The Nonsensical "Growing Earth" "Theory"

If I could 'easily explain' the processes I would be working as an educator in the media, being paid large sums of money to front Earth science programs on the Discovery channel.

Anything that involves details is being addressed at a serious level that has necessarily excluded 'easy explanations'.

The driving force for plate tectonics is currently debated. Put differently, the role of currents, specifically convection currents in plate tectonics has been disputed. Researchers have variously argued for convection currents dragging plates around; for ridge push, where magma intruded at mid-ocean ridges push the plates apart; for slab pull, where descending slabs drags the plates after them; and slab suction, where sinking plates induce mantle currents that pull the plates.

The present consensus and remaining uncertainties are summed up quite well in this 2010 paper, from which I quote "Although there is consensus that the 1- to 10- cm-per-year motion of plates is driven largely by the thermal buoyancy within subducted slabs and perturbed by upper-mantle solid-solid phase transitions and cooling of oceanic lithosphere from ridge to trench, the importance of the aseismic extension of slabs within the lower mantle remains unresolved."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let's try it differently. Repeat 10 times: "Matter does not form from nothing"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Typical comment from a "think he knows it all", wannabe scientist.

Are you able to explain what drives plate tectonics in details, yes or no?

Completely wrong from the first line.

My logic is the following:

1 - Observations A, B, C... are only compatible with an increase in the surface of Earth
2 - If the surface of Earth increases, then its volume increases.
3 - Quantification of this increase shows a doubling of the radius of Earth in the last 250 millions years
4 - Constant mass+doubling of radius implies high density+high surface gravity 250 Ma, unsupported by observations
5 - The mass of Earth must have changed.
6 - The increase in size is logically related to an increase in matter amount.
7 - Structural geology provides evidence of surface ward migration of mantle material (advection).
8 - The increase in mass must be due to an accumulation of matter inside Earth
9 - The conservation laws say that matter cannot appear ex-nihilo
10 - A mechanism must exist that explains the accumulation of matter inside earth and is compatible with existing physics laws, especially the conservation laws.
11 - This mechanism remains to be found.

And that's all. Simple and clear logic.

The issue is that you already fail at step 1, but still jump to step 11 claiming that it is impossible (!)

In conclusion, you do not follow any logical reasoning but react emotionally to a phenomenon that is beyond you.

If you want to behave like a real scientist, then start with step 1.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ophiolite, this is a simple multiplication.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not the one that thinks that matter forms from nothing that is your belief, or should I say you believe matter forms from 'whatever'.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, that is how science works theories are developed by scientist and become refined by experiementation and observation. If a new theory is developed that is better, that theory will be adopted. Theories that start off with violations of basic physical laws such as yours do not get out of the pseudo-science forums on the internet, though.

This is what is known as projecting. You are emotionally attached to a conjecture that is unsupported. Trippy gave you excellent feedback on why the conjecture is a turd. You dismissed it. There is no need to get into the fine points of Plate Tectonics or your conjecture because there is no possible mechanism to cause matter to form in the earth. You conjecture is DOA - just that simple.

 

And correct application of units.

 

Indeed. You have failed to demonstrate that there are observations that are only compatible with an increase in the surface of the Earth.

 

Perfect, this is at the level I want to place the debate.

Indeed. Note that this contradict Origins sentence "There is no need to debate Plate Tectonics it is the accepted theory".

Yes this view that convection currents carry the lithosphere (the conveyor belt analogy) is now completely outdated in the research literature.

That is incorrect. The magma does not push, It fills the holes. Ridge push is akin to gravity gliding. The negative buoyancy of the lithosphere subsiding from ridges is hypothesized as providing a "ridge push". Thus it is estimated to be very weak. (10% of the driving force of plate tectonics according to Stern (2007) Chinese Science Bulletin, 52, 578-591).

Doglioni, a specialist in subduction geodynamics, showed that there are many fatal flaws in the "slab pull" concept (Doglioni (2007) Earth Science Reviews 83, 125).
But there is a review of the issue in a note written by JM Fisher (also quoting Doglioni): " Plate Tectonics: too weak to build mountains"
This review highlights that there is currently no known valid causal mechanism for the lithosphere motion.

Yes, I read this paper last year. Probably the most advanced simulation to date.
See, there is a vast consensus on the concept that plate tectonics driving force=sinking slab. But in reality, this concept is fatally flawed as shown by Doglioni.

 

No, this is your claim: you believe that if matter accumulates inside Earth then it must be because it forms ex nihilo. This "magic" explanation is apparently the only one that you can imagine.
I say that there must be a rational explanation. Do you understand the difference?

No, your claim is unsupported.

No. Trippy believes that the paleorotation of Earth is perfectly constrained and refute a significant growth of Earth, both being wrong.

I'm a research scientist, and as a research scientist I build a theory starting from observations that support this theory and exclude alternatives. This is step 1. You fail at step 1.
If you want to debunk the expanding earth theory, you must refute the observations that are used to support it and exclude alternatives, because if you manage to do that, then there is no step 2, 3, 4...

BTW, my h-index is 15. Do you know what it means?

 

I am guessing my bar for calling someone a research scientist is a bit higher than yours.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am only adressing our theory that, "The earth use to be real little but somehow a whole lot of matter formed in the interior and now it's big and getting bigger and stuff like that".

That is what is commonly called science fiction. The way you write good science fiction is that you postulate something that is not possible and then you build on that with things that are possible - it makes it seem almost real. That is what you are doing when you say lets pretend that somehow matter forms in the earth..... yada yada

 

I'm a PhD, I publish in peer reviewed journals (already more than 10 papers this year), I review research papers and research projects, and I'm the head of an academic research lab (3 research scientists, 2 PhD students and 2 techs).
If I'm not a research scientist, then who is one?

I do not postulate something that is not possible!
I draw a conclusion from observations. If the conclusion is the sole valid one, then the direct implications from this conclusion are evidently possible.
But *you* postulate that something is not possible, just because you *believe* that it is not possible. Do you understand the difference?

 

You claimed that the simulation was "a very good fit" and that it refutes the expanding earth theory. Do you now claim that it would not refute the expanding earth theory?

Is it an argument of authority to claim that for people not doing scientific research, it is very difficult to understand how research works? I don't think so.

 

Nope. I never attributed to you the words "it is a perfect fit" about the simulations. I said you believe that "the paleorotation of earth is perfectly constrained".

So please do not attribute to me words that I never pronounced.

You're still in that glass house.

Nope. There is not a mounting body of evidence that suggests there hasn't been.
You use double standard. There are no solid evidence supporting a change or an absence of change.

Where is the argument from authority? Do you deny that a professional research scientist does better understand scientific research than a layman?

Dunning–Kruger_effect on Wiki

 

And you came up with this!?! Yikes. Well all I can say is, you should stick to your own field!

Your conclusion from observation is that through some unkown process material is mysteriously forming in the earth and the earth is expanding. Really? Well, like I said - yikes!

Kind of reminds me of the that respected PhD radio chemistry professor who became convinced that the Sol has a solid iron surface and a neutron star at its core - I'm pretty sure he is in prison now. Something to think about.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You know that is really odd. If florian really is a research scientist he knows the drill to get published, and could do much better at refining his 'theory' face to face with his peers. Maybe he is just having fun by pulling our collective legs with the inflatable earth thing. That makes a helluva lot more sense than to assume he would actually believe such an absurd conjecture.:shrug:

 

Florian: HEY . . . JUST A DARN (notice the nice language?) MINUTE!!

I am also a research scientist (often referred to - by myself primarily (tee hee) as S.S.U. - Senior Scientist of the Universe!). I also have a Ph.D. and numerous peer-reviewed publications (I'll send you a CV, if requested), plus active and ongoing research undertakings to my credit. So, I guess, according to your implications, I am also an expert! Thanks for the ego-boost!

wlminex

 

Florian:

I also refer you to the thread: Painful Urge to Ejaculate . . . . (tee hee again)