Trenches migration away from the back-arc implies limited lithosphere destruction as demonstrated by the figure I made. Your opinion is of no scientific value.
No, it does not, contempory literature also expects trench roll back to occur under a variety of scenarios.
If it is predictable then simply provide the method used to predict the evolution of the braking rate. All I've seen so far, is the calculation of average braking rate derived from the Moon-Earth paleodistance (See Williams), derived either from the lunar nodal period or the number of sidereal months/yr or the number of sidereal days/yr (all three giving consistent results).
Strictly speaking, you're the one making the extraordinary claim, so it's up to you to provide the proof, however there are peer reviewed papers dating back to 1978 detailing a number of different ways of measuring the lunar paleo distance, including measuring the shape of Lunar maria. One of the things we have learned about, as a result of these studies is that during the Paleozoic the rate at which the moon receeded from the earth
slowed. Physics, and tidal theory, combined with mainstream plate tectonics provide a natural explanation for this.
All of which is beside the point, and here's why - even only considering averages, and expanding earth would still lead to a detecable anomaly.
No it is not hypocritical.
It is complete hypocrisy for you to suggest that ontological parsimony is sufficient to dismiss the mainstream theory, while at the same time arguing it is insufficient to dismiss your toy model.
For someone whose nickname is Ockham's machete, you seem surprisingly unfamiliar with the limitation of Ockam's razor.
That's not my nickname.
The principle of parsimony states that between two hypotheses able to explain an observation, the simplest one should be preferred. So it is a valuable principle that help a scientist to choose which hypothesis to favour for further studies. But it is not sufficient to definitively refute the more complex hypothesis.
I am familiar with the principle of ontological parismony. What you have failed to recognize is the implications of your own argument about your misuse of it. You have explicitly claimed that expanding earth tectonics is simpler than the mainstream theory, and so we should reject the mainstream theory, however, now that it has been pointed out to you that expanding earth tectonics is in fact more complicated because it introduces a number of unknown mechanisms, then suddenly complexity is not sufficient grounds for discarding expanding earth tectonics.
This, in and of itself should immeadiately ring alarm bells to a casual third person when viewing this thread, because it is precisely this sort of behaviour and attitude that indicates faith, rather than science at work.
If you're discussing expanding earth literature that speculates on a mechanism, that remains speculation. I have absolutely zero compassion for those expansionists that are seduced by worthless speculation.
So instead you present a toy model with no viable mechanism?
When will you understand that we can't formulate a mechanism to add mass to the Earth as long as we have no data to formulate one? Without data we can't build a mechanism, without data, every proposition is speculative. Is that clear enough?
Wrong. This is one of the core premises of science. If you were
actually interested in science, then you would have been able to offer a mechanism.
Incidentaly, I want to revisit this statement:
When will you understand that we can't formulate a mechanism to add mass to the Earth as long as we have no data to formulate one?
Take a moment to think about this.
We have 50 years worth of data collected from satelite orbits.
In this time, Carey would have us believe that the earth has expanded between 800mm and 1600mm.
Let's think about this, for a moment. The Earth has a radius of 6,378.1370 km.
If we assume that the Earth has grown from something else, to that - an assumption that works in your favour, then 50 years ago, the radius of the earth was between 6378.1362km and 6378.1354km.
Now, let's just use the largest number, the lowest amount predicted by Carey.
According to Carey, the circumference of the Earth increased from 40075.012km to 40075.017km (8SF for both).
For simplicities sake, for a moment, let's treat the earth as a sphere.
If Carey is correct, then the Earth has increased its volume by 408,966.26 km[sup]3[/sup]
This equates, if the bulk density of the earth has remained constant - something you have suggested or implied, that the earth has gained an additional 2.25545E+18 kg.
This, in turn, suggests that, if the earth's angular momentum has remained constant, that the Earths day has lengthened by 1.3s over the last 50 years - a deviation that we have had the capacity to measure since 1955.
But it gets worse than that for expanding earth tectonics - The Chaldeans recorded the Saros over 3,000 years ago, which gives us another tool for understanding whether or not the Earth has expanded, because it would manifest as anomalies in our record of solar and lunar eclipses.
You're probably referring to Muller's work. Sea level data do not favour a model because they can be equally well explained for each model.
No, not really.
False. Carey's refutation of a wide Iapetus ocean is based on palaeomagnetic data (from Morris), and these data prove that the separation was along the Appalachian-caledonian axis, not across it. Then the fact that the separation was along the axis implies that the Earth is growing. We start from the data to build the theory, not the opposite. This is good science. In plate tectonics, the data are explained with the hindsight from the theory. This is bad science (and I'm nice).
You're right, expanding earth tectonics is bad science.
Appearance is not the same as creation ex nihilo. I reject the latter or conservation laws would be violated.
Oh, so you posit that the matter appears inside the earth from an external source? How
precisely does that work?
This not an evidence, this is a strawman, because so far we have no data to build a mechanism to add mass to the Earth. We can only observe that it must happen because of different line of evidence.
So you're attacking an unknown mechanism. It is irrational.
No it isn't. You can provide no evidence of any mass gain in the last 3,000 years (we could probably argue in excess of 10,000 if we consider things such as stone henge), and you can provide no evidence for a plausable mechanism, and you are asking us to simply ignore the lack of evidence.
The first question you must ask yourself before doing this is: are these methodologies completely independent from the plate tectonic model?
yes.