Hi Everyone, Happy New Year!
Here's one to get everyone all riled up...This story was floating on the news cycle today:
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/ ... s-solution
Just for kicks:
let's call it a 100 microgram gain since 1880=.0001grams/133years=.00000075 grams gained per year per kilogram.
Over 250 million years, that's 188 grams per kilogram, or almost 20%!
Ok, so It's not yet exactly the 400% we are looking for for EE...But holey Expanding Earth, Batman, what's a 20 fold margin of error given the back of the napkin math? Maybe they didn't weigh it very well back in 1880 and it was really a 2000 microgram increase? Maybe the mysterious accretion mechanism decelerated over time? Are they measuring it in a way independent of the gravitational constant? Are other such measurements being done to sufficient accuracy that would not be affected by an increasing gravitational constant? Inquiring minds want to know!

So, how much mercury would be needed to contaminate the entire volume of the Earth? How much carbon is needed to subject the entire volume of the Earth to the effects of carbonation?

Obviously I am thinking there is some unknown mechanism that is adding mass to the Earth and not just rearranging the mass that is already there...Maybe the kilogram sample isn't increasing but the gravitational constant is...I suspect that all mass accretes "stuff", but again for the fourth time, I'm not claiming a mechanism, just trying to make observations.

Florian wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:
Plates move and jostle and drift on a "sea" of liquid mantle.

Nope, the mantle is not liquid. It is solid rock, and actually, the viscosity of the upper mantle is superior to that of the lower crust (1018 Pa.s vs 1016-1017 Pa.s ; Vergnolle et al 2003 JGR 108, B10, 2502).

There are apparently fundamental flaws in your understanding of tectonics in general.

Did you note that I put the word sea in scare quotes? eg. "sea". This indicates that the word is not meant to be taken literally.

That's because, unlike others in this thread, I can use an imperfect analogy to communicate the gist of the explanation without having to resort to overly pedantic technicalities. The reason why I communicated in such a manner was that earthexpansion wanted to know how plates moved and a very simple explanation was sufficient.

Plastic deformations in hot, crystalline rock enables large, slow convection currents - just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Florian wrote:

earthexpansion wrote:

Again, Earth expansion is not a theory. (With a "mechanism" it could be one.) Rather, .. it is rather an observation-tantamount-to-fact within the aegis of certainty of what we know, and how geology is done.

Don, it is a full theory, because the expansion of the planet is the valid central explanation for everything about global tectonic. There are different level of explanation for any scientific observation, and here, the "expansion" is evidently not the deeper level.
But every scientists know (I hope) that every theory has a deeper explanation level that remains to be explored... That is one message I like to pass to our fellow forumers.

I am not sure which is more delusional: that it's an observation, i.e. a single data point, or that it's an explanatory model, when it doesn't actually know how it's supposedly happening.

Neither exhibit any degree of clue.

It's at best a hypothesis. Not a good one.

PleaseReadThis wrote:Hi Everyone, Happy New Year!
Here's one to get everyone all riled up...This story was floating on the news cycle today:
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/ ... s-solution
Just for kicks:
let's call it a 100 microgram gain since 1880=.0001grams/133years=.00000075 grams gained per year per kilogram.
Over 250 million years, that's 188 grams per kilogram, or almost 20%!
Ok, so It's not yet exactly the 400% we are looking for for EE...But holey Expanding Earth, Batman, what's a 20 fold margin of error given the back of the napkin math? Maybe they didn't weigh it very well back in 1880 and it was really a 2000 microgram increase? Maybe the mysterious accretion mechanism decelerated over time? Are they measuring it in a way independent of the gravitational constant? Are other such measurements being done to sufficient accuracy that would not be affected by an increasing gravitational constant? Inquiring minds want to know!

I guess you missed this from the article:

The article wrote:
These tiny changes – which are less than 100µg – are thought to be the result of surface chemistry increasing their mass due to atmospheric mercury contamination and the growth of a carbonaceous layer. It is also possible that nitrogen trapped when the prototypes were cast has since leached out.

The atmosphere is not a plausible source for significant increase to the mass of the Earth.

Just A Theory wrote:
The atmosphere is not a plausible source for significant increase to the mass of the Earth.

Yeah but... you know the atmosphere's really light, right... that's why it's up there rather than down here... and so if you take stuff from that really light bit up there, and add it to the heavy bit that's down here, then it adds mass, don't it? Because the bit taken away up there was just light and inconsequential, but when added here it weighs more and is important. Therefore the mass increases and Earth is expanding under our very feet. Incidentally, this ties in with the increase in bus ticket costs - it's not fair to just assume that bus companies should pay for the increasing distances - we've all got to accept responsibility.


The EE proponents can carry on with their real world concerns: I've got this.

Right, got it.

Just answer me this: do the bus tickets increase in price before or after the butter causes the mountains to flip over?

Just A Theory wrote:Right, got it.

Just answer me this: do the bus tickets increase in price before or after the butter causes the mountains to flip over?

Oh.

Er.....


Florian?

Spearthrower wrote:

Florian wrote:

earthexpansion wrote:

Again, Earth expansion is not a theory. (With a "mechanism" it could be one.) Rather, .. it is rather an observation-tantamount-to-fact within the aegis of certainty of what we know, and how geology is done.

Don, it is a full theory, because the expansion of the planet is the valid central explanation for everything about global tectonic. There are different level of explanation for any scientific observation, and here, the "expansion" is evidently not the deeper level.
But every scientists know (I hope) that every theory has a deeper explanation level that remains to be explored... That is one message I like to pass to our fellow forumers.

I am not sure which is more delusional: that it's an observation, i.e. a single data point, or that it's an explanatory model, when it doesn't actually know how it's supposedly happening.

Neither exhibit any degree of clue.

It's at best a hypothesis. Not a good one.

Ignorance about science, scientific theories and such isn't a rare phenomenon. However, Florian claims to be a scientist!

That's utter fucking cock at the carnival.

And what's this?

Florian wrote:But every scientists know (I hope) that every theory has a deeper explanation level that remains to be explored

I lack words. I'm off, straight to emoland.

mindhack wrote:
Ignorance about science, scientific theories and such isn't a rare phenomenon. However, Florian claims to be a scientist!

Cognitive dissonance. Florian assuredly doesn't employ a frivolous methodology in his paid for work as he does with this topic.

Spearthrower wrote:

mindhack wrote:
Ignorance about science, scientific theories and such isn't a rare phenomenon. However, Florian claims to be a scientist!

Cognitive dissonance. Florian assuredly doesn't employ a frivolous methodology in his paid for work as he does with this topic.

Do I understand correctly you say it's because of cognitive dissonance Florian thinks EE is a scientific theory?

I'd consider that rather doubtful, because he doesn't appear to know what a scientific theory is.

Any institute would notice before employing him.

Isn't it more likely Florian is an applied researcher of some kind knowing jack about the actual science behind his responsibilities?

mindhack wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

mindhack wrote:
Ignorance about science, scientific theories and such isn't a rare phenomenon. However, Florian claims to be a scientist!

Cognitive dissonance. Florian assuredly doesn't employ a frivolous methodology in his paid for work as he does with this topic.

Do I understand correctly you say it's because of cognitive dissonance Florian thinks EE is a scientific theory?

Yeah, I honestly think that's what it is.

mindhack wrote:I'd consider that rather doubtful, because he doesn't appear to know what a scientific theory is.

Any institute would notice before employing him.

Isn't it more likely Florian is an applied researcher of some kind knowing jack about the actual science behind his responsibilities?

I expect you're completely right that he's a bag'n'tagger, but I don't think he'd struggle so much to comprehend the theoretical underpinning of his own field. Perhaps I am wrong, but I've seen this numerous times from numerous scientists. I work with hundreds of the buggers and half of them are clueless about anything outside of their very narrow sphere of expertise. Then again, I've met a microbiologist who literally asked why there are still monkeys if evolution is correct... I was like bu.. you... micro... and.. hu.. but hol.. wait a mo... hey!

ginckgo wrote:
That's another nice gut-feeling hypothesis. How about we look at the data?



Ooops, looks like the Philippines are moving towards Indonesia and SE Asia. Oh well, I'm sure that won't discourage you.

Or SE Asia is moving toward the Philippines...
and you should use a 3 representation of the GPS vectors on a globe, not a projection on a planisphere using an arbitrary reference frame.

ginckgo wrote:
Wait, I though expansion itself was the mechanism.

Florian wrote: Global expansion is a mechanism that explains the observations.

An observation is not tantamount to fact, it is a fact. EE or PT are simply ways to explain the observations.
I'm also not sure why PT is accepted to work "elementally" (whatever that means, I assume at a fundamental level?), but "wholistically" (I assume that's where you hold the page at arms length, and uncross your eyes?) it doesn't. PT is congruent at all levels, explaining the observations, and fitting in with physics.

Except that PT fails to explains observations which are natural for EE.

ginckgo wrote:The more I hear about EE, the more I realise that it requires ad hoc solutions piled on top of one another, up to the point of essentially requiring that fundamental laws of physics be rewritten.

That "laws of physics" strawman again.

Erakivnor wrote:
Then the problems shift backwards again...but then there are high pressure paired metamorphic belts up to the present volcanic arc, and (again) no evidence of extension. Behind the volcanic arc thrusts start to go in the opposite direction (also a product of your collapse? ) up to the back arc basin. Is the back arc basin causing the collapse? But then why the hell normal faults of the margin are dipping towards the back arc and not towards the mountains?

@Erakivnor
The logical explanation for opposite thrusts on both sides of the volcanic arc is that the push is provided by expansion of the volcanic arc. Right?
And we know that the volcanic arc is resulting from partial melting of the mantle wedge in relation to the dehydration of the oceanic slab.
We also know that the back-arc results from mantle spreading.
From this, we can make a simple and unique scenario compatible with all data: a mantle upwelling spreads toward the ocean. As the flowing mantle progresses toward the ocean, it overlays hydrated oceanic crust which plunges under the weight of the mantle wedge. The oceanic crust dehydrates under the wedge and the volatiles released migrate into the wedge leading to arc magmatism. The magma metasomatizes the crust found on its way toward the surface, this leads to crust enrichment and expansion, which provides the lateral push for the thrusts (and eventually gravitational collapse in the forearc).

And once again, the formation of the Scotia Sea is a perfect illustration of that mantle-driven phenomenon:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flsAe9KmUao[/youtube]

In that phenomenon, you can remark that the mantle is flowing over through static oceanic lithosphere. So oceanic lithosphere recycling is limited to the portion overlaid by the flowing mantle. If you understand that, then you must come to the conclusion that Earth is expanding.

Spearthrower wrote:

earthexpansion wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

earthexpansion wrote: Anyway if there is one thing that distinguishes Plate Tectonics it's the enthusiasm of its protagonists in repeating its veracity in just about every paper they write

And they do write a lot of papers, on account of it being a fertile field eh?

That's *EXACTLY* right. It's pretty clear what they're cultivating, and it certainly isn't the subject, which hasn't moved forward in half a century.

Nor has evolution by those terms.

Your inconsistency is noted: First you claim 'they' - the boogeymen PTers aka professional geologists - produce SO many papers. Next, you claim they're not producing anything. This is all part of this gloss of incomprehensible, self-defeating nonsense that you lather over all your claims.

Again, science EE - you seem to have quite a different concept of it to everyone doing science. Only you seem to think that's not problematic.

["Evolution" = Straw Man.] We're not talking about biological evolution. We're talking specifically about the contribution of geophysical modelling to understanding global geology, and saying that half a century of it shoring up Plate Tectonics without foundation has led us up the garden path.

I said that the one on the Andes was a good geological paper because it dealt with fact, and contrasted with the typical theorising /modelling of geophysics which by comparison is all about suggestions based on assumptions.

For example http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 7/abstract First Sentence :- " The Tibetan Plateau is the type example of a large orogenic plateau formed as a result of continent-continent collision. " Is it? At the very most it is an assumption that denies the extensive flat-lying nature of much of the rock - quite apart from the topographic flatness of the plateau itself. The middle bit develops the theoretical /numerical model based on that, and the last sentence:- " Analysis of model results suggests <..... > may be related to < ... > etc." is all that it is ever possible anyway to derive from modelling - 'suggests-and-maybes'. No foundation whatsoever to base anything subsequent on.

I also said that "Orogenic Plateau" is a contradiction in terms, vying with words like 'Flat Subduction' (that returns nothing to the deep mantle). Both of them reflect the shifting sand that Plate Tectonics continues to try to build on - and call "progress". Scroll through all the stuff on 'orogenic plateaus' and you find a litany of incomprensible bulldust choking up the literature, all predicated on assumptions, maybe's and couldbe's, serving only the purpose and benefit of the authors, and contributing virtually nothing of substance to any foundation for further understanding global geology.

If you want to talk about "everyone doing science", then you need to talk to Gingko, because I didn't say science, .. I said 'science' with airquotes, .. and highlighted the difference - which Gingko confirmed was right on target by pushing Just a Theory out of the way and grabbing his hat before mouthing off about the new breed doing it (wearing hats). We're still waiting for him, in between all the new and original stuff he's bent on doing to tell everybody about, and throwing out a moderate challenge to whom it may concern, .. to work out if Oldskeptic's Colorado Plateau is flat or not - and what that means for 'orogenesis', and modelling Plate Tectonics.

Florian wrote:

earthexpansion wrote:
The white arrow you show of the Australian Plate 'movement' might be consistent with the story of plate movement, but is not consistent with the vectors of ocean floor growth according to transform faults. (The curved white lines parallel to the coastline of Australia are ruptures in the ocean floors defining stages in the separation of Australia from India, now being overrden by the collapse of Indonesia in the same way as India is being overridden by Tibet.)

And both overriding features (Tibet and Indonesia) are actually part of the same system. It is written in plain in the geology of the region (notably strike-slip faults):

earthexpansion wrote:Again, Earth expansion is not a theory. (With a "mechanism" it could be one.) Rather, .. it is rather an observation-tantamount-to-fact within the aegis of certainty of what we know, and how geology is done.

Don, it is a full theory, because the expansion of the planet is the valid central explanation for everything about global tectonic. There are different level of explanation for any scientific observation, and here, the "expansion" is evidently not the deeper level.
But every scientists know (I hope) that every theory has a deeper explanation level that remains to be explored... That is one message I like to pass to our fellow forumers.

Nice Pic. Shows that extension /spreading of the Indonesian 'Bubble' (/ collapse) very well. Erakivnor used that curved length as an element to equate with the along-ridge spreading in the ocean, to show that the difference wasn't that much, but that was ignoring it was on the other side of that frontal thrust and showed considerable extension (/stretching) as well, reflecting the profile nearer the crust-mantle boundary rather than breaking through the body of the crust at a higher level. So that length can't be used in any comparison between spreading ridges and original crustal breakthrough

I know what you mean, but not sure I would agree. I think it's not helpful - or necessary to get involved in that. Theory is what we do when we don't have all the pieces. And I think we *do* have all the pieces. Just that Plate Tectonics has them screwed up. Particularly that length difference is an important one, which it does its very best to ignore. (Just A Theory's tearing "bus tickets" notwithstanding). Plate Tectonics wants to keep things as theory. Wants to avoid observations because that's its weakness. It's theory on theory on theory on theory - all on an initial assumption.)

The classic problem with the scientific method is the emphasis on hypothesising - seeing apparent connections then getting the order and scale of cause-and-effect screwed up. Numerical modelling offers a bonanza of possibilites that are pure speculation. And then it sits as a foundation for still more bizarre construction because it can be cited. Gets to be a litany of rubbish citing rubbish. Here's a classic example (I think) (and I certainly don't mean to be personally derogatory - just saying it's an intrinsic failure of the method - and this to me is a good illustration)
https://sites.google.com/site/daniggcc/research-interests/high-plateaus
I thought at first he was pulling our leg to illustrate precisely the point I'm making until I had a look at his extended version
http://cuba.ictja.csic.es/index.html/papers/Garcia-Castellanos,%202007,%20EPSL.pdf
.. where he seems to be serious. At least he's certainly put a lot of work into it. He seems to be saying that they're not high and dry because they're plateaus, but they're plateaus because the climate is (/used to be) dry. (Maybe I'm not 'getting it'.)

A theory is what we've got when the bits don't fit the way we would like, but we insist on cramming them anyway, saying we'll tidy it up later with more data. But I think we do have all the (essential) pieces. Seems to me Plate Tectonics is sick just from the language used : ("orogenic plateaus"; "elevator tectonics" "flat subduction", "orogenic forcing" as ever different terms are invented to try to inject substance into what is increasingly being recognised surely to be a dessiccated cadaver now at least half a century old.

Yes, it's true, .. the Earth is round - or more exactly oblate. And that is another fact not taken into account in PlateTectonics' version of global deformation. (How long can they ignore that for ?? ) Just wait till somebody (institutionalised) makes the point, .. then we'll see some 'vocabulary'.

In all this numerical modelling I've never seen anybody taken to task because it contradicts what somebody else is saying. In fact we could almost be excused for thinking the shifts in language already are a proxy for introducing Earth expansion, and an attempt to prepare the ground for appropriation :: flat subduction returns nothing to the deep mantle; elevator tectonics is code for moving outwards from the Earth's centre, and orogenic plateaus and orogenic forcing tries to put a dynamic on the same, to link it to so-called "colliding plates", which will be abandoned in due course as the emphasis is moved off the "Tsunamic Megathrusts" (e.g., the front bit of thoseNankai and Namibia sections), on to the back bits - the massive extensional elements making up the sedimentary basins and sea floors.

Don't know how you see that from your perspective, but to me 'the Method' is a homocentric inclusion ('theory') that makes for an abortion of the whole enterprise of science by taking the emphasis away from observation and reason and putting it on invention, so we end up with tremendously inventive Heath Robinson contraptions that aren't worth a zac as far as functionality goes.. And the reason why they say science is failing. Science (and it might be more accurate to say 'discovery' more than invention) has given us technology, and technology is just great, .. but there's a whole lot useless baggage that has to be carted along for the ride that could well be done without, which just confuses the issue. (And I'm talking about Earth science, in case of all the straw men I can hear already being lighted up.)

Spearthrower wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:
The atmosphere is not a plausible source for significant increase to the mass of the Earth.

Yeah but... you know the atmosphere's really light, right... that's why it's up there rather than down here... and so if you take stuff from that really light bit up there, and add it to the heavy bit that's down here, then it adds mass, don't it? Because the bit taken away up there was just light and inconsequential, but when added here it weighs more and is important. Therefore the mass increases and Earth is expanding under our very feet. Incidentally, this ties in with the increase in bus ticket costs - it's not fair to just assume that bus companies should pay for the increasing distances - we've all got to accept responsibility.

The EE proponents can carry on with their real world concerns: I've got this.

Bus tickets and tearing them.
See, this is where we differ, .. Transform faults are the way that the ocean floor rides across town. Iit's not allowed down one-way streets that go north-south when according to arrows it has to go east west. That brings in police as a variable. So just look out which bus you catch. Wouldn't do for the inspector (another variable) to get on and find you with the other piece of JaT's ticket had, now would it.. ?? The bus you're on (Destination = Continental Margin come hell or high water) doesn't go where JaT's going. You can't go two directions at the same time. That brings in another variable that has to be accounted for - potato chips and beer - and graduates stacking shelves who can't get jobs. And better not look down with your glasses on :: cos :: what you see is what you get. What about a bike instead of bus tickets?? Or walking. It's not so complicated getting across town that you have to ask JAT for the other half of his ticket.

earthexpansion wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:
The atmosphere is not a plausible source for significant increase to the mass of the Earth.

Yeah but... you know the atmosphere's really light, right... that's why it's up there rather than down here... and so if you take stuff from that really light bit up there, and add it to the heavy bit that's down here, then it adds mass, don't it? Because the bit taken away up there was just light and inconsequential, but when added here it weighs more and is important. Therefore the mass increases and Earth is expanding under our very feet. Incidentally, this ties in with the increase in bus ticket costs - it's not fair to just assume that bus companies should pay for the increasing distances - we've all got to accept responsibility.

The EE proponents can carry on with their real world concerns: I've got this.

Bus tickets and tearing them.
See, this is where we differ, .. Transform faults are the way that the ocean floor rides across town. Iit's not allowed down one-way streets that go north-south when according to arrows it has to go east west. That brings in police as a variable. So just look out which bus you catch. Wouldn't do for the inspector (another variable) to get on and find you with the other piece of JaT's ticket had, now would it.. ?? The bus you're on (Destination = Continental Margin come hell or high water) doesn't go where JaT's going. You can't go two directions at the same time. That brings in another variable that has to be accounted for - potato chips and beer - and graduates stacking shelves who can't get jobs. And better not look down with your glasses on :: cos :: what you see is what you get. What about a bike instead of bus tickets?? Or walking. It's not so complicated getting across town that you have to ask JAT for the other half of his ticket.

I think I can speak for everyone when I say:

wat??

earthexpansion wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

earthexpansion wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Yes, that's true, .. topographically (locally) it is. But I'm talking about the flat surface from which the ruggedness is carved.

Why did you ignore the first part of my post that actually asked a question? Why would you expect all crustal rocks to be the same and the thickness the same everywhere? And why would you expect every collision to be exactly the same? Wouldn't you have to do this to expect the same result everywhere in every case?

'Ignore' is not the right word. I gently passed it over as a patently daft question.

Well it appears that a daft question is one that you can't answer or unwilling to respond to because you've painted yourself into a corner.

From what we observe of the Earth's crust *I* don't expect anything of the sort, and neither I think would any reasonable person.

That's what I was saying so I was wondering why you would imply it by asserting that all collisions should produce the same effect.

Any 'expectation' of the sort is yours,

No, I know that there are varying thicknesses to the crust and that all collisions are not the same.

and in the same vein as your observation of the Colorado Plateau "not being flat".

It's not flat. There are a wide range of elevations on the Colorado plateau. To illustrate: I can drive from my house at 3200 feet above sea level and be at 6000 feet within an hour/50 miles. I can then keep on going for another 2 hours/120 miles and be at 8000 feet on the north rim. I wouldn't call that flat as a tack. The same can be done in the Uintah area of the Colorado plateau which varies from 3000 feet above sea level to 10,000 feet.