Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by bgjyd834, Apr 26, 2011.
He keeps talking in circles.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
There are plenty of papers describing the math of the tidal effect.
No, they are the same model, the difference is that the newer one contains effects such as the drag of the ocean against the sea floor, that provide refinements, that the original model could not take into account.
Do you always use "He" when talking about yourself?
Does the second model assume an initial approach of the moon? No.
I didn't ask for the mainstreams interpretation, I asked for you to provide the math to demonstrate your claim.
Or did you not realize you're with two opposing trends?
What you're doing is just dishonest trolling.
Presence or absence of an initial approach of the moon is irrelevant to the discussion.
We can measure the height of the tides and the amount of momentum and energy that is available to be transferred.
I will try and do the calculation once we determine whether the mass of the Moon has been changing in the same proportion as the Earth.
How much mass has the Earth been increasing by? (I suppose this relates to the increase in volume mainly, but as the size and mass increases the density will also increase so the connection between mass and volume is not linear.)
So do you want to do the calculation? If you do answer the above questions please?
Sorry, but I don't understand what you want to say in this sentence. "active margins", "empirical data" and "convergence" have common meanings. Do you mean something else? What do you mean by "net surface consumption"?
As far I as I know, the empirical data show convergence, divergence, no net surface variation, no Earth expansion.
Well, that's a little further than Samuel Carey, who totaly denied subduction. At this rate, the EE proponents will acknowledge Earth constant radius by a few centuries.
Couple of links around this subject:
From the second link:
Gotta love it.
I'm not the one being rude by saying that "you keep talking in circles".
Learn respect young man.
We can't measure the contribution of the growth process to the increase in the rotation rate, so what's the point? Except may be to look at the effect by decreasing, keeping steady, or increasing the rotation rate of Earth?
There is no evidence that the moon has been very active in the recent past. I guess that you can reasonably assume that the mass of the Moon remained constant for the last By.
Sorry, but I do not believe you.
And you know perfectly that Wu et al did exclude every geodetic stations located in active tectonic regions, and did not use horizontal displacement to model the growth. The opposite of what should have been done.
Earn it, stop trolling, and give direct, rather than evasive answers.
I can understand that something is balanced by something else. I know the difference between a local divergence, and the net change at lage scale. However, I see several issues (on your side) in this thread.
The first issue is that you claimed there are observation and measurement of Earth expansion which don't use EE model, next I requested observation and measurement of Earth expansion which don't use EE model, next you answered by measurement of Earth expansion which, as far as I understand, use an EE model.
The second issue is:
As far as I know, those measurement of the ocean floor surface are using the assumption/idea/fact/whatever that subduction and convergence does not exist or are negligible, no Earth lithosphere disapear, every seafloor which was in the past is still observable. If this an incorrect understanding, please tell me.
On one hand, convergence doesn't append and seafloor never disapear. On the other hand, convergence does append and seafloor disapear.
The third issue is you stating that
as if every convergent boundary on Earth has on his side ("along"), a few km away, not more, a back-arc extension which balance all the convergence. Is that so?
The fourth issue is that you avoid questions, you avoid giving clear and explicit descriptions, explanations, demonstrations, of your EE model, of your EE theories.
I don't care about that. But you conveniently forgot to quote and answer to the questions I asked you in the same §.
I don't care about that either. As I previously wrote
The following diagramm show the green seafloor, labelled "-130" and "-120" on the right, being subducted, disapearing, being no more observable (without drill).
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The two following pictures show convergence between Cyrenaica and Aegean Sea at a rate of several cm/year, and 270 Myear old Mediterranean seefloor being subducted, disapearing, being no more observable (without drill).
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You can post my schemes hundred times, they will continue to show what they were designed for:
1- a mantle flow induces slab rollback.
2- sole the surface amount of lithosphere that rolled back is destroyed in the process.
3- this process is well illustrated in the case of the age an sea
4- this process is generalized to all active margins
5- the surface amount of all the lithosphere that got destroyed by this process along active margins is negligible compare to the amount of lithosphere accreted along the multiple ocean ridges.
Conclusion: Earth's surface is necessarily growing.
YES, the earth is expanding. As explained in the Beadlingism of the earth, and the Beadling of Geoexpansionism; The Earth’s core is made up of Starom, as the starom metamorphosis into its atomic state the particles of the starom realign in respect to each other. The rearrangement of the particles making up starom and assuming an atomic configuration brings some of the particles into orbit around the nucleus of the atom. This new proximity is the expansion of the mass. The energy released in this metamorphosis increases the temperature, so that the envelope of the atomic mass is hotter than the core area.
Separate names with a comma.