Is the earth expanding?

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

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.

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?

L'hôpital qui se fout de la charité (people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones).

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.

It does partly explain your general attitude, including that toward honest and qualified scientists.

You failed to recognize that I address them, and when I point it to you, you call it "trolling". How convenient…

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

. . . 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 + sialic crust), the density is continually redistributed or stratified - less dense atop more dense - if gravity works - haha!. 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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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

 

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."

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.

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.

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.

The lack of a physical mechanism is not a valid refuting argument!

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.

 

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 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.

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 Scalera.pdf

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)

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

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)

 

You did not suggest he had done it deliberately, you said it, as proved by your lexical field (cherry-picking, straw man...).

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.

You misrepresented it deliberately to discredit Mazumder. This is inexcusable.

Repeating a fallacy won't make it true. The refutation hold and your vague non-arguments won't change it.

How convenient...

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.

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 same strength gravity 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, 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.

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.

 

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.

 

Accusing someone of cherry-picking, using strawman arguments and of being dishonest at the same time is an accusation of deliberateness.

Unsupported speculation is not Science.

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 )

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).

I reassure you. You're not my sole reason for being either, and by far.

You start the aggression by moving this thread to the pseudoscience forum without justification. You reap what you sow.

I'm a liar because you got your sources mixed up? Very interesting. Let's see…

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" ) actually more active animals than mammals (see "Blood flow to long bones indicates activity metabolism in mammals, reptiles and dinosaurs" ). 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.

Yeah, right. I believe you.

See above.

Or not. There are many interested readers that contact me using private messages or email. BTW, I encourage anyone interested to do so.

 

It was worse than unsupported, it was already refuted by the geological records at the time of publication.

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.

Naturally, you did not read it. You have no clues and ignore all evidence presented to you, as usual.

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.

Wonderful, you cite a paper defending one model to support a different model.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So according to you, empirical value gives a recession rate equal to 0.34 cm/y 200 My ago? Show us the numbers!

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).

Of course, I do believe you. You've shown before how trustful you are.

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.

 

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.

So you just read one page and jump to hasty conclusions.

In other words, you never read this paper, just the abstract.

So you did not break any law by providing the link to Bills & Ray 1999?

Give me a break, you did not read that paper. That's why you believe it does support your opinion.

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.

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.

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 did present strong evidence (See Carey above for example) but you ignore or dismiss them with vague comments.

Just your opinion.

Here, we agree.

Not yet.

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.

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.

 

You act as it did not exist, it is a fact.

Did you read it entirely, yes or no?

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.

Certainly not. As a reminder: http://www.agu.org/pubs/authors/usage_permissions.shtml

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.

Ducking again.

That, then:

puerile attempt at character assassination you said?
Regarding science, I have nothing to prove.

Your records show otherwise. Personally, I only reply to your sarcasm, like this quote of Lovasik.

What do you exactly mean by "cross training"? Does it mean that you have research experience in these different fields?

Look more carefully.

You confuse opinions and facts.

It is a blunt description of your behavior, not an attack.

"No, and, uh, no."

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.

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.

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.