Is the earth expanding?

[florian]

I've already elaborated on one example.

Cherry picking you said? first, you did not prove any flaw, second try harder to study these reviews. You have a lot to learn.

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

He illustrated how some geophysicists jumped to conclusion (a recurrent trend in that field). The point is that the recessions rates are empirical and cannot be used as a proof-check as a first principle calculation could eventually be. You did not prove any flaws.

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...oon_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?

This is really annoying to have to constantly remind you how science works.
So one more time: Observations -> hypothesis -> prediction -> test of the prediction experimentally (independent on the premises)

The hypothesis is a large impact with a Mars-sized body at the origin of the Earth/Moon system. The prediction is a "very low water content of lunar rock due to catastrophic degassing during the collision". The experimental data show that the water content is as high as on earth => the prediction failed and the theory is refuted according to the scientific method. Still in denial?

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.

L'hôpital qui se fout de la charité (people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones).

I am definitively interested in science.

You did not show it in this thread or the other. You have the attitude of a witchhunter, not that of a science advocate, even less that of a scientist.

You're the one cherry picking posts from other fora and presenting them as ad-hominem arguments not me.

It does partly explain your general attitude, including that toward honest and qualified scientists.

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

You failed to recognize that I address them, and when I point it to you, you call it "trolling". How convenient…

 

[Trippy]

Cherry picking you said? first, you did not prove any flaw, second try harder to study these reviews. You have a lot to learn.

And the rest.

He illustrated how some geophysicists jumped to conclusion (a recurrent trend in that field).

No, he illustrated how some geophysicists published a paper, then argued that the large impact hypothesis was wrong and had no evidence to support it, there's a difference.

The point is that the recessions rates are empirical and cannot be used as a proof-check as a first principle calculation could eventually be. You did not prove any flaws.

So... You're arguing that emperical data can not be used to test a theory? Interesting. I suppose, however, that explains why you are championing a theory that provides no physical causal mechanisms.

This is really annoying to have to constantly remind you how science works.
So one more time: Observations -> hypothesis -> prediction -> test of the prediction experimentally (independent on the premises)

The hypothesis is a large impact with a Mars-sized body at the origin of the Earth/Moon system. The prediction is a "very low water content of lunar rock due to catastrophic degassing during the collision". The experimental data show that the water content is as high as on earth => the prediction failed and the theory is refuted according to the scientific method. Still in denial?

Denial is championing a theory that was debunked over 100 years ago, and no, your assertion that the detection of water in lunar rocks disproves the large impact hypothesis is wrong, there's a number of steps that should be taken before it is discarded, especially in light of its success - one of which is "Can an alternate explanation be found within the theory", and the answer to that question in this case is yes. One possible 'solution' I have seen is that if the post collision system shared a common gaseous envelope, then this resolves the seeming paradox, but makes other predictions regarding isotopic ratios and such.

L'hôpital qui se fout de la charité (people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones).

Off topic.

You did not show it in this thread or the other. You have the attitude of a witchhunter, not that of a science advocate, even less that of a scientist.

Argumentum ad hominem, and blatantly wrong.

It does partly explain your general attitude, including that toward honest and qualified scientists.

Again, blatantly wrong. When I said "What Mazumder did..." I was commenting on his actions, not him. I have passed no judgment on Mazumder, I have made no comments about Mazumder - save that I consider his comments on that topic, in that paper to be bordering on fraudulent.

Unlike you, it seems, I was criticising the work, not the scientist, and I understand the difference.

You failed to recognize that I address them, and when I point it to you, you call it "trolling". How convenient…

The comment you made:
"You're definitively not interested in the science just the arguments for the sake of arguing, getting offensive and satisfying your ego."
That I was responding to does nothing to address the lack of physical mechanism, the lack of evidence of ongoing expansion, the question of where all the water came from, the lack of testable predictions, and the body of evidence supporting an Earth of a constant radius, and so on and so forth.

It simply presents an argumentum ad hominem in an attempt to poison the well.

 

[wlminex]

. . . perhaps the earth's overall "mass" is constant (except for insignificant meteorite hits-added mass, and even more insignificant mass losses - H, H20, outgassing, etc.). Earth overall density should remain relatively constant; however, due to mantle differentiation (i.e., mantle ---> simafic + sialic crust), the density is continually redistributed or stratified - less dense atop more dense - if gravity works - haha!. Mafic is more dense than sial. Magmatic differentiation of (more dense)mantle to less dense sima and sial would yield a 'surface' (i.e., lithosphere) that required more volume (read: physical space, expansion?) than the undifferentiated mantle material. It is perhaps just a g/cc (mass per unit volume = density) thingy. Reminder: lithosphere basically "floats' (isostatically) atop mantle - kinda' like the head on your favorite beer!.

wlminex

 

[Trippy]

. . . perhaps the earth's overall "mass" is constant (except for insignificant meteorite hits-added mass, and even more insignificant mass losses - H, H20, outgassing, etc.). Earth overall density should remain relatively constant; however, due to mantle differentiation (i.e., mantle ---> simafic basalt + sialic crust), the density is continually redistributed. Mafic is more dense than sial. Magmatic differentiation of (more dense)mantle to less dense sima and sial would yield a 'surface' (i.e., lithosphere) that required more volume (read: physical space, expansion?) than the undifferentiated mantle material. It is perhaps just a g/cc (mass per unit volume = density) thingy. Reminder: lithosphere basically "floats' (isostatically) atop mantle - kinda' like the head on your favorite beer!.

wlminex

Florian routinely sites Maxlow's thesis as a source when determining how much the earth has expanded by over geological time frames. Maxlow's figure comes out at around 2cm/yr, and predicts that during the precambrian the earth was 2060km in radius.
EG: http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2772432&postcount=81
Florian believes that spurs on dinosaur leg bones means they could run, but that if paleogravity was the same strength as modern gravity, then dinosaurs would not be able to run, and so infers that the earth has increased in mass and density since then (and seems to ignore that big dinosaurs evolved from small dinosaurs).
I've tried pointing out to him that if the earth were expanding at that rate, it should have expanded measurably in the last 50 years, and there should be an anomaly in the earths rotational period, but the response I got essentially amounted to being told that the expansion was non-uniform and episodic.
(addendum)
I pointed out that if the earth were expanding and gaining mass, that there would be some kind of signal buried in the GPS data, but that none had been reported. While at first glance this might seem like an absence of proof fallacy, take a moment to consider how significant the discovery of an unexplained systematic error in GPS data would be. His response was that the GPS data was based on the assumption that the earths radius was fixed, which (on the face of it at least) seems to neglect the point that changing the mass of the earth would change the orbits of the GPS satelites, unless his mechanism can also alter the angular momentum of all satelites (including luna) orbiting the earth.
I pointed at evidence from tidal rythmites that the earth's radius is constant, and has been for at least 2 billion years. He responded that the proof that it was constant was reliant on the assumption that the absolute length of the year was constant - which ignores the point that if the day was anomalously short, then there would be an anomalously large number of days in the year, and that we can model the tidal evolution of the earth-moon system, and that if we can infer the moons orbital parameters from (for example, tidalites) we can, using the laws of physics, calculate the length of a month in seconds, and make inferences about the length of a day in seconds.
I pointed out that expanding earth theory requires a high degree of fine tuning because it requires the addition (or removal) of precise amounts of angular momentum from the Earth-Moon-Sun system in order for our predictions to match our observations with the degree of accuracy that they do. He simply denies this.
I've also pointed out to him that things such as observations of the Saros cycle for the last 5,000 years suggest that there has been no significant variation of the radius of the earth over that time, and that this can be stretched back 10,000 years using alignments in various prehistoric structures, but he has never addressed that point.
I pointed out that Maxlow's thesis requires that either early mantle material was 9 billion percent water, or that 700 MYA the earth had topography in excess of 50km, but again, he has never addressed that point.

 

[wlminex]

Trippy: yada . . . .yada . . . .yada!

 

[AlexG]

Trippy: yada . . . .yada . . . .yada!

As intelligent a comment as we've come to expect from you.

 

[florian]

And the rest.
No, he illustrated how some geophysicists published a paper, then argued that the large impact hypothesis was wrong and had no evidence to support it, there's a difference

Blatant lie. He said that Williams speculations are akin to the speculation of a collision between 2000 and 1500 Ma derived from the current recession rates. He gave it as an example of the damage of speculations, not as a strawman!

Here is the exact quote from Mazumder showing that you are lying (R. Mazumder - Earth-Science Reviews 72 (2005) 119–123):

"Williams’ effort to extrapolate the suggestion of the astronomers and astrophysicists based on present day’s observation that negligible change occurred in the orbital parameters and G in the distant geological past, particularly in the Precambrian, is speculative as well since it cannot be deduced (verified) from the rock record. 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), an event for which there is no corroborating geological evidence."

So... You're arguing that emperical data can not be used to test a theory?

Yet another misrepresentation. Mazumder argues that these empirical do not allow to calculate the past length of the day in absolute time, an argument that is very relevant and refute your argument based on tidalites.

Denial is championing a theory that was debunked over 100 years ago

Yet another lie. Each arguments piled up by Carey were never refuted and proves beyond any doubts that Earth is growing. See the reference given at the end of this post.

Again, blatantly wrong. […]
Unlike you, it seems, I was criticising the work, not the scientist, and I understand the difference.

Yet another lie. For example, in this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2784485&postcount=140):

To my general statement:
"One very important quality for a scientist is honnesty, because without honnesty there is no scientific ethic and no Science."

You replied: "Something you and Mazumder could learn a thing or two about."

That is a direct attack to my and Mazumder's scientific integrity,i.e. ad hominen.

That I was responding to does nothing to address the lack of physical mechanism,

The lack of a physical mechanism is not a valid refuting argument!

the lack of evidence of ongoing expansion, the question of where all the water came from, the lack of testable predictions, and the body of evidence supporting an Earth of a constant radius, and so on and so forth.

They are plenty evidence that Earth grows, the water origin is easily explained by outgassing of the mantle, Maxlow's reconstructions allow very accurate predictions that are verified, and icing on the cake there is a body of evidence refuting an Earth of a constant radius.

And all of the above is in details in this paper: S. Warren Carey 1983 "The Necessity for Earth Expansion" pp375-393 in Carey, SW (ed): Expanding Earth Symposium, Sydney, 1981.

 

[florian]

Florian believes that spurs on dinosaur leg bones means they could run, but that if paleogravity was the same strength as modern gravity, then dinosaurs would not be able to run, and so infers that the earth has increased in mass and density since then (and seems to ignore that big dinosaurs evolved from small dinosaurs).

Yet another lie or misrepresentation of my claims. I claimed that since Earth's volume is 8 fold of that 250 Ma ago, if mass remained constant, then surface gravity would have been around 40 m/s2 at that time, a value that is refuted by all we know about the fauna of this period. It implies that the growth in volume is due to an inner accumulation of matter.

I've tried pointing out to him that if the earth were expanding at that rate, it should have expanded measurably in the last 50 years, and there should be an anomaly in the earths rotational period, but the response I got essentially amounted to being told that the expansion was non-uniform and episodic.

Which is empirically supported, see Carey. At the time we'll have a geodetic system covering the whole planet with a dense grid (including ocean floors), then the current growth will be accurately measurable.

I pointed out that if the earth were expanding and gaining mass, that there would be some kind of signal buried in the GPS data, but that none had been reported. While at first glance this might seem like an absence of proof fallacy, take a moment to consider how significant the discovery of an unexplained systematic error in GPS data would be. His response was that the GPS data was based on the assumption that the earths radius was fixed, which (on the face of it at least) seems to neglect the point that changing the mass of the earth would change the orbits of the GPS satelites, unless his mechanism can also alter the angular momentum of all satelites (including luna) orbiting the earth.

Wrong again. See Scalera's paper for a detail analysis of this question: "Are artificial satellites orbits influenced by an expanding Earth?" http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/1066/6/20 Scalera.pdf

I pointed at evidence from tidal rythmites that the earth's radius is constant, and has been for at least 2 billion years. He responded that the proof that it was constant was reliant on the assumption that the absolute length of the year was constant - which ignores the point that if the day was anomalously short, then there would be an anomalously large number of days in the year, and that we can model the tidal evolution of the earth-moon system, and that if we can infer the moons orbital parameters from (for example, tidalites) we can, using the laws of physics, calculate the length of a month in seconds, and make inferences about the length of a day in seconds.

Wrong, this argument is refuted by Mazunder, we cannot calculate the paleolength of the day in second, nor the paleolength of the year in seconds. See other posts and the relevant paper (R. Mazumder - Earth-Science Reviews 72 (2005) 119–123)

I pointed out that expanding earth theory requires a high degree of fine tuning because it requires the addition (or removal) of precise amounts of angular momentum from the Earth-Moon-Sun system in order for our predictions to match our observations with the degree of accuracy that they do. He simply denies this.I've also pointed out to him that things such as observations of the Saros cycle for the last 5,000 years suggest that there has been no significant variation of the radius of the earth over that time, and that this can be stretched back 10,000 years using alignments in various prehistoric structures, but he has never addressed that point.

Wrong. These is a strawman based on the same unsupported extrapolations from tidalites.

I pointed out that Maxlow's thesis requires that either early mantle material was 9 billion percent water, or that 700 MYA the earth had topography in excess of 50km, but again, he has never addressed that point.

Another misconception resulting from a poor understanding of the theory since the hydrosphere is coming from mantle outgassing. So it grows as the mantle is growing.

Any serious opponent of the theory must counter the arguments of Carey and others. For a short list:

"The Expanding Earth - an Essay Review" SW Carey (1975) ESR 11 p 105-143 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/6yzgaq4)

And this more recent review that I will scan on demand if the reader can't easily find it:
S. Warren Carey 1983 "The Necessity for Earth Expansion" pp375-393 in Carey, SW (ed): Expanding Earth Symposium, Sydney, 1981.

"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]

Just as a few examples:

Blatant lie. He said that Williams speculations are akin to the speculation of a collision between 2000 and 1500 Ma derived from the current recession rates. He gave it as an example of the damage of speculations, not as a strawman!

First, I didn't suggest he had done it deliberately, only that he had done it.
Second... You're actually critiscizing scientists for doing science? Wow. They had a hypothesis, the ran with it, they published the hypothesis, the hypothesis lacked evidence, and was abandoned. So?

Here is the exact quote from Mazumder showing that you are lying (R. Mazumder - Earth-Science Reviews 72 (2005) 119–123):

"Williams’ effort to extrapolate the suggestion of the astronomers and astrophysicists based on present day’s observation that negligible change occurred in the orbital parameters and G in the distant geological past, particularly in the Precambrian, is speculative as well since it cannot be deduced (verified) from the rock record. 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), an event for which there is no corroborating geological evidence."

That doesn't prove I lied - I presented it as an opinion, not a fact for a start. The most that proves is that I may have been mistaken in the specifics of his comments. Wow. Fancy that.

Yet another misrepresentation. Mazumder argues that these empirical do not allow to calculate the past length of the day in absolute time, an argument that is very relevant and refute your argument based on tidalites.

An argument that has itself been refuted.

Yet another lie. For example, in this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2784485&postcount=140):

That doesn't prove I lied. At best that demonstrates that my recollection of something that happened nearly a week ago is flawed.
It also demonstrates that you're a hypocrite, because if it is acceptable for you to make barbed comments in response to what you percieve as trolling, than it's acceptable for me to do the same.

Yet another lie or misrepresentation of my claims. I claimed that since Earth's volume is 8 fold of that 250 Ma ago, if mass remained constant, then surface gravity would have been around 40 m/s2 at that time, a value that is refuted by all we know about the fauna of this period. It implies that the growth in volume is due to an inner accumulation of matter.

Which is nothing more than what I suggested - I simply used a specific example regarding earths fauna.

Wrong, this argument is refuted by Mazunder, we cannot calculate the paleolength of the day in second, nor the paleolength of the year in seconds. See other posts and the relevant paper (R. Mazumder - Earth-Science Reviews 72 (2005) 119–123)

No it isn't, because what you have repeatedly failed to comprehend is that I am talking about a different method from the one that Mazumder critiqued.

Wrong. These is a strawman based on the same unsupported extrapolations from tidalites.

No, it isn't.

There is one more point I will address, in short order, then, for these reasons, among others, we're done here as well.

 

[florian]

Blatant lie. He said that Williams speculations are akin to the speculation of a collision between 2000 and 1500 Ma derived from the current recession rates. He gave it as an example of the damage of speculations, not as a strawman!

First, I didn't suggest he had done it deliberately, only that he had done it.

You did not suggest he had done it deliberately, you said it, as proved by your lexical field (cherry-picking, straw man...).

Second... You're actually critiscizing scientists for doing science? Wow. They had a hypothesis, the ran with it, they published the hypothesis, the hypothesis lacked evidence, and was abandoned. So?

That's not doing science, that's speculation. Doing Science is providing the evidence that the hypothesis is supported. In this case, it is even worse because at the time of publication, there was already plenty of geological evidence proving that this hypothesis was fantasist at best.

These speculations are plaguing geosciences. Indeed, there is no evidence that 10000 km of Pacific lithosphere got swallowed under Asia (the evidence support just a few hundred km, a thousand at most, in agreement with Carey's theory), there is no evidence that Tethys was anything else than an epicontinental sea with very narrow elongated oceanic domains, no evidence that a wide Iapetus ocean ever existed (like Tethys, a narrow seaway), there are no evidence that a Farallon plate ever existed, No evidence for supercontinent cycles, no evidence for ridge migration or ridge subduction, and so forth.
All of these are speculations invented to save a global tectonic model that belongs to fantasyland, not science.

Here is the exact quote from Mazumder showing that you are lying (R. Mazumder - Earth-Science Reviews 72 (2005) 119–123):

"Williams’ effort to extrapolate the suggestion of the astronomers and astrophysicists based on present day’s observation that negligible change occurred in the orbital parameters and G in the distant geological past, particularly in the Precambrian, is speculative as well since it cannot be deduced (verified) from the rock record. 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), an event for which there is no corroborating geological evidence."

That doesn't prove I lied - I presented it as an opinion, not a fact for a start.

You misrepresented it deliberately to discredit Mazumder. This is inexcusable.

Yet another misrepresentation. Mazumder argues that these empirical do not allow to calculate the past length of the day in absolute time, an argument that is very relevant and refute your argument based on tidalites.

An argument that has itself been refuted.

Repeating a fallacy won't make it true. The refutation hold and your vague non-arguments won't change it.

Yet another lie. For example, in this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...ostcount=140):

That doesn't prove I lied. At best that demonstrates that my recollection of something that happened nearly a week ago is flawed.

How convenient...

It also demonstrates that you're a hypocrite, because if it is acceptable for you to make barbed comments in response to what you percieve as trolling, than it's acceptable for me to do the same.

You're the one being aggressive from the start using a sarcastic/discrediting tone and pushing the move of this thread to the pseudoscience forum. So don't faint to be surprised to get reply with the same aggressiveness.

Yet another lie or misrepresentation of my claims. I claimed that since Earth's volume is 8 fold of that 250 Ma ago, if mass remained constant, then surface gravity would have been around 40 m/s2 at that time, a value that is refuted by all we know about the fauna of this period. It implies that the growth in volume is due to an inner accumulation of matter.

Which is nothing more than what I suggested - I simply used a specific example regarding earths fauna.

Not at all! It is totally different! You said that I believe "if paleogravity was the same strength as modern gravity, then dinosaurs would not be able to run". I said that higher gravity not same strength gravity is not compatible with paleofauna. One more time, either you jump to conclusions without carefully reading or you lie. I do not believe no more that you do it unintentionally.

Wrong, this argument is refuted by Mazunder, we cannot calculate the paleolength of the day in second, nor the paleolength of the year in seconds. See other posts and the relevant paper (R. Mazumder - Earth-Science Reviews 72 (2005) 119–123)

No it isn't, because what you have repeatedly failed to comprehend is that I am talking about a different method from the one that Mazumder critiqued.

Wrong, again. You allude to the derivation from the recession rate, which Mazunder shows cannot be used to calculate the paleolength of the day in seconds, and thus cannot be used to cross-check with the paleolength of the day calculated from tidalites based on the speculation that the revolution period of Earth remained constant.

There is one more point I will address, in short order, then, for these reasons, among others, we're done here as well.

Fare well. You won't be surprised if I say that I won't miss you in that thread. Anyway, I think that the interested reader has sufficient informations to forge his own objective opinion on this passionating and promising scientific theory. The least you can do is asking to move the thread back to the Earth Science forum to which it belongs.

 

[Trippy]

You did not suggest he had done it deliberately, you said it, as proved by your lexical field (cherry-picking, straw man...).

Bullshit. Making a statement that something is a strawman, or cherry picking does not constitute an accusation of deliberatness. I have seen plenty of logical fallacies proffered in good faith, or inadvertantly (some times they're even true - the statement "Of course he would say that" being the most obvious example).

That's not doing science, that's speculation. Doing Science is providing the evidence that the hypothesis is supported. In this case, it is even worse because at the time of publication, there was already plenty of geological evidence proving that this hypothesis was fantasist at best.

You're partly right, but you're also partly wrong. You're wrong in dismissing it as not being science.

These speculations are plaguing geosciences. Indeed, there is no evidence that 10000 km of Pacific lithosphere got swallowed under Asia (the evidence support just a few hundred km, a thousand at most, in agreement with Carey's theory), there is no evidence that Tethys was anything else than an epicontinental sea with very narrow elongated oceanic domains, no evidence that a wide Iapetus ocean ever existed (like Tethys, a narrow seaway), there are no evidence that a Farallon plate ever existed, No evidence for supercontinent cycles, no evidence for ridge migration or ridge subduction, and so forth.
All of these are speculations invented to save a global tectonic model that belongs to fantasyland, not science.

All bullshit.

You misrepresented it deliberately to discredit Mazumder. This is inexcusable.

More Bullshit.

Repeating a fallacy won't make it true. The refutation hold and your vague non-arguments won't change it.[/quote]
More Bullshit. The only thing you've demonstrated is that you're unfamiliar with the work of the likes of Webb and Poliakow Webb who modeled the tidal evolution of the earth from first principles and published in 1982, and Poliakow who developed a more accurate model that was published in 2005. Webb's model, incidentaly, pushed the date of the Gerstenkorn Event back from 1.3GA to 3.9GA

How convenient...

You do realize that you're not my sole reason for being, that I participate in a large number of threads, and that I have nearly 5000 posts on this forum?

You're the one being aggressive from the start using a sarcastic/discrediting tone and pushing the move of this thread to the pseudoscience forum. So don't faint to be surprised to get reply with the same aggressiveness.

The sarcastic/discrediting tone was yours:

Besides, are you really qualified to judge if the expanding theory is a pseudoscience? For example, how much scientific literature did you read about it? Or did you only watch some crackpotery?

As soon as I moved this thread, you started straight into these assinine ad-hominems and ridiculous attempts at character assasination.

Not at all! It is totally different! You said that I believe "if paleogravity was the same strength as modern gravity, then dinosaurs would not be able to run". I said that higher gravity not same strength gravity is not compatible with paleofauna. One more time, either you jump to conclusions without carefully reading or you lie. I do not believe no more that you do it unintentionally.

Actually, you're the liar here, I simply got my sources mixed up. I thought you had made the comment here, but no, however, it is precisely the reasoning you have used. Post dated April 2, 2007: http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum...who-believes-in-Earth-expansion-pseudo-theory

Fossils actually DO support expansion.

Biomechanics tell us that dinosaurs could not run with our gravity,
while their spurs tell us they did.

So you have made precisely the argument I attributed to you, just not here on this forum.

And no, I'm not that interested in you that I tracked you down to find that post, I came accross that post looking for other information.

Wrong, again. You allude to the derivation from the recession rate, which Mazunder shows cannot be used to calculate the paleolength of the day in seconds, and thus cannot be used to cross-check with the paleolength of the day calculated from tidalites based on the speculation that the revolution period of Earth remained constant.

No, I allude to work done by the likes of Webb and Poliakow, who derived their work from first principles, not the work which confirms their predictions, like that done by Williams.

Fare well. You won't be surprised if I say that I won't miss you in that thread. Anyway, I think that the interested reader has sufficient informations to forge his own objective opinion on this passionating and promising scientific theory.

They have, and time and again, they come to the same conclusion, that the theory is bunkum.

The least you can do is asking to move the thread back to the Earth Science forum to which it belongs.

No.

 

[origin]

Originally Posted by florian
Fare well. You won't be surprised if I say that I won't miss you in that thread. Anyway, I think that the interested reader has sufficient informations to forge his own objective opinion on this passionating and promising scientific theory.

I certainly have. I found Trippy's posts informative, compelling and well written, and he has been way too patient with you.

I found that Florian's ideas are disjointed, silly psuedo-science drivel.

 

[Trippy]

I certainly have. I found Trippy's posts informative, compelling and well written, and he has been way too patient with you.

Flatterer :*)

 

[florian]

Bullshit. Making a statement that something is a strawman, or cherry picking does not constitute an accusation of deliberatness.

Accusing someone of cherry-picking, using strawman arguments and of being dishonest at the same time is an accusation of deliberateness.

You're wrong in dismissing it as not being science.

Unsupported speculation is not Science.

All bullshit.

You have definitively no clues and thus are not in position to bash this theory. There are no valid refutations of Earth growth, plenty evidence supporting Earth growth and refuting plate tectonics as detailed for example in "The necessity for Earth expansion". In: Carey S.W. (ed), Expanding Earth Symposium, Sydney, 1981. University of Tasmania, 375-393. CAREY S.W., 1986. (link to pdf; 13 MB )

More Bullshit. The only thing you've demonstrated is that you're unfamiliar with the work of the likes of Webb and Poliakow Webb who modeled the tidal evolution of the earth from first principles and published in 1982, and Poliakow who developed a more accurate model that was published in 2005. Webb's model, incidentaly, pushed the date of the Gerstenkorn Event back from 1.3GA to 3.9GA

Webb 1982 modeled a Gerstenkorn event, i.e. the time at which the moon started to recede due to prograde orbit after it got captured by Earth in a retrograde orbit (!). This model is irrelevant to the collision model you are advocating. Poliakow 2005 build a tidal dissipation model based on paleoreconstruction that are outdated (1979) and refuted. Garbage in, garbage out. The only interest of this model is to show the influence of continent-ocean distribution on the tidal effect (he calculated a 10 fold variation with a decrease in recession rate from 2.9 cm/yr present (true value is 3.8 cm/y) up to 200 Ma (0.34 cm/y) followed by an increase back to 2.5 cm/y circa 500 Ma; fig 5).

You do realize that you're not my sole reason for being, that I participate in a large number of threads, and that I have nearly 5000 posts on this forum?

I reassure you. You're not my sole reason for being either, and by far.

As soon as I moved this thread, you started straight into these assinine ad-hominems and ridiculous attempts at character assasination.

You start the aggression by moving this thread to the pseudoscience forum without justification. You reap what you sow.

Actually, you're the liar here, I simply got my sources mixed up.

I'm a liar because you got your sources mixed up? Very interesting. Let's see…

I thought you had made the comment here, but no, however, it is precisely the reasoning you have used. Post dated April 2, 2007: http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum...who-believes-in-Earth-expansion-pseudo-theory

Jeez, 4 years ago(!). You had to dig hard and deep. I did not remember that post, it was actually on usenet. Gigantism can be explained by high oxygen level, but a lower surface gravity certainly would certainly help with some biomechanics of large dinosaurs (neck posture related to blood pressure, rapid change in direction during the run, etc…) especially as we now know that they were warm-blooded animals (see "Dinosaur Body Temperatures Determined from Isotopic (13C-18O) Ordering in Fossil Biominerals" ) actually more active animals than mammals (see "Blood flow to long bones indicates activity metabolism in mammals, reptiles and dinosaurs" ). But I admit that's not an evidence because no one ever tried yet to test the impact of lower gravity in dinosaur biomechanics simulation. That might become an evidence when this work is done.
Anyway, the point is that these beasts would certainly not support 4 fold higher surface gravity. This refute an expansion without a growth in mass.

And no, I'm not that interested in you that I tracked you down to find that post, I came accross that post looking for other information.

Yeah, right. I believe you.

No, I allude to work done by the likes of Webb and Poliakow, who derived their work from first principles, not the work which confirms their predictions, like that done by Williams.

See above.

They have, and time and again, they come to the same conclusion, that the theory is bunkum.

Or not. There are many interested readers that contact me using private messages or email. BTW, I encourage anyone interested to do so.

 

[Trippy]

Accusing someone of cherry-picking, using strawman arguments and of being dishonest at the same time is an accusation of deliberateness.

Not neccessarily.

Unsupported speculation is not Science.

It wasn't completely unsupported, there was some evidence to support the hypothesis, they forwarded it, it has been discarded. That is how science works.

You have definitively no clues and thus are not in position to bash this theory. There are no valid refutations of Earth growth, plenty evidence supporting Earth growth and refuting plate tectonics as detailed for example in "The necessity for Earth expansion". In: Carey S.W. (ed), Expanding Earth Symposium, Sydney, 1981. University of Tasmania, 375-393. CAREY S.W., 1986. (link to pdf; 13 MB )

Argumentum ad hominem. If you have to resort to these sorts of tactics, then you've already lost your argument.

And I am in precisely in a position to 'bash this theory', and there are multiple refutations available across multiple fields - some of which have been listed here.

Webb 1982 modeled a Gerstenkorn event, i.e. the time at which the moon started to recede due to prograde orbit after it got captured by Earth in a retrograde orbit (!).

He modeled the tidal evolution of the earth-moon system. He made predictions about the length of the day that have been tested using tidalites. His predictions are in agreement with the emperical evidence we have available to us.

This model is irrelevant to the collision model you are advocating.

I don't recall suggesting it did have anything to do with the large collision hypothesis.

Poliakow 2005 build a tidal dissipation model based on paleoreconstruction that are outdated (1979) and refuted. Garbage in, garbage out. The only interest of this model is to show the influence of continent-ocean distribution on the tidal effect (he calculated a 10 fold variation with a decrease in recession rate from 2.9 cm/yr present (true value is 3.8 cm/y) up to 200 Ma (0.34 cm/y) followed by an increase back to 2.5 cm/y circa 500 Ma; fig 5).

And that's pretty much the response I expected from you. Meanwhile you gloss right over the fact that this 'wrong model' based on 'wrong assumptions' makes correct predictions about the relative lengths of the day, month, and year, and agrees with emperical evidence available to us through tidalites, and confirms Williams' assumptions, and confirms my assertions about those assumptions.

Which also has the net effect of confirming my assertions about fine tuning and the fact that your added mantle material has to add or subtract just the right amount of angular momentum to give the apperance of constancy (because models based on constancy are in agreement with the emperical evidence available to us).

I reassure you. You're not my sole reason for being either, and by far.

And yet your words here would seem to suggest otherwise.

You start the aggression by moving this thread to the pseudoscience forum without justification. You reap what you sow.

This speaks for itself.

I'm a liar because you got your sources mixed up? Very interesting. Let's see…

No, you're a liar because you presented an assertion as fact.

Jeez, 4 years ago(!). You had to dig hard and deep.

No, actually, no digging required. It was on the first page of results I got when looking for a paper (As I have already explained, although I don't remember what the paper was now though).

I did not remember that post, it was actually on usenet. Gigantism can be explained by high oxygen level, but a lower surface gravity certainly would certainly help with some biomechanics of large dinosaurs (neck posture related to blood pressure, rapid change in direction during the run, etc…) especially as we now know that they were warm-blooded animals (see "Dinosaur Body Temperatures Determined from Isotopic (13C-18O) Ordering in Fossil Biominerals" ) actually more active animals than mammals (see "Blood flow to long bones indicates activity metabolism in mammals, reptiles and dinosaurs" ). But I admit that's not an evidence because no one ever tried yet to test the impact of lower gravity in dinosaur biomechanics simulation. That might become an evidence when this work is done.
Anyway, the point is that these beasts would certainly not support 4 fold higher surface gravity. This refute an expansion without a growth in mass.

It does, however, prove my assertion, that you forwarded the hypothesis that I attributed to you.

Yeah, right. I believe you.

I don't actually care whether or not you believe me, to be honest. You've amply demonstrated that you will continue to believe what you want to believe, and I have no way of definitively proving my motivations one way or the other.

See above.

What you provided could not be called a consideration of the papers presented.

 

[florian]

It wasn't completely unsupported.

It was worse than unsupported, it was already refuted by the geological records at the time of publication.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Bullshit. I argued using this paper:

"The necessity for Earth expansion". In: Carey S.W. (ed), Expanding Earth Symposium, Sydney, 1981. University of Tasmania, 375-393. CAREY S.W., 1986.

Naturally, you did not read it. You have no clues and ignore all evidence presented to you, as usual.

His predictions are in agreement with the emperical evidence we have available to us.

Really. Let's see if you really read Webb's paper. Give the values of his predictions and post a link to the pdf of the paper so that anybody can check the values.

I don't recall suggesting it did have anything to do with the large collision hypothesis.

Wonderful, you cite a paper defending one model to support a different model.

And that's pretty much the response I expected from you. Meanwhile you gloss right over the fact that this 'wrong model' based on 'wrong assumptions' makes correct predictions about the relative lengths of the day, month, and year, and agrees with emperical evidence available to us through tidalites, and confirms Williams' assumptions, and confirms my assertions about those assumptions.

So according to you, empirical value gives a recession rate equal to 0.34 cm/y 200 My ago? Show us the numbers!

No, you're a liar because you presented an assertion as fact.

No, my position is very clear, biomechanics is a field were clues for lower paleogravity could be found, but no work has been done yet to verify this hypothesis. Alexander details the common issues raised by dinosaur biomechanics (mass, center of mass, speed, manoeuverability, blood flow in long necks/systolic pressure) that I think could be eased by a lower surface gravity: Alexander (2006) "Dinosaur biomechanics" Proc. R. Soc. B (doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3532).

No, actually, no digging required.

Of course, I do believe you. You've shown before how trustful you are.

I don't actually care whether or not you believe me, to be honest. You've amply demonstrated that you will continue to believe what you want to believe, and I have no way of definitively proving my motivations one way or the other.

And I don't care at all about your beliefs. I know in advance that I won't convince you whatever the strong scientific evidence presented during the discussions and the different scientific papers I provided in support, like that paper by Carey cited above. But at least I can prevent you from spreading fallacies and show the reader that this theory is the future and a big step forward. Anyway, in Science, the better theory always win at the end. And that won't be different in this case, it is just a question of time.

 

[Trippy]

It was worse than unsupported, it was already refuted by the geological records at the time of publication.

So you keep saying.

Bullshit. I argued using this paper:

"The necessity for Earth expansion". In: Carey S.W. (ed), Expanding Earth Symposium, Sydney, 1981. University of Tasmania, 375-393. CAREY S.W., 1986.

The presence or absence of the paper is irrelevant to the fact that you presented an argumentum ad hominem.

This statement, made by you, and quoted in the section I was responding to:

You have definitively no clues and thus are not in position to bash this theory.

Is an argumentum ad-hominem, as is this statement:

Naturally, you did not read it. You have no clues and ignore all evidence presented to you, as usual.

And as far as not having read it - the first time I read it, I didn't even make it past the first page before I started spotting factual errors and logical contradictions - mostly around what he has to say regarding the alleged lack of variation in the size of the Pacific ocean (I am also of the opinion that his polar wandering charts do not show what he claims they do).

Incidentally, do you have permission, actual or implied to reproduce Carey's work? Because you could very well be in breach of international copyright law.

Really. Let's see if you really read Webb's paper. Give the values of his predictions and post a link to the pdf of the paper so that anybody can check the values.

You are in no position to try and test my knowledge.
Nor will I submit to such.
And I certainly won't be goaded into potentially breaking international copyright law.

Wonderful, you cite a paper defending one model to support a different model.

Once again, you fail to understand the significance of Webb's paper, or the context within which it was being presented. Here's a clue, I wasn't presenting it to support the large impact hypothesis.
Here's a hint - take the blinkers off, evidence contradicting an expanding earth comes from multiple fields - even Mazumder recognized this with his attack on astrophysicists.

So according to you, empirical value gives a recession rate equal to 0.34 cm/y 200 My ago? Show us the numbers!

This is not the claim that I made, I claimed that the derivation of orbital parameters based on models such as those forwarded by Poliakow and Webb matches up with those implied by work done by others, such as Williams.

Here is one example of such a comparison: Bills & Ray 1999

No, my position is very clear, biomechanics is a field were clues for lower paleogravity could be found, but no work has been done yet to verify this hypothesis. Alexander details the common issues raised by dinosaur biomechanics (mass, center of mass, speed, manoeuverability, blood flow in long necks/systolic pressure) that I think could be eased by a lower surface gravity: Alexander (2006) "Dinosaur biomechanics" Proc. R. Soc. B (doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3532).

You seem to have confused yourself - the assertion that I was referring to was your assertion that I was a liar. I have proven that you made the comments, or made comments that could reasonably be paraphrased to the comments that I attributed to you. You presented the assertion that I am a liar as a fact, the action of which makes you a liar.

Of course, I do believe you. You've shown before how trustful you are.
"A sarcastic person has a superiority complex that can be cured only by the honesty of humility" - Lawrence G. Lovasik.

And I don't care at all about your beliefs.

We haven't discussed my beliefs. We've discussed what I consider to be reasonable to infer from the available evidence, when considering whether or not the Earth is expanding. I've ventured a couple of personal opinions on a couple of the papers that you've offered as 'evidence' of an expanding earth, but there has been no discussion require me to espouse my philosophical or religous beliefs.

I know in advance that I won't convince you whatever the strong scientific evidence presented during the discussions and the different scientific papers I provided in support, like that paper by Carey cited above.

You have yet to present any strong, unambiguous evidence, only differences in interpretation of available evidence. Meanwhile, I can, and have, provided clear, unambiguous evidence that supports my case.

But at least I can prevent you from spreading fallacies and show the reader that this theory is the future and a big step forward.

No, actually, you can't. The best you can hope to do is to contest any claims I make on the matter.

Anyway, in Science, the better theory always win at the end. And that won't be different in this case, it is just a question of time.

The better theory has won, it's just that you, like flat earthers, and hollow earthers, have failed to recognize it. Tectonic theory, as it currently exists, had to prove that it accounted for the available evidence better than expanding earth tectonics before it was considered by the mainstream. Which, it did (and still does).

 

[florian]

The presence or absence of the paper is irrelevant to the fact that you presented an argumentum ad hominem.

This paper contains many irrefutable evidence supporting Earth expansion. You act as it did not exist, this is not an ad hominen, just a fact.

And as far as not having read it - the first time I read it, I didn't even make it past the first page before I started spotting factual errors and logical contradictions - mostly around what he has to say regarding the alleged lack of variation in the size of the Pacific ocean (I am also of the opinion that his polar wandering charts do not show what he claims they do).

So you just read one page and jump to hasty conclusions.

You are in no position to try and test my knowledge.
Nor will I submit to such.

In other words, you never read this paper, just the abstract.

And I certainly won't be goaded into potentially breaking international copyright law.

So you did not break any law by providing the link to Bills & Ray 1999?

Once again, you fail to understand the significance of Webb's paper

Give me a break, you did not read that paper. That's why you believe it does support your opinion.

This is not the claim that I made, I claimed that the derivation of orbital parameters based on models such as those forwarded by Poliakow and Webb matches up with those implied by work done by others, such as Williams.

You made the claim that the first-principle models match empirical data. The model built by Poliakow, that outdates Webb's model by the way because he proves that the distribution of continents/ocean is the most important parameter for tidal dissipation simulation, yields recessions rates that have no match in the empirical data.

You seem to have confused yourself - the assertion that I was referring to was your assertion that I was a liar. I have proven that you made the comments, or made comments that could reasonably be paraphrased to the comments that I attributed to you. You presented the assertion that I am a liar as a fact, the action of which makes you a liar.

Oh please, and by the way you did not quote correctly. Indeed, what are these "spurs on dinosaur leg bones"? I never claimed there are spurs on dinosaur leg bones. You were probably confused by the spurs left by dinosaurs in swamps and used to estimate their running speed (see Alexander 2006).
It shows one more time that you don't understand the arguments, are usually confused, but still jump to conclusion.

"A sarcastic person has a superiority complex that can be cured only by the honesty of humility" - Lawrence G. Lovasik.

That citation should be engraved over your bed as you you have clearly a superiority complex in regard to scientist working with the Expanding Earth Theory. Do not judge what you don't understand.

You have yet to present any strong, unambiguous evidence, only differences in interpretation of available evidence.

I did present strong evidence (See Carey above for example) but you ignore or dismiss them with vague comments.

Meanwhile, I can, and have, provided clear, unambiguous evidence that supports my case.

Just your opinion.

The best you can hope to do is to contest any claims I make on the matter.

Here, we agree.

The better theory has won,

Not yet.

it's just that you, like flat earthers, and hollow earthers, have failed to recognize it.

The Earth is not flat, nor hollow, nor has a constant size. You belong to the flat earthers, hollow earthers, creationists and alike, and hide behind the word "science" to spread your beliefs.

Tectonic theory, as it currently exists, had to prove that it accounted for the available evidence better than expanding earth tectonics before it was considered by the mainstream. Which, it did (and still does).

Wishful thinking. Plate tectonics completely fails to explain the history of the Pacific. We must resort to the growing earth theory to explain it correctly. See Carey.

 

[Trippy]

This paper contains many irrefutable evidence supporting Earth expansion. You act as it did not exist, this is not an ad hominen, just a fact.

No, it is an adhominem.

So you just read one page and jump to hasty conclusions.

Your assumptionm not what I said.

In other words, you never read this paper, just the abstract.

Again, this is just your assumption. Another, more valid assumption would be that I am simply not into pissing contests.

So you did not break any law by providing the link to Bills & Ray 1999?

No, I did not - because the source that I linked to has implied or actual permission to reproduce the paper. I linked to a legitimate source, you however appear to be in violation of copyright law.

Give me a break, you did not read that paper. That's why you believe it does support your opinion.

Still more unsubstantiated opinion. Do you have anything concrete?

Oh, and it does support my opinion.

You made the claim that the first-principle models match empirical data.

Correct, and it does.

The model built by Poliakow, that outdates Webb's model by the way because he proves that the distribution of continents/ocean is the most important parameter for tidal dissipation simulation, yields recessions rates that have no match in the empirical data.

Wrong. Oh - and the rate of rotation is also important (in some respects more so) because there are these things called resonances (another basic concept, like buoyancy).

Oh please, and by the way you did not quote correctly. Indeed, what are these "spurs on dinosaur leg bones"? I never claimed there are spurs on dinosaur leg bones. You were probably confused by the spurs left by dinosaurs in swamps and used to estimate their running speed (see Alexander 2006).
It shows one more time that you don't understand the arguments, are usually confused, but still jump to conclusion.

No, I quoted you verbatim here. The worst I did was paraphrase you wrongly.

The only person, it seems, that is jumping to conclusions here is you, in some ongoing misguided blatantly assinine and puerile attempt at character assassination. Please, this is a science forum, you claim to be a scientist, how about acting like one.

That citation should be engraved over your bed as you you have clearly a superiority complex in regard to scientist working with the Expanding Earth Theory. Do not judge what you don't understand.

I'm not the one that continually has to resort to sarcasm and petty personal attacks to make a point, you are. You've made this personal, not me. And I am in the perfect position to judge expanding earth tectonics, because I've crosstrained not only in geology, but in other fields as well, and that cross training tells me that expanding earth tectonics is not only nonsensical from the perspective of geology, but a number of other fields as well.

I did present strong evidence (See Carey above for example) but you ignore or dismiss them with vague comments.

No, and, uh, no.

Just your opinion.

Fact. That you don't accept it is your problem.

Not yet.

Yes. It won in the ealy 20th century and has over 50 years of solid science backing it.

The Earth is not flat, nor hollow, nor has a constant size. You belong to the flat earthers, hollow earthers, creationists and alike, and hide behind the word "science" to spread your beliefs.

That's the best ad hominem you could come up with?

Wishful thinking. Plate tectonics completely fails to explain the history of the Pacific. We must resort to the growing earth theory to explain it correctly. See Carey.

No. Your assertion is wishful thinking.

Tell me, how is it, again, that a supercontinent with a 50 degree gape (13% of a circle) and a southern ocean occupies (eg Carey 1945) more than half a hemisphere?

In none of the reconstructions that Carey presents does the land mass constitute a whole hemisphere, or more than a hemisphere. Not in any single one of them. Yes, they spill out beyond the hemisphere, but then again, the surrounding ocean intrudes into the hemisphere - even if we do exclude the gape, and on the balance the intrusions of the ocean into the hemisphere at least equal the spill of the land out of the hemisphere. Not only that, but Carey was wrong to exclude the gape from the ocean, and include it as part of Pangea. The simple fact of the matter is that Carey undoes his own assertions - he claims that it is impossible to account for the northward drift of India and Australia with the gape alone, and then goes on to demonstrate that it's 66 degrees of motion, and because it's only a 50 gape, it can't be done.

Meanwhile, he ignores a single very important observation - Even according to his own 1945 reconstruction, antarctica has drifted south, into what Carey has represented as a polar sea. That, combined with closure (or redistribution at any rate) of the 50 degree gape is more than sufficient to accomodate the amount of motion of India and Australia (he also seems, at times, to confuse the Tethys Sea with the Tethys Ocean, but that's another kettle of fish). Meanwhile, to make matters worse, he seems to completely fail to account for any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia.

 

[florian]

This paper contains many irrefutable evidence supporting Earth expansion. You act as it did not exist, this is not an ad hominen, just a fact.

No, it is an adhominem.

You act as it did not exist, it is a fact.

Your assumptionm not what I said.

Did you read it entirely, yes or no?

In other words, you never read this paper, just the abstract.

Again, this is just your assumption. Another, more valid assumption would be that I am simply not into pissing contests.

What pissing contest? I ask you to support your claim by quoting what is in this paper and you can't. This is not a contest but a request.

So you did not break any law by providing the link to Bills & Ray 1999?

No, I did not - because the source that I linked to has implied or actual permission to reproduce the paper.

Certainly not. As a reminder: http://www.agu.org/pubs/authors/usage_permissions.shtml

You made the claim that the first-principle models match empirical data.

Correct, and it does.[/QUOTE]
If it does, then provide the empirical data supporting a recession rate equal to 0.34 cm/y, 200 My ago.

The worst I did was paraphrase you wrongly.

Ducking again.

The only person, it seems, that is jumping to conclusions here is you, in some ongoing misguided blatantly assinine and puerile attempt at character assassination.

That, then:

Please, this is a science forum, you claim to be a scientist, how about acting like one.

puerile attempt at character assassination you said?
Regarding science, I have nothing to prove.

I'm not the one that continually has to resort to sarcasm and petty personal attacks to make a point, you are.

Your records show otherwise. Personally, I only reply to your sarcasm, like this quote of Lovasik.

And I am in the perfect position to judge expanding earth tectonics, because I've crosstrained not only in geology, but in other fields as well, and that cross training tells me that expanding earth tectonics is not only nonsensical from the perspective of geology, but a number of other fields as well.

What do you exactly mean by "cross training"? Does it mean that you have research experience in these different fields?

I did present strong evidence (See Carey above for example) but you ignore or dismiss them with vague comments.

No, and, uh, no.

Look more carefully.

Fact. That you don't accept it is your problem.

You confuse opinions and facts.

The Earth is not flat, nor hollow, nor has a constant size. You belong to the flat earthers, hollow earthers, creationists and alike, and hide behind the word "science" to spread your beliefs.

That's the best ad hominem you could come up with?

It is a blunt description of your behavior, not an attack.

Wishful thinking. Plate tectonics completely fails to explain the history of the Pacific. We must resort to the growing earth theory to explain it correctly. See Carey.

No. Your assertion is wishful thinking.

"No, and, uh, no."

Tell me, how is it, again, that a supercontinent with a 50 degree gape (13% of a circle) and a southern ocean occupies (eg Carey 1945) more than half a hemisphere?
In none of the reconstructions that Carey presents does the land mass constitute a whole hemisphere, or more than a hemisphere. Not in any single one of them. Yes, they spill out beyond the hemisphere, but then again, the surrounding ocean intrudes into the hemisphere - even if we do exclude the gape, and on the balance the intrusions of the ocean into the hemisphere at least equal the spill of the land out of the hemisphere.

Strawman. Carey does not claim that the "land mass constitute a whole hemisphere". He wrote "On each of these assemblies Pangea (including its inherent gaping sector) just spills over a hemisphere". You misrepresented one more time what people write. Then he infers from this observations that the ancestral pacific (excluding the gape) must have been nearly a hemisphere in area. There are no logical fallacy here.

The simple fact of the matter is that Carey undoes his own assertions - he claims that it is impossible to account for the northward drift of India and Australia with the gape alone, and then goes on to demonstrate that it's 66 degrees of motion, and because it's only a 50 gape, it can't be done.

What are you inventing again? He claims that closing the gape could not balance the insertion of the arctic/atlantic/indian/southern oceans. His point is that the pacific was about the size of an hemisphere in pangea reconstruction, and is still about the same size now, whereas it should have been drastically reduced in size.

You should use GPLATE and Muller's data to visualize the all thing. You would make more valuable critics.

Meanwhile, to make matters worse, he seems to completely fail to account for any foreshortening of 'greater india' that may have occured over the last 45-50 million years as a result of the collision with Asia.

That is totally irrelevant to the point he wants to make (lack of reduction of pacific area). Besides, the extension of greater India was no more than 500-600 km, the collision did not took place before 35 Ma according to Ali & Aitchinson (2008) Earth Science Reviews 88, p145-166.

This all thing goes over your head.