The Nonsensical "Growing Earth" "Theory"

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Robert Schunk, Aug 15, 2011.

  1. Gneiss2011 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    58
    So you are claiming that Muir Wood's refutation of "Pacific Paradox" is not valid, because it is not valid today but "may have been valid for Pantalassa during the initial disruption of Pangaea". Since today is not the age/epoch/era when take place the "Pacific Paradox", I am not convinced.

    If I add the surface of the Atlantic ocean (which was closed at the time of Pangea) to the surface of the Pacific ocean, it give 165,000,000 km² + 106,000,000 km² = 271,000,000 km², which is more than 255,000,000 km². (adding surface of Southern Ocean and part of Indian Ocean would increase further)

    So roughly speaking, the Pacific Ocean was more than one hemisphere at the time of Pangea. So after Pangea breakup, its perimeter increased whereas it surface decreased, and there is no topological issue here.

    I don't see your point.

    It does "shed light" on my personal beliefs.

    Because this page is about geology. The page about meteorology and climate is here (please notice "What's Wrong With Still Waiting For Greenhouse?" marked as "anticrank"). See also this.

    I fail to see a straw man in this.

    I can still claim it appears to be unsupported because I still haven't see any evidence supporting this claim. Where are the damned evidence that "all the continents have moved towards the north pole since the Permian [...] all the blocks moving from different directions converging on the Arctic by large angles"?

    I still claim it is false/wrong according to mainstream science because I still see mainstream science's paleogeographic maps showing something else that "all of the continents except Antarctica have converged on the Arctic" (but North America, Europe and Siberia moving to the North side-by-side between Permian and Jurassic).

    Yes, of course I did look.

    Indeed.

    I don't see your point. What is the diferrence between "converged" and "met" in your opinion?

    As I previously wrote, I think that
    Could you show me an event (actual mesurement, or mainstream science reconstruction, but not EE reconstruction that I would not trust) were several location of one or some continents are moving to the North pole in the way you say? Could you show me those location following the longitudes and converging at the North pole, stacking up there?

    If by "there's no denying that" you mean "it is useless to deny that, because I will never be convinced", then I am sorry for you. If by "there's no denying that" you mean "it is useless to deny that, because I am here to evangelise and will never give you a point", then I am sorry for you too.

    I do not see what you mean by "all of this".

    Of course.

    Maybe.

    If that's so (and this is only an hypothetis, because until now I have never Carey explaning his "since the Permian [...] the Arctic has been an area of extension" in the way you say), then my previous comment about that would be obviously irrelevant.

    If that's so, then i could answer that, according to mainstream science, since the Permian there has been mostly no change in the area currently inside the Arctic circle, some extensional activity (in the "Amerasian Basin" and at the Gakkel Ridge), some compressional activity (between Alaska and eastern Siberia).

    And the sentence would be wrong as for my understanding of mainstream science.


    Not yet totaly read.

    It seem those paleogeographic maps deal only with the Arctic region. I guess they are more precise and detailed than world paleogeographic maps. You are the lucky one.

    Stay/keep up believing the EE fairy tale, such flat earther, creationists, mormons, Jehovah's witnesses (including the missionary/evangelism part)? Or go back to scientific and critical thinking? The choice is up to you.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Well, I'm sorry if you found the question offensive, I'm not generally inclined to assuming that people who study in any given field (Chemistry, Geology, Biology, Physics) are intimately familiar with every aspect of that field, or, for that matter, that they remember everything they have learned.

    I tend to assume instead that they are human and ask questions rather than making assumptions.

    But it seems like being asked questions is too much for some participants in this thread to bear.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Do a google image search. enter in "GIF SITE:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264817203000436" and google should retrieve them for you. The filenames are sequential so any that aren't retrieved can be gotten fairly trivially.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gneiss2011 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    58
    About this source, I saw something interesting.

    Carey assume a constant Earth radius, close the Atlantic Ocean, put North America near Europe and Africa, put South America near Africa, put Antarctic near Africa, put Australia near Antarctic, then he get a Pacific Ocean with the same size as today, something that "nobody can explain" (lets call this "Second Pacific Pradox").

    My explanation is that he made a mistake somewhere. What is your?

    Thank you for the tips. I have them too now.

    The fig. 21 to 25 show several converging lines (the lines with little triangles) inside the current Arctic during all Cretaceous.

    About the "Pacific Pradox", I suggest to read Robert Meservey, Topological Inconsistency of Continental Drift on the Present-Sized Earth, Science, 31 October 1969, Vol. 166 no. 3905 pp. 609-611, DOI: 10.1126/science.166.3905.609; mentionned in S. W. Carey, The expanding earth — an essay review, Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 2, June 1975, Pages 105–143, DOI: 10.1016/0012-8252(75)90097-5.
     
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    One of the reasons why I raised the points I did about sutured subduction zones, and the compressional tectonics in Svalbard, Alaska, and the Canada basin.
     
  9. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    Yes, I guess you rapidly got an idea about Trippy, BTW still denying the conclusions of Mazumder et al ESR 2005
    Idem with Gneiss2011.

    You're wasting your time with these obscurantists. The only positive point with them is that we can easily expose their true side so that the general reader can rapidly understand on which side are the rational thinkers.
     
  10. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Some people can't get a point, though this one was quite simple.

    The surface of the Pacific is currently about 165,000,000 km² while it used to be half an hemisphere 255,000,000 km² sometimes after the Pangea break-up according to Plate Tectonics.
    It follows that it must have shrunk from 255,000,000 km² to 165,000,000 km² lately, so should have its perimeter.
    Except that there are no evidence that its perimeter shrank lately, while there are plenty evidence that it expanded...

    Hopefully, the general reader can get such a simple point... hopefully...
     
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I'm not denying his conclusions, I am asserting that he is wrong. I have taken a great deal of time and effort to explain to you why I think Mazumders criticisms are invalid. You have repeatedly ignored, not understood, or otherwise failed to address the points I have raised, and even produced papers that support my criticisms of Mazumders work.

    Stop telling porkies.
     
  12. Gneiss2011 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    58
    You are totaly right. Not only contribution to rational/skeptic/science forum will not provide converts, but a Jehovah's Witnesses risk to see inconvenient messages, jeopardizing his beliefs. So the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society must forbid its followers to discuss in sceptic forum, to look at contrarian blog/forum, to look at the Internet.

    If you are a rational thinker, then could you explain why there are still EE proponent in spite of this?
    (excerpt from S. W. Carey, The expanding earth — an essay review, Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 2, June 1975, Pages 105–143, DOI: 10.1016/0012-8252(75)90097-5)

    Source?

    Have you seen recent (at least later than 1973) mainstream science's paleogeographic maps about Mesozoic's change between Australia and Southeast Asia, or between Eastern Siberia and Alaska?
     
  13. Gneiss2011 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    58
    According to S. W. Carey, The expanding earth — an essay review, Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 2, June 1975, Pages 105–143, DOI: 10.1016/0012-8252(75)90097-5, "On the plate model the present Pacific must be smaller than the Permian Pacific by the combined area of the Arctic, Atlantic and Indian Oceans." According to Wikipedia, the curent area of the Pacific, Arctic, Atlantic, Indian oceans are 165,200,000 km², 14,056,000 km², 106,400,000 km², 73,556,000 km². 165,200,000 + 14,056,000 + 106,400,000 + 73,556,000 = 359,212,000 km².
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2012
  14. Gneiss2011 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    58
    Indeed. And thank you to point out this 1983 paleogeographic maps serie (from E. Irving, Fragmentation and assembly of the continents, Mid-carboniferous to present, Surveys in Geophysics, vol 5 4, 1983, DOI:10.1007/BF01453985).

    It show most of continent moving north during Permian, Triassic and Jurassic, stucked in the Pangea, and therefore moving side-by-side to the north. During Jurassic and Cenozoic, Pangea est broken, the continent do no more move side-by-side all together; Antarctica stay on south pole, Australia move to the north solely and later than other continents, North America and Eurasia do not move to the north anymore; etc.

    I do not see in those maps that "all of the continents except Antarctica have converged on the Arctic by several tens of degrees since the Permian". Do you see that in those maps?
    • If yes, then please tell me where and how exactly you do.
    • If no, then please acknowledge that, since at least 1983, Carey's claims "all of the continents except Antarctica have converged on the Arctic by several tens of degrees since the Permian", "[they] have moved [...] from different directions converging on the Arctic", "since the Permian, North America, Europe, and Siberia have each converged on the north pole by large angles", are not supported by mainstream science.

    For the information of the readers: the last quote is from 1996 Carey book. 1996 - 1983 = 13 damned years.
     
  15. morphonius_821 Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    The unknowns..

    One thing is for sure (obviously)... that the earth is either expanding or it is not...
    and if it is... then it does not matter if multiple aspects of this revelation wildly conflict with our current consensus science world view...

    Assuming for a moment that the earth is actually expanding (for the sake of the argument) then in this case it would be irrelevant that additional aspects of this revelation also can not be explained by conventional wisdom, the same "wisdom" that brought you to such a spectacularly erroneous conclusion in the first place.

    So where the extra mass is coming from? If the earth is growing that is the least of your worries...
    Because once this "lid has been peeled off" who knows what else lies in that can of worms that will sit like egg on the face of the intellectual authority of consensus reality scientific dogma.
    Perhaps it comes from other dimensions of which you are also clueless... best to keep this one under the rug where it belongs.
     

Share This Page