Is the earth expanding?

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

  1. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Regarding the mechanism, read post#24 #40 and #41.

    Regarding to the rate, according to Maxlow's thesis (table 2.1 p24):

    Period Age Palaeoradius
    Present 0 Ma 6370 km
    Pliocene 6 Ma 6240 km
    Miocene 23 Ma 5910 km
    Oligocene 37 Ma 5650 km
    Eocene 59 Ma 5270 km
    Paleocene 66 Ma 5160 km
    Mid Cretaceous 118 Ma 4435 km
    Late Jurassic 160 Ma 3960 km
    Triassic 245 Ma 3240 km
    Early Carboniferous 320 Ma 2800 km
    Early Devonian 380 Ma 2540 km
    Mid Ordovician 455 Ma 2290 km
    Cambrian 565 Ma 2060 km
    Early Neoproterozoic 700 Ma 1895 km

    The average rate calculated from the surface expansion for the last 3 millions years is about 22 mm/year. Keep in mind that it is an average over 3E6 years (!).
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    The expanding Earth theory (an empirical theory is not the same as a conjecture!) makes predictions. So we can use some of these predictions to refute or support the theory.

    It is reasonable to predict that the theory is not restricted to Earth in the solar system. So at least a few other planets/moons must show signs of past or present growth.

    The theory predicts that before the current important oceanization stage, the expansion of surface was accommodated in part by the formation of new continental crust. So the amount of continental crust must have increased with time.

    Due to the absence of symmetric ridge in the pacific, the theory predicts that the Pacific initially grew by accretion of new crust at its perimeter, by a process called eduction.

    Probably one of the most interesting prediction. The theory predicts that paleomaps of a period can be made by progressively removing seafloor, continental crust, extension and mobile belts younger than that period. These paleomaps must be consistent with all available data (geochemistry, paleomagnetism, paleoclimate, fossils etc...).

    Now your turn. What falsification test would need to be presented to you that would cause you to abandon plate tectonics?
    Refutation of wilson cycle? Refutation of a wide Tethys ocean? What?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    my field is the behavioural ecology of marine invertebrates (and to a certain extent vertibrates) so my knowledge of plate tectonics is limited to a few undergrad classes in geology and oceanography .

    But then I don't have an agenda as the outcome doesn't really affect my work either way.
    I suspect however that you do have an agenda, and that overrides your ability to engage in any meaningful discussion - you've decided what the answer is first and now you are trying to make the data fit the facts - at least that's the impression that you are giving.

    which is why you really need to answer the question in very specific terms -
    tell us exactly what you will need to be presented with in order for you to abandon your hypothesis.

    This will demonstrate that you are entering into the dicussion in good faith.

    Otherwise your just another crank (albeit a seemingly knowledgeable one) with an agenda.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    Nothing I said implied deliberatness. I did not accuse you of doing it deliberately. I only stated that you had done it.

    No it doesn't. It simply implies that Trenches migrate, and that migration can be governed by several factors.
    I'll attent to the rest when I have more time on my hands.

    Your assertions here are wrong The theory does not predict it to be constant, the theory predicts it to vary, and predicts it to vary in predictable ways.

    It's a strawman hypothesis - the evolution of the lunar paleo distance, and the length of the day is not predicted to be a linear one, I didn't claim that it was linear, only that it was predictable. That it must be linear is your assertion alone.

    This is hypocritical, as you have on a number of occasions argued that the expanding earth hypothesis provides a simpler explanation, and therefore should be accepted.

    No I'm not, I'm discussing expanding earth literature.

    But tells us - what mechanism do you propose for the accumulation of matter inside the earth?
    I believe I've mentioned Scalera's graviton decay hypothesis.
    Carey never proposed a hypothesis, but alluded that he thought it was linked with the expansion of the universe.
    Comic book artist, Neal Adams has suggesred rgar ut's related to electron positron pair production.
    Mantovani proposed expansion with constant mass via thermal expansion. Joly and Holmes took this further and claimed that raidocative decay would generate sufficient heat to result in the thermal expansion of the earth.
    I've also seen proposals suggesting the presence of degenerate matter within the core, and something related to cold fusion (more like warm fusion) proposed.

    You've already stated that you opine that the mass must have increased in conjunction with the volume, otherwise gravity would have been too strong. So please, enlighten us by what method do you propose to add mass to the Earth?

    This isn't what I said, and I'm not entirely sure how to tackle this statement.

    No, it doesn't. And no, it wasn't.

    Yes they do - the configuration of the continents (the presence or absence of super continents, for example, makes predictions about the depth of the oceans.

    I repeat. Carey's explanation for the observation of Suprecontinents, and multiple configurations of supercontinents is predicated on the assumption of an expanding earth.

    Perhaps you'd care to reconcile stationary hotspots with your theory of mantle wedge driven trench rollback.

    It's a statement of fact.

    Here's what you've had to say on the matter:
    So, your expanding Earth hypothesis requires matter to appear inside the earth, which, incidentaly, contradicts this statement:
    By some mechanism that requires unknown physics - beyond the standard model, even going as far as suggesting this:
    Which, in essence, is asking us to ignore evidence against your argument?

    And you still insist that your explanation is the most parsimonious?

    Meanwhile, you still can not demonstrate the presence of growth using lunar LASER ranging experiments, GPS measurements or satelite ephemeridae - even though we can measure the radius of the Earth to an accuracy of at least +/- 10cm.
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2011
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Post #24 says the physics is "unknown", and new stuff just mysteriously "appears".

    Post #40 says "there is no known physics that can explain the growth at this time"

    And #41 says "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."

    Sounds like this "theory" is dead in the water before it starts.

    Never mind the ludicrous 20 mm/year figure for the supposed expansion.

    I guess I'll put you down as a crank at this point.
  9. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    That's similar to me (undergrad classes in geology), but I must admit that I got a serious update for the last 4 years. Still, you should be able to give a falsification test of plate tectonics. BTW, anyone with a test in mind is welcome to propose it.

    Me neither. So your supposition that I have an agenda is false.

    Contrary to most people in this thread, I really have no prejudice. My conclusions are entirely based on observations.

    I suggested 4 different predictions that can be used as a falsification test, and none of them has your preference? Ok, since it happens that I've been discussing this point elsewhere I propose a 5th one to ease my life:

    If it can be shown that there was oceanic lithosphere that was significantly wider than 1500 km between Asia and India, then the expanding Earth theory must be wrong.

    But in counterpart you must also accept that:

    If it can be shown that there was no oceanic lithosphere that was significantly wider than 1500 km between Asia and India, then plate tectonics must be wrong.

    Is that good enough for you?
  10. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Trenches migration away from the back-arc implies limited lithosphere destruction as demonstrated by the figure I made. Your opinion is of no scientific value.

    If it is predictable then simply provide the method used to predict the evolution of the braking rate. All I've seen so far, is the calculation of average braking rate derived from the Moon-Earth paleodistance (See Williams), derived either from the lunar nodal period or the number of sidereal months/yr or the number of sidereal days/yr (all three giving consistent results).

    This is hypocritical, as you have on a number of occasions argued that the expanding earth hypothesis provides a simpler explanation, and therefore should be accepted.[/QUOTE]
    No it is not hypocritical. For someone whose nickname is Ockham's machete, you seem surprisingly unfamiliar with the limitation of Ockam's razor.
    The principle of parsimony states that between two hypotheses able to explain an observation, the simplest one should be preferred. So it is a valuable principle that help a scientist to choose which hypothesis to favour for further studies. But it is not sufficient to definitively refute the more complex hypothesis.
    You're welcome.

    If you're discussing expanding earth literature that speculates on a mechanism, that remains speculation. I have absolutely zero compassion for those expansionists that are seduced by worthless speculation.

    When will you understand that we can't formulate a mechanism to add mass to the Earth as long as we have no data to formulate one? Without data we can't build a mechanism, without data, every proposition is speculative. Is that clear enough?

    You're probably referring to Muller's work. Sea level data do not favour a model because they can be equally well explained for each model.

    False. Carey's refutation of a wide Iapetus ocean is based on palaeomagnetic data (from Morris), and these data prove that the separation was along the Appalachian-caledonian axis, not across it. Then the fact that the separation was along the axis implies that the Earth is growing. We start from the data to build the theory, not the opposite. This is good science. In plate tectonics, the data are explained with the hindsight from the theory. This is bad science (and I'm nice).

    Both are the expression of the migration of mantle material from inside to the surface (as expected for an inner growth). No need for a reconciliation.

    Appearance is not the same as creation ex nihilo. I reject the latter or conservation laws would be violated.

    This not an evidence, this is a strawman, because so far we have no data to build a mechanism to add mass to the Earth. We can only observe that it must happen because of different line of evidence.
    So you're attacking an unknown mechanism. It is irrational.

    The first question you must ask yourself before doing this is: are these methodologies completely independent from the plate tectonic model?

    1) is that incorrect to state that the physics that can explain this phenomenon is not known yet?
    2) I never wrote "mysteriously". Please do not twist my words. It's showing that you have an agenda.
    Stuff must appear as implied from different lines of evidence.

    Same as above.

    These are just logical inferences:
    a) The mass of earth increases and conservation laws must not be violated => there is stuff accumulating inside Earth coming from outside Earth
    b) We don't detect that stuff getting inside Earth => it must be weakly interacting with common baryonic/fermionic matter, hence of the dark matter type.

    We can't go much farer than that without widely speculating. Actually, I even think that these inferences are already a bit speculative.

    If by theory, you mean the physics, it's not even close to start.

    Dommage, this is an actual measurement and thus not "supposed".

    So your agenda is to prove that I'm a crank. Great to know, but I have nothing anymore to prove regarding the scientific method.
  11. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    I'm yet to be convinced - I suspect that you already know (or at the very least think you know) the width of the OL between the continents, and have shaped your conclusions based upon that - which is the classic reverse conclusion behaviour of a pseudoscientific crank - conclusion first - data second.

    so we'll have to abandon that altogether and move on to something else more productive. How about trying for something more contemporary and direct?

    for example rather than swallowing without question the wild speculation of Maxlow's thesis that you just posted- is there not a way that we can make accurate contemporary measurements of expansion using modern equipment?
    can you perhaps suggest a test we might do?
  12. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Quite ironic knowing that "conclusion first" is exactly what you're doing. You conclude that this theory is false despite admitting yourself that you have very limited knowledge in the field, and most likely zero knowledge in particular for that theory. What does it tell us about you? That you actually worth no more than one of those "pseudoscientific cranks"?

    Anyway, it is irrelevant to the falsification test I proposed. You must know that there are two important requirements for a falsification test.
    1) it must give a yes or no answer in order to clearly refute or support the theory
    2) it must be possible to provide an answer to the proposition using available data or data that can be readily available.

    My proposition satisfies both requirements. If you're clueless about the related data, that's not my problem at all. I'll provide them, and you will be always be able to conclude supposing that you understand them.

    If you can propose something that satisfies both requirement, that's fine.

    You do really believe that I'm such a blind idiot that I'm ready to "swallow without question" whatever speculation, do you?

    If you find a test based on contemporary measurements that satisfies the requirements then go ahead. I found none.
  13. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    This thread topic finds it's way in here from time to time, a simple point to conclude if the earth is expanding is to take into consideration it's makeup.

    "Solid" rock formations do not alter much in volume, there might be changes based upon temperature but they wouldn't equate to much more than a few mm's tolerance.

    While rock is molten (Magma), it can however be subjected to various impurities that cause gas pockets to form with it. These gases usually attempt to rise through the molten rock to the surface to vent (This is just caused by the surrounding volume or rock containing great mass and conforming to gravity by attempting to occupy the space of the bubble volume.) when the bubbles reach the surface, they are sometimes encapsulated within the rock because the molten magma's density is lessened causing it to cool quicker.

    The notable type of rock usually found at surface level from this is Pumice stone which is considerably porous because of the bubbles.

    In essence such bubbling can cause an increase in volume, however it can cause problems to. Due to the rock formation not having a high density it can be more prone to crumbling under pressure, so *if* you have a large area consistent with the rock formation, it will be more prone to shifts in regards to Tectonics. Of course this is a large *if* without someone in geophysics actually identifying if various fault-lines are pumice enriched or not.
  14. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    so you have a process that cannot be measured, driven by a mechanism that can't be explained, and doesn't make any predictions that cannot be explained better by standard tectonic models.

    This is the point where you abandon it
  15. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Wrong. It is measured for geological time. Actually a much more appropriate timescale.

    Can't be explained yet. Not an issue for an empirical theory.

    Wrong. It is measured for geological time. Actually a much more appropriate timescale.

    Wrong. For example, it predicts that India migrated northward while remaining constantly close to Asia.
  16. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

  17. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    What speculation? His model is validated by the data. Data always prime over existing theories.

    Strawman. This is in your head.

    Tell me what contemporary method of measuring can give a yes or no answer and is independent from the current model.
  18. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    How about this:
    How about an anomaly in Tidal Rhythmite data?
  19. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    No, it does not, contempory literature also expects trench roll back to occur under a variety of scenarios.

    Strictly speaking, you're the one making the extraordinary claim, so it's up to you to provide the proof, however there are peer reviewed papers dating back to 1978 detailing a number of different ways of measuring the lunar paleo distance, including measuring the shape of Lunar maria. One of the things we have learned about, as a result of these studies is that during the Paleozoic the rate at which the moon receeded from the earth slowed. Physics, and tidal theory, combined with mainstream plate tectonics provide a natural explanation for this.

    All of which is beside the point, and here's why - even only considering averages, and expanding earth would still lead to a detecable anomaly.

    It is complete hypocrisy for you to suggest that ontological parsimony is sufficient to dismiss the mainstream theory, while at the same time arguing it is insufficient to dismiss your toy model.

    That's not my nickname.

    I am familiar with the principle of ontological parismony. What you have failed to recognize is the implications of your own argument about your misuse of it. You have explicitly claimed that expanding earth tectonics is simpler than the mainstream theory, and so we should reject the mainstream theory, however, now that it has been pointed out to you that expanding earth tectonics is in fact more complicated because it introduces a number of unknown mechanisms, then suddenly complexity is not sufficient grounds for discarding expanding earth tectonics.

    This, in and of itself should immeadiately ring alarm bells to a casual third person when viewing this thread, because it is precisely this sort of behaviour and attitude that indicates faith, rather than science at work.

    So instead you present a toy model with no viable mechanism?

    Wrong. This is one of the core premises of science. If you were actually interested in science, then you would have been able to offer a mechanism.

    Incidentaly, I want to revisit this statement:
    Take a moment to think about this.
    We have 50 years worth of data collected from satelite orbits.
    In this time, Carey would have us believe that the earth has expanded between 800mm and 1600mm.
    Let's think about this, for a moment. The Earth has a radius of 6,378.1370 km.
    If we assume that the Earth has grown from something else, to that - an assumption that works in your favour, then 50 years ago, the radius of the earth was between 6378.1362km and 6378.1354km.
    Now, let's just use the largest number, the lowest amount predicted by Carey.
    According to Carey, the circumference of the Earth increased from 40075.012km to 40075.017km (8SF for both).
    For simplicities sake, for a moment, let's treat the earth as a sphere.
    If Carey is correct, then the Earth has increased its volume by 408,966.26 km[sup]3[/sup]
    This equates, if the bulk density of the earth has remained constant - something you have suggested or implied, that the earth has gained an additional 2.25545E+18 kg.
    This, in turn, suggests that, if the earth's angular momentum has remained constant, that the Earths day has lengthened by 1.3s over the last 50 years - a deviation that we have had the capacity to measure since 1955.

    But it gets worse than that for expanding earth tectonics - The Chaldeans recorded the Saros over 3,000 years ago, which gives us another tool for understanding whether or not the Earth has expanded, because it would manifest as anomalies in our record of solar and lunar eclipses.

    No, not really.

    You're right, expanding earth tectonics is bad science.

    Oh, so you posit that the matter appears inside the earth from an external source? How precisely does that work?

    No it isn't. You can provide no evidence of any mass gain in the last 3,000 years (we could probably argue in excess of 10,000 if we consider things such as stone henge), and you can provide no evidence for a plausable mechanism, and you are asking us to simply ignore the lack of evidence.

  20. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    I suggest you learn the definition of a strawman - the contention that it defies known physics is yours:

    I think Trippy's test in the previus post would satisfy me - giving particular reference to how ancient sites with specific solar alignments to measure the length of a year are now out of synch.
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Just as an additional point.

    According to Florian:
    "The theory predicts that before the current important oceanization stage, the expansion of surface was accommodated in part by the formation of new continental crust. So the amount of continental crust must have increased with time."

    Now, according to Carey, addition of continental crust was via Orogenesis caused by Diapirism. According to the USGS, the median thickness of Orogenic crust is 42.62km.

    According to you, and Carey, all Oceanic crust is new, and also responsible for the expanion of the Earth. The average thickness of Oceanic crust is 6km.

    Now, using data from the USGS I could do a weighted average, using their model Crust 5.1, however I'm not going to download it at work, and I don't have a GIS tool at home, so I'm going to do something that works in your favour, the significance of which will become apparent shortly. I'm going to over estimate the average thickness of this new crust. I'm going to take the straight average thickness, and use that - 24.31km.

    Now, according to Maxlow's Thesis, 700MYA the earth was 1,895 km in radius, and had a surface area of , and today it is 6,370 km in radius. Now, again, for simplicities sake, treating the Earth as a sphere, this means that 700MYA the earth had a surface area of 45,126,151km[sup]2[/sup], and today it has a surface area of 464,778,212km[sup]2[/sup]. This means, that at an average thickness of 24.31km, 11,298,758,334km[sup]3[/sup] (11.3 Billion cubic kilometers) of mantle material has been emplaced at the surface. Now. This is important to note, because - assuming the bulk chemistry and density of the Earth's mantle have not changed, then the average density (using the highest value I can find - which, again, works in your favour) is 4850kg/m[sup]3[/sup] and the average volatile content is 0.9% (by weight). Now, if we make one more asusmption that works in your favour - that the only volatile that exists in the Earths mantle is water then this all equates to 493,190,801,279 kg of water that was in the mantle, now at the earths surface. Now, let's make one more assumption that works in your favour, let's assume that the relative density of this water was 1 - and maximize the volume of the water liberated from the mantle during the growth of the earth over the last 700 MA.

    Then this equates to an additional 0.493 km[sup]3[/sup] of water.

    Why is this important?

    Earth's Hydrosphere is estimated to weigh in at at 1.4x10[sup]21[/sup]kg - including atmospheric water vapour.
    This, if we make the same assumption, and assume a mininum value for the density of water, to maximize its volume we get 1.4x10[sup]9[/sup]km[sup]3[/sup], which given the present surface area of 464,778,212km[sup]2[/sup] is sufficient to cover the surface of the earth to a uniform depth of 3km.

    However, according to Carey's hypothesis, and Maxwell's thesis, even if we account for the volume of water liberated from the mantle, then 700MYA, the water that was present was sufficient to cover the earth's surface to a uniform depth of 31km.

    Does anybody else see the problem with this?

    I calculated that the volume of water is sufficient to cover the planet to a depth of 3.01km.
    The average depth of the ocean is 3790m, and over half of the ocean is more than 3000m deep.
    Does that illustrate the problem a little better?
    In order for Carey's hypothesis to be correct, 700MYA, the oceans would have had to have had an average depth of at least 31km in order to accomodate the obersvation that dry land existed at that time.

    The only alternative to that available, to accomodate Carey's hypothesis is that, for example, if we assume that the thickness of the uniform layer of water over the surface of the earth was 5km, then we have a volume of 225,630,755, which requires 1.175x10[sup]9[/sup]km[sup]3[/sup] of water to have been erupted from the mantle, which would require the mantle to have been, on average 10 orders of magnitude wetter than it is now (that is to say, it would need to have been, on average 9 billion percent, by weight water). Which is clearly absurd.

    So, supporting Carey's hypothesis, it would seem, requires choosing between two alternatives, both of which are absurd, one of which is impossible, the other of which has precisely zero evidence supporting it.

    Does that make the problem perhaps clearer to understand?
  22. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Off the point here... I would just like to point out that those of you who consistently and automatically disagree with alternative theories, would- on the other hand- be just as adamant in defense of such a theory if it happened to be mainstream. This foolish dependency on consensus and blind trust in credentials is very unimpressive.

    Ok thanks for your time. Carry on please...
  23. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    only when the alternative conjecture has no merit.

    you'll notice that when pressured to submit a simple falsifiable test for his conjecture, and when his attempts to side track the discussion away from that topic failed, Florian scarpered

Share This Page