THWOTH wrote:Was the mass/energy quandary ever addressed, or was it just waved away?

Anyway, here's to the next 8 years of magical thinking, bad-faith arguments, and tone policing, all in the service of wilful maintaining a state of scientific illiteracy.

What’s your guess?

Pixie flatulence?

Trust you

As usual there is no-one left to discuss the science...

So, one more time, for those who objectively wants to understand if Earth is growing.

This is a view from above a subduction zone, similar to the Scotia Sea or Aegean regions.



The horizontal component of the GPS vectors represented by the red arrows provides a complete picture of the evolution of the surface of this rectangular region. What happens under the surface is evidently irrelevant to determine if the rectangular area increases or decreases.

So tell me now, is there reduction of the rectangular area ?

And anyone not wanting to really debate this question is unwelcome and should be considered as a troll.

So if my basement cellar is 13d C my whole house must also be 13 d C.

You are inferring from the particular. There is no reason to suppose the earth is expanding from this particular instance.

Where is the data that the earth, as a whole, is expanding? We’re still waiting.

Florian wrote:

And anyone not wanting to really debate this question is unwelcome and should be considered as a troll.

Nice well poisoning there. Also this is not your personal blog. You dont get to dictate who posts here, why or how.

Florian wrote:As usual there is no-one left to discuss the science...

Be sure to let us know when you find some science, because after years and years all you and your ilk have presented is pure weapons grade bullshit devoid of any semblance of science.

<snip>

Florian wrote:
And anyone not wanting to really debate this question is unwelcome and should be considered as a troll.

Stop trolling yourself before declaring how others post.

You have had several years to present some peer reviewed work which supplies repeatable empirical evidence, bit haven’t. None of you which believe this shit has managed anything remotely qualifying, and when your lot cites papers which you claim supports this insanity it turns out they don’t.

One would think that after this long you’d take the hint that this obscure forum, and all your empty bluster, hasn’t made one iota of difference one way or another. You know we are going to point and laugh at your shit, but yet here you are. What the fuck do you hope to gain by wasting your time here? Seriously? If you aren’t just trolling what in the hell is your goal? Surely you aren’t so fucking stupid as to think your latest pretty picture is going to convince anyone here that your pet notion is anything beyond ignorant tripe.

The mods are on a troll busting roll, and as far as I am concerned that hammer of Thor needs a good roundhouse swing in this thread.

RS

Florian wrote:As usual there is no-one left to discuss the science...

So, one more time, for those who objectively wants to understand if Earth is growing.

This is a view from above a subduction zone, similar to the Scotia Sea or Aegean regions.

GPSVectorfieldmantleflow.png

The horizontal component of the GPS vectors represented by the red arrows provides a complete picture of the evolution of the surface of this rectangular region. What happens under the surface is evidently irrelevant to determine if the rectangular area increases or decreases.

So tell me now, is there reduction of the rectangular area ?

And anyone not wanting to really debate this question is unwelcome and should be considered as a troll.

At the risk of raising some ire for indulging you, I'm going to respond, indulging myself.

The illustration is confusing to me. It purports to depict "mantle flow" and "GPS horizontal vectors." Yet the mantle is not the surface; how could its movement be tracked by GPS? Why bring GPS into it at all? You write of "evolution of the surface" which would of course not necessarily be the same as the underlying movement of the mantle, let alone movement deeper in the mantle.

The vectors you depict appear to be chaotic outside of a "river" leading to the subduction zone. Can you produce anything from a reputable source that shows this is accurate?

If the illustration is meant to depict horizontal movement of the mantle, why would that result in reduction of surface area? As far as I know nobody is claiming that there's any appreciable reduction of the Earth's surface. Rather the idea is that the production of new oceanic crust is in equilibrium with subduction of old oceanic crust. As I understand it, the action of a subduction zone doesn't result in gross reduction of surface area, just as production of new oceanic crust at the spreading centers doesn't result in a gross increase of surface area.

I suppose you're trying to make some point with this illustration--why don't you just go ahead and lay out the argument behind the illustration and the evidence that supports it?

SkyMutt wrote:

At the risk of raising some ire for indulging you, I'm going to respond, indulging myself.

Finally! Someone genuinely interested.

SkyMutt wrote:
The illustration is confusing to me. It purports to depict "mantle flow" and "GPS horizontal vectors." Yet the mantle is not the surface; how could its movement be tracked by GPS? Why bring GPS into it at all? You write of "evolution of the surface" which would of course not necessarily be the same as the underlying movement of the mantle, let alone movement deeper in the mantle.

OK, let's simplify before discussing what could be at the origin of the lithosphere displacements. What is represented here are lithosphere displacements as measured by GPS stations.

SkyMutt wrote:
The vectors you depict appear to be chaotic outside of a "river" leading to the subduction zone. Can you produce anything from a reputable source that shows this is accurate?

Yes, this figure for example from Mattei et al (2004) doi:10.1029/2003JB002506 :

SkyMutt wrote:
If the illustration is meant to depict horizontal movement of the mantle, why would that result in reduction of surface area? As far as I know nobody is claiming that there's any appreciable reduction of the Earth's surface. Rather the idea is that the production of new oceanic crust is in equilibrium with subduction of old oceanic crust. As I understand it, the action of a subduction zone doesn't result in gross reduction of surface area, just as production of new oceanic crust at the spreading centers doesn't result in a gross increase of surface area.

Yes, the hypothesis is that there is destruction of lithosphere at subduction zones of equal amount of production of lithosphere at spreading ridges. So subduction = reduction of lithosphere surface.
This is what I'm questioning here.

SkyMutt wrote:
I suppose you're trying to make some point with this illustration--why don't you just go ahead and lay out the argument behind the illustration and the evidence that supports it?

In the illustration above there is a subduction zone and no spreading ridge. So the surface of the lithosphere in the rectangular area should decrease with time if the premise of subduction=reduction is satisfied. Yes there is obviously no reduction of surface of that rectangular area.. Because there's is sufficient lithosphere extension at the back of the subduction zone to balance the lithosphere that is consumed in the subduction zone. It is very clear from the GPS vectors. OK?

The paper in question makes no such statements, and explains the tectonic forces at work quite clearly.

Here is the full paper and I challenge any of you EE zealots to cite the section in which there is support for this nonsense. You won’t because no such thing exists.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 03JB002506

This is at least the second time this shit has been trotted out, and it falls as squarely on its ass as the previous times.

I submit this repeating misrepresentation of the actual hard work of geologists hard work is a form of quote mining, trolling and outright lying.

RS

Florian wrote:

SkyMutt wrote:
The illustration is confusing to me. It purports to depict "mantle flow" and "GPS horizontal vectors." Yet the mantle is not the surface; how could its movement be tracked by GPS? Why bring GPS into it at all? You write of "evolution of the surface" which would of course not necessarily be the same as the underlying movement of the mantle, let alone movement deeper in the mantle.

OK, let's simplify before discussing what could be at the origin of the lithosphere displacements. What is represented here are lithosphere displacements as measured by GPS stations.

Thanks for the clarification.

Florian wrote:

SkyMutt wrote:
The vectors you depict appear to be chaotic outside of a "river" leading to the subduction zone. Can you produce anything from a reputable source that shows this is accurate?

Yes, this figure for example from Mattei et al (2004) doi:10.1029/2003JB002506 :

a-A-velocity-field-for-the-Aegean-region-based-on-GPS-measurements-from-McClusky-et_W640.jpg

That figure doesn't have the chaotic vectors you put into your illustration. I note that this isn't the first time you've used this illustration; your bellyaching about lack of response appears disingenuous.

Florian wrote:

SkyMutt wrote:If the illustration is meant to depict horizontal movement of the mantle, why would that result in reduction of surface area? As far as I know nobody is claiming that there's any appreciable reduction of the Earth's surface. Rather the idea is that the production of new oceanic crust is in equilibrium with subduction of old oceanic crust. As I understand it, the action of a subduction zone doesn't result in gross reduction of surface area, just as production of new oceanic crust at the spreading centers doesn't result in a gross increase of surface area.

Yes, the hypothesis is that there is destruction of lithosphere at subduction zones of equal amount of production of lithosphere at spreading ridges. So subduction = reduction of lithosphere surface.
This is what I'm questioning here.

If the two processes result in equilibrium there is no gross reduction of surface area. What you're attempting to do here is cast doubt on the process of subduction. Seismological evidence supports the concept of subduction however. I know you're familiar with Wadati-Benioff zones.



Moreover, for the area referenced in Figure 1 of the Mattei et al. paper, there is strong evidence of subduction. See "Segmented Hellenic slab rollback driving Aegean deformation and seismicity" | Geophysical Research Letters

Florian wrote:

SkyMutt wrote:I suppose you're trying to make some point with this illustration--why don't you just go ahead and lay out the argument behind the illustration and the evidence that supports it?

In the illustration above there is a subduction zone and no spreading ridge. So the surface of the lithosphere in the rectangular area should decrease with time if the premise of subduction=reduction is satisfied. Yes there is obviously no reduction of surface of that rectangular area.. Because there's is sufficient lithosphere extension at the back of the subduction zone to balance the lithosphere that is consumed in the subduction zone. It is very clear from the GPS vectors. OK?

Theories regarding the mechanism at work in the region are mentioned in the paper linked above. However, none of them dispute the evidence that subduction is occurring.

SkyMutt wrote:
That figure doesn't have the chaotic vectors you put into your illustration. I note that this isn't the first time you've used this illustration; your bellyaching about lack of response appears disingenuous.

The "chaotic vectors" of my illustration are only there to show that there is no significant displacements of the lithosphere at their location. They could be aligned, it does not matter, the important point is that there are negligible compared to the vectors that highlights what you interestingly called the "river".

If you look carefully at the figure from the article you could clearly see that the vectors near the words GREECE, EURASIA, east of the Black Sea, the few on the coast of Africa and in Israel are all negligible compared to the main "flow".
Besides, you can observe that the vectors in the Aegean Sea are longer than those in Eastern Turkey. This means that there is lithospheric extension in between the two areas, thus surface increases there. OK?

SkyMutt wrote:

Florian wrote:
Yes, the hypothesis is that there is destruction of lithosphere at subduction zones of equal amount of production of lithosphere at spreading ridges. So subduction = reduction of lithosphere surface.
This is what I'm questioning here.

If the two processes result in equilibrium there is no gross reduction of surface area. What you're attempting to do here is cast doubt on the process of subduction. Seismological evidence supports the concept of subduction however. I know you're familiar with Wadati-Benioff zones.

That is not at all what I'm attempting to do. I'm indeed very familiar with the concept of subduction and I have absolutely no problem with it.

But I want to cast doubts on the assumption that there is gross reduction of surface area in a region as the one discussed here.
To use more technical terms, I want to demonstrate that slab rollback is the rule for subduction zones and that there is no gross reduction of surface in this case because a rollback is always accompanied by an surface extension of equal or even larger magnitude in the back arc.

So do you agree that there is no gross reduction of surface in my illustration despite the presence of a subduction zone?

Florian et al., any thoughts on what the findings of Ultima Thule might teach us about planetary formation?

Florian wrote:I'm indeed very familiar with the concept of subduction and I have absolutely no problem with it.

If subduction occurs then significant amounts of crust are recycled into the mantle, correct?

Florian wrote:But I want to cast doubts on the assumption that there is gross reduction of surface area in a region as the one discussed here.

How does your illustration show that?

Florian wrote:To use more technical terms, I want to demonstrate that slab rollback is the rule for subduction zones and that there is no gross reduction of surface in this case because a rollback is always accompanied by an surface extension of equal or even larger magnitude in the back arc.

I don't think your illustration demonstrates that.

Florian wrote:So do you agree that there is no gross reduction of surface in my illustration despite the presence of a subduction zone?

Your illustration doesn't provide enough information to allow for drawing such a conclusion.

The thing is, just as with Young Earth Creationists and proselytizers for similar unreasonable hypotheses, the value of Expanding Earth proponents like yourself to somebody like me is to provide an excuse for learning some real science. In this instance, I got to learn about this interesting tectonic region through the papers already linked above and another: "Tectonics of the Aegean/Anatolian region". Cheers.

No gross reduction, and no evidence of any gross increase. It’s still a blatant misrepresentation of the findings to suggest otherwise.

RS

SkyMutt wrote:
If subduction occurs then significant amounts of crust are recycled into the mantle, correct?

There is an amount of crust recycled, but how that is compared (in the illustration) to the surface crust generated by lithosphere extension?

SkyMutt wrote:

Florian wrote:But I want to cast doubts on the assumption that there is gross reduction of surface area in a region as the one discussed here.

How does your illustration show that?

Ok, I refined the illustration using your remarks to make my point clearer:



So, there is a subduction zone with the consumption of lithosphere at the rate of 30 mm/y.
At the same time, there is extension in the back of the arc that fully balances that consumption of lithosphere.
Indeed, as we move further away from the arc (from position A to E), the velocity decreases which means that there is extension of surface. For example there is an extension of 15 mm/y (30-15=15 mm/y) between positions A and B.

Besides, all positions (including E/F/G/H/I) surrounding the region are immobile relatively to each other, which means that the surface of that rectangular region is constant. So there is subduction, but no gross reduction of the surface of the whole region.

Do you agree?

When did the Earth expand, what made it expand, and when and why did it stop?

The answer: nobody knows, but here's a picture which explains it...

Florian wrote:

SkyMutt wrote:
If subduction occurs then significant amounts of crust are recycled into the mantle, correct?

There is an amount of crust recycled, but how that is compared (in the illustration) to the surface crust generated by lithosphere extension?

Perhaps I'm missing something, but if the subduction rate is 30 mm/yr and extension is occurring at 15 mm/yr, wouldn't that mean that there is a reduction of surface in the illustration?

Florian wrote:

SkyMutt wrote:How does your illustration show [reason to doubt gross reduction of surface area]?

Ok, I refined the illustration using your remarks to make my point clearer:

GPS vector field of a tectonic flow.png

So, there is a subduction zone with the consumption of lithosphere at the rate of 30 mm/y.

Yes, I see the region around position H undergoing subduction.

Florian wrote:At the same time, there is extension in the back of the arc that fully balances that consumption of lithosphere. Indeed, as we move further away from the arc (from position A to E), the velocity decreases which means that there is extension of surface. For example there is an extension of 15 mm/y (30-15=15 mm/y) between positions A and B.

See above. I'm still getting my head around the tectonics of the region (let alone your illustration) so feel free to explain how an extension rate of 15 mm/yr will balance a subduction rate of 30 mm/yr.

The paper you gave a figure from and that theropod provided a link for says extension of 15 mm/yr is occurring in the back-arc region. It seems to me that what you need to show is that the rate of subduction is equal to that. In the real world the rate of subduction for the Hellenic trench is approximately 35 mm/yr. I also found a reference that says the two plates are converging at approximately 60 mm/yr. I don't think your illustration is a reflection of the real world.

Florian wrote:Besides, all positions (including E/F/G/H/I) surrounding the region are immobile relatively to each other, which means that the surface of that rectangular region is constant. So there is subduction, but no gross reduction of the surface of the whole region.

Do you agree?

Assuming I'm misunderstanding something as noted above, say for the sake of discussion that in the illustration you created that is the case. What we see in the figure is not an overall motionless region with a particular area of movement. Dragging that forward:



Rather we see the whole region north and northeast of the Hellenic trench in movement. Is there a real-world region that fits your illustration?

SkyMutt wrote:

Florian wrote:At the same time, there is extension in the back of the arc that fully balances that consumption of lithosphere. Indeed, as we move further away from the arc (from position A to E), the velocity decreases which means that there is extension of surface. For example there is an extension of 15 mm/y (30-15=15 mm/y) between positions A and B.

See above. I'm still getting my head around the tectonics of the region (let alone your illustration) so feel free to explain how an extension rate of 15 mm/yr will balance a subduction rate of 30 mm/yr.

You're missing that extension is not occurring only between point A and B. I made another refinement of the illustration to show you that:



See, there is extension all along the flow line (blue dashed arrow). 15 mm/y between A and B, 5 mm/y between B and C, 8 mm/y between C and E and 2 mm/y between D and E. Total is 30 mm/y of extension along the flow line, balancing the rate of consumption at the subduction zone.

It is quite logical given that E and H are motionless relative to each other.

So do you agree now that there is a subduction rate of 30 mm/y, yet no gross reduction of surface of the region?

What happens in the back arc is the most important. My experience with people, including geophysicists (!), is that this very simple principle is really hard to understand. I don't know really why...

SkyMutt wrote:
Assuming I'm misunderstanding something as noted above, say for the sake of discussion that in the illustration you created that is the case. What we see in the figure is not an overall motionless region with a particular area of movement. Dragging that forward:



Rather we see the whole region north and northeast of the Hellenic trench in movement. Is there a real-world region that fits your illustration?

In the real world, there is always some motion of the lithosphere, especially depending on the reference frame. That's why I initially represented "chaotic vectors".

If you observe carefully the figure of the paper, you'll see that the motions around the area in movement are negligible (vector length is almost null): In Greece/Eurasia, in Africa (Lybia/Egypt), Israel/lebanon, and in the Causase (East of the black Sea).
So, that real world situation is darned close to my simplified illustration.

There is no surface reduction in the region, yet there is a very active tectonic flow that is heading toward the Mediterranean Sea, subducting lithosphere on its way there.

Here is an additional figure of the region (real world).



Again, the dashed area is relatively motionless, and the tectonic flow is correlated to a large uplift in the East-Anatolian region.

Note that I did not invent this flow stuff. Emile Argand, a renowned Swiss geologist described it in its famous book "La tectonique de l'Asie" (Asian Tectonics) almost a century ago (full book in pdf click HERE).
He identified many flow lines in Eurasia and called them "Virgation".
Here is a figure extracted from Argand's book (p333) illustrating a virgation.



The flow in the Aegean region is a virgation in Argand's terminology.

If you understand this concept, you may be over the tipping point, and we can move to a similar case in another area of the world (the treasure is found at the end of the journey).

No point arguing, as Florian's 'idealised' graphic has no actual resemblance to the real situation in the eastern Mediterranean