Weaver wrote :-

Fine - what year did "1 week after" the KT mass extinction event fall on?

Ok , .. So I guess we're saying the same thing - dying out over a long period of time, but individual killing events of which there would have been many, being highly defined. I wasn't sure what people were saying on this in relation to expansion without doing a lot of back-reading of the quickquips, which are not easy to follow without the initial context, but just saying the 'KT" event as it expresses impact or volcanism is not an issue for expansion. A large meteorite impact could well cause a massive volcanic event, but this would pale against a similar and much more protracted breakout as would have accompanied the initial rupture of Pangaea that formed the Pacific, which is much more supportive anyway of relatively explosive blowout (expansion), than it is of 'business-as-usual' convecting Plate Tectonics.

earthexpansion wrote: A large meteorite impact could well cause a massive volcanic event, but this would pale against a similar and much more protracted breakout as would have accompanied the initial rupture of Pangaea that formed the Pacific, which is much more supportive anyway of relatively explosive blowout (expansion), than it is of 'business-as-usual' convecting Plate Tectonics.

Ah, no. There's no evidence of blowout - and if you're so convinced that this correlation, how do you explain the far larger Permian extinction event?

earthexpansion wrote:Hackenslash (still swinging) wrote :-

energy is fucking mass.

..and no doubt (as you would like) length as well. Hey, ..Slash, .. if the Good Lord had meant it to be, he would have seen to it earlier. You should give it up, .. you'll only hurt yourself. Put it away please and let's have some decorum. No good trying to impress everybody.

Keep your fucking personalisations and comments on my posting style to yourself, or alternatively, go tell somebody for whom your opinion is worth two shits, because I couldn't give a flying fuck what you think. Emmy Noether is not going away, no matter how much the ignorant would like her to.

Again, is anybody going to deal with the fatal blow she deals to this illiterate bum-custard?

I'm sorry for being so late, but I have been busy with the work for some time.
And it needs time to reply to some issues presented here (challenging! I need to study for them, this means I am learning something by the discussion even if I do no agree with the geology proposed ! ).

I want firs shortly address the GPS topic (noting that I am not an expert in the field). I want to address it in the view expansionVSconstant radius because someone told me that subduction is an assumption and expansion is an inference.
They both can be and assumption or an inference either.
Pre: vertical errors with GPS are averaged on the available year timespan, and the trends are inferred. thus "long"-term vertical behaviour and errors (in both space, and velocity) can be constrained.
Images below are chosen by Sella et al. 2002 JGR



and Argus et al. 2011 G^3.


Then, just observing this it is pretty clear to me that respect to an orbital reference frame the kinematics of Plates fits quite well the common "assumption of opposing movement of plates at convergent margins. But I will assume that following a "relativistic" way of thinking vectors at mid ocean ridges might be decoupled by vectors at continental edges and can not be related to the relative movements close to the trenches. This might be true from a first sight, but looking better at the map the trend is that Asia and America are moving one against each other closing the Pacific (while in an Expanding earth context I would expect the move further from one each other). In addition we have no active tectonics in between that might justify a mechanical decoupling between ridges and trenches in the GPS measurements. Moreover seamounts testify quite well the fact that the movement of the plate is really towards the trenches because their ages are decoupled by the magnetic anomalies.

Well I want only to point out that one can interpret the GPS data in an EE view or in a PT view as follows:
1)EE: I see seafloor expansion, Movements of continents are overthrusting Oceans (the relativistic point of view, or hypothesis or assumption if you want) but the net expansion is nonzero because movements are decoupled: I INFER that the Earth grew.
2) PT: I see seafloor expansion, movements of continents are slower (deep rooted?) than the seafloor and net convergence is nonzero: I INFER that the Earth is not growing.

In the case of Hypotesizing something it's simply the reverse (which is what all geologists, both EE or PT geologists, did in the past). I make the EE or constant radius hypothesis and deduce what follows.

[well, then I look at double couple earthquake mechanisms, age relationships of backarcs, a-symmetry of orogens, Earthquake distributions and I have no doubts about picking the second option...only looking at the kinematics! no dynamics involved]

About previous images and comments by @Florian:
The map of Anatolia is a classical example of the slab rollback "pull" in my opinion, however ignoring my personal opinion that map only shows that Anatolia moves towards Africa [the reference frame is the Europe]. Still it depends on what you assume: if you assume that the Anatolia is an active side then oit overthrusts the Aegean ocean, if you assume subduction then Africa is the active plate. Again I don't see how this can support EE (or neither can disprove it). If you isolate that feature from the geological context you can think in both ways. Thinking on a wider view I see a net GPS movement of Europe towards Africa which is consistent with geological record....Tethys now in the mantle.


End of the Episode for now. I've run out of time.
Next Episode: Stress, stress transfer, Earthquake (with which I am much more confident )

Weaver wrote :-

Ah, no. There's no evidence of blowout - and if you're so convinced that this correlation, how do you explain the far larger Permian extinction event?

"Blowout" (mantle extrusion) is a protracted event with early continental expression in the Permo-Trias. (Russian traps, and the Emeishan Traps in Southern China), and the breakthrough of the ocean floors across the planet is the evidence for it. Its collapsed expression remains as the Indonesian Arc around its southern boundary, and the scissored-open remainder preserved as the ("back-arc") basins of the Western Pacific as far as the Russian Peninsula. The 'bubble' was the focus of forceful equatorial mantle breakthrough that subsequently developed the Pacific. There is plenty of room for earlier (Permo-triassic) extinctions in it according to volcanic events on a much smaller Earth (e.g., Russian traps.) ( And of course not all extinctions are necessarily catastrophic.)

The terminology for geological time is from palaeontology and finely divided. Structural events are broader and
more inclusive. Permian extinction is included.

Hakenslash wrote :

Keep your fucking personalisations and comments on my posting style to yourself, or alternatively, go tell somebody for whom your opinion is worth two shits, because I couldn't give a flying fuck what you think. Emmy Noether is not going away, no matter how much the ignorant would like her to. Again, is anybody going to deal with the fatal blow she deals to this illiterate bum-custard?

Gee, .. Emmy, you're just about the only one around here wants to talk to me. We could be an item, 'cept I'm told I have to watch my language. You must be a plant, .. a moderator's moll of sorts, eh?.. operating as some kind of jihadist sock puppet and talking big, as Mancunian woman should, to encourage conversation. I'm a bit that gentle way as well. What say we team up? I'll set them up, you do the talking, and whoever's your pimp will give us protection. Let's clean this place up (Mealy-mouthed wankers the lot of them, rabitting on about the size of this and the size of that.) ( No wonder your pissed) . What do you say?

Re. GENERAL MODNOTE.
( Think I made my point quite well. Make of it what you like.)

earthexpansion wrote:Re. GENERAL MODNOTE.
( Think I made my point quite well. Make of it what you like.)

If you go back and review you'll notice that hackenslash's invective is reserved wholly for your expressed ideas and not your person. If you identify with those views to the extent that you find a robust criticism of them challenges you personally then this is not something anyone can do anything about. As mentioned, making an issue out of someone's posting style aside from its content is a distracting irrelevance. Nobody is afforded special protection under the guidelines just as noone's views are automatically immunised against robust criticism and challenges. The best way to shut The Slasher up is to demonstrate to him, and the rest of us, how and why you are correct.





edit: for clarrity

Bingo!

Thwoth wrote : -

If you go back and review you'll notice that hackenslash's invective is reserved wholly for your expressed ideas and not your person. If you identify with those views to the extent that you find a robust criticism of them challenges you personally then this is not something anyone can do anything about. As mentioned, making an issue out of someone's posting style aside from its content is a distracting irrelevance. Nobody is afforded special protection under the guidelines just as noone's views are automatically immunised against robust criticism and challenges. The best way to shut The Slasher up is to demonstrate to him, and the rest of us, how and why you are correct.

Not remarking in any way about your person but just expressing a view, .. I think your fucking view is likewise shit mate, and if you as a person happen to identify with that then unfortunately nothing can be done about it. The point I was demonstrating was that any forum suchlike banter is highly disruptive and he should have been moderated off long ago. It didn't take much from me to make the point either, and your jumping in on his behalf reinforces it (in_my_view)

If everyone engages in offensive language to "express views", as slasher does, or as your intervention appears to validate, I don't see that you have much of a forum going at all, if everyone has to be stepping around the invective that he's putting around.

So let me ask you, If I were to hang around expressing views in the same manner as the slasher, .. just views you understand, maybe in the company of a few 'friends' that could be rustled up (and always taking deliberate care of course, not to comment on anybody's person as you observe), are you saying that would be an acceptable contribution to debate? Because if you are then I think you are dribbling a whole lot more "shit arsewater" than he is.

Just my view of course, .. But if you find within it a certain smell attaches to your person, then there's not a great deal can be done about - except maybe everybody leaves the forum to escape it.

Which given the topic (and as I suspected at the start), just might well be the intention why suchlike as he are encouraged to remain around.

hackenslash wrote:Bingo!

Well? .. What about it slash, .. you and me, express a few views around here, .. see what they say.. You'll need to switch from the beer to the hard stuff though. But this is a campaign of views you understand, .. we can't have you dribbling that spew over people's persons, then commenting on it..

Offensive language? That words could have such power sounds a fuck of a lot like magical thinking to me. Hardly surprising, then, that you support the fatuous rectal masala that is EE, what with its magical mass-from-nowhere and all...

Oh, and I couldn't give a shit about your views. Your views and two shits will buy you two shits at today's exchange rate. I'm only interested in what you can demonstrate.

My eight year old boy can muster better offensive language than that post had.

So...

If space itself is expanding, as evidenced by the way some distant galaxies appear to be moving away from us faster than the speed of light, then the space between the earth and the sun must have also been less, billions of years ago. Why is there no evidence in the last billion years that the earth was very hot? How has life managed to exist for billions of years on earth, when it requires the narrow range of temperatures for liquid water?

Perhaps matter itself is expanding together with space. This may have kept the relative distance between the earth and the sun fairly constant.

Erakivnor wrote:I'm sorry for being so late, but I have been busy with the work for some time.
And it needs time to reply to some issues presented here (challenging! I need to study for them, this means I am learning something by the discussion even if I do no agree with the geology proposed ! ).

That is a good sign if you need time to elaborate a reply. I also remarked that the quality of a post is proportional to the time I need to elaborate a reply. It happened once that I spent a couple of days reading a ton of papers to get a good grasp at the subject of a single post, and finally write a reply. So sure, in this case, it is a win-win situation. I'm sure we can learn a lot.

Erakivnor wrote:I want firs shortly address the GPS topic (noting that I am not an expert in the field). I want to address it in the view expansionVSconstant radius because someone told me that subduction is an assumption and expansion is an inference.

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

Erakivnor wrote:
They both can be and assumption or an inference either.
Pre: vertical errors with GPS are averaged on the available year timespan, and the trends are inferred. thus "long"-term vertical behaviour and errors (in both space, and velocity) can be constrained.
Images below are chosen by Sella et al. 2002 JGR

The attachment Sella1.png is no longer available

The attachment Sella2.jpg is no longer available

and Argus et al. 2011 G^3.

The attachment Argus.jpg is no longer available

Then, just observing this it is pretty clear to me that respect to an orbital reference frame the kinematics of Plates fits quite well the common "assumption of opposing movement of plates at convergent margins.

Keep in mind that in this representation, sole the horizontal components of velocity vectors is represented on a projection of constant size, in an arbitrary referential (probably NNR, here). But we really want to measure the deformation of the shape of Earth.
The choice of referential is very important for the interpretations. For example Crespi et al (2006) Geophys. J. Int. demonstrated that considering the eastward mantle flow, a referential with a lithosphere net rotation of 13.4 cm better matches geological constraints:


That kind of change the perspective, isn'it?

Erakivnor wrote:
But I will assume that following a "relativistic" way of thinking vectors at mid ocean ridges might be decoupled by vectors at continental edges and can not be related to the relative movements close to the trenches. This might be true from a first sight, but looking better at the map the trend is that Asia and America are moving one against each other closing the Pacific (while in an Expanding earth context I would expect the move further from one each other).

This expectation is incorrect because you assume an isotropic expansion. In reality, it is strongly anisotropic. In particular, the southern hemisphere is expanding much faster than the northern hemisphere (that's why the southern hemisphere is more oceanic). It can be seen in the latitudinal variation of spreading rates at MORs.
So if the model does not take into account the deformations of Earth, it would appear that the northern hemisphere is shrinking (!).

Erakivnor wrote:
In addition we have no active tectonics in between that might justify a mechanical decoupling between ridges and trenches in the GPS measurements.

Actually, the opposite is true. The absence of active tectonics in between ridges and trenches demonstrate that they are mechanicaly decoupled in the horizontal dimension. In the expanding Earth, mechanical coupling is irrelevant, since the lithosphere dynamics is controlled by the mantle.

Erakivnor wrote:
Moreover seamounts testify quite well the fact that the movement of the plate is really towards the trenches because their ages are decoupled by the magnetic anomalies.

By seamounts I guess you mean seamount chains like the Emperor chain? Seamount chains is just another evidence of the asymmetry of the expansion.

Erakivnor wrote:
Well I want only to point out that one can interpret the GPS data in an EE view or in a PT view as follows:
1)EE: I see seafloor expansion, Movements of continents are overthrusting Oceans (the relativistic point of view, or hypothesis or assumption if you want) but the net expansion is nonzero because movements are decoupled: I INFER that the Earth grew.
2) PT: I see seafloor expansion, movements of continents are slower (deep rooted?) than the seafloor and net convergence is nonzero: I INFER that the Earth is not growing.

In the case of Hypotesizing something it's simply the reverse (which is what all geologists, both EE or PT geologists, did in the past). I make the EE or constant radius hypothesis and deduce what follows.

Again, the expansion is not an hypothesis, it is a direct inference from the geodata. The geological data show that there is no significant destruction of lithosphere to counterbalance the accretion at the MORs=> surface of Earth increases => Earth's size increases.

Erakivnor wrote:
[well, then I look at double couple earthquake mechanisms,

Beach balls do not help to discriminate overthrusting vs undertrhusting.

Erakivnor wrote:age relationships of backarcs,

age relationships of back-arcs in the Philippine sea leave no doubt that the back-arcs only take the place of static Pacific lithosphere.

Erakivnor wrote:a-symmetry of orogens

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

Erakivnor wrote:
, Earthquake distributions

Double Benioff zones are compatible with mantle-driven geodynamics.

Erakivnor wrote: and I have no doubts about picking the second option...only looking at the kinematics! no dynamics involved]

The dynamics is the key!

Erakivnor wrote:About previous images and comments by @[color=#CC0000][b]Florian:[/b][/color]
The map of Anatolia is a classical example of the slab rollback "pull" in my opinion, however ignoring my personal opinion that map only shows that Anatolia moves towards Africa [the reference frame is the Europe].

More precisely, it shows that anatolia flows across a static substratum constituted by Africa/the Mediterranean sea/Europe.
And the rollback is mantle driven.

Erakivnor wrote: Still it depends on what you assume: if you assume that the Anatolia is an active side then oit overthrusts the Aegean ocean, if you assume subduction then Africa is the active plate.

Again, GPS reveals that the northern margin of Africa is static relatively to europe. So the only possible interpretation is that, anatolia is flowing across a static region. And of course, that motion is mantle-driven: mantle upwelling below eastern anatolia start to flow westward, then the flow bend southward heading toward the North African margin.

Erakivnor wrote: Again I don't see how this can support EE (or neither can disprove it).

It negates the hypothesis of subduction under Europe. The same reasoning applies for every active margins.

Erakivnor wrote:If you isolate that feature from the geological context you can think in both ways. Thinking on a wider view I see a net GPS movement of Europe towards Africa which is consistent with geological record....Tethys now in the mantle.

What is in the mantle is limited to what was on the path of the anatolian flow. And this is true for every active margins (see Philippine sea above).

Landrew wrote:So...

If space itself is expanding, as evidenced by the way some distant galaxies appear to be moving away from us faster than the speed of light, then the space between the earth and the sun must have also been less, billions of years ago.

No. The distance between Earth and the Sun does not increase because they attract each other (gravity). The increase in distance related to space expansion only happens between object that are not under their mutual gravitational attraction (like two distant galaxies).

Landrew wrote:So...

If space itself is expanding, as evidenced by the way some distant galaxies appear to be moving away from us faster than the speed of light, then the space between the earth and the sun must have also been less, billions of years ago. Why is there no evidence in the last billion years that the earth was very hot? How has life managed to exist for billions of years on earth, when it requires the narrow range of temperatures for liquid water?

Perhaps matter itself is expanding together with space. This may have kept the relative distance between the earth and the sun fairly constant.

Simple. Space is expanding at 74.2 ±3.6 kilometers/second/megaparsec. For the distance between the earth and the sun that's 359.731751 nm/s. At that speed the acceleration of gravity dwarfs the expansion. For dark energy to become an important factor at all you need distances in tens of light years.

Florian wrote:

Landrew wrote:So...

If space itself is expanding, as evidenced by the way some distant galaxies appear to be moving away from us faster than the speed of light, then the space between the earth and the sun must have also been less, billions of years ago.

No. The distance between Earth and the Sun does not increase because they attract each other (gravity). The increase in distance related to space expansion only happens between object that are not under their mutual gravitational attraction (like two distant galaxies).

Close but no cigar.