Rich_A12

http://www.thescienceforum.com/pseudoscience/28911-expanding-earth-theory.html#post331369

They said this .. The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant. Er how can 0.1mm per year be insignificant? 0.1mm = 0.0001m x 1,000,000 years = 100m or 0.1km. If you can imagine a curve showing the rate of expansion from pre fragmentation to present day, there would be a sharp rise (explosive release of pressure post fragmentation) and then a sharpish fall and then a levelling off over a long period of time. The part we are at now would probably be almost entirely flat. Let's say the rate is linear. 0.1km x 4500 (4.5 billion years) = 450km, the Earth is 12,756km in diameter, 12,756 - 450 = 12,306km that's about 3.5% smaller. Even using a linear rate at what I would consider the slowest rate of expansion results in a 3.5% increase in size over 4.5 billion years, I fail to see how that is insignificant. I still argue that they aren't recording in enough places to make entirely accurate recordings and they would need to be doing it for a long time, 50 years maybe before being able to draw conclusions.

Take it to an extreme, double the distance between Earth and Sun. Add a thousand years, which core is cooler and so therefore has lower pressures, the one closer to the sun or the one twice as far away? It's not so much about heat from the sun and more about rate of loss of heat into space.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/pseudoscience/28911-expanding-earth-theory.html#post331280

Been a while but have had another thought as to the reason for the missing mass. This interests me as I have always felt even from a young age that plate tectonics was ugly and didn't make much sense. My biggest argument against it is, what are the chances mathematically of there being one giant super continent if there are no rules governing what the plates do? Anyway, I believe the Earth has expanded but I've been struggling to understand why. Then I watched a video on weird planets on youtube. One of them was said to have a mass much lower than Jupiter but was 5x bigger than Jupiter mostly because it was much closer to the sun. The increased heat causes the gases to expand. This video also described how planets can tumble in towards a star over time until eventually their speed and so centrifugal force, reaches an equilibrium with the star's gravity. This got me thinking that maybe the Earth used to be much further away from the Sun and over time has moved closer to it, thus causing the gases within the core to expand which creates an outward pressure. I believe that there was an initial and violent cracking of the Earth's crust which created the fractures that we recognise today as land masses. After the initial cracking, the Earth would have rapidly expanded because the fractured crust made it easier for the Earth to expand. I also believe that the presence of an atmosphere has an affect on a planet's ability to expand. An atmosphere might cause a planet to retain more of the Sun's energy therefore gases within the planet gain energy and cause more outward pressure. Actually I think the pressure has no direction, the gases simply want to occupy more space.

My basic question is if you could take all the energy out of a massive object (yes we know that it's mass would decrease fractionally which would fractionally decrease gravity, but ignore this), would taking all of the energy out of a massive object affect gravity? I don't have much knowledge, I would like proper scientific explanation as to why energy does not apparently influence the fabric of time space.

I'm sorry, I think you missed my questions on paleomagnetism evidence? Anyone can print a document or web page that says this is this or that is that. That web page does not go into detail as to what would be expected if indeed the Earth did expand.

What is it saying or predicting though? Is it predicting that the magnetic fields gets stronger as the Earth get's smaller and that because there are no changes in magnetic strength the Earth has therefore not changed size? I thought magnetism was more about how fast the Earth spins and it's iron core content but as you can probably tell I am not good with the technicalities. However my hypothesis predicts that if the Earth was smaller, it would have had more gravity and it would have been spinning faster. I don't know how this affects things but the end result might be that all affects negate any changes in the magnetic field i.e. decreasing gravity while the rate at which the Earth spins decreases, negates any changes in the magnetic field. Without more information I would say paleomagnetism evidence is speculative and not conclusive.

Well my hypothesis suggests that equilibrium is attained eventually, perhaps Earth is already at that equilibrium therefore there would be no signs of further expansion. We do not have records of Earth's size dating back any more than a hundred years which is a totally insignificant amount of time. You would have to go back hundreds of thousands of years, even before we as a species existed to make a valid comparison. Therefore you cannot prove if this notion is true or false and there is no harm in making furhter notions or hypothesis based on the original hypothesis being true, in fact that is a form of validating or invalidating on unknown, also know as reverse engineering.

I think this is true but whether it actually is true is another matter - but what does it matter what I think, we're all only interested in what is true. This is merely a hypothesis, a thought, an idea - for that I need nothing more than words and a brain. Do scientists only consider proven science? Isn't hypothesis part of science?

I am not ignorant, I have a read a tonne of stuff already. This is like a hobby to me though so I'm no expert. If energy affects gravity then taking away energy will reduce gravity and on a massive scale this would increase the space in which the massive body occupies. Sure decreasing the energy might make the atoms take up less space but in relation to the amount of gravity lost it's insignificant.

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but illusion of knowledge.” — Stephen Hawking From your sig, subduction is an illusion - it doesn't happen. It is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist i.e. how can we make room for this mass that is appearing out of the oceans, I know let's make it disappear under the continental plates. This assumes that the Earth does not change size which is a false assumption. Subduction is nothing more than a slight bulge, it gives the impression of sinking beneath another plate but in fact it's just a bulge. Much like when a cake doesn't rise too well and bulges at the edges. There are no fault lines between oceanic and continental plates, the only fault lines lie in the middle of oceans which were created when Earth first fractured due to outward pressure caused by loss of energy through cracks and volcanoes which in turn leads to loss of gravity.

So there is virtually no subduction taking place in the oceans, more than 90% occurs between oceanic and continental plates? From a mathematical point of view what are the chances of this happening if there are no rules governing how plates moves? Someone said there are rules, please explain what rules govern how a plate moves and remember it has to be a pretty coherent pattern to produce an almost 0% chance of subduction taking place in the oceans. They said the same thing to those who thought the Earth was round. Thankfully I cannot be hung, drawn and quartered for thinking things aren't as they seem. http://www.thescienc...ass-energy.html

I thought this was a forum for science, not a forum for adhering to scientific beliefs? The later is not science by the way!

Why are the continental plates so much harder, so much thicker, so much older and why are there huge vertical drops from continental plates to oceanic plates? The huge vertical drops aren't caused by errosion. Also the thickness of continental plates is fairly uniform and level, how can this uniform thickness be counted for?

I know, my question is why doesn't subduction occur in the middle of oceans? What rules govern this? Well that's not my question exactly. There are no rules governing what a plate does, each plate is apparently able to do what it wants, slip, slide under, slide over, go up, down, left, right. There are no patterns or rules. OK so that begs the question, what are the chances of subduction never taking place in the middle of oceans or even near to the middle of oceans and let's remember that the oceanic plates take up far more space than continental plates. The chances are low to zero of subduction not taking place in the oceans i.e. there is a good chance, in fact it's more likely that subduction should take place in the oceans. However there are no signs of subductions taking place near or at the middle of oceans. This is a purely mathematic argument and it should puzzle anyone who cannot find an answer as to why!

Why doesn't it take place in the middle of the oceans if there are no rules governing how plates move?

Hello there, had some ideas the other day and made a video .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfrUxcCzfks I also have some other ideas about gravity but I will wait and see what response I get here. I have discussed this else where and got a very negative response. Please don't talk from your emotional perspective, I am only interested in the science.