LOL, so if we know that the answer is correct, and some moron gives us the wrong answer saying its correct we should listen to them??? Personally I'm gonna send him packing but to each his own.
Is the earth expanding?
- Thread starter bgjyd834
- Start date
LOL, so if we know that the answer is correct, and some moron gives us the wrong answer saying its correct we should listen to them??? Personally I'm gonna send him packing but to each his own.
Oh, really??? And it's certainly NOT just "blind trust in credentials". Sure, some faith is involved when people do have credentials BUT they also need to present solid evidence to back up their position.
However, your stance, on the other hand, REALLY IS placing blind trust in someone with no credentials. Now THAT approach is what I would consider either childish or just plain stupid!!:shrug:
Yes. Heaven forbid that anybody should ever be encouraged to critically examine an idea.
A contemporary method of measuring that can give a yes or no answer and is independent from the current model.
And when there is trench rollback the surface of lithosphere that get subducted is limited as shown by my figure.
You're more slippery than a snake. Whatever the method to measure the Earth-Moon paleodistance (I cited three from Willimas (2000)) it does not allow to calculate the length of a year in absolute time.
Yet another strawman. My claim is that the principle of parsimony is useful to dismiss a theory, while at the same time it is insufficient to refute a theory.
Of course it is not your nickname dear Ockham's machette.
According to your writings, I doubt you are.
I claim that evidence supporting the growing earth theory also refute plate tectonics. So it has nothing to do with the principle of parsimony. Whatever the mechanism, the growing earth theory is an empirical theory and that is what you fail to understand. It does not rely on first principle but on a corpus of observations which can solely be explained by a growth of Earth in mass and nothing else. And so does it for many other objects of the solar system. There is nothing more stupid than attacking an empirical theory on the ignorance of the causal mechanism. An empirical theory must be attacked on the evidence that support it, nothing else.
Arf, from someone that can't understand the limits of the principle of parcimony nor understand what is an empirical theory? Give me a break!
Leslie, we have no data that are useful to formulate a mechanism. And we can't make science without data. We can only do science with the data we have. This is one of the core premises of science.
And that really proves that you know nothing about Carey's theory. Carey already provided evidence that the growth is not uniform in space and time more than 40 years ago. That is why we have to calculate average rates over millions years and why the measurement à la Maxlow are much more pertinent than anything else. The growth only appears smoother in rate and shape at the millions years timescale. Eventually, for contemporary measurments, we would need a very dense grid of geodetic stations covering the whole planet including ocean floor, and measurment methods absolutly independent of the growth (so forget everything based on satellites), like VLBI. We don't have that kind of fancy facility yet.
So you know what, if you want that I take you seriously, you gonna do a bit of homework instead of constantly showing your ignorance of the topic.
You gonna read Carey's review published in Earth Science Reviews in 1975. And because I'm a nice guy, I generously offer it to you: http://dl.free.fr/mm0vIo5xn
When you're up to date, you can come back here to discuss seriously instead of "showing off"
Last edited:
Critics are always welcome because they are part of the scientific method and help to move forward. Science is very conservative by essence and this good, or theories would be overthrown everyday.
But Zealotry tainted of dishonesty and conceit is unacceptable.
You won't be surprised if I tell you that it does not characterise the vast majority of scientific researchers. It is more a characteristic of wannabe researchers that never wrote themselves a peer-reviewed paper but believe that they know what is science.
I don't expect that a zealot would understand that I have a life outside webfora.
It is independant of the current model.
The figure illustrates your assertion, nothing more.
Wrong, and also not really what I said.
What I actually actually said was that we can:
1. Calculate the history of the Earth-moon paleo distance, and the evolution of the Earth-moon system.
2. Calculate the history of the length of the day, month and year.
3. Compare those calculations to how many days there are in a month and a year to paleotidal data from tidal rhythmites.
I then went on to suggest that unless the Earth-Moon-Sun system had evolved in a very very specific way - to give the apperance of constance, then discrepancies might be proof of an expanding earth, and consistency might be proof of constance.
And what I suggested was that ontological parsimony was sufficient grounds to dismiss expanding earth tectonics.
When you quote my post does it say "Originally posted by Ockham's Machete" or "Originally posted by Trippy".
It says the second, not the first, therefore the second is my nickname, not the first.
The first is more like a title.
Unless of course your nickname is 'Registered User' and there is something you want to confess to us.
No. You have provided precisely zero unique evidence. You've been challenged to provide some, but so far have declined.
I am quite familiar with both, thankyou. Of course, I notice that you fail to mention that Wegner's original hypothesis was emperical, but he at least presumed a causal mechanism. Likewise, most of modern geology is emperical rather than theoretical.
Who?
And this is bull.
You can't collect data without knowing what data to look for, and you can't do that without a hypothesis as to a causal mechanism.
No, actually, what this shows is that you don't understand my point.
Most of the rest of what you have to say here is nonsense as well - all of the methods I have proposed would have shown up changes in the earths shape and size over varying time frames, whether it was uneven or not.
False. It relies on the ITRF, and the ITRF is not independent of the current model.
Besides, I remind you that the center of mass of earth is changing with every changes in the distribution of mass, thus with every earthquakes. Large quakes like the last japanese one can move the center of mass by more than 10 cm in a few minutes (!). So basically we have no useful reference frame to measure a growth in size, the later being not even uniform in shape and time.
The figure proves the point: limited lithosphere destruction in case of slab rollback, whatever the global framework.
It is possible to calculate how many days in a months, how many days in a year, but so far you have not demonstrated how it is possible to calculate the length of the year in hours. It kills your argument.
Repeat: The ontological parsimony is not sufficient to refute a theory.
false, I provided at least four different tests of the theory. But not very surprisingly, you ignore them. There is a pattern here.
No you're not. Repeat one more time: The ontological parsimony is not sufficient to refute a theory.
His causal mechanism was speculative and physicists at that time focus on that point ignoring the body of evidence. They attacked him because he speculated and they were right to do so.
Correct. a fortiori, you won't collect data if you don't know there is something to observe. It happens that no data were ever collected to understand how matter can accumulate inside some planets.
Very often, discoveries are serendipitous. We perform an experiment to get data in a particular well known theoretical frame work, and sometimes, there are some anomalies in the data. These anomalies can be the starting point to build a new theory. So far, I'm unaware of Physics experiment at the particle scale showing anomalies related to an accumulation of matter inside some planets. So there is nothing to build a theory at this point. Obviously, when physicist will be convinced that the growth of some planet happens, they will undoubtedly look for method to observe it at the particle scale and get an idea of the causal mechanism. And they will find it.
You can't have a pertinent point about a theory that you don't know. Only crackpots believe they can.
Last edited:
Exactly my point. You're not interested in the science, you're only interested in trolling and getting this tone in response.
This is not your first time, and you prove it again by deliberately ignoring the scientific literature you must read to understand the base theory, instead of trolling.
This is bullshit.
The raw data used by the GPS network is travel time. If the ITRF is based on mainstream tectonics, and a constant radius earth, then an expanding earth will introduce a measurable anomaly. This is precisely one of the things that the GPS network has been used to do.
Not only that, but again we come back to the point that we can construct a reference frame based on the fixed and distance stars, amd reference everything back to that.
Take a moment to meditate on the meaning of this though.
I assert there is no anomaly.
You assert that it's not a valid test, because it is reliant on the mainstream interpretation.
What you don't seem to understand is that if it is dependant on the mainstream interpretation, and there is no anomaly, then that directly implies that the mainstream interpretation is correct.
And again, as far as the satellite Ephemeridae go - and expanding earth that is gaining weight is going to result in a change in the orbit of all satellites, which, again, will introduce an anomaly, which would be detectable, when compared to a constant mass earth with a constant radius.
You have consistently avoided science. This amounts to a poor attempt to dodge a single point that I raised.
Where did all the water come from?
Why isn't there a 1.3s anomaly in the length of the day compared to 50 years ago?
Where does the extra matter come from?
Why is there no anomaly in GPS measurements?
Why is there no anomaly in Satellite Ephemeirdae?
Why is there no anomaly in paleotidal data?
There is one simple answer that we can invoke - that the radius of the earth has not changed.
This explanation is the most parsimonius, and does not require the incovation of unknown entities that have no physical mechanism that you can provide, and appear to defy the laws of physics as we currently understand them.
No. It shows that in your toy model there is limited lithosphere destruction in the case of slab rollback,
No it doesn't.
I've already explained that it's possible to model the history of tidal braking in the earth-moon system, and that in doing so we've already made interesting discoveries.
If we can model the history of tidal braking, we can calulate the length of the day, in hours, the length of the month in days, and the length of the year in days, and hours.
Now, stop trolling, go back, and re-read what I actually said in the sentence that you're directly replying to.
Ho hum.
Stop trolling and address what I have actually said.
Irrelevant - although by what you've stated here, you'vce contradicted yourself, and suggested that it's fine to 'attack' your theory because its lack of a causal mechanism.
BECAUSE YOU HAVE PROPOSED NO MECHANISM
You've got it arse-about-face. Once you have a mechanism, you can make predictions, once you can make predictions you can conduct experiments to make measurements. That's the way science works what you're proposing is one of the things that Gallileo revolted against, and was discarded with the scientific revolution. If we followed the method you're proposing, we'd still be sacrificing goats to pagan gods to try and control the weather.
What you're proposing is not science.
Every experiment that has ever been carried out in the history of science has been to test a hypothesis. You have no hypothesis. What you're doing now is hand waving. Your argument, at this point amounts to little more than "It hasn't been detected yet because nobody's doing teh right experiment". You are simply blaming everybody else. That's not science.
Develop a mechanism, propse a test, do an experiment, make a measurement, revise your mechanism, lather, rinse, repeat.
That is how science is done.
I have raised several pertinent points.
You can't address them, because you have no proof to support your theory.
So you admityou're trolling then? And choose to blame me for your actions, because you have thus far been unable to refute a single point I have raised.
False. The center of mass which is also the center of your reference frame is evolving with every single earthquake.
Large corrections must be applied to these travel times which are affected by many parameters, especially atmospheric conditions. And these corrections use assumptions like the a fixed earth radius.
This is what is done with VLBI which is therefore certainly the most independent geodetic system. But VLBI stations are sparse and corrections are still applied assuming a constant earth radius to reduce noise. Typically, corrections parameters are adjusted to minimize the RMS on vertical displacement assuming that the lithosphere mostly move horizontally (according to the plate tectonics model). And the VLBI data are evidently used to build the ITRF (plus SLR data, etc..).
If you had done you "homework" you would know it because this is written in plain in Maxlow's PhD thesis that you denied to read:
"In contrast when Robaudo & Harrison (1993) combined SLR solution UT/LLA9101 (including all data from 1976 to the beginning of 1991) and VLBI solution GBL66- (containing data up to the end of 1990) data sets to derive observation station horizontal motions for plate motion studies, they allowed all stations to have three independent motion velocities. These calculations, based on a global observational network, gave a root mean squared (RMS) value of up-down motions of over 18 mm/yr" (Robaudo and Harrison, 1993, PG. 53.) This value was considered by Robaudo and Harrison (1993) to be extremely high when compared to expected deglaciation rates, estimated at les than 10 mm/yr (Argus, 1996). "It is significant to note that Robaudo & Harrison (1993) 'expected that most VLBI stations will have up-dwon [radial] motions of only a few mm/yr' and recommended that the veritcal motion be restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr (Robaudo and Harrison, 1993, PG. 54)....' As recommended by Robaudo & Harrison (1993) the excesses in vertical measurement are globally zeroed, resulting in a static Earth radius premise being imposed on space geodetic observational data."
ROBAUDO S. and HARRISON C. G. A. 1993. Plate Tectonics from␣ SLR and VLBI global data. In: Smith D. E., and Turcotte D. L. eds.␣ Contributions of Space Geodesy to Geodynamics: Crustal Dynamics.␣ Geodynamics Series, Volume 23. American Geophysical Union. p53 et 54
I refuted each of your arguments.
From the mantle. The question becomes "where does the mantle come from?". We don't have the data to make an hypothesis about the formation of the mantle.
This calculation is based on the assumption that the accumulated matter has zero momentum. It is false.
See above.
It is not possible to identify anomalies if the system is biased at the core.
We can't determine if there are anomalies because we can't determine the length of the year in absolute time.
You (and many others) strangely fear that the causal mechanism will be incompatible with already known Physics. This fear is irrational.
Last edited:
Wrong. Answering to a troll is not trolling.
Yeah, only I'm not actually trolling - the only thing I have done in this thread is challenge you to support your assertions, and in doing so you make comments like this "I don't expect that a zealot would understand that I have a life outside webfora." which are completely unwarranted.
Changes that can (and have) been accounted for, so this assertion is irrelevant.
This is bogus. And here's why - if you're using the right equipment, you can cancel out the random errors introduced by these things, and measure position to an accuracy of 10cm - it's simply a matter of using the right equipment.
None of which introduces any distortions, which, once again, suggests that the assumptions being made are accurate.
You're making an assumption - that I haven't read Maxlows thesis.
This assumption is baseless - why, because I didn't say that it had not been done, I only pointed out to you, for like the third or fourth time that it could be done. I've even mentioned that this was Carey's prefered reference frame. But then, so far you've shown no inclination what so ever to address anything I'v actually said.
The only thing that you've proven here is that would I said can be done, can be done, and has been done.
Wrong.
You haven't touched Saros cycles, and observations maed over the last 5,000 years.
You haven't touched some of the very precise alignments in historical structures from the last 10,000 years.
You haven't even explained where all the water came from - or provided proof of 50km topography.
You've waffled and hand waved away the lack of anomalies in Satelite ephemeridae.
And like wise, you've hand waved away the lack of GPS anomalies, or tidalite anomalies.
In short, you've addressed nothing I have said.
Oh, and as far as reconstructions of the Iapetus Ocean goes, the modern reconstructions, those made since Carey published his book, include the work done by Wilson.
You have no mechanism, therefore no experiments, therefore no proof that mantle is being created.
The calculation was based on the assumption of the conservation of angular momentum.
Your assertion here is that matter is created in the mantle, that adds mass to the earth, and imparts angular momentum to it, but this is absurd at a basic level even if for no reason other than it requires the creation of matter in a reference frame that isn't co-rotating with the earth.
This goes to prove you don't understand the scientific method.
If the assumption is wrong, the model will produce anomalies. The model does not produce anomalies, therefore the assumption appears to be correct.
It's that simple.
If the model, and it's assumptions are wrong, the prediction fails, and anomalies appear. That's the way science works
Once again, you're wrong.
Allow me to repeat myself, yet again.
Tidal theory allows us to predict how the absolute length of the day has changed.
Tidal theory allows us to predict how the orbit of the moon around the Earth has changed.
Using these two predictions, we can then predict how long a month would be, in days, and how long a year would be in months and days.
We can then test these predictions against measurements made from tidalites.
This isn't fear talking. It's rationality, science, critical thought, ontological parsimony, and a little thing called emperical skepticism.