bombus Posted May 28, 2009 Posted May 28, 2009 OK, but if the gravity is so strong, how come magma can't wait to come to the surface when the crust splits? I am still not convinced... Is it not conceivable that the earth is hollowing out - or becoming less dense at its core, as a result of gravity being weakest at the core and strongest at the surface plus the spin of the Earth, plus possibly the gravitational pull of the moon? The trouble is the evidence better fits earth expansion than continental drift. Is it really only the mechanism that is the missing part of the equation? If so, rather than dismiss the proposition, we should be investigating possible mechanisms - IMHO! Can you think of any?
insane_alien Posted May 28, 2009 Posted May 28, 2009 bombus, for lava coming to the surface, get yourself a collander or something with a hole in it, push it down into a basin of water, ther water squirts up from the hole, same thing happening there as it is with volcanoes.
Mokele Posted May 28, 2009 Posted May 28, 2009 OK, but if the gravity is so strong, how come magma can't wait to come to the surface when the crust splits? Because it's under pressure - rising magma is no more mysterious than why a beer can sprays up if you shake it before opening it. Is it not conceivable that the earth is hollowing out - or becoming less dense at its core, as a result of gravity being weakest at the core and strongest at the surface plus the spin of the Earth, plus possibly the gravitational pull of the moon? Given that the core is a solid piece of metal, no. The trouble is the evidence better fits earth expansion than continental drift. Give even one example. Is it really only the mechanism that is the missing part of the equation? If so, rather than dismiss the proposition, we should be investigating possible mechanisms - IMHO! If there are no possible mechanisms, then a theory is worthless speculation. The *proper* way to do things is to formulate your idea, develop specific predictions that can be tested and falsified, and then test those predictions. However, that's already happened - seismology proves you wrong. If the earth were expanding, it would be hollowing out, yet seismic waves traveling through the center of the earth show *no* evidence of a drop in density due to any sort of 'hollow'. The alternative is that mass is somehow increasing, which is utterly ridiculous and lacks any sort of reasonable explanation. And we know density has remained constant, because volcanic rock has the same density now as it did 400 million years ago, and before. I know you like this idea, but part of science is being willing to let go when a concept is shown to be wrong, as this conclusively has been.
bombus Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) Well, allegedly, if one runs the sequence of plate expansion backwards (something which can be done as we know the ages of the oceanic crust and the rates of expansion) the continents of the earth join up exactly. Not just America fitting with Africa/Europe, but fitting North/South too. If this is true, can that really be coincidence? If it is not true, well, that's the end of the argument, but if it is true we can't seriously ignore this becasue we can't come up with a mechanism. That would be silly. I find it amusing that people can be so certain of things being wrong. I imagine the same types of people in another time mocking Wegener, Einstein, Darwin et al... Be careful! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf there are no possible mechanisms, then a theory is worthless speculation. Darwin had no idea about the mechanism of inheritance (genes) but figured that it was happening based on the circumstantial evidence - even though he could not explain how. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHowever, that's already happened - seismology proves you wrong. If the earth were expanding, it would be hollowing out, yet seismic waves traveling through the center of the earth show *no* evidence of a drop in density due to any sort of 'hollow'. But human timescales are tiny! We ain't been around long enough to notice! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Edited June 1, 2009 by bombus Consecutive posts merged.
Sisyphus Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 Well, allegedly, if one runs the sequence of plate expansion backwards (something which can be done as we know the ages of the oceanic crust and the rates of expansion) the continents of the earth join up exactly. Not just America fitting with Africa/Europe, but fitting North/South too. If this is true, can that really be coincidence? If it is not true, well, that's the end of the argument Ok: It's not true.
Mokele Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 Ok, this is getting assinine. Time for hardcore science: Bombus, you have a hypothesis. In order for it to be even remotely useful, it must make predictions about the natural world, predictions we can test. The hypothesis must also have a criterion for falsification - some piece of data which could not possibly occur if your hypothesis is right, thus if we find it, the hypothesis is wrong. These are the entire basis of science. 1) What are your predictions? And how do they differ from the predictions of plate tectonics? 2) What would test your theory? What experiment or study could be done that would yield different results if your hypothesis is true vs if plate tectonics is true? 3) What would falsify your hypothesis? Without good answers to all 3 of the above, we're wasting time on pseudoscience. If it cannot make predictions, or the predictions cannot be tested, or there is no criterion for falsification, it simply isn't science.
Klaynos Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 I'd say a testable prediction he's already made is that of the core getting less dense. We can measure the density very accurately due to seismic activity and wave propagation from this through the core, and the density is staying the same.
bombus Posted June 2, 2009 Posted June 2, 2009 Ok: It's not true. Can you point me to proof of that? I ask as I have seen computer animated simulations that suggest it is true. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOk, this is getting assinine. Time for hardcore science: Bombus, you have a hypothesis. In order for it to be even remotely useful, it must make predictions about the natural world, predictions we can test. The hypothesis must also have a criterion for falsification - some piece of data which could not possibly occur if your hypothesis is right, thus if we find it, the hypothesis is wrong. These are the entire basis of science. 1) What are your predictions? And how do they differ from the predictions of plate tectonics? 2) What would test your theory? What experiment or study could be done that would yield different results if your hypothesis is true vs if plate tectonics is true? 3) What would falsify your hypothesis? Without good answers to all 3 of the above, we're wasting time on pseudoscience. If it cannot make predictions, or the predictions cannot be tested, or there is no criterion for falsification, it simply isn't science. 1. That if the supposed expansion of the earth is run backwards all the continents match up more or less exactly. 2. The above would test the theory. 3. The above being proven false would falsify the proposal.
Klaynos Posted June 2, 2009 Posted June 2, 2009 Can you point me to proof of that? I ask as I have seen computer animated simulations that suggest it is true. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged 1. That if the supposed expansion of the earth is run backwards all the continents match up more or less exactly. 2. The above would test the theory. 3. The above being proven false would falsify the proposal. Match up to form a sphere? Then no that doesn't work.
mooeypoo Posted June 2, 2009 Posted June 2, 2009 1. That if the supposed expansion of the earth is run backwards all the continents match up more or less exactly. 2. The above would test the theory. 3. The above being proven false would falsify the proposal. I must say, I find "more or less exactly" amusing, but we've all used it and I just noticed it .. just pointing it out You make a good point in saying that the continents fit if you "shrink" the Earth. Sure.. that's true --- if you ignore everything else we know and only relate to their shape. [btw, let me be clear: they *do not* fit into a perfect sphere. You can say, though, that they fit together if you shrink the Earth just like Pangea fit together in plate tectonics. I'll accept that] The continents "fit" to one another if you move them backwards to form Pangea (in the currently acceptable, proven model), just like they would've "fit" together if you shrank the earth -- but there's a very big difference here in terms of the process that throws the 'shrinking/expanding' theory out of the water (along with a lot more of the evidence counter-it, like it being against EVERYTHING we know about planets, etc): If the distance between the continents grew because the world expanded, you would expect to see addition of crust in the "connecting" areas, indicating that a very long time ago there was less crust == less surface area == smaller planet. But you don't see that. Instead, you see one connecting "crack" producing material, and the other side of that same plate there's the other "crack" that "swallows" the crust. We see it.. that's what happens in the Asian-African rift, and in other locations. We can also measure it. That observation *only* works if the plates are moving. It doesn't work for an expanding Earth. Also, please take into account that the continents only *SEEM* to fit together on the outside. What's up with all those ridges and mountains that are underwater? they don't count? If you have no way of explaining their existence and where they fit in the "expansion" theory, but the plate tectonics explains them *perfectly*, then you have another point on why plate tectonics is substantiated as opposed to so-called "expansion". So, you start with a common fact -- that the continents "fit" together, but the surroundings show the process, and that shows that one of those options is simply illogical. After that, you go on to the other facts that keep supporting plates tectonics, and the fact that there's no methodology to *explain* an expanding Earth, and there's not much validity to that theory, really. ~moo
Mokele Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 1. That if the supposed expansion of the earth is run backwards all the continents match up more or less exactly. 2. The above would test the theory. 3. The above being proven false would falsify the proposal. Incorrect - plate tectonics has *exactly* the same prediction. An experiment which cannot distinguish between the two hypotheses is worthless. Try again.
Reaper Posted June 3, 2009 Posted June 3, 2009 Are we still discussing this crackpot theory? Besides which, if you really want to know why it wasn't accepted, or even considered, read up on the history of geology. Even in Darwin's time, the theory was dismissed. The only serious scientific theory that included expansion was the theory of thermal cycles, but that also had the Earth contracting (making the radius pretty much the same for the lifetime of the Earth), and in the end it never really gained a whole lot of support.
bombus Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) OK, let me be clearer. I am not saying I believe in the theory. I am, however, saying that the thing we should worry about LEAST is the explanation for a mechanism. That can come later! The impoortant issue is whether a 'shrunken' earth lets the continents fit together perfectly. I.e., is the film in the link below based on computer models (that are based on scientific facts) or simply a 'fictional' animation. If they are based on facts (e.g. expansion rates of the oceanic plates etc) then I would suggest that we have a bit of problem, as it fits better than the current paradigm. Look at the links below and get back to me with your thoughts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fcc3Simcoo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m10UA3u6qiY&feature=related you gotta admit, even if it's wrong, it's put across very well. Also this: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6520/ Edited June 7, 2009 by bombus
mooeypoo Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 First of, people already answered you -- if you "shrink" the Earth, the continents will fit one another to form a single continent (just like plate tectonics, that is actually proven by other facts). The continents will *NOT* cover the entire earth. Second, those videos by Neal Adams are *NOT* based on actual data, they're based on his own imaginative hypothesis that has absolutely NO support in reality. So, to summarize, we have a "mechanism" that doesn't disprove the current theory. However, the current theory is proven by countless evidence (just read the entire thread, you'll see some, plus look up the forum for similar threads, unfortunately we had a few). Not only that, but "earth expansion" raises more problems than it's worth (what's the MECHANISM FOR EXPANSION? did the Earth eat beans? -- is merely a silly representation of only one of them). So one theory is utter ridiculous antiscientific crap by a cartoonist that doesn't want to actually relate to factual data, and one theory has evidence from multiple fields, predictability and support. Yeah.. some problem we have. you gotta admit, even if it's wrong, it's put across very well. Yes. So do magic tricks. So does anti vaccine deadly bullshit. The fact he's a charismatic cartoonist with access to high tech animation technology doesn't make him right, or any less wrong. There are a few theories we can say are waiting for more informtion about, and might be susceptible to change. Gravity, for example, *was* "tweaked" by Einstein after Newton. Those cases do happen with certain theories, and we certainly don't know everything just yet. Plate tectonics, however, is one of those theories that have so much support to them, so much overwhelming evidence, so much repeated support by outside fields, that it will take *QUITE* a competing theory to replace it. This one Neal Adams proposes is not it. ~moo
Mokele Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 I can't believe I forgot one of the best refutations: fossils. We know when Pangaea occured (about 250 million years ago) based not just on geological evidence, but also on fossil evidence, namely the type and distribution of fossils. Contrary to those videos, there was NO period in which there was no ocean, as evidenced by unambiguously marine organisms in very large areas. Furthermore, we know of unambiguously marine fossils prior to Pangaea, in some cases predating it by hundreds of millions of years. On top of that, it's pretty much certain that life itself originated in the water, and indeed, there are NO terrestrial mulitcellular fossils until about 450 million years ago. Of course, if the water was already there, it would have been so deep it covered the whole world, meaning terrestrial life could not have begun until well after Pangaea, which is clearly false as well. The fossil record proves this theory wrong, and there's no way around it.
Klaynos Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 A mechanism is actually required to take this seriously, as we already have something that fits the available data AND has a mechanism, so you need new data that fits the shrinking earth better AND a mechanism, else the existing theory still wins.
Reaper Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 A mechanism is actually required to take this seriously, as we already have something that fits the available data AND has a mechanism, so you need new data that fits the shrinking earth better AND a mechanism, else the existing theory still wins. I think it's worth mentioning that no one has ever found a mechanism for this expansion over the last 150+ years. It was rejected for that very reason too .
bombus Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 (edited) First of, people already answered you -- if you "shrink" the Earth, the continents will fit one another to form a single continent (just like plate tectonics, that is actually proven by other facts). The continents will *NOT* cover the entire earth. They seem to. Second, those videos by Neal Adams are *NOT* based on actual data, they're based on his own imaginative hypothesis that has absolutely NO support in reality. Well he claims they are based on the data. Why would he make this up? It could so easily be disproved. He's not stupid. So, to summarize, we have a "mechanism" that doesn't disprove the current theory. However, the current theory is proven by countless evidence (just read the entire thread, you'll see some, plus look up the forum for similar threads, unfortunately we had a few). There IS NOT that much evidence for plate tectonics. There really isn't! I studied geology and know that it is FAR from being proven beyond all doubt. Not only that, but "earth expansion" raises more problems than it's worth (what's the MECHANISM FOR EXPANSION? did the Earth eat beans? -- is merely a silly representation of only one of them). Expansion of the universe. Suns expand before they collapse. Maybe planets are just 'suns with crusts'. We aint been around long enough to know. How do you explain the expansion of the other moons in the solar system? So one theory is utter ridiculous antiscientific crap by a cartoonist that doesn't want to actually relate to factual data, and one theory has evidence from multiple fields, predictability and support. Like I said, I can hear these words coming out the mouths of those that criticized wegener - and are now thought to be wrong. Open your minds people! Accepted scientific theories are often wrong - no need to take it personally you know:-) I have watched those vids, and the FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. The 'evidence' is plain to see. What is your explanation for the Europa and Ganemede expansion? That ain't camera tricks! Something is happening and needs explaining. Plate tectonics, however, is one of those theories that have so much support to them, so much overwhelming evidence, so much repeated support by outside fields, that it will take *QUITE* a competing theory to replace it. It sounds to me that people just refuse to take it seriously as a proposal right from the start. That is unscientific. The ONLY reason it was not accepted as the paradigm is because people refused to beleive that the earth could be expanding - because they couldn't come up with a mechanism. It actually fits the data better than PT! Even ID gets a fairer hearing. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI think it's worth mentioning that no one has ever found a mechanism for this expansion over the last 150+ years. It was rejected for that very reason too . Yes, you are right. That is my main issue. What a daft reason to reject a theory IMHO! If the facts fit EET then a mechanism can be investigated. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedA mechanism is actually required to take this seriously, as we already have something that fits the available data AND has a mechanism, so you need new data that fits the shrinking earth better AND a mechanism, else the existing theory still wins. Darwin had no mechanism for Natural Selection - that is - he did not know how characteristics were passed from one generation to the next. A lack of a mechanism is very weak reason for not considering the evidence. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI can't believe I forgot one of the best refutations: fossils. It doesn't actually prove plate tectonics at all, and the evidence actually better fits EET. Sea fossils on Mt everest prove that it was once a sea bed. We know when Pangaea occured (about 250 million years ago) based not just on geological evidence, but also on fossil evidence, namely the type and distribution of fossils. Yes but maybe pangea encompassed the entire earth and the seas were shallow and warm. Contrary to those videos, there was NO period in which there was no ocean, as evidenced by unambiguously marine organisms in very large areas. How would we know? The oldest oceanic plates are only around 180 milion years old. Furthermore, we know of unambiguously marine fossils prior to Pangaea, in some cases predating it by hundreds of millions of years. Yup - from CONTINENTAL ROCKS! On top of that, it's pretty much certain that life itself originated in the water, and indeed, there are NO terrestrial mulitcellular fossils until about 450 million years ago. The water would have still been around, on top of what is now continental crust. Dear oh dear, you haven't actually read up on EET have you!! Of course, if the water was already there, it would have been so deep it covered the whole world, meaning terrestrial life could not have begun until well after Pangaea, which is clearly false as well. This is a good point - but maybe there was less water on Earth then. The fossil record proves this theory wrong, and there's no way around it. As said above, it doesn't. The fossil record would not prove it either way. Edited June 8, 2009 by bombus Consecutive posts merged.
Klaynos Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Please reread what I said, you need to be better than the current theory at predicting the evidence, to accurately predict you need a mechanism. Using darwin is a poor example, and a strawman, the situation is completely different he wasn't competing with a current theory that has a mechanism AND makes accurate predictions about the evidence.
Mokele Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Well he claims they are based on the data. Why would he make this up? It could so easily be disproved. He's not stupid. If he doesn't show the data, then he's a fraud. That's how science works - you report your data. There IS NOT that much evidence for plate tectonics. There really isn't! I studied geology and know that it is FAR from being proven beyond all doubt. Is it too late for a refund on those classes? Because I'm fairly sure "we've watched it happen" counts as 'proven'. Also, what about Earthquakes? Plate Tectonics predicts that they happen, where they happen, and how often. Expanding Earth predicts that earthquakes are impossible, yet they happen. Expansion of the universe. Suns expand before they collapse. Maybe planets are just 'suns with crusts'. We aint been around long enough to know. How do you explain the expansion of the other moons in the solar system? 1) if it was space itself expanding, the frame of reference would expand too, yielding no change in perceived shape. 2) If planets expanded like stars, they'd have fusion in their core, and thus gasseous cores. We KNOW from seismic density readings that this is not the case. 3) No other moon or planet is expanding. Bullshit. Show me evidence. The ONLY reason it was not accepted as the paradigm is because people refused to beleive that the earth could be expanding - because they couldn't come up with a mechanism. It actually fits the data better than PT! You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means. It doesn't actually prove plate tectonics at all, and the evidence actually better fits EET. Sea fossils on Mt everest prove that it was once a sea bed. Wrong. Geological uplift is also predicted by plate tectonics. Yes but maybe pangea encompassed the entire earth and the seas were shallow and warm. Then why can we trace the edges of pangaea's coastline by the boundary of marine vs terrestrial fossils? That means there were seas at the edges, not in the middle. Or maybe you think coral lives on land, and trees live underwater? How would we know? The oldest oceanic plates are only around 180 milion years old. Geological uplift. We have marine fossils going back over 3 billion years. I've dug fossils out of the ground in Cincinnati that showed marine organisms over 450 million years old. Face it, you're WRONG. The water would have still been around, on top of what is now continental crust. Dear oh dear, you haven't actually read up on EET have you!! So trees and rats live on the bottom of the ocean? Because we have terrestrial fossils from all over pangaea, including things that cannot live underwater. You claim we refuse to see evidence. You're the one claiming palm trees lived 1000 feet under the sea. This is a good point - but maybe there was less water on Earth then. Then where did that come from? ------------------- Ok, this is getting assinine. You clearly don't have the slightest clue about geology, paleontology, biology, physics, biogeography, or how science works in general. We have presented you with HEAPS of data that your theory cannot explain, or that flatly contradicts your theory. Instead of actually thinking about this, you either ignore these points, whine about persecution, or present a hand-waving explanation that defies all known laws of physics. I'm going to give you one last chance. Stop and *think* about Expanding Earth Theory. Think about all the things this theory predicts about geology, paleontology, biogeography. Think about how such a world would work. Don't look at reality - just extrapolate, based on your idea. Now find a prediction of EET, one that DIFFERS from PT. For instance, EET predicts that plate material should never be lost/subducted, while PT predicts that it does. Or that EET predicts there should either be no coastal ecosystemson Pangaea or (if water was on top) that the coastlines should not match with modern coasts at all, while PT predicts that coastal ecosystems would have occured at the edges of Pangaea and those should align with modern coasts, give or take a bit due to sea level change. Give a prediction in which the two DIFFER. For which we can test the predictions, and for which you DO NOT ALREADY HAVE A PRE-MADE EXCUSE. Any other post will be deleted.
mooeypoo Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch. The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open. Alternatively, there are more reportable posts breaching the SFN Rules in this thread than there are non-reportable posts, and all participants are expected to improve their level of input if this thread is to remain open. If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post, then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy. All participants are responsible for helping to bring the thread back on track. This post is a standard text set by SFN policy.
Simpleton Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) If he doesn't show the data, then he's a fraud. That's how science works - you report your data. Is it too late for a refund on those classes? Because I'm fairly sure "we've watched it happen" counts as 'proven'. Also, what about Earthquakes? Plate Tectonics predicts that they happen, where they happen, and how often. Expanding Earth predicts that earthquakes are impossible, yet they happen. 1) if it was space itself expanding, the frame of reference would expand too, yielding no change in perceived shape. 2) If planets expanded like stars, they'd have fusion in their core, and thus gasseous cores. We KNOW from seismic density readings that this is not the case. 3) No other moon or planet is expanding. Bullshit. Show me evidence. You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means. Wrong. Geological uplift is also predicted by plate tectonics. Then why can we trace the edges of pangaea's coastline by the boundary of marine vs terrestrial fossils? That means there were seas at the edges, not in the middle. Or maybe you think coral lives on land, and trees live underwater? Geological uplift. We have marine fossils going back over 3 billion years. I've dug fossils out of the ground in Cincinnati that showed marine organisms over 450 million years old. Face it, you're WRONG. So trees and rats live on the bottom of the ocean? Because we have terrestrial fossils from all over pangaea, including things that cannot live underwater. You claim we refuse to see evidence. You're the one claiming palm trees lived 1000 feet under the sea. Then where did that come from? ------------------- Ok, this is getting assinine. You clearly don't have the slightest clue about geology, paleontology, biology, physics, biogeography, or how science works in general. We have presented you with HEAPS of data that your theory cannot explain, or that flatly contradicts your theory. Instead of actually thinking about this, you either ignore these points, whine about persecution, or present a hand-waving explanation that defies all known laws of physics. I'm going to give you one last chance. Stop and *think* about Expanding Earth Theory. Think about all the things this theory predicts about geology, paleontology, biogeography. Think about how such a world would work. Don't look at reality - just extrapolate, based on your idea. Now find a prediction of EET, one that DIFFERS from PT. For instance, EET predicts that plate material should never be lost/subducted, while PT predicts that it does. Or that EET predicts there should either be no coastal ecosystemson Pangaea or (if water was on top) that the coastlines should not match with modern coasts at all, while PT predicts that coastal ecosystems would have occured at the edges of Pangaea and those should align with modern coasts, give or take a bit due to sea level change. Give a prediction in which the two DIFFER. For which we can test the predictions, and for which you DO NOT ALREADY HAVE A PRE-MADE EXCUSE. Any other post will be deleted. Of course, I don't know but maybe. Thinking that water (maybe) was constantly made by the suns hydrogen and earth produced oxygen in the earth magnetic field and maybe even a little extra help from other radiation. There would be little water before free oxygen? Edited June 9, 2009 by Simpleton missing the oxygen
Ophiolite Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 There have been some disturbing (to a geologist) inaccuracies by several posters on this thread. I'm not going get into those, but if this thread survives I shall be rigorous in pointing out future ones. I'd prefer to explore for a moment why the expanding Earth theory was at one time considered a viable player. That can lead us to examine why it was rejected by the greater part of the Earth science community and thereby identify which aspects of plate tectonics would best be challenged by someone promoting Earth expansion theory. Many are aware that continental drift was actively promoted by the meteorologist Alfred Wegner following his publication of the theory in 1915 (1). His favoured mechanism (differential centrifugal ‘force’) was faulty, as was that (tidal forces) of an earlier proposal by Taylor (2) in 1910. Although some researchers flirted with the idea of convection as the driving force, Arthur Holmes (3) was the first to place it on a solid footing (pun intended), as early as 1931. Despite his work and that of other visionaries, the idea continued to be rejected by the majority of Earth scientists. This began to change in the late 1950s and early 1960s as growing evidence forced a reevaluation. There were two strands to this. Firstly, there was now clear evidence for divergent polar wandering, best explained by continental drift, from the research of scientists such as Blackett (4) and Runcorn (5). Secondly, seafloor spreading from mid-ocean ridges was posited by Hess (6) and expanded upon by Dietz (7) , and demonstrated through the analysis of magnetic anomalies, first by Vine and Mathews (8). I know, I know – Morgan found some first in the late 1950s, but I can’t be assed to find the reference. Heezen (9) and Tharp made the initial identification of the global extent of the mid-ocean ridge system in the late 1950s. This helped fuel the growing interest in sea floor spreading and the notion that the ridges were zones of divergence, a full quarter century after Holmes (10) first proposed it. If the generation of new ocean floor at the mid-ocean ridges was real, then either the Earth had to be getting larger, or old oceanic crust was being destroyed somewhere. S. Warren Carey (11) opted for an expanding Earth, a view that did not catch on. Why not? Carey’s proposal, even without a mechanism, was a reasonable option if there was not crustal destruction at deep sea trenches, or some other locale. Deep sea trenches seemed to provide a location and a means for this destruction. Several clues pointed to these trenches. Long, deep, linear features running parallel to island arcs, or young mountain chains, formed prominent and extensive portions of the ocean floor. Earthquakes adjacent to these trenches marked out planes (Wadati-Benioff zones) descending at an angle into the mantle (12,13). Negative gravity anomalies were found across the trenches by Vening Meinesz (14). Bullard determined that heat flow in these trenches was lower than the average for the ocean floor (15). Hess and Dietz saw how these various characteristics could all be explained by the subsuming of oceanic crust at the trench. By the end of the 1960s these threads had been pulled together, by the pioneering work of the likes of Wilson (16), Morgan (17), McKenzie and Parker (18) , and Le Pinchon (19). Plate tectonics was born. (The phrase was first used in print by Morgan and McKenzie (20) in a 1969 paper in Nature.) And Expanding Earth Theory was dead. So, if there were an achilles heel in plate tectonics, it would lie in the reality - or otherwise - of subduction. Interestingly, there are some question marks around the process. Are these sufficiently large to constitute a threat to established theory? I think not, but they merit examination. If the thread survives its possible demise I shall return with a consideration of some of these question marks and explore with you all the extent to which they could lend credence to EET. References: 1 Wegener, A. (1915) Die Enstehungder Kontinenteund Ozeane. Vieweg, Braunschweig, 2 Taylor, F.B. (1910) Bearing of the Tertiary mountain belt on the origin of the Earth’s plan. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 21, 179–226. 3 Holmes, A. (1931) Radioactivity and Earth movements, XVII. Trans.Geol.Soc.Glasgow, Vol.XVIII–Part III, 1928–3118, 559–606. 4 Blackett, P.M.S.(1956). Lectures on Rock Magnetism. Weizmann Sci. Press of Israel, Jerusalem, 131pp. 5 Runcorn, S.K. (1956). Palaeomagnetic Comparisons between Europe and North America. Proc. Geol. Assoc. Canada 8, 77–85. 6 Hess, H.H. (1962). History of Ocean Basins. In Petrologic Studies –A Volume in Honor of A.F. Buddington, pp.599–620 7 Dietz, R.S. (1961). Continent and ocean basin evolution by spreading of the sea floor. Nature 190, 854–7. 8 Vine, F.J. & Matthews, D.H. (1963). Magnetic anomalies over oceanic ridges. Nature 199, 947–9. 9 Heezen. B.C., et al (1959) The floors of the oceans—I: The North Atlantic, Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Amer. 65 (1959) 10 Holmes, op cit 11 Carey, S.W. (1958) The tectonic approach to continental drift. In Continental Drift, A Symposium, pp.177–355, ed. S.W.Carey, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania. 12 Wadati, K. (1928). Shallow and deep earthquakes. Geophys. Mag. 1, 161–202. 13 Benioff, H. (1949). Seismic evidence for the fault origin of oceanic deeps. Geol.Soc.Am.Bull. 60, 1837–56. 14 Meinesz, V.F.A. (1932) Gravity Expeditions at Sea: 1923 – 1930 Vol. 1 The Expeditions, the computations and the results. Netherlands Geodetic Commission 15 Bullard, E.C. (1956) Heat Flow through the Deep Sea Floor Advances in Geophysics, Volume 3. Edited by H. E. Landsberg, , p.153 16 Wilson, J.T. (1963). Hypothesis of Earth’s behaviour. Nature 198, 925–9. 17 Morgan, W.J. (1968). Rises, trenches, great faults, and crustal blocks. J. Geophys. Res. 73, 1959–82. 18 McKenzie, D.P. & Parker, R.L. (1967). The north Pacific, an example of tectonics on a sphere. Nature 216, 1276–80. 19 Le Pichon, X. (1968). Sea-floor spreading and continental drift. J. Geophys. Res. 73, 3661–97. 20 McKenzie, D.P. & Morgan, W.J. (1969). Evolution of triple junctions. Nature 224, 125–33. 3
bombus Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) If he doesn't show the data, then he's a fraud. That's how science works - you report your data. He uses data already in existence from geologists, i.e., the ages of the areas of crust. Is it too late for a refund on those classes? Because I'm fairly sure "we've watched it happen" counts as 'proven'. Also, what about Earthquakes? Plate Tectonics predicts that they happen, where they happen, and how often. Expanding Earth predicts that earthquakes are impossible, yet they happen. 'Some' subduction probably does occur IMO, but the issue is really whether the entire plate slips underneath a continental plate over time, or whether most of the plate expansion results in earth expansion. EET would not necessarily affect the examples you point out. 1) if it was space itself expanding, the frame of reference would expand too, yielding no change in perceived shape. Ok well if that is the case maybe it can be scrubbed. 2) If planets expanded like stars, they'd have fusion in their core, and thus gasseous cores. We KNOW from seismic density readings that this is not the case. It is much speculated by 'normal' geologists that the Earth does indeed have a nuclear reaction occuring at the core which 'powers' plate tectonics. 3) No other moon or planet is expanding. Bullshit. Show me evidence. see here:http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/1.htm and scroll down a bit. Wrong. Geological uplift is also predicted by plate tectonics. Not wrong - I am not trying to disprove that plate tectonic theory could result in these effects, merely that EET could have the same. Then why can we trace the edges of pangaea's coastline by the boundary of marine vs terrestrial fossils? That means there were seas at the edges, not in the middle. Yes, there would have been even with EET, but they would have been smaller seas. Warm shallow seas in fact. Or maybe you think coral lives on land, and trees live underwater? Now now, no need to be rude Geological uplift. We have marine fossils going back over 3 billion years. I've dug fossils out of the ground in Cincinnati that showed marine organisms over 450 million years old. Face it, you're WRONG. Yes but this does not disprove EET as the fossils are on continental plates - which actually fits nicely with EET. So trees and rats live on the bottom of the ocean? Because we have terrestrial fossils from all over pangaea, including things that cannot live underwater. Yes, just as EET would predict. These examples you give would occur with both EET and the current paradigm. You claim we refuse to see evidence. You're the one claiming palm trees lived 1000 feet under the sea. Ahem. I don't think I have claimed anything of the sort. ------------------- Ok, this is getting assinine. You clearly don't have the slightest clue about geology, paleontology, biology, physics, biogeography, or how science works in general. So suppose 'A' levels in Physical Geography and Biology, plus a 1st Class Honours degree in Applied Ecology doesn't count? I know my stuff thank-you. That is why I know that EET should be considered and not laughed out of court. We have presented you with HEAPS of data that your theory cannot explain, or that flatly contradicts your theory. Instead of actually thinking about this, you either ignore these points, whine about persecution, or present a hand-waving explanation that defies all known laws of physics. Well actually you have not, as my replies demonstrate Stop and *think* about Expanding Earth Theory. Think about all the things this theory predicts about geology, paleontology, biogeography. Think about how such a world would work. Don't look at reality - just extrapolate, based on your idea. Yes I have - and the data equally fits EET! That's the point! Now find a prediction of EET, one that DIFFERS from PT. For instance, EET predicts that plate material should never be lost/subducted, while PT predicts that it does. Or that EET predicts there should either be no coastal ecosystemson Pangaea or (if water was on top) that the coastlines should not match with modern coasts at all, while PT predicts that coastal ecosystems would have occured at the edges of Pangaea and those should align with modern coasts, give or take a bit due to sea level change. Give a prediction in which the two DIFFER. For which we can test the predictions, and for which you DO NOT ALREADY HAVE A PRE-MADE EXCUSE. The twe theories do not differ much at all. That;s why EET was given a lot of credence once upon a time. It was the lack of belief that the earth could be expanding, plus a lack of a mechanism that resulted in the formation of the current theory. But actually the current theory is more complex. The only prediction I would guess is simply that the Earth is expanding. That's it. Unfortunately the rate of expansion is so slow that it is unlikely to be detected anytime soon. By the way, what is a 'pre-made excuse'? Is that the same as an answer? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOphiolite Thanks for your post. I hope this thread does continue as I'd like to know your thoughts on the EET. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch. The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open. That's a bit unfair! I am simply trying to point out that EET should be investigated further rather than simply being dismissed by those without the patience to look into it. The following is a link to a site. It answers just about all of the questions raised so far in this post. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/1.htm also here is a site by Dr. James Maxlow a geologist and proponent of EET http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6520/GETtext.html#Contents Edited June 9, 2009 by bombus Consecutive posts merged.
Recommended Posts