Light Storm

Re: Mooeypoo In fairness, I went searching specifically for Peer Reviews on James Maxlow. I found this letter someone posted to another forum and it's response. All objections are not equal, although small points can break a central premise, then it is really a big point in action. I had stuff peer reviewed and you get massive lists back that are pages long is typical. A lot of it is little things, but they all need to be addressed. More importantly its up to the author to expound the possibility of every small point, and be honest to explore fully the ramifications, more than the critics intended. I can only imagine how peer reviews must turn out. How many letters do you think Maxlow must receive daily from ammeter scientists that must tell him his full of crap. The fact that he holds his ground on a theory that has overwhelming objection and very little peer support show me what an amazing strength in belief he has in his own highly educated lifes work. Here is a video narrated by Neal Adams talking about what happened to another scientist legacy while supporting the expanding earth. Even this thread can't be taken seriously enough to keep it in you're earth science forum. A great quote by Professor Sam Warren Carey "If 50 million believe in a fallacy it is still a fallacy." You can't even explain the mechanism that powers the complete 100% recycling of 5.9742 × 10^24 kilograms of mass that has reset over 70% of the floor of this planet! I've asked for a valid map of the ocean floor 250 million years ago to justify the plate movements on a static earth radius, and the request hasn't even been acknowledged. If there is something powerful enough to move that much mass on an ongoing cycle, it's powerful enough to expand a planet. The Earth should be all the evidence to make it very simple to accept. If I take a hollow glass sphere, drop it on the ground, pick up the shattered pieces and attach them to a larger sphere and say to you... if the sphere underneath the glass shards was smaller, the pieces come together... you would toss up you're hands and say that's absurd! Re: Klaynoss Is that why it costs $40 to read it? I think I'll stick to my books on plate tectonics, even if they aren't peer reviewed either. Re: John Cuthber Now I know this is a stretch, but work with me here (whispers) "I think it's rotates because of leftover momentum from our solar systems formation!" Re: csmyth3025 That's just contradiction, not an argument. I have no idea why anyone in the scientific community would support earth being the centre of the universe. Sadly, up until a couple hundred years ago... they did. Ah, you said one of my earliest objections. What I didn't account for was the pressure of the interior mantle and cores. Apparently when you cool something that is under enough pressure (350 gigapascals) it tends to significancy change it's density. When you cool it. The density decreases with and a long with it, pressure. I looked up a research paper on the subject... honestly... the math went way over my head. Links to papers mentioned: http://www.me.ucsb.e...mputational.pdf http://www.me.ucsb.e...core_mantle.pdf Re: Swansont Figures... props for not moving it strait into 'off topic' And that can't happen to a planet because?? I mean... look at Venus One can't help but ponder "Why" 250 million years ago a few creatures grew to more then 4x the largest land animals of today. Their bones where also hollow, more like that of the ultra light bird then the super reinforced bones of our elephant. Many elephants today suffer bone related problems, almost like they are too big for this environment. I understand that there was once a dragon fly with a 2.5ft wingspan... I mean... Wow, would such a creature today even have the strength to lift an exoskeleton that big off the ground despite how much oxygen it's sucking in? I wonder if the 'radiation exposure' at that time could have anything to do with it. Size reference: http://en.wikipedia....i/Dinosaur#Size Dragonfly reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura I think you need to go back and re-read my posts. My argument for an expanding earth is a change in core density, not a change in mass. IF there was that much change in solid mass, even I would want to have an explanation for it! I'm new here, sorry for only familiarizing myself with the sticky posted rules of your earth forum.

Think about a figure skater in a tight spin and then slowly spreads her arms out while spinning. James Maxlow, the geologist cited in Ogrisseg's article, has excerpted and replied to these moment-of-inertia arguments, e.g. Keary and Vine's (Global Tectonics, Blackwell, 1990) conclusion that "A very slight expansion, or, indeed, contraction, of the Earth could be tolerated by this analysis, but, certainly, the very large increase in radius required by the expanding Earth hypothesis can definitely be ruled out." Maxlow responds as follows: The three tests proffered by both Clarke and Cook (1983) and Keary and Vine (1990) work because they all rely on plate tectonic premises to make them valid on a static radius Earth….Calculation of the ancient moment of inertia relies on the premise that the Earth's mass has remained constant with time in order to conserve angular momentum. While the rotational history of the Earth-Moon system using fossil organisms and sedimentary rhythmites assumes the yearly cycle has remained constant or near constant. What the fossil and sedimentary epithecal banding represents is daily, monthly and yearly _cycles_ [emphasis Maxlow's] of growth, not time. Earth expansion studies have demonstrated that Earth mass may not necessarily be constant, hence moment of inertia and solar cycles are also not necessarily constant." Maxlow also argues that the paleomagnetic and space geodetic arguments similarly covertly bring in premises which invalidate the conclusions against Earth expansion, and adds, "in addition to these three standard tests should be added a fourth, that of empirical modeling of global geological data without prejudice" – a reference to his own empirical modeling work. Ref: James Maxlow, Earth Expansion: Myths and Misconceptions, New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 13, December 1999, pp. 19-22, online at http://www.ncgt.org/ Re: Klaynos Hmmm... in counter to the mechanism for plate tectonics, take a look at http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php Issue 2 Title : "Plate tectonics: everything goes and nobody knows." And guess what, it's open source which means it's not going to cost you $40.00 like your reference. http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php Please see above reference to swansont in references to questions about angular momentum of an expanding earth. I could sit here and work out the math, but my question is would it make a difference to you're perception for expanding earth theory? if a 15% decrease in core density over 300 million years is enough to double the volume of earth, I imaging the percentage for 11mm would be a ridiculously small figure. As nobody here is interested in reading the Maxlow page I've tossed up, You can see a series of videos shot from one of James Maxlows conferences. In video 12/14 he discusses a proposed mechanism. I've also given my view point on underline mechanism on previous posts. Re: Mooeypoo Have you even looked at Maxlow's page yet? I have yet to get any kind of opinion from you on him. You where pretty quick to bash Adams credibility. Dr. James Maxlow 'Geologist and proponent of Expansion Tectonics' ref: http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/ Please read Dr. Maxlows quick explanations of Expansion Tectonics ref: http://www.jamesmaxl...MN_position=4:4 Here is a couple to start out with, if you want more they aren't hard to find. http://www.ncgt.org/ I've yet to get through all of them

You want my scientific opinion about Creationism? Disclaimer: Do not read if you're are easily offended by Agnosticism The majority of creationism comes strait out of the first book in the bible 'Genesis.' Most religious followers believe the story was inspired by God, the truth is it was a story made up and told by Moses. For that matter, the first several books of the bible where all written by or the stories originated from just Moses. Let's talk about Moses for a second. Well... he started out as murderer (Exodus 2 12). I think killing gave him some kind of morbid sense of power because it only got insatiably worse. In egypt he killed children (Exodus 12:29-36) because he wasn't getting his way with the Pharaoh. When the pharaoh finally said "Get out!" he led his people out of egypt. They would genocide anyone who would get in their way (Deut 7:1-4,16,24) and he brought down slavery laws that where worse then their own treatment in Egypt (look up Chattel Slavery). Moses would kill people just for picking up sticks on his precious, and very made up 7th day that "God" rested (num 15 32-36) So to conclude... everything in the bible is founded on a man who was a murderer and talked to plants. If you want my opinion (probably don't) but it is possible the Moses is the single biggest liar in human history. His lies butterfly effected in massive wars leaving countless numbers of people dead and suffering in the name of his "God". Some of these wars over his 'promised land' continue to this very day. The picture he painted of God was more of his own alter ego. The question shouldn't be "Did God create man in his image" it should be "Did Moses create god in his?"

Re: Moontanman The match is uncanny. Some of the similarities in matching coast lines is screaming to obvious to ignore. In past forum discussions, I've been present with the argument that they where connected pre - Pangea to justify the similarities. Even if so, the matching coast lines should not share matching sister taxa not found anywhere else in the world. Because I'm getting chastised for not backing up my statements, here is the biographical and geological evidence for a smaller, completely-enclosed Pacific Basic in the Late Cretaceous written by Dennis McCarthy (Journal of Biogeography (2005) 32, 2161-2177 http://www.4threvolt...cCarthy2005.pdf References please, I have a feeling you made half of that up. Convection theory is under huge debate even by geo-scietists that aren't interested in alternate theories like expanding earth. Refer to my first post: not my theory Refer to follow up posts: I would not present or agree to a theory that would violate the laws of nature Re: Ophiolite I'm aware of uplifted and exposed sections of the oceanic crust. I've been using rather gross references to make more of a quick statement. I feel a need to get this out now. I strongly disagree with Neal Adams on the statements like "note there is no subduction". That's a load of crap! His knowledge about subduction comes strait out of Careys book on Expanding Earth. Alas, the advanced understanding of subduction was little in Careys time. Follow up actual scientists in the theories of expanding earth do not deny subduction. They are also pretty quick to point out that rifting lines around the globe more then double, maybe even triple the distance of subduction lines. Also, as in the Dennis McCarthy video that Mooeypoo rejects without even watching is detailed explanation of Lopsided Hemispheres. He discusses how ultra fast and ultra slow rifting ridges statistically and profoundly out numbers the amount of material being subducted. Basic Math tells you an when you add more then you subtract, the total becomes larger. As I was explaining to mooeypoo above, the difference between expanding earth and plate tectonics boils down to "is the earth expanding?" everything else is pretty much the same. Maxlow has created reconstructions of the convenal Pangea, Gondwanaand Rodinia super contanents and smaller sub-continents in his very detailed Expansion Tectonics Theory. When I said we have no evidence of an ocean floor previous to 200 million years ago, I was referring to the geographical maps detailing the age of the ocean floor between 0 and 300 million years ago. Please note the simplicity of the spreading pattern evenly disturbed across the earths globe. *Subduction zones are indicated by green lines In order to maintain a static earth radius, the rifting lines must push 100% old material into subduction zones. Yet, we see no evidence of bottle necking material, or remnants of left over previous ocean basin, almost like, it was never there. That is what I meant when I said there was 0 evidence for deep ocean floors prior to 200 million years ago. I have never seen a geographical map, not even a guess or theory map of what the ocean floor looked like 300 million years ago. Believe me, I've looked, if you have a reference, I would happily give it an honest vetting. I would primarily be interested in understanding how it evolved with continental drift to form the rainbow map we accept as scientific fact today on the age of the ocean floors. A lot more text book cross section on rifting/subduction zone relationships I've come to expect from everything I've learned about plate tectonics. In the many more examples at your disposal, do you have anything that takes a best guess at subduction/rifting line relationships say during the time of Pangea. Even a hypothesis, best guess map would do. As far as I can tell, there isn't one, just a big body of water hiding all the inconsistencies in comparison to todays oceanic age maps. James Maxlow has created detailed globes of the ocean floor dating back prior Early Jurassic using his Expansion Tectonic theory. Re: mooeypoo Me to! It's also equally discredited by established, peer-reviewed evidence. Okay, I mentioned James Maxlow and Dennis McCarthy above... I thought for sure they would be a little more credible then the Cartoonists video the OP made reference to. But if your interested in some more references, I would highly recommend a few other professionals leading this field. Giancarlo Scalera is an Italion Geologist publishing many accepted papers in the community and using the expanding earth for finding oil. Professor Lance Endersbees is a world authority on rock behavior and tunnelling who claims the world's water supplies as being ancient and coming from within the earth. Vedat Shehu is an Albanian field geologist who has been working on evidence for a growing and developing earth. There is also a pretty good paper by David de Hilster that really sumarizes the theory in comparison to plate tectonics. I don't think you answered the question presented in my last follow up with you. Did you look at Maxlow's page, or his several hundred page thesis? And this is why my first post ended in the conclusion that it did. Not only does it explain EVERYTHING plate tectonics can, it goes into amazingly advanced detail on everything else plate tectonics fails to explain. In reality, when you have two opposing theories that share the same evidence, more often the simpler one is the correct one. In this particular case, an Expanding Earth details how and why our planets continents are shaped the way they are. The other says it's random interactions of anyones best guess. To be honest, I didn't expect anyone here to even try and take it seriously, I just really wanted you to know that there was a lot more to the theory then videos made by Neal Adams. Then why does the theory work so well? Re: Moontanman Expanding Earth theories suggest a 50% volume increase over the past 300 million years. The radius of earth is 6,378.1 kilometres. So lets do some math... 50% of 6,378.1 is 3189.05. 3189.05km / 300,000,000years = 0.0001km or 11mm per year. 3 Earth Masses? Something about gaseous molten rock? James Maxlow explains that the growth is exponential, not consistent and is why the planet has received the most growth over the last 300 million years when compared to the massive age of the earth which is about 5 billion years. Think of a star as it reaches the end of it's life span, it exhausts it's internal fuel and is no longer able to counteract the force of gravity. The density of the star will rapidly increase in volume. This is not saying a planet is like a star, or that the interactions with the core are the same, it's just an interesting observation.

Except that one means the earth keeps getting bigger, but the other doesn't. OK, for one of those to be plausible the extra "stuff" has to come from somewhere. Where is that stuff from? Without an answer to that question this "expanding earth" idea is dead and should be left to rot. I presented a 'suggestion' as a means of explanation that doesn't break the basic laws of thermodynamics. It's not really my idea as it's more of a vague reference to the explanation given by James Maxlow. You must have glazed over it before responding. Before I could even entertain the idea of presenting idea's or evidence that suggests the earth is continuing to expand, you would have to look with eyes open at the overwhelming evidence that the earth has expanded in size over the past 250 million years. A lot of expanding earth hypothesis have presented ideas about Earth increasing mass over time. If true, and even I would have a hard time accepting that as I've reviewed the math myself, the best explanation is "I don't know." The line probably not good enough for you, but in science, "I don't know" is a hell of a lot better then "God did it" or "It's always been that way." Last time I checked we still don't fully understand the underline mechanisms to things like 'light' or 'gravity' and continue to strive to solve those 'I don't know's'. All above aside, the amount of energy required to support the recycling convection cells for plate tectonics would is equally be impossible as expanding earth. If you had gone over the links presented by mooeypoo like I did, you would learn that. Carey said understanding the source of new mass in the universe may be key in understanding where existence comes from. Lastly, considering an "infinite" amount of mass just popped into existence from nothing to create the big bang, I still prefer "I don't know" to "It just happened.

I would start with looking over the works by geologist James Maxlow His web page presents an excellent overview of his thesis: http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/ If you want to follow up by reading his open access thesis at Curtin University Library: http://espace.librar...&object_id=9645 Another scientist I follow is Dennis McCarthy. His evidence for an expanding earth is pretty solid. Video reference: As I explained above, the difference between the theories is not like comparing apples to oranges. They are pretty much identical in all regards with exception of expansion. One says it's true, the other says it's false. No one has really ever asked the question before, scientifically of religiously, so in that regard, when taken seriously, it's a pretty new question. If you can say the Atlantic was closed, and knowing the Pacific ocean basin in the same age, how can you not close it at the same rate? Dennis McCarthy presents the same question in a rather cheesy video if you want to see it Video Reference:

Re: Mooeypoo First off, it's not Neals theory! During the start of the 1900's Roberto Mantovani published his work on earth expansion and continental drift. He was really one of the originals to say that all the continents of the earth fit together near perfectly, on a much smaller globe. He was also one of the first to say that it was volcanic activity, which broke the land up into smaller continents. A few years later Alfred Wegener pretty much published the exact same work, only it excluded Earth Expansion as a mechanism for continental drift. Expansion Earth and Plate Tectonics really are not that much different! "While arguments can be given for and against both theories, it is emphasized that the exact same crustal fragments making up both the ancient supercontinents and modern continents can be fitted together precisely, somewhat like a spherical jigsaw, on a smaller radius Earth to form a single supercontinent. The question that must then be answered is, is this empirical phenomenon fact or mere coincidence?" ~James Maxlow If Roberto Mantovani could see what was happening out in the African Desert today, I'm sure he would be truly proud of his theories. Ref: http://www.rochester...how.php?id=3486 Re: Michel123456 Having looked over the GPS information conclusions on the data, I was absolutely mind blown by the 'corrections' made to yearly numbers. Have you looked over the data for yourself, or just laugh because the theory is quoted as being debunked on Wikipedia? Proto Earth grew by accretion, I seriously doubt anyone is going to argue that. The super massive crushing power of the early Earth formation must have been astronomical. After the collision with Thea, and earth was gifted with an absolutely amazing amount of iron and the remnants of that disaster began to form our moon. Over time the surface of earth would have begun to cool and eventually solidified and became the cool granite rocky surface. The question really should be... how big was Earth at that point in history? I should point out that if the moon and earth where the size they are now then, the proximity of the moons mass would have been strong enough to destroy our surface, preventing earliest life from evolving. Plate tectonics says it hasn't changed significantly in volume at all. It goes on to say that the earth land was a series of super continents that formed like the Hawaiian islands. They drifted around and collided together forming Pangea, which also drifted around like an iceberg and broke up forming that continents of today. It's almost a shame there is absolutely 0! evidence of this ocean floor, I would love to see even a theory that discusses it. Advocates for an Expanding Earth agree that it was closer to the size of Mars. Pangea was the entire surface of earth. The hypothesis suggests that the mountains of today had not yet started forming. As the planet expanded in volume, that super hard surface would break up and begin to separate. As the curvature under the surface expanded, flattening it out, massive eruptions in the rock would adjust, stretching and wrinkling into mountains. The majority of spreading is shown to happen in the southern hemisphere. This is why the majority of the surface is mostly NEW while the majority of the northern hemisphere is ancient and continental. The Earth's crust makes up less then 1% of the massive volume of this planet. The majority of that internal volume is under unimaginable pressure. Over 350 gigapascals in some areas. That's enough pressure to change the density of solid iron to double or even triple it's density and reduce it's volume. If the Earth's inner/outer cores are changing from a super dense state from the original crushing birth to a less dense cooler state over geological time, it would only take about a 15% change to double or even triple volume of the planet without changing the mass. When you really research our advanced knowledge of how the inner workings of this planet operates, you quickly discover that everything about the inner/outer cores is based on best guess. Honestly, we do not poses the materials, technology or knowledge on how to even penetrate that 1% crust. The core samples we do have come from volcanic activity. Go back 200 million years, the average sea level was about 200 meters higher then it is today, go back 60 million years it is about 70 meters higher then it is today. This is why you find ancient fish fossils on the land, and not in the newly rifted open ocean floors. For that matter, the majority of the ocean floor isn't much older then 60 million years. One valid hypothesis for the oceans is that it comes from the mantle of the earth, and continues to be vented to the earth surface over geological time. Some recent studies have shown ocean quantities of waters still trapped in the mantle. No, there is only sheer ignorance to even the idea of possibly. It could be one of the most important keys in understanding not only the evolution of Earth, but of all planets.