Is the earth expanding?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by bgjyd834, Apr 26, 2011.

  1. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    Well, we must assume that laws of conservations are valid. So there must be something accumulating inside Earth that fuels the growth. Call it dark matter or dark energy or whatever. What is certain is that this thing is very weakly interacting with normal matter, and must have mass/energy and thus responds to the gravity field.
    That's a bit short to build a physical mechanism, isn't it?
    That's why I think it is more important to focus on the evidence of the growth as a first step.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305

    Same answer than to Origin.
    Tidalites can't provide evidence for or against a growth of the Earth, because it assumes that Earth's orbit remained stable and the gained matter has zero momentum.

    Flow tectonics is dominant in a growing earth. The WBZ is the front of a running crustal/mantle flow. A WBZ forms as the mantle overrun the lithosphere found on its path, and push it down.

    Science is based on observations. Observations allow to infer that Earth grows in mass and size. But there is no clues for a mechanism, so no science to do for that part of the theory.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2011
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    It is a scientific theory (based on scientific data, makes verified predictions).
    It does not attract exclusively cranks (Sam Carey was certainly not a crank).
    It does attract a lot of cranks because it is spectacular and has a lot of profound implications.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. George Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    Hello Guys,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Many different sciences are used to learn about the earth, however, the four basic areas of Earth science study are: geology, meteorology, oceanography and astronomy.
     
  8. nerdgasm Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    The earth is expanding, but only in the sense that the entire universe is undergoing an expansion. While many people thing the expansion of the universe just means objects getting increasingly distant, it is the very fabric of the cosmos expanding. A time will come, very very far down the road, where space will have stretched to the point where even star formation will be impossible.

    Reality can be trippy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2011
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,118
    Actually, the Earth doesn't expand along with space. Earth's own local gravity resists the expansion.
     
  10. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Really?? Please show us this "scientific data" and any of the "verified predictions."

    Indeed, Carey was not a crank but that did not prevent him from falling for a crank idea. He managed to get only a VERY small number of scientists to work with him on that crackpot idea while the rest shunned him harshly. He certainly did a lot of early work on continental drift, and later, on plate tectonics. But he failed in his mission to establish his idea of "expanding Earth" because he did not accept plate subduction - which has now long been accepted as fact and IS based on scientific measurements and hard data.
     
  11. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    I'm sure that you are familiar with James Maxlow's work.
    Actually, he was the first one to propose a balance between lithosphere accretion and destruction. But he later moved to a diapiric interpretation of WBZ, i.e. the WBZ is the interface between a spreading diapir and encountered lithosphere.
    And this interpretation is clearly supported by all data. For example in anatolia where a mantle upwelling in anatolia initiated a flow motion, with slab rollback of encountered lithosphere as a consequence at the front of the flow. See the following quote:
     
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Your explanation fails to account for all the available evidence, and observations.

    For example - consider the Kuril Islands Trench:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    How does your diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the dip of the WBZ is paralell to the direction of plate motion?
    How does your Diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the Okhotsk Plate is moving South West, and not South East?
    How does your diapiric theory account for the lack of observed doming of the Philipine plate?
    How does your diapiric theory account for the oberved lack of Orogenic process (and doming) in the Okhotsk plate?
    How does your diapiric theory account for the observation that the crust closest to a trench (which are always associated with a WBZ) is cooler than the crust further away from the trench?
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2011
  13. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    Because you don't use the correct referential for this case. Relatively to the Pacific lithosphere, i.e. the lithosphere that get subducted, the Okhotsk lithosphere is moving to the South-East, i.e., not parallel to the trench. How does look the mantle anisotropy along the WBZ there? How are the beachballs along the megathrust?

    If there is no doming, then the rising material is too dense. If the material is too dense, it spreads before doming. That's all about isostatic equilibrium.

    Use a better terminology that "crust closest to a trench" please. Are you referring to the slab shielding the geothermal flux?
     
  14. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I'm using the reference frame that co-rotates with the earth - the same reference frame the GPS network is based on. The closest thing to a 'universal' reference frame there is. Holding one plate stationary and having the others move around it is too arbitrary and ad-hoc for my liking.

    Please, feel free to try and justify:
    1) Why we should do this.
    2) Why it should be the pacific plate.

    No doming = no diapirism.
    It's pretty trivially demonstrable that mantle upwellings cause doming in the crust, so your explanation fails.

    There is nothing wrong with my terminology - although I will clarify that I was refering to the subducting plate.
     
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    ***Moderator Note***

    This thread has failed basic scientific tests several times - moved to Pseudoscience.
     
  16. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    This referential frame is as arbitrary as the others. A more "universal' reference frame would be that based on the global easterly mantle flow (1).

    (1) Crespi, M., Cuffaro, M., Doglioni, C., Giannone, F., and Riguzzi, F. (2007). Space geodesy validation of the global lithospheric flow. Geophysical Journal International 168.

    ?? This is a megathrust, so the pacific lithosphere must be the preferred reference frame because this is evidently the lithosphere that is subducted. And in this reference frame the Okhotsk lithosphere is moving to the South-East toward the pacific lithosphere as logically expected. Reciprocally, if the Okhotsk lithosphere is the referential frame, then the pacific lithosphere will logically appear to move toward the Otkhotsk lithosphere, as expected for a megathrust.
    You're apparently very confused with GPS measurements.

    Besides you did not answer to my questions, Please do so:
    How does look the mantle anisotropy along the WBZ there? How are the beachballs along the megathrust?

    Both elements give additional clues.


    Do you see doming in the back-arc under which the diapir head is located?
    If there is no doming, then it means that the diapir is denser than the lithosphere it is piercing through and not pushed from below by material lighter than the surrounding mantle. In this case the diapir will stop rising before reaching the surface and will spread laterally and there will be no doming. Again, this is just a matter of isostatic equilibrium.

    You're terminology was clearly not accurate
    So the answer to your question: the slab is shielding the geothermal flux.
    Do you disagree?

    Are you responsible for moving this thread to Pseudoscience?
    Who failed basic scientific tests? Could you detail the tests that got failed please?
    Besides, are you really qualified to judge if the expanding theory is a pseudoscience? For example, how much scientific literature did you read about it? Or did you only watch some crackpotery?
     
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    No it wouldn't, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the global lithospheric flow that the paper you cited suggests is not as straight forward as an east to west flow. It does however serve to illustrate my point, that even according to the data presented in that paper, the Okhotsk plate moves in almost the same direction as the pacific plate.

    WShy must it be the 'preferred' reference frame?

    So, your theory requires a prefered reference frame, where mine does not. What does that tell you?


    You are apparently, wrong about this as well.

    You're right, I didn't answer that question.

    Generally, where Diapirs exist, yes, some degree of doming is observed.


    It's your, not you're (which is short for you are).
    And there is nothing wrong with my terminology, so no, I won't be rephrasing it.

    No, I claimed credit for the work of Pixies.

    Actually, I'm a trained geologist, hence moderating the Earth Science sub forum.
     
  18. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    I understand that the 20 posts limit for including link is for spammer?
     
  19. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    Sorry to post yet another meanless post to reach that limit.
     
  20. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    and last post to reach the limit.
     
  21. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    Trippy. I appreciate a good scientific discussion, but only if the people involved in the discussion understand what they are talking about. And you don't.

    Your claim that "the Okhotsk plate moves in almost the same direction as the pacific plate" is clearly unsupported by the link to the figure you provided:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    As anyone can see in this figure, the velocity vector of the Pacific plate and Okhotsk are perpendicular to each others. Is that what you call "moves in almost the same direction"?
    Moreover, the sum of the vector components perpendicular to the Okhotsk/pacific Boundary, ie the components of interest to determine if the two blocks are converging or not, is not null at all (!). Actually, the Okhotsk vector being parallel to the boundary and the Pacific vector being perpendicular to the boundary, it is easy to estimate that the convergence rate is about 92 mm/y, quite impressive.

    In conclusion, you're clearly wrong. But will you admit it?

    Evidently because when one want to show a convergence between to blocks, it is more convenient to choose one of the two blocks as the referential frame. It is just good old logic.

    It is not according to a theory, but according to simple logic. And it does tell me that you are devoid of logic.

    Well, if you believe that I'm wrong about the convergence of Pacific and Okhotsk (I remind you that the boundary is a megathrust!), you have a serious problem of cognitive dissonance.


    Please don't use rhetoric and simply answer my question. Is there any doming in the back-arcs? yes or not?

    The terminology used in your question was not accurate enough to provide an accurate answer. So you must rephrase it.


    Except that it was your claim. So basically you move this thread to pseudoscience because you made pseudoscientific claims. Bravo! Do you have any ethics at all?

    A geologist that can't interpret geodetic measurements or do not know that a megathrust is a convergent boundary? And you're a moderator of the Earth Science sub forum? hum.
    Anyway, even the most brilliant geologists must read the literature on a particular subject to understand it. So how much scientific literature did you read about the expanding earth theory? Or did you only watch some crackpotery which would put you at that same crackpot level?

    PS:I suggest you to abandon your condescending tone, because you're absolutly not in position to adopt such tone, moderator or not.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2011
  22. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    As do I - when people respond to what I actually say, and are capable of retaining context accross a single page.
    Allow me to illustrate how you're wrong in two ways, and that the worst mistake I've made amounts to a typographical error (I may have substituted the wrong name).

    Here's what I originally said:
    Is South West 'roughly paralell' to the direction of motion of the pacific plate?
    No, it is not.
    It is, however, 'roughly paralell' to the direction of motion of the eurasian plate
    QED the 'contradiction' is resolved as a typographical error (oops, my bad).

    Alternatively, you could read your own source (Crespi, M., Cuffaro, M., Doglioni, C., Giannone, F., and Riguzzi, F. (2007). Space geodesy validation of the global lithospheric flow. Geophysical Journal International 168 - I can provide you with a legitimate link to the PDF if you like), and realize that figures 6a, 6b, and 6c, which show "Plate motions with respect to mantle flow" have the Pacific and Okhotsk plate moving sub paralell ('nearly paralell') and that neither reference frame supports your notion. The only way to support your notion is by choosing some prefered reference frame based on the pacific plate, and assuming all other plates move around it.

    No, it's poor logic because it leads to misleading impressions, and potentially contradicts evidence.

    Do you make a habit out of being an ass, or is this just a special effort for me.

    See here's the thing - qoute me claiming they're not converging? Oh that's right, I didn't, you just haven't put the effort into understanding my point.
    Quote me claiming that it's not a megathrust? Oh that's right, you can't becaus I didn't.

    Asked and answered.

    Again, no.

    Are we reading the same thread?
    See here: http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2764426&postcount=52
    That is me claiming credit for the work of pixies.

    Strawman hypothesis - I never claimed that it wasn't a megathrust, nor did I claim it wasn't a convergent boundary - two plates can have a net motion in some reference frame that is sub paralell, and still be convergent. This is your misunderstanding, not mine.

    Given that so far you have failed to follow the discussion, retain context across a single page (allowing you to spot a potential typo) have yet to address any points that have been made, and have presented logical fallacies, I think that when you fail to recognize a post that suggests "I'm moving this thread" that it's fair and reasonable to suggest that Pixies did it.
     
  23. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    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 (!)
    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 (!)

    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.

    Who could believe that 3 times the same mistake is just a typo. Give me a break. you're backpeddling and denying the facts.

    Thanks but no thanks. If I provided this reference, it is evidently because I have the pdf and read it.
    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.

    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.
    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.
    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.
    This is a special effort for you. And deniers like you deserve it.
     

Share This Page