Thommo wrote:I think we ought to start up a flat Earth thread. Or a Pi = 4 thread.

There's a whole world of crackpottery out there that we just don't give equal time and attention to.

I miss the city of Tyre threads. They were everywhere when I first started lurking on forums like this.

ginckgo wrote:

Light Storm wrote:
OTT CHRISTOPH HILGENBERG


using identical metal plates created globes to show how the boundaries come together on a smaller globe

I can already see massive continent-wide faults, for which there is literally zero evidence, intruduced just to make this reconstruction work. Totally dishonest.

how is it dishonest to create multiple plates, all of equal size, then put them together on smaller and smaller globes. It's showing that they do comes together like peaces of a smashed vase. If the world randomly created a super island that broke up and drifted apart, then the plates shouldn't line up as well as they do. they should have a mish mash of overlaps, and they don't.

ginckgo wrote:
And he seems to used coastlines, rather than continental outlines. Totally ignorant

You have mentioned coast lines before. Couple of things about coastlines. 1) there changes aren't subtle over time, they are in many places huge. The only theory that takes changing coastlines into consideration is Maxlow, one of the reasons I keep referencing back to his globes and thesis explaining each significant difference.

ginckgo wrote:

Light Storm wrote:JAMES MAXLOW


using the data of the sea floor and geological re-formations of the earth to re-create the earth as it dials back in time. He has one of the most comprehensive break downs of the wind back your going to find.

Maxlow is probably the closest you'll ever get to a knowledgeable and data-driven EE proponent.

Sadly, even he fudges the data in the detail to get the result he wants.

You know more about geology than me. Can you please give specific examples of what it is he fudges in the data?

ginckgo wrote:

Light Storm wrote:NEAL ADAMS


Created a computer animation to show the landmasses coming back together on a smaller planet.

Neal Adams is probably the most vile EE proponent in existence. He is willfully ignorant, bans anyone who disagrees, insists he has read everything but then throws it out and can never give a proper citation, etc

Never ever link to him again. Seriously

I mention him because he creates awareness of for GE/EE better than any scientist before him. His video's have millions of views and I've seen them mentioned in several publications that discuss alternative views for the development of the planet. Granted, nothing he ever say's sounds liked it's based in anything to do with science, probably comes from the fact he is not a scientist. I wish he advocated the work of James Maxlow or S Carrey instead of trying to make it his own. Take for example his clear comments like "Note there is no subduction". That comes strait from Carrey, who at the time of writing his views had every reason to contradict subduction as a thing to allow a static earth radius. In his time, there was no evidence of it like there is today.

ginckgo wrote:

Light Storm wrote:



That is an image of Pangea rendered by Nordolord....

What. The. Hell. Is. That?!?

Reverse Google search gives me no source. That is literally the worst drawing ever.

Why don't yo pose a scientific reconstruction:



Nothing alike. We need to talk about the same thing to make any progress. Not strawmen.

Light Storm wrote:... shall we discuss it or look to what the actual scientist behind this re-creation have to say about it?

I googled 'Pangea' and started searching through images. I purposely stopped at the absolute worst one I could find to make a point. It wasn't about discussing 'Pangea.' It was to point out that attacking the artwork that is used to demonstrate a hypothesis is a useless waste of time. That person was trying to say that EE/GE was wrong because the bad animation was flawed. So I used an example of Pangea that is obviously flawed to an extreme to represent why attacking the visual on the idea is counter productive. Sometimes I feel like these points get completely lost on this community. It's like I could go outside and say "The Sky is Blue" and it would create a 20 page back and forth about how and why I would make this crazy observation.

By the Way : Ref - https://drawception.com/panel/drawing/Pybn6336/pangea/

ginckgo wrote:There is no reconstruction of the Pacific Basin "wound back" onto a smaller globe that actually works - literally none.

Every one I've seen distorts the continents; ignores the actual outline of the continental crust back in time; ignores the actually seafloor age data; ignores subduction and orogeny; ignores stratigraphic and paleontological data.

The Pacific Basin literally cannot be closed.

Considering the vast majority of the pacific ocean floor is only 60 million years old, it's very easy to close. You start adding material as you wind the earth backwards in time, it's still easy to visualize it closing only more slowly to something like 200 - 400 million years. I still find it interesting that you have to go down thousands of feet in gold or diamond mines to get into layers of earth that where once ocean floors.

ginckgo wrote:I can already see massive continent-wide faults, for which there is literally zero evidence, intruduced just to make this reconstruction work. Totally dishonest.

And he seems to used coastlines, rather than continental outlines. Totally ignorant

All I'd say in his defence is that this is a guy who was working 40 odd years before the advancement of plate tectonics as a hypothesis. He didn't have modern data, knowledge, computers or techniques at his disposal.

So he produced a model back in the 20s and 30s that didn't really work all that well and got rejected. I'm not sure there's a lot more to the story than that. The model failed, I don't think we should impute any personal failings because of that.

Light Storm wrote:how is it dishonest to create multiple plates, all of equal size, then put them together on smaller and smaller globes. It's showing that they do comes together like peaces of a smashed vase. If the world randomly created a super island that broke up and drifted apart, then the plates shouldn't line up as well as they do. they should have a mish mash of overlaps, and they don't.

Whilst it's not dishonest (he genuinely didn't know better, because of the times in which he was working) it's also not relevant to this thread. The point Gincko made here is that those metal plates are not remotely accurate representations of the actual tectonic boundaries. I.e. that model does not represent reality, on top of which it still wasn't a perfect fit. It's a failed model.

Even James Maxlow acknowledges that those plates do have a "mish mash of overlaps" on his site, so I haven't a clue why you're contradicting that here. http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/ott-christoph-hilgenberg/

As can probably be seen on his globes the main limitation to accepting Hilgenberg’s reconstruction was the purely visual fit-together of continents across each of the oceans? In 1990 Vogel commented that, “…though fairly exact in several regions, the totality of Hilgenberg’s result was not entirely convincing because, especially in the Indian, Pacific, and Arctic Ocean regions, numerous gaps and overlaps appeared between continental fragments.”

More specifically, Hilgenberg’s reconstruction across the Atlantic was considered to be convincing, however difficulties were encountered in the Indian Ocean due to a greater dispersion of continents and an uncertain initial position of India and Madagascar. The Pacific region was the most difficult to reconstruct, as workers to follow also found. Unlike the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, where the borders of these oceans retained their shapes, the Pacific borders were considered by Hilgenberg to have opened much earlier and hence the shape of these borders remained tectonically active throughout the continental dispersal times.

Light Storm wrote:I googled 'Pangea' and started searching through images. I purposely stopped at the absolute worst one I could find to make a point. It wasn't about discussing 'Pangea.' It was to point out that attacking the artwork that is used to demonstrate a hypothesis is a useless waste of time. That person was trying to say that EE/GE was wrong because the bad animation was flawed.

No I wasn't.*
*Word for word here's what I said, and it didn't mention artwork,the quality of artwork or Pangea at all:

Thommo wrote:What are you talking about? One of your best examples is to point to a string of lies. That's hardly insignificant.

Certain features of Adams's animations and claims are literally impossible to be false - if you "wind back" the sea floor then eventually all that remains is land. This is true by definition, there is no possible configuration of continents for which it's not true. The same goes for the notion that the area of land left is the same as the area of some smaller sphere, which is also true by definition of "area". The only significant parts are where he claims that this can be done with those constraints on shape regarding stretching, twisting and other deformations - and he lies about those.

It's been about 8 years since this thread started. Would one of the EE proponents please let me know when we're going to be doing the adjustment to the GPS constellation to account for all the expansion that's happened in that time?

I'd hate to drive off the edge of the continent.

Interesting (though I'm highly skeptical) attempt to link Snoball earth from 700 million years ago with the initiation of Plate Tectonics:

'Snowball Earth' resulted from plate tectonics

When Earth's tectonic style transitioned from stagnant lid (single plate) to the modern episode of plate tectonics is important but unresolved, and all lines of evidence should be considered, including the climate record. The transition should have disturbed the oceans and atmosphere by redistributing continents, increasing explosive arc volcanism, stimulating mantle plumes and disrupting climate equilibrium established by the previous balance of silicate‐weathering greenhouse gas feedbacks. Formation of subduction zones would redistribute mass sufficiently to cause true polar wander if the subducted slabs were added in the upper mantle at intermediate to high latitudes. The Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth climate crisis may reflect this transition. The transition to plate tectonics is compatible with nearly all proposed geodynamic and oceanographic triggers for Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth events, and could also have contributed to biological triggers. Only extraterrestrial triggers cannot be reconciled with the hypothesis that the Neoproterozoic climate crisis was caused by a prolonged (200–250 m.y.) transition to plate tectonics.

Did the transition to plate tectonics cause Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth?

There is solid evidence for PT before this, but they do have some nice summary diagrams

The SnowBall episodes are certainly due to changes in the tectonic activity of Earth.
The most interesting will be to discover why Earth has periods of high and low activity which are clearly visible in the geological records (see for example the graphs in "Supercontinents and the case for Pannotia".
But we need to understand the engine at the heart of its evolution to get some clues and we're far from it!

Florian wrote:The most interesting will be to discover why Earth has periods of high and low activity.

Tectonic activity is driven by heat flow. Earth's internal heat is derived from accretion of planetesimals early in earth's history, and from decay of radioactive nuclei. Mantle convection (that is, heat flow) is chaotic. You don't have a plausible alternative, so go back to sleep for another few months, since you don't understand the scaling laws for convection.

This shit is worse than attempts to explain the biblical deluge. Where the fuck are the trillions of tons of magma coming from that would expand planet earth?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote:The most interesting will be to discover why Earth has periods of high and low activity.

Tectonic activity is driven by heat flow.

Yes.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Earth's internal heat is derived from accretion of planetesimals early in earth's history,

No.

Cito di Pense wrote:
and from decay of radioactive nuclei.

in part.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Mantle convection (that is, heat flow) is chaotic.

At what timescale? Certainly not at the timescale used in the article.

Cito di Pense wrote:
You don't have a plausible alternative,

Yes.

Cito di Pense wrote:
so go back to sleep for another few months, since you don't understand the scaling laws for convection.

Or is it you that has a problem with scaling?

Lol

Hermit wrote:This shit is worse than attempts to explain the biblical deluge. Where the fuck are the trillions of tons of magma coming from that would expand planet earth?

You confuse mantle and magma. Magma forms by the fusion of a few % of the mantle rocks, very close to the surface (less than 100 km).

Florian wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Earth's internal heat is derived from accretion of planetesimals early in earth's history,

No.

Cito di Pense wrote:
and from decay of radioactive nuclei.

in part.

Then what has happened to the energy of accretion? Your accounting is flaky. You ignore energy conservation and heat-flow principles as a habit, Florian, so I don't expect you to have a sensible answer. What compulsion is driving you to keep coming back to this website to post your bullshit?

Florian wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Mantle convection (that is, heat flow) is chaotic.

At what timescale? Certainly not at the timescale used in the article.

At the timescale you seem to care about. You avoid having to confront that by ignoring the energy of accretion. You ignore energy conservation and heat-transfer principles as a habit.

Florian wrote:

Hermit wrote:This shit is worse than attempts to explain the biblical deluge. Where the fuck are the trillions of tons of magma coming from that would expand planet earth?

You confuse mantle and magma. Magma forms by the fusion of a few % of the mantle rocks, very close to the surface (less than 100 km).

And the expansion of the planet is filled with...?

As I said, the alleged expansion of of earth suffers from the same problem as the biblical flood. The matter for either proposed event does not exist.

Hi Florian, welcome back to the forum. When you last vanished, we were discussing the Earth-Moon system and you contended that the three-body problem was unsolvable.

I've addressed that assertion here.

Based on my post, the Wu paper that has been referenced multiple times within the thread should be considered correct. i'll repeat the relevant conclusion for you in case you've forgotten.

Here, we use multiple precise geodetic data sets and a simultaneous global estimation platform to determine that the ITRF2008 origin is consistent with the mean CM at the level of 0.5 mm/ yr, and the mean radius of the Earth is not changing to within measurement uncertainty of 0.2 mm/ yr.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Then what has happened to the energy of accretion? Your accounting is flaky. You ignore energy conservation and heat-flow principles as a habit, Florian, so I don't expect you to have a sensible answer. What compulsion is driving you to keep coming back to this website to post your bullshit?

I don't think I ignore anything. For sure, you are not capable of changing of paradigm. The energy of accretion must be considered in the classical theory of planet formation, because planets are supposed to form in the blink of the eye (well, in just a few thousand years, not that much more than what creationist imagine!) by the accretion of smaller objects that collide transforming most of their kinetic energy into heat.
By contrast, in the expansion theory, planets growth take millions/billions years without large initial accretion that would account for a lot of the current internal heat.

Hermit wrote:

Florian wrote:

Hermit wrote:This shit is worse than attempts to explain the biblical deluge. Where the fuck are the trillions of tons of magma coming from that would expand planet earth?

You confuse mantle and magma. Magma forms by the fusion of a few % of the mantle rocks, very close to the surface (less than 100 km).

And the expansion of the planet is filled with...?

Not magma!
Obviously, the growth of the planet is filled by what the planet is made of (silicates, iron etc...)

Hermit wrote:
As I said, the alleged expansion of of earth suffers from the same problem as the biblical flood. The matter for either proposed event does not exist.

Apples and oranges. The growth of Earth is based on a corpus of observations proving that the surface of Earth has been steadily growing. If these observation did not exist, I would certainly not imagine one second that Earth could be growing.

Just A Theory wrote:Hi Florian, welcome back to the forum. When you last vanished, we were discussing the Earth-Moon system and you contended that the three-body problem was unsolvable.

I've addressed that assertion here.

I did not remember that. The numerical solution you describe is what we call a simulation. I do a lot of this stuff (for molecular modelling, anyway), and you have to be aware that it is highly dependent on the initial parameters (initial velocities for example), and the slightest difference in the initial parameters will lead to enormous differences in the final results. So such a simulation will have increasing errors. The prediction will be good at the beginning and totally wrong at the end.

But that's not even part of the problem we have with the expansion model.

You said:

Just A Theory wrote:
Thus, we have the debunking:

The Earth was rotating faster at some point in the past ie. the day was shorter
The Moon was closer to Earth in the past but has receded and slowed the Earth's rotation
Expansion models assume Earth's rotation is a constant speed
The assumption is false, the expansion model is false

There is no assumption that Earth's rotation is a contant speed, not at all. I do not know where you got that?

The problem we have at hand is actually much worst that a simple 3-body problem, because it is an 3-evolving-body problem. The velocity and mass of all three bodies is allowed to change and we do not know how to predict that change because the system is not a closed one and we do not know the input to the system.

Just A Theory wrote:Based on my post, the Wu paper that has been referenced multiple times within the thread should be considered correct. i'll repeat the relevant conclusion for you in case you've forgotten.

Here, we use multiple precise geodetic data sets and a simultaneous global estimation platform to determine that the ITRF2008 origin is consistent with the mean CM at the level of 0.5 mm/ yr, and the mean radius of the Earth is not changing to within measurement uncertainty of 0.2 mm/ yr.

I explained a lot of times why the model used in Wu's paper does not apply to a growing Earth. Plate tectonics is embedded in their model because they assume that any horizontal relative displacements correspond to the motion of a rigid plate at the surface of a undeformable globe. Instead, they should consider that horizontal relative displacements are mostly due to the addition of globe surface at mid ocean ridges.

I still have to find someone of this forum that can understand that...

Maybe you can find someone that will not find the full text of a peer reviewed publication where the presenter claims said paper refutes subduction when in fact the research shows the direct opposite. Then maybe you can find someone that won’t try to use the forum rules to enact sanctions for copyright violations for providing a link to the full text instead of owning the obvious quote mining attempt, or ever addressing the absolute fact that subduction is a real thing. Good luck with that.

RS