PDA

View Full Version : Great new book: Why expanding Earth?



Pages : [1] 2

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-13, 09:37 PM
A wonderful book has just been published on the theory of the expanding Earth. Here are a few of the publication details:

"WHY EXPANDING EARTH? - A Book in Honour of Otto Christoph Hilgenberg"
Edited by Giancarlo Scalera and Karl-Heinz Jacob
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Roma
and Technische Universitat, Berlin
Printed by Spedim Montecompatri (Rome)
2003 (460 pages)

It contains a mix of historical papers and new research on EE theories. While the book is in honour of the German expansionist Ott Hilgenberg, who died 25 years ago, it also is in honour of S.W. Carey, who died in 2002 while the book was being prepared. The contributors include names like Klaus Vogel, Martin Pickford, James Maxlow, Karl Luckert, Oakley Shields and even Paul Wesson.

This is a hefty tome and I couldn't begin to describe it properly in a posting. However, there is one paper at least which could be a topic of discussion here. It is by Ilton Perin and is called "The expanding hemispheric ring". Perin gives an elegant proof of Earth expansion. If we consider the Earth to be roughly spherical, then the intersection of a plane passing through the Earth's centre with the Earth's surface defines what he calls a "hemispheric ring" (note: such a ring is usually called a great circle). There are any number of such rings that can be drawn, one which defines the Equator for instance.

Perin shows that there is at least one hemispheric circle which passes through several zones of crustal extension, but no subduction zones. Consequently this ring must be increasing in diameter and so the Earth must be expanding as a whole. The particular ring he uses in the book (and he has done others apparently) passes from the U.S. southwest coast up through Newfoundland; then across the Atlantic and through Spain; then through Africa (through the Rift Valley); then north of Madagascar through the Indian Ocean; passes between Australia and Antarctica; then goes across the Pacific to the US coast again. Along this route the circle goes through extension zones in the mid-Atlantic ridge, the African Rift Valley, a mid-ocean ridge in the Indian Ocean, another mid-ocean ridge south of Australia and finally one near Baja. But no subduction zones!

Can the plate tectonics boosters twist their way out of this one?

kilopi
2003-Dec-13, 10:04 PM
Can the plate tectonics boosters twist their way out of this one?
Are they (or you) seriously suggesting that the Earth is expanding at plate tectonic rates even today?

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-13, 10:12 PM
Generally speaking, EE supposes that spreading at mid-ocean ridges and rift valleys is a direct physical manifestation of expansion. So the short answer is yes.

Musashi
2003-Dec-13, 10:24 PM
So.. how long until the expansion is measureable?

kilopi
2003-Dec-13, 10:28 PM
So.. how long until the expansion is measureable?
At those rates, it should be measureable now, I'd think.

I seem to remember that there was discussion on this board previously that said that expanding earth advocates did not think it was expanding right now. I'll look into it. Perhaps it was a different board.

Musashi
2003-Dec-13, 10:42 PM
Then, has it been measured?

Alex W.
2003-Dec-13, 10:46 PM
Gross, gross gross gross simplification of topography there.

kilopi
2003-Dec-13, 11:03 PM
Gross, gross gross gross simplification of topography there.
Could you be specific? I assume you are referring to the sentences "extension zones in the mid-Atlantic ridge, the African Rift Valley, a mid-ocean ridge in the Indian Ocean, another mid-ocean ridge south of Australia and finally one near Baja. But no subduction zones! "

Do you mean that those characterizations are incorrect, or that there are more complex areas along the route that are not included in the characterization?

Chip
2003-Dec-14, 12:03 AM
Is this related in any way to the "theory" that dinosaurs were large animals because the ancient Earth was smaller and therefore had less gravity, so they grew bigger? (Even though there were many many dinosaurs that were actually small.) Sounds a bit fishy to me. :wink:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0952260301/202-3875057-7051036

:roll:

wedgebert
2003-Dec-14, 02:45 AM
Is this related in any way to the "theory" that dinosaurs were large animals because the ancient Earth was smaller and therefore had less gravity, so they grew bigger? (Even though there were many many dinosaurs that were actually small.) Sounds a bit fishy to me. :wink:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0952260301/202-3875057-7051036

:roll:

Wouldn't that also mean that as Earth expands, it also becomes more massive? A smaller Earth with the same mass as today would have meant a higher surface gravity and thus smaller dinosaurs.

Kebsis
2003-Dec-14, 02:58 AM
I think EE folks believe that more mass is being created in the center of the Earth.

wedgebert
2003-Dec-14, 03:03 AM
There should be a test everyone does when deciding on the validity of a scientific theory.

If it sounds stupid when spoken aloud, it's probably wrong.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-14, 04:47 AM
So.. how long until the expansion is measureable?
There were some lengthy discussions about this in the Expanding Earth Video thread. (I'd link it here but the link is too long). To sum it up, it's not such an easy thing to measure. It's not clear that either GPS data or VLBI arrays are up to this. One of the editors, Scalera, talks about this. I'll try to extract more from the book and get back to you.


Wouldn't that also mean that as Earth expands, it also becomes more massive? A smaller Earth with the same mass as today would have meant a higher surface gravity and thus smaller dinosaurs.
It depends on how the expansion occurs. You can have expansion at constant mass. In that case your statement applies. But bear in mind that the reptiles before dinosaurs were a lot smaller and stockier, as though they had to fight gravity more. By the time the giants of the Jurassic evolved, the Earth was getting much closer to its present size and so the surface gravity might not have been so much greater than today. Note that with higher surface gravity, the atmosphere would have been thicker and thus plants would have had more CO2 and the dinosaurs more O2. As time goes on, surface gravity reduction would have allowed for taller, bigger animals biomechanically, but the thinning atmosphere would have stemmed this eventually since plant production would have fallen and O2 levels as well.

On the other hand, you can have expansion with increase in mass. (as with the link in Chip's post). In that case surface gravity increases over time and the dinosaurs should get smaller. As you can see it's hard to prove the case either way using the dinosaurs. I have a good link in favour of the first view which I will dig up. Many of the authors in the book support expansion with mass increase (that was also Carey's view). I'm more or less in favour of the first view (which was Pascal Jordan's view).

kilopi
2003-Dec-14, 05:57 AM
There were some lengthy discussions about this in the Expanding Earth Video thread. (I'd link it here but the link is too long).
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=6039

Chip
2003-Dec-14, 09:19 AM
Could one just as effectively argue that the earth was larger when it was new and molten, and as it solidified, the outer layers cooled and shrunk into wrinkles that formed the continents? Hence a "Shrinking Earth Theory." (I only state this to illustrate that the next question should be (as with the “Expanding Earth” idea,) how do you prove this notion? Both ideas seem to stem from assumptions that are at the root, unsubstantiated. Continental Drift was also a wild idea until the mechanics of it and plate tectonics were better understood. I suspect that the terms "shrinking" and "expanding" as used by Geologists have a different connotation than when used in these "theories.":wink:

dgruss23
2003-Dec-14, 01:19 PM
Here (http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/pratt.pdf) is a long article in which the author outlines evidence he claims contradicts plate tectonics. I haven't read the entire article myself and what I did read was about 6 months ago, but it might be helpful in this discussion.

The mechanism is one issue, but one of the big things I would hope the EE book addresses is the issue of convergent plate boundaries. The geology at convergent boundaries (at least in general) seem to fit well with the plate tectonic model, so I'd be interested in the arguments that EE has on that front.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-14, 03:05 PM
Could one just as effectively argue that the earth was larger when it was new and molten, and as it solidified, the outer layers cooled and shrunk into wrinkles that formed the continents? Hence a "Shrinking Earth Theory." (I only state this to illustrate that the next question should be (as with the “Expanding Earth” idea,) how do you prove this notion? Both ideas seem to stem from assumptions that are at the root, unsubstantiated.
I think there were people who indeed thought the Earth was shrinking, maybe in the early 20th century, but that theory went away - can't recall the details.

You mention there is a burden of proof on EE proponents to show the Earth is in fact expanding. But in a way it is really the plate tectonics model that needs to prove that the Earth is not. Take the example in my OP. We go along that circle and all we see is evidence that that circle is getting wider. We can measure the rates of seafloor spreading at the mid-Atlantic ridge, etc. Subduction does not occur at all along this circle, and so can be eliminated from the picture. The evidence thus points to expansion, whatever caused it.

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Dec-14, 06:18 PM
I don't think the "hemispheric ring" idea is valid, necessarily. A simple counter example: imagine this ring is at constant latitude, say, 47 degrees north. It only shows spread; i.e. expansion. But now look at a ring at 46 degrees north. It might only be showing subduction.

The ring idea assumes spread is in constant latitude. But expansion could (really must) be 2-dimensional, both in latitude and longitude. So you can have expansion in one ring, and contraction in another, with a net effect of zero expansion. Basically, if you only measure expansion in latitude (East-West), you might be missing important data. There might be contraction in the North-South direction, counteracting it.

This is assuming the expanding ring is indeed supported by observations. I am not a geologist, so I don't know. I have enough on my plate now (plate, har har) without worrying about something like this!

kilopi
2003-Dec-14, 06:48 PM
I don't think the "hemispheric ring" idea is valid, necessarily. A simple counter example: imagine this ring is at constant latitude, say, 47 degrees north. It only shows spread; i.e. expansion. But now look at a ring at 46 degrees north. It might only be showing subduction.
That's a good point, I think. Imagine small semicircles, one degree in diameter, which originate at 47N and end at 46N, diverging at 47N and converging at 46N. The return path could be through the Earth, making a complete circuit, and without necessitating the creation of new material.

Of course, in plate tectonics, the cycles are much larger than one degree, but the principle is the same.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-14, 07:42 PM
The ring idea assumes spread is in constant latitude. But expansion could (really must) be 2-dimensional, both in latitude and longitude. So you can have expansion in one ring, and contraction in another, with a net effect of zero expansion. Basically, if you only measure expansion in latitude (East-West), you might be missing important data. There might be contraction in the North-South direction, counteracting it.
I'm not sure if I explained the "hemispheric ring" well enough. Each ring is made by running a plane through the centre of the Earth. Where it intersects the Earth's crust describes a circle. The approximate length of each ring should thus be 2 pi R, where R is the Earth's radius. You can't have such a ring running along any latitude except the Equator.

Now you're right that there could be other rings which show net subduction, but for the ring discussed in the book there appear to be no subduction zones anywhere near the ring. And the addition of new crust at the extension points along the ring has been going on for millions of years. So the expansion along this particular ring would have caused a large bulge being produced in the Earth's surface, a bulge which we do not see. The ring you visualize with net subduction would similarly have caused a trough to appear along its path, which we likewise don't see.

This is assuming the expanding ring is indeed supported by observations. I am not a geologist, so I don't know. I have enough on my plate now (plate, har har) without worrying about something like this!
But remember, if the EE theory is correct, it must have influenced evolution on Earth, and possibly on Mars at one point. My best guess right now is that the expansion process is the underlying cause of life to originate wherever we choose to look. Still sure it's not on your plate?

Cougar
2003-Dec-14, 08:04 PM
A wonderful book has just been published...
Why do you consider it to be "wonderful"?
[quote]...

Cougar
2003-Dec-14, 08:19 PM
So.. how long until the expansion is measureable?To sum it up, it's not such an easy thing to measure.
How... convenient.

It's not clear that either GPS data or VLBI arrays are up to this.
GPS has become extremely accurate of late. Why in the world wouldn't it be up to showing a net expansion, if indeed such an unlikely thing was happening?

You can have expansion at constant mass.
How could you have anything else?

But bear in mind that the reptiles before dinosaurs were a lot smaller and stockier, as though they had to fight gravity more.
I think you need to take a course in Valid Consequence, EEMann. This is a remarkable example of reaching a conclusion via INvalid consequence.

By the time the giants of the Jurassic evolved, the Earth was getting much closer to its present size and so the surface gravity might not have been so much greater than today.
Pure fantasy!

On the other hand, you can have expansion with increase in mass.
Via what mechanism, pray tell?

As you can see it's hard to prove the case either way using the dinosaurs.
That's probably because there is no case either way.

Cougar
2003-Dec-14, 08:30 PM
You mention there is a burden of proof on EE proponents to show the Earth is in fact expanding. But in a way it is really the plate tectonics model that needs to prove that the Earth is not. Take the example in my OP. We go along that circle and all we see is evidence that that circle is getting wider. We can measure the rates of seafloor spreading at the mid-Atlantic ridge, etc. Subduction does not occur at all along this circle, and so can be eliminated from the picture. The evidence thus points to expansion, whatever caused it.
This contrived "evidence" does no such thing. The burden of proof is clearly on those who are making the wild claim here. You make the claim, you prove it. If you think it is the scientific community's burden to DISprove every such wild and crazy claim, you are sorely mistaken.

Cougar
2003-Dec-14, 08:38 PM
But remember, if the EE theory is correct, it must have influenced evolution on Earth
More irresponsible conclusion jumping. Please provide support for such a conclusion, and quantify your results.

My best guess right now is that the expansion process is the underlying cause of life to originate wherever we choose to look.
If I claimed the Tooth Fairy was "the underlying cause of life to originate wherever we choose to look," my claim would have exactly the same amount of empirical support as your "best guess," and I would say one statement is about as ridiculous as the other.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-14, 08:53 PM
This sounds terribly contrived. I don't see this as proving anything at all. Why would subduction zones be required to appear directly upon the same (contrived) hemispheric ring that contains "crustal extension zones"? You call it an elegant proof. I call it tap dancing.
Imagine that the ring were a metal ring stretching around the Earth, lying on the Earth's surface. Where new crust is added (at mid-ocean ridges, etc), we add new material to our ring. Its circumference thus gets larger. If we do not have some subduction happening along the very same ring somewhere else, and the Earth were not expanding, the ring would get wider than the Earth, an impossibility.

A corollary that we can develop using Perin's idea is that along every hemispheric ring the average total rate of crustal extension must be the same. We can't have some rings getting way bigger than others. This is something that can be tested. (Of course, the working assumption here would be that subduction is not significant in making the estimates.)

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Dec-14, 09:14 PM
I still won't comment on the veracity of the theory, except for one thing. It really bugs me when a theory pops up that creates new terms for an old concept. "Hemispheric rings" are simply "great circles". When someone creates new jargon for an existing idea, it rings an alarm bell for me.

xbck1
2003-Dec-14, 09:30 PM
When someone creates new jargon for an existing idea, it rings an alarm bell for me.Because it shows that they don't know what they're talking about, so they make up their own names for things?

I've always read that in some places on the fault lines, there is more crust coming up. On other places it's going back down in. Isn't that how things work?

The Expanding Earth idea does have some truth to it though. Whenever a rock from space hits the ground, the Earth expands just a little bit in the direction that the thing came from... Unless it leaves a crater. :lol:

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-14, 09:44 PM
It really bugs me when a theory pops up that creates new terms for an old concept. "Hemispheric rings" are simply "great circles". When someone creates new jargon for an existing idea, it rings an alarm bell for me.
In this case it could be due to Perin being Brazilian. Perhaps that is just their way of saying great circle. Thanks for noting this though. I've added a note in the OP at the first mention of hemispheric ring.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-14, 09:47 PM
Imagine small semicircles, one degree in diameter, which originate at 47N and end at 46N, diverging at 47N and converging at 46N. The return path could be through the Earth, making a complete circuit, and without necessitating the creation of new material.
I didn't understand you here. Did my reply to the BA cover this?

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-14, 10:25 PM
My best guess right now is that the expansion process is the underlying cause of life to originate wherever we choose to look.
If I claimed the Tooth Fairy was "the underlying cause of life to originate wherever we choose to look," my claim would have exactly the same amount of empirical support as your "best guess," and I would say one statement is about as ridiculous as the other.
Can't say I blame you for being skeptical here, but origins of life is an area I've studied a lot (and have published papers). I might give a fuller answer at a later date - it would need a thread of its own. I was just trying to point out that EE is a phenomenon which cuts across disciplines - cosmology, astronomy, physics, biology, geology. It should really be at the center stage right now, not pushed off to the side.

Xbalanque
2003-Dec-14, 10:27 PM
http://www.tu-berlin.de/presse/tui/01mai/hilgenb_lb.htm



Two presented Earth´s hemispheric rings (great circles), crossing only extension zones of the crust, are obviously dilatating, a mathematical proof of the Earth's expansion.


You have to scroll down a bit to find it. Perin knows a hemispheric ring is a great circle. I would suggest the BA is correct, and Perin is making up new jargon for an established concept.

Xbalanque
2003-Dec-14, 10:29 PM
Can't say I blame you for being skeptical here, but origins of life is an area I've studied a lot (and have published papers).

You could always provide us with a list of citations for papers you've published on this topic.

wedgebert
2003-Dec-14, 10:32 PM
Can't say I blame you for being skeptical here, but origins of life is an area I've studied a lot (and have published papers). I might give a fuller answer at a later date - it would need a thread of its own. I was just trying to point out that EE is a phenomenon which cuts across disciplines - cosmology, astronomy, physics, biology, geology. It should really be at the center stage right now, not pushed off to the side.

Not too sure how the EE theory is relevant in regards to Cosmology or Astronomy. Speaking of physics, what mechanisim is it that causing the Earth to expand? Where does the power for it come from? Or is the general expansion of space supposed to be the cause of it?

Alex W.
2003-Dec-14, 10:38 PM
By beef with the topology is the one raised momentarily afterwards- that some circles show only extrusion doesn't mean that it can't be undone by the subduction elsewhere.

Cougar
2003-Dec-14, 10:46 PM
...I was just trying to point out that EE is a phenomenon which cuts across disciplines...
It has yet to be shown that "EE" is a phenomenon at all.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-14, 10:51 PM
Can't say I blame you for being skeptical here, but origins of life is an area I've studied a lot (and have published papers).
You could always provide us with a list of citations for papers you've published on this topic.
Actually my papers on origins don't mention Earth expansion, but I hope to cover it one day. My published origins papers are much more mainstream!

Cougar
2003-Dec-14, 10:53 PM
The Expanding Earth idea does have some truth to it though. Whenever a rock from space hits the ground, the Earth expands just a little bit in the direction that the thing came from... Unless it leaves a crater. :lol:
Now, THAT sort of "expanding earth theory" I'll buy. I actually do have an open mind... It's just not open to any crackpot, pseudoscientific theory that tends to ignore long-established scientific ideas and operates in a world of its own, in this case, literally in a world of its own.

Cougar
2003-Dec-14, 10:56 PM
My published origins papers are much more mainstream!
So, just briefly for the moment, what's your take on Stuart Kauffman's ideas about the origins of order and life?

kilopi
2003-Dec-14, 10:58 PM
Now you're right that there could be other rings which show net subduction, but for the ring discussed in the book there appear to be no subduction zones anywhere near the ring. And the addition of new crust at the extension points along the ring has been going on for millions of years. So the expansion along this particular ring would have caused a large bulge being produced in the Earth's surface, a bulge which we do not see. The ring you visualize with net subduction would similarly have caused a trough to appear along its path, which we likewise don't see.
Might have caused a large bulge, might have caused a trough. Not necessarily required. It doesn't take much imagination to concoct a scenario where they wouldn't produce bulge or trough.


Imagine that the ring were a metal ring stretching around the Earth, lying on the Earth's surface. Where new crust is added (at mid-ocean ridges, etc), we add new material to our ring. Its circumference thus gets larger. If we do not have some subduction happening along the very same ring somewhere else, and the Earth were not expanding, the ring would get wider than the Earth, an impossibility.
Not an impossibility at all. Before you label such as proving earth expansion, you have to rule out all possibilities--you can't just say they're impossible.

For instance, it's not hard to come up with a geometry that satisfies your data, but does not imply earth expansion. Just move the BA's 47N ring down to the Equator--the same comments apply as before. Material movement through the Earth could be supplying the divergent boundaries, from the convergent ones. A closed continuous loop in other words, no Earth expansion or creation of mass needed to explain it--and such a great circle has no convergent areas whatsoever.

Be careful, EEM, against-the-mainstream advocates often do not understand the current theory, and make wild claims that the current theory is inadequate to explain the observations--but it's only because they are not willing to even try to support the current theory. Blinders.

AstroMike
2003-Dec-14, 11:00 PM
Questions:

If the Earth is expanding, why hasn't anyone observed this expansion? Should it be detectable?

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-14, 11:02 PM
My published origins papers are much more mainstream!
So, just briefly for the moment, what's your take on Stuart Kauffman's ideas about the origins of order and life?
I basically don't think too much of Kauffman. A better resource on origins would be Christian de Duve (eg Blueprint for a Cell)

Cougar
2003-Dec-14, 11:08 PM
Where new crust is added (at mid-ocean ridges, etc), we add new material to our ring. Its circumference thus gets larger. If we do not have some subduction happening along the very same ring somewhere else, and the Earth were not expanding, the ring would get wider than the Earth, an impossibility.
What in the world are you talking about? I'm no expert in this area either, but I know enough to know that the sea floor is spreading along very long stretches, probably thousands of miles, and the associated subduction zones can be as long as entire continents. Forcing this known phenomenon to fit into some contrived "great circle" scheme is ludicrous and yields meaningless results.

frenat
2003-Dec-15, 01:00 AM
Here's the problem I see with this "ring" theory. Just because there is new crust being formed all along the line does not mean a thing. Those areas where the crust is being added are not all being added in the same direction so the subduction areas would not necessarily have to be onthe same ring.

freddo
2003-Dec-15, 02:10 AM
And why is the theory living or dying on the basis of a single ring?

Don't you think we could choose a number of them at random and see whether it holds water?

A flawed concept IMO.

kilopi
2003-Dec-15, 04:18 AM
And why is the theory living or dying on the basis of a single ring?
I'm sure that the idea is that if that particular one can be shown to be expanding, the mainstream geophysicists would concede that the rest must be. The others are not so straightforward--they would cross compressional tectonic regions as well as extensional.

It does take a bit of imagination to construct a situation where a great circle which crosses only extensional regions can be shown to not be necessarily expanding.

freddo
2003-Dec-15, 05:31 AM
It does take a bit of imagination to construct a situation where a great circle which crosses only extensional regions can be shown to not be necessarily expanding.

Well I guess if that's all you're shown, it's pretty hard to come up with a different answer.

As you said though:


The others are not so straightforward--they would cross compressional tectonic regions as well as extensional.

Any EE theory is going to have to deal with subduction zones in its explanation. The choice of this great circle seems slightly convenient.

xbck1
2003-Dec-15, 06:57 AM
Any EE theory is going to have to deal with subduction zones in its explanation. The choice of this great circle seems slightly convenient. First thing that came to my mind was that it's the only one that supports the claims in any way. Reminds me of Appollo hoax people. Just my thoughts, though.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-15, 02:27 PM
I was just trying to point out that EE is a phenomenon which cuts across disciplines - cosmology, astronomy, physics, biology, geology. It should really be at the center stage right now, not pushed off to the side.
Not too sure how the EE theory is relevant in regards to Cosmology or Astronomy. Speaking of physics, what mechanisim is it that causing the Earth to expand? Where does the power for it come from? Or is the general expansion of space supposed to be the cause of it?
In astronomy it connects with problems like the surface features of Mars. Tom van Flandern argues for example that the Martian Highlands region was formed from meteoric impacts. To me it's more likely that the Highlands is the part of the planet that coresponds to Earth's continents in an expansion model. The Lowlands correspond to the Earth's ocean basins. This was discussed in the thread "Origin of Life on an Expanding Mars"

In cosmology, it connects with Hubble's constant and G. For example, some Canadian researchers pointed out in the 70's that the relative rate of expansion of the Earth (assuming seafloor spreading was causing expansion, and there was no subduction) was the same as the relative rate of expansion of the Universe in the BB model, ie,

(dRe/dt)/Re = (dRu/dt)/Ru = H (sec ^ -1)

So a cosmological connection to Earth expansion can't be ruled out.

As for the mechanism of expansion, it could be through an analogue process to universal expansion (as snowflake argues, I think); addition of mass to the Earth (new particles being formed inside the Earth somehow); decreasing G (Dirac effect); some combination of these.

Will try to get back to the other replies later today.

Cougar
2003-Dec-15, 06:58 PM
As for the mechanism of expansion, it could be.... addition of mass to the Earth (new particles being formed inside the Earth somehow)....
Somehow? Somehow? Have you dropped scientific investigation and taken up stand-up comedy?

dgruss23
2003-Dec-15, 07:55 PM
As for the mechanism of expansion, it could be.... addition of mass to the Earth (new particles being formed inside the Earth somehow)....
Somehow? Somehow? Have you dropped scientific investigation and taken up stand-up comedy?

No actually, what ExpErdMan is presenting is not an unreasonable stream of thought. Unless I'm mistaken, he's saying that if the Earth is expanding, then one way that could happen is if the Earth is gaining mass. Particles being formed inside the Earth would seem to be the way that would have to happen - unless there are some as yet undetected particles that are being deposited there. But that would seem to be a risky scheme - resting one's theory upon the existence of undetectable particles.
Anyway, so what he's presented is straightforward "if-then" reasoning.

Obviously though, the mechanism for an expanding Earth is irrelevant without evidence for an expanding Earth. It would seem to me that the best way to advance this discussion would be for a few of us to actually read the book - and decide whether or not the arguments and evidence have any merit.

FP
2003-Dec-15, 08:25 PM
Are there any subduction zones on the other (co-planar) half of this expansion only great circle? If so, why wouldn't the end points of the great circle just be moving away from each other as the crust expands?

FP
2003-Dec-15, 08:29 PM
Of course, they would be moving toward each other on the other great circle.

dgruss23
2003-Dec-15, 09:12 PM
ExpErdMan, setting aside the great circle issue, what would you say are the strongest pieces of evidence that you see in favor of the EE hypothesis?

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-15, 10:29 PM
ExpErdMan, setting aside the great circle issue, what would you say are the strongest pieces of evidence that you see in favor of the EE hypothesis?
For me the most important evidence was the model globes built by Vogel and others which showed how the continents on a smaller globe can easily be arranged so as to form a complete sial cover over the Earth. When I saw this it just struck me immediately that the Earth has expanded.

The main supporting argument is this: whereas we can measure rates of seafloor spreading relatively precisely at various locales on the Earth, the same cannot be said for subduction rates. The latter are only inferred indirectly from other kinds of data, from which the EE explanation can also be drawn.

Then there are the many historical problems of plate tectonics: the absence of a driving mechanism, the viscosity problems regarding plate motions, the fact that the continents cannot be perfectly assembled to make Pangaea, etc.

Then there are nagging questions such as why continents are mostly covered with sedimentary rock suggesting they were sea bottom once. If we assume the amount of water has stayed constant on the Earth, then on a smaller Earth without ocean basins a deep sea would have covered the globe, with only mountainous regions protruding above the surface. (I suspect that life originated at the submerged bases of such mountains.)

Another nagging problem: the dinosaurs and the tendency towards smaller sizes in plants and animals over time. This suggests some sort of major geological trend, perhaps linked with a change in G (as discussed previously in many threads, including some of snowflakes recent ones).

But at bottom it's the models. If you have a good look at the models of the smaller globe, with progressively smaller ocean basins, you could be convinced.

There is also a bias people have in wanting to have a globe of constant size. One can see the bias plainly if we look at the situation in cosmology. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, most scientists supported a static universe, and many a static, infinite universe. The observation of the cosmic redshift caused them (incorrectly I think) to reject this notion. Other mechanisms like tired light could also explain the redshift, but science isn't interested - the attitude is prove your mechanism and we'll talk about it, rather than actually encourage (and fund!) alternative approaches. But look at the situation in geology. If we applied the same logic here, then science should have leaped to EE models as soon as seafloor spreading was confirmed. This is the smoking gun of expansion. It should have been left to a tiny minority to search for offsetting phenomena (eg subduction) to give a 'static Earth', if geology was like cosmology.

But that's not what happened. Instead the hypothesis of subduction was immediately enshrined within plate tectonics, despire the fact that no clear, indisputable evidence of subduction is ever presented. The GPS data showing supposedly moving plates can also be accounted for in EE models. And earthquakes can be explained as mantle material pushing up from below near the extension centres. According to Jordan, the so-called subduction zones are really areas where massive quantities of new crust are being squeezed out from below continental margins. This new crust presses down on the existing oceanic crust, causing the gravitational anomalies.

frenat
2003-Dec-15, 10:36 PM
Of course the continents don't fit perfectly to form Pangaea. Millions of years of erosion will do that. That is a pretty weak argument.

Cougar
2003-Dec-15, 10:37 PM
No actually, what ExpErdMan is presenting is not an unreasonable stream of thought. Unless I'm mistaken, he's saying that if the Earth is expanding, then one way that could happen is if the Earth is gaining mass. Particles being formed inside the Earth would seem to be the way that would have to happen - unless there are some as yet undetected particles that are being deposited there. But that would seem to be a risky scheme - resting one's theory upon the existence of undetectable particles.
Anyway, so what he's presented is straightforward "if-then" reasoning.

What, you want to play the part of Dickie to EEMan's Tommy Smothers? :lol:

It seems to me that this is taking "straightforward "if-then" reasoning" and turning it on its head. One method of proof that I'm familiar with is to suppose the opposite of what you want to show - if that leads to a contradiction, then you've proven what was intended. EEMan seems to take his argument up to the contradiction, but then he just stops, oblivious of the contradiction!

Example: I want to prove the earth is NOT expanding. Well, OK, just suppose it IS expanding. That means (in one scenario) that the mass of the earth must be increasing and "new particles [must be] being formed inside the Earth somehow."

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding!

It seems to me that a normally rational person would at this point recognize that we have reached a contradiction! The mass of the earth cannot be increasing on its own. This would be a major direct violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy! THEREFORE, ERGO, and HENCE the earth is NOT expanding, according to that scenario anyway.

Now why don't the two of you sing a nice little song while Tommy plays his guitar? :P

Cougar
2003-Dec-15, 11:02 PM
When I saw this it just struck me immediately that the Earth has expanded.
Gee, EEMan, your science seems to be grounded in emotional responses rather than a more disciplined rationality. Come to think of it, that explains a lot....

The main supporting argument is this: whereas we can measure rates of seafloor spreading relatively precisely at various locales on the Earth, the same cannot be said for subduction rates.
I would challenge this assertion. I grew up close to the San Andreas fault. There are a lot of Californians who could give you a first-hand account of some significant subduction going on.


Another nagging problem: the dinosaurs and the tendency towards smaller sizes in plants and animals over time. This suggests some sort of major geological trend, perhaps linked with a change in G....
If you have any evidence to indicate that this is not delusional speculation, I would be willing to listen. But since you have none, I am left to conclude that it IS delusional speculation.


Other mechanisms like tired light could also explain the redshift, but science isn't interested...
Ooh, what a misrepresentation THAT is! Science would be very interested if there was any possible way for light to "get tired" but still produce such sharp images of very distant objects. But there just isn't any possible way for that to happen. Your tired light got laid to rest decades ago.


...the hypothesis of subduction was immediately enshrined within plate tectonics, despire the fact that no clear, indisputable evidence of subduction is ever presented.
Oh, that's bunk.

dgruss23
2003-Dec-15, 11:34 PM
Cougar: Example: I want to prove the earth is NOT expanding. Well, OK, just suppose it IS expanding. That means (in one scenario) that the mass of the earth must be increasing and "new particles [must be] being formed inside the Earth somehow."

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding!

It seems to me that a normally rational person would at this point recognize that we have reached a contradiction! The mass of the earth cannot be increasing on its own. This would be a major direct violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy!

And the Earth is a closed system? If it was, we wouldn't be here discussing this - and thus we have the answer to why this discussion does in fact relate to the larger issues of cosmology.


THEREFORE, ERGO, and HENCE the earth is NOT expanding, according to that scenario anyway.

It may not be expanding at all. I haven't looked at whatever evidence EE proponents claim favors their model. For starters, I'd have to see some evidence that explained how you can have convergence in an EE. But conservation of mass/energy doesn't disprove EE.

dgruss23
2003-Dec-15, 11:42 PM
ExpErdMan: If we assume the amount of water has stayed constant on the Earth, then on a smaller Earth without ocean basins a deep sea would have covered the globe, with only mountainous regions protruding above the surface.

I think the PT explanation for this is that you have periodic bursts of Mid-Ocean ridge formation that through sheer volume forces water up onto the continents. But I don't know if anybody's done the calculations to show if that works.

Xbalanque
2003-Dec-16, 12:41 AM
For me the most important evidence was the model globes built by Vogel and others which showed how the continents on a smaller globe can easily be arranged so as to form a complete sial cover over the Earth. When I saw this it just struck me immediately that the Earth has expanded.

That's a ridiculous piece of evidence. If you shrink the area of the earth down to where it equals the area of the landmasses, then of course they completely cover the globe. Shrink it down far enough, and you force all the pieces to fit together. You could just as easily use this as an argument for a shrinking earth: the planet used to be completely covered by water, but shrinking pushed the water off the surface (through some mechanism), thus exposing the continents. As proof, I have a globe that shows the earth as being completely covered by water.

dgruss23
2003-Dec-16, 12:56 AM
Xbalanque: You could just as easily use this as an argument for a shrinking earth: the planet used to be completely covered by water, but shrinking pushed the water off the surface (through some mechanism), thus exposing the continents.

But the evidence is that the continents were once together and have moved apart so it would seem that either the continents are shifting around the surface or that the Earth is expanding.

Musashi
2003-Dec-16, 01:01 AM
How come the continents don't break up any farther? I am assuming that in the beginning, they were one solid mass, and then, as the earth expanded, they broke apart, but.. why don't they keep breaking apart as the earth expands?

dgruss23
2003-Dec-16, 01:12 AM
I suppose that the places where the continents are rifting in the PT model must be the places where the continents would still be breaking in the EE model.

That might actually help with the discussion. There certainly must be some aspects of geology where the EE model would not only interpret the evidence differently, but would expect there to be different patterns or phenomenon. For example, does EE have a better explanation for the the multiple transform faults along the mid-ocean ridges - which may be a bit problematic for the convection cell model?

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-16, 04:31 AM
Imagine that the ring were a metal ring stretching around the Earth, lying on the Earth's surface. Where new crust is added (at mid-ocean ridges, etc), we add new material to our ring. Its circumference thus gets larger. If we do not have some subduction happening along the very same ring somewhere else, and the Earth were not expanding, the ring would get wider than the Earth, an impossibility.
Not an impossibility at all. Before you label such as proving earth expansion, you have to rule out all possibilities--you can't just say they're impossible.

For instance, it's not hard to come up with a geometry that satisfies your data, but does not imply earth expansion. Just move the BA's 47N ring down to the Equator--the same comments apply as before. Material movement through the Earth could be supplying the divergent boundaries, from the convergent ones. A closed continuous loop in other words, no Earth expansion or creation of mass needed to explain it--and such a great circle has no convergent areas whatsoever.
Sorry but I'm still having problems visualizing your alternative model. It seems you're saying material is being moved from areas where plates are converging towards areas of plate divergence. I can't connect this too well to the specific great circle Perin describes. Can you itemize how material appearing in the mid-Atlantic ridge, for instance, was recycled from a subduction zone elsewhere? In the end don't you have to remove material from the great circle at certain points to prevent overall expansion of this circle?


Be careful, EEM, against-the-mainstream advocates often do not understand the current theory, and make wild claims that the current theory is inadequate to explain the observations--but it's only because they are not willing to even try to support the current theory. Blinders.
I would not be the best one to try to frame a PT explanation for Perin's great circle problem, but if a good one is put out I'll listen to it.

Musashi
2003-Dec-16, 04:36 AM
Maybe I don't understand, but bear with me. Imagine a circle around the earth. Use a longitude line, for ease.. 0/180. Now imagine that there is sporadic additions of crust aon this line, but no subduction. Now, the earht must be expanding you say. But, further, Imagine another circle, this one tracing the longitude lines 90 and 270. Now here you see subduction. This could cancel out the expansion at 0/180... couldn't it?

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-16, 04:58 AM
Questions:

If the Earth is expanding, why hasn't anyone observed this expansion? Should it be detectable?
In a way we are measuring expansion when we measure the rates of seafloor spreading at mid-ocean ridges and rift valleys.

But I take your question to mean other forms of measurement. What ones would you suggest. Maybe GPS? Now in fact GPS studies have indicated that the some parts of the North Atlantic, for instance, are being elevated. http://www.newsandevents.utoronto.ca/bin1/010322a.asp
There are conflicting interpretations here, however, such as that the upward movements are due to post-glaciation rebound. The data we need to have to get a proper picture is in the Southern hemisphere, where such rebound would be absent. An EE prediction would be that there would be uplift detected all over the globe.

But there are also theoretical problems. Earth expansion is most probably happening because either new mass is being added to the Earth or there is a secular change in the gravitational constant G. Let's suppose decreasing G is the cause. In this instance the satellites would themselves be moving to higher orbits and so might not detect uplift on the Earth.

frenat
2003-Dec-16, 05:01 AM
A satellite moving to a higher orbit would change its orbital period and be noticed immediately.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-16, 05:08 AM
Maybe I don't understand, but bear with me. Imagine a circle around the earth. Use a longitude line, for ease.. 0/180. Now imagine that there is sporadic additions of crust aon this line, but no subduction. Now, the earht must be expanding you say. But, further, Imagine another circle, this one tracing the longitude lines 90 and 270. Now here you see subduction. This could cancel out the expansion at 0/180... couldn't it?
I don't think it would cancel out well in this case. Along the 1/180 great circle we have new crust being added and so that circle will be expanding in circumference. Along 90/270 we have crust being removed and so that circle would be shrinking. If this went on for millions of years it would lead to a distortion of the Earth's shape, from a sphere into an ovoid shape.

Now you might suggest that the opoosite types of rings were very close together, maybe a degree apart. But this is not what we see on the globe. Many of the extension centres are thousands of miles away from proposed subduction zones.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-16, 05:13 AM
A satellite moving to a higher orbit would change its orbital period and be noticed immediately.
Not necessarily. Remember the length of day is known to be changing too and so is the length of year. And the effect would be small, just a few mm/yr or so.

freddo
2003-Dec-16, 05:13 AM
... but measurable. It would be noticed.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-16, 05:20 AM
And maybe it has been, as in the link to Mitrovica's work that I gave above.

kilopi
2003-Dec-16, 05:56 AM
Are there any subduction zones on the other (co-planar) half of this expansion only great circle? If so, why wouldn't the end points of the great circle just be moving away from each other as the crust expands?
Great circles are complete circles--the claim is that only expansion occurs on the entire great circle.
The main supporting argument is this: whereas we can measure rates of seafloor spreading relatively precisely at various locales on the Earth, the same cannot be said for subduction rates. The latter are only inferred indirectly from other kinds of data, from which the EE explanation can also be drawn.
Depends on what you mean by directly. I've seen GPS data from the South Pacific that showed convergence, across a subduction zone--wait, didn't we talk about that before...I'll check.

But at bottom it's the models. If you have a good look at the models of the smaller globe, with progressively smaller ocean basins, you could be convinced.
Gotta disagree there. I read Carey's book. A friend of mine even worked with Carey personally, and constructed computer models for him. I saw all sorts of these models. Ultimately, plate tectonics has far fewer fudges. That's not to say I won't consider EE--but hyperbole doesn't further the cause.
I would challenge this assertion. I grew up close to the San Andreas fault. There are a lot of Californians who could give you a first-hand account of some significant subduction going on.
The San Andreas fault is not a subduction fault.


Oh, that's bunk.

Sorry but I'm still having problems visualizing your alternative model. It seems you're saying material is being moved from areas where plates are converging towards areas of plate divergence. I can't connect this too well to the specific great circle Perin describes. Can you itemize how material appearing in the mid-Atlantic ridge, for instance, was recycled from a subduction zone elsewhere? In the end don't you have to remove material from the great circle at certain points to prevent overall expansion of this circle?
I'll grant you that. That's why earlier I defended your assertions--it's not straightforward to explain these sort of things, in my mind. If a ring is expanding everywhere, it's going to get progressively larger diameter. As near as I can tell, though, the key info that Penn misses out on is from the geologic terminology. WIthout reading the book (nope, don't have time), it appears that he has divided the world into extensional tectonics (horst and graben as well as sea-floor spreading) and subduction--and there is no subduction that appears on his ring, according to him. However, there is another type of convergence that he seems to be forgetting, ordinary strike/slip. Depending upon the orientation, it can be extensional or converging.

Musashi
2003-Dec-16, 06:13 AM
I'm sorry, I meant to say that the epansion was outward from the circle, not along the circle. So, for example, on the 0/180 circle, at the equator, the expansion would be east/west.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-16, 03:03 PM
Depends on what you mean by directly. I've seen GPS data from the South Pacific that showed convergence, across a subduction zone--wait, didn't we talk about that before...I'll check.
Yes, we had a good discussion on that. I think it was about page 5 or so of the EE Video thread. I later pointed out that Carey accounted for this as being due to expansion proceeding from the East Pacific Rise. (I don't have the trick of embedding links yet; otherwise I would try to hunt these down and link here).


But at bottom it's the models. If you have a good look at the models of the smaller globe, with progressively smaller ocean basins, you could be convinced.
Gotta disagree there. I read Carey's book. A friend of mine even worked with Carey personally, and constructed computer models for him. I saw all sorts of these models. Ultimately, plate tectonics has far fewer fudges. That's not to say I won't consider EE--but hyperbole doesn't further the cause.
This is where we disagree most, and there seems to be no avenue for narrowing the gap!

I'll grant you that. That's why earlier I defended your assertions--it's not straightforward to explain these sort of things, in my mind.
Was noted and appreciated.

... However, there is another type of convergence that he seems to be forgetting, ordinary strike/slip. Depending upon the orientation, it can be extensional or converging.
Will have to think that over. I thought strike/slip would not involve crust being added to or removed from the surface, rather just a status quo situation.

Cougar
2003-Dec-16, 03:28 PM
The San Andreas fault is not a subduction fault.
Details, details. You know, the more one looks into the actual science of plate tectonics and global seismicity, the more utterly ridiculous this so-called theory looks. Is it based on lies? EEMan claimed there was no evidence of subduction. But a cursory search turns up the following. Doesn't this sound like a little convergence going on?


The North American plate is moving westward at an approximate rate of 28 mm per year. The Juan de Fuca plates are moving northeastward at rates varying between 20-60 mm per year. The Pacific plate is moving to the northwest about 60 mm per year in the vicinity of the Juan de Fuca plates. The subduction zone dips 10-25° in Washington, about 25° in Oregon, and 5-15° in northern California as the plates first subduct beneath the North American continent (Hammond, 1989; Trehu, 1996). Below 50 km the angle of subduction increases (Hammond, 1989). The CSZ is currently subducting at a rate of around 40 mm per year; the rate has continued slowing during the last 7 Ma (Swanson, et. al., 1989).
That sounds like quantification to me.

InterPur
2003-Dec-16, 04:05 PM
Halton Arp has a theory based upon intrinsic redshifts and quasar distribution that matter is created in the nucleus of active galactic nuclei at zero mass, then that mass increases with time as the newly created matter is able to communicate with the rest of the universe. There is a quick reference (I can't remember if it's at his website, http://www.haltonarp.com, or in his book, "Seeing Red," (Arp, H. 1998, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Apeiron, Montreal)

In any event, further research by those interested (on either side of the debate) will prove beneficial.

Regards,
Mike Petersen

kilopi
2003-Dec-16, 04:40 PM
Will have to think that over. I thought strike/slip would not involve crust being added to or removed from the surface, rather just a status quo situation.
Typically, both sides of the strike-slip are moving in opposite directions. The material has to go somewhere, and come from somewhere. Imagine your great circle line crossing a strike-slip fault. Depending upon the orientation, the points situated along the great circle are involved in tectonic movement that will bring them closer together, or farther apart. In the first case, you have convergence, without subduction.

Of course, his great circle crosses the San Andreas fault, but I haven't looked at it closely enough to see if the orientation produces convergence, or extension--actually, it seems like the fault and the great circle are perpendicular there so it would be neither. But there are other such areas of the world, too.

frenat
2003-Dec-16, 04:57 PM
The only way this great circle example might prove that there was an expansion going on would be if every area of expansion along the line was expanding in one of two directions, along the line or 180 degrees along the line. The point is for this to show net expansion, they have to be expanding parallel to the line. Even a degree off will affect it as the subduction zones to compensate for it then do not also have to be on the line. When this isn't the case (read any time you can draw the line) then expansion may be happening at points on the circle but if going in different directions not directly along the line would not add to net expansion on the line/circle. The circumference of the circle would remain the same if all the expansion areas were expanding in directions not parallel to the circle.

kilopi
2003-Dec-16, 05:13 PM
The only way this great circle example might prove that there was an expansion going on would be if every area of expansion along the line was expanding in one of two directions, along the line or 180 degrees along the line. The point is for this to show net expansion, they have to be expanding parallel to the line. Even a degree off will affect it as the subduction zones to compensate for it then do not also have to be on the line. When this isn't the case (read any time you can draw the line) then expansion may be happening at points on the circle but if going in different directions not directly along the line would not add to net expansion on the line/circle. The circumference of the circle would remain the same if all the expansion areas were expanding in directions not parallel to the circle.
That's wrong, it seems to me.

frenat
2003-Dec-16, 05:24 PM
Well my understanding is that the expansion is not happening straight up out of the center of the earth but rather new crust is formed and slides laterally along the surface. My point is that if the direction is not parallel to the circle then subduction zones could be located off the line and taking care of the expansion. New crust may be forming all along the line but it then slides off of it.

Anonymous
2003-Dec-16, 05:25 PM
ExpErdMann wrote:


“Perin shows that there is at least one hemispheric circle which passes through several zones of crustal extension, but no subduction zones. Consequently this ring must be increasing in diameter and so the Earth must be expanding as a whole.”


Ouch. “Consequently”, “must” and “must”. You’re not merely implying here, you’re making a positive declarative statement. “this ring must be increasing in diameter”.



We already know that this is not the case. In fact, we should see vertical rise along the circumference of any and every hemispheric ring (great circle), not just one or two carefully chosen rings. We don’t see that.


“An EE prediction would be that there would be uplift detected all over the globe.”


Exactly. We do not see uplift all over the globe.


What I find particularly frustrating is the fact that you attempt to adopt a smarmy, condescending attitude toward plate tectonics adherents, then waffle big time when called upon to deliver the goods. “Maybe”, “perhaps”, “somehow” and “could be” are terms which carry no persuasive currency. At all. Example:


frenat wrote:


“A satellite moving to a higher orbit would change its orbital period and be noticed immediately.”


ExpErdMann replied:


“Not necessarily. Remember the length of day is known to be changing too and so is the length of year. And the effect would be small, just a few mm/yr or so.”


Then freddo wrote:


“... but measurable. It would be noticed.”



ExpErdMann replied:


“And maybe it has been, as in the link to Mitrovica's work that I gave above.”


No. Mitrovica’s work concerns regional rebound due to retreating glaciations. Expansion is not even mentioned and you have essentially raped another person’s data. You can see just how regional the effect is in figure B, provided halfway down the page. This is useless for you argument because it has nothing to do with sea floor spreading or rifting. It’s simply regional rebound caused by an already known mechanism; the retreat of glaciations in that region.

kilopi
2003-Dec-16, 06:06 PM
Well my understanding is that the expansion is not happening straight up out of the center of the earth but rather new crust is formed and slides laterally along the surface. My point is that if the direction is not parallel to the circle then subduction zones could be located off the line and taking care of the expansion. New crust may be forming all along the line but it then slides off of it.
OK, that's basically what I said in my post--if they are sliding "off" the great circle, at some points on the great circle they must be sliding past each other. That's the strike/slip convergence that I was talking about.

If there were no convergence at all on the great circle, just expansion, then it would seem to have to increase in radius.

Xbalanque
2003-Dec-16, 06:25 PM
I am curious to know how the expanding earth theory is a better explanation than plate tectonics for the placement of India and the Himalayas.

Musashi
2003-Dec-16, 06:36 PM
I guess my post wasn't clear.

take for example, the mid-atlantic rift. Imagine it runs true north-south from 40 degrees north to 40 degrees south and is spreading true east-west at the rate of 1 meter per day. Now. Place your great circle so that it follows that rift. Imagine, for the sake of simplicity, that is the only activity on that great circle. Now imagine that 200 miles on either side are two lines of subduction. Imagine they run parallel to the rift and for the same length. Imagine they subduct 0.5 meters per day each. Now, neither subduction zone is on the original great circle, but strangely the circumfrence of the circle is not expanding....

Am I way off base here? Or is that a possibility?

Cougar
2003-Dec-16, 06:53 PM
Halton Arp has a theory based upon intrinsic redshifts and quasar distribution that matter is created in the nucleus of active galactic nuclei at zero mass, then that mass increases with time as the newly created matter is able to communicate with the rest of the universe.
Yes, we've discussed this in other threads here. The support that Arp claims for this "theory" is exceedingly weak. I would call it nonexistent. I think most of the astronomical community agree with my assessment (actually I am agreeing with theirs). There are a few die-hards on this board, however, who are staunch supporters of Arp. It's difficult to say why. Perhaps Dr. Arp is one of them in disguise. Who can say?

But back to the point of this thread - certainly you're not suggesting that the center of the earth is an example of an active galactic nucleic region?


In any event, further research by those interested (on either side of the debate) will prove beneficial.
I think this is a highly questionable assertion. Further research into Arp's theorizing may very well prove a waste of time.
http://www.xmission.com/~dcc/cougarrelax.jpg

Cougar
2003-Dec-16, 07:01 PM
I am curious to know how the expanding earth theory is a better explanation than plate tectonics for the placement of India and the Himalayas.
Exactly. And that's just one example. What about the Pacific Ring of Fire. What about the formation of the Hawaiian Islands. And on and on and on. These are all very well explained by the existing theory, which is remarkably robust. I expect that anyone well-versed and well-studied in plate tectonics and the associated geology would find this "EE" argument laughably immature and devoid of factual support.

Cougar
2003-Dec-16, 07:06 PM
take for example, the mid-atlantic rift.... Am I way off base here? Or is that a possibility?
That seems like a perfectly fine proof of the complete inadequacy of this "great circle proof of EE" thingy.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-16, 07:50 PM
I'm sorry, I meant to say that the epansion was outward from the circle, not along the circle. So, for example, on the 0/180 circle, at the equator, the expansion would be east/west.
Yes, this would prevent net Earth expansion, but my reply would be the same as before. You would be getting one great circle getting bigger and another one getting smaller and the Earth's shape would have to be changing. Again an ovoid shape would appear using this example. We don't see such a thing.

Musashi
2003-Dec-16, 07:54 PM
Why would that cause one circle to get bigger?

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-16, 08:10 PM
The only way this great circle example might prove that there was an expansion going on would be if every area of expansion along the line was expanding in one of two directions, along the line or 180 degrees along the line. The point is for this to show net expansion, they have to be expanding parallel to the line. Even a degree off will affect it as the subduction zones to compensate for it then do not also have to be on the line. When this isn't the case (read any time you can draw the line) then expansion may be happening at points on the circle but if going in different directions not directly along the line would not add to net expansion on the line/circle. The circumference of the circle would remain the same if all the expansion areas were expanding in directions not parallel to the circle.
I would say that extension along the great circle would always lead to expansion of the circle if there were no subduction occurring directly on the circle. (The maximum rate of expansion of the circle would be if it cuts a mid-ocean ridge or rift valley at right angles. The rate of expansion would diminish as the angle becomes more oblique, falling to zero (I think) when the circle and the spreading ridge are parallel). The only way you could get around it I suppose is if crust were somehow being drawn out from below the surface to points off the circle. I can't imagine this.

Now what you're suggesting about subduction zones not on the great circle somehow counteracting expansion on the circle doesn't make sense, unless it's as I've said above.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-16, 08:15 PM
Well my understanding is that the expansion is not happening straight up out of the center of the earth but rather new crust is formed and slides laterally along the surface. My point is that if the direction is not parallel to the circle then subduction zones could be located off the line and taking care of the expansion. New crust may be forming all along the line but it then slides off of it.
The expansion is indeeed straight up from the center with small variations. The new crust that is being formed represents just the tip of the iceberg. The major part of the expansion is new mantle being formed below this. The crust is mostly being lifted up. We can stilll apply Perin's argument just using the crust though. Does this help?

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-16, 08:20 PM
Halton Arp has a theory based upon intrinsic redshifts and quasar distribution that matter is created in the nucleus of active galactic nuclei at zero mass, then that mass increases with time as the newly created matter is able to communicate with the rest of the universe.
Arp subscribes to EE too. I think he mostly sees it in Le Sageian terms, ie, gravity particles being absorbed by the Earth in gravitation lead to an increase in the Earth's mass. But maybe you're right and Arp's aging of matter theory is involved here too!

Alex W.
2003-Dec-16, 09:26 PM
If the earth was small and completely covered with continental land in the past, where did all the life evolve? And where was all the water it evolved in? Where did all the water come from that now covers 75% of the (supposedly larger) Earth's surface?

You've not thought this through, have you? Unless you can come up with a magical way for the Earth to gain mass, magically produce water, for life to evolve without water, for the earth for form in a manner that means there is no water present, etc., it doesn't work.

Or in other words, your theory requires that all physics, chemistry, biology, geology, geography, astrophysics etc. be rewritten.

Didn't that sound alarm bells?

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-16, 09:46 PM
If the earth was small and completely covered with continental land in the past, where did all the life evolve? And where was all the water it evolved in? Where did all the water come from that now covers 75% of the (supposedly larger) Earth's surface?
<>
Didn't that sound alarm bells?
It's not as alarming as you might suppose. The ocean basins weren't there on the smaller globe, but the water was. Perin estimates that the water level would have been 1.8 km above the present sea level. Only land masses higher than this would have been exposed. I suggest that life arose in the shallow waters at the feet of these land masses.

Some of this was discussed in the thread "Expanding Earth Video", for which kilopi provided the link in this thread.

Alex W.
2003-Dec-16, 10:05 PM
Oh, now I get it.

frenat
2003-Dec-16, 10:11 PM
I guess my post wasn't clear.

take for example, the mid-atlantic rift. Imagine it runs true north-south from 40 degrees north to 40 degrees south and is spreading true east-west at the rate of 1 meter per day. Now. Place your great circle so that it follows that rift. Imagine, for the sake of simplicity, that is the only activity on that great circle. Now imagine that 200 miles on either side are two lines of subduction. Imagine they run parallel to the rift and for the same length. Imagine they subduct 0.5 meters per day each. Now, neither subduction zone is on the original great circle, but strangely the circumfrence of the circle is not expanding....

Am I way off base here? Or is that a possibility?


Musashi, you said essentially what I was trying to get at but said it better. He still doesn't get it though. I'm not sure he ever will.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-16, 10:38 PM
I guess my post wasn't clear.

take for example, the mid-atlantic rift. Imagine it runs true north-south from 40 degrees north to 40 degrees south and is spreading true east-west at the rate of 1 meter per day. Now. Place your great circle so that it follows that rift. Imagine, for the sake of simplicity, that is the only activity on that great circle. Now imagine that 200 miles on either side are two lines of subduction. Imagine they run parallel to the rift and for the same length. Imagine they subduct 0.5 meters per day each. Now, neither subduction zone is on the original great circle, but strangely the circumfrence of the circle is not expanding....

Am I way off base here? Or is that a possibility?
There are a couple of things wrong here. First, if we put the great circle right along the mid-Atlantic ridge, there would not be expansion in the circle. For expansion, you need to have the circle cutting the ridge at a non-zero angle, with 90 deg giving the most expansion. The crust that is being added here is in the East-West directions; that won't increase the circumference of the circle.

But let's imagine this circle did hit a ridge at right angles. If there was another circle 200 miles to the west where we had subduction, then it's true we could possibly have zero net expansion, if the material subducting around the second circle were being added to the first circle. But the two circles have been doing their respective expansion and subduction for millions of years, so a distortion in the vicinity of the two rings would appear. If we had enough of these pairs of circles the Earth would start to look like a pumpkin!

Another problem is that for the most part the zones where subduction is thought to occur aren't that close to the spreading centres. They are mostly thousands of miles away from each other. So it's no easy channeling material from here to there.

dgruss23
2003-Dec-16, 10:41 PM
Cougar: Yes, we've discussed this in other threads here. The support that Arp claims for this "theory" is exceedingly weak. I would call it nonexistent.

Which theory are you talking about? The empirical model for which the sum evidence presented here that invalidates the possibility was zilch or the theoretical model for which the sum efforts at presenting evidence that it is actually wrong was about as close to zilch as you can get without being zilch.


I think most of the astronomical community agree with my assessment (actually I am agreeing with theirs).

Pretty flimsy assessment when as Tim Thompson has pointed out Arp has been ignored for 20+ years.


There are a few die-hards on this board, however, who are staunch supporters of Arp. It's difficult to say why.

It's only difficult if you haven't invested any time objectively looking into the matter.


Perhaps Dr. Arp is one of them in disguise. Who can say?

I can say. Halton Arp is not discussing his model on this board. Who on this board could you possibly be talking about other than me. Nobody else has devoted significant time to explaining his model, referencing his work, and clearing up the numerous misconceptions as to what he does and does not say. I'm not Arp ... and if I'm not Arp then your short list of candidates drops to zero.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-16, 11:30 PM
ExpErdMann wrote:“Perin shows that there is at least one hemispheric circle which passes through several zones of crustal extension, but no subduction zones. Consequently this ring must be increasing in diameter and so the Earth must be expanding as a whole.”
..
We already know that this is not the case. In fact, we should see vertical rise along the circumference of any and every hemispheric ring (great circle), not just one or two carefully chosen rings. We don’t see that.
We don't see obvious expansion along all rings (as in a bulge in the Earth's surface) for the reason that each and every ring is expanding. They expand together, simultaneously.


“An EE prediction would be that there would be uplift detected all over the globe.”
Exactly. We do not see uplift all over the globe.
Ditto, except that GPS data could be giving us a positive indication here.


What I find particularly frustrating is the fact that you attempt to adopt a smarmy, condescending attitude toward plate tectonics adherents, then waffle big time when called upon to deliver the goods. “Maybe”, “perhaps”, “somehow” and “could be” are terms which carry no persuasive currency.
These are tough problems without easy solutions. If G is indeed changing, it could complicate all sorts of measurements.




“And maybe it has been, as in the link to Mitrovica's work that I gave above.”
No. Mitrovica’s work concerns regional rebound due to retreating glaciations. Expansion is not even mentioned and you have essentially raped another person’s data. You can see just how regional the effect is in figure B, provided halfway down the page. This is useless for you argument because it has nothing to do with sea floor spreading or rifting. It’s simply regional rebound caused by an already known mechanism; the retreat of glaciations in that region.
Want to lighten up a bit? I'm just pointing out that we have at least one set of data showing uplift. We can't say for sure what's causing it.

Musashi
2003-Dec-16, 11:48 PM
So the rings are expanding at the same rate everywhere?

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-17, 12:03 AM
That's the conclusion. If only a single ring were expanding it would lead to an obvious deformity in the Earth's surface over time. The implication of course is that subduction plays at most a minor role.

Musashi
2003-Dec-17, 12:11 AM
Then doesn't EE need to show that the expansion is the same everywhere? What mechanism does EE use for expansion? I mean, I can observe expansion at the rifts, but.. I don't see any expansion in my neigborhood.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-17, 12:54 AM
What we see at the rifts is just the surface aspect of the expansion. Suppose that the continental crust was really thin. Then we might see rifting all over the place, including your neighborhood. But because the continents are quite thick, the rifts are fewer. New ones appear from time to time to carve up continents further, but it seems the expansion process likes to take the easy road wherever it can, which is through the ocean basins. Or imagine if the continents were really, really thick. Then maybe the only outlet for the expansion could be in the form of massive volcanic eruptions. Maybe that's what happened on Venus.

Musashi
2003-Dec-17, 01:11 AM
Hmmm.

[Just so you know EEman, I am not making fun of the theory, I am just trying to understand it, and I am using a lighthearted manner. Keeps me from going nuts.]

I am going to look into tectonics, rifts, and subduction zones, and see if I can get a better handle on all of this.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-17, 01:27 AM
I noticed just now that Perin gave rates and angles of intersect for the five extensional areas his ring passes through. It was right at the end of the article. The data is taken from US Geological Survey maps. The data are in the format: Point on Map.. Expansion Rate.. Angle..Annual Ring Growth. I have truncated angles to nearest degree.

Point 1.. 20.0 mm/yr.. 39.. 15.6 mm/yr

Point 2 .. <1.0 mm/yr...30...negligible

Point 3.. 15.0 mm/yr....18...14.5 mm/yr

Point 4 ... 60.0 mm/yr.. 37... 48.0 mm/yr

Point 5... <1.0 mm/yr... 7... negligible

Point 1 is the mid-Atlantic ridge. Point 2 is the African Rift Valley. Point 3 is an ocean ridge running in the direction southwest to northeast to the southeast of Madagascar. Point 4 is an ocean ridge close to the one in point 3 (the two ridges intersect near here). Point 5 is in the rift near the US-Mexican west coast.

By adding together the expansion numbers, Perin concludes his ring is expanding in its circumference length at 77.8 mm/yr. To get the annual change in Earth radius we would divide this by 2 pi.

It seems to me Perin could strengthen his argument by doing lots of circles and finding out if the expansion result is the same each time. This could be especially interesting for the subducton zones. Suppose for instance that all rings not including subduction zones showed the same general expansion rate. Then we could look at the rings going through subduction zones and estimate how much subduction is happening, by subtracting the expansions along the ring from the average rate (along rings without subduction). Maybe subduction could still be happening even if the Earth is expanding.

granolaeater
2003-Dec-17, 01:27 AM
“And maybe it has been, as in the link to Mitrovica's work that I gave above.”
No. Mitrovica’s work concerns regional rebound due to retreating glaciations. Expansion is not even mentioned and you have essentially raped another person’s data. You can see just how regional the effect is in figure B, provided halfway down the page. This is useless for you argument because it has nothing to do with sea floor spreading or rifting. It’s simply regional rebound caused by an already known mechanism; the retreat of glaciations in that region.
Want to lighten up a bit? I'm just pointing out that we have at least one set of data showing uplift. We can't say for sure what's causing it.
Maybe we can't say for sure what's causing it, but we can say for sure that it is a regional phenomen (from the data), hence we can also say for sure that these data do not back up ExpErdManns expanding earth theorie.

ExpErdManns Theorie is positively in conflict with existing data:

1. He says: upwelling regions are on great circles, subduction zones not, so expansion is necessary for geometrical reasons. This argument would be logically valid only if there were no horizontal compression of earths crust. But there is evidence for horizontal compression from existing data.

2. If Earth were expanding from sea floor spreading, there had to be new material added parallel along the lines of upwelling in the midocean rifts and perpendicular besides them.
From existing data there is evidence for adding new material perpendicular besides the midocean rifts but not parallel in them. This is what you would await for a non expanding Earth.

3. The movement of the continents due to sea floor spreading can be measured, has been measured and is measured. If there was expansion there would be an average net increasing of the distance between the measurement points. But there is none. The math would be quite easy.
So there is hard evidence from the data that there is no global expansion today, although there is is upwelling of material in the ocean rifts causing the continents to move. This means that there is no corellation between sea floor spreading and earth expansion today. And there is no reason from the data for assuming such a correlation for the past.

Conclusion:
The expanding earth theorie was interesting in in the 60's before measurement of continental movement was possible, but today it is dead.

Besides theories about changing G and other natural constants are also dead due to very exact measurements in the last years.

Musashi
2003-Dec-17, 01:30 AM
Is it true that the Pacific Ocean is shrinking?

Musashi
2003-Dec-17, 01:49 AM
Ok, I just thought of something. If the earth is expanding, shouldn't the sea level be dropping? If not, where is all the extra water coming from. Furthermore, although it has been asked and, I think answered, is the earth getting more massive, or less dense?

granolaeater
2003-Dec-17, 01:55 AM
Is it true that the Pacific Ocean is shrinking?
For all what I have read about continental movement - yes.
From direct Measurement Europe and Asia are moving east while the Americas are moving west.
There is a midocean ridge in eastern pacific but it is quite inactive compared to that in the Atlantic. On the other hand there are very active and large subduction zones on both sides of the pacific and no one in the atlantic except a short one along the Antilles.

granolaeater
2003-Dec-17, 02:17 AM
http://www.solarviews.com/thumb/sun/sunspot3.gif
Besides the sunspots you can see the normel granulation pattern of the sun's surface on this pic.
You can see clearly the network of dark subduction zones and the little bright spots of upwelling between them. This pattern covers the hole sun so you can easily lay great circles through the subduction lines. the upwelling points added are giving a much shorter line. Due to the logic of ExpandingEarthManns argument this means that there is far more subduction then upwelling and the sun is shrinking.
Due to the high velocity of this convection movement (around 1000m/s vertically) this shrinking must be very fast.
Perhaps we should beginning to plan evacuation of earth immediately?

wedgebert
2003-Dec-17, 03:57 AM
Ok, I just thought of something. If the earth is expanding, shouldn't the sea level be dropping? If not, where is all the extra water coming from. Furthermore, although it has been asked and, I think answered, is the earth getting more massive, or less dense?

Maybe we don't notice because global warming is melting the ice caps at the exact rate needed to cover up the earth's expansion.

Musashi
2003-Dec-17, 04:03 AM
That would be an odd coincedence... Wouldn't we notice that the caps are melting but the sea level doesn't change?

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-17, 04:13 AM
Maybe we can't say for sure what's causing it, but we can say for sure that it is a regional phenomen (from the data), hence we can also say for sure that these data do not back up ExpErdManns expanding earth theorie.
The data I cited were from a single study. I don't know what other GPS studies are saying. For example, are there studies showing regions which are subsiding?


ExpErdManns Theorie is positively in conflict with existing data:

1. He says: upwelling regions are on great circles, subduction zones not, so expansion is necessary for geometrical reasons. This argument would be logically valid only if there were no horizontal compression of earths crust. But there is evidence for horizontal compression from existing data.
I don't follow you here. Horizontal compression at some sites would neither prove nor disprove expansion. Can you show how horizontal compression would change the picture using Perin's great circle?


2. If Earth were expanding from sea floor spreading, there had to be new material added parallel along the lines of upwelling in the midocean rifts and perpendicular besides them. From existing data there is evidence for adding new material perpendicular besides the midocean rifts but not parallel in them. This is what you would await for a non expanding Earth.
Sorry, but I don't follow you on this point.

3. The movement of the continents due to sea floor spreading can be measured, has been measured and is measured. If there was expansion there would be an average net increasing of the distance between the measurement points. But there is none. The math would be quite easy.
I'm not sure you're correct here. Can you point me to a paper which discusses this? It would seem to me to be a very complicated task to compute the net divergence (or convergence) of all the GPS stations. If a study has been done I'd love to know.

So there is hard evidence from the data that there is no global expansion today, although there is is upwelling of material in the ocean rifts causing the continents to move. This means that there is no corellation between sea floor spreading and earth expansion today. And there is no reason from the data for assuming such a correlation for the past.
I have either not understood your points or disagree with them. Perhaps someone can clarify this for one or both of us.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-17, 04:36 AM
Ok, I just thought of something. If the earth is expanding, shouldn't the sea level be dropping? If not, where is all the extra water coming from. Furthermore, although it has been asked and, I think answered, is the earth getting more massive, or less dense?
The sea level should drop on an expanding Earth, since the area of the ocean basins is getting larger. I believe that evidence does support a general picture of the continents gradually becoming more raised above sea level over time. It can be argued though that this could be caused by icecap formation or other effects.

Another argument Perin makes is that ancient marine sediments are found only over continental areas, none on the floors of present oceans. In fact dating of ocean floors shows none to be older than the Jurassic. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is because the basins weren't there at first and water only drained into them after expansion occurred.

It's not true that the Pacific is shrinking, by the way. All the oceans are getting larger. In the Pacific we have major spreading zones in the south and southeast.

On your question of Earth's mass and density, EEers disagree with one another here. I support the idea that the density is decreasing. There is an interesting paper by Martin Pickford in the book. He notes the sharp discontinuity in density (almost a factor of 2) between the lower mantle and the outer core, and cites an earlier author who proposed that expansion is the result of the dense outer core being progressively converted to lighter mantle. This idea can also be connected with a decreasing G scenario, as was discussed by Jordan in his book "The expanding earth".

I like your lighthearted approach, Musashi. That's the best way to discuss problems like this. Especially this problem. I mean, it's hysterical in a way that the Earth is expanding underneath our very feet and yet we are so ignorant about it!

freddo
2003-Dec-17, 04:39 AM
I like your lighthearted approach, Musashi. That's the best way to discuss problems like this. Especially this problem. I mean, it's hysterical in a way that the Earth is expanding underneath our very feet and yet we are so ignorant about it!

It's hysterical that the Earth might be expanding under our very feet...

I think there's still a multitude of things to explain before I'll allow you that assertion.

granolaeater
2003-Dec-17, 04:57 AM
That would be an odd coincedence... Wouldn't we notice that the caps are melting but the sea level doesn't change?
Of course we would notice. It is known that that the sea levels were much lower in ice age.
But there is a better argument:
Volcanoes are blowing enough water per year into the atmosphere that by linear extrapolation backwards (and the assumtion that water was only added to the surface but not removed) you get a completely dry surface of the earth roughly 3.5 billion years ago.
But I don't buy it for three reasons:
1. Much of the material ejected by volcanoes comes from subducted crustal material, This suggests a geologic cycle for warer as there is for carbondioxid.
2. Due to our modells of formation of the solar system 3.5 billion years ago there should have been a huge body of water on the surface deposited by infalling comets.
3. If you take the amount of salt deposited in the ocean by rivers today
you get also about roughly 3.5 billion years for the accumulation of salt in the oceans but this time under the assumption that the volume of ocean water remained constant. (and by the way a constant area of dry land to - another argument against expanding earth)

Musashi
2003-Dec-17, 05:42 AM
I have to second Archer on this one. I wouldn't say that you have proven your case yet. :)

I thought of something else. If the earth is expanding, wouldn't the atmosphere be getting thinner?

[Edit... Archer, Freddo.. who can tell them apart! Both great guys whom I respect immensely... even though I suck.]

Musashi
2003-Dec-17, 05:43 AM
Oh yeah... what would be driving the earth to get less dense? And, at some point, the earth will be hollow, right? How stable is that? Should I be afraid that the earth is going to break up and crack into millions of pieces right under my feet?

freddo
2003-Dec-17, 05:44 AM
I have to second Archer on this one

Ahem... [-X

VVV Heck no problem!! And I have no problem with you getting me confused with Archer17 - There are an innumerable amount of worse choices..

Musashi
2003-Dec-17, 05:50 AM
Well crap.

I don't know how that happened. I could blame my eyesight... no. Hmmm, how about this. I respect Archer... and so I remembered it as being from him... and since it was yours, you should feel complimented! ;)

ACtually, I read your post almost right after it was written, but I had to go watch the Kings game, so by the time I responded, my memory had failed.... I'm an old 27!

(Sorry!)

granolaeater
2003-Dec-17, 06:02 AM
The sea level should drop on an expanding Earth, since the area of the ocean basins is getting larger. I believe that evidence does support a general picture of the continents gradually becoming more raised above sea level over time. It can be argued though that this could be caused by icecap formation or other effects.
Better take a look in geology books then just believe what fits to your theory! Evidence shows alternating increasing and decreasing of sea levels.



Another argument Perin makes is that ancient marine sediments are found only over continental areas, none on the floors of present oceans. In fact dating of ocean floors shows none to be older than the Jurassic. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is because the basins weren't there at first and water only drained into them after expansion occurred.

This is a better argument against earth expansion then for it. If the area of ocean bottoms would have been expanding for the last 3 billion years I would expect to find at least some much older material, if not at the surface than at least in drilling cores. But there is none. This makes perfectly sense for non expanding earth because here we have subduction
(by the way subduction today can by regarded as a proven fact) and the older material simply was swallowed by the subduction zones and has been recycled since. And don't try to argue there was no ocean floor before the jurassic. The motion of the continents is well know for at least 550 million years (more then double the time from the jurassic) an and there was motion relativ to each other and rotation all the time. How could this have been possible without ocean floor between them? (by the way the supercontinent pangaia existed only a short time around the triassic period)




It's not true that the Pacific is shrinking, by the way. All the oceans are getting larger. In the Pacific we have major spreading zones in the south and southeast.
Since there are large subduction zones all around the pacific these spreading zones are absolutely no proof for a growing pacific. Here as well as in the other oceans is no floor material older then the jurassic, although the ocean itself (unlike the atlantic) is clearly much older.
On the other hand the distance over the pacific between measurement points in north america is decreasing
Your claim for all oceans getting larger is clearly theorie driven. Even if you deny direct measurement you have no positive proof for your claim.

granolaeater
2003-Dec-17, 06:11 AM
The sea level should drop on an expanding Earth, since the area of the ocean basins is getting larger. I believe that evidence does support a general picture of the continents gradually becoming more raised above sea level over time. It can be argued though that this could be caused by icecap formation or other effects.
Better take a look in geology books then just believe what fits to your theory! Evidence shows alternating increasing and decreasing of sea levels.



Another argument Perin makes is that ancient marine sediments are found only over continental areas, none on the floors of present oceans. In fact dating of ocean floors shows none to be older than the Jurassic. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is because the basins weren't there at first and water only drained into them after expansion occurred.

This is a better argument against earth expansion then for it. If the area of ocean bottoms would have been expanding for the last 3 billion years I would expect to find at least some much older material, if not at the surface than at least in drilling cores. But there is none. This makes perfectly sense for non expanding earth because here we have subduction (by the way subduction today can by regarded as a proven fact) and the older material simply was swallowed by the subduction zones and has been recycled since. And don't try to argue there was no ocean floor before the jurassic. The motion of the continents is well know for at least 550 million years (more then double the time from the jurassic) an and there was motion relativ to each other and rotation all the time. How could this have been possible without ocean floor between them? (by the way the supercontinent pangaia existed only a short time around the triassic period)




It's not true that the Pacific is shrinking, by the way. All the oceans are getting larger. In the Pacific we have major spreading zones in the south and southeast.
Since there are large subduction zones all around the pacific these spreading zones are absolutely no proof for a growing pacific. Here as well as in the other oceans is no floor material older then the jurassic, although the ocean itself (unlike the atlantic) is clearly much older.
On the other hand the distance over the pacific between measurement points in north america and eurasia is decreasing
Your claim for all oceans getting larger is clearly theorie driven. Even if you deny direct measurement you have no positive proof for your claim.

granolaeater
2003-Dec-17, 09:19 AM
Maybe we can't say for sure what's causing it, but we can say for sure that it is a regional phenomen (from the data), hence we can also say for sure that these data do not back up ExpErdManns expanding earth theorie.
The data I cited were from a single study. I don't know what other GPS studies are saying. For example, are there studies showing regions which are subsiding?
You can see it for example in the baltic shield. The middle region in scandinavia (where the thickness of the glacial ice shield had its maximum) there ist fast uplifting, to the edges of the area it is slowing down and around the baltic sea the land is subsiding. The same holds true for Britain - the northern parts are uplufting, the southern are subsiding. These are well known facts. You will find them in any newer geologic textbook about these areas.



ExpErdManns Theorie is positively in conflict with existing data:

1. He says: upwelling regions are on great circles, subduction zones not, so expansion is necessary for geometrical reasons. This argument would be logically valid only if there were no horizontal compression of earths crust. But there is evidence for horizontal compression from existing data.
I don't follow you here. Horizontal compression at some sites would neither prove nor disprove expansion. Can you show how horizontal compression would change the picture using Perin's great circle?
Of course horizontal compression at some sites would neither prove nor disprove expansion but it clearly disproves the logic of Perin's great circle argument:
1. Horizontal or lateral compression allows that all the material upwelling in the midocean rifts can be consumed later in the subduction zones even when the cumulative length of the midocean ridges is much larger then that of the subduction zones.
2. Horizontal or lateral compression can be a side effect of changing of direection of material flux along earths surface. Changing of flux direction allows that midocean rifts and coresponding subduction zone neither have necessarily to be parallel nor crossed by the same great circle.

Take the african plate as an example:
Here the midocean rifts form a long u-shaped structure arond western-, southern-, and eaestern africa. The material from the atlantic rift flows eastwards, that from the indian flows westwards, but the african continentel crust moves northwards (the mediterranean sea is the last remnant of another shrinking ocean - the thetys). This is a change of direction by 90 degrees. If we assume that these movements are showing the underlying mantle movement, there should be a mantle subduction under the Alps where the crustal material folds up to mountains. I don't know if a mantle subduction under the Alps has been proven yet. But I know it has been for the similar Situation with India and the Himalaya.



2. If Earth were expanding from sea floor spreading, there had to be new material added parallel along the lines of upwelling in the midocean rifts and perpendicular besides them. From existing data there is evidence for adding new material perpendicular besides the midocean rifts but not parallel in them. This is what you would await for a non expanding Earth.
Sorry, but I don't follow you on this point.
Ok, here again in easier words: For an expanding earth (remaining spherical while expanding) I would expect ocean growing in all directions.
so ocean rifts have to be growing in length and ocean floor would have to grow parallel and perpendicular to the rifts. But for lenghtening of the rifts and ocean floor growing parallel to them there is no evidence.




3. The movement of the continents due to sea floor spreading can be measured, has been measured and is measured. If there was expansion there would be an average net increasing of the distance between the measurement points. But there is none. The math would be quite easy.
I'm not sure you're correct here. Can you point me to a paper which discusses this? It would seem to me to be a very complicated task to compute the net divergence (or convergence) of all the GPS stations. If a study has been done I'd love to know.
I have seen an older paper on that not with GPS measurements, but with the older Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI). I cannot find it back here in appropriate time. But you will find absolute data for speed and direction of continental movement derived from these data in modern geological textbooks. To get these absolute data you have to compare the measurements from each station with each other and build an average to get a common frame of reference (don't forget these old methods were far more indirect then gps).
These necessary calculations would have been given earth expansion nearly as a side effect, but it was not there. I don't think someone would have published a paper especially to disproof a theory, wich nearly no one beliefs in either. But the opposite - a systematic error in the calculations, that could have been only attributed to earth expansion would have stirred them up.
Here a website on geodetic Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI):
http://lupus.gsfc.nasa.gov/vlbi.html

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-17, 04:35 PM
1. Much of the material ejected by volcanoes comes from subducted crustal material, This suggests a geologic cycle for warer as there is for carbondioxid.
2. Due to our modells of formation of the solar system 3.5 billion years ago there should have been a huge body of water on the surface deposited by infalling comets.
3. If you take the amount of salt deposited in the ocean by rivers today
you get also about roughly 3.5 billion years for the accumulation of salt in the oceans but this time under the assumption that the volume of ocean water remained constant. (and by the way a constant area of dry land to - another argument against expanding earth)
On points 1 and 2 I agree. I don't see any problems here for the EE model. The point on salt is interesting and I'm not sure how to reply. I seem to recall that Pascual Jordan discussed salt in his book "The Expanding Earth". Anyway I don't see an obvious problem here for EE here either, at least not yet.

I notice you are new to the board. Welcome! I can tell you know a lot about the fields that are relevant to the EE debate and I hope we can have some interesting discussions.

I also noticed your from Berlin. Did you know that Berlin is a sort of focal point for EE research? The Technische Universitat - Berlin was one of the publishers of the book we are discussing here and Karl-Heinz Jacob of TU-Berlin is one of the editors. It is obvious that some folks at TU-Berlin are supporting EE. They have been running a discussion in their university website for a couple of years.

http://www.tu-berlin.de/presse/tui/03apr/hilgenberg.htm
http://www.tu-berlin.de/presse/tui/01mai/hilgenb_lb.htm

I'm sure you could find a copy of the book at the TU-Berlin library. It's fun to discuss the EE theory with those who haven't read up on it, but it would be even more fun to discuss it with those who have.

It interests me why Germany is so interested in EE. Of course there is Ott Hilgenberg and Pascual Jordan, but there must also be something in their nature which allows them to look more favourably on this. Maybe they have more interest in finding out what causes things to work, like gravity for instance.

kilopi
2003-Dec-17, 04:39 PM
So the rings are expanding at the same rate everywhere?
I don't see how you would conclude that. What do you mean?

Musashi
2003-Dec-17, 05:07 PM
Well, first of all, I am not concluding that that is the case. I am asking if that is the case. EEMan said that if the rings weren't expanding at the same rate, the earth would look like a pumpkin. To me that implies that the expansion must be uniform (or nearly uniform) for any ring you pick.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-17, 05:49 PM
That would be correct. Did you note my posting where I gave Perin's data, kilopi? My suggestion for Perin is to do his ring study on a whole bunch of rings. If the Earth is expanding, then the average rate of expansion of each ring should be the same. The exception could possibly be if there are in fact subduction zones somewhere. If the (unknown) values for subduction (ring contraction) are not included, the average expansion rate of the rings in those cases would vary from the average. My actual prediction though is that the expansion rates in all rings would be found to be very close to each other. Could PT explain such a result, if it were shown?

kilopi
2003-Dec-17, 06:20 PM
My actual prediction though is that the expansion rates in all rings would be found to be very close to each other. Could PT explain such a result, if it were shown?
We covered this already. If GPS can't reliably observe Earth expansion, then those rates *will* be found to be very close to each other--all right around zero. Fortunately, PT doesn't have to stretch much to explain that. :)

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-17, 06:32 PM
No, what we're talking about here is not GPS data, but the measured rates of seafloor spreading from US Geological Survey maps. Perin's ring has an annual growth to its circumference of 78 mm/yr. The EE prediction would be that all rings would show the same growth. We should actually be able to test this out.

BTW, the BA earlier criticized Perin for using "hemispheric ring" rather than "great circle". But now I'm wondering if Perin's term could be better. It refers to an actual ring of matter. The great circle is just a line.

tjm220
2003-Dec-17, 06:33 PM
Is there an upper limit to the Earth's size according to EE?

Cougar
2003-Dec-17, 07:00 PM
No, what we're talking about here is not GPS data, but the measured rates of seafloor spreading...
If you really want the answer, why use a butter knife to find it when you have a laser scalpel?

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-17, 07:14 PM
The butter knife gives more and better data, though it is slower. Here's a story on a recent expedition to measure spreading in the Arctic.

http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr0367.htm

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-17, 07:19 PM
Is there an upper limit to the Earth's size according to EE?
This depends on the specific EE model. Some models where expansion is caused by new mass generation in the core call for almost unlimited expansion. They even say the Earth will wind up like Jupiter or bigger! I don't subscribe to this fanciful way of thinking.

Other EE models posit that a change of phase in the core is causing the expansion. Martin Pickford in his article in the book (already discussed above), suggests that if the remaining core material changes in density to that of the lower mantle, the Earth will expand by another 17%. That sounds reasonable to me.

kilopi
2003-Dec-17, 07:54 PM
No, what we're talking about here is not GPS data, but the measured rates of seafloor spreading from US Geological Survey maps. Perin's ring has an annual growth to its circumference of 78 mm/yr. The EE prediction would be that all rings would show the same growth. We should actually be able to test this out.

If he claims that the circumference is growing at 78 mm/yr, that implies that the radius is increasing at 78/(2pi), or 1.2 cm per year. That is about as close to zero as you can get, since tectonic upheaval rates can be higher.

How in the world did he arrive at millimeter accuracy, without using GPS??

The butter knife gives more and better data, though it is slower. Here's a story on a recent expedition to measure spreading in the Arctic.

http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr0367.htm
That must be the wrong link. It has nothing at all to do with measuring spreading rates. The article seems to say that they inferred some crustal characteristics from the spreading rate, and the expedition discovered that their observations didn't fit those characteristics. But I don't see where the expedition was actually measuring spreading rates.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-17, 08:04 PM
The sea level should drop on an expanding Earth, since the area of the ocean basins is getting larger. I believe that evidence does support a general picture of the continents gradually becoming more raised above sea level over time.
Better take a look in geology books then just believe what fits to your theory! Evidence shows alternating increasing and decreasing of sea levels.
Yes, alternation of rising and falling sea levels, but a net trend towards falling levels.




Another argument Perin makes is that ancient marine sediments are found only over continental areas, none on the floors of present oceans. In fact dating of ocean floors shows none to be older than the Jurassic. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is because the basins weren't there at first and water only drained into them after expansion occurred.

This is a better argument against earth expansion then for it. If the area of ocean bottoms would have been expanding for the last 3 billion years I would expect to find at least some much older material, if not at the surface than at least in drilling cores. But there is none.
In most EE models, the ocean basins do start to form until the Jurassic. The problem that plate tectonics faces here is how come subduction eliminated all traces of seafloor from earlier epochs, like when we supposedly had the supercontinent Rodinia? You would expect to see vestiges of the old ocean floor somewhere. What, did subduction hunt down the old floor?

kilopi
2003-Dec-17, 08:32 PM
You would expect to see vestiges of the old ocean floor somewhere. What, did subduction hunt down the old floor?
We do see old seafloor--on the mountains.

You won't find it on the bottom of the ocean--not because subduction is "hunting" it down, but because the seafloor is participating in subduction. As the material cools, it gets denser, and it sinks into the mantle, unless it is caught in some sort of tectonic wedge and forced onto the surface.

Cougar
2003-Dec-17, 09:04 PM
If you really want the answer, why use a butter knife to find it when you have a laser scalpel?
The butter knife gives more and better data...
So if you were to have your vision surgically corrected, you would want the surgeon to use a butter knife instead of a laser scalpel? Oh, I get it now. That's why your "vision" is consistently so.... questionable. :lol:

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-17, 09:28 PM
If he claims that the circumference is growing at 78 mm/yr, that implies that the radius is increasing at 78/(2pi), or 1.2 cm per year. That is about as close to zero as you can get, since tectonic upheaval rates can be higher.
Not so small really. If we use this rate and extrapolate to 250 million years ago, we get a total increase of radius of 2,500 km. That's within some estimates of the expansion.


How in the world did he arrive at millimeter accuracy, without using GPS??
Sorry, I got this all wrong, including the news story :oops: Perin's data must be GPS data. Cougar's right, better use the laser!

Alex W.
2003-Dec-17, 09:34 PM
I'd wonder how you could get mm accuracy with GPS, as even the military version has something like a few feet precision. Definately got to go with the laser. :wink:

Even if you do measure a 1.2cm per year change in radius, wouldn't that also be attributable to, say, heating of the earth, or instrumental/ experimental error? How are you going to ensure that the results are accurate to within 0.6cm?

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-17, 09:37 PM
You would expect to see vestiges of the old ocean floor somewhere. What, did subduction hunt down the old floor?
We do see old seafloor--on the mountains.

You won't find it on the bottom of the ocean--not because subduction is "hunting" it down, but because the seafloor is participating in subduction. As the material cools, it gets denser, and it sinks into the mantle, unless it is caught in some sort of tectonic wedge and forced onto the surface.
Now we have discussed these topics before. In EE models, that seafloor on the mountains is there because the whole Earth was practically one big sea for billions of years. Only highland regions of those earlier times would have protruded above sea level.

And even if ocean floor is subducting, it's a bit of a stretch to say all of it did. I heard about some old seafloor being forced up onto Newfoundland, in the manner you say. I think they made a park out of that. But no pockets of old floor anywhere in the ocean, even near the mantle plumes (where the rock wouldn't cool so much)?

Xbalanque
2003-Dec-17, 11:22 PM
I am curious to know how the expanding earth theory is a better explanation than plate tectonics for the placement of India and the Himalayas.
Exactly. And that's just one example. What about the Pacific Ring of Fire. What about the formation of the Hawaiian Islands. And on and on and on. These are all very well explained by the existing theory, which is remarkably robust.

I'd still like to know how EE is a better fit than plate tectonics for these real world situations.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-18, 03:00 AM
I am curious to know how the expanding earth theory is a better explanation than plate tectonics for the placement of India and the Himalayas.
Sorry, in all the postings I forgot to reply to this one. In EE India was never separate from Asia. It never crashed into Asia to form the Himalayas. The uplifting of the Himalayas is due to expansion processes alone. There are many geologists in India who subscribe to this idea. There is a journal called Himalayan Geology, in which some EE people have recently published.


What about the Pacific Ring of Fire. What about the formation of the Hawaiian Islands. And on and on and on. These are all very well explained by the existing theory, which is remarkably robust.
The Pacific Ring of Fire has a different explanation in EE. Here is a part of it. I am taking this from Pascual Jordan's book "The Expanding Earth". In EE all the mantle is rising upwards, including mantle below the continents. It has to rise due to expansion. Around the edges of the Pacific the upwelling material finds it easier to squeeze out around the edges of the continents in certain places (eg Indonesia) rather than lift up the continents. This material that is being extruded collapses on the existing sea floor and this is what causes the subsidence and gravitational anomalies, as well as all the intense volcanism. Krakatoa was a great book, but the author missed the explanation for the main character!

On the Hawaiian Islands, I'm not sure on either the PT or EE explanations for this, or for other similar hotspots. If I were to hazard a guess without reading up on this, I'd say the hotspots are ancient channels for extruding magma that preceded the breakup of the continents and seafloor spreading.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-18, 03:19 AM
Even if you do measure a 1.2cm per year change in radius, wouldn't that also be attributable to, say, heating of the earth, or instrumental/ experimental error? How are you going to ensure that the results are accurate to within 0.6cm?
The 1.2 cm/yr figure for radius increase is drawn from the measured lateral rates of spreading at the ridges. I'm not sure how they measure these rates, but they are well-established and are reported to fractions of a mm. It can't be instrumental error.

wedgebert
2003-Dec-18, 03:41 AM
Sorry, in all the postings I forgot to reply to this one. In EE India was never separate from Asia. It never crashed into Asia to form the Himalayas. The uplifting of the Himalayas is due to expansion processes alone. There are many geologists in India who subscribe to this idea. There is a journal called Himalayan Geology, in which some EE people have recently published.

Many is a relative term. The relative number of geologists (Indian or otherwise) who believe EE compared to those who believe in more sensical and logical explainations is very low. Those that do believe are, in all likelihood, not very well respected.


The Pacific Ring of Fire has a different explanation in EE. Here is a part of it. I am taking this from Pascual Jordan's book "The Expanding Earth". In EE all the mantle is rising upwards, including mantle below the continents. It has to rise due to expansion. Around the edges of the Pacific the upwelling material finds it easier to squeeze out around the edges of the continents in certain places (eg Indonesia) rather than lift up the continents. This material that is being extruded collapses on the existing sea floor and this is what causes the subsidence and gravitational anomalies, as well as all the intense volcanism. Krakatoa was a great book, but the author missed the explanation for the main character!


Again, does this explaination really seem like the logical conclusion? This makes it seem like there is something in the middle of the Earth that is spitting out new mass. How else would you explain the non-uniform forces being applied? Or to put it more specificially, why is the mantle trying to expand but not the crust?


The 1.2 cm/yr figure for radius increase is drawn from the measured lateral rates of spreading at the ridges. I'm not sure how they measure these rates, but they are well-established and are reported to fractions of a mm. It can't be instrumental error.

Well measured? How? The only possible way we could measure that precisely is via intense EM (Radio, Laser, etc) probing of Earth from space over the course of years and compiling that data into models.

We're just now starting to see super accurate maps like this come into existance, and those don't even cover the entire globe. We don't have any data that would show a 12mm radial increase per year. In fact, even our most accurate radar maps can't see objects under 20+ meters. Other methods might be able to detect a smaller change, but still nothing on the millimeter range and especially nothing smaller.

Xbalanque
2003-Dec-18, 04:06 AM
The uplifting of the Himalayas is due to expansion processes alone.

Why are these processes so extreme in this particular place in Asia and so much less so in say, Kansas?

kilopi
2003-Dec-18, 10:47 AM
I'd wonder how you could get mm accuracy with GPS, as even the military version has something like a few feet precision. Definately got to go with the laser.
In the analogy, the "laser" was GPS. Differential GPS had been used by geophysicists to get such accuracy even before the spoofing was turned off by the government. Friends of mine would spend weeks in the most remote areas of the world, babysitting specialized GPS receivers mounted over massive markers that they'd built the season before, to take a single measurement. Then, they'd go back a year or two later and repeat the process. Accuracy to at least the centimeter, I'm told, in areas where the spreading was twenty times that.

kilopi
2003-Dec-18, 10:47 AM
I'd wonder how you could get mm accuracy with GPS, as even the military version has something like a few feet precision. Definately got to go with the laser.
In the analogy, the "laser" was GPS. Differential GPS had been used by geophysicists to get such accuracy even before the spoofing was turned off by the government. Friends of mine would spend weeks in the most remote areas of the world, babysitting specialized GPS receivers mounted over massive markers that they'd built the season before, to take a single measurement. Then, they'd go back a year or two later and repeat the process. Accuracy to at least the centimeter, I'm told, in areas where the spreading was twenty times that.

kilopi
2003-Dec-18, 01:01 PM
I'd wonder how you could get mm accuracy with GPS, as even the military version has something like a few feet precision. Definately got to go with the laser.
In the analogy, the "laser" was GPS. Differential GPS had been used by geophysicists to get such accuracy even before the spoofing was turned off by the government. Friends of mine would spend weeks in the most remote areas of the world, babysitting specialized GPS receivers mounted over massive markers that they'd built the season before, to take a single measurement. Then, they'd go back a year or two later and repeat the process. Accuracy to at least the centimeter, I'm told, in areas where the spreading was twenty times that.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-18, 05:32 PM
The Pacific Ring of Fire has a different explanation in EE. Here is a part of it. <> This material that is being extruded collapses on the existing sea floor and this is what causes the subsidence and gravitational anomalies, as well as all the intense volcanism.

Again, does this explaination really seem like the logical conclusion? This makes it seem like there is something in the middle of the Earth that is spitting out new mass. How else would you explain the non-uniform forces being applied? Or to put it more specificially, why is the mantle trying to expand but not the crust?
This is a good question. Why should the mantle be expanding, while the crust just gets passively pushed about? This makes me want to go back to the idea that expansion is being caused by a phase change at the lower mantle/outer core boundary. Pickford suggests that expansion results when core material of higher density (average 10.9 gm/cc) goes to mantle material of lower density (average 4.9 gm/cc). Originally, the whole mantle was of core-type density, and gradually layers have changed to lighter mantle, working from the outside in. This would be in keeping too with Jordan's decreasing G model, since the higher density core was formed when G was bigger.

So why is the crust passive? It seems that the expansion wil simply take the easiest route. Early on, the regions around the Pacific Ring of Fire may have had a different method of forming new seafloor than ridge spreading. That's what Jordan hypothesizes. The material sort of gushed out from below the continental margins. Later on a more stable system evolved with the well-defined seafloor ridge spreading.

I think kilopi answered your point on measurements. The values Perin uses in his article are known, 'mainstream' values, using GPS.

Alex W.
2003-Dec-18, 06:21 PM
A post so nice he posted it thrice!

Thanks, I had no idea that you could do that. :D

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-18, 07:35 PM
The uplifting of the Himalayas is due to expansion processes alone.

Why are these processes so extreme in this particular place in Asia and so much less so in say, Kansas?
The whole topic of mountain formation is a tough one for me, whether we are talking about PT or EE models. I can only make a few small points.

First, I think the western US is on the rise.

Second, India was the site of earlier massive basalt flooding coinciding with the end of the Cretaceous, the Deccan Traps. This could have been connected to the mass extinction then. Likewise, a similar basalt flooding in Siberia (the Siberian Traps) occurred near the end of the Permian, and may have caused a mass extinction then. What I suppose is that if Eurasia followed the pattern elsewhere, then it would have broken up into smaller continents. But maybe the crust is too thick in Eurasia and so this option is not on. (I think there is a rift in the Lake Baikal region, however). If true, then maybe the magma has nowhere to go but straight up, lifting the crust. Where it can break through, it can cause magma flooding periodically. Just a guess on my part.

tjm220
2003-Dec-18, 09:21 PM
A post so nice he posted it thrice!

Thanks, I had no idea that you could do that. :D

Not really a feature but the critical error (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9810) can cause that. I've deleted some multiple posts because if it.

Alex W.
2003-Dec-18, 09:32 PM
No idea about the GPS accuracy thing, I meant. :wink:

kilopi
2003-Dec-19, 03:49 AM
This would be in keeping too with Jordan's decreasing G model, since the higher density core was formed when G was bigger.
Jordan has a decreasing G model, and someone else has an increasing G model, is that right?

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-19, 05:11 PM
Jordan's theory is just Dirac's. Dirac's theory is mentioned in snowflake's recent topic. Jordan considered earth expansion to be the clearest test of Dirac's theory. For myself, I don't subscribe to Dirac's theory per se because it's premised on a Big Bang type model. I'm for static universe. I suppose that decrease in G is a local phenomenon within each galaxy, ie, galaxies have high G when they are young and move to lower and lower G as they age.

There are theories also postulating increasing G, but I don't have info on those.

Cougar
2003-Dec-19, 05:27 PM
I'm for static universe.
I take it this is a religio-political position as opposed to a scientific position.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-19, 05:31 PM
No, I would say it's the Big Bangers that 'got the religion'. Tough to run a contary idea against that priesthood!

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-19, 07:53 PM
In Scalera's article in the book, there is an explanation of why GPS data may not reveal Earth expansion. Think of two GPS stations located on the Earth's surface. Each one sends a signal to a satellite. The signal paths and the chord betwen the stations form a triangle. Now when the Earth expands, the curvature of the Earth changes. The Earth's surface is 'flatter' between the two stations than it was before. If nothing else is changed, except for the expansion, then the paths traced out by the signals will also change. They will no longer intersect at the satellite but at a point at higher altitude. An observer who was ignorant of the expansion might conclude that the chord betwen the stations was shorter than before. (If we 'move' the stations closer together, the signal paths intersect again at the satellite). Scalera cites a 1989 study by Keki et al purporting an analogous shortening of baselines for the VLBI network, proportional to the baseline length.

Now the GPS should show the upward Earth movement of about 1 cm/yr (Perin's result) if the curvature problem were not there. I wonder if someone can do the math on what I've said above, to see if this effect would just cancel the vertical rise and leave us with a null result. Maybe we could use two stations separated say 100 km apart, for instance.

tjm220
2003-Dec-19, 08:15 PM
Do stars also expand according to EE theory?

wedgebert
2003-Dec-19, 08:53 PM
No, I would say it's the Big Bangers that 'got the religion'. Tough to run a contary idea against that priesthood!

Tough to run a contrary idea against overwhelming evidence, especially when your idea is a lot less complete.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-19, 08:57 PM
Do stars also expand according to EE theory?

It depends on which EE theory you're talking about. If it's EE with increasing mass, then I suppose stars could increase in size just as the Earth does (or maybe not, if the mechanism were somehow Earth-specific). But if it's a decreasing G theory, then for sure the stars would be getting bigger too. They would also be getting weaker (redder). The ellipticals seem to have lots of redder stars, which suggest (to me) that they are older galaxies.

One problem here is that the young Sun would have been a lot hotter. If we were to follow Dirac's model, and only G were changing, then it would have been too hot to have allowed for life to evolve on the early Earth. That is why there must be more to it than just Dirac's theory.

Cougar
2003-Dec-20, 12:39 AM
No, I would say it's the Big Bangers that 'got the religion'. Tough to run a contary idea against that priesthood!
Really? Is this what you really think? I mean, this is the type of thing that the anti-science creationist conspiracy-theory paranoid delusionals like to trot out. Are you really one of them? :-k


Think of two GPS stations located on the Earth's surface. Each one sends a signal to a satellite....
This isn't how GPS works. It's the satellites that are sending out the signals. And you need at least four of them to determine your altitude, which I presume is constantly increasing according to your theory. Trouble is, average accuracy is currently on the order of a meter or three, so unless accuracy is sharpened up quite a bit, we'll have to wait several hundred years to be able to tell if there's any average global change. I won't be holding my breath.
http://www.xmission.com/~dcc/cougarclean.jpg

kilopi
2003-Dec-20, 01:36 AM
Trouble is, average accuracy is currently on the order of a meter or three, so unless accuracy is sharpened up quite a bit, we'll have to wait several hundred years to be able to tell if there's any average global change. I won't be holding my breath.

Go ahead and hold your breath. You can let it out now (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=181400#181400).

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-20, 03:49 AM
This isn't how GPS works. It's the satellites that are sending out the signals.
Of course, you're right - I got that reversed. But the geometry of the situation is still the same. Scalera's description was longer and I was trying to give a capsule version here. He actually discusses Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) in his specific example and figure, though he mentions GPS too.

The bottom line is that it looks like it will be very hard to determine using GPS whether the Earth is expanding radially at a rate of about 1 cm/yr. The factors include:
(1) the value is on the small side to be readily detectible
(2) the geometric problem of decreasing Earth curvature discussed above
(3) separating it out from other vertical motions (eg, higher rates of uplift in some mountain ranges; possible post-glaciation rebound, as in the Mitrovica study).

I think it would be safe to conclude we can't look to GPS or VLBI to decide the issue either pro or con.

kilopi
2003-Dec-20, 08:37 AM
The bottom line is that it looks like it will be very hard to determine using GPS whether the Earth is expanding radially at a rate of about 1 cm/yr. The factors include:
(1) the value is on the small side to be readily detectible
(2) the geometric problem of decreasing Earth curvature discussed above
(3) separating it out from other vertical motions (eg, higher rates of uplift in some mountain ranges; possible post-glaciation rebound, as in the Mitrovica study).

I think it would be safe to conclude we can't look to GPS or VLBI to decide the issue either pro or con.
At the rates we're talking about (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=181099#181099), that's right. However, the objections you raise apply even more to the "hemispheric ring".

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-20, 02:43 PM
The three problems I mentioned affect the vertical measurement of expansion (the radial growth of 1 cm/yr). But we can measure the radial expansion indirectly in the way Perin has done, by measuring the increase in circumference of the hemispheric ring. For those measurements, the growth rates are easily measurable, the geometric factor of changing Earth curvature is not so important, and the other vertical effects are lesser (expansion mostly being at mid-ocean ridges). So I'd say Perin's determination is accurate.

kilopi
2003-Dec-20, 04:19 PM
For those measurements, the growth rates are easily measurable, the geometric factor of changing Earth curvature is not so important, and the other vertical effects are lesser (expansion mostly being at mid-ocean ridges). So I'd say Perin's determination is accurate.
He doesn't measure a growth rate--he takes many measurements and adds them together. However, his circle crosses 24 thousand miles of terrain, and as I pointed out before, he can't be certain what the rates are at all points of the hemispheric ring. The changing Earth curvature is just as important--that is, hardly at all. Curvature hardly changes at all--it's about the same as radius, and its effect is secondary. Expansion may seem to be mostly at mid-ocean ridges, but as I explained earlier, it exists at many other places. If he's saying that it only occurs at mid-ocean ridges, then he's got to go back and fix his calculation, big time.

Anonymous
2003-Dec-20, 04:24 PM
ExpErdMann wrote:


“So I'd say Perin's determination is accurate.”


You’re doing it again. One ‘ring’ is meaningless. Let’s re-examine Perin’s ring.


“The particular ring he uses in the book (and he has done others apparently) passes from the U.S. southwest coast up through Newfoundland; then across the Atlantic and through Spain; then through Africa (through the Rift Valley); then north of Madagascar through the Indian Ocean; passes between Australia and Antarctica; then goes across the Pacific to the US coast again. Along this route the circle goes through extension zones in the mid-Atlantic ridge, the African Rift Valley, a mid-ocean ridge in the Indian Ocean, another mid-ocean ridge south of Australia and finally one near Baja. But no subduction zones!”


Based on your description, this ring is neither latitudinal nor longitudinal……….more of a diagonal. Provide a ring perpendicular to the first ring which shows similar ‘growth’ and you’ll have my attention. If the Earth were truly expanding, this should be easy. If, instead, my paradigm is correct, then random plate velocities and directions can yield a ring resembling Perin’s carefully selected ring. Since you’re the only one here who has the book in question, maybe you’d like to share a few other rings with us. Data on a handful of rings might be impressive and significant. One stand alone ring fails to compel or persuade.

kilopi
2003-Dec-20, 05:25 PM
Based on your description, this ring is neither latitudinal nor longitudinal……….more of a diagonal. Provide a ring perpendicular to the first ring which shows similar ‘growth’ and you’ll have my attention. If the Earth were truly expanding, this should be easy. If, instead, my paradigm is correct, then random plate velocities and directions can yield a ring resembling Perin’s carefully selected ring. Since you’re the only one here who has the book in question, maybe you’d like to share a few other rings with us. Data on a handful of rings might be impressive and significant. One stand alone ring fails to compel or persuade.
EE Man has discussed the expanding and contracting rings in PT before (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=179583#179583) in this thread. Basically, he'd expect the PT mechaniism to result in a misshapen sphere, which he claims we don't see. However, the equator is bulged out by many meters (not centimeters) too far to account for by centrifictional force, and it is pinched by about half that--in other words, even the ideal shape of the time-averaged "sea-level" geoid equator is not a perfect circle, but a bit of an ellipse.

That deviation in the shape is easily measureable, and has been for over thirty years, and it is on the order of more than one meter, rather than a centimeter.

Cougar
2003-Dec-20, 06:40 PM
The bottom line is that it looks like it will be very hard to determine using GPS whether the Earth is expanding radially at a rate of about 1 cm/yr. The factors include:
(1) the value is on the small side to be readily detectible
(2) the geometric problem of decreasing Earth curvature discussed above
(3) separating it out from other vertical motions (eg, higher rates of uplift in some mountain ranges; possible post-glaciation rebound, as in the Mitrovica study).

I think it would be safe to conclude we can't look to GPS or VLBI to decide the issue either pro or con.
I disagree. The precession of Mercury's orbit is not very obvious over one year's time. But it was detected hundreds of years ago, I believe. How? Well, the effect was cumulative, and after several years, the effect was very obvious (and unexplained until Einstein's theory). The same would be true for a hypothesized "expanding earth," so your point #1 falls if we're allowed to observe over time spans greater than one year.

As to your point #2.... your "above discussion" was unconvincing. I didn't think your logic was valid.

Your point #3.... of course you'd need to check hundreds (or thousands) of random points on the earth's surface to get an average figure. But that's certainly do-able.

Of course it's up to the EE theorists to perform this research and report on the results. It's NOT up to the scientific community to go to all this trouble just to show the earth is <chuckle> NOT expanding.

kilopi
2003-Dec-20, 06:56 PM
The precession of Mercury's orbit is not very obvious over one year's time. But it was detected hundreds of years ago, I believe. How? Well, the effect was cumulative, and after several years, the effect was very obvious (and unexplained until Einstein's theory).
Small nit. Most of Mercury's precession is explained by Newtonian physics--and even in the sixties, some scientists thought that the Sun might be slightly more oblate, which would explain the deviation that is now attributable to General Relativity.

There is nothing wrong with alternative views. However, they are often held fanatically, and without understanding of the basic science that refutes them. If someone suggests the mainstream science is blind or self-serving, and at the same time admits, for instance, a lack of understanding of math, or geophysics, or astronomy, that person is probably a crank--regardless of the true value of the underlying theory. I've seen many cranks in thrall to Newton.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-20, 07:39 PM
Expansion may seem to be mostly at mid-ocean ridges, but as I explained earlier, it exists at many other places. If he's saying that it only occurs at mid-ocean ridges, then he's got to go back and fix his calculation, big time.
He has expansion going on in the African Rift Valley too. I think you're saying that the observable crust being added at MORs and rift valleys is not the whole story. Compression and extension at other points could change the dimensions of the ring. In PT I think you'd argue that those forces cancel out on a global basis, wouldn't you? I think the same would hold for EE, ie, the forces are generated (mainly) by the ridge spreading, and those forces cancel out, leaving just the expansion observable as new crust.

I can think of one instance where expansion could arise without seafloor or rift spreading, however. Mountain formation such as in the Himalayas might cause lateral expansion (and so to be included in Perin's ring) as well as uplift. So maybe Perin should look at mountain ranges too, or choose a ring that doesn't cross growing mountains.

kilopi
2003-Dec-20, 07:46 PM
I think you're saying that the observable crust being added at MORs and rift valleys is not the whole story.
Actually my point is mostly that extension also occurs at areas other than subduction.

Compression and extension at other points could change the dimensions of the ring. In PT I think you'd argue that those forces cancel out on a global basis, wouldn't you?
No, no I wouldn't, not at the level (tens of centimeters) that we are talking about.

I can think of one instance where expansion could arise without seafloor or rift spreading, however. Mountain formation such as in the Himalayas might cause lateral expansion (and so to be included in Perin's ring) as well as uplift. So maybe Perin should look at mountain ranges too, or choose a ring that doesn't cross growing mountains.
Rather, he could try to choose a ring that doesn't cross strike/slip faults, but I imagine he's already exhausted most of the possibilities and the one he choose is the only one that fits his already established criteris of not crossing an active subduction zone. I'm not sure how he treats strike/slip.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-20, 07:47 PM
Based on your description, this ring is neither latitudinal nor longitudinal……….more of a diagonal. Provide a ring perpendicular to the first ring which shows similar ‘growth’ and you’ll have my attention. If the Earth were truly expanding, this should be easy. If, instead, my paradigm is correct, then random plate velocities and directions can yield a ring resembling Perin’s carefully selected ring. Since you’re the only one here who has the book in question, maybe you’d like to share a few other rings with us. Data on a handful of rings might be impressive and significant. One stand alone ring fails to compel or persuade.
I totally agree. I mentioned in an earlier post that it would be a valuable study to systematically analyze a lot of rings to see if the result pans out. Perin's study is based on US Geological Survey tectonic maps, and I suppose these could be not too inaccessible. Perin mentions at this website that he has at least one other ring and gives his e-mail. Maybe I'll try to get it.
http://www.tu-berlin.de/presse/tui/01mai/hilgenb_lb.htm

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-20, 08:00 PM
The same would be true for a hypothesized "expanding earth," so your point #1 falls if we're allowed to observe over time spans greater than one year.
Agreed! I wish someone would do a longitudinal sudy like this.


As to your point #2.... your "above discussion" was unconvincing. I didn't think your logic was valid.
It's a tricky point and I'm not sure if I did justice to it. If I can think of a better way to present it I will.


Your point #3.... of course you'd need to check hundreds (or thousands) of random points on the earth's surface to get an average figure. But that's certainly do-able.
Again, agreed. And maybe such studies already exist and have been compiled. An average figure would be good to have


Of course it's up to the EE theorists to perform this research and report on the results. It's NOT up to the scientific community to go to all this trouble just to show the earth is <chuckle> NOT expanding.
Now here we don't agree. You're just refusing to give EE status as a competing theory with PT. Just like you don't give static universe status or Arp's quasar studies. You seem to like your science as it's served up to us by Discover and Sky & Telescope. But that's not the way to progress.

kilopi
2003-Dec-20, 08:10 PM
The particular ring he uses in the book (and he has done others apparently) passes from the U.S. southwest coast up through Newfoundland; then across the Atlantic and through Spain; then through Africa (through the Rift Valley); then north of Madagascar through the Indian Ocean; passes between Australia and Antarctica; then goes across the Pacific to the US coast again. Along this route the circle goes through extension zones in the mid-Atlantic ridge, the African Rift Valley, a mid-ocean ridge in the Indian Ocean, another mid-ocean ridge south of Australia and finally one near Baja. But no subduction zones!

Can the plate tectonics boosters twist their way out of this one?
It looks to me like that ring would go over the Tonga trench. Is that right?

kilopi
2003-Dec-20, 08:15 PM
Of course it's up to the EE theorists to perform this research and report on the results. It's NOT up to the scientific community to go to all this trouble just to show the earth is <chuckle> NOT expanding.
Now here we don't agree. You're just refusing to give EE status as a competing theory with PT. Just like you don't give static universe status or Arp's quasar studies. You seem to like your science as it's served up to us by Discover and Sky & Telescope. But that's not the way to progress.
How is that not giveing EE status? The individuals in the scientific community also have their own pet theories and non-mainstream ideas. Why should they give up their own quirky ideas to work on someone else's?

Especially if those others don't even put forth the effort to become part of the scientific community themselves. (I'm not talking about anybody specifically.) If they did--then the scientific community would be addressing the issues, right?

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-20, 08:36 PM
It looks to me like that ring would go over the Tonga trench. Is that right?
From his drawing in the book, it seems to pass just to the south of the Tonga trench. But I'd have to say he cuts it close.

On the science business, I just mean that it's not right to put the whole onus of testing alternative theories on the alternative theorists themselves. For one thing the budgets aren't always there. It's necessary to grant status to an alternative theory, so that it's respectable for scientists of whatever stripe to test pro or con. The trouble is that some ideas get a bad rap and then young researchers are afraid to even speculate in those areas, for fear of not getting appointments. It's very political. And no use just equating EE with another quirky idea that any old geologist could have. This one's too big. The potential impact on evolutionary biology is enormous. Prediction: biologists will ultimately have to push geologists to change their ways here.

Cougar
2003-Dec-20, 11:28 PM
The trouble is that some ideas get a bad rap and then young researchers are afraid to even speculate in those areas, for fear of not getting appointments. It's very political. And no use just equating EE with another quirky idea that any old geologist could have. This one's too big.
"Big" or not, it has a "bad rap" NOT because researchers in the community "don't like it" or want to sustain their own theories. It has a bad rap because one form of the theory (rapid expansion) has "major flaws" and the other form (slow expansion) lacks evidence. Neither form offers any suggestion as to WHY the earth would expand or where the energy source is derived from. The theory is therefore discounted by the geophysical/structural geologic community, as explained in the paper Plate Tectonics and The Expanding Earth - A Discounted Theory by Rob Kanen. (http://www.geologynet.com/tectonics1.htm) This paper does allow that all the theories expounded to explain the mechanism of plate tectonics have their own problems, including the convective plume theory, but at least the presence of island arcs, subduction zones, hot spots, and basalt relationships do support the convective-plume theory. On the other hand....

The expansion theory of Cary has major flaws in it, among others, these are: (1) that the earth was assumed to consist entirely of continental sialic crust; and (2) that a rapid expansion at a rate of 8mm/year had to occur in the last 200my; and (3) that the earth had radius 76% of its present radius when Pangea broke up.

The slow-expanding earth theory of Creer (1965) and others is more plausible but lacks evidence. It does not suggest why the earth would expand, why continental drift began so late in the earth's history or where the energy source for expansion is derived from.

The conclusion is that the convective-plume theory is the most plausible, based on evidence available.

dgruss23
2003-Dec-20, 11:58 PM
ExpErdMan wrote: On the science business, I just mean that it's not right to put the whole onus of testing alternative theories on the alternative theorists themselves. For one thing the budgets aren't always there. It's necessary to grant status to an alternative theory, so that it's respectable for scientists of whatever stripe to test pro or con. The trouble is that some ideas get a bad rap and then young researchers are afraid to even speculate in those areas, for fear of not getting appointments. It's very political.

Where I think researchers sometimes lose perspective with regard to alternatives is on the "mechanism" question. Mechanisms usually involve theory where-as the proposed idea initially involves empirical evidence. Take this EE debate. The first stage is to ascertain whether there is enough empirical evidence to make the EE alternative plausible. If the answer is yes, then the second stage is wrestle with the question of mechanism. Alternatives usually do not gain acceptance without the mechanism.

Plate tectonics is the perfect illustration of that point. The movement of continents was not accepted until a plausible mechanism was found. But the evidence that it had happened was there.

Proponents of alternatives need to recognize that they can be pretty sure their model will not be accepted without the mechanism. But proponents of the mainstream should be tolerant of alternatives that are working with the empirical evidence. If there is enough empirical evidence that you're forced to use mechanism as an argument against an alternative, then you really have put yourself in a position where it is invalid to say that the alternative could not turn out to be correct.

As to the EE hypothesis, I haven't looked closely at it so I really can't say one way or another whether the empirical evidence is sufficient to say that the hypothesis is viable. It appears to me that most of the discussion on this thread is oriented toward that question, so it seems like a productive discussion from my perspective.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-21, 03:32 PM
It has a bad rap because one form of the theory (rapid expansion) has "major flaws" and the other form (slow expansion) lacks evidence. Neither form offers any suggestion as to WHY the earth would expand or where the energy source is derived from.
Both slow expansion and fast expansion have provided abundant possible mechanisms, as discussed repeatedly on this board. This statement is not true.

The theory is therefore discounted by the geophysical/structural geologic community, as explained in the paper Plate Tectonics and The Expanding Earth - A Discounted Theory by Rob Kanen. (http://www.geologynet.com/tectonics1.htm)
I found the refutation in Kanen's paper unclear. He seems to be setting one group of expansionists (slow expansion) against the other group (fast expansion). He sems to suggest that slow expansion has the better case, but there is nothing in this webpage which supports that. In particular, he says that there were older ocean rocks than Carey's model allows. But the ages of seafloors support Carey's view that they are not much older than the Jurassic. The presence of individual rocks on the seafloors with earlier ages was discussed also by David Pratt. I'm not sure how Pratt's arguments on this are viewed by either PT or EE. (will try to link Pratt's paper later, if I have time)


The expansion theory of Cary has major flaws in it, among others, these are: (1) that the earth was assumed to consist entirely of continental sialic crust; and (2) that a rapid expansion at a rate of 8mm/year had to occur in the last 200my; and (3) that the earth had radius 76% of its present radius when Pangea broke up.
Nothing wrong with these three points, as far as I can see.

The slow-expanding earth theory of Creer (1965) and others is more plausible but lacks evidence. It does not suggest why the earth would expand, why continental drift began so late in the earth's history or where the energy source for expansion is derived from.
Some slow expansionists favour a decreasing G model. But I think slow expansion does not adequately explain the ages of ocean floors and the age of 'Pangaea' breakup. So I would agree with Kanen here.

Kanen is an Australian and it is noteworthy that Carey faced huge opposition from Australian geologists. This is covered in one of the chapters in "Why Expanding Earth?". I'm not saying Kanen had the axe out for Carey, just that this possibility is not remote.

kilopi
2003-Dec-21, 05:39 PM
The trouble is that some ideas get a bad rap and then young researchers are afraid to even speculate in those areas, for fear of not getting appointments. It's very political. And no use just equating EE with another quirky idea that any old geologist could have. This one's too big.
Quirky?

wedgebert
2003-Dec-22, 12:58 AM
The trouble is that some ideas get a bad rap and then young researchers are afraid to even speculate in those areas, for fear of not getting appointments. It's very political. And no use just equating EE with another quirky idea that any old geologist could have. This one's too big.

Your posts are the most I've seen about the EE theory. I took a quick trip (via Google) to Expanding-Earth.org (http://www.expanding-earth.org/) and I was far from convinced.

For example, on the main page there is a map of Earth circa 1977 that has a few areas circled (boxed?) and it says "Here is proof of Earth's expansion in just ~200 million years.


The Moon's surface provides the best evidence we have that space is filled with fine dust particles. Neil Armstrong's boot prints at the base of the lunar lander and dust and dirt kicked up by cavorting astronauts proved that the Moon's surface is covered by very fine, powdery dust particles, particles that are not products of atmospheric ablation because the Moon has no atmosphere

Seems like the authors don't know all that much about what they're talking about. The primary source of lunar dust (regolith) is not space borne in nature. It comes from millions of years of meteor impacts that have pulverized the surface into that fine dust.

I was hazard to guess that interplanetary space is pretty free of dust. Between the solar wind, and the gravity of the planets, most loose dust would either have been blown out of the solar system or already landed on a planet or other larger object (moon, asteroid, etc)

Tensor
2003-Dec-22, 05:03 AM
[quote="ExpErdMann"] Sorry, in all the postings I forgot to reply to this one. In EE India was never separate from Asia. It never crashed into Asia to form the Himalayas. The uplifting of the Himalayas is due to expansion processes alone. [\qoute]

Experdman, This is one of my major problem I have with the EE model. How does the EE explain the shallow sea fossils in the Himalayas? PT would seem to explain this well with the shallow sea forming as India approached Asia. Then uplifting the sedimentary layers laid down.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-22, 02:52 PM
How does the EE explain the shallow sea fossils in the Himalayas? PT would seem to explain this well with the shallow sea forming as India approached Asia. Then uplifting the sedimentary layers laid down.
When the Earth was smaller, but with total surface water quantity the same as today, the seas would have covered the whole globe. Perin estimates the sea level would have been 1.8 km higher than today. In that case, only quite elevated parts of the Earth would have been exposed. Then, as ocean basins formed, water drained off gradually into these, exposing more and more of the continents as we know them. At some point India was covered in a shallow sea, and at this time the fossils were laid down. Then with the particular uplifting that the Himalayas were subjected to, the fossils were lifted up too. This would also be the same basic reason for the presence of marine fossils in the Andes, as Darwin found, and in the Burgess shale fossils of BC.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-22, 03:09 PM
Seems like the authors don't know all that much about what they're talking about. The primary source of lunar dust (regolith) is not space borne in nature. It comes from millions of years of meteor impacts that have pulverized the surface into that fine dust.
I'm not familiar with that bit on moon dust. I haven't looked at that site in a while. Will check it out. One thing to remember about the EE sites is that the pool of academic researchers covering EE is small. There is thus a tendency for people to come in from the sidelines with their own ideas, which haven't been tested by the academic community (by peer review, for instance). So it can be difficult to wade through all the diverse opinions on the web. Some are all wrong.

In the end, it's a better strategy to read the genuine academics who have pushed the theory forward: Carey, Jordan, Creer, Owen, Scalera, etc. There are some new ones in the book.

I'm off for 5 days for a Christmas trip. I'd like to wish everyone here a merry Xmas, PTers and EEers alike!

Xbalanque
2003-Dec-22, 03:13 PM
How does the EE explain the shallow sea fossils in the Himalayas? PT would seem to explain this well with the shallow sea forming as India approached Asia. Then uplifting the sedimentary layers laid down.
When the Earth was smaller, but with total surface water quantity the same as today, the seas would have covered the whole globe. Perin estimates the sea level would have been 1.8 km higher than today. In that case, only quite elevated parts of the Earth would have been exposed. Then, as ocean basins formed, water drained off gradually into these, exposing more and more of the continents as we know them. At some point India was covered in a shallow sea, and at this time the fossils were laid down. Then with the particular uplifting that the Himalayas were subjected to, the fossils were lifted up too. This would also be the same basic reason for the presence of marine fossils in the Andes, as Darwin found, and in the Burgess shale fossils of BC.

In that case, wouldn't shallow sea fossils be found with equal frequency everywhere in the world?

wedgebert
2003-Dec-22, 04:08 PM
ExpErdMann wrote:
The trouble is that some ideas get a bad rap and then young researchers are afraid to even speculate in those areas, for fear of not getting appointments. It's very political. And no use just equating EE with another quirky idea that any old geologist could have. This one's too big.




One thing to remember about the EE sites is that the pool of academic researchers covering EE is small. There is thus a tendency for people to come in from the sidelines with their own ideas, which haven't been tested by the academic community (by peer review, for instance).

How can the EE idea be too big yet only haev a small pool of academic researchers? Seems like it's either a contradiction or the researchers have too much value placed on them.

Note: I only chose the lunar dust piece because I needed an example of an error and the Simpsons were about to come on. Thus I didn't have time to search for a better more relevant error. Besides, I'm a big proponent of lunar colonization and so I dislike people who use false claims about the moon for their own nefarious plots.

russ_watters
2003-Dec-22, 05:34 PM
It has a bad rap because one form of the theory (rapid expansion) has "major flaws" and the other form (slow expansion) lacks evidence. Neither form offers any suggestion as to WHY the earth would expand or where the energy source is derived from.
Both slow expansion and fast expansion have provided abundant possible mechanisms, as discussed repeatedly on this board. This statement is not true. Maybe he should have said "viable mechanisms." I've seen a lot of mechanisms and most of them look pretty absurd. My favorite is the one where the earth generates matter inside the core. :roll: And the better ones like collecting matter from space are just contrary to the evidence.

Cougar
2003-Dec-22, 05:52 PM
....the seas would have covered the whole globe.... Then, as ocean basins formed, water drained off gradually into these, exposing more and more of the continents as we know them.....
Why would ocean basins have formed? This seems rather convenient "just-so" theorizing.



....Then with the particular uplifting that the Himalayas were subjected to....
Without any collision of large land masses over geologic time, why would the Himalayas be uplifted so extraordinarily? Why just there and not other places around the globe?

This theory does not seem to be very well thought through. Removing plate tectonic mechanisms leads to dozens and dozens of implications that are simply not addressed by your theory, such as the two questioned above. And the theory itself leads to dozens more implications that apparently have not been fully considered - since many lead to direct contradictions!

Why do you become such a fan of theories that have such contrived or nonexistent empirical support? :-k

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-29, 02:55 AM
How does the EE explain the shallow sea fossils in the Himalayas? PT would seem to explain this well with the shallow sea forming as India approached Asia. Then uplifting the sedimentary layers laid down.
.... At some point India was covered in a shallow sea, and at this time the fossils were laid down. Then with the particular uplifting that the Himalayas were subjected to, the fossils were lifted up too. This would also be the same basic reason for the presence of marine fossils in the Andes, as Darwin found, and in the Burgess shale fossils of BC.
In that case, wouldn't shallow sea fossils be found with equal frequency everywhere in the world?
On the smaller Earth, the continents were covered to a greater extent by water than at present. The percentage of water coverage would have gradually diminished as the ocean basins formed. The shapes of the exposed areas of continents would have been constantly changing.

Now the earliest animal forms tended to inhabit just the shallow waters on the margins of the exposed continental areas. These margins would have had many of the general characteristics of continental shelves. So if we look at, say, North America in the Devonian, we would have seen parts of it as dry land, parts of it submerged under deep water, and an intermediate zone submerged under shallow water. This last zone is where we would expect to find marine fossils.

Here is a specific example. This site shows the distribution of a few types of fossil trilobites in North America and Africa. http://www.aloha.net/~smgon/trilopaleogeo.htm
Note the Devonian map half way down. The Oklahoma and Morocco fossils are located in the submerged parts of continents. (Of course this map is given from the PT perspective, but the argument with respect to EE is not changed by that).

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-29, 03:17 AM
Both slow expansion and fast expansion have provided abundant possible mechanisms, as discussed repeatedly on this board. This statement is not true.
Maybe he should have said "viable mechanisms." I've seen a lot of mechanisms and most of them look pretty absurd. My favorite is the one where the earth generates matter inside the core. :roll: And the better ones like collecting matter from space are just contrary to the evidence.
I kind of agree that the formation of mass in the core out of nothing and collecting space dust are out on the fringe. Carey concluded that expansion involved mass increase because he saw no evidence that the surface gravity on Earth was greater in the past than today. One would expect a higher surface gravity on a smaller globe if a Dirac-type decreasing G mechanism were at work. But I think Carey jumped to the wrong conclusion here and that surface gravity might well have been greater in the past. The best explanation for expansion I think is that there was a steady decrease in G which triggered a succession of phase changes in the core. We read often that decreasing G is ruled out by the evidence, but I think it's best to leave this on the table for now. As snowflake says, other things could be changing at the same time.

Tensor
2003-Dec-29, 03:23 AM
Welcome back ExpErdMann. Hope your trip went well. I've been waiting for your return to answer (acutally, I've been busy and will get back to you in a couple of days).

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-29, 04:26 AM
Thanks, Tensor. Had a nice visit with family out in Eastern Ontario. Couldn't quite get geology out of my head though. Ontario offers quite a confusing range of it, and maybe if I live to be 150 I'll understand about 2 % of it!

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-29, 03:38 PM
....the seas would have covered the whole globe.... Then, as ocean basins formed, water drained off gradually into these, exposing more and more of the continents as we know them.....
Why would ocean basins have formed? This seems rather convenient "just-so" theorizing.
You can see ocean basins being formed at the mid-ocean ridges. This is true even in PT. PT argues that an equal area of ocean basins is being removed by subduction, a largely hypothetical process.



....Then with the particular uplifting that the Himalayas were subjected to....
Without any collision of large land masses over geologic time, why would the Himalayas be uplifted so extraordinarily? Why just there and not other places around the globe?
Replied to this above. I would just add that the process by which mantle is being formed in EE is not well-understood yet. When it is, we will have a better answer to this.


This theory does not seem to be very well thought through. Removing plate tectonic mechanisms leads to dozens and dozens of implications that are simply not addressed by your theory, such as the two questioned above. And the theory itself leads to dozens more implications that apparently have not been fully considered - since many lead to direct contradictions!
"Dozens and dozens"? All I can do is try to go at them one at a time. Bring 'em on! As kilopi has oft pointed out, PT has its contradictions too. I just think that EE gives us the beter global picture.

Why do you become such a fan of theories that have such contrived or nonexistent empirical support? :-k
If Las Vegas were giving odds on EE and static universe, sure they'd be low. That's why if you'd listen to me for once and put $10 down on the combo it could make you rich!

wedgebert
2003-Dec-30, 04:17 AM
If Las Vegas were giving odds on EE and static universe, sure they'd be low. That's why if you'd listen to me for once and put $10 down on the combo it could make you rich

If Las Vegas were to put odds on EE and static universe, the reason they'd be "astronomically" low (pardon the pun :)) is because LV is in the business of making money and would do the research necessary to make an informed decision on the odds.

kilopi
2003-Dec-30, 03:38 PM
"Dozens and dozens"? All I can do is try to go at them one at a time. Bring 'em on! As kilopi has oft pointed out, PT has its contradictions too. I just think that EE gives us the beter global picture.

Since I've been invoked, I'd like to say I've done a lot of digging into the expanding earth theory, and it is a very interesting theory. However, from my experience, if you understand it and plate tectonics equally well, plate tectonics wins out by a long shot.

Advocates of nonconventional theories often don't give due consideration to the established theories. That's OK, time and resources are limited, but they should at least acknowledge that.

And I still want to know why you'd consider everybody else's theories to be "quirky." It ain't necessarily so.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-30, 04:29 PM
I just think that EE gives us the better global picture.
Since I've been invoked, I'd like to say I've done a lot of digging into the expanding earth theory, and it is a very interesting theory. However, from my experience, if you understand it and plate tectonics equally well, plate tectonics wins out by a long shot.
Granted, you're the only one on this board who has studied EE, it appears. And luckily (for me) you did, because I don't think my EE topics would have gone too far otherwise.

Now your statement that one can understand PT and EE "equally well" is problematic. Both theories are riddled with complexities and, at least in the case of EE, there are many variants. EE also tends to lead us into other areas, notably fundamental physics, cosmology and evolutionary biology, that PT does not. EE is on a wider plain. If you prefer to just say everything is right in physics as is, and ditto for cosmology and evolution (eg those dinosaur fellas), and limit your considerations to just geology, your statement that PT could win out has more weight. But I can't operate that way.

Even if we look at just geology, though, I would still go with EE, for the simple reason that it alone explains that continents of more or less uniform thickness exist aside ocean basins of more or less uniform depth. Those models of continents fitting together on the smaller globe tell the tale.


Advocates of nonconventional theories often don't give due consideration to the established theories. That's OK, time and resources are limited, but they should at least acknowledge that.
In my own case I concede that I don't give PT all that much "due consideration". To me it has all the earmarks of ad hoc conceptions like inflation in cosmology. But most academics who have backed EE are not like me. Guys like Carey knew PT as well as EE.


And I still want to know why you'd consider everybody else's theories to be "quirky." It ain't necessarily so.
I didn't really mean that they were quirky. I was just trying to make a point. Many geologists could have their own pet theories, and may want to focus their spare time and funds on those. That's fine. If their research does not tip too many apple carts it might even be published. But EE is being blocked off at higher levels. Those geologists whose pet theory touches on EE could find their spare funds could dry up altogether if they ventured that way!

I suggest that PT never really knocked out EE by a published result. It was just a trend that became solidified, much like the trend in favour of Big Bang became solidified. If you or anyone supposes that there was a paper that KO'ed EE, I'd like to see it.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-30, 04:41 PM
If Las Vegas were to put odds on EE and static universe, the reason they'd be "astronomically" low (pardon the pun :)) is because LV is in the business of making money and would do the research necessary to make an informed decision on the odds.
Sure, they'd go to all the 'experts' who'd tell them what we've all been told a million times already, that Big Bang and PT are near 100 % certainties. That would give the wildly low odds on the static/EE combo that could make someone a millionaire.

wedgebert
2003-Dec-30, 05:00 PM
If Las Vegas were to put odds on EE and static universe, the reason they'd be "astronomically" low (pardon the pun :)) is because LV is in the business of making money and would do the research necessary to make an informed decision on the odds.
Sure, they'd go to all the 'experts' who'd tell them what we've all been told a million times already, that Big Bang and PT are near 100 % certainties. That would give the wildly low odds on the static/EE combo that could make someone a millionaire.

By the same logic, I could bet on a horse in a race that had never won before, had three broken legs, missing the fourth leg, and was dead and have about the same odds as winning as with the EE/static combo.

I don't know why you put experts in quotes. The 'experts' are people who have spent most or all of their scientific careers studying geology, PT and related fields. It's not a case of them covering up, hiding evidence or anything, it's a case of most of the evidence pointing towards PT and not EE, and no evidence to a static universe

Cougar
2003-Dec-30, 05:26 PM
...in the case of EE, there are many variants.
Hmm. Just like creationism. And if a major flaw is found with one variant, supporters can just switch to another variant. Indefinitely. Makes meaningful debate impossible. Continuously moving target. Clever.


EE also tends to lead us into other areas, notably fundamental physics, cosmology and evolutionary biology, that PT does not. EE is on a wider plain.

And besides that, it slices and dices! :roll:

kilopi
2003-Dec-30, 06:01 PM
Granted, you're the only one on this board who has studied EE, it appears. And luckily (for me) you did, because I don't think my EE topics would have gone too far otherwise.
You're welcome! :)


Now your statement that one can understand PT and EE "equally well" is problematic. Both theories are riddled with complexities and, at least in the case of EE, there are many variants. EE also tends to lead us into other areas, notably fundamental physics, cosmology and evolutionary biology, that PT does not.
I disagree, certainly about fundamental physics and evolutionary biology. We're still working on those. And cosmology? It seems the only reason EE delves into cosmology is because it seems to fly in the face of mainstream cosmology--not necessarily a good thing.


EE is on a wider plain. If you prefer to just say everything is right in physics as is, and ditto for cosmology and evolution (eg those dinosaur fellas), and limit your considerations to just geology, your statement that PT could win out has more weight. But I can't operate that way.
I don't operate that way. I still say that PT is a more reasonable theory, by a large amount.


Even if we look at just geology, though, I would still go with EE, for the simple reason that it alone explains that continents of more or less uniform thickness exist aside ocean basins of more or less uniform depth. Those models of continents fitting together on the smaller globe tell the tale.
"It alone?" That's nonsense. PT has a reasonable explanation for that, if you'd only consider it. And, it has a very good model of why the seafloor and continents are *not* so uniform


In my own case I concede that I don't give PT all that much "due consideration". To me it has all the earmarks of ad hoc conceptions like inflation in cosmology. But most academics who have backed EE are not like me. Guys like Carey knew PT as well as EE.
Carey developed his theory before PT was developed. He stumped around the country, lecturing to geology departments about continental drift. He and a couple others kept it alive. He was very well received by many of the students.

In the meantime, he changed his mind and rejected continental drift, probably convinced by the anti-convection argument (which is not so valid nowadays). He also noticed certain "backside" correlations which were not so easily explained by drift--but they have been, by the supercontinent supercycles. One of the first persons to find sea-floor spreading said that his response was, d*ng, maybe old Carey was right after all.

Still, of all those hundreds of graduate students who were exposed to Carey's ideas, very few of them remain convinced today.


I didn't really mean that they were quirky. I was just trying to make a point.
Unfortunately, that "point" is to disparage other theories, without giving reasons. It's not fair that you should expect others to not act that way, but then protest when EE is treated that way.

Many geologists could have their own pet theories, and may want to focus their spare time and funds on those. That's fine. If their research does not tip too many apple carts it might even be published. But EE is being blocked off at higher levels. Those geologists whose pet theory touches on EE could find their spare funds could dry up altogether if they ventured that way!
And there are reasons for that.


I suggest that PT never really knocked out EE by a published result. It was just a trend that became solidified, much like the trend in favour of Big Bang became solidified. If you or anyone supposes that there was a paper that KO'ed EE, I'd like to see it.
Thousands of papers, not just one.

[Edited to add comment about nonuniform crust]

dgruss23
2003-Dec-30, 09:34 PM
...in the case of EE, there are many variants.
Hmm. Just like creationism. And if a major flaw is found with one variant, supporters can just switch to another variant. Indefinitely. Makes meaningful debate impossible. Continuously moving target. Clever.

Isn't this what happens with most theories. If there is an observation that doesn't fit, then the theorists try to come up with new variations of the theory that can explain the new theory. For example, Gould and Eldridge proposed "punctuated equilibrium" as a variant of evolutionary theory in an effort to explain stasis in the fossil record.

And that's certainly what has happened with the Big Bang too. Inflation, CDM, Dark energy are all variations on the original hot big bang and as has been noted there is the "parameter space" of the current concordance model that allows the Big Bang itself to be a "moving target".

I'd say the question is whether or not there is an EE variant that can explain the observations at least as well as PT.

Cougar
2003-Dec-30, 11:44 PM
Isn't this what happens with most theories.
No, I don't think so. Certainly a theory might change and evolve and become more accurate, but myriad versions of a theory do not typically coexist all at the same time. Modifications or extensions might be put forward, but they are not part of the existing theory until they've been investigated, experiments repeated, etc.


If there is an observation that doesn't fit, then the theorists try to come up with new variations of the theory that can explain the new theory. For example, Gould and Eldridge proposed "punctuated equilibrium" as a variant of evolutionary theory in an effort to explain stasis in the fossil record.
And I think most in the field have accepted this newer explanation because it better explains the observations. But there are not two completely different variants....

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-31, 01:04 AM
...in the case of EE, there are many variants.
Hmm. Just like creationism. And if a major flaw is found with one variant, supporters can just switch to another variant. Indefinitely. Makes meaningful debate impossible. Continuously moving target. Clever.
True, EE is a moving target at the moment. And also true that EEers can abandon one variant and go to another when a flaw is found. But that is just science. We try to identify all the possibilities and eliminate them one by one. In the end we'll have a winner.

This does not mean that we can't have meaningful debate. We can, so long as we identify the variants carefully. But beyond that, there is still the underlying issue of whether expansion happened or not. On that point EE presents convincing evidence, regardless of the mechanism of expansion.

ExpErdMann
2003-Dec-31, 01:36 AM
It seems the only reason EE delves into cosmology is because it seems to fly in the face of mainstream cosmology--not necessarily a good thing.
No, there are good reasons to suspect a link with cosmology. For starters, if you take the smaller globe at 2/3 present size and write:
(dR/dt)/R = H
it comes close to the present radius. This was pointed out in the 70's by some Canadian researchers in a short letter to Nature.

Beyond this, we can look at either decreasing G (Dirac) scenarios or increasing mass (Carey) scenarios. In the former, cosmology is clearly there; Dirac premised his model on the BB. But Carey also turned to cosmology in the end (eg, in his book Theories of the Earth and Universe). Carey started to delve into gravity and how at great distances a cosmic repulsion term (containing H) might come in. I'm afraid cosmology comes in whether we like it or not! For my part, I link EE with gravity and the redshift effect (I haven't put my own model out here yet - maybe sometime)


If you prefer to just say everything is right in physics as is, and ditto for cosmology and evolution (eg those dinosaur fellas), and limit your considerations to just geology, your statement that PT could win out has more weight. But I can't operate that way.
I don't operate that way.
I know! :)


Even if we look at just geology, though, I would still go with EE, for the simple reason that it alone explains that continents of more or less uniform thickness exist aside ocean basins of more or less uniform depth. Those models of continents fitting together on the smaller globe tell the tale.
"It alone?" That's nonsense. PT has a reasonable explanation for that, if you'd only consider it.
I doubt it. Consider a molten planet in the process of cooling. One would expect the layers to solidify to even thickness, would one not? EE can cover this, since the continental crust did indeed completely cover the globe to even thickness at one time. But what does PT have here? How do you get continental crust forming only in 25% of the globe, but with equal thickness of crust?

Still, of all those hundreds of graduate students who were exposed to Carey's ideas, very few of them remain convinced today.
In your opinion, what turned them off?


I suggest that PT never really knocked out EE by a published result. It was just a trend that became solidified, much like the trend in favour of Big Bang became solidified. If you or anyone supposes that there was a paper that KO'ed EE, I'd like to see it.
Thousands of papers, not just one.
Don't give me thousands. Just one paper disproving EE will do!

dgruss23
2003-Dec-31, 03:54 PM
Isn't this what happens with most theories.
No, I don't think so. Certainly a theory might change and evolve and become more accurate, but myriad versions of a theory do not typically coexist all at the same time.

Good Point. Most of the time you have a favored version as opposed to 20 competing versions. The Big Bang is a good example. There is one version (concordance model) that most favor at this time even though a few other variants are out there. So I guess its important to know what ExpErdMan means by many variants.


If there is an observation that doesn't fit, then the theorists try to come up with new variations of the theory that can explain the new theory. For example, Gould and Eldridge proposed "punctuated equilibrium" as a variant of evolutionary theory in an effort to explain stasis in the fossil record.


Cougar: And I think most in the field have accepted this newer explanation because it better explains the observations. But there are not two completely different variants....

I think by definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=variant) they are not variants if they are completely different. But variants do make all theories moving targets because each variant has some different expectations as to what the observations should look like.

So any time you say this is theory A, then an observation doesn't fit, which causes you to come up with variant A2, you have a moving target. That's not a bad thing, I just don't think its necessarily a fair criticism of EE - because its what happens with any theory.

What is difficult in this discussion is that we would have to read the EE book to know all the particulars of the favored variant of EE. Without that familiarity then its really difficult to know just how much of a moving target EE actually is.

wedgebert
2003-Dec-31, 07:38 PM
I doubt it. Consider a molten planet in the process of cooling. One would expect the layers to solidify to even thickness, would one not? EE can cover this, since the continental crust did indeed completely cover the globe to even thickness at one time. But what does PT have here? How do you get continental crust forming only in 25% of the globe, but with equal thickness of crust?

That's not really what one would expect. There would have been thousands of variables that affect how Earth cooled. From the effects of sunlight, meteor impacts, fluid dynamics, and so forth, you're not going to get a perfect shell of uniform thickness. Just the impact that created Luna would have had drastic effects on how Earth formed.

Cougar
2003-Dec-31, 07:48 PM
....there is still the underlying issue of whether expansion happened or not. On that point EE presents convincing evidence....
I haven't seen it.

wedgebert
2003-Dec-31, 11:54 PM
....there is still the underlying issue of whether expansion happened or not. On that point EE presents convincing evidence....
I haven't seen it.

Nor have I

Alex W.
2004-Jan-01, 12:41 AM
EE also tends to lead us into other areas, notably fundamental physics, cosmology and evolutionary biology, that PT does not. EE is on a wider plain.

That is its problem- it requires the rest of science to be rewritten to accomidate it.

ExpErdMann
2004-Jan-01, 05:00 PM
No, I don't think so. Certainly a theory might change and evolve and become more accurate, but myriad versions of a theory do not typically coexist all at the same time.
Good Point. Most of the time you have a favored version as opposed to 20 competing versions. The Big Bang is a good example. There is one version (concordance model) that most favor at this time even though a few other variants are out there. So I guess its important to know what ExpErdMan means by many variants.
Sorry, dgruss. EE is very far from having its concordance model. Almost every aspect of EE is being hotly debated. It is an exciting time in the development of the theory. Of course, a concordance model is the goal, but there will be some pretty fierce battles before we get it.

All of this doesn't help too much for people just coming on EE for the first time. But that is the reality. What I'd like to say to people on this board is: Hey, the field's wide open. There's a chance for you to make a real contribution to geology. This is science at its best (and most fun!). Join in!


So any time you say this is theory A, then an observation doesn't fit, which causes you to come up with variant A2, you have a moving target. That's not a bad thing, I just don't think its necessarily a fair criticism of EE - because its what happens with any theory.
Right. It happens in PT too. The problem in PT though is that the problems with it just got buried after a while. So PT has sort of become a 'fixed target', when it should have stayed moving too!


What is difficult in this discussion is that we would have to read the EE book to know all the particulars of the favored variant of EE. Without that familiarity then its really difficult to know just how much of a moving target EE actually is.
Again, there is no favoured variant. The book won't help to define one. There are a diversity of views. There may be a slight emphasis in the book on theories (like Carey's) which take the cause of expansion as increase in mass.

I wish the book were more generally available. It's not the sort of book you'll find on Amazon. It was distributed in the Italian/German academic style to academic libraries around the world. I know a lot were sent to libraries in the US and Canada. If you check the catalogues of your local university libraries, especially if you live in places like California, New York and Texas, there's a good chance you'll find it.

Many of the papers in the book are too technical to serve as discussion papers here. Some require a lot of specialized geology training. That's why I am focussing on just a few papers which present simple, clear concepts.

ExpErdMann
2004-Jan-01, 05:13 PM
I didn't really mean that they were quirky. I was just trying to make a point.
Unfortunately, that "point" is to disparage other theories, without giving reasons. It's not fair that you should expect others to not act that way, but then protest when EE is treated that way.
I did not intend to disparage anyone's pet theory. I was just trying to say that if we have 100 geologists who favour EE, and 100 who have all sorts of other pet theories, maybe the funding agencies should recognize this and give a few more pesos to EE research than to the other 100 theories. The problem with science right now is that almost nothing is given to alternative models, whatever the field. Way too much rigidity.

ExpErdMann
2004-Jan-01, 05:40 PM
I doubt it. Consider a molten planet in the process of cooling. One would expect the layers to solidify to even thickness, would one not? EE can cover this, since the continental crust did indeed completely cover the globe to even thickness at one time.
That's not really what one would expect. There would have been thousands of variables that affect how Earth cooled. From the effects of sunlight, meteor impacts, fluid dynamics, and so forth, you're not going to get a perfect shell of uniform thickness. Just the impact that created Luna would have had drastic effects on how Earth formed.
The effects you mention would lead to minor variations in the Earth's surface compared to the system of continents and ocean basins we observe. By comparison, we can look at the Moon. There we see craters, but nothing like the continent/basin pattern on Earth. Why should Earth's surface be so different from the Moon's?

Of course, PTers would argue that the Earth has PT, but the Moon does not. But if the Moon did have PT, say starting right now, how would it work? All the 'plates' would be equivalent more or less in thickness, and so why would one slide under another? Doesn't make sense, right? And the same for Mercury.

So what was different about Earth? Why did the continent/basin pattern appear? Your mechanisms won't do it. There is no reason for a cooling globe to form this pattern.

EE explains the pattern simply and elegantly. And it only uses the evidence at hand, observable seafloor spreading. The lower lying ocean basins form from the spreading ridges. New crust is preferentially formed in ocean basins, since here it does not have to raise up the continents.

The same pattern can be seen on Mars. Mars is divided about 50:50 into a highlands region and a lowlands region. Except for the absence of water in the lowlands, the pattern would closely mimic the continents/basins pattern on Earth. Venus also has the highlands/lowlands dichotomy.

By the way, Pascual Jordan thought that the rills of the Moon did reflect expansion, but at a smaller scale than the Earth's.

Cougar
2004-Jan-01, 07:22 PM
Before I forget....

You can see ocean basins being formed at the mid-ocean ridges.
I see ridges, not basins, being formed at mid-ocean ridges.

ExpErdMann
2004-Jan-01, 08:20 PM
It is also the PT position that new ocean floor is being made near the ridges. In PT this new floor is balanced by old floor being removed via subduction.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2004-Jan-01, 09:09 PM
It is also the PT position that new ocean floor is being made near the ridges. In PT this new floor is balanced by old floor being removed via subduction.

Yeah ...

And?

Tensor
2004-Jan-02, 04:28 AM
ExpErdMann, Let me know when you get my PM.

wedgebert
2004-Jan-02, 07:25 AM
The effects you mention would lead to minor variations in the Earth's surface compared to the system of continents and ocean basins we observe. By comparison, we can look at the Moon. There we see craters, but nothing like the continent/basin pattern on Earth. Why should Earth's surface be so different from the Moon's?


Perhaps because the moon's composition is quite different than Earths? Earth is volcanically active, Luna is not.



Of course, PTers would argue that the Earth has PT, but the Moon does not. But if the Moon did have PT, say starting right now, how would it work? All the 'plates' would be equivalent more or less in thickness, and so why would one slide under another? Doesn't make sense, right? And the same for Mercury.


Now that's just a horrible example. Of course it doesn't make sense. For one, the moon doesn't have a mantle like Earth for the plates to "float" on. It's just not possible for the moon to suddenly have plate tetonics.

Same goes with Mecury. Mercury is pretty must just a giant ball of iron with a thin crust around it. Not entirely sure if the core is molten or not, but it's still unsuitable for PT.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2004-Jan-02, 07:33 AM
Of course, PTers would argue that the Earth has PT, but the Moon does not. But if the Moon did have PT, say starting right now, how would it work? All the 'plates' would be equivalent more or less in thickness, and so why would one slide under another? Doesn't make sense, right? And the same for Mercury.


Now that's just a horrible example. Of course it doesn't make sense. For one, the moon doesn't have a mantle like Earth for the plates to "float" on. It's just not possible for the moon to suddenly have plate tetonics.

Same goes with Mecury. Mercury is pretty must just a giant ball of iron with a thin crust around it. Not entirely sure if the core is molten or not, but it's still unsuitable for PT.

Yeah, if you want to see a Really Good Example of Fossilized Plate Tectonics, just check out Jupiter's Largest Moon Ganymede.

It Still Bears The Scars of a period of Geologic Activity in its Crust, that apparently Froze Up, soon after its Formation.

ExpErdMann
2004-Jan-02, 02:37 PM
Why should Earth's surface be so different from the Moon's?
Perhaps because the moon's composition is quite different than Earths? Earth is volcanically active, Luna is not.
The composition of moon rocks has been found to be close to that of Earth's mantle. That is one reason for supposing that the Moon was formed by a collision of a body with the earth, or that the fission of the Earth formed the Moon. The absence of volcanic activity on the Moon could be due either to the absence of plate tectonics (in PT) or a much reduced expansion (in an expansion model).


Now that's just a horrible example. Of course it doesn't make sense. For one, the moon doesn't have a mantle like Earth for the plates to "float" on. It's just not possible for the moon to suddenly have plate tetonics.
Agreed. I was just pointing out that we should have seen a fairly uniform crust on Earth (ie without basins) just as we do on the Moon. And also that it would have been hard for PT to arise on a totally 'continent covered' body. The breakup of Pangaea under such conditions could have led to at best some tiny seas.

Alex W.
2004-Jan-02, 03:19 PM
Eh? If anything, the fact that the moon is apparently made of mantle material proves the fission and collision theories.

It's not like it's going to be made solely fromcrust or have any core in it.

ExpErdMann
2004-Jan-02, 03:39 PM
Eh? If anything, the fact that the moon is apparently made of mantle material proves the fission and collision theories.
Didn't I just say that?

Cougar
2004-Jan-02, 04:30 PM
Planetology. If one looks into and studies the field of planetology to any depth at all, I think one would quickly find that the "expanding earth theory" is poorly conceived and utterly ridiculous. A few major problems:

Why? Why is this EE theory even being proposed? Uh, no particular reason....

How? How could the effects of this theory conceivably happen given the known laws of physics? Well, they couldn't.

Whether? Is there any evidence that there is any effect of this theory? No, other than some contrived, indirect B.S. about giant rings around the earth or something.

Crank Rating: Very high on the crank meter.

Reason to continue this discussion: Amusement value only.

wedgebert
2004-Jan-02, 04:41 PM
The composition of moon rocks has been found to be close to that of Earth's mantle. That is one reason for supposing that the Moon was formed by a collision of a body with the earth, or that the fission of the Earth formed the Moon. The absence of volcanic activity on the Moon could be due either to the absence of plate tectonics (in PT) or a much reduced expansion (in an expansion model).

The moon doesn't have a molten core or mantle, that's why it doesn't have volcanic activity. There's no magma to have form a volcano with.



Agreed. I was just pointing out that we should have seen a fairly uniform crust on Earth (ie without basins) just as we do on the Moon. And also that it would have been hard for PT to arise on a totally 'continent covered' body. The breakup of Pangaea under such conditions could have led to at best some tiny seas.

Again, no molten core/mantle means no PT so the moon's crust could cool into a more uniform thickness than Earth's.

Alex W.
2004-Jan-02, 09:06 PM
Eh? If anything, the fact that the moon is apparently made of mantle material proves the fission and collision theories.
Didn't I just say that?

Yes, my mistake. :oops:

Got to pay attention more. :D

ExpErdMann
2004-Jan-02, 10:37 PM
Reason to continue this discussion: Amusement value only.
Tell that to the citizens of Bam, Iran.

Musashi
2004-Jan-02, 11:16 PM
Earthquakes aren't a part of PT, on EE?

milli360
2004-Jan-03, 04:38 AM
It seems the only reason EE delves into cosmology is because it seems to fly in the face of mainstream cosmology--not necessarily a good thing.
No, there are good reasons to suspect a link with cosmology. For starters, if you take the smaller globe at 2/3 present size and write:
(dR/dt)/R = H
it comes close to the present radius. This was pointed out in the 70's by some Canadian researchers in a short letter to Nature.
Such correlations are very easy to come by--an old geology professor's favorite one was that Atlantic seafloor spreading rate was equal to the rate of growth of his fingernails. He'd go into some riff about how his fingers could cause the Atlantic to open.

Still, that is an interesting observation. Hubble's constant is the velocity by which a galaxy is receding divided by its distance. So, your equation would say that the center of the Earth is "receding" from us at the same rate. Let's see...(have we done this before?), say H is between 50 and 100 km/s/Mpc, R is 6400 km, so dR would be about 2100 km, correct?
That gives a dt between 3 and 6 billion years ago. Well, that seems long, right? I may have to integrate, instead of just using differentials. What values did they use?



Even if we look at just geology, though, I would still go with EE, for the simple reason that it alone explains that continents of more or less uniform thickness exist aside ocean basins of more or less uniform depth. Those models of continents fitting together on the smaller globe tell the tale.
"It alone?" That's nonsense. PT has a reasonable explanation for that, if you'd only consider it.
I doubt it. Consider a molten planet in the process of cooling. One would expect the layers to solidify to even thickness, would one not? EE can cover this, since the continental crust did indeed completely cover the globe to even thickness at one time. But what does PT have here? How do you get continental crust forming only in 25% of the globe, but with equal thickness of crust?
That's pretty basic. That's what I mean--you're setting up strawmen here. Of course the professionals feel that there are unanswered questions regarding plate tectonics, but that isn't one of them.

But the part I have a real problem with is you keep saying that continental crust has such an even thickness. It doesn't, it seems to vary by 100% or more--some geophysicists were even maintaining that it was an order of magnitude more than that, in the "deep continental roots" theory.



Still, of all those hundreds of graduate students who were exposed to Carey's ideas, very few of them remain convinced today.
In your opinion, what turned them off?
I'd have to say, in my opinion, it was the same that turned me off. I really can't speak for them. Too many wild-eyed claims, too many misunderstandings.



I suggest that PT never really knocked out EE by a published result. It was just a trend that became solidified, much like the trend in favour of Big Bang became solidified. If you or anyone supposes that there was a paper that KO'ed EE, I'd like to see it.
Thousands of papers, not just one.
Don't give me thousands. Just one paper disproving EE will do!
As you've shown, there is no definitive evidence for EE. Even the hemispheric line is down at the level where it can be easily interpreted many ways. That's death for a theory, it needs concrete evidence. There's plenty of evidence for PT--you just choose to interpret it in terms of EE. Nothing wrong with that, but PT wins the Ocham's Razor test. That's not a scientific test, but it's a practical one. No need to go beyond that to find the reason for the bias--anything else is not going to further the interests of EE.

Let's see, (dR/dt)/R=H, with dt=one year gives us a dR of .03 centimeters. Is that right? Please check my arithmetic.

ExpErdMann
2004-Jan-03, 03:14 PM
The absence of volcanic activity on the Moon could be due either to the absence of plate tectonics (in PT) or a much reduced expansion (in an expansion model).
The moon doesn't have a molten core or mantle, that's why it doesn't have volcanic activity. There's no magma to have form a volcano with.
There are some interesting chapters in Jordan's book "The Expanding Earth" discussing whether the Moon has volcanic activity or not. Jordan supposes that volcanoes are essentially an explosive phenomenon rather than largely an ejection of magma. The reason it could be just an explosive one is that it is caused by higher-density rocks changing to lower-density rocks, like granite. The transition causes huge pressures to build up which are released explosively. There is also an article in "Why Expanding earth" by Sanchez Cela, called "The contribution of granitic rocks to crustal growth and Earth expansion". My understanding is that magma is a byproduct of this transition. So it might not be necessary for the Moon or a smaller body to have magma per se to have some sort of volcanic activity.

I might as well give my own ideas. I tend to the notion that EE is caused by a decrease in G, perhaps in concert with some other change(s). For the Earth, this means that the core (and likely the mantle) of the Earth was all high-density (10-13 gm/cc) at the start of expansion. Following Pickford's idea, this was gradually converted during EE to lighter density mantle of 5-6 gm/cc. Now in the case of the Moon and Mercury, their small sizes meant that during their formation their cores would not have been compressed to the same high density form as the Earth's. There was less of the 10-13 gm/cc material. So that when G decreased, there was only the possibility of minor expansion effects (eg, the rills of the Moon). For Mars, the initial size was not so different from the Earth's, and so a significant expansion was possible (and is evident, I think).



And also that it would have been hard for PT to arise on a totally 'continent covered' body. The breakup of Pangaea under such conditions could have led to at best some tiny seas.
Again, no molten core/mantle means no PT so the moon's crust could cool into a more uniform thickness than Earth's.
You seem to be saying that the division of the Earth's surface into ocean basins and continents was caused by PT. Is this reasonable? Suppose the Earth was covered with a crust of approximately uniform thickness at one time (presumably after the formation of the Moon). Somehow PT cracked this uniform surface and ocean basins began to form. But that would have displaced some of the continental plates on a globe of constant size. So some of the continental plates must have disappeared under other ones, right? But here lies a problem. In PT, the continental plates don't slide underneath one another. Their roots are too deep. They only slip by each other. So how do you propose to get rid of that 'excess' continental area?

On the other hand, you could propose that continents and ocean basins were always there. Then you are left with explaining how this pattern could have appeared, when a uniformly cooling surface should create a surface more like the Moon's. So far no one has done that.

ExpErdMann
2004-Jan-03, 03:44 PM
For starters, if you take the smaller globe at 2/3 present size and write:
(dR/dt)/R = H
Such correlations are very easy to come by--an old geology professor's favorite one was that Atlantic seafloor spreading rate was equal to the rate of growth of his fingernails. He'd go into some riff about how his fingers could cause the Atlantic to open.
Welcome to the discussion, milli360. I think that geology professor at least had his eyes open!


Still, that is an interesting observation. Hubble's constant is the velocity by which a galaxy is receding divided by its distance. So, your equation would say that the center of the Earth is "receding" from us at the same rate. Let's see...(have we done this before?), say H is between 50 and 100 km/s/Mpc, R is 6400 km, so dR would be about 2100 km, correct?
I will look up the Nature paper this week and get the precise numbers. A change of 2100 km seems too small. The dt of 3-6 billion years looks good, since the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Their paper was more in line with the 'slow expansion' model, but can also be tied to 'fast expansion' if we suppose a threshold value (of G, for instance) needed to be passed before expansion could proceed.


EE can cover this, since the continental crust did indeed completely cover the globe to even thickness at one time. But what does PT have here? How do you get continental crust forming only in 25% of the globe, but with equal thickness of crust?
That's pretty basic. That's what I mean--you're setting up strawmen here. Of course the professionals feel that there are unanswered questions regarding plate tectonics, but that isn't one of them.
See my reply to wedgebert above. If you or anyone thinks PT has some aces here, I think it's time to show them!


But the part I have a real problem with is you keep saying that continental crust has such an even thickness. It doesn't, it seems to vary by 100% or more--some geophysicists were even maintaining that it was an order of magnitude more than that, in the "deep continental roots" theory.
When I talk of even thickness I'm mainly referring to the parts of the continents we can see. Of course, the depth of their roots is in question. In EE or PT, the hidden parts of continental plates were torn away from each other, so that differences in depth can be contemplated, in either theory. Sorry if I caused confusion here.


As you've shown, there is no definitive evidence for EE. Even the hemispheric line is down at the level where it can be easily interpreted many ways. That's death for a theory, it needs concrete evidence. There's plenty of evidence for PT--you just choose to interpret it in terms of EE. Nothing wrong with that, but PT wins the Ocham's Razor test. That's not a scientific test, but it's a practical one. No need to go beyond that to find the reason for the bias--anything else is not going to further the interests of EE.
Here we must disagree. Occam's Razor definitely favours EE. PT has problems galore. For instance some continental plates, like Africa's, are surrounded by mid-ocean ridges, with no subduction zones in sight. And the linear dimensions of subduction zones are puny compared to the seafloor ridges. And there is no mechanism to explain the central driving force in PT. What was it causing all that heat and magma again? Radioactivity? The list is endless.

Perin's ring still looks good to me.

milli360
2004-Jan-03, 04:03 PM
I think that geology professor at least had his eyes open!
We all do. I hope.


A change of 2100 km seems too small.

That was 1/3 of the Earth radius. I thought they were starting with 2/3 radius? Wouldn't make that a dR of 1/3 radius?


Their paper was more in line with the 'slow expansion' model, but can also be tied to 'fast expansion' if we suppose a threshold value (of G, for instance) needed to be passed before expansion could proceed.
So, you throw out the cosmological "connection" in order to match fast expansion? Seems convenient.


If you or anyone thinks PT has some aces here, I think it's time to show them!
Sure. One thing you seem to be unaware of is that continental crust is less dense than the material beneath it, whereas old oceanic crust cools and eventually is more dense--it sinks.


When I talk of even thickness I'm mainly referring to the parts of the continents we can see. Of course, the depth of their roots is in question. In EE or PT, the hidden parts of continental plates were torn away from each other, so that differences in depth can be contemplated, in either theory. Sorry if I caused confusion here.
The parts we can see? You mean the ones below sea level, and the ones five miles above sea level? What did you mean that the continents are of even thickness?


Here we must disagree. Occam's Razor definitely favours EE.
Occam's Razor is subjective, so it can never be definite. It relies upon determing whether something is simple or not, but--for instance--a lot of people would say that Newton's laws are much simpler than Einstein's, but to someone who understands them, the converse is true.


PT has problems galore. For instance some continental plates, like Africa's, are surrounded by mid-ocean ridges, with no subduction zones in sight. And the linear dimensions of subduction zones are puny compared to the seafloor ridges. And there is no mechanism to explain the central driving force in PT. What was it causing all that heat and magma again? Radioactivity? The list is endless.
That appears to be a list of things that you don't understand about PT.

None of those rise to the level of how to create matter at the center of the Earth sort of question.

dgruss23
2004-Jan-03, 04:11 PM
For instance some continental plates, like Africa's, are surrounded by mid-ocean ridges, with no subduction zones in sight.

Interesting point. Its been a while, but haven't some scientists proposed that the ridges themselves are moving? I don't know that that would explain it. Can anybody verify that?


And the linear dimensions of subduction zones are puny compared to the seafloor ridges.

I seem to recall that subducting plates move faster than spreading centers.


And there is no mechanism to explain the central driving force in PT.

Certainly the simple convection model seems inadequate to explain the mid ocean ridges. The transform faulting along the ridges is quite complex and I suspect a better model is needed.

ExpErdMan, how do you interpret the age dating of ocean floor in EE model? Ocean crust does become progressively older as you move away from the ridges. Is that consistent with the EE picture?

wedgebert
2004-Jan-03, 04:48 PM
There are some interesting chapters in Jordan's book "The Expanding Earth" discussing whether the Moon has volcanic activity or not. Jordan supposes that volcanoes are essentially an explosive phenomenon rather than largely an ejection of magma. The reason it could be just an explosive one is that it is caused by higher-density rocks changing to lower-density rocks, like granite. The transition causes huge pressures to build up which are released explosively. There is also an article in "Why Expanding earth" by Sanchez Cela, called "The contribution of granitic rocks to crustal growth and Earth expansion". My understanding is that magma is a byproduct of this transition. So it might not be necessary for the Moon or a smaller body to have magma per se to have some sort of volcanic activity.


Maybe you should check out How Volcanoes Work (http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/) and read up on the mainstream explainations of volcanoes.

Here's quick rundown of the types of volcanoes:
1: Spreading Center: This is where two plates move away from each other. Asthenosphere (the layer of partially molten rock below the lithosphere) rises up to fill the voids in the lithosphere (what tetonic plates are made of).

2: Subduction Zone: This is where one plate is pushed under another plate as they come together. Water is pushed into the mantle which lowers the melting point causing it to melt.

3: Intraplate: These are your volcanoes that occur in the middle of plates. These are most commonly thought to occur when super hot pockets of mantle form and rise upwards due to convection.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by high density rocks turning into low density rocks. Are you saying Gabbro (Basalt) just turns into Granite and explodes as it changes density?



I might as well give my own ideas. I tend to the notion that EE is caused by a decrease in G, perhaps in concert with some other change(s). For the Earth, this means that the core (and likely the mantle) of the Earth was all high-density (10-13 gm/cc) at the start of expansion. Following Pickford's idea, this was gradually converted during EE to lighter density mantle of 5-6 gm/cc. Now in the case of the Moon and Mercury, their small sizes meant that during their formation their cores would not have been compressed to the same high density form as the Earth's. There was less of the 10-13 gm/cc material. So that when G decreased, there was only the possibility of minor expansion effects (eg, the rills of the Moon). For Mars, the initial size was not so different from the Earth's, and so a significant expansion was possible (and is evident, I think).


Mars is 10.7% of Earth's mass and only 71.3% (3.94 g/cm^3 to 5.52 g/cm^3) as dense. Luna is 1.2% of Earth's mass and 60.5% its density (3.340 g/cm^3). So if you look at it, Mars is closer in mass and density to our moon than to Earth (11.5% the size and 84.8% as dense). You can't say it's a density thing, because Mercury is the second densest object in our solar system (maybe barring a few asteroids), only Earth is denser. In fact, the surface gravity of Mercury is higher than the surface gravity of Mars. So that rules out your Mercury is too small, not dense enough or not massive enough.


You seem to be saying that the division of the Earth's surface into ocean basins and continents was caused by PT. Is this reasonable? Suppose the Earth was covered with a crust of approximately uniform thickness at one time (presumably after the formation of the Moon). Somehow PT cracked this uniform surface and ocean basins began to form. But that would have displaced some of the continental plates on a globe of constant size. So some of the continental plates must have disappeared under other ones, right? But here lies a problem. In PT, the continental plates don't slide underneath one another. Their roots are too deep. They only slip by each other So how do you propose to get rid of that 'excess' continental area?


(My emphisis). Yes they do slide underneath each other. This is called subduction, and like I mentioned above, is one cause of volcanoes. The plate that is pushed underneath enters the mantle and eventually melts, becoming part of the Asthenosphere and can possibly be ejected back out at a later date to become part of a different plate. Think of it as the Circle of Life for tetonic plates.

Cougar
2004-Jan-03, 05:13 PM
Tell that to the citizens of Bam, Iran.
Examination of the crust surrounding and within the Arabian plate shows that the thickest crust occurs beneath the Zagros mountains in Iran where continental collision is taking place.

ExpErdMann
2004-Jan-03, 07:36 PM
A change of 2100 km seems too small.
That was 1/3 of the Earth radius. I thought they were starting with 2/3 radius? Wouldn't make that a dR of 1/3 radius?
That might be correct. I will check the original paper and get back to you, as mentioned. I am inclined towards an intial radius of 1/2 the presnt radius, as this will give the correct ratio of continents to ocean basins on the larger globe, assuming ocean basins are all new crust.


Their paper was more in line with the 'slow expansion' model, but can also be tied to 'fast expansion' if we suppose a threshold value (of G, for instance) needed to be passed before expansion could proceed.
So, you throw out the cosmological "connection" in order to match fast expansion? Seems convenient.
I don't think fast expansion is inconsistent with the 'cosmological connection' here (especially with decreasing G), for the reasons I gave. Someone asked why I supposed there was a cosmic connection with EE. I pointed out that H seems to connect with EE in at least three possible ways: (1) the above argument based on the Nature paper, featuring a local expansion effect; (2) decrease in G via Dirac-type model, also cosmology-based; (3) Carey's hypothesis of a long-range repulsion effect (containing term with H).


If you or anyone thinks PT has some aces here, I think it's time to show them!
Sure. One thing you seem to be unaware of is that continental crust is less dense than the material beneath it, whereas old oceanic crust cools and eventually is more dense--it sinks.

No, I'm aware of that. It is another reason why the continental plates don't slip underneath each other in PT, at least to a large extent (this relates to wedgebert's argument)


The parts we can see? You mean the ones below sea level, and the ones five miles above sea level? What did you mean that the continents are of even thickness?
Again, I am just referring to the broad dichotomy between ocean basins on one hand and continental areas which are raised up several kilometers higher. The same sort of dichotomy we see on Mars.


Occam's Razor is subjective, so it can never be definite. It relies upon determing whether something is simple or not, but--for instance--a lot of people would say that Newton's laws are much simpler than Einstein's, but to someone who understands them, the converse is true.
Not to get off topic, but I think Newton wins out here. He just needs some minor corrections to bring out GR. Neither GR or Newton properly deal with the cause of gravity, though. That is their problem. To meet Occam's Razor we really need to go to Le Sage.


None of those rise to the level of how to create matter at the center of the Earth sort of question.
I am not for the creation of matter explanation, but even this explains the situation better than what's offered in PT. Why not concede here? PT doesn't have an energy source!

milli360
2004-Jan-03, 08:18 PM
A change of 2100 km seems too small.
That was 1/3 of the Earth radius. I thought they were starting with 2/3 radius? Wouldn't make that a dR of 1/3 radius?
That might be correct.
I thought I was using the figure that you gave earlier. Here it is (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=185732#185732).



So, you throw out the cosmological "connection" in order to match fast expansion? Seems convenient.
I don't think fast expansion is inconsistent with the 'cosmological connection' here (especially with decreasing G), for the reasons I gave.
It's certainly inconsistent with that formula! It can't support both views. That's just a shotgun approach.

No, I'm aware of that. It is another reason why the continental plates don't slip underneath each other in PT, at least to a large extent (this relates to wedgebert's argument)
It also answers some of your objections.



The parts we can see? You mean the ones below sea level, and the ones five miles above sea level? What did you mean that the continents are of even thickness?
Again, I am just referring to the broad dichotomy between ocean basins on one hand and continental areas which are raised up several kilometers higher. The same sort of dichotomy we see on Mars.
I'm still trying to understand what you mean by even thickness. That they are just higher than the oceans?

That wouldn't mean "even," necessarily.



Occam's Razor is subjective, so it can never be definite. It relies upon determing whether something is simple or not, but--for instance--a lot of people would say that Newton's laws are much simpler than Einstein's, but to someone who understands them, the converse is true.
Not to get off topic, but I think Newton wins out here.
And, if so, you'd be applying it wrongly, right? Newton loses, so either Occam's Razor is wrong, or you are wrong.


Why not concede here? PT doesn't have an energy source!
No, it certainly does. The heat that could be generated by the solidification of the inner core is right in the ballpark for what is needed. Radioactivity increases that.

The discrepancy in the models is merely less than a single order of magnitude of viscosity. If the mantle has the viscosity that it was determined to have, in the sixties and seventies, then the models are fine, and they work. That's one of the reasons that PT enjoyed so much success. Field geologists were encouraged by that, and spent decades in the field gathering information in support of the theory. Seismic CAT scans of the interior show a lot of the details.

However, over the past thirty years, it has become evident that the viscosity is an order of magnitude higher. That is a much smaller barrier than what is offered by EE.

ExpErdMann
2004-Jan-03, 08:21 PM
For instance some continental plates, like Africa's, are surrounded by mid-ocean ridges, with no subduction zones in sight.
Interesting point. Its been a while, but haven't some scientists proposed that the ridges themselves are moving? I don't know that that would explain it. Can anybody verify that?
I think the PT position (at least via kilopi) is that the ridges move. But I suppose there could also be some motion in EE. In any case, Africa and Antarctica would still have been surrounded by spreading zones in the past, unless a spreading ridge moved across a subduction zone. Could that happen in PT?

I seem to recall that subducting plates move faster than spreading centers.
Even if true, the subsuction zones are mostly localized to the western Pacific. It's hard to imagine a sink there sucking up all the crust generated elsewhere in the globe.

ExpErdMan, how do you interpret the age dating of ocean floor in EE model? Ocean crust does become progressively older as you move away from the ridges. Is that consistent with the EE picture?
That is consistent with the fast expansion models, which hold that all expansion has occurred since the Jurassic. (But I recall David Pratt arguing that the ridges don't lead to new seafloor (like Cougar was suggesting). Do you recall what Pratt was all about?)

wedgebert
2004-Jan-03, 08:24 PM
I am not for the creation of matter explanation, but even this explains the situation better than what's offered in PT. Why not concede here? PT doesn't have an energy source!

By that argument, then if you drop something that floats in the ocean it won't move because there is no energy source to push it along.

We don't know the exact cause of motion in the tectonic plates, but the leading candidate is convection in the mantle. The plates are basically sitting in a "ocean" of semi-molten rock called the Asthenosphere. Hotter materials from deeper in the mantle will rise upwards and thus cause motion (just like how Wind works). Just like setting something on the ocean, the plates are going to move.

The energy source is the heat and gravity of Earth. No magic "decreasing G" or "matter creation" or anything else that we cannot explain.

milli360
2004-Jan-03, 08:28 PM
[quote="ExpErdMann
In any case, Africa and Antarctica would still have been surrounded by spreading zones in the past, unless a spreading ridge moved across a subduction zone. Could that happen in PT?
We see it today in the Pacific, if I understand what you mean.

It's hard to imagine a sink there sucking up all the crust generated elsewhere in the globe.
No need to imagine. The calculations have already been done. That doesn't require imagination, just a little work.

That is consistent with the fast expansion models, which hold that all expansion has occurred since the Jurassic.
Which would be a couple order of magnitudes off from your H equation that you offered earlier. Not only would the dt be 15-30 times less, the dR would be 50% greater.

PS: Concede? This is not a high school debate topic. In theory, both sides will win, eventually.

ExpErdMann
2004-Jan-03, 10:00 PM
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by high density rocks turning into low density rocks. Are you saying Gabbro (Basalt) just turns into Granite and explodes as it changes density?
I checked Sanchez Cela's article in the book and, in his model at least, the granite is formed by conversion of higher density sialic upper mantle into lower density, granitic-sialic crust. He says there are more sialic components in the upper mantle than hitherto believed. Other papers have been written on the granite conversion. It does not seem to be a direct basalt to granite transition.


Mars is 10.7% of Earth's mass and only 71.3% (3.94 g/cm^3 to 5.52 g/cm^3) as dense. Luna is 1.2% of Earth's mass and 60.5% its density (3.340 g/cm^3). So if you look at it, Mars is closer in mass and density to our moon than to Earth (11.5% the size and 84.8% as dense). You can't say it's a density thing, because Mercury is the second densest object in our solar system (maybe barring a few asteroids), only Earth is denser. In fact, the surface gravity of Mercury is higher than the surface gravity of Mars. So that rules out your Mercury is too small, not dense enough or not massive enough.
In these calculations you need to include the appropriate expansion factors. If we use just the highlands/lowlands (continent/ocean basin) ratios, we see that Earth's radius had doubled, whereas Mars initial radius was .7 of its present radius (.7^2 = 1/2 approx, the ratio for Mars). Now the density is related to R^3, so for Mars the initial density was about triple its present value, if all other factors were the same. That gives Mars an initial density of about 12 gm/cc, which is near the density of the Earth's core today. Conversely, Mercury does not show expansion so strongly as Mars, and so its present density is what it was in the past (again, with everything else unchanged).


Yes they do slide underneath each other. This is called subduction, and like I mentioned above, is one cause of volcanoes. The plate that is pushed underneath enters the mantle and eventually melts, becoming part of the Asthenosphere and can possibly be ejected back out at a later date to become part of a different plate. Think of it as the Circle of Life for tetonic plates.
I am aware of this, but my understanding was that the lighter continental plates have trouble sliding underneath each other. India would be classic example where this did happen, in PT. But mostly subduction is restricted in PT to denser oceanic plates sliding below each other or lighter continental plates. In this case, you're positing a lot of Indias in the early going!

wedgebert
2004-Jan-03, 10:29 PM
In these calculations you need to include the appropriate expansion factors. If we use just the highlands/lowlands (continent/ocean basin) ratios, we see that Earth's radius had doubled, whereas Mars initial radius was .7 of its present radius (.7^2 = 1/2 approx, the ratio for Mars). Now the density is related to R^3, so for Mars the initial density was about triple its present value, if all other factors were the same. That gives Mars an initial density of about 12 gm/cc, which is near the density of the Earth's core today. Conversely, Mercury does not show expansion so strongly as Mars, and so its present density is what it was in the past (again, with everything else unchanged).


This seems like you're twisting observation to fit facts, not making the facts fit observation. You're basing what a planet would look like if it expanded on Earth and Earth alone. That's a very small data set, and you can't even show Earth expands. What makes Earth and Mars so special that they expand while other planets don't? Or what if Mercury just expands at a uniform rate across the globe?

You need to find solid evidence of expansion on Earth before you try applying it other planets. All that does is give even more evidence of non-expansion.

Anonymous
2004-Jan-03, 11:29 PM
ExpErdMann wrote:


“Consider a molten planet in the process of cooling.”


OK.


“One would expect the layers to solidify to even thickness, would one not?”


?? No. One would not. Each of the solid bodies of the solar system has its own set of variables: mass, temp, density and composition.


http://chemphys.phys.boun.edu.tr/~semiz/universe/near/08ext/internal_structure.GIF



This results in a unique bulk heat budget for each object. Please stop trying to over simplify a very complex process. The accretion era requires a bit more than ‘farmer’s wisdom’. (with apologies to farmers for comparing them to magical thinkers)


“How do you get continental crust forming only in 25% of the globe, but with equal thickness of crust?”


You don’t. It’s high time you qualify and quantify this ‘equal thickness of crust’ nonsense. The figure you cite (25% continental crust) is the end product of 4.5 GA of planetary development. Beginning with what amounts to a magma ocean, the first permanent structures (the cratons) represented far less than 25%. If we consider only the cratons which have survived to the modern era, we have ~10% or less. Perhaps a little background can help prevent at least some of your misunderstanding.


http://my.execpc.com/~acmelasr/mountains/ptnf.html



“Why should Earth's surface be so different from the Moon's?”


See above.


“The absence of volcanic activity on the Moon could be due either to the absence of plate tectonics (in PT) or a much reduced expansion (in an expansion model).”


No and no. The absence of volcanic activity on the Moon is directly attributable to a heat engine that’s quite simply past its prime. The Moons 15 minutes came and went over 3 billion years ago.


“I was just pointing out that we should have seen a fairly uniform crust on Earth (ie without basins) just as we do on the Moon.”


There is absolutely no evidence that there has ever been ‘a fairly uniform crust on Earth’. Ditto for the Moon.


http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/LEC11/IMAGES/moon_xsection.JPG



“Why not concede here? PT doesn't have an energy source!”


Errrk. You mean, not counting the latent heat of accretion and differentiation or the heat produced by radioactive elements? In the particular concept which you have been proposing throughout this thread (late onset, rapid expansion at constant mass), the current heat budget represents a serious hurdle for you. You can’t get here from there. There would have been unmistakable clues left behind. I’m sure you realize that a globe 2/3 to 3/4 the Earth’s current diameter dumps heat at a different rate than what we see today. And you propose that this hypothetical expansion took place in only 200 to 300 million years? I genuinely see no evidence of this.


Its time to put a stake in the heart of this bizarre idea of yours. You had to have noticed Bad Astronomer’s page regarding lunar recession and Earth’s slowing rotation:


http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html


In short, because the mechanisms are so well understood, there really is no wiggle room for liberal interpretation. The Earth has not expanded during the last 600 million years. That’s a fact. If the Earth were smaller 200 to 300 million years ago, we would have seen it in the rotation record. A smaller globe would have rotated much more rapidly than can be accounted for by the recession of the moon.


Excerpt from the following link:


“The rate of earth's rotation in the distant past can be measured. Corals produce skeletons with both daily layers and yearly patterns, so we can count the number of days per year when the coral grew. Measurements of fossil corals from 180 - 400 million years ago show year lengths from 381 to 410 days, with older corals showing more days per year [Eicher, 1976; Wells, 1963, 1970, Scrutton, 1970]. Similarly, days per year can also be computed from growth patterns in molluscs [Scrutton, 1978; Pannella, 1976] and stromatolites [Pannella et al, 1968; Jones, 1981; Mohr, 1975] and from sediment deposition patterns [Williams, 1989]. All such measurements are consistent with a gradual rate of earth's slowing for the last 650 million years.”


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html



Heck, we can ignore all other arguments in light of the irrefutable rotation record. The Earth has not expanded.

milli360
2004-Jan-04, 03:02 AM
In this case, you're positing a lot of Indias in the early going!
I think a google on "suspect terrane" (yes, that is the spelling) might be what you're looking for.

PS: Heathen, your last quote/link shows that the rotation of the Earth was more rapid in the past. ??

Anonymous
2004-Jan-04, 03:56 AM
milli360 wrote:


“Heathen, your last quote/link shows that the rotation of the Earth was more rapid in the past. ??”


Yes. It does. I’ll repeat a comment I made before the link.

‘A smaller globe would have rotated much more rapidly than can be accounted for by the recession of the moon.’


Although the Earth rotated faster in the past, it did so and is accounted for by a well understood mechanism: lunar recession. Were the Earth actually smaller in the past, it would have rotated faster still and we don’t see that.


A careful scrutiny of evidence reveals that the recession was not a smooth extrapolation (ie slight variation in the rate of 3.8 cm/year), but this variation is understood as the effect of changing sea levels and differing configurations of the continents.


So, if the Earth was only 3/4 its current diameter 400 million years ago it would have rotated about 600 times per revolution instead of 410. Probably more than that actually. Anyone up to the math? (I’ve misplaced my ice cream sticks)

milli360
2004-Jan-04, 04:31 AM
Although the Earth rotated faster in the past, it did so and is accounted for by a well understood mechanism: lunar recession. Were the Earth actually smaller in the past, it would have rotated faster still and we don’t see that.
Ah.

Still, lunar recession is not well understood. The friction sink that produces the slowing down of the Earth doesn't seem to be identified, so a good portion of that slow down could--at least to the best of our knowledge--be available to be explained by something else.

ExpErdMann
2004-Jan-04, 04:49 PM
I thought I was using the figure that you gave earlier. Here it is (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=185732#185732).

Yes, I just want to check the original paper to see if I gave you the right numbers initially. I was going by memory in that posting.



I don't think fast expansion is inconsistent with the 'cosmological connection' here (especially with decreasing G), for the reasons I gave.
It's certainly inconsistent with that formula! It can't support both views. That's just a shotgun approach.
Here's a way to look at it. Suppose I have a spring that is compressed to a certain point. Now suppose I gradually reduce the force that is keeping the spring compressed. The compression of the spring will relax. That's slow expansion. But suppose something is preventing the spring from relaxing for a long time, and then that obstruction is removed. The spring relaxes to the same extent as the first spring, but in a shorter time. That could be fast expansion. The obstacle could be the immense pressures required to crack the Earth's crust for the first time.



Again, I am just referring to the broad dichotomy between ocean basins on one hand and continental areas which are raised up several kilometers higher. The same sort of dichotomy we see on Mars.
I'm still trying to understand what you mean by even thickness. That they are just higher than the oceans? That wouldn't mean "even," necessarily.
Yes, that's basically what I mean. They may not be perfectly even but if the Earth's water were removed you could easily make out the continental areas, just as you can on Mars.




Why not concede here? PT doesn't have an energy source!
No, it certainly does. The heat that could be generated by the solidification of the inner core is right in the ballpark for what is needed. Radioactivity increases that.
Solidification of the inner core would have produced a lot of heat way back when, but what has it done for PT lately? Presumably the core was formed early in the Earth's history. If the heat associated with the Earth's initial molten state dissipated in a short time, why would the extra heat produced in core solidification take a much longer time to dissipate?


However, over the past thirty years, it has become evident that the viscosity is an order of magnitude higher. That is a much smaller barrier than what is offered by EE.
If you had enough energy to drive the PT process then any viscosity could be dealt with, I suppose. But then you don't have the energy source. And what is the EE barrier? A conceptual one?

ExpErdMann
2004-Jan-04, 05:03 PM
Hotter materials from deeper in the mantle will rise upwards and thus cause motion (just like how Wind works). Just like setting something on the ocean, the plates are going to move.

The energy source is the heat and gravity of Earth. No magic "decreasing G" or "matter creation" or anything else that we cannot explain.
But the source of the heat driving this process has not been identified. Why should the Earth have such a heat source and the Moon not have it? Radioactivity seems really too small, unless it's some form we haven't seen yet. EE at least opens this problem up for discussion. PT keeps it bottled up.

ExpErdMann
2004-Jan-04, 05:20 PM
It's hard to imagine a sink there sucking up all the crust generated elsewhere in the globe.
No need to imagine. The calculations have already been done. That doesn't require imagination, just a little work.
Maybe more imagination than you imagine! I've been looking at Perin's hemispheric rings for cases when you put them along meridians, passing through both poles. Only about 1/3 of such rings pass through subduction zones. The remaining 2/3 pass through several mid-ocean ridges, including rapidly spreading ridges in the southern hemisphere. These rings could easily have values close to what Perin calculated for his ring, 7.8 cm/yr. So somehow the disappearance of crust in the 'subduction rings' is able to cancel out the expansion in the 'non-subduction rings' thousands of miles away. Miraculous!!


PS: Concede? This is not a high school debate topic. In theory, both sides will win, eventually.
Nice point! Theorists can twist things till they get the universe they want to see. I am just hoping that with a simple argument like Perin's we can limit the abuses of theory and find evidence even high schoolers can appreciate.

wedgebert
2004-Jan-04, 05:36 PM
So somehow the disappearance of crust in the 'subduction rings' is able to cancel out the expansion in the 'non-subduction rings' thousands of miles away. Miraculous!!


So you're saying that for PT to work, expansion must occur within a few miles of subduction? That's ridiculous, tectonic plates are quite large, and it doesn't take common sense to realize that you subduction in one part of a plate can counteract expansion ANYWHERE else on that plate.

In fact, subduction in one plate can counteract expansion in a different plate because if plate A shrinks, there's more room for plate B.

All this shows is that you don't fully understand plate tectonics.