Expanding Earth Theory - WTF???

[MattusMaximus]

I'm doing it mostly so that new lurkers (quite a few after TAM6) will quickly see Jerome for the troll that he is. He's doing a pretty good job of it, too.

Not to mention, this kind of thread is instructive in how to argue scientifically. Demand positive evidence for the pseudo-science as opposed to defending already established theories, demand testable hypotheses, don't let the woosters derail, and hold them to account on all of the above.

 

[MattusMaximus]

And during this process over many years the continents stay within their approximate borders, just pushed about the Earth?

This seems plausible?

Such hand-waving speculation a quantitatively testable hypothesis does not make. Still waiting, Jerome.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Why bother asking Jerome for this? He is an intellectual coward. He tries to dishonestly escape from providing evidence or even logic by refusing to state a hypothesis. He enjoys insinuating and "discussing" and then when held to account he enjoys calling others close-minded or some other such BS.

I find him as amusing as a parrot. Loud, colorful but intellectually a bird-brain.

I guess you as well are not truly interested in the topic.

 

[Correa Neto]

And during this process over many years the continents stay within their approximate borders, just pushed about the Earth?

This seems plausible?

The continents, during these processes, have their shapes changed. Big continents are divided, small continents agglutinate in to large ones which later are shredded in to pieces. New masses of continental crust are formed (such as Japan, New Zealand) and eventually merge, new volumes of continental crust are added underneath orogenci belts the old continents (Example- the Andes).

So, they do not stay "within their approximate borders".

And this does not only seems plausible. It IS plausible.

 

[paximperium]

I guess you as well are not truly interested in the topic.

He enjoys insinuating and "discussing" and then when held to account he enjoys calling others close-minded or some other such BS.

I'm not interested in your continued dishonesty and your insinuations.

Please clearly state the hypothesis that you are claiming and present the evidence supporting this claim.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The continents, during these processes, have their shapes changed. Big continents are divided, small continents agglutinate in to large ones which later are shredded in to pieces. New masses of continental crust are formed (such as Japan, New Zealand) and eventually merge, new volumes of continental crust are added underneath orogenci belts the old continents (Example- the Andes).

So, they do not stay "within their approximate borders".

And this does not only seems plausible. It IS plausible.

I see how you can see this.

Why do the processes that you properly described tend to cause the crust to move towards the same "land" masses so consistently?

Are you in agreement with Pangaea?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I see how you can see this.

Why do the processes that you properly described tend to cause the crust to move towards the same "land" masses so consistently?

Are you in agreement with Pangaea?

Yawn... hypothesis, Jerome?

 

[paximperium]

I see how you can see this.

Why do the processes that you properly described tend to cause the crust to move towards the same "land" masses so consistently?

Are you in agreement with Pangaea?

Please clearly state your objections and present a counter testable hypothesis with the evidence to support your claims.

 

[shadron]

I see how you can see this.

Why do the processes that you properly described tend to cause the crust to move towards the same "land" masses so consistently?

Are you in agreement with Pangaea?

OK, Jerome. I know you get allergic when you type more than a line per paragraph, but you're going to have to be more specific when you speak.

The crust doesn't really move. The crust is thick on land, thin under ocean, but never absent. Mostly it rides atop the mantle, sometimes it drops in subduction with the mantle, sometimes it is scraped off and piles up as thickened regions of crust. When it subducts, it can melt and rise as plutons (c.f. Yosemite). I think here you are referring to the land masses, the continents.

Now what do you mean by "moving toward the same land masses"? Are you referring to what I wrote about the NAS shield? Be aware that the fact that NA hasn't been sundered down the middle by a rift is only a lucky happenstance; indeed, the Missisippi may have been an early rift that for some reason or other stopped developing; that is why there are notable earthquakes along the Mississippi River today.

Do you mean the way they seem to create a whole landmass, and then separate and then comeback together eventually? No idea really, perhaps it's just a coincidence, or an artifact of the imprecisely understood mantle conveyor.

If you mean something else, you've lost me. There are evidences of earlier super-continents than Pangaea, which broke up and reassembled multiple times in the past. See www.scotese.com .

I also don't know what you mean by "Are you in agreement with Pangaea?". As espoused by whom? That it once existed? Sure.

 

[shadron]

Quite right! But it does make change in the earth over time a certainty. Exactly how it changes is still being explored. Well, that's our best guess anyway .

Unfortunately, though, if physics doesn't change over time, then an expansion of the Earth of the magnitude suggested is ruled out. It simply is not possible unless some constant(s) of physics has changed over time.

 

[Solus]

I've found one even more amusing.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Unfortunately, though, if physics doesn't change over time, then an expansion of the Earth of the magnitude suggested is ruled out. It simply is not possible unless some constant(s) of physics has changed over time.

What constant of physics rules out an expanding planet?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Do you mean the way they seem to create a whole landmass, and then separate and then comeback together eventually? No idea really, perhaps it's just a coincidence, or an artifact of the imprecisely understood mantle conveyor.

If you mean something else, you've lost me. There are evidences of earlier super-continents than Pangaea, which broke up and reassembled multiple times in the past. See www.scotese.com .

I also don't know what you mean by "Are you in agreement with Pangaea?". As espoused by whom? That it once existed? Sure.

How did the land mass Pangaea form according to the accepted theory?

ETA: Would not the initial formation of the Earth necessitate relative uniformity of the crust?

 

[gdnp]

Where does this new sea floor come from?

Expanding earth?

Remember we are talking about 70% of the surface of the Earth.

There have been several plate tectonics links posted already. New sea floor is produced at mid ocean ridges as magma rises and cools. Crust is then "recycled" at subduction zones, as one plate is forced under another.

Net change in earth size: zero.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

There have been several plate tectonics links posted already. New sea floor is produced at mid ocean ridges as magma rises and cools. Crust is then "recycled" at subduction zones, as one plate is forced under another.

Net change in earth size: zero.

Than how have the "land masses" retained their consistently in shape?

 

[Primus]

They are constantly chipped away at by a secret cabal of freemasons who do this to keep the lie of plate tectonics alive.
Using this bogus plate tectonic theory they can infiltrate the universitys and then the government to oppress the masses.
There is evidence for this. You should try searching for it. Because I'm not. Thats your job.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

They are constantly chipped away at by a secret cabal of freemasons who do this to keep the lie of plate tectonics alive.
Using this bogus plate tectonic theory they can infiltrate the universitys and then the government to oppress the masses.
There is evidence for this. You should try searching for it. Because I'm not. Thats your job.

I think you may have meant to post that here: JREF CT Section

I wish you well.

 

[gdnp]

Well.... not quite, if the earth was a ball about 12 inches in diameter (about .3m) then the entire earth (in this particular scenario) would be covered in about 100 mL of water. Thats probably enough to make an ice cube or two.

Wikipedia has the average ocean depth 3790 m. The earth's diameter at the equator is 12,756,000 m. The ratio is 3366 to 1. A 300 mm (0.3 m) sphere would thus be covered to a depth of 300/3366 mm or 0.089 mm, or roughly 1/10 of a milimeter.

The surface area of a sphere is 4 pi r², which for a sphere of 0.3 m diameter comes out to 2827 cm². multiply this times the ocean depth of 0.1 mm (0.01 cm), and the 71% of earth covered by ocean, and you get about 21 cc of water.

Barely enough to make the basketball damp.

 

[gdnp]

Than how have the "land masses" retained their consistently in shape?

First of all, they haven't. Cut out a picture of South American and one of Africa and try to fit them together. Are there gaps? Yes? Then the shape has not remained constant.

Second, as previously posted, the continents are made of lighter rock and thus float on top of the mantle, which is recycled under them.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I've found one even more amusing.

So how did India slide across the ocean floor?