Mathemetician required
I'm looking someone with the mathematical skills to assist. Any takers?
Is the earth expanding?
- Thread starter bgjyd834
- Start date
I wonder why they directed you to the Cranks Thread on Physforum. I can't put in links just yet but that will soon change - typomania wins in the end!
Last edited:
Thanks mate. I've got my quota now so should be OK with links from now on.
Just have to try it out.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29842
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
Until the physics is sorted out, then its still a good idea to repeat these seafloor removal models and perhaps take those to another level. At least those are clear. We can observe those results are not random. Unlike what many propose here these models are valid scientific constructions and no different to those used in many fields.
If the floor is removed in a linear manner by age such that the continents fit back, and this can be repeated by others, that is evidence no matter what the visually impaired by other kinds of data think. Lets face it continental drift and pangea looks ridiculous when taken of the written page and produced as model. EE justs gets better with the release of more data and is the reason that James Maxlow was awarded a P.hD in this topic
If the floor is removed in a linear manner by age such that the continents fit back, and this can be repeated by others, that is evidence no matter what the visually impaired by other kinds of data think. Lets face it continental drift and pangea looks ridiculous when taken of the written page and produced as model. EE justs gets better with the release of more data and is the reason that James Maxlow was awarded a P.hD in this topic
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
Nasa found Earth expansion was currently 18mm. Close to what maxlow calculated which was 22mm with a variance of 4mm ! What happened to these results. They were then tweaked to eliminate the growth figure later. Maxlow looked into the subsequent maths done, which reduced it to almost zero. It was all tweaks to eliminate what they perceived to be an error. Not to deceive anybody, or get rid of EE (they arent even aware its currently going) but just to male the results consistent with what they know.
(Robaudo and Harrison, 1993). who did the work for Nasa and decided to correct their readings for expansion. their findings mentioned here.
Problems with Plate Tectonics
– Reply to Paul Lowman's Review (NCGT Newsletter no. 20) –
David Pratt
(First published in New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, no. 21, p. 10-24, December 2001)
" Plate rigidity is a central tenet of plate tectonics. However, it is recognized to be only an approximation: intraplate deformation is demonstrated by earthquakes in stable plate interiors, subsidence in midcontinental basins, and uplift of the surface over hotspot swells in the oceans. Deformation in the stable interior of the North American plate is said to be no more than a few millimetres per year, but is greater in the Basin and Range province and other regions in the west of the US, which are regarded as part of the plate boundary zone. It is acknowledged that "the modelled assumption of rigid plates frequently fails not only at plate boundaries but at considerable distances from boundaries" (Smith and Baltuck, 1993, p. 2). For instance, predicted motion in the mid-Pacific is in error by 6 to 8 mm/yr (Ryan et al., 1993).
Whenever discrepancies are found between measured and predicted motions, explanations are sought within the context of plate tectonics. For instance, the NUVEL-1 Africa-North America pole of rotation is said to lie "surprisingly far" (14°) from that of the best-fitting angular velocity; it is speculated that this misfit may be due to "systematic errors or significant plate nonrigidity" (Gordon, 1995).
On the basis of VLBI/GPS data for three sites in the Caribbean, the angular velocity of the relative motion between the Caribbean and North American plates was computed to have a rate of 0.23 ± 0.08°/Myr, twice the NUVEL-1A rate of 0.11 ± 0.03°/Myr; the direction was 62.2°N and -93.3°E, as against 74.3°N and 153.9°E. Furthermore, the estimated geodetic angular velocity failed to explain all the observed motion at the three sites. Three possible explanations were given: (1) the three sites are not all attached to a common rigid plate, (2) there are systematic measurement errors, or (3) the measurement uncertainties have been underestimated (MacMillan and Ma, 1999).
The pole of rotation derived from GPS data for the Pacific plate was found to lie 11.5° west of the NUVEL-1A pole, with an angular speed 10% faster. The suggested explanation was that the motion of the Pacific plate over the last 5 years did not agree with its motion over the last 3 Myr. The GPS velocity of Baltra Island on the Nazca plate is almost 50% slower (20±5 mm/yr) than the predicted value. The investigators stated that they could not account for the entire discrepancy, but thought that the plate might be deforming internally (Larson et al., 1997). Angermann et al. (1999) found that GPS velocities of four Nazca plate sites, relative to the South American plate, are about 20% slower than the NUVEL-1A plate model velocities and earlier geodetic measurements. Convergence rates for the two plates from several studies vary considerably.
The observed motion of Arequipa in the western Andes relative to North America is 13±1.5 mm/yr with an azimuth of 55°. According to model predictions, however, it should be moving at 10 mm/yr with an azimuth at 293° (Robaudo and Harrison, 1993). This major difference in the direction of movement is said to be due to a portion of the subduction motion being transferred into a portion of the overriding plate; some 25% of Nazca-South America plate motion is allegedly taken up by seismic and shortening mechanisms in the Andes (MacMillan and Ma, 1999). Similar discrepancies have been found in other backarc regions and interpreted in the same way.
The reigning plate-tectonic paradigm has biased the interpretation of space-geodetic data with its assumption that entire "plates" must be moving as more or less rigid units. The literature is riddled with anomalies, inconsistencies, and ad hoc explanations. Motion is certainly occurring in seismotectonic zones but, as Oard (2000a) remarks, "It is possible that in some areas the motion is in the opposite direction from that inferred by PT, and may be caused by vertical tectonics, instead of by underthrusting of one plate below another" (p. 43). He cites various pieces of geodetic evidence: the Tonga arc is moving eastward relative to the Pacific plate, which can be considered stationary (Bevis et al., 1995); the 1994 Shikotan earthquake caused GPS benchmarks on eastern Hokkaido, Japan, to move eastward up to 42 cm and subside up to 60 cm (Kikuchi and Kanamori, 1995); the magnitude 8.0 Antofagasta earthquake of 1995 moved the coast of Chile almost one metre westward relative to the Pacific plate (Klotz et al., 1999); and the Timor trough (eastern Java trench) appears to be inactive while the southern Banda arc is undergoing north-south extension (Genrich et al., 1996).
A brief review of some of the other problems facing plate tectonics provides further grounds for questioning PT interpretations of space-geodetic data."
(Robaudo and Harrison, 1993). who did the work for Nasa and decided to correct their readings for expansion. their findings mentioned here.
Problems with Plate Tectonics
– Reply to Paul Lowman's Review (NCGT Newsletter no. 20) –
David Pratt
(First published in New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, no. 21, p. 10-24, December 2001)
" Plate rigidity is a central tenet of plate tectonics. However, it is recognized to be only an approximation: intraplate deformation is demonstrated by earthquakes in stable plate interiors, subsidence in midcontinental basins, and uplift of the surface over hotspot swells in the oceans. Deformation in the stable interior of the North American plate is said to be no more than a few millimetres per year, but is greater in the Basin and Range province and other regions in the west of the US, which are regarded as part of the plate boundary zone. It is acknowledged that "the modelled assumption of rigid plates frequently fails not only at plate boundaries but at considerable distances from boundaries" (Smith and Baltuck, 1993, p. 2). For instance, predicted motion in the mid-Pacific is in error by 6 to 8 mm/yr (Ryan et al., 1993).
Whenever discrepancies are found between measured and predicted motions, explanations are sought within the context of plate tectonics. For instance, the NUVEL-1 Africa-North America pole of rotation is said to lie "surprisingly far" (14°) from that of the best-fitting angular velocity; it is speculated that this misfit may be due to "systematic errors or significant plate nonrigidity" (Gordon, 1995).
On the basis of VLBI/GPS data for three sites in the Caribbean, the angular velocity of the relative motion between the Caribbean and North American plates was computed to have a rate of 0.23 ± 0.08°/Myr, twice the NUVEL-1A rate of 0.11 ± 0.03°/Myr; the direction was 62.2°N and -93.3°E, as against 74.3°N and 153.9°E. Furthermore, the estimated geodetic angular velocity failed to explain all the observed motion at the three sites. Three possible explanations were given: (1) the three sites are not all attached to a common rigid plate, (2) there are systematic measurement errors, or (3) the measurement uncertainties have been underestimated (MacMillan and Ma, 1999).
The pole of rotation derived from GPS data for the Pacific plate was found to lie 11.5° west of the NUVEL-1A pole, with an angular speed 10% faster. The suggested explanation was that the motion of the Pacific plate over the last 5 years did not agree with its motion over the last 3 Myr. The GPS velocity of Baltra Island on the Nazca plate is almost 50% slower (20±5 mm/yr) than the predicted value. The investigators stated that they could not account for the entire discrepancy, but thought that the plate might be deforming internally (Larson et al., 1997). Angermann et al. (1999) found that GPS velocities of four Nazca plate sites, relative to the South American plate, are about 20% slower than the NUVEL-1A plate model velocities and earlier geodetic measurements. Convergence rates for the two plates from several studies vary considerably.
The observed motion of Arequipa in the western Andes relative to North America is 13±1.5 mm/yr with an azimuth of 55°. According to model predictions, however, it should be moving at 10 mm/yr with an azimuth at 293° (Robaudo and Harrison, 1993). This major difference in the direction of movement is said to be due to a portion of the subduction motion being transferred into a portion of the overriding plate; some 25% of Nazca-South America plate motion is allegedly taken up by seismic and shortening mechanisms in the Andes (MacMillan and Ma, 1999). Similar discrepancies have been found in other backarc regions and interpreted in the same way.
The reigning plate-tectonic paradigm has biased the interpretation of space-geodetic data with its assumption that entire "plates" must be moving as more or less rigid units. The literature is riddled with anomalies, inconsistencies, and ad hoc explanations. Motion is certainly occurring in seismotectonic zones but, as Oard (2000a) remarks, "It is possible that in some areas the motion is in the opposite direction from that inferred by PT, and may be caused by vertical tectonics, instead of by underthrusting of one plate below another" (p. 43). He cites various pieces of geodetic evidence: the Tonga arc is moving eastward relative to the Pacific plate, which can be considered stationary (Bevis et al., 1995); the 1994 Shikotan earthquake caused GPS benchmarks on eastern Hokkaido, Japan, to move eastward up to 42 cm and subside up to 60 cm (Kikuchi and Kanamori, 1995); the magnitude 8.0 Antofagasta earthquake of 1995 moved the coast of Chile almost one metre westward relative to the Pacific plate (Klotz et al., 1999); and the Timor trough (eastern Java trench) appears to be inactive while the southern Banda arc is undergoing north-south extension (Genrich et al., 1996).
A brief review of some of the other problems facing plate tectonics provides further grounds for questioning PT interpretations of space-geodetic data."
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
Yes not to forget an explanation of the TGD concept itself for EE and gravity.
The quantization of Planck constant has been the basic them of TGD since 2005 and the perspective in the earlier version of this chapter reflected the situation for about year and one half after the basic idea stimulated by the finding of Nottale that planetary orbits could be seen as Bohr orbits with enormous value of Planck constant given by hbargr = GM1M2/v0, v0 ≈ 2-11 for the inner planets. The general form of hbargr is dictated by Equivalence Principle. This inspired the ideas that quantization is due to a condensation of ordinary matter around dark matter concentrated near Bohr orbits and that dark matter is in macroscopic quantum phase in astrophysical scales.
The second crucial empirical input were the anomalies associated with living matter. Mention only the effects of ELF radiation at EEG frequencies on vertebrate brain and anomalous behavior of the ionic currents through cell membrane. If the value of Planck constant is large, the energy of EEG photons is above thermal energy and one can understand the effects on both physiology and behavior. If ionic currents through cell membrane have large Planck constant the scale of quantum coherence is large and one can understand the observed low dissipation in terms of quantum coherence.
1. The evolution of mathematical ideas
From the beginning the basic challenge -besides the need to deduce a general formula for the quantized Planck constant- was to understand how the quantization of Planck constant is mathematically possible. From the beginning it was clear that since particles with different values of Planck constant cannot appear in the same vertex, a generalization of space-time concept is needed to achieve this.
Google Quantum version of Expanding Earth theory for more.
The quantization of Planck constant has been the basic them of TGD since 2005 and the perspective in the earlier version of this chapter reflected the situation for about year and one half after the basic idea stimulated by the finding of Nottale that planetary orbits could be seen as Bohr orbits with enormous value of Planck constant given by hbargr = GM1M2/v0, v0 ≈ 2-11 for the inner planets. The general form of hbargr is dictated by Equivalence Principle. This inspired the ideas that quantization is due to a condensation of ordinary matter around dark matter concentrated near Bohr orbits and that dark matter is in macroscopic quantum phase in astrophysical scales.
The second crucial empirical input were the anomalies associated with living matter. Mention only the effects of ELF radiation at EEG frequencies on vertebrate brain and anomalous behavior of the ionic currents through cell membrane. If the value of Planck constant is large, the energy of EEG photons is above thermal energy and one can understand the effects on both physiology and behavior. If ionic currents through cell membrane have large Planck constant the scale of quantum coherence is large and one can understand the observed low dissipation in terms of quantum coherence.
1. The evolution of mathematical ideas
From the beginning the basic challenge -besides the need to deduce a general formula for the quantized Planck constant- was to understand how the quantization of Planck constant is mathematically possible. From the beginning it was clear that since particles with different values of Planck constant cannot appear in the same vertex, a generalization of space-time concept is needed to achieve this.
Google Quantum version of Expanding Earth theory for more.
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
Geology requires massive resources to test an idea. When it was decided to see if continental drift was correct entire fleets of ships and crews of scientists were required. Wegners ideas were ignored in his time and considered in the same ways maxlows are now.
from wiki on _Wegener
Wegener presented a large amount of very strong evidence in support of continental drift, but the mechanism remained elusive. While his ideas attracted a few early supporters such as Alexander Du Toit from South Africa and Arthur Holmes in England, the hypothesis was generally met with skepticism from largely conservative scientists, who were resistant to any change in the status quo. The one American edition of Wegener's work, published in 1925, was received so poorly that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists organized a symposium specifically in opposition to the continental drift hypothesis. Its opponents could argue, as did the Leipziger geologist Franz Kossmat, that the oceanic crust was too "firm" for the continents to "simply plough through", a suggestion which ignored the plasticity of all rocks at depth and at high temperatures and pressures. The comment also ignored the vast time-scale over which continental drift has occurred, effectively the total age of the earth of about 4.5 billion years.
In 1943 George Gaylord Simpson wrote a vehement attack on the theory (as well as the rival theory of sunken land bridges) and put forward his own permanentist views.[8] Alexander du Toit wrote a rejoinder in the following year,[9] but G.G.Simpson's influence was so powerful that even in countries previously sympathetic towards continental drift, like Australia, Wegener's hypothesis fell out of favour.
need i say more for the above link except the idea that wegeners ideas were annihilated is a false statement or they would not have re-surfaced in light of new evidence. ideas are not annihilated as in some kind of fundamentalist killing spree deleting all traces of them. that would be highly regressive. Ideas are de-prioritized for various reasons. In Wegners case he was in conflict with people who were trying to command resources of that time and so he received a rebuttal so resources could be shifted where people thought fit at that point in time.
from wiki on _Wegener
Wegener presented a large amount of very strong evidence in support of continental drift, but the mechanism remained elusive. While his ideas attracted a few early supporters such as Alexander Du Toit from South Africa and Arthur Holmes in England, the hypothesis was generally met with skepticism from largely conservative scientists, who were resistant to any change in the status quo. The one American edition of Wegener's work, published in 1925, was received so poorly that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists organized a symposium specifically in opposition to the continental drift hypothesis. Its opponents could argue, as did the Leipziger geologist Franz Kossmat, that the oceanic crust was too "firm" for the continents to "simply plough through", a suggestion which ignored the plasticity of all rocks at depth and at high temperatures and pressures. The comment also ignored the vast time-scale over which continental drift has occurred, effectively the total age of the earth of about 4.5 billion years.
In 1943 George Gaylord Simpson wrote a vehement attack on the theory (as well as the rival theory of sunken land bridges) and put forward his own permanentist views.[8] Alexander du Toit wrote a rejoinder in the following year,[9] but G.G.Simpson's influence was so powerful that even in countries previously sympathetic towards continental drift, like Australia, Wegener's hypothesis fell out of favour.
need i say more for the above link except the idea that wegeners ideas were annihilated is a false statement or they would not have re-surfaced in light of new evidence. ideas are not annihilated as in some kind of fundamentalist killing spree deleting all traces of them. that would be highly regressive. Ideas are de-prioritized for various reasons. In Wegners case he was in conflict with people who were trying to command resources of that time and so he received a rebuttal so resources could be shifted where people thought fit at that point in time.
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
A convoy of crankshafts approaching.
Can you give me a straight answer to this question. Anybody is invited.
Considering that the isochroms of the entire seafloor are mapped in removed in a time regression linear manner winding back all the plates to one piece are you seriously telling me that this is a randomized regression ?
Nobody could dare say thats random. Its a clear windback.
so whats left ?
you have to call it a hoax, fudged ....or more to the point dodge the point and try to move on to mechanisms ?
Can you answer the question ? i will repeat it and keep doing so till i get a straight answer.
Considering that the isochroms of the entire seafloor are mapped in removed in a time regression linear manner winding back all the plates to one piece are you seriously telling me that this is a randomized regression ?
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
i dont expect a serious reply, or even a reply at all, as this is the elephant in the room that everybody has been running away from.
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
well at least this thread is in fringe. Some other so called rational skeptics forums out there have put this into psudoscience. Well they dont actually have a fringe or alternative section. All proto and fringe science is pseudoscience, but thats another topic.
so late introduction. I find this theory interesting and good to see a better level of debate on this than elsewhere.
so late introduction. I find this theory interesting and good to see a better level of debate on this than elsewhere.
Well just to prove you wrong here is a reply. Are you saying it is an important Elephant?
Expanding Earth to me implies a previously compressed Earth agree?
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
i wont discuss mechanisms or anything else at this stage. i asked a very simple question.
"Considering that the isochrons of the entire seafloor are mapped in removed in a time regression linear manner winding back all the plates to one piece are you seriously telling me that this is a randomized regression ?"
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
typo above "isochrons".. post editor not working.
If that is a simple question I'd hate to see a difficult one!
Could you for my benefit rephrase the question, for I consider myself pretty much an expert on this topic (not). God loves a trier. I'm trying to become an expert.
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
If that is a simple question I'd hate to see a difficult one!
Could you for my benefit rephrase the question, for I consider myself pretty much an expert on this topic (not). God loves a trier. I'm trying to become an expert.
the isochrons are the vector patches of paleomagnetic seafloor data with the colours, i presume you know what i mean. Cant post links as newbie.
In animations such as maxlows and the more crystal clear neal adams..
google "Growing Earth - Rainbow - Neal Adams" on youtube.
they map this entire seafloor onto a spherical earth.
the seafloor is then removed piece by piece according to the ages its formed in time periods depending on how long you want the animation. in neal adams its about 1 Ma per second obviously divided by frame rate.
that is linear time regression of geological data and so is scientific. Not only is it time periodic (the sea floor removal), the manner in which the plates move back also has a directional vector. The isochron stripe lines.
This means the entire animation is on rails. Its like having a film of every train journery for the past 10 years from a topological view with a timetable for that period and checking if the trains arrived at their destinations or not.
Thats how clear it is. there is no random fit back together. Its completely clear scientific evidence.
so the question that then remains is how ? do you agree on that ?
then the next question is whether the animation is fudged but if we can get to an answer to the above question first. It this a clear linear regression which is not random ?
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
typo again, should read
is this a clear linear regression which is not random ?
is this a clear linear regression which is not random ?
My computer set up is not that great no you tube from here but i'll look at it later (a day or two).
Why are you questioning it?
"Is this a clear linear regression which is not random?" Are you asking can you take current rates of movements and extrapolate those rates back into the past, and keep the same linear rates and not need other possibly random rates?
I think you need to spend some time actually studying the continental drift hypothesis.