Is the earth expanding?

[florian]

No. It shows that in your toy model there is limited lithosphere destruction in the case of slab rollback,

False. The figure applies to slab-rollback in general.

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.

No, and I will repeat it a last time, it can't be modeled because we cannot extrapolate the current receeding rate of the moon back in time, the moon would be too close form earth circa 1.5 By ago, see Williams (2000) Reviews of Geophysics 38, p37.

So there is no way to predict the how the absolute length of day has changed. It must be calculated from the lunar nodal period or the number of sidereal months/yr or the number of sidereal days/yr. In fine, no comparison can be made between methods that are independent from the orbital period and your argument is dead.

Now, stop trolling, go back, and re-read what I actually said in the sentence that you're directly replying to.

Trolling is your speciality not mine. I adressed what you said: It is possible to dismiss a theory but not to refute it using Ockham's razor. The growing earth theory relies on evidence that render the principle of parcimony useless here. But since you deny reading Carey's review, it means that you just don't care and are just a troll.

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.

You misconstrue what I write and you do that constantly. I said that proposing a physical mechanism in absence of data to support it is a scientific suicide.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE PROPOSED NO MECHANISM

Don't shout please. Proposing a physical mechanism makes no sense as long as we have no data to support one. We can only infer from the observations that earth is growing in mass from inside but we can't propose a physical mechanism yet to explain it at a subatomic level because we have no data to make an hypothesis.

You've got it arse-about-face. Once you have a mechanism,...

You missed the initial step!

1. Observe a phenomenon
2. Propose a mechanism
3. Make predictions
4. Test the predictions experimentally.

Without the initial observation there is nothing that can be done.

That is the way science works.

You just proved that you don't know how science works. That is ok (except if you are a scientist!), but in this case don't pretend to know how science works. You don't.

So be humble and learn from professional scientists like Carey.

 

[Trippy]

False. The figure applies to slab-rollback in general.

No, it applies to your interpretation of slab rollback.

No, and I will repeat it a last time, it can't be modeled because we cannot extrapolate the current receeding rate of the moon back in time, the moon would be too close form earth circa 1.5 By ago, see Williams (2000) Reviews of Geophysics 38, p37.

You're wrong. Plain and simple. It's funny that you don't even realize just how wrong you are.

So there is no way to predict the how the absolute length of day has changed. It must be calculated from the lunar nodal period or the number of sidereal months/yr or the number of sidereal days/yr. In fine, no comparison can be made between methods that are independent from the orbital period and your argument is dead.

Wrong again, it can, and has been done. The funny thing is that it's accuracy is reliant not only on things like the the earth having a constant radius and mass, but also things like the distribution of the oceans - because it's the oceans that provide the majority of the braking force. So in that respect it adds another layer of confidence to our reconstructions.

Trolling is your speciality not mine.

I have yet to troll.

I adressed what you said: It is possible to dismiss a theory but not to refute it using Ockham's razor.

No, you have not.
Here is what I said:
"And what I suggested was that ontological parsimony was sufficient grounds to dismiss expanding earth tectonics"
And here is your reply:
"Repeat: The ontological parsimony is not sufficient to refute a theory."
Can you uderstand the difference between what I actually said, and what you're implying/asserting I said?

The growing earth theory relies on evidence that render the principle of parcimony useless here.

If the principle of parsimony is useless here, then it is also insufficient to dismiss the standard model of plate tectonics. If it is insufficient to dismiss one, it is insufficient to dismiss both. If it can be used to dismiss one, it can be used to dismiss both. It's that simple. Science doesn't operate according to double standards. Science operates by applying the same standards and principles universally.

But since you deny reading Carey's review, it means that you just don't care and are just a troll.

Again, you assume that I haven't read Carey's review, eeven though I have directly addressed several of his points that you have not raised (for example his 100km diapiric rise).

You misconstrue what I write and you do that constantly.

I do nno such thing.

I said that proposing a physical mechanism in absence of data to support it is a scientific suicide.

What you propose is untestable.
With no mechanism you can not propose an experiment to test your hypothesis. What your proposing is below the work of (for eample) Scalera, who at least made an effort to propose a mechanism.

Don't shout please. Proposing a physical mechanism makes no sense as long as we have no data to support one.

See above.

We can only infer from the observations that earth is growing in mass from inside but we can't propose a physical mechanism yet to explain it at a subatomic level because we have no data to make an hypothesis.

You have proposed no mechanism by which the earth grows that can be tested.

You have only asserted that it must do so.

Again, allow me to repeat myself. In order to know what to look for at a subatomic level, you must first propose a mechanism that makes testable predictions. Otherwise, you're not doing science.

You missed the initial step!

1. Observe a phenomenon
2. Propose a mechanism
3. Make predictions
4. Test the predictions experimentally.

Without the initial observation there is nothing that can be done.

Nonsense. I missed no step.
You have the hypothesis - that the earth is expanding by some mechanism.
You claim that this hypothesis is supported by observation, but it is a hypothesis that has no plausable mechanism.
You have no observations, because you haven't carried out any experiments, because you have proposed no mechanism that can be tested.
Every discovery in the history of science - including the serendipitous ones, has been made this way.

That is the way science works.

You just proved that you don't know how science works. That is ok (except if you are a scientist!), but in this case don't pretend to know how science works. You don't.

I know how science works, and you're not doing it.

You have made no unique falsifiable predictions - even Carey himself said about the Iapetus ocean that (I assume the reconstruction has changed since the '70s) that if the reconstruction was done a certain way, that his 'anomaly' disappeared, and all of the reconstructions of the Iapetus ocean I've looked at are consitent with Carey's description.

 

[florian]

No, it applies to your interpretation of slab rollback.

False. The fact that limited amount of lithosphere is destructed in the case of slab-rollback is independent from any interpretation. The sole lithosphere that get subducted is the rolling-back lithosphere. Anyone can confirm it with this scheme representative of all slab-rollbacks:

No, and I will repeat it a last time, it can't be modeled because we cannot extrapolate the current receding rate of the moon back in time, the moon would be too close form earth circa 1.5 By ago, see Williams (2000) Reviews of Geophysics 38, p37.

You're wrong. Plain and simple. It's funny that you don't even realize just how wrong you are.

I'm not wrong. It has been calculated that with the current receding rate, the moon would be too close from Earth 1.5 By ago so that any extrapolation based on the current receding rate must be wrong. If you deny it, then prove that Williams is wrong when he states page 19 of his review that "Projecting into the past a rate of tidal energy dissipation consistent with the present rate of lunar recession of 3.82 cm/yr indicates a close approach of the Moon at ≈1.5 Ga (Figure 15, curve a)."

I have yet to troll.

You have done nothing else but trolling with no intention to understand the arguments presented in support of the growing Earth theory.

No, you have not.
Here is what I said:
"And what I suggested was that ontological parsimony was sufficient grounds to dismiss expanding earth tectonics"
And here is your reply:
"Repeat: The ontological parsimony is not sufficient to refute a theory."
Can you uderstand the difference between what I actually said, and what you're implying/asserting I said?

I perfectly understand what you say but you certainly did not understand the points I raised against your assertion. The first point is that the principle of parsimony can help to choose between two theories (so dismiss one theory) but it can't refute a theory. So it can't refute the growing Earth theory. The Second point is that the growing earth theory is an empirical theory. This means that it does not rely on first principle or a causal mechanism but on a body of observations. So the only way to prove that this theory is wrong, is to demolished the evidence that support the theory. To do so, you must first know these evidence and for that matter, you must read the scientific literature supporting this theory. Some of these evidence are presented in the exhaustive review written by Carey that you said you read. And it happens that among them, some refute plate tectonics at the same time than they support the growing earth theory.
For example, the larger oceanization of the southern hemisphere indicates a larger growth of this hemisphere. This leads to the growing earth prediction that terranes once located at the equator should now be found in the northern hemisphere. It is even possible that terranes that were in the southern hemisphere are now found in the northern hemisphere. India is a very good example of that migration, see following scheme:

According to paleomagnetic data, and I quote Carey, "The Permian equator now lies 37° north of the equator in North America, 40° north in Europe, and 17° north in Siberia, which is impossible on an earth of constant radius without at least 6,000 km of post-Palaeozoic subduction within the Arctic." So the prediction is verified, and at the same time refutes plate tectonics, because the latter predicts a large convergent boundary in the arctic whereas in reality there is a spreading ridge (Gakkel ridge).

Again, you assume that I haven't read Carey's review, eeven though I have directly addressed several of his points that you have not raised (for example his 100km diapiric rise).

Only 100 km? Knowing that measurements indicate a 400-km growth of the radius just the last 20 My, it does not seem very much.

What you propose is untestable.

What? I do not propose a mechanism because we don't have the physics to explain the causal mechanism nor data to get some clues about it.
Proposing a mechanism based on "no data" is not Science. It is wishful thinking. Your request for a causal mechanism is antiscientific.

Again, allow me to repeat myself. In order to know what to look for at a subatomic level, you must first propose a mechanism that makes testable predictions. Otherwise, you're not doing science.

That is the opposite! Proposing a subatomic mechanism based on nothing is certainly not doing science (!)
I can't understand how someone who supposedly got a basic education in science can request something that is so antiscientific. This is unreal!

Nonsense. I missed no step.

Oh yes you definitively missed the first step. We don't have the initial observation of subatomic events that could help us to propose a mechanism for the accumulation of matter inside some planets. If you know one, then write a paper; published it, and I promise you that you will have a good chance to get a prize in Stockholm.

You have the hypothesis - that the earth is expanding by some mechanism.

No! Huge misunderstanding of the state of the theory.Here is the situation: We have a corpus of observations that led us to the conclusion that Earth and some other planets have been growing in mass. This is not an hypothesis but a fact. From that fact, we can infer that physics must exist that explains this growth in mass. But it does tell us nothing more on the causal mechanism. We're stuck until new data help us to get some clues about the physics involved.

You have made no unique falsifiable predictions - even Carey himself said about the Iapetus ocean that (I assume the reconstruction has changed since the '70s) that if the reconstruction was done a certain way, that his 'anomaly' disappeared, and all of the reconstructions of the Iapetus ocean I've looked at are consitent with Carey's description.

Very impressive, you managed to completely misinterpret what Carey says and you did it intentionally to serve your agenda.

For the reader, this is what Carey wrote:

"Dr. W. A. Morris pioneered the investigation of this question [separation by an hypothetic ocean], and found that indeed the poles had separated by some 30 degrees, but the separation was in the direction of the Appalachian-caledonian axis, and not transverse to it as it would have to be if the alleged lapetus Ocean had been subducted."

"The alleged anomaly between the northwest African glaciation and the subtropical limestones of the western slopes of the Appalachians during the Ordovician is also eased by the displacement along the Appalachian axis, but on an expanding Earth, it was not anomalous anyway. If the pole be assumed to have been in the center of the records of glaciation and the earth's radius assumed to have been 0.7 of the present radius, the most northerly glaciate in northwest Africa would have been in latitude 43° (the same as the most northerly Quaternary glaciate at sea level in Tasmania), and the subtropical Ordovician limestones would have been in the latitude of the present Great Barrier Reef of Queensland. The evidence for Iapetus, and the mythical ocean itself, vanish. "

So the anomaly disappears only if the Iapetus ocean is removed from the reconstructions and replaced by a long megashear forming a long and narrow basin.

 

[Trippy]

False. The fact that limited amount of lithosphere is destructed in the case of slab-rollback is independent from any interpretation. The sole lithosphere that get subducted is the rolling-back lithosphere.

No.

I'm not wrong. It has been calculated that with the current receding rate, the moon would be too close from Earth 1.5 By ago so that any extrapolation based on the current receding rate must be wrong. If you deny it, then prove that Williams is wrong when he states page 19 of his review that "Projecting into the past a rate of tidal energy dissipation consistent with the present rate of lunar recession of 3.82 cm/yr indicates a close approach of the Moon at ≈1.5 Ga (Figure 15, curve a)."

I'm familiar with Williams' work.
I'm not talking about Williams' work.
I'm talking about other work.
I don't know why you're so obssessed with Williams' work - probably because it means that you can cherry pick it, and present that particular quote out of context.
I'm going to repeat myself.
The modelling of the rate of recession can, and has been done using tidal theory, and we know that it was variable.

You have done nothing else but trolling with no intention to understand the arguments presented in support of the growing Earth theory.

Argumentum ad hominem.

I perfectly understand what you say but you certainly did not understand the points I raised against your assertion. The first point is that the principle of parsimony can help to choose between two theories (so dismiss one theory) but it can't refute a theory. So it can't refute the growing Earth theory.

And it is on this basis, among others, that I dismiss expanding earth tectonics (there, I said it, yet again).

The Second point is that the growing earth theory is an empirical theory. This means that it does not rely on first principle or a causal mechanism but on a body of observations. So the only way to prove that this theory is wrong, is to demolished the evidence that support the theory. To do so, you must first know these evidence and for that matter, you must read the scientific literature supporting this theory. Some of these evidence are presented in the exhaustive review written by Carey that you said you read. And it happens that among them, some refute plate tectonics at the same time than they support the growing earth theory.

No, because as I have pointed out - using the Iapetus ocean as an example, our understanding of the past organization of the continents has evolved. Carey's argument regarding the Iapetus ocean appears to be based on a reconstruction that is no longer relevant.

For example, the larger oceanization of the southern hemisphere indicates a larger growth of this hemisphere.

Only according to your toy model - stop presenting supposition as fact.

This leads to the growing earth prediction that terranes once located at the equator should now be found in the northern hemisphere. It is even possible that terranes that were in the southern hemisphere are now found in the northern hemisphere. India is a very good example of that migration, see following scheme:

As opposed to what - the plate tectonics reconstruction that they were once in the Southern Hemisphere?
This assertion of yours does not provide a testable prediction.
Also, your reconstruction makes a provably wrong prediction. Can you figure out what that is?

According to paleomagnetic data, and I quote Carey, "The Permian equator now lies 37° north of the equator in North America, 40° north in Europe, and 17° north in Siberia, which is impossible on an earth of constant radius without at least 6,000 km of post-Palaeozoic subduction within the Arctic." So the prediction is verified, and at the same time refutes plate tectonics, because the latter predicts a large convergent boundary in the arctic whereas in reality there is a spreading ridge (Gakkel ridge).

No. Carey's assertion is bogus in this, nothing has been proven or disporoven by it.

Only 100 km? Knowing that measurements indicate a 400-km growth of the radius just the last 20 My, it does not seem very much.

That's what Carey predicted, but you knew that already, being familiar with his work and all that.

What? I do not propose a mechanism because we don't have the physics to explain the causal mechanism nor data to get some clues about it.
Proposing a mechanism based on "no data" is not Science. It is wishful thinking. Your request for a causal mechanism is antiscientific.

No it isn't, it is perfectly reasonable, and there have been several proposed.

That is the opposite! Proposing a subatomic mechanism based on nothing is certainly not doing science (!)
I can't understand how someone who supposedly got a basic education in science can request something that is so antiscientific. This is unreal!

Again, you're wrong, but it's also evident you don't seem to have fully understood what I have said.

Oh yes you definitively missed the first step. We don't have the initial observation of subatomic events that could help us to propose a mechanism for the accumulation of matter inside some planets. If you know one, then write a paper; published it, and I promise you that you will have a good chance to get a prize in Stockholm.

See, here's the thing, and this is why I say it's crucially important that you provide one - modern Physics, to the best of my recollection does not provide for one. The mantle of the earth is simply not hot enough or dense enough. Even Graviton decay would leave its fingerprint, but it doesn't. There is no evidence, and there is no mechanism to support your assertion.

No! Huge misunderstanding of the state of the theory.Here is the situation: We have a corpus of observations that led us to the conclusion that Earth and some other planets have been growing in mass. This is not an hypothesis but a fact. From that fact, we can infer that physics must exist that explains this growth in mass.

No, you have a hypothesis, if I'm being generous, that makes no unique testable predictions, that lacks a causal mechanism, isn't backed by measurements that can be made or infered in the last 10,000 years (or 1.2 GA for that matter), and from that you infer that some mechanism must exist, even though you have absolutely no idea what it might be.

But it does tell us nothing more on the causal mechanism. We're stuck until new data help us to get some clues about the physics involved.

Wrong.
Science doesn't just magically manifest answers into a notebook. It requires experimentation to verify predictions made by a hypothesis. Without a hypothesis, no predictions can be made, and nothing can be tested - what you're practicing is more like faith. You're sitting back and claiming "It's irrefutable! Pay no attention to the man behind the mirror! Physics just hasn't caught up with me yet, have faith brothers, a mechanism will emerge!"

Very impressive, you managed to completely misinterpret what Carey says and you did it intentionally to serve your agenda.

For the reader, this is what Carey wrote:

"Dr. W. A. Morris pioneered the investigation of this question [separation by an hypothetic ocean], and found that indeed the poles had separated by some 30 degrees, but the separation was in the direction of the Appalachian-caledonian axis, and not transverse to it as it would have to be if the alleged lapetus Ocean had been subducted."

"The alleged anomaly between the northwest African glaciation and the subtropical limestones of the western slopes of the Appalachians during the Ordovician is also eased by the displacement along the Appalachian axis, but on an expanding Earth, it was not anomalous anyway. If the pole be assumed to have been in the center of the records of glaciation and the earth's radius assumed to have been 0.7 of the present radius, the most northerly glaciate in northwest Africa would have been in latitude 43° (the same as the most northerly Quaternary glaciate at sea level in Tasmania), and the subtropical Ordovician limestones would have been in the latitude of the present Great Barrier Reef of Queensland. The evidence for Iapetus, and the mythical ocean itself, vanish. "

I have misrepresented nothing.
I have emphasized the salient portion of the quoted text.

So the anomaly disappears only if the Iapetus ocean is removed from the reconstructions and replaced by a long megashear forming a long and narrow basin.

No, that is not what Carrey said.

 

[Trippy]

All of which is beside the point, more or less, because we come back to the same basic point.

Irrespective of whether or not you believe that we can predict how many hours are in a year, we can show using tidalites how many days were in a month, and how many days are in a year.

Setting aside, for the moment, your assertion that somehow, as if by magic, this matter which appears in the Earth's mantle adds just enough angular momentum, we come back to this point.

Adding mass to the Earth would cause it to migrate closer to the sun - unless G varies 'just so', or its angular momentum varies 'just so'. This would mean that the year should have been longer (in hours) at some point in the past. This, combined with shorter days would result in more days in each year, and more months in each year. An anomaly that should be detectable, but isn't, and so you predict that, somehow, by physics which is unknown to the physics community, and does not fit within the current paradigm, as well as adding mass to the Earth, it imparts just enough angular momentum to the earth to prevent orbit from migrating.

If the Earth was smaller and lighter than it is today, its days would be much shorter in hours than they are today. Again, irrespective of whether or not you think we can use tidal theory to predict the absolute length of the day, this would result in more days per month, and more days per year than is observed, again, an anomaly that should be measurable, but isn't. So again, you hypothesize, that some how, the matter that is being added to the Earth imparts angular momentum to it in a way that is 'just so' and gives the illusion of constancy.

 

[Trippy]

Oh, and seeing as how Florian likes using Williams so much, here's something else he's had to say, in a different paper to the one that Florian insists on using:

The validity of such values, including past length of day, can be assessed by testing for internal self-consistency through application of the laws of celestial mechanics. Such a test supports the estimated length of day of 21.9 +/- 0.4 h derived from the late Neoproterozoic (620 Ma) Elatina–Reynella rhythmites in South Australia, and the indicated mean rate of lunar retreat of 2.16 +/- 0.31 cm/year since 620 Ma. The validity of estimated lengths of day obtained from other Precambrian tidal rhythmites remain unverified because the data sets contain only one primary value directly determined from the rhythmites. The Elatina–Reynella data militate against significant Earth expansion at least since 620 Ma...

So Williams supports my assertion that the validity of the length of the day can be verified (in a couple of different ways it seems), and that the rate of retreat has varied over time.

Elsehwere he has this to say:

The derived mean rate of lunar retreat of 2.16 cm/year since ∼620 Ma averts a close approach of the Moon at least since 3 Ga and a lower rate of retreat seems likely during the Proterozoic.

So sorry, no Ultra-violet catastrophy for expanding earth tectonics to save us from today.

Addendum:
The point, it seems, that is being missed here, is that the Elatina–Reynella tidalites allow us to reconstruct the moon's orbit about the earth, as it was 620MYA. The tidalites give us Semidiurnal, diurnal, monthly, and annual cycles, as well as the multi year cycle that gives rise to the eclipse cycle.

These periodicities, and their beat rythms allow us to (or in this case allowed Williams) to determine, using Newtonian physics, what the moons orbital parameters must have been. These orbital parameters then allow us to calculate an 'absolute' length of the day in hours, and the mass of the earth. Neither of which allow for an expanding earth that gains mass.

 

[florian]

Oh, and seeing as how Florian likes using Williams so much, here's something else he's had to say, in a different paper to the one that Florian insists on using:

The validity of such values, including past length of day, can be assessed by testing for internal self-consistency through application of the laws of celestial mechanics. Such a test supports the estimated length of day of 21.9 +/- 0.4 h derived from the late Neoproterozoic (620 Ma) Elatina–Reynella rhythmites in South Australia, and the indicated mean rate of lunar retreat of 2.16 +/- 0.31 cm/year since 620 Ma. The validity of estimated lengths of day obtained from other Precambrian tidal rhythmites remain unverified because the data sets contain only one primary value directly determined from the rhythmites. The Elatina–Reynella data militate against significant Earth expansion at least since 620 Ma...

So Williams supports my assertion that the validity of the length of the day can be verified (in a couple of different ways it seems), and that the rate of retreat has varied over time.

This is simply not true because as I stated many time before, it is not possible to make these calculations without assumption on the absolute time length of Earth's orbital period. Williams does not talk about it in his review and this leads to some confusions. But it is obvious from the equations he used, and you permanently failed to understand it.

Fortunately, Mazumder wrote a very good critic on the work on tidalites and (click to get pdf): R. Mazumber (2005) "Reply to the comment of G. Williams on Tidal rhythmites and their implications by R. Mazumder and M. Arima [Earth-Science Reviews, 69 (2005) 79–95]" Earth-Science Reviews 72 (2005) 119–123

This paper develops my point in details and destroys your "self-consistency" argument. Have a good reading.

Regarding Earth's expansion, I also remind you that Williams wanted to refute an expansion of Earth (At constant mass, thus conserved momentum), but it is irrelevant to a growth of Earth which implies a change in momentum due to the momentum contribution of the gained matter.

 

[Trippy]

This is simply not true because as I stated many time before, it is not possible to make these calculations without assumption on the absolute time length of Earth's orbital period. Williams does not talk about it in his review and this leads to some confusions. But it is obvious from the equations he used, and you permanently failed to understand it.

Fortunately, Mazumder wrote a very good critic on the work on tidalites and (click to get pdf): R. Mazumber (2005) "Reply to the comment of G. Williams on Tidal rhythmites and their implications by R. Mazumder and M. Arima [Earth-Science Reviews, 69 (2005) 79–95]" Earth-Science Reviews 72 (2005) 119–123

This paper develops my point in details and destroys your "self-consistency" argument. Have a good reading.

Regarding Earth's expansion, I also remind you that Williams wanted to refute an expansion of Earth (At constant mass, thus conserved momentum), but it is irrelevant to a growth of Earth which implies a change in momentum due to the momentum contribution of the gained matter.

I've read Mazumder's reply to Williams' paper before. Frankly, that's 10 minutes of my life I will never get back.

I found Mazumder's paper to be grossly flawed, and factually inaccurate.

For example:

This is similar to the speculation of the astrophysicists that Earth–Moon collision occurred sometimes between 2000 and 1500 Ma resulting in total melting of Earth’s mantle (cf. Lambeck, 1980; Walker and Zahnle, 1986)...

No, they don't.

They know that it formed in the first 10-100 MYA of the Solar system's history eg: Halliday 2008 and you can't defend him by claiming that it's new science that he couldn't have known about, because it was proposed as far back as 1973 by Tera et al that the apollo samples suggested that the impact must have occured at least 3.8-4 GYA.

The rest of what I see there is speculation - for example, the Hulse-Taylor Binary Pulsar allows us to test Relativity - one of the assumptions of which is the constancy of G. One of the Hulse-Taylor Binary Pulsar tells us is that 21,000 years ago, G was the same as it is now - we know this because the system is loosing energy at a rate as if G was the same then as it is now. And that's without delving into tests using Globular clusters and H-R diagrams, helioseimicity experiments, and so on and so forth (the list really is quite extensive) - all of which come to the same conclusion - if G has varied, it's been by 1.5x10[sup]-12[/sup] of its current or less per year for the last 4.5 billion years - in other words, it has varied by no more than 9x10[sup]-23[/sup] m[sup]3[/sup]kg[sup]-1[/sup]s[sup]-2[/sup] per year.

To put that in perspective - G, according to our ability to measure it, and its history, has only increased by 0.8% in the last 620MA, however, if we use the values for Radius given in Maxlow's thesis, the Earth's mass has increased by 3000% over the same time - assuming that the bulk density of the earth has remained constant. So now we require not only G to vary, and the mass of the earth to vary, but the bulk density of the earth to vary in just the right way as to give the appearance of having remained constant.

Oh, and incidentally, you, and Mazumder are wrong about something else - it's a point that I have alluded to several times, which you have thus far chosen to ignore.

Williams' work give us an estimate of the rate of recession for the last 620 MYA, something that we can both agree on, and it's one that is consistent with the other information that we have regarding the moon.
From this, and from Williams' other work (IIRC) we can predict what the length of the moon's semi major axis would/could/should have been 620 MYA. Using only the assumption that the Earth's density has remained constant - an assumption that you have implicitly agreed to - in fact, I believe it was you who suggsted it, we can calculate the absolute time of the orbital period of the moon around the earth, in seconds, and from that calculate the absolute length of the Earths year, month and day.

I'll give Mazumder credit where it's due though, he did get one thing right.

He said:

...tidal friction is critically dependent on the sea level and continental configurations both of which have changed significantly in the geologic past.

This can, and has been modeled, on the basis of reconstructions from mainstream plate tectonics, and the results, once again, give good agreement with Williams' work.

 

[Alexander1304]

No,earth is NOT expanding,how can it?

 

[James R]

Of course it's not expanding - especially at the ridiculous rate that florian is claiming. Note that he gives no mechanism for the suggested expansion, and no credible evidence either.

 

[florian]

I've read Mazumder's reply to Williams' paper before. Frankly, that's 10 minutes of my life I will never get back.

You've lost more than 10 minutes by advocating obsolete theories.

I found Mazumder's paper to be grossly flawed, and factually inaccurate.

For example:

This is similar to the speculation of the astrophysicists that Earth–Moon collision occurred sometimes between 2000 and 1500 Ma resulting in total melting of Earth’s mantle (cf. Lambeck, 1980; Walker and Zahnle, 1986)...

No, they don't.

They know that it formed in the first 10-100 MYA of the Solar system's history eg: Halliday 2008 and you can't defend him by claiming that it's new science that he couldn't have known about, because it was proposed as far back as 1973 by Tera et al that the apollo samples suggested that the impact must have occured at least 3.8-4 GYA.

That's not the point!
The point is that astrophysicists wildly speculated about a Earth-Moon collision and presented it as a fact despite it is just an hypothesis. And it is still quite common to see this hypothesis of a collision with a Mars-sized object called "theia" as a fact in recent peer-reviewed paper. In reality, this is just another typical american catastrophist hypothesis. this hypothesis is not so far from one of their dumbest movies, armageddon. Without any surprise, recent analysis finally show that the moon's mantle is as rich in water than earth's mantle. Of course this destroys this silly impact hypothesis. Note that the dichotomy of Mars hemispheres is also explained as resulting from a large impact. Yet another silly catastrophist hypothesis that has nothing to do with science.

The rest of what I see there is speculation - for example, the Hulse-Taylor Binary Pulsar allows us to test Relativity - one of the assumptions of which is the constancy of G. One of the Hulse-Taylor Binary Pulsar tells us is that 21,000 years ago, G was the same as it is now - we know this because the system is loosing energy at a rate as if G was the same then as it is now. And that's without delving into tests using Globular clusters and H-R diagrams, helioseimicity experiments, and so on and so forth (the list really is quite extensive) - all of which come to the same conclusion - if G has varied, it's been by 1.5x10[sup]-12[/sup] of its current or less per year for the last 4.5 billion years - in other words, it has varied by no more than 9x10[sup]-23[/sup] m[sup]3[/sup]kg[sup]-1[/sup]s[sup]-2[/sup] per year.

Actually, I agree that the hypothesis of G variation is a dead end. Though, G variation is not the only explanation for the change of a planet orbit. A change in mass of the central star, transfer of momentum from the central star to the planet, a gain or loss of orbital velocity for the planet, plenty combinations.

To put that in perspective - G, according to our ability to measure it, and its history, has only increased by 0.8% in the last 620MA, however, if we use the values for Radius given in Maxlow's thesis, the Earth's mass has increased by 3000% over the same time - assuming that the bulk density of the earth has remained constant. So now we require not only G to vary, and the mass of the earth to vary, but the bulk density of the earth to vary in just the right way as to give the appearance of having remained constant.

Your claim of a variation "just the right way" is as baseless as your claim that the orbital period remained constant. Besides, the density of Earth, Mercury, Venus and Mars are between 5.5 and 4, Io 3.5, Ganymede 1.9. So the density of Earth was likely somewhere between 2 and 5.5 during its recent evolution. I would not bet that Earth's density remained constant either.

Oh, and incidentally, you, and Mazumder are wrong about something else - it's a point that I have alluded to several times, which you have thus far chosen to ignore.

Williams' work give us an estimate of the rate of recession for the last 620 MYA, something that we can both agree on, and it's one that is consistent with the other information that we have regarding the moon.

It allows to calculate mean rates. That's all.

From this, and from Williams' other work (IIRC) we can predict what the length of the moon's semi major axis would/could/should have been 620 MYA. Using only the assumption that the Earth's density has remained constant - an assumption that you have implicitly agreed to - in fact

Not really. I simply use this assumption to estimate the minimal gain in mass.

, I believe it was you who suggsted it, we can calculate the absolute time of the orbital period of the moon around the earth, in seconds, and from that calculate the absolute length of the Earths year, month and day.

No. On the contrary, I reminded you (So did Mazumder), that absolute time values rely entirely on the assumption that the absolute length of earth's orbital period remained constant. And this is not a given.

No,earth is NOT expanding,how can it?

By inner growth in mass.

Of course it's not expanding - especially at the ridiculous rate that florian is claiming.

This rate is not wishful thinking but a real quantification (!). The fact is that you don't have the basic knowkedge to understand how it was measured and why the method is pertinent.

Note that he gives no mechanism for the suggested expansion, and no credible evidence either.

Oh please, don't tell me that it is my fault if we don't have the physics at hand to explain that growth…
And instead of claiming there are no credible evidence, you would be more credible if you had read a few reviews on the subject.

"The ExpandingEarth-an EssayReview" SW Carey (1975) ESR 11 p 105-143 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/6yzgaq4)

"Fossils, frogs, floating islands and expanding Earth in changing-radius cartography – A comment to a discussion on Journal of Biogeography" G Scalera (2007) Ann Geophys 50(6) p789 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/ycs8en6)

"Earthquakes, phase changes, fold belts: from Apennines to a global perspective" G Scalera (2010) GeoActa, Special Publication 3, pp. 25-43. (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/3bv2e8c)

"Mantle plumes and dynamics of the Earth interior — towards a new model" Geol Rev 52, p817 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/3vpafys)

 

[Trippy]

You've lost more than 10 minutes by advocating obsolete theories.

The only obsolete theory being advocated here is that of the expanding earth.

That's not the point!
The point is that astrophysicists wildly speculated about a Earth-Moon collision and presented it as a fact despite it is just an hypothesis. And it is still quite common to see this hypothesis of a collision with a Mars-sized object called "theia" as a fact in recent peer-reviewed paper. In reality, this is just another typical american catastrophist hypothesis. this hypothesis is not so far from one of their dumbest movies, armageddon. Without any surprise, recent analysis finally show that the moon's mantle is as rich in water than earth's mantle. Of course this destroys this silly impact hypothesis. Note that the dichotomy of Mars hemispheres is also explained as resulting from a large impact.

It is completely the point.
Mazumder cherry-picked the hypothesis of a young impacted, constructed the straw-man hypothesis that all large impact hypotheses were young impact hypotheses, presented evidence against young impact hypotheses, and stated that because there was no young impact, there was no large impact.

However Mazumders evidence only disproves a young impact, it does not disprove the large impact hypothesis, which originally stated that the impact occured in the first 500 miilion years of Earths history.

What Mazumder did was intellectualy dishonest, I would even go as far as calling it fraudulent.

Yet another silly catastrophist hypothesis that has nothing to do with science.

So you're a uniformitarianist and a gradualist then.

Your claim of a variation "just the right way" is as baseless as your claim that the orbital period remained constant.

Neither claim is baseless, you simply deny, or do not understand the evidence that has been presented.

Besides, the density of Earth, Mercury, Venus and Mars are between 5.5 and 4, Io 3.5, Ganymede 1.9. So the density of Earth was likely somewhere between 2 and 5.5 during its recent evolution. I would not bet that Earth's density remained constant either.

Are you suggesting that the Earth's density was less in the past than it is now?

It allows to calculate mean rates. That's all.

If you mean that we can use it to calculate the mean rate of recession 620 MYA and compare it to the mean rate of recession now, than hat is all I have ever said.

No. On the contrary, I reminded you (So did Mazumder), that absolute time values rely entirely on the assumption that the absolute length of earth's orbital period remained constant. And this is not a given.

Strawman hypothesis, Cherry picking.

What I said, in full, was this:

Williams' work give us an estimate of the rate of recession for the last 620 MYA, something that we can both agree on, and it's one that is consistent with the other information that we have regarding the moon.
From this, and from Williams' other work (IIRC) we can predict what the length of the moon's semi major axis would/could/should have been 620 MYA. Using only the assumption that the Earth's density has remained constant - an assumption that you have implicitly agreed to - in fact, I believe it was you who suggsted it, we can calculate the absolute time of the orbital period of the moon around the earth, in seconds, and from that calculate the absolute length of the Earths year, month and day.

It does not require an assumption about the absolute length of the year. I was talking about a calulation of the absolute length of the month, in seconds, from first principles, based on knowlege of specific lunar orbital parameters, that can be infered from a combination of modelling and observation, from which can be infered the absolute length of a day and a year (in seconds).

Do try to keep up.

 

[florian]

The only obsolete theory being advocated here is that of the expanding earth.

Repeating a fallacy won't make it true. The theory is supported by the same evidence that refute plate tectonics as presented in the different reviews I posted.

The hypothesis of a young impact was directly derived from the current recession rate of the moon. We know that there are no evidence because the recession rate is not constant. An impact was postulated from geochemical analysis of moon samples (similar composition than earth but for the water content). But geochemistry now show that the water content is similar to earth. Bye bye the impact theory whatever the period. The Earth-Moon system is a binary system with one of the partner that evolved with time.

No need for yet an other "armageddon" theory.

So you're a uniformitarianist and a gradualist then.

:bugeye:
I'm a true evolutionist. You're clearly not. You believe that Earth formed as a whole in a few millions years (a snap in geological time) then barely changed for 4.5 Ga (just the surface), denying the evidence that Earth (and the solar system) evolve with time.
You don't realise that the view you advocate is so much in line with creationist beliefs. That should ring a bell!

Neither claim is baseless, you simply deny, or do not understand the evidence that has been presented.

Do not return the argument. You're at fault here. Mazumder proved the point but you deny it using a fallacy.

Are you suggesting that the Earth's density was less in the past than it is now?

I can't know. I make the remark that we can't be sure of its density in the past. It could be either close to that of Mercury or that of Ganymede.

If you mean that we can use it to calculate the mean rate of recession 620 MYA and compare it to the mean rate of recession now, than hat is all I have ever said.

I mean that we can calculate a mean rate for the 620-present period, from the 620 Ma data, and that this rate is a bit more than half the present rate. The determination of the evolution of the recession rate is completely empirical, and claiming that it is calculated from first principle is yet another fallacy.

 

[origin]

Repeating a fallacy won't make it true.

For god sake listen to your own advice and stop embarassing yourself....

 

[florian]

For god sake listen to your own advice and stop embarassing yourself....

I'm very confident with the Science I'm defending. You are spreading a fallacy.

 

[origin]

I'm very confident with the Science I'm defending. You are spreading a fallacy.

Yes, you sound very confident. That confidence is misplaced, though.

You are confident that the earth is expanding by adding material through some unknown process that is not detectable and violates some of the most fundemental laws of physics.

That there ain't a great start to any hypothesis, my impetuous young fellow.

 

[florian]

and violates some of the most fundemental laws of physics.

Typically the kind of fallacy I'm fighting.

 

[Trippy]

Repeating a fallacy won't make it true.

It's not a fallacy.

Repeating a fallacy won't make it true. The theory is supported by the same evidence that refute plate tectonics as presented in the different reviews I posted.

Reviews which are substantially flawed in a variety of ways.

The hypothesis of a young impact was directly derived from the current recession rate of the moon. We know that there are no evidence because the recession rate is not constant.

Irrelevant to the point that I was making.

An impact was postulated from geochemical analysis of moon samples (similar composition than earth but for the water content). But geochemistry now show that the water content is similar to earth. Bye bye the impact theory whatever the period. The Earth-Moon system is a binary system with one of the partner that evolved with time.

Baloney.
The impact hypothesis is based on more than just the water content, and the rest of what you've had to say is simply wrong.
Alberto Saak had this to say

The bottom line is that in 2008, we said the primitive water content in the lunar magmas should be similar to lavas coming from the Earth’s depleted upper mantle. Now, we have proven that is indeed the case.

So the presence of water, at levels comparable to that found in magmas on Earth, contrary to your assertions, provides another piece of supporting evidence.

No need for yet an other "armageddon" theory.

Right, and I suppose you think Alvarez was wrong as well?

:bugeye:
I'm a true evolutionist. You're clearly not. You believe that Earth formed as a whole in a few millions years (a snap in geological time) then barely changed for 4.5 Ga (just the surface), denying the evidence that Earth (and the solar system) evolve with time.
You don't realise that the view you advocate is so much in line with creationist beliefs. That should ring a bell!

Argumentum ad hominem.
But it's worse than that, I would go as far as calling this name calling.

Do not return the argument. You're at fault here. Mazumder proved the point but you deny it using a fallacy.

Mazumder prooved nothing. He cherrypicked his evidence, and presented a strawman argument.

I can't know. I make the remark that we can't be sure of its density in the past. It could be either close to that of Mercury or that of Ganymede.

I didn't ask you to quantify it, I asked you to qualify it, are you suggesting that you can't even do that - say whether the earths density has increased or decreased over time?

I mean that we can calculate a mean rate for the 620-present period, from the 620 Ma data, and that this rate is a bit more than half the present rate. The determination of the evolution of the recession rate is completely empirical, and claiming that it is calculated from first principle is yet another fallacy.

Wrong.
You just don't understand the physics involved in the calculation.
And you're wrong about Williams' work as well - you do know that he has published more than one paper on the subject, don't you?

 

[florian]

It's not a fallacy.

Will you ever quit that childish game? Of course not, you love it so much.

Reviews which are substantially flawed in a variety of ways.

And of course you will carefully avoid to explain why. Why am I not surprised…

Irrelevant to the point that I was making.

It is relevant to the point Mazumber made, the point that you fake to not understand.

Baloney.
The impact hypothesis is based on more than just the water content, and the rest of what you've had to say is simply wrong.
Alberto Saak had this to say

The bottom line is that in 2008, we said the primitive water content in the lunar magmas should be similar to lavas coming from the Earth’s depleted upper mantle. Now, we have proven that is indeed the case.

So the presence of water, at levels comparable to that found in magmas on Earth, contrary to your assertions, provides another piece of supporting evidence.

Yet another proof of your profound dishonesty dear Trippy. I googled that quote by Saak and found the original source in the NASA website here:http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/may/HQ_11-171_Moon_Water.html
And what can we read: "The results published in the May 26 issue of Science Express raise questions about aspects of the "giant impact theory" of how the moon was created. That theory predicted very low water content of lunar rock due to catastrophic degassing during the collision of Earth with a Mars-sized body very early in its history."

So high water content refutes a prediction of this giant impact theory. The exact opposite of your claim in your own source.
Conclusion: you intentionally misrepresent this work very much like you misrepresent the work by Mazumber and so on.

Bottom line: one very important quality for a scientist is honnesty, because without honnesty there is no scientific ethic and no Science.
Dishonnest people don't do science, they only satisfy their ego. And that's part of my job as a debunker to warn the reader that your methods are not recommendable Trippy, as everyone can see in this thread at the Physforum: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=24959&st=15&#entry397921
You're definitively not interested in the science just the arguments for the sake of arguing, getting offensive and satisfying your ego.

 

[Trippy]

And of course you will carefully avoid to explain why. Why am I not surprised…

I've already elaborated on one example.

It is relevant to the point Mazumber made, the point that you fake to not understand.

Baloney - he cherry picked a hypothesis, and constructed a strawman argument, then claimed to have disproved the mainstream hypothesis, even though the hypothesis he cherrypicked wasn't nev

Yet another proof of your profound dishonesty dear Trippy. I googled that quote by Saak and found the original source in the NASA website here:http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/may/HQ_11-171_Moon_Water.html
And what can we read: "The results published in the May 26 issue of Science Express raise questions about aspects of the "giant impact theory" of how the moon was created. That theory predicted very low water content of lunar rock due to catastrophic degassing during the collision of Earth with a Mars-sized body very early in its history."

Right, it raises questions, and?

Every scientific discovery raises questions. Raising questions doesn't refute a theory, refuting the theory refutes the theory.

So high water content refutes a prediction of this giant impact theory. The exact opposite of your claim in your own source.

No it doesn't - your cherry picking, and building strawman arguments base don that cherrypicking.

Conclusion: you intentionally misrepresent this work very much like you misrepresent the work by Mazumber and so on.

Fourth paragraph from the bottom. Go back and re-read it, it says exactly what I said it says.

Bottom line: one very important quality for a scientist is honnesty, because without honnesty there is no scientific ethic and no Science.

Something you and Mazumder could learn a thing or two about. The worst you've done is prove that my interpretation of of what Saal had to say was wrong.

Saal said that the volatile content of lunar magma was comparable to that of MORB - I presumed that by that he meant that he expected this as a consequence of the large impact hypothesis. In retrospect, it seems I may have been mistaken in this interpretation, in that he could equally have meant that he expected the high concentration based on what was found in the bulk sample, and outgassing models. My mistake.

Dishonnest people don't do science, they only satisfy their ego. And that's part of my job as a debunker to warn the reader that your methods are not recommendable Trippy, as everyone can see in this thread at the Physforum: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=24959&st=15&#entry397921

I'm impressed - you've dredged up a thread, from a different forum, from two years ago, cherry picked a post, and presented it without context. And you've done precisely the same thing that the person in the post you linked to has done. To the other. Meh. I so, over there I did something foolish. I let the derision and scorn heaped upon me by pseudoscientists get to me, and started dishing it back to them, something which they did not like.

But tell me, do you condone an individual threatening a newborn infant with death, just because I said something that individual didn't like? Because that was what was being discussed (among other things) in that thread.

You're definitively not interested in the science just the arguments for the sake of arguing, getting offensive and satisfying your ego.

I am definitively interested in science.
You're the one cherry picking posts from other fora and presenting them as ad-hominem arguments not me.

You're avoiding addressing the issues that have been raised, and you've resorted to trolling.