Re: Plate Tectonics and Earth expansion



Jonathan wrote:
"don findlay" <don@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:88e35a07-4b5c-45a6-ae8b-1401e064b294@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That the Earth is getting bigger is a *LOGICAL DEDUCTION* from the
geological facts.


To me this subject of earth expansion is interesting because
on the one hand it seems impossible to prove,





but intuitively
it seems plausible. I say that because it's established fact
the entire universe is expanding. That is not in dispute.
"They" say only space is expanding, and that gravity would
rule locally and individual objects would not themselves expand.

But is that notion correct? It seems counter-intuitive to me.
And to back that up, one of the great cosmologists of our
time, one of the founders of inflationary theory, has recently
proposed an entirely new cosmology based on my hobby
of complexity science.
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/

And in it he proposes that the current second period of universal
expansion is due to the increase in self repulsive matter or energy.
Matter which doesn't attract, but repulses. You should know
it's also established fact, but little known, not all matter attracts.
Some forms repulse.

He has a very detailed model showing how the second, much slower
period of universal expansion also began at about the same
time as life evolved on earth, or about the same time the earth
cooled...or about the same time the universe became matter
dominated.

It he is correct, it could be that everything, not just space, expands
over time due to the steadily increasing amounts of repulsive
matter that results from a cooling universe. How much such an
effect could change the size of the earth I haven't a clue.
It may be negligible, but ya know, for anyone to say
our science has these things all figured out is just plain
sillyness.

All the truly meaningful discoveries are yet to happen.


Some quotes below from...

A Quintessential Introduction to Dark Energy
Paul J. Steinhardt
Department of Physics, Princeton University
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/steinhardt.pdf



Introduction

"The discovery of dark energy is one of the most surprising and profound
discoveries in the history of science. Consider some of its implications:

Most of the energy in the universe is not \matter." For its flrst 300 years,
physics has focused on the properties of matter and radiation, including
dark matter. Now we know that they represent less than 30% of the
composition of the universe. The rest consists of something we know
virtually nothing about.

Most of the energy in the universe is not gravitationally attractive.
We are probably the last generation to have been taught that \gravity
always attracts," a notion which has been presented as a basic fact
of nature for hundreds of years. We are now aware that gravity
can repel, as well.

The future (and perhaps the past) is determined by dark energy.
Clearly, the immediate future of the universe will be governed by dark
energy which, depending on its nature, will determine the rate of
dilution and cooling of the matter and energy. But, perhaps dark
energy plays a more profound role in the history of the universe,
determining our distant past as well as our long-term future.


The only way to have a low mass density and a flat universe, as
expected from the inflationary theory, is if an additional, nonluminous,
\dark" energy component dominates the universe today.
The dark energy would have to resist gravitational collapse, or else
it would already have been detected as part of the clustered energy
in the halos of galaxies. But, as long as most of the energy of the
universe resists gravitational collapse, it is impossible for structure to
form in the universe.

***The dilemma can only be resolved if the hypothetical dark energy
was negligible in the past and, then, only after galaxies and
larger scale structure formed, became the dominant energy
in the universe***

According to general relativity, the only type of energy with this property
has negative pressure.

The fine-tuning and cosmic coincidence problems are vexing. They are
often posed as a paradox:

Why should the acceleration begin just as humans evolve?

In desperation, some cosmologists and physicists have been led to give
renewed attention to anthropic models (Weinberg 2000). But many
continue to seek a dynamical explanation which does not
require the fine-tuning of initial conditions or mass parameters
and which is decidedly nonanthropic.
A dynamical approach would seem to demand some sort of
quintessence solution since it would have to entail some interaction
between the dark energy the matter-radiation background. fl

Today, the consensus model of our cosmic history is based on the
big bang picture combined with inflationary cosmology. This model
has been subjected to an extraordinary battery of cosmological tests
in the past decade, ranging from measurements of the cosmic
microwave background to detailed surveys of large scale structure.
The original picture, based on the Einstein-de Sitter model (a flat universe
with matter density equal to the critical density), failed many of the
tests, but replacement of 70% of the dark matter with a gravitationally
self-repulsive dark energy, produced a new consensus model in exquisite
agreement with all cosmological tests. Hence, many cosmologists
are prepared to declare our cosmic history a settled issue.

However, a second look suggests some cause for concern. The new
consensus model now requires two periods of accelerated expansion:
one in the early universe, corresponding to a rate in which the universe
doubles in size every 10-35 seconds, and now a second, in which
the doubling rate is flfty orders of magnitude less. Each period
of acceleration requires its own energy source which must be
flnely-tuned to satisfy observational constraints. The flrst acceleration
has a well-denfled purpose, to homogenize and flatten the universe.
The second was not predicted by either the big bang or inflationary
pictures and it plays no known role in the universe.

The recent proposal of a \cyclic" universe presents a whole new outlook
on cosmic history in which dark energy plays a central role
(Steinhardt & Turok, 2002a, 2002b). in this model, the conventional cosmic
history is turned topsy-turvy. The big bang is not the beginning
of time. Rather, it is a bridge to a pre-existing contracting era.
The Universe undergoes a sequence of cycles in which it contracts
in a big crunch and re-emerges in an expanding big bang, with trillions
of years of evolution in between. The \big bang" is moderated. The
temperature and density of the universe do not become inflnite at
any point in the cycle; indeed, they never exceed a flnite bound
(about a trillion trillion degrees). No inflation has taken place
since the (last) bang. The current homogeneity and
flatness were created by events that occurred before the most
recent big bang,and the seeds for galaxy formation
were created by instabilities arising as the Universe was
collapsing towards a big crunch, prior to our big bang.
In this picture, dark energy is moved to center stage and is
part of the engine that drives


Should we believe, as most cosmologists suggest,
that this is the last missing piece of the puzzle and
our understanding of the universe is virtually complete?
Or have we just uncovered a deep dark secret that that
will revolutionize our whole view of the universe and
our place in it? I must confess to my own prejudice that the
latter seems more likely."


Thanks for that, Jonathan. But I'm putting this up again because it
seems to me everybody's getting hold of the wrong end of the stick
here, in trying to read Earth Expansion as a *process*, when it
isn't. It doesn't get as far as that. It's an observation. And I'll
say it again: you don't need a theory of gravity to know that the
Earth is round. Similarly we don't need a theory of gravity to know
(from geological studies) that that roundness has changed over
geological time - anymore than we need one to understand the
*Observation* of stratigraphic superposition.

-------------------------------------------------------

EARTH EXPANSION AND PLATE TECTONICS - the semantic difference

From a semantic viewpoint Earth expansion and Plate Tectonics differ
profoundly. Earth expansion is a conclusion which follows from a
logical deduction from the geological facts. It is not a theory of
process. It is a conclusion. It doesn't get as far as 'theory': at
the present time there *is* no theory how expansion can happen.

So, ...theory; ..set it aside.

Plate Tectonics on the other hand is entirely a theory of process.
Basically Plate Tectonics recognises the logic of expansion but
cannot accept it because of the conundrum of process such a conclusion
presents - there is no known way whereby expansion to the degree
observed can happen. It therefore rejects the prima facie obvious
conclusion (that the Earth has got bigger) and looks for an
explanation within processes that are already known. However to do
this it first has to make the assumption that the Earth has remained
essentially the same size since its inception, i.e., that the Earth's
oceanic crust is being destroyed at the same rate as it is being
created. The problem with this however is that when the parts of the
theory are examined, each part contradicts another; nothing hangs
together in any logical way; Plate Tectonics has to keep shifting its
goalposts to accommodate the contradictions and conundrums. Plate
Tectonics represents this quicksand of shifting ground, this lack of
cohesion as a mark of 'flexibility' of its theory, an opportunity for
further 'research', and therefore as a commendable aspect of the
theory.

Thus is coherent logical deduction (Earth Expansion) versed against
contradictory theoretical process based on an assumption (Plate
Tectonics), and one which, when versed against logical conclusions
(even those within the framework of its own initial position) can be
shown to be logically false. In short Plate Tectonics would prefer to
invent a fiction in order to stay within the boundaries of known
science rather than use rational logic to consolidate a foundation
from which what is not already known may be explored. In this respect
it is no different from ancient religions.

The semantic difference leads through Earth Expansion (a rational
conclusion) to a geological foundation for such questions as 'How
does mass come into being?', .. 'How does the fabricated atom then
relate to crytallisation and mineral paragenesis?', ...'How is spin
implicated? and, 'How do massive bodies manage to exert force over
such great distances?' - all as closely related questions.

Plate Tectonics on the other hand provides no platform for
advance, ..but under the touted banner of being the best thing since
sliced bread merely generates a kalaiedoscope of internal puzzles
which offer no way forward. It is 'The Well at The World's End' of
geological theory. But with its conclusion - "the Earth cannot be
getting bigger" being its initial assumption, it is merely junk
science.

From the solid ground of a logical conclusion one naturally moves
forward to a theory of process in any field. In the case of Earth
Expansion however there is none, not for the want of trying, but
simply from the fact that we do not yet possess all the necessary
building blocks, and therefore should be cautious of trying. But
that neither negates the logic nor the geological conclusion. However
to build a theory of process (Plate Tectonics) around an assumption -
and particularly one that simple logic demonstrates to be false at
every turn - is simply dopey at best, and at worst anti-science. No
theory of mechanism is required to justify the observation that the
Earth is round. Likewise no theory of mechanism is required to
justify the observation that this roundness is getting bigger on the
scale of geological time. And it is a nonsense for many reasons to
point to satellite measurements in a window of two decades in more
than two hundred million years as proof that expansion cannot be
happening <link next>.
----------------------------------------------------------------



Plate Tectonics is a *THEORY OF PROCESS* often contradictory of the
facts
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subcrux.html
The two therefore cannot be assessed on the same grounds - one a
logical deduction/ conclusion tantamount to fact, the other simply
speculation and inference which shoots itself in the foot at every
turn..

In both the essential controlling element is gravity - the simple
elementary principle of flotation in Plate Tectonics is contrasted
(very likely) with the more esoteric and as yet unknown concepts of
how masses manage to exert force at a distance, and how spin from the
atomic to the galactic scale is incorporated into that picture.

It is unbelievably stupid to think that the different levels of
intellectual speculation may be approached at the same level - one
apparent and examined (and proved) for more than two thousand years
(Archimedes (287 - 212 B.C.) the other which everyone admits we still
know nothing about today despite the best efforts of 'teams' of well-
funded scientists for decades, and our knowledge of the universe (but
which everyone agrees would be good to know)

Why don't we just get on with the job of finding that one out?

(Getting on with the job.) (You lot - Go *** your selves.)

"Teams" are only interested in securing next year's grants; this
year's science is only as relevant as next year's funds. Consensus,
or making it appear that you're ahead of it, is the name of the
game. Being outside it? ..is professional hari kiri.

(If you ain't innit, you won't winnit.)
.