Because we have evidence to support that, and we have evidence to support that going back at least 1 billion years.
Is the earth expanding?
- Thread starter bgjyd834
- Start date
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
you do realise that we are talking about expansion tectonics here which includes some amount of subduction ? You can clearly see there will be major subduction on west america from the isochron map and there will be minor subduction elsewhere.
That is what maxlow is proposing. Maxlow who is the proponent that carey handed the theory over to. Maxlow who gained his P.hD recently for this very area.
Do you see that post above ? 08:40 AM by Robittybob1
THATS a proper answer. to the question.
point to a proper answer, out of your 3 pages of squirming, topic changing, goal post moving and evasion. Give the post time and date you made this so called answer, and we will extract it and see if you answered the question as you claim you have.
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
this map ?
only in the areas where this no green after the rest of the colors can you claim major plate subduction occured before 80 Ma. The rest is minor.
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
this map is very unpopular with continental drift advocates.
Either that or the crack in the continental plate is not as old, I see the oldest plate is 180 my. So we can't tell what was happening before then.this map ?
only in the areas where this no green after the rest of the colors can you claim major plate subduction occured before 80 Ma. The rest is minor.
The subduction on the East coast of America seems significant with the South America Plate moving westward rapidly in the last 100 million years.
It would take a lot of time to be able to decipher what we are looking at accurately.
I keep on getting the feeling we are looking at it and guessing.
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
Either that or the crack in the continental plate is not as old, I see the oldest plate is 180 my. So we can't tell what was happening before then.
The subduction on the East coast of America seems significant with the South America Plate moving westward rapidly in the last 100 million years.
It would take a lot of time to be able to decipher what we are looking at accurately.
I keep on getting the feeling we are looking at it and guessing.
If you look at the regression(hardly a guess as its got clear periodic and spatial vectors for the entire 100 Ma history.
we only have to go back about 80 Ma before it all winds back together. The rest of the final fitback in the time periods you question is happening slower.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQSrsy9xg70
It continental drift that is all guessing. There are loads of variations of what happened as they dont have a complete global dataset like this for EE so bits an pieces from all kinds of disciplines and different methods are glued together. Continental drift is a mess but has a lot of investment in terms of work over past 60 years. This is crystal clear but has less data. That it can simplify with less data is usually the sign a theory is working.
Yes, I'm aware of that. It does not change what I have said, however, that modern plate tectonic theory does not require an earth of constant radius, it predicts it.
Yes, I'm aware of that, thankyou. I even have a copy of his thesis sitting on my hard drive.
Certainly it's an answer - you're aware that posts are tagged in the users local time, right? So referring to a time on a forum that hosts users from several different time zones is pretty much useless. That's why posts have post numbers that can be refered to.
I'll thank you to to keep your bogus allegations to yourself.
No, that map is not the evidence I am refering to, and your assertion does not follow from that map.this map ?
only in the areas where this no green after the rest of the colors can you claim major plate subduction occured before 80 Ma. The rest is minor.
That map was created by advocates of modern tectonic theory.
I would like to read a few papers this afternoon before coming back to the fray (and addressing questions addressed to me), but I do agree that it would be helpful if roger would drop his non-standard usage of "linear regression." Also 'tectonics', as used above, is not a good way of referring to the theory of plate tectonics (aka 'the plate theory', or 'PT' for short). 'Tectonics' has a broader meaning, being the domain of geology to which the plate tectonic theory applies - cf. other global theories like 'expansion tectonics', 'surge tectonics', 'wrench tectonics' - or in more restricted domains concepts like 'thin-skinned tectonics', etc.
From Bates and Jackson, Glossary of Geology (1980 edition):
tectonics A branch of geology dealing with the broad architecture of the outer part of the Earth, that is, the regional assembling of structural or deformational features, a study of their mutual relations, origin, and historical evolution. It is closely related to structural geology, with which the distinctions are blurred, but tectonics generally deals with larger features. Adj: tectonic. Syn: geotectonics.
Thankyou.
Apparently I missed some posts yesterday. It happens from time to time, and is far from deliberate.
I've raised the point several times now that if the earth was expanding there should be a clear signal that would be evident in things such as monuments that were built to align to specific objects or events, but that no such discrepancies appear to exist, and that anomalies would arise in things such as the Saros cycle, which suggests that for the last 10,000 years (at least) there has been no significant change in the earths radius. I also raised the point that if the earth was expanding we would expect to see some change in satelite ephemeridae, but as far as I know, no anomalous changes have been documented, and things such as Wheelers work with tidalites, and Poliakows modeling show agreement within error margins - all of which suggest that the earths radius hasn't changed significantly in the last 200 MA. Something of an impasse was reached, however, because I was unable to produce a paper that explicitly stated that Poliakows work agreed with Archers work, even though I was able to produce a paper that illustrated that Archers work, or work based on the same Tidalites (I forget which now) agreed with the work that Poliakows work was an extension of.
To clarify this a little further:
Mainstream Plate Tectonic theory proposes that subduction is a recycling mechanism, driven by some combination of slab pull, ridge push, and mantle convection. Because, depending on whos research you look at, Subduction plays at least a significant role, or in some cases dominant role, in discussions such as this, both here in this thread, and elsewhere on the internet 'Subduction tectonics' becomes a convenient short hand way of saying 'Mainstream plate tectonic theory' or 'modern plate tectonic theory'.
Carey's hypothesis admits some subduction, as does Maxlows. However, Carey and Maxlow use a burial mechanism to explain subduction, and its supporting observations, and down play or minimize the role of subduction in their model - hence expanding earth tectonics, it is dominated by expansion of the earth.
Mainstream Plate Tectonic theory proposes that subduction is a recycling mechanism, driven by some combination of slab pull, ridge push, and mantle convection. Because, depending on whos research you look at, Subduction plays at least a significant role, or in some cases dominant role, in discussions such as this, both here in this thread, and elsewhere on the internet 'Subduction tectonics' becomes a convenient short hand way of saying 'Mainstream plate tectonic theory' or 'modern plate tectonic theory'.
I liked the video of how the continents fitted on a compressed Earth. I also watched on "Expanding Earth my Ass" and heard why people didn't like Neal Adam's explanation. I must agree with some of them.
Note in my hypothesis there is not increase in mass of the terrestrial part. The size reduction is caused by compression.
We must also animate using the actual shape of the continental plates (but i know they do change in shape as this is evident when you look at NZ the rocks in the ground have been distorted over the eons. So shape of the more massive parts might have stayed relatively constant but other regions have been squashed out of their original shape without a doubt.
If he is still talking about mass creation - this is too whacky and basically unnecessary.
Note in my hypothesis there is not increase in mass of the terrestrial part. The size reduction is caused by compression.
We must also animate using the actual shape of the continental plates (but i know they do change in shape as this is evident when you look at NZ the rocks in the ground have been distorted over the eons. So shape of the more massive parts might have stayed relatively constant but other regions have been squashed out of their original shape without a doubt.
If he is still talking about mass creation - this is too whacky and basically unnecessary.
Last edited:
When you take the Earth cooling and the expansion over the last 500 million years the two have virtually balanced each other out. There clearly has been the continual loss of volatiles from the earth, which fairly balanced with gaining space dust and rocks etc, so Earth mass stays about the same, but the sea levels have dropped maybe not so much by expansion but by losses through the action of meteorites and comets coming and disrupting the atmosphere and allowing great chunks of it to be carried off by the solar wind.
To the best of my recollection all of the expanding earth theories - certainly Maxlows at any rate, require matter creation of some kind. No consistent model for this has been put forward, but they require some interesting assumptions, for example, the existence of degenerate matter in the earths core, or for some kind of fusion process. Maxlow himself (IIRC) talks about prime matter, and bubbles and such.
When you take the Earth cooling and the expansion over the last 500 million years the two have virtually balanced each other out. There clearly has been the continual loss of volatiles from the earth, which fairly balanced with gaining space dust and rocks etc, so Earth mass stays about the same, but the sea levels have dropped maybe not so much by expansion but by losses through the action of meteorites and comets coming and disrupting the atmosphere and allowing great chunks of it to be carried off by the solar wind.
Sea levels are as dependent on the distribution of the continents as anything else. When you have many continents you have more shallow sea, and less deep ocean, so the sea level tends to be higher. But when you have a few big continents, you have less shallow sea and more deep ocean, and so the sea level tends to be lower.
Also consider that the age of the oceanic crust and the depth of the ocean are related, this is because as oceanic crust cools and thickens it becomes denser, and so sits lower than younger oceanic crust. This is important to realize, because - at least if you accept modern plate tectonic theory, when you have many small continents, you would expect to have many small oceanic plates, which would be younger and sit higher, thus exacerbating the rise in sea level, but, where you have a few large continents, you would expect to have a few large oceanic plates (or fewer small ones) that would sit lower, and thus exacerbate the fall in sea levels.
Well I could live with a degenerate iron nickel core. For degeneracy is the result of extreme pressure, and that is also the key to my hypothesis. Many Earth masses of volatiles causing compression to the point of degeneracy. That is great.
But all the others only serve to make EE whacky.
I tend to think of the continental masses floating so it is not that easy to depress a whole continent under the water. No because it is a balanced situation. If the land masses were covered by shallow seas that was because the volume of water on Earth was greater. I have a fear the Earth is drying out like Mars, the Moon, Venus and Mercury.
OK the Earth has been relatively lucky having a strong magnetic field to deflect the Solar wind but it is still taking its toll.
Heating of the atmosphere through climate change isn't going to help. More molecules will get to the escape velocity and be lost to the earth.
You haven't understood what I actually said.