The Nonsensical "Growing Earth" "Theory"

So on one hand, mainstream science claim that a part of the Arctic area openend/extended/created crust since late Mesozoic.

On the other hand, Carey don't show anything supporting his claim that "since the Permian [...] the Arctic has been an area of extension".

Me neither.

Thank you very much for those maps.

I don't see that in these map. Where, or how, do you see that in these map?

In these maps, I see most of continent moving to the North since Permian. But among those continents, during this time, only a few are converging on the Arctic, and not even all this time.

I see continents moving norther, and the Artic "sphenochasm" opening. I don't see any paradadox or deadly flaw.

Corrected: but not during Triassic or Permian; By this area.

You are right.

I don't answer to the 2 § about oceanic crust before the Mesozoic, because this seem out of scope.

I would rather wrote "claimed" instead of "pointed".

No, they converged not.

It is not because Mollweide projection (oval globe) show converging upper border, that the North side of the Earth is a triangle and continent which move norther than Arctic circle must converge and stack up there.

I do, and mainstream science's paleogeographic maps here and here say the same. North America and Europe where togethere between Devonian and Jurassic. Europe and Siberia are togethere since Carboniferous. North America, Europe, South America, Africa have moved to the North, without convergence on the West-East axis between them, since Devonian.

I still do not see why there should be a convergence of North America and Siberia across the Arctic ocean if North America and Siberia moved to the North "side-by-side and in tandem" (thank you for those last words, they fit perfectly, better that "moved together", to what I wanted to say about this movement).

The previsouly mentionned mainstream science's paleogeographic maps show Alaska and eastern Siberia converging between Jurassic and Paleocene, across the Bering Strait. I do not know if this is right, needed, supported by PT theory, supported by geological evidence.

But such convergence would be far from "all of the continents except Antarctica have converged on the Arctic [...] since the Permian".

Please also notice that if "they moved side-by-side and in tandem", then Carey's claim that they
"have converged on the Arctic", that they "have moved [...] from different directions converging on the Arctic", is simply wrong.

Several continents are now around the North pole and were at lower latitudes previously according to palemognetism. If they moved to the north, they could a priori (presumedly) have used several way, but Carey choice the way that suit him, and conveniently do as if it is the only way.

No, it is not. In his speech and writing about the "Artic Paradox", I have never seen Carey distinguishing the geographic area near the North pole and the Earth crust currently near the North pole. It is as if Carey think that the Earth crust currently arround the North pole has always been there (or at least since Permian). It is as if Carey think that this crust can not move and is fixed.

(excerpt from Edward Irving, The Role of Latitude in Mobilism Debates, PNAS, February 8, 2005 vol. 102 no. 6 1821-1828, DOI:10.1073/pnas.0408162101)

Why? What support or demonstrate a "north-south convergence"? What support or demonstrate a "east-west convergence"?

I'm trying.

No more to say.

Yes. On a constant-sized spherical Earth

• North America and Europe moved to the North
• North America and Europe did not converge across the Artic
• North America and Europe diverged across the Atlantic
• North America and Europe converged across the Pacific

I substitute "have converged" for "have moved", because they have not conerged in my opinion.

I substitute "on the Arctic" for "on to the North Pole", to repel confusion between the North Pole location, and the crust currently at this location.

I substitute oceanic crust creation since the Permian for oceanic crust creation since the Jurassic, because there is not evidence for crust creation there during the Permian or the Triassic

Indeed. This is what Carey said (as far as I understand).

You're welcome.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Gneiss2011,

I think things are getting out of hand here, and attempting to reply to each of your comments one-by-one will make things even more confusing. So please allow me to "reset" by recounting the facts and then interpreting them from both the PT and the EE perspective. With respect to the Arctic, PT and EE both make very specific empirical predictions that must be tested against the facts.

Facts

• 1 - Eurasia and North America are currently circum-polar continents and they are separated by the Arctic basins.
• 2 - The post-Permian Arctic tectonic history reveals no evidence of convergence (subduction, orogenesis, active margins) but it does show evidence of divergence (new seafloor, mid-oceanic ridges, and passive margins).
• 3 - Paleontological and paleomagnetic data (Irving) indicates that Eurasia and North America in the Permian were in lower latitudes, i.e. they were closer to the equator and, over time, they "migrated" to higher latitudes.

EE interpretation

• 1 - The globe was smaller in the Permian, so it is no surprise (indeed is predicted) that North America and Eurasia have always been in close proximity across the present-day Arctic.
• 2 - Pangaea covered the entire globe; there was no Panthalassa.
• 3 - Earth expansion occurred during the Mesozoic and Cenozoic and broke up Pangaea, with much more extensive expansion in the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere. This asymmetrical expansion had the effect of causing the latitudes to migrate southward, even though Eurasia and North America moved hardly at all.
• 4 - Expansion also caused the Arctic to open (i.e. Carey's Arctic sphenochasm). The insertion of this new oceanic crust between Eurasia and North America caused those two land masses to diverge.
• 5 - This interpretation is entirely consistent with Arctic tectonic history and with the paleontological and paleomagnetic data in North America and Eurasia. (We're talking about the Arctic here, not the Pacific, so please don't quibble over the Pacific for the moment. We'll have plenty of time to discuss that. One problem at a time, please.)

PT interpretation

• 1 - The size of the globe has not changed since the Permian.
• 2 - During the Carboniferous-Early Permian, Pangaea covered less than half of the globe; the rest of the globe was covered by Panthalassa (plus a handful of smaller landmasses). In particular, the northern third or so of the globe, including what is now the Arctic region, was oceanic.
• 3 - When Pangaea began to break up in the Triassic, Eurasia and North America, which had been in low latitudes in the Permian (see fact 3 above) began to drift northward toward higher latitudes.
• 4 - Eventually, the northward (longitudinal) migration of Eurasia and North America caused them to converge on the poles (i.e. the Arctic), where they are today.
• 5 - If Eurasia and North America have converged on the Arctic since the Permian, as is required by the PT interpretation and is indeed shown on the Irving maps, then we should see some evidence of convergence along the northern margins of Eurasia and North America and/or in the Arctic basins. But there is no geological evidence of convergence in the Arctic. On the contrary, Arctic geology indicates divergence (see fact 2 above).
• 6 - Therein lies the Arctic paradox: the northward migration of Eurasia and North America since the Permian but no geological evidence of convergence in the Arctic. In other words, PT predicts, based on the assumption of a constant-sized earth plus the paleomagnetic data, that North American and Eurasia must have converged in the Arctic, but that prediction is refuted by the geological evidence.

Results
EE's prediction is corroborated; PT's prediction is refuted. EE theory is validated (for the moment); PT theory is falsified. All according to Hoyle (i.e. Karl Popper.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here's a novel thought. Why don't you look into it yourself instead of relying on others to do your homework?

(BTW, I've already provided at least three other recent references to Arctic tectonics, and they all say "divergence" and none says "convergence.")

 

As I said in my edited reply, I provided at least three other recent references. And there were several others that I didn't mention.

And if you have done your homework, what did you find?

 

And I answered your direct question: I provided at least 3 references in my previous posts that show divergence in the Arctic but no divergence.

So far, you're doing a good job of avoiding the facts... unless of course you can provide facts that indicate convergence in the Arctic.

I've done my part. I really think the ball is in your court.

 

Not only I allow you to do so, it would have been necessary to do so by a few post. Afeter digging repetivly in the details, one must god back to a broad view by time to time.

Good. I fully agree with that. Except for points:

• The line "Eventually, the northward (longitudinal) migration of Eurasia and North America caused them to converge on the poles (i.e. the Arctic), where they are today." should be corrected by "Eventually, the northward (longitudinal) migration of Eurasia and North America caused them to move on the north pole (i.e. the Arctic), near where they are today."
• The 3 lines "If Eurasia and North America have converged on the Arctic since the Permian, as is required by the PT interpretation and is indeed shown on the Irving maps, then we should see some evidence of convergence along the northern margins of Eurasia and North America and/or in the Arctic basins. But there is no geological evidence of convergence in the Arctic. On the contrary, Arctic geology indicates divergence (see fact 2 above).", "Therein lies the Arctic paradox: the northward migration of Eurasia and North America since the Permian but no geological evidence of convergence in the Arctic. In other words, PT predicts, based on the assumption of a constant-sized earth plus the paleomagnetic data, that North American and Eurasia must have converged in the Arctic, but that prediction is refuted by the geological evidence." and "EE's prediction is corroborated; PT's prediction is refuted. EE theory is validated (for the moment); PT theory is falsified. All according to Hoyle (i.e. Karl Popper.) " should be in the "EE interpretation" section.

 

Oh please. Am I absolutely certain? Of course not! Who knows what will be discovered in the future. Do you actually believe that any non-trivial scientific theory is ever proved with absolute certainty? If so, then you must live in one of those parallel universes that Quantum Theory predicts.

To answer your question about what it would mean for EE if there were convergence in the Arctic -- it would simply eliminate the Arctic Paradox as an argument against PT. But it wouldn't disprove EE, if that's what you're suggesting. It would merely not disprove PT. But of course disproving is the operative word here. As Hume pointed out in the 18th century, no amount of evidence can ever definitively prove any theory. If it could, then the fact that the sun rises and sets every day would prove Ptolemian astronomy, now wouldn't it? So, as Popper argued, we have to look for contrary evidence, i.e., evidence that refutes predictions and thereby falsifies the theories from which those predictions are deduced.

If convergence in the Arctic has occurred, then based on Irving's maps it must have been on the order of hundreds of linear miles. Of course, PT has no problem with that. Subduction zones can suck up (or down) thousands of linear miles, and tens-of-thousands of square miles, of oceanic crust. Gee, I wish EE had a mechanism like that -- one that can consume and eliminate all of its own evidence. How convenient! Unfortunately, there are no subduction zones in the Arctic, unless of course you've discovered one.

Of course, the Arctic subduction zones themselves could've been subducted, just as spreading ridges have allegedly been subducted, e.g. under western North America. Now that's an interesting idea.

 

Really? Is that it? If so, we can move on!

I was going to discuss the Pacific Paradox next, but that's the big, juicy, enchilada, so I'll save it for a later course, or maybe dessert. So in the meantime, I want to turn to the India Paradox, which is a subject that not only deals with geology (i.e. the disparate predictions deduced from PT and EE and how they each fare with respect to the geological facts) but also epistemology (i.e. the scientific method), which is a subject near and dear to my heart. More anon.

 

Well, I certainly didn't mean to get personal. I was simply trying to say that if you believe that anything can ever be definitely proved, then you're wrong, without actually saying that. I was trying to be light-hearted and not put too fine a point on it, like I would have had I simply said: "you are wrong." But I guess that's personal too.

I know of plenty of things that might disprove EE, but at the moment we are discussing the Arctic Paradox, and more generally Plate Tectonics, which is the current dogma. And you know you can't crown a new king without first deposing the old one. After all, if PT can pass all the tests, then there's no point in proposing an alternative.

Huh?

I believe the saying goes "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But in the present context, it suggests to me that you don't agree with Popper's methodology. No problem there; a lot of people don't agree with it. Science, of course, or more accurately Kuhn's "Normal Science," pretty much ignores falsification, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it is (or certainly should be) a conscious decision to ignore contrary evidence in order to save the theory.

Well, you're in luck! Thanks in no small part to my replies to you, I have now reached the exalted status of TWENTY POSTS. Ta-da!!!! I am now one of the cognoscenti, the illuminati! And for that I must thank you, Trippy. But more to the point, it means I can now insert images and URLs in my posts! So, now that I've posted 20 times, do I get a medal, or certificate, or something? A lousy tee-shirt would do.

So, here are the first three northern hemisphere maps that are included in my GIF, from the Carboniferous thru Middle Jurassic. (Sorry, three images is the limit -- thank you, blog police; and I also apologize that my GIFs ran too fast):

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What I said is what I said. If you can find evidence of convergence in the Arctic since the Permian, whether subduction zones or not, then go for it! I have found no such evidence in the literature (alas, I have not personally visited the Arctic), but if I had, do you think I would have posted what I posted?

Honestly, you would do a great service if you dug through the literature and found geological evidence of Arctic convergence. You could probably publish a peer reviewed paper based on your research. (I hope that's not too personal.)

 

I'm not saying that at all. Under PT, on a constant-sized earth, then every square mile produced at spreading centers must be offset by subduction somewhere else; otherwise, the earth would expand. But there's no need for subduction zones in the Atlantic, just so long as they are somewhere else and they consume enough oceanic crust; and PT puts most of them in the Pacific. The same goes for Antarctica, which is surrounding by ridges but without any corresponding subduction zones (except maybe the small one east of Tierra del Fuego, the name of which I can't recall at the moment.)

 

No, because the convergence had to take place in the Arctic, in order to bring North America and Eurasia together into their present-day configuration. Neither PT nor EE predicts that the continents have converged across the Atlantic at any time since the Permian, so in that regard the Arctic and Atlantic are apples and oranges. But it's important to note that both the Arctic and the Atlantic are bounded by passive margins, which, in the Atlantic at least, is universally accepted as evidence of divergence. Indeed, the Atlantic is the exemplar of Wegenerian drift.

Anticipating a future topic, opponents of Wegener, now discredited and cast into the dustbin of history, even though at the time they were the leaders of American geology, suggested that land bridges across the Atlantic adequately explained the biogeographical links between Africa and South America, which Wegener had cited as evidence for drift. We will see similar arguments proposed with respect to India, and also with respect to the Pacific coasts of the Americas and Asia, to explain away certain geological anomalies, though not by EE proponents.