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.)