Florian wrote:

newolder wrote:

Florian wrote:
The hydrosphere is released by the mantle and increases like the mantle increases.

The hydrosphere likely came from cometary and/or asteroidal impacts. Discussions on mythical mantle increases I'll leave until you start a topic anent.

There are two hypothesis about the origin of water on Earth. 1) cometary 2) mantle.
The latter one is favored by isotope composition see Hallis et al (2015) Science vol 350, Issue 6262, pp. 795-797.

Where did the mantle come from? Given a choice between Harrods, 2nd floor (inc. haberdashery), 1433BC and the protoplanetary disk, circa 4.6 billion years ago, the latter is favoured.

ginckgo wrote:

Florian wrote:
Not anyone can make that "pretty animation". You can't. To make this animation, you have to master Gplates, a software specialized to build plate tectonics reconstruction, and obviously you need the isochrons data and know how to use them:



This reconstruction was made assuming that the oceanic lithosphere is rigid (1st principle of plate tectonics).
Despite the lithosphere of age 60 My on each side of the Mid Atlantic Ridge were theoretically perfectly matching at the time of their formation according to the seafloor spreading process, it appears that they do not match on todays globe. Reduction of the globe radius appears necessary to make them match, evidencing that the radius of Earth has increased.

Yes, let's assume the oceanic lithosphere (?crust) is relatively rigid; at least once it is formed. I'm not aware of a reason that the rates of crust production can't vary along the MOR, effectively resulting in some rotational movement.

In plate tectonics, variation of production along a MOR is simply explained by the relative rotation of plates around an Euler pole. The rate increases as you move away from the pole of rotation. See that other figure I made:



The rate is larger near the equator of the globe, because the pole of rotation is at north pole.

ginckgo wrote:This can be demonstrated by looking at the width of isochrons in the northern Atlantic compared to the southern Atlantic; the past rate of MOR crustal production tended to be significantly higher in the southern relative to the northern section. Which would mean that divergence of S America/Africa was faster than N America/Africa+Europe, thus there must also have been relative movement between N America and S America (and this right from the beginning, considering the rifting between N America/Africa+Europe started much earlier than S America/Africa.

Actually, the rate peak at 30° S then decrease. See this other figure I made.



But in the paradigm of Earth expansion, it is easily explained by a larger expansion of the southern hemisphere compared to the northern hemisphere. The same trend is actually visible for the Pacific and Indian MORs.

ginckgo wrote:Also, why are the continents rigid as well in your animation? Why is there no movement along the Cameroon Rift system (admittedly mostly Late Cretaceous)?

I simply cannot modify the relative position of the continents without bending the Atlantic lithosphere... Which shall not be done given that there are no evidence of such bending in the Atlantic Lithosphere...
It actually shows the limit of plate tectonics for these reconstructions.
If I could make a similar reconstruction but using a software that allows radius decrease back in time, then I could refine the model by taking into accounts additional data.

felltoearth wrote:

Florian wrote:
The data source for that graph are the isochrons data from 2008. They are feely available on Earthbyte.org.

So you made your own graph?

Yes, based on the available data. Why not?

felltoearth wrote:

Florian wrote:

felltoearth wrote:So, Nature has a one year embargo on Library downloads so the article I posted is paywalled. Anyone here have a Nature sub that can download read that article, and send it to me summarize it for me.

Don't you have an access thru you institution? I sent you a summary privately.

Sent or wiil send? There's nothing in my inbox. If you could send the actual paper that would be great.

It should be now in your inbox. I have access to almost every journals. So if you want more papers, simply ask me privately.

Newstein wrote:You cannot measure a yearly increase of 1.5 or 2cm in radius.
Impossible. People just don't want understand this.
Our satellites or Doris system are not precise enough.

The problem is not about the accuracy, it is good enough, but about the geodetic model and the data coverage.

Weaver wrote:

Florian wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:
After ~4.3 billion years Earth began to expand 180 million years ago? Why then and not long before?

What Newstein is claiming is mostly baseless. Why do you bother debate with him? for the fun?

Because it's just as amusing as "debating" you, and your mostly baseless claims.

Kind of interesting to see that you are here for the amusement, but what about the science? If you were truly interested in Science, then you would not claim that my arguments are baseless.

I'm a scientist and skeptics, that's why I came to question Earth expansion, then the accepted theory of plate tectonics after reading the evidence presented in the existing scientific literature (Mostly Sam W Carey).

What are you really?

newolder wrote:Where did the mantle come from?

It depends on the paradigm to which you subscribe...

Florian wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:
After ~4.3 billion years Earth began to expand 180 million years ago? Why then and not long before?

What Newstein is claiming is mostly baseless. Why do you bother debate with him? for the fun?

wtf are you saying?? Baseless??
The Earth began to expand 180 million years ago. Can you read a fucking map, mr Scientist?



Ask a scientist when pangea started to break apart.

Where is your story of the expanding earth? I think you are on the wrong path.
If you don't agree that the Earth started to expand 180 million years ago, you are utterly wrong.
I can assure you that.

Florian wrote:

Weaver wrote:

Florian wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:
After ~4.3 billion years Earth began to expand 180 million years ago? Why then and not long before?

What Newstein is claiming is mostly baseless. Why do you bother debate with him? for the fun?

Because it's just as amusing as "debating" you, and your mostly baseless claims.

What are you really?

I already told you. You better start listening to me.

Florian!



These guys also say 200 million years (or 180)
Are you with or against this date?

Florian wrote:

Weaver wrote:

Florian wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:
After ~4.3 billion years Earth began to expand 180 million years ago? Why then and not long before?

What Newstein is claiming is mostly baseless. Why do you bother debate with him? for the fun?

Because it's just as amusing as "debating" you, and your mostly baseless claims.

Kind of interesting to see that you are here for the amusement, but what about the science? If you were truly interested in Science, then you would not claim that my arguments are baseless.

I'm a scientist and skeptics, that's why I came to question Earth expansion, then the accepted theory of plate tectonics after reading the evidence presented in the existing scientific literature (Mostly Sam W Carey).

What are you really?

I started off here looking for science. I provided plenty of science years ago, refuting bullshit EE claims. It got tiresome and boring. EE proponents haven't provided any science - just unreasonable "doubts" and faulty "logic" leading to fake-assed "skepticism".

If you had hard science and real data, you'd publish it. You cannot, because you don't really have anything.

Therefore, there's nothing left here but laughing at EE proponents.

Florian wrote:

ginckgo wrote:

Florian wrote:

I expect nothing. I simply note that the surface of ocean floor is growing. This is an observational evidence.
From that evidence, we can actually measure the growth rate of surface due to ocean floor spreading using the isochron surface:

rate.jpg

We note that the rate has been steadily increasing and reach 3 km2/y (average over the last 5 million years).

So clarification, please:

I assume you plotted this yourself.

I assume from the fact that you used km2 as the x-axis units, you used the area of oceanic crust preserved today.

I used km2/year as the y-axis unit. It is the area of oceanic crust produced during a period divided by the length of that period. For example the total surface produced from -75 to -70 Ma divided by 5 Ma.

Sorry, yes, I meant y-axis.

My issue with the metric you use is that this data is biased towards younger geological ages due to preservation bias. In a similar manner, you could plot the km2 of outcropping sediments on continents by geological age, and you would get a similar trend. But you wouldn't then argue that sedimentation rates have been increasing over the past billion years, but rather that burial and erosion have increasingly removed older horizons from the sample pool.

Florian wrote:

ginckgo wrote:
Why did you use this measure, rather than the linear (km) amounts of oceanic crust per million years, in order to get an idea of production rates?

Because the MORs produce a surface of lithosphere and what we really want to know is the rate of surface production.

As I pointed out above, using total surface area of oceanic crust as your final data gives you a spurious result. You need to be able to correct for loss of area due to subduction.

This is why I think it is more informative to use linear measure of oceanic crust for a given time interval, and possibly derive an average global spreading rate from that, as a proxy for sea floor production rates.

Florian wrote:

newolder wrote:Where did the mantle come from?

It depends on the paradigm to which you subscribe...

I checked the theory of Carey. It also says that the earth started to expand 180-200 million years ago. Neal adams says that too. Neal is only wrong about the mechanism and in his animation he joined coastlines in stead of continental crust.

Careys theory, never saw it but its identical to my thoughts

Newstein wrote:Why do you have a frog as avatar?

I don't.

Arnold Layne wrote:

Newstein wrote:Why do you have a frog as avatar?

I don't.

I don't, either.

You see Florian, thats the kind of people you are dealing with.
Normal people don't even read this thread.
Type JAHBULON in google to see why this people have frogs as avatar

Newstein wrote:You see Florian, thats the kind of people you are dealing with.
Normal people don't even read this thread.
Type JAHBULON in google to see why this people have frogs as avatar

It's not a fucking frog.

Arnold Layne wrote:

Newstein wrote:You see Florian, thats the kind of people you are dealing with.
Normal people don't even read this thread.
Type JAHBULON in google to see why this people have frogs as avatar

It's not a fucking frog.

It's a TOAD.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:

Newstein wrote:You see Florian, thats the kind of people you are dealing with.
Normal people don't even read this thread.
Type JAHBULON in google to see why this people have frogs as avatar

It's not a fucking frog.

It's a TOAD.

No point trying to educate him, Cito. He wants it to be a frog.

Arnold Layne wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:

Newstein wrote:You see Florian, thats the kind of people you are dealing with.
Normal people don't even read this thread.
Type JAHBULON in google to see why this people have frogs as avatar

It's not a fucking frog.

It's a TOAD.

No point trying to educate him, Cito. He wants it to be a frog.

Does he want it to be an expanding frog?