Is the earth expanding?

[florian]

He could have at least said that maybe it was dark matter gravitationally accumulating in the centre of the Earth and annihilating into new particles. This would have a little bit more credibility to it. It doesn't work for various reasons (the main one being that if the Earth could interact with dark matter particles enough to slow them down enough to be trapped then we would have seen them pinging off the dark matter detectors long ago, and that it would take a stupendous amount of dark matter), but it takes less of a stretch to imagine that the way we think dark matter should behave might be wrong than to try and connect the other mumbo jumbo he puts forward to some actual physics.

Well, we must assume that laws of conservations are valid. So there must be something accumulating inside Earth that fuels the growth. Call it dark matter or dark energy or whatever. What is certain is that this thing is very weakly interacting with normal matter, and must have mass/energy and thus responds to the gravity field.
That's a bit short to build a physical mechanism, isn't it?
That's why I think it is more important to focus on the evidence of the growth as a first step.

 

[florian]

Why is there no evidence of an expanding earth in tidal rythmite data?

Same answer than to Origin.
Tidalites can't provide evidence for or against a growth of the Earth, because it assumes that Earth's orbit remained stable and the gained matter has zero momentum.

How does this hypothesis explain Wadati-Benioff zones?

Flow tectonics is dominant in a growing earth. The WBZ is the front of a running crustal/mantle flow. A WBZ forms as the mantle overrun the lithosphere found on its path, and push it down.

I mean seriously, you're going with that?

Science is based on observations. Observations allow to infer that Earth grows in mass and size. But there is no clues for a mechanism, so no science to do for that part of the theory.

 

[florian]

if the expanding earth conjecture (it barely qualifies as a hypothesis let alone a theory) is correct why does it seems to exclusively attract cranks?

It is a scientific theory (based on scientific data, makes verified predictions).
It does not attract exclusively cranks (Sam Carey was certainly not a crank).
It does attract a lot of cranks because it is spectacular and has a lot of profound implications.

 

[George]

Hello Guys,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Many different sciences are used to learn about the earth, however, the four basic areas of Earth science study are: geology, meteorology, oceanography and astronomy.

 

[nerdgasm]

The earth is expanding, but only in the sense that the entire universe is undergoing an expansion. While many people thing the expansion of the universe just means objects getting increasingly distant, it is the very fabric of the cosmos expanding. A time will come, very very far down the road, where space will have stretched to the point where even star formation will be impossible.

Reality can be trippy.

 

[James R]

The earth is expanding, but only in the sense that the entire universe is undergoing an expansion.

Actually, the Earth doesn't expand along with space. Earth's own local gravity resists the expansion.

 

[Read-Only]

It is a scientific theory (based on scientific data, makes verified predictions).

Really?? Please show us this "scientific data" and any of the "verified predictions."

It does not attract exclusively cranks (Sam Carey was certainly not a crank).

Indeed, Carey was not a crank but that did not prevent him from falling for a crank idea. He managed to get only a VERY small number of scientists to work with him on that crackpot idea while the rest shunned him harshly. He certainly did a lot of early work on continental drift, and later, on plate tectonics. But he failed in his mission to establish his idea of "expanding Earth" because he did not accept plate subduction - which has now long been accepted as fact and IS based on scientific measurements and hard data.

 

[florian]

Really?? Please show us this "scientific data" and any of the "verified predictions."

I'm sure that you are familiar with James Maxlow's work.

Indeed, Carey was not a crank but that did not prevent him from falling for a crank idea. He managed to get only a VERY small number of scientists to work with him on that crackpot idea while the rest shunned him harshly. He certainly did a lot of early work on continental drift, and later, on plate tectonics. But he failed in his mission to establish his idea of "expanding Earth" because he did not accept plate subduction - which has now long been accepted as fact and IS based on scientific measurements and hard data.

Actually, he was the first one to propose a balance between lithosphere accretion and destruction. But he later moved to a diapiric interpretation of WBZ, i.e. the WBZ is the interface between a spreading diapir and encountered lithosphere.
And this interpretation is clearly supported by all data. For example in anatolia where a mantle upwelling in anatolia initiated a flow motion, with slab rollback of encountered lithosphere as a consequence at the front of the flow. See the following quote:

Whatever its origin, the asthenospheric rise led to uplift and the establishment of a progressive topographic gradient between the uplift and the subduction zone toward which Anatolia is moving. This scenario is similar to the effect of the Afar plume on the motion and topography of Arabia. In both cases, the beginning of the motion (for Anatolia) or the rapid increase of motion (for Arabia) coincides with the initiation of the uplift.

 

[Trippy]

I'm sure that you are familiar with James Maxlow's work.

Actually, he was the first one to propose a balance between lithosphere accretion and destruction. But he later moved to a diapiric interpretation of WBZ, i.e. the WBZ is the interface between a spreading diapir and encountered lithosphere.
And this interpretation is clearly supported by all data. For example in anatolia where a mantle upwelling in anatolia initiated a flow motion, with slab rollback of encountered lithosphere as a consequence at the front of the flow. See the following quote:

Your explanation fails to account for all the available evidence, and observations.

For example - consider the Kuril Islands Trench:

How does your diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the dip of the WBZ is paralell to the direction of plate motion?
How does your Diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the Okhotsk Plate is moving South West, and not South East?
How does your diapiric theory account for the lack of observed doming of the Philipine plate?
How does your diapiric theory account for the oberved lack of Orogenic process (and doming) in the Okhotsk plate?
How does your diapiric theory account for the observation that the crust closest to a trench (which are always associated with a WBZ) is cooler than the crust further away from the trench?

 

[florian]

How does your diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the dip of the WBZ is paralell to the direction of plate motion?
How does your Diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the Okhotsk Plate is moving South West, and not South East?

Because you don't use the correct referential for this case. Relatively to the Pacific lithosphere, i.e. the lithosphere that get subducted, the Okhotsk lithosphere is moving to the South-East, i.e., not parallel to the trench. How does look the mantle anisotropy along the WBZ there? How are the beachballs along the megathrust?

How does your diapiric theory account for the lack of observed doming of the Philipine plate?
How does your diapiric theory account for the oberved lack of Orogenic process (and doming) in the Okhotsk plate?

If there is no doming, then the rising material is too dense. If the material is too dense, it spreads before doming. That's all about isostatic equilibrium.

How does your diapiric theory account for the observation that the crust closest to a trench (which are always associated with a WBZ) is cooler than the crust further away from the trench?

Use a better terminology that "crust closest to a trench" please. Are you referring to the slab shielding the geothermal flux?

 

[Trippy]

Because you don't use the correct referential for this case. Relatively to the Pacific lithosphere, i.e. the lithosphere that get subducted, the Okhotsk lithosphere is moving to the South-East, i.e., not parallel to the trench. How does look the mantle anisotropy along the WBZ there? How are the beachballs along the megathrust?

I'm using the reference frame that co-rotates with the earth - the same reference frame the GPS network is based on. The closest thing to a 'universal' reference frame there is. Holding one plate stationary and having the others move around it is too arbitrary and ad-hoc for my liking.

Please, feel free to try and justify:
1) Why we should do this.
2) Why it should be the pacific plate.

If there is no doming, then the rising material is too dense. If the material is too dense, it spreads before doming. That's all about isostatic equilibrium.

No doming = no diapirism.
It's pretty trivially demonstrable that mantle upwellings cause doming in the crust, so your explanation fails.

Use a better terminology that "crust closest to a trench" please. Are you referring to the slab shielding the geothermal flux?

There is nothing wrong with my terminology - although I will clarify that I was refering to the subducting plate.

 

[Trippy]

***Moderator Note***

This thread has failed basic scientific tests several times - moved to Pseudoscience.

 

[florian]

I'm using the reference frame that co-rotates with the earth - the same reference frame the GPS network is based on. The closest thing to a 'universal' reference frame there is. Holding one plate stationary and having the others move around it is too arbitrary and ad-hoc for my liking.

This referential frame is as arbitrary as the others. A more "universal' reference frame would be that based on the global easterly mantle flow (1).

(1) Crespi, M., Cuffaro, M., Doglioni, C., Giannone, F., and Riguzzi, F. (2007). Space geodesy validation of the global lithospheric flow. Geophysical Journal International 168.

Please, feel free to try and justify:
1) Why we should do this.
2) Why it should be the pacific plate.

?? This is a megathrust, so the pacific lithosphere must be the preferred reference frame because this is evidently the lithosphere that is subducted. And in this reference frame the Okhotsk lithosphere is moving to the South-East toward the pacific lithosphere as logically expected. Reciprocally, if the Okhotsk lithosphere is the referential frame, then the pacific lithosphere will logically appear to move toward the Otkhotsk lithosphere, as expected for a megathrust.
You're apparently very confused with GPS measurements.

Besides you did not answer to my questions, Please do so:
How does look the mantle anisotropy along the WBZ there? How are the beachballs along the megathrust?

Both elements give additional clues.

No doming = no diapirism.
It's pretty trivially demonstrable that mantle upwellings cause doming in the crust, so your explanation fails.

Do you see doming in the back-arc under which the diapir head is located?
If there is no doming, then it means that the diapir is denser than the lithosphere it is piercing through and not pushed from below by material lighter than the surrounding mantle. In this case the diapir will stop rising before reaching the surface and will spread laterally and there will be no doming. Again, this is just a matter of isostatic equilibrium.

There is nothing wrong with my terminology - although I will clarify that I was refering to the subducting plate.

You're terminology was clearly not accurate
So the answer to your question: the slab is shielding the geothermal flux.
Do you disagree?

Are you responsible for moving this thread to Pseudoscience?
Who failed basic scientific tests? Could you detail the tests that got failed please?
Besides, are you really qualified to judge if the expanding theory is a pseudoscience? For example, how much scientific literature did you read about it? Or did you only watch some crackpotery?

 

[Trippy]

This referential frame is as arbitrary as the others. A more "universal' reference frame would be that based on the global easterly mantle flow (1).

(1) Crespi, M., Cuffaro, M., Doglioni, C., Giannone, F., and Riguzzi, F. (2007). Space geodesy validation of the global lithospheric flow. Geophysical Journal International 168.

No it wouldn't, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the global lithospheric flow that the paper you cited suggests is not as straight forward as an east to west flow. It does however serve to illustrate my point, that even according to the data presented in that paper, the Okhotsk plate moves in almost the same direction as the pacific plate.

?? This is a megathrust, so the pacific lithosphere must be the preferred reference frame because this is evidently the lithosphere that is subducted.

WShy must it be the 'preferred' reference frame?

And in this reference frame the Okhotsk lithosphere is moving to the South-East toward the pacific lithosphere as logically expected. Reciprocally, if the Okhotsk lithosphere is the referential frame, then the pacific lithosphere will logically appear to move toward the Otkhotsk lithosphere, as expected for a megathrust.

So, your theory requires a prefered reference frame, where mine does not. What does that tell you?

You're apparently very confused with GPS measurements.

You are apparently, wrong about this as well.

Besides you did not answer to my questions, Please do so:
How does look the mantle anisotropy along the WBZ there? How are the beachballs along the megathrust?

Both elements give additional clues.

You're right, I didn't answer that question.

Do you see doming in the back-arc under which the diapir head is located?

Generally, where Diapirs exist, yes, some degree of doming is observed.

You're[sic] terminology was clearly not accurate
So the answer to your question: the slab is shielding the geothermal flux.
Do you disagree?

It's your, not you're (which is short for you are).
And there is nothing wrong with my terminology, so no, I won't be rephrasing it.

Are you responsible for moving this thread to Pseudoscience?

No, I claimed credit for the work of Pixies.

Who failed basic scientific tests? Could you detail the tests that got failed please?
Besides, are you really qualified to judge if the expanding theory is a pseudoscience? For example, how much scientific literature did you read about it? Or did you only watch some crackpotery?

Actually, I'm a trained geologist, hence moderating the Earth Science sub forum.

 

[florian]

I understand that the 20 posts limit for including link is for spammer?

 

[florian]

Sorry to post yet another meanless post to reach that limit.

 

[florian]

Sorry to post yet another meanless post to reach that limit.

and last post to reach the limit.

 

[florian]

No it wouldn't, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the global lithospheric flow that the paper you cited suggests is not as straight forward as an east to west flow. It does however serve to illustrate my point, that even according to the data presented in that paper, the Okhotsk plate moves in almost the same direction as the pacific plate.

Trippy. I appreciate a good scientific discussion, but only if the people involved in the discussion understand what they are talking about. And you don't.

Your claim that "the Okhotsk plate moves in almost the same direction as the pacific plate" is clearly unsupported by the link to the figure you provided:

As anyone can see in this figure, the velocity vector of the Pacific plate and Okhotsk are perpendicular to each others. Is that what you call "moves in almost the same direction"?
Moreover, the sum of the vector components perpendicular to the Okhotsk/pacific Boundary, ie the components of interest to determine if the two blocks are converging or not, is not null at all (!). Actually, the Okhotsk vector being parallel to the boundary and the Pacific vector being perpendicular to the boundary, it is easy to estimate that the convergence rate is about 92 mm/y, quite impressive.

In conclusion, you're clearly wrong. But will you admit it?

Why must it be the 'preferred' reference frame

Evidently because when one want to show a convergence between to blocks, it is more convenient to choose one of the two blocks as the referential frame. It is just good old logic.

So, your theory requires a prefered reference frame, where mine does not. What does that tell you?

It is not according to a theory, but according to simple logic. And it does tell me that you are devoid of logic.

You are apparently, wrong about this as well.

Well, if you believe that I'm wrong about the convergence of Pacific and Okhotsk (I remind you that the boundary is a megathrust!), you have a serious problem of cognitive dissonance.

Generally, where Diapirs exist, yes, some degree of doming is observed.

Please don't use rhetoric and simply answer my question. Is there any doming in the back-arcs? yes or not?

And there is nothing wrong with my terminology, so no, I won't be rephrasing it.

The terminology used in your question was not accurate enough to provide an accurate answer. So you must rephrase it.

No, I claimed credit for the work of Pixies.

Except that it was your claim. So basically you move this thread to pseudoscience because you made pseudoscientific claims. Bravo! Do you have any ethics at all?

Actually, I'm a trained geologist, hence moderating the Earth Science sub forum.

A geologist that can't interpret geodetic measurements or do not know that a megathrust is a convergent boundary? And you're a moderator of the Earth Science sub forum? hum.
Anyway, even the most brilliant geologists must read the literature on a particular subject to understand it. So how much scientific literature did you read about the expanding earth theory? Or did you only watch some crackpotery which would put you at that same crackpot level?

PS:I suggest you to abandon your condescending tone, because you're absolutly not in position to adopt such tone, moderator or not.

 

[Trippy]

Trippy. I appreciate a good scientific discussion, but only if the people involved in the discussion understand what they are talking about. And you don't.

Your claim that "the Okhotsk plate moves in almost the same direction as the pacific plate" is clearly unsupported by the link to the figure you provided:

As anyone can see in this figure, the velocity vector of the Pacific plate and Okhotsk are perpendicular to each others. Is that what you call "moves in almost the same direction"?
Moreover, the sum of the vector components perpendicular to the Okhotsk/pacific Boundary, ie the components of interest to determine if the two blocks are converging or not, is not null at all (!). Actually, the Okhotsk vector being parallel to the boundary and the Pacific vector being perpendicular to the boundary, it is easy to estimate that the convergence rate is about 92 mm/y, quite impressive.

In conclusion, you're clearly wrong. But will you admit it?

As do I - when people respond to what I actually say, and are capable of retaining context accross a single page.
Allow me to illustrate how you're wrong in two ways, and that the worst mistake I've made amounts to a typographical error (I may have substituted the wrong name).

Here's what I originally said:

How does your Diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the Okhotsk Plate is moving South West, and not South East?

Is South West 'roughly paralell' to the direction of motion of the pacific plate?
No, it is not.
It is, however, 'roughly paralell' to the direction of motion of the eurasian plate
QED the 'contradiction' is resolved as a typographical error (oops, my bad).

Alternatively, you could read your own source (Crespi, M., Cuffaro, M., Doglioni, C., Giannone, F., and Riguzzi, F. (2007). Space geodesy validation of the global lithospheric flow. Geophysical Journal International 168 - I can provide you with a legitimate link to the PDF if you like), and realize that figures 6a, 6b, and 6c, which show "Plate motions with respect to mantle flow" have the Pacific and Okhotsk plate moving sub paralell ('nearly paralell') and that neither reference frame supports your notion. The only way to support your notion is by choosing some prefered reference frame based on the pacific plate, and assuming all other plates move around it.

Evidently because when one want to show a convergence between to blocks, it is more convenient to choose one of the two blocks as the referential frame. It is just good old logic.

No, it's poor logic because it leads to misleading impressions, and potentially contradicts evidence.

It is not according to a theory, but according to simple logic. And it does tell me that you are devoid of logic.

Do you make a habit out of being an ass, or is this just a special effort for me.

Well, if you believe that I'm wrong about the convergence of Pacific and Okhotsk (I remind you that the boundary is a megathrust!), you have a serious problem of cognitive dissonance.

See here's the thing - qoute me claiming they're not converging? Oh that's right, I didn't, you just haven't put the effort into understanding my point.
Quote me claiming that it's not a megathrust? Oh that's right, you can't becaus I didn't.

Please don't use rhetoric and simply answer my question. Is there any doming in the back-arcs? yes or not?

Asked and answered.

The terminology used in your question was not accurate enough to provide an accurate answer. So you must rephrase it.

Again, no.

Except that it was your claim. So basically you move this thread to pseudoscience because you made pseudoscientific claims. Bravo! Do you have any ethics at all?

Are we reading the same thread?
See here: http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2764426&postcount=52
That is me claiming credit for the work of pixies.

A geologist that can't interpret geodetic measurements or do not know that a megathrust is a convergent boundary?

And you're a moderator of the Earth Science sub forum? hum.

Strawman hypothesis - I never claimed that it wasn't a megathrust, nor did I claim it wasn't a convergent boundary - two plates can have a net motion in some reference frame that is sub paralell, and still be convergent. This is your misunderstanding, not mine.

Anyway, even the most brilliant geologists must read the literature on a particular subject to understand it. So how much scientific literature did you read about the expanding earth theory? Or did you only watch some crackpotery which would put you at that same crackpot level?

PS:I suggest you to abandon your condescending tone, because you're absolutly not in position to adopt such tone, moderator or not.

Given that so far you have failed to follow the discussion, retain context across a single page (allowing you to spot a potential typo) have yet to address any points that have been made, and have presented logical fallacies, I think that when you fail to recognize a post that suggests "I'm moving this thread" that it's fair and reasonable to suggest that Pixies did it.

 

[florian]

As do I - when people respond to what I actually say, and are capable of retaining context accross a single page.
Allow me to illustrate how you're wrong in two ways, and that the worst mistake I've made amounts to a typographical error (I may have substituted the wrong name).

Here's what I originally said:

Is South West 'roughly paralell' to the direction of motion of the pacific plate?
No, it is not.
It is, however, 'roughly paralell' to the direction of motion of the eurasian plate
QED the 'contradiction' is resolved as a typographical error (oops, my bad).

A typo? Really? Let me remind you what you wrote.
About the Kuril trench (boundary between Okhotsk/Pacific), on 06-02-11 06:54 PM, you wrote:

How does your diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the dip of the WBZ is paralell to the direction of plate motion?

Here you clearly states that the WBZ is parallel to the plate motion of Okhotsk. If the boundary was parallel to the plate motion then the boundary would be transform fault, not a megathrust (!)

How does your Diapiric hypothesis account for the fact that the Okhotsk Plate is moving South West, and not South East?

Here you clearly states again that the Okhotsk plate moves parallely to the boundary, to the southwest, and not to the southeast toward the Pacific. But you splendily ignore the fact that the Pacific is moving toward the Okhotsk plate (!)

Then on 06-06-11 06:08 PM, you wrote.

It does however serve to illustrate my point, that even according to the data presented in that paper, the Okhotsk plate moves in almost the same direction as the pacific plate

Suggesting again that both the pacific plate and Okhotsk plate move in the same direction.

Who could believe that 3 times the same mistake is just a typo. Give me a break. you're backpeddling and denying the facts.

Alternatively, you could read your own source (Crespi, M., Cuffaro, M., Doglioni, C., Giannone, F., and Riguzzi, F. (2007). Space geodesy validation of the global lithospheric flow. Geophysical Journal International 168 - I can provide you with a legitimate link to the PDF if you like),

Thanks but no thanks. If I provided this reference, it is evidently because I have the pdf and read it.

and realize that figures 6a, 6b, and 6c, which show "Plate motions with respect to mantle flow" have the Pacific and Okhotsk plate moving sub paralell ('nearly paralell') and that neither reference frame supports your notion.

Incredible, you persist in your error! Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum!
If it appears sub parallel, it is simply because the velocity of the global mantle flow is larger than the norm of both the Okhotsk and Pacific velocity vector. In other words, if the norm of two vectors u and v is smaller than 1, and if we add a vector w of norm 10 to u and v, then u+w and v+w will appear sub parallel. Very very basic math.

You confirm that you really don't understand what you're talking about and that you have serious issues with the comprehension of relative motion.

The only way to support your notion is by choosing some prefered reference frame based on the pacific plate, and assuming all other plates move around it.

This is becoming ludicrous. I insist, to clearly show that two blocks are converging, one must choose one block or the other as a referential. Any other referential will provide a less appropriate representation of the convergence.

No, it's poor logic because it leads to misleading impressions, and potentially contradicts evidence.

So according to you, it is poor logic to choose as the referential one of the two blocks that we want to show to converge? Because it leads to misleading impressions? There is no more doubt. You're in denial.

Do you make a habit out of being an ass, or is this just a special effort for me.

This is a special effort for you. And deniers like you deserve it.