To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Pangaea Vs. Expanding Earth
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories

gman
I am just wondering what the general consensus on PHYORG as to what really happened. I think the earth expanded. I don't know though if it has been a gradual event or had it happened relatively quickly. And what element expanded it? It is it water? I don't believe that it is the accumulation of rocks falling to earth.(meteors) I think the expansion came from the light. Yet would light have to be a particle to do this?
ImmortalCoil
Refuting continental drift is pretty new to me. You'd better have a good source.

To the best of my knowledge, Pangaea and the the history of land masses on Earth are very well known and have many obvious telltale signs present today also.
Enthalpy
Expanding Earth already sounded bizarre almost a century ago.
Buy a more recent book.
Pan
Are you effing serious? huh.gif
gman
QUOTE (ImmortalCoil+Jun 2 2007, 10:33 PM)
Refuting continental drift is pretty new to me. You'd better have a good source.

To the best of my knowledge, Pangaea and the the history of land masses on Earth are very well known and have many obvious telltale signs present today also.

my source is observational evidence.

My source is youtube. LOL Don't laugh.

Type "Expanding Earth" on youtube.... Get back with me when you see what I am looking at.

Please do tell me if I am wrong.

The pieces fit perfectly and it makes loads more since then the "pangea" continental drift idea.

They had this idea in the 60's and I don't really see any believable evedance to the contrary.

So why do we not look at it like this today?

And if this is so then what can we conclude or learn from this?

There is also a debunking video on the matter which is pretty good yet I have some issues with his debunking video also... ie. He calculates on a per year. Yet wouldnt a earth year change in terms of universal time as it grows? Watch it.


Peace,Al
Enthalpy
"Please do tell me if I am wrong"
Yes, you're.
You're welcome.
Pan

QUOTE
So why do we not look at it like this today?


Good question, could it be that the movement of plates has been directly measured, and plate tectonics, including subduction correctly describes a multitude of different phenomena (ie there is actually evidence for it) to the satisfaction of skeptical geologists and geophysicists? Meanwhile, the expanding earth is crankage from creation scientists.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
So why do we not look at it like this today?


Good question, could it be that the movement of plates has been directly measured, and plate tectonics, including subduction correctly describes a multitude of different phenomena (ie there is actually evidence for it) to the satisfaction of skeptical geologists and geophysicists? Meanwhile, the expanding earth is crankage from creation scientists.

And if this is so then what can we conclude or learn from this?


We'd conclude our satellites would be descending at an anomalously fast rate, and we haven't a clue about geophysics or conservation of mass/energy.

QUOTE
There is also a debunking video on the matter which is pretty good yet I have some issues with his debunking video also... ie. He calculates on a per year. Yet wouldnt a earth year change in terms of universal time as it grows? Watch it.


What, like relativity wise? Or just taking longer to go around the sun? Either way, he is describing the rates that would need to be observed on Earth to have the Earth expand so, so the length of the year is immaterial.
Latrosicarius
QUOTE (Enthalpy+Jun 4 2007, 03:27 PM)
Program scheduled for MS-C 3QFY07.
Yes, you're.

I've never seen a sentence phased like this, although strictly speaking it grammatically makes sense. Odd, nonetheless.
gman
Yes I'm. Or not.

Well I guess since there is no argument for global expansion on here, then it leads me to believe that is not really real. Yet there are some things that bother me. And if you think I am a creationist go back and read some of my post, however I wont rule out an Idea just because I don't fallow a particular sect/cult. ie. Christian nor scientist nor any other cult that discount ideas because of their own little rules. Wrong I may be, yet there are some things that still are not totally convincing. Given what I know about angular momentum and gravity. It seems unlikely that all of the land mass on earth would have been held up in one location and the rest of the earth water.... Not probable unless the globe was smaller right. What held the land mass.. was it a big dike not allowing the land to move about then all piling up in to one area. Not likely.
Yet all of the pieces fit really well as the globe shrinks until where there is one land around the entire surface. This unlikely just coincidence.
Also there or other studies that show how some moons and other planets have increased. If these planets can expand then why not earth?
Another question in my mind is; Can there be tectonic plates as well as global expansion? Why could they not have both? Also this per year accumulation of matter on the planet may not be accurate if more matter was accumulated at any given time. No one is to say that another system may have expelled matter at a higher rate for a short period of time... maybe through CMEs from the sun or some other irregular interface. The debunking video doesn't even look at this as an option, and I think neither are yall. But I may well be wrong but no one has totally convinced me yet. Thanks though for the enlightenment.
Further more... Every living orginism that we know of grows. I think...
Is it too science fiction to say that the planets and the solar system is/are living things. Bet you cant prove that wrong either.

Peace n love, Al



Skeptical
gman,

Where was the earth's water when it was "smaller" according to this theory?

I watched the video. It seems completely contrived in how the continents are rotated, probably shrunk in size disproportionately, and how they are fit together. Yeah, looks kind of slick, but the only way to know whether they really "fit" as this guy claims is to look at the program he used to generate the images to ensure there isn't any "funny business" going on there. Can you tell, for example, that portions of North America weren't squeezed in some areas and enlarged in others to make it "fit" as the film goes? And note that he only shows a rotating version so you only see half of the planet at a time. Who knows what is happening on the other side to make things "fit".
Enthalpy
Well, a few elements:

Continents aren't heavier than oceans. Continental matter floats higher than oceanic floor because oceanic floor is denser.

Moons, planets etc condensed from smaller bits through accretion. This was at the beginning of the solar system, it's over for quite a while now. The amount of matter arriving to Earth is precisely known and is small.

Better: we can measure precisely (I mean, cm precise!) all distances. So without needing any theory nor believe, we see a constant diameter, we see plates moving.

And we see subductions, which exist in the right explanation.

Living Earth? I think my cat has the answer.
mbittick
When Pangaea was present, there may have been other smaller continent on the opposite side also. Subduction and tectonic shift may have just buried it back into the mantle.?.... who knows.


Somebody should do a CG animation.... with the continental drift etc... but show it without water... the sub-marine levels marked blue as on a some maps.... but that way it shows more features and detail than BLANK big blue areas of water. Show globally... above and below the water.. the theoretical tectonic plate movements that the theory is based on.

Would clear it up for those who do not understand.


But also... gman.... though mistaken (in my and most opinions)...
It's good to see that you still have an open mind.
peacespeak
Okay, for the record I lean toward a mix of tectonics and expansion. I am certainly not a creationist. The most frustrating thing for me in this debate is that the continental drift proponents invariably insist that EE must first disprove plate tectonics before they can even be considered.

Very few seem to realize that subduction is merely a theory and cannot yet be proven. There is some circumstantial evidence for it, but it cannot be proven by virtue of the unreachability of the subduction zones. Personally I think subduction is real, but given too much weight in the geological processes. We can certainly see trenches, but the way they push up mountains belies the theory's idea that the subducted crust is, sort of, recycled back into the mantle.

For those who question the veracity of the cited video, here is a quick project you can do yourself. Print out a copy of the Tharp map which shows the geography of the ocean floor along with the continents. now cut out the continents. If you like you can include the shelves in your cutouts, they are certainly not incidental. Whether you include the shelves or not, now tape together the pieces you have as suggested by both the video and the shape of the cutouts. I have done this and the match is significant enough to me to cause me to question what their original configuration was. This eliminates the possibility of the computer images being distorted to fit.

It is also well accepted that the earth's crust is indeed expanding. This is known to happen at the mid-ocean ridges. In the tectonics theory, subduction counters this expansion by removing surface material. However, if you are looking for an extremely accurate measurement of the mass of the earth you will not find one. The formulas that would be needed to take into account the plethora of surface irregularities is prohibitively complicated. So we are limited to taking fairly precise measurements of surface distances between points on the earth. Unfortunately the measurements that have been made were intentionally modified to fit a static radius earth. This is not refuted by scientists who oppose EE, they merely believe that the changes were necessary, for various reasons. I always thought science was about making your theory fit the evidence, but it seems that in this case the opposite is true as scientists change the results to match their current beliefs. In any case it is certainly accepted that the shape of the earth is contantly changing. With this constant geometric change accurate measurement of the earths mass is even more difficult. So it would not be possible to say conclusively that the crust is or is not expanding. We must instead use circumstantial evidence, just as the tectonic theory does.

The expansion of bodies is well known in the solar system as well. The same cannot be said for plate tectonics. The mountains we see on other bodies seem to be formed by volcanic action or impact craters.


If you are able to refute any of this scientifically, and without citing tectonics as your argument (as opposed to the supporting evidence for tectonics), then please help me out. Before you cite anything though, I'd be please if you would try my request to print, cut and tape together your own map.
Enthalpy
Again: The movement of plates is measured. They do move. They do glide one under the other. That's a direct proof, needing no interpretation.

The mass of the Earth is quite precisely known. The mass arriving from space is known as well.

The "Earth Expansion theory" belongs to the garbage bin, where it lies for decades.
peacespeak
Enthalpy, Please show a little effort.


QUOTE
  Again: The movement of plates is measured. They do move. They do glide one under the other. That's a direct proof, needing no interpretation.


Agreed, the movement of plates is measured. I think what you are missing is that the movement of the plates is included in the expanding Earth theory as well. The plates are all moving away from each other just as with the accepted tectonic theory but with one important difference. The expanding Earth theory says that they were joined together on both sides rather than only one. This is supported by the fact that there are mid-ocean expansion ridges circling the earth and interconnected between _ALL_ of the continents. [SIDEBAR: I already implied that I wasn't trying to disprove tectonics, so I won't bring up the physical laws which forbid the formation of an unbalanced crust (oops I guess I did, but I will not go on about them). However, it just occurred to me that I have never heard an explanation for the formation of the mid-ocean ridges which lie in the Pacific ocean. Does anyone know how tectonics accounts for these? ]

Did you try the project I recommended, Enthalpy? If not I don't see how you can consider yourself the least bit scientific. If so, then why don't you tell everyone how they all fit together?

As for the plates gliding one under the other, I think that glide is a very wrong word to use. I even said in my post that I believe subduction is valid, but overstated (see: 'glide' above). Just because we see a trench at the meeting of plates is no reason to jump to the conclusion that millions of billions of years worth of material simply disappeared there. Show me where to find the measurements which 'direct proof' of that kind of movement so I can be on your side. It seems you are taking theory and applying it as fact.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
  Again: The movement of plates is measured. They do move. They do glide one under the other. That's a direct proof, needing no interpretation.


Agreed, the movement of plates is measured. I think what you are missing is that the movement of the plates is included in the expanding Earth theory as well. The plates are all moving away from each other just as with the accepted tectonic theory but with one important difference. The expanding Earth theory says that they were joined together on both sides rather than only one. This is supported by the fact that there are mid-ocean expansion ridges circling the earth and interconnected between _ALL_ of the continents. [SIDEBAR: I already implied that I wasn't trying to disprove tectonics, so I won't bring up the physical laws which forbid the formation of an unbalanced crust (oops I guess I did, but I will not go on about them). However, it just occurred to me that I have never heard an explanation for the formation of the mid-ocean ridges which lie in the Pacific ocean. Does anyone know how tectonics accounts for these? ]

Did you try the project I recommended, Enthalpy? If not I don't see how you can consider yourself the least bit scientific. If so, then why don't you tell everyone how they all fit together?

As for the plates gliding one under the other, I think that glide is a very wrong word to use. I even said in my post that I believe subduction is valid, but overstated (see: 'glide' above). Just because we see a trench at the meeting of plates is no reason to jump to the conclusion that millions of billions of years worth of material simply disappeared there. Show me where to find the measurements which 'direct proof' of that kind of movement so I can be on your side. It seems you are taking theory and applying it as fact.



The mass of the Earth is quite precisely known. The mass arriving from space is known as well.


Untrue. The mass of the Earth is fairly accurately estimated. Close enough for any of our purposes to date. In the past this was done taking, really, a relatively small set of reference points around the globe, measuring their gravity, and deducing the mass via Newtons law of gravity. In fact NASA is still doing very similar research with the GRACE satellite system to determine where "mass concentrations" are located. The GRACE system measures these concentrations by measuring the effect of gravity on the satellites as they pass through the Earths orbit. These measurements are helping us to make our mass-of-earth measurements _more precise_, but they are still not precise, nor will they be until we have sufficient technology to place the Earth on some sort of celestial scale. Moreover there is no way to say with any degree of certainty what the Earth's mass used to be millions or billions of years ago because...

Likewise, the amount of mass arriving from space cannot possibly be known, only estimated. This mass arrives in the form of debris ranging from dust to, occasionally, meteors the size of that which landed in the Yucatan Peninsula which is estimated as having been between 6-12 miles in diameter.

In addition, celestial bodies are also theorized to receive mass from subatomic accretion. Look that one up.


Has _anyone_ tried the map project? What did you think?
N O M
QUOTE (gman+Jun 5 2007, 01:34 AM)
They had this idea in the 60's and I don't really see any believable evedance to the contrary.

That's because you are an idiot.

QUOTE
Please do tell me if I am wrong.
You're wrong.
peacespeak
I'm disappointed and puzzled by the lack of engagement here. Apparently everybody is willing to hack and slash at the less informed posts, citing youtube as a source*, but no one wants to engage when the post has a even a hint of something solid.

Try the project.

Post a reply.

Be a participant.

Be a scientist.

Think for your self.




* Not that its a bad thing to follow up on something intriguing that you find any place. Thought is thought and it's ironic that the ones who try to start thinking for themselves are the ones who get denounced by those who follow by rote. I don't have all the answers, but at least I'm willing to look for them.
Farsight
It might surprise some of you guys here, but IMHO there is something very interesting about this expanding earth idea. You might be aware that I've written a series of essays, including GRAVITY EXPLAINED. It's a toy model that in essence says that local mass/energy stress is opposed by an extended tension gradient that we call gravity. This appears to be weak because it extends across the whole universe. If the universe expanded, gravity should get weaker still. And the universe has expanded. I'm not saying this is any kind of proof, but offers a simple picture that should be enough to make you stop and think instead of dismissing it out of hand.
Wulf
QUOTE (Farsight+Jul 5 2007, 06:48 AM)
It might surprise some of you guys here, but IMHO there is something very interesting about this expanding earth idea. You might be aware that I've written a series of essays, including GRAVITY EXPLAINED. It's a toy model that in essence says that local mass/energy stress is opposed by an extended tension gradient that we call gravity. This appears to be weak because it extends across the whole universe. If the universe expanded, gravity should get weaker still. And the universe has expanded. I'm not saying this is any kind of proof, but offers a simple picture that should be enough to make you stop and think instead of dismissing it out of hand.

Heh, I was just wondering about that big insight you where mumbling about last week. What did you end up coming up with?
Farsight
Sorry Wulf, it's pretty radical and I need to check it out properly. If I'm wrong I'd look a right charlie.

peacespeak
Thanks for the vague support there Farsight. Just one question.

Did you try the project?

How about you Wulf?

What did you find?

Let's try not to sidetrack this discussion, such as it is.
Wulf
QUOTE (Farsight+Jul 5 2007, 03:07 PM)
Sorry Wulf, it's pretty radical and I need to check it out properly. If I'm wrong I'd look a right charlie.

Haha I know how you feel, I gotta write up my thoughts and findings once I get enougth sleep to think straight.
Wulf
QUOTE (peacespeak+Jul 5 2007, 05:15 PM)
Thanks for the vague support there Farsight. Just one question.

Did you try the project?

How about you Wulf?

What did you find?

Let's try not to sidetrack this discussion, such as it is.

To be honest I'm not currently interested in science on a planetary scale.

This particular part of the forums is used mainly by people interested in issues at quantum or galactic scales. This is most likely the reason for the overal lack of interest.

N O M
QUOTE (Farsight+Jul 6 2007, 09:07 AM)
Sorry Wulf, it's pretty radical and I need to check it out properly. If I'm wrong I'd look a right charlie.

So Charles, how's the theory going?
yor_on
ok Plate tectonics main features are.
We 'float' on a series of large plates. They are in constant motion moving at a few centimeters a year. The ocean floors move too, outward from the center and sinking at the edges. Convection currents of melted 'stuff' like magma :) and radioactive decay deep in the Earth move the plates in different directions.

"
"At the margins of the plates, where they collide or move apart, major landforms such as mountains, volcanoes, ocean trenches, and mid-ocean ridges are created. The rate of plate movement is at most 15 cm/6 inches per year." The tectonic plates of the earth are approximately 100km thick and at least 200km across. When these plates move towards each other, it can create major earthquakes. The movement of the continents also lead to the Earth's crust crumbling to form mountain ranges, of which the best example is the Himalayas in Asia which is still being formed because of the northward movement of the Indian subcontinent into the rest of Asia. "

Now as for those continents having a good fit overall, that is true, but there are notable exceptions too, nevertheless it's accepted as the most verifiable theory for now.
As for an expanding Earth. Why should it expand? Like a balloon? Will it then explode at some point? Or implode? As for the theory of ' local mass/energy stress is opposed by an extended tension gradient that we call gravity ', which if i understand it says that the gravity is getting weaker as the universe expands. What has that to do with the Earth growing bigger? Are you somehow implying that as gravity gets weaker the earth loses up its 'grip' of its properties? Shouldn't we too expand then?

There are constant changes to the theory as we learn more f ex " "Mobile magma plumes force us to reassess some of our most basic assumptions about the way the mantle operates," says John Tarduno, professor of earth and environmental sciences . "We’ve relied on them for a long time as unwavering markers, but now we’ll have to redefine our understanding of global geography." " http://www.innovations-report.de/html/beri...icht-20701.html
But it's still the most workable idea i know of, for explaining our continents shape.
Farsight
QUOTE (peacespeak+Jul 5 2007, 11:15 PM)
Thanks for the vague support there Farsight. Just one question.

Did you try the project?

How about you Wulf?

What did you find?

Let's try not to sidetrack this discussion, such as it is.

No, I didn't try the project. I've come at this by thinking at space and gravity, and I've only touched upon it. Here's an excerpt from an essay I've written called called SPACE EXPLAINED:

It makes me wonder about MOND and those Pioneer gravitational anomalies. It makes me ruminate about dark energy and dark matter. It makes me muse about jigsaw continental plates and whether gravity was stronger billions of years ago. If the earth is five billion years old, the universe would have been 75 billion light years across, so it’s more than doubled in size since. If gravity had gotten weaker locally, the earth would be puffing up like a marshmallow. Continental drift would be like the skin on your custard, but that would be like cappucino custard that’s getting bigger. Ah, physics is such fun. And if you want some more fun, get this: there’s galaxies receding from us at more than c, and we can see them. Not all, just some. We can see a galaxy even when the light was emitted when the galaxy was already receding from us at more than c. I know it sounds crazy, but the exponential expansion is thought to be a little less than exponential, so a photon comes towards us at c, whilst inflating away from us at c plus a smidge, but meanwhile our observable sphere gets bigger by c. Marvellous stuff, but I’ll save it for a rainy day.

I haven't put this essay on the internet because it's rather radical and there's some important things I need to check.

peacespeak
Thanks Farsight. Please do try the experiment though, it will only take a few minutes.


Does anyone have anything to say about the subatomic accretion theory? That should probably interest more people in this area of the forums.

I only know the most basic form of it. That is that subatomic particles are drawn by gravity through the 'solid' material of the Earth (and other celestial bodies) toward the core where the large gravity and heat effects cause them to form into atoms, probably hydrogen primarily but I'm not sure.

I understand this to mean that as subatomic particles they are free to move through and between atoms, but once they form into atoms, and later molecules, they can no longer do so as they take us more space and thereby sort of push out an area for themselves, like a dancer who threads their way to the middle of a crowded dance floor and then spreads their arms and legs wide flailing the other dancers out of their new space.

I believe that this influx of subatomic particles is also the cause of the auroras at the poles as well.
peacespeak
QUOTE

Now as for those continents having a good fit overall, that is true, but there are notable exceptions too, nevertheless it's accepted as the most verifiable theory for now.


Please, try the experiment and then list the exceptions you find. Also where you find exceptions look to a map of the ocean floor and see if the continental shelf can account for some of what you see as a discrepancy.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Now as for those continents having a good fit overall, that is true, but there are notable exceptions too, nevertheless it's accepted as the most verifiable theory for now.


Please, try the experiment and then list the exceptions you find. Also where you find exceptions look to a map of the ocean floor and see if the continental shelf can account for some of what you see as a discrepancy.


As for an expanding Earth. Why should it expand? Like a balloon? Will it then explode at some point? Or implode?


It would expand because of accreted matter. The subatomic accretion theory being one explanation; Matter arriving from space would be another explanation, but does not explain the cracks in the crust.

QUOTE

As for the theory of ' local mass/energy stress is opposed by an extended tension gradient that we call gravity ', which if i understand it says that the gravity is getting weaker as the universe expands. What has that to do with the Earth growing bigger? Are you somehow implying that as gravity gets weaker the earth loses up its 'grip' of its properties? Shouldn't we too expand then?


I think Farsight answered this better than I could, but in regards to the question of whether we would also expand, I say yes. We also would expand as a result of this effect. Of course you would have to exist in this form for several hundred million years to notice the changes. Remember we are talking about expansion occurring since the formation of the earth billions of years ago, and most notably over the past several hundred million years.

Most EE proponents believe that the same meteorite which is theorized to have set off the downfall of the dinosaurs also weakened and cracked the crust to the extent that much more rapid (read: still over millions of years) expansion occurred and is still occurring.
peacespeak
Sorry I forgot to address this:

QUOTE
Will it then explode at some point? Or implode?


Yes, in a sense it is exploding, very slowly. Visually I can compare it to an egg that boils for too long. The inner material grows larger than the shell. The shell cracks and the inner material seeps out of the crack and solidifies. There will be no dramatic shattering involved. Note that the cause is different, this is just to give you a loose visual corollary.

I think that an implosion of that sort would require a lot more mass. I can only ever recall hearing about stars imploding.
francisnantha
Hi All,

Personally I feel there's another factor to be considered IMHO.

While there exists currently a general consensus about continental drift as well as to the reasons why earth’s rotation is slowing down, there has been almost no discussion linking the two. What if the two are really interlinked?

My take is that the earth’s size, shape and diameter has NOT stayed constant over the millennia. Assuming that matter coalesced into a molten ball (with a hard core under intense gravitational forces) in the early part of the planet’s creation, it would only make sense that earth’s rotation slows down as heat is radiated off into space and the outer layer cools into a crust.

Since the solid crust is lighter compared to the molten mantle beneath, it actually gets stretched out – resulting in earth’s diameter increasing over the ages. This in turn, is the engine behind the continental drift.

This line of argument leads to a really different conclusion about Pangaea – it was NOT a single continent surrounded by oceans. Instead, it was the single crust that covered the entire earth’s molten surface – that stretched and cracked into the recognizable shapes of the continents we recognize today - somewhat like an orange peel forced open.

The oceans are space between the cracks that were formed as molten matter from below rose to patch the gaps between the original Pangaea pieces, which grew in size as the continental shapes were thrown further out by the torque of the earth’s rotation; and hence drifting further apart.

The complex convection of the molten matter beneath the crust resulted in an uneven distribution of the continents and drift directions, but the net effect is the earth is LARGER today than what it used to be. Based on this assumption, the polar diameters must have also increased as the earth’s rotation slowed due to the solid inner core going off-kilter southward because of the top-heavy continents, adding further fuel to the already complex convection forces and directions of the liquid mantle.

These are just my thoughts as I am no scientist nor a mathematician with the capability to actually prove these theories – like others in this forum, the image of Pangaea floating in an ocean just looks weird.
BenTheMan
My theory is that the earth actually exists on the back of a giant turtle. Who cares about your ``physics'' and your ``science''. My beliefs predate Einstein.

Dumbasses.

http://www.jstor.org/view/00251496/dm993892/99p0673q/0
bellsoffreedom
Thanks, BenTheMan, for bringing some sense to the conversation.

But actually, Voltron created the world, and Optimus Prime lives at the center of the Earth, and the planet is expanding because he's working out and his robot muscles are getting bigger. So you're ALL wrong! Geez, what are you people THINKING? : )
rmuldavin
Ruuning on public library 11 minutes to post an explaination concerning origins on one continent origins:

(1) solar winds charged particles divided by Earth Magnetic fields, positives to the South Magnetic Pole (SMP+) and negatives to the North Magnetic Pole (NMP-).

(2) SMP+ are deposited over billions of years as solids, NMP- are deposted as water.

(3) SMP+ accumulate at now Anartic Continent, spreading towards the then equator (6 minutes left), this causes the Anatic (t) to break up, and then converge as it crosses the then (t) Equator.

(4) The NMP- accumulates mostly relatively writing, water, and thes freezed to form the Earth mantle to invaginate, forming the basis of a polar sea bed.

(5) Internet essays report some five cycles so far, approximately 100 millions years each, not suffient to determine when water started to cover the earth.

2 minutes left.

Bye, best rmuldavin
rmuldavin
Back with more comments, got 30 minutes, but have an appointment to leave for assisting wife on accident medical now in seventh year of battling corrupted insurance and maybe in bed with government and corporations (of which government entered when the gold and silver were taken out of USA domestic use).

Van Allen Belts, the radially split donut that surrounds Earth are reported to change the Earth's magnetic fields by some ten percent. It remains to show that the SMP+ particles do head to the Anarctic, I have wanted to see if negative charges, say on a TV screen, or from a battery posted + or - cause a compass needle to indicate this about SMP+ drift.

There is plently of interesting experimental things to do here, and the literature seems to contain continuing work, but the importance of this and the politics of denial of how some get their portable weath is related to generating the products that give a few with the political power continued minority power.

Good news is that it appears that underground storage of CO2 with water and Earth heat (nuclear power) can convert to Methane. Relatively save nuclear power under higher gravity pressures is the process.

Also that the lining of Fusion Nuclear power containment structures with the light chemical elements may allow containment within a magnetic field.

Generally I detect an overall attempt of, say DOE for lack of finding just how "cointel" is operative today, to restrict or delay the notion that the Deterium though Helium~Lithium~Boron Binding Energy curves could produce electrical energy by it's shifiting nuclear charges being able to be "tranformed" by inductive devices DIRECTLY INTO ELECTRICAL POWER.

Five triplet felts (flat equal lateral triangles) form a top cap, these can be joined to a bottom cap, that may be a count of ten felts. Calcium has a count of 20 felts, these are the number of nucleons, and forms a 5-felt+10-felt ring+5-felt polyhedra, the smallest nuclear cross section of all the every day chemical elements.

The dual 5-felt, the 1-felt by the Roger's Connection toy of steel balls and N/S plastic tubes with magnetic slugs to form regular pohyhedron, shows that the 5-felt top connected to the 5-felt bottom has a distance just a fraction longer than one of the regualr, equal lateral side, thus is potentially the weakest link.

Such hands on types toys seems to give some visual insight into proceeding to t8888 got to post

The exciting part of this is that the tragic and current fossil fuel wars would naturally end, no need to stage an invasion of Iran under the same misquided top-downers that staged the Iraq War.

Science in the Service of the All the People. SSAP, we are alive and well.

Best, rmuldavin

14 minutes left.
freethis
consider the earth as a whole. still only a limited amount of land there..

the possibility that the asteroid belt contains earth matter, and the moon was formed in a collision to earth, and is made of the earth. dry.gif

consider the half a earth explanation. sad.gif

A collision with a large planet, many years ago. ohmy.gif


google half a earth . ph34r.gif
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (freethis+Oct 19 2007, 01:31 PM)
consider the earth as a whole. still only a limited amount of land there..

the possibility that the asteroid belt contains earth matter, and the moon was formed in a collision to earth, and is made of the earth. dry.gif

consider the half a earth explanation. sad.gif

A collision with a large planet, many years ago. ohmy.gif


google half a earth . ph34r.gif

Planetary collision theories are bogus. There is no way for two planets/planetoids to collide and then have ejecta the size of the moon escape the gravity well. Even man has never demonstrated the ability to fire a macroscopic ballistic object to an escape vector. Rockets have continual propulsion, and most of their mass is the fuel source, which allows them to obtain an escape vector.

Even if a rogue planetoid from another solar-system had been on a collision course with earth, it could not have obtained enough velocity to cause the moon to be ejected from the earth upon collision, even if the earth were molten. Laws of physics state that for every action there is equal and opposite reation.

The gravitation of the earth plus the rogue planetoids gravitation would have been more than enough to prevent large ejecta from escaping. Additionally, most of the momentum would have penetrated into the earth in the direction of the objects orginal motion, causing most of the energy, when viewed on a planetary scale, to go into changing the earth's orbital motion or rotation depending on angle of impact; not creating "rocky" or "molten" ejecta.


--------
Tectonic plates and faulting are real, but I am not convinced there is any objective evidence that proves a super-continent existed.

The "jigsaw puzzle" idea everyone uses is fundamentally flawed because the continents do not even match up properly. Yes there are similar shapes with North and South America and Africa, but they are not the same scale, and not really the same angles involved either.

Additionally, gravimetrically, a super-continent would have made the earth unstable, since water is much less dense than most rock. If you pile up all the continents in one side of the earth, and all the water on another, it would make a slight difference in the center of gravity of the earth, hence the earth would be shaped like an egg on its side, and would have an irregular gravity well. This is not what is observed, however. In fact the earth is shaped like a squashed ellipsoid, bulging slightly at the equator, not an egg.
buttershug
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Oct 19 2007, 07:39 PM)
Planetary collision theories are bogus. There is no way for two planets/planetoids to collide and then have ejecta the size of the moon escape the gravity well.

This is not what is observed, however. In fact the earth is shaped like a squashed ellipsoid, bulging slightly at the equator, not an egg.


The moon has not escaped the Earth's gravity well. Last I checked it's still in orbit.

Wow cool you have observations of the Earth from the time of Pangea, please do share.
Quantum_Conundrum

QUOTE
The moon has not escaped the Earth's gravity well.  Last I checked it's still in orbit.







Actually, by all modern astronomical accounts, the moon has indeed obtained an escape vector, its just happening so slowly you can't see it with the naked eye. The moon reportedly escapes the earth's gravity by a fraction of an inch every year, and this is not a new observation or claim.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The moon has not escaped the Earth's gravity well.  Last I checked it's still in orbit.







Actually, by all modern astronomical accounts, the moon has indeed obtained an escape vector, its just happening so slowly you can't see it with the naked eye. The moon reportedly escapes the earth's gravity by a fraction of an inch every year, and this is not a new observation or claim.

Wow cool you have observations of the Earth from the time of Pangea,  please do share.


Um no, I didn't say that. How about you actually read, and use your own brain instead of parroting what someone else told you?

If all the continents were on one side of the planet and most of the water was on the other, then it would have made the earth more dense on one side than the other, which would cause the gravity well to be irregular. That doesn't even take a high school understanding of physics to know that.

Pangea is based on the claim that all the continents of the earth were one super continent which was then splite up by "contenental drift" from volcanic ridging, which are allegedly the ocean ridges now. Of course that claim is quickly shown false when you realize many of the ocean plates subduct under continents, rather than "pushing" them apart, they simply overturn and melt back into the mantle.

Like I said, plates move, but there isn't actual evidence putting them all together as one continent, its purely hypothetical.
Trippy
I just wanted to say that this thread is insane, and keeps getting worse. I was going to post lastnight, but I ran out of time.

1) There is no evidence of an expanding Earth. (aside from the acretion of a few tons of dust each year). Such a thing would have been measurable since the late sixties, it just flat out hasn't been observed.

2) Pangea is a real thing (as real as continental drift), and tehre is direct observational evidence of this. In fact there's a variety of evidence for this ranging from the magnetic striping of the sea floor, to polar wandering, to the global distribution of fossil species and rock formations.

3) Continental drift is a real thing. Thanks to the miracle of GPS it's something that we can measure directly, rather then just ahving to infer it, but even before the advent of GPS there was still observational evidence for it, for example, the evidence I mentioned above for pangea, terrane accretion, the presence of abyssal trenches, the distribution of age bands on the seafloor (bedrock, rather then sedimentary) the distribution of sediment on the sea floor (where the sea floor is youngest, and the list goes on.

4) The best explanation we have for the creation of the moon is that it was created when an object approximately the size of Mars collided with the Earth. This explanation explains many of the observed 'mysteries' of the moons existence (mineral composition, and lack of volatiles for example) basically, when the object hit the earth, a significant quantity of the mantle material was thrown into orbit (really, it's not that hard, the escape velocity at the earths surface is only 11 km/s), because of the temperatures involved in the impact, all of the volatiles would have been driven out (which we observe), and the moon should have a composition roughly equivalent to that of the mantle (which we also observe). Incidentally, large impacts are the only way of explaining some of the other anomalies of the solar system (for example, the anomalous density of mercury, the orbital tilt of Uranus), and there is plenty of evidence for them (Claoris basin on Mercury, Herschel crater on Mimas, I think Hellas basin on mars). People just object to it because we seem to have some fundamental in built mechanism that is automatuically skeptical of sudden catastrophic changes (in spite of what our experience tells us) we prefer to believe that change is slow and gradual.

5) Nobody takes the idea that there was once a single body between Mars and Jupiter, and that the asteroid belt is all that is left of it seriously any more. There just isn't the evidence for it, in fact, the evidence is strongly against it.
Trippy
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Oct 20 2007, 08:57 AM)
Actually, by all modern astronomical accounts, the moon has indeed obtained an escape vector, its just happening so slowly you can't see it with the naked eye. The moon reportedly escapes the earth's gravity by a fraction of an inch every year, and this is not a new observation or claim.

No, it hasn't.

It works a little something like this.

In an ideal situation, without tidal influences, the moon would be in a stable orbit around the earth.

However, what we find is that once you take tidal forces into account, you find that the moon, in essence, has a braking effect on the earth. The tidal forces,a nd the energy they expend slows down the rotation of the earth by a tiny fraction of a second each month. This is a real effect that has been observed.

As a consequence of this, the conservation of angular momentum dictates that the moon should move further from the earth, so it moves outwards by an amount that is dictated by the angular momentum lost by the earth.

This will continue until some time in the future when the earths rotation has slowed down to the point where a day is as long as a month is now, when that happens the moon will actually start spiraling back into the earth. If the earth survives the red giant phase that the sun goes through between now and then, then the moon will continue spiralling in towards the earth, until it finally falls close enough to reach the Roche limit, at which point the tidal forces exerted on the moon, by the earth will be so great that the earth will gravitationally disrupt the moon and score a wonderful set of rings.
buttershug
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Oct 19 2007, 07:57 PM)

Um no, I didn't say that. How about you actually read, and use your own brain instead of parroting what someone else told you?

True but you were talking about what the Earth would be like if all the continents were on one side. So how does what the Earth's shape is today tell us that it could not have had a different shape back then?

Why do you think the Earth could not have had an irregular gravity well way back then? That's what I was getting at about you claiming to have observations. The shape of Earth's gravity well at that time would have to be the obervation not the shape of it now.

And I"m not sure why plates subducting in one place means they could not "push apart" somewhere else.

Head on collisions with cars where a vehicle goes up and over the other does not mean that there can't be pairs of vehicles that get their front ends smushed together.
freethis
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Oct 19 2007, 07:57 PM)




Pangea is based on the claim that all the continents of the earth were one super continent which was then splite up by "contenental drift" from volcanic ridging, which are allegedly the ocean ridges now. Of course that claim is quickly shown false when you realize many of the ocean plates subduct under continents, rather than "pushing" them apart, they simply overturn and melt back into the mantle.

Like I said, plates move, but there isn't actual evidence putting them all together as one continent, its purely hypothetical.

Oh brother,

The half planet, = the pangea continent on one side of the earth. (self explanatory)
The moon is of the earth, yup i agree...

many years after the moon was formed, A large asteroid smacked, and cracked the earth. ohmy.gif

At least the initial planetary impact certainly did. (self explanatory)

The impact crater is in the gulf of Mexico. tongue.gif

The nice smack to the planet would easily crack the crust of the earth,
causing molten lava to seep.

If the asteroid did not cause the crack, then it happened in conjunction to the formation of the moon. blink.gif

The continuation of the sea floor spreading, and continental drift=the result.

the asteroid impact, or planetary impact caused the continent to crack into pieces, or the earth for that matter. the molten lava that seeped up. This causes the new continents to continue too drift apart..


Don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that do you? huh.gif

I dont want to scare you, but science teaches this.

QUOTE
Anyone Ever heard of a star that travels through space with a tail like a comet?
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (freethis+Oct 19 2007, 04:17 PM)
Oh brother,

The half planet, = the pangea continent on one side of the earth. (self explanatory)
The moon is of the earth, yup i agree...

many years after the moon was formed, A large asteroid smacked, and cracked the earth. ohmy.gif

At least the initial planetary impact certainly did. (self explanatory)

The impact crater is in the gulf of Mexico. tongue.gif

The nice smack to the planet would easily crack the crust of the earth,
causing molten lava to seep.

If the asteroid did not cause the crack, then it happened in conjunction to the formation of the moon. blink.gif

The continuation of the sea floor spreading, and continental drift=the result.

the asteroid impact, or planetary impact caused the continent to crack into pieces, or the earth for that matter. the molten lava that seeped up. This causes the new continents to continue too drift apart..


Don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that do you? huh.gif

I dont want to scare you, but science teaches this.


Actually, you don't even know which theorys are which.

The alleged impact crater in the Gulf could have absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the moon or continental drift, according to the "standard models". The scientists claim that event happened about 65million years ago. They claim the moon was created about 4.6 BILLION years ago. They claim the continents first seperated many hundreds of millions of years ago.

So keep unrelated events unrelated, or if you have a theory that they are related somehow, that's one thing, but at least seperate your own beliefs from the beliefs of what others say.
Trippy
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Oct 20 2007, 11:11 AM)
The alleged impact crater in the Gulf could have absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the moon or continental drift, according to the "standard models". The scientists claim that event happened about 65million years ago. They claim the moon was created about 4.6 BILLION years ago. They claim the continents first seperated many hundreds of millions of years ago.

Actually, they claim that the continets have always been drifting. It's not like X million years ago the continents 'suddenly started drifiting'.
Neutrinos
if the universe is expanding, then maybe , just maybe , the earth gets pressurized and expands with it....?
BenTheMan
QUOTE (Neutrinos+Oct 19 2007, 11:21 PM)
if the universe is expanding, then maybe , just maybe , the earth gets pressurized and expands with it....?

No. Absolutely not. The expansion that the universe is currently undergoing is only measurable in between galaxies. We can't even measure the expansion in our own galaxy, because it is too small an effect.
rmuldavin
Reply to Quantum_Conundrum Posted: Today at 7:39 PM

Continents don't match up? I have a foot diameter paper topographical Earth globe, it presents from Iceland to the Antarctica Continental that surround the rotational South Pole, a "Wavelet", which starts and increases it amplitude as it swing East and west around a North to South and meets the Antarctica perimeter.

My niece's home in Boston has a gray shale rock for their basement and garden which I was told came from the same place as in now on the African North West Coast. I looked on the globe when I got home to West Coast of Michigan.

I think it is a matter of "reading between the lines" magnetized that extend as rays from the N-S Wavelet, a curve so mathematical that it that such wiggle room for a potentially expanding rotating earth suggest even some less than fragile or softer mantle was coating it's iron core than now? Well the Crust was floating on a plastic mantle. There is much Internet Literature on this subject which does not seem so well developed as to find universal agreement.

The ZiSiO4 liquid coating around the non-molten mostly iron spinning care allows the plastic mantle to slip and this ZiSiO4 coating is said to be very stable. I made of a dual-tetrahedron formed by the four Oxygens with the ZiSi held between the two apexes. Considering that the tetrahedron ranks highly as a solid basis for some String Theories, it is, maybe more than a coincidence that it shows up on the job as an Earthly lubricant, and with magnetic properties, remember, Earth can be allowed Spin, Pole-litical.

The time span for ice ages changes as each ice age ground down the rocky surfaces, have to check this, be back ***

1.75 million years ago "The Great Ice Age" is shown in the Book by the same name, Wilson, Drury, and Chapman, The Open University (2000), page 4.

On page 80 a vertical black and white bar code shows that the length of the glacial cycles times have have to to some 120 thousands years, on the average, but perhaps from 700 to 2,500 thousand years ago half what it is now, stated as 40 thousand years.

However a statement that the ice grinds down the surface ends of confusing me, does this mean the ice moves faster due to a smoothing, or is not broken up so it cannot melt faster? Must be the later.

For Earths Crust, five recycles are reported, I read, some 100 million years apart, from one continent to many and I suppose many folding into one, "recycling" subduction, is still going on. I reserve opinion as to the future, but modeling must play a part towards understand.

Should start with many billions of years ago, accretion perhaps starting somehow on a proto-planet, not yet cooled down ready for surface water.

Plenty of work and livings for scribes and calculi placers to research with practical results for the investment in equipment, satellites and equipment.

Best, rmuldavin
inQZtive
this is interesting..


the YouTube video: Expanding Earth
2005 Neal Adams


what are the most credible arguments against this idea?



QZ
buttershug
QUOTE (inQZtive+Oct 20 2007, 11:28 PM)
this is interesting..


the YouTube video: Expanding Earth
2005 Neal Adams


what are the most credible arguments against this idea?



QZ

Pangaea explains it just as well.

The tie braker? With GPS we know the earth is not growing anymore if it ever was and NA is getting farther away from Europe. How does the growing Earth theory explain that?

It was growing but it stopped and now the plates are moving apart like the Pangaea theory says?
meBigGuy
QUOTE
The plates are all moving away from each other just as with the accepted tectonic theory but with one important difference


Not true. There are colliding plates.

I have seen no specific data posted here so far that disproves tectonic drift, and no data posted here that explains the things that trippy outlined that support tectonic drift.

These other theories are random "what if xxx is happening" conjectures that sound cool and seem to present an alternative, but cannot adequately explain the real data that is known today.

Here is a map of plate motion - no sense of "expansion" here:
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html

Here is a high level description of the observations that make plate tectonics hard to refute.
http://scign.jpl.nasa.gov/learn/plate4.htm

Here is an interesting study guide that summarizes the issues very nicely.
http://members.aol.com/rhaberlin/ptstyg.htm

Someone has probably already addressed this, but:
If the earth is expanding, then
Explain why oceanic crust is always younger than 200 million years


peacespeak
Okay so. If the jig-saw puzzle effect that is cited in support of Pangaea is valid, Then why would it not also be valid for EE? Try the experiment I posted earlier in this thread. I am disappointed that no one has done this yet. Go be a scientist.

QUOTE
meBigGuy Posted on Today at 12:16 AM

Here is a map of plate motion - no sense of "expansion" here:
sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html    **I HAD TO REMOVE HTTP://**


Geologic science has accepted the idea that the earth changes shape. There is debate as to why, but one theory has to with the weight of the ice caps causing the 'flattening' of the earths spherical shape. So given this effect you will notice, if you take the time to click through the link I quoted above from meBigGuy, that we are currently undergoing a rebound or return _towards_ a purely spherical shape. This causes point near the equator to become lower and points toward the poles to become higher.

This morphing will skew any measurements regarding the size of the Earth. Couple this with the _extremely_ short time we've been monitoring such things compared to the geologic timescale you must consider when studying plate dynamics, and you will see that to draw any conclusion at this point (based on this data) is like watching a couple of waves wash up on shore and deducing the movement of the moon as it relates to the tides.

EE does not say that there are no continental plates, nor does it say that they do not move. It simply provides a different mechanism. Most citations about it do deny subduction. I think this is premature, as not only is there not enough evidence to deny it, but there is also not enough evidence to support it. This is because there is no subduction zone which exists at depth which allows us to study it directly.


Someone above noted that we have evidence of celestial collisions of the scale the would spin off the moon. I want to use this same logic to point out that there is no evidence of tectonic movement on any other planetary body in our solar system. While it would be nice if we could study planets in other systems as well, we simply can't at this point. Stuck as we are with studying our sister (or brother) planetoids, this small sample must still be considered. That being said, there is evidence supporting expansion of multiple planetary bodies in our system. Europa being the most currently active. Using the same type of modeling as is used to support EE on the Earth, we can see the same patterns of expansion on Mars.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
meBigGuy Posted on Today at 12:16 AM

Here is a map of plate motion - no sense of "expansion" here:
sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html    **I HAD TO REMOVE HTTP://**


Geologic science has accepted the idea that the earth changes shape. There is debate as to why, but one theory has to with the weight of the ice caps causing the 'flattening' of the earths spherical shape. So given this effect you will notice, if you take the time to click through the link I quoted above from meBigGuy, that we are currently undergoing a rebound or return _towards_ a purely spherical shape. This causes point near the equator to become lower and points toward the poles to become higher.

This morphing will skew any measurements regarding the size of the Earth. Couple this with the _extremely_ short time we've been monitoring such things compared to the geologic timescale you must consider when studying plate dynamics, and you will see that to draw any conclusion at this point (based on this data) is like watching a couple of waves wash up on shore and deducing the movement of the moon as it relates to the tides.

EE does not say that there are no continental plates, nor does it say that they do not move. It simply provides a different mechanism. Most citations about it do deny subduction. I think this is premature, as not only is there not enough evidence to deny it, but there is also not enough evidence to support it. This is because there is no subduction zone which exists at depth which allows us to study it directly.


Someone above noted that we have evidence of celestial collisions of the scale the would spin off the moon. I want to use this same logic to point out that there is no evidence of tectonic movement on any other planetary body in our solar system. While it would be nice if we could study planets in other systems as well, we simply can't at this point. Stuck as we are with studying our sister (or brother) planetoids, this small sample must still be considered. That being said, there is evidence supporting expansion of multiple planetary bodies in our system. Europa being the most currently active. Using the same type of modeling as is used to support EE on the Earth, we can see the same patterns of expansion on Mars.

meBigGuy Posted on Today at 12:16 AM

Someone has probably already addressed this, but:
If the earth is expanding, then
Explain why oceanic crust is always younger than 200 million years


Actually, since all of the expansion is purported to have taken (be taking?) place in the oceans, this is actually in support of expansion. Tectonic theory says that the old seafloor got subducted away, but again as there is only theory surrounding subduction, EE's idea is just as valid as Tectonic's. EE's idea, btw, is that the older crust which is all on the Continents, was pushed upwards. This (they say (oh who am I kidding, I say)) is why there are oceanic fossils in the middle of North America (and other places). I'm not actually sure how Tectonic theory explains the fossils.

Speaking of fossil records, the 'migration' of species around the globe is explained much better via EE than via Tectonics.

If you have some evidence to the contrary of my points, I would love to see it. I am here to expand my awareness after all, not to insist that what I believe (but have not seen) is more real than what you believe (but have not seen). Please though keep snarkyness to a minimum and don't post unless you do have a citation I can reference.

Don't forget to try the map/globe experiment for yourself. It is the quickest way to edify yourself about Pangaea, and it'll be research you did _yourself_.
meBigGuy
QUOTE
I want to use this same logic to point out that there is no evidence of tectonic movement on any other planetary body in our solar system


I refer you to
http://mgs-mager.gsfc.nasa.gov/publication..._2005jan27.html

The strongest case for plate tectonics in my mind is the magnetic striping of the seafloor and subduction.

Inland seas and the such have straightforward geologic explanations.

I'm not a geologist, so I cannot not argue this with any great scientific rigor. But I just don't see any need for expanding earth theory, and lots of practical reasons why it didn't happen. The current observational data is totally consistent with plate tectonics, but not EE. Personally, I consider Pangaea as a possible but unproven postulate (but that's probably because I have not studied it).
Trippy
I, on the other hand, am a Geologist.

I was, originally going to study a double major in Geology and Chemistry, got part way through my final year of Geology, and decided to drop it for reasons which I don't particularly care to go into right at this point.

Couple of points.

1. There is some evidence that there has been some tectonisism on other bodies.
2. As far as the lack of obvious tectonic features on other planets go, is the current leading theory is the same impact that created the moon had the effect of disrupting the crust, thus thinning it, and enabling the degree of tectonicism that we see today.
3. We have direct observational evidence of subduction. We can follow the strike/slip faults between the oceanic crust and continetal crust, we can see it in the composition of Lava's erupted in back arc vulcanism, we have also imaged the subduction zones directly with seismography.
4. We have absolutely no direct observational evidence to support the idea of an expanding earth.

Now, the biggest, most obvious flaw in your conjecture, is that, according to your idea, the sedimentary beds found in, for example, the himalayas should be horizontal, they're not, they're convoluted in a way that can only be explained by lateral compression. The convolution of the beds is not the only evidence we have of this either. When say for example a Trilobite fossil gets compressed lateraly, the shape of it is changed in a way that we can measure.

All of the observational evidence is against the idea of an expanding universe.
buttershug
QUOTE (peacespeak+Oct 21 2007, 01:35 AM)
Actually, since all of the expansion is purported to have taken (be taking?) place in the oceans, this is actually in support of expansion.

Modern measurements say it is not expanding.
Basically GG explains what, 20% of observations.
Pangaea explains I dunno 90%?

I'm not sure if there is even as much as 20% explained by EE. And as little as 90% explained by Pangaea.
rmuldavin
http://expanding-earth.org/

Using ibook internal search to review past items saved brought up the above link, and I now only wanted to add that a number of methods for determining the origin or age of minerals have been used for present locations on Earth's surface. The outer crust we can only directly sample is relatively thin, siesmic can get glancing reflections to less than 105 degrees, the solid iron core is hot enough to not be relatively magnetic, leaving the dual ZiSiO4 tetrahedral as the bearer of the magnetic forces, not sure of the mechanical systems, the spinning iron core is a gyroscopic effect?

Isotopes of Oxygen, the most recent one I read was to determine the amount of zirconium in crustal samples, the theory being that the source of zirconium was the liquid layer lubricating the mantle and crusts above so that the subduction, recycling, brought up more zirconium to accumulate in the crust each cycle, and therefore the concentration related to the number of times and possible age of the recycled mineral Zi.

Also cannot we consider that any magnet and gravitational attraction forces will masses and keep building up. Question remains a matter of condensation of the mass.

Last week physorg posted a article of a 60 sun mass star with a companion 15 sum mass black hole candidate, some discussion as the two having the same origin. That is, understanding through knowledge, the two go "hand-in-hand", or sometime "foot-in-mouth".

Best, rmuldavin
Sapo
Really, rmuldavin's obsession with zirconium silcate is fascinating, but as far as that having anything to do with plate tectonics... blink.gif

The best ideas put forth that I've read recently suggest the existence of a ~500 million-year cyclic pangaea breakup/reformation. That would fit the fact that the oceanic crust in the Atlantic is only 200 million years old nicely, without the need for magic or crankery.
Skeptical
peacespeak,

I googled "Tharp map" to try to perform your "experiment". I'm not a map expert, but it seems that the one I found (at microbiology.columbia.edu/shuman/Heezen_Tharp.htm) is what I remember from my long ago school days as a Mercator projection that distorts the size of everything as the map proceeds north and south from the equator. If so, then the cut and paste you are suggesting cannot work to prove anything because nothing is the correct size. If you have a particular map that you want people to experiment with and that shows everything in the correct size and shape, then post a link.
Rusty Shackleford
QUOTE
googled "Tharp map" to try to perform your "experiment". I'm not a map expert, but it seems that the one I found (at microbiology.columbia.edu/shuman/Heezen_Tharp.htm) is what I remember from my long ago school days as a Mercator projection that distorts the size of everything as the map proceeds north and south from the equator. If so, then the cut and paste you are suggesting cannot work to prove anything because nothing is the correct size. If you have a particular map that you want people to experiment with and that shows everything in the correct size and shape, then post a link
.

I can't believe nobody has mentioned this yet. You would have to cut the pieces of continents off of a globe in order to even attempt this "experiment". A flat map will always have to distort the continents in some way.
inQZtive
"You would have to cut the pieces of continents off of a globe "

of course..

that is what appears in the video

the pieces match in 3D, which I believe they should

I should note here, however, that my overall opinion of the info in the video is less now, after further review


as someone above just said, this can be "pick and choose", that is our option

we do not have to look at this as "black and white",

i think the EE and current theory leave important questions unanswered, or give less than reasonable assumptions


"pangea" was not always accepted, not was tectonic plate theory, they were both FINALLY accepted by "modern" science in this century


pangea, as a lone tooth in a mouth, is like a turd in a punch bowl: i will not believe that this occurred "naturally".

where did all the water go?


is anyone aware of a "definitive" answer to which came first: water, or land ??


it would seem possible, and resonable, that the earth did not expand on the scale mentioned in EE, but rather, the ELEVATIONS have changed

so that, there really was a time that there was little, or no water

that matches fossil records, being rather global


this way, where the "New Pangea" (solid sphere of land mass) separated via plate tectonics, and simply created in symmetrical fashion, mountains and higher elevations from subduction and collision, and the sea beds from spreading


the complete sphere pangea would allow the still valid layering of the earths surface, ie. from the center, out


the "lone tooth", island pangea does not follow this fact

it would require some "magic tendrils" to be formed that supported the shifting plates

how would "just water" contain the molten core (or whatever we finally decide is there) on the other side of island pangea? .. it couldn't



QZ


Trippy
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 21 2007, 07:59 PM)
All of the observational evidence is against the idea of an expanding universe.

Expanding universe?

Argh! Obviously I meant expanding Earth!
Trippy
QUOTE (inQZtive+Oct 22 2007, 09:00 AM)
"You would have to cut the pieces of continents off of a globe "

of course..

that is what appears in the video

the pieces match in 3D, which I believe they should

I should note here, however, that my overall opinion of the info in the video is less now, after further review


I'm on holiday, and on limited band width, so I haven't watched the video yet, otherwise I can assure you the distortion would have been one of the first things I pointed out. Now, for the rest of this post...


QUOTE (inQZtive+Oct 22 2007, 09:00 AM)
as someone above just said, this can be "pick and choose", that is our option

we do not have to look at this as "black and white",

i think the EE and current theory leave important questions unanswered, or give less than reasonable  assumptions


Science (generally) doesn't work that way, it's not like journalism, where as a rule of thumb you've got two sides of the story, and the truth lies somewhere in between. This is one of the biggest problems regarding the global warming debate.


QUOTE (inQZtive+Oct 22 2007, 09:00 AM)
"pangea" was not always accepted, not was tectonic plate theory, they were both FINALLY accepted by "modern" science in this century


It was initially unaccepted because scientests felt it lacked a mechanism for making the continents move, and the mechanism that was initially proposed was generally considered insuffucient, but now the body of evidence says that this mechanism is in fact correct.

QUOTE (inQZtive+Oct 22 2007, 09:00 AM)
pangea, as a lone tooth in a mouth, is like a turd in a punch bowl: i will not believe that this occurred "naturally".

where did all the water go?


Really? That's your profound objection? Where did the water go? Nowhere, that's where the water went. Nowhere. Those occasions in Earths histroy when we've had Pangea, we've also had the Tethys sea - the remnants of which we now call "The Mediteranean Sea" and Panthalassa which was the global super ocean.


QUOTE (inQZtive+Oct 22 2007, 09:00 AM)
is anyone aware of a "definitive" answer to which came first: water, or land ??


Obviously the land came first. First of all the Oceanic crust had to cool below the boiling point of water for the oceans to form. There is (basically) two different types of crust. Ocenanic and continental. IIRC, continetal crust tends to have a slightly lower density then oceanic crust. Oceanic crust tends to be highly mafic, and very dense, whereas continental crust tends to be the opposite.

Consider it this way. Buy yourself a cappucino. The froth has exacly the same composition as the rest of the beverage, but, the froth floats because it has a lower density. It's an analagous situation here, although the differences in density between the oceanic crust and the continental crust are because of a difference in composition.


QUOTE (inQZtive+Oct 22 2007, 09:00 AM)
it would seem possible, and resonable, that the earth did not expand on the scale mentioned in EE, but rather, the ELEVATIONS have changed

so that, there really was a time that there was little, or no water

that matches fossil records, being rather global


No, it doesn't. The time you're thinking of is the Hadean era. During this era the earths crust was still to warm and too new to support oceans. For further details see one of my previous comments.

QUOTE (inQZtive+Oct 22 2007, 09:00 AM)
this way, where the "New Pangea" (solid sphere of land mass) separated via plate tectonics, and simply created in symmetrical fashion, mountains and higher elevations from subduction and collision, and the sea beds from spreading


To use your own question, where did the water come from? We have evidence that the oceans existed at the time of Pangea. We've even named them. Same with the supercontinent that came before Pangea, Pannotia, before that Rodinia, and teh super continent before that, Columbia, and before that, in order of increasing age were the super continents of Kennorland, Ur, and Vaalbara. I also happen to live in a country that was in or near an abyssal trench at the time of pangea, but the elevation of the bedrock kept changing between abyssal and shallow.


QUOTE (inQZtive+Oct 22 2007, 09:00 AM)
the complete sphere pangea would allow the still valid layering of the earths surface, ie. from the center, out


No it wouldn't, and not in the ways that have been observed. And then there's the evidence for Rodinia, which requires the continets to have been seperated before they came together to form Pangea (come on, there's only so far you can move on the surface of a finite 3d spheroid before you come back to wher eyou started/

QUOTE (inQZtive+Oct 22 2007, 09:00 AM)
the "lone tooth", island pangea does not follow this fact


Yes it does. In fact, for some of the observations we've made, it's reall the only possible explanation.

QUOTE (inQZtive+Oct 22 2007, 09:00 AM)
it would require some "magic tendrils" to be formed that supported the shifting plates


No it doesn't. The leading theory is that Continental drift is driven by mantle convection currents, and we have direct observational evidence to support this - observations of variations in gravity anomalies for one thing, combined with seismic data.

QUOTE (inQZtive+Oct 22 2007, 09:00 AM)
how would "just water" contain the molten core (or whatever we finally decide is there) on the other side of island pangea?  .. it couldn't

QZ


Where did this come come from? This statement is just Bizzare. You're seriously suggesting that the Pangea/continental drift theory suggests that water held the water in place?

I have two words for you. OCEANIC. CRUST.
Oceanic crust is what the oceans lie upon, hence it's name. See one of my previous comments for an explanation as to why it's generally low lying.
inQZtive
trippy,

thanks for the detailed response


keep in mind, i'm not espousing any theory here, just thoughts


based on your answers, i think i'm asking the wrong questions

do you have a link to a cut away/ side view of what pangea looks like?


from this

User posted image

i had only envisioned some "column", roughly the same shape as the outer edge of the continent, going straight down. this seems to NOT be what the theorists had in mind..


one thing though,

you said "Obviously the land came first. First of all the Oceanic crust had to cool below the boiling point of water for the oceans to form."

so, what I am saying is correct, in that there was a time where the mass of land would have HAD to be "continuous", to actually form a sphere.

and when water formed, and coverered this sphere, the high spot on the globe was "pangea" (or whatever previous incarnation models suggest)

that is all i'm saying, and i would defineately NOT say i have any "profound objections" to the current model
smile.gif


when i say "it would seem possible, and resonable, that the earth did not expand on the scale mentioned in EE, but rather, the ELEVATIONS have changed",

and you respond "No, it doesn't. The time you're thinking of is the Hadean era.", you are being rather bland. I gave no time frame. You disagree with a self proclaimed facet of what i did not say unsure.gif


the remainder of your "critique", will be answered/justified based on your assistance with my picture of pangea, from a cut away view. if it does not look something like a wort, as seen from a cut away, then that was all misguided ohmy.gif


QZ

peacespeak
Skeptical, it is unclear whether you actually tried the 'experiment' of discarded it because of the distortion. Regarding the distortion of the projection maps, the vast majority of maps around today are Mercator projections and this same statement could be used to argue against Pangaea. Do the experiment using a globe if you prefer, or find a map that has those nifty wedges that look like someone sliced open a melon. Heck, just look at the Tharp map and you can see that it all _might_ line up. Don't forget to include the continental shelves, which is why I cited the Tharp map.

The idea here is not to prove EE or disprove tectonics, it is to show you that the evidence used to support Pangaea can also be used to support EE. In fact I'm not even trying to disprove plate tectonics, I think personally that it is an artifact of EE.

Trippy keeps referring to observational evidence, but does not provide links. It's not that I don't think you've seen it, but you can't just tell me "this is how it is," you need to show me. For example can you show me the evidence supporting this: "There is some evidence that there has been some tectonisism on other bodies." Also regarding that statement I would reply that there is _plenty_ of evidence of expansion within our solar system (BTW is 'star system' the right term for other... star systems?). I would also point out that evidence of either does not preclude the existence of the other, nor the action of the other here on Earth... but I'd still like to see it. In fact as I support the idea of plate movement in conjunction with expansion I'd expect to see it on other solar bodies as well. I'm just not aware of any yet.

Following that up I would say that the counterpoint to your statement regarding the theory of the thinning of the crust is that the impact actually shattered the crust driving whatever crust was there inward and that magma beneath started, and continued, to fill in the space left behind.

Also Trippy says that the "biggest, most obvious flaw in your conjecture" (not all mine BTW, I'm only expounding and expanding it. I don't think it is quite complete yet, owing largely to the lack of study given to it by the more powerful institutions) is the fossil and geologic records like those in the Himalayas. I think you assume in this statement that I don't accept land deformations, but I have said repeatedly that I am not discounting tectonics (which would thereby deny that earthquakes happen, and living in CA I can tell you that they do). My explanation for the non-horizontal geology and the deformed fossils would be that yes fossils could be deformed through tectonic action, but they and also the geologic strata could certainly be accounted for if you don't forget that we are talking about this whole phenomenon being started by a _huge_ impact. Such an impact would also account for the non-horizontal strata and deformed fossil record. The top edge of the crater can I believe be seen in the mountain ranges which surround the Pacific ocean (which becomes much more round once you rollback the expansion). The crater has no doubt been further deformed by tectonic action over the following 2-300 million years.

Others have mentioned studies of Earth's size. Please elaborate on which studies have been carried out long enough (which GPS has not, though I look forward to further monitoring), with consistent methods(as opposed to linking different methods results together), and without 'corrections' to account for 'measurement anomalies' (as far as I know GPS does not receive such corrections, but former methods have) so as to disprove expansion.

A little sidetrack here: Trippy also said that science is not a case where there are two [arguments] and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I would completely disagree. In fact most scientific advancements happen because someone disagrees with someone else and then sets out to discover the truth, which has historically lay somewhere in the middle, with the new idea including at least parts of the old. For example the idea of illness being caused by people being possessed of demons, is strikingly similar to the idea of people being infected by pathogens yet the older idea is obviously incorrect (at least until we can prove that pathogens are indeed demons).

Now back to Earth (pun intended), Seismic imaging of the subduction zones is hardly direct evidence. In fact seismic imaging is accomplished completely through indirect means, IE interpreting the vibrations received during earthquakes. This is not only indirect but also cannot be held to a high degree of accuracy. It is analogous to trying to build a 3-d image of a submarine using radar from 20 leagues away.

It is an interesting phenomenon that in order to defend an entrenched theory we instinctively seek someone that has a degree that is based on acceptance of that theory. Not to disparage the degree itself, I hold it and it's possessor in esteem for the amount of study and knowledge gained that goes along with such a thing. But you must admit that any view expressed by the holder of that degree is going to be biased towards the theories taught in it's pursuit.

A few more things:

The foam in cappuchino is not made of the same thing as the cappuchino, it is steamed cream and not concentrated coffee. The reason it floats is that it is essentially a collection of tiny air bubbles formed by the frothing action of steaming it.

I am not a physicist, so I would love to see a high-level explanation or projection of how a spinning mass of plasma might coalesce into a globe with most of it's mass on one side, backed up by low-level side notes preferably. This is something which everyone whom I have asked seems to just accept.

I have said that I don't agree with subduction, but I want to clarify that I simply mean that I don't agree that is is plausible for the amount of subduction that is claimed by tectonics to have occurred. I think that subduction has probably occurred in the time since the 'impact', but in extremely more modest proportions. However there is something important I have not ever looked for regarding this. If someone could point me to calculations of the amount of material that would have to have been subducted in order to reach the current configuration of continents with a starting point of Pangaea versus the amount of new crust we see formed in the same time period I would love to read that.
buttershug
QUOTE (peacespeak+Oct 21 2007, 10:52 PM)
It is an interesting phenomenon that in order to defend an entrenched theory we instinctively seek someone that has a degree that is based on acceptance of that theory. Not to disparage the degree itself, I hold it and it's possessor in esteem for the amount of study and knowledge gained that goes along with such a thing. But you must admit that any view expressed by the holder of that degree is going to be biased towards the theories taught in it's pursuit.


But aren't a lot of the senior such people in this case actually older than the "entrenched" theory? And isn't the alternate theory just as old as the entrenched one?

Can anyone provide a link that GPS shows that the Earth is at present not growing?
peacespeak
QUOTE
But aren't a lot of the senior such people in this case actually older than the "entrenched" theory? And isn't the alternate theory just as old as the entrenched one?

Can anyone provide a link that GPS shows that the Earth is at present not growing?



Last first: Nobody can do that because the GPS data does not go back far enough to conclusively say anything about expansion. But be patient, the data is coming in. Most sites have only been tracked for around ten years. Click through the links on this page, scign.jpl.nasa.gov/learn/plate4.htm, provided by meBigGuy.


Plate Tectonics, or Continental Drift has been accepted for well over 50 years now, so it's safe to say that the people who studied before it was "entrenched" have now moved on to become a study in the effects of decomposition within boxes of various composition.
peacespeak
I should have noted also that at the time of the theory's entrenchment, the technology did not exist to properly make the measurements needed. Not that they didn't do what they could with what they had, it just wasn't sufficient. The experiments which have followed thereupon have been aimed largely at confirming this theory.

Also I should have noted that the de(re)formation of the Earth _towards_ a spherical shape, that I mentioned earlier, is supported by the GPS data, but the idea that this is a reversal of a previous trend cannot be supported because of the short duration of the data. This is however still accepted. That's not necessarily relevant, but I wanted to note it for some reason.
meBigGuy
@Trippy --- as usual, you expand my knowledge, this time with the progression of super-continents.

@peacespeak

QUOTE
am not a physicist, so I would love to see a high-level explanation or projection of how a spinning mass of plasma might coalesce into a globe with most of it's mass on one side, backed up by low-level side notes preferably. This is something which everyone whom I have asked seems to just accept.


I think that question in and of itself shows a vast misunderstanding of the process leading up to the super-continents.

A condensing globe with matter of different densities, the eventual condensation of water, faults and rifts in the crust, things moving around. (not very scientific, but, hey, I'm ot a scientist), getting hit by large objects, hot spots, cold spots, and on and on. Who is to say that it wouldn't result in a super continent ---- no, strike that .... a SERIES OF SUPER-CONTINENTS.

For observational data, start here, and start following the links, and external links. It is all there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaalbara

I have a hard time reading through your posts and sorting out what your latest conclusions are. I understand you are searching, and welcome the interactions. Could you succintly summarize where you are at the moment? What are the key observations that you feel are not explained by Plate tectonics and a progression of super-continents? What are the key observations or shaky geological assumptions that are explained by EE?

Does your version of EE postulate that the earth had no oceans 200 million years ago and that explains why the oceanic crust is only 200 million tears old?

So, how did the earth gain 40% in volume without covering up the old rocks? Why are we not covered in meteor dust?

regarding subduction
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/con...stract/29/2/135
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JB000396.shtml
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pi...031920106000690

There are lots more if you look for them.

The subduction rate of 7cm/year or so (chile) is SPEEDING by geological standards. That you can just dismiss all the data is astounding. BTW, I'll get back to you later on the errors in your seismic data/submarine detection analogy. I don't think you understand the technology.

Look forward to your clarifications.
peacespeak
Thanks for those links. I'll read up on them before I reply to you in full, but in brief:

I fall somewhere between EE and Tectonics.

I believe the continents are on plates that can move around, and that subduction is possible.

I don't necessarily believe that subduction occurs on the grand scale which the Tectonic Theory says it does.

I also believe the Earth is expanding, but I do not subscribe to everything you may read on EE websites.

I believe there are other mechanisms for expansion than the accretion of space dust, but don't necessarily understand them yet.

As you said I am seeking here. The fact is most people I talk to verbally, and I don't have access to my very own geologist (though I have emailed a few with disappointing results), don't have the background or discussion skills to further my own understanding. Also lets face it, the way to find out if EE has any legitimacy is not to enter a forum like this and say "Hey why is Tectonic valid," but rather to come in here and raise counterpoints (or counter-questions). The trigger that sent me down this path was doing the map experiment, which no one still has said anything about except that one person googled a map, and then didn't do it.

The core of my scientific beliefs is that most everybody wants to know the truth, but also that most everybody starts out with a moderate amount of misunderstandings and flat out erroneous knowledge. These errors propagate and are hard to get rid of because most everybody accepts the knowledge that is passed down to them by their society, on levels from family to religion to school to worldly science. This is why there is an inexplicably large number of people who still believe the dinosaurs, fossil record and all, are a hoax (pretty extreme example but still). Dogma is hard to get past. This is furthered by the fact that the places that do the most and best research are paid to do so by organizations with agendas, which science should never have (beyond greater understanding), and the language of reports is, at least sometimes, skewed to support those agendas even if the research doesn't.


So much for my brief reply, but I assure you after reading your links, which look interesting, I'll have a much longer reply one way or the other.


meBigGuy
I think the corporate agenda thing is over-rated. There is intertia to the prevailing "truths", but that is as it should be. People get nobel prizes for overturning old theories. All who discover and prove new ideas already completely understand the old ones. Personally, I don't think anyone can advance human knowledge within a discipline without fully understanding the limits of human knowledge in that discipline. And, the people who DO understand those limits are not going to be swayed for long by "corporate agendas". As soon as you read anyhing about suppresson by "Them", run the other way. It's a 100% reliable Crank Alert.
Trippy
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 22 2007, 09:46 AM)
I'm on holiday, and on limited band width, so I haven't watched the video yet, otherwise I can assure you the distortion would have been one of the first things I pointed out.  Now, for the rest of this post...


Peacespeak.
Which part of this, precisely, did you have trouble understanding?

If I'm on holiday, and on limited bandwidth, what makes you think I'm going to trawl the net looking for references to provide you with to back up what I'm saying.

For anybody that has trouble coping with the idea of super continents - take alook at a map - there's two them on the globe at the moment - Eurafrasia and the Americas. Eurafrasia formed 5 MYA, Eurasia formed 65 MYA.

Anyway, I'm home now, although given the way this thread has gone, I'm disinclined at this point to provide references. MBG has been doing that, and you've got fingers, you know how to use google, there's also Wikipedia.

Personally, I want what ever crack Neal Adams is smoking.

For example, he blithers on about a conspiracy of silence with regards to the matching up of coast lines across the pacific, and yet, here I quote Wikipedia:

QUOTE
The separation also led to the birth of Panthalassic Ocean (or Paleo-Pacific) The eight continents that made up Rodinia later re-assembled into another global supercontinent called Pannotia and, after that, once more as Pangaea.


There's no conspiracy of silence, only what appears to be a paranoid delusion.

You want direct observational evidence of subduction zones?

How about this paper:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JB003333.shtml
Which studies Relict subduction zones in Canada.
This abstract:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AGUFM.S41A..08W
Which is for a paper that studies the high resolution seismic data to image the seismic zone - this involves accurately plotting the locations of earthquakes, and we find that the vast majority of them lie along a dowards curving plane (Wadati-Benioff zones) that also represents a discontinuity that we can measure via seismic imaging. The Nazca plate is a small tectonic plate that lies between South America and the pacific plate, and is rapidly disappearing.

Here's an abstract that talks about the observation of magnetic lineations on mars - the same as what we observe here on earth as a result of tectonic activity and mid ocean spreading:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abst...ey=KWc4TConG1b7.

This is from Wikipedias entry on the Expanding Earth Theory, discussing arguments for Subduction zones:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The separation also led to the birth of Panthalassic Ocean (or Paleo-Pacific) The eight continents that made up Rodinia later re-assembled into another global supercontinent called Pannotia and, after that, once more as Pangaea.


There's no conspiracy of silence, only what appears to be a paranoid delusion.

You want direct observational evidence of subduction zones?

How about this paper:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JB003333.shtml
Which studies Relict subduction zones in Canada.
This abstract:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AGUFM.S41A..08W
Which is for a paper that studies the high resolution seismic data to image the seismic zone - this involves accurately plotting the locations of earthquakes, and we find that the vast majority of them lie along a dowards curving plane (Wadati-Benioff zones) that also represents a discontinuity that we can measure via seismic imaging. The Nazca plate is a small tectonic plate that lies between South America and the pacific plate, and is rapidly disappearing.

Here's an abstract that talks about the observation of magnetic lineations on mars - the same as what we observe here on earth as a result of tectonic activity and mid ocean spreading:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abst...ey=KWc4TConG1b7.

This is from Wikipedias entry on the Expanding Earth Theory, discussing arguments for Subduction zones:

The existence of Wadati-Benioff zones, elongated regions of high seismic activity within the crust and mantle that are explained as huge shear zones. These zones are located beneath oceanic trenches and seem to indicate a slice of crustal material is moving downward through the mantle. They form one of the best arguments for subduction but cannot be explained by an expanding Earth model.
3D models of the mantle made with seismic tomography show cold zones of sinking material exactly in the regions where plate tectonics predicts slabs of crust are subducting into the mantle.
Petrologic research of rocks from mountain belts has yielded countless pressure-temperature-time paths. Paths for the axial zones of mountain belts (the metamorphic core) show many mountain chains went through a period of "deep burial". This is nicely explained by plate tectonics (subduction followed by obduction). An expanding Earth cannot explain the observed vertical motions, rather, it would predict mostly horizontal motions in the process of mountainbuilding. The existence of eclogite in many mountainbelts indicates material was "pushed" to depths far into the mantle (depths up to over 200 km are found). A mechanical force to push (less dense) crustal rocks to these depths is lacking in an expanding Earth model; in plate tectonics this is explained by the slab pull force which occurs at mid-ocean ridges.
The existence of major geologic shearzones (sutures) in most mountain belts. Paleomagnetic and mineralogic studies show the rocks that are now lying next to each other were originally thousands of kilometers apart. In other words: a piece of the crust is missing. Structural geology has shown these missing pieces of crust are not located directly underneath the shearzones or laterally. Instead, they seem to have moved along the sutures into the mantle (this is supported by shear indicators in the shear zones). This is again strong evidence that subduction took place and mountains form by the "continental collision" of tectonic plates. The expanding Earth model does not explain the deep reaching shearzones.
Rare earth isotope compositions of volcanic rocks that formed above subduction zones are similar to those of sediments on top of the subducting plate. If there are lateral differences in the isotope composition of sediments on subducting plates, these lateral differences are also found back in the composition of the magma that rose from the deeper part of the subduction zone.


If you want further evidence. Was it you that claimed to live in California? Do some research into yout own Geology - especially teh Sanfrancisco/bay area, IFIRC there's a bunch of mountains there that were once sea mounts, but they were plastered onto the side of the north american continent. The process is called accretion, and it's one of the methods by which the continents grow under the continental drift theory.

Here's Wiki's entry on PLate Tectonics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics from what (little) I have read of it, it seems accurate enough.

Here's some lecture notes on Subduction zones:
http://quake.mit.edu/hilstgroup/MantleConv...0398_notes.html

Here's a seminar on the GPS results regarding continental drift:
http://www.aob.geophys.tohoku.ac.jp/aob-e/...ar/aob-seminar/

Not to mention the ample evidence of marine life that existed more then 200mya, and the evidence (as stated in my previous post) that this has happened several times over the history of the earth. Oh, and there's also evidence of Tectonic activity on the gallilean satelites, but at this point in time I'm not feeling real inclined to go looking for the articles/press releases.

And I just found this:

QUOTE
In his experiments, Anderson documented the collision of high energy photons with what Adams believes is an undetectable standing field of prime matter particles, which produced an electron and a positron.


So basically what we have here is a comic book artist adovcating what is, essentially an Aether theory.

I could probably go on, but I have other things to do.

Edit:

I will go on. This theory should be discredited and forgotten, however.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
In his experiments, Anderson documented the collision of high energy photons with what Adams believes is an undetectable standing field of prime matter particles, which produced an electron and a positron.


So basically what we have here is a comic book artist adovcating what is, essentially an Aether theory.

I could probably go on, but I have other things to do.

Edit:

I will go on. This theory should be discredited and forgotten, however.

Stars, including the sun, blast out large amounts of photons which in Adams' theory would continuously create huge amounts of protons and electrons from the hypothetical prime matter filling the universe. This has never been observed. [12]
Adams believes there is no such thing as gravity and so-called "electromagnetic lines" are responsible for the orbit of planets, because they contain iron. Yet, man-made non-ferromagnetic objects still manage to stay in orbit. Also, the world's ocean tide can be observed to be under the influence of gravity every day, even though water is not ferromagnetic.
The medical imaging technique relies on electron-positron annihilation to form two gamma photons of 511 keV, while the growing earth theory is based on the suggestion that they are converted to "prime matter". [13]
The International Terrestrial Reference Frame for the Earth in 2005 actually shrank a very small amount (0.2 ppb which would be equivalent to a 5mm reduction of diameter) from the reference frame in 2000.[14]


These are critiscisms of Neal Adams' theory. Note specifically the last point, which I have bolded.

Not only is the earth not expanding, between 2000 and 2005 it shrank by 5 mm.

These are the Wiki references provided in the Wiki article on Adams' theory:
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/12/w..._be_right_1.php
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsgu...info.asp?pid=51
Vennebusch, M. Böckmann, S, and Nothnagel, A. (2007) The contribution of Very Long Baseline Interferometry to ITRF2005, J. Geod. 81:553-564 doi 10.1007/s00190-006-0117
Trippy
Oh, and for the record?

Why is it that whenever I make an analogy, rather then actually trying to understand what it is that I'm saying, people instead start pointing out the obvious flaws in the analogy.

Get a grip people. It's an analogy. Analogies are inherently flawed. But for the reocord? Do you really think that adding the froth to the coffee somehow causes the froth to float? Think about it, just for a minute. And more importantly think about what happens inside the jug and the point that I was trying to make.

The bubbles make the milk froth less dense then the milk in the jug.
Because the froth is less dense then the milk, the froth floats higher then the milk.

Continental crust is composed (primarily) of Aluminosilicates
Oceanic crust is composed (primarily) of Magnesium Silicates (they used to be called Sial and Sima).
Continental crust has a density of 2.7-2.8
Oceanic crust has a density of 3.3
Therefore the Continental crust should float higher then the oceanic crust because it's less dense (in fact the Mantle has approximately the same density as Oceanic crust). Hence the analogy - the froth floats on the milk because it's less dense.

And before anyone asks, continental crust, IIRC is generally considered to have been produced by partial melting of Oceanic crust (and eruption of the consequent magmas) - it's not too dissimilar from fractional distilation - the lighter, less dense materials melt first and are erupted.
bm1957
QUOTE (BenTheMan+Oct 19 2007, 11:33 PM)
No. Absolutely not. The expansion that the universe is currently undergoing is only measurable in between galaxies. We can't even measure the expansion in our own galaxy, because it is too small an effect.

Correct me if I'm wrong; but if I'm right it's important to clarify this point.

The currently accepted theory of an expanding universe describes the 'space' in between things expanding. In galaxies there is too much mass and gravity for this effect to be noticeable; gravity 'holds space togther'.

So the idea of matter expanding because of the expanding universe is just plain wrong. What we expect is large open spaces to become larger open spaces... no expansion of matter.
rmuldavin
Trippy (Monday, 5:31 AM GT), thanks for your research and links, you give a link which I am reading written by a Google software advisor, and I paste from

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/12/w..._be_right_1.php

{{This new model says, there is only one Particle, the Prime Matter particle.

1. The Prime Matter (the "Ocean" that is our universe.) Which is 1 whole particle (the other two are thrust from this.)
2. The Electron. 1/2 particle
3. The Positron. 1/2 particle

These single particles fill the universe from edge to edge. An ocean of Prime Matter particles.

Ah, beautiful, isn't it? But why do we ever see the half-particles? If the fundamental force of the universe is electromagnetism holding the two halves of the prime matter particle together, why do we see things with positive or negative charges?

If one of these Matter particles is struck by a photon of energy, it is thrust in half, into two half pieces. These two half particles are the only two basic matter particles of the universe.}}

[comments: this is the Google software advisor writing about Mr. Adams.

More than six months ago while in Ann Arbor at the U of M graduate Science Library doing research on the Dehmelt Nobel Prize winning a Conjecture that the electron was a triplet (triangle) of 1/3 charged sub-particles (vertexes), which I term as a "flat equal lateral triangle" (felt).

I found a thesis or two and other articles (mostly Physical Reviews) in which a positron was fired into a thin carbon "foil", drawn by a negative electric field, and apparently collided with an electron in the carbon foil, and that transverse to the direction of the positron, a cylinder of gamma ray detectors.

Results were three gamma rays emitted almost equally spaced apart, that is separated in a flat plane by pi/3 radians.

If the Dehmelt triplet positron were to collide with a triplet electron, then it seems the opposite 1/3 charges would annihilate to form gamma rays from a common "center of mass". Thus the positive delta - - -> negative delta => 3Y gamma.

Neal Adams' gift of graphic skills are compelling to him, first they appear to be making him a living, but his physics of a binary duality of opposites, as tempting as that kind of logic is to me, at least, is incomplete, and the Spinoza approach of using triplet logic as more stable seems better representing a property of micro cosmoses.

The nucleus appears to contain 1/3 negative charges and 2/3 positive charges, this suggests the positive pairs as 1/3 couplets.

Reading the article by the Google Advisor is instructive, the comments go on for pages, ending circa March 2006.

I read as much as I can of blogs, it seems we are all searching to put things together for whatever personal reasons, the Internet has great power.

For my mind, the Higgs Particle, a conjecture which has and is receiving much attention offers the writings of many, I find it dazzling at times, more to read of details than I have time, but what gets me through is the simple idea that the Higgs Particle Conjecture replaces the Newton Gravitational Constant, G, with aether like
strings that connects all particles to each others.

I would add, pictorially, that all such connected particles are in attraction by the local strings, that is the mass of the local particles in part of the strings connected.

Inertia due to relative motion to other masses means compression and expansion, so in the direction of motion the string longitudinally expands its string diameter, and behind, the string diameter decreases.

Thus the forces of gravity transmit longitudinally along the strings.

The electromagnetic forces travel transversely.

This is a powerful 'duality'. The challenge is to combine the two forces.

The link through the Google Advisor (Mark Chu-Carroll) is well written, Neal Adam's math may lack a model to track the numbers, but I am attempting to do a similar thing on the 96% to 4% dark matter/energy to light matter and energy.

(1/3) to the n power, when n=3 gives a close to 96 to 4 ratio. Triplets with vertices of Y spins directions can give models of the regular (equal sided) triangular polyhedra.

Dark matter and dark energy may be like the black hole flat absolute zero surfaces, present within nuclei as well as maybe surrounding our "universe".

One does not have to combine "crack" with "pot" nor smoke tobacco to concentrate on the complexity of reality, it seems nature created plenty of neural connections and brain~mind connections for us all to survive this far.

May we continue the social quest for a world of peace.

Best, rmuldavin
peacespeak
Hey there,

Sorry it's been awhile, but I've been very busy and am still trying to read the links that have been posted here, and the links from them. I only dropped in to say that I haven't abandoned my search, but I feel I need to address Trippy's issues with me as well.

QUOTE
Trippy wrote:
Why is it that whenever I make an analogy, rather then actually trying to understand what it is that I'm saying, people instead start pointing out the obvious flaws in the analogy.

Get a grip people. It's an analogy. Analogies are inherently flawed. But for the reocord? Do you really think that adding the froth to the coffee somehow causes the froth to float? Think about it, just for a minute. And more importantly think about what happens inside the jug and the point that I was trying to make.

The bubbles make the milk froth less dense then the milk in the jug.
Because the froth is less dense then the milk, the froth floats higher then the milk.


Try not to be so angry. I understand that what I am doing is challenging (and I'm not putting any value on the challenge here, that will be determined after it is done) your (and contemporary science's) views. However I haven't done anything to personally attack you or your explanations.

I did understand your analogy, and what I did was try to clarify your analogy. Admittedly I did it in haste and myself was not clear. Let me try again.

The foam in cappuccino is not made of the same thing as the cappuccino, it is steamed cream and not concentrated coffee. The reason it floats is that the action of steaming it causes a froth of air bubbles to form which alters it's density to a point below that of the cappuccino, which causes it to float. I am not sure of the density variance between cream (or milk) and cappuccino, but I have seen a day old cappuccino sitting with a thin layer of cream on top. This would lead me to believe that, even without the frothing action, the cream, or at least this portion of it, is, due to it's composition and not the presence of air bubbles (which I presume popped though I have never checked under a scope), less dense than the cappuccino. This is similar to the compositional differences between oceanic and continental crust.

Now I hope that is more clear. I wasn't trying to debunk your analogy, but buttress it. I am not signing on to everything you said accompanying it until I have finished my reading.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Trippy wrote:
Why is it that whenever I make an analogy, rather then actually trying to understand what it is that I'm saying, people instead start pointing out the obvious flaws in the analogy.

Get a grip people. It's an analogy. Analogies are inherently flawed. But for the reocord? Do you really think that adding the froth to the coffee somehow causes the froth to float? Think about it, just for a minute. And more importantly think about what happens inside the jug and the point that I was trying to make.

The bubbles make the milk froth less dense then the milk in the jug.
Because the froth is less dense then the milk, the froth floats higher then the milk.


Try not to be so angry. I understand that what I am doing is challenging (and I'm not putting any value on the challenge here, that will be determined after it is done) your (and contemporary science's) views. However I haven't done anything to personally attack you or your explanations.

I did understand your analogy, and what I did was try to clarify your analogy. Admittedly I did it in haste and myself was not clear. Let me try again.

The foam in cappuccino is not made of the same thing as the cappuccino, it is steamed cream and not concentrated coffee. The reason it floats is that the action of steaming it causes a froth of air bubbles to form which alters it's density to a point below that of the cappuccino, which causes it to float. I am not sure of the density variance between cream (or milk) and cappuccino, but I have seen a day old cappuccino sitting with a thin layer of cream on top. This would lead me to believe that, even without the frothing action, the cream, or at least this portion of it, is, due to it's composition and not the presence of air bubbles (which I presume popped though I have never checked under a scope), less dense than the cappuccino. This is similar to the compositional differences between oceanic and continental crust.

Now I hope that is more clear. I wasn't trying to debunk your analogy, but buttress it. I am not signing on to everything you said accompanying it until I have finished my reading.

Trippy wrote:

Peacespeak.
Which part of this, precisely, did you have trouble understanding?

If I'm on holiday, and on limited bandwidth, what makes you think I'm going to trawl the net looking for references to provide you with to back up what I'm saying.


So listen. I turned to you because you yourself have stood up as an authority. I thought this meant that you were willing to be helpful, but I am starting to think it's because you want to belittle people who think differently, or have 'strange' ideas. I am not here because I think my idea is right. I am here because I want to pursue this path to determine for myself, rather than through simple dismissal, what I should believe. However I am not familiar with terms like 'back-arc subduction' and it's ilk, so my searches are mostly hit and miss. Thus I turn authorities to help me along the way. Obviously I'm not in a rush as I posted on this thread months ago and have been patiently awaiting a good exchange. I am sorry if you felt I was pushing you for quick results. **I will leave my above comment about belittling people because it accurately portrays what I felt when I read your posts. But I would also like to now apologize for it as re-reading tells me it is admittedly a little harsh**

I appreciate the links you provided (and the ones provided by others), but I haven't yet finished following them up. Why? Well I too am frequently too busy to pursue these things. I can tell you that nothing I have read so far tells me that my idea is wrong. I even have a plausible explanation for the seismic readings that sort of 'map' the subduction zones (I think, I'm still trying to find a graphic that shows them (no pressure)).

Also, I too believe Adams is off the deep end. The concept is not his though.

I will be back when I am done reading and I will summarize all of my 'findings' even if they come out against EE. Please be willing to listen impersonally.


PS: We just had a good shake in the San Jose, CA area. 5.6 I believe.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.