Just A Theory wrote:

earthexpansion wrote:
(Don't know how many times we have to say this) - For most 'scientists' publishing is about publishing, the 'science' is only the vehicle. If you think otherwise, you need a holiday.

You can say it as many times as you like, it won't make the statement true.

I see you did jump in in front of Gingko after all. Well it looks like he's snatched your hat. 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 - - usually right up in the first sentence of the publication. (That's a warning to everybody they'd better not get under and check the wheels. )

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?

earthexpansion wrote:
... (That's a warning to everybody they'd better not get under and check the wheels. )

That's rich coming from an EE-er, whose bandwagon hasn't even got wheels to check!

Florian wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:Sorry to be a pain in the ass again, but Earth expansion requires a few things that you cannot explain. The first being that you cannot explain expansion of mass or volume...

The expansion of surface justifies the expansion in volume and mass.

Florian wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:
Sub-fucking-duction. The spreading is significantly balanced by subduction at continental margins and, in other places, by plates over-riding each other.

Wishful thinking. The surface of over-fucking-ducted crust has about the same size as the back-arc.

earthexpansion wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

I suggest that you take a look at some actual plateaus. I live on the Colorado plateau and there is very little flat about it.

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?

Florian wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:Sorry to be a pain in the ass again, but Earth expansion requires a few things that you cannot explain. The first being that you cannot explain expansion of mass or volume...

The expansion of surface justifies the expansion in volume and mass.

I think that it might be the other way around. If you could show an expansion in volume and mass then our conclusion of expanding diameter would be justified. As it stands now you have no justification for anything. All you have is some very shaky circumstantial evidence.

earthexpansion wrote:(Don't know how many times we have to say this)

Until you figure out you're wrong I'm sure you'll be repeating your claims ad nauseam.

DavidMcC wrote:
I can only assume that your reference to consensus is an excuse for the fact that most scientists reject EE.

They do not really reject it, they mostly ignore what it is, what are the supporting evidence.

Florian wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
I can only assume that your reference to consensus is an excuse for the fact that most scientists reject EE.

They do not really reject it, they mostly ignore what it is, what are the supporting evidence.

Bullshit assertion. Like you personally know the entire geological scientific community and what they do or don't do.

Yet more fantasy projections Florian.

Erakivnor wrote:
For example you often cite analogy of orogens and glaciers...well, the structure of glaciers flowing is dominated by seracs, i.e. extensional fissures that allow the ice to stretch accommodating the gravity-driven flow.

lemon-creek-glacier-2007.jpg

Now, which are the the characteristics of orogens world wide? Yes...thrusts and folds. (by both geophysics and surface geology)

Moore2007.jpg

Price1988.jpg

I must admit that I agree with @Erakivnor on this particular point. Gravity collapse is a player, but not the main player in orogenesis. mantle upwelling/flows and lithosphere swelling are the main players.

Erakivnor wrote:
So, you're trying to reverse the PT explanation stating that Indonesia is an extensional feature instead of a contractional feature. 1) This is a nonsense because you simply invoke a different "theory" to claim an internal inconsistency of Plate Tectonics.
2)Any geological data to back up your assertion?
3) To support PT there are out there hundreds of shortening due to exposed thrusts in Sunda arc, hundreds (and if you follow tomographies, thousands) of km shortening in the forearc inferred by earthquakes etc etc

I don't think that anybody ever described Indonesia (the whole region delimited by the arc) as a large contractional feature. There are plenty of extensional basin from the South China sea to the Sulu Sea, Celebes Sea Banda Sea. Outward thrusting toward the Indian ocean is a consequence of the expansion of the whole region. I remind you that the expansion is notably fed by the flow from the Tibetan plateau, running through the bottleneck formed by the Sichuan basin and the Eastern Himalayan syntaxis.

earthexpansion wrote:
Vertical exaggeration is x7, .. correction shown in the lower figure to show just how flat the whole collapse and thrusting is.)
It is also easy to see, as collapse and flattening continues, how all those thrusts are rotated to further flatness over time.

I don't presume to speak for Florian, but I think it's what he's saying as well.

Well, I agree that gravitational collapse is an important mechanism but it is clearly not the main mechanism. You think that it is the main mechanism as an adaptation to the change of curvature. But the evidence show the preeminence of mantle flow plowing at the surface.

Light Storm wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:Molten planets (and moons) can expand before cooling and contracting. News at 11.

Your linked article has absolutely no bearing on the hypothesis that the Earth has expanded in the past several hundred million years because the Earth was not molten at any time during that period.

Isn't earth 99% molten?

No. Sole the external core is molten. The volume of magma resulting from partial melting is insignificant compared to the volume of the planet.

Oldskeptic wrote:

earthexpansion wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

I suggest that you take a look at some actual plateaus. I live on the Colorado plateau and there is very little flat about it.

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. 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. Any 'expectation' of the sort is yours, and in the same vein as your observation of the Colorado Plateau "not being flat". If you think it is worth a response you should offer it up for general consideration. Likewise about every collision being exactly the same. See what people think - if they think it's worth answering. (Don't try to put words in my mouth.)

Florian wrote:

earthexpansion wrote:
Vertical exaggeration is x7, .. correction shown in the lower figure to show just how flat the whole collapse and thrusting is.)
It is also easy to see, as collapse and flattening continues, how all those thrusts are rotated to further flatness over time.

I don't presume to speak for Florian, but I think it's what he's saying as well.

Well, I agree that gravitational collapse is an important mechanism but it is clearly not the main mechanism. You think that it is the main mechanism as an adaptation to the change of curvature. But the evidence show the preeminence of mantle flow plowing at the surface.

Well, .. here we might have a bit of a difference, but I really don't know how much... Maybe it does seem people have got that impression. But can't think why since I thought I had stressed the importance of forceful mantle breakthrough of the Pacific (Indonesian bubble) and its equatorial apophyses as splitting open the crust (the Atlantic later going passively along for the ride.)

I think maybe they're focussing on the subsequent point of collapse as being what I say is the *central* issue because they have in their mind about the importance of 'orogenesis' ('mountain building), and can't quite get a grip of the point that there is none, in the sense they are used to thinking. (Sure, I think collapse is the central issue so far as the loopy folding of the circumglobal mountain belt is concerned, and I'll stand by that. I think it is obvious)

The duality of a mantle bubble that forcefully extrudes at the same time as the entire surface of the Earth moves out from the centre is not an easy one to address when it comes to recognising their respective expressions, or gauging the extent of push-pull equilibration. Equilibration of the changing curvature of both bubble and surface is expressed in their common collapse behaviour. Greater rate of outwards movement of the 'bubble' compared to relatively slower outwards movement of what is 'not-bubble' doesn't quite convey the usual meaning of 'uplift', when both are equilibrating (collapsing for one and collapsing and growing for the other) within their own gravitational framework on the scale of the whole Earth. It's different from thinking about 'uplift' on the scale of the fault that moved in the last earthquake - or generally as uplift is used to be thought of in geology. Sure, the (Pacific) mantle is actively breaking through, and sure you can consider it uplift (like the spreading ridge is 'uplifting') but it's more useful (I think - how far it is accurate is another matter) to consider that 'uplift' as effectively static, relative to the equilibrating dynamic of listric-to-flat detachments .. meaning it is *KEEP* uplifting (meaning it is moving outwards from the centre).

Maybe not everyone would agree, and I might be wrong, .. but I see a difference. (And how the Hell you would model it across scales would be like Christmas to Earak there (if he could get the funding). Coupled with the reconstruction that follows, and the huge flat detachments indicated by crust-mantle detachments exposing the ocean floor (Pacific /Indian Oceans mainly, but partly in the Atlantic and Southern Oceans), I think there are real grounds for considering Hawaii could be the displaced 'root' of the bubble.

http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/pacwheel.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/pactomy1.html

The word 'uplift' as it is commonly used is referenced with respect to the datum of sea level, which in Earth expansion predominantly falls over time and translates as observable erosion of the crust (or loosely w.r.t. adjacent terrain). The *mantle* sort of 'uplift' translates as an orders of magnitude greater sort of equilibration, = largely as the 'new curvature'. It's only "uplifting" relative to the old one which is not in equilibrium any more and is collapsing. So is the new really 'uplifting' or just recurving the Earth..

The mantle doesn't collapse in the same way (except to get bits of it sliced off the top as ophiolite belts as the overlying lithosphere collapses - so-called "old ocean floors"; they're not. They're just slices of mantle rock). It GROWS, as Neal Adams quite rightly says, though personally I don't much like the word because of its biological connotations .. (but there is a view etc etc, .. recently here by Nessenius - and of course there is Lovelock's Gaia Principle) (and we all might need to get with it..)

So movement outwards from the centre is not the same thing as uplift. The driver of outwards movement is the circular growth of the Pacific from the periphery of the Indonesian Bubble. It's apophyses (including the later development of the Atlantic) are just "going along for the ride."

If we want to talk about the role of forceful mantle extrusion, then I think we need look no further than how high the volcanoes of the Western Pacific are, .. and there certainly Hawaii is a big volcano, and as I said before *could* represent the root of the whole thing (who knows), .. So to that extent (inclusive of the above) I don't see we're saying that much that's all that different.

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. All they're playing at is mental masturbation. Google orogenic plateaus, any paper, and you'll see what I mean. If your Google-up's the same as mine the only one of any value on the front page (and it's a good one) is :-
http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S07 ... ci_arttext
Take note of the difference in treatment of fact from fiction.

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.

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.

DavidMcC wrote:
Most mountains are under the sea,

If you qualify the global ridge system as "mountains".

DavidMcC wrote:
and not all plate collisions have to throw up whole mountain ranges, under PT, it depends on the thicknesses and relative motion of the colliding plates.

Actually, there are so many counter examples for every tentative scenarios that there are no more true rules... never a good sign for a "unifying" theory.

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.