Posts by LoneWolf

20

Are you CONFRONTED by Elders? 7 points to practice

by Terry in

remember that old movie, the adventures of robin hood with erroll flynn?.

there is a scene where robin wants to cross a creek by walking across a log used as a bridge.

friar tuck is determined to stop him.. the are both standing on the log over the creek opposing each other with not-all-too-friendly banter.. somebody is going to end up in the water!.

LoneWolf

LOL, Terry!

You have a lot of good points here. I'm afraid it's too late for me though! I've nailed them upside the head so many times that there is no doubt in anybody's mind where I stand!

For instance, "Are you saying the Governing Body is not properly doing its job and that we should doubt them, brother?"

"No, I'm trying to figure out why they would claim to be inspired of God."

(Their answer, looking surprised and alarmed) "They aren't! They are guided by Jehovah's spirit, but they are not claiming to be inspired!"

My retort: "What's the difference?"

They know damned well there is no difference, and the way they stumble all over themselves is funny.

So, they resort to intimidation. It barely starts and I start laughing. "Brothers, what part of the Fruitage of the Spirit are you demonstrating right now? Can you picture Jesus using intimidation to answer a scriptural question from one of his followers?"

Never allowing them to get off the defensive is priceless. It forces them to think, whether they want to or not, and because they have no answers to those questions, they fester and that leaves a chink in their armor that will, many times, grow until they get out, or turn completely bad. As a bare minimum, it destroys their air of superiority. Sure they get mad. Good. Maybe it will grow hair on their chests.

It also does wonders for our own senses of value and confidence.

Don't mistake me here though. I'm not recommending that things like these be used right off the bat. However, it is mighty nice to have a collection of them in reserve to use when push comes to shove. Turning the tables on a bunch of bullies is utterly delicious.

Tom

65

The Science Thread

by EntirelyPossible in

i am starting this thread because so many others have taken such interesting turns and, on some ocassions, been threadjacked, sometimes by me.

i hesitate to post it in "personal experiences" because it is most certainly not a personal experience, but i don't know what would be a better area.. the purpose here is to clear up a lot of confusion about what science and the scientific method are and are not.

science is a method for investigating observations, gaining knowledge, correcting knowledge.

LoneWolf

EP – LOL!! An’ a vary marry berthdae tooyew two, Ned!

Which reminds me – how long were you an elder? The long-term effects of being one take a long time recover from, and many never do. You have my sympathy.

If the day ever comes that you learn what thought is, please let me know.

Twitch – I’ve seen things like these too. I threw a mental problem like that out to my physics class one time involving a tire running down the road, and about 3 or 4 of my classmates could see it immediately. All the rest were having fits saying basically what Ned has been saying about the model I posted here. The ones who could see it immediately tried defending it and the resulting rip-roaring argument was funnier than all get out! I just sat back and enjoyed it. LOL!!

Finally the teacher, fearing that it was about to descend into a riot, brought everything to a screeching halt and diagrammed the thing out on the blackboard so that everyone could see why I was right in my statement of the problem. By this time, though, those opposed had their prides involved and they wouldn’t admit I had a point even if the angels came down out of heaven and sang it to them in ten part harmony. They were all bent out of shape, calling me an idiot and a bunch of other stuff. The teacher straightened them out in a hurry. “No, he’s not! He’s right!” Just like Ned above, it took them a while to get over it.

If something like that comes up again involving the seasons, try using a ball. Use your observer’s head as the sun, hold the ball at about 23 degrees to the vertical, then walk around him, keeping the ball in the same position. Most people can see it then.

As an item of interest, though, there actually is a wobble in the earth’s spinning! It’s called the “Chandler wobble” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble , and it’s very, very small, but it’s real. There are a lot of theories as to why it exists, ranging from an unequal distribution of weight (similar to a tire being out of balance) to the movement of the liquid portions of the earth, to other things. What fascinates me about it is that it’s not a constant, but it varies from decade to decade.

There are so many things that we don’t know, but would be fascinating to learn!

10

Fallen humans are the MEDIATOR between God and man - WBT$ reaffirms

by Fernando in

some have been wondering if the watchtower might reinstate jesus after disfellowshipping him as the one mediator between god and man.. apparently not.. "future light" from march 2012 reaffirms that jesus has been indefinitely replaced by a ruling religious clergy class of mediators.. "those in the covenant are few, a mere 144,000. through them, millions from all nations will be blessed with everlasting life in an earthly paradise.

" (w2012 mar 01 p17, http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/wp_e_20120301.pdf).. "the anointed" in the nt/nc scriptures is always "ho kristos" or "the christ" - who the wbt$ has openly replaced (for several decades now) with a small group of fallen humans (11,824 false christs in 2011) who the blind sanhedrin (gb) lyingly claim to represent.. .

(thanks to "therevealer" for posting the above watchtower mar 2012 quote two days ago)..

LoneWolf

Fernando & jonathan dough -- Excellent presentations!

65

The Science Thread

by EntirelyPossible in

i am starting this thread because so many others have taken such interesting turns and, on some ocassions, been threadjacked, sometimes by me.

i hesitate to post it in "personal experiences" because it is most certainly not a personal experience, but i don't know what would be a better area.. the purpose here is to clear up a lot of confusion about what science and the scientific method are and are not.

science is a method for investigating observations, gaining knowledge, correcting knowledge.

LoneWolf

Hi, Folks,

Ocmbr -- The model as given isn’t complicated enough to include a metal core. That would take a more sophisticated one. Its prime purpose is to demonstrate that the convection currents in such a scenario would be entirely different than the standard convection currents that we are familiar with, such as those in a pan on the stove.

Furthermore, when one compares these convection currents with those that are apparently contained within the earth’s mantle, there is an amazing similarity, at least enough to warrant further investigation. I’m under the same impression that sizemik voices a little further down the thread, “Convection currents in the earth’s mantle have been identified as a likely cause of continental drift for decades. I was taught this in Earth Sciences:102 in 1976.” I might add to his words there that it is thought that the sun also contains similar convection currents.

There are many factors involved in the earth’s makeup, and if convection currents are one of them, then it is only reasonable that examining their characteristics will tend to throw light on some of the lesser phenomena that could be caused or at least influenced by these convection currents, such as continental drift, earthquakes, and many more.

Over the years I have found that trying for an overall view of things helps tremendously in coming to an understanding of the smaller elements within, so I make an effort to do so. It has proven to be invaluable, because the big picture tends to act much like a road map, and one isn’t left to feeling his way like the proverbial blind man examining an elephant.

“Pangea evidence rests upon several different pieces of evidence - the ability to fit land masses together is actually one of the weaker ones (considering deposition and erosion.)” Agreed. Please note my words to cofty below.

cofty – “The sequence of magnetic rocks alternating north and south polarity in a mirror image formation either side of the rift is also compelling evidence.” Actually, I understand this factor is the source that inspired the continental drift theory, or at least that portion of it that includes Pangea, etc. I was also under the impression that in addition to the magnetic polarity, the same mirror image was found in the chemical makeup of the strata on each side of the rift. Am I mistaken in this?

bohm – “In his model i believe the seabed is formed by cooling convection currents which reach the surface of the earth near what we call tectonic plate boundaries. . .” This is my impression too. I took it a step further by including the subduction zones near the continental edges. With land being formed at the rifts, then being “recycled” by sinking into the mantel and becoming magma once again in the subduction zones, it has all of the earmarks of a convection current, albeit a complicated one. That’s why I included the wax factor in the model. It wouldn’t sink into the subduction zones, but would accumulate in “islands” of solid material and stay on top, and those “islands” would be as far away from the rifts as possible.

“It might be a problem if he advocate a much younger earth of course.” Please note that I’m not implying anything at all, one way or another, about the age of the earth in this model.

“I think the right questions to ask about his model is:

What quantitative predictions does it make?
How does these square off with ordinary plate tectonics and observations, ie. how accurate is the model?”

Exactly. Any suggestions on how to do this?

Twitch – At this early stage of the game, that’s all I’m trying to do.

snare&racket – LOL! That’s why I stuck it in the Space Station. It’s warm in there.

You know, that brings up a question. As you probably know, water boils at 212 degrees at sea level, but the higher altitude one gets, the lower the temperature it takes to boil. One would think that in space, water would quickly boil away. Yet, judging from sightings from the space station of jettisoned water that became ice, that apparently isn’t the case. Anyone have an idea of how that works?

You see, I’m not like some people I know. I don’t feel that I know everything, and it doesn’t bother my pride at all to ask questions about those things I don’t know.

sizemik – “The problem with your model is that the convection currents have a physical influence on the surface (turbulence) which destroys its relevance to the earth's crust.” I am unsure of your usage of the word “turbulence” in this context. Could you enlarge on this?

Let me suggest this, although I’m not sure if it is relative to your observation: Go back to the model again. This time, though, instead of adding a few bricks of wax, leave the ball alone and drop the surrounding temperature to below freezing instead. The water inside the globe will remain liquid thanks to the heater, but a skim of ice should form on the outside and will drift with the convection currents to those areas that are cooler, and will then form “islands” or masses of ice that will gradually reinforce themselves by freezing together. Meanwhile, the skim of ice is still forming on those areas away from the masses of ice, and is drifting towards them. When it arrives, it will be swept under them and will then either melt and rejoin the interior, or it will attach itself to the mass and reinforce it.

In this scenario, everything on the surface is influenced by the convection current. The skim is being carried along on its surface until it reaches the ice masses, and the ice masses themselves are kept centered over the cooler areas and are not allowed to drift.

I think it is this “centering” action of the convection currents on the solid masses that is one of the strongest things that call into question the concept of Pangean theory. For the continents to drift, at least to the extent hypothesized in that theory, would take a complete reconstruction of the earth’s interior plumbing.

I have had the opportunity to study how moving water freezes (I lived in Alaska for years) and it is fascinating. It can form some of the most beautiful formations with the glaciating of one layer of ice over another!

“ It is generally accepted that a pangaea-type supercontinent was not a one-off situation and that it may have occurred at least 4 times throughout earths history.” That is indeed interesting! Do you know what evidence this is based on?

sabastious – Hi, Sab! I’m just as mean and ornery as always! (Grin) You too, I hope!

Yup! That’s exactly where I’m coming from! I think what most people miss, though, is that they think I’m either arguing for the religious viewpoint or for the science viewpoint. I’m not, and I don’t recognize this as an either/or situation. Rather, I think BOTH of them are in dire need of a good enema. Here are a few reasons why:

1. Both sides are made up of imperfect “hoomin’ beans” who tend to let pride and arrogance dictate their lives and thought.

2. Both will grab some tiny morsel of truth, jump up in mid-air and build an entire castle of theory around it, then throw tantrums should anyone be so foolish to question its foundation.

3. Both demonstrate a deep contempt for the common man’s intelligence, the religious by reason of their “holiness”, and the scientific by reason of their “education”, whatever that is.

4. Both demand that people accept anything they have to say, for the same reasons.

5. Both claim to be the saviors of all mankind.

Need I continue?

Of course, holding an opinion like mine has incurred the wrath of nearly every kind of “authority” there is, and I’ve been called “rebellious”, “uneducated”, “brainless”, “reckless”. “country-hick”, and those are only a few of the nicer ones. The truth is an entirely different thing, though.

There have been many times in my life when everyone around me was full of crap, life was on the line, and to simply survive meant that I had to take the bull by the horns and make my own decisions. I did, I’m still alive, so is everyone else that depended on me, and that speaks for itself.

If you like an example of one of those situations, go here:

http://www.howlinmad.net. Check under the link EASIN’ ON – The Confessions of an American Outlaw. That is a book I wrote about what it’s like to be a long-haul trucker, which I was for more than 10 years and a million miles plus. I posted the first six chapters online, and chapters 2 and 3 should give you a good idea of what I am speaking about.

Keep yer chin up, me frien’! But not yer nose. (Grin)

LoneWolf

65

The Science Thread

by EntirelyPossible in

i am starting this thread because so many others have taken such interesting turns and, on some ocassions, been threadjacked, sometimes by me.

i hesitate to post it in "personal experiences" because it is most certainly not a personal experience, but i don't know what would be a better area.. the purpose here is to clear up a lot of confusion about what science and the scientific method are and are not.

science is a method for investigating observations, gaining knowledge, correcting knowledge.

LoneWolf

Hi, Guyz,

Ahhh! Thank heavens. I was afraid that I’d killed the thread, and that is something I do not wish to do. I think it has a lot of possibilities.

EP – yer first.

Actually, you did ignore the main thrust, but I’ll forgive you this time. At least you gave me some input to work with instead of ridicule and condescension. Those are like noisy static that conveys no meaning, and I have neither the time nor patience to put up with it. While I speak of this being fun, there is a serious purpose behind it.

“Water is not an approximation for the earth, particularly for things like density of water vs. magma, the layering of the mantle, things like the silica content of magma giving it different behavioral properties.” You are correct under most circumstances, but not this one. Let me explain using your peanut butter as an illustration.

The problem is as you say: “you probably can't use actual magma.” Exactly. Therefore, in creating a model, one must use something else. In using something else, though, one must approximate and match the other factors in the equation the best you can. You probably remember the lesson from Algebra that when working with an equation, it is possible to multiply or divide a factor in or out of it, BUT when you do, you have to do it to each part of the equation. Missing just one part of it will create a new equation. To illustrate, if x + y = z, then 2x + 2y = 2z. When leaving one out, such as 2x + y = 2z, it changes the equation entirely and any answers obtained from it then will be wrong.

Likewise in our model. We have three main factors: Viscosity, Pressure, and Heat. (Actually, there’s a fourth – compaction – but let’s keep it simple right now.) I think it would be safe to say that if we took that peanut butter down 500 miles into the mantle and subjected it to the same heat and pressure the magma is under, then it would flow like water too, as well as have convection currents within it.

Or, let’s turn it around. I’m not sure how to measure viscosity (any explanation would be welcome) so let’s just grab a figure and say that peanut butter is 100 times as thick as water. I believe I read something about the air pressure in the Space Station being kept at about ½ atmospheres, and I’m assuming that they keep it warm enough to be comfortable. If so, and we were trying to keep the equations comparable, then we would need to ask ourselves what peanut butter would act like under 1,500 (15 X 100) PSI and at about 7,000 (70 X 100) degrees of heat. (Okay, okay. It would catch on fire and burn up long before it got that hot. Let’s again use our “scientific license”, remove the oxygen, and say that it can’t.) Again, I think you will find that it will run like water. Please note that the other things you mention, the layering and silica content will also be affected by this same heat and pressure.

Actually then, we are going about the same thing, but coming at it from opposite directions. You wish to use something that has the same viscosity as magma, but are forgetting that its viscosity ON THE SURFACE would be different than it would be at a depth of 600 miles and a gazillion degrees of heat.

I, in turn, am trying to approximate what magma would flow like at such extremes of pressure and heat and am therefore using a liquid with a thinner viscosity.

Will it be 100% accurate? Of course not. Neither will any other way we have of trying to figure it out. However, this “model” (and it is one) does a beautiful job of illustrating the thing it is designed for: That the convection current in a global environment looks and runs in an entirely different configuration than one found in a pan on the stove. If the viscosity of the liquid is somewhat off, it is immaterial, for if a convection current is there at all, this is the way it will flow. That is the thrust of the model.

Now I will happily agree with Twitch in saying that this is a “simplified” model. Heck, it’s even a crude model. I would imagine that you should be grateful that it is, for if it was all gussied up with all the bells and whistles, it would probably be too long to post.

So, I’m sorry it violates your fastidious tastes, but look on the bright side of it. To deal with it, you’re going to have to learn how to think out of the box, and that’s good for you. It grows hair on yore chest. (Grin)

Yep. You said that EMP don’t work. And I didn’t say anywhere that they would. I said I didn’t know what would work in that scenario, so threw that out as a question and in a joking manner, ergo: the (Grin). So tell me, if I misdiagnosed this as a form of peck-sniffery on your part, what is the real reason why you are making a mountain out of a molehill?

No, look again. The model has four (4) dimensions. Yes, it has the usual x, y, and z axes. However, in nearly all fields of science, the fourth dimension is time. In fact, they’ve practically made a whole science out of the fourth dimension alone. The purpose of the model is to demonstrate the convection flow within it, and any movement whatsoever involves an amount of time. Ergo: It is a four dimensional model.

Yes, I did ask for critical feedback. However, ridicule, superciliousness, and peck-sniffery does not critical feedback make. So I’m asking you a favor: Cut it out, okay? I appreciate this thread, and I appreciate your feedback. If you see something that doesn’t make sense to you or that you don’t understand, great! If you know some factor that I’ve missed, that’s even greater! But please can the crap.

You say that “They” (scientists) “have a method that works.” My answer is that yes they do, most of the time. And even when they do, that by no means indicates that it is the only way that will work. The armed forces have a policy known as the Odd Man Out Theory where they will assign a team of experts to solve a certain problem, and deliberately include one man whose thinking processes and even their field of expertise is completely different. They know that because of that different type of thinking, he will see things that the rest won’t. I have some members of the military who are using me as an “Odd Man Out” right now, and that is what I’m referring to above when I said there is a serious purpose behind my posts.

This situation reminds me of something that happened about 50 years ago, and it illustrates well both the value of different ways of thinking and how the “official” way is not always the most effective way. I laugh about it to this day.

I had a friend named Ned who liked to play chess with me and we associated quite a bit with one another. He was as straight-laced and “by-the-book” as anyone I ever met, while I was laid back and relaxed, so we were indeed an odd couple.

The Society was having one of their Tract campaigns, which one I don’t remember, and we decided to go out in tract work that day. It was a warm day in Southern California and probably in the 80’s, so we dressed light.

Walking up the sidewalk of an apartment complex, I spied a young well-built fellow standing in the doorway of one apartment, leaning against the doorjamb, legs crossed, and watching us come closer. He had a pair of pants on, but that was all.

We drew closer, and when I felt I could say something to him without yelling, I piped up with a big cheery grin, “I’ve got some good news for you!”

“I ain’t interested.” He shot back.

I was feeling ornery, so there was no way I could let that rest. I jerked up in mock surprise. “WHAA –“ I hesitated with astonishment written all over my face. Then quieter, all concerned like, “Do you have too much of it now?”

“Yep!” You could see the corners of his mouth twitching.

“Is it runnin’ all over the floor?”

“Yep!”

And we both just cracked up. Half of it was because of the absolutely nutty conversation, and the other half because of the look of utter horror on Ned’s face.

He didn’t take the tract, and I didn’t care. We had a pleasant experience and I left him in a good mood, and that was all that I asked.

So Ned – er – I mean EntirelyPossible – relax. I’ll flat out guarantee that I will be doing things and using methods that you’ve never heard of before and that will outrage your sense of propriety. On the other hand, please keep in mind that I have a history of doing and succeeding at things that everyone else thought was impossible. Some of those are hilarious too.

As for the rest of you, please forgive me. It’s 3:30 a.m., and I’m spending more time sleeping on the keys than I am typing. I’ll get to you after I engage in some unconsciousness.

LoneWolf

71

I would like to hear your experiences with being SHUNNED

by jwfacts in

i am going to put together a page of short experiences of how shunning has affected exjws.

you do not have to be disfellowshipped, even if you were shunned after being marked or after fading.

all comments are welcome, such as who shunned you, how long since family have spoken to you, what your situation is, why you are being shunned and how it has made you feel.

LoneWolf

Being the oldest son, I was slated to receive the home place as an inheritance, with smaller portions of it going to my siblings. Dad gave me the ultimatum to either get my act together or be written out of the will, which completely ignores the fact that if I kow-tow to this financial blackmail, that I would be serving Jehovah for all the wrong reasons. One's faith is not something to be bought.

I told him to take the inheritance and divvy it up between my brothers and sisters, as I didn't want it on those terms.

I don't know what it's worth, but I'd estimate somewhere between 1/2 and 3/4 of a million.

Tom

65

The Science Thread

by EntirelyPossible in

i am starting this thread because so many others have taken such interesting turns and, on some ocassions, been threadjacked, sometimes by me.

i hesitate to post it in "personal experiences" because it is most certainly not a personal experience, but i don't know what would be a better area.. the purpose here is to clear up a lot of confusion about what science and the scientific method are and are not.

science is a method for investigating observations, gaining knowledge, correcting knowledge.

LoneWolf

EP – Ah, yes, the usual ridicule that is passed off as “scientific” reasoning. Ignore the thrust of the question and pick on picayune details that make no difference.

1. The “gravity gun” – To those who are more interested in an inquiry into the unknown than they are in establishing the pecking order, it can be easily understood that the ball of water is being used as a model for the earth itself. The last time I checked, the earth does have gravity, and as usual in theoretical models, a little “scientific license” is permissible in approximating the object being examined.

2. The EMP heater – Did you notice the (Grin) afterwards? I don’t know what would work without it disturbing the water itself in that situation. The point of the illustration is that there would be convection currents, and that they would work in an entirely different pattern in a globular than they do in a planar scenario. IF you had come down off your cloud long enough to actually ask an intelligent question, you might have questioned whether or not convection currents exist as a causal effect in such things as continental drift, etc.

And incidentally, micro-waves and EMP are two different things.

3. “Thermodynamics of water that don’t work” – So you are saying that there is no such thing as a convection current in water? If there is, then what would it look like in a globe with the heat source in its center? Many if not most people can’t visualize four dimensional models like that. Can you? So far, it looks like you can’t.

4. Yes, I am being folksy. Has it occurred to you that there might be a sound reason for that? Folksiness tends to turn off and drive away the “super-fine apostles” and egotists whose prime interest is in proving themselves better than anyone else. They spoil any enjoyment the other members may find in whatever activity is being engaged in. On the other hand it will attract those who simply want to relax and enjoy a stimulating conversation.

I’ve spent 70+ years in putting up with stuffed shirts trying to establish the pecking order (primarily elders) and none of them have succeeded yet. I have intimate knowledge of their habit of demanding proof that you have the right to ask questions or even think without their permission, of insisting that every little thing said be couched in “proper” terminology for it to be even considered, that they are doing you a “favor” by recognizing your existence, and all the rest of their nonsense.

Such people are not the type of companions I want, and being “folksy” does a marvelous job of weeding them out. I have no interest in either their approval OR their disapproval. The people I really appreciate and prefer as companions are those who know how to let their hair down and explore the unknown just for the sheer joy of it.

Any questions?

Tom

65

The Science Thread

by EntirelyPossible in

i am starting this thread because so many others have taken such interesting turns and, on some ocassions, been threadjacked, sometimes by me.

i hesitate to post it in "personal experiences" because it is most certainly not a personal experience, but i don't know what would be a better area.. the purpose here is to clear up a lot of confusion about what science and the scientific method are and are not.

science is a method for investigating observations, gaining knowledge, correcting knowledge.

LoneWolf

Hi, Peeplezs,

Okay, yer on! And no, Ocmbr, it has nothing to do with the Expanding Earth theory, nor does it have anything to do with Creation Science, even though I feel they do have some points. This is entirely new.

It is a bit involved, as is any 4 dimensional model would be, so I wish to construct it in stages. I think you will find that each stage will lead into the next stage in a natural manner. We are merely playing with the effects of one factor at a time. The model could be used in any of a multitude of ways, but for this application we will concentrate only on how it might affect the theories of Pangea and continental drift.

I want to thank you folks too, for while this is just plain old fun for me, there is a serious purpose behind it. Briefly, I find to my surprise that I’m close friends with some high ranking (scientific, military, & otherwise) folks that are currently engaged in some studies that go beyond the frontiers of our current knowledge. This includes D.O.A.A. and other such entities. If you’re interested, I can give you a few more details on this later.

I’ve been submitting some of these things to them and they’ve been accepted well. Therefore, the accuracy of the known components and the logic is quite important. I’m challenging you, yes, but that’s just the fun part of it and (hopefully) helps make it fun for you too. The serious part of it is that I will be grateful for anything you can add and/or mistakes you find.

This is a “model” I’ve been playing with for a long time, and was inspired by a disagreement I had with AlanF years ago. Therefore, if you need someone to blame things on, blame it on him. (Grin)

And for what it’s worth, if you don’t mind playing out here in the intellectual “empirean”, there are a few more of these that I’d like to run by you later.

So, let’s sketch in a framework for this “model” and maybe a detail or two to demonstrate its possible value. One post would be far too small to try to give you a complete picture. That said, grab a beer, stick yore feet up on the desk, and prepare to peruse some heresy.

You know what happens when an astronaut “spills” water in the Space Station. In that weightless environment, it becomes little balls of liquid that float around in the air until they are recaptured. Now, let’s have some fun with one of them.

Increase its diameter to 10 ft by adding water to it. Of course, we now have a problem (not counting that the Space Station probably wouldn’t have room for it) in that the only thing holding it in a ball shape is the water’s surface tension, and just about anything would shatter it into smaller balls. Let’s solve that by inserting a cupful of gecko juice (most people call it gravity) smack dab in the middle of it. That should give us a fairly stable (coherent) 10 ft. ball of water floating in space right in front of us. It’s about now that it becomes interesting.

For instance, let’s stick a heating device right in there with the gecko juice, thereby causing a convection current. How we power it will make a difference. If we use infrared lasers and make them intersect in the heart of the globe, then after a while we should find “plumes” of heated water coming straight up the laser beams. This in itself would be a fascinating study because we are only used to thinking of convection currents in an “up/down” planar environment where the liquid goes up in a hot spot, then across and down in a cooler one. In our imaginary 10 ft. ball of liquid, the only “down” would be in the center of the ball, and all other directions would be “up”. What would a convection current look like now? How would it flow on the surface? At a depth of 2 ft.? At a depth of 4 ft? (It’s getting narrower down here!)

Of course the ideal way to power the heating device would be by using something that has no reaction with the water itself and therefore doesn’t affect the resulting convection currents. Would a heater powered by EMP work? (Grin)

Whatever, we now have a 10 ft. ball of water that not only holds together, but it is in motion on the inside. Once an equilibrium is established under the existing conditions of heat and gravity, fairly stable currents should result. Change the conditions, and you change the results.

Now, let’s apply this in just one small way.

Increase the temperature of the ball to about 120 degrees F. (slightly above the melting point of most waxes), and slip a few bricks of wax into the ball. It will, of course, melt, float, and gradually cover the surface of the ball. Now cool the ball to where the wax starts solidifying. What will the wax do and where will the convection currents deposit the solids?

Perhaps a better idea could be gained by changing the ball of water to a ball of milk, and raising the temperature to boiling. As anyone who has boiled milk will remember, a skim is formed over the top. However, it is not evenly distributed. The milk is still boiling in the hot spots, but the skim is shunted off to the coolest and least active areas where it gets thicker and is jammed together, forming a mass of solids with wrinkles and ridges.

Now look at the shapes of the hot spots. They determine the shapes of the fields of solids. If you have a hot circular “plume”, the solids will be pushed away in all directions evenly, leaving a roughly circular space around the plume (unless, of course, another hot spot interferes).

But what if the hot spot isn’t circular? What if it is linear, similar to that type of volcano known as a “Fissure Vent”, where the ground opens and lava flows out all along the crack? The liquids will now tend to flow at a roughly 90 degree angle to the fissure, and will leave a series of layers on each side (according to what is being belched out at any given time) that will be mirror images to each other. Plus, the fields of solids on each side will roughly imitate the shape of the fissure and be equidistant from it.

In addition, let’s say that the fissure is a few thousand miles in length and is shaped like an elongated “S”. Now grab an atlas and take a long hard gander at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the surrounding continents and tell me what you see.

Yup. I’m being a naughty bad boy and am suggesting that Pangaea is the fig nootin of an overheated scientific imagination (probably one o’ those global warming experts), and is 200% hogwash, poppycock, and just plain old BS.

And heck, this is only playing on the surface of our ball for a few minutes! Wait until we go down! It really gets interesting then!

Okay, I’m awaitin’ fer them thar fellers in the little white coats. (Grin)

Turrible Tom

19

File a lawsuit against a fellow 'Christian" and you may get disfellowshipped...

by QuestioningEverything in

jw
friends

my very dear friends brother died tragically at work a few years back-the employer's were at fault 100%.

my friend cindy, her mom lily and his wife tammy-(all witnesses-not their real names) filed a lawsuit against the company and won a judgment of $1.2 million dollars.

the check was cut and cindy and her mom haven't seen one penny of the judgment.

LoneWolf

The question that enters my mind is to wonder how much Tammy is "contributing" to the Society.

65

The Science Thread

by EntirelyPossible in

i am starting this thread because so many others have taken such interesting turns and, on some ocassions, been threadjacked, sometimes by me.

i hesitate to post it in "personal experiences" because it is most certainly not a personal experience, but i don't know what would be a better area.. the purpose here is to clear up a lot of confusion about what science and the scientific method are and are not.

science is a method for investigating observations, gaining knowledge, correcting knowledge.

LoneWolf

Hmmmmm. I'm tempted to pull a dirty trick on you folks, but am worried that I might be guilty of hijacking the thread.

That dirty trick would be to actually post a hypothesis that needs falsified right here. It is one you've never heard of before, one that goes contrary to the latest "established" scientific thinking, and would have the potential to turn at least one natural science on its head. That way we could be actually using scientific methodology rather than speaking abstractly about it.

The hypothesis comes in the form of a theoretical 3 dimensional "model" (actually, 4 dimensional, inasmuch as it is necessary to envision how it will move over time.), and it's thrust will tend to relegate "Pangea" to the dustbin of nutty ideas, as well as reduce the idea of continental drift to a tiny fraction of what it is now. It does these things by offering a far better explanation for the phenomenon upon which they are based.

As in most theoretical "models", some scientific license is used to illustrate certain points. These are obvious and are later discarded when they are no longer necessary. I've already done about all the falsifying that I can, so I need your help to make sure I haven't missed anything.

Any takers?

Tom