Is the earth expanding?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wasn't responding to your post. However your post is just as steeped in pseudo science. "Density changes due to magnetic differentiation", sounds real fancy for the uneducated, however it is little more than drivel - sorry.

Why do you want to compare the mass of the lithosphere to the mass of the mantle? What you are certain of is not shared by others.

edited to add: Oops, I mean why do you want to compare the reciprocal of the mass of the lithosphere to the mantle?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Origin Post 182:

You expose your own 'drivel' and lack of knowledge regarding geological processes. Do you know the difference between MAGNETIC differentiation and MAGMATIC differentiation? The former term (magnetic differentiation) is not a term that I've heard used in discussions of geologic processes. If you plan to use that term (magnetic differentiation) in the otherwise cogent discussions here - please define it so we can all learn from your vast knowledge base.

By the way . . . . g/cc (grams per cubic centimeter; i.e., mass per volume) is a common and accepted statement of density of materials, or better yet, specific gravity.

Please review your Geology 101 notes, then comment as you see fit. Your responsive post to mine seems a little like Rosanna Rosannadana on Sat. Nite Live.

wlminex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For Origin: Some definitions from the internet - look on Google for more . . . . .

magmatic differentiation (mg-mtk)

The process by which chemically different igneous rocks, such as basalt and granite, can form from the same initial magma. Magmatic differentiation can occur by the chemical reaction between the magma and the first crystals to solidify out of it, or by the physical separation of the first crystals that form from the remaining magma, either through settling to the bottom of a magma chamber or through crustal deformations that cause the remaining magma to be squeezed out to cool in veins and dikes.


Home > Library > Science > Sci-Tech Dictionary
(mag′mad·ik ′dif·ə′ren·chē′ā·shən)
(petrology) The process by which the different types of igneous rocks are derived from a single parent magma. The process by which ores are formed by solidification from magma. Also known as magmatic segregation.

What is DENSITY ?

DENSITY is a physical property of matter, as each element and compound has a unique density associated with it. Density defined in a qualitative manner as the measure of the relative "heaviness" of objects with a constant volume.

For example: A rock is obviously more dense than a crumpled piece of paper of the same size. A styrofoam cup is less dense than a ceramic cup.

Density may also refer to how closely "packed" or "crowded" the material appears to be - again refer to the styrofoam vs. ceramic cup.

 

That other one is a 1999 paper. The theoritical models avalaible at that time are worst than Poliakow's 2005 model which pointed to the major effect of the continental/ocean distribution. But even the best available model makes poor predictions like 2.91 cm/y for the current rate while the actual measured value is 3.82 cm/y (So 30% less). It does predict a recession rate of 0.34 cm/y, 200 My ago, but empirical data do not provide irrefutable proof for this rate. Empirical data only give a timepoint for the number of days in a year, and rotation rates are inferred conveniently assuming a constant revolution period (not an irrefutable assumption).
As a matter of fact data from bivalves indicate 371(+4;-7) days/y 220 My ago (Williams, 2000), which includes the current days/y value.
It follows that:
Claiming that the empirical data support the theoritical model of paleotidal evolution is bullshit.
Claiming that the paleorotation evolution is known is bullshit.
Claiming that amazing fine-tuning would be necessary is bullshit.
And BTW, claiming that the growth of Earth would lead to a dramatic decrease in rotation rate is bullshit as well, because it would imply that the gained mass had zero momentum, which is redbull shit.

You're the one concerned with copyright issues (See post#157) and you're the one who used this link, so either you're concerned with possible copyright infringement by using this link, or you use double standard.

We transfer copyright to the publisher/editor when we write articles for proceedings. So the 10% rules applies to the whole proceeding book.

A demonstrable fallacy.

? You have to be clearer than that.
Besides, do you understand, the reconstruction around Antartica? Do you understand the sequence of extrusion events that leads to the pattern observed in the Philippine sea.

That kind of unnecessary and rude comments:
"In fact, I have yet to do anything worse than explain things to you as I would a 5 year old."

Misrepresenting this theory as unphysical/violating the law of Physics is a strawman.

Bullshit. I know every so called "evidence" presented against the theory, and all are flawed.
Besides, Just because you do not understand, or accept the evidence supporting it, does not mean it does not exist.
evidence against are flawed=> no refutation, plenty of supporting evidence => theory is correct.

No. You built a strawman by writing that the theory makes absurd predictions. These absurd predictions you "invented" are certainly strawmen.

Childish

Childish

False and Insulting.

Liar. You were discussing the "foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia." (See post# 160) which is far different from the putative collision of Greater India with a mobile arc (argued by ALi&Aitchinson).

False. In plate tectonics, collision of a continent with a mobile arc leads to its accretion to the continent margin and thus leads to an increase in the size of the continent, not to a shortening of the continent.

The evidence that have been collected in the last years support the hypothesis that the tibetan plateau was uplifted by mantle upwelling, and is gliding eastward under its own weight. The collision=orogeny hypothesis becomes useless.

A very convenient assumption, and wrong. The fact is that most of the oceanic/continental lithosphere that ever formed can still be found. The gradual increase in amount of oceanic/continental lithosphere observed during geological time is a simple proof of the surface increase of Earth.

You decided from the start that I must be a crank because I advocate the expanding theory which you believe is stupid/absurd/pseudoscientific, and this independently of my writings. Your decision is irrational.

I responded adequally to an aggression from someone who is not respectful of the work done by research scientists.

Your fault. Start by respecting the research scientists including me.

 

Trippy . . . Trippy . . . Trippy . . . .!
Florian . . . .Florian . . . .Florian!

Do you guys even remember what the original post was about? Why don't you guys simply exchange emails and carry-on in private. Then you can quit agrandising yourselves on this thread!

wlminex

 

What's the fun in that?

 

Well I certainly screwed the pooch there! It is not a lack of knowledge it is a lack of reading ability! As far as magmatic differentiation this is not going to cause an expansion of the earth. In general the volume of cooled igneous rock is going to be so close to the original magma that it is negligable. This entire fantasy of an expanding earth is silly.

Yes I am well aware of what density is. You still haven't answered why you want to compare the volume/density of the lithosphere and the mantle. :shrug:

 

Origin:

First, let's look at some 'rock' densities:

Granite (lithosphere ~ 2.65 - 2.75 g/cc)
Basalt (~ 3.0 avg g/cc)
Mantle (range 35 - 2890 km; 3.4-5.6 g/cc)

This density relationship is consistent with our observations and theories of isostasy. That is why lithosphere 'floats' on asthenosphere - lithosphere is less dense than asthenosphere.

Now, assuming (to a first approximation, of course) that lithosphere (basalt + granite)issues solely from magmatic differentiation of asthenosphere, the simple g/cc math relationship math will demonstrate that the lithospheric component occupies relatively more volume (i.e., space) than the asthenospheric (mantle) component.

Thus, I suggested that by comparing the relative volumes of lithosphere and asthenosphere, one should be able to estimate the additional (spherical) volume (i.e., increase in earth radius), on a total earth-surface basis that would be required to compensate for the decrease in density of the lithosphere.

Please note that I HAVE NOT done the math, but someone should . . . volume estimates for lithosphere and asthenosphere should be fairly easy. Also recall that I exercised the 'caveat' that crustal plate subduction processes would likely reduce the overall "expansive" effect of asthenosphere --> lithosphere density transitions.

I welcome your calculation results and discussion . . . EVEN Florian and Trippy!

By-the-way . . . I'm not saying that the earth HAS significantly "expanded". I'm simply providing a viable mechanism for those who think it has!.

wlminex

 

Trippy Post#191:

I get your 'drift' (continental?) . . . .

Would appreciate your constructive comments on my post #189

wlminex

 

Absolutely. Just have to read the title: Is the Earth expanding?

Because the arguments presented here can be of interest for geologists/geophysicists or any scientist interested in that science.

Agrandising myself? No, my goal is very simple: Refute the arguments against the expanding Earth theory and prove that it is the best Earth-science theory around. Actually, it is not just a Earth-Sciences theory, but the real first planetary-Science theory with deep implications in cosmology. This is one reason why it represents such a huge step forward.

 

Useable information from models that were proved too much simplistic to model reality even roughly => Double standard.

Quite ironic knowing that you can't get the point made by Mazumder.

I found ironic that you suspect me of copyright infringment while linking to material likely infringing copyright in the same post. It seems that you perceived my comment on this funny fact as an attack.

I ask for a clarification because I google it and do not see the relationship with paleogeographic reconstructions.
Note that you're diverting the discussion again. Could you please focuse on the discussion. Thank you.

I doubt it, if it was the case you would the facto accept Earth expansion because the reconstruction based on isochrons require a reduction of Earth's radius.

See, you invent stuff, you don't describe what it is, then you claim that I should have invented the same stuff, and attack me for no doing it. Strawman.

Stop lying. It is evident that the theory HAS a physical causal mechanism. Claiming that it has no physical mechanism, is unphysical, because we don't know the mechanism at this time is cranky.

Yet another of your childish comments. Don't confuse science with yourself.

It is you, Trippy, that I compared to a flat-earther. And the comparison stand: you persist in believing in an outdated theory and deny the evidence for a better theory.

You lie again. You were arguing that foreshortening was occuring 55 Ma position and that foreshortening was occuring as a result of the collision between the indian plate and the eurasian plate[/b] as proven by your own citation (see bold):

And of course, a collision with a mobile arc leads to enlargement of greater India not shortening.
So you were proving wrong. Admit it. May be I should cite one of the epic post from Ophiolite (this post):

Now, after this interesting comment from Ophiolite, back to the point:

And that shortening of greater India after the putative collision is irrelevant to the point made by Carey because it is very limited: 176 km according to Murphy and Yin "Structural evolution and sequence of thrusting in the Tethyan fold-thrust belt and Indus-Yalu suture zone, southwest Tibet."

So, "Give it up. Among other things, what your doing is arguing in bad faith, it's an argument ad hominem, it's disingenious, and it's bordering on intellectual dishonesty."

A theory developped by Carey, hinted by the extrusion model of Tapponnier which now evolves to a crustal/mantle flow model (see Royden et al 2008), and the next step will be to abandon the collision origin of the flow as with the anatolian/aegean region.

No, your assertion. I was refering to the hypothesis that subduction destroys millions square km of lithosphere whereas it is a demonstrable fact that the amount destroyed is marginal (I remind you post #72)

Indeed, anyone defending the expanding earth theory is imediately labeled as a crank in your mind, thus you labeled me as on at my first post, post #13.
You moved this discussion a bit later using the fallacious argument that it "failed basic scientific tests", in a middle of a scientifically argued discussion.

Qualifying the work of qualified research scientists as being "pseudo-scientific" and calling this research scientists "crackpots" is an aggression. This is unacceptable and can't be ignored.

 

Well, why not?

For a rough estimate, 1/3 continental crust averaging 50 km in thickness and 2/3 oceanic crust averaging 10 km in thickness.

Volume continental crust: 4/3*pi*(6371^3-6321^3)*1/3=8.42 × 10E9 km3
Considering an average density of 2.7, and considering that the original material had a density = 3.5, the continental crust volume corresponds to an initial volume of 2.7/3.5*8.42 × 10E9=6.50 × 10E9 km3

Volume ocean crust: 4/3*pi*(6371^3-6361^3)*2/3=1.70 × 10E9 km3
Considering an average density of 3.0, and considering that the original material had a density = 3.5, the ocean crust volume corresponds to an initial volume of 3.0/3.5*1.70 × 10E9=1.46 × 10E9 km3

So the change in volume is (8.42+1.70)-(6.50+1.46) × 10E9= 2.16 × 10E9 km3

This corresponds to an average increase in radius equal to:
6371-((4/3*pi*6371^3-2.16E9)/4*3/pi)^(1/3) = 4.24 km

You must find a mechanism that accounts for a doubling of radius or an 8-fold increase in volume for the last 250 My. Thank you for the effort, but your hypothesis fell short!
I wish you good luck!

 

Florian:

Fine . . . . as a rough estimate . . . now re-calculate, factoring-in the hi-pressure mineral-phase structural transitions . . . e.g. spinel --> olivine, oxides. etc. and others.

wlminex

 

The fact that you persist in believing that these models can effectively predict the paleorotation rate of Earth is a proof that you don't understand their limitation nor Mazumder argument.

Could you please clarify what you meant instead of wandering around.

Here again you seem to fail to understand why the complete encirclement of antartica cannot be achieved on an Earth that did not evolve in size.

Oh si, c'est un homme de paille : You invent weaknesses that do not exist, to attack them with the agenda to discredit the theory.

You did by questioning my ability to understand => ad hominen.
It is quite interesting that you never seem to perceive how aggressive you are.

Apparently, you don't understand the difference between claiming that "a theory has no physical causal mechanism/is unphysical", and claiming that "a theory has a physical causal mechanism that is not known at this time". I suggest you to follow "epistemology 101".

Interesting, the quote you cite yourself to replace your claim in context is now out of context? Double standard again.

You do understand that foreshortening of greater India is limited to Tethyan fold-thrust belt and Indus-Yalu suture zone, do you?

Actually, no you don't. How is it possible that you did not figure it out from the "cross section reconstruction" part of the paper, p27?
Or may be you only read the abstract, as usual

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And you are childish again...

You're very confused again. You made a general statement. I replied that it is not so true because, for example, destruction via subduction is marginal, and then you jump to erosion.

You confuse facts and your biased opinion.

 

I let you do that especially as calculations for the whole mantle must include density/pressure increase. Again, good luck!
Anyway, that won't account for the measurable growth.