The Nonsensical "Growing Earth" "Theory"
- Thread starter Robert Schunk
- Start date
And the last two, from the Miocene to the present:
Is anyone interested in the southern hemisphere maps? They are not germane to the Arctic Paradox, but they do show the northward displacement (on an earth of fixed radius) of all of the Gondwana land masses, except Antarctica.
Of course, on an expanding earth, the continents themselves didn't move much at all move horizontally (except for things like the "Tethyan Torsion" between Laurasian and Gondwana land masses and secondary rotations of the individual land masses). Rather, the land masses remained more or less in situ, i.e. "fixed" in their original position, as in fixism, while the earth expanded beneath them and new oceanic crust emerged between them. In other words, most of their actual movement was vertically upward -- radially outward on an expanding sphere -- which created the appearance of horizontal displacement, rather than actual horizontal movement on a sphere of fixed radius as plate tectonics would have it.
Is anyone interested in the southern hemisphere maps? They are not germane to the Arctic Paradox, but they do show the northward displacement (on an earth of fixed radius) of all of the Gondwana land masses, except Antarctica.
Of course, on an expanding earth, the continents themselves didn't move much at all move horizontally (except for things like the "Tethyan Torsion" between Laurasian and Gondwana land masses and secondary rotations of the individual land masses). Rather, the land masses remained more or less in situ, i.e. "fixed" in their original position, as in fixism, while the earth expanded beneath them and new oceanic crust emerged between them. In other words, most of their actual movement was vertically upward -- radially outward on an expanding sphere -- which created the appearance of horizontal displacement, rather than actual horizontal movement on a sphere of fixed radius as plate tectonics would have it.
Last edited:
Apparently you need a reminder.
Mazumder in ESR 2005 explained to Williams why these predictions are speculative. The tidal effect cannot be predicted, so that any calculation based on tidalites are speculative provide no absolute values for LoD or Earth/Moon distance and are no arguments "for" or "against".
Me neither. It seems they believe that "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer for a scientist.
When we lack observations to study a mechanism, there is nothing else to say than "I don't know". It does not mean that we do not want to know. Just mean that we can't (at this point).
Of course, this remark applies to the physical mechanism explaining the gain in mass of planets.
If you did your homework, then why don't you present the results of your research instead of asking questions?
Oh please. We all know here that your favorite tactics is to provoke posters to derail scientific.
If you have evidence of such sutured subduction in the arctic basin (not the Pacific basin right!) then name it and provide the reference supporting it.
From these reconstructions, we can see that Alaska and Kamchatka are predicted to move southward from 100 Ma to present. I guess there are paleomagnetic data showing otherwise, right?
BTW, do you know Gplate? It is a good piece of software to represent data (http://www.gplates.org/).
Not to difficult to use and interesting to prove some points.
And I pointed out to you why Mazumders speculations were wrong. You never understood the point.
No it doesn't. But I don't neccessarily expect you to understand why.
Why don't you crawl back under your rock.
Projection.
Do you have anything other than vapid snide commentary?
Gneiss2011
Registered Senior Member
It is.
The Pacific Paradox is not big. At least not bigger than the Arctic Paradox. Robert Muir Wood debunked this argument in only 1 sentence 33 years ago:
(Robert Muir Wood, Is the Earth getting bigger?, New Scientist, 8 February 1979, page 387)Robert Muir Wood said:
Well, before opening a new case/folder/subject, maybe we should finish/conclude the Arctic Paradox.
As for me, the conclusion is short : Carey made two claims ("all of the continents except Antarctica have converged on the Arctic [...] since the Permian", "since the Permian [...] the Arctic has been an area of extension"), that appear to be unsupported, and false/wrong according to mainstream science. I conclude that, in my opinion, he used a straw man and was incompetent/untrustable.
Of course, Carey forgotting (willingly or not) that the Earth's surface is not flat, but is a sphere (where a circle can see its perimeter increasing while the area it encompass decrease at the same time), Carey ignoring (willingly or not) Robert Muir Wood's debunk during two decades, Carey doing unsupported claim and straw man (with or without knowing it was a straw man) in his Arctic Paradox argument, have helped me to see him as a crank in matter of Earth expansion.
You can use an image viewer sofware to separate the pictures of an animated gif, like IrfanView.
And there are Ronald Blakey's maps, which are not animated gif, and are more recent than Irving 1983. There is even a NASA World Wind version and a Google Earth version.
Indeed.
Since when do you trust paleomagnetic data?
Hey, I think we just discovered a new paradox!
Last edited:
Muir Wood's "refutation" of Carey re: the Pacific is baloney and, to anticipate a later topic, a strawman.
This is what Muir Wood wrote in the article you linked: "...Professor Carey even argued that two pieces of accepted data about the Pacific Ocean, that its size has decreased while its perimeter has increased, were irreconciliable; but a simple demonstration can show that once larger than a hemisphere (the approximate size of the Pacific Ocean) the perimeter does decrease while the area increases." (Emphasis added.)
Unfortunately, Muir Wood's "simple demonstration" that the Pacific perimeter decreases while the area of the Pacific increases is valid only if the Pacific actually occupies more than a hemisphere (as Panthalassa in the Permian would have). Unfortunately, he is simply wrong when he says "the approximate size of the Pacific Ocean" is equal to or greater than a hemisphere; it is not. The surface area of the modern earth is 510 million sq km. The surface area of the Pacific is 165 million sq km, and even if you add all of the Southern Ocean (including the area south of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans), the Pacific would still be only 185 million sq km. You don't need a PhD to realize that the Pacific would have to be 255 million sq km in order to occupy a hemisphere. In short, the Pacific is significantly less than a hemisphere; it covers only about one-third of the globe. So, while Muir Wood's argument may have been valid for Pantalassa during the initial disruption of Pangaea, when Pantalassa still presumably covered more than a hemisphere on a constant-sized earth, say during the Triassic and Early Jurassic, it's not valid for the Pacific, especially since the Cretaceous. I'll have more to say about all this when we turn to the Pacific Paradox.
Two words: gaping gores. See paragraph 4 of this.
Yes, the crank link is entertaining but does it really shed any light on any of this? BTW, why doesn't your link mention that global warming "hockey stick?"
If you want a good example of a straw man, then I refer you to this.
Also, I can't recall any reputable scientist ever calling Carey "incompetent" or "untrustable," even those who most vehemently opposed or disagreed with him on expansion.
Thank you!
How can you still say that Carey's claim that "all of the continents except Antarctica have converged on the Arctic" appears "to be unsupported, and false/wrong according to mainstream science?" Did you even look at the Irving maps? All of the continents, except Antarctica, move north! Now, if you're quibbling over the phrase "converged on the Arctic," as though Carey was saying that they "met in the Arctic," then obviously that is semantical doubletalk. So let me try again: on a globe, the longitudes (i.e. the lines that run north and south) "converge" at the poles. Therefore, if the continents drift north, they must follow the longitudes, which means they must "converge on the north pole." So if you're suggesting that since North America and Eurasia were not circum-polar during the Permian (at least according to PT), then yes, strictly speaking, they did not converge on the "Arctic," which didn't exist yet. But they did converge on the North Pole, and there's no denying that. So, we could've avoid all of this had Carey simply written "all of the continents except Antarctica have converged on the North Pole, which is currently occupied by the Arctic and has been (according to plate tectonics) since the Early Cretaceous. But, of course, I, Carey, maintain that on an expanding earth the continents didn't move northward at all. Rather, the latitudes on North America and Eurasia moved south as the earth expanded more in the southern hemisphere than in the north."
With respect to Carey's claim that "since the Permian [...] the Arctic has been an area of extension," which you also say is "unsupported, and false/wrong according to mainstream science," I can finally provide links to the articles that I cited earlier which refer to Arctic extension now that I've made the grade on this blog by reaching the "20-post threshold." But, before doing so, we probably need to clear up one more semantical problem. In saying that the "Arctic has been an area of extension" since the Permian, Carey was not claiming extension has been continuous and on-going since the Permian. He was simply saying that since the Permian, the only tectonic activity that has occurred in the Arctic has been extensional (i.e. divergent) and there has been no compressional (i.e. convergent) activity.
Here are the articles about Arctic tectonics that I previously cited:
Last edited:
Gneiss2011
Registered Senior Member
So you are claiming that Muir Wood's refutation of "Pacific Paradox" is not valid, because it is not valid today but "may have been valid for Pantalassa during the initial disruption of Pangaea". Since today is not the age/epoch/era when take place the "Pacific Paradox", I am not convinced.
:Roll:
Sure, just ignore the fact that I was responding to a personal attack (which even with florians history of directing them at me, I know, still doesn't justify the comment, but eh).
I was looking at these ones yesterday:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264817203000436
I have 23 of the 24 maps sitting on my hard drive.
No. Not in the least.
You're familiar with the treatment of continental drift as rotation about a pole, correct?
Suit yourself. Whatever shall I do? :shrug:
Gee, Professor Euler, I don't think I ever I heard nothin' 'bout no rotation about no pole. Please 'splain it to us!
(Will it be on the test?)
