Re: 9,81 and the "Expanding Earth"
- From: brad <lbjohnson1949@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 21, 5:54 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Florian) wrote:
brad <lbjohnson1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 20, 6:14 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Florian) wrote:
.... because there is no evidenc e that the orbits remains stable in
geological time.
the fact that it's nearly circular says a lot about how long it's
been stable.
How come? Besides, the orbit radius may vary.
and you don't seem to know anything about celestial mechanics. it
requires mathematical ability. EE cannot do any mathematics because
celestial mechanics refutes EE if it is honest.
Yeah right.. Meanwhile evidences accumulate:
that can more easily explained by PT.
have you tried paleomagnetism ?
Oh yes.
as the radius of earth increases the
geocentric angle between two fixed points on a stable continental
platform decreases. so, take paleomagnetic measurements on old
deposits and see if the angle they subtend is favorable to EE. that
is , do they show a smaller radius ? guess what, these experiments
were done during the 60's and EE was found inadequate to explain
continental drift.
Yah right. Let's see what James Maxlow has to say about that:
"Palaeomagnetic measurements were first used during the 1960s to early
1970s to establish an ancient Earth radius. This information was then
used in an attempt to resolve debate once and for all on whether the
Earth is expanding or not. The outcome of this research was the
conclusion that the Earth is not expanding and this has of course since
swayed popular opinion towards Plate Tectonics, without fully
appreciating the implica- tions of the outcome. Palaeomagnetic site data
from Europe, Siberia, North America and Africa was used in various
studies during that time, with mixed and generally inconclusive results.
Published estimates of palaeoradius made from these studies varied from
large changes in Earth radius, comparable to expansion rates derived
from expanding Earth modelling studies, to negligible changes in radius.
Based on results from African evidence in particular, geophysicists
concluded that, for the past 400 million years the amount of potential
Earth expansion is limited to less than 0.8 percent of the present Earth
radius. This explicit conclusion continues to be used to deny Earth
expansion, regardless of subsequent advances made to continental plate
studies or oceanic mapping. It needs to be appreciated that to determine
a palaeoradius of the Earth using palaeomagnetic data requires a
fundamental assumption to be made about the Earth crusts. The
mathematics involved requires that the surface area of continents must
remain constant, or near constant, and continents must have acted as
rigid plates over time. Since this early research, we now know that
continental crust is made up of distinct cratons, orogens and basins,
each of which behaves very differently throughout geological time.
Modern global tectonic studies also show that the continents, rather
than acting as rigid plates, are in fact dynamic and interactive layers
of the Earth. In addition, for each of the methods previously used to
calculate Earth radius, the distances between sample sites chosen were
typically in excess of 5,000 kilometres. These early researchers did not
comprehend, and failed to appreciate, that these distances represent a
significant proportion of an ancient expanding Earth circumference,
hence these measurements are potentially prone to considerable
distortion and fragmentation during any subsequent expansion of the
Earth. Any changes to surface convexity during a potential Earth
expansion would, of course, impose considerable crustal distortions and
hence con- siderable changes to surface area during expansion to the
present radius, none of which is accommodated for in the calculation
methods developed to determine a palaeoradius of the Earth. Modern
geological studies now show that over these distances conti- nents have
indeed undergone considerable amounts of crustal extension, or even
contraction. This is contrary to the premises placed on the Eurasian
palaeoradius data of Egyed (1960), and Cox and Doell (1961). The
mechanics behind continental break-up and dispersal is also now well
established, as demonstrated by both oceanic mapping and apparent-
polar-wander studies. This is again contrary to the premises imposed on
the Eurasian and North American palaeoradius data of van Hilten (1963).
Rotation and displacement of parts of continental crust are also recog-
nised within continents, and these are contrary, in part, to the
premises imposed on the African palaeoradius data of McElhinny and Brock
(1975). Without this arbitrarily imposed constant continental surface
area constraint, determining a palaeoradius of the Earth using
palaeomagnetic calculation methods developed by these researchers can
then be consid- ered as invalid. Conclusions based on the calculated
palaeoradii are also considered to be inconclusive and of very little
worth in determining an actual ancient Earth radius. The methods and
premises behind conventional palaeomagnetic stud- ies will now be
reconsidered to enable us to fully appreciate these limita- tions
imposed on palaeomagnetic data. Once we have reconsidered these methods
and premises we will then return to the African palaeoradius data of
McElhinny and Brock, for it is this data that is still used to negate
Earth expansion in the published literature. From there we will further
interro- gate the African palaeomagnetic data used to determine a
Mesozoic Earth palaeoradius, in light of palaeomagnetics on an expanding
Earth."
Do you want more or is that enough?
--
Florian
"Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée;
ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme
une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer
so you've proof that EE is a worthless theory . now what ?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 9,81 and the "Expanding Earth"
- From: Florian
- Re: 9,81 and the "Expanding Earth"
- References:
- Re: 9,81 and the "Expanding Earth"
- From: josephus
- Re: 9,81 and the "Expanding Earth"
- From: Florian
- Re: 9,81 and the "Expanding Earth"
- From: brad
- Re: 9,81 and the "Expanding Earth"
- From: Florian
- Re: 9,81 and the "Expanding Earth"
- Prev by Date: Re: Magnetic field
- Next by Date: Re: Theory of formation of the moon
- Previous by thread: Re: 9,81 and the "Expanding Earth"
- Next by thread: Re: 9,81 and the "Expanding Earth"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
