lucek wrote:

Hardcoreathiest wrote:

Light Storm wrote:

I personally sift through a lot of the information, ideas and perspectives that support expanding/growing earth concepts. It's like the missing piece of a puzzle that just makes to much sense to ignore.
.

James, it seems there is a lot of controversy here, which can be fun to read about, but maybe not if in the trenches

Can you provide an answer to the question that james maxlow has or has not included continental shelves in his videos, or neal adams for that matter. I remember somewhere that James had included then but after being so sure with weaver on this very point, cannot verify that. But surely neal adams have them as they are constructed from the ocean floor map..

I tried searching but dont appears to have the knowledge to find the right terms, as there is nothing coming up.

Look no further then the first post in this thread for Neil. As an example you can see the north sea shrinking away at about 1:20. There are plenty of places were such is obvious.

With Maxlow he provides plenty too,



Again note the Continental shelves dispersing.

It's also a good time to point to the Continental material that doesn't disper as you go back in time but should, Alaska for example.

lucek wrote:
. . .

. . .

Thank you ! just what i was looking for.. am going to have to take some time to understand the ramifications of this

Weaver wrote:Great post. We've also pointed out that the volcanic ranges inland of subduction zones are good demonstrations of plate tectonics, and impossible under expanding planet nonsense - but somehow such scientific observations don't make a dent in the true believers.

Yes but weaver, hold on a second. I have a good point, now do not get the wrong idea with me for suggesting this, but here is the very extremely contraversial idea I am having.

Now traditionally yes you are indeed highly correct. YES, expanding earth theory did traditionally deny that subduction existed..However, the original breakthrough in this area is proposed by James Maxlow.. and it is this

That expanding earth theoy has been integrated by plate tectonics, and is called expansion tectonics

Now you may not have been aware of this development, as its pretty new, and appears to have occurred when Dr James maxlow entered the scene in the 1980's. He has a PhD thesis and book which proposes this.

This comes back to what I was saying about development of theories. For example how to update a theory. It is possible I think for earth expansion theory to become updated, and I believe this is what has happened.

So what happened is this, there is traditional earth expansion theory that denies subduction, and this tends to be popular with the religious and conspiracy theorists..

But then there is another newer more integrative version called expansion tectonics and this is advanced by the actual academics and geologists active in this area. They are a minority, but they work together, publish in journals to this very day.. and yes, they do in fact hold conferences and develop new types of geological software. You can find this online..
Now this is extremely unlike traditional pseudoscience. In traditional pseudoscience you tend to find no small scientific working group at all !

So, I understand this can all seem very contravention but I was writing here proposing a hope, in that perhaps you may thinking about considerations over this. The point is this.. it may be possible to be updating your view so it includes only the actual scientists who advance a theory.

i.e. rather than say religious folk or conspiracy theorists and non scientists that prefer the older versions.

There are no reputable scientists holding this crackpot idea - a few loners publishing in vanity "journals" without peer review doesn't make them reputable, and it doesn't make the bullshit they come with "science."

It IS traditional pseudoscience - small working groups, no mainstream support, handwaving away inconvenient data (like the fucing measured expansion rate, which destroys the claims of an expanding planet), no peer-reviewed papers in reputable journals - all hallmarks of pseudoscience.

Weaver wrote:There are no reputable scientists holding this crackpot idea - a few loners publishing in vanity "journals" without peer review doesn't make them reputable, and it doesn't make the bullshit they come with "science."

It IS traditional pseudoscience - small working groups, no mainstream support, handwaving away inconvenient data (like the fucing measured expansion rate, which destroys the claims of an expanding planet), no peer-reviewed papers in reputable journals - all hallmarks of pseudoscience.

No absolutely not, it is unthinkable what you are saying here. Sorry I have to hold my heart on my throat for one second and claim this assertion as a counterchallenge.

I for example know people involved in areas of science which propose one new but major theoretical only aspect to assist other scientists. Now this theory is supported by many major institutions, and some are highly funded by the US government. The domain of scientists involved in the medical sciences may include 20,000 workers worldwide with doctorates. Yet the development of the theory is carried out by a handful of scientists, and another group say about 30-50 will critique it on their blogs and media sites (academic level sites). And this is for interesting work that others in the field are asking for. Thousands await the answers.

When something is theory only and there is no immediate political impact. For example no live affected, now major systems needing adjusted, no resource re-allocations. Then the working group is very small. The Expansion tectonic group size is about correct, up to about 50 qualified people are involved, and the journals listed on their websites, they are published in. these are acceptable and not vanity.

But alas nobody awaits their answers, so the journals are more reluctant, but this does not impact on the extremely long list of excellent and noteworthy credentials and involved institutions is not like pseudoscience as we are known it

Just because sometimes good science is done by small groups of specialists doesn't mean that all small groups of specialists produce good science.

There is no good science being published by any form of expanding earthers - they ignore inconvenient data; we've seen it here in this thread for years, nearly since the inception.

That they go around patting themselves on the back and declare themselves the only holders of the light of truth doesn't aid their credibility - they still need to produce actual supporting data, and account for discrepancies - such as the satellite measurements of the Earth showing no expansion, which cannot be simply ignored (though they do try).

But then there is another newer more integrative version called expansion tectonics and this is advanced by the actual academics and geologists active in this area. They are a minority, but they work together, publish in journals to this very day.. and yes, they do in fact hold conferences and develop new types of geological software. You can find this online..

Put up or shut up .....

Here are your two "advocates"

Since 2005 J. Marvin Herndon has been advocating for what he calls whole-Earth decompression dynamics, which he describes as a unified theory combining elements of plate tectonics and Earth expansion. He suggests that the solar system's inner rocky planets formed from gas giant precursors by catastrophic loss of their original atmospheres when the primordial Sun ignited, with subsequent decompression and expansion of the rocky remnant planet resulting in decompression cracks at continental margins, which are filled in by volcanic flows and, in Earth's case, by basalts from mid-ocean ridges.[28]

Herndon also proposed that a breeder type natural nuclear reactor exists at Earth's center as the primary source of heat and magnetism, with long-term cyclic activity variations responsible for periodic geomagnetic field reversals, and he proposed a novel explanation for continental fold-mountain formation at locations remote from any tectonic plate subduction zone: as the smaller, more curved Earth expanded its curvature decreased, causing surface folding.[29]

When the necessary technology and research funding becomes available, Herndon's core georeactor proposal could be supported by directional antineutrino spectroscopy, which could also indicate which fission reactions are occurring.[30]

Another present day advocate of an expanding Earth is comics artist Neal Adams, who suggests Earth is growing and not merely expanding, and proposes his ideas within a "Growing Earth-Growing Universe" Theory.[31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth

Herndon is not an earth scientist.....he's one more looney tune physicist

Time to put the nonsense to bed....seriously tiresome.

Hardcoreathiest wrote:

Weaver wrote:Great post. We've also pointed out that the volcanic ranges inland of subduction zones are good demonstrations of plate tectonics, and impossible under expanding planet nonsense - but somehow such scientific observations don't make a dent in the true believers.

Yes but weaver, hold on a second. I have a good point, now do not get the wrong idea with me for suggesting this, but here is the very extremely contraversial idea I am having.

Now traditionally yes you are indeed highly correct. YES, expanding earth theory did traditionally deny that subduction existed..However, the original breakthrough in this area is proposed by James Maxlow.. and it is this

That expanding earth theoy has been integrated by plate tectonics, and is called expansion tectonics

Now you may not have been aware of this development, as its pretty new, and appears to have occurred when Dr James maxlow entered the scene in the 1980's. He has a PhD thesis and book which proposes this.

This comes back to what I was saying about development of theories. For example how to update a theory. It is possible I think for earth expansion theory to become updated, and I believe this is what has happened.

So what happened is this, there is traditional earth expansion theory that denies subduction, and this tends to be popular with the religious and conspiracy theorists..

But then there is another newer more integrative version called expansion tectonics and this is advanced by the actual academics and geologists active in this area. They are a minority, but they work together, publish in journals to this very day.. and yes, they do in fact hold conferences and develop new types of geological software. You can find this online..
Now this is extremely unlike traditional pseudoscience. In traditional pseudoscience you tend to find no small scientific working group at all !

So, I understand this can all seem very contravention but I was writing here proposing a hope, in that perhaps you may thinking about considerations over this. The point is this.. it may be possible to be updating your view so it includes only the actual scientists who advance a theory.

i.e. rather than say religious folk or conspiracy theorists and non scientists that prefer the older versions.

We are quite familiar with Maxlow's work here. I've read his thesis through a couple of times. In general he probably does a more scientific job of it than almost any other proponent of EE; however, even he is a bit arm-wavey when it comes to some crucial details (even when I ignor the mechanisms, or lack thereof, behind it)

I haven't read the book, but unless he has a major Appendix section where he explains in depth his methodology and data for backwards reconstruction of the continents, then his research is still unverifiable, and thus does not adhere to the scientific method.

I found this interesting:
BBC Horizon - "Secrets of the Solar System"
But I suppose the EE crowd will denounce it as a 'conspiracy' to debunk their, er, 'True' version.

Weaver wrote:Just because sometimes good science is done by small groups of specialists doesn't mean that all small groups of specialists produce good science.

There is no good science being published by any form of expanding earthers - they ignore inconvenient data; we've seen it here in this thread for years, nearly since the inception.

That they go around patting themselves on the back and declare themselves the only holders of the light of truth doesn't aid their credibility - they still need to produce actual supporting data, and account for discrepancies - such as the satellite measurements of the Earth showing no expansion, which cannot be simply ignored (though they do try).

Yes absolutely, and excellent points as always. What you say here just cannot be dismissed. In any given sample of researchers some are more conscientiousness than others and may try to ignore inconvenient facts.

I have seen this for myself, including reading through on this thread. It would be controversial to say that some EE proponents are avoiding like that, so let us rest that matter for now rather than causing a problem.

However given even that, it is hard to know who is distracted, or busy and who is actually deliberately avoiding something. I guess a repeated pattern of such behavior present within any given individual would really be the best clue to finding the answer for that. Rather than any one instance. That could also be a logical error, that just one or two cases of not answering a point implies avoidance.

However AFAIK there are in depth and detailed criticism of this satellite data by James Maxlow and his colleagues. So that could in this particular case be one very good example, where contradicting data has thankfully been taken extremely seriously.

Macdoc wrote:

But then there is another newer more integrative version called expansion tectonics and this is advanced by the actual academics and geologists active in this area. They are a minority, but they work together, publish in journals to this very day.. and yes, they do in fact hold conferences and develop new types of geological software. You can find this online..

Put up or shut up .....

Here are your two "advocates"

Since 2005 J. Marvin Herndon has been advocating for what he calls whole-Earth decompression dynamics, which he describes as a unified theory combining elements of plate tectonics and Earth expansion. He suggests that the solar system's inner rocky planets formed from gas giant precursors by catastrophic loss of their original atmospheres when the primordial Sun ignited, with subsequent decompression and expansion of the rocky remnant planet resulting in decompression cracks at continental margins, which are filled in by volcanic flows and, in Earth's case, by basalts from mid-ocean ridges.[28]

Herndon also proposed that a breeder type natural nuclear reactor exists at Earth's center as the primary source of heat and magnetism, with long-term cyclic activity variations responsible for periodic geomagnetic field reversals, and he proposed a novel explanation for continental fold-mountain formation at locations remote from any tectonic plate subduction zone: as the smaller, more curved Earth expanded its curvature decreased, causing surface folding.[29]

When the necessary technology and research funding becomes available, Herndon's core georeactor proposal could be supported by directional antineutrino spectroscopy, which could also indicate which fission reactions are occurring.[30]

Another present day advocate of an expanding Earth is comics artist Neal Adams, who suggests Earth is growing and not merely expanding, and proposes his ideas within a "Growing Earth-Growing Universe" Theory.[31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth

Herndon is not an earth scientist.....he's one more looney tune physicist

Time to put the nonsense to bed....seriously tiresome.

Well under are none of the many qualified geologists who support EE mentioned there on this page? There are many yet Wiki mentions two people obtrusively that are not. There is something wrong with that page.

It is very important at this current stage we could be aware that James Maxlow was handed the mantle of world leading EE researcher by the previous James Carey.

http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/james-maxlow/

Now here is something very interesting. James Maxlow himself has a PhD for this subject. Unlike at this time that it was his EE thesis which earned James Maxlow an excellent PhD !

ginckgo wrote:

Hardcoreathiest wrote:

Weaver wrote:Great post. We've also pointed out that the volcanic ranges inland of subduction zones are good demonstrations of plate tectonics, and impossible under expanding planet nonsense - but somehow such scientific observations don't make a dent in the true believers.

Yes but weaver, hold on a second. I have a good point, now do not get the wrong idea with me for suggesting this, but here is the very extremely contraversial idea I am having.

Now traditionally yes you are indeed highly correct. YES, expanding earth theory did traditionally deny that subduction existed..However, the original breakthrough in this area is proposed by James Maxlow.. and it is this

That expanding earth theoy has been integrated by plate tectonics, and is called expansion tectonics

Now you may not have been aware of this development, as its pretty new, and appears to have occurred when Dr James maxlow entered the scene in the 1980's. He has a PhD thesis and book which proposes this.

This comes back to what I was saying about development of theories. For example how to update a theory. It is possible I think for earth expansion theory to become updated, and I believe this is what has happened.

So what happened is this, there is traditional earth expansion theory that denies subduction, and this tends to be popular with the religious and conspiracy theorists..

But then there is another newer more integrative version called expansion tectonics and this is advanced by the actual academics and geologists active in this area. They are a minority, but they work together, publish in journals to this very day.. and yes, they do in fact hold conferences and develop new types of geological software. You can find this online..
Now this is extremely unlike traditional pseudoscience. In traditional pseudoscience you tend to find no small scientific working group at all !

So, I understand this can all seem very contravention but I was writing here proposing a hope, in that perhaps you may thinking about considerations over this. The point is this.. it may be possible to be updating your view so it includes only the actual scientists who advance a theory.

i.e. rather than say religious folk or conspiracy theorists and non scientists that prefer the older versions.

We are quite familiar with Maxlow's work here. I've read his thesis through a couple of times. In general he probably does a more scientific job of it than almost any other proponent of EE; however, even he is a bit arm-wavey when it comes to some crucial details (even when I ignor the mechanisms, or lack thereof, behind it)

I haven't read the book, but unless he has a major Appendix section where he explains in depth his methodology and data for backwards reconstruction of the continents, then his research is still unverifiable, and thus does not adhere to the scientific method.

thank you. yes, this I have to check !

Hardcoreathiest wrote:

Macdoc wrote:

But then there is another newer more integrative version called expansion tectonics and this is advanced by the actual academics and geologists active in this area. They are a minority, but they work together, publish in journals to this very day.. and yes, they do in fact hold conferences and develop new types of geological software. You can find this online..

Put up or shut up .....

Here are your two "advocates"

Since 2005 J. Marvin Herndon has been advocating for what he calls whole-Earth decompression dynamics, which he describes as a unified theory combining elements of plate tectonics and Earth expansion. He suggests that the solar system's inner rocky planets formed from gas giant precursors by catastrophic loss of their original atmospheres when the primordial Sun ignited, with subsequent decompression and expansion of the rocky remnant planet resulting in decompression cracks at continental margins, which are filled in by volcanic flows and, in Earth's case, by basalts from mid-ocean ridges.[28]

Herndon also proposed that a breeder type natural nuclear reactor exists at Earth's center as the primary source of heat and magnetism, with long-term cyclic activity variations responsible for periodic geomagnetic field reversals, and he proposed a novel explanation for continental fold-mountain formation at locations remote from any tectonic plate subduction zone: as the smaller, more curved Earth expanded its curvature decreased, causing surface folding.[29]

When the necessary technology and research funding becomes available, Herndon's core georeactor proposal could be supported by directional antineutrino spectroscopy, which could also indicate which fission reactions are occurring.[30]

Another present day advocate of an expanding Earth is comics artist Neal Adams, who suggests Earth is growing and not merely expanding, and proposes his ideas within a "Growing Earth-Growing Universe" Theory.[31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth

Herndon is not an earth scientist.....he's one more looney tune physicist

Time to put the nonsense to bed....seriously tiresome.

Well under are none of the many qualified geologists who support EE mentioned there on this page? There are many yet Wiki mentions two people obtrusively that are not. There is something wrong with that page.

It is very important at this current stage we could be aware that James Maxlow was handed the mantle of world leading EE researcher by the previous James Carey.

http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/james-maxlow/

Now here is something very interesting. James Maxlow himself has a PhD for this subject. Unlike at this time that it was his EE thesis which earned James Maxlow an excellent PhD !

Because that's how science REALLY works, you see - not just little, isolated groups of mutual admirers publishing in vanity journals, but handing down pseudo-titles of leadership from one person to another.

Instead of continually pointing us toward Maxlow in a general way, how about you provide the specific arguments (with maths) to refute the questions raised?

Because we've already gone over his nonsense before, and don't have time to waste digging through it all to see whether you are at all right.

Weaver wrote:

Hardcoreathiest wrote:

Macdoc wrote:

But then there is another newer more integrative version called expansion tectonics and this is advanced by the actual academics and geologists active in this area. They are a minority, but they work together, publish in journals to this very day.. and yes, they do in fact hold conferences and develop new types of geological software. You can find this online..

Put up or shut up .....

Here are your two "advocates"

Since 2005 J. Marvin Herndon has been advocating for what he calls whole-Earth decompression dynamics, which he describes as a unified theory combining elements of plate tectonics and Earth expansion. He suggests that the solar system's inner rocky planets formed from gas giant precursors by catastrophic loss of their original atmospheres when the primordial Sun ignited, with subsequent decompression and expansion of the rocky remnant planet resulting in decompression cracks at continental margins, which are filled in by volcanic flows and, in Earth's case, by basalts from mid-ocean ridges.[28]

Herndon also proposed that a breeder type natural nuclear reactor exists at Earth's center as the primary source of heat and magnetism, with long-term cyclic activity variations responsible for periodic geomagnetic field reversals, and he proposed a novel explanation for continental fold-mountain formation at locations remote from any tectonic plate subduction zone: as the smaller, more curved Earth expanded its curvature decreased, causing surface folding.[29]

When the necessary technology and research funding becomes available, Herndon's core georeactor proposal could be supported by directional antineutrino spectroscopy, which could also indicate which fission reactions are occurring.[30]

Another present day advocate of an expanding Earth is comics artist Neal Adams, who suggests Earth is growing and not merely expanding, and proposes his ideas within a "Growing Earth-Growing Universe" Theory.[31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth

Herndon is not an earth scientist.....he's one more looney tune physicist

Time to put the nonsense to bed....seriously tiresome.

Well under are none of the many qualified geologists who support EE mentioned there on this page? There are many yet Wiki mentions two people obtrusively that are not. There is something wrong with that page.

It is very important at this current stage we could be aware that James Maxlow was handed the mantle of world leading EE researcher by the previous James Carey.

http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/james-maxlow/

Now here is something very interesting. James Maxlow himself has a PhD for this subject. Unlike at this time that it was his EE thesis which earned James Maxlow an excellent PhD !

Because that's how science REALLY works, you see - not just little, isolated groups of mutual admirers publishing in vanity journals, but handing down pseudo-titles of leadership from one person to another.

Instead of continually pointing us toward Maxlow in a general way, how about you provide the specific arguments (with maths) to refute the questions raised?

Because we've already gone over his nonsense before, and don't have time to waste digging through it all to see whether you are at all right.

Yes, Apologies and I absolutely should stay off this subject until there is nonrefundable mathematical evidence. But just one last thing please. It is related to the mathematics you discussed.

For example I must tell you at this stage of proceedings that there is a researcher who believes the mass accumulation of planets has been oversimplified due to previously unaccounted for changes of forces as planet forms with varying densities, there is variable center of mass which would alter our perspective of every planetary mass.

But I have not gained his thesis currently. So please accept my apologies as I believe this to be a strong misuse of your valuable time.

And also thank your for having been an asset to our world that such brave people like yourself are willing and capable to throw themselves near harms way for their citizens.

For those who might be interested, here are some links to papers re the Talkeetna Volcanic Arc Formation, which contain some additional information re the accretionary history of South Central Alaska and its many and varied terranes.

http://www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/hacker/viz/Rioux10_Talkeetna_geochronology.pdf

http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/6/1051.full

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1124/of2006-1124.pdf

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-scien ... SKCN0XH2G9

EE does not require us to believe that a breeding pair of monkeys rafted 100 miles in open ocean 21 million years ago! As far fetched as that would be, II still find it more implausible that two continents collided to form a perfect isthmus at Panama.

PleaseReadThis wrote:I still find it more implausible that two continents collided to form a perfect isthmus at Panama.

Nobody you're addressing really much cares what you find implausible, given your obvious lack of effort to understand the science that's presented to you. Your objection is not different to rejecting the very idea of oceanic plate subduction. The Isthmus of Panama is dominantly a result of island arc volcanism and oceanic sediment accretion. If you don't accept island arc volcanism because you don't accept subduction of oceanic plates, you're not going to progress. If you accept subduction, you're going to have to reject EE.

The thing about Creationism, PRT, is that proponents are faking it if they don't reject ALL of science. The EE contingent just shows that some creationists don't care where they start in dismantling hard-won scientific knowledge. The attacks on TOE are down the tubes, or you wouldn't be trying this shit.

Science is tough titties for anyone comfortable only with believing whatever the fuck he wants to. You can't cherry-pick which theories to reject with pseudoscientific rationalizations and which not.

PleaseReadThis wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-monkeys-idUSKCN0XH2G9

EE does not require us to believe that a breeding pair of monkeys rafted 100 miles in open ocean 21 million years ago! As far fetched as that would be, II still find it more implausible that two continents collided to form a perfect isthmus at Panama.

What 2 continents are they? Central america is made of parts of the North American plate, the Caribbean plate, the Cocos plate, the South American plate, and the Nazca plate. OK you did mention Panama so North America doesn't come into play.

But this is about EE - don't you know you're supposed to ignore actual continental plates, and only look at the bits which are above sea level?

Come on here, people - you need to pseudoscience better than that!!!

PleaseReadThis wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-monkeys-idUSKCN0XH2G9

EE does not require us to believe that a breeding pair of monkeys rafted 100 miles in open ocean 21 million years ago! As far fetched as that would be, II still find it more implausible that two continents collided to form a perfect isthmus at Panama.

Incredulity from over simplification. Try understanding the complete picture before writing it off as implausible.

PleaseReadThis wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-monkeys-idUSKCN0XH2G9

EE does not require us to believe that a breeding pair of monkeys rafted 100 miles in open ocean 21 million years ago! As far fetched as that would be, II still find it more implausible that two continents collided to form a perfect isthmus at Panama.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/va ... 17415.html

...Here we present the first description of a fossil monkey recovered from the North American landmass, the oldest known crown platyrrhine, from a precisely dated 20.9-Ma layer in the Las Cascadas Formation in the Panama Canal Basin, Panama. This discovery suggests that family-level diversification of extant New World monkeys occurred in the tropics, with new divergence estimates for Cebidae between 22 and 25 Ma, and provides the oldest fossil evidence for mammalian interchange between South and North America....

http://www.academia.edu/182638/Paleogeo ... _New_World

...Our data indicated that the most favorableperiod for a possible migration was between 40 and 50 million years ago. This evi-dence, coupled with favorable westward paleocurrents and paleowinds from Africacould have facilitated a transatlantic crossing via floating islands....

Floating monkeys? Expanding Earths? I think the truth is so obvious that most of you have failed to see it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SESI19h4wDo