Re: how can I curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-theory?

In article <fu9613l72327u6jf5qtaumtc72id5npui6@xxxxxxx>,
J. Taylor <nchiwana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:44:04 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <1175646554.870591.119710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"James" <james.maxlow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 3, 1:29 am, "Pascal Boulerie" <Pascal.Boule...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hello,

I need advices to curb a crank who believes in Earth expansion pseudo-
theory.

Grasshopper, you know nothing. May I suggest that before you go
expressing YOUR opinion that you do your homework and actually
quantify your statement by providing factual evidence to disprove EE.
Doing your homework means putting aside YOUR preconceived conclusions
and using correct scientific principals to compare and contrast the
evidence. Contrary to what YOU believe Earth expansion IS in fact a
viable concept. It actually explains ALL global tectonic data
(geological, geophysical, geographical, geochemical) far better than
plate tectonics is capable. How do I know this? Because unlike you I
have spent the past 17 years researching and writing about EE and
contrasting it with PT. If you are serious about knowing more about
Earth expansion then may I suggest that you at least start at:
www.oneoffpublishing.com to find out more, or at least view my
animations at: http://home.websolutionswa.com/home/jamesm/album/index.html

James

Oh, Pascal, see what you've done?

Concisely stated, the Expanding Earth Hypothesis claims that at some
point in the Earth's past, tens or hundreds of millions of years ago,
the Earth's diameter was half what it is now. At that time, the crust
completely covered the Earth. Since then, the Earth expanded, but the
continents didn't, and ended up where they are now. The mid-oceanic
ridges are taken as evidence for this expansion.

There are several serious problems for the hypothesis. In order for the
Earth to double its diameter (4x its surface area, 8x its volume) then
some combination of an 8x increase in mass or an 8x decrease in density
is required. There is no known physical process by which either of these
things could happen.

If there was no increase in mass, then the Earth's mass was always what
it is now, and 50 MYA the density was 8x what it is now. There's no
reason to believe that it ever was that dense; meteorites that dense
have never been found; there's no way to make granite that dense.

If there was an increase in mass, this raises some difficult questions.
Where did the mass come from? The Earth is in complex motion: it rotates
on its axis, orbits the sun, orbits the center of the galaxy, and moves
with the galaxy through space. Any new atoms that magically appeared
within the Earth would have to also magically acquire *exactly* the
correct motion vectors for the instant of their creation. How did the
mass get that motion? The Earth is differentiated into core, mantle, and
crust. How did the new atoms know precisely what elements to be? How did
they have the correct temperatures? How come there is no evidence of new
atoms appearing within the Earth? How come they appear only inside the
earth and not inside the heads of people who do not believe in Expanding
Earth?

As the Earth gained mass, this would have affected the Moon's orbit. An
increase in the Earth's mass would have increased the gravitational
force on the Moon, pulling it in closer and speeding up its orbit.
Fossil evidence of tides does not support this kind of change. (In fact,
it shows the opposite change: the Moon has been receding.) The added
mass could not have come from the sky in the form of meteorites. These
would have buried everything and left far more impact craters than we
see. Studies of impact craters on the moon and other inner planets do
not support ongoing bombardment at the rate needed for this kind of
ongoing planetary growth.

The shapes of the continents do not reflect the kinds of distortions one
would expect from the core and mantle. Get a lemon and an orange, so
that the diameter of the orange is about 2x the diameter of the lemon.
Cut out a small piece of the lemon peel, about the size a continent
would be on the orange. Take the continent and stick it on the orange.
Flatten its center and do whatever you have to to the edges so it will
match the larger curvature of the orange. One solution is nice radial
tears so a continent ends up looking like a *. But continents don't look
like that.

The continents of Africa and South America do fit together rather
nicely. It's not just on a map, but also the stratigraphy across the
gaps matches. That is, geological features such as rock types and layers
match. The Expanding Earthers imagine all kinds of fanciful arrangements
for the continents to make them all fit on a 1/2-diameter Earth.
However, there's no evidence at all for the kinds of geological matches
that would be expected across any of the proposed gaps.

As the Earth's continents moved around on the surface, rocks solidifying
from volcanic eruptions picked up the Earth's magnetic field. These
magnetic imprints, along with those spreading from the mid-oceanic
ridges, tell a very specific story of the positions of the continents
over time. They do not in any way support any of the starting
configurations proposed by the Expanding Earthers.

There's no evidence that the expansion is continuing. One explanation is
that it stopped right when people started looking for it. That's just
bad science. Another claim is that it is about to start an exponential
increase ... but there's no explanation for why that would be so either.

There are an awful lot of holes in the Expanding Earth hypothesis,
ranging from particle physics through orbital mechanics to geology. I
predict that a lot of the howling you are about to hear in response to
this post will take the following forms:

* I'm not considering any of the evidence for expanding earth.
* I am blinded by formal education and the Ivory-tower status quo from
seeing the brilliance of independent thinkers.
* I have allowed results from unrelated sciences to cloud my thinking.
* I am part of a global conspiracy of geologists to try to suppress
knowledge of the EE hypothesis.
* Proofs by Declaration and Reiteration that continents don't float, the
mantle does not convect, that plate tectonics can't possibly be set into
motion by crust dragging, and any number of other straw-man
misrepresentations of how plate tectonics actually works ... as though
disproving PT would prove EE.
* Don Findlay's incomprehensible gibbering.

Please feel free to look up Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit and apply
it to everything you read in this discussion.

All good points, and shows you have been paying attention. Some of
your points are not accurate, such as there is no evidence expansion
is on going, the very fact there is still movement in the continents
shows what ever is causing it is still taking place.

If plate tectonics were the correct explanation, then the same evidence
would also show that that process is still going on. Therefore this is
not strictly evidence for EE.

However, EE has never reached consensus on whether the expansion is
caused by a reduction in density or an increase in mass. (Perhaps you
could come up with some experiments to decide the issue.) It cannot be
an increase in mass because the moon is not coming closer to the Earth.

It is just you
wish to view this as fitting another process which does not give the
results on the ocean floor.

Oh, that. Ocean floor gets recycled.

Also your lemon example suggest you have
a preconceived idea of how expansion must work.

My preconceived notion about the earth expansion hypothesis is that it
means that the earth expands. All great circles increase their length
and radius of curvature. Stationary points on the sphere get farther
apart. Material lying on the surface of the sphere gets stretched or
ripped. We'd see basin-and-range belts everywhere, not just in Nevada.
We would not see crumpled mountain ranges like the Himalayas.

Lastly, the evidence for past moon orbit is subject to interpretation.

So do you think the Earth increased its mass over time? (Otherwise why
do you care?)

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: plate tectonics
    ... One look at the physics of Earth movement or even ... Expansion cannot explain how it could possibly have ... > shallow marine deposits on continents throughout most geologic time. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: paleomagnetism and EE
    ... Maxlow wants for there to be a change in mass. ... Earth has always been considered static in size it has not been ... exponential expansion at the present rate of 21 mm/year, ... intimately related to a cosmological expansion of the Universe, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: paleomagnetism and EE
    ... current continent sizes would be basically pure garbage. ... Maxlow wants for there to be a change in mass. ... Earth has always been considered static in size it has not been ... exponential expansion at the present rate of 21 mm/year, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... Physicists give no tenable explanation for how mass induces ... "Truth" of earth expansion. ... The pattern on the ocean floor shows expansion. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... Physicists give no tenable explanation for how mass induces ... "Truth" of earth expansion. ... The pattern on the ocean floor shows expansion. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
Quantcast