Expanding Earth

JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Expanding Earth

http://www.expanding-earth.org/

We've seen some funny shit, but this is just wonderful. Really. I give it an A for effort. Every link is worth reading for the sake of humor. Holocaust denial is old hat, this is new hat: plate tectonic denial. 6000 year old Earth? Nonsense, 200 million! One of the references they use is "an open letter to Bill Clinton" and another is "a personal letter."


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Bob is more of an

cj wrote:

Bob is more of an expert than I am.  However, if the earth is expanding, wouldn't the horizon recede?  That is, our perception of the curvature of the earth would change, right?  It doesn't look like it to me.  If it is expanding at a rate that I can't see, then I'm not going to get excited about it.

The atmosphere would become thinner... or a lot heavier.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5815
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Kapkao wrote:smartypants

Kapkao wrote:

smartypants wrote:

 I'm confused. Where does all the extra matter come from? Where does all the extra water come from? This doesn't really make any sense.

Dark matter? You know, that thing isn't easily detected?

Except that dark matter is something different from ordinary matter, and would still be detected by its mass, ie gravitational field, and does not readily convert to ordinary matter, as far as we know. It doesn't seem to be present in concentrated form in association with ordinary matter.

For it to convert to ordinary matter and form elements beyond hydrogen, you still have the same energy release problems as with any other theory proposing the extra material of an EE coming from fundamental particle or energy. Those processes normally occur in a star and require the temperature of the interior of a star before they will occur.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


SAA
Posts: 16
Joined: 2010-03-06
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy,I'm writing on a

Thomathy,

I'm writing on a bus and with limited battery power, as I was last week.  It's true that I did not address any of your counterarguments.  I've been addressing counterarguments all along - though no doubt there are some that I've missed - and I alluded to some of the main ones again in that post.

I agree in principle that one might find external contradiction that would eliminate the need to address specific arguments in favor of the hypothesis that have been put forward by proponents, but I don't think that conflicts with present theories from other fields is decisive in that regard (and there are many generally accepted ideas in science that have wrongly been given status equivalent to fact, on the assumption that "some one must have examined them at some time," as Bridgman once commented in The Nature of of Physical Theory). I do think that your claim that  EE conflicts with all present knowledge and understanding in physics is a gross exaggeration.  In fact, many of the founders of PT and some physicists who have spoken on the matter have never accepted such a judgment about EE (I've cited or quoted some examples in previous posts).  And scientists who have done the actual work on the EE hypothesis in fact tend to take much of standard physics and geology for granted and use those standard principles and results in their work.  This is not to deny that there any conflicts (and these latter depend on which version of the hypothesis is adopted) - say, with the general applicability of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but for geologists to stand by the evidence they have found from their own field (as they did in the 19th century, in the conflict with the then-current assumption of the physicists over the source of stellar energy) seems to me to be perfectly reasonable.


SAA
Posts: 16
Joined: 2010-03-06
User is offlineOffline
Bob,I have previously quoted

Bob,

I have previously quoted the concluding comments from Peter J. Smith's editorial in Nature (1/26/77) in my posts #s 4 and 10.  This was the same issue that included the key study cited in the Wikipedia article you excerpted in your first response to me.

I'll have to postpone a response to your question about direct evidence.  I do think that the first one on my list, the problem of reconciling the evident divergence in the Arctic with the northerly migration of the continents according to paleomagnetic data is a pretty strong one, for example.  But as all things geologic, normally the individual items are subject to differing interpretations, so it's important to look at multiple lines of evidence.  In this regard, have you carefully read Dennis McCarthy's 2005 in the Journal of Biogeography (2005), available on his website (http://www.4threvolt.com/ )?  It would be nice if some of the people here who are so certain they are right would show some willingness to actually acquaint themselves with the scientific literature on the expansion hypothesis.

I agree with your statements regarding interpreting the isochron area data.  The argument for EE from that data actually involves several steps, which perhaps were not fully clear in my comment.  However, elaboration will have to wait.

Again, I side with Carey's empiricism, even absent a known mechanism.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5815
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
There was no issue on

There was no issue on 1/26/77, but there was one dated 1/27/77, but I see no article listed there authored by 'McElhinny et al'. I presume there was some typo there.

I did go back to your post #4, and while I would have preferred more context, reading what you have quoted makes that not all that important.

Even in what you quoted, it amounted to no more than an acknowledgement that "there must be lingering doubt in the minds of disinterested observers." Hardly an admission that there is good evidence for EE, just an honest statement of the proper scientific position that until some 'fringe' theory has been clearly disproved, we should allow the possibility, however slight, that it may be correct.

So is that representative of the current level of regard to EE in mainstream institutions, a 23-year-old weak concession to the faint possibility of EE??

There is abundant evidence of continental movement, both convergent and divergent and  in shear. It requires a strain to find a mechanism for mountain-building with purely expansionary effects, compared to continental collision. The dispute, such as there is, is about the mechanics. EE is a poor explanation, since it only really 'explains' simple separation effects, which does not remotely cover all observed movements., and presupposes some totally unobserved new processes to cause the expansion, so scientific scepticism toward it is fully justified. This does mean the proponents should give up, but they have much more work to do to begin to establish credibility than point to some claimed lack of adequate explanation for events in a very complex environment, most of the processes involved being far from directly observable, at great depths in the crust and mantle, or under continental plates. Even many of the events not under the earth are at great depths in the oceans.

I find the 'evidence' for EE all terrible unconvincing and somewhat circumstantial, and I don't think you have addressed my more substantive objections to your arguments. For example, the Earth's radius is being measured/monitored by NASA, and all GPS systems, as part of the whole process, to obtain the required accuracy, not just assumed.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
SAA wrote:Oops, sorry. My

SAA wrote:

Oops, sorry. My post was actually intended for Gene Simmons.

Thank goodness, because I had no idea what you were talking about...


SAA
Posts: 16
Joined: 2010-03-06
User is offlineOffline
Bob,Thanks for pointing out

Bob,

Thanks for pointing out the error in my citation.  Unfortunately I seem to have misplaced my copy of the McElhinny et al. paper and Smith editorial during my trip, but the Wikipedia article on Earth expansion cites the former as follows:

^ McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316–321, doi:10.1038/271316a0

Scalera's bibliography on EE (in Why Expanding Earth?, Scalera, G. and K-H Jacobs eds., Rome, INGV, 2003, pp. 423-465) agrees with this citation, and places the Smith editorial in the same issue, pp. 301-302.  The actual title of the editorial (Scalera's biblio left out the ?) is "The end of the expanding Earth hypothesis?"  BTW, I am quite sure the final two quoted sentences I gave in this connection were the final two sentences of the editorial itself - so they fairly express the note on which the article ended.

Yes, the statement that there is lingering doubt regarding the validity of disconfirming evidence says nothing at all about the existence/non-existence of confirming evidence.  But again I want to draw attention to the two relevant factual assertions of the editorial (which speak to the point of why there "must" (objectively speaking) be such doubt):

1. In fact, Carey had "already argued at great length" that the methodology utilized by McElhinney et al was invalid for the purpose of establishing paleoradius.

2. In fact (or at least to the best of Smith's knowledge), Carey's criticisms had never been "refuted explicitly" by McElhinney et al. nor anyone else (nor was it claimed that Carey's criticisms had been accounted for in any other way by McElhinney et al).

So the conclusion here is that the appeal to McElhinney et al.'s paleomagnetic results (still the citation de rigeur on the point, even though Carey's criticisms have still apparently gone unexamined and unrefuted) fails as a decisive refutation of EE.  And to put this in perspective, we have on this site, persons with scientific training, though with little-to-no direct familiarity with the scientific literature on EE, putting forth various objections, each one of which may be read in the context as saying, in effect, that "the objection I have here is so decisive that there is no rational necessity for me to actually examine arguments in favor of EE as put forth in scientific literature before proclaiming the hypothesis dead."  And the burden of my case here has been to argue that particular objections fail as decisive tests, and therefore the necessity to examine the evidence remains.  (So, for example, the lack-of-mechanism argument may stand as a fact about current science, and even as a definite weakness in EE hypotheses, but not as an evasion of the latter necessity.)

Now in regard to the case in favor of EE, in this discussion, I have myself done little more than indicate the existence and basic nature of some of what seem to me to be the more important arguments in favor of EE (and even then these tend to get lost in the course of other discussion).  I have not attempted to give them in detail.  So certainly no one should read them as attempts at convincing demonstrations.  Again the burden of my argument has been to show that there are arguments and evidence in need of careful examination.  But it seems I will need to say more about the individual items to make even this much clear.  Stay tuned.

Yes, space geodetic data is being used to calculate reference dimensions for the Earth, supposedly with improving accuracy.  However, it is not at all clear that the statistical treatment of the data does not incorporate static radius assumptions, which would invalidate the use of these results to negate the possibility of expansion.  And note that if reference-dimension studies are to be used to address this question, what is actually called for is a series of such studies over time, with methodological consistency.  Hence, the publications of new reference dimensions, in which the former reference dimension is revised downward, as a result of "improved" statistical treatment, does not equate to a finding that additional years of data, analyzed according to the same statistical methodologies, results in a smaller estimate for the Earth's radius. 

I do not doubt that the statistical treatment of the data is being carried out by competent statisticians (most of whom, however, do not even have an inkling that the question of whether the Earth is expanding is a question).  And no doubt they are improving the accuracy of estimates in some sense.  But in this connection recall the issue I pointed out earlier, regarding the use of chord lengths to establish the magnitude of horizontal crustal movements, which ultimately relate to angles subtended at the center of the Earth.  The sense of some of the resulting motions, whether indicating crustal compression, or crustal stability in the context of an expanding Earth, depends on assumption.  Reducing error margins by half, by the use of additional data or better statistical techniques (other than those specially designed to remove this indeterminacy), would not at all affect the indeterminate nature of the sense of the crustal motion. 

As for "the required accuracy," it isn't clear just how much is actually needed before cell phones stop working and satellites careen toward the Earth.  In our technological euphoria it's easy to suppose the answer is "a lot," but since man-made satellites preceded SLR studies, that isn't clear.  To my understanding, satellite orbits still have to be periodically corrected for poorly understood "drag factors" and the like, in any case.

Finally, I return to points already brought forward, as they are somewhat germane to the question of whether sophisticated statistical treatments might be infected by inappropriate assumptions.  Recall that a study of 15 years of VLBI data, designed to measure site motions, when it did analyze the data in such a way that vertical motions were allowed, did find an average increase in radius of over 18 mm/year, right in line with expansion estimates of Carey and Maxlow, based on other data.  And the response of the researchers was to assume this result to be in error, and then to "restrict the vertical motion to be zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr."  (Robaudo and Harrison, 1993, exact reference given previously, pp. 53-54)  Furthermore, James Maxlow adduces some evidence that site solutions published by the International Earth Rotiation and Reference Systems Service since the Robaudo and Harrison study may have been statistically adjusted for compatibility with a static-radius assumption.  So for example,

"In Figure 46 for instance, the chart suggests that there was either a severe earthquake near Canberra, located in eastern Australia, during 1993 to 1994, or there has been an arbitrary 71 millimetre adjustment to the vertical height of the observation site."

"Similarly, in Figure 47, the chart suggests that there were either two earthquakes at Roumelli in Europe during the period of observation, or there have been a number of regular downward adjustments to the vertical height.  These adjustments amount to a total of about 60 millimetres, irrespective of the direction shown by the motion vectors."

"There were no earthquakes of this magnitude at either of these sites during the period of observation." 

And Maxlow concludes:

"While it is only possible to show a selection of typical charts, the variance in the measurements shown would indeed suggest that the raw data is being routinely constrained to a pre-determined static radius Earth model.  Unfortunately, it is not possible or feasible to gain access to the enormous amount of raw observational data to verify this from an expanding Earth perspective."

"As previously noted though, precision within each individual space geodetic measurement technique is now routinely quoted to sub-centimetre accuracy.  Yet the large fluctuations in Earth radii, shown in each of these figures, confirms that space geodetic solutions are certainly not as well constrained in the vertical as they should be if the Earth radius was constant."  (Terra Non Firma Earth, 2005, pp. 133-34)

I myself cannot attest to the representativeness of Maxlow's few examples here.  But it seems in order to call on the IERS and space geodetic researchers to recognize that the question of whether the Earth's radius is changing is a question, not yet convincingly resolved, and to allow the data to be processed and analyzed in ways that the question of a change in Earth radius can be transparently addressed.  And that includes carefully ensuring that the raw data from individual site solutions have not been corrupted to reflect a global static-radius assumption.  Presently such assurance is lacking.

In regards to mountain building, your comment is a natural one, but again reflects a certain lack of familiarity with the critical literature.  There are two key assumptions here: (1) that purely expansionary effects provide no mechanism for compression, and (2) that a compressionary mechanism is needed to explain the origin of mountains.

In regard to (1), actually a very natural concomitant of expansion will also provide for local horizontal compression.  As expansion proceeds, surface lithosphere will adjust to lessening curvature.  A given broad block of crust undergoing such downward adjustment will experience some lateral compression near the center as well as lateral compression at the margins as the block presses outward against surrounding blocks undergoing similar recurvature.  Such recurving may also go some way toward providing for several kinds of extension and faulting, as well as isostatic compensation effects.  Nevertheless, though such a principle is rather easy to visualize in connection with expansion, as described abstractly here, its effects have an unsatisfying "cover-all" character.  I do not myself think that such lateral compression which the principle provides for is key to either mountain uplift or most rock folding.

Which brings us to (2).  We may note that this basic assumption was inherited by PT from the previously dominant geotectonic theory, that of the contracting Earth, in which mountain belts were regarded as being like folds on a shriveling apple.  Some of the earliest mountains studied, e.g. the Alps, have highly folded internal structures, and it came to be assumed that the process responsible for the folding must also be responsible for the mountainous topography.  So in the course of time, the term "orogeny," which referred originally to the origin of mountains, has come to refer technically to the folding of rocks, while continuing to carry its former meaning only by loose association.

But studies of mountains throughout the world, as summarized in Cliff Ollier and Colin Pain in their book The Origin of Mountains (Routledge, 2000) reveal the following facts, which any proper theory of mountain uplift will have to account for:

1. Internal folding is not a common denominator for mountainous terrains.  Many plains exist on folded structures and many mountains exist on horizontal structures.  Moreover, even where mountains are on folded internal structures, the timing of uplift is generally demonstrably much more recent than that of the folding.  This implies that the processes responsible for folding, if present, were not those that caused mountain uplift.

2. Many mountainous regions show evidence of remnant planation surfaces at high elevations, and in many cases other lines of evidence bear out the contention that "nearly all modern mountain regions are more-or-less dissected plateaus."

(Volcanic mountains are, of course, a separate case.)

These remnant planation surfaces can be dated by a variety of means.  But the key point to understand is that the existence of the planation surfaces implies a period of crustal stability, as existing structures are worn down to sea level.  Obviously mountains can be no older than the time at which their upper surfaces were at sea level.  And this line of investigation has led many researchers to conclude (at least with regard to the special regions they've studied) that most mountains of the world are surprisingly young, most uplift having occurred within the past 8 million years (the so-called Neotectonic Period, a concept first developed in Russian literature).  This does not necessarily imply that there were no prior episodes of uplift and planation, but if so such prior episodes are not to be casually conflated with the standard lists of "orogenies" going back in Earth history, which actually relate to major episodes of folding.

Which brings us to the question of the major cause of such folding.  The most commonly cited mechanism by researchers not in thrall to plate tectonic doctrine is that of "gravity sliding."  To put it simply, a section of crust becomes inclined by differential elevation or subsidence, and the folding occurs as a result of gravity pulling the material against an obstacle of some kind, over a long period of time.  This proposal has the merit of invoking a known force, which is known to act on every atom.  In contrast, it's not easy to see how horizontal compression resulting from "collision" (and ultimately from mantle convection), would supply the necessary energy to the process - and, of course, the same thing goes for lateral compression as a result of recurving on an expanding Earth!

Ironically, it turns out that at least some of the problems that mountain building seems to pose for the expanding Earth hypothesis, actually result from the weaknesses of PT in that regard, and not from inherent facts about mountains.  Assuming a need to invoke horizontal compression to explain mountains, PT invokes "collision".  It therefore provides an explanation of sorts for mountain building on active continental margins, but none for passive margins and intra-plate regions.  It then has to postulate past continental separations and collisions, which in turn are automatically invoked as "evidence" refuting EE, amid the shocked realization that some souls are continuing to take the old EE hypothesis seriously, contrary to what one has "so painstakingly learned as well-established" (to quote G.A. Wells' apt comment again). 

PT provides no explanation at all for why most mountains of the world are seemingly of so recent origin, nor, to refer to their classic case, why when the rate of subduction in front of India (as inferred from spreading rates behind India) would have been the highest, 50 to 100 million years ago, the Himalayan region "was a shallow sea receiving quiet sedimentation, with no sign whatever of folding, thrusting, igneous activity, and general turmoil, which should have accompanied rapid subduction there" (Carey).  Nor does it provide an explanation for the width-wise symmetry of the Andes (though a few bold PT theorists have invoked subduction of Brazil under the Andes as well!)  In order to preserve the "neatness" of its explanation of mountains, such as allows the alleged collision of India with Asia to be invoked "as confidently as if the event had happened during the 1969 Atlantic City G.S.A. meeting" (as P.D. Lowman might say), entire swaths of literature have to be suppressed: the "more than 2,000 geological and paleontological works ... published between 1883 and 1977" showing "the contiguity of India and Asia since middle Proterozoic time" (H.A. and A.A. Meyerhoff); similar studies relating Arabia and Iran; venerable Russian and German-language literature emphasizing "vertical tectonics" in mountain formation, etc.  The resulting "neatness" of the PT hypothesis thus resembles that provided a dictatorship by a firing squad.

Turning to the question of whether EE is strained to provide mechanisms for mountain building, in his paper "The origin of mountains on an expanding Earth, and other hypotheses" (in Scalera and Jacobs, eds., Why Expanding Earth?, Rome, INGV, 2003, pp. 129-160) Professor Ollier provides a series of nine diagramatic cross sections of major mountain types, relating each to an example that illustrates the type:  e.g.

"(a) Simple horst and graben [features generally associated with extension - SAA].  The mountains of central Spain are a good example.

"(b) Major tilt blocks.  These result from simple vertical uplift associated with extension, both consistent with Earth expansion.  The Sierra Nevada of California is a fine example.

"(c) Multiple fault blocks (e.g. Basin and Range Province).  These also result from vertical uplift associated with extension, and [are] consistent with Earth expansion.

"(d) Mountains associated with rift valleys (e.g. Ruwenzori).  The rift itself is clearly extensional, and mountains on the flanks, whether tilt blocks or broad shoulder-uplift, indicate vertical uplift, both consistent with Earth expansion...

"(e) Uplift of a horst in an extensional environment, followed by gravity spreading (mushroom tectonics, e.g. Rocky Mountains)....

"(f) Uplift of a horst followed by gravity spreading and formation of a central graben (e.g. Ecquadorian Andes)....

"(g) Uplift of a broad arch or dome (geotumour) that sheds nappes by gravity sliding in all directions as it rises.  This may happen several times, and typically the youngest nappes have the oldest rocks and travel the farthest.  This may be followed by vertical uplift of the nappe region, so the zone of uplift migrates, as in the inudation theory.  Sometimes the centre of spreading has apparently subsided (e.g. Tyrrhenian Sea, Hungarian Plain).  Most of the story is consistent with Earth expansion.  Certainly the Tyrrhenian Sea [west of Italy] appears to be a spreading site, consistent with the expanding Earth hypothesis.

"(h) Mountains on passive continental margins.... Passive continental margins are regarded in most mobilist hypotheses to be sites where supercontinents broke up, so are accepted as extensional (fixist theories such as surge tectonics would not agree).  These mountains are in areas where even plate tectonics denies subduction, but the morphotectonic arrangement is consistent with the expanding Earth.

"(i) Metamorphic core complexes and gneiss-mantled domes.  These indicate vertical uplift in extensional areas, both features consistent with the expanding Earth."

Ollier notes that EE does not clearly explain some details of observed mountains, such as "why there would be extra uplift in some isolated mountains such as the Urals or the ranges of Central Spain, or why some passive continental margins have mountains but others have none at all."  However, his concluding paragraph reads as follows:

"Ideas about mountain building have been subject to fads throughout the history of Earth science.  The shrinking Earth, geosynclines, and latterly plate tectonics have all provided 'answers', usually flawed by the scientific fallacy of a single cause, and biased by selective evidence and the rule of dogma.  We are still a long way from understanding all about the origin of mountains.  Most theories of mountain formation on a shrinking or steady-size Earth have problems accounting for the structures, age and geomorphic histories of actual mountains.  The expanding Earth hypothesis is consistent with known facts about mountains, though the details have still to be worked out.  The most important conclusion from the evidence marshaled above is that crustal compression is not required to form mountains.  This does not prove that the Earth is expanding, but it removes what has long been seen as a problem for the hypothesis of Earth expansion even amongst its supporters."

Again, the information given above should not convince anyone that the Earth is expanding.  I do hope it points to the existence of scholarship that needs to be carefully considered, and may provide a brake on ill-considered proclamations that PT explains observed evidence more "neatly" than alternatives - such proclamations usually coming from persons who are poorly informed about the range of evidence that has been brought to bear on these alternatives. 

 

See also:

Agence French Presse, "The Earth is smaller than we thought" (July 6, 2007): http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1428

Amazon.com, Ollier and Pain, The Origin of Mountains, customer reviews, pro and con, by geologists Hetu Sheth and Dario Ventra: http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Mountains-Cliff-Ollier/dp/0415198895/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269602841&sr=8-1

"Comments and Replies," New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 41, December 2006, pp. 54-57, in which Professor Ollier replies, inter alia, to Professor Ismail Bhat on a point of criticism regarding isostacy along river valleys, as in the Himalayas, a point also raised by both Sheth and Ventra in reviews of The Origin of Mountains (at ncgt.org).

Lester C. King, "Planation remnants upon high lands", Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie, 20, 1976, pp. 133-148.

Howard A. Meyerhoff and A.A. Meyerhoff, "Spreading history of the eastern Indian Ocean and India's northward flight from Antarctica and Australia, Discussion and reply discussion," Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 89, pp. 637-640, April 1978

Cliff Ollier and Colin Pain, "The Neotectonic Period," New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 20, September 2001, pp. 14-16 (at ncgt.org)

Cliff Ollier, Leo W.S. de Graaff, Francisco Gutierrez, Sergio Ginesu, and Radoslaw Dobrowolski, "Neotectonic mountain uplift: Some further instances," New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 39, 2006, pp. 12-22 (at ncgt.org).

Colin Pain, "Fold belts and mountains: collision of plates or collision of ideas," (paper presented at the 2008 EGU meeting): http://www.cosis.net/members/meetings/special_interest/accepted_contributions.php?sp_id=15&s_id=5602&PHPSESSID=c2d1acd55b7b47c766c...

"World Geodetic System", Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5815
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
SAA, I appreciate the effort

SAA, I appreciate the effort you have put into that response, and I will endeavour to find time to study it adequately and respond in turn.

I would just like you to understand if I don't come back to it for a day or two.

I find composing detailed responses to posts which catch my attention both absorbing and time-consuming, so I am forcing myself to take a break and catch up on some work I really must do.

Especially considering that it looks like an adequate response will not be a few dismissive one-liners...

So, watch this space -

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


SAA
Posts: 16
Joined: 2010-03-06
User is offlineOffline
Thanks, OK.

Thanks, OK.


Florian (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Steve, thank you for this

 Steve, thank you for this wonderful introduction to global growth tectonics.

For those who read that thread and are curious about some growth tectonics concepts, I just wanted to add that Wadati-Benioff zone, so called subduction zones are actually the front of surface mantle flow. The scotia sea eastward flow or the anatolia-aegan south-westward flow are good illustrations of these concepts. I put 2 figures showing these flows. The tibet-indonesia flow is another major flow.