Is the earth expanding?

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

  1. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    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.

    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.

    This, I have explained to you, was a typo.

    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.

    And yet...

    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.

    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.

    And you insit wrongly.

    So, according to you, insisting on accuracy, and universal applicability is being in denial?


    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. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    The WBZ is parallel to the motion of the pacific plate??? You're really confusing.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    whooaa! I'm truly impressed. I did not realize until now that you're in fact a genius! (yeah I'm ironic).

    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?

    Persisting in thinking that the arbitrary referential chosen for a figure illustrates the absolute motion of lithosphere is being in denial, indeed.

    Because I pointed that you're in denial? Interesting...

    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:

    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.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    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.

    This is hilarious to me, for a number of reasons which I am sure will continue to escape you.

    Once again, you fail to understand that my reference system also shows a 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.

    That's one word for it.

    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.

    Now you're being absurd.

    If the language fits...

    Already read it, but thanks for the consideration anyway.

    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.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    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'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.
  8. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    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?
  11. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Didn't you write that the Okhotsk plate is not moving toward the pacific but along it?

    So in short, you call me an idiot... Wonderful...

    You interpret your reference system has showing no absolute motion of Okhotsk plate toward the pacific.

    Interesting, slab pull requires decoupling of the Asthenosphere and Lithosphere (low velocity zone), and is thus in contradiction with mantle drag. Citation please?

    So why don't you discuss this paper?

    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)

    So why don't you discuss this paper?

    Easily refuted. Unsupported densities or surface gravity (e.g. 40 m/s2 or 200 My ago). You should know 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?
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    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:

    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:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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).

    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.

    No I don't, this is your assertion about my reference frame, not what I interpret about my reference frame.

    Not neccesarily.

    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.

    Not in the papers I've seen, no.

    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.

    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.

    Slartibartfast the Magrathean
  13. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    And? Why would you expect something different whatever the model?

    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.

    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:

    Yes, Brilliant. Carey was a true genius.

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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: Jun 21, 2011
  14. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    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.

    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.

    No it doesn't.

    Only the expanding earth hypothesis is not simpler, by any stretch, and the Wilson cycle is fairly trivially explainable using subduction tectonics.
  15. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    The dip is parallel to the direction of the mantle wedge motion.

    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.

    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?

    Why do you disagree? Do you disagree that mantle-driven subduction implies limited lithosphere destruction?
    This is an illustration of mantle-driven subduction:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It shows that lithosphere destruction is limited in this case.

    Carey demonstrated that Wilson cycles are artifactual. I showed that the explanation is straightforward.
  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    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?

    A prediction for which there is no evidence.

    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.

    among other things, yes.

    Only if we accept your toy model in the first place - this is circular logic.

    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: Jun 22, 2011
  17. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    I did not sidetracked the discussion. I did not understand your point.

    If the mantle wedge is moving then there is trench migration and slab roll-back.

    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?

    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?

    No. It depends on the contribution of the momentum of the gained mass to the total momentum of the Earth-Moon system.

    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.

    Indeed, the simple growth of Earth can explain the complex and multiple cycles of supercontinents.

    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."

    It is not an assumption, it is a validated empirical model, and the sole one compatible with all available data.
  18. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    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)
  19. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Which still resulted in the side tracking of the discussion QED,

    While this is testable, it's not unique. The mainstream theory also predicts that these things can occur.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    This is a poor analogy at best, as well as being wrong and irrelevant to the discussion,

    It's a prediction, it doesn't prove anything.

    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.

    That statement, as phrased, is a hypothesis, not a proof.

    No, it is an assumption.

    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.

    This statement is far from being true.
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    What is your proposed mechanism for an expanding earth, and what is the rate of expansion?
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Good point.

    There's still this point that needs to be addressed:
    Which so far has remained unattended.
  22. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    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.
  23. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    But not intentionally from my side. I have some doubt for your side.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    It proves that there is limited destruction of lithosphere in this case. Anyway, your accusation of circular logic was wrong.

    Sea level data do not favour a particular model.

    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.

    A model based on data is not an assumption. It is an empirical model.

    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 Cwojdziñski, (2004) Geological Review, 52, no. 8/2, p817

    This is an opinion, not an argument.

Share This Page