Is the earth expanding? - SciForums.com

kurros

05-04-11, 07:48 PM

So, he made an hypothesis (lithosphere recycling is negligible), made prediction from this hypothesis (reconstruction of early earth models), and tested the prediction with hard data (what you call random observations). It results that his predictions are validated, and thus that his hypothesis is correct. Note that there are other independent means to prove that his hypothesis of negligible recycling is valid.

This isn't how hypothesis testing works. Just because some data is compatible with a hypothesis doesn't make it incorrect. Based on the data they have, a child might hypothesis that a little invisible man turns the light in the fridge on and off when the door opens and closes, and this would be perfectly compatible with their observations, but it doesn't valid the hypothesis. Causal mechanisms are actually important.

hypothesis->prediction->validation: this is the scientific method. Quite different indeed from plate tectonics that is more a scenario than a theory (interpret observations in a unified framework, but where are the verifiable predictions?).

I won't defend plate tectonics since I don't know the details, but at least the underlying physics is plausible.

I would not pay too much attention to the causal mechanism. It is just a blackbox at this time.

Then it can't be expected that anyone is going to take it particularly seriously. Not if there are other viable explanations.

I do not deny that there may be some evidence that the Earth is expanding to some degree, I have read some things about changes in moments of inertia and even thermal expansion due to climate change, but these are all small effects, nothing like Maxlow seems to be suggesting.

Also there seem to be studies like these:
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1980.tb04306.x/abstract;jsessionid=58456C607009202F0E39DE93B1BD2E 03.d02t01
which provide evidence that nothing of the sort is happening.

I have one serious question. Where is all the water supposed to come from? If it was trapped in the rocks surely the water table levels must have been much higher millions of years ago, and we should see a fairly predictable rate of decline (taking ice ages etc into account). Such things should be a piece of cake for geologists to see I would have thought. Do they? Or do I have that wrong?

Also, if the Earth was so much smaller gravity would have been proportionally less. That must surely have some observable geological impact.

Ugh, I just started to watch the lectures linked previously, and seriously, Nexus? The fact that he is speaking at conferences for conspiracy theorists and UFO nuts does not fill me with confidence as to his science. Especially if that is the first lectures he tries to get people to watch.
Ok he isn't getting to the evidence, I'll watch more later, things to do now.

origin

05-05-11, 02:26 PM

A proposed causal model for Earth expansion has expansion due to an exponential increase in mass with time. Earth expansion then involves an increase in mass by condensation, or segregation of new matter from the Earth�s core. This new matter accumulates at the core-mantle interface and the increase in volume results in a swelling of the mantle, which is then manifested in the outer crust as crustal extension. Matter generation within the Earth�s core is seen as an endothermic reaction, which will ultimately result in a decay of the matter formation process and cessation of expansion with time

This is an experpt from Jame Maxlow's thesis. I would say this is essentially retarded. This is absurd.

Matter generation from the earths core? Are you freaking serious? New matter just forms there?? Yes, let's write a thesis that assumes that one of the foundations of physics is wrong. I do not believe that this is a real thesis from a real university - there is no way that this could possibly be defended.

I do like the whole 'matter generation is endothermic' touch, very cute to propose something absurdly preposterous and then describe some of it's attributes with the physics that you just destroyed.

This is hilarious....:rolleyes:

Walter L. Wagner

05-05-11, 02:42 PM

Yes, as I mentioned earlier his videos say the same thing. He proposes that a 'pure energy' was sent from the Sun to the Earth and trapped, and that over time it is exponentially converting from 'pure energy without mass' to mass/atoms in the mantle, giving rise to an exponential expansion of the Earth's diameter. He provides no 'causal mechanisms' for these theories of physics that are at odds with every piece of experimental evidence, and contradict all known laws of physics. This belies a fundamental lack of knowledge of geology, and as I mentioned, one wonders how a legitimate university would grant a PhD based on such a thesis.

AlexG

05-05-11, 05:59 PM

His PhD is in philosophy, from the Curtin University of Technology.

You pay your money, you get your degree.

kurros

05-05-11, 07:07 PM

Walter L. Wagner

05-05-11, 09:51 PM

Additional excerpts from his 'thesis':

"It is further speculated that a combined Earth-Moon, as well as each of the solar planets, originated from the surface of the primitive young Sun during the very early pre-Archaean, ejected as incandescent plasmoidal, or similar material at regular, periodic intervals, similar to solar flare activity on the present Sun's surface. The Earth-Moon and each of the solar planets in turn then gradually moved away from the direct influence of the Sun's surface temperature and gravity during transferral of angular momentum from the Sun to each of the planets. ...
...

On an expanding Earth model the core represents remnant plasmoidal, or similar material and generation of matter to form the mantle occurs by condensation of energy (eg. Carey, 1996). The mantle represents a segregation or condensation of the core during cooling, prior to chemical differentiation to form an outer crust (Figure 5.1). Fractionation of the mantle during an extended period of high geothermal gradient gives rise to peridotitic, ultramafic and mafic melts, forming a primitive mantle and crust with a surface accumulation of sialic rocks. Earth expansion during the pre-Archaean is then initiated by phase changes and fractionation of the molten upper mantle as the Earth moves away from the influence of gravitational and temperature extremes near the surface of the primitive Sun. Once a pre-Archaean core-mantle-crust is established further segregation or condensation of matter at the core-mantle interface occurs, steadily accelerating during the Late Proterozoic to Recent. Matter generation at the core-mantle interface results in mantle swell, which is transferred to the primitive outer crust as crustal extension."

Weird. Maybe I'll work on a doctorate of philosophy showing that the moon is actually made of cheese.

Trippy

05-05-11, 11:40 PM

This is not random observations. James made reconstruction of the Earth back in time using the geological map of the world assuming that recycling of the oceanic lithosphere was negligible compared to MOR accretion and intracontinental extension. Then he tested his reconstructions against different set of data to verify that both the data and the model are consistent. And they are consistent.

So, he made an hypothesis (lithosphere recycling is negligible), made prediction from this hypothesis (reconstruction of early earth models), and tested the prediction with hard data (what you call random observations). It results that his predictions are validated, and thus that his hypothesis is correct. Note that there are other independent means to prove that his hypothesis of negligible recycling is valid.
Why is there no evidence of an expanding earth in tidal rythmite data?

hypothesis->prediction->validation: this is the scientific method. Quite different indeed from plate tectonics that is more a scenario than a theory (interpret observations in a unified framework, but where are the verifiable predictions?).
How does this hypothesis explain Wadati-Benioff zones?

I would not pay too much attention to the causal mechanism. It is just a blackbox at this time.
This is just...

Wow...

I mean seriously, you're going with that?

jsispat

05-11-11, 03:26 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdYs4qgvKvw

sureshbansal342@gmail.com

jsispat

05-11-11, 03:40 AM

Yes it does growth (not expand). The current growth rate is about 2 cm radius/year (averaged over 3 millions years). And the rate has been increasing for the last 150 millions years according to the PhD thesis of James Maxlow, available on line at Curtin University.
And nobody as really a clue about the origin of all this matter required.
Interesting stuff.
because earth is itself a single living organism like a tree and has been germinated from single meteoroid containing amino acid and biological chemistry (seed of planet). and this seed has been produced by an old cosmic body. one planet is a result of one meteoroid (seed of planet) as one tree is a result of one seed only.

synthesizer-patel

05-11-11, 08:49 AM

if the expanding earth conjecture (it barely qualifies as a hypothesis let alone a theory) is correct why does it seems to exclusively attract cranks?

one great (and hilariously entertaining) example of is found in a debate we held on these very boards and makes for excellent reading

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86898

a similar debate both in content, style, and belly laugh quotient can be found here:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?s=neal+adams

florian

05-15-11, 08:24 AM

This isn't how hypothesis testing works. Just because some data is compatible with a hypothesis doesn't make it incorrect. Based on the data they have, a child might hypothesis that a little invisible man turns the light in the fridge on and off when the door opens and closes, and this would be perfectly compatible with their observations, but it doesn't valid the hypothesis.

Your analogy is incorrect. Maxlow's hypothesis is falsifiable using independent data. Your little invisible man is not falsifiable. I'm a bit surprise that you do not understand the difference. After all, this is basic epistemology.

Causal mechanisms are actually important.

Of course they are, but they are not always at hand, and theories can work beautifully without a causal mechanism.
For example, do you know how matter/energy bends spacetime? I don't and nobody else knows. So we don't have a causal mechanism for general relativity, though it is a very successful theory.

I won't defend plate tectonics since I don't know the details, but at least the underlying physics is plausible.
That is a reasonable attitude. You should adopt the same attitude regarding the expanding Earth theory. One must have a serious background in geodynamics to really understand why it is valid and how it works.

Also there seem to be studies like these [...] which provide evidence that nothing of the sort is happening.

Regarding the first paper: I know Williams work quite well. He makes two fundamental assumptions: Earth's orbit never changed or in other words, the duration of a Earth's revolution period never changed, the gained matter has zero momentum. Both are highly questionable in the framework of the growing earth theory.

Regarding the second paper: these palaeomagnetic studies always assume a perfectly radial growth, while the growth is asymmetrical (larger in the southern hemisphere). And sampling location are always critical. They are often located on pole migration path (especially in Africa) which also bias the calculations. So they are not very solid evidence of an absence of growth, whereas seafloor datations allow direct quantification of the growth.

I have one serious question. Where is all the water supposed to come from? If it was trapped in the rocks surely the water table levels must have been much higher millions of years ago, and we should see a fairly predictable rate of decline (taking ice ages etc into account). Such things should be a piece of cake for geologists to see I would have thought. Do they? Or do I have that wrong?

Water is coming from the mantle. There is much more water in the mantle than in the oceans. But the real question is where does the mantle (its components) come from? And this question has no answers yet.

Also, if the Earth was so much smaller gravity would have been proportionally less. That must surely have some observable geological impact.

It depends on the average density of the planet. Thought I think is is reasonable to assume that the density was never much higher than the current density. So I expect that surface decreases with time, being proportional to the radius at a constant density. So surface gravity would have been half of todays, about 250 millions years ago (half radius). I think evidence have to be found in palaeontological records (like gigantism difficult to explain, even with high oxygen levels).

Ugh, I just started to watch the lectures linked previously, and seriously, Nexus? The fact that he is speaking at conferences for conspiracy theorists and UFO nuts does not fill me with confidence as to his science. Especially if that is the first lectures he tries to get people to watch.
Ok he isn't getting to the evidence, I'll watch more later, things to do now.

Agree. This was a very poor choice. The best way to be labeled as pseudoscientist right away. But James was also offered to write an article in their review, So I guess it was a kind of package.

florian

05-15-11, 08:27 AM

This is an experpt from Jame Maxlow's thesis. I would say this is essentially retarded. This is absurd.

Matter generation from the earths core? Are you freaking serious? New matter just forms there?? Yes, let's write a thesis that assumes that one of the foundations of physics is wrong. I do not believe that this is a real thesis from a real university - there is no way that this could possibly be defended.

I do like the whole 'matter generation is endothermic' touch, very cute to propose something absurdly preposterous and then describe some of it's attributes with the physics that you just destroyed.

This is hilarious....:rolleyes:

I agree, there is no known physics that can explain the growth at this time and what James has been doing is just baseless naive speculations. But there must a mechanism to explain hat growth in mass, because it is what is observed. So by inference, a physical explanation must exists.

florian

05-15-11, 08:36 AM

He could have at least said that maybe it was dark matter gravitationally accumulating in the centre of the Earth and annihilating into new particles. This would have a little bit more credibility to it. It doesn't work for various reasons (the main one being that if the Earth could interact with dark matter particles enough to slow them down enough to be trapped then we would have seen them pinging off the dark matter detectors long ago, and that it would take a stupendous amount of dark matter), but it takes less of a stretch to imagine that the way we think dark matter should behave might be wrong than to try and connect the other mumbo jumbo he puts forward to some actual physics.

Well, we must assume that laws of conservations are valid. So there must be something accumulating inside Earth that fuels the growth. Call it dark matter or dark energy or whatever. What is certain is that this thing is very weakly interacting with normal matter, and must have mass/energy and thus responds to the gravity field.
That's a bit short to build a physical mechanism, isn't it?
That's why I think it is more important to focus on the evidence of the growth as a first step.

florian

05-15-11, 12:03 PM

Why is there no evidence of an expanding earth in tidal rythmite data?

Same answer than to Origin.
Tidalites can't provide evidence for or against a growth of the Earth, because it assumes that Earth's orbit remained stable and the gained matter has zero momentum.

How does this hypothesis explain Wadati-Benioff zones?

Flow tectonics is dominant in a growing earth. The WBZ is the front of a running crustal/mantle flow. A WBZ forms as the mantle overrun the lithosphere found on its path, and push it down.

I mean seriously, you're going with that?

Science is based on observations. Observations allow to infer that Earth grows in mass and size. But there is no clues for a mechanism, so no science to do for that part of the theory.

florian

05-15-11, 12:38 PM

if the expanding earth conjecture (it barely qualifies as a hypothesis let alone a theory) is correct why does it seems to exclusively attract cranks?

It is a scientific theory (based on scientific data, makes verified predictions).
It does not attract exclusively cranks (Sam Carey was certainly not a crank).
It does attract a lot of cranks because it is spectacular and has a lot of profound implications.

George

05-31-11, 11:18 AM

Hello Guys,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Many different sciences are used to learn about the earth, however, the four basic areas of Earth science study are: geology, meteorology, oceanography and astronomy.

nerdgasm

06-02-11, 01:18 AM

The earth is expanding, but only in the sense that the entire universe is undergoing an expansion. While many people thing the expansion of the universe just means objects getting increasingly distant, it is the very fabric of the cosmos expanding. A time will come, very very far down the road, where space will have stretched to the point where even star formation will be impossible.

Reality can be trippy.

James R

06-02-11, 04:43 AM

The earth is expanding, but only in the sense that the entire universe is undergoing an expansion.

Actually, the Earth doesn't expand along with space. Earth's own local gravity resists the expansion.

Read-Only

06-02-11, 05:49 AM

It is a scientific theory (based on scientific data, makes verified predictions).

Really?? Please show us this "scientific data" and any of the "verified predictions."

It does not attract exclusively cranks (Sam Carey was certainly not a crank).

Indeed, Carey was not a crank but that did not prevent him from falling for a crank idea. He managed to get only a VERY small number of scientists to work with him on that crackpot idea while the rest shunned him harshly. He certainly did a lot of early work on continental drift, and later, on plate tectonics. But he failed in his mission to establish his idea of "expanding Earth" because he did not accept plate subduction - which has now long been accepted as fact and IS based on scientific measurements and hard data.

florian

06-02-11, 06:31 PM

Really?? Please show us this "scientific data" and any of the "verified predictions."
I'm sure that you are familiar with James Maxlow's work.

Indeed, Carey was not a crank but that did not prevent him from falling for a crank idea. He managed to get only a VERY small number of scientists to work with him on that crackpot idea while the rest shunned him harshly. He certainly did a lot of early work on continental drift, and later, on plate tectonics. But he failed in his mission to establish his idea of "expanding Earth" because he did not accept plate subduction - which has now long been accepted as fact and IS based on scientific measurements and hard data.
Actually, he was the first one to propose a balance between lithosphere accretion and destruction. But he later moved to a diapiric interpretation of WBZ, i.e. the WBZ is the interface between a spreading diapir and encountered lithosphere.
And this interpretation is clearly supported by all data. For example in anatolia where a mantle upwelling in anatolia initiated a flow motion, with slab rollback of encountered lithosphere as a consequence at the front of the flow. See the following quote:

Whatever its origin, the asthenospheric rise led to uplift and the establishment of a progressive topographic gradient between the uplift and the subduction zone toward which Anatolia is moving. This scenario is similar to the effect of the Afar plume on the motion and topography of Arabia. In both cases, the beginning of the motion (for Anatolia) or the rapid increase of motion (for Arabia) coincides with the initiation of the uplift.

Trippy

06-02-11, 06:54 PM

I'm sure that you are familiar with James Maxlow's work.

Actually, he was the first one to propose a balance between lithosphere accretion and destruction. But he later moved to a diapiric interpretation of WBZ, i.e. the WBZ is the interface between a spreading diapir and encountered lithosphere.
And this interpretation is clearly supported by all data. For example in anatolia where a mantle upwelling in anatolia initiated a flow motion, with slab rollback of encountered lithosphere as a consequence at the front of the flow. See the following quote:
Your explanation fails to account for all the available evidence, and observations.

For example - consider the Kuril Islands Trench:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Kuril_Benioff_zone.JPG

How does your diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the dip of the WBZ is paralell to the direction of plate motion?
How does your Diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the Okhotsk Plate (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Okhotsk_Plate_map_en.png) is moving South West, and not South East?
How does your diapiric theory account for the lack of observed doming of the Philipine plate?
How does your diapiric theory account for the oberved lack of Orogenic process (and doming) in the Okhotsk plate?
How does your diapiric theory account for the observation that the crust closest to a trench (which are always associated with a WBZ) is cooler than the crust further away from the trench?

florian

06-05-11, 05:33 PM

How does your diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the dip of the WBZ is paralell to the direction of plate motion?
How does your Diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the Okhotsk Plate is moving South West, and not South East?

Because you don't use the correct referential for this case. Relatively to the Pacific lithosphere, i.e. the lithosphere that get subducted, the Okhotsk lithosphere is moving to the South-East, i.e., not parallel to the trench. How does look the mantle anisotropy along the WBZ there? How are the beachballs along the megathrust?

How does your diapiric theory account for the lack of observed doming of the Philipine plate?
How does your diapiric theory account for the oberved lack of Orogenic process (and doming) in the Okhotsk plate?

If there is no doming, then the rising material is too dense. If the material is too dense, it spreads before doming. That's all about isostatic equilibrium.

How does your diapiric theory account for the observation that the crust closest to a trench (which are always associated with a WBZ) is cooler than the crust further away from the trench?

Use a better terminology that "crust closest to a trench" please. Are you referring to the slab shielding the geothermal flux?

Trippy

06-05-11, 05:51 PM

Because you don't use the correct referential for this case. Relatively to the Pacific lithosphere, i.e. the lithosphere that get subducted, the Okhotsk lithosphere is moving to the South-East, i.e., not parallel to the trench. How does look the mantle anisotropy along the WBZ there? How are the beachballs along the megathrust?
I'm using the reference frame that co-rotates with the earth - the same reference frame the GPS network is based on. The closest thing to a 'universal' reference frame there is. Holding one plate stationary and having the others move around it is too arbitrary and ad-hoc for my liking.

Please, feel free to try and justify:
1) Why we should do this.
2) Why it should be the pacific plate.

If there is no doming, then the rising material is too dense. If the material is too dense, it spreads before doming. That's all about isostatic equilibrium.
No doming = no diapirism.
It's pretty trivially demonstrable that mantle upwellings cause doming in the crust, so your explanation fails.

Use a better terminology that "crust closest to a trench" please. Are you referring to the slab shielding the geothermal flux?
There is nothing wrong with my terminology - although I will clarify that I was refering to the subducting plate.

Trippy

06-05-11, 05:52 PM

***Moderator Note***

This thread has failed basic scientific tests several times - moved to Pseudoscience.

florian

06-06-11, 05:35 PM

I'm using the reference frame that co-rotates with the earth - the same reference frame the GPS network is based on. The closest thing to a 'universal' reference frame there is. Holding one plate stationary and having the others move around it is too arbitrary and ad-hoc for my liking.

This referential frame is as arbitrary as the others. A more "universal' reference frame would be that based on the global easterly mantle flow (1).

(1) Crespi, M., Cuffaro, M., Doglioni, C., Giannone, F., and Riguzzi, F. (2007). Space geodesy validation of the global lithospheric flow. Geophysical Journal International 168.

Please, feel free to try and justify:
1) Why we should do this.
2) Why it should be the pacific plate.

?? This is a megathrust, so the pacific lithosphere must be the preferred reference frame because this is evidently the lithosphere that is subducted. And in this reference frame the Okhotsk lithosphere is moving to the South-East toward the pacific lithosphere as logically expected. Reciprocally, if the Okhotsk lithosphere is the referential frame, then the pacific lithosphere will logically appear to move toward the Otkhotsk lithosphere, as expected for a megathrust.
You're apparently very confused with GPS measurements.

Besides you did not answer to my questions, Please do so:
How does look the mantle anisotropy along the WBZ there? How are the beachballs along the megathrust?

Both elements give additional clues.

No doming = no diapirism.
It's pretty trivially demonstrable that mantle upwellings cause doming in the crust, so your explanation fails.

Do you see doming in the back-arc under which the diapir head is located?
If there is no doming, then it means that the diapir is denser than the lithosphere it is piercing through and not pushed from below by material lighter than the surrounding mantle. In this case the diapir will stop rising before reaching the surface and will spread laterally and there will be no doming. Again, this is just a matter of isostatic equilibrium.

There is nothing wrong with my terminology - although I will clarify that I was refering to the subducting plate.

You're terminology was clearly not accurate
So the answer to your question: the slab is shielding the geothermal flux.
Do you disagree?

Are you responsible for moving this thread to Pseudoscience?
Who failed basic scientific tests? Could you detail the tests that got failed please?
Besides, are you really qualified to judge if the expanding theory is a pseudoscience? For example, how much scientific literature did you read about it? Or did you only watch some crackpotery?

Trippy

06-06-11, 06:08 PM

This referential frame is as arbitrary as the others. A more "universal' reference frame would be that based on the global easterly mantle flow (1).

(1) Crespi, M., Cuffaro, M., Doglioni, C., Giannone, F., and Riguzzi, F. (2007). Space geodesy validation of the global lithospheric flow. Geophysical Journal International 168.
No it wouldn't, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the global lithospheric flow that the paper you cited suggests is not as straight forward as an east to west flow. It does however serve to illustrate my point, that even according to the data presented in that paper, the Okhotsk plate moves in almost the same direction as the pacific plate.

?? This is a megathrust, so the pacific lithosphere must be the preferred reference frame because this is evidently the lithosphere that is subducted.
WShy must it be the 'preferred' reference frame?

And in this reference frame the Okhotsk lithosphere is moving to the South-East toward the pacific lithosphere as logically expected. Reciprocally, if the Okhotsk lithosphere is the referential frame, then the pacific lithosphere will logically appear to move toward the Otkhotsk lithosphere, as expected for a megathrust.
So, your theory requires a prefered reference frame, where mine does not. What does that tell you?

You're apparently very confused with GPS measurements.
You are apparently, wrong about this as well.

Besides you did not answer to my questions, Please do so:
How does look the mantle anisotropy along the WBZ there? How are the beachballs along the megathrust?

Both elements give additional clues.
You're right, I didn't answer that question.

Do you see doming in the back-arc under which the diapir head is located?
Generally, where Diapirs exist, yes, some degree of doming is observed.

You're[sic] terminology was clearly not accurate
So the answer to your question: the slab is shielding the geothermal flux.
Do you disagree?
It's your, not you're (which is short for you are).
And there is nothing wrong with my terminology, so no, I won't be rephrasing it.

Are you responsible for moving this thread to Pseudoscience?
No, I claimed credit for the work of Pixies.

Who failed basic scientific tests? Could you detail the tests that got failed please?
Besides, are you really qualified to judge if the expanding theory is a pseudoscience? For example, how much scientific literature did you read about it? Or did you only watch some crackpotery?
Actually, I'm a trained geologist, hence moderating the Earth Science sub forum.

florian

06-11-11, 04:19 PM

I understand that the 20 posts limit for including link is for spammer?

florian

06-11-11, 04:20 PM

Sorry to post yet another meanless post to reach that limit.

florian

06-11-11, 05:00 PM

Sorry to post yet another meanless post to reach that limit.

and last post to reach the limit.

florian

06-11-11, 05:07 PM

No it wouldn't, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the global lithospheric flow that the paper you cited suggests is not as straight forward as an east to west flow. It does however serve to illustrate my point, that even according to the data presented in that paper, the Okhotsk plate moves in almost the same direction as the pacific plate.
Trippy. I appreciate a good scientific discussion, but only if the people involved in the discussion understand what they are talking about. And you don't.

Your claim that "the Okhotsk plate moves in almost the same direction as the pacific plate" is clearly unsupported by the link to the figure you provided: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Okhotsk_Plate_map_en.png

As anyone can see in this figure, the velocity vector of the Pacific plate and Okhotsk are perpendicular to each others. Is that what you call "moves in almost the same direction"?
Moreover, the sum of the vector components perpendicular to the Okhotsk/pacific Boundary, ie the components of interest to determine if the two blocks are converging or not, is not null at all (!). Actually, the Okhotsk vector being parallel to the boundary and the Pacific vector being perpendicular to the boundary, it is easy to estimate that the convergence rate is about 92 mm/y, quite impressive.

In conclusion, you're clearly wrong. But will you admit it?

Why must it be the 'preferred' reference frame
Evidently because when one want to show a convergence between to blocks, it is more convenient to choose one of the two blocks as the referential frame. It is just good old logic.

So, your theory requires a prefered reference frame, where mine does not. What does that tell you?
It is not according to a theory, but according to simple logic. And it does tell me that you are devoid of logic.

You are apparently, wrong about this as well.
Well, if you believe that I'm wrong about the convergence of Pacific and Okhotsk (I remind you that the boundary is a megathrust!), you have a serious problem of cognitive dissonance.

Generally, where Diapirs exist, yes, some degree of doming is observed.
Please don't use rhetoric and simply answer my question. Is there any doming in the back-arcs? yes or not?

And there is nothing wrong with my terminology, so no, I won't be rephrasing it.
The terminology used in your question was not accurate enough to provide an accurate answer. So you must rephrase it.

No, I claimed credit for the work of Pixies.
Except that it was your claim. So basically you move this thread to pseudoscience because you made pseudoscientific claims. Bravo! Do you have any ethics at all?

Actually, I'm a trained geologist, hence moderating the Earth Science sub forum.
A geologist that can't interpret geodetic measurements or do not know that a megathrust is a convergent boundary? And you're a moderator of the Earth Science sub forum? hum.
Anyway, even the most brilliant geologists must read the literature on a particular subject to understand it. So how much scientific literature did you read about the expanding earth theory? Or did you only watch some crackpotery which would put you at that same crackpot level?

PS:I suggest you to abandon your condescending tone, because you're absolutly not in position to adopt such tone, moderator or not.

Trippy

06-12-11, 05:50 AM

Trippy. I appreciate a good scientific discussion, but only if the people involved in the discussion understand what they are talking about. And you don't.

Your claim that "the Okhotsk plate moves in almost the same direction as the pacific plate" is clearly unsupported by the link to the figure you provided: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Okhotsk_Plate_map_en.png

As anyone can see in this figure, the velocity vector of the Pacific plate and Okhotsk are perpendicular to each others. Is that what you call "moves in almost the same direction"?
Moreover, the sum of the vector components perpendicular to the Okhotsk/pacific Boundary, ie the components of interest to determine if the two blocks are converging or not, is not null at all (!). Actually, the Okhotsk vector being parallel to the boundary and the Pacific vector being perpendicular to the boundary, it is easy to estimate that the convergence rate is about 92 mm/y, quite impressive.

In conclusion, you're clearly wrong. But will you admit it?
As do I - when people respond to what I actually say, and are capable of retaining context accross a single page.
Allow me to illustrate how you're wrong in two ways, and that the worst mistake I've made amounts to a typographical error (I may have substituted the wrong name).

Here's what I originally said:

How does your Diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the Okhotsk Plate (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Okhotsk_Plate_map_en.png) is moving South West, and not South East?
Is South West 'roughly paralell' to the direction of motion of the pacific plate?
No, it is not.
It is, however, 'roughly paralell' to the direction of motion of the eurasian plate
QED the 'contradiction' is resolved as a typographical error (oops, my bad).

Alternatively, you could read your own source (Crespi, M., Cuffaro, M., Doglioni, C., Giannone, F., and Riguzzi, F. (2007). Space geodesy validation of the global lithospheric flow. Geophysical Journal International 168 - I can provide you with a legitimate link to the PDF if you like), and realize that figures 6a, 6b, and 6c, which show "Plate motions with respect to mantle flow" have the Pacific and Okhotsk plate moving sub paralell ('nearly paralell') and that neither reference frame supports your notion. The only way to support your notion is by choosing some prefered reference frame based on the pacific plate, and assuming all other plates move around it.

Evidently because when one want to show a convergence between to blocks, it is more convenient to choose one of the two blocks as the referential frame. It is just good old logic.
No, it's poor logic because it leads to misleading impressions, and potentially contradicts evidence.

It is not according to a theory, but according to simple logic. And it does tell me that you are devoid of logic.
Do you make a habit out of being an ass, or is this just a special effort for me.

Well, if you believe that I'm wrong about the convergence of Pacific and Okhotsk (I remind you that the boundary is a megathrust!), you have a serious problem of cognitive dissonance.
See here's the thing - qoute me claiming they're not converging? Oh that's right, I didn't, you just haven't put the effort into understanding my point.
Quote me claiming that it's not a megathrust? Oh that's right, you can't becaus I didn't.

Please don't use rhetoric and simply answer my question. Is there any doming in the back-arcs? yes or not?
Asked and answered.

The terminology used in your question was not accurate enough to provide an accurate answer. So you must rephrase it.
Again, no.

Except that it was your claim. So basically you move this thread to pseudoscience because you made pseudoscientific claims. Bravo! Do you have any ethics at all?
Are we reading the same thread?
See here: http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2764426&postcount=52
That is me claiming credit for the work of pixies.

A geologist that can't interpret geodetic measurements or do not know that a megathrust is a convergent boundary?

And you're a moderator of the Earth Science sub forum? hum.
Strawman hypothesis - I never claimed that it wasn't a megathrust, nor did I claim it wasn't a convergent boundary - two plates can have a net motion in some reference frame that is sub paralell, and still be convergent. This is your misunderstanding, not mine.

Anyway, even the most brilliant geologists must read the literature on a particular subject to understand it. So how much scientific literature did you read about the expanding earth theory? Or did you only watch some crackpotery which would put you at that same crackpot level?

PS:I suggest you to abandon your condescending tone, because you're absolutly not in position to adopt such tone, moderator or not.
Given that so far you have failed to follow the discussion, retain context across a single page (allowing you to spot a potential typo) have yet to address any points that have been made, and have presented logical fallacies, I think that when you fail to recognize a post that suggests "I'm moving this thread" that it's fair and reasonable to suggest that Pixies did it.

florian

06-12-11, 07:22 PM

As do I - when people respond to what I actually say, and are capable of retaining context accross a single page.
Allow me to illustrate how you're wrong in two ways, and that the worst mistake I've made amounts to a typographical error (I may have substituted the wrong name).

Here's what I originally said:

Is South West 'roughly paralell' to the direction of motion of the pacific plate?
No, it is not.
It is, however, 'roughly paralell' to the direction of motion of the eurasian plate
QED the 'contradiction' is resolved as a typographical error (oops, my bad).

A typo? Really? Let me remind you what you wrote.
About the Kuril trench (boundary between Okhotsk/Pacific), on 06-02-11 06:54 PM, you wrote:

How does your diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the dip of the WBZ is paralell to the direction of plate motion?
Here you clearly states that the WBZ is parallel to the plate motion of Okhotsk. If the boundary was parallel to the plate motion then the boundary would be transform fault, not a megathrust (!)

How does your Diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the Okhotsk Plate is moving South West, and not South East?
Here you clearly states again that the Okhotsk plate moves parallely to the boundary, to the southwest, and not to the southeast toward the Pacific. But you splendily ignore the fact that the Pacific is moving toward the Okhotsk plate (!)

Then on 06-06-11 06:08 PM, you wrote.

It does however serve to illustrate my point, that even according to the data presented in that paper, the Okhotsk plate moves in almost the same direction as the pacific plate
Suggesting again that both the pacific plate and Okhotsk plate move in the same direction.

Who could believe that 3 times the same mistake is just a typo. Give me a break. you're backpeddling and denying the facts.

Alternatively, you could read your own source (Crespi, M., Cuffaro, M., Doglioni, C., Giannone, F., and Riguzzi, F. (2007). Space geodesy validation of the global lithospheric flow. Geophysical Journal International 168 - I can provide you with a legitimate link to the PDF if you like),
Thanks but no thanks. If I provided this reference, it is evidently because I have the pdf and read it.

and realize that figures 6a, 6b, and 6c, which show "Plate motions with respect to mantle flow" have the Pacific and Okhotsk plate moving sub paralell ('nearly paralell') and that neither reference frame supports your notion.
Incredible, you persist in your error! Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum!
If it appears sub parallel, it is simply because the velocity of the global mantle flow is larger than the norm of both the Okhotsk and Pacific velocity vector. In other words, if the norm of two vectors u and v is smaller than 1, and if we add a vector w of norm 10 to u and v, then u+w and v+w will appear sub parallel. Very very basic math.

You confirm that you really don't understand what you're talking about and that you have serious issues with the comprehension of relative motion.

The only way to support your notion is by choosing some prefered reference frame based on the pacific plate, and assuming all other plates move around it.
This is becoming ludicrous. I insist, to clearly show that two blocks are converging, one must choose one block or the other as a referential. Any other referential will provide a less appropriate representation of the convergence.

No, it's poor logic because it leads to misleading impressions, and potentially contradicts evidence.
So according to you, it is poor logic to choose as the referential one of the two blocks that we want to show to converge? Because it leads to misleading impressions? There is no more doubt. You're in denial.

Do you make a habit out of being an ass, or is this just a special effort for me.
This is a special effort for you. And deniers like you deserve it.

Trippy

06-12-11, 08:03 PM

A typo? Really? Let me remind you what you wrote.
About the Kuril trench (boundary between Okhotsk/Pacific), on 06-02-11 06:54 PM, you wrote:

Here you clearly states that the WBZ is parallel to the plate motion of Okhotsk. If the boundary was parallel to the plate motion then the boundary would be transform fault, not a megathrust (!)
Only... The WBZ isn't in the Okhotsk plate is it?
The WBZ is in the Pacific plate, isn't it.
Which would mean that yes, the WBZ is paralell to the motion of the plate that it's on - the pacific plate.

Here you clearly states again that the Okhotsk plate moves parallely to the boundary, to the southwest, and not to the southeast toward the Pacific. But you splendily ignore the fact that the Pacific is moving toward the Okhotsk plate (!)
Mostly correct - I didn't ignore the motion of the pacific plate, I had already addressed it, you just failed to recognize that I had done so.

Then on 06-06-11 06:08 PM, you wrote.

Suggesting again that both the pacific plate and Okhotsk plate move in the same direction.
This, I have explained to you, was a typo.

Who could believe that 3 times the same mistake is just a typo. Give me a break. you're backpeddling and denying the facts.
I'm back peddling on nothing. So far you've presented two wrong interpretations of what was said, interpretations that I wouldn't even be willing to give you as reasonable inferences, and rehashing what has already been explained to you as a typo - all because you can't imagine how my suggesting that one plate is moving towards a boundary, and the other is moving paralell to it - or heaven forbid, away from it, it can still be a convergent boundary. This is a failing on your part, not mine.

Thanks but no thanks. If I provided this reference, it is evidently because I have the pdf and read it.
And yet...

Incredible, you persist in your error! Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum!
If it appears sub parallel, it is simply because the velocity of the global mantle flow is larger than the norm of both the Okhotsk and Pacific velocity vector. In other words, if the norm of two vectors u and v is smaller than 1, and if we add a vector w of norm 10 to u and v, then u+w and v+w will appear sub parallel. Very very basic math.
No, not really, because I can trivially wrap my head around how two plates can be moving in a sub paralell fashion, and still have a convergent boundary, you, on the other hand, keep missing the point, as to why I bought it up in the first place. Here's a clue for you, it had nothing to do with trying to contradict the notion that the Kurile trench is a covergent margin, in fact, it's kind of, umm, essential to my point that it is a convergent margin.

Let me spell it out for you, yet again, I am not asserting that the Kurile margin is anything other than a convergent margin, with the pacific plate subducting under the Okhotsk plate, this is a strawman hypothesis invented by you.

You confirm that you really don't understand what you're talking about and that you have serious issues with the comprehension of relative motion.
Clearly my spatial reasoning surpasses yours, because I do not need to choose a preferred reference frame to understand whether something is convergent or divergent.

This is becoming ludicrous. I insist, to clearly show that two blocks are converging, one must choose one block or the other as a referential. Any other referential will provide a less appropriate representation of the convergence.
And you insit wrongly.

So according to you, it is poor logic to choose as the referential one of the two blocks that we want to show to converge? Because it leads to misleading impressions? There is no more doubt. You're in denial.
So, according to you, insisting on accuracy, and universal applicability is being in denial?

Interesting.

This is a special effort for you. And deniers like you deserve it.
You're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.

I do not accept expanding earth theories because I have not seen one shred of evidence that supports them to the exclusion of any other theory, and because most of them require things such as the Earths orbital parameters to have changed in very specific, very contrived ways to counter lines of evidence against expanding earth theories.

florian

06-13-11, 06:08 PM

Which would mean that yes, the WBZ is paralell to the motion of the plate that it's on - the pacific plate.
The WBZ is parallel to the motion of the pacific plate??? You're really confusing.

Mostly correct - I didn't ignore the motion of the pacific plate, I had already addressed it, you just failed to recognize that I had done so.
Sorry, but you persist with that silly idea that Okhotsk is truly moving parallel to the WBZ whereas it is just resulting from an arbitrary choice of referential. You apparently believe that there is an absolute referential which is the one chosen in the figure. This is wrong. In consequence, you cannot state that the Okhotsk plate is truly moving along the WBZ.

I'm back peddling on nothing. So far you've presented two wrong interpretations of what was said, interpretations that I wouldn't even be willing to give you as reasonable inferences, and rehashing what has already been explained to you as a typo - all because you can't imagine how my suggesting that one plate is moving towards a boundary, and the other is moving paralell to it - or heaven forbid, away from it, it can still be a convergent boundary. This is a failing on your part, not mine.
Again you believe that there is an absolute referential that allows you to state that "one plate is moving towards a boundary, and the other is moving paralell to it". This is wrong.
On the other side, there are two referentials that are more convenient than all others to show the convergence: the pacific lithosphere, Okhotsk lithosphere.

No, not really, because I can trivially wrap my head around how two plates can be moving in a sub paralell fashion, and still have a convergent boundary, you, on the other hand, keep missing the point, as to why I bought it up in the first place. Here's a clue for you, it had nothing to do with trying to contradict the notion that the Kurile trench is a covergent margin, in fact, it's kind of, umm, essential to my point that it is a convergent margin.
And it is essential to mine as well. The difference is in the driving force of the convergence. You believe that the sinking slab drives the convergence, whereas this is the mantle driving the convergence.

Clearly my spatial reasoning surpasses yours, because I do not need to choose a preferred reference frame to understand whether something is convergent or divergent.
whooaa! I'm truly impressed. I did not realize until now that you're in fact a genius! (yeah I'm ironic).

And you insit wrongly.
So according to your superior spatial reasoning, to clearly show that two blocks are converging, one must not prefer to choose one of the blocks as a convenient referential?

So, according to you, insisting on accuracy, and universal applicability is being in denial?
Persisting in thinking that the arbitrary referential chosen for a figure illustrates the absolute motion of lithosphere is being in denial, indeed.

You're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.
Because I pointed that you're in denial? Interesting...

I do not accept expanding earth theories because I have not seen one shred of evidence that supports them to the exclusion of any other theory,
Really? I'm still waiting for the list of scientific papers that you read on the subject. Probably none.
Try this one for a start: http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/4364/1/07scalera.pdf

and because most of them require things such as the Earths orbital parameters to have changed in very specific, very contrived ways to counter lines of evidence against expanding earth theories.
Very specific ways? Given that we have no idea of the momemtum contribution from the gained mass (or do you believe it is zero?) it is impossible to make any prediction on the evolution of Earths orbital parameters.

Trippy

06-13-11, 07:07 PM

The WBZ is parallel to the motion of the pacific plate??? You're really confusing.
Only because you, apparently, have failed to retain context, and have been to busy getting all emotional in defense of your theory to take the time to understand and retain what I have actually said.

Sorry, but you persist with that silly idea that Okhotsk is truly moving parallel to the WBZ whereas it is just resulting from an arbitrary choice of referential. You apparently believe that there is an absolute referential which is the one chosen in the figure. This is wrong. In consequence, you cannot state that the Okhotsk plate is truly moving along the WBZ.
This is hilarious to me, for a number of reasons which I am sure will continue to escape you.

Again you believe that there is an absolute referential that allows you to state that "one plate is moving towards a boundary, and the other is moving paralell to it". This is wrong.
On the other side, there are two referentials that are more convenient than all others to show the convergence: the pacific lithosphere, Okhotsk lithosphere.
Once again, you fail to understand that my reference system also shows a convergence.

And it is essential to mine as well. The difference is in the driving force of the convergence. You believe that the sinking slab drives the convergence, whereas this is the mantle driving the convergence.
You don't know what I think, because I haven't expounded upon it, and your assumption is wrong. I happen to know, for example, that the most accurate models of the motion of the pacific plate involve a combination of slab pull and mantle drag.

whooaa! I'm truly impressed. I did not realize until now that you're in fact a genius! (yeah I'm ironic).
That's one word for it.

So according to your superior spatial reasoning, to clearly show that two blocks are converging, one must not prefer to choose one of the blocks as a convenient referential?
Not what I said, nor what I implied. I suggested that one shouldn't, because one doesn't need to, and if one does, then one risks missing part of the bigger picture.

Persisting in thinking that the arbitrary referential chosen for a figure illustrates the absolute motion of lithosphere is being in denial, indeed.
Now you're being absurd.

Because I pointed that you're in denial? Interesting...
If the language fits...

Really? I'm still waiting for the list of scientific papers that you read on the subject. Probably none.
Try this one for a start: http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/4364/1/07scalera.pdf
Already read it, but thanks for the consideration anyway.

Very specific ways? Given that we have no idea of the momemtum contribution from the gained mass (or do you believe it is zero?) it is impossible to make any prediction on the evolution of Earths orbital parameters.
Yes, very specific ways - it must be fine tuned in just the right way so that Tidal rythmites, for example, give the impression of no net change in angular momentum of the Earth-moon (sun) system for the last 2 billion years or so.

Meanwhile, you fail to understand that not even all expanding earth theories require an increase in mass of the earth.

Incidentally - I've often wondered how expanding earth tectonics can account for the Wilson cycle. It seems to me that expanding earth tectonics completely fails to address this observation, however, plate tectonics can easily predict/account for it.

matthew809

06-15-11, 01:10 PM

because earth is itself a single living organism like a tree and has been germinated from single meteoroid containing amino acid and biological chemistry (seed of planet). and this seed has been produced by an old cosmic body. one planet is a result of one meteoroid (seed of planet) as one tree is a result of one seed only.

I like this idea, of an earth seed.

I personally believe that all life on this planet was created by a creator(s). One thing I couldn't figure out though is why did our creator create the dinosaurs to roam this earth for so long, but not a more intelligent and interesting species(such as man) until way later? I just didn't understand the alien motivation.

With the growing earth theory, gravity was a lot less during the dinosaurs' time. It just makes sense that dinosaurs should exist in a time of lesser gravity, as they couldn't exist in today's gravity due to their incredible body mass. It's almost as if the dinosaurs played their part.... as part of a larger planet-coordinated program of strategic species placement. If it wasn't for all the life before us, we wouldn't have oil for example. But with the length of time involved in this earth experiment, I imagine a lot of automation would be involved. Our creators may have only minimal intervention in the processes.

Anyway, back to the earth seed idea. It's a conceivable idea...it's no more extreme than the idea that our DNA was created. The heart of our earth could be a machine which grew according to it's own "DNA" programming. Maybe the earth machine captures energy and converts it into specific matter according to it's programming.

Regardless of whether or not the earth is alive though, the expanding earth theory is a winner. It just makes so much sense, and I haven't read any counter-arguments which point out any real flaws in it. All I see is the usual ad hom attacks, misinterpretations and confusion, and the idea-stifling defense of scientific consensus.

Oh... and of course there's the international conspiracy to keep this information quite. We can't trust any statistical information that comes from NASA. For example, I read that NASA measured that the earth was indeed expanding about 18mm a year, but that this measurement is considered to be an error and therefore ignored.

origin

06-15-11, 01:39 PM

I didn't think this thread could get any sillier - I was apparently wrong.:rolleyes:

Read-Only

06-15-11, 02:24 PM

I didn't think this thread could get any sillier - I was apparently wrong.:rolleyes:

Yeah, pretty much what I was thinking. Ugh! Just proves that old P.T. Barnum was right (and still is) - there's one born every minute.:(

matthew809

06-16-11, 04:02 PM

Lets talk about mountain formation.

Let's hypothetically assume that the earth is in fact expanding. Imagine a smaller rounder earth. Imagine as the earth gets bigger, the crust breaks apart into pieces, and magma fills the spaces. Now just imagine one of these pieces, perhaps about the size of Texas. As the earth gets bigger and flatter, the texas-sized piece keeps a more rounded shape which it got from the mold of a younger earth. This colossal mound of crust sits raised upon the expanding earth for many years until one day, due to the stress of it's own awkwardly suspended weight, fractures upon itself and falls like a pile of rubble to the ground. This process of collapse may take many millions of years I guess, or maybe it happens relatively quicker. I imagine that the top layers of softer material would eventually erode away, revealing the stoney rubble pile, and the rigid structures that we know as mountains today.

Assuming a hypothetical expanding earth, do you have a problem seeing how this scenario would most likely mimic many of the mountains which we have today?

florian

06-18-11, 05:43 AM

Only because you, apparently, have failed to retain context, and have been to busy getting all emotional in defense of your theory to take the time to understand and retain what I have actually said.
Didn't you write that the Okhotsk plate is not moving toward the pacific but along it?

This is hilarious to me, for a number of reasons which I am sure will continue to escape you.
So in short, you call me an idiot... Wonderful...

Once again, you fail to understand that my reference system also shows a convergence.
You interpret your reference system has showing no absolute motion of Okhotsk plate toward the pacific.

You don't know what I think, because I haven't expounded upon it, and your assumption is wrong. I happen to know, for example, that the most accurate models of the motion of the pacific plate involve a combination of slab pull and mantle drag.
Interesting, slab pull requires decoupling of the Asthenosphere and Lithosphere (low velocity zone), and is thus in contradiction with mantle drag. Citation please?

Already read it, but thanks for the consideration anyway.
So why don't you discuss this paper?

Yes, very specific ways - it must be fine tuned in just the right way so that Tidal rythmites, for example, give the impression of no net change in angular momentum of the Earth-moon (sun) system for the last 2 billion years or so.

Except that you seem to ignore that tidalite-based calculations rely entirely on the assumption that the orbital period of Earth never changed (8 766 h)

Already read it, but thanks for the consideration anyway.
So why don't you discuss this paper?

Meanwhile, you fail to understand that not even all expanding earth theories require an increase in mass of the earth.
Easily refuted. Unsupported densities or surface gravity (e.g. 40 m/s2 or 200 My ago). You should know it.

Incidentally - I've often wondered how expanding earth tectonics can account for the Wilson cycle. It seems to me that expanding earth tectonics completely fails to address this observation, however, plate tectonics can easily predict/account for it.
No, Wilson cycles are easily explained, notably by Carey 50 years ago. But you know it, since as a good scientist, you read most of the important scientific literature on the expanding theory before discussing it here.
And I remind you that I'm just an idiot. What's your name again?

Trippy

06-19-11, 11:38 PM

Didn't you write that the Okhotsk plate is not moving toward the pacific but along it?
What I had to say about the motion of the Okhotsk plate is not what we were talking about, we were talking about the orientation of the dip (not the strike) of the WBZ.

Here is what I originally said:

Your explanation fails to account for all the available evidence, and observations.

For example - consider the Kuril Islands Trench:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Kuril_Benioff_zone.JPG

How does your diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the dip of the WBZ is paralell to the direction of plate motion?

So the statement:
"How does your diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the dip of the WBZ is paralell to the direction of plate motion?"
Was made in the context of this image:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Kuril_Benioff_zone.JPG
In the context of this image, the motion of the Pacific plate is from right to left, and the WBZ extends from right to left, and dips from right to left.

Therefore the dip of the WBZ is paralell to the direction of plate motion (of the pacific plate, the plate being subducted).

So in short, you call me an idiot... Wonderful...
Strawman hypothesis. I did not call you and idiot, nor did I imply it. I implied that there was something that I found amusing in your statement, and that I doubted you would understand why I found it amusing - it has to do with the Carey's choice of reference frames.

You interpret your reference system has showing no absolute motion of Okhotsk plate toward the pacific.
No I don't, this is your assertion about my reference frame, not what I interpret about my reference frame.

Interesting, slab pull requires decoupling of the Asthenosphere and Lithosphere (low velocity zone), and is thus in contradiction with mantle drag. Citation please?
Not neccesarily.

So why don't you discuss this paper?
Because I find it terribly flawed on a number of levels, and I find some of the language used in it far from being neutral.

Except that you seem to ignore that tidalite-based calculations rely entirely on the assumption that the orbital period of Earth never changed (8 766 h)
Not in the papers I've seen, no.

Easily refuted. Unsupported densities or surface gravity (e.g. 40 m/s2 or 200 My ago). You should know it.
And yet Scalera advocates an expanding earth that requires no additional mass - he favours graviton decay into photons, because he feels that it also explains the heat excess from planets.

No, Wilson cycles are easily explained, notably by Carey 50 years ago. But you know it, since as a good scientist, you read most of the important scientific literature on the expanding theory before discussing it here.
This is deflection. You're avoiding answering the question.

I'm asking you to explain, for the benefit of everybody here, as an advocate of Carey's expanding Earth theory, how the expanding earth theory accounts for the Wilson Cycle - the idea that there have been multiple assemblages of super continents in a quasi periodic cycle, without subduction, on the surface of an expanding earth.

Please, stop evading the question, and answer it, in your own words.

And then, perhaps, you can provide us with a paper that demonstrates the signal of a Carey's 24mm +/- 8mm per annum increase in the girth of this fine planet buried within the various datasets available from things such as GPS measurements, and lunar ranging experiments, and satellite ephamerides.

What's your name again?
Slartibartfast the Magrathean

florian

06-21-11, 11:55 AM

In the context of this image, the motion of the Pacific plate is from right to left, and the WBZ extends from right to left, and dips from right to left.

Therefore the dip of the WBZ is paralell to the direction of plate motion (of the pacific plate, the plate being subducted).
And? Why would you expect something different whatever the model?

Not in the papers I've seen, no.
And how do you believe that the length of the paleaodays are calculated? The length of the days is calculated by dividing the orbital period assumed to be constant (8766 h) by the number of measured days in a year.

I suggest you to read carefully Williams (2000) Reviews of Geophysics 38, p37.

For example in page 47, Williams write:
"Data for the coeval Reynella and Elatina rhythmites therefore indicate (30.5 � 0.5) (13.1 � 0.1) = 400 � 7 solar days/yr and hence 21.9 � 0.4 h/d at ~620 Ma"
21.9�0.4 h/days is simply calculated by diviing the number of days (400) by the number of hours in a year (8766 h): 8766/400=21.9 hours. Bingo!

And this central assumption is used in every caculations of the paleomomentum or lenght of paleodays derived from tidalites. If that central assumptions is wrong, then all the numbers are also wrong.

This is deflection. You're avoiding answering the question.

I'm asking you to explain, for the benefit of everybody here, as an advocate of Carey's expanding Earth theory, how the expanding earth theory accounts for the Wilson Cycle - the idea that there have been multiple assemblages of super continents in a quasi periodic cycle, without subduction, on the surface of an expanding earth.

First point. There is mantle-driven subduction which implies limited lithosphere destruction, and a global unbalance between lithosphere destruction and formation.

Your question. You know perfectly that Carey refuted Wilson's cycles decade ago.

I now quote a part of his book "Theories of the earth and universe: a history of dogma in the earth sciences (http://books.google.com/books/about/Theories_of_the_earth_and_universe.html?id=l_0l0KO dHLoC)"
This chapter is entitled the Myth of the Iapetus Ocean:

Current orthodoxy claims that more than 600 million years ago, ocean-floor spreading had produced an ocean called Iapetus a couple of thousand kilometers wide, roughly but not exactly on the site of the present North Atlantic Ocean, which separated North America and Africa-Europe, much as the North Atlantic does today. This ocean was filled with sandstone, shale, and limestone during the early Paleozoic (609 to 400 million years ago), but during the Middle Devonian (some 370 million years ago), earlier ocean-floor spreading was replaced by subduction, which dragged the ocean floor down into the mantle, bringing northern Africa and Europe back against North America, and squeezing up the sediments to form the Caledonian fold mountains of Scandinavia, Scotland, and Ireland, and the Appalachian Mountains of eastern North America, which completely obliterated the Iapetus Ocean. It was not until the Rhaetic Epoch, about 200 million years ago, that a long chain of rift valleys, which rapidly filled with coarse sediments and basaltic lava, initiated the opening of the modern Atlantic Ocean. The axis of this new rifting had rotated some 30 degrees counterclockwise from the early Paleozoic trend, so most of the early fold mountains were on the eastern side of the new ocean in Britain and Scandinavia and most of them on the western side in North America, although residuals of the Appalachians were left in northwestern Africa and parts of the Caledonides on the east coast of Greenland.
No one disputes that the Caledonian and Appalachian fold mountains in Scandinavia, the British Isles, Greenland, northwestern Africa, and eastern North America were a single mountain system that was folded during the Devonian (also at some other times), and fragmented and separated during the Mesozoic opening of the North Atlantic. But what I do deny is that the Iapetus Ocean ever existed. The primary reason for postulating Iapetus was the orthodox assumption that fold mountains result from subduction of earlier ocean floor. Hence in this view a significant seaway had to be postulated there before the subduction. Moreover, this appeared to be strongly confirmed by the fossil faunas and paleontography. Whereas clear evidence of Ordovician continental glaciation was found throughout the northwestern bulge of Africa, limestones with subtropical faunas were traced along the western slopes of the Appalachians, apparently much too close to the frigid ice sheets unless there was wide separation between Africa and North America at that time. The Ordovician trilobite faunas on the west side of the axial zone of the Appalachians and Caledonides were also incompatible with those adjacent to them on the east side. Trilobite genera occupying similar ecological environments were so different genetically that it seemed impossible that they could have lived so close together for so many millions of years. They needed to have been separated by a barrier such as a wide ocean a thousand kilometers or more wide.
Certainly these trilobite faunas could not have been so near each other as they are now found. But the separation was 3000 km along the axial line of the Appalachians and Caledonides, not across it. Restoring this separation brings the trilobites of Pennsylvania back to face those of Scandinavia, with which they are compatible. I first recognized this gross shear along the axial zone of the Appalachians from the S-shaped distortion of the ''Granville front,'' the boundary of the Late Proterozoic fold-mountains that preceded the 1 Appalachians (Fig. 38). Later, firm confirmation came from paleomagnetic measurements.

http://nachon.free.fr/carey/Fig38-carey.jpg

During the early Paleozoic time interval when the Iapetus Ocean is alleged to have existed, lavas and other suitable rocks were magnetized by the contemporary magnetic held, so that these rocks recorded their latitude and the direction to the pole. Such rocks, irrespective of whether they were in North America, Africa, or Europe, would indicate the same position for the pole. But if during the Devonian Period the hypothetical Iapetus Ocean was closed by the subduction of its floor, and the Africa-Europe plates collided with the North America plate, the pole indicated by Africa and Europe would come to differ from the pole indicated by the America plate by the amount of the closure and in the direction of the closure.
Dr. W. A. Morris pioneered the investigation of this question, and found that indeed the poles had separated by some 30 degrees, but the separation was in the direction of the Appalachian-caledonian axis, and not transverse to it as it would have to be if the alleged lapetus Ocean had been subducted. Throughout the Early Paleozoic Era up to and including the Early Devonian (about 370 million years ago), southern Britain lay adjacent to North Carolina (Fig. 39). The Ordovician trilobite fauna of Pennsylvania was adjacent to the Baltic faunas. During the Middle Devonian (a time when the Appalachian and Caledonian belts were strongly folded), Africa and Europe were sheared 30 degrees counterclockwise, bringing northwestern Africa opposite North Carolina. Morris's conclusions have since been confirmed by other paleomagneticians with some variations in detail; for example, some think that the shearing displacement continued for 50 million years into the Carboniferous. This is quite acceptable, because both the Caledonian shearing torsion and the later Tethyan torsion movements probably lasted something like 100 million years. Caution is necessary with paleomagnetic data because some rocks have been demagnetized several times, making it essential that the geologic date of each separate magnetization be identified.

http://nachon.free.fr/carey/Fig39-carey.jpg

The alleged anomaly between the northwest African glaciation and the subtropical limestones of the western slopes of the Appalachians during the Ordovician is also eased by the displacement along the Appalachian axis, but on an expanding Earth, it was not anomalous anyway. If the pole be assumed to have been in the center of the records of glaciation and the earth's radius assumed to have been 0.7 of the present radius, the most northerly glaciate in northwest Africa would have been in latitude 43� (the same as the most northerly Quaternary glaciate at sea level in Tasmania), and the subtropical Ordovician limestones would have been in the latitude of the present Great Barrier Reef of Queensland. The evidence for Iapetus, and the mythical ocean itself, vanish.

Yes, Brilliant. Carey was a true genius.

Now I made a figure to demonstrate why Wilson cycles are actually artefacts:

http://nachon.free.fr/images/Wilson-cycles.png

Every letter identifies the part of a terrane of a certain age. The different part are dispersed on different continents but their age and nature can help for the reconstruction.

Let's say that the age of the different terranes is:

A: 400 Ma
B: 700 Ma
C: 100 Ma
D: 1000 Ma
E: 1300 Ma

We note that if the globe radius has remained fixed, we must break up the present continents and then rebuild new one, and so on, to reconstruct the full history of these terranes. This is Wilson's cycle of supercontinents.

But there is another solution which does not require the break up of continents and yet allows to explain the current configuration of the terrane. This solution is to reduce the size of the globe.

When multiple independent problems can be solved by the same solution, then it means this is the right solution, even if it
seems a priori implausible.

Trippy

06-21-11, 02:53 PM

And? Why would you expect something different whatever the model?
I asked you to explain it according to your model.

You then started equivocating and misrepresenting what I said.

I was clarifying what I said.

And how do you believe that the length of the paleaodays are calculated? The length of the days is calculated by dividing the orbital period assumed to be constant (8766 h) by the number of measured days in a year.

I suggest you to read carefully Williams (2000) Reviews of Geophysics 38, p37.

For example in page 47, Williams write:
"Data for the coeval Reynella and Elatina rhythmites therefore indicate (30.5 � 0.5) (13.1 � 0.1) = 400 � 7 solar days/yr and hence 21.9 � 0.4 h/d at ~620 Ma"
21.9�0.4 h/days is simply calculated by diviing the number of days (400) by the number of hours in a year (8766 h): 8766/400=21.9 hours. Bingo!

And this central assumption is used in every caculations of the paleomomentum or lenght of paleodays derived from tidalites. If that central assumptions is wrong, then all the numbers are also wrong.
In part, this goes back to one of my original points - that if constants have varied, then they have to have varied in very specic ways. In otherwords, for your speculation to be true, it would require the Earths orbit to have evolved in a way to give the apperance of consistency - for example, if the earth had expanded, and there were really 450 days in a year, then this would give an anomalous result, that would be different from the value expected from tidal braking. I could almost write an essay on this, if I had time. But the short version is, there is no anomaly. If the Earth's orbit was different, or the earth was smaller, then the length of the days calculated using this method would be different from the value we expect from tidal braking.

But it's worse than that, because we can draw on evidence from astronomy and cosmology to demonstrate that the fundamental constants do not appear to have changed.

First point. There is mantle-driven subduction which implies limited lithosphere destruction, and a global unbalance between lithosphere destruction and formation.
No it doesn't.

We note that if the globe radius has remained fixed, we must break up the present continents and then rebuild new one, and so on, to reconstruct the full history of these terranes. This is Wilson's cycle of supercontinents.

But there is another solution which does not require the break up of continents and yet allows to explain the current configuration of the terrane. This solution is to reduce the size of the globe.

When multiple independent problems can be solved by the same solution, then it means this is the right solution, even if it
seems a priori implausible.
Only the expanding earth hypothesis is not simpler, by any stretch, and the Wilson cycle is fairly trivially explainable using subduction tectonics.

florian

06-21-11, 05:44 PM

I asked you to explain it according to your model.
The dip is parallel to the direction of the mantle wedge motion.

In part, this goes back to one of my original points - that if constants have varied, then they have to have varied in very specic ways.
A change in the orbit of Earth does not required a change in any constant. It only requires a change in momentum. this is expected because the gained mass has zero momentum.

In otherwords, for your speculation to be true, it would require the Earths orbit to have evolved in a way to give the apperance of consistency - for example, if the earth had expanded, and there were really 450 days in a year,
Tidalites show there were 400 solar days/year 620 millions years ago without any possibility to measure the actual length of a day.

then this would give an anomalous result, that would be different from the value expected from tidal braking. I could almost write an essay on this, if I had time. But the short version is, there is no anomaly. If the Earth's orbit was different, or the earth was smaller, then the length of the days calculated using this method would be different from the value we expect from tidal braking.
What value do you expect from tidal braking? How do you take into account the momentum of the gained mass knowing that you have no idea of its value?

First point. There is mantle-driven subduction which implies limited lithosphere destruction, and a global unbalance between lithosphere destruction and formation.
No it doesn't.
Why do you disagree? Do you disagree that mantle-driven subduction implies limited lithosphere destruction?
This is an illustration of mantle-driven subduction:
http://nachon.free.fr/flowtectonic/flow-rollback.jpg

It shows that lithosphere destruction is limited in this case.

Only the expanding earth hypothesis is not simpler, by any stretch, and the Wilson cycle is fairly trivially explainable using subduction tectonics.
Carey demonstrated that Wilson cycles are artifactual. I showed that the explanation is straightforward.

Trippy

06-21-11, 06:56 PM

The dip is parallel to the direction of the mantle wedge motion.
Which is the answer I wanted you to provide, in the first place instead of this silly nonsense about plate motion directions that you sidetracked the discussion with.

Do you have proof that there is a moving mantle wedge?
Does the idea of a moving mantle wedge make any testable predictions?

A change in the orbit of Earth does not required a change in any constant. It only requires a change in momentum. this is expected because the gained mass has zero momentum.
A prediction for which there is no evidence.

Tidalites show there were 400 solar days/year 620 millions years ago without any possibility to measure the actual length of a day.

What value do you expect from tidal braking? How do you take into account the momentum of the gained mass knowing that you have no idea of its value?
You still don't get it do you? If the Earth was expanding, and if the Earth was gaining mass there would be an anomaly. There is no anomaly.

The calculations for tidal braking are based on the assumption of constant mass, and constant radius.
Using these assumptions, in combination with measurements we can (and have) made of the Earth-moon distance, we can calculate (for example) that at some point in the past, that the length of the day was 21.9h and we can predict that if the orbit of the Earth around the sun was the same then as it is now, then there would be 400 days in the year.

Using data from Tidalites, we can confirm that there were 400 days in the year, which confirms the assumptions made.
If the Earth was smaller then, than it is now, the day would be less than 21.9h, and so the year would be more than 400 days.
If the Earth was lighter then, than it is now, the year would be more than 400 days.
The ONLY way the Earth could have been smaller and lighter than it is now, and still have had a 400 day year at the time these sediments were deposited, is if G - the universal gravitational constant, was greater then than it is now, hence Scala's development of his graviton decay theory (IIRC anyway) - he believes that if gravitons decay into photons, then G increases as you go back in time, which can give the apperance of consistency in Earths radius and mass.

Why do you disagree? Do you disagree that mantle-driven subduction implies limited lithosphere destruction? among other things, yes.

This is an illustration of mantle-driven subduction:
It shows that lithosphere destruction is limited in this case.
Only if we accept your toy model in the first place - this is circular logic.

Carey demonstrated that Wilson cycles are artifactual. I showed that the explanation is straightforward.
pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate.

Carey hypothesized they were artifactual, he didn't prove it. Your explanation for Wilson cycles requires making assumptions that are not accomodated by the available evidence - namely that the earth is expanding. Making this assumption requires making further assumptions that require cosmological constants to vary in very specific ways, which, on the face of it seems to violate the copernican prrincple - or at least perhaps a/the generalized extension of it..

To that end, the mainstream explanation for Wilson Cycles is by far the simpler explanation, and is well grounded in a number of fields 9thermodynamics, for example).

florian

06-22-11, 03:39 PM

Which is the answer I wanted you to provide, in the first place instead of this silly nonsense about plate motion directions that you sidetracked the discussion with.
I did not sidetracked the discussion. I did not understand your point.

Do you have proof that there is a moving mantle wedge?
Does the idea of a moving mantle wedge make any testable predictions?
If the mantle wedge is moving then there is trench migration and slab roll-back.

A prediction for which there is no evidence.
There was a typo. It should read "This is expected because the gained mass most likely has momentum".
Do you think that it is not a reasonable assumption?

You still don't get it do you? If the Earth was expanding, and if the Earth was gaining mass there would be an anomaly. There is no anomaly.

The calculations for tidal braking are based on the assumption of constant mass, and constant radius.
Using these assumptions, in combination with measurements we can (and have) made of the Earth-moon distance, we can calculate (for example) that at some point in the past, that the length of the day was 21.9h and we can predict that if the orbit of the Earth around the sun was the same then as it is now, then there would be 400 days in the year.
The Earth-Moon paleodistance is derived from the lunar nodal period or the number of sidereal months/yr or the number of sidereal days/yr, independently from the length of the orbital period (See Williams (2000) Reviews of Geophysics 38, p37). Then a mean rate of lunar recession is derived from the Earth-Moon distance. So how do you calculate the actual length of the day from these data without assuming a constant orbital period?

If the Earth was smaller then, than it is now, the day would be less than 21.9h, and so the year would be more than 400 days.
If the Earth was lighter then, than it is now, the year would be more than 400 days.
No. It depends on the contribution of the momentum of the gained mass to the total momentum of the Earth-Moon system.

Only if we accept your toy model in the first place - this is circular logic.
Circular logic is when a conclusion of an argument is the same as one of the premise. For example, if we assume that Earth's radius is constant to build tectonic and geodetic models and then use these models to prove that Earth's radius is constant.

In the diapiric model, a mantle upwelling spreads under its own weight and induces subduction of the lithosphere on its path. The figure shows that in this case, subduction is limited to the lithosphere that was on the path. There is no logical fallacy.

pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate.
Indeed, the simple growth of Earth can explain the complex and multiple cycles of supercontinents.

Carey hypothesized they were artifactual, he didn't prove it.
It was proved by the work of Morris: "the poles had separated by some 30 degrees, but the separation was in the direction of the Appalachian-caledonian axis, and not transverse to it as it would have to be if the alleged lapetus Ocean had been subducted."

Your explanation for Wilson cycles requires making assumptions that are not accomodated by the available evidence - namely that the earth is expanding.
It is not an assumption, it is a validated empirical model, and the sole one compatible with all available data.

Believe

06-22-11, 03:48 PM

Doesn't this boil down meteors adding material vs. the solar wind taking the atmosphere away? Which ever is faster would determine expansion or contraction (at least in mass, size seems kind of irrelevant and unpredictable)

Trippy

06-22-11, 06:07 PM

I did not sidetracked the discussion. I did not understand your point.
Which still resulted in the side tracking of the discussion QED,

If the mantle wedge is moving then there is trench migration and slab roll-back.
While this is testable, it's not unique. The mainstream theory also predicts that these things can occur.

There was a typo. It should read "This is expected because the gained mass most likely has momentum".
Do you think that it is not a reasonable assumption?
No, I do not think this is a reasonable assumption.
It is unreasonable because it fails the test of ontological parsimony.
It is unreasonable because it violates the copernicus principle.
Both of which happen because it requires any changes in angular momentum to be 'just so'.
It also fails because every expanding earth theory (at least the ones I've seen) predicts that the source of the extra mass is internal to the earth, so the extra mass is being created in a reference frame that co-rotates the earth, so you're going to have to propose a very very novel mechanism to cause it to impart or absorb angular momentum to or from the earth moon system.

The Earth-Moon paleodistance is derived from the lunar nodal period or the number of sidereal months/yr or the number of sidereal days/yr, independently from the length of the orbital period (See Williams (2000) Reviews of Geophysics 38, p37). Then a mean rate of lunar recession is derived from the Earth-Moon distance. So how do you calculate the actual length of the day from these data without assuming a constant orbital period?
You seem to be confused.
I suggested that the length of the day could be independently calculated by assuming the Earth has a constant radius and a constant mass, and calculating the amount of braking that has occured, which gives us a prediction of what the paleodistance should have been, and the length of the day should have been, and what the orbital period should have been.

The fact that these predictions are consistent with the observational insites gained from work like that of WIlliams, tells us that our initial assumptions are correct.

No. It depends on the contribution of the momentum of the gained mass to the total momentum of the Earth-Moon system.
The observations made match the predictions made on the assumption that the mass and radius of the earth are constant and (by proxy) that the total angular momentum of the earth-moon system is constant.

The simplest explanation is that they appear to be constant, because they were, in fact constant, and the principle of ontological parsimony strongly suggests that we accept this explanation.

Circular logic is when a conclusion of an argument is the same as one of the premise. For example, if we assume that Earth's radius is constant to build tectonic and geodetic models and then use these models to prove that Earth's radius is constant.
This is a poor analogy at best, as well as being wrong and irrelevant to the discussion,

In the diapiric model, a mantle upwelling spreads under its own weight and induces subduction of the lithosphere on its path. The figure shows that in this case, subduction is limited to the lithosphere that was on the path. There is no logical fallacy.
It's a prediction, it doesn't prove anything.

Indeed, the simple growth of Earth can explain the complex and multiple cycles of supercontinents.
However the growth of the earth requires the introduction of multiple additional elements - for example, the addition of mass to the earth, created by some as yet undisclosed mechanism, which introduces angular momentum to the earth moon system by some as yet undisclosed mechanism, in just the right way to produce the apperance of the earth having had a constant radius, and a constant mass, and the earth moon system having had a constant angular momentum for the last 2Ga (at least).

As opposed to: Because continental crust has a lower density than oceanic crust, and because the surface of the earth has a finite size, continents tend to gather in one place, and when they do, they tend to cause the Astheosphere under them to over heat, which (can) result in them rifting and breaking up, giving the net result of a cycle of orogeny and rifting.

Incidentally, the wilson cycle also appears to be supported by sea level data.

It was proved by the work of Morris: "the poles had separated by some 30 degrees, but the separation was in the direction of the Appalachian-caledonian axis, and not transverse to it as it would have to be if the alleged lapetus Ocean had been subducted."
That statement, as phrased, is a hypothesis, not a proof.

It is not an assumption...
No, it is an assumption.

...it is a validated empirical model...
No, it is a toy model that originated 50 years ago from a lack of understanding of plate tectonics. Our understanding has evolved since then as more data has become available.

...and the sole one compatible with all available data.
This statement is far from being true.

James R

06-22-11, 08:08 PM

florian:

What is your proposed mechanism for an expanding earth, and what is the rate of expansion?

Trippy

06-22-11, 10:28 PM

florian:

What is your proposed mechanism for an expanding earth, and what is the rate of expansion?
Good point.

There's still this point that needs to be addressed:

And then, perhaps, you can provide us with a paper that demonstrates the signal of a Carey's 24mm +/- 8mm per annum increase in the girth of this fine planet buried within the various datasets available from things such as GPS measurements, and lunar ranging experiments, and satellite ephamerides.
Which so far has remained unattended.

synthesizer-patel

06-23-11, 09:46 AM

florian:

What is your proposed mechanism for an expanding earth, and what is the rate of expansion?

I think a far more fitting question - one that might yield significant insight into florian's mindset - and determine if any further discussion was in any way constructive - would be:

Cite specifically what evidence would need to be presented to you that would cause you to abandon the expanding earth conjecture.

florian

06-23-11, 04:55 PM

Which still resulted in the side tracking of the discussion QED,
But not intentionally from my side. I have some doubt for your side.

While this is testable, it's not unique. The mainstream theory also predicts that these things can occur.
May be, but this thing implies limited destruction of seafloor whatever the theory. And this is the key point because it does imply an imbalance of seafloor destruction and formation.

You seem to be confused.
I suggested that the length of the day could be independently calculated by assuming the Earth has a constant radius and a constant mass, and calculating the amount of braking that has occured, which gives us a prediction of what the paleodistance should have been, and the length of the day should have been, and what the orbital period should have been.
According to Williams, the braking is not constant (at 3.8 cm/y) or the moon would have been too close from Earth something like 1.5 By ago. So the average braking that has occurred is actually calculated from the paleodistance (Moon-Earth), which is itself calculated either from the lunar nodal period or the number of sidereal months/yr or the number of sidereal days/yr. But it does not seem to provide any measurement of the length of the day that is independent from the value of orbital period that is assumed to be constant.

If I'm wrong then you can certainly provide the detailed calculation of the length of the day that is independent of the orbital period and does not assume a constant braking rate.

Until you provide that, your "fine-tuning" argument is moot.
And I remind you that it is not a refutation anyway. The principle parsimony, though valuable, can't provide true refutations.

It also fails because every expanding earth theory (at least the ones I've seen) predicts that the source of the extra mass is internal to the earth, so the extra mass is being created in a reference frame that co-rotates the earth, so you're going to have to propose a very very novel mechanism to cause it to impart or absorb angular momentum to or from the earth moon system.
The accumulation of matter inside earth does not imply a creation of matter, even less in a reference frame that co-rotates the earth. You're speculating.

This is a poor analogy at best, as well as being wrong and irrelevant to the discussion,
So you believe that a model based on the premise that Earth has a constant radius is ok to prove that Earth has a constant radius? And how it is irrelevant to the discussion? Aren�t we discussion an increase in Earth's radius?

It's a prediction, it doesn't prove anything.
It proves that there is limited destruction of lithosphere in this case. Anyway, your accusation of circular logic was wrong.

Incidentally, the wilson cycle also appears to be supported by sea level data.
Sea level data do not favour a particular model.

That statement, as phrased, is a hypothesis, not a proof.
Really? We have two opposite hypotheses:
1) If the pole separation was transversed to the Appalachian-caledonian axis, then the wide Iapetus Ocean has been subducted
2) If the pole separation was in the direction of the Appalachian-caledonian axis, then the wide Iapetus ocean never existed (and the whole wilson cycle hypothesis colapse).
According to Morris, the paleomagnetic data support a pole separation in the direction of the Appalachian-caledonian.
Case is closed.

No, it is an assumption.
A model based on data is not an assumption. It is an empirical model.

No, it is a toy model that originated 50 years ago from a lack of understanding of plate tectonics. Our understanding has evolved since then as more data has become available.
It is a very modern model that unify all available data: See
"Mantle plumes and dynamics of the Earth interior � towards a new model" by Stefan Stefan Cwojdzi�ski, (2004) Geological Review, 52, no. 8/2, p817

This statement is far from being true.
This is an opinion, not an argument.

florian

06-23-11, 05:16 PM

florian:

What is your proposed mechanism for an expanding earth, and what is the rate of expansion?

Regarding the mechanism, read post#24 #40 and #41.

Regarding to the rate, according to Maxlow's thesis (http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au:80/R?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=9645) (table 2.1 p24):

Period Age Palaeoradius
Present 0 Ma 6370 km
Pliocene 6 Ma 6240 km
Miocene 23 Ma 5910 km
Oligocene 37 Ma 5650 km
Eocene 59 Ma 5270 km
Paleocene 66 Ma 5160 km
Mid Cretaceous 118 Ma 4435 km
Late Jurassic 160 Ma 3960 km
Triassic 245 Ma 3240 km
Early Carboniferous 320 Ma 2800 km
Early Devonian 380 Ma 2540 km
Mid Ordovician 455 Ma 2290 km
Cambrian 565 Ma 2060 km
Early Neoproterozoic 700 Ma 1895 km

The average rate calculated from the surface expansion for the last 3 millions years is about 22 mm/year. Keep in mind that it is an average over 3E6 years (!).

florian

06-23-11, 05:52 PM

Cite specifically what evidence would need to be presented to you that would cause you to abandon the expanding earth conjecture.

The expanding Earth theory (an empirical theory is not the same as a conjecture!) makes predictions. So we can use some of these predictions to refute or support the theory.

It is reasonable to predict that the theory is not restricted to Earth in the solar system. So at least a few other planets/moons must show signs of past or present growth.

The theory predicts that before the current important oceanization stage, the expansion of surface was accommodated in part by the formation of new continental crust. So the amount of continental crust must have increased with time.

Due to the absence of symmetric ridge in the pacific, the theory predicts that the Pacific initially grew by accretion of new crust at its perimeter, by a process called eduction.

Probably one of the most interesting prediction. The theory predicts that paleomaps of a period can be made by progressively removing seafloor, continental crust, extension and mobile belts younger than that period. These paleomaps must be consistent with all available data (geochemistry, paleomagnetism, paleoclimate, fossils etc...).

Now your turn. What falsification test would need to be presented to you that would cause you to abandon plate tectonics?
Refutation of wilson cycle? Refutation of a wide Tethys ocean? What?

synthesizer-patel

06-23-11, 06:37 PM

Now your turn. What falsification test would need to be presented to you that would cause you to abandon plate tectonics?
Refutation of wilson cycle? Refutation of a wide Tethys ocean? What?

my field is the behavioural ecology of marine invertebrates (and to a certain extent vertibrates) so my knowledge of plate tectonics is limited to a few undergrad classes in geology and oceanography .

But then I don't have an agenda as the outcome doesn't really affect my work either way.
I suspect however that you do have an agenda, and that overrides your ability to engage in any meaningful discussion - you've decided what the answer is first and now you are trying to make the data fit the facts - at least that's the impression that you are giving.

which is why you really need to answer the question in very specific terms -
tell us exactly what you will need to be presented with in order for you to abandon your hypothesis.

This will demonstrate that you are entering into the dicussion in good faith.

Otherwise your just another crank (albeit a seemingly knowledgeable one) with an agenda.

Trippy

06-23-11, 07:29 PM

But not intentionally from my side. I have some doubt for your side.
Nothing I said implied deliberatness. I did not accuse you of doing it deliberately. I only stated that you had done it.

May be, but this thing implies limited destruction of seafloor whatever the theory. And this is the key point because it does imply an imbalance of seafloor destruction and formation.
No it doesn't. It simply implies that Trenches migrate, and that migration can be governed by several factors.
I'll attent to the rest when I have more time on my hands.

According to Williams, the braking is not constant (at 3.8 cm/y) or the moon would have been too close from Earth something like 1.5 By ago.

So the average braking that has occurred is actually calculated from the paleodistance (Moon-Earth), which is itself calculated either from the lunar nodal period or the number of sidereal months/yr or the number of sidereal days/yr. But it does not seem to provide any measurement of the length of the day that is independent from the value of orbital period that is assumed to be constant.

If I'm wrong then you can certainly provide the detailed calculation of the length of the day that is independent of the orbital period and does not assume a constant braking rate.
Your assertions here are wrong The theory does not predict it to be constant, the theory predicts it to vary, and predicts it to vary in predictable ways.

Until you provide that, your "fine-tuning" argument is moot.
It's a strawman hypothesis - the evolution of the lunar paleo distance, and the length of the day is not predicted to be a linear one, I didn't claim that it was linear, only that it was predictable. That it must be linear is your assertion alone.

And I remind you that it is not a refutation anyway. The principle parsimony, though valuable, can't provide true refutations.
This is hypocritical, as you have on a number of occasions argued that the expanding earth hypothesis provides a simpler explanation, and therefore should be accepted.

The accumulation of matter inside earth does not imply a creation of matter, even less in a reference frame that co-rotates the earth. You're speculating.
No I'm not, I'm discussing expanding earth literature.

But tells us - what mechanism do you propose for the accumulation of matter inside the earth?
I believe I've mentioned Scalera's graviton decay hypothesis.
Carey never proposed a hypothesis, but alluded that he thought it was linked with the expansion of the universe.
Comic book artist, Neal Adams has suggesred rgar ut's related to electron positron pair production.
Mantovani proposed expansion with constant mass via thermal expansion. Joly and Holmes took this further and claimed that raidocative decay would generate sufficient heat to result in the thermal expansion of the earth.
I've also seen proposals suggesting the presence of degenerate matter within the core, and something related to cold fusion (more like warm fusion) proposed.

You've already stated that you opine that the mass must have increased in conjunction with the volume, otherwise gravity would have been too strong. So please, enlighten us by what method do you propose to add mass to the Earth?

So you believe that a model based on the premise that Earth has a constant radius is ok to prove that Earth has a constant radius? And how it is irrelevant to the discussion? Aren’t we discussion an increase in Earth's radius?
This isn't what I said, and I'm not entirely sure how to tackle this statement.

It proves that there is limited destruction of lithosphere in this case. Anyway, your accusation of circular logic was wrong.
No, it doesn't. And no, it wasn't.

Sea level data do not favour a particular model.
Yes they do - the configuration of the continents (the presence or absence of super continents, for example, makes predictions about the depth of the oceans.

A model based on data is not an assumption. It is an empirical model.
I repeat. Carey's explanation for the observation of Suprecontinents, and multiple configurations of supercontinents is predicated on the assumption of an expanding earth.

It is a very modern model that unify all available data: See
"Mantle plumes and dynamics of the Earth interior — towards a new model" by Stefan Stefan Cwojdzi�ski, (2004) Geological Review, 52, no. 8/2, p817
Perhaps you'd care to reconcile stationary hotspots with your theory of mantle wedge driven trench rollback.

This is an opinion, not an argument.
It's a statement of fact.

Here's what you've had to say on the matter:

At this point, all we know is that the new stuff appears inside and that there is ongoing segregation of element, and notably advection to the surface. The rest, including stating that it violates the laws of physics, is just pure speculation.

Yes it does growth (not expand). The current growth rate is about 2 cm radius/year (averaged over 3 millions years). And the rate has been increasing for the last 150 millions years according to the PhD thesis of James Maxlow, available on line at Curtin University.
And nobody as really a clue about the origin of all this matter required.
Interesting stuff.

I agree, there is no known physics that can explain the growth at this time and what James has been doing is just baseless naive speculations. But there must a mechanism to explain hat growth in mass, because it is what is observed. So by inference, a physical explanation must exists.

Well, we must assume that laws of conservations are valid. So there must be something accumulating inside Earth that fuels the growth. Call it dark matter or dark energy or whatever. What is certain is that this thing is very weakly interacting with normal matter, and must have mass/energy and thus responds to the gravity field.
That's a bit short to build a physical mechanism, isn't it?
That's why I think it is more important to focus on the evidence of the growth as a first step.

So, your expanding Earth hypothesis requires matter to appear inside the earth, which, incidentaly, contradicts this statement:

The accumulation of matter inside earth does not imply a creation of matter, even less in a reference frame that co-rotates the earth. You're speculating.
By some mechanism that requires unknown physics - beyond the standard model, even going as far as suggesting this:

That's why I think it is more important to focus on the evidence of the growth as a first step.
Which, in essence, is asking us to ignore evidence against your argument?

And you still insist that your explanation is the most parsimonious?

Meanwhile, you still can not demonstrate the presence of growth using lunar LASER ranging experiments, GPS measurements or satelite ephemeridae - even though we can measure the radius of the Earth to an accuracy of at least +/- 10cm.

James R

06-23-11, 10:32 PM

Regarding the mechanism, read post#24 #40 and #41.

Post #24 says the physics is "unknown", and new stuff just mysteriously "appears".

Post #40 says "there is no known physics that can explain the growth at this time"

And #41 says "So there must be something accumulating inside Earth that fuels the growth. Call it dark matter or dark energy or whatever. What is certain is that this thing is very weakly interacting with normal matter, and must have mass/energy and thus responds to the gravity field."

Sounds like this "theory" is dead in the water before it starts.

Never mind the ludicrous 20 mm/year figure for the supposed expansion.

I guess I'll put you down as a crank at this point.

florian

06-24-11, 06:48 PM

my field is the behavioural ecology of marine invertebrates (and to a certain extent vertibrates) so my knowledge of plate tectonics is limited to a few undergrad classes in geology and oceanography.

That's similar to me (undergrad classes in geology), but I must admit that I got a serious update for the last 4 years. Still, you should be able to give a falsification test of plate tectonics. BTW, anyone with a test in mind is welcome to propose it.

But then I don't have an agenda as the outcome doesn't really affect my work either way.
Me neither. So your supposition that I have an agenda is false.

I suspect however that you do have an agenda, and that overrides your ability to engage in any meaningful discussion - you've decided what the answer is first and now you are trying to make the data fit the facts - at least that's the impression that you are giving.
Contrary to most people in this thread, I really have no prejudice. My conclusions are entirely based on observations.

which is why you really need to answer the question in very specific terms -
tell us exactly what you will need to be presented with in order for you to abandon your hypothesis.

I suggested 4 different predictions that can be used as a falsification test, and none of them has your preference? Ok, since it happens that I've been discussing this point elsewhere I propose a 5th one to ease my life:

If it can be shown that there was oceanic lithosphere that was significantly wider than 1500 km between Asia and India, then the expanding Earth theory must be wrong.

But in counterpart you must also accept that:

If it can be shown that there was no oceanic lithosphere that was significantly wider than 1500 km between Asia and India, then plate tectonics must be wrong.

Is that good enough for you?

florian

06-24-11, 08:33 PM

No it doesn't. It simply implies that Trenches migrate, and that migration can be governed by several factors.
Trenches migration away from the back-arc implies limited lithosphere destruction as demonstrated by the figure I made. Your opinion is of no scientific value.

Your assertions here are wrong The theory does not predict it to be constant, the theory predicts it to vary, and predicts it to vary in predictable ways.
If it is predictable then simply provide the method used to predict the evolution of the braking rate. All I've seen so far, is the calculation of average braking rate derived from the Moon-Earth paleodistance (See Williams), derived either from the lunar nodal period or the number of sidereal months/yr or the number of sidereal days/yr (all three giving consistent results).

And I remind you that it is not a refutation anyway. The principle parsimony, though valuable, can't provide true refutations.
This is hypocritical, as you have on a number of occasions argued that the expanding earth hypothesis provides a simpler explanation, and therefore should be accepted.[/QUOTE]
No it is not hypocritical. For someone whose nickname is Ockham's machete, you seem surprisingly unfamiliar with the limitation of Ockam's razor.
The principle of parsimony states that between two hypotheses able to explain an observation, the simplest one should be preferred. So it is a valuable principle that help a scientist to choose which hypothesis to favour for further studies. But it is not sufficient to definitively refute the more complex hypothesis.
You're welcome.

No I'm not, I'm discussing expanding earth literature.
If you're discussing expanding earth literature that speculates on a mechanism, that remains speculation. I have absolutely zero compassion for those expansionists that are seduced by worthless speculation.

You've already stated that you opine that the mass must have increased in conjunction with the volume, otherwise gravity would have been too strong. So please, enlighten us by what method do you propose to add mass to the Earth?
When will you understand that we can't formulate a mechanism to add mass to the Earth as long as we have no data to formulate one? Without data we can't build a mechanism, without data, every proposition is speculative. Is that clear enough?

Sea level data do not favour a particular model.
Yes they do - the configuration of the continents (the presence or absence of super continents, for example, makes predictions about the depth of the oceans.
You're probably referring to Muller's work. Sea level data do not favour a model because they can be equally well explained for each model.

I repeat. Carey's explanation for the observation of Suprecontinents, and multiple configurations of supercontinents is predicated on the assumption of an expanding earth.
False. Carey's refutation of a wide Iapetus ocean is based on palaeomagnetic data (from Morris), and these data prove that the separation was along the Appalachian-caledonian axis, not across it. Then the fact that the separation was along the axis implies that the Earth is growing. We start from the data to build the theory, not the opposite. This is good science. In plate tectonics, the data are explained with the hindsight from the theory. This is bad science (and I'm nice).

Perhaps you'd care to reconcile stationary hotspots with your theory of mantle wedge driven trench rollback.
Both are the expression of the migration of mantle material from inside to the surface (as expected for an inner growth). No need for a reconciliation.

So, your expanding Earth hypothesis requires matter to appear inside the earth, which, incidentaly, contradicts this statement:

The accumulation of matter inside earth does not imply a creation of matter, even less in a reference frame that co-rotates the earth. You're speculating.
Appearance is not the same as creation ex nihilo. I reject the latter or conservation laws would be violated.

By some mechanism that requires unknown physics - beyond the standard model, even going as far as suggesting this:

That's why I think it is more important to focus on the evidence of the growth as a first step.

Which, in essence, is asking us to ignore evidence against your argument?

This not an evidence, this is a strawman, because so far we have no data to build a mechanism to add mass to the Earth. We can only observe that it must happen because of different line of evidence.
So you're attacking an unknown mechanism. It is irrational.

Meanwhile, you still can not demonstrate the presence of growth using lunar LASER ranging experiments, GPS measurements or satelite ephemeridae - even though we can measure the radius of the Earth to an accuracy of at least +/- 10cm.
The first question you must ask yourself before doing this is: are these methodologies completely independent from the plate tectonic model?

Post #24 says the physics is "unknown", and new stuff just mysteriously "appears".

1) is that incorrect to state that the physics that can explain this phenomenon is not known yet?
2) I never wrote "mysteriously". Please do not twist my words. It's showing that you have an agenda.
Stuff must appear as implied from different lines of evidence.

Post #40 says "there is no known physics that can explain the growth at this time"
Same as above.

And #41 says "So there must be something accumulating inside Earth that fuels the growth. Call it dark matter or dark energy or whatever. What is certain is that this thing is very weakly interacting with normal matter, and must have mass/energy and thus responds to the gravity field."
These are just logical inferences:
a) The mass of earth increases and conservation laws must not be violated => there is stuff accumulating inside Earth coming from outside Earth
b) We don't detect that stuff getting inside Earth => it must be weakly interacting with common baryonic/fermionic matter, hence of the dark matter type.

We can't go much farer than that without widely speculating. Actually, I even think that these inferences are already a bit speculative.

Sounds like this "theory" is dead in the water before it starts.
If by theory, you mean the physics, it's not even close to start.

Never mind the ludicrous 20 mm/year figure for the supposed expansion.
Dommage, this is an actual measurement and thus not "supposed".

I guess I'll put you down as a crank at this point.
So your agenda is to prove that I'm a crank. Great to know, but I have nothing anymore to prove regarding the scientific method.

synthesizer-patel

06-24-11, 08:34 PM

If it can be shown that there was oceanic lithosphere that was significantly wider than 1500 km between Asia and India, then the expanding Earth theory must be wrong.

But in counterpart you must also accept that:

If it can be shown that there was no oceanic lithosphere that was significantly wider than 1500 km between Asia and India, then plate tectonics must be wrong.

Is that good enough for you?

I'm yet to be convinced - I suspect that you already know (or at the very least think you know) the width of the OL between the continents, and have shaped your conclusions based upon that - which is the classic reverse conclusion behaviour of a pseudoscientific crank - conclusion first - data second.

so we'll have to abandon that altogether and move on to something else more productive. How about trying for something more contemporary and direct?

for example rather than swallowing without question the wild speculation of Maxlow's thesis that you just posted- is there not a way that we can make accurate contemporary measurements of expansion using modern equipment?
can you perhaps suggest a test we might do?

florian

06-25-11, 06:10 AM

I'm yet to be convinced - I suspect that you already know (or at the very least think you know) the width of the OL between the continents, and have shaped your conclusions based upon that - which is the classic reverse conclusion behaviour of a pseudoscientific crank - conclusion first - data second.
Quite ironic knowing that "conclusion first" is exactly what you're doing. You conclude that this theory is false despite admitting yourself that you have very limited knowledge in the field, and most likely zero knowledge in particular for that theory. What does it tell us about you? That you actually worth no more than one of those "pseudoscientific cranks"?

Anyway, it is irrelevant to the falsification test I proposed. You must know that there are two important requirements for a falsification test.
1) it must give a yes or no answer in order to clearly refute or support the theory
2) it must be possible to provide an answer to the proposition using available data or data that can be readily available.

My proposition satisfies both requirements. If you're clueless about the related data, that's not my problem at all. I'll provide them, and you will be always be able to conclude supposing that you understand them.

So we'll have to abandon that altogether and move on to something else more productive. How about trying for something more contemporary and direct?
If you can propose something that satisfies both requirement, that's fine.

for example rather than swallowing without question the wild speculation of Maxlow's thesis that you just posted-
You do really believe that I'm such a blind idiot that I'm ready to "swallow without question" whatever speculation, do you?

is there not a way that we can make accurate contemporary measurements of expansion using modern equipment?
can you perhaps suggest a test we might do?
If you find a test based on contemporary measurements that satisfies the requirements then go ahead. I found none.

Stryder

06-25-11, 10:26 AM

This thread topic finds it's way in here from time to time, a simple point to conclude if the earth is expanding is to take into consideration it's makeup.

"Solid" rock formations do not alter much in volume, there might be changes based upon temperature but they wouldn't equate to much more than a few mm's tolerance.

While rock is molten (Magma), it can however be subjected to various impurities that cause gas pockets to form with it. These gases usually attempt to rise through the molten rock to the surface to vent (This is just caused by the surrounding volume or rock containing great mass and conforming to gravity by attempting to occupy the space of the bubble volume.) when the bubbles reach the surface, they are sometimes encapsulated within the rock because the molten magma's density is lessened causing it to cool quicker.

The notable type of rock usually found at surface level from this is Pumice stone which is considerably porous because of the bubbles.

In essence such bubbling can cause an increase in volume, however it can cause problems to. Due to the rock formation not having a high density it can be more prone to crumbling under pressure, so *if* you have a large area consistent with the rock formation, it will be more prone to shifts in regards to Tectonics. Of course this is a large *if* without someone in geophysics actually identifying if various fault-lines are pumice enriched or not.

synthesizer-patel

06-25-11, 11:43 AM

If you find a test based on contemporary measurements that satisfies the requirements then go ahead. I found none.

so you have a process that cannot be measured, driven by a mechanism that can't be explained, and doesn't make any predictions that cannot be explained better by standard tectonic models.

This is the point where you abandon it

florian

06-25-11, 03:00 PM

so you have a process that cannot be measured,

Wrong. It is measured for geological time. Actually a much more appropriate timescale.

driven by a mechanism that can't be explained

Can't be explained yet. Not an issue for an empirical theory.

so you have a process that cannot be measured,

Wrong. It is measured for geological time. Actually a much more appropriate timescale.

and doesn't make any predictions that cannot be explained better by standard tectonic models.

Wrong. For example, it predicts that India migrated northward while remaining constantly close to Asia.

synthesizer-patel

06-26-11, 09:41 AM

Wrong. It is measured for geological time. Actually a much more appropriate timescale.

Maxlow's measurements are of the same level pure speculation as the rest of his "thesis"

[QUOTE]
Can't be explained yet. Not an issue for an empirical theory.

it is if the mechanism defies physics and thermodynamics

Seriously - you going to need to give a straightforward method of measuring contemporary expansion or walk away from this

florian

06-26-11, 06:57 PM

Maxlow's measurements are of the same level pure speculation as the rest of his "thesis"
What speculation? His model is validated by the data. Data always prime over existing theories.

it is if the mechanism defies physics and thermodynamics
Strawman. This is in your head.

Seriously - you going to need to give a straightforward method of measuring contemporary expansion or walk away from this
Tell me what contemporary method of measuring can give a yes or no answer and is independent from the current model.

Trippy

06-26-11, 09:44 PM

Tell me what contemporary method of measuring can give a yes or no answer and is independent from the current model.

How about this:

And then, perhaps, you can provide us with a paper that demonstrates the signal of a Carey's 24mm +/- 8mm per annum increase in the girth of this fine planet buried within the various datasets available from things such as GPS measurements, and lunar ranging experiments, and satellite ephamerides.

How about an anomaly in Tidal Rhythmite data?

Trippy

06-26-11, 11:45 PM

Trenches migration away from the back-arc implies limited lithosphere destruction as demonstrated by the figure I made. Your opinion is of no scientific value.
No, it does not, contempory literature also expects trench roll back to occur under a variety of scenarios.

If it is predictable then simply provide the method used to predict the evolution of the braking rate. All I've seen so far, is the calculation of average braking rate derived from the Moon-Earth paleodistance (See Williams), derived either from the lunar nodal period or the number of sidereal months/yr or the number of sidereal days/yr (all three giving consistent results).
Strictly speaking, you're the one making the extraordinary claim, so it's up to you to provide the proof, however there are peer reviewed papers dating back to 1978 detailing a number of different ways of measuring the lunar paleo distance, including measuring the shape of Lunar maria. One of the things we have learned about, as a result of these studies is that during the Paleozoic the rate at which the moon receeded from the earth slowed. Physics, and tidal theory, combined with mainstream plate tectonics provide a natural explanation for this.

All of which is beside the point, and here's why - even only considering averages, and expanding earth would still lead to a detecable anomaly.

No it is not hypocritical.
It is complete hypocrisy for you to suggest that ontological parsimony is sufficient to dismiss the mainstream theory, while at the same time arguing it is insufficient to dismiss your toy model.

For someone whose nickname is Ockham's machete, you seem surprisingly unfamiliar with the limitation of Ockam's razor.
That's not my nickname.

The principle of parsimony states that between two hypotheses able to explain an observation, the simplest one should be preferred. So it is a valuable principle that help a scientist to choose which hypothesis to favour for further studies. But it is not sufficient to definitively refute the more complex hypothesis.
I am familiar with the principle of ontological parismony. What you have failed to recognize is the implications of your own argument about your misuse of it. You have explicitly claimed that expanding earth tectonics is simpler than the mainstream theory, and so we should reject the mainstream theory, however, now that it has been pointed out to you that expanding earth tectonics is in fact more complicated because it introduces a number of unknown mechanisms, then suddenly complexity is not sufficient grounds for discarding expanding earth tectonics.

This, in and of itself should immeadiately ring alarm bells to a casual third person when viewing this thread, because it is precisely this sort of behaviour and attitude that indicates faith, rather than science at work.

If you're discussing expanding earth literature that speculates on a mechanism, that remains speculation. I have absolutely zero compassion for those expansionists that are seduced by worthless speculation.
So instead you present a toy model with no viable mechanism?

When will you understand that we can't formulate a mechanism to add mass to the Earth as long as we have no data to formulate one? Without data we can't build a mechanism, without data, every proposition is speculative. Is that clear enough?
Wrong. This is one of the core premises of science. If you were actually interested in science, then you would have been able to offer a mechanism.

Incidentaly, I want to revisit this statement:

When will you understand that we can't formulate a mechanism to add mass to the Earth as long as we have no data to formulate one?
Take a moment to think about this.
We have 50 years worth of data collected from satelite orbits.
In this time, Carey would have us believe that the earth has expanded between 800mm and 1600mm.
Let's think about this, for a moment. The Earth has a radius of 6,378.1370 km.
If we assume that the Earth has grown from something else, to that - an assumption that works in your favour, then 50 years ago, the radius of the earth was between 6378.1362km and 6378.1354km.
Now, let's just use the largest number, the lowest amount predicted by Carey.
According to Carey, the circumference of the Earth increased from 40075.012km to 40075.017km (8SF for both).
For simplicities sake, for a moment, let's treat the earth as a sphere.
If Carey is correct, then the Earth has increased its volume by 408,966.26 km3
This equates, if the bulk density of the earth has remained constant - something you have suggested or implied, that the earth has gained an additional 2.25545E+18 kg.
This, in turn, suggests that, if the earth's angular momentum has remained constant, that the Earths day has lengthened by 1.3s over the last 50 years - a deviation that we have had the capacity to measure since 1955.

But it gets worse than that for expanding earth tectonics - The Chaldeans recorded the Saros over 3,000 years ago, which gives us another tool for understanding whether or not the Earth has expanded, because it would manifest as anomalies in our record of solar and lunar eclipses.

You're probably referring to Muller's work. Sea level data do not favour a model because they can be equally well explained for each model.
No, not really.

False. Carey's refutation of a wide Iapetus ocean is based on palaeomagnetic data (from Morris), and these data prove that the separation was along the Appalachian-caledonian axis, not across it. Then the fact that the separation was along the axis implies that the Earth is growing. We start from the data to build the theory, not the opposite. This is good science. In plate tectonics, the data are explained with the hindsight from the theory. This is bad science (and I'm nice).
You're right, expanding earth tectonics is bad science.

Appearance is not the same as creation ex nihilo. I reject the latter or conservation laws would be violated.
Oh, so you posit that the matter appears inside the earth from an external source? How precisely does that work?

This not an evidence, this is a strawman, because so far we have no data to build a mechanism to add mass to the Earth. We can only observe that it must happen because of different line of evidence.
So you're attacking an unknown mechanism. It is irrational.
No it isn't. You can provide no evidence of any mass gain in the last 3,000 years (we could probably argue in excess of 10,000 if we consider things such as stone henge), and you can provide no evidence for a plausable mechanism, and you are asking us to simply ignore the lack of evidence.

The first question you must ask yourself before doing this is: are these methodologies completely independent from the plate tectonic model?
yes.

synthesizer-patel

06-27-11, 10:15 AM

Strawman. This is in your head.

I suggest you learn the definition of a strawman - the contention that it defies known physics is yours:

I agree, there is no known physics that can explain the growth at this time

Tell me what contemporary method of measuring can give a yes or no answer and is independent from the current model.

I think Trippy's test in the previus post would satisfy me - giving particular reference to how ancient sites with specific solar alignments to measure the length of a year are now out of synch.

Trippy

06-27-11, 08:07 PM

Just as an additional point.

According to Florian:
"The theory predicts that before the current important oceanization stage, the expansion of surface was accommodated in part by the formation of new continental crust. So the amount of continental crust must have increased with time."

Now, according to Carey, addition of continental crust was via Orogenesis caused by Diapirism. According to the USGS, the median thickness of Orogenic crust is 42.62km.

According to you, and Carey, all Oceanic crust is new, and also responsible for the expanion of the Earth. The average thickness of Oceanic crust is 6km.

Now, using data from the USGS I could do a weighted average, using their model Crust 5.1, however I'm not going to download it at work, and I don't have a GIS tool at home, so I'm going to do something that works in your favour, the significance of which will become apparent shortly. I'm going to over estimate the average thickness of this new crust. I'm going to take the straight average thickness, and use that - 24.31km.

Now, according to Maxlow's Thesis, 700MYA the earth was 1,895 km in radius, and had a surface area of , and today it is 6,370 km in radius. Now, again, for simplicities sake, treating the Earth as a sphere, this means that 700MYA the earth had a surface area of 45,126,151km2, and today it has a surface area of 464,778,212km2. This means, that at an average thickness of 24.31km, 11,298,758,334km3 (11.3 Billion cubic kilometers) of mantle material has been emplaced at the surface. Now. This is important to note, because - assuming the bulk chemistry and density of the Earth's mantle have not changed, then the average density (using the highest value I can find - which, again, works in your favour) is 4850kg/m3 and the average volatile content is 0.9% (by weight). Now, if we make one more asusmption that works in your favour - that the only volatile that exists in the Earths mantle is water then this all equates to 493,190,801,279 kg of water that was in the mantle, now at the earths surface. Now, let's make one more assumption that works in your favour, let's assume that the relative density of this water was 1 - and maximize the volume of the water liberated from the mantle during the growth of the earth over the last 700 MA.

Then this equates to an additional 0.493 km3 of water.

Why is this important?

Earth's Hydrosphere is estimated to weigh in at at 1.4x1021kg - including atmospheric water vapour.
This, if we make the same assumption, and assume a mininum value for the density of water, to maximize its volume we get 1.4x109km3, which given the present surface area of 464,778,212km2 is sufficient to cover the surface of the earth to a uniform depth of 3km.

However, according to Carey's hypothesis, and Maxwell's thesis, even if we account for the volume of water liberated from the mantle, then 700MYA, the water that was present was sufficient to cover the earth's surface to a uniform depth of 31km.

Does anybody else see the problem with this?

I calculated that the volume of water is sufficient to cover the planet to a depth of 3.01km.
The average depth of the ocean is 3790m, and over half of the ocean is more than 3000m deep.
Does that illustrate the problem a little better?
In order for Carey's hypothesis to be correct, 700MYA, the oceans would have had to have had an average depth of at least 31km in order to accomodate the obersvation that dry land existed at that time.

The only alternative to that available, to accomodate Carey's hypothesis is that, for example, if we assume that the thickness of the uniform layer of water over the surface of the earth was 5km, then we have a volume of 225,630,755, which requires 1.175x109km3 of water to have been erupted from the mantle, which would require the mantle to have been, on average 10 orders of magnitude wetter than it is now (that is to say, it would need to have been, on average 9 billion percent, by weight water). Which is clearly absurd.

So, supporting Carey's hypothesis, it would seem, requires choosing between two alternatives, both of which are absurd, one of which is impossible, the other of which has precisely zero evidence supporting it.

Does that make the problem perhaps clearer to understand?

matthew809

06-29-11, 03:05 PM

synthesizer-patel

06-29-11, 07:28 PM

Believe

06-29-11, 08:11 PM

Read-Only

06-29-11, 10:47 PM

Off the point here... I would just like to point out that those of you who consistently and automatically disagree with alternative theories, would- on the other hand- be just as adamant in defense of such a theory if it happened to be mainstream. This foolish dependency on consensus and blind trust in credentials is very unimpressive.

Ok thanks for your time. Carry on please...

Oh, really??? And it's certainly NOT just "blind trust in credentials". Sure, some faith is involved when people do have credentials BUT they also need to present solid evidence to back up their position.

However, your stance, on the other hand, REALLY IS placing blind trust in someone with no credentials. Now THAT approach is what I would consider either childish or just plain stupid!!:shrug:

Trippy

06-30-11, 01:40 AM

florian

06-30-11, 04:45 PM

How about this:

And then, perhaps, you can provide us with a paper that demonstrates the signal of a Carey's 24mm +/- 8mm per annum increase in the girth of this fine planet buried within the various datasets available from things such as GPS measurements, and lunar ranging experiments, and satellite ephamerides.

A contemporary method of measuring that can give a yes or no answer and is independent from the current model.

florian

06-30-11, 05:54 PM

No, it does not, contempory literature also expects trench roll back to occur under a variety of scenarios.
And when there is trench rollback the surface of lithosphere that get subducted is limited as shown by my figure.

Strictly speaking, you're the one making the extraordinary claim, so it's up to you to provide the proof, however there are peer reviewed papers dating back to 1978 detailing a number of different ways of measuring the lunar paleo distance, including measuring the shape of Lunar maria. One of the things we have learned about, as a result of these studies is that during the Paleozoic the rate at which the moon receeded from the earth slowed. Physics, and tidal theory, combined with mainstream plate tectonics provide a natural explanation for this.

You're more slippery than a snake. Whatever the method to measure the Earth-Moon paleodistance (I cited three from Willimas (2000)) it does not allow to calculate the length of a year in absolute time.

It is complete hypocrisy for you to suggest that ontological parsimony is sufficient to dismiss the mainstream theory, while at the same time arguing it is insufficient to dismiss your toy model.
Yet another strawman. My claim is that the principle of parsimony is useful to dismiss a theory, while at the same time it is insufficient to refute a theory.

That's not my nickname.
Of course it is not your nickname dear Ockham's machette.

I am familiar with the principle of ontological parismony.
According to your writings, I doubt you are.

What you have failed to recognize is the implications of your own argument about your misuse of it. You have explicitly claimed that expanding earth tectonics is simpler than the mainstream theory,
I claim that evidence supporting the growing earth theory also refute plate tectonics. So it has nothing to do with the principle of parsimony. Whatever the mechanism, the growing earth theory is an empirical theory and that is what you fail to understand. It does not rely on first principle but on a corpus of observations which can solely be explained by a growth of Earth in mass and nothing else. And so does it for many other objects of the solar system. There is nothing more stupid than attacking an empirical theory on the ignorance of the causal mechanism. An empirical theory must be attacked on the evidence that support it, nothing else.

This, in and of itself should immeadiately ring alarm bells to a casual third person when viewing this thread, because it is precisely this sort of behaviour and attitude that indicates faith, rather than science at work.
Arf, from someone that can't understand the limits of the principle of parcimony nor understand what is an empirical theory? Give me a break!

Wrong. This is one of the core premises of science. If you were actually interested in science, then you would have been able to offer a mechanism.
Leslie, we have no data that are useful to formulate a mechanism. And we can't make science without data. We can only do science with the data we have. This is one of the core premises of science.

We have 50 years worth of data collected from satelite orbits.
In this time, Carey would have us believe that the earth has expanded between 800mm and 1600mm.
Let's think about this, for a moment. The Earth has a radius of 6,378.1370 km.
If we assume that the Earth has grown from something else, to that - an assumption that works in your favour, then 50 years ago, the radius of the earth was between 6378.1362km and 6378.1354km.
And that really proves that you know nothing about Carey's theory. Carey already provided evidence that the growth is not uniform in space and time more than 40 years ago. That is why we have to calculate average rates over millions years and why the measurement � la Maxlow are much more pertinent than anything else. The growth only appears smoother in rate and shape at the millions years timescale. Eventually, for contemporary measurments, we would need a very dense grid of geodetic stations covering the whole planet including ocean floor, and measurment methods absolutly independent of the growth (so forget everything based on satellites), like VLBI. We don't have that kind of fancy facility yet.

So you know what, if you want that I take you seriously, you gonna do a bit of homework instead of constantly showing your ignorance of the topic.
You gonna read Carey's review published in Earth Science Reviews in 1975. And because I'm a nice guy, I generously offer it to you: http://dl.free.fr/mm0vIo5xn

When you're up to date, you can come back here to discuss seriously instead of "showing off"

florian

06-30-11, 06:08 PM

Off the point here... I would just like to point out that those of you who consistently and automatically disagree with alternative theories, would- on the other hand- be just as adamant in defense of such a theory if it happened to be mainstream. This foolish dependency on consensus and blind trust in credentials is very unimpressive.

Ok thanks for your time. Carry on please...

Critics are always welcome because they are part of the scientific method and help to move forward. Science is very conservative by essence and this good, or theories would be overthrown everyday.
But Zealotry tainted of dishonesty and conceit is unacceptable.
You won't be surprised if I tell you that it does not characterise the vast majority of scientific researchers. It is more a characteristic of wannabe researchers that never wrote themselves a peer-reviewed paper but believe that they know what is science.

florian

06-30-11, 06:09 PM

you'll notice that when pressured to submit a simple falsifiable test for his conjecture, and when his attempts to side track the discussion away from that topic failed, Florian scarpered
I don't expect that a zealot would understand that I have a life outside webfora.

Trippy

06-30-11, 07:05 PM

A contemporary method of measuring that can give a yes or no answer and is independent from the current model.
It is independant of the current model.

Trippy

06-30-11, 07:31 PM

And when there is trench rollback the surface of lithosphere that get subducted is limited as shown by my figure.
The figure illustrates your assertion, nothing more.

You're more slippery than a snake. Whatever the method to measure the Earth-Moon paleodistance (I cited three from Willimas (2000)) it does not allow to calculate the length of a year in absolute time.
Wrong, and also not really what I said.
What I actually actually said was that we can:
1. Calculate the history of the Earth-moon paleo distance, and the evolution of the Earth-moon system.
2. Calculate the history of the length of the day, month and year.
3. Compare those calculations to how many days there are in a month and a year to paleotidal data from tidal rhythmites.
I then went on to suggest that unless the Earth-Moon-Sun system had evolved in a very very specific way - to give the apperance of constance, then discrepancies might be proof of an expanding earth, and consistency might be proof of constance.

Yet another strawman. My claim is that the principle of parsimony is useful to dismiss a theory, while at the same time it is insufficient to refute a theory.
And what I suggested was that ontological parsimony was sufficient grounds to dismiss expanding earth tectonics.

Of course it is not your nickname dear Ockham's machette.
When you quote my post does it say "Originally posted by Ockham's Machete" or "Originally posted by Trippy".
It says the second, not the first, therefore the second is my nickname, not the first.
The first is more like a title.

Unless of course your nickname is 'Registered User' and there is something you want to confess to us.

According to your writings, I doubt you are.
:rolleyes:

I claim that evidence supporting the growing earth theory also refute plate tectonics. So it has nothing to do with the principle of parsimony. Whatever the mechanism, the growing earth theory is an empirical theory and that is what you fail to understand. It does not rely on first principle but on a corpus of observations which can solely be explained by a growth of Earth in mass and nothing else. And so does it for many other objects of the solar system. There is nothing more stupid than attacking an empirical theory on the ignorance of the causal mechanism. An empirical theory must be attacked on the evidence that support it, nothing else.
No. You have provided precisely zero unique evidence. You've been challenged to provide some, but so far have declined.

Arf, from someone that can't understand the limits of the principle of parcimony nor understand what is an empirical theory? Give me a break!
I am quite familiar with both, thankyou. Of course, I notice that you fail to mention that Wegner's original hypothesis was emperical, but he at least presumed a causal mechanism. Likewise, most of modern geology is emperical rather than theoretical.

Leslie, we have no data that are useful to formulate a mechanism. And we can't make science without data. We can only do science with the data we have. This is one of the core premises of science.
Who?
And this is bull.
You can't collect data without knowing what data to look for, and you can't do that without a hypothesis as to a causal mechanism.

And that really proves that you know nothing about Carey's theory. Carey already provided evidence that the growth is not uniform in space and time more than 40 years ago. That is why we have to calculate average rates over millions years and why the measurement � la Maxlow are much more pertinent than anything else. The growth only appears smoother in rate and shape at the millions years timescale. Eventually, for contemporary measurments, we would need a very dense grid of geodetic stations covering the whole planet including ocean floor, and measurment methods absolutly independent of the growth (so forget everything based on satellites), like VLBI. We don't have that kind of fancy facility yet.

So you know what, if you want that I take you seriously, you gonna do a bit of homework instead of constantly showing your ignorance of the topic.
You gonna read Carey's review published in Earth Science Reviews in 1975. And because I'm a nice guy, I generously offer it to you: http://dl.free.fr/mm0vIo5xn

When you're up to date, you can come back here to discuss seriously instead of "showing off"
No, actually, what this shows is that you don't understand my point.

Most of the rest of what you have to say here is nonsense as well - all of the methods I have proposed would have shown up changes in the earths shape and size over varying time frames, whether it was uneven or not.

Trippy

06-30-11, 07:37 PM

This:

I don't expect that a zealot would understand that I have a life outside webfora.

But Zealotry tainted of dishonesty and conceit is unacceptable.
You won't be surprised if I tell you that it does not characterise the vast majority of scientific researchers. It is more a characteristic of wannabe researchers that never wrote themselves a peer-reviewed paper but believe that they know what is science.

You're more slippery than a snake.
...
So you know what, if you want that I take you seriously, you gonna do a bit of homework instead of constantly showing your ignorance of the topic.
You gonna read Carey's review published in Earth Science Reviews in 1975. And because I'm a nice guy, I generously offer it to you: http://dl.free.fr/mm0vIo5xn

When you're up to date, you can come back here to discuss seriously instead of "showing off"

Is not science. It is the language of a Troll.

florian

07-01-11, 02:47 AM

It is independant of the current model.

False. It relies on the ITRF, and the ITRF is not independent of the current model.
Besides, I remind you that the center of mass of earth is changing with every changes in the distribution of mass, thus with every earthquakes. Large quakes like the last japanese one can move the center of mass by more than 10 cm in a few minutes (!). So basically we have no useful reference frame to measure a growth in size, the later being not even uniform in shape and time.

florian

07-01-11, 03:26 AM

The figure illustrates your assertion, nothing more.
The figure proves the point: limited lithosphere destruction in case of slab rollback, whatever the global framework.

2. Calculate the history of the length of the day, month and year.

It is possible to calculate how many days in a months, how many days in a year, but so far you have not demonstrated how it is possible to calculate the length of the year in hours. It kills your argument.

And what I suggested was that ontological parsimony was sufficient grounds to dismiss expanding earth tectonics.
Repeat: The ontological parsimony is not sufficient to refute a theory.

No. You have provided precisely zero unique evidence. You've been challenged to provide some, but so far have declined.
false, I provided at least four different tests of the theory. But not very surprisingly, you ignore them. There is a pattern here.

I am quite familiar with both, thankyou.
No you're not. Repeat one more time: The ontological parsimony is not sufficient to refute a theory.

Of course, I notice that you fail to mention that Wegner's original hypothesis was emperical, but he at least presumed a causal mechanism.
His causal mechanism was speculative and physicists at that time focus on that point ignoring the body of evidence. They attacked him because he speculated and they were right to do so.

You can't collect data without knowing what data to look for,
Correct. a fortiori, you won't collect data if you don't know there is something to observe. It happens that no data were ever collected to understand how matter can accumulate inside some planets.

and you can't do that without a hypothesis as to a causal mechanism.
Very often, discoveries are serendipitous. We perform an experiment to get data in a particular well known theoretical frame work, and sometimes, there are some anomalies in the data. These anomalies can be the starting point to build a new theory. So far, I'm unaware of Physics experiment at the particle scale showing anomalies related to an accumulation of matter inside some planets. So there is nothing to build a theory at this point. Obviously, when physicist will be convinced that the growth of some planet happens, they will undoubtedly look for method to observe it at the particle scale and get an idea of the causal mechanism. And they will find it.

No, actually, what this shows is that you don't understand my point.
You can't have a pertinent point about a theory that you don't know. Only crackpots believe they can.

florian

07-01-11, 03:31 AM

Is not science. It is the language of a Troll.
Exactly my point. You're not interested in the science, you're only interested in trolling and getting this tone in response.
This is not your first time, and you prove it again by deliberately ignoring the scientific literature you must read to understand the base theory, instead of trolling.

Trippy

07-01-11, 03:34 AM

False. It relies on the ITRF, and the ITRF is not independent of the current model.
Besides, I remind you that the center of mass of earth is changing with every changes in the distribution of mass, thus with every earthquakes. Large quakes like the last japanese one can move the center of mass by more than 10 cm in a few minutes (!). So basically we have no useful reference frame to measure a growth in size, the later being not even uniform in shape and time.
This is bullshit.

The raw data used by the GPS network is travel time. If the ITRF is based on mainstream tectonics, and a constant radius earth, then an expanding earth will introduce a measurable anomaly. This is precisely one of the things that the GPS network has been used to do.

Not only that, but again we come back to the point that we can construct a reference frame based on the fixed and distance stars, amd reference everything back to that.

Take a moment to meditate on the meaning of this though.

I assert there is no anomaly.
You assert that it's not a valid test, because it is reliant on the mainstream interpretation.
What you don't seem to understand is that if it is dependant on the mainstream interpretation, and there is no anomaly, then that directly implies that the mainstream interpretation is correct.

And again, as far as the satellite Ephemeridae go - and expanding earth that is gaining weight is going to result in a change in the orbit of all satellites, which, again, will introduce an anomaly, which would be detectable, when compared to a constant mass earth with a constant radius.

You have consistently avoided science. This amounts to a poor attempt to dodge a single point that I raised.

Where did all the water come from?
Why isn't there a 1.3s anomaly in the length of the day compared to 50 years ago?
Where does the extra matter come from?
Why is there no anomaly in GPS measurements?
Why is there no anomaly in Satellite Ephemeirdae?
Why is there no anomaly in paleotidal data?

There is one simple answer that we can invoke - that the radius of the earth has not changed.

This explanation is the most parsimonius, and does not require the incovation of unknown entities that have no physical mechanism that you can provide, and appear to defy the laws of physics as we currently understand them.

Trippy

07-01-11, 03:52 AM

The figure proves the point: limited lithosphere destruction in case of slab rollback, whatever the global framework.
No. It shows that in your toy model there is limited lithosphere destruction in the case of slab rollback,

It is possible to calculate how many days in a months, how many days in a year, but so far you have not demonstrated how it is possible to calculate the length of the year in hours. It kills your argument.
No it doesn't.
I've already explained that it's possible to model the history of tidal braking in the earth-moon system, and that in doing so we've already made interesting discoveries.
If we can model the history of tidal braking, we can calulate the length of the day, in hours, the length of the month in days, and the length of the year in days, and hours.

Repeat: The ontological parsimony is not sufficient to refute a theory.
Now, stop trolling, go back, and re-read what I actually said in the sentence that you're directly replying to.

false, I provided at least four different tests of the theory. But not very surprisingly, you ignore them. There is a pattern here.
Ho hum.

No you're not. Repeat one more time: The ontological parsimony is not sufficient to refute a theory.
Stop trolling and address what I have actually said.

His causal mechanism was speculative and physicists at that time focus on that point ignoring the body of evidence. They attacked him because he speculated and they were right to do so.
Irrelevant - although by what you've stated here, you'vce contradicted yourself, and suggested that it's fine to 'attack' your theory because its lack of a causal mechanism.

Correct. a fortiori, you won't collect data if you don't know there is something to observe. It happens that no data were ever collected to understand how matter can accumulate inside some planets.
BECAUSE YOU HAVE PROPOSED NO MECHANISM

You've got it arse-about-face. Once you have a mechanism, you can make predictions, once you can make predictions you can conduct experiments to make measurements. That's the way science works what you're proposing is one of the things that Gallileo revolted against, and was discarded with the scientific revolution. If we followed the method you're proposing, we'd still be sacrificing goats to pagan gods to try and control the weather.

Very often, discoveries are serendipitous. We perform an experiment to get data in a particular well known theoretical frame work, and sometimes, there are some anomalies in the data. These anomalies can be the starting point to build a new theory. So far, I'm unaware of Physics experiment at the particle scale showing anomalies related to an accumulation of matter inside some planets. So there is nothing to build a theory at this point. Obviously, when physicist will be convinced that the growth of some planet happens, they will undoubtedly look for method to observe it at the particle scale and get an idea of the causal mechanism. And they will find it.
What you're proposing is not science.

Every experiment that has ever been carried out in the history of science has been to test a hypothesis. You have no hypothesis. What you're doing now is hand waving. Your argument, at this point amounts to little more than "It hasn't been detected yet because nobody's doing teh right experiment". You are simply blaming everybody else. That's not science.

Develop a mechanism, propse a test, do an experiment, make a measurement, revise your mechanism, lather, rinse, repeat.

That is how science is done.

You can't have a pertinent point about a theory that you don't know. Only crackpots believe they can.
I have raised several pertinent points.
You can't address them, because you have no proof to support your theory.

Trippy

07-01-11, 03:53 AM

Exactly my point. You're not interested in the science, you're only interested in trolling and getting this tone in response.
This is not your first time, and you prove it again by deliberately ignoring the scientific literature you must read to understand the base theory, instead of trolling.

So you admityou're trolling then? And choose to blame me for your actions, because you have thus far been unable to refute a single point I have raised.

florian

07-01-11, 04:36 AM

This is bullshit.
False. The center of mass which is also the center of your reference frame is evolving with every single earthquake.

The raw data used by the GPS network is travel time.
Large corrections must be applied to these travel times which are affected by many parameters, especially atmospheric conditions. And these corrections use assumptions like the a fixed earth radius.

Not only that, but again we come back to the point that we can construct a reference frame based on the fixed and distance stars, amd reference everything back to that.
This is what is done with VLBI which is therefore certainly the most independent geodetic system. But VLBI stations are sparse and corrections are still applied assuming a constant earth radius to reduce noise. Typically, corrections parameters are adjusted to minimize the RMS on vertical displacement assuming that the lithosphere mostly move horizontally (according to the plate tectonics model). And the VLBI data are evidently used to build the ITRF (plus SLR data, etc..).

If you had done you "homework" you would know it because this is written in plain in Maxlow's PhD thesis that you denied to read:

"In contrast when Robaudo & Harrison (1993) combined SLR solution UT/LLA9101 (including all data from 1976 to the beginning of 1991) and VLBI solution GBL66- (containing data up to the end of 1990) data sets to derive observation station horizontal motions for plate motion studies, they allowed all stations to have three independent motion velocities. These calculations, based on a global observational network, gave a root mean squared (RMS) value of up-down motions of over 18 mm/yr" (Robaudo and Harrison, 1993, PG. 53.) This value was considered by Robaudo and Harrison (1993) to be extremely high when compared to expected deglaciation rates, estimated at les than 10 mm/yr (Argus, 1996). "It is significant to note that Robaudo & Harrison (1993) 'expected that most VLBI stations will have up-dwon [radial] motions of only a few mm/yr' and recommended that the veritcal motion be restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr (Robaudo and Harrison, 1993, PG. 54)....' As recommended by Robaudo & Harrison (1993) the excesses in vertical measurement are globally zeroed, resulting in a static Earth radius premise being imposed on space geodetic observational data."

ROBAUDO S. and HARRISON C. G. A. 1993. Plate Tectonics from␣ SLR and VLBI global data. In: Smith D. E., and Turcotte D. L. eds.␣ Contributions of Space Geodesy to Geodynamics: Crustal Dynamics.␣ Geodynamics Series, Volume 23. American Geophysical Union. p53 et 54

You have consistently avoided science. This amounts to a poor attempt to dodge a single point that I raised.
I refuted each of your arguments.

Where did all the water come from?
From the mantle. The question becomes "where does the mantle come from?". We don't have the data to make an hypothesis about the formation of the mantle.

Why isn't there a 1.3s anomaly in the length of the day compared to 50 years ago?
This calculation is based on the assumption that the accumulated matter has zero momentum. It is false.

Where does the extra matter come from?
See above.

Why is there no anomaly in GPS measurements?
It is not possible to identify anomalies if the system is biased at the core.

Why is there no anomaly in Satellite Ephemeirdae?
Why is there no anomaly in paleotidal data?
We can't determine if there are anomalies because we can't determine the length of the year in absolute time.

This explanation is the most parsimonius, and does not require the incovation of unknown entities that have no physical mechanism that you can provide, and appear to defy the laws of physics as we currently understand them.
You (and many others) strangely fear that the causal mechanism will be incompatible with already known Physics. This fear is irrational.

florian

07-01-11, 04:40 AM

So you admityou're trolling then?
Wrong. Answering to a troll is not trolling.

Trippy

07-01-11, 04:57 AM

Wrong. Answering to a troll is not trolling.
Yeah, only I'm not actually trolling - the only thing I have done in this thread is challenge you to support your assertions, and in doing so you make comments like this "I don't expect that a zealot would understand that I have a life outside webfora." which are completely unwarranted.

Trippy

07-01-11, 05:27 AM

False. The center of mass which is also the center of your reference frame is evolving with every single earthquake.
Changes that can (and have) been accounted for, so this assertion is irrelevant.

Large corrections must be applied to these travel times which are affected by many parameters, especially atmospheric conditions. And these corrections use assumptions like the a fixed earth radius.
This is bogus. And here's why - if you're using the right equipment, you can cancel out the random errors introduced by these things, and measure position to an accuracy of 10cm - it's simply a matter of using the right equipment.

This is what is done with VLBI which is therefore certainly the most independent geodetic system. But VLBI stations are sparse and corrections are still applied assuming a constant earth radius to reduce noise. Typically, corrections parameters are adjusted to minimize the RMS on vertical displacement assuming that the lithosphere mostly move horizontally (according to the plate tectonics model). And the VLBI data are evidently used to build the ITRF (plus SLR data, etc..).
None of which introduces any distortions, which, once again, suggests that the assumptions being made are accurate.

If you had done you "homework" you would know it because this is written in plain in Maxlow's PhD thesis that you denied to read:

"In contrast when Robaudo & Harrison (1993) combined SLR solution UT/LLA9101 (including all data from 1976 to the beginning of 1991) and VLBI solution GBL66- (containing data up to the end of 1990) data sets to derive observation station horizontal motions for plate motion studies, they allowed all stations to have three independent motion velocities. These calculations, based on a global observational network, gave a root mean squared (RMS) value of up-down motions of over 18 mm/yr" (Robaudo and Harrison, 1993, PG. 53.) This value was considered by Robaudo and Harrison (1993) to be extremely high when compared to expected deglaciation rates, estimated at les than 10 mm/yr (Argus, 1996). "It is significant to note that Robaudo & Harrison (1993) 'expected that most VLBI stations will have up-dwon [radial] motions of only a few mm/yr' and recommended that the veritcal motion be restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr (Robaudo and Harrison, 1993, PG. 54)....' As recommended by Robaudo & Harrison (1993) the excesses in vertical measurement are globally zeroed, resulting in a static Earth radius premise being imposed on space geodetic observational data."

ROBAUDO S. and HARRISON C. G. A. 1993. Plate Tectonics from␣ SLR and VLBI global data. In: Smith D. E., and Turcotte D. L. eds.␣ Contributions of Space Geodesy to Geodynamics: Crustal Dynamics.␣ Geodynamics Series, Volume 23. American Geophysical Union. p53 et 54
You're making an assumption - that I haven't read Maxlows thesis.

This assumption is baseless - why, because I didn't say that it had not been done, I only pointed out to you, for like the third or fourth time that it could be done. I've even mentioned that this was Carey's prefered reference frame. But then, so far you've shown no inclination what so ever to address anything I'v actually said.

The only thing that you've proven here is that would I said can be done, can be done, and has been done.

I refuted each of your arguments.
Wrong.
You haven't touched Saros cycles, and observations maed over the last 5,000 years.
You haven't touched some of the very precise alignments in historical structures from the last 10,000 years.
You haven't even explained where all the water came from - or provided proof of 50km topography.
You've waffled and hand waved away the lack of anomalies in Satelite ephemeridae.
And like wise, you've hand waved away the lack of GPS anomalies, or tidalite anomalies.

In short, you've addressed nothing I have said.

Oh, and as far as reconstructions of the Iapetus Ocean goes, the modern reconstructions, those made since Carey published his book, include the work done by Wilson.

From the mantle. The question becomes "where does the mantle come from?". We don't have the data to make an hypothesis about the formation of the mantle.
You have no mechanism, therefore no experiments, therefore no proof that mantle is being created.

This calculation is based on the assumption that the accumulated matter has zero momentum. It is false.
The calculation was based on the assumption of the conservation of angular momentum.
Your assertion here is that matter is created in the mantle, that adds mass to the earth, and imparts angular momentum to it, but this is absurd at a basic level even if for no reason other than it requires the creation of matter in a reference frame that isn't co-rotating with the earth.

It is not possible to identify anomalies if the system is biased at the core.
This goes to prove you don't understand the scientific method.
If the assumption is wrong, the model will produce anomalies. The model does not produce anomalies, therefore the assumption appears to be correct.

It's that simple.

If the model, and it's assumptions are wrong, the prediction fails, and anomalies appear. That's the way science works

We can't determine if there are anomalies because we can't determine the length of the year in absolute time.
Once again, you're wrong.
Allow me to repeat myself, yet again.
Tidal theory allows us to predict how the absolute length of the day has changed.
Tidal theory allows us to predict how the orbit of the moon around the Earth has changed.
Using these two predictions, we can then predict how long a month would be, in days, and how long a year would be in months and days.
We can then test these predictions against measurements made from tidalites.

You (and many others) strangely fear that the causal mechanism will be incompatible with already known Physics. This fear is irrational.
This isn't fear talking. It's rationality, science, critical thought, ontological parsimony, and a little thing called emperical skepticism.

florian

07-01-11, 04:56 PM

No. It shows that in your toy model there is limited lithosphere destruction in the case of slab rollback,
False. The figure applies to slab-rollback in general.

No it doesn't.
I've already explained that it's possible to model the history of tidal braking in the earth-moon system, and that in doing so we've already made interesting discoveries.
No, and I will repeat it a last time, it can't be modeled because we cannot extrapolate the current receeding rate of the moon back in time, the moon would be too close form earth circa 1.5 By ago, see Williams (2000) Reviews of Geophysics 38, p37.

So there is no way to predict the how the absolute length of day has changed. It must be calculated from the lunar nodal period or the number of sidereal months/yr or the number of sidereal days/yr. In fine, no comparison can be made between methods that are independent from the orbital period and your argument is dead.

Now, stop trolling, go back, and re-read what I actually said in the sentence that you're directly replying to.
Trolling is your speciality not mine. I adressed what you said: It is possible to dismiss a theory but not to refute it using Ockham's razor. The growing earth theory relies on evidence that render the principle of parcimony useless here. But since you deny reading Carey's review, it means that you just don't care and are just a troll.

Irrelevant - although by what you've stated here, you'vce contradicted yourself, and suggested that it's fine to 'attack' your theory because its lack of a causal mechanism.
You misconstrue what I write and you do that constantly. I said that proposing a physical mechanism in absence of data to support it is a scientific suicide.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE PROPOSED NO MECHANISM
Don't shout please. Proposing a physical mechanism makes no sense as long as we have no data to support one. We can only infer from the observations that earth is growing in mass from inside but we can't propose a physical mechanism yet to explain it at a subatomic level because we have no data to make an hypothesis.

You've got it arse-about-face. Once you have a mechanism,...
You missed the initial step!

1. Observe a phenomenon
2. Propose a mechanism
3. Make predictions
4. Test the predictions experimentally.

Without the initial observation there is nothing that can be done.

That is the way science works.

You just proved that you don't know how science works. That is ok (except if you are a scientist!), but in this case don't pretend to know how science works. You don't.

So be humble and learn from professional scientists like Carey.

Trippy

07-01-11, 05:29 PM

False. The figure applies to slab-rollback in general.
No, it applies to your interpretation of slab rollback.

No, and I will repeat it a last time, it can't be modeled because we cannot extrapolate the current receeding rate of the moon back in time, the moon would be too close form earth circa 1.5 By ago, see Williams (2000) Reviews of Geophysics 38, p37.
You're wrong. Plain and simple. It's funny that you don't even realize just how wrong you are.

So there is no way to predict the how the absolute length of day has changed. It must be calculated from the lunar nodal period or the number of sidereal months/yr or the number of sidereal days/yr. In fine, no comparison can be made between methods that are independent from the orbital period and your argument is dead.
Wrong again, it can, and has been done. The funny thing is that it's accuracy is reliant not only on things like the the earth having a constant radius and mass, but also things like the distribution of the oceans - because it's the oceans that provide the majority of the braking force. So in that respect it adds another layer of confidence to our reconstructions.

Trolling is your speciality not mine.
I have yet to troll.

I adressed what you said: It is possible to dismiss a theory but not to refute it using Ockham's razor.
No, you have not.
Here is what I said:
"And what I suggested was that ontological parsimony was sufficient grounds to dismiss expanding earth tectonics"
And here is your reply:
"Repeat: The ontological parsimony is not sufficient to refute a theory."
Can you uderstand the difference between what I actually said, and what you're implying/asserting I said?

The growing earth theory relies on evidence that render the principle of parcimony useless here.
If the principle of parsimony is useless here, then it is also insufficient to dismiss the standard model of plate tectonics. If it is insufficient to dismiss one, it is insufficient to dismiss both. If it can be used to dismiss one, it can be used to dismiss both. It's that simple. Science doesn't operate according to double standards. Science operates by applying the same standards and principles universally.

But since you deny reading Carey's review, it means that you just don't care and are just a troll.
Again, you assume that I haven't read Carey's review, eeven though I have directly addressed several of his points that you have not raised (for example his 100km diapiric rise).

You misconstrue what I write and you do that constantly.
I do nno such thing.

I said that proposing a physical mechanism in absence of data to support it is a scientific suicide.
What you propose is untestable.
With no mechanism you can not propose an experiment to test your hypothesis. What your proposing is below the work of (for eample) Scalera, who at least made an effort to propose a mechanism.

Don't shout please. Proposing a physical mechanism makes no sense as long as we have no data to support one.
See above.

We can only infer from the observations that earth is growing in mass from inside but we can't propose a physical mechanism yet to explain it at a subatomic level because we have no data to make an hypothesis.
You have proposed no mechanism by which the earth grows that can be tested.

You have only asserted that it must do so.

Again, allow me to repeat myself. In order to know what to look for at a subatomic level, you must first propose a mechanism that makes testable predictions. Otherwise, you're not doing science.

You missed the initial step!

1. Observe a phenomenon
2. Propose a mechanism
3. Make predictions
4. Test the predictions experimentally.

Without the initial observation there is nothing that can be done.
Nonsense. I missed no step.
You have the hypothesis - that the earth is expanding by some mechanism.
You claim that this hypothesis is supported by observation, but it is a hypothesis that has no plausable mechanism.
You have no observations, because you haven't carried out any experiments, because you have proposed no mechanism that can be tested.
Every discovery in the history of science - including the serendipitous ones, has been made this way.

That is the way science works.

You just proved that you don't know how science works. That is ok (except if you are a scientist!), but in this case don't pretend to know how science works. You don't.
I know how science works, and you're not doing it.

You have made no unique falsifiable predictions - even Carey himself said about the Iapetus ocean that (I assume the reconstruction has changed since the '70s) that if the reconstruction was done a certain way, that his 'anomaly' disappeared, and all of the reconstructions of the Iapetus ocean I've looked at are consitent with Carey's description.

florian

07-02-11, 05:38 PM

No, it applies to your interpretation of slab rollback.
False. The fact that limited amount of lithosphere is destructed in the case of slab-rollback is independent from any interpretation. The sole lithosphere that get subducted is the rolling-back lithosphere. Anyone can confirm it with this scheme representative of all slab-rollbacks:

http://nachon.free.fr/flowtectonic/flow-rollback.jpg

No, and I will repeat it a last time, it can't be modeled because we cannot extrapolate the current receding rate of the moon back in time, the moon would be too close form earth circa 1.5 By ago, see Williams (2000) Reviews of Geophysics 38, p37.

You're wrong. Plain and simple. It's funny that you don't even realize just how wrong you are.
I'm not wrong. It has been calculated that with the current receding rate, the moon would be too close from Earth 1.5 By ago so that any extrapolation based on the current receding rate must be wrong. If you deny it, then prove that Williams is wrong when he states page 19 of his review that "Projecting into the past a rate of tidal energy dissipation consistent with the present rate of lunar recession of 3.82 cm/yr indicates a close approach of the Moon at ≈1.5 Ga (Figure 15, curve a)."

I have yet to troll.
You have done nothing else but trolling with no intention to understand the arguments presented in support of the growing Earth theory.

No, you have not.
Here is what I said:
"And what I suggested was that ontological parsimony was sufficient grounds to dismiss expanding earth tectonics"
And here is your reply:
"Repeat: The ontological parsimony is not sufficient to refute a theory."
Can you uderstand the difference between what I actually said, and what you're implying/asserting I said?
I perfectly understand what you say but you certainly did not understand the points I raised against your assertion. The first point is that the principle of parsimony can help to choose between two theories (so dismiss one theory) but it can't refute a theory. So it can't refute the growing Earth theory. The Second point is that the growing earth theory is an empirical theory. This means that it does not rely on first principle or a causal mechanism but on a body of observations. So the only way to prove that this theory is wrong, is to demolished the evidence that support the theory. To do so, you must first know these evidence and for that matter, you must read the scientific literature supporting this theory. Some of these evidence are presented in the exhaustive review written by Carey that you said you read. And it happens that among them, some refute plate tectonics at the same time than they support the growing earth theory.
For example, the larger oceanization of the southern hemisphere indicates a larger growth of this hemisphere. This leads to the growing earth prediction that terranes once located at the equator should now be found in the northern hemisphere. It is even possible that terranes that were in the southern hemisphere are now found in the northern hemisphere. India is a very good example of that migration, see following scheme:
http://nachon.free.fr/images/india-N-drift.jpg

According to paleomagnetic data, and I quote Carey, "The Permian equator now lies 37� north of the equator in North America, 40� north in Europe, and 17� north in Siberia, which is impossible on an earth of constant radius without at least 6,000 km of post-Palaeozoic subduction within the Arctic." So the prediction is verified, and at the same time refutes plate tectonics, because the latter predicts a large convergent boundary in the arctic whereas in reality there is a spreading ridge (Gakkel ridge).

Again, you assume that I haven't read Carey's review, eeven though I have directly addressed several of his points that you have not raised (for example his 100km diapiric rise).

Only 100 km? Knowing that measurements indicate a 400-km growth of the radius just the last 20 My, it does not seem very much.

What you propose is untestable.
What? I do not propose a mechanism because we don't have the physics to explain the causal mechanism nor data to get some clues about it.
Proposing a mechanism based on "no data" is not Science. It is wishful thinking. Your request for a causal mechanism is antiscientific.

Again, allow me to repeat myself. In order to know what to look for at a subatomic level, you must first propose a mechanism that makes testable predictions. Otherwise, you're not doing science.
That is the opposite! Proposing a subatomic mechanism based on nothing is certainly not doing science (!)
I can't understand how someone who supposedly got a basic education in science can request something that is so antiscientific. This is unreal!

Nonsense. I missed no step.
Oh yes you definitively missed the first step. We don't have the initial observation of subatomic events that could help us to propose a mechanism for the accumulation of matter inside some planets. If you know one, then write a paper; published it, and I promise you that you will have a good chance to get a prize in Stockholm.

You have the hypothesis - that the earth is expanding by some mechanism.
No! Huge misunderstanding of the state of the theory.Here is the situation: We have a corpus of observations that led us to the conclusion that Earth and some other planets have been growing in mass. This is not an hypothesis but a fact. From that fact, we can infer that physics must exist that explains this growth in mass. But it does tell us nothing more on the causal mechanism. We're stuck until new data help us to get some clues about the physics involved.

You have made no unique falsifiable predictions - even Carey himself said about the Iapetus ocean that (I assume the reconstruction has changed since the '70s) that if the reconstruction was done a certain way, that his 'anomaly' disappeared, and all of the reconstructions of the Iapetus ocean I've looked at are consitent with Carey's description.
Very impressive, you managed to completely misinterpret what Carey says and you did it intentionally to serve your agenda.

For the reader, this is what Carey wrote:

"Dr. W. A. Morris pioneered the investigation of this question [separation by an hypothetic ocean], and found that indeed the poles had separated by some 30 degrees, but the separation was in the direction of the Appalachian-caledonian axis, and not transverse to it as it would have to be if the alleged lapetus Ocean had been subducted."

"The alleged anomaly between the northwest African glaciation and the subtropical limestones of the western slopes of the Appalachians during the Ordovician is also eased by the displacement along the Appalachian axis, but on an expanding Earth, it was not anomalous anyway. If the pole be assumed to have been in the center of the records of glaciation and the earth's radius assumed to have been 0.7 of the present radius, the most northerly glaciate in northwest Africa would have been in latitude 43� (the same as the most northerly Quaternary glaciate at sea level in Tasmania), and the subtropical Ordovician limestones would have been in the latitude of the present Great Barrier Reef of Queensland. The evidence for Iapetus, and the mythical ocean itself, vanish. "

So the anomaly disappears only if the Iapetus ocean is removed from the reconstructions and replaced by a long megashear forming a long and narrow basin.

Trippy

07-03-11, 01:54 PM

False. The fact that limited amount of lithosphere is destructed in the case of slab-rollback is independent from any interpretation. The sole lithosphere that get subducted is the rolling-back lithosphere.
No.

I'm not wrong. It has been calculated that with the current receding rate, the moon would be too close from Earth 1.5 By ago so that any extrapolation based on the current receding rate must be wrong. If you deny it, then prove that Williams is wrong when he states page 19 of his review that "Projecting into the past a rate of tidal energy dissipation consistent with the present rate of lunar recession of 3.82 cm/yr indicates a close approach of the Moon at ≈1.5 Ga (Figure 15, curve a)."
I'm familiar with Williams' work.
I'm not talking about Williams' work.
I'm talking about other work.
I don't know why you're so obssessed with Williams' work - probably because it means that you can cherry pick it, and present that particular quote out of context.
I'm going to repeat myself.
The modelling of the rate of recession can, and has been done using tidal theory, and we know that it was variable.

You have done nothing else but trolling with no intention to understand the arguments presented in support of the growing Earth theory.
Argumentum ad hominem.

I perfectly understand what you say but you certainly did not understand the points I raised against your assertion. The first point is that the principle of parsimony can help to choose between two theories (so dismiss one theory) but it can't refute a theory. So it can't refute the growing Earth theory.
And it is on this basis, among others, that I dismiss expanding earth tectonics (there, I said it, yet again).

The Second point is that the growing earth theory is an empirical theory. This means that it does not rely on first principle or a causal mechanism but on a body of observations. So the only way to prove that this theory is wrong, is to demolished the evidence that support the theory. To do so, you must first know these evidence and for that matter, you must read the scientific literature supporting this theory. Some of these evidence are presented in the exhaustive review written by Carey that you said you read. And it happens that among them, some refute plate tectonics at the same time than they support the growing earth theory.
No, because as I have pointed out - using the Iapetus ocean as an example, our understanding of the past organization of the continents has evolved. Carey's argument regarding the Iapetus ocean appears to be based on a reconstruction that is no longer relevant.

For example, the larger oceanization of the southern hemisphere indicates a larger growth of this hemisphere.
Only according to your toy model - stop presenting supposition as fact.

This leads to the growing earth prediction that terranes once located at the equator should now be found in the northern hemisphere. It is even possible that terranes that were in the southern hemisphere are now found in the northern hemisphere. India is a very good example of that migration, see following scheme:
http://nachon.free.fr/images/india-N-drift.jpg
As opposed to what - the plate tectonics reconstruction that they were once in the Southern Hemisphere?
This assertion of yours does not provide a testable prediction.
Also, your reconstruction makes a provably wrong prediction. Can you figure out what that is?

According to paleomagnetic data, and I quote Carey, "The Permian equator now lies 37� north of the equator in North America, 40� north in Europe, and 17� north in Siberia, which is impossible on an earth of constant radius without at least 6,000 km of post-Palaeozoic subduction within the Arctic." So the prediction is verified, and at the same time refutes plate tectonics, because the latter predicts a large convergent boundary in the arctic whereas in reality there is a spreading ridge (Gakkel ridge).
No. Carey's assertion is bogus in this, nothing has been proven or disporoven by it.

Only 100 km? Knowing that measurements indicate a 400-km growth of the radius just the last 20 My, it does not seem very much.
That's what Carey predicted, but you knew that already, being familiar with his work and all that.

What? I do not propose a mechanism because we don't have the physics to explain the causal mechanism nor data to get some clues about it.
Proposing a mechanism based on "no data" is not Science. It is wishful thinking. Your request for a causal mechanism is antiscientific.
No it isn't, it is perfectly reasonable, and there have been several proposed.

That is the opposite! Proposing a subatomic mechanism based on nothing is certainly not doing science (!)
I can't understand how someone who supposedly got a basic education in science can request something that is so antiscientific. This is unreal!
Again, you're wrong, but it's also evident you don't seem to have fully understood what I have said.

Oh yes you definitively missed the first step. We don't have the initial observation of subatomic events that could help us to propose a mechanism for the accumulation of matter inside some planets. If you know one, then write a paper; published it, and I promise you that you will have a good chance to get a prize in Stockholm.
See, here's the thing, and this is why I say it's crucially important that you provide one - modern Physics, to the best of my recollection does not provide for one. The mantle of the earth is simply not hot enough or dense enough. Even Graviton decay would leave its fingerprint, but it doesn't. There is no evidence, and there is no mechanism to support your assertion.

No! Huge misunderstanding of the state of the theory.Here is the situation: We have a corpus of observations that led us to the conclusion that Earth and some other planets have been growing in mass. This is not an hypothesis but a fact. From that fact, we can infer that physics must exist that explains this growth in mass.
No, you have a hypothesis, if I'm being generous, that makes no unique testable predictions, that lacks a causal mechanism, isn't backed by measurements that can be made or infered in the last 10,000 years (or 1.2 GA for that matter), and from that you infer that some mechanism must exist, even though you have absolutely no idea what it might be.

But it does tell us nothing more on the causal mechanism. We're stuck until new data help us to get some clues about the physics involved.
Wrong.
Science doesn't just magically manifest answers into a notebook. It requires experimentation to verify predictions made by a hypothesis. Without a hypothesis, no predictions can be made, and nothing can be tested - what you're practicing is more like faith. You're sitting back and claiming "It's irrefutable! Pay no attention to the man behind the mirror! Physics just hasn't caught up with me yet, have faith brothers, a mechanism will emerge!"

Very impressive, you managed to completely misinterpret what Carey says and you did it intentionally to serve your agenda.

For the reader, this is what Carey wrote:

"Dr. W. A. Morris pioneered the investigation of this question [separation by an hypothetic ocean], and found that indeed the poles had separated by some 30 degrees, but the separation was in the direction of the Appalachian-caledonian axis, and not transverse to it as it would have to be if the alleged lapetus Ocean had been subducted."

"The alleged anomaly between the northwest African glaciation and the subtropical limestones of the western slopes of the Appalachians during the Ordovician is also eased by the displacement along the Appalachian axis, but on an expanding Earth, it was not anomalous anyway. If the pole be assumed to have been in the center of the records of glaciation and the earth's radius assumed to have been 0.7 of the present radius, the most northerly glaciate in northwest Africa would have been in latitude 43� (the same as the most northerly Quaternary glaciate at sea level in Tasmania), and the subtropical Ordovician limestones would have been in the latitude of the present Great Barrier Reef of Queensland. The evidence for Iapetus, and the mythical ocean itself, vanish. "
I have misrepresented nothing.
I have emphasized the salient portion of the quoted text.

So the anomaly disappears only if the Iapetus ocean is removed from the reconstructions and replaced by a long megashear forming a long and narrow basin.
No, that is not what Carrey said.

Trippy

07-03-11, 04:28 PM

All of which is beside the point, more or less, because we come back to the same basic point.

Irrespective of whether or not you believe that we can predict how many hours are in a year, we can show using tidalites how many days were in a month, and how many days are in a year.

Setting aside, for the moment, your assertion that somehow, as if by magic, this matter which appears in the Earth's mantle adds just enough angular momentum, we come back to this point.

Adding mass to the Earth would cause it to migrate closer to the sun - unless G varies 'just so', or its angular momentum varies 'just so'. This would mean that the year should have been longer (in hours) at some point in the past. This, combined with shorter days would result in more days in each year, and more months in each year. An anomaly that should be detectable, but isn't, and so you predict that, somehow, by physics which is unknown to the physics community, and does not fit within the current paradigm, as well as adding mass to the Earth, it imparts just enough angular momentum to the earth to prevent orbit from migrating.

If the Earth was smaller and lighter than it is today, its days would be much shorter in hours than they are today. Again, irrespective of whether or not you think we can use tidal theory to predict the absolute length of the day, this would result in more days per month, and more days per year than is observed, again, an anomaly that should be measurable, but isn't. So again, you hypothesize, that some how, the matter that is being added to the Earth imparts angular momentum to it in a way that is 'just so' and gives the illusion of constancy.

Trippy

07-03-11, 07:00 PM

Oh, and seeing as how Florian likes using Williams so much, here's something else he's had to say, in a different paper to the one that Florian insists on using:

The validity of such values, including past length of day, can be assessed by testing for internal self-consistency through application of the laws of celestial mechanics. Such a test supports the estimated length of day of 21.9 +/- 0.4 h derived from the late Neoproterozoic (620 Ma) Elatina–Reynella rhythmites in South Australia, and the indicated mean rate of lunar retreat of 2.16 +/- 0.31 cm/year since 620 Ma. The validity of estimated lengths of day obtained from other Precambrian tidal rhythmites remain unverified because the data sets contain only one primary value directly determined from the rhythmites. The Elatina–Reynella data militate against significant Earth expansion at least since 620 Ma...

So Williams supports my assertion that the validity of the length of the day can be verified (in a couple of different ways it seems), and that the rate of retreat has varied over time.

Elsehwere he has this to say:

The derived mean rate of lunar retreat of 2.16 cm/year since ∼620 Ma averts a close approach of the Moon at least since 3 Ga and a lower rate of retreat seems likely during the Proterozoic.

So sorry, no Ultra-violet catastrophy for expanding earth tectonics to save us from today.

Addendum:
The point, it seems, that is being missed here, is that the Elatina–Reynella tidalites allow us to reconstruct the moon's orbit about the earth, as it was 620MYA. The tidalites give us Semidiurnal, diurnal, monthly, and annual cycles, as well as the multi year cycle that gives rise to the eclipse cycle.

These periodicities, and their beat rythms allow us to (or in this case allowed Williams) to determine, using Newtonian physics, what the moons orbital parameters must have been. These orbital parameters then allow us to calculate an 'absolute' length of the day in hours, and the mass of the earth. Neither of which allow for an expanding earth that gains mass.

florian

07-04-11, 04:45 PM

Oh, and seeing as how Florian likes using Williams so much, here's something else he's had to say, in a different paper to the one that Florian insists on using:

The validity of such values, including past length of day, can be assessed by testing for internal self-consistency through application of the laws of celestial mechanics. Such a test supports the estimated length of day of 21.9 +/- 0.4 h derived from the late Neoproterozoic (620 Ma) Elatina�Reynella rhythmites in South Australia, and the indicated mean rate of lunar retreat of 2.16 +/- 0.31 cm/year since 620 Ma. The validity of estimated lengths of day obtained from other Precambrian tidal rhythmites remain unverified because the data sets contain only one primary value directly determined from the rhythmites. The Elatina�Reynella data militate against significant Earth expansion at least since 620 Ma...

So Williams supports my assertion that the validity of the length of the day can be verified (in a couple of different ways it seems), and that the rate of retreat has varied over time.

This is simply not true because as I stated many time before, it is not possible to make these calculations without assumption on the absolute time length of Earth's orbital period. Williams does not talk about it in his review and this leads to some confusions. But it is obvious from the equations he used, and you permanently failed to understand it.

Fortunately, Mazumder wrote a very good critic on the work on tidalites and (click to get pdf (http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/MazumderESR_reply_2005.pdf)): R. Mazumber (2005) "Reply to the comment of G. Williams on Tidal rhythmites and their implications by R. Mazumder and M. Arima [Earth-Science Reviews, 69 (2005) 79�95]" Earth-Science Reviews 72 (2005) 119�123

This paper develops my point in details and destroys your "self-consistency" argument. Have a good reading.

Regarding Earth's expansion, I also remind you that Williams wanted to refute an expansion of Earth (At constant mass, thus conserved momentum), but it is irrelevant to a growth of Earth which implies a change in momentum due to the momentum contribution of the gained matter.

Trippy

07-04-11, 06:56 PM

This is simply not true because as I stated many time before, it is not possible to make these calculations without assumption on the absolute time length of Earth's orbital period. Williams does not talk about it in his review and this leads to some confusions. But it is obvious from the equations he used, and you permanently failed to understand it.

Fortunately, Mazumder wrote a very good critic on the work on tidalites and (click to get pdf (http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/MazumderESR_reply_2005.pdf)): R. Mazumber (2005) "Reply to the comment of G. Williams on Tidal rhythmites and their implications by R. Mazumder and M. Arima [Earth-Science Reviews, 69 (2005) 79–95]" Earth-Science Reviews 72 (2005) 119–123

This paper develops my point in details and destroys your "self-consistency" argument. Have a good reading.

Regarding Earth's expansion, I also remind you that Williams wanted to refute an expansion of Earth (At constant mass, thus conserved momentum), but it is irrelevant to a growth of Earth which implies a change in momentum due to the momentum contribution of the gained matter.

I've read Mazumder's reply to Williams' paper before. Frankly, that's 10 minutes of my life I will never get back.

I found Mazumder's paper to be grossly flawed, and factually inaccurate.

For example:

This is similar to the speculation of the astrophysicists that Earth–Moon collision occurred sometimes between 2000 and 1500 Ma resulting in total melting of Earth’s mantle (cf. Lambeck, 1980; Walker and Zahnle, 1986)...
No, they don't.

They know that it formed in the first 10-100 MYA of the Solar system's history eg: Halliday 2008 (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1883/4163.full) and you can't defend him by claiming that it's new science that he couldn't have known about, because it was proposed as far back as 1973 by Tera et al (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1973LPI.....4..723T) that the apollo samples suggested that the impact must have occured at least 3.8-4 GYA.

The rest of what I see there is speculation - for example, the Hulse-Taylor Binary Pulsar allows us to test Relativity - one of the assumptions of which is the constancy of G. One of the Hulse-Taylor Binary Pulsar tells us is that 21,000 years ago, G was the same as it is now - we know this because the system is loosing energy at a rate as if G was the same then as it is now. And that's without delving into tests using Globular clusters and H-R diagrams, helioseimicity experiments, and so on and so forth (the list really is quite extensive) - all of which come to the same conclusion - if G has varied, it's been by 1.5x10-12 of its current or less per year for the last 4.5 billion years - in other words, it has varied by no more than 9x10-23 m3kg-1s-2 per year.

To put that in perspective - G, according to our ability to measure it, and its history, has only increased by 0.8% in the last 620MA, however, if we use the values for Radius given in Maxlow's thesis, the Earth's mass has increased by 3000% over the same time - assuming that the bulk density of the earth has remained constant. So now we require not only G to vary, and the mass of the earth to vary, but the bulk density of the earth to vary in just the right way as to give the appearance of having remained constant.

Oh, and incidentally, you, and Mazumder are wrong about something else - it's a point that I have alluded to several times, which you have thus far chosen to ignore.

Williams' work give us an estimate of the rate of recession for the last 620 MYA, something that we can both agree on, and it's one that is consistent with the other information that we have regarding the moon.
From this, and from Williams' other work (IIRC) we can predict what the length of the moon's semi major axis would/could/should have been 620 MYA. Using only the assumption that the Earth's density has remained constant - an assumption that you have implicitly agreed to - in fact, I believe it was you who suggsted it, we can calculate the absolute time of the orbital period of the moon around the earth, in seconds, and from that calculate the absolute length of the Earths year, month and day.

I'll give Mazumder credit where it's due though, he did get one thing right.

He said:

...tidal friction is critically dependent on the sea level and continental configurations both of which have changed significantly in the geologic past.

This can, and has been modeled, on the basis of reconstructions from mainstream plate tectonics, and the results, once again, give good agreement with Williams' work.

Alexander1304

07-06-11, 10:37 AM

No,earth is NOT expanding,how can it?

James R

07-06-11, 10:52 PM

Of course it's not expanding - especially at the ridiculous rate that florian is claiming. Note that he gives no mechanism for the suggested expansion, and no credible evidence either.

florian

07-20-11, 06:38 PM

I've read Mazumder's reply to Williams' paper before. Frankly, that's 10 minutes of my life I will never get back.
You've lost more than 10 minutes by advocating obsolete theories.

I found Mazumder's paper to be grossly flawed, and factually inaccurate.

For example:

This is similar to the speculation of the astrophysicists that Earth�Moon collision occurred sometimes between 2000 and 1500 Ma resulting in total melting of Earth�s mantle (cf. Lambeck, 1980; Walker and Zahnle, 1986)...

No, they don't.

They know that it formed in the first 10-100 MYA of the Solar system's history eg: Halliday 2008 (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1883/4163.full) and you can't defend him by claiming that it's new science that he couldn't have known about, because it was proposed as far back as 1973 by Tera et al (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1973LPI.....4..723T) that the apollo samples suggested that the impact must have occured at least 3.8-4 GYA.

That's not the point!
The point is that astrophysicists wildly speculated about a Earth-Moon collision and presented it as a fact despite it is just an hypothesis. And it is still quite common to see this hypothesis of a collision with a Mars-sized object called "theia" as a fact in recent peer-reviewed paper. In reality, this is just another typical american catastrophist hypothesis. this hypothesis is not so far from one of their dumbest movies, armageddon. Without any surprise, recent analysis finally show that the moon's mantle is as rich in water than earth's mantle. Of course this destroys this silly impact hypothesis. Note that the dichotomy of Mars hemispheres is also explained as resulting from a large impact. Yet another silly catastrophist hypothesis that has nothing to do with science.

The rest of what I see there is speculation - for example, the Hulse-Taylor Binary Pulsar allows us to test Relativity - one of the assumptions of which is the constancy of G. One of the Hulse-Taylor Binary Pulsar tells us is that 21,000 years ago, G was the same as it is now - we know this because the system is loosing energy at a rate as if G was the same then as it is now. And that's without delving into tests using Globular clusters and H-R diagrams, helioseimicity experiments, and so on and so forth (the list really is quite extensive) - all of which come to the same conclusion - if G has varied, it's been by 1.5x10-12 of its current or less per year for the last 4.5 billion years - in other words, it has varied by no more than 9x10-23 m3kg-1s-2 per year.

Actually, I agree that the hypothesis of G variation is a dead end. Though, G variation is not the only explanation for the change of a planet orbit. A change in mass of the central star, transfer of momentum from the central star to the planet, a gain or loss of orbital velocity for the planet, plenty combinations.

To put that in perspective - G, according to our ability to measure it, and its history, has only increased by 0.8% in the last 620MA, however, if we use the values for Radius given in Maxlow's thesis, the Earth's mass has increased by 3000% over the same time - assuming that the bulk density of the earth has remained constant. So now we require not only G to vary, and the mass of the earth to vary, but the bulk density of the earth to vary in just the right way as to give the appearance of having remained constant.

Your claim of a variation "just the right way" is as baseless as your claim that the orbital period remained constant. Besides, the density of Earth, Mercury, Venus and Mars are between 5.5 and 4, Io 3.5, Ganymede 1.9. So the density of Earth was likely somewhere between 2 and 5.5 during its recent evolution. I would not bet that Earth's density remained constant either.

Oh, and incidentally, you, and Mazumder are wrong about something else - it's a point that I have alluded to several times, which you have thus far chosen to ignore.

Williams' work give us an estimate of the rate of recession for the last 620 MYA, something that we can both agree on, and it's one that is consistent with the other information that we have regarding the moon.

It allows to calculate mean rates. That's all.

From this, and from Williams' other work (IIRC) we can predict what the length of the moon's semi major axis would/could/should have been 620 MYA. Using only the assumption that the Earth's density has remained constant - an assumption that you have implicitly agreed to - in fact

Not really. I simply use this assumption to estimate the minimal gain in mass.

, I believe it was you who suggsted it, we can calculate the absolute time of the orbital period of the moon around the earth, in seconds, and from that calculate the absolute length of the Earths year, month and day.

No. On the contrary, I reminded you (So did Mazumder), that absolute time values rely entirely on the assumption that the absolute length of earth's orbital period remained constant. And this is not a given.

No,earth is NOT expanding,how can it?

By inner growth in mass.

Of course it's not expanding - especially at the ridiculous rate that florian is claiming.

This rate is not wishful thinking but a real quantification (!). The fact is that you don't have the basic knowkedge to understand how it was measured and why the method is pertinent.

Note that he gives no mechanism for the suggested expansion, and no credible evidence either.
Oh please, don't tell me that it is my fault if we don't have the physics at hand to explain that growth�
And instead of claiming there are no credible evidence, you would be more credible if you had read a few reviews on the subject.

"The ExpandingEarth-an EssayReview" SW Carey (1975) ESR 11 p 105-143 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/6yzgaq4)

"Fossils, frogs, floating islands and expanding Earth in changing-radius cartography � A comment to a discussion on Journal of Biogeography" G Scalera (2007) Ann Geophys 50(6) p789 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/ycs8en6)

"Earthquakes, phase changes, fold belts: from Apennines to a global perspective" G Scalera (2010) GeoActa, Special Publication 3, pp. 25-43. (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/3bv2e8c)

"Mantle plumes and dynamics of the Earth interior � towards a new model" Geol Rev 52, p817 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/3vpafys)

Trippy

07-20-11, 07:51 PM

You've lost more than 10 minutes by advocating obsolete theories.
The only obsolete theory being advocated here is that of the expanding earth.

That's not the point!
The point is that astrophysicists wildly speculated about a Earth-Moon collision and presented it as a fact despite it is just an hypothesis. And it is still quite common to see this hypothesis of a collision with a Mars-sized object called "theia" as a fact in recent peer-reviewed paper. In reality, this is just another typical american catastrophist hypothesis. this hypothesis is not so far from one of their dumbest movies, armageddon. Without any surprise, recent analysis finally show that the moon's mantle is as rich in water than earth's mantle. Of course this destroys this silly impact hypothesis. Note that the dichotomy of Mars hemispheres is also explained as resulting from a large impact.
It is completely the point.
Mazumder cherry-picked the hypothesis of a young impacted, constructed the straw-man hypothesis that all large impact hypotheses were young impact hypotheses, presented evidence against young impact hypotheses, and stated that because there was no young impact, there was no large impact.

However Mazumders evidence only disproves a young impact, it does not disprove the large impact hypothesis, which originally stated that the impact occured in the first 500 miilion years of Earths history.

What Mazumder did was intellectualy dishonest, I would even go as far as calling it fraudulent.

Yet another silly catastrophist hypothesis that has nothing to do with science.
So you're a uniformitarianist and a gradualist then.

Your claim of a variation "just the right way" is as baseless as your claim that the orbital period remained constant.
Neither claim is baseless, you simply deny, or do not understand the evidence that has been presented.

Besides, the density of Earth, Mercury, Venus and Mars are between 5.5 and 4, Io 3.5, Ganymede 1.9. So the density of Earth was likely somewhere between 2 and 5.5 during its recent evolution. I would not bet that Earth's density remained constant either.
Are you suggesting that the Earth's density was less in the past than it is now?

It allows to calculate mean rates. That's all.
If you mean that we can use it to calculate the mean rate of recession 620 MYA and compare it to the mean rate of recession now, than hat is all I have ever said.

No. On the contrary, I reminded you (So did Mazumder), that absolute time values rely entirely on the assumption that the absolute length of earth's orbital period remained constant. And this is not a given.
Strawman hypothesis, Cherry picking.

What I said, in full, was this:

Williams' work give us an estimate of the rate of recession for the last 620 MYA, something that we can both agree on, and it's one that is consistent with the other information that we have regarding the moon.
From this, and from Williams' other work (IIRC) we can predict what the length of the moon's semi major axis would/could/should have been 620 MYA. Using only the assumption that the Earth's density has remained constant - an assumption that you have implicitly agreed to - in fact, I believe it was you who suggsted it, we can calculate the absolute time of the orbital period of the moon around the earth, in seconds, and from that calculate the absolute length of the Earths year, month and day.
It does not require an assumption about the absolute length of the year. I was talking about a calulation of the absolute length of the month, in seconds, from first principles, based on knowlege of specific lunar orbital parameters, that can be infered from a combination of modelling and observation, from which can be infered the absolute length of a day and a year (in seconds).

Do try to keep up.

florian

07-21-11, 05:26 AM

The only obsolete theory being advocated here is that of the expanding earth.
Repeating a fallacy won't make it true. The theory is supported by the same evidence that refute plate tectonics as presented in the different reviews I posted.

The hypothesis of a young impact was directly derived from the current recession rate of the moon. We know that there are no evidence because the recession rate is not constant. An impact was postulated from geochemical analysis of moon samples (similar composition than earth but for the water content). But geochemistry now show that the water content is similar to earth. Bye bye the impact theory whatever the period. The Earth-Moon system is a binary system with one of the partner that evolved with time.

No need for yet an other "armageddon" theory.

So you're a uniformitarianist and a gradualist then.
:bugeye:
I'm a true evolutionist. You're clearly not. You believe that Earth formed as a whole in a few millions years (a snap in geological time) then barely changed for 4.5 Ga (just the surface), denying the evidence that Earth (and the solar system) evolve with time.
You don't realise that the view you advocate is so much in line with creationist beliefs. That should ring a bell!

Neither claim is baseless, you simply deny, or do not understand the evidence that has been presented.
Do not return the argument. You're at fault here. Mazumder proved the point but you deny it using a fallacy.

Are you suggesting that the Earth's density was less in the past than it is now?
I can't know. I make the remark that we can't be sure of its density in the past. It could be either close to that of Mercury or that of Ganymede.

If you mean that we can use it to calculate the mean rate of recession 620 MYA and compare it to the mean rate of recession now, than hat is all I have ever said.
I mean that we can calculate a mean rate for the 620-present period, from the 620 Ma data, and that this rate is a bit more than half the present rate. The determination of the evolution of the recession rate is completely empirical, and claiming that it is calculated from first principle is yet another fallacy.

origin

07-21-11, 07:27 AM

Repeating a fallacy won't make it true.

For god sake listen to your own advice and stop embarassing yourself....:rolleyes:

florian

07-21-11, 07:48 AM

For god sake listen to your own advice and stop embarassing yourself....:rolleyes:

I'm very confident with the Science I'm defending. You are spreading a fallacy.

origin

07-21-11, 09:51 AM

I'm very confident with the Science I'm defending. You are spreading a fallacy.

Yes, you sound very confident. That confidence is misplaced, though.

You are confident that the earth is expanding by adding material through some unknown process that is not detectable and violates some of the most fundemental laws of physics.

That there ain't a great start to any hypothesis, my impetuous young fellow.

florian

07-21-11, 09:54 AM

and violates some of the most fundemental laws of physics.

Typically the kind of fallacy I'm fighting.

Trippy

07-21-11, 01:37 PM

Repeating a fallacy won't make it true.
It's not a fallacy.

Repeating a fallacy won't make it true. The theory is supported by the same evidence that refute plate tectonics as presented in the different reviews I posted.
Reviews which are substantially flawed in a variety of ways.

The hypothesis of a young impact was directly derived from the current recession rate of the moon. We know that there are no evidence because the recession rate is not constant.
Irrelevant to the point that I was making.

An impact was postulated from geochemical analysis of moon samples (similar composition than earth but for the water content). But geochemistry now show that the water content is similar to earth. Bye bye the impact theory whatever the period. The Earth-Moon system is a binary system with one of the partner that evolved with time.
Baloney.
The impact hypothesis is based on more than just the water content, and the rest of what you've had to say is simply wrong.
Alberto Saak had this to say

The bottom line is that in 2008, we said the primitive water content in the lunar magmas should be similar to lavas coming from the Earth�s depleted upper mantle. Now, we have proven that is indeed the case.
So the presence of water, at levels comparable to that found in magmas on Earth, contrary to your assertions, provides another piece of supporting evidence.

No need for yet an other "armageddon" theory.
Right, and I suppose you think Alvarez was wrong as well?

:bugeye:
I'm a true evolutionist. You're clearly not. You believe that Earth formed as a whole in a few millions years (a snap in geological time) then barely changed for 4.5 Ga (just the surface), denying the evidence that Earth (and the solar system) evolve with time.
You don't realise that the view you advocate is so much in line with creationist beliefs. That should ring a bell!
Argumentum ad hominem.
But it's worse than that, I would go as far as calling this name calling.

Do not return the argument. You're at fault here. Mazumder proved the point but you deny it using a fallacy.
Mazumder prooved nothing. He cherrypicked his evidence, and presented a strawman argument.

I can't know. I make the remark that we can't be sure of its density in the past. It could be either close to that of Mercury or that of Ganymede.
I didn't ask you to quantify it, I asked you to qualify it, are you suggesting that you can't even do that - say whether the earths density has increased or decreased over time?

I mean that we can calculate a mean rate for the 620-present period, from the 620 Ma data, and that this rate is a bit more than half the present rate. The determination of the evolution of the recession rate is completely empirical, and claiming that it is calculated from first principle is yet another fallacy.
Wrong.
You just don't understand the physics involved in the calculation.
And you're wrong about Williams' work as well - you do know that he has published more than one paper on the subject, don't you?

florian

07-22-11, 04:40 PM

It's not a fallacy.
:rolleyes:
Will you ever quit that childish game? Of course not, you love it so much.

Reviews which are substantially flawed in a variety of ways.
And of course you will carefully avoid to explain why. Why am I not surprised�

Irrelevant to the point that I was making.
It is relevant to the point Mazumber made, the point that you fake to not understand.

Baloney.
The impact hypothesis is based on more than just the water content, and the rest of what you've had to say is simply wrong.
Alberto Saak had this to say

The bottom line is that in 2008, we said the primitive water content in the lunar magmas should be similar to lavas coming from the Earth�s depleted upper mantle. Now, we have proven that is indeed the case.

So the presence of water, at levels comparable to that found in magmas on Earth, contrary to your assertions, provides another piece of supporting evidence.

Yet another proof of your profound dishonesty dear Trippy. I googled that quote by Saak and found the original source in the NASA website here:http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/may/HQ_11-171_Moon_Water.html
And what can we read: "The results published in the May 26 issue of Science Express raise questions about aspects of the "giant impact theory" of how the moon was created. That theory predicted very low water content of lunar rock due to catastrophic degassing during the collision of Earth with a Mars-sized body very early in its history."

So high water content refutes a prediction of this giant impact theory. The exact opposite of your claim in your own source.
Conclusion: you intentionally misrepresent this work very much like you misrepresent the work by Mazumber and so on.

Bottom line: one very important quality for a scientist is honnesty, because without honnesty there is no scientific ethic and no Science.
Dishonnest people don't do science, they only satisfy their ego. And that's part of my job as a debunker to warn the reader that your methods are not recommendable Trippy, as everyone can see in this thread at the Physforum: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=24959&st=15&#entry397921
You're definitively not interested in the science just the arguments for the sake of arguing, getting offensive and satisfying your ego.

Trippy

07-22-11, 05:21 PM

And of course you will carefully avoid to explain why. Why am I not surprised…
I've already elaborated on one example.

It is relevant to the point Mazumber made, the point that you fake to not understand.
Baloney - he cherry picked a hypothesis, and constructed a strawman argument, then claimed to have disproved the mainstream hypothesis, even though the hypothesis he cherrypicked wasn't nev

Yet another proof of your profound dishonesty dear Trippy. I googled that quote by Saak and found the original source in the NASA website here:http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/may/HQ_11-171_Moon_Water.html
And what can we read: "The results published in the May 26 issue of Science Express raise questions about aspects of the "giant impact theory" of how the moon was created. That theory predicted very low water content of lunar rock due to catastrophic degassing during the collision of Earth with a Mars-sized body very early in its history."
Right, it raises questions, and?

Every scientific discovery raises questions. Raising questions doesn't refute a theory, refuting the theory refutes the theory.

So high water content refutes a prediction of this giant impact theory. The exact opposite of your claim in your own source.
No it doesn't - your cherry picking, and building strawman arguments base don that cherrypicking.

Conclusion: you intentionally misrepresent this work very much like you misrepresent the work by Mazumber and so on.
Fourth paragraph from the bottom. Go back and re-read it, it says exactly what I said it says.

Bottom line: one very important quality for a scientist is honnesty, because without honnesty there is no scientific ethic and no Science.
Something you and Mazumder could learn a thing or two about. The worst you've done is prove that my interpretation of of what Saal had to say was wrong.

Saal said that the volatile content of lunar magma was comparable to that of MORB - I presumed that by that he meant that he expected this as a consequence of the large impact hypothesis. In retrospect, it seems I may have been mistaken in this interpretation, in that he could equally have meant that he expected the high concentration based on what was found in the bulk sample, and outgassing models. My mistake.

Dishonnest people don't do science, they only satisfy their ego. And that's part of my job as a debunker to warn the reader that your methods are not recommendable Trippy, as everyone can see in this thread at the Physforum: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=24959&st=15&#entry397921
I'm impressed - you've dredged up a thread, from a different forum, from two years ago, cherry picked a post, and presented it without context. And you've done precisely the same thing that the person in the post you linked to has done. To the other. Meh. I so, over there I did something foolish. I let the derision and scorn heaped upon me by pseudoscientists get to me, and started dishing it back to them, something which they did not like.

But tell me, do you condone an individual threatening a newborn infant with death, just because I said something that individual didn't like? Because that was what was being discussed (among other things) in that thread.

You're definitively not interested in the science just the arguments for the sake of arguing, getting offensive and satisfying your ego.
I am definitively interested in science.
You're the one cherry picking posts from other fora and presenting them as ad-hominem arguments not me.

You're avoiding addressing the issues that have been raised, and you've resorted to trolling.

florian

07-26-11, 04:47 AM

I've already elaborated on one example.
Cherry picking you said? first, you did not prove any flaw, second try harder to study these reviews. You have a lot to learn.

It is relevant to the point Mazumber made, the point that you fake to not understand.

Baloney - he cherry picked a hypothesis, and constructed a strawman argument, then claimed to have disproved the mainstream hypothesis, even though the hypothesis he cherrypicked wasn't nev
He illustrated how some geophysicists jumped to conclusion (a recurrent trend in that field). The point is that the recessions rates are empirical and cannot be used as a proof-check as a first principle calculation could eventually be. You did not prove any flaws.

Yet another proof of your profound dishonesty dear Trippy. I googled that quote by Saak and found the original source in the NASA website here:http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011...oon_Water.html
And what can we read: "The results published in the May 26 issue of Science Express raise questions about aspects of the "giant impact theory" of how the moon was created. That theory predicted very low water content of lunar rock due to catastrophic degassing during the collision of Earth with a Mars-sized body very early in its history."
�
Right, it raises questions, and?

This is really annoying to have to constantly remind you how science works.
So one more time: Observations -> hypothesis -> prediction -> test of the prediction experimentally (independent on the premises)

The hypothesis is a large impact with a Mars-sized body at the origin of the Earth/Moon system. The prediction is a "very low water content of lunar rock due to catastrophic degassing during the collision". The experimental data show that the water content is as high as on earth => the prediction failed and the theory is refuted according to the scientific method. Still in denial?

Bottom line: one very important quality for a scientist is honnesty, because without honnesty there is no scientific ethic and no Science.
Something you and Mazumder could learn a thing or two about.
L'h�pital qui se fout de la charit� (people who live in glass houses shouldn�t throw stones).

I am definitively interested in science.
You did not show it in this thread or the other. You have the attitude of a witchhunter, not that of a science advocate, even less that of a scientist.

You're the one cherry picking posts from other fora and presenting them as ad-hominem arguments not me.
It does partly explain your general attitude, including that toward honest and qualified scientists.

You're avoiding addressing the issues that have been raised, and you've resorted to trolling.
You failed to recognize that I address them, and when I point it to you, you call it "trolling". How convenient�

Trippy

07-26-11, 01:40 PM

Cherry picking you said? first, you did not prove any flaw, second try harder to study these reviews. You have a lot to learn.
And the rest.

He illustrated how some geophysicists jumped to conclusion (a recurrent trend in that field).
No, he illustrated how some geophysicists published a paper, then argued that the large impact hypothesis was wrong and had no evidence to support it, there's a difference.

The point is that the recessions rates are empirical and cannot be used as a proof-check as a first principle calculation could eventually be. You did not prove any flaws.
So... You're arguing that emperical data can not be used to test a theory? Interesting. I suppose, however, that explains why you are championing a theory that provides no physical causal mechanisms.

This is really annoying to have to constantly remind you how science works.
So one more time: Observations -> hypothesis -> prediction -> test of the prediction experimentally (independent on the premises)

The hypothesis is a large impact with a Mars-sized body at the origin of the Earth/Moon system. The prediction is a "very low water content of lunar rock due to catastrophic degassing during the collision". The experimental data show that the water content is as high as on earth => the prediction failed and the theory is refuted according to the scientific method. Still in denial?
Denial is championing a theory that was debunked over 100 years ago, and no, your assertion that the detection of water in lunar rocks disproves the large impact hypothesis is wrong, there's a number of steps that should be taken before it is discarded, especially in light of its success - one of which is "Can an alternate explanation be found within the theory", and the answer to that question in this case is yes. One possible 'solution' I have seen is that if the post collision system shared a common gaseous envelope, then this resolves the seeming paradox, but makes other predictions regarding isotopic ratios and such.

L'h�pital qui se fout de la charit� (people who live in glass houses shouldn�t throw stones).
Off topic.

You did not show it in this thread or the other. You have the attitude of a witchhunter, not that of a science advocate, even less that of a scientist.
Argumentum ad hominem, and blatantly wrong.

It does partly explain your general attitude, including that toward honest and qualified scientists.
Again, blatantly wrong. When I said "What Mazumder did..." I was commenting on his actions, not him. I have passed no judgment on Mazumder, I have made no comments about Mazumder - save that I consider his comments on that topic, in that paper to be bordering on fraudulent.

Unlike you, it seems, I was criticising the work, not the scientist, and I understand the difference.

You failed to recognize that I address them, and when I point it to you, you call it "trolling". How convenient�
The comment you made:
"You're definitively not interested in the science just the arguments for the sake of arguing, getting offensive and satisfying your ego."
That I was responding to does nothing to address the lack of physical mechanism, the lack of evidence of ongoing expansion, the question of where all the water came from, the lack of testable predictions, and the body of evidence supporting an Earth of a constant radius, and so on and so forth.

It simply presents an argumentum ad hominem in an attempt to poison the well.

wlminex

07-26-11, 02:14 PM

Trippy

07-26-11, 02:52 PM

. . . perhaps the earth's overall "mass" is constant (except for insignificant meteorite hits-added mass, and even more insignificant mass losses - H, H20, outgassing, etc.). Earth overall density should remain relatively constant; however, due to mantle differentiation (i.e., mantle ---> simafic basalt + sialic crust), the density is continually redistributed. Mafic is more dense than sial. Magmatic differentiation of (more dense)mantle to less dense sima and sial would yield a 'surface' (i.e., lithosphere) that required more volume (read: physical space, expansion?) than the undifferentiated mantle material. It is perhaps just a g/cc (mass per unit volume = density) thingy. Reminder: lithosphere basically "floats' (isostatically) atop mantle - kinda' like the head on your favorite beer!.

wlminex
Florian routinely sites Maxlow's thesis as a source when determining how much the earth has expanded by over geological time frames. Maxlow's figure comes out at around 2cm/yr, and predicts that during the precambrian the earth was 2060km in radius.
EG: http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2772432&postcount=81
Florian believes that spurs on dinosaur leg bones means they could run, but that if paleogravity was the same strength as modern gravity, then dinosaurs would not be able to run, and so infers that the earth has increased in mass and density since then (and seems to ignore that big dinosaurs evolved from small dinosaurs).
I've tried pointing out to him that if the earth were expanding at that rate, it should have expanded measurably in the last 50 years, and there should be an anomaly in the earths rotational period, but the response I got essentially amounted to being told that the expansion was non-uniform and episodic.
(addendum)
I pointed out that if the earth were expanding and gaining mass, that there would be some kind of signal buried in the GPS data, but that none had been reported. While at first glance this might seem like an absence of proof fallacy, take a moment to consider how significant the discovery of an unexplained systematic error in GPS data would be. His response was that the GPS data was based on the assumption that the earths radius was fixed, which (on the face of it at least) seems to neglect the point that changing the mass of the earth would change the orbits of the GPS satelites, unless his mechanism can also alter the angular momentum of all satelites (including luna) orbiting the earth.
I pointed at evidence from tidal rythmites that the earth's radius is constant, and has been for at least 2 billion years. He responded that the proof that it was constant was reliant on the assumption that the absolute length of the year was constant - which ignores the point that if the day was anomalously short, then there would be an anomalously large number of days in the year, and that we can model the tidal evolution of the earth-moon system, and that if we can infer the moons orbital parameters from (for example, tidalites) we can, using the laws of physics, calculate the length of a month in seconds, and make inferences about the length of a day in seconds.
I pointed out that expanding earth theory requires a high degree of fine tuning because it requires the addition (or removal) of precise amounts of angular momentum from the Earth-Moon-Sun system in order for our predictions to match our observations with the degree of accuracy that they do. He simply denies this.
I've also pointed out to him that things such as observations of the Saros cycle for the last 5,000 years suggest that there has been no significant variation of the radius of the earth over that time, and that this can be stretched back 10,000 years using alignments in various prehistoric structures, but he has never addressed that point.
I pointed out that Maxlow's thesis requires that either early mantle material was 9 billion percent water, or that 700 MYA the earth had topography in excess of 50km, but again, he has never addressed that point.

wlminex

07-26-11, 08:53 PM

Trippy: yada . . . .yada . . . .yada!

AlexG

07-26-11, 11:11 PM

Trippy: yada . . . .yada . . . .yada!

As intelligent a comment as we've come to expect from you.

florian

07-28-11, 04:24 AM

And the rest.
No, he illustrated how some geophysicists published a paper, then argued that the large impact hypothesis was wrong and had no evidence to support it, there's a difference

Blatant lie. He said that Williams speculations are akin to the speculation of a collision between 2000 and 1500 Ma derived from the current recession rates. He gave it as an example of the damage of speculations, not as a strawman!

Here is the exact quote from Mazumder showing that you are lying (R. Mazumder - Earth-Science Reviews 72 (2005) 119�123):

"Williams� effort to extrapolate the suggestion of the astronomers and astrophysicists based on present day�s observation that negligible change occurred in the orbital parameters and G in the distant geological past, particularly in the Precambrian, is speculative as well since it cannot be deduced (verified) from the rock record. This is similar to the speculation of the astrophysicists that Earth�Moon collision occurred sometimes between 2000 and 1500 Ma resulting in total melting of Earth�s mantle (cf. Lambeck, 1980; Walker and Zahnle, 1986), an event for which there is no corroborating geological evidence."

So... You're arguing that emperical data can not be used to test a theory?
Yet another misrepresentation. Mazumder argues that these empirical do not allow to calculate the past length of the day in absolute time, an argument that is very relevant and refute your argument based on tidalites.

Denial is championing a theory that was debunked over 100 years ago
Yet another lie. Each arguments piled up by Carey were never refuted and proves beyond any doubts that Earth is growing. See the reference given at the end of this post.

Again, blatantly wrong. [�]
Unlike you, it seems, I was criticising the work, not the scientist, and I understand the difference.
Yet another lie. For example, in this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2784485&postcount=140):

To my general statement:
"One very important quality for a scientist is honnesty, because without honnesty there is no scientific ethic and no Science."

You replied: "Something you and Mazumder could learn a thing or two about."

That is a direct attack to my and Mazumder's scientific integrity,i.e. ad hominen.

That I was responding to does nothing to address the lack of physical mechanism,
The lack of a physical mechanism is not a valid refuting argument!

the lack of evidence of ongoing expansion, the question of where all the water came from, the lack of testable predictions, and the body of evidence supporting an Earth of a constant radius, and so on and so forth.
They are plenty evidence that Earth grows, the water origin is easily explained by outgassing of the mantle, Maxlow's reconstructions allow very accurate predictions that are verified, and icing on the cake there is a body of evidence refuting an Earth of a constant radius.

And all of the above is in details in this paper: S. Warren Carey 1983 "The Necessity for Earth Expansion" pp375-393 in Carey, SW (ed): Expanding Earth Symposium, Sydney, 1981.

florian

07-28-11, 04:50 AM

Florian believes that spurs on dinosaur leg bones means they could run, but that if paleogravity was the same strength as modern gravity, then dinosaurs would not be able to run, and so infers that the earth has increased in mass and density since then (and seems to ignore that big dinosaurs evolved from small dinosaurs).
Yet another lie or misrepresentation of my claims. I claimed that since Earth's volume is 8 fold of that 250 Ma ago, if mass remained constant, then surface gravity would have been around 40 m/s2 at that time, a value that is refuted by all we know about the fauna of this period. It implies that the growth in volume is due to an inner accumulation of matter.

I've tried pointing out to him that if the earth were expanding at that rate, it should have expanded measurably in the last 50 years, and there should be an anomaly in the earths rotational period, but the response I got essentially amounted to being told that the expansion was non-uniform and episodic.
Which is empirically supported, see Carey. At the time we'll have a geodetic system covering the whole planet with a dense grid (including ocean floors), then the current growth will be accurately measurable.

I pointed out that if the earth were expanding and gaining mass, that there would be some kind of signal buried in the GPS data, but that none had been reported. While at first glance this might seem like an absence of proof fallacy, take a moment to consider how significant the discovery of an unexplained systematic error in GPS data would be. His response was that the GPS data was based on the assumption that the earths radius was fixed, which (on the face of it at least) seems to neglect the point that changing the mass of the earth would change the orbits of the GPS satelites, unless his mechanism can also alter the angular momentum of all satelites (including luna) orbiting the earth.
Wrong again. See Scalera's paper for a detail analysis of this question: "Are artificial satellites orbits influenced by an expanding Earth?" http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/1066/6/20%20Scalera.pdf

I pointed at evidence from tidal rythmites that the earth's radius is constant, and has been for at least 2 billion years. He responded that the proof that it was constant was reliant on the assumption that the absolute length of the year was constant - which ignores the point that if the day was anomalously short, then there would be an anomalously large number of days in the year, and that we can model the tidal evolution of the earth-moon system, and that if we can infer the moons orbital parameters from (for example, tidalites) we can, using the laws of physics, calculate the length of a month in seconds, and make inferences about the length of a day in seconds.
Wrong, this argument is refuted by Mazunder, we cannot calculate the paleolength of the day in second, nor the paleolength of the year in seconds. See other posts and the relevant paper (R. Mazumder - Earth-Science Reviews 72 (2005) 119�123)

I pointed out that expanding earth theory requires a high degree of fine tuning because it requires the addition (or removal) of precise amounts of angular momentum from the Earth-Moon-Sun system in order for our predictions to match our observations with the degree of accuracy that they do. He simply denies this.I've also pointed out to him that things such as observations of the Saros cycle for the last 5,000 years suggest that there has been no significant variation of the radius of the earth over that time, and that this can be stretched back 10,000 years using alignments in various prehistoric structures, but he has never addressed that point.

Wrong. These is a strawman based on the same unsupported extrapolations from tidalites.

I pointed out that Maxlow's thesis requires that either early mantle material was 9 billion percent water, or that 700 MYA the earth had topography in excess of 50km, but again, he has never addressed that point.
Another misconception resulting from a poor understanding of the theory since the hydrosphere is coming from mantle outgassing. So it grows as the mantle is growing.

Any serious opponent of the theory must counter the arguments of Carey and others. For a short list:

"The Expanding Earth - an Essay Review" SW Carey (1975) ESR 11 p 105-143 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/6yzgaq4)

And this more recent review that I will scan on demand if the reader can't easily find it:
S. Warren Carey 1983 "The Necessity for Earth Expansion" pp375-393 in Carey, SW (ed): Expanding Earth Symposium, Sydney, 1981.

"Fossils, frogs, floating islands and expanding Earth in changing-radius cartography � A comment to a discussion on Journal of Biogeography" G Scalera (2007) Ann Geophys 50(6) p789 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/ycs8en6)

"Earthquakes, phase changes, fold belts: from Apennines to a global perspective" G Scalera (2010) GeoActa, Special Publication 3, pp. 25-43. (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/3bv2e8c)

"Mantle plumes and dynamics of the Earth interior � towards a new model" Geol Rev 52, p817 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/3vpafys)

Trippy

07-28-11, 02:39 PM

Just as a few examples:

Blatant lie. He said that Williams speculations are akin to the speculation of a collision between 2000 and 1500 Ma derived from the current recession rates. He gave it as an example of the damage of speculations, not as a strawman!
First, I didn't suggest he had done it deliberately, only that he had done it.
Second... You're actually critiscizing scientists for doing science? Wow. They had a hypothesis, the ran with it, they published the hypothesis, the hypothesis lacked evidence, and was abandoned. So?

Here is the exact quote from Mazumder showing that you are lying (R. Mazumder - Earth-Science Reviews 72 (2005) 119�123):

"Williams� effort to extrapolate the suggestion of the astronomers and astrophysicists based on present day�s observation that negligible change occurred in the orbital parameters and G in the distant geological past, particularly in the Precambrian, is speculative as well since it cannot be deduced (verified) from the rock record. This is similar to the speculation of the astrophysicists that Earth�Moon collision occurred sometimes between 2000 and 1500 Ma resulting in total melting of Earth�s mantle (cf. Lambeck, 1980; Walker and Zahnle, 1986), an event for which there is no corroborating geological evidence."
That doesn't prove I lied - I presented it as an opinion, not a fact for a start. The most that proves is that I may have been mistaken in the specifics of his comments. Wow. Fancy that.

Yet another misrepresentation. Mazumder argues that these empirical do not allow to calculate the past length of the day in absolute time, an argument that is very relevant and refute your argument based on tidalites.
An argument that has itself been refuted.

Yet another lie. For example, in this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2784485&postcount=140):
That doesn't prove I lied. At best that demonstrates that my recollection of something that happened nearly a week ago is flawed.
It also demonstrates that you're a hypocrite, because if it is acceptable for you to make barbed comments in response to what you percieve as trolling, than it's acceptable for me to do the same.

Yet another lie or misrepresentation of my claims. I claimed that since Earth's volume is 8 fold of that 250 Ma ago, if mass remained constant, then surface gravity would have been around 40 m/s2 at that time, a value that is refuted by all we know about the fauna of this period. It implies that the growth in volume is due to an inner accumulation of matter.
Which is nothing more than what I suggested - I simply used a specific example regarding earths fauna.

Wrong, this argument is refuted by Mazunder, we cannot calculate the paleolength of the day in second, nor the paleolength of the year in seconds. See other posts and the relevant paper (R. Mazumder - Earth-Science Reviews 72 (2005) 119�123)
No it isn't, because what you have repeatedly failed to comprehend is that I am talking about a different method from the one that Mazumder critiqued.

Wrong. These is a strawman based on the same unsupported extrapolations from tidalites.
No, it isn't.

There is one more point I will address, in short order, then, for these reasons, among others, we're done here as well.

florian

07-29-11, 09:59 AM

Blatant lie. He said that Williams speculations are akin to the speculation of a collision between 2000 and 1500 Ma derived from the current recession rates. He gave it as an example of the damage of speculations, not as a strawman!
First, I didn't suggest he had done it deliberately, only that he had done it.
You did not suggest he had done it deliberately, you said it, as proved by your lexical field (cherry-picking, straw man...).

Second... You're actually critiscizing scientists for doing science? Wow. They had a hypothesis, the ran with it, they published the hypothesis, the hypothesis lacked evidence, and was abandoned. So?
That's not doing science, that's speculation. Doing Science is providing the evidence that the hypothesis is supported. In this case, it is even worse because at the time of publication, there was already plenty of geological evidence proving that this hypothesis was fantasist at best.

These speculations are plaguing geosciences. Indeed, there is no evidence that 10000 km of Pacific lithosphere got swallowed under Asia (the evidence support just a few hundred km, a thousand at most, in agreement with Carey's theory), there is no evidence that Tethys was anything else than an epicontinental sea with very narrow elongated oceanic domains, no evidence that a wide Iapetus ocean ever existed (like Tethys, a narrow seaway), there are no evidence that a Farallon plate ever existed, No evidence for supercontinent cycles, no evidence for ridge migration or ridge subduction, and so forth.
All of these are speculations invented to save a global tectonic model that belongs to fantasyland, not science.

Here is the exact quote from Mazumder showing that you are lying (R. Mazumder - Earth-Science Reviews 72 (2005) 119�123):

"Williams� effort to extrapolate the suggestion of the astronomers and astrophysicists based on present day�s observation that negligible change occurred in the orbital parameters and G in the distant geological past, particularly in the Precambrian, is speculative as well since it cannot be deduced (verified) from the rock record. This is similar to the speculation of the astrophysicists that Earth�Moon collision occurred sometimes between 2000 and 1500 Ma resulting in total melting of Earth�s mantle (cf. Lambeck, 1980; Walker and Zahnle, 1986), an event for which there is no corroborating geological evidence."
That doesn't prove I lied - I presented it as an opinion, not a fact for a start.

You misrepresented it deliberately to discredit Mazumder. This is inexcusable.

Yet another misrepresentation. Mazumder argues that these empirical do not allow to calculate the past length of the day in absolute time, an argument that is very relevant and refute your argument based on tidalites.
An argument that has itself been refuted.
Repeating a fallacy won't make it true. The refutation hold and your vague non-arguments won't change it.

Yet another lie. For example, in this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...ostcount=140):

That doesn't prove I lied. At best that demonstrates that my recollection of something that happened nearly a week ago is flawed.
How convenient...

It also demonstrates that you're a hypocrite, because if it is acceptable for you to make barbed comments in response to what you percieve as trolling, than it's acceptable for me to do the same.
You're the one being aggressive from the start using a sarcastic/discrediting tone and pushing the move of this thread to the pseudoscience forum. So don't faint to be surprised to get reply with the same aggressiveness.

Yet another lie or misrepresentation of my claims. I claimed that since Earth's volume is 8 fold of that 250 Ma ago, if mass remained constant, then surface gravity would have been around 40 m/s2 at that time, a value that is refuted by all we know about the fauna of this period. It implies that the growth in volume is due to an inner accumulation of matter.

Which is nothing more than what I suggested - I simply used a specific example regarding earths fauna.
Not at all! It is totally different! You said that I believe "if paleogravity was the same strength as modern gravity, then dinosaurs would not be able to run". I said that higher gravity not [b]same strength gravity[b] is not compatible with paleofauna. One more time, either you jump to conclusions without carefully reading or you lie. I do not believe no more that you do it unintentionally.

Wrong, this argument is refuted by Mazunder, we cannot calculate the paleolength of the day in second, nor the paleolength of the year in seconds. See other posts and the relevant paper (R. Mazumder - Earth-Science Reviews 72 (2005) 119�123)
No it isn't, because what you have repeatedly failed to comprehend is that I am talking about a different method from the one that Mazumder critiqued.
Wrong, again. You allude to the derivation from the recession rate, which Mazunder shows cannot be used to calculate the paleolength of the day in seconds, and thus cannot be used to cross-check with the paleolength of the day calculated from tidalites based on the speculation that the revolution period of Earth remained constant.

There is one more point I will address, in short order, then, for these reasons, among others, we're done here as well.
Fare well. You won't be surprised if I say that I won't miss you in that thread. Anyway, I think that the interested reader has sufficient informations to forge his own objective opinion on this passionating and promising scientific theory. The least you can do is asking to move the thread back to the Earth Science forum to which it belongs.

Trippy

07-29-11, 03:59 PM

You did not suggest he had done it deliberately, you said it, as proved by your lexical field (cherry-picking, straw man...).
Bullshit. Making a statement that something is a strawman, or cherry picking does not constitute an accusation of deliberatness. I have seen plenty of logical fallacies proffered in good faith, or inadvertantly (some times they're even true - the statement "Of course he would say that" being the most obvious example).

That's not doing science, that's speculation. Doing Science is providing the evidence that the hypothesis is supported. In this case, it is even worse because at the time of publication, there was already plenty of geological evidence proving that this hypothesis was fantasist at best.
You're partly right, but you're also partly wrong. You're wrong in dismissing it as not being science.

These speculations are plaguing geosciences. Indeed, there is no evidence that 10000 km of Pacific lithosphere got swallowed under Asia (the evidence support just a few hundred km, a thousand at most, in agreement with Carey's theory), there is no evidence that Tethys was anything else than an epicontinental sea with very narrow elongated oceanic domains, no evidence that a wide Iapetus ocean ever existed (like Tethys, a narrow seaway), there are no evidence that a Farallon plate ever existed, No evidence for supercontinent cycles, no evidence for ridge migration or ridge subduction, and so forth.
All of these are speculations invented to save a global tectonic model that belongs to fantasyland, not science.
All bullshit.

You misrepresented it deliberately to discredit Mazumder. This is inexcusable.
More Bullshit.

Repeating a fallacy won't make it true. The refutation hold and your vague non-arguments won't change it.[/quote]
More Bullshit. The only thing you've demonstrated is that you're unfamiliar with the work of the likes of Webb (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1982.tb06404.x/abstract) and Poliakow (http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=284129) Webb who modeled the tidal evolution of the earth from first principles and published in 1982, and Poliakow who developed a more accurate model that was published in 2005. Webb's model, incidentaly, pushed the date of the Gerstenkorn Event back from 1.3GA to 3.9GA

How convenient...
You do realize that you're not my sole reason for being, that I participate in a large number of threads, and that I have nearly 5000 posts on this forum?

You're the one being aggressive from the start using a sarcastic/discrediting tone and pushing the move of this thread to the pseudoscience forum. So don't faint to be surprised to get reply with the same aggressiveness.
The sarcastic/discrediting tone was yours:

Besides, are you really qualified to judge if the expanding theory is a pseudoscience? For example, how much scientific literature did you read about it? Or did you only watch some crackpotery?
As soon as I moved this thread, you started straight into these assinine ad-hominems and ridiculous attempts at character assasination.

Not at all! It is totally different! You said that I believe "if paleogravity was the same strength as modern gravity, then dinosaurs would not be able to run". I said that higher gravity not [b]same strength gravity[b] is not compatible with paleofauna. One more time, either you jump to conclusions without carefully reading or you lie. I do not believe no more that you do it unintentionally.
Actually, you're the liar here, I simply got my sources mixed up. I thought you had made the comment here, but no, however, it is precisely the reasoning you have used. Post dated April 2, 2007: http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/geology/4349/how-can-I-curb-a-crank-who-believes-in-Earth-expansion-pseudo-theory

Fossils actually DO support expansion.

Biomechanics tell us that dinosaurs could not run with our gravity,
while their spurs tell us they did.
So you have made precisely the argument I attributed to you, just not here on this forum.

And no, I'm not that interested in you that I tracked you down to find that post, I came accross that post looking for other information.

Wrong, again. You allude to the derivation from the recession rate, which Mazunder shows cannot be used to calculate the paleolength of the day in seconds, and thus cannot be used to cross-check with the paleolength of the day calculated from tidalites based on the speculation that the revolution period of Earth remained constant.
No, I allude to work done by the likes of Webb and Poliakow, who derived their work from first principles, not the work which confirms their predictions, like that done by Williams.

Fare well. You won't be surprised if I say that I won't miss you in that thread. Anyway, I think that the interested reader has sufficient informations to forge his own objective opinion on this passionating and promising scientific theory.
They have, and time and again, they come to the same conclusion, that the theory is bunkum.

The least you can do is asking to move the thread back to the Earth Science forum to which it belongs.
No.

origin

07-29-11, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by florian
Fare well. You won't be surprised if I say that I won't miss you in that thread. Anyway, I think that the interested reader has sufficient informations to forge his own objective opinion on this passionating and promising scientific theory.

I certainly have. I found Trippy's posts informative, compelling and well written, and he has been way too patient with you.

I found that Florian's ideas are disjointed, silly psuedo-science drivel.

Trippy

07-29-11, 10:41 PM

I certainly have. I found Trippy's posts informative, compelling and well written, and he has been way too patient with you.
Flatterer :*)

florian

08-03-11, 11:14 AM

Bullshit. Making a statement that something is a strawman, or cherry picking does not constitute an accusation of deliberatness.
Accusing someone of cherry-picking, using strawman arguments and of being dishonest at the same time is an accusation of deliberateness.

You're wrong in dismissing it as not being science.
Unsupported speculation is not Science.

All bullshit.
You have definitively no clues and thus are not in position to bash this theory. There are no valid refutations of Earth growth, plenty evidence supporting Earth growth and refuting plate tectonics as detailed for example in "The necessity for Earth expansion". In: Carey S.W. (ed), Expanding Earth Symposium, Sydney, 1981. University of Tasmania, 375-393. CAREY S.W., 1986. (link to pdf; 13 MB (http://nachon.free.fr/carey/1983Carey-SympEarthExp-NecessityEarthExpansion.pdf) )

More Bullshit. The only thing you've demonstrated is that you're unfamiliar with the work of the likes of Webb (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1982.tb06404.x/abstract) and Poliakow (http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=284129) Webb who modeled the tidal evolution of the earth from first principles and published in 1982, and Poliakow who developed a more accurate model that was published in 2005. Webb's model, incidentaly, pushed the date of the Gerstenkorn Event back from 1.3GA to 3.9GA

Webb 1982 modeled a Gerstenkorn event, i.e. the time at which the moon started to recede due to prograde orbit after it got captured by Earth in a retrograde orbit (!). This model is irrelevant to the collision model you are advocating. Poliakow 2005 build a tidal dissipation model based on paleoreconstruction that are outdated (1979) and refuted. Garbage in, garbage out. The only interest of this model is to show the influence of continent-ocean distribution on the tidal effect (he calculated a 10 fold variation with a decrease in recession rate from 2.9 cm/yr present (true value is 3.8 cm/y) up to 200 Ma (0.34 cm/y) followed by an increase back to 2.5 cm/y circa 500 Ma; fig 5).

You do realize that you're not my sole reason for being, that I participate in a large number of threads, and that I have nearly 5000 posts on this forum?
I reassure you. You're not my sole reason for being either, and by far.

As soon as I moved this thread, you started straight into these assinine ad-hominems and ridiculous attempts at character assasination.
You start the aggression by moving this thread to the pseudoscience forum without justification. You reap what you sow.

Actually, you're the liar here, I simply got my sources mixed up.
I'm a liar because you got your sources mixed up? Very interesting. Let's see�

I thought you had made the comment here, but no, however, it is precisely the reasoning you have used. Post dated April 2, 2007: http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/geology/4349/how-can-I-curb-a-crank-who-believes-in-Earth-expansion-pseudo-theory
Jeez, 4 years ago(!). You had to dig hard and deep. I did not remember that post, it was actually on usenet. Gigantism can be explained by high oxygen level, but a lower surface gravity certainly would certainly help with some biomechanics of large dinosaurs (neck posture related to blood pressure, rapid change in direction during the run, etc�) especially as we now know that they were warm-blooded animals (see "Dinosaur Body Temperatures Determined from Isotopic (13C-18O) Ordering in Fossil Biominerals (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6041/443)" ) actually more active animals than mammals (see "Blood flow to long bones indicates activity metabolism in mammals, reptiles and dinosaurs (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/06/29/rspb.2011.0968)" ). But I admit that's not an evidence because no one ever tried yet to test the impact of lower gravity in dinosaur biomechanics simulation. That might become an evidence when this work is done.
Anyway, the point is that these beasts would certainly not support 4 fold higher surface gravity. This refute an expansion without a growth in mass.

And no, I'm not that interested in you that I tracked you down to find that post, I came accross that post looking for other information.
Yeah, right. I believe you.

No, I allude to work done by the likes of Webb and Poliakow, who derived their work from first principles, not the work which confirms their predictions, like that done by Williams.
See above.

They have, and time and again, they come to the same conclusion, that the theory is bunkum.
Or not. There are many interested readers that contact me using private messages or email. BTW, I encourage anyone interested to do so.

Trippy

08-03-11, 01:45 PM

Accusing someone of cherry-picking, using strawman arguments and of being dishonest at the same time is an accusation of deliberateness.
Not neccessarily.

Unsupported speculation is not Science.
It wasn't completely unsupported, there was some evidence to support the hypothesis, they forwarded it, it has been discarded. That is how science works.

You have definitively no clues and thus are not in position to bash this theory. There are no valid refutations of Earth growth, plenty evidence supporting Earth growth and refuting plate tectonics as detailed for example in "The necessity for Earth expansion". In: Carey S.W. (ed), Expanding Earth Symposium, Sydney, 1981. University of Tasmania, 375-393. CAREY S.W., 1986. (link to pdf; 13 MB (http://nachon.free.fr/carey/1983Carey-SympEarthExp-NecessityEarthExpansion.pdf) )
Argumentum ad hominem. If you have to resort to these sorts of tactics, then you've already lost your argument.

And I am in precisely in a position to 'bash this theory', and there are multiple refutations available across multiple fields - some of which have been listed here.

Webb 1982 modeled a Gerstenkorn event, i.e. the time at which the moon started to recede due to prograde orbit after it got captured by Earth in a retrograde orbit (!).
He modeled the tidal evolution of the earth-moon system. He made predictions about the length of the day that have been tested using tidalites. His predictions are in agreement with the emperical evidence we have available to us.

This model is irrelevant to the collision model you are advocating.
I don't recall suggesting it did have anything to do with the large collision hypothesis.

Poliakow 2005 build a tidal dissipation model based on paleoreconstruction that are outdated (1979) and refuted. Garbage in, garbage out. The only interest of this model is to show the influence of continent-ocean distribution on the tidal effect (he calculated a 10 fold variation with a decrease in recession rate from 2.9 cm/yr present (true value is 3.8 cm/y) up to 200 Ma (0.34 cm/y) followed by an increase back to 2.5 cm/y circa 500 Ma; fig 5).
And that's pretty much the response I expected from you. Meanwhile you gloss right over the fact that this 'wrong model' based on 'wrong assumptions' makes correct predictions about the relative lengths of the day, month, and year, and agrees with emperical evidence available to us through tidalites, and confirms Williams' assumptions, and confirms my assertions about those assumptions.

Which also has the net effect of confirming my assertions about fine tuning and the fact that your added mantle material has to add or subtract just the right amount of angular momentum to give the apperance of constancy (because models based on constancy are in agreement with the emperical evidence available to us).

I reassure you. You're not my sole reason for being either, and by far.
And yet your words here would seem to suggest otherwise.

You start the aggression by moving this thread to the pseudoscience forum without justification. You reap what you sow.
This speaks for itself.

I'm a liar because you got your sources mixed up? Very interesting. Let's see�
No, you're a liar because you presented an assertion as fact.

Jeez, 4 years ago(!). You had to dig hard and deep.
No, actually, no digging required. It was on the first page of results I got when looking for a paper (As I have already explained, although I don't remember what the paper was now though).

I did not remember that post, it was actually on usenet. Gigantism can be explained by high oxygen level, but a lower surface gravity certainly would certainly help with some biomechanics of large dinosaurs (neck posture related to blood pressure, rapid change in direction during the run, etc�) especially as we now know that they were warm-blooded animals (see "Dinosaur Body Temperatures Determined from Isotopic (13C-18O) Ordering in Fossil Biominerals (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6041/443)" ) actually more active animals than mammals (see "Blood flow to long bones indicates activity metabolism in mammals, reptiles and dinosaurs (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/06/29/rspb.2011.0968)" ). But I admit that's not an evidence because no one ever tried yet to test the impact of lower gravity in dinosaur biomechanics simulation. That might become an evidence when this work is done.
Anyway, the point is that these beasts would certainly not support 4 fold higher surface gravity. This refute an expansion without a growth in mass.
It does, however, prove my assertion, that you forwarded the hypothesis that I attributed to you.

Yeah, right. I believe you.
I don't actually care whether or not you believe me, to be honest. You've amply demonstrated that you will continue to believe what you want to believe, and I have no way of definitively proving my motivations one way or the other.

See above.
What you provided could not be called a consideration of the papers presented.

florian

08-03-11, 06:23 PM

It wasn't completely unsupported.
It was worse than unsupported, it was already refuted by the geological records at the time of publication.

Argumentum ad hominem.
Bullshit. I argued using this paper:

"The necessity for Earth expansion". In: Carey S.W. (ed), Expanding Earth Symposium, Sydney, 1981. University of Tasmania, 375-393. CAREY S.W., 1986. (http://nachon.free.fr/carey/1983Carey-SympEarthExp-NecessityEarthExpansion.pdf)

Naturally, you did not read it. You have no clues and ignore all evidence presented to you, as usual.

His predictions are in agreement with the emperical evidence we have available to us.
Really. Let's see if you really read Webb's paper. Give the values of his predictions and post a link to the pdf of the paper so that anybody can check the values.

I don't recall suggesting it did have anything to do with the large collision hypothesis.
Wonderful, you cite a paper defending one model to support a different model. :rolleyes:

And that's pretty much the response I expected from you. Meanwhile you gloss right over the fact that this 'wrong model' based on 'wrong assumptions' makes correct predictions about the relative lengths of the day, month, and year, and agrees with emperical evidence available to us through tidalites, and confirms Williams' assumptions, and confirms my assertions about those assumptions.
So according to you, empirical value gives a recession rate equal to 0.34 cm/y 200 My ago? Show us the numbers!

No, you're a liar because you presented an assertion as fact.
No, my position is very clear, biomechanics is a field were clues for lower paleogravity could be found, but no work has been done yet to verify this hypothesis. Alexander details the common issues raised by dinosaur biomechanics (mass, center of mass, speed, manoeuverability, blood flow in long necks/systolic pressure) that I think could be eased by a lower surface gravity: Alexander (2006) "Dinosaur biomechanics" Proc. R. Soc. B (doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3532).

No, actually, no digging required.
Of course, I do believe you. You've shown before how trustful you are.

I don't actually care whether or not you believe me, to be honest. You've amply demonstrated that you will continue to believe what you want to believe, and I have no way of definitively proving my motivations one way or the other.
And I don't care at all about your beliefs. I know in advance that I won't convince you whatever the strong scientific evidence presented during the discussions and the different scientific papers I provided in support, like that paper by Carey cited above. But at least I can prevent you from spreading fallacies and show the reader that this theory is the future and a big step forward. Anyway, in Science, the better theory always win at the end. And that won't be different in this case, it is just a question of time.

Trippy

08-03-11, 07:16 PM

It was worse than unsupported, it was already refuted by the geological records at the time of publication.
So you keep saying.

Bullshit. I argued using this paper:

"The necessity for Earth expansion". In: Carey S.W. (ed), Expanding Earth Symposium, Sydney, 1981. University of Tasmania, 375-393. CAREY S.W., 1986. (http://nachon.free.fr/carey/1983Carey-SympEarthExp-NecessityEarthExpansion.pdf)
The presence or absence of the paper is irrelevant to the fact that you presented an argumentum ad hominem.

This statement, made by you, and quoted in the section I was responding to:

You have definitively no clues and thus are not in position to bash this theory.
Is an argumentum ad-hominem, as is this statement:

Naturally, you did not read it. You have no clues and ignore all evidence presented to you, as usual.
And as far as not having read it - the first time I read it, I didn't even make it past the first page before I started spotting factual errors and logical contradictions - mostly around what he has to say regarding the alleged lack of variation in the size of the Pacific ocean (I am also of the opinion that his polar wandering charts do not show what he claims they do).

Incidentally, do you have permission, actual or implied to reproduce Carey's work? Because you could very well be in breach of international copyright law.

Really. Let's see if you really read Webb's paper. Give the values of his predictions and post a link to the pdf of the paper so that anybody can check the values.
You are in no position to try and test my knowledge.
Nor will I submit to such.
And I certainly won't be goaded into potentially breaking international copyright law.

Wonderful, you cite a paper defending one model to support a different model.
Once again, you fail to understand the significance of Webb's paper, or the context within which it was being presented. Here's a clue, I wasn't presenting it to support the large impact hypothesis.
Here's a hint - take the blinkers off, evidence contradicting an expanding earth comes from multiple fields - even Mazumder recognized this with his attack on astrophysicists.

So according to you, empirical value gives a recession rate equal to 0.34 cm/y 200 My ago? Show us the numbers!
This is not the claim that I made, I claimed that the derivation of orbital parameters based on models such as those forwarded by Poliakow and Webb matches up with those implied by work done by others, such as Williams.

Here is one example of such a comparison: Bills & Ray 1999 (http://isotope.colorado.edu/~geol5700/Bills_1999.pdf)

No, my position is very clear, biomechanics is a field were clues for lower paleogravity could be found, but no work has been done yet to verify this hypothesis. Alexander details the common issues raised by dinosaur biomechanics (mass, center of mass, speed, manoeuverability, blood flow in long necks/systolic pressure) that I think could be eased by a lower surface gravity: Alexander (2006) "Dinosaur biomechanics" Proc. R. Soc. B (doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3532).
You seem to have confused yourself - the assertion that I was referring to was your assertion that I was a liar. I have proven that you made the comments, or made comments that could reasonably be paraphrased to the comments that I attributed to you. You presented the assertion that I am a liar as a fact, the action of which makes you a liar.

Of course, I do believe you. You've shown before how trustful you are.
"A sarcastic person has a superiority complex that can be cured only by the honesty of humility" - Lawrence G. Lovasik.

And I don't care at all about your beliefs.
We haven't discussed my beliefs. We've discussed what I consider to be reasonable to infer from the available evidence, when considering whether or not the Earth is expanding. I've ventured a couple of personal opinions on a couple of the papers that you've offered as 'evidence' of an expanding earth, but there has been no discussion require me to espouse my philosophical or religous beliefs.

I know in advance that I won't convince you whatever the strong scientific evidence presented during the discussions and the different scientific papers I provided in support, like that paper by Carey cited above.
You have yet to present any strong, unambiguous evidence, only differences in interpretation of available evidence. Meanwhile, I can, and have, provided clear, unambiguous evidence that supports my case.

But at least I can prevent you from spreading fallacies and show the reader that this theory is the future and a big step forward.
No, actually, you can't. The best you can hope to do is to contest any claims I make on the matter.

Anyway, in Science, the better theory always win at the end. And that won't be different in this case, it is just a question of time.
The better theory has won, it's just that you, like flat earthers, and hollow earthers, have failed to recognize it. Tectonic theory, as it currently exists, had to prove that it accounted for the available evidence better than expanding earth tectonics before it was considered by the mainstream. Which, it did (and still does).

florian

08-04-11, 04:27 AM

The presence or absence of the paper is irrelevant to the fact that you presented an argumentum ad hominem.
This paper contains many irrefutable evidence supporting Earth expansion. You act as it did not exist, this is not an ad hominen, just a fact.

And as far as not having read it - the first time I read it, I didn't even make it past the first page before I started spotting factual errors and logical contradictions - mostly around what he has to say regarding the alleged lack of variation in the size of the Pacific ocean (I am also of the opinion that his polar wandering charts do not show what he claims they do).
So you just read one page and jump to hasty conclusions.

You are in no position to try and test my knowledge.
Nor will I submit to such.
In other words, you never read this paper, just the abstract.

And I certainly won't be goaded into potentially breaking international copyright law.
So you did not break any law by providing the link to Bills & Ray 1999?

Once again, you fail to understand the significance of Webb's paper
Give me a break, you did not read that paper. That's why you believe it does support your opinion.

This is not the claim that I made, I claimed that the derivation of orbital parameters based on models such as those forwarded by Poliakow and Webb matches up with those implied by work done by others, such as Williams.
You made the claim that the first-principle models match empirical data. The model built by Poliakow, that outdates Webb's model by the way because he proves that the distribution of continents/ocean is the most important parameter for tidal dissipation simulation, yields recessions rates that have no match in the empirical data.

You seem to have confused yourself - the assertion that I was referring to was your assertion that I was a liar. I have proven that you made the comments, or made comments that could reasonably be paraphrased to the comments that I attributed to you. You presented the assertion that I am a liar as a fact, the action of which makes you a liar.
Oh please, and by the way you did not quote correctly. Indeed, what are these "spurs on dinosaur leg bones"? I never claimed there are spurs on dinosaur leg bones. You were probably confused by the spurs left by dinosaurs in swamps and used to estimate their running speed (see Alexander 2006).
It shows one more time that you don't understand the arguments, are usually confused, but still jump to conclusion.

"A sarcastic person has a superiority complex that can be cured only by the honesty of humility" - Lawrence G. Lovasik.
That citation should be engraved over your bed as you you have clearly a superiority complex in regard to scientist working with the Expanding Earth Theory. Do not judge what you don't understand.

You have yet to present any strong, unambiguous evidence, only differences in interpretation of available evidence.
I did present strong evidence (See Carey above for example) but you ignore or dismiss them with vague comments.

Meanwhile, I can, and have, provided clear, unambiguous evidence that supports my case.
Just your opinion.

The best you can hope to do is to contest any claims I make on the matter.
Here, we agree.

The better theory has won,
Not yet.

it's just that you, like flat earthers, and hollow earthers, have failed to recognize it.
The Earth is not flat, nor hollow, nor has a constant size. You belong to the flat earthers, hollow earthers, creationists and alike, and hide behind the word "science" to spread your beliefs.

Tectonic theory, as it currently exists, had to prove that it accounted for the available evidence better than expanding earth tectonics before it was considered by the mainstream. Which, it did (and still does).
Wishful thinking. Plate tectonics completely fails to explain the history of the Pacific. We must resort to the growing earth theory to explain it correctly. See Carey.

Trippy

08-04-11, 05:55 AM

This paper contains many irrefutable evidence supporting Earth expansion. You act as it did not exist, this is not an ad hominen, just a fact.
No, it is an adhominem.

So you just read one page and jump to hasty conclusions.
Your assumptionm not what I said.

In other words, you never read this paper, just the abstract.
Again, this is just your assumption. Another, more valid assumption would be that I am simply not into pissing contests.

So you did not break any law by providing the link to Bills & Ray 1999?
No, I did not - because the source that I linked to has implied or actual permission to reproduce the paper. I linked to a legitimate source, you however appear to be in violation of copyright law.

Give me a break, you did not read that paper. That's why you believe it does support your opinion.
Still more unsubstantiated opinion. Do you have anything concrete?

Oh, and it does support my opinion.

You made the claim that the first-principle models match empirical data.
Correct, and it does.

The model built by Poliakow, that outdates Webb's model by the way because he proves that the distribution of continents/ocean is the most important parameter for tidal dissipation simulation, yields recessions rates that have no match in the empirical data.
Wrong. Oh - and the rate of rotation is also important (in some respects more so) because there are these things called resonances (another basic concept, like buoyancy).

Oh please, and by the way you did not quote correctly. Indeed, what are these "spurs on dinosaur leg bones"? I never claimed there are spurs on dinosaur leg bones. You were probably confused by the spurs left by dinosaurs in swamps and used to estimate their running speed (see Alexander 2006).
It shows one more time that you don't understand the arguments, are usually confused, but still jump to conclusion.
No, I quoted you verbatim here (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2788555&postcount=151). The worst I did was paraphrase you wrongly.

The only person, it seems, that is jumping to conclusions here is you, in some ongoing misguided blatantly assinine and puerile attempt at character assassination. Please, this is a science forum, you claim to be a scientist, how about acting like one.

That citation should be engraved over your bed as you you have clearly a superiority complex in regard to scientist working with the Expanding Earth Theory. Do not judge what you don't understand.
I'm not the one that continually has to resort to sarcasm and petty personal attacks to make a point, you are. You've made this personal, not me. And I am in the perfect position to judge expanding earth tectonics, because I've crosstrained not only in geology, but in other fields as well, and that cross training tells me that expanding earth tectonics is not only nonsensical from the perspective of geology, but a number of other fields as well.

I did present strong evidence (See Carey above for example) but you ignore or dismiss them with vague comments.
No, and, uh, no.

Just your opinion.
Fact. That you don't accept it is your problem.

Not yet.
Yes. It won in the ealy 20th century and has over 50 years of solid science backing it.

The Earth is not flat, nor hollow, nor has a constant size. You belong to the flat earthers, hollow earthers, creationists and alike, and hide behind the word "science" to spread your beliefs.
That's the best ad hominem you could come up with?

Wishful thinking. Plate tectonics completely fails to explain the history of the Pacific. We must resort to the growing earth theory to explain it correctly. See Carey.
No. Your assertion is wishful thinking.

Tell me, how is it, again, that a supercontinent with a 50 degree gape (13% of a circle) and a southern ocean occupies (eg Carey 1945) more than half a hemisphere?

In none of the reconstructions that Carey presents does the land mass constitute a whole hemisphere, or more than a hemisphere. Not in any single one of them. Yes, they spill out beyond the hemisphere, but then again, the surrounding ocean intrudes into the hemisphere - even if we do exclude the gape, and on the balance the intrusions of the ocean into the hemisphere at least equal the spill of the land out of the hemisphere. Not only that, but Carey was wrong to exclude the gape from the ocean, and include it as part of Pangea. The simple fact of the matter is that Carey undoes his own assertions - he claims that it is impossible to account for the northward drift of India and Australia with the gape alone, and then goes on to demonstrate that it's 66 degrees of motion, and because it's only a 50 gape, it can't be done.

Meanwhile, he ignores a single very important observation - Even according to his own 1945 reconstruction, antarctica has drifted south, into what Carey has represented as a polar sea. That, combined with closure (or redistribution at any rate) of the 50 degree gape is more than sufficient to accomodate the amount of motion of India and Australia (he also seems, at times, to confuse the Tethys Sea with the Tethys Ocean, but that's another kettle of fish). Meanwhile, to make matters worse, he seems to completely fail to account for any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia.

florian

08-08-11, 05:06 AM

This paper contains many irrefutable evidence supporting Earth expansion. You act as it did not exist, this is not an ad hominen, just a fact.
No, it is an adhominem.
You act as it did not exist, it is a fact.

Your assumptionm not what I said.
Did you read it entirely, yes or no?

In other words, you never read this paper, just the abstract.
Again, this is just your assumption. Another, more valid assumption would be that I am simply not into pissing contests.
What pissing contest? I ask you to support your claim by quoting what is in this paper and you can't. This is not a contest but a request.

So you did not break any law by providing the link to Bills & Ray 1999?
No, I did not - because the source that I linked to has implied or actual permission to reproduce the paper.
Certainly not. As a reminder: http://www.agu.org/pubs/authors/usage_permissions.shtml

You made the claim that the first-principle models match empirical data.
Correct, and it does.[/QUOTE]
If it does, then provide the empirical data supporting a recession rate equal to 0.34 cm/y, 200 My ago.

The worst I did was paraphrase you wrongly.
Ducking again.

The only person, it seems, that is jumping to conclusions here is you, in some ongoing misguided blatantly assinine and puerile attempt at character assassination.
That, then:

Please, this is a science forum, you claim to be a scientist, how about acting like one.
puerile attempt at character assassination you said?
Regarding science, I have nothing to prove.

I'm not the one that continually has to resort to sarcasm and petty personal attacks to make a point, you are.
Your records show otherwise. Personally, I only reply to your sarcasm, like this quote of Lovasik.

And I am in the perfect position to judge expanding earth tectonics, because I've crosstrained not only in geology, but in other fields as well, and that cross training tells me that expanding earth tectonics is not only nonsensical from the perspective of geology, but a number of other fields as well.
What do you exactly mean by "cross training"? Does it mean that you have research experience in these different fields?

I did present strong evidence (See Carey above for example) but you ignore or dismiss them with vague comments.

No, and, uh, no.
Look more carefully.

Fact. That you don't accept it is your problem.
You confuse opinions and facts.

The Earth is not flat, nor hollow, nor has a constant size. You belong to the flat earthers, hollow earthers, creationists and alike, and hide behind the word "science" to spread your beliefs.
That's the best ad hominem you could come up with?
It is a blunt description of your behavior, not an attack.

Wishful thinking. Plate tectonics completely fails to explain the history of the Pacific. We must resort to the growing earth theory to explain it correctly. See Carey.
No. Your assertion is wishful thinking.
"No, and, uh, no."

Tell me, how is it, again, that a supercontinent with a 50 degree gape (13% of a circle) and a southern ocean occupies (eg Carey 1945) more than half a hemisphere?
In none of the reconstructions that Carey presents does the land mass constitute a whole hemisphere, or more than a hemisphere. Not in any single one of them. Yes, they spill out beyond the hemisphere, but then again, the surrounding ocean intrudes into the hemisphere - even if we do exclude the gape, and on the balance the intrusions of the ocean into the hemisphere at least equal the spill of the land out of the hemisphere.
Strawman. Carey does not claim that the "land mass constitute a whole hemisphere". He wrote "On each of these assemblies Pangea (including its inherent gaping sector) just spills over a hemisphere". You misrepresented one more time what people write. Then he infers from this observations that the ancestral pacific (excluding the gape) must have been nearly a hemisphere in area. There are no logical fallacy here.

The simple fact of the matter is that Carey undoes his own assertions - he claims that it is impossible to account for the northward drift of India and Australia with the gape alone, and then goes on to demonstrate that it's 66 degrees of motion, and because it's only a 50 gape, it can't be done.
What are you inventing again? He claims that closing the gape could not balance the insertion of the arctic/atlantic/indian/southern oceans. His point is that the pacific was about the size of an hemisphere in pangea reconstruction, and is still about the same size now, whereas it should have been drastically reduced in size.

You should use GPLATE and Muller's data to visualize the all thing. You would make more valuable critics.

Meanwhile, to make matters worse, he seems to completely fail to account for any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia.
That is totally irrelevant to the point he wants to make (lack of reduction of pacific area). Besides, the extension of greater India was no more than 500-600 km, the collision did not took place before 35 Ma according to Ali & Aitchinson (2008) Earth Science Reviews 88, p145-166.

This all thing goes over your head.

Trippy

08-08-11, 06:08 AM

What pissing contest? I ask you to support your claim by quoting what is in this paper and you can't. This is not a contest but a request.
Somehow I thought that would be your response.

Certainly not. As a reminder: http://www.agu.org/pubs/authors/usage_permissions.shtml
And you're still wrong - because I didn't reproduce it - I linked to somebody elses reproduction of it: http://isotope.colorado.edu/~geol5700/

So no, I still haven't broken any laws, and my assertion is proven.

If it does, then provide the empirical data supporting a recession rate equal to 0.34 cm/y, 200 My ago.
Again, you're after a pissing contest, when the answer is right in front of you.

Your records show otherwise. Personally, I only reply to your sarcasm, like this quote of Lovasik.
Ho hum - again, you started in with the snippy attitude, because you got your nose out of joint over my decision to move this thread to pseudoscience, where, the more you talk, the more you convince me it belongs.

What do you exactly mean by "cross training"? Does it mean that you have research experience in these different fields?
It means what it means - trained across multiple fields - which implies that either I have more than one degree, or, that my degree has more than one major, which suggests I'm not who you think I am (which I knew already).

It is a blunt description of your behavior, not an attack.
Whether or not you think it's correct or accurate is irrelevant.

That is totally irrelevant to the point he wants to make (lack of reduction of pacific area). Besides, the extension of greater India was no more than 500-600 km, the collision did not took place before 35 Ma according to Ali & Aitchinson (2008) Earth Science Reviews 88, p145-166.

This all thing goes over your head.
And this is why you're wasting my time here.

If something happened 5 minutes ago, then it has happened in the last 10 minutes.

If something happened 35 Million years ago, then it has happened in the last 45-50 million years.

More to the point... Nah, you know what? I've got better things to do with my time.

florian

08-08-11, 08:38 AM

Somehow I thought that would be your response.
Ducking again. Would you please provide the quote that is supporting your claim.

And you're still wrong - because I didn't reproduce it - I linked to somebody elses reproduction of it: http://isotope.colorado.edu/~geol5700/

So no, I still haven't broken any laws, and my assertion is proven.
You are a moderator of this forum and you posted a link to material infringing copyright. In other words, you're helping someone else to infringe copyright. That is called "contributory copyright infringement". You're liable, you broke the law.

Again, you're after a pissing contest, when the answer is right in front of you.
You claim that these models are supported by empirical evidence, Poliakow's model predict a receding rate of 0.34 cm/y 200 Ma ago. Thus you must show the empirical data supporting this receding rate. Why can't you just do it?

Ho hum - again, you started in with the snippy attitude, because you got your nose out of joint over my decision to move this thread to pseudoscience, where, the more you talk, the more you convince me it belongs.
You started with the denigrating attitude toward this theory by moving this thread to pseudoscience. You assume.
BTW, you should learn the definition of pseudoscience, because the expanding earth theory does not belong to pseudoscience as it is empirical, build using the scientific method and can be tested.
You want to spread the fallacy that it is not scientific. As a scientist, I can't accept to let you do that.

It means what it means - trained across multiple fields - which implies that either I have more than one degree, or, that my degree has more than one major, which suggests I'm not who you think I am (which I knew already).
Sean, you claim that you crosstrained in geology and other fields and that it makes you in perfect position to judge the expanding earth theory. Depending on the level at which you trained and most importantly on the knowledge/understanding you have of this theory, you might be just a victim of the Dunning Kruger effect. Your writings strongly support this hypothesis.

Meanwhile, to make matters worse, he seems to completely fail to account for any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia.

That is totally irrelevant to the point he wants to make (lack of reduction of pacific area). Besides, the extension of greater India was no more than 500-600 km, the collision did not took place before 35 Ma according to Ali & Aitchinson (2008) Earth Science Reviews 88, p145-166.

This all thing goes over your head.
And this is why you're wasting my time here.

If something happened 5 minutes ago, then it has happened in the last 10 minutes.

If something happened 35 Million years ago, then it has happened in the last 45-50 million years.

:rolleyes:

You did not write "any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured in the last 45-50 million years", you wrote "that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years".
You indicate a timespan during which the shortening of greater India may have occured. I made the remark that the collision occured 35 millions years ago according to Ali & Aitchinson, implying that there is no possible foreshortening before 35 Ma. And� that's all.

So why do you make yet another nasty remark like "this is why you're wasting my time here" followed by a lesson aimed at a 6-year old?
And you accuse me of "poisoning the well"? Each time that I got agressive, it was in response to your aggressions.

More to the point... Nah, you know what? I've got better things to do with my time.
Good riddance. You bring nothing to the discussion no more.
And don't forget to move the thread back to the Earth Sciences forum.

Trippy

08-08-11, 01:56 PM

Ducking again. Would you please provide the quote that is supporting your claim.
I did, you just either haven't looked at it, or didn't recognize it.

You are a moderator of this forum and you posted a link to material infringing copyright. In other words, you're helping someone else to infringe copyright. That is called "contributory copyright infringement". You're liable, you broke the law.
No, I did not. You provided a bootleg copy of the material, I showed you where to look in somebody elses library to see their copy. And yes, while maybe I should have provided a more substantive citation than I did, at worst, that was an act of genuine oversight on my part. At worst, I made an honest mistake - you on the other hand carried out a deliberate act - you scanned Carey's work, and reproduced it online. But I'm sure you won't understand the difference, because you've been backed into a corner, and now you're hand waving so much your arms are flailing.

You claim that these models are supported by empirical evidence, Poliakow's model predict a receding rate of 0.34 cm/y 200 Ma ago. Thus you must show the empirical data supporting this receding rate. Why can't you just do it?
:rolleyes:

You started with the denigrating attitude toward this theory by moving this thread to pseudoscience. You assume.
BTW, you should learn the definition of pseudoscience, because the expanding earth theory does not belong to pseudoscience as it is empirical, build using the scientific method and can be tested.
You want to spread the fallacy that it is not scientific. As a scientist, I can't accept to let you do that.
:rolleyes:

Sean, you claim that you crosstrained in geology and other fields and that it makes you in perfect position to judge the expanding earth theory. Depending on the level at which you trained and most importantly on the knowledge/understanding you have of this theory, you might be just a victim of the Dunning Kruger effect. Your writings strongly support this hypothesis.
This conversation has degenerated to me trying to maintain a scientific discussion and you responding with personal insults - in other words you're trolling.

And even if that is who I am, You don't have my permission to reproduce my personal details on this forum, in this discussion, and continuing to do so may result in a ban. Capiche?

You did not write "any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured in the last 45-50 million years", you wrote "that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years".
You indicate a timespan during which the shortening of greater India may have occured. I made the remark that the collision occured 35 millions years ago according to Ali & Aitchinson, implying that there is no possible foreshortening before 35 Ma. And… that's all.
Actually, according to (for example) Shapely et al, 2010 (http://bullard.esc.cam.ac.uk/~copley/pubs/copleyetal10.pdf) or Rowley (http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rowley/Rowley/Collision_Age.html) the collision, and collisional mountain building began 50-55 million years ago in the western Himalayas, and by 35 MYA, the tibetan plateu was close to its current elevation. So, you're wrong there as well.

So why do you make yet another nasty remark like "this is why you're wasting my time here" followed by a lesson aimed at a 6-year old?
And you accuse me of "poisoning the well"? Each time that I got agressive, it was in response to your aggressions.
Let's assume for a minute that you're right.
If I jumped off a bridge, played hopscotch in a mine field, or drove a bus along the gaza strip, would you do the same thing?
Is imitating me really the best that you can aspire to?

Good riddance. You bring nothing to the discussion no more.
And don't forget to move the thread back to the Earth Sciences forum.
What's French for no?

origin

08-08-11, 02:58 PM

Trippy, I am amazed at your patience with florian, his position is proposterous and his attitude is atrocious.:mad:

Trippy

08-08-11, 03:43 PM

Trippy, I am amazed at your patience with florian, his position is proposterous and his attitude is atrocious.:mad:

Call it a character flaw ;)

florian

08-10-11, 04:40 PM

I did, you just either haven't looked at it, or didn't recognize it.
No, you did not provide any quote from Webb 1982 supporting your claim. And what does tell us Poliakow regarding Webb's 1982 model?

No, I did not.
Sure you did. You posted a link to material infringing copyright.

You provided a bootleg copy of the material
Your assertion.

You claim that these models are supported by empirical evidence, Poliakow's model predict a receding rate of 0.34 cm/y 200 Ma ago. Thus you must show the empirical data supporting this receding rate. Why can't you just do it?

:rolleyes:
Still not providing the empirical data supporting this low receding rate?

You started with the denigrating attitude toward this theory by moving this thread to pseudoscience. You assume.
BTW, you should learn the definition of pseudoscience, because the expanding earth theory does not belong to pseudoscience as it is empirical, build using the scientific method and can be tested.
You want to spread the fallacy that it is not scientific. As a scientist, I can't accept to let you do that.
:rolleyes:
Whatever your beliefs, the expanding earth theory meets the criteria for a scientific theory and moving this discussion to the pseudoscience forum was not justified.

This conversation has degenerated to me trying to maintain a scientific discussion and you responding with personal insults - in other words you're trolling.
So moving this discussion to the pseudoscience forum is "trying to maintain a scientific discussion". This is the quintessence of trolling.
Besides, each time a valid scientific point has being raised, either you ignore the opposing arguments, or declare that scientists are incompetent (Mazumber), or ducked, like this question raised by Carey regarding the Pacific evolution. Your writings are more in line with a witchhunt than with an argumented scientific discussion.

And even if that is who I am�
Who you are is not the point. The fallacies you spread because the perception you have from yourself is the important point. It seems that your degree give you the illusion of knowledge typical of those not familiar with scientific research? Any researcher understands that we do not know much. Sure, we make constant progress in our understanding of nature, but the research work ahead is immense. So stop believing that you know better.

Actually, according to (for example) Shapely et al, 2010 (http://bullard.esc.cam.ac.uk/~copley/pubs/copleyetal10.pdf) or Rowley (http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rowley/Rowley/Collision_Age.html) the collision, and collisional mountain building began 50-55 million years ago in the western Himalayas, and by 35 MYA, the tibetan plateu was close to its current elevation. So, you're wrong there as well.
Rowley is outdated, Shapely et al completely ignore the work done by Ali and Aitchinson and refer to older papers (Not a single citation of A&A work in this paper). Aitchinson et al (2007) "when and where did India and Asia collide, JGR 112, doi:10.1029/2006JB004706 and http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JB004706.shtml is particularly relevant to the timing of the putative collision. Of course this timing has a different meaning in the Expanding Earth framework, in which orogenies are not related collision at a plate scale but to regional mantle/lithosphere flows and gravity-induced spreading.

Let's assume for a minute that you're right.
If I jumped off a bridge, played hopscotch in a mine field, or drove a bus along the gaza strip, would you do the same thing?
Is imitating me really the best that you can aspire to?
Imitating? Give up your aggressive/condescendant tone (if you can), and that will certainly ease the discussion.

What's French for no?
"Born�", that's French for "stubborn".

florian

08-10-11, 04:45 PM

Trippy, I am amazed at your patience with florian, his position is proposterous and his attitude is atrocious.:mad:

Wonderful, now the guru has found a cheerleader :rolleyes:

Trippy

08-10-11, 06:04 PM

No, you did not provide any quote from Webb 1982 supporting your claim. And what does tell us Poliakow regarding Webb's 1982 model?
Yet more proof you haven't looked at everything I've posted on the matter.

What was it you were saying about glass houses recently?

Sure you did. You posted a link to material infringing copyright.
If you think that the Geology Department at the University of Colorado has violated US copyright law, then I invite you to email them and inform them.

Your assertion.
No.
A Fact that I can support with evidence.
I can quote you, if you like, explicitly stating that you, personally, scanned the material, and that you, personally, uploaded it to your personal web server, and I can prove that you have been distributing it.

More to the point, I have asked you, directly, if you have permission, either implied or actual, to scan, upload and distribute Carey's work, a question that so far, you have entirely dodged answering.

Still not providing the empirical data supporting this low receding rate?
Read through the material I have provided you. The answer lies therein (although it may require some inference).

Whatever your beliefs, the expanding earth theory meets the criteria for a scientific theory...
No. It fails, completely. It makes unphysical predictions that are contradicted by evidence available across multiple fields, and the only ways to come close to making it work require an absurd amount of fine-tuning, and I would be almost willing to bet money that computations done using the amount of 'crack space' available fall far short of the predictions made in Maxlow's thesis.

and moving this discussion to the pseudoscience forum was not justified.
It was completely justified, in fact, on the grounds of your conduct, I would go as far as suggesting that locking this thread, and discarding of it in the cesspool might almost have been more appropriate.

But that's what I get for being reasonable, and allowing you to continue to argue your point.

So moving this discussion to the pseudoscience forum is "trying to maintain a scientific discussion". This is the quintessence of trolling.
Strawman hypothesis (among other things).

I had other options, which would have prevented further discussion on the topic, however, I chose to allow the discussion to continue and moved it to what I considered to be a more appropriate sub forum.

Besides, each time a valid scientific point has being raised, either you ignore the opposing arguments, or declare that scientists are incompetent (Mazumber), or ducked, like this question raised by Carey regarding the Pacific evolution. Your writings are more in line with a witchhunt than with an argumented scientific discussion.
Bull.

Who you are is not the point.
Then why do you keep bringing it up?

The fallacies you spread because the perception you have from yourself is the important point. It seems that your degree give you the illusion of knowledge typical of those not familiar with scientific research? Any researcher understands that we do not know much. Sure, we make constant progress in our understanding of nature, but the research work ahead is immense. So stop believing that you know better.
We know enough to safely discard expanding earth tectonics.
It is an unphysical theory that has a substantial body of evidence across multiple fields against it, that makes absurd predictions, has no physical causal mechanism, makes no testable predictions that can be used to look for a causal mechanism, whos proponents need to resort to personal insults, logical fallacies and allegations of conspiracies to substantiate.

Rowley is outdated, Shapely et al completely ignore the work done by Ali and Aitchinson and refer to older papers (Not a single citation of A&A work in this paper). Aitchinson et al (2007) "when and where did India and Asia collide, JGR 112, doi:10.1029/2006JB004706 and http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JB004706.shtml is particularly relevant to the timing of the putative collision. Of course this timing has a different meaning in the Expanding Earth framework, in which orogenies are not related collision at a plate scale but to regional mantle/lithosphere flows and gravity-induced spreading.
Perhaps Shapely was familiar with, and agreed in principle with Garzanti's critique of Aitchinson's work, or had formed a similar opinion.

I also find it ironic that you cite this material to contradict me, but if you read (for example) Aitchinson et al's reply to Garzanti's comment, they explicitly state that a collision occured at the North Indian passive margin 55MA, and that that collision was part of the Himalaya-Tibet orogen, what they question is the significance of the event, likening it to the interaction between the Luzon Arc and South East China - this does not contradict my position, that foreshortening was occuring 55 MA, and that that foreshortening was occuring as a result of the collision between the indian plate and the eurasian plate. And yes, I know I initially said greater india, which implies that I was referring to Aitchinsons major collision, rather than the initial minor collision, but my point remains intact - that Carey failed to account for any compressional foreshortening that might have occured over the last 55 million years (among other possible factors).

Imitating? Give up your aggressive/condescendant tone (if you can), and that will certainly ease the discussion.
I have given you countless opportunities to pursue such a discussion, each and every time, you return with personal insults (among other things).

florian

08-11-11, 05:13 AM

No, you did not provide any quote from Webb 1982 supporting your claim. And what does tell us Poliakow regarding Webb's 1982 model?

Yet more proof you haven't looked at everything I've posted on the matter.

Oh yes I did. You linked to the abstract of Webb's paper which describes a model relating tidal frequency to closing and receding rates in the framework of a Moon capture. Then Poliakow showed that the most important parameter for the tidal dissipation effect is the distribution of continents and oceans, thus outdating Webb's model. And that's all.

Sure you did. You posted a link to material infringing copyright.
If you think that the Geology Department at the University of Colorado has violated US copyright law, then I invite you to email them and inform them.
You're the one linking to Mojzsis webpage. Why don't you ask him by email if the AGU granted him the right to post a full pdf.

Your assertion.

No.

Oh yes it is. I got the Proceedings book for free from the its publisher, the University of Tasmania, and they inform me that I can use "fair dealing" for research and educational use, and thus have the right to make an electronic copy and communicate 10% of the proceedings.

Still not providing the empirical data supporting this low receding rate?

Read through the material I have provided you. The answer lies therein (although it may require some inference).
Williams can only infer average receding rates from the empirical data. No empirical data can be used to infer the 0.34 cm/y rate from Polikows model. And you believe that this is enough to support his model (bi standard attitude).

Whatever your beliefs, the expanding earth theory meets the criteria for a scientific theory...

No. It fails, completely.
Take every criteria one by one and let's see if the theory does not meet them.

It makes unphysical predictions...
"unphysical" is a strawman. The theory is empirical, therefore a physical causal mechanism must exist. Besides, the real predictions it makes are testable (paleoposition of cratons for example), and were tested, notably by Maxlow, and are further tested.

That are contradicted by evidence available across multiple fields, and the only ways to come close to making it work require an absurd amount of fine-tuning,
A fallacy.

and I would be almost willing to bet money that computations done using the amount of 'crack space' available fall far short of the predictions made in Maxlow's thesis.
hmm, Ocean floor datations and geological data impose strong constraint on the reconstructions, there is not much room for imagination. An illustration with antarctica showing that it was totally encircled by the southern tip of S. Am, Africa, India, Australia, Zealandia, and a little ocean of age 90-150 Ma with isochrons perpendicular to the Tonga/Kermadec trench:

http://nachon.free.fr/isochrons/antarctic2.png

The only tricky parts are the mobile arcs and related mantle extrusion and flow that overprinted the older ocean floor. That is very explicit in the Philippine sea: http://nachon.free.fr/overthrust/Philippines-extrusions.jpg

and moving this discussion to the pseudoscience forum was not justified.

It was completely justified,
No, your justifications resort to your personnal beliefs and have nothing to do with reality.

in fact, on the grounds of your conduct,
What about your conduct?

So moving this discussion to the pseudoscience forum is "trying to maintain a scientific discussion". This is the quintessence of trolling.
Strawman hypothesis (among other things).
This is exactly what you did.

Besides, each time a valid scientific point has being raised, either you ignore the opposing arguments, or declare that scientists are incompetent (Mazumber), or ducked, like this question raised by Carey regarding the Pacific evolution. Your writings are more in line with a witchhunt than with an argumented scientific discussion.

We know enough to safely discard expanding earth tectonics.
The illusion of knowledge. You sound like an amateur not a scientist.

It is an unphysical theory that has a substantial body of evidence across multiple fields against it
That strawman again.

, that makes absurd predictions,
So the prediction that Australia was surrounded clockwise by N Am, Antarctica, India, South China, Siberia, more than 500 Ma ago is absurd? I don't think so. On the contrary, it is supported by empirical and independent data.

has no physical causal mechanism,
Correction: it has one, but we don't knwo it yet.

whos proponents need to resort to personal insults
I did not insult you.

, logical fallacies and allegations of conspiracies to substantiate.
Don't confuse the scientists working on this theory and the cranks, please.

I also find it ironic that you cite this material to contradict me,
Contradiction? The date you cite was inaccurate, I correct it. You're the only one to make such a big deal for a simple correction.

but if you read (for example) Aitchinson et al's reply to Garzanti's comment, they explicitly state that a collision occured at the North Indian passive margin 55MA, and that that collision was part of the Himalaya-Tibet orogen, what they question is the significance of the event, likening it to the interaction between the Luzon Arc and South East China...
They question the significance regarding an Asian plate/greater India collision, because they provide evidence for a collision between Greater India and mobile arc, the later being not part of the Asian plate, hence the comparison to the Luzon Arc.

this does not contradict my position, that foreshortening was occuring 55 MA,
If an arc did collide with greater India, then it accreted onto greater India making it bigger, not shortening it. I guess I do not have to remind you that arc accretion is the orthodox theory for continental lithosphere formation, right?

Besides, postcollisional forshortening of greater India, is rather problematic. I quote Stocklin, an specialist of Himalayan orogeny:

"At any rate, Tethyan subduction can in no way account for compensation of the continued expansion of the Indian Ocean after collision of India with Eurasia in Eocene time. The structure of the Himalaya leaves no doubt that very considerable compression of continental crust was achieved here by folding and thrusting in post-Eocene time. But actual estimates fall again far short of the amount required to accommodate postcollisional north-drift of India, which according to spreading data from the Indian Ocean was in the range of 1500-2000 km. Le Fort (44) considered 600-700 km of shortening in the Himalaya as a maximum, Gansser (45) estimated about half of this amount 500 km less 200 km of pre-collisional compression). Compared to the Himalaya, post-Eocene crustal shortening farther north, in Tibet, seems to have been insignificant; folding occurred here mainly in the Mesozoic. The strike-slip mechanism proposed by Molnar and Tapponier (35) may account for some shortening, but hardly for the amount required: strike-slip along the Chaman fault was perhaps in the order of 200-300 km (43); and while displacement along the Herat fault may have been considerable till Miocene, post-Miocene deposits are no more clearly offset along it (24)."
--Jovan Stoecklin, "Tethys evolution in the Afghanistan-Pamir-Pakistan region," In: A.M.C. Sengor, ed., Tectonic Evolution of the Tethyan Region, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 1989, pp. 258, 259.

Imitating? Give up your aggressive/condescendant tone (if you can), and that will certainly ease the discussion.

I have given you countless opportunities to pursue such a discussion, each and every time, you return with personal insults (among other things).
Personal insults? Like what?
You've been aggressive and condescendant countless time (should I remind you the buoyancy episod?) because you decided at the beginning of this discussion that I'm a crank advocating a stupid theory. And this is extremely insulting for a scientist.

Trippy

08-11-11, 01:49 PM

Oh yes I did. You linked to the abstract of Webb's paper which describes a model relating tidal frequency to closing and receding rates in the framework of a Moon capture. Then Poliakow showed that the most important parameter for the tidal dissipation effect is the distribution of continents and oceans, thus outdating Webb's model. And that's all.
No.
There has been at least one other one that I have linked to, and that one other one contains a comparison of the theoretical models that were available at that time, to available field data at that time.

You're the one linking to Mojzsis webpage. Why don't you ask him by email if the AGU granted him the right to post a full pdf.
Because you're the one that seems to be concerned about it.

Oh yes it is. I got the Proceedings book for free from the its publisher, the University of Tasmania, and they inform me that I can use "fair dealing" for research and educational use, and thus have the right to make an electronic copy and communicate 10% of the proceedings.
Given that, unlike a normal book, each paper represents an individual work, are you sure that it's 10% of the book, and not 10% of the paper?

Williams can only infer average receding rates from the empirical data. No empirical data can be used to infer the 0.34 cm/y rate from Polikows model. And you believe that this is enough to support his model (bi standard attitude).
We've been over this, and you're wrong on both counts.

"unphysical" is a strawman. The theory is empirical, therefore a physical causal mechanism must exist. Besides, the real predictions it makes are testable (paleoposition of cratons for example), and were tested, notably by Maxlow, and are further tested.
Emperical theories can still be wrong.

A fallacy.
No, a demonstrable fact.

hmm, Ocean floor datations and geological data impose strong constraint on the reconstructions, there is not much room for imagination. An illustration with antarctica showing that it was totally encircled by the southern tip of S. Am, Africa, India, Australia, Zealandia, and a little ocean of age 90-150 Ma with isochrons perpendicular to the Tonga/Kermadec trench:

The only tricky parts are the mobile arcs and related mantle extrusion and flow that overprinted the older ocean floor. That is very explicit in the Philippine sea:
Yeah, I don't think you quite got what I meant by crack space. Let's call it gap space then - think god of the gaps.

What about your conduct?
What about my conduct?
I have yet to abuse you.
I have yet to call you names.
In fact, I have yet to do anything worse than explain things to you as I would a 5 year old.

That strawman again.
1. I'm not convinced you understand what a strawman is, because you seem to be using it wrongly.
2. Just because you do not understand, or accept the evidence against it, does not mean it does not exist.

So the prediction that Australia was surrounded clockwise by N Am, Antarctica, India, South China, Siberia, more than 500 Ma ago is absurd? I don't think so. On the contrary, it is supported by empirical and independent data.
I've skipped osmne of your comments, simply because they are churlish, petulant, and experience tells me that trying to address them is a waste of my time.

However, on this one, your assertion is a straw man (there's probably a better name for it, however...) in that saying that a theory makes absurd predictions is not the same thing as saying that all it's predictions are absurd. What you've done here is the same as arguing that because cats have four legs and fur, all things that have four legs and fur are cats.

Correction: it has one, but we don't knwo it yet.
No, the theory has none.

I did not insult you.
You have.

Don't confuse the scientists working on this theory and the cranks, please.
The allegation is backed up by the language used in many of the papers you have linked to.

Contradiction? The date you cite was inaccurate, I correct it. You're the only one to make such a big deal for a simple correction.
You have not yet proven that it was inaccurate, however.

They question the significance regarding an Asian plate/greater India collision, because they provide evidence for a collision between Greater India and mobile arc, the later being not part of the Asian plate, hence the comparison to the Luzon Arc.
This is what I said, yes, however, this does not exclude the possibility of foreshortening occuring on the indian plate at this time.

If an arc did collide with greater India, then it accreted onto greater India making it bigger, not shortening it. I guess I do not have to remind you that arc accretion is the orthodox theory for continental lithosphere formation, right?
Acreetion does not preclude foreshortening.

Besides, postcollisional forshortening of greater India, is rather problematic. I quote Stocklin, an specialist of Himalayan orogeny:

"At any rate, Tethyan subduction can in no way account for compensation of the continued expansion of the Indian Ocean after collision of India with Eurasia in Eocene time. The structure of the Himalaya leaves no doubt that very considerable compression of continental crust was achieved here by folding and thrusting in post-Eocene time. But actual estimates fall again far short of the amount required to accommodate postcollisional north-drift of India, which according to spreading data from the Indian Ocean was in the range of 1500-2000 km. Le Fort (44) considered 600-700 km of shortening in the Himalaya as a maximum, Gansser (45) estimated about half of this amount 500 km less 200 km of pre-collisional compression). Compared to the Himalaya, post-Eocene crustal shortening farther north, in Tibet, seems to have been insignificant; folding occurred here mainly in the Mesozoic. The strike-slip mechanism proposed by Molnar and Tapponier (35) may account for some shortening, but hardly for the amount required: strike-slip along the Chaman fault was perhaps in the order of 200-300 km (43); and while displacement along the Herat fault may have been considerable till Miocene, post-Miocene deposits are no more clearly offset along it (24)."
--Jovan Stoecklin, "Tethys evolution in the Afghanistan-Pamir-Pakistan region," In: A.M.C. Sengor, ed., Tectonic Evolution of the Tethyan Region, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 1989, pp. 258, 259.
My recollection is that we have gathered more evidence in the 20 years since that paper was written. If nothing else, it illustrates one of the problems that geologists face - Mother Nature is continually destroying the evidence of what she has done.

Personal insults? Like what?
You've been aggressive and condescendant countless time (should I remind you the buoyancy episod?) because you decided at the beginning of this discussion that I'm a crank advocating a stupid theory. And this is extremely insulting for a scientist.
Aside from anything else, if you don't want to be treated like a crank, stop acting like one. You took umbrage at this thread being moved to pseudoscience, and took an aggressive tone. Everything that has happened since then has followed from that point.

jsispat

08-12-11, 02:38 AM

1) Earth is itself a single living organism like a tree. And covered by crust like a trunk covered by bark. crust = bark

2) some type of meteoroids contains amino acid and biological chemistry are seeds of planets. one planet is a result of one meteoroid as one tree is a result of one seed.

3) out these meteoroids some can germinate in asteroids only and out of these asteroids some can convert in big planets .

4) continents separated from each other like a puzzle is very much clear visual evidence for its growth and expansion. PT is playing vital role for this and same type of PT is also playing vital role for the growth and expansion of trunk of tree.

5) Crude oil (an organic compound ) is produce by earth itself due to metabolism in the earth only. fossil oil theory is not true. it is linked with living organism because it is produced by earth only and earth is itself a single living organism.

pls observe the following links for more clarification with depth only.

http://img861.imageshack.us/i/treebarkcontinents.png/ --- Bark & Continents

http://yfrog.com/5ucorecrustj Core Crust

http://yfrog.com/0g72697054j Plate Tectonic 4.

http://yfrog.com/m9meteoriodj Meteoroids Seeds

http://yfrog.com/5rasteoidplantj Asteroid Plant

http://yfrog.com/5xvalcano2j Volcano Lava

http://yfrog.com/6zpicxaj bark Earth & Tree

http://yfrog.com/gh08810treebark1221170loj TREE BARKS

http://yfrog.com/0tplatetectonics2j Subduction Zone

http://www.mediafire.com/?va0pjtfjjn4m2md Pdf theory complete

http://yfrog.com/h4moo6j Safeda

http://img705.imageshack.us/i/platetectonics.jpg/ PLATE TECTONIC LINK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7i5CY6XNo&NR=1 fossil oil theory is not true and oil is producing in crust as this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3lG3FX9D68

regs
suresh bansal
sureshbansal342@gmail.com

origin

08-12-11, 07:17 AM

florian

08-12-11, 08:28 AM

origin

08-12-11, 09:27 AM

:eek:

Wonderful, now we have all the pseudoscientists coming here with their pet theory.

Criminy, that rich! The belief that you are a scientist, I believe, is shared by a population of N=1.

florian

08-12-11, 12:53 PM

The belief that you are a scientist, I believe, is shared by a population of N=1.
:rolleyes:
What about forgetting "believing" and focusing on facts?

wlminex

08-12-11, 12:58 PM

Everyone "believes" in something! . . . . ala' Charlie Chaplin: "I believe I'll have another drink!!" (tee hee!)

wlminex

origin

08-12-11, 01:13 PM

:rolleyes:
What about forgetting "believing" and focusing on facts?

I do focus on facts. I am just lobbing insults because you have your heels dug in and I have seen enough of you Don Quixote types to know you will not change your mind and you have a very thick skin. I have looked at what you have written and I have looked at the work done by the professionals in geology. I do not agree with your assessment of the situation. From the 'git go' your analysis is based on matter somehow appearing inside the earth - this is handwaving and very unscientific. Do all celestial bodies expand? Is the moon expanding? Where is the mass coming from?

It is much, MUCH more reasonable to accept the mainstream geological establishments theories, since they do not depend on unexplained and frankly far fetched ideas (like the matter generation). Geology as it stands today does an excellent job of explaining what we observe on the earth; end of story.

wlminex

08-12-11, 01:28 PM

Trippy

08-12-11, 02:38 PM

:eek:

Wonderful, now we have all the pseudoscientists coming here with their pet theory. Trippy, I guess it is exactly what you expected by moving this discussion to the pseudoscience forum. Congratulations, for your success in promoting obscurantism!

Yes, it's obviously my fault, and it's clearly what I intended.

Never mind the fact that Mr Bansal has been a member here for three years (as opposed to your two or three months) and has been pushing his particular take on expanding earth tectonics the entire time (which incidentally is backed by all the same evidence yours is, and is as valid as yours is).

Perhaps you wish to debate him to see who's theory is more correct?

After all, Mr Bansal's at least has a causal mechanism.

wlminex

08-12-11, 03:37 PM

Florian and Trippy personal attacks:

Ho-hum!

wlminex

Trippy

08-12-11, 08:55 PM

Florian and Trippy personal attacks:

Ho-hum!

wlminex

Quite.

origin

08-13-11, 11:44 AM

Origin: Ref: my earlier post re: density changes in earth material via magmatic differentiation yields less dense material (i.e., lithosphere) that requires more 'volume' than more-dense progenitor material (mantle). 'Kind of' analogous to that spray foam stuff that changes from a more-dense liquid phase (under pressure) to a much-less dense foamy phase (at lower pressure). Ergo, the earth's surface has to expand to compensate for the transition from higher-density mantle to less-dense lithophere. It's all about that g/cc (mass/volume) process.

I wasn't responding to your post. However your post is just as steeped in pseudo science. "Density changes due to magnetic differentiation", sounds real fancy for the uneducated, however it is little more than drivel - sorry.

It might be instructional to do a (relatively) simple calculation comparing estimated lithospheric volume/density to mantle volume/density. I'm certain that plate-subduction compensates somewhat for the volume expansion - but not completely.

wlminex

Why do you want to compare the mass of the lithosphere to the mass of the mantle? What you are certain of is not shared by others.

edited to add: Oops, I mean why do you want to compare the reciprocal of the mass of the lithosphere to the mantle?

wlminex

08-13-11, 04:36 PM

wlminex

08-13-11, 06:20 PM

For Origin: Some definitions from the internet - look on Google for more . . . . .

magmatic differentiation (mg-mtk)

The process by which chemically different igneous rocks, such as basalt and granite, can form from the same initial magma. Magmatic differentiation can occur by the chemical reaction between the magma and the first crystals to solidify out of it, or by the physical separation of the first crystals that form from the remaining magma, either through settling to the bottom of a magma chamber or through crustal deformations that cause the remaining magma to be squeezed out to cool in veins and dikes.

Home > Library > Science > Sci-Tech Dictionary
(mag′mad�ik ′dif�ə′ren�chē′ā�shən)
(petrology) The process by which the different types of igneous rocks are derived from a single parent magma. The process by which ores are formed by solidification from magma. Also known as magmatic segregation.

What is DENSITY ?

DENSITY is a physical property of matter, as each element and compound has a unique density associated with it. Density defined in a qualitative manner as the measure of the relative "heaviness" of objects with a constant volume.

For example: A rock is obviously more dense than a crumpled piece of paper of the same size. A styrofoam cup is less dense than a ceramic cup.

Density may also refer to how closely "packed" or "crowded" the material appears to be - again refer to the styrofoam vs. ceramic cup.

florian

08-13-11, 07:24 PM

Oh yes I did. You linked to the abstract of Webb's paper which describes a model relating tidal frequency to closing and receding rates in the framework of a Moon capture. Then Poliakow showed that the most important parameter for the tidal dissipation effect is the distribution of continents and oceans, thus outdating Webb's model. And that's all.

No.
There has been at least one other one that I have linked to, and that one other one contains a comparison of the theoretical models that were available at that time, to available field data at that time.

That other one is a 1999 paper. The theoritical models avalaible at that time are worst than Poliakow's 2005 model which pointed to the major effect of the continental/ocean distribution. But even the best available model makes poor predictions like 2.91 cm/y for the current rate while the actual measured value is 3.82 cm/y (So 30% less). It does predict a recession rate of 0.34 cm/y, 200 My ago, but empirical data do not provide irrefutable proof for this rate. Empirical data only give a timepoint for the number of days in a year, and rotation rates are inferred conveniently assuming a constant revolution period (not an irrefutable assumption).
As a matter of fact data from bivalves indicate 371(+4;-7) days/y 220 My ago (Williams, 2000), which includes the current days/y value.
It follows that:
Claiming that the empirical data support the theoritical model of paleotidal evolution is bullshit.
Claiming that the paleorotation evolution is known is bullshit.
Claiming that amazing fine-tuning would be necessary is bullshit.
And BTW, claiming that the growth of Earth would lead to a dramatic decrease in rotation rate is bullshit as well, because it would imply that the gained mass had zero momentum, which is redbull shit.

You're the one linking to Mojzsis webpage. Why don't you ask him by email if the AGU granted him the right to post a full pdf.

Because you're the one that seems to be concerned about it.
You're the one concerned with copyright issues (See post#157 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2791145&postcount=157)) and you're the one who used this link, so either you're concerned with possible copyright infringement by using this link, or you use double standard.

Given that, unlike a normal book, each paper represents an individual work, that it's 10% of the book, and not 10% of the paper?
We transfer copyright to the publisher/editor when we write articles for proceedings. So the 10% rules applies to the whole proceeding book.

A fallacyNo, a demonstrable fact.
A demonstrable fallacy.

hmm, Ocean floor datations and geological data impose strong constraint on the reconstructions, there is not much room for imagination. An illustration with antarctica showing that it was totally encircled by the southern tip of S. Am, Africa, India, Australia, Zealandia, and a little ocean of age 90-150 Ma with isochrons perpendicular to the Tonga/Kermadec trench:

The only tricky parts are the mobile arcs and related mantle extrusion and flow that overprinted the older ocean floor. That is very explicit in the Philippine sea:

Yeah, I don't think you quite got what I meant by crack space. Let's call it gap space then - think god of the gaps.
? You have to be clearer than that.
Besides, do you understand, the reconstruction around Antartica? Do you understand the sequence of extrusion events that leads to the pattern observed in the Philippine sea.

What about my conduct?

That kind of unnecessary and rude comments:
"In fact, I have yet to do anything worse than explain things to you as I would a 5 year old."

That strawman again.

1. I'm not convinced you understand what a strawman is, because you seem to be using it wrongly.
Misrepresenting this theory as unphysical/violating the law of Physics is a strawman.

2. Just because you do not understand, or accept the evidence against it, does not mean it does not exist.
Bullshit. I know every so called "evidence" presented against the theory, and all are flawed.
Besides, Just because you do not understand, or accept the evidence supporting it, does not mean it does not exist.
evidence against are flawed=> no refutation, plenty of supporting evidence => theory is correct.

However, on this one, your assertion is a straw man (there's probably a better name for it, however...) in that saying that a theory makes absurd predictions is not the same thing as saying that all it's predictions are absurd.
No. You built a strawman by writing that the theory makes absurd predictions. These absurd predictions you "invented" are certainly strawmen.

Correction: it has one, but we don't know it yet.

No, the theory has none.
Childish

I did not insult you.

You have.
Childish

Don't confuse the scientists working on this theory and the cranks, please.

The allegation is backed up by the language used in many of the papers you have linked to.
False and Insulting.

They question the significance regarding an Asian plate/greater India collision, because they provide evidence for a collision between Greater India and mobile arc, the later being not part of the Asian plate, hence the comparison to the Luzon Arc.
This is what I said,
Liar. You were discussing the "foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia." (See post# 160 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2793873&postcount=160)) which is far different from the putative collision of Greater India with a mobile arc (argued by ALi&Aitchinson).

yes, however, this does not exclude the possibility of foreshortening occuring on the indian plate at this time.
False. In plate tectonics, collision of a continent with a mobile arc leads to its accretion to the continent margin and thus leads to an increase in the size of the continent, not to a shortening of the continent.

Besides, postcollisional forshortening of greater India, is rather problematic. I quote Stocklin, an specialist of Himalayan orogeny:

"At any rate, Tethyan subduction can in no way account for compensation of the continued expansion of the Indian Ocean after collision of India with Eurasia in Eocene time. The structure of the Himalaya leaves no doubt that very considerable compression of continental crust was achieved here by folding and thrusting in post-Eocene time. But actual estimates fall again far short of the amount required to accommodate postcollisional north-drift of India, which according to spreading data from the Indian Ocean was in the range of 1500-2000 km. Le Fort (44) considered 600-700 km of shortening in the Himalaya as a maximum, Gansser (45) estimated about half of this amount 500 km less 200 km of pre-collisional compression). Compared to the Himalaya, post-Eocene crustal shortening farther north, in Tibet, seems to have been insignificant; folding occurred here mainly in the Mesozoic. The strike-slip mechanism proposed by Molnar and Tapponier (35) may account for some shortening, but hardly for the amount required: strike-slip along the Chaman fault was perhaps in the order of 200-300 km (43); and while displacement along the Herat fault may have been considerable till Miocene, post-Miocene deposits are no more clearly offset along it (24)."
--Jovan Stoecklin, "Tethys evolution in the Afghanistan-Pamir-Pakistan region," In: A.M.C. Sengor, ed., Tectonic Evolution of the Tethyan Region, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 1989, pp. 258, 259.

My recollection is that we have gathered more evidence in the 20 years since that paper was written.
The evidence that have been collected in the last years support the hypothesis that the tibetan plateau was uplifted by mantle upwelling, and is gliding eastward under its own weight. The collision=orogeny hypothesis becomes useless.

If nothing else, it illustrates one of the problems that geologists face - Mother Nature is continually destroying the evidence of what she has done.
A very convenient assumption, and wrong. The fact is that most of the oceanic/continental lithosphere that ever formed can still be found. The gradual increase in amount of oceanic/continental lithosphere observed during geological time is a simple proof of the surface increase of Earth.

Aside from anything else, if you don't want to be treated like a crank, stop acting like one.
You decided from the start that I must be a crank because I advocate the expanding theory which you believe is stupid/absurd/pseudoscientific, and this independently of my writings. Your decision is irrational.

You took umbrage at this thread being moved to pseudoscience, and took an aggressive tone.
I responded adequally to an aggression from someone who is not respectful of the work done by research scientists.

Everything that has happened since then has followed from that point.
Your fault. Start by respecting the research scientists including me.

wlminex

08-13-11, 07:37 PM

AlexG

08-13-11, 08:42 PM

origin

08-13-11, 08:44 PM

Origin Post 182:

You expose your own 'drivel' and lack of knowledge regarding geological processes. Do you know the difference between MAGNETIC differentiation and MAGMATIC differentiation? The former term (magnetic differentiation) is not a term that I've heard used in discussions of geologic processes. If you plan to use that term (magnetic differentiation) in the otherwise cogent discussions here - please define it so we can all learn from your vast knowledge base.

Well I certainly screwed the pooch there! It is not a lack of knowledge it is a lack of reading ability! As far as magmatic differentiation this is not going to cause an expansion of the earth. In general the volume of cooled igneous rock is going to be so close to the original magma that it is negligable. This entire fantasy of an expanding earth is silly.

By the way . . . . g/cc (grams per cubic centimeter; i.e., mass per volume) is a common and accepted statement of density of materials, or better yet, specific gravity.

Yes I am well aware of what density is. You still haven't answered why you want to compare the volume/density of the lithosphere and the mantle. :shrug:

wlminex

08-13-11, 09:23 PM

Origin:

First, let's look at some 'rock' densities:

Granite (lithosphere ~ 2.65 - 2.75 g/cc)
Basalt (~ 3.0 avg g/cc)
Mantle (range 35 - 2890 km; 3.4-5.6 g/cc)

This density relationship is consistent with our observations and theories of isostasy. That is why lithosphere 'floats' on asthenosphere - lithosphere is less dense than asthenosphere.

Now, assuming (to a first approximation, of course) that lithosphere (basalt + granite)issues solely from magmatic differentiation of asthenosphere, the simple g/cc math relationship math will demonstrate that the lithospheric component occupies relatively more volume (i.e., space) than the asthenospheric (mantle) component.

Thus, I suggested that by comparing the relative volumes of lithosphere and asthenosphere, one should be able to estimate the additional (spherical) volume (i.e., increase in earth radius), on a total earth-surface basis that would be required to compensate for the decrease in density of the lithosphere.

Please note that I HAVE NOT done the math, but someone should . . . volume estimates for lithosphere and asthenosphere should be fairly easy. Also recall that I exercised the 'caveat' that crustal plate subduction processes would likely reduce the overall "expansive" effect of asthenosphere --> lithosphere density transitions.

I welcome your calculation results and discussion . . . EVEN Florian and Trippy!

By-the-way . . . I'm not saying that the earth HAS significantly "expanded". I'm simply providing a viable mechanism for those who think it has!.

wlminex

Trippy

08-13-11, 10:00 PM

That other one is a 1999 paper. The theoritical models avalaible at that time are worst than Poliakow's 2005 model which pointed to the major effect of the continental/ocean distribution. But even the best available model makes poor predictions like 2.91 cm/y for the current rate while the actual measured value is 3.82 cm/y (So 30% less). It does predict a recession rate of 0.34 cm/y, 200 My ago, but empirical data do not provide irrefutable proof for this rate. Empirical data only give a timepoint for the number of days in a year, and rotation rates are inferred conveniently assuming a constant revolution period (not an irrefutable assumption).
As a matter of fact data from bivalves indicate 371(+4;-7) days/y 220 My ago (Williams, 2000), which includes the current days/y value.
It follows that:
Claiming that the empirical data support the theoritical model of paleotidal evolution is bullshit.
Claiming that the paleorotation evolution is known is bullshit.
Claiming that amazing fine-tuning would be necessary is bullshit.
And BTW, claiming that the growth of Earth would lead to a dramatic decrease in rotation rate is bullshit as well, because it would imply that the gained mass had zero momentum, which is redbull shit.
No.
What it proves is that you still haven't read, and understood the 1999 paper - whether the models were worse then is irrelevant, it still provides useful, useable information.
What it proves is that you don't understand the astrophysics involved and are therefore in no position to criticise the mainstream view.

You're the one concerned with copyright issues (See post#157 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2791145&postcount=157)) and you're the one who used this link, so either you're concerned with possible copyright infringement by using this link, or you use double standard.
I asked you a straightforward question - one which you evaded answering, and went on the attack in response to.
You're the one making an issue out of this rather than answering a straightforward question.
You haven't poved a double standard on my part, incidentally, because you obviously still don't understand the fundamental difference between what you have done, and anything you have raised in an effort to justify your actions.

We transfer copyright to the publisher/editor when we write articles for proceedings. So the 10% rules applies to the whole proceeding book.
Not always true, actually.

A demonstrable fallacy.
:rolleyes:

? You have to be clearer than that.
Google 'God of the gaps'.

Besides, do you understand, the reconstruction around Antartica? Do you understand the sequence of extrusion events that leads to the pattern observed in the Philippine sea.
Better than you, it would seem.

That kind of unnecessary and rude comments:
"In fact, I have yet to do anything worse than explain things to you as I would a 5 year old."
Rolleyes:
The only person that's rude to is me.

Misrepresenting this theory as unphysical/violating the law of Physics is a strawman.
It's neither a misrepresentation, nor a strawman. If it was, you would be able to present a physical mechanism that worked within the existing laws of physics, but you can't, every mechanism proposed so far requires new physics, for which there is no evidence to support.

Bullshit. I know every so called "evidence" presented against the theory, and all are flawed.
Apparently you don't.

Besides, Just because you do not understand, or accept the evidence supporting it, does not mean it does not exist.
evidence against are flawed=> no refutation, plenty of supporting evidence => theory is correct.
I understand it, and it is flawed.

No. You built a strawman by writing that the theory makes absurd predictions. These absurd predictions you "invented" are certainly strawmen.
That you don't understand how they follow from your assertions is your problem, not mine. I thought you said you understood this stuff?

Childish
It's childish to point out that your theory has no physical mechanism? Interesting. So you're suggesting that science is childish?

Childish
Contradicting a falsehood is insulting? Interesting.

False and Insulting.
Compeltely true - any paper that uses language that talks about 'Dogmatism' or compares a group to gallileo, and sayting that the mainstream is comparable to the flat earthers and what not is precisely crackpot language. Maybe you should work through some of Scalera's work with the John Baez Crackpot Index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) open in another window, or even look back through some of the things you've had to say here and elsewhere. Scalera's comments to that effect are worth 40 points by themselves, and your assertions (and, for that matter Maxlow's) about the mechanism are worth 50 points.

Liar. You were discussing the "foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia." (See post# 160 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2793873&postcount=160)) which is far different from the putative collision of Greater India with a mobile arc (argued by ALi&Aitchinson).
No, actually, the liar here is you.

Here is my statement in the context of the discussion that was being had:

I also find it ironic that you cite this material to contradict me, but if you read (for example) Aitchinson et al's reply to Garzanti's comment, they explicitly state that a collision occured at the North Indian passive margin 55MA, and that that collision was part of the Himalaya-Tibet orogen, what they question is the significance of the event, likening it to the interaction between the Luzon Arc and South East China - this does not contradict my position, that foreshortening was occuring 55 MA, and that that foreshortening was occuring as a result of the collision between the indian plate and the eurasian plate. And yes, I know I initially said greater india, which implies that I was referring to Aitchinsons major collision, rather than the initial minor collision, but my point remains intact - that Carey failed to account for any compressional foreshortening that might have occured over the last 55 million years (among other possible factors).

They question the significance regarding an Asian plate/greater India collision, because they provide evidence for a collision between Greater India and mobile arc, the later being not part of the Asian plate, hence the comparison to the Luzon Arc.

This is what I said, yes, however, this does not exclude the possibility of foreshortening occuring on the indian plate at this time.

I precisely stated that Ali and Aitchinson questioned the significance of the first collisional event.
I precisely stated (or suggested) that the fact that it was a collision with a forearc on the Asian plate was the grounds for the comparison with the Luzon arc and China.
You have quoted me out of context (again) and constrtucted a Strawman argument based on the out of context quotation (again).

As for the body of the rest of this aspect of the discussion, you're getting lost in irrelvant trivialities and side tracking the discussion (something akin to a bait and switch). My assertion was that Carey neglected to take into account forehortening that might have occured as a result of the collision between greater india and asia. This is the core point of my statement which so far you have UTTERLY FAILED TO ADDRESS.

Whether the collision occured 55MA or 35MA is irrelevant to consideration of the foreshortening that has occurred subsequent to that. You are quite simply hellbent on trying to prove me wrong on some trivial point so that you can continue your attempts at poisoning the well and say "Well, you were wrong about this, why should we trust you about that?"

Give it up. Among other things, what your doing is arguing in bad faith, it's an argument ad hominem, it's disingenious, and it's bordering on intellectual dishonesty.

False. In plate tectonics, collision of a continent with a mobile arc leads to its accretion to the continent margin and thus leads to an increase in the size of the continent, not to a shortening of the continent.
Acreetion occurs in a compressional or transpressional regime. Yes or no?

The evidence that have been collected in the last years support the hypothesis that the tibetan plateau was uplifted by mantle upwelling, and is gliding eastward under its own weight. The collision=orogeny hypothesis becomes useless.
Wishful thinking at best.

A very convenient assumption, and wrong. The fact is that most of the oceanic/continental lithosphere that ever formed can still be found. The gradual increase in amount of oceanic/continental lithosphere observed during geological time is a simple proof of the surface increase of Earth.
You question the assertion that erosion and sediment transport destroys evidence?

You decided from the start that I must be a crank because I advocate the expanding theory which you believe is stupid/absurd/pseudoscientific, and this independently of my writings. Your decision is irrational.
No, I decided you were a crank on the basis of your posts. Or are you going to claim to know my motivations better than me now?

My decision that you are a crank is quite independent of my decision to move this thread to Pseudoscience, I can assure you. If I had decided you were a crank before then, I would have closed this thread an moved it to the cesspool.

I responded adequally to an aggression from someone who is not respectful of the work done by research scientists.[quote]
That was your first mistake, responding to what you percieved as aggression with aggression.

[QUOTE=florian;2797208]Your fault. Start by respecting the research scientists including me.
You're awfully fond of making assumptions, aren't you.

Trippy

08-13-11, 10:03 PM

Trippy . . . Trippy . . . Trippy . . . .!
Florian . . . .Florian . . . .Florian!

Do you guys even remember what the original post was about? Why don't you guys simply exchange emails and carry-on in private. Then you can quit agrandising yourselves on this thread!

wlminex

I'm not interested in self agrandisment.

I was interested in an actual discussion, but that, along with my consequent interest in this thread is rapidly waning. There's only so much of this inaninty I can take, and this thread is not my only source of such.

wlminex

08-13-11, 11:12 PM

Trippy Post#191:

I get your 'drift' (continental?) . . . .

Would appreciate your constructive comments on my post #189

wlminex

Trippy

08-14-11, 02:23 AM

I had something, but it requires a rethink and may take longer - there is someone with a dentist drill excavating my brain through my ear at the moment, or at least it feels that way.

florian

08-14-11, 03:27 AM

Do you guys even remember what the original post was about?
Absolutely. Just have to read the title: Is the Earth expanding?

Why don't you guys simply exchange emails and carry-on in private.
Because the arguments presented here can be of interest for geologists/geophysicists or any scientist interested in that science.

Then you can quit agrandising yourselves on this thread!
Agrandising myself? No, my goal is very simple: Refute the arguments against the expanding Earth theory and prove that it is the best Earth-science theory around. Actually, it is not just a Earth-Sciences theory, but the real first planetary-Science theory with deep implications in cosmology. This is one reason why it represents such a huge step forward.

florian

08-14-11, 05:40 AM

No.
What it proves is that you still haven't read, and understood the 1999 paper - whether the models were worse then is irrelevant, it still provides useful, useable information.
Useable information from models that were proved too much simplistic to model reality even roughly => Double standard.

What it proves is that you don't understand the astrophysics involved and are therefore in no position to criticise the mainstream view.
Quite ironic knowing that you can't get the point made by Mazumder.

I asked you a straightforward question - one which you evaded answering, and went on the attack in response to.
I found ironic that you suspect me of copyright infringment while linking to material likely infringing copyright in the same post. It seems that you perceived my comment on this funny fact as an attack.

? You have to be clearer than that.

Google 'God of the gaps'.
I ask for a clarification because I google it and do not see the relationship with paleogeographic reconstructions.
Note that you're diverting the discussion again. Could you please focuse on the discussion. Thank you.

Besides, do you understand, the reconstruction around Antartica? Do you understand the sequence of extrusion events that leads to the pattern observed in the Philippine sea.
Better than you, it would seem.
I doubt it, if it was the case you would the facto accept Earth expansion because the reconstruction based on isochrons require a reduction of Earth's radius.

No. You built a strawman by writing that the theory makes absurd predictions. These absurd predictions you "invented" are certainly strawmen.
That you don't understand how they follow from your assertions is your problem, not mine.
See, you invent stuff, you don't describe what it is, then you claim that I should have invented the same stuff, and attack me for no doing it. Strawman.

It's childish to point out that your theory has no physical mechanism? Interesting.

Stop lying. It is evident that the theory HAS a physical causal mechanism. Claiming that it has no physical mechanism, is unphysical, because we don't know the mechanism at this time is cranky.

So you're suggesting that science is childish?
Yet another of your childish comments. Don't confuse science with yourself.

sayting that the mainstream is comparable to the flat earthers
It is you, Trippy, that I compared to a flat-earther. And the comparison stand: you persist in believing in an outdated theory and deny the evidence for a better theory.

Liar. You were discussing the "foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia." (See post# 160) which is far different from the putative collision of Greater India with a mobile arc (argued by Ali&Aitchinson).

No, actually, the liar here is you.
You lie again. You were arguing that foreshortening was occuring 55 Ma position and that foreshortening was occuring as a result of the collision between the indian plate and the eurasian plate[/b] as proven by your own citation (see bold):

I also find it ironic that you cite this material to contradict me, but if you read (for example) Aitchinson et al's reply to Garzanti's comment, they explicitly state that a collision occured at the North Indian passive margin 55MA, and that that collision was part of the Himalaya-Tibet orogen, what they question is the significance of the event, likening it to the interaction between the Luzon Arc and South East China - this does not contradict my position, that foreshortening was occuring 55 MA, and that that foreshortening was occuring as a result of the collision between the indian plate and the eurasian plate. And yes, I know I initially said greater india, which implies that I was referring to Aitchinsons major collision, rather than the initial minor collision, but my point remains intact - that Carey failed to account for any compressional foreshortening that might have occured over the last 55 million years (among other possible factors).

And of course, a collision with a mobile arc leads to enlargement of greater India not shortening.
So you were proving wrong. Admit it. May be I should cite one of the epic post from Ophiolite (this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2619296&postcount=12)):

You have been caught out in an error. You are compounding that error by refusing to acknowledge it. Do so now or continue to look like a fool.

Now, after this interesting comment from Ophiolite, back to the point:

Whether the collision occured 55MA or 35MA is irrelevant to consideration of the foreshortening that has occurred subsequent to that.
And that shortening of greater India after the putative collision is irrelevant to the point made by Carey because it is very limited: 176 km according to Murphy and Yin "Structural evolution and sequence of thrusting in the Tethyan fold-thrust belt and Indus-Yalu suture zone, southwest Tibet. (http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/115/1/21.abstract)"

So, "Give it up. Among other things, what your doing is arguing in bad faith, it's an argument ad hominem, it's disingenious, and it's bordering on intellectual dishonesty."

The evidence that have been collected in the last years support the hypothesis that the tibetan plateau was uplifted by mantle upwelling, and is gliding eastward under its own weight. The collision=orogeny hypothesis becomes useless.

Wishful thinking at best.
A theory developped by Carey, hinted by the extrusion model of Tapponnier which now evolves to a crustal/mantle flow model (see Royden et al 2008 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5892/1054.accessible-long)), and the next step will be to abandon the collision origin of the flow as with the anatolian/aegean region.

A very convenient assumption, and wrong. The fact is that most of the oceanic/continental lithosphere that ever formed can still be found. The gradual increase in amount of oceanic/continental lithosphere observed during geological time is a simple proof of the surface increase of Earth.
You question the assertion that erosion and sediment transport destroys evidence?
No, your assertion. I was refering to the hypothesis that subduction destroys millions square km of lithosphere whereas it is a demonstrable fact that the amount destroyed is marginal (I remind you post #72 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2771679&postcount=72))

My decision that you are a crank is quite independent of my decision to move this thread to Pseudoscience, I can assure you.
Indeed, anyone defending the expanding earth theory is imediately labeled as a crank in your mind, thus you labeled me as on at my first post, post #13 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2743296&postcount=13).
You moved this discussion a bit later using the fallacious argument that it "failed basic scientific tests", in a middle of a scientifically argued discussion.

That was your first mistake, responding to what you percieved as aggression with aggression.
Qualifying the work of qualified research scientists as being "pseudo-scientific" and calling this research scientists "crackpots" is an aggression. This is unacceptable and can't be ignored.

florian

08-14-11, 06:36 AM

Origin:

First, let's look at some 'rock' densities:

Granite (lithosphere ~ 2.65 - 2.75 g/cc)
Basalt (~ 3.0 avg g/cc)
Mantle (range 35 - 2890 km; 3.4-5.6 g/cc)
...

I welcome your calculation results and discussion . . . EVEN Florian and Trippy!

Well, why not?

For a rough estimate, 1/3 continental crust averaging 50 km in thickness and 2/3 oceanic crust averaging 10 km in thickness.

Volume continental crust: 4/3*pi*(6371^3-6321^3)*1/3=8.42 � 10E9 km3
Considering an average density of 2.7, and considering that the original material had a density = 3.5, the continental crust volume corresponds to an initial volume of 2.7/3.5*8.42 � 10E9=6.50 � 10E9 km3

Volume ocean crust: 4/3*pi*(6371^3-6361^3)*2/3=1.70 � 10E9 km3
Considering an average density of 3.0, and considering that the original material had a density = 3.5, the ocean crust volume corresponds to an initial volume of 3.0/3.5*1.70 � 10E9=1.46 � 10E9 km3

So the change in volume is (8.42+1.70)-(6.50+1.46) � 10E9= 2.16 � 10E9 km3

This corresponds to an average increase in radius equal to:
6371-((4/3*pi*6371^3-2.16E9)/4*3/pi)^(1/3) = 4.24 km

By-the-way . . . I'm not saying that the earth HAS significantly "expanded". I'm simply providing a viable mechanism for those who think it has!.
You must find a mechanism that accounts for a doubling of radius or an 8-fold increase in volume for the last 250 My. Thank you for the effort, but your hypothesis fell short!
I wish you good luck!

Trippy

08-14-11, 01:55 PM

Useable information from models that were proved too much simplistic to model reality even roughly => Double standard.
No. Because I understand the limitations of the model and the information.

Quite ironic knowing that you can't get the point made by Mazumder.
I understand Mazumders point, however have come to the conclusion that he is wrong based on independant lines of evidence.

I ask for a clarification because I google it and do not see the relationship with paleogeographic reconstructions.
Note that you're diverting the discussion again. Could you please focuse on the discussion. Thank you.
Because it relates to expanding eartrh tectonics in general, rather than paleogeographic reconstructions specifically.

I doubt it, if it was the case you would the facto accept Earth expansion because the reconstruction based on isochrons require a reduction of Earth's radius.
...
I just want to hilight how special this statement is.

See, you invent stuff, you don't describe what it is, then you claim that I should have invented the same stuff, and attack me for no doing it. Strawman.
I don't think you know what a strawman is.
This isn't one.
And I haven't attacked you.

Stop lying. It is evident that the theory HAS a physical causal mechanism. Claiming that it has no physical mechanism, is unphysical, because we don't know the mechanism at this time is cranky.
I'm not lying. If you had a physical causal mechanism, you would be able to say what it is, it's that simple.

Yet another of your childish comments. Don't confuse science with yourself.
:roll eyes:

It is you, Trippy, that I compared to a flat-earther. And the comparison stand: you persist in believing in an outdated theory and deny the evidence for a better theory.
Do you actually read the posts you reply to?

You lie again. You were arguing that foreshortening was occuring 55 Ma position and that foreshortening was occuring as a result of the collision between the indian plate and the eurasian plate[/b] as proven by your own citation (see bold):
Again, you quote me out of context. The only liar here is you. I didn't deny that I initially suggested that foreshortening was occuring 55MA. That's not what makes you a liar.

And of course, a collision with a mobile arc leads to enlargement of greater India not shortening.
So you were proving wrong. Admit it. May be I should cite one of the epic post from Ophiolite (this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2619296&postcount=12)):
Yet again, I have asked you a direct question, and you have evaded answering (unsurprising).

You have not proven an error on my part, at best you haven proven that the point is contended, which I have aknowledged. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
And that shortening of greater India after the putative collision is irrelevant to the point made by Carey because it is very limited: 176 km according to Murphy and Yin "Structural evolution and sequence of thrusting in the Tethyan fold-thrust belt and Indus-Yalu suture zone, southwest Tibet. (http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/115/1/21.abstract)"

So, "Give it up. Among other things, what your doing is arguing in bad faith, it's an argument ad hominem, it's disingenious, and it's bordering on intellectual dishonesty."
I think you need to go back and re-read that abstract. It's either that, or your deliberately lying.
From the second sentence:

A line-length cross-section reconstruction indicates a MINIMUM of 176 km of north-south horizontal shortening partitioned by the Tethyan fold-thrust belt (112 km) and Indus-Yalu suture zone (64 km).
From the last sentence:

A regional profile across the Tibetan-Himalayan orogen from the Subhimalaya to the Gangdese Shan (Transhimalaya), along with previously reported shortening estimates in the central Himalaya, yields a MINIMUM shortening estimate across the orogen of ∼750 km.
Emphasis mine in both cases.
In case you've forgotten:
min�i�mum/ˈminəməm/
Noun: The least or smallest amount or quantity possible, attainable, or required.

No, your assertion. I was refering to the hypothesis that subduction destroys millions square km of lithosphere whereas it is a demonstrable fact that the amount destroyed is marginal (I remind you post #72 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2771679&postcount=72))
No. That I was referring to subduction was, is, and will always be your assumption.

The only thing I said was that Mother nature destroys the evidence of what she has done.

Indeed, anyone defending the expanding earth theory is imediately labeled as a crank in your mind, thus you labeled me as on at my first post, post #13 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2743296&postcount=13).
You moved this discussion a bit later using the fallacious argument that it "failed basic scientific tests", in a middle of a scientifically argued discussion.
These are only your assumptions. Nothing more.

Qualifying the work of qualified research scientists as being "pseudo-scientific" and calling this research scientists "crackpots" is an aggression. This is unacceptable and can't be ignored.
In this case, it's a statement of fact, and I would say the same of any research scienctist that used the sort of language that Scalera does, whether they were addressing the mainstream or an alternative theory. But I wouldn't expect you to understand why.

wlminex

08-14-11, 03:01 PM

Florian:

Fine . . . . as a rough estimate . . . now re-calculate, factoring-in the hi-pressure mineral-phase structural transitions . . . e.g. spinel --> olivine, oxides. etc. and others.

wlminex

florian

08-14-11, 03:14 PM

Useable information from models that were proved too much simplistic to model reality even roughly => Double standard.

No. Because I understand the limitations of the model and the information.
The fact that you persist in believing that these models can effectively predict the paleorotation rate of Earth is a proof that you don't understand their limitation nor Mazumder argument.

I ask for a clarification because I google it and do not see the relationship with paleogeographic reconstructions.
Note that you're diverting the discussion *again*. Could you please focuse on the discussion. Thank you.
Because it relates to expanding eartrh tectonics in general, rather than paleogeographic reconstructions specifically.
Could you please clarify what you meant instead of wandering around.

I doubt it, if it was the case you would the facto accept Earth expansion because the reconstruction based on isochrons require a reduction of Earth's radius.
I just want to hilight how special this statement is.
Here again you seem to fail to understand why the complete encirclement of antartica cannot be achieved on an Earth that did not evolve in size.

See, you invent stuff, you don't describe what it is, then you claim that I should have invented the same stuff, and attack me for no doing it. Strawman.

I don't think you know what a strawman is. This isn't one.
Oh si, c'est un homme de paille : You invent weaknesses that do not exist, to attack them with the agenda to discredit the theory.

And I haven't attacked you.
You did by questioning my ability to understand => ad hominen.
It is quite interesting that you never seem to perceive how aggressive you are.

Stop lying. It is evident that the theory HAS a physical causal mechanism. Claiming that it has no physical mechanism, is unphysical, because we don't know the mechanism at this time is cranky.

I'm not lying. If you had a physical causal mechanism, you would be able to say what it is, it's that simple.
Apparently, you don't understand the difference between claiming that "a theory has no physical causal mechanism/is unphysical", and claiming that "a theory has a physical causal mechanism that is not known at this time". I suggest you to follow "epistemology 101".

You lie again. You were arguing that foreshortening was occuring 55 Ma position and that foreshortening was occuring as a result of the collision between the indian plate and the eurasian plate[/b] as proven by your own citation (see bold):

Again, you quote me out of context.
Interesting, the quote you cite yourself to replace your claim in context is now out of context? Double standard again.

go back and re-read that abstract. It's either that, or your deliberately lying.
From the second sentence:

---Quote---
A line-length cross-section reconstruction indicates a _*MINIMUM*_ of 176 km of north-south horizontal shortening partitioned by the Tethyan fold-thrust belt (112 km) and Indus-Yalu suture zone (64 km).
---End Quote---

You do understand that foreshortening of greater India is limited to Tethyan fold-thrust belt and Indus-Yalu suture zone, do you?

From the last sentence:

---Quote---
A regional profile across the Tibetan-Himalayan orogen from the Subhimalaya to the Gangdese Shan (Transhimalaya), along with previously reported shortening estimates in the central Himalaya, yields a *_MINIMUM shortening estimate across the orogen of ∼750 km._*
---End Quote---

Actually, no you don't. How is it possible that you did not figure it out from the "cross section reconstruction" part of the paper, p27?
Or may be you only read the abstract, as usual :rolleyes:

In case you've forgotten:
min�i�mum/ˈminəməm/
Noun: The least or smallest amount or quantity possible, attainable, or required.
And you are childish again...

No, your assertion. I was refering to the hypothesis that subduction destroys millions square km of lithosphere whereas it is a demonstrable fact that the amount destroyed is marginal (I remind you post #72 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2771679&postcount=72))

No. That I was referring to subduction was, is, and will always be your assumption.
You're very confused again. You made a general statement. I replied that it is not so true because, for example, destruction via subduction is marginal, and then you jump to erosion.

Qualifying the work of qualified research scientists as being "pseudo-scientific" and calling this research scientists "crackpots" is an aggression. This is unacceptable and can't be ignored.

In this case, it's a statement of fact
You confuse facts and your biased opinion.

florian

08-14-11, 03:38 PM

Florian:

Fine . . . . as a rough estimate . . . now re-calculate, factoring-in the hi-pressure mineral-phase structural transitions . . . e.g. spinel --> olivine, oxides. etc. and others.

I let you do that especially as calculations for the whole mantle must include density/pressure increase. Again, good luck!
Anyway, that won't account for the measurable growth.

Trippy

08-14-11, 03:48 PM

The fact that you persist in believing that these models can effectively predict the paleorotation rate of Earth is a proof that you don't understand their limitation nor Mazumder argument.
The fact that you can not see how they make such a prediction, and how the contradict the expanding earth model is a proof that you do not understand the physics behind them.

Here again you seem to fail to understand why the complete encirclement of antartica cannot be achieved on an Earth that did not evolve in size.
No, I understand how such a scenario could evolve, and I am familiar with some of the evidence of that happening - we've even discussed some of it elsewhere, but you dismissed it as being mythical.

Oh si, c'est un homme de paille : You invent weaknesses that do not exist, to attack them with the agenda to discredit the theory.
I invent no weakness. I hilight what is already there.

You did by questioning my ability to understand => ad hominen.
It is quite interesting that you never seem to perceive how aggressive you are.
I only question your ability to understand where you demonstrate an inability to understand. The role buoyancy plays in subduction zone reversals, the meaning of the word minimum, that sort of thing.

Apparently, you don't understand the difference between claiming that "a theory has no physical causal mechanism/is unphysical", and claiming that "a theory has a physical causal mechanism that is not known at this time". I suggest you to follow "epistemology 101".
:rolleyes:

Interesting, the quote you cite yourself to replace your claim in context is now out of context? Double standard again.
No. Your presentation of it is out of context. Following your comments requires the abject denial of what I said both in that post, and subsequent to the post.

You do understand that foreshortening of greater India is limited to Tethyan fold-thrust belt and Indus-Yalu suture zone, do you?
Nothing I have stated suggests otherwise. I also understand that the foreshortening in greater India is only half the picture.

Actually, no you don't. How is it possible that you did not figure it out from the "cross section reconstruction" part of the paper, p27?
Or may be you only read the abstract, as usual :rolleyes:
You seem confused - this doesn't actually make sense in the context of my statements...

And you are childish again...
Really?
Pointing out the meaning of a word to someone is childish?

Interesting. Is it equally childish to correct their spelling?

You're very confused again. You made a general statement. I replied that it is not so true because, for example, destruction via subduction is marginal, and then you jump to erosion.
I'm confused about nothing.

You confuse facts and your biased opinion.
:rolleyes:

florian

08-14-11, 05:12 PM

The fact that you persist in believing that these models can effectively predict the paleorotation rate of Earth is a proof that you don't understand their limitation nor Mazumder argument.

The fact that you can not see how they make such a prediction...
Hu, whatever...

Here again you seem to fail to understand why the complete encirclement of antartica cannot be achieved on an Earth that did not evolve in size.

No, I understand how such a scenario could evolve, and I am familiar with some of the evidence of that happening - we've even discussed some of it elsewhere, but you dismissed it as being mythical.
Pardon me?

Oh si, c'est un homme de paille : You invent weaknesses that do not exist, to attack them with the agenda to discredit the theory.

I invent no weakness.
You do.

I only question your ability to understand where you demonstrate an inability to understand.
No, you question my abilities to provoke me. It is quite boring and a distraction from the discussion.

The role buoyancy plays in subduction zone reversals,
I remind you that I had to explain you what are subduction reversals, with a scheme... See this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2784047&postcount=47).

the meaning of the word minimum, that sort of thing.
More provocation. You persist with distractions.

Apparently, you don't understand the difference between claiming that "a theory has no physical causal mechanism/is unphysical", and claiming that "a theory has a physical causal mechanism that is not known at this time". I suggest you to follow "epistemology 101".

:rolleyes:
Too bad that you can't acknowledge that there is important difference.

-
No. Your presentation of it is out of context. Following your comments requires the abject denial of what I said both in that post, and subsequent to the post.
Backpeddling is your favorite sport, isn't it?

You do understand that foreshortening of greater India is limited to Tethyan fold-thrust belt and Indus-Yalu suture zone, do you?
Nothing I have stated suggests otherwise.
Yes, it is definitively your favorite sport.

Actually, no you don't. How is it possible that you did not figure it out from the "cross section reconstruction" part of the paper, p27?
Or may be you only read the abstract, as usual :rolleyes:

You seem confused - this doesn't actually make sense in the context of my statements...
You are confused. It is clear that you confused the shortening across the whole orogen with that of greater India, which is evidently limited to the zone up to the Indus-Yalu suture zone. And no, you won't get away with more backpeddling. I remind you that your initial claim was that "Carey seems to completely fail to account for any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia." in post #159 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2791362&postcount=159).
You specifically mentioned the foreshortening of greater India and its collision with Asia, not its collision with a mobile arc nor the foreshortening of Asia.

Really?
Pointing out the meaning of a word to someone is childish?
Pointing out the meaning of the word "minimum" is childish, but expected from a smartass.

Trippy

08-14-11, 05:38 PM

Pardon me?
I thought it was quite clear.

No, you question my abilities to provoke me. It is quite boring and a distraction from the discussion.
No, I question your abilities because they are routinely shown to be lacking, and are as relevant to the discussion as your questioning of mine.

I remind you that I had to explain you what are subduction reversals, with a scheme... See this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2784047&postcount=47).
The reminder was un-neccessary, and did nothing to address the point I raised, which you still avoid.

More provocation. You persist with distractions.
And yet you demonstrate that you do not seem to understand the meaning of it, which is understandable, prehaps even tolerable, for someone that isn't a native anglophone.

Backpeddling is your favorite sport, isn't it?

Yes, it is definitively your favorite sport.
I have not backpeddled. You have not demonstrated me backpeddling.

You are confused. It is clear that you confused the shortening across the whole orogen with that of greater India, which is evidently limited to the zone up to the Indus-Yalu suture zone. And no, you won't get away with more backpeddling. I remind you that your initial claim was that "Carey seems to completely fail to account for any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia." in post #159 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2791362&postcount=159).
You specifically mentioned the foreshortening of greater India and its collision with Asia, not its collision with a mobile arc nor the foreshortening of Asia.
I am confused about nothing, and what you're doing here is bordering on intellectual dishonesty.

The point that your steamrolling right past, in your attempt at poisoning the well, is that although I may have messed up my language slightly in the wording of my post, it should have been clear from the context of my discussion that I was referring to the foreshortening across the orogen, either way, Carey still failed to account for it.

In a normal, rational, sane argument the discussion would have gone something like this:
Me: "Carey forgot to account for the foreshortening of greater India as a result of the collision".
You: "This paper says the foreshortening of Greter India was only 176km"
Me: "It also states that 176km was a minimum, and the minimum foreshortening across the Orogen was 750km".
You: "Yes, but you said the foreshortening of Greater India"
Me: "Well okay, but the point remains that the foreshortening across the Orogen was 750km, and Carey seems to have failed to account for it."
And then proceed from there - perhaps moving onto Carey's arguments about the foreshortening.

Instead we get this moronic, bordering on myopic churlish...

Words fail me. I actually lack the words to describe what you're doing at the moment. It's dishonest, and it's bad faith.

It's just stupid and it's a waste of my time.

Pointing out the meaning of the word "minimum" is childish, but expected from a smartass.[/QUOTE]
It seemed neccessary on the grounds of this statement:

You have not proven an error on my part, at best you haven proven that the point is contended, which I have aknowledged. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
And that shortening of greater India after the putative collision is irrelevant to the point made by Carey because it is very limited: 176 km according to Murphy and Yin
Which implies that you believe the fore shortening was 176km or less, where as the clear meaning of the word minimum is 176 km or more.

I'll leave the backpeddling to you.

origin

08-14-11, 06:22 PM

Thank you for the effort, but your hypothesis fell short!

For once I agree with you!

You must find a mechanism that accounts for a doubling of radius or an 8-fold increase in volume for the last 250 My.

Which will not be possible so it make sense to abandon this conjecture!

Trippy

08-14-11, 11:23 PM

In a normal, rational, sane argument the discussion would have gone something like this:
Me: "Carey forgot to account for the foreshortening of greater India as a result of the collision".
You: "This paper says the foreshortening of Greter India was only 176km"
Me: "It also states that 176km was a minimum, and the minimum foreshortening across the Orogen was 750km".
You: "Yes, but you said the foreshortening of Greater India"
Me: "Well okay, but the point remains that the foreshortening across the Orogen was 750km, and Carey seems to have failed to account for it."
And then proceed from there - perhaps moving onto Carey's arguments about the foreshortening.

My point is proven, I quote from the conclusion (something I should probably have just done in the first palce instead of dragging this stupidity out:

A regional profile across the Tibet-Himalaya orogen from the Subhimalaya to the Gangdese Shan (Transhimalaya), together with previous ly reported shortening estimates in the central Himalaya, yields a total shortening estimate across the orogen of 593�763 km. Timing constraints for thrusts south of and including the Main Central Thrust indicate that the underthrusting northern edge of the Indian Shield along the Main Himalayan Thrust did not reach the Indus-Yalu suture zone until the early Miocene, thereby allowing arc-type magmatism to persist north of the suture until that time.

florian

08-15-11, 05:45 PM

Pardon me?

I thought it was quite clear.
You're not. Could you please clarify your position please.

I remind you that I had to explain you what are subduction reversals, with a scheme... See this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2784047&postcount=47).

The reminder was un-neccessary�
It was. In a curious inversion, you persuade yourself that you knew what is a subdution reversal before I explained you what it truly is. Even more curious, you now believe that you had to explained it to me. The post cited above show an entirely different story�

More provocation. You persist with distractions.

And yet you demonstrate that you do not seem to understand the meaning of it, which is understandable, prehaps even tolerable, for someone that isn't a native anglophone.
Do you know the etymology of the word "minimum"? "Minimum" is a french word inherited from latin and borrowed by english. So, do you really believe that I don't know what it means?

You have not demonstrated me backpeddling.
backpeddling from the actual date of the Asia-Greater India collision, from the fact that there was a mobile arc-Greater India collision, and from the amount of shortening of greater India that you confused with the shortening of the whole orogen. That is a lot of backpeddling for a such a short sentence as "Carey seems to completely fail to account for any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia."

*You* are confused. It is clear that you confused the shortening across the whole orogen with that of greater India, which is evidently limited to the zone up to the Indus-Yalu suture zone. And no, you won't get away with more backpeddling. I remind you that your initial claim was that "Carey seems to completely fail to account for any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia." in post #159 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2791362&postcount=159).
You specifically mentioned the foreshortening of greater India and its collision with Asia, not its collision with a mobile arc nor the foreshortening of Asia.
I am confused about nothing, and what you're doing here is bordering on intellectual dishonesty.
Oh, so now I'm dishonest because I stick to the exact wording of the claim you made? The problem with you, is that you do not pay attention to the word you use, then blame your interlocutor for not guessing what you really meant.

The point that your steamrolling right past, in your attempt at poisoning the well, is that although I may have messed up my language slightly in the wording of my post, it should have been clear from the context of my discussion that I was referring to the foreshortening across the orogen, either way, Carey still failed to account for it.
It is not possible to have a serious scientific discussion with someone who is constantly moving the goalpost and accuse of dishonesty anyone pointing it.

Anyway, I'm still not sure that you understand the point made by Carey in the paragraph "Pacific Paradox". He points that according to the reconstructions usually presented, the Pacific was about the same size as of today (roughly one hemisphere), thus, did not substantially shrink as expected.
Then he explains that one counterargument could be that subduction of the hypothetic Tethys ocean corresponds to Pacific shrinking. But he refutes this argument by pointing that the angle distance between China and Australia did not change significally (remained at 47� or so), so no shortening there. Similarly seafloor spreading between antarctica and Asia is 66� either through India or australia/Indonesia.

Then, in post #160 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2793873&postcount=160), I suggested to you to look at the Muller's latest reconstructions based on isochrons available at Earthbyte.org (http://www.earthbyte.org/index.html) because they provide an apparent solution to this issue:

http://www.earthbyte.org/Resources/Muller_etal_Figure1.png

But you made no comments. I found it quite surprising. Too bad, because there is a lot to say about the details of these reconstructions.

Now back to your point. You assert that Carey forgot to account for the 750 km shortening related to India/Asia collision. Do you mean that the shortening was not included in the expression "closed by subduction" used by Carey?

As a matter of fact, crustal shortening by overthrusting is a prediction from Carey's diapiric orogenesis model. See p390 in Carey's "Necessity for Earth Expansion".
It is gravity driven which is the only valid process to form nappes given the relatively weak compressive and tensile strength of rocks. The advantage of gravity is that the force is applied uniformaly in the entire sheet, and not solely at one extremity. This also refutes plate tectonics hypothetic driving process like slab pull or ridge push.

Anyway. There are other interesting points related to the collision shortening (overthrusting+subduction).

Considering that the continental collision started only 35 millions years ago, we can calculate the amount of spreading seafloor that got emplaced in the Indian Ocean since that time (35 Ma). And that is about 1600 km along the North-South direction according to the data from M�ller (see his G3 paper).

So at 35 My, continental greater India gets in contact with continental Asia. And it is expected that India continued to move northward for 1600 km (antartica does not move south in Muller's reconstruction). So 1600 km of continental crustal shortening+continental subduction are expected. According to Murphy and An Yin cited above, the total crustal shortening across the full orogen is ≈750 km. So we expect 1600-750=850 km of continental subduction for the extension of greater India.

The extension of greater India begins at the MFT going to the north (600 km maximum; see Aitchinson 2007). The distance between the MFT and the YTSZ is ≈200 km. It follows that a maximum of 600-200 km=400 km of the extension got subducted (continental subduction).

So we have 850-400=450 km of continental subduction minimum that is nowhere to be found.

How do you explain that?

Instead we get this moronic, bordering on myopic churlish...

It's just stupid and it's a waste of my time.
An friendly advice. Respect your interlocutor in the future and it won't happen again.

You have not proven an error on my part, at best you haven proven that the point is contended, which I have aknowledged. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
And that shortening of greater India after the putative collision is irrelevant to the point made by Carey because it is very limited: 176 km according to Murphy and Yin

Be careful to quote appropriately, it causes more misunderstandings.

Which implies that you believe the fore shortening was 176km or less
No, because I read the entire paper, especially p27 to 31 where the calculation is detailed. Why did you ignore it?

florian

08-15-11, 05:49 PM

Which will not be possible so it make sense to abandon this conjecture!

This is not a conjecture, this is empirically derived.

I have a question for you: if you fail to find a causal mechanism to explain an observation then you deny the observation? Is it how you think Science work?

Your position is similar to denying that apples were falling from tree before Newton proposed a causal mechanism.

Trippy

08-15-11, 07:59 PM

It was. In a curious inversion, you persuade yourself that you knew what is a subdution reversal before I explained you what it truly is. Even more curious, you now believe that you had to explained it to me. The post cited above show an entirely different story…
No, because what you demonstrated later in the conversation was that you didn't understand it's application to the scenario being discussed, the role that the presence of buoyant continental crust, and whether or not migration can occur as part of a reversal.

Do you know the etymology of the word "minimum"?
Yes.

backpeddling from the actual date of the Asia-Greater India collision...
I haven't backpeddled from it, I've stated that the actual timing is irrelevant to the consideration of the amount of shortening that occured.

...from the fact that there was a mobile arc-Greater India collision...
I haven't back-peddled from that either - the contention there was whether or not fore shortening could occur at the same time. I stated the opinion that because acreetion occured in a compressional or transpressional regime that it was at least plausable. You have asserted flat out that because accretion means growth, that foreshortening is impossible.

...and from the amount of shortening of greater India that you confused with the shortening of the whole orogen....
I haven't backpeddled from that either. I haven't denied having said anything. I haven't reversed anything I have said, in any of these instance, therefore I haven't backpeddled.

That is a lot of backpeddling for a such a short sentence as "Carey seems to completely fail to account for any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia."
You have failed to demonstrate backpeddling on my account.

Oh, so now I'm dishonest because I stick to the exact wording of the claim you made? The problem with you, is that you do not pay attention to the word you use, then blame your interlocutor for not guessing what you really meant.
No, the problem lies with you, because you will not allow the conversation to evolve naturally. Your approach is that of a tabloid journalist trying to find the smallest flaw.

It is not possible to have a serious scientific discussion with someone who is constantly moving the goalpost and accuse of dishonesty anyone pointing it.
I have not moved the goal posts.

Anyway, I'm still not sure that you understand the point made by Carey in the paragraph "Pacific Paradox". He points that according to the reconstructions usually presented, the Pacific was about the same size as of today (roughly one hemisphere), thus, did not substantially shrink as expected.
No, I understand the point, and have addressed it directly.

Even if Carey was right, and we grant him that the land (including the Tethys ocean) occupied one hemisphere, and the paleo-pacific oce occupied the other, it's still moot, because the modern Pacific ocean occupies 30% of the earths surface, which is less than 50%, and that's if we extend it's eastern margin to it's asian boundary.

Then he explains that one counterargument could be that subduction of the hypothetic Tethys ocean corresponds to Pacific shrinking. But he refutes this argument by pointing that the angle distance between China and Australia did not change significally (remained at 47� or so), so no shortening there. Similarly seafloor spreading between antarctica and Asia is 66� either through India or australia/Indonesia.
I'm at work, my PDF's are at home, I'm not going to download them.

I maintain that this is where Carey erred. If India was up to 950 km longer than it is now, and that length was in the direction of motion, then a greater proportion of the distance between southern tip of india and antarctica is ocean than the proportion of distance between the Northern tip of India, and the southern margin of Asia when India began its trip northwards.

To put it another way, and let me be clear, I'm going to use some approximations to illustrate a point.

Carey asserts that the angular distance between China and India was, and still is, 66�, correct?
The distance between Lucknow in the north, and Trivandum in the south is 2085km (air travel distance, I'm using it as a proxy until I get something more accurate - one of the approximations I mentioned making).

For the sake of simplicity, if we treat the earth as a sphere for the moment, and use its mean radius of 6,371 km, then we can deduce that currently, India accounts for 18.75� (this is underestimated, incidentaly, because you can go North of Lucknow, and south of Trivandum and not leave modern India) of this, and the remaining 74.25� is accounted for by the Indian, and Southern oceans.

However, if India was, at the time it began its trek northwards, a minimum of 726km longer, and a maximum of 950 km longer, then India would have been between 2811km long and 3035km long, which equates to an angular length of between 25.28� and 27.29�. This means that depending on which estimates we use, although the angular distance between Asia and Antarctica may have remained the same, the Ocean between them has still expanded by between 8.54� and 6.53�

Then, in post #160 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2793873&postcount=160), I suggested to you to look at the Muller's latest reconstructions based on isochrons available at Earthbyte.org (http://www.earthbyte.org/index.html) because they provide an apparent solution to this issue:

Image removed

But you made no comments. I found it quite surprising. Too bad, because there is a lot to say about the details of these reconstructions.
I don't recall why I didn't comment on them. They're nothing new to me. I've mentioned the subduction of the phoenix plate in one of our other discussions, as being part of the causal mechanism for the reversal of polarity and migration of the eastern gondwana subduction zone that has resulted in the initiation of a new sibduction zone south of new zealand (the puysegur trench).

Now back to your point. You assert that Carey forgot to account for the 750 km shortening related to India/Asia collision. Do you mean that the shortening was not included in the expression "closed by subduction" used by Carey?
I don't know if he intended to include it in that expression or not. As I have illustrated above, I don't think he has considered it.

As a matter of fact, crustal shortening by overthrusting is a prediction from Carey's diapiric orogenesis model. See p390 in Carey's "Necessity for Earth Expansion".
Yes, I'm aware of how he proposed to account for shortening and overthrusting, thankyou.

It is gravity driven which is the only valid process to form nappes given the relatively weak compressive and tensile strength of rocks. The advantage of gravity is that the force is applied uniformaly in the entire sheet, and not solely at one extremity.
I'm aware of his assertions and hypotheses in this regard.

This also refutes plate tectonics hypothetic driving process like slab pull or ridge push.
No, it doesn't. At best it provides an alternative.

Anyway. There are other interesting points related to the collision shortening (overthrusting+subduction).

Considering that the continental collision started only 35 millions years ago, we can calculate the amount of spreading seafloor that got emplaced in the Indian Ocean since that time (35 Ma).
When it began in earnest depends on what sources you follow, you've chosen to adhere to one particular paper, which has had points raised in opposition to it.

And that is about 1600 km along the North-South direction according to the data from M�ller (see his G3 paper).
I would need to look into M�llers paper when I get home from work before I could really comment on this.

M�ller So at 35 My, continental greater India gets in contact with continental Asia. And it is expected that India continued to move northward for 1600 km (antartica does not move south in Muller's reconstruction).[/quote]
According to the diagrams you posted, it does, however move between 15� and 30� further south during the course of Indias migration northward

So 1600 km of continental crustal shortening+continental subduction are expected. According to Murphy and An Yin cited above, the total crustal shortening across the full orogen is ≈750 km. So we expect 1600-750=850 km of continental subduction for the extension of greater India.

The extension of greater India begins at the MFT going to the north (600 km maximum; see Aitchinson 2007). The distance between the MFT and the YTSZ is ≈200 km. It follows that a maximum of 600-200 km=400 km of the extension got subducted (continental subduction).

So we have 850-400=450 km of continental subduction minimum that is nowhere to be found.

How do you explain that?
For a start off, they said the 750km was a minimum, so we expect a maximum of 850km of subduction.
Secondly, some estimates put the shortening at closer to 950km, which reduces your 'anomaly'.
I seem to recall reading something in one of Murphy's papers - it might even have been the one with Yin that we've been discussing mentioned some seismic activity that was suggestive of the pressence of subducted continental crust, but I don't recall enough of the details at this point. Further comment would have to wait.

An friendly advice. Respect your interlocutor in the future and it won't happen again.
You reacted with aggression when I moved this thread.
I treat people the way they treat me. Treat me with respect, and I will return the favour. Treat me with derision and aggression, and I will equally return the favour.

Be careful to quote appropriately, it causes more misunderstandings.
:rolleyes:
All I did there was misplace a [/quote] tag (IIRC), and this is a distraction from the point I was raising.

No, because I read the entire paper, especially p27 to 31 where the calculation is detailed. Why did you ignore it?
Why do you assume I ignore it? I seem to recall (again, I would need to have it open in front of me to comment with any degree of certainty) that in the section you're referring to, they also explained that it was a minimum because they hadn't been able to account for deformation in the hanging wall of one of the faults (or something very similar anyway).

jsispat

08-16-11, 02:45 AM

PLS SEE THE DEPTH .

first let me introduce myself as a independent scientist researching on earth formation . i have very much different idea for earth formation as below . i need help to continue my work.

1) Earth is itself a single living organism like a tree. And covered by crust like a trunk covered by bark. crust = bark

2) some type of meteoroids contains amino acid and biological chemistry are seeds of planets. one planet is a result of one meteoroid as one tree is a result of one seed.

3) out these meteoroids some can germinate in asteroids only and out of these asteroids some can convert in big planets .

4) continents separated from each other like a puzzle is very much clear visual evidence for its growth and expansion. PT is playing vital role for this and same type of PT is also playing vital role for the growth and expansion of trunk of tree.

5) Crude oil (an organic compound ) is produce by earth itself due to metabolism in the earth only. fossil oil theory is not true. it is linked with living organism because it is produced by earth only and earth is itself a single living organism.

pls observe the following links for more clarification with depth only.

http://img861.imageshack.us/i/treebarkcontinents.png/ --- Bark & Continents

http://yfrog.com/5ucorecrustj Core Crust

http://yfrog.com/0g72697054j Plate Tectonic 4.

http://yfrog.com/m9meteoriodj Meteoroids Seeds

http://yfrog.com/5rasteoidplantj Asteroid Plant

http://yfrog.com/5xvalcano2j Volcano Lava

http://yfrog.com/6zpicxaj bark Earth & Tree

http://yfrog.com/gh08810treebark1221170loj TREE BARKS

http://yfrog.com/0tplatetectonics2j Subduction Zone

http://www.mediafire.com/?va0pjtfjjn4m2md Pdf theory complete

http://yfrog.com/h4moo6j Safeda

http://img705.imageshack.us/i/platetectonics.jpg/ PLATE TECTONIC LINK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7i5CY6XNo&NR=1 fossil oil theory is not true and oil is producing in crust as this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3lG3FX9D68

regs
suresh bansal

Trippy

08-16-11, 07:15 PM

Meanwhile, in other news:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-254

The team applied a new data calculation technique to estimate the rate of change in the solid Earth's average radius over time, taking into account the effects of other geophysical processes. The previously discussed geodetic techniques (satellite laser ranging, very-long baseline interferometry and GPS) were used to obtain data on Earth surface movements from a global network of carefully selected sites. These data were then combined with measurements of Earth's gravity from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) spacecraft and models of ocean bottom pressure, which help scientists interpret gravity change data over the ocean.

The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.

"Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.

Read-Only

08-16-11, 08:42 PM

Meanwhile, in other news:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-254

And that increase is simply the result of the space debris (primarily dust but also substantially larger objects - meteorites) that falls on the Earth each year.

And it should settle the entire argument for everyone here with any significant degree of intelligence (which naturally excludes certain individual participants in this thread).:rolleyes:

wlminex

08-16-11, 09:36 PM

Remembering that my math skills suck . . . . . . let's see now . . . . h-m-m-m-m . . . 0.004 in/yr = 6.31 x 10 E-8 mi/yr, right? . . . now, assuming the same 'expansion rate' has gone on for . . . say 100 M yr, we get 6.31 mi/100 M yr, right? Now . . . . . for 280 M yr (est. length of time for current plate tectonics processes) . . . we get 6.31 mi x 2.8 = 9.11 mi, right?

Since we see 'age-evidence' for really-old (say, ~2.0 b.y.) lithosphere, in Precambrian times, we might be able to say that the the earth's radius has increased 26.3 miles (~ 47km) since then, until now. And that's just assuming expansion rate has remained constant from whatever cause. That calculates-out to about 9253 cubic km (or 9.253 x 10 E+18 cc) of earth volume increase. Take that volume x ~ 2.6 g/cc (avg lithospheric density) and we get 1.185 x 10 E+19 g.

Someone else please take over the 'change in angular-momentum calculation' from here. Has the earth's rotation rate significantly changed in 2 b.y.? Has the 'day' lengthened? And how's 'bout those density-phase changes (Asthenosphere --> Lithosphere)?

More discussion later . . . .wlminex

Emil

08-16-11, 09:45 PM

And that increase is simply the result of the space debris (primarily dust but also substantially larger objects - meteorites) that falls on the Earth each year.

And it should settle the entire argument for everyone here with any significant degree of intelligence (which naturally excludes certain individual participants in this thread).:rolleyes:
Yes, everyone knows that 51 cubic kilometers (51x10 ^ 9 cubic meters) dust and meteorites falls to the earth annually.;)

florian

08-17-11, 02:58 AM

Meanwhile, in other news:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-254

It happens that I discussed this GRL paper (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047450.shtml) with one of the co-author, Xavier Collilieux from IGN.

We discussed details on the model and data they use.

First they selected stations outside of regions that actively deform (orogens, active margins). So they eliminate from their database every station that would be affected by important geodynamic processes. This simplification is a rather unfortunate choice knowing that these geodynamic processes are the expression of the growth. Excluding them leads to the exclusion of a lot of data accounting for the growth.

Second, they used a plate model to account for horizontal displacement and simply add a unique global vertical component to account for vertical displacement (radius growth). Thus they assume a global growth with spherical symmetry independent on lithosphere horizontal motion. This is flawed as well, because the horizontal displacements are a response to the inner growth (See the scheme illustrating India's northward displacement on a growing Earth (http://nachon.free.fr/images/india-N-drift.jpg)). The horizontal component that must contribute to the growth measurment are implicitly excluded by the model.

Obviously, this combination of data and model choices can't measure a growth which we know is asymetrical (much larger in the southern hemisphere), occurs locally by bulging and concurrent or subsequent isostatic adjustment, including gravity gliding, and which most dramatic measurable effects on continents are localized in orogens.

There are other issues that I'm discussing with Xavier, like the fact that each major earthquake shifts the center of mass of Earth by many cm. I hope he will have time soon to explain how they account for this ever changing center of referential.

So this is a typical paper biased by premises and simplifications which arise from the plate tectonic model. A good example of circular reasoning. The background issue is that the growth is much more difficult to modelize than relatively simple rotations of plates around euler poles. May be that Xavier and his coworkers will be able to build a better model in the future.

PS: I'll reply to your post #208 when I get some spare time later this week. Meanwhile, for some of your points, may I suggest you to use Google Earth and the overlays of Ocean Floor datation derived from Muller's data: Age of Ocean Floor for Google Earth (http://nachon.free.fr/GE/Welcome.html)

florian

08-17-11, 04:07 AM

I understand that most people not familiar with geology have a hard time with the geological time scale.

So to put things in perspective, I propose an example to illustrate what we could expect at our time scale for the current growth rate.

Maxlow estimates that the growth rate is about 2.2 cm/year in radius (See his PhD thesis (http://tinyurl.com/kklg6y)). Keep in mind that it is an average calculated over the last million years.

But let's assume that there will be that 2.2-cm growth this year.
We can calculate that this 2.2-cm increase in radius corresponds to an increase in surface equal to (4*pi*(6371.000022^2-6371^2)=3.5 km2
So, just 50 dikes, averaging 70 m in length and 1 meter in width, inserted along the 80,000 km of your favorites mid ocean ridges, would be sufficient to account for the total growth for the year.

Right?

Robittybob1

11-06-11, 02:23 AM

If you mean "is the Earth gaining mass over time", then yes. The Earth gains a tiny amount of mass every year as meteorites fall to the Earth. It's a very tiny amount.

If you mean this expanding Earth: , then no. I do not believe that is happening, and the burden of proof falls only anyone who does believe it to convince me.
Well I believe it and I am in the process of proving it on a thread in the Biology section Physforum. Life started on Mercury for the Earth was compressed.

Dywyddyr

11-06-11, 02:42 AM

Aaagh!
New crank.

Aqueous Id

11-06-11, 03:21 AM

You could suggest they add a crankshaft smiley.

Trooper

11-06-11, 03:25 AM

Aaagh!
New crank.

Oh, boy howdy, and ready yourself because he also has typomania (http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&f=30&t=29798&hl=&view=findpost&p=496561). http://www.pic4ever.com/images/4fvgdaq_th.gif

Hey, I have a great idea. Why don�t you hang here with Dywyddyr for a while? :D

Dywyddyr

11-06-11, 03:30 AM

Oh, boy howdy, and ready yourself because he also has typomania (http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&f=30&t=29798&hl=&view=findpost&p=496561).
Yeah, I've just finished reading that. Which prompts me to comment:

I am in the process of proving it
No, you're in the process of propounding it. And getting your arse kicked.
When will cranks (correction: Will cranks ever) learn that inane uneducated ramblings with no support but abundant refutation do NOT constitute proof?

Robittybob1

11-06-11, 09:51 AM

Yeah, I've just finished reading that. Which prompts me to comment:

No, you're in the process of propounding it. And getting your arse kicked.
When will cranks (correction: Will cranks ever) learn that inane uneducated ramblings with no support but abundant refutation do NOT constitute proof?
I'm looking someone with the mathematical skills to assist. Any takers?

Robittybob1

11-06-11, 09:56 AM

You could suggest they add a crankshaft smiley.
I wonder why they directed you to the Cranks Thread on Physforum. I can't put in links just yet but that will soon change - typomania wins in the end!

Beer w/Straw

11-11-11, 11:12 AM

I wonder why they directed you to the Cranks Thread on Physforum. I can't put in links just yet but that will soon change - typomania wins in the end!

This is what you want:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29842

:shy:

Robittybob1

11-11-11, 11:25 AM

This is what you want:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29842

:shy:Thanks mate. I've got my quota now so should be OK with links from now on.
Just have to try it out.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29842

rogerharris

11-18-11, 11:20 AM

Until the physics is sorted out, then its still a good idea to repeat these seafloor removal models and perhaps take those to another level. At least those are clear. We can observe those results are not random. Unlike what many propose here these models are valid scientific constructions and no different to those used in many fields.

If the floor is removed in a linear manner by age such that the continents fit back, and this can be repeated by others, that is evidence no matter what the visually impaired by other kinds of data think. Lets face it continental drift and pangea looks ridiculous when taken of the written page and produced as model. EE justs gets better with the release of more data and is the reason that James Maxlow was awarded a P.hD in this topic

rogerharris

11-18-11, 11:21 AM

Nasa found Earth expansion was currently 18mm. Close to what maxlow calculated which was 22mm with a variance of 4mm ! What happened to these results. They were then tweaked to eliminate the growth figure later. Maxlow looked into the subsequent maths done, which reduced it to almost zero. It was all tweaks to eliminate what they perceived to be an error. Not to deceive anybody, or get rid of EE (they arent even aware its currently going) but just to male the results consistent with what they know.

(Robaudo and Harrison, 1993). who did the work for Nasa and decided to correct their readings for expansion. their findings mentioned here.

Problems with Plate Tectonics
� Reply to Paul Lowman's Review (NCGT Newsletter no. 20) �

David Pratt

(First published in New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, no. 21, p. 10-24, December 2001)

" Plate rigidity is a central tenet of plate tectonics. However, it is recognized to be only an approximation: intraplate deformation is demonstrated by earthquakes in stable plate interiors, subsidence in midcontinental basins, and uplift of the surface over hotspot swells in the oceans. Deformation in the stable interior of the North American plate is said to be no more than a few millimetres per year, but is greater in the Basin and Range province and other regions in the west of the US, which are regarded as part of the plate boundary zone. It is acknowledged that "the modelled assumption of rigid plates frequently fails not only at plate boundaries but at considerable distances from boundaries" (Smith and Baltuck, 1993, p. 2). For instance, predicted motion in the mid-Pacific is in error by 6 to 8 mm/yr (Ryan et al., 1993).

Whenever discrepancies are found between measured and predicted motions, explanations are sought within the context of plate tectonics. For instance, the NUVEL-1 Africa-North America pole of rotation is said to lie "surprisingly far" (14�) from that of the best-fitting angular velocity; it is speculated that this misfit may be due to "systematic errors or significant plate nonrigidity" (Gordon, 1995).

On the basis of VLBI/GPS data for three sites in the Caribbean, the angular velocity of the relative motion between the Caribbean and North American plates was computed to have a rate of 0.23 � 0.08�/Myr, twice the NUVEL-1A rate of 0.11 � 0.03�/Myr; the direction was 62.2�N and -93.3�E, as against 74.3�N and 153.9�E. Furthermore, the estimated geodetic angular velocity failed to explain all the observed motion at the three sites. Three possible explanations were given: (1) the three sites are not all attached to a common rigid plate, (2) there are systematic measurement errors, or (3) the measurement uncertainties have been underestimated (MacMillan and Ma, 1999).

The pole of rotation derived from GPS data for the Pacific plate was found to lie 11.5� west of the NUVEL-1A pole, with an angular speed 10% faster. The suggested explanation was that the motion of the Pacific plate over the last 5 years did not agree with its motion over the last 3 Myr. The GPS velocity of Baltra Island on the Nazca plate is almost 50% slower (20�5 mm/yr) than the predicted value. The investigators stated that they could not account for the entire discrepancy, but thought that the plate might be deforming internally (Larson et al., 1997). Angermann et al. (1999) found that GPS velocities of four Nazca plate sites, relative to the South American plate, are about 20% slower than the NUVEL-1A plate model velocities and earlier geodetic measurements. Convergence rates for the two plates from several studies vary considerably.

The observed motion of Arequipa in the western Andes relative to North America is 13�1.5 mm/yr with an azimuth of 55�. According to model predictions, however, it should be moving at 10 mm/yr with an azimuth at 293� (Robaudo and Harrison, 1993). This major difference in the direction of movement is said to be due to a portion of the subduction motion being transferred into a portion of the overriding plate; some 25% of Nazca-South America plate motion is allegedly taken up by seismic and shortening mechanisms in the Andes (MacMillan and Ma, 1999). Similar discrepancies have been found in other backarc regions and interpreted in the same way.

The reigning plate-tectonic paradigm has biased the interpretation of space-geodetic data with its assumption that entire "plates" must be moving as more or less rigid units. The literature is riddled with anomalies, inconsistencies, and ad hoc explanations. Motion is certainly occurring in seismotectonic zones but, as Oard (2000a) remarks, "It is possible that in some areas the motion is in the opposite direction from that inferred by PT, and may be caused by vertical tectonics, instead of by underthrusting of one plate below another" (p. 43). He cites various pieces of geodetic evidence: the Tonga arc is moving eastward relative to the Pacific plate, which can be considered stationary (Bevis et al., 1995); the 1994 Shikotan earthquake caused GPS benchmarks on eastern Hokkaido, Japan, to move eastward up to 42 cm and subside up to 60 cm (Kikuchi and Kanamori, 1995); the magnitude 8.0 Antofagasta earthquake of 1995 moved the coast of Chile almost one metre westward relative to the Pacific plate (Klotz et al., 1999); and the Timor trough (eastern Java trench) appears to be inactive while the southern Banda arc is undergoing north-south extension (Genrich et al., 1996).

A brief review of some of the other problems facing plate tectonics provides further grounds for questioning PT interpretations of space-geodetic data."

rogerharris

11-18-11, 11:23 AM

Yes not to forget an explanation of the TGD concept itself for EE and gravity.

The quantization of Planck constant has been the basic them of TGD since 2005 and the perspective in the earlier version of this chapter reflected the situation for about year and one half after the basic idea stimulated by the finding of Nottale that planetary orbits could be seen as Bohr orbits with enormous value of Planck constant given by hbargr = GM1M2/v0, v0 ≈ 2-11 for the inner planets. The general form of hbargr is dictated by Equivalence Principle. This inspired the ideas that quantization is due to a condensation of ordinary matter around dark matter concentrated near Bohr orbits and that dark matter is in macroscopic quantum phase in astrophysical scales.

The second crucial empirical input were the anomalies associated with living matter. Mention only the effects of ELF radiation at EEG frequencies on vertebrate brain and anomalous behavior of the ionic currents through cell membrane. If the value of Planck constant is large, the energy of EEG photons is above thermal energy and one can understand the effects on both physiology and behavior. If ionic currents through cell membrane have large Planck constant the scale of quantum coherence is large and one can understand the observed low dissipation in terms of quantum coherence.

1. The evolution of mathematical ideas

From the beginning the basic challenge -besides the need to deduce a general formula for the quantized Planck constant- was to understand how the quantization of Planck constant is mathematically possible. From the beginning it was clear that since particles with different values of Planck constant cannot appear in the same vertex, a generalization of space-time concept is needed to achieve this.

Google Quantum version of Expanding Earth theory for more.

rogerharris

11-18-11, 11:28 AM

Geology requires massive resources to test an idea. When it was decided to see if continental drift was correct entire fleets of ships and crews of scientists were required. Wegners ideas were ignored in his time and considered in the same ways maxlows are now.

from wiki on _Wegener

Wegener presented a large amount of very strong evidence in support of continental drift, but the mechanism remained elusive. While his ideas attracted a few early supporters such as Alexander Du Toit from South Africa and Arthur Holmes in England, the hypothesis was generally met with skepticism from largely conservative scientists, who were resistant to any change in the status quo. The one American edition of Wegener's work, published in 1925, was received so poorly that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists organized a symposium specifically in opposition to the continental drift hypothesis. Its opponents could argue, as did the Leipziger geologist Franz Kossmat, that the oceanic crust was too "firm" for the continents to "simply plough through", a suggestion which ignored the plasticity of all rocks at depth and at high temperatures and pressures. The comment also ignored the vast time-scale over which continental drift has occurred, effectively the total age of the earth of about 4.5 billion years.

In 1943 George Gaylord Simpson wrote a vehement attack on the theory (as well as the rival theory of sunken land bridges) and put forward his own permanentist views.[8] Alexander du Toit wrote a rejoinder in the following year,[9] but G.G.Simpson's influence was so powerful that even in countries previously sympathetic towards continental drift, like Australia, Wegener's hypothesis fell out of favour.

need i say more for the above link except the idea that wegeners ideas were annihilated is a false statement or they would not have re-surfaced in light of new evidence. ideas are not annihilated as in some kind of fundamentalist killing spree deleting all traces of them. that would be highly regressive. Ideas are de-prioritized for various reasons. In Wegners case he was in conflict with people who were trying to command resources of that time and so he received a rebuttal so resources could be shifted where people thought fit at that point in time.