Wait a minute! How does absence of a full range of GPS data translate into support for plate tectonics?

For the purpose of the Mars discussion, I am just saying let's put Dirac's decreasing G theory aside. It leads to a lot of complicated points, as we saw in the previous thread. I keep emphasizing, but never strongly enough it seems, that whether the Earth expanded is a separate question from how it expanded. The case for the former is good; the mechanism we are still seraching for.

I'm not following you on the shelves business. The shelves were necessary to show that Africa and South America fit. We could therefore take inclusion of the shelves as a given, except that I think Vogel made his 50 per cent globe without the shelves. So it could depend on what initial stage of the globe we are considering.

I don't see the connection here. Care to elaborate?

Changing G is also my preferred mechanism, as discussed earlier. But you are wrong in insisting on a mechanism for the expansion. Looking at Mars, for instance, there are certain things we can predict on the basis of expansion without any knowledge whatsoever of the cause. For example, we can predict that the highlands will have an 'andesitic' or continent-like composition, rather than a basaltic one. Another is that we should be able to fit together the 'coastlines' of the highlands in the same way as we can for Earth's continents. The prediction that early Mars was warmer also stands alone. None of these predictions rely on a specific mechanism. Of course, if we invoke a specific mechanism, e.g. G change, then that will lead to modified predictions.

Not so, see my five points at the start.

Actually, I find EE to be easier on the jargon side, because it is intrinsically simpler. But I'll be happy to look at PT's smoking gun, whatever that may be. If you can express it in a simple way it could be helpful for me and others.

Not sure what you're talking about. The GPS data that I'm familiar with certainly supports plate tectonics.

What we're talking about is data that would differentiate the Expanding Earth hypothesis from the Plate Tectonic hypothesis. So far as I know, the only thing is the continental fit, and as I've pointed out, that's iffy at best.
As to differentiating it from Plate Tectonics, the case for the former is almost non-existent. The continental fit is not a strong argument.
If you start with continental area equal to what it is today, shelves included or not, and reduce the size of the Earth so that its surface area is equal to the present continental area, any shapes of continents would fit, if you were allowed to reshape them.

But, you have to reshape them! To exaggerate the situation, take an imaginary round continent the size of Asia and bend it around a sphere that has the same area as Asia. There will be room for it, but obviously you'll have to deform it a bit because it's being fit on the smaller sphere--it's not going to fold over it like a baseball cover.
The ones I addressed?
It gets incredibly complex when you try to fit it to real data. Same as PT.
What do you mean by "smoking gun?" I'm familiar with the phrase, but many posters have mentioned the evidence for Plate Tectonics. Which part isn't a "smoking gun?"

We discussed the lateral motions in connection with Tonga. I'm referring to studies showing vertical motions. We haven't covered those properly yet. I'm just saying there should be a systematic global study of these.

We'll have to wait for the mathematicians to tell us how iffy it is. For now we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

What you say is true, but Carey has covered all this in depth.

On points 1 and 2 we don't agree, obviously. I think you sort of swung at points 3-5 but I registered foul tips on those. I think you especially need to beef up your argument about the absence of ancient seafloors.

A smoking gun is the argument which proves beyond doubt that subduction happens. The argument which proves not just to a roomful of geologists, who all were raised on this idea, but people from other fields who might have a fresher view. It should even be able to prove the idea convincingly to a bunch of smart laymen, lawyers, doctors, etc. In other words, a jury of intelligent people. If there is a smoking gun in the PT arsenal I'd love to see it.

I have a masters in abstract math, does that count?
Has he computed what he considers to be the likelihood then?
I thought it was your argument that there were no ancient seafloors? What would be your criteria for ancient seafloor? Would sediments do? Basaltic ocean floor type? Greater than 250mya? 300mya?
Well, according to that definition, you're not going to find a smoking gun in all of science. H*ck, even Newton's theory wouldn't have a smoking gun under that definition.

And, of course, the Expanding Earth hypothesis not only doesn't have a smoking gun, it doesn't even have a warm gun which might strongly suggest that Expanding Earth happens. It has an imprint on a pillow from what might have been a gun, but was more likely a banana. I'm liking this metaphor.

Maybe. What is needed is some sort of program that can compute the probability that a collection of two-dimensional shapes with random contours and sizes can be fit together perfectly to cover globes of various sizes.

Carey did not go into probabilities. He was a stickler for detail. He was forced to the conclusion that EE was right when he tried to get the continents to fit into the supercontinent Pangaea. Carey found that he could assemble the continents together cleanly in local configurations, but when he tried to assemble all of them large unacceptable gaps appeared. These gaps disappeared, however, when he used a smaller globe. The point you mentioned about change in global curvature on a larger globe fits into Carey's models of orogenesis. I would have to brush up on this to say more about it.

It was my argument, your rebuttal. We can't use just marine sediments, because, as mentioned in point 4 of my opening argument, the continents were mostly covered with water for billions of years. So sediments over continents are expected (it is also expected for other reasons: sea level rise due to declaciation, etc.) So we need to talk about basaltic ocean floor, the kind that is fashioned in the spreading centres. Probably 250 million years would be a good benchmark to judge.

Oh yes, we have lots of them. And geologists have them aplenty. Every T. Rex skeleton has a tale to tell. Newton's theory was a mathematical one. He did try to figure out the cause of gravity, but never got too far. We can't expect to have the same kind of demonstrable "smoking gun" for a physical law as we would for a physical cause.

EE does have a smoking gun. It is in the fit of the continents on a smaller globe. There is also evidence of ongoing expansion in the measurable spreading at midocean ridges of several centimeters a year. The compensating process of subduction is far, far trickier to prove. So the balance of available, solid evidence still points to expansion.

Not quite though. We're trying to find a way to differentiate Expanding Earth from Plate Tectonics, so the shapes can't be totally random in contour--they also have to fit together reasonably well front and back. That's been my point--once you have that criteria, it's not so unlikely that they'll fit together on a smaller Earth, especially since you're choosing the radius of the smaller Earth just so that they'd fit. The smaller you allow the continents, the easier it's going to be, too.

The problem is, if you add in too many such constraints, the continents end up looking exactly like they are now, and the probability ends up close to 1. Very high, in other words.
Seems to be contradictory. IF he was a stickler for details, why wouldn't he have investigated probabilities? Perhaps he did, and they weren't all that impressive.
I'm no geologist, but I know that mantle peridotite sometimes appears at the base of ophiolite suites. Some of those seem to be older than that. I think the Ivrea Zone is younger maybe but it's mid-continent. How would the Expanding Earth theory explain that?
How is a skeleton a smoking gun? A smoking gun for what? That the object existed? So, it's a smoking gun for itself?
Wait, how can you say that's a smoking gun, but deny that for the delineation of the subduction zone by earthquake centers?

Thats a common misunderstanding about probability and statistics. The typical response is that one would prefer knowing what ACTUALLY happened, rather than just looking at probabilities. But oops - when making predictions, they are ALWAYS based on a probability. You can almost never know for certain what actually happened (or will happen), so you must weigh the probabilities.

You're right - we need to be comparing EE and PT in regards to the fit, and so random shapes are out. Consequently, it may not be so much a matter of mathematics after all, but just our subjective impressions of what constitutes a good fit and what does not.

In comparing EE and PT there is one point that may have gotten lost in the shuffle. In PT one only needs to fit together those continental edges which formerly were internal regions of the supercontinent Pangaea. Even this PT does not do so well, as Carey and others have shown. EE does it much better, by going to a smaller globe. But, in addition, EE fits together those continental edges which formed the outer coasts of Pangaea. That these coasts should fit together at all is not even a prediction in PT, and so requires some explanation. If the outer coasts of Pangaea form some 30-50 per cent of the coastlines of today's continents, that's 30-50 per cent more fitting that EE has been able to do. I think your suggestion that this is all by chance falls apart at that point.

I will have to look into that one. But I would be happier if you just pointed me to a section of existing ocean floor with an age greater than 250 million years. Doesn't seem like such a difficult challenge, does it?

It shows that something existed for sure at a certain time and place, not like the supposed subduction zones. Carey points out that PT does not even have a potential subduction zone around Africa. PT proponents have said Africa may be the one stationary plate. Carey points out however that Antarctica also does not have any subduction zones around it, and since Africa is adjacent to Antarctica this disproves PT.
You argue your case by assuming it's true.

[quote="ExpErdMann"] kilopi argues his case using hard data and "good" theories. You argue yours by dismissing anything that does not agree with your preferred view.

There really is no validity whatsoever to what you propose. I'd even go so far as to say this is another one that is self-debunking: the basic premise is so badly flawed, there is no need to go past it - it refutes itself.

I think you're out of your depth here. I haven't dismissed any of kilopi's arguments out of hand, but have shown which ones are most likely wrong. He's made some good points too, and I have made concessions. If you want to add something substantial, I'd be willing to hear your refutations of my points 1-5 at the top of this discussion. It's no use just being a cheerleader!

Good one!

:roll: You still haven't made it clear if you even understand the concept of mass. Can't get much more basic than that. Kilopi is doing just fine and there isn't much for me to add. Besides, this pool is so shallow, if I dive in, I might hit my head on the bottom.
Woo!! Woo!! =D> =D>

Not to worry. When the top mainstream geologists have dived into the EE pool, I'm sure you'll go too. It's a nice swim, take it from me. You'll be able to rest better at night not worrying about things like where all those ocean plates are being subducted. And you'll be in a better position to explain evolution.

Anyway I will be away for a few days, so keep up with the creative postings!

I find the EVIDENCE for an Expanding Earth absolutely compelling - that is to say, the evidence for it having happened. (As opposed to an EXPLANATION of the mechanism.) It would be great to hear someone who did not actually believe the theory ADMIT to the power of the evidence - which involves not only shape, but geology and the fossil record. It would reveal the possibility of open-mindedness.

I should like BABBlers to search their minds for other TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE phenomena - whether or not astronomical - for which there is OVERPOWERING evidence.

Historically, do we find that it is the evidence which wins, and the impossibility is explained/removed? Or ... ?

Right on, mutineer! Wouldn't it be wonderful if scientists just looked at the evidence of a phenomenon without always insisting on knowing its cause? Actually, in most areas of science I would say this is true. A biologist who discovers a new antibiotic can show the antibiotic works without proving the biochemical mechanism, for example. The mechanism can be researched later.

So how to explain the case in geology? I think that for the big scientific questions - ones related to cosmology, Earth's geological history, for instance - it is somehow insufficient just to show the phenomenon exists. One has to show the mechanism too. We have seen this in cosmology in spades. The tired light hypothesis is ignored mostly because no mechanism for it has been proved. And so students are condemned to being taught that the universe is flying apart, because at least the Doppler shift is a known physical mechanism.

I think religion also ties into this. In this forum, we see lots of postings related to creationists and the like. I feel sorry for the creationists, but also for those attacking them. Both are playing with one hand tied behind their back. The faulty science exemplified in the Big Bang and plate tectonics prepares the ground for creationists to come in.

The bar has been set higher for us, but that's okay. It's more fun trying to figure out the mechanisms anyway!