Erakivnor wrote:Brief reply
@[color=#CC0000][b]Florian[/b][/color]
please I would like from you to justify some statements which are clearly in contrast with the common scientific knowledge such as:

The Geodynamics does not support lithosphere recycling at the scale required by plate tectonics. In absence of that required recycling the expansion theory imposes itself naturally. For the same reason, subduction (synonymous to recycling in this context) is an unsupported assumption.

Sure, but I warn you. You'll have to read a lot of papers.
Since you have to start somewhere, I suggest you to read Shevchenko and collaborators about the dynamics of mobile belts, because the same is true for arc systems:

Shevchenko, V.I., Dobrovolsky, I.P., and Lukk, A.A. (2001). The stress-strain state of the lithosphere in the Aegean sector of the Mediterranean mobile belt. Izvestya Phys Solid Earth 37, 1015-1025.

Prilepin, M.T., and Shevchenko, V.I. (2005). Geodynamics of the Mediterranean Regionfrom GPS Data. Geotectonics 39, 437-447.

I. P. Dobrovolsky and V. I. Shevchenko (2006) On the Origin of Subhorizontal Compressive Stresses and Deformations in a Mobile Belt. Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, 2006, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 132–135.

V. I. Shevchenko, A. A. Lukk, and M. T. Prilepin (2006) The Sumatra Earthquake of December 26, 2004, as an Event Unrelated to the Plate-Tectonic Process in the Lithosphere. Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, 2006, Vol. 42, No. 12, pp. 1018–1037

A. A. Lukk and V. I. Shevchenko (2006) Island Arcs, Deep-Sea Trenches, and Seismofocal Zones of Indonesia and the Pacific Ocean:Similarity and Distinctions Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, 2008, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 85–118

Shevchenko, V.I., S.S., A.e., and Lukk, A.A. (2011). Subvertical clusters of earthquake hypocenters unrelated to the tectonic structure of the Earth’s crust. Izvestya Phys Solid Eath 47, 276-298.

Erakivnor wrote:or this:

Since orogenesis is controlled by mantle flows, the asymmetry of orogens result from the characteristics of the mantle flows.

Yes, this an emerging concept. I suggest you:

Kovacs et al (2012) Seismic anisotropy and deformation patterns in upper mantle xenoliths from the central Carpathian–Pannonian region: Asthenospheric flow as a driving force for Cenozoic extension and extrusion? Tectonophysics 514–517 (2012) 168–179

Karlstrom, K.E., Coblentz, D., Dueker, K., Ouimet, W., Kirby, E., van Wijk, J., Schmandt, B., Kelley, S., Lazear, G., Crossey, L.J., et al. (2011). Mantle-driven dynamic uplift of the Rocky Mountains and Colorado Plateau and its surface response: Toward a unified hypothesis. Lithosphere doi: 10.1130/L150.1.

Erakivnor wrote:And because while I try to address kinematics arguments is not useful to the conversation to add unrelated statements (here dealing with an hypothetic mechanism, not even dynamics).

Moreover the image you showed in the previous page is not in contrast with the GPS measurements I showed.

Of course it is not in contrast. The only difference is the choice of a more pertinent reference frame from a geological point of view.

Erakivnor wrote:That map is not showing plate movements respect to each others but respect to the mantle (or, better: respect to few chosen hotspots...). We are discussing about the reciprocal movement focussing on the trench. From a Pacific point of view both Americas, Asia and Australia are moving towards each other, despite their movement as a whole respect to a chosen hotspot reference frame.

That apparent relative motion is a combination of the asymmetric growth and the activity of the ring of mantle upflows characterizing the Pacific margins.
I think you missed the point: the current models project GPS vector on a sphere of fixed size. Try to imagine a sphere growing by bulging on one face. How would look like the pattern of "3D GPS vectors" projected on a fixed sphere? Not so easy to picture isn't it? But wouldn't you see surface convergence notwithstanding the displacement of the center of mass?

Erakivnor wrote:The other images were there with the purpose that we can smooth the vertical errors in few years. The reasons for those errors and why they are not taken into account "instantaneously" were nicely listed in the previous post. But this doesn't mean that geodesists do not track vertical movements.

As shown in my previous post, they tend to neglect up-down motions because it is not so important in plate tectonics.

Erakivnor wrote: However my aim was to show how kinematics of relative movements (this includes the hotspots) can be twisted the way you want.

That's why it is more pertinent to focus on the cause of the motion (dynamics) rather than the motion itself (kinematics). Plate tectonics is a kinematics theory, while the expanding earth theory is a dynamics theory.

Erakivnor wrote:I would like to address the supposed "activity/inactivity" of plates but first
I try to reassume to check if I got well the point of the expansionists:
The issue was raised by the fact that @[color=#CC0000][b]earthexpansion[/b][/color] defined "inactive" the seafloors and subsequently he and others could state that the expansion rate at oceanic ridges is not transferred to trenches in order to promote "overthrusting" instead of "subduction".
If this movement is not transferred then two things care inferred:
1) arcs overthrust a "downcollapsing" oceanic litosphere leaving room for the back arcs.
2) expansion not counterbalanced at the edges implies vertical movement and net growth.

Am I right? Please let me know if I misunderstood.

about 1). The oceanic lithosphere does not need to "down collapse" which I understand is synonymous to sinking, right?
It can be simply progressively buried by the swelling mantle as illustrated here:




about 2) what do you mean by the edges? the active margins?

Erakivnor wrote:In the meantime I would like to point out that PT is not likely subduction-driven (or not only, there is debate on this) as someone said before.

PT has no choice but to be subduction-driven (See Stern Chinese Science Bulletin (2007) vol. 52 | no. 5 | 578-591).
If it is not (and it is not) then the theory collapses (and it does).

Erakivnor wrote:Earthquakes absence does not imply "inactivity" of a plate in transferring stress or moving.

Over 10,000 km, i.e. 1/4 of the planet circumference?
I'm sure you know in the depth of yourself that it just can't work. Apply the pull or push force necessary to move a 10,000x5,000 km plate at one of its edge, and all you'll get is dislocation or crumbling of that edge. The tensile or compressive strength of a rock mass is simply not high enough.
Again, the only possibility to move a large sheet of rocks and somewhat preserve its structure is to apply the force to every particles of the sheet. This is what happens with gravity (Gravitational gliding, napes), and only when there is a detachment layer.

Dinox wrote:

lucek wrote:

Dinox wrote:Well I have done a bit of surveying. Nothing like the whole Earth, just a few factories here and there, but I think the problems would be similar.

One major problem with surveying is the errors introduced in the measurement and what you do about them. I usually remove the errors when I am back in the office with what is known as a “fudge factor” in my local group. This is what James is describing to me – a “fudge factor”. I suppose that I could equally call it a “constant and well understood error in our equipment” (especially if my boss asks) but we all know it’s a “fudge factor”.

What I’d like to know is; what is the “constant and well understood error in our equipment” in Earth measurement? Is it published anywhere or do I have to look at all data and try to guess what it might be? (Obviously your figure of 26mm isn't it since it would vary at every station).

That's the thing we don't have to guess because it isn't different at every station. The error can simply be factored out. Again it's not some random number that makes the number look right(a fudge factor), it's an adjustment to make 2 different measuring technologies agree. We understand why the error happens and adjust for it.

Are we looking at different sets of graphs or something? Because the ones I'm looking at clearly have different corrections. They are all different at every station. And these are the ones you choose to select.

First I didn't chose any. That was a random selection. However the the individual stations change with time as it is a chaotic system. There is random effects and there are the systematic errors. Like climate VS. weather you have to look at the whole not individual sections to see the pattern.

Florian what was that you said about rubber duckies?

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.

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

<snip>

Dinox's reference was to the chart of the geocentric height of the Tidbinbilla-GPS station (Eastern Australia) (IERS solutions 1992 to 1997 inclusive) given on page 78 (Figure 44) of Terra Non Firma Earth (print edition, 2005), as well as p 79 of his PhD thesis (Fig. 3.3) and p. 342 of the Appendix to his PhD thesis which provides a comprehensive set of comparable charts from VLBI, SLR and GPS stations (his website http://www.JamesMaxlow.com contains a link to the Curtin University website on which his thesis is freely available). As can be seen based on the 5 cm spacings of the horizontal lines on the chart (50 mm), the adjustment between 1993 and 1994 was downwards by about 71 mm.

Since there was no significant earthquake in Canberra during the time period, it does appear to be a data adjustment of some sort - but it's not clear what significance should attach to an adjustment to station height in this one case. I haven't seen any noticeable patterns in the much larger set of such charts given in his thesis appendix. Maybe I'm just missing something.

Lucek refers to Otsubo et al. "The center-of-mass correction of the geodetic satellite AJISAI for single-photon laser ranging" Geoscience and Remote Sensing, July 1999. This study is based on data from a different time period (1995-1996), based on two satellites and related to a different space geodetic technique (SLR), did not involve any "adjustment" to published data (though its results presumably would be relevant to calibrating data combined from the multi-photon and single-photon techniques).

Lucek's confident assertions are found once again to be inventions.

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.

The overview article on Expansion Tectonics at Maxlow's website does not actually give the source, though he provides it elsewhere (such as in his book and PhD thesis). And Florian, who presumably did a quick web search instead of looking up the paper in his own archive, is mistaken regarding this citation. The correct citation is to Robaudo, S. and C. G. A. Harrison (1993) "Plate tectonics from SLR and VLBI global data," in Smith D. E. and Turcotte D.L. (eds.) Contributions of Space Geodesy to Geodynamics: Crustal Dynamics, Geodynamics Series, Volume 23, American Geophysical Union.

What Maxlow has asserted is actually far more temperate than the charge of "massive and systematic fabrication of data." He is asserting that among the many statistical corrections to the raw data that must necessarily accompany data analysis of this complexity, there are a few illegitimate (though no doubt inadvertent) ones.

sathearn 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.

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

<snip>

Dinox's reference was to the chart of the geocentric height of the Tidbinbilla-GPS station (Eastern Australia) (IERS solutions 1992 to 1997 inclusive) given on page 78 (Figure 44) of Terra Non Firma Earth (print edition, 2005), as well as p 79 of his PhD thesis (Fig. 3.3) and p. 342 of the Appendix to his PhD thesis which provides a comprehensive set of comparable charts from VLBI, SLR and GPS stations (his website http://www.JamesMaxlow.com contains a link to the Curtin University website on which his thesis is freely available). As can be seen based on the 5 cm spacings of the horizontal lines on the chart (50 mm), the adjustment between 1993 and 1994 was downwards by about 71 mm.

Since there was no significant earthquake in Canberra during the time period, it does appear to be a data adjustment of some sort - but it's not clear what significance should attach to an adjustment to station height in this one case. I haven't seen any noticeable patterns in the much larger set of such charts given in his thesis appendix. Maybe I'm just missing something.

Lucek refers to Otsubo et al. "The center-of-mass correction of the geodetic satellite AJISAI for single-photon laser ranging" Geoscience and Remote Sensing, July 1999. This study is based on data from a different time period (1995-1996), based on two satellites and related to a different space geodetic technique (SLR), did not involve any "adjustment" to published data (though its results presumably would be relevant to calibrating data combined from the multi-photon and single-photon techniques).

Lucek's confident assertions are found once again to be inventions.

Thanks for clearing that up! My objective in asking what these “data adjustments” are was to see if there was any other explanation apart from Maxlow’s - i.e. corrections to conform to a Constant Diameter Earth explanation. It’s fairly clear that Maxlow is winning 1-0 at the moment. It seems that we can safely ignore the assertions that GPS data supports a Constant Diameter Earth because the raw data has been “adjusted” as we can plainly see. Lucek is correct that we would need to do a full calculation of all the data to see what result it produced. That’s a difficult job and I can’t see anyone taking it on anytime soon – it would need a team of people willing to devote a long time to the task.

sathearn wrote:

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.

The overview article on Expansion Tectonics at Maxlow's website does not actually give the source, though he provides it elsewhere (such as in his book and PhD thesis). And Florian, who presumably did a quick web search instead of looking up the paper in his own archive, is mistaken regarding this citation. The correct citation is to Robaudo, S. and C. G. A. Harrison (1993) "Plate tectonics from SLR and VLBI global data," in Smith D. E. and Turcotte D.L. (eds.) Contributions of Space Geodesy to Geodynamics: Crustal Dynamics, Geodynamics Series, Volume 23, American Geophysical Union.

What Maxlow has asserted is actually far more temperate than the charge of "massive and systematic fabrication of data." He is asserting that among the many statistical corrections to the raw data that must necessarily accompany data analysis of this complexity, there are a few illegitimate (though no doubt inadvertent) ones.

I’d agree that nobody is saying it is a "massive and systematic fabrication of data", particularly not Maxlow. It much more like my example of the surveying I explained previously. Obviously everyone tries their best to be as accurate as possible but we can’t help introducing errors so when we get back to the office we need to adjust the data to what we believe to be correct. It’s just that most people “believe” the Earth is a constant diameter so that’s what the data gets adjusted to.

Dinox wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up! My objective in asking what these “data adjustments” are was to see if there was any other explanation apart from Maxlow’s - i.e. corrections to conform to a Constant Diameter Earth explanation. It’s fairly clear that Maxlow is winning 1-0 at the moment. It seems that we can safely ignore the assertions that GPS data supports a Constant Diameter Earth because the raw data has been “adjusted” as we can plainly see. Lucek is correct that we would need to do a full calculation of all the data to see what result it produced. That’s a difficult job and I can’t see anyone taking it on anytime soon – it would need a team of people willing to devote a long time to the task.

You might try elaborating more on the adjustments that we can "plainly see." I haven't looked at all your references in recent posts, to be sure. But there are no doubt many reasons for making adjustments, many of which may be legitimate.

sathearn wrote:And Florian, who presumably did a quick web search instead of looking up the paper in his own archive, is mistaken regarding this citation. The correct citation is to Robaudo, S. and C. G. A. Harrison (1993) "Plate tectonics from SLR and VLBI global data," in Smith D. E. and Turcotte D.L. (eds.) Contributions of Space Geodesy to Geodynamics: Crustal Dynamics, Geodynamics Series, Volume 23, American Geophysical Union.

Oops! Good catch. I have actually both papers in my pdf library but hit the wrong one

Has Universal Expansion been falsified? Note: ridicule does not falsify.

Landrew, first you have to define "Universal Expansion" - simply capitalizing the words doesn't mean that you're talking about some particular hypothesis.

UE as in everything everywhere is constantly expanding?
Or UE as in the Universe is expanding?

Dinox wrote:
I’d agree that nobody is saying it is a "massive and systematic fabrication of data", particularly not Maxlow. It much more like my example of the surveying I explained previously. Obviously everyone tries their best to be as accurate as possible but we can’t help introducing errors so when we get back to the office we need to adjust the data to what we believe to be correct. It’s just that most people “believe” the Earth is a constant diameter so that’s what the data gets adjusted to.

This paragraph is contradicted by what you wrote immediately above it (quoted below).

Dinox wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up! My objective in asking what these “data adjustments” are was to see if there was any other explanation apart from Maxlow’s - i.e. corrections to conform to a Constant Diameter Earth explanation. It’s fairly clear that Maxlow is winning 1-0 at the moment. It seems that we can safely ignore the assertions that GPS data supports a Constant Diameter Earth because the raw data has been “adjusted” as we can plainly see. Lucek is correct that we would need to do a full calculation of all the data to see what result it produced. That’s a difficult job and I can’t see anyone taking it on anytime soon – it would need a team of people willing to devote a long time to the task.

(My highlights)

The bit in red is contradicted by the underlined sentences. It is not logical to claim that "no one" is saying that there is not a massive and systemic fabrication of data while simultaneously claiming that worldwide GPS data has been "adjusted" to conform to a set of preconceived expectations.

In short, Maxlow is actually claiming that NASA (and others) are engaged in massive and systemic fabrication of data. He's claiming that, because they are deliberately and willfully ignoring the EE idea, that they are adjusting the raw data stream to hide the evidence of an expanding Earth. If Maxlow is to be believed, it's a perfectly clear and unambiguous example of egregious data fabrication and scientific fraud.

I'm so glad that the massive global conspiracy is finally coming to light!

Just A Theory wrote:

Dinox wrote:
I’d agree that nobody is saying it is a "massive and systematic fabrication of data", particularly not Maxlow. It much more like my example of the surveying I explained previously. Obviously everyone tries their best to be as accurate as possible but we can’t help introducing errors so when we get back to the office we need to adjust the data to what we believe to be correct. It’s just that most people “believe” the Earth is a constant diameter so that’s what the data gets adjusted to.

This paragraph is contradicted by what you wrote immediately above it (quoted below).

Dinox wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up! My objective in asking what these “data adjustments” are was to see if there was any other explanation apart from Maxlow’s - i.e. corrections to conform to a Constant Diameter Earth explanation. It’s fairly clear that Maxlow is winning 1-0 at the moment. It seems that we can safely ignore the assertions that GPS data supports a Constant Diameter Earth because the raw data has been “adjusted” as we can plainly see. Lucek is correct that we would need to do a full calculation of all the data to see what result it produced. That’s a difficult job and I can’t see anyone taking it on anytime soon – it would need a team of people willing to devote a long time to the task.

(My highlights)

The bit in red is contradicted by the underlined sentences. It is not logical to claim that "no one" is saying that there is not a massive and systemic fabrication of data while simultaneously claiming that worldwide GPS data has been "adjusted" to conform to a set of preconceived expectations.

In short, Maxlow is actually claiming that NASA (and others) are engaged in massive and systemic fabrication of data. He's claiming that, because they are deliberately and willfully ignoring the EE idea, that they are adjusting the raw data stream to hide the evidence of an expanding Earth. If Maxlow is to be believed, it's a perfectly clear and unambiguous example of egregious data fabrication and scientific fraud.

I'm so glad that the massive global conspiracy is finally coming to light!

But it is possible to adjust the worldwide data in ways conformable to preconceptions without there being any deliberate fabrication or fraud involved.

Surely in an enterprise of this complexity, in which many sources of error must be systematically (and legitimately) corrected for, and in which the question of a change in Earth radius was not being asked when the procedures involved in such corrections were being developed, it is highly possible that such a preconception (exemplified in the quotation from Robaudo and Harrison (1993) - others can be given) will have affected the correction process unwittingly. Far from being "a perfectly clear and unambiguous example of egregious data fabrication and scientific fraud", deliberate fabrication of data is the least likely explanation for such an outcome, and neither have James Maxlow, Vitaliy Blinov, Samuel Carey, Wilfred Parkinson, Yury Chudinov or Jan Koziar - the principle EE proponent scientists who have independently criticized modern space geodetic practice - ever alleged fraud (though they do charge bias).

Apart from my specific assertion about writers of whom you are evidently unaware, don't you agree?

sathearn wrote:
But it is possible to adjust the worldwide data in ways conformable to preconceptions without there being any deliberate fabrication or fraud involved.

No, there is not.

There is poor experimental methodology, incorrect selection of positive and/or negative control or poor sampling but that is not what Maxlow and others are proposing.

They are accusing NASA of deliberately adjusting raw data for the purpose of masking Earth expansion. If true, that represents scientific fraud.

Surely in an enterprise of this complexity, in which many sources of error must be systematically (and legitimately) corrected for, and in which the question of a change in Earth radius was not being asked when the procedures involved in such corrections were being developed, it is highly possible that such a preconception (exemplified in the quotation from Robaudo and Harrison (1993) - others can be given) will have affected the correction process unwittingly. Far from being "a perfectly clear and unambiguous example of egregious data fabrication and scientific fraud", deliberate fabrication of data is the least likely explanation for such an outcome, and neither have James Maxlow, Vitaliy Blinov, Samuel Carey, Wilfred Parkinson, Yury Chudinov or Jan Koziar - the principle EE proponent scientists who have independently criticized modern space geodetic practice - ever alleged fraud (though they do charge bias).

Apart from my specific assertion about writers of whom you are evidently unaware, don't you agree?

No, I absolutely disagree. While there are legitimate reasons for correcting for errors in measurement or instrumentation, the explanations that others have proposed for that on this thread have been rejected. See lucek here and here.

So, given that methodological errors have been rejected, what we are left with is fabrication of data because bias, in the absence of methodological errors, is fraud.

Maxlow and the others simply want to have their cake (crying bias in the data) and eat it too (not have to support the conclusion that systematic bias is fraud).

Landrew wrote:Has Universal Expansion been falsified? Note: ridicule does not falsify.

Do you understand what the difference is between cosmic expansion and planetary expansion? Do you understand what it means to be gravitationally bound?

Didn't think so. Ridicule is the only appropriate response.

So if I am to simplify this ongoing conversation...

Static Earth Stance : Raw Data Wrong* - Error Corrections Correct.
Expanding Earth Stance : Raw Data Correct* - Error Corrections Wrong.
* = within reason

Interesting... (scribbles down notes)

sathearn wrote:

Dinox wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up! My objective in asking what these “data adjustments” are was to see if there was any other explanation apart from Maxlow’s - i.e. corrections to conform to a Constant Diameter Earth explanation. It’s fairly clear that Maxlow is winning 1-0 at the moment. It seems that we can safely ignore the assertions that GPS data supports a Constant Diameter Earth because the raw data has been “adjusted” as we can plainly see. Lucek is correct that we would need to do a full calculation of all the data to see what result it produced. That’s a difficult job and I can’t see anyone taking it on anytime soon – it would need a team of people willing to devote a long time to the task.

You might try elaborating more on the adjustments that we can "plainly see." I haven't looked at all your references in recent posts, to be sure. But there are no doubt many reasons for making adjustments, many of which may be legitimate.

OK. Here are the NASA GPS raw data charts I originally looked at with a “balloon” around what appears to be "corrections" complete with an arrow to the balloon just to make my question clearer. The first one is Perth simply because that's one of the charts Maxlow mentions. You can see the line is broken as though there were earthquakes but we know no earthquakes occurred. As I said in my original post, I can see for example that the vertical height GPS results from near Perth jump several times over the years. It seems plain enough to me anyway.



The second chart is the UK and it again shows a major correction. It has a vertical change of about 3-4 mm in 2009 and we don’t have major earthquakes!




The third is one lecuk randomly selected and this also has a “correction”. I don't know where this is.




There are links to the original charts (and a lot more charts) in my original post 77 pages ago if you want to look for yourself.

Dinox wrote: the links to other charts available ...

There are multiple “corrections” in this raw data and only Maxlow has “explained” what they are to date. Note the corrections are at different times and magnitudes on different charts so lecuk’s explanation of a constant correction factor doesn’t seem to explain them.

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

P.S. You can also see these corrections on the charts Erakivnor showed as well.

Light Storm wrote:So if I am to simplify this ongoing conversation...

Static Earth Stance : Raw Data Wrong* - Error Corrections Correct.
Expanding Earth Stance : Raw Data Correct* - Error Corrections Wrong.
* = within reason

Interesting... (scribbles down notes)

That seems to sum it up neatly!