>The argument is not complicated. One can use Phanerozoic cratonic
>sedimentary sequences (McElhinny 1978 as Mark has pointed out) to
>triangulatethree points in continents with time; the result is
>unequivocal, Earth has not expanded in the past 580 million years.
>Sam Carey was a great guy, raconteur, and a terrific drinking
>companion whose company I enjoyed but he simply would not absorb
>counter-arguments. In the 90's, at the Ballarat meeting of the Geol.
>Soc. Australia, Sam gave his three hour lecture, in Craig's Hotel,
>on the expanding Earth, a phenomenal and most enjoyable
>lecture/sermon that was almost devoid of a rational appraisal of the
>data but replete with demonstrably-incorrect assertions. Sam was a
>very fine geologist but, like all of us, got a "bee in his bonnet".
>Forget the expanding or contracting Earth, and wild and absurd
>concepts about a living Earth and concentrate on doing science.
>Surely, the time has come to stop this absurd corresondence. Some
>our correspondents really have to learmn some basic science and some
>serious geology before they advance their ideas, I am tired of
>hitting my delete button.
Best wishes,
John Dewey
> Tim, I would not give up so easily. The expanding earth issue has been
>debated for a long time, and it is useful to keep in mind what that idea
>requires. I remember hearing a lecture by Sam Carey at University of
>Washington in about 1985. I asked him the same question that you asked...
>Given conversation of mass, how can the earth expand. His reply was that
>the universal gravitational constant G has changed with time. The variance
>or invariance of G has not been resolved in any definitive way, but
>paleomagnetics has provided a definitive test. McElhinny et al 1978 Nature
>showed that the earth's radius has not changed significantly ("the
>palaeoradius of the Earth for the past 400 Myr from palaeomagnetic data
>limit possible expansion to less than 0.8%"). The full article is
>available at:
>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v271/n5643/abs/271316a0.html.
>The debate about "big g" is a bit more involved.... The following paper
>provides some insights about how the expanding earth issue related to
>broader physical problems...
>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v290/n5809/abs/290739a0.html
>
>I think it important for all of us to keep in mind the many steps that
>have been needed to bring out to the current state of conventional
>wisdom...
>Best,
>Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Wynn <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:07:08 -0400
>Subject: Re: Discussions
>
>>Apologies for any offence caused by my previous post, I misjudged the
>>appropriateness.
>>
>>
>>
>>Whilst the earth as a tree like organism appears ridiculous to me, the
>>expanding earth theory seems to have more adherents. I don't believe that
>>either but surely the bulk density of the earth must decrease if it is
>>expanding unless some regular accretionary process is adding the relevant
>>mass.
>>
>>
>>
>>No more from me on these topics.
>>
>>
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>Tim Wynn
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list on behalf of Ernest
>>Rutter
>>Sent: Thu 12/05/2011 10:19
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Discussions
>>
>>
>>
>>This is getting ridiculous. Some jokes are not even funny.
>>
>>Ernie Rutter
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Suresh Bansal
>>Sent: 12 May 2011 07:36
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Discussions
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Tim Wynn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>Although I agree with John Dewey and others, it is of interest to see how
>>theories and hypotheses are regarded (and disregarded) by non-scientists.
>>I am also curious on two points:
>>
>>1. Presumably an expanding Earth is getting less dense with an increase
> >in volume. If it has expanded by 40%, as I read on some unverified site
>>somewhere, an expandable earth model should be testable by looking at the
>>changes in average density of mantle material preserved in rocks of
>>different ages.
>>
>> earth is not getting less dense while expanding because it is growing
>>also like a tree. it has been grown from one meteoroid (seed containg
>>amino acid and biological chemistry). one planet is a result of one
>>meteoroid only. so not 40% only.
>>
>>
>> 2. If the Earth is a living organism is it the case that the moon is
>>it's progeny? I would wager that the reproduction was asexual unless Mars
>>had something to do with it.
>>
>> Moon is earth's progeny not sure. it may be possible that moon also has
>>been germinated from meteoroid derived by earth.
>>
>>
>> Sorry for clogging more inboxes.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
--
Please note that my email address has changed to: [log in to unmask]
Prof. John F. Dewey FRS, M.R.I.A., FAA, Mem. Acad. Eur., Mem.
US Nat. Acad. Sci., Distinguished Emeritus Professor University of
California, Emeritus Professor and Supernumerary Fellow, University
College Oxford.
Sherwood Lodge,
93 Bagley Wood Road,
Kennington,
Oxford OX1 5NA,
England, UK
University College,
High Street,
Oxford OX1 4BH
Telephone Nos:
011 44 (0)1865 735525 (home Oxford)
011 44 (0)1865 276792 (University College Oxford)
|