ginckgo wrote:
So much wrong with that:

The end Triassic extinction was very abrupt, probably taking place over less than a million years

I honestly still don't get where your going with this, but lets break it down a bit. The End of the Triassic was by far the worst we assume in recorded history. The majority of that evidence comes from carful examination of Coral development, which is so consistent it can literally be used to examine the history of marine life on Earth. The end of the triassic still has a lot of mysterious details, but there is agreement that some 90% of all life on earth stopped. One fifth of all Marine families were wiped out. Insects where wiped out (the only mass extinction event where this happened), certainly including my favourite pre-historic insect, the giant dragonflies. A lot of things I read contribute this mass extinction to the central Atlantic magmatic provide. Some 2 million cubic kilometres of lava speeded out over many centuries and some 2 quadrillion kilograms of sun blocking surfer made for a very bad geological time.

If the records I looked into considered the possibility that the pacific rift was equally significant, it may add some significant values to the above numbers.

ginckgo wrote:The asteroid certainly had a major part in the end Cretaceous extinction, and the duration of the overall extinction is still too hotly debated to make a categorical assertion that it took place over 10 million years.

When looking into fossil records about the mass dinosaurs extinction, it would appear that dinosaurs where already on their way out prior to astroid impact hypothesis. For example, one team shows how the theropod group, like Baryonyx and T.Rex has already declined millions of years earlier.

I'm pretty certain James Maxlow didn't just arbitrarily pull that number out of his ass. I'm pretty confident that the slow demise of the dinosaurs over 10 million years is based on some pretty sound palaeontology.

Ref: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2009 ... 31031.html

References like that one seem to suggest consistence with Maxlows assertion.

ginckgo wrote:Finally there is no decent acknowledgment of the fact that his placement of Australia over the equator implies that ice sheets reached that far, as we have glacial pavements and drop stones at sea level in SE Australia.

And once again, I need to ask... WTF are you talking about?
I don't know if your saying there is land mass where there has never been an ice age
Or if your saying ice ages have never made it to the equator... which above posters obviously pointed out, they did... only a very very long time ago having no bearing on this conversation at all because the focus should be around the past 300mya. So, again... wtf are you talking about?

How about this... Tell me how many MYA do you see a discrepancy between Maxlows model and accepted Ice Age comparison, and we can focus on that for a bit.

ginckgo wrote:Again I have to say that considering Maxlow's work is held up as a shining example to show how EE is based on, and explains all the data, this kind of ignorance in his own back yard does not bode well for the rest of his work

Maxlows theory is held out as a shining example of the 'Geological' evidence that supports the Expanding Earth hypothesis. Is Maxlow a palaeontologist? Is Maxlow a physicist? Is Maxlow an Astro physicist? When your going to call him for being ignorant on a subject like dinosaurs, please keep in mind that just because he has Dr. in his title, I doubt he can perform open heart surgery.

Weaver wrote:...But simply shining light on an object - no matter how much you shine - doesn't make that object gain mass.

*cough*pair production*cough*

Neal Adams assertions aside, there is a physics out there that won a nobel prize for the discovery in 1948

Light Storm wrote:

Weaver wrote:...But simply shining light on an object - no matter how much you shine - doesn't make that object gain mass.

*cough*pair production*cough*

Neal Adams assertions aside, there is a physics out there that one a nobel prize for the discovery in 1948

OK, good point - I explained it poorly.

There is no known mechanism by which simply shining light on an object makes it gain matter of the same type it is composed of. Pair production generates high-energy particles, and cannot explain the supposed growth of the planet posited under EE. Sunlight on the Earth generated multiple warming effects which are well measured and well understood - increasing planetary mass is not at all significant, even on geologic time scales.

Plus pair production produces one particle of matter and its antiparticle, which annihilate each other in nanoseconds. So, pair production is not a mechanism; even if it was, you need a very high energy photon, like a gamma ray photon, interacting with a nucleus. The minimum energy needed is more than twice the mass equivalent of an electron, so that the two particles have some kinetic energy also. Plus there are considerations of conservation of the photon's momentum, etc. etc.

So, you need the photons that do not make it down to Earth, due to being stopped by the ozone layer, and, generally the upper atmosphere. Which means, that any pair production would happen in the upper atmosphere, and not in the Earth.

Even if pair production worked, you are not going to get protons and neutrons; because they are not elementary particles. You are probably going to get electrons and positrons, and, debatable, if you get a quark and antiquark. In this latter case you may get a meson, which will decay in a few nanoseconds.

So, you need to show, that from pair production you get protons and neutrons, and then you need to show nucleogenesis into heavy atoms, that is atoms that have a nucleus with more than one proton. Plus elements heavier than iron need a huge input of energy, energy that is only produced during supernova events.

chattanoogatn wrote:Could one of our "scientists" refuting Neils summation explain how Einstein's Theory of Relativity doesn't add mass to the Earth.

E=MC^2.
In full sun, you can safely assume about 100 watts of solar energy per square foot. If you assume 12 hours of sun per day, this equates to 438,000 watt-hours per square foot per year. Based on 27,878,400 square feet per square mile, sunlight bestows a whopping 12.2 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year. This is debatable, but the point is its substantial.


In 1927 Einstein remarked about special relativity, "Under this theory mass is not an unalterable magnitude, but a magnitude dependent on (and, indeed, identical with) the amount of energy."

Welcome to the discussion chattanoogatn!

I to am interested in discussing any ideas to could help shed some light on the subject of a mechanism for an Expanding Earth Hypothesis that everyone could agree with. Most of the suns light that hits the earth is bounced right back out into space. What little is left over, keeps the place warm, well lit... and is a never ending food source for plants, which is the never ending food source for animals. When you add it all up, the ongoing decay off all biological mass on earth only adds teeny tiny layers to the earth surface.

The focus should be on exploring spacial energy that can pass through the earth. While the suns energy is present, keep in mind that the core of our planet is almost as hot, and probably just as bright. That energy is trapped, constantly bombarding an internal furnace of planet from the inside out, 24/7. In order for it to increase in mass, a fuel source of a totally undetermined origin needs to be discovered.

This article from the BBC suggests that the earth could be losing mass, and a very small amount of the loss is due to the core losing energy.

No claims that it is peer-reviewed or anything,

Using some back-of-the-envelope-style calculations, Dr Smith, with help from physicist and Cambridge University colleague Dave Ansell, drew up a balance sheet of what's coming in, and what's going out. All figures are estimated

But overall, Dr Smith has calculated that the Earth - including the sea and the atmosphere - is losing mass. He points to a handful of reasons.

For instance, the Earth's core is like a giant nuclear reactor that is gradually losing energy over time, and that loss in energy translates into a loss of mass.

But this is a tiny amount - he estimates no more than 16 tonnes a year.

Gains / tonnes per year
space dust 40,000
global warming 160
lost energy 16

Losses / tonnes per year
hydrogen 95,000
helium 1,600

Net gain/loss (rounded down) = 50,000 tonnes lost per year

All figures approximate

Weaver wrote:What mechanism do you think is operating to make sunlight turn into planetary mass?

The Solar forcing - about 1,370 watts per square meter - is what causes us to have a nice, warm planet. But simply shining light on an object - no matter how much you shine - doesn't make that object gain mass.

You can test this yourself. It's pretty easy (though not inexpensive) to get multi-thousand lumen lights - far, far brighter than the Sun, especially at short range. Get a really sensitive scale, and measure the weight of something - I suggest something really light, for easiest measurements. Shine the light on it for a couple years, then measure the weight again. You will not see any difference at all.

Einstein's law means that matter can be converted to energy, and vice versa. It doesn't mean that energy IS matter, and that simply exposing a material to an energy input makes it gain more matter.

To be fair, that's not actually accurate. What Einstein's equation tells us is that energy and mass are equivalent, and that the square of c is the conversion factor.

In reality, the energy input of the sun most certainly does add mass (as per E=mc2), and this would possibly be mechanism enough but for one thing: The planet also radiates away heat energy on the night side of the planet. Specifically, it gains low entropy mass from the sun's radiation, and loses high entropy mass in radiated heat loss to space (thus adhering to the 2LT). I don't have the precise figures to hand, and I'm too drunk to be bothered to go and get them at the moment, but there is a rough balance.

The critical thing about Einstein's equation is that it equates energy to mass. It doesn;t equate it to matter, but matter is really just bound energy. The equivalence between mass and matter is not exact, because there is additional energy involved in the bonding, in the form of the electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces. So what we can say is that the energy contained in a given amount of mass is equal to the mass times the square of c. The energy contained in matter is slightly in excess of this, because of the bonding energy. That's really the only difference between mass and matter in energetic terms.

So, exposing something to a constant energy source in a situation in which it didn't lose energy would cause it to gain mass. You can actually test this for yourself (see what I did there?)

Take a block of metal and weigh it. After this, heat it up (all you're doing here is inputting energy) and then weigh it again. It will weigh more on the second weighing. Indeed, if you take something as simple as a jack-in-the-box and weigh it while open, and then wind it in and weigh it again, it will weigh more on the second weighing because it contains greater energy.

The classic thought experiment in this regard is the truck full of chickens. If you put it on a weighbridge (it will have to be a particularly sensitive weighbridge) while all the chickens are sleeping and weigh the difference when you scare them all into flight, the truck will actually weigh more when the chickens are in flight. There is some subtle stuff going on here with regard to inertial frames, but the science is solid.

Edit: How embarrassing! I was beaten to the punch by, of all people, Light Storm. Good work!

chattanoogatn wrote:Could one of our "scientists" refuting Neils summation explain how Einstein's Theory of Relativity doesn't add mass to the Earth.

E=MC^2.
In full sun, you can safely assume about 100 watts of solar energy per square foot. If you assume 12 hours of sun per day, this equates to 438,000 watt-hours per square foot per year. Based on 27,878,400 square feet per square mile, sunlight bestows a whopping 12.2 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year. This is debatable, but the point is its substantial.


In 1927 Einstein remarked about special relativity, "Under this theory mass is not an unalterable magnitude, but a magnitude dependent on (and, indeed, identical with) the amount of energy."

That's synonymous with asking why the earth doesnt get increasingly hot as each day goes on. After 4.5 billion years, with all of the energy thats come from the sun to the Earth, if it were all kept, the planet would be hotter than the sun.

Of course, the answer to your question is that heat radiation is lost all the time into space.

chattanoogatn wrote:Could one of our "scientists" refuting Neils summation explain how Einstein's Theory of Relativity doesn't add mass to the Earth.

E=MC^2.
In full sun, you can safely assume about 100 watts of solar energy per square foot. If you assume 12 hours of sun per day, this equates to 438,000 watt-hours per square foot per year. Based on 27,878,400 square feet per square mile, sunlight bestows a whopping 12.2 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year. This is debatable, but the point is its substantial.


In 1927 Einstein remarked about special relativity, "Under this theory mass is not an unalterable magnitude, but a magnitude dependent on (and, indeed, identical with) the amount of energy."

What you don't seem to get is that C (the speed of light) is a bloody big number. Taking 12.2 trillion watt hours (after converting to Joules) and dividing by C squared gets you 0.000488 kg per year. Per square mile (what crazy person started mixing SI and dafto imperial units damnit?).
You want to work out how long it would take, adding .4grams, spread over a square mile, to add up to a thickness of half the radius of the Earth?
I'm betting it's not enough. And that's assuming (grotesquely incorrectly) that 100% of the incoming energy is converted to mass.

theropod wrote:

Light Storm wrote:
I honestly still don't get where your going with this, but lets break it down a bit. The End of the Triassic was by far the worst we assume in recorded history.

Sorry, wrong, the end Permian event was by far the largest mass extinction in earth history.

RS

But LS was talking "Recorded History"...

Talking about things that are just very wrong...

Light Storm wrote:

ginckgo wrote:
So much wrong with that:

The end Triassic extinction was very abrupt, probably taking place over less than a million years

I honestly still don't get where your going with this, but lets break it down a bit. The End of the Triassic was by far the worst we assume in recorded history. The majority of that evidence comes from carful examination of Coral development, which is so consistent it can literally be used to examine the history of marine life on Earth. The end of the triassic still has a lot of mysterious details, but there is agreement that some 90% of all life on earth stopped. One fifth of all Marine families were wiped out. Insects where wiped out (the only mass extinction event where this happened), certainly including my favourite pre-historic insect, the giant dragonflies. A lot of things I read contribute this mass extinction to the central Atlantic magmatic provide. Some 2 million cubic kilometres of lava speeded out over many centuries and some 2 quadrillion kilograms of sun blocking surfer made for a very bad geological time.

If the records I looked into considered the possibility that the pacific rift was equally significant, it may add some significant values to the above numbers.

theropod already corrected you on your mixup here; you're thinking of the end Permian extinction.

Light Storm wrote:

ginckgo wrote:The asteroid certainly had a major part in the end Cretaceous extinction, and the duration of the overall extinction is still too hotly debated to make a categorical assertion that it took place over 10 million years.

When looking into fossil records about the mass dinosaurs extinction, it would appear that dinosaurs where already on their way out prior to astroid impact hypothesis. For example, one team shows how the theropod group, like Baryonyx and T.Rex has already declined millions of years earlier.

I'm pretty certain James Maxlow didn't just arbitrarily pull that number out of his ass. I'm pretty confident that the slow demise of the dinosaurs over 10 million years is based on some pretty sound palaeontology.

Ref: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2009 ... 31031.html

References like that one seem to suggest consistence with Maxlows assertion.

As I said, the pre-KT decline of the dinosaurs is still being debated, it is far from settled towards either hypothesis. So he may be right, but he may also be wrong, either way, it should be acknowledged that there is still uncertainty.

More importantly, the dinos are a tiny part of life on earth during that time (and their terrestrial habitat makes their fossil record worse than that of marine groups). More detailed data can be gotten from marine invertebrates, and though they show the there was something stressful going on in the one or at most two million years prior to the KT impact (which definitely happened, as opposed to Maxlow's passive agressive "speculated asteroidal impact event"), it wasn't 10 million.

Light Storm wrote:

ginckgo wrote:Finally there is no decent acknowledgment of the fact that his placement of Australia over the equator implies that ice sheets reached that far, as we have glacial pavements and drop stones at sea level in SE Australia.

And once again, I need to ask... WTF are you talking about?
I don't know if your saying there is land mass where there has never been an ice age
Or if your saying ice ages have never made it to the equator... which above posters obviously pointed out, they did... only a very very long time ago having no bearing on this conversation at all because the focus should be around the past 300mya. So, again... wtf are you talking about?

How about this... Tell me how many MYA do you see a discrepancy between Maxlows model and accepted Ice Age comparison, and we can focus on that for a bit.

It's already been pointed out that the Ice Age we're talking about was the Permo-Carboniferous one. The peak glaciation in the late Carboniferous was actually centred over Australia and India at that time (the earlier glaciation was centered over southern Africa and South America, which Maxlow also places quite far from the pole at that time). A major ice sheet cannot be centered near the equator.

Light Storm wrote:

ginckgo wrote:Again I have to say that considering Maxlow's work is held up as a shining example to show how EE is based on, and explains all the data, this kind of ignorance in his own back yard does not bode well for the rest of his work

Maxlows theory is held out as a shining example of the 'Geological' evidence that supports the Expanding Earth hypothesis. Is Maxlow a palaeontologist? Is Maxlow a physicist? Is Maxlow an Astro physicist? When your going to call him for being ignorant on a subject like dinosaurs, please keep in mind that just because he has Dr. in his title, I doubt he can perform open heart surgery.

And yet he includes all these disciplines, such as biogeography and climates, to support his hypothesis, thus they are open for criticism. EE is presented to us as the inevitable conclusion based purely on the data, and yet the data, when investigated in any detail, at best can support both EE and PT, or at worst actually contradicts EE.

Light Storm wrote:
Maxlows theory is held out as a shining example of the 'Geological' evidence that supports the Expanding Earth hypothesis. Is Maxlow a palaeontologist? Is Maxlow a physicist? Is Maxlow an Astro physicist? When your going to call him for being ignorant on a subject like dinosaurs, please keep in mind that just because he has Dr. in his title, I doubt he can perform open heart surgery.

The problem arises when evidence gathered by experts in other disciplines contradicts (or even refutes) the EE hypothesis and those objections are handwaved away. Scientific endeavour has progressed well past the point where ideas are developed and expounded in isolation from the mainstream of scientific research; every new hypothesis must remain consistent with all data which has been gathered to date or else it forfeits a large portion of its credibility.

You say Maxlow isn't a paleontologist and you are correct. However, people like Theropod can tell he isn't because he fails to take into account contradictory evidence elucidated by paleontologists. Similarly, Maxlow is not an astrophysicist which is why lunar recesssion is such a problem for EE.

Sorry, couldn't resist.



Good ole Finn & Jake

Look... someone made a movie with plate tectonics in mind



Sorry, couldn't resist.

Light Storm wrote:Look... someone made a movie with plate tectonics in mind



Sorry, couldn't resist.

Hm, seems the mechanisms in this documentary are closer to what I've seen proposed from the EE/GE community....

ginckgo wrote:Hm, seems the mechanisms in this documentary are closer to what I've seen proposed from the EE/GE community....

Funny... and here I was thinking PT was finally presented a mechanism for the energy required to move the plates apart.