Scientific American Special Edition - Everchanging Earth.
The article on Mountain Building -

Has anyone gone out and actually bought this yet - for (in Australia)
the exorbitant price of $11.95., say $12? Yes/ no?

You just gotta READ it for the BRAND SPANKING NEW THEORY on mountain
building.
In view of 'George's' apparent readiness ('George' being our resident
dill over here in sci.geo.geology) indeed wholesome desire to be
screwed and abused by his elected representative (whoever he may be)
I'm posting this just to say rush out and buy it if you think that
suchlike articles that promote mountain building as isostatic
adjustment due to erosion, are good oil. The authors say that the
reason the Himalayas are high, and the Tibetan Plateau is not so high
is because of the weather; the Himalayas get the monsoon and therefore
more rain, more erosion, and therefore bounce up faster than Tibet,
which is in a rain shadow. Seriously, .. no bull. One's a professor
of structural geology and tectonics at Yale. The other's similar at
southern Illinois. Two professors, ..got to be sensible. 1+1 = 2
(Y/N?)

Do you get it? Erosion (isostatic adjustment) gives you mountains.
They say:- "For this reason, erosional processes can be viewed as
"sucking" crust into mountain ranges and up towards the surface."
..... "The new model of how mountains develop promises to be as
revolutionary as was plate tectonics some four decades ago." And so
"mountains.. shape the climate and tectonics of the planet". Not the
other way round, you'll notice - Astounding stuff! Cheap at the price!

Next time you go climing mountains, just take all your clothes off and
sit down. In due course you'll find yourself lifted to the summit.
The only reason it hasn't been tested is because nobody has ever got a
grant for this ground-breaking hypothesis. (How many clothes would you
have to wear for it to work? Maybe the Yale Professor should put his
undies where his article is.

Hey, Daryl, ..why did you give up on isostacy giving mountain building?
You're in good company.

Mountain Building - wow! It WOULD be funny, if there were not suchlike
dills as promote this sort of rubbish, and editors who think that it's
good for a screw of YOU. Does it really deserve the status of
'scientific debate', when any child can see the stupidity in it? Well
of course it does, for the hidden logic of "feedback". But you can
see what they're reaching towards, as regards 'uplift', ..can you not?
It's just a qeustion of how long it will take for them to get there.
(Tut Tut, ..and the road already mapped out too.)

(Just thought I'd do a nice promotional job for Scientific American,
for promulgating such esotery.)

don findlay a écrit dans le message
.com...
Scientific American Special Edition - Everchanging Earth.
The article on Mountain Building -

Has anyone gone out and actually bought this yet - for (in Australia)
the exorbitant price of $11.95., say $12? Yes/ no?

You just gotta READ it for the BRAND SPANKING NEW THEORY on mountain
building.
In view of 'George's' apparent readiness ('George' being our resident
dill over here in sci.geo.geology) indeed wholesome desire to be
screwed and abused by his elected representative (whoever he may be)
I'm posting this just to say rush out and buy it if you think that
suchlike articles that promote mountain building as isostatic
adjustment due to erosion, are good oil. The authors say that the
reason the Himalayas are high, and the Tibetan Plateau is not so high
is because of the weather; the Himalayas get the monsoon and therefore
more rain, more erosion, and therefore bounce up faster than Tibet,
which is in a rain shadow. Seriously, .. no bull. One's a professor
of structural geology and tectonics at Yale. The other's similar at
southern Illinois. Two professors, ..got to be sensible. 1+1 = 2
(Y/N?)

Do you get it? Erosion (isostatic adjustment) gives you mountains.
They say:- "For this reason, erosional processes can be viewed as
"sucking" crust into mountain ranges and up towards the surface."



SNIP
(Tut Tut, ..and the road already mapped out too.)

(Just thought I'd do a nice promotional job for Scientific American,
for promulgating such esotery.)



Having not read the paper I can only comment on statements you said they
say!
1: Greater rain fall does not always mean greater errosion. In some cases
because of increased vegatation it can mean less.

2. The climate today may (likely) not have any relationship to past
climates!
3. Errosion rates would have to be fantastic!
It is always better not to put much stock in the "theory of the week" from
academia.
JOL

Thanks for the input Don.
One thing I have noted is your reference to kids, and those being able to
see the idiocies of it all.

Not so indeed, and those alleged scientists are just grown up kids, who
have still that marvellous trusting childish minds, which allowed them to
accept the Official Father Xmas tales in their time, and now any official
Theories you can think of... as long as it going again with the herd's basic
consensus .

It works this way, and this is why the alleged Geology does not make sense.
Any idiot and his dog as long as he 's got an degree or professor position,
is able to put forward any theories at all. We are crumbling under theories
for all sides and none makes any sense of it. Further the prevalent thinking
in science is directed along linear or iterative thinking ! A kind of low
level mole-type of empirical experimenting of anything and everything,
without the input of superior minds able to realise a synthesis of the
immense & sometime irrelevant data. Further more any superior intelligence
taking as corner stone another approach, like say the evidence of EE (Earth
Expansion) or the UPL (Universal Pressure Law), has his voice immediately
drowned in the overwhelming deafening sound of all the Universilities
brainwashed Zombies ! ... mumbling away their breviary!.

As a conclusion and this is what I regret, those Yale dudes and other
imbeciles from Oxford or the ANU etc, are the ones getting the honour,
prestige & money of their unconditional support to the prevalent Academic
crass Ignorance, of both the process & of the causes behind the causes.
While those who know, have no other recourse that to gather weak & limited
support on news groups.

I hope you are keeping well by the way.

With best regards

--
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer

Exploration Geologist
Discoverer and Legal Owner of Telfer, Nifty & Kintyre Mines
The Great Sandy Desert of Australia

Founder of the True Geology

* The "Golden Rule" or true story of the Discovery of the Telfer Mine
Author Bob Sheppard President of the APLA (Australian Prospectors' Union)
http://www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/grule.html ,

* As well as Dr Don Findlay's Geological Site
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/index.html

~~ Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~




"don findlay" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
Scientific American Special Edition - Everchanging Earth.
The article on Mountain Building -

Has anyone gone out and actually bought this yet - for (in Australia)
the exorbitant price of $11.95., say $12? Yes/ no?

You just gotta READ it for the BRAND SPANKING NEW THEORY on mountain
building.
In view of 'George's' apparent readiness ('George' being our resident
dill over here in sci.geo.geology) indeed wholesome desire to be
screwed and abused by his elected representative (whoever he may be)
I'm posting this just to say rush out and buy it if you think that
suchlike articles that promote mountain building as isostatic
adjustment due to erosion, are good oil. The authors say that the
reason the Himalayas are high, and the Tibetan Plateau is not so high
is because of the weather; the Himalayas get the monsoon and therefore
more rain, more erosion, and therefore bounce up faster than Tibet,
which is in a rain shadow. Seriously, .. no bull. One's a professor
of structural geology and tectonics at Yale. The other's similar at
southern Illinois. Two professors, ..got to be sensible. 1+1 = 2
(Y/N?)

Do you get it? Erosion (isostatic adjustment) gives you mountains.
They say:- "For this reason, erosional processes can be viewed as
"sucking" crust into mountain ranges and up towards the surface."
.... "The new model of how mountains develop promises to be as
revolutionary as was plate tectonics some four decades ago." And so
"mountains.. shape the climate and tectonics of the planet". Not the
other way round, you'll notice - Astounding stuff! Cheap at the price!

Next time you go climing mountains, just take all your clothes off and
sit down. In due course you'll find yourself lifted to the summit.
The only reason it hasn't been tested is because nobody has ever got a
grant for this ground-breaking hypothesis. (How many clothes would you
have to wear for it to work? Maybe the Yale Professor should put his
undies where his article is.

Hey, Daryl, ..why did you give up on isostacy giving mountain building?
You're in good company.

Mountain Building - wow! It WOULD be funny, if there were not suchlike
dills as promote this sort of rubbish, and editors who think that it's
good for a screw of YOU. Does it really deserve the status of
'scientific debate', when any child can see the stupidity in it? Well
of course it does, for the hidden logic of "feedback". But you can
see what they're reaching towards, as regards 'uplift', ..can you not?
It's just a qeustion of how long it will take for them to get there.
(Tut Tut, ..and the road already mapped out too.)

(Just thought I'd do a nice promotional job for Scientific American,
for promulgating such esotery.)

That ideas has been around fro sometime.
Theres a PBS Nova episode about it.

don findlay wrote:
Scientific American Special Edition - Everchanging Earth.
The article on Mountain Building -

Has anyone gone out and actually bought this yet - for (in Australia)
the exorbitant price of $11.95., say $12? Yes/ no?

You just gotta READ it for the BRAND SPANKING NEW THEORY on mountain
building.
In view of 'George's' apparent readiness ('George' being our resident
dill over here in sci.geo.geology) indeed wholesome desire to be
screwed and abused by his elected representative (whoever he may be)
I'm posting this just to say rush out and buy it if you think that
suchlike articles that promote mountain building as isostatic
adjustment due to erosion, are good oil. The authors say that the
reason the Himalayas are high, and the Tibetan Plateau is not so high
is because of the weather; the Himalayas get the monsoon and therefore
more rain, more erosion, and therefore bounce up faster than Tibet,
which is in a rain shadow. Seriously, .. no bull. One's a professor
of structural geology and tectonics at Yale. The other's similar at
southern Illinois. Two professors, ..got to be sensible. 1+1 = 2
(Y/N?)

Do you get it? Erosion (isostatic adjustment) gives you mountains.
They say:- "For this reason, erosional processes can be viewed as
"sucking" crust into mountain ranges and up towards the surface."
.... "The new model of how mountains develop promises to be as
revolutionary as was plate tectonics some four decades ago." And so
"mountains.. shape the climate and tectonics of the planet". Not the
other way round, you'll notice - Astounding stuff! Cheap at the price!

Next time you go climing mountains, just take all your clothes off and
sit down. In due course you'll find yourself lifted to the summit.
The only reason it hasn't been tested is because nobody has ever got a
grant for this ground-breaking hypothesis. (How many clothes would you
have to wear for it to work? Maybe the Yale Professor should put his
undies where his article is.

Hey, Daryl, ..why did you give up on isostacy giving mountain building?
You're in good company.

Mountain Building - wow! It WOULD be funny, if there were not suchlike
dills as promote this sort of rubbish, and editors who think that it's
good for a screw of YOU. Does it really deserve the status of
'scientific debate', when any child can see the stupidity in it? Well
of course it does, for the hidden logic of "feedback". But you can
see what they're reaching towards, as regards 'uplift', ..can you not?
It's just a qeustion of how long it will take for them to get there.
(Tut Tut, ..and the road already mapped out too.)

(Just thought I'd do a nice promotional job for Scientific American,
for promulgating such esotery.)

Wow! This is fascinating stuff, just add water, which causes erosion
and mountains will grow, and suggests the secret ingredient is still
the fertilizer!

JT

don findlay wrote:


Next time you go climing mountains, just take all your clothes off and
sit down. In due course you'll find yourself lifted to the summit.
The only reason it hasn't been tested is because nobody has ever got a
grant for this ground-breaking hypothesis. (How many clothes would you
have to wear for it to work? Maybe the Yale Professor should put his
undies where his article is.


It works at the micro-tectonic level too. You can observe and verify this
phenomena by ****ing on an ants nest. The next time you **** on that same
nest it will have been rebuilt.

If you post title/date for the article, then some online databases could be
searched for it.



"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...
Scientific American Special Edition - Everchanging Earth.
The article on Mountain Building -

Has anyone gone out and actually bought this yet - for (in Australia)
the exorbitant price of $11.95., say $12? Yes/ no?

You just gotta READ it for the BRAND SPANKING NEW THEORY on mountain
building.
In view of 'George's' apparent readiness ('George' being our resident
dill over here in sci.geo.geology) indeed wholesome desire to be
screwed and abused by his elected representative (whoever he may be)
I'm posting this just to say rush out and buy it if you think that
suchlike articles that promote mountain building as isostatic
adjustment due to erosion, are good oil. The authors say that the
reason the Himalayas are high, and the Tibetan Plateau is not so high
is because of the weather; the Himalayas get the monsoon and therefore
more rain, more erosion, and therefore bounce up faster than Tibet,
which is in a rain shadow. Seriously, .. no bull. One's a professor
of structural geology and tectonics at Yale. The other's similar at
southern Illinois. Two professors, ..got to be sensible. 1+1 = 2
(Y/N?)

Do you get it? Erosion (isostatic adjustment) gives you mountains.
They say:- "For this reason, erosional processes can be viewed as
"sucking" crust into mountain ranges and up towards the surface."
.... "The new model of how mountains develop promises to be as
revolutionary as was plate tectonics some four decades ago." And so
"mountains.. shape the climate and tectonics of the planet". Not the
other way round, you'll notice - Astounding stuff! Cheap at the price!

Next time you go climing mountains, just take all your clothes off and
sit down. In due course you'll find yourself lifted to the summit.
The only reason it hasn't been tested is because nobody has ever got a
grant for this ground-breaking hypothesis. (How many clothes would you
have to wear for it to work? Maybe the Yale Professor should put his
undies where his article is.

Hey, Daryl, ..why did you give up on isostacy giving mountain building?
You're in good company.

Mountain Building - wow! It WOULD be funny, if there were not suchlike
dills as promote this sort of rubbish, and editors who think that it's
good for a screw of YOU. Does it really deserve the status of
'scientific debate', when any child can see the stupidity in it? Well
of course it does, for the hidden logic of "feedback". But you can
see what they're reaching towards, as regards 'uplift', ..can you not?
It's just a qeustion of how long it will take for them to get there.
(Tut Tut, ..and the road already mapped out too.)

(Just thought I'd do a nice promotional job for Scientific American,
for promulgating such esotery.)

Download the article at

http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.c...7D63E19B490C13

Just remember Only a fool uses theories as facts.

I have a theory that the world was made by some old guy walking on the
clouds, waving a vodoo stick and mumbling a magic phrase, and voilla! No
that was a theory a crackhead was explaining to me at the freeway offramp
yesterday.




"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...
Scientific American Special Edition - Everchanging Earth.
The article on Mountain Building -

Has anyone gone out and actually bought this yet - for (in Australia)
the exorbitant price of $11.95., say $12? Yes/ no?

You just gotta READ it for the BRAND SPANKING NEW THEORY on mountain
building.
In view of 'George's' apparent readiness ('George' being our resident
dill over here in sci.geo.geology) indeed wholesome desire to be
screwed and abused by his elected representative (whoever he may be)
I'm posting this just to say rush out and buy it if you think that
suchlike articles that promote mountain building as isostatic
adjustment due to erosion, are good oil. The authors say that the
reason the Himalayas are high, and the Tibetan Plateau is not so high
is because of the weather; the Himalayas get the monsoon and therefore
more rain, more erosion, and therefore bounce up faster than Tibet,
which is in a rain shadow. Seriously, .. no bull. One's a professor
of structural geology and tectonics at Yale. The other's similar at
southern Illinois. Two professors, ..got to be sensible. 1+1 = 2
(Y/N?)

Do you get it? Erosion (isostatic adjustment) gives you mountains.
They say:- "For this reason, erosional processes can be viewed as
"sucking" crust into mountain ranges and up towards the surface."
.... "The new model of how mountains develop promises to be as
revolutionary as was plate tectonics some four decades ago." And so
"mountains.. shape the climate and tectonics of the planet". Not the
other way round, you'll notice - Astounding stuff! Cheap at the price!

Next time you go climing mountains, just take all your clothes off and
sit down. In due course you'll find yourself lifted to the summit.
The only reason it hasn't been tested is because nobody has ever got a
grant for this ground-breaking hypothesis. (How many clothes would you
have to wear for it to work? Maybe the Yale Professor should put his
undies where his article is.

Hey, Daryl, ..why did you give up on isostacy giving mountain building?
You're in good company.

Mountain Building - wow! It WOULD be funny, if there were not suchlike
dills as promote this sort of rubbish, and editors who think that it's
good for a screw of YOU. Does it really deserve the status of
'scientific debate', when any child can see the stupidity in it? Well
of course it does, for the hidden logic of "feedback". But you can
see what they're reaching towards, as regards 'uplift', ..can you not?
It's just a qeustion of how long it will take for them to get there.
(Tut Tut, ..and the road already mapped out too.)

(Just thought I'd do a nice promotional job for Scientific American,
for promulgating such esotery.)

SBC Yahoo wrote:
Download the article at

http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.c...7D63E19B490C13

Just remember Only a fool uses theories as facts.


So what does that say about the 'science' we're paying for? That it's
just a gravy train? Of course these geezers don't believe it for one
moment, about mountains growing by erosion, but they've been asked to
do an article for Sci Amer. and taken it up on grounds of 'mileage'
that could help their career - such is their belief that putting their
name to suchlike stuff is a help rather than a hindrance in this
regard. They know this is firm ground of course, because they also
know (from their own reciprocal experience) that the only bit of papers
people ever read is references - to see if they get a mention. (real
scientists, theories, and facts)

It's a graphic illustration of how true academics deal in science. But
the way they write it, there's no concession to the discrimination of
which you speak. It seems it's not just designed to fool the public,
but other academics as well; one would almost believe they're fooling
themselves. ..or is it indeed a club of collusion we're witnessing when
they finish off:-
_______________Quote:-
"Like Plate Tectonics, the new model also illuminates phenomena that
had [sic] long puzzled geologists. Computer simulations incorporating
many of the model's principle precepts, for example, have proved very
successful in mimicking the effects of complex tectonic histories,
climatic variability and different geologic setting. Continuing
research will provide even more details of how Earth's magnificent
mountain ranges grow, evolve and decline, as well as details conerning
the importance of mountains in shaping the climate and tectonics of our
planet."
________________Unquote

....and that academia is indeed a conspiracy of apparatchicks? Is that
the sort of bull**** we're supposed to accept? (And yes, they do say
that vegetation slows down the growth of mountains, and you can see the
meat-juice dribbling from that one)

Carey gave them the answer half a century ago, all nicely bundled and
tied up with ribbons, the jigsaw already done just like the picture on
the front of the box. But they didn't want to know. They killed it.
Why? Because what would they do for an encore? Their whole reason
for existing within the machine of science (as academics) is the
testing of 'ideas'. That is, ideas of the 'everybody-can-have-one'
sort. Anyone gets a better one than anyone else and the tall poppy
syndrome kicks in to ensure the lowest common denominator rules - the
one that everybody agrees with, the 'consensus' model. The ones that
the majority (dumbest) will swallow. The question of 'agreement' on
something of real **VALUE** is (as your post says) not an issue.
What is of value is if it serves 'scientific interest'. The more
'research' allows going through the motions of testing useless
nonsense, on the grounds that it's the business of academics to be
'clever' (read "test ideas"), the more scientific value it has (as the
article concludes). As in plate tectonics (Iapetus? and Panthalassa?)
the obvious flawed assumptions are set aside as irrelevant in the face
of what else pontificable they allow. The edifice on the crumbling
base is the "grounds for more research". (Jesus! They're even
threatening to link it to global warming.)

It's appalling, but it's how real science works, and how it gets held
up for hundreds of years. But who cares? And why should they?
Everybody gets a job, and it all goes around and isn't that what's it's
all about? Why do we need things to be right, when being wrong and
spinning it out is so much more rewarding? And going too fast anyway
would cause more problems than it solves. As you say, only a fool
bothers if a theory is right or not. Unfortunately for the paying
public, it's guys like you that give out the grants, or we wouldn't
have that gobbledegook in the above quotes, whatever it's supposed to
mean. There are only two words that make any sense: "Magnificent
Mountains" - the rest is just meaningless crap. But we're supposed to
believe it's worth the price on the front of the magazine. Not to
mention the fallout from all the graduates these 'professors' are
sending out into the real world after years of indoctrination of what
science is supposed to be about.

Next they'll have us believing we should be paying to combat the threat
of terrorism from abroad. And why not? Look at the benefits, the drop
in unemployement.. Only a fool gives a **** if it's a fact or not.

Apparatchicks, and their ill winds.

"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...
Scientific American Special Edition - Everchanging Earth.
The article on Mountain Building -



Building - wow! It WOULD be funny, if there were not suchlike
dills as promote this sort of rubbish, and editors who think that it's
good for a screw of YOU. Does it really deserve the status of
'scientific debate', when any child can see the stupidity in it?



So you're not a quack after all? You see, it's not the idea that
matters to people, it's who's saying it. Without a long resume
and all sorts of charts, it can't be true they say.

For instance, I've been rattling on about how biological evolution, through
the concepts of self organization or complex adaptive systems, can define
the physical universe. That biology is the true source of our fundamental
laws of the physical universe. They scoff and call it ridiculous.

Yet perhaps the most respected theoretical physics institute
around, Los Alamos, refers to the latest in condensed matter physics
as "complex adaptive matter".


The Los Alamos branch of the Institute for Complex Adaptive Matter

"ICAM's present scientific agenda is dominated by strongly correlated matter
and biological physics. There has long been a flow of techniques from the
physical sciences to the biological sciences, but the paradigms from biology
of complexity and emergent phenomena (not immediately foreseeable with
fundamental knowledge at shorter distance and time scales) can also
inform the physical sciences."
http://www.lanl.gov/mst/ICAM/workshops.html


The very same science, complexity science, is also the source
of the very latest cyclic cosmology, from those quacks over at
Princeton. A dept run by that flake that came up with
inflationary theory a while back.
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/



And those fly-by-night folks at the Univ of Chicago seem to
have lost their senses too.

University of Chicago Magazine

The Complexity Complex

"There is a funny dance that some Chicago physicists and biologists do when
the topic of complexity theory comes up. They squirm, skirt the issue, dodge
the question, bow out altogether unless they're allowed alternative terms.
They twirl the conversation toward their own specific research projects:
yes, the projects involve systems that are "rich" and "complicated" and
not explained by natural laws of physics; yes, systems that develop
universal structures which appear in other, completely different systems
on a range of scales; yes, systems that begin with simple ingredients
and develop outcomes that are-there's no other word for it-complex"

"More often than not these articles cite researchers at the interdisciplinary,
18-year-old Santa Fe Institute, whose single-minded insistence that laws
of complexity can explain nearly any phenomenon rankles many an academic."
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0212/features/



What I find fascinating is that most seem to think 'modern science'
has most everything pretty much handled. In truth the best scientific
discoveries are yet to come. And not by a little either.

I mean, everyone seems to chase that grand theory, the one
concept that will explain 'it all'. Yet when at last confronted
with it, they find it's 'too simple' to be believed or meaningful.

When I spout something like, oh, that the 'answers' to the
physical, living and even spiritual universe can be seen
from the sensation of a cool breeze over your skin, or
a passing cloud, they snicker.

But it's true.

From complexity comes sheer simplicity.




Jonathan



s





Well
of course it does, for the hidden logic of "feedback". But you can
see what they're reaching towards, as regards 'uplift', ..can you not?
It's just a qeustion of how long it will take for them to get there.
(Tut Tut, ..and the road already mapped out too.)

(Just thought I'd do a nice promotional job for Scientific American,
for promulgating such esotery.)