Is the earth expanding?

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

Regarding to the rate, according to Maxlow's thesis (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 (!).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

Me neither. So your supposition that I have an agenda is false.

Contrary to most people in this thread, I really have no prejudice. My conclusions are entirely based on observations.

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?

 

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

Appearance is not the same as creation ex nihilo. I reject the latter or conservation laws would be violated.

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.

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

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.

Same as above.

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.

If by theory, you mean the physics, it's not even close to start.

Dommage, this is an actual measurement and thus not "supposed".

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.

 

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?

 

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.

If you can propose something that satisfies both requirement, that's fine.

You do really believe that I'm such a blind idiot that I'm ready to "swallow without question" whatever speculation, do you?

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

What speculation? His model is validated by the data. Data always prime over existing theories.

Strawman. This is in your head.

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

 

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

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.

 

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...

 

only when the alternative conjecture has no merit.

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