Aardwolf wrote: The flattening crust causes mountains. Not sure how clearer I can be.
Ummm... well... you could do some diagrams, or maybe do the geometry and say how much expansion would produce how much lateral pressure, and how much rifting, so the rest of us wouldn't get confused.
I already described the process on page 2. I don't think it's that difficult to visualise;
Aardwolf wrote: The crust of the continents is estimated at 25 miles so the cicumference of the Earth below the crust is roughly 150 miles less than the circumference at the surface. So say for a section only 1,000 miles long at current curvature, if you flatten it you have 6 miles more land on top compared to the bottom. The pressure caused by 6 miles of extra land on top causes the land to fold. This is how mountain ranges are created.
The circumference of the Earth at the surface is 24902 miles so has a radius of 24902/PI/2 = 3963. The crust is 25 miles thick so the circumference at the bottom of the crust is 3963-25 = 3938xPIx2 = 24743. Therefore at the surface there is 159 more miles of land at the top of the crust than there is at the bottom. What do you think happens to the land at the surface if you were to start flattening that structure?
CharlesChandler wrote: You said that the rifting occurs at the weakest points in the crust. Mountain ranges sometimes have rifts (such as Death Valley in the Rockies). What makes the difference between a plain, a mountain range, and a rift, if all of it is getting flattened the same amount?
Time. Initially the major rifts, now mainly in oceans, would have split under pressure. For while the main, now separated continents, stayed in tact with minor inland deformation. As it further expanded major distortion caused mountain ranges and further rifting around the edges of the continents such as west coast America, East Africa, West Antarctic Peninsular etc.
Aardwolf
Re: Most Thorough Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: So you prefer to be dismissive of other possibilities in the same way the mainstream is dismissive of the EU. Science should actively pursue phenomena that disproves its theories, not hide from them.
I'm committed to keeping an open mind, and I'd be happy to discuss just about anything with you. But if you're already locked down on something, and you're always arguing from that position, and especially if you're just arguing (i.e., not objectively analyzing the information, and always discrediting anything that doesn't agree with your pre-formed conclusions), you can't call it narrow-mindedness on somebody else's part if they don't go along with what you're saying. I said that the Expanding Earth Hypothesis was somewhere between intriguing and compelling, but that there were details still unexplained, which is why I don't think that it's the whole story, if it is, indeed, at least part of it. If that isn't good enough for you, that's your problem. The path forward from here is to take a closer look at the actual details, and see if the EEH can be modified to account for everything, or if the fine-grain detail really require a different paradigm. People who are already sold (for or against) won't be any help with that.
What are the unexplained details? As far as I can remember I've answered every query apart from the cause of expansion.
CharlesChandler wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: Any news on where Antarctica is heading yet?
The other continents are definitely moving away from Antarctica. But that doesn't prove the EEH — it could be simply that Pangaea is still rifting.
So are you arguing all the other continents are heading North?
Well that map clearly shows that Glossopteris would have joined across the Pacific as well.
Also, marsupials are found predominantly in Australia and South America alone, proving they must have shared a border.
How does that lend weight to the EEH, and not also to Pangaea?
Because there are no marsupials in any of the other continents joined to Australia and South America. Lloyd attempted to prove Pangea by continuous fossil records accross map provided. Marsupial history cannot be joined across Pangea. Only a cross-Pacfic linking is possible.
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Marsupials This image comes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Snider-Pellegrini_Wegener_fossil_map.gif This one if from Mike Fischer's video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ9SJSkr9V8 I don't know what evidence there is that marsupials lived in South America, other than possums, which also live in North America, but from either of the Pangea images above, you can see that Australia and South America were close together on Pangea, so that would not have been a problem for either of the above theories.
Aardwolf, I don't see that you're contributing anything new and useful to this discussion. I've already mentioned how expansion could have occurred via a large impact, which seems to be the only reasonable means of expansion on a large scale, other than possibly Fred Juenemann's model of Earth changing shape from oval to spherical, which would be pseudo-expansion. Other means of expansion would surely be very limited. I've shown that mountains were formed via horizontal compression, which expansion cannot account for, and that the North American plate rode over the East Pacific Rise, showing that the Rise was not a result of expansion, since the Rise would have to be in the middle of the Pacific, like it is in the middle of the Atlantic, in order to be due to expansion. I also pointed out that the Antarctic plate is slipping under the southern part of the South American plate. You ignore all of these contradictions, so it makes no sense to keep discussing this here.
CharlesChandler
Re: Most Thorough Model
Aardwolf wrote: The circumference of the Earth at the surface is 24902 miles so has a radius of 24902/PI/2 = 3963. The crust is 25 miles thick so the circumference at the bottom of the crust is 3963-25 = 3938xPIx2 = 24743. Therefore at the surface there is 159 more miles of land at the top of the crust than there is at the bottom. What do you think happens to the land at the surface if you were to start flattening that structure?
Well, that would depend on whether or not it was also being stretched. I think that you're neglecting the very force that is causing the flattening — expansion — which produces tensile stress, not compressive stress. I think that it's a more complicated problem than you realize, and only if you do the geometry will you know for sure whether the surface is getting pushed together, or pulled apart, given the amount of expansion, and the amount of flattening. As an analogy, consider a ceramic cereal bowl. If we turn it over and lay it down on the kitchen table (like this: /\ ), and press down on it hard enough to fracture it, and if we examine the fractures, we'll find that we exerted compressive stress on the outer surface of the bowl, and tensile stress on the inside. Cool. For our next thought experiment, let's put clamps on the edges of a bowl and pull it apart. Again we find that tensile force was delivered to the inside of the bowl, and compressive force to the outside. Ah, but for our last experiment, let's rig up some hydraulic pistons to press on the inside surface of the bowl, at as many different points as possible all at once. Now what are the forces? In that scenario, the lateral forces are all tensile. Interestingly, the case of the crust getting flattened due to an expanding Earth is a scenario that is somewhere in-between those other cases. But just like the defenseless cereal bowls in our thought experiments, granite is much better at handling compressive stress than tensile stress, so even in the first case (of pressing inward on the bowl to make it fail) we'll see a lot of tensile strain, and very little compressive strain.
Aardwolf wrote: Initially the major rifts, now mainly in oceans, would have split under pressure.
Do you mean "under tensile stress"?
Aardwolf wrote: What are the unexplained details? As far as I can remember I've answered every query apart from the cause of expansion.
Aside from the issues raised above, you haven't answered for why you think that the fossil record favors global expansion, and not simply a supercontinent that has since split apart. I can ask more...
Aardwolf wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: The other continents are definitely moving away from Antarctica. But that doesn't prove the EEH — it could be simply that Pangaea is still rifting.
So are you arguing all the other continents are heading North?
Yes, that's what it looks like to me.
Aardwolf wrote: Marsupial history cannot be joined across Pangea. Only a cross-Pacfic linking is possible.
Please explain.
Aristarchus
Re: Most Thorough Model
Lloyd wrote: I don't know what evidence there is that marsupials lived in South America, other than possums, which also live in North America, but from either of the Pangea images above, you can see that Australia and South America were close together on Pangea, so that would not have been a problem for either of the above theories.
Marsupials, i.e., the monito del monte from Argentina and Chile are related genetically to the Australian marsupials - not those in North America. Ergo, your first sentence is a non sequitur. Basically, you're not stating anything of relevance in that first sentence. North America, I believe, have two known marsupials - but South America is quoted with having 60 - 90 percent different species of marsupials.
Australia has about 120 species of marsupials, New Guinea has 53 species of marsupials, South and Central America have 90 species of marsupials, and North America has only two species of marsupials.
And you're not quite being accurate with stating "that Australia and South America were close together on Pangea." Antarctica was the bridge between Australia and South America - but South America and Australia had more direct connections through Pangea with other continents.
Lloyd wrote: Aardwolf, I don't see that you're contributing anything new and useful to this discussion.
That argument from you and CC is getting really old and stale. That tone is disrespectful to your fellow posters on this forum, and you owe Aardwolf an apology for such a cowardice disguised "derogatory" comment. You don't need to state that is such terms, especially when you can't get the essential data correct regarding marsupials.
I tried being equitable with you and giving you the benefit of the doubt, Lloyd, but it is clear there is an agenda here - and I think its being exposed. That is what I set out to do, because I use to enjoy reading this forum unto it became littered with non-ending analogies that are nothing but pedantic gibberish. I get taken to task for not placing something in superscript with mathematical formulas - even though the reader simply has to click that damn link I provided - but I get to read posting after posting that is on the 7th grade level as it pertains to citing sources.
Unbelievable. Wow.
CharlesChandler
Re: Most Thorough Model
@Aristarchus: it's against forum guidelines, and netiquette in general, for an argument on one thread to bleed over to another thread. Lloyd didn't think that the discussion on the other thread was productive, so he signed off. Don't try to re-engage him on this thread. The first couple of comments that you made here were factual, and thus perfectly OK. But your last couple of comments were directed entirely at a person, not an idea or contention, and thus didn't provide anybody with any useful information. We already went through 19 pages of that on the other thread, and didn't get anywhere. So it's time to move on.
Aristarchus
Re: Most Thorough Model
Charles,
That wasn't the apology I was looking for. I'm not interested in whether Lloyd signs off on a discussion, but Lloyd has made some accusations here and on the other topic that I think in the interest of fair play he needs to back up with evidence. Don't worry, I'll still post on the other topic that you started - whether you or Lloyd decide to post there or not. I stand by my previous post above, and shame on anyone, including any moderators or the EU team, that will accept your fallacious attempt to discredit what I stated. I submit that what I posted was both appropriate and valid, and will not edit any part of it. If this is deemed an infraction on the part of the web master here, so be it. You sir, are condescending and disrespectful, and are so full of yourself that you're under the delusion that you can dictate directives. Anyone that comes to your support will ultimately confront the toxicity of your dishonest approach - whether they agree with you or not.
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Agenda
Aristarchus wrote: it is clear there is an agenda here - and I think its being exposed. That is what I set out to do, because I use to enjoy reading this forum unto it became littered with non-ending analogies
It's people like you who are undermining the usefulness of the TB forum by assuming that people who disagree are enemies who must be exposed. All you're exposing is your paranoia, at least to those of us who seek friendly scientific discussion. There are a few others who share your paranoid and often arrogant attitude and probably agree with you that those who disagree are enemies who threaten the new paradigm etc. But, as long as the EU/TB team aren't also paranoid, I think this forum is one of the most productive ones available for friendly discussion of any scientific model. For a while I thought you might have some useful things to contribute to discussion, since you said you have library skills or the like, but you never did provide much helpful info that I could see, mostly just arrogance and paranoia.
New Paradigm I've posted more on this forum than most anyone else has. I started out as a strong supporter of the EU model from 2007 to 2012. But the amount of detail that the model provided seemed too limited. Charles was able to answer questions much more thoroughly than anyone supporting the EU model did. So I had to go with the most thorough model. I've remained open to the possibility that I just didn't understand the EU model well enough and that it could have better answers to questions than CC has. I've encouraged EU supporters on numerous occasions to show how the EU model is better than CC's, including on the Aristarchus and CC Debate thread. But, so far, there's been very little response with very little persuasive effect.
Those who haven't read enough of CC's model don't seem to understand it well and sometimes think it's not an EU model itself, because they get impressions that it supports mainstream astronomy or does not consider the electric force as the primary force in the universe, which impressions are untrue, or because it does not as yet support the EU assumption that stars are formed and powered by galactic electric currents. But I believe his model has a better, much more detailed explanation of how the electric force powers the universe by forming galaxies and within galaxies by imploding giant molecular clouds into ionized filaments that form planets and stars that are storage batteries that operate electrically. The EU model fails to explain where the electrical generators are that produce the supposed galactic electric currents.
Galactic Filaments EU supposes that galactic filaments are like lightning. Charles, would you like to explain your understanding of galactic filaments? Do they exist in all regions of the galaxy? Are they different in different regions? In the giant molecular clouds do they act at all like lightning? Are there filaments in thunderstorms that form lightning bolts?
Aristarchus
Re: Most Thorough Model
Lloyd wrote: but you never did provide much helpful info that I could see
I beg to differ, sir. Your assertion regarding marsupials and South America was simply incorrect. I corrected you. This is not my opinion, but it is me sourcing material that demonstrates that you were incorrect. You also failed to qualify your statement as it related to Pangea regarding the vicinity of South America and Australia. Antarctica served as a bridge between those two continents.
You can either qualify your statements or rescind them.
antosarai
Re: Most Thorough Model
And how exactly do you feel this information was in any way helpful?
Aristarchus
Re: Most Thorough Model
antosarai wrote: And how exactly do you feel this information was in any way helpful?
Pray tell, how is correcting a factual error and getting back on topic not helpful? Is this really the standard you're seeking to establish here? You're not doing CC or Lloyd a favor submitting such nonsense as your response above appears to imply.
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Australia and South America are close together in the Pangea images, i.e. a couple hundred miles or so apart. Antarctica is between them, but it hasn't been explored for fossils. Whether or not marsupial fossils are eventually found on Antarctica, it's possible for the fossil record to miss a lot of species and orders. I'm also tired of this side issue and prefer that it be discussed on the EE thread, unless CC protagonists want to keep discussing it here.
CharlesChandler
Re: Most Thorough Model
Lloyd wrote: But the amount of detail that the model provided seemed too limited. Charles was able to answer questions much more thoroughly than anyone supporting the EU model did. So I had to go with the most thorough model.
And anybody who has been following this board over the last 6 years knows that Lloyd never cut me any slack. I don't think that he ever will. And if you were paying really close attention, you know that 3/4 of the models that I have proposed met the garbage can, because they didn't stand up to further scrutiny. But the CFDL model has been stable for over 2 years now, and it explains so many things that it has emerged as a paradigm. So it isn't like I came in here with an epiphany, and I've been doing consensus-building ever since. Rather, I've been pursuing the truth the whole time. I have no way of knowing if the CFDL model will stand the test of time. But at this point, I'm starting to think that it's the one to beat. It solves otherwise intractable problems in solar physics, in a plausible manner, and it generalizes nicely into geophysics, explaining stuff like volcanoes and earthquakes. So this is starting to look like a basic principle of how celestial objects get organized. The measure of a paradigm is not how well it explains one thing. Rather, a paradigm has to explain so many things that it's worth learning to think differently about the problem domain. More critically, a decent paradigm has to continue to bear new fruit, and promise to keep at it. The CFDL model scores well in those regards. I know that few people understand it, and many think that I'm a mainstreamer, which as Lloyd correctly pointed out, is just not true. Yes, I'm doing conventional physics, but no, that doesn't make me a mainstreamer, since they aren't doing conventional physics, and therefore, they think that I'm a crackpot. But if any of you are wondering about the degree of specificity currently supported in the CFDL model, as concerns stellar and planetary theory, just ask.
Lloyd wrote: Galactic Filaments EU supposes that galactic filaments are like lightning. Charles, would you like to explain your understanding of galactic filaments? Do they exist in all regions of the galaxy? Are they different in different regions? In the giant molecular clouds do they act at all like lightning? Are there filaments in thunderstorms that form lightning bolts?
Filaments are everywhere, but to think that they are carrying electric currents has yet to be demonstrated. I agree that there isn't any mainstream explanation for them. Gravity doesn't prefer them, and hydrostatics hates them. So there isn't any Newtonian reason for them. But I'm not convinced that they're electrodynamic — my working hypothesis is that they're electrostatic. In other words, they're kinda like huge polymer chains that formed because the particles got polarized in an electric field, and then all fell in line. Alignments like this happen all of the time in nature, so it should be no surprise when we see them happening at the galactic scale. Just remember that all of the particles in a polymer are net neutral, and the force that binds them together into filaments is polarization of charges, not net charges nor electric currents.
Aristarchus
Re: Most Thorough Model
Lloyd wrote: Australia and South America are close together in the Pangea images, i.e. a couple hundred miles or so apart. Antarctica is between them
How can Australia and South America be as close as a couple hundred miles apart, if Antarctica is between them? At what point in time are you measuring Gondwanaland and what data to support the evidence of the land masses sizes at a particular point in that timeline?
Lloyd wrote: Whether or not marsupial fossils are eventually found on Antarctica, it's possible for the fossil record to miss a lot of species and orders.
So, you're interlocutor is requested to provide hard physical evidence and data, but when it suits you, because you're making a tenuous and unproven claim, this rule no longer applies in your court of play? You just don't start looking for marsupials to make your case. You have to show a genetic link for these supposed land bridged migrations in order to provide evidence for your positing, but this is not even necessary. The genetic coding as to why a marsupial at any given point in time at any given point on the Earth, might have manifested simply based off the conditions it was faced with at that given spectrum of time, must be taken into consideration. For example, there was species of finches on the Galápagos Islands that was confronted with centuries worth of drought, and it thus had to forge for food deeper into the soil, thus its beak grew longer. The NeoDarwinist exclaimed that there was now evidence for a species transforming into another species. However, the drought ended - and what happened? The finches beaks grew shorter and it was once again the species that it was according to environmental conditions.
You can't just assume because you found the fossil of a marsupial that it is related to all marsupials, because the conditions and reasons for why the genetic coding comported with its environment at the time to ignore the hazards associated with a long gestation period is not defined.
I suggest you become acquainted with regulatory genes called introns, which signal as to how much of a genetic code can be expressed based upon the conditions of its environment. In other words, looking through the fossil records in an attempt to identify marsupials ignores as to why a certain genetic code was turned on to represent something along the lines of the genetic coding for a marsupial. The environment plays a role how as to how/why a genetic code will express itself. The establishment science has identified a genetic link for the marsupials in South America and Australia - and concerning the many species of opossum in South America - they're simply not genetically related to the two found in North America.
Aristarchus
Re: Most Thorough Model
Charles Chandler wrote: Rather, a paradigm has to explain so many things that it's worth learning to think differently about the problem domain. More critically, a decent paradigm has to continue to bear new fruit, and promise to keep at it.
No. A paradigm is the cultural concept that conditions scientific thought. The theories explain many things surrounding that cultural paradigm. When the paradigm produces too much fruit (i.e., is laden with theories), the paradigm tree collapses. Falls to the ground. "All the king's horses and all the king's men. Couldn't put Humpty together again."
Aardwolf wrote:The circumference of the Earth at the surface is 24902 miles so has a radius of 24902/PI/2 = 3963. The crust is 25 miles thick so the circumference at the bottom of the crust is 3963-25 = 3938xPIx2 = 24743. Therefore at the surface there is 159 more miles of land at the top of the crust than there is at the bottom. What do you think happens to the land at the surface if you were to start flattening that structure?
