Geophysics Reconsidered

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cole</i>
<br />The evidence appears to support the case for an expanding and growing earth, faster than accretion of space dust and debris can account for.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Some evidence might be interpreted that way. But the acid test has always been whether or not the Pacific is expanding, as measured by VLBI data. (Systematic errors in GPS data are still too large to draw *any* reliable conclusions from GPS or SLR.) And so far, the Pacific is not showing signs of expansion at the needed rate. If confirmed, that falsifies the theory. Efforts to keep theories alive after they fail a critical test do not meet with much favor in these parts.

Another beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It may well be that the slowing of earth’s rotation should not be palmed off onto the idea of transferring angular momentum off onto the moon.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The problem with that is that tidal forces exist and are operating much as expected. The Moon is gaining angular momentum at the expense of Earth's rotational spin. You might find something else that could slow Earth's spin, but then the connection to the Moon is lost. And what could possibly prevent tidal forces from doing their thing? -|Tom|-

From one of the links above:

"A ROOT MEAN SQUARED (RMS) VALUE OF UP-DOWN [INCREASE IN EARTH RADIUS] MOTIONS OF OVER 18 MM/YR" (ROBAUDO & HARRISON, 1993, PG. 53.) This value was considered by Robaudo and Harrison (1993) to be extremely high when compared to expected deglaciation rates, estimated at les than 10 mm/yr (Argus, 1996). "It is significant to note that Robaudo & Harrison (1993) 'expected that most VLBI stations will have up-dwon [radial] motions of only a few mm/yr' and RECOMMENTDED THAT THE VERTICAL MOTION BE 'RESTRICTED TO ZERO, BECAUSE THIS IS CLOSER TO THE TRUE SITUATION THAN AN AVERAGE MOTION OF 18 MM/YR" (ROBAUDO AND HARRSION, 1993, PG. 54)....' "As recommended by Robaudo & Harrison (1993) the EXCESSES IN VERTICAL MEASUREMENT ARE GLOBALLY ZEROED, RESULTING IN A STATIC EARTH RADIUS PREMISE BEING IMPOSED ON SPACE GEODETIC OBSERVATIONAL DATA."

The appearance of failure to demonstrate expansion is just that, an appearance imposed by delibertely skewing the data to fit an assumption.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cole</i>
<br />The appearance of failure to demonstrate expansion is just that, an appearance imposed by delibertely skewing the data to fit an assumption.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are being hoodwinked here. None of the measurement techniques are very sensitive to vertical motions. But VLBI in particular is extremely sensitive to horizontal motions. And the expansion of the Pacific ought to be at a faster rate than expansion of the Earth's radius because Earth's circumference must expand at 6.28 times any radius expansion.

So the requisite Pacific expansion must be in the data regardless of assumptions about radius vector, if it is really happening. But with the data in hand, which easily shows the expansion of the Atlantic, no Pacific expansion is yet in evidence.

One of the first things one learns in scientific method is to never get so attached to a theory that you can't drop it like a hot potato when it fails an experimental test. I wrote favorably about the Earth expansion model in my book <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i>, indicating that the Pacific expansion test was crucial. I have since concluded the theory is not valid on the basis of lack of obvious Pacific expansion. What will it take to convince you, one way or the other? -|Tom|-

I guess I would need to understand why the Atlantic expansion is not sufficient all on its own to grow the planet’s girth. As I understand the models I linked to (which all agree), the Atlantic is adding matter to the surface whereas the new matter being added from that vector is forced below in the Pacific. The subduction zones are reportedly not burying matter at the same rate as the addition of it from the Atlantic, leaving a net gain of matter at the surface.

I am suspicious of the practice of zeroing the numbers to fit expectations, as in the quote above. From what I’ve read, vertical measurements from GPS are not difficult, the data just wasn’t being gathered, until request were made that they do so. It wasn’t generally appreciated that there might be good reason to measure vertical changes. Iceland thought differently, not surprisingly.

I’m like you, I don’t want to get so married to an idea that I can’t see the truth when it is unveiled before my eyes. I admire your likeminded approach and the capacity to drop an idea later found wanting. I’m on a personal quest to SEE what’s real. I have nothing to gain by believing something that is in error. I’m teachable. If I present an error, it is because I have yet to be taught better. Which is why I brave ideas before those who would have the expertise to challenge and teach me. I thank you for your indulgence. Care to share the specifics of why you abandoned the theory? Why must the Pacific show expansion too? After all, a quick look at globe shows our surface material predominantly on one side of the planet. It would seem reasonable to conclude that the Atlantic is adding material faster than the Pacific basin rim can bury it. What is it that forbids this to be the cause of the observation?

On the angular momentum issue, of course you are correct. What I should have said is that perhaps not all of the angular momentum lost is due to the moon's escape. If we are growing the moon should get farther from our surface year to year, which agrees with the data (almost 2 centimeters farther per year I believe).

Is that not correct? Shouldn’t the moon increase its distance if we grow, and shouldn’t we slow our rotation rate due to both an increase in our size and the consequent increased distance of the moon?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cole</i>
<br />I guess I would need to understand why the Atlantic expansion is not sufficient all on its own to grow the planet’s girth.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The measurements are normally interpreted to mean that the Atlantic is expanding because the continents are drifting apart on a planet of fixed size.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As I understand the models I linked to (which all agree), the Atlantic is adding matter to the surface whereas the new matter being added from that vector is forced below in the Pacific. The subduction zones are reportedly not burying matter at the same rate as the addition of it from the Atlantic, leaving a net gain of matter at the surface.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Subduction theory may or may not be correct. But that is an unrelated question. Simple drift of North and South America, as if floating on a global sea, would account for the observtions without either expansion or subduction.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">From what I’ve read, vertical measurements from GPS are not difficult, the data just wasn’t being gathered, until request were made that they do so.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, this is wrong. Vertical measurements are harder for GPS than horizontal ones because the satellites used for triangulation are equally distributed (on average) horizontally, but all on one side vertically. That creates a small bias in vertical measurements.

All GPS position determinations necessarily determine all three coordinates. If someone wasn't reading out the elevations from his GPS receiver, that is no fault of the system. But the key point is that the systematic errors are too large to give reliable expansion numbers over the (relatively short) time GPS has been operational.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why must the Pacific show expansion too? After all, a quick look at globe shows our surface material predominantly on one side of the planet. It would seem reasonable to conclude that the Atlantic is adding material faster than the Pacific basin rim can bury it. What is it that forbids this to be the cause of the observation?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The Earth expansion hypothesis held that the entire Earth was expanding. Arguing that only small, special bits of it are expanding is a whole different theory. Observations have already shown that the continents are not expanding at anything like the Atlantic's rate. If the Atlantic is special, for whatever reason, you no longer have a global expansion theory. OTOH, if the continents are remaining fixed in size on an expanding globe, then all oceans must be getting bigger. In that simple model, the Pacific should be expanding at about three times the rate of the Atlantic because it is three times wider.

Moreover, everybody advocating Earth expansion used to think that the Pacific had to expand until the observations started to show it wasn't so. Now we have all these fancy ad hoc mechanisms to explain the unexpected glitch. And the focus has shifted to attacking subduction theory, which is a strawman argument because whether subduction is real or not does not give Earth expansion any more credibility.

Either the Pacific is expanding too, or the planet as a whole is not expanding. I see no other reasonable option, and am consciously overlooking some unreasonable "save the hypothesis at any cost" ones. -|Tom|-