Is the earth expanding?

[rogerharris]

I have, in fact, already answered this question. Your inability to recognize such is not my problem.

no you didnt you just skirted around and wandered off into irrelevant areas. Everybody here knows why you wont answer so you are fooling nobody.

Here's a second answer for you. It's invalid as proof of anything, because doing so would be circular logic.

explain ?

 

[Trippy]

no you didnt you just skirted around and wandered off into irrelevant areas. Everybody here knows why you wont answer so you are fooling nobody.

I have answered :shrugs: rail against it all you want, I don't care. But before you make any further assinine comments, stop and consider that maybe there's some things your missing because you've got your blinkers on.

explain ?

What your using to prove that the earth is expanding, is itself predicated on the assumption that the earth is expanding.

 

[rogerharris]

I have answered :shrugs: rail against it all you want, I don't care. But before you make any further assinine comments, stop and consider that maybe there's some things your missing because you've got your blinkers on.

it was a very simple question, but i see below you are attempting to address it.

What your using to prove that the earth is expanding, is itself predicated on the assumption that the earth is expanding.

then you can say that about all deductive methods including those used on tectonics or all of science even, including particle accelerators, using blue gene computers to trace genetics back hundreds of millions of years. Shall we fill a page here ?

You can use Godels arguments as a getout of anything.

Again being slippery.

Ok lets simplify it even more. Lets say we dont give a hoot about expanding earth. It does not exist as an idea.

We have some curious geologists who would like to see what happens when we remove the ocean floor according to the time it is formed. Thats not circular. It is a valid regression experiment.

So you are saying if you construct an experiment to verify a hypothesis its circular ?

You can just as easily say this is a falsification. you can have the theory that there is an expanding earth so lets falsify it. If we remove the ocean floor according to time then it should not fit back together.

 

[Trippy]

it was a very simple question, but i see below you are attempting to address it.

Fallacy of 'No simple answer' - not all seemingly simple questions have straightforward yes or no answers. You're presenting a question as a yes or no question

then you can say that about all deductive methods including those used on tectonics

No, because subduction tectonics does not require an earth of constant radius to work, it can work on a planet with a changing radius.

or all of science even, including particle accelerators, using blue gene computers to trace genetics back hundreds of millions of years. Shall we fill a page here ?

No, because what you're presenting is a reductio ad absurdium, you're extrapolating an argument to an absurd conclusion, that isn't actually implied by the original argument, and then claiming that your absurd conclusion invalidates the argument.

You can just as easily say this is a falsification. you can have the theory that there is an expanding earth so lets falsify it. If we remove the ocean floor according to time then it should not fit back together.

I've skipped most of what you've said, because it's verging on inanity, but I thought I might address this point briefly.

As I believe I have stated, several times now, Plate tectonics also predicts that they will fit back together. The fact that they fit back together was one of the initial pieces of evidence used to support the theory of plate tectonics, so what you're doing is presenting a strawman argument.

 

[sathearn]

Nasa found Earth expansion was currently 18mm.

No, they didn't, they found that if it was expanding, it was doing so at a rate of less than 18mm. The set an upper limit.

Do you understand that saying that the upper limit on my height is 3m does not in any way imply that I am 3m tall?

Actually neither description of their result is quite accurate. Robaudo and Harrison found that the stations in the global VLBI data set to 1990 had an average annual up-down motion of "over 18 mm/yr" - when they ran a solution using two components of the data considered more reliable than the third, and when the solution permitted three independent velocities including the up-down one. This was a root mean square result, which means that it is expressed as an absolute value. Therefore it is also consistent with a global contraction of 18 mm/yr or with a mixed result, with some stations going up, some going down by an average of this absolute-value amount. It is also consistent with some unknown source of error.

So in one sense, Trippy's point is correct. Since the result is expressed as an absolute value, ~+ 18 mm/yr is the maximum expansion which the result would support. However it also seems significant, as Roger suggests, that the result is so precisely in line with what EE predicts should be the average up-down velocity of the stations (when expressed in absolute value terms). In fact, last I did the math, the area of the most recent isochrons, converted to radius and divided by time, is closer to 18 than 22.

The fact that this result is no ho-hum finding, contrary to the implication of Trippy's comment, is further underscored by Robaudo and Harrison's discussion and treatment of it. They were clearly perplexed by the result, considering it "extremely high" and explicitly comparing it with glacial rebound, according which a few stations are expected to be rising by a maximum of 10 mm/yr - which sharply contrasts with their finding that the average for all stations was rising (or falling) by twice that amount each year. They did not consider the fact there is an extant geotectonic hypothesis, according to which the result is just what was to be expected, and so they simply assumed the result to be spurious. Therefore they decided to restrict vertical motion "to be zero" for the remainder of their study.

Had they realized (or acknowledged) that the Expansion hypotheses existed, the proper course would have been to highlight the need for further space geodetic research to address the question, and if possible to indicate what their own data had to say about the signs on the up-down velocities. Instead the practice of restricting vertical motion "to be zero" seems to have become entrenched (as indicated by additional quotes from other studies in Russian seismologist Yury Chudinov's 2001 book on the eduction concept, which discusses space geodesy in detail).

It is claimed that the Wu et al. (2011) study does finally resolve the question, that but that study did not address any of the basic criticisms of space geodetic results expressed by expansionist scientists (Blinov, 1987, Carey, 1988, Chudinov, 2001, or Koziar, 2011, 2011b) - particularly the matter of "fictitious contractions" (which, be it noted, concern indeterminacies which are quite independent of calculated levels of "precision"). So reasonable suspicions remain.

 

[Robittybob1]

@sathearn
How would you summarize that?
When you think that the earth is cooling and hence should be shrinking are you saying it is expanding by 18 mm average per year. Which doesn't sound very much in the scheme of things in terms of dimensions but considerable when you think in terms of cubic meters of material.

 

[Trippy]

Therefore it is also consistent with a global contraction of 18 mm/yr or with a mixed result, with some stations going up, some going down by an average of this absolute-value amount. It is also consistent with some unknown source of error.

Yes, I was aware of that, but that wasn't the statement that I was addressing. I've argued precisely that point previously in this thread.

 

[Robittybob1]

Yes, I was aware of that, but that wasn't the statement that I was addressing. I've argued precisely that point previously in this thread.

@Trippy would you comment as to the combined effects of cooling and expansion. If there was not cooling wouldn't the expansion be even more noticeable.

 

[sathearn]

@Robittybob1 This is not a summary of what I said, but I don't know that the Earth is cooling. Of course, contraction hypotheses do exist, though I am not well familiar with, say, Surge Tectonics (see New Concepts in Global Tectonics newsletter, for example). However I know of no quantified estimates of a rate of radius change that go along with it. On the other hand, the hypothesis that the age of the seafloor crust reflects (more or less) the expansion of the Earth readily yields estimates in the 2 cm/yr range: (1) dividing area of the most recent isochrons by time and converting to radius, (2) measuring lateral spreading rates in the track of a great circle, or (3) converting to radius the difference in length of the border of the continental shelf off Africa and the length of the corresponding Atlantic border of the African "plate." (among those listed in Koziar's (2011) powerpoint presentations).

And Koziar (2011) and Chudinov (2001) cite several indications from space geodetic literature supporting values in the same range (1-2 cm/yr), as well as other results from space geodesy which seem most readily explained as indicators of spurious contraction (i.e. expansion) (though without quantification).

Yes, a mere 18 mm/yr does add up to a lot of cubic kilometers when scaled to the whole Earth.

 

[sathearn]

@Trippy Of course, these particular statements contained in my comment were not directed at you.

Being new to this thread, I wonder whether you've previously discussed the fact that in the scientific literature of expansion proposals the issue of fictitious contractions is commonly raised with respect to the claim that Earth expansion has been disproved by space geodesy.

 

[Robittybob1]

@Robittybob1 This is not a summary of what I said, but I don't know that the Earth is cooling. Of course, contraction hypotheses do exist, though I am not well familiar with, say, Surge Tectonics (see New Concepts in Global Tectonics newsletter, for example).

You seem to have quite an interest in this topic, so can I ask why are you so in to it? On another thread it was given that the rate of cooling of the Earth is 100 degrees per billion years, so that has to result in the contraction of the internal layers of the Earth. The fact that it seems to be measured as increasing in size, even by a little, goes against scientific logic if you accept that it is cooling. Which it is, without a doubt. That shows the rebound expansion is still going on.
So at the moment, I think it is fair to say, the two effects are virtually cancelling each other out.
It may be this near equilibrium has allowed Tectonic plates to spread out. For when the Earth's expansion was faster than the cooling the production of sea floor plate would have had to be rapid and the pressure to hold the land mass would have been greater.

 

[rogerharris]

Fallacy of 'No simple answer' - not all seemingly simple questions have straightforward yes or no answers. You're presenting a question as a yes or no question

we are nowhere yes or no. we havent even reached the point where you try and present any answer at all thats relevant.

No, because subduction tectonics does not require an earth of constant radius to work, it can work on a planet with a changing radius.

i think you have that mixed up. Its tectonics that requires a constant radius

As I believe I have stated, several times now, Plate tectonics also predicts that they will fit back together. The fact that they fit back together was one of the initial pieces of evidence used to support the theory of plate tectonics, so what you're doing is presenting a strawman argument.

We arent discussing tectonics here. we can do that on another thread.

No, because what you're presenting is a reductio ad absurdium, you're extrapolating an argument to an absurd conclusion, that isn't actually implied by the original argument, and then claiming that your absurd conclusion invalidates the argument.

its a simple question. Stick to this. Can you provide any answer which directly in some way addresses this very simple question that any university level graduate can answer ?

Here it is. Very easy. No expanding earth, no tectonics, just an experiment.



We have some curious geologists who would like to see what happens when we remove the ocean floor according to the time it is formed.

Is that a valid regression experiment ?

 

[rogerharris]

of course trippy will not answer this because strategically it would be a disaster for him if it does, as it opens the door to the validity of what might result from such an experiment.

More evasion coming up folks.

 

[rogerharris]

Actually neither description of their result is quite accurate. Robaudo and Harrison found that the stations in the global VLBI data set to 1990 had an average annual up-down motion of "over 18 mm/yr" - when they ran a solution using two components of the data considered more reliable than the third, and when the solution permitted three independent velocities including the up-down one. This was a root mean square result, which means that it is expressed as an absolute value. Therefore it is also consistent with a global contraction of 18 mm/yr or with a mixed result, with some stations going up, some going down by an average of this absolute-value amount. It is also consistent with some unknown source of error.

So in one sense, Trippy's point is correct. Since the result is expressed as an absolute value, ~+ 18 mm/yr is the maximum expansion which the result would support. However it also seems significant, as Roger suggests, that the result is so precisely in line with what EE predicts should be the average up-down velocity of the stations (when expressed in absolute value terms). In fact, last I did the math, the area of the most recent isochrons, converted to radius and divided by time, is closer to 18 than 22.

The fact that this result is no ho-hum finding, contrary to the implication of Trippy's comment, is further underscored by Robaudo and Harrison's discussion and treatment of it. They were clearly perplexed by the result, considering it "extremely high" and explicitly comparing it with glacial rebound, according which a few stations are expected to be rising by a maximum of 10 mm/yr - which sharply contrasts with their finding that the average for all stations was rising (or falling) by twice that amount each year. They did not consider the fact there is an extant geotectonic hypothesis, according to which the result is just what was to be expected, and so they simply assumed the result to be spurious. Therefore they decided to restrict vertical motion "to be zero" for the remainder of their study.

Had they realized (or acknowledged) that the Expansion hypotheses existed, the proper course would have been to highlight the need for further space geodetic research to address the question, and if possible to indicate what their own data had to say about the signs on the up-down velocities. Instead the practice of restricting vertical motion "to be zero" seems to have become entrenched (as indicated by additional quotes from other studies in Russian seismologist Yury Chudinov's 2001 book on the eduction concept, which discusses space geodesy in detail).

It is claimed that the Wu et al. (2011) study does finally resolve the question, that but that study did not address any of the basic criticisms of space geodetic results expressed by expansionist scientists (Blinov, 1987, Carey, 1988, Chudinov, 2001, or Koziar, 2011, 2011b) - particularly the matter of "fictitious contractions" (which, be it noted, concern indeterminacies which are quite independent of calculated levels of "precision"). So reasonable suspicions remain.

damn thats in depth. you should be writing papers.

 

[Robittybob1]

We have some curious geologists who would like to see what happens when we remove the ocean floor according to the time it is formed.

Is that a valid regression experiment ?

No I don't think it is in all situations. It will work OK in the case of South America drifting in relation to Africa because there is limited subduction. But on the Pacific ring there definitely is subduction, so if you just remove ocean plate according to age (regression) you will get the wrong impression.

 

[rogerharris]

No I don't think it is in all situations. It will work OK in the case of South America drifting in relation to Africa because there is limited subduction. But on the Pacific ring there definitely is subduction, so if you just remove ocean plate according to age (regression) you will get the wrong impression.

thank you, at last some valid answer. im looking for as much of this as possible. If you have any more please post.

I would like to re-run this regression which are costly so every possible objection has to be incorporated ..

The question then is how much subduction has occurred ? how can this actually be measured considering the evidence is liquefied ?

 

[Robittybob1]

thank you, at last some valid answer. im looking for as much of this as possible. If you have any more please post.

I would like to re-run this regression which are costly so every possible objection has to be incorporated ..

The question then is how much subduction has occurred ? how can this actually be measured considering the evidence is liquefied ?

Well years ago there was a picture with the rates that the various Pacific plates were moving, forming and subducting and I multiplied those rates over several hundred million years and the Pacific Plates had been replaced 4 times over.
Now that surprised me.

 

[rogerharris]

Well years ago there was a picture with the rates that the various Pacific plates were moving, forming and subducting and I multiplied those rates over several hundred million years and the Pacific Plates had been replaced 4 times over.
Now that surprised me.

hows that possible as we have evidence our current plate material has been there for the past 120 Ma and longer ?

I presume you are proposing this has been subducted at east american side and this is why there is nothing older than 50 Ma.

then can it not just be said when you do a regression model that this subduction is itself seafloor removal that the earth has carried out for us ?

 

[Robittybob1]

hows that possible as we have evidence our current plate material has been there for the past 120 Ma and longer ?

I presume you are proposing this has been subducted at east american side and this is why there is nothing older than 50 Ma.

then can it not just be said when you do a regression model that this subduction is itself seafloor removal that the earth has carried out for us ?

I don't quite understand you but the map I was using at the time was different to the one you are working with. OK it was a while ago, so may be a couple of hundred million was a billion or whatever, but what it came to at the time was as I say the plate had replaced itself 4 times using the figures.
Looking at the map you link, I think on the Western side of America is the 50 million year material. North America seems to have covered the main mid-pacific ridge (No wonder California is troubled with earthquakes and volcanoes)

 

[Trippy]

i think you have that mixed up. Its tectonics that requires a constant radius

No, it does not. Subduction tectonics works on an expanding earth just as well as it works on an earth with an constant radius.

We arent discussing tectonics here. we can do that on another thread.

We neccessarily are, and have been.

its a simple question. Stick to this. Can you provide any answer which directly in some way addresses this very simple question that any university level graduate can answer ?

Here it is. Very easy. No expanding earth, no tectonics, just an experiment.



We have some curious geologists who would like to see what happens when we remove the ocean floor according to the time it is formed.

Is that a valid regression experiment ?

Asked, and answered.