It's really very simple.

1. The ocean floors are everywhere young.
2. The continental margins in the Pacific are the same age as the initial breakthrough of ocean floor. (Same for the others but they're not an issue.)
3. The spreading ridges are longer than their initial breakthrough extents showing that they grow *up*, i.e. there is no movement of the ocean floors away from the ridges (therefore no subduction) ( no convection) (no 'Plate Tectonics').
4. Transform faults almost exclusively *postdate* the spreading ridges and are part of ocean floor growth (not "developed before the ocean floors begin to open" according to "The New Class of Faults").
5. Breakthrough is latidudinal progressing to longitudinal and reflects spin.
6. Spin and enlargement are opposite sides of the same deformational coin.

That's it. It's that simple. The Earth has doubled in size since mantle breakthrough. Fact. Any discussion is just further description of the fact.. That's all. It's a done deal. Nothing more to say.

Except it's round as well. And rotates. And orbits the Sun.

Round, rotates, orbits the sun and getting bigger. Mechanism? You can argue till the cows come home it makes no difference to the fact.

Period.

You could maybe add that each one (R, R, O/S and G/B) took a long time getting there. And yet each one, from the appropriate perspective, is obvious).

That's what I think is the interesting story. (How we 'do it'.) (or don't - as the case may be.)

earthexpansion wrote:
(Yes, .. Pity what you say about the plants, .. quite agree .) ..

I believe it was you who first introduced the notion that there might be more to the membership here than meets the eye. I may, of course, be wrong. It could've been someone else.

earthexpansion wrote:But you're not strangers at all really. Collectively you're a very familiar and predictable bunch,..

While the remainder of the sentence I have trimmed down above does does make up somewhat for this, I think you've just effectively admitted to the problem right there.

It's not that we actually are a bunch at all. There is no 'collective us'. The only collective is the one you have constructed - the eternal 'other'.

It's very useful to do this, because it lets you assign any number of traits to a group and then 'confirm' your own prediction through selective bias.

It's a routine occurrence, undoubtedly, but it's fascinating to see this occur over such an obscure notion.

earthexpansion wrote:.... with individual responses that illustrate for want of a better term, 'speciation'.

Speciation is a whole shit load of variation over a very long time. In a way, I did you a favour by snipping this off the first part of the sentence as together it is an oxymoron. A totally predictable and familiar collective of masses of diverging ideas. Um.

earthexpansion wrote: It happens every time consensus is questioned.

Where's my yawn smiley? Can't be bothered to find it. Nevermind - the apathy adequately expresses my mind-numbing boredom at the self-preening, vapid regurgitations of Khunian dialectic.

Why is it that people who read Kuhn outside of an academic context always take it as the last word in scientific criticism? 'Science' is seen as some kind of monolithic, homogenizing entity - i.e the Church... and yet Khun's work is the eternal gospel as handed down... an article of timeless faith.

Like the last 50 fucking years haven't happened. Like the philosophy of science hasn't itself changed, and move on since. Like a Khunian dialect is the one thing invulnerable to itself.

Absurd, but I guess to be expected.

earthexpansion wrote: Goes with the territory, .. a multihued defensive rash that breaks out.

Unfortunately, there's a thread here, that you are opting to write in, that firmly disfavours that reading. What it actually shows is a variety of largely disinterested (in the sense of not having horses in races) people asking open questions and being bullshitted, evaded, slighted, and personally criticized for not genuflecting to the One True Gospel.

It also shows a rash, to use your terminology, of people who already knew each other, joining websites solely to forward their particular set of beliefs.

The fact is that I dislike ideological evangelism, not alternative models of geophysics.

Incidentally, you not only used terms like 'collective', and 'bunch'... but you've now started employing terms connected with diseases, and vermin. This is another sign of that worrying essentializing habit we primates have. You should pause and have a think about this, because it's not very pleasant.

earthexpansion wrote:
It's how consensus defends itself, turning its angry face to the disturbance like a baboon turns it bum. Spreads across the landscape like a rash (of baboons bums).

Aside from the ideologically motivational language here - it's a useful way to rally the troops on your side by dehumanizing others - I have to look at the word 'consensus' here.

What does consensus actually mean in this context?

Is there an authority? A single structure of approval under which all operate?

No, that's called 'the Catholic Church'.

Consensus, in science, is reached by numerous independent observers experiencing and recording the same thing. This is to be expected if science is actually a fertile pursuit. One must presume that we start abjectly ignorant, and as we discard all the wrong notions we have, we move slightly closer to describing what is actually occurring out there. If we all go away and keep finding completely different things... something is amiss.

Effectively, your 'argument' here is a kind of genetic fallacy. It's a type of self-refuting idea; a stolen concept. Your 'consensus' is actually science working well, whereas your 'science' would fundamentally require abandoning the very concept on which it genetically depends. Basically, you cannot be pleased because you have an unreasonable expectation. Science cannot simply conform to what you wish were True because there's this little problem of the empirical evidence, accrued by numerous entirely independent recorders, contradicting the hypothesis you require be accepted.

Thus, unfortunately, I am bound to reinterpret your word. Consensus actually means the balance of evidence. The balance of evidence is against you. I'm afraid it does appear to be you, rather than being everyone else in the world, who can't deal with that. Thus the need to preach at, slander, and now dehumanize complete strangers on the internet. The thing that I find particularly difficult to understand, though, is why you think your interlocutors here share the same passion for their 'side' of the debate - that we adhere to PT unblinkingly, that it in some way defines us and we cherish it. That perspective is so far down the rabbit-hole, there may no longer be actual chance to communicate beyond the simulated chest-beating.

earthexpansion wrote:Which is what the original poster was interested in.

Unfortunately, the original poster was a sociopathic troll who took his grievances to the real world. This topic was always a means to an end - it was trolling from the outset. Unfortunately, because you've not read any other threads in this forum, you are understandably entirely ignorant of all of this.

earthexpansion wrote: And which has been well illustrated even in the short time I've been here.

Your prepackaged prejudices have been confirmed? Stop press!!

earthexpansion wrote: It's the predictable response whenever the status quo in anything is challenged,..

Why do you keep popping out these little Khunian Master statements. As far as I am aware, you are not writing your responses from a-perch an ascended mountain.

If it's 'predictable', then one must assume that you have had an awful lot of experience to be able to confidently draw predictions. As I mentioned before - the passionate drive to evangelize this to complete strangers not being met with the response you expect is conforming to your ideology. Christians feel the same way when the devil stops the unbelievers from hearing the word of God - try 2nd Corinthians 4:4 - you might be able to modernize it and make use of it.

earthexpansion wrote: and yourside has illustrated the point consistently since the thread was started.

When was I assigned to a side? And why did no one tell me? Was it cos I was chosen last? I was the one no one wanted and so I automatically got shoved onto the team with less in?

Well shit.


Oh sorry... you mean the essentialist collective you've constructed. Yeah, we did that, didn't we.

earthexpansion wrote: The anonymity is interesting though, .. have to say. How do you see the explanation for that against the naked identities of the proponents?

Which naked identities? You're all using pseudonyms on the anonymous internet. If I told you my name was Gary Sparkes, would you just believe me?

Or do you mean the contrary, like Neal Adams' use of his real name? Well, that's quite easily explainable - in fact, he downright admitted to it - he's using his existent profile to evangelize with greater impact. People are more likely to listen to someone who's an expert, even if it's an expert comicbook artist.

earthexpansion wrote: (I'm curious) Your representation of the few proponents of Earth expansion as an "en masse" phenomenon is an exaggeration of course.

Well, I quite clearly said it only with respect to this very thread, and this very forum. It's hardly a normal occurrence. Very few times has a single thread generated so many new posters who only have an interest in posting in that one single thread.

earthexpansion wrote:How many do you actually count?

6 or 7? Maybe a couple more I forgot?

earthexpansion wrote: Or maybe you count it against the collective of one.. ? A kind of arithmetical trick.

No collectives aside from the self-identified ones. When people have been invited here, from off-site, as another avenue to promote EE, and they do so single-mindedly... there's something afoot.

Can you explain the pattern? Why have all of the EE proponents in this thread had such little interest in the rest of the threads in this forum, or the rest of the fora ranging across numerous topics, or engaging with the wider community?

That IS a pattern, and it's independently verifiable if you'd like to check?

earthexpansion wrote:And why wouldn't they stick to the point anyway? It is the title of the thread after all.

You'll note that I never suggested that they should post anything other than relevant content in this thread, but rather that there are tens of thousands of posts on other subjects. Why so single-minded? Why is there a relationship between the members who joined only because of this thread and their complete disinterest in the rest of the site? Why is it that so many had prior links and invited each other here?

I think these are reasonable questions asked in a perfectly polite manner, are they not? Of course, the questions not only to you, but Dinox, James and the lurkers too.

I would also like to highly recommend the other tens of thousands of threads on this forum; you could possibly post in them, you know, maybe get to know some people... and then perhaps you wouldn't keep trying to shoot fish in a barrel that aren't actually in a barrel.

earthexpansion wrote: Do the other threads offer more opportunity for rolling about on the floor?

Compared to this one? Almost certainly, on average, across all of them. Once you've checked them all, let me know if my prediction was wrong.

earthexpansion wrote:Is that what you mean by a better use of time?

I wouldn't know as I never said anything about a better use of time....?

earthexpansion wrote:... a better way to 'do tantrum', .. rolling about giggling and swearing on the floors of "tens of thousands of other threads"?

Unfortunately, whatever it is you're trying to communicate there has failed because it's become too obscure. Perhaps it's meant to be sarcastic or ironic? If so, it doesn't work well as the referents aren't clear.

earthexpansion wrote:The "no mechanism" of course is simply a cop-out.

Interesting change of topic with no prelude.

Of course it's a cop-out. The proponents seem to think they can claim scientific validity while not having one. What a fucking joke. Go learn science.

Unfortunately, your argument appears to be built on a faulty premise. How does it actually work?
I have no idea, but it definitely does, trust me!

Umm thanks.

earthexpansion wrote: It's the reaction to a situation when all the evidence points to 'the fact' yet when there is no explanation how 'the fact' can possibly be. ( "The Earth is round, it rotates, it orbits the sun ?? (!) How can that be? Pull the other one.)

I've explained my position to you numerous times, so unless you're calling me a liar, you should at least pay lip service to what I've said.

I've said, many times, that if evidence does incontrovertibly falsify PT while validating EE, I shall spin on a dime. Until then, stop wasting time telling me how close-minded I am and go and do the leg-work.

A fact is not a fact when it is not, in fact, a fact. EE is not a fact. I realise that your ideology says its so, but I am afraid that from what I can see of the state of geology today, no one agrees with you. They all seem to say that the evidence points the other way. Having neither the expertise and time, nor the passion for the subject matter you so clearly enjoy, I do not feel any compunction to set out to run experiments for myself whether the Earth is in fact growing. I would, of course, be highly interested to see yours, whenever you feel that the provision of evidence is more persuasive than the provision of collective slurs.

earthexpansion wrote:( Heard it before? ) Though it certainly wasn't a fact that was easily seen. Once a 'theory', today a fact of simple observation because our scale of approach has changed. Likewise it's getting bigger.

Welcome to science. The same science that doesn't accept your EE for evidence-based reasons.

Again, your stolen concept fallacy is identified for you, but I am afraid it is not going to penetrate.

Again, the notion that Kuhnsian dialectic is eternal. Again the notion that everything we know is wrong just so you can say you're right. Again, understandable, but I can still haz a sad to see it.

earthexpansion wrote:Denial is easy, .. belonging is comforting, .. and tribalism offers defiant reassurance.

This is an uncomfortably embarrassing example of projection. If only you would read it instead of just writing it.

earthexpansion wrote:Just shoot the messenger and suddenly it's not happening any more. Simple.

Anyone been shot yet?

Again, may I point out that the 'collective' - the one you constructed and then dehumanized - you've now attributed some kind of violence to them... as if any violence has been offered to you personally here. Actually, what's happened is a criticism of the idea. That is, of course, perfectly normal in a scientific arena. For ideologies, however, it is intolerable. The ideology IS the person - any criticism of the ideas are personal criticisms.

Yes, some of the ideas that have been raised have been shot down... for very, very good reasons.... that does not equate to anyone shooting you. I have to applaud your rallying rhetoric though. What better way to get the passions burning than being part of a self-identified minority group that systematic injustice is visited on. Following on from what you've said in previous posts, this actually extends out to the entire scientific community: they all do violence on you by not accepting your cherished notion which is why your posts are so concerned with the sleight you personally feel.

It just doesn't matter as much to others as it does to you, but I don't think the illusion is so readily pierced.

earthexpansion wrote:(Guess you've heard that one before too.)

Yeah, I heard all this first many years before you on various fringe topics. However, you have repeated yourself quite a few times now... well, let's be frank, more than quite a few times now. Don't worry - people will eventually just ignore it and then you can weave that into the narrative of oppression.

earthexpansion wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Dinox wrote:This diagram shows all the continents and ocean floor that existed 65 million years ago reconstructed on the present size earth.

Doesn't that diagram show all the presently-observed ocean floor older than 65 million years? Assuming that is all the ocean floor that existed 65 million years ago is to assume your conclusion. The diagram should also show (preferably in a different colour) ocean floor younger than 65 million years (which cannot coincide with the older material).

The remainder would be assumed in PT to have been subducted in the last 65 million years.

Do some science, Dinox, instead of trolling this thread with shoddy workmanship and shoddier argument.

Once an assumption, always an assumption:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html

See how dopey and contradictory all this Plate Tectonic stuff is? Why would anybody want to learn it?
http://www.learninggeoscience.net/free/00040/index.htm
(Why would anybody want to teach it?)
(Classroom mayhem.. that's what they're asking for, if students have any sense..)

[Hey, .. there's nothing wrong with the sea-floor spreading (making the Earth bigger), .. it's the subduction (making it smaller) turns it into the nonsense of Plate Tectonics.]

Professional piece, that.

Light Storm wrote:

sathearn wrote:(Barrage of taking Oldskeptic to school)

I thought he was actually interested in discussing some of the points I bring to the table, but instead, he simply responded with the standard "No" arguments to each point.

You try to point out "No" is not an argument, but they seem to think it closes their case.

So you saying 'yes' makes it the case?



And look - the 'they' is there too, James. Isn't it nice to be part of a gang?

Dinox wrote:

mindhack wrote:I believe I've seen theropod or grincko post an extensive list of arguments, yet to be addressed, about why various EE-claims don't hold up. Yet, we're here. No progress whatsoever. The earth must have been expanding, MUST!

No rational discussion possible.

I believe I've seen Florian, Earthexpansion, Sathearn, PleaseReadThis or Light Storm post an extensive list of arguments, yet to be addressed, about why various Constant Diameter Earth claims don't hold up. Yet, we're here. No progress whatsoever. The earth must have been a constant size for nearly the last four billion years, MUST!

No rational discussion possible.

That's brilliant. On the one hand, James complains because people respond in the negative, while you claim that no one responds?

So we've got hundreds of pages of posts with people saying 'No' apparently, and none of those posts actually exist for you anyway!

ginckgo wrote:I plan to get back in here more as soon as I get over this flu (among other things). Believe it or not, I'm genuinely interested in this, so the vitriol going back and forth here is not pleasant. Anyway, play nice til I'm back.

No. You get the fuck better and drag your post-flu butt here and play nice like the goody goody of the collective you are. All of us individuals are the same! Don't say 'I'm not' or there'll be bloody symbols on your door, torch-lit mobs, and sobbing as all you love is torn from you... you know that's the way we work, so don't mess with us... errm... you as well, because you're part of the us, remember! Right. Glad we've got that sorted. Uniformity safely shepherded.

Spearthrower wrote:the apathy adequately expresses my mind-numbing boredom at the self-preening, vapid regurgitations of Khunian dialectic.

Cito-certified sig-worthy!



But to whom does that refer? Gehngus Khun?

earthexpansion wrote:It's really very simple.

Ok, let's go

1. The ocean floors are everywhere young.

I assume you're referring to a diagram such as


From Muller et al (and revised 2008) which shows that the oceanic lithosphere ranges from 0 to 280 million years old. It would be therefore more accurate to compare and contrast it with a similar diagram from Shapiro & Poupinet (2009) here which shows continental lithosphere ages ranging from 500 million to 3.5 billion years.

2. The continental margins in the Pacific are the same age as the initial breakthrough of ocean floor. (Same for the others but they're not an issue.)

Even a cursory reading of the diagram presented by Muller demonstrates that this simply is not true. The Pacific dates from the Panthalassic Ocean and was more defined in the breakup of Pangaea about 175 million years ago but is, at absolute latest, defined by the appearance of the opening of the Atlantic.

No matter which way you slice it, the Muller diagram clearly shows continental margins of the Pacific as young as 40 million years - much younger than the formation of the Pacific.

3. The spreading ridges are longer than their initial breakthrough extents showing that they grow *up*, i.e. there is no movement of the ocean floors away from the ridges (therefore no subduction) ( no convection) (no 'Plate Tectonics').

This again, is simply not true. Past reversals of the Earth's magnetic field show clear symmetry about the spreading ridges.

However, if you are claiming that the initial breakthrough event (as is thought to be seen in the East African Rift system today) then, of course, the initial rift will be smaller than what it eventually grows into. Slight variations in local topology would make that true.

4. Transform faults almost exclusively *postdate* the spreading ridges and are part of ocean floor growth (not "developed before the ocean floors begin to open" according to "The New Class of Faults").

I'm not even sure how this relates, sorry. Please be more specific how this supports a conclusion of an expanding Earth and is not accommodated by Plate Tectonics.

5. Breakthrough is latidudinal progressing to longitudinal and reflects spin.

Except, again, this is simply not true. If it were true then the mid oceanic ridges which displayed a latitudinal spreading would always be younger than those that displayed longitudinal spreading. Again, a simple perusal of the Muller diagram reveals several instances where the opposite is observed.

6. Spin and enlargement are opposite sides of the same deformational coin.

This has no bearing.

That's it. It's that simple. The Earth has doubled in size since mantle breakthrough. Fact. Any discussion is just further description of the fact.. That's all. It's a done deal. Nothing more to say.

Well, I'm glad that it's that simple for you. However, as far as I can tell, you've come to your conclusions by completely ignoring the details of sea floor ages as presented by Muller. If you wish to dispute his reconstruction of sea floor ages then I'm quite certain that it would be easy to find a journal to publish quality research along those lines. Until then however, please ensure that you utilise the extant scientific literature.

Round, rotates, orbits the sun and getting bigger. Mechanism? You can argue till the cows come home it makes no difference to the fact.

Period.

You could maybe add that each one (R, R, O/S and G/B) took a long time getting there. And yet each one, from the appropriate perspective, is obvious).

That's what I think is the interesting story. (How we 'do it'.) (or don't - as the case may be.)

I await your reply on the points that I've made above.

EDIT: yes, I've been doing some reading & research on geology - if Gingcko or perhaps Cito could PM me to assist with the process, I'd be very grateful.

Spearthrower wrote:

earthexpansion wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Dinox wrote:This diagram shows all the continents and ocean floor that existed 65 million years ago reconstructed on the present size earth.

Doesn't that diagram show all the presently-observed ocean floor older than 65 million years? Assuming that is all the ocean floor that existed 65 million years ago is to assume your conclusion. The diagram should also show (preferably in a different colour) ocean floor younger than 65 million years (which cannot coincide with the older material).

The remainder would be assumed in PT to have been subducted in the last 65 million years.

Do some science, Dinox, instead of trolling this thread with shoddy workmanship and shoddier argument.

Once an assumption, always an assumption:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html

See how dopey and contradictory all this Plate Tectonic stuff is? Why would anybody want to learn it?
http://www.learninggeoscience.net/free/00040/index.htm
(Why would anybody want to teach it?)
(Classroom mayhem.. that's what they're asking for, if students have any sense..)

[Hey, .. there's nothing wrong with the sea-floor spreading (making the Earth bigger), .. it's the subduction (making it smaller) turns it into the nonsense of Plate Tectonics.]

Professional piece, that.

Yes it is. And that's precisely the problem.. Would you like to discuss it?
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ng2/Page1.html

DavidMcC wrote:
So you currently favour the "increasing mass" version of EE, do you?

I already argued at length why we can easily refute an expansion at constant mass (Paleogravity).

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote:
The reality is that a vast majority of geoscientists does not imagine one second that PT could be overturned.

That's because they're too busy doing research that shows the picture is more complicated than a two-word aphorism:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 701a0.html

They argue for a plagioclase-rich component in the source (metagabros) but not from N-MORB, from a plume head. How is that surprising for a region where mantle advection and spreading has been dominant for eons?

Cito di Pense wrote:Go ahead. You've dropped Allegre's name already. Go have a look around Albarede's lab in Lyon, see if they'll hire you to spread isochron maps out all over the floor to keep the tiles clean. They need a clean workspace.

Spread isochron maps on the floor? You're awfully old school. Gplates does a much better job.

Cito di Pense wrote:You said the ratio of Beniof zone consumption to MOR spreading is not precisely 1:1. What do you suppose it is?

0,99999997 : 1

????

The basaltic surface consumed cannot be larger than the back-arc (think pure roll-back). For example, the surface consumed by the Sandwich WBZ cannot be larger than the Scotia Sea (it is actually smaller due to additional expansion of the sea). So the ratio is more like 0.01:1 at the globe scale.

hackenslash wrote:

Florian wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Apparently you haven't read the whole thread, in which accretion and energy from the sun have been discussed and dismissed as not providing sufficient input for the EE proposal to work. Regurgitating previously-debunked lines of discourse doesn't further the topic.

You're confused. The fact that we don't know particle candidates that could feed the expansion, does not allow you to dismiss the existence of such particles. The question remains open.

Perhaps you missed the course on the shaving implement of the late, lamented cleric of Surrey.

Sir, you still must have a physical theory to explain this expansion in matter amount. You know, this expansion you want to put under a carpet because you don't know how to explain it...

Just A Theory wrote:

Florian wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:

Light Storm wrote:
You searched for a mechanism?... I thought you only demanded an explanation for a mechanism that has no empirical observations in which to base a hypothesis. Relentless demanding for something unknown is like believing in God, so I guess I see why some EE might point fingers toward... how did you put it 'religious zealotry'?

And there's the money quote right there, underlined for all to see.

He talks about the physics underlying the expansion, not about the expansion it self.
Not the first time that you are travestying the content of his post...

I guess we can add reading comprehension to the list of simple tasks which you cannot seem to accomplish.

Yep, you do not understand that the mechanism for which we lack empirical observations is the physical mechanism. On the other hand, its macroscopic consequence, the expansion of Earth, is supported by empirical observations.

Just A Theory wrote:
Why don't you reference the rest of my post:

The thing is, we have quantified pretty much every method of mass and energy input into the Earth's system. We know the neutrino flux, the magnitude of the solar wind and cosmic rays and the amount of "dust" that is accreted each year. In other words, the Earth is an open system but with known inputs and those inputs are utterly, completely, hillariously insufficient to account for the mass addition required by EE.

In other words, the Earth is an open system with known inputs and those inputs are insufficient to account for the mass addition required by EE.

Same logical fallacy based on the deliberate ignorance of the empirical premises of the theory.

The empirical observations show that Earth is expanding in size and mass. Therefore, there must be inputs accounting for this expansion (assuming conservation laws hold true, but who would deny that?). Since known inputs are insufficient to account for the mass addition required, then the logical conclusion is that the input is of a yet unknown nature.

Be sure that I will continue to debunk your fallacious claims.

earthexpansion wrote:It's really very simple.

1. The ocean floors are everywhere young.

Depends on what you mean by young. There seems to be around 120,000,000 years difference between the youngest and oldest parts of the seafloors.

2. The continental margins in the Pacific are the same age as the initial breakthrough of ocean floor. (Same for the others but they're not an issue.)

Maybe you mean some parts of the Pacific are the same age as when spreading began? Have you heard of active and inactive continental margins?

3. The spreading ridges are longer than their initial breakthrough extents showing that they grow *up*, i.e. there is no movement of the ocean floors away from the ridges (therefore no subduction) ( no convection) (no 'Plate Tectonics').

Why then are seafloors generally younger at the ridges than they are further away? Why is the west coast seafloor of North and South America so much younger than the East coast? Why are the ages of Atlantic seafloors so consistent on both sides of the ridge?

4. Transform faults almost exclusively *postdate* the spreading ridges and are part of ocean floor growth (not "developed before the ocean floors begin to open" according to "The New Class of Faults").

They post date ridge spreading because ridge spreading and tectonic plate movements cause them. Transform faults connect at both ends to other active tectonic zones such as ridges, subduction zones, or other faults. So, why would you expect them to predate ridge spreading.

5. Breakthrough is latidudinal progressing to longitudinal and reflects spin.

Breakthrough of what?

6. Spin and enlargement are opposite sides of the same deformational coin.

So, are you saying that the spinning of Earth causes it to get larger?

That's it. It's that simple.

Well, it is simple, but not very accurate.

The Earth has doubled in size since mantle breakthrough. Fact.

Any discussion is just further description of the fact.. That's all. It's a done deal. Nothing more to say.

Is Kathrine still around to clean up the pigeon shit?

Oldskeptic wrote:

Florian wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:
Almost or everything that we know precludes Earth expansion. It is not a workable hypothesis. I can't understand why anyone goes for it. It's a circus with no ringmaster. Everyone is jumping through their own hoops trying to "prove" something that is unsupportable.

Oldskeptic wrote:This is a good board with many people with open minds and quite a bit of knowledge on many subjects. Unfortunately we have some members that simply want to spread their preconceived beliefs and do not want to learn anything.

These two quotes are very telling.

Just what are they telling you?

"some members that simply want to spread their preconceived beliefs and do not want to learn anything" = "Almost or everything that we know precludes Earth expansion"

Light Storm wrote:
Florian, I'm looking at a massive area between Cape Horn and Antarctica stretching to the South Sandwich Islands. That entire region has always to me looked like a landing path for something truly catastrophic. I was wondering if you had a detailed opinion on the geological activity in that area. The new maps of using google earth just makes it look even more like a massive strike zone... to me anyways.

A strike from below. This is a path of a mantle outflow that blew out the land bridge formerly connecting South America and Antarctica. See this video I already posted for details:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flsAe9KmUao[/youtube]

LucidFlight wrote:
That's where the alien spaceship landed to deliver the planet-expanding technology.

I don't really know what is in your mug (see your avatar) but it's way too strong for you!

Oldskeptic wrote:
Not really. Big bang/initial expansion of the universe is something with actual evidence supporting it.

So does Earth expansion...

Oldskeptic wrote:
To say, "I don't know what was before initial expansion" is an honest answer because no one knows yet.

So does Earth expansion. No one knows yet what makes planets grow.

Oldskeptic wrote:Yet cosmologists, astrophysicists, and theoretical physicists are working on finding a mechanism that works.

Unfortunately, these folks are not interested yet about working on finding a mechanism that works for Earth expansion. That's life.

Oldskeptic wrote:And until they do none of their hypotheses can be known to be correct.

That includes hypothetical mechanisms for Earth expansion.

Oldskeptic wrote:They are not throwing their hands in the air and declaring that a mechanism does not matter.

Nobody say that a mechanism for Earth expansion does not matter. But I say that the knowledge of a working mechanism is not required for the acknowledgment of Earth expansion.
It is terrible that you fail to understand the nuance.

Oldskeptic wrote:On the other hand Earth expansion proponents are throwing their hands up and declaring that a mechanism does not matter.

Fallacy.

Oldskeptic wrote:I find this a little intellectually disappointing in that if you think that you have evidence for something then you should be looking at why and how this could be.

Don't you realize that it is an incredible challenge that won't be solved without a large implication of the physics community?
The only viable strategy is to make the theory visible to the physicists so that they decide to work on it. And to achieve that goal, the theory has to gain ground in the geosciences community.

Florian wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:
Why don't you reference the rest of my post:

The thing is, we have quantified pretty much every method of mass and energy input into the Earth's system. We know the neutrino flux, the magnitude of the solar wind and cosmic rays and the amount of "dust" that is accreted each year. In other words, the Earth is an open system but with known inputs and those inputs are utterly, completely, hillariously insufficient to account for the mass addition required by EE.

In other words, the Earth is an open system with known inputs and those inputs are insufficient to account for the mass addition required by EE.

Same logical fallacy based on the deliberate ignorance of the empirical premises of the theory.

The empirical observations show that Earth is expanding in size and mass.

Sorry to be a pain in the ass, but what empirical observations would these be? Other than some manipulated videos showing Earth "winding back into a sphere" I see nothing that could be called evidence at all. I don't see much of anything that is a positive argument for Earth expansion, rather I see the same sort of tactics being used by creationists and ID proponents. Trying to tear down the accepted theories by snipping at individual parts that they think contradict the theories.

Here's a hint, you cannot promote your "theory" by tearing down the predominate and accepted theory. You have to do much more work than that. You have to come up with a better "theory". One that explains all of the observations better. No one on this thread has even attempted that.

Therefore, there must be inputs accounting for this expansion (assuming conservation laws hold true, but who would deny that?). Since known inputs are insufficient to account for the mass addition required, then the logical conclusion is that the input is of a yet unknown nature.

No, the logical conclusion is that you have nothing to ground your "theory".

Be sure that I will continue to debunk your fallacious claims.

Now that is truly laughable.