Florian said:
No, you did not provide any quote from Webb 1982 supporting your claim. And what does tell us Poliakow regarding Webb's 1982 model?
Yet more proof you haven't looked at everything I've posted on the matter.
Oh yes I did. You linked to the abstract of Webb's paper which describes a model relating tidal frequency to closing and receding rates in the framework of a Moon capture. Then Poliakow showed that the most important parameter for the tidal dissipation effect is the distribution of continents and oceans, thus outdating Webb's model. And that's all.
Florian said:
Sure you did. You posted a link to material infringing copyright.
If you think that the Geology Department at the University of Colorado has violated US copyright law, then I invite you to email them and inform them.
You're the one linking to Mojzsis webpage. Why don't you ask him by email if the AGU granted him the right to post a full pdf.
Oh yes it is. I got the Proceedings book for free from the its publisher, the University of Tasmania, and they inform me that I can use "fair dealing" for research and educational use, and thus have the right to make an electronic copy and communicate 10% of the proceedings.
Florian said:
Still not providing the empirical data supporting this low receding rate?
Read through the material I have provided you. The answer lies therein (although it may require some inference).
Williams can only infer average receding rates from the empirical data. No empirical data can be used to infer the 0.34 cm/y rate from Polikows model. And you believe that this is enough to support his model (bi standard attitude).
Florian said:
Whatever your beliefs, the expanding earth theory meets the criteria for a scientific theory...
No. It fails, completely.
Take every criteria one by one and let's see if the theory does not meet them.
It makes unphysical predictions...
"unphysical" is a strawman. The theory is empirical, therefore a physical causal mechanism must exist. Besides, the real predictions it makes are testable (paleoposition of cratons for example), and were tested, notably by Maxlow, and are further tested.
That are contradicted by evidence available across multiple fields, and the only ways to come close to making it work require an absurd amount of fine-tuning,
A fallacy.
and I would be almost willing to bet money that computations done using the amount of 'crack space' available fall far short of the predictions made in Maxlow's thesis.
hmm, Ocean floor datations and geological data impose strong constraint on the reconstructions, there is not much room for imagination. An illustration with antarctica showing that it was totally encircled by the southern tip of S. Am, Africa, India, Australia, Zealandia, and a little ocean of age 90-150 Ma with isochrons perpendicular to the Tonga/Kermadec trench:
The only tricky parts are the mobile arcs and related mantle extrusion and flow that overprinted the older ocean floor. That is very explicit in the Philippine sea:
Florian said:
and moving this discussion to the pseudoscience forum was not justified.
It was completely justified,
No, your justifications resort to your personnal beliefs and have nothing to do with reality.
in fact, on the grounds of your conduct,
What about
your conduct?
Florian said:
So moving this discussion to the pseudoscience forum is "trying to maintain a scientific discussion". This is the quintessence of trolling.
Strawman hypothesis (among other things).
This is exactly what you did.
Florian said:
Besides, each time a valid scientific point has being raised, either you ignore the opposing arguments, or declare that scientists are incompetent (Mazumber), or ducked, like this question raised by Carey regarding the Pacific evolution. Your writings are more in line with a witchhunt than with an argumented scientific discussion.
We know enough to safely discard expanding earth tectonics.
The illusion of knowledge. You sound like an amateur not a scientist.
It is an unphysical theory that has a substantial body of evidence across multiple fields against it
That strawman again.
, that makes absurd predictions,
So the prediction that Australia was surrounded clockwise by N Am, Antarctica, India, South China, Siberia, more than 500 Ma ago is absurd? I don't think so. On the contrary, it is supported by empirical and independent data.
has no physical causal mechanism,
Correction: it has one, but we don't knwo it yet.
whos proponents need to resort to personal insults
I did not insult you.
, logical fallacies and allegations of conspiracies to substantiate.
Don't confuse the scientists working on this theory and the cranks, please.
I also find it ironic that you cite this material to contradict me,
Contradiction? The date you cite was inaccurate, I correct it. You're the only one to make such a big deal for a simple correction.
but if you read (for example) Aitchinson et al's reply to Garzanti's comment, they explicitly state that a collision occured at the North Indian passive margin 55MA, and that that collision was part of the Himalaya-Tibet orogen, what they question is the significance of the event, likening it to the interaction between the Luzon Arc and South East China...
They question the significance regarding an Asian plate/greater India collision, because they provide evidence for a collision between Greater India and mobile arc, the later being not part of the Asian plate, hence the comparison to the Luzon Arc.
this does not contradict my position, that foreshortening was occuring 55 MA,
If an arc did collide with greater India, then it accreted onto greater India making it bigger, not shortening it. I guess I do not have to remind you that arc accretion is the orthodox theory for continental lithosphere formation, right?
Besides, postcollisional forshortening of greater India, is rather problematic. I quote Stocklin, an specialist of Himalayan orogeny:
"At any rate, Tethyan subduction can in no way account for compensation of the continued expansion of the Indian Ocean after collision of India with Eurasia in Eocene time. The structure of the Himalaya leaves no doubt that very considerable compression of continental crust was achieved here by folding and thrusting in post-Eocene time. But actual estimates fall again far short of the amount required to accommodate postcollisional north-drift of India, which according to spreading data from the Indian Ocean was in the range of 1500-2000 km. Le Fort (44) considered 600-700 km of shortening in the Himalaya as a maximum, Gansser (45) estimated about half of this amount 500 km less 200 km of pre-collisional compression). Compared to the Himalaya, post-Eocene crustal shortening farther north, in Tibet, seems to have been insignificant; folding occurred here mainly in the Mesozoic. The strike-slip mechanism proposed by Molnar and Tapponier (35) may account for some shortening, but hardly for the amount required: strike-slip along the Chaman fault was perhaps in the order of 200-300 km (43); and while displacement along the Herat fault may have been considerable till Miocene, post-Miocene deposits are no more clearly offset along it (24)."
--Jovan Stoecklin, "Tethys evolution in the Afghanistan-Pamir-Pakistan region," In: A.M.C. Sengor, ed., Tectonic Evolution of the Tethyan Region, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 1989, pp. 258, 259.
Florian said:
Imitating? Give up your aggressive/condescendant tone (if you can), and that will certainly ease the discussion.
I have given you countless opportunities to pursue such a discussion, each and every time, you return with personal insults (among other things).
Personal insults? Like what?
You've been aggressive and condescendant countless time (should I remind you the buoyancy episod?) because you decided at the beginning of this discussion that I'm a crank advocating a stupid theory. And this is extremely insulting for a scientist.
