sathearn wrote:

lucek wrote:
For note that is unnecessarily speculation. The data is available. If Florian is so shore that the measurements are sued by error then he can look and find it.

But to a point, let's look at the speed that earth would be growing under current continental drift. For the moment we'll just look at the South Atlantic as Africa and south america are easy to use.

African ~2.15

South American ~1.45

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml so we can see a net movement of 3.6CM/yr At this point all we need do is divide by pi to get the increase in diameter that would result in the increasing circumference here. 1.15CM/yr or an error in the paper of 11,465%. Now this is a gross underestimation as we still have the proposed expansion in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

To move on however, If we assume that the .01cm/yr figure is an actual measure of expansion then we are left to see that most of continental drift (99.14%) is due to subjection.

Thanks for the calculations, which bear out the point you made previously and which I accept. However, I think there are rational grounds for skepticism toward the data in its published form, and toward the real significance of the supposed error margins, and the post I have just submitted gives some of my reasons why.

I still wonder whether Spearthrower thinks the study's findings should be uncritically accepted, and whether he thinks questions like the ones Florian posed should not be asked.

Why are you invoking my name? On what possible grounds does the rest of the sentence sit? I think you should do some explaining with reference to a post of mine that a) shows that I suggest uncritically accepting *anything*, and b) that I think questions shouldn't be posed.

Light Storm wrote:Re: Sathearn

Thank you for raising doubt in Wu's findings.

What?

lucek wrote:OK so when evidence goes against you're hobby horse, make it unfalsifiable. Literally that's what you just did. Any time we can prove that the earth wasn't expanding was a downtime and it expanded when ever we weren't looking. K. I'm out.

In fairness, I recognize the credentials of the people involved with that paper and openly acknowledge that they are all experts in their field. I take note that they have removed static earth assumptions from their calculations from their report. I take note that they have taken the time to consult with Careys research on the subject, Carey is considered the 'Father' of modern day Expansion Theory.

With that said, I then begin to question some of the key points made in the paper. They measure Expansion at 0.1mm with a +/- margin of error by 0.2mm. So they say the 'radius' is expanding every year in a range of -0.1mm - +0.3mm. It's not consistent with the hypothesis, but it's a significant step up from flat out denial of Earth Expansion. Then I'm told, "No LS, your reading it wrong... see there it says 'no significant expansion detected'." So I ask... "What does significant mean? Either it's expanding or it's not?" Then I'm told "Your misrepresenting the findings of the paper!"... Then I look at the numbers again... look back and blink in confusion. As people try to explain the results of the paper aren't as important as the statement "no significant expansion at present" Sathearn comes in, and basically tosses Wu's paper into a coffin and begins to drive nails in and I nod my head in a agreement, and you toss your arms in frustration. Imagine how Maxlow or McCarthy must feel when accredited sources won't even read their work because it involves the expanding earth hypothesis. Maxlow road trip to his Masters Degree in geology was not a pretty one at all. He basically stood out alone on his theory passed onto him by Carey.

I do not claim to be an expert on this stuff, rather a very interested individual that maybe see's the perspective of scientists like Maxlow and McCarthy. Why am I interested in this theory? because it makes sense.

When we look around us, we see life cycles in every aspect of nature. Everything from the tiniest microbes to the biggest stars seem to undergo a pattern of change. Everything has a beginning, and constant change all the way to the end. Carey saw the 'Growing Earth' as a start to possibly unlocking the evidence of the creation of matter in the universe. That's what Neal see's and wants the world to know about. I understand their reasoning, but I require evidence that supports it and have found none. Maxlow presented his speculation on a possible EE Mechanism, and it had more to do with changing existing matter then the addition of new mass. It made sense to me. Maxlow has also openly admitted that there is no good explanation, and that the question should be taken more seriously before we are going to find one.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO45ZiGql8E[/youtube]

I can't help but wonder if there is more to the story in the life cycle of planets

I think we can agree that all planets formed around the same time

Mass should indicate to radical differences in in life cycle stages of a rocky planets. I look to Earth, Mars, Moon.

Maybe at one point in time the moon had an atmosphere and maybe even water on it's surface. Being so small, over millions of years it underwent the transition we see Mars undertaking now... lost it's atmosphere and literally died. Maybe Mars will begin to look more like the moon after millions of years. Maybe, the Earth has had it's childhood, it's grown into the adult phase. Maybe, we don't have billions of years, but millions. Those are the type of questions that really interest me.

By the way... it was nice having you here! Believe it or not, I do evaluate everything.

Spearthrower wrote:

Light Storm wrote:Re: Sathearn

Thank you for raising doubt in Wu's findings.

What?

Re:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p1101685
Re:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p1101696
Re:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p1101706
Re:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p1104478

Light Storm wrote:Re: Sathearn

Thank you for raising doubt in Wu's findings. If I could write a review on the paper, the paper seemed to focus on 'is the earth expanding right now' and made no comments about the past 60 million years, and made no predictions for the next 60 million years. They only make the comment that the rate of expansion is so insignificant, it may as well be zero. If the earth was only expanding by the width of a human hair... it would be significant over millions of years. So to say 'it sorta, kinda is expanding but not really' seems like a very politically determined conclusion. I also see they only referred to Carey for references to Expanding Earth Hypothesis. Why not any of todays proponents, like Maxlow. I would be in favour Maxlow being involved in a study like that so that they can say they brought in the worlds leader in Earth Expansion to work with.

You're like a dog with a bone. I think you are reducing your argument to something indistinguishable from a repeated declaration of belief. You are entitled to believe whatever you want of course, yet the basis for believing EE seems now to rest wholly on an act of wilful disregard of the objections from current understanding.

lucek wrote:

sathearn wrote:...However, a point I would like to make is that the calculated level of uncertainty of 0.2 mm/yr - this level of precision - depends on the validity of all the assumptions used in processing and analyzing the raw data. In this area, with its high level of complexity, and with, for example, separate agencies in charge of the data pertaining to each of the various techniques, and with a twenty-five year legacy in which a static radius assumption went basically unquestioned while these sophisticated techniques for processing and analysis were being refined, a real potential exists for spurious results, despite the best intentions of the researchers involved...

You seem to have missed the point of my post. You can speculate on if the study is in error or you can attempt to find an error. However you still have to contend with my calculation. Any error you find would still have to be 2 orders of magnitude larger then the calculated error bars for the paper to support EE. The blind assertion that they scientist may have made a massive error and nobody caught it only can get you so far, and that point is were I tell you to look for it. An error in the range of centimeters per year shouldn't be hard to spot.

True, I did not directly contend with the study itself. But I called attention to one more general pitfall in this type of research, which can lead precisely to errors that are not only large in relation to calculated error margins, but also not necessarily "easy to spot," since they may be embedded in the published data themselves (and you ignore my point about precision). My suspicions are not blind, but relate to particular indeterminacies in the raw data such as those Chudinov has discussed, one of which I outlined, and to other evidence that static radius assumptions have been incorporated into these studies for years - which can mean that once researchers finally get around to asking the question it may be effectively too late to do it without a lot of independent digging into assumptions that lie in the background of their field.

Florian has claimed for example, after discussions with one of the coauthors of this study, that they used a plate model. If this means that standard horizontal motions have been accepted, it may mean that the study effectively is limited to asking how much residual expansion remains once major motions are interpreted as horizontal. In that case, the significance of the study's findings, and its error margins, is greatly reduced.

Light Storm wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Light Storm wrote:Re: Sathearn

Thank you for raising doubt in Wu's findings.

What?

Re:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p1101685
Re:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p1101696
Re:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p1101706
Re:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p1104478

You seem to have misunderstood.

I was saying 'wut' because you thanked him for 'raising doubt'. Why does that earn your gratitude? That's what I can't figure out.

sathearn wrote:*snip*

I'd appreciate an answer to this, please.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1104586

sathearn wrote:True, I did not directly contend with the study itself. But I called attention to one more general pitfall in this type of research, which can lead precisely to errors that are not only large in relation to calculated error margins, but also not necessarily "easy to spot," since they may be embedded in the published data themselves (and you ignore my point about precision). My suspicions are not blind, but relate to particular indeterminacies in the raw data such as those Chudinov has discussed, one of which I outlined, and to other evidence that static radius assumptions have been incorporated into these studies for years - which can mean that once researchers finally get around to asking the question it may be effectively too late to do it without a lot of independent digging into assumptions that lie in the background of their field.

Florian has claimed for example, after discussions with one of the coauthors of this study, that they used a plate model. If this means that standard horizontal motions have been accepted, it may mean that the study effectively is limited to asking how much residual expansion remains once major motions are interpreted as horizontal. In that case, the significance of the study's findings, and its error margins, is greatly reduced.

Again the error would be on the order of centimeters per year for EE to be possible as prescribed by Maxlow, Adams, or Carey. For that matter the raw data is available to the public. In one accusation you suggested selection bias. simply find data that wasn't used in the paper and see if that subset has a positive effect on growth. If you're not willing to put the time in then speculating on the potential of issues is a mote point.

A note. Significant in context means distinguishable from noise. or to put it another way.

In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance.

wiki

THWOTH wrote::lol: You're like a dog with a bone. I think you are reducing your argument to something indistinguishable from a repeated declaration of belief. You are entitled to believe whatever you want of course, yet the basis for believing EE seems now to rest wholly on an act of wilful disregard of the objections from current understanding.

dog with bone...

Funny, I seem to remember acknowledging a similar thanks thanks to the Wu paper by Just a Theory, I now have a clear understanding of the Expansion rate in todays time. So, looking forward, because of the paper by Wu, I've said Expansion has all but stopped. Now I'm raising the question about the past. Wu's paper did not address that.

Spearthrower wrote:

You seem to have misunderstood.

I was saying 'wut' because you thanked him for 'raising doubt'. Why does that earn your gratitude? That's what I can't figure out.

I also showed appreciation to 'Just a Theory' after he directed me to Wu's page. Excuse me for being polite... Sathearn has raised some interesting observations about the paper, while everyone else here is nodding in agreement and pointing to it with their thumb over there shoulder. Others like Neal dismiss it without even so much as looking at it. By the way... has anyone answered Satherearns question about the paper? I know the answer, how come no one else does.

ginckgo wrote:

Florian wrote:
It is very justifiable. Subduction is actually a mantle driven process, and not lithosphere driven process as assumed in plate tectonics (slab pull mechanism).

You're creating a false dichotomy here. Mantle characteristics and processes are probably important part of how the tectonic plates behave as they move across the earth. However, I'm not at all convinced that the mantle is the dominant factor that decides where, when and how plates subduct (spreading may be different, though I still doubt that mantle dynamics always dominate). This is largely controlled by the relative ages of converging oceanic plates; also, oceanic plates will always subduct under continental plates no matter what the mantle does. I also gather that mantle flow itself would not be sufficient alone without the addition of slab-pull.

No. Jolivet (If I remember correctly) showed that there is no relation whatsoever between the age of lithosphere and dip angle of a slab. Doglioni further elaborate and showed that the difference in dip angle between Eastern and Western margins of the pacific are due to a global eastward mantle flow. Doglioni further listed at least 20 arguments showing why the slab pull mechanism can't work (see this paper)The subducted lithosphere is passive and the mantle is dynamic. This is a mantle driven process well illustrated in cases like that of the Eastern mediterranean basin (see figure again):

Florian wrote:
I was referring to your assertion that subduction does not cycle a significant amount of oceanic lithosphere, as there is ample data to show that there are large amounts of it plunging down into the mantle (this is separate to the driving force). Certainly indicating that the process is sufficient to account for the often mentioned thousands of km of sea floor that have vanished in the past few 100 million years.

No. The data are ok to account for up to 600-800 km of recycled lithosphere, but not many thousands km as required by plate tectonics to maintain a balance with seafloor spreading. In the case of the figure I posted, the lithosphere that got "recycled" is that found on the path of the flowing mantle. So the maximum amount of recycled lithosphere can't be larger than the surface of the mantle current easily visualized with the moving stations. At the end, the "recycling" of lithosphere is truly marginal, and it is true for every active margin. Once you understand that, the expanding earth solution comes very naturally.

Just A Theory wrote:
Subduction is absolutely not driven by gravity.

Inexact. Or do you believe that Archimedes' principle would work without gravity?
Isostasy is very important in the geodynamics of active margins.

lucek wrote:EE is based off the geographic boundaries of the plates and a lot of wishful thinking.

I'm afraid you confuse the scientific theory with Neal's pet theory.

Spearthrower wrote:
I can't agree. PT doesn't require extra mass, EE does. That's not the same evidence.

The gain of mass is not an evidence, it is an inference.

Florian wrote:

lucek wrote:EE is based off the geographic boundaries of the plates and a lot of wishful thinking.

I'm afraid you confuse the scientific theory with Neal's pet theory.

Just to put that within the context you sought to strip it of.

lucek wrote:

Light Storm wrote:

lucek wrote:OK LS, do you realize you are defending the position that convection is driven by gas.

I've gone looking for changes in gravity meters, some of them have been recording information for decades. I've found no hints of significant change in Earth Mass.

You will find I don't oppose subduction. I believes PT and EE are both based on all the same evidence. The only difference between them is one theory 'allows' a large variance in volume and the other 'demands' a static set volume.

To correct, PT is based off the geology of the opposed continents biology on them, geography of their boundaries, geophysics, Observation of moving plates ETC.

EE is based off the geographic boundaries of the plates and a lot of wishful thinking.

What about gravity; past, present and future. Does your easy-going expanding Earth explanation not have certain ramification in that area? What are they and what are the explanations for them?


edit: quote fix

Onyx8 wrote:
Those two videos show two different things happening to purportedly the same place. Where are the mountain ranges in the east to match the Rockies? Why are there no mountains on the shield? Why didn't it collapse and form mountains when the radius changed?

Those two videos show that Neal does not understand orogenesis in the frame work of the expanding earth.

lucek wrote:
For note that is unnecessarily speculation. The data is available. If Florian is so shore that the measurements are sued by error then he can look and find it.

I don't question the possibility of errors in the measurements but in the methodology chosen to measure a growth of Earth at our timescale.
Could you please provide answers to my question regarding this paper? Thank you.
What stations did they use to make the measurement? all? a subset? what guided their choice? Is their choice adapted to measure a growth? What kind of growth do they expect? homogenous? heterogenous? by bulging? Why? Was vertical displacements separated from horizontal displacements in the data treatment? Why? What model was used to model horizontal displacement? Why? Is the methodology appropriate to measure a growth?

Florian wrote:

lucek wrote:EE is based off the geographic boundaries of the plates and a lot of wishful thinking.

I'm afraid you confuse the hypothesis with Neal's pet theory.

FIFY
No I'm not. The only observations behind EE are that the plates look boundaries similar and that they are moving. Again, however prove me wrong.

lucek wrote: In one accusation you suggested selection bias. simply find data that wasn't used in the paper and see if that subset has a positive effect on growth.

The problem is that nobody has the data available to avoid the selection bias.
We would need a very dense homogenous grid of geodetic stations covering the whole planet (including ocean floor) to be able to track every movement, deformations, uplift, subsidence etc... and finally make a realistic global model.