Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Ironclad, Onyx8

Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere. Yes or No ?

Yes
22
14%
No
115
73%
Yes But...Add your reason
10
6%
No But...Add your reason
10
6%
 
Total votes : 157

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5081  Postby lucek » Apr 19, 2012 3:48 am

Florian wrote:
lucek wrote:
Florian wrote:
lucek wrote:
You made several claims but never tested them just exspected us to take you at you're word that they caused massve errors.

No claims but a demonstration that you choose to ignore.

Really want to link to this "demonstration", because all I remember was you harping about the position of the receiving station and the fact that different measuring techniques have to be adjusted etc.

Does it mean that you never follow the hyperlinks in messages? The link was given in this post.

No I read that post of you'res but that isn't a demonstration of the error satolite measurments. It's not actually a demonstration at all. It's just a JPEG and a unsuported claim.

for note:
demonstration . . .a description or explanation, as of a process, illustrated by examples, specimens, or the like: a demonstration of methods of refining ore.
Next time a creationist says, "Were you there to watch the big bang", say "Yes we are".
While talking about green energy and china a friend of mine told me, "I don't believe in that, all that global warming and green gas."
User avatar
lucek
 
Posts: 3100

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5082  Postby earthexpansion » Apr 19, 2012 4:06 am

Hackenslash (swinging a 42y.o nappy around with his wannabe in it) wrote :-
Utter ignorant fucking cock*. If the sensors are on opposite side of the planet, then whatever they are sitting on and how they are moving, they will move further apart. Geometry 101 fail. And with bollocks like this supporting it, is it any wonder that nobody takes this arse-water seriously? :nono: *The drivel, that is...


Slash, .. .. it's the geological thing. You can't take expansion as meaning the Earth's surface is blowing up like the skin of a condom. Maybe they will and maybe they won't (move further apart). They might not even move *up* for a while either, and then when they do, they might move down at the same time - even more than it moved up. All depends, .. (if you think about it.) See?
User avatar
earthexpansion
Banned User
 
Name: don findlay
Posts: 207

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5083  Postby Light Storm » Apr 19, 2012 5:44 am

THWOTH wrote:Why are error bars applied to such data LS?


Said best by James Maxlow...

    Space geodetics is modern technology that uses satellites and radio telescopes to routinely measure the dimensions of the Earth and plate motions of the continents to sub-centimetre accuracy. During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were established to form a global network, the global excess in radius was found to be 18 mm/year – i.e. the measurements showed that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year.

    This value was considered to be “extremely high” when compared to expected deglaciation rates during melting of the polar ice-caps, estimated at less than 10 mm/year. The researchers in fact "expected that most … stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr" and went on to recommend the vertical motion be "restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr". This recommendation is now reflected in current mathematical solutions to the global radius, where global solutions are effectively constrained to zero.

    These recommendations are justified from a constant Earth radius Plate Tectonic perspective. The 18 mm/year excess was considered to be an error in atmospheric correction, so was simply zeroed out. What must be appreciated is that without an acknowledgment of a potential increase in Earth radius NASA had no option but to correct this value to zero, and hence adopt a static Earth radius premise. From an Expansion Tectonic Earth perspective, however, the 18 mm/year excess equates with a present day value of 22 mm/year increase in Earth radius, determined independently from measurements of areas of sea floor spreading. ~James Maxlow ref: James Maxlows Home Page

lucek wrote:In other words No not 16 to 26mm/y -.2 to .2mm/y.


After you factor in all "margins or error"

Yup


theropod wrote:Again, how does water, released into the oceans by any means, become more of a gravitational factor than when trapped in rock? Does the mass of water increase with form shift? Volume isn't the same as mass, is it?

RS


ummm... well... Water inside the earth is a little more dense then water on the surface. That tends it happen when it's under several hundred thousand times atmospheric pressure. There is a little bit a difference between swimming through ocean water, and molten rock. While I honestly barely understand the moon/earth relationship, I grasp the basics enough to tell you that their is a significant tidal bulge caused by the close gravitational force of the moon. Based on the rate of the Earth's spin, that bulge has the effect of speeding up the moon causing it to move further and further away. While I'm sure the moons gravity has some effect on the liquid mantle, I haven't read anything about it's significance in comparison to the tidal bulge from the loose free flowing ocean waters.

I have seen more then a couple studies now that suggest there may be more water in the mantle, then there is currently in the seas.
one reference : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... world.html

If Maxlow is correct, and I believe he's correct on this. Sea water is a bi-product of mantle outgassing as the internal furnace of the planet cools. An increased surface ocean would prove to assist in the acceleration of the moon by added to that surface level 'tidal force'

hackenslash wrote:Utter ignorant fucking cock*......


If anything intelligent came out after that, I didn't read it, I was worried it might just descend down hill from there...

Weaver wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:
You clearly have utterly no conception whatsoever of the quantity of mass that we are discussing. EE requires the addition of approximately 50% of the Earth's mass over several hundred million years. Mass of the Earth is approximately 5.9 x 1024 kg while mass of the Moon is approximately 7.3 x 1022 kg.


More like 82% of the current mass, assuming 50% radius and consistent 1G surface gravity.


No matter how you dress up the simple question "Where does the extra mass come from" the answer will remain "Unknown"

That question does not answer the empirical observations of an Expanding Earth Hypothesis.
"The greatest discoveries of science have always been those that forced us to rethink our beliefs about the universe and our place in it."
User avatar
Light Storm
 
Name: James Parrott
Posts: 648

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5084  Postby Jumbo » Apr 19, 2012 8:49 am

ummm... well... Water inside the earth is a little more dense then water on the surface. That tends it happen when it's under several hundred thousand times atmospheric pressure. There is a little bit a difference between swimming through ocean water, and molten rock. While I honestly barely understand the moon/earth relationship, I grasp the basics enough to tell you that their is a significant tidal bulge caused by the close gravitational force of the moon. Based on the rate of the Earth's spin, that bulge has the effect of speeding up the moon causing it to move further and further away. While I'm sure the moons gravity has some effect on the liquid mantle, I haven't read anything about it's significance in comparison to the tidal bulge from the loose free flowing ocean waters.

None of which explains where the mass comes from. Lets say that the water inside the earth is more dense. That means one of a couple of things either it is contained within a lower volume or it has a higher mass.

Your reference to pressure clearly implies its constrained within a smaller volume. If the former (lower volume) is true then you have no change in total mass when the water reaches the surface because the volume increases thus accounting for any density change.

If its the latter then the claim is water at the surface has less mass than water below the surface irrespective of any volume changes. The question is what happens to that mass then? The other issue of course is that it would appear if true to have precisely the opposite relationship than required since at the surface its claimed to have lower mass and thus releasing it reduces gravitational contribution.
The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
User avatar
Jumbo
 
Posts: 3599
Age: 35
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5085  Postby Just A Theory » Apr 19, 2012 9:59 am

Light Storm wrote:
Said best by James Maxlow...

    Space geodetics is modern technology that uses satellites and radio telescopes to routinely measure the dimensions of the Earth and plate motions of the continents to sub-centimetre accuracy. During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were established to form a global network, the global excess in radius was found to be 18 mm/year – i.e. the measurements showed that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year.

    This value was considered to be “extremely high” when compared to expected deglaciation rates during melting of the polar ice-caps, estimated at less than 10 mm/year. The researchers in fact "expected that most … stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr" and went on to recommend the vertical motion be "restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr". This recommendation is now reflected in current mathematical solutions to the global radius, where global solutions are effectively constrained to zero.

    These recommendations are justified from a constant Earth radius Plate Tectonic perspective. The 18 mm/year excess was considered to be an error in atmospheric correction, so was simply zeroed out. What must be appreciated is that without an acknowledgment of a potential increase in Earth radius NASA had no option but to correct this value to zero, and hence adopt a static Earth radius premise. From an Expansion Tectonic Earth perspective, however, the 18 mm/year excess equates with a present day value of 22 mm/year increase in Earth radius, determined independently from measurements of areas of sea floor spreading. ~James Maxlow ref: James Maxlows Home Page


I note that Maxlow has neglected to provide any citation or reference for his assertion of massive and systematic fabrication of data by NASA. I guess it doesn't really matter, not like it's a serious allegation or anything :whistle:

No matter how you dress up the simple question "Where does the extra mass come from" the answer will remain "Unknown"

That question does not answer the empirical observations of an Expanding Earth Hypothesis.


It's very easy to "prove" the hypthesis when you can simply claim your opponents are fabricating data - even if there's no evidence that they are.
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1224
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5086  Postby THWOTH » Apr 19, 2012 11:22 am

Florian wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
Florian wrote:
THWOTH wrote:The evidence for EE is not there, until it is--if indeed it ever arrives--then we are quite entitled to say 'Nothing to see here, move along now...," despite the earnest pleadings from its proponents that it is a correct and relevant conclusion "just because it is, OK?".


And who decides that the evidence is not there, that there is nothing to see here?

Peddling the 'scientific conspiracy' theory again eh?

:coffee:


Actually, I was wondering if you were the one to decide?

The fact EE is granted no particular credence among academics and researchers in the relevant disciplines is good enough for me. If you are implying that I have no basis on which to form that conclusion because I am not a suitably qualified expert then you will just have to find a way to deal with it I'm afraid. However, I did qualify my remarks in the portion of my comments you chose not to quote.

:coffee:
"Nothing fixes a thing so intensely in the memory as the wish to forget it."
— Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580


Image
User avatar
THWOTH
Senior Moderator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 33560
Age: 49

Country: ConDemNation
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5087  Postby earthexpansion » Apr 19, 2012 11:59 am

Thwoth wrote :-

The fact EE is granted no particular credence among academics and researchers in the relevant disciplines is good enough for me.


You need to change your footnote then ( "He who thinks and thinks for himself etc.. ")

The argument itself is not difficult. Plate Tectonics is wholly predicated on the assumption that the Earth can't get bigger ("because we don't know how it could / mechanism etc.) Earth expansion is predicated on the simple geological evidence that it has got bigger by the extents of the ocean floor, absent of any assumptions, and acknowledging that there is a big question hanging over how energy is transformed into mass (which is one for physics), how that mass is transmuted into matter (which is one for physics and geochemistry) and how that material transmutation ends up as mantle material + water (which is the big question for geology). I think there are already reasonable bounds within which energy mass and material can be logically linked, e.g., it could be argued to be Moon capture or "collision with the Mars-sized object" (= origin of the Earth-Moon sytem back in the Proterozoic). According to stratigraphy and structure Earth expansion is already a lay-down misere. The big question is the geochemistry one.
User avatar
earthexpansion
Banned User
 
Name: don findlay
Posts: 207

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5088  Postby hackenslash » Apr 19, 2012 1:20 pm

earthexpansion wrote:The argument itself is not difficult. Plate Tectonics is wholly predicated on the assumption that the Earth can't get bigger ("because we don't know how it could / mechanism etc.)


Fatuous bollocks, of precisely the sort we've come to expect from adherents to EE nonsense. Plate tectonics is predicated on the observational evidence, and no such assumption is present. Indeed, it would be almost as fatuous as the drivel you've erected here to make such an assumption, because the observational evidence tells us categorically that the Earth is getting bigger, just not on remotely the scale for the fuckwittery you propose.

Earth expansion is predicated on the simple geological evidence that it has got bigger by the extents of the ocean floor, absent of any assumptions,


Except, of course, the underlying assumption that expansion occurs. There are no observational data to support the conclusions extant in the EE bollocks, and the geological evidence you cite is wholly supportive of PT.

and acknowledging that there is a big question hanging over how energy is transformed into mass (which is one for physics),


That question has already bee answered by physics, and your phrasing of the question only demonstrates your abject ignorance of said physics, not least because energy isn't transformed into mass, energy is fucking mass.

how that mass is transmuted into matter (which is one for physics and geochemistry)


Again, already answered by physics, through gravity ad the electromagnetic force. No mysteries there.

and how that material transmutation ends up as mantle material + water (which is the big question for geology).


Already answered; see above.

I think there are already reasonable bounds within which energy mass and material can be logically linked,


Already dealt with. It does amuse me that every single proponent of this thought-free cock demonstrates such a paucity of understanding of basic physical principles.

e.g., it could be argued to be Moon capture or "collision with the Mars-sized object" (= origin of the Earth-Moon sytem back in the Proterozoic). According to stratigraphy and structure Earth expansion is already a lay-down misere. The big question is the geochemistry one.


Red herring, and still not dealing with those fatal conservation laws. Any of you going to get to those any time soon?
Dogma is the death of the intellect
There is no more thunderous prescient of doom than the flutter of tiny wings...
User avatar
hackenslash
Suspended User
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 18295
Age: 45
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5089  Postby Dinox » Apr 19, 2012 2:06 pm

Just A Theory wrote:
Light Storm wrote:
Said best by James Maxlow...

    Space geodetics is modern technology that uses satellites and radio telescopes to routinely measure the dimensions of the Earth and plate motions of the continents to sub-centimetre accuracy. During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were established to form a global network, the global excess in radius was found to be 18 mm/year – i.e. the measurements showed that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year.

    This value was considered to be “extremely high” when compared to expected deglaciation rates during melting of the polar ice-caps, estimated at less than 10 mm/year. The researchers in fact "expected that most … stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr" and went on to recommend the vertical motion be "restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr". This recommendation is now reflected in current mathematical solutions to the global radius, where global solutions are effectively constrained to zero.

    These recommendations are justified from a constant Earth radius Plate Tectonic perspective. The 18 mm/year excess was considered to be an error in atmospheric correction, so was simply zeroed out. What must be appreciated is that without an acknowledgment of a potential increase in Earth radius NASA had no option but to correct this value to zero, and hence adopt a static Earth radius premise. From an Expansion Tectonic Earth perspective, however, the 18 mm/year excess equates with a present day value of 22 mm/year increase in Earth radius, determined independently from measurements of areas of sea floor spreading. ~James Maxlow ref: James Maxlows Home Page


I note that Maxlow has neglected to provide any citation or reference for his assertion of massive and systematic fabrication of data by NASA. I guess it doesn't really matter, not like it's a serious allegation or anything :whistle:


:doh: So you've never read pages 132 to 135 of Maxlow's Terra Non Firma Earth then? The book where he outlines the evidence in detail and reproduces the charts that indicate large periodic adjustments of the data. One chart near Canberra shows an arbitrary adjustment of 71 mm during 1993 to 1994. This would have resulted in a severe earthquake if it was real. Similar severe adjustments are also noted in a selection of other charts.

:doh: :doh: I take it you also don't remember my post asking if anyone could explain these adjustments that we can see in the data. The charts are readily available on the web.

Dinox wrote:I have a question for everyone. Several pages back Light Storm provided a link to some interesting GPS data provided by NASA.

Light Storm wrote:

http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html

You can see the movements clearly here, and these charts are often used by PT to justify a fixed earth radius. However, when you take a serious look at the the Cartesian Positions and Velocities, you will note that they not only have an X/Y scale, but also a Z for elevation increase/decrease

http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/all/tables/table1.txt

You will note that a lot of them show positive increase of upwards of 24mm a year. A lot of these stations are set up on glaciers to record their decline. With several spot checks, a lot of the larger negative values are set up on such glaciers. Creating triangles on opposite poles of the equator, it was easy to figure out and conclude an earth expansion within Maxlows estimations for Earth expansion. Sadly this evidence is not as valid anymore since Nasa made the observation that the planet is bulging at the poles, and the mass is centring from the north/south poles. In order to properly go back and re-evaluate these observations, I would really love to see the raw data set, and correction factors used by Grace. Any link would be awesome.


Now James Maxlow in his book, Terra Non Firma Earth, explains that he believes that the raw data is routinely corrected to remove any assumed errors from a Constant Diameter Earth. In support of this he presents several graphs on pages 132 to 135 and in reference to Figure 46 he says, ‘the chart suggests that there was either a severe earthquake near Canberra … or there has been an arbitrary 71 millimetre adjustment to the vertical height of the observation site.’ The other charts show similar changes in elevations in other parts of the world.

Now just using the link provided by Light Storm,

http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html

… and clicking on a few data points to see the data, I can see for example that the vertical height GPS results from near Perth jump several times over the years.

http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/all/plots/PERT.jpg

The graph shows a broken line running through the vertical data to show were the changes occurred. It looks like Perth should have experienced earthquakes in 1998, 2000 and 2003 judging by this GPS data.

There is even one of these graphs for the UK with a vertical change of about 3-4 mm in 2009 and we don’t have major earthquakes! See:

http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/all/plots/NEWL.jpg

So my question is simply: what are these vertical corrections in the GPS data set on the NASA site?


My question about these vertical corrections in the GPS data set on the NASA site is still unanswered. :roll:
When all said and done, there is more said than done.
User avatar
Dinox
 
Name: Stephen Hurrell
Posts: 130
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5090  Postby lucek » Apr 19, 2012 2:37 pm

Dinox wrote::doh: So you've never read pages 132 to 135 of Maxlow's Terra Non Firma Earth then? The book where he outlines the evidence in detail and reproduces the charts that indicate large periodic adjustments of the data. One chart near Canberra shows an arbitrary adjustment of 71 mm during 1993 to 1994. This would have resulted in a severe earthquake if it was real. Similar severe adjustments are also noted in a selection of other charts.

:doh: :doh: I take it you also don't remember my post asking if anyone could explain these adjustments that we can see in the data. The charts are readily available on the web.

Problem is Maxlow is misleading you. It wasn't "an arbitrary adjustment of 71 mm during 1993 to 1994", it was an adjustment between 2 types of measurment. IE one used single paticles and the other used mutiple particles and that created a discrepency between the 2. Howyever all single particle measurments match all other single particle measurments and vise versa, even ones taken before and after respectavly the mid 90's. I will also not that 71mm is a manufactured number. The discrepancy was 26mm not 71mm. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=774712&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D774712

Now do you really want to start calling people out for ignoring youre posts when you in this post ignored mine? This isn't the first time I've posted this. I had a long debate (bashing repeatedly over the head and hoping something stuck) with mr adams a few months back about this exact thing.
Next time a creationist says, "Were you there to watch the big bang", say "Yes we are".
While talking about green energy and china a friend of mine told me, "I don't believe in that, all that global warming and green gas."
User avatar
lucek
 
Posts: 3100

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5091  Postby Dinox » Apr 19, 2012 6:35 pm

lucek wrote:
Dinox wrote::doh: So you've never read pages 132 to 135 of Maxlow's Terra Non Firma Earth then? The book where he outlines the evidence in detail and reproduces the charts that indicate large periodic adjustments of the data. One chart near Canberra shows an arbitrary adjustment of 71 mm during 1993 to 1994. This would have resulted in a severe earthquake if it was real. Similar severe adjustments are also noted in a selection of other charts.

:doh: :doh: I take it you also don't remember my post asking if anyone could explain these adjustments that we can see in the data. The charts are readily available on the web.

Problem is Maxlow is misleading you. It wasn't "an arbitrary adjustment of 71 mm during 1993 to 1994", it was an adjustment between 2 types of measurment. IE one used single paticles and the other used mutiple particles and that created a discrepency between the 2. Howyever all single particle measurments match all other single particle measurments and vise versa, even ones taken before and after respectavly the mid 90's. I will also not that 71mm is a manufactured number. The discrepancy was 26mm not 71mm. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=774712&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D774712

Now do you really want to start calling people out for ignoring youre posts when you in this post ignored mine? This isn't the first time I've posted this. I had a long debate (bashing repeatedly over the head and hoping something stuck) with mr adams a few months back about this exact thing.


:think: So your argument is that there is a “correction factor” of 26 mm between different types of measurement. And this is what we are seeing in these graphs. Is that correct?

I don’t see your argument here. If there is a 26 mm error between different types of measurement then it must be impossible to publish expansion figures of less than a mm. Can you explain your thoughts more please?
When all said and done, there is more said than done.
User avatar
Dinox
 
Name: Stephen Hurrell
Posts: 130
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5092  Postby lucek » Apr 19, 2012 7:04 pm

Dinox wrote:
lucek wrote:
Dinox wrote::doh: So you've never read pages 132 to 135 of Maxlow's Terra Non Firma Earth then? The book where he outlines the evidence in detail and reproduces the charts that indicate large periodic adjustments of the data. One chart near Canberra shows an arbitrary adjustment of 71 mm during 1993 to 1994. This would have resulted in a severe earthquake if it was real. Similar severe adjustments are also noted in a selection of other charts.

:doh: :doh: I take it you also don't remember my post asking if anyone could explain these adjustments that we can see in the data. The charts are readily available on the web.

Problem is Maxlow is misleading you. It wasn't "an arbitrary adjustment of 71 mm during 1993 to 1994", it was an adjustment between 2 types of measurment. IE one used single paticles and the other used mutiple particles and that created a discrepency between the 2. Howyever all single particle measurments match all other single particle measurments and vise versa, even ones taken before and after respectavly the mid 90's. I will also not that 71mm is a manufactured number. The discrepancy was 26mm not 71mm. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=774712&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D774712

Now do you really want to start calling people out for ignoring youre posts when you in this post ignored mine? This isn't the first time I've posted this. I had a long debate (bashing repeatedly over the head and hoping something stuck) with mr adams a few months back about this exact thing.


:think: So your argument is that there is a “correction factor” of 26 mm between different types of measurement. And this is what we are seeing in these graphs. Is that correct?

I don’t see your argument here. If there is a 26 mm error between different types of measurement then it must be impossible to publish expansion figures of less than a mm. Can you explain your thoughts more please?

Actual no. If we have a constant and well understood error in our equipment then we only need account for it in the data. In this case we do has such an error. And for note this methodology is no different then using different atomic clocks. Multiple data points giving an answer more precise then any single one.

However if you think there is such a problem the raw data is open to the public and so is the methodology of the study. If you do the calculations again with only one type or the other and a pattern of expansion appears then you have a case. If you feel you're not qualified there are plenty of people out there who are ask one if you know one. In such a case however, why would you feel qualified to judge the accuracy of such a model without even doing the math.
Next time a creationist says, "Were you there to watch the big bang", say "Yes we are".
While talking about green energy and china a friend of mine told me, "I don't believe in that, all that global warming and green gas."
User avatar
lucek
 
Posts: 3100

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5093  Postby lucek » Apr 19, 2012 7:14 pm

Dinox wrote:My question about these vertical corrections in the GPS data set on the NASA site is still unanswered. :roll:


If you want to know it's called cherry picking.

Here are 4 random ones from the same page,

http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/all/plots/PARK.jpg
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/all/plots/POTR.jpg
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/all/plots/SHAS.jpg
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/all/plots/TITZ.jpg

Choosing a single graph that shows a downward slope proves nothing. There is a random assortment of slopes.
Next time a creationist says, "Were you there to watch the big bang", say "Yes we are".
While talking about green energy and china a friend of mine told me, "I don't believe in that, all that global warming and green gas."
User avatar
lucek
 
Posts: 3100

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5094  Postby Just A Theory » Apr 19, 2012 9:07 pm

Dinox wrote:
:doh: So you've never read pages 132 to 135 of Maxlow's Terra Non Firma Earth then? The book where he outlines the evidence in detail and reproduces the charts that indicate large periodic adjustments of the data. One chart near Canberra shows an arbitrary adjustment of 71 mm during 1993 to 1994. This would have resulted in a severe earthquake if it was real. Similar severe adjustments are also noted in a selection of other charts.

:doh: :doh: I take it you also don't remember my post asking if anyone could explain these adjustments that we can see in the data. The charts are readily available on the web.


lucek answered this much better than I could have hoped to. I'll stick to what I know and that is that no EE proponent (including Maxlow) has done anything other than handwave away the critical objection that there is simply no plausible explanation for where the extra mass comes from.

Furthermore, the known mechanisms for addition of mass to the Earth cannot supply the extra mass and any other mechanism violates 1LoT. Additionally, even if the extra mass was supplied by accretion, as my napkin maths of the previous page demonstrates, it would melt the crust of the Earth - where is the melting?
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1224
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5095  Postby Light Storm » Apr 19, 2012 9:43 pm

Just A Theory wrote:
Dinox wrote:
:doh: So you've never read pages 132 to 135 of Maxlow's Terra Non Firma Earth then? The book where he outlines the evidence in detail and reproduces the charts that indicate large periodic adjustments of the data. One chart near Canberra shows an arbitrary adjustment of 71 mm during 1993 to 1994. This would have resulted in a severe earthquake if it was real. Similar severe adjustments are also noted in a selection of other charts.

:doh: :doh: I take it you also don't remember my post asking if anyone could explain these adjustments that we can see in the data. The charts are readily available on the web.


lucek answered this much better than I could have hoped to. I'll stick to what I know and that is that no EE proponent (including Maxlow) has done anything other than handwave away the critical objection that there is simply no plausible explanation for where the extra mass comes from.

Furthermore, the known mechanisms for addition of mass to the Earth cannot supply the extra mass and any other mechanism violates 1LoT. Additionally, even if the extra mass was supplied by accretion, as my napkin maths of the previous page demonstrates, it would melt the crust of the Earth - where is the melting?


Melting: Seventy some percent is less then 200mya. 200 mya the Atlantic simply did not exist. When you consider that the vast majority of the pacific is the same age as the pacific, your napkin math has founds its realitvely new surface. While I would be very interested in knowing more about what the global rift system looked like 1 week after a mass extinction event... I doubt we would be around or orginsed enough to take notes if it happened again.
"The greatest discoveries of science have always been those that forced us to rethink our beliefs about the universe and our place in it."
User avatar
Light Storm
 
Name: James Parrott
Posts: 648

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5096  Postby Weaver » Apr 19, 2012 10:00 pm

Oh, so somehow accretion only happened on ocean surfaces?

Also, do you really think mass extinction events occurred in such a short time scale that it would be possible to define "1 week after" one of them? On that basis, what happened "1 week after" the Crusades? Or "1 week after" the Black Death?

Mass Extinction events ranged over thousands to millions of years. "1 week after" is so arbitrary as to be utterly meaningless.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 16960
Age: 46
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5097  Postby earthexpansion » Apr 19, 2012 10:21 pm

Hackenslash (still swinging) wrote :-
energy is fucking mass.

..and no doubt (as you would like) length as well. Hey, ..Slash, .. if the Good Lord had meant it to be, he would have seen to it earlier. You should give it up, .. you'll only hurt yourself. Put it away please and let's have some decorum. No good trying to impress everybody.
User avatar
earthexpansion
Banned User
 
Name: don findlay
Posts: 207

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5098  Postby earthexpansion » Apr 19, 2012 10:29 pm

Weaver wrote :-

Also, do you really think mass extinction events occurred in such a short time scale that it would be possible to define "1 week after" one of them? On that basis, what happened "1 week after" the Crusades? Or "1 week after" the Black Death? Mass Extinction events ranged over thousands to millions of years. "1 week after" is so arbitrary as to be utterly meaningless.


One week after the Aceh Tsunami there were a lot of dead bodies washed up on the beach, or among the mangroves, getting covered up by sand. Sure, a few get away to live another day, to be copped by the next one. As a volcanic event it *would* have been spread out over a long period, but individual killings would have been catastrophic on their own scale (and synchronised).
User avatar
earthexpansion
Banned User
 
Name: don findlay
Posts: 207

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5099  Postby Florian » Apr 19, 2012 10:30 pm

hackenslash wrote:
Utter ignorant fucking cock*. If the sensors are on opposite side of the planet, then whatever they are sitting on and how they are moving, they will move further apart. Geometry 101 fail.

No. It depends on what they are sitting on. The planet does not deform uniformly.
La chance ne sourit qu'aux esprits bien préparés. Louis Pasteur.
User avatar
Florian
 
Posts: 1313
Male

France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#5100  Postby Florian » Apr 19, 2012 10:34 pm

theropod wrote:Again, how does water, released into the oceans by any means, become more of a gravitational factor than when trapped in rock? Does the mass of water increase with form shift? Volume isn't the same as mass, is it?

Non sense, the inertial mass of water does not change.
La chance ne sourit qu'aux esprits bien préparés. Louis Pasteur.
User avatar
Florian
 
Posts: 1313
Male

France (fr)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 9 guests