjecture, yet somehow conceal it from the faculty and snag a PhD? How did he manage to carefully avoid bringing any of this up in his thesis?
Probably because his PhD isn't in Geology, but that doesn't explain Maxlow >_>
Agreed. That is why I used the hash marks around the word theory. His conjecture hardly even rises to the level of hypothesis.
But they were clearly ultra fringe guys for goodness sakes. I read a piece by a real honest to god physicist that believes crop circles are made by plasma vortexes, as opposed to graffiti artist working with an organic medium!
They are called fringe for a reason; don't you think the experts in the field have a little better chance of evaluating their claims than you.:shrug:
I call it "mass evolves to space." It happens at every level of the universe. Objects get less dense over time, by means of expansion. Objects move AWAY from their core. It's why the Earth (and all the planets in our SOLAR SYSTEM) came from the sun. It's why all the mass around the black hole of a galaxy came from the black hole, and it continues to get FURTHER away from the core.
The second law of thermodynamics supports this hypothesis. If mass didn't evolve to space it would be perpetual motion, and that is impossible.
florian quote: "An expert may be, but in what? Hopefully, as a research scientist, you are somewhat an expert in the application of the scientific method and in the discrimination between sciences and pseudosciences, right? Because, this is what I claim to be and nothing else."
Your last sentence . . . . the important thing is what OTHERS "claim you to be" not what YOU claim to be. What YOU claim to be is only your "hypothesis" based on your observations of yourself . . . doesn't even rise to the level of "theory" yet.
Origin: Most new ideas, hypotheses, etc. come from from "fringe guys". Were not Einstein and other historical figures also fringe guys at one time?
Could you perhaps link to some of the articles you say that you've published, preferably in the field of geology. I happen to know quite a few geologists and none of them say what you've been saying. The physicists I know would be appalled by this thread to, something along the lines of "why the fuck are they abusing our findings this way!?!"
Ok, but are you ready to invest time into this? That would be surprising.
If yes, start there:
"Mantle plumes and dynamics of the Earth interior — towards a new model" S Cwojdziñski Geol Rev 52, p817 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/3vpafys)
"Earthquakes, phase changes, fold belts: from Apennines to a global perspective" G Scalera (2010) GeoActa, Special Publication 3, pp. 25-43. (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/3bv2e8c)
"Fossils, frogs, floating islands and expanding Earth in changing-radius cartography – A comment to a discussion on Journal of Biogeography" G Scalera (2007) Ann Geophys 50(6) p789 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/ycs8en6)
"Quantification of an Archaean to Recent Earth Expansion Process Using Global Geological and Geophysical Data Sets" J. Maxlow 2001 PhD thesis, Curtin University (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/kklg6y)
Conjecture in Wiki
Very far from an empirical theory...
I've seen worse than that. Luc Montagnier, the nobel prize 2008 in medicine, is lobbying to revive the infamous "water memory" just because he can't understand that filtering units are not perfect...
Of course they do. That is why I like discussing with them what they think about some concepts.
Not sure to understand what you mean. Don't you think that research scientists are the most qualified to understand what is science and what is not science. If not, then who is? forumers?
I would certainly not qualify Einstein as a fringe guy. He was more a guy at the right place at the right time.
What is your field of expertise? What's your PhD in?
Florian, Post #53:
Hey . . . Einstein was a Patent Office clerk (fringe job?) before/while developing his hypotheses that are now accepted theories. I'd bet that if he had computers and forums, he'd be right here in the mix. Also, some on this forum appear to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - I know AlexG . . . that includes us both!
It is a bit egotistical to profess (as most qualified) that one is a research scientist who understands science better than those who are not. Some forumers (your term) appear to be more qualified than some of us "research scientists". At least they can get "outside-the-box" and not be pinned to only preconceived notions - that's why their input is vital to these discussions.
Einstein had also received his degree in physics. He was working in the Patent office because he had made an enemy of his mathematics professor and couldn't get a job at the university. His job at the PO allowed him the time to work on Special Relativity.
The point is, he was a university graduate with a degree in physics, not a fringe crank.
. . . so am I (three university degrees) . . . so I guess, by your reckoning, I'm not the "fringe crank" you present me to be?
It's exactly this unscientific attitude which propelled this theory(plate tectonics) to it's current "untouchable" summit. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that you, and the experts before you, are depending on the previous conclusions of others to substantiate your own beliefs.
I changed my mind. I won't even bother commenting on the absurdity of these comments.
Ah yes, condemnation from a self-confessed liar.
You're hardly "qualified" to comment on what is "unscientific" or "absurd" and what isn't.
Which observations support or validate the Expanding Earth theory?
Separate names with a comma.