Is the earth expanding?

[rogerharris]

I think my point is made. This is the elephant in the room they all run away from.

[Robittybob1]

I think my point is made. This is the elephant in the room they all run away from.

I haven't run away yet, but you seem to have leapt to some conclusion ahead of me.
Give me a week or so to go through it please.

[rogerharris]

I haven't run away yet, but you seem to have leapt to some conclusion ahead of me.
Give me a week or so to go through it please.

take as long as you like. It took me longer to get my head round it.

My initital reaction was, jaw drop... no .. it cant be.. then i started reading maxlows thesis (on his website as PDF) and realizing this is clear data.

People cant handle it. Especially the more you have invested in traditional geology, the worse it gets for the brain.

Neal had to fork out a good deal of his savings to have that rendered ten years ago, but today it can be carried out on a decent gamers PC.

So as time progresses this animation will be repeated by many people, at higher resolutions, zooming in on various aspects.

Its the threshold of an open science revolution.

the opposition, avoidance and denial (as we have seen from trippy here) is actually a very good sign.

[rogerharris]

I haven't run away yet, but you seem to have leapt to some conclusion ahead of me.
Give me a week or so to go through it please.

i was referring to trippy running away.

I have seen this so many times. Keep forcing, repeating the question, and eventually they storm off accusing me of this and that rather than answer this very simple question.

[Trippy]

I think my point is made. This is the elephant in the room they all run away from.

Yes, because obviously if I take more than a minute to reply...

[Trippy]

So why is it not possible for you to discuss the removal of the sea floor bed ?

I have discussed it. I've even said that it's completely consistent with the predictions made by modern plate tectonic theory.

have you seen this...

Yes. It's old hat.

then this regression from the data ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQSrsy9xg70

Yes, I've seen that video, along with all of his others. He's still a fraud.

Why should the Universe be easy to understand? That's probablyt the most absurd argument I have ever heard.

Now supposing you were to carry out this regression, and so presumably do it with honesty rather than lie and fudge as i presume you are accussing neal adams of doing.

I don't have to lie and fudge to make my point.

In this regression you would be removing One million years of sea floor bed per second (or longer if you wish), then moving the plates back over the gap along the vectors given by the banding as in the figure above which demarcate the sea floor bed spreading vector.

Then would that be a valid linear regression to carry out or not ?

You keep using the word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Linear Regression on Wiki

Reregression has a very specific meaning, and what Adams (for example) is doing isn't it. I can understand why you might use the word, in that the definition is "a return to a former or less developed state", however, it is more accurately termed a reconstruction, rather than a regression.

So in that regard, no, not valid.

However, as I believe I have stated several times now, the same thing is predicted by moder tectonic theories, although the timing of some events may differ.

The difference between your assumption and mine is that you assume that because older sea floor crust does not exist, it never existed.

Meanwhile, I look at factors such as the proximity of the old crust to continental margins, and (especially) destructive margins, the pattern of earthquakes at those margins, the patterns and composition of the vulcanism generated at those margins, the density profiles at those margins revealed by seismic tomography, seismic reflection profiles, and evidence available in places such a sutured or inactive subduction zones, and look at elements , and come to the conclusion that the evidence stronly supports the hypothesis that the missing oceanic crust is subducted, and then destroyed.

Meanwhile, Neal Adams is still spinning nonsense like "The mantle is 2 times denser than solid granite".
Granite has a density of 2.65-2.75 g/cm³
Mantle density is variable, but 3.4 at 200km depth and 4.4 at 800km depth.

But the point is (and the reason why it's nonsense, and why it makes Neal (at best) dishonest, is that the ocean floors aren't made of Granite, they're made of basalt, and become denser as they cool and thicken. What Neal Adams presents is called a Red Herring, or a Strawman argument.

[florian]

i was referring to trippy running away.

I have seen this so many times. Keep forcing, repeating the question, and eventually they storm off accusing me of this and that rather than answer this very simple question.

Indeed, I have a colleague working on a new algorithm to make a more rigorous model. But it is very tricky. Plate tectonics models are a piece of cake compared to Expansion tectonics models, because the former is 2D (well, on a sphere) and the latter is full 3D.

[Robittybob1]

Indeed, I have a colleague working on a new algorithm to make a more rigorous model. But it is very tricky. Plate tectonics models are a piece of cake compared to Expansion tectonics models, because the former is 2D (well, on a sphere) and the latter is full 3D.

What time in history are they saying the expansion occurred. The work I saw by Herndon the expansion was left far to late.

[rogerharris]

I don't have to lie and fudge to make my point.

I never said you did, but you have not provided any evidence that neal has either.

Reregression has a very specific meaning, and what Adams (for example) is doing isn't it. I can understand why you might use the word, in that the definition is "a return to a former or less developed state", however, it is more accurately termed a reconstruction, rather than a regression.

I know what the traditional term means. I am taught linear regression at stanford machine learning classes. However there is still no better term to describe this. In many disciplines the same terms are used for different things because there is simply no better word to put it. A regression computes back in time. A reconstruction does not say this. Also if we use the mathematical technique of linear regression on this problem it would yield the same result. A continuous rather than discrete set of functions that operate in parallel. So the term is still valid.

However, as I believe I have stated several times now, the same thing is predicted by moder tectonic theories, although the timing of some events may differ.

The difference between your assumption and mine is that you assume that because older sea floor crust does not exist, it never existed.

that really does not make any difference to the point i am trying to discuss here. We are not discussing plate tectonics. We can have another thread for that. All we are discussing at this stage is does this regression of the sea floor produce a linear function for which there is no other solution. i.e. Remove the seafloor by age, then pushing the continental plates in the direction of isochron bands is a parallel spatial regression that produces a linear function. i.e Its fixed linear function for the entire planet that nobody can deny is valid as a method.

so all that is left is to call the animation fudged and a lie right ?

So this is the question we are returning to. Forget neals actual result. James maxlow ran the same simulation in a university computer and the result was the same. The University at that time in 1990 could not provide maxlow massive funds to produce high resolution graphics that would wow people. Neal then used the same data later on high power graphic system and provided a bulk of his personal life savings, to educate people from his generosity.

Neals first animations with water, used low budget renderings and those had some errors. So he then provided more money to have a high resolution rendering using the magnetic sea floor data and strip away the sea. That animation used a scientific approach and that is the animation we are looking at.

So back to the question. Is this floor removal method valid to illustrate its point in a mathematically accurate and scientific manner as a method or not ?

Meanwhile, I look at factors such as the proximity of the old crust to continental margins, and (especially) destructive margins, the pattern of earthquakes at those margins, the patterns and composition of the vulcanism generated at those margins, the density profiles at those margins revealed by seismic tomography, seismic reflection profiles, and evidence available in places such a sutured or inactive subduction zones, and look at elements , and come to the conclusion that the evidence stronly supports the hypothesis that the missing oceanic crust is subducted, and then destroyed

you can look at this way if you like. I have to write such geology essays for university and agree on it or else i will fail the course. this is again going off track from the question i am asking.

Meanwhile, Neal Adams is still spinning nonsense like "The mantle is 2 times denser than solid granite".
Granite has a density of 2.65-2.75 g/cm³
Mantle density is variable, but 3.4 at 200km depth and 4.4 at 800km depth.

But the point is (and the reason why it's nonsense, and why it makes Neal (at best) dishonest, is that the ocean floors aren't made of Granite, they're made of basalt, and become denser as they cool and thicken. What Neal Adams presents is called a Red Herring, or a Strawman argument.

You mean surely at best it makes him bad at geology. At worst dishonest ? As far as i remember he says they are made of basalt. Again this is irrelevant and off track. We arent discussing neals geology competency. his primary contribution was the vision to realise now was the time to use imaging to have high resolution renderings made, and those have indeed worked and rocked this issue back into action. Well done to him for that. As for the rest of his abilities, better reading james maxlow and other brave geologists i think. I just had an email from a geologist interested in this. Well there is a group of them. Do you know that they are writing papers but what they have to do to get published is hide the fact they are researching earth expansion mechanisms. Thats how closed this field is. They will irritate their colleagues and may even lose promotions, opportunity or even jobs. Neal adams personal correspondence with geologists tells the same story.

So back to the point. Is this regression of the ocean floor removal valid as a method to examine what happens when you do that or is it not. If the method is not valid for that purpose then can you answer why is it not valid ?

[rogerharris]

Indeed, I have a colleague working on a new algorithm to make a more rigorous model. But it is very tricky. Plate tectonics models are a piece of cake compared to Expansion tectonics models, because the former is 2D (well, on a sphere) and the latter is full 3D.

Id be interested in that. I am thinking of creating an open science project so that the 3d model of the earth could be available online and this would allow the general public to repeat this on a home computer either with custom software or an animation file so it can be run in the trial versions of autodesk software.

Then there can be no question there is lies and hoax. Well there could, but then it would be the general public all accusing each other which is positive. In that situaion there is a real wide open world wide online debate, rather than paranioa focussed on neals work.

[Trippy]

I never said you did, but you have not provided any evidence that neal has either.

I guess he also believes in Lemuria.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
His assertions are false. He lies about not adding land, and not distorting continents. QED.

I know what the traditional term means. I am taught linear regression at stanford machine learning classes. However there is still no better term to describe this.

Yes there is, it's called a reconstruction, same word that gets used in the mainstream.

In many disciplines the same terms are used for different things because there is simply no better word to put it. A regression computes back in time. A reconstruction does not say this. Also if we use the mathematical technique of linear regression on this problem it would yield the same result. A continuous rather than discrete set of functions that operate in parallel. So the term is still valid.

Pure BS.

that really does not make any difference to the point i am trying to discuss here. We are not discussing plate tectonics. We can have another thread for that. All we are discussing at this stage is does this regression of the sea floor produce a linear function for which there is no other solution.

And I have explicitly stated several times that it does not.

so all that is left is to call the animation fudged and a lie right ?

So this is the question we are returning to. Forget neals actual result. James maxlow ran the same simulation in a university computer and the result was the same. The University at that time in 1990 could not provide maxlow massive funds to produce high resolution graphics that would wow people. Neal then used the same data later on high power graphic system and provided a bulk of his personal life savings, to educate people from his generosity.

And produced a wrong result, and then lied about that wrong result.

you can look at this way if you like. I have to write such geology essays for university and agree on it or else i will fail the course. this is again going off track from the question i am asking.

No, it is not.

You mean surely at best it makes him bad at geology. At worst dishonest?

No, I meant what I said.

As far as i remember he says they are made of basalt.

He says no such thing. He point blank asserts that because the mantle is twice as dense as granite, that subduction is impossible.

Again this is irrelevant and off track.

No, it is completely relevant.

his primary contribution was the vision to realise now was the time to use imaging to have high resolution renderings made, and those have indeed worked and rocked this issue back into action.

His renderings are wrong, unless you believe in Lemuria, and his logic is flawed.

As for the rest of his abilities, better reading james maxlow and other brave geologists i think. I just had an email from a geologist interested in this. Well there is a group of them. Do you know that they are writing papers but what they have to do to get published is hide the fact they are researching earth expansion mechanisms. Thats how closed this field is. They will irritate their colleagues and may even lose promotions, opportunity or even jobs. Neal adams personal correspondence with geologists tells the same story.

And here we go again. None of this is relevant. People might have laughed at Galileo, but they also laugh at Bozo the Clown. And yes, I've read a number of their papers, something that you might have gleaned had you bothered to read this thread before jumping in feet first and shooting your mouth off.

So back to the point. Is this regression of the ocean floor removal valid as a method to examine what happens when you do that or is it not. If the method is not valid for that purpose then can you answer why is it not valid ?

Asked and answered.

[Trippy]

In that situaion there is a real wide open world wide online debate, rather than paranioa focussed on neals work.

You're the one that brought Neal's work into the discussion in the first place. You asked his video to be addressed, and it was, based on its content.

[florian]

What time in history are they saying the expansion occurred. The work I saw by Herndon the expansion was left far to late.

No, its a gradual process. Actually, in Expansion tectonics, any tectonic activity is related to the growth, so any evidence for tectonics activity in the past is an evidence for the growth itself.

[florian]

Roger,

Just removing seafloor will lead to a not so accurate model, because active margins are tricky to wind back in time. Active margins are the place where both new seafloor is created and old seafloor is buried down. You must get a good knowledge of their history. See the Philippine sea for example:

[Robittybob1]

No, its a gradual process. Actually, in Expansion tectonics, any tectonic activity is related to the growth, so any evidence for tectonics activity in the past is an evidence for the growth itself.

The actual breakup of the super-continent maybe late but the expansion must have started billions of years ago.
I sort of imagine the original ocean being a very active hot spot that just kept the continent together. There was no where it could go as it was being held together till about 500 million years ago.
Does that make sense?

[AlexG]

The actual breakup of the super-continent maybe late but the expansion must have started billions of years ago.
I sort of imagine the original ocean being a very active hot spot that just kept the continent together. There was no where it could go as it was being held together till about 500 million years ago.
Does that make sense?

No.

[Robittybob1]

The actual breakup of the super-continent maybe late but the expansion must have started billions of years ago.
I sort of imagine the original ocean being a very active hot spot that just kept the continent together. There was no where it could go as it was being held together till about 500 million years ago.
Does that make sense?

These ideas are a work in progress, so if they don't make immediate sense it is quite possible. That is why I asked the question, for I wasn't sure it did but I'll try again some time.
There is this compressed Earth surrounded by many Earth masses of volatiles.
The core and mantel is molten but the boundary layer the lithosphere is solid and acts as the insulation between the inner molten and outer liquids. All the lighter elements are generally in the upper portion in the lithosphere and the denser elements Iron Nickel are in the inner parts of the Earth.

Because of the immense pressure there is a lot of interior compression. As the volatiles are ripped off the Earth , Comets , asteroids the moon capture, and T-Tauri sun intense solar winds the pressure is reduced and the Earth expands to release the compression.

Cracks appear in the lithosphere and the Basaltic ocean plate fill the gap. This was over the main hot spot. from there the ocean plates moved toward the continental part pushing at the boundary and keeping it together as the ocean continued to expand.
500 million years ago the first large areas of land finally surfaced and the remaining water had been contained in the ocean.
Later the large continental plate broke up into 7-8 major parts and began drifting as explained by the tectonic plate theory.

Could this be the basis of a workable hypothesis?

[rogerharris]

Asked and answered.

no you still havent answered. all you have done is evade.

Is this regression of the ocean floor removal valid as a method to examine what happens when you do that or is it not.

If the method is not valid for that purpose then can you answer why is it not valid ?

[rogerharris]

Roger,

Just removing seafloor will lead to a not so accurate model, because active margins are tricky to wind back in time. Active margins are the place where both new seafloor is created and old seafloor is buried down. You must get a good knowledge of their history. See the Philippine sea for example:

where did you get that ? a global map of that resolution of it exists would be perfect for a regression model.

[Trippy]

no you still havent answered. all you have done is evade.

Is this regression of the ocean floor removal valid as a method to examine what happens when you do that or is it not.

If the method is not valid for that purpose then can you answer why is it not valid ?

I have, in fact, already answered this question. Your inability to recognize such is not my problem.

Here's a second answer for you. It's invalid as proof of anything, because doing so would be circular logic.