Is the earth expanding?

but EE is such a mindblowing theory. The ramifications for our understanding of this rock we are on, and perhaps everything out there.. , i want an explanation from geologists and they sure have not provided one except evade, evade, evade. this is not even my field if thats not obvious by now :)

I should stop this EE addiction and buy a rally car or get into something else like cross Atlantic racing.

mmmm but perhaps i could win by programming my route to keep track with the earth expanding and last longer than competitors by fitting my boat out with hydrogen resistant components !!
 
rogerharris said:
Its all about resources really. A shift of resources in these areas is a very big deal. It threatens jobs, income, status, induces stress. So the payoff has to overcome that. Truth has very little to do with this.
Click to expand...

The payoff is easy to overcome. EE is most likely the most productive theory ever in regard to the implications in many fields, especially physics. Following EE, I expect the most important progress in Physics to date.
 
rogerharris said:
violent really ? Do tell me more. We just dont get to see this kind of controversy today and get sanitized versions of the struggle to read in class.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should learn to read between the lines. An elegant, well delivered riposte in a commentary letter on a journal article could ruin someones chance of tenure and screw up there entire career. Perhaps you've been watching too many blockbuster sfx movies to recognise real violence when it is delivered with surgical skill.

No one is stopping you from reading the research work published in the 1960s. If you've already done that then go back and this time open you eyes.

rogerharris said:
In real life we treat each other like crap, try to shaft each other a lot of the time. .
Click to expand...
It has been my experience that people who get shafted the most are often the ones most deserving of it. The circles I move in are pretty hot on cooperation.

rogerharris said:
If anything it should be worse as there an ultra puritanic streak thrown in.
Click to expand...
I've never met a puritanical geologist. I'm sure they exist, but they were never to be found in the pubs, night clubs, casinos and questionable establishments where we hung out.

rogerharris said:
Exactly what i have been trying to say for a long time. Theories have to conform to game theory, cost and benefit of overcoming the previous investment.
Click to expand...
It's good to have an agenda. You can make notes about your failures in it.
 
rogerharris said:
Ahh im glad we agree on something.

so then do you think there should be a clear coherent, rigorous and consistent demarcation between protoscience/fringe/alt and.....wait for it pseudoscience ? ;)

Just to be clear so there is no misunderstanding here is the question again in pared down form.

do you think there should be a demarcation between (protoscience/fringe/alt science) and pseudoscience ?



I await the next political type diversionary method to evade this question with a lot of interest. notepad ready.
Click to expand...

No there is no clear line. It is fuzzy and should be fuzzy. There is clearly scientific and clearly pseudoscientific, and there is the fuzzy area in between. The fuzzy area is the area of research where new ideas are being generated.

It seems rather simple in most cases though. If your idea can pass peer review it can be termed scientifically worthy. It may turn out to be wrong on further review but it may still solid science. If your idea cannot pass peer review or even get submitted for peer review because of some fundamental problems (like magic mass formation), AND you continue to push the idea then you are firmly in the arena of pseudoscience.

I am not trying to evade any question. :shrug:
 
With the compressed Earth there is no magical mass creation. So an EE theory based on that premise would hold out to be scientific for it has been supported. Not only rthat but exoplanets found recently confirm that large planets can be found close to their star.
 
Robittybob1 said:
Not only rthat but exoplanets found recently confirm that large planets can be found close to their star.
Click to expand...

You know why they are found close to the star? Because they CAME from the star. They are traveling AWAY from the star, like we are, like all mass does from its core. The moon travels away from the earth. The earth travels away from the sun. The sun travels away from the galactic core. ALL mass came from its core and is traveling away from its core, on every level of the universe...
 
Motor Daddy said:
You know why they are found close to the star? Because they CAME from the star. They are traveling AWAY from the star, like we are, like all mass does from its core. The moon travels away from the earth. The earth travels away from the sun. The sun travels away from the galactic core. ALL mass came from its core and is traveling away from its core, on every level of the universe...
Click to expand...
No you're dreaming!

What about the Black Hole in the centre of the galaxy?
 
Remember that MD lives in a different universe than the rest of us.
 
origin said:
No there is no clear line. It is fuzzy and should be fuzzy. There is clearly scientific and clearly pseudoscientific, and there is the fuzzy area in between. The fuzzy area is the area of research where new ideas are being generated.
Click to expand...
I'll add that for EE, there are both scientific and pseudoscientific aspects.

origin said:
If your idea cannot pass peer review or even get submitted for peer review because of some fundamental problems (like magic mass formation
Click to expand...
There is nothing "magic" in EE.
May be EE is mind-blowing at first, but magic, definitively not, as there is always a rational explanation for any natural phenomenon.
 
Ophiolite said:
Perhaps you should learn to read between the lines. An elegant, well delivered riposte in a commentary letter on a journal article could ruin someones chance of tenure and screw up there entire career. Perhaps you've been watching too many blockbuster sfx movies to recognise real violence when it is delivered with surgical skill.
Click to expand...

Ive seen dawkins do this to some of the systems theorists like lovelock and ended up holding progress back while he pushed an outdated version of darwinism thats increasingly in need of review. They learn the art of barbed wit, but more than that they seem to know how to rally people on their side and create in groups that operate on over-conservatism. They are also skilled at backtracking their position.

Dawkins also locked out Denis Noble and lynn marguillis. However in the end these people kept going and have left more at their career end for the history books. Dawkins left us the selfish gene concept which was wrong, and took meme out of his coffee room meetings with friends to claim as his own. All he has left now is videos ranting about gods non existance....and now he is even backtracking on that. Since we are able to calculate how long it would take a civilization to devise computational god like super-intelligence.

Dawkins reminds me of the character Drumlin in the movie "contact", except he writes more books and is more sneering than swarmy.

Fear of ridicule and what your peers think appears to be a major factor in all this. At some stage in our careers we realize we are either mountain or hill climbers. The education system ought to recognize our personality types and give us different kinds of preparation. It costs us enough.

mountain climbers should basically be advised to avoid a career track that requires tenure or a great deal of peer approval, or basically anything where scientific politics could hold them back.


It has been my experience that people who get shafted the most are often the ones most deserving of it. The circles I move in are pretty hot on cooperation.
Click to expand...

Maybe its different in geology. More of a get out and be one of the lads in adventure type career. In the academic and office based systems they can be real nasty to each other psychologically. I have seen a few things myself. There are some articles in nature reports, about this getting really bad lately. Principle investigators playing postdocs against each other psychologically to get better results. This led to a researcher in biotech getting deported from US for trying to mess his colleages results up. A few years ago another US biotech researcher who was apparently talented just got crazy about the politics, went into the campus and shot her colleagues.

MAd science !!:eek:
 
origin said:
No there is no clear line. It is fuzzy and should be fuzzy. There is clearly scientific and clearly pseudoscientific, and there is the fuzzy area in between. The fuzzy area is the area of research where new ideas are being generated.

It seems rather simple in most cases though. If your idea can pass peer review it can be termed scientifically worthy. It may turn out to be wrong on further review but it may still solid science. If your idea cannot pass peer review or even get submitted for peer review because of some fundamental problems (like magic mass formation), AND you continue to push the idea then you are firmly in the arena of pseudoscience.

I am not trying to evade any question. :shrug:
Click to expand...

yes i am surprised. I didnt think you would answer that one..

Although peer review is secondary. Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos and A. Musgrave who are the reference in this area say that Pseudoscience is clearly demarcated as not being treated with the scientific method and thats it basically. Be honest and test.

So its basically as simple as looking at your ideas as product. As if trying to build, test, fix whatever, as long as the result is to produce something that works properly. You might not be able to complete the work. As in EE, but you get some of it work. So a long as you are straight shooting about what does and what does not.

but then you just say well this is what does work and here are the limitations where we had a problem and cannot complete the job yet. Just as in engineering or any other field. A great bulk of science papers are often dead ends results for the primary aim. They say well we tried this. This is what we found. This worked, but this did not.
 
florian said:
There is nothing "magic" in EE.
May be EE is mind-blowing at first, but magic, definitively not, as there is always a rational explanation for any natural phenomenon.
Click to expand...

The natural phenomenon is the movement of the plates on earth - an expanding earth is not a rational explanantion. Plate tectonics is a rational explanation.

The fact that matter must come from nowhere to account for your expansion is a show stopper - the fact that you cannot see that makes you a poster child for pseudo science!
 
origin said:
The natural phenomenon is the movement of the plates on earth - an expanding earth is not a rational explanantion. Plate tectonics is a rational explanation.

The fact that matter must come from nowhere to account for your expansion is a show stopper - the fact that you cannot see that makes you a poster child for pseudo science!
Click to expand...

EE proponents have no problem admitting the mechanism is not developed, as is the case with many of the theories with today. We had to admit the had no mechanism at the time. currently we need to invent an invisible dark matter energy for the big bang model of matter production to work.

the fact that you refuse to admit the pacific ocean winds back together makes you dishonest. It is crystal clear to everybody except people on the internet who enjoy developing debating skills and all the tricks that go with them.

There are EE matter /gravity/ density mechanism models around. Almost about 5 so far still standing. All have problems and holes as so does all of current astronomy have problems and holes.

So tell us more about why you like to debate like this. That was a good move on the demarcation between pseudoscience and fringe/alt. You were forced to answer so you did the smart thing. A politician would if backed into a corner, either tried to redirect the topic or smudge it or if he could get away with it, claim some moral ground or principle to refuse answering. I tried to eliminate option 1 and 3 so you chose all thats left. Smudge tactic.

i.e. you smudged it with the "well its a bit of a grey area in there" line.
 
rogerharris said:
the fact that you refuse to admit the pacific ocean winds back together makes you dishonest. It is crystal clear to everybody except people on the internet who enjoy developing debating skills and all the tricks that go with them.
Click to expand...
I have seen no evidence that demonstrates this. The video from Adams is wholly unconvincing. Please direct me to some proper detailed map projections that show fit at the continental shelf edge and identify allignments of geological features. If the latter show meaningful matches across the board I would be prepared to give the matter further consideration.

If you cannot provide this then your ready acceptance of the hypothesis calls into question your objectivity.
 
Ophiolite said:
I have seen no evidence that demonstrates this. The video from Adams is wholly unconvincing. Please direct me to some proper detailed map projections that show fit at the continental shelf edge and identify allignments of geological features. If the latter show meaningful matches across the board I would be prepared to give the matter further consideration.

If you cannot provide this then your ready acceptance of the hypothesis calls into question your objectivity.
Click to expand...

this is good start

Biogeographical and geological evidence for a smaller, completely-enclosed Pacific basin in the Late Cretaceous:
Jason R. Ali

Article first published online: 26 JUN 2006

free copy here..

www.4threvolt.com/files/McCarthy2005.pdf
 
This is an interesting concession here so would the EE exponents like to work on that, Trouble is Ophiolite there may not be enough Geological depth in the team at the moment, but maybe it is in Carey's research papers.

In my view (what it is worth) is that the Pacific Ocean was one of the primordial Oceans and has had ocean floor plate moving across it for billions of years so the edges where the lands contacted are unlikely to match or fit anymore due to the erosion and volcanism at the Pacific Rim of Fire.
Yet lets hope someone has tried to look for the original connection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top