Geological falsification - the summary position

John Popelish wrote:
don findlay wrote:

Ah, ..a bit of mantle plate that *DID* break off and zig-zag to the
bottom. Now that'll stuff up the convectioneers *good* and proppah.
(Why doesn't it melt? And return? ..that's what I'd like to know... )
(Clearly more research is needed here. )

Why does a cold slab sinking to the bottom of the mantle "stuff up"
convection? Cold (denser) stuff going down and hotter (less dense)
stuff rising someplace else is the very essence of convection. No one
says that it won't eventually melt and also eventually rise.
"Eventually" just hasn't had time, yet.

OooOOhhhh, ..good one. I think you and Stuart need to get your heads
together on this one, John:-
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...4170c5cf965d39
...'coz if it can happen to one bit of slab, that it can get found down
there, ..what's to stop lots of them getting found? What's to stop a
great heap of them getting found, piled up like builders' bricks? I
mean, look at the size of the Earth's surface, an' the size of the
floor it's to fall on. How much heat is that little lot going to soak
up,.,. that pile of zig-zag plates? What happens if another one falls
on top? Just because some clever dick found one last month doesn't
mean to say that's all there is, now does it? This has been happening
you know, probably, ever since plate tectonics. There must be heaps of
the them down there. An' what about the ones turned on edge, so that
they're seismically invisible, stopping things too? It's
mind-boggling, what could be happening down there in the way of not
melting. Obviously more research is needed.


There is a suspicion that this sort of sinking ribbon effect may have
swallowed up most of the surface of Venus several times in its history.

A 'suspicion', eh, .. next it will be a guess, then an assumption,
...then a tarann-fact.

(Talk about bright-eyed tongue-lollers chasing their tails..)

LOL.

(Who was it posted that one for everybody's edification? Worse, ..who
was it wrote it? I tell you it's criminal what they get up to to
justify their existence. Why do they get away with it? The hype
machine? Or the reader? 'Cos it's certainly not the writer, faced
with the sack unless he comes up with some new trick to wow them.

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message
...
In message .com,
Kermit writes

don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and geological falsification:- the summary position
--------------------------------------
The question was:-
Using first-order structures of global deformation, how could
Earth Expansion be falsified? Can anyone think of a way?
-------------------------------------

1. Earth expansion is rejected out of hand on grounds that there is no
known physical mechanism.

A good reason to reject something which is refuted by some of the
evidence and supported by none.

2. There is no attempt to address the question from a geological point
of view. Not even amongst geologists.

Especially by geologists, perhaps, since they know not to waste their
time on this.

Late breaking news:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0603092903.htm


Thanks. It's not totally new, but it's interesting. Relevant quotation
"Since there is a conservation of mass in the mantle, something must
return as the slab sinks into the Earth"


What about a common sense approach instead of proof.
Didn't the earth start out as essentially a molten ball, a fluid?
And as it cooled the crust formed, which would have a lower
density and require more volume? So it would seem self
evident the earth would expand over time at some point
in it's history.

The next question would be if the crust thickens over time as
the earth continues to cool? In addition, the idea the earth's
size remains static is not logical. Nothing does that.

The only logical conclusion is the earth is either contracting or
expanding over time, or cycling between the two. Which would
be seen as catastrophic or periodic changes, not constant change.
And in real world systems an equilibrium is cyclic behavior
between the two possibilities.

There has to be times when the earth is expanding.

jonathan wrote:
"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message
...
In message .com,
Kermit writes

don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and geological falsification:- the summary position
--------------------------------------
The question was:-
Using first-order structures of global deformation, how could
Earth Expansion be falsified? Can anyone think of a way?
-------------------------------------

1. Earth expansion is rejected out of hand on grounds that there is no
known physical mechanism.

A good reason to reject something which is refuted by some of the
evidence and supported by none.

2. There is no attempt to address the question from a geological point
of view. Not even amongst geologists.

Especially by geologists, perhaps, since they know not to waste their
time on this.

Late breaking news:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0603092903.htm


Thanks. It's not totally new, but it's interesting. Relevant quotation
"Since there is a conservation of mass in the mantle, something must
return as the slab sinks into the Earth"


What about a common sense approach instead of proof.
Didn't the earth start out as essentially a molten ball, a fluid?

At the time we would recognize it as a plaet, yes.

And as it cooled the crust formed, which would have a lower
density and require more volume?

What do you mean by "require more volume"? Most substances condense
somewhat when they freeze.

So it would seem self evident the earth would expand over time at some point
in it's history.

That's not evident at all. Why would melting rock expand as it freezes?
And how much do you think most substances expand or condense as they
melt or freeze? Don is trying to account for the 5000 km or so between
the Americas and Africa. What do you know that expands or contracts
that much? Certainly not minerals.

In any event, current continental drift can be measured; it several
centimeters per years. There is no overall expansion.


The next question would be if the crust thickens over time as
the earth continues to cool? In addition, the idea the earth's
size remains static is not logical. Nothing does that.

The rock on my fireplace mantle does.


The only logical conclusion is the earth is either contracting or
expanding over time, or cycling between the two.

There's no reason to think it would to any significant degree.

Please show data (citres or whatever) that establish:
1. average temperature change rates for the Earth, and
2. how much Earth material, on the average, expands as it melts.

Which would
be seen as catastrophic or periodic changes, not constant change.

And why would its very slow cooling off be seen as catastrophic? Earth
catastrophes are caused by convection, which is caused by a constant
heat source in the core. This is a difference in temperature in
different areas of the Earth, no a change in overall average
temperatures.

And in real world systems an equilibrium is cyclic behavior
between the two possibilities.

What cycles? Are you seriously suggesting it warms up and cools off,
over and over?
There is no evidence for this, and no conceivable mechanism.


There has to be times when the earth is expanding.


Why? As it *very* slowly cools off, it would shrink, a *very* small
amount.

Kermit

In message , jonathan
writes

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message
...
In message .com,
Kermit writes

don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and geological falsification:- the summary position
--------------------------------------
The question was:-
Using first-order structures of global deformation, how could
Earth Expansion be falsified? Can anyone think of a way?
-------------------------------------

1. Earth expansion is rejected out of hand on grounds that there is no
known physical mechanism.

A good reason to reject something which is refuted by some of the
evidence and supported by none.

2. There is no attempt to address the question from a geological point
of view. Not even amongst geologists.

Especially by geologists, perhaps, since they know not to waste their
time on this.

Late breaking news:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0603092903.htm


Thanks. It's not totally new, but it's interesting. Relevant quotation
"Since there is a conservation of mass in the mantle, something must
return as the slab sinks into the Earth"


What about a common sense approach instead of proof.
Didn't the earth start out as essentially a molten ball, a fluid?

That's not the current view. The Earth started as an aggregate of
smaller rocks, quite cold except during major collisions, and the core
separated and became molten fairly soon after that.

And as it cooled the crust formed, which would have a lower
density and require more volume? So it would seem self
evident the earth would expand over time at some point
in it's history.

Not necessarily. I've already mentioned Ramsey's theory of a phase
change, which suggests that the Earth contracted as the core changed
into a denser phase.


The next question would be if the crust thickens over time as
the earth continues to cool? In addition, the idea the earth's
size remains static is not logical. Nothing does that.

I've also mentioned suggestions that the moons of the outer planets
expand early in their history. Both expansion and contraction are
reasonable ideas. The problem is that none of these changes are anything
like as big as the expansionists need to explain seafloor spreading, and
there's no reason why they should have occurred in recent history - and
200 million years _is_ recent in the 4500 million year history of the
Earth. Yet another point messrs. Findlay and Taylor choose to ignore.


The only logical conclusion is the earth is either contracting or
expanding over time, or cycling between the two. Which would
be seen as catastrophic or periodic changes, not constant change.
And in real world systems an equilibrium is cyclic behavior
between the two possibilities.

There has to be times when the earth is expanding.

But not doubling in radius, and not in the last 200 million years.

On 3 Jun 2006 21:47:09 -0700, don findlay wrote:

Earth expansion and geological falsification:- the summary position
--------------------------------------
The question was:-
Using first-order structures of global deformation, how could
Earth Expansion be falsified? Can anyone think of a way?
-------------------------------------

IANA geologist, nor have I been following this debate on t.o. but ISTM,
and I apologise if this has been raised/dealt with earlier, that an
expansion would lead to a smoothing of the globe, so rather than have
mountain ranges being pushed up we would have them being smoothed out.
The evidence for the pushing up case is apparently in the seabed type
fossils and strata found in mountain and mountain ranges. By what
mechanism does an expanding globe push seabeds into mountain ranges?

1. Earth expansion is rejected out of hand on grounds that there is no
known physical
mechanism.

Well that is a rather telling point, don't you think? I assume that if
you have children, their parentage by space aliens propogating a
metalised clone on the 4th moon of Vega and then transferring it into
you wife and a viable human embryo is pretty much discounted out of hand
in your household for exactly the same reason.

2. There is no attempt to address the question from a geological point
of view. Not even
amongst geologists.

There are many points of view that no-one is attempting to address.
Please tell me how much time you give to addressing the point of view
that the earth is shrinking? How much time do you give to addressing the
idea of Last Thursdayism, the above mentioned alien propogation theory
etc.?

So wowed is everyone with the YEW_BEAUT brand spanking new tool of GPS
that they think (sorry, 'BELIEVE' - because they are clearly not
thinking) ..believe that if the Earth were
expanding, then this would clearly be measurable, and ignore the simple
fallacies of that argument. First, it is a nonsense to think that the
twenty years of measuring is a suitable window of opportunity to show
anything of the sort, when the time slot under consideration is three
hundred million.

Why? My understanding is that length and time are the two most
accurately measured physical properties. 1 in 15 million does not seem
like too hard a task for modern instruments.

Geological process is known to be far from uniform
in many instances, and the displacements that *are* measured (as 'plate
movement') can easily be related to the decollement surface of the
transition zone (asthenosphere): the crust is skating on the mantle -
every day in concert with the Earth's spin. Whilst measurement is
certainly encouraging in respect of precision, the absence of recorded
vertical displacements is by no means evidence for absence of
expansion.

Why not? If you are looking for a measurement that is easily measured
and it is not there, that is a fairly telling absence. And, ISTM, that
the evidence is not absent, it is present, in the form of measurements
that do not meet your hypothesis. Discounting measurements just because
the do not confirm your ideas, and then saying that absence of evidence
etc. is the reason, is disingenuous at best. If that is the case then
every theory can argue the same thing along the lines of; discounting
celestial motions, gravitational lensing, and the numerous examples of
heavy things falling, the absence of evidence for my theory of mass
interaction by super thin rubber bands of different colours, does not
mean it is wrong.

First, many of the stations do show upwards displacement.

Which is not evidence for an expansion only. And also means that we are
talking of measurable values, in spite of your earlier words.

Secondly, there is the question of exactly how 'upwards' displaement
would be measured (lateral displacements would seem to be easier), and
the accuracy amongst noise of a measurement intrinsically 1/6th or
thereabout of those on the surface. And thirdly strong motions that
are recorded (sudden jumps) are not incorporated in the whispering
tumbleweed of signals.

(Somebody put me right.

No-one has been able to yet, so on what basis are we to conclude that
you can be put right? apparently the combined knowledge of a large
number of geologists cannot budge your position due to some conspiracy
or wilful blindness, so the evidence to hand suggests that you cannot be
swayed from your beliefs.

I read somewhere that the strong motions are
removed.)

Fourthly when it does happen, the effects are devastating as earthquake
victims well know.

Are all earthquake displacements upwards?

Moreover there are (again) geological grounds for thinking that that
'we ain't seen nuthin' yet'.

Which supports your hypothesis how, exactly?

The norm of expansion may not even have taken place in the lifetime of
historical records, ..perhaps not even in the timespan of the human
species.

"May" is the operative word there I would think. So unless your wish to
offer some support for this statement, the reverse *may* be equally
true.

So. GPS. Forget it. You don't need it to know when a city tumbles
down, or a tsunami washes over.

Who suggested that it would be needed?

No enlargement is implied in the
motions shown. But spin is. Yet the element of spin in global
deformation has been ignored in Plate Tectonics for the last half
century, ..and still is. And spin is very much a corroborative element
of Earth Expansion. Plate Tectonics needs to catch up and recognise
that spin is an integral control on global deformation.

It is making no attempt to do this. Even worse, geologists on
sci.geo.geology, who consider themselves representative of the
profession deny that any correlation exists, although put forsward no
reason whatsoever, and try to shoot the messengers, whoever they may
be.

Funny, that seems to be very much what you are doing in reverse.

That's the summary position.

And why is it like that? Because there is a tectonic shift about to
happen in the consensus position of the Earth Sciences, and we are
witnessing the denial that always happens whenever a change in the
resident Paradigm appears.

Well there are a number of reasons something may be denied, one is as
you say, another is that the thing denied is not true. If denial is a
sign of truth, then the thing you deny is happening, thus, the standard
geological model is conversley true for you? This presents us with
somewhat of a dilemma.

Stick around for the firewords. Should be
fun.

Not really, it is somewhat sad that without a mechanism or conclusive
evidence, you want geologists to accept your conclusions just on your
say so.

Shane wrote:

Not really, it is somewhat sad that without a mechanism or conclusive
evidence, you want geologists to accept your conclusions just on your
say so.

Sad? Who's sad? Cheer up, ..it's not as bad as all that

don findlay wrote:
Shane wrote:

Not really, it is somewhat sad that without a mechanism or conclusive
evidence, you want geologists to accept your conclusions just on your
say so.

Sad? Who's sad? Cheer up, ..it's not as bad as all that


Your position (and your posting this spam here) is what is sad.

Your crossposting to talk.origins serves no purpose towards
the discussion of evolution (or of creation) and so you should
discuss gene pools and alleles or post elsewhere. (You could
try the scientology newsgroup instead.)

And please explain why talk.origins readers should care about
your baseless ideas anyway.

(signed) marc

On 4 Jun 2006 05:46:16 -0700, don findlay wrote:

Shane wrote:

Not really, it is somewhat sad that without a mechanism or conclusive
evidence, you want geologists to accept your conclusions just on your
say so.

Sad? Who's sad? Cheer up, ..it's not as bad as all that

Not me, apparently all I wrote was correct, as you did not point out
any errors in my post. So your are correct, it really wasn't as bad as
I thought.

Shane wrote:
On 3 Jun 2006 21:47:09 -0700, don findlay wrote:

So wowed is everyone with the YEW_BEAUT brand spanking new tool of GPS
that they think (sorry, 'BELIEVE' - because they are clearly not
thinking) ..believe that if the Earth were
expanding, then this would clearly be measurable, and ignore the simple
fallacies of that argument. First, it is a nonsense to think that the
twenty years of measuring is a suitable window of opportunity to show
anything of the sort, when the time slot under consideration is three
hundred million.

Why? My understanding is that length and time are the two most
accurately measured physical properties. 1 in 15 million does not seem
like too hard a task for modern instruments.

Indeed, since GPS has *already* measured continental drift I would think
it has had ample opportunity to measure any expansion.

--
The peace of God be with you.

Stanley Friesen

don findlay wrote:

Earth expansion and geological falsification:- the summary position
--------------------------------------
The question was:-
Using first-order structures of global deformation, how could
Earth Expansion be falsified? Can anyone think of a way?
-------------------------------------

1. Earth expansion is rejected out of hand on grounds that there is no
known physical
mechanism.

That's putting it rather mildly. I'd say rather that it's rejected out
of hand on grounds that any conceivable mechanism would be physically
impossible. You wave your hands and propose a size increase with no
attendant increase in mass and no decrease in density. You might as well
propose a circular square.

2. There is no attempt to address the question from a geological point
of view. Not even
amongst geologists.

That's silly. There were such attempts many years ago when plate
tectonics was young and a few people proposed expansion as a serious
theory. It just didn't work out.

What you say below makes even surface sense only if we believe that
expansion has no effect on mass, density, or surface gravity, because
all these should be detectable long before we had any GPS. It seems to
me that the earth's mass was measured to high enough precision centuries
ago.

So wowed is everyone with the YEW_BEAUT brand spanking new tool of GPS
that they think (sorry, 'BELIEVE' - because they are clearly not
thinking) ..believe that if the Earth were
expanding, then this would clearly be measurable, and ignore the simple
fallacies of that argument. First, it is a nonsense to think that the
twenty years of measuring is a suitable window of opportunity to show
anything of the sort, when the time slot under consideration is three
hundred million. Geological process is known to be far from uniform
in many instances, and the displacements that *are* measured (as 'plate
movement') can easily be related to the decollement surface of the
transition zone (asthenosphere): the crust is skating on the mantle -
every day in concert with the Earth's spin. Whilst measurement is
certainly encouraging in respect of precision, the absence of recorded
vertical displacements is by no means evidence for absence of
expansion. First, many of the stations do show upwards displacement.
Secondly, there is the question of exactly how 'upwards' displaement
would be measured (lateral displacements would seem to be easier), and
the accuracy amongst noise of a measurement intrinsically 1/6th or
thereabout of those on the surface. And thirdly strong motions that
are recorded (sudden jumps) are not incorporated in the whispering
tumbleweed of signals.

(Somebody put me right. I read somewhere that the strong motions are
removed.)

Fourthly when it does happen, the effects are devastating as earthquake
victims well know.
Moreover there are (again) geological grounds for thinking that that
'we ain't seen nuthin' yet'.
The norm of expansion may not even have taken place in the lifetime of
historical records, ..perhaps not even in the timespan of the human
species.

Ah, so it only happens when we're not looking. But plate movements
happen when we are looking, and at a rate sufficient to account for
observed separation of the continents. So you must be wrong. Unless
there are extensive periods of much less expansion than is observed now,
there can be no periods of much greater expansion. Current events must
be close to the mean. Your excuse doesn't work.

So. GPS. Forget it. You don't need it to know when a city tumbles
down, or a tsunami washes over. No enlargement is implied in the
motions shown. But spin is. Yet the element of spin in global
deformation has been ignored in Plate Tectonics for the last half
century, ..and still is. And spin is very much a corroborative element
of Earth Expansion. Plate Tectonics needs to catch up and recognise
that spin is an integral control on global deformation.

I still have no idea what this means.

It is making no attempt to do this. Even worse, geologists on
sci.geo.geology, who consider themselves representative of the
profession deny that any correlation exists, although put forsward no
reason whatsoever, and try to shoot the messengers, whoever they may
be.

That's the summary position.

And why is it like that? Because there is a tectonic shift about to
happen in the consensus position of the Earth Sciences, and we are
witnessing the denial that always happens whenever a change in the
resident Paradigm appears. Stick around for the firewords. Should be
fun.

I think you're a nut. But regardless of whether I'm right or wrong about
this, and whether you're right or wrong about your theory, you come
across as a nut. You really should work on that.