Is the earth expanding?

[Trippy]

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.

The fact that you can not see how they make such a prediction, and how the contradict the expanding earth model is a proof that you do not understand the physics behind them.

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.

No, I understand how such a scenario could evolve, and I am familiar with some of the evidence of that happening - we've even discussed some of it elsewhere, but you dismissed it as being mythical.

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.

I invent no weakness. I hilight what is already there.

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

I only question your ability to understand where you demonstrate an inability to understand. The role buoyancy plays in subduction zone reversals, the meaning of the word minimum, that sort of thing.

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".

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

No. Your presentation of it is out of context. Following your comments requires the abject denial of what I said both in that post, and subsequent to the post.

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

Nothing I have stated suggests otherwise. I also understand that the foreshortening in greater India is only half the picture.

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

You seem confused - this doesn't actually make sense in the context of my statements...

And you are childish again...

Really?
Pointing out the meaning of a word to someone is childish?

Interesting. Is it equally childish to correct their spelling?

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.

I'm confused about nothing.

You confuse facts and your biased opinion.

 

[florian]

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.

The fact that you can not see how they make such a prediction...

Hu, whatever...

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.

No, I understand how such a scenario could evolve, and I am familiar with some of the evidence of that happening - we've even discussed some of it elsewhere, but you dismissed it as being mythical.

Pardon me?

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.

I invent no weakness.

You do.

I only question your ability to understand where you demonstrate an inability to understand.

No, you question my abilities to provoke me. It is quite boring and a distraction from the discussion.

The role buoyancy plays in subduction zone reversals,

I remind you that I had to explain you what are subduction reversals, with a scheme... See this post.

the meaning of the word minimum, that sort of thing.

More provocation. You persist with distractions.

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".

Too bad that you can't acknowledge that there is important difference.

-
No. Your presentation of it is out of context. Following your comments requires the abject denial of what I said both in that post, and subsequent to the post.

Backpeddling is your favorite sport, isn't it?

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

Nothing I have stated suggests otherwise.

Yes, it is definitively your favorite sport.

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

You seem confused - this doesn't actually make sense in the context of my statements...

You are confused. It is clear that you confused the shortening across the whole orogen with that of greater India, which is evidently limited to the zone up to the Indus-Yalu suture zone. And no, you won't get away with more backpeddling. I remind you that your initial claim was that "Carey seems to completely fail to account for any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia." in post #159.
You specifically mentioned the foreshortening of greater India and its collision with Asia, not its collision with a mobile arc nor the foreshortening of Asia.

Really?
Pointing out the meaning of a word to someone is childish?

Pointing out the meaning of the word "minimum" is childish, but expected from a smartass.

 

[Trippy]

Pardon me?

I thought it was quite clear.

No, you question my abilities to provoke me. It is quite boring and a distraction from the discussion.

No, I question your abilities because they are routinely shown to be lacking, and are as relevant to the discussion as your questioning of mine.

I remind you that I had to explain you what are subduction reversals, with a scheme... See this post.

The reminder was un-neccessary, and did nothing to address the point I raised, which you still avoid.

More provocation. You persist with distractions.

And yet you demonstrate that you do not seem to understand the meaning of it, which is understandable, prehaps even tolerable, for someone that isn't a native anglophone.

Backpeddling is your favorite sport, isn't it?

Yes, it is definitively your favorite sport.

I have not backpeddled. You have not demonstrated me backpeddling.

You are confused. It is clear that you confused the shortening across the whole orogen with that of greater India, which is evidently limited to the zone up to the Indus-Yalu suture zone. And no, you won't get away with more backpeddling. I remind you that your initial claim was that "Carey seems to completely fail to account for any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia." in post #159.
You specifically mentioned the foreshortening of greater India and its collision with Asia, not its collision with a mobile arc nor the foreshortening of Asia.

I am confused about nothing, and what you're doing here is bordering on intellectual dishonesty.

The point that your steamrolling right past, in your attempt at poisoning the well, is that although I may have messed up my language slightly in the wording of my post, it should have been clear from the context of my discussion that I was referring to the foreshortening across the orogen, either way, Carey still failed to account for it.

In a normal, rational, sane argument the discussion would have gone something like this:
Me: "Carey forgot to account for the foreshortening of greater India as a result of the collision".
You: "This paper says the foreshortening of Greter India was only 176km"
Me: "It also states that 176km was a minimum, and the minimum foreshortening across the Orogen was 750km".
You: "Yes, but you said the foreshortening of Greater India"
Me: "Well okay, but the point remains that the foreshortening across the Orogen was 750km, and Carey seems to have failed to account for it."
And then proceed from there - perhaps moving onto Carey's arguments about the foreshortening.

Instead we get this moronic, bordering on myopic churlish...

Words fail me. I actually lack the words to describe what you're doing at the moment. It's dishonest, and it's bad faith.

It's just stupid and it's a waste of my time.


Pointing out the meaning of the word "minimum" is childish, but expected from a smartass.[/QUOTE]
It seemed neccessary on the grounds of this statement:

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

Which implies that you believe the fore shortening was 176km or less, where as the clear meaning of the word minimum is 176 km or more.

I'll leave the backpeddling to you.

 

[origin]

Thank you for the effort, but your hypothesis fell short!

For once I agree with you!

You must find a mechanism that accounts for a doubling of radius or an 8-fold increase in volume for the last 250 My.

Which will not be possible so it make sense to abandon this conjecture!

 

[Trippy]

In a normal, rational, sane argument the discussion would have gone something like this:
Me: "Carey forgot to account for the foreshortening of greater India as a result of the collision".
You: "This paper says the foreshortening of Greter India was only 176km"
Me: "It also states that 176km was a minimum, and the minimum foreshortening across the Orogen was 750km".
You: "Yes, but you said the foreshortening of Greater India"
Me: "Well okay, but the point remains that the foreshortening across the Orogen was 750km, and Carey seems to have failed to account for it."
And then proceed from there - perhaps moving onto Carey's arguments about the foreshortening.

My point is proven, I quote from the conclusion (something I should probably have just done in the first palce instead of dragging this stupidity out:

A regional profile across the Tibet-Himalaya orogen from the Subhimalaya to the Gangdese Shan (Transhimalaya), together with previous ly reported shortening estimates in the central Himalaya, yields a total shortening estimate across the orogen of 593–763 km. Timing constraints for thrusts south of and including the Main Central Thrust indicate that the underthrusting northern edge of the Indian Shield along the Main Himalayan Thrust did not reach the Indus-Yalu suture zone until the early Miocene, thereby allowing arc-type magmatism to persist north of the suture until that time.

 

[florian]

Pardon me?

I thought it was quite clear.

You're not. Could you please clarify your position please.

I remind you that I had to explain you what are subduction reversals, with a scheme... See this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2784047&postcount=47).

The reminder was un-neccessary…

It was. In a curious inversion, you persuade yourself that you knew what is a subdution reversal before I explained you what it truly is. Even more curious, you now believe that you had to explained it to me. The post cited above show an entirely different story…

More provocation. You persist with distractions.

And yet you demonstrate that you do not seem to understand the meaning of it, which is understandable, prehaps even tolerable, for someone that isn't a native anglophone.

Do you know the etymology of the word "minimum"? "Minimum" is a french word inherited from latin and borrowed by english. So, do you really believe that I don't know what it means?

You have not demonstrated me backpeddling.

backpeddling from the actual date of the Asia-Greater India collision, from the fact that there was a mobile arc-Greater India collision, and from the amount of shortening of greater India that you confused with the shortening of the whole orogen. That is a lot of backpeddling for a such a short sentence as "Carey seems to completely fail to account for any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia."

*You* are confused. It is clear that you confused the shortening across the whole orogen with that of greater India, which is evidently limited to the zone up to the Indus-Yalu suture zone. And no, you won't get away with more backpeddling. I remind you that your initial claim was that "Carey seems to completely fail to account for any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia." in post #159 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2791362&postcount=159).
You specifically mentioned the foreshortening of greater India and its collision with Asia, not its collision with a mobile arc nor the foreshortening of Asia.

I am confused about nothing, and what you're doing here is bordering on intellectual dishonesty.

Oh, so now I'm dishonest because I stick to the exact wording of the claim you made? The problem with you, is that you do not pay attention to the word you use, then blame your interlocutor for not guessing what you really meant.

The point that your steamrolling right past, in your attempt at poisoning the well, is that although I may have messed up my language slightly in the wording of my post, it should have been clear from the context of my discussion that I was referring to the foreshortening across the orogen, either way, Carey still failed to account for it.

It is not possible to have a serious scientific discussion with someone who is constantly moving the goalpost and accuse of dishonesty anyone pointing it.

Anyway, I'm still not sure that you understand the point made by Carey in the paragraph "Pacific Paradox". He points that according to the reconstructions usually presented, the Pacific was about the same size as of today (roughly one hemisphere), thus, did not substantially shrink as expected.
Then he explains that one counterargument could be that subduction of the hypothetic Tethys ocean corresponds to Pacific shrinking. But he refutes this argument by pointing that the angle distance between China and Australia did not change significally (remained at 47° or so), so no shortening there. Similarly seafloor spreading between antarctica and Asia is 66° either through India or australia/Indonesia.

Then, in post #160, I suggested to you to look at the Muller's latest reconstructions based on isochrons available at Earthbyte.org because they provide an apparent solution to this issue:

But you made no comments. I found it quite surprising. Too bad, because there is a lot to say about the details of these reconstructions.

Now back to your point. You assert that Carey forgot to account for the 750 km shortening related to India/Asia collision. Do you mean that the shortening was not included in the expression "closed by subduction" used by Carey?

As a matter of fact, crustal shortening by overthrusting is a prediction from Carey's diapiric orogenesis model. See p390 in Carey's "Necessity for Earth Expansion".
It is gravity driven which is the only valid process to form nappes given the relatively weak compressive and tensile strength of rocks. The advantage of gravity is that the force is applied uniformaly in the entire sheet, and not solely at one extremity. This also refutes plate tectonics hypothetic driving process like slab pull or ridge push.

Anyway. There are other interesting points related to the collision shortening (overthrusting+subduction).

Considering that the continental collision started only 35 millions years ago, we can calculate the amount of spreading seafloor that got emplaced in the Indian Ocean since that time (35 Ma). And that is about 1600 km along the North-South direction according to the data from Müller (see his G3 paper).

So at 35 My, continental greater India gets in contact with continental Asia. And it is expected that India continued to move northward for 1600 km (antartica does not move south in Muller's reconstruction). So 1600 km of continental crustal shortening+continental subduction are expected. According to Murphy and An Yin cited above, the total crustal shortening across the full orogen is ≈750 km. So we expect 1600-750=850 km of continental subduction for the extension of greater India.

The extension of greater India begins at the MFT going to the north (600 km maximum; see Aitchinson 2007). The distance between the MFT and the YTSZ is ≈200 km. It follows that a maximum of 600-200 km=400 km of the extension got subducted (continental subduction).

So we have 850-400=450 km of continental subduction minimum that is nowhere to be found.

How do you explain that?

Instead we get this moronic, bordering on myopic churlish...

It's just stupid and it's a waste of my time.

An friendly advice. Respect your interlocutor in the future and it won't happen again.

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

Be careful to quote appropriately, it causes more misunderstandings.

Which implies that you believe the fore shortening was 176km or less

No, because I read the entire paper, especially p27 to 31 where the calculation is detailed. Why did you ignore it?

 

[florian]

Which will not be possible so it make sense to abandon this conjecture!

This is not a conjecture, this is empirically derived.

I have a question for you: if you fail to find a causal mechanism to explain an observation then you deny the observation? Is it how you think Science work?

Your position is similar to denying that apples were falling from tree before Newton proposed a causal mechanism.

 

[Trippy]

It was. In a curious inversion, you persuade yourself that you knew what is a subdution reversal before I explained you what it truly is. Even more curious, you now believe that you had to explained it to me. The post cited above show an entirely different story…

No, because what you demonstrated later in the conversation was that you didn't understand it's application to the scenario being discussed, the role that the presence of buoyant continental crust, and whether or not migration can occur as part of a reversal.

Do you know the etymology of the word "minimum"?

Yes.

backpeddling from the actual date of the Asia-Greater India collision...

I haven't backpeddled from it, I've stated that the actual timing is irrelevant to the consideration of the amount of shortening that occured.

...from the fact that there was a mobile arc-Greater India collision...

I haven't back-peddled from that either - the contention there was whether or not fore shortening could occur at the same time. I stated the opinion that because acreetion occured in a compressional or transpressional regime that it was at least plausable. You have asserted flat out that because accretion means growth, that foreshortening is impossible.

...and from the amount of shortening of greater India that you confused with the shortening of the whole orogen....

I haven't backpeddled from that either. I haven't denied having said anything. I haven't reversed anything I have said, in any of these instance, therefore I haven't backpeddled.

That is a lot of backpeddling for a such a short sentence as "Carey seems to completely fail to account for any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia."

You have failed to demonstrate backpeddling on my account.

Oh, so now I'm dishonest because I stick to the exact wording of the claim you made? The problem with you, is that you do not pay attention to the word you use, then blame your interlocutor for not guessing what you really meant.

No, the problem lies with you, because you will not allow the conversation to evolve naturally. Your approach is that of a tabloid journalist trying to find the smallest flaw.

It is not possible to have a serious scientific discussion with someone who is constantly moving the goalpost and accuse of dishonesty anyone pointing it.

I have not moved the goal posts.

Anyway, I'm still not sure that you understand the point made by Carey in the paragraph "Pacific Paradox". He points that according to the reconstructions usually presented, the Pacific was about the same size as of today (roughly one hemisphere), thus, did not substantially shrink as expected.

No, I understand the point, and have addressed it directly.

Even if Carey was right, and we grant him that the land (including the Tethys ocean) occupied one hemisphere, and the paleo-pacific oce occupied the other, it's still moot, because the modern Pacific ocean occupies 30% of the earths surface, which is less than 50%, and that's if we extend it's eastern margin to it's asian boundary.

Then he explains that one counterargument could be that subduction of the hypothetic Tethys ocean corresponds to Pacific shrinking. But he refutes this argument by pointing that the angle distance between China and Australia did not change significally (remained at 47° or so), so no shortening there. Similarly seafloor spreading between antarctica and Asia is 66° either through India or australia/Indonesia.

I'm at work, my PDF's are at home, I'm not going to download them.

I maintain that this is where Carey erred. If India was up to 950 km longer than it is now, and that length was in the direction of motion, then a greater proportion of the distance between southern tip of india and antarctica is ocean than the proportion of distance between the Northern tip of India, and the southern margin of Asia when India began its trip northwards.

To put it another way, and let me be clear, I'm going to use some approximations to illustrate a point.

Carey asserts that the angular distance between China and India was, and still is, 66°, correct?
The distance between Lucknow in the north, and Trivandum in the south is 2085km (air travel distance, I'm using it as a proxy until I get something more accurate - one of the approximations I mentioned making).

For the sake of simplicity, if we treat the earth as a sphere for the moment, and use its mean radius of 6,371 km, then we can deduce that currently, India accounts for 18.75° (this is underestimated, incidentaly, because you can go North of Lucknow, and south of Trivandum and not leave modern India) of this, and the remaining 74.25° is accounted for by the Indian, and Southern oceans.

However, if India was, at the time it began its trek northwards, a minimum of 726km longer, and a maximum of 950 km longer, then India would have been between 2811km long and 3035km long, which equates to an angular length of between 25.28° and 27.29°. This means that depending on which estimates we use, although the angular distance between Asia and Antarctica may have remained the same, the Ocean between them has still expanded by between 8.54° and 6.53°

Then, in post #160, I suggested to you to look at the Muller's latest reconstructions based on isochrons available at Earthbyte.org because they provide an apparent solution to this issue:

But you made no comments. I found it quite surprising. Too bad, because there is a lot to say about the details of these reconstructions.

I don't recall why I didn't comment on them. They're nothing new to me. I've mentioned the subduction of the phoenix plate in one of our other discussions, as being part of the causal mechanism for the reversal of polarity and migration of the eastern gondwana subduction zone that has resulted in the initiation of a new sibduction zone south of new zealand (the puysegur trench).

Now back to your point. You assert that Carey forgot to account for the 750 km shortening related to India/Asia collision. Do you mean that the shortening was not included in the expression "closed by subduction" used by Carey?

I don't know if he intended to include it in that expression or not. As I have illustrated above, I don't think he has considered it.

As a matter of fact, crustal shortening by overthrusting is a prediction from Carey's diapiric orogenesis model. See p390 in Carey's "Necessity for Earth Expansion".

Yes, I'm aware of how he proposed to account for shortening and overthrusting, thankyou.

It is gravity driven which is the only valid process to form nappes given the relatively weak compressive and tensile strength of rocks. The advantage of gravity is that the force is applied uniformaly in the entire sheet, and not solely at one extremity.

I'm aware of his assertions and hypotheses in this regard.

This also refutes plate tectonics hypothetic driving process like slab pull or ridge push.

No, it doesn't. At best it provides an alternative.

Anyway. There are other interesting points related to the collision shortening (overthrusting+subduction).

Considering that the continental collision started only 35 millions years ago, we can calculate the amount of spreading seafloor that got emplaced in the Indian Ocean since that time (35 Ma).

When it began in earnest depends on what sources you follow, you've chosen to adhere to one particular paper, which has had points raised in opposition to it.

And that is about 1600 km along the North-South direction according to the data from Müller (see his G3 paper).

I would need to look into Müllers paper when I get home from work before I could really comment on this.

Müller So at 35 My, continental greater India gets in contact with continental Asia. And it is expected that India continued to move northward for 1600 km (antartica does not move south in Muller's reconstruction).[/quote]
According to the diagrams you posted, it does, however move between 15° and 30° further south during the course of Indias migration northward

So 1600 km of continental crustal shortening+continental subduction are expected. According to Murphy and An Yin cited above, the total crustal shortening across the full orogen is ≈750 km. So we expect 1600-750=850 km of continental subduction for the extension of greater India.

The extension of greater India begins at the MFT going to the north (600 km maximum; see Aitchinson 2007). The distance between the MFT and the YTSZ is ≈200 km. It follows that a maximum of 600-200 km=400 km of the extension got subducted (continental subduction).

So we have 850-400=450 km of continental subduction minimum that is nowhere to be found.

How do you explain that?

For a start off, they said the 750km was a minimum, so we expect a maximum of 850km of subduction.
Secondly, some estimates put the shortening at closer to 950km, which reduces your 'anomaly'.
I seem to recall reading something in one of Murphy's papers - it might even have been the one with Yin that we've been discussing mentioned some seismic activity that was suggestive of the pressence of subducted continental crust, but I don't recall enough of the details at this point. Further comment would have to wait.

An friendly advice. Respect your interlocutor in the future and it won't happen again.

You reacted with aggression when I moved this thread.
I treat people the way they treat me. Treat me with respect, and I will return the favour. Treat me with derision and aggression, and I will equally return the favour.

Be careful to quote appropriately, it causes more misunderstandings.

All I did there was misplace a [/quote] tag (IIRC), and this is a distraction from the point I was raising.

No, because I read the entire paper, especially p27 to 31 where the calculation is detailed. Why did you ignore it?

Why do you assume I ignore it? I seem to recall (again, I would need to have it open in front of me to comment with any degree of certainty) that in the section you're referring to, they also explained that it was a minimum because they hadn't been able to account for deformation in the hanging wall of one of the faults (or something very similar anyway).

 

[jsispat]

PLS SEE THE DEPTH .

first let me introduce myself as a independent scientist researching on earth formation . i have very much different idea for earth formation as below . i need help to continue my work.


1) Earth is itself a single living organism like a tree. And covered by crust like a trunk covered by bark. crust = bark

2) some type of meteoroids contains amino acid and biological chemistry are seeds of planets. one planet is a result of one meteoroid as one tree is a result of one seed.

3) out these meteoroids some can germinate in asteroids only and out of these asteroids some can convert in big planets .

4) continents separated from each other like a puzzle is very much clear visual evidence for its growth and expansion. PT is playing vital role for this and same type of PT is also playing vital role for the growth and expansion of trunk of tree.

5) Crude oil (an organic compound ) is produce by earth itself due to metabolism in the earth only. fossil oil theory is not true. it is linked with living organism because it is produced by earth only and earth is itself a single living organism.


pls observe the following links for more clarification with depth only.

http://img861.imageshack.us/i/treebarkcontinents.png/ --- Bark & Continents



http://yfrog.com/5ucorecrustj Core Crust

http://yfrog.com/0g72697054j Plate Tectonic 4.

http://yfrog.com/m9meteoriodj Meteoroids Seeds

http://yfrog.com/5rasteoidplantj Asteroid Plant

http://yfrog.com/5xvalcano2j Volcano Lava

http://yfrog.com/6zpicxaj bark Earth & Tree

http://yfrog.com/gh08810treebark1221170loj TREE BARKS



http://yfrog.com/0tplatetectonics2j Subduction Zone

http://www.mediafire.com/?va0pjtfjjn4m2md Pdf theory complete

http://yfrog.com/h4moo6j Safeda

http://img705.imageshack.us/i/platetectonics.jpg/ PLATE TECTONIC LINK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7i5CY6XNo&NR=1 fossil oil theory is not true and oil is producing in crust as this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3lG3FX9D68


regs
suresh bansal

 

[Trippy]

Meanwhile, in other news:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-254

The team applied a new data calculation technique to estimate the rate of change in the solid Earth's average radius over time, taking into account the effects of other geophysical processes. The previously discussed geodetic techniques (satellite laser ranging, very-long baseline interferometry and GPS) were used to obtain data on Earth surface movements from a global network of carefully selected sites. These data were then combined with measurements of Earth's gravity from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) spacecraft and models of ocean bottom pressure, which help scientists interpret gravity change data over the ocean.

The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.

"Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.

 

[Read-Only]

Meanwhile, in other news:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-254

And that increase is simply the result of the space debris (primarily dust but also substantially larger objects - meteorites) that falls on the Earth each year.

And it should settle the entire argument for everyone here with any significant degree of intelligence (which naturally excludes certain individual participants in this thread).

 

[wlminex]

Remembering that my math skills suck . . . . . . let's see now . . . . h-m-m-m-m . . . 0.004 in/yr = 6.31 x 10 E-8 mi/yr, right? . . . now, assuming the same 'expansion rate' has gone on for . . . say 100 M yr, we get 6.31 mi/100 M yr, right? Now . . . . . for 280 M yr (est. length of time for current plate tectonics processes) . . . we get 6.31 mi x 2.8 = 9.11 mi, right?

Since we see 'age-evidence' for really-old (say, ~2.0 b.y.) lithosphere, in Precambrian times, we might be able to say that the the earth's radius has increased 26.3 miles (~ 47km) since then, until now. And that's just assuming expansion rate has remained constant from whatever cause. That calculates-out to about 9253 cubic km (or 9.253 x 10 E+18 cc) of earth volume increase. Take that volume x ~ 2.6 g/cc (avg lithospheric density) and we get 1.185 x 10 E+19 g.

Someone else please take over the 'change in angular-momentum calculation' from here. Has the earth's rotation rate significantly changed in 2 b.y.? Has the 'day' lengthened? And how's 'bout those density-phase changes (Asthenosphere --> Lithosphere)?

More discussion later . . . .wlminex

 

[Emil]

And that increase is simply the result of the space debris (primarily dust but also substantially larger objects - meteorites) that falls on the Earth each year.

And it should settle the entire argument for everyone here with any significant degree of intelligence (which naturally excludes certain individual participants in this thread).

Yes, everyone knows that 51 cubic kilometers (51x10 ^ 9 cubic meters) dust and meteorites falls to the earth annually.

 

[florian]

Meanwhile, in other news:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-254

It happens that I discussed this GRL paper with one of the co-author, Xavier Collilieux from IGN.

We discussed details on the model and data they use.

First they selected stations outside of regions that actively deform (orogens, active margins). So they eliminate from their database every station that would be affected by important geodynamic processes. This simplification is a rather unfortunate choice knowing that these geodynamic processes are the expression of the growth. Excluding them leads to the exclusion of a lot of data accounting for the growth.

Second, they used a plate model to account for horizontal displacement and simply add a unique global vertical component to account for vertical displacement (radius growth). Thus they assume a global growth with spherical symmetry independent on lithosphere horizontal motion. This is flawed as well, because the horizontal displacements are a response to the inner growth (See the scheme illustrating India's northward displacement on a growing Earth). The horizontal component that must contribute to the growth measurment are implicitly excluded by the model.

Obviously, this combination of data and model choices can't measure a growth which we know is asymetrical (much larger in the southern hemisphere), occurs locally by bulging and concurrent or subsequent isostatic adjustment, including gravity gliding, and which most dramatic measurable effects on continents are localized in orogens.

There are other issues that I'm discussing with Xavier, like the fact that each major earthquake shifts the center of mass of Earth by many cm. I hope he will have time soon to explain how they account for this ever changing center of referential.

So this is a typical paper biased by premises and simplifications which arise from the plate tectonic model. A good example of circular reasoning. The background issue is that the growth is much more difficult to modelize than relatively simple rotations of plates around euler poles. May be that Xavier and his coworkers will be able to build a better model in the future.

PS: I'll reply to your post #208 when I get some spare time later this week. Meanwhile, for some of your points, may I suggest you to use Google Earth and the overlays of Ocean Floor datation derived from Muller's data: Age of Ocean Floor for Google Earth

 

[florian]

I understand that most people not familiar with geology have a hard time with the geological time scale.

So to put things in perspective, I propose an example to illustrate what we could expect at our time scale for the current growth rate.

Maxlow estimates that the growth rate is about 2.2 cm/year in radius (See his PhD thesis). Keep in mind that it is an average calculated over the last million years.

But let's assume that there will be that 2.2-cm growth this year.
We can calculate that this 2.2-cm increase in radius corresponds to an increase in surface equal to (4*pi*(6371.000022^2-6371^2)=3.5 km2
So, just 50 dikes, averaging 70 m in length and 1 meter in width, inserted along the 80,000 km of your favorites mid ocean ridges, would be sufficient to account for the total growth for the year.

Right?

 

[Robittybob1]

If you mean "is the Earth gaining mass over time", then yes. The Earth gains a tiny amount of mass every year as meteorites fall to the Earth. It's a very tiny amount.

If you mean this expanding Earth: , then no. I do not believe that is happening, and the burden of proof falls only anyone who does believe it to convince me.

Well I believe it and I am in the process of proving it on a thread in the Biology section Physforum. Life started on Mercury for the Earth was compressed.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Aaagh!
New crank.

 

[Aqueous Id]

You could suggest they add a crankshaft smiley.

 

[Trooper]

Aaagh!
New crank.

Oh, boy howdy, and ready yourself because he also has typomania.

Hey, I have a great idea. Why don’t you hang here with Dywyddyr for a while?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Oh, boy howdy, and ready yourself because he also has typomania.

Yeah, I've just finished reading that. Which prompts me to comment:

I am in the process of proving it

No, you're in the process of propounding it. And getting your arse kicked.
When will cranks (correction: Will cranks ever) learn that inane uneducated ramblings with no support but abundant refutation do NOT constitute proof?