Is the earth expanding?

[origin]

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.

No, as usual you have no idea what you are talking about. Dark matter has to do with gravitational affects on galaxies and gravitational lensing. There is evidence of large gravitional effect with no associated matter - hence the name dark matter. We don't know what it is.

There is a huge difference between this and magical formation of matter inside the earth to account for a process that can be explained without it

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.

I have no idea what you mean by "the pacific ocean winds back together". There is sea floor spreading and subduction zones - no growth needed. The fact the you come up with these goofy ideas and discount all of the real science of geology and then call people dishonest makes you an arrogant fool.

There is really nothing to debate you have pseudo science hand waving and thats about it.

I'm done here, as has been said before arguing with cranks is a waste of time.

Enjoy basking in your ignorance.:shrug:
[/QUOTE]

 

[Robittybob1]

No, as usual you have no idea what you are talking about. .....

I'm done here, as has been said before arguing with cranks is a waste of time.

Enjoy basking in your ignorance.:shrug:

So good when pure negativity leaves the thread.

 

[florian]

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

Earth expansion is not an explanation, it is observed!
You still fail at the basic level despite all this time. What a waste of time...

 

[rogerharris]

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.

the problem is there has been some subduction liquefying evidence, so only qualitative models that take into account the linear patterns to flesh out the gaps over time (into zones) have been put together. There were some of these posted on the mad ratskep thread a few weeks ago, but now i will need to wade through 40 pages to find them !

Things seem to be quieter there now that the mods gave florian a 5 shot warning (over nothing) because his logic was cutting up the top guns and making them look stupid. an ex ocean engineer just posted up interesting evidence for hydritic earth as a mechanism which so far nobody has put any major dents in.

One thing i learn in bioscience is that in complex topics if you look at their history, you tend to get sequences of theories going for one big aspect, then its flavour of the decade, then holes are found and its discarded with the another big theory that found something else. Then the solution ends up quietly being some kind of integration of all of them that barely even makes the news. This even applies is less complex areas like physics standard model.

EE is of medium complexity compared to biosciences although it requires more disciplines integrated. Perhaps a team should get together and thrash out all the EE mechanisms which have bits that work and bits that dont to see if they can integrate.

 

[rogerharris]

Earth expansion is not an explanation, it is observed!
You still fail at the basic level despite all this time. What a waste of time...

He wants it that way. Its debate strategy. He is actually pretty clever at this. As good as any politician.

Its not a waste of time if you try and figure out what their motivation is for being obtuse. theories need sold like a product with political and advertising skills..Well there is the pure hard science cut through all the bull approach, but a bit of psychology know how certainly makes it easier. After all we are human, where as the scientific method is more along the lines of what a powerful computer would do.

psychology is one of my background fields, so perhaps this is more of an interest to me.

 

[Robittybob1]

....
One thing i learn in bioscience is that in complex topics if you look at their history, you tend to get sequences of theories going for one big aspect, then its flavour of the decade, then holes are found and its discarded with the another big theory that found something else. Then the solution ends up quietly being some kind of integration of all of them that barely even makes the news. This even applies is less complex areas like physics standard model.

EE is of medium complexity compared to biosciences although it requires more disciplines integrated. Perhaps a team should get together and thrash out all the EE mechanisms which have bits that work and bits that dont to see if they can integrate.

I'm in favour of that idea.

 

[rogerharris]

I'm in favour of that idea.

easier said than done though. Conferences attempt this. One i went to in bioscience was called integrative approaches. however they did not have the format to pressurize and reward integration (although they sent us round museums together to help us socialize) Having a podium encouraged individualism too much. Its easy to say integrate, but when its you getting up in the morning to make a presentation, trying to remember this, prepare various things, deal with all the unexpected glitches and pressures (as well as nerves)... well you end up trumpeting your position very defensively often.

A round table and moderator approach with say 4-5 people gets people discussing well without destroying the creative aspect. And perhaps a small audience of about 30 that can be asked to throw in points.

 

[Robittybob1]

easier said than done though. Conferences attempt this. One i went to in bioscience was called integrative approaches. however they did not have the format to pressurize and reward integration (although they sent us round museums together to help us socialize) Having a podium encouraged individualism too much. Its easy to say integrate, but when its you getting up in the morning to make a presentation, trying to remember this, prepare various things, deal with all the unexpected glitches and pressures (as well as nerves)... well you end up trumpeting your position very defensively often.

A round table and moderator approach with say 4-5 people gets people discussing well without destroying the creative aspect. And perhaps a small audience of about 30 that can be asked to throw in points.

Can we do that sort of thing on here?

 

[rogerharris]

Can we do that sort of thing on here?

Interesting idea. my experience so far is most science forums are overtly hostile to the point the subject is trashed and its hard to build. There is the opposite spectrum forums where people log on (stoned i think...or hope they are) to accept any crazy idea (although some people obviously think EE is crazy).

It would need a forum section though. e.g. If there are 5 EE mechanism theories then each one is best argued on its own thread, and then there can be an integration thread to see where they clash or/are incompatible. Also a peer review thread where skeptics can come in and be hostile to the topics, and a moderator has to ensure those questions are answered.

I always thought for a long time internet forums could be a great platform to pool resources. It happens to some extent in practical areas like DIY and auto club forums. I also take part in the start of such projects in private facebook groups on other fields such as Artificial intelligence approaches. the first problem that arose aside from good management was that of intellectual property, as you can immediately take somebodies concept and build valuable software, so people although they shared a lot in good spirits kept their primary ideas secret.

Since the forums are open here and this is pure science then thats less of a problem. ..so who knows...open science in action. could be interesting to see. Garret lisi had problems with his E8 theory worked out on blogs and even discussed it on physics forums.

 

[Robittybob1]

...... Garret lisi had problems with his E8 theory worked out on blogs and even discussed it on physics forums.

Was that E8? What was that about?

 

[Gneiss2011]

Expanding Earth is an historical fact.

Corrected: Expanding Earth is an historical theory.

Dark matter has to do with gravitational affects on galaxies and gravitational lensing. There is evidence of large gravitional effect with no associated matter - hence the name dark matter.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that the Earth is expanding.

Earth expansion is not an explanation, it is observed!
You still fail at the basic level despite all this time. What a waste of time...

Who has observed Earth expansion? Can you tell the names of reliable guys who have observed it?

If you demand that people acknowledge Earth expansion as a requirement ("basic level") to discuss EET with you, then no much people will agree discussing EET with you, I guess. :shrug:

Things seem to be quieter there now that the mods gave florian a 5 shot warning (over nothing) because his logic was cutting up the top guns and making them look stupid.

Corrected: Because florian was incorrect and made "blatant personal attacks upon other forum members".

If there are 5 EE mechanism theories

As florian wrote earlier, before studying EET mechanism, EET proponent must show evidence and observation that the Earth is expanding.

 

[Robittybob1]

Corrected: Expanding Earth is an historical theory.

As florian wrote earlier, before studying EET mechanism, EET proponent must show evidence and observation that the Earth is expanding.

It is a fact because NASA has measured the size increase. 18 mm per year.
I'll have to research the origin of this figure implanted in my brain. It seems too high to me, but it doesn't sound much but multiple it by a couple of 100 million years and it is significant.

 

[Gneiss2011]

It is a fact because NASA has measured the size increase. 18 mm per year.

Reference?

 

[Trippy]

It is a fact because NASA has measured the size increase. 18 mm per year.

No, they haven't.

They have set an upper limit on the rate of change of +/- 18mm per year, a range, which you will note, includes zero.

There is a very large, and very important distinction to be made between the two statements.

 

[Robittybob1]

Reference?

These were figures discussed earlier in this thread.

I have not read the actual reference document, but if I have or if Trippy knows it we will post it.

 

[Trippy]

I already did:

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.

Post #210

But of course, you knew that already, having at least perused the thread prior to your involving yourself, right?

Oh yeah - note that it is 0.1mm, not 18mm.

 

[florian]

Who has observed Earth expansion? Can you tell the names of reliable guys who have observed it?

Do you really prefer an argument of authority rather than examining evidence yourself?
If not, then go back to figure page 4 in post 72 for a fresh start.

 

[florian]

I already did:

Post #210

But of course, you knew that already, having at least perused the thread prior to your involving yourself, right?

This paper was debunked: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2798710&postcount=214

Oh yeah - note that it is 0.1mm, not 18mm.

More importantly, 0.1 mm is the accuracy of the position of Earth's center using SLR (which is especially good at that). And to correct what I wrote in the post cited above, I confused the displacement of the center of Earth during earthquakes with the change of Polhody.

 

[Trippy]

This paper was debunked: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2798710&postcount=214


More importantly, 0.1 mm is the accuracy of the position of Earth's center using SLR (which is especially good at that). And to correct what I wrote in the post cited above, I confused the displacement of the center of Earth during earthquakes with the change of Polhody.

:Shrugs:

Not really relevant, the original paper was asked for, and has been provided.

And you didn't so much as debunk it, as you did explain how it fit within your model, or rather, explained why it didn't refute your model.

 

[Robittybob1]

:Shrugs:

Not really relevant, the original paper was asked for, and has been provided.

And you didn't so much as debunk it, as you did explain how it fit within your model, or rather, explained why it didn't refute your model.

There must have been another study somewhere for the 18mm dimension is not mentioned in the Nasa article.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-254

So where did the error values come from?
0.1 mm /year => 1 meter in 10,000 years or 100 Km in a billion years
so doesn't seem to be enough, but if it was 1.0 mm per year it would more than account for EE theory. 1000 km in a billion years is quite significant.