Page 4 of 52 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 1022

Thread: Is the earth expanding?

  1. #61
    ALEA IACTA EST Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    10,064
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    A typo? Really? Let me remind you what you wrote.
    About the Kuril trench (boundary between Okhotsk/Pacific), on 06-02-11 06:54 PM, you wrote:

    Here you clearly states that the WBZ is parallel to the plate motion of Okhotsk. If the boundary was parallel to the plate motion then the boundary would be transform fault, not a megathrust (!)
    Only... The WBZ isn't in the Okhotsk plate is it?
    The WBZ is in the Pacific plate, isn't it.
    Which would mean that yes, the WBZ is paralell to the motion of the plate that it's on - the pacific plate.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Here you clearly states again that the Okhotsk plate moves parallely to the boundary, to the southwest, and not to the southeast toward the Pacific. But you splendily ignore the fact that the Pacific is moving toward the Okhotsk plate (!)
    Mostly correct - I didn't ignore the motion of the pacific plate, I had already addressed it, you just failed to recognize that I had done so.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Then on 06-06-11 06:08 PM, you wrote.

    Suggesting again that both the pacific plate and Okhotsk plate move in the same direction.
    This, I have explained to you, was a typo.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Who could believe that 3 times the same mistake is just a typo. Give me a break. you're backpeddling and denying the facts.
    I'm back peddling on nothing. So far you've presented two wrong interpretations of what was said, interpretations that I wouldn't even be willing to give you as reasonable inferences, and rehashing what has already been explained to you as a typo - all because you can't imagine how my suggesting that one plate is moving towards a boundary, and the other is moving paralell to it - or heaven forbid, away from it, it can still be a convergent boundary. This is a failing on your part, not mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Thanks but no thanks. If I provided this reference, it is evidently because I have the pdf and read it.
    And yet...

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Incredible, you persist in your error! Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum!
    If it appears sub parallel, it is simply because the velocity of the global mantle flow is larger than the norm of both the Okhotsk and Pacific velocity vector. In other words, if the norm of two vectors u and v is smaller than 1, and if we add a vector w of norm 10 to u and v, then u+w and v+w will appear sub parallel. Very very basic math.
    No, not really, because I can trivially wrap my head around how two plates can be moving in a sub paralell fashion, and still have a convergent boundary, you, on the other hand, keep missing the point, as to why I bought it up in the first place. Here's a clue for you, it had nothing to do with trying to contradict the notion that the Kurile trench is a covergent margin, in fact, it's kind of, umm, essential to my point that it is a convergent margin.

    Let me spell it out for you, yet again, I am not asserting that the Kurile margin is anything other than a convergent margin, with the pacific plate subducting under the Okhotsk plate, this is a strawman hypothesis invented by you.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    You confirm that you really don't understand what you're talking about and that you have serious issues with the comprehension of relative motion.
    Clearly my spatial reasoning surpasses yours, because I do not need to choose a preferred reference frame to understand whether something is convergent or divergent.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    This is becoming ludicrous. I insist, to clearly show that two blocks are converging, one must choose one block or the other as a referential. Any other referential will provide a less appropriate representation of the convergence.
    And you insit wrongly.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    So according to you, it is poor logic to choose as the referential one of the two blocks that we want to show to converge? Because it leads to misleading impressions? There is no more doubt. You're in denial.
    So, according to you, insisting on accuracy, and universal applicability is being in denial?

    Interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    This is a special effort for you. And deniers like you deserve it.
    You're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.

    I do not accept expanding earth theories because I have not seen one shred of evidence that supports them to the exclusion of any other theory, and because most of them require things such as the Earths orbital parameters to have changed in very specific, very contrived ways to counter lines of evidence against expanding earth theories.

  2. #62
    Debunking machine florian's Avatar
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Which would mean that yes, the WBZ is paralell to the motion of the plate that it's on - the pacific plate.
    The WBZ is parallel to the motion of the pacific plate??? You're really confusing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Mostly correct - I didn't ignore the motion of the pacific plate, I had already addressed it, you just failed to recognize that I had done so.
    Sorry, but you persist with that silly idea that Okhotsk is truly moving parallel to the WBZ whereas it is just resulting from an arbitrary choice of referential. You apparently believe that there is an absolute referential which is the one chosen in the figure. This is wrong. In consequence, you cannot state that the Okhotsk plate is truly moving along the WBZ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    I'm back peddling on nothing. So far you've presented two wrong interpretations of what was said, interpretations that I wouldn't even be willing to give you as reasonable inferences, and rehashing what has already been explained to you as a typo - all because you can't imagine how my suggesting that one plate is moving towards a boundary, and the other is moving paralell to it - or heaven forbid, away from it, it can still be a convergent boundary. This is a failing on your part, not mine.
    Again you believe that there is an absolute referential that allows you to state that "one plate is moving towards a boundary, and the other is moving paralell to it". This is wrong.
    On the other side, there are two referentials that are more convenient than all others to show the convergence: the pacific lithosphere, Okhotsk lithosphere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    No, not really, because I can trivially wrap my head around how two plates can be moving in a sub paralell fashion, and still have a convergent boundary, you, on the other hand, keep missing the point, as to why I bought it up in the first place. Here's a clue for you, it had nothing to do with trying to contradict the notion that the Kurile trench is a covergent margin, in fact, it's kind of, umm, essential to my point that it is a convergent margin.
    And it is essential to mine as well. The difference is in the driving force of the convergence. You believe that the sinking slab drives the convergence, whereas this is the mantle driving the convergence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Clearly my spatial reasoning surpasses yours, because I do not need to choose a preferred reference frame to understand whether something is convergent or divergent.
    whooaa! I'm truly impressed. I did not realize until now that you're in fact a genius! (yeah I'm ironic).

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    And you insit wrongly.
    So according to your superior spatial reasoning, to clearly show that two blocks are converging, one must not prefer to choose one of the blocks as a convenient referential?


    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    So, according to you, insisting on accuracy, and universal applicability is being in denial?
    Persisting in thinking that the arbitrary referential chosen for a figure illustrates the absolute motion of lithosphere is being in denial, indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    You're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.
    Because I pointed that you're in denial? Interesting...


    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    I do not accept expanding earth theories because I have not seen one shred of evidence that supports them to the exclusion of any other theory,
    Really? I'm still waiting for the list of scientific papers that you read on the subject. Probably none.
    Try this one for a start: http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstrea.../07scalera.pdf

    and because most of them require things such as the Earths orbital parameters to have changed in very specific, very contrived ways to counter lines of evidence against expanding earth theories.
    Very specific ways? Given that we have no idea of the momemtum contribution from the gained mass (or do you believe it is zero?) it is impossible to make any prediction on the evolution of Earths orbital parameters.

  3. #63
    ALEA IACTA EST Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    10,064
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    The WBZ is parallel to the motion of the pacific plate??? You're really confusing.
    Only because you, apparently, have failed to retain context, and have been to busy getting all emotional in defense of your theory to take the time to understand and retain what I have actually said.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Sorry, but you persist with that silly idea that Okhotsk is truly moving parallel to the WBZ whereas it is just resulting from an arbitrary choice of referential. You apparently believe that there is an absolute referential which is the one chosen in the figure. This is wrong. In consequence, you cannot state that the Okhotsk plate is truly moving along the WBZ.
    This is hilarious to me, for a number of reasons which I am sure will continue to escape you.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Again you believe that there is an absolute referential that allows you to state that "one plate is moving towards a boundary, and the other is moving paralell to it". This is wrong.
    On the other side, there are two referentials that are more convenient than all others to show the convergence: the pacific lithosphere, Okhotsk lithosphere.
    Once again, you fail to understand that my reference system also shows a convergence.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    And it is essential to mine as well. The difference is in the driving force of the convergence. You believe that the sinking slab drives the convergence, whereas this is the mantle driving the convergence.
    You don't know what I think, because I haven't expounded upon it, and your assumption is wrong. I happen to know, for example, that the most accurate models of the motion of the pacific plate involve a combination of slab pull and mantle drag.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    whooaa! I'm truly impressed. I did not realize until now that you're in fact a genius! (yeah I'm ironic).
    That's one word for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    So according to your superior spatial reasoning, to clearly show that two blocks are converging, one must not prefer to choose one of the blocks as a convenient referential?
    Not what I said, nor what I implied. I suggested that one shouldn't, because one doesn't need to, and if one does, then one risks missing part of the bigger picture.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Persisting in thinking that the arbitrary referential chosen for a figure illustrates the absolute motion of lithosphere is being in denial, indeed.
    Now you're being absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Because I pointed that you're in denial? Interesting...
    If the language fits...

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Really? I'm still waiting for the list of scientific papers that you read on the subject. Probably none.
    Try this one for a start: http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstrea.../07scalera.pdf
    Already read it, but thanks for the consideration anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Very specific ways? Given that we have no idea of the momemtum contribution from the gained mass (or do you believe it is zero?) it is impossible to make any prediction on the evolution of Earths orbital parameters.
    Yes, very specific ways - it must be fine tuned in just the right way so that Tidal rythmites, for example, give the impression of no net change in angular momentum of the Earth-moon (sun) system for the last 2 billion years or so.

    Meanwhile, you fail to understand that not even all expanding earth theories require an increase in mass of the earth.

    Incidentally - I've often wondered how expanding earth tectonics can account for the Wilson cycle. It seems to me that expanding earth tectonics completely fails to address this observation, however, plate tectonics can easily predict/account for it.

  4. #64
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by jsispat View Post
    because earth is itself a single living organism like a tree and has been germinated from single meteoroid containing amino acid and biological chemistry (seed of planet). and this seed has been produced by an old cosmic body. one planet is a result of one meteoroid (seed of planet) as one tree is a result of one seed only.
    I like this idea, of an earth seed.

    I personally believe that all life on this planet was created by a creator(s). One thing I couldn't figure out though is why did our creator create the dinosaurs to roam this earth for so long, but not a more intelligent and interesting species(such as man) until way later? I just didn't understand the alien motivation.

    With the growing earth theory, gravity was a lot less during the dinosaurs' time. It just makes sense that dinosaurs should exist in a time of lesser gravity, as they couldn't exist in today's gravity due to their incredible body mass. It's almost as if the dinosaurs played their part.... as part of a larger planet-coordinated program of strategic species placement. If it wasn't for all the life before us, we wouldn't have oil for example. But with the length of time involved in this earth experiment, I imagine a lot of automation would be involved. Our creators may have only minimal intervention in the processes.

    Anyway, back to the earth seed idea. It's a conceivable idea...it's no more extreme than the idea that our DNA was created. The heart of our earth could be a machine which grew according to it's own "DNA" programming. Maybe the earth machine captures energy and converts it into specific matter according to it's programming.

    Regardless of whether or not the earth is alive though, the expanding earth theory is a winner. It just makes so much sense, and I haven't read any counter-arguments which point out any real flaws in it. All I see is the usual ad hom attacks, misinterpretations and confusion, and the idea-stifling defense of scientific consensus.

    Oh... and of course there's the international conspiracy to keep this information quite. We can't trust any statistical information that comes from NASA. For example, I read that NASA measured that the earth was indeed expanding about 18mm a year, but that this measurement is considered to be an error and therefore ignored.

  5. #65
    I didn't think this thread could get any sillier - I was apparently wrong.

  6. #66
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    10,273
    Quote Originally Posted by origin View Post
    I didn't think this thread could get any sillier - I was apparently wrong.
    Yeah, pretty much what I was thinking. Ugh! Just proves that old P.T. Barnum was right (and still is) - there's one born every minute.

  7. #67
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    449
    Lets talk about mountain formation.

    Let's hypothetically assume that the earth is in fact expanding. Imagine a smaller rounder earth. Imagine as the earth gets bigger, the crust breaks apart into pieces, and magma fills the spaces. Now just imagine one of these pieces, perhaps about the size of Texas. As the earth gets bigger and flatter, the texas-sized piece keeps a more rounded shape which it got from the mold of a younger earth. This colossal mound of crust sits raised upon the expanding earth for many years until one day, due to the stress of it's own awkwardly suspended weight, fractures upon itself and falls like a pile of rubble to the ground. This process of collapse may take many millions of years I guess, or maybe it happens relatively quicker. I imagine that the top layers of softer material would eventually erode away, revealing the stoney rubble pile, and the rigid structures that we know as mountains today.

    Assuming a hypothetical expanding earth, do you have a problem seeing how this scenario would most likely mimic many of the mountains which we have today?

  8. #68
    Debunking machine florian's Avatar
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Only because you, apparently, have failed to retain context, and have been to busy getting all emotional in defense of your theory to take the time to understand and retain what I have actually said.
    Didn't you write that the Okhotsk plate is not moving toward the pacific but along it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    This is hilarious to me, for a number of reasons which I am sure will continue to escape you.
    So in short, you call me an idiot... Wonderful...


    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Once again, you fail to understand that my reference system also shows a convergence.
    You interpret your reference system has showing no absolute motion of Okhotsk plate toward the pacific.


    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    You don't know what I think, because I haven't expounded upon it, and your assumption is wrong. I happen to know, for example, that the most accurate models of the motion of the pacific plate involve a combination of slab pull and mantle drag.
    Interesting, slab pull requires decoupling of the Asthenosphere and Lithosphere (low velocity zone), and is thus in contradiction with mantle drag. Citation please?


    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Already read it, but thanks for the consideration anyway.
    So why don't you discuss this paper?


    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Yes, very specific ways - it must be fine tuned in just the right way so that Tidal rythmites, for example, give the impression of no net change in angular momentum of the Earth-moon (sun) system for the last 2 billion years or so.
    Except that you seem to ignore that tidalite-based calculations rely entirely on the assumption that the orbital period of Earth never changed (8 766 h)

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Already read it, but thanks for the consideration anyway.
    So why don't you discuss this paper?


    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Meanwhile, you fail to understand that not even all expanding earth theories require an increase in mass of the earth.
    Easily refuted. Unsupported densities or surface gravity (e.g. 40 m/s2 or 200 My ago). You should know it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Incidentally - I've often wondered how expanding earth tectonics can account for the Wilson cycle. It seems to me that expanding earth tectonics completely fails to address this observation, however, plate tectonics can easily predict/account for it.
    No, Wilson cycles are easily explained, notably by Carey 50 years ago. But you know it, since as a good scientist, you read most of the important scientific literature on the expanding theory before discussing it here.
    And I remind you that I'm just an idiot. What's your name again?

  9. #69
    ALEA IACTA EST Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    10,064
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Didn't you write that the Okhotsk plate is not moving toward the pacific but along it?
    What I had to say about the motion of the Okhotsk plate is not what we were talking about, we were talking about the orientation of the dip (not the strike) of the WBZ.

    Here is what I originally said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Your explanation fails to account for all the available evidence, and observations.

    For example - consider the Kuril Islands Trench:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nioff_zone.JPG

    How does your diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the dip of the WBZ is paralell to the direction of plate motion?
    So the statement:
    "How does your diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the dip of the WBZ is paralell to the direction of plate motion?"
    Was made in the context of this image:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nioff_zone.JPG
    In the context of this image, the motion of the Pacific plate is from right to left, and the WBZ extends from right to left, and dips from right to left.

    Therefore the dip of the WBZ is paralell to the direction of plate motion (of the pacific plate, the plate being subducted).

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    So in short, you call me an idiot... Wonderful...
    Strawman hypothesis. I did not call you and idiot, nor did I imply it. I implied that there was something that I found amusing in your statement, and that I doubted you would understand why I found it amusing - it has to do with the Carey's choice of reference frames.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    You interpret your reference system has showing no absolute motion of Okhotsk plate toward the pacific.
    No I don't, this is your assertion about my reference frame, not what I interpret about my reference frame.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Interesting, slab pull requires decoupling of the Asthenosphere and Lithosphere (low velocity zone), and is thus in contradiction with mantle drag. Citation please?
    Not neccesarily.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    So why don't you discuss this paper?
    Because I find it terribly flawed on a number of levels, and I find some of the language used in it far from being neutral.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Except that you seem to ignore that tidalite-based calculations rely entirely on the assumption that the orbital period of Earth never changed (8 766 h)
    Not in the papers I've seen, no.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Easily refuted. Unsupported densities or surface gravity (e.g. 40 m/s2 or 200 My ago). You should know it.
    And yet Scalera advocates an expanding earth that requires no additional mass - he favours graviton decay into photons, because he feels that it also explains the heat excess from planets.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    No, Wilson cycles are easily explained, notably by Carey 50 years ago. But you know it, since as a good scientist, you read most of the important scientific literature on the expanding theory before discussing it here.
    This is deflection. You're avoiding answering the question.

    I'm asking you to explain, for the benefit of everybody here, as an advocate of Carey's expanding Earth theory, how the expanding earth theory accounts for the Wilson Cycle - the idea that there have been multiple assemblages of super continents in a quasi periodic cycle, without subduction, on the surface of an expanding earth.

    Please, stop evading the question, and answer it, in your own words.

    And then, perhaps, you can provide us with a paper that demonstrates the signal of a Carey's 24mm +/- 8mm per annum increase in the girth of this fine planet buried within the various datasets available from things such as GPS measurements, and lunar ranging experiments, and satellite ephamerides.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    What's your name again?
    Slartibartfast the Magrathean

  10. #70
    Debunking machine florian's Avatar
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    In the context of this image, the motion of the Pacific plate is from right to left, and the WBZ extends from right to left, and dips from right to left.

    Therefore the dip of the WBZ is paralell to the direction of plate motion (of the pacific plate, the plate being subducted).
    And? Why would you expect something different whatever the model?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Not in the papers I've seen, no.
    And how do you believe that the length of the paleaodays are calculated? The length of the days is calculated by dividing the orbital period assumed to be constant (8766 h) by the number of measured days in a year.

    I suggest you to read carefully Williams (2000) Reviews of Geophysics 38, p37.

    For example in page 47, Williams write:
    "Data for the coeval Reynella and Elatina rhythmites therefore indicate (30.5 ± 0.5) (13.1 ± 0.1) = 400 ± 7 solar days/yr and hence 21.9 ± 0.4 h/d at ~620 Ma"
    21.9±0.4 h/days is simply calculated by diviing the number of days (400) by the number of hours in a year (8766 h): 8766/400=21.9 hours. Bingo!

    And this central assumption is used in every caculations of the paleomomentum or lenght of paleodays derived from tidalites. If that central assumptions is wrong, then all the numbers are also wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    This is deflection. You're avoiding answering the question.

    I'm asking you to explain, for the benefit of everybody here, as an advocate of Carey's expanding Earth theory, how the expanding earth theory accounts for the Wilson Cycle - the idea that there have been multiple assemblages of super continents in a quasi periodic cycle, without subduction, on the surface of an expanding earth.
    First point. There is mantle-driven subduction which implies limited lithosphere destruction, and a global unbalance between lithosphere destruction and formation.

    Your question. You know perfectly that Carey refuted Wilson's cycles decade ago.

    I now quote a part of his book "Theories of the earth and universe: a history of dogma in the earth sciences"
    This chapter is entitled the Myth of the Iapetus Ocean:

    Quote Originally Posted by Carey

    Current orthodoxy claims that more than 600 million years ago, ocean-floor spreading had produced an ocean called Iapetus a couple of thousand kilometers wide, roughly but not exactly on the site of the present North Atlantic Ocean, which separated North America and Africa-Europe, much as the North Atlantic does today. This ocean was filled with sandstone, shale, and limestone during the early Paleozoic (609 to 400 million years ago), but during the Middle Devonian (some 370 million years ago), earlier ocean-floor spreading was replaced by subduction, which dragged the ocean floor down into the mantle, bringing northern Africa and Europe back against North America, and squeezing up the sediments to form the Caledonian fold mountains of Scandinavia, Scotland, and Ireland, and the Appalachian Mountains of eastern North America, which completely obliterated the Iapetus Ocean. It was not until the Rhaetic Epoch, about 200 million years ago, that a long chain of rift valleys, which rapidly filled with coarse sediments and basaltic lava, initiated the opening of the modern Atlantic Ocean. The axis of this new rifting had rotated some 30 degrees counterclockwise from the early Paleozoic trend, so most of the early fold mountains were on the eastern side of the new ocean in Britain and Scandinavia and most of them on the western side in North America, although residuals of the Appalachians were left in northwestern Africa and parts of the Caledonides on the east coast of Greenland.
    No one disputes that the Caledonian and Appalachian fold mountains in Scandinavia, the British Isles, Greenland, northwestern Africa, and eastern North America were a single mountain system that was folded during the Devonian (also at some other times), and fragmented and separated during the Mesozoic opening of the North Atlantic. But what I do deny is that the Iapetus Ocean ever existed. The primary reason for postulating Iapetus was the orthodox assumption that fold mountains result from subduction of earlier ocean floor. Hence in this view a significant seaway had to be postulated there before the subduction. Moreover, this appeared to be strongly confirmed by the fossil faunas and paleontography. Whereas clear evidence of Ordovician continental glaciation was found throughout the northwestern bulge of Africa, limestones with subtropical faunas were traced along the western slopes of the Appalachians, apparently much too close to the frigid ice sheets unless there was wide separation between Africa and North America at that time. The Ordovician trilobite faunas on the west side of the axial zone of the Appalachians and Caledonides were also incompatible with those adjacent to them on the east side. Trilobite genera occupying similar ecological environments were so different genetically that it seemed impossible that they could have lived so close together for so many millions of years. They needed to have been separated by a barrier such as a wide ocean a thousand kilometers or more wide.
    Certainly these trilobite faunas could not have been so near each other as they are now found. But the separation was 3000 km along the axial line of the Appalachians and Caledonides, not across it. Restoring this separation brings the trilobites of Pennsylvania back to face those of Scandinavia, with which they are compatible. I first recognized this gross shear along the axial zone of the Appalachians from the S-shaped distortion of the ''Granville front,'' the boundary of the Late Proterozoic fold-mountains that preceded the 1 Appalachians (Fig. 38). Later, firm confirmation came from paleomagnetic measurements.

    http://nachon.free.fr/carey/Fig38-carey.jpg

    During the early Paleozoic time interval when the Iapetus Ocean is alleged to have existed, lavas and other suitable rocks were magnetized by the contemporary magnetic held, so that these rocks recorded their latitude and the direction to the pole. Such rocks, irrespective of whether they were in North America, Africa, or Europe, would indicate the same position for the pole. But if during the Devonian Period the hypothetical Iapetus Ocean was closed by the subduction of its floor, and the Africa-Europe plates collided with the North America plate, the pole indicated by Africa and Europe would come to differ from the pole indicated by the America plate by the amount of the closure and in the direction of the closure.
    Dr. W. A. Morris pioneered the investigation of this question, and found that indeed the poles had separated by some 30 degrees, but the separation was in the direction of the Appalachian-caledonian axis, and not transverse to it as it would have to be if the alleged lapetus Ocean had been subducted. Throughout the Early Paleozoic Era up to and including the Early Devonian (about 370 million years ago), southern Britain lay adjacent to North Carolina (Fig. 39). The Ordovician trilobite fauna of Pennsylvania was adjacent to the Baltic faunas. During the Middle Devonian (a time when the Appalachian and Caledonian belts were strongly folded), Africa and Europe were sheared 30 degrees counterclockwise, bringing northwestern Africa opposite North Carolina. Morris's conclusions have since been confirmed by other paleomagneticians with some variations in detail; for example, some think that the shearing displacement continued for 50 million years into the Carboniferous. This is quite acceptable, because both the Caledonian shearing torsion and the later Tethyan torsion movements probably lasted something like 100 million years. Caution is necessary with paleomagnetic data because some rocks have been demagnetized several times, making it essential that the geologic date of each separate magnetization be identified.

    http://nachon.free.fr/carey/Fig39-carey.jpg

    The alleged anomaly between the northwest African glaciation and the subtropical limestones of the western slopes of the Appalachians during the Ordovician is also eased by the displacement along the Appalachian axis, but on an expanding Earth, it was not anomalous anyway. If the pole be assumed to have been in the center of the records of glaciation and the earth's radius assumed to have been 0.7 of the present radius, the most northerly glaciate in northwest Africa would have been in latitude 43° (the same as the most northerly Quaternary glaciate at sea level in Tasmania), and the subtropical Ordovician limestones would have been in the latitude of the present Great Barrier Reef of Queensland. The evidence for Iapetus, and the mythical ocean itself, vanish.
    Yes, Brilliant. Carey was a true genius.

    Now I made a figure to demonstrate why Wilson cycles are actually artefacts:

    http://nachon.free.fr/images/Wilson-cycles.png

    Every letter identifies the part of a terrane of a certain age. The different part are dispersed on different continents but their age and nature can help for the reconstruction.

    Let's say that the age of the different terranes is:

    A: 400 Ma
    B: 700 Ma
    C: 100 Ma
    D: 1000 Ma
    E: 1300 Ma


    We note that if the globe radius has remained fixed, we must break up the present continents and then rebuild new one, and so on, to reconstruct the full history of these terranes. This is Wilson's cycle of supercontinents.

    But there is another solution which does not require the break up of continents and yet allows to explain the current configuration of the terrane. This solution is to reduce the size of the globe.

    When multiple independent problems can be solved by the same solution, then it means this is the right solution, even if it
    seems a priori implausible.
    Last edited by florian; 06-21-11 at 12:26 PM.

  11. #71
    ALEA IACTA EST Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    10,064
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    And? Why would you expect something different whatever the model?
    I asked you to explain it according to your model.

    You then started equivocating and misrepresenting what I said.

    I was clarifying what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    And how do you believe that the length of the paleaodays are calculated? The length of the days is calculated by dividing the orbital period assumed to be constant (8766 h) by the number of measured days in a year.

    I suggest you to read carefully Williams (2000) Reviews of Geophysics 38, p37.

    For example in page 47, Williams write:
    "Data for the coeval Reynella and Elatina rhythmites therefore indicate (30.5 ± 0.5) (13.1 ± 0.1) = 400 ± 7 solar days/yr and hence 21.9 ± 0.4 h/d at ~620 Ma"
    21.9±0.4 h/days is simply calculated by diviing the number of days (400) by the number of hours in a year (8766 h): 8766/400=21.9 hours. Bingo!

    And this central assumption is used in every caculations of the paleomomentum or lenght of paleodays derived from tidalites. If that central assumptions is wrong, then all the numbers are also wrong.
    In part, this goes back to one of my original points - that if constants have varied, then they have to have varied in very specic ways. In otherwords, for your speculation to be true, it would require the Earths orbit to have evolved in a way to give the apperance of consistency - for example, if the earth had expanded, and there were really 450 days in a year, then this would give an anomalous result, that would be different from the value expected from tidal braking. I could almost write an essay on this, if I had time. But the short version is, there is no anomaly. If the Earth's orbit was different, or the earth was smaller, then the length of the days calculated using this method would be different from the value we expect from tidal braking.

    But it's worse than that, because we can draw on evidence from astronomy and cosmology to demonstrate that the fundamental constants do not appear to have changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    First point. There is mantle-driven subduction which implies limited lithosphere destruction, and a global unbalance between lithosphere destruction and formation.
    No it doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    We note that if the globe radius has remained fixed, we must break up the present continents and then rebuild new one, and so on, to reconstruct the full history of these terranes. This is Wilson's cycle of supercontinents.

    But there is another solution which does not require the break up of continents and yet allows to explain the current configuration of the terrane. This solution is to reduce the size of the globe.

    When multiple independent problems can be solved by the same solution, then it means this is the right solution, even if it
    seems a priori implausible.
    Only the expanding earth hypothesis is not simpler, by any stretch, and the Wilson cycle is fairly trivially explainable using subduction tectonics.

  12. #72
    Debunking machine florian's Avatar
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    I asked you to explain it according to your model.
    The dip is parallel to the direction of the mantle wedge motion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    In part, this goes back to one of my original points - that if constants have varied, then they have to have varied in very specic ways.
    A change in the orbit of Earth does not required a change in any constant. It only requires a change in momentum. this is expected because the gained mass has zero momentum.


    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    In otherwords, for your speculation to be true, it would require the Earths orbit to have evolved in a way to give the apperance of consistency - for example, if the earth had expanded, and there were really 450 days in a year,
    Tidalites show there were 400 solar days/year 620 millions years ago without any possibility to measure the actual length of a day.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    then this would give an anomalous result, that would be different from the value expected from tidal braking. I could almost write an essay on this, if I had time. But the short version is, there is no anomaly. If the Earth's orbit was different, or the earth was smaller, then the length of the days calculated using this method would be different from the value we expect from tidal braking.
    What value do you expect from tidal braking? How do you take into account the momentum of the gained mass knowing that you have no idea of its value?


    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    First point. There is mantle-driven subduction which implies limited lithosphere destruction, and a global unbalance between lithosphere destruction and formation.
    No it doesn't.
    Why do you disagree? Do you disagree that mantle-driven subduction implies limited lithosphere destruction?
    This is an illustration of mantle-driven subduction:
    http://nachon.free.fr/flowtectonic/flow-rollback.jpg

    It shows that lithosphere destruction is limited in this case.

    Only the expanding earth hypothesis is not simpler, by any stretch, and the Wilson cycle is fairly trivially explainable using subduction tectonics.
    Carey demonstrated that Wilson cycles are artifactual. I showed that the explanation is straightforward.

  13. #73
    ALEA IACTA EST Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    10,064
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    The dip is parallel to the direction of the mantle wedge motion.
    Which is the answer I wanted you to provide, in the first place instead of this silly nonsense about plate motion directions that you sidetracked the discussion with.

    Do you have proof that there is a moving mantle wedge?
    Does the idea of a moving mantle wedge make any testable predictions?

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    A change in the orbit of Earth does not required a change in any constant. It only requires a change in momentum. this is expected because the gained mass has zero momentum.
    A prediction for which there is no evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Tidalites show there were 400 solar days/year 620 millions years ago without any possibility to measure the actual length of a day.

    What value do you expect from tidal braking? How do you take into account the momentum of the gained mass knowing that you have no idea of its value?
    You still don't get it do you? If the Earth was expanding, and if the Earth was gaining mass there would be an anomaly. There is no anomaly.

    The calculations for tidal braking are based on the assumption of constant mass, and constant radius.
    Using these assumptions, in combination with measurements we can (and have) made of the Earth-moon distance, we can calculate (for example) that at some point in the past, that the length of the day was 21.9h and we can predict that if the orbit of the Earth around the sun was the same then as it is now, then there would be 400 days in the year.

    Using data from Tidalites, we can confirm that there were 400 days in the year, which confirms the assumptions made.
    If the Earth was smaller then, than it is now, the day would be less than 21.9h, and so the year would be more than 400 days.
    If the Earth was lighter then, than it is now, the year would be more than 400 days.
    The ONLY way the Earth could have been smaller and lighter than it is now, and still have had a 400 day year at the time these sediments were deposited, is if G - the universal gravitational constant, was greater then than it is now, hence Scala's development of his graviton decay theory (IIRC anyway) - he believes that if gravitons decay into photons, then G increases as you go back in time, which can give the apperance of consistency in Earths radius and mass.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Why do you disagree? Do you disagree that mantle-driven subduction implies limited lithosphere destruction?
    among other things, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    This is an illustration of mantle-driven subduction:
    It shows that lithosphere destruction is limited in this case.
    Only if we accept your toy model in the first place - this is circular logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Carey demonstrated that Wilson cycles are artifactual. I showed that the explanation is straightforward.
    pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate.

    Carey hypothesized they were artifactual, he didn't prove it. Your explanation for Wilson cycles requires making assumptions that are not accomodated by the available evidence - namely that the earth is expanding. Making this assumption requires making further assumptions that require cosmological constants to vary in very specific ways, which, on the face of it seems to violate the copernican prrincple - or at least perhaps a/the generalized extension of it..

    To that end, the mainstream explanation for Wilson Cycles is by far the simpler explanation, and is well grounded in a number of fields 9thermodynamics, for example).
    Last edited by Trippy; 06-21-11 at 11:20 PM.

  14. #74
    Debunking machine florian's Avatar
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Which is the answer I wanted you to provide, in the first place instead of this silly nonsense about plate motion directions that you sidetracked the discussion with.
    I did not sidetracked the discussion. I did not understand your point.

    Do you have proof that there is a moving mantle wedge?
    Does the idea of a moving mantle wedge make any testable predictions?
    If the mantle wedge is moving then there is trench migration and slab roll-back.


    A prediction for which there is no evidence.
    There was a typo. It should read "This is expected because the gained mass most likely has momentum".
    Do you think that it is not a reasonable assumption?


    You still don't get it do you? If the Earth was expanding, and if the Earth was gaining mass there would be an anomaly. There is no anomaly.

    The calculations for tidal braking are based on the assumption of constant mass, and constant radius.
    Using these assumptions, in combination with measurements we can (and have) made of the Earth-moon distance, we can calculate (for example) that at some point in the past, that the length of the day was 21.9h and we can predict that if the orbit of the Earth around the sun was the same then as it is now, then there would be 400 days in the year.
    The Earth-Moon paleodistance is derived from the lunar nodal period or the number of sidereal months/yr or the number of sidereal days/yr, independently from the length of the orbital period (See Williams (2000) Reviews of Geophysics 38, p37). Then a mean rate of lunar recession is derived from the Earth-Moon distance. So how do you calculate the actual length of the day from these data without assuming a constant orbital period?

    If the Earth was smaller then, than it is now, the day would be less than 21.9h, and so the year would be more than 400 days.
    If the Earth was lighter then, than it is now, the year would be more than 400 days.
    No. It depends on the contribution of the momentum of the gained mass to the total momentum of the Earth-Moon system.

    Only if we accept your toy model in the first place - this is circular logic.
    Circular logic is when a conclusion of an argument is the same as one of the premise. For example, if we assume that Earth's radius is constant to build tectonic and geodetic models and then use these models to prove that Earth's radius is constant.

    In the diapiric model, a mantle upwelling spreads under its own weight and induces subduction of the lithosphere on its path. The figure shows that in this case, subduction is limited to the lithosphere that was on the path. There is no logical fallacy.


    pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate.
    Indeed, the simple growth of Earth can explain the complex and multiple cycles of supercontinents.

    Carey hypothesized they were artifactual, he didn't prove it.
    It was proved by the work of Morris: "the poles had separated by some 30 degrees, but the separation was in the direction of the Appalachian-caledonian axis, and not transverse to it as it would have to be if the alleged lapetus Ocean had been subducted."


    Your explanation for Wilson cycles requires making assumptions that are not accomodated by the available evidence - namely that the earth is expanding.
    It is not an assumption, it is a validated empirical model, and the sole one compatible with all available data.

  15. #75
    Doesn't this boil down meteors adding material vs. the solar wind taking the atmosphere away? Which ever is faster would determine expansion or contraction (at least in mass, size seems kind of irrelevant and unpredictable)

  16. #76
    ALEA IACTA EST Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    10,064
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    I did not sidetracked the discussion. I did not understand your point.
    Which still resulted in the side tracking of the discussion QED,

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    If the mantle wedge is moving then there is trench migration and slab roll-back.
    While this is testable, it's not unique. The mainstream theory also predicts that these things can occur.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    There was a typo. It should read "This is expected because the gained mass most likely has momentum".
    Do you think that it is not a reasonable assumption?
    No, I do not think this is a reasonable assumption.
    It is unreasonable because it fails the test of ontological parsimony.
    It is unreasonable because it violates the copernicus principle.
    Both of which happen because it requires any changes in angular momentum to be 'just so'.
    It also fails because every expanding earth theory (at least the ones I've seen) predicts that the source of the extra mass is internal to the earth, so the extra mass is being created in a reference frame that co-rotates the earth, so you're going to have to propose a very very novel mechanism to cause it to impart or absorb angular momentum to or from the earth moon system.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    The Earth-Moon paleodistance is derived from the lunar nodal period or the number of sidereal months/yr or the number of sidereal days/yr, independently from the length of the orbital period (See Williams (2000) Reviews of Geophysics 38, p37). Then a mean rate of lunar recession is derived from the Earth-Moon distance. So how do you calculate the actual length of the day from these data without assuming a constant orbital period?
    You seem to be confused.
    I suggested that the length of the day could be independently calculated by assuming the Earth has a constant radius and a constant mass, and calculating the amount of braking that has occured, which gives us a prediction of what the paleodistance should have been, and the length of the day should have been, and what the orbital period should have been.

    The fact that these predictions are consistent with the observational insites gained from work like that of WIlliams, tells us that our initial assumptions are correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    No. It depends on the contribution of the momentum of the gained mass to the total momentum of the Earth-Moon system.
    The observations made match the predictions made on the assumption that the mass and radius of the earth are constant and (by proxy) that the total angular momentum of the earth-moon system is constant.

    The simplest explanation is that they appear to be constant, because they were, in fact constant, and the principle of ontological parsimony strongly suggests that we accept this explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Circular logic is when a conclusion of an argument is the same as one of the premise. For example, if we assume that Earth's radius is constant to build tectonic and geodetic models and then use these models to prove that Earth's radius is constant.
    This is a poor analogy at best, as well as being wrong and irrelevant to the discussion,

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    In the diapiric model, a mantle upwelling spreads under its own weight and induces subduction of the lithosphere on its path. The figure shows that in this case, subduction is limited to the lithosphere that was on the path. There is no logical fallacy.
    It's a prediction, it doesn't prove anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Indeed, the simple growth of Earth can explain the complex and multiple cycles of supercontinents.
    However the growth of the earth requires the introduction of multiple additional elements - for example, the addition of mass to the earth, created by some as yet undisclosed mechanism, which introduces angular momentum to the earth moon system by some as yet undisclosed mechanism, in just the right way to produce the apperance of the earth having had a constant radius, and a constant mass, and the earth moon system having had a constant angular momentum for the last 2Ga (at least).

    As opposed to: Because continental crust has a lower density than oceanic crust, and because the surface of the earth has a finite size, continents tend to gather in one place, and when they do, they tend to cause the Astheosphere under them to over heat, which (can) result in them rifting and breaking up, giving the net result of a cycle of orogeny and rifting.

    Incidentally, the wilson cycle also appears to be supported by sea level data.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    It was proved by the work of Morris: "the poles had separated by some 30 degrees, but the separation was in the direction of the Appalachian-caledonian axis, and not transverse to it as it would have to be if the alleged lapetus Ocean had been subducted."
    That statement, as phrased, is a hypothesis, not a proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    It is not an assumption...
    No, it is an assumption.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    ...it is a validated empirical model...
    No, it is a toy model that originated 50 years ago from a lack of understanding of plate tectonics. Our understanding has evolved since then as more data has become available.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    ...and the sole one compatible with all available data.
    This statement is far from being true.

  17. #77
    florian:

    What is your proposed mechanism for an expanding earth, and what is the rate of expansion?

  18. #78
    ALEA IACTA EST Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    10,064
    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    florian:

    What is your proposed mechanism for an expanding earth, and what is the rate of expansion?
    Good point.

    There's still this point that needs to be addressed:
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    And then, perhaps, you can provide us with a paper that demonstrates the signal of a Carey's 24mm +/- 8mm per annum increase in the girth of this fine planet buried within the various datasets available from things such as GPS measurements, and lunar ranging experiments, and satellite ephamerides.
    Which so far has remained unattended.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    florian:

    What is your proposed mechanism for an expanding earth, and what is the rate of expansion?
    I think a far more fitting question - one that might yield significant insight into florian's mindset - and determine if any further discussion was in any way constructive - would be:

    Cite specifically what evidence would need to be presented to you that would cause you to abandon the expanding earth conjecture.

  20. #80
    Debunking machine florian's Avatar
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Which still resulted in the side tracking of the discussion QED,
    But not intentionally from my side. I have some doubt for your side.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    While this is testable, it's not unique. The mainstream theory also predicts that these things can occur.
    May be, but this thing implies limited destruction of seafloor whatever the theory. And this is the key point because it does imply an imbalance of seafloor destruction and formation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    You seem to be confused.
    I suggested that the length of the day could be independently calculated by assuming the Earth has a constant radius and a constant mass, and calculating the amount of braking that has occured, which gives us a prediction of what the paleodistance should have been, and the length of the day should have been, and what the orbital period should have been.
    According to Williams, the braking is not constant (at 3.8 cm/y) or the moon would have been too close from Earth something like 1.5 By ago. So the average braking that has occurred is actually calculated from the paleodistance (Moon-Earth), which is itself calculated either from the lunar nodal period or the number of sidereal months/yr or the number of sidereal days/yr. But it does not seem to provide any measurement of the length of the day that is independent from the value of orbital period that is assumed to be constant.

    If I'm wrong then you can certainly provide the detailed calculation of the length of the day that is independent of the orbital period and does not assume a constant braking rate.

    Until you provide that, your "fine-tuning" argument is moot.
    And I remind you that it is not a refutation anyway. The principle parsimony, though valuable, can't provide true refutations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    It also fails because every expanding earth theory (at least the ones I've seen) predicts that the source of the extra mass is internal to the earth, so the extra mass is being created in a reference frame that co-rotates the earth, so you're going to have to propose a very very novel mechanism to cause it to impart or absorb angular momentum to or from the earth moon system.
    The accumulation of matter inside earth does not imply a creation of matter, even less in a reference frame that co-rotates the earth. You're speculating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    This is a poor analogy at best, as well as being wrong and irrelevant to the discussion,
    So you believe that a model based on the premise that Earth has a constant radius is ok to prove that Earth has a constant radius? And how it is irrelevant to the discussion? Aren’t we discussion an increase in Earth's radius?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    It's a prediction, it doesn't prove anything.
    It proves that there is limited destruction of lithosphere in this case. Anyway, your accusation of circular logic was wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Incidentally, the wilson cycle also appears to be supported by sea level data.
    Sea level data do not favour a particular model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    That statement, as phrased, is a hypothesis, not a proof.
    Really? We have two opposite hypotheses:
    1) If the pole separation was transversed to the Appalachian-caledonian axis, then the wide Iapetus Ocean has been subducted
    2) If the pole separation was in the direction of the Appalachian-caledonian axis, then the wide Iapetus ocean never existed (and the whole wilson cycle hypothesis colapse).
    According to Morris, the paleomagnetic data support a pole separation in the direction of the Appalachian-caledonian.
    Case is closed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    No, it is an assumption.
    A model based on data is not an assumption. It is an empirical model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    No, it is a toy model that originated 50 years ago from a lack of understanding of plate tectonics. Our understanding has evolved since then as more data has become available.
    It is a very modern model that unify all available data: See
    "Mantle plumes and dynamics of the Earth interior — towards a new model" by Stefan Stefan Cwojdziński, (2004) Geological Review, 52, no. 8/2, p817

    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    This statement is far from being true.
    This is an opinion, not an argument.

Similar Threads

  1. By Kailaurius in forum Science & Society
    Last Post: 07-09-12, 05:49 PM
    Replies: 6
  2. By Emil in forum Earth Science
    Last Post: 08-29-11, 03:29 PM
    Replies: 110
  3. By tresbien in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 07-15-08, 12:31 PM
    Replies: 1315

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •