Talk:Expanding Earth

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Expanding Earth is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Low‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

2018 Self-published volume

I stumbled into another EE-er on Twitter recently who seems to be trying to talk up a self-published book. He's been writing "papers" (no evidence of any peer review, but well presented - spell-checked even!!) on Researchgate, and no doubt is citing them wherever possible. Standard techniques that I remember from EE-ers on USENET back in the 1990s.

The pile I've just been wading though is a re-hash (with, thankfully, references) of the "sauropod size" argument given above. The slightly useful content is that there is a compendium of size models for Giraffatitan (Brachisaurus, the 1909-1912 specimen from Tanzania / Tanganyika Colony at the time), with some degree of referencing. He uses these to get various volume estimates for the specimen. Without giving a methodology, he then picks a number from the air for the volume, completely discarding the acknowledged fact that there is a large variation in those volume estimates. That number divided by a weight estimate taken from limb-bone circumference estimates (no consideration for the bone shape, or proportion of cortical vs marrow bone), then gives the number which was desired. Including the variation in volume estimates produces a range which includes modern gravity, demolishing the author's contention.

Typical fare from an EE-er.

I suppose I'd better give a link to the Researchgate "paper", and post these criticisms there.

Paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329586654_A_palaeogravity_calculation_based_on_weight_and_mass_estimates_of_Giraffatitan_Brachiosaurus_brancai/stats

AKarley (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Study

Atmospheric acceleration and Earth-expansion deceleration of the Earth rotation Sciencia58 (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Sciencia58 (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Sciencia58 (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As with most brand new studies, it's best to wait and see whether this becomes accepted and/or backed up by other studies before mentioning it in this article. Mikenorton (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Historical

[3] Sciencia58 (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2023-01

Samuel Carey, 1976: «Two corner-cube reflectors have been placed on the moon. Three optical observatories at Canberra, Honululu, and Tokyo have telescopes capable of receiving reflected laser light from a lunar corner-cube [...] According to the "plate tectonics" hypotheses these three observatories are approaching each other at a rate of several centimetres per year. According to the expanding earth model they are separating at a few centimetres per year. Remeasurement after a few years would establish the truth.»
Samuel Carey, 1994: «No new crust has been inserted between Hawaii and Japan since the Jurassic, so this arc would appear to be shrinking at 6 cm per year, which is about what NASA finds. But they interpret it as subduction of crust, whereas I interpret it as caused by insertion of new crust between Hawaii and Peru and elsewhere within the Hawaii-Japan great circle.»

The Expanding Earth thesis is garbage and always has been. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is flawed as even rulers would have to expand for this idea to work. So it is not testable. 50.35.113.183 (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Importance of Comparisons

What is missing is comparisons between Plate Tectonics, Planetary Growth Tectonics, Mass redistribution Tectonics, and most importantly a Neutral outlook and presentation of the Concepts. There are dozens of articles on the topic of Expansion Tectonics, several Videos, Many Authors, and lots of compelling evidence that both Plate Tectonics and Expansion Tectonics have good concepts to look at and compare.

However, whoever is controlling this version is definitely was too Negative to be even consider a Positive Outlook, and real Neutral comparisons. 24.9.221.181 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FALSEBALANCE for why that won't be happening. Mikenorton (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]