Discussion:The Earth is expanding
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
If this were a popularity contest Truth would've lost already.
I think it was well outlined. OIM is clearly letting his final posts be rebuttal.
Am I missing something here?
Lots of copy/paste without any original synthesis. I grade it with a "D."
Fortunately this isn't about originality. It's about truth.
OIM copy/pasted quote-mined passages and removed several legitimate comments from from their contexts only to intersperse them among pseudoscientific and out-dated hypotheses.
OIM should be banned for trolling and wasting time on a science board with his pseudoscientific nonsense.
He left nothing to debate since none of his opening post consisted of his own words synthesizing the claims he alleged he would make. Indeed, OIM made no claim other than "the earth is expanding" and failed miserably to back this up with an argument. Quote-mining and Copy/Paste skills are not arguments.
I take it back. OIM gets an "F."
OIM should be banned for trolling and wasting time on a science board with his pseudoscientific nonsense.
He left nothing to debate since none of his opening post consisted of his own words synthesizing the claims he alleged he would make. Indeed, OIM made no claim other than "the earth is expanding" and failed miserably to back this up with an argument. Quote-mining and Copy/Paste skills are not arguments.
I take it back. OIM gets an "F."
When you said you were going to have "1500 words," I was actually impressed. The copy/paste move is a complete let-down.
Can't you synthesize the arguments in your own words, providing relative citations and occasional quotes were necessary? Even the one or two original thoughts ended up being logical fallacies, such as:
Not a single article you linked stated anything about the earth expanding. They discussed the expansion of the universe. Indeed, the same laws of physics and the same scientific methods that reveal plate tectonics are used in showing an expanding universe. Yours are arguments from ignorance and you trying to have you cake and eat it too.
I read what you wrote. Indeed, what you wrote was minimal. It took only seconds ... they people you copied from, they took longer.
Face it. You failed.
I think you can do better. Formulate you arguments, logically present them, cite your sources, and create a set of premises that follow with a conclusion so a real debate can occur. Hell, if you do this, I'll debate you.
You still seem to be missing the point. This isn't about originality or debating me. It's about the scientific truth of Earth expansion.
Wow, I can't believe this is your corner stone.
You do know that this argument is completely invalid, based on the fact that gravity is stronger than the cosmological constant on galaxy scales, right?
James, if you need help crunching any numbers, or with any of the calculations, let me know.
OIM begins by providing us with two quotes by Polish geologist, Stefan Cwojdzinski, and one by Stephen Hurrell. He doesn't, however, provide a single citation to the publications these two authors are alleged to have been quoted from, much less a page that can be referenced to check their contexts.
This is an obvious appeal to authority, which is ironic since OIM seems to say in the same opening of his debate that authority isn't to be trusted. One is left to assume that he means trust his authority and the authorities he quotes (without citation).
At any rate, Hurrell is an author of a book (1994) I happened upon once (once people learn of my interest in the psychology and anthropology of pseudoscience and belief, they usually through wacky things my way). He actually writes in a very well-thought and logical manner. His ideas are without substance, but he's intelligent, nonetheless. Hurrell's primary thesis is that the Earth's gravity has increased making the life of large dinosaurs impossible, giving way to smaller, less gravity-challenged creatures. This increase in gravity, he contends, is due to the expansion of the Earth. Unfortunately, his work hasn't survived peer-review and was effectively refuted. The gist is basic physics: if the Earth truly did expand, gravity would have decreased, not increased as Hurrell suggested.
Then OIM continues with a section he calls “expansion history,” which is nothing but unverifiable quotes of some legitimate scientists and others, and links to a couple of crack-pot videos on YouTube or fringe sites like “Science Frontiers.” Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see the peer-reviewed journal article.
OIM then moves on to “subduction,” which he has to make go away since this doesn't fit with his crackpot hypothesis (an hypothesis that once had traction has long been discredited with advances in science). Introducing subduction, OIM switches to quoting Samuel Carey, a geologist who had a controversial hypothesis (since discredited) about expanding Earth. It was originated when plate tectonics was a competing hypothesis. The history of the “expanding earth” versus “plate tectonics” competition is one that is interesting and a demonstration of how scientific methods work. The “expanding earth” hypothesis was falsified and the plate tectonics hypothesis has withstood scrutiny even today.
There are, however, some unlearned and under-educated among us that cling to nonsense and outdated rubbish, such as proclaiming “expanding earth” to be a viable hypothesis. They do so either in ignorance and lack of scientific understanding or in an attempt to push another agenda that is dependent upon deceit or delusion.
OIM now switches gears and begins quoting Carey:
But in the case of Carey, it really doesn't matter. The context is ancient in terms of scientific understanding. No contemporary and respected geologists, physicists or geophysicists believe plate tectonics isn't a valid hypothesis and none reject subduction.
And here's why:
Subduction has scientific evidence. For instance, measurements of shear-wave splitting at subduction zones reveals how temperature, velocity and dynamic pressure are obtained by numerically solving equations that govern heat transport and fluid flow. When data obtained in this manner is applied to mathematical models, the result is a picture of crust subducting into the mantel (Kneller and van Keken 2007).
Speaking of seismic activity, it stands to reason that if plate tectonics were genuine, then earthquakes should be more significant along subduction zones and plate boundaries since this sort of activity will cause movement and vibration as the plates slip past one another. Guess what? Recent studies have shown that seismic activity is most prevalent in regions which happen to be subduction zones and plate boundaries (Kelsey et al 2005; Barnes et al 2002; Witter et al 2003; and so on).
Other than subduct, we should also expect plates to occasionally collide and show evidence of such collisions. Not surprisingly, this is exactly what is observed in the geologic record. Paleomagnetic data in the 1980s showed the rate of collision between the Indian and Eurasian plates (Patriat and Achache 1984), which goes un-refuted today. In the 1990s,
Sea Floor Spreading
Once linear magnetic anomalies were discovered in the 1950s and looked at more seriously in the 1960s, the results of intensive hypothesis-testing concluded that the sea floor is spreading out ward from the mid-oceanic ridges. This plate boundary, where new crust is formed from an upwelling of mantle has since been empirically measured to be a rate of 3.5km^2/year. By extrapolating that rate into the geologic past, and by comparing the fossiliferous strata on opposing continents (like Africa and South America), a clear picture of plate tectonics is formed (Morgan et al 1987).
If the sea floor is spreading, it follows that the the crust must move. It either converges below (subducts) or converges above (mountain formation). The Earth doesn't grow or expand, clearly, since the distance to the Moon doesn't decrease. The only way to argue that would be to suggest that the distance to the Moon actually increases at a rate proportional to that of the Moon's and the Earth's expansion, working together to keep the evidence of their respective expansions hidden from observation and relative to the Earthbound observers. This suggests that the same mechanism for expansion is occuring on the Moon, yet we see no plate activity the way we do on Earth, nor is there any evidence of molten mantle on the Moon to suggest that its in any way geologically active in the way the Earth is.
In short, OIM gets an “F” grade on his “work.”
References:
Barnes, Philip M; Andrew Nicol, and Tony Harrison (2002). Late Cenozoic evolution and earthquake potential of an active listric thrust complex above the Hikurangi subduction zone, New Zealand. GSA Bulletin, 114: 1379-1405.
Hurrell, Stephen (1994). Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth: One Explanation for the Gigantic Sizes of Some Pre-historic Life. One-off Publishing: Great Sutton.
Kelsey, Harvey M.; Alan R. Nelson, Eileen Hemphill-Haley, and Robert C. Witter (2005). Tsunami history of an Oregon coastal lake reveals a 4600 yr record of great earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zone GSA Bulletin, 117: 1009-1032.
Kneller, Erik A; Peter E. van Keken (2007). Trench-parallel flow and seismic anisotropy in the Mariana and Andean subduction systems. Nature, 450, 1222-1225.
Morgan. JP. Parmentier, EM and Lin. J. (1987). Mechanisms for the origin of mid-ocean ridge axial topography: Implications for the thermal and mechanical structure of accreting plate boundaries. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 92 (12), 823-826.
Patriat, Philippe; Jose Achache (1984). India-Eurasia collision chronology has implications for crustal shortening and driving mechanism of plates. Nature 311: 615 - 621
Witter, Robert C; Harvey M. Kelsey, and Eileen Hemphill-Haley (2003). Great Cascadia earthquakes and tsunamis of the past 6700 years, Coquille River estuary, southern coastal Oregon. GSA Bulletin, 115: 1289-1306.
This is an obvious appeal to authority, which is ironic since OIM seems to say in the same opening of his debate that authority isn't to be trusted. One is left to assume that he means trust his authority and the authorities he quotes (without citation).
At any rate, Hurrell is an author of a book (1994) I happened upon once (once people learn of my interest in the psychology and anthropology of pseudoscience and belief, they usually through wacky things my way). He actually writes in a very well-thought and logical manner. His ideas are without substance, but he's intelligent, nonetheless. Hurrell's primary thesis is that the Earth's gravity has increased making the life of large dinosaurs impossible, giving way to smaller, less gravity-challenged creatures. This increase in gravity, he contends, is due to the expansion of the Earth. Unfortunately, his work hasn't survived peer-review and was effectively refuted. The gist is basic physics: if the Earth truly did expand, gravity would have decreased, not increased as Hurrell suggested.
Then OIM continues with a section he calls “expansion history,” which is nothing but unverifiable quotes of some legitimate scientists and others, and links to a couple of crack-pot videos on YouTube or fringe sites like “Science Frontiers.” Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see the peer-reviewed journal article.
OIM then moves on to “subduction,” which he has to make go away since this doesn't fit with his crackpot hypothesis (an hypothesis that once had traction has long been discredited with advances in science). Introducing subduction, OIM switches to quoting Samuel Carey, a geologist who had a controversial hypothesis (since discredited) about expanding Earth. It was originated when plate tectonics was a competing hypothesis. The history of the “expanding earth” versus “plate tectonics” competition is one that is interesting and a demonstration of how scientific methods work. The “expanding earth” hypothesis was falsified and the plate tectonics hypothesis has withstood scrutiny even today.
There are, however, some unlearned and under-educated among us that cling to nonsense and outdated rubbish, such as proclaiming “expanding earth” to be a viable hypothesis. They do so either in ignorance and lack of scientific understanding or in an attempt to push another agenda that is dependent upon deceit or delusion.
OIM now switches gears and begins quoting Carey:
-again not providing the specific text or pages so the careful and inquisitive reader can actually see the context, but this isn't part of OIM's plan. Like other pseudoscience proponents who've come before him, are contemporaneous to him, and will doubtless continue in his inevitable absence, OIM uses characteristic techniques found in crackpottery throughout the internet. One such technique is to deluge the reader and his perceived opponents with quote after quote after quote after quote... and to hide their contexts.
But in the case of Carey, it really doesn't matter. The context is ancient in terms of scientific understanding. No contemporary and respected geologists, physicists or geophysicists believe plate tectonics isn't a valid hypothesis and none reject subduction.
And here's why:
Subduction has scientific evidence. For instance, measurements of shear-wave splitting at subduction zones reveals how temperature, velocity and dynamic pressure are obtained by numerically solving equations that govern heat transport and fluid flow. When data obtained in this manner is applied to mathematical models, the result is a picture of crust subducting into the mantel (Kneller and van Keken 2007).
Speaking of seismic activity, it stands to reason that if plate tectonics were genuine, then earthquakes should be more significant along subduction zones and plate boundaries since this sort of activity will cause movement and vibration as the plates slip past one another. Guess what? Recent studies have shown that seismic activity is most prevalent in regions which happen to be subduction zones and plate boundaries (Kelsey et al 2005; Barnes et al 2002; Witter et al 2003; and so on).
Other than subduct, we should also expect plates to occasionally collide and show evidence of such collisions. Not surprisingly, this is exactly what is observed in the geologic record. Paleomagnetic data in the 1980s showed the rate of collision between the Indian and Eurasian plates (Patriat and Achache 1984), which goes un-refuted today. In the 1990s,
Sea Floor Spreading
Once linear magnetic anomalies were discovered in the 1950s and looked at more seriously in the 1960s, the results of intensive hypothesis-testing concluded that the sea floor is spreading out ward from the mid-oceanic ridges. This plate boundary, where new crust is formed from an upwelling of mantle has since been empirically measured to be a rate of 3.5km^2/year. By extrapolating that rate into the geologic past, and by comparing the fossiliferous strata on opposing continents (like Africa and South America), a clear picture of plate tectonics is formed (Morgan et al 1987).
If the sea floor is spreading, it follows that the the crust must move. It either converges below (subducts) or converges above (mountain formation). The Earth doesn't grow or expand, clearly, since the distance to the Moon doesn't decrease. The only way to argue that would be to suggest that the distance to the Moon actually increases at a rate proportional to that of the Moon's and the Earth's expansion, working together to keep the evidence of their respective expansions hidden from observation and relative to the Earthbound observers. This suggests that the same mechanism for expansion is occuring on the Moon, yet we see no plate activity the way we do on Earth, nor is there any evidence of molten mantle on the Moon to suggest that its in any way geologically active in the way the Earth is.
In short, OIM gets an “F” grade on his “work.”
References:
Barnes, Philip M; Andrew Nicol, and Tony Harrison (2002). Late Cenozoic evolution and earthquake potential of an active listric thrust complex above the Hikurangi subduction zone, New Zealand. GSA Bulletin, 114: 1379-1405.
Hurrell, Stephen (1994). Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth: One Explanation for the Gigantic Sizes of Some Pre-historic Life. One-off Publishing: Great Sutton.
Kelsey, Harvey M.; Alan R. Nelson, Eileen Hemphill-Haley, and Robert C. Witter (2005). Tsunami history of an Oregon coastal lake reveals a 4600 yr record of great earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zone GSA Bulletin, 117: 1009-1032.
Kneller, Erik A; Peter E. van Keken (2007). Trench-parallel flow and seismic anisotropy in the Mariana and Andean subduction systems. Nature, 450, 1222-1225.
Morgan. JP. Parmentier, EM and Lin. J. (1987). Mechanisms for the origin of mid-ocean ridge axial topography: Implications for the thermal and mechanical structure of accreting plate boundaries. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 92 (12), 823-826.
Patriat, Philippe; Jose Achache (1984). India-Eurasia collision chronology has implications for crustal shortening and driving mechanism of plates. Nature 311: 615 - 621
Witter, Robert C; Harvey M. Kelsey, and Eileen Hemphill-Haley (2003). Great Cascadia earthquakes and tsunamis of the past 6700 years, Coquille River estuary, southern coastal Oregon. GSA Bulletin, 115: 1289-1306.
It's called works cited. Cwojdzinski quotes are from the introduction to the Maxlow book (if you ever read it you would know that already). Hurrell from his own book cited.
Isn't the purpose of citations to appeal to authority? Or is it to credit them?
All of the quotes are verifiable, should you choose to do so.
Yeah. You missed it. But I thought you think quotes and citations are appeal to authority so why are you concerned with peer review?
The Expanding Earth page 16. If you'd ever read The Expanding Earth, made any study of tectonics, or given expansion any serious thought, you would know the quote.
No. There is no subduction in the mantle because it's physically impossible.
Earthquakes are very real. Unfortunately they have nothing to do with the myth of subduction. In the history of mankind, nothing has ever been subducted during an earthquake.
Spreading is the exact opposite of subduction.
Last edited:
In further discussing the dismal failure of OIM at presenting or formulating an argument that is both cogent and sound, I'd like to look at his more recent additions to the "debate."
I'd like to also add that my interest is, again, in the psychology of the pseudoscience proponent and anthropology of belief and/or ideology that drives pseudoscientific positions such as that OIM has embraced. Perhaps we might even discover his actual agenda which this sort of nonsensical and, quite frankly, crack-pot hypothesis, works to for.
OIM recently argues in the "debate:"
The expanding universe model doesn't imply this at all. Indeed, what the expanding universe model implies, if OIM were willing to obtain an education in it, is that astronomical bodies and material are spreading such that the boundaries of the universe are growing. The matter inside isn't necessarily "growing" or expanding to accommodate the new boundaries.
However, even if this were the case, OIM appears to ignorantly assume that there would be a relative or apparent change between material within the universe. If it were the case that matter within the universe were "growing" at the same rate while also expanding at a rate (that must be greater), then there would be no observable difference between an "expanding Earth" and an "expanding Sun, Moon, etc." In that case, subduction and uplift convergences would still need to be utilized to explain were the crust goes!
The funniest (and perhaps most tragic since we're now all laughing at OIM) argument he makes is:
1) We have observed subduction -it is quite observable here on our own planet by a variety of means, including deep sea video and seismograph as well as isotopic analysis or rock samples.
2) We've only actually been able to efficiently examine one planet. Earth. I'm not sure which planets OIM has been able to visit, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't done legally and I hope he wasn't driving or operating heavy machinery. A few robot probes to some close neighbors hardly counts as a study that qualifies one to say "subduction doesn't occur anywhere else in the universe." And to simply say it doesn't exist because we've only been able to observe it on our planet is an argument from ignorance (and, perhaps, willful stupidity).
I'd like to also add that my interest is, again, in the psychology of the pseudoscience proponent and anthropology of belief and/or ideology that drives pseudoscientific positions such as that OIM has embraced. Perhaps we might even discover his actual agenda which this sort of nonsensical and, quite frankly, crack-pot hypothesis, works to for.
OIM recently argues in the "debate:"
This presents more than a single logical fallacy, but primarily the straw man, since OIM is creating a premise that isn't being argued. His fictive premise is that because the universe is expanding, the Earth must, therefore, be growing differentially to the rest of the universe.
The expanding universe model doesn't imply this at all. Indeed, what the expanding universe model implies, if OIM were willing to obtain an education in it, is that astronomical bodies and material are spreading such that the boundaries of the universe are growing. The matter inside isn't necessarily "growing" or expanding to accommodate the new boundaries.
However, even if this were the case, OIM appears to ignorantly assume that there would be a relative or apparent change between material within the universe. If it were the case that matter within the universe were "growing" at the same rate while also expanding at a rate (that must be greater), then there would be no observable difference between an "expanding Earth" and an "expanding Sun, Moon, etc." In that case, subduction and uplift convergences would still need to be utilized to explain were the crust goes!
The funniest (and perhaps most tragic since we're now all laughing at OIM) argument he makes is:
Ha! That we haven't observed subduction in the rest of the universe means that it doesn't exist!
1) We have observed subduction -it is quite observable here on our own planet by a variety of means, including deep sea video and seismograph as well as isotopic analysis or rock samples.
2) We've only actually been able to efficiently examine one planet. Earth. I'm not sure which planets OIM has been able to visit, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't done legally and I hope he wasn't driving or operating heavy machinery. A few robot probes to some close neighbors hardly counts as a study that qualifies one to say "subduction doesn't occur anywhere else in the universe." And to simply say it doesn't exist because we've only been able to observe it on our planet is an argument from ignorance (and, perhaps, willful stupidity).
The more time you spend attacking me personally the more it becomes obvious you have no logical rebuttal to expanding earth science.
:roflmao:
:roflmao:
Then I guess plate tectonics theorists are wrong again because according to them Earth is the only planet with invisible magic subduction zones.
Last edited:
Your citation methods are lacking, crude and get an "F."
Except you rarely show where the quotes come from. I doubt you even have access to the original sources for many. All you provide is a quote and a name. Then some works at the bottom but they don't connect with your quotes in any meaningful or useful way.
If you have to ask why the concern with peer review, then you truly are a crackpot. If a work isn't submitted for peer review, it cannot easily be considered an academic one. The ability to put one's crackpot theory in words doesn't imply legitimacy or understanding of science. You demonstrate this consistently.
I've actually read Expanding Earth. I found it fascinating over 10 years ago. But that doesn't mean Carey was right. Indeed, he was quite wrong. Had he the advantage of modern scientific research methods and technology, he would doubtless have a different opinion. Your mistake is refusing to acknowledge the progress made since Carey -your real agenda is doubtless the oil thing. Houses of cards are like that -as you construct them, it's best just to ignore the places where the cards won't stand up and pretend they do.
A claim you've not demonstrated. Why should anyone with an education take the word of an under-educated crackpot?
Earthquakes are very real. Unfortunately they have nothing to do with the myth of subduction. In the history of mankind, nothing has ever been subducted during an earthquake.
Your last sentence above is a straw man -and a quite stupid one at that, leading me to believe that you don't actually believe the nonsense you write. No one is that ignorant or stupid -that would seem to leave intentional deception. Where I'm from, we call such people liars. I'm not sure how to refer to them where you are.
Your second sentence above creates an unfounded and undereducated premise. Do you only read works from dead and ancient geologists or the modern writings of crackpots, or have you ever bothered to read modern or contemporary geologic discourse. The sources I cited are freely available to any library that has Inter Library Loan. If you ask, I could even be persuaded to send you PDF copies. Perhaps you'd like to offer your "educated" opinion and critique of the methodologies used in a paper that refutes their methods point-by-point.
Then you could demonstrate your authority on the topic. Until then, I'm afraid simply saying "it ain't so" really doesn't offer much.
Spreading is the exact opposite of subduction.[/QUOTE]