Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 198
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: is earth growing?

  1. #1 is earth growing? 
    Forum Freshman noob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    19
    i found this short (9min) animation on youtube

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

    about growing of earth. in short, video is claiming that pangea was not continent, but only surface on planet.

    professional opinion?

    sorry for my eng, cheers 8)


    "We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology.
    We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology."
    -C. Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    You should ask yourself this:
    Where should the matter to pull this off come from. There is no supply of new matter from outer space except in the imagination of the people claiming the earth is growing. They have to resort to an explanation that is highly questionable like absorption of Neutrinos in the earths core. There is not a single shred of evidence for a mechanism like that and it also runs into trouble explaining where the water for the oceans came from after the earth started expanding. If it wa there in the first place there should be signs of a global flooding.

    So: NO, the earth is not growing.


    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    158
    I could talk all day about that is wrong with this, but I won't. Early on he says clearly that there is "no twisting... no form fittting, no altering of shapes and sizes". He is lying. Just watch the video carefully, particularly around 1 minute 44 seconds. He magics huge islands out of nowhere and distorts, twists bends and resizes the landmasses to make sure thet they fit. You can make any random shapes tesselate perfectly if their shapes and sizes can be altered as you wish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: is earth growing? 
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by noob
    i found this short (9min) animation on youtube

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

    about growing of earth. in short, video is claiming that pangea was not continent, but only surface on planet.

    professional opinion?

    sorry for my eng, cheers 8)
    It's correct.

    "The idea of an earth which is constant and unchanging has been restated so often throughout history that it has now become established as a firm fact. It needs no proof -- which is lucky since there is none." -- Stephen Hurrell, engineer, April 2006

    Subduction is a myth.

    "People don't want to see it. They believe in subduction like a religion." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1981

    Want proof? The oceans are newborns.

    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
    You should ask yourself this:
    Where should the matter to pull this off come from. There is no supply of new matter from outer space
    It's called pair production and was discovered in 1932 by Carl David Anderson, the youngest Nobel Prize winner in history.

    "The creation of electron–positron pairs constitutes an example for the conversion of energy into mass." -- Jörg Eichler, physicist, March 2005

    except in the imagination of the people claiming the earth is growing. They have to resort to an explanation that is highly questionable like absorption of Neutrinos in the earths core. There is not a single shred of evidence for a mechanism like that and it also runs into trouble explaining where the water for the oceans came from after the earth started expanding. If it wa there in the first place there should be signs of a global flooding.

    So: NO, the earth is not growing.
    I feel sorry for you religious types.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    It's called pair production and was discovered in 1932 by Carl David Anderson, the youngest Nobel Prize winner in history.
    Oh please, you need at least 1.22 MeV of energy for every pair. This is actually a vast amount of energy. And where does the antimatter particle (positron) go? Is it stored somewhere? If not, it will annihilate very quickly with another electron again, so you get a mass equlibrium. Not to mention the hard gamma radiation it would produce.

    Then again, electrons have a negligible mass compared to the heavy atomic nuclii of the Earth's element abundance. How should these be produced, for which much more energy would be needed? Even the sun cannot do this.

    The answer is simple: The submarine surface is so young, because it is built by material that rose by convection form the inner Earth. The movements of the continents can actually be measured.

    http://cddis.nasa.gov/926/slrtecto.html
    http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci...569?source=rss
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: is earth growing? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by noob
    professional opinion?
    Hi noob,

    We can safely say that no one (but a few fringe characters with no background in geology) believes in the expanding Earth hypothesis. Plate tectonics is the only model for crustal movement accepted by professional geoscientists, and the only model capable of coming close to describing the dynamic Earth system.

    Cheers,
    -thb
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    as per usual Wikipedia is your friend and reasonably impartial guide

    ironically, the expanding earth hypothesis suffers from the same deficiencies that were originally thrown up by the detractors of the continental drift hypothesis, i.e. a lack of a mechanism explaining why the earth should be expanding + any evidence that any such expansion has taken or is taking place
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: is earth growing? 
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by tenderheart bear
    Quote Originally Posted by noob
    professional opinion?
    Hi noob,

    We can safely say that no one (but a few fringe characters with no background in geology) believes in the expanding Earth hypothesis. Plate tectonics is the only model for crustal movement accepted by professional geoscientists, and the only model capable of coming close to describing the dynamic Earth system.

    Cheers,
    -thb
    You make science out to be a fundamentalist religion. For your infomation that is not the case. Scientific truth changes over time.

    "We have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter which science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions that we draw." -- Alfred L. Wegener, astrophysicist/geoscientist, 1928

    If you have any clue who Wegener is perhaps you'll modify your opinion.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    as per usual Wikipedia is your friend and reasonably impartial guide
    If Wikipedia is impartial then I'm a Roman Emperor.

    ironically, the expanding earth hypothesis suffers from the same deficiencies that were originally thrown up by the detractors of the continental drift hypothesis, i.e. a lack of a mechanism explaining why the earth should be expanding + any evidence that any such expansion has taken or is taking place
    The mechanism is called pair production and was discovered in 1932 by Carl David Anderson, the youngest Nobel Prize winner in history.

    "The creation of electron–positron pairs constitutes an example for the conversion of energy into mass." -- Jörg Eichler, physicist, March 2005
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    If Wikipedia is impartial then I'm a Roman Emperor..
    what did you say your name was again ? Caligula ?

    by impartial i mean that Wikipedia attempts to reflect the mainstream scientific consensus, and does give reasonable coverage of alternative explanations + they don't have any particular axe to grind

    as for electron-positron pairs, don't they usually annihilate each other shortly after the pair formation ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Wikipedia attempts to reflect the mainstream scientific consensus
    That's the problem. The "mainstream scientific concensus" has a history of being 100% wrong.

    "The history of science demonstrates, however, that the scientific truths of yesterday are often viewed as misconceptions, and, conversely, that ideas rejected in the past may now be considered true. History is littered with the discarded beliefs of yesteryear, and the present is populated by epistemic corrections. This realization leads us to the central problem of the history and philosophy of science: How are we to evaluate contemporary sciences's claims to truth given the perishability of past scientific knowledge? ... If the truths of today are the falsehoods of tomorrow, what does this say about the nature of scientific truth?" -- Naomi Oreskes, geologist, 1999

    and does give reasonable coverage of alternative explanations + they don't have any particular axe to grind
    Nonsense. I can tell you that they do have axes to grind and there is gross inaccuracy, censorship, and politics involved. Wikipedia is edited by humans, not angels or gods.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Nonsense. I can tell you that they do have axes to grind and there is gross inaccuracy, censorship, and politics involved.
    any particular experiences that you want to share in this respect ?

    oh, as for the consensus being 100% wrong, i think darwin's theory of natural selection has withstood the test of time pretty well
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    oh, as for the consensus being 100% wrong, i think darwin's theory of natural selection has withstood the test of time pretty well
    In other words, scientific concensus was 100% wrong for thousands of years before Darwin. However, animal and plant breeders were well aware of domestic selection before Darwin.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    In other words, scientific concensus was 100% wrong for thousands of years before Darwin. However, animal and plant breeders were well aware of domestic selection before Darwin.
    not sure whether this is the correct way of putting things - the state of affairs prior to darwin can hardly be seen as a scientific consensus, more like a muddle of a variety of opinions

    + breeders may have been aware in a myopic sort of way of the power of selection, but very few really took this to the more generic level that is typical of a scientific enquiry
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    the state of affairs prior to darwin can hardly be seen as a scientific consensus, more like a muddle of a variety of opinions
    Exactly the same as the state of affairs post Darwin and today.

    "You only find complete unanimity in a cemetary." -- Abel Aganbegyan, economist, 1987
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    "You only find complete unanimity in a cemetary." -- Abel Aganbegyan, economist, 1987
    "i tend to disagree" - count dracula
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: is earth growing? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    You make science out to be a fundamentalist religion. For your infomation that is not the case. Scientific truth changes over time.
    Clearly science is empirical whereas religion is based on faith, so to reinterpret the confidence placed in plate tectonics as 'religious fundamentalism' shows an error in thinking. I suspect this results from a preference of dramatics over logic.

    "We have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter which science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions that we draw." -- Alfred L. Wegener, astrophysicist/geoscientist, 1928

    If you have any clue who Wegener is perhaps you'll modify your opinion.
    The same Wegener who came up the idea of continental drift, but lacked the mechanism that was later discovered in the 1960's? Not even Wegener was absurd enough to believe in the expanding Earth idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    "You only find complete unanimity in a cemetary." -- Abel Aganbegyan, economist, 1987
    "i tend to disagree" - count dracula
    Here's some concensus for you:

    "In the oral session, except for one presentation that was clearly pro plate tectonics, and another one that did not address the issue of global and large scale geology specifically, there was general consensus that subduction, and therefore plate tectonics, is mechanically impossible." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist/geophysicist) and Karsten M. Storetvedt (geophysicist), November 2007
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    "You only find complete unanimity in a cemetary." -- Abel Aganbegyan, economist, 1987
    "i tend to disagree" - count dracula
    Here's some concensus for you:

    "In the oral session, except for one presentation that was clearly pro plate tectonics, and another one that did not address the issue of global and large scale geology specifically, there was general consensus that subduction, and therefore plate tectonics, is mechanically impossible." -- Stavros T. Tassos (geophysicist) and Karsten M. Storetvedt (geophysicist), November 2007
    Were they at a young Earth creationist conference, by any chance?

    Cheers,
    -thb
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    "i tend to disagree" - count dracula
    Here's some concensus for you:

    "In the oral session, except for one presentation that was clearly pro plate tectonics, and another one that did not address the issue of global and large scale geology specifically, there was general consensus that subduction, and therefore plate tectonics, is mechanically impossible." -- Stavros T. Tassos (geophysicist) and Karsten M. Storetvedt (geophysicist), November 2007
    ahem - that was a joke : dracula would disagree that a cemetery represented a consensus, wouldn't he, himself being at least one exception ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Let's get back to science. What is the supposed growth rate of the Earth (past and present) in size and mass per year? Maybe, we can get some sense out of the numbers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    So if the earth was expanding, then the lattitude of all continents should have been pretty much the same over time, nay? And also the general alignement in respect to each other?
    Hmmm, then we have a problem because fossilized magnetic domains in ignious rocks tells us otherwise. And how do you explain the fact that opiolites do exist. I do not mean the moderator, I mean the physical scales of ocean floor embedded in e.g. the Alps or the Himalayans?

    And please provide an estimation of the speed of earth's growth so this could be checked by measurements.
    And again, my question remains, where do you get the water from to form the oceans? I mean, right now, if you leveled the surface of the earth, the water present on our lovely planet today would cover it around 800 to 1000 m deep. With an expanding earth, the water depth should have been much more as there is no place where the water could recede to. Or is there an additional hypothesis that the water arrived form outer space somehow?
    And if you say that the ocean floors are babies, this puts a time restriction on your hypothesis. The oldest ocean floor then is the starting point for earth's expansion. What happened before this point in time, in between the time earth was formed and expansion started. Or did the earth shrink at some point? How convenient.
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    One of or two of you have ridiculed the idea of an expanding Earth. That is unscientific. Before plate tectonics achieved the acceptance and success that it has, geologists faced major conundrums: what caused orogenesis - mountain building episodes; why were the oceans and the continents so different in character.

    Several theories were offered to account for the observations and an expanding Earth was very much accepted as a valid contender. The reason it is no longer a valid contender is that plate tectonics offers a far more convincing explanation for observations and a much richer framework in which to understand the geology of the past. Moreover, some current obervations - for example relative plate movement measured by satellite - appear to falsify the expanding Earth concept.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Let's get back to science. What is the supposed growth rate of the Earth (past and present) in size and mass per year? Maybe, we can get some sense out of the numbers.
    There is no supposed growth rate. There is only an observed growth rate based upon core samples of the oceanic lithosphere. The oceans are ~180 million years old.

    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
    So if the earth was expanding, then the lattitude of all continents should have been pretty much the same over time, nay?
    No. There is spreading in every direction.

    And also the general alignement in respect to each other?
    All the continents fit together perfectly on a smaller Earth.

    Hmmm, then we have a problem because fossilized magnetic domains in ignious rocks tells us otherwise.
    ?

    And how do you explain the fact that opiolites do exist.
    Ophiolites exist because there is no subduction.

    And please provide an estimation of the speed of earth's growth so this could be checked by measurements.
    It isn't constant. And it has been checked by measurements and confirmed.

    And again, my question remains, where do you get the water from to form the oceans?
    Oxidized mantle hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most common chemical element in the universe and oxygen is the third most common chemical element in the universe. Where does water come from in the 20th century hypothesis?

    I mean, right now, if you leveled the surface of the earth, the water present on our lovely planet today would cover it around 800 to 1000 m deep.
    If true, so what?

    With an expanding earth, the water depth should have been much more as there is no place where the water could recede to.
    You mean water can't drip into a spread, rift, or fault?

    Or is there an additional hypothesis that the water arrived form outer space somehow?
    Where does water come from in the 20th century hypothesis?

    And if you say that the ocean floors are babies
    I don't just say it, it's a geophysical fact. ~180 million years old.



    this puts a time restriction on your hypothesis.
    Yup.

    The oldest ocean floor then is the starting point for earth's expansion.
    An unscientific assumption. Mass accretion began from the formation of the system.

    "My research, based on irrefutable evidence of constant accretion of meteorites and meteor dust, concludes that Earth began as an asteroid remnant of an earlier comet captured by the Sun. The proto-planet then grew over uncountable years (possibly many more than the 4.5 Ga now believed) in an accretion process that is still underway and will continue into the future at an accelerating pace because of Earth’s constantly increasing mass and gravitational power." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005

    What happened before this point in time, in between the time earth was formed and expansion started.
    Good question. What caused Pangea to break apart?

    Or did the earth shrink at some point?
    No the Earth did not shrink. It's PT hypothesis that says the Earth shrinks.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Moreover, some current obervations - for example relative plate movement measured by satellite - appear to falsify the expanding Earth concept.
    LOL. Then link us the paper! You are such a liar.

    Measuring techniques that have been developed to measure the dimensions of the Earth include: Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR), Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR), Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite (DORIS).

    Observational data is now continuously being recorded from each of these measurement techniques and the mathematically treated data is routinely combined and used to calculate a solution to the global geodetic network. Solutions to this global network are regularly published on the Internet by the International Earth Rotation Service Central Bureau (IERS) located in Paris and by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre (GSFC)

    The information that is being made publicly available from the bureau includes the X-Y-Z geocentric co-ordinates for each observation site, relative to the centre of the Earth, and their annual motion vectors. Baseline vector components, measured between two or more observation sites, are also provided from VLBI measurement techniques.

    The application of advanced space geodetic techniques to studies of the Earth has progressed to the point where precise estimation of present day plate motion is now quoted to sub-centimetre accuracy. In other words, they can now measure the dimensions of the Earth and the motions of the continents extremely accurately.

    These measurements have shown that the present-day horizontal motions of each of the major crustal plares are very close to the million year average motion vectors determined directly from oceanic magnetic mapping. These two measurement techniques therefore fully support eachother and it gives strong justification in using the oceanic mapping for plate reconstructions.
    Terra Non Firma Earth
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Let's get back to science. What is the supposed growth rate of the Earth (past and present) in size and mass per year? Maybe, we can get some sense out of the numbers.
    There is no supposed growth rate. There is only an observed growth rate based upon core samples of the oceanic lithosphere. The oceans are ~180 million years old.
    Okay, let me try again. By how much - according to the theory you are supporting - has the Earth grown within these 180 Million years? Radius and mass please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Let's get back to science. What is the supposed growth rate of the Earth (past and present) in size and mass per year? Maybe, we can get some sense out of the numbers.
    There is no supposed growth rate. There is only an observed growth rate based upon core samples of the oceanic lithosphere. The oceans are ~180 million years old.
    Okay, let me try again. By how much - according to the theory you are supporting - has the Earth grown within these 180 Million years? Radius and mass please.
    You can arrive at that answer by "subducting" (everyone should know how to do that since that's the prevailing religion) the "plates" back into the oceanic seafloor spread rift according to the time data provided in the map above.

    Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    You can arrive at that answer by "subducting" (everyone should know how to do that since that's the prevailing religion) the "plates" back into the oceanic seafloor spread rift according to the time data provided in the map above.
    why should we have to do the calculations ? you make the allegations, you provide the figures to shore them up

    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    aha, the proof of the feeble-minded : a youtube video
    join the YEC and other conspiracy theory merchants
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    why should we have to do the calculations?
    Well if the truth matters to you, then you would want to do the calculations. I guess the truth doesn't matter to you.

    you make the allegations, you provide the figures to shore them up
    It's not an allegation; it's reality. And it's not my intention to convert religious fundamentalists.

    "People don't want to see it. They believe in subduction like a religion." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1981

    "I had taught subduction for more years than any of the present generation of people had been with it. And when they have been in it as long as I have they'll abandon it too." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1981

    "There is no doubt that the subduction model constitutes the weakest link in the construction of plate tectonics, as has been repeatedly pointed out." -- Yury V. Chudinov, geologist, 1998

    "Now that the subduction concept has been developed for almost 30 years, it can be said that it has not been fruitful geologically." -- Yury V. Chudinov, geologist, 1998

    "Subduction is not only illogical, it is not supported by geological or physical evidence, and violates fundamental laws of physics." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005

    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    aha, the proof of the feeble-minded : a youtube video
    join the YEC and other conspiracy theory merchants
    Ah the ad hominem fallacy. If you read 2+2=4 on Youtube it must be wrong...
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Ah the ad hominem fallacy. If you read 2+2=4 on Youtube it must be wrong...
    If Wikipedia is impartial then I'm a Roman Emperor.
    now who could have thought that these 2 quotes come from the same person ? what goes for the goose also goes for the gander, my dear friend

    when pressed for facts and figures the reply is "look it up yourself", but when it comes to propaganda a nickelodeon-style video will do to pacify the masses
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Okay, I have done some calculations. I will try to evolve them step by step. The main goal is to estimate, by how much the Earth would have grown within the last 180 Mio years, and whether pair production via solar neutrinos might be a suitable provider of the mass growth. I have tried to keep the estimates as conservative as possible, i.e. if in doubt stretching the uncertainties in favour of the Earth growth theory.

    If the oceans haven't been there 180 Mio years ago, their share on the Earth surface should be the result of the growth. A commonly accepted ratio of water to land surface is 0.7, i.e. 70% of the momentary Earth's surface is covered by oceans and should be up to 180 Mio years old. I introduce the inverse quantity as the land to water surface ratio. Then the current surface is and the surface at the begin of the expansion was . is the current Earth radius.



    also:


    In order to estimate the mass growth (), we need to investigate the mass density of the new material as well as the relations between the volumes before the growth and now. The mean density of the Earth is , but the lithosphere has a lower density of only (see here).






    That's 41% of the current Earth mass. Divided by the time of growth , we get the growth rate.

    or .

    These are the estimated values that need to be explained. I will continue the calculations in the next post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Now, what process can provide such a vast amount of mass production rate? Let's start boldly. Let's say, we can transform all the energy that the sun emits in to a mass via Einstein's . This is not possible, because:

    1) The sun radiates in all directions, while the Earth only subtends a small opening angle from the sun.
    2) Only photons with energies above 1.44 MeV can produce electron positron pairs. The sun actually radiates a very small amount of those photon energies.
    3) Almost all hard photons are absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere, not to mention the hard rock surface.

    Anyway, the energy output of the sun (luminosity) via photons is:

    If :


    This is just 10 times more as would be required, but neither can the Earth produce so much energy nor can it absorb all the solar photons. In fact, at the location of the Earth, the solar photon energy is only , or for the entire Earth cross section it is , hence only .

    So, what about neutrinos? Recent measurements determine a solar neutrino flux of per squaremeter and second. All other contributions (Earth radio activity, cosmic neutrinos) are negligible. Although unrealistic, we assume that all neutrinos that reach the Earth can penetrate it and interact with the Earth. Since the maximum neutrino energy is of the order of 10 MeV () and an electron-positron pair production needs at least an energy of 1.44 MeV, we overestimate its potential of producing these particles by saying that every neutrino can produce 10 such pairs. I introduce an efficiency of . This does not help very much, because it's the atomic nuclii that dominate the matter, but much more energy is needed to produce those.

    I summarise: The neutrino flux density at the position of the Earth is . The Earth cross section is the area of a circle with the Earth's radius. As an upper limit, I choose the current radius.

    The total neutrino flux through the Earth is then:

    The electron-positron production rate was said to be 10 per neutrino, hence:

    For every pair we get twice the electron mass .


    So, even with an unrealisticly high transformation from solar neutrinos into electron-positron pairs, the mass production rate is much too little to account for a possible growth of the Earth. Remember that such a process is at best highly unlikely. Either, the idea of a growing Earth is wrong, or another very efficient mass production process must be found.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Ah the ad hominem fallacy. If you read 2+2=4 on Youtube it must be wrong...
    If Wikipedia is impartial then I'm a Roman Emperor.
    now who could have thought that these 2 quotes come from the same person ? what goes for the goose also goes for the gander, my dear friend

    when pressed for facts and figures the reply is "look it up yourself", but when it comes to propaganda a nickelodeon-style video will do to pacify the masses
    My statement was a statement with respect to partiality and not validity.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Either, the idea of a growing Earth is wrong, or another very efficient mass production process must be found.
    You might be right (God who knows?) but I wouldn't rely on your elaborate mathematical models to determine that. Mathematics relies on definitions, postulates, and common notions which are all assumptions that cannot be demonstrated.

    "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." -- Nikola Tesla, physicist, 1934

    Have you heard the story of the boy in Texas? A teacher asks her class the following the question, "There is a corral with 9 sheep in it and 1 sheep leaves the corral, how many sheep are left in the corral?" All of the students answer "8." Except 1 boy. The boy says, "Zero, none." The teacher says, "You don't understand mathematics." And the boy replies, "you don't understand sheep."
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    This calculation is not an "elaborate mathematical model", but simple maths. Its niveau is similar to 2+2=4.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    This calculation is not an "elaborate mathematical model", but simple maths. Its niveau is similar to 2+2=4.
    Simple math is just as problematic.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    This calculation is not an "elaborate mathematical model", but simple maths. Its niveau is similar to 2+2=4.
    Simple math is just as problematic.
    so that's your game plan isn't it ? cast doubt on anything that could challenge the validity of your theory - an easy way to claim that your theory remains unchallenged

    how would you suggest the theory can be tested then ?
    remember, a theory that can't be falsified isn't a scientific theory
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    With such an argumentation, you should also not believe that counting your fingers from one to ten actually means you have ten fingers. :?

    Here is another question: Why should the Earth start expanding only 180 Mio years ago after being inert for more than 4 billion years? What was the trigger to start the expansion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    With such an argumentation, you should also not believe that counting your fingers from one to ten actually means you have ten fingers. :?
    That is not the anology I gave. The anology I gave, which you deliberately chose to ignore, is the math class in Texas counting sheep.

    Here is another question: Why should the Earth start expanding only 180 Mio years ago after being inert for more than 4 billion years? What was the trigger to start the expansion?
    Good question. And you should ask that question of Plate Tectonics as well: What mechanism caused Pangea to break apart?
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    how would you suggest the theory can be tested then ?
    remember, a theory that can't be falsified isn't a scientific theory
    http://books.google.com/books?id=BfU...ummary_r&cad=0

    Measuring techniques that have been developed to measure the dimensions of the Earth include: Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR), Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR), Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite (DORIS).

    Observational data is now continuously being recorded from each of these measurement techniques and the mathematically treated data is routinely combined and used to calculate a solution to the global geodetic network. Solutions to this global network are regularly published on the Internet by the International Earth Rotation Service Central Bureau (IERS) located in Paris and by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre (GSFC)

    The information that is being made publicly available from the bureau includes the X-Y-Z geocentric co-ordinates for each observation site, relative to the centre of the Earth, and their annual motion vectors. Baseline vector components, measured between two or more observation sites, are also provided from VLBI measurement techniques.

    The application of advanced space geodetic techniques to studies of the Earth has progressed to the point where precise estimation of present day plate motion is now quoted to sub-centimetre accuracy. In other words, they can now measure the dimensions of the Earth and the motions of the continents extremely accurately.

    These measurements have shown that the present-day horizontal motions of each of the major crustal plares are very close to the million year average motion vectors determined directly from oceanic magnetic mapping. These two measurement techniques therefore fully support eachother and it gives strong justification in using the oceanic mapping for plate reconstructions.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    With such an argumentation, you should also not believe that counting your fingers from one to ten actually means you have ten fingers. :?
    That is not the anology I gave. The anology I gave, which you deliberately chose to ignore, is the math class in Texas counting sheep.
    I thought that was a joke. Are you really considering this as an example to question math? If so, I don't get the point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    i think TS's point was that mathematics is good at solving mathematical problems, but less so when the problem is not a mathematical one

    still, i fail to see how the application of some basic maths (as you did) could not shed some light on the problem in hand - the least the method you proposed can highlight is the relatively wide boundary conditions of what can be deemed possible, and which imo shows that the expansion rates called for in TS's proposal are unrealistic
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i think TS's point was that mathematics is good at solving mathematical problems, but less so when the problem is not a mathematical one
    If this is so, then the reference to the 180 Mio years old marine base (its dating is also based on mathematical models) would not tell anything about the Earth's history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i think TS's point was that mathematics is good at solving mathematical problems, but less so when the problem is not a mathematical one
    If this is so, then the reference to the 180 Mio years old marine base (its dating is also based on mathematical models) would not tell anything about the Earth's history.
    Zircon dating is real.

    The age of the oceanic lithosphere must be explained. Unfortunately subduction is a big problem for plate tectonics because it's physically impossible for granite and basalt to miraculously and magically teleport themselves into the mantle and then miraculously and magically recycle themselves. Which is why plate tectonics is being abandoned by 21st century thinkers. There is no subduction. Only spreading.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    One swallow does not make a spring.

    One self deluded nutter does not make a paradigm shift.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    One swallow does not make a spring.

    One self deluded nutter does not make a paradigm shift.
    "Any new interpretation of nature, whether a discovery or a theory, emerges first in the minds of one or a few individuals." -- Thomas S. Kuhn, physicist, 1962
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Zircon dating is real.
    I am not questioning that, but I would be interested, if you could explain how this works. How is the age of zircon derived? I don't suppose, these minerals have a watch attached to them. I am just questioning your attitude to the application of math to natural science. If you discredit it for one example you will have to do the same for another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    TS is stating, correctly, that the ocean crust is young. He goes on
    Quote Originally Posted by TS
    based upon core samples of the oceanic lithosphere. The oceans are ~180 million years old.
    to apply that date to water. As if the age of a plastic water bottle dates the springwater it contains.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    TS is stating, correctly, that the ocean crust is young. He goes on
    Quote Originally Posted by TS
    based upon core samples of the oceanic lithosphere. The oceans are ~180 million years old.
    to apply that date to water. As if the age of a plastic water bottle dates the springwater it contains.
    The oceanic lithopsphere is less than 180 million years old which obviously implies and means that the oceans are less than 180 million years old.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    so where did all that water that now fills the ocean bases come from ?
    if from inside the earth, and why did it wait for more than 4 billion years to appear ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    One swallow does not make a spring.

    One self deluded nutter does not make a paradigm shift.
    "Any new interpretation of nature, whether a discovery or a theory, emerges first in the minds of one or a few individuals." -- Thomas S. Kuhn, physicist, 1962
    Expanding Earth theory is in no way a new idea. It was one of several competing theories that sought to explain crustal tectonics prior to the emergence of plate tectonics.

    It has been thoroughly considered and explored in the past and found wanting in every department. In contrast plate tectonics not only answered multiple questions across the fields of palaeogeography, palaeontology, structural geology, igneous and metamorphic petrology, seismology, etc but unleashed a hugely productive wave of research into many aspects of geology, all made possible by application of the new paradigm.

    Expanding Earth theory had the opportunity to do this and failed utterly because it lacked (and lacks) the exploratory power to account for numerous observations in the fields cited above.

    Be quite certain that Khun was not referring to self deluded nutters such as yourself when he wrote the quoted passage. Nor was he writing it to refer to old, jaded ideas that had been tried and found to be wholly wanting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    The age of the oceanic lithosphere must be explained. Unfortunately subduction is a big problem for plate tectonics because it's physically impossible for granite and basalt to miraculously and magically teleport themselves into the mantle and then miraculously and magically recycle themselves.
    Please provide a citation where prominent geologists purport such a thing. The consensus, as I have it, is that the continental crust is much less dense than the underlying oceanic crust and does not get subducted as easily.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    so where did all that water that now fills the ocean bases come from ?
    You don't know? Neither do I.

    I'm not sure. I suspect the oxidation of mantle hydrogen/hydrocarbons and volcanic degassing. Hydrogen is the most common chemical element in the oxygen is the third most common chemical element in the universe.

    if from inside the earth, and why did it wait for more than 4 billion years to appear ?
    We don't know yet.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Please provide a citation where prominent geologists purport such a thing.
    Allow me to show you 21st century science:

    2008: http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1284030.html

    http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1284024.html

    2007: http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/...gram/S3956.htm

    The consensus, as I have it, is that the continental crust is much less dense than the underlying oceanic crust and does not get subducted as easily.
    "In the oral session, except for one presentation that was clearly pro plate tectonics, and another one that did not address the issue of global and large scale geology specifically, there was general consensus that subduction, and therefore plate tectonics, is mechanically impossible." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist/geoscientist) and Karsten M. Storetvedt (geophysicist), November 2007
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Please provide a citation where prominent geologists purport such a thing.
    Allow me to show you 21st century science:

    2008: http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1284030.html

    http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1284024.html

    2007: http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/...gram/S3956.htm

    The consensus, as I have it, is that the continental crust is much less dense than the underlying oceanic crust and does not get subducted as easily.
    "In the oral session, except for one presentation that was clearly pro plate tectonics, and another one that did not address the issue of global and large scale geology specifically, there was general consensus that subduction, and therefore plate tectonics, is mechanically impossible." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist/geoscientist) and Karsten M. Storetvedt (geophysicist), November 2007
    What the hell are those supposed to prove? Most of your citations are by ONE GUY! The third citation is to a selection of only unconventional theorists. Am I supposed to be impressed? Your quote at the bottom does not provide context. It starts out with "In the oral session" and includes "there was general consensus". Consensus among whom? Oral session? Where?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    What the hell are those supposed to prove?
    The truth.

    Most of your citations are by ONE GUY!
    Not true.

    The third citation is to a selection of only unconventional theorists.
    OMG the theory is unconventional so it must be false...

    Am I supposed to be impressed?
    I'm not sure. Are you?

    Your quote at the bottom does not provide context. It starts out with "In the oral session" and includes "there was general consensus". Consensus among whom? Oral session? Where?
    CHALLENGE OUR MYTHS
    AAPG & AAPG EUROPEAN REGION ENERGY CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION
    18-21 November, 2007
    Megaron, Athens International Conference Centre, Greece

    General Chairman: Geir Lunde
    Un-Traditional Theories and Ideas in Global and Large Scale Geology
    Co-Conveners: Stavros. T. Tassos and Karsten M. Storetvedt

    The “Challenge Our Myths” AAPG Athens conference, under the inspired general chairmanship of Geir Lunde, was attended by more than 1200 international participants. During the three days, and in 25 parallel sessions, more than 300 oral and poster presentations were delivered. The whole conference, including sessions like Un-Traditional Theories and Ideas in Global and Large Scale Geology, Unconventional Resources – The Modern Theory of Abiotic Genesis of Hydrocarbons and Unconventional Heavy Oil Resources – Advances, Challenges and Case Studies, mark a turning point for the Geosciences.

    It is the first time such themes have been raised at a larger Western geological conference. The general slogan - Challenge Our Myths - directly challenges both plate tectonics and the long-held view (in the West) that the mass of petroleum is “fossil fuel”. It is the first time at an important international geological conference that a session like Un-Traditional Theories and Ideas in Global and Large Scale Geology – in which fundamental geological and physical concepts were challenged and in their place comprehensive new propositions were presented in their place – was considered a highlight of
    the whole conference.

    In our session we had 25 presentations, 15 orals and 10 posters, covering a wide range of topics, from fundamental issues such as matter and energy, myth and para-myth, large and small scale tectonic movements, generation and propagation of earthquakes, oil and salt generation and exploration, the close association of petroleum provinces with the global tectonic pattern, to tsunami implications.

    In the oral session, except for one presentation that was clearly pro plate tectonics, and another one that did not address the issue of global and large scale geology specifically, there was general consensus that subduction, and therefore plate tectonics, is mechanically impossible. The alternative propositions varied from constant size to changing size (expanding) Earth. The importance of horizontal versus vertical movements, as well as of heat/molten Earth interior versus a solid Earth interior were debated, either as combined or independent issues. The poster session also covered a wide spectrum of subjects, from “hot” shales, sedimentary basins, interpretation of magnetotelluric and seismic surveys, the need for cooperation between geoscientists and engineers, great circles and expanding Earth, igneous diapirism, vertical tectonic movements, deep oil and gas reservoirs, to oil in granites.

    The abstracts of all oral and poster presentations that were included in the program of the symposium are given below. The abstracts are as written by the authors.

    Stavros TASSOS and Karsten STORETVEDT
    s.tassos@gein.noa.gr; karsten@gfi.uib.no
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    OMG the theory is unconventional so it must be false...
    No. It is simply that there is no objective evaluation present.

    CHALLENGE OUR MYTHS
    AAPG & AAPG EUROPEAN REGION ENERGY CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION
    18-21 November, 2007
    Megaron, Athens International Conference Centre, Greece


    So, at a conference entitled "CHALLENGE OUR MYTHS", where only alternaive theories are expressed, the consensus view is against subduction. Who would have guessed?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Well if you want to live in the 20th century be my guest. Unfortunately reality is 21st century.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Well if you want to live in the 20th century be my guest. Unfortunately reality is 21st century.
    That is a pretty weak statement. Let me give you a quote to ponder over.

    Take a look at this PDF (particularly point 4):

    GEOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE PRECAMBRIAN
    HISTORY OF EARTH’S ROTATION
    AND THE MOON’S ORBIT


    "Runcorn [1964, 1966] showed how paleotidal and
    paleorotational data can be used to explore whether
    Earth’s moment of inertia has changed over geological
    time. Such analysis also can examine whether Earth’s
    radius has increased significantly with time, as required
    by the hypothesis of Earth expansion, because Earth’s
    moment of inertia would increase with secular increase
    in radius"...."These figures are the only available direct estimates
    of I/I<sub>0</sub> for the Precambrian and argue against significant
    overall change in Earth’s moment of inertia since ~620
    Ma. Moreover, they rule out rapid Earth expansion since
    that time by endogenous (noncosmological) mechanisms,
    particularly the hypothesis of rapid expansion
    since the Paleozoic [Carey, 1958, 1976], which requires
    I/I<sub>0</sub> = 0.5 [Runcorn, 1964]."....."The suggestion of Carey
    [1976] that substantial Earth expansion may have resulted
    from change of phase of minerals in Earth’s
    interior to their less dense forms caused by a postulated
    secular decrease in G, i.e., Y << Y<sub>0</sub>, is not supported by
    studies of the morphologies of Mercury, Mars, and the
    Moon; those bodies also would have been affected by
    decrease in G but show little or no evidence of expansion
    [Crossley and Stevens, 1976; McElhinny et al., 1978].
    Moreover, Mars Viking Lander and lunar laser-ranging
    data indicate negligible change in planetary orbital radii,
    which implies negligible change in the length of the year
    and in G [Hellings et al., 1983; Chandler et al., 1993;
    Dickey et al., 1994]. Hence the rhythmite data and the
    astronomical and astrometric observations together argue
    against significant change in Earth’s radius by any
    mechanism at least since ~620 Ma."
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Cool! I have been thinking myself that the growth should have changed the Earth's rotational inertia and consequently its rotation speed. But I failed to come up with a measurement that could confirm such a calculation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Cool! I have been thinking myself that the growth should have changed the Earth's rotational inertia and consequently its rotation speed. But I failed to come up with a measurement that could confirm such a calculation.
    Measurements were done with SLR (satellite laser ranging).

    http://expanding-earth.org/page_9.htm

    Further evidence of expansion is provided by the +65.3 mm/yr rate of increasing width in the trans-Pacific distance between Yaragadee, Australia, and Arequipa, Peru, measured by Smith, et al [1993]. This study, and others like it, was published as evidence of subduction, but the addition of width contradicts the principle of Pacific basin width reduction required by subduction on a fixed-diameter Earth; e.g., any increase in width is an increase in surface area of the Pacific basin and Earth's total surface area, circumference, and diameter-- with or without subduction.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    published as evidence of subduction, but the addition of width contradicts the principle of Pacific basin width reduction
    That's confounding the one basin with the multiple plates. It's as nonsensical as talk about an "Americas plate".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    published as evidence of subduction, but the addition of width contradicts the principle of Pacific basin width reduction
    That's confounding the one basin with the multiple plates. It's as nonsensical as talk about an "Americas plate".
    I know. There are no plates.

    "There is now a lack of reference or any factual basis in plate tectonic discussions." -- Stefan Cwojdzinski, geologist, 2005

    "When studying the history of the creation and formulation of plate tectonics one can come to the conclusion that it is, and was at best only a hypothesis. A hypothesis, which uses an assumption at its basis. This is the assumption that the Earth has retained a constant size during its geological evolution. This assumption however is not supported by facts." -- Stefan Cwojdzinski, geologist, 2005

    "The causal understanding of Earth expansion is not yet fully understood, but the empirical processes involved are confirmed by such numerous and different sets of data that this should be considered fact." -- Stefan Cwojdzinski, geologist, 2005
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    More meaningless quotes. "This assumption however is not supported by facts." Respond to my citation then genius.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Respond to my citation then genius.
    I'm no genius (any child can see it) but sure. Advances in science have been made since the 20th century: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_a...eans_p1024.jpg

    "Generally in science, whenever new advances are made, old ideas should be re-examined in light of those advances. In the case of the abiotic origin of natural gas and petroleum, that is especially true, as the advances made pertaining to the processes operant during the formation of the solar system, and to the composition and dynamics of planet earth, all appear to greatly enhance the prognosis for those abiotic resources." -- J. Marvin Herndon, geophysicist, September 2006
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    WTF! Again, nobody is arguing over the age of the oceans! I asked you to comment on my citation, the PDF and extract I posted on this page. It provides direct evidence against a growing earth.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    WTF! Again, nobody is arguing over the age of the oceans!
    Great. I guess we're all happy then.


    It provides direct evidence against a growing earth.
    Only if you ignore the age of the ocean and ignore 21st century observations.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    you've obviously been cherry-picking :your so-called 21st century science is a highly biased selection of a 2008 symposium that for a very large part was about various aspects of plate tectonics - in fact, i still have to find your articles in the listing of the symposium, so your selection is likely to be only a minuscule part of what's on offer

    as for your 2007 selection, the title says it all : "Un-Traditional Theories and Ideas in Global and Large Scale Geology"
    doesn't exactly sound like mainstream 21st century does it ?

    instead of making value statements "oooh, this is sooo 20th century", why not get to the meat of the argument and tell me what's wrong with kalster's "GEOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE PRECAMBRIAN HISTORY OF EARTH’S ROTATION AND THE MOON’S ORBIT"
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    as for your 2007 selection, the title says it all : "Un-Traditional Theories and Ideas in Global and Large Scale Geology"
    doesn't exactly sound like mainstream 21st century does it ?
    Do you know what traditional means? Traditional means 20th century pseudoscience based upon religion. Un-Traditional in this case is 21st century reality based upon observation and logic.

    instead of making value statements "oooh, this is sooo 20th century", why not get to the meat of the argument and tell me what's wrong with kalster's "GEOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE PRECAMBRIAN HISTORY OF EARTH’S ROTATION AND THE MOON’S ORBIT"
    Here is what's wrong with it:

    http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...ass-stress.htm

    http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/...am/A112566.htm

    http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/...am/A112575.htm

    http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1284024.html

    http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1284030.html
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    The first three urls don't work and the last two are the same hand waving nonsense you posted earlier. Is your name Stavros Tassos by any chance?

    Even if your links had any sound research in them whatsoever, how does it address my citation? You have either not bothered to read it, or you are too dim to understand it.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    "Runcorn [1964, 1966] showed how paleotidal and
    paleorotational data can be used to explore whether Earth’s moment of inertia has changed over geological time.
    What paleotidal and paleorotational data?

    Such analysis also can examine whether Earth’s
    radius has increased significantly with time, as required
    by the hypothesis of Earth expansion, because Earth’s
    moment of inertia would increase with secular increase
    in radius"....
    Relative to what?

    "These figures are the only available direct estimates
    of I/I<sub>0</sub> for the Precambrian and argue against significant
    overall change in Earth’s moment of inertia since ~620
    Ma.
    Primitive 1960s pseudoscience.

    Moreover, they rule out rapid Earth expansion since
    that time by endogenous (noncosmological) mechanisms,
    particularly the hypothesis of rapid expansion
    since the Paleozoic [Carey, 1958, 1976], which requires
    I/I<sub>0</sub> = 0.5 [Runcorn, 1964]."....."The suggestion of Carey
    [1976] that substantial Earth expansion may have resulted
    from change of phase of minerals in Earth’s
    interior to their less dense forms caused by a postulated
    secular decrease in G, i.e., Y << Y<sub>0</sub>, is not supported by
    studies of the morphologies of Mercury, Mars, and the
    Moon; those bodies also would have been affected by
    decrease in G but show little or no evidence of expansion
    [Crossley and Stevens, 1976; McElhinny et al., 1978].
    Moreover, Mars Viking Lander and lunar laser-ranging
    data indicate negligible change in planetary orbital radii,
    which implies negligible change in the length of the year
    and in G [Hellings et al., 1983; Chandler et al., 1993;
    Dickey et al., 1994]. Hence the rhythmite data and the
    astronomical and astrometric observations together argue
    against significant change in Earth’s radius by any
    mechanism at least since ~620 Ma."
    Observational data which is absolutely meaningless in light of Black Swan Theory. Based upon observables every single day confirms to the turkey that the butcher has it's well being in mind when it gets well fed everyday.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    For goodness' sake, read the link.

    What paleotidal and paleorotational data?
    Rhythmite data

    Relative to what?
    What do you mean "Relative to what?"?

    Primitive 1960s pseudoscience.
    Such vague dismissive statements mean nothing.

    Observational data which is absolutely meaningless in light of Black Swan Theory.
    What an insanely inane statement. So according to "black swan theory" we can discard all observational data and make stuff up as we like?

    READ THE LINK
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    For goodness' sake, read the link.
    http://expanding-earth.org/page_2.htm

    WHY DID SCIENTISTS DELUDE THEMSELVES ABOUT SUBDUCTION?

    The answer to this question stems partially from ignorance of the first question, but is more directly attributable to the Kant-Laplace (1796) “nebular hypothesis” of Earth’s creation, which at that moment in history had to agree with a fully-formed Earth as suggested by the biblical account of Creation in Genesis.

    The nebular hypothesis still remains the most basic and fundamental assumption underlying every scientific discipline dealing with Time, life on Earth, the physical Earth, the Solar System, and the Universe, but, as noted earlier, the nebular hypothesis is not only false, but confirms past surface growth of the planet.

    Today’s widespread belief in subduction, the keystone of plate tectonics dogma, can now be recognized as a classic misinterpretation of valid factual evidence by scientists indoctrinated by generations of their professors and the peer review system into believing, literally, that Earth was suddenly created 4.6 billion years ago in its present size, shape and composition, complete with oceans, by the gravitational collapse of a cloud of gas and dust surrounding the Sun.

    That assumption can be refuted in its entirety by known empirical evidence properly interpreted to show an Earth constantly increasing in mass and diameter by constant accretion of extraterrestrial matter AND concurrent expansion of the molten core after reaching spherical shape. Internal core expansion has now become the dominant mechanism in expansion of the planet, greatly exceeding the slow rate of external accretion of matter from outer space.

    The nebular hypothesis is completely false and one day will be recognized as one of the greatest errors in the history of science, possibly surpassing the centuries- old dogma of geocentrism overturned in the 16th and 17th centuries by Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. However, the prevailing dominance of religion in that era makes that error less egregious than the adoption of subduction in the 20th Century.
    Rhythmite data
    Sounds like nonsense to me. I find it highly amusing that you would base your entire worldview on one observation from the 1960s and a single paper in light of all the new data and disconfirming evidence. I call that religion not science.

    What do you mean "Relative to what?"?
    Motion is always relative to something. So relative to what?
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Moderator Warning:
    Total Science, in future posts you will
    a) Cease snide observations about other posters.
    b) Refrain from making emotional remarks about theories without posting substantive evidence to support those remarks.
    c) Stop posting the same tired old quotes that are either irrelevant or have been countered fully already.

    Alternatively you can a vacation from this forum for a while. It is your option.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Sounds like nonsense to me.
    Really? WHY?

    Motion is always relative to something. So relative to what?
    Did you really read the link? I don't think so, because it is plainly explained. The Rhythmite data provides a good record of day lengths stretching back as far as around 620 million years. The mechanisms for the forming of the Rhythmite are known and are directly indicative of day length (they are formed by the tides). As a result of tidal forces, the moon is slowly leaching rotational energy from the earth (slowing axial rotation), which is translated into the orbital speed of the moon. So the moon is slowly receding into a larger orbit around the earth. The strength of the tidal forces though, is, among other factors, dependant on the radius of the earth. So, there is a direct link between the length of day, the receding of the moons orbit and the radius of the earth. The data collected from the Rhythmite can then shed a light on the rotation properties of the earth over the last 620 million years. This indicates conclusively that the radius could not have significantly changed over the past ~620 million years. All of this is based on easily demonstrated and universally accepted celestial mechanics.

    Your link typically consists of hand waving and very little looking at facts. Where he starts looking at measurements of tectonic plate movement, he conveniently ignores the finer details and only considers tectonics on an imaginary earth. He looks at tectonics as if the mid Atlantic ridge is a straight line where floor spreading occurs, while the pacific basin the place where all the balancing subduction has to take place.

    Subduction is not the only way to account for the floor spreading by the way. Mountains are being created as well. The Himalayas are slowly rising still further as we speak (this has been accurately measured) for example. This is happening, because the Indian plate is colliding with the Eurasian one and, because of the particular circumstances surrounding the collision, is jutting upwards. The whole pacific basin is a dynamically moving area.



    or a better one:

    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    as for your 2007 selection, the title says it all : "Un-Traditional Theories and Ideas in Global and Large Scale Geology"
    doesn't exactly sound like mainstream 21st century does it ?
    Do you know what traditional means? Traditional means 20th century pseudoscience based upon religion. Un-Traditional in this case is 21st century reality based upon observation and logic.
    that may be your opinion - when i hear the word "Un-Traditional" in the context of a geologic symposium, i hear "fringe", or worse, "loony bin"

    Quote Originally Posted by TotalScience
    WHY DID SCIENTISTS DELUDE THEMSELVES ABOUT SUBDUCTION?

    The answer to this question stems partially from ignorance of the first question, but is more directly attributable to the Kant-Laplace (1796) “nebular hypothesis” of Earth’s creation, which at that moment in history had to agree with a fully-formed Earth as suggested by the biblical account of Creation in Genesis.

    ....

    The nebular hypothesis is completely false and one day will be recognized as one of the greatest errors in the history of science, possibly surpassing the centuries- old dogma of geocentrism overturned in the 16th and 17th centuries by Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. However, the prevailing dominance of religion in that era makes that error less egregious than the adoption of subduction in the 20th Century.
    a strawman if ever i saw one, and also the first time that i hear present-day geologists being described as defending the biblical account of Genesis
    read my lips : most geologists believe in subduction but it has been observed, not because it is the essential capping stone for plate tectonics

    FACT #1 : the earth has not changed dramatically in size for the past 600 million years (you may pooh-pooh kalster's 1960s paper, but for anyone who knows a smattering of physics, very solid evidence indeed)
    FACT #2 : plates are pushed apart at spreading ridges (about the only fact you don't seem to disagree with)
    FACT #3 : subduction of plates has been observed to happen near active continental margins

    the theory of an expanding earth can only exist by ignoring 2 out 3 observed facts
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    that may be your opinion - when i hear the word "Un-Traditional" in the context of a geologic symposium, i hear "fringe", or worse, "loony bin"
    I feel this is going to far the other way. Many researchers - my impression is that it may be most researchers - follow fairly conventional lines in their research. This is quite proper. They are working on the details of the application of a theory in a particular context. The starting presumption is that the theory is valid and the objective is to understand how it works in the specific context.

    If the experimental/observational work turn up something contrary to the theory then that will initiate a rethink and a critical examination of the theory. In most instances, of course, no unresolvable contradictions emerge.

    In such a setting, once a theory is established, there is surely some benefit to some researchers taking a critical look at the grey areas of the theory, prodding at the weaknesses and trying to unravel the threads. Some of them may be acting as Devil's advocates and other may truly believe the theory to be flawed. Either way such approaches - as long as they follow scientific methodology - are surely worthwhile ways of enlivening research and invigorating discussion of those grey areas.

    In that regard a symposium like this should be welcomed. The problems arise when someone like Total Science comes along and quite misunderstands what is going on. When they are attracted to the most bizarre, unconventional theories not because they offer a better explanation, but simply because they are the most bizarre and unconventional.
    Total Science could be making a good case and generating interesting discussion around aspects of plate tectonics that are not well defined. Many of the quotations he has used and research he has referenced could be used intelligently to raise debating points in those areas. Instead he has adopted a quasi-religious fervour in which the Truth has been revealed to him and all who gainsay him are antiquated charlatans.

    It is not a pretty sight to see someone so self deluded, but we should not condemn those who he misquotes and misinterprets just because of his weaknesses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    The maps you've posted above are laughable 20th century religion and pseudoscience in light on 21st century observation.

    There is no subduction. And any child can see it.

    All directionality is divergence in time away from the spread.

    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    PLEASE! Separate observation from interpretation! Many here have already said that they do not question the result (dating) this zillionth repetition of this map provides. It's the conclusions that you are drawing from these ages. This map alone does not prove your statement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Is your name Stavros Tassos by any chance?
    here's one question i'd like to hear the answer to - so, Total Science, is it ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    He grew up in California, as a child he believed "subduction" was gonna chow down on hapless beach-goers. How embarrassingly wrong he was. So now he's got to prove how absolutely wrong are those who "believe in subduction".


    Read between the lines:
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    laughable 20th century religion and pseudoscience in light on 21st century observation.

    There is no subduction. And any child can see it.

    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    funny he should call mainstream science religion, especially since he's using all the well-worn tools creationists are well known for

    start of by stating what you want to prove, then go full circle to claim that you've proven what you've stated all along
    claim that there is no evidence to prove you wrong, and follow this up by denying the existence or validity of any evidence that is thrown at you
    use outdated and disproven science and stick to it as if it was up-to-date science
    above all, continue to claim your opponents are wrong, that relieves you of the burden to prove your own case
    especially use any argument over details in your opponent's theory to claim that the whole is rotten to the core and is ready for a paradigm overhaul

    funny how similar minds think alike ...
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Repetitive nonsense deleted.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86 Re: Geologic History of the Earth 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1
    In the very beginning of earth's history, this planet was a giant, red hot, roiling, boiling sea of molten rock - a magma ocean. The heat had been generated by the repeated high speed collisions of much smaller bodies of space rocks that continually clumped together as they collided to form this planet.
    _____________________________________________
    Vimal
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    vima = bot ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Repetitive nonsense deleted.
    The only way plate tectonics fundamentalists can debate is through censorship.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    vima = bot ?
    Content copied from another site, signature embedded in post. :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Repetitive nonsense deleted.
    The only way plate tectonics fundamentalists can debate is through censorship.
    we're really onto a religious theme here aren't we ?
    maybe you should team up with jollybear and newcastle - your debating tactics have a lot in common

    + is it fundamentalism when people give up on you because there's no point try to hold a proper debate ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Repetitive nonsense deleted.
    The only way plate tectonics fundamentalists can debate is through censorship.
    There was no censorship. There was nothing new in your post. You had posted the same rubbish several times on this forum. You were warned to stop such behaviour. You have nothing to complain about. If someone wants to know what you said in the deleted post they only need to look through your earlier posts. (I do not recommend this to anyone, but it is an option.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92 is earth growing? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3
    The Earth and World Ocean Floor was created in 1977 by Bruce M. Heezen and Marie Tharp to illustrate their recently-discovered ~65,000 kilometers (~40,000 miles) of midocean ridges (MOR) that almost completely encircle the planet. A white line has been added off the Asian trench system from Kamchatka down to the Mariana Trench, where the oldest known seafloor sediments on Earth,~195-197 Ma (million years old), were discovered in 1992 by Nakanishi, et al.
    __________________________________________________ ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    The fact that the midocean ridges completely encircle the planet proves there is no subduction.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Demonstrate this. The majority of geologists find nothing contrary about globe encircling mid-ocean ridges and globally extensive subduction zones.
    Perform your demonstration in your own words, with proper references to peer reviewed journals. If you choose to provide quotations out of context, maps with cursory comments, or opinions offered as statements of fact your post will be deleted.
    This is not censorship this is a demand that you conduct yourself on a science forum in a manner consistent with the scientific method. If you wish to act as a scientist you will be listened to with respect. If you wish to act as an ignorant and spoilt child you will be treated accordingly.

    Moderator note in red.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    35
    Water Dry out? life extinct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    35
    Where water come from
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    This has been covered earlier in this thread. Some of the water would have come from degassing of the mantle via vulcanicity. But it is currently though that the bulk of it came from impacting comets in the first billion years of the Earth's history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    The majority of geologists find nothing contrary about globe encircling mid-ocean ridges and globally extensive subduction zones.
    The majority of geologists used to think the Earth was the center of the universe and the continents were uniformitarian.

    Now as far as the NGDC map is concerned, I challenge you to identify one spread on the NGDC map. And if you want to be fair, provide a peer review paper that says there is any subduction on that map.

    By observing the data and the zircon time signature clearly showing divergent spreading away from all visible rifts it is obvious to any reasonable person that there is no subduction pictured. If subduction were occuring in the oceans, we would see time signature subduction where the oceanic plates meet. However that is not what we observe, we only observe spreading. And any scientist can see it.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    By observing the data and the zircon time signature clearly showing divergent spreading away from all visible rifts it is obvious to any reasonable person that there is no subduction pictured. If subduction were occuring in the oceans, we would see time signature subduction where the oceanic plates meet. However that is not what we observe, we only observe spreading. And any scientist can see it.
    There is a fundamental defect in your thought process, which leads me to question whether or not you are sincere or just trolling?

    You do not need to be a scientist to recognize subduction zones and their effects as evidenced by continental arc volcanism, and the prevalence of earthquake activity in these areas. Not to mention uplift of the continental craton, back-arc spreading, and ancient suture zones way back into the Precambrian where numerous island arcs were plastered onto proto continents.

    In fact, I spent the summer logging core in the Thompson nickel belt (Manitoba) at one of these very same suture zones where the Superior province joined the Hearn dated to about 1.8-2.0 Ga. Now, if you can explain to me the existence of peridotite in close proximity to rhyolite within the confines of your absolutely ridiculous and absurd model, please step up to the plate.

    Of course, you cannot, likely because you lack the knowledge of not only what specifically these rocks are, but also why they are unlikely to exist side-by-side. To no one's surprise but your own, plate tectonics offers a stunningly obvious and elegant mechanism for this.

    Cheers,
    -thb
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    If there is no subduction, explain to us why a transform fault occurs on the west coast of the US, whereas further to the south it is a spreading ridge.

    In addition, please explain the existence of the Andes mountain chain within the context of its chemical differences with respect to any one of the following: Kaweenawan rift, CAMP, Parana-Etendeka, Deccan Traps, Columbia River basalts, Karoo, or Siberian flood basalts.

    Cheers,
    -thb
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •