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.
 
--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
 
Truecreation:

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'll answer this question:

<i>I asked you to back up yours which stated that. "...the earth’s center of gravity is about 1000 miles below the surface facing the moon." I asked you in response to tell me why the core is located at the center of the earth and not 1000 miles below the surface if that is not the center of gravity.</i>

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.

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.
 
"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
 
Truecreation:

I haven't read your paper, so this might be a naive question. The abstract doesn't mention why radioactive decay might accelerate. What is your proposed mechanism for that?
 
James R.
Quote from the paper explaining a probable cause of the accelerated decay..
Most certainly there must be some sort of divine hand in at least the initiation(directly, or indirectly) for catastrophic plate motion--if the mere acceleration(and possibly, deceleration) of radioisotopic decay is that only intervention for the trigger of CPT, it is much more promising for that hypothesis to be scientifically acceptable.
Click to expand...

TrueCreation
Right, though Blindman wasn't talking about the center of gravity of the earth-moon system, just the earth.
Click to expand...
Quote from me earlier in this thread.
It is completely obvious that you live on a completely different planet then most of us. On my planet we look up and see the moon. We realized that earth and moon are connected by gravity.
Click to expand...

I think I was.
 
Originally posted by James R
Truecreation:

I haven't read your paper, so this might be a naive question. The abstract doesn't mention why radioactive decay might accelerate. What is your proposed mechanism for that?
Click to expand...
--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
 
I think I was.
Click to expand...
--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
 
Originally posted by Andre
Blindman, Never mind about Dwayne, he is back in his own alternative Earth dimension right now. The next cross over of dimensions is not due for a week or so. ;)

About the paper, with all due respect to Dr. John Baumgardner, it's hard not to assume a certain bias http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/j_baumgardner.asp
Click to expand...
--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
 
Originally posted by TrueCreation
--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.
Click to expand...

try to submit it then to a peer reviewed journal...haha...
 
try to submit it then to a peer reviewed journal...haha...
Click to expand...
--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
 
Originally posted by TrueCreation
--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
Click to expand...

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

it is badly written (which I did point out) and it is improperly referenced.
Click to expand...
--Whats so bad about the writting? I don't think that it is improperly referenced, but no matter--referencing format is an easy modification..

That in itself would result in a outright rejection or a total rewrite request.
Click to expand...
--You know, you make many assertions, but almost just as many are left as unsupported conjecture.

If it is indeed a creationist attempt at science you will also ruin your future prospects at publishing in the particular journal.
Click to expand...
--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.

Nobody will take you seriously anymore.
Click to expand...
--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..

religious doctrin can be very consistent (but not logical)
Click to expand...
--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:
Examination of the sedimentary record reveals that there certainly is a correlated exponential increase in stable daughter isotopes with increased depth. So if we assume the veracity of the geologic principle of superposition[a very reasonable assumption], we must then account for this observation. The most likely and plausible would have to be a period of accelerated decay during the flood and creation events.
Click to expand...

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
 
Originally posted by Blindman
TrueCreation..

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

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 [/B]
Click to expand...
--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
 
Originally posted by rdjon
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?
Click to expand...
--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
 
Last edited:
Still not answered my question there. In the paper you say:
Examination of the sedimentary record reveals that there certainly is a correlated exponential increase in stable daughter isotopes with increased depth.
Click to expand...

In your last post, you say:
Originally posted by TrueCreation
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.
Click to expand...

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:

The most likely and plausible would have to be a period of accelerated decay during the flood and creation events.
Click to expand...

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

Jon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top