<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>http://naturalphilosophy.org/wiki/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Talk%3AExpansion_tectonics</id>
	<title>Talk:Expansion tectonics - Revision history</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://naturalphilosophy.org/wiki/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Talk%3AExpansion_tectonics"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://naturalphilosophy.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Expansion_tectonics&amp;action=history"/>
	<updated>2026-04-09T23:34:31Z</updated>
	<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.0</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>http://naturalphilosophy.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Expansion_tectonics&amp;diff=28716&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>Meems: quick review of ET page</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://naturalphilosophy.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Expansion_tectonics&amp;diff=28716&amp;oldid=prev"/>
		<updated>2017-03-19T22:43:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;quick review of ET page&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;1. &amp;quot; Apart from its implicit assumption of a constant radius Earth, there is very little data in conventional plate tectonics that is incompatible with the largely historical Expanding Earth theory, and vice versa. &amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1a.) Pedantic : I would argue plate tectonics doesn&amp;#039;t contain the data, geologic &amp;amp; geodesy data is just data, not contained by a model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. &amp;quot; The historical terms Earth Expansion, Expanding Earth, and similarly Growing Earth, refer to changes to the shape and size of the Earth &amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2a.) &amp;quot;changes in shape and size&amp;quot; is too general, we can be more specific  &amp;quot;increase in size&amp;quot;. Also shape of the Earth in Growing Earth theory doesn&amp;#039;t change, its effectively a sphere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3 &amp;quot;  Earth Expansion, Expanding Earth, and similarly Growing Earth .....  These terms are synonymous but now largely unpopular. &amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3a. Not true. Expanding Earth is still the most recognised term, while Growing Earth is considered by many within the community to be the most accurate term. There&amp;#039;s been no effort to collect a consensus on an agreed term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. &amp;quot;... benefits of using modern global geological mapping to constrain plate assemblages for the entire history of the Earth are immeasurable. &amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4a. &amp;#039;immeasurable&amp;#039; - i.e. they are infinitely great, sounds like hyperbole.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5 &amp;quot; Expansion Tectonic small Earth reconstructions are uniquely relevant to science and industry by providing models that are accurate enough to know precisely where a particular research project, mineral discovery, climate change indicator, field project, fossil or mineral find was located on the ancient Earth at any moment in time &amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5a. &amp;#039;was located&amp;#039; makes it sound like there were research projects located on Earth millions of years ago.  try : &amp;quot; would be located when its current location is mapped back onto an ancient Earth model &amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6 &amp;quot; The presence of gigantic plants and animals in ancient history can be explained by a smaller earth.  &amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6a. The paragraph on life size doesn&amp;#039;t mention variation in gravity. It should.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7 &amp;quot; magnetically charged electrons and protons enter the Earth’s magnetosphere and lower terrestrial layers &amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7a &amp;#039; magnetically charged electron &amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
This term is redundant. It&amp;#039;s like saying &amp;#039; Electrically charged electron &amp;#039;. All electrons are magnetic.&lt;br /&gt;
Physicists don&amp;#039;t say &amp;#039; magnetically charged &amp;#039; , they say &amp;#039; magnetic &amp;#039; or &amp;#039; magnetized &amp;#039;, but they would not say &amp;#039; magnetized electron &amp;#039; , because the term electron already encompasses its magnetic aspect.&lt;br /&gt;
Same for Protons.&lt;br /&gt;
Drop the &amp;#039; magnetically charged &amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7b. Electrons can travel thru solid atomic matter. But protons are severely impeded. Anything larger than hydrogen is too big to travel thru solid matter. Try blowing ionized hydrogen thru a wall, or even just a rubber surface a few tens microns thick. How theorists explain hydrogen passing from the atmosphere thru the crust to the inner Earth en-mass requires details. e.g. ion-beam-deposition could within reason plant hydrogen in the upper crust.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8. G1 particles (a particle that replaces the electron and electricity)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8a. Needs description.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- meems&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Meems</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>