09-11-11, 04:57 PM #141
09-11-11, 05:08 PM #142
09-11-11, 05:19 PM #143
The outpouring of the exceeding material drives the gravitational nappes to overthrust the sediments of the preexisting trough, forcing them on a burial path which emulate the subduction process, but without reaching depths greater than 50-70 km. At the boundary between uplifting material and down-pushed crust and lithosphere, phenomena like metamorphism, mixing, migmization, upward transport of fragments of the buried lithosphere etc. are possible.
So I think that your paradigm is not internally self consistent, because it predicts that rising mantle generates deep earthquakes as it undergoes phase changes, and yet we have rising mantle which undergoes those same phase changes, but does not give rise to deep earthquakes.
09-11-11, 05:22 PM #144
09-11-11, 05:39 PM #145
09-11-11, 06:01 PM #146
really home made anti-gravity platform instructions.
platform is not use energy.unique information.i sell only 1 month.information include 2 pages.first page cost:300$
second page cost 4000$.
it is your chance made anti-gravity platform!!!
russian language.(secret archive)
09-11-11, 06:17 PM #147
09-16-11, 11:39 PM #148
Last edited by wlminex; 09-16-11 at 11:39 PM. Reason: glitch in copying link
09-17-11, 05:28 AM #149
09-17-11, 10:42 AM #150
. . . we need (sometime) to quantitatively revisit the effects of (mantle) phase changes vs density vs expansion, taking into account the limiting counter-action of subduction effects . . .
06-23-12, 02:06 AM #151
The difference between science and pseudoscience
Since you apply the term "pseudoscience" to the expansion hypothesis, you must be asserting that it is not testable, i.e. not falsifiable. Unfortunately you are quite wrong. The expansion hypothesis makes very specific empirical predictions. Moreover, the expansion hypothesis actually PASSES those empirical tests whereas the prevailing Earth science "paradigm", plate tectonics, which implicitly assumes an Earth of fixed radius, does not.
In the abstract of his article, The Necessity for Earth Expansion (1983), the late S. Warren Carey -- an Emeritus Professor of Geology at the University of Tasmania, a past president of the Australia-New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science, and the leading proponent of expansion -- wrote:
"Pangaea, reconstructed on a globe of present Earth radius, occupies a little more than a hemisphere, the remainder being the EoPacific Ocean. Opening of the Arctic, Atlantic, Indian, and Southern Oceans, nearly doubled the area of Pangaea. Hence on a constant-radius Earth the Pacific would have been reduced virtually to zero. This is not so. Instead, each of the continental blocks around the Pacific has separated from its neighbours by large amounts in the direction of the Pacific perimeter, so that the Pacific, far from reducing to near zero, has greatly increased in area. This is impossible except on an expanding Earth.
"Paleomagnetic measurements show that all of the continents except Antarctica have converged on the Arctic by several tens of degrees since the Permian. Wholly independent data from the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous give the same conclusion in progressively diminishing degree. Yet throughout this time the Arctic has been an area of extension. This is absurd unless the Earth has greatly expanded.
"Several other independent sets of data set out herein require Earth expansion. All the characters of orogens - heat flux, volcanism, plutonics, attitudes of thrusts and lineations, incidence of metamorphics, distribution and incidence of seismicity, and others, fit better the expansion model of diapiric orogenesis than the subduction model."
If you're interested in more details, and I'm sure you are since you are obviously a seeker of truth, you can find it at
frontier-knowledge.com slash earth slash papers slash 1983.Carey.The Necessity%20for%20Earth%20Expansion.pdf
(Sorry, I couldn't insert the actual URL because of the silly and arbitrary "20 post" rule on this forum, but you should be able to figure it out.)
By the way, the sarcasm in your post does little credit to your views.
Last edited by Hoyasaur; 06-23-12 at 02:36 AM. Reason: Missing word
06-23-12, 02:24 AM #152
You do realize that Robert Schunk started this thread 15 August 2008, never replied to any of eight pages of responses after he wrote post #3, and he has made no postings at all since 9 September 2011? Just thought you'd want to know.
06-23-12, 02:36 AM #153
You also realize that actual measurements have found no expansion?
The team applied a new data calculation technique to estimate the rate of change in the solid Earth's average radius over time, taking into account the effects of other geophysical processes. The previously discussed geodetic techniques (satellite laser ranging, very-long baseline interferometry and GPS) were used to obtain data on Earth surface movements from a global network of carefully selected sites. These data were then combined with measurements of Earth's gravity from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) spacecraft and models of ocean bottom pressure, which help scientists interpret gravity change data over the ocean.
The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.
06-23-12, 03:37 AM #154
Also, it's entirely possible that expansion is episodic, including some contraction episodes. Several Russians believe that and Lester C. King believed most of the continental displacement (i.e. expansion) occurred in the Late Mesozoic. King differed with Carey and Owen on that, both of whom believed that expansion has been continuous.
Regarding the cause of expansion and the possibility of mass formation (but not ex nihilo as some posters allege), which is certainly the fundamental problem of earth expansion, you might want to take a look at Halton C. Arp's website -- haltonarp.com -- in particular the article on Le Sage gravity, and also the late Tom Van Flandern's articles on the same subject at metaresearch.org. Also, google "kinetic gravity growing earth" and look at the article by Blinov. (In general, the Russians seem to have a very different view of things, especially gravity and the Earth.)
I realize that all of this can easily be dismissed as "fringe science," and I'm sure many people will do just that, but continental drift was also fringe science as late as the 1950s. Of course, the fact that expansion is dismissed today as "fringe" does not prove that expansion will be "true" tomorrow. But it does prove that just because the vast majority of scientists believe a certain thing at any given moment in history does not necessarily make it so. It's quite common for people living in the present, including many scientists, to look down on those who had the misfortune of living in the past and dismiss them as ignoramuses, as though we in the present have a monopoly on the truth, but without giving much thought to what people in the future will think about us.
Last edited by Hoyasaur; 06-23-12 at 03:42 AM. Reason: Add sentence
06-23-12, 05:14 PM #155
in this post.
I'm actually quite surprised that this paper did not receive more critics.
Last edited by florian; 06-23-12 at 06:41 PM. Reason: grammar
06-23-12, 05:24 PM #156
Based on your posts on this thread, it's obvious to me that you passed when they handed out the kool-aid. Therefore, you must be some kind of crank or crackpot since everyone who's Anyone knows that expansion is pseudoscientific crap.
Keep up the good work!
Last edited by Hoyasaur; 06-23-12 at 05:47 PM. Reason: Because it's my post!
06-23-12, 06:39 PM #157
06-23-12, 07:17 PM #158
06-24-12, 05:50 AM #159
06-24-12, 02:23 PM #160
But you asked for it so here goes.
Earth expansion (EE) and Plate Tectonics (PT) share some areas of agreement. In other words, each explains certain facts in more or less the same way. For example, both EE and PT agree that the continents were once assembled as recently as the Permian and Early Triassic into a single supercontinent, Pangaea, which has since "broken apart" into the various continents that exist today with new oceanic lithosphere formed between them -- the Atlantic, the Arctic, the Southern Ocean, and the Arabian Sea (western Indian Ocean). So far, so good.
Early reconstructions of Pangaea by Wegener and others depicted the former positions of the continents in an approximate way but not with much rigor or accuracy. (Just take a look at Wegener's depictions of Pangaea, which are more sketches than maps. These are readily available online). Warren "Sam" Carey, who became a "mobilist" in the 1930s even before he finished his doctorate, may have been the first to attempt to reconstruct Pangaea accurately. He recognized that attempting that on 2-D projections, as Wegener had done, was futile. So he built a desk with hemispherical desktop on which he could fit the continents together precisely. Unfortunately, whenever he found a satisfactory fit in one region, a large "gaping gore" (his term) appeared in another, which Carey knew to be false based on the regional geology. "Starting from the assembly of Africa and South America, a yawning gulf appeared between Indonesia and Australia, although the [regional geology] indicated that Indonesia and Australia belonged together. Starting from Australia and Indonesia there was no hope of closing the Arctic...." (Carey, 1976, p.39). (Even the classic "Bullard Fit" (1965) across the Atlantic left a huge improbable gap between Turkey and Arabia.)
Carey worked on this problem unsuccessfully for many years, all the while assuming that the Earth's radius had remained constant. But eventually, he began to question that assumption, and much to his surprise he discovered that when he reassembled Pangaea on a smaller globe, the difficulties vanished.
Now, before going any further, it should be obvious that Carey recognized the implications of all this. He was a geology professor after all, and one of the first things he must've thought was "what caused the earth to expand?" Although a smaller globe in the past may solve some geological puzzles, it raised all sorts of very obvious and troubling geophysical and petrological issues, to say the least. But rather than simply dismissing the idea of expansion out of hand as "physically impossible," Carey let the cartographical and geological facts speak for themselves; and the facts showed that the only way to reconstruct Pangaea with any rigor and accuracy was on a smaller globe.
So, those of you on this forum who dismiss expansion as "pseudoscientific crap," or believe that it requires the creation of matter "out of nothing," or simply believe that EE is physically impossible and PT is correct, must refute Carey's empirical findings and, to be specific, be able to reconstruct Pangaea on an Earth of fixed radius, but minus the "gaping gores." The successful reconstruction of Pangaea is the first of many "crucial tests" that allow us to compare the predictive/explanatory power of PT vs. EE. And in this regard, EE passes with flying colors while PT flunks the test.
I suspect that more than one of you will attempt to get around this problem by denying the existence of the gaping gores or perhaps by proposing secondary ad hoc hypotheses to "save the appearances," and that's okay and perfectly legitimate. As Kuhn showed, that's the way "Normal Science" works, so go for it. But watch out for Ockham!
That's enough for now, but stay tuned... Coming up next: the Arctic Paradox, same Bat time, same Bat channel!
Last edited by Hoyasaur; 06-24-12 at 03:39 PM. Reason: Because it's my post!
By wynn in forum General PhilosophyLast Post: 05-09-11, 01:39 AMReplies: 33
By MacGyver1968 in forum Site FeedbackLast Post: 07-27-08, 06:57 AMReplies: 26