Expanding Earth?

[InfiniteNow]

My hypothesis is that ...

1, Science has gone wrong starting 150 years ago and it's gotten systemic ,and it needs to change, now.

2. Science's terminology is exclusionary in the extreme even between diciplines, and it must change now.

3. Sciences must be reintegrated into the field of SCIENCE with respect for all specialities equally in the investigration of the universe.

Much better post. Thank you. My only complaint really is your treatment of science as an entity. It is not. It is an approach. An approach which varies across individuals.

 

Your point appears to be that a large percentage of the population which you personally define as scientists seem to be systematically increasing their exclusionary and narrow diciplined approach, further and further sub-categorizing their studies, and that greater sharing and integration across specialities would likely lead to greater insight and discovery for all involved.

 

We use what we've found until we find something that is better. Better equals "it does the same as the previous theory and more, and applies to more circumstances."

 

 

I do worry somewhat also that you think a positron is inside a photon, or "plus one energy of a photon"... While it's not my primary area of interest, my studies have indicated a positron to be an anti-electron... i.e. a proposed antiparticle/antimatter counterpart (same mass, different charge) of the electron. While it can be created when a photon interacts with a charged particle and produce a pair, your terms seem counter to that which has been repeatedly demonstrated.

 

If I said, "Bananas are blue," you'd challenge that, and not necessarily out of spite.

[Turtle]

Listen to this ,'

Science's view ,...in the beginning ,meteorites pummeled and pounded the Earth's body until the Earth was molten and differentiating.

Remember that ? So Earth is molten and cooling Two to three miles deep of Granitic rock, Then basalts,

So ,......what happened to 3/4 s of the outer crust of the earth about 3 miles deep since then ? It's gone. Magic? Oh and if there is subbuction , of any sort Granitic rock CAN'T subduct.

Neal Adams

 

Ears wide open Neal. I'm not sure where you get the 'two to three miles deep of granitic rock'. Can you provide a reference you got that from?

 

To put things in a Hypography perspective, the name 'Hypography' is a contraction of 'hyperlink' and 'biography', and while you have biographised :hyper: well enough, you have not hyperlinked to support it. Regardless of how other sites conduct business, we here agree that supporting links are de rigueur.

 

As to granite never subducting, I wonder if you have ever visited Yosemite? The famed Half Dome is a solid granite mountain, at least the half that remains. Where is the other half Neal? Why, ground away to dust by glaciers, washed to the sea by rivers, deposited on the ocean floor, and ultimately recycled into the mantle by subduction. So you see, granitic, or any other rock type, can and does subduct. ;) : cup:

[Turtle]

No , It's Both . Circumference was reported first! Read carefully

More ...Read The title here ,"Satellites REVEAL MYSTERY of LARGE CHANGES in Earth's Gravity.". EARTHS GRAVITY...CAN ONLY INCREASE IF THE EARTH INCREASES!.....".oh yeah Jane

you know that Earth growth thing we've been talking about for years and years....""

I told you about it here ,...and it's about to blow up in the science community's face,, ........You have just become part of history.

Think I'm kidding???

Neal Adams

 

 

Sorry Neal; I missed this earlier. To clarify, the gravity anomaly they discuss is localized to the equator; it does not refer to the entire mass of the Earth.

 

I don't think you're kidding, I think you are mistaken. As to history, I was a part of it long before this discussion and I am accustomed to an interesting life as a low shoe. Shall we continue? ;) :hyper:

[Eclogite]

Gosh , I think that I proposed a single suite of observations and they prove my hypothesis.

Hello Neal. From where I sit you described, but did not demonstrate, a suite of observations that suggest a hypothesis, but certainly do not prove it.

In contrast, the measurement of plate motions, mentioned by Turtle and myself, do invalidate your hypothesis (Unless you have some elegant way of accounting for these).

Truthfully the discussion about this started in the sixties.

Well, technically the expanding Earth had long been one way of accounting for mountain building, so it goes way back beyond the sixties. What plate tectonics did was to see off all the alternative explanations for orgenesis - expanding Earth, contracting Earth, isostasty gone wild, etc. The massive success of plate tectonic theory was not just because it explained orogenesis, but it accounted for a host of geophysical observations, palaeoclimatological paradoxes, palaontological peculiarities, and touched with outstanding clarity just about every aspect of geology and geological processes.

To understand my frustration and ire ...let me tell you what subduction and the Pangea theory was .... Back then.

The continents and the oceanic plate , they said, were floating on a sea of magma.

Neal, let me note that I was a student in the times you speak of. At no time do I recall, from any of my lecturers, or from any of the many papers being published on the topic reference to a sea of magma. You mention an old atlas showing this magma sea. Sorry Neal, but I am talking bona fide peer reviewed research articles, not a Reader’s Digest style popularisation.

Know what's happened to the Subduction Theory?

Well, it's still just a theory.

Neal, if you are smart enough to argue the case you are arguing (quite eloquently I might say) you are smart enough to know that in science it doesn’t get any better than ‘just a theory’. If you go down that line you will be branded with same stigmata that grace the brows of creationists, who claim evolution is ‘just a theory’.

 

Turns out From seismic studies that the asthenosphere has only 4 precent magma and mostly around the rifts. The same studies say the continental plates are 70 miles thick and go down into solid material below that . So much for "swirling around" , So much for "Diving under".

You have apparently misunderstood the details of the mechanism. The point is that through physical and chemical changes solid materials can flow over time. And time is something we have a lot of in geology.

If your objection to plate tectonics is based in part on this misreading of the mechanism of subduction you have some serious reading to do in order to get up to date.

 

Then Some Geologists began using "Compression Zone" in place of Subduction. Then in 2002 a group reported that the Equator was getting larger each year for several years,

Interesting. Which group? Where did they publish? What was the magnitude of the increase? What was their explanation for the observation?

 

 

I decided to do that job ,....since no one stepped up and volunteered.

Going against the established paradigm is always a thankless task. You have my respect for having the guts to take it on. Questioning of established, or nascent theories is a good thing. However, I believe plate tectonics stands up well to anything you may throw at it, while the Expanding Earth hypothesis remains fatally flawed.

[NAdams]

Originally Posted by NAdams View Post

Gosh , I think that I proposed a single suite of observations and they prove my hypothesis.

Hello Neal. From where I sit you described, but did not demonstrate, a suite of observations that suggest a hypothesis, but certainly do not prove it.

In contrast, the measurement of plate motions, mentioned by Turtle and myself, do invalidate your hypothesis (Unless you have some elegant way of accounting for these).

 

There are things said here that I wish you hadn't said , that I hate to have to deal with , as a waste of time and energy, but so be it . "Measurement of plate motions"? I am totally baffled buy this statement by you . Totally.

The United States Geological Survey has done this work and I have taken their work as the temprary Bible , Short of there being another work like this done , I dont think I should take yours and Turtles work (Which I have not seen) as being superior .

My work completely follows the worh of the USGS in every way, If their time frame is off then I need only speed up or slow down the work .

BUT it maths out , so I don;t percieve a problem. My interpretation simply leaves out subduction.

I will say this in addition . NO work by any Geological source or group has actually followed the Maps and work of the USGS, for this reason

There is no clue or indication of any sort in the work of the spliting of Pangia into Laurasia and Gondwanda . NO indication what so ever , and no clue that these continents circled half or a quarter if earth and are now riding up toward the equator . Only spreading is indicated.

In fact if I started listing the actual facts supporting My (OUR) theory , it would take a book.

The book would start by showing and proving that there is no evidence of the actual existance of the deep oceans , ...in Geology ,

Palentology , Physics or Biology . There are more species by at least double

of fish species in the fresh waters of the continental plates as in the oceans

And more species by more than double in the upper sea and on the continental shelf, than in the deep oceans ! Folks don't talk about it because

folks in speciaties don't talk between specialties .

I'm wasting my breath??

 

 

Originally Posted by NAdams View Post

Truthfully the discussion about this started in the sixties.

Well, technically the expanding Earth had long been one way of accounting for mountain building, so it goes way back beyond the sixties. What plate tectonics did was to see off all the alternative explanations for orgenesis - expanding Earth, contracting Earth, isostasty gone wild, etc. The massive success of plate tectonic theory was not just because it explained orogenesis, but it accounted for a host of geophysical observations, palaeoclimatological paradoxes, palaontological peculiarities, and touched with outstanding clarity just about every aspect of geology and geological processes.

I didn't want to get into this , but the current theory does not explain these things except in the smallest degree .

My (our , i don't wish to take credit for this theory except as to continuing to develop it and explaining the mechanism)

Continents do not and never have crashed into each other . They only move apart.

As a first proof I present My animated globe for close and considered examination ,There ARE areas that slide by each other for one reason or another . (One clump is going , being pulled by a standing mass . one way , and another the other way. )

Also a rift may be actively compressing a plate because of its robust spreading. This is unusual but the east pacific rift is unusually near and under the west coasts of North and South America.

With these exceptions all plates pull away from each other .

Mountaining and slipping of land is caused by the recurving of the continental plates on a constantly grow ing and recurving sphere .

I f you believe it or not , this phenomenon is a far superior and simpler explaination of the shifting that we see ,

Any thick layer on the outside of a sphere will buckle on the outside as the sphere gets bigger ,,,IF the outside surface is broken into pieces .

This was not true when the Earth had a GENERALY complete and contiguous crust , which .......Earth had before 180 million years ago.

then . though there was small mountaining in some areas, there were otherwise no mountains.....and by the way ,,,no rivers . only rapid run-off.

(no frozen mountain caps for the water cycle.)

 

 

Originally Posted by NAdams View Post

To understand my frustration and ire ...let me tell you what subduction and the Pangea theory was .... Back then.

The continents and the oceanic plate , they said, were floating on a sea of magma.

Neal, let me note that I was a student in the times you speak of. At no time do I recall, from any of my lecturers, or from any of the many papers being published on the topic reference to a sea of magma. You mention an old atlas showing this magma sea. Sorry Neal, but I am talking bona fide peer reviewed research articles, not a Reader’s Digest style popularisation.

This is the kind of note that is not helpful in any way , because of it's elitism. An Atlas or even a reader's digest article is based on the current work in the field. These people have researchers , they have high level professionals , professors and fact checkers . Your school had better resources ? I think not.

In those days ,and I'm sure you will remember if you chose to , that we

all saw diagrams and illustrations of magmic rock under the continents

with animated and non animated lines and arrows indicating convection of the magma ....boiling hot at the bottom and rising up and at the top , under the crust it cooled and dropped back down to be reheated,....Now , remember?

 

Well , There was no hell or gas burner down there to heat the magma.

It wasn't like a stove , While you were in school , I was pulling my hair out at this incredible picture presented to everyone , in school or out .

You can look it up.

Heat doesn't rise . It spreads outward . Gases rise to less dense area to expand . Under pressure these gases rise, heating, until they settle under the crust . They settle at the hightest point they can find , Under the rift lines.

 

 

Originally Posted by NAdams View Post

Know what's happened to the Subduction Theory?

Well, it's still just a theory.

Neal, if you are smart enough to argue the case you are arguing (quite eloquently I might say) you are smart enough to know that in science it doesn’t get any better than ‘just a theory’. If you go down that line you will be branded with same stigmata that grace the brows of creationists, who claim evolution is ‘just a theory’.

Actually , no , rifting and spreading are proven facts, not theory.

We can film it and do. The fact that there is no evidence of deep sea oceanic plate , fossils or sediment showing that any deep ocean even existed , after

40 years of looking is fact! Subductionests are in the boat with "creationists"

That Dionosaurs overall were 4 times bigger than current animals, is , yes, an engineering fact. Another dicipline, but no less true.

It's a fact that the deeper the ocean the colder it is , and if the Earth had deep oceans 200 Million Years ago it would have winters like now ,and it didn't.

It's a fact that if all the continental plates were on the one side, being 3 times the weight of water , the center of gravity would shift toward Pangia

and water , being opportunistic would shift with the center ,and Pangea would sink under the sea while the pacific center would become dry land.

This is pure fact.

It's a fact that if the Earth Differentiated and was once molten like the standard model says , then 3/4 's of the upper tectonic plate is missing, There's no sign of it. It's gone. That's a whole lot of stuff to hide.

This list goes on.

Subduction ,.....it's a theory. and it's less provable every day. I think things can go down as in compression and the back end of convection , but straight down. And that's what we see.

And granitic rock can't subduct , It's too light.

 

 

Originally Posted by NAdams View Post

Turns out From seismic studies that the asthenosphere has only 4 precent magma and mostly around the rifts. The same studies say the continental plates are 70 miles thick and go down into solid material below that . So much for "swirling around" , So much for "Diving under".

You have apparently misunderstood the details of the mechanism. The point is that through physical and chemical changes solid materials can flow over time. And time is something we have a lot of in geology.

If your objection to plate tectonics is based in part on this misreading of the mechanism of subduction you have some serious reading to do in order to get up to date.

Boy , heh I guess ,theres a temptation to impune the knowledge of a presumed crackpot. But I think I can teach a class on this subject.

Solid , in geology means crystalized . This doesn't mean it's not bendable and flexible to heat and pressure. (The more heat and/or pressure the more the atoms and molecules disattach and re-attach in a new position.

But the continental plate is "MORE SOLID" than the asthenosphere under the

oceanic plate ,...that plate which carries the heat upward. If a chunk dives down it may dive into the softer asthenosphere , but not into the more solid

contenental plate!

 

 

Originally Posted by NAdams View Post

Then Some Geologists began using "Compression Zone" in place of Subduction. Then in 2002 a group reported that the Equator was getting larger each year for several years,

Interesting. Which group? Where did they publish? What was the magnitude of the increase? What was their explanation for the observation?

Google please 'Equator expansion"

 

 

Originally Posted by NAdams View Post

I decided to do that job ,....since no one stepped up and volunteered.

Going against the established paradigm is always a thankless task. You have my respect for having the guts to take it on. Questioning of established, or nascent theories is a good thing. However, I believe plate tectonics stands up well to anything you may throw at it, while the Expanding Earth hypothesis remains fatally flawed.

You mistakenly imply or say that I reject plate tectonics. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am the staunchest defender of plate tectonics . Plate tectonics is defendable truth. It's a fact, no question .

How the "community says it worked in the past is totally wrong and one day , I sadly believe it will be a subject of derision but that's the way people are.

Neal adams

[Turtle]

Continents do not and never have crashed into each other . They only move apart.

Subcontinent of India Neal. Also, Africa has both moved to close the Mediteranean as well as open it as we see it today.

 

Well , There was no hell or gas burner down there to heat the magma.

Actually Neal, there is heat in the core generated by radioactive decay.

On the basis of a wide range of evidence from geophysics and geochemistry, the researchers argue that a transition in the mantle's structure and composition occurs in the middle of the lower mantle, at about a depth of 1,700 kilometers, and that elusive "reservoirs" of high radioactive heat production and distinctive chemical composition reside in the bottom 1,000 kilometers of the mantle.

MIT researchers propose new model for convective circulation within Earth's mantle - MIT News Office

 

Google please 'Equator expansion"

You conveniently disregarded the scientic analysis from the link I gave from that very search Neal. Perhaps you will provide a link of your own from such a search that you find supports your claims?

 

Again you have provided no hyperlinks. :) The horse is dead; stop beating it.

 

PS Here's a primer from USGS:

Understanding plate motions [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]

:) :hyper:

[NAdams]

Sorry Neal; I missed this earlier. To clarify, the gravity anomaly they discuss is localized to the equator; it does not refer to the entire mass of the Earth.

 

I don't think you're kidding, I think you are mistaken. As to history, I was a part of it long before this discussion and I am accustomed to an interesting life as a low shoe. Shall we continue? :) :)

 

You know what's odd. They didn't say they measured the poles in any way,

which is odd . I think what you and I heard was a theory to explain why this is happening. No pole got smaller. Stuff doesn't get smaller.

Odder ,yet is the fact that there is no follow up report,,,and this is 4 years ago. Nor was it a speculative report,...."Oh ,it happened this year , we'll see if it happens next year . No it happened for 4 years . Did these two guys do what they shouldn't have done , innocently?

And what kind of insane story was it they gave us??? Rebound from the last ice age. That was ,....10,000 years ago ! So it was rebounding for 10,000 years and it picked four years ago to start back again???

My momma called this kinda thing shuckin' and jivin' . My dad called it

limiting your exposure .

I tried to locate and E-mail these guys . Failed! Did they ...what??Die?

Move away? Smash their computers? They're geeks. They'd NEVER smash their computers.

A mystery wrapped in an enigma ..waiting for the noteriety to die away?

Waiting to make an official announcement?

Neal Adams

[Turtle]

You know what's odd. They didn't say they measured the poles in any way,

which is odd . I think what you and I heard was a theory to explain why this is happening.

 

 

Neal! It's not an issue of 'bigger'; it's an issue of gravity being stronger locally. This changes over time. Google "Bouger gravity anomoly maps"

"

Web Search Results1 - 10 of about 478 for Bouger gravity anomoly maps

 

Intute: Science, Engineering and Technology - Search results

 

:) :)

[NAdams]

Ears wide open Neal. I'm not sure where you get the 'two to three miles deep of granitic rock'. Can you provide a reference you got that from?

 

To put things in a Hypography perspective, the name 'Hypography' is a contraction of 'hyperlink' and 'biography', and while you have biographised :) well enough, you have not hyperlinked to support it. Regardless of how other sites conduct business, we here agree that supporting links are de rigueur.

 

As to granite never subducting, I wonder if you have ever visited Yosemite? The famed Half Dome is a solid granite mountain, at least the half that remains. Where is the other half Neal? Why, ground away to dust by glaciers, washed to the sea by rivers, deposited on the ocean floor, and ultimately recycled into the mantle by subduction. So you see, granitic, or any other rock type, can and does subduct. :) : cup:

 

Ah ,no , I'll try to find it somewhere but Granitic rock is 2.5 times the density of water , The asthenosphere is about 3.3 times the density of water , The stuff would float like a cork. if float was the word . I thought this was common knowledge.

As to the Half Dome ,...hmmmm since we don't really know , we can speculate . First we know Granitic rock material can come up into under the baserock and into the oceanic plate like pillows of material . Then , it would be a good idea to date to know what tectonic time it started at.

Early on could mean it split and this portion was pushed up and the other side was left underground , Then he broken side would reveal if it broke sharply or if its smoothed out with time

Much of this area pushed up about 30 million years ago , and glaciation is a relatively current series of events. So , was this pushed up , or was it exposed?

Ill look for photographs

Granitic rock . hmmm. no I don't have a reference , but I reckon I can find one . geologists generally say , the continental plate is granitic rock ,

while the oceanic rock is basalts , and they say in many areas the two are mixed , but as a general rule , it's like this . I guess i've said this to so many geologists , who have agerrd with me that I figured it was an axiom.

I'll find a reference for you .

[Turtle]

As to the Half Dome ,...hmmmm since we don't really know , we can speculate .

We do know Neal, that's why I brought it up. The entire Yosemite valley is demonstrative of the features and action of mountain glaciers. Half Dome was ground away by flowing glaciers. There are also broad areas of granite polished by the same action. The point is, you said granite doesn't subduct and I showed that it ultimately does because of weathering.

 

Granitic rock . hmmm. no I don't have a reference , but I reckon I can find one . geologists generally say , the continental plate is granitic rock ,while the oceanic rock is basalts , and they say in many areas the two are mixed , but as a general rule , it's like this . I guess i've said this to so many geologists , who have agerrd with me that I figured it was an axiom.

I'll find a reference for you .

 

Granitic rock is crystallized under the surface and later exposed by weathering and/or uplift. Additionally, basalts do flow from fissures on the surface as we see in Siberia and the Columbia Plateau.

Vic Camp - fissure eruptions

 

Here's a link on plutons, which may clarify granites a bit for you.

Intrusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

:rant: :cup:

[NAdams]

Subcontinent of India Neal. Also, Africa has both moved to close the Mediteranean as well as open it as we see it today.

 

 

Actually Neal, there is heat in the core generated by radioactive decay.

 

MIT researchers propose new model for convective circulation within Earth's mantle - MIT News Office

 

 

You conveniently disregarded the scientic analysis from the link I gave from that very search Neal. Perhaps you will provide a link of your own from such a search that you find supports your claims?

 

Again you have provided no hyperlinks. :rant: The horse is dead; stop beating it.

 

PS Here's a primer from USGS:

Understanding plate motions [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]

:cup:

 

India Did not crash into Asia , even if all the lnks you go to say so . Why do I know ?

1. I made the animations that show that on a smaller planet that India, because of the geometry of a smaller curved surface , was connected to both Africa ,and Asia at the same time , that as the growing Earth recurved India tore off Africa ,but remained attached to Asia . When this happened, mightily,

and held the top of India taut and stretched and flattened.

This is quite easy to see.

2. India is on a tectonic . oceanic plate , as is asia. Its this oceanic plate that is the "BODY of India while , what we know as India is the "Head"

The" Body" would be the impacter. If India's plate struck Asia's plate , it

would be like a Volkswagen striking a Humvee. the VolksWagen/India

would crumple up far more than the Humvee/Asia. This is merely Physics.

This is how it works ,always .

 

Africa ,...engineers are designing a bridge between Gibraltar and Africa .

One problem they have to overcome is Africa is moving away 4 millimeters a year , they have to account for it in their calculations .

(No site . I saw it on a Nova show or Nat'l Geo about a year ago.)

 

Heat at the core. I'm sure there is some ,and that is fine . We must speak about the mantle , of course , because we "Know" very Very little about the core . That report is a "theory" of course.

Between the outer core and the asthenosphere is the mantle . The mantle is shy of 2000 miles thick , It is solid rock all the way through . We know because of the way seismic 'P' waves travel through solids , (Rather than liquids or dense plasma) hot gas or liquids (water) can travel/boil up through this mantle between fine cracks in the silicate latices.

 

This is the link I go to for this . I still can't get further information .I'm not making claims based on this, except that there is ambiguity . If there were a clear announcement that the Earth was growing , what the heck would I be doing here , That problem would be solved. I think its comming to a boil though.

 

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour=/headline_universe/Earth_shape.html&edu=high

[NAdams]

We do know Neal, that's why I brought it up. The entire Yosemite valley is demonstrative of the features and action of mountain glaciers. Half Dome was ground away by flowing glaciers. There are also broad areas of granite polished by the same action. The point is, you said granite doesn't subduct and I showed that it ultimately does because of weathering.

 

 

 

Granitic rock is crystallized under the surface and later exposed by weathering and/or uplift. Additionally, basalts do flow from fissures on the surface as we see in Siberia and the Columbia Plateau.

Vic Camp - fissure eruptions

 

Here's a link on plutons, which may clarify granites a bit for you.

Intrusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

:rant: :cup:

You have shown me granitic rock , which I can walk down the street and see.

But you haven't made your point. It can't just be that granite weathers . Of course , it's light rock. It doesn't subduct,

I need no clarification ...especially from Wikipedia. Half the stuff on me

there is wrong.

[Turtle]

Neal, I'm going 'on you' by what you say here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof ,and you have it not. You can rant and rave all you want and you convince no one. I will challenge you at every turn to support your claim with real science. :rant: I am writing not to convince you of your mistaken ideas, but the other readers of this thread. :cup:

[NAdams]

Neal, I'm going 'on you' by what you say here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof ,and you have it not. You can rant and rave all you want and you convince no one. I will challenge you at every turn to support your claim with real science. :rant: I am writing not to convince you of your mistaken ideas, but the other readers of this thread. :cup:

O-kay

But don't say you're going to do it.

Do it . I don't deserve to be listened to if people don't se the sense in it.

 

Neal Adams

[Turtle]

O-kay

But don't say you're going to do it.

Do it . I don't deserve to be listened to if people don't se the sense in it.

 

Neal Adams

 

I have 'done it' Neal; right here in this thread and that's the point. You don't understand geology and your posts make that clear.

How the "community says it worked in the past is totally wrong and one day , I sadly believe it will be a subject of derision but that's the way people are.

Neal adams

 

A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still. :rant:

[NAdams]

I have 'done it' Neal; right here in this thread and that's the point. You don't understand geology and your posts make that clear.

 

 

A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still. :weather_storm:

 

I think you should read over the last bunch of notes !

'

[InfiniteNow]

Neal is like the Abbott to Turtle's Costello.

 

I don't know's on third... :weather_storm: