Expanding earth

[HappyCoder]

Only if you don't know the implications.

...

(Removal of text and links and such)

 

Read through all of that, and I already knew it. I guess one thing I should mention is that when I first saw that theory I thought to myself. Huh? How could that possibly happen but the fact that all of the continents fit so well over the atlantic and pacific spread not to mention the sea floor age data made me want to investigate it further and I didn't only look at the pro-earth expansion I looked at why it wouldn't work as well as the same for subduction. I did my homework you don't need to give you your elementary level reading.

 

don't forget: This movie makes a lot of claims and no proof. The nice animation isn't proof, it's animation. The proof is on the geological side.

http://www.continuitystudios.net/marsmov02.html

 

Take a look at this video for mars. Not only does the animation manage to put the continents of mars back together. But he actually is using some scientifically accepted methods for assessing relative age. The craters. The older crust has more craters . The younger crust formed later by the planets expanding has less craters. There are other videos and they are all pretty good.

 

Second, for the Earth to expand, it needs to have a *cause* for expansion. I'll be "blunt" and ask -- is there anyone "blowing air" into it? -- What causes the expansion? How would one prove it? After you ask these questions, which consist of the theory - you set about to test them. That's the core of science - you extrapolate, hypothesize, devise an experiment,and check the validity of your claim.

 

That is a good question. The theory that best explains with the given evidence is the matter is being created inside the earth. Of course that cannot be explained with our current understanding of matter and it seems to break one of the basic laws of physics. But just in an attempt to wider your perspective a little. Why is the sun expanding? I know there are huge differences when it comes to composition of the cores and behavior but the idea of a large object in space expanding is not far fetched.

 

Now I ask you, what causes the plate tectonics to move? From what I understand it started with centripetal force, that was rejected. Then gravity, rejected. Recently was convection currents, rejected because a portion of the mantle near to the crust was discovered to be solid. And now all that is explained is something like the ocean crust sliding into the continents because it is sloped that way. There still is no explanation for continental movement.

 

Paleontologists explain the size of the dinosaurs quite well without the need for this unproven, unsupported, and unfitting theory. If these are the ONLY questions it answers, they are being ansewred by a better theory that explains a lot of other questions, and is actually supported by scientific evidence.

http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/antipangea.html

Ya, but an expanding earth can explain it better.

 

The earth is hollow. It makes no sense in any scientific level you choose.

Nowhere on that web page I first posted does it say anything about the earth being hollow. I would never believe such a dumb claim as that one. Like I said I have done my homework I have read many things about this theory and a lot theory's people come up with it is dumb.

One good example is somebody trying to explain the increase in size because of cosmic dust collecting. That is just stupid. The amount of dust collected per year extended is hardly anything compared to the mass of the earth even extended millions of years in the past. I wouldn't believe something like that because it is easy to disprove with our knowledge and observations now.

 

Also, argument from ignorance ("If I don't understand, it can't be true") is a fallacy.

Exactly now I don't have to bring it up myself. Not knowing how the earth could expand maybe even somehow created matter does not mean it couldn't happen, thank you for bringing that up.

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.. Why is the sea floor in the atlantic the same age of the atlantic ocean .. or.. ? uhm.. explain, I think I lost you here.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/images/WorldCrustalAge.gif

Take a look at this image.

The age of the pacific ocean is the same age as the atlantic.

Subduction scientists explain this by saying that the crust being created at the ridges are being subducted at the continents.

This would work if you could have a subduction zone for every creation zone but the age of the sea floor brings a few problems here. If you take a look at the piece of crust just west of south America it has a creation zone right above and below it and yet no subduction. Take a look at the age of the seabed and try to imagine the type of motion that would occur with the data from that map. The plates would have to be moving in the direction of their oldest sections but the plate west of South America would have to be moving up and down at the same time, doesn't work.

 

Yes, that apparantly fits both "Expansion" and "Plate Tectonics", doesn't it... I don't quite understand where you're going with that one.

Not the ridge in the pacific. Unless you want to explain the fact that the ridge running north to south to the west side of South America just happens to match up with the west coast of South America by chance.

 

Learn what science says, *then* decide if you disagree with it. I think it's only fair.

 

Good luck,

 

~moo

 

Already have. I have been looking information up for a while now. And the earth expanding seems to explain things a lot better then plate tectonics. Just one example is this.

http://www.ugs.state.ut.us/utahgeo/dinofossil/falcarius/index.htm

A certain group of dinosaurs has been found in both the western part of North America and China.

 

I did go through the process of looking up information for both arguments. There are some statements made for it that are stupid, and some that aren't. From the information I find valid the earth expanding theory makes more sense even without having to explain how it is done because if all evidence points to an expanding earth then obviously it happened that way knowing or not knowing how makes no difference. The next step would be to start trying to figure out how the expansion would take place. I hope that you would think through something and decide what makes more sense before deciding to stick with one.

[Edtharan]

Rifts or eruptive cracks in the ocean floor provide new material in the form of molten magmic rock that rises up at a rift area and the oceanic plate spreads apart and the two sides move away from each other smoothly and regularly, and so the continents welded within the oceanic plates also move apart as the ocean bottom spreads…. Now if this happens … and it does, all over the world, logically speaking, this Earth must grow.

If there were no subduction zones, then this would be true. But, there are known subduction zones around the Earth (Where the Indian plate meets the Eurasian plate - and it is forming the Himalayas as it does so, The Nazca plate and the South American plate and it is forming the Andes, The Pacific plate and the North American plate -Japan and the pacific rim, and so forth).

 

There are plenty of measured subduction zones around the world that completely invalidates his claim.

 

The fact that the crust gets subducted means that you can have one part of the crust at a rift producing more crust, and in another part it can be subducting and removing crust. The result of which is whatever is on that crust will slide away from the rift and towards the subduction zone. That is exactly what plate tectonics is. You don't need to then have an expanding Earth to explain it.

 

If there was an expanding Earth, and we had subduction zones, then you would expect that the rate of plate production would have to be much higher than the rate of subduction. However, measurements taken at these zones do not show that the crust is being produced fast enough to overwhelm the rate of subduction. The rate of subduction matches the rate of production.

 

This means that the surface of the Earth is "Expanding" at the same rate that it is "Shrinking", thus no net expansion is possible. If no net expansion is occuring, then the Earth can not be Expanding.

 

Against this is the current Pangea theory which insists … that the continents float willy, nilly about the Earth, spinning, sliding, bumping, and crashing like bumper cars in a carnival.

He paint the tectonic theory as a ridiculous picture (without really explaining why it is ridiculous) as an argument against it. This is a logical fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule .

 

Just because he can make it appear ridiculous does not mean that it is. In fact it is just as easy to make his arguments (expanding earth) appear just as ridiculous (Party Balloon anyone?). But notice that no one here has use those kinds of arguments against the Expanding Earth theory. We have shown though other means that it is ridiculous, but we have not made the argument against it: that we can make it appear ridiculous that it must therefore be false.

 

We are told meteorites, comets and asteroids are left over material from this time, only less is going around now. Less … that the shoe-maker levy planets killer that struck Jupiter. Twenty one of them? Billion years ago they were bigger. But meteorites aren’t loosely assembled. They’re solid. Some are solid unrustable iron! This from a super-nova? Gigantic meteorites … floating around, waiting for gravity to come along?

Umm, the reason that there is less of them now is that they have gone into making all the planets...

 

And the reason that there was 21 comets in the Shoemaker-Levi 9 comet that struck Jupiter was because the mass of Jupiter broke the comet into all those pieces due to the tidal forces.

 

Also, that Comet was not an Asteroid. Asteroids are made of mainly Iron and Silicon, Comets are made of Ices, some of which are very volatile and will evaporate as the heat from the sun warms it. Comets can be considered as a loosely bound (but very large) snow ball that has pockets of rapidly expanding gas due to it begin evaporated ices) that is trying to burst out from it. No wonder that the comet shattered into 21 pieces.

 

Actually, some asteroids are not much more than loosely bound gravel. These tend to shatter when they approach a planet (or anything with strong gravity), and fragment into the gravel. We see these as meteor showers and such.

 

So, just because this guy is cherry picking his data (solid meteorites) does not mean that there is not other types. And these other types violate his claims. Again proving him wrong.

 

He is right in that most Meteorites (that is meteors that reach the ground) are mostly solid iron, but the reason that they can reach the ground is because they are solid. All that not so solid space junk does not reach the ground, but just because it doesn't reach the ground does not mean that it is not up there.

 

But, all that aside, how does he go from 21 comets hitting Jupiter to "they were bigger in the past"? Is it just me or is this a really big Non-Sequetur?

 

Geologists then say, that once assembled into planets, moons, and suns…this activity gave us a molten (from all the friction of assembly) differentiated Earth. Differentiated … like in a caldron…melted in that, the lightest material rose to the surface … which was presumably granitic rock … then down to basalts … then heavier silicates at the bottom, or core, you have iron and the heavier elements.

 

Let us say we accepted this whole wrong scenario

… The Earth finished, cools in time … The Earth must then be coated completely by a 2 – 4 mile crust of light granitic rock, and under that we find basalts.

 

Comparing that to today’s world we find an Earth that merely has pieces of this granitic crust. We went from an Earth completely covered with a relatively thick outer crust of granitic rock to a few, seven, scattered pieces that we call continents…. Where is the rest of the crust?

Man he builds a great Strawman.

 

First, the rocks that make up the surface of the Earth can be recycled, they can be pushed under other crusts and then brought back to the surface (volcanoes), also the lands can be twisted and folded. In fact, if this weren't the case, then all the granite rocks on the surface of the Earth would have to be 4.5 billion years old. But the are not. This proves that either new granite is produced, or that it gets recycled.

 

This means that not all the Granite that is on the surface today had to be there 4.5 billion years ago.

 

In fact, Granite can form from Basalt given the right circumstances (temperature and pressures) and it is well know to do so.

 

So, it is possible that there was no granite 4.5 billion years ago, and all of it was produced later as part of the normal geological processes. The Surface of the Earth did not have to "be coated completely by a 2 – 4 mile crust of light granitic rock". Which completely blows his "Strawman" argument out of the water.

 

Now, even if the Earth was covered with Granites, the movement of the plates would push parts of this Granites together (raising them up as mountains, and subduction would drag some of it underneath the crust to be "recycled" as magma or metamorphosed into other forms of rock. And this explains why granite does not cover the entire surface of the Earth (we have lost some through subduction and the rest has been mashed together in the form of continents).

 

Granitic rock cannot subduct as geologists insist the oceanic plate does, because it’s too light! This is fact!

Yes, it can't just get subducted beneath Basaltic rocks as it is too light, but it can be subducted beneath other granitic rocks and this can push it far enough down to melt. Once it is melted, convection currents can then take it deeper into the Earth.

 

So even though it can't be subducted directly beneath Basaltic rock, it can be subducted beneath granitic rock and then melted and drawn deeper into the Earth.

 

This alone disproves the pangea theory! Granitic rock cannot subduct. Yet, three quarters, twenty one continents worth, is gone! Simply gone. No explanation!

Well so much for his conclusions then. Granite can be subducted.

 

An aside….you may fairly ask how this matter can be created. It’s created at the plasma core of all planets, moons, and suns by a process that is so common that science has a name for it, “pair production!” It’s how all matter is made from energy.

 

Seriously, really?

 

First:

In pair production you create a pair of particles. One of which is Matter, the other is Anti Matter.

 

If Antimatter cones into contact with matter, then it will annihilate, destroying the Antimatter and the Matter it comes into contact with releasing energy.

 

Now if this is going on in the centre of the Earth, then we either should see a lot of antimatter flying away form Earth (and would have to explain how it gets the energy to do so where as the matter does not), or the amount of Matter being produced would equal the amount of Antimatter and then the Antimatter and Matter would be annihilated back into energy (thus no increase of matter).

 

Second:

It takes a lot of energy for Pair production. E=MC^2

 

The amount of Energy required fro pair production is equal to the Mass of the Matter multiplied by the Speed of Light squared. And remember, if you are using pair production, you have to make 2 particles (both matter and antimatter).

 

Lets do a back of the envelope calculation:

Let us assume that the Earth has twice the volume (hence the mass) that it had at some point in the past. Today it is about 5.9736×10^24 kg (well use 6X10^24 as this is a back of the envelope calculation).

 

So this would mean that half the mass was around 3X10^24 kg. We need to account for the same amount in an increase

 

Now, as the Earth is made up of Matter rather than Antimatter (if it was made up of even a small portion of antimatter then there would literally be an "Earth Shattering Ka-boom"), we will need to produce twice this 3X10^24kg, giving us a total of 6X10^24kg of matter needing to be produced.

 

Hang on, this means that there must have been an equal amount of matter to the current mass of the Earth produced to allow the Earth to double it's size.

 

Ok, I'll let that slide for now as we are interested in the amount of energy involved.

 

Ok, so we have worked out that we need 6X10^24kg of mass to be produced. So we multiply this by the square of the speed of light (300,000km/s X 300,000km/s = 90,000,000,000 km/s).

 

This gives us a value of: 540,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules! Holy batman!

[HappyCoder]

Just because he can make it appear ridiculous does not mean that it is. In fact it is just as easy to make his arguments (expanding earth) appear just as ridiculous (Party Balloon anyone?). But notice that no one here has use those kinds of arguments against the Expanding Earth theory. We have shown though other means that it is ridiculous, but we have not made the argument against it: that we can make it appear ridiculous that it must therefore be false.

Second' date=' for the Earth to expand, it needs to have a *cause* for expansion. I'll be "blunt" and ask -- is there anyone "blowing air" into it?

 

...Ok...

 

Umm, the reason that there is less of them now is that they have gone into making all the planets...

 

(Removed lots of stuff about space)

 

But, all that aside, how does he go from 21 comets hitting Jupiter to "they were bigger in the past"? Is it just me or is this a really big Non-Sequetur?

 

Sure, I'll agree. What you just said seems right. I believe that this guy has a lot of good arguments but a lot of them are stupid. Kinda like that one.

 

So even though it can't be subducted directly beneath Basaltic rock, it can be subducted beneath granitic rock and then melted and drawn deeper into the Earth.

 

Well so much for his conclusions then. Granite can be subducted.

[\QUOTE]

How would the granite end up under another piece of granite in the first place?

Or even better how would a subduction system get started and what is powering it now?

 

 

Seriously, really?

 

First:

In pair production you create a pair of particles. One of which is Matter, the other is Anti Matter.

...

(Valid Argument section here)

...

Ok, so we have worked out that we need 6X10^24kg of mass to be produced. So we multiply this by the square of the speed of light (300,000km/s X 300,000km/s = 90,000,000,000 km/s).

 

This gives us a value of: 540,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules! Holy batman!

 

I guess that does a pretty good job of making matter creation as a mechanism for expansion a tough one to go by. I would imagine that 5.4 x 10^35 joules would be kinda hard to come by and that number assumes that all of the energy would be converted into matter (if the conversion were even possible).

 

You make some very good points. I still have a hard time seeing subduction explaining the destruction of all the sea floor created at the ridges. The shapes of the ridges worldwide seem to indicate more of an expansion than plates moving. I hope I'm not frustrating anybody, I know how frustrating it can be to be involved with some debates. It seems people just cover their ears and start yelling at each other.

 

Oh and could I get some links to websites talking about subduction matching creation because I have heard different arguments for that but haven't actually seen any references for it.

[mooeypoo]

Second' date=' for the Earth to expand, it needs to have a *cause* for expansion. I'll be "blunt" and ask -- is there anyone "blowing air" into it?

[/quote']

 

...Ok...

 

That's not an answer to a VERY big question this theory raises, HappyCoder. I was a humorous, but the question is still important if you want to convince anyone that the theory is valid.

 

For the sake of argument, I'll drop all the evidence we have against the 'Expansion" of the earth and just ask you:

 

What is the process behind the expansion?

 

Other that explaining phenomena (again, this Theory's ability to do that is.. doubtful, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it does) - a theory needs to explain *the process* that it stands for.

 

Otherwise it's worthless....

 

 

I never heard an explanation for that in the theory, and as the CORE of this theory, this question is essential.

 

I'd really love an answer.. couldn't find it on my own.

 

~moo

 

P.S: To clarify, my point is this:

 

Exactly now I don't have to bring it up myself. Not knowing how the earth could expand maybe even somehow created matter does not mean it couldn't happen, thank you for bringing that up.

Maybe so, but stating that since one theory is wrong another is the only option is a fallacy as well (Falce Contiuum, I believe it's called). Even *if* Continental Drift is false (again.. you haven't convinced me of that, but ..*even if*) that doesn't automatically make *your* theory true.

 

 

You need to explain what is the process behind your theory before we can move on to discussing if the theory stands the trial of reality and fact.

[HappyCoder]

You are right, it is missing the means by which the earth is expanding.

Plate tectonics is also missing a reason for the continents to be moving around.

 

So because they both have that problem I throw that out for each of them and take a look at the remaining evidence.

 

They both explain the age of the seabed in the Atlantic.

They both explain how South America fits into Africa, though if you look at this it says that the fit isn't perfect unless the continents were put onto a globe 50% smaller.

 

but

 

Expanding earth explains the age of the sea floor in the pacific as well as any other spread happening in the ocean.

Tectonics tries to explain it but the explanation doesn't seem to make sense to me. One problem I have with it is the ridge circling antarctica. Supposably the crust being created around that ridge subducts under antartica even though perimeter of the ridge is larger than the perimeter of antartica. Another problem I have with it is the atantic spread age pattern in the map was caused by the continents spreading and seamlessly the ridges travel all around the globe and yet other parts of the globe are supposed to be recycling the crust through subduction. I hope you can see the problems tectonics moving with that age map.

 

Expanding earth explains why living things were so large millions of years ago. Tectonics doesn't explain anything like this at all.

 

Expanding earth explains why other planets and moons show signs of expansion expanding Watch some of the videos If this weren't true wouldn't be a little odd how those planets, including earth, fit so well together. One thing I think is cool is the one for the moon. The spreading happens all on one side. That makes a lot of sense because the spreading happens on the earth side and the centripetal force from the orbit would pull the crust to the back like that as it expands.

 

I personally think the expanding earth is a much simpler explanation for this. The earth just expanded. There is nothing else to it. Tectonics moving not only has the same problem as the expanding earth for lacking a cause for it happening but it also has problems needed to work out like the age of the sea floor being all in the same age range. Tectonics explains it by a constantly recycled floor and all this stuff about creation zones, and subduction zones. Also tectonics has no real reason how the continents formed in the first place with a 2 1/2 - 4 mile drop into the ocean off the continental shelfs. Earth expanding explains all of this very well and very simply.

 

I think Occom's Razor favors Earth Expansion.

[mooeypoo]

You are right' date=' it is missing the means by which the earth is expanding.

Plate tectonics is also missing a reason for the continents to be moving around.[/quote']

 

Actually, it doesn't miss it, it explains the process behind plate movement very well.

 

Mainly, it is the pressures from the core and the cooling of magma on the different layers that "push" layers up, while the other side of the plate is being "pushed down" back "into" the core. I am not a geologist, my explanation is bound to lack, but you have OBVIOUSLY not read about Plate Tectonics.

 

Your theory is still lacking a process, and thus invalid. It just makes no difference, or has no incentive in believing in, if it can't even explain *itself*.

 

I think Occom's Razor favors Earth Expansion.

If it would have explained the same questions, then yes, probably so. Since it doesn't even explain its own processes, no. It doesn't.

 

~moo

[HappyCoder]

Actually, it doesn't miss it, it explains the process behind plate movement very well.

 

Mainly, it is the pressures from the core and the cooling of magma on the different layers that "push" layers up, while the other side of the plate is being "pushed down" back "into" the core. I am not a geologist, my explanation is bound to lack, but you have OBVIOUSLY not read about Plate Tectonics.

 

Plate Tectonics

(From Wikipedia)

Although subduction is believed to be the strongest force driving plate motions, it cannot be the only force since there are plates such as the North American Plate which are moving, yet are nowhere being subducted. The same is true for the enormous Eurasian Plate. The sources of plate motion are a matter of intensive research and discussion among earth scientists.

 

True, plate tectonics explains how the oceanic crust is moving but still has nothing for continents or why they broke up in the first place.

 

Plus I always have a hard time with those pictures showing a plate being subducted downward with something like a 70 degree angle into the sea floor. I don't think a huge slab of rock would bend like that.

 

Your theory is still lacking a process, and thus invalid. It just makes no difference, or has no incentive in believing in, if it can't even explain *itself*.

 

 

If it would have explained the same questions, then yes, probably so. Since it doesn't even explain its own processes, no. It doesn't.

 

Sure it can't explain itself but the evidence please stop ignoring it and tell me why the evidence isn't correct. Why don't you try explaining why the sea floor age maps fit so well into the expanding earth theory. Here take a look at antartica in this image.

Go ahead and explain to me how the ridge circling antartica creates ocean crust and subducts underneath antartica like that. There is obviosly a larger creation zone there then there could be subduction zones. At least admit there is a problem there, even if you can't come up with some bandage fix on the plate tectonic theory.

[mooeypoo]

Plate Tectonics

(From Wikipedia)

Although subduction is believed to be the strongest force driving plate motions, it cannot be the only force since there are plates such as the North American Plate which are moving, yet are nowhere being subducted. The same is true for the enormous Eurasian Plate. The sources of plate motion are a matter of intensive research and discussion among earth scientists.

Okay, I'm the first to quote wikipedia a lot, as some people pointed out; however - I usually *read* wikipedia before posting, and making sure it contains scientific proof linked in. I am not sure about this specific post. Double-standard? You may call it that, but when someone points out the inaccuracy of a wikipedia link I posted, I look up another link to verify this.

 

So.. can you find another source for this? because the sources I found from other scientific sites are complete opposite:

http://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_12.asp

 

Check out this video, by the way, and I'll be happy if you could answer it:

 

You see -- until you answer these claims (uhm.. which.. completely debunk neal's animation *and theory*) and until you show a GOOD REASON why your theory is valid (showing why subduction *isn't* valid isn't enough, even if you manage to do that), I don't think we can continue the debate.

 

Either show we have anything *to* debate over, or we just don't.. really. It is, I'm afraid, quite simple.

 

 

True, plate tectonics explains how the oceanic crust is moving but still has nothing for continents or why they broke up in the first place.

You're trying to debunk plate tectonics. Even if I ignore the fact that what you said isn't quite true (again, read the links I supplied in the other posts, they're very useful), you still don't show why *YOUR* theory is "better". So the argument is bunk.

 

 

Plus I always have a hard time with those pictures showing a plate being subducted downward with something like a 70 degree angle into the sea floor. I don't think a huge slab of rock would bend like that.

But.. you don't have a problem with invented land, twisted land (look at the original video again, and the video I just posted above) ? That you have no problem with?

 

And yet again -- even if that's true -- why is *YOUR* theory better?

 

 

Sure it can't explain itself but the evidence please stop ignoring it and tell me why the evidence isn't correct.

 

Okay first off, my friend, we're not ignoring you, we're answering you. Be nice about it, really. We're being very civil and patient with a theory most of us consider aboslutely invalid. So, seirously. I don't see how you could say we're ignoring you. Disagreeing with you, maybe. But ignoring? Not really.

 

Second, your claim makes no sense. I'll show you why:

 

I am going to claim, now, that the change is not out of plate tectonics or expansion, but rather from an invisible force called "Badabingo". The force is extremely efficient in solving puzzles backwards, which explains how the continents fit so perfectly to one another. It also works in the seventy third dimension, so we can't quite see it. I don't know how it's doing any of it, but the idea that it exists -- and that *it* is the one who is in charge of the so called 'plate tectonics' is my theory.

 

Now. Would you accept this theory at face value? I hope not. It's ludicrous.

 

But what you are saying, essentially, is that we should all start believing that "badabingo" exists, because Plate Tectonics makes no sense... that's silly.

 

Even *if* plate tectonics "makes no sense" or has "holes" in it, that doesn't mean that Expansion is the answer. It's like saying that evolution is illogical so there must be a God.. those are completely different theories, each demanding proofs on their *own* right.

 

So. It's nice you're trying to debunk Plate Tectonics, but it's not enough. You still haven't supplied a reason for any of us to actually consider your theory as valid *regardless* of plate tectonic's "validity".

 

All you did, if any, was to claim Plate Tectonics may be wrong.

 

That's not enough to prove your theory correct.

 

It's also not backed up by evidence, but that's a different matter.

 

 

Why don't you try explaining why the sea floor age maps fit so well into the expanding earth theory.

Because we're not the ones making the sensational claim that the earth behaves like nothing we've ever seen, heard, or know of about physics. The expansion of the earth is against physical laws for more than one reason (go over the beginning of this thread and see why, and do READ the links we're posting, we don't just look them up for our leisure). You're making a huge claim, and the burden of proof is on YOU. Plate Tectonics has proof - even if you disagree with them, for wahtever reason - YOUR theory has *none*.

 

It just has a claim.

 

Where are the explanations? Don't throw that request away, because if you do, your theory becomes absolutely irrelevant, and the discussion shifts from "Is Expansion Correct" to "Plate Tectonics is wrong". Completely different argument here.

 

 

 

I suggest you look at that YouTube video. It shows some of the silly tactics that are done to confuse people in that original Neal Adams video.

 

Bear in mind, too, that Neal Adams has absolutely NO scientific credentials. That should raise an eyebrow on your part as well, my friend. No scientific credentials, no proof, no explanation behind his own theory, just a claim of "I don't understand how this can happen, so it can't happen".

 

tsk tsk tsk.

 

~moo

[HappyCoder]

Check out this video, by the way, and I'll be happy if you could answer it:

 

You see -- until you answer these claims (uhm.. which.. completely debunk neal's animation *and theory*) and until you show a GOOD REASON why your theory is valid (showing why subduction *isn't* valid isn't enough, even if you manage to do that), I don't think we can continue the debate.

 

... You really think proof of a theory can be based on animations. I've seen some pretty crappy animations of pangea. I'm not posting those. Ya I know there are all kinds of stupid things in his animations, like some of the continental crust coming out of the ocean. Alaska bending, he makes it look like rubber. And a few other things. I don't think the entire theory should be rejected because of it.

 

Those little details are so small. Look at the evidence.

 

The continents can be fit together on a smaller globe. When they broke apart they left 2 1/2 - 4 mile drop offs into the ocean off of the continental shelf. The sea floor age maps showing signs of spreading all over the globe, not just in the atantic. The only way for creation of new crust everywhere on the globe is the globe expanding.

The larger size of the dinosaurs.

 

Okay first off, my friend, we're not ignoring you, we're answering you. Be nice about it, really. We're being very civil and patient with a theory most of us consider aboslutely invalid. So, seirously. I don't see how you could say we're ignoring you. Disagreeing with you, maybe. But ignoring? Not really.

Here take a look at antartica in this image.

Go ahead and explain to me how the ridge circling antartica creates ocean crust and subducts underneath antartica like that. There is obviosly a larger creation zone there then there could be subduction zones. At least admit there is a problem there' date=' even if you can't come up with some bandage fix on the plate tectonic theory.

[/quote']

 

Answer that for me please. Like i keep saying. I think an expanding earth fits that data perfectly.

 

Second, your claim makes no sense. I'll show you why:

 

I am going to claim, now, that the change is not out of plate tectonics or expansion, but rather from an invisible force called "Badabingo". The force is extremely efficient in solving puzzles backwards, which explains how the continents fit so perfectly to one another. It also works in the seventy third dimension, so we can't quite see it. I don't know how it's doing any of it, but the idea that it exists -- and that *it* is the one who is in charge of the so called 'plate tectonics' is my theory.

 

Or maybe the continental crust is shrinking.

That would explain everything! Except maybe the large size of the dinosaurs.

 

I suggest you look at that YouTube video. It shows some of the silly tactics that are done to confuse people in that original Neal Adams video.

 

Silly Neal Adams. He messed up the animations. Keep in mind that I am not just blindly accepting all of his thoerys. He has a video on his website talking about an alternate model for the adam. I am not buying that one. It has nothing to back it up. Oh, and a kinda funny thing for his website. On the bottom of the page, there is a link for the physics of grow. And when you click on it you get a 404 message. I thought that was kinda funny. Anyway, I took the evidence that he supplied and have concluded that an expanding earth makes more sense the plate tectonics.

 

I think this theory has enough evidence to stand on it's own. So why don't you attack the theory and maybe why I keep coming to the wrong conclusion looking at the sea floor age data, and why the continents all fit together on a small globe, and why fossil evidence show a good change of a small planet.

[iNow]

HappyCoder - You still haven't presented a mechanism for how this happens. As has been requested of you several times already, how about you start there?

[mooeypoo]

... You really think proof of a theory can be based on animations. I've seen some pretty crappy animations of pangea. I'm not posting those. Ya I know there are all kinds of stupid things in his animations, like some of the continental crust coming out of the ocean. Alaska bending, he makes it look like rubber. And a few other things. I don't think the entire theory should be rejected because of it.

 

So you still don't have an answer to how your theory is even relevant? What, exactly, do you want us to debate over, then?

 

Define the argument fairly. You are not debating Expansion theory right now, you're debating why science is wrong in your opinion.

 

Also, I didn't give *ONLY* the animations. That was *your* evidence (the movie and written text that the movie is BASED on is a "proof" for *your* theory). Our theory has quite a larger 'bag' of evidence. Which you obviously ignore, since you didn't open a single link I gave you. Or at least, you ignore what they said.

Those little details are so small. Look at the evidence.

You don't have evidence for your theory, you have claims that scientific theory is wrong. That's not a valid argument of PROOF of your theory, it's just an argument of whether or not science is right or wrong.

 

You can't argue that without reading what science *really* says, can you.

 

 

 

The continents can be fit together on a smaller globe. When they broke apart they left 2 1/2 - 4 mile drop offs into the ocean off of the continental shelf. The sea floor age maps showing signs of spreading all over the globe, not just in the atantic. The only way for creation of new crust everywhere on the globe is the globe expanding.

The larger size of the dinosaurs.

 

 

 

 

Answer that for me please. Like i keep saying. I think an expanding earth fits that data perfectly.

No no. I'm done answering. You owe *me* an answer for the past 4-5 posts already.

 

I've been answering your questions - supplying links, too - and I was quite patient.

 

It's your turn. My question --> what your theory actually *CLAIMS*, as in - what is the process behind it --> is not only "valid question", it's the *essential* question to decide if there's even any legitimacy to start THINKING about accepting your theory.

 

You keep evading the question.. that's not too fair, is it.

 

 

Or maybe the continental crust is shrinking.

That would explain everything! Except maybe the large size of the dinosaurs.

Oh, stop, really. That's a complete ridicule, and it's not what the scientific theory says. Don't degrade the argument. Read the resources.

 

Silly Neal Adams. He messed up the animations. Keep in mind that I am not just blindly accepting all of his thoerys.

Right.. whatever.. even if it *is* 'neal's fault' (your evidence came from his site, so.. what does that mean for your theory?) -- that doesn't *explain* the theory.

 

You owe us an answer.

 

 

 

 

Before I answer anything else, you need to explain why I should even invest any time in considering your theory as a valid one, if it has no explanation for the process it's suggesting happening.

 

 

Good luck.

 

~moo

[HappyCoder]

Ok, I guess I a am just going to drop it. I don't feel the need to argue my point anymore. I still think that there are evidences that make it kinda hard to reject this idea. But I am done talking about it. One more think I want to say is why don't you try having an open mind and giving it a change. Look at it from an angle that though it can't be explained it could be happening. Give it a chance. There are a lot of stupid ideas relating to this theory but the basic idea of the earth expanding has some convincing evidences(Sea floor age, continents fitting on a globe 50% smaller, dinosaur size).

 

I can tell I have probably frustrated you, I myself am pretty frustrated too. So if I have said anything in my frustration that offended you in anyway sorry. I don't really want to make anybody angry. If you want to discuss it further I will respond to maybe a few more posts but this debate is going in a downward spiral.

 

In light of the original post and intention of this thread I will go ahead and ridicule it anyway, even though I think it may be possible.

 

Ha ha, that guy should be a comedian. I can't believe he would believe such a thing.

[mooeypoo]

Too bad, we were having a nice debate.

 

But a debate cannot be one sided. You can't come and expect us to answer all your questions, not be able to answer ours, and expect to come out a "winner" in the discussion... I'm sure you understand that's not the way to conduct a convincing argument.

 

When you have enough information to suggest the processes behind what that theory presumes to claim, I am willing to hear it, and honestly examine it in light of Physics, Geology and the rest of the scientific knowledge we have today.

 

But this is an essential piece of information for the continuation of the debate.

 

Also, be true to yourself. Go read the resources; look up what Scientists say. Even if you end up disagreeing, at the very least you will know the accurate details (your depiction of Plate Tectonics is not quite the true one Scientists are talkinga bout, sorry to burst a bubble here).

 

You haven't frustrated me, because I can see that you are trying. The people who frustrate me are those that consistently ignore what I'm saying, and you didn't do that. I do think, however, that you need to be true to yourself and learn the "other side" from the actual WRITINGs of that side, and not strictly from the writing of the critics. Maybe you will have better understanding of both the theories after you do that, and you can either continue this debate with more information, or change your mind.

 

Who knows.

 

 

 

So.. Good luck.

 

Feel free to stick around in the other threads, too we have some interesting points on Scientific thinking and the scientific method, that may shed some light on why it is we think this theory is so invalid.

 

In any case, it was a nice discussion, even though we're disagreeing

 

~moo

[Edtharan]

How would the granite end up under another piece of granite in the first place?

Ok, here is a little experiment for you to try:

 

1) Grab 2 pieces of paper.

 

2) Place them flat on a desk next to each other so they are not overlapping.

 

3) Gently push them together.

 

One of 2 things will occur, either they will be pushed up (like a mountain range), or one will slip under the other (subduction).

 

So, here we have two objects of equal mass, and there is even a solid layer under them (unlike the Earth) so how could one of these pieces of paper slide under the other?

 

Actually, it is quite simple. THe two pieces of paper are not identical, there are slight variations in them (thickness and the edge), also no matter how hard you try, you can not push them with an identical force (maybe you are pushing down on one harder, the positions of your fingers, you might have twisted one, and so on). Like the surface of the Earth, these two pieces of paper will not meet perfectly and so these tiny differences will cause one to be pushed up faster than the other and one will slide underneath.

 

Maybe where two plates meet, one might be a little thicker than the other and so be heavier and so would be more likely to be pushed downwards, maybe there didn't meet perfectly, or that one of the plates shattered slightly, who knows. There are many different reasons that a plate might get pushed down, but all of the are possible.

 

Or even better how would a subduction system get started and what is powering it now?

Ok, here is where it gets a little complex (so bear with me).

 

We know that the Earth has a molten core. Vibrations created by Earth quakes travel through the core of the Earth and can be detected by highly sensitive equipment. When these vibrations pass through a solid, then they travel faster, when they pass through a liquid, they travel slower. Also, the density of the material changes the way these vibrations behave.

 

So, using this they can analyse what the centre of the Earth is made of and whether it is a liquid or solid. It turns out that it has a Inner Core of solid Iron and then a Outer Core of liquid Iron.

 

Now, when you heat something up it generally expands, and when you cool it it contracts. So if you have the same amount of mass and you heat it up it becomes less dense and if you cool it down it becomes more dense.

 

With me so far. I know it is coming fast, but there is a lot of things to cover.

 

Ok, so as the liquid Iron in the Outer Core cools, it becomes more dense and sinks. Now, when this Iron cools, the heat can't just disappear, it has to go somewhere. As one part of the Iron cools and sinks, the heat is moved to an other part of the Outer Core. As this part heats up, it will become less dense and rise up.

 

This is convection and it is a well known phenomena.

 

This heat from the Core is transferred to the Mantle, and it also experiences convection. As a part that is heated up is melted and it becomes less dense and so rises.

 

At the surface, this rock release it's heat and cools. At the very surface it completely solidifies (we call these rocks and minerals), but not all of it, most just cools and slowly sinks down into the mantle again to be heated up from the heat released by the Core.

 

So you have some parts of the Mantle moving outwards (up) and some sinking inwards (down). As the liquid mantle moves from a point where it was moving up to where it was moving down, it will drag on any crust (solidified mantle) and drag in in that direction.

 

This is such an easy phenomena to see. Just get a pool and anything that can float. If you move the water underneath the floating object, without touching the object yourself, you can make it move. This is because the water is dragging on the floating object, just like the liquid mantle is dragging on the crust.

 

So the convection currents in the mantle are causing forces on the crust.

 

Now, if there is a place where the crust is a little bit thinner, and either side of it there is a force to drag the crust away from this thin bit, the crust can tear. This is how a rift forms, as the crust splits, this liquid mantle (Magma) can rise up and fill the gap.

 

However, where the opposite happens, where there is a downwards movement of the liquid mantle, this dragging will cause the crust to be pushed together. And, just like the paper, it will either go up (into mountains) or down. If it goes down, then the heat inside the mantle can cause it to melt and then we have another break in the crust where it is being pulled towards the break and downwards into the mantle. One half of the break will usually end up on top and the other will be pushed under (remember the pieces of paper).

 

We now have a subduction zone.

 

I guess that does a pretty good job of making matter creation as a mechanism for expansion a tough one to go by. I would imagine that 5.4 x 10^35 joules would be kinda hard to come by and that number assumes that all of the energy would be converted into matter (if the conversion were even possible).

He even tries to "explain" how there is enough energy to do this by stating that it is because of "plasma". However, we know (approximately) what the centre of the Earth is made from due to studies from Earthquakes. The way the vibrations from the earth quakes propagate through the Earth, can tell us what it is made from. What we do know is that there is no plasma (ionised gas) in the centre of the Earth.

 

You make some very good points. I still have a hard time seeing subduction explaining the destruction of all the sea floor created at the ridges. The shapes of the ridges worldwide seem to indicate more of an expansion than plates moving. I hope I'm not frustrating anybody, I know how frustrating it can be to be involved with some debates. It seems people just cover their ears and start yelling at each other.

Yes, if all you look at are the ridges, then it will look like the Earth is expanding. However, their shape would be the same if the Earth was expanding, or with tectonics. It is all the subduction zones that invalidate the "Expansion" theory because if the crust can be subducted, then the rate that the crust is being produced at the ridges would have to be far greater than what is measured. The rate of production would have to exceed the rate of subduction (which it doesn't).

 

One more think I want to say is why don't you try having an open mind and giving it a change. Look at it from an angle that though it can't be explained it could be happening. Give it a chance. There are a lot of stupid ideas relating to this theory but the basic idea of the earth expanding has some convincing evidences(Sea floor age, continents fitting on a globe 50% smaller, dinosaur size).

I generally try to keep an open mind, but when you have evidence to the contrary (the fact that there is subduction zones and the rate of subduction equals the rate of production at the ridges), then it is hard to keep my mind that open. If there was evidence that was in favour of Expansion and disproved tectonics, then I would be more willing to believe it. However, all the evidence presented (dinosaur size actually disproves expansion) either disproves expansion or doesn't disprove tectonics (eg: Sea floor age, shape of the ridges, and so on).

 

As for the Dinosaurs, if the Earth was smaller and matter can be produced (I covered why), then the Earth must have been more dense. This means that the surface gravity must have been stronger than now. From the fossils we can measure the bone sizes, and therefore determine their strength.

 

Remember, gravity drops by the Inverse Square of the distance between the objects. So if you half the radius of the Earth, then the gravity will go up 4 times. Some of the heaviest dinosaurs would have weighed over 100 (possible over 200) tones in today's gravity. If you were to multiply this by 4, then they would have weighed 400 to 800 tons a piece.

 

The bones of the Dinosaurs would have shattered under this load. And during mating, they would have had a lot of the weight of another dinosaur on top of them! .

 

No, if the Earth were smaller, then the Dinosaurs would have been impossible with the physiology (bones) that they had. The fact that the dinosaurs were as big as they were with the bone structures and sizes they had means that the Earth could not have been smaller in the past. Not if the dinosaurs didn't walk around with their legs shattered. .

 

I can tell I have probably frustrated you, I myself am pretty frustrated too. So if I have said anything in my frustration that offended you in anyway sorry. I don't really want to make anybody angry. If you want to discuss it further I will respond to maybe a few more posts but this debate is going in a downward spiral.

I would hope that you do stick around. I am willing to help you understand why the Earth can't have expanded (just to make my point of view clear ). If you can present evidence that disproves the Tectonic theory and supports the Expansion theory, then I will consider it possible.

 

I can tell I have probably frustrated you, I myself am pretty frustrated too. So if I have said anything in my frustration that offended you in anyway sorry. I don't really want to make anybody angry. If you want to discuss it further I will respond to maybe a few more posts but this debate is going in a downward spiral.

The reason we want a mechanism for it, is if you don't provide one, then the "goal posts" can be shifted if one mechanisms is disproved.

 

In science, you try to disprove something. If it can't be disproved, then it can progress to being more accepted.

 

To demonstrate:

Proposition: Unicorns exist.

 

No matter how hard I look, I can't find Unicorns, but it might be that they are just really good at hiding.

 

So, do Unicorns exist or not?

 

Well, this proposition doesn't help as someone can always just claim that they are really hard to find.

 

Or we could use this:

Proposition: Unicorns don't exist.

 

As soon as someone finds a unicorn this proposition is disproved and we can be certain that Unicorns do exist. It allows us to answer the question.

 

If you look at this in the light of the Expanding Earth theory, by not stating how it occurs, you can keep saying that: "Unicorns are good at hiding" and no resolution can occur.

[iNow]

Hey Ed, overall, very good post, but you misattributed a quote to me (which I didn't make). I think you meant this toward the end:

 

 

 

HappyCoder - You still haven't presented a mechanism for how this happens. As has been requested of you several times already, how about you start there?

 

 

 

Cheers.

[HappyCoder]

Okay, here is my explanation for expansion. but the explanation itself has it's own dependencies that I have no explanation for so it has nothing to stand on but here it is anyway.

 

At first I thought that there could be a change that the mass didn't change just the overall density. Maybe there was some sort or chemical reaction happening inside the earth causing expansion. The huge problem with this theory is, as pointer out by Edtharan, the gravitational conditions would be to great for the dinosaurs to survive so even if the expansion could somehow be explained through a chemical reaction that would be a problem.

 

The other idea is matter is being created in the core of the planet. This explanation would be more appropriate given the evidence like Sea spreads and fossils (of course mooeypoo does make a good point that though earth expansion explains it nicely it doesn't mean there isn't another alternative that will do the same) So with the given evidence matter creation is more plausible. The huge problem now comes in with the actual creation of matter. It has been done except the electron and positron created were quickly turned back into energy. This raises the question if matter were being created through some unknown process how could the matter being created stick around to actually increase the mass rather than just turning directly back into energy. This I have no explanation for. Another huge problem with this is even if the matter could be created through some unknown process where would all that energy come from?

Edtharan calculated it to be 540,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules! (Holy Batman!) Which I actually think may be a underestimate because as the mass of the earth would increase so would the average density from the increased force. In other words the volume of the planet would not grow at the same rate as the addition of matter but the increase of volume would grow at a lesser rate as mass increased. Although, one interesting thing about this theory is when matter was created it generated a enormous electromagnetic field. Link Which would explain the earths magnetic field. I personally think it makes more sense the the self perpetuating dynamo theory but there it is. Of course once I saw that the creation matter generated a large electromagnetic field like that I was interested in finding other planets other magnetic fields. It turns out the only other solid surface planet to have a field was mercury and it was small. So if that was the process earth would be the only planet would a currently working system even though, according to this theory, other planets show signs of expansion. So either the field comes from some other way (dynamo theory) or the other planets aren't currently expanding.

So that is my explanation, the creation of matter. It is based on the supposed results of the effect observed from the state of the earth now. Of course the problem with this is it is missing anything supporting it in terms of how and by what means.

 

So I guess as of now the expanding earth is scientifically wrong. We know of no way for matter being created inside the earth. That is the only, but huge, problem with the theory.

 

I still want some explanation for the ridge going around antartica in this image[\URL] The age of the sea floor would show the movement of plates (for a static size earth) but how could the crust be created around antartica like that and then move inward and subduct under antartica. A larger perimeter getting pushed into a smaller perimeter.

[iNow]

I still want some explanation for the ridge going around antartica in this image The age of the sea floor would show the movement of plates (for a static size earth) but how could the crust be created around antartica like that and then move inward and subduct under antartica. A larger perimeter getting pushed into a smaller perimeter.

I think your question can be answered by understanding what led to the continent of Antarctica from the original Gondwana super-continent. You will see that it was (basically) two distinct separation events, hence the ridge you describe. I'm not sure what your last statement is about perimeter, but it seems to be addressed here:

 

 

http://web.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/antarctica/plateTectonics.html

 

 

 

Additional information on your inquiry is likely found by searching for information on Australian-Antarctic discordance. A lot of research has been done here, and below is a good source for you to review:

 

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/kmm/aad.intro.html

[HappyCoder]

I think your question can be answered by understanding what led to the continent of Antarctica from the original Gondwana super-continent. You will see that it was (basically) two distinct separation events, hence the ridge you describe. I'm not sure what your last statement is about perimeter, but it seems to be addressed here:

 

Thats not quite what I was looking for. Take a look at the Image again. Look at the red ring going around antartica. That is a ridge. That is where earth crust is created. We know this because the crust is younger there and surrounding crust is older. In order for new crust to be formed the old crust needs to move out of the way somehow. If you notice, there is a problem around antaritca. That seafloor created at the ridge would not be able to all fit under antartica's plate, the perimeter is smaller then that of antartica.

[Edtharan]

Although, one interesting thing about this theory is when matter was created it generated a enormous electromagnetic field. Link Which would explain the earths magnetic field. I personally think it makes more sense the the self perpetuating dynamo theory but there it is.

If you read that article it is not talking about that the creation of Matter/Antimatter created the large magnetic fields, but ha the large magnetic fields (from the electro-magnetic waves that make up the photons).

 

Also, the Dynamo effect is well understood. If you have a conducting fluid (and liqud Iron is conductive) and swirl it around and apply a small initial magnetic field (which can disappear later), it will generate a larger magnetic field. Now, because the swirling Iron in the Earth is not just going around in an equatorial direction, but it is also moving up and down (due to convection), it means that the field lines of the magnetic field created from the dynamo can become twisted. This will cause the "poles" to shift over time and even reverse themselves. It will also not create a uniform field, some pats will be weaker and some parts will be stronger, even going so far as to have a "North" part in the South (or south in the north).

 

All these have been measured in the Earth's magnetic field, there is good evidence for the "pole swapping" in the ridge lines as magnetic material is deposited and solidifies. While it is liquid the magnetic material lines up with the Earth's current magnetic poles, and then when it solidify it remains in that state regardless of whether or not the Earth's filed changes. Looking at these deposits along the ridges, we can see times where the Earth's field was in a different position than it is today, and even places where it has reversed.

 

Actually, Earth is not the only solid body in the solar system with a strong magnetic field. Several of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn also show strong magnetic fields. An example is Europa, which is believed to contain a liquid salt water ocean under it's icy crust shows a strong magnetic field (salt water also conducts electricity).

 

It turns out the only other solid surface planet to have a field was mercury and it was small.

Yes, Mercury does not have a strong magnetic filed, but then it doesn't seem to have a liquid conducting core, so this supports the Dynamo theory of the magnetic field as according the the Dynamo theory, a planet (or moon) needs to have a liquid conductive layer to create this field as as Mercury doesn't have this and also doesn't have a strong field it fits the predictions of the theory.

 

I still want some explanation for the ridge going around antartica in this image[\URL] The age of the sea floor would show the movement of plates (for a static size earth) but how could the crust be created around antartica like that and then move inward and subduct under antartica. A larger perimeter getting pushed into a smaller perimeter.

The plates don't just keep moving in the same directions. If the convection currents that are driving them weaken or disappear, or if a new current starts up, then this creates a new balance of forces on the plate. this will mean that it could start moving in another direction. Also, plates can break and join up, so the plates we have today don't necessarily mean that these were the same plates we had in the past.

 

What was one land mass might split into two. In fact we have evidence of this occuring at the moment. In Africa there is a place where the plate seems to be splitting apart. It is called the Great Rift Valley.

 

So, because the convection currents inside the Mantle are not static, and change over time, they come and go. They create hot spots, and cold spots. They change direction and generally move. As the Plates are pushed around by these convection currents, this then causes changes in how the plates move too.

 

When a new hot spot forms, then it can weaken the crust, and the forces from mantle can then cause the crust to break and a new rift forms at that point.

 

Actually, I have seen this when making custard. When you boil custard on the stove, it can develop a skin (a crust). Breaking this skin on one place will allow the skin to split further, and the convection currents of the boiling custard underneath can cause the skin to move away form the hole. Over time new skin can form where the hole is.

[mooeypoo]

HappyCoder, you are *beginning* to frustrate me, and I think you should go back to the post where I explain the type of people who do frustrate me (as opposed to good debaters, which you seemed to be for a wile) to see why.

 

You keep posting "comebacks" instead of examining the evidence we show you and answer specifically. Throwing us off to another image and another image is mixing subjects and ignoring our points, and it's not quite fair to us, or to your own thinking.

 

You seem like a reasonable person, and I really do understand your points, but it's very hard to explain what we mean when you don't quite seem to follow up on our points..

 

iNow gave you more external links not because he's lazy, but because there actually *are* so many evidence for his position that it is really hard to lay them out in one post. There are full websites dealing with this question - so we're not saying "Go away and read!", we're debating, but we also give you external links to emphasize and further-explain our points.

 

The links are there for you to see the evidence we are *summarizing* for you. Expecting us to lay out a theory that is that vast in single posts (hence, not missing a SINGLE point the Tectonic Plate theory is making in order to convince you) isn't a very fair expectation.

 

We look at your links and respond, do the same for our links.

 

Also, you're repeating questions that we have answered, and that - I must admit - is also a bit frustrating.

 

I still think it's a good debate; it's been a while since I met a person that seems to truly want to understand why the theory he holds his views in is invalid by science, and I appreciate that. I know how difficult it is to challenge your world view.

 

But take that one more step and go all the way. Do the research, and don't assume that because we can't lay out *all the points* that the theory does answer within it (it's not like there ARE NO answers in it..) then the theory is bunk. That's not very logical.

 

 

 

~moo

[Edtharan]

Although, one interesting thing about this theory is when matter was created it generated a enormous electromagnetic field. Link Which would explain the earths magnetic field. I personally think it makes more sense the the self perpetuating dynamo theory but there it is.

If you read that article it is not talking about that the creation of Matter/Antimatter created the large magnetic fields, but ha the large magnetic fields (from the electro-magnetic waves that make up the photons).

 

Also, the Dynamo effect is well understood. If you have a conducting fluid (and liqud Iron is conductive) and swirl it around and apply a small initial magnetic field (which can disappear later), it will generate a larger magnetic field. Now, because the swirling Iron in the Earth is not just going around in an equatorial direction, but it is also moving up and down (due to convection), it means that the field lines of the magnetic field created from the dynamo can become twisted. This will cause the "poles" to shift over time and even reverse themselves. It will also not create a uniform field, some pats will be weaker and some parts will be stronger, even going so far as to have a "North" part in the South (or south in the north).

 

All these have been measured in the Earth's magnetic field, there is good evidence for the "pole swapping" in the ridge lines as magnetic material is deposited and solidifies. While it is liquid the magnetic material lines up with the Earth's current magnetic poles, and then when it solidify it remains in that state regardless of whether or not the Earth's filed changes. Looking at these deposits along the ridges, we can see times where the Earth's field was in a different position than it is today, and even places where it has reversed.

 

Actually, Earth is not the only solid body in the solar system with a strong magnetic field. Several of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn also show strong magnetic fields. An example is Europa, which is believed to contain a liquid salt water ocean under it's icy crust shows a strong magnetic field (salt water also conducts electricity).

 

It turns out the only other solid surface planet to have a field was mercury and it was small.

Yes, Mercury does not have a strong magnetic filed, but then it doesn't seem to have a liquid conducting core, so this supports the Dynamo theory of the magnetic field as according the the Dynamo theory, a planet (or moon) needs to have a liquid conductive layer to create this field as as Mercury doesn't have this and also doesn't have a strong field it fits the predictions of the theory.

 

I still want some explanation for the ridge going around antartica in this image[\URL] The age of the sea floor would show the movement of plates (for a static size earth) but how could the crust be created around antartica like that and then move inward and subduct under antartica. A larger perimeter getting pushed into a smaller perimeter.

The plates don't just keep moving in the same directions. If the convection currents that are driving them weaken or disappear, or if a new current starts up, then this creates a new balance of forces on the plate. this will mean that it could start moving in another direction. Also, plates can break and join up, so the plates we have today don't necessarily mean that these were the same plates we had in the past.

 

What was one land mass might split into two. In fact we have evidence of this occuring at the moment. In Africa there is a place where the plate seems to be splitting apart. It is called the Great Rift Valley.

 

So, because the convection currents inside the Mantle are not static, and change over time, they come and go. They create hot spots, and cold spots. They change direction and generally move. As the Plates are pushed around by these convection currents, this then causes changes in how the plates move too.

 

When a new hot spot forms, then it can weaken the crust, and the forces from mantle can then cause the crust to break and a new rift forms at that point.

 

Actually, I have seen this when making custard. When you boil custard on the stove, it can develop a skin (a crust). Breaking this skin on one place will allow the skin to split further, and the convection currents of the boiling custard underneath can cause the skin to move away form the hole. Over time new skin can form where the hole is.

 

Hey Ed, overall, very good post, but you misattributed a quote to me (which I didn't make). I think you meant this toward the end:

Sorry . My keyboard is mucking up a bit (I think I need a new one) and it didn't register the "Copy" command I gave it when copying you quite and when I pasted it I didn't check to make sure that what I though I copied is what I pasted. But you were right in what I meant to post, thanks.

[Ophiolite]

So, in absence of evidence for either hypothesis, a somewhat reasonable one is on par with a totally absurd one?

I guess string theory should be treated with equal skepticism to the idea that the universe is made out of spaghetti?

Bascule, my apologies for the delay in my reply to your post. I visit the site only rarely.

 

What are you claiming is a totally absurd hypothesis? The expanding Earth? You seem to be unaware that in the 1940s, 1950s and even the early 1960s the idea of an expanding Earth was considered just as viable as a contracting Earth, or one with continental drift. The hypothesis was not thought to be absurd.

 

Our improved understanding of global tectonics has now rendered such a hypothesis foolish, but it was not so at the time it was proposed. Your reaction, as my original post suggested, has all the appearances of a dogmatic, knee jerk reaction to anything opposed to scientific orthodoxy. I don't think that is a particularily useful mindset. It was precisely that same dogmatic resistance that delayed the acceptance of plate tectonics for several years.

[mooeypoo]

What are you claiming is a totally absurd hypothesis? The expanding Earth? You seem to be unaware that in the 1940s, 1950s and even the early 1960s the idea of an expanding Earth was considered just as viable as a contracting Earth, or one with continental drift. The hypothesis was not thought to be absurd.

The fact that once upon a time a theory was considered viable does not mean that today it's not absurd.

 

In light of *evidence*, this theory *IS* absurd, and the links we supplied along with our explanations in the previous posts show why.

 

Don't forget that Astrology, too, was considered perfectly viable until not *too* long ago - that doesn't make it a viable theory today, or take away from its scientific absurdity.

 

 

Our improved understanding of global tectonics has now rendered such a hypothesis foolish, but it was not so at the time it was proposed. Your reaction, as my original post suggested, has all the appearances of a dogmatic, knee jerk reaction to anything opposed to scientific orthodoxy. I don't think that is a particularily useful mindset. It was precisely that same dogmatic resistance that delayed the acceptance of plate tectonics for several years.

 

I think that you're taking it a bit too far in that assessment. I understand what you're saying, and I agree that we shouldn't disrespect anyone in general, but I don't think that people here *forgot* the theory used to be viable, they just criticized (not very nicely, but I dont think we expected to be argued with, seeing as we are in a *SCIENCE* forum ) - the fact that there are still people who hold this belief dogmatically.

 

It's like someone will come to the forum and claim the world is flat. The world used to consider this absolute truth. That doesn't mean it's absolutely rediculous in our current day, and I can quite confidently assume that people will ridicule it as well.

 

Would you blame them?

 

I think what you probably meant (and I dont mean to put words in your mouth, so do correct me if I'm wrong) -- is that we shouldn't ridicule stuff *in general*, not just specific claims.

 

Am I right?

 

~moo

[Ophiolite]

Moneypoo, do accept my apologies. It is clear my powers of communication have all but deserted me. I shall make a further effort to make my point.

 

Bascule stated "So, in absence of evidence for either hypothesis, a somewhat reasonable one is on par with a totally absurd one?"

He is utterly ignoring that at the time these hypotheses were current there was nothing to distinguish between them in the absurdity stakes. Indeed the one on which the most scathing condemnation was heaped was continental drift.

 

In light of *evidence*, this theory *IS* absurd, and the links we supplied along with our explanations in the previous posts show why.

I am fully aware that this is an absurd hypothesis. I have argued exactly this point directly with Neal Adams on another forum.

Yet it seems clear that Bascule still wishes to retroactively apply today's judgements to yesterday's beliefs.

All I am saying - and all I have always been saying - is that believing in an expanding Earth was at one time a perfectly rational, scientific position to take. Therefore ridiculing the idea because it is obviously absurd is a purely dogmatic position based upon what we now know and is not an objective, position based upon application of the scientific method.

 

I think what you probably meant (and I dont mean to put words in your mouth, so do correct me if I'm wrong) -- is that we shouldn't ridicule stuff *in general*, not just specific claims.

Am I right?

~moo

I meant precisely what I said.

"I find it interesting that you are all ridiculing the idea of an expanding Earth, as if only a charlatan could contemplate such a notion."

Perhaps I should have made this marginally clearer in this form:

"I find it interesting that you are all ridiculing the idea of an expanding Earth, as if only a charlatan could ever have contemplated such a notion."

 

Dogma is potentially even more injurious to science than to religion. Nothing I hav read thus far has convinced me that yourself and bascule are wholly free of it. And that, I continue to find interesting.

[mooeypoo]

Moneypoo, do accept my apologies. It is clear my powers of communication have all but deserted me. I shall make a further effort to make my point.

 

I much rather believing that your distortion of my nickname is a mistake, rather than an attempt at ridicule, in light of the post.

So I'll forgive you in advance.

 

I meant precisely what I said.

"I find it interesting that you are all ridiculing the idea of an expanding Earth, as if only a charlatan could contemplate such a notion."

Perhaps I should have made this marginally clearer in this form:

"I find it interesting that you are all ridiculing the idea of an expanding Earth, as if only a charlatan could ever have contemplated such a notion."

How I love that statement, wow. "I meant to say what I said". Remind me never to ask clarfiication from you. All you had to do is say "you misunderstood me" and explain what you meant. Saying "I meant what I said" as a response to someone telling you that they didn't understand you is really not helping.

 

I definitely do think that only a charlatan could think of this theory *TODAY*. People thought it was true years ago, but in light on NEW SCIENCE -- yah. Only a charlatan, or a layman, can think this up. I stand by this.

 

I understand your point, but we don't like "back then", we live now. We can have an "understanding" that this used to be a valid theory - but we have new information todya that makes this theory really ridiculous.

 

When a current-day person comes 'round and says it - ya, it's ridiculous.

 

Of course it is.

 

We weren't ridiculing the theory ITSELF. We're ridiculing the person who makes this claim *in our current day*, in light of our current scientific knowledge.

 

~moo