Comment on: “Expansion By Way Of Stretch-Marks”

Advertisements

32 Responses to “Comment on: “Expansion By Way Of Stretch-Marks””

  1. Lyam Says:

    Birdy birdy (sigh)

    You could at least not confuse between cause and effect when you advocate for a “theory”, it shows you don’t even understand what the authors are saying.

    Stretch marks are the effect of the expansion according to this theory not the cause!

    The cause, according to this theory, is that, by some process not yet explained, matter would have been created under the earth’s crust. The ensuing pressure ould have lead to the increase of the earth’s volume. (Like a balloon inflated under the pressure of air.)

  2. Steve Edney Says:

    Obviously there is no mechanism by which all things can grow proportionately you drooling irrational idiot.

    ….

    Clearly the theory implies matter creation deep within the earth. Prsumably at or near the centre. Maybe something to do with the electric currents associated with the magnetic fields since these are thought to be something to do with our iron/nickel centre.

    Well nice that you nail down the theory to some extent. Before then the earth was just getting bigger, and we had no idea how. We still have no idea how but at least we know its at the centre and has something to do with the magnetic fields.

    Its hard for us sane people to interpret the wanderings of your fevered Bird brain.

    So let me get this right the earth magnetic field creates matter in the centre of the earth, how does this not run down the magnetic field in a short period of time? m = E/c^2 bird takes and enourmous amount of energy to make a small amount of matter.

    However the test of any theory is does it explan all observed phenomena and does it make any new falsifiable predictions? Does it?

    How does it explain subduction where plates are going under each other such as deep ocean trenches?

  3. DH Says:

    Don’t be silly Steve. It’s all so easily explained by the presence of giant glass tubes on Mars.

  4. Graeme Bird Says:

    I didn’t say anything different Lyam you dummy.

    Once we realise the big bang is crap we must come to the conclusion that energy is likely to convert to matter as readily as matter to energy. Its only natural that this would happen in the middle of planets.

  5. Graeme Bird Says:

    We see massive electrical currents running throughout the universe. Birkeland currents. The sun is not primarily driven by fusion. This idea is falsified by the heat of the corona and by the darkness when you look into the sun via the sunspots. The fusion is going on in the corona. But if neal adams’ idea is right then its likely going on in the suns core as well.

    The sun is primarily therefore powered from the outside. From outside the solar system. Now I would suspect that there is conversion from electricity to matter within the earth. But the precise mechanism is not up to me to suss out. And it is not important to proving this theory.

    The same size earth theory is falsified by the fossil record Which produces animals like the brontosaurus that could not credibly have evolved under our current gravity. So thats one doctrine that must be sent to the fires.

  6. Steve Edney Says:

    No bird you loony, fossils do not falsify the static earth model. They might falsify some understanding about dinosaur anatomy but not the earth being static.

    As for your solar model what the fuck are you on about???

    The sun is primarily therefore powered from the outside. From outside the solar system.

    There is not fusion (or at least much fusion) in the corona it happens in the core you moron. The corona is heated (most likely) by magnetic reconection. And yes it is hotter than the photosphere, but much cooler than the core.

    And powered from outside the solar system?

    Your guilibility for loony ideas is hilarious.

  7. Lyam Says:

    The title of your “article” is:
    “Expansion By Way Of Stretch-Marks.”

    The last sentence of second paragraph reads:
    “The undeniable conclusion is that our geology primarily alters by way of STRETCH-MARK.”

    The last sentence of forth paragraph reads:
    “But it could at least be theorised that subduction somewhere was balancing development via stretch-mark.”

    In all three cases, what you are saying is that stretch marks are the cause of the expansion.

    This is of course not the case. According to this theory the surface stretches and this leaves some marks in certain regions, hence the name stretch marks.

    So again you are confusing cause and effect!

  8. graemebird Says:

    No no. I’m not confusing anything. You are just being an idiot.

  9. graemebird Says:

    The existence of the brontosaurus is obviously falsifies the static-planet-thesis since its not plausible that such a beast could have evolved under our current gravity. Thats pretty much a wrap right there.

  10. Mark Hill Says:

    “The existence of the brontosaurus is obviously falsifies the static-planet-thesis since its not plausible that such a beast could have evolved under our current gravity. Thats pretty much a wrap right there.”

    What horseshit. Different climate, rainfall, atmosphere and vegetation as well as evolution account for that.

    Why are Blue Whales bigger than many land and sea animals that ever existed?

  11. Mark Hill Says:

    Are Gaia worshippers simply chubby chasers with poor taste in women in context of Graeme’s theory?

    Discuss this important issue.

  12. Mark Hill Says:

    Please explain also Giant Humboldt Squid, Colossal Squid, Sperm Whales, Giant Sequoias and Jarrah Gums.

    Does Liger gigantism between Lion-Tiger offspring violate Gaia’s predilections to chocolate over sex?

  13. graemebird Says:

    The Blue Whale is supported by water and so our heavier gravity doesn’t trouble him. But the brontosaurus could never have evolved with our current gravity. Nor could the evolution of flight have occurred.

  14. graemebird Says:

    The movement of continents implies new mass creation. And it could not happen otherwise. No force would be powerful enough for this to be happening. Nor would there be any way that this force got traction.

  15. Mark Hill Says:

    Gravity does not affect water?

    Now, the Brontosaurus was bigger than a Pleiosaur.

    Why were Pleiosaurs and Dunkleosteusi smaller than a Brontosaurus but Blue Whales are bigger?

    Science needs to know Graeme.

  16. Mark Hill Says:

    More *gold* from our rambling idiot, Graeme Bird:

    “THATS OBVIOUSLY BOTH WRONG AND IDIOTIC. THE FLAT EARTH MODEL WAS FALSIFIED, JUST FOR ONE EXAMPLE. DR BIRD ADVISES THAT YOU THINK OF SOME OTHER EXAMPLES AND THEN GIVE YOURSELF AN UPPERCUT.”

    Don’t even joke about calling yourself “Dr” Bird when you think that with your lack of education beyond high school, you have an ability to “strip” holders of doctorates like Steve Edney of their degree and title.

    You are just a self aggrandising fantasist.

  17. graemebird Says:

    Well you are getting a doctorate and I understand economics better than you every will.

    But that was not the reason for the reference. The reference to Doctor was the idea of PRESCRIBING MEDICINE for what ails this dummy.

  18. Mark Hill Says:

    May I suggest a total frontal lobotomy for you?

    “Well you are getting a doctorate and I understand economics better than you every will.”

    Um yeah sure Graeme. Maybe UNSW will give you a professorship when you show them that they were all fools for believing in “opportunity costs”!

  19. Mark Hill Says:

    Graeme,

    Please explain the giant fish smaller than a brontosaurus but both smaller than a blue whale conundrum.

    Science needs to know.

  20. Mark Hill Says:

    Why were the first horses much smaller than now in a lower gravity environment?

    Scinece needs to know Graeme.

  21. Graeme Bird Says:

    You idiot. Thats a brief moment in time and hardly relevant to what we are talking about here you dim bulb.

  22. Mark Hill Says:

    Explain it you idiot. Explain the fish-pleiosaur-whale-sequoia conundrum too.

  23. Graeme Bird Says:

    There is no conundrum. Its just you being a moron.

  24. Mark Hill Says:

    No conundrum?

    Well it is pretty shit theory then, isn’t it?

  25. Mark Hill Says:

    Clearly Graeme treats this as religion. No justifiaction, just believe. A weird sort of creationist, thinking massive dinosaurs “just happen”.

  26. Jason Soon Says:

    The sun is primarily therefore powered from the outside. From outside the solar system.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    How did we miss this one?

  27. jc Says:

    Yea Jase… Birdie thinks it works like a big giant electric radiator. It’s plugged in with a huge long cord to some much bigger sun billions of miles away.

    It’s not earthed though… no pun intended of course.

    Hey Birdie, I think the plugged radiator sun theory has a lot of merit.

  28. jc Says:

    z

    Start another thread..

    Do you agree or disagree that the sun is powered from outside the galaxy…. like a giant electric radiator?

  29. Mark Hill Says:

    You may find this useful Bird in clarifying your ideas:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

  30. Steve Edney Says:

    Theorising Bird style.

    I suspect this 11000 cubic kilometres of new mass creation that zep has discovered will be mostly hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. That way we will wind up with a lot of water and methane being produced. And by the time the methane makes it up to us it will be glorious oil and other hydrocarbons.

    We might expect at least a 1000 cubic kilometres of oil each year. Marvellous. Because Australia needs to re-industrialise. “Heavy Metal Don’t Mean Rock And Roll To Me.”

    What would be good is hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, boron, thorium and uranium. And the uranium and thorium particularly created atop giant bubbles of oxygen so as to expedite the delivery of these vital items right up to some faultline or other just offshore. Just offshore of all the nuclear reactors shining like bright beacons of science and reason all around the coast of Australia. With their aesthetically pleasing water vapours rising majestically into the sky from their cooling towers.

    Hopefully we can then have tourists throwing money into the water so that enterprising native children can dive down for the money and while they are there bring up large nuggets of uranium and to be fed straight into the nuclear reactors, and take a breath of pure oxygen while they are down there.

    In this one vision we see the solution to all known social problems in the world today.

    Ah happy children breathing pure oxygen and diving for nuggets of uranium.

  31. Mark Hill Says:

    Dude, lay off the cough syrup.

  32. DH Says:

    Meanwhile, a money-quote from the feathered one on his relentless quest to explain the expaning earth-muffin:

    “Having thought about it an earlier contention of mine that the new mass could be coming primarily from some unknown energy source is really untenable. ”

    Shorter Bird: ‘I concede that there is no such thing as Oogaboogium. I have once again made an absolute git of myself’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: