Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kilopi
I think ExpErdMann admitted in a previous thread that the preponderance of modern data does not support expansion in the current time, so any tests would have to be from existing historical data.
|
I don't think I said that! |
DStahl brought up the GPS measurements that essentially show no modern Earth expansion in that thread, and
your response was that "EE can live with that," but that there was one possible quibble, mentioned earlier. As near as I can tell, that was the objection raised in
your post the day before, which speculated that if G were increasing then the GPS effects might cancel out. There's nothing to support that idea (unless you are talking about the possibility of everything doubling, say, even our rulers! But then so would the continents, and there would be no stretching and breaking of the surface.)
Quote:
|
But here again, expansion could be episodic, in which case the absence of positive results now do not mean that expansion never happened or that it will not happen again.
|
That's basically what I was getting at, there.
Quote:
|
I did concede that experiments to measure decreasing G according to Dirac's theory have mostly negative results. In the previous thread I perhaps focused too much on the decreasing G theory. I don't know of too many expansionists who are supporting that mechanism.
|
That pretty much gets rid of the objection you seemed to have above, too. Was there another?
Quote:
|
On point 1 we disagree of course. Point 1 is EE's smoking gun. One of the pieces of evidence which ushered in plate tectonics was Carey's fitting together of South America and Africa by including the shelves. This was considered proof positive of continental drift. So when you say that the far more dramatic demonstration by Hilgenberg, Carey and others that all the continents fit together perfectly on a smaller globe, you are going to some different standard of evidence, one which eludes me.
|
That fit is about the only evidence that EE has. On the other hand, Carey's fit was not considered essential, neither to plate tectonics which came long after, nor to continental drift, which came long before. I am not going to some different standard of evidence.
Quote:
|
On point 2 there is a lot of conjecture surrounding subduction, but I submit there is no smoking gun.
|
So, you consider that the continents fit together on a smaller Earth a "smoking gun," but you don't consider the evidence for subduction? Now, that would seem to be a double standard.
Quote:
|
DStahl said on page 4 of the previous thread that there were surface rocks in Oregon that were derived from seafloor, stating this was evidence that seafloor could escape subduction. He didn't gave the ages of these rocks however. If they were older than 300 million yeears that would be interesting.
|
Interesting? You mean, it would refute EE, right?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Point 5) surprises me, as I don't remember hearing it before: "The expanding earth theory explains why the continents are very even in thickness. Plate tectonics has no explanation for this." Probably the reason plate tectonics doesn't explain it is because it isn't true. The continental plates vary considerably in thickness.
|
They vary by a few kilometers are so from place to place, but this is small potatoes. EE explains the even thickness nicely, since the sial crust differentiated out smoothly over the whole globe as it cooled.
|
They only vary by a few kilometers from place to place? But then they are only a few kilometers thick. What do you mean by a "few"? Which continental thickness figures are you using?