kano wrote:Growing Earth theory has absolutely nothing to do with LHC findings.

Well, Expanding Earth bollocks has certainly got fuck-all to do with science.

It's just difficult to tell how much of its 'support' is down to ignorance, delusions and wishful thinking, and how much is simply sad lying fucks trolling on the internet.

Subduction does exist

The theory of subduction has been around since the 1960s. I've yet to see a single paper on any direct measurement. If you can find one then you've beaten all my efforts to find one over the years.

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/services/NGDC/records/archive.html
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

One telltale sign of the fallacy of subduction is the comparison of the divergent boundary and convergent boundary wiki pages. The former links to key examples with rift rates quoted directly from the USGS, while the latter quotes no subduction rates. None have ever been measured.

East Asian and Western American fossils are explained via land bridge and island hopping

From what I've read the exchange you had with the growing Earthers on this subject didn't seem conclusive, you just slag them off and defer the arguments as concluded elsewhere.

Ganymede only looks like it is expanding if you are desperately hunting for something else to be expanding

How do you know what an expanded from the inside world looks like? Are you an authority on distinguishing such spheres from other spheres?

I have NO idea what the hell you mean by #5

Its very simple, you just need to reread it, but don't expect it to be in your conventional choirbook because conventional geology doesn't like to acknowledge this coincidence.

and the larger life 100MYA also shows signs of 1g gravity, not reduced gravity.

Stated in your typical way - without reason or reference like you have 40 years experience distinguishing different gravities based on fossils. You are not aware enough to know how this comes across, so I don't expect you to see it as a weakness, even when its pointed out and explained to you.
What then, in you expert experience, are the physiological distinctions of animals adapted to lower gravity?

kano wrote:

felltoearth wrote:Number 3 is acceptable is you have a viable theory, which expanding earth proponents don't.

What makes a theory viable or not, and since when did science get obsoleted by the new paradigm of 'viabilism'?
Horseshit as usual. You've got no idea how to judge theories.

Number 4 points to the LHC findings which you have to reckon with one way or another (prove or disprove) in order to have your pet hypothesis gain any traction. That's how science works. Hand waving isn't acceptable science.

Growing Earth theory has absolutely nothing to do with LHC findings. You lot confound some random stuff, no wonder all you can do is follow consensus.

It's almost like what happened up thread didn't actually happen.

kano wrote:Stated in your typical way - without reason or reference like you have 40 years experience distinguishing different gravities based on fossils. You are not aware enough to know how this comes across, so I don't expect you to see it as a weakness, even when its pointed out and explained to you.

Here's the thing, kano: Experience and credentials are invisible on the internet, but they might actually be present, because you know some people do have credentials. Stupid, vacuous arguments are not undetectable. You have to decide if 'attitude' is really the wedge you need to pursue your 'point', which seems now to be that people are giving you an 'attitude' of 'intellectual superiority'.

Perhaps before you proceed with 'expanding earth' arguments, you should think about why EE proponents are stuck making one long whine about the arrogance of the scientific establishment anonymously on the internet, in a skeptics forum whose serious threads are dedicated mainly to debunking religious nonsense. Lots of religious nuts are pissed off about the way biology and astrophysics destroy, respectively, anthropocentric and geocentric cosmologies. Relative to that, defending EE is small change, a crank theory like 9/11 conspiracy.

The reason this 'expanding earth' crap looks just like a cover for religious resentment of rationalism and evidence-based investigation is that it's still fundamentally about the Earth being a special place in the cosmos, mainly because somebody happens to come along claiming that the Earth is a special place because that's the only fucking thing he knows for sure. If some weird physics is going on in the Earth's interior, why is is only going on here, where EE proponents happen to live?

Geology, specifically isotope geochemistry, has a great deal to say, for example, about the age of the earth. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, EE proponents need to say when their 'expansion' started, and why. If a creationist really can't tolerate how much physics has to be discarded in order to insist the earth is 6000 years old, EE is one banner to take up. At least this gets his mind off his real problem, which is that somebody else has a rational approach to investigating the cosmos.

kano wrote:One telltale sign of the fallacy of subduction is the comparison of the divergent boundary and convergent boundary wiki pages. The former links to key examples with rift rates quoted directly from the USGS, while the latter quotes no subduction rates. None have ever been measured.

Your last sentence there is a blatant lie. Another point you should consider is that wikipedia is not an authoritative source for academic geologists. If you don't think the length of a down-going lithosphere slab, detected seismically and gravitationally, is an indication of several kinds of rates, then the word 'rate' is probably as meaningless to you as any other term from science. If you don't think the geochemistry of arc volcanism incorporates the role of subduction better than hand-waving idiocy about an 'expanding earth', which has nothing AT ALL to say about the geochemistry of arc volcanism, there's probably a good reason for that, namely, your almost total ignorance of geochemistry.

I have to say, this thread has been going on from near the beginning of the forum, quite impressive, really really impressive when you consider the topic.

Even if they have no direct measurements of subduction, don't they have shitloads of it for the other end of the conveyer belt? All that midocean ridge production has to go somewhere. If nothing else, the magnetic reversal records that match up with terrestrial data says a lot.

crank wrote:I have to say, this thread has been going on from near the beginning of the forum, quite impressive, really really impressive when you consider the topic.

Even if they have no direct measurements of subduction, don't they have shitloads of it for the other end of the conveyer belt? All that midocean ridge production has to go somewhere. If nothing else, the magnetic reversal records that match up with terrestrial data says a lot.

There's a certain sort of person who, if he can't measure it with a tape or weigh it on a grocer's scale or time it with an hourglass, will claim it cannot be measured. The only thing to do with such a person is to give him a lolly and hope that shuts him up until the next scheduled feeding.

Cito di Pense wrote:you should think about why EE proponents are stuck making one long whine about the arrogance of the scientific establishment anonymously on the internet

We come here to have some fun, to poke normies with some inconvenient facts. We have our serious discussion groups elsewhere.

it's still fundamentally about the Earth being a special place in the cosmos, mainly because somebody happens to come along claiming that the Earth is a special place because that's the only fucking thing he knows for sure. If some weird physics is going on in the Earth's interior, why is is only going on here, where EE proponents happen to live?

Are you even reading my previous posts? Did you notice me mention Ganymede? No one in the Expanding Earth community think Growth is unique to Earth. All planets, moons and asteroids experience the same growth mechanism.
Expanding Earth is a poor name for the theory but its the most recognizable, Growing Planet theory would be better.

If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, EE proponents need to say when their 'expansion' started, and why.

Actually we need to say when it started regardless of how old the Earth is. the EE community thinks the Earth could be much older than the oldest known rocks found on the surface. It could be 7 billion years old. Significant expansion started about 400 million years ago, before that it was present but barely detectable. Earth's growth seems to be in a positive feedback loop, hence expansion is accelerating, currently at a massive 22mm radially a year.
Why its doing this is anyone's guess. We don't need a definite answer at the moment.

wrt to isotopes, unstable iostopes are being created en-mass by nuclear fusion within the Earth all the time.

Your last sentence there is a blatant lie.

In that cause you and Weaver should be able to produce a paper that directly measures subduction. Subduction theory is 50 years old. Just one paper. Is that too much to ask? Weaver has already run away faced with such a hard task. You? Here are the US and Brit geology paper archives again.

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/services/NGDC/records/archive.html
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

Cito di Pense wrote:

crank wrote:There's a certain sort of person who, if he can't measure it with a tape or weigh it on a grocer's scale or time it with an hourglass, will claim it cannot be measured. The only thing to do with such a person is to give him a lolly and hope that shuts him up until the next scheduled feeding.

Don't give me that crap. Measuring subduction is exactly the same as measuring a divergent rift. Stick a transponder on the ocean floor and measure its displacement due to tectonic motion over 10 years or so. By this method the USGS get an annual rate of about 2.5cm for the mid Atlantic rift and they publish it. There are such transponders at all the suspected converge rifts too, but so far no convergent motion has ever been detected in 50 years. Hence the term ' locked zone' to describe a suspected convergent margin that doesn't converge. All measured suspected convergent margins have been found to be ' locked zones'.

kano wrote:

Your last sentence there is a blatant lie.

In that cause you and Weaver should be able to produce a paper that directly measures subduction. Subduction theory is 50 years old. Just one paper. Is that too much to ask? Weaver has already run away faced with such a hard task. You? Here are the US and Brit geology paper archives again.

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/services/NGDC/records/archive.html
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

Who's obliged to measure it directly? That's something you're adding on in this post to continue your lying screed against 'normies'. This fruitcake EE 'theory' has no explanation for the presence of subducting slabs detected seismically and gravitationally, and no explanation for the composition of arc volcanics. Go back to your favorite crank websites and mutter amongst yourselves.

kano wrote:
Expanding Earth is a poor name for the theory but its the most recognizable, Growing Planet theory would be better.

Well, you've got your work cut out for you, major scientific pioneer that you are. You won't ever get any farther than naming crank theories, though, because all you've got is theory trolling. When you can measure something, er, directly, call me back.

kano wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:There's a certain sort of person who, if he can't measure it with a tape or weigh it on a grocer's scale or time it with an hourglass, will claim it cannot be measured. The only thing to do with such a person is to give him a lolly and hope that shuts him up until the next scheduled feeding.

Don't give me that crap. Measuring subduction is exactly the same as measuring a divergent rift. Stick a transponder on the ocean floor and measure its displacement due to tectonic motion over 10 years or so. By this method the USGS get an annual rate of about 2.5cm for the mid Atlantic rift and they publish it. There are such transponders at all the suspected converge rifts too, but so far no convergent motion has ever been detected in 50 years. Hence the term ' locked zone' to describe a suspected convergent margin that doesn't converge. All measured suspected convergent margins have been found to be ' locked zones'.

Don't you think you'd try laser ranging first? You know, above the water surface, in case you need help with that. And don't be in such a hurry to explode somebody else's 'crap' that you can't manage your quote tags.

Space-geodetic data have already confirmed that the rates and direction of plate movement, averaged over several years, compare well with rates and direction of plate movement averaged over millions of years.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html

Kinematics of the India-Eurasia Collision Zone from GPS measurements

http://scholar.google.de/scholar_url?ur ... AMIHCgAMAA

I don't really recommend anything like the last link for someone in your position. You'd actually have to read something that disagrees with your blatant lies about measurement of convergence.

Any time you're ready with an explanation of how there can be any major zones of convergence on an expanding sphere, we'll overthrow all of geometry, just for you.

kano wrote:Stick a transponder on the ocean floor and measure its displacement

A transponder? Displacement? Relative to fucking what? Something else that's moving? As I say, without tape measure in hand, folks like you will get lost trying to measure anything.

kano wrote:
wrt to isotopes, unstable iostopes are being created en-mass by nuclear fusion within the Earth all the time.

So you say, pulling bullshit assertions out of your arse and fingerpainting them on the walls. What you apparently know about nuclear fusion could be carved in 64-point font on one of your toenail clippings.

kano wrote:the EE community thinks the Earth could be much older than the oldest known rocks found on the surface.

Thinks? Wrong word, genius.

kano wrote:Significant expansion started about 400 million years ago, before that it was present but barely detectable.

Would you care to inform everyone about something else that's barely detectable?

kano wrote:All planets, moons and asteroids experience the same growth mechanism.

You got it in one! The mechanism!!!!! But it carries with it the faint odor of ordure.

kano wrote:

Fail. QED in a vacuum does not solve the mass-energy paradox or say anything about how the additional matter needed for an expanding Earth come about. Grasping at straws all the way down.

Thats because The Mass Energy Paradox is a term you've pulled out of your arse. It isn't used in physics, or found on google, or google scholar. Nobody knows wtf you are talking about. All I could do was assume you were still crying over the increasing mass of the Earth, and had cooked up a name for it to make it sound grand, and make yourself sound like a scientist.

QED in a vacuum does not solve the mass-energy paradox or say anything about how the additional matter needed for an expanding Earth come about.

On the contrary, since its the only method of mass-energy creation that QED yields, we can assert by deduction its how the Earth is gaining mass.
Its by no accident or laziness on your part that all you can do is flat contradiction of the truth. No one has yet found a way to destroy Sauter's reason.



Write your rational out properly and you would destroy a theory that has survived 85 years of theoretical attack. Thats why top teams today are working towards creating a non-conservative field to test Sauter with experiment.

Interesting you post that image after ad homming me as lazy, and then fallaciously maintaining that your point stands as asserted until proven otherwise, and to your satisfaction.

I didn't refer to a "The Mass Energy Paradox" as you put it, but simply a 'mass-energy paradox'. As noted above, it's clear that you lack the education to recognize that that hyphen between 'mass' and 'energy' denotes their fundamental equivalence or that the paradox resides wholly in EE-proponants asserting the spontaneous creation of the former without accounting for the requirement of the latter - beyond that is some wishful thinking about the possibility of some theoretical experiments in a unrelated area of enquiry producing some neat terms and pictures with which to baffle their audience.

We have a well formed and robustly evidenced theory for how matter is created in the universe and the energies required to do so. EE-proponants have to decide if they're going to work within that existing theoretical framework, in which case they must address the mass-energy issue with something substantive (or re-write the laws of physics), or if they're going to continue to work within the realm of hopes and dreams and 'first you've got to want to believe' fire-side chats, in which case they can be dismissed out of hand.

The problem here is not so much with the hypothesis itself, though it is dodgy, as with the fallaciousness of the underlying methodology. Like the Creationist the EE-proponant starts with their conclusion and then tries to draw a straight line directly to it, filling the gaps with just-so stories and sophistry as needed, whereas the epistemological adventure of scientific enquiry progress incrementally by diligently following the data wherever it might lead.

As I've said before, solve the mass-energy paradox and provide a scrutable data trail and I'll believe you. Until then there really is nothing to see here.... move along folks, move along.

Cito di Pense wrote:Go back to your favorite crank websites and mutter amongst yourselves.

I guess I deserve getting my web sites dragged into this discussion, shouldn't disturb a well established microforum community. I think breathtakinginanity.com is the most appropriate one. There's nothing there but a single under-construction page, so it's inane but the inanity hardly takes one's breath away. I may be crank, and cranky, but I'm rarely a crank.

crank wrote:I have to say, this thread has been going on from near the beginning of the forum, quite impressive, really really impressive when you consider the topic.

Even if they have no direct measurements of subduction, don't they have shitloads of it for the other end of the conveyer belt? All that midocean ridge production has to go somewhere. If nothing else, the magnetic reversal records that match up with terrestrial data says a lot.

Not to mention the volcanic chains inland of subduction zones ...

I haven't read all of this thread, but it seems kano does not understand how the burden of proof works.

Or the burden of mountains of evidence from a multitude of independent observations across the world by scientists of many different fields that are all in agreement.

Cito di Pense wrote:Who's obliged to measure it directly?

You should stick that in your sig. That sums up you and your kind. Thats why there's never been any evidence for subduction, never one paper on direct measurement, yet your all convinced in yours, as any suicide bomber is about his own religion.

This fruitcake EE 'theory' has no explanation for the presence of subducting slabs detected seismically and gravitationally,

Dam right, cos they're a figment of a shit theory.

and no explanation for the composition of arc volcanics.

We do. And the conventional theory on volcanos is shit.

kano wrote:
Expanding Earth is a poor name for the theory but its the most recognizable, Growing Planet theory would be better.

kano wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:There's a certain sort of person who, if he can't measure it with a tape or weigh it on a grocer's scale or time it with an hourglass, will claim it cannot be measured. The only thing to do with such a person is to give him a lolly and hope that shuts him up until the next scheduled feeding.

Don't give me that crap. Measuring subduction is exactly the same as measuring a divergent rift. Stick a transponder on the ocean floor and measure its displacement due to tectonic motion over 10 years or so. By this method the USGS get an annual rate of about 2.5cm for the mid Atlantic rift and they publish it. There are such transponders at all the suspected converge rifts too, but so far no convergent motion has ever been detected in 50 years. Hence the term ' locked zone' to describe a suspected convergent margin that doesn't converge. All measured suspected convergent margins have been found to be ' locked zones'.

Don't you think you'd try laser ranging first? You know, above the water surface, in case you need help with that.

What, on a 5 km stilt? No, I don't.

Space-geodetic data have already confirmed that the rates and direction of plate movement, averaged over several years, compare well with rates and direction of plate movement averaged over millions of years.

It was rigged. James Maxlow quoted a paper where the space geodetic team openly state in a peer review paper that they were getting consistently increasing radi for the Earth over time and they couldn't figure out why, so they overruled the data and set it to zero.

I don't really recommend anything like the last link for someone in your position. You'd actually have to read something that disagrees with your blatant lies about measurement of convergence.

Poor kid, I'm miles ahead of you, but the curse of being a fool, is you can't detect people smarter and more knowledgeable than yourself. Can't help u there.

Any time you're ready with an explanation of how there can be any major zones of convergence on an expanding sphere, we'll overthrow all of geometry, just for you.

Forget it, there are none.

A transponder? Displacement? Relative to fucking what? Something else that's moving? As I say, without tape measure in hand, folks like you will get lost trying to measure anything.

To the neighbour plate u retard. If u think otherwise phone the USGS right now and tell them their direct measures of rifting plates are bulshit because according to u its impossible to measure the relative motion of 2 points.

So you say, pulling bullshit assertions out of your arse and fingerpainting them on the walls. What you apparently know about nuclear fusion could be carved in 64-point font on one of your toenail clippings.

Sorry kid, your just another clueless dumbfuck with a self inflated ego, while I'm a world leader in my field of geology. The fact you've made RS, the arsehole of internet discussion forums, your proud home just shows how orders of magnitude below down syndrome you are. For me this place is just a game of shooting a few vermin before getting back to work.

Would you care to inform everyone about something else that's barely detectable?

Sure. You. And your IQ.

kano wrote:All planets, moons and asteroids experience the same growth mechanism.

You got it in one! The mechanism!!!!! But it carries with it the faint odor of ordure.

wtf, never know when one of u chimps is going to spaz out like he's had a euraka moment or thinks he's made a succinct point.
Gotta go now, can't check what I've written

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I haven't read all of this thread, but it seems kano does not understand how the burden of proof works.

Burden of proof is a law term where the accuser has burden of proof while the defendant has assumed innocence until proven guilt, you silly shit. But for some reason you're not the 1st retard to make that error on this thread.

Since your all running crying to your mummys ( mods ) now, I'll just give u a pic from my latest work, b4 I'm banned for the 3rd time. Its a still from an animation. This world is made entirely by expansion rifts. In all the geology departments in the world there doesn't exist any equivalent PT simulation, only a very crude series of morphs from one map to another, or very poor models.

kano wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I haven't read all of this thread, but it seems kano does not understand how the burden of proof works.

Burden of proof is a law term where the accuser has burden of proof while the defendant has assumed innocence until proven guilt, you silly shit. But for some reason you're not the 1st retard to make that error on this thread.

Eh, no. Burden of proof is a concept that any 6 year old can understand. How old are you, really? In science, you're presumed guilty, as in guilty by being wrong, until you can support your claim, and support it beyond reasonable doubt. If you don't get this, you don't get science. Something tells me this isn't the first, or tenth, time this has been explained in this thread. Deafness to facts is delusion.

kano wrote:Since your all running crying to your mummys ( mods ) now, I'll just give u a pic from my latest work, b4 I'm banned for the 3rd time. Its a still from an animation. This world is made entirely by expansion rifts. In all the geology departments in the world there doesn't exist any equivalent PT simulation, only a very crude series of morphs from one map to another, or very poor models.

Oh, this makes it all perfectly clear, it's amazing how much one can glean from a single picture. A thousand words? No, it's millions, this one picture blows away thousands of articles in peer reviewed journals, it's simply astounding. And that's where it belongs, in Astounding, as older science fiction fans might appreciate.

Aww, look how the poor helpless EE troll is frothing at his mouth.