Re: Expanding Earth Video

In article <VA.00000e2c.1024609f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Aidan Karley wrote:
Subject: Re: Expanding Earth Video

Continuing ... there's a lot of talk about polar wandering
curves (the guy is adept at weaving conventional geological tools into
his cosmogony) ; I think that's a consequence of his elimination of
seafloor from the Earth, but I'll have to check the geometry - it looks
like he's claiming a consequence of his methods as being a supporting
line of evidence.
Now, about the hour point there's a contradiction. At one point
he's talking about the volume of water in the oceans increasing with
the Earth's expansion, evidently to keep the oceans full and remain in
synch with conventional geology. But a few moments later he's showing a
Palaeozoic EE-reconstruction (i.e. before the large majority of the
expansion) with a belt of "climatic indicators" (coal, coral reefs, and
DIAMONDS ??!! I'm sure he said diamonds were a climatic indicator). And
to explain some of the spread of the "climatic indicators", he
postulates "ocean currents" running up the Tethys channel in his model.
But this is at a time when the ocean basins are closed, because it's
*before* the period of opening oceans. So you've got ocean currents
acting as major heat pumps in ocean basins that don't exist yet.
Typical.
Ah, now here comes the meaty bit. Perhaps. Constant mass versus
increasing mass at 1h06m.
Maxlow burbles on for a while about how this question "never had
to be asked" previously, because people considered the Earth to have
had a constant mass. Not exactly applying Occam's razor, is he? At the
same time though he displays a quote which appears relevant, until you
read it. So I'll cite it in full here (the video does not show it
clearly; pseudo-HTML added for formatting):
<Title> Space Geodetic Network </Title>
Calculations based on the established global observational network
to 1993 gave a mean "<em>value of up-down</em> [radial] <em>motions
of over 18mm/year</em>", this was considered extremely high
when compared to expected deglacial rates. It was "<em>expected
that most VLBI stations will have up-down motion of only a few
mm/year</em>" and it was then recommended that the vertical motion
be "<em>restricted to zero, because this is closer to the <strong>
true</strong> situation than an average of 18mm/year</em>"
The quote is attributed to Robaudo & Harrison (1993), but no
bibliographical detail. I'll have to check up on that - it looks like
an out-of-context quote from something astronomical (VLBI). Then he
does the usual "you can prove anything with statistics" bull***.
Finally he addresses the constant or increasing mass question (6
minutes after he "started"!). He shows (probably correctly) that
packing the present mass of the earth into a smaller volume would
result in increased surface gravity, and so discards constant mass
"because such high surface gravity is found nowhere else in the solar
system". Which is odd, because slope geometry and sedimentology would
give the same constraints on Earth's surface gravity but without
needing to look "off the earth" for evidence. Very sloppy logic, Mr
Maxlow.
So - Increasing mass. Where does all this mass come from?
<QUOTE> I don't know. </QUOTE> There's then a "speculative mechanism"
he promotes (with a 3 minute-long excursion into geological dating for
no readily apparent reason. He gets that significantly wrong, implying
that fusion is a complete wipe of the dating record. We do know that
some isotopic traces can persist through multiple metamorphic events.)
... Ah, he's going for a Lagrangian solar system with the "pre-Archean"
Earth being "flung off the surface of the sun" "like sunspots that we
see today" "whatever the sun is made of, a blob of pure energy, plasma
energy, whatever" [No wonder he wanted to leave this to the last 7
minutes of his presentation.] Now he has the "pre-Archean Earth", along
with the rest of the planets, "moving away from the high temperatures
of the surface of the sun" [where] "the energy condenses to form
matter".
Oh, this is such standard kookery. You know Godwin's Law (about
mention of Nazis ending USENET threads)? Well I propose a variant for
Kooks - whenever someone outside high-energy physics (including
astrophysics) brings in E=m*C^2 into a conversation, they are likely a
kook.
Well, precisíng drastically - this blob of not-matter sheds a
400km-thickness of matter to form the moon. The inner blob of
not-matter condenses to form molten rock which adds to the mantle and
crust. Note that the not-matter has no MASS, but condenses to matter
which has (gravitating) mass.

Oh, the compere throws in the possibility that the EE theory
implies that the continent of Australia is what used to be Atlantis.
Sort of rounds it out quite nicely. Total kookery. More kookery than a
kitchen full of chefs.

--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233

.

Loading