Pangea
Jump to:
Videos | Transcript of my reply | Details of ratio recalculation | References
This is the summary page for my video response to Neal Adams’ YouTube video entitled “Conspiracy of Science - Earth is in fact growing“. This particular video concerns the building of a straw man argument against the theorised existence of the super-continent Pangea, @ ~200 Ma, as is the scientific consensus. As well as building a straw man argument, Neal expresses his infamous argument from personal incredulity and concludes that since his straw man is false, the only conclusion is that all of geology and many other natural sciences are wrong, and that the Earth is expanding (i.e., Plate Tectonics - which is as sound a scientific theory as the helio-centric solar system and evolution, is false).
The Videos
Here is Neal’s video;
And here is my response;
A full transcript of my video follows;
Transcript of My Reply
Disclaimer
I’ll be using some screenshots and clips from Neal’s video to emphasise some of my points . These clips belong to Neal and I claim no ownership to them.
Introduction
Let’s run through a brief summary of what Neal claims in his Pangea video.
In short, he claims that when the earth was in the theorised Pangea configuration, there was a 4:1 mass ratio of water vs basaltic rock so far as the Earth’s uppermost continents vs the water in the ocean goes.
Somehow, in a manner he has yet to explain, this ratio would shift the Earth’s centre of gravity by 4km, draining the ocean panthlassa and flooding pangea.
Since there’s no evidence for this “ring island”, Pangea didn’t exist. Ergo, plate tectonics is false.
Recalculation
Let’s start scrutinising the scientific bankruptcy inherent in Neal’s video by doing a quick recalculation of his ratio.
First we need to have an understanding of the structure of the Earth.
This is a true scale cross section of the Earth. The grey area is the outer and inner core, the red area is the plastic asthenosphere, the orange is the more solid upper mantle and if we zoom in:
We see the oceanic crust in black and continental crust in green. This is the section we’ll be concentrating on.
To clear up a misconception some of you may have, the continents are not like cookies on a baking tray, even though they may look like it.
Here I’ve drawn a simplified cross-section of the Earth’s structure down to the asthenosphere. In brown is the continental crust, the blue at the top is the ocean, directly underneath that in purple is the oceanic crust. Below that is the orange upper mantle which is quite solid, and below that at the bottom in red is the more plastic yet still quite solid asthenosphere.
The cross-section doesn’t show subducting plates, spreading margins or mantle drips. This is to keep it simple.
In order to calculate the mass I’ll be using the following densities which are;
2.85, 3 and 3.3 grams per cubic cm (or trillion Kg per cubic Km), for the continental crust, oceanic crust and oceanic mantle respectively.
I also need to calculate volume. I’ll be calculating the volume of the oceanic crust down to its average depth of 40 Km. The oceanic crust down to its depth of 7 Km. And I’ll be calculating the volume of the mantle which underlies the oceanic crust so it goes down to the same depth; 40 Km.
I’m not going to bore you by reading out mathematical equations. If you want a full, detailed explanation of what I did, all the details are available from the link in the side bar.
The final ratio I calculated using just the top 40 km of the Earth comes out at 2.66:1 in favour of the ocean. This is in contrast to Neal’s ratio of 4:1 in favour of the continents.
Real World Science
But the real problem isn’t the calculation, or the resulting ratio, it’s the misunderstanding of science that Neal presented as fact.
Why is it so wrong? Well, let’s delve into some scientific facts and explanations.
First of all, the Earth’s center of gravity is not at the core of the Earth.
Earth’s center of gravity is the center of mass between the earth, moon and to a lesser, but still important extent, the Sun.
Roughly, the center of gravity of the earth-moon system is at the barycentre, which is only 25% of the Earth’s radius below the surface, or 1700 km down.
And where this 1700 km point is depends mainly on where the moon is, because the Earth is not tidally locked to the moon. The moon rips around the earth roughly once a day [Edit: This was a major misconception and poor research and double checking on my part. The Moon doesn't orbit the Earth once a day, but one every 27.3 days (source). My apologies for this, I really missed the mark. I will include it in an upcoming corrections video. The misconception here, however, does not change the conclusion of the video], so the gravitational center changes on a daily basis by more than 9000 Km. That’s more than 2 thousand times the variance Neal predicted with his pangea model and what do we see from the oceans with that kind of variation?
A few meters difference in the tides. This is a picture of the tidal variation in the Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia, Canada. The tide here is the biggest on earth, 17 mteres, due to the geographical features of the bay. Most places experience a few meters worth of tidal change. So if the very maximum tidal change you’re going to experience on Earth with a change in gravitational centre of 9000 Km is 17 m, why does a 4 Km change, that Neal presented, result in a 4 Km change of ocean height? It doesn’t.
Pangea Layout
My previous video on Neal’s representation of the southern hemisphere was more of a nit-pick than a serious scientific dissection of his argument. Well, here’s the only nit-pick you’ll find in this video.
Here is Neal’s representation of Pangea. According to Neal;
This is Pangea as described by modern science and geology
Notice I said this is Neal’s representation, because this is NOT the modern idea of what Pangea looked like.
This is a map produced by Dr Ron Blakely of the Northern Arizona University.
Dr Blakely’s image is what modern geology considers to be the layout of Pangea. I don’t know where Neal got his weird layout from, but it is NOT the scientific consensus for the layout of Pangea.
Neal’s Conclusion
Now onto Neal’s conclusion; If Pangea existed, why isn’t there evidence of the so called “ring island”?
First, a more important question; if Neal’s presented model is indicative of the real world, why isn’t there a modern version of this ring island in the South Pacific? Most of the continents are in the North … maybe not even an island, why is the South Pacific not many Km shallower than the north pacific? It should be obvious by now.
Even if the ring island existed, you wouldn’t necessarily see any evidence of it;
Why? Well it’s due to that scientific model that’s satisfactorily confirmed by structural, metamorphic and igneous geology, geochemistry and geophysics: Neal Adams’ pet hate: plate tectonics. The ring island would have to be made of oceanic crust. Just because it’s above the water, doesn’t make it a continent – it would still be made from dense oceanic crust. And if it encountered a continent, down it would go, back into the mantle like other oceanic crust.
Even if it remained on the surface…. as the continents shuffled around and somehow didn’t make a new ring island with their current configuration, the Panthalassa island would have been swallowed by the sea. Back from whence it came.
But as I’ve shown, the island didn’t exist in the first place, so it’s a moot point.
Closing
What I’ve been detailing is real science, but why should you take the words and explanations of a university educated geologist and geochemist over those of a comic book artist? Well, don’t. Go to the link in the sidebar, follow all of the references, check this out for yourself. That’s science. If you can show conclusively that I’m wrong, by all means tell me.
Stay on your toes and don’t trust everything you see and read.
Thanks for watching.
Details of ratio recalculation
Recalculation: Considerations
Figure 1: I will consider the Earth to be a sphere with a radius of 6372 Km. I will not be considering the mass of the ocean, as it is insignificant.
In these calculations, I will assume the earth is a sphere with a radius of 6.372 Km. I know the Earth is an oblate spheroid rather than a perfect sphere, but I’m trying to make this as simple as possible (Fig. 1).I am also disregarding the mass of the ocean water, which should be taken into account in a serious model. But in this case the ocean’s mass is insignificant. I am trying to keep as close to Neal’s model as possible.
Figure 2: Where there is continent, there is no oceanic crust or underlying mantle
Also for the benefit of this discussion, we will take it as given that there are no subducted or subducting plates to consider. So remember, where there is continent, there is no oceanic crust or the first 30 km of underlying mantle, and vice versa (Fig. 2).
Figure 3: I will be calculating the volume and mass of the continents, oceanic crust and the mantle which underlies the oceanic crust down to 40 Km
In order to assess the mass difference between the oceanic and continental portions of the Earth, I will be calculating the following (Fig. 3):
- The mass of the Continents with an average thickness of 40 km
- The mass of the oceanic lithosphere with an average depth of 7 km
- The mass of the mantle underlying the oceanic lithosphere to make up the difference to a depth of 40 km so there is a fair depth comparison to the continents.
Once these values have been calculated I will compare the mass to get a ratio.
I will then plug this ratio into Neal’s model as best as I can figure and the result will either lend support to or cast doubt on Neal’s presented numbers and model.
Recalculation: Number Crunching
In order to calculate mass, we have to calculate the volume. So, we will use the following formula, which calculates the volume of a sphere;
4/3 πr3
Where r is the radius of the sphere, in our case 6372 km.
Figure 4: In order to calculate volume, I will calculate the volume of a 40 Km thick shell the size of the Earth
Here’s the tricky bit. We’ll be calculating the volume of the Earth then subtracting the volume of the Earth if the radius where 40km less. This will give us the volume of a spherical shell, the size of the Earth with a thickness of 40 km (Fig. 4), the depth we’re calculating each component to.
Figure 5: Continental crust covers 40% of the Earth’s surface. Oceanic crust covers 60%
Continental rock (which includes the continental shelves) makes up about 40% of the Earth’s crust, while oceanic rock makes up about 60% (Fig. 5). Those values are current for today. There would have been more oceanic crust when Pangea existed, because more and more continental material has been produced throughout the earth’s history, so using modern values weighs slightly in Neal’s favour.
So for the continents which are 40 km thick on average, the volume equals;
4/3 πr3 – 4/3 π(r-40)3 x 40%
For the Oceanic lithosphere which is on average 7 km thick, the volume equals;
4/3 πr3 – 4/3 π(r-7)3 x 60%
And for the underlying mantle, we take the 7 km thick oceanic crust away first, then we subtract the remaining earth under 40 km, so volume equals;
4/3 π(r-7)3 – 4/3 π(r-40)3 times 60%
We get the following values for each component:
- Continental crust: 8.11 x 109 Km3
- Oceanic crust: 2.14 x 109 Km3
- Oceanic mantle to 40 Km: 1.67 x 1010 Km3
So the continental crust has a volume of just over 8 billion cubic kilometres,
the oceanic crust has a volume of just over 2 billion cubic kilometres and the mantle underlying the oceanic crust down to 40 Km, has a volume of 20 billion cubic kilometres.
Now we have a volume for each component, all we need to do is multiply volume by density to get mass. The continents, oceanic crust and upper mantle have respective average densities of
- 2.85 x 1012 Kg Km3
- 3.00 x 1012 Kg Km3
- 3.30 x 1012 Kg Km3
So we multiply the volume of each component by its average density to calculate its mass;
- CC: [8.11 x 109 Km3] [2.85 x 1012 Kg Km3]
- OC: [2.14 x 109 Km3] [3.00 x 1012 Kg Km3]
- OM: [1.67 x 1010 Km3] [3.30 x 1012 Kg Km3]
This gives us the following mass for each component:
- CC: 2.31 x 1022 Kg
- OC: 6.42 x 1021 Kg
- OM: 5.52 x 1022 Kg
The oceanic crust and underlying mantle are added together to get the
total oceanic mass;
(OC) 6.42 x 1021 Kg + (OM) 5.52 x 1022 Kg = 6.16 x 1022 Kg
We then divide the oceanic mass, as it is the bigger number, by the mass of the continents;
6.16 x 1022 Kg / 2.31 x 1022 Kg
And we get the following ratio;
2.66:1
This is in favour of the oceanic regions of the Pangea Earth, i.e., the ocean of Panthlassa.
The Model With this Ratio
I have no idea how Neal converted a 4:1 ratio to a 4 km shift in gravitation centricity, which he erroneously placed at the Earth’s centre. Splitting the Earth length-ways is not indicative of anything in reality either. So, as much as it pains me to adhere to this model, I will demonstrate my ratio as Neal did his, just to be consistent. If a ratio of 4:1 gives a 4 km shift, we’ll assume that a ratio of 2.66 would be a gravitational shift of 2.66 km.
Figure 6: A graphical representation of how my ratio compares to Neal’s in the same style Neal displayed his original ratio
Except my calculated ratio it’s a shift AWAY from the continents (Fig. 6). Making the ocean Panthalassa 2.66 km DEEPER – according to Neal’s model.
Conclusion
Using very, very rough, although scientifically reasonable values for mass balance on the continental and oceanic regions of the Earth’s surface and adding a very shallow mantle component, I recalculated Neal’s originally presented ratio.
I have shown that by considering just the top 40 km of the Earth, that oceanic regions of the Earth have more than two and a half times more total mass than the continental regions.
A value counter to what Neal Adams presented.
Using Neal’s model I have exposed major quantitative doubts about the methodology used to reach his presented conclusion.
This quantitative re-evaluation was done despite the fact that Neal’s conclusion is in and of itself, scientifically and geologically unsound. And despite my opinion that his model is not indicative of any real world system.
References
Densities of crustal and mantle components:
- Average continental crust density (Thinkquest)
- Average densities and compositions (PhysicalGeography.net)
- Properties of the continental and ocean crust (St Vincent College)
- Formation of the Earth’s crust (Encyclopedia of Earth)
Information about gravitational systems, barycentres and gravity-based orbital systems:
- Tidal Locking (Wikipedia)
- Tidal Locking and Gravitational Coupling (University of Tennessee Knoxville - Astrophysics Department)
- Tidal Acceleration (Wikipedia)
- Orbital Mass Barycenters (Wikipedia)
- Barycenters (NASA’s Space Place - Astronomy for kids)
- Bad Astronomy’s article on the planet definitions with discussion of the Earth-Moon system (And here’s a small correction)
Other information used in this article and videos:
- Bay of Fundy (Wikipedia)
- Plate Tectonics - This particular article is excellent (Wikipedia)
- Earth’s surface features (percentage of surface covered by oceanic or continental crust) (Georgia Perimeter College)
- Lenardic, A., Moresi, L., Jellinek, A. & Manga, M. An explanation for the surface area of continents versus oceans, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2003
Images used in presentations:
- Cookie tray image from Missing Mississippi
- Tectonic Plate image from Wiki Commons via Wikipedia
- Several clips and screen-shots from Neal Adams’ “science” videos.
- Images of Pangea by Dr Ron Blakely, professor of geology, Northern Arizona University.
- Several images projected into global perspective via Google Earth.
37 Responses to “Pangea”
Keep track of this discussion by subscribing to the comment feed
01
by Yorrike @ 2007-07-08 1428 UTCComments on this page are restricted to discussing this video response only.
Please go to Expanding Earth and Neal Adams to converse on this topic and the other video I’ve posted so far.
02
by Neal Adams @ 2007-07-08 1839 UTCPANGEA
My map was taken or created from a half dozen sources of maps, of course. But also from geological sources, and information.
In the “modern” maps-have we seem to have forgotten and do we no longer know that Antartica was sub-tropical and far closer to the equator? This simple fact must be included in YOUR map and cannot be ignored. (Dinosaurs populated Antartica fully as we know), the mere act of pulling Antartica upward toward the equator, (where YOUR people say it was and conveniently ignore, when talking to the great unwashed) turns my map into your map.
Half of the other differences are accounted by your profession’s inability to differentiate between shallow seas and new deep oceans. The fact (fact, fact, fact) that much of Asia was covered by shallow seas, did not mean that the upper continental plate and ALL THAT that IMPLIES, was not there, miles thick. You or your profession don’t get to DECIDE WHAT upper continental plate IS and IS NOT, just because there was some water on it.
First, Look at the map you present. You and others are “MAKING UP” land. You insist I’m making up stuff? I’m making up NOTHING, and what I know, I now INDICATE PRECISELY, and you (they) are making up and destroying whole continents of granitic and basaltic rock, measurably BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD!
(See this link along with numbered writing below).
http://www.itslikecool.com/pangeas/Pangeas.jpg
1. Please observe and examine the differences between your and this map. This is from skywalker.cochise.edu/ This one has a distorted and rather small world with all of Asia on the other side. Doing a bit of visual calculation, indicates the land mass including Asia, covers about half the planet! (Typical.)
2. This is from Geology. California State Univ. of Pomona. I particularly like Eurasia, like a giant member plunging into Canada’s HUDSON BAY.
3. This is from Dr. Weil, Structural Geologist Petrologist, and Dr. Maria Luisa Crawford, Metamorphic Petrologist, from Bryn Mawr. Please observe the alternate positioning of South America and Africa. (AND MISSING ASIA!)
4. This lovely map from TORREY PINES SCIENTIFIC.r80f51.tripod.com , compleyely loses Asia, and builds a mass of land. (Creates a new continent of immense size at the South Pole. Similar, but not the same as your incredibly distorted map which (both) casually created massive continental additions and suntractions, WILLY-NILLY, AND AT A WHIM.
5. This is from an approved high school text (2003), taken from a printed text. In this one, aparently Asia is on the opposite side of the earth, or sunk between Europe and independant Indoneisian Islands.
6. Here’s one from dkimages/discover/geography.london. Where did they get their image. I wonder?
7. I don’t know how “modern” this one is, but it is used to support a whole lot of geology. You might like to read this one re: coal measures and red beds.
If I may venture an opinion…It is far more geologically scientific than the colorful cartoons we see now.
Nor does it carry the sin of attempting to making excuses of all the multitude of contradictions that the Pangea theory presents.
03
by Neal Adams @ 2007-07-08 1948 UTCLet’s discuss your physics and geology.
We will say there is a continental crust.
Geology says the oceanic crust goes completely around the earth INCLUDING the continental plates.
So are you saying basalts are not the base of continents now?? (take your time).
Are you saying for my point to be made, the tide must be 2 1/2 miles deep to make up the difference. No? But you do not say that.
Actually, you say though the actual center of gravity is 1,800 miles below the surface, (assuming an equal density throughout), the tide should be over 2,000 miles high. Hmmm. …..of course, it’s not!
Several things here.
1. Gravity lessening, does not release the hold between molecules giving us anti-gravity.
2. Water/like air, is independent of the earth in it’s response to gravity, in a real sense. If a bird lands on an elephant, it’s weight is not added to the elephant for it’s own sake, though they total the two (the bird is not responding as if IT WERE ten tons. In the same way, the water is not part of the earth. It is separate so it responds to it’s own body weight relative to the change.
(We are ignoring here the geologist’s point that the earth is getting denser as it goes to the core…making 2 problems).
1. The average density of the earth is 5.9 (Almost 6).
2. As we go deeper…the area for increased denseness gets to be less and less, so your figures are profoundly wrong. (According to your team).
a. My center of gravity was based on an average, not for a specific MOMENT of the day. (Tides included).
The original point being the tides are due to several factors.
1. The incompressability and decompressability of water’s molecules.
2. the speed of the earth’s rotation, 1,000 miles per hour making the compressability the leading factor in several ways. THE WATER DOES NOT RACE AROUND THE WORLD AT 1,000 MILES PER HOUR. Nor do spaces appear between the molecules. You must only consider INCOMPRESSABILITY vs. limited speed. (If the earth slowed it’s rotation, would tides get higher?)
3. There is not one tide…but two in a 24 hour period. One on the other side of the earth. Both traveling around the world. One not quite as strong. So if you first: know the “real” reason for 2 TIDES and secondly: if you knew it (and not a theory), you must ADD THE TWO TIDES TOGETHER AND using both to calculate the tidal mass. Compared to the volume of Earth’s water…to simply find the tidal percentage OF WATER…not the earth!!
***All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the question posed and answered.
If the center of gravity shifted the full circle of it in all and in part, in one direction.
Water is an INDEPENDENT OPPORTUNISTIC body. It will smooth out the new ball around it’s new (rotational) center of gravity.
Do you think you’ll have the grit to apologize for your errors and correct?
No? I don’t. Why don’t I think so?
Because it’s ‘not’ til now that you actually admit to the pettiness of your first video. My work stands. Perhaps you will examine EACH critically, and see the truth. I doubt it.
04
by Yorrike @ 2007-07-10 0019 UTCNeal, before you get carried away and start claiming this and that, this is my site and this discussion will run by my rules. And these are they;
Now that’s out of the way, allow me to respond to your first post (#2);
That’s all very interesting, but notice how I describe how I came to my conclusion throughout this article? How did you come to your conclusion and why did you disregard some Pangea maps while lending support to others? Methodology is just as important as references!
References Required - can you be more specific? Which period of subtropical Antarctic environments are you talking about? There’s been a few over recent (500 Ma) geological history, which existed for many reasons (no major Antarctic ice caps before the circumpolar current formed ~25-40 Ma).
Here’s some references on the ACC:
Answers.com on the ACC
The BBC article on pushing back the date of the opening of the Drake Passage
Plus common sense: Climate is not dependant on latitude. Europe is warmed by the Gulf Stream - Barcelona in Spain is 5 degrees further from the equator (~41 degrees N) than Auckland in New Zealand (~36 degrees S) yet Barcelona is much warmer on average (source: BBC), whereas Auckland is sub tropical and cooler (source: BBC). Oceanic currents have a huge effect on terrestrial temperatures. Spain should be colder than New Zealand on average, but it’s many degrees warmer in the summer and a degree or two warmer in the winter.
References Required - give me a single piece of evidence - real world evidence from studies - that shows you claimed something was a shallow sea whereas earth scientists didn’t. A single reference.
References Required
No, the definition of a continental plate is well documented. Here are some definitions:
und.edu
Wikipedia
Yes, that’s what I’m stating. Your provided maps are somewhat mixed. I can’t understand how you combined all these maps to make yours, but anyway;
1.) The “distortion” is called a projection. This map is in complete agreement with the one from NAU.
2.) This is a sketch that’s simple wrong, as you stated. No one would use that as a reference, and if you did, you’re a worse researcher than I originally thought.
3.) What was this map used for? It looks like its concentrating on the rotation of Spain - Give me a link to where you got this from. I doubt this is portrayed as a study of Pangea, rather than a study of the tectonics of Spain.
4.) You link to a map on a Tripod site with no references therein or sources of information. Just because someone draws a picture of Pangea, doesn’t make it the scientific consensus. Your map being a prime example.
5.) It’s a small and pretty poor map. Which approved high school text book was it? Again - you need to give references.
6.) Where did they get their image? If it was a serious scientific paper, they would have told you. So you can tell me.
7.) Wow! What a map! Here’s a map of the world that I commonly use to get around. Never seems to help for some reason though.
Look Neal, no one in science has or will ever claim their science is perfect, unless they’re bat-shit insane.
My point still stands. The map you presented in your Pangea video is NOT THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS!. If the piddly little maps you’ve presented are indicative of the data you use to base your study on, it’s no surprise you’re so wrong, so often.
05
by Yorrike @ 2007-07-10 0627 UTCAnd now onto the second post of yours. Let’s see how well this pans out….
This isn’t “my” geology and physics. It’s my use of those sciences through a reasonably good understanding of them, to cast significant doubt on your claims.
Geology says oceanic crust makes up 60% of the Earth’s surface and continental crust makes up 40%. See my references in the article above and my video. Oceanic crust does not run underneath the continents (unless its subducting)
That’s right. The continents are predominately igneous (basaltic, andesitic, rhyolitic, granitic and mixtures thereof), metamorphic, sedimentary (limestone, sandstone, siltstone, mudstone) and mixtures of all three. The oceanic crust is almost completely basaltic, not the continents.
Sometimes I wonder if you actually pay attention to criticism or just draw your own conclusion. The barycenter is at 1700 KILOMETRES (not miles), below the surface. Density through the crustal column is irrelevant to the position, it’s the centre of mass. Did you actually watch the video?
I said the tide with a change in gravitation centricity of ~9000 Km is, at maximum, 17 metres! What the hell is wrong with you? That was the entire point of my video!
What the hell does that even mean? It sounds and awful lot like the pseudo-science bullshit you try and push on YouTube. It’s barely even English.
What are you trying to say? That the water on earth isn’t part of the Earth’s mass?
Yes, but the two could be considered a single mass since the bird can only get to within a certain distance of the centre of mass - unless the elephant eats it. Also, the bird will experience more gravity sitting on top of an elephant than if it were at the same altitude far away. But that’s a different topic - gravitational variation.
The ocean is most definitely part of the mass that comprises the mass of the Earth. The oceans respond to the entire mass system. It’s called the tides.
The Earth doesn’t strictly get denser as you go down. The aesthenosphere is 0.05 g per cubic cm less dense than the upper mantle.
1.) Yes, well done. Mass/Volume equals Density.
2.) My figures are fine. You’re not giving any sensible argument to counter my claims, you’re sitting their waving your hands about and using your misunderstanding of the principle of gravitational orbits and mass. Your centre of gravity was at the centre of the Earth. The centre of the Earth-Moon system’s gravity is NOT AT THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH. Watch the video again and follow the references. You maybe surprised at just how stupid your statement is.
I’d be happy to apologise, if you were speaking any sense at all and showed my conclusions to be erroneous. That last list of yours has nothing to do with my objection to your original video. When are you going to make sense and produce any evidence to support your claims!?
Yes, my first video was a nit-pick. But let’s not get into who’s more petty here, Neal. You’ve failed to defend any of the points I raised in my second video. Your only defence in your last post was a misunderstanding of science.
Your work has never stood and will never stand because it’s based on an atrociously poor understanding of the subject matter. It’s obvious you didn’t follow my video, didn’t read any of my references and didn’t understand my objections. Not because I presented them poorly, but because you either weren’t paying attention or simply can’t grasp the basic tenets of some fundamental scientific concepts.
The Earth-Moon centre of gravity changes by >9000 Km a day relative to the surface of the Earth. The highest tide we get is 17 m. Your 4 Km change - even if your model was actually indicative of the real world rather than being complete rubbish - would not change the tidal variation by any significant amount.
I’ve shown your calculations to be wrong, I’ve shown the fundamentals of your model to be wrong and I’ve shown your conclusion to be wrong. I’m still waiting for a sensible defence! YOU STILL HAVEN’T EXPLAINED HOW A 4 Km SHIFT IN GRAVITY WOULD RESULT IN A 4 Km SHIFT IN THE OCEANIC GEOID. All of my calculations are written out above. All of my references are detailed. If you had the first clue about scientific debate and even bothered to read my references, you would have raised a couple of minor issues in relation to my figures (not that it changes the ratio I calculated that much, it actually makes the ratio even bigger in favour of the ocean - so you’re still wrong). The issue is not the ratio - because that uses your model. And your model is wrong.
Your original argument was a straw-man. Your response to my criticism was based entirely on personal incredulity. That amounts to a failure to defend your point against my criticism. I suggest you at least read the references I provided, before you continue trying to defend your rubbish “science”.
06
by Nicolas Krebs @ 2007-07-17 1616 UTCHello,
About the area of land looked between Africa and Australia (you can see it between 0:00:09 and 0:00:15 at the begin) in Neal Adams’ “press clip#0″ video (critized in your first video), it may be the continental shelf of the Kerguelen Islands (or the little depths around? i dont know if it is continental crust). Look at the maps in ngdc’ web site, the 337KB or the 1.7MB map.
Well, last week i discussed in news:sci.geo.geology. If you have some time to spend, there are (this month) two supporters of “earth expansion” theory in.
07
by Yorrike @ 2007-07-22 2245 UTCNicolas: Thanks for the link to sci.geo.geology, I’ve been keeping track of the EE discussions thereon for a while now. I’ve resisted joining in the debate because it’s not going anywhere, or making any useful points. Mainly because, so far as I’ve seen, the expanding earth crowd are incapable of carrying out a proper scientific analysis or critical discussion. The geologists and geophysicists present seemingly experience the same frustration I do when debating with Neal; there’s nothing reasonable to argue against, so the debate quickly descends into ad hominem attacks.
Yes, the things I criticise in my first video are mostly continental shelves or plateaus. But my point remains. These sections of crust are placed many hundreds or thousands of meters higher than they actually are.
In the case of the land off the east of New Zealand, the shelf depicted in the video doesn’t exist, it’s a fabrication and the only way you could justify it is by twisting, rising and expanding the New Zealand continental shelf in ways there is no evidence for. And in a manner that would defy geometry, which is conveniently covered by ocean water in the animation.
08
by Clinton A @ 2007-08-23 1947 UTCGreetings Yorrike.
The root of Neal’s problem is that he has discovered an interesting possibility, but lacks the training and apparently patience to offer reasonable explanations for his discovery. If we were to discard everything Neal has offered as proof of his theory, in effect, letting the “puzzle-piece Earth” annimation stand without the pseudo-science, how would we approach the strangely convenient way the “pieces” come together?
I need your help, Yorrike. Your head is on straight, and I know you’ll help me to disprove this idea I had (another thing Neal doesn’t understand about science,… we seek to DISprove our theories, not to prove them).
I actually found a video on YouTube that fleshed out what I was thinking. Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs6rpGW39fk
Neat, huh? Hard to understand the computer voice, but the idea is neat. Perhaps Earth is decompressing?
I set it up, let’s shoot it down!
Clinton A
09
by Edwin @ 2007-08-25 2203 UTCHow would you go about explaining NGSC/NOAA’s map of the age of the ocean floor which can be found at: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/fliers/96mgg04.html
Just look at the map how can you explain the even age of the rock all the way around? How can the old rock going into the subduction zones be the same age as the rock in the divergent zones? This is where I am stuck. Forget all the rest just explain how this map backs up Pangea and plate tectonics.
10
by Yorrike @ 2007-08-26 0304 UTCEdwin;
It’s not evenly aged. It ranges from 0 to ~180 million years old. My question to expanding earthers is how can you explain there only be expansion in the last 180 million years, when the Earth is 4,550 million years old? That’s expansion exclusively confined to the most recent 4% of the Earth’s history. Or to put it another way; 96% of geological history without “expansion”. Plate Tectonics expalins this, EE does not.
It’s not. Except when a spreading ridge is directly adjacent to a subduction zone, as seen in western North America.
If you use Plate Tectonics and run the spreading backwards from the mid ocean ridges, all the continents join during the late Triassic. The map doesn’t prove plate tectonics in and of itself. You need to look at a huge cross section of the geological science to get the full picture. I doubt I could summarise the whole thing in a blog post.
Luckily, we’re on the internet, so here’s some articles you really need to read which willhopefully get you unstuck:
Basic stuff:
A basic guide to Plate Tectonics - read this guide step by step and make sure you understand what each part is saying.
USGS: Sea-Floor Spreading and Subduction
USGS: Earthquakes and Plate Tectonics
Advanced Stuff:
Velocity Structure of the Earth
The Mechanism of Plate Tectonics - This one approaches PT from by explaining why contracting earth and expanding earth hypotheses with a couple of short lists as to why those ideas were discarded.
Finally, here’s a complete list of USGS recommended site which talk about PT: Earthquake Topics - Plate tectonics. Read as many of those links as you can. It’s a complicated, broad and data rich field of research.
11
by NJo @ 2007-10-02 1958 UTCYottike, i think Clinton’s idea is worth a look: “…If we were to discard everything Neal has offered as proof of his theory, in effect, letting the “puzzle-piece Earth” annimation (rainbow-map animation) stand without the pseudo-science, how would we approach the strangely convenient way the “pieces” come together?”
What are your thoughts on that?
12
by sprinklehopper @ 2007-12-05 1256 UTCHow do you expect a guy who earns a living as an artist to have the time and training to reply properly on geological calculations. The main thrust of this theory is how all the plates fit back together. Thats what neal has done, thats his bit, thats probably all he will ever be able to do well.
..Now its up to guys like you to rip apart the whole concept visually, you know how all the plates together and how pangea works (visually and globally) ..and not in an abstract world of what data you have in some points here and there.
Thats the point. To people on the outside coming to geology fresh and seeing the expanding earth vids. It appears like all you and friends want is for this thing to go away. Anyway and as quick as possible, to show other geoligists you can. I am amzazed you even paid it any attention. Why ? Does an honest part inside you interested in the possibility of truth..or is another thinking the ramifications could be extreme ? It would show there might be wrong with the way geology or even science does things ?
It seems strange for a geoligist to expect neal adams to become a geologist..do some calcs you know he doesnt have time, ability or inclination etc to rebuff in this way. It comes across that way. Because the problem here and on the thread at richard dawkins forum, was that the neal adams animation show something profound.
Remember…the big point here is how plates fit together. Stay on how to answer that point properly, instead of veering off into numbers and geological data, he and laypeople cannot answer. I for one as one of many laypeople feel it is hard to trust this kind of reply, and have real questions doubts about whether “consensus and references” is so great after all.
From a Budding Scientist..Now Having doubts about science .
13
by Chris @ 2008-01-01 2314 UTCHi Yorrike.
I have recently posted a question on Neal’s YouTube page, and wondered what you thought about it…
Basically - if the planets (and the Sun) are expanding from their interiors from ‘prime matter’, and, ergo, their masses are increasing - this would throw orbital dynamics into utter chaos.
As it is, we see normal, healthy, almost-circular orbits for the majority of the planets, which must have achieved their current stability for hundreds of millions of years.
Surely this single simple fact negates entirely Neal’s theory?
I am awaiting Neal’s response. I look forward to your thoughts.
Chris.
14
by Yorrike @ 2008-01-02 0057 UTCChris: That’s one of many things that disprove Neal’s hypothesis. His response last time I saw it posed was along the lines that the planets orbit the sun because of its magnetic field, not its gravity well. He also thinks clouds stay up because of the Earth’s magnetic field, rather than density and temperature differences relating to water condensation.
Another question that often gets Neal into trouble is this; sure, make the Earth shrink by fitting all the continents back together (which they don’t, might I add, especially around the Pacific ocean). That’s 180 million years worth of tectonic history taken care of (180 MYr is the age of the oldest ocean floor), so what happened during the preceding 4.4 billion years? Expanding Earth hypothesis has no explanation for the other 96% of the Earth’s history.
15
by Chris @ 2008-01-04 0023 UTC96% is not an insignificant number.
Well - if he’s going to stretch every known law of science into a different shape to accomodate his little project (I say ‘little’ - really, it’s quite a big $400,000 project!)… then he is not going to listen to anything. The most we can do is use his comments to keep the pressure on, and show some of the less well-educated readers what the balance of the argument is.
Delusion is a strange thing. He probably knows… deep down, that he’s wrong. You can sort of sense it. Have you noticed how vociferous and aggressive he can be?
The phrase ‘The Lady doth protest too much’ leaps to mind.
Keep up the good work (and the pressure), Buddy.
Chris.
16
by diana @ 2008-01-07 0431 UTCSome one told me once that we were going directly to an obscurantism thanks to interntet… i believe it now so… but I have to admit that that idea of Neal’s video makes it more simple to explain… is a shame is not true XD by the way… is just a guy trying to make money out of ignorance of ppl… making then, the ppl more ignorant… shame on you… sad for all the stupid ppl that still believe this lies.
Good luck!
17
by Phoebus @ 2008-01-16 1625 UTCNeal’s right since he uses visible observations. No swimming in theories or calculations since these are always derived from variables coming from secondary sources. No, just observe and see with one’s own eyes on the google maps ocean beds. Try the obduction all over the place where the MOR’s stand opposite. Just try.
18
by Phoebus @ 2008-01-16 1646 UTCSo, the observations are here.
Matching riffs and coastlines, pacific:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=-31.203405,-124.628906&spn=90.077248,163.476563&t=h&z=3&om=0
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=15.45368,-144.84375&spn=96.903905,163.476563&t=h&z=3&om=0
Where does tectonic shifts begin and end here:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=-56.46249,-54.84375&spn=32.025821,81.738281&t=h&z=4&om=0
But you know. A simple observation just won’t do with so many scientists jobs at stake. What I want subduction supporters to do is map the directions of earth ocean crust movements (going below the continents).
The sun is growing, right? It will become a giant dwarf, right? The earth glows and burns inside. Matter that originated of the sun, right? So why wouldn’t there be also a growing factor of the earth since it exists of the same matter?
19
by Phoebus @ 2008-01-16 1719 UTCWhat I also want, since we’re dealing with invisible but declared facts such as Lithosphere, plastic Asthenosphere, Upper Mantles, etc deep down for hundreds of kilometers deep, show us how these are measured facts. What is used to measure the depth and existance of these layers? And the fact these layers move under other layers? Where are the data of these measurements? Sonic measurements? Electromagnetic ray measurements? Where are day?
20
by Phoebus @ 2008-01-17 1018 UTCHere is most probably usable GPS data that can be used to find out whether the average spreading of distances between reference points on this map are positive or constant (or negative for those that want to promote the shrinking hypothesis). I read about measurements done at the trenches through sonic rays in the 50ies and 60ies. There are indeed trenches that seem to support subduction. In the case the earth is growing the subduction process would be overall however faster than the earth growth rate.
But anyway, lets see if the average of distance changes are:
1. increasing
2. status quo
3. decreasing
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html (this is the GPS map showing movement of reference points)
21
by Krankes HIrn @ 2008-01-31 0534 UTCThis is a really nice page and you really put Neal in his place. That’s what happens when someone wants to expose scientific facts without being a scientist. It’s sad to see his stubborn conduct, but you managed to make yourself clear with nothing but verifiable truth. He should really stick to comics. I mean, he doesn’t do a bad job, as long as he keeps out of science.
22
by Yorrike @ 2008-01-31 1117 UTCKrankes: My videos have their problems. I plan on producing some new ones in a month or so with clearer, more to the point objections. Maybe one objection per video or something like that.
23
by Yorrike @ 2008-01-31 1124 UTCPhoebus: I’ll get to your questions when I have time. They’re good questions, but they require a lot of complex subjects needing explanation in simple terms, which I’m just not in a position to do at the moment. But I WILL answer them.
24
by Krankes HIrn @ 2008-01-31 2022 UTCYorrike: I’m looking forward to that. I was thinking of posting a video too, using the calculations I made as an objection. But it would be poor in quality (since I only use Windows Movie Maker and MS Paint). Besides that, I ruled out a lot of stuff, although everything was in Neal’s favor. So that he couldn’t complain about subjective assumptions that affect the final results in my favor. Anyway, the poor old man can’t defend his point because he is not even right, so probably your videos would be really compelling. He probably thought he wouldn’t bump into an actual geologist.
25
by Dave @ 2008-02-11 1007 UTCThe entire expanding Earth theory can easily be debunked without any science at all. You only need to look at Neal’s video, and observe that he scales Australia and Antarctica to fill the entire Pacific Ocean.
Specifically, he shows about 8300 miles of coastline (5300 from Australia and 3000 from Antarctica) “matching perfectly” to about 17,000 miles of coastline from Asia and the Americas. Case closed. He’s scaling the continents to fit the theory.
If you want to test this for yourself. Have a look at Neal’s video. Observe which specific points on the coasts of Australia and Antarctica meet with which specific points on the coasts of Asia and the Americas. Then go to Google Earth and use the measuring tool to calculate the length of coastlines that are supposed to match.
Neal is scaling the continents on a sphere that is simultaneously shrinking and spinning, so the scaling is difficult to perceive, but it is definitely happening. The continents DO NOT fit perfectly together as is the claim.
I challenge Neal, or anyone else, to produce an animation on a non-spinning globe, that shows Australia and Antarctica fitting together perfectly with Asia and the Americas WITHOUT scaling the continents to make them fit. Go ahead and shrink the globe but keep the camera centered on the Pacific where we can all see exactly what’s going on.
Doing these measurements put the final nail in the coffin for me, I hope it helps you to do the same.
26
by Tim @ 2008-02-25 0113 UTCHey Dave:
If you take a look at this map from National Geophysical Data Center:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.jpg
The extra Earth that Neal uses to fill in the Pacific can be found on that Map just to the right of Australia.
I am not sure why the NGDC doesn’t age that portion on their map, since the majority of that area is under water.
Yorrike:
I just had to snicker at this comment of yours:
What I’ve been detailing is real science, but why should you take the words and explanations of a university educated geologist and geochemist over those of a comic book artist? Well, don’t. Go to the link in the sidebar, follow all of the references, check this out for yourself. That’s science. If you can show conclusively that I’m wrong, by all means tell me.
Aside from the comment being overly pompous in and of itself, if what is currently known is wrong, than what you were taught is wrong no matter how much effort you put into trying to prove it to be right.
That is what is meant by the saying “The Sins of the Father were passed to the Son”. It is believing what one was taught (regardless of accuracy), and that teaching being passed on as truth, regardless if it is or not.
Also, by mentioning Scientific Consensus regarding Pangea, I snickered a bit more. It is just a consensus, that doesn’t mean it is the truth. It is just an agreement of the majority.
It is just the most popular model right now so that is what is taught. It doesn’t make it right.
27
by Yorrike @ 2008-02-25 0135 UTCTim: “if what is currently known is wrong, than what you were taught is wrong no matter how much effort you put into trying to prove it to be right.”
- Yet the evidence gathered by the geological sciences thus far supports plate tectonics and not an expanding earth. Is the evidence wrong too, or is everyone just clueless on interpretation? It has to be one or the other in order to twist modern science to support an baseless, anti-intellectual hypothesis like Neal’s.
“Also, by mentioning Scientific Consensus regarding Pangea, I snickered a bit more. It is just a consensus, that doesn’t mean it is the truth. It is just an agreement of the majority.”
- The scientific consensus is an agreement of the majority based on the evidence we currently have at hand. That’s the best anyone can do. What are you after? Absolute certainty? If anyone tells you there’s absolute certainty about anything they’re lying.
“It is just the most popular model right now so that is what is taught. It doesn’t make it right.”
- It’s also supported by the evidence. But far be it from me to actually insist an expanding-earth supporter learn the science they’re disregarding.
Science is a process of evaluation of evidence in order to reach a system model deemed the most statistically likely. If your presumptions are wrong to start with, your evidence will not make sense. If your model is defective, your evidence won’t fit. If your methods are faulty, your answer will contradict the evidence.
Over the past 50 years, plate tectonics has gained support from actual scientists doing actual scientific research. The mountains of evidence in support of plate tectonics rival those in support of evolution. Neal and the expanding earth crowd haven’t submitted original, unique or new evidence to the field in the last 40 years and fail to offer any evidence beyond the old “it looks that way to me”, otherwise known as the logical fallacy of personal incredulity.
Think my statement was pompous? Think my facts are wrong? Good for you. But I don’t see you offering evidence to support an expanding earth beyond the logical fallacy I just just described. All I see is someone who’s obsessed with rebellion against an establishment of any kind, reveling in poorly-constructed complaints.
I’m done with being polite to people like you. Put up some solid evidence for your side of the argument that isn’t based on personal incredulity, or fuck off.
28
by Tim @ 2008-02-26 0720 UTCYorrike:
You are right, my comment was a bit uncalled for. We can discuss things civily regardless of our differences in Theory.
As far as evidence, it is kind of hard to come up with evidence since pretty much everything is tailored to sturdying up subduction.
Anyway, things pop up here or there, but not with much fanfare, just little tidbits here or there. Majority of things become forgotten, since as you say they challenge the establishment.
Take a look at this. Let me know if you ever read about it in any published Journal. As far as I can tell, this came and went since it challenges the standard.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23225938/
Madagascar broke off over 200 million years ago.
Will that ever be further researched? Probably not. It will go away with barely a whimper.
Now, also understand, I have a willingness to be wrong. I don’t care if the Earth is expanding or not, quite frankly. I am only interested in the Truth.
Subduction doesn’t sit right with me.
Here is some history on it, how I have learned it. If anything I say is wrong, please correct me.
Some guys were sitting around and noticed that the continents all appeared to be able to fit together. They called this finished puzzle Pangea. I know that isn’t how it actually happened, but you know what I mean.
The only problem was, they did a 2D puzzle of a 3D world. They never tried to fit the Pacific side of continents together as well, which do fit.
I think it was Wegener, but he or someone else published a book based on Pangea and came up with the idea of Continental Drift (see, most theories start out as personal ideas with little to no evidence). When he first introduced his theory, he was mocked. Kind of like how EE guys are mocked today. I know how he must have felt.
It wasn’t until Atlantic spreading was observed in the 50’s that the idea took off.
At this point, an expanding Earth was not outside of possibilities. It was considered. The only problem was, where was this extra material coming from causing this expansion?
Since they couldn’t figure it out, they tried to come up with alternative theories.
Harry Hess made up (as in make-believe) and proposed Subduction. It gave them an easy out since there is no need to explain expansion which couldn’t (and still can’t, this is key) be explained.
Wikipedia sum’s up Hess’ proposal quite nicely:
Hess’ ideas neatly explained why the Earth does not get bigger with sea floor spreading, why there is so little sediment accumulation on the ocean floor, and why oceanic rocks are much younger than continental rocks.
Continental Drift and Expanding Earth work and appear, hand in hand.
The only difference between the two, is subduction. There is still, to this day, no irrefutable evidence of Subduction actually taking place. Sure, there are places we assume it might be.
Take a look at the NGDC poster I listed earlier. Take a good, hard, long look at it.
There is more than enough evidence that just about every single faultline in existence, is and has been spreading for the last 20+ million years.
One guys idea, subduction, has caused this whole mess. And the only reason it became a popular theory was because no one then, nor today, can explain how the Earth just might be expanding.
So it stuck.
This is why EE is not taken seriously. This is why subduction is taught in our schools.
We don’t know. This is what frightens us. There is nothing in current Physics that can properly explain this. Sure people have ideas, it doesn’t make what they believe true.
And just to be clear, I am not a rebel against any establishment.
I don’t believe in the JFK Conspiracy.
I don’t believe Roswell was a UFO Crash.
I don’t believe in Bigfoot.
I don’t believe people who follow any establishment are sheeple.
Like I said before, I only care about the truth. If the Earth isn’t expanding, so be it. I don’t care. I am more than willing to accept that. If I am wrong, no big deal. I will get over that as soon as what is true presents itself.
29
by Yorrike @ 2008-02-26 1045 UTCOK, good. Let’s get to some scientific speculation. I’ll assess your comments and ideas one by one
No, it broke away from the Indian island-continent about 88 million years ago (where did you get the 200 MYr figure from?). India was breaking away from Gondwana at about 120 million years ago (here’s a picture - notice there’s not that much water separating Antarctica, SA and India). The connection that existed between the components of Gondwana in the form of land bridges and island chains is unknown, and still an active field of research. This toad is another piece of the puzzle giving us a clearer picture of what was happening tens of millions of years ago.
I’ll cap this topic off with the quote from the lead author of the research;
Now let’s get into the history of plate tectonics.
Wow that’s wrong. You haven’t actually read any of the history of plate tectonics, have you?
- The pacific sides do not fit. THEY DO NOT FIT. Not in 2D and not in 3D. Have you noticed the large gap fillers and twisting of Siberia to fit alongside North America that Neal performed in his video!? Northern Siberia against California (of which there is no evidence)! Go and look at his video again, run it slowly. It doesn’t fit.
- You are correct, Wegener did publish a book on his idea. But he never produced any convincing driving mechanism or geological links between the continents. Was it right to mock him? Probably not, but suggesting a process with no evidence to back you up is not science. It was years later when evidence did turn up, that an idea of a driving force (mantle convection) and evidence (sea floor spreading) came about and his idea was reassessed and cited as the genesis of Plate Tectonics. For the record, his idea is still wrong. The continents don’t drift. They appear to, but that’s due to the movement of oceanic and continental plates. Continental drift is NOT Plate Tectonics.
- Um, just because you’re too lazy to look into it, in enough depth to understand the MANY lines of DIRECT evidence of subduction, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
Let me summarise some direct evidence for subduction;
# Volatile content in lavas (i.e, water) from volcanoes that exist on the flanks of where subduction “supposedly” occurs. What that means in short is the volcanoes near subduction zones are highly explosive, while the volcanoes that are the result of volatile-poor plumes (Hawaii and Iceland) are nowhere near as explosive. The water gets into the lavas from the ocean plates, which are wet when they are subducted. This lowers the melting point of the rock, and thus you get arc volcanism almost everywhere there’s a subduction zone. Look at the pacific ring of fire for a prime example of this.
# The chemistry of volcanoes in subduction zones vary depending on the distance from the subduction zone, due to mantle processing and enrichment of certain elements. For example, Mt Taranaki in New Zealand is enormously rich in potassium when compared to the volcanoes closer to the subduction zone. This is due to the source for Taranaki being deeper and having a magma source enriched in what’s know as large ion lithophile elements - which are reasonably incompatible in crystal formation and therefore preferentially left out of crystals forming around a subducting slab. The deeper the slab goes, the more potassium is left out of crystals, and therefore the more of it there is if melt occurs. Sure enough, the volcanoes distance from a subduction zone is directly proportional to its eruptives concentration of potassium. Read this paper detailing two volcanoes in New Zealand at different distances from their associate subduction zone.
# Earthquake depths get deeper the further from a “supposed” subduction zone you get. Look at this map of South America. The earthquakes get deeper, because they trace where the oceanic plate is subducting. The earthquakes are CAUSED by the plate moving through the mantle (and surprise surprise, all subducting regions are associated with dense earthquake activity).
# You don’t even have to imagine it from a top-down view, or use earthquakes. Here’s a picture of the subducting plates on the west coast of the Americas shown as density differences. It’s generated using a method called seismic tomography. And here’s the associated article. Dense oceanic plate material is blue, hot, less dense mantle is red.
Telling me there’s no evidence what-so-ever for subduction just shows your complete ignorance on the subject. We’ve pretty much taken pictures of subducting slabs. Just because you don’t think it feels right, doesn’t mean it isn’t. Subduction has been proven chemically and physically. If you don’t believe the interpretations of any of this, explain the observations in a model where the earth is expanding. The observations are there for anyone to use. I challenge you to use them to prove EE.
That maps shows spreading ridges, not fault lines. They’re not the same thing. In order to be having this debate, you should damn well know that. And faultlines aren’t all spreading. Faultlines are either strike-slip, normal or reverse - and there’s plenty of each type. And large-scale faulting causes mountains, which are, surprise, surprise, located around areas of high earthquake activity and subduction (like the Himalayas)! As one plate goes down, the other goes up a bit, and there you have mountains.
Because plate tectonics has evidence backing it up, while an expanding earth does not. Just like creationism has no evidence backing it up, and evolution does. It’s simple. PT is science, EE is not. Get it?
Then science will never prove anything to you, because science doesn’t deal with truth, it deals with fact. And fact is based on evidence proving something beyond reasonable doubt. Like plate tectonics and subduction has been.
Again, you haven’t given any evidence to back EE, you’ve just shown your lack of knowledge of modern geology. You haven’t committed to believing the most reasonable explanation, you’ve committed to not making your mind up because some baseless speculation hasn’t been disproved to your liking.
You said you don’t care one way or another? Then why bother entering into a debate with a geologist? Don’t raise any more objections about PT with me until you actually understand it and put in some time to actually research the topic. If you can’t be bothered doing that, I can’t be bothered dissuading you from Neal’s idiocy.
30
by Dave @ 2008-03-09 1043 UTCTim:
You said; “If you take a look at this map from National Geophysical Data Center:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.jpg
The extra Earth that Neal uses to fill in the Pacific can be found on that Map just to the right of Australia.”
- Have another look at Neal’s video:
http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html
You can clearly see that he shows the coastlines of Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica matching up to the coastlines of Asia and the Americas. He is not matching the edge of the Australian plate’s underwater continental shelf with the Asian and American coastlines.
My argument still stands.
Dave
31
by Craig @ 2008-03-20 0105 UTCYes he does. Watch this video, where he uses the map provided by the NGDC.
http://www.continuitystudios.net/guestvid.html
Not only does he use that same exact map, but you can watch the Australian Plate through the entire video.
Here is a video of (crude) animation showing drift up to 800 million years ago through various supercontinents. Do you really think these plates are flying all around the surface of the Earth?
Compare that to one of Neal’s videos. Smooth and symmetrical all the way through for the entire planet.
Occam’s Razor is crying for attention.
Did you know that some of the oldest rock forming the Himalaya’s is over 400 million years old?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031006071157.htm
To sum up the article, there were mountains before. Those mountains were flattened by some unknown land mass. Those mountains were lifted up again 50-60 million years ago when India collided with Asia.
Do you really think so?
Can’t the mountains have been sitting and building and continue to build, for the last 400-500 million years?
32
by Craig @ 2008-03-20 0121 UTCForgot to add the youtube video, sorry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-EiQgPbp7c&feature=related
33
by Yorrike @ 2008-03-20 0818 UTCCraig, you, like Neal, have some serious misconceptions about plate tectonics and geology.
No. No one believes they are flying around the surface of the Earth. The oceanic and continental plates ARE the surface of the Earth. And a few millimetres a year is hardly “flying around”. Continental plates “move” (i.e., rotate), at about the same speed as your fingernails grow. You may perceive them as “flying around”, but that’s because you’re looking at hundreds of millions of years of movement over the course of a few seconds. Let me say that again. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS. Look out! It’s coming right at us!
Smooth and symmetrical is not how the Earth works. If you find it more pleasing than the hap-hazard motion discovered by science, that’s your problem, not science’s.
Firstly, Occam’s Razor is not a stead-fast rule. It says the simplest explanation is likely the right one. LIKELY.
And you really think Neal’s idea is simpler? Let me summarise what you think to be simple and then what plate tectonics says;
An expanding Earth according to Neal Adams demands;
According to plate tectonics;
…And you think Neal’s explanation is simpler? That none of the evidence in support of plate tectonics is right? It’s all wrong!? He gets so much wrong (and knows so little about what he’s opposing) that anyone with a few undergrad classes in physics, chemistry or even worse, geology, find his assertions beyond ridiculous.
There’s thousands of scientific papers produced every month that would not reach their conclusions or get the measured results they did if PT wasn’t happening. There’s rocks like blueschist that requires high temperature, low pressure metamorphism to occur on oceanic crust basalt like you’d get in a subduction zone. It’s not some wild crazy-scientist’s wild hypothesis Neal is opposing here, it’s well-established, good quality physics, chemistry and geology that needs to be, and has never been, explained, were the Earth expanding as Neal describes it.
Well yes, the Indian plate is riding over the top of the Asian plate. The Indian plate is OLD, so there’s bound to be older rocks underneath that get pushed to the surface in places. But as soon as Neal can provide a reasonable explanation for these observation without having to resort to rewriting the laws of physics and ignoring sciences like chemistry and geology, I’ll listen. The article does not suggest plate tectonics is wrong, it suggests there was mountain building in northern India 470 million years prior to the himlayas forming. It’s not surprising, but it is exceptionally interesting. And the evidence they gathered to suggest this require plate tectonics to be active (with a big, cold, cooling ocean) almost half a billion years ago.
Nope. The Deccan traps were produced when the Indian island continent eiher moved over the Réunion hotspot, or was involved in oceanic rifting and the failed formation of a rifting margin (a proto rift valley perhaps) between 60-68 million years ago (read about it here - and note this is one case study using more real-world, peer-reviewed references than Neal has ever read). Whether is was the Réunion model or the tectonic model, India was between 20 and 40 degrees SOUTH of the equator 60 million years ago. This is factual. If you’d like to postulate that India was in it’s current position 400 million years ago, I’d like to hear your case (you’ll have to explain a lot of geochemical evidence - including isotopic dating - it’s a big, complex and fast-moving field of science and one I’m actively involved in). Also, given the article you cited, you’d have to explain how and why mountains formed, stopped forming, eroded away producing enormous amounts of sediment, and then started reforming 470 million years later. Any ideas?
The Himalayas are YOUNG (in a geological sense). Have a read of this article. Isotopic dating, marine and terrestrial fossils, and lithologies preclude the Himalayas from having been formed prior to ~30 million years ago.
Marine fossils found in the Himalayas are of creatures that weren’t around before the extinction of the dinosaurs. So areas of the Himalayas were at sea level AFTER the dinosaurs became extinct. And in sea water, too, so at sea level or less. And we have a good idea of where sea level was going back in time (thanks to oxygen and other isotopes in various sediments, and the geological column in key regions around the world).
Let me put it this way. Neal can make all the pretty videos in the world and tell people the world is expanding until he’s blue in the face. The evidence says he’s wrong. If I were you and I was truly interested in the Earth, I’d do what I did and go to a few geology courses at university. If for nothing else, just to appreciate what a mature and complicated and rapidly developing science it is.
34
by Mathias @ 2008-04-05 0113 UTCI thought the big problem were the expansion in it self in EE theory? Is not the big issue the fysics? standardmodell vs. string theory. ;)
35
by Timothy Timmons @ 2008-04-26 0201 UTCFirst of all I would like to thank Yorrike, Neal Adems and all the other people that posted on this web site. I think it’s great to see people use their minds to discover new way of understanding. My comment is for Yorrike.
Shouldn’t we see a pilling up of oceanic crust at the subduction zone. Has this been observed?
36
by mike3 @ 2008-05-08 2356 UTCI noticed Neal cut and ran immediately after you nabbed him with that post. Good job.
37
by Chris @ 2008-07-13 0157 UTCTimothy.
#1 Neal does not use his mind in any way to discover a new way of understanding. He doesn’t accept argument. He truncates debate when he is backed into a corner. He doesn’t listen to established fact, and suggests, wildly, that there is a conspiracy of science about subduction zones.
#2 The oceanic crust is heavier than the continental crust, so it will preferentially subduct. Maybe in the first instance of Continental/Oceanic collision, there was a brief bit of ‘piling up’ of the oceanic crust, but then this will still subduct. There are some rare instances where sections of ocean crust have been ‘cleaved’ up onto the surface (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiolite). Yorrike has posted some links on the subject already in this post.
If you are going to enter into a debate, read the debate first. He has already answered this question.