Is the earth expanding?

No, as usual you have no idea what you are talking about. Dark matter has to do with gravitational affects on galaxies and gravitational lensing. There is evidence of large gravitional effect with no associated matter - hence the name dark matter. We don't know what it is.

There is a huge difference between this and magical formation of matter inside the earth to account for a process that can be explained without it

I have no idea what you mean by "the pacific ocean winds back together". There is sea floor spreading and subduction zones - no growth needed. The fact the you come up with these goofy ideas and discount all of the real science of geology and then call people dishonest makes you an arrogant fool.

There is really nothing to debate you have pseudo science hand waving and thats about it.

I'm done here, as has been said before arguing with cranks is a waste of time.

Enjoy basking in your ignorance.:shrug:
[/QUOTE]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So good when pure negativity leaves the thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Earth expansion is not an explanation, it is observed!
You still fail at the basic level despite all this time. What a waste of time...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the problem is there has been some subduction liquefying evidence, so only qualitative models that take into account the linear patterns to flesh out the gaps over time (into zones) have been put together. There were some of these posted on the mad ratskep thread a few weeks ago, but now i will need to wade through 40 pages to find them !

Things seem to be quieter there now that the mods gave florian a 5 shot warning (over nothing) because his logic was cutting up the top guns and making them look stupid. an ex ocean engineer just posted up interesting evidence for hydritic earth as a mechanism which so far nobody has put any major dents in.

One thing i learn in bioscience is that in complex topics if you look at their history, you tend to get sequences of theories going for one big aspect, then its flavour of the decade, then holes are found and its discarded with the another big theory that found something else. Then the solution ends up quietly being some kind of integration of all of them that barely even makes the news. This even applies is less complex areas like physics standard model.

EE is of medium complexity compared to biosciences although it requires more disciplines integrated. Perhaps a team should get together and thrash out all the EE mechanisms which have bits that work and bits that dont to see if they can integrate.

 

He wants it that way. Its debate strategy. He is actually pretty clever at this. As good as any politician.

Its not a waste of time if you try and figure out what their motivation is for being obtuse. theories need sold like a product with political and advertising skills..Well there is the pure hard science cut through all the bull approach, but a bit of psychology know how certainly makes it easier. After all we are human, where as the scientific method is more along the lines of what a powerful computer would do.

psychology is one of my background fields, so perhaps this is more of an interest to me.

 

I'm in favour of that idea.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

easier said than done though. Conferences attempt this. One i went to in bioscience was called integrative approaches. however they did not have the format to pressurize and reward integration (although they sent us round museums together to help us socialize) Having a podium encouraged individualism too much. Its easy to say integrate, but when its you getting up in the morning to make a presentation, trying to remember this, prepare various things, deal with all the unexpected glitches and pressures (as well as nerves)... well you end up trumpeting your position very defensively often.

A round table and moderator approach with say 4-5 people gets people discussing well without destroying the creative aspect. And perhaps a small audience of about 30 that can be asked to throw in points.

 

Can we do that sort of thing on here?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Interesting idea. my experience so far is most science forums are overtly hostile to the point the subject is trashed and its hard to build. There is the opposite spectrum forums where people log on (stoned i think...or hope they are) to accept any crazy idea (although some people obviously think EE is crazy).

It would need a forum section though. e.g. If there are 5 EE mechanism theories then each one is best argued on its own thread, and then there can be an integration thread to see where they clash or/are incompatible. Also a peer review thread where skeptics can come in and be hostile to the topics, and a moderator has to ensure those questions are answered.

I always thought for a long time internet forums could be a great platform to pool resources. It happens to some extent in practical areas like DIY and auto club forums. I also take part in the start of such projects in private facebook groups on other fields such as Artificial intelligence approaches. the first problem that arose aside from good management was that of intellectual property, as you can immediately take somebodies concept and build valuable software, so people although they shared a lot in good spirits kept their primary ideas secret.

Since the forums are open here and this is pure science then thats less of a problem. ..so who knows...open science in action. could be interesting to see. Garret lisi had problems with his E8 theory worked out on blogs and even discussed it on physics forums.

 

Was that E8? What was that about?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Corrected: Expanding Earth is an historical theory.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that the Earth is expanding.

Who has observed Earth expansion? Can you tell the names of reliable guys who have observed it?

If you demand that people acknowledge Earth expansion as a requirement ("basic level") to discuss EET with you, then no much people will agree discussing EET with you, I guess. :shrug:

Corrected: Because florian was incorrect and made "blatant personal attacks upon other forum members".

As florian wrote earlier, before studying EET mechanism, EET proponent must show evidence and observation that the Earth is expanding.

 

It is a fact because NASA has measured the size increase. 18 mm per year.
I'll have to research the origin of this figure implanted in my brain. It seems too high to me, but it doesn't sound much but multiple it by a couple of 100 million years and it is significant.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Reference?

 

These were figures discussed earlier in this thread.

I have not read the actual reference document, but if I have or if Trippy knows it we will post it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Do you really prefer an argument of authority rather than examining evidence yourself?
If not, then go back to figure page 4 in post 72 for a fresh start.

 

This paper was debunked: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2798710&postcount=214

More importantly, 0.1 mm is the accuracy of the position of Earth's center using SLR (which is especially good at that). And to correct what I wrote in the post cited above, I confused the displacement of the center of Earth during earthquakes with the change of Polhody.

 

There must have been another study somewhere for the 18mm dimension is not mentioned in the Nasa article.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-254

So where did the error values come from?
0.1 mm /year => 1 meter in 10,000 years or 100 Km in a billion years
so doesn't seem to be enough, but if it was 1.0 mm per year it would more than account for EE theory. 1000 km in a billion years is quite significant.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!