Florian wrote:For example, regarding the conservation of angular momentum. It works for a closed system but not for an open system! And it is really basic physics.
If a body is growing in mass by accumulating new matter, then this body is not a closed system and its total momentum will necessarily evolve. Its rotation rate could accelerate, or decelerate depending on the contribution of the new matter appearing in the body. Same remark does apply for the revolution rate.

This addresses nothing that wasn't dealt with in the article. That you can pick on a single point and flannel your way through making it look like you've addressed it doesn't change a damned thing.

Yes, the total momentum will necessarily evolve, but how will this evolution be manifest?

Protip: Such evolution would be measurable by one or more of the means detailed in the post.

Pure hand-waving, as we've come to expect from pseudoscience proponents.

Florian wrote:I have debunked each point countless time, but they keep coming back again, the very same points!

Florian wrote:Its rotation rate could accelerate, or decelerate depending on the contribution of the new matter appearing in the body. Same remark does apply for the revolution rate.

So your idea of 'debunking' is claiming that when matter magically appears from nowhere, it could do so however it liked, and might do so in a very specific way which removes any evidence for it having appeared at all.

Asserting that your speculative pseudoscientific bullshit is unfalsifiable with respect to whatever scientific points people make isn't demonstrating how sound it it, it's demonstrating that it is pseudoscience.

Florian wrote:The fact that there are unknown physical phenomenon at work does not imply that the physics we understand is wrong.

Explain to us again why we want to invoke unknown processes instead of known processes. The maps you are flogging as evidence for expansion can be interpreted entirely in terms of known processes. Indeed, that has been done in this thread, and still you are pushing 'unknown processes'.

The motivation for invoking unknown processes is that of trafficking in woo.

Weaver wrote:You haven't refuted insect track ways or tidal varves.

I did.
Underwater trilobite tracks depend on multiple factors which preclude their use as a proxy for surface gravity.
Williams used Tidal rhythmites to calculate the length of the day. But doing so, he assumed that the revolution period of Earth has never changed. This assumption does not hold.

Weaver wrote:
You haven't refuted the geochemistry showing subduction leading to rim volcanic action.

Here your exposing your complete lack of understanding. Whether a plate is sliding under another one, or a plate is riding over another one, then the geochemistrywill be the same.

Weaver wrote:
And while you claim that you've refuted angular momentum, you haven't done the math to actually show it.

Do you really need a calculation to understand that adding a particle with momentum p1 to a system with momentum p2 will result in a new system of momentum p1+p2?? Seriously ?

Weaver wrote:
How remarkable that this magical mass addition so neatly matches the supposed expansion to maintain precisely 1G throughout the millennia,

This is a strawman! There is no evidence that gravity remained exactly the same thru the different era.

Weaver wrote:
and that it waited such an immense period of time after the formation of the Solar System (what the hell WAS happening for the first 4.2 Billion years?) that there are no really huge rocky bodies anywhere to be seen ...

Yet another strawman! And it is not the first time that you are using it...
Earth has being tectonically active as far in time as we can see (based on geological evidence), meaning that it has been growing from the beginning, albeit at a slower pace. What is recent is the global oceanization. Before that recent period, oceanic type of lithosphere used to form in narrow elongated rifting/fracturing region of the lithosphere which is exactly what ophiolites are showing us!
And do not act as if I never explained you that!

Tired of your dishonest behaviour.

hackenslash wrote:

Florian wrote:For example, regarding the conservation of angular momentum. It works for a closed system but not for an open system! And it is really basic physics.
If a body is growing in mass by accumulating new matter, then this body is not a closed system and its total momentum will necessarily evolve. Its rotation rate could accelerate, or decelerate depending on the contribution of the new matter appearing in the body. Same remark does apply for the revolution rate.

This addresses nothing that wasn't dealt with in the article. That you can pick on a single point and flannel your way through making it look like you've addressed it doesn't change a damned thing.

Yes, the total momentum will necessarily evolve, but how will this evolution be manifest?

It will depend on the momentum of the incoming particles ! Should I remind you that we have NO FUCKING IDEA about how this particles appear inside Earth!? I bet I 'don't have to!
So explain me now how we can calculate the momentum of these particles and their contribution to the total momentum of this evolving system if we have no idea about how they form ? Do you realize how stupid it is to claim that we should be able to give a trend for the evolution of the momentum for such system?

Those who understand the point made, please raise their hands, or I will despair for the human race...

tolman wrote:
Asserting that your speculative pseudoscientific bullshit is unfalsifiable with respect to whatever scientific points people make isn't demonstrating how sound it it, it's demonstrating that it is pseudoscience.

This is a lie. I already showed a long time ago that the theory is falsifiable (and therefore scientific).
We can use the theory to make neat predictions.
For example we can predict that the topological relationships of cratons must be conserved with time. This is validated by the data allowing to understand which pieces of lithosphere were next to each other in the past, like the data used for Rodinia. Rodinia is nothing else than Earth at the time the pacific was not yet open.
Plate tectonics has no predictive power at all for that matter as cratons are allowed to wander at will. Think about it.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote:The fact that there are unknown physical phenomenon at work does not imply that the physics we understand is wrong.

Explain to us again why we want to invoke unknown processes instead of known processes.

When one admit that the surface of earth is growing, then one has to infer that there are unknown processes as none of the known process can explain it. Simple logic.

Cito di Pense wrote: The maps you are flogging as evidence for expansion can be interpreted entirely in terms of known processes.

A mantle flow is a known process, yes. But the point is that such a mantle flow does not reduce the area of lithosphere contrary to what is assumed in plate tectonics. And since it does not, then we must admit that the surface of Earth is globally growing.

Florian wrote:

Yes, the total momentum will necessarily evolve, but how will this evolution be manifest?

It will depend on the momentum of the incoming particles ! Should I remind you that we have NO FUCKING IDEA about how this particles appear inside Earth!?

It's abundantly clear that you don't, yet you still appeal to established science as a 'possible explanation', despite the fact that the established science offers no shred of evidence to support your appeal, and everything you claim might happen isn't compatible with the science you appeal to.

Which is a textbook example of moronic pseudoscience.

Florian wrote:It will depend on the momentum of the incoming particles !

Now you're equivocating between momentum and angular momentum.

Should I remind you that we have NO FUCKING IDEA about how this particles appear inside Earth!? [sic] I bet I 'don't have to!

Should I remind you that we have no reason to suppose that these particles appear at all, in any way whatsoever? Need I remind you that particles magically appearing inside a body will have no intrinsic momentum of any description?

So explain me now how we can calculate the momentum of these particles and their contribution to the total momentum of this evolving system if we have no idea about how they form ?

You mean the momentum of the particles magically appearing inside the system and the impact they'll have on the angular momentum of the system?

More importantly, you're aware that, in terms of angular momentum, the Earth-Luna system is a single system, right? Changes in the mass of your magically expanding planet have an impact on the Earth-Luna interaction, regardless of the momentum, linear or angular, of any additional mass.

Do you realize how stupid it is to claim that we should be able to give a trend for the evolution of the momentum for such system?

No, I only realise how stupid it is for you to claim you know better than rudimentary physics and orbital mechanics.

Those who understand the point made, please raise their hands, or I will despair for the human race...

Raises hand.

My understanding doesn't impact the fact that you're still talking, as my old mate would say, through an orifice most readily associated with a more solid form of waste.

I should add that I'm now disengaging with this topic. If any of the EE proponents wish to address my blog post in its entirety, I'll be happy to deal with it, but I have no interest in dicking around with individual issues so that the apologist for fuckwittery can flip-flop between objections like they haven't already been addressed comprehensively and in excruciating detail.

I only engaged in this mind-numbingly fucking idiotic bollocks because it's one of the best examples of reasonably intelligent people getting hung up on completely nonsensical arse-gravy (didja miss me?) in the face of ALL evidence that that's precisely what it is.

Florian wrote:

tolman wrote:
Asserting that your speculative pseudoscientific bullshit is unfalsifiable with respect to whatever scientific points people make isn't demonstrating how sound it it, it's demonstrating that it is pseudoscience.

This is a lie. I already showed a long time ago that the theory is falsifiable (and therefore scientific).

It's not a lie. That is precisely what you are doing when claiming that vagueness in your miraculous appearance of matter could fit with any end result.

You have no credible mechanism to present, therefore you contend that whatever magical mechanism exists could magically produce matter with no measurable effect on gravity or angular momentum.

Florian wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote:The fact that there are unknown physical phenomenon at work does not imply that the physics we understand is wrong.

Explain to us again why we want to invoke unknown processes instead of known processes.

When one admit that the surface of earth is growing, then one has to infer that there are unknown processes as none of the known process can explain it. Simple logic.

When one claims that the Earth is expanding with no evidence, one is likely to be thought of as bullshitting.

Especially if the underlying process one claims must be happening has an inexplicable aversion to creating matter uniformly, but only at depth, yet, in a broad view of things subatomic, conditions at depth are effectively the same as conditions higher up.

tolman wrote:
When one claims that the Earth is expanding with no evidence, one is likely to be thought of as bullshitting.

Especially when that person making the claims engages in all sorts of pigeon chess to avoid responding to simple requests for data on the amount by which the earth expanded in the last day/month/week/year or is unable to provide any sort of meaningful predictive data we can use to visualise what the earth will look like the future.

tolman wrote:

Florian wrote:
It will depend on the momentum of the incoming particles ! Should I remind you that we have NO FUCKING IDEA about how this particles appear inside Earth!?

It's abundantly clear that you don't, yet you still appeal to established science as a 'possible explanation', despite the fact that the established science offers no shred of evidence to support your appeal, and everything you claim might happen isn't compatible with the science you appeal to.

This is a clear misinterpretation. Are you doing this on purpose?

I thought I was clear enough: the growth of the surface of Earth is a natural physical phenomenon from which we can infer that there is a physics that remains to be discovered. That is what science is all about! Discovering new stuff.

PS: corrected your bad quoting

hackenslash wrote:

Florian wrote:It will depend on the momentum of the incoming particles !

Now you're equivocating between momentum and angular momentum.

Not at all! The particles have a velocity, and therefore a linear momentum.

hackenslash wrote:
Should I remind you that we have no reason to suppose that these particles appear at all, in any way whatsoever?

We do. We have to rationally explain why Earth and some other solar system are growing in mass.

hackenslash wrote:

So explain me now how we can calculate the momentum of these particles and their contribution to the total momentum of this evolving system if we have no idea about how they form ?

You mean the momentum of the particles magically appearing inside the system and the impact they'll have on the angular momentum of the system?

Th impact on the total momentum of the system, angular and linear.

hackenslash wrote:
More importantly, you're aware that, in terms of angular momentum, the Earth-Luna system is a single system, right? Changes in the mass of your magically expanding planet have an impact on the Earth-Luna interaction, regardless of the momentum, linear or angular, of any additional mass.

first, calling natural phenomenon "magic" is YOUR stuff, not mine. So stop misinterpreting my position, please.
second, yes, change of mass and momentum of Earth must have an impact on the evolution of the moon/earth system.
But you do not seem to understand that effect are hard to predict, because they can go in either way depending on the contribution of the momentum from the particles.
For example, if the particle contribute positively to the rotation of Earth (provide and acceleration), then the tidal effect will move the Moon to an higher orbit! such a dynamic system is much more complicated that a steady system.

hackenslash wrote:

Do you realize how stupid it is to claim that we should be able to give a trend for the evolution of the momentum for such system?

No, I only realise how stupid it is for you to claim you know better than rudimentary physics and orbital mechanics.

Coming from someone who can't understand the basic effect on orbital mechanics...

hackenslash wrote:

Those who understand the point made, please raise their hands, or I will despair for the human race...

Raises hand.

Well no you obviously do not understand... I skip the ranting. Zero interest.

tolman wrote:

Florian wrote:

tolman wrote:
Asserting that your speculative pseudoscientific bullshit is unfalsifiable with respect to whatever scientific points people make isn't demonstrating how sound it it, it's demonstrating that it is pseudoscience.

This is a lie. I already showed a long time ago that the theory is falsifiable (and therefore scientific).

It's not a lie. That is precisely what you are doing when claiming that vagueness in your miraculous appearance of matter could fit with any end result.

It is a lie. You say that the theory is not falsifiable, I show that it is!
And of course, you carefully avoid to discuss the falsifiable test that I presented (conservation of the topological relationships of cratons). You act like a pseudoscientist.

tolman wrote:You have no credible mechanism to present, therefore you contend that whatever magical mechanism exists could magically produce matter with no measurable effect on gravity or angular momentum.

I have no credible mechanism to present but since there are strong evidence supporting the growth of Earth, then I must infer that a credible mechanism does exist. This is science, there is no magic.

tolman wrote:

Florian wrote:
When one admit that the surface of earth is growing, then one has to infer that there are unknown processes as none of the known process can explain it. Simple logic.

When one claims that the Earth is expanding with no evidence, one is likely to be thought of as bullshitting.

This is a lie. My claim is based on evidence that I presented in multiple occasion in that discussion (remember the mantle flows?)

Do you really believe that I'm such an idiot that I would infer stuff if there was no evidence that the surface of Earth is growing?
Say it!

Florian wrote:I thought I was clear enough: the growth of the surface of Earth is a natural physical phenomenon from which we can infer that there is a physics that remains to be discovered. That is what science is all about! Discovering new stuff.

You might as well say that the existence of poltergeists is a natural physical phenomenon from which we can infer the physics of the relevant process remains to be discovered, but that it might be something to do with magnetic fields coming from nowhere and moving things around, even though the alleged movements wouldn't be explicable by anything known about magnetism.

The first problem is that your starting assertion of an expanding planet isn't one that seems to have any credibility with the large numbers of people who study the planet in all manner of ways. Not that that would necessarily be a deal-breaker in itself, but it would at least suggest caution to most people.

The second problem is that when you speculate about matter being created from nothing, and then fusing under decidedly non-fusion conditions, you're making an appeal to science to try and suggest there is a plausible mechanism for matter creation when there simply isn't.
Not only is there no evidence for mass appearing from nowhere, and no reason to expect fusion takes place on a massive scale under extremely low-energy conditions in the planet, but your expansion hypothesis requires a strangely selective matter deposition process
And that second problem is likely to make people wonder how much rational thought you have put (or are capable of putting) into your initial conclusions regarding expansion.
If you don't have a clue how something you believe happens takes place, it's much better to leave it at that rather than indulging in speculations which suggest nothing more than your lack of understanding of physics, or your willingness to ignore apparent issues to try and construct a story which might appeal only to the scientifically ignorant.

It's noted that you raised the possibility of fusion to try and explain away the question of how the right kind of atoms could materialise inside the Earth.
But that's not meaningfully different in nature from concluding that matter must have somehow appeared from nowhere to make the Earth expand, or, indeed, from concluding that the Earth must have somehow expanded because the continents vaguely look like they might fit together on a smaller spheroid.

Florian wrote:Do you really believe that I'm such an idiot that I would infer stuff if there was no evidence that the surface of Earth is growing?

I believe there are usually multiple possible explanations for what people do.

Florian wrote:...
Do you really believe that I'm such an idiot that I would infer stuff if there was no evidence that the surface of Earth is growing?
Say it!

You have yet to show how your model is simpler and leads to smaller errors in calculations of radius change than reported in Wu et al’s 2011 work. Perhaps you simply forgot to post those details that you surely possess by now?

Simply insert your results here:

Annual expansion rate ______ mm yr-1

Standard error of estimate ______ mm yr-1

As a reminder, Wu et al have measured values 0.1 and 0.2 respectively for the above, showing no statistical significance on the measure.

tolman wrote:
But that's not meaningfully different in nature from concluding that matter must have somehow appeared from nowhere to make the Earth expand, or, indeed, from concluding that the Earth must have somehow expanded because the continents vaguely look like they might fit together on a smaller spheroid.

I only quote this part because this is were, I believe, you are totally wrong.
I do not conclude that "Earth must have somehow expanded because the continents vaguely look like they might fit together on a smaller spheroid". Don't be fooled by the title of that thread. My conviction is based multiple strong evidence, studied for years. One being that there is no reduction of lithosphere area at active margins.

Now let's try to make a simple exercise. Let's say that you finally admit that the surface of Earth is growing, implying that the planet size is growing. As a scientist, what would be your reasoning from this starting point. What would you infer from that?
I'm very curious.