falsification - trying again - no slide rules please.

Earth expansion and how to falsify it.

I say it's in the obvious category. The Earth has got bigger. Grown.
Which means the surface moves outwards from the centre, and that
crustal break-up and sideways movement of the fragments are a
consequence of adjustment to this outwards movement.

We can easily tell that this has happened from the difference in the
way the crust and the mantle have behaved, which leads axiomatically to
a conclusion that the Earth has got bigger - approximately doubled in
size since the Mesozoic.

Not so easy is telling how to falsify it. What geological acid test
could be used to FALSIFY Earth Expansion? ....how would you assess,
*GEOLOGICALLY*, if the Earth has got bigger? (Or not?) Really
substantially bigger; doubled in size in the last 10% or so of its
history.

This is not a question for homework. This is a serious attempt to
address how we understand global geology.

What would the first question be? Something to do with:-
The way that the crust has broken up?
The way that the crustal fragments have moved?
The way that the plates have grown/ shrunk/ moved/ been created/ been
destroyed?

Or maybe about mountain belts, stratigraphic sequence, ..et etc;
anything you like, but always the question must pertain to the geology
(rocks and things of the geological past - not slide rules and gps of
the present).

don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and how to falsify it.

I say it's in the obvious category. The Earth has got bigger. Grown.
Which means the surface moves outwards from the centre, and that
crustal break-up and sideways movement of the fragments are a
consequence of adjustment to this outwards movement.

We can easily tell that this has happened from the difference in the
way the crust and the mantle have behaved, which leads axiomatically to
a conclusion that the Earth has got bigger - approximately doubled in
size since the Mesozoic.

Hang on.

1 Earth Mass (today) = 6.0e24 kg

0.5 Me = 3e24 kg

E = m c^2
= 3e24 * (3e8 m/s) ^2
= 3e24 * 9e16 kg m^2/s^2 (J)
= 2.7e41 J

Now 300 Myr is 9.5e15 seconds (can we call it 0.9e16 please?)

So the 'average' creation of matter over 300Myr would be 'about'

P = 2.7e41 / 0.9e16 J/s (W)
= 3e25 W

Now the sun provides 1.4 kW/m^2 of solar energy at one Earth orbit radius,
but according to Wikipedia, only abour 1kW/m^2 makes it to the ground.

Neglecting the fact that the Earth reradiates energy in the infrared,
then the total amount of energy hitting the ground also varies with
the angle of insolation, which is getting ugly, so I'll pretend the earth
is a flat disk, not a sphere!

Total crossectional area = pi * r^2
= 3.14 * (6.4e6 m ) ^ 2
= 1.29e14 m^2

So the total solar energy hitting my flat earth (ha!) would be about
1.3e17 W.

So if the Sun's total energy output hitting the Earth is 1.3e17 W,
but the power required to drive the creation of the needed matter
to make the Earth grow is about 3e25 W.

Then add the fact the Earth reradiates energy. And the fact that
the claim has been made that the process is discontinuous, IIRC.

So even admitting that a lot of energy from the Sun would not be
in the visible band, you're missing 8 orders of magnitude of energy
to source the conversion to matter.

So your theory breaks the conservation of energy, creaing matter
from nothing. If you can think of an energy source 8 orders of
magnitude bigger than the Sun, please posit it.

(Note: check my math, let me know if I've blundered.)


--D.




Not so easy is telling how to falsify it. What geological acid test
could be used to FALSIFY Earth Expansion? ....how would you assess,
*GEOLOGICALLY*, if the Earth has got bigger? (Or not?) Really
substantially bigger; doubled in size in the last 10% or so of its
history.

This is not a question for homework. This is a serious attempt to
address how we understand global geology.

What would the first question be? Something to do with:-
The way that the crust has broken up?
The way that the crustal fragments have moved?
The way that the plates have grown/ shrunk/ moved/ been created/ been
destroyed?

Or maybe about mountain belts, stratigraphic sequence, ..et etc;
anything you like, but always the question must pertain to the geology
(rocks and things of the geological past - not slide rules and gps of
the present).

"don findlay" wrote in message
ups.com...
Earth expansion and how to falsify it.

I say it's in the obvious category. The Earth has got bigger. Grown.
Which means the surface moves outwards from the centre, and that
crustal break-up and sideways movement of the fragments are a
consequence of adjustment to this outwards movement.

We can easily tell that this has happened from the difference in the
way the crust and the mantle have behaved, which leads axiomatically to
a conclusion that the Earth has got bigger - approximately doubled in
size since the Mesozoic.

Not so easy is telling how to falsify it. What geological acid test
could be used to FALSIFY Earth Expansion? ....how would you assess,
*GEOLOGICALLY*, if the Earth has got bigger? (Or not?) Really
substantially bigger; doubled in size in the last 10% or so of its
history.

This is not a question for homework. This is a serious attempt to
address how we understand global geology.

What would the first question be? Something to do with:-
The way that the crust has broken up?
The way that the crustal fragments have moved?
The way that the plates have grown/ shrunk/ moved/ been created/ been
destroyed?


Much simpler than that. If the Earth is expanding then this could be
directly detected by a lengthening of the diurnal period and by retardation
of the pendulum.

--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/




Or maybe about mountain belts, stratigraphic sequence, ..et etc;
anything you like, but always the question must pertain to the geology
(rocks and things of the geological past - not slide rules and gps of
the present).

don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and how to falsify it.

I say it's in the obvious category. The Earth has got bigger. Grown.
Which means the surface moves outwards from the centre, and that
crustal break-up and sideways movement of the fragments are a
consequence of adjustment to this outwards movement.

We can easily tell that this has happened from the difference in the
way the crust and the mantle have behaved, which leads axiomatically to
a conclusion that the Earth has got bigger - approximately doubled in
size since the Mesozoic.

Not so easy is telling how to falsify it. What geological acid test
could be used to FALSIFY Earth Expansion? ....how would you assess,
*GEOLOGICALLY*, if the Earth has got bigger? (Or not?) Really
substantially bigger; doubled in size in the last 10% or so of its
history.

This is not a question for homework. This is a serious attempt to
address how we understand global geology.

What would the first question be? Something to do with:-
The way that the crust has broken up?
The way that the crustal fragments have moved?
The way that the plates have grown/ shrunk/ moved/ been created/ been
destroyed?

Or maybe about mountain belts, stratigraphic sequence, ..et etc;
anything you like, but always the question must pertain to the geology
(rocks and things of the geological past - not slide rules and gps of
the present).


Atomic clocks would "speed up" if the earth were expanding. The Earth
has not expanded during the era of atomic time keeping.

don findlay wrote:

Earth expansion and how to falsify it.

What would the first question be?

Why?

CT

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, "don findlay" wrote:

Earth expansion and how to falsify it.

I say it's in the obvious category. The Earth has got bigger. Grown.
Which means the surface moves outwards from the centre, and that
crustal break-up and sideways movement of the fragments are a
consequence of adjustment to this outwards movement.

So, you believe in an expanding earth simply as a means of protecting
your disbelief in subduction?


We can easily tell that this has happened from the difference in the
way the crust and the mantle have behaved, which leads axiomatically to
a conclusion that the Earth has got bigger - approximately doubled in
size since the Mesozoic.

Yeah, right.


Not so easy is telling how to falsify it. What geological acid test
could be used to FALSIFY Earth Expansion? ....how would you assess,
*GEOLOGICALLY*, if the Earth has got bigger?

Why are you picking and choosing among which refutations you will
accept? A refutation is a refutation, whether you like it or not.

snip continuation of rant

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

Not so easy is telling how to falsify it. What geological acid test
could be used to FALSIFY Earth Expansion? ....how would you assess,
*GEOLOGICALLY*, if the Earth has got bigger?

Why are you picking and choosing among which refutations you will
accept? A refutation is a refutation, whether you like it or not.

Again, it's a question of what comes first, isn't it? .the data or the
theory. If the geological facts permit an allowable conclusion, for
example, that life evolves, .. then why not use a creationist argument
to refute it. If the conclusion is in the facts, then so should be the
refutation.



snip continuation of rant

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Zachriel wrote:
"don findlay" wrote in message
ups.com...
Earth expansion and how to falsify it.

I say it's in the obvious category. The Earth has got bigger. Grown.
Which means the surface moves outwards from the centre, and that
crustal break-up and sideways movement of the fragments are a
consequence of adjustment to this outwards movement.

We can easily tell that this has happened from the difference in the
way the crust and the mantle have behaved, which leads axiomatically to
a conclusion that the Earth has got bigger - approximately doubled in
size since the Mesozoic.

Not so easy is telling how to falsify it. What geological acid test
could be used to FALSIFY Earth Expansion? ....how would you assess,
*GEOLOGICALLY*, if the Earth has got bigger? (Or not?) Really
substantially bigger; doubled in size in the last 10% or so of its
history.

This is not a question for homework. This is a serious attempt to
address how we understand global geology.

What would the first question be? Something to do with:-
The way that the crust has broken up?
The way that the crustal fragments have moved?
The way that the plates have grown/ shrunk/ moved/ been created/ been
destroyed?


Much simpler than that. If the Earth is expanding then this could be
directly detected by a lengthening of the diurnal period and by retardation
of the pendulum.

Again, though, ..the question is geological, in the belief that we have
to begin with the facts. If the facts bear on the theory, to the
extent that the theory is in question, then we cannot use the theory to
assess the validity of the facts. Fair statement?

I realised after posting I should not have used the emotive word
'expansion', but rather stuck with the word 'conclusion' ('got
bigger'). 'Expansion' has unfortunate connotations.

David Iain Greig wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and how to falsify it.

I say it's in the obvious category. The Earth has got bigger. Grown.
Which means the surface moves outwards from the centre, and that
crustal break-up and sideways movement of the fragments are a
consequence of adjustment to this outwards movement.

We can easily tell that this has happened from the difference in the
way the crust and the mantle have behaved, which leads axiomatically to
a conclusion that the Earth has got bigger - approximately doubled in
size since the Mesozoic.

Hang on.

1 Earth Mass (today) = 6.0e24 kg

0.5 Me = 3e24 kg

E = m c^2
= 3e24 * (3e8 m/s) ^2
= 3e24 * 9e16 kg m^2/s^2 (J)
= 2.7e41 J

Now 300 Myr is 9.5e15 seconds (can we call it 0.9e16 please?)

So the 'average' creation of matter over 300Myr would be 'about'

P = 2.7e41 / 0.9e16 J/s (W)
= 3e25 W

Now the sun provides 1.4 kW/m^2 of solar energy at one Earth orbit radius,
but according to Wikipedia, only abour 1kW/m^2 makes it to the ground.

Neglecting the fact that the Earth reradiates energy in the infrared,
then the total amount of energy hitting the ground also varies with
the angle of insolation, which is getting ugly, so I'll pretend the earth
is a flat disk, not a sphere!

Total crossectional area = pi * r^2
= 3.14 * (6.4e6 m ) ^ 2
= 1.29e14 m^2

So the total solar energy hitting my flat earth (ha!) would be about
1.3e17 W.

So if the Sun's total energy output hitting the Earth is 1.3e17 W,
but the power required to drive the creation of the needed matter
to make the Earth grow is about 3e25 W.

Then add the fact the Earth reradiates energy. And the fact that
the claim has been made that the process is discontinuous, IIRC.

So even admitting that a lot of energy from the Sun would not be
in the visible band, you're missing 8 orders of magnitude of energy
to source the conversion to matter.

So your theory breaks the conservation of energy, creaing matter
from nothing. If you can think of an energy source 8 orders of
magnitude bigger than the Sun, please posit it.

(Note: check my math, let me know if I've blundered.)




(Well yes-but, the question was a geological one. I know I'm posting to
physics/ astro/ talk, but that's in the belief we might come across
some information there since geologists here seem not able to address
the question. But the question is geological.

That 1.3e17W, ..is that the amount of energy hitting the Earth in 300m
years? Does that mean we can rule out sunlight?

And when you say we need "bigger than the sun", do you mean the sun?
Or sunlight intensity at a distance of 93million miles?

don findlay wrote:
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

Not so easy is telling how to falsify it. What geological acid test
could be used to FALSIFY Earth Expansion? ....how would you assess,
*GEOLOGICALLY*, if the Earth has got bigger?

Why are you picking and choosing among which refutations you will
accept? A refutation is a refutation, whether you like it or not.

Again, it's a question of what comes first, isn't it? .the data or the
theory. If the geological facts permit an allowable conclusion, for
example, that life evolves, .. then why not use a creationist argument
to refute it. If the conclusion is in the facts, then so should be the
refutation.

One problem with creationism is that it to the extent it is
falsifiable, it has been falsified. ID has no theory at all. And
neither has been able to refute evolutionary science with facts.

So too: the evidence does not support an expanding Earth.

And there is much that refutes it. Some problems:
No conceivable mechanism.
No other planets are seen to be expanding.
No changes in the length of day or the orbit that we would expect.
No geological data that is supported by this "hypothesis", and much
that is incompatible with it. There is no data that you idea supports
better than plate tectonics. I use scare quotes around the word
"hypothesis" because it's not an hypothesis unless it's comptible with
the known facts.
The more knowledge people have in physics or geology, the more they
seem to have specific arguments at hand refuting you.




snip continuation of rant

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Kermit