Discussion:The Earth is expanding

[Syzygys]

I say OIM has won. Beautiful first post. I loved the colors!!!

[Carcano]

He should have started with a paragraph of his own to outline his argument, instead of this chaos of random quotations and graphics.

[Syzygys]

I am not even sure at this point what the debate is all about, but again, I liked the colors! Oh, and I don't read long posts, unless it is a detailed description of incest done by the poster...

[OilIsMastery]

If this were a popularity contest Truth would've lost already.

[CheskiChips]

I think it was well outlined. OIM is clearly letting his final posts be rebuttal.

[flameofanor5]

Am I missing something here?

[SkinWalker]

Lots of copy/paste without any original synthesis. I grade it with a "D."

[OilIsMastery]

Lots of copy/paste without any original synthesis. I grade it with a "D."
Fortunately this isn't about originality. It's about truth.

[SkinWalker]

OIM copy/pasted quote-mined passages and removed several legitimate comments from from their contexts only to intersperse them among pseudoscientific and out-dated hypotheses.

OIM should be banned for trolling and wasting time on a science board with his pseudoscientific nonsense.

He left nothing to debate since none of his opening post consisted of his own words synthesizing the claims he alleged he would make. Indeed, OIM made no claim other than "the earth is expanding" and failed miserably to back this up with an argument. Quote-mining and Copy/Paste skills are not arguments.

I take it back. OIM gets an "F."

[OilIsMastery]

OIM copy/pasted quote-mined passages and removed several legitimate comments from from their contexts only to intersperse them among pseudoscientific and out-dated hypotheses.

OIM should be banned for trolling and wasting time on a science board with his pseudoscientific nonsense.
:roflmao:

He left nothing to debate since none of his opening post consisted of his own words synthesizing the claims he alleged he would make.
No one expected you to actually read what I wrote...:rolleyes:

Indeed, OIM made no claim other than "the earth is expanding" and failed miserably to back this up with an argument. Quote-mining and Copy/Paste skills are not arguments.

I take it back. OIM gets an "F."
:roflmao:

[SkinWalker]

Fortunately this isn't about originality. It's about truth.

When you said you were going to have "1500 words," I was actually impressed. The copy/paste move is a complete let-down.

Can't you synthesize the arguments in your own words, providing relative citations and occasional quotes were necessary? Even the one or two original thoughts ended up being logical fallacies, such as:Scientists tell us that the universe (that means everything) is expanding. [...] But those who have faith in the plate tectonics hypothesis don't believe scientists.

Not a single article you linked stated anything about the earth expanding. They discussed the expansion of the universe. Indeed, the same laws of physics and the same scientific methods that reveal plate tectonics are used in showing an expanding universe. Yours are arguments from ignorance and you trying to have you cake and eat it too.

[SkinWalker]

::


No one expected you to actually read what I wrote...::


::

I read what you wrote. Indeed, what you wrote was minimal. It took only seconds ... they people you copied from, they took longer.

Face it. You failed.

I think you can do better. Formulate you arguments, logically present them, cite your sources, and create a set of premises that follow with a conclusion so a real debate can occur. Hell, if you do this, I'll debate you.

[OilIsMastery]

When you said you were going to have "1500 words," I was actually impressed. The copy/paste move is a complete let-down.

Can't you synthesize the arguments in your own words, providing relative citations and occasional quotes were necessary? Even the one or two original thoughts ended up being logical fallacies, such as:

Not a single article you linked stated anything about the earth expanding. They discussed the expansion of the universe. Indeed, the same laws of physics and the same scientific methods that reveal plate tectonics are used in showing an expanding universe. Yours are arguments from ignorance and you trying to have you cake and eat it too.

I read what you wrote. Indeed, what you wrote was minimal. It took only seconds ... they people you copied from, they took longer.

Face it. You failed.

I think you can do better. Formulate you arguments, logically present them, cite your sources, and create a set of premises that follow with a conclusion so a real debate can occur. Hell, if you do this, I'll debate you.
You still seem to be missing the point. This isn't about originality or debating me. It's about the scientific truth of Earth expansion.

[James R]

I have posted my first post in the debate.

[BenTheMan]

Scientists tell us that the universe (that means everything) is expanding.

Wow, I can't believe this is your corner stone.

You do know that this argument is completely invalid, based on the fact that gravity is stronger than the cosmological constant on galaxy scales, right?

James, if you need help crunching any numbers, or with any of the calculations, let me know.

[SkinWalker]

OIM begins by providing us with two quotes by Polish geologist, Stefan Cwojdzinski, and one by Stephen Hurrell. He doesn't, however, provide a single citation to the publications these two authors are alleged to have been quoted from, much less a page that can be referenced to check their contexts.

This is an obvious appeal to authority, which is ironic since OIM seems to say in the same opening of his debate that authority isn't to be trusted. One is left to assume that he means trust his authority and the authorities he quotes (without citation).

At any rate, Hurrell is an author of a book (1994) I happened upon once (once people learn of my interest in the psychology and anthropology of pseudoscience and belief, they usually through wacky things my way). He actually writes in a very well-thought and logical manner. His ideas are without substance, but he's intelligent, nonetheless. Hurrell's primary thesis is that the Earth's gravity has increased making the life of large dinosaurs impossible, giving way to smaller, less gravity-challenged creatures. This increase in gravity, he contends, is due to the expansion of the Earth. Unfortunately, his work hasn't survived peer-review and was effectively refuted. The gist is basic physics: if the Earth truly did expand, gravity would have decreased, not increased as Hurrell suggested.

Then OIM continues with a section he calls “expansion history,” which is nothing but unverifiable quotes of some legitimate scientists and others, and links to a couple of crack-pot videos on YouTube or fringe sites like “Science Frontiers.” Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see the peer-reviewed journal article.

OIM then moves on to “subduction,” which he has to make go away since this doesn't fit with his crackpot hypothesis (an hypothesis that once had traction has long been discredited with advances in science). Introducing subduction, OIM switches to quoting Samuel Carey, a geologist who had a controversial hypothesis (since discredited) about expanding Earth. It was originated when plate tectonics was a competing hypothesis. The history of the “expanding earth” versus “plate tectonics” competition is one that is interesting and a demonstration of how scientific methods work. The “expanding earth” hypothesis was falsified and the plate tectonics hypothesis has withstood scrutiny even today.

There are, however, some unlearned and under-educated among us that cling to nonsense and outdated rubbish, such as proclaiming “expanding earth” to be a viable hypothesis. They do so either in ignorance and lack of scientific understanding or in an attempt to push another agenda that is dependent upon deceit or delusion.

OIM now switches gears and begins quoting Carey:"Subduction exists only in the minds of its creators." -again not providing the specific text or pages so the careful and inquisitive reader can actually see the context, but this isn't part of OIM's plan. Like other pseudoscience proponents who've come before him, are contemporaneous to him, and will doubtless continue in his inevitable absence, OIM uses characteristic techniques found in crackpottery throughout the internet. One such technique is to deluge the reader and his perceived opponents with quote after quote after quote after quote... and to hide their contexts.

But in the case of Carey, it really doesn't matter. The context is ancient in terms of scientific understanding. No contemporary and respected geologists, physicists or geophysicists believe plate tectonics isn't a valid hypothesis and none reject subduction.

And here's why:

Subduction has scientific evidence. For instance, measurements of shear-wave splitting at subduction zones reveals how temperature, velocity and dynamic pressure are obtained by numerically solving equations that govern heat transport and fluid flow. When data obtained in this manner is applied to mathematical models, the result is a picture of crust subducting into the mantel (Kneller and van Keken 2007).

Speaking of seismic activity, it stands to reason that if plate tectonics were genuine, then earthquakes should be more significant along subduction zones and plate boundaries since this sort of activity will cause movement and vibration as the plates slip past one another. Guess what? Recent studies have shown that seismic activity is most prevalent in regions which happen to be subduction zones and plate boundaries (Kelsey et al 2005; Barnes et al 2002; Witter et al 2003; and so on).

Other than subduct, we should also expect plates to occasionally collide and show evidence of such collisions. Not surprisingly, this is exactly what is observed in the geologic record. Paleomagnetic data in the 1980s showed the rate of collision between the Indian and Eurasian plates (Patriat and Achache 1984), which goes un-refuted today. In the 1990s,

Sea Floor Spreading

Once linear magnetic anomalies were discovered in the 1950s and looked at more seriously in the 1960s, the results of intensive hypothesis-testing concluded that the sea floor is spreading out ward from the mid-oceanic ridges. This plate boundary, where new crust is formed from an upwelling of mantle has since been empirically measured to be a rate of 3.5km^2/year. By extrapolating that rate into the geologic past, and by comparing the fossiliferous strata on opposing continents (like Africa and South America), a clear picture of plate tectonics is formed (Morgan et al 1987).

If the sea floor is spreading, it follows that the the crust must move. It either converges below (subducts) or converges above (mountain formation). The Earth doesn't grow or expand, clearly, since the distance to the Moon doesn't decrease. The only way to argue that would be to suggest that the distance to the Moon actually increases at a rate proportional to that of the Moon's and the Earth's expansion, working together to keep the evidence of their respective expansions hidden from observation and relative to the Earthbound observers. This suggests that the same mechanism for expansion is occuring on the Moon, yet we see no plate activity the way we do on Earth, nor is there any evidence of molten mantle on the Moon to suggest that its in any way geologically active in the way the Earth is.

In short, OIM gets an “F” grade on his “work.”

References:

Barnes, Philip M; Andrew Nicol, and Tony Harrison (2002). Late Cenozoic evolution and earthquake potential of an active listric thrust complex above the Hikurangi subduction zone, New Zealand. GSA Bulletin, 114: 1379-1405.

Hurrell, Stephen (1994). Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth: One Explanation for the Gigantic Sizes of Some Pre-historic Life. One-off Publishing: Great Sutton.

Kelsey, Harvey M.; Alan R. Nelson, Eileen Hemphill-Haley, and Robert C. Witter (2005). Tsunami history of an Oregon coastal lake reveals a 4600 yr record of great earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zone GSA Bulletin, 117: 1009-1032.

Kneller, Erik A; Peter E. van Keken (2007). Trench-parallel flow and seismic anisotropy in the Mariana and Andean subduction systems. Nature, 450, 1222-1225.

Morgan. JP. Parmentier, EM and Lin. J. (1987). Mechanisms for the origin of mid-ocean ridge axial topography: Implications for the thermal and mechanical structure of accreting plate boundaries. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 92 (12), 823-826.

Patriat, Philippe; Jose Achache (1984). India-Eurasia collision chronology has implications for crustal shortening and driving mechanism of plates. Nature 311: 615 - 621

Witter, Robert C; Harvey M. Kelsey, and Eileen Hemphill-Haley (2003). Great Cascadia earthquakes and tsunamis of the past 6700 years, Coquille River estuary, southern coastal Oregon. GSA Bulletin, 115: 1289-1306.

[OilIsMastery]

OIM begins by providing us with two quotes by Polish geologist, Stefan Cwojdzinski, and one by Stephen Hurrell. He doesn't, however, provide a single citation to the publications these two authors are alleged to have been quoted from, much less a page that can be referenced to check their contexts.
It's called works cited. Cwojdzinski quotes are from the introduction to the Maxlow book (if you ever read it you would know that already). Hurrell from his own book cited.

This is an obvious appeal to authority
Isn't the purpose of citations to appeal to authority? Or is it to credit them?

Then OIM continues with a section he calls “expansion history,” which is nothing but unverifiable quotes of some legitimate scientists and others, and links to a couple of crack-pot videos on YouTube or fringe sites like “Science Frontiers.”
All of the quotes are verifiable, should you choose to do so.

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see the peer-reviewed journal article.
Yeah. You missed it. But I thought you think quotes and citations are appeal to authority so why are you concerned with peer review?

OIM now switches gears and begins quoting Carey: -again not providing the specific text or pages so the careful and inquisitive reader can actually see the context, but this isn't part of OIM's plan.
The Expanding Earth page 16. If you'd ever read The Expanding Earth, made any study of tectonics, or given expansion any serious thought, you would know the quote.

Subduction has scientific evidence. For instance, measurements of shear-wave splitting at subduction zones reveals how temperature, velocity and dynamic pressure are obtained by numerically solving equations that govern heat transport and fluid flow. When data obtained in this manner is applied to mathematical models, the result is a picture of crust subducting into the mantel (Kneller and van Keken 2007).
No. There is no subduction in the mantle because it's physically impossible.

Speaking of seismic activity, it stands to reason that if plate tectonics were genuine, then earthquakes should be more significant along subduction zones and plate boundaries since this sort of activity will cause movement and vibration as the plates slip past one another. Guess what? Recent studies have shown that seismic activity is most prevalent in regions which happen to be subduction zones and plate boundaries (Kelsey et al 2005; Barnes et al 2002; Witter et al 2003; and so on).
Earthquakes are very real. Unfortunately they have nothing to do with the myth of subduction. In the history of mankind, nothing has ever been subducted during an earthquake.

Sea Floor Spreading

Once linear magnetic anomalies were discovered in the 1950s and looked at more seriously in the 1960s, the results of intensive hypothesis-testing concluded that the sea floor is spreading out ward from the mid-oceanic ridges. This plate boundary, where new crust is formed from an upwelling of mantle has since been empirically measured to be a rate of 3.5km^2/year. By extrapolating that rate into the geologic past, and by comparing the fossiliferous strata on opposing continents (like Africa and South America), a clear picture of plate tectonics is formed (Morgan et al 1987).

If the sea floor is spreading, it follows that the the crust must move. It either converges below (subducts) or converges above (mountain formation). The Earth doesn't grow or expand, clearly, since the distance to the Moon doesn't decrease. The only way to argue that would be to suggest that the distance to the Moon actually increases at a rate proportional to that of the Moon's and the Earth's expansion, working together to keep the evidence of their respective expansions hidden from observation and relative to the Earthbound observers. This suggests that the same mechanism for expansion is occuring on the Moon, yet we see no plate activity the way we do on Earth, nor is there any evidence of molten mantle on the Moon to suggest that its in any way geologically active in the way the Earth is.
Spreading is the exact opposite of subduction.

[SkinWalker]

In further discussing the dismal failure of OIM at presenting or formulating an argument that is both cogent and sound, I'd like to look at his more recent additions to the "debate."

I'd like to also add that my interest is, again, in the psychology of the pseudoscience proponent and anthropology of belief and/or ideology that drives pseudoscientific positions such as that OIM has embraced. Perhaps we might even discover his actual agenda which this sort of nonsensical and, quite frankly, crack-pot hypothesis, works to for.

OIM recently argues in the "debate:"
The Earth is part of the universe. Plate tectonics believes that the Earth is somehow magically not a part of the universe. [...] According to the Wikipedia entry on subduction, written by plate tectonics faithful themselves, "without subduction plate tectonics could not exist." There are only 3 possibilities (1) plate tectonics (2) rejection of continental drift and (3) expansion. Since 1 and 2 are obviously false, we are left with choice 3.
This presents more than a single logical fallacy, but primarily the straw man, since OIM is creating a premise that isn't being argued. His fictive premise is that because the universe is expanding, the Earth must, therefore, be growing differentially to the rest of the universe.

The expanding universe model doesn't imply this at all. Indeed, what the expanding universe model implies, if OIM were willing to obtain an education in it, is that astronomical bodies and material are spreading such that the boundaries of the universe are growing. The matter inside isn't necessarily "growing" or expanding to accommodate the new boundaries.

However, even if this were the case, OIM appears to ignorantly assume that there would be a relative or apparent change between material within the universe. If it were the case that matter within the universe were "growing" at the same rate while also expanding at a rate (that must be greater), then there would be no observable difference between an "expanding Earth" and an "expanding Sun, Moon, etc." In that case, subduction and uplift convergences would still need to be utilized to explain were the crust goes!

The funniest (and perhaps most tragic since we're now all laughing at OIM) argument he makes is:
The fact that subduction has not been observed anywhere in the universe supports the argument that all planetary bodies, including the Earth, are growing.
Ha! That we haven't observed subduction in the rest of the universe means that it doesn't exist!

1) We have observed subduction -it is quite observable here on our own planet by a variety of means, including deep sea video and seismograph as well as isotopic analysis or rock samples.

2) We've only actually been able to efficiently examine one planet. Earth. I'm not sure which planets OIM has been able to visit, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't done legally and I hope he wasn't driving or operating heavy machinery. A few robot probes to some close neighbors hardly counts as a study that qualifies one to say "subduction doesn't occur anywhere else in the universe." And to simply say it doesn't exist because we've only been able to observe it on our planet is an argument from ignorance (and, perhaps, willful stupidity).

[OilIsMastery]

In further discussing the dismal failure of OIM at presenting or formulating an argument that is both cogent and sound, I'd like to look at his more recent additions to the "debate."

I'd like to also add that my interest is, again, in the psychology of the pseudoscience proponent and anthropology of belief and/or ideology that drives pseudoscientific positions such as that OIM has embraced. Perhaps we might even discover his actual agenda which this sort of nonsensical and, quite frankly, crack-pot hypothesis, works to for.
The more time you spend attacking me personally the more it becomes obvious you have no logical rebuttal to expanding earth science.

1) We have observed subduction -it is quite observable here on our own planet by a variety of means, including deep sea video and seismograph as well as isotopic analysis or rock samples.
:roflmao:

2) We've only actually been able to efficiently examine one planet. Earth. I'm not sure which planets OIM has been able to visit, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't done legally and I hope he wasn't driving or operating heavy machinery. A few robot probes to some close neighbors hardly counts as a study that qualifies one to say "subduction doesn't occur anywhere else in the universe." And to simply say it doesn't exist because we've only been able to observe it on our planet is an argument from ignorance (and, perhaps, willful stupidity).
:roflmao:

Then I guess plate tectonics theorists are wrong again because according to them Earth is the only planet with invisible magic subduction zones.

[SkinWalker]

It's called works cited. Cwojdzinski quotes are from the introduction to the Maxlow book (if you ever read it you would know that already). Hurrell from his own book cited.

Your citation methods are lacking, crude and get an "F."


All of the quotes are verifiable, should you choose to do so.

Except you rarely show where the quotes come from. I doubt you even have access to the original sources for many. All you provide is a quote and a name. Then some works at the bottom but they don't connect with your quotes in any meaningful or useful way.

Yeah. You missed it. But I thought you think quotes and citations are appeal to authority so why are you concerned with peer review?

If you have to ask why the concern with peer review, then you truly are a crackpot. If a work isn't submitted for peer review, it cannot easily be considered an academic one. The ability to put one's crackpot theory in words doesn't imply legitimacy or understanding of science. You demonstrate this consistently.

The Expanding Earth page 16. If you'd ever read The Expanding Earth, made any study of tectonics, or given expansion any serious thought, you would know the quote.

I've actually read Expanding Earth. I found it fascinating over 10 years ago. But that doesn't mean Carey was right. Indeed, he was quite wrong. Had he the advantage of modern scientific research methods and technology, he would doubtless have a different opinion. Your mistake is refusing to acknowledge the progress made since Carey -your real agenda is doubtless the oil thing. Houses of cards are like that -as you construct them, it's best just to ignore the places where the cards won't stand up and pretend they do.

No. There is no subduction in the mantle because it's physically impossible.

A claim you've not demonstrated. Why should anyone with an education take the word of an under-educated crackpot?

Earthquakes are very real. Unfortunately they have nothing to do with the myth of subduction. In the history of mankind, nothing has ever been subducted during an earthquake.

Your last sentence above is a straw man -and a quite stupid one at that, leading me to believe that you don't actually believe the nonsense you write. No one is that ignorant or stupid -that would seem to leave intentional deception. Where I'm from, we call such people liars. I'm not sure how to refer to them where you are.

Your second sentence above creates an unfounded and undereducated premise. Do you only read works from dead and ancient geologists or the modern writings of crackpots, or have you ever bothered to read modern or contemporary geologic discourse. The sources I cited are freely available to any library that has Inter Library Loan. If you ask, I could even be persuaded to send you PDF copies. Perhaps you'd like to offer your "educated" opinion and critique of the methodologies used in a paper that refutes their methods point-by-point.

Then you could demonstrate your authority on the topic. Until then, I'm afraid simply saying "it ain't so" really doesn't offer much.
Spreading is the exact opposite of subduction.[/QUOTE]

[OilIsMastery]

Your citation methods are lacking, crude and get an "F."
That's why I wrote abridged. At least I provided citation. My opponent didn't but you don't seem to care about that.

P.S. Keep the personal attacks coming. It's hilarious to see how emotional fundamentalists get when their faith has been profaned.

[SkinWalker]

The more time you spend attacking me personally the more it becomes obvious you have no logical rebuttle to expanding earth science.

"Rebuttal" only has one "e." Clearly you're far better at attacking yourself than I could ever be. This is evident in your "rebuttle" as well as your failure to address the points I've already made which refute your central claims. Moreover, subduction and plate tectonics are both empirically demonstrable -I've cited the sources that explain the methods. You've given nothing but ancient and out-dated science, old paradigms embraced by a few crackpots, and logical fallacy after logical fallacy.

Congratulations. You now join Norval/Craterchains in the internet laughing-stock hall of fame.

Then I guess plate tectonics theorists are wrong again because according to them Earth is the only planet with invisible magic subduction zones.

Yet another straw man. Please cite any geologist, geophysicist, or astrophysicist that states this. Clearly you're undereducated and/or a willful liar.

Further discourse with you is only to determine which and to create that permanent internet record that will be available via Google for decades to come. Pointed laughter for eternity. Good luck with that.

[OilIsMastery]

Please cite any geologist, geophysicist, or astrophysicist that states this. Clearly you're undereducated and/or a willful liar.
I cited them. You either didn't bother to read it or your reading comprehension is feeble. No surprise.

[SkinWalker]

That's why I wrote abridged. At least I provided citation. My opponent didn't but you don't seem to care about that.

"Abridged?" That's no citation style that I'm familiar with. Face it. You quote-mined and then listed a bunch of links, most to crack pot sites, crackpot books and out-dated texts, leaving the reader to guess at which went with what in many cases. This is clearly an intentional deception.

P.S. Keep the personal attacks coming. It's hilarious to see how emotional fundamentalists get when their faith has been profaned.

I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else. Crackpottery deserves ridicule -its a tried and proven social force. But I've no "faith" beyond that which can be tested or at least potentially falsified or empirically shown. Nothing you've written in your fantastical approach to geology meets this criteria.

[SkinWalker]

I cited them. You either didn't bother to read it or your reading comprehension is feeble. No surprise.

Now your a liar. If you aren't you'll humor me and provide the exact quote and proper citation for the person(s) who stated, "Earth is the only planet with invisible magic subduction zones."

[OilIsMastery]

Now your a liar. If you aren't you'll humor me and provide the exact quote and proper citation for the person(s) who stated, "Earth is the only planet with invisible magic subduction zones."
Do I really need to show you the quotes? I don't think so. If you don't want to read them that's fine. I'm not going to repeat myself to someone who has no interest in listening in the first place.

[SkinWalker]

Alright then. A liar it is since its apparent now that the reason you refuse such an easy demand is that the quotes aren't there.

[OilIsMastery]

Alright then. A liar it is since its apparent now that the reason you refuse such an easy demand is that the quotes aren't there.
Since you insist on being an illiterate liar I'll humor your lack of reading comprehension.

“Earth is the only planet with plate tectonics. That means it’s special in space, and it’s probably special in time, too. There must have been a time when the Earth didn’t have plate tectonics. The Earth had a very different tectonic, geologic style. There were no mid-ocean ridges with continents moving apart. There were no subduction zones where oceanic crust would have been going down,” Stern explained.

Link (http://www.utdallas.edu/geosciences/faculty/profiles/stern.html)

Earth is the only planet where subduction is known to occur. Without subduction, plate tectonics could not exist.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction)

Why does plate tectonics occur only on Earth? This is one of the major questions in earth and planetary sciences research, and raises a wide range of related questions

In response to Why does plate tectonics occur only on Earth? (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/43/2/002) There is a very simple answer: "Subduction exists only in the minds of its creators." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1976

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

[SkinWalker]

Neither of these quotes say "invisible magic subduction zones." Therefore, you are still a liar. QED.

Since Carey's work has since been discredited by modern science, that quote is dismissed as irrelevant. Since even you could have written the WikiPedia article, it can be dismissed as irrelevant.

What remains is a single quote-mined comment by a professor who is using the context that his research is worth funding and his classes are worth attending. No where in his work does he indicate that he has empirically tested all planets in the universe or even the solar system.

We are the only planet that is shown to have complex forms of life (so far, any life at all). Yet this doesn't imply that life isn't waiting to be discovered elsewhere in the universe and even our own solar system.

What the educated geologist actually understands is that Earth sits in the Goldilocks zone for temperature and climate. By mere chance, we have the ingredients necessary for just the right amount of equilibrium just the right amount of entropy is negated to allow for life. Plate tectonics appears to be a symptom of that situation.

But, assuming that you're logical fallacy (applying a poor analogy) that since we haven't seen plate tectonics elsewhere (other than Earth) is true, it doesn't imply that plate tectonics, therefore, doesn't exist. Only the most ignorant and undereducated would dare take such a stance.

Instead, plate tectonics is an empirically verified phenomenon. It does happen, regardless of you head in the sand and denial of it as a phenomenon. One can say there's no gravity all one wants, but one will remain on the ground with the rest of us. Your denial is just as silly and undereducated as denial of gravity.

No planetary scientist or geologist is claiming that plate tectonics will not be discovered elsewhere in the universe. Indeed, there is recent indication that plate tectonics may have been present on Mars. I'll be away for possibly two days. When I return, perhaps I'll describe these recent discoveries and cite the sources they are derrived from.

To sum: not a single quote you provided said "invisible magic subduction zones." You are a liar.

[OilIsMastery]

Great. I'm a liar. Wonderful. I hope that makes you feel better about earth expansion.

[James R]

SkinWalker:

You're doing such a good job here, I'm starting to think you should be debating, and not me. :)

[swarm]

I enjoyed the forray into the expanding earth but am left wondering about "expanding." It started out vague in my mind and never seemed to land on a crisp definition. Is it specifically about becoming less dense, gaining mass, participating in the expansion of the universe or any or all of these? Need it be non trivial or does the annual dust accumulation from space count? Sorry if this isn't the right spot to ask.

[Enmos]

Depends on which nutcase you ask.

[synthesizer-patel]

I enjoyed the forray into the expanding earth but am left wondering about "expanding." It started out vague in my mind and never seemed to land on a crisp definition. Is it specifically about becoming less dense, gaining mass, participating in the expansion of the universe or any or all of these? Need it be non trivial or does the annual dust accumulation from space count? Sorry if this isn't the right spot to ask.

I feel your pain brother.

I think the problem is with the main proponent of the conjecture - her thought processes are somewhat muddled and confused and as such a coherent synthesis of the various threads of the current conjecture proved beyond her intellectual means to provide.

From what I can gather from her lesas than coherent rants and mined quotes, the conjecture according to Oil is Mastery goes something like this:

The earth is expanding at the mid ocean ridges, but subduction is not taking place - therefore the earth is expanding - no, wait hang on the earth is expanding uniformly all over though some unspecified mechanism - shit! I can't really make my mind up and I certainly have no intention of being drawn to commit to a one or other viewpoint - it's just getting fucking bigger OK and if you don't take what I say at face value and beleive all the great links I provide then you are clearly brainwashed.

To counter the problems of this creating a hollow earth, some unspecified mechanism (similar to fission but sufficiently different to fission as fission does not fit the data) is creating new matter from energy within the mantle to account for this - if yopu are not open minded enough to accept a new process similar to fission (and perhaps fusion as well) that defies current laws of physics then you are brainwashed.

Howzat?

[James R]

I enjoyed the forray into the expanding earth but am left wondering about "expanding." It started out vague in my mind and never seemed to land on a crisp definition.

It did.

OIM's contention was that the Earth has doubled in radius in the past 200 million years.

That's fairly specific.

Is it specifically about becoming less dense, gaining mass, participating in the expansion of the universe or any or all of these?

OIM argued that it gained mass. As I outlined in my first post of the debate, other expansionists have made the other arguments you mention, but OIM ended up not relying on these.

Need it be non trivial or does the annual dust accumulation from space count? Sorry if this isn't the right spot to ask.

I analysed the annual dust accumulation from space in my final post of the debate.

[Pandaemoni]

OIM:

Out of curiousity, as I am still unclear, where do you claim the extra mass that accompanies the Earth expansion comes from? Or do you claim the Earth has a more or less fixed mass, subject to slow accretion from objects from space? Or do you think there is rapid accretion from objects in space?

You mentioned fusion and fission, but neither of those processes creates mass. If those processes were energetic (i.e. hot, not cold) they could cause expansion, but the energy they release as heat would itself cause a loss of mass in accordance with E=mc^2.

[OilIsMastery]

OIM:

Out of curiousity, as I am still unclear, where do you claim the extra mass that accompanies the Earth expansion comes from?
The core and core/mantle boundary. This should clarify: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Excess-mass-stress.htm

Or do you claim the Earth has a more or less fixed mass
I would never claim that ever. That's called "plate tectonics" and it's absurd.

subject to slow accretion from objects from space? Or do you think there is rapid accretion from objects in space?
This was certainly a mechanism for growth in the early years of the Earth's formation, however it is not the main mechanism for growth today and since the Triassic. It is a matter of quantity and a matter quality. For example, is the rate of meteor dust accretion enough to account for all of the earth’s mass? If meteor dust accretion is taking place how come the iron-rich rocks, like basalt and gabbro, are on the bottom and the iron-poor rocks, like granites, are on the top, when it is well known that the iron-rich rocks were the last to form? How can meteorites and meteor dust combine into solid rock like granite and basalt?

You mentioned fusion and fission, but neither of those processes creates mass.
Mass is created from energy. E=mc2.

If those processes were energetic (i.e. hot, not cold) they could cause expansion, but the energy they release as heat would itself cause a loss of mass in accordance with E=mc^2.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Excess-mass-stress.htm

[Pandaemoni]

Mass is created from energy. E=mc2.

I am very much overtired but...Not exactly. The equation denotes not "creation" (from nothing) but "mere" equivalency, and energy is conserved in this universe in a closed system unless you count energy fluctuations lasting a faction of a second due to Uncertainty.

Think of it this way, if you read Einstein's original paper, his conclusion was m= E/c^2.

In effect, the Earth has a certain mass right now at this moment, measurable within certain degrees of accuracy. That measurement would encompass both the physical matter and the free energy contained within the Earth (because both mave mass per the equation). If that free energy of the Earth were completely converted to physical matter, the mass of the Earth would be unchanged. If the physical matter making up the Earth were completely converted to photons, the collective relativistic mass of those photons would be equal to that of the Earth.

You cannot "use energy" and "make mass" in a sequential process. The energy has mass all the time. If you find something has more mass than it did before, that means it has more energy too, not that the energy it has changed form in some way. Every joule of energy that is floating around inside the earth at this moment adds about 0.0000000000000000111265 kg of mass to the Earth. That is true no matter what form that joule takes or what process occurs around it, subject only to quantum level uncertainty effects.

[OilIsMastery]

I concur.

[James R]

I made the point in my Formal Debate with OIM that fission (and even speculative fusion) processes inside the Earth actually result in mass decrease, with an equivalent output of heat.

In fact, fission is thought to be a significant source of heat energy inside the Earth.