Are all the good people banned here? I'm a skeptic. Where are the skeptics? This forum is called rational skepticism

In what direction does Africa move? If it is in the direction of Eurasia, please, be a little skeptical.
Look at my image. Look at the arrows.

The recent consensus is that Earth DOES expand. Recent scientific papers confirm this.

Uh huh.

I'VE GOT IMAGES! I'VE GOT ARROWS! I'VE GOT PHOTOSHOP! YOU CALL YOURSELVES SKEPTICS!???!!!!!

YARRRGH!!!!!!

Newstein wrote:The recent consensus is that Earth DOES expand. Recent scientific papers confirm this.

Then these peer reviewed publications will be no problem for you to cite. Please provide the journal title, date of first publication, DOI number, lead author and title. Links to these publications would also be helpful.

I think you are seriously confused as to what constitutes a scientific paper since Google Scholar returns no recent papers when “Exapanding Earth” are used as search parameters. In other words I think you have posted a blad faced lie.

RS

Newstein bullshitting?! Whoda thunk it?

theropod wrote:

Newstein wrote:The recent consensus is that Earth DOES expand. Recent scientific papers confirm this.

Then these peer reviewed publications will be no problem for you to cite. Please provide the journal title, date of first publication, DOI number, lead author and title. Links to these publications would also be helpful.

I think you are seriously confused as to what constitutes a scientific paper since Google Scholar returns no recent papers when “Exapanding Earth” are used as search parameters. In other words I think you have posted a blad faced lie.

RS

"The expanding Earth at present: evidence from temporal gravity field and space-geodetic data"
Wen-Bin Shen1,2,*, Rong Sun1, Wei Chen1, Zhenguo Zhang1, Jin Li1, Jiancheng Han1, Hao Ding1

link: https://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/view/4951/5383

Do you see it???
I do. I HAVE EYES
I'm sure the rest of the scientists will notice that too when I will publish my scientific paper..
They are not stupid or blind.

Subduction is an invention to fit the story that Earth's radius is constant. It's a fallacy.
I didn't say there is no slideover at South America, Chili, but subduction is an excuse to see the real truth.
In fact, it's a blatant lie. How can you have subduction in the Gulf of Alaska????
I'm skeptic.

lol. Is thread for real?

Newstein wrote:

"The expanding Earth at present: evidence from temporal gravity field and space-geodetic data"
Wen-Bin Shen1,2,*, Rong Sun1, Wei Chen1, Zhenguo Zhang1, Jin Li1, Jiancheng Han1, Hao Ding1

link: https://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/view/4951/5383

"we conclude that the Earth has been expanding at arate of about 0.2 mm/yr over recent decades."

Also, this link to a single article somehow demonstrates the "consensus" in the scientific community.
I'm not sure you understand what consensus means.

Newstein wrote:Subduction is an invention observed phenomena to fit the story that Earth's radius is constant which is consistent with plate tectonics. It's part of the only working model we have which explains the movement of the earth's crusta fallacy.

F.I.F.Y

Sendraks wrote:

Newstein wrote:Subduction is an invention observed phenomena to fit the story that Earth's radius is constant which is consistent with plate tectonics. It's part of the only working model we have which explains the movement of the earth's crusta fallacy.

F.I.F.Y

If subduction exists, what is the subduction rate at Chili? In mm/year

Newstein wrote:

theropod wrote:

Newstein wrote:The recent consensus is that Earth DOES expand. Recent scientific papers confirm this.

Then these peer reviewed publications will be no problem for you to cite. Please provide the journal title, date of first publication, DOI number, lead author and title. Links to these publications would also be helpful.

I think you are seriously confused as to what constitutes a scientific paper since Google Scholar returns no recent papers when “Exapanding Earth” are used as search parameters. In other words I think you have posted a blad faced lie.

RS

"The expanding Earth at present: evidence from temporal gravity field and space-geodetic data"
Wen-Bin Shen1,2,*, Rong Sun1, Wei Chen1, Zhenguo Zhang1, Jin Li1, Jiancheng Han1, Hao Ding1

link: https://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/view/4951/5383

So no citation as requested. No DOI number. No date of first publication. No journal title. A link to a odd PDF that Chrome will not open. Yawn.

Where did this paper first appear and in what journal? Who was on the review team? Let me guess, this is a self published paper. In other words pure weapons grade bunk, just like every other supposed publication supporting this crap. Oh, you stated there were “papers” which implies more than one. Back up and try again, but put some effort into actually meeting the challenge presented. If this is any indication of your sources I pity you. Not really. You are making up lies and it shows.

RS

Chili? Depends on if beans are included doesn’t it?

RS

Ow the source is not good?

Mantle plumes: Why the current skepticism

They are that 1) many observations do not agree with the predictions of the original model, 2) it is possible that convection of the sort required to generate thermal plumes in the Earth’s mantle does not occur, 3) so many variants of the original model have been invoked to accommodate conflicting data that the plume hypthesis is in practice no longer testable, and 4) alternative models are viable, though these have been largely neglected by researchers. Regardless of the final outcome, the present vigorous debate is to be welcomed since it is likely to stimulate new discoveries in a way that unquestioning acceptance of the conventional plume model will not.

August 2005, Volume 50, Issue 15, pp 1555–1560| Cite as
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1360/982005-919

theropod wrote:Chili? Depends on if beans are included doesn’t it?

RS

Chile

Oh boy. How do you suspend your account?

Annals of Geophysics. From the website.

Editorial Policies[/size]

II. Overview of the Editorial Process
Annals of Geophysics will provide all Authors with an efficient editorial process. Our aim is to identify those submissions that warrant inclusion in the scientific record and present them to the scientific community with as few hurdles as possible.

“SJR Impact Factor : 0.483”

https://www.scijournal.org/sjr-impact-f ... TALY.shtml

Newstein wrote:Oh boy. How do you suspend your account?

No please. We need you to post your paper when published. Maths and all.