Don't forget that it also only started ~250My ago, and hasn't resulted in any really, truly massive rocky bodies anywhere in the Solar System.

The coincidences keep stacking up so fast, it's unbelievable.

Literally.

tolman wrote:So we don't merely supposedly have an entirely unexplained physical process supposedly creating matter from nowhere, but as well as creating the right kinds of atoms not to be out of place with the local surroundings, it's supposedly choosy in where it creates them and doesn't like doing it in the lithosphere?

It certainly does not form matter from nowhere... and not the right kinds of atoms at a peculiar place...

A working hypothesis is that there is more likely 2 separated process.
The first one making baryonic and leptonic particles, for forming the most basic atom, Hydrogen.
The second one corresponding to the transmutations of H atoms into heavier elements.
Then these elements would migrate according to their density, the heavier one to the core, the lighter one, including hydrogen, toward the surface. This fits very well with the advection occurring in the mantle.

Noteworthy, Iron and Nickel, the most stable atoms, would be the end product of the second process. And we know they do accumulate in the core of Earth. That makes also a lot of sense.

Weaver wrote:Don't forget that it also only started ~250My ago, and hasn't resulted in any really, truly massive rocky bodies anywhere in the Solar System.

No it started 4.5 By ago. We know this because there was already tectonic activity at that time.

Florian wrote:

tolman wrote:So we don't merely supposedly have an entirely unexplained physical process supposedly creating matter from nowhere, but as well as creating the right kinds of atoms not to be out of place with the local surroundings, it's supposedly choosy in where it creates them and doesn't like doing it in the lithosphere?

It certainly does not form matter from nowhere... and not the right kinds of atoms at a peculiar place...

A working hypothesis is that there is more likely 2 separated process.
The first one making baryonic and leptonic particles, for forming the most basic atom, Hydrogen.
The second one corresponding to the transmutations of H atoms into heavier elements.
Then these elements would migrate according to their density, the heavier one to the core, the lighter one, including hydrogen, toward the surface. This fits very well with the advection occurring in the mantle.

Noteworthy, Iron and Nickel, the most stable atoms, would be the end product of the second process. And we know they do accumulate in the core of Earth. That makes also a lot of sense.

So you're claiming that nuclear fusion up to the level of iron is occurring on a large scale inside the Earth, even though evidence suggests that even in stars, the products of fusion are severely constrained by the size and age of the star, and the process of fusion in stars the size of the Sun is extraordinarily slow, even in the extreme conditions it can generate.

tolman wrote:
So you're claiming that nuclear fusion up to the level of iron is occurring on a large scale inside the Earth, even though evidence suggests that even in stars, the products of fusion are severely constrained by the size and age of the star, and the process of fusion in stars the size of the Sun is extraordinarily slow, even in the extreme conditions it can generate.

No I claim nothing!
I make some hypotheses.

And what do you hypothesize is performing these transformations / transmutations / fusions?

Little faeries with subatomic-manipulating magic wands?

This is just making-shit-up-as-we-go-along-itis running unchecked.

Florian wrote:

tolman wrote:
So you're claiming that nuclear fusion up to the level of iron is occurring on a large scale inside the Earth, even though evidence suggests that even in stars, the products of fusion are severely constrained by the size and age of the star, and the process of fusion in stars the size of the Sun is extraordinarily slow, even in the extreme conditions it can generate.

No I claim nothing!
I make some hypotheses.

Suggesting bollocks with no credible scientific foundation, and which furthermore contradicts everything currently known or theorised about basic scientific processes, to try and make some other idea of the same kind supposedly more credible isn't 'making hypotheses', it's fucktarded pseudoscience, just like new-age airheads talking about 'energy' to try and pretend what they want to believe is somehow more credible, when they don't have a damn clue about what energy is.

tolman wrote:
Suggesting bollocks with no credible scientific foundation, and which furthermore contradicts everything currently known or theorised about basic scientific processes, to try and make some other idea of the same kind supposedly more credible isn't 'making hypotheses', it's fucktarded pseudoscience, just like new-age airheads talking about 'energy' to try and pretend what they want to believe is somehow more credible, when they don't have a damn clue about what energy is.

Pardon me? There are no contradiction at all, those contradictions are your invention. The fact that there are unknown physical phenomenon at work does not imply that the physics we understand is wrong.
Your claim exposes your profound misunderstanding of the way physics (and science) is built.

So instead of ranting, go back to the science, please.

We note that the surface of Earth has been increasing because subduction of lithosphere does not translate into destruction of area as originally believed (see post #11116).
Do you deny it?

Florian wrote:

tolman wrote:
Suggesting bollocks with no credible scientific foundation, and which furthermore contradicts everything currently known or theorised about basic scientific processes, to try and make some other idea of the same kind supposedly more credible isn't 'making hypotheses', it's fucktarded pseudoscience, just like new-age airheads talking about 'energy' to try and pretend what they want to believe is somehow more credible, when they don't have a damn clue about what energy is.

Pardon me? There are no contradiction at all, those contradictions are your invention. The fact that there are unknown physical phenomenon at work does not imply that the physics we understand is wrong.

That unknown physical phenomena are at work is not a 'fact', it's an assertion by you.

You're suggesting that a physical process which is fairly-well-understood is happening in conditions entirely different from those it is understood to operate in, in defence of a suggestion about the Earth which no-one seems to take seriously.

That would be akin to someone in the 19th century trying to reconcile the different ages of the Earth resulting from geological and physical calculations by claiming there were big bonfires burning in the earth with a magical fuel and oxygen supply, even though that seemed in no way to tie up with what was known about combustion.

That you are simply engaging in pseudoscience is apparent from your lack of any claims for evidence of the process you are suggesting as an explanation for matter creation.
Nothing from you on how much heat it would be expected to generate, whether the neutrinos generated should be detectable, whether the helium which fusion would produce is consistent with the actual quantities of helium making it to the surface, what effects the process would be expected to have on elemental abundances in general, etc, just what seems to be an ignorant appeal to nuclear physics to try to make your proposed generation of matter less magical, when it's only you and a handful of others who seem to have a need for matter to be created in the first place

Florian wrote:We note that the surface of Earth has been increasing because subduction of lithosphere does not translate into destruction of area as originally believed

'We'?

Florian wrote:(see post #11116).
Do you deny it?

The point I make is that the dynamic of an arc system is not controlled by the lithosphere, but by the mantle. The oceanic lithosphere has no active role. It is simply buried under flowing mantle and its own lithospheric cover layer. See below.

I note that there you seem to be talking about what happens when subduction happens, and subduction is, by definition, where part of what was once surface ends up not being surface, which in the absence of an equal amount of surface being produced locally, is unavoidably a process 'destructive' of local surface area, relative to reference points fixed on the surrounding local surface.

To not have local area destruction, you'd need to claim that an equal amount of new (continental) surface was made locally when subduction happened, and obviously, what that would mean was that the continental edge effectively 'grew out' across the oceanic crust as the edges of the crust sank into the mantle.
But if that happened, and the continents grew over time like that, surely it would mean they wouldn't fit very well on a smaller planet?

hackenslash wrote:http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-chat/hello-peepholes-t53112-40.html#p2486667

Well done, hack!

Just finished reading it, brilliant response

Newstein wrote:
First of all, yes, radial fractures could be very real. Here you got 2 examples of that:

Is that all that you could find? Where are all the others that one would expect to exist?

Axial compression of hollow elastic spheres - jomms-v5-n5-p01-p.pdf describes some experiments and theoretical simulations that are relevant to this flattening issue. The researchers squeezed a tennis ball and compared it to their simulations. The ball eventually buckled in the middle, making folds that looked roughly like (( )). Though the ball did not develop radial fractures, it nevertheless responded to the radial or outward distance shrinking relative to the transverse distance.

Florian : I suggest that you read the linked blog post of hackenslash and
then try to invalidate any of the points that he made [ where possible ]

surreptitious57 wrote:Florian : I suggest that you read the linked blog post of hackenslash and
then try to invalidate any of the points that he made [ where possible ]

Given that Hack's blog post is a detailed summary of the more devastating arguments against EE here, and that Florian has simply hand-waved them away in the past, I predict more of the same - he'll just ignore and obfuscate and shift goal posts until he can get back to talking about the little bits of nonsense where he feels he can comfortably confuse or silence others.

Cheers. I've updated with some corrections to minor errors, made as a result of my brain dribbling out the back of my skull due to having to revisit this idiotic bollocks again.

I screwed up in the section on lunar recession, because I didn't take into account the fact that conservation of angular momentum would result in slowing of rotation during expansion. Now corrected.

The big take home message for me from Hack's blog is the importance of people, who are doing actual science, working as hard as they can to try and falsify their hypothesis. The more of this you can demonstrate, the more seriously folk will take your findings.

The folk here expounding the EE theory demonstrably don't do that. Their only focus is on trying to support their ideas and ignoring any and all criticisms. Then, they fall for the old and stupid tactic of trying (and failing) to falsify plate tectonics on the assumption that if they can falsify that, their ideas become correct by default.

tolman wrote:

Florian wrote:Pardon me? There are no contradiction at all, those contradictions are your invention. The fact that there are unknown physical phenomenon at work does not imply that the physics we understand is wrong.

That unknown physical phenomena are at work is not a 'fact', it's an assertion by you.

It is not an assertion, it is an inference. And it is possible because I admit that the surface of Earth is growing based on different line of evidence.

And for a reminder, Pseudosciences are not my cup of tea despite what you want to believe.

tolman wrote:

Florian wrote:We note that the surface of Earth has been increasing because subduction of lithosphere does not translate into destruction of area as originally believed

'We'?

If you don't, then start there! There is no point to infer any mechanism if you do not admit that Earth is growing. Do not put the cart before the horse!

tolman wrote:I note that there you seem to be talking about what happens when subduction happens, and subduction is, by definition, where part of what was once surface ends up not being surface, which in the absence of an equal amount of surface being produced locally, is unavoidably a process 'destructive' of local surface area, relative to reference points fixed on the surrounding local surface.

The surface that is buried by subduction under an advancing tectonic flow is never larger than the surface of the tectonic flow itself, obviously. Do you understand that?
Think about a glacier if you want. The surface buried under a glacier is not larger than the surface of the glacier... It is no different. Look again at the situation in the Aegean sea to convince yourself.

tolman wrote:
To not have local area destruction, you'd need to claim that an equal amount of new (continental) surface was made locally when subduction happened, and obviously, what that would mean was that the continental edge effectively 'grew out' across the oceanic crust as the edges of the crust sank into the mantle.

The new surface that is created is called a "back-arc" and it is not necessarily continental.

tolman wrote:
But if that happened, and the continents grew over time like that, surely it would mean they wouldn't fit very well on a smaller planet?

Not the continent, but their active margin. And yes, any retrofit that does not take into account the heavy deformations resulting from the active margin expansion is false.

I remind you what happened to the active margin of Australia:



So that seriously complexity the reconstructions of the Pacific region.

surreptitious57 wrote:Florian : I suggest that you read the linked blog post of hackenslash and
then try to invalidate any of the points that he made [ where possible ]

I have debunked each point countless time, but they keep coming back again, the very same points! Pigeon chess!

For example, regarding the conservation of angular momentum. It works for a closed system but not for an open system! And it is really basic physics.
If a body is growing in mass by accumulating new matter, then this body is not a closed system and its total momentum will necessarily evolve. Its rotation rate could accelerate, or decelerate depending on the contribution of the new matter appearing in the body. Same remark does apply for the revolution rate.
Obviously, if the mass of a body is augmented by 700% for a period of time T, then the contribution of the original matter to the final momentum could easily be minor compared to that of the new matter...

Think about it.

You haven't refuted insect track ways or tidal varves. You haven't refuted the geochemistry showing subduction leading to rim volcanic action. And while you claim that you've refuted angular momentum, you haven't done the math to actually show it.

How remarkable that this magical mass addition so neatly matches the supposed expansion to maintain precisely 1G throughout the millennia, and that it waited such an immense period of time after the formation of the Solar System (what the hell WAS happening for the first 4.2 Billion years?) that there are no really huge rocky bodies anywhere to be seen ...