THE DYNAMIC EARTH: A BLOG ABOUT GEOLOGY AND THE EARTH SCIENCES

Friday, February 22, 2008

Expanding Earth and the Conspiracy of Science

As far as wonky pseudo-science goes, the expanding earth nonsense really stands out as a noteworthy endeavor. The high priest of an em-biggening (to borrow from the Simpsons) Earth is one Neal Adams, former comic book illustrator and the man that designed the Nasenex Bee from those commercials (for which he must be punished). I first heard about ol’ Neal from a podcast called “The Skeptic’s Guide to the Galaxy” (which hails from a little corner of the internet known as http://www.theskepticsguide.org/ ), where they actually interview the guy; apoplexy ensued, I can assure you.

Anyway, Neal “the Bee” Adams believes that the Earth is getting bigger through time. He’s convinced that subduction doesn’t actually exist, that oceanic crust is spontaneously generated at spreading ridges, and all sorts of fun stuff. Below, you’ll find an animation from Adams explaining his idea. Be forewarned, however, that the narration is strongly reminiscent of Kirk Cameron’s hyper-smug, aggressively ignorant young earth creationism spiels; those with heart conditions or anger management issues may wish to abstain.



It’s all pretty silly stuff; my favorite line is the “knee-jerk theory of Pangaea”; I hear that was Naomi Oreskes’ original title for “The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science” (a great read, by the way).

Though it would be easy (and entertaining, too; it would probably make a good drinking game) to pick apart all the inaccuracies with our “facts”, that’s not what we’re going to do here. Rather, what interests me is the WHY question: WHY do Adams, and others, believe what they believe?

First and foremost, as you must have gleaned from watching the ceaseless (10 minutes!!! Really!?! C’mon!) video above, the Expanding Earth theory is much more than an attack on the Earth Sciences. According to the theory, the earth must have been much smaller back in dinosaur days; to those of us who are shackled by our “reality-based” worldview (quote from the current Bush administration), this would seem to imply that the earth must have been much more dense in old times, right? Au contraire, gentle readers; Neil says the earth was MUCH lighter then (as reported from the podcast; I’ll link to it if I can find it in the archives). In fact it was the lessened gravity that allowed the Dinosaurs to walk around, since they would have been too heavy to survive otherwise. So how does the earth expand? Matter is being created and added through some “quantum” process. Duh.

So it’s not like Adams thinks we’ve mapped a few thrusts wrong, or incorrectly interpreted ophiolites. In fact, Geology is just one little wrong-bit on the vast, incorrect corpus of science itself. The Expanding Earth theory is a fundamental rejection of not just one or two sciences, but the ENTIRE body of science, its methodologies, its theories and interpretations, and its practitioners.

Why? Why is there such antagonism towards the sciences? The narration in the video pleadingly states that the universe must be simpler than we “experts” would have it. Such good old arguing from ignorance is a well-worn tactic from a variety of pseudo-science folks, of course, and sadly difficult to remedy. Facts have little strength when arrayed against someone who “knows” that they are meaningless.

None of this is new, of course; anybody who has gone to the mat with some bible-thumping young-earthers has heard all this before. What is new, at least to me, is the EXPLICIT statement of a scientific conspiracy meant to hide the truth, and promulgate our Wegenerian worldview at the expense of the TRUTH. My feeling is that most Creationists view us as sadly misguided individuals, blinded by our atheistic hubris into believing what we say about evolution.

But the expanding earth crowd calls us out on our duplicity; they state that we KNOW the earth is expanding, and are nefariously trying to hide it from the public. Man, if this is true, why the hell did I spend all of December and January furiously writing grants? Shouldn’t I have just called up my local Illuminati and had then send over a couple of sacks of cash (all the while cackling madly, mind you).

To my eye, this is anti-intellectualism of a different color. The creationists define the world into a humanistic, rationalistic view versus their divinely inspired book, forming their attacks on us in terms of heretical (sciences) versus canonical (them) language. Neil Adams’ approach is a distinctly Gnostic anti-intellectualism, wherein his intuitive understanding that the world simply can’t work the way we say it does gives him all the authority he needs to effectively throw out everything we know.

This is a disturbing trend. The creationists are, in many ways, beyond our reach. Their reaction to us is understandable, in the context that a world view requiring special creation at 4004 BCE is fundamentally incompatible with Canyon Diablo radiometric dating, natural selection, and deep time. More disturbing to me is the conspiratorial view of sciences, the rejection of reality in favor of a self-made delusion formed from a visceral dislike of scientists. Expanding earthers, holistic medicine types, vaccine-opponents, climate change deniers; all of these groups are symptoms of a broader disease at the heart of our society. This Gnostic anti-intellectual movement is more insidious and probably more pervasive in our culture than we realize. Additionally, I would argue that it is caused by our collective failure to have engaged the public in any meaningful way. It’s this disseminated distrust of scientists that has allowed the Discovery Institute to come into existence. It’s this that has allowed such a divisive group of creationists nut-jobs, each with their own pet story of creation, to present a unified front. The creationists and their rhetoric aren’t the only enemies we face in the struggle for the brains of America, and we might want to start thinking more about how we can make research more transparent and understandable for the regular folks out there if we ever want to move science funding and scientific work back into a valued component of our culture.

124 comments:

Jeannette said...

Oh boy... it's a good thing you posted this on a Friday 'cause I'm going to be distracted by it for the rest of the day!

My favorite line is about 45 seconds in...
"Yes, there's been some erosion, landslides, BLAH, BLAH, but overall this activity is insignificant."

With a single sentence he completely dismissed all sedimentary processes. Whoa..

Jeannette said...

And he referred to them as BLAH BLAH!

Olelog said...

I see that there is reason enough for you, and me, and the rest of the geoblogosphere to keep on blogging. I know by experience that our blogs are also read by many non-scientists and non-geologists. Writing scientific papers must be done, but communication that reach EVERYBODY - and not least politicians - is (also) vital.

Ole

MJC Rocks said...

Thanks for a great post! Funny and sad at the same time; just imagine the effort that went into those graphics, and the narration was priceless.

Callan Bentley said...

...And what does he mean by "UPPER tectonic plates". Are there lower tectonic plates, too?

Dr. Lemming said...

Among the anti-science believers, I reckon it is important to discriminate between those who simply believe and accept without really questioning if or why it is wrong, and those who actively promote anti-science. I regard the latter as the intellectual equivalent of streakers at the cricket (or baseball, for the culturally isolated), so please understand if I decline to watch the video.

andrew said...

Neal is nuts, of course, and I think you give today's expanding-Earthers much more attention than they deserve. I've followed this theory since the mid-1970s when I read Sam Carey's great 1955 book on it. He came by his theory honestly and defended it doggedly, and before plate tectonics it was a real contender. But that was all a long time ago, and today's expanders couldn't carry Carey's jockstrap.

There is a persistent small nugget at the bottom of that theory. Earth is a chemically evolving body, and there is no reason a priori to say that Earth's total density, size and other parameters must remain fixed from Hadean times to today. But so far there's no evidence of any large change.

Another persistent small nugget at the bottom of expanding-Earth theory is that Carey saw extension everywhere he looked, from jointing and vein filling all the way up to crustal extension a la Basin and Range. Industrial geologists have told me the same. Today we explain crustal extension by slab rollback and arc-related mechanisms, but a case is being made that continents themselves are no stronger than rafts of bubbles and owe their persistence to tectonic compression. That's what Don Anderson says in his New Theory of the Earth, and it makes me even happier to reject Earth expansion, although Neal Lane never read Carey and couldn't care less.

Eric said...

I would agree that the embiggining earthers are a pretty marginal lot, much more so than the ID crowd, for instance.

However, I would argue that the wider anti-intellectualism that sits at the core of all these psuedo-scientific notions has reached epidemic levels.

Additionaly, I think that we can make distinctions between the various "natural kinds" of anti-intellectualists in this country. As I said in the post, there are fundamental differences between the divinely inspired nonsense of creationists and the "illuminated" or scientifically heretical psuedosciences. Similarly, I feel that the strategies deployed to battle one cannot be simply redeployed, cookie-cutter style, to fight the other.

Creationism and earth expanders are symptoms of a broader anti-science movement in our society, and we have yet to figure out a way to cure this disease.

reversibleraincoat said...

I wasn't able to watch the video, so I don't know if he was using god as his backing. But, in general, anyone who thinks that the universe must be simpler than as science explains it, is forgetting one thing:
If god is so great, he can - and would - make a complex system.

I think that, when looking at this problem, one shouldn't forget differences in education, and the specialization of science over the last 100 years or so. 100 years ago, very few people learned about science, and it was simpler to understand a larger percentage of the subject.
Now everyone does, which leads to a large group of people who don't care, don't really understand, and don't want to. They're ready to line up behind a leader/cause, and ignore facts.

Melissa's said...

Neal Adams has created a terrific video demonstration that offers sensible and cogent explanations to the expanding nature of Earth.

He offers several solid points of evidence for his argument. The most salient points are below.

1st he shows how the continents fit together not just on the Atlantic ocean side but also on the Pacific ocean side. The fit is uncanny.

2nd is the picture of the age of the ocean floor as determined by dating core samples. Commonly accepted data.

3rd is the fact that fossils are not and have not been found on the ocean floor.

And where is the evidence for subduction?

I concede that the tone of his narration is sanctimonious, but that does not weaken his evidence or argument for an expanding Earth.

Also I disagree with his claim that this theory undermines all of science. However, much of geology and perhaps some of physics are brought into question.

Although the Earth has likely gained some mass from collisions with meteors etc. the implication of increasing volume and thus decreasing density of Earth does not affect its gravity. Gravity is determined by total mass. For instance a smaller lead ball of 1kg has the same gravity as a larger alumunium ball of 1kg.

An important reason for the persistence of a flawed theory, such as I believe subduction and plate tectonics to be, is that many people and institutions make their living or business upon those premises. So if the premises of such a theory are weakened, then so shall the power and interests of those persons and organizations be destabilized.

If one makes his life's work the proof of, say, flying carpets and you come along and conclusively show that carpets are incapable of flight, then what has become of that man's life's work and his pride? So he zealously protects what he does.

That is what I will call Institutional Inertia --The grants, the gifts, the tenures, the thesis papers, whole careers...

Academic science is powerful and important. But Big Science is not just science, there is also a very powerful aspect of politics in it. So and so is a whacko, because his work or ideas are unorthodox, but then later he is the acclaimed discover of this or that. Take Nicola Tesla for instance. He was brilliant and weird and his idea for AC power transmission was the dark horse that beat plodding, favorite Edison's inferior scheme for DC transmission.

The status quo, though best- supported is not necessarily the best status.

Eric said...

Melissa – thanks for considerable post! I must have touched a nerve. Science, of course, thrives on discussion, so let us discuss.
I have to disagree with your statement that Adams offers several “sensible and cogent explanations” for his idea. First and foremost, he does not offer any explanations, sensu stricto. Rather, he offers interpretations of his own observations (which seem to be limited to the observations that the continents seem to fit together and the ages of oceanic crust), which he uses to support his idea that the Earth is expanding.
Let’s examine, point by point, your enumerated lines of evidence.
You said: “1st he shows how the continents fit together not just on the Atlantic ocean side but also on the Pacific ocean side. The fit is uncanny.”
The continents do appear to fit together, which was first recognized by Alfred Wegener at the turn of the century, and lead him to develop his ideas of mobile continental blocks. Adams claims that the continent’s fit together due to their having been physically linked in the past; this is, in fact, true, as geology has shown us that the continents were linked together in the past to form the super continent Pangaea (around 250-300 Million years ago). Their “fit” is a relic of the separation of a single landmass around 250 million years ago, and the subsequent tectonic rearrangement of the plates.
The difference between Adams’ opinion and our interpretations (as geologists) is what the nature of that separation is. Adams contends that the Earth physically grew larger, whereas we interpret the assembly and separation of a supercontinent surrounded by ocean basins (and floored with oceanic crust).
Adams’ provides no evidence for the expansion of the Earth, and therefore, no predictions can be made that would allow us to test his idea. Geological predictions, however, abound in our tectonic interpretation. The first prediction that might be made is: “if there was once a massive supercontinent, and it subsequently split apart, shouldn’t that process have been repeated over and over again in the geological past?” The answer, of course, is yes. There was a preexisting supercontinent, assembled around 1.3-1.1 Billion years before. This is evidenced by the presence of extremely old mountain belts, long since weathered down to their cores. One such mountain belt is the Grenville orogeny, the remnants of which extend through northern Europe, Scotland, the eastern U.S., and down into northern Georgia. The ages of the igneous and metamorphic cores of these mountains are all similar, though they are spread around several continental blocks, and similar aged sedimentary units where shed into adjacent basins. IMPORTANTLY, these mountains are formed through the collision of continents, that is to say, continental blocks running into one another, as evidenced by the structural style preserved in these units. Similar evidence is seen for the supercontinent Columbia (~1.8 billion years ago) and Kenorland (~2.5 billion years ago).
A further prediction of the tectonic assembly/disassembly of continents (known as a Wilson cycle) is that, due to multiple cycles of subduction and accretion, there should be different ages of crust within continental blocks, with a core of very old continental crust surrounded by younger units. Adams’ model of expansion predicts that there should be no juxtaposition of differently aged units; rather, continents separated and went their own ways, with the expanding earth driving them further and further apart. Guess which prediction turns out to be correct?
There is a core of North America that is around 1.5-1.6 billion years old, surrounded by deformed crust (mountains and basins) preserving the influence of collisional mountains and rifting events, and out beyond that lies younger crustal blocks that collided and were accreted onto the continent (such as the Roberts Mountain allochthon in Nevada). Importantly, fossils from the Roberts Mountain allochthon support evidence for a substantial distance of travel, as those same fossils are only found in the south pacific today. And the same process has been observed today, with India colliding with Asia, creating the Himalayas.
The fundamental point to get across here is the failure of Adams’ hypothesis to predict anything correctly, whereas 70 years of testing the plate tectonic theory has proved to be a fruitful endeavor, providing us with numerous avenues of research, testable hypotheses, and a growing body of knowledge.
Moving on to your second point “2nd is the picture of the age of the ocean floor as determined by dating core samples. Commonly accepted data.”
Yes, this is commonly accepted data, and conforms to our plate tectonic predictions, which posits ocean spreading ridges at the center of oceanic basins being the youngest crust, with bands of older and older crust the farther we move from the spreading ridge. The fact that we don’t find oceanic crust any older than ~250 million years in the ocean today is due to the fact that it gets subducted (see below). Importantly, however, we find oceanic basalts formed in the bases of failed rift arm basins (called aulocogens), such as in the Mid-Continental Rift of North America, formed around 1.1 Billion years ago (during the rifting of Rodinia). We can, however, infer the previous existence of old oceanic crust from a variety of sources. First and foremost, isotopic data from 530 million years ago supports an oxygen and carbon mass-driven fractionation that is balanced with oceanic waters cycling through mid-ocean ridges. Secondly, sedimentological and stratigraphic evidence from accreted terranes (where crust is on-scraped onto an overriding slab during subduction) shows the presence of old ocean crust (again, we’ll discuss this further below).
Your third point “3rd is the fact that fossils are not and have not been found on the ocean floor” is simply untrue. We date the ocean-crust USING fossils, combined with magneto-stratigraphy (the hydrothermal cycling of water through mid-ocean ridges alters the minerals, making them unsuitable for radiometric dating). We find COPIOUS amounts of foraminifera, diatoms, radiolarians, coccoliths, and ostracodes, just to name a few, some dating back to 200 million years ago. So saying there are no fossils is just wrong, and betrays how intellectually bankrupt the whole expanding earth movement is; like creationists, they can’t even take the time to try and figure out the thing they are arguing against.
You then ask “And where is the evidence for subduction?” Whoo-boy. Got a minute?
1) The presence of Wadati-Benioff zones along oceanic trenches is some of the best evidence for subduction. These trenches, predicted by Plate Tectonics to be zones of down-warping due to the subducting slab (I’m not sure what magic Adams would have to evoke to explain these in his “model”), show inclined zones of high seismicity, sometimes down as deep as 700 km. Differential movement along these zones causes earthquakes. At 700 km, the underlying mantle should be too ductile to allow deep seismicity; the association of these zones with areas of subduction provides a mechanism for bringing colder, rigid crust to these depths, where deep seismicity can develop.
2) These deep seismic events produce energy that can be used to image the deep earth through seismic tomography, effectively producing 3-D maps of the deep interior that show high velocity, cold zones and low velocity, warm zones exactly where Plate Tectonics would predict them to be.
3) Some of these deep seismic surveys have shown evidence for a “plate graveyard” deep in the earth’s mantle, near the outer core. These are colder zones of high seismic velocity. The only way to explain their presence is for these slabs to have been driven down into the earth, where they are currently getting recycled.
4) The presence of mantle xenoliths in some collisional mountain belts shows periods of deep burial, followed by uplift; this is only explained through subduction, followed by obduction.
5) The isotopic signature of some eclogites (metamorphic rocks) shows that some of them must have been produced by subducted oceanic crust, as this is the only way to get the specific carbon and oxygen isotopic signatures into such temperature-pressure zones.
6) Ophiolites, which are slivers of oceanic crust (included sheeted dikes and pillow basalts, and overlying marine sediments full of fossils, which mimic the known structure of modern oceanic crust), have been found in mountain belts, such as the Alps. Their presence there indicates that, preceding the collisional origin of the mountains, there was an adjacent ocean basin, floored by oceanic crust, that has been subducted and lost; the Ophiolite is a small remenant of that crust that got accreted onto the building mountain during collision. Again, I don’t know how an expanding earther would explain that.
7) Rare Earth Element signatures of magmas and lavas from active oceanic arcs (where we infer subduction to be taking place) are the same as the signature of the sediments and down-going slab, supporting the origin of the dewatering and subsequent melt influenced by the subducting slab.
8) Fossil biozonation, magentostratigraphy, and isotope geochemistry have shown that currently adjacent terrains, connected by a highly deformed suture zone, where once thousands and thousands of miles apart, demonstrating their collisional nature, which requires subduction to explain.
9) Before plate tectonics, we were unable to adequately predict the occurrence of sedimentary basins and uplifted highlands, and could not explain dramatic changes in where sediments were coming from or the evolution of depositional environments. Plate tectonics has provided us with the means to produce testable hypotheses that have, time and again, shown that Plate Tectonics is a currently operating process on the earth.
There are many, many, many lines of evidence for subduction beyond this simple short list; I suggest people interested in these read Plate Tectonics: An Insider’s History of the Modern Theory of the Earth, Edited by Naomi Oreskes and Homer Le Grand) (2003) Westview Press. Or, alternativley, actually start examing the geological literature before blindly (and often, embarrassingly incorrectly) attacking ideas.
One your comment about gravity; Adams does think that the earth’s gravity has changed through time. He believes that dinosaurs are too big to have existed unless the earth’s gravity was much less, which to him it was, since the earth was so much smaller. I’m not sure if you buy into that nonsense, so I’ll just move one.
As a final comment (whew!), I’d just say that your conspiratorial view of science shows how completely you misunderstand the endeavor of science. Do you think that I or anyone would be putzing around as underpaid profs in a shabby university with no funding for earth sciences if we knew about something better than the current unifying principle of all geology? The earth sciences are some of the most severally underfunded of all the natural sciences. In fact, the National Science Foundatations operating funding for all of Sedimentology/Stratigraphy/Paleontology was ONLY $10 Million; that means around 1-5% of the people who applied could get funded.
The funding situation is so dire in the sciences that any new idea, with sufficient intellectual rigor and a clearly defined research plan, would have a much better chance of funding. Adams’ ideas are worse than untestable; they have already been shown to be wrong. That’s why no one in academia researches it. It is not a dangerous idea; it is a stupid idea.

Melissa's said...

"...If 50 million people believe a fallacy, it is still a fallacy..." Prof. S.W. Carey

Adam's theory is supported in its general premise by several scientists and researchers.

R. Mantovani (1909)
S.W. Carey (1958 to 1986)
Shehu (c.2005)
J. Maxlow (2006)
and others...

Ecoglite can be formed from cooling magma that crystallizes withing mantle and lower continental layer.

The diatoms etc. that you speak of as being 200M years old were probably found on or near the oldest parts of the seafloor such as the basin of the Filipino plate or could be explained as washout from the draining of ancient shallow continental seas into newer ocean basins. Where are the BIG fossils in the ocean floor?

Also, most of the ocean floor is less than 120M yo and yet crust is typically more than 4 B years old.

Wadati-Benioff zones show deep seismic acivity. Well, the Earth is not homogeneous in consistency so some areas of Earth will be less dense or more dense, some will be more active and some less.

Smooth contours of seafloor around mid-ocean ridges and lack of "pile-up" seem to contradict the idea of one crust being rammed under another. Furthermore, the age of rock on either side of such a "subduction zone" are typically not greatly different in age as would be supposed of plates at a subduction zone.

By considering published post-Jurassic oceanic magnetic isochron data of CGMW & UNESCO (1990), to constrain both plate configuration and paleoradius with time, it was concluded that Global Expansion Tectonics provides a quantifiable "motor and mechanism" for Earth expansion. This has enabled the dynamic principles behind all major geologic phenomena to be resolved and readily explained. -- J. Maxlow on his website

I beseech you not to be blinded by prevailing dogma; and to use Occam's razor to trim away the esoteric accretion of rationalizations you propound for the popular theory, which is good, but not the best. Just as Newton's physics were so good for their time, but they were trumped by Einstein's ideas. What would be the state of particle physics if science was still captive to Newtonian physics?

Eric said...

For starters, listing last names and dates does not constitute scientific citation; give me some actual citations (name, date, title of article, journal, volume, pages) of papers published in actual, peer-review journals, and then we can talk. And besides, if you wanna see who’s list of articles is longer, I would be more than happy to point you towards some work cited sections of 1000+ papers in support of Plate Tectonics.

Anyway, you set em up, and I’ll knock em down:

Eclogite does not form from molten material; it is a metamorphic rock, which means that the heat and pressure cause it to undergo metamorphism. And the point which I made (and you did not address) still stands: Isotopic evidence from minerals included within the eclogite show an original derivation from minerals formed at spreading ridges (i.e., Oceanic Crust). The ONLY way to explain this is through the subduction of oceanic crust.

No, the forams were not from the surface of a basin; they occur in the subsurface of oceanic sedimentary deposits. And just how do you think we recover these sediment and fossils, anyway? Bathysphere? The average depth of the ocean is ~4000 m, so we drop ~3 inch coring devices into the sediments and retrieve core that way (alternatively, we drill into the crust, recovering sediments and crustal rocks, which is how we know that ophiolite sequences in mountains are oceanic crust that has been accreted during subduction). The reason we haven’t found “bigger” fossils is because we can’t walk around on the sea floor. Not that it would matter, actually. And recently, we did find some dinosaur fossils in around 2500+ m of water off the coast of Norway by accidently drilling into them during oil exploration. You can read about it here: The Research Council of Norway (2006, April 25). The World's Deepest Dinosaur Finding -- 2256 Metres Below The Seabed. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 13, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com¬ /releases/2006/04/060425091449.htm

The discrepancy between the continental crust age and the oceanic floor age is EXPLAINED by subduction of old oceanic crust. Their isn’t any explanation in Adams theory for this discrepancy, unless you count “magic” as a causative force in geology.

I’m afraid you miss the point with the Wadati-Benioff zone discussion. We can predict (and subsequently demonstrate that our predictions were correct) the occurrence of these zones through the application of Plate Tectonics. We predict they would occur in subduction zones since the subduction of cold, old oceanic crust should produce these low velocity zones. And lo and behold, we find them there! We DO NOT see them randomly occurring, nor do we see subduction zones were there aren’t Wadati-Benioff zones. That’s the power of science; it provides us with predictions that can be tested, providing us with the ability to discover truth. That’s not the case with ol’ Adam’s expanding earth silliness.

Mid-ocean ridges are areas of sea-floor spreading; subduction does not occur there. Subduction does occur on the OTHER ends of the plates, and at those, we DO see highly deformed accretionnary wedges of sediment, often with thin slivers of oceanic crust. Your point about the age discrepancy across mid-ocean ridges I BELIEVE is predicated on your misunderstanding of what these spreading zones are, so I won’t say anymore.

The quote from Maxlow (whoever the hell that is) is not only meaningless, but also technically wrong. There is no “mechanism” proposed by this expanding earth stuff. There is no explanation of what the driver is in an expanding earth, what controls its rate, magnitude, and timing of expansion? Again, apparently “magic” is the answer. In contrast to that, Plate Tectonics has provided us a VERY clearly defined research program, with testable (i.e., falsifiable) hypotheses and predictions. These have allowed us to demonstrate mechanisms that explain the tectonic evidence observed in the field.

I would remind you of what Occam’s Razor actually means: the simplest explanation that accounts for all the data is the best explanation. Expanding earth does NOT offer a simple explanation for anything; rather, it requires a ridiculous amount of ad hoc rationalizations, willful ignorance of much of geology, and blindly accepted a priori assumptions.

Melissa's said...

Touche!

You certainly are well versed in your field. I obviously have not devoted as much time or study as you have.

Thanks for the information.

Please don't take my challenge personally.

Faiyaz said...

Excellent (and logical) response. I'm a civil engineering major and find Adam's video utterly ludicrous.

Victor said...

Neal is inadvertently and unknowingly questioning the first principle of science itself. What is a first principle? It is a foundational assumption that has no support. In a mature science, it is supported circularly by a system built on that foundation. Yet it cannot be proved. The Greek philosophers debated for centuries seeking for a first principle on which to build a natural science. The problem they faced was the “matter changes” issue. All ancient people believed everything deteriorates, the length of life, the earth, the planet orbits and even all substance. Science is impossible if matter is changing all the time. Each school of Greek philosophers advocated a different first principle (arche) to solve the problem of phthora. The philosophers used phthora for the process, beginning at genesis, that corrupts all things. One of the pagan Greeks suggested that we must assume that the properties of matter do not change. We must build all knowledge on a foundation of changelessness even though none is visible. Fifteen hundred years later a mendicant Dominican Friar, Aquinas, successfully advocated that the Western universities adopt Aristotle’s system.

It was upon the assumption that the properties of matter are not emergent that science was historically built. For example, in the Western system, clocks are assumed to measure linear time because of this assumption. The operational definitions of matter and time used in the Western system presuppose that matter is not continually changing itself, changing relationally. Relational change is where everything shifts in parallel. The modern corollary of Aristotle’s assumption is that atoms are perpetual motion machines, always internally dithering but never changing their clock frequencies, inertial properties, the space they take up and their electrical magnetic properties in parallel.

Yet we can directly observe the past all the way back to near the beginning of the universe. No perpetual motion atoms gleam from hundreds of billions of primordial galaxies. What is worse, we actually see how the galaxies formed. We see that primordial galaxies were naked and packed with tiny stars. At many ranges we see how the stars came out, spread out, accelerated out as spiral galaxies grew into huge growth spirals. The visible history of how galaxies formed violates every principle and law of science. Apparently primordial atoms were tiny scale models of modern atoms since they shone at tiny rations of the clock frequencies of local atoms. It is because we observe with sight that every atoms changes relationally as it ages, that the scientific universe is 99% invisible and crammed full of phantom matter and vacuum processes never observed anywhere. Scientists must protect their historical first principle, even though most of them have never been explicitly taught what it is.

If matter changes relationally, we could not measure it with our operation defined system of measurement. We could not model it with mathematics. Yet we could see with sight that the properties of matter always change relationally because we can observe the history of how galaxies formed. If matter is changing itself, then the earth would necessarily change size in and of itself. It would be natural and ordinary for the earth to grow because every atom in the distant universe is visibly changing. Questioning the foundational assumption upon which science was historically founded is really what Neal is inadvertently doing. He is questioning the whole system all at once by questioning the sacred creed of science itself. Think about it.

James said...

The earth is seriously expanding.

Wadati-Benioff zones, to me, prove that the earth is expanding. I cannot beleive that ocean crust can bend doward then staighted back out. When leaning about subduction in school I seriously thought that the diagrams that were shown were exaggerations or simplifications. As it turns out, they actully do bend the way they do.

Here is a diagram showing how wadati-benioff zones are formed.
Picture link

A contitnent originally on a smaller earth fitting to a larger earth. The bow arward will collapse as the earth expands forming mountains, not showing in the diagram. You can see the angle form between the edge of the continent and the ocean crust, these are wadati-benioff zones.

Earth expantion can explian wadati-benioff zones as well as many other evidences that plate tectonics does. Earth expantion can explian many evidences better than plate tectonics. Earth expantion can also explian some things plate tectonics doesn't.

I have done my research and have concluded that the earth is expanding, the evidence for it is to great to ignore.

Anybody who wants to tell me I am wrong go ahead and tell me how the evidence for an expanding earth is wrong. I already know I cannot explian why it is growing, I just know it is.

ungtss said...

You said in response to Melissa some time ago:

You said: “1st he shows how the continents fit together not just on the Atlantic ocean side but also on the Pacific ocean side. The fit is uncanny.”
The continents do appear to fit together, which was first recognized by Alfred Wegener at the turn of the century, and lead him to develop his ideas of mobile continental blocks. Adams claims that the continent’s fit together due to their having been physically linked in the past; this is, in fact, true, as geology has shown us that the continents were linked together in the past to form the super continent Pangaea (around 250-300 Million years ago). Their “fit” is a relic of the separation of a single landmass around 250 million years ago, and the subsequent tectonic rearrangement of the plates.


Your response fails to address both Melissa's and Neal's point -- that the continents fit together not only in the Atlantic (which would be expected under PT) but also along the expansion zones in the Pacific -- which is not predicted by the Pangea model. You've simply evaded the fact at issue. How does PT explain their fitting together on both sides?

Adams’ provides no evidence for the expansion of the Earth, and therefore, no predictions can be made that would allow us to test his idea.

There are three problems with what you say here. First, he did provide evidence and falsifiable predictions -- 1) that the continents fit together in the Pacific, and 2) that subduction does not occur. Second, you say here that he makes no falsifiable predictions, and then no more than a paragraph later you are describing the "predictions" of his model -- "no difference in the age of continental crust" which you claim is false. Is his model false or unfalsifiable? It can't be both. Your clear contradiction here undermines the credibility of your reasoning.

Geological predictions, however, abound in our tectonic interp retation. The first prediction that might be made is: “if there was once a massive supercontinent, and it subsequently split apart, shouldn’t that process have been repeated over and over again in the geological past?”

This prediction could also be made of the expanding Earth model, and is therefore not meaningful in this context.

A further prediction of the tectonic assembly/disassembly of continents (known as a Wilson cycle) is that, due to multiple cycles of subduction and accretion, there should be different ages of crust within continental blocks, with a core of very old continental crust surrounded by younger units. Adams’ model of expansion predicts that there should be no juxtaposition of differently aged units; rather, continents separated and went their own ways, with the expanding earth driving them further and further apart. Guess which prediction turns out to be correct?

As I noted above, you identify this as a prediction on the model -- and only a few paragraphs above, you said his model makes no predictions. Which one is it?

More importantly, however, this is not a prediction of his model. His model does not require that all continental crust be the same age. The continental crust could have been formed at different times. However, his theory does predict that the continental crust should be older than the ocean crust. Interestingly, I can find all sorts of maps showing the age of the oceanic crust (almost all less than 125MY, and nothing substantial that is older than 180MY), but I can find no maps showing the age of the continental crust. Assuming modern models of evolutionary biology are correct, however, the continental crust must be older than that, since we have fossils claimed to be over 500MY old, sitting in the sediments atop the crust. Further, you yourself say that the core of the North American continent is around 1.5-1.6 BY old. So there is no ocean crust that has been around a tenth as long as the continents. You say this is because older crust is subducted. However, to explain the observed facts, almost the entire ocean floor would have had to have been subducted and replaced in the last 150MY. How is that possible? And why don't the continents subduct?

You then ask “And where is the evidence for subduction?” Whoo-boy. Got a minute?

You listed a litany of facts -- however, none of them answered the challenge. The existence of trenches where PT would predict them is not evidence of subduction. The disappearance of ocean crust into those trenches (just as we observe the creation of crust on the oceanic ridge side) would be evidence. Further, you have to provide some explanation for why the crust is able to overcome the intense upward and outward pressure of the mantle and core, and go into it. There is outward pressure on one side -- why is there inward pressure on the other? Finally, you provided a litany of remotely connected, circumstantial evidence. Where is the sinking crust to match the new crust on the other side of the continents?

As to conspiratorial thinking about science, I don't buy it -- but I do buy Kuhn's view that institutionalized science and scientists are remarkably stubborn and unwilling to challenge the ideas they were taught for the reasons he cites -- not the least of which are simple inertia and cognitive dissonance.

You've been teaching something you'd been taught as truth for goodness knows how long. How scary it must be to have to admit you had no idea what you were talking about.

Eric said...

I know it is a kind of long post (with a couple of long responses by me), Ungtss, but did you try to read it all. You and your "points" are taken care of in there, and you don't actually bring anything new to the conversation, so maybe you should go back and read some.

And as for your last little point; I sure as shit ain't been teaching this stuff for years, friend. I'm one of those there GRAD STUDENTS, and if I could overthrow one of the central tenants of geology, and replace it with something new and better (thereby immediatley gaining fame and securing a sweet universiy position) I (and anyone else) would jump at it.

ungtss said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ungtss said...

You very clearly call the theory both proven false and "incapable of making testable predictions."

Adams’ provides no evidence for the expansion of the Earth, and therefore, '''no predictions can be made that would allow us to test his idea'''

and

'''Adams’ model of expansion predicts that there should be no juxtaposition of differently aged units;''' rather, continents separated and went their own ways, with the expanding earth driving them further and further apart. Guess which prediction turns out to be correct?

Those two statements are contradictory and mutually exclusive. I just read through your post again, and you did not address that problem anywhere in your post. You directly and explicitly contradict yourself.

You also do not provide a physical explanation for why crust is pushed up by the mantle core in one area, and pulled down in another area. The mantle and core and presumably the same temperature and pressure on both sides. Why is there inexorable outward pressure on one side and not on the other? And why have we not directly observed disappearing crust in the subduction zones and we have directly observed new crust in the expansion zones?

You also never address the observable fact that the continents fit together over both the Atlantic and Pacific on a smaller Earth. You address only the consistency between the Atlantic Ridge and PT -- you never even talk about the East Pacific rise, which is also a perfect fit for South America and Australia. That is the most compelling evidence I've seen, and it goes unaddressed.

Melissa made other arguments, which you handily dispatched -- but those weren't good arguments IMO.

Here's another one: if the crust is being subducted in the Pacific, we should expect the crust to be approximately the same age on the West Coast of the US and right offshore (the area of sea crust that hasn't yet been subducted). But there's a huge age gap -- on the order of billions of years. You don't address that either. Why is the continental crust in California so much older than the sea crust that's right off shore?

Those are the real issues here. If you've already addressed them, please, I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd just take 20 seconds to copy and paste the answers down here -- 'cause I don't see them, and I don't think they're there.

Eric said...

Holy Cats, Ungtss! Not only do you not understand Plate Tectonics and Geology, you also don’t understand Science as a whole.

Let’s do the Dance, then:

First and foremost, Ol’ Adams there DOES NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR HIS HYPOTHESIS. I’ll dissect that sentence for you, so you can understand my meaning clearly. ADAMS is not a scientist, did not “discover” the expanding earth hypothesis, and has not added anything new to either his bankrupt philosophy OR the real science of Geology. His little video above posits a hypothesis: The Earth Expanded. What mechanism controlled this expansion? On that point, both Adams and the originator of the Expanding Earth hypothesis are silent. Thus, we cannot make any meaningful predictions regarding how to independently assess the validity of the claim. How did the Earth Expand, physically and thermodynamically? Who knows, because no mechanism is put forth.

Plate Tectonics, however, has had several mechanisms put forth, which allow us to make predictions regarding that mechanism. As a for instance, if convective redistribution of thermally different mantle material is a control on plate tectonics, shouldn’t we see changes in temperature-dependent density signals in the mantle (we do).

NOW, from the a priori assumption of the hypothesis, one can make predicitions, such as, What are the expected effects of the expansion. When you were yanking quotes out from above, this is where you say I “contradicted” myself. So, for instance, ASSUMING Earth Expansion, would we have any fold-and-thrust belts? No, because the earth is (magically) getting bigger.

However, we do have fold-and-thrust belts, which match paleomag and provenance data that suggest the collision of continental blocks that are currently not adjacent. All the predictions regarding the Expanding Earth REQUIRE the A Priori acceptance of that hypothesis; it provides no meaningful hypotheses regarding its mechanism, or how to detect the earth expansion mechanism.

The Mantle and Outer Core DO NOT exhibit thermal or pressure homogeneity. That’s one of the key points of Plate Tectonics (and predicted by the posited mechanism, too).

Your paleogeographic argument is even weaker, however. Look, because of plate tectonics, differently aged crusts are scattered around the globe. These crustal blocks, of distinctly different age, have through time gotten themselves glommed onto other crustal blocks. IN OTHERWORDS, the continental configuration that Adams’ video uses in its “reconstruction” is incorrect, in that the crustal ages show us that different configurations have existed through time. That’s why the ages of the OCEANIC CRUST and the CONTINENTAL CRUST are not the same (predicted and explained by Plate Tectonics).

ungtss said...

Holy Cats, Ungtss! Not only do you not understand Plate Tectonics and Geology, you also don’t understand Science as a whole.

Let's review. I objected to your claim that Adams' theory is both unfalsifiable and demonstrably false, because both cannot be true simultaneously. You responded by saying the model was unfalsifiable (again). That does not address the fundamental contradiction between the two claims -- and I pointed it out again. In response, you then stated:

First and foremost, Ol’ Adams there DOES NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR HIS HYPOTHESIS. I’ll dissect that sentence for you, so you can understand my meaning clearly.

Let me be clear: You still have not addressed my objection, and the longer you evade the problem, the less credibility you have. Is his hypothesis (and no doubt it is merely a hypothesis) false, or unfalsifiable? You said it was both, in no uncertain terms. It cannot be both. Just answer the question. Which one is it?

ADAMS is not a scientist, did not “discover” the expanding earth hypothesis, and has not added anything new to either his bankrupt philosophy OR the real science of Geology. His little video above posits a hypothesis: The Earth Expanded.

All true. All also irrelevant to the potential legitimacy of the model itself.

What mechanism controlled this expansion? On that point, both Adams and the originator of the Expanding Earth hypothesis are silent. Thus, we cannot make any meaningful predictions regarding how to independently assess the validity of the claim. How did the Earth Expand, physically and thermodynamically? Who knows, because no mechanism is put forth.

You are mistaken on two counts. First, one does not need a mechanism to justifiably believe a demonstrated fact. In other words, I don't need to know how or why clouds form to know that clouds form, because I can see it. The physical evidence that the continents fit together like puzzle pieces on both sides and are presently expanding on both sides, in concert with the lack of any direct evidence that sea crust is disappearing in the "subduction zones" is such evidence of crust disappearing over there.

Second, there are mechanisms proposed for EE -- google "expanding earth." The argument is that the Earth is acquiring mass from extraterrestrial sources, and that the increase in mass is increasing pressure on the mantle and core, and that the mantle and core are relieving that pressure by expanding the Earth at the seams.

Is it true? I don't know. But it's certainly a proposed mechanisms which makes predictions (that the Earth is increasing in mass due to the the acquisition of extraterrestrial matter). Is this prediction true? Why yes, it is! Albeit today, the increase to present mass quotient is quote low, that does not mean it has never been higher in the past -- indeed, if a massive asteroid or meteor hit the Earth (as, it is argued, one did, causing the extinction of the dinosaurs), that would cause a significant increase in mass, which would increase mantle pressure a great deal, quite quickly. That pressure may well be "relieved at the seams."

So again, the model proposes a mechanism -- increases in mass driving increased interior pressure and temperature which is relieved through volcanic activity.

Plate Tectonics, however, has had several mechanisms put forth, which allow us to make predictions regarding that mechanism. As a for instance, if convective redistribution of thermally different mantle material is a control on plate tectonics, shouldn’t we see changes in temperature-dependent density signals in the mantle (we do).

And why is this prediction inconsistent with EE? If the prediction is consistent with both, then it's meaningless. If it's inconsistent with EE, then EE makes a prediction which can be falsified, something you claimed it could not do.

NOW, from the a priori assumption of the hypothesis, one can make predicitions, such as, What are the expected effects of the expansion. When you were yanking quotes out from above, this is where you say I “contradicted” myself. So, for instance, ASSUMING Earth Expansion, would we have any fold-and-thrust belts? No, because the earth is (magically) getting bigger.

Again, there are two problems with your reasoning here. First, that is not a prediction of the model -- the fold and thrust belts could be caused by mechanisms other than subduction -- namely, different rates of expansion. Second, you speak of this "a priori assumption that a hypothesis is true" as though it were somehow an unscientific approach. But all experiment begins with the assumption that a hypothesis is true. That's the scientific method.

However, we do have fold-and-thrust belts, which match paleomag and provenance data that suggest the collision of continental blocks that are currently not adjacent. All the predictions regarding the Expanding Earth REQUIRE the A Priori acceptance of that hypothesis; it provides no meaningful hypotheses regarding its mechanism, or how to detect the earth expansion mechanism.

As addressed above, this is plainly untrue. EE types argue that the mechanism is an increase in mass from external sources. Just google it.

The Mantle and Outer Core DO NOT exhibit thermal or pressure homogeneity. That’s one of the key points of Plate Tectonics (and predicted by the posited mechanism, too).

How can the difference in temperature and pressure be so significant that crust is pushed out on one side, and drawn in on the other? How much cooler is it on the other end that the crust can actually go under? I'm envisioning a cloth sheet on the carpet. You are pushing it from one end. There is enormous friction between the cloth and the carpet. And someone is pushing on the other end of the cloth (albeit with less pressure than the first person). Why is the first person able to overcome the second person? Is it not more reasonable to expect that the cloth will simply fold up in the middle, because there is pressure at both ends? Wouldn't those folds in the cloth look vaguely like ... I don't know ... buckle and fold belts?

Your paleogeographic argument is even weaker, however. Look, because of plate tectonics, differently aged crusts are scattered around the globe. These crustal blocks, of distinctly different age, have through time gotten themselves glommed onto other crustal blocks. IN OTHERWORDS, the continental configuration that Adams’ video uses in its “reconstruction” is incorrect, in that the crustal ages show us that different configurations have existed through time. That’s why the ages of the OCEANIC CRUST and the CONTINENTAL CRUST are not the same (predicted and explained by Plate Tectonics).

Again, you failed to address my point. PT states that expansion is taking place in the Atlantic, and subduction in the Pacific. If so, why is the crust immediately off the West Coast so much younger than the continent itself? How did it get subducted and then relaid so recently?

Your point is, unfortunately, simultaneously irrelevant and misleading. Varying crust ages worldwide are consistent with both models, and therefore irrelevant. At the same time, there is an overall pattern in the sea crust ages -- just look at the map. It's very young, the further you get from the ridges, the older it gets; and when you get to the continents, there's an enormous jump. Yes, no doubt there are exceptions. But the dominant pattern is quite clear.

Eric said...

I'll go slow, Ungtss, since you seem to be having trouble understanding me through your bubble of arrogant pedantry.

The idea of an Expanding Earth SPECIFICALLY does not put forth a mechanism for the expansion. Therefore, any attempts to falsify the mechanism, or cause, of the Expanding Earth is unfalsifiable.

The A PRIORI assumption (meaning, one just goes ahead and accepts that the earth is expanding) leads to falsifiable hypotheses related to the RESULT of the A PRIORI Expansion of the Earth. These hypotheses ARE falsified, and in fact, inspection of these supports Plate Tectonics .

One does need a mechanism in order to interrogate the ultimate cause of the observable distribution of structures and strata that we, as geologists, have encountered for the past 200 years. Without a posited mechanism, predications of the results of the mechanism can be formulated, allowing us to predict the occurrence of structural styles, subsidence patterns, depositional belts, etc, which further support the hypothesis. This is the strength of Plate Tectonics, as it has successfully allowed us to explore the Earth with remarkable predicative power, resulting in successful academic and economic exploration and exploitation.

The “accumulating mass” nonsense put forward is demonstrably false, based on known and measured “fall-out” from space material in oceanic and lacustrine basins. And as for your “significant increase in mass” from catastrophic events (like an asteroid impact), you should actually bother to look up the numbers associated with these things before shooting your mouth off: The Mass of the proposed KT bolide is on the order of around 5 x 10^16 kg or so, right (and that’s probably a little large, since it assumes the bolide was pure Pb; if were rocky it would be less, and if it were a comet, it would be MUCH less).

The Mass of the Earth is 6 x 10^24 kg. That’s EIGHT orders of magnitude difference, pal. FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR too large to feel the effect of a piddly little 5 x 10^16.

By the way, the fundamental attribute of the scientific method is that you discard bankrupt hypotheses when they prove to require to many ad hoc explanations and a prior assumptions to work. Expanding Earth firmly falls into that category.

As for everything else you say here, I gotta let you know man; your ignorance is showing. Read up on plate tectonics before you start spouting of about geology, a field which you are obviously not very familiar with. I’d suggest Keary and Vine’s Global Tectonics to start with, and then maybe move into meatier fare with Van Der Pluijm and Marshak’s Earth Structure.

Tell you what, read those, and then we’ll talk; till then, I’m afraid you lack both the technical vocabulary and background to effectively discuss this topic.

ungtss said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ungtss said...

Unfortunately I don't have access to those books, because I am in Turkiye at the moment. All I can get to are sources available online. I'll just note one more time the facts you have still not addressed even after all these go-arounds:

1) The continents fit together on both the Atlantic and Pacific, given a smaller Earth. That's weird. EE takes account of it. PT ignores it.

2) A theory cannot be both proven false and unfalsifiable -- yet you have claimed EE is both. You're now differentiating between an "A priori assumption [that] leads to falsifiable hypotheses related to the RESULT of the A PRIORI Expansion of the Earth." Your distinction is rather silly. You assume something is true (that's called a "hypothesis", and then you design experiments to test the hypothesis. It's not at all clear how one unfalsifiable hypothesis can lead to falsifiable hypotheses without the initial hypothesis being itself testable. In fact the hypothesis "The Earth is expanding" and the hypothesis "The Earth is expanding because of X mechanism" are entirely different hypotheses. One does not "lead" to the other. Both are tested in different ways. If your beef is with the proposed mechanisms of EE, take a look at PT -- still no evidence of actual loss of crust in the "subduction zones," still no explanation for why the crust is the same age on both sides of the trenches, and still no explanation for how crust forces itself down into incredibly high pressure, hot magma that is being pushed out the other end every day.

3) EE types do propose several mechanisms for expansion, despite your protestations to the contrary. Whether they're good or not is one question; your claim that they "specifically do not make any such claims" is plainly false.

4) The lack of a known mechanism does not invalidate the observation. If the continents fit together across both oceans, it's up to us to figure out why. expansion at one time or another by one means or another is a reasonable starting point. Total silence (your approach to the question) is not a legitimate approach.

As for your ad hominem, just one comment: wise man once told me, if a person is unwilling to explain something to you, it probably means they don't understand it themselves. Served me well so far.

MrMagoo said...

I don't understand why anyone would consider it anti-intellectual.

I have actually learned more about science in the last 3-4 months than I ever had in my entire life.

I understand many people are offended by the narration and pompous attitude. However I challenge you to prove it wrong.

I have exhausted alot of geological arguments and have moved onto geodesy and physics.

Eric said...

It is explicitly anti-intellectual! Expanding Earthers don't bother to learn anything about geology or geophysics, refuse to examine the evidence that many years of science has produced in support of Plate Tectonics, and make no effort to understand how science is done.

The expanding Earth idea is wrong, and I'll give you the same ultimatum I gave to ugtss: read Keary and Vine’s Global Tectonics to start with, and then maybe move into meatier fare with Van Der Pluijm and Marshak’s Earth Structure. If you read through those, and follow through the ideas and concepts, then you will see the evidence for Plate Tectonics that negates the expanding earth nonsense.

Sheesh!

ungtss said...

You're just tossing elephants and ad hominem, rather than engaging with facts. Why do North America, Australia, and Asia fit together across the Pacific? Why did you say EE was both false and unfalsifiable? How do you account for the lack of direct evidence that crust is disappearing in the subduction zones to match the observable new crust in the expansion zones?

You can give ultimatums and dodge debate by demanding we read books, but unless you can directly address facts, you're just a blowhard.

Eric said...

"tossing elephants" sounds like the filthiest sex act ever, ungtss.

I take it you haven’t had the opportunity to read the two texts I recommended yet, eh?

North America, Asia and Australia don't fit together. They modern configuration of the western coast of North America is a result of terrane accretion events that began in the mid-Paleozoic and continued into the Mesozoic (driven by subduction of the Farallon plate beneath the western margin of the US, as evidenced by volcanism, geochemistry, and fossil evidence from the terranes). Australia was attached to Antarctica, South Africa, and South America to form the Gondwanan fold-and-thrust belt ans associated foreland basin. Any first year geology student could tell you that; see what bothering to read about things can do for you?

Similarly, the eastern margin of Asia is a complex of accreted terranes and strike-slip related movement along faults; its modern day margin has nothing to do with its ancient configuration. Whoops!

We do directly observe subduction. Read this paper, for starters: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V72-4HWXJ47-2&_user=443835&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=443835&md5=556f12254b0cec0f2e72632935208909

This one too: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/96JB03174.shtml

And this one: http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/36/4/1073

And then this one: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Litho..77..349S

Oh, and this one also: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/rondenay/pdf/Rondenay_etal_Geol_2008.pdf

Boy, you've got quite the reading list to get through! I'd get started, if I were you.

ungtss said...

I guess haven't heard of "elephant hurling." It's the debate tactic of throwing out a bunch of papers, jargon, or other things for the purpose of intimidation, in order to avoid directly addressing the challenge to your POV.

I take it you haven’t had the opportunity to read the two texts I recommended yet, eh?

If you'd read my comment, you would have read that I'm in an area in Turkiye where I don't have access to an English-language university library.

First, your cited articles:

''We do directly observe subduction.''

Your first problem is that you have rewritten by challenge. I asked for ''direct evidence that crust is disappearing in subduction zones like it is observed appearing in expansion zones." Unable to address that challenge, you're going to try to provide "evidence of subduction" by other means -- but you still haven't explained why crust isn't disappearing on one side, while it is appearing on the other.

Your second problem is that the articles don't even do what you want them to do:

''http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V72-4HWXJ47-2&_user=443835&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d''

No disappearing crust. Not even any evidence of subduction. Just a record of an area in which earthquakes are common, and where they take place. Earthquakes do not equate to subduction. So you're wrong.

''http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V72-4HWXJ47-2&_user=443835&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=443835&md5=556f12254b0cec0f2e72632935208909''

This is not evidence of subduction either. It's a study of earthquake groups. You can have earthquake groups without subduction, so you're wrong again.

''http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/96JB03174.shtml''

This is the closest one so far -- from the abstract, it sounds like it's at least consistent with a Benioff zone. But again, this is not direct evidence of crust disappearing into a subduction zone to correspond to new crust in expansion zones and a the fact that a fault is slanted does not necessitate (or even really imply) subduction. So you're wrong again.

''http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/36/4/1073''

I can't say I fully understand what this article is saying, but it sounds like it is inferring subduction from the chemical composition of the mantle in different locations. That strikes me as particularly weak evidence, because there are many potential reasons for mantle to vary in its chemical composition. If there's more to this one, lemme know. But from where I stand, it looks just as hollow as the other ones.

''http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Litho..77..349S''

This one's a real crackup. They're inferring billions of years of geological history from the composition of a single diamond. But what you guys never seem to get is that evidence consistent with multiple stories is not evidence for one of the stories. There are many reasons the diamond might have gone through the varying periods of higher and lower temps. Subduction is not necessary. And this is STILL not evidence of crust disappearing.

''http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/rondenay/pdf/Rondenay_etal_Geol_2008.pdf''

Again, this is not direct evidence of subduction. It's a study of the geological lay of the land -- about the thickness and the termination of the crust. Not direct evidence of subduction.

''North America, Asia and Australia don't fit together.''

Actually, this is where you're wrong. Just pull out a globe. It's as clear as day. Australia fits right into South America. That's the one thing the Neal Adams videos do very well.

''They modern configuration of the western coast of North America is a result of terrane accretion events that began in the mid-Paleozoic and continued into the Mesozoic (driven by subduction of the Farallon plate beneath the western margin of the US, as evidenced by volcanism, geochemistry, and fossil evidence from the terranes). Australia was attached to Antarctica, South Africa, and South America to form the Gondwanan fold-and-thrust belt ans associated foreland basin. Any first year geology student could tell you that; see what bothering to read about things can do for you?''

This is where you start spitting back theory like fact. Pretty common mental error among academics, though, so that's alright.

So you failed to provide any direct evidence of subduction, refuted an empirical claim with unfalsifiable theory, and failed to address my objection to your claim that EE is both false and unfalsifiable. All in a day's work, I guess. I do wish they'd teach concepts of philosophy of science and evidence to you guys. All those years being taught to spit back what you've been told rather than think critically takes its toll, I guess.

Eric said...

yawn

Give me a prediction from your expanding earth concept on earthquake distribution.

Give me a prediction from your expanding earth nonsense regarding the distribution of isotope species in crustal rocks.

Give me an explanation of accreted terranes from your expanding earth stuff.

I'm afraid you're simply arguing from ignorance. You have no understanding of the science, and a fundamentally deeply flawed understanding of the philosophy of science. Oh well, all those years being aggressively ignorant must have taken its toll, I guess.

ungtss said...

Since you didn't address anything I said, I guess you've conceded that:

1) There is no direct evidence of crust actually disappearing under other crust in "subduction" zones;

2) Your articles provide no real evidence of subduction, despite your assertion that they did;

3) The Americas, Asia, and Australia do in fact fit together across the Pacific;

4) You contradicted yourself when you stated EE was both false and unfalsifiable, but are too proud to admit it.

Now onto your challenges:

Give me a prediction from your expanding earth concept on earthquake distribution.

There are two types of predictions:

1) Predictions of EE consistent with PT;

2) Predictions of EE inconsistent with PT;

The first type is easy to identify: earthquakes will be centered around fault zones, and will be found infrequently elsewhere. Done.

The second type is not so easy. I can't think of any. But I challenge you to think of some predictions of PT regarding earthquake distribution that are inconsistent with EE. I don't think you can think of any either. If you could, surely you would have already presented them.

Give me a prediction from your expanding earth nonsense regarding the distribution of isotope species in crustal rocks.

Ah, that's an easy one. First one consistent with PT:

Isotope species of rocks will indicate that rocks closer to mid-ocean ridges are younger than those further away.

Now one inconsistent with PT:

Isotope species of rocks will indicate a substantial age difference (on the order of billions of years) between continental crust and the oceanic crust immediately offshore.

Give me an explanation of accreted terranes from your expanding earth stuff.

Simple: It's not accreted terrain. India and Italy are the two prime examples. Italy shows the same characteristics (peninsula with mountains separating it from the main continent). But there's not enough room in the mediteranean for Italy to have been a seperate island! What exactly happened? That's an interesting question. I'm not smart enough of that stuff to know what happened. But I find it silly to think Italy "accreted" to Europe, and I can find no reason that the configuration of Italy precludes EE ...

Arguing from ignorance? Ha! You still haven't answered anything I've said. I can't figure why you're copping such an attitude when you're consistently failing to address the issues ...

Eric said...

Whoo Boy! Do your weaknesses extend beyond a complete misunderstanding of both science and the philosophy of science into a general inability to read as well? Tragic!

We’ll do the dance once more, since you seem to be having problems understanding things. I’ll point out that these arguments are pretty much from all the literature I suggested you read, as well as from previous comments made above. Oh well.

Your aggressively na├»ve understanding of Science (on both the practical end as well as the theoretical end) is really showing here, pally. First of all, I strongly urge you to read and learn before you start spouting off your poorly constructed “rebuttals”. I know you didn’t read the texts I suggested, and I know you didn’t read the papers in their entirety that I linked to; had you actually done these things, you would have the necessary understanding of the background behind those papers, and you would recognize their relevance to the questions at hand. Additionally, you might start to understand how your own ridiculous egotism is blinding you to the broader world of learning that we have opened up in the past 200 years. It’s tragic to see someone so deeply flawed in their understanding of how humans pursue knowledge and interpret the natural phenomena around them.

Anyway, there is direct evidence of the subduction of crust, and if you had read the papers, you would understand that. This is going to get complicated, so if you need to take a nap or get a sippy cup of juice, I’ll wait.

All comfy? Good, let us begin.

The direct evidence for subduction comes (dominantly) from two sources. First, and most importantly, the occurrence of subduction zone earthquakes, which coincide with tomographically imaged cold slabs of crust at subduction zones that are the loci of such deep earthquakes as the Boxing Day Earthquake a few years back. The seismically active, high density, cold temperature slabs are dip in the direction of subduction, and THE ONLY mechanism for allowing sudden, brittle deformation in a zone of otherwise ductile rheaology. I’ll point out that Plate Tectonics would predict the occurrence of these zones, and would also predict their mechanism, which has been borne out. Expanding Earth, with its magical mechanism of unicorn-driven expansion, offers no explanative reasoning or predictive power for this unique class of earthquakes. This is what’s is discussed in those papers; our ability to directly observe the subducted down-going slab through seismic imaging, AS WELL AS our ability to record and extrapolate earthquake loci to these zones, demonstrates the occurrence of subducted slabs.

Of course, since it is obvious that you did not know about deep-level earthquakes, your patently laughable earthquake counterpoint serves only to demonstrate your completely shallow understanding of geology. Not that we needed more evidence, but there you go.

A second direct line of evidence for subduction is the geochemical signature of melts derived from those slabs; you see, if we are subducting oceanic crust, the unique hydrothermal and geochemical reactions that we observe on the sea floor should be reflected in the brine and mineralogy of cements and alteration products. In fact they are, with numerous ionic species reflecting the distinct fractionation processes that occur on the ocean floor. If we subduct those slabs, then the material that drives the resultant melting should show this effect (these volcanic arcs rest on the overriding plate; this is predicted by Plate Tectonics, and these occur in the same zones where we see the cold, downgoing slab in the subsurface, which is predicted by our Plate Tectonic model. Expanding Earth makes no such predictions, and therefore has no explanative power).

Shocker! We do see the distinct ionic signature; the diamond paper was simply a clever example of this work, which has been replicated and verified in numerous other settings. And Ungtss, since I can hear your bilious scoffing already, let me remind you: your own ignorance of how science is done does not negate the importance of that science, nor does it invalidate the interpretations of the work. Rather, this should spur you on to start learning about a subject that you obviously have interest in, but have no understanding of.

The Americas, Asia, and Australia do not fit together. Once again, your obvious contempt for science and arrogant assumptions really hurt you. You counter fifty years of detailed work (which you are NOT familiar with) with a blatant “well that work is all wrong”. Schoolyard tactics such as this might serve you well among your monthly “Anti-Intellectuals of the World” meetings, but they don’t fly where actual scholarly work is involved.

So let’s talk about accreted terranes. Terrane Accretion is a process predicted by Plate Tectonics. At subduction zones, heavy oceanic crust is subducted, but our understanding of crustal rheology tells us that any cold, buoyant continental crust would rarely, if ever, be subducted. In large scale collisions, we would expect to see thrust belt development (we do). In cases where island arcs are present on the downgoing slab, we would expect these slivers of exotic material to plaster onto the overriding continental margin, transferring them inboard of the subduction. How do we recognize these far travelled blocks? So glad you asked…

The original identification of these terranes rested on paleontological evidence, which showed distinct “exotic” assemblages of marine fossils that were many thousands or tens of thousands of kilometers from their known ranges. When mapping these intervals in the field, discrete boundaries between “exotic” populations and endemic populations were noticed; these zones fit exactly with the fault bounded and lithofacies defined seperations between these zones. This suggested that there was a structural reason for these units, as they were unassociated with any adjacent rock packages (which in many cases were not even sedimentary in nature).

Further support came from the fields of paleomagnetism, radiometric dating, and clast and geochemical provenance studies. Paleomag showed that the orientation of magnetic north differed for the terranes and their host intervals; this orientation in turned supported the paleogeographic reconstruction derived from the fossil assemblages, showing these intervals to have originated from another part of the globe. Radiometric dating techniques similarly helped to constrain formation and emplacement timing, which showed marked divergence from the host terrane. Clast and geochemical provenance did the same. There is a voluminous literature on the subject that I would suggest you try and get into if you are interested in the topic in any serious way. If you like, I’d be more than happy to suggest some “beginning points” in the body of work.

Your 4th point, regarding what you perceive as a contradiction in falsification shows your inexperience in thinking about science. Popperian falsification of your pet “theory” is impossible, because no testable hypotheses are ever put forward regarding a mechanism OR predictions from the theory. Individual claims (which are different from hypotheses) made by you expanding earthers are demonstrably false, because they tend to be of the sort you make above in regards to the Accreted Terrane; in other words, they are falsified already because they rest soley on a priori assumptions and magical thinking, whereas our alternative ideas (based on Plate Tectonics) satisify Occam’s Razor in that they require the least number of assumptions going into the argument. Seriously, read some Russell, then some Popper, then some Kuhn. We’ve got the chess board out here and you’re still playing Whack-A-Mole.

You’re remaining points just serve to demonstrate the attitude that such an aggressively anti-intellectual, anti-science, lazy individual will always take. Things are complicated, and you can’t understand them, so they must be wrong! Rather than actually do the WORK required to learn things and develop the discipline to sit down and seriously study, you just spout of whatever comes to mind. This results in such ridiculous statements as “Isotope species of rocks will indicate that rocks closer to mid-ocean ridges are younger than those further away.”, which has nothing to do with what I was talking about, and has nothing to do with the papers I suggested to you read.

If you want to keep this up, then by all means continue. You are, however, merely showing your ignorance across a broad array of disciplines. I strongly urge you to read Read READ the work that has been done, not necessarily to convince you, but rather just so that you have a basic understanding of the vocabulary and concepts of the side you claim to be arguing against.

ungtss said...

I'm not going to dignify you're self-aggrandizement and personal insults with a response, so you will find those snipped from my response. To the meat of the matter:

Let's begin with some philosophy of science.

Here's how science goes according to Popper:

1) We observe a fact or set of facts;
2) We speculate and come up with a number of theoretical explanations for the facts;
3) We test the proposed explanations.
4) We call those that fail the test "false."
5) We call those that cannot be tested yet "possible."
6) We call those that cannot be tesed by their very nature "metaphysical."
7) We call those that pass the test "science, for now at least."

The key here is that in order for you to discard a theoretical explanation, you must either provide a test that proves it is false, or you must show how it is fundamentally impossible to test the explanation. Otherwise it remains a valid alternative hypothesis.

I think that the fact that crust is not observed disappearing in "subduction zones" (at lest tentatively) falsifies the hypothesis that subduction occurs.

If you want to show that your earthquakes and reactions show PT to be true and EE to be false, you must explain not only why those facts are consistent with PT, but also why they are inconsistent with EE. Science progresses only by falsifyin the alternatives.

You have consistently failed at all those tasks. I'm not arguing that the earthquakes don't occur as reported. I'm arguing that they are not significant in proving your point.

And you keep dodging the issue.

If you disagree with my epistemology and philosophy of science, please explain why. If you agree with it, please do what I'm asking, and explain why it's not significant that we don't observe crust disappearing in subduction zones?

Again:

You still haven't explained why we don't directly observe crust disappearing in the subduction zones as we observe it in the expansion zones. You've provided circumstantial evidence without explaining the significance of the evidence.

the occurrence of subduction zone earthquakes, which coincide with tomographically imaged cold slabs of crust at subduction zones that are the loci of such deep earthquakes as the Boxing Day Earthquake a few years back. The seismically active, high density, cold temperature slabs are dip in the direction of subduction, and THE ONLY mechanism for allowing sudden, brittle deformation in a zone of otherwise ductile rheaology.


As I explained above, the fact that this observation is consistent with PT is not evidence for PT as against EE unless you can explain why it is inconsistent with EE. Why is subduction the only mechanism for allowing sudden, brittle deformation in a zone of otherwise ductile rheaology? How can you exclude all other possibilities?

This is what’s is discussed in those papers; our ability to directly observe the subducted down-going slab through seismic imaging, AS WELL AS our ability to record and extrapolate earthquake loci to these zones, demonstrates the occurrence of subducted slabs.

As I explained above, the fact that this observation is consistent with PT is not evidence for PT as against EE unless it is inconsistent with EE. Why is this observation inconsistent with EE?

A second direct line of evidence for subduction is the geochemical signature of melts derived from those slabs; you see, if we are subducting oceanic crust, the unique hydrothermal and geochemical reactions that we observe on the sea floor should be reflected in the brine and mineralogy of cements and alteration products.

But again, how can you exclude other alternative explanations for the same observed phenomenon?

The Americas, Asia, and Australia do not fit together.

That's simply, obviously, false. The East Pacific Rise is a perfect fit for South America, and Australia is a perfect fit for both. Here's a link for you, smart guy:
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/expanding_earth.html

There's a good map about a third of the way down. Australia fits perfectly between China and South America. Antarctica fits into Australia the southern part of Australia. There is no question that it's true. Pictures can't lie. The only question is whether this is coincidence or not.

So let’s talk about accreted terranes. Terrane Accretion is a process predicted by Plate Tectonics.

I snipped the rest of your material in this section, because it is consistent with EE and therefore irrelevant to the issue. Again, if you don't understand the problem, it's with your epistemology, not your science. If you want to discuss that section (which I found very interesting) do it in the context of explaining why it's inconsistent with EE.

Your 4th point, regarding what you perceive as a contradiction in falsification shows your inexperience in thinking about science. Popperian falsification of your pet “theory” is impossible, because no testable hypotheses are ever put forward regarding a mechanism OR predictions from the theory. Individual claims (which are different from hypotheses) made by you expanding earthers are demonstrably false, because they tend to be of the sort you make above in regards to the Accreted Terrane; in other words, they are falsified already because they rest soley on a priori assumptions and magical thinking, whereas our alternative ideas (based on Plate Tectonics) satisify Occam’s Razor in that they require the least number of assumptions going into the argument. Seriously, read some Russell, then some Popper, then some Kuhn. We’ve got the chess board out here and you’re still playing Whack-A-Mole.

You're still quibbling, smart guy. You explicitly said that the whole EE concept was false, and also that the whole thing was unfalsifiable. You did not say that "individual claims stemming from it" are false. You said the whole thing was false. So which one is it?

Eric said...

Christ on a crutch ungtss! Get out and enjoy the weekend sometime, man; I think you need it.

Man, I think you need to reread your Popper, friend, especially Realism and the Aim of Science (1983) and Objective Knowledge (1976). Then, you need to realize that human knowledge is a fluid, flowing thing, and Popper is not the end all of The Philosophy of Science; again, read some Kuhn.

Looky here, ungtss; I’ve explained the falsifiable nature of the conclusions that stem from the a priori assumption (SAY IT WITH ME: A PRIORI ASSUMPTION) of the Expanding Earth idea. Similarly, I’ve shown how, WITHOUT A POSTULATED MECHANISM, Expanding Earth is not a scientific idea. It offers no tests or explanative power. Plate Tectonics, however, with the plume/convection cell model of mantle flow, DOES provide explanative AND predictive power. Ye Gods Man!

Once again, your ignorance is showing: WE DIRECTLY IMAGE THE COLD SLAB MOVING DOWN INTO THE MANTLE. That is what is known as seismic tomography. WE SEE AN IMAGE FROM THE MANTLE.

Is that clear, ungtss?

We use seismic reflection to get a PICTURE of a cold, dense slab that dips down into the mantle. FURTHERMORE, we predict WHERE these slabs will occur based on the Theory of Plate Tectonics, and we go looking for them.

Guess what we find when we get there, ungtss?

We find the cold, dipping slab sliding into the mantle. We see it with seismic reflection.

Lets cut to the chase here, since I can see you spinning around in circles for ever, and I get bored easily.

EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING IN TERMS OF EXPANDING EARTH:

1. Seismic tomography images that show zones of cold, sinking crust where Plate Tectonics Theory predicts them to be.
2. Pressure-Temperature-Time paths for mineralogical assemblages in mountainbelts that indicate deep burial (mantle depth) and subsequent uplift and exposure at the Earth’s Surface. In otherwords, explain the existence of eclogite.
3. Isotopic signatures of mineral assemblages from extrustive and intrusive igneous rocks that show derivation from sediment.
4. The existence of shearzones in mountainbelts.
5. Wadati-Benioff Zones.

ungtss said...

Christ on a crutch ungtss! Get out and enjoy the weekend sometime, man; I think you need it.

Again with the personal insults. You have no idea what I did this weekend, except for the 10 minutes I posted to you. I took my pregnant wife to explore a 10th century castle, for one thing. Why are you so emotional and unprofessional about all this?

Man, I think you need to reread your Popper, friend, especially Realism and the Aim of Science (1983) and Objective Knowledge (1976). Then, you need to realize that human knowledge is a fluid, flowing thing, and Popper is not the end all of The Philosophy of Science; again, read some Kuhn.

You haven't substantively contradicted anything I said about Popper. I can only assume, then, that you don't understand him or me, but are either unable or unwilling to discuss it. Kuhn works against you even more, as he shows the resistance of scientists to paradigm shifts -- i.e. your persistence in confusing fact and interpretation of fact, such that a new interpretation of the facts is viewed with suspicion and outright hostility. You're living our Kuhn right now, smart guy.

Looky here, ungtss; I’ve explained the falsifiable nature of the conclusions that stem from the a priori assumption (SAY IT WITH ME: A PRIORI ASSUMPTION) of the Expanding Earth idea.

There is no a priori assumption of EE here. There is a theoretical explanation of an observable fact (the fact that asia, australia, and North America fit together quite nicely across the Pacific, a fact you still haven't addressed despite my repeated requests and references). An a priori assumption is one that comes without evidence, from reason and intuition alone. Matching puzzle pieces across an ocean are evidence that the pieces might have fit together @ some time. So this is not a priori. I really wish they forced science students to take more philosophy courses, so you would know what fancy words like "a priori" mean.

Similarly, I’ve shown how, WITHOUT A POSTULATED MECHANISM, Expanding Earth is not a scientific idea.

And I've repeated how there are at least a dozen postulated mechanisms out there, from mass accretion from extraterrestrial sources to core and mantle expansion from increased temperature. You've swept them away as impossible and denied they exist (despite those two possibilities being inconsistent), but you still haven't actually addressed them.

Once again, your ignorance is showing: WE DIRECTLY IMAGE THE COLD SLAB MOVING DOWN INTO THE MANTLE. That is what is known as seismic tomography. WE SEE AN IMAGE FROM THE MANTLE.

That's fine, but it's irrelevant, because it's consistent with EE. Why don't we see old crust disappearing like we see new crust appearing?

We use seismic reflection to get a PICTURE of a cold, dense slab that dips down into the mantle.

That does not equate to subduction. That is a cold, dense slab dipping down -- not a cold, dense slab physically moving 22 mm under the other crust every year. We have the capability to observe the new crust on the other side. Why can't we observe the old crust disappearing? And why are the ages of the crust so inconsistent with the Pangaea story?

FURTHERMORE, we predict WHERE these slabs will occur based on the Theory of Plate Tectonics, and we go looking for them.

And those locations are consistent with EE, so I don't see the significance of that.

EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING IN TERMS OF EXPANDING EARTH:

No. You're shifting the burden of proof. If you want to use evidence to discredit EE, then you show how it's inconsistent with EE. I've shown how the matching of the continents across the Pacific is inconsistent with PT, and I've shown how the absence of evidence of crust actually disappearing in the subduction zones as it is appearing in the expansion zones are consistent with EE and inconsistent with PT. You still haven't answered those issues. If you want to use seismic imagery to contradict EE, then you stretch your mind outside your Kuhnian paradigm and explain why that evidence is inconsistent with EE.

Finally, despite throwing words like a priori around, you haven't explained (in any meaningful way) how EE can be both false and unfalsifiable, as you claimed it could be.

Eric said...

The burden of proof is in no way on me. We’ve got 50+ years of geological investigation, using REAL DATA, reproducible methodologies, and multiple lines of inquiry that support Plate Tectonics Theory. All you’ve got is your crankpot ideas about how the continents all fit, and your pathetic misunderstanding of what science is. The burden is on you, ungtss, to show some sort of inconsistency with Plate Tectonics, and then explain it with your nonsense (which you can’t do). That’s how Kuhn postulated science works, by the way. You should read him sometime.

I can’t explain this in any terms more simply than I already have. Any idea in science can be interrogated in two ways. One way is to use the assumption of its operation (that’s what grown-ups call an a priori) to make predictions. IF the earth is expanding, what logically would be the consequences of this expansion, and how would one go out and find the evidence for it. Carey tried to do this, and his postulations have all been shown to be wrong.

A SECOND way to interrogate an idea is to investigate a proposed mechanism. Your postulated mechanisms have all been shown to be false, and if you read some actual literature, you’d know that. Mass accretion is untenable, and the magical production of matter (Adams’ favored method) is bullshit.

The consequences of an Expanding Earth provide testable hypotheses (this is the first case); these have all been proven false. A lack of coherent mechanism makes the second case UNFALSIFIABLE, as no mechanism is proposed.

Secondly, you need to learn what is and is not data, ungtss. You’re ridiculous claim that the continents all fit together is not data; it is an interpretation. I really wish you’d gone to school and learned something once. It’s a pretty amateurish mistake.

Your refusal to address the five points I mentioned is because you are incapable of doing so; that much is clear, both from your poor understanding of geology (though if you take the time to study into each point, I think you’d be able to understand what I was getting at), and from your general misunderstanding of science, as evidenced by your inability to differentiate data from interpretations.

So we’ll put it in your court, okay. Name your best piece of evidence for the Expanding Earth Idea, and we’ll go from there. Only one, alright? We’ll get on to others if you want, but for the time being, I’ll let you pick ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR YOUR IDEA, and we’ll discuss.

ungtss said...

The map on the link I gave you, showing how the continents would fit together on an Earth 1/2 its current radius.

ungtss said...

Or if you don't like that one (based on your narrow definition of data), the fact that new crust is observed forming in the Atlantic, but not observed disappearing in the Pacific.

ungtss said...

I found your requirement that an idea cannot be scientific unless there is already a mechanism amusing:). So by your reasoning, I suppose we couldn't say that human beings reproduced sexually until we understood how sperm and egg combine. Or we couldn't document the phases of the moon until we knew about the relative motions of the Earth and the moon. Or a child cannot say that airplanes fly until she understands jet enginers. Gosh. Seeing that something is happening isn't enough to justify believing it -- you must comprehensively understand it first!

But you're all backwards, smart guy. Science begins with observations, and moves forward to proposed mechanisms for what is seen. If crust is visibly forming int he Atlantic but not visibly disappearing in the Pacific, science steps in to explain why. But by your reasoning, we can't make that observation until we know why!!!

ungtss said...

And one last piece of data for you before I go to work -- the fact that no ocean crust in the world is more than 1/20 the age of the continental crust (i.e. 200M vs. 4B).

If these facts sound vaguely familiar, it's because I've been repeating them in every post, hoping you'll finally address them and explain to me how "science" has explained those away as either false or insignificant. I'm a neophyte after all. But the longer you evade, however, the more I start to think you just don't want to address them, and I just can't figure why.

BrianR said...

Eric ... nice work, keep at it.

Ungtss ... collect, compile, analyze some data ... report it in a paper. Do some science. You talk a good game, but I don't see any substance. There are numerous databases available to the public for free to do science (e.g., DSDP/ODP/IODP) where you can order samples, do your own analyses, synthesize your results, and submit a paper.

But, it seems like you'd rather argue about meta-science (which is the lazy route, in my opinion) instead of actually doing it.

Contrarians wonder why real scientists get so defensive ... it's because you guys refuse to actually familiarize yourself w/ any literature, and simply dismiss any mainstream idea because you think you are some revolutionary on to some paradigm-shifting idea. Get over yourselves ... I find it comical that pseudo/fringe theorists actually think they are on to something sometimes.

Get some data. Write some papers. Get at it.

ungtss said...

Brian:

I asked a few simple questions, and no answers have been forthcoming.

1) What do you geniuses think about the enormous difference in seacrust age between the continents and all oceans?

2) What do you geniuses think about the map that shows how asia, australia, and the americas fit across the Pacific?

3) What do you geniuses think about the fact that there is no direct evidence of crust disappearing in subduction zones to match crust appearing in expansion zones, and no subduction zone to account for Antarctica.

I don't claim to be a revolutionary, or even a scientist. I'm an amateur who's interested in the topic. I don't understand why you people who are ostensibly so intelligent and expert cannot just answer simple questions.

MJC Rocks said...

The questions you ask are covered in basic geology textbooks. It is kind of frustrating to follow this thread, but somehow I keep reading. Note: I am no genius, but still know the answers to these questions. The frustration emanates from the attitude you display as a "true believer" who cannot be swayed by logical argument or by overwhelming evidence. Anyway, here is a non-genius answer to your challenges.

1) What do you geniuses think about the enormous difference in seacrust age between the continents and all oceans?

Plate tectonics predicts and explains the youth of the ocean floor. It was the unexpected discovery of the youth of the ocean floor that in part led to the discovery of seafloor spreading. There is no truly ancient seafloor because it has been SUBDUCTED. At SUBDUCTION ZONES. Continents are composed of old rock because the continental crust is not dense enough to sink into the mantle at subduction zones.

2) What do you geniuses think about the map that shows how asia, australia, and the americas fit across the Pacific?

The map is one person's attempt to "prove" his hypothesis. One can make a diagram do whatever one wants. The fit is not so important anyway. The Americas, Australia and Asia (and also Antarctica) WERE connected at one time: in the late Proterozoic, as part of the supercontinent Rodinia, which existed hundreds of millions of years before Pangea. Google the SWEAT hypothesis if you truly want to learn about this.

3) What do you geniuses think about the fact that there is no direct evidence of crust disappearing in subduction zones to match crust appearing in expansion zones, and no subduction zone to account for Antarctica.

There is plenty of evidence of oceanic crust, with the obvious existence of trenches, Benioff seismic zones, and accretionary wedge deposits where minerals show evidence of having been carried downward to depths of 20 miles or more. The presence of exotic terranes added to the surface of subduction zones. I live on the remnants of a subduction zone, and the evidence is overwhelming. Add to this the evidence that most major mountain ranges around the world are compressional in origin: the Himalayas, the Alps, the Appalachians, the Urals, it is a long list. They cannot be explained by an expanding earth.

I realize that most of the points in this thread have been covered by others with more research experience than myself, but you wanted a simple answer to a simple question. There it is. I don't expect it will change your mind, because you have decided what to believe, and BELIEVE is the operative term here. In the face of overwhelming evidence brought forth by the research of hundreds of very smart and intuitive individuals. Many of them (especially in the 1950's and 1960's), had to overcome their own biases in the face of overwhelming evidence. And they were able to do so. Give it a shot...

Eric said...

woah woah woah ungtss! Deep Breathes, baby; with the combination of grant writing, preparing for some overseas field work coming up, and celebrating the victory of Light over Darkness (the Obama win) we've all been a little busy.

First and foremost, I really gotta say that I think we've allready talked about most of your points.

1) the age discrepency between continental and oceanic crust is product of subduction of the denser oceanic crust and the bouyancy of the overriding continental plates. See, at subduction zones, continental crust is too lite to get subducted on any large scale; so it never gets recycled in subduction zones, whereas the oceanic crust, which is heavier, slips under and beneath the overriding plate during subduction. We do have oceanic crustal fragments of older ages, by the way. They are called Ophiolites, and show the existence of much older oceanic crust. Look em up, they're pretty cool things.

Point 2) take a look at the geological maps for those coastal regions, ungtss. If the expanding earth idea is true, then these coastal provinces should have predicably similiar ages, right? I'll give you two guesses as to what the real ages of the real crustal ages there are, okay?

Point 3)This points to a rather amusing misunderstanding on your part, ungtss: do you think that the mid-Atlantic ridge is constantly pumping out huge, voluminous sheets of magma? It isn't; it happens in fits and starts, with long term averaged slow rates of spreading. Similarly, the stress that this pushing engenders is componsated in fold-belts and along faults, with sudden "slip" events along subduction zones (like the Indonesian earthquakes). We can image the subduction zones, and plate tectonics provides a predictive and explanatory framework for their existence. Expanding Earth nonsense does not do this.

I strongly suggest you do the cited readings, ungtss, at least so you can forumalte coherent arguments. The entire expanding earth idea is based on faulty, fundamentally flawed misunderstandings of geology.

Eric said...

Whoop; you got in there right before I did MJC Rocks...good answers!

BrianR said...

ungtss ... if you want us to give you simple answers, you'll turn around and say that's not enough ... if we give you a list of THOUSANDS of peer-reviewed articles, numerous textbooks, and hundreds of other resources, you'll want short and simple answers (as MJC Rocks did). Which is it? Would you like a list of books and key references? If I, or Eric, or anyone else does the work to compile such a thing, would we be wasting our time? Would you read and study them?

Please familiarize yourself with the literature and the theories ... take a geology course at your local college. The answers to your questions will be given, but gaining such a comprehensive collection of observations and knowledge takes time. This isn't about being a genius or intelligence at all ... it's simply time and effort to learn.

As for your suggestions that subduction does not occur, I've been sparring with other subduction denialists and am nearly done with a post that addresses just a little bit on this topic (again, there are numerous entire books written on the subject that are based on thousands of studies).

I'll put a link to my post on this thread when it's done.

Eric said...

Wow! Subduction Denialists would be a GREAT Band Name...

...or a great name for the next Decemberists album.

Looking forward to that post, brian...although you might attract ungtss over to your site, and I think you see what that results in.

BrianR said...

I have a three-part series of posts dealing with claims that subudction is a myth from some other bloggers -- see Part 1 here.

ungtss said...

Plate tectonics predicts and explains the youth of the ocean floor. It was the unexpected discovery of the youth of the ocean floor that in part led to the discovery of seafloor spreading. There is no truly ancient seafloor because it has been SUBDUCTED. At SUBDUCTION ZONES. Continents are composed of old rock because the continental crust is not dense enough to sink into the mantle at subduction zones.

Look: you have two possible explanations for the youth of the seafloor -- one is that it is being subducted, the other that is new, and an artifact of increased surface area. If order to think scientifically, we must falsify one. I'll start with yours.

a) All point-to-point measurements across plate boundaries in the Pacific show that the Pacific is presently expanding.

b) There is no direct evidence of seafloor physically disappearing along the Pacific trenches to match the direct evidence of seafloor appearing along the ridges;

c) There are no latitudinal subduction zones to subduct the expansion taking place in a ring around the Antarctic.

Now here's what you do: you either

a) show that my claimed fact is false,

b) show how it does not falsify your explanation, or

c) provide some evidence that falsifies my explanation.

Please don't waste my time with ad hominem or the the old "you have to read a billion books like I have before you are wise like I" elephant hurling I get from other posters on this blog. Thanks.

The map is one person's attempt to "prove" his hypothesis. One can make a diagram do whatever one wants. The fit is not so important anyway. The Americas, Australia and Asia (and also Antarctica) WERE connected at one time: in the late Proterozoic, as part of the supercontinent Rodinia, which existed hundreds of millions of years before Pangea. Google the SWEAT hypothesis if you truly want to learn about this.

You are not addressing the issue. Yes -- that map is one person's interpretation of the evidence. It is also an extremely parsimonious explanation. The East Coast of Australia is nearly a perfect fit for the West Coast of South America, and the Pacific Rise. That is the exact same evidence we use to conclude that the Americas and Europe/Asia split along the mid-Atlantic ridge. Why is that fact valid evidence in one ocean, but not in another?

There is plenty of evidence of oceanic crust, with the obvious existence of trenches, Benioff seismic zones, and accretionary wedge deposits where minerals show evidence of having been carried downward to depths of 20 miles or more. The presence of exotic terranes added to the surface of subduction zones. I live on the remnants of a subduction zone, and the evidence is overwhelming. Add to this the evidence that most major mountain ranges around the world are compressional in origin: the Himalayas, the Alps, the Appalachians, the Urals, it is a long list. They cannot be explained by an expanding earth.


All of those facts can be interpretted within both explanatory frameworks. The physical disappearance of crust in the "subduction zones" would be explained most reasonably by yours. Yet it is not observed -- and you resort to circular reasoning to prove your conclusion. Again: Why is there no direct physical evidence of crust physically moving under crust in the "subduction zones?" What I mean by that is "This crust used to be there, and now it isn't anymore."

Again please, either show that the facts I'm presenting are false, show how they do not discredit your geophysical model, or provide some meaningful evidence to discredit the alternative. Ad hominem is the hallmark of the intellectually vacuous.

ungtss said...

Point 2) take a look at the geological maps for those coastal regions, ungtss. If the expanding earth idea is true, then these coastal provinces should have predicably similiar ages, right? I'll give you two guesses as to what the real ages of the real crustal ages there are, okay?


Can you be clearer here? Which regions are you talking about?

Point 3)This points to a rather amusing misunderstanding on your part, ungtss: do you think that the mid-Atlantic ridge is constantly pumping out huge, voluminous sheets of magma? It isn't; it happens in fits and starts, with long term averaged slow rates of spreading. Similarly, the stress that this pushing engenders is componsated in fold-belts and along faults, with sudden "slip" events along subduction zones (like the Indonesian earthquakes). We can image the subduction zones, and plate tectonics provides a predictive and explanatory framework for their existence. Expanding Earth nonsense does not do this.

You're just evading the issue through strawmen. New crust is in fact observed at the mid-Atlantic ridge. Old crust is not observed disappearing in the Pacific. Why?

ungtss said...

Here's an interesting paper on the topic:

http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/1152/1/A%20SOUND%20IDEA%20....pdf

Eric said...

Ungtss, your mastery of the Gish Gallup is profound and deep, which I think explains the trouble you are having understanding what we are saying.

ONCE AGAIN, direct evidence for subduction: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v296/n5854/abs/296235a0.html
Seriously, that was with google, and it took like seven and a half seconds.

I like your complete dismissal of science there too, ungtss. "Don't waste my time telling me I need to learn things! I have a mystical intuition about how incredibly complex systems work!" Science, ungtss, is a community, where everyone discusses and argues and adds to the body of working knowledge through the every changing process of research. The corpus of that research is called "THE PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE." If you are unwilling to enter into the discussion (by actually reading up on the current research), then don't be offended if we don't take you or your patently ridiculous claims seriously.

Oh, and as for the Expanding earth nonsense being "parsimonious"? Here's a fun assignment for you: UNGTSS, give us your definition of parsimonious.

ungtss said...

First, I'll note with amusement that you didn't address any of the facts I raised. Then, I'll get into your response.

ONCE AGAIN, direct evidence for subduction: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v296/n5854/abs/296235a0.html
Seriously, that was with google, and it took like seven and a half seconds.


Did you even read the first sentence of the abstract? It says: The hypothesis of subduction of oceanic plates under active continental margins has become a fundamental idea in plate tectonics. Yet the evidence for the existence of oceanic plates beneath continental borders is still largely circumstantial.

Do you understand? The real scientist who wrote that paper recognizes that subduction is a hypothesis, and that the evidence for it is largely circumstantial.

Then he goes on to argue that his observations ''may'' be direct evidence of subduction.

''Science, ungtss, is a community, where everyone discusses and argues and adds to the body of working knowledge through the every changing process of research. The corpus of that research is called "THE PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE." If you are unwilling to enter into the discussion (by actually reading up on the current research), then don't be offended if we don't take you or your patently ridiculous claims seriously.''

That's where you're desperately wrong, and it's probably why your mind has so obviously melted. Science is not a community. Science is a process -- the process of observation, analysis, and interpretation of facts. Kuhn did a great job describing and analyzing what science as a community yields -- institutional stubbornness and refusal to give the facts a fresh look. Everyone can participate in science -- not just arrogant shmucks who have gotten into the "club" by adopting the necessary premises. Science is not elitist. It is for all of us. And if your ideas can't stand up to scrutiny, it doesn't matter how many professors you've brown-nosed -- you're still wrong.

Oh, and as for the Expanding earth nonsense being "parsimonious"? Here's a fun assignment for you: UNGTSS, give us your definition of parsimonious.

The epistemological premise that the simplest explanation for a given set of facts is the most likely to be true.

Eric said...

I love it when people who are just plain wrong get all indignant. Makes me smile.

DID YOU READ THE REST OF THE ABSTRACT!?! "I report here the presence of a mantle phase, interpreted as a seismic wave refracted from a dipping interface on records of aftershocks from the intermediate earthquake of 24 October 1980 in the Mixtec Highlands of south-central Mexico which may be direct evidence on the structural position of the subducted plate under the Mexican active continental margin."

Reading can open a world of wonder, Ungtss! Try it sometime!

Man oh man, I love seeing the anti-intellectualism at work! The blatant disregard for how science is done or practiced! I'm glad you are not a doctor, Ungtss...I'd hate to see your clinical trials...
Science is a community, populated by people. Your weird aristotelean/neo-platonic "science" would require that, EVERYTIME WE TRIED TO STUDY SOMETHING, we'd have to independantly come up with gravity, hydrdynamics, etc. The peer-review literature lets us draw on the knowledge and expertise of many other workers, providing us with data and interpretations that no one individual could ever match.

And as for parsimony, sorry Ungtss. The most parsimonious explanation is one that explains the observations with the least number of a priori assumptions required. Otherwise, simplicity could logically be construed to be best defined by "Jesus did it."

MJC Rocks said...

Ungtss, I note that your website includes a lot of explorations of science, religion and philosophy, and that you may find this argument about an expanding earth an interesting diversion. So I don't want to be sarcastic in my response: I answered your questions with brief paragraphs on evidence that is based on years of good research by many people. Your continued insistence that the fit of continents, and "lack of evidence" for subduction constitute evidence that favors an expanding earth is simply wrong.

Your own response provides the most devastating argument against your position. To say "Please don't waste my time with ... you have to read a billion books like I have..." means you are not interested enough to follow through. It is sometimes fun and even useful to raise objections to fundamental paradigms of a science, but not when you are unfamiliar with the basic principles involved. And you are not familiar with those principles.

The expanding earth hypothesis was given serious consideration in the early 1960's when sea-floor spreading was discovered. Hundreds of researchers considered it and found that subduction was a far better explanation for the observed facts. And the evidence has piled up since then.

That's my two cent's worth...best wishes.

ungtss said...

I'll note with amusement that you STILL haven't addressed the factual arguments I made. Then I'll continue to your nonsense.

DID YOU READ THE REST OF THE ABSTRACT!?! "I report here the presence of a mantle phase, interpreted as a seismic wave refracted from a dipping interface on records of aftershocks from the intermediate earthquake of 24 October 1980 in the Mixtec Highlands of south-central Mexico which may be direct evidence on the structural position of the subducted plate under the Mexican active continental margin."

Again I'm going to point out that the first sentence of the abstract (which you didn't quote) describes subduction as a hypothesis (not an observed phenomenon) and states that the evidence for subduction is largely circumstantial. That is the point I'm arguing, and that you're denying -- and it's right up front in the abstract, genius.

Then, in the part you quoted, he doesn't say it's direct evidence of subduction -- he says it MAY be direct evidence of the STRUCTURE of a subducted slab. Do you understand the difference between "this is direct evidence of process of subduction" and "this may be direct evidence of the structure of a subducted slab?" Those are two very different sentences, smart guy. Or is reading comprehension in your curriculum?

Science is a community, populated by people. Your weird aristotelean/neo-platonic "science" would require that, EVERYTIME WE TRIED TO STUDY SOMETHING, we'd have to independantly come up with gravity, hydrdynamics, etc. The peer-review literature lets us draw on the knowledge and expertise of many other workers, providing us with data and interpretations that no one individual could ever match.

Wow. That explains it. You really do think science is a community, not a process. So whatever the community thinks is science. And if you're not in the community, you can't possibly do science. It doesn't require observation, experimentation, or analysis. It just requires reading all the papers and spitting back what you're told. Beautiful. You've actually gone a long way to helping me understand why so many people like you lack the basic reading comprehension to understand what that abstract is actually saying. Science isn't an objective process that can be replicated and argued out. It's a subjective group of people, and whatever most of them say goes. Thanks.

And as for parsimony, sorry Ungtss. The most parsimonious explanation is one that explains the observations with the least number of a priori assumptions required. Otherwise, simplicity could logically be construed to be best defined by "Jesus did it."

You and your failure to understand what "a priori" is. Did you even take a single philosophy class in school? A priori assumptions are assumptions that come from reason and definition alone -- for example, "A triangle is a shape with three sides." It contrasts with a posteriori knowledge, which is knowledge stemming from experience. Parsimony has absolutely nothing to do with "the least number of a priori assumptions" -- a priori assumptions are the definitions and laws of thinking that make up our daily lives, even though we cannot see them.

Parsimony is the idea that if you have two explanations for a physical phenomenon, the simpler one is probably true. In fact, "Jesus did it" is not the simplest -- because it requires us to explain how Jesus did it (without any evidence to that effect), a very complicated causative process -- while physical explanations that we can observe are much simpler to describe, because we can see them and explain them with reference to observed phenomenon.

So you're wrong yet again, smart guy.

Let's review:

I think science is a process. You think science is a community.

I think a priori assumptions are believes that proceed from reason alone (like definitions, laws of logic and mathematics, etc.). You think a priori assumptions are beliefs about the physical world without evidence.

I think parsimony is the idea that one should not an explanation that is more complex than necessary to adequately explain a phenomenon. You think it means that the explanation with the fewest number of "a priori assumptions" (based on your misunderstanding of what "a priori" means.)

And you STILL haven't addressed the facts at issue.

ungtss said...

I answered your questions with brief paragraphs on evidence that is based on years of good research by many people. Your continued insistence that the fit of continents, and "lack of evidence" for subduction constitute evidence that favors an expanding earth is simply wrong.

That's not how science is done. I raised very specific factual issues, and explained why I think those facts support an expanding Earth over PT. I asked you to logically address those facts. You (and Eric) have consistently failed to do so. The Pacific is not shrinking nearly enough to account for the observed and documented expansion in the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, and Antarctic expansion zones. There is no subduction zone to account for the expansion of the Antarctic plate.

Your own response provides the most devastating argument against your position. To say "Please don't waste my time with ... you have to read a billion books like I have..." means you are not interested enough to follow through.

No -- it means that in a discussion, elephant hurling is not useful. I am raising specific factual issues. You are avoiding addressing those specific issues, by telling me to go read more. Those of us capable of critical thinking recognize that sometime the community (and all their writings) can be wrong. That's why science comes down to process and facts. And that's why I have repeatedly raised facts that aren't addressed. The "scientific community" has been wrong many times before and will be many times again -- the way the process of science itself proceeds is through individuals examining the evidence through the laws of reason -- not groupthink.

It is sometimes fun and even useful to raise objections to fundamental paradigms of a science, but not when you are unfamiliar with the basic principles involved. And you are not familiar with those principles.

Those principles do not stand up to scrutiny. That is the point. If they did, I can only assume you would directly address the simple facts I am raising, and explain why they are either untrue or irrelevant.

Eric said...

Oh poor, deluded Ungtss, hiding behind your infantile understanding of both science and the philosophy of science. You know, ungtss, it seems you are interested in these two topics; maybe you should take the time to learn some things about them? It'd be fun for you, if you could lose the ego.

Of course science is a community, jackass. If humans do it, then it is a human endeavor; what separates science from other communities is that we all follow a methodological framework, AND WE PUBLISH AND COMPARE AND ARGUE about the data and interpretations. That's why there isn't a single paper that ever explains everything about a subject; rather, there is a BODY OF PEER REVIEWED WORK out there.

That's where your "thinking" fails you. You have a gnostic world view. You think in terms of revelation and absolutes, rather than in the more complex evolution of ideas and concepts. You fail to distinguish between interpretations and data, you fail to understand the importance of communicating ideas and engaging in debate, preferring willful ignorance to learning about the topic you are debating. Plate Tectonics is too complicated for you; ergo, it must be false. Sad really.

You've gone a long way to helping us all understand where the pseudo-intellectual is coming from. Either unwilling or unable to understand science, the pseudointelelctual prefers to conflate their shallow and flawed understanding of a subject with the failing of the discipline as a whole. You really think you understand plate tectonics enough to pick it apart? You really think that you, above the fifty years worth of people who have sweat and bleed and fought to understand the Earth, who have had to engage in constant debates over interpretations, who have had to struggle for funding and publications, you alone have the insight into the workings of not just a single body of theory and data, but ALSO into the WHOLE of the scientific community?

That's the key, ungtss. Your arrogance, coupled with your ignorance, provide you with an impervious defense against reason; you REFUSE to learn anything, so you can't be taught. It's the same, simple-minded, aggresively ignorant indignation against those who have taken the time to read and think and argue and learn.

Broaden your horizons, ungtss. In this thread alone we've cut your specious arguments to ribbons, though you can't seem to see it. Your ridiculous statements about publications, and about science in general, have shown you for what you are.

I've already given you a good place in the literature to start, and feel free to go over the Brian's blog and read his posts; they provide a good place to start learning. Knowledge is not something bestowed; it is earned. You will have to take time and put in considerable effort to understand these things, but everyone, even the angriest, bitterest, anti-intellectual can do it.

Don't misunderstand me; I don't want to "convert" you. Science isn't about conversions...it's about understanding. Learn some stuff, then come back. Until then, you are just going to keep going around and around in circles, and never grow as an individual.

ungtss said...

Of course science is a community, jackass. If humans do it, then it is a human endeavor; what separates science from other communities is that we all follow a methodological framework, AND WE PUBLISH AND COMPARE AND ARGUE about the data and interpretations. That's why there isn't a single paper that ever explains everything about a subject; rather, there is a BODY OF PEER REVIEWED WORK out there.

You're all screwed up again, genius. You're confusing "science" with "scientists." Scientists are people who have taken courses in scientific topics, who ostensibly have jobs in the sciences, and who write in those journals. They are a community, and we hope they do science.

Science, on the other hand, is a process. It's observation, experimentation, analysis, and theoretical explanation. It's an action, and ostensibly a body of observational and experimental knowledge drawn from the exercise of that process.

Here's the important part you need to get: A particular scientist or community of scientists may or may not perform science at any particular time. Just because a scientist thinks something doesn't make it science. Just because something is written in a journal doesn't make it science. Just because all the scientists agree on it doesn't make it science. The only thing that makes an idea scientific is if it is based on scientific principles, and discovered through the scientific method.

That's what you don't get, poor sap. You really think that you are "science." What patent arrogance. You may or may not do science. You sure haven't been doing any science with me. I keep bringing up evidence. You keep ignoring it. That's not scientific.

For the record, here it is again:

1) You still haven't explained how you think PT is consistent with the fact that the Pacific is not shrinking at an adequate pace to account for the observed expansion elsewhere.

2) You still haven't addressed the fact that the paper you linked explicitly stated in the first sentence that subduction was a hypothesis and based on circumstantial evidence, and you've been claiming something quite different.

3) You still haven't explained how you think PT is consistent with the fact that there are no global latitudinal subduction zones to compensation for the antarctic expansion zone.

4) You still haven't explained how PT is consistent with the fact that Australia is a perfect fit for the East Pacific Rise and South America.

All this, yet you're the one throwing bizarre accusations of gnosticism and preference for revelation my way.

Incidentally, I'm fundamentally materialistic in my ontology and Popperian in my epistemology, so I really have no idea where you got your stupid ideas about my POV. Of course, I recognize you're not one to let reality get in the way of your opinions, so don't let my true opinions trouble you.

Eric said...

You're good for a laugh ungtss, but why don't you broaden your schtick a little? You know, keep it interesting? It's getting a little boring.

Point one, your bullshit map isn't data; it is an interpretation. I (and others) have already asked you to examine testable hypotheses that falsify your map. Your inability to read through the comments isn't really anyones fault but your own, ungtss!

As for your nonsense about science, you are missing the point. Science doesn't exist in a vacuum...it exists because everyone follows a methodology for generating data and disseminating results via the literature. You can't write a paper, then you can't do science...simple as that. If you don't publish, there is no way for anyone to evaluate your methods or see how you reached the conclusions you did.

All the whining and complaining about how hard things are (like all the reading and math and thinking so much that science requires) is your own failings. We exclude no-one; you simply refuse to join the discussion in any meaningful way.

You're willfully ignoring everything that has been said to you. MJC Rocks gave some very clear answers, and showed admirable patience in pointing you in the right direction towards LEARNING some things. And yet you refuse to follow the breadcrumb trail laid out, AND still parrot the same bullshit, over and over and over again.

ungtss said...

Point one, your bullshit map isn't data; it is an interpretation. I (and others) have already asked you to examine testable hypotheses that falsify your map. Your inability to read through the comments isn't really anyones fault but your own, ungtss!


Please, help an ignorant old sop out. We believe the Americas, Europe, and Africa were once attached because of two facts:

1) They physically conform in shape.

2) An ocean ridge between the two conforms to their shape, and is producing new ocean crust.

Let's see if the same reasoning applies in the Pacific:

1) Do Australia, and South America physically conform in shape? Yes.

2) Is there an ocean ridge between the two that conforms to that shape, and is producing new crust? Yes.

Hmm. So the exact same facts are evidence for linkage in the Atlantic, but not in the Pacific. Interesting.

Where did you address this again?

You can't write a paper, then you can't do science...simple as that.

Silly elitist. You said science was a community, not a process. Now you're equating science with writing papers and peer review. Where was peer review for Newton, Copernicus, and Aristotle? Peer review is certainly quality control for science, but it is not a precondition for science. Any 8 year old with a chemistry set can do science in his living room. He just needs to experiment, observe, and theorize.

If you don't publish, there is no way for anyone to evaluate your methods or see how you reached the conclusions you did.

Yet it still may be science.

All the whining and complaining about how hard things are (like all the reading and math and thinking so much that science requires) is your own failings. We exclude no-one; you simply refuse to join the discussion in any meaningful way.

I'm here, raising factual issues in a meaningful way, and you're ignoring them. The paper you cited says that subduction is a hypothesis supported by circumstantial evidence. There are no subduction zones to account for the oceanic ridge around the Antarctic. There is no evidence that the Pacific is shrinking at a sufficient speed to account for observed ocean expansion. There is physical conformity between South America, the East Pacific Rise, and Australia. Facts unaddressed, still.

And yet you refuse to follow the breadcrumb trail laid out, AND still parrot the same bullshit, over and over and over again.

Maybe if you'd address the issues I'm raising, I could stop parroting the bullshit we could move forward.

Michel said...

Just intruding. I find this debate fascinating.
One question from an ignoramus:
I read on an IE site (which I lost) that if the continents fitted together according the Wegener theory, the globe would be lopsided and couldn't turn. I would like to have your views on this.

ungtss said...

Just intruding. I find this debate fascinating.
One question from an ignoramus:
I read on an IE site (which I lost) that if the continents fitted together according the Wegener theory, the globe would be lopsided and couldn't turn. I would like to have your views on this.


You'll have to specify which ignoramus you're referring to -- The one asking questions about PT in good faith in an effort to understand why PT is so self-evident, or the one refusing to answer them and choosing instead to cite articles that explicitly call subduction a hypothesis grounded on circumstantial evidence? Also, what does "IE" stand for? Also, why did this article say that a lopsided Earth would not rotate? Finally, does PT have any explanation for why Pangea formed in the first place, emerging from a global sea?

Eric said...

Really, ungtss...Michel wasn't calling anyone an ignoramus...it's almost like you have a complex or something...

Oh, and Pangea did not "emerge from a global sea", there were other super-continents in Earth's history that fragmented and were reassembled. See? This here? This here is why I wish you'de take some time to read up on geology. I promise you'll find it interesting!

MJC Rocks said...

Hello Michel. Your question has been mentioned in some of my classes. The presence of a supercontinent would not appreciably change the rotation of the earth because the continents, even though they stand higher relative to the ocean basins, they are also made of rock that is much less dense than ocean crust. As such, the distribution of weight over the center mass of the earth stays much the same. It is certainly possible that some small variation in the rate of rotation may have occurred.

ungtss said...

Really, ungtss...Michel wasn't calling anyone an ignoramus...it's almost like you have a complex or something...

My bad -- I misread the comment. Must have been thinking along those lines because of your endless string of insults. My apologies to Michel.

Oh, and Pangea did not "emerge from a global sea", there were other super-continents in Earth's history that fragmented and were reassembled. See? This here? This here is why I wish you'de take some time to read up on geology. I promise you'll find it interesting!

You really don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a fact, do you?

Eric said...

Given your lack of any experience or expertise in the Earth Sciences, I thought your "rose out of the sea" statement was one derived from ignorance of the geological literature, rather than a part of your rickety faith-based Expanding Earth framework.

I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding.

ungtss said...

rickety faith-based Expanding Earth framework.

What does EE have to do with faith?

And why won't you explain why you say subduction is fact and then cite papers calling it hypothesis?

BrianR said...

ungtss ... your model of how the Earth works should be able to account for observations and data ... you need not even mention subduction.

Modern/conventional plate tectonic theory spends no time debunking the expanding Earth hypothesis (maybe on blogs, but not in the literature) ... it doesn't need to. If your idea is strong, it shouldn't have to ever utter the word 'subduction'.

Now -- if that's the case, your model of the Earth should generally and consistently account for the wealth of data collected. And I'm talking rather simple objective data - for example, distribution and depth of earthquakes.

I have yet to see an explanation INTEGRATING MULTIPLE SOURCES OF DATA FROM MULTIPLE AUTHORS FROM AROUND THE GLOBE presented by any subduction denialist ... instead, most of the effort is spent trying to debunk subduction and otherwise obfuscate the whole issue. Hence the term 'denialist'.

Your hypothesis has been tested and evaluated ... it has been discarded by the scientific community. Clearly you think it is the better idea ... it's up to you to test it! There's FREE data available to the public to do science - check out Ocean Drilling Project data: http://www.iodp.org/ -- or, the USGS Nat'l Archive of Marine Seismic Surveys: http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/NAMSS/index.html

These are just two ... these are the data, measurements. Interpret them. If you don't want to for one reason or another, correspond with others in anti-subduction community who do. Do some science! Why is this process so difficult to communicate?

ungtss said...

ungtss ... your model of how the Earth works should be able to account for observations and data ... you need not even mention subduction.

I agree with one caveat. It's not "my" model. Other than that, though, I agree with you that any model should be able to account for observation and data. That's why I keep bringing up hard, verifiable facts about the physical evidence, and why I'm confused as to why it's being ignored rather than discussed.

Modern/conventional plate tectonic theory spends no time debunking the expanding Earth hypothesis (maybe on blogs, but not in the literature) ... it doesn't need to. If your idea is strong, it shouldn't have to ever utter the word 'subduction'.

The difficulties in subduction are exactly the reason EE becomes plausible. If new crust is appearing and old crust is not disappearing, then the most reasonable conclusion is that the Earth is increasing in surface area. It's simple geometry. 10 + 5 - 5 = 10, but if you take away the "-5" then you have 15.

Now -- if that's the case, your model of the Earth should generally and consistently account for the wealth of data collected. And I'm talking rather simple objective data - for example, distribution and depth of earthquakes.

I don't understand how any of the data discussed so far on this blog is inconsistent with EE. That's what I keep asking for. I have presented some data that I think is inconsistent with PT -- I have heard none that's inconsistent with EE. To me, that makes EE appear to be the superior theory.

I have yet to see an explanation INTEGRATING MULTIPLE SOURCES OF DATA FROM MULTIPLE AUTHORS FROM AROUND THE GLOBE presented by any subduction denialist ... instead, most of the effort is spent trying to debunk subduction and otherwise obfuscate the whole issue. Hence the term 'denialist'.

I'm not a subduction denialist. I have done some informal, personal research, and have found absolutely no direct evidence that it occurs. Science is not primarily about "integrating sources." It is about "evidence." Where is the direct evidence for subduction, or the explanation for the lack of evidence? If it is so well-evidenced, then why do some scientists (like the one cited by Eric) refer to it as a hypothesis? If it is indeed a hypothesis, then why are other hypotheses excluded as potentially legitimate?

Your hypothesis has been tested and evaluated ... it has been discarded by the scientific community.

I do not believe that science progresses by popular opinion among people in lab coats. I believe it progresses by experiment and evidence. A scientist with an opinion but no hard evidence is not acting in his capacity as scientist, and I do not feel obliged to unquestioningly accept his opinion.

Do some science! Why is this process so difficult to communicate?

This blog entry is not about doing science in the way you are describing -- it is about Eric taking potshots at a you-tube video, and my impression that his potshots against the video hold no merit. I'm simply interested in debating the topic he raised -- is EE a completely ridiculous, discredited, absurd point of view? Despite my endless "parroting of bullshit," I haven't gotten the smart guy to explain himself.

1) Why did he say that EE was both false and unfalsifiable?

2) How does he reconcile his statement that there was enormous evidence for subduction with the paper he cited that described it as a hypothesis supported by circumstantial evidence?

3) Why is a perfect fit between continents and an ocean ridge between them evidence that the Americas were once connected to Europe and Asia, but not evidence that Australia was once connected to South America?

4) Why do we believe subduction is taking place in the Pacific, when measurements in the Pacific do not show shrinking sufficient to account for the growth in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans?

5) Where is the subduction zone to account for the observed expansion around the Antarctic?

I'm not in a position to analyze gobs of data -- I have a fulltime job and a family. I'm in a position to discuss Eric's post, and that's what I came here to do. If EE is as desperately discredited as Eric claimed, surely there are answers available to the five questions above. Or are there not? And if not, then why did Eric claim the EE (and the video promoting it) were so ... how did he put it ... "wonky?"

MJC Rocks said...

Well, Ungtss, I simply don't know how to figure you out. Some people I know are curmudgeons and gadflys who like to poke at a theory or ideas to see how people will respond, kind of like kicking an anthill to see what will happen. I don't mean that in a bad way; science always will need such people. On the other hand, you hang onto the same questions, which have been responded to numerous times in this thread, and seem to be impervious to learning what geologists have been learning for the last half century. I don't get where you stand.

I was taught geology in the 1970's by some brilliant geologists who were actually some of the last of the old school to accept the concept of plate tectonics, so I was introduced to some of the last remaining objections to the theory (and I use the term theory in the scientific sense; an accepted model, not a proposal). We had class exercises that forced us to treat the expanding earth hypothesis as a serious proposal, because in the fifties and sixties, it was indeed considered as such. But there were far more problems with the EE model, and plate tectonics did a FAR BETTER job of explaining the origin of earthquakes, volcanoes, mineral deposits, mountain ranges, and many other phenomena.

Wikipedia is not necessarily the best source of info on things, but their post on expanding earth isn't too bad. Check it out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory. Maybe it will help you to understand the evidence concerning subduction zones, maybe not.

But you have a problem with the EE hypothesis. Why isn't the Pacific spreading center symmetrical? Where is the rest of the Gorda and Juan de Fuca plates? Are we to think that for the last 200 million years that only one side of the East Pacific rise has been producing new ocean crust? How can EE account for the compressional origin of mountains all over the world, including actively rising mountains like the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and ancient mtn ranges like the Appalachians, and the Urals (those mountains are 300 million years old or more)? How can EE account for even older compressional ranges found in the cratons of the continents? Where were the oceans when the earth was smaller? Terrestrial deposits are known from rocks billions of years old. Oceans have existed for billions of years, too. How can EE account for the pattern of earthquakes around subduction zones? Most of these quakes are compressional in nature. How can EE account for magmatic arcs and island arcs? EE cannot explain these things, but subduction does explain it.

By continuing to cling to "fit of the continents" doesn't work. I explained previously that North America, Australia and Antarctica WERE once connected: but not as the Pangea supercontinent, but the EARLIER supercontinent Rodinia. Did you even look up information on Rodinia?

You have provided an entertaining discussion that has even been enlightening in some ways. But the gaps in your knowledge base are showing, and thus I am frustrated at the continuation of a discussion that does not seem to move forward. Learn about subduction zones and the evidence for their existence before blindly accepting EE. Geologists gave it a chance fifty years ago, and had to discard it on the basis of the evidence.

BrianR said...

ungtss says: "I agree with one caveat. It's not "my" model."

Fine ... the model you subscribe to, or the model you advocate.

How does expanding Earth hypothesis account for the geographic distribution and depth of earthquakes?

See this map.

This is not controversial data. The models of plate interaction in conventional plate tectonic theory explain this at the full range of scales (from global down to moment tensors for individual faults/earthquakes).

The model of the Earth you advocate cannot explain this - at least I haven't seen it.

This is just one of many well-established and non-controversial datasets. The hypothesis you advocate does NOT adequately account for the integrated data and observations at what the geologic community has termed convergent margins.

Like I said, you can spend all your time attempting to tear down subduction for the rest of your life ... then what? That means the model you advocate is accepted by default?

What you (or someone who is active in this community) need to do is present your model that is consistent with these data.

MJC replied to your other questions I think as good as someone can. Honestly, they are rather cryptic ... like #5, what do you mean? You pose the question in such a way that if we don't give you a simple answer, then it means we fail (thus somehow rendering conventional plate tectonic theory invalid).

You'll have to be much more specific. And, I'm sorry, you'll have to get into the details, which involve technical issues ... if you don't want to, don't have time, I'm not sure what we can do for you.

ungtss said...

MJC:

Thank you!

Why isn't the Pacific spreading center symmetrical?

I don't understand why EE requires it to be. As I understand it, the idea is that the expansion zones are the "seams" at which growth takes place. Hence, growth would not be expected to be symmetrical -- it would occur at the seams, and in the direction of the seams. Why is that a problem?

Where is the rest of the Gorda and Juan de Fuca plates?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but my guess is you're asking why the plates are so small, if not because they are subducting?

If that's a correct interpretation of your question, then I don't understand why EE predicts that those plates be larger. I found this image ( http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/earth_news/images/2008/01/08/picture_4.png) which to me shows that spreading does not occur evenly, but in narrow strips (Sila FZ, Sedna FZ, etc). I envision that when growth is taking place it one of those strips but not the others, it exerts pressure on the continental plate, causing something like the wrinkle that appears in a tablecloth if you press it back -- pushing down some, pushing up some, resulting in the Cascade range -- but not necessariy subducting, and certainly not to the exclusion of a general expansion of the Earth. So I don't see why that is relevant as a challenge to EE.

Are we to think that for the last 200 million years that only one side of the East Pacific rise has been producing new ocean crust?

I don't see how EE necessitates such an interpretation of the evidence -- in fact, there is new crust on both sides of the East Pacific Rise. The idea of EE is that the East Pacific Rise has been expanding in both directions, and the Pacific has been expanding to account for that.

How can EE account for the compressional origin of mountains all over the world, including actively rising mountains like the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and ancient mtn ranges like the Appalachians, and the Urals (those mountains are 300 million years old or more)?

I don't see how EE is inconsistent with the compressional origin of mountains. Since expansion is uneven, there would certainly be pressure exerted on the continents. Just because the Earth is expanding does not mean that there is no compression of plates. It would mean that if the expansion was perfectly even, but not since the expansion takes place in fits and spurts in some strips.

How can EE account for even older compressional ranges found in the cratons of the continents?

In the same way as above -- as compression events not inconsistent with expansion.

Where were the oceans when the earth was smaller?

According to the EE model, there weren't any. The continents covered the entire surface. Oceans are an artifact of the expansion.

Terrestrial deposits are known from rocks billions of years old. Oceans have existed for billions of years, too.

How do you know oceans have existed for billions of years?

How can EE account for the pattern of earthquakes around subduction zones?

I assume you mean the fact that they get deeper as they get further from the fault. That's an interesting question, and I'm not smart enough on earthquakes to answer it adequately. But could you explain why you think such a finding is inconsistent with EE?

How can EE account for magmatic arcs and island arcs? EE cannot explain these things, but subduction does explain it.

I disagree with your reasoning. A solution is not superior because it can explain everything. It is superior if (and only if) it is more consistent with the evidence than its alternative. Why are magmatic arcs and island arcs inconsistent with EE?

By continuing to cling to "fit of the continents" doesn't work. I explained previously that North America, Australia and Antarctica WERE once connected: but not as the Pangea supercontinent, but the EARLIER supercontinent Rodinia. Did you even look up information on Rodinia?

I did, but that hypothesis (and it is only a hypothesis) is not consistent with the fact that the east pacific rise fits with both. If Australia and SA were linked in Rhodinia, then Australia basically "ping ponged" to the other side of the Earth and connected to the other end of the supercontinent, then why is the relatively young crust put out by the East Pacific Rise being put out by an ocean ridge that fits both as clearly as the Mid-Atlantic fits its continents?

You have provided an entertaining discussion that has even been enlightening in some ways. But the gaps in your knowledge base are showing, and thus I am frustrated at the continuation of a discussion that does not seem to move forward.

Thank you for moving the discussion forward by addressing facts. I'm also curious about your answers to my other questions (which you didn't address but about which I would greatly value your opinion).

ungtss said...

The model of the Earth you advocate cannot explain this - at least I haven't seen it.

You're asking the wrong question, conceptually. The question is not, "How does your model explain this?" The proper statement is, "This data is inconsistent with your model, and this is why." Why is that map inconsistent with EE? I have no idea. EE cannot explain a lot of things -- that doesn't mean that the existence of those things falsifies EE.

This is not a question of data. This is a question of philosophy. You are saying that a proposition is false because it cannot explain a set of facts. That is non-sequitur. A proposition may be shown to be false by evidence inconsistent with the proposition, but not by the inability of the proposition to explain a particular dataset.

like #5, what do you mean? You pose the question in such a way that if we don't give you a simple answer, then it means we fail (thus somehow rendering conventional plate tectonic theory invalid).

I mean that if the expansion zone around the Antarctic is creating new crust and the Earth is a static size, there must be a subduction zone to absorb the additional crust being created by that plate. Otherwise there is expansion without convergence, and a necessary increase in surface area. Where is the subduction zone to absorb the additional crust?

And, I'm sorry, you'll have to get into the details, which involve technical issues ... if you don't want to, don't have time, I'm not sure what we can do for you.

I would love to get into the details here. I am simply saying that I do not have the time or resources to get an advanced degree in geology before beginning to discuss this with you.

BrianR said...

ungtss says: "EE cannot explain a lot of things -- that doesn't mean that the existence of those things falsifies EE."

What does it mean then? If the hypothesis you advocate cannot explain/account for data and observations, then what good is it?

Or, put another way, how many unexplainable pieces of data would it take to falsify?

This is silly.

Bryan said...

First!!!

Oh... wait....

I have been wandering over here periodically for a while now, I didn't want to get directly involved with ungtss, mainly because, to paraphrase Mark Twain, I think it will be like mud-wrestling a pig (we'll both get dirty and the pig will enjoy it).

However, another quote seems to have become particularly apt, especially towards ungtss: "No matter how busy you may think you are, you must find time for reading, or surrender yourself to self-chosen ignorance. – Confucius"

Ungtss, you have stated yourself that "I am simply saying that I do not have the time or resources to get an advanced degree in geology before beginning to discuss this with you." My advice would be to LISTEN and LEARN from those individuals who DID take the time and put in the effort to pursue an advanced degree in geology. Sorry, this is the real world. We don't have to take a handicap on our knowledge and resources just because you "perceive" that you have one. Ungtss, scientists have answered your questions. Just because you don't like the answers is no reason to stubbornly refuse to admit you are wrong.

Eric phrased it correctly: "But the expanding earth crowd calls us out on our duplicity; they state that we KNOW the earth is expanding, and are nefariously trying to hide it from the public. Man, if this is true, why the hell did I spend all of December and January furiously writing grants? Shouldn’t I have just called up my local Illuminati and had then send over a couple of sacks of cash (all the while cackling madly, mind you)." If there was any way that EE held intellectual water, it would not only be revolutionary to Geology, but to Physics, Chemistry, and Astronomy. The fact that NOBODY, who actually spent the time to familiarize themselves with the literature, considers this a tenable hypothesis should speak volumes.

Brian has offered good advice as well. If you want to continue this argument, you will need to take the time (and put forth the effort) to test the hypothesis to which you subscribe. You must then publish your data, and let it be evaluated by the scientific community. I doubt this will ever happen, because even if you do take the time to collect the evidence, you will have realized EE is false.

As it is, I suggest you familiarize yourself with all the aspects of this argument (not just your supposed weakness of subduction). A cursory reading list has been peppered throughout this thread, I suggest starting there. If you have GENUINE questions (not weak attacks based on semantics) regarding what the paper is saying, I am certain someone here will help you. Complaining that you can't get access to these materials is a weak dodge in this day and age. I can pull papers off of the internet anywhere that I HAVE internet (I can also acquire a textbook from anywhere in the world via the internet as well). Saying I don't have time, is just a way of saying I choose willful ignorance.

ungtss said...

ungtss says: "EE cannot explain a lot of things -- that doesn't mean that the existence of those things falsifies EE."

What does it mean then? If the hypothesis you advocate cannot explain/account for data and observations, then what good is it?

Or, put another way, how many unexplainable pieces of data would it take to falsify?

This is silly.


The categories of observations with respect to a theory are not "explained" and "unexplained." The categories are "consistent, irrelevant, and inconsistent." In order to falsify a hypothesis, you must present facts that are inconsistent, and show why they are both relevant and inconsistent.

For example:

By the time of Copernicus, the ptolemaic system was extremely well developed, in that many ad hoc rules had been added to account for odd phenomena (like retrograde motion in the planets). It could "explain" everything. It was not falsified until inconsistent data became available -- for instance, telescopes which could see that the planets went through phases similar to those of the moon.

The Earth may be expanding, even though the EE hypothesis is not well enough developed in our minds to explain certain things. Same with PT. The way to test a hypothesis is not say, "how does your theory address THIS fact!?" That number depends less on the merit of the theory, and more on the number of scientists involved in testing it.

Science tests a theory by saying "This fact is not consistent with your theory -- therefore your theory must be false in at least some particulars."

It's a very important epistemological point -- one that unfortunately very few science students are taught. Theories are not tested by the number of facts they can explain -- the human mind is incredibly adept at developing false theories that explain everything. Theories are tested based on their consistencies with all of the available evidence.

PT, in my opinion, is not consistent with the facts I've listed a dozen times and which have not received an adequate response. I'm not going to list them again this time, because I'm becoming convinced that nobody here is willing and/or able to address them.

The facts regarding earthquake location, however, were presented without any explanation as to why they are inconsistent with EE. Maybe they are -- but I don't understand why. Why is the presence of earthquakes around major "seams" in the crust inconsistent with the fact that the Earth may be expanding? I don't think it is, and I'll explain why in a moment. But first, what facts about the trenches are inconsistent with PT?

They are often kilometers deep, and their slope is 5 degrees from vertical in most places. That is not consistent with what one would expect when two blocks of rock are pressed together. One would expect no gap, and a small rise on the Asian side that gradually goes down as the subducting slab drops. Quite the opposite is observed.

EE explains those trenches as the abyssal plain "tearing off" from the continental mass -- pulling away, and leaving a deep gash between the two. The tearing off action would result in many, many earthquakes as observed. It is also consistent with the profile of the trenches.

So EE is consistent with both the profile and the occurrence of earthquakes. PT is consistent with the occurence of earthquakes, but not with the profile. Therefore EE is the superior explanation.

That's how you theorize, man. Not with "how many observations can I pack into this theory" but "how many (if any) observations are inconsistent with the theory?" That's Popper.

ungtss said...

And as to Benioff zones, as yourself -- are the earthquakes in question tensional, or compressional?

The answer may surprise you.

MJC Rocks said...

Uh, sorry, no, geologists are not surprised. Subduction zone earthquakes display extension near the surface, because the descending plate is being bent downward, and therefore stretched across the surface. The compressional quakes occur deeper in the crust as the plate is pressed into the dense mantle.

ungtss said...

Uh, sorry, no, geologists are not surprised. Subduction zone earthquakes display extension near the surface, because the descending plate is being bent downward, and therefore stretched across the surface. The compressional quakes occur deeper in the crust as the plate is pressed into the dense mantle.

Why didn't you answer any of the other questions I asked you?

As to this one, can you point me in the direction of a source that states which types of quakes occur at which depths and which locations, to verify your statement?

MJC Rocks said...

I too have a full-time job and I don't really have time to do this. Unfortunately I teach, so I can't resist answering some of these.

Quick google gives this: http://books.google.com/books?id=Qz8dUc1TC4kC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=first+motion+benioff+zones&source=web&ots=dZBPDr8Qz_&sig=oDcWti1Rp_7boVwTLz0nQWUX1sc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA10,M1

Page 10 has a reference to the phenomena of extension in benioff zones.

There are all kinds of work on the focal plane solutions of subduction zones throughout the internet. These phenomena are well-understood by seismologists and geophysicists.

I have other pressing obligations. If I have time I will deal with some of your other questions.

BrianR said...

ungtss says: "Science tests a theory by saying "This fact is not consistent with your theory -- therefore your theory must be false in at least some particulars.""

Okay. Then EE is false in a vast number of particulars, which add up to major generalities and wholesale inconsistencies.

ungtss says: "EE explains those trenches as the abyssal plain "tearing off" from the continental mass -- pulling away, and leaving a deep gash between the two. The tearing off action would result in many, many earthquakes as observed. It is also consistent with the profile of the trenches."

This is key and requires clarification. Are you saying that trenches (e.g., Peru-Chile trench, Mariana trench, Aluetian trench, Sunda trench, etc.) are spreading centers? You say the abyssal plain is tearing off from the continent ... meaning that the oceanic crust is separating from the continent? That is, there is an overall extensional pattern, right?

ungtss said...

Quick google gives this: http://books.google.com/books?id=Qz8dUc1TC4kC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=first+motion+benioff+zones&source=web&ots=dZBPDr8Qz_&sig=oDcWti1Rp_7boVwTLz0nQWUX1sc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA10,M1

Fascinating -- thanks for linking that. The article indicates that the shift from tensional to compressional earthquakes occurs at 300km. That's 270 km into the mantle. Are you telling me that at that depth, the newly subducted crust is still solid? Wouldn't it have melted long before that depth, and be virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding mantle?

But more importantly, isn't it telling that for 300km down, all earthquakes at "subduction zones" are tensional? How in the world is that consistent with the idea that one giant piece of rock is being pushed under another giant piece of rock? Isn't it more reasonable to conclude that those earthquakes are tensional because the two giant pieces of rock are being pulled apart? And isn't that more consistent with the existence of a giant trench, 50km wide, geothermal vents at the bottom, and no disappearing crust?

ungtss said...

Okay. Then EE is false in a vast number of particulars, which add up to major generalities and wholesale inconsistencies.

Which particulars?

This is key and requires clarification. Are you saying that trenches (e.g., Peru-Chile trench, Mariana trench, Aluetian trench, Sunda trench, etc.) are spreading centers? You say the abyssal plain is tearing off from the continent ... meaning that the oceanic crust is separating from the continent? That is, there is an overall extensional pattern, right?

I'm saying that's the EE model -- I addressed some of the evidence for that hypothesis in the comment immediately above. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

ungtss said...

One more question.

Premises:

1) Earthquakes occur only in areas of rigid rock.

2) The Earth's mantle, by definition, is plastic rather than rigid.

3) The depth of the Earth's crust (and hence the depth at which the mantle begins) varies throughout the Earth.

4) According to image 2f-3 here (http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/2f.html), earthquakes at a depth of 300km occur in only three regions -- the Pacific trench regions, the Himalayas, and the Andes.

Isn't it reasonable to conclude from the above data that the greater depth of earthquakes in those regions indicates that the crust is thicker in this regions, because earthquakes do not take place in the plastic mantle?

Wouldn't EE predict that in areas of thin crust (such as the ridges), new crust would be created by lava flow, but in areas of thick crust (such as the trench regions) the crust would be pulled apart but the crust would be too thick to allow significant lava flow, resulting in simple tears, such as the deep trenches we observe?

Wouldn't PT predict that in those regions where one giant piece of crust is forced under another giant piece of crust, we would observe compressionary earthquakes at even shallow depths, due to the pressure of the two pieces of crust on each other? Isn't it true that the observed facts are contrary to this prediction?

MJC Rocks said...

"Where were the oceans when the earth was smaller?

According to the EE model, there weren't any. The continents covered the entire surface. Oceans are an artifact of the expansion.

Terrestrial deposits are known from rocks billions of years old. Oceans have existed for billions of years, too.

How do you know oceans have existed for billions of years?"

Well, Ungtss, you have reached the end of my time commitment to this thread and my patience. To say that the oceans and ocean crust are an artifact of expansion reveals ignorance of even the most basic geology. Pre-Mesozoic ocean crust is well-known and whole books have been written about it (one example after a 2-second google search gives http://books.google.com/books?id=keRaqxbQJ3AC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=proterozoic+ophiolite+sequence&source=web&ots=Ho1j5qJoKr&sig=Wkp9Qd7Y9EeVcmpOB_Vww_bFJN4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result). Proterozoic and Paleozoic marine sedimentary sequences are one of the most plentiful parts of the geologic record on all continents.

I can see you are a perfectly intelligent person in your favorite academic pursuits, judging from your blog. But you do not seem to have much of a grounding in the most basic principles of geology, and instead have decided that one offbeat hypothesis must be right, and fifty years of research by hundreds, if not thousands of people must be wrong. I don't want to sound impolite, but I tried to answer your questons, and your responses show an unwillingness to learn even basic geology. I don't have the time to continue with this. Best wishes in your research.

Eric, congratulations! I suspect this is the longest thread ever on the geoblogosphere.

ungtss said...

MJC: "Where were the oceans when the earth was smaller?

Ungtss: According to the EE model, there weren't any. The continents covered the entire surface. Oceans are an artifact of the expansion.

MJC: Terrestrial deposits are known from rocks billions of years old. Oceans have existed for billions of years, too.

Ungtss: How do you know oceans have existed for billions of years?"

MJC: Well, Ungtss, you have reached the end of my time commitment to this thread and my patience. To say that the oceans and ocean crust are an artifact of expansion reveals ignorance of even the most basic geology. Pre-Mesozoic ocean crust is well-known and whole books have been written about it (one example after a 2-second google search gives http://books.google.com/books?id=keRaqxbQJ3AC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=proterozoic+ophiolite+sequence&source=web&ots=Ho1j5qJoKr&sig=Wkp9Qd7Y9EeVcmpOB_Vww_bFJN4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result). Proterozoic and Paleozoic marine sedimentary sequences are one of the most plentiful parts of the geologic record on all continents.


Sorry to lose you. I wish you would have stuck around to explain how one can differentiate between ophiolites from oceans vs. ophiolites from the shallow seas known to have covered most of the continents.

In other words, I don't understand how marine sedimentary deposits are evidence that the oceans are ancient, unless it can be shown through the evidence that the ophiolites and marine sedimentary deposits in question originated in open ocean, rather than the shallow seas. I have yet to find any evidence to support that interpretation.

I can see you are a perfectly intelligent person in your favorite academic pursuits, judging from your blog. But you do not seem to have much of a grounding in the most basic principles of geology, and instead have decided that one offbeat hypothesis must be right, and fifty years of research by hundreds, if not thousands of people must be wrong. I don't want to sound impolite, but I tried to answer your questons, and your responses show an unwillingness to learn even basic geology. I don't have the time to continue with this. Best wishes in your research.

Thank you for your kind words. I would think that as a scientist, you would recognize that 100s and 1000s of people are often wrong on matters of science, and that the beauty of science is that it is not about mass opinion, but is instead about evidence that can be repeatedly demonstrated and explained, rather than depending on "expert opinion" which has been wrong so many times in the past.

Eric, congratulations! I suspect this is the longest thread ever on the geoblogosphere.

I only wish the thread were filled with more discussion of the facts, and less discussion of how little an admitted amateur knows about the topic, and then repeated refusal to substantiate that conclusion with expalantions of why he is wrong. But so it goes.

ungtss said...

Since it appears no one is interested in discussing the merits here any longer, I've taken the valuable information I've gleaned from this discussion, and consolidated it into an article on my blog. Anyone interested in discussing the issue (rather than irrelevant questions of whether I'm qualified to think independently about the issue) is welcome to come over -- ungtss.blogspot.com.

James said...

First off, Neal hardly does the expanding earth theory justice. He gets a lot of things wrong. For example, Australia was attached to South America. He puts it up by Canada.

This theory is not crackpot science. I am confident that some time from now, I don't know how long, this will be mainstream science.

The idea of an expanding earth may sound dumb but when some thought is put into it, so does the idea of drifting continents. If you don't believe the earth is expanding because of an initial impression you got when you first heard about it try to forget that initial impression. Actually look at the evidence.

Now take this situation.
A man comes up to you holding a sphere. There is mud caked in patches on this sphere. You find that the patches fit together on all sides. You also find that the spaces between the patches relatively young and the same age all around the sphere. The patches of mud are relatively old.

Now tell what makes the most sense on how this sphere came to this configuration.

A. The sphere was smaller and mud completely covered it. It expanded revealing younger sections between the mud.

B. The mud started on the sphere in patches. It traveled around the sphere crashing into other patches of mud. The spaces in between the mud is constantly recycling and it is merely coincidence that the spaces between the mud are the same age.

Situation B sounds pretty ridiculous and for some reason it is the accepted theory.

Debate the small details if you want. Most of them have fairly simple explanations, for example.

If the earth expanded where did the oceans come from? That is pretty simple to answer. Lava when it hardens releases a lot of water vapor. While the amount of water released may be small per year stretched over billions of years could easily fill our oceans. So there were oceans millions of years ago but there was less water on the earth.

Plus of somebody wants to argue the origin of oceans to try and disprove the expanding earth they should be able to explain where the water came from themselves in a way that conforms to the current tectonics theory.

ungtss said...

Thanks, James. That's fascinating that lava releases water vapor when it cools. I didn't know that. I also like your analogy.

Allen said...

ungtss, you did a great job dealing with Eric. I guess he doesn't realize that people can see through his elephant tossing, ad hominems, and evasions. Don't worry ungtss, objective observers, even if they don't agree with EE can see you are fighting the better fight.

Eric, dude you suck.

Allen said...

Regarding the oceans, it seems to me that water possibly covered most the earth when "shrunk down." Afterall, it is on land and the tops of mountains that sea animal fossils exist. I used to live in Montana, and at 4000 ft. above sea level, I would gather handfuls of little fossilized shells. These things were ubiquitous not merely in one or two sites.

I don't know personally, but I suspect that the climate was much different, perhaps more water was ice, or perhaps vapor.

Anonymous said...

ungtss, you did a great job dealing with Eric. I guess he doesn't realize that people can see through his elephant tossing, ad hominems, and evasions. Don't worry ungtss, objective observers, even if they don't agree with EE can see you are fighting the better fight.

Eric, dude you suck.


This from the individual whose blog raises all sorts of alarms on the schools computers for being an attack site. The hypocrisy is thick.

Allen said...

LOL yea I don't know what is going on with that. Google apparently picked up some glitch. I've worked on it and waiting for google to re-evalute it. Whatever it is it isn't my doing. I lack the computer to do anything malevolent with a website. Anyway, the "alarms" are one instance that google picked up. Needless to say I am a bit distraught at the situation and I guess I will have to just redo the thing if it remains.

But anyway, Anon, you are douchebag for attempting to characterize me for something that is not in my control, all for the apparent attempt to evade the issue. I'll pray for you.

Allen said...

This is the report I'm getting. It clearly states that my site is not hosting nor acting as an intermediary for malicious software. But then, you don't seem the sort to take evidence at face value.

http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=www.allenvaught.nethttp://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=www.allenvaught.net

Anonymous said...

I'll pray for you.

Save your breath Allen. I don't believe in your mythology.

Prayer

Anonymous said...

man you are fun! What myth do you think I have?

reposter said...

Read thru comments to "you set em up and i'll knock em down" and got to thinking way to unify both theries ... b/c that whole "the continents fit together with no ocean!!" thing is still eating at me. Ok so, expanding earth, the ocean floor is spreading from the expansion zones aka oceanic rifts, and this expanding seafloor is both pushing against contintents AND going under it!! There is some friction so while the seafloor slides under continents as it expands, it also pushing continents apart. I wonder if that works. Will play with google earth some more. bye

haka61 said...

Enoug: Be carefully it is a big brainwash!

The Earth Have Been Expanding (growing)!

If you not believe: make honesty investigation

REG

Eric said...

REG

Careful brainwashing for learn is not happen! To be much smart is to be much read! No embiggining earth!

Plate Tectonics For Great Victory!

What?

haka61 said...

One Paradox of Plate Tectonic



Yesterday I saw this doubiously article put me to think… Physically I am stopped to work, only one thing I can do: have to think and think and think… Like this have birth the next Idea the PT sustaining variation between continents are increasing and decreasing… and this is demonstrated by the real measurements…

Like this I have got the next question: How we can sustain that the PT is wrong if this process is mentioned and well explained?… PARADOX?…

Again an argument contra GE (GROWING EARTH)… If the Earth growing why the continent does not make similar grow? …

Hoppa…hmm!!!

That is why Neal and others do not like geologists, lyells darwins wegeners … The Objective Geology, GAIA is against to the GE and Prime Matter… The Veda from India says the “Prime Matter always existed and was inseparable from its feature (presence), quantity and energy”… Neal Adams’ prime matter only a matter created by himself…

I asked Gaia… She responded: “I never heart about it before Big Bung it is analog with Neal’s Adams’ prime matter “ “It seems the GE is a shadow (blind) which is bending EE…”

Thanks you, Gaia!

Conclusion: Only who won't observe are saying the Earth dos not Expanding… Lot of simple persons know: how? (like tree, like Onion) Ask them!

The Best regards,

Anonymous said...

I first heard of the expanding earth theory earlier today(by watching everybody's favorite videos) and have just spent the last 7 hours or so reading up on it, pangea theory, and geology in general. (including most of the epic Eric v Ungtiss debate on this site). In my 7 hour career as amateur geologist, i have been unable to travel the world taking core samples, examining dinosaur bones / protazoa fossils, measuring distances, none of that. so dont freak out on me for my opinions,..they are mostly based on my very limited experience. that being said, I believe I understand the major points of both theories, and would like to share my thoughts. so here goes.

The continents as we know them are ancient, lightweight granite islands,..floating around in a turbulent sea of freshly made, dense, basalt, oceanic crust.
At some point in time, the landmasses were joined into one. then they split apart into the positions they are today,..and continue to move.

All of the above is common ground accepted by the flat earth society and the pseeudoscience nutjobs alike.

the question is, when these landmasses were joined as one,..did they form a supercontinent on one side of the world,..or did they completely encapsulate a much smaller world.

heres where i have to make a decision.

Does subduction happen, and if so, is it fast enough to counteract the constant creation of new oceanic crust, allowing the continents to drift and reform drastically over billions of years with no expansion?

or has the earths core heated up and expanded past the breaking point of a once solid granite exterior,..more than doubling in surface area in the span of 200 million years.

If i had to place my bet today, id have to go with my gut. and i would say that it is easier for me to envision an expanding world, than the crazy, convoluted pathing the continents would have had to take in order to go from what pangea supposedly looked like to what we see today. stars grow all the time. why cant planets? no nuclear fusion?
i dunno. i just never did buy into pangea, even when it was the only theory i knew. Im not saying subduction doesnt happen. im sure it does to some extent. but does it happen fast enough to stop the growth? and has it always?

James said...

I can't believe you said you had no idea who Dr. James Maxlow is... I also can't believe you use Neal Adams as your main argument against the theory... hes not even a scientist.

Try this site...

http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/

I would love to hear your opinion of that world famous geologists thesis on the Expanding Earth Hypothesis.It is very detailed and contains years of hard work. No he does not talk about a mechanism because it is speculative at best. but that's the whole problem with the growing earth theory. If you don't have an answer to a perfectly valid observation, you dismiss it as psdeo science?

"At a conference on the expanding Earth in Sydney in 1981 Peter Smith did a test survey of people attending: sixty people interviewed expressed disbelief in the hypothesis, but none of them had read Carey's book on the topic." -- Cliff Ollier, geologist, 2005

Don't feel to bad, there where lots of people just like you who may have thought the planet was flat, or that it was the center of the universe. I can imagine there where many people like yourself who thought of the idea of getting into a vehicle and flying around in the sky like birds is a completely ridicules and should just be dismissed without really giving it a fair chance.

So while you might want to chalk up Growing earth theories along those about UFO's and BigFoot... some of us take it a little more seriously and find your ignorant comparison to Pseudo science.

"The idea of an earth which is constant and unchanging has been restated so often throughout history that it has now become established as a firm fact. It needs no proof -- which is lucky since there is none." -- Stephen Hurrell, engineer, April 2006

"To date however, there is no direct unambiguous evidence that mantle convection and/or mantle circulation actually takes place; in fact, there is some evidence to the contrary. Moreover, there is no evidence that oceanic basalt can be repeatedly recycled through the mantle without being substantially and irreversibly changed. Yet, mantle convection/circulation and basalt recycling are fundamental necessities for the validity of plate tectonics. Furthermore, plate tectonics theory does not provide an energy source for geodynamic activity." -- J. Marvin Herndon, geophysicist, 2005

"Biogeographic arguments for a closed Pacific (just like biogeographic arguments for a closed Atlantic and closed Indian) are based on evolutionary theory. Specifically, according to the theory of evolution, you can't have a host of closely-related, poor dispersing taxa suddenly appearing on opposite sides of an ocean -- when it is highly improbable for any of the ancestral taxa to cross oceans. So according to the referenced paper above, unless plate tectonic theorists want to rely on divine intervention, a slew of creation stories or a myriad of impossible trans-oceanic crossings of terrestrial taxa, their paleomaps are wrong. Panthalassa could not have existed between all of the hundred plus referenced taxa, which is to say, it didn't exist." -- Dennis D. McCarthy, geoscientist, October 2003

"The implications of employing the present rate of tidal energy dissipation on a geological timescale are catastrophic. Around 1500 Ma the Moon would have been close to the Earth, with the consequence that the much larger tidal forces would have disrupted the Moon or caused the total melting of Earth's mantle and of the moon." George E. Williams, geologist/geophysicist, 2000

"The nebular hypothesis is completely false and one day will be recognized as one of the greatest errors in the history of science, possibly surpassing the centuries-old dogma of geocentrism overturned in the 16th and 17th centuries by Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. However, the prevailing dominance of religion in that era makes that error less egregious than the adoption of subduction in the 20th Century." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 1999

Anonymous said...

What was to be a discussion about how to deal with the latest anti-science, anti-education, believer/non-believer types, all of whom assume that the expanding earth concept is new,... turned into a 'debate' against them. They are like gnats. Hard to resist though. From what I've seen, the very first 'observation' by the expansionists fails.

THE CONTINENTS DO NOT FIT TOGETHER IN A SPHERE!

Also, the amount of expansion volume is MINIMIZED by them. According to some simple math, the expanded earth grew to over FIVE TIMES IT'S SIZE. The expansionists have not even firgued out this magnitude, and offer nothing to explain it.

See this ... http://expandingearthhypothesis.blogspot.com/

ungtss said...

Cute, anon, but unfortnately totally wrong.

You are comparing the visible portions of the continents, not the actual continental crust, much of which is underwater.

For instance, the contour of the match between Australia and South america is not confined to the visble portion of the continent. New Guinea fits against South America and central America, and extends south well beyond Tasmania.

The trench system extending north matches the coast of North America. Fascinatingly, the trench system further out in the Pacific traces the EAST coast of South America.

Similarly, don't compare the visible portions of the continents in Northern Europe and the Arctic. That's ignorant. Compare the crust itself. In this image:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Earth_seafloor_crust_age_1996.gif

The match is clear. Greenland fits perfectly between Europe and North America, assuming a reduction in Earth size.

I've asked at least dozens of people -- ordinary people that haven't been indoctrinated into the sort of arrogance and elitism that would lead someone to refer to their opponents as "gnats," and without fail, they say "oh yeah! That does fit, doesn't it?"

Anonymous said...

So you say, ungtss, "You are comparing the visible portions of the continents, not the actual continental crust, much of which is underwater."

Don't tell me; tell your fellow expanding earth people. Those are their pictures at http://expandingearthhypothesis.blogspot.com. What's next? The expanding earth movement has been infiltrated by moles putting up bad pictures to break up this important anti-science movement? LOL

That picture you posted isn't even a sphere picture. Don't you have one of those? Some of your 'peers' had a few.

Nice videos too. The earth spinning as they forge the continents apart or together like a slight of hand. Give me still pictures.

How about those calculations showing the earth grew to five times its size? So, add in some unseen continental shelves and what is it now? 4.8 times? LOL How much would you say?

Earlier, you said, "The map on the link I gave you, showing how the continents would fit together on an Earth 1/2 its current radius." Do you realize that this would require even MORE than a five-fold increase in volume? Do you understand why it would? Because 1/2 is less than 57%. Go review those calculations again. If I were you, I might consider going with the 5 times! It's not like you would try to explain the mechanism anyway, as was amply demonstarted earlier in these comments.

From your blog, "But as is usually the case when dealing with academics, I learn the most valuable information in spite of rather than because of its source." Those evil educated people, they do nothing but confuse you! LOL

By the fourth time you didn't get the false versus unfalsifiable concept, I determined that you are a gnat, yes. That one was really easy to understand. No science background required.

Oh noooooo, the gnat's watching the page to make sure the original discussion purpose doesn't resume. LOL

ungtss said...

So you say, ungtss, "You are comparing the visible portions of the continents, not the actual continental crust, much of which is underwater."

Don't tell me; tell your fellow expanding earth people. Those are their pictures at http://expandingearthhypothesis.blogspot.com. What's next? The expanding earth movement has been infiltrated by moles putting up bad pictures to break up this important anti-science movement? LOL


You're engaging in the genetic logical fallacy. Just because some people make erroneous claims about a hypothesis doesn't mean the hypothesis itself is invalid -- the hypothesis must be judged on its own merit. Just because somebody's blog says one thing about a hypothesis doesn't mean that's the only thing that could be said about it.

Nice videos too. The earth spinning as they forge the continents apart or together like a slight of hand. Give me still pictures.

Um, I did.

Do you realize that this would require even MORE than a five-fold increase in volume?

That sounds about right, if I remember my 8th grade geometry. I don't see how that falsifies a hypothesis -- only how it provides additional questions for evaluation. If such an increase in volume occurred, how did it? You seem to have adopted the highly unscientific, superstitious mode of thought -- "I can't explain it, so it didn't happen." Where would that leave research into gravity, I wonder.

From your blog, "But as is usually the case when dealing with academics, I learn the most valuable information in spite of rather than because of its source." Those evil educated people, they do nothing but confuse you! LOL

Don't confuse "academic" with "educated people." Truly educated people are those who have attended school and then applied their knowledge in the real world, gaining a practical education. Academics are those who simply spent extra time in the classroom and lab, learning to imbibe and spit back whatever dogmas their professors learned to imbibe and spit back a decade ago, but fancy themselves much better than the rest of mankind because they are able to successfully imbibe and spit back.

By the fourth time you didn't get the false versus unfalsifiable concept, I determined that you are a gnat, yes.

Well I'm glad you were able to make that determination. Perhaps you'd be willing to explain how it is possible for an idea to be both demonstrably false and impossible to demonstrate as false.

Oh noooooo, the gnat's watching the page to make sure the original discussion purpose doesn't resume. LOL

The gnat has been subscribed to the page since the original discussion, and gets emails when new comments are posted. And I'm sure your speculations about my motives are about as valid as your views on geology, since you've provided about the same amount of evidence to support either of them.

Anonymous said...

Time for more of the EXPANDING ARGUMENT about the expanding earth hypothesis.

My claim is simply this: there is no good evidence to support the EE hypothesis.

From http://expandingearthhypothesis.blogspot.com:
"A few websites and videos claim to show a spherical Earth with the oceans removed and the continents fitting together. Note that the drawings show the continents, without regard to the continental shelves. It is difficult to find still pictures of these diagrams on the internet, but some have been found."

In other words, Those SPHERICAL pictures are the BEST ONES on the web trying to show that the continents fit together. They are by leading scientists who considered the EE hypothesis, and from EE proponent sites, not merely "some people mak[ing] erroneous claims." Disagree? Find better.

The link provided in response to my earlier comment asking for a picture was this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Earth_seafloor_crust_age_1996.gif. Look at the picture! It is NOT A SPHERE. It does not show all the continents either. The EE proponent still has not provided a spherical picture. "Um, I did [provide one]" doesn't make that picture spherical or complete.

I chuckled at the non-academic and uneducated attempt to distinguish 'academics' from 'truly educated people.' Who determines this? What skills are needed? What tests are used? Who teaches the 'academics' and 'truly educated people'? Is 'real world' a term of art? Where is this 'real world'? What constitutes 'more time in the lab'? Does this lab time test apply to all 'academics' or a subset of the group? What about the others? Is 'spit back' a technical term? How do you test for 'dogma'? How do you test for 'spitting back'? What is the relationship between 'a decade ago' and dogma? How would times of one year ago or two decades ago change the test? If something is not dogma, what is it? Do academics "fancy themselves much better than the rest of mankind," or do particular geologists on this page happen to know more about geology than the EE proponent here? These are a few questions that arise from the many bald assertions in a single paragraph by the EE proponent. Thus, the EXPANDING ARGUMENT. This one will grow way past five times its original size.

ungtss said...

Here's your 3D image:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Earth_seafloor_crust_age_poster.gif

As a courtesy to the host, I addressed your expanding argument on my blog, and would welcome continuing dialogue on the topic:

http://ungtss.blogspot.com/2010/01/academic-questions.html

ungtss said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ungtss said...

For some reason it keeps chopping the end of the link. One more try.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/
Earth_seafloor_crust_age_poster.gif

Anonymous said...

That picture is a standard globe, with ocean floor mapping, not the continents fitting together on a sphere. Anyone can see that.

No thank you for taking this to your blog. But I did look at the line-by-line attempted answer/deconstruction of my list of questions. The point of my questions was to illustrate that your line-by-line system would keeping adding to disagreement, providing ever expanding 'information' about whatever subjects you care to inject, or whatever ideological views you present as premises without support. It would not illuminate the subject.

But I do agree with this comment: "It's a statement of opinion. I determine it." And that explains everything.

I also agree with this: "The longer a person holds on to stupid ideas, the more dogmatic they are." Expanding earth was discredited decades ago when its proponents.........couldn't fit the continents together in a sphere.

It's nice to try to find some agreement.

ungtss said...

Anon:

Look at the frickin' map, dude. (if you need definitions of those words, just let me know).

Just follow the age contours and the mid-ocean ridges. They trace the continents in every case. The Atlantic match is well-known, and obvious. But look at the East Pacific Ridge. It traces both South America and Australia. And look at the age contours. They trace both from both sides. Now look at the coasts of the continents. They trace too.

Now look at the ridges around Antarctica. Note no subduction zone, only ridges. Note that the ridges trace the age contours, same as the Atlantic and the pacific.

It happens all over the globe, dude. Open your eyes. My little sister can see it.

Anonymous said...

If the EE model is wrong then why are the all the oldest fish fossils older then the ocean floor, and all found inland??? Open your eyes and accept the fact that earth is expanding. If you go on google earth you can see the mid atlantic ridge join right up in the pacific. Get your facts right and stop being a bigot. People like you are just slowing down the progress of the Human race.

Anonymous said...

In trying to understand why the same side of the moon always faces Earth, the answer appears to be 'tidal locking' or 'tidal friction'.

My concern is this - with a lop-sided Pangea Earth, why didn't we tidal lock with the sun or the moon? Seems the Earth had an awful lot of mass sticking out of one side. This does relate to EE - it makes Pangea harder to swallow.

Anonymous said...

Sad to see that sincere questions get dismissed with ad hominen fallacies and mindless repetition of facts.

phaidouk said...

Phaidouk said this:
If you've got a 'truth', see a dentist.

phaidouk said...



Om second thoughts, read my book: 'Of Gods and Planets'. It's 'core' is the expanding Earth as found in an ancient text.

C_Oliver said...

Did the crazies finally go away?

I wish you people could do something useful, like rejecting the pathogenic theory of disease (which at least might cull your numbers over time).

ungtss said...

homicidal, psychopathic humor. Always a good indicator that a person has no clue what they're talking about but want to feel smart without deserving to.

nathan dover said...

So, Maybe I'm a bit simple (very likely, but looking at this in a simple way, how would the earth not be expanding? everyone agrees that some portion of the core (inner, outer, whatever) is liquid. If that liquid were to cool a bit due to age or some outside force, it has to expand right? If I put water inside a concrete ball, then freeze it, what happens? Expansion right? So, why would the earth be different and why is this so farfetched?
Oh, and isn't it also known that the earth previously rotated faster? Wouldn’t an expansion also explain the decrease in rotation speed?

Paradigme said...

Just for your prolonged amusement, I have found this article:
http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajmp.20140303.11.pdf

It´s about the permanent energy circulation of the Universe. And guess what? It predicts absorption of energy from space, producing matter inside planets and stars!

From the Abstract: "The physical understanding of the real mechanism of gravity is one of the most important questions in Physics.
As we have already shown in a previous paper, the rest and relativistic mass of an elementary particle or body can be
considered as having their origin in the diminished energy density of a Quantum Vacuum, characterized by a granular
structure quantized through a Planck metric. The presence of massive bodies, from the scale of elementary particles to that
of stellar objects and black holes, then determines Quantum Vacuum energy density gradients. In this paper we have
proposed a novel physical model in which gravity is generated by the pressure of Quantum Vacuum in the direction of its
own higher to lower density due to the presence of material objects or particles. In this picture gravity is an immediate and
not – propagating action – at – a – distance interaction, resulting from the Quantum Vacuum dynamics, in turn related to
fundamental properties of space itself only, not requiring the existence of the hypothetical graviton. Furthermore, the
possibility to consider this Quantum Vacuum as a Bose – Einstein like condensate allows us to recover the large – scale
description of the Universe consistent with General Relativity, viewed as the long – wavelength geometro – hydrodynamic
limit of the Quantum Vacuum dynamics. The proposed model is also able to give a very simple explanation of: the
equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass, the origin and dynamical behavior of dark matter and dark energy, the
physical meaning of singularity in black hole, as well as to overcome some of the main difficulties of the Higgs model.
Finally this model of gravity can be used as a starting point for a novel interpretation of the recently published data of
BICEP2 radio telescope about the presumed indirect observation of gravitational waves."

In other words: Maybe the idea of earth growth isn´t all that silly after all!