Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 157
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Growing Earth theory by neal adams dot com

  1. #1 Growing Earth theory by neal adams dot com 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4
    Hopefully this will become a forum for the discussion of neal adams growing earth theory from youtube.

    Please refrain from personal attacks, religious attacks, claims or accusations of religious affiliation, and other such tactics.

    Also, if absolutely compelled to share or espouse personal off-topic communications, send them privately.

    Thanks and I hope this will become a more productive forum than youtube's severly limited comment system.

    MorituriMax


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    If this is the same thing as 'expanding earth', I think that they should have spent more time researching. One thing from the original movie:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U

    Okay, notice a few things. For one, they called platypus a marsupial.

    One other thing you need to take notice of: this idea, in all formats I have seen, really has a strong tendancy to sound like a smear piece. There is no real backing, no real evidence, to support this. Infact, the only lines of evidence for this that I have seen are animations showing an expanding Earth. Now, they go on and on about various things within the animation itself, but it's not a reasonable presentation of data- it's an unreasonable presentation of an animation. They go out and say that continental drift is a conspiracy of science but don't even back it up with anything more than "scientists are afraid to tell you" hype.

    I'd like to see some hard evidence for any of this. Overall, this is something that I would consider highly unlikely.

    One amazing counter to this would be to simply ask: "where does all the extra material in the growing Earth come from?"


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,270
    While this has been discussed several times I willstart of this new thread.

    The hypothesis* is not one which is backed by the evidence, and has a number of serious flaws.


    Starting off on the correct footing terminologically-

    Hypothesis- an idea, question, line of thinking; based on observations, which has NOT been rigorously tested and proven.

    Theory- an idea, question, line of thinking; based on observations, which HAS been rigorously tested and proven.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4
    Thanks guys (and/or gals), I'm hoping I can get the various parties from youtube to swap over to here, thanks for the opening posts.

    Cheers!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore Tharghana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    157
    I have been to Neal Adams Site, And watched the video about it, and the narrator (which not sure if that is neal adams) Talk pretty Straight on about how this theory is right.

    But as Paleoichneum Said

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Hypothesis- an idea, question, line of thinking; based on observations, which has NOT been rigorously tested and proven.

    Theory- an idea, question, line of thinking; based on observations, which HAS been rigorously tested and proven.
    The Growing Earth is a Hypothesis at best. But I'd love to seem some more evidence on it, then maybe it will be more accepted.

    P.S Neal Adams is a Comic Book Artist :wink:
    www.periodicvideos.com - A Great Site

    "Well, good chemists shouldn't lick their fingers, anyways." - Martyn Poliakoff

    "You have lived to die, and your running out of life."

    "Once and a while, I go out of my way... to kill you... a little"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Expanding Earth ploughed though here not long ago. Total_Science was this guy who'd grown up near the San Andreas Fault and watched Superman. He was so disillusioned by Earth's failure to swallow people up, he decided subduction is a myth.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4
    Harold, not sure if that was directed at me, but nah, I'm not Total Science. I've been trying to rebutt neals various claims along with a few others on youtube and man, I am just so fed up with the YRCS (youtube retarded comment system) that i was hoping I could get them to move over here. Or ANYWHERE but youtube.

    Heh, I know it's probably doomed to failure as neal seems to love it there. Ah well, hope springs in turtles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    No cogent observations, no hypothesis, violates several physic laws--pure junk.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    No cogent observations.....
    The fundamental observations of any of the Expanding Earth hypotheses are much the same as those of plate tectonics.
    a) Observed match of continental shapes.
    b) Observed match of geological strata between the 'separated' continents.
    b) Mid ocean ridges where new oceanic crust is created.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    no hypothesis......
    The hypothesis is very clear. The observations noted above can be fully explained by an expanding Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    violates several physic laws--pure junk.
    Could you list which laws are violated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    A shameless exercise John. I like it. :-D

    It does illustrate how wrong we can be. Consider the expanding universe. :?

    But in Earth's case we observe subduction.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    From the Youtube link's responses:

    Q:Where is the mass coming from?

    A:My models show the Geological process and over the last 40 years I have discovered and refined the mechanism for the creation of matter.

    The theory says matter is made ongoing at the Plasma core of moons planets suns.
    I think this is where Neal Adams theory crumbles as his explanations don't provide any content beyond these claims.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    But in Earth's case we observe subduction.
    Some variants of the expanding Earth hypothesis accept some subduction. Other variants argue the evidence for subduction is inconclusive and open to alternative explanations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    But in Earth's case we observe subduction.
    Some variants of the expanding Earth hypothesis accept some subduction. Other variants argue the evidence for subduction is inconclusive and open to alternative explanations.
    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?
    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  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    But there are a few difficult problems, no?
    Yes. Otherwise it wouldn't be science. :wink:

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Like, where is the matter coming from?
    The matter need not be coming from anywhere. For example, if G has varied over time this could be responsible for the 'observed' expansion. Recall that the fundamental constants may not be constant. There is no absolute requirement that they be so.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Why do we not find any evidence of changes in the rotational momentum?
    Such as variations in the length of the day? I think you know that we do.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    and evidence that supports no growth?
    Sorry, there may be an accidental double negative there. Either way I don't understand your question.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Why don't we find evidence that the earth's mass was significantly less in the past?
    Yes, I agree we should ignore the large dinosaurs in the Mezozoic and the enormous flying insects in the Carboniferous.

    On the other hand it has been postulated that the expansion might be powered by phase transitions in the core. That would eliminate the need for a mass increase.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Such as variations in the length of the day? I think you know that we do.
    But nothing near that predicted by expanding earth theory that I am aware of?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Sorry, there may be an accidental double negative there. Either way I don't understand your question.
    Expanding earth theory says the earth grew in the past. Opposing evidence would be evidence of no growth, evidence of constant day length. While busy with TotalScience’s thread, I happened on this piece of opposing evidence:

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    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."
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Yes, I agree we should ignore the large dinosaurs in the Mezozoic and the enormous flying insects in the Carboniferous.
    I agree. A thick atmosphere does not equate to reduced mass.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    On the other hand it has been postulated that the expansion might be powered by phase transitions in the core. That would eliminate the need for a mass increase.
    It is good and well talking about possibilities, but has any evidence been presented that this actually happens in the core? Alternatively, does this explanation equal current models as far as fitting the evidence (seismic probing and such related to internal structure)?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    The matter need not be coming from anywhere. For example, if G has varied over time this could be responsible for the 'observed' expansion. Recall that the fundamental constants may not be constant. There is no absolute requirement that they be so.
    As far as I understand, even small variations would in some of these would make it impossible for elements to form. You know, the whole “tailored for life” universe debate?

    Anyway, I am only relating secondhand information as a non-scientist. So I’ll end this post with a big fat IMHO and AFAIK.
    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  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    if G has varied over time
    Neat idea. I'm gonna take that out to play with.

    ...

    I just knew you'd mention the dinosaurs. Their sturdy skeletons seem appropriate for present gravity though.

    ...

    We do have probable expansion of some large moons. Ganymede is made of water/ice so if it's cooling (freezing) it should have expanded. Ganymede's finely wrinkled surface looks unlike Earth's - and in fact Ganymedian tectonics baffle people working from an Earth model. Europa's so cracked there can be no mistake. And again the tectonics look nothing like Earth's.

    Earth, rather, would have shrunk a bit as it cooled.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    But nothing near that predicted by expanding earth theory that I am aware of?
    What predictions are made for the variations in the length of day? How far do these deviate from what is observed? How accurately can we determine the magnitude of past variations? If G is varying, or mass is being added by an as yet unknown, or undemonstrated, mechanism what diurnal variations would we expect?

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Expanding earth theory says the earth grew in the past. Opposing evidence would be evidence of no growth, evidence of constant day length. While busy with TotalScience’s thread, I happened on this piece of opposing evidence:
    This is good, but not exhaustive, counter evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    It is good and well talking about possibilities, but has any evidence been presented that this actually happens in the core? Alternatively, does this explanation equal current models as far as fitting the evidence (seismic probing and such related to internal structure)?
    I presume the rate at which phase transitions occured would be slow on a human time scale. It would therefore be difficult, or impossible, to detect these with current methodologies.
    I am not aware of any seismological data that would discount the mechanism.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    As far as I understand, even small variations would in some of these would make it impossible for elements to form. You know, the whole “tailored for life” universe debate?
    Can you point to something specifically related to G that would inhibit the formation of any of the elements?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    More tangibly: the stability of the solar system, including our moon's orbit. Can we have each pebble in the asteroid belt gaining mass as well at just the right rate?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    The matter need not be coming from anywhere. For example, if G has varied over time this could be responsible for the 'observed' expansion.
    A variable G would not produce the results Neal Adams is claiming. He claims matter is being created in the core but does not offer any explanation beyond that claim. Conservation of mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    But in Earth's case we observe subduction.
    Some variants of the expanding Earth hypothesis accept some subduction. Other variants argue the evidence for subduction is inconclusive and open to alternative explanations.
    Those "others" aren't looking at the data.

    We are actually measuring the movement of the plates relative to each other (see below) and can see the subduction. The seismic activity is along those same subduction zones and often shows the increase in depth across those zones consistent with the subduction. Some of the deepest trenches are also consistent with the model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    More tangibly: the stability of the solar system, including our moon's orbit. Can we have each pebble in the asteroid belt gaining mass as well at just the right rate?
    Just the right rate for what? Stability? We know that meteorites, asteroids and NEOs are not stable: that's why they keep colliding with the Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    A variable G would not produce the results Neal Adams is claiming. He claims matter is being created in the core but does not offer any explanation beyond that claim.
    Correct. But as noted previously there is more than one version of the expanding Earth. Adams, as far as I am aware, does not postulate a variable G, therefore we would not expect a match.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Those "others" aren't looking at the data. We are actually measuring the movement of the plates relative to each other (see below) and can see the subduction.
    We can see relative movements with substantial error components. I have not seen an interpretation of these movements that demonstrates, rather than declares, they are consistent with subduction. Can you provide a link to such an interpretation, or deliver one yourself?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    More tangibly: the stability of the solar system, including our moon's orbit. Can we have each pebble in the asteroid belt gaining mass as well at just the right rate?
    Just the right rate for what?
    Stable orbits.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Those "others" aren't looking at the data. We are actually measuring the movement of the plates relative to each other (see below) and can see the subduction.
    We can see relative movements with substantial error components. I have not seen an interpretation of these movements that demonstrates, rather than declares, they are consistent with subduction. Can you provide a link to such an interpretation, or deliver one yourself?
    I'm sitting over a subduction. Demonstrations: This land is measurably rising and scrunching up. And you can see the effect in any map of the Pacific Northwest, or just looking at the crumpled local bedrock. When we have an earthquake, it suddenly slips seaward and drops about a meter. Moreover, the Rockies here are built up remains of exotic continents, for example a marsh continent of tropical origin that we now mine for coal. And we've even managed to image the bulk of that continent subducted now deep and molten under North America.

    There is just so much explained by subduction, Expanding Earth would not.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Can you provide a link to such an interpretation, or deliver one yourself?
    I'll walk though a pretty well studied area in the US Pacific NW and West Coast of Canada because of the threat to Vancouver and Seattle--the subduction zone where the Juan de Fuca Plate moving NE is trying to force itself beneath the North America plate.

    Before I get into the subduction zone let me describe the area a bit.

    The Juan de Fuca Plate lies between the North American and Pacific plates--Along the West side it's being forced by a spreading sea floor marked by a underwater volcanic ridge that runs N-S.

    On its East side its trying to run underneath the North American plate. The subduction front is offshore but between the front and the line of volcanoes is an area of offscrapping of ocean floor sediments. The offscraping also producing a rise which make up the Olympic mountains and Vancouver island. Its notable in that there's so much offscraping that it probably mask the characteristic trenches seen in most other subduction zones. Marking the West side of the subduction zone is a line of N-S volcanoes Mt Ranier, Baker, Hood, infamous Mount Saint Helen's--all still very much active.

    I'll put up one summation of study which shows the pretty well studied subduction zone to the West of Seattle and Vancouver.
    http://cgc.rncan.gc.ca/geodyn/cascadia_e.php?p=1

    The last chart I put below is really neat, it shows a record of the actual earthquakes with increasing depth to the East as the Juan de Fuca slides to greater depths under the Pacific plate.

    And there you have just a tidbit of one of examples around the world. You have the leading subduction front, have direct measurement of the relative velocities show convergence, the mound of rubble scrapped off as the oceanic plate slides under the other, the seismic evidence of the plates still in contact deeper and deeper as we move further from the front, and finally the expected line of volcanoes approximately on top of where the oceanic plate is destroyed in the hot mantle.

    And so you know the GPS based geodetic networks in that area is accurate to within 10mm in the horizontal and 20mm in the vertical.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Finally John I found this really excellent tomography charts from seismic studies along the East coast of Japan--another subduction zone.

    It's a work of art :-)

    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Stable orbits.
    But the orbits are not stable. I already pointed that out. That's why they keep bumping into each other.

    This land is measurably rising and scrunching up.
    Happenings that are also explained by an expanding Earth.

    Lynx_Fox, the attractive graphics depict a suite of earthquakes associated with the junction between sial and sima. They do not unequivocally demonstrate plate motion via subduction.

    My request for you to provide an interpretation of plate movement was directed specifically at the realtive plate movements determined from GPS measurements. That is what I would be interested to see: a clear, unequivocal demonstration that the plate movements require subduction to be present to account for the measurements.

    The works of art you have presented remain interpretations only, at this point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    John, Please read the link again. This is the clear evidence showing the actual measured movements, it's part of the link I provided. I put up the direct measurements below.

    The work of art was an expression, that an actual chart showing pressure wave speed superimposed over origin of quakes. The subduction wedge COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR. With divergence there would be no wedges at all, nor convergence geodetic measurement, nor accretion zone where the sedimentation had been scraped off for a long time into the past.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Stable orbits.
    But the orbits are not stable. I already pointed that out. That's why they keep bumping into each other.
    How many times has the moon or sun "bumped" the Earth?

    As I recall Expanding Earth claims significant diameter increase over the last 200 million years. Are you saying our orbit's been so erratic throughout that time, that we've been bumping around?

    I'm also curious to know if other bodies are supposed to have expanded. Like the moon or particles of Saturn's rings.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    This land is measurably rising and scrunching up.
    Happenings that are also explained by an expanding Earth.
    No, the ballooning surface would be stretched out (like Europa) not scrunched up. The land here really is folded exactly perpendicular to those velocity lines on the GPS map. I mean everything from mountain chains and islands to 1m wide bedrock ridges wrinkle that way, just as if the land was squeezed. Only knowing this region you'd think the Earth is shrinking rather.

    For the record, when I said BC coast drops a meter when we get earthquake, I meant the "real" serious earthquake that comes about every 400 years. It doesn't drop so much as the rise accumulated over that time. Lynx_Fox's tremor map shows plate grinding/ratcheting not the slippage event.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    It's what's called specious reasoning. It looks good based on the animations, but we still have major problems. If you're going to reject plate tectonic theory then at the very least you need to reconcile all the things that plate tectonics explains with your new theory.

    i.e. (vocadlo & dobson 1999):
    This elegant model [plate tectonics] explained the existence and topography of the Earth’s oceans and continents, the relative motions of the continents, the compositional variations seen in volcanoes from different tectonic settings, and demonstrated the main mechanism for heat loss in the Earth.
    Can expanding Earth explain all of the above in a scientifically rigorous manner?

    What about those seismic tomographic images of anomalously fast slab-like regions dipping down beneath "plate boundaries"? What does expanding earth make of these?

    What is the underlying physical mechanism which drives the expanding Earth?
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    How many times has the moon or sun "bumped" the Earth?
    With respect Pong, that is not relevant. I was specifically addressing your question "Can we have each pebble in the asteroid belt gaining mass as well at just the right rate?" I was pointing out that asteroids, comets and meteors do not occupy stable orbits anyway, whether or not G has varied.

    I'm also curious to know if other bodies are supposed to have expanded. Like the moon or particles of Saturn's rings.
    I believe that depends upon which flavour of expanding Earth one follows.

    The land here really is folded exactly perpendicular to those velocity lines on the GPS map.
    How would you rule out slippage associated with isostatic adjusment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    This is the clear evidence showing the actual measured movements, it's part of the link I provided. I put up the direct measurements below.
    You'll have to work with me here, LF. Pretend I'm really slow. You won't be far from the truth.

    I am asking for a demonstration that those movements are evidence of subduction. All I see in what you have presented is evidence of movement. Please guide me towards a clear understanding of how that movement demonstrates subduction.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Can expanding Earth explain all of the above in a scientifically rigorous manner?
    A fair question. Here is another one. At the time when as much work had been done attempting to explain the observed character of the Earth by plate tectonics as has been done attempting to explain it by expanding Earth theory, could plate tectonics at that time provide those explanations in a scientifically rigorous manner?
    The answer to both questions is a resounding no.

    What is the underlying physical mechanism which drives the expanding Earth?
    The rejection of Wegner's continental drift because of the apparent absence of a mechanism was, in my opinion, a gross error on the part of Earth scientists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    What is the underlying physical mechanism which drives the expanding Earth?
    The rejection of Wegner's continental drift because of the apparent absence of a mechanism was, in my opinion, a gross error on the part of Earth scientists.
    on the other hand, it does make scientific sense to withhold wholehearted support for a theory until the issue of mechanism is, if not resolved, at least known to some extent
    at present, i'm not aware of ANY mechanism that might explain a sudden increase in diameter (and mass ?) over the last 200 million years

    remember that evolution did not become respectable in scientific circles until Darwin had proposed a mechanism that made sense
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4
    Hmmmm...

    Pong said, "More tangibly: the stability of the solar system, including our moon's orbit. Can we have each pebble in the asteroid belt gaining mass as well at just the right rate?"

    Galt replied (a couple of times with), "But the orbits are not stable. I already pointed that out. That's why they keep bumping into each other. "

    Well, if the orbits were not stable, then all those pebbles wouldn't be close enough to bump into each other after their first collision. The orbits of the various planets and moons in the solar system certainly seem stable enough as we have the ability to mathematically project their past and future positions accurately enough to slingshot probes around them as well as plotting where they will be without having to change the math each time.

    As for orbital stability, there is also the fact that the asteroid belt, is, well... a belt. Not a diffuse cloud after several billion years. And after the initial formation of the solar system one would think that several billion years later the planets would have either been absorbed into the Sun or left the vicinity of the Sun for interstellar space. If the orbits weren't stable.

    Seems stable enough to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    It looks good based on the animations
    That depends on how closely you look at them...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by The Matt
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    It looks good based on the animations
    That depends on how closely you look at them...
    Which was not very closely at all. If indeed the animations are flawed (which I will leave to the reader's own discretion - unless anyone has taken the time to carefully inspect the integrity of these animations? please share your comments) , the hypothesis in my book goes from being specious to completely ridiculous, either way it is still flawed.

    Notice how anyone with any kind of, even self-imposed, scientific credibility on this forum thinks that the hypothesis is fundamentally flawed. Of course the immediate response to the proponents is something along the lines of "earth scientists are all brain washed and blind to obvious truth". The difference between the two sides in my view is not to do with preconceived knowledge, but an understanding of the scientific method. Anyone with any semblance of understanding of the scientific method should see the holes in the arguments put forward by the proponents of the expandin earth hypothesis, not only for their lack of any solid explanation of what the expanding earth actually is or how it works, but also for their ignorance of the evidence. Until the proponents can adopt a scientifically rigorous approach to discussion which respects the scientific method, any future discussion remains a waste of intellectual energy.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore Tharghana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    157
    One Problem I see with Expanding Earth is that the Earth is a Solid object, an object that is not compressed and in a Plasma State like the Sun, which is highly compressed matter in a Plasma form which Can expanded its Radius.

    The Core of Earth is also Solid While in between the Crust and Core is a Liquid, It cant expanded due to gravity from the Sun + Earth's Core + The Moon. The Crust atop can be pushed under and melted, and vice versa .
    www.periodicvideos.com - A Great Site

    "Well, good chemists shouldn't lick their fingers, anyways." - Martyn Poliakoff

    "You have lived to die, and your running out of life."

    "Once and a while, I go out of my way... to kill you... a little"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    I'm also curious to know if other bodies are supposed to have expanded. Like the moon or particles of Saturn's rings.
    I believe that depends upon which flavour of expanding Earth one follows.
    Okay, you aren't walking into that and I don't blame you.

    Let's pretend for now that only Earth expanded, and without mass increase.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    The land here really is folded exactly perpendicular to those velocity lines on the GPS map.
    How would you rule out slippage associated with isostatic adjusment?
    Good one. The geology I had in mind, which is relatively compressible sandstone and coal between Vancouver Island and the mainland, is also rebounding vertically since the last ice age glacier weight. But none of that explains the much greater horizontal compression, about twenty times more. How would ice sheet pinch a coastal area? If anything it would act like a rolling-pin, smoothing down from the mountains.

    How would an Expanding Earth do anything but stretch the land apart?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    how that movement demonstrates subduction
    BC is a bad example, because the plates unlike to the south are kinda sticky so gross subduction occurs in jumps. The steady surface velocities shown on the map are compression and folding, not subduction itself.

    Hard luck actually seeing where a plate subducts, because of course this creates a trench well below sea level, filled with scrapings & regular sediment. But I think you can get some pretty near land-based measurements around the Arabian plate, and related problems with undersea cables.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    If indeed the animations are flawed (which I will leave to the reader's own discretion - unless anyone has taken the time to carefully inspect the integrity of these animations? please share your comments) , the hypothesis in my book goes from being specious to completely ridiculous, either way it is still flawed.
    I have been asking and answering questions about the whole suite of expanding Earth hypotheses. I know this thread is specifically meant to be about Neal Adams' version, but I have not specifically commented on that.

    What I am keen to hear is how this hypothesis is flawed. So far there have been no convincing presentations.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Notice how anyone with any kind of, even self-imposed, scientific credibility on this forum thinks that the hypothesis is fundamentally flawed.
    I believe this is the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Of course the immediate response to the proponents is something along the lines of "earth scientists are all brain washed and blind to obvious truth". .
    Has anyone made that argument here? Indeed, is anyone arguing for expanding earth hypotheses here? No? then why raise this point at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Anyone with any semblance of understanding of the scientific method should see the holes in the arguments put forward by the proponents of the expandin earth hypothesis, not only for their lack of any solid explanation of what the expanding earth actually is or how it works, but also for their ignorance of the evidence.
    If we always waited for likely mechanisms to be in place before we began drawing provisional conclusions from the data science would advance more slowly.
    In regard to the holes, I have been asking for several posts now for unequivocal demonstration of these holes. So far the only item that has come close is the observation about cold sinking slabs. The rest has been arm waving and the trotting out of conclusions/interpretations of plate tectonics without the associated clear demonstration of why those conclusions have been arrived at.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Until the proponents can adopt a scientifically rigorous approach to discussion which respects the scientific method, any future discussion remains a waste of intellectual energy.
    This applies equally to both sides of the debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    How would an Expanding Earth do anything but stretch the land apart?
    This is just speculation: expanding Earth still has sea floor spreading (one variant admits to a certain amount of subduction). We might also envisage mantle convection currents. We certainly have variable densities of crustal material, not just the gross differences between ocean and continent. This, surely, admits of both lateral and veritcal forces acting upon rock masses. That could be sufficient to generate the observed folding.

    Moreover, overpressured sediments provide an excellent location for decollments, facillitating the generation of nappes down a slight incline induced by isostatic responses. (Responses due to mantle convection, not ice melt.)

    But I think you can get some pretty near land-based measurements around the Arabian plate, and related problems with undersea cables.
    LEt me dispose of the cables first. I am not sure what you are seeking to show with this. To me undersea cables says North Atlantic, earthquake, successive failure of cables, demonstration of turbidity currents. I don't see how you are tying this in to plate tectonics versus expansion.

    In regard to the Arabian measurements, I sense I am still not getting my point across. If subduction is occuring then it follows that the net movement of plates away from mid-ocean ridges should balance the net movement of plates towards subduction zones. I am asking and have been asking for several posts for a simple demonstration that this is the case. I think you will agree that such a demonstration would be effective in falsifying (most) expanding Earth hypotheses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The following may be of interest:

    Paul Dirac in 1937 from cosmological arguments had proposed that G is an inverse function of the age of theuniverse. In 1956, R. H. Dicke hypothesized that in consequence of the decrease in the force of gravity, Earth has expanded. To test this, he suggested that geologists and oceanographers should look for cracks in the ocean floor which would result from an internal swelling of Earth.

    From The Present is the Key to the Past, page 57.
    http://geowords.com/geohisthr.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    How would an Expanding Earth do anything but stretch the land apart?
    a certain amount of subduction... mantle convection currents... This, surely, admits of both lateral and veritcal forces.
    I.e. tectonic theory. Oh and plus Expanding Earth.

    Hm.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Moreover, overpressured sediments provide an excellent location for decollments, facillitating the generation of nappes down a slight incline induced by isostatic responses. (Responses due to mantle convection, not ice melt.)
    Pretend I'm really slow. Demonstrate. Demonstrate how this process is evidence of Earth's expansion. :P

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    If subduction is occuring then it follows that the net movement of plates away from mid-ocean ridges should balance the net movement of plates towards subduction zones.
    I think you mean there should be symmetrical plate movements? On a globe?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    land-based measurements... undersea cables
    I am not sure what you are seeking to show with this.
    I thought you wanted more proof of subduction.

    Now, it seems we agree on the observed plate movements, but disagree over the mechanism. And yet you won't deny the accepted mechanisms, but suggest that also Earth expands. Also. So it's time to turn this around. Where do you see evidence of Earth's expansion?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Moreover, overpressured sediments provide an excellent location for decollments, facillitating the generation of nappes down a slight incline induced by isostatic responses. (Responses due to mantle convection, not ice melt.)
    Pretend I'm really slow. Demonstrate. Demonstrate how this process is evidence of Earth's expansion. :P
    It isn't evidence of Earth expansion. You asked how could we get significant lateral compressive movements without subduction. I have offered this as a mechanism. It is not evidence of expansion, but it provides a means by which expansion can generate the observed tectonic structures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I think you mean there should be symmetrical plate movements? On a globe?
    The net generation of new ocean floor at MORs should be balanced by the loss of ocean floor at subduction zones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    land-based measurements... undersea cables
    I am not sure what you are seeking to show with this.
    I thought you wanted more proof of subduction.
    As far as I can see it does not prove subduction in any shape, form, or fashion. I merely demonstrates the reality of turbidity currents triggered by earthquakes. What does that have to do with subduction?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Now, it seems we agree on the observed plate movements, but disagree over the mechanism. And yet you won't deny the accepted mechanisms, but suggest that also Earth expands. Also. So it's time to turn this around. Where do you see evidence of Earth's expansion?
    No. I don't think the Earth is expanding. Read all of my posts carefully. I have never expressed that view.

    What I have said and continue to say, is that so far no one has offered a refutation of the expansion hypothesis. I have also offered possible explanations for observations that are consistent with expansion theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    The net generation of new ocean floor at MORs should be balanced by the loss of ocean floor at subduction zones.
    Not all that ocean floor is lost. Some builds mountains. Continents grow, compress, dissolve and crumble. On a globe this will always be lopsided and changing.

    I think you're having trouble "seeing" this.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    (Measured convergence) does not prove subduction in any shape, form, or fashion.
    We have to account for vanishing matter. Okay, let's play peek-a-boo. My hands are converging toward my face. My face is gone! Woo. Now my hands are converging on each other. One of my hands is disappearing! Woo.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    no one has offered a refutation of the expansion hypothesis.
    You shy of making concrete claims. You may as well say "Earth is small - refute that."
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    The net generation of new ocean floor at MORs should be balanced by the loss of ocean floor at subduction zones.
    It's pretty close. You can almost match the destructive plate boundaries against the constructive boundaries by looking at this simple figure. Many of the destruction boundaries are by subduction of light plates (continental) over heavy (ocean) or enormous mountains of two continental plates in collision.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    ...withhold wholehearted support for a theory until the issue of mechanism is, if not resolved, at least known to some extent

    remember that evolution did not become respectable in scientific circles until Darwin had proposed a mechanism that made sense
    I'm having a verrrry difficult time with two terms thrown out here -- "respectable" and "wholehearted".

    I think it's prudent, if not purely scientific, to "withhold wholehearted support" (given it's emotionally subjective) for ANY theory, regardless how well established, respected, understood and accepted, regardless of whether or how many plausible mechanisms have been proffered and are in agreement.

    If you want to count yourself a scientist, or scientifically minded, stop worshiping at Idols of Traditional Acceptableness! I don't care what your field or specialty, there is always more to add to our current body of knowledge, some of which MIGHT screw with and shake entire foundations -- not of physics or physical laws, but just our understanding of how things really are.

    Quantum physics didn't replace Newtonian mechanics, nor were Newtonian mechanics suddenly uprooted or rendered incorrect or inapplicable thereby. Different rules for different size and times scales. Is it a particle, a wave, or both? What is it?! It's both? Fancy that! And though our body of knowledge is rapidly expanding, we STILL HAVE YET to tie them all together! And through it all, we are constantly blinded and blindsiding each other, even at the most sophisticated and esoteric levels, with arrogance and ignorance. And that's too often, and sadly, due to an unwillingness to challenge or question our most basic governing assumptions.

    Too bad, so sad, but evidence, not of a conspiracy of science, so much as more chaff than wheat, because a defining characteristic of the greatest of all scientists, historically, is their willingness to question things at even the most fundamental levels -- not taking comfort in things previously "wholeheartedly supported".

    Furthermore, from whence came the requirement for a mechanism to be present before a hypothesis could be considered worthy of entertainment (neither accepted nor dismissed, mind you, just seriously entertained)? That notion is absolutely ludicrous on its face.

    And beyond that, here we are, with a "currently generally accepted theory" ENTHRONED, as if a hypothesis must first disprove a reigning theory (which has MANY problems of its own to contend with already) before it can seriously be considered (NOT embraced, not accepted, just entertained at face value on whatever merits it offers).

    No...Nahhhhh... we want everything all at once. The entire shebang. The observation, the mechanism, the whole hypothesis tied up and neatly proved, before we'll even entertain it. We will hold it to an even higher standard than a reigning incumbent theory, one that is also problematic, but will get vociferously defended, because, natch (so goes the reasoning) for one hypothesis to be correct, another must first, and necessarily, be shown to be incorrect (never once considering that BOTH may be, partially or wholly, incorrect).

    We don't even have a "mechanism" for gravity, for crying out loud! We have one relativistic explanation for it, but we also have physicists actively searching for "gravitons" (with a spin imputed to it no less). Our lack of knowledge, understanding, or even mechanisms, does not keep us from observing the obvious, from dealing with its effects, or, in the case of gravity, periodically falling on our asses.

    The plate tectonics hypothesis came about because someone happened to observe some of the most obvious similarities between some (Atlantic) continental boundaries. The hypothesis itself was advanced long before subduction was presented as a possible mechanism (one mechanism, that is - subduction alone may or may not account for the energy required to skitter plates around at random over the globe).

    The fact that plate tectonics, in my short lifetime, has gone from controversial and nearly universally rejected to later embraced with so-called "wholehearted support" seems more a testament to our own bipolarizing nature (either yer fer or agin, s'make yer choice and defend it to the end, whatever it is) than anything. It means NOTHING to What-Actually-Is-And-Always-Was, regardless of our acceptance, awareness or understanding.

    ONTO NEAL ADAMS' HYPHOTHESIS

    I wish that Neal hadn't proposed a SINGLE mechanism, as it's done little more than provide a convenient built-in strawman/red herring, distractions more than anything else, to what I consider some more-than-interesting-observations. But comes the horrible fallacy of thinking -- as if, by defeating one part of his hypothesis (the mechanism proposed), somehow the rest of the hypothesis comes tumbling down, de facto, which may not be the case at all.

    If I proposed that gravity was caused by microscopic apple bombardment, disproving this will NOT have addressed gravity, but only my proposed mechanism. Likewise, Neal proposes a "particle creation" mechanism, one that may or may not be true, but that is little more developed than than the elusive "graviton". It is not very well developed and therefore quickly and readily dismissed. But that does NOTHING to address the initial observation that prompted a search for a mechanism. And yet, I submit, with some of our greatest discoveries, and even branches of science came about, some which STILL have yet to provide mechanisms.

    It also bothers me when Neals talks about a "conspiracy of science". It's not just an unnecessary chip on shoulder, and very unscientific; it provides unnecessary fuel for whatever cognitive dissonance might be present, both lay and scientific.

    What will not go away, and what far less entertained/debated, are the most obvious, and less refutable, observations contained in his main video.

    Despite the weaknesses inherent to Neal's approach (the proffering of a mechanism, as if that was necessary, and the belligerence of his tone toward the scientific community at large), it is still possible that the earth is expanding, and/or changing the value of G at the surface, for any number of other reasons.

    How about dark matter? Could that play a part? Don't say yes or no, don't embrace or dismiss it out of hand: ENTERTAIN IT. Dark matter accounts for gravity, and is more abundant than all the physical matter in the universe. For all you know, your own body could be part dark matter. Could Earth have been accreting dark matter over time without us knowing about it, let alone measuring it? Could it permeate and interact with visible matter? Even cause it to...cough...expand? That's one plausible mechanism, and it may be completely wrong. But it's plausible. And one of many.

    Truth is, we don't understand dark matter. We don't know what it is, where it comes from, how it came to be. And furthermore, there is no beyond-ridiculous (and oh-so-artificial) requirement that some mechanism be in place for us to accept its existence. We already accept its existence because, like (and related to) gravity, the forces of dark matter are, in themselves, in evidence! It doesn't just have a mechanism, it is a mechanism. It doesn't matter if we understand it or not. It doesn't matter that we don't know what else to call it. We can detect it effects, so we know it's "there". Somewhere. Out there? Why out there? How about right here as well?

    Dark matter wasn't a search for a product of someone's over-active imagination. We came to some understanding of visible matter first, and then saw that it couldn't come anywhere close to accounting for all that was happening (like, ahem...tectonic plates, which sent us in search of subduction zones).

    Likewise, we have things going on with the surface of the earth that we don't fully understand. Ocean floors that are young and new with land masses that are orders of magnitude older, and that, for the most part -- fit together extremely wellfrom all sides but only IF you take away all the ocean floor that is young and new. On a smaller globe.

    Do we entertain that possibility? Do we even address whether or not that SIMPLE OBSERVATION is true (i.e., to what degree do they really all fit together on a smaller globe)? Wouldn't that be one logical place to begin? Let the chips fall where they may? Noooooo... We're already off and chewing on all the ramifications.

    A mechanism! A mechanism! We cry, nay, demand, before we will even examine, let alone entertain, what is often most obvious and glaring.

    Hey! Mars is going backwards at times! How is this possible? Look how Mars dances, we can't believe our eyes! Give us a mechanism! We know it must be complex (even mystical and magical). So, however convoluted the reasoning, and so long as it passes as solid and sophisticated, explain it to us, but keep our governing assumptions intact, or face the wrath. We've already been through a lot, so keep us calm and centered, well placed and well settled in our static little universe that never expands but still needs explaining. Retrograde? Perfect! Great word! Sounds like magic, works for me, now how does it happen? Must be complicated! And, if anything is uncertain, insert an Uncertainty Principle, but by all means retain all the "wholeheartedly supported" governing assumptions. Force fit everything to those. You can if you try. The foundation of everything else is, after all, fundamentally well understood. Even static, you might say. Never expanding. Easy to explain once it gets complicated enough.

    And now comes old Pangea (and subduction zones, of necessity), and plates that slide and bounce and crash willy-nilly. All the while Earth is constantly eating itself, and creating itself anew. But it's static in size, never expanding, at least there's no doubting that! No uncertainty there! Ludicrous to even think about, so perish (and ridicule, as if that meant something) the thought! The rest of it -- the sliding and dancing of continents and the existence of big supercontinent -- that's our new Retrograde, with many needed Uncertainty Principles added in for good measure. Screw Occam and his stupid Razor. We need not be uprooted, or unseated, or uncentered. After our models have done all their complex work, we'll finally be able to unravel the Dance Of the Willy Nilly Continents with certainty, and our deductive bones will be satisfied in the end that subduction zones alone were indeed the panacea that was worth defending, worth presuming, to the dismissal (and ridicule, of course) of all else.

    More than ever before, I am convinced that while knowledge and wisdom can coexist, they are not, of necessity, mutually inclusive.

    Sorry, Neals, I don't think there's a conspiracy of science here. It's just the nature of the hive. And, ironically, it is also the nature of contemporary hives to scoff and laugh at past hives. It's easy after all, because they aren't like us, doncha know. They haven't "arrived" at the pinnacle of most knowledge the way we have. After all, the very basics of the scientific community are fundamentally sound, right? Just a little more force fitting to reinforce our governing assumptions, and our understanding of the world will be as right as rain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by sdlawrence
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    ...withhold wholehearted support for a theory until the issue of mechanism is, if not resolved, at least known to some extent

    remember that evolution did not become respectable in scientific circles until Darwin had proposed a mechanism that made sense
    I'm having a verrrry difficult time with two terms thrown out here -- "respectable" and "wholehearted".

    I think it's prudent, if not purely scientific, to "withhold wholehearted support" (given it's emotionally subjective) for ANY theory, regardless how well established, respected, understood and accepted, regardless of whether or how many plausible mechanisms have been proffered and are in agreement.
    what i was trying to say is that science is a human enterprise performed by individual human beings, and as such human characteristics such as "wholehearted support" and "become respectable" when referring to the acceptance of a scientific theory are appropriate, never mind the objective merits or demerits of the theory in question

    after all, Darwin's theory of natural selection hasn't changed substantially since its inception, it was merely how its merits were perceived by scientists over time that has
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    after all, Darwin's theory of natural selection hasn't changed substantially since its inception, it was merely how its merits were perceived by scientists over time that has
    Fair enough, and a great example that deserves expansion, and not just because it strengthens my point very nicely. Perfectly, in fact, because there are direct parallels worthy of consideration:

    Darwin understood the importance of heredity for his theory, but he knew nothing of the mode of inheritance.

    - Life, the science of biology, By William Kirkwood Purves
    In other words, Darwin couldn't produce a single mechanism, but he did make some startling observations - ones that many now believe should have been obvious with hindsight. But the mechanism(s)? He left that to others, and after all this time, they're still working on them. (and no problems with natural selection here, I find the subject utterly fascinating and enlightening)

    Furthermore, from that same source:

    When Darwin proposed his theory of natural selection, he had no examples of selection operating in nature. He based his arguments of the results of selection on domesticated species.

    - Life, the science of biology, By William Kirkwood Purves
    So I would say that you are correct. While Darwin's basic theory of natural selection hasn't changed substantially, neither did it come with specific causal mechanisms, nor did it attempt to explain evolution in its entirety (as currently understood). That had/has yet to happen, even with the body of knowledge now greatly expanded. And even with our current body of knowledge, there is plenty of confusion, controversies, and competing theories -- not with lay people bashing it out over the internet, but between experts in the field. Does that falsify anything or does any of it make Darwin wrong? No. Not at all.

    The main point here is that Darwin's theory, as radical and controversial as it was at the time, was advanced solely on the basis and strength of his observations and arguments, which were strong enough to establish what was MOST obvious, with a theory that was shown to warrant further observation, experimentation and research. From thence comes all the sub-theories, all of which rise or fall on their own merits, little of which serves to attack or disprove any of Darwin's original observations.

    EVEN THEN, it turned the world of science on its head. The fact that it wasn't taught in school classrooms ten years later is neither surprising, nor would it have been appropriate. It was where it needed to be -- actively engaged by the scientific community, out on the many proving grounds that served to build the discipline, and its plethora of sub-branches, and sub-theories, today.

    So what do we have here today with regard to plate tectonics? Ironically, we have an unbelievably strong observation, like Darwin's, but it's the frigging mechanism (you know, the one that was demanded, required beforehand before we could get past what was obvious and indisputable that any child could see) that appears to be driving the entire process, and getting all the attention! The initial root observation, however, like Darwin's natural selection theory, has not substantially changed - but has in fact expanded:

    1) For nearly every shore on earth, there is very good matching mirror image of that shore somewhere else, albeit separated by water.

    That alone is pretty spectacular. We'd have to be daft not to at least consider it remarkable, no? Even worthy of investigation? And yet, from that observation, what was deduced?

    A) The matching shores were joined at some point in our geological history, and furthermore that:
    B) one or both shores must have 'moved' away the other over time."[/i]

    Even more irrefutable would be to say that they were once joined, and that 'a distance was created between them over time'.

    Either way, that much sounds right. Not just possible, or plausible. Probable. Likely. Pretty damned certain, in fact, because if I tear a piece of cereal box and leave both halves on a counter, does anyone really need to know anything about who tore it, or how it happened, to establish the fact that they were joined together at some time in the past?

    In other words, do we really need a mechanism to establish only this much as fact with a better than high degree of certainty?

    Of course not. Just like any number of other observable phenomena that occur daily and are fully accepted on face value, yet still lack satisfactory mechanisms for explanation, we can take this one on face value, and search for a mechanism from there.

    That's kind of where we're at now. The problem is, nobody's disputing the most basic governing assumption, i.e., at EACH of these land mass borders were joined together with their matching counterparts at some point in the geological past.

    That goes for every one of them. That's not in dispute. What is in dispute, or at least being questioned, is whether or not ALL of them could have been joined together at the same time. Which brings us to C:

    C) All shores were joined up with a matching counterpart at some point in geological time, but given the size of the earth, these joinings had to be at different times.

    Ugh. And there's the governing assumption that dictates the entire process.

    "Tell me about the Retrograde of Mars, but don't you DARE blaspheme and try to tell me that the sun doesn't rotate about the earth. Now, about that retrograde thingy..."

    Pangea, as a supercontinent, is like one of those early video arcade games, like Asteroid. If your space ship goes of the right side of the screen, it will appear on the left. If it disappears off into the top of screen, it will reappear from the bottom.

    Regardless how you configure Pangea as an island continent, there are borders around it with corresponding matches somewhere on the other side.

    That's a big problem! We now know (from the abundance of cross-disciplinary evidence, natural fit notwithstanding) that these boundaries were also joined at one time. Now comes the task, born of the governing assumption that they must have traveled, of constructing traveling models, so that these borders can eventually crash into each other (seamlessly, no less). Such models would be great, and could also go a long way toward explaining Oregeny.

    The problem is, the accepted (wholeheartedly supported) mechanism is not fitting so neatly together. Many of the expected numbers aren't adding up at all. The mechanism, it turns out (by many accounts, certainly not all) may be seriously flawed. Subduction, while seductive, just isn't providing the necessary energy, and many models have had to be tweaked. And there are growing numbers of defections, objections in the geoscience community, to plate tectonics theory/subduction as the answer to everything.

    We KNOW that subduction is happening. We may just not know on what scale, and it may indeed be only a part of the puzzle. It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. But regardless of the magnitude of subduction's role, we can always return to a foundation of what is not in dispute (or at least have established with a much higher degree of certainty).

    I don't care a whit about the mechanism at this point, because what I know that IS NOT controversial is really quite simple.

    1) EACH land mass boundary on earth was, at one time, joined with another, matching, land mass boundary somewhere else on earth - one that is still, for the most part, in existence; even across great distances, separated by oceans and with the passing of tens of millions of years. Still there. Still matching. The only question remains is: how and when. In other words, we lack a more "complete" mechanism.

    Is a smaller earth, one that does indeed allow the vast majority of land mass boundaries (like so many torn and reunited cardboard pieces) to easily and simultaneously fit together, at least worthy of serious examination? Is it any more outlandish, hindsight notwithstanding, than plate tectonics was early on in the last century?

    Whatever the case, that much should easy enough to falsify, right? NOT theoretically and out-of-hand dismissively from a handful of assumptions, as an excuse not to have to consider the evidence, but scientifically. Falsify the damned thing through simple observation. Let those who are willing to make a case make it. Comprehensively, and let the chips fall where they may.

    No. Not in our present scientific environment. Prevailing opinions are often found to be wrong, and have very little to do with real science, or the scientific method, but the harsh reality is that have significant impact on the politics and economics that govern science.

    I think that's changing though. Every day, in fact.

    It's only a matter of time, I think. The truth will out. This theory (only the idea that all land masses on earth were joined at one time, in the past, on a smaller globe, REGARDLESS OF THE MECHANISM) is something I believe will be seriously entertained in the not-too-distant future. If it is ultimately accepted as correct, and I accept that it may not be, all that we've learned from plate tectonics will continue to serve us in the future as well. Whether or not it continues to be enthroned as the be-all-end-all mechanism for how the continents were joined at one time doesn't mean that the time and effort was wasted.

    For the record, I believe in plate tectonics AND subduction. Just not to the extent that so many others do at this time. I also think Pangea did exist, but that the observation didn't go far enough, because I believe it wrapped all the way around on a smaller globe. I think continents did gain distance from one another, but I don't think it was primarily by way of "travel", any more than I believe galaxies are "traveling" away from one another, so much as the distance between them is increasing. Semantics? Perhaps. But I think the continents of earth are far more rooted to the surface of the earth than we've been led to believe thus far.

    But those are just my observations and opinions. Only time will tell.

    Was there anything I described as indisputable or uncontroversial that you (or anyone else) disagree or take exception?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by sdlawrence
    Was there anything I described as indisputable or uncontroversial that you (or anyone else) disagree or take exception?
    Just the part between "Fair enough" and the "take exception".

    1. From your earlier post regarding "wholehearted support" are you not being a little too cute? Any competent scientist is aware that all theories are provisional. As a rational, logical being they will acknowledge this. As a practicing scientist they will often have given "wholehearted support" to a theory because they are convinced it is compelling and superior to any alternatives. They will continue with that wholehearted support until contrary evidence emerges. As marnix has pointed out "wholehearted support" is a qualitative, subjective term applied to the emotional aspects of a scientists relationship with his subject.

    2.For nearly every shore on earth, there is very good matching mirror image of that shore somewhere else, albeit separated by water.

    I'll set aside that what you really meant was 'for nearly every edge of the continental shelf....' and note that this is not true. Where is the matching image for the Indonesian archipelago, the Japanese archipelago, the Aleutian archipelago (or any other island arc)?

    3. The plate tectonics hypothesis came about because someone happened to observe some of the most obvious similarities between some (Atlantic) continental boundaries.

    This is so simplistic it is just wrong. True, Wegner and before him Taylor and others had noted this match, but plate tectonics theory emerged from three strands -
    • 1. Observation of sea floor spreading, posited by Hess, elaborated on by Dietz and demonstrated by Mathew and Vine
      2. Polar wandering identified by the likes of Runcorn and Blackett
      3. The existence of subduction zones, pieced together from observations of earthquakes (Wadati and Benioff), negative gravity anomalies (Meinez) and low heat flow (Bullard)


    4. Expanding Earth theory appears to be falsified by the demonstrable movement of terranes prior to the formation of Pangea. Unless you can explain those then EET dies, not for want of a mechanism, but because of evidence that renders it impossible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Science aside, if you keenly observe the slag on molten metal, or the scuz on stew, I think you'll find it suggestive of plate tectonics.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I'll set aside that what you really meant was 'for nearly every edge of the continental shelf....' and note that this is not true. Where is the matching image for the Indonesian archipelago, the Japanese archipelago, the Aleutian archipelago (or any other island arc)?
    No, you didn't really set aside anything, did you, given that you brought up the Archipelagos right afterward. Young bodies, usually formed by volcanic activity and no older than the relatively young oceans they formed in. They do indeed prove exceptions to my statement about "shores" (the meaning of which was obvious to you anyway). Was that your petty semantic punishment for my failure to write "continental shelves"?

    Regardless, the existence of archipelagos have no effect on expanding earth or tectonic plate theories.

    Did you know that already? You seem like an intelligent person, I'm thinking you might have.

    Now, as to your Mechanism of Supposed Impossibility that precludes [you wanting to look at?] EET:

    4. Expanding Earth theory appears to be falsified by the demonstrable movement of terranes prior to the formation of Pangea. Unless you can explain those then EET dies, not for want of a mechanism, but because of evidence that renders it impossible.
    First of all, just to be clear, I don't, and never would, deny that continents could drift. If they can, and do, it falsifies nothing for me. You seem more of an either/or exclusionary type, but think I may be more open to all possibilities. But really there's nothing to explain, given that it "appears to be falsified" via a circular (and therefore logically flawed) argument. Emphasis in bold:

    SOURCE
    "The old terrane of Siberia occupied a very substantial area in the centre of today's political Siberia and also adjacent areas of Mongolia, eastern Kazakhstan, and northwestern China. Siberia's location within the Early Neoproterozoic Rodinia Superterrane is contentious (since few if any reliable palaeomagnetic data exist between about 1.0 Ga and 540 Ma), but Siberia probably became independent during the breakup of Rodinia soon after 800 Ma and continued to be so until very near the end of the Palaeozoic, when it became an integral part of the Pangea Supercontinent."
    1) few if any reliable palaeomagnetic data exist between about 1.0 Ga and 540 Ma

    2) Siberia's so-called "probable" prior independence/existence was all predicated upon the existence of a Rodinia, which, while there is little to no reliable paleomagnetic record, MUST be presumed to have been one of those shelves that crashed around willy nilly, until it finally drifted back and repositioned itself into Pangea, so that we could begin afresh (having gotten all that other nasty have-to-align-those-damned-things-at-some-point messy business out of the way.

    There was nothing falsified or made impossible here that I can see. EET doesn't require beforehand that there even be a place called Rodinia. That HAD to exist only to satisfy the simple/obvious condition of all prior continental shelf joins at one point -- on a planet this size -- without which ONLY the tectonic drift mechanism would be rendered impossible.

    See? All that complex hoop jumping, just to force all the pieces fit together, so that land masses could play proper tag with each other (which we know they did, but how?) on what is naturally presumed to be have been a static planet.

    And now back to the original question: Archipelagos and theoretical Rodinias aside, do you see that the requirement for all shelves connecting at one point is a necessary requirement for both theories? Or did I phrase that badly as well? Do you understand now why Rodinia was even theorized? Even without ANY reliable evidence in support (aside from the initial governing assumption of the mechanism itself?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Science aside, if you keenly observe the slag on molten metal, or the scuz on stew, I think you'll find it suggestive of plate tectonics.
    Plate tectonics is not in dispute here. Continental drift plate tectonics and a smaller past globe as the mechanisms to explain the obvious present-day fit of ancient continental shelves -- from all sides -- that's what's being discussed.

    I have no quarrel with, nor difficulty imagining, the concepts of Plate Tectonics and subduction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    I might of missed this, but how does any of the EE ideas explain what happened to the Pacific Ocean?

    People like to focus on the Atlantic - it's young and pretty and beautifully symmetrical - but where is the mid-ocean ridge in the Pacific? and what happened to the East Pacific seafloor?

    We're not just talking about a little subduction here, but a loss of surface greater than both sides of the Atlantic MOR, and which oddly enough would have been about the same age ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by sdlawrence
    Archipelagos...<snip>...do indeed prove exceptions to my statement about "shores" (the meaning of which was obvious to you anyway). Was that your petty semantic punishment for my failure to write "continental shelves"
    No. It was not a petty point (nor a petit point, since I was not seeking to embroider my response). Several persons read these threads without participating. I prefer that they leave with a precise appreciation of topics discussed. If you don't want to assist them that is your choice. I have made mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by sdlawrence
    Regardless, the existence of archipelagos have no effect on expanding earth or tectonic plate theories.
    Really? They are rather central (or peripheral, if you wish to be geographical rather than metaphorical) to plate tectonic theory. You know this so I don't understand what the comment means.
    Quote Originally Posted by sdlawrence
    You seem like an intelligent person
    Appearances can be deceptive.
    Quote Originally Posted by sdlawrence
    You seem more of an either/or exclusionary type, but think I may be more open to all possibilities.
    Let's keep it to the facts. You have no idea what I am and you may have made similar errors in assessing your own attributes.

    Your handwaving about Rodinia is simply that. The authors of the very paper you quote in support of your arguments are quite happy to discuss in detail, detail founded on thorough petrological, structural and faunal studies that Rodinia existed and was formed (and broken apart) in a complex series of move driven by plate tectonics.

    Certainly, the disagreement over exactly how this occurred is fueled in part by questionable palaeomagnetic data, but the underlying hypothesis that Rodinia existed is generally accepted, because that's where the evidence points.


    And now back to the original question: Archipelagos and theoretical Rodinias aside, do you see that the requirement for all shelves connecting at one point is a necessary requirement for both theories?
    Connection of the shelves is essential for EET.
    It is most certainly not necessary for plate tectonics. If you think it is then you don't understand the theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    I might of missed this, but how does any of the EE ideas explain what happened to the Pacific Ocean?
    Neal Adams claims that if you shrink the Earth not only does the Atlantic neatly close up, but so too does the Pacific.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    I might of missed this, but how does any of the EE ideas explain what happened to the Pacific Ocean?
    Neal Adams claims that if you shrink the Earth not only does the Atlantic neatly close up, but so too does the Pacific.
    Then Neal Adams has something of a problem, given that ~40% of the Pacific has "closed up" while all this expansion was supposed to be going on ... and what's left doesn't fit the jigsaw very well ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    I might of missed this, but how does any of the EE ideas explain what happened to the Pacific Ocean?
    Neal Adams claims that if you shrink the Earth not only does the Atlantic neatly close up, but so too does the Pacific.
    Then Neal Adams has something of a problem, given that ~40% of the Pacific has "closed up" while all this expansion was supposed to be going on ... and what's left doesn't fit the jigsaw very well ...
    Based on...oh yeah! Observation of minsicule movements taken over a handful of years and then extrapolated over millions of years using subduction models tweaked to fit the governing assumption?

    Once again, I am not among those who simply state that subduction does not occur. It does. We have observed and confirmed that it does, albeit on time and space scales that are necessarily and relatively miniscule.

    However, despite what you threw out there confidently as if it was fact (to the point of not even bothering to cite a source), I am of the opinion that "what's left" of the jigsaw pieces actually fit -- not just well, but astonishingly well, even using Hindenburg's paleoglobe from 1933.

    As for Cran's question, the answer is, "I don't know", any more than Darwin knew precisely how natural selection occurred. He'd only observed artificial selection at the time his theory was advanced. The difference is, without an acceptable driving mechanism for expansion, one that could elevate EET to an "acceptable" hypothesis, at least worthy of future study, such questions won't even be adequately addressed, and it would be silliness to dismiss them on the basis that they hadn't been. As of now, the formerly ridiculed Tectonic Drift theory is enthroned, enjoys a monopoly of attention and "wholehearted support", and as such, is fully expected to answer absolutely everything.

    In other words, we have this nasty habit of placing all our eggs in one basket. Our town aint' big enough for two theories. Too much competition. Can't even consider that both might actually play a part. No siree bob, it's one or t'other.

    Mindlessness.

    But the idea that one part of a blob could expand more, or at a different rate, than another part on the same blob? I don't find that so daunting. Ever blow up a balloon that was stiffer on one side than another? I have. Even if you haven't, try it sometime. Take a balloon, and, prior to blowing it up, stress and stretch it out on one side only. When you do blow it up, you'll see a nice big bubble emerge...predominately on one side. At first anyway.

    If expansion has occurred, then it would make sense to that internal pressures would play out and have a greater effect on the weakest areas first. I could just as easily ask why giant meteors don't strike planets on two opposing sides -- given that it would keep everything nice and in balance in my mind. The Pacific Rim also contains the famous Ring of Fire, and the most volcanic activity. Could that be a result of a past object striking the crust and making it softer, and more geologically active? Plausible to me.

    As for expansion in general -- the scientific community at large was astonished to learn, only recently, that our entire universe was expanding (and I'm not making an attempt to tie EET with that, only drawing a parallel). Not only was our universe expanding, but it was, and is, expanding at an accelerating rate. The idea that planetary matter itself could also expand, regardless of the mechanism, is not a big leap, and would not be all that surprising to me (or anyone else, I suspect) if some mechanism was discovered and confirmed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Here's how its going to be sdlawrence. I'm giving you two choices. I don't mind which one you opt for. You have total freedom in the matter.

    a) You continue your posts filled with bombast and little substance, pitching your two cent philosophy of how science should be conducted, accompanied by cynical hand waving and a readiness to take umbrage at the drop of turbidite. In that case you go onto Ignore.
    b) Cut the nonsense, focus on facts, drop the emotion and I'll debate your points in an objective manner.

    Your choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    a) You continue your posts filled with bombast and little substance, pitching your two cent philosophy of how science should be conducted, accompanied by cynical hand waving and a readiness to take umbrage at the drop of turbidite. In that case you go onto Ignore.
    b) Cut the nonsense, focus on facts, drop the emotion and I'll debate your points in an objective manner.

    Your choice.
    Well based on your characterization of me thus far - bombastic with little substance, a two cent philosophy with cynical hand waving and a readiness to take umbrage, and an awareness on my part that I have only nonsense to cut, I can't even imagine why you would want to continue discussing anything with such a one as that. Rather than agree with or attempt to interpret what you meant (as I took them to be more positioning statements anyway), let me be clear up front, and you can decide whatever course of action would be best prescribed according to your ultimatum.

    Firstly, the classic Resolved that Theory A is superior to Theory B debate is of no interest to me whatsoever. I have no well formed hypothesis or theory to advance, I am not an expert in this field, and that's not what I came here for anyway.

    I am interested in more of a discussion than an outright debate. A reasoned and considerate debate (with which I am more than willing to engage) would only be necessary, in my mind, where there was a singular point of contention, one upon which we disagreed, but both still deemed relevant to the discussion, but that prevented either of us from moving forward, or to at least discover where our continued disagreements might be.

    This subject is of great interest to me, but that interest really only centers primarily around one aspect, and that is whether or not, or how well, continental shelves around the globe actually do match with some elsewhere counterpart, and whether or not, and to what degree (other than simple geometry matching) the data support this. To that end, I am open to seeing this falsified.

    There is no well formed hypothesis at this point. It's merely a question, a point of intense curiosity, quite limited within that context, and wholly without regard to its ramifications to other theories or science in general. That is what I would like to engage and discuss with anyone here, and if that's of interest to you as well, then we have a match. If that doesn't fit in with your view of the purpose of this forum, or how debates or discussions about science ought to be conducted, then tell me what you'd like to debate, or feel free to put me on ignore, if you haven't already made that decision, not that you needed my permission anyway. No emotion to it for me either way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by sdlawrence
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    I might of missed this, but how does any of the EE ideas explain what happened to the Pacific Ocean?
    Neal Adams claims that if you shrink the Earth not only does the Atlantic neatly close up, but so too does the Pacific.
    Then Neal Adams has something of a problem, given that ~40% of the Pacific has "closed up" while all this expansion was supposed to be going on ... and what's left doesn't fit the jigsaw very well ...
    Based on...oh yeah! Observation of minsicule movements taken over a handful of years and then extrapolated over millions of years using subduction models tweaked to fit the governing assumption?
    Hardly ...

    Based on palaeomagnetic mapping of both the Pacific and Atlantic, and that the Pacific MOR is so far to the east that it's called the East Pacific Rise in the south, and all but disappears under North America ...

    Keeping in mind your point about observation and extrapolation, what are the suite of EE models based on?

    The Pacific Rim also contains the famous Ring of Fire, and the most volcanic activity. Could that be a result of a past object striking the crust and making it softer, and more geologically active? Plausible to me.
    Ignoring for the moment that we blinkered rockhounds credit the Ring of Fire to convergent tectonics, where and when would you say that this could-be past object struck the Earth to generate vulcanism coincident with much of the Pacific boundary?


    I could just as easily ask why giant meteors don't strike planets on two opposing sides -- given that it would keep everything nice and in balance in my mind.
    I'm not sure exactly what you had in mind with this, but there are both observed and speculative evidence that large impacts do affect opposing points on solid bodies in the solar system (Earth, Moon, other planetary satellites - more speculative still is that something like that also happened to Mars) ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by sdlawrence
    This subject is of great interest to me, but that interest really only centers primarily around one aspect, and that is whether or not, or how well, continental shelves around the globe actually do match with some elsewhere counterpart, and whether or not, and to what degree (other than simple geometry matching) the data support this. To that end, I am open to seeing this falsified.
    Such a discussion might be better suited for a separate thread.

    Whether your interest is justified or not is completely overshadowed by its association with the so-called expanding earth 'theory'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by sdlawrence
    This subject is of great interest to me, but that interest really only centers primarily around one aspect, and that is whether or not, or how well, continental shelves around the globe actually do match with some elsewhere counterpart, and whether or not, and to what degree (other than simple geometry matching) the data support this. To that end, I am open to seeing this falsified.
    Why do you imagine that this fit should exist? It does not follow from any current main line theory of continental origin and evolution. The only theory that appears to require it is EET.

    The absence of this fit would falsify EET.
    The presence of this fit would not falsify PT.

    As the promoter of the concept (matching continental margins) it up to you to demonstrate it, not up to us to falsify it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Why do you imagine that this fit should exist? It does not follow from any current main line theory of continental origin and evolution. The only theory that appears to require it is EET.

    The absence of this fit would falsify EET.
    The presence of this fit would not falsify PT.

    As the promoter of the concept (matching continental margins) it up to you to demonstrate it, not up to us to falsify it.
    1) I imagine that this fit might (not should) exist because it appears that many conformities have already been found, which are acknowledged already by the scientific community, some of which (coincidentally, I don't care) present problems for PT. (see below)

    2) I'm not out to falsify PT, subduction, or anything else. They are, like anything else, mere chips that can fall wherever they may as a matter of course. (remember what I wrote about absolutely zero interest in "Resolved that Theory A is superior to Theory B"?).

    3) I'm not a "promoter" of a concept, (remember what I wrote about not having any well formed hypothesis to advance?) I'm merely inquiring, interested, and looking for information and different points of view. If I am promoting or challenging anything, it would only be the notion that something need not be seriously considered, because it's somehow been disproved/discredited/already shown to be impossible/yada yada by some plank of another prevailing or 'well accepted' theory.

    The question of variability of the volume and/or mass of the Earth (over the past billion years or so) is intriguing to me. It's certainly not my area of expertise, just something I continue to explore with great interest.

    At any rate, I've found what I think is a decent starting point for me, and what may be a better starting point for discussion here.

    G. Scalera: The expanding Earth: a sound idea for the new millennium

    You may already be familiar with it. I am not. I won't post any more until I've at least read and digested that much. Any other suggested reading or starting points while I'm at it are most welcome and appreciated.

    Edited to show the added list of things I'm now reading, and may be referencing here later:

    Fossils, frogs, floating islands and expanding Earth in changing-radius cartographyA comment to a discussion on Journal of Biogeography
    (on the still unresolved problem of disjointed distribution of fossils on the opposite coasts of the Pacific (Scalera, 2001; McCarthy, 2003, 2005; Briggs, 2003, 2004, 2006; Ali, 2006)
    - Giancarlo Scalera, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Roma, Italy

    LINK to pdf file: http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstrea.../07scalera.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    All of the recent expanding earth theories appear to have been stolen from groundbreaking theoretical work done by myself and a couple of confederates at the Darwin awards forum several years ago.

    We undertook our efforts, crowned eventually with success, during an ongoing discussion there about some major events of Earth's geological history that have been neglected by science, in spite of the fact that they totally happened scientifically. The major events we set out to explain were the Noachian Flood, and subsequent dispersal of the major taxa of animals from the resting position of Noah's Ark to the far continents of the planet. Our explanation also, so good and complete it was, explained the large size of the earlier animals, the jigsaw fitting of the continents, the longer lifespan of the early humans, the aerial abilities of the angels of the time not seen since, the ice cap on Antarctica, and many other formerly difficult mysteries.

    Briefly (for a more complete account search the Forum archives), it as as follows: The Earth was smaller, with lighter gravity and bigger, happier, sinless animals, etc. There were no oceans as we know them. Then a very large but very slow (relative to the planet) comet made of ice caught up from behind , and gently engaged the Earth, striking what is now Antarctica. The subsequent very heavy rain covered the planet in water, which as it soaked in caused the Earth to swell up, driving he continents apart. The remaining water pooled in the gaps and fissures between the bigger pieces, and added more gravity.

    Note that our theory provides a mechanism, and aligns with modern geological findings, such as lots of water soaked into the Earth's mantle etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I thought we had an agreement to deal in facts. I've edited your post to reflect these.
    Quote Originally Posted by sdlawrence
    1) I imagine that this fit might (not should) exist because it appears that many conformities have already been found, which are acknowledged already by the scientific community, some of which (coincidentally, I don't care) present problems for PT. (see below)

    I've found what I think ...may be a better starting point for discussion here.

    G. Scalera: The expanding Earth: a sound idea for the new millennium

    You may already be familiar with it. I am not. I won't post any more until I've at least read and digested that much. Any other suggested reading or starting points while I'm at it are most welcome and appreciated.

    Edited to show the added list of things I'm now reading, and may be referencing here later:

    Fossils, frogs, floating islands and expanding Earth in changing-radius cartographyA comment to a discussion on Journal of Biogeography
    (on the still unresolved problem of disjointed distribution of fossils on the opposite coasts of the Pacific (Scalera, 2001; McCarthy, 2003, 2005; Briggs, 2003, 2004, 2006; Ali, 2006)
    - Giancarlo Scalera, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Roma, Italy

    LINK to pdf file: http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstrea.../07scalera.pdf
    You have still not established, or at least made clear a logical chain that establishes why a fit of all continental margins should exist simply because some margins match. Please do so.

    You acknowledged earlier that the presence of new island arcs disrupted possible matches. How then do you expect any match to exist when all previous island arcs are taken into account?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I thought we had an agreement to deal in facts. I've edited your post to reflect these.

    You have still not established, or at least made clear a logical chain that establishes why a fit of all continental margins should exist simply because some margins match. Please do so.
    Speaking of dealing in facts, quid pro quo, shouldn't that include the actual content of our discussion? To wit:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    You acknowledged earlier that the presence of new island arcs disrupted possible matches.
    No. I didn't. Is that your idea of a fact? What I did state, and verbatim, was that they "...have no effect on expanding earth theories..." (too bad I jumped the gun and included PT - I stand corrected on that point, Cran)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    How then do you expect any match to exist when all previous island arcs are taken into account?
    That's easy, even with my limited knowledge at this point. Let's take most of them into account right now.

    If subsequent expansion of a smaller past earth was primarily responsible for the distance between continental shelves facing into the Pacific, then most of the island arcs you referenced (given their relatively young geological ages) would have come into existence, popping up like so many festering pimples, sometime after the shelves separated. In their wake, so to speak.

    If we went backward in time, and watched as the shelves drew closer together, we would see most of the archipelagos disappear, or "get out of the way", one by one, at varying points in time, long before those shelves closed up.

    Go half a million years back (under any theory) and we'd see the big Island of Hawaii sink into the ocean floor and disappear. Within a mere five million years we would see all the islands in that chain, including the oldest, Kauai and Ni'ihau, bow down and follow suit, sunken and out of sight, like they never existed, long before any significant gap closure in the Pacific.

    The same goes for the Aleutian Islands which are less than forty million years old, and most other island arcs, most of which are of volcanic origin, and would not even have existed more than 200 million years ago.

    But what about those bits and pieces jutting out of the oceans that aren't of volcanic origin? The Japanese archipelago that you mentioned is among the youngest on earth, but there are also parts of Japan that are known to have broken off from, and were therefore part of, its neighboring continental shelf. Regardless if the distances between parts of Japan and its parent continent were created by plate drift or seafloor expansion, that would obviously need to be accounted for when looking for a fit. But why would that disrupt anything? What am I missing here?

    Whatever the land mass, be it the tiniest island or major landmass, if it was formed on or from continental crust, that's what you would count as a shelf boundary and include when looking for a fit, no differently than with the British Isles or any other land mass then extant when attempting a reconstruction.

    Where's the problem?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    So-called "expanding Earth theory" is pseudoscience. Hence, the new home for this thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    So-called "expanding Earth theory" is pseudoscience. Hence, the new home for this thread.
    Thank you for your edict, Lord Kelvin. It turns out you were right about X-Rays as well, they truly are a hoax.

    Now that you've made the pronouncement and set the record straight on what isn't science, I guess there's nothing more for me to discuss here.

    Enjoy your site, Administrator Skinwalker.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    It's also important to point out that for several years now, satellites have been monitoring the geography of Earth with surprising accuracy. What's been seen is that the plates are indeed moving at about one to four centimeters per year. What hasn't been seen is any growth which, according to Mr. Adams' "theory", should be happening at about the same speed. So really, plate tectonics has been directly observed while all EET has had to go on are a few subjective observations and some contrived computer animations.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    There are two problems with this:

    1) We're discussing processes that take place over tens, even hundreds of millions of years, not several.
    2) Your argument assumes that if expansion has occurred, that it must be a) constant, and b) still occurring and observable within the past few years.
    3) Even if the data over "the past several years" showed obvious radius contraction, and not expansion, that would not rule out expansion. That would be like taking a few high speed shots of a basketball as it's dribbled to the floor of a court, observing that it is flattening out, and concluding, on that frame of reference alone, that the ball was only in the process of deflating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    It's also important to point out that for several years now, satellites have been monitoring the geography of Earth with surprising accuracy.
    Yes, about the surprising accuracy of that data:

    So-called errors that could have been explained by expansion were instead interpreted as an "annual contraction of baselines", or the distance between two stations, since a fixed radius has always been assumed.

    EXCERPT: (emphasis mine)

    Differences in the Recent
    The two conceptions, constant and variable radius, are nearly coincident for the Recent situation and plate kinematics – the more conspicuous differences arise in the analysis of the Pacific Hemisphere. The GPS (Global Positioning System) and VLBI (Very Long Baseline Interpherometry) data are generally analysed without taking into account a possible increase of the Earth’s radius.

    A global analysis performed by Heki et al. (1989) has given as a result a generalized annual contraction of the VLBI baselines, proportional to the baseline length. This can be easily explained by an increase of the radius because such a radius increase, if not inserted into the computation, is underhandly equivalent to a decreasing of the geocentric angle between the two stations, and erroneously interpreted as a contraction of their distance.

    Gerasimenko (1993) has accurately selected the sites of GPS and VLBI geodetic stations, discarding the stations on orogenetic locations, and – leaving the radius as a free parameter – has obtained an annual radius increase of 4 mm/year.

    While on the basis of my palaeogeographical reconstructions the mean annual radius increase is of nearly 1.5 cm/y, the new awareness of the Earth today in a minimum of its sea-floor half spreading rate (McElhinny and McFadden, 2000) could support an expansion rate of only a few millimetres per year, in agreement with the Gerasimenko results.
    Scalera goes on to write:

    In my opinion the impossibility of detecting the Earth’s expansion from the Nasa chords can come from a basic problem in Nasa’s chords themselves. As explained in Fig.1, if the observer computations, based on the angular VLBI raw data, are performed without taking into account the radius gradient, a spurious
    contraction of the chords is overimposed on the real Earth’s expansion. It is evident that a vicious circle, difficult to avoid, is present, and that a new computation methodology should be found.


    SOURCE:
    The expanding Earth: a sound idea for the new millennium
    Giancarlo Scalera, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia

    NOTE TO ADMINISTRATOR:

    Dr. G. Scalera of the National Instutite of Geophysics and Vulcanology in Rome, as well other respected scientists all around the globe represent a minority opinion and position in science with regard to EET. But that does not make it "pseudoscience" as you've declared. Marginalizing something in this way, by simply labeling and dismissively positioning this as pseudoscience -- that is akin to argument by ridicule, a logical fallacy, and the only real pseudoscience that I see at play here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Problems (I see) with expanding earth theory:

    1)Where is all the extra volume coming from?

    2)If the earth was smaller by the amount needed for one continuous continent, the G value on the surface would have been MUCH higher than it is now. Heard of Sauropods? The fossil evidence does not point towards a radically larger G value in this planet's history.

    3)If G was constant it would require the creation of extra matter from thin air. Accretion cannot account for this.

    4)If there was one big, earth spanning supercontinent, where did mountains come from? And if they came after expansion started, would the earth not have been one huge shallow see?

    5)Etc.
    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  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I object to the move of this thread to pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is about methodology. Everything that sdlawrence has presented so far has been offered according to proper scientific methodology.

    It is true that he has not, as yet, offered no peer reviewed research to support his contentions, but that is irrelevant. Unless he starts claiming EET is true because he says it is this should be moved back to Earth Science.

    I do not like sdlawrences posting style, or attitude, but when he deals in facts he is using a scientific approach. That ought to be worth something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    I applaud the move.

    If people feel there is something lacking in tectonics, they'd benefit from starting a separate thread with their concerns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    1)Where is all the extra volume coming from?
    Did you mean volume and/or mass? An increase of the radius would have to mean an increase in one or both, assuming a constant value of G.

    The answer is: I don't know. But that means little, and doesn't rule anything out.

    Consider what we don't know about our universe today. There doesn't seem to be enough luminous mass in rotating galaxies (including our own) for their gravitational fields to keep them from literally flying apart (although MOND offers an explanation, but it's about as accepted as EET).

    Nevertheless, we still don't know why. But simply not knowing rules nothing out.

    So, again, enter "dark matter", whatever that is, that we conclude must be many more times prevalent (or powerful) than visible matter. So, where does all that elusive stuff come from?

    We don't know. But that doesn't rule out its existence -- even on, in or around the earth.

    Since dark matter seems to prove more the rule than the exception in the universe, what could possibly cause us to conclude with any degree of certainty that the Earth, or our own solar system, was somehow an exception?

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    2)If the earth was smaller by the amount needed for one continuous continent, the G value on the surface would have been MUCH higher than it is now. Heard of Sauropods? The fossil evidence does not point towards a radically larger G value in this planet's history.
    Once again, that assumes an increase in volume alone. An increase in mass (or G over time, if we're open to that possibility, given that our universe is not only expanding, but accelerating in its expansion - again, for reasons unknown) would mean that G in the past would have been radically smaller -- not larger -- which could then explain rather nicely things like the rarity of observed tail-dragging tracks in the fossil data taken from sites near giant sauropods. Likewise monster dragonflies, with their two meter wingspans, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    3)If G was constant it would require the creation of extra matter from thin air. Accretion cannot account for this.
    Once again, we already have a proof of concept in dark matter, since the value of G for rotating galaxies indicates much more than the amount of measurable mass.

    Out of less than thin air. Would it be so startling to learn that the same phenomena exists - even variably - in our own neck of the woods? That's not a hypothesis on my part, just one plausible explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    4)If there was one big, earth spanning supercontinent, where did mountains come from? And if they came after expansion started, would the earth not have been one huge shallow see?
    The surface of any sphere becomes flatter relative to its former surface with any increase in diameter. Any rigid material on that surface during expansion would necessarily undergo serious deformation.

    For an exaggerated visualization: Take half of a large hollow orange peel and place that peel onto a cantaloupe. Push down, flattening the peel so that it fits as completely onto the larger surface as possible. This can't be done without serious deformation - folding, bending, wrinkling -- mountaining. You can force a given part of the peel down, so that it conforms to the surface, but that's only going to increase the overall amplitude of deformation for the remaining parts.

    As for the oceans, or whether the earth would have been nothing but one big shallow sea? I don't know. It's my understanding that all life on earth started out in, and was dependent upon, water. Human females still carry a tiny shallow sea around with them during pregnancy, as amniotic fluid has the same basic mineral composition as seawater. So why would it surprise me to learn that the entire Earth was at one time covered in it? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by tenderheart bear
    If people feel there is something lacking in tectonics, they'd benefit from starting a separate thread with their concerns.
    It was Neal Adams' videos on YouTube that prompted my interest in this subject. That is the title of this (once dormant) thread, so here I am, and I think it is the right one.

    I didn't join this forum, or this thread, to express problems with plate tectonics. It's the possibility of an expanding earth that holds my interest, plate tectonics notwithstanding. I don't even find them mutually exclusive propositions at this point. The fact that PT is embraced so well by so many (today anyway) as the answer to everything is absolutely incidental.

    And for the record, I have offered some peer reviewed material. Not from a majority position, to be sure, but the source is both scientifically based and peer reviewed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    What would you say, sdlawrence, if we had a distinctive terrane west of the Rockies, which we currently believe to be remains of a continent, and we were able to image the subducted and molten fringes of that terrane beneath the Earth's crust and stretching as far as the Atlantic?

    The technology is called seismic tomography. It's kinda like a CAT scan of Earth. Subducting plates show up nicely and carry on a long way before completely dissolved.

    The only way EE could make sense of that, is to say the plates coalesce in deep magma and gradually resolve into hard sheets as they feed up to the surface. Kinda like regurgitating cud and spitting out whole potato chips.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    What would you say, sdlawrence, if we had a distinctive terrane west of the Rockies, which we currently believe to be remains of a continent, and we were able to image the subducted and molten fringes of that terrane beneath the Earth's crust and stretching as far as the Atlantic?

    The technology is called seismic tomography. It's kinda like a CAT scan of Earth. Subducting plates show up nicely and carry on a long way before completely dissolved.

    The only way EE could make sense of that, is to say the plates coalesce in deep magma and gradually resolve into hard sheets as they feed up to the surface. Kinda like regurgitating cud and spitting out whole potato chips.
    Again, to this moment I've only read a few pieces of peer reviewed material on the subject, but it just so happens that seismic tomography was addressed in the the very piece I quoted from earlier, wherein Dr. Scalera cites problems with some of the latest tomographic models:

    Certainly the expanding Earth subduction process is at
    variance with the plate tectonic concept. While the many thousands
    of kilometres (up to more than a hemisphere: the Pantalassa) of
    subduction admitted in plate tectonics is unacceptable, few hundreds
    of kilometres of subduction could not disturb expansion tectonics.

    But the more recent high-resolution global mantle tomographic
    models (Fukao et al. 2001) provide images of subduction
    zones very different from the expected ones. The narrow high
    velocity zones under the Asiatic circum-Pacific arcs appear not
    prolonged toward the lower mantle but deflected horizontally
    into or under the 400-700km transition zone, and a horizontal
    flow must be admitted (Fukao et al. 2001). In some cases the leading
    edge of the cold ‘slab’ appears to have an upward tendency.
    In this new imaging, the total length of the deformed ‘subducted
    slab’ does not exceed a thousand kilometres and the problem arises
    of why this system appears so strongly blocked (Fukao et al.
    2001). This is at variance with rheological theoretical simulation
    (Ranalli, 2000; Ranalli et al., 2000) of a subducing oceanic slab
    which, when it reaches the depth of 700 km, its own increasing
    downgoing buoyancy being able to drive the slab towards the
    bottom of the mantle. Moreover laboratory scale experiments
    (Faccenna, 2000) with different kind of slabs (stiff or weak) show
    that stiff slabs tend to curl like wood shavings not in agreement
    with the Benioff zone geometry. Weak slabs tend to initiate retrograde
    subduction, with retrograde trench migrations and an opening
    of the back-arc basins proportional to the backing of the trenches.
    All things that suggest a limited extent of subduction, and a too
    delicate equilibrium among rheological parameters which the
    actual Earth cannot easily fulfil.

    Concomitant high resolution imaging of the mantle plumes
    under the major hot spots (Rhodes and Davies, 2001) shows that
    the plumes can be followed up to at least 800 km nearly vertically
    in the mantle, without the strong deviation from the vertical
    that should impose a convective circulation. The interpretation of
    these new results in the expanding Earth theory could be simpler:
    a thousand kilometres is the maximum length the ‘subduction’ (if
    any) has covered from Triassic to the present time. On these
    bases, in more radical views, the subduction process should be
    heavily revised or replaced with a new concept closer to reality,
    and probably all the plate tectonics paradigm should be deeply
    transformed in a more general view on other philosophical foundations.
    Possible non-subductive models can be proposed (Chudinov,
    1998; Scalera, 1994, 1998) in describing the trench-arc-backarc
    zones.
    Again, it doesn't appear to me as as a question of subduction and plate drift versus expansion, but only the extent to which a single mechanism can be used to ascribe attribution for everything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Here is an abstract of a paper I've just come across, and am thinking of buying. It's written by Paul D. Lowman Jr., Geophysics Branch, Goddard Space Flight Center, who makes some (of what I consider to be) rather bold claims.

    It's obviously peer reviewed, and not by an EET proponent. The author appears to believes that subduction is a major driving force, but that continental drift is virtually non-existent. I want to find out which of the following statements, made in the abstract, are controversial and in dispute, versus which are mere statements of fact:

    1) Continental drift has not yet been geodetically demonstrated (is this true?)
    2) The geologic evidence for it has been repeatedly challenged or refuted
    3) Absence of the low-velocity zone under Shields
    4) Deep continental lithospheric roots
    5) Absence of continental hot-spot trails
    6) Absence of significant offset between Greenland and Ellesmere Island
    7) Internal contradictions in paleomagnetic data, and between paleomagnetic and paleogeographic data
    8) Cenozoic tectonism and horizontal compression at supposed passive margins
    9) Absence of an adequate plate-driving force for plates with continental (non-subductable) leading edges.

    Loman's claim (what he calls the Testable Hypothesis), is found in in the last paragraph, which seems to tie into what I quoted regarding the measurement findings when only geodetic measurements are taken into account:

    The hypothesis of plate tectonics with fixed continents predicts that high-precision geodetic measurements now in progress will find no separation of Eurasia and North America no matter how long they are continued. It implies some form of slow subduction at supposed passive margins such as the east coast of North America.
    Is he saying, in essence, that the continents are sitting in fixed positions as oceanic crust undergoes subduction and recycles around them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    I do not like sdlawrences posting style, or attitude...
    Noted, thank you, I'll watch that in the future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,270
    Quote Originally Posted by sdlawrence
    Once again, that assumes an increase in volume alone. An increase in mass (or G over time, if we're open to that possibility, given that our universe is not only expanding, but accelerating in its expansion - again, for reasons unknown) would mean that G in the past would have been radically smaller -- not larger -- which could then explain rather nicely things like the rarity of observed tail-dragging tracks in the fossil data taken from sites near giant sauropods. Likewise monster dragonflies, with their two meter wingspans, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
    You meant to say complete lack of tail dragging trace fossils right? Please look beyond 19th century reconstructions of sauropods. The anatomical structure of the Sauropod, and for that matter, almost all dinosaur families, was such that the tail was held out stiff in the air and had very little flexibility.

    Why is a lower gravity needed to explain large insect genera, when we have albatross and condor flying around in today's gravity.

    and what is ad nauseum supposed to mean considering the two given examples are both explained using current knowledge and without EE.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Scalera
    the plumes can be followed up to at least 800 km nearly vertically in the mantle, without the strong deviation from the vertical that should impose a convective circulation.
    I think he's saying that convections would blow the plumes horizontally. But if the plumes are vertical convections then they'd go up, like flame.

    Personally I'm unimpressed by the theory of current-driven plates. I guess that reduced gravitational buoyancy at depth, and crustal weight imbalances, may be keys to the puzzle... but don't ask for cogent hypothesis on that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Scalera
    The interpretation of these new results in the expanding Earth theory could be simpler: a thousand kilometres is the maximum length the ‘subduction’ (if any) has covered from Triassic to the present time.
    So if he surveyed an old dirt road that trails off into bush, he'd think the historic road started just where he lost it? And it's only as old as the oldest tree?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    You meant to say complete lack of tail dragging trace fossils right? Please look beyond 19th century reconstructions of sauropods.
    No, I really meant rarity, which is why I wrote rarity. Having never seen a 19th century sauropod reconstruction (bet those look pretty cool), I just had to go by what's been in the recent dinosaur news. "Four separate types of tracks have been identified at the trample site along with some very rare dinosaur tail-drag marks."

    I just took their word for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Why is a lower gravity needed to explain large insect genera, when we have albatross and condor flying around in today's gravity.

    and what is ad nauseum supposed to mean considering the two given examples are both explained using current knowledge and without EE.
    I wasn't referring to the aerodynamics, per se, but rather noting the obvious - the widespread spectacular giantism that prevailed in the past - not just with dinosaurs, but throughout Earth's entire paleobiodomain. IF Earth's gravity was lower in the past, for whatever reason, it would certainly explain a lot. To me, at least. If it wasn't, then we look elsewhere for reasons. If it's your opinion that it's all perfectly explainable by some other mechanism(s), and without lower gravity, EET, or anything else, and you're satisfied that the matter doesn't need to be investigated any further, I won't argue with you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Scalera
    the plumes can be followed up to at least 800 km nearly vertically in the mantle, without the strong deviation from the vertical that should impose a convective circulation.
    I think he's saying that convections would blow the plumes horizontally. But if the plumes are vertical convections then they'd go up, like flame.

    Personally I'm unimpressed by the theory of current-driven plates. I guess that reduced gravitational buoyancy at depth, and crustal weight imbalances, may be keys to the puzzle... but don't ask for cogent hypothesis on that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Scalera
    The interpretation of these new results in the expanding Earth theory could be simpler: a thousand kilometres is the maximum length the ‘subduction’ (if any) has covered from Triassic to the present time.
    So if he surveyed an old dirt road that trails off into bush, he'd think the historic road started just where he lost it? And it's only as old as the oldest tree?
    You're way up on me all the way around here. I have no idea what he's talking about along those lines, including how the plumes should have behaved, or how to interpret any of that. I just note that he's questioning the data, and pointing out that they are not what was predicted by models. Did it seem to you like he's splitting hairs?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,270
    Quote Originally Posted by sdlawrence
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    You meant to say complete lack of tail dragging trace fossils right? Please look beyond 19th century reconstructions of sauropods.
    No, I really meant rarity, which is why I wrote rarity. Having never seen a 19th century sauropod reconstruction (bet those look pretty cool), I just had to go by what's been in the recent dinosaur news. "Four separate types of tracks have been identified at the trample site along with some very rare dinosaur tail-drag marks."

    I just took their word for it.
    I read the blog and note that the creator of the tracks is not identified to more then dinosaur, and there appears to be controversy over them even being tracks at all.

    Everyone who has seen Fantasia or similar has seen the 19 century sauropods, big, gray, lizard like creatures that hung out in swamps a lot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Everyone who has seen Fantasia or similar has seen the 19 century sauropods, big, gray, lizard like creatures that hung out in swamps a lot
    I take it back then, I've seen tons of those. Every B grade movie I watched as a kid that had dinosaurs in it were pretty much like that. Giant "dinosaur" comes up the beach threatening the humans, which was really just an iguana or other lizard shot up close and in slow motion.

    I've had only two thoughts about the giant sauropods. One, that they might have lived most, if not all of their lives in shallow waters, like the hippopotamus today, entire bodies supported by the buoyancy. The other is that gravity might have been considerably less (no mechanism for that, just less for whatever reason). I note by your name and recent posts that you're a dinosaur buff of some kind. I'm not, I'm just fascinated by them. Do you have any thoughts about why animals of all kingdoms are so much smaller today compared to back then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Did you mean volume and/or mass?
    I meant volume. One hypothesis is that a phase change is occurring the the earth's innards, whereby liquid rock, in the process of solidifying, expands qualitatively similar to how water expands when it freezes. If that were the case, then the earths mass would remain constant.

    Once again, that assumes an increase in volume alone. An increase in mass (or G over time, if we're open to that possibility, given that our universe is not only expanding, but accelerating in its expansion - again, for reasons unknown) would mean that G in the past would have been radically smaller -- not larger -- which could then explain rather nicely things like the rarity of observed tail-dragging tracks in the fossil data taken from sites near giant sauropods. Likewise monster dragonflies, with their two meter wingspans, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
    Sorry, I meant g (surface gravity) instead of G (gravitational constant). If the earth's mass remained constant and shrank to the size predicted by taking away most of the ocean surface, then the surface gravity would have been much stronger due to gravity's inverse square nature.


    Once again, we already have a proof of concept in dark matter, since the value of G for rotating galaxies indicates much more than the amount of measurable mass.
    It looks like you have been using G incorrectly as well. Anyway, dark matter is more of a gap in knowledge than a part of it. The outer bits of galaxies rotate too fast for the gravity from observable matter to account for. Extra mass is needed, but we can't see any, so we call it dark matter. For now. If it exists we don't know anything about it other than that it reacts with normal matter via gravity, but nothing else as far as we can tell. Any assigned properties other than those are extra and you might as well in principle invent anything you want to fill gaps in theory.

    For instance, lets say dark matter has been adding to the earth's mass over time. The problem is that that would not account for expansion, since, again, dark matter does not add to the volume of matter. It permeates it.


    For an exaggerated visualization: Take half of a large hollow orange peel and place that peel onto a cantaloupe. Push down, flattening the peel so that it fits as completely onto the larger surface as possible. This can't be done without serious deformation - folding, bending, wrinkling -- mountaining. You can force a given part of the peel down, so that it conforms to the surface, but that's only going to increase the overall amplitude of deformation for the remaining parts.
    I don't quite see why mountains would form when expansion tend to stretch out wrinkles. The only mountains that could form during such a period would be volcanic ones, AFAIK. Imagine a balloon covered by a wrinkled tin foil sphere. Inflating the balloon would flatten wrinkles, not create them. I brought up mountains, because we have direct evidence of tectonic activity creating mountains, like the Himalayas created by the Indo-Australian Plate colliding with the Eurasian Plate, starting around 70 Mya. Fossil evidence also points towards continental plate separation long into the past.


    As for the oceans, or whether the earth would have been nothing but one big shallow sea? I don't know. It's my understanding that all life on earth started out in, and was dependent upon, water. Human females still carry a tiny shallow sea around with them during pregnancy, as amniotic fluid has the same basic mineral composition as seawater. So why would it surprise me to learn that the entire Earth was at one time covered in it? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
    It can create a time line problem. There is a huge fossil record of land animals and they were deposited in all kinds of non-volcanic terrains. I might be wrong about that volcanic land mass would have been the only available though.
    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  
     

  83. #82  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by tenderheart bear
    I applaud the move.

    If people feel there is something lacking in tectonics, they'd benefit from starting a separate thread with their concerns.
    I noted in an earlier post that I had received infractions at another forum for reviewing the history of EET, while making it perfectly clear I was opposed to it. I didn't like that experience. I don't like this move.

    No specific hypothesis is pseudoscience, it is the manner in which it is supported that makes it pseudoscience. EET has been discarded by mainstream geology for three decades. I believe that to be the correct position.

    However, I am perfectly ready to entertain the possibility that there may be some elements of truth to EET. When this is proposed in a scientific manner along with a) supporting evidence, b) evidence of weaknesses in plate tectonic theory, or c) experiments/observations that could test/falsify EET, then I certainly do not consider it to be pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    First off, you're right, I used G incorrectly with relation to galaxies. I meant g.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    For instance, lets say dark matter has been adding to the earth's mass over time. The problem is that that would not account for expansion, since, again, dark matter does not add to the volume of matter. It permeates it.
    Good point...and as far as we know, of course. The problem is that we only have contemporary volumes sizes to observe, and they're all assumed to be essentially static (barring some other well known force). Then again, what if dark matter did interact physically? But I digest. ::: burp :::

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I don't quite see why mountains would form when expansion tend to stretch out wrinkles.
    I think the only way continental crust would tend to smooth out is if it was elastic, or plastic, while adhering to the mantle below as it stretched (that's assuming mantle below stretched).

    Under expansion, the cooled crust wouldn't expand; it might fracture, slide, fold, or simply remain rooted, but only the surrounding sea floor would actually expand as as it spread outward, increasing the distance of plates one from another In that scenario substantial gravitational smoothing could only take place on the spreading sea floor prior to cooling. The crust, now cooled, brittle and form fitted to a greater curvature would now have to adhere (fall/flatten) onto the flatter surface, into a lesser surface area below.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Imagine a balloon covered by a wrinkled tin foil sphere. Inflating the balloon would flatten wrinkles, not create them.
    Let's try that one a little differently:

    Imagine a large balloon, but only inflated to the size of a softball to begin with. Cover one hemisphere of it with a very smooth (not wrinkled) perfectly fitting dome of foil on top as one hemisphere.

    Now start inflating the balloon to twice its initial size. As the balloon gets larger the foil hemisphere would tend to either tear or pop off, so with each inflating breath, stop to press that curved foil dome back down into place (to simulate constant gravity) on the increased, and now flatter, surface area. There would be no smoothing at all, save on the elastic balloon itself. It would be all wrinkles, as you'd be collapsing an arch from its center.

    Now let's say we super-glued the outer edges of the foil hemisphere to the balloon, so that it couldn't pop off. What would happen? It would tear in random places, like so many continents. No problem, keep blowing it up and pressing down the remaining pieces. Each of which would have some wrinkles.

    And remember also that we're actually talking about relatively small surface area deformation, when we consider just how smooth Earth appears from space.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I brought up mountains, because we have direct evidence of tectonic activity creating mountains, like the Himalayas created by the Indo-Australian Plate colliding with the Eurasian Plate, starting around 70 Mya. Fossil evidence also points towards continental plate separation long into the past.
    From what I understand so far, it looks like the energy required for Indo-Australian Plate to have created the Tibetan Plateau has been questioned quite a bit. It looks somewhat controversial to me from what I'm gleaning. But I wouldn't have any way of verifying any of that, and if numerical simulations are involved, I'd lost altogether, easily double-talked into having to take someone's word for things I can't comprehend. At this point the fossil record is something I can definitely look at and understand a lot better, so more interest there for me right now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    a few niggling points in no particular order -

    there's been a lack of distinction between "variable radius" (which is fully integrated into PT, and consumes no small amount of study and resources) and "expansion" (which, whether "fast", "slow" or "episodic", argues a one-way trend) - the "fixed radius" proposition has never been an element of PT, at least not since the 1970s, and is too often misapplied ...

    the argument about continental shelves fitting on all sides only works if it can be shown that all of the rifts are of comparable age - if the rift is more than 500 million years old (eg, the North America-Australia rift at 1100-800 ma), then it represents the separation of an earlier supercontinent ...

    the oldest parts of the continents - the cratons - are themselves the accumulated results of subduction and island arc processes (once a decade, Australia hosts an international symposium on Archaean geology, and the proceedings are published) ...

    continental crust is plastic at depth - ie, it can (and does) stretch and bend and fold, rather than fracture in same manner as the upper layers; this is shown in mapping of faults (which show as flat planes near surface, and then curve and disappear at depth), and in a whole suite of metamorphic rocks ...

    no amount of pulling apart is going to result in reverse faults or overthrust faults ...

    mantle plumes may well arise from mantle convection, but are dynamically independent - analogous examples can be found in ocean eddies, atmospheric eddies (from dust devils to tornados), and even in wildfires (as spinning vertical columns of fire) ...

    continental hot spots are not common - the best known example, Yellowstone, has been studied and its relative position traced over time ...

    the question about whether subducting slabs could penetrate the lower mantle was resolved in the 1990s - why some do and some don't is still being investigated, as far as I know ...

    I'm not aware of any controversy or unusual claims regarding the formation of the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau, whether disputing the marine fossil finds, arguing the underplating of the plateau, or challenging the mapped progressive uplift of the Cretaceous Tethyan embayment ...

    The expressed incredulity about Panthalassa is a surprising, given what we know about the Pacific ...

    Biological gigantism and dwarfism turn up in every geological age - including the Holocene (Present) ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Those "few niggling points" gave me a lot of good stuff to chew on. I didn't know that about that age of the older rifts. Cheers Cran.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    you're welcome, sdlawrence -

    as far as EE goes, if you filter out the overly extreme claims*, and identify the unsupported generalisations and hand-waving (on both sides), you'll find that the disputes between EE and PT come down to scale, timing, and dominance issues ...

    * eg, claims of radius doubling (meaning volume increases eightfold) ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Can anyone tell me if there's a scientific or commonly used name for this?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    a data point ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    a data point ...
    OK, that made me laugh!

    I was in a Chinese restaurant about thirty years ago and was served a bowl of egg flower soup. I didn't know what it was called at the time, or that it was eggs floating in the soup, so I pointed straight down to a large piece of egg white floating in the bowl and asked the waiter, "What is that?"

    The Chinese waiter paused, looked at me like I was an idiot and said, "Soup."

    There may be no official term for it, and probably doesn't need to be. I was thinking of them as platelets, but the overlays for the crustal age maps refer to them simply as isochrons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by sdlawrence
    ...

    There may be no official term for it, and probably doesn't need to be. I was thinking of them as platelets, but the overlays for the crustal age maps refer to them simply as isochrons.
    I think you'll be disappointed -
    the isochrons are the dark lines connecting map points of equal age;
    like isobars are mapping lines connecting points of equal pressure;
    isotherms for temperature, isopycnals for density, and contour lines for elevation ...

    somewhere with the diagram should be a legend providing the spatial scale, and the time units represented between isochrons ...
    the actual isochron data points may have been obtained by proxy, using either depth or thermal measurements ...

    the step-like nature of the lines is as much an artifact of the mapping resolution (like the pixelation of low res images), as a representation of true offset (the larger step near the bottom might represent a transverse fault and lateral offset) ...

    if the area highlighted and outlined and labelled "example of single unit" really did represent an identifiable unit of seafloor, the most likely term would be block (as in fault block) ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1
    Ok growing earth sounds interesting
    I don't wana get into math fizics geology not into that realy but i just wana state 1 obvious thing :

    Earth is a sfear more or less no erath has a mass like anny other celestial boddy now somewere on the earth lets put another metal sfear lets say 1k 1Ton 100Tons realy doesan't matter simple as that.
    Ok earth is growing than the mas of the earth must also grow logicaly. If its mass grows it must have more gravity again logicaly by the formula F=G[(m1*m2)/r] or something like that if this formula isan't another horse shet teory spitid out by a drunk scientist.
    So in conclusion what last year must wighted 100Tons next year it must weight more i think its the simplest way to prove or disprove your teory
    Your documentary sad that the earth is growing exponetialy by 3,6 cm a year so in 1 year 10 years u must have some some diferencest in the weight of the sfear. In 10 yaers that 360 cm ist almoast half a meter it mai not be percetible by us humans becouse we adapt but youl find a way to prove or disprove that.
    Thanx for listening and good luck
    I hope earth realy does grow wonder tho who wil get the new land ????
    Last edited by emyly; August 14th, 2011 at 01:56 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92 Eureka! 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1
    One of the most simple things about plate tectonic theory is that the sea and land all previously existed but it just moved around. The part of this expanding Earth hypothesis that instantly strikes me is that if the Earth was smaller causing all the land to connect, where would all the oceans be displaced too?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Freshman Light Storm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker View Post
    So-called "expanding Earth theory" is pseudoscience. Hence, the new home for this thread.
    A lot of the scientific community consider the "Growing Earth Theory" a pseudoscience because it implies the creation of matter out of nothing which is pretty unrealistic. However, the "Expanding Earth Theory's" often suggest means of Earth Expansion without breaking the basic rules of physics.

    Neal Adams is not a scientist, most of his knowledge came strait out of the Cary's book. Before Cary died, he past on the the theory to now world renown geologist James Maxlow. Not everyone disagrees with subduction, even implement as a critical point in the expanding earth hypothesis. The ocean rifts... and it should be noted rifting lines are almost twice the distance as subduction zones. Rifting/spreading is faster in the southern hemisphere then it is in the north. This is why the southern side of the planet is largely NEW... less then 200 million years old while the majority of the north is ancient up over 3 billion years old in select places.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Freshman Light Storm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRationalizer View Post
    One of the most simple things about plate tectonic theory is that the sea and land all previously existed but it just moved around. The part of this expanding Earth hypothesis that instantly strikes me is that if the Earth was smaller causing all the land to connect, where would all the oceans be displaced too?
    You go back far enough, and you begin to notice that the ocean level has come down over millions of years. According to plate tectonics, at the time of the dinosaurs, the deepest part of the ocean would have had to have been over 6km or 2km more then it is today. This is why we don't find ancient fish fossils in the ocean, but on the land, sometimes, in the rocks or on the sides of mountains. The question isn't where did the water go if the planet was smaller, it should be... where did that excess 2km higher sea level go? If the planet expanded over time, it would only make sense that it settled down in the deeper rifting open ocean floors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Light Storm View Post
    A lot of the scientific community consider the "Growing Earth Theory" a pseudoscience because it implies the creation of matter out of nothing which is pretty unrealistic.
    That's right.

    However, the "Expanding Earth Theory's" often suggest means of Earth Expansion without breaking the basic rules of physics.
    No, Not really...

    Neal Adams is not a scientist
    Obviously

    most of his knowledge came strait out of the Cary's book. Before Cary died, he past on the the theory to now world renown geologist James Maxlow. Not everyone disagrees with subduction, even implement as a critical point in the expanding earth hypothesis. The ocean rifts... and it should be noted rifting lines are almost twice the distance as subduction zones. Rifting/spreading is faster in the southern hemisphere then it is in the north.
    Of course, there's no scientific evidence for this

    This is why the southern side of the planet is largely NEW... less then 200 million years old while the majority of the north is ancient up over 3 billion years old in select places.
    Also refuted by a thousand studies over the last century.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Freshman Light Storm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    31
    No, Not really...
    Really, Some think that the inner/outer core may be transforming from a super dense super high pressure state to a less dense, lower pressure state as global cooling kicks it up a gear. If Mars expanded over geological time, it might finally answer the question about where the water could have gone if it was once covered by an ocean.

    Of course, there's no scientific evidence for this
    Also refuted by a thousand studies over the last century.
    So that I'm clear about your knowledge on this subject, you are completely denying the accepted research of the NOAA?

    Ref: NOAA/NESDIS/NGDC - Images of Crustal Ages of the Ocean Floor from NGDC Marine Geology & Geophysics Division
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Light Storm View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRationalizer View Post
    One of the most simple things about plate tectonic theory is that the sea and land all previously existed but it just moved around. The part of this expanding Earth hypothesis that instantly strikes me is that if the Earth was smaller causing all the land to connect, where would all the oceans be displaced too?
    You go back far enough, and you begin to notice that the ocean level has come down over millions of years. According to plate tectonics, at the time of the dinosaurs, the deepest part of the ocean would have had to have been over 6km or 2km more then it is today. This is why we don't find ancient fish fossils in the ocean, but on the land, sometimes, in the rocks or on the sides of mountains. The question isn't where did the water go if the planet was smaller, it should be... where did that excess 2km higher sea level go? If the planet expanded over time, it would only make sense that it settled down in the deeper rifting open ocean floors.
    None of the lacustrian or marine sediments you are referring to have ever been interpreted in this way, as they have logical explanations as to why they are where they are without the need for excess water. If it was a matter of excess water, then the volume of water would make the presence of vast terrestrial deposits, such as river systems, fallacious due to them having to have been under sea level at the same time as the contemporary marine deposits you talk about.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Freshman Light Storm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Light Storm View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRationalizer View Post
    One of the most simple things about plate tectonic theory is that the sea and land all previously existed but it just moved around. The part of this expanding Earth hypothesis that instantly strikes me is that if the Earth was smaller causing all the land to connect, where would all the oceans be displaced too?
    You go back far enough, and you begin to notice that the ocean level has come down over millions of years. According to plate tectonics, at the time of the dinosaurs, the deepest part of the ocean would have had to have been over 6km or 2km more then it is today. This is why we don't find ancient fish fossils in the ocean, but on the land, sometimes, in the rocks or on the sides of mountains. The question isn't where did the water go if the planet was smaller, it should be... where did that excess 2km higher sea level go? If the planet expanded over time, it would only make sense that it settled down in the deeper rifting open ocean floors.
    None of the lacustrian or marine sediments you are referring to have ever been interpreted in this way, as they have logical explanations as to why they are where they are without the need for excess water. If it was a matter of excess water, then the volume of water would make the presence of vast terrestrial deposits, such as river systems, fallacious due to them having to have been under sea level at the same time as the contemporary marine deposits you talk about.
    Here is one example... if you want 20-30 more... try google

    "Clues about changes in sea level rise have been found in an unlikely place: the mountains of Texas."

    In Texas mountains: Clues to ancient sea levels - Technology & science - Science - OurAmazingPlanet - msnbc.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,270
    Have you read the actual article? At no point does the article indicate the rocks to have been put into place at the elevation. All it indicates is that the reef was just below sea level on a shelf overlooking a 1,000 ft deep ocean basin.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Freshman Light Storm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger View Post
    It's also important to point out that for several years now, satellites have been monitoring the geography of Earth with surprising accuracy. What's been seen is that the plates are indeed moving at about one to four centimeters per year. What hasn't been seen is any growth which, according to Mr. Adams' "theory",...
    For record, it most certainly is not Mr Adams theory. The only Theory Neal holds to his own is the blended idea already put together by a famous physicist. He would have us believe planets grow much like a geode via silicon growth and pair production. The only downside to his theory is that it breaks the basic rules of thermodynamics which is a no no as far accepted scientific theories go.

    During the start of the 1900's Roberto Mantovani published his work on earth expansion and continental drift. He was really one of the originals to say that all the continents of the earth fit together near perfectly, on a much smaller globe. He was also one of the first to say that it was volcanic activity, which broke the land up into smaller continents. He talked about giant rip zones like the ones we are starting to witness happening out in the African Desert today!


    ...should be happening at about the same speed. So really, plate tectonics has been directly observed while all EET has had to go on are a few subjective observations and some contrived computer animations.
    Going through these posts one at a time to see who has made what points. Satellites, GPS and other technologies that give us a size of the earth is a VERY interesting story. There are satilites such as LAGEOS that are accurate in their measurements within 5mm. Check out the 'Centre of Mass Correction Data'. It's currently set to a ridicules 70mm. I could go into more details on this, but I think a quote from James Maxlow says it best.

    ""
    What about space geodetic measurements?

    Space geodetics is modern technology that uses satellites and radio telescopes to routinely measure the dimensions of the Earth and plate motions of the continents to sub-centimetre accuracy. During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were established to form a global network, the global excess in radius was found to be 18 mm/year – i.e. the measurements showed that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year.

    This value was considered to be “extremely high” when compared to expected deglaciation rates during melting of the polar ice-caps, estimated at less than 10 mm/year. The researchers in fact "expected that most … stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr" and went on to recommend the vertical motion be "restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr". This recommendation is now reflected in current mathematical solutions to the global radius, where global solutions are effectively constrained to zero.

    These recommendations are justified from a constant Earth radius Plate Tectonic perspective. The 18 mm/year excess was considered to be an error in atmospheric correction, so was simply zeroed out. What must be appreciated is that without an acknowledgment of a potential increase in Earth radius NASA had no option but to correct this value to zero, and hence adopt a static Earth radius premise. From an Expansion Tectonic Earth perspective, however, the 18 mm/year excess equates with a present day value of 22 mm/year increase in Earth radius, determined independently from measurements of areas of sea floor spreading.

    James Maxlow :
    Expansion Tectonics Page 2 - James Maxlow"
    ""

    If you want some real fun research. Go in and look at the GPS research data from around the world. Heres a link for you

    Ref: GPS Time Series

    Everyone is more then happy to show the velocities and how much land moves around per year, but no one ever notes the Z axis which represents elevation. Plates don't only travel side to side, but they sink and rise every year as well. After doing several of my own triangulated spot check from opposing polls along the equator, it's pretty evident that there is an increasing elevation trend that is for some reason beyond me, completely ignored by the scientific community.
    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
  •