Is the earth expanding?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by bgjyd834, Apr 26, 2011.

Page 9 of 52
  1. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Somehow I thought that would be your response.

    And you're still wrong - because I didn't reproduce it - I linked to somebody elses reproduction of it: http://isotope.colorado.edu/~geol5700/

    So no, I still haven't broken any laws, and my assertion is proven.

    Again, you're after a pissing contest, when the answer is right in front of you.

    Ho hum - again, you started in with the snippy attitude, because you got your nose out of joint over my decision to move this thread to pseudoscience, where, the more you talk, the more you convince me it belongs.

    It means what it means - trained across multiple fields - which implies that either I have more than one degree, or, that my degree has more than one major, which suggests I'm not who you think I am (which I knew already).

    Whether or not you think it's correct or accurate is irrelevant.

    And this is why you're wasting my time here.

    If something happened 5 minutes ago, then it has happened in the last 10 minutes.

    If something happened 35 Million years ago, then it has happened in the last 45-50 million years.

    More to the point... Nah, you know what? I've got better things to do with my time.
     
    Trippy, Aug 8, 2011
    #161

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. florian

    florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    Ducking again. Would you please provide the quote that is supporting your claim.

    You are a moderator of this forum and you posted a link to material infringing copyright. In other words, you're helping someone else to infringe copyright. That is called "contributory copyright infringement". You're liable, you broke the law.

    You claim that these models are supported by empirical evidence, Poliakow's model predict a receding rate of 0.34 cm/y 200 Ma ago. Thus you must show the empirical data supporting this receding rate. Why can't you just do it?

    You started with the denigrating attitude toward this theory by moving this thread to pseudoscience. You assume.
    BTW, you should learn the definition of pseudoscience, because the expanding earth theory does not belong to pseudoscience as it is empirical, build using the scientific method and can be tested.
    You want to spread the fallacy that it is not scientific. As a scientist, I can't accept to let you do that.

    Sean, you claim that you crosstrained in geology and other fields and that it makes you in perfect position to judge the expanding earth theory. Depending on the level at which you trained and most importantly on the knowledge/understanding you have of this theory, you might be just a victim of the Dunning Kruger effect. Your writings strongly support this hypothesis.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You did not write "any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured in the last 45-50 million years", you wrote "that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years".
    You indicate a timespan during which the shortening of greater India may have occured. I made the remark that the collision occured 35 millions years ago according to Ali & Aitchinson, implying that there is no possible foreshortening before 35 Ma. And… that's all.

    So why do you make yet another nasty remark like "this is why you're wasting my time here" followed by a lesson aimed at a 6-year old?
    And you accuse me of "poisoning the well"? Each time that I got agressive, it was in response to your aggressions.

    Good riddance. You bring nothing to the discussion no more.
    And don't forget to move the thread back to the Earth Sciences forum.
     
    florian, Aug 8, 2011
    #162

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I did, you just either haven't looked at it, or didn't recognize it.

    No, I did not. You provided a bootleg copy of the material, I showed you where to look in somebody elses library to see their copy. And yes, while maybe I should have provided a more substantive citation than I did, at worst, that was an act of genuine oversight on my part. At worst, I made an honest mistake - you on the other hand carried out a deliberate act - you scanned Carey's work, and reproduced it online. But I'm sure you won't understand the difference, because you've been backed into a corner, and now you're hand waving so much your arms are flailing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This conversation has degenerated to me trying to maintain a scientific discussion and you responding with personal insults - in other words you're trolling.

    And even if that is who I am, You don't have my permission to reproduce my personal details on this forum, in this discussion, and continuing to do so may result in a ban. Capiche?

    Actually, according to (for example) Shapely et al, 2010 or Rowley the collision, and collisional mountain building began 50-55 million years ago in the western Himalayas, and by 35 MYA, the tibetan plateu was close to its current elevation. So, you're wrong there as well.

    Let's assume for a minute that you're right.
    If I jumped off a bridge, played hopscotch in a mine field, or drove a bus along the gaza strip, would you do the same thing?
    Is imitating me really the best that you can aspire to?

    What's French for no?
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2011
    Trippy, Aug 8, 2011
    #163

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin

    origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,890
    Trippy, I am amazed at your patience with florian, his position is proposterous and his attitude is atrocious.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    origin, Aug 8, 2011
    #164
  8. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Call it a character flaw

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Trippy, Aug 8, 2011
    #165
  9. florian

    florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    No, you did not provide any quote from Webb 1982 supporting your claim. And what does tell us Poliakow regarding Webb's 1982 model?

    Sure you did. You posted a link to material infringing copyright.

    Your assertion.

    Still not providing the empirical data supporting this low receding rate?

    Whatever your beliefs, the expanding earth theory meets the criteria for a scientific theory and moving this discussion to the pseudoscience forum was not justified.

    So moving this discussion to the pseudoscience forum is "trying to maintain a scientific discussion". This is the quintessence of trolling.
    Besides, each time a valid scientific point has being raised, either you ignore the opposing arguments, or declare that scientists are incompetent (Mazumber), or ducked, like this question raised by Carey regarding the Pacific evolution. Your writings are more in line with a witchhunt than with an argumented scientific discussion.

    Who you are is not the point. The fallacies you spread because the perception you have from yourself is the important point. It seems that your degree give you the illusion of knowledge typical of those not familiar with scientific research? Any researcher understands that we do not know much. Sure, we make constant progress in our understanding of nature, but the research work ahead is immense. So stop believing that you know better.

    Rowley is outdated, Shapely et al completely ignore the work done by Ali and Aitchinson and refer to older papers (Not a single citation of A&A work in this paper). Aitchinson et al (2007) "when and where did India and Asia collide, JGR 112, doi:10.1029/2006JB004706 and http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JB004706.shtml is particularly relevant to the timing of the putative collision. Of course this timing has a different meaning in the Expanding Earth framework, in which orogenies are not related collision at a plate scale but to regional mantle/lithosphere flows and gravity-induced spreading.

    Imitating? Give up your aggressive/condescendant tone (if you can), and that will certainly ease the discussion.

    "Borné", that's French for "stubborn".
     
    florian, Aug 10, 2011
    #166
  10. florian

    florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    Wonderful, now the guru has found a cheerleader

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    florian, Aug 10, 2011
    #167
  11. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Yet more proof you haven't looked at everything I've posted on the matter.

    What was it you were saying about glass houses recently?

    If you think that the Geology Department at the University of Colorado has violated US copyright law, then I invite you to email them and inform them.

    No.
    A Fact that I can support with evidence.
    I can quote you, if you like, explicitly stating that you, personally, scanned the material, and that you, personally, uploaded it to your personal web server, and I can prove that you have been distributing it.

    More to the point, I have asked you, directly, if you have permission, either implied or actual, to scan, upload and distribute Carey's work, a question that so far, you have entirely dodged answering.

    Read through the material I have provided you. The answer lies therein (although it may require some inference).

    No. It fails, completely. It makes unphysical predictions that are contradicted by evidence available across multiple fields, and the only ways to come close to making it work require an absurd amount of fine-tuning, and I would be almost willing to bet money that computations done using the amount of 'crack space' available fall far short of the predictions made in Maxlow's thesis.

    It was completely justified, in fact, on the grounds of your conduct, I would go as far as suggesting that locking this thread, and discarding of it in the cesspool might almost have been more appropriate.

    But that's what I get for being reasonable, and allowing you to continue to argue your point.

    Strawman hypothesis (among other things).

    I had other options, which would have prevented further discussion on the topic, however, I chose to allow the discussion to continue and moved it to what I considered to be a more appropriate sub forum.

    Bull.

    Then why do you keep bringing it up?

    We know enough to safely discard expanding earth tectonics.
    It is an unphysical theory that has a substantial body of evidence across multiple fields against it, that makes absurd predictions, has no physical causal mechanism, makes no testable predictions that can be used to look for a causal mechanism, whos proponents need to resort to personal insults, logical fallacies and allegations of conspiracies to substantiate.

    Perhaps Shapely was familiar with, and agreed in principle with Garzanti's critique of Aitchinson's work, or had formed a similar opinion.

    I also find it ironic that you cite this material to contradict me, but if you read (for example) Aitchinson et al's reply to Garzanti's comment, they explicitly state that a collision occured at the North Indian passive margin 55MA, and that that collision was part of the Himalaya-Tibet orogen, what they question is the significance of the event, likening it to the interaction between the Luzon Arc and South East China - this does not contradict my position, that foreshortening was occuring 55 MA, and that that foreshortening was occuring as a result of the collision between the indian plate and the eurasian plate. And yes, I know I initially said greater india, which implies that I was referring to Aitchinsons major collision, rather than the initial minor collision, but my point remains intact - that Carey failed to account for any compressional foreshortening that might have occured over the last 55 million years (among other possible factors).

    I have given you countless opportunities to pursue such a discussion, each and every time, you return with personal insults (among other things).
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2011
    Trippy, Aug 11, 2011
    #168
  12. florian

    florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    Oh yes I did. You linked to the abstract of Webb's paper which describes a model relating tidal frequency to closing and receding rates in the framework of a Moon capture. Then Poliakow showed that the most important parameter for the tidal dissipation effect is the distribution of continents and oceans, thus outdating Webb's model. And that's all.

    You're the one linking to Mojzsis webpage. Why don't you ask him by email if the AGU granted him the right to post a full pdf.

    Oh yes it is. I got the Proceedings book for free from the its publisher, the University of Tasmania, and they inform me that I can use "fair dealing" for research and educational use, and thus have the right to make an electronic copy and communicate 10% of the proceedings.

    Williams can only infer average receding rates from the empirical data. No empirical data can be used to infer the 0.34 cm/y rate from Polikows model. And you believe that this is enough to support his model (bi standard attitude).

    Take every criteria one by one and let's see if the theory does not meet them.


    "unphysical" is a strawman. The theory is empirical, therefore a physical causal mechanism must exist. Besides, the real predictions it makes are testable (paleoposition of cratons for example), and were tested, notably by Maxlow, and are further tested.

    A fallacy.

    hmm, Ocean floor datations and geological data impose strong constraint on the reconstructions, there is not much room for imagination. An illustration with antarctica showing that it was totally encircled by the southern tip of S. Am, Africa, India, Australia, Zealandia, and a little ocean of age 90-150 Ma with isochrons perpendicular to the Tonga/Kermadec trench:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The only tricky parts are the mobile arcs and related mantle extrusion and flow that overprinted the older ocean floor. That is very explicit in the Philippine sea:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    No, your justifications resort to your personnal beliefs and have nothing to do with reality.

    What about your conduct?


    This is exactly what you did.

    The illusion of knowledge. You sound like an amateur not a scientist.

    That strawman again.


    So the prediction that Australia was surrounded clockwise by N Am, Antarctica, India, South China, Siberia, more than 500 Ma ago is absurd? I don't think so. On the contrary, it is supported by empirical and independent data.


    Correction: it has one, but we don't knwo it yet.

    I did not insult you.

    Don't confuse the scientists working on this theory and the cranks, please.


    Contradiction? The date you cite was inaccurate, I correct it. You're the only one to make such a big deal for a simple correction.

    They question the significance regarding an Asian plate/greater India collision, because they provide evidence for a collision between Greater India and mobile arc, the later being not part of the Asian plate, hence the comparison to the Luzon Arc.


    If an arc did collide with greater India, then it accreted onto greater India making it bigger, not shortening it. I guess I do not have to remind you that arc accretion is the orthodox theory for continental lithosphere formation, right?

    Besides, postcollisional forshortening of greater India, is rather problematic. I quote Stocklin, an specialist of Himalayan orogeny:

    "At any rate, Tethyan subduction can in no way account for compensation of the continued expansion of the Indian Ocean after collision of India with Eurasia in Eocene time. The structure of the Himalaya leaves no doubt that very considerable compression of continental crust was achieved here by folding and thrusting in post-Eocene time. But actual estimates fall again far short of the amount required to accommodate postcollisional north-drift of India, which according to spreading data from the Indian Ocean was in the range of 1500-2000 km. Le Fort (44) considered 600-700 km of shortening in the Himalaya as a maximum, Gansser (45) estimated about half of this amount 500 km less 200 km of pre-collisional compression). Compared to the Himalaya, post-Eocene crustal shortening farther north, in Tibet, seems to have been insignificant; folding occurred here mainly in the Mesozoic. The strike-slip mechanism proposed by Molnar and Tapponier (35) may account for some shortening, but hardly for the amount required: strike-slip along the Chaman fault was perhaps in the order of 200-300 km (43); and while displacement along the Herat fault may have been considerable till Miocene, post-Miocene deposits are no more clearly offset along it (24)."
    --Jovan Stoecklin, "Tethys evolution in the Afghanistan-Pamir-Pakistan region," In: A.M.C. Sengor, ed., Tectonic Evolution of the Tethyan Region, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 1989, pp. 258, 259.


    Personal insults? Like what?
    You've been aggressive and condescendant countless time (should I remind you the buoyancy episod?) because you decided at the beginning of this discussion that I'm a crank advocating a stupid theory. And this is extremely insulting for a scientist.
     
    florian, Aug 11, 2011
    #169
  13. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    No.
    There has been at least one other one that I have linked to, and that one other one contains a comparison of the theoretical models that were available at that time, to available field data at that time.

    Because you're the one that seems to be concerned about it.

    Given that, unlike a normal book, each paper represents an individual work, are you sure that it's 10% of the book, and not 10% of the paper?

    We've been over this, and you're wrong on both counts.

    Emperical theories can still be wrong.

    No, a demonstrable fact.

    Yeah, I don't think you quite got what I meant by crack space. Let's call it gap space then - think god of the gaps.

    What about my conduct?
    I have yet to abuse you.
    I have yet to call you names.
    In fact, I have yet to do anything worse than explain things to you as I would a 5 year old.

    1. I'm not convinced you understand what a strawman is, because you seem to be using it wrongly.
    2. Just because you do not understand, or accept the evidence against it, does not mean it does not exist.

    I've skipped osmne of your comments, simply because they are churlish, petulant, and experience tells me that trying to address them is a waste of my time.

    However, on this one, your assertion is a straw man (there's probably a better name for it, however...) in that saying that a theory makes absurd predictions is not the same thing as saying that all it's predictions are absurd. What you've done here is the same as arguing that because cats have four legs and fur, all things that have four legs and fur are cats.

    No, the theory has none.

    You have.

    The allegation is backed up by the language used in many of the papers you have linked to.

    You have not yet proven that it was inaccurate, however.

    This is what I said, yes, however, this does not exclude the possibility of foreshortening occuring on the indian plate at this time.

    Acreetion does not preclude foreshortening.

    My recollection is that we have gathered more evidence in the 20 years since that paper was written. If nothing else, it illustrates one of the problems that geologists face - Mother Nature is continually destroying the evidence of what she has done.

    Aside from anything else, if you don't want to be treated like a crank, stop acting like one. You took umbrage at this thread being moved to pseudoscience, and took an aggressive tone. Everything that has happened since then has followed from that point.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2011
    Trippy, Aug 11, 2011
    #170
  14. jsispat

    jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    1) Earth is itself a single living organism like a tree. And covered by crust like a trunk covered by bark. crust = bark

    2) some type of meteoroids contains amino acid and biological chemistry are seeds of planets. one planet is a result of one meteoroid as one tree is a result of one seed.

    3) out these meteoroids some can germinate in asteroids only and out of these asteroids some can convert in big planets .

    4) continents separated from each other like a puzzle is very much clear visual evidence for its growth and expansion. PT is playing vital role for this and same type of PT is also playing vital role for the growth and expansion of trunk of tree.

    5) Crude oil (an organic compound ) is produce by earth itself due to metabolism in the earth only. fossil oil theory is not true. it is linked with living organism because it is produced by earth only and earth is itself a single living organism.


    pls observe the following links for more clarification with depth only.

    http://img861.imageshack.us/i/treebarkcontinents.png/ --- Bark & Continents



    http://yfrog.com/5ucorecrustj Core Crust

    http://yfrog.com/0g72697054j Plate Tectonic 4.

    http://yfrog.com/m9meteoriodj Meteoroids Seeds

    http://yfrog.com/5rasteoidplantj Asteroid Plant

    http://yfrog.com/5xvalcano2j Volcano Lava

    http://yfrog.com/6zpicxaj bark Earth & Tree

    http://yfrog.com/gh08810treebark1221170loj TREE BARKS



    http://yfrog.com/0tplatetectonics2j Subduction Zone

    http://www.mediafire.com/?va0pjtfjjn4m2md Pdf theory complete

    http://yfrog.com/h4moo6j Safeda

    http://img705.imageshack.us/i/platetectonics.jpg/ PLATE TECTONIC LINK

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7i5CY6XNo&NR=1 fossil oil theory is not true and oil is producing in crust as this video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3lG3FX9D68


    regs
    suresh bansal
    sureshbansal342@gmail.com
     
    jsispat, Aug 12, 2011
    #171
  15. origin

    origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,890
    Oh, the earth is expanding because it is a linving thing that is growing! Between you and florian you have got yourselves quite a little gem of a hypothesis.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    origin, Aug 12, 2011
    #172
  16. florian

    florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Wonderful, now we have all the pseudoscientists coming here with their pet theory. Trippy, I guess it is exactly what you expected by moving this discussion to the pseudoscience forum. Congratulations, for your success in promoting obscurantism!
     
    florian, Aug 12, 2011
    #173
  17. origin

    origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,890
    Criminy, that rich! The belief that you are a scientist, I believe, is shared by a population of N=1.
     
    origin, Aug 12, 2011
    #174
  18. florian

    florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    What about forgetting "believing" and focusing on facts?
     
    florian, Aug 12, 2011
    #175
  19. wlminex

    wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    Everyone "believes" in something! . . . . ala' Charlie Chaplin: "I believe I'll have another drink!!" (tee hee!)

    wlminex
     
    wlminex, Aug 12, 2011
    #176
  20. origin

    origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,890
    I do focus on facts. I am just lobbing insults because you have your heels dug in and I have seen enough of you Don Quixote types to know you will not change your mind and you have a very thick skin. I have looked at what you have written and I have looked at the work done by the professionals in geology. I do not agree with your assessment of the situation. From the 'git go' your analysis is based on matter somehow appearing inside the earth - this is handwaving and very unscientific. Do all celestial bodies expand? Is the moon expanding? Where is the mass coming from?

    It is much, MUCH more reasonable to accept the mainstream geological establishments theories, since they do not depend on unexplained and frankly far fetched ideas (like the matter generation). Geology as it stands today does an excellent job of explaining what we observe on the earth; end of story.
     
    origin, Aug 12, 2011
    #177
  21. wlminex

    wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    Origin: Ref: my earlier post re: density changes in earth material via magmatic differentiation yields less dense material (i.e., lithosphere) that requires more 'volume' than more-dense progenitor material (mantle). 'Kind of' analogous to that spray foam stuff that changes from a more-dense liquid phase (under pressure) to a much-less dense foamy phase (at lower pressure). Ergo, the earth's surface has to expand to compensate for the transition from higher-density mantle to less-dense lithophere. It's all about that g/cc (mass/volume) process.

    It might be instructional to do a (relatively) simple calculation comparing estimated lithospheric volume/density to mantle volume/density. I'm certain that plate-subduction compensates somewhat for the volume expansion - but not completely.

    wlminex
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2011
    wlminex, Aug 12, 2011
    #178
  22. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Yes, it's obviously my fault, and it's clearly what I intended.

    Never mind the fact that Mr Bansal has been a member here for three years (as opposed to your two or three months) and has been pushing his particular take on expanding earth tectonics the entire time (which incidentally is backed by all the same evidence yours is, and is as valid as yours is).

    Perhaps you wish to debate him to see who's theory is more correct?

    After all, Mr Bansal's at least has a causal mechanism.
     
    Trippy, Aug 12, 2011
    #179
  23. wlminex

    wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    Florian and Trippy personal attacks:

    Ho-hum!

    wlminex
     
    wlminex, Aug 12, 2011
    #180
Page 9 of 52

Share This Page