Talk:Expanding Earth/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

not a theory?

what is it then? 212.200.243.116 (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't know what theories are. NJGW (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyhow, see ... THEORY ! 212.200.243.116 (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

[1] NJGW (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a theory because it doesn't use the scientific method. At all. 98.168.192.162 (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Expanding Earth and Plate Tectonics

{{RFCsci}}

A debate over the inclusion of Expanding Earth hypotheses in several articles: this article, Talk:Subduction, Talk:Mantle (geology), and Talk:Ganymede (moon)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Statement by Awickert: I initiated this request for comment because of what seems like a general inability for myself and several other editors to communicate with Sophergeo. If others would like to review the various discussions and add comments, it would be appreciated. My main comments during the discussion were, in bullet point form:

• Mainstream work on the Expanding Earth hypothesis that was in reputable journals seems to be mostly confined to the era before Plate tectonics was established as the main viable theory. The Expanding Earth Hypothesis in that era is given due weight in the Plate tectonics article.
• Based on WP:WEIGHT, the relative prominence of modern-day plate tectonics vs. the Expanding Earth Hypothesis would afford the Expanding Earth Hypothesis little to no weight in each article.
• A large number of the citations given were from sources that are known for fringe science and sources that were not peer-reviewed. Some of the references were irrelevant to the debate. No recent peer-reviewed sources in major geology or geophysics journals are given, which seems to show that it has become a fringe theory. (See Wikipedia:Reliable source examples.)
• No information has been given, in spite of requests, on how the Expanding Earth Hypothesis satisfies physical constraints and relates to specific evidence about the Earth. I have yet to see any viable mechanism in recent articles or books about it. Therefore, It seems to fall under WP:PSCI "Obvious Pseudoscience". At best, because it has some following, it may fall under WP:PSCI "Generally considered pseudoscience". These specific objections are:
  • There is no plausible mechanism for an Expanding Earth that I have seen.
  • The Expanding Earth hypothesis statement that the mantle is cold is not convecting, when evidence from seismic tomography and geochemistry point to plate tectonics
  • How is mass conserved in an expanding Earth?
  • The fact that the Expanding Earth Hypothesis generally goes back only to Pangaea when evidence for previous supercontinents (such as Gondwana and Rodinia) and subduction around the margins of Pangaea exist.
• The initial additions to Subduction were a series of quotes, many of which were from non-notable individuals. These aren't useful in a science article except to illustrate a POV, and I believe that those of the non-notable individuals don't belong in an encyclopedia.

Awickert (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mikenorton: My part in this discussion has mainly been on the Talk:Mantle (geology) and Talk:Subduction pages. The initial additions to Mantle (geology) consisted of an attempt to present the temperature of the mantle as a matter of current controversy saying that "modern observations suggest that the mantle is cold" using a number of references that use the phrase 'cold mantle' with a statement that "This has very serious implications for those who believe the mantle is convecting hot fluid". After these edits were reverted by a number of other editors Sophergeo added the 'neutrality disputed' flag and the discussion began at the article talk page. My main role in these discussions has been:

• Attempting to get Sophergeo to accept that there is more to NPOV than the first few sentences, specifically the section on 'Undue weight'.
• Trying to find out exactly what Sophergeo means by 'cold' when referring to references he lists that include the phrase 'cold mantle'. He seems unwilling to accept that these references are talking about 'colder than normal' mantle in a similar way to the 'hotter than normal' mantle found at hotspots. The current article text refers to a 400°C temperature range for the uppermost mantle clearly implying that there are colder and hotter areas. The article would probably be improved by expanding the Temperature section to include a description of these variations and their likely origins but that was not the purpose of the original edits.

Mikenorton (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Woodwalker: Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, or at least something that uses the form of an encyclopaedia. My main guideline when deciding to include a certain vision/hypothesis is WP:NOR. It is not our task to determine if a hypothesis is scientifically valid, we only need to follow what the authorities in the subject say. When first confronted with users in favour of having a reference to expanding Earth in articles, I started by looking what respectable secondary sources say about it: I took a look in my handbooks on Earth sciences in general, tectonics, geophysics and geochemistry. I have looked in six such books so far. Not one contains a reference to expanding Earth. Most do contain a lot of information on plate tectonics and subduction though, some in the form of an entire chapter or several. If necessary I can give refs or look in more such books in the local library here.

The hypothesis might still be scientifically valid or accepted as a marginal alternative, even when the handbooks don't mention it. My part in this conflict was to ask Sophergeo for reliable references for expanding Earth to prove this (I wasn't the first to do so btw) and to remove the POV-template. Sophergeo has so far not given reliable references, and I can't find any myself either. Until such refs are found, it is clear that expanding Earth is not a scientifically valid hypothesis. There is no scientific controversy about the subject, but the POV-template suggests there is. That makes the template itself POV. Woodwalker (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by NJGW: Articles like this have been a staging ground for various philosophers' OR for as long as there was an edit button on Wikipedia. When they occasionally return to find it changed to a NPOV form, they freak out that their information is being "suppressed". Sometimes they even pretend to be new users as their old guises have long ago worn out their welcome. This new user may fit into that category, especially given that they delved right into the fray in several different articles, and their first edit cited policy rather than added information[2].

There are also too many editors with such a strong a COI (ie, probably wrote some of the refs being "suppressed"). In these cases, not self-identifying themselves (which would actually help the collaborative effort) becomes a deceitful and disruptive position. There is nothing that has not been rehashed here and the other articles enough times already. Isn't there an Arbcom ruling that allows quick blocks on disruptive editors in the fringe articles? NJGW (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose includion - this appears to be a pretty clear cut caseof undue weight. Artw (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment/Question Exactly who is propounding this theory today besides Wikipedia? This information should be in the very first paragraph so I don't have to wade through anything. I see multiple references to Naomi Oreskes, an important historian of science, but no mention of her in the article. Has she debunked this theory? If she bothered, someone is out there with their banner supporting this theory today. Who? And, please, link to whomever is proposing this be added to geology articles. I will look on the talk pages, but just linking in a RfC is useful. --KP Botany (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Reply to points First of all, this, "No information has been given, in spite of requests, on how the Expanding Earth Hypothesis satisfies physical constraints and relates to specific evidence about the Earth," doesn't matter in the least bit. All that matters are references and if they satisfy anything at all. Much of the article on the expanding earth is of this level, modern day attempts to discredit it, not much of which is directly sourced. I think this article gives itself severe undue weight.
• If there are no modern references supporting the theory post plate tectonics then it's not in any of these articles except its due weight, if any, in the historical portion of plate tectonics about pre-plate tectonics theories. Quotes are just an end run around BS, and should be deleted, explained to the user, the user warned, and warned and warned, then blocked for disruptive editing. --KP Botany (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion without modern reference establishing its historical weight. So, I read the statements, looked at the histories. It's time to start warning the editor and asking for a block. NPOV does not mean including a viewpoint weighed in the scientific community 50 years ago and now inserted without sources by a single Wikipedia editor--the editor can provide specific sources to specific statements or not insert them. He/she could simply provide a single, modern, reputable reference with a direct quote from it that shows the theory's weight and who supports it today, if anybody, and modern interpretations of the theory, if any. This hasn't been done, in spite of numerous requests and the editor is getting less clear rather than more.

• This article needs trimmed, also, as it gives too much weight to the theory itself by its length, without any supporting evidence that the theory was once highly regarded by the scientific community, and there's original research in disclaiming the theory. Stick with what others have said in published reliable references, don't write personal essays researching the various ways modern science doesn't support this theory: it make the article big beyond its actual presence in the scientific community (which I don't know, because there seems to be nothing about this) and opens the door to quackery. There's a great history of science book I have about the theory of plate tectonics, and it probably has something about this theory, and its regard in the scientific community. This information should be found and used in this article, rather than including unsourced sentences like these:

"Expanding Earth ideas are also discredited since they rely on the proposal that the process of subduction and other destructive plate boundaries are non-existent, when in reality subduction is observed at oceanic trenches[5] and also known to have occurred in the past from geological evidence."

Or maybe someone can provide me with quotes from Fowler, Duff or Stanley that show them discussion this theory if that little 5 is about this. I think its about subduction observed at earth trenches and a Wikipedia editor's modern day synthesis to reject this older pre-plate tectonics theory.

Disclaimer: I'm not neutral. I'm too young to have studied the pre-plate tectonics theories about continental drift. --KP Botany (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Mention for historical value only: I recently completed a degree in geology, so can hopefully speak with reasonable authority on this subject. I would be very surprised if anyone could produce a (peer reviewed) paper from the past few decades that entertains this theory. Current evidence completely discredits the concept of an expanding Earth; the hypothesis is historically interesting, but only in the sense of a concept which was eventually discarded when mechanisms were discovered that supported the correct theory (continental drift). If Wikipedia were to suggest that there were any current evidence to believe that the Earth had significantly expanded, it would be failing in its role as a factual source. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Historically important: I think this was considered before evidence accumulated which contradicted this and favored plate tectonics. We should be able to find this article when looking for the history of relevant geologic topics (plate tectonics, continental drift) but no need to mention it in articles on everything related to geology (mantle, volcano, rock, dust). -- SEWilco (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• The following people have conspired to edit war for the sake of inserting their POV thus violating NPOV and suppressing information. See their conspiracy to edit war and, this is their words not mine "call to arms" here i.e. where they call for an edit war.Wikkidd (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC) [moved to appropriate section by Awickert (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC) "following" should now read "above".]

Not sure how important this is, but I was honestly unaware of the blog entry, so the sweeping statement isn't 100% correct. Awickert (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't read idiotry like that. No time for it. Woodwalker (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If a blog is used as a source it can simply be removed, whichever side it is arguing on, and whatever it is attached to can be removed, also. Pop the line on the talk page if you think its removal will be controversial. Blogs are not considered reliable sources. Some use them in articles if they're academic blogs, but, no, peer-reviewed references are required, not blogs. --KP Botany (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that what he was saying is actually that all of the non-fringers got together in a in a bar (read:blog) and grabbed their pitchforks (read:keyboards) in a mob attempt to attack fringe views. Awickert (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer: That is my blog post. I was not calling for a crushing of fringe views, I was calling for geologists to tidy up a page that had obvious problems. Calling it a "call to arms" was probably a bit strong, but I never intended it to incite an edit war. Rather than incite people to edit, it has brought about a discussion of whether or not Wikipedia should be linked to at all, with such unsubstantiated fringe views having such prominence. Claiming that "The following people have conspired to edit war for the sake of inserting their POV thus violating NPOV" is bunk, as I was primarily complaining about the lack of NPOV. Yorrike (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment a theory of historical interest only can have its own article (and it does), and does not need including in articles on topics based on current science. Exception might be if such articles have History sections and the theory can be shown to be relevant enough to that history for a passing mention. Rd232 ^talk 04:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's irrelevant since no attempt to do that is being made. What's going on here is an organized attempt to violate NPOV through information suppression as has already been noted.OBlackthorn (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter that that is not being attempted, the issue can be discussed, if deemed relevant, on an article talk page. Other issues should be discussed, also, like the exact weight of this theory pre-plate tectonics. This article is far too long and weighted down with reams of overburden devoted to debunking a 50 year old theory. Does anyone care about this theory today? If so, who? Let's include peer-reviewed reliable references with that information and pull all the original debunking research from this article. This topic is either part of the current field of geology or its not. It had a sizable following at one time or not. Either way: reliable references.

Is this really an organized attempt to violated NPOV? If there is only one editor attempting to put this stuff in geology articles, that editor should just be reverted, warned, and blocked as necessary. That's simply disruptive editing. I get tired of RfCs, AN/Is, and all the work for a single editor pushing his very own viewpoint. This should not be done for one problem editor unless it is necessary for a community ban, and a community ban should be discussed in a more public venue. --KP Botany (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion This looks like an attempt to push an obsolete theory. If there are articles where it is clearly historically relevant it might be given a brief mention. dougweller (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. It's one thing for a historically important, but falsified, theory to have it's own article (and this is it); it's quite another for it to proliferate through articles that describe current knowledge in a subject. The latter is confusing to non-expert readers and, simply, a violation of undue weight. While, yes, there are still a few scientists out there who support the expanding earth theory (Giancarlo Scalera of Italy is one who appears in Web of Knowledge trawls), they are swamped by the vast numbers of scientists whose work builds on the plate tectonic consensus. Furthermore, through the use of wikilawyering and out of date scientific sources, there's a great dollop of disingenuity in the manner which the expanding earth theory is being pushed here. --PLUMBAGO 10:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment. In passing, while trawling for a particular expanding earth paper ("Biogeography and Scientific Revolutions" by McCarthy, 2005), I turned up a number of biological articles (including rafting event, pterosaur and Tiostrea chilensis) that have also been edited to promote the expanding earth theory. It's not just geological articles that are getting revised. --PLUMBAGO 12:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Sophergeo and Wikkidd have just been blocked indefinitely. Sophergeo has only been editing when Wikkidd was blocked and is almost certainly the same editor (Wikkidd was blocked again earlier today and Sophergeo started editing again. dougweller (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Include only where it's historically relevant Most good-quality sources are from the 1960s and 1970s before this theory was superceded by tectonic plates theory. Mention in the articles about geological theories as an old theory. Don't put it in every article about mantles, since those whould only use the currently accepted theories like subduction. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• RfC closed as suggested by dougweller below. Absent socking, I see only minor editorial debate over treatment of the historical theory, which may be handled by normal editing mechanisms. If there is need to deal with additional issues, any editor should feel free to reopen this discussion or start a new section below. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fact checking this article

I would like the quote that says:

"Expanding Earth ideas are also discredited since they rely on the proposal that the process of subduction and other destructive plate boundaries are non-existent, when in reality subduction is observed at oceanic trenches[5] and also known to have occurred in the past from geological evidence."

to be sourced, as I am curious where expanding earth theorists relied upon the proposal that subduction was non-existent. I accidently marked my addition as "minor," sorry about that. --KP Botany (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually think the sentence is wrong. Some followers of Carey (perhaps he himself) admitted subduction takes place in some cases. I saw an argument somewhere that the total length of destructive margins is shorter than the total length of creative plate margins. The argument seems to suggest the user believes some subduction takes place. The argument is nonsense btw, since we don't live on a 2D-planet. Woodwalker (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing it would thoroughly deal with the issue of it being right or wrong. I'll give it a bit more time, then pull it. Feel free to jump the gun. --KP Botany (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewritten with a couple sources I searched:

Expanding Earth ideas are favored by a small minority of geologists[5] and is disreputed among English-speaking geologists,[6]who are completely convinced of the existance of the process of subduction and other destructive plate boundaries,[6] as observed at oceanic trenches[7] and also convinced by the fosil evidence and the geological evidence of Earth's magnetic pole reversals.[6]

--Enric Naval (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This won't do. 1) There is no difference between English-speaking and other geologists on this matter. 2) The small minority should not be mentioned, because numbers aren't important in science, only publications are. "Completely convinced" is in the same way unnecessary (and I feel it isn't a very encyclopaedic style of writing). 3) Paleomagnetism and stratigraphy are mentioned, but why remains a mystery to the reader. Yes, there are arguments from both disciplines against EE, as from almost all disciplines within the Earth sciences (others would be sedimentology, basin geology, tectonics, petrology, structural geology, paleontology, seismology, rheology, mantle dynamics, etc etc etc). Mentioning just these two disciplines without explanation gives the impression Wikipedia doesn't fully understand the subject. 4) The references I put in there are handbooks for Earth sciences: reliable secondary sources. Why add a reference to the outdated and biased book by Carey, the main scientific advocate of EE? This makes the text unbalanced.

I strongly suggest we make it short by just mentioning two things:

1. EE is discredited and has only historic value for geologists.
2. This is because subduction has been observed.

We needn't say more. Woodwalker (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Although some of the EE papers I looked at thanks to Wikkidd's sock's insistence said that there was no subduction, others had claims that the Earth was expanding because there was more distance of seafloor spreading than of subduction zones, so to shorten on that avenue, we'll probably want a RS that shows more rapid subduction than seafloor spreading. Awickert (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That would still not be enough, since plate (and slab) velocities are 2D flows. The thickness of subducted or created lithosphere also counts. What is needed to disprove EE in this way is a rate balance between volumes of lithosphere created at the ridges and volumes of material subducting. I have no idea if such quantitative studies were ever done. Woodwalker (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"subduction zones and mid oceanic ridges arein volumetric balance so that there is no need for an expanding earth theory" (see also the whole paragraph in the source) Geodynamics of the lithosphere, Kurt Stüwe, 2007, Springer

Also a very detailed explanation from Frederick Vine, explaining how everything dismissing the theory was calculated: Global tectonics, P. Kearey, F. J. Vine, 1996, Wiley-Blackwell.

Please add them to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

sources for acceptance of theory

• Conceptions of cosmos, Helge Kragh, 2007, Oxford University Press
• Scientific controversies, Hugo Tristram Engelhardt, Arthur L. Caplan, 1987, Cambridge University Press,
• Continental margins, 1979, National Research Council (U.S.)
• Geodynamics of the lithosphere, Kurt Stüwe, 2007, Springer (same one as above)

Are these sources acceptable for current lack of acceptance, origin, and obsolescence as other theories appeared? Comment only on whether the sources are good or bad, please. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Stüwe is fine, he's a scientist; 1979 is a bit old, due to some lingering issues with certain types of margins, but solely for debunking a specific aspect of this, might work; a book on scientif iccontroversies that includes Caplan as an author is fine; and Kragh is a reputable author on the history of science. So, acceptable, three, I would hesitate without specifics on the 1979, particlulary continental margins details of historical theories. --KP Botany (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

They are fine. I would keep the 1979 publication out because it won't reflect current understanding about the subject of continental margins. Unless it was of historic importance for dismissing EE. Woodwalker (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the line in the text Modern scientific evidence does not support this idea is an opinion rather than a fact. Scientific proponents of EET would strongly disagree with this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.86.120 (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we close the RFC? 3 contributors banned as puppetmaster and sockuppets

OBlackthorn (talk · contribs) has just been discovered to be (and blocked) another sockuppet of Wikkidd, as is Sophergeo. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikkidd dougweller (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

needs more heezen

Article does not mention Bruce C. Heezen, who discovered the mid oceanic ridge rift system and initially supported this theory. That's a huge omission from the historic part, as Heezen was one of the two leading supporters, together with Carey. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also the mid-oceanic rifting was what gave this theory some credibility for a while, until those geochronologists and paelomagnetologists starting running amok and putting 10 and 10 and 10 and 10 together. This is the problem with having an article overwhelmed and overfilled with unsupported personal essay like this article is, even when its the anti-pseudoscience essay. The facts are pretty straight-forward, just get them in there; but, like many articles on fringe theories on Wikipedia its hard to stick to the truch. Yes, this theory apparently had something going for it at one time. --KP Botany (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A year ago or so, this article was not an essay but a nice overview. Since then, a lot of passers-by added their yes and no with references. Result: it is now impossible for a reader to get the big lines, that were originally present. It is a common problem of Wikipedia. It is caused by a combination of what I call the Hermione effect and giving too much credit to anything with a reference. Woodwalker (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No content on impact of theory on biological evolution

Evolutionary biologists believe that life evolved in the oceans. How does the Expanding Earth theory proponents account for the fact that under their theory there would have been no oceans for life to have evolved in until some tens of million years ago? Ocean animals are thought to have evolved around 580 million years ago, land plants 476 million years ago, land invertebrates 415-450 million years ago and land vertebrates 360 million years ago. See Evolutionary history of life. Fences and windows (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible contemporary additions

• Terra Non Firma Earth by James Maxlow - linked page includes full index listing of provided sections of argues
• Earth's girth grows - NASA reports about strange short term mass shiftings from polar regions to equatorial regions. (Science, 2002)

The second one is not absolutely bound to the article but it might be of general interest for any geophysics whilst it has some todays sudden evidence on the earth changing its shape in an oscillating manner as claimed by some quote in the article. Thus it makes an old theory in between many other theories become a new and hardened fact. Despite all this i think the article is not good enough at present for bringing the essence of opinions to the reader in a sufficiently structured form. Especially it takes to much words for detailing on views in contrast to categorizing them into bins that could be explained more independently from each others. I see at least the two trends of a "condensed small earth" and a "similar dense but smaller earth" as this results in quite important differences for the result. One very major aspect that is not mentioned is the thesis that earths rotation speed was assumed to be much higher in dinosaur and other ages than in present. Some protagonists are following exactly this aspect for their argue - for NPOV reasons this should not be suppressed but integrated in an adequate form. Finally i feel that the article is designed too much upon the conflicts that some protagonists are having with friends of subduction tectonics (and vice versa) whilst in fact there are many areas where there is much indication that both theories often wont exclude each other until some extend unless extreme, probably unneccessary exclusive-or requests will be expressed. Thus proof for subduction (and there is a lot of it in the article) will in no case be finally able to dis-proof expanding earth theory. Thats what i feel might be wrong here. Even those oscillation thesis (or fact) wont require any of the other two things to vanish. All three are able to have a nice co-existance with each other. No reason for false dramatics by WP (which could be a sort of POV) unless documenting some true dispute between other people. Just be aware that the early geologists took all their freedom and described those concepts side to side, maybe even from the very same pen. -Alexander.stohr (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead and edit. I don't have time or interest, but it's been suggested to shorten it considerably by simply stating what the theory is, its evolution, and how it went by the wayside due to plate tectonics, instead of including a million refutations that may indeed look like POV-pushing. However, try not to swing it out too far to the other side: physical and geological evidence points to an expanding Earth being unambiguously wrong, and there is no recent mainstream geological or geophysical peer-reviewed scientific literature that says otherwise. But shortening the article would be very helpful - thanks. Awickert (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

These overly detailed refutations happen a lot in WP because of fringe pushers crying day and night about a lack of neutrality or conspiracy theories or what-not (see wp:FLAT). The fastest way I've found to quiet these pushers has been to lay it all out, leaving no room to maneuver around the verifiable facts (maybe this is precisely because the pushers themselves were unaware of all the facts and not ready to go search them out on their own). I think it doesn't hurt to leave the information here (a la wp:NOTPAPER), though perhaps a change in tone is warranted. NJGW (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, just read the article - first time in a while. It looks pretty good to me, if anything, I observe it to be weak on the refutations, including only a few of them. Awickert (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly earth expansion theory is the only viable proposition on the relevant topic, though the followers of expansion theory as well as others, in general, have neglected a very vital point, namely, adequate fluid characteristic of the mantle, without which no extensive mobilistc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.151.82 (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional information

I would like to submit for consideration the following information which I do not find in the article:

From Samuel Carey's book "Expanding Earth" (1976): -Carey originally supported Wegener at a time when his continental drift theory was ridiculed; he only later pursued Expanding Earth just as Plate Tectonics became more widely accepted. -Paleogeologic evidence of fossils from the north Pacific suggest that it was actually shallow at a time when Plate Tectonic models claim it was much deeper. -The circumference of the Pacific, which is around 170 degrees, has increased in size due to evidence of spreading center activity along its perimeter.

From Carey's last book "Earth Universe Cosmos" (1998):

-The northward movement of the continents from spreading centers which surround Antarctica would suggest subduction is ocuring in the Arctic, where in fact there are more spreading centers. -There are mathematically twice as many spreading centers on the Earth as there are subduction zones, and evidence of any variance in velocity of subducting slabs to compensate for the ratio has yet to be found. -NASA Geodesy discovered a discrepancy in its data which amounted to an approximately 2cm/yr growth in the earth's radius, which was then discarded on grounds that it was anomalous.

From "Critical Aspects of Plate Tectonic Theory: Vol 1" (1990):

-The only alleged evidence for subduction is found beneath the North American Plate (Juan de Fuca), and has not been proven elsewhere. -Convection has not been proven as a mechanism for Plate Tectonics, but is still merely a hypothesis. -Oceanic crust sinking into the mantle is a physical impossibility because the oceanic crust is less dense.

From B. Brock's "A Global Approach to Geology" (1972):

-Equal distribution of landmasses, geosynclines and evidence of great circles with common geological structures suggest that the position of landmasses around the globe is not random, but instead indicates an order or pattern which would be impossible on an planet with plates moving about in all directions. -The rheology and characteristics of the earth's crust extend far below the surface, through the mantle, and continue all the way to the core. This makeup would be impossible if the crust was moving about the surface.

If given some time, I could track down the page numbers and give exact quotes if necessary. There are also things I could expand upon here with information, if the community agrees.

Regarding the rest of the article, I would caution against the seemingly heavy anti-EE bias that is evident. It is far from NPOV. In my opinion, there are more references to Plate Tectonic Theory than there need to be, and the statement "the general consensus supports Plate Tectonic Theory" should be suffice to explain how Expanding Earth Theory is viewed by the majority. And this majority, as well, is a bit of a negotiable notion, since there are many respected contemporaries pursuing, at the very least, alternative views of global tectonics. For this reason, I strongly support the previous suggestion to include New Concepts in Global Tectonics as one of the external links. I also think the subduction section should be a part of the Subduction page, and not here; it is redundant.Spoon18 (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy Spoon. Thanks for the note. I'll go through my comments on each of the above, with my understanding, and I can provide sources if you want them for most of what I'm about to say.

From Samuel Carey's first book, additional information on his thinking would definitely be helpful. The main critical considerations with consider with Carey's book are that it was written by him, not peer-reviewed (as far as I know), and that it is pretty dated. You'd probably want to cross-check the second and third claims from his book with published literature; I'm happy to provide PDFs of papers, etc. Dated material may be an important thing in the other ones.

You're probably right about it being dated, but nevertheless it provides very good insight into how the theory developed. If any arguments put forth in the book were later disproven, that could be included in the article as well, so long as sources are included for both. It also provideds a very detailed history of Expanding Earth thinking, and mentions many names which I have yet to study myself. For that reason, I'm not sure I could provide a summary just yet, but suffice to say it sounds like we're on the same page here.

Absolutely. It seems that it is the book by the guy. Awickert (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For Carey's second book, the first statement is wrong: subduction zones between the two poles take care of the material. The second statement is also incorrect: active margins have more rapid convergence rates than passive margins, and the mass does in fact balance; there's the additional issue of a spherical Earth that complicates things but I think I could dig up a reference. I'm not sure about the NASA geodesy stuff; there is often quite a large margin of vertical error in GPS systems which requires a large amount of smearing-out to get a signal, so the question is where sources not written by Carey peg the uncertainty.

It would be very helpful indeed if we had specific sources for both. I could provide as articulate a summary of the above mentioned two arguments from his book as I can if you could dig up the references for the counter. Regarding the geodesy, Carey mentions a formula involving calculus which can be used to crossreference numbers which are available publicly on NASA's website. That could be a starting point, perhaps.

I'll take a look and see if I can get a source. The formula would be useful, definitely, so long as we make sure that we're not crossing the line into original research (which Wikipedia frowns upon). I might be slower on the sources; I'm generally pretty busy in my offline life, but I do get around to things. You can always feel free to drop me a nudge at my talk page if I'm not going fast enough for ya. Awickert (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

From "Critical aspects", the first claim is wrong (subduction is observed in many other places today - probably an old source thing). I'm not sure what to think about the second claim: we certainly observe preferred orientations of minerals in the mantle due to convection, but we've never been to the mantle... is this what it's getting at? The third claim is just plain wrong: oceaninc lithosphere sinks into the mantle: oceanic crust is less dense, but it is thin, and the more-dense oceanic lithosphere causes the bulk density to be greater than that of the mantle.

You might be right about the first claim here, but I thought it best to include it anyway. I know the book counters many claims of alleged proof of subduction, but I cannot recall them specifically. As for the lithosphere thing, perhaps this is the result of some overlooked fact on my part, but whether the crust represents a small or large part of the lithospheric plate, don't we have the same problem of density regardless? Is there a proof that the asthenosphere is less dense? I believe the book described it as being like driving a nail through a piece of wood. This could be a good example of the disconnect between Expanding Earth theorists and the rest of the geological community.

The claims could definitely be useful to flesh out the article, and I'll try to dig up papers relating to those claims (seeing if they're supported or no). We know that the lithosphere is less dense because we can back it out of seismology. Also, if you think of the lithosphere as a cooler thermal boundary layer, rock contracts as it cools. That thermal contraction results in a density increase. So although the mantle lithosphere and the asthenosphere have the same composition, the former is cooler and therefore denser. The quote likely is a large discrepancy between the Expanding Earth folks and the rest of the community. The general geological community gives a very high viscosity to the asthenosphere (calculated from post-glacial rebound, mostly), but the asthenosphere flows over long time-scales. So it's a rheology and time-scale issue: to keep to the analogy, the general geological community takes it to be something more like "leaning on a nail for a really long time until it ends up in the wood". Awickert (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Brock seems old, lessee... OK, for the first one, no one today thinks that plate tectonics is random; it is thought to be the the moving upper boundary layer of a self-organized convective interior. The claim about the rheology is completely incorrect; see post-glacial rebound for an excellent example of how we know.

As it was taught to me my whole life, Plate Tectonics is random. If the scientific community says otherwise, I must be missing something. Perhaps the convective cells change little, but its effect on the surface is entirely random, at least percievably. Has there been any significant talks or papers on the randomlessness of Plate Tectonic theory that would serve as a point of contention for this argument? I think it is a common enough argument put forth by critics of PTT that it should be included.

Yes, convection is very much ordered, and is ordered on planetary-scale wavelengths in such a high-viscosity system like the mantle. (Order has a much shorter waveength in the atmosphere for example; a small thunderstorm passed by me today.) The supercontinent cycle is taken as proof of such order, as is the fact that those supercontinents are (as far as we know) always equatorial; this is related to true polar wander and the Earth's rotation. If you want to present the Expanding Earth side, I can present the general geophysical community's side. Awickert (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV means equal weight given as appropriate to the weight given in the field itself. Although EE has a handful of fervent supporters, it remains far outside of the general geologic community. Although I could see removing some of the number of references against, the "majority" statement is completely non-negotiable. "All but a handful" or "99.99+%" would more likely be correct; majority is generous. By "many respected contemporaries", who do you mean? I think that many is an overstatement, and respected is unlikely given that the majority of geologists view it as outside the bounds of evidence and physically implausible. The subduction section, I think, should remain here because it deals with specific EE issues, and EE is such a small fringe as to be undue weight in the subduction article. I agree that new Concepts in Global Tectonics would be a good link or reference to the article, and should be included.

I believe I stated my full support for a "majority" statement already, because after all, whether the theory is true or false, that much is true. By "many", I'm not sure specifically what to say. I know that there are enough to have formed the aforementioned journal, which to my knowledge, is peer-reviewed. Its editor, Dong Choi, along with Scalera, Meyerhoff and Maslov are names I've seen mentioned in other papers as well. There is an index of nearly a hundred names on its website, and I only wish I had the time to vet them all. Sankar Chatterjee is also someone who edited another book compiled by other critical PT thinkers resulting from a meeting at the Smithsonian Institute in '89; the book is called New Concepts in Global Tectonics (1992) and shows an effort to stimulate thinking outside of traditional PT thinking in response to perceived holes in the theory, and could prove useful for finding even more proponents of EE. Some of them are in fact proponents of PT to this day, and simply want to fix the problems with the theory rather than reject it. This shows that even within the community of PT believers, there is room for doubt on many things. Any effort to achieve true NPOV would be hindered by overlooking these voices. By even discussing subjective words like "many" and "most", we have already admitted that such things are difficult to quantify, but we do what we can. For now, I'm fine leaving out the "many contemporaries" argument, so long as it remains a possibility if, one day, it becomes clear that there are indeed many, or even several, contemporaries in pursuit of this alternative theory.

I never knew much about this topic before Wikipedia, but those are the names I've seen. Inclusion of reference to the meeting and book would of course be very important coverage of the topic. I think this (acceptance/importance/etc.) will be a very hard thing to quantify, because it seems to be an insular community of Expanding Earth folks who are generally ignored by the mainstream geological community, leaving me doubtful if there is any recent published back-and-forth between the two groups. Awickert (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So I think that some of your suggestions are great, but overall, the issue is that many of the sources are dated (and are contradicted by newer work) and (for NPOV and due weight) that the topic is very, very much fringe science. Awickert (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I find many of your comments very helpful and on point. I'm optimistic about working on this article. Spoon18 (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Me too. And thanks for being so polite! As you'll notice, I do have my own point of view, which is the "mainstream" geological/ geophysical one, but I'll do my best to assert what I know while trying to not advocate for that. Like I said above, I'm pretty busy, but so long as I find time and/or am prodded, I'll do my best to help you to beef up the article in terms of information. Also, like I said before, feel free to drop me a message if there is any academic source to which you need access, and I'll get it for you if I can. Awickert (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

After giving the article another lookover, and considering the above comments, how about we include a new section titled "Evidence for Global Expansion." We could flesh out the details and arguments later, but here's an outline I had in mind:

-NASA Geodesy measurements

-Circumference of Pacific Ocean has increased in size, not decreased

-Uniform Rheology

-Polar Wander explained by relative angle during expansion

-Fossil findings showing a shallow North Pacific when it should be much deeper

The polar wander thing I had completely forgotten about, but I could probably find the source for that. Note, this section would be supporting evidence for EE only, not counterarguments for PT. Any other evidence elsewhere in the article could be combined here as well. Currently, the "concepts" section seems a little general and more like a pastiche of many ideas. What do you think?Spoon18 (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Not thinking too much right now; the only one I can definitely say something about is that every piece of evidence is definitely against a uniform rheology, so that should be cut unless the premise of the section is changed. It would also be important to look in the journal literature for all of these claims, as the EE sources, while useful, are paraphrasing others along the lines of an EE argument. Awickert (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidence supporting subduction

Comment moved from middle of old discussion above.

I'd just like to point out that subduction is still very much theoretical and evidence for its existence is very much reliant on interpretation of data rather than conclusive proof. The EET has been utterly rejected but this is mainly due to incredulity resulting in a lack of investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.73.22 (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"interpretation of data rather than conclusive proof" - seems that's the way science works, by interpretation of data. Conclusive proof? Science doesn't do that. However, the evidence strongly supports subduction. Altho' no one has ridden the subduction elevator down with a video camera yet ... Vsmith (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that if one interprets the data with the assumption that the earth has a constant radius one will reach certain conclusions, whereas if the very same data is interpreted with the assumption that the earth is expanding different conclusions would be reached. EET is an alternative interpretation of the SAME data.

EET was only rejected because a mechanism could not be imagined. If natural selection had been treated like that Darwin would not have been taken seriously until DNA was discovered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.86.120 (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would call the discovery of large scale fossil subduction zones in the form of tectonic accretionary channels along suture zones in orogenic belts, together with results from detailed mapping of both metamorphic isoterms and isobars (which shows the things were indeed going down into the mantle once) both direct and conclusive proof. But then, maybe that's because I'm a scientist, making me too biased to judge.Woodwalker (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(I wasn't piqued by your language one way or the other. What I found interesting and important was what you considered direct evidence of subduction. Unfortunately I don't understand enough to do much with it. Are these ideas verifiable as a mainstream consensus? Are they adequately expounded in the appropriate articles? --Art Carlson (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

As far as I can see, the only article that mentions the existence of petrologic evidence for subduction is this article here (under "evidence for subduction", argument no 3 - the last sentence seems out of place though). It isn't discussed in the articles subduction or plate tectonics. In the article eclogite the tectonic significance of that rock type is discussed, but not as "evidence for subduction". Back in 1980, most geologists didn't think subducted material could "bounce" back to the surface and especially not in large chunks - so they weren't looking for it. Since then, a lot has changed. The existence of eclogite itself is not yet definite proof for subduction of course, because what does one rock from one location say? But geologists have mapped the development of temperature and pressure in large terranes of rock in detail, including the absolute age when these circumstances were reached. Such data can be put in 2D or 3D spatial models and then, yes, you can really see the subducting plate going down in the course of millions of years. Unless one questions the laws of thermodynamics, on which petrology is based, that is to me conclusive proof that at least in these cases, a plate was subducting under another plate. The rocks don't lie.

One can argue weather the expanding Earth article is the right place for this. Simply mentioning that due to a huge amount of evidence from geophysics and petrology, the process of subduction is considered a fact seems enough for here. On the other hand, the amount of space reserved for explaining the obsolete expanding Earth ideas in this article has to be countered by some insight in the techniques and results from modern petrology and geophysics, to keep the article balanced. At the moment I think it reads a bit like advertisement for fringe. Woodwalker (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I just looked it over and sort of agree; the recent IP changes talk (correctly) about only some EE proponents saying that subduction doesn't exist, but those who see subduction existing simply measure distance of ridges versus distance of subduction zones, and are silly enough to forget to multiply distance times velocity... this article may indeed deserve more mention of mainstream evidence to avoid issues of weight. Awickert (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Woodwalker wrote: But geologists have mapped the development of temperature and pressure in large terranes of rock in detail, including the absolute age when these circumstances were reached. Such data can be put in 2D or 3D spatial models and then, yes, you can really see the subducting plate going down in the course of millions of years. I'm still not sure the nature of this evidence. I can imagine mapping 3D temperatures and pressures with seismic measurements. Is a thermodynamic model then applied to conclude that subduction has been taking place? Essentially, "these rocks are colder than surrounding rocks at the same depth, and rocks of this extent should equilibrate after some millions of years, therefore they must have been pulled down from the surface within that time frame"? --Art Carlson (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Art, you forget an important parameter: time. What you describe is 'evidence' for subduction from geophysics. Geophysics is mostly about the present Earth (seismology) or modelling processes that are likely to happen (which doesn't yet absolutely prove they did happen!). Metamorphic petrology, on the other hand, shows us what happened in the past. It combines two techniques: absolute dating of the crystallisation of minerals and putting these crystallisation events in a certain pressure-temperature domain. This can be done because the thermodynamic properties of the minerals are known. Now in fact, the thermodynamic properties of most minerals are presently only roughly known (though data are improving thanks to ongoing experimental research), but most metamorphic rocks contain many different minerals. Combining data of different minerals reduces the uncertainty tremendously and in this way, metamorphic petrology labels each rock (a point in present-day 3D space) with values of temperature and pressure for a certain moment in time. Because different equilibrium assemblages of minerals for different moments in time can often be found at the same location, something of a pressure-temperature history can be deduced too (a so called P-T-t-path - pressure, temperature, time). In geology, pressure is always lithostatic pressure (= only dependent of depth). If many rocks from the same 'terrane' (the word means a piece of crust in geology) were analysed in this way, a 3D-time visualisation can show how the terrane moved/flowed through time (for example: the front part starts going down, the rear follows). Many terranes with barrovian minerals (high pressure phases in the amphibolite, eclogite or blueschist facies) exist on Earth, and all such terranes have been subducted before being obducted again. Mind you: obduction/exhumation of subducted pieces of crust is supposed to be the exception - most stuff that goes down subduction channels disappears into the mantle for good (or that is the assumption - there is evidence for it too but that's another story). Both the observed fact that some terranes obduct after subduction and the assumption that most don't are supported by evidence from both structural geology and geophysical models. Woodwalker (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To add on: eclogites show exposure to high pressures but only modest temperatures. This is an indication that these rocks went down within some large mass of material at a speed that was rapid with respect to the rate of thermal diffusion (in order that they stayed cool relative to the surrounding mantle), and then popped up again. As far as I know, it is difficult to determine where in a subduction zone an eclogite comes from, so I'm not sure if we can actually use them to map out subduction zones in 3 spatial dimensions. (Woodwalker may well correct me on that.) But we definitely do see that they must have gone deep quickly and inside a thermally-insulating body, and then come back up. A subducting slab is a good answer to this set of evidence. Awickert (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Awickert, the existence of eclogite cannot be explained by 'expanding Earth theory' and is in itself already useful evidence for subduction. In fact, subduction is the only scientific idea that I am aware of which can explain it. The geodynamic meaning of eclogite was discovered only in the late 70s, about the same period when EET became discarded from mainstream science. However, the existence of eclogite (and other UHP rocks such as lawsonite-bearing blueschists) is not conclusive evidence for subduction yet. It becomes conclusive when the whole P-T history of the terrane is studied. For example: the observation that an eclogite has inclusions or relicts of minerals stable at lower pressure indicates the rock went down. Dating the minerals of both the relicts/inclusions and their eclogite host gives an indication of the time span in which this happened. Other rocks found at the same location may have evidence for other phases of mineral growth, and the combined observations tell us the metamorphic history of the terrane.

At least in the case of the Alps, where geologic data are very detailed and abundant, a subduction channel can be seen in resulting 3D models. One by one, terranes go down with the subducting slab, get detached somewhere in the upper mantle and are brought up again. This doesn't normally happen when oceanic crust subducts, but is typical for continental collision. An extrusional channel by which 'light' terranes are exhumed after subduction was (I believe) first described for the Himalayas (Beaumont et al., 2001, Nature 414, p 738). I suppose this theory can be used to explain the geology of every collisional-style orogen in the world. Woodwalker (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So now, here's the question: should this go here, or should this go in subduction? I vote for the latter, as that's a mainstream science topic, and this could be put towards making that article quite a bit better. Then we could stay on topic here by just pointing to that and noting briefly why expanding earth is discredited. Awickert (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the subduction article could use the material - then add a brief summary here with a pointer to subduction. Vsmith (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The bias in this article has still to be dealt with though. Either we go for a short version and certain things have to be scrapped, or we go for a long version and certain things have to be added. I'd prefer the first option. The problem with the short option is: how do we prevent the unnecessary long discussion about subduction from being added again in the future? Woodwalker (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject"

That's what it says at the top of this page. Please folks, if you want to discuss the idea, find an appropriate venue, this isn't it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to explain carefully why this article is unbalanced imho. The suggestion that I'm here for having a forum chat when I'm trying to improve the article feels like an insult. I'll take this page off my watchlist. Take care. Woodwalker (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, please don't do that. It was not meant as an insult, just a request. Looking at it in more detail I can see that you were looking at an imbalance, but a lot, particularly the first exchanges, still appears to me to be aimed at the subject of the article. The section as it stands is part debate over the subject and part discussion of what should be in the article, and I seem to have missed the latter. Maybe a new section headed clearly 'Imbalance of article' and move some of the stuff to the new section? Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Part of the "discussion on the topic" IMO is the fact that I haven't thought of these things lately and Woodwalker is being so kind as to educate me. The first exchange was with a particularly belligerent "true believer" IP. Awickert (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is quite relevant to the article and how best to include the relevant and abundant evidence that blows this now fringe topic away. Let the discussion continue. Vsmith (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)#

Can we rename the section heading? Make it clearer? Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Vsmith (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've attempted to reorganize this article to the following structure:

1. Explanation of why the Expanding Earth hypotheses are uniformly rejected by the available data, but why it was considered in the past.

2. Historical advocates of expanding-Earth models. This section still needs work, particularly so as to accurately represent Carey's work. Pre-plate tectonics, the idea may not have been so absurd.

3. Post-tectonic ideas. These are to be considered as an example of psuedoscience and how it mutates with time.

Some of you may consider that I've chopped too much out of the article. I'm trying to remove non-notable content. For the modern pseudoscience, that means I've cut out names that are only supported by self-published material. Third party sources are required.

Michaelbusch (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the problem with your edits is that you have turned the article into a worthless amalgam of criticisms and nothing about the actual theory. Even if the individuals holding the theory are not "respectable", you must at least reference them to get some idea of what this theory is, in detail, and why they believe it. There is nothing like that in here. I came to get some information and instead I get what amounts to a lecture on how bad the theory is. I can figure that out for myself if I get some information but this article is total Fail in that regard. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I reversed your edits, not because I want to get into any sort of edit war, but because the article, prior to your adjustments was much closer to what I wanted when I came to read about this subject. -- It gives the details of the theory itself, which is what I wanted. As a result, it is also less biased. As I said, I am not interested in an edit war. I think this article was much better before. Sorry about that. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Article is deeply flawed just from an Encyclopedia perspective

I am in agreement with complaints about this article being biased. It starts its bias with the term "pseudo scientific" and then immediately presents objections to the "theory" before it ever gives the details of the theory. In fact, it never does give the details of the theory and never presents the reasons that some people believe it. On a personal note, I do not know much about this theory and am not familiar with it. I cannot imagine any way that the earth is accreting material at the rate required for this theory to operate, however some of the evidence for the theory is at least superficially compelling. I say all of this to point out that I have absolutely no agenda toward or against the subject ... I am probably the very definition of unbiased in this matter. However, I came to this article to learn about the topic and instead, I only learned a little bit about some history of the idea and a great deal about what some people think of the idea but not anything about the idea itself. This article is deeply flawed. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The article's subject is immediately labelled as pseudoscience because that, baldly, is what it is. As the article goes on to describe, the expanding earth "theory" is flatly contradicted by a diverse range of observations and theoretical considerations. These are not trifling disagreements either, but root and branch flaws that falsify this hypothesis. As such, the most concise and descriptive summary of the article's subject is simply pseudoscience. If you disagree, what alternative would you suggest for a falsified idea that cannot explain any number of empirical measurements, and which runs flatly against theory?

Regarding whether the article describes the subject satisfactorily, well, that's a different question. I would be happier if the history was a little clearer for one. At the moment, by not referring to any earlier occurrence of the idea, the article seems to be suggesting that Darwin came up with it, but it seems a little unlikely that the idea would be so obscure given such an originator. Another gap in the article is that it might be useful to know quite how pair production is wrangled into the "modern" version of this idea. Anyway, if you think the article is missing something, go ahead and add it − it's not exactly on a scholarly subject with an active research community of experts or a vast wealth of supporting evidence to pore through.

Finally, you came here to learn about the subject, and you were told, upfront, the most pertinent fact about it: that it's bunk. The article has spared you much wasteful contemplation of a doomed hypothesis.  :-) --PLUMBAGO 14:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Oops − the article changed (via your revert) from the version that I was looking at. The current (expanded; appropriately enough) version seems to have some useful information in it (though still not it's originator − unless it really was Darwin). I would prefer "pseudoscience" to return to the lead though, since describing it as a "hypothesis" is misleading − at best it's a falsified hypothesis. --PLUMBAGO 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it really falsified? How can it be? Anyway, I am not sure that it rises to the level of pseudoscience. Let me explain what I mean by that. If this is a theory that explains some things, reasonably, but then has a hole in it that is not refuted but also not well explained, that seems to me to be the way most ideas started. For example, I suspect that looking at the map and seeing a jigsaw puzzle may have initially led to the idea of plate tectonics. But initially, that would have been a pretty far fetched idea and it would have had many "holes" in it. Same with theories like the Big Bang and Black holes. That a theory does not meet with full approval by established science and does not answer all the questions, nevertheless does not invalidate it. I admit however, that in regard to this theory I am speaking in ignorance. I really do not know anything about it and I think that an answer to the problem of mass accretion must be considered to develop a sense that this has a really solid probability. But I hate the idea that creative thinking about scientific things should automatically be labeled as Pseudoscience only because it is not widely accepted and because it does not answer every question put it it. Under those rules, just about everything we know now was once pseudo-science. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think rather than using the term pseudoscience (a judgmental and biased term anyway) I would prefer hypothesis shown to be false (if that has indeed happened). Otherwise, I think it would be fair to call it a "disputed hypothesis", then explain the hypothesis and its reasoning and after explaining the hypothesis, then describe the reasons that people reject it. This gives the readers all the information they need to make up their own mind and is not biased. Incidentally, I am not interested in an edit war. I have absolutely no horse in this race and no ax to grind. I just want wikipedia articles to be good articles. That is all. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Check the historical context: before the oceanic ridges were discovered and examined, there was no proof of subduction or tectonic plates, and ideas like expanding earth or contracting were serious ideas that competed with other ideas. This is science that has become obsolete when new evidence became available. It's now a fringe science at most, or an abandoned idea. There are only a few proponent left, and it's possible that some of them have engaged into pseudoscience in order to deny the new evidence.

It was valid science at its time, and we shouldn't re-qualify it retroactively unless there are RS stating that it should be re-qualified (like, for example, the RS saying that the discovery of N-ray was never valid science and was only flawed science). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I favor reverting to the last version of Michaelbusch and taking it from there. For one thing, the long and disjointed "Concepts" section includes incomplete information better contained in subduction and elsewhere, and intersperses it with primary sources so as to present syntheses not backed up by reliable secondary sources.

While the early models by Carey were not pseudoscience, the ridiculous jabber of the "present day advocates" clearly is. Just read the Wired article linked from the paragraph on Neal Adams for some first-class fruitcakery.

[...] the positron will attract particles of electromagnetically neutral prime matter. Once these particles join with the positron, they become "neutron material." Maintaining the positron's positive charge, the prime matter will build in layers around it until the whole arrangement is 1,998 times larger than the positron - exactly the size of a proton, which is what the thing has become.

Now, when the proton encounters an electron, the positron at the proton's core is so insulated that the two won't snuff each other out. Instead, the electron will orbit the larger proton. And voilà! You have matter.

Wonderful "science", no? The prevailing thought is well represented by this comment:

Stephen Hsu, a physics professor at the University of Oregon (and a childhood fan of Adams' comics), says Adams' physics is entirely wacky, that he just picked a conclusion and backfilled the proof - much like he brought Professor X back to life. "I admire Adams' enthusiasm," Hsu says, "but there's a reason why physics is a professional subject."

Of the other current "advocates" listed, James Maxlow may be the most notable, and he is pushing his ideas in a vanity press book with a publisher's name of Oneoff Publishing. We shouldn't mislead the public by conflating this fringe group of pseudoscientists with the many serious researchers in the geophysical community. Tim Shuba (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cosmological expansion of the Earth

---Indications of cosmological Earth expansion---

A note on cosmological expansion of the Earth is in the German Wikipedia [3]. Inquiries found interesting [4] and elsewhere:

• The Earth would expand with the universe.
• The size of the expansion would be given by the Hubble constant.
• The expansion of the Earth would exist even if expansion theory would be wrong.
• Subduktion and constance of the mass would not be relevant.
• The size of the growth does not contradict the observations or measurements.
• One does not find the cause of the expansion in the Earth.

Maybe one should point out this possibility of the expansion of the Earth.

Vüller (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Section removed as WP:SYNTH vio. Where is the explicit connection between the cosmological expansion of the Universe and the expanding earth hypothesis published? Vsmith (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Article is improved

The article is improved over its condition a few months ago. I congratulate whoever is responsible.--Blue Tie (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)