Re: paleomagnetism and EE

AC wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:17:51 -0700,
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

J.J. O'Shea wrote:


On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:37:35 -0400, John Harshman wrote
(in article <2ziyi.1201$vU4.1128@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):



Florian wrote:



John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:




I am using Maxlow's earth-radius chart at umm...
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6520/

My, that's a masterpiece of doubletalk.




specifically
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6520/Figure19.gif

I'm not sure how to interpret that figure. What is the empirical basis
for the various data points? How can you plot continental lithosphere
area and oceanic lithosphere area (if that's what the points are) on the
same curve and expect to get a single curve? And does he give the
exponential function anywhere? One could calculate the function from the
information given, but I'm too lazy.




I've never seen any of our resident EE types disavow Maxlow so
he's pretty much the 'base' for their claims, as far as I can see.

The graph does seem to indicate that Maxlow claims that continental
lithosphere grew significantly as well, so the 'animations' using
current continent sizes would be basically pure garbage. So I wonder
if he rescales the continental areas as they shrink?

He doesn't say. He also seems to come down tentatively on the side of
expansion being a decrease of density rather than a gain of mass, and
thus the prediction would be that surface gravity is radically
decreasing over time.


Maxlow wants for there to be a change in mass. The relevant part of his
'thesis' would be page 252, appendix A1.3:

"Radius dR/dt0 = 22 mm/year
Circumference dC/dt0 = 140 mm/year
Surface Area dS/dt0 = 3.50 km2/year
Volume dV/dt0 = 11,000 km3/year
Mass dM/dt0 = 60 x 1012tonnes/year
Density dD/dt0 = 0
Surface Gravity dg/dt0 = 3.4 x 10-8 msec-2/year "

Note that that's 60 x 10^12 _tonnes_ of change in mass per year, or, as our
good buddy JT has computed for us, 2 _million_ tonnes per second.

Then again, his website says this: "Where does the additional mass come
from?

"This is a very difficult question to answer. Because, in the past, the
Earth has always been considered static in size it has not been
necessary to ask the question. From the mathematical relationship
established for the rate of change of palaeoradius from the Archaean to
the Present it was calculated that the Earth is undergoing an
exponential expansion at the present rate of 21 mm/year, commencing from
an Archaean primordial Earth size of approximately 1700 kilometres
radius. Where the additional mass comes from is therefore a valid
question. Researchers elsewhere consider that the Earth is expanding
because of an exponential increase in mass with time, e.g. matter is the
antithesis of energy, however the kinematics of an exponentially
expanding Earth suggests that ***mass may possibly have been constant
with time*** resulting in a reduction in density and surface gravity.
The ultimate cause of Earth expansion must however be considered
intimately related to a cosmological expansion of the Universe, i.e.
where does the mass of the Universe come from?"

Note the bit set off by ***.

I may be the dumb monkey on the block but doesn't the final sentence in this
paragraph sound like the most ludicrous piece of jibberish you've ever seen?
We have to refer to the Inflationary Model of the Universe to explain
Earth's expansion?

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the most lucicrous piece of
gibberish I've seen even if we limit ourselves to TO. But that just
reflects the level of the competition.

I think we're one step away from a declaration that the Universe is a
plutonium atom here.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Creationist Claim: No evidence that plates are still moving
    ... Do tectonic plates do this? ... >> Expanding Earth was given a fair hearing more than 40 years ago and was ... >>> So you see that expansion is not impossible? ... The problem is when you try to match up pieces of one continent to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: paleomagnetism and EE
    ... Maxlow wants for there to be a change in mass. ... Earth has always been considered static in size it has not been ... exponential expansion at the present rate of 21 mm/year, ... intimately related to a cosmological expansion of the Universe, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... Physicists give no tenable explanation for how mass induces ... "Truth" of earth expansion. ... The pattern on the ocean floor shows expansion. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... However, what we do know, rules out Expanding Earth ... MASS, MASS, MASS you dumbass!! ... two charged component fields. ... How does this help explain Earth expansion? ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... Physicists give no tenable explanation for how mass induces ... "Truth" of earth expansion. ... The pattern on the ocean floor shows expansion. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
Loading