...each piece will have a probability of 1/60 to fit with the next piece. So even if you, say you start out with half the pieces in the correct position, representing the Atlantic fit, the chanses to get the last 10 pieces in the correct position, is less than 1 in 10 mill.
What are the chanses if you use a real model with more details and you add the tracks from the fault lines and age isochrones... ?
Have you ever tryed to calculate the probability of all the continents fitting together on all sides, just by accident? It´s not an easy job, you won´t get an exact number as a result. You have to simplify an make estimations.
If you use a Dodecahedron made of 12 pentagons, the probability that you can remake the original solid from putting the pieces randomely together on a table, is in the order of 1%. If you add "tags" to the sides of each piece, so that only one side fits with one other...
"It's time to accept there is an alternative to the current paradigm!"
Plate Fruitonics? Geolopeel?
With your model, you are dialling out all the potential sources of error for the fit of the continents by a) making it incredibly tiny and b) making it out of a satsuma.
The crustal age map disproves expanding Earth on its own. Truncated isochrons, my friend. They cannot be explained by expanding Earth hypothesis. You can't grow lines of adjoining age *sideways* from a continent margin.
@ScienceWars My model only proves that it is possible to cut out the shapes of the continents in orange peel in the correct position. That is in itself an incredible "coincidence"! The real proof lies in the exact shapes of the continents combined with magnetic and other data, not least the crustal age map. What the evidence is telling us, is what we are debating. You think PT, I say it looks more like GE.
You find a fruit that looks exactly like the Earth, with the skin stretched and torn in pieces. And stretch lines exactly like the CAM. Would you say it proves that the skin subducted? That would be Plate Fruitonics!:P
@TREMILBERG It's not an incredible coincidence when you consider the continents actually fit together on Earth at its current radius.
The continents could have split apart in any configuration, and you would still be able to represent this on a tangerine!
I'll make the point to you again, Tremilberg - by using a tangerine to represent the continents - which is tiny, and impossible to cut up with any kind of accuracy - you have introduced massive errors into your model, which is meaningless.
@ScienceWars "It's not an incredible coincidence when you consider the continents actually fit together on Earth at its current radius." It is no big secret that they have problems explaining the gaps you get when you make reconstructions on a same size Earth.Already between Africa and South America you will see it. You can start out with any continent and get the same result. If you try to add a third continent, the gaps are growing to unexplainable voids.
@ScienceWars "The continents could have split apart in any configuration, and you would still be able to represent this on a tangerine!"
YES! But only if the outer margins of "Pangea" are exactly as they are today! GE predicts that the outer margins fit together. PT does NOT! PT says the continents move around in a random way. The outer margins should NOT fit together at any point in time.
Take a look at their predicted configuration of "Pangea Ultima". That will never make a fit on all sides!
@TREMILBERG "GE predicts that the outer margins fit together. PT does NOT! PT says the continents move around in a random way. The outer margins should NOT fit together at any point in time."
You don't understand PT. And GE predicts that there should be no wide-scale discordant, adjacent rock sequences *within* continents, yet these exist. I live near the Iapetus Suture in the UK - the animal species in rocks either side of this long, 1meter-wide divide are *utterly* different.
@ScienceWars You did not answer to my points. You can always answer an argument by telling the opponent that he doesn´t understand or give evidence you say contradicts the theory. There is obviously lots of evidence that could be interpreted to support either PT or GE or both, depending on where you stand. I am sure you know more about the lapetus Suture than I, but you cannot disprove a possible fit in the Pacific with the lapetus Suture.
@TREMILBERG But you *actually* don't understand Plate Tectonics. It's not a debating tactic from me. It's a statement of fact. I'm not attempting to 'beat' my 'opponent', debate style. I can't say it any more clearly - YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND PLATE TECTONICS.
As a result, your opinion on such matters is moot.
If you have any particular questions, can you phrase them in question form? I'd be only too happy to answer, and I'll spend as much time as you like on the subject.
@ScienceWars What I don´t understand about PT, is this: I don´t see the mechanism, the driving force. Convection cells? Where is the heat source? I don´t see them either. What I see is 3 large spreading rifts ensircling the Earth. If they existed could they produce the pattern in the CAM? And aren´they backing away from the idea anyway? Slab pull is the new "epicycle"! So, is slab pull pushing up the Himalayas? Seriously? According to Cliff Ollier, the Himalayas are in extention, not compr.ion
@TREMILBERG "What I don´t understand about PT, is this: I don´t see the mechanism, the driving force. Convection cells? Where is the heat source?"
If you don't understand the mechanisms of PT (which are very basic systems of heat flow from a cooling planetary core giving off heat in the form of radioactive decay) - what on earth is going on with an expanding Earth?!?!
Your point doesn't make any sense. You are postulating everything in science is wrong. Physics to genetics. Out the window.
@ScienceWars I am postulating that what I "see" is correct. First. Then see if it fits with current beliefs. That may mean that some things in science will have to be modified.
You are in fact here demonstrating why it is so difficult for new ideas to be taken seriously, even if supported by a mounain of evidence. You are defending "everything in science... Out the window" So you don´t actually look at the evidence, before you dismiss it, because you have the "that isn´t possible" glasses on.
@ScienceWars I´m not asking you to throw out anything. I´m asking you to explain the absurdities that PT leads to. Would you say that IF, (for the sake of the argument), physicists came up with a mechanism for Earth to grow, that it would solve some of those problems? In other words: in your opinion, Is there evidence that supports GE/EE or not?
@TREMILBERG "I´m asking you to explain the absurdities that PT leads to. Would you say that IF, (for the sake of the argument), physicists came up with a mechanism for Earth to grow, that it would solve some of those problems? "
No. None whatsoever. EE wasn't abandoned for a lack of mechanism. It was abandoned for a lack of supporting data, and no coherence between any other sub-disciplines of Geology.
That lack of evidence continues to this very second. The mechanism is irrelevant.
@TREMILBERG ". I´m asking you to explain the absurdities that PT leads to."
Such as...?
And while you're replying, would you not characterise faith that planet(s) and suns across the Universe grow because of the incorrect understanding of the formation and shapes of continents on one planet as.... 'absurd'?
@TREMILBERG If any old idea was allowed to permeate scientific research without valid reasons for doing so - Science would not work. You wouldn't be typing on a computer. Cassini would not be orbiting Saturn. Science would be broken.
New ideas are imbibed into the scientific corpus by virtue of their own merits of unifying existing data (remember... "DATA" are just observations - the hypothesis attempts to explain it; THEORY confirms it with repeated observations).
@ScienceWars True. However, we have to be careful when we have established an idea, that we don´t stop thinking, because of the splendor of our own idea.
Imagine we are rebuilding a castle from the rubble in the ruins. Once you have decided how you think the castle looked like before it tumbeled down, you will be tending to pick the pieces that you see fit with that image. The pieces that don´t match, are left for others to worry about. What if some of your first assumptions were wrong? Cont..
@ScienceWars Maybe we are building the wrong castle?
This is why there is growing criticism of modern theoertical physics, because all the wonderful theories are just theories that cannot be tested easily. It all work as mathematical models, but string theory, branes and multiple dimentions and universes, may- in part at least, be just science fiction.
What if, due to erosion, the building blocks were bigger back in time?
What if some locals took parts of the rubble for their houses?
What if other blocks were thrown in from other castles?
These are all 'puzzles' encountered by science all the time, and there are some brilliantly creative thinkers who come up with solutions to these puzzles all the time...
@TREMILBERG ...your castle analogy would not be summarised (with respect to PT):
"Maybe we are building the wrong castle?" rather:
"Maybe all castles float and it was held down by some unseen mechanism."
From the "outside" perspective (i.e. a non-supporter of PT), you see us Geologists as blind; stubborn; secretive; paranoid; gate-keeping; hostile to new ideas.
The reality is you simply don't know your subject, and think you know better than the experts, which is pretty lazy thinking.
Don't get me wrong, Trem. It's great you are interested in this subject. But ideas like EE are the junk food of the ideas world: quick, easily accessed, easily understood, lacking in depth (<-subduction pun), non-predictive and many other things besides.
E.g. The massive mag. 9.1 Tohoku earthquake was predicted by geology for decades. What wasn't known was that it could achieve mag 9. (Max mag predicted was m7). This is a puzzle to solve.
@TREMILBERG "but string theory, branes and multiple dimentions and universes, may- in part at least, be just science fiction."
That's a bit of a strawman, if you don't mind my saying.
You are comparing what is the absolutely blood-spattered cutting-edge of science with fundamental planks of science, like thermodynamics (energy must be created in order for EE/GE to be correct, violating a fundamental law that has never, ever been observed to fail.)
@TREMILBERG "However, we have to be careful when we have established an idea, that we don´t stop thinking,"
Couldn't agree more. Now, this is exactly how Science works. You should read up on your Thomas Kuhn, the Philosophy of Science. Amazing book. There are always unsolved questions in all disciplines of science. These he calls 'puzzles'. They don't require the abandonment of everything else that has been learned, else science couldn't function.
@TREMILBERG "o you don´t actually look at the evidence, before you dismiss it, because you have the "that isn´t possible" glasses on."
I have a Masters in Geology. I have studied and deeply investigated EE for about 5 years. I have EE in mind whenever I'm doing fieldwork, which I have been doing for decades. When you do that you see - in the rocks themselves - why EE is so wrong.
@ScienceWars Here is a question for you: Which direction is the moor at the East Pacific rise move, relative to the S-American continent? (Not the Nazca plate, but the rift itself.)
So where was the rift, say... 30MYA and 60MYA? Was it closer to, or further away from the continent? Or maybe it was more or less at the same location? Please explain!
@TREMILBERG "So where was the rift, say... 30MYA and 60MYA? Was it closer to, or further away from the continent? Or maybe it was more or less at the same location? Please explain!"
I'm making a video for you. I'll let you know when it is online - I have the scientific data on my HD.
@TREMILBERG The triangular region in the NW Pacific is a triple junction, of which there are dozens around the planet. Rifting events begin as:
1. A sag basin (as in Ethiopia today)
2. A triple junction rift - basically a rift with 3 arms
3. Expansion of that triple junction into a new ocean basin (as the material that fills in is Basalt, which comprises heavier minerals & sits lower in the asthenosphere).
The triangle was central 'Pacific' 200Ma ago. The rift (East Pacific Rise) much closer.
@TREMILBERG "What I see is 3 large spreading rifts ensircling the Earth. Slab pull is the new "epicycle""
There are many more than 3. You need a higher resolution crust map.
Ocean crust is more dense than the material it is going into. The viscosity of the mantle is sufficient for a dense ocean crust to descent into. Convection plays a part, as does gravity sliding of the plate (so-called 'slab push'). All ridges rise up from the heat source underneath, forming mountains 1000s of km high.
@TREMILBERG Cliff Ollier's book, 'The Origin of Mountains' has been widely discredited by the geological community. There have been no positive reviews. He uses straw men (i.e.. outdated geological diagrams from the 1960s) in order to critique current geological thinking.
Slab pull is not only pushing up the himalayas - it is a combination of gravity sliding 'slab push', viscosity differential and probable friction from mantle currents.
Do you deny the seismic images of subducting plates?
@TREMILBERG "but you cannot disprove a possible fit in the Pacific with the lapetus Suture."
I have no idea what you mean here. The Iapetus Suture (which completely disproves growing/expanding Earth hypothesis) is nothing to do with the Pacific.
I don't mind answering your questions, but you can help your case by doing a little bit of research beforehand, or phrasing your questions better.
Again, I'm not trying to be rude - you need to inform yourself before you proclaim something as false.
@ScienceWars Ok, I am sorry if my phrasing is inadequate, It´s not easy to answer sensibly within the 500 letter limit. :-)
What I mean, is this:
The EEH was originally suggested, only based on the visual fit of the continents on a smaller sphere. The discovery of the mid-oceanic ridge system supported this; you can actually bring the continents together to a complete fit by just following the fault lines and using the isochrones. Cont...
@ScienceWars ...So there is a fit. That fit needs an explanation. EEH explains it. PT does not. Other evidence may disprove EE, but the fit is still there. The lapetus suture has nothing to do with the Pacific, and that´s exactly why it´s not an argument against the fit we can see.
They said the bumble bee should not be able to fly, still it does, so there must be an explanation.
The lapetus suture may be an argument against EE/GE, but I fail to see how it can completely disprove anything.
@ScienceWars I´m not saying I know for a fact that the Earth is growing. I´m saying there is good evidence to support that it does. And much of that evidence is ignored because it doesen´t fit with current "knowledge".
PT is a way of explaining away the the facts as they appear. And I´m not saying that to be arrogant (you probably think stupid!:P) but because i think that is a good description of what has happened. Wherever they look, they see expansion, "we don´t believe it, so, ah, subduction
@TREMILBERG "PT is a way of explaining away the the facts as they appear."
When the facts continue to pile up, and are supported in a mutually supportive, multidisciplinary-corroborated framework, only blind stubbornness can account for the continued resistance against the paradigm.
Don't get me wrong - all paradigms should be challenged, but EE doesn't challenge PT in any way, it answers no questions, and throws up only more questions that require entire reworkings of science.
@TREMILBERG "The EEH was originally suggested, only based on the visual fit of the continents on a smaller sphere. The discovery of the mid-oceanic ridge system supported this; "
The mid-ocean ridge system also supports PT.
Samuel Warren Carey was largely responsible for creating Plate Tectonics, and he was initially a strong PT advocate.
"you can actually bring the continents together to a complete fit by just following the fault lines and using the isochrones"
@ScienceWars As you know, Samuel Warren Carey left PT, because he came to the conclusion that it did not answer the questions adequately.
Does the mid-ocean ridge system also support PT? I don´t think so. And the CAM is largely not used by geology for some reason.
The Pacific is difficult, because there are so many things going on there, but if you correct for plate motions, and adjust for shape changes in the continents, it is quite possible to do.
@TREMILBERG The biggest problem for EE continues to be what killed it in the first place:
A lack of evidence for an expanding earth and a bounty of evidence for subduction VIA GPS measurements and seismic readings of earthquakes and subducting plates as well as tiltmeter readings of the Himalayas which are still in the process of growing. So individual dramas mean nothing when one considers evidence. Which is abundant.
@danschaoticmind Have you ever heard about crime cases where the evidence was said to be overwhelming in disfavor of the accused? Leading to a conviction to jail or even a death sentence! Only problem was, he didn´t do it, he was innocent!
How?
All the evidence was interpreted to fit with the belief that he was guilty. The investigation was made with "glasses" on, trying to find out how he did it, not if he really did it at all. They knew he did it!
@TREMILBERG That's court case. Circumstantial evidence in place of hard evidence has backing in courts. Not in science. If sufficient evidence can be given that backs a given theory, then the theory holds more weight. Besides, in the history of science, new evidence emerging often does knock out the pre-existing theories. Why else do you think PT and evolution even became such powerful theories? Evidence over time knocked the old theories such as EE out and now we have PT.
@danschaoticmind@TREMILBERG EE was actually the leading hypothesis that explained the outlines of the continents for many years. Even Darwin supported the idea.
@ScienceWars That's the nice thing about the scientific method: When new data becomes apparent to support new theories, the old theories, if they are unable to be supported, must be abandoned.
@danschaoticmind Dan, your comment was flagged as spam, so I'm reposting it here:
@ScienceWars That's the nice thing about the scientific method: When new data becomes apparent to support new theories, the old theories, if they are unable to be supported, must be abandoned.
@ScienceWars Thanks for the heads up. I find it odd that comments which point out HOW the method works, or how there are explicit refutations often get marked as spam.
FYI the comment I am responding to (Where you said my comment has been marked as spam) has also been marked as spam.
Side note; Have you gotten the chance to read over some of the findings published in Nature about the Tohoku earthquake? I only recently found out about them and the readings are astonishing.
@danschaoticmind "Why else do you think PT and evolution even became such powerful theories?"
Hmmm... Money?:-P
Seriously, I am refering to the psychological approach to something new by the human mind. It doesn´t only apply to court case. It has happened many times in science too.
They used to laugh at Darwin´s ideas. As they did with dr. Ignaz Semmelweis. (Look it up.) ...And Wegener :-)
@TREMILBERG "I am refering to the psychological approach to something new by the human mind"
Trem. That door swings in *your* direction too, yes? Let's leave aside your notion that EE is right for a moment. How resistant are *you* to PT?
You don't know the details. You've done no work on the subject. You've only analysed the most broad-level and basic element of geology it is possible to study (a map) and concluded all PT, and science, is wrong!
@danschaoticmind I don´t pretend to be anything but an amateur in geology, but I am still able to think logically, and when the story told seems to be a fairytale compared to what I can see with my own eyes, I want a better explanation. Sometimes a child can see what the preconditioned mind of an adult cannot.
My parents once told me the Moon phases were caused by the Earth shadow!!! I was 8, but never believed their story. It did not make sense. it looked logically impossible to me.
@TREMILBERG "It did not make sense. it looked logically impossible to me."
It looked logical to early man that the Earth was a disk, and the sun went around it.
Logic is not a part of Science, or at least - not a path to truly understanding the Universe. Nature is under no obligation to be logical or comprehensible to humans. That is an anthropomorphic view of things, and as quantum physics has shown - they just 'aint so.
@TREMILBERG If you are able to think logically then you should be able to do independent research, analyze what has been published for review and see that there is NO evidence for EE and Tons of evidence for the current model of plate tectonics. Geodesy and GPS measurements of island motion over time in the pacific basin alone is enough of a nail in EEs coffin. So it seems to me that while you may claim to be thinking logically, you really are not well versed in the scientific method.
@danschaoticmind 1. I promise, I will stop hinking logically, since that is not part of the scientific method. 2. I will immediately write to James Maxlow, Giancarlo Scalera, Mike Herndon and other scientists who promote EE, to tell them that you said there is NO evidence for EE and Tons of evidence for the current model of plate tectonics. I´m sure they will take your word for it and all abandon their ideas and devote the rest of their carreers to the magical world of Plate Tectonics:-)
@TREMILBERG 1. Cute. 2. Or you could realize that there is NO scientific evidence for EE at all. To include the observed fact that the earth is NOT growing. and that plates are in motion. 3. ETC.
@TREMILBERG "PT says the continents move around in a random way. "
No it doesn't. The pattern of the rift margins stays broadly the same over time (see the shape of the Mid Atlantic rift, compared to the coastlines on the East and West, for example).
GE predicts continents are the same size throughout the Mesozoic. This prediction fails. Badly. The whole Western Seaboard of the USA, for example, didn't exist in the Jurassic. It is made of accreted ocean sediments from wide-scale subduction.
@ScienceWars No, the motions are random; India moves South with Madagascar, then suddenly changes it´s mind and decides to swing North to crash into Asia instead. Random! Rodinia splits, to make Pangea on the other side... Random!!
Since you think you understand PT better than I, maybe you can explain why the age of the ocean floor is exactly the same in the Atlantic as in the Pacific... Oh, I forgot... that´s a coincidence!!!
@TREMILBERG "No, the motions are random; India moves South with Madagascar, then suddenly changes it´s mind and decides to swing North to crash into Asia"
The motions are dictated by the growth of rift margins, which are dictated by the upwelling of magma beneath the rifts, which are dictated by the large-scale convective motions of the mantle, which is dictated by heat flux from the core-mantle boundary, which is dictated by quantum effects.
@TREMILBERG "Since you think you understand PT better than I, maybe you can explain why the age of the ocean floor is exactly the same in the Atlantic as in the Pacific... Oh, I forgot... that´s a coincidence!!!"
I *DO* understand PT better than you. It is irrelevant the ages of the ocean floor in the Pacific, because subduction is occurring in the Pacific and *not* the Atlantic.
There is no doubt that subduction is occurring in the Pacific, which renders your argument moot.
@ScienceWars "There is no doubt that subduction is occurring in the Pacific, which renders your argument moot."
Wrong! If the age is the same, that indicates they started spreading at the same time. If not , you have two different phenomena, i.e. 1: Continents spreading apart, and 2: Subduction. And both independently end up showing a seafloor exactly the same age! That is an incredible coicidence! More so because the oldest seafloor is left in the middle, and no older crust in sight anywhere
@TREMILBERG "Wrong! If the age is the same, that indicates they started spreading at the same time. "
No. Wrong. Do your research.
1. The plate vectors along the Pacific margin are ALL going the wrong way for EE to be correct.
2. We have IMAGED the plate slabs subducting beneath the continents and island arcs.
3. The ocean floor isochrons in the Pacific are *NOT* continuous with the coastlines (unlike the Atlantic). They are a wide mix of angles. This means they can't be *produced* there.
@TREMILBERG You are getting mesmerised by the Pacific crust ages. If you want to take a really hard-line view of it, there is ocean crust going back billions of years that didn't subduct, but was hoisted onto land. Expanding Earth cannot account for the formation of these ancient oceanic rocks (called 'Ophiolites').
This is the problem with EE. It does not and cannot make a coherent understanding of all Geological phenomena. PT explains and unites these facts beautifully.
@TREMILBERG "More so because the oldest seafloor is left in the middle, and no older crust in sight anywhere"
I presume you are talking about the triangular region of ocean crust in the North West Pacific? This is simply the former site of a 'Triple Junction'. Google that term. Do some reading about it. Almost *ALL* rifts form triple junctions. Have a look at the crustal age map - you can see triple junctions EVERYWHERE!
No mystery. Dig a little deeper, and you find what is actually going on.
@TREMILBERG "It is no big secret that they have problems explaining the gaps you get when you make reconstructions on a same size Earth"
This is a common misconception pedalled by EE supporters. The *only* area where there is any kind of 'lack of fit' is between South Africa and South America.
If you educated yourself via PT instead of EE, you'd know of the massive Benuary Rift margin across Africa which allowed independent rotation of N and S Africa:
@ScienceWars "The *only* area where there is any kind of 'lack of fit' is between South Africa and South America."
Well, at least I find it hard to make reconstructions which include more than two continents, because the gaps grow bigger. Adding Antarctica to S-America/Africa makes a gap of 1000 km or more. But also across the Arctic Ocean, and the North Atlantic there seems to be a gap where you have to choose to either make a fit in the North or in the South.
@TREMILBERG "Well, at least I find it hard to make reconstructions which include more than two continents, because the gaps grow bigger. "
Try using a lemon instead of a tangerine. ;-)
Don't forget - you have to look at the LAND geology as well. When you do, you see massive deformation in the crust there. The rifts don't just open. They force apart the land, thrusting massive amounts of land apart. Rock behaves plastically over large scales.
@TREMILBERG "Adding Antarctica to S-America/Africa makes a gap of 1000 km or more. " and
"But also across the Arctic Ocean, and the North Atlantic there seems to be a gap where you have to choose to either make a fit in the North or in the South."
I've never seen a reconstruction where this is the case. Can you show me what reconstruction you are talking about?
@ScienceWars Most, if not all reconstructions pf Pangea I have seen, are using graphics so simplificated and distorts the shapes of the continents to the point that it makes the accusations against Neal Adams´ "form fitting" ludicrous. Still the gaps are there, like in this map of Pangea: (#"@"#....how can I post this link????!)
@TREMILBERG "Most, if not all reconstructions pf Pangea I have seen, are using graphics so simplificated and distorts the shapes of the continents to the point that it makes the accusations against Neal Adams´ "form fitting" ludicrous."
The image you have posted is a schematic image. It is not a scientific restoration of Pangaea. If you hadn't made this mistake, your argument is in danger of being in 'straw man' territory! ;-)
this theory must incorporate the point that real NEW matter and water were/ are forming inside the Earth. This might seem far fetched, unscientific, un realistic; but so what. The same way scientists proposed/ accepted the idea of a black hole, which swallows matter and light; we can adopt, propose, recognize that matter and energy is manifesting in this earth THRU a connection to the proper black hole. I am new to hear of the Earth Expanding, but I found it to make sense. My theory of new ..
Plate tectonics... proved, seen, earth is measure... not growing... if it was growing dinosaurs couldn't have existed till recently.... because they would have been crushed by pressure if planet was smaller.
@ReptileMasterProd I think you got it the wrong way:P The dinosaurs would be lighter if they lived on a smaller planet. Actually, they could probably not exist TODAY because they would not be able to carry their own weight. Largest land animal today, the elephant, weighs up to about 10 tonnes, while the largest dinosaurs weighed 5 times as much (some even more).
"Plate tectonics... proved, seen"... I think not! I would advise you to take the time to make your own judgement of the evidence:-)
@TREMILBERG Matter what concept of expanding earth, I foolishly spoke of another but if your talking about adding mass what you say would be true. Either way there are specific conditions of life required... this has been tested and the conditions would have to be similar to ours... but the dinosaurs condition would have been totally different. Also we measure the earth and it is not growing but mountains where the plates meet do grow taller each year and we have plenty of evidence...
@ReptileMasterProd I think you got it the wrong way:P The dinosaurs would be lighter if they lived on a smaller planet. Actually, they could probably not exist TODAY because they would not be able to carry their own weight. Largest land animal today, the elephant, weighs up to about 10 tonnes, while the largest dinosaurs weighed 5 times as much (some even more).
"Plate tectonics... proved, seen"... I think not! I would advise you to take the time to make your own judgement of the evidence:-)
Anyone interested in an animation of the continents coming apart as seen from the Pacific, please contact me and I will gladly send you a link to a 2 minute video that shows you how the Pacific and Indian Ocean opened. You will be amazed how well this fits with the Crustal Age Map!
For reasons that I will not go into here, this is a video that I only show to those who are especially interested:-)
...cont
...each piece will have a probability of 1/60 to fit with the next piece. So even if you, say you start out with half the pieces in the correct position, representing the Atlantic fit, the chanses to get the last 10 pieces in the correct position, is less than 1 in 10 mill.
What are the chanses if you use a real model with more details and you add the tracks from the fault lines and age isochrones... ?
I can only say, the number is astronomical!
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
Have you ever tryed to calculate the probability of all the continents fitting together on all sides, just by accident? It´s not an easy job, you won´t get an exact number as a result. You have to simplify an make estimations.
If you use a Dodecahedron made of 12 pentagons, the probability that you can remake the original solid from putting the pieces randomely together on a table, is in the order of 1%. If you add "tags" to the sides of each piece, so that only one side fits with one other...
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
Some facts here:
ww w.science-wars.co m/2010/11/geologys-creationism-expanding-earth/
and here:
ww w.science-wars.co m/2011/07/geologys-creationism-expanding-earth-a-reply-to-neal-adams/
ScienceWars 3 months ago
"It's time to accept there is an alternative to the current paradigm!"
Plate Fruitonics? Geolopeel?
With your model, you are dialling out all the potential sources of error for the fit of the continents by a) making it incredibly tiny and b) making it out of a satsuma.
The crustal age map disproves expanding Earth on its own. Truncated isochrons, my friend. They cannot be explained by expanding Earth hypothesis. You can't grow lines of adjoining age *sideways* from a continent margin.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@ScienceWars My model only proves that it is possible to cut out the shapes of the continents in orange peel in the correct position. That is in itself an incredible "coincidence"! The real proof lies in the exact shapes of the continents combined with magnetic and other data, not least the crustal age map. What the evidence is telling us, is what we are debating. You think PT, I say it looks more like GE.
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@ScienceWars Imagine this:
You find a fruit that looks exactly like the Earth, with the skin stretched and torn in pieces. And stretch lines exactly like the CAM. Would you say it proves that the skin subducted? That would be Plate Fruitonics!:P
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG It's not an incredible coincidence when you consider the continents actually fit together on Earth at its current radius.
The continents could have split apart in any configuration, and you would still be able to represent this on a tangerine!
I'll make the point to you again, Tremilberg - by using a tangerine to represent the continents - which is tiny, and impossible to cut up with any kind of accuracy - you have introduced massive errors into your model, which is meaningless.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@ScienceWars "It's not an incredible coincidence when you consider the continents actually fit together on Earth at its current radius." It is no big secret that they have problems explaining the gaps you get when you make reconstructions on a same size Earth.Already between Africa and South America you will see it. You can start out with any continent and get the same result. If you try to add a third continent, the gaps are growing to unexplainable voids.
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@ScienceWars "The continents could have split apart in any configuration, and you would still be able to represent this on a tangerine!"
YES! But only if the outer margins of "Pangea" are exactly as they are today! GE predicts that the outer margins fit together. PT does NOT! PT says the continents move around in a random way. The outer margins should NOT fit together at any point in time.
Take a look at their predicted configuration of "Pangea Ultima". That will never make a fit on all sides!
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "GE predicts that the outer margins fit together. PT does NOT! PT says the continents move around in a random way. The outer margins should NOT fit together at any point in time."
You don't understand PT. And GE predicts that there should be no wide-scale discordant, adjacent rock sequences *within* continents, yet these exist. I live near the Iapetus Suture in the UK - the animal species in rocks either side of this long, 1meter-wide divide are *utterly* different.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@ScienceWars You did not answer to my points. You can always answer an argument by telling the opponent that he doesn´t understand or give evidence you say contradicts the theory. There is obviously lots of evidence that could be interpreted to support either PT or GE or both, depending on where you stand. I am sure you know more about the lapetus Suture than I, but you cannot disprove a possible fit in the Pacific with the lapetus Suture.
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG But you *actually* don't understand Plate Tectonics. It's not a debating tactic from me. It's a statement of fact. I'm not attempting to 'beat' my 'opponent', debate style. I can't say it any more clearly - YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND PLATE TECTONICS.
As a result, your opinion on such matters is moot.
If you have any particular questions, can you phrase them in question form? I'd be only too happy to answer, and I'll spend as much time as you like on the subject.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@ScienceWars What I don´t understand about PT, is this: I don´t see the mechanism, the driving force. Convection cells? Where is the heat source? I don´t see them either. What I see is 3 large spreading rifts ensircling the Earth. If they existed could they produce the pattern in the CAM? And aren´they backing away from the idea anyway? Slab pull is the new "epicycle"! So, is slab pull pushing up the Himalayas? Seriously? According to Cliff Ollier, the Himalayas are in extention, not compr.ion
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "What I don´t understand about PT, is this: I don´t see the mechanism, the driving force. Convection cells? Where is the heat source?"
If you don't understand the mechanisms of PT (which are very basic systems of heat flow from a cooling planetary core giving off heat in the form of radioactive decay) - what on earth is going on with an expanding Earth?!?!
Your point doesn't make any sense. You are postulating everything in science is wrong. Physics to genetics. Out the window.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@ScienceWars I am postulating that what I "see" is correct. First. Then see if it fits with current beliefs. That may mean that some things in science will have to be modified.
You are in fact here demonstrating why it is so difficult for new ideas to be taken seriously, even if supported by a mounain of evidence. You are defending "everything in science... Out the window" So you don´t actually look at the evidence, before you dismiss it, because you have the "that isn´t possible" glasses on.
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "You are in fact here demonstrating why it is so difficult for new ideas to be taken seriously"
Quite the opposite. I am demonstrating the absolute rigour that new ideas *HAVE* to undergo in order to be taken seriously.
I could postulate that Enceladus is made of Mr. Whippy Ice Cream. We can't directly sample it. It is the same colour. It looks the same.
EE is the same. You can't throw out what you've learned without tough standards. Science can't work this way.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@ScienceWars I´m not asking you to throw out anything. I´m asking you to explain the absurdities that PT leads to. Would you say that IF, (for the sake of the argument), physicists came up with a mechanism for Earth to grow, that it would solve some of those problems? In other words: in your opinion, Is there evidence that supports GE/EE or not?
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "I´m asking you to explain the absurdities that PT leads to. Would you say that IF, (for the sake of the argument), physicists came up with a mechanism for Earth to grow, that it would solve some of those problems? "
No. None whatsoever. EE wasn't abandoned for a lack of mechanism. It was abandoned for a lack of supporting data, and no coherence between any other sub-disciplines of Geology.
That lack of evidence continues to this very second. The mechanism is irrelevant.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TREMILBERG ". I´m asking you to explain the absurdities that PT leads to."
Such as...?
And while you're replying, would you not characterise faith that planet(s) and suns across the Universe grow because of the incorrect understanding of the formation and shapes of continents on one planet as.... 'absurd'?
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@ScienceWars Enceladus IS made of Mr. Whippy Ice Cream! I know, I´ve been there! :-P
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG If any old idea was allowed to permeate scientific research without valid reasons for doing so - Science would not work. You wouldn't be typing on a computer. Cassini would not be orbiting Saturn. Science would be broken.
New ideas are imbibed into the scientific corpus by virtue of their own merits of unifying existing data (remember... "DATA" are just observations - the hypothesis attempts to explain it; THEORY confirms it with repeated observations).
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@ScienceWars True. However, we have to be careful when we have established an idea, that we don´t stop thinking, because of the splendor of our own idea.
Imagine we are rebuilding a castle from the rubble in the ruins. Once you have decided how you think the castle looked like before it tumbeled down, you will be tending to pick the pieces that you see fit with that image. The pieces that don´t match, are left for others to worry about. What if some of your first assumptions were wrong? Cont..
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@ScienceWars Maybe we are building the wrong castle?
This is why there is growing criticism of modern theoertical physics, because all the wonderful theories are just theories that cannot be tested easily. It all work as mathematical models, but string theory, branes and multiple dimentions and universes, may- in part at least, be just science fiction.
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG Your castle analogy is interesting.
What if, due to erosion, the building blocks were bigger back in time?
What if some locals took parts of the rubble for their houses?
What if other blocks were thrown in from other castles?
These are all 'puzzles' encountered by science all the time, and there are some brilliantly creative thinkers who come up with solutions to these puzzles all the time...
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG ...your castle analogy would not be summarised (with respect to PT):
"Maybe we are building the wrong castle?" rather:
"Maybe all castles float and it was held down by some unseen mechanism."
From the "outside" perspective (i.e. a non-supporter of PT), you see us Geologists as blind; stubborn; secretive; paranoid; gate-keeping; hostile to new ideas.
The reality is you simply don't know your subject, and think you know better than the experts, which is pretty lazy thinking.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG
Don't get me wrong, Trem. It's great you are interested in this subject. But ideas like EE are the junk food of the ideas world: quick, easily accessed, easily understood, lacking in depth (<-subduction pun), non-predictive and many other things besides.
E.g. The massive mag. 9.1 Tohoku earthquake was predicted by geology for decades. What wasn't known was that it could achieve mag 9. (Max mag predicted was m7). This is a puzzle to solve.
EE still can't explain *EARTHQUAKES*!!!
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG A better analogy (for EE) is this:
A Norman-period castle builder (let's call him 'Norm') has a tape measure.
He uses it to construct a castle overlooking the sea, 40m x 40m x 60m.
Trem the Conqueror sees a sketch of Norm's castle and tells him the castle is hundreds of miles long, and that his tape measure is wrong.
Norm is confused. He has the tape measure. He can see the castle. He built every brick. His measurements are right.
Trem demands the castle be demolished.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "but string theory, branes and multiple dimentions and universes, may- in part at least, be just science fiction."
That's a bit of a strawman, if you don't mind my saying.
You are comparing what is the absolutely blood-spattered cutting-edge of science with fundamental planks of science, like thermodynamics (energy must be created in order for EE/GE to be correct, violating a fundamental law that has never, ever been observed to fail.)
Branes, etc. are science *exploration*
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "However, we have to be careful when we have established an idea, that we don´t stop thinking,"
Couldn't agree more. Now, this is exactly how Science works. You should read up on your Thomas Kuhn, the Philosophy of Science. Amazing book. There are always unsolved questions in all disciplines of science. These he calls 'puzzles'. They don't require the abandonment of everything else that has been learned, else science couldn't function.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "o you don´t actually look at the evidence, before you dismiss it, because you have the "that isn´t possible" glasses on."
I have a Masters in Geology. I have studied and deeply investigated EE for about 5 years. I have EE in mind whenever I'm doing fieldwork, which I have been doing for decades. When you do that you see - in the rocks themselves - why EE is so wrong.
I know what I'm talking about.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@ScienceWars Here is a question for you: Which direction is the moor at the East Pacific rise move, relative to the S-American continent? (Not the Nazca plate, but the rift itself.)
So where was the rift, say... 30MYA and 60MYA? Was it closer to, or further away from the continent? Or maybe it was more or less at the same location? Please explain!
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "So where was the rift, say... 30MYA and 60MYA? Was it closer to, or further away from the continent? Or maybe it was more or less at the same location? Please explain!"
I'm making a video for you. I'll let you know when it is online - I have the scientific data on my HD.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG The triangular region in the NW Pacific is a triple junction, of which there are dozens around the planet. Rifting events begin as:
1. A sag basin (as in Ethiopia today)
2. A triple junction rift - basically a rift with 3 arms
3. Expansion of that triple junction into a new ocean basin (as the material that fills in is Basalt, which comprises heavier minerals & sits lower in the asthenosphere).
The triangle was central 'Pacific' 200Ma ago. The rift (East Pacific Rise) much closer.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "What I see is 3 large spreading rifts ensircling the Earth. Slab pull is the new "epicycle""
There are many more than 3. You need a higher resolution crust map.
Ocean crust is more dense than the material it is going into. The viscosity of the mantle is sufficient for a dense ocean crust to descent into. Convection plays a part, as does gravity sliding of the plate (so-called 'slab push'). All ridges rise up from the heat source underneath, forming mountains 1000s of km high.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG Cliff Ollier's book, 'The Origin of Mountains' has been widely discredited by the geological community. There have been no positive reviews. He uses straw men (i.e.. outdated geological diagrams from the 1960s) in order to critique current geological thinking.
Slab pull is not only pushing up the himalayas - it is a combination of gravity sliding 'slab push', viscosity differential and probable friction from mantle currents.
Do you deny the seismic images of subducting plates?
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "but you cannot disprove a possible fit in the Pacific with the lapetus Suture."
I have no idea what you mean here. The Iapetus Suture (which completely disproves growing/expanding Earth hypothesis) is nothing to do with the Pacific.
I don't mind answering your questions, but you can help your case by doing a little bit of research beforehand, or phrasing your questions better.
Again, I'm not trying to be rude - you need to inform yourself before you proclaim something as false.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@ScienceWars Ok, I am sorry if my phrasing is inadequate, It´s not easy to answer sensibly within the 500 letter limit. :-)
What I mean, is this:
The EEH was originally suggested, only based on the visual fit of the continents on a smaller sphere. The discovery of the mid-oceanic ridge system supported this; you can actually bring the continents together to a complete fit by just following the fault lines and using the isochrones. Cont...
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@ScienceWars ...So there is a fit. That fit needs an explanation. EEH explains it. PT does not. Other evidence may disprove EE, but the fit is still there. The lapetus suture has nothing to do with the Pacific, and that´s exactly why it´s not an argument against the fit we can see.
They said the bumble bee should not be able to fly, still it does, so there must be an explanation.
The lapetus suture may be an argument against EE/GE, but I fail to see how it can completely disprove anything.
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@ScienceWars I´m not saying I know for a fact that the Earth is growing. I´m saying there is good evidence to support that it does. And much of that evidence is ignored because it doesen´t fit with current "knowledge".
PT is a way of explaining away the the facts as they appear. And I´m not saying that to be arrogant (you probably think stupid!:P) but because i think that is a good description of what has happened. Wherever they look, they see expansion, "we don´t believe it, so, ah, subduction
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "PT is a way of explaining away the the facts as they appear."
When the facts continue to pile up, and are supported in a mutually supportive, multidisciplinary-corroborated framework, only blind stubbornness can account for the continued resistance against the paradigm.
Don't get me wrong - all paradigms should be challenged, but EE doesn't challenge PT in any way, it answers no questions, and throws up only more questions that require entire reworkings of science.
Bad idea.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "The EEH was originally suggested, only based on the visual fit of the continents on a smaller sphere. The discovery of the mid-oceanic ridge system supported this; "
The mid-ocean ridge system also supports PT.
Samuel Warren Carey was largely responsible for creating Plate Tectonics, and he was initially a strong PT advocate.
"you can actually bring the continents together to a complete fit by just following the fault lines and using the isochrones"
Not in the Pacific.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@ScienceWars I just wrote several pages that I was going to post, but something happened, and it´s gone...
Oh, well.
I cannot use this much time on this anyway. I have a life to attend to!:-P
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG Sorry you lost your posts there, Trem. I hate it when that happens!
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@ScienceWars As you know, Samuel Warren Carey left PT, because he came to the conclusion that it did not answer the questions adequately.
Does the mid-ocean ridge system also support PT? I don´t think so. And the CAM is largely not used by geology for some reason.
The Pacific is difficult, because there are so many things going on there, but if you correct for plate motions, and adjust for shape changes in the continents, it is quite possible to do.
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG The biggest problem for EE continues to be what killed it in the first place:
A lack of evidence for an expanding earth and a bounty of evidence for subduction VIA GPS measurements and seismic readings of earthquakes and subducting plates as well as tiltmeter readings of the Himalayas which are still in the process of growing. So individual dramas mean nothing when one considers evidence. Which is abundant.
danschaoticmind 3 months ago
@danschaoticmind Have you ever heard about crime cases where the evidence was said to be overwhelming in disfavor of the accused? Leading to a conviction to jail or even a death sentence! Only problem was, he didn´t do it, he was innocent!
How?
All the evidence was interpreted to fit with the belief that he was guilty. The investigation was made with "glasses" on, trying to find out how he did it, not if he really did it at all. They knew he did it!
Same thing has happened in science many times.
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG That's court case. Circumstantial evidence in place of hard evidence has backing in courts. Not in science. If sufficient evidence can be given that backs a given theory, then the theory holds more weight. Besides, in the history of science, new evidence emerging often does knock out the pre-existing theories. Why else do you think PT and evolution even became such powerful theories? Evidence over time knocked the old theories such as EE out and now we have PT.
danschaoticmind 3 months ago
@danschaoticmind @TREMILBERG EE was actually the leading hypothesis that explained the outlines of the continents for many years. Even Darwin supported the idea.
New data came in that showed EE to be untenable.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ScienceWars That's the nice thing about the scientific method: When new data becomes apparent to support new theories, the old theories, if they are unable to be supported, must be abandoned.
danschaoticmind 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danschaoticmind Dan, your comment was flagged as spam, so I'm reposting it here:
@ScienceWars That's the nice thing about the scientific method: When new data becomes apparent to support new theories, the old theories, if they are unable to be supported, must be abandoned.
danschaoticmind
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@ScienceWars Thanks for the heads up. I find it odd that comments which point out HOW the method works, or how there are explicit refutations often get marked as spam.
FYI the comment I am responding to (Where you said my comment has been marked as spam) has also been marked as spam.
Side note; Have you gotten the chance to read over some of the findings published in Nature about the Tohoku earthquake? I only recently found out about them and the readings are astonishing.
danschaoticmind 3 months ago
@danschaoticmind That's Neal Adams for you.
I made a video on my channel about how he blocks people who disagree with him. On another YT account, I lasted a 3 years on his channel! Not bad ;-)
I'm not surprised my comment has been marked as spam. Neal is unaware of irony. Lesser fleas, and all that...
I haven't read the Nature article about the Tohoku earthquake yet. I'm sorry to hear you lost your property in that incredible event. Words fail.
I'll check the article and get back to you.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@danschaoticmind "Why else do you think PT and evolution even became such powerful theories?"
Hmmm... Money?:-P
Seriously, I am refering to the psychological approach to something new by the human mind. It doesn´t only apply to court case. It has happened many times in science too.
They used to laugh at Darwin´s ideas. As they did with dr. Ignaz Semmelweis. (Look it up.) ...And Wegener :-)
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "They used to laugh at Darwin´s ideas."
Persecution fallacy:
Some correct ideas were laughed at ≠ all ideas that are laughed at are correct
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "I am refering to the psychological approach to something new by the human mind"
Trem. That door swings in *your* direction too, yes? Let's leave aside your notion that EE is right for a moment. How resistant are *you* to PT?
You don't know the details. You've done no work on the subject. You've only analysed the most broad-level and basic element of geology it is possible to study (a map) and concluded all PT, and science, is wrong!
Who is really resistant to new ideas here?
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@danschaoticmind I don´t pretend to be anything but an amateur in geology, but I am still able to think logically, and when the story told seems to be a fairytale compared to what I can see with my own eyes, I want a better explanation. Sometimes a child can see what the preconditioned mind of an adult cannot.
My parents once told me the Moon phases were caused by the Earth shadow!!! I was 8, but never believed their story. It did not make sense. it looked logically impossible to me.
PT too!
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG
Trem. Can you not see the inherent contradiction in your general thought on this matter?
"I don´t pretend to be anything but an amateur in geology" <- You admit you don't know much about a subject
"...but I am still able to think logically" <- You then imply in the next breath that you don't need knowledge, just logic to understand a subject!!!
We abandoned that thinking with the Ancient Greeks!
Tell me what you know about blueschist metamorphism. (no Google or Wiki! ;-) )
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "It did not make sense. it looked logically impossible to me."
It looked logical to early man that the Earth was a disk, and the sun went around it.
Logic is not a part of Science, or at least - not a path to truly understanding the Universe. Nature is under no obligation to be logical or comprehensible to humans. That is an anthropomorphic view of things, and as quantum physics has shown - they just 'aint so.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG If you are able to think logically then you should be able to do independent research, analyze what has been published for review and see that there is NO evidence for EE and Tons of evidence for the current model of plate tectonics. Geodesy and GPS measurements of island motion over time in the pacific basin alone is enough of a nail in EEs coffin. So it seems to me that while you may claim to be thinking logically, you really are not well versed in the scientific method.
danschaoticmind 3 months ago
@danschaoticmind 1. I promise, I will stop hinking logically, since that is not part of the scientific method. 2. I will immediately write to James Maxlow, Giancarlo Scalera, Mike Herndon and other scientists who promote EE, to tell them that you said there is NO evidence for EE and Tons of evidence for the current model of plate tectonics. I´m sure they will take your word for it and all abandon their ideas and devote the rest of their carreers to the magical world of Plate Tectonics:-)
3. :P
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG 1. Cute. 2. Or you could realize that there is NO scientific evidence for EE at all. To include the observed fact that the earth is NOT growing. and that plates are in motion. 3. ETC.
You have yet to provide evidence of growth
danschaoticmind 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "PT says the continents move around in a random way. "
No it doesn't. The pattern of the rift margins stays broadly the same over time (see the shape of the Mid Atlantic rift, compared to the coastlines on the East and West, for example).
GE predicts continents are the same size throughout the Mesozoic. This prediction fails. Badly. The whole Western Seaboard of the USA, for example, didn't exist in the Jurassic. It is made of accreted ocean sediments from wide-scale subduction.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@ScienceWars No, the motions are random; India moves South with Madagascar, then suddenly changes it´s mind and decides to swing North to crash into Asia instead. Random! Rodinia splits, to make Pangea on the other side... Random!!
Since you think you understand PT better than I, maybe you can explain why the age of the ocean floor is exactly the same in the Atlantic as in the Pacific... Oh, I forgot... that´s a coincidence!!!
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "No, the motions are random; India moves South with Madagascar, then suddenly changes it´s mind and decides to swing North to crash into Asia"
The motions are dictated by the growth of rift margins, which are dictated by the upwelling of magma beneath the rifts, which are dictated by the large-scale convective motions of the mantle, which is dictated by heat flux from the core-mantle boundary, which is dictated by quantum effects.
In the latter sense, they are random.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "Since you think you understand PT better than I, maybe you can explain why the age of the ocean floor is exactly the same in the Atlantic as in the Pacific... Oh, I forgot... that´s a coincidence!!!"
I *DO* understand PT better than you. It is irrelevant the ages of the ocean floor in the Pacific, because subduction is occurring in the Pacific and *not* the Atlantic.
There is no doubt that subduction is occurring in the Pacific, which renders your argument moot.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@ScienceWars "There is no doubt that subduction is occurring in the Pacific, which renders your argument moot."
Wrong! If the age is the same, that indicates they started spreading at the same time. If not , you have two different phenomena, i.e. 1: Continents spreading apart, and 2: Subduction. And both independently end up showing a seafloor exactly the same age! That is an incredible coicidence! More so because the oldest seafloor is left in the middle, and no older crust in sight anywhere
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "Wrong! If the age is the same, that indicates they started spreading at the same time. "
No. Wrong. Do your research.
1. The plate vectors along the Pacific margin are ALL going the wrong way for EE to be correct.
2. We have IMAGED the plate slabs subducting beneath the continents and island arcs.
3. The ocean floor isochrons in the Pacific are *NOT* continuous with the coastlines (unlike the Atlantic). They are a wide mix of angles. This means they can't be *produced* there.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG You are getting mesmerised by the Pacific crust ages. If you want to take a really hard-line view of it, there is ocean crust going back billions of years that didn't subduct, but was hoisted onto land. Expanding Earth cannot account for the formation of these ancient oceanic rocks (called 'Ophiolites').
This is the problem with EE. It does not and cannot make a coherent understanding of all Geological phenomena. PT explains and unites these facts beautifully.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "More so because the oldest seafloor is left in the middle, and no older crust in sight anywhere"
I presume you are talking about the triangular region of ocean crust in the North West Pacific? This is simply the former site of a 'Triple Junction'. Google that term. Do some reading about it. Almost *ALL* rifts form triple junctions. Have a look at the crustal age map - you can see triple junctions EVERYWHERE!
No mystery. Dig a little deeper, and you find what is actually going on.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "It is no big secret that they have problems explaining the gaps you get when you make reconstructions on a same size Earth"
This is a common misconception pedalled by EE supporters. The *only* area where there is any kind of 'lack of fit' is between South Africa and South America.
If you educated yourself via PT instead of EE, you'd know of the massive Benuary Rift margin across Africa which allowed independent rotation of N and S Africa:
bit.l y/trEyaW
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@ScienceWars "The *only* area where there is any kind of 'lack of fit' is between South Africa and South America."
Well, at least I find it hard to make reconstructions which include more than two continents, because the gaps grow bigger. Adding Antarctica to S-America/Africa makes a gap of 1000 km or more. But also across the Arctic Ocean, and the North Atlantic there seems to be a gap where you have to choose to either make a fit in the North or in the South.
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "Well, at least I find it hard to make reconstructions which include more than two continents, because the gaps grow bigger. "
Try using a lemon instead of a tangerine. ;-)
Don't forget - you have to look at the LAND geology as well. When you do, you see massive deformation in the crust there. The rifts don't just open. They force apart the land, thrusting massive amounts of land apart. Rock behaves plastically over large scales.
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "Adding Antarctica to S-America/Africa makes a gap of 1000 km or more. " and
"But also across the Arctic Ocean, and the North Atlantic there seems to be a gap where you have to choose to either make a fit in the North or in the South."
I've never seen a reconstruction where this is the case. Can you show me what reconstruction you are talking about?
ScienceWars 3 months ago
@ScienceWars Most, if not all reconstructions pf Pangea I have seen, are using graphics so simplificated and distorts the shapes of the continents to the point that it makes the accusations against Neal Adams´ "form fitting" ludicrous. Still the gaps are there, like in this map of Pangea: (#"@"#....how can I post this link????!)
wiki / File:Laurasia-Gondwana . svg
TREMILBERG 3 months ago
@TREMILBERG "Most, if not all reconstructions pf Pangea I have seen, are using graphics so simplificated and distorts the shapes of the continents to the point that it makes the accusations against Neal Adams´ "form fitting" ludicrous."
The image you have posted is a schematic image. It is not a scientific restoration of Pangaea. If you hadn't made this mistake, your argument is in danger of being in 'straw man' territory! ;-)
Try:
youtube.co m/watch?v=FoQQ-5Mg0Pk
ScienceWars 3 months ago
My theory of new matter and energy formation inside the Expanding Earth can be a proper and necessary addition .
albertsneijMD 5 months ago
this theory must incorporate the point that real NEW matter and water were/ are forming inside the Earth. This might seem far fetched, unscientific, un realistic; but so what. The same way scientists proposed/ accepted the idea of a black hole, which swallows matter and light; we can adopt, propose, recognize that matter and energy is manifesting in this earth THRU a connection to the proper black hole. I am new to hear of the Earth Expanding, but I found it to make sense. My theory of new ..
albertsneijMD 5 months ago
Plate tectonics... proved, seen, earth is measure... not growing... if it was growing dinosaurs couldn't have existed till recently.... because they would have been crushed by pressure if planet was smaller.
ReptileMasterProd 5 months ago
@ReptileMasterProd I think you got it the wrong way:P The dinosaurs would be lighter if they lived on a smaller planet. Actually, they could probably not exist TODAY because they would not be able to carry their own weight. Largest land animal today, the elephant, weighs up to about 10 tonnes, while the largest dinosaurs weighed 5 times as much (some even more).
"Plate tectonics... proved, seen"... I think not! I would advise you to take the time to make your own judgement of the evidence:-)
TREMILBERG 5 months ago
@TREMILBERG Matter what concept of expanding earth, I foolishly spoke of another but if your talking about adding mass what you say would be true. Either way there are specific conditions of life required... this has been tested and the conditions would have to be similar to ours... but the dinosaurs condition would have been totally different. Also we measure the earth and it is not growing but mountains where the plates meet do grow taller each year and we have plenty of evidence...
ReptileMasterProd 5 months ago
@TREMILBERG Watch "Growing Earth My Ass" It provides you with the arguments / evidence and all
ReptileMasterProd 5 months ago
@ReptileMasterProd I think you got it the wrong way:P The dinosaurs would be lighter if they lived on a smaller planet. Actually, they could probably not exist TODAY because they would not be able to carry their own weight. Largest land animal today, the elephant, weighs up to about 10 tonnes, while the largest dinosaurs weighed 5 times as much (some even more).
"Plate tectonics... proved, seen"... I think not! I would advise you to take the time to make your own judgement of the evidence:-)
TREMILBERG 5 months ago
Anyone interested in an animation of the continents coming apart as seen from the Pacific, please contact me and I will gladly send you a link to a 2 minute video that shows you how the Pacific and Indian Ocean opened. You will be amazed how well this fits with the Crustal Age Map!
For reasons that I will not go into here, this is a video that I only show to those who are especially interested:-)
TREMILBERG 6 months ago
there is a bitch or fucker who does not like it and says it is bad
kevin800826 7 months ago
loved it. :)
Robin081564 10 months ago
@Robin081564 Thank you Robin!:-)
TREMILBERG 10 months ago