My problem with Maxlows assertions in the Geodetic measurements section, and the entire site for that matter, is the lack of any citations for the assertions he makes. When in the 1990s was the 22mm shift encountered, and from what percentage of their satellites. Is there still a 22mm discrepancy, and do all satellites have it?
Yes, I read everything... even links people quote to me.Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
I guess that one didn't convince you, try this one
A Chronology of Paleozoic Sea-Level Changes
The research found sea level to to be higher in various parts of the world from a few tens to 125 meters. It is accepted now that the Atlantic did not exist 250 million years ago. Its also very clear that that the at no point on the Atlantic floor, shows to be any older then that amount. The little interesting fact ignored by the community is that the pacific, for the most part, is the SAME AGE as the Atlantic.
James Maxlow believes that water is constantly being vented to the surface from the mantle of the earth. It's an outgassing process of earths interior as the planet cools. So as it expanded, Super compressed water has been added to the surface. James Maxlow believes that after the earth originally cooled from it's molten state, it was a solid ball, the first oceans where shallow saltless seas where life first evolved. This didn't make much sense to me at first, so I followed up and learned a bit more. To this day there may be more water trapped in the mantle than is currently making up our ocean floors.
Ref: Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth | LiveScience
Last edited by Light Storm; October 28th, 2011 at 12:54 AM.
As I said above, the centre of mass correction data on the LAGEOS is 70mm. I haven't checked it in over a year, they may have increased it again. But thats a pretty crazy correction for something that should be accurate within 10mm. So if the Satellite showed a diameter increase of say 5mm even. Their margin of error is set to 70mm and the difference is assumed mistake and set to 0. If you want to read the Thesis he wrote, believe me when I say it's complete with citations, you can read the PDF on his site.
DigiTool - Results - Full
My problem with Maxlows research is the complete disregard of Subduction. I know that in Careys time, evidence for subduction was extremely weak, but we have come a long way since then. It is my belief that if he accounted for subduction his numbers would not be as high as 22mm per year. But then again, he does have his Masters degree on the subject which basically means where not even considered peers to question it.
*EDIT* I honestly shouldn't say complete disregard. Maxlow observes subduction, but states that the plates only fold over and under each other to a set point, and that we monitor the interactions between the plate movements as subduction.
With that said, there is strong evidence to support that there is more going on then simple interaction. One of the strongest being the 'Big Fold' research.
Last edited by Light Storm; October 28th, 2011 at 02:13 AM.
The highs and lows noted in the article can be correlated to the various glaciation and deglaciation events of the Paleozoic, so it still does not support the fluctuation in sea levels that you are advocating. The article you mention re:water in the mantle neglects to mention that the "water" being discussed is trapped in a number of minerals that are taken there by subduction of plates, thus the water present in the anomalies, not surprisingly, located at the lower end of subduction zone systems.Yes, I read everything... even links people quote to me.
I guess that one didn't convince you, try this one
A Chronology of Paleozoic Sea-Level Changes
The research found sea level to to be higher in various parts of the world from a few tens to 125 meters. It is accepted now that the Atlantic did not exist 250 million years ago. Its also very clear that that the at no point on the Atlantic floor, shows to be any older then that amount. The little interesting fact ignored by the community is that the pacific, for the most part, is the SAME AGE as the Atlantic.
James Maxlow believes that water is constantly being vented to the surface from the mantle of the earth. It's an outgassing process of earths interior as the planet cools. So as it expanded, Super compressed water has been added to the surface. James Maxlow believes that after the earth originally cooled from it's molten state, it was a solid ball, the first oceans where shallow saltless seas where life first evolved. This didn't make much sense to me at first, so I followed up and learned a bit more. To this day there may be more water trapped in the mantle than is currently making up our ocean floors.
Ref: Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth | LiveScience
Roberto Mantovani was the first to discuss the possibility that the Oceans formed with geological age. Over a hundred years before our advanced understanding of the oceans of today. If he could see the research of the NOAA today, I imagine he would pat himself on the back.The highs and lows noted in the article can be correlated to the various glaciation and deglaciation events of the Paleozoic, so it still does not support the fluctuation in sea levels that you are advocating. The article you mention re:water in the mantle neglects to mention that the "water" being discussed is trapped in a number of minerals that are taken there by subduction of plates, thus the water present in the anomalies, not surprisingly, located at the lower end of subduction zone systems.Yes, I read everything... even links people quote to me.
I guess that one didn't convince you, try this one
A Chronology of Paleozoic Sea-Level Changes
The research found sea level to to be higher in various parts of the world from a few tens to 125 meters. It is accepted now that the Atlantic did not exist 250 million years ago. Its also very clear that that the at no point on the Atlantic floor, shows to be any older then that amount. The little interesting fact ignored by the community is that the pacific, for the most part, is the SAME AGE as the Atlantic.
James Maxlow believes that water is constantly being vented to the surface from the mantle of the earth. It's an outgassing process of earths interior as the planet cools. So as it expanded, Super compressed water has been added to the surface. James Maxlow believes that after the earth originally cooled from it's molten state, it was a solid ball, the first oceans where shallow saltless seas where life first evolved. This didn't make much sense to me at first, so I followed up and learned a bit more. To this day there may be more water trapped in the mantle than is currently making up our ocean floors.
Ref: Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth | LiveScience
Maxlow discuses ocean water and atmosphere being added to the surface at an accelerating rate throughout geological time. He refers to as a process of mantle out-gassing. Looking for someone more specialized on this subject, I found the research on one Professor Lance Endersbees. Endersbees is currently a world authority on rock behaviour and tunnelling who claims the world's water supplies as being ancient and coming from within the Earth.
I was always skeptical about this theory about the water coming up from the earth up until a disaster stuck indonesia. A drilling accident (Or weird earthquake, take your pick) broke open a pocket of compressed toxic mud/water. The disaster quickly became un-controlible and started venting 50 Olympic swimming pools per day. It has flooded out factories, and entire cites. Geologists trying to make sense of it started spilling the material out to sea. The disaster is still going on to this day.
Mud Volcano - YouTube
if the water were outgassing that wouldnt that have meant a large diameter for the earth in prehistory, and also less ocean volume total? What link at all is there between the mud-volcano and an expanding earth?
I use the mud-volcano to demonstrate that large bodies of pressurized water can be undeniably vented to the earth surface. I dont think I need to remind you that the surface of the earth represents less then 1% of the planets volume. The deeper any kind of material gets to the center of mass, the more pressure its under. The inner/outer cores are at an estimated 360 gigapascals. I don't think I need to explain why that much pressure could crush a car into the size of a pop can but I often do need to explain that yes, it can reduce the volume of solid matter like iron. If the inner cores of the planet are loosing heat, they may by forced to loose density increasing in volume. Even a tiny increase would cause expansion in the diameter of the planet without effecting mass at all.
Going through the posts again finding replies to give, this one is a great one.But there are a few difficult problems, no? Like, where is the matter coming from? Why do we find ancient sea bed rock on land? Why do we not find any evidence of changes in the rotational momentum and evidence that supports no growth? Why don't we find evidence that the earth's mass was significantly less in the past?Some variants of the expanding Earth hypothesis accept some subduction. Other variants argue the evidence for subduction is inconclusive and open to alternative explanations.
Q: Do some variants of the Expanding Earth hypothesis accept some subduction?
A: Yes, One of the biggest proponents for an 'Expanding Earth' that includes new volume added above and beyond the amount subducted comes from a geoscietist named Dennis McCarthy. Finding it extremely difficult to get solid and perfectly valid research published, he went to a now best selling book on the subject. Apparently very few people in the scientific community want to hear anything about 'Expanding Earth'. Many feel it's a pretty laughable subject. I have yet to join a science forum that would keep the subject in an 'Geology' or 'Earth Sceince' based forum and all have either locked, deleted or moved it to 'Pseudoscience' within a few posts.
Q: Where is the matter coming from?
A: Though the estimates of just exactly how much cosmic debris falls to earth every day; & depending on whether it has asymptotically slowed down; between 10-100 tons of 'space dust' falls to earth every day... Multiply arbitrarily say 40 tons a day times 365 days a year, Thats 14,600 tons per year times 100 million years since t-rex; that comes to 1,460,000,000,000 tons or 1.46 trillion tons. New Matter on this scale may sound like a lot to us human, but is completely insignificant in comparison to the mass of the Earth.
Understanding how the earth could be increasing in volume without effecting mass gets into understanding density, pressure and the effects of global cooling. The Lithosphere represents hardly any mass of the planet. If the outside 'Crust of the Earth' represented 1% (It's actually less then 1%) it's density in g/cm3 is about 2.5. The Density shoots up to 4g/c3 in the upper mantle, 5g/c3 in the mantle. 11g/cm3 in the outer core and 13g/cm3 in the inner core. When you start compressing a solid block of metal like iron it hits a point where it can not compress anymore. When pressures pushes it past that breaking point, the molecules are trapped and have no where to go so they begin to speed up and heat up. The increase in heat on the excited molecules gives them room to be pushed more tightly together increasing the density. Global Cooling discusses the internals of the earth as loosing heat over time. As the molecules expand, they slow down, and loose heat, and that expansion in the other 99% of the earths mass could easily cause that 1% to stretch 50-100% before it cools to a point when it stops. When would this stop on earth? My personal projection is around the same time we no longer see volcanic activity. If the Earths Core is loosing heat, then it's loosing density. It has a density six times that of the surface material, which give it a lot of room to expand outward. Any expansion inside the earth would cause a drastic increase in volume on the outside lowest density material.
There is extremely compelling evidence that mars expanded to a point, then stopped. There is extremely compelling evidence that Mars once had an ocean that covered a major percentage of it's surface space. If the planet expanded to a point and then stopped, the density of the crust expanded to a point where it would have literarily absorbed the ocean like a sponge. I personally use Mars as an example of what Earths future may look like hundreds of millions of years from now.
noocean.jpg
Q: Why do we find ancient sea bed rock on land?
A: They are called ophiolits, Ancient ocean floors, 'scraped' onto continental masses during the subduction process are found in many locations around the planet, with many differing ages. To list off a couple of them, I've included the research of a few of the more popular ones.
The late Creataceous Oman ophiolite.
Ordovician Appalachian ophiolites.
The Bay of Islands ophiolite.
The Ballantrae ophiolite.
The Troodos ophiolite.
The evidence for an 'expanding earth' or 'static earth radius' is identical. The only question is whether of not there is a net increase in material being added to the earth surface year after year. Based on the age of the extremely young ocean floor, i personally believe that the answer is a blatantly obvious yes to net growth.
rift.jpg
Did you know in 2005, a gigantic, 35 mile long rift broke open the desert ground in Ethiopia. The first time our speciies have observed this kind of planet activity! The geologists are saying it may very well be a future new Atlantic Oceans Birth!
unzip.jpg
Ref: http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3486
Q: Why do we not find any evidence of changes in the rotational momentum and evidence that supports no growth?
A: 1) .... Ummm ... The earths rotation slows down ever year... this is accepted knowledge. Think about an ice skater in a spin stretching her arms out 2) There is evidence that the moon moves away each year and that it's rotation around the earth is speeding up. Putting this into super basic terminology, 'hypotheticly' if Earth is increasing in volume, the tidal locked moons gravitational pull compensates by speeding up and moving away.
So yes, there is compelling evidence of Earths increasing volume.
Q: Why don't we find evidence that the earth's mass was significantly less in the past?
A: You mean like... why didn't some creatures grow on average to 4 or 5x the size of our biggest land creatures today 300 million years ago..... why where there 'insects' with 2.5' wingspans?..... oh wait a minute?
(Ref to insect : Meganeura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
(Ref to Dinosaur Size : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_size )
Hey did you know that some evidence suggests that the T-Rex head must have weighed so much, it would lack the muscle power to hold it up. Or that a fully grown T-Rex must have weighed so much, it wouldn't be able to run much faster then a human being (exaggeration). Imagine what those numbers would be like if they accounted for even the remote possibility that the planet might have had less mass. Maybe not necessary mass, but at the very least, a much higher global spin which would create a marginal decrease in gravity.
Last edited by Light Storm; October 30th, 2011 at 01:29 AM.
What studies have shown the larger dinosaur genera to have had weight problems?
And what is suggesting the insect growth is not related to the higher oxygen concentrations during hte carboniferous, as is the current information on the taxa suggests?
The idea that that T. Rex might have been a scavenger has been around since the early 1900s. One of the most famous proponents of the hypothesis came from John R. Hornder of Montana State University. According to him and other palaeontologists the form of the t-rex was more designed for scavenging dead animals already on the ground. Based on it's weight and size... 10 meters per second or 22mph was about the t-rex top speed.What studies have shown the larger dinosaur genera to have had weight problems?
And what is suggesting the insect growth is not related to the higher oxygen concentrations during hte carboniferous, as is the current information on the taxa suggests?
As for the insects... Oxygen intake aside completely... do you believe an insect with an exoskeleton like that of a dragon fly today could honestly get off the ground? I'm not an expert of physics or anything, but I have my doubts about this one. There is reasons why it's flight was so controversial after the first fossil was discovered.
Last edited by Light Storm; October 30th, 2011 at 02:18 AM.
Yes it has been proposed, but never gained much traction, that T. rex may have been a scavenger. The larger Spinosaroids such as Spinosaurus are thought to have been priscavores, while the larger Carnosaurs and Carcharodontosaurids are all accepted as active predators.The idea that that T. rex might have been a scavenger has been around since the early 1900s. One of the most famous proponents of the hypothesis came from John R. Horner of Montana State University. According to him and other palaeontologists the form of the T. rex was more designed for scavenging dead animals already on the ground. Based on it's weight and size... 10 meters per second or 22mph was about the T. rex top speed.What studies have shown the larger dinosaur genera to have had weight problems?
And what is suggesting the insect growth is not related to the higher oxygen concentrations during the carboniferous, as is the current information on the taxa suggests?
As for the insects... Oxygen intake aside completely... do you believe an insect with an exoskeleton like that of a dragon fly today could honestly get off the ground? I'm not an expert of physics or anything, but I have my doubts about this one. There is reasons why it's flight was so controversial after the first fossil was discovered.
Diet aside this has nothing to do with the assertion you made about weight problems, and does not even address the herbivores.
In regards to the gryffinflys such as Meganeura you present an argument from incredulity while not taking into account the presence of living creatures with much larger wingspan that use just as improbable life mechanisms, such as thin flaps of skin or bunches of tin feathers.
The original question by KALSTER was whether or not there was evidence in the past that could have suggested different levels of Gravity.
Not being an expert on the subject, I found it interesting that some creatures grew to 4 or 5 times the size of largest mammals of today
I find it interesting that when we look deeper, our African elephants have super solid reinforced bones to support their massive weight.
I find it interesting that the biggest dinosaurs had hollow bones more like those of ultra light weight birds.
It has been proven that those bones could support the massive weight of dinosaurs, but I still find the comparison very interesting.
It all suggests to me a great possibility that gravity, may have also been very different
Also, as pointed out by Dennis McCarthy, the migration of these creatures suggested routs that would not have been possible on a continents surrounded by oceans the size a static earth radius needs. You can read about it in his Evidence for a Closed Pacific
Ref: http://www.4threvolt.com/files/McCarthy2005.pdf
Suppose there are crystals forming under ground. That would have the effect of increasing the Earth's volume with no change whatsoever to its mass. It's also consistent with cooling. Clearly the Earth has been gradually cooling ever since it was formed. I don't know of anything that would prohibit it from happening. Does anyone else?
Another possibility would be subterranean life. Exotic creatures that feed off of chemicals found underground, then mature and die, leaving behind corpses that have a greater volume than the volume of the materials they ate.
Also subduction could still be happening also, because there's no way the Earth is growing fast enough to keep up with plate tectonics.
The earth is no longer cooling. It is kept at a constant temperature by radioactive decay. If there was no radioactive decay, it would have long since cooled all the way down.Suppose there are crystals forming under ground. That would have the effect of increasing the Earth's volume with no change whatsoever to its mass. It's also consistent with cooling. Clearly the Earth has been gradually cooling ever since it was formed. I don't know of anything that would prohibit it from happening. Does anyone else?
If the volume has increased by as much as is believed by growing earth theorists, the surface gravity would decreased by quite a lot and the length of day would have gotten much longer as well (it was shorter the further we go into the past, but not by as much as predicted by a growing earth). There is no evidence of either.
What would the radius of the earth have been if all the continents were once connected? We can work out the surface gravity from that.
Yes, if the earth's volume was less in the past, surface gravity would been much higher, making the existence of large dinosaurs even more of a problem for EET. There is no known mechanism for the earth to have gained enough mass to enable as much growth as is required by EET.
An estimate of volume before expansion 200 - 250 MYA is that it was 40% smaller (on the expanding earth dot org site).
The current mean radius is 6,371.0 km and volume 1.08321×1012 km. 60% of current volume is 4.33284 x 1011km.
Using the formula for volume of a sphere, we get a mean radius of 4694.2 km (if I didn't make a mistake).
g is currently 9.807 m.s2. With the volume at 60% of current, it goes up by about 1.842 times, giving 18.064 m.s2. So if you weigh 100kg now, you would have weighed 184kg then. That is a huge difference. No evidence exists for such a huge difference in surface gravity.
Last edited by KALSTER; November 9th, 2011 at 06:49 PM.
I would look at more credible research like that of James Maxlow or Dennis McCarthy who support an 'Expanding Earth' over a 'Growing Earth' hypothesis.Yes, if the earth's volume was less in the past, surface gravity would been much higher, making the existence of large dinosaurs even more of a problem for EET. There is no known mechanism for the earth to have gained enough mass to enable as much growth as is required by EET.
An estimate of volume before expansion 200 - 250 MYA is that it was 40% smaller (on the expanding earth dot org site).
Your math doesn't account for planet rotation. The current estimates for the length of days/nights in pre-historic times is based on a consistent earth radius. Hypothetically if the earth was that much smaller 300 million years ago, it's spin would have been significantly higher. If you think spin wouldn't have an effect on gravity, your wrong. Technically our mass would not change, but if the spin of the planet where to speed up fast enough... we would appear weightless. If you spun it up super fast, we could even fly off the surface. Factoring in the difference in volume and an increase in spin might very well even it's self out to a point where gravity may have been similar to what it is today. That does not mean that it was the same. As the grace project collects more data about gravity from all over the planet, we are learning there is very little consistency to it.The current mean radius is 6,371.0 km and volume 1.08321×1012 km. 60% of current volume is 4.33284 x 1011km.
Using the formula for volume of a sphere
g is currently 9.807 m.s2. With the volume at 60% of current, it goes up by about 1.842 times, giving 18.064 m.s2. So if you weigh 100kg now, you would have weighed 184kg then. That is a huge difference. No evidence exists for such a huge difference in surface gravity.
If the earths volume did remain constant along with the moons, then 1 billion years ago when earliest life was evolving, the moon would have been close enough to cause tides a million times higher then those we see today. The planets would have literally torn each other apart. If the planets had significantly less volume, and a little less mass, it may paint an entirely different picture from what we think we know.
It's my conclusion that when we compare Plate Tectonics to Expansion Tectonics, two opposing theories that are both based on the same evidence. The only difference being a means of a mechanism to explain continental drift then Expansion Tectonics is simpler and requires significantly less work around to justify a static earth radius.
Do they also think earth's volume was 40% less in the past?I would look at more credible research like that of James Maxlow or Dennis McCarthy who support an 'Expanding Earth'
You are just pulling this from thin air. If my maths is wrong, please show me the correct maths. Otherwise what you are saying means nothing.Your math doesn't account for planet rotation. The current estimates for the length of days/nights in pre-historic times is based on a consistent earth radius. Hypothetically if the earth was that much smaller 300 million years ago, it's spin would have been significantly higher. If you think spin wouldn't have an effect on gravity, your wrong. Technically our mass would not change, but if the spin of the planet where to speed up fast enough... we would appear weightless.
Please show me your data on this. As I worked out, an earth with 40% less volume would still have a radius of 4694.2 km, only 1676.8 km less. This would not have made any difference to the problem you mentioned. That problem is already dealt with in other ways rooted in actual science.If the earths volume did remain constant along with the moons, then 1 billion years ago when earliest life was evolving, the moon would have been close enough to cause tides a million times higher then those we see today. The planets would have literally torn each other apart. If the planets had significantly less volume, and a little less mass, it may paint an entirely different picture from what we think we know.
I just can't see it. There is no known mechanism for the earth to either gain enough mass or to expand enough and the evidence is not compelling.It's my conclusion that when we compare Plate Tectonics to Expansion Tectonics, two opposing theories that are both based on the same evidence. The only difference being a means of a mechanism to explain continental drift then Expansion Tectonics is simpler and requires significantly less work around to justify a static earth radius.
Last edited by KALSTER; November 10th, 2011 at 01:04 AM.
I made a reference to James Maxlows full thesis on post #103
I made a reference to Dennis McCartys paper on 'Evidence for a closed Pacific' on Post #112
"The Earth does not have gravity because it spins. The gravitational attraction between the Earth and a person on the Earth depends only on the mass of the Earth, the mass of the person, and the distance between the Earth's center of mass and the person's center of mass. However, the force a person's feet exert on the ground (i.e., theperson's weight) does depend on the Earth's spin. What if the Earth started spinning faster and faster? At some speed, the Earth'sgravitational force would not be enough to keep us on the surface.We'd fly off into space because the acceleration (v^2/r) required to keepus moving in a circle of the Earth's radius at the rotational speed of theEarth would be greater than the acceleration of Earth's gravity.The figure 9.8 m/s/s is a measured value, and it includes the effect ofthe Earth's spin as a small correction. If the Earth were not spinning,the measured value would be .034 m/s/s larger. If the Earth were spinningso fast that a day took only five minutes, then the gravitational accelerationwould be spent entirely to keep us moving in a circle, and we'd all feel weightless.Here are the numbers and equation I used:radius of Earth: 6.4x10^6 meters speed of object at the equator: 465 m/sacceleration required to keep an object moving at speed v in a circle of radius r:v^2/r"You are just pulling this from thin air. If my maths is wrong, please show me the correct maths. Otherwise what you are saying means nothing.Your math doesn't account for planet rotation. The current estimates for the length of days/nights in pre-historic times is based on a consistent earth radius. Hypothetically if the earth was that much smaller 300 million years ago, it's spin would have been significantly higher. If you think spin wouldn't have an effect on gravity, your wrong. Technically our mass would not change, but if the spin of the planet where to speed up fast enough... we would appear weightless.
Ref: Tim Mooney Beamline Controls & Data Acquisition GroupAdvanced Photon Source, Argonne National Lab"
The moon moves away from the earth at a rate of 3.8cm / yearPlease show me your data on this. As I worked out, an earth with 40% less volume would still have a radius of 4694.2 km, only 1676.8 km less. This would not have made any difference to the problem you mentioned. That problem is already dealt with in other ways rooted in actual science.If the earths volume did remain constant along with the moons, then 1 billion years ago when earliest life was evolving, the moon would have been close enough to cause tides a million times higher then those we see today. The planets would have literally torn each other apart. If the planets had significantly less volume, and a little less mass, it may paint an entirely different picture from what we think we know.
38mm * 1,000,000,000 years = 38,000,000,000mm or 38,000 KM
(I may have been a bit off saying tidal force would have been a million times todays... more like 500,000 times today
Go back 2 billion, then your up to a million times todays tidal force.)
*EDIT* : I need to go back and re-view the determined work force of tidal energy lost per year from the moons recession from earth.
Ref: "Moon slipping away from earth" Geo, Vol.3 (July 1981) p. 137
Our internal research and hard evidence on the internal workings of our planet is equally un-compelling.I just can't see it. There is no known mechanism for the earth to either gain enough mass or to expand enough and the evidence is not compelling.It's my conclusion that when we compare Plate Tectonics to Expansion Tectonics, two opposing theories that are both based on the same evidence. The only difference being a means of a mechanism to explain continental drift then Expansion Tectonics is simpler and requires significantly less work around to justify a static earth radius.
There is no agreed Mechansim that could justify an explanation for an expanding earth or the plate tectonic movements of a static earth radius.
The question should be does the evidence we have here on the earth surface justify a expanding earth or a static earth radius.
Fact:
Fact: Majority of the ocean floor is less then 300 million years old
Fact: the Majority of that amount is less then 60 million years old
Fact: It is agreed the Atlanic was closed 200 million years ago
Fact: The Pacific is the same age as the Atlantic
Red= Rift Lines
Green= Subduction Zones
Fact: Distance of the words Volcanic Rifting Edges more then doubles the distance of the worlds countering subduction zones.
Last edited by Light Storm; November 10th, 2011 at 09:49 AM.
And yet none of the facts you have posted are not unexplained by plate tectonics
A fact James Maxlow pointed out is that both Expanding Earth and Plate Tectonics share the same evidence.
"It should be appreciated from this statement that all modern and historical global data used to substantiate both Plate Tectonic and Expansion Tectonic theories are, in fact, identical." ~James Maxlow
"While arguments can be given for and against both theories, it is emphasized that the exact same crustal fragments making up both the ancient supercontinents and modern continents can be fitted together precisely, somewhat like a spherical jigsaw, on a smaller radius Earth to form a single supercontinent. The question that must then be answered is, is this empirical phenomenon fact or mere coincidence?" ~ James Maxlow
Its a coincidence and not an "empirical phenomenon fact" The fossil record does not support it.
You obviously haven't bothered to look at the evidence Dennis McCarthy laid out for a closed Pacific.
His methods included, and I quote
"Literature surveys of the distributions of Cretaceous, circum-Pacific taxawere compared with palaeomagnetic and palaeosedimentary data. Uncontro-versial plate motions based on seafloor spreading data were also used to test theresults of the biogeographical and palaeomagnetic analyses. "
His results included, and I quote
"The distributions of Cretaceous terrestrial taxa, mostly dinosaurs, implydirect, continental connections between Australia and East Asia, East Asiaand North America, North America and South America, South America andAntarctica, and Antarctica and Australia. Palaeomagnetic, palaeosedimentary,and basic plate circuit analyses require little to no latitudinal motion of the Pacificplate with respect to the surrounding continents. Specifically, the data impliesthat western North America, East Asia, and the Pacific plate all increased inlatitude by roughly the same amount (c. 11 ± 5°) since the Campanian – and thatthe Pacific Ocean Basin has increased in length north-to-south. "
Re: Ref: http://www.4threvolt.com/files/McCarthy2005.pdf
Fourth Revolt - Dennis McCarthy - Expanding Earth - YouTube
Which taxa?
Centripetal force (technically a "fictitious force" but it has measurable effects) can cancel gravity, but the effect would be greater near the equator, and weaker in the upper latitudes. At present, there is a very slight difference felt, because the spin is noticeable.I would look at more credible research like that of James Maxlow or Dennis McCarthy who support an 'Expanding Earth' over a 'Growing Earth' hypothesis.Yes, if the earth's volume was less in the past, surface gravity would been much higher, making the existence of large dinosaurs even more of a problem for EET. There is no known mechanism for the earth to have gained enough mass to enable as much growth as is required by EET.
An estimate of volume before expansion 200 - 250 MYA is that it was 40% smaller (on the expanding earth dot org site).
Your math doesn't account for planet rotation. The current estimates for the length of days/nights in pre-historic times is based on a consistent earth radius. Hypothetically if the earth was that much smaller 300 million years ago, it's spin would have been significantly higher. If you think spin wouldn't have an effect on gravity, your wrong. Technically our mass would not change, but if the spin of the planet where to speed up fast enough... we would appear weightless. If you spun it up super fast, we could even fly off the surface. Factoring in the difference in volume and an increase in spin might very well even it's self out to a point where gravity may have been similar to what it is today. That does not mean that it was the same. As the grace project collects more data about gravity from all over the planet, we are learning there is very little consistency to it.The current mean radius is 6,371.0 km and volume 1.08321×1012 km. 60% of current volume is 4.33284 x 1011km.
Using the formula for volume of a sphere
g is currently 9.807 m.s2. With the volume at 60% of current, it goes up by about 1.842 times, giving 18.064 m.s2. So if you weigh 100kg now, you would have weighed 184kg then. That is a huge difference. No evidence exists for such a huge difference in surface gravity.
My point is, your claim is testable. If you're right that the planet was spinning at a really high rate, and the resulting cancellation between centripetal force and gravity is what enabled large creatures like dinosaurs to live on the Earth, then we should expect to find almost all of the fossils for large species in regions that were near the equator at the time.
I will add that, the major problem faced by large land animals today is getting enough to eat. Elephants have to consume between 140 and 270 kg of food per day to survive. Maybe they could get by on less if gravity were lower? But I'm thinking availability of food would still be an issue.
Elephant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Re: Re: Re: Ref: http://www.4threvolt.com/files/McCarthy2005.pdf
I honestly don't want to quote pages the document. Your welcome to look it over, if you disagree with any of it, please let me know. I myself find it to be a really well in-depth analysis of past biogeographical arguments.
glad to see this forum is actually giving this theory polite consideration unlike some other so called "rational" forums out there
Perhaps you should be asking questions, not making assertions.
This is always a bad sign to see in someone's posts, regardless of the subject.
This is why I quote the work of people who are experts in their field over making up my own radical theories.Perhaps you should be asking questions, not making assertions.
Their evidence, research and hard work seems to go ignored more then my comparisons to modern day theories.
This theory is a lie. By the way I'm halomachinimarules from youtube. Sorry it took me so long to respond my internet got cut off and my parents blocked youtube. nealadamsdotcom, plants grow, people grow, EVEN MOLD GROWS, but the Earth does not. True, I believe in god but what does that have to do with my opinion? THINGS THAT ARE LIVING GROW. THINGS THAT ARE NON-LIVING DO NOT.
Experts in the field of Geology rejected EE a long time ago. ...because it is stupid.This is why I quote the work of people who are experts in their field over making up my own radical theories.Perhaps you should be asking questions, not making assertions.
Interesting discussion. This isn't really my area of expertise ( I'm the GR/quantum/cosmology nerd :-D ), but could someone please enlighten me why a concept such as Expanding Earth is needed, if the earth's geology can be much easier explained using plate tectonics ? I think this is a good example of an area where Occam's Razor should come in...
May 28th, 2012, 06:36 PM
Many people claim that Mark Twain (nee Samuel Clemens) wrote, "If you don't read the paper; you're uninformed. If you do; you're misinformed." Regardless of whether he wrote that, or not; it remains true that the comment is worth our contemplation because it implies that we are faced with a limit to our certainty.
This implication is shown to be correct by many pieces of evidence. One of them is the movie "Terminator II".
Many events in that movie did not actually occur. They were instead generated by a computer.
Another piece of evidence, which shows that we are faced with a limit to our certainty, is the possibility that we are being generated by a computer which is being used to make a virtual reality. This possibility is explored in the following list of nine pages.
Wikipedia, overview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulism
Nick Bostrom, 2002
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
Brian Whitworth, 2008
http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0801.0337
Craig Hogan, 2009
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090203130708.htm
Jong-Hwan Kim, Chi-Ho Lee, and Kang-Hee Lee, 2009
http://www.physorg.com/news161517506.html
Nikodem Poplawski, 2010
http://www.physorg.com/news189792839.html
Andrew Cleland, 2010
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/freaky-physics-proves-parallel-universes/
update, Craig Hogan, 2010
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/10/20/fermilab-scientists-to-test-hypothesis-of-holographic-universe/
Erik Verlinde, 2010
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0785v1.pdf
One possible result, of a contemplation of all of these nine pages, is that we might not be as adamant in the future as we have been in the past. Another reason that we might not be as adamant in the future as we have been in the past could be that we might search for the phrase "fraud in science". Google reported approximately 59 million results for this phrase. The fact, that Google is also worthy of skeptism, was mentioned by Joseph P. Skipper at http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2012/219/google-obfuscation.htm He even more often mentioned evidence which shows that we should also be skeptical of NASA.
One way to summarize all of this information would be to say that we should not believe anything we hear and only half of what we see. One result of contemplation of this saying might be to ask, "Just where should we best draw the line as to what we will believe, or not?"
We might therefore placidly consider the possibility that Carl Munck has discovered evidence which could be used (or misused?) to show the validity of the idea that the Earth is growing. I mention this possibility as a result of my having used the ruler in Google Earth to measure the difference between the self-definition location of the "Two Hands" geoglyph (which is among the geoglyphs at Nazca, Peru) and the present position as shown by Google Earth. My measurement showed a difference of approximately 0.26 miles. For those who would like to make their own measurement in Google Earth, the Carl Munck data for the "Two Hands" geoglyph is mentioned at http://www.pyramidmatrix.com/nazca_lines.htm
One possible explanation for this difference would be to suppose that it was caused by the growth of the Earth between the time that the geoglyph was made and the time that Google Earth was made. That is clearly not the only supposition which could be made.
So one way to pursue this idea would be to compare additional examples of Carl Munck data in Google Earth. One such free sample is available at
http://www.pyramidmatrix.com/pyramids_japan.htm
My measurement (in Google Earth) of the radius of the implied circle (at the "Keyhole Mounds") was that it is approximately twice the size which is implied by the self-defined location. So did I make a gross error, or did Munck, or did the Earth grow that much since the "Keyhole Mounds" were made?
Unfortunately, I am not now financially able to obtain the rest of Munck's data in order to make further comparisons. So if somebody else already has the rest of his data (or can obtain it), then that somebody could make the comparisons and report them here for examination and interpretation.
However that might prove to be, thank all of you for your attention to this aspect of the situation.
Last edited by thisgoodriddle; May 28th, 2012 at 06:39 PM. Reason: insert a space before a link
"One way to summarize all of this information would be to say that we should not believe anything we hear and only half of what we see."
So we can disregard your post?
That is exactly where this kind of approach naturally leads. You may want to consider rethinking your ideas.
Well I'd like to say that with all the dig and burn tactics we all tend to share, that I seriously doubt that the earth is growing. By all standards it should be shinking if that makes any sense to you.....
Matter falls to the earth. I don't think it is much debated whether or not this quantity outpaces the matter we send out into space. Likely the earth "grows" at rates completely dismissible. EE proponents, however, propose something quite a bit goofier.
Depends on what proponent you talk with
Sorry my appearance has not been around here much.
I've join in on this discussion here
Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere : Pseudoscience - Page 274 • Rational Skepticism Forum
There are several celebrities from GE, EE and PT crowds involved on this discussion, I welcome you to check it out.
"Celebrities"?
I've exchanged words with Neal before. He really is a crackpot, as are most people who listen to him with any interest.
Don't know who else you might be refering to in that exchange, or if Neal is even among them, but I doubt it is worth it to me to join yet another site in order to see more people who disregard, misunderstand, or outright ignore the related science. There really is no discussion to make with regards to EE or any other like idea. If there was, there would be a real discussion going among real geologists, not crackpots and fringers.
If you want to bring anything of the discussion here, legitimate questions and oddities, I'll be interested to respond, but I'm not interested in following these types around the internet.
I do not see the point of joining another forum due to you not wanting to discuss here Light storm
Anytime anyone uses a movie such as Terminator II as any kind of scientific argument, I fart and never read them again.
Goodye Simplisticriddle.
Well, Neal Adams isn't a scientist, so if you believe he is the main driving force of the argument for EE your wrong. Just for clarification, Neal Adams completely rejects EE in support of his Growing Earth (GE) via Pair production speculation. While he was apart of that conversation for a while, he was pretty much met by an international roar of laughter from both sides of the discussion. If you honestly believe there are no real scientists that support the hypothesis of an expanding earth, you are seriously ignorant what a minority of geologists support."Celebrities"?
I've exchanged words with Neal before. He really is a crackpot, as are most people who listen to him with any interest.
Don't know who else you might be refering to in that exchange, or if Neal is even among them, but I doubt it is worth it to me to join yet another site in order to see more people who disregard, misunderstand, or outright ignore the related science. There really is no discussion to make with regards to EE or any other like idea. If there was, there would be a real discussion going among real geologists, not crackpots and fringers.
If you want to bring anything of the discussion here, legitimate questions and oddities, I'll be interested to respond, but I'm not interested in following these types around the internet.
Fair enough
Terminator II?
How many mainstream geologists are advocating for the EE hypothesis? What percentage of the worlds geological community is that?
I repeat my post.Well, Neal Adams isn't a scientist, so if you believe he is the main driving force of the argument for EE your wrong. Just for clarification, Neal Adams completely rejects EE in support of his Growing Earth (GE) via Pair production speculation. While he was apart of that conversation for a while, he was pretty much met by an international roar of laughter from both sides of the discussion. If you honestly believe there are no real scientists that support the hypothesis of an expanding earth, you are seriously ignorant what a minority of geologists support."Celebrities"?
I've exchanged words with Neal before. He really is a crackpot, as are most people who listen to him with any interest.
Don't know who else you might be refering to in that exchange, or if Neal is even among them, but I doubt it is worth it to me to join yet another site in order to see more people who disregard, misunderstand, or outright ignore the related science. There really is no discussion to make with regards to EE or any other like idea. If there was, there would be a real discussion going among real geologists, not crackpots and fringers.
If you want to bring anything of the discussion here, legitimate questions and oddities, I'll be interested to respond, but I'm not interested in following these types around the internet.
:shrug:
Not sure what you expect to accomplish with posts like this. I have not heard a serious argument for EE or whatever other equivalent bonkers ideas there are out there. You will bring one here or you will not. There is no point in posturing. Some vague claim of 'scientist' support means nothing. Explain the ideas that are worthy of consideration, or not. Whatever. You aren't winning anyone over with your current stuff.
Anyway, I'm not holding my breath.
Here is a good starting point... if you would prefer links to the peer reviewed papers, I'll be happy to point them out to you
Fourth Revolt - Dennis McCarthy - Lopsided Hemispheres - YouTube
How about providing the requested information here please.
Please do.
Very WellPlease do.
Geophysical explanation for the disparity in spreading rates between the Northern and Southern hemispheres
I'll make sure to point out at this point that in the official paper on lopsided hemispheres, McCarthy makes no direct connection between the geophysical explanation and Expanding Earth theory. To get a more clear connection on the two... watch the short video before or after reading the paper. Indirectly, of course he is talking about EE the entire time, but the paper wouldn't make it to AGU if he mentioned the words 'expanding' and 'earth' together.
If you interested in another one of my favourite papers by McCarthy that isn't loaded behind a paywall, I highly recommend this one. McCarthy really lays out extremely strong points for a closed pacific.
McCarthy in his peer reviewed paper on a closed Pacific
Ref: Journal of Biogeography (J. Biogeogr.) (2005) 32, 2161–2177
http://www.4threvolt.com/files/McCarthy2005.pdf
So you don't have a peer reviewed paper on EE.Indirectly, of course he is talking about EE the entire time, but the paper wouldn't make it to AGU if he mentioned the words 'expanding' and 'earth' together.
Do you accept James Maxlow as fully educated, certified Geologist?So you don't have a peer reviewed paper on EE.Indirectly, of course he is talking about EE the entire time, but the paper wouldn't make it to AGU if he mentioned the words 'expanding' and 'earth' together.
If you don't, I think you should find it easy to understand why the scientific community flat out rejects papers that aren't based on a static Earth premise.... and fyi... the paper above makes no mention of static earth either.
There are many fully educated, certified whatevers who hold crank theories.Do you accept James Maxlow as fully educated, certified Geologist?So you don't have a peer reviewed paper on EE.Indirectly, of course he is talking about EE the entire time, but the paper wouldn't make it to AGU if he mentioned the words 'expanding' and 'earth' together.
If you don't, I think you should find it easy to understand why the scientific community flat out rejects papers that aren't based on a static Earth premise.... and fyi... the paper above makes no mention of static earth either.
So there are no peer reviewed papers on EE, just the usual excuses of repression and collusion by the scientific community.
May 31st, 2012, 02:32 PM
Are you interested in discussing either of those papers, or you just going to continue to attempt to derail with excuses that have nothing todo with either paper?There are many fully educated, certified whatevers who hold crank theories.So there are no peer reviewed papers on EE, just the usual excuses of repression and collusion by the scientific community.Do you accept James Maxlow as fully educated, certified Geologist?If you don't, I think you should find it easy to understand why the scientific community flat out rejects papers that aren't based on a static Earth premise.... and fyi... the paper above makes no mention of static earth either.So you don't have a peer reviewed paper on EE.Indirectly, of course he is talking about EE the entire time, but the paper wouldn't make it to AGU if he mentioned the words 'expanding' and 'earth' together.
Present the information, Light Storm.
What are the points? Bring to the discussion the things you think favor an EE or similar explanation that PT does not explain better. Not links and excuses.
.
In those papers you won't bother to look at, several key points of interest are raised, and some just make more sense then PT. In the paper on lopsided hemispheres, McCarthy details why the southern hempihere is young and oceanic while the northern is continental and respectfully ancient in comparison. As spreading rates are faster in the southern, the planet expands in the southern hemisphere causing the the northern to contract. This is why newer research that shows many parts of the north pole to be effectively unchanged since the planets original formation.
.
PT has no real explanation other then random coincidence to explain why the continents are formed in the current day pattern that they are in.
.
200 million years ago, the Atlantic did not exist. The coastal outlines match and the mach is uncanny. Thousands of forms of shallow water sister Taxia are found on opposit shorelines. Fossil records confirm migration on ancient creatures the prove the two sides where once combined. The ocean floor of the Atlantic is young, most of it is less then 250 million years old.
.
In McCarthys evidence paper on a closed pacific, he has shown all the exact same points in an argument for a closed pacific. He has shown uncanny matches in coastlines, paired up separated sister Taxia and shown fossil records which are all strong points for a closed pacific.
.
The excuses used by plate tectonics, like the lizards that migrated thousands of miles in open ocean on a vegitible raft is laughable.
Last edited by Light Storm; June 1st, 2012 at 11:30 AM. Reason: Formatting
You did nothing to address eric's question, as that exactly fits with plate tectonics.
You first assertion of lopsided hemisphere's as falsified by the facts. Some of the oldest surface rock can be found in the Canadian Shield, Australia, Africa and in other more specific places around the world. Last I checked, Australia and Africa were in the southern hemisphere.
The southern hemisphere is not younger than the northern hemisphere. The oldest rock (unless there is a newer, heh, older discovery) is in Australia, which lies in the southern hemisphere..
In those papers you won't bother to look at, several key points of interest are raised, and some just make more sense then PT. In the paper on lopsided hemispheres, McCarthy details why the southern hempihere is young and oceanic while the northern is continental and respectfully ancient in comparison. As spreading rates are faster in the southern, the planet expands in the southern hemisphere causing the the northern to contract. This is why newer research that shows many parts of the north pole to be effectively unchanged since the planets original formation.
Also, "Causing the northern to contract"? LOL
Also, What mechanism is proposed for the expansion of the earth?
Also, Why aren't satellites measuring this expansion?
And on and on and on.
And EE or whatever other explanation you are considering can show a calculable and deterministic reason for the patterns and position of the continents? Do tell. <-------"tell" being the important word here.
Yup. This is perfectly consistent with PT. This is the classic example in PT. You DO know PT in detail, right?
Good god, man! Have you ever looked at the Pacific coastline? Look, if someone wants to jigsaw puzzle the Pacific together, whatever. It doesn't mean anything that someone can cut up land pieces and rearrange them together. The Atlantic needs no doctoring. The Pacific, if anything, is the thing that is NOT consistent with EE and others. It has to be doctored to fit.
Wow, you are REALLY far behind in the times. For many of the Pacific islands, especially in the south Pacific, the proposed explanation for the distribution of plant and animal life has nothing to do with crossing the water.
Lets stop you right there...
More then 65% the worlds continents are in the northern hemisphere
Only about 11% of the worlds continents are in the southern hemisphere
The entire oceanic floor surrounding the continents is less then 300 million years old.
A vast majority of that number is less then 60 million years old.
the continents them selves are vastly ancient in comparison, as old as 3 billion years in some areas and older.
You really shouldn't need a calculator to figure which hemisphere is older/younger then the other.
Acknowledge that you are wrong about your opening line, and I'll explain why the rest of your follow up was equally wrong. Then hopefully you might question on why your assumption on a static earth radius could also be wrong.
Perhaps if you average per square mile, you might be correct. My point remains that some of the oldest land masses on the planet are in the southern hemisphere.
Let me stop you right there...Lets stop you right there...
More then 65% the worlds continents are in the northern hemisphere
Only about 11% of the worlds continents are in the southern hemisphere
That doesn't make any difference, AT ALL.
Disregarding the rest of your post.
| « What is "nothing"? | Aquatic Ape Hypothesis » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
1Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
