That's why I wrote abridged. At least I provided citation. My opponent didn't but you don't seem to care about that.
P.S. Keep the personal attacks coming. It's hilarious to see how emotional fundamentalists get when their faith has been profaned.
Discussion:The Earth is expanding
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
P.S. Keep the personal attacks coming. It's hilarious to see how emotional fundamentalists get when their faith has been profaned.
"Rebuttal" only has one "e." Clearly you're far better at attacking yourself than I could ever be. This is evident in your "rebuttle" as well as your failure to address the points I've already made which refute your central claims. Moreover, subduction and plate tectonics are both empirically demonstrable -I've cited the sources that explain the methods. You've given nothing but ancient and out-dated science, old paradigms embraced by a few crackpots, and logical fallacy after logical fallacy.
Congratulations. You now join Norval/Craterchains in the internet laughing-stock hall of fame.
Yet another straw man. Please cite any geologist, geophysicist, or astrophysicist that states this. Clearly you're undereducated and/or a willful liar.
Further discourse with you is only to determine which and to create that permanent internet record that will be available via Google for decades to come. Pointed laughter for eternity. Good luck with that.
I cited them. You either didn't bother to read it or your reading comprehension is feeble. No surprise.
"Abridged?" That's no citation style that I'm familiar with. Face it. You quote-mined and then listed a bunch of links, most to crack pot sites, crackpot books and out-dated texts, leaving the reader to guess at which went with what in many cases. This is clearly an intentional deception.
I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else. Crackpottery deserves ridicule -its a tried and proven social force. But I've no "faith" beyond that which can be tested or at least potentially falsified or empirically shown. Nothing you've written in your fantastical approach to geology meets this criteria.
Now your a liar. If you aren't you'll humor me and provide the exact quote and proper citation for the person(s) who stated, "Earth is the only planet with invisible magic subduction zones."
Do I really need to show you the quotes? I don't think so. If you don't want to read them that's fine. I'm not going to repeat myself to someone who has no interest in listening in the first place.
Alright then. A liar it is since its apparent now that the reason you refuse such an easy demand is that the quotes aren't there.
Since you insist on being an illiterate liar I'll humor your lack of reading comprehension.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86898
Neither of these quotes say "invisible magic subduction zones." Therefore, you are still a liar. QED.
Since Carey's work has since been discredited by modern science, that quote is dismissed as irrelevant. Since even you could have written the WikiPedia article, it can be dismissed as irrelevant.
What remains is a single quote-mined comment by a professor who is using the context that his research is worth funding and his classes are worth attending. No where in his work does he indicate that he has empirically tested all planets in the universe or even the solar system.
We are the only planet that is shown to have complex forms of life (so far, any life at all). Yet this doesn't imply that life isn't waiting to be discovered elsewhere in the universe and even our own solar system.
What the educated geologist actually understands is that Earth sits in the Goldilocks zone for temperature and climate. By mere chance, we have the ingredients necessary for just the right amount of equilibrium just the right amount of entropy is negated to allow for life. Plate tectonics appears to be a symptom of that situation.
But, assuming that you're logical fallacy (applying a poor analogy) that since we haven't seen plate tectonics elsewhere (other than Earth) is true, it doesn't imply that plate tectonics, therefore, doesn't exist. Only the most ignorant and undereducated would dare take such a stance.
Instead, plate tectonics is an empirically verified phenomenon. It does happen, regardless of you head in the sand and denial of it as a phenomenon. One can say there's no gravity all one wants, but one will remain on the ground with the rest of us. Your denial is just as silly and undereducated as denial of gravity.
No planetary scientist or geologist is claiming that plate tectonics will not be discovered elsewhere in the universe. Indeed, there is recent indication that plate tectonics may have been present on Mars. I'll be away for possibly two days. When I return, perhaps I'll describe these recent discoveries and cite the sources they are derrived from.
To sum: not a single quote you provided said "invisible magic subduction zones." You are a liar.
Since Carey's work has since been discredited by modern science, that quote is dismissed as irrelevant. Since even you could have written the WikiPedia article, it can be dismissed as irrelevant.
What remains is a single quote-mined comment by a professor who is using the context that his research is worth funding and his classes are worth attending. No where in his work does he indicate that he has empirically tested all planets in the universe or even the solar system.
We are the only planet that is shown to have complex forms of life (so far, any life at all). Yet this doesn't imply that life isn't waiting to be discovered elsewhere in the universe and even our own solar system.
What the educated geologist actually understands is that Earth sits in the Goldilocks zone for temperature and climate. By mere chance, we have the ingredients necessary for just the right amount of equilibrium just the right amount of entropy is negated to allow for life. Plate tectonics appears to be a symptom of that situation.
But, assuming that you're logical fallacy (applying a poor analogy) that since we haven't seen plate tectonics elsewhere (other than Earth) is true, it doesn't imply that plate tectonics, therefore, doesn't exist. Only the most ignorant and undereducated would dare take such a stance.
Instead, plate tectonics is an empirically verified phenomenon. It does happen, regardless of you head in the sand and denial of it as a phenomenon. One can say there's no gravity all one wants, but one will remain on the ground with the rest of us. Your denial is just as silly and undereducated as denial of gravity.
No planetary scientist or geologist is claiming that plate tectonics will not be discovered elsewhere in the universe. Indeed, there is recent indication that plate tectonics may have been present on Mars. I'll be away for possibly two days. When I return, perhaps I'll describe these recent discoveries and cite the sources they are derrived from.
To sum: not a single quote you provided said "invisible magic subduction zones." You are a liar.
Great. I'm a liar. Wonderful. I hope that makes you feel better about earth expansion.
comments: The earth is expanding.
I enjoyed the forray into the expanding earth but am left wondering about "expanding." It started out vague in my mind and never seemed to land on a crisp definition. Is it specifically about becoming less dense, gaining mass, participating in the expansion of the universe or any or all of these? Need it be non trivial or does the annual dust accumulation from space count? Sorry if this isn't the right spot to ask.
I enjoyed the forray into the expanding earth but am left wondering about "expanding." It started out vague in my mind and never seemed to land on a crisp definition. Is it specifically about becoming less dense, gaining mass, participating in the expansion of the universe or any or all of these? Need it be non trivial or does the annual dust accumulation from space count? Sorry if this isn't the right spot to ask.
I feel your pain brother.
I think the problem is with the main proponent of the conjecture - her thought processes are somewhat muddled and confused and as such a coherent synthesis of the various threads of the current conjecture proved beyond her intellectual means to provide.
From what I can gather from her lesas than coherent rants and mined quotes, the conjecture according to Oil is Mastery goes something like this:
The earth is expanding at the mid ocean ridges, but subduction is not taking place - therefore the earth is expanding - no, wait hang on the earth is expanding uniformly all over though some unspecified mechanism - shit! I can't really make my mind up and I certainly have no intention of being drawn to commit to a one or other viewpoint - it's just getting fucking bigger OK and if you don't take what I say at face value and beleive all the great links I provide then you are clearly brainwashed.
To counter the problems of this creating a hollow earth, some unspecified mechanism (similar to fission but sufficiently different to fission as fission does not fit the data) is creating new matter from energy within the mantle to account for this - if yopu are not open minded enough to accept a new process similar to fission (and perhaps fusion as well) that defies current laws of physics then you are brainwashed.
Howzat?
It did.
OIM's contention was that the Earth has doubled in radius in the past 200 million years.
That's fairly specific.
OIM argued that it gained mass. As I outlined in my first post of the debate, other expansionists have made the other arguments you mention, but OIM ended up not relying on these.
I analysed the annual dust accumulation from space in my final post of the debate.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
OIM:
Out of curiousity, as I am still unclear, where do you claim the extra mass that accompanies the Earth expansion comes from? Or do you claim the Earth has a more or less fixed mass, subject to slow accretion from objects from space? Or do you think there is rapid accretion from objects in space?
You mentioned fusion and fission, but neither of those processes creates mass. If those processes were energetic (i.e. hot, not cold) they could cause expansion, but the energy they release as heat would itself cause a loss of mass in accordance with E=mc^2.
Out of curiousity, as I am still unclear, where do you claim the extra mass that accompanies the Earth expansion comes from? Or do you claim the Earth has a more or less fixed mass, subject to slow accretion from objects from space? Or do you think there is rapid accretion from objects in space?
You mentioned fusion and fission, but neither of those processes creates mass. If those processes were energetic (i.e. hot, not cold) they could cause expansion, but the energy they release as heat would itself cause a loss of mass in accordance with E=mc^2.
The core and core/mantle boundary. This should clarify: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Excess-mass-stress.htm
I would never claim that ever. That's called "plate tectonics" and it's absurd.
This was certainly a mechanism for growth in the early years of the Earth's formation, however it is not the main mechanism for growth today and since the Triassic. It is a matter of quantity and a matter quality. For example, is the rate of meteor dust accretion enough to account for all of the earth’s mass? If meteor dust accretion is taking place how come the iron-rich rocks, like basalt and gabbro, are on the bottom and the iron-poor rocks, like granites, are on the top, when it is well known that the iron-rich rocks were the last to form? How can meteorites and meteor dust combine into solid rock like granite and basalt?
Mass is created from energy. E=mc2.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Excess-mass-stress.htm
Last edited:
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
I am very much overtired but...Not exactly. The equation denotes not "creation" (from nothing) but "mere" equivalency, and energy is conserved in this universe in a closed system unless you count energy fluctuations lasting a faction of a second due to Uncertainty.
Think of it this way, if you read Einstein's original paper, his conclusion was m= E/c^2.
In effect, the Earth has a certain mass right now at this moment, measurable within certain degrees of accuracy. That measurement would encompass both the physical matter and the free energy contained within the Earth (because both mave mass per the equation). If that free energy of the Earth were completely converted to physical matter, the mass of the Earth would be unchanged. If the physical matter making up the Earth were completely converted to photons, the collective relativistic mass of those photons would be equal to that of the Earth.
You cannot "use energy" and "make mass" in a sequential process. The energy has mass all the time. If you find something has more mass than it did before, that means it has more energy too, not that the energy it has changed form in some way. Every joule of energy that is floating around inside the earth at this moment adds about 0.0000000000000000111265 kg of mass to the Earth. That is true no matter what form that joule takes or what process occurs around it, subject only to quantum level uncertainty effects.
Last edited:
I concur.
I made the point in my Formal Debate with OIM that fission (and even speculative fusion) processes inside the Earth actually result in mass decrease, with an equivalent output of heat.
In fact, fission is thought to be a significant source of heat energy inside the Earth.
In fact, fission is thought to be a significant source of heat energy inside the Earth.