Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670194
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Show key headers only | View raw
Am Donnerstag000019, 19.03.2026 um 13:18 schrieb Bill Sloman: ... >>>>>> E.g. I'm a proponent of 'Growing Earth' and 'abiogenic oil' and >>>>>> have spent a lot of time on these topics. >>>>>> >>>>>> And I'm pretty certain, that Earth does in fact grow and also know >>>>>> why. >>>>> >>>>> And I'm pretty certain that you are deceiving yourself. >>>>> >>>>>> But you can't even talk about these topics, because that would >>>>>> cause very harsh reactions. >>>>> >>>>> The continental drift theory took a long time to get accepted. You >>>>> do seem to be unaware of it. >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener >>>> >>>> No, because I knew who Wegener was and how his theory worked. >>>> >>>> But I'm a proponent of the German geologist Ott-Christoph >>>> Hilgenberg, who invented 'Growing Earth' as addition to Wegner's >>>> continental drift theory. >>>> >>>> Both theories are quite similar, but have one main difference: >>>> >>>> plate tectonics(PT) assumes a constant size of the Earth and growing >>>> Earth (called GE here) assumes growth. >>>> >>>> So, PT needs something balancing the obvious spreading. PT calls >>>> this 'subduction'. >>>> >>>> But 'subduction is blatant nonsense for an large number of reasons. >>> >>> It happens at oceanic trenches, and is well documented. >> Subduction is a hypothesis. > > But a pretty well tested one. >> >> But it also blatant nonsense. It is actually the lie that plate >> tectonics depends on, hence cannot be questioned at all. >> >> But it is nonsense, however. >> >> Subduction would assume thing, which violate simple logic. >> >> For instance plate tectonics is based on the assumption, that Earth >> would NOT grow. That's why the obvious spreading needs something to >> balance that spreading and that is the alleged subduction. > > A growing earth violates the principle of the conservation of mass/ > energy. That doesn't make it inconcieveable, but it means that you need > very convincing evidence to support the idea, and that doesn't seem to > exist. Well, it would violate a certain priciple which is commonly called 'materialism'. This 'great materialistic metaparadigm' is encoded into what is called 'standard modell of QM' and belongs to the also fraudulent 'big-bang theory'. Now you seemingly want to forbid, what planet Earth actually does, because it would violate fraudulent laws??? TH ...
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-13 09:46 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 02:24 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 09:55 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 02:02 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-15 10:08 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 20:52 +1100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 20:50 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-19 10:38 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 23:18 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-20 10:36 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 00:06 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-21 10:06 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 07:31 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 09:35 -0700
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 10:17 -0700
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 11:13 -0700
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 14:15 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-22 09:37 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 20:37 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-22 11:34 +0100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-22 07:45 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 02:18 +1100
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-22 19:13 +0100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-22 11:44 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 04:32 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 11:22 -0700
Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-21 22:32 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 04:27 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 10:44 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 15:54 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-23 10:15 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-24 22:45 +1100
Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-26 13:58 +0100
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-27 01:50 +1100
Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-26 08:08 -0700
Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-27 17:16 +1100
Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-19 06:16 -0700
csiph-web