The Nonsensical "Growing Earth" "Theory"

[AlexG]

Originally Posted by florian
I'm a PhD, I publish in peer reviewed journals (already more than 10 papers this year), I review research papers and research projects, and I'm the head of an academic research lab (3 research scientists, 2 PhD students and 2 techs).

What's your PhD in?

 

[florian]

And you came up with this!?! Yikes. Well all I can say is, you should stick to your own field!

No, I did not came up with this. Geophysicists and geologists came up with this, and I wanted to know why they did, because I'm curious. So I check their claims, the observations on which they rely, and I found that their conclusion were mostly correct.
Being a research scientist, I think I'm qualified to recognize if the scientific methods is rigorously used, or if it is just pseudoscience bullshit. Right?

Your conclusion from observation is that through some unkown process material is mysteriously forming in the earth and the earth is expanding. Really? Well, like I said - yikes!

The conclusion from the observation is that earth and some other planets/moon grow in surface and thus in size, that this growth is from inside, and unlikely at constant mass. And that's all, no magic, just good old logic. I told you, you're way too much emotional.

 

[florian]

You know that is really odd. If florian really is a research scientist he knows the drill to get published, and could do much better at refining his 'theory' face to face with his peers.

This is what I'm doing, but evidently not here. Hopefully, you know that this does not happen on scientific forum, right?

Maybe he is just having fun by pulling our collective legs with the inflatable earth thing. That makes a helluva lot more sense than to assume he would actually believe such an absurd conjecture.:shrug:

This is not a conjecture. If you believe it is one, then you don't know what is a conjecture. Read again my previous posts. And no, I' not a "believer" either.
I already said why I'm here. To debunk fallacies.

 

[florian]

So, I guess, according to your implications, I am also an expert!

An expert may be, but in what? Hopefully, as a research scientist, you are somewhat an expert in the application of the scientific method and in the discrimination between sciences and pseudosciences, right? Because, this is what I claim to be and nothing else.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

You know that is really odd. If florian really is a research scientist he knows the drill to get published, and could do much better at refining his 'theory' face to face with his peers.

Careful with our terminology. It is only a "hypothesis" until it has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt.

And yes, may shame and hemorrhoids befall the language-handicapped scientists who come up with layman-confusing terms like "string theory," for a whimsical arm-waving hypothesis that will be replaced by a trendy new one next decade.

Maybe he is just having fun by pulling our collective legs with the inflatable earth thing. That makes a helluva lot more sense than to assume he would actually believe such an absurd conjecture.

How about more sense than to assume that a person could harbor enough aggregate delusions to support such an absurd conjecture, yet somehow conceal it from the faculty and snag a PhD? How did he manage to carefully avoid bringing any of this up in his thesis?

 

[Trippy]

How about more sense than to assume that a person could harbor enough aggregate delusions to support such an absurd conjecture, yet somehow conceal it from the faculty and snag a PhD? How did he manage to carefully avoid bringing any of this up in his thesis?

Probably because his PhD isn't in Geology, but that doesn't explain Maxlow >_>

 

[origin]

Originally Posted by origin
You know that is really odd. If florian really is a research scientist he knows the drill to get published, and could do much better at refining his 'theory' face to face with his peers. ”

Originally Posted by Fraggle Rocker
Careful with our terminology. It is only a "hypothesis" until it has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Agreed. That is why I used the hash marks around the word theory. His conjecture hardly even rises to the level of hypothesis.

Originally Posted by florian

No, I did not came up with this. Geophysicists and geologists came up with this

But they were clearly ultra fringe guys for goodness sakes. I read a piece by a real honest to god physicist that believes crop circles are made by plasma vortexes, as opposed to graffiti artist working with an organic medium!

They are called fringe for a reason; don't you think the experts in the field have a little better chance of evaluating their claims than you.:shrug:

 

[Motor Daddy]

I call it "mass evolves to space." It happens at every level of the universe. Objects get less dense over time, by means of expansion. Objects move AWAY from their core. It's why the Earth (and all the planets in our SOLAR SYSTEM) came from the sun. It's why all the mass around the black hole of a galaxy came from the black hole, and it continues to get FURTHER away from the core.

The second law of thermodynamics supports this hypothesis. If mass didn't evolve to space it would be perpetual motion, and that is impossible.

 

[wlminex]

florian quote: "An expert may be, but in what? Hopefully, as a research scientist, you are somewhat an expert in the application of the scientific method and in the discrimination between sciences and pseudosciences, right? Because, this is what I claim to be and nothing else."

Your last sentence . . . . the important thing is what OTHERS "claim you to be" not what YOU claim to be. What YOU claim to be is only your "hypothesis" based on your observations of yourself . . . doesn't even rise to the level of "theory" yet.

Origin: Most new ideas, hypotheses, etc. come from from "fringe guys". Were not Einstein and other historical figures also fringe guys at one time?

wlminex

 

[Arioch]

@Florian --

Could you perhaps link to some of the articles you say that you've published, preferably in the field of geology. I happen to know quite a few geologists and none of them say what you've been saying. The physicists I know would be appalled by this thread to, something along the lines of "why the fuck are they abusing our findings this way!?!"

 

[florian]

Since you're the one here making the extraordinary assertions, the Rule of Laplace requires that you provide the extraordinary evidence to support them, before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect.

Ok, but are you ready to invest time into this? That would be surprising.

If yes, start there:

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

"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)

"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)

"Quantification of an Archaean to Recent Earth Expansion Process Using Global Geological and Geophysical Data Sets" J. Maxlow 2001 PhD thesis, Curtin University (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/kklg6y)

 

[florian]

His conjecture hardly even rises to the level of hypothesis.

Conjecture in Wiki
Very far from an empirical theory...

I read a piece by a real honest to god physicist that believes crop circles are made by plasma vortexes, as opposed to graffiti artist working with an organic medium!

I've seen worse than that. Luc Montagnier, the nobel prize 2008 in medicine, is lobbying to revive the infamous "water memory" just because he can't understand that filtering units are not perfect...

don't you think the experts in the field have a little better chance of evaluating their claims than you.:shrug:

Of course they do. That is why I like discussing with them what they think about some concepts.

 

[florian]

Your last sentence . . . . the important thing is what OTHERS "claim you to be" not what YOU claim to be. What YOU claim to be is only your "hypothesis" based on your observations of yourself . . . doesn't even rise to the level of "theory" yet.

Not sure to understand what you mean. Don't you think that research scientists are the most qualified to understand what is science and what is not science. If not, then who is? forumers?

Origin: Most new ideas, hypotheses, etc. come from from "fringe guys". Were not Einstein and other historical figures also fringe guys at one time?

I would certainly not qualify Einstein as a fringe guy. He was more a guy at the right place at the right time.

 

[AlexG]

Don't you think that research scientists are the most qualified to understand what is science and what is not science.

What is your field of expertise? What's your PhD in?

 

[wlminex]

Florian, Post #53:

Hey . . . Einstein was a Patent Office clerk (fringe job?) before/while developing his hypotheses that are now accepted theories. I'd bet that if he had computers and forums, he'd be right here in the mix. Also, some on this forum appear to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - I know AlexG . . . that includes us both!

It is a bit egotistical to profess (as most qualified) that one is a research scientist who understands science better than those who are not. Some forumers (your term) appear to be more qualified than some of us "research scientists". At least they can get "outside-the-box" and not be pinned to only preconceived notions - that's why their input is vital to these discussions.

wlminex

 

[AlexG]

Hey . . . Einstein was a Patent Office clerk (fringe job?) before/while developing his hypotheses that are now accepted theories.

Einstein had also received his degree in physics. He was working in the Patent office because he had made an enemy of his mathematics professor and couldn't get a job at the university. His job at the PO allowed him the time to work on Special Relativity.

The point is, he was a university graduate with a degree in physics, not a fringe crank.

 

[wlminex]

. . . so am I (three university degrees) . . . so I guess, by your reckoning, I'm not the "fringe crank" you present me to be?

wlminex

 

[matthew809]

Since you're the one here making the extraordinary assertions, the Rule of Laplace requires that you provide the extraordinary evidence to support them, before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect. No one is required to present the original evidence from which canonical scientific theories were derived (which has already been peer-reviewed to death or they would not have achieved canonical status), every time someone comes along claiming that he has the astounding evidence that will refute them.

It's exactly this unscientific attitude which propelled this theory(plate tectonics) to it's current "untouchable" summit. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that you, and the experts before you, are depending on the previous conclusions of others to substantiate your own beliefs.

...this is hardly the place for you to make your stand. Even if somehow you manage to change the minds of the few members who are actually qualified to weigh your evidence, it's not going to get you anywhere out in the real world...

If you don't find that the people here are receptive to your ideas, why does it matter??? You can't possibly accomplish anything here. This is not the place to launch your campaign!

Wow.

I changed my mind. I won't even bother commenting on the absurdity of these comments.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It's exactly this unscientific attitude which propelled this theory(plate tectonics) to it's current "untouchable" summit. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that you, and the experts before you, are depending on the previous conclusions of others to substantiate your own beliefs.

Wow.

I changed my mind. I won't even bother commenting on the absurdity of these comments.

Ah yes, condemnation from a self-confessed liar.
You're hardly "qualified" to comment on what is "unscientific" or "absurd" and what isn't.

 

[Gneiss2011]

ask them to cite in what way expanding Earth theory offers a superior explanation.

The issue is that he can't consider that all of these informations validate the growing earth theory.
Plate tectonics and the Expanding Earth theory share the same root, and it is expected that all of the observations supporting plate tectonics, I mean not the one refuting it, are a subset of the observations supporting the Expanding Earth theory.

Which observations support or validate the Expanding Earth theory?