Above: The Late Cretaceous World of Meinong's Jungle According to Plate Tectonics
(It's dominated by gravitation which allows pterosaurs the size of giraffes to defy it, and by Dark Matter of course)
Vs.
Below: The Real World of Biogeography and Dennis J. McCarthy (Yeah yeah, another McCarthy puff piece I know...:P)
Vicariance: The separation or division of a group of organisms by a geographic barrier, such as a mountain or a body of water, resulting in differentiation of the original group into new varieties or species.
"The notion of random, and sometimes two-way, 'rafting' across the wide oceans ... evinces, however, a weakening of the scientific outlook, if not a confession of doubt from the standpoint of organic evolution." -- Alexander Du Toit, geologist, 1844
Chilean Flat Oyster
Ostrea chilensis is endemic to Chile and New Zealand.
"Currently, a significant number of distributional facts, particularly involving oceanic disjunctions of poor-dispersing taxa, are in direct conflict with conventional paleomaps of the Mesozoic Pacific and Tethys."
McCarthy, D.J., Biogeographical and Geological Evidence for a Smaller, Completely-Enclosed Pacific Basin in the Late Cretaceous, Journal of Biogeography, Volume 32, Issue 12, Pages 2161 - 2177, 2005
"Many researchers have dealt with these inconsistencies by ignoring basic biogeographical realities and positing a radical cross-ocean rafting dispersal hypothesis to explain the problematic disjunctions."
Foighil, D.O., et al., Trans-Pacific Range Extension by Rafting Is Inferred for the Flat Oyster Ostrea chilensis, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 13, Pages 1087-1105, 1996
However, the flat oyster, Ostrea chilensis, does not have an extended pelagic phase suggesting alternative tectonic theories.
McCarthy, D.J., Biogeography and Scientific Revolutions, The Systematist, Number 25, Pages 3-12, 2005
Sphenodon (Tuatara)
"Sphenodontian reptiles successfully radiated during Triassic and Jurassic times, but were driven almost to extinction during the Cretaceous period."
Apesteguía, S., and Novas, F.E., Large Cretaceous Sphenodontian From Patagonia Provides Insight Into Lepidosaur Evolution In Gondwana, Nature, Volume 425, Pages 609-612, Oct 2003
Miller, H.C., Belov, K., and Daugherty, C.H., Characterization of MHC Class II Genes From An Ancient Reptile Lineage, Sphenodon (Tuatara), Immunogenetics, Volume 57, Number 11, Pages 883-891, Nov 2005
Miller, H.C., Belov, K., and Daugherty, C.H., MHC Class I Genes in the Tuatara (Sphenodon spp.): Evolution of the MHC in an Ancient Reptilian Order, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Proceedings of the SMBE Tri-National Young Investigators' Workshop, 2005
"The fossil record of sphenodontids in the Southern Hemisphere is much longer than in Laurasia, where they became extinct after Early Cretaceous times."
Apesteguía, S., A Late Campanian Sphenodontid (Reptilia, Diapsida) From Northern Patagonia, Comptes Rendus Palevol, Volume 4, Issue 8, Pages 663-669, Dec 2005
"At the end of the Early Cretaceous the once abundant sphenodontians vanished from the Laurasian record and were thought to have become virtually extinct."
Apesteguía, S., and Rougier, G.W., A Late Campanian Sphenodontid Maxilla from Northern Patagonia, American Museum Novitates, Volume 3581, Pages 1-11, 2007
"Recent works demonstrated the persistence of at least eilenodontine sphenodontids until the ‘mid’-Cretaceous of Patagonia."
Apesteguía, S., A Late Campanian Sphenodontid (Reptilia, Diapsida) From Northern Patagonia, Comptes Rendus Palevol, Volume 4, Issue 8, Pages 663-669, Dec 2005
"The most recent fossil relatives of the only living sphenodon, New Zealand's lizard-like Tuatara, are the Late Cretaceous sphenodontians of Patagonia."
Apesteguía, S., and Novas, F.E., Large Cretaceous Sphenodontian From Patagonia Provides Insight Into Lepidosaur Evolution In Gondwana, Nature, Volume 425, Pages 609-612, Oct 2003
said lead study author Marc Jones, a postdoctoral fellow at University College London. "If we look at the transoceanic capabilities of the modern [tuatara], it can swim but only short distances. It is able to survive without food for several months, but dehydration would be a serious problem for a long journey."Hansford, D., Tuatara Ancestor Adds to "Sunken New Zealand" Debate, National Geographic News, Jan 2009
Paleontologist Ewan Fordyce, a professor at the University of Otago who was not involved in the study, said another problem with the theory is an apparent lack of a mainland tuatara population that could have recolonized the islands.
"If tuatara had actually migrated here after [Zealandia went underwater], we would expect to find a fossil record in nearby land areas like Australia," he said, "and they're just not there."
So the question is naturally raised, if the Paleomaps of the Late Cretaceous are correct, how did the tuatara teleport from Patagonia to New Zealand in the Late Cretaceous, without leaving a single descendant in between if they were separated by the Pacific Ocean?
McCarthy, D.J., Biogeographical and Geological Evidence for a Smaller, Completely-Enclosed Pacific Basin in the Late Cretaceous, Journal of Biogeography, Volume 32, Issue 12, Pages 2161 - 2177, 2005
McCarthy, D.J., Biogeography and Scientific Revolutions, The Systematist, Number 25, Pages 3-12, 2005
Fiji Banded Iguana
Fiji's banded iguana Brachylophus is closely related to the Fiji crested iguana and the two are related to the Californian iguanid Dipsosaurus better known as the desert iguana and possibly also the green iguana.
Sites, J.W., Jr., et al., Character Congruence and Phylogenetic Signal In Molecular and Morphological Data Sets: A Case Study In The Living Iguanas (Squamata, Iguanidae), Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 13, Pages 1087-1105, 1996
How they arrived on the shores of Fiji and other Pacific islands is a puzzle. One theory is that they rafted some 13-million years ago.
Hello Hello: New Species Found In Fiji, New Zealand Associated Press, Sep 2008
The disjunction of the Fijian banded iguana and its California sister requires, according to conventional paleomaps, an 8000 - 12000 km rafting trip, mostly over hypothetical (i.e. currently nonexistent) seafloor. This is more than three times longer than the now forsaken trans-Atlantic rafting trips put forth to save continental stabalism. This hypothetical trip would be the greatest oceanic jaunt of any taxon in the history of terrestrial vertibrates - and by far. Yet the banded iguana is restricted to Fiji-Tonga and appears on no other oceanic islands.McCarthy, D.J., Biogeography and Scientific Revolutions, The Systematist, Number 25, Pages 3-12, 2005
If a one month rafting trip for green iguanas is stretching the limits of hydration and imagination then surely a two year rafting trip is impossible.
Rivera, R., Rafting Iguanas, Science World, Jan 1999
Marsupials
The discovery of Chinese marsupials, particularly the oldest known marsupial Sinodelphys szalayi which lived in China 125 million years ago, is a deathblow to plate tectonics. How did marsupials teleport from China to South America?
Rincon, P., Oldest Marsupial Ancestor Found, BBC, Dec 2003
Pickrell, J., Oldest Marsupial Fossil Found in China, National Geographic, December 2003
Klinger, M.A., Sinodelphys szalayi, Carnegie Mellon Natural History, 2003
Monkeys
"Monkeys do not appear on any oceanic island so if they do have the ability to raft across oceans, it is apparently a talent they do not like to flaunt."
Mittermeier, R.A., et al., Nowak (ed) Walker's Primates of the World, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999
McCarthy, D.J., Biogeography and Scientific Revolutions, The Systematist, Number 25, Pages 3-12, 2005
Cichlids
The only study done on saltwater tolerance of Malagasy cichlids confirmed that their exposure to saltwater was 100% fatal after 12 hours. Cichlids have been unable to reach any oceanic island and have a predominantly Gondwanan distribution, showing the precise sister relationships predicted by vicariance: Africa-South America and India-Madagascar. The dispersal hypothesis requires freshwater cichlids to have negotiated thousands of kilometers of open ocean between India and Madagascar without colonizing any other island or, for that matter, crossing the Mozambique Channel to Africa. Apparently, these taxa like to confine their oceanic jaunts between regions that were once connected. Chakrabarty concludes from his review of phylogenetic analyses that vicariance is the only explanation.Chakrabarty, P., Cichlid Biogeography: Comment and Review, Fish and Fisheries, Volume 5, Issue 2, Pages 97-119, May 2004
McCarthy, D.J., Biogeography and Scientific Revolutions, The Systematist, Number 25, Pages 3-12, 2005
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
61 comments:
So the simplest explanation for these oddities would be... Expanding Earth?
What's the expansion rate?
Is it continuous over geologic time scales?
What is the mechanism by which this expansion is accomplished?
Jeffery,
"So the simplest explanation for these oddities would be... Expanding Earth?"
Bingo.
"What's the expansion rate?
Is it continuous over geologic time scales?"
See here and here for empirical seafloor spread rates of the mid-Oceanic ridges (MORs).
"What is the mechanism by which this expansion is accomplished?"
Mid-oceanic seafloor spreading. What is the mechanism by which your imaginary fixism is accomplished?
What causes the sea floor spreading?
Jeffery Keown,
"What causes the sea floor spreading?"
You should ask Naomi Oreskes or a Plate Tectonics fundamentalist who is, no doubt, an expert on seafloor spreading.
Tassos suggests that there are rising columns or sheets of material being created at the center of the planet.
In your opinion, how is this bonus matter being created?
Jeffery,
"In your opinion, how is this bonus matter being created?"
What makes you think there is bonus matter being "created"?
Is this more creationism?
Where does the expansion occur? Is stuff being added? If not, how does it happen that there is an increase in Earth's mass with out extra material?
Look, this is your hypothesis that you subscribe to, not me. I'm just trying to understand it. You clearly have no interest in boiling it down for me. You deflections and dodges (and implying that I'm a creationist) do nothing for me.
Here is my position: You have no mechanism. There is no process by which Earth's size is increasing.
@ Jeffery Keown:
You've never responded to a statement I've made or a question I've asked you.
Why is that?
I'd like to know.
But I'll try, again.
Jerrery, you asked: "What is the mechanism by which this expansion is accomplished?
Actually, in a previous OIM post, Myth of rising sea levels, I [Anaconda] put it very similarly: "One of the objections to Expanding Earth theory was, "Okay, the geological evidence is substantial and so is the taxia (animals and plants) evidence, but what about the 'mechanism'?"
And in that same comment (#12) I suggested a possible "mechanism": Intense aurora activity several orders of magnitude stronger than today's current aurora activity.
I presented evidence and reasoning.
Let me add this mainstream media report from ScienceDaily, that OilIsMastery has already referenced in a prior post as additional evidence for my hypothesized "mechanism".
ScienceDaily (March 13, 2009) -- "...Many scientists think that the end of the last ice age was triggered by a change in Earth's orbit that caused the northern part of the planet to warm."
"Change in the Earth's orbit..."
My suggested mechanism accounts for that change of orbit and its timing as well.
Now, OilIsMastery is too enamored with Velikovsky to be able to give serious consideration to my proposal because it disagrees with Velikovsky's swirling planets hypothesis.
Even though by far the vast weight of scientific evidence supports Anthony Peratt's work on the subject rather than Velikovsky's work.
As an aside, OilIsMastery, one of your biggest weaknesses it seems to me, is your over reliance on individual men, and on the flip side, abuse for men you disagree with.
It's the ideas and concepts that are important, not the men who propose them.
Anyway, Jeffery Keown, I have proposed a mechanism. How 'bout you respond one way or the other.
Anaconda,
I'm sorry for my apparent silence regarding your posts. It's rude. I tend to concentrate on OiM's bizarre behavior instead of your usually reasoned approach.
That said, The amount of energy involved in this kind of mass accretion are staggering. If mass were being added at a steady rate, by any mechanism, the heat generated would be equally staggering.
e=mc^2, anyone?
How much mass would have to be added per year to account for the hypothetical increased diameter from 200mya?
Plate Tectonics is the simplest explanation. Yes, it has yet to answer the whole Taxa question, but still, the evidence for subduction is overwelming.
I certainly wouldn't hypothesize the expanding columns of rigid material. I don't see how any planet could just develop such columns and I don't think there is any siesmological evidence to warrant the columns thing. Actually, if that were the shape then I would think it would have been concluded by now.
According to Tassos, you need gravity for columns to develope. Columns might not be right... call them sheets and arrange them with one edge on the mid-ocean ridge, and the opposite edge across the Core.
If I were to follow that diagram....
(1) It took 3.8 billion years for the crust to form (4.0-0.2 BYA).
(2) Then it took another 100 million years for the area just below crust to form, doubling in size (0.2 - 0.1 BYA).
(3) Then another, roughly, doubling in size over the next 50 million years (0.10 - 0.05 BYA).
(4) Then some unusual and rapid seafloor spreading for the next 10 billion years (0.05 - 0.04 BYA).
(5) Then the Earth expands by about 1/5th the size for the next 30 million years (0.04 - 0.01 BYA).
(6) The an thin expansion for the next 6 million years, and some rapidly developing columns that shoot all the way out to the crust (10 MYA - 4 MYA).
(7) Then the next 3 million years the earth expands by 1/12th.
(8) Then some time within the last 1 million years the Earth blew up to about 3 times its size.
Anyhow, so when does the Earth explode in a Big Bang!?
Jeffery,
"Where does the expansion occur?"
At the core of astronomical bodies.
"Is stuff being added?"
Yes.
"If not, how does it happen that there is an increase in Earth's mass with out extra material?"
Straw man.
"Look, this is your hypothesis that you subscribe to, not me. I'm just trying to understand it."
If you were actually trying to understand tectonics (trust me: you're not) you would already understand the concept of seafloor spreading.
"Here is my position: You have no mechanism. There is no process by which Earth's size is increasing."
Are you saying that seafloor spreading and plate tectonics do not exist and the Earth is shrinking?
Jeffrey,
"Plate Tectonics is the simplest explanation."
If you don't believe in oceanic seafloor spreading, then what is the mechanism for plate tectonics?
"the evidence for subduction is overwelming."
Only in Meinong's Jungle.
If you don't believe in oceanic seafloor spreading, then what is the mechanism for plate tectonics?
As many words as you put in my mouth, it's a wonder I have room to eat.
I asked for the mechanism behind seafloor spreading in your scenario. Instead, you rephrase things that make it clear that you do not care to explain yourself, but would rather waste everyone's time.
One. more. time. What is the mechanism by which all this extra mass is added to earth. EE purports that the gravity was less in the past, that earth was smaller. How is it that this has happened.
@ Jeffery Keown:
Thank you for the response.
It would seem to me an aurora type Birkeland current from the Sun to the Earth that is several orders of magnitude stronger than today, which was strong enough to generate a plasmoid cage around and up the axis of Earth would covey vast amounts of energy and matter to the Earth.
The release of energy and pressure as a result of these very intense aurora type Birkeland currents would likely be over time, but certainly there could also be episodic mountain building periods. which incidently, there is some supporting evidence for that possibility.
Earth Expansion likly would be a combination of additional energy and matter, plus chemical reactions where the resulting product takes more volume.
Jeffery, the midocean spreading zones' lengths, added up, equal about 40,000 miles, the so-called "subduction" zones only add up to about 15,000 miles.
For the sake of discussion, let's accept those are "subduction" zones, how do you explain the difference in total length between the midocean spreading ridges and the "subduction" zones?
Also, the scientific evidence is much more consistent for the deep ocean trenches, simply being rifts where the Earth is spreading apart, rather, than plates sliding underneath.
Jeffery, you spoke of the need of energy, but no "subduction" advocate has identified the energy needed for "subduction" to happen, let alone "continental drift".
And I've questioned knowledgable geologists on these points -- they don't have an answer.
They either admit it, or they distract onto a different subject.
Jeffery, you might have to accept that you have been conditioned by the Uniformitarianism mind set that says: "The Earth SIMPLY CAN"T expand."
The mind set needs to be set aside in the face of the evidence.
If Earth were expanding, GPS would show a constant, common vector for all points on the surface.
It does not. It shows each plate moving in a different direction, rotating, shearing and slipping, just as predicted by plate tectonic theory. Subduction zones are balanced by shearing and folding.
So: no. EE is deeply flawed. This isn't Uniformitarianism - It is fact.
What GPS data are you looking at?
All the SLR, VLBI, and GPS data I've seen show expansion.
E.g. see here.
@ Jeffery Keown:
Me fears you have sunk to pitching woo.
Jeffery Keown stated: "It [GPS] shows each plate moving in a different direction, rotating, shearing and slipping, just as predicted by plate tectonic theory."
Seriously, Jeffery, you need to provide authority for that statement to have any credibility at all. It's a specific statement, so failure to provide authority backing it up can only mean you are pitching woo.
To be honest, you statement has the look of a spasmodic reflex action. The result of cognitive dissonance. particularly, after OilIsMastery provided authority for his postion.
OilIsMastery's got your head, Jeffery, held down in the dirt, biting dust.
Is that all you can do?
"- it is fact."
Yet, you failed to respond to anything in my follow up comment, all you did was announce by fiat that GPS supports your position -- end of story.
Without documentation to support your fiat, I can only conclude that the evidence is too much for your nervous system to handle.
Maybe that's why you never responded to prior comments, before now -- you couldn't handle being shot down in flames.
Where is the energy required for so-called "subduction" and so-called "continental drift"?
You've already ducked that question once, are you going to duck it again?
Oh, yes, you're a strong debater all right, Jeffery.
Not.
Jeffery, do you really believe that all the land was crowded into one spot on Earth (cyclical supercontinents) while the rest was water. Do you seriously believe contintents "aimlessly wonder" over the surface of the Earth?
Remember, geologists have determined that continental crust is rooted into the Earth down to a depth of 600 kilometers (400 miles) do you really think continents "float" around?
It would be as if a tree with deep roots "wondered" around.
It's ludicrous.
Of course, you also ducked my question about the 40,000 miles of midocean spreading ridges, but only 15,000 miles of so-called "subduction" zones.
Jeffery, if they don't equal out then the Earth expands. Period.
Also, if there is "subduction" going on off the northern Washington coast and southern British Columbia, Canada, coast, how come Vancouver Island is being pulled off the coastline instead of pushed into the coastline?
Hmmm...?
Same question for Baja California, Baja California is getting pulled off the coatline, but if there was "subduction" wouldn't Baja be getting pushed into the Coastline?
Hmmm...?
You got to do some explaining with authority backing up your postion before you have credibility.
At this point it appears all you had was a cognitive dissonance tantrum.
Can you do better than that?
@OIM ""the evidence for subduction is overwelming." Only in Meinong's Jungle."
How does the Expanding Earth theory explain the fact that in most cases earthquakes are no deeper than 100 km, but at subduction zones (e.g., the Andes) they can be as deep as 700 km? Is this just a coincidence.
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/volcano_types/arc.htm
"But we know that there are earthquakes at subduction zones that are deeper than 100 km, and some are even as deep as 700 km! In these cases though, you have taken a surface plate with all its shallow breakable characteristics, and shoved it down deep into the Earth. As long as it takes a while to heat up and become ductile down there, it will continue to be able to break and cause (deep) earthquakes. The fact that there never seem to be any earthquakes deeper than 700 km is probably telling us that by the time the plate has gotten that deep it is so hot that it can't break anymore."
@Anaconda "It would seem to me an aurora type Birkeland current from the Sun to the Earth that is several orders of magnitude stronger than today, which was strong enough to generate a plasmoid cage around and up the axis of Earth would covey vast amounts of energy and matter to the Earth."
Please be quantitative. How many amperes are we talking about here? Shouldn't this Birkeland current be detectable at the ground and in deep caves? Any Birkeland current strong enough to move the continents would be strong enough to fry any living thing at the surface.
@OIM "What GPS data are you looking at? All the SLR, VLBI, and GPS data I've seen show expansion."
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html
Look at the EISL (Easter Island) station. Its vector is pointing eastward towards South America. Is that expansion or subduction?
@Jeffery Keown "Where does the expansion occur? Is stuff being added? If not, how does it happen that there is an increase in Earth's mass with out extra material?"
Oh boy! I thought Peratt was insane, but this guy Tassos is certifiable. From OIM's link:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Excess-mass-stress.htm
"Excess Mass Stress (E.M.S.)
The Driving Force of Geodynamic Phenomena by Stavros T. Tassos
Excess Mass Stress (E.M.S.) is the proposed driving force of geodynamic phenomena. It is the force exerted by Excess Mass (E.M.), that is bulk matter generated at the mantle - core boundary. Excess Mass is the product of transformation of elementary particles into bulk matter, through electromagnetic confinement, laser clustering and controlled nuclear fusions. The duration and the intensity of the process depends on the relative abundance of electrons, as compared to nucleons, and on the existence of a small number of protons that are recycled in the proton cycle. The primordial
Earth had a size about 75% the present size of its core. There are about 3.6E51 nucleons, most of
them as 2H nuclei, a small number of free protons and about 1.0E53 electrons were trapped. Up to now
about two thirds of the original number of hydrogen nuclei have been transformed, in two phases
(4000-200 and 200-0 m.y. ago), into crust and mantle bulk matter, while the rest remains to be
transformed.
The Core of the Earth is considered as an electrically unbalanced real gas of particles subject to the exclusion principle. As a result of that its degeneracy pressure, due to electrons, should be greater
than its gravitational pressure, due to nucleons. The degeneracy pressure is reduced by the clustering behavior of bosons and of pairs of fermions. Therefore during periods of intensified clustering, i.e., orogenic episodes, the degeneracy pressure is reduced and the Earth tends to contract. The net result of the electrical unbalance will be the pulsation of the Earth (expansion-contraction), which is superimposed on its expansion due to E.M. generation.
The approach is qualitative but with quantitative constraints; it is based on current knowledge and on reliable observational and experimental data but, at the same time, it is not confirmed by existing theories and interpretations."
What a bunch of woo! Sorry, Anaconda, no Birkeland current or double layer anywhere to be seen here. He refers to the core as a "gas", not a "plasma" even though it has electrically charged particles so I'm sure that will endear him to all the EU folks.
One question for OIM: Since Tassos claims his model is based on "experimental data" can you please provide the experimental results for converting nucleons and electrons directly into "bulk matter" for the crust or mantle (granite or basalt would suffice)? I'd really like to see that.
@ Tom Marking:
Have you reviewed Peratt's paper on this subject, did you bother to follow the link I provided at my original comment on this post?
Until you can say yes, then what are you, a pseudosceptic, that's all.
Marking, do you think the continents just wonder around the Earth, willy nilly?
If you're going to step into this question, then all the direct questions I posed to Mr. Keown are posed to you. And, unless you can give a semblence of a series of answers, you look like an empty suit.
And for your question about the depth of Earthquakes at the Andes, I never stated there aren't plates and fissures and faults. Obviously, there are. The questions are as I directly laid out to Mr. Keown.
Care to answer those questions or are you just going to prove you're an empty suit?
A chicken running around with his head cut off.
@Anaconda "Have you reviewed Peratt's paper on this subject, did you bother to follow the link I provided at my original comment on this post?"
Which theory are we debating? I thought we were debating the Tassos theory which is the one that OIM is promulgating. It has no Birkeland currents, double layers, etc., etc. at least as far as I can tell.
Does Peratt have an alternative Expanding Earth theory? I thought the link you provided from Peratt was concerning ancient petroglyphs. What bearing does it have on Expanding Earth theory?
I will try to answer the questions you posed to Jeffery but I need to collect them in one place.
Tom,
"Is that expansion or subduction?"
I'll take a tab at this one.
Let me guess: expansion?
Tom,
"Which theory are we debating? I thought we were debating the Tassos theory which is the one that OIM is promulgating. It has no Birkeland currents, double layers, etc., etc. at least as far as I can tell."
You say that based upon ignorance and a lack of education.
"Freund's (2003) experimental work confirms the infrared radiation emission nature of such geodynamic anomalies and processes. It is therefore logical that Earth's geodynamics are driven by electro-motive force (EMF), or rather, electromagnetic anisotropic concentration processes, and surely not by the conventional physically inadequate heat-engine bulk convection formalism. In other words, volts and amperes control tectonism and all geodynamic phenomena...." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005
Tassos, S.T., and Ford, D.J., An Integrated Alternative Conceptual Framework to Heat Engine Earth, Plate Tectonics, and Elastic Rebound, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 19, Number 1, Pages 43-90, 2005
Tom,
As far as plasma cosmology is concerned, you're obviously ignorant of that too.
"Originally it was thought the Earth was flat. Then spherical but with the continents anchored in rock. When Alfred Wegener noted that continents fitted together like a jigsaw puzzle and therefore had been pulled apart, it was violently rejected because geologists said they were anchored in basaltic rock. Finally it was found that the Atlantic trench between the Americas and Africa/Europe was opening up at a rate of just about right for the Earth's estimated age (Kokus, 2002). So mainstream geologists invented plate tectonics where the continents skated blythly around on top of this anchoring rock! In 1958 the noted Geologist S. Warren Carey and in 1965 K. M. Creer (in the old, usefully scientific Nature Magazine) were among those who articulated the obvious, namely that the Earth is expanding. The controversy between plate tectonics and expanding Earth has been acrid ever since." -- Halton C. Arp, astronomer, 2005
"So perhaps this fundamental change in the assumptions of physics is connected with the observations which are being contested under the rubric of plate tectonics. It is appropriate to quote Creer from his 1965 article '... we should beware of rejecting the hypothesis of [earth] expansion out of hand on grounds that no known sources of energy are adequate' and 'For an adequate explanation we may well have to await a satisfactory theory of the origin and development of the universe.' Although Nature (the magazine) would never entertain such a suggestion today, the variable mass theory mentioned in JSE is a candidate to fulfill that prophecy." -- Halton C. Arp, astronomer, 2001
@Anaconda
1.) "And in that same comment (#12) I suggested a possible "mechanism": Intense aurora activity several orders of magnitude stronger than today's current aurora activity. I presented evidence and reasoning."
This may be referring to some previous conversation you had with Jeffery which I don't remember too well. In general I'd have to say that all of your "mechanisms" lack quantification. If Birkeland currents are driving Earth expansion then you need to quantify how much current is needed and how it gets into the deep earth without being detected at the surface.
And I note in passing that Jeffery's question to you which was
"How much mass would have to be added per year to account for the hypothetical increased diameter from 200mya?" has gone unanswered. No doubt because it requires some quantification.
2.) "Jeffery, the midocean spreading zones' lengths, added up, equal about 40,000 miles, the so-called "subduction" zones only add up to about 15,000 miles. For the sake of discussion, let's accept those are "subduction" zones, how do you explain the difference in total length between the midocean spreading ridges and the "subduction" zones?"
You chide Jeffery for not sourcing his statements while at the same time providing no source for this statement.
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~brandon/Eprints/Brandon2004_CascadiaWedge.pdf
"Modern subduction zones have a total length of 51,000 km,
and consume plates at an average rate of 62 km/my (or
62 mm/y)"
3.) "Also, the scientific evidence is much more consistent for the deep ocean trenches, simply being rifts where the Earth is spreading apart, rather, than plates sliding underneath."
Why do the deep earthquakes (more than 100 km) occur at subduction zones and not mid-oceanic ridges if they are both spreading zones? Why are deep ocean trenches morphologically different than mid-oceanic ridges (hint: they are trenches, NOT ridges)?
4.) "Jeffery, you spoke of the need of energy, but no "subduction" advocate has identified the energy needed for "subduction" to happen, let alone "continental drift".
Where is the energy required for so-called "subduction" and so-called "continental drift"?"
The theory of plate tectonics proposes that radiactive decay is the energy source which drives continental drift. No separate energy source is required for subduction. The energy source for sea floor spreading and subduction is the same.
5.) "Remember, geologists have determined that continental crust is rooted into the Earth down to a depth of 600 kilometers (400 miles) do you really think continents "float" around? It would be as if a tree with deep roots "wondered" around. It's ludicrous."
You and OIM need to decide whether you support continental drift or not. OIM has made ambiguous statements about it. There is direct satellite evidence for continental drift and there has been since 1984, so Yes, I do believe continents float around.
6.) "Also, if there is "subduction" going on off the northern Washington coast and southern British Columbia, Canada, coast, how come Vancouver Island is being pulled off the coastline instead of pushed into the coastline?"
Source please? It's my understanding that Vancouver Island is part of the North American plate and is not moving relative to it.
7.) "Same question for Baja California, Baja California is getting pulled off the coatline, but if there was "subduction" wouldn't Baja be getting pushed into the Coastline?"
Not every interaction of plates is subduction. You can have lateral motion in the case of the San Andreas fault where the Pacific plate is moving northwest relative to the North American plate. There is subduction in the case of the Nazca plate which is getting pushed under the South American plate. I have heard no direct refutation by either you or OIM of that fact.
@OIM "As far as plasma cosmology is concerned, you're obviously ignorant of that too."
Perhaps, I never claimed to be an expert in EU woo. But then Tassos calls a collection of charged particles in the center of the earth a "gas", so perhaps he too is ignorant of it. :)
Your response to the fact that GPS data shows Easter Island is moving towards South America in contravention of Expanding Earth theory is quite deafening. :)
Quote mining Arp now, are we? Is he the expert on Expanding Earth theory? Still waiting for your experimental evidence for how nucleons and electrons turn into the earth's crust. We all know that EU and EE are based on experimental evidence (as Anaconda keeps informing me) so I'm quite looking forward to these experimental results.
Tom,
"Perhaps, I never claimed to be an expert in EU woo."
If you're not an expert, then perhaps you should give it a fair hearing?
"But then Tassos calls a collection of charged particles in the center of the earth a "gas", so perhaps he too is ignorant of it. :)"
Plasma is ionized gas.
"Your response to the fact that GPS data shows Easter Island is moving towards South America in contravention of Expanding Earth theory is quite deafening. :)"
My response was ignored. You have already conceded that Australia and Peru are receding from eachother, therefore the Pacific is expanding.
"Quote mining Arp now, are we?"
At least I provide quotes and support for my arguments. All you provide is ad hominem and emotional response.
"Still waiting for your experimental evidence"
Still waiting for you to address any of the points and questions I have repeatedly pointed out and asked you.
@OIM "You say that based upon ignorance and a lack of education.
Tassos, S.T., and Ford, D.J., An Integrated Alternative Conceptual Framework to Heat Engine Earth, Plate Tectonics, and Elastic Rebound, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 19, Number 1, Pages 43-90, 2005"
Really? Open that PDF file. Now search on the word "Birkeland". How many occurrences did you find?
Tom,
Do you know what "volts and amps" are?
@OIM "My response was ignored. You have already conceded that Australia and Peru are receding from each other, therefore the Pacific is expanding."
Nope, OIM, I never conceded that. Perhaps you got confused by the link I provided talking about relative plate motion. As it turns out the Pacific plate is being subducted both in the Aleutians and the western Pacific.
http://emvc.geol.ucsb.edu/download/pacnorth.php
"All you provide is ad hominem and emotional response."
Not counting the numerous URLs I've cited, I suppose.
"Still waiting for you to address any of the points and questions I have repeatedly pointed out and asked you."
I think you're confusing yourself with Anaconda. Anaconda asked me (and Jeffery) seven specific questions which I have already answered.
Tom,
So you were lying in the last thread when you wrote, these are your words not mine: "Australia is receding from South America."
@OIM "Do you know what "volts and amps" are?"
Yes, I do. And I even know what
V = I * R
is? Do you? Can you name what law that is? Your nonresponse on this one ought to be hilarious.
So you're aware that Birkeland currents are amps and volts?
@OIM "So you were lying in the last thread when you wrote, these are your words not mine: "Australia is receding from South America."
OIM, please try to pay attention. Those were not my words. They came from:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.041
The more specific quote is:
"Both the Pacific and Indian plates appear to be moving away from South America, at 5 to 6 cm per year"
Australia is apparently on the Indian plate. They don't mention the Nazca plate at all and therefore don't apply to whether the Nazca plate is being subducted under the South American plate. Even if the Pacific plate is moving westward from South America it does not necessarily mean that the Pacific Ocean is getting bigger if the Pacific plate itself is getting subducted on its western side.
@OIM "So you're aware that Birkeland currents are amps and volts?"
Jeez!!!!! Been over this before with Anaconda. Go to your own EU woo web site. It has the following definition:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Birkeland_current
"A Birkeland current generally refers to any electric current in a space plasma, but more specifically when charged particles in the current follow magnetic field lines."
So a Birkeland current is either a current flowing through a plasma in outer space or it's a current flowing parallel to the magnetic field lines.
Using either definition, there are lots of currents in the universe that are not Birkeland currents (e.g., the wall current flowing through your PC right now).
BTW, I'm going to lose a lot of respect for you, OIM, if you can't even tell me what law V = I * R is.
:)
Tom,
"OIM, please try to pay attention. Those were not my words. They came from:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.041"
My apologies. They were the words of the article.
Why are you quoting things you don't agree with?
"Both the Pacific and Indian plates appear to be moving away from South America, at 5 to 6 cm per year"
Exactly. Therefore the Earth is expanding.
"Australia is apparently on the Indian plate."
No. Australia is on the Australian plate. See here where no subduction exists.
"They don't mention the Nazca plate at all and therefore don't apply to whether the Nazca plate is being subducted under the South American plate."
Exactly. I agree 100%.
"Even if the Pacific plate is moving westward from South America it does not necessarily mean that the Pacific Ocean is getting bigger if the Pacific plate itself is getting subducted on its western side."
Here is where I lose you. Hawaii and Peru are moving away from eachother at 80+/-3 mm/yr.
There is no evidence for subduction in the Western Pacific and even if there were it couldn't possibly account for the continuous seafloor spreading and basalt generation on the other 99% of the Earth.
Tom,
"A Birkeland current generally refers to any electric current in a space plasma, but more specifically when charged particles in the current follow magnetic field lines."
Are you aware that the Birkeland currents which cause the aurora travel through the mantle of the Earth via p-holes along magnetic field lines?
P.S. Ohm's Law is an obvious red herring.
@OIM "Why are you quoting things you don't agree with?"
I disagree with your interpretation of what they mean, not the quotations themselves.
"Exactly. Therefore the Earth is expanding."
OIM, do you admit to any plates approaching one another anywhere on the planet?
http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/Texts/snappsci.pdf
"Several years of SLR, GPS, and
DORIS data from Easter Island gave a weighted mean velocity with respect to stable South America of 75 6 5 mm/year directed
N106°E"
Can Expanding Earth theory tolerate two plates approaching one another which has been directly measured in the case of Easter Island and South America?
"Here is where I lose you. Hawaii and Peru are moving away from each other at 80+/-3 mm/yr."
So what, that's been known for some time that the Pacific plate is moving northwest relative to South America. How is that news?
"There is no evidence for subduction in the Western Pacific"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izu-Bonin-Mariana_Arc
@OIM "Are you aware that the Birkeland currents which cause the aurora travel through the mantle of the Earth via p-holes along magnetic field lines?"
Has this current been directly measured at the earth's surface or in deep caves, or does it magically jump straight from outer space down into the mantle?
"P.S. Ohm's Law is an obvious red herring."
Sheesh, that took you long enough. Was beginning to worry about you. :)
@ Tom Marking:
You don't know what you are talking about. The link I provide to my comment is right there in my first post on this thread.
But more important:
Marking states: "In general I'd have to say that all of your 'mechanisms' lack quantification."
IN GEOLOGY, NOBODY'S THEORY IS QUANTIFIFIED.
That's what makes it hard to know "how" anything happens. There are ball park figures, and general ideas.
So-called "subduction" and "continental drift" DON'T EVEN HAVE A BALL PARK IDEA OF WHERE THE ENERGY COMES FROM to drive them.
Wikipedia is a joke in astronomy, it's worse in geology.
But apparently "modern" astronomy holds itself out under false pretenses, saying it rigorously quantified, but in realtity it isn't as I discovered.
"Modern" astronomy is "living a lie".
Look, Marking, you are late to the party, this discussion has been going on for a long time, here, on this website.
I've been relatively willing to link documents and what not.
But in this particular discussion I'm not going to wipe your chin and spoon feed you. No high chair so little tommy can eat at the adults' table.
Comprendi?
In geology, Wikipedia -- not reliable.
Marking you don't know what you are talking about.
Midocean ridges are not the same geological formation as deep ocean trenches.
No, there isn't enough energy out of radiactive decay. Funny, we've had very full discussions with trained geologists on this site and they never ventured to say that radioactive decay provided enough energy. Rather, they didn't know.
Soryy, Marking, where is your satellite evidence?
OilIsMastery:
Don't worry about Marking too much, he's itching for some kind of "dubunking" victory, because he's been getting his rear end roundly kicked on EU theory -- to the point that he'd rather dabble in Expanding Earth theory than handle the failures of "big bang, black hole" theory.
So-called "subduction" doesn't happen.
There's no morphology that points to "subduction" If "subduction" happened then great amounts of sediment would be piled up where the slab was getting "pulled" under the other slab, but you know what, there has been no finidng of any kind of build up of sediment or rock or anything.
Nothing to suggest that slab is "subducting" under slab.
Anaconda,
It's funny, on all of these issues I would doubt myself were it not for the bustling fascist behavior and censorship and suppression by professionals (aka the whores) who will literally say anything so they can keep more baby food in their high chair. So be it: let them dribble on themselves until they drop dead.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck, physicist, 1949
@ OilIsMastery:
I agree, it is as much "their" reaction and the quality of arguments as it is the evidence, itself.
How many times, has an interlocutor shown that they don't believe in their own evidence by the way they intentionally manipulate their own evidence and your's as well.
I mean if scientfic method meant anything to them they wouldn't stretch their own evidence or attempt to distort your evidence.
I'll tell you, I had a completely different outlook on science before all this. Even after the abiotic oil battles, I thought, "well, there is so much at stake and oil geologists have a huge incentive to see oil as a 'fossil' fuel."
But now it's clear from the so-called "subduction" battles and the gravity "only" model battles that science has a real problem.
Applied science is in good shape -- you can't argue with laboratory experimtents and results, but anyplace where rigorous laboratory experiments don't rope people in -- there are problems.
I mean look at W.T. "Tom" Bridgman, I caught him in some flagrant cases where he displayed a lack of integrity.
Marking?
I couldn't tell you how many times I've caught him in a display of a lack of integrity, not in this thread necessarily, but others. Here, Marking just displayed a foaming at the mouth desire to "debunk" for the sake of "debunking" with no thought to reality.
Compared to Marking, BrianR was the epitome of probity.
I never thought I'd see the day when I would say that.
Why?
Because he didn't constantly distort my position or statements, BrianR was dogged and slippery about not agreeing with conclusions even if they were manifest, but at least he didn't consistently distort my views, also he did tend to answer questions.
You might not agree, and frequently thought the logic was flawed, but he didn't duck so much.
Marking ducks questions at the drop of the hat.
@Anaconda "Marking ducks questions at the drop of the hat."
I answered 7 of your specific questions that you put to Jeffery. Hell, they weren't even questions meant for me originally. You have yet to answer the one question Jeffery put to you on this thread.
@OIM "were it not for the bustling fascist behavior and censorship and suppression by professionals (aka the whores)"
Who is censuring you? Peratt has been published. Tassos has been published. You're apparently writing a book and you have this blog to promote your views. I much prefer that you be allowed the freedom to express whatever opinions you want even though I disagree with them.
@Anaconda "IN GEOLOGY, NOBODY'S THEORY IS QUANTIFIFIED. That's what makes it hard to know "how" anything happens. There are ball park figures, and general ideas."
Quantified does not mean high precision - it means that there are some numbers associated with the model. It is simply not true that all geological theories are lacking in quantification.
"So-called "subduction" and "continental drift" DON'T EVEN HAVE A BALL PARK IDEA OF WHERE THE ENERGY COMES FROM to drive them."
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n1/full/ngeo.2007.44.html
Here is a detailed model which uses 46 +/- 3 terawatts for total heat flow at the surface. It has specific breakdowns (e.g., 6-8 terawatts due to radiactivity in the crust, etc.). That is more than a ball park estimate - it is a detailed breakdown part by part of the earth.
"Wikipedia is a joke in astronomy, it's worse in geology. But apparently "modern" astronomy holds itself out under false pretenses, saying it rigorously quantified, but in realtity it isn't as I discovered. "Modern" astronomy is "living a lie".
We're not talking about astronomy at the moment. It has no relevance to this discussion.
"Midocean ridges are not the same geological formation as deep ocean trenches."
You are the one claiming similarities - that they are both spreading features. I am claiming they are different.
"No, there isn't enough energy out of radiactive decay."
You claim lack of quantification for all geological models, and then turn around and claim radiactive decay doesn't produce enough energy. If the model isn't quantified how can you know that?
"Soryy, Marking, where is your satellite evidence?"
That previous URL I posted got chopped for some reason. It should be:
http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/Texts/snappsci.pdf
"Space Geodetic Observations of Nazca-South America Convergence Across the Central Andes"
"So-called "subduction" doesn't happen. There's no morphology that points to "subduction" If "subduction" happened then great amounts of sediment would be piled up where the slab was getting "pulled" under the other slab, but you know what, there has been no finidng of any kind of build up of sediment or rock or anything."
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~brandon/Eprints/Brandon2004_CascadiaWedge.pdf
"22.2.3 Wedges, Taper, and Stability
The accreted material tends to accumulate in front of and beneath the leading edge of the overriding plate, forming a wedge-shaped body that grows with time (Figure 22.2.1)..."
"http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/Texts"
God damn it!, it got chopped again. This is beginning to piss me off just like Phil's blog. Let me spell it out:
http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/
people/seth/Texts/snappsci.pdf
Tom,
"Who is censuring you?"
Every science message board on the internet besides Thunderbolts for one thing.
And here is the conspiracy in case you deny reality. They are organized, hold weekly podcasts, and use Twitter, all in the name of censorship. Their lives are commited to censorship around the clock.
"I much prefer that you be allowed the freedom to express whatever opinions you want even though I disagree with them."
You're normal then. I'm talking about the professional and highly organized conspiracy to suppress scholarly information.
@TM "Who is censuring you?"
Dang it, meant to say CENSORING, of course. Censure means to express dispproval. Censor means to prevent publication and dissemination of data.
@OIM "Every science message board on the internet besides Thunderbolts for one thing."
I can only speak concerning the Bad Astronomy blog which is the only one I frequent. At the time I expressed surprise that Phil had banned you. I asked what rule you had broken and could never get a straight answer. So if Phil banned you for your beliefs then all I can say is he was wrong to do so.
"And here is the conspiracy in case you deny reality. They are organized, hold weekly podcasts, and use Twitter, all in the name of censorship. Their lives are commited to censorship around the clock."
Well, to be fair, the issue was concerning a dispute over Wikipedia articles talking about the mantle. I have no idea who owns Wikipedia and how disputes over facts are resolved. If one group says the mantle is hot and Wikipedia should say so, and the other group says the mantle is cold and Wikipedia should say so, I have no idea how Wikipedia resolves such a dispute other than the whim of the owner.
@ Tom Marking:
Perhaps, I was too tough on you (I go back and forth on that question), OilIsMastery brought the expanding Earth issue to this website and I duly examined Expanding Earth theory in detail, after that in depth examination I came to the conclusion that Expanding Earth theory is valid.
And I went to war on the issue, a battle royal was had and I spent my time and energy at the front line, but this issue was always more OilIsMastery's issue than mine.
Review the back-dated posts and you will see the detail and authority presented by OilIsMastery on Expanding Earth theory.
In a sense, I've moved on, while I remain convinced of the validity of the theory, and perhaps, just as important, the manifest weakness of "Subudction, Continental Drift" theory, I'm not inclined to link every site and authority at this point to back my conclusions. I know the score.
OilIsMastery is much more energized about Expanding Earth theory than I am -- although, I stand just as convinced by the scientific evidence.
So, perhaps, I shouldn't of tried to lay down the line on this issue.
And, yes, on this post, Tom Marking, you did address my questions -- that needs to be recognized.
But let me discuss one point brought up by OilIsMastery: The temperature of the mantle is a critical issue. If the mantle isn't hot enough to the point that there is low viscosity (a high degree of plasticity) then the whole "subduction, Continental Drift" theory is falsified.
That's why the "geologists" were all so a twitter about "cold mantle" citations being listed on Wikipedia.
New enhanced geological data is being reported from observation & measurement that shows the mantle is cold (or at least is relatively rigid), certainly too rigid to support so-called "subduction" or "continental drift".
As the citations at Wikipedia demonstrate a plethora of independent sourced data is being reported that supports the contention that the mantle is "cold", that's the killer code word the "geologists" hate like a vampire hates the cross.
But as OilIsMastery's link shows, certain "geologists" won't or can't stand the evidence for a rigid mantle being presented to the public.
Why?
Because these "geologists" know it is a death blow for the "Subduction, Continental Drift" theory.
And if that becomes untenable -- then only one explanation is left: Expanding Earth theory.
Marking, a word to the wise, those in the know, who have studied the scientific evidence for "Subduction, Continental Drift" theory, understand it's untenable.
Only the difficulty for people to "get their head around" the idea of "Earth expanding" has kept "Subduction, Continental Drift" theory from being totally rejected some time ago.
But now that technology can determine the temperature and plasticity of the mantle beyond anything anybody ever thought possible, it's apparent to reasonable people that continents rooted 400 miles deep into the Earth don't float or wander around, will nilly.
Nor do continents periodically come together to clusterfuck as supercontinents while the rest of the Earth is a giant empty ocean.
Anyhow, so, I probably should not of stepped into the debate if I wasn't willing to do the work (patiently linking authority and citations).
But rest assured, while the general public is still enthralled by so-called "Subduction, Continental Drift" theory, and that's where you come in, others who are informed know its on its last legs.
Marking, be careful not to get crushed when the ediface finally crashes.
@Anaconda "after that in depth examination I came to the conclusion that Expanding Earth theory is valid"
Does that mean you think specifically that the Tassos model itself is valid or some other generic EE model is valid?
Frankly, I'd be surprised if you believe the Tassos model. Why? Because Tassos makes it quite clear:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Excess-mass-stress.htm
"The Core of the Earth is considered as an electrically unbalanced real gas of particles
subject to the exclusion principle. As a result of that its degeneracy pressure,
due to electrons, should be greater than its gravitational pressure, due to nucleons."
He's talking about electron degeneracy pressure which would only be significant in cases of extreme density - similar to what is theorized about white dwarfs. In any case, this "electrically unbalanced real gas" constitutes some form of exotic matter if he requires the Pauli exclusion principle to keep it stable. As I understand it, your primary reason for rejecting black holes, neutron stars, high density white dwarfs, etc., etc. is that they rely on exotic forms of matter never reproduced in the laboratory. Are you going to now turn around and invoke them for the Earth's core, only a few thousand miles beneath our feet?
"If the mantle isn't hot enough to the point that there is low viscosity (a high degree of plasticity) then the whole "subduction, Continental Drift" theory is falsified."
I'm not a geologist by training, but that seems like a reasonable inference to me.
"That's why the "geologists" were all so a twitter about "cold mantle" citations being listed on Wikipedia."
As I recall, you despise Wikipedia and distrust anything on it. So it shouldn't matter to you what Wikipedia says on the subject.
"Marking, be careful not to get crushed when the ediface finally crashes."
Let me know when that might be, will you? As far as I can tell it is still standing.
Tom,
LOL @ U if you think plate tectonics isn't a myth.
@ Tom Marking:
Marking asked: "Does that mean you think specifically that the Tassos model itself is valid or some other generic EE model is valid?"
First, I don't know Tassos hypothesis as well as OilIsMastery does. But I was never as persuaded by the specifics that Tassos laid out, as I understood them. While I may misunderstand his hypothesis, it seemed his idea required the production of matter.
I consciously avoid ex nihilo explanations.
Although, to the extent that Tassos incorporates electromagnetism, I buy into that aspect of his theory.
I probably don't buy into one specific model as such. So far, no "big name" has proposed my hypothesis, as I stated it in the #12 comment at the OIM post, The Myth of Rising Sea Levels.
But, hey, I'm always willing to take a look at a proposal, especially one that echoes my own thoughts:-)
In regards to extreme density, yes, I am cautious about those type of claims. Pressure is one thing; density is another.
It seems, although, I'm always ready to look at experimental results, that extreme density has not been achieved in the laboratory.
And science is able to create extreme pressure and temperature, (seemingly the ingredients of extreme density), but so far, anyway, not extreme density.
Speaking of experiments, it would seem insightful for science to see if ultra-dense states of matter can be achieved (that would be a worthwhile experiment).
Marking, it might be hard for you to believe this, but I'm a Missouri kind of guy -- show me.
Marking asks: "Are you going to now turn around and invoke them for the Earth's core, only a few thousand miles beneath our feet?"
No.
I am not going to invoke extreme density. Extreme pressure and temperature (at the core), but not extreme density.
Again, I'll always look at an experiment.
Yes, I'm leery of Wikipedia, but I try to take it on a case-by-case basis; put it this way, if Wikipedia will accept the detection methods used to achieve observations & measurements which arrive at the "cold" mantle conclusion, that at least passes a threshold test where one needs to take a further look at the basis for the conclusions.
@Anaconda
If you accept EU theory, then why would creation of matter from electricity be problematic? E=MC^2 (except maybe the C isn't constant) :)
@ Pleroma:
Pleroma asks: "If you accept EU theory, then why would creation of matter from electricity be problematic? E=MC^2 (except maybe the C isn't constant) :)"
Matter formed from ions and electrons is perfectly acceptable, but matter formed from electrons only is more problematic because you don't have the protrons and neutrons which are a necessary component of matter (with volume) as science understands it at this time.
Provide me with a hypothesis that converts pure electrons into protrons and neutrons and I'd take a look at it (not that I'd necessarily snap to agreement).
A strong suit of Plasma Universe theory: It doesn't require the introduction of "new physics" to explain the large structures of the Universe, or closer to home (under our feet) formation of matter in the center of the Earth.
High energy ions (electrons, too) have been shown to have penetrating power which would be necessary for my hypothesis to have traction. For my theory to work there must be a conduit for the electrons and ions to get deep inside the Earth.
@ Pleroma:
Perhaps this discussion will clear things up:
"Matter creation" is a sticky proposition at best. Remember, the 'm' in E=MC^2 stands for "mass" not "matter." The fact that many scientists appear to mix and mingle the two terms as if they're Play-Doh(TM) due to the fact they start with the same letter, doesn't mean they're the same thing. Matter is the "physical stuff," insofar as I'm aware. Mass is a property of matter which has to do with how it accelerates in response to external forces (such as gravity).
E=MC^2 allows for a conversion of energy into mass or mass into energy. It does NOT allow, so far as I'm aware, for a conversion of energy into matter or matter into energy.
Perhaps a quibble, but probably an important one?" -- Michael Gmirkin, Electric Universe writer
Where do you suppose the matter in galaxies comes from? If the sun is not a fusion furnace creating heavy elements, what does create heavy elements?
Energy turned into matter somehow according to big bang theory. What is a matterless mass? I can conceive of massless matter where electric force governs interactions.
Just wondering.
Pleroma,
"Where do you suppose the matter in galaxies comes from?"
The galactic nuclei of Seyfert galaxies...:P
Sorry I couldn't resist.
"What's really happening in these systems is the centers of galaxies are the places where the creation is taking place...." -- Geoffrey Burbridge, astrophysicist, 2000
Post a Comment