Is the earth expanding?

[Trippy]

Florian and Trippy personal attacks:

Ho-hum!

wlminex

Quite.

 

[origin]

Origin: Ref: my earlier post re: density changes in earth material via magmatic differentiation yields less dense material (i.e., lithosphere) that requires more 'volume' than more-dense progenitor material (mantle). 'Kind of' analogous to that spray foam stuff that changes from a more-dense liquid phase (under pressure) to a much-less dense foamy phase (at lower pressure). Ergo, the earth's surface has to expand to compensate for the transition from higher-density mantle to less-dense lithophere. It's all about that g/cc (mass/volume) process.

I wasn't responding to your post. However your post is just as steeped in pseudo science. "Density changes due to magnetic differentiation", sounds real fancy for the uneducated, however it is little more than drivel - sorry.

It might be instructional to do a (relatively) simple calculation comparing estimated lithospheric volume/density to mantle volume/density. I'm certain that plate-subduction compensates somewhat for the volume expansion - but not completely.

wlminex

Why do you want to compare the mass of the lithosphere to the mass of the mantle? What you are certain of is not shared by others.

edited to add: Oops, I mean why do you want to compare the reciprocal of the mass of the lithosphere to the mantle?

 

[wlminex]

Origin Post 182:

You expose your own 'drivel' and lack of knowledge regarding geological processes. Do you know the difference between MAGNETIC differentiation and MAGMATIC differentiation? The former term (magnetic differentiation) is not a term that I've heard used in discussions of geologic processes. If you plan to use that term (magnetic differentiation) in the otherwise cogent discussions here - please define it so we can all learn from your vast knowledge base.

By the way . . . . g/cc (grams per cubic centimeter; i.e., mass per volume) is a common and accepted statement of density of materials, or better yet, specific gravity.

Please review your Geology 101 notes, then comment as you see fit. Your responsive post to mine seems a little like Rosanna Rosannadana on Sat. Nite Live.

wlminex

 

[wlminex]

For Origin: Some definitions from the internet - look on Google for more . . . . .

magmatic differentiation (mg-mtk)

The process by which chemically different igneous rocks, such as basalt and granite, can form from the same initial magma. Magmatic differentiation can occur by the chemical reaction between the magma and the first crystals to solidify out of it, or by the physical separation of the first crystals that form from the remaining magma, either through settling to the bottom of a magma chamber or through crustal deformations that cause the remaining magma to be squeezed out to cool in veins and dikes.


Home > Library > Science > Sci-Tech Dictionary
(mag′mad·ik ′dif·ə′ren·chē′ā·shən)
(petrology) The process by which the different types of igneous rocks are derived from a single parent magma. The process by which ores are formed by solidification from magma. Also known as magmatic segregation.

What is DENSITY ?

DENSITY is a physical property of matter, as each element and compound has a unique density associated with it. Density defined in a qualitative manner as the measure of the relative "heaviness" of objects with a constant volume.

For example: A rock is obviously more dense than a crumpled piece of paper of the same size. A styrofoam cup is less dense than a ceramic cup.

Density may also refer to how closely "packed" or "crowded" the material appears to be - again refer to the styrofoam vs. ceramic cup.

 

[florian]

Oh yes I did. You linked to the abstract of Webb's paper which describes a model relating tidal frequency to closing and receding rates in the framework of a Moon capture. Then Poliakow showed that the most important parameter for the tidal dissipation effect is the distribution of continents and oceans, thus outdating Webb's model. And that's all.

No.
There has been at least one other one that I have linked to, and that one other one contains a comparison of the theoretical models that were available at that time, to available field data at that time.

That other one is a 1999 paper. The theoritical models avalaible at that time are worst than Poliakow's 2005 model which pointed to the major effect of the continental/ocean distribution. But even the best available model makes poor predictions like 2.91 cm/y for the current rate while the actual measured value is 3.82 cm/y (So 30% less). It does predict a recession rate of 0.34 cm/y, 200 My ago, but empirical data do not provide irrefutable proof for this rate. Empirical data only give a timepoint for the number of days in a year, and rotation rates are inferred conveniently assuming a constant revolution period (not an irrefutable assumption).
As a matter of fact data from bivalves indicate 371(+4;-7) days/y 220 My ago (Williams, 2000), which includes the current days/y value.
It follows that:
Claiming that the empirical data support the theoritical model of paleotidal evolution is bullshit.
Claiming that the paleorotation evolution is known is bullshit.
Claiming that amazing fine-tuning would be necessary is bullshit.
And BTW, claiming that the growth of Earth would lead to a dramatic decrease in rotation rate is bullshit as well, because it would imply that the gained mass had zero momentum, which is redbull shit.

You're the one linking to Mojzsis webpage. Why don't you ask him by email if the AGU granted him the right to post a full pdf.

Because you're the one that seems to be concerned about it.

You're the one concerned with copyright issues (See post#157) and you're the one who used this link, so either you're concerned with possible copyright infringement by using this link, or you use double standard.

Given that, unlike a normal book, each paper represents an individual work, that it's 10% of the book, and not 10% of the paper?

We transfer copyright to the publisher/editor when we write articles for proceedings. So the 10% rules applies to the whole proceeding book.

A fallacy

No, a demonstrable fact.

A demonstrable fallacy.

hmm, Ocean floor datations and geological data impose strong constraint on the reconstructions, there is not much room for imagination. An illustration with antarctica showing that it was totally encircled by the southern tip of S. Am, Africa, India, Australia, Zealandia, and a little ocean of age 90-150 Ma with isochrons perpendicular to the Tonga/Kermadec trench:

The only tricky parts are the mobile arcs and related mantle extrusion and flow that overprinted the older ocean floor. That is very explicit in the Philippine sea:

Yeah, I don't think you quite got what I meant by crack space. Let's call it gap space then - think god of the gaps.

? You have to be clearer than that.
Besides, do you understand, the reconstruction around Antartica? Do you understand the sequence of extrusion events that leads to the pattern observed in the Philippine sea.

What about my conduct?

That kind of unnecessary and rude comments:
"In fact, I have yet to do anything worse than explain things to you as I would a 5 year old."

That strawman again.

1. I'm not convinced you understand what a strawman is, because you seem to be using it wrongly.

Misrepresenting this theory as unphysical/violating the law of Physics is a strawman.

2. Just because you do not understand, or accept the evidence against it, does not mean it does not exist.

Bullshit. I know every so called "evidence" presented against the theory, and all are flawed.
Besides, Just because you do not understand, or accept the evidence supporting it, does not mean it does not exist.
evidence against are flawed=> no refutation, plenty of supporting evidence => theory is correct.

However, on this one, your assertion is a straw man (there's probably a better name for it, however...) in that saying that a theory makes absurd predictions is not the same thing as saying that all it's predictions are absurd.

No. You built a strawman by writing that the theory makes absurd predictions. These absurd predictions you "invented" are certainly strawmen.

Correction: it has one, but we don't know it yet.

No, the theory has none.

Childish

I did not insult you.

You have.

Childish

Don't confuse the scientists working on this theory and the cranks, please.

The allegation is backed up by the language used in many of the papers you have linked to.

False and Insulting.

They question the significance regarding an Asian plate/greater India collision, because they provide evidence for a collision between Greater India and mobile arc, the later being not part of the Asian plate, hence the comparison to the Luzon Arc.

This is what I said,

Liar. You were discussing the "foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia." (See post# 160) which is far different from the putative collision of Greater India with a mobile arc (argued by ALi&Aitchinson).

yes, however, this does not exclude the possibility of foreshortening occuring on the indian plate at this time.

False. In plate tectonics, collision of a continent with a mobile arc leads to its accretion to the continent margin and thus leads to an increase in the size of the continent, not to a shortening of the continent.

Besides, postcollisional forshortening of greater India, is rather problematic. I quote Stocklin, an specialist of Himalayan orogeny:

"At any rate, Tethyan subduction can in no way account for compensation of the continued expansion of the Indian Ocean after collision of India with Eurasia in Eocene time. The structure of the Himalaya leaves no doubt that very considerable compression of continental crust was achieved here by folding and thrusting in post-Eocene time. But actual estimates fall again far short of the amount required to accommodate postcollisional north-drift of India, which according to spreading data from the Indian Ocean was in the range of 1500-2000 km. Le Fort (44) considered 600-700 km of shortening in the Himalaya as a maximum, Gansser (45) estimated about half of this amount 500 km less 200 km of pre-collisional compression). Compared to the Himalaya, post-Eocene crustal shortening farther north, in Tibet, seems to have been insignificant; folding occurred here mainly in the Mesozoic. The strike-slip mechanism proposed by Molnar and Tapponier (35) may account for some shortening, but hardly for the amount required: strike-slip along the Chaman fault was perhaps in the order of 200-300 km (43); and while displacement along the Herat fault may have been considerable till Miocene, post-Miocene deposits are no more clearly offset along it (24)."
--Jovan Stoecklin, "Tethys evolution in the Afghanistan-Pamir-Pakistan region," In: A.M.C. Sengor, ed., Tectonic Evolution of the Tethyan Region, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 1989, pp. 258, 259.

My recollection is that we have gathered more evidence in the 20 years since that paper was written.

The evidence that have been collected in the last years support the hypothesis that the tibetan plateau was uplifted by mantle upwelling, and is gliding eastward under its own weight. The collision=orogeny hypothesis becomes useless.

If nothing else, it illustrates one of the problems that geologists face - Mother Nature is continually destroying the evidence of what she has done.

A very convenient assumption, and wrong. The fact is that most of the oceanic/continental lithosphere that ever formed can still be found. The gradual increase in amount of oceanic/continental lithosphere observed during geological time is a simple proof of the surface increase of Earth.

Aside from anything else, if you don't want to be treated like a crank, stop acting like one.

You decided from the start that I must be a crank because I advocate the expanding theory which you believe is stupid/absurd/pseudoscientific, and this independently of my writings. Your decision is irrational.

You took umbrage at this thread being moved to pseudoscience, and took an aggressive tone.

I responded adequally to an aggression from someone who is not respectful of the work done by research scientists.

Everything that has happened since then has followed from that point.

Your fault. Start by respecting the research scientists including me.

 

[wlminex]

Trippy . . . Trippy . . . Trippy . . . .!
Florian . . . .Florian . . . .Florian!

Do you guys even remember what the original post was about? Why don't you guys simply exchange emails and carry-on in private. Then you can quit agrandising yourselves on this thread!

wlminex

 

[AlexG]

Trippy . . . Trippy . . . Trippy . . . .!
Florian . . . .Florian . . . .Florian!

Do you guys even remember what the original post was about? Why don't you guys simply exchange emails and carry-on in private. Then you can quit agrandising yourselves on this thread!

wlminex

What's the fun in that?

 

[origin]

Origin Post 182:

You expose your own 'drivel' and lack of knowledge regarding geological processes. Do you know the difference between MAGNETIC differentiation and MAGMATIC differentiation? The former term (magnetic differentiation) is not a term that I've heard used in discussions of geologic processes. If you plan to use that term (magnetic differentiation) in the otherwise cogent discussions here - please define it so we can all learn from your vast knowledge base.

Well I certainly screwed the pooch there! It is not a lack of knowledge it is a lack of reading ability! As far as magmatic differentiation this is not going to cause an expansion of the earth. In general the volume of cooled igneous rock is going to be so close to the original magma that it is negligable. This entire fantasy of an expanding earth is silly.

By the way . . . . g/cc (grams per cubic centimeter; i.e., mass per volume) is a common and accepted statement of density of materials, or better yet, specific gravity.

Yes I am well aware of what density is. You still haven't answered why you want to compare the volume/density of the lithosphere and the mantle. :shrug:

 

[wlminex]

Origin:

First, let's look at some 'rock' densities:

Granite (lithosphere ~ 2.65 - 2.75 g/cc)
Basalt (~ 3.0 avg g/cc)
Mantle (range 35 - 2890 km; 3.4-5.6 g/cc)

This density relationship is consistent with our observations and theories of isostasy. That is why lithosphere 'floats' on asthenosphere - lithosphere is less dense than asthenosphere.

Now, assuming (to a first approximation, of course) that lithosphere (basalt + granite)issues solely from magmatic differentiation of asthenosphere, the simple g/cc math relationship math will demonstrate that the lithospheric component occupies relatively more volume (i.e., space) than the asthenospheric (mantle) component.

Thus, I suggested that by comparing the relative volumes of lithosphere and asthenosphere, one should be able to estimate the additional (spherical) volume (i.e., increase in earth radius), on a total earth-surface basis that would be required to compensate for the decrease in density of the lithosphere.

Please note that I HAVE NOT done the math, but someone should . . . volume estimates for lithosphere and asthenosphere should be fairly easy. Also recall that I exercised the 'caveat' that crustal plate subduction processes would likely reduce the overall "expansive" effect of asthenosphere --> lithosphere density transitions.

I welcome your calculation results and discussion . . . EVEN Florian and Trippy!

By-the-way . . . I'm not saying that the earth HAS significantly "expanded". I'm simply providing a viable mechanism for those who think it has!.

wlminex

 

[Trippy]

That other one is a 1999 paper. The theoritical models avalaible at that time are worst than Poliakow's 2005 model which pointed to the major effect of the continental/ocean distribution. But even the best available model makes poor predictions like 2.91 cm/y for the current rate while the actual measured value is 3.82 cm/y (So 30% less). It does predict a recession rate of 0.34 cm/y, 200 My ago, but empirical data do not provide irrefutable proof for this rate. Empirical data only give a timepoint for the number of days in a year, and rotation rates are inferred conveniently assuming a constant revolution period (not an irrefutable assumption).
As a matter of fact data from bivalves indicate 371(+4;-7) days/y 220 My ago (Williams, 2000), which includes the current days/y value.
It follows that:
Claiming that the empirical data support the theoritical model of paleotidal evolution is bullshit.
Claiming that the paleorotation evolution is known is bullshit.
Claiming that amazing fine-tuning would be necessary is bullshit.
And BTW, claiming that the growth of Earth would lead to a dramatic decrease in rotation rate is bullshit as well, because it would imply that the gained mass had zero momentum, which is redbull shit.

No.
What it proves is that you still haven't read, and understood the 1999 paper - whether the models were worse then is irrelevant, it still provides useful, useable information.
What it proves is that you don't understand the astrophysics involved and are therefore in no position to criticise the mainstream view.

You're the one concerned with copyright issues (See post#157) and you're the one who used this link, so either you're concerned with possible copyright infringement by using this link, or you use double standard.

I asked you a straightforward question - one which you evaded answering, and went on the attack in response to.
You're the one making an issue out of this rather than answering a straightforward question.
You haven't poved a double standard on my part, incidentally, because you obviously still don't understand the fundamental difference between what you have done, and anything you have raised in an effort to justify your actions.

We transfer copyright to the publisher/editor when we write articles for proceedings. So the 10% rules applies to the whole proceeding book.

Not always true, actually.

A demonstrable fallacy.

? You have to be clearer than that.

Google 'God of the gaps'.

Besides, do you understand, the reconstruction around Antartica? Do you understand the sequence of extrusion events that leads to the pattern observed in the Philippine sea.

Better than you, it would seem.

That kind of unnecessary and rude comments:
"In fact, I have yet to do anything worse than explain things to you as I would a 5 year old."

Rolleyes:
The only person that's rude to is me.

Misrepresenting this theory as unphysical/violating the law of Physics is a strawman.

It's neither a misrepresentation, nor a strawman. If it was, you would be able to present a physical mechanism that worked within the existing laws of physics, but you can't, every mechanism proposed so far requires new physics, for which there is no evidence to support.

Bullshit. I know every so called "evidence" presented against the theory, and all are flawed.

Apparently you don't.

Besides, Just because you do not understand, or accept the evidence supporting it, does not mean it does not exist.
evidence against are flawed=> no refutation, plenty of supporting evidence => theory is correct.

I understand it, and it is flawed.

No. You built a strawman by writing that the theory makes absurd predictions. These absurd predictions you "invented" are certainly strawmen.

That you don't understand how they follow from your assertions is your problem, not mine. I thought you said you understood this stuff?

Childish

It's childish to point out that your theory has no physical mechanism? Interesting. So you're suggesting that science is childish?

Childish

Contradicting a falsehood is insulting? Interesting.

False and Insulting.

Compeltely true - any paper that uses language that talks about 'Dogmatism' or compares a group to gallileo, and sayting that the mainstream is comparable to the flat earthers and what not is precisely crackpot language. Maybe you should work through some of Scalera's work with the John Baez Crackpot Index open in another window, or even look back through some of the things you've had to say here and elsewhere. Scalera's comments to that effect are worth 40 points by themselves, and your assertions (and, for that matter Maxlow's) about the mechanism are worth 50 points.

Liar. You were discussing the "foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia." (See post# 160) which is far different from the putative collision of Greater India with a mobile arc (argued by ALi&Aitchinson).

No, actually, the liar here is you.

Here is my statement in the context of the discussion that was being had:

I also find it ironic that you cite this material to contradict me, but if you read (for example) Aitchinson et al's reply to Garzanti's comment, they explicitly state that a collision occured at the North Indian passive margin 55MA, and that that collision was part of the Himalaya-Tibet orogen, what they question is the significance of the event, likening it to the interaction between the Luzon Arc and South East China - this does not contradict my position, that foreshortening was occuring 55 MA, and that that foreshortening was occuring as a result of the collision between the indian plate and the eurasian plate. And yes, I know I initially said greater india, which implies that I was referring to Aitchinsons major collision, rather than the initial minor collision, but my point remains intact - that Carey failed to account for any compressional foreshortening that might have occured over the last 55 million years (among other possible factors).

They question the significance regarding an Asian plate/greater India collision, because they provide evidence for a collision between Greater India and mobile arc, the later being not part of the Asian plate, hence the comparison to the Luzon Arc.

This is what I said, yes, however, this does not exclude the possibility of foreshortening occuring on the indian plate at this time.

I precisely stated that Ali and Aitchinson questioned the significance of the first collisional event.
I precisely stated (or suggested) that the fact that it was a collision with a forearc on the Asian plate was the grounds for the comparison with the Luzon arc and China.
You have quoted me out of context (again) and constrtucted a Strawman argument based on the out of context quotation (again).

As for the body of the rest of this aspect of the discussion, you're getting lost in irrelvant trivialities and side tracking the discussion (something akin to a bait and switch). My assertion was that Carey neglected to take into account forehortening that might have occured as a result of the collision between greater india and asia. This is the core point of my statement which so far you have UTTERLY FAILED TO ADDRESS.

Whether the collision occured 55MA or 35MA is irrelevant to consideration of the foreshortening that has occurred subsequent to that. You are quite simply hellbent on trying to prove me wrong on some trivial point so that you can continue your attempts at poisoning the well and say "Well, you were wrong about this, why should we trust you about that?"

Give it up. Among other things, what your doing is arguing in bad faith, it's an argument ad hominem, it's disingenious, and it's bordering on intellectual dishonesty.

False. In plate tectonics, collision of a continent with a mobile arc leads to its accretion to the continent margin and thus leads to an increase in the size of the continent, not to a shortening of the continent.

Acreetion occurs in a compressional or transpressional regime. Yes or no?

The evidence that have been collected in the last years support the hypothesis that the tibetan plateau was uplifted by mantle upwelling, and is gliding eastward under its own weight. The collision=orogeny hypothesis becomes useless.

Wishful thinking at best.

A very convenient assumption, and wrong. The fact is that most of the oceanic/continental lithosphere that ever formed can still be found. The gradual increase in amount of oceanic/continental lithosphere observed during geological time is a simple proof of the surface increase of Earth.

You question the assertion that erosion and sediment transport destroys evidence?

You decided from the start that I must be a crank because I advocate the expanding theory which you believe is stupid/absurd/pseudoscientific, and this independently of my writings. Your decision is irrational.

No, I decided you were a crank on the basis of your posts. Or are you going to claim to know my motivations better than me now?

My decision that you are a crank is quite independent of my decision to move this thread to Pseudoscience, I can assure you. If I had decided you were a crank before then, I would have closed this thread an moved it to the cesspool.

I responded adequally to an aggression from someone who is not respectful of the work done by research scientists.

That was your first mistake, responding to what you percieved as aggression with aggression.

Your fault. Start by respecting the research scientists including me.

You're awfully fond of making assumptions, aren't you.

 

[Trippy]

Trippy . . . Trippy . . . Trippy . . . .!
Florian . . . .Florian . . . .Florian!

Do you guys even remember what the original post was about? Why don't you guys simply exchange emails and carry-on in private. Then you can quit agrandising yourselves on this thread!

wlminex

I'm not interested in self agrandisment.

I was interested in an actual discussion, but that, along with my consequent interest in this thread is rapidly waning. There's only so much of this inaninty I can take, and this thread is not my only source of such.

 

[wlminex]

Trippy Post#191:

I get your 'drift' (continental?) . . . .

Would appreciate your constructive comments on my post #189

wlminex

 

[Trippy]

I had something, but it requires a rethink and may take longer - there is someone with a dentist drill excavating my brain through my ear at the moment, or at least it feels that way.

 

[florian]

Do you guys even remember what the original post was about?

Absolutely. Just have to read the title: Is the Earth expanding?

Why don't you guys simply exchange emails and carry-on in private.

Because the arguments presented here can be of interest for geologists/geophysicists or any scientist interested in that science.

Then you can quit agrandising yourselves on this thread!

Agrandising myself? No, my goal is very simple: Refute the arguments against the expanding Earth theory and prove that it is the best Earth-science theory around. Actually, it is not just a Earth-Sciences theory, but the real first planetary-Science theory with deep implications in cosmology. This is one reason why it represents such a huge step forward.

 

[florian]

No.
What it proves is that you still haven't read, and understood the 1999 paper - whether the models were worse then is irrelevant, it still provides useful, useable information.

Useable information from models that were proved too much simplistic to model reality even roughly => Double standard.

What it proves is that you don't understand the astrophysics involved and are therefore in no position to criticise the mainstream view.

Quite ironic knowing that you can't get the point made by Mazumder.

I asked you a straightforward question - one which you evaded answering, and went on the attack in response to.

I found ironic that you suspect me of copyright infringment while linking to material likely infringing copyright in the same post. It seems that you perceived my comment on this funny fact as an attack.

? You have to be clearer than that.

Google 'God of the gaps'.

I ask for a clarification because I google it and do not see the relationship with paleogeographic reconstructions.
Note that you're diverting the discussion again. Could you please focuse on the discussion. Thank you.

Besides, do you understand, the reconstruction around Antartica? Do you understand the sequence of extrusion events that leads to the pattern observed in the Philippine sea.

Better than you, it would seem.

I doubt it, if it was the case you would the facto accept Earth expansion because the reconstruction based on isochrons require a reduction of Earth's radius.

No. You built a strawman by writing that the theory makes absurd predictions. These absurd predictions you "invented" are certainly strawmen.

That you don't understand how they follow from your assertions is your problem, not mine.

See, you invent stuff, you don't describe what it is, then you claim that I should have invented the same stuff, and attack me for no doing it. Strawman.

It's childish to point out that your theory has no physical mechanism? Interesting.

Stop lying. It is evident that the theory HAS a physical causal mechanism. Claiming that it has no physical mechanism, is unphysical, because we don't know the mechanism at this time is cranky.

So you're suggesting that science is childish?

Yet another of your childish comments. Don't confuse science with yourself.

sayting that the mainstream is comparable to the flat earthers

It is you, Trippy, that I compared to a flat-earther. And the comparison stand: you persist in believing in an outdated theory and deny the evidence for a better theory.

Liar. You were discussing the "foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia." (See post# 160) which is far different from the putative collision of Greater India with a mobile arc (argued by Ali&Aitchinson).

No, actually, the liar here is you.

You lie again. You were arguing that foreshortening was occuring 55 Ma position and that foreshortening was occuring as a result of the collision between the indian plate and the eurasian plate[/b] as proven by your own citation (see bold):

I also find it ironic that you cite this material to contradict me, but if you read (for example) Aitchinson et al's reply to Garzanti's comment, they explicitly state that a collision occured at the North Indian passive margin 55MA, and that that collision was part of the Himalaya-Tibet orogen, what they question is the significance of the event, likening it to the interaction between the Luzon Arc and South East China - this does not contradict my position, that foreshortening was occuring 55 MA, and that that foreshortening was occuring as a result of the collision between the indian plate and the eurasian plate. And yes, I know I initially said greater india, which implies that I was referring to Aitchinsons major collision, rather than the initial minor collision, but my point remains intact - that Carey failed to account for any compressional foreshortening that might have occured over the last 55 million years (among other possible factors).

And of course, a collision with a mobile arc leads to enlargement of greater India not shortening.
So you were proving wrong. Admit it. May be I should cite one of the epic post from Ophiolite (this post):

You have been caught out in an error. You are compounding that error by refusing to acknowledge it. Do so now or continue to look like a fool.

Now, after this interesting comment from Ophiolite, back to the point:

Whether the collision occured 55MA or 35MA is irrelevant to consideration of the foreshortening that has occurred subsequent to that.

And that shortening of greater India after the putative collision is irrelevant to the point made by Carey because it is very limited: 176 km according to Murphy and Yin "Structural evolution and sequence of thrusting in the Tethyan fold-thrust belt and Indus-Yalu suture zone, southwest Tibet."

So, "Give it up. Among other things, what your doing is arguing in bad faith, it's an argument ad hominem, it's disingenious, and it's bordering on intellectual dishonesty."

The evidence that have been collected in the last years support the hypothesis that the tibetan plateau was uplifted by mantle upwelling, and is gliding eastward under its own weight. The collision=orogeny hypothesis becomes useless.

Wishful thinking at best.

A theory developped by Carey, hinted by the extrusion model of Tapponnier which now evolves to a crustal/mantle flow model (see Royden et al 2008), and the next step will be to abandon the collision origin of the flow as with the anatolian/aegean region.

A very convenient assumption, and wrong. The fact is that most of the oceanic/continental lithosphere that ever formed can still be found. The gradual increase in amount of oceanic/continental lithosphere observed during geological time is a simple proof of the surface increase of Earth.

You question the assertion that erosion and sediment transport destroys evidence?

No, your assertion. I was refering to the hypothesis that subduction destroys millions square km of lithosphere whereas it is a demonstrable fact that the amount destroyed is marginal (I remind you post #72)

My decision that you are a crank is quite independent of my decision to move this thread to Pseudoscience, I can assure you.

Indeed, anyone defending the expanding earth theory is imediately labeled as a crank in your mind, thus you labeled me as on at my first post, post #13.
You moved this discussion a bit later using the fallacious argument that it "failed basic scientific tests", in a middle of a scientifically argued discussion.

That was your first mistake, responding to what you percieved as aggression with aggression.

Qualifying the work of qualified research scientists as being "pseudo-scientific" and calling this research scientists "crackpots" is an aggression. This is unacceptable and can't be ignored.

 

[florian]

Origin:

First, let's look at some 'rock' densities:

Granite (lithosphere ~ 2.65 - 2.75 g/cc)
Basalt (~ 3.0 avg g/cc)
Mantle (range 35 - 2890 km; 3.4-5.6 g/cc)
...

I welcome your calculation results and discussion . . . EVEN Florian and Trippy!

Well, why not?

For a rough estimate, 1/3 continental crust averaging 50 km in thickness and 2/3 oceanic crust averaging 10 km in thickness.

Volume continental crust: 4/3*pi*(6371^3-6321^3)*1/3=8.42 × 10E9 km3
Considering an average density of 2.7, and considering that the original material had a density = 3.5, the continental crust volume corresponds to an initial volume of 2.7/3.5*8.42 × 10E9=6.50 × 10E9 km3

Volume ocean crust: 4/3*pi*(6371^3-6361^3)*2/3=1.70 × 10E9 km3
Considering an average density of 3.0, and considering that the original material had a density = 3.5, the ocean crust volume corresponds to an initial volume of 3.0/3.5*1.70 × 10E9=1.46 × 10E9 km3

So the change in volume is (8.42+1.70)-(6.50+1.46) × 10E9= 2.16 × 10E9 km3

This corresponds to an average increase in radius equal to:
6371-((4/3*pi*6371^3-2.16E9)/4*3/pi)^(1/3) = 4.24 km

By-the-way . . . I'm not saying that the earth HAS significantly "expanded". I'm simply providing a viable mechanism for those who think it has!.

You must find a mechanism that accounts for a doubling of radius or an 8-fold increase in volume for the last 250 My. Thank you for the effort, but your hypothesis fell short!
I wish you good luck!

 

[Trippy]

Useable information from models that were proved too much simplistic to model reality even roughly => Double standard.

No. Because I understand the limitations of the model and the information.

Quite ironic knowing that you can't get the point made by Mazumder.

I understand Mazumders point, however have come to the conclusion that he is wrong based on independant lines of evidence.

I ask for a clarification because I google it and do not see the relationship with paleogeographic reconstructions.
Note that you're diverting the discussion again. Could you please focuse on the discussion. Thank you.

Because it relates to expanding eartrh tectonics in general, rather than paleogeographic reconstructions specifically.

I doubt it, if it was the case you would the facto accept Earth expansion because the reconstruction based on isochrons require a reduction of Earth's radius.

...
I just want to hilight how special this statement is.

See, you invent stuff, you don't describe what it is, then you claim that I should have invented the same stuff, and attack me for no doing it. Strawman.

I don't think you know what a strawman is.
This isn't one.
And I haven't attacked you.

Stop lying. It is evident that the theory HAS a physical causal mechanism. Claiming that it has no physical mechanism, is unphysical, because we don't know the mechanism at this time is cranky.

I'm not lying. If you had a physical causal mechanism, you would be able to say what it is, it's that simple.

Yet another of your childish comments. Don't confuse science with yourself.

:roll eyes:

It is you, Trippy, that I compared to a flat-earther. And the comparison stand: you persist in believing in an outdated theory and deny the evidence for a better theory.

Do you actually read the posts you reply to?

You lie again. You were arguing that foreshortening was occuring 55 Ma position and that foreshortening was occuring as a result of the collision between the indian plate and the eurasian plate[/b] as proven by your own citation (see bold):

Again, you quote me out of context. The only liar here is you. I didn't deny that I initially suggested that foreshortening was occuring 55MA. That's not what makes you a liar.

And of course, a collision with a mobile arc leads to enlargement of greater India not shortening.
So you were proving wrong. Admit it. May be I should cite one of the epic post from Ophiolite (this post):

Yet again, I have asked you a direct question, and you have evaded answering (unsurprising).

You have not proven an error on my part, at best you haven proven that the point is contended, which I have aknowledged. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
And that shortening of greater India after the putative collision is irrelevant to the point made by Carey because it is very limited: 176 km according to Murphy and Yin "Structural evolution and sequence of thrusting in the Tethyan fold-thrust belt and Indus-Yalu suture zone, southwest Tibet."

So, "Give it up. Among other things, what your doing is arguing in bad faith, it's an argument ad hominem, it's disingenious, and it's bordering on intellectual dishonesty."

I think you need to go back and re-read that abstract. It's either that, or your deliberately lying.
From the second sentence:

A line-length cross-section reconstruction indicates a MINIMUM of 176 km of north-south horizontal shortening partitioned by the Tethyan fold-thrust belt (112 km) and Indus-Yalu suture zone (64 km).

From the last sentence:

A regional profile across the Tibetan-Himalayan orogen from the Subhimalaya to the Gangdese Shan (Transhimalaya), along with previously reported shortening estimates in the central Himalaya, yields a MINIMUM shortening estimate across the orogen of ∼750 km.

Emphasis mine in both cases.
In case you've forgotten:
min·i·mum/ˈminəməm/
Noun: The least or smallest amount or quantity possible, attainable, or required.

No, your assertion. I was refering to the hypothesis that subduction destroys millions square km of lithosphere whereas it is a demonstrable fact that the amount destroyed is marginal (I remind you post #72)

No. That I was referring to subduction was, is, and will always be your assumption.

The only thing I said was that Mother nature destroys the evidence of what she has done.

Indeed, anyone defending the expanding earth theory is imediately labeled as a crank in your mind, thus you labeled me as on at my first post, post #13.
You moved this discussion a bit later using the fallacious argument that it "failed basic scientific tests", in a middle of a scientifically argued discussion.

These are only your assumptions. Nothing more.

Qualifying the work of qualified research scientists as being "pseudo-scientific" and calling this research scientists "crackpots" is an aggression. This is unacceptable and can't be ignored.

In this case, it's a statement of fact, and I would say the same of any research scienctist that used the sort of language that Scalera does, whether they were addressing the mainstream or an alternative theory. But I wouldn't expect you to understand why.

 

[wlminex]

Florian:

Fine . . . . as a rough estimate . . . now re-calculate, factoring-in the hi-pressure mineral-phase structural transitions . . . e.g. spinel --> olivine, oxides. etc. and others.

wlminex

 

[florian]

Useable information from models that were proved too much simplistic to model reality even roughly => Double standard.

No. Because I understand the limitations of the model and the information.

The fact that you persist in believing that these models can effectively predict the paleorotation rate of Earth is a proof that you don't understand their limitation nor Mazumder argument.

I ask for a clarification because I google it and do not see the relationship with paleogeographic reconstructions.
Note that you're diverting the discussion *again*. Could you please focuse on the discussion. Thank you.

Because it relates to expanding eartrh tectonics in general, rather than paleogeographic reconstructions specifically.

Could you please clarify what you meant instead of wandering around.

I doubt it, if it was the case you would the facto accept Earth expansion because the reconstruction based on isochrons require a reduction of Earth's radius.

I just want to hilight how special this statement is.

Here again you seem to fail to understand why the complete encirclement of antartica cannot be achieved on an Earth that did not evolve in size.

See, you invent stuff, you don't describe what it is, then you claim that I should have invented the same stuff, and attack me for no doing it. Strawman.

I don't think you know what a strawman is. This isn't one.

Oh si, c'est un homme de paille : You invent weaknesses that do not exist, to attack them with the agenda to discredit the theory.

And I haven't attacked you.

You did by questioning my ability to understand => ad hominen.
It is quite interesting that you never seem to perceive how aggressive you are.

Stop lying. It is evident that the theory HAS a physical causal mechanism. Claiming that it has no physical mechanism, is unphysical, because we don't know the mechanism at this time is cranky.

I'm not lying. If you had a physical causal mechanism, you would be able to say what it is, it's that simple.

Apparently, you don't understand the difference between claiming that "a theory has no physical causal mechanism/is unphysical", and claiming that "a theory has a physical causal mechanism that is not known at this time". I suggest you to follow "epistemology 101".

You lie again. You were arguing that foreshortening was occuring 55 Ma position and that foreshortening was occuring as a result of the collision between the indian plate and the eurasian plate[/b] as proven by your own citation (see bold):

Again, you quote me out of context.

Interesting, the quote you cite yourself to replace your claim in context is now out of context? Double standard again.

go back and re-read that abstract. It's either that, or your deliberately lying.
From the second sentence:

---Quote---
A line-length cross-section reconstruction indicates a _*MINIMUM*_ of 176 km of north-south horizontal shortening partitioned by the Tethyan fold-thrust belt (112 km) and Indus-Yalu suture zone (64 km).
---End Quote---

You do understand that foreshortening of greater India is limited to Tethyan fold-thrust belt and Indus-Yalu suture zone, do you?

From the last sentence:

---Quote---
A regional profile across the Tibetan-Himalayan orogen from the Subhimalaya to the Gangdese Shan (Transhimalaya), along with previously reported shortening estimates in the central Himalaya, yields a *_MINIMUM shortening estimate across the orogen of ∼750 km._*
---End Quote---

Actually, no you don't. How is it possible that you did not figure it out from the "cross section reconstruction" part of the paper, p27?
Or may be you only read the abstract, as usual

In case you've forgotten:
min·i·mum/ˈminəməm/
Noun: The least or smallest amount or quantity possible, attainable, or required.

And you are childish again...

No, your assertion. I was refering to the hypothesis that subduction destroys millions square km of lithosphere whereas it is a demonstrable fact that the amount destroyed is marginal (I remind you post #72 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2771679&postcount=72))

No. That I was referring to subduction was, is, and will always be your assumption.

You're very confused again. You made a general statement. I replied that it is not so true because, for example, destruction via subduction is marginal, and then you jump to erosion.

Qualifying the work of qualified research scientists as being "pseudo-scientific" and calling this research scientists "crackpots" is an aggression. This is unacceptable and can't be ignored.

In this case, it's a statement of fact

You confuse facts and your biased opinion.

 

[florian]

Florian:

Fine . . . . as a rough estimate . . . now re-calculate, factoring-in the hi-pressure mineral-phase structural transitions . . . e.g. spinel --> olivine, oxides. etc. and others.

I let you do that especially as calculations for the whole mantle must include density/pressure increase. Again, good luck!
Anyway, that won't account for the measurable growth.