Re: falsification - trying again - no slide rules please.


Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
"don findlay" <don@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Ok, I'll try to play your game. First comment is that the hypothesis
is not yet specific enough for refutation or falsification. Did the
Earth double in radius, surface area, or volume? It matters.

Radius.


And did
the expansion take place uniformly over time (in terms of r, r^2, or r^3)
or is it hypothesized that the expansion happened in one or more spurts?

Not entirely sure, ..but almost certainly 'spurts' on the time-scale of
human existence. (Movement is attributable to crust-mantle detachment
and is different from enlargement.


What was happening before the Mesozoic?

We can reasonably project back through the Palaeozoic, and 'wonder' if
the process is intrinsic to planetary evolution generally or to the
Earth in particular (don't know, but Mars shows features highly
analogous to the reconstruction of the Mesozoic Earth).


Where did the additional material
come from, or is some new physics involved?

I don't know, ..and yes, some new physics is almost certainly involved.
The question probably must be addressed at the scale of mass creation.
'Gravity' / volume/ mass etc is not really an appropriate scale of
investigation - at least in the first instance.


Where did the new surface
area appear?

As the ocean floors, first in the Western Pacific, enlarging to the
Pacific as a whole; second as the Atlantic.


Did the material of the old Earth's surface stretch uniformly
to cover the expanded area, or was new surface created (ocean spreading
centers?) to fill in the gaps as the old, unexpanded continental crust
split into pieces?

The crustal masses as we see them today represent 'fossilised' Pangaea.
In Mesozoic times continental crust covered the entire surface of the
Earth. Forceful extrusion of the (lower) mantle in the Indonesian
Region spread to become the Pacific. The more curved Pangaean Surface
is still in evidence as the Mountain belts and the Russian Platform, as
the more oblate Pangaean curvature adjust to a more spherical shape of
the Present


I think that a pretty good case could be made that there wasn't uniform
stretching of old crust. Fossils's for example, don't seem to be stretched.

Yes. The old (continental) crust stopped stretching back in the
Mesozoic. All we have now is relaxation of the old ('tighter')
curvature (collapse = overthrusting in those 'mountain belts
(read'zones of elevation'/ 'plateaus')


And depending on what you mean by doubling in size, there may not be enough
room in the old small earth to fit the modern continental crust.

Yes. The crust has been broken up and the mantle emplaced in the gaps
- to the extent of doubling the 'size' (x2 radius) of the Earth.


There
are also curvature issues.

Yes. The old Pangaean curvature is still relaxing (circum-Pacific
Earthquakes). The circumglobal, circumPacific mountain belt is the Old
Pangaean (Mesozoic) curvature. (nothing to do with continental
collisions - or 'docking')


If Capetown, Cairo, and Dakar were as distant
from each other back then as they are now, the angles between the geodesics
must be larger today (closer to 180 degrees).

The tip of North America (Alaska) used to fit with Antarctica, ..and
both with China (Dinosaur fits; possible inherited memory of species?
(Bird migration in the Pacific region? Birds fly a long way, and
chicks come home alone later. How do they do that?)


If you are going to insist that the refutation must be purely geological
and cannot rely on the constancy of the laws of astronomical physics,
then I think it is incumbent on you to specify just how you think the
laws of physics might have changed to permit your expansion.


It's predictive (that EE will usher in change to physics). There is
no known way that the laws of physics as we (/I) understand them can
explain the Earth getting bigger to the extent it has. But that's what
the geology is telling us. The question is whether we bend the
geological facts (to have the crust pushing the mantle down to create
subduction to drive convection to break up the crust) to fit the known
physics ( i.e. have Plate Tectonics), or find some way to think
outside the box of the known physics to explain the geology. I don't
have a physics background. What we're doing with the geology is
advertising that there is a competent alternative *geological* view to
plate Tectonics.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: falsification - trying again - no slide rules please.
    ... The Earth has got bigger. ... address how we understand global geology. ... The way that the crust has broken up? ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Wave bu-bye to evolution ! bu-bye! bu-bye!.....
    ... their implications digested and incorporated in physics and geophysics, ... physicists joined the "old Earth" consensus. ... Darwin was very well informed of current geological data ... and that was what geology provided. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The Greening of Pseudoscience
    ... river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in ... of God shall cover the whole earth. ... (Shared the 1965 Nobel Physics Prize with Feynman and Tomonaga) ... usefulness of quantum mechanics; this was one of the few limitations of this ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion
    ... > you didn't get it from he planet earth (oh right. ... double the length of MOR to assumed 'subduction' zone (Maxlow has a full ... MORs are all twinned, i.e. producing crust either ... MILLIONS of cubic km of ocean crust 'slab' must stack up vertically ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: The electron shell model is in challenge
    ... Why do you think one needs to study physics for several years until ... What on earth does that have to do with "response time of the ... Present evidence for that assertion, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)