Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #662925 > unrolled thread

age of the Earth

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-19 23:59 -0700
    Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-20 00:12 -0700
      Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-22 06:45 -0700
        Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-22 22:14 +0000
        Re: age of the Earth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-23 09:47 +0200
          Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-23 11:56 +0000
        Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-24 00:44 -0700
          Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-24 22:35 -0700
          Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-24 23:02 -0700
            Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-30 20:40 -0700
              Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-30 20:47 -0700
                Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-01 06:34 +0000
                  Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-05-02 08:58 -0700
                    Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-04 02:29 +0000
    Re: age of the Earth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-20 14:53 +0200
      Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-20 13:45 +0000
        Re: age of the Earth Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 13:53 -0500
          Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-21 00:43 +0000
        Re: age of the Earth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-20 22:10 +0200
          Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-20 23:06 +0000
            Re: age of the Earth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-21 11:43 +0200
              Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-21 10:27 +0000
                Re: age of the Earth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-21 13:06 +0200
                  Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-21 14:24 +0000
              Re: age of the Earth Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 12:50 -0500
                Re: age of the Earth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-22 11:03 +0200
                  Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-04-22 10:36 +0000
        Re: age of the Earth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-20 22:10 +0200
          Re: age of the Earth Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 20:44 -0500
            Re: age of the Earth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-21 11:43 +0200
              Re: age of the Earth Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 13:49 -0500
      Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-20 11:27 -0700
    Re: age of the Earth Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-21 12:35 +0200
      Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-01 06:36 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#662958

Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 20:10:53 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> > fBertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:53:58 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>
> >>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
> >>>> 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
> >>>> number)
> >>>>
> >>>> He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
> >>>> wrong...
> >>>> ...he knew
> >>>> eventually somebody would have
> >>>> figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
> >>>>
> >>>> So he, 'made up a number'!
> >>>>
> >>>> Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
> >>>> age of the earth to be
> >>>> 306,662,400 years old.
> >>>
> >>> You are quote-mining.
> >>>
> >>> In reality Darwin wrote:      (second edition)
> >>> ===
> >>> Hence,
> >>
> >> Huh?
> >>
> >> under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500
> >>> feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
> >>> length would be a sufficient allowance.
> >>
> >> 500*12*100 is 600000 years.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> At this rate, on the above data,
> >>> the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years;
> >>
> >> Whatever the Weald is, *hence* its height gotta be
> >
> > There you have it, talking again without understanding
> > of what it is all about.
> > You should have looked up 'The Weald' before shooting your mouth off.
> >
> >> 306662400/100 inches or 3066624 inches or 3066624/12 feet or 255552 feet
> >> or about 8 times the height of Mount Everest was the height of the
> >> Weald, whatever that may have been.
> >
> > FYI, 'The Weald' is the region between the 'North Downs'
> > and the 'South Downs'. (so near where Darwin lived)
> > The height of the original mountain that was eroded away
> > can be estimated from the distance betwen the North and South Downs,
> > which is 22 miles. (the Downs are the remains of the original slopes)
> >
> > And yes, doing the sum with 22 miles to erode gives you Darwin's
> > estimate of about 300 000 000 years.
> 
> 
> Erosion or height reduction is in the vertical plane. Not horizontal.
> 
> Erosion of 255552 feet in the vertical plane gives us in miles
> 255552/(3*1760) or 255552/5280 or a bit over 48 miles.
> 
> Not 22 miles which is beyond the limit of jet engines.
> 
> So according to Darwin and his followers there was a mountain in the
> Weald whose height was in near space.
> 
> Point is, what could erode that much height with no wind or water for
> that purpose.
> 
> Not that certain physicists need be bothered by such pesky issues.

You are both blundering idiots, with feet in mouth,
by pontificating on subjects you don't know the first things of.
Why for heavens sake?
Is it that important to you to belittle a genius?

For the possibly misled kiddies who might stray into here here:
Mountain building, and erosion, are continuing processes.
Mountain ranges are more or less in quasi-static equilibrium,
with the continuing uplift and the erosial breakdown
balancing, more or less.
A mountain range that is no longer uplifted disappears. 
(in some tens of millions of years)

So 'The Weald' never was a 22 mile high mountain.
That 22 miles is a reasonable estimate for the amount of material
that was removed from it by erosion, over geologic time.
(from identifying continuing layers on both sides)

So Darwin was completely right here:
erosion is of order of a few centimeters/century,
total hight of material removed by erosion
is of order tens of kilometers,
So typical ages of old mountain ranges
can be estimated to be in the hundreds of million of years old.

Jan




 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662960

On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 9:43:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 20:10:53 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> fBertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:53:58 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
>>>>>> 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
>>>>>> number)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
>>>>>> wrong...
>>>>>> ...he knew
>>>>>> eventually somebody would have
>>>>>> figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So he, 'made up a number'!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
>>>>>> age of the earth to be
>>>>>> 306,662,400 years old.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are quote-mining.
>>>>>
>>>>> In reality Darwin wrote:      (second edition)
>>>>> ===
>>>>> Hence,
>>>>
>>>> Huh?
>>>>
>>>> under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500
>>>>> feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
>>>>> length would be a sufficient allowance.
>>>>
>>>> 500*12*100 is 600000 years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At this rate, on the above data,
>>>>> the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years;
>>>>
>>>> Whatever the Weald is, *hence* its height gotta be
>>>
>>> There you have it, talking again without understanding
>>> of what it is all about.
>>> You should have looked up 'The Weald' before shooting your mouth off.
>>>
>>>> 306662400/100 inches or 3066624 inches or 3066624/12 feet or 255552 feet
>>>> or about 8 times the height of Mount Everest was the height of the
>>>> Weald, whatever that may have been.
>>>
>>> FYI, 'The Weald' is the region between the 'North Downs'
>>> and the 'South Downs'. (so near where Darwin lived)
>>> The height of the original mountain that was eroded away
>>> can be estimated from the distance betwen the North and South Downs,
>>> which is 22 miles. (the Downs are the remains of the original slopes)
>>>
>>> And yes, doing the sum with 22 miles to erode gives you Darwin's
>>> estimate of about 300 000 000 years.
>>
>>
>> Erosion or height reduction is in the vertical plane. Not horizontal.
>>
>> Erosion of 255552 feet in the vertical plane gives us in miles
>> 255552/(3*1760) or 255552/5280 or a bit over 48 miles.
>>
>> Not 22 miles which is beyond the limit of jet engines.
>>
>> So according to Darwin and his followers there was a mountain in the
>> Weald whose height was in near space.
>>
>> Point is, what could erode that much height with no wind or water for
>> that purpose.
>>
>> Not that certain physicists need be bothered by such pesky issues.
>
> You are both blundering idiots, with feet in mouth,
> by pontificating on subjects you don't know the first things of.

Nope, we celestial cyberdoggies are taking all the crap you have written
and quoted, at its face value, and showing what crap it is with use of
your own logic and simple arithmetic.

No pontifications here, from our side - just exposure of pompous
projecting pontifiers gratuitously making fools of themselves,
woof-woof.


> Why for heavens sake?

Exposing human stupidity is our canine responsibility.

> Is it that important to you to belittle a genius?

We never belittle the real genius, the greatest ever - divine Arindam!
True, to us all others are insipid in comparison.


> For the possibly misled kiddies who might stray into here here:
> Mountain building, and erosion, are continuing processes.
> Mountain ranges are more or less in quasi-static equilibrium,
> with the continuing uplift and the erosial breakdown
> balancing, more or less.
> A mountain range that is no longer uplifted disappears.
> (in some tens of millions of years)


So how did the 300000000 year figure reached by Darwin for the age of
the Earth have anything to do with the behaviour of mountain ranges!

As Star has pointed out, genius of a certain kind pulls out figures from
certain dark places to suit their theories.

That sort of genius gets little respect from the seekers of scientific
excellence.


>
> So 'The Weald' never was a 22 mile high mountain.


It had to be 48 miles, not 22 miles, just that for the age of the Earth
to be 300000000 plus years as Darwin said with erosion happening at the
rate of 1 inch per 100 years. That is, God created at BigBangTime a 48
miles high mountain that eroded 1 inch every 100 years to create the
Weald

> That 22 miles is a reasonable estimate for the amount of material
> that was removed from it by erosion, over geologic time.
> (from identifying continuing layers on both sides)


Wonder why this pighead insists on 22 miles when arithmetic using his
own figures says 48 miles. But then, physicists being so can bullshit as
they please. They are licensed for that.
>
> So Darwin was completely right here:
> erosion is of order of a few centimeters/century,
> total hight of material removed by erosion
> is of order tens of kilometers,
> So typical ages of old mountain ranges
> can be estimated to be in the hundreds of million of years old.

Absolute nonsense. Who knows how high what was hundreds of millions of
years ago. But as the God/Clown/Baby so unscientifically said,
Imagination is superior to knowledge. So, physicists, bullshit your way
through life, corrupt everything. Whatever you say from your imagination
is reality for the rest who are all fools, too easy.

Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor
>
> Jan

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662963

Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 9:43:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[crap]
> > For the possibly misled kiddies who might stray into here here:
> > Mountain building, and erosion, are continuing processes.
> > Mountain ranges are more or less in quasi-static equilibrium,
> > with the continuing uplift and the erosial breakdown
> > balancing, more or less.
> > A mountain range that is no longer uplifted disappears.
> > (in some tens of millions of years)
> 
> 
> So how did the 300000000 year figure reached by Darwin for the age of
> the Earth have anything to do with the behaviour of mountain ranges!

See above, and ref. cited.

> As Star has pointed out, genius of a certain kind pulls out figures from
> certain dark places to suit their theories.
> 
> That sort of genius gets little respect from the seekers of scientific
> excellence.

Excellent scientists know how to make order of magnitude estimates,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662965

On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:06:35 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 9:43:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> [crap]
>>> For the possibly misled kiddies who might stray into here here:
>>> Mountain building, and erosion, are continuing processes.
>>> Mountain ranges are more or less in quasi-static equilibrium,
>>> with the continuing uplift and the erosial breakdown
>>> balancing, more or less.
>>> A mountain range that is no longer uplifted disappears.
>>> (in some tens of millions of years)
>>
>>
>> So how did the 300000000 year figure reached by Darwin for the age of
>> the Earth have anything to do with the behaviour of mountain ranges!
>
> See above, and ref. cited.

Heh.
>
>> As Star has pointed out, genius of a certain kind pulls out figures from
>> certain dark places to suit their theories.
>>
>> That sort of genius gets little respect from the seekers of scientific
>> excellence.
>
> Excellent scientists know how to make order of magnitude estimates,

There are no scientists around, only careerists with imagination and
political savvy.

Woof-woof woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor
>
> Jan

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662968

On 4/21/25 4:43 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 20:10:53 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> fBertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:53:58 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
>>>>>> 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
>>>>>> number)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
>>>>>> wrong...
>>>>>> ...he knew
>>>>>> eventually somebody would have
>>>>>> figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So he, 'made up a number'!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
>>>>>> age of the earth to be
>>>>>> 306,662,400 years old.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are quote-mining.
>>>>>
>>>>> In reality Darwin wrote:      (second edition)
>>>>> ===
>>>>> Hence,
>>>>
>>>> Huh?
>>>>
>>>> under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500
>>>>> feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
>>>>> length would be a sufficient allowance.
>>>>
>>>> 500*12*100 is 600000 years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At this rate, on the above data,
>>>>> the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years;
>>>>
>>>> Whatever the Weald is, *hence* its height gotta be
>>>
>>> There you have it, talking again without understanding
>>> of what it is all about.
>>> You should have looked up 'The Weald' before shooting your mouth off.
>>>
>>>> 306662400/100 inches or 3066624 inches or 3066624/12 feet or 255552 feet
>>>> or about 8 times the height of Mount Everest was the height of the
>>>> Weald, whatever that may have been.
>>>
>>> FYI, 'The Weald' is the region between the 'North Downs'
>>> and the 'South Downs'. (so near where Darwin lived)
>>> The height of the original mountain that was eroded away
>>> can be estimated from the distance betwen the North and South Downs,
>>> which is 22 miles. (the Downs are the remains of the original slopes)
>>>
>>> And yes, doing the sum with 22 miles to erode gives you Darwin's
>>> estimate of about 300 000 000 years.
>>
>>
>> Erosion or height reduction is in the vertical plane. Not horizontal.
>>
>> Erosion of 255552 feet in the vertical plane gives us in miles
>> 255552/(3*1760) or 255552/5280 or a bit over 48 miles.
>>
>> Not 22 miles which is beyond the limit of jet engines.
>>
>> So according to Darwin and his followers there was a mountain in the
>> Weald whose height was in near space.
>>
>> Point is, what could erode that much height with no wind or water for
>> that purpose.
>>
>> Not that certain physicists need be bothered by such pesky issues.
> 
> You are both blundering idiots, with feet in mouth,
> by pontificating on subjects you don't know the first things of.
> Why for heavens sake?
> Is it that important to you to belittle a genius?
> 
> For the possibly misled kiddies who might stray into here here:
> Mountain building, and erosion, are continuing processes.
> Mountain ranges are more or less in quasi-static equilibrium,
> with the continuing uplift and the erosial breakdown
> balancing, more or less.
> A mountain range that is no longer uplifted disappears.
> (in some tens of millions of years)
> 
> So 'The Weald' never was a 22 mile high mountain.
> That 22 miles is a reasonable estimate for the amount of material
> that was removed from it by erosion, over geologic time.
> (from identifying continuing layers on both sides)
> 
> So Darwin was completely right here:
> erosion is of order of a few centimeters/century,
> total hight of material removed by erosion
> is of order tens of kilometers,
> So typical ages of old mountain ranges
> can be estimated to be in the hundreds of million of years old.
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   


I think Darwin meant one inch of horizontal _recession_ rather than 
vertically downward erosion, for both the cliff and the Weald. And the 
funny thing about this whole thread is that probably even him, but 
certainly nor Hendry (author of that funky book you pointed at), and 
certainly nor you clarified it. So I'm left with only guesses on how 
careless some cro-magnons are, possibly including Darwin.

I have not personally read Darwin's account of the calculation, so 
cannot be sure he was careless in his description. But .. you guys 
before trying to explain something should take care you do it right. 
This is not a "linux" or "Limbaugh" forum.

Why? Because throughout decades you've reduced yourselves to subjects of 
Physfit's dick rather than Physfit himself. You lose something to my 
dick every time you talk careless nonsense.

And nobody "belittles" Darwin, Ms. careless woman. We don't belittle 
cro-magnons. Do I belittle cats? Of course not.

We _wonder_!

We wonder how rigidly cro-magnons' limits are, as close as they are to 
Modern Human. It is sometimes funny, sometimes make us feel sorry for 
them, and sometimes indicates how they will lose it all in the long term 
and vanish.

Remember that Modern Human never belittled Neanderthals. They fucked 
them and lived with them and made children with them. You cro-magnons 
are the proof of that.

I marreid a 100% cro-magnon woman!.. I wouldn't marry someone whom I 
could "belittle".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662985

Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/21/25 4:43 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 20:10:53 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>
> >>> fBertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:53:58 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be
> >>>>>> about 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came
> >>>>>> up with that number)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
> >>>>>> wrong...
> >>>>>> ...he knew
> >>>>>> eventually somebody would have
> >>>>>> figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So he, 'made up a number'!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
> >>>>>> age of the earth to be
> >>>>>> 306,662,400 years old.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are quote-mining.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In reality Darwin wrote:      (second edition)
> >>>>> ===
> >>>>> Hence,
> >>>>
> >>>> Huh?
> >>>>
> >>>> under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500
> >>>>> feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
> >>>>> length would be a sufficient allowance.
> >>>>
> >>>> 500*12*100 is 600000 years.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> At this rate, on the above data,
> >>>>> the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years;
> >>>>
> >>>> Whatever the Weald is, *hence* its height gotta be
> >>>
> >>> There you have it, talking again without understanding
> >>> of what it is all about.
> >>> You should have looked up 'The Weald' before shooting your mouth off.
> >>>
> >>>> 306662400/100 inches or 3066624 inches or 3066624/12 feet or 255552 feet
> >>>> or about 8 times the height of Mount Everest was the height of the
> >>>> Weald, whatever that may have been.
> >>>
> >>> FYI, 'The Weald' is the region between the 'North Downs'
> >>> and the 'South Downs'. (so near where Darwin lived)
> >>> The height of the original mountain that was eroded away
> >>> can be estimated from the distance betwen the North and South Downs,
> >>> which is 22 miles. (the Downs are the remains of the original slopes)
> >>>
> >>> And yes, doing the sum with 22 miles to erode gives you Darwin's
> >>> estimate of about 300 000 000 years.
> >>
> >>
> >> Erosion or height reduction is in the vertical plane. Not horizontal.
> >>
> >> Erosion of 255552 feet in the vertical plane gives us in miles
> >> 255552/(3*1760) or 255552/5280 or a bit over 48 miles.
> >>
> >> Not 22 miles which is beyond the limit of jet engines.
> >>
> >> So according to Darwin and his followers there was a mountain in the
> >> Weald whose height was in near space.
> >>
> >> Point is, what could erode that much height with no wind or water for
> >> that purpose.
> >>
> >> Not that certain physicists need be bothered by such pesky issues.
> > 
> > You are both blundering idiots, with feet in mouth,
> > by pontificating on subjects you don't know the first things of.
> > Why for heavens sake?
> > Is it that important to you to belittle a genius?
> > 
> > For the possibly misled kiddies who might stray into here here:
> > Mountain building, and erosion, are continuing processes.
> > Mountain ranges are more or less in quasi-static equilibrium,
> > with the continuing uplift and the erosial breakdown
> > balancing, more or less.
> > A mountain range that is no longer uplifted disappears.
> > (in some tens of millions of years)
> > 
> > So 'The Weald' never was a 22 mile high mountain.
> > That 22 miles is a reasonable estimate for the amount of material
> > that was removed from it by erosion, over geologic time.
> > (from identifying continuing layers on both sides)
> > 
> > So Darwin was completely right here:
> > erosion is of order of a few centimeters/century,
> > total hight of material removed by erosion
> > is of order tens of kilometers,
> > So typical ages of old mountain ranges
> > can be estimated to be in the hundreds of million of years old.
> > 
> > Jan
> 
> I think Darwin meant one inch of horizontal _recession_ rather than 
> vertically downward erosion, for both the cliff and the Weald. And the
> funny thing about this whole thread is that probably even him, but 
> certainly nor Hendry (author of that funky book you pointed at), and 
> certainly nor you clarified it. So I'm left with only guesses on how 
> careless some cro-magnons are, possibly including Darwin.

Horizontal or vertical doesn't matter.
No matter how, the matter covering The Weald
(tens of kilometers in both width and height)
has been removed over geological time by erosion.
That involves both horizontal and vertical transport.

An order of magnitude estimate for the time that must take
yields a time scale in the hundreds of million years,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662986

Horizontal, vertical... what the eff do they matter to the physicist.
All the same, with the chant of relativity. Just throw some numbers here
and there, and the paying fools will be duly impressed.

woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662941

Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:53:58 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
> >> 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
> >> number)
> >>
> >> He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
> >> wrong...
> >> ...he knew
> >> eventually somebody would have
> >> figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
> >>
> >> So he, 'made up a number'!
> >>
> >> Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
> >> age of the earth to be
> >> 306,662,400 years old.
> >
> > You are quote-mining.
> >
> > In reality Darwin wrote:      (second edition)
> > ===
> > Hence,
> 
> Huh?
> 
> under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500
> > feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
> > length would be a sufficient allowance.
> 
> 500*12*100 is 600000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> At this rate, on the above data,
> > the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years;
> 
> Whatever the Weald is, *hence* its height gotta be
> 
> 306662400/100 inches or 3066624 inches or 3066624/12 feet or 255552 feet
> or about 8 times the height of Mount Everest was the height of the
> Weald, whatever that may have been.
> 
> Somebody smelling a really stinking rat or is our canine arithmetic
> woefully wrong somewhere?
> 
> Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the



https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789813279704_0003?srsltid=AfmBOopDY5Kh9ESywVgevIYfqNmVk7qX-GXXekI9wk4A1LqqojeK7sPv

> 
> 
> 
> 
>  or say
> > three hundred million years. But perhaps it would be safer to allow two
> > or three inches per century, and this would reduce the number of years
> > to one hundred and fifty or one hundred million years.
> > ====
> >
> > It is obvious from the above passage that this is a made up example,
> > for the purpose of arriving at an order of magnitude estimate.
> > Darwin was right of of course. Hundreds of millions of years
> > is a correct estimate for the time scale of geology and evolution.
> > It was not possible to do better, at the time.
> >
> > Jan
> 
> --

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662950

On 4/20/25 3:10 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789813279704_0003?srsltid=AfmBOopDY5Kh9ESywVgevIYfqNmVk7qX-GXXekI9wk4A1LqqojeK7sPv
> 



Not a good treatment and delivery of Darwin's calculation, although the 
author is a physicist. He must be either very old or perhaps a 
post-stroke patient.

Result: the blind helping the blind.

Almost all 13 pages are non-related material, then when he gets to at 
last describe the calculation it is as if each word is costing him a 
million dollars. So as a "Scottish", he just prunes the subject matter 
to death and throws the remaining words to the reader.

Nice choice, "Jan"!

Could it be you're trying to incite Arindam to help you "beseech your 
Gods and Goddesses?" .. I imagine it does have that effect on him.

Waste of my dick's time :(

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662957

Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/20/25 3:10 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789813279704_0003?srsltid=A
fmBOopDY5Kh9ESywVgevIYfqNmVk7qX-GXXekI9wk4A1LqqojeK7sPv
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a good treatment and delivery of Darwin's calculation, although the
> author is a physicist.

It will do, to understand the basics,
for all those who are not willingly blind.

For the rest, see my reply to Bertie Woofster,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662973

On 4/21/25 4:43 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/20/25 3:10 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789813279704_0003?srsltid=A
> fmBOopDY5Kh9ESywVgevIYfqNmVk7qX-GXXekI9wk4A1LqqojeK7sPv
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Not a good treatment and delivery of Darwin's calculation, although the
>> author is a physicist.
> 
> It will do, to understand the basics,
> for all those who are not willingly blind.
> 
> For the rest, see my reply to Bertie Woofster,
> 
> Jan


No it doesn't do. Not even to my dick's standards.

It does not, far enough, clarify the inches and miles talked about are 
in horizontal direction or in vertical.. So material is defective.

One has to just GUESS such an obviously important aspect of the 
calculation. Not one instance of the word "horizontal" is given, and yet 
Darwin may have meant horizontal lengths.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662936

J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> > At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
> > 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
> > number)
> >
> > He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
> > wrong...
> > ...he knew
> > eventually somebody would have
> > figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
> >
> > So he, 'made up a number'!
> >
> > Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
> > age of the earth to be
> > 306,662,400 years old.
> 
> You are quote-mining.
> 
> In reality Darwin wrote:      (second edition)
> ===
> Hence, under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500
> feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
> length would be a sufficient allowance. At this rate, on the above data,
> the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years; or say
> three hundred million years. But perhaps it would be safer to allow two
> or three inches per century, and this would reduce the number of years
> to one hundred and fifty or one hundred million years.
> ====
> 
> It is obvious from the above passage that this is a made up example,
> for the purpose of arriving at an order of magnitude estimate.
> Darwin was right of of course. Hundreds of millions of years
> is a correct estimate for the time scale of geology and evolution.
> It was not possible to do better, at the time.
> 
> Jan


Well of course, if the Theory doesn't fit the facts, change the
facts...by all means necessary. That is what Science is all about.


If Darwin would have change the number from 75,000 to 4.543 billion
years...


it still not possible to do better, at this time.


The fact IS, the age of the earth is the same age of the universe.


I can do better at this time.


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662961

Am Sonntag000020, 20.04.2025 um 08:59 schrieb The Starmaker:
> At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
> 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
> number)
> 
> He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
> wrong...
> ...he knew
> eventually somebody would have
> figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
> 
> So he, 'made up a number'!
> 
> Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
> age of the earth to be
> 306,662,400 years old.
> 
> The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
> invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
> 
> 
> So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how
> come nobody out there sez he lied????
> 
> 
> What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the
> Species????
> 

Darwin's book is among the worst crap ever written in science.

Darwin actually wanted to write a novel about his travels around the 
globe and a fable about the magnificence of the British aristocracy (the 
'preferred race').

What Darwin actually invented, that was 'scientific' racism and one of 
the forerunners of Naziism, called 'Eugenics'.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#663221

On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 10:35:02 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Sonntag000020, 20.04.2025 um 08:59 schrieb The Starmaker:
>> At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
>> 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
>> number)
>>
>> He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
>> wrong...
>> ...he knew
>> eventually somebody would have
>> figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
>>
>> So he, 'made up a number'!
>>
>> Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
>> age of the earth to be
>> 306,662,400 years old.
>>
>> The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
>> invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
>>
>>
>> So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how
>> come nobody out there sez he lied????
>>
>>
>> What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the
>> Species????
>>
>
> Darwin's book is among the worst crap ever written in science.
>
> Darwin actually wanted to write a novel about his travels around the
> globe and a fable about the magnificence of the British aristocracy (the
> 'preferred race').
>
> What Darwin actually invented, that was 'scientific' racism and one of
> the forerunners of Naziism, called 'Eugenics'.

Slave traders did not need Nazism for their business.

WOOF woof woof-woof
>
> TH

--

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web