Most Thorough Model

[Aardwolf]

Mountain Building. I read probably over ten years ago James Maxlow"s theory of how mountains were formed from Earth expansion. That seemed plausible superficially, but looking in more detail, I think it's pretty certain that mountains were formed from horizontal compression, not by vertical slippage or the like.

That doesn't sound like the most clinical debunking. Do you have a reason to discard the process I explained? It seems more like just a personal choice.

[starbiter]

Mountain Building. I read probably over ten years ago James Maxlow"s theory of how mountains were formed from Earth expansion. That seemed plausible superficially, but looking in more detail, I think it's pretty certain that mountains were formed from horizontal compression, not by vertical slippage or the like.

That doesn't sound like the most clinical debunking. Do you have a reason to discard the process I explained? It seems more like just a personal choice.

If the mountains are many millions of years old, they might be folded in one sort or another. If the mountains are 10,000 or less years old there would be no time for the erosion required to explain the smooth flowing rivers i see. Expanding earth seems to be a uniformitarian model.

I'm a catastrophist.

michael steinbacher

[GaryN]

Paul D Lowman Jr, who was NASAs head planetary geologist for quite a while, has written books and papers that question the accepted models:

From:"Exploring space, exploring Earth"

Plate tectonic theory is called upon to explain, directly
or indirectly, almost all aspects of terrestrial geology above the level
of the crystal lattice. Even metamorphic petrology, in particular the
new field of ultra-high pressure metamorphism, invokes phenomena
such as continental collision to explain how rocks recrystallized 150
kilometers down are brought to the surface.
I think this is a mistake. We now know, from space exploration,
that bodies essentially similar to the Earth in composition and struc-
ture have developed differentiated crusts, mountain belts, rift valleys,
and volcanos without plate tectonics, in fact without plates.
Furthermore, we now know, thanks partly to remote sensing from
space, that the Earth’s crust can not realistically be considered a
mosaic of 12 discrete rigid plates. For these and other reasons, I dis-
agree with certain aspects of plate tectonic theory, as will be
explained in the text.

He also has an article entitled "Faulting Continental Drift- A skeptics view of an entrenched theory. I can't find a free version, but here is a preview.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

I still think all major modification of the Earths surface was from above, electromagnetically, and not from below, but even Mr Lowman would likely balk at that idea.

[Sparky]

Michael

Expanding earth seems to be a uniformitarian model.

Not really. We can still have meteors, arc discharges, great floods from space, and
a frozen Earth.

((((((****************************************
Lloyd

I think it's pretty certain that mountains were formed from horizontal compression, not by vertical slippage or the like.

What if expansion was not uniform and resulted in compression in certain areas and vertical slippage in others.?

Why do we try to put the same shoe on all feet.?

[Lloyd]

Expansion?

Mountain Building. I read probably over ten years ago James Maxlow"s theory of how mountains were formed from Earth expansion. That seemed plausible superficially, but looking in more detail, I think it's pretty certain that mountains were formed from horizontal compression, not by vertical slippage or the like.

That doesn't sound like the most clinical debunking. Do you have a reason to discard the process I explained? It seems more like just a personal choice.

Yes, I gave some of the reasons I favor Fisher's Shock Dynamics model. With respect to your statements on mountain building via Earth Expansion, I said mountains appear to be formed by horizontal compression (due to the central impact on the supercontinent), not by vertical slippage (from expansion).

[] If the mountains are many millions of years old, they might be folded in one sort or another. If the mountains are 10,000 or less years old there would be no time for the erosion required to explain the smooth flowing rivers i see. Expanding earth seems to be a uniformitarian model.
- I'm a catastrophist.
- michael steinbacher

Yes, I pointed out earlier that catastrophist Cardona also favors continental drift. He also says Earth has both expanded and contracted. I mentioned Fred Juenemann's idea too, that Earth changed shape from oval to sphere, causing the appearance of expansion.

Paul D Lowman Jr, who was NASAs head planetary geologist for quite a while, has written books and papers that question the accepted models: From:"Exploring space, exploring Earth"

[] we now know, thanks partly to remote sensing from space, that the Earth’s crust can not realistically be considered a mosaic of 12 discrete rigid plates. For these and other reasons, I disagree with certain aspects of plate tectonic theory, as will be explained in the text.

He also has an article entitled "Faulting Continental Drift- A skeptics view of an entrenched theory. I can't find a free version, but here is a preview.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2326-1951.1983.tb02633.x/abstract
- I still think all major modification of the Earths surface was from above, electromagnetically, and not from below, but even Mr Lowman would likely balk at that idea.

Impacts are electric. CC explained that the supercontinent had to have formed on Earth more recently than the rest of the Earth, or it would have formed a layer worldwide, instead of a glob in one place. The impact broke up the glob and the glob pieces floated almost frictionlessly on the electric plasma Moho layer. Instead of the seafloors acting as conveyor belts pulling the continents apart, the impact broke them up and pushed them apart over the unmoving seafloors. There is no subduction of a conveyor belt into the mantle. But the North American continent overrode the east Pacific ridge, raising up the Rocky Mountains area.

-----Michael

: Expanding earth seems to be a uniformitarian model.

Not really. We can still have meteors, arc discharges, great floods from space, and
a frozen Earth.
-----Lloyd

: I think it's pretty certain that mountains were formed from horizontal compression, not by vertical slippage or the like.

- What if expansion was not uniform and resulted in compression in certain areas and vertical slippage in others.?
- Why do we try to put the same shoe on all feet.?

Any expansion was obviously very limited, like the expansion of water freezing into ice. That's about a 10% expansion. The only source of expansion known now seems to be from meteoric dust and meteorites, cosmic rays etc. That's all a covering on the surface. It isn't an internal expansion that can break continents apart.

[CharlesChandler]

Earth expansion does explain mountains. If you take a flat piece of land at a specific curvature then flatten that curvature the top layer of land will fold like a concertina along the weakest point.

But why wouldn't the crust also rift at the weakest point, separating the plates instead of scrunching them together?

IMO, the most convincing evidence for the Expanding Earth Hypothesis is how neatly all of the continents fit together in a smaller shell. And I'm still tinkering with an idea of how the Earth could expand, within the framework of the CFDL model. I'm saying that the layers are held together with a lot more force than just gravity, due to charge separations that create an electric force between the layers. So if you take away the charge separations, that force goes away, and the Earth will expand. And one of the consequences of cooling is that supercriticality becomes less tenable. And the implication of that is that compressible supercritical fluids turn into incompressible solids or liquids when they cool down, and the matter expands back out to the dimensions required by the solid/liquid state.

Still, if we take a close look at the geologic features, the expectations of the EEH are not met. We'd expect mid-ocean ridges between all of the continents, and we wouldn't expect any of the plates to be converging -- they should all be diverging. And yet the evidence for converging plates is unmistakable (thanks to GPS measurements). So why isn't there a mid-ocean ridge in the Pacific Basin? The one in the Atlantic is quite clearly defined, while the ones in the Pacific are small and irregular. And the Asian plate is converging with the Pacific plate. This is where Shock Dynamics pulls ahead, because Fischer looked quite closely at all of these features, and showed that there is really only one model that accounts for all of it -- that everything is moving away from Madagascar, where there is an impact crater.

[Aardwolf]

Expansion?

Mountain Building. I read probably over ten years ago James Maxlow"s theory of how mountains were formed from Earth expansion. That seemed plausible superficially, but looking in more detail, I think it's pretty certain that mountains were formed from horizontal compression, not by vertical slippage or the like.

That doesn't sound like the most clinical debunking. Do you have a reason to discard the process I explained? It seems more like just a personal choice.

Yes, I gave some of the reasons I favor Fisher's Shock Dynamics model. With respect to your statements on mountain building via Earth Expansion, I said mountains appear to be formed by horizontal compression (due to the central impact on the supercontinent), not by vertical slippage (from expansion)..

So you provide no reason for expansion not to be responsible. You just prefer Fisher's model.

Any expansion was obviously very limited, like the expansion of water freezing into ice. That's about a 10% expansion. The only source of expansion known now seems to be from meteoric dust and meteorites, cosmic rays etc. That's all a covering on the surface. It isn't an internal expansion that can break continents apart.

Nothing you have provided makes it obvious expansion is limited. This is just your personal commentary.

Just because we observe one type of expansion, doesn't rule out every type of expansion. As I stated we don't know the mechanism that causes internal expansion but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. We don't know the mechanism for gravity, nor the mechanism for magnetism or the mechanism for the fields that surround them. We don't know the exact mechanism for egg fertilisation but no-one disputes the existence of these things happening. Forget about trying to find a reason for expansion and just look at the evidence. It all points to an expanding Earth.

[Aardwolf]

Earth expansion does explain mountains. If you take a flat piece of land at a specific curvature then flatten that curvature the top layer of land will fold like a concertina along the weakest point.

But why wouldn't the crust also rift at the weakest point, separating the plates instead of scrunching them together?

The continent crust is much thicker than the ocean crust. The pressure from expansion is already relieving itself at the rifts. The pressure within the continents caused by flattening crumples at the weakest point of the continent not the weakest point of the entire global crust. However, new rifts within continents are possible hence the East African rift.

Still, if we take a close look at the geologic features, the expectations of the EEH are not met. We'd expect mid-ocean ridges between all of the continents,

Why do we expect them to be all mid-ocean? The East African rift isn't even in an ocean.

and we wouldn't expect any of the plates to be converging -- they should all be diverging. And yet the evidence for converging plates is unmistakable (thanks to GPS measurements).

Do you have data for this? And a theory as to how exactly that would even be measured?

So why isn't there a mid-ocean ridge in the Pacific Basin? The one in the Atlantic is quite clearly defined, while the ones in the Pacific are small and irregular. And the Asian plate is converging with the Pacific plate.

Again, why central and where's evidence for convergence?

This is where Shock Dynamics pulls ahead, because Fischer looked quite closely at all of these features, and showed that there is really only one model that accounts for all of it -- that everything is moving away from Madagascar, where there is an impact crater.

So it must be able to explain what direction the African and Antarctic plates are heading. So what direction are the African and Antarctic plates heading?

[CharlesChandler]

and we wouldn't expect any of the plates to be converging -- they should all be diverging. And yet the evidence for converging plates is unmistakable (thanks to GPS measurements).

Do you have data for this? And a theory as to how exactly that would even be measured?

https://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/sage/geolog ... cepts.html

Tracking Plate Motion from Space

Today we can track the current direction and speed of plate motion with ground surveying techniques using laser-electronic instruments and by space-based methods such as with satellite networks. Since plate motions are at a global scale, they are best measured by satellite-based methods. The three most commonly used space-based techniques are: very long baseline interferometry (VLBI), satellite laser ranging (SLR), and the Global Positioning System (GPS). Among these three techniques, GPS has been the most useful for studying plate motions to date.

The GPS satellite network includes twenty-four satellites that are currently in orbit 20,000 km above the Earth as part of the NavStar system of the U.S. Department of Defense. These satellites continuously transmit radio signals back to Earth. To determine a precise position on Earth (longitude, latitude, elevation) triangulation is used. From any one position on earth one must simultaneously receive signals from at least four satellites, recording the exact time and location of each satellite when its signal was received. By repeatedly measuring distances between specific points, geologists can determine if there has been active movement between plates.

Plate motion can be measure as relative movement or absolute movement. Absolute plate movement is the motion of a plate with respect to the Earth’s deep interior (Figure 14). Relative movement refers to the movement between two plates at a given point on the plate boundary. For every pair of plates their relative motion is defined by a direction and a magnitude. This movement has a magnitude of typically tens of mm per year (Figure 15). It is relative plate movement that determines the amount and type of earthquake and volcanic activity present along a plate boundary.

Sound legitimate to me.

This is where Shock Dynamics pulls ahead, because Fischer looked quite closely at all of these features, and showed that there is really only one model that accounts for all of it -- that everything is moving away from Madagascar, where there is an impact crater.

So it must be able to explain what direction the African and Antarctic plates are heading. So what direction are the African and Antarctic plates heading?

Here's what the referenced website said:



Those are absolute motions. Relative motions are different.

[Lloyd]

Aardwolf said: Forget about trying to find a reason for expansion and just look at the evidence. It all points to an expanding Earth.

How much has the Earth expanded in the last few hundred years since the Earth's diameter was first measured? The evidence points to Shock Dynamics etc. Why do you prefer to be subjective, rather than objective?

[Sparky]

Absolute plate movement is the motion of a plate with respect to the Earth’s deep interior

WHAT?!

Visual evidence of continents near fit, and that gravity allowed really big animals seems to point in one direction, regardless of what other evidence is submitted!

It all could have happened over the non uniformly expanding crust, over the mass buildup from the interior..

Expanding ocean floors could account for the continental mountains on the sea ward sides. No geologist, but will accept info. about that limited observation of mine.

*************************************

Lloyd:

How much has the Earth expanded in the last few hundred years since the Earth's diameter was first measured?

Do you assume that expansion is linear? Or that it is persistent? Or that all of your confusing data can be explained by one event, while conveniently ignoring what is obvious!?

[Lloyd]

Big Animals. Sparky said: "gravity allowed really big animals".

That's a good point, that the very large animals of the past suggest that gravity was much weaker. Or gravity was possibly balanced by other forces.

Earth may have been much smaller, resulting in weaker gravity, as Expanding Earthers think. Or Fred Juenemann suggested that the atmosphere was much thicker in the past and that may have provided buoyancy to counter gravity. He also suggested that Earth was oval shaped due to a strong magnetic field from Saturn. The shape changed to spherical when Earth left Saturn. The magnetic field or the electric field may have provided buoyancy then too. Cardona says Earth has expanded and contracted.

Maybe Charles has ideas too about how gravity may have been weaker in the past.

The age of dinosaurs was likely only thousands of years ago, instead of millions. C14 dating shows dinosaur bones date to mostly 20 to 30 thousand years ago, but C14 is less accurate after 5,000 years or so. The ocean sediments indicate that erosion has been occurring for only a few thousand years.

Ted Holden's article/s on Dinosaurs and Gravity is at:
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/sauropods/biganims.html

[CharlesChandler]

Maybe Charles has ideas too about how gravity may have been weaker in the past.

In the CFDL model, if the Earth is expanding, it is not because of added mass, but rather, because of reduced electric forces. Thus the smaller Earth would have had the same mass, but the gravity field actually would have been more dense. So the dinosaur problem would only be solvable with Juenemann's hypothesis of a thicker atmosphere.

Note that the thickness of the atmosphere, and the density of the gravity field, are not directly related. Venus is smaller than the Earth, but its atmosphere is much more dense. It's also highly electrified. So I think that Venus has an electric field that keeps the atmosphere bound to the planet.

BTW, I "think" that the thicker atmosphere hypothesis is the only one that solves the problem for flying dinosaurs. If less gravity is coupled with a thinner atmosphere, it's no advantage. You need less gravity and/or a thicker atmosphere, and I "think" that the atmosphere is the bigger factor.

[Aardwolf]

and we wouldn't expect any of the plates to be converging -- they should all be diverging. And yet the evidence for converging plates is unmistakable (thanks to GPS measurements).

Do you have data for this? And a theory as to how exactly that would even be measured?

https://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/sage/geolog ... cepts.html

Where's the data?

Tracking Plate Motion from Space

Today we can track the current direction and speed of plate motion with ground surveying techniques using laser-electronic instruments and by space-based methods such as with satellite networks. Since plate motions are at a global scale, they are best measured by satellite-based methods. The three most commonly used space-based techniques are: very long baseline interferometry (VLBI), satellite laser ranging (SLR), and the Global Positioning System (GPS). Among these three techniques, GPS has been the most useful for studying plate motions to date.

The GPS satellite network includes twenty-four satellites that are currently in orbit 20,000 km above the Earth as part of the NavStar system of the U.S. Department of Defense. These satellites continuously transmit radio signals back to Earth. To determine a precise position on Earth (longitude, latitude, elevation) triangulation is used. From any one position on earth one must simultaneously receive signals from at least four satellites, recording the exact time and location of each satellite when its signal was received. By repeatedly measuring distances between specific points, geologists can determine if there has been active movement between plates.

Plate motion can be measure as relative movement or absolute movement. Absolute plate movement is the motion of a plate with respect to the Earth’s deep interior (Figure 14). Relative movement refers to the movement between two plates at a given point on the plate boundary. For every pair of plates their relative motion is defined by a direction and a magnitude. This movement has a magnitude of typically tens of mm per year (Figure 15). It is relative plate movement that determines the amount and type of earthquake and volcanic activity present along a plate boundary.

Sound legitimate to me.

Unfortunately you suffer from the same confirmation bias as the mainstream. How exactly are they supposed to measure absolute movement compared to its deep interior?

This is where Shock Dynamics pulls ahead, because Fischer looked quite closely at all of these features, and showed that there is really only one model that accounts for all of it -- that everything is moving away from Madagascar, where there is an impact crater.

So it must be able to explain what direction the African and Antarctic plates are heading. So what direction are the African and Antarctic plates heading?

Here's what the referenced website said:



Those are absolute motions. Relative motions are different.

So what are their relative and absolute directions? Don't forget to include your explanation how the absolute measurement is determined.

Also, have you ever considered how its possible there is so many red lines and so few blue lines. I know you're an intelligent guy. Does this ring any cognitive alarm bells? Do you have any curiosity as to why the divergence vastly dominates the convergence and how this is possible? Do you have any curiosity as to how it's possible that the Antarctic plate is completely surrounded by divergent rifts yet has no convergent phenomena within it? Where do you think all that land is going?

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf said: Forget about trying to find a reason for expansion and just look at the evidence. It all points to an expanding Earth.

How much has the Earth expanded in the last few hundred years since the Earth's diameter was first measured?

Find the sub-centimetre measurements and we can check.

The evidence points to Shock Dynamics etc. Why do you prefer to be subjective, rather than objective?

Shock dynamics is falsified with all the other plate tectonic theories. First you need to explain where Antarctica is heading. Second, as a theory based on Pangea, Australia and South America shared no common border yet 25% of all marsupial species are located in South America and 75% in Australia and not a single solitary species in the vast land of Africa separating them. Explanation?