Is the earth expanding?

[Gneiss2011]

This figure illustrates how convergence is possible on a growing Earth. The mantle upwelling runs over the lithosphere on its path, dragging the arc so that b (on the arc) and a converge. But a and c do not converge because b and c diverge by the same amount (back-arc extension).
This explains why there is no net reduction of surface along active margins despite the convergence.

The following figures illustrate the anatolian flow running over the immobile mediterranean seafloor.

There is convergence of the hellenic arc and North Africa, but not net decrease in surface between macedonia and North Africa as illustrated in the scheme.

Are you talking about your own EE model? Doesn't your own EE model exclude non-negligible seafloor subduction and non-negligible convergence?

Be realist, you can't understand why convergence does not imply a net reduction of surface despite exhaustive explanations and illustrations (as those above).
The conclusion is that all of this is way over your understanding abilities.

Is this your last bullet? Will you claim that everybody who disagree with you lack of "understanding abilities"?

Does anyone else has an understanding issue with this?

Better questions would be:

• Who understand Florian's answer to my request for "observation and measurement of Earth expansion which don't use EE model"?
• Who understand Florian's answer to my request for "observation and measurement of Earth expansion which don't use EE model" as a correct answer, which fit the request?

(à force de jouer au simplet, tu risques de vraiment passer pour un simplet).

My dear Florian. Since your "overwhelming evidences supporting planetary growth" are "understandable by anybody", I see no flaw in people seeing me as a layman. On the contrary, being arrogant, insulting, a Poe, or a Dunning–Kruger, like you often seem to be, can be a flaw.

 

[Trippy]

Yep. We had a long discussion about it but Trippy still believe that orbit parameters from tidalites data are supporting modeling of the tidal effect.

And Florian doesn't understand that if the assumptions and parameters in the model were wrong, the ratios predicted by the modeling would be different from the ratios found in the tidalite data.

 

[Gneiss2011]

Sounds like "there are no evidence for life evolution", and false: Quantification of an Archaean to Recent Earth Expansion Process Using Global Geological and Geophysical Data Sets

Page number?

 

[florian]

And Florian doesn't understand that if the assumptions and parameters in the model were wrong, the ratios predicted by the modeling would be different from the ratios found in the tidalite data.

The model curve does not follow the measurement. We discussed this already.

 

[Trippy]

And apparently, this scheme is necessary for you to understand that the "no, because there is subduction" argument does not hold one second.

You've been asked once before what proof it would take to convince you, and you (as I recall) failed to give a straight answer).

So I'm going to ask you again, and directly, what proof would be required to demonstrate subduction to you?

 

[Trippy]

The model curve does not follow the measurement. We discussed this already.

Yes it does, it fits well within the error bars, I even provided you with a paper assessing the Tidalite data compared to the computer modelling, which you refused to consider on the (absurd) grounds that it was published before the more recent revised work.

 

[Robittybob1]

Sounds like "there are no evidence for life evolution", and false: Quantification of an Archaean to Recent Earth Expansion Process Using Global Geological and Geophysical Data Sets

From the link:

Earth expansion then involves an increase in mass by condensation, or segregation of new matter from the Earth's core. This new matter accumulates at the core-mantle interface and the increase in volume results in a swelling of the mantle,

If the Earth was both becoming both more massive and increased in volume I have feeling you would struggle to get the Moon out to where it is. Has the moon been doing the same? Why would this expansion affecting just be Earth only?

 

[florian]

Are you talking about your own EE model? Doesn't your own EE model exclude non-negligible seafloor subduction and non-negligible convergence?

This is empirical data. Doesn't the empirical data show no net surface consumption despite convergence?

Is this your last bullet? Will you claim that everybody who disagree with you lack of "understanding abilities"?

Only to guys repeating ad nauseam questions that got already answered.

 

[florian]

If the Earth was both becoming both more massive and increased in volume I have feeling you would struggle to get the Moon out to where it is. Has the moon been doing the same? Why would this expansion affecting just be Earth only?

Are you able to predict how much total momentum the Moon-Earth system gain or loose during the growth process? I guess not.

 

[florian]

Yes it does, it fits well within the error bars, I even provided you with a paper assessing the Tidalite data compared to the computer modelling, which you refused to consider on the (absurd) grounds that it was published before the more recent revised work.

1. I considered the paper
2. The paper was based on an outdate model including a close encounter of Earth and the Moon.

 

[florian]

So I'm going to ask you again, and directly, what proof would be required to demonstrate subduction to you?

This is silly, there is subduction, but mantle driven not plate driven.
You too are repeating ad nauseam the same questions. Cheap rhetoric technic.

 

[florian]

Page number?

page 1

 

[Gneiss2011]

You've been asked once before what proof it would take to convince you, and you (as I recall) failed to give a straight answer).

So I'm going to ask you again, and directly, what proof would be required to demonstrate subduction to you?

As far as I understand, florian now acknowledge that subduction exist. But he also claim that subduction is negligible or something like.

This is empirical data. Doesn't the empirical data show no net surface consumption despite convergence?

Are you talking about your own EE model? Doesn't your own EE model exclude non-negligible seafloor subduction and non-negligible convergence? Are my questions so hard that you can't answer, even by "yes" or "no"?

Only to guys repeating ad nauseam questions that got already answered.

Is this your last bullet? Will you claim that everybody who disagree with you lack of "understanding abilities"? Are my questions so hard that you can't answer, even by "yes" or "no"?

This is empirical data. Doesn't the empirical data show no net surface consumption despite convergence?

Yes, of course! I totaly agree that "The empirical data show no net surface consumption despite convergence". So the Earth surface remain the same, and the Earth is not expandinig. But I was thinking you were supporting the expanding Earth theory. Are you actually a Poe, faking its support to a theory, only in order to dismiss it?

 

[Robittybob1]

Are you able to predict how much total momentum the Moon-Earth system gain or loose during the growth process? I guess not.

The process of mass and volume expansion does it affect both the Moon and the Earth?
If it is the Earth only; the dynamics of the Moon reflect the mass of the Earth. The Moon - Earth distance is increasing by about 38 mm per year.
Basically the Moon would be getting closer to the Earth not further away. The fact that the moon is going away from the Earth clearly supports any theory which does not involve increasing the mass of the Earth.

 

[florian]

Yes, of course! I totaly agree that "The empirical data show no net surface consumption despite convergence". So the Earth surface remain the same, and the Earth is not expandinig. But I was thinking you were supporting the expanding Earth theory. Are you actually a Poe, faking its support to a theory, only in order to dismiss it?

At active margins, the empirical data show no net surface consumption despite convergence.

You said?

 

[Gneiss2011]

page 1

I do not see "measurements" in page 1. However, there is "an expanding Earth model". Are James Maxlow's measurements, actually,

• make a model with which he agree
• measure this model

?

 

[Trippy]

2. The paper was based on an outdate model including a close encounter of Earth and the Moon.

Thankyou for making my point for me.

The fact that the paper included a close encounter of the earth and moon is irrelevant.
The fact that there is newer work is also irrelevant.

Do you know why?

Because:
1. The new model and the old model are based on the same dynamics.
2. The new model and the old model give answers that are in good agreement.

So, anything that agrees with the old paper also agrees with the new paper. The main part where they disagree, as I recall, is the newer model pushes the close encounter further back in time.

 

[florian]

The process of mass and volume expansion does it affect both the Moon and the Earth?
If it is the Earth only; the dynamics of the Moon reflect the mass of the Earth. The Moon - Earth distance is increasing by about 38 mm per year.
Basically the Moon would be getting closer to the Earth not further away. The fact that the moon is going away from the Earth clearly supports any theory which does not involve increasing the mass of the Earth.

No. Earth can transfer momentum to the moon thru the tidal effect. So if the process involves a gain in mass that is accelerating the rotation of Earth, then the Earth will send the Moon away despite growing in mass.

 

[Trippy]

No. Earth can transfer momentum to the moon thru the tidal effect. So if the process involves a gain in mass that is accelerating the rotation of Earth, then the Earth will send the Moon away despite growing in mass.

Will it?

Have you done the maths to prove this?

 

[florian]

Thankyou for making my point for me.

The fact that the paper included a close encounter of the earth and moon is irrelevant.
The fact that there is newer work is also irrelevant.

Do you know why?

Pardon me, but two different models based on very different assumptions that lead to the same result (which is actually not true in this case) show the poor pertinence of these models (unfalsifiable).