The Nonsensical "Growing Earth" "Theory"

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Robert Schunk, Aug 15, 2011.

  1. Gneiss2011 Registered Senior Member

    Indeed. And I do not demand you to answer them. If nobody show me observations supporting the Expanding Earth theory, then I will stay with the common belief that Expanding Earth theory is wrong.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    You were supposed to have read papers describing multiple observations supporting the expanding earth theory...
    Nobody will do your homework.
    If you're not interested, you can stay with plate tectonics.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gneiss2011 Registered Senior Member

    I haven't seen any observations supporting the Expanding Earth theory in those papers you mentionned. As far as I know, there is no observations supporting the Expanding Earth theory.

    You are the one coming here to, obviously, dismiss the common belief that Expanding Earth theory is wrong and/or pseudoscientific. You are the one claiming there are "observations supporting the Expanding Earth theory" (post #10). If you refuse to show observation or argument, then... fine. I will not constrain you, and I can't. Stay with your knowledge, keep your "multiple observations supporting the expanding earth theory" to yourself. :shrug:
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    Then I can do nothing for you.
  8. wlminex Banned Banned

    Gneiss2011 Post 101:

    Gneiss 2011:

    First of all . . . you seem like a gneiss (nice) guy . . . tee hee!

    Some basic geological info indicating expansion (albeit, limited) . . . .

    [Note: We fora posters (not four-poster bed) have discussed much of this before and everyone seems to always conclude that their own ideas are correct - regardless of a lot of insightful discussions.]

    Everyone seems to disregard observed and accepted geologic processes. When we talk about expansion, we must understand that we're talking total mass of the earth, radius of the earth, and density (mass/volume).

    First, some simplification: Let's assume that the total mass of the earth hasn't signicantly changed over geologic time - i.e., let's leave-out small mass contributions from meteorites, comets, etc. and small mass losses from gravitational loss of elemental hydrogen, molecular water, light gases. etc. Ergo - assume total mass is unchanged.

    Next, radius of the earth: We have no direct knowledge that the (average) radius of the earth is increasing; albeit, recent calculations indicate a miniscule radius increase over geologic time (i.e., thickness of a human hair/year - not a lot!). There have also been inferences that the earth's rotation is slowing - possible due to expansion, or to gravitational 'drag'.

    Finally, earth density: Let's assume that the earth's overall, average density has not changed over geologic time - I focus your attention on the term 'overall'. Overall average density of the earth has likely not changed much. Now let's look at density in more detail while visualizing a layered-cross-section (from seismic wave behavior observations) of the earth. We have 1) a nickel-iron core (probably liquid to some extent), 2) an asthenosphere (mantle) around the core that is more dense near the core and less dense further from the core and appears to have some plasticity, 3) a more rigid lithosphere (i.e., 'crust') above the mantle that is basically of two types: oceanic crust( i.e., basaltic) and continental crust (i.e., granitic).

    Now, focusing on the density of the earth materials: Core material likely has variable density, but averaging about 8-10 g/cc. Mantle material, also of variable density (depending upon depth and high-pressure phase transitions) averages about 3.5 g/cc. Basaltic (oceanic) crust density averages about 3.0 g/cc and Continental crust has an average density of about 2.8 g/cc. Ergo, from our observed measurements of such rock material, densities are not all the same. Remember, density (or specific gravity) is defined as "mass" (or measured weight in grams) divided by "unit volume" (in cubic centimeters). Thus, a gram of mantle (D=3.5 g/cc) occupies less spatial volume than a gram of continental crust (D=2.8 g/cc).

    Geologists have inferred, from theory and observations, that lithospheric material (both oceanic and continental) derived from magmas generated by partial-melting and magmatic differential processes within the upper mantle material. This (partially) molten magma rises through the upper mantle (is less dense than mantle) toward the earth's surface. If the partial melting of mantle is slight and magma transit to the surface is rapid, we may find kimberlites (diamond source!) as the result. During transit some magmas may 'paste' onto the bottom of lithospheric crust and differentiate to more exotic compositions. Most magmas that reach the earth's surface express themselves as basaltic lavas and less often as granitic lavas; albeit, if transit is slow enough, magmatic differentiation can produce more granitic material, and certain compositionally-distinct 'hybrid' magmatic products.

    Most continental material is produced by geologically 'recycling' oceanic crust via "plate tectonics" (see discussions elsewhere in Sciforum), in which oceanic basaltic material returns toward the mantle and partial-melting of the basalt produces more granitic magmas. These granitic magmas accrete, or are 'pasted' as contiental crustal rocks, onto the edges of continents where plate-tectonics is active.

    Now . . . where was I? . . . .anyway, different rocks have different densities and therefore occupy different volumes. "Different volumes" infers different spatial dimensions. Less dense = more volume and more dense = less volume - on a same-weight basis. Therefore, if mantle (3.5 g/cc) produces basaltic (3.2 g/cc) and granitic (2.8 g/cc) crust, a net earth volume increase is the result. If the earth's volume increases due to basaltic and granitic crustal evolution, so must the radius of the earth increase (i.e., expand) in order to compensate for the increase in volume.

    How much expansion? Depends on the ratio of mantle to basaltic + granitic crust, minus the recycling effects of plate-tectonics. If there turns-out to be no expansion, then we're looking at some kind of equilibrium 'balance' between mantle evolution (to crust) and the recycling process.

    Enough for now . . . probably too much info. Florian and Trippy will chime-in, I'm sure.

    Hope this helps . . . wlminex
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    So you subscibe to an expanding earth, but not Maxlows thesis?

    Or, they're volatile components that remained in solution under pressure, and came out of solution as the pressure was reduced.

    This makes little, or no sense.

    Only when we look out in the real world, we fnd that the denisty of oceanic crust we find it increases as it cools with age, and after approximately 50MA it's dense enough to sink.

    Like many advocates of expanding earth tectonics, you seem to have some very old ideas about how plate tectonics works.

    This might be of some value to you (and others) Plate Tectonics: Geological Aspects; Prof. J. Tarney

    This is wrong - if the continents were bumping about randomly then the match on any edge would be with its most recent collision.

    You forgot the observations that we have made that match the predictions made by subduction theories.

    Subduction denialism part 1 - a rather well written blog piece from 2008 that references a former poster from this forum.

    No, expanding earth tectonics was rejected because it failed to account for all of the evidence, and there was a body of evidence against it, things such as tidalites and consequences of orbital mechanics.

    The thought of an expanding earth scares nobody, there is simply no evidence to support it at the exclusion of an earth of constant radius, and a substantial body of evidence supporting an earth of expanding radius.

    To paraphrase Tim Minchin, in his piece 'Storm':

    If you show me that, [it] works then I will change my mind
    I’ll spin on a fucking dime
    I’ll be embarrassed as hell, but I will run through the streets yelling
    'It’s a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
    You show me that it works and how it works
    And when I’ve recovered from the shock
    I will take a compass and carve 'Fancy That' on the side of my cock.”

    If I do not share your opinion, it is not that I don't understand it, it is not that I feel some bordering on spiritual need to adhere to what I already know, it is simply that I have yet to be convinced by any evidence that you have presented.
  10. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    So what you're saying, then, is that you can not do for Gneiss2011 what you asked Ophiolite to do for you back in Post #18
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    My... Recollection is that that's not what the study actually says (or what the results mean).
  12. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    This is very marginal. A volcanic arc does not move forward more than a few hundreds km and the amount of recycled crust is limited to what was on the path of the arc. Of course, that is enough to make new continental crust...

    Look at this figure illustrating the phenomenon:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Note that the old oceanic lithosphere does not glide toward the arc, but that on the contrary, it rolls back because the mantle wedge spreads over it. This is the key, and this can only leads to marginal recycling.

    And now look at real examples (Scotia arc/Marianas arc):

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The scotia sea and its frontal arc is pacific mantle intruding the atlantic.
    Also note how the Banda arc is spreading outward from the central uplift center where fresh lithosphere is formed (red). That upwelling is spreading outward over 180°. You can have a look at the spatial distribution of the hypocenters of the banda arc showing the shape of the WB zonehere, left movie.
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2011
  13. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    thre is no plasma inside the Earth. If you believe there is please provide suitable citations to back up your foolish claim., otherwise retract the statement.

    Explain the evidence of subducting slabs.
    Define immensely dense.
    Admit that there is no frigging "magnetic plasma" inside the Earth.

    They do randomly bump. The presence of terranes and, oh what't the word? Ah yes, ophiolites. demonstrates this randomness.

    And that is exactly why plate tectonics is so succesful as a theory: a vast array of observations, across multiple disciplines are best explained by that theory. The theory grew out of the observations, not out of some fevered imagination.

    Much earlier, by a couple of centuries.

    Provide a citation to a peer reviewed paper that presents that model.

    Do you also write inEnglish?
  14. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Slabs are subducted, not subducting.

    Did you finally manage to make that "frigging" multiplication to calculate the centrifugal acceleration at the equator if Earth was spinning 17 times faster?

    A reminder, the multiplication is:
    6,371,000*(17*7.2921150E-05)*(17*7.2921150E-05)= ? m/s^2

    What suspense!
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    You're not really in a great position to be harrassing people for answers to any questions.
  16. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Since the consensus view is that slab pull is the largest component driving subduction it is grammatically correct to say the flags are subducting.
    I have previously told you that when I have satisfied myself about all elements of the calculation I shall, if appropriate, offer c ompelte apology. Perhaps you would prefer I offer a begrudging apology now, rather than a fulsome apology when I have determined it is the right thing to do. The result was, for me, so surprising that I need to overcome my scepticism by taking this apart in a variaty of ways. At the same time I shall use the opportunity to improve/recall my grasp of angular motion in total.

    I think you would agree that your pursuit of me on this point has nothing to do (for or against) your arguments for an expandng Earth. To date all I have seen you do is point out some ambiguities in plate tectonic theory, but no attempt to refute the body of evidence in favour of it. I am fully aware you are not a creationist, bu unfortunately the debating technique is comparable. That, as much as anything, devalues your entire position.
  17. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Given that Ophiolites was insulting, but promised an apology if he were mistaken (see the discussion), I'm in great position.
  18. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Ophiolite being rude has no bearing on your position to pursue him for an answer. My comment was based on other things and was a direct reference to discussions in this thread.

    And as the Earth Science Moderator I follow all active discussions in the sub forum I moderate - regardless of whether or not I post in them, and am familiar with 'the discussion', thankyou.
  19. Gneiss2011 Registered Senior Member

    This figure show both subduction and Wadati-Benioff zone, at the same location ("WBZ"). In "Earthquakes, phase changes, fold belts: from Apennines to a global perspective" G Scalera (2010), previously mentionned by florian, Giancarlo Scalera denies there is subduction at Wadati-Benioff zones, and show no "recycled crust" at all.
  20. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Interesting lapsus.

    I don't doubt that you could "satisfy yourself" in a snap. So why don't you just do it? Right now, you look like a ranter unable to recognize that he was stupidly wrong. This inability to recognize a mistake does not help to trust your judgement for other subjects like this expanding earth thing.

    The body of evidence in favor of plate tectonics is mostly a subset of the body of evidence supporting expanding earth tectonics. So I'd have a hard time to refute the body of evidence supporting plate tectonics.

    It is more interesting to discuss evidence refuting plate tectonics like those described by Carey. And WBZ geodynamics is one of my favorites.
  21. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Do you refer to figure 5?
    Scalera always uses the term "subduction" in the sense of "slab sinking". In that sense, he denies subduction=sinking slabs, but not the presence of a slab. From the abstract:
    "The outpouring of the exceeding material drives the gravitational nappes to overthrust the sediments of the preexisting trough, forcing them on a burial path which emulate the subduction process, but without reaching depths greater than 50-70 km. At the boundary between uplifting material and down-pushed crust and lithosphere, phenomena like metamorphism, mixing, migmization, upward transport of fragments of the buried lithosphere etc. are possible."

    He often uses a different term, "upduction" to emphasize that the slab is not sinking but is buried. Is is equivalent to my remark to Ophiolite: the slab is subducted vs the slab is subducting.
  22. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Then how does he account for the continuation of the pattern of earthquakes at depths >70km?

    So your nitpick of Ophiolites use of language first requires the assumption that expanding earth tectonics is correct in order to carry any validity?
  23. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Not differently than in plate tectonics: phase changes

    No need for an expanding earth at this point. It is simply about the driving force that put a slab in the mantle: on one side, this is the slab itself, on the other side, this is a mantle flow. Evidence support the latter and only the latter.
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2011

Share This Page