Continental Drift Contradictions (CDC)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by MarkVitrone</i>
<br />The melting of a solid (with the exceptions of hydrides of the chalcogens which expand in their solid states) can be changed with pressure.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Mark, I do not in any way dispute your information but when I read the following;
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">An increased pressure will raise the required temperature needed for melting.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I wonder; why is it the opposite effect for boiling water?
Thank you for your time.
thebobgy

Bob,

oops?

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />Bob, oops?
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> What oops? Larry. The higher the altitude the higher the tempreture for boiling water. Mark stated it the opposite for melting solids and I wondered why. Do melted solids not boil? If not then I made a mistake and an oops is in order, sorry.
Thank you for your time.
thebobgy

Bob,

I'm afraid you have this little factoid backwards. Higher altitude, and thus lower pressure, results in a reduced boiling temperature. (Don't let it get to you, though. I had to go look it up just to be sure. They say memory is the first thing to go ...)

Water boils in Denver at about 202 to 203 degrees on the farenheit scale.

LB

Peter,

You are one of a number of frequent posters at this forum. (Thank you.) I've noticed two things about your recent contributions:

1) They don't seem to generate much response.
2) They make no explicit reference to any of the theories that this site was founded to promote and discuss.

===

It seems at least possible that these two characteristics might have a cause and effect relationship.

It also seems to me that at least one of your basic themes (Earth has suffered from some big asteroidal impacts in the past) has potential common ground with one of our pet theories, the Exploded Planet Hypothesis. Like some of your planetary geology speculations, the EPH expects that Earth has gone through <b><u>a number of significant bombardment episodes</u></b> in its past. Many of these events predate life on Earth, but not all. The most recent was only 3.2 million (with an "m") years ago ...

===

Suppose you were to spend enough time studying our EPH so that you could evaluate questions like:

*) Are the similarities between my (Peter's) stuff and their (Meta Research's) stuff more than skin deep?
*) If they are, what are the implications for their stuff?
*) If they are, what are the implications for my stuff?
*) Same questions, if the similarities are not more than skin deep.

In the course of this evaluation you might also think of other questions to ask, and either pose them to others or attempt to answer them yourself.

===

Suppose also that you posted your evaluations here. I would then expect to see a significant increase in the response level. Whether your evaluations are favorable to our stuff or not, we would really like to see them.

By explicitly exploring the interaction between your ideas and our ideas, and posting the results here, you will also be "paying your dues" so to speak. IOW, compensating us for the use of our resources. TANSTAAFL.

Last (and likely least as well), you will be increasing the possibility that an important discovery can be made. Syn*rgy happens, occasionally, if you give it a chance.


Regards,
LB

Spot on LB, and Thanks! Similar thoughts to all those you listed have been growing in the back of my mind. I have been putting them off because of unusually heavy family activity this summer. I now have 3 grandchildren . . . I promise to do as you suggest. I will soon be ordering one or two of those key books by TVF and so on. Indeed I will start looking into that now, after this post in reply to Jim, something climactic:

Jim,
The very best way of answering your questions while proving/disproving my thesis and CD antithesis, is to do what I did on my ebook's w.1.pps slides 23-35, only using seismotomographic instead of topographic data. This procedure, based on the important fact that interference patterns are characteristically profoundly symmetrical, shows symmetry enhancements in Maps Of Antipodal Conjugacies (MOACs) compared to false MOAC placebos.

This w.1.pps experimental procedure is so simple to do and such strong evidence of interference pattern ultimate genesis that it would be worth repeating whenever seismotomo-, topo- and other indicated global graphic data resolutions increased.

Also, just as I went on from those w.1.pps slides 23-35 symmetry revelations to deal with MOAC-implicit antipodal resonances throughout the remainder of my w.1 slide shows, consistent with and corroborative of my 4.05-12 serm theory, so too would researchers producing MOACs from other global graphic data sets.