Re: Expanding Earth?

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:20:05 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

In article <7m14d39te06c6r33smfb1qe1bst15u92nh@xxxxxxx>,
Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 08:55:43 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Augray <augray@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

<snip>

To be honest, I don't have a problem with the E-Earthers not being
able to explain where the matter's coming from, at least at this
point. I'd be happy if they could demonstrate an increase in the
Earth's diameter. The source of the matter, at least for those who
claim such an increase, can come later. After all, 300 years after
Newton we still don't know what gravity *is*, but we can observe its
effects.

Thanks. I've made this same statement on the same subject,
but the question keeps cropping up. IMHO it's not a valid
question *at this time*;

Sure it is! Since the hypothesis of earth expansion suggests some
combination of two modes for expansion, the natural consequences of
those modes are fair game for thinking about. An awful lot is known
about hoe matter behaves, and based on that knowledge alone, it's safe
to say that the Earth isn't expanding. The result is that whatever
process is at work to cause the expansion needs extraordinary evidence
to verify it.

No argument. But without actual measurements of the proposed
"expansion" questions about what causes it seem to me to be
somewhat out of place.

Perhaps a stickler will want the difference between "theory doesn't
support Earth Expansion" and "Earth Expansion is impossible" expressed
loudly and pedantically at every opportunity.

That would be me... ;-)

Okay. I'll grant that. In
the absence of extraordinary evidence that negates two or three
centuries' worth of experience with matter, I will posit, provisionally
and with the right to change my mind, that what is known about matter
makes Earth Expansion, by either mode or combination of them, so
extremely improbable that it is indistinguishable from impossible.

OK.

plenty of time for further research
after the expansion is actually demonstrated by measurement,

Well, there's time now, and has been for the past two or three hundred
years. Nobody has come up with anything that would make it work.

Nope. And until there's something to indicate that "it" is
actually happening questions about *how* it's happening seem
premature. Compare Planck/blackbody radiation. Existing
theory had conceptual problems with the expected spectrum of
radiation, but until Planck actually measured the spectrum
and worked on the problem using those measurements questions
about "how" would have been premature. Or so I see it.

which has yet to happen. In fact, all the measurements seem
to show that the Earth is *not* expanding, Pacific seafloor
isochrons and concurrent, and required, ignoring of
subduction by EE proponents aside.

And it's not just a question of where the mass comes from. There's also
the matter, so to speak, of the dynamic energy of that matter. How did
it conveniently match Earth's orbit? That part so amazingly astoundingly
implausible that any assertion that it did happen requires an awful lot
amazing, astounding evidence to support it.

Again, no argument. But the supporting data, if it exists
(which apparently it doesn't; just the opposite in fact)
should come first, since anyone with no data can make
assumptions and postulate the famous copout "Undiscovered
Laws of Physics". In fact, that's my main problem with this
conjecture; all they're doing is using the existing data,
assuming a physical part of the source of that data doesn't
exist (subduction), and saying "How does it work if we make
this assumption of nonexistence?"

In short, the laws of physics forbid it. It is impossible.

Well, from what we know, like you I'd say "extremely
improbable". But more to the point I'd say (and have, as
have others more knowledgeable than I am) "There's zero
actual data in support of this conjecture, so it really
isn't worth discussing seriously". IOW, it's late-night bull
session fodder. Which, no surprise, is exactly how it's
working here.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... there's no way for matter to have been 8x as dense. ... But you have no independent evidence for that. ... You consistently pick and choose the data that seem to support ... religion, and you should not be at all surprised when religion sees ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Expanding Earth?
    ... The source of the matter, ... process is at work to cause the expansion needs extraordinary evidence ... support Earth Expansion" and "Earth Expansion is impossible" expressed ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... there's no way for matter to have been 8x as dense. ... It follows that if d remained approximatively constant, then the gravity ... But you have no independent evidence for that. ... You consistently pick and choose the data that seem to support ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... there's no way for matter to have been 8x as dense. ... More Science is needed to figure it out. ... But you have no independent evidence for that. ... You consistently pick and choose the data that seem to support ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Side reins & gadgets
    ... Why do western pleasure horses from their ... It's not a simple matter, ... wrong, support and no support, evidence and no evidence. ...
    (rec.equestrian)
Loading