SHORT VERSION:
Since I had previously been chided for providing no real evidence or measurements supporting skepticism toward the Wu et al. study in Geophysical Research Letters (2011) or McElhinny et al. in Nature (1978) (although I had previously alluded specifically to several lines of argument on each topic), I moved on to an elaboration of some of the issues on the space geodetic side, addressing concerns that had been expressed previously:
@ScienceWars I was opposing his glaring and repeated mischaracterization that the only basis for the theory is an animation, whereas in fact there are numerous lines of evidence which have been adduced in the theory's favor by qualified geoscientists, as can be seen by any honest person reading, for example, the review by Carey that I linked to (irrespective of the conclusions one draws regarding the total set of facts). I was not claiming that I myself am other than a serious amateur.
sathearn 2 days ago
@sathearn Other than the sand pile? Which has a tiny sample size and takes precisely 1 variation into account? Anything else? Because that's pretty weak, and actually doesn't have anything to do with expanding earth hypothesis in the broad sense. That just attempts to claim less gravity in the past. A theoretical hollow planet that shrank but maintained the same mass would do that. Often pseudoscientists ignore basic scientific thinking as inconvenient. But it's necessary.
Enginmaster 2 days ago
@Enginmaster As I've by now repeatedly indicated, see Carey's review (mediafire. com/?9zz72144rcx59tn ) for representative arguments for Earth expansion. All of the main arguments, e.g. the Gape Artifact (paleobio disjuncts), the convergence of northern continents on the Arctic which is itself extensional (paleomag, climatic), Paleopole Overshoot (predicted by asymetric expansion) speak directly to volume increase only. Mass growth conclusion is from unacceptable values of g if M constant.
(con't) Items such as the ancient angles of repose data are tertiary to the arguments for expansion, and secondary even to the mass growth conclusion (you will note that the latter relies heavily on the purported collective strength of the arguments for volume increase, and is otherwise akin to arguments against EE). I cited M&K specifically to show that weaker past g is not empirically absurd. It's useful to understand the structure of the case, even if one disagrees w/the conclusion.
(cont'd) At risk of further diverting discussion from the main line, I quote Carey (1976) on why that stuff is tertiary: "In correspondence with the later Arthur Holmes, we listed fifty geological phenomena affected by the value of g, but never by g alone, and measurable. The rate of isostatic adjustment, the speed of glaciers, salt-domes, slope of cross bedding, foot-prints, thickness of lava flows, all had their moment of promise but failed to survive critical analysis."
(Part 4 cont'd) Re alleged space geodetic and paleomag disproofs, I have previously listed the types of items which have been adduced on the other side, but have as yet spelled nothing out. Here's Robaudo and Harrison (1993), one of the first long-term PT studies of SLR and VLBI data: "A further constraint on our solution was that the stations were not allow [sic] to have any up-down motion. A solution using baseline and transverse rates and allowing the stations to have three independent [...
sathearn 2 hours ago
(cont'd Pt 5): ...] "velocities gave an RMS value of up-down motions over 18 mm/yr. This is extremely high when it is realized that areas of maximum uplift due to deglaciation are moving at only 10 mm/yr or less. We must expect that most VLBI stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr. It therefore seems reasonable to restrict the vertical motion to be zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr."
(Part 6): Even though space geodesy was supposed to "finally resolve" the EE question (J.D.A.Piper, 1988), when a few years later researchers obtained [a result] precisely consistent with its predictions, they did not even recognize the questiion (or highlight the need for further inquiry). NASA's Paul Lowman (2002), citing the consistency of baseline change results with PT models which implicitly assume constant radius, says ET "appears to have been conclusively disproven by space geodesy." (from mem.)
Part 7: [ET = expansion tectonics; SG = space geodesy] Yet Wu et al. say that SG has not resolved the q. prior to their own work. Of course Wu et al. explicitly do not assume constant radius, but that is not to say that such an assumption has not entered the back door via the thought-to-be-already-confirmed parts of the model incorporated into ITRF2008 (as Florian reports his correspondence with Collilieux indeed revealed).
Part 8: A basic point found in the literature on the EE side is that measurements which refer to a geocentric angle can be indeterminate: shortening baseline on a fixed radius Earth (as the angle decreases) or increasing radius with a fixed baseline (new crust inserted into other parts of of the same great circle). Carey found, e.g., that the value for shortening of the Hawaii-Japan distance (both stations west of the East Pacific Rise) was also quantitatively consistent with constant d + EE.
Part 9: Chudinov, in his 2001 book published by VSP-Brill, discusses the main space geodetic techniques, and shows diagramatically that in each case, "the change of distance measured may be the result of various displacements of both stations, and consequently, understanding of the real displacements of stations requires additional data." From literature he quotes: "we...isolate those motions, which are strictly horizontal" and use "the three-dimensional model with zero vertical motion."
Of special interest are cases where such "additional data" does exist, e.g. apparent contractions of stable N. America (E. of Rockies) and stable Australia (Christodoulidis et al, 1985), and, repeatedly, the Europe-Japan distance (Biancale et al, 1991, Smith et al, 1990, Reigber et al 1991). Lowman cites a similar (1994?) result for Europe-Shanghai. But the E-J baseline crosses the extensional West Siberian Lowlands and the Japan Sea. Chudinov converts the avg. result to increased r: ~16mm/yr.
In another section, Chudinov tabulates data from Smith et al 1990 on changes of distances between SLR stations, giving values (1) predicted by PT models (AMO-2, later NUVEL-1), and (2) "conceived as estimated" by SLR. They are grouped according to the expectations of his eduction model (in which eduction rather than subduction takes place at oceanic trenches) as to whether the difference between (1) and (2) should be positive or negative . There is agreement straight down the line.
Pt. 11. In sum, the question of whether space geodetic results contradict or support the expansion hypothesis seems hardly settled.
sathearn 9 minutes ago
LONG VERSION:
@nealadamsdotcom Namecalling. Creative, and just like you were 4 years ago. You gave me "figures". You didn't show any MEASUREMENTS. You have your hypothesis that those seafloor plates correspond to an expansion. Now you have to measure an expansion on modern earth, or else, you're wrong. You can't call it a fact until you get evidence. Your animation isn't evidence. I didn't give you speculation. I gave you real NASA geodetic, gravimetric, and non-Nasa paleomagnetic data.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom I don't see how I bit off my nose by pointing to respected and well published data. You have a testable hypothesis. It got tested, and refuted. If you want you can arrange for a different method of measurement, but you can never erase the data that refutes your hypothesis.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom You didn't check it against the REAL EARTH. You have to measure the rate of expansion today. You did not have any significant reason to make the assumptions you made. Tectonics proponents would be equally remissed if they simply said the continents moved, but never measured it using actual GPS data, geodetic data, and seismic data. Either cite some real measurements, or you're not proposing a scientific theory.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
@floriannachon Actually, that's not "crank" That's the observation ww w. redorbit. com/ news/ space/ 2096528/ new_ study_ shows_ earth_ is_ staying_ the_ same_ size
Likewise, going back 400 million years McElhinney et al demonstrated conclusively no paleomagnetic data allows for an expansion greater than a percent or so. If you have other data, cite it!
Enginmaster 4 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom " I have a bit of extra data. Two hundred million Years Ago two thirds of the crust of the Earth with it's Paleomagnetic data DID NOT EXIST! "
And that proves..... that you have no data for a large earth back then? Older crust did exist back then, before it was subducted, according to the paleomagnetic data that has survived from then. It's basic science. I know comic illustrators can't get their head around it. But measurements COUNT.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
#
@nealadamsdotcom Seriously, are you just admitting basically, your expanding earth hypothesis has no data?
Enginmaster 4 days ago
#
@Enginmaster The expander's radial formula is: R(t)=4670e^4.5t+1700, with R in km and t in E9 years. This predicts a current radial expansion of ~22E-3mm/y, well below JPL's resolution.
The formula also predicts that the Archaean marine environment, in which stromatolites flourished and massive banded iron formations were deposited, existed on a puny little rock about the size of the moon.
wow.
alivingock 4 days ago
#
@alivingock Well, we know the amount of gravity the moon has is insufficient to hold an atmosphere or liquid water, so you're already struggling there. Where exactly did you get that formula? Neil never uses numbers, so this is the first time I've seen your "prediction". As I calculate it, the radius of today should be 4670 * e^4.5 * 4.5 (if you take the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years) which comes out to 2.9 x 10^ 12 km. Is that right? 639 times the orbital radius of Neptune?
Enginmaster 4 days ago
#
@alivingock NASA says less than 0.004 inches per year. Expanding that out (being totally optimistic for the expansion side of that average of zero but limit of 0.004) It's 25.25 miles. Compared to the Earth's radius, negligible. Now if you think this is "exponential growth" that's even worse for you, because that means all rates of expansion in the past were even lower than 0.004 inches per year. If you believe otherwise, show your calculation.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
#
@Enginmaster (for 400 million years, when Neil says it should be a quarter its current size)
Enginmaster 4 days ago
#
@Enginmaster The formula comes from same James "I don't know" Maxlow mentioned by potholer. I failed to provide a time origin - its the present, not 4.5bya. The Archaean is at t=-3e9. EEers imagine higher planetary density in the past, one that allows sufficient surface gravity to sustain the ancient atmosphere and seas. No EE estimates of paleo-density seem to exist.
I don't buy this shit, but just relating what I've learned about EE theoryisms.
alivingock 4 days ago
#
@alivingock Yep yep. Good to know. As I say, Neal's been unhelpful in letting me see what he thinks exists. Though if the .022 mm/yr is from him, he's completely off at calculus. When you substitute in the equation the 10^-9, such that the equation is 4670e^(4.5 e-9*t)+1700, then take the derivative, you get 22.9 e-6 km/yr, which is 2.2 cm/yr. much much higher than 0.004 inches per year.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
#
@Enginmaster oops again. I said that the result was in km. It's meters. With that correction, we are today adding ~10e3km^3 material to the earth each year. No one, except ol' Neal, has been able to figure out where it comes from.
alivingock 4 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom Nobody's pissed but you, neal. We're fine. I'm laughing. If you'd like to actually do some measuring, do it. If you say NASA got it all wrong, please learn enough math to propose a correction. Let them know what methods they get wrong, considering they use these methods on a variety of objects from moons to asteroids to planets to determine their sizes. It's not a mystery. It's science. And science says your hypothesis is refuted on every trial.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
@alivingock I read your message again. Got it. Yeah, neal doesn't really let lack of a mechanism, lack of confirmation data, or basic logic get him down. I saw the green lantern movie. It was nice, but it reminded me of neal's belief that heavier things fall at a higher rate, despite Galileo disproving that 400 years ago, and it being completely wrong. In the movie, they said "the heavier it is, the faster it falls" So wrong. But it's at the standard of comicbook illustrators, so it's ok.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
#
@Enginmaster Right, the figure derivable from Maxlow's equation is 2.2 cm/yr. We suspect (and Florian's correspondence with one of the coauthors of Wu et al. (2011) seems to confirm) that plate motion models incorporated in their computational "platform" biased their result. However, Maxlow's figure agrees with Robaudo and Harrison's (1993) VLBI finding of 18 mm/yr, and qualitatively with data adduced by Chudinov (2001) in his 50 page critique and analysis of space geodetic methods and data.
sathearn 4 days ago
#
@sathearn Chudinov 2001 wasn't critiquing the study that just concluded. The 2.2 cm/yr is off. 0.1 mm/yr max. That means it's off by a factor of 22. That's really really really off. The tectonic shifting is measured to millimeter precision around the world. Things that neal says can't happen, by the by. At this point, if you don't have real data of your own, you're going to have to concede. This isn't religion. You don't get to believe contrary to the experimental data.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
#
@Enginmaster Off by a factor of 220 sorry.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
#
@Enginmaster Let's see if I can screw this up again. After reading the article you cited, I ran the current expansion calculation, accidently noted the rate as m/yr and forgot that the result was in kilometers, even though I went on to use the correct units when running the volume. Sorry. I'm retarded. You're right. The JPL results limit expansion to an insignificant portion of that predicted by Maxlow & EE theory.
alivingock 4 days ago
#
@Enginmaster True, he wasn't critiquing Wu et al., but the finding that the study incorporated horizontal motion models (a practice Chudinov critiques in detail), if true, as well as the data he adduces as indirect evidence of expansion (and Robaudo and Harrison's innocent finding, again) well justifies skepticism.
Apparent shortening of chord lengths can result from failure to consider an actual expansion. This a key point, not often acknowledged by those who take the results at face value.
sathearn 4 days ago
@sathearn
Can you give a reference to Robaudo and Harrison's paper I can't find it? Thanks!
cellvsfreezer 4 days ago
#
@cellvsfreezer Their paper is "Plate tectonics from SLR and VLBI global data," in Contributions of Space Geodesy to Geodynamics: Crustal Dynamics, Geodynamics Series, Vol. 23, AGU, 1993, pp. 51-71 (at pp. 53-54).
sathearn 4 days ago
#
@sathearn Thanks, I've found it in the mean time but I can't download it through our library.
cellvsfreezer 4 days ago
#
@cellvsfreezer Alas, one of the drawbacks of our recent dependence on electronic sourcing.
sathearn 3 days ago
#
@sathearn Well since you're not providing any context, I have no idea what "chord lengths" you think had to be updated in their measurements. It seems pretty obvious though that NASA's geodetics are not making assumptions on the structure of earth. They're just measuring the shape of it. Basic stuff. Either get a better measurement yourself or it's not science. If you think you can just ignore all things that disagree with your idea, that proves your hypothesis isn't even a true hypothesis.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
#
Part of the context is that in such studies the raw data is pretty well obscured by processing and analysis before we have what are naively considered "measurements." They themselves were not adding such assumptions, but the issue is whether the "most recently realized ITRF2008 geocentric surface velocities" which they used are already contaminated by the choice to use horizontal-motion interpretations of (indeterminate) data.
sathearn 4 days ago
#
What is required by science would be an impartial review analysis of all that has been written on paleomagnetics and space geodetics in context of the question of Earth expansion. While it is understandable that those who don't like the hypothesis (ignoring all the positive arguments in its favor) will latch on to such findings, we are actually in a situation in which the detailed criticisms from the other side have not yet been addressed (Cf. Smith's commentary accompanying the McElhinny study)
sathearn 4 days ago
#
@sathearn And Schmidt and Clarke 1980 "The response of paleomagnetix data of Earth expansion" showed that Carey's criticism (orange peel effect, crustal extension not considered in McElhinney) expressed in Smith's commentary, introduces an error that is one magnitude smaller than a simplified plate model.
What do you need in order to agree that it has been addressed? BTW if you can send me the Robaudo/Harris paper I would be very thankful!
cellvsfreezer 4 days ago
@cellvsfreezer
"What do you need in order to agree that it has been addressed?"
No, Carey's critics have never been addressed. For example, please read p387-389 of the 1983 paper by Carey: tinyurl (.) com/3hrh5x8
floriannachon 3 days ago
#
@cellvsfreezer @floriannachon I only have the paper in hard copy. Florian, since I take it you have their paper and also the ability to scan it, would you mind uploading an electronic copy and sending it to cell and I?
sathearn 3 days ago
#
@sathearn
which paper? These discussions on youtube are quite hard to follow.
I proposed cellvsfreezer to move to the auxotectonics forum.
floriannachon 3 days ago
#
@floriannachon I feel compelled to tell you at this point that Engin(MASTER) is unrealistically mysterious about his education, and JOB description. He seems to be supervising a lab and "SEEMS" to lord over his charges with abusive zeal. His attitude of simply riding roughshod over FACTS and hurling insults in response, is his way.
@floriannachon Sorry, Robaudo and Harrison's, from 1993.
sathearn 3 days ago
@sathearn
sorry, I don't have this one. It is part of a collection to which I have no access at this point.
floriannachon 1 day ago
@cellvsfreezer I'm always happy to see Schmidt and Clarke 1980 cited, since their article was certainly an important step in the debate over the Ward method (I believe I was the first to quote the above sentence here on Youtube). Even if they are perfectly correct, citations of McElhinny et al. as if that were the end of the story is still irksome. Btw. Van Hilten's 'orange peel effect' didn't utilize Carey's specific proposals for the region in question in an earlier app. of Ward's method.
What is needed is a careful review of debate over the validity of the application of Ward's method to real world data, including the entirety of Carey's criticism in The Expanding Earth (Elsevier, 1976), his (1983) responses to S&C (1980) (mediafire. com/?9zz72144rcx59tn), and Chudinov's (2001) allegation that "The resulting calculation gives non-real additional scattering of virtual poles on the decreased sphere greatly exceeding that obtained from measurements on the real modern one."
sathearn 3 days ago
@sathearn My post yesterday gave a link to a review by Carey containing a response to Schmidt and Clark (1980). For the benefit of others who may be interested, here's a link to Schmidt and Clark's paper: mediafire. com/?9gdmszcf9g17h53
sathearn 2 days ago
@Enginmaster
"It seems pretty obvious though that NASA's geodetics are not making assumptions on the structure of earth. "
Wrong. they do assume that every horizontal displacement is related to plate displacement, thus excluding explicitly the horizontal component from the growth measurement. this is a fatal flaw.
floriannachon 4 days ago
@floriannachon That's not an assumption. That's measured. They know that the horizontal displacement occurs. They also measure the vertical displacement. Those things combined in a spherical coordinate system gets you the volume. The volume didn't go up. This is no fatal flaw. Your religion simply doesn't allow you to accept NASA data. The geodesy was further corroborated by gravimetric data showing the same trends.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
@Enginmaster
No, you must understand that they used a *plate model* for horizontal displacement, and simply add a single free parameter accounting for a radius growth, assuming a spherical symmetrical growth which is false as well.
floriannachon 4 days ago
and I have no religion, I'm agnostic.
floriannachon 4 days ago
@floriannachon Sensible chap.
ScienceWars 4 days ago
@floriannachon " I have no religion, I'm agnostic." You say that. But expanding earth requires you to believe things despite evidence. It also seems to have you on a schedule of rituals. It's a religion, just like 911 conspiracy theorism, or UFOlogy, or voodoo. And to you, no evidence is solid enough. And if there's a room for doubt in the solid evidence, you fill it in with an automatic answer. Christian creationists usually substitute god. UFOlogists, aliens. 911 truthers, government.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
@Enginmaster
" You say that. But expanding earth requires you to believe things despite evidence."
You're free to believe whatever you want.
floriannachon 4 days ago
@floriannachon Indeed, this isn't a first amendment qualification discussion. You're free to believe what you want. But what is science is what has evidence. Do you have EVIDENCE of an expanding earth. Not just assumptions like "I don't think things subduct" which is instantly disprovable by looking at global gps data.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
@sathearn
The chord length shortening issue is especially true for transpacific measurement. For example, there are now ridge between Hawaii and California, so that shortening of the distance between both location is expected due to the expansion.
floriannachon 4 days ago
Read "there is no ridge between Hawaii and California, so that shortening..."
floriannachon 4 days ago
Using data from Mann and Kanagy's (1990) "Angles of repose that exceed modern angles," geologist John K. Davidson (1994) derived surface gravity figures of g @-430Ma = .47 x present value and g @ -180Ma = .73, with a 10% decrease in density since the later period. He notes that the higher maximum bedding angles found in deposits of earlier epochs give conservative values, as those values are post-compaction. Of course there are other EErs who propose constant mass and/or slower expansion.
sathearn 4 days ago
@sathearn "Angles of repose for naturally occurring materials are known to be a function of, among other geologic parameters, the acceleration of gravity and cohesion between particles. " Did it not occur to you that perhaps cohesion between particles due to a different water chemistry allowing for a different level of microbial mat activity is to blame. If you read the things you cite, you will see the gaping holes in them. Meanwhile there really are no other explanations for McElhinney data.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
#
@Enginmaster I didn't say their data proves increase in g, only that they are consistent with such.
Re the McElhinny et al. study, again lengthy criticisms of the Ward method are ignored, as well as Maxlow's findings with regard what happens when the data used in his studies of the time is plotted on his models, and as well as the many paleomagnetics-based arguments for expansion. Details will have to wait.
sathearn 4 days ago
@sathearn What criticism could one have with paleolatitudes that can be correlated with modern agreed upon latitudes measured from modern sediment? It's a test. It came up negative. They repeated it around the world. Still no growth. Expansion earther's make excuses just like any young earth creationists. When you can measure the radius of curvature directly of the ancient earth through paleomagnetism, you don't have room for your religious devotion to a cartoon.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
@Enginmaster Your ignorance of the actual scientific debate over the Ward method is irksome (I won't repeat what I have already written in response to cellvsfreezer, above), as is your characterization of me as having "religious devotion to a cartoon" (see my previous response on the actual grounds for the hypothesis). Nor have I even claimed or urged anyone to accept that the Earth is expanding. I only claim that there is rational evidence in favor of the hypothesis.
sathearn 3 days ago
@sathearn Many apologies, but in even light of slightly higher piles of sand, when compared with direct measurement and indirect measurements of the radius of Earth over time, and in light of absolutely no mechanism that a physicist could endorse, there's nothing convincing about the "evidence" put forth. If you have something other than angles of inclination of sand piles, let us know. I do not recall him in the paper mentioning investigating the different hydrodynamic/wind effects on the sand.
Enginmaster 3 days ago
@Enginmaster Accepted. I introduced Mann and Kanagy in discussion with Alivingok, by way of indicating that there is at least some empirical data consistent with increasing surface gravity (as you say, one can think of alternative explanations). I then introduced Davidson's calculations on their data, in response to A-ok's statement that there seem to be no EE estimates on density change (D's included such). Representative basic arguments for EE are in the Carey paper I linked. Got to go.
sathearn 2 days ago
@sathearn I was trying to get a description of the environment on ancient EE consistent with aspects of the geologic record. You replied with reference to Maxlow's estimations of Carboniferous shorelines & decades-old papers on ancient angle of repose as a proxy gravimeter.
From what you have described, it seems that Archaean EE's surface area & gravity were ~8 & 50% of present, respectively. Surface water was limited to small proto-oceans and epi-continental seas. Is that right?
alivingock 1 day ago
@Enginmaster In further regard to your insinuation that I have mischaracterized Mann and Kanagy (1990), I quote their conclusion that "Because no reason is recognized for cohesion to have altered secularly through geologic time, a lesser acceleration of gravity is the likely cause." Perhaps different water (or atmospheric, to extend your proposal) chemistry (& related microbial change) could have been a factor changing cohesion, but their data seems to have been primarily eolian.
sathearn 3 days ago
@sathearn "...but their data seems to have been primarily eolian. "
Gah! Bloomin' Americans! It's 'Aeolian', not 'Eolian'. The prefix 'Aeo' relates to desert/sand processes (hence the Arabic-sounding Aolian mode in musical scales).
'Eo' means 'early', or 'dawn'.
ScienceWars 2 days ago
@ScienceWars
Ludicrous. Eolian, comes from greek eole, divinity of the wind...
floriannachon 1 day ago
@floriannachon "Ludicrous. Eolian, comes from greek eole, divinity of the wind..."
Actually there are several ways to write it. In original Greek, it is "Aioleus". Later a ligature based on A and E gave rise to Æole. In French (I believe you are French Florian, ouah?), the ligature "Æ" ended up as "É".
Aeolian indeed comes from wind, but I said 'relates to', which in a geological context does relate to desert/sand *processes* (dunes being formed by wind).
'Aeolian' is still better!
ScienceWars 1 day ago
@ScienceWars
In geological context, eolian sediments means sediments transported by the wind.
In Merriam-Webster, both spelling are correct. May be one form is more usual in american or english or vice versa?
floriannachon 1 day ago
#
@floriannachon "In geological context, aeolian sediments means sediments transported by the wind."
^Corrected for you.
But yes, you are right, there is a preferential form in various languages. It was fake rage on my part, I have always loved the word, the spelling and the sediments.
Have you seen any (A)eolian sediments in the field?
ScienceWars 1 day ago
#
@ScienceWars
Do you agree that your previous claim "The prefix 'Aeo' relates to desert/sand processes " was wrong because there is no such thing as a prefix 'Aeo' related to desert/sand, but a root derived from greek 'Aiolos', divinity of the wind?
"Have you seen any (A)eolian sediments in the field?"
Yes, in Nebraska.
floriannachon 1 day ago
#
@floriannachon No I don't agree. 'Aeo' is from the family of Greek words relating to wind and were variously spelled at various times (Aeolos/Aiolos = divinity of wind / Aer = air / Æthere = space / sky). It is from this Greek prefix we get AERO, as in AEROdynamics, AERObatics, AEROfoil, etc..
The derivation is more than obvious.
And once again, 'Eo' is a prefix related to 'dawn' or 'early'. This is why I prefer Aeolian over Eolian - the obfuscation is unnecessary and confusing.
ScienceWars 1 day ago
#
@ScienceWars
And you are wrong, again!
The root of aeaolian is aeole (Αἰόλος). λ is *l* and crucial!
aero is from a very different greek root, aer (ἀήρ).
Both the spelling and pronunciation of Αἰόλος and ἀήρ is completely different because both are completely different words. So do you understand now why you claim is ludicrous?
floriannachon 1 day ago
#
Comment removed
floriannachon 1 day ago
#
Moreover, "ae" is also written "ae" in latin, and sounds like "é" in french. So the french name is "éole".
Since there is no accent in english, éole becomes eole. If spelling is conserved from french to english, the pronunciation is not, because "e" in english sounds like "i" in french and not "é".
Thus, I agree with you that "ae" in english is more appropriate to conserve the original pronunciation.
But to claim that aeolian is related to desert/sand or aero is ludicrous. OK?
floriannachon 1 day ago
#
@floriannachon Nope.
ScienceWars 18 hours ago
#
Comment removed
floriannachon 18 hours ago
#
@ScienceWars
Refusing to acknowledge that Αἰόλος and ἀήρ are different words with different spelling/pronunciation/root/meaning is denial.
floriannachon 18 hours ago
#
@floriannachon Yep.
ScienceWars 17 hours ago
#
@sathearn
that's interesting! Could you post it in the auxotectonics forum?
floriannachon 4 days ago
#
@Enginmaster
"NASA says less than 0.004 inches per year. "
the paper can't support this claim. The rate calculated from seafloor datation is about 2 cm radius per year averaged over the last 3 millions years.
floriannachon 4 days ago
#
@floriannachon "the paper can't support this claim"?? What paper did you read? 0.004 is the conclusion given the MEASUREMENT of Earth. Did they include every minute bit and byte of their data in the paper. One never does, with that many gigabytes of information. The rate calculated from "seafloor datation" is neal's "hey I think that no subduction occurs, therefore the earth is growing" fallacy. Once you test that hypothesis by measuring at plate boundaries you see he is 100% wrong.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
#
@Enginmaster
Their model can't measure a growth, so they can't support their claim.
Seafloor datation comes from Dietmar Muller.
Subduction is not a process allowing large recycling of seafloor (this is a geodynamic related issue).
floriannachon 4 days ago
#
@floriannachon So... now you're just in denial. We can measure the rates of subduction around the earth. It's consistent with the theory that the earth remained the same radius, and the total increase of area around the midoceanic ridges is countered by equal subduction. Which yes, leads undeniably to the conclusion enough subduction is going on to allow a large recycling of the sea floor. We can even use seismic tomography to see previous sea floor in the mantle.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
@Enginmaster
"So... now you're just in denial. We can measure the rates of subduction around the earth."
We can measure the rate at which a mobile belt, i.e., the front of a tectonic flow, is overrunning the lithosphere on its path.
Illustration with the age an/anatolian flow: tiny url (.) com/p43dep
floriannachon 4 days ago
#
@alivingock
"The formula also predicts that the Archaean marine environment, in which stromatolites flourished and massive banded iron formations were deposited, existed on a puny little rock about the size of the moon."
this is a lie. Still don't understand what is an epicontinental sea, don't you?
floriannachon 4 days ago
#
@floriannachon You did not need to make your last three comments to show that you really are nothing more than an annoying dimwitted twit. I've got it. Sleep tight.
alivingock 4 days ago
#
@Enginmaster
Oh yes you are. Did you read the GRL paper by Wu et al? No, I did.
Did you discuss with the authors? No, I did.
Do you understand why they could not measure a growth using their assumptions? Of course not. I do.
conclusion: You're just a crank who believes he knows it all without reading anything.
floriannachon 4 days ago
#
@floriannachon You discussed the NASA data with NASA and they said "oh yeah, we totally messed up"?
Enginmaster 4 days ago
#
@Enginmaster
I discuss the paper with IGN people to look at the limits of their model.
their model is fine to compute ITRF, but not to measure a growth.
floriannachon 4 days ago
#
@floriannachon Also I just got the GRL paper. What makes you make such assumptions about what other people have or have not read? I would LOVE to see their words in response to your religious anti-science prodding. But unfortunately I cannot trust you to provide them. If neal can just out and out lie about what I told him, I can only assume you are not above that.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
#
@Enginmaster
anti-science?Dude, I'm a scientist.
If you have the paper, then read it carefully, and answer these questions:
How did they choose their stations?
How did they model horizontal displacement?
How did they model vertical displacement?
Does their model take into account a perfectly spherical symmetrical or asymmetrical growth?
Is the horizontal component used in the calculation of the vertical displacement?
floriannachon 4 days ago
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
@alivingock On the assumption that mass remains constant, surface gravity would have been about 5 times present in the Devonian. On the assumption that density remains constant (implying mass increase), surface gravity would have been ~1/3. Maxlow plots ancient coastline data back (I think) to the Carboniferous, but a key working assumption is the existence of basin settings still farther back. See e.g. "Angles of repose that exceed modern angles" for data consistent with lower g in the past.
sathearn 5 days ago
#
@floriannachon The observation is that the Earth is not growing in size.
Enginmaster 5 days ago
@ginckgo
You're confused by plate tectonics. Plate tectonics *is* shuffling continents until they fit. Global expansion tectonics impose strong constraint on the reconstruction, because continent do not wander randomly.
floriannachon 4 days ago
#
@floriannachon plate tectonics is seen yearly in the GPS data. Expansion isn't.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
#
@Enginmaster
Actually, regional GPS data are useful to measure flowing lithosphere, which is has nothing to do with plate tectonics, i.e., rigid plate moving as a single block around euler poles.
floriannachon 4 days ago
#
@floriannachon "regional GPS data are useful to measure flowing lithosphere, which is has nothing to do with plate tectonics,i.e., rigid plate moving as a single block around euler poles." Apparently you never studied tectonics. Not surprising. Most who do are not swayed by evidence consisting of an animation only. The GPS is global data. The subduction rates seen are specifically ruled out in neal's hypothesis. Plates do deform in tectonics. Look at the India/Asia boundary.
Enginmaster 4 days ago
@Enginmaster
"Apparently you never studied tectonics. "
(rolling eyes)
India/Adia boundary is nothing else than a large tectonic feature flowing east, then south east into Indonesia.
illustartion: tinyurl (.) com/y88ybdv
floriannachon 4 days ago
#
@floriannachon
What are you trying to show? The "flowing east" is a result of compression in NNE/SSW. Material moves perpendicular to main stress axis. Is this somehow inconsistent with plate tectonics?
cellvsfreezer 3 days ago
#
@cellvsfreezer
There is northward compression and resulting ovethrusting to the north (kunlun mountain), southward compression and associated overthrusting to the south (Himalaya belt), see tinyurl (.) com/3vyz822,
but extension at the heart (tibet plateau) and escape flow to the east due to gravity spreading.
This is typical of an extruding sublithospheric flow (actually part of a large complex tiny url (.) com/6fustf6), and it has nothing to do with plate tectonics.
floriannachon 3 days ago
#
@floriannachon You showed me a figures of a continent collision zone with a slab break-off and an upwelling asthenosphere and crustal flow. Again, is there an inconsistency with plate tectonics because i don't see it? We have almost the same thing here in the alps, only that the moho even reaches the surface.
cellvsfreezer 3 days ago
#
@cellvsfreezer
the only plausible explanation for extension at the heart of an orogen and compression at the margins is lateral gravity spreading. And there is gravity spreading because there is initially an upwelling. The upwelling is the cause, not a consequence of what we observe. The alps are not different, except that the flow made an anti clockwise turn, very much like that in the anatolia/aegean region.
floriannachon 3 days ago
#
@floriannachon
Cellsfreezer, it seems that you are interested by global tectonics concepts related to the expanding earth paradigm. Do you want to discuss these concepts in a better environment?
floriannachon 3 days ago
#
@floriannachon well I'm interested but what I've read so far about mountain building on an expanding Earth does neither impress nor convince me. I know the alps and the different stages of the alpine orogeny very well. I'm open to new ideas but I don't tolerate vague processes like recurving or diapirs etc. . I want to know the whole process from deposition to overthrusting and folding. Do you have another forum?
cellvsfreezer 3 days ago
#
@cellvsfreezer
If you know the alpine orogeny very well, then I guess I have a lot to learn from you. But I also know one or two things. At least we can discuss some particular aspects. I have a web forum. It's more like a beta version at this point, but it is certainly more convenient than comments on youtube. I'll send you the address privately. I don't want pollution from the crowd of pseudoscientists.
floriannachon 3 days ago
#
@floriannachon Dude, you ARE a pseudoscientist. I actually do experiments, publish papers, etc. You pretend that an animation disproves geology, physics, and geodesy. Nuff said.
Enginmaster 3 days ago
@Enginmaster
And mister anonymous is wrong again. I'm a scientist, do experiments, publish papers review papers and projects, and manage a lab. You can check my scientific record.
And your claim "You pretend that an animation disproves geology, physics" is yet another lie. You are really deeply confused...
floriannachon 3 days ago
@floriannachon "I'm a scientist"
Out of interest, what discipline?
ScienceWars 3 days ago
@ScienceWars
I'm not anonymous.
floriannachon 3 days ago
@floriannachon The time it took you to write "I'm not anonymous" would be the same or less time to write your field of expertise.
Have it your way. Google it is...
ScienceWars 3 days ago
@floriannachon Here, you act as pseudoscientist. You refuse to present evidence. And instead, you claim an assumption that has been falsified leading you to believe an animation is a perfectly good scientific basis. Unless you're saying you don't believe in Neal's 35 years of work. If you don't, do not tell him. He'll go ballistic and say that you're cutting off your nose, etc. Just out of curiosity. What type of science education do you claim to have here? Certainly not geology.
Enginmaster 3 days ago
@Enginmaster
If you want to discuss evidence then you must at first read the literature presenting these evidences. I already published many time, here, classical and more recent paper presenting evidence supporting the expanding earth theory.
and no, I do not believe in Neal's stuff. If you believe that the expanding earth theory is limited to Neal's stuff, then you act as a crank.
floriannachon 3 days ago
I repost the links to these must read papers.
The first 2 are classical papers by Carey, the last 3 are more recent paper by Scalera and Cwodzinski:
- tinyurl (.) com/6yzgaq4
- tinyurl (.) com/3hrh5x8
- tinyurl (.) com/ycs8en6
- tinyurl (.) com/3bv2e8c
- tinyurl (.) com/3vpafys
Now, prove me that you're not just a lazy witchhunter.
floriannachon 3 days ago
@Enginmaster "Most who do are not swayed by evidence consisting of an animation only." By implication, Florian (and me) _are_ "swayed by evidence consisting of an animation only." This is a huge mischaracterization, no doubt related to your unfamiliarity with the work of the qualified geoscientists who contribute to the theory. This review by S.W. Carey presents some of the actual grounds that have been important in the historical development of the theory:
mediafire. com/?9zz72144rcx59tn
sathearn 3 days ago
@sathearn "This is a huge mischaracterization, no doubt related to your unfamiliarity with the work of the qualified geoscientists who contribute to the theory."
You yourself had once posted on Neal Adams' website that you were not that familiar with orthodox geological literature or theory, and pursued growing or expanding Earth as your personal interest.
That door swings both ways of course, though far more heavily in your direction as an exponent of a minority view.
ScienceWars 2 days ago
@ScienceWars I was opposing his glaring and repeated mischaracterization that the only basis for the theory is an animation, whereas in fact there are numerous lines of evidence which have been adduced in the theory's favor by qualified geoscientists, as can be seen by any honest person reading, for example, the review by Carey that I linked to (irrespective of the conclusions one draws regarding the total set of facts). I was not claiming that I myself am other than a serious amateur.
sathearn 2 days ago
@sathearn Other than the sand pile? Which has a tiny sample size and takes precisely 1 variation into account? Anything else? Because that's pretty weak, and actually doesn't have anything to do with expanding earth hypothesis in the broad sense. That just attempts to claim less gravity in the past. A theoretical hollow planet that shrank but maintained the same mass would do that. Often pseudoscientists ignore basic scientific thinking as inconvenient. But it's necessary.
Enginmaster 2 days ago
@Enginmaster As I've by now repeatedly indicated, see Carey's review (mediafire. com/?9zz72144rcx59tn ) for representative arguments for Earth expansion. All of the main arguments, e.g. the Gape Artifact (paleobio disjuncts), the convergence of northern continents on the Arctic which is itself extensional (paleomag, climatic), Paleopole Overshoot (predicted by asymetric expansion) speak directly to volume increase only. Mass growth conclusion is from unacceptable values of g if M constant.
(con't) Items such as the ancient angles of repose data are tertiary to the arguments for expansion, and secondary even to the mass growth conclusion (you will note that the latter relies heavily on the purported collective strength of the arguments for volume increase, and is otherwise akin to arguments against EE). I cited M&K specifically to show that weaker past g is not empirically absurd. It's useful to understand the structure of the case, even if one disagrees w/the conclusion.
(cont'd) At risk of further diverting discussion from the main line, I quote Carey (1976) on why that stuff is tertiary: "In correspondence with the later Arthur Holmes, we listed fifty geological phenomena affected by the value of g, but never by g alone, and measurable. The rate of isostatic adjustment, the speed of glaciers, salt-domes, slope of cross bedding, foot-prints, thickness of lava flows, all had their moment of promise but failed to survive critical analysis."
(Part 4 cont'd) Re alleged space geodetic and paleomag disproofs, I have previously listed the types of items which have been adduced on the other side, but have as yet spelled nothing out. Here's Robaudo and Harrison (1993), one of the first long-term PT studies of SLR and VLBI data: "A further constraint on our solution was that the stations were not allow [sic] to have any up-down motion. A solution using baseline and transverse rates and allowing the stations to have three independent [...
sathearn 2 hours ago
(cont'd Pt 5): ...] "velocities gave an RMS value of up-down motions over 18 mm/yr. This is extremely high when it is realized that areas of maximum uplift due to deglaciation are moving at only 10 mm/yr or less. We must expect that most VLBI stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr. It therefore seems reasonable to restrict the vertical motion to be zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr."
(Part 6): Even though space geodesy was supposed to "finally resolve" the EE question (J.D.A.Piper, 1988), when a few years later researchers obtained [a result] precisely consistent with its predictions, they did not even recognize the questiion (or highlight the need for further inquiry). NASA's Paul Lowman (2002), citing the consistency of baseline change results with PT models which implicitly assume constant radius, says ET "appears to have been conclusively disproven by space geodesy." (from mem.)
Part 7: [ET = expansion tectonics; SG = space geodesy] Yet Wu et al. say that SG has not resolved the q. prior to their own work. Of course Wu et al. explicitly do not assume constant radius, but that is not to say that such an assumption has not entered the back door via the thought-to-be-already-confirmed parts of the model incorporated into ITRF2008 (as Florian reports his correspondence with Collilieux indeed revealed).
Part 8: A basic point found in the literature on the EE side is that measurements which refer to a geocentric angle can be indeterminate: shortening baseline on a fixed radius Earth (as the angle decreases) or increasing radius with a fixed baseline (new crust inserted into other parts of of the same great circle). Carey found, e.g., that the value for shortening of the Hawaii-Japan distance (both stations west of the East Pacific Rise) was also quantitatively consistent with constant d + EE.
Part 9: Chudinov, in his 2001 book published by VSP-Brill, discusses the main space geodetic techniques, and shows diagramatically that in each case, "the change of distance measured may be the result of various displacements of both stations, and consequently, understanding of the real displacements of stations requires additional data." From literature he quotes: "we...isolate those motions, which are strictly horizontal" and use "the three-dimensional model with zero vertical motion."
Of special interest are cases where such "additional data" does exist, e.g. apparent contractions of stable N. America (E. of Rockies) and stable Australia (Christodoulidis et al, 1985), and, repeatedly, the Europe-Japan distance (Biancale et al, 1991, Smith et al, 1990, Reigber et al 1991). Lowman cites a similar (1994?) result for Europe-Shanghai. But the E-J baseline crosses the extensional West Siberian Lowlands and the Japan Sea. Chudinov converts the avg. result to increased r: ~16mm/yr.
In another section, Chudinov tabulates data from Smith et al 1990 on changes of distances between SLR stations, giving values (1) predicted by PT models (AMO-2, later NUVEL-1), and (2) "conceived as estimated" by SLR. They are grouped according to the expectations of his eduction model (in which eduction rather than subduction takes place at oceanic trenches) as to whether the difference between (1) and (2) should be positive or negative . There is agreement straight down the line.
Pt. 11. In sum, the question of whether space geodetic results contradict or support the expansion hypothesis seems hardly settled.
sathearn 9 minutes ago
