| Author |
Topic:
The expanding earth theory - prove it wrong
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
1/2 4:32am
Subject:
The expanding earth theory - prove it wrong
|
From the wiki page:
The Expanding earth theory is an attempt to explain the position and movement of continents on the surface of the Earth. It has a relatively small following today, compared with the almost universally accepted theory of plate tectonics, and is considered to be discredited by mainstream geologists.
Very few geologists or geophysicists today support the expanded Earth. Many of those that remain are proponents of the ideas of the late Australian geologist S. Warren Carey. While Carey's ideas were popular for a time in the 1950s and 1960s, most workers in earth science believe that evidence collected over the last several decades supports a fixed size Earth, due to subduction, over the expanded Earth.
The main difference between the expanding Earth model and a model in which the volume of the Earth remains fixed by plate tectonics is the existence of subduction in the latter. Both models assume new crust is created by oceanic spreading at mid oceanic ridges. Subduction is the process by which (in plate tectonic theory) crustal material disappears into the mantle, thus keeping the size of the planet the same. Most proponents of expanding earth like Carey are denying the existence of subduction, so seafloor spreading is uncompensated which leads to earth expansion.
Shape of the continents: A Supercontinent is supposed to have existed that covered the surface of the earth practically completely. Proponents see the main argument for this model in the assumption, that if the oceans were removed and earth's radius is decreased, the continents allegedly are fitting better together than it is the case in the reconstructions of Pangaea at a constant radius. Most proponents argued that in the mesozoic 250 million years ago the earth radius was only 50-60% of the current radius. Therefore in many of these model a continental matching of the pacific facing sides is assumed.
Arguments against subduction
1. Expanding Earth Theory challenges the existence, or at least the extent, of subduction in global tectonic theory. Exponents contend that in order for subduction to cause the Earth's size to remain fixed, the exact same amount of crustal material appearing at the mid-ocean ridges must be subducted. There is no agreed mechanism for such a correlation between the two processes.
2. The mid-ocean ridges are greater in length and area than the known subduction zones and circle the entire globe in several configurations. Proponents of an expanding Earth argue that in order for the crustal material appearing there to subduct equally into the known zones, some evidence of a bottle-neck pile-up of oceanic crust should be visible nearing these subduction zones. Yet the entire ocean floor is smoothly surfaced, free of oceanic slab irregularities, indicating harmonious spreading unencumbered by such a process.
Subduction only occurs on one side of subduction zones, so the "other side" should show evidence of being much older. In some cases (where two oceanic plates come together) no such evidence is visible. However, this is explained in plate tectonics by the assumption that in some cases, the direction of subduction changes.
Arguments for subduction
1. Since the 1970s, a vast amount of evidence was found in structural geology, seismology, petrology and isotope geochemistry that subduction is at least to some extent taking place. It is still very hard to calculate the global rate with which material subducts. Proponents of the expanding Earth theory claim the existence of subduction does not necessarily rule out expansion of the planet, but the existence of a mechanism by which the Earth can keep its crust size constant is a significant problem for the expanding earth theory and is one of the major reasons why it was abandoned. Observations seen as evidence for subduction include:
2. The existence of Wadati-Benioff zones, elongated regions of high seismic activity within the crust and mantle that are explained as huge shear zones. These zones are located beneath oceanic trenches and seem to indicate a slice of crustal material is moving downward through the mantle. They form one of the best arguments for subduction.
3D models of the mantle made with seismic tomography show cold zones of sinking material exactly in the regions where plate tectonics predicts slabs of crust are subducting into the mantle.
3. Petrologic research of rocks from mountain belts has yielded countless pressure-temperature-time paths. Paths for the axial zones of mountain belts (the metamorphic core) show many mountain chains went through a period of "deep burial". This is explained by plate tectonics (subduction followed by obduction). The existence of eclogite in many mountainbelts indicates material was "pushed" to depths far into the mantle (depths up to over 200 km are found). In plate tectonics this is explained by the slab pull force which occurs at mid-ocean ridges.
4. The existence of major geologic shearzones (sutures) in most mountain belts. Paleomagnetic and mineralogic studies show the rocks that are now lying next to each other were originally thousands of kilometers apart. In other words: a piece of the crust is missing. Structural geology has shown these missing pieces of crust are not located directly underneath the shearzones or laterally. Instead, they seem to have moved along the sutures into the mantle (this is supported by shear indicators in the shear zones). This is again strong evidence that subduction took place and mountains form by the "continental collision" of tectonic plates.
5. Rare earth isotope compositions of volcanic rocks that formed above subduction zones are similar to those of sediments on top of the subducting plate. If there are lateral differences in the isotope composition of sediments on subducting plates, these lateral differences are also found back in the composition of the magma that rose from the deeper part of the subduction zone.
I find the latter arguments lacking. The fact that some subduction takes place doesn't at all mean that everything is the result of it. There is no reason to assume that ther exact same amount of crust is produced as is destroyed. Also, these here animations suggest that the process of growing also takes place on other planets. But it could be a clever hoax... I'm not a geologist. I'm applying my old razor and I wonder why this theory was ever forsaken. In my opinion, the Earth is alive and everything that's alive, grows.
So... Any takers?
-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com frustrating you with sound
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
1/2 9:01am
Subject:
RE: The expanding earth theory - prove it wrong
|
If the earth is inflating, this could be very bad. The earth's crust is not a latex-like polymer, so it's definitely not going to be as stretchy as your typical party balloon. When it pops, well, I think we all know what a calamity that will be for life as we know it.
And if the earth really is inflating, the bigger metaphysical question would be who's blowing it up, and why.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
1/2 9:30am
Subject:
RE: The expanding earth theory - prove it wrong
|
|
That's one of the things: if this theory can't be completely debunked, why is there no concern for the possible causes and effects?
-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com frustrating you with sound
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
1/2 10:20am
Subject:
RE: The expanding earth theory - prove it wrong
- Date Edited:
1/2 10:23am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jediflyer
|
We have all sorts of geological and precise measurement satellites. If the earth was really expanding, it should be easy to prove using their data.
*Edit*
And subduction does not have to match crustal production for the earth to expand. It could simply get more wrinkles.
-----signature-----
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
1/2 11:17am
Subject:
RE: The expanding earth theory - prove it wrong
|
This is a process that's supposed to have taken at least 250 million years... And how long do we have those instruments? Also, if there was any such data, it could also be used to debunk this theory forever.
I agree with your subduction statement.
-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com frustrating you with sound
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
1/2 11:47am
Subject:
RE: The expanding earth theory - prove it wrong
|
SuperWatto posted:
This is a process that's supposed to have taken at least 250 million years... And how long do we have those instruments? Also, if there was any such data, it could also be used to debunk this theory forever.
We can measure the changes in the surface of the earth down to centimeters. It shouldn't take all that long to notice the earth expanding with that kind of accuracy.
-----signature-----
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
1/2 11:59am
Subject:
RE: The expanding earth theory - prove it wrong
|
Fascinating...
Seen the link in that article to this one?
But I see examples of the technique on a local level, and this would require measuring the entire earth. Is that possible?
Also... If it's possible, then - like you say, they should be able to - why haven't they measured it, and how do I get them to do it?
-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com frustrating you with sound
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
1/2 1:10pm
Subject:
RE: The expanding earth theory - prove it wrong
|
Alright, from the site linked to in the first post (the site about the animations) is the following statement.
nealadams.com posted:
An aside….you may fairly ask how this matter can be created. It’s created at the plasma core of all planets, moons, and suns by a process that is so common that science has a name for it, “pair production!” It’s how all matter is made from energy.
Few problems in this statement.
1. The cores of planets are not plasma. The Sun is plasma, but thats about it. Though I don't know where plasma matters for this.
2. Pair production in a dense environment would lead to the annihilation of the particles quickly. Creating an antiparticle and particle in the center of the earth will lead, very quickly, to that antiparticle hitting its counterpart and so there is no mass increase.
3. Assuming that we ignore the issue above, we would then have a net decrease in energy, however there is no explanation as to where that energy is coming from.
4. This would also fail to address adequately, I would think, that several planets are currently shrinking. Jupiter for example.
If the Neal Adams site is an indication, they're having a go at the entire cosmological view of the universe, however its very poorly done in that they create a number of strawmen theories along the way as to what science says is happening.
To give another example, and I'll try to go through this bit by bit.
NealAdams.com posted:
The Pangea theory says the Earth was assembled 4.5 billion years ago in a “universal instant” from debris … that was collected in our galaxy, to this size, (by a method that is never … I repeat never explained, why this assembly of material mysteriously ended at exactly this time, and didn’t continue to provide more material is a brutally illogical contradiction.
First, this isn't the Pangea theory, and tectonics is a seperate catagory to cosmology.
Second, we can give a fairly good idea as to EXACTLY how the formation happened. Going back 5 billion years, the place that would come to have our solar system form would have been a dust cloud mostly hydrogen and helium, however with some remnants of planetary nebula/supernovae. That would have been all elements above Hydrogen. This cloud would not have been uniform, however, and so areas of slightly higher density would have had slightly stronger gravitational forces, and so these areas would increase in density as the cloud would become clumps of material. As they'd collapse in size from light years across to significantly smaller, any angular rotation would have become magnified, leading to a motion that would have formed a disc of material. We've seen these discs, as we would expect, in many areas where there is active star formation.
When the center material reached a high enough pressure, nuclear fusion would begin to occur, effectively the star turning on. Elsewhere in the disc, areas of higher density would clump, and again you would see areas growing in size in a sort of snowball effect. As these objects became bigger, the number of objects would decrease both from mass being absorbed and from objects being ejected from the solar system.
NealAdams.com posted:
Sometime in the previous 9 billion years, this stuff collected. Yet, for the last 4.5 billion years no new stuff collected, according to our 150 year old theory. How can that be?
Simple answer is that the stuff didn't take 9 billion years to collect. The material probably was part of two generations of stars before forming are own, and so condensed over a much shorter period than 9 billion years.
In the last 4.5 billion years, the planets have increased in size slightly due to picking up more material left, but the amount of material loose in the solar system now has decreased simply becuase its getting absorbed by planets.
NealAdams.com posted:
There is no possible explanation for this contradiction. It’s almost silly. It’s certainly naïve, but still it is one hundred and fifty years old.
So there is an explanation, simple in that there was only limited material initially, and so the spare stuff still floating around decreases over time.
NealAdams.com posted:
We are told this material is ‘star stuff’, from novas or super novas. If this wasn’t presented seriously, it would be funny. Why?
I'm not even sure on what grounds this statement is made. We know how nuclear fusion works and can observe it, and replicate it. We know it creates energy while forming higher elements when dealing with elements below Iron. That is all fairly testable. In fact, it even relies on the same E=mC^2 stuff that the same source used to be able to claim that pair production was a force at work.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
1/2 2:01pm
Subject:
RE: The expanding earth theory - prove it wrong
|
Okay, so now it's time for Neal Adams to bust his butt over here.
I would certainly like to distance myself from his writings - he is in search of an All Theory and I just wanted to focus on this.
As far as I can tell, you have indeed satisfyingly debunked these quotes - thereby certainly casting doubt over one of the most visual proponents of the theory - but you don't deny that the actual theory that I'm suggesting is possible. Am I correct?
-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com frustrating you with sound
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
1/2 2:16pm
Subject:
RE: The expanding earth theory - prove it wrong
|
The theory of the earth expanding has numerous things that it simply doesn't explain, far more than the current theory.
The largest being where this material is coming from. And that is a very big issue.
As a whole, from a science perspective, there's never an 'impossible'. Its all levels of probability. The expanding earth theory I would put in the far below 1% catagory. It seems to lack any predictions in its favour and just generally doesn't have much reason as to why it should be supported.
So basically, I'm not denying its possible, but that'd also mean that our there are systematic flaws in observation and our most basic understanding of physics is flawed. While that could be the case, I've not seen any other seperate evidence as to that being the current situation. That puts expanding earth as the odd one out and, therefore, also the one that is probably wrong.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
1/3 12:26am
Subject:
RE: The expanding earth theory - prove it wrong
|
Okay, so here I am - all prepared to throw arguments for and against subduction around, and Lowie comes with mass...
I must say, I find the solution offered by Mr. Adams odd, as well, and I'm happy that you looked into it. Here's my take:
Nothing that grows, does so in and out of itself. It needs external nutrition.
Would it be possible for the Earth to have gotten (and perhaps still get) this nutrition from outside the atmosphere?
-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com frustrating you with sound
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
