Re: Question, what do things do when they freeze?


"Jonathan" <write@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qohXh.3863$np4.1292@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Don't they get larger?


Neil Adams animations

Animation of expanding Europa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH_5SFHXSzo&mode=related&search=

Animation of expanding Ganymede
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fsg1XJTbKA&mode=related&search=

Amimation of expanding Mars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d44Jj_3gp-M&mode=related&search=

Amimation of expanding earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI&mode=related&search=

Wilipedia section of EE theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory



I have difficulty with the plate tectonics for
two main reasons. The first is that tectonics
appears to be an incomplete view. All self
organized systems are comprised of two
basic processes. One would be a static process
of simple, predictable change such as sea
floor spreading. Combined with it's opposite chaotic
attractor such as periodic catastrophic change.
Plate tectonics appears to explain only the static
attractor behavior, and thus seems incomplete.

I envision an evolutionary process where the crust
hardens completely, the internal heat steadily builds up
until a sudden catastrophic period of expansion occurs.
And over again. Much like is thought to happen
on Venus.

The second reason I have trouble with plate tectonics
is the notion the earth's diameter would remain
relatively unchanged throughout the course of
solar system evolution. We live in a universe where
nothing at all remains unchanging. Even the
universal constants evolve over time. Plate tectonics
as it is now seems counter intuitive.

s

The first problem you have here in your assumptions is that even if
Ganymede and Europa are/were expanding, they are both composed
substantially of water ice (water does expand when it freezes). So they
are not good models for Earth tectonics. The Earth and Mars are mostly
solid rock, and thus, are not subject to such expansion upon freezing. And
in any case, there is no evidence that either planet has ever been frozen
solid. In addition, Mars has plenty of evidence of tectonic processes that
occurred in its remote past. Currently, its tectonic processes are mostly
dead, since it appears to have lost most of its internal heat early in its
evolution.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the Earth's crust has overturned
catastrophically in the way you envision, and asided from that fact, the
evidence that the crust of Venus has overturned catastrophically is
questionable, at best.

Third, sea floor spreading and related phenomenon are anything but static,
otherwise, the sea floor would not be spreading. You appear to be confused
on this point.

Fourth, you conveniently ignore (as do many in the pseudo-science camp do)
subduction and collision zones as well as plate motions in general, the
other major components of the plate tectonic equation. As for catastrophic
processes, there is plenty of evidence for them (i.e., megathrusting,
supervolcanoes, etc), but they are relatively infrequent, though no doubt
were more common in the past when the Earth was younger and hotter. If PT
seems counter intuitive to you, it is likely because you don't have enough
training in the field to understand all its merits, or else simply refuse
(like most in the EE camp) to acknowledge the vast amount of data in its
support. Plate tectonics certainly does explain these phenomenon.

George


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion
    ... >> expansion and accepted plate tectonics in the end. ... >> still believe in Earth Expansion are badly misguided. ... >> post any real evidence to counter PT evidence or to prove their hypothesis. ... > What a hopeless lying arse you are George, I spoke with Carey at great length ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: FAQS - Earth Expansion
    ... >matters plate tectonics, I don't see much evidence of 'meshing'. ... I knew some folks who work on tectonic modelling and earth ... There is expansion, and there is ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion
    ... >> expansion and accepted plate tectonics in the end. ... >> Earth Expansion are badly misguided. ... >> post any real evidence to counter PT evidence or to prove their hypothesis. ... >most disgraceful lying, smearing and defaming stunt I’ve ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... However, what we do know, rules out Expanding Earth ... evidence for expansion because expansion is impossible. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Earth expansion - puzzled......
    ... >> no simple explanation whereby the Earth could have enlarged so much. ... >> Earth expansion argues its geological case far more comprehensively, ... >> plate tectonics does) as to final mechanism. ... In the face of the tantalising empirical evidence ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
Loading