Just A Theory wrote:
We have more than two data points for our series which is why we are able to model both far into the past and into the future. In other words, we have empirical evidence that there have been steadily more "days" per "year" since ancient geologic times. That's how science works, the model is based on evidence.

The number of data point is not the problem. The empirical data tell us that there more days per year in ancient geologic time, but they do tell us nothing on the length of the year or length of the day.

Just A Theory wrote:

Besides, in an open system like an expanding earth, the total mass and the momentum of the system are not conserved since there is an input of mass which has momentum. In consequence, it is not possible to predict whether the increase in size+mass goes along with an increase or a decrease in the LoD. It could also vary with time depending on the original momentum of the additional mass.

I already explained that earlier in the discussion. I should not have to do it again.

You clearly have utterly no conception whatsoever of the quantity of mass that we are discussing.

Call me an idiot. I compute these numbers long before you ever heard about Earth expansion. And yours are wrong anyway. At constant average density, the mass of earth increased 8 time in 250 Ma.

The calculation you made based on gravitational energy potency and the implications you invented are cranky.
0.5 W/m2? Who cares? Apparently, you ignore that we already receive between 500 and 1000 W/m2 of energy under the form of solar radiation. No kidding, did you forget that Earth radiates heat away? Your level in Physics is pathetic.

lucek wrote:
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.

This is not an error in the measurements but in the conceptual model they feed with the data. And I demonstrated why.

earthexpansion wrote:
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?

Nice image, he truly believes it is blowing up like a condom

Light Storm wrote:
[list]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.

No, the 18 mm/year is a RMS. It means that the value is radius±18 mm, not radius+18 mm. But sure, that value is quite high, far from sub mm accuracy.

Jumbo wrote:None of which explains where the mass comes from.

So what? We don't have a theory to explain the gain in mass. Live with it and focus on what we can study: the geological evidence of the growth.

Just A Theory wrote:
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

Bullshit. The reference is provided by Maxlow:
Robaudo, S., and C. G. A. Harrison (1993), Measurements of strain at plate boundaries using space based geodetic techniques, Geophys. Res. Lett., 20(17), 1811–1814, doi:10.1029/93GL01380.

Florian wrote:

lucek wrote:
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.

This is not an error in the measurements but in the conceptual model they feed with the data. And I demonstrated why.

No you didn't. Again do I have to pull out the dictionary?

But there's also basic geometry to take into account. 3 points on an expanding sphere will always show the expansion to some amount even if all are on the same fixed piece. The number points in the paper with the distance between them means no mater the position they will show the expansion if real. And given that you have spun a rate an order of magnitude or 2 more then the paper was designed to look for.

THWOTH wrote:

Florian wrote:
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.

In your case, a non expert, the reasonable position is to rely on the opinion of the majority of the experts of the fields. I have no problem with that. But doing so, you rely on an argument of authority, and it forces you to stay on the side in a discussion in which you actually have no expertise compared to other participants. In short, you must stay with the sole role a non expert can play in this discussion: popcorn eater. Bon appétit!

earthexpansion wrote: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).

Fine - what year did "1 week after" the KT mass extinction event fall on?

lucek wrote:
But there's also basic geometry to take into account. 3 points on an expanding sphere will always show the expansion to some amount even if all are on the same fixed piece. The number points in the paper with the distance between them means no mater the position they will show the expansion if real. And given that you have spun a rate an order of magnitude or 2 more then the paper was designed to look for.

You will never get it won't you? The surface of Earth deforms plastically at the global scale. It follows that, at our time scale, we must measure every single deformations of the surface of Earth in order to calculate if the sum of the deformations corresponds to an increase in the total volume of Earth. Thus we need a dense grid of stations ideally separated by no more than 50-100 km, and covering the entire planet (including seafloor). This is a technical challenge for the future.

Florian wrote:

lucek wrote:
But there's also basic geometry to take into account. 3 points on an expanding sphere will always show the expansion to some amount even if all are on the same fixed piece. The number points in the paper with the distance between them means no mater the position they will show the expansion if real. And given that you have spun a rate an order of magnitude or 2 more then the paper was designed to look for.

You will never get it won't you? The surface of Earth deforms plastically at the global scale. It follows that, at our time scale, we must measure every single deformations of the surface of Earth in order to calculate if the sum of the deformations corresponds to an increase in the total volume of Earth. Thus we need a dense grid of stations ideally separated by no more than 50-100 km, and covering the entire planet (including seafloor). This is a technical challenge for the future.

Eh no. Any 3 data points will show expansion. The hundreds of in the paper exponentially more so.

In other words I won't get it sense "it" involves forgetting what I know about geometry. You're artificial requirement does nothing but move the goalpost. It is extraneous and frankly an impracticable request designed to never be met so EE can never be falsified.

lucek wrote:
Eh no. Any 3 data points will show expansion.

No. You confuse Earth with a condom.

Light Storm wrote:
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.

My napkin maths included the entire surface of the Earth (oceans and land) which you would know if you spent 2 seconds on Wikipedia to check the figure for surface area. Here, I'll [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth]link[/ur] it for you (total: 510,072,000 km2, land: 148,940,000 km2, water: 361,12,000 km2). Now, would you like to edit your paragraph or continue to be wrong.

As Weaver pointed out, I severely underestimated the additional mass required by some 32% of the total current mass of the Earth, there is a commensurate increase in the gravitational PE and consequently the energy to be dissipated.

TL:DR? I underestimated the rate of melting

Florian wrote:

lucek wrote:
Eh no. Any 3 data points will show expansion.

No. You confuse Earth with a condom.

I'll give you credit that's an inventive ad hom. But that's all that was. A logical fallacy to cover for you're lack of answer.

Florian wrote:The number of data point is not the problem. The empirical data tell us that there more days per year in ancient geologic time, but they do tell us nothing on the length of the year or length of the day.

Noted that you are hereby asserting that the length of the Earth's year has changed substantially over the last several hundred million years. I'm sure you will claim that you are not asserting that, but if the year hasn't changed then the day has and that leads us inexorably back to lunar recession debunking EE.

What mechanism(s) do you propose for such radical alterations in the Earth's orbit?

Call me an idiot.

I didn't call you an idiot, that would be a violation of the FUA. I said that you clearly have no comprehension of the magnitude of mass involved - I stand by that statement.

I compute these numbers long before you ever heard about Earth expansion. And yours are wrong anyway. At constant average density, the mass of earth increased 8 time in 250 Ma.

Note that my numbers only assumed a 100% increase in mass. If I were to use your figures, the amount of gravitational PE to be dissipated into heat would be nearly an order of magnitude larger and the rate of melting consequently higher. Your correction has actually made your position worse.

We call that an 'own goal'.

The calculation you made based on gravitational energy potency and the implications you invented are cranky.
0.5 W/m2? Who cares? Apparently, you ignore that we already receive between 500 and 1000 W/m2 of energy under the form of solar radiation. No kidding, did you forget that Earth radiates heat away? Your level in Physics is pathetic.

I strongly suggest that you look into the physics of blackbody radiation.

If Earth receives more incoming energy, it must warm so that it can re-radiate that energy to maintain thermal equlibrium. The current temperature of the Earth is a function of incoming solar energy, atmospheric composition and planetary albedo. Adding more energy into that equation warms the Earth, this is the core calculation in climate change scenarios.

Note also that the gravitational PE is not actually equivalent to incoming radiation. It cannot be attenutated by atmosphere or reflected by ice. Furthermore, the additional accreted matter would leave clear indications of such deposition. We do not see signs of such accretion, why is that?

Florian wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:
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

Bullshit. The reference is provided by Maxlow:
Robaudo, S., and C. G. A. Harrison (1993), Measurements of strain at plate boundaries using space based geodetic techniques, Geophys. Res. Lett., 20(17), 1811–1814, doi:10.1029/93GL01380.

And you clearly have ignored the 2011 paper which I linked to earlier on in this thread which puts the rate of expansion at zero with a +/- 0.2mm error.

Let me use Florian logic for a second:

2011 paper shows no expansion
Florian criticises 2011 paper by citing Maxlow
I claim Maxlow hasn't supported his claim of error
Florian produces 1993 paper which Maxlow uses to bolster his claim of methodological errors
Rational thinkers and the scientific community collectively facepalm

Here's a hint for you: Attempting to use a 1993 paper to refute a 2011 one is doomed to failure. You have 18 years of science to catch up on, you'd better get started.

Just A Theory wrote:
Noted that you are hereby asserting that the length of the Earth's year has changed substantially over the last several hundred million years. I'm sure you will claim that you are not asserting that, but if the year hasn't changed then the day has and that leads us inexorably back to lunar recession debunking EE.

You're correct. I don't speculate on the LoD.

Just A Theory wrote:
What mechanism(s) do you propose for such radical alterations in the Earth's orbit?

To change of orbit, the orbital velocity must change. The gain of a significant amount of matter with momentum could change the orbital velocity.

Just A Theory wrote:

Call me an idiot.

I didn't call you an idiot, that would be a violation of the FUA. I said that you clearly have no comprehension of the magnitude of mass involved - I stand by that statement.

You are asserting that I'm an idiot, and you persist!

Just A Theory wrote:

I compute these numbers long before you ever heard about Earth expansion. And yours are wrong anyway. At constant average density, the mass of earth increased 8 time in 250 Ma.

Note that my numbers only assumed a 100% increase in mass.

...in a few hundred millions years. The change in mass is more than 100% in a few hundred millions years. You should know that by now. You vastly underestimate the gain in mass.

Just A Theory wrote:If I were to use your figures, the amount of gravitational PE to be dissipated into heat would be nearly an order of magnitude larger and the rate of melting consequently higher. Your correction has actually made your position worse.

We call that an 'own goal'.

0.5 W/m2 to 5 W/m2! Big Deal...

Just A Theory wrote:

The calculation you made based on gravitational energy potency and the implications you invented are cranky.
0.5 W/m2? Who cares? Apparently, you ignore that we already receive between 500 and 1000 W/m2 of energy under the form of solar radiation. No kidding, did you forget that Earth radiates heat away? Your level in Physics is pathetic.

I strongly suggest that you look into the physics of blackbody radiation.

If Earth receives more incoming energy, it must warm so that it can re-radiate that energy to maintain thermal equlibrium. The current temperature of the Earth is a function of incoming solar energy, atmospheric composition and planetary albedo. Adding more energy into that equation warms the Earth, this is the core calculation in climate change scenarios.

Completely negligible compared to solar radiation. But continue to digg your hole...

Just A Theory wrote:Note also that the gravitational PE is not actually equivalent to incoming radiation. It cannot be attenutated by atmosphere or reflected by ice.

Failed again. The measurement of solar irradiance is made near the ground. And ice is far from covering the whole planet (euphemism!).

Just A Theory wrote:Furthermore, the additional accreted matter would leave clear indications of such deposition. We do not see signs of such accretion, why is that?

Deposition? At the surface?
You do remember that the transport of matter is inside out, don't you?
Trying to make you learn something on that theory is like pissing in a black hole.

I came back to the discussion because Erakivnor was raising its scientific level. But since he's apparently not willing to participate much, I think I'll do the same and let this discussion gravitate to mediocrity.

Just A Theory wrote:[
And you clearly have ignored the 2011 paper which I linked to earlier on in this thread which puts the rate of expansion at zero with a +/- 0.2mm error.

Blatant lie => here

Florian wrote:
You're correct. I don't speculate on the LoD.

The statements you make can only be construed as speculation on the length of the year since you refuse to entertain the possibility that the length of the day has changed.

To change of orbit, the orbital velocity must change. The gain of a significant amount of matter with momentum could change the orbital velocity.

The calculation of the amount of matter is left as an exercise for the reader. Hint: Theia (the impactor that likely formed the Moon) did not have enough to alter the orbit of the Earth by the required amount.

Florian here is therefore postulating multiple enormous impacts over the past several hundred million years all of which, mysteriously, left no evidence of that impact.

You are asserting that I'm an idiot, and you persist!

No, I'm asserting that you don't seem to grasp the implications of the quantities of matter which you are so blithly throwing around to support the EE hypothesis. I don't understand Fourier transforms. That doesn't make me an idiot, it just means that I don't understand them. There is a critical difference which you seem unable to understand.

...in a few hundred millions years. The change in mass is more than 100% in a few hundred millions years. You should know that by now. You vastly underestimate the gain in mass.

Yes, I vastly underestimated the mass gain, I've already acknowledged it. Correcting my error in that regard does not help your position at all.

Completely negligible compared to solar radiation. But continue to digg your hole...

Most of the total solar irradiation is re-radiated. Most of the energy of an impactor is converted to heat. I leave it as another exercise for the reader to determine whether directly comparing the effect of an impactor to total solar irradiance is warranted.

Note that I converted the total energy to Watts/m2 for the purposes of demonstrating what that amount of energy would do to the crust.

Just A Theory wrote:Note also that the gravitational PE is not actually equivalent to incoming radiation. It cannot be attenutated by atmosphere or reflected by ice.

Failed again. The measurement of solar irradiance is made near the ground. And ice is far from covering the whole planet (euphemism!).

Your statement here just seems to be deliberately obtuse. You cannot directly compare the effects of solar irradiance to an impactor.

Deposition? At the surface?
You do remember that the transport of matter is inside out, don't you?
Trying to make you learn something on that theory is like pissing in a black hole.

Oookay. Matter is deposited onto the Earth from the inside out?? You surely cannot be seriously suggesting that.

I'm sorry Captain but my logic shields can't repel woo of this magnitude.

I came back to the discussion because Erakivnor was raising its scientific level. But since he's apparently not willing to participate much, I think I'll do the same and let this discussion gravitate to mediocrity.

Good, bye. You were adding nothing except a certain level of obstinacy and mendacity.

Florian wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:[
And you clearly have ignored the 2011 paper which I linked to earlier on in this thread which puts the rate of expansion at zero with a +/- 0.2mm error.

Blatant lie => here

Seeing as you ignored the many rebuttals of the post you linked, I'm going to stand by my original comment.