Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Toepoke

There is no dark side of the moon

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Grim Jim said:

Most of what he says is correct, except that he says there cannot be subduction and therefore reaches his conclusion.   Why can there not be subduction?   He says mantle is too dense.   He's missing the fact that rock in continental crust is lighter than that in ocean crust, and therefore one starts to slide over the other.   From there on it is like an escalator.   There is evidence for subduction in analysis (chemistry of the volcanoes) of the mountain chains formed above it.

One day the Atlantic sea floor may (he would use the word "must") begin to subduct along is edges as it is lighter than American & European crust.   We should get new mountains like the Andes right here some day.   The granites of the Lake district are where this (volcanics due to subduction where an ocean ultimately closed) happened before and the Southern Uplands were accreted opposite to them as coastal sediments were bulldozed up.   The evidence is there.

 

From what I can see they do not believe that that constant new crust being excreted in the  oceans is subducted back into the earth  They believe this is then resulting in the earth expanding. They say very limited local subduction might be happening but nothing close to the idea that it is all being spewed out and then swallowed back  up to maintain the constant surface size earth.

Rather that focus on subduction which is quite difficult to prove one way or the other being so deep at this point. What do you say to the theory that we can shrink the current earth using the age of the most recent crust to remove the new stuff which is in the ocean rifts and when you do that the very old continents reform like pieces of a shattered egg shell to form an earth that is much smaller. The degree to which he can make them fit if you believe it is really quite hard to discount.

All they think they know is the earth is expanding. They have several variants from there. It is expanding without increasing in mass, it is expanding and increasing in mass, the gravitational constant is changing... it goes on.

Biffer will go off his nut but I really find it quite interesting. It has lot of interesting tangents.. for example if it is expanding and increasing in mass it could mean the earths gravity was considerably lower explaining gigantism  in animal and plants in the past. But it is far out there.

Apparently the earth has been measured growing using all the latest technology by about 17mm per year for a couple of decades now and they have written it off as an error. The guy in the longer vid had predicted 22mm per year. We are talking about very hard things to observe given the time scales versus a human life time.

The other thing is that that this expansion is exponential. For most of earth history it was the same size or near it and then it started exponentially growing. The theory being that planets have a life cycle. The earth will grow and move further from the sun and evolve into what we see in planets further out and then collapse back down and wither...

Say what you want it is 100X more intriguing than a flat earth theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thplinth said:

From what I can see they do not believe that that constant new crust being excreted in the  oceans is subducted back into the earth  They believe this is then resulting in the earth expanding. They say very limited local subduction might be happening but nothing close to the idea that it is all being spewed out and then swallowed back  up to maintain the constant surface size earth.

Rather that focus on subduction which is quite difficult to prove one way or the other being so deep at this point. What do you say to the theory that we can shrink the current earth using the age of the most recent crust to remove the new stuff which is in the ocean rifts and when you do that the very old continents reform like pieces of a shattered egg shell to form an earth that is much smaller. The degree to which he can make them fit if you believe it is really quite hard to discount.

All they think they know is the earth is expanding. They have several variants from there. It is expanding without increasing in mass, it is expanding and increasing in mass, the gravitational constant is changing... it goes on.

Biffer will go off his nut but I really find it quite interesting. It has lot of interesting tangents.. for example if it is expanding and increasing in mass it could mean the earths gravity was considerably lower explaining gigantism  in animal and plants in the past. But it is far out there.

Apparently the earth has been measured growing using all the latest technology by about 17mm per year for a couple of decades now and they have written it off as an error. The guy in the longer vid had predicted 22mm per year. We are talking about very hard things to observe given the time scales versus a human life time.

The other thing is that that this expansion is exponential. For most of earth history it was the same size or near it and then it started exponentially growing. The theory being that planets have a life cycle. The earth will grow and move further from the sun and evolve into what we see in planets further out and then collapse back down and wither...

Say what you want it is 100X more intriguing than a flat earth theory.

OK here are my chief sources*, as a complete amateur...

https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/product/Tarbuck-Earth-An-Introduction-to-Physical-Geology-11th-Edition/9780321814067.html

https://www.whsmith.co.uk/products/the-geology-of-britain-new-edition/9781840374049

though mine are a couple of editions older than those available now.  Even still, my impression after a couple of reads was that the earth has not been expanding.

Oanyhoo...

Yes, the continental crust fits together, but into what was 'Pangaea', and yes the oceanic crust is comparatively very recent, but that is subduction theory which you are disinclined to focus on.   It is kinda important to focus of though, otherwise I think there is a chance yer bloke might be right.   The point I was trying to make previously was that there is evidence for subduction.

Are you/they writing off every piece of evidence as ignorable as limited local fluff?   (eg. Caledonian orogeny and Iapetus Ocean closure.)

 

*not original papers, but stuff I can understand 🙂

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Grim Jim said:

OK here are my chief sources*, as a complete amateur...

https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/product/Tarbuck-Earth-An-Introduction-to-Physical-Geology-11th-Edition/9780321814067.html

https://www.whsmith.co.uk/products/the-geology-of-britain-new-edition/9781840374049

though mine are a couple of editions older than those available now.  Even still, my impression after a couple of reads was that the earth has not been expanding.

Oanyhoo...

Yes, the continental crust fits together, but into what was 'Pangaea', and yes the oceanic crust is comparatively very recent, but that is subduction theory which you are disinclined to focus on.   It is kinda important to focus of though, otherwise I think there is a chance yer bloke might be right.   The point I was trying to make previously was that there is evidence for subduction.

Are you/they writing off every piece of evidence as ignorable as limited local fluff?   (eg. Caledonian orogeny and Iapetus Ocean closure.)

*not original papers, but stuff I can understand 🙂

 

The theory has no need for subduction to be happening unlike the current theory of plate tectonics. So finding an example of it would not refute the theory. That may be some local effect if indeed it is actually subduction. 

I am glad you mention Pangea. What I find particularly curious about it is if you look at animations of the theorized movements of the continents under the plate tectonics theory they are moving about a lot and are all over the place, forming into super continents on one side of the earth breaking up, reforming again (Pangea is one of several super continents that existed apparently) and this goes on for 100s of  millions of years before finally settling into the current configuration. What troubles me about it is what are the chances that the continents after all that higgily piggly movement would arrange themselves into a configuration so that by simply eliminating the newest rock in the oceans means you are able to collapse the continents into a smaller sphere and they would fit so well. I would have thought the chances of that would be almost nil. 

The problem is not subduction for them it is if the earth is increasing in mass as well. That is a toughie. But then do we really understand how mass is generated. Maybe the E=MC^2 formula suggest that energy is being converted into mass somehow in the the core. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thplinth said:

Old school boffin...

 

There's a lot in there to take in and try to argue with.   Much I would not argue with.   A couple of points though:

The expanding earth theory came about before evidence of sea floor spreading and subduction was found.   The prof. obviously was not convinced by the latter and stuck with it.

This was filmed in 1982, and geologists have not stopped chipping.   Maybe the evidence of ophiolites (pillow lavas) in the Himalayas is recent.   These are evidence of ocean spreading (the Tethys), whereas Prof. Carey disputed that there ever was ocean there.   I see no problem with the dinosaurs as India & China were part of a single landmass before the former skelped off across the Tethys and collided with a different part of it.   There is plenty of evidence of mountain building by continental collision, which you would think would be rare on an expanding earth.   e.g. the Caledonian orogeny (where he shows the Appalachians and "England").   The transform fault he shows is believed to have occurred late in that process and doesn't disprove anything for me.

If the earth was all land it might have been a bit short of rain to water early plants and for the myriads of sea fossils to have swam in (long before Pangaea).

It hinges on the earth's mass increasing though.   Feck me, maybe dinosaurs were so big because gravity was so low :-)) .   (Their bones and muscle pick-ups would not have needed to be so thick though.)   I think an earlier video said the size/mass would have doubled with the opening of the Atlantic (60 million years or something).   You do realise what a big number E=mc2 is for that?   I think it is many millions of times more energy than all the sun's that would have reached earth in that time (even if it wasn't all reflected/radiated off).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Grim Jim said:

There's a lot in there to take in and try to argue with.   Much I would not argue with.   A couple of points though:

The expanding earth theory came about before evidence of sea floor spreading and subduction was found.   The prof. obviously was not convinced by the latter and stuck with it.

This was filmed in 1982, and geologists have not stopped chipping.   Maybe the evidence of ophiolites (pillow lavas) in the Himalayas is recent.   These are evidence of ocean spreading (the Tethys), whereas Prof. Carey disputed that there ever was ocean there.   I see no problem with the dinosaurs as India & China were part of a single landmass before the former skelped off across the Tethys and collided with a different part of it.   There is plenty of evidence of mountain building by continental collision, which you would think would be rare on an expanding earth.   e.g. the Caledonian orogeny (where he shows the Appalachians and "England").   The transform fault he shows is believed to have occurred late in that process and doesn't disprove anything for me.

If the earth was all land it might have been a bit short of rain to water early plants and for the myriads of sea fossils to have swam in (long before Pangaea).

It hinges on the earth's mass increasing though.   Feck me, maybe dinosaurs were so big because gravity was so low :-)) .   (Their bones and muscle pick-ups would not have needed to be so thick though.)   I think an earlier video said the size/mass would have doubled with the opening of the Atlantic (60 million years or something).   You do realise what a big number E=mc2 is for that?   I think it is many millions of times more energy than all the sun's that would have reached earth in that time (even if it wasn't all reflected/radiated off).

Plate tectonics as a theory also came about before they mapped the age of the sea floor I understand. From your other comments I can see you have not really looked at it. I can't be bothered relaying it to you.

As for energy... maybe you are missing some other potential source. 

_86610936_planetnasa.png

Anyway I really am not trying to convince you. Just seems to me like a far more interesting alternative theory of the earth than all this flat v ball pish.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2019 at 8:54 PM, thplinth said:

What do you say to the theory that we can shrink the current earth using the age of the most recent crust to remove the new stuff which is in the ocean rifts and when you do that the very old continents reform like pieces of a shattered egg shell to form an earth that is much smaller. The degree to which he can make them fit if you believe it is really quite hard to discount.

 

On 1/19/2019 at 11:42 AM, thplinth said:

I am glad you mention Pangea. What I find particularly curious about it is if you look at animations of the theorized movements of the continents under the plate tectonics theory they are moving about a lot and are all over the place, forming into super continents on one side of the earth breaking up, reforming again (Pangea is one of several super continents that existed apparently) and this goes on for 100s of  millions of years before finally settling into the current configuration. What troubles me about it is what are the chances that the continents after all that higgily piggly movement would arrange themselves into a configuration so that by simply eliminating the newest rock in the oceans means you are able to collapse the continents into a smaller sphere and they would fit so well. I would have thought the chances of that would be almost nil. 

I would still like to hear some answers on this. What are the chances? Seem to me that is like shuffling four decks like fuck only to find the whole pack not shuffled at all. I'd like to discount this theory as much as anyone but WTF.

The expanding earth theory in part came about by people trying to prove Pangea etc using scale model cut out continents on a (now earth sized scale model) globe who then realized it could only truly work on a smaller globe but with the same sized cut out continents. And then most curiously it worked really well. That is fucking odd IMHO. The continents after all that almost random looking movement all over the pace can collapse back like unmoved inflated egg shell fragments... back into the original egg shell shape almost perfectly relatively speaking. Don't you think that is odd if true?

When modern day science mapped the ocean floors age it provided the key by which to remove the new crust to re collapse the original shell continents. It helped the expansion earth folks far more than the plate tectonics folks. 

Edited by thplinth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×