Expanding earth

[HappyCoder]

When I first heard of this theory I thought it was dumb. Like everybody else I thought, "How could the earth get bigger" but in the video it said that the earth will all fit together and that all the oceans were the same age. This made me want to learn more about this theory. I wanted to know if that was all available evidence or if it continued further. With further investigation I found that a smaller earths means less gravity and that means bigger dinosaurs. The dinosaurs were large. I found that according to the EE theory larger continents will form larger mountains. This is true. I found that there are fossils that match up east and west of the Pacific ocean, just like the Atlantic. The more I thought about this theory and compared it do what I say on the earth the more it made sense.

 

I am now convinced that the earth is expanding. I was able to sift through the evidence myself and come to this conclusion.

 

Lets take a scenario where a guy comes up to you holding a sphere. You find that on this sphere there is mud caked on the outside but only scattered around it. You find that these pieces of mud fit together on all sides. You also find that the stuff between the pieces didn't exist 20 minutes ago but the mud has been there for hours. Now when this guy asks you how this sphere come to this configuration what would make more sense.

 

A) The sphere was smaller, the mud was caked onto it. Then the sphere expanded pulling apart the mud and forming the young spaces in between.

 

B) The sphere was the same size. All of the mud was caked on randomly then the mud started to travel around the sphere. The mud crashed on one side of the sphere then broke apart, traveled to the other side then crashed there. The mud than broke apart again is currently in the process of crashing on the opposite side again. The space between the mud is constantly recycling and it just so happens at this instant that the space in between happens to be the exact same age.

 

Any reasonable person would choose A but for some reason science has picked B.

[Klaynos]

The evidence you present and the evidence of the actual age of the ocean floors can be explained better by tectonic plates.

[HappyCoder]

The evidence you present and the evidence of the actual age of the ocean floors can be explained better by tectonic plates.

 

Please elaborate.

[Sayonara]

Analogies which ignore 99% of the data are not really a good start, are they?

[Klaynos]

Please elaborate.

 

The evidence you present (fossils, mountain heights and the land masses fitting together), as well as the observed age of the ocean floor. As well as current observations of plate movements, all fit the theory of tectonic plates far far far better than the idea of an expanding earth.

 

Tectonic plates is also a mature theory, with physical mechanisms which can be modelled, expanding earth does not. And no analogies do not count, they're not evidence they're fluff.

[HappyCoder]

The evidence you present (fossils, mountain heights and the land masses fitting together), as well as the observed age of the ocean floor. As well as current observations of plate movements, all fit the theory of tectonic plates far far far better than the idea of an expanding earth.

 

Tectonic plates is also a mature theory, with physical mechanisms which can be modelled, expanding earth does not. And no analogies do not count, they're not evidence they're fluff.

 

How is it better?

 

Age of the seafloor

 

This image alone has so many elements that indicate the earth is expanding.

 

Initially one would think with plate tectonics that the Pacific is older than the Atlantic. Of course this is not the case. Instead the age is the same for both the Atlantic and the Pacific. A perfect fit for the Earth Expansion theory. Of course plate tectonics has been modified to take this into account. Saying we really cannot predict the age of the seafloor and that it is just a coincidence that the age of the Atlantic and Pacific match exactly.

 

Look at the mid ocean ridge that is to the west of South America. Notice how it matches the outline of South America. Just like the ridge west of Africa matches.

 

Now you cannot tell me that that image fits plate tectonics better. Even if plate tectonics was correct that image still fits the Expanding Earth Theory better.

Expanding Earth

 

Here is a picture I made. It shows how a continent would look now if it were to stay perfectly rigid. The center bows outward and the edges are lower. Of course continents cannot keep their shape as the earth expands show the high parts in the middle will collapse slowly as the earth expands. This is what forms mountains. This is why edges of continents are low elevation and the center is of higher elevation. This explains the formation of mountains on every continent. One simple consistent explanation. This is why there are larger mountain ranges on larger continents.

 

Another thing to note in that picture. Notice how the edges of the continent when the earth is larger form an angle with the ocean crust. Notice how looks kinda like a subduction zone. This is something I noticed myself. I was doing some thinking about it and noticed that the larger the continent the steeper the "subduciton zone". I can't find a good datasource to see if my prediction matches actual data. One inconstancy I found was that Japan has a really steep "subduciton zone" but if you look at the age of the seafloor to the west of Japan you will notice how it is young. That would mean that Japan was connected to the rest of Asia around 50 million years ago. That steep angle was formed while it was part of a very large continent then broke off later once that angle was formed.

[Klaynos]

How is it better?

 

Because it's got good mechanisims and modern measurements of the plate movements match predictions, I suggest you read some peer reviewed geophysics papers.

 

Age of the seafloor

 

This image alone has so many elements that indicate the earth is expanding.

 

None moreso than tectonics. Surely if it was expanding the gradients should match from all the ridges?

 

Initially one would think with plate tectonics that the Pacific is older than the Atlantic.

 

I wouldn't.

 

Of course this is not the case. Instead the age is the same for both the Atlantic and the Pacific.

 

If it was expansion I'd expect the gradients to be the same, they are clearly not.

 

A perfect fit for the Earth Expansion theory.

 

You can't make a statement like that without mathematical equations, and predictions who's errors fit the within the errors of measurements made, therefore that statement is null and void.

 

Of course plate tectonics has been modified to take this into account.

 

Just like a scientific theory then shucks!

 

Saying we really cannot predict the age of the seafloor and that it is just a coincidence that the age of the Atlantic and Pacific match exactly.

 

Who said anything about coincidence? Of course bits are going to be the same age... the earth is a constant system it's not static.

 

Look at the mid ocean ridge that is to the west of South America. Notice how it matches the outline of South America. Just like the ridge west of Africa matches.

 

Again, expalined nicely by plate tectonics.

 

Now you cannot tell me that that image fits plate tectonics better. Even if plate tectonics was correct that image still fits the Expanding Earth Theory better.

 

No, I'd say to fit expanding earth better the gradients would have to mach, they clearly do not, unless you say parts of the earth are expanding differently than others. We've also got measurements of the earths circumference from over 2000 years ago, which are really rather close to today...

 

Expanding Earth

 

Here is a picture I made. It shows how a continent would look now if it were to stay perfectly rigid. The center bows outward and the edges are lower. Of course continents cannot keep their shape as the earth expands show the high parts in the middle will collapse slowly as the earth expands. This is what forms mountains. This is why edges of continents are low elevation and the center is of higher elevation. This explains the formation of mountains on every continent. One simple consistent explanation. This is why there are larger mountain ranges on larger continents.

 

Another thing to note in that picture. Notice how the edges of the continent when the earth is larger form an angle with the ocean crust. Notice how looks kinda like a subduction zone. This is something I noticed myself. I was doing some thinking about it and noticed that the larger the continent the steeper the "subduciton zone". I can't find a good datasource to see if my prediction matches actual data. One inconstancy I found was that Japan has a really steep "subduciton zone" but if you look at the age of the seafloor to the west of Japan you will notice how it is young. That would mean that Japan was connected to the rest of Asia around 50 million years ago. That steep angle was formed while it was part of a very large continent then broke off later once that angle was formed.

 

Neither of these two paragraphs are science, sorry. Have a look at some geophysics peer reviewed journals. Predictions should be mathematical. Just thinking about things doesn't really work... You need a mechanism for an expanding earth. Where is the energy coming from, what's happened the conservation of angular momentum? Plate tectonics requires an energy source, but no where near as large as an expanding earth would, the convection currents are easily great enough for tectonics, based on the temperature readings and density readins taken of the earth below the crust.

[HappyCoder]

*Sigh*

 

Well i'm no scientist so I really don't know how to jump through these different hoops or what hoops to jump through. I know what I know but I don't think it is worth my time to get involved with the politics of science.

[iNow]

HappyCoder,

 

It's okay not to be used to the method. Everyone learns as they go, so you're not alone there. The thing to try to remember, however, is that it's about evidence, not politics. The evidence is clearly pointing in a particular direction on this.

[EnjoyItClem]

Change vs. Resistance to Change = Politics.

Change in science vs. Resistance to change in science = Politics in science.

 

I would like to submit this thread as evidence.

 

As a sort of thought experiment: pretend a force called matter acts opposite to gravity. For reasons tied to human language, it is practically inconceivable for matter to be a force and not, well, "mass." Figuring out whether or not this theory even operates in the confines of physics is a lesson in reductio ad absurdum, because exploring a universe where forces act only on other forces would be like trying to tell a story without nouns. Mass is the stuff of nouns, damn it, as are our heroes and villains; clearly, no story would be complete without them.

 

Einstein himself once pondered the consequences of a nounless universe. What happens to a story when the timeline itself is... all-inclusive?

 

Friend and intellecutal contemporary, David Bohm, once famously insisted that there are no such things as nouns, and that we need to move beyond the religious assertion that something can have a static state. As he explains, everything is constantly changing--particularly on the quantum level--so a broom *here* in time is similar, but different, from a broom *there* in time. Rather than calling it a broom, one should respect its flux and address it as an instance of "brooming." Here my earlier statement regarding the real impossibility of nounless storytelling begins to make more sense.

 

Human minds (and all others, it would seem) just can't handle it. Try forming a complete sentence without nouns! Fail. Then try again! Then fail again. And so on, until you are ready to understand that mathematics is the only language not necessarily inhibited by syntax. Mathematical constants such as "4" are always "4" and thus can be viewed as a sort of hybrid noun-verb. What's the difference between a ceaseless, immutable action and a true noun? Nothing. (At least not conceptually speaking; but when it comes to mathematics, I think we'll all agree that concepts are as perfect as the concept of "perfect" gets. )

 

A mass has gravity. That's how we say it, at least those of us that enjoy its simple elegance. But Einstein and Bohm knew there was something intrinsically wrong with that simplicity, that when something "has" a trait, it implies that there is another something to compare it to, a thing without that particular trait. On that all-inclusive timeline, if something *always* has something else, then why bother calling them two different things? If a golf ball always has dimples, why bother saying a golf ball has dimples?

 

Because myriad things other than golf balls have dimples. Cheeks. Hail-damage. Planets, even, if you want to think strangely.

 

So is there something other than mass that has gravity? Or, so to speak, does anything else have "dimples"? Well. That's quite a question.

 

By definition--whether you approach it from the "mass"-having side of things or the "gravity"-having side of things--it would seem the answer is no. The two are defined as mutually inclusive.

 

What's important is understanding that the letter "m" is a sort of constant. It always means mass, and can only equal zero conceptually (as in the mass difference at any given moment between an object and itself). Gravity is a constant inward force. Mass, then, can be viewed as a constant outward force, if not for any reason other than resilient opposition in the face of its own relentless gravity.

 

Complications have arisen that attempt to assign mass to the concept of a graviton. This is like trying to apply mass to fire. As a matter of fact, following the same steps, it's exactly the same task.

 

The truth is always dichotomous. For every fact there is a single counterpoint with 100% equal validity. Acknowledging this logical bilateralness is what a physicist would call aimless. To a logician, on the other hand, it would be called wisdom. One cannot predict the future, but, using patterns and probabilities, one can estimate it just fine.

 

Imagine growing up in a monochromatic room where everything was in shades of green. Now imagine one day finding the door, and it leads into a room where everything is in shades of red. Were someone to ask you, how would you discern the red room from your green homeroom? How do you describe red in terms of green? As different. That's roughly where the logic ends. It's logic. No one would disagree with you. But there it ends.

 

In truth, we like to see ourselves as different from verbs. As evidence I cite Descartes saying "I am." What 'am?' A noun. A noun is. "What" is. "I" is. Syntax is. Thus we see this other room, this red room called verbs, and all we can pretty much say about how a noun and a verb are different is: they're different.

 

How are matter and force different? They're just different, that's how.

 

This is starting to feel like an Apple Jacks commercial, so I'll move on.

 

To call matter the naturally occurring force opposite gravity makes sense only in a world without nouns. Math. Thus it is not a disagreement between you and I if you insist that mass exists, that nouns are mandatory, so long as we both speak mathematics. If, however, you would contend that mass is subservient to force, that a lower-case m with a vector arrow drawn over it is blasphemy, then you are no longer speaking math with me, and you are no longer making sense.

 

Relative to the sun, consider where the gas giants are and where the solid-state planets are. The difference is enormous, but in both cases, (very slightly) ever-decreasing. In essence, don't make the now-common mistake of assuming causality when considering the density of a planet in relation to its heliocentric attitude. Very likely, the two attributes weigh upon one another bilaterally. (Cheers to the word "bilateral" making two appearances in just a single post!)

 

Is this relevant to the expanding earth theory? Yep. Does it confirm it? Of course not. Does it deny it? Not yet.

 

As usual, the rift that seems the deepest between the two theories of Expanding Earth and Modern Tectonics is a definitional one. Perhaps a Venn Diagram is in order?

[foodchain]

I don’t think you can frame it like that. I would just like to suggest that out of the confusion which generates so much fuss, how can you equate some understanding or a logic as correct. As you sort of put it with reference to two different objects we can frame stuff that occurs as natural, but we have noting to compare it to save the universe we currently occupy, so really I would think this understanding is purely environmental. This term I think serves a better purpose.

 

I think it comes down to what cant be done away as a product of human thought. Such as how many words exists to describe a small rock, this does not pertain physically though to whatever the rock is, regardless if you want to view it as a collection of various elements or made by some supernatural entity the rock persists, so it comes to a point I guess in which you accept that reality exists and you are just a part in it. The other option is to say what? I don’t think any possible answer is possibly to comprehend let alone with science.

 

I think then if you would accept such a stance, how would you go about ever saying you do understand, ultimately being you have to think with your brain about a physical world or natural world, what would you accept as anything close to truth about it. As for an approximation I would think science tends to do the best currently, regardless of philosophical ramifications for whatever is produced. I do not see anything else producing results that I would accept, I do not base this on words but its ability to function in say reality.

 

I think the real way to test science though is to see how polymorphic its answers are, this is why I hate Descartes and view a more integrated or whole model of science as beneficial overall rather then isolated fields of inquiry. Simply put I think having segregated science is like studying bits and pieces of a whole, but never caring about the whole. This is why I think hybrid fields like biogeochemistry and nice because you have three distinct disciplines being able to work in concert scientifically producing results and evidence. I would think that the possibility for that to exist suggests again a natural world that can be understood.

 

So in closing, even with math you are still dealing with something logical as it pertains to humans, and of course I think you are still stuck with trying to model reality with math and in general cant just sit in a room and make the universe equation that explains everything.

[Klaynos]

Scientists like change... it means there's lots more to understand that we thought we did but now don't....

 

I don't have a problem with expanding other other than the fact it's not as good as plate tectonics at explaining all the evidence, and it seems to violate conservation of energy and angular momentum...

[insane_alien]

I agree, scientists love change. they would love nothing more to overturn some well established theory.

 

science changes its theories to fit the data, people who are pretending to do science(like the guys promoting expanding earth) change the data to fit their own 'theories'.

[mooeypoo]

Not only are changes "cool", but changes in science (anything that challenges a scientific fact/theory, let alone overturns it) mean:

 

1) A Nobel Prize for the discoverer(s) == Fame, Fortune, Money and Prestige.

1) More experiments scientists can now do == more work for scientists == more money.

2) Potential for future discoveries on top of that one == Fame, fortune and a Nobel Prize

 

Saying that the scientific community is against changes is absolutely false. What is true, however, is that if someone insists on a new amazing discovery, and that discovery is found to be false, it's an opportunity for either shame (hoaxes, sadly, are discovered, every now and then, see the korean scientists gene therapy "discovery") or being discovered as wrong, which is really not nice personally.

 

Science is rigorous in making sure that the discoveries are true and follow reality, but there are usually no-one happier about a TRUE discovery than the scientists themselves and the scientific community.

 

~moo

[HappyCoder]

Okay, so it has been stated that plate tectonics can explain more that earth expansion. Could I get some examples. (I'm not doubtfully I just want to see if the could also fit into EE)

 

A reason I would think evidence would fit with plate tectonics is because it has had a huge head start in terms of man hours put into connecting evidence to the theory. I would imagine that plate tectonics and EE have a lot of evidence that would fit both theories. It is in the evidence that there is conflict that we could really determine what system is correct.

 

it seems to violate conservation of energy and angular momentum...

 

I agree with that. It doesn't match with our current understanding but I am not going to let the absence of an explanation under our understanding equate to me thinking there is no explanation at all. The way I see in the evidence makes me believe the earth is expanding.

[Klaynos]

It explains why the ocean floor age gradients are not the same.

 

The lack of a mechanism when plate tectonics has one points at an immediate flaw that needs to be over come before it can be taken anything like seriously.

[EnjoyItClem]

you guys just loooove an argument.

 

did i really need to say "some resistance to change in science vs some change in science"? is the "some" really necessary? no, it's redundant, but yes, it would have kept you from being able to claim that i said what you thought i meant.

 

in the world of science beyond this forum--preceding and precluding it--there *must* be a system of conservation that operates opposite the onslaught of demand for change. many of the battlehardened brains on this forum, the ones with posts in the thousands, clearly represent the former for reasons so just and logical that i'm not going to waste the two minutes it would take any idiot to elaborate.

 

neither side is wrong-headed in its efforts. what many of you gents are doing is defending plate tectonics, right? that's a conservative goal, if only by definition. plate tectonics is the dominant geohistoric paradigm, supported by an enormous amount of evidence in much the same way a bigger city is supported by a bigger army, and you find yourselves defending the castle. that's conservation. meanwhile, a handful of boys are trying to usurp your power. it's a laughable effort in most cases, if not a little snarky, and at it's worst it only helps to amplify a sense of nationalism inside the castle walls. the more resistance you feel, the more togetherness you feel, the more triggerhappy both sides become.

 

the louder either side gets, the more obvious the politics become. step outside the din for a moment, any of you, and see what i mean. just because your castle is perfectly able to withstand centuries of humble resistance the likes of neal adams doesn't mean it's right in doing so. the right attitude to have, the attitude that einstein and da vinci and descartes all had, is to welcome "lunacy" and embrace barefaced the fact that anyone could be wrong at any moment, like a time bomb or a bouncing betty. a king so confident in his castle's supremacy should welcome adversarial dialogue even within his castle walls--no, *especially* within his castle walls--for the most confident are the ones who are, in the best of reigns, most humble.

 

but just because none of you is humble doesn't mean all of you shouldn't be.

 

i submit this terrible post as Exhibit B for my case.

[Klaynos]

Science requires evidence, plate tectonics has the most, including evidence for the mechanisims behind it, it does not break fundamental physical laws (conservation of energy and momentum) it is therefore scientifically better than expanding earth...

 

Bring me evidence for some mechanism behind expanding earth and then we can compare them as competing ideas, currently they are not.

 

"Turtles all the way down" doesn't make it true...

[EnjoyItClem]

i'm not gonna take a side, but i'm gonna proffer a mechanism in favor of expansion:

 

all heavenly bodies, earth included, are by definition chemical reactions kept in check by the same mechanism keeping their forms spherical and their orbits round: gravity. lesser reactions--earth, mercury, moons, asteroids--are clearly 'shelled,' so-called because inside they are, in many cases, relatively molten and highly active. the gas giants are allowed to be more volatile due to their great distance from the sun, and even from one another, and, as a result, they have much more active surfaces and can even produce their own chemical light (which pales, however, in comparison to the chemical sunlight which illuminates these bodies. we've all seen a weak lightbulb turned on outside in broad daylight, and it looks like it's not even on.) in truth, the sun produces light wholly accounted for by chemistry, so it's not a laborious stretch of the imagination to understand how the deeply active surface of venus could also produce some (relatively invisible) light of its own. earth's lightning is a good example of even a lesser satellite's ability to produce it's own light, so long as we agree that a bolt of lightning is not a species of sunlight.

 

all the planets formed from dust and gas and debris in the midst of a sun (or BIGGER form of dust and gas a debris in the midst of a BIGGER BIGGER form we hardly know jack about) which kept them round and spinning. even our sun orbits a greater mass at the center of the galaxy, (as previously parenthetically mentioned).

 

The rocky debris that formed the planets could not always have been rocky. it too was once gaseous. anyone who's taken chemistry 101 knows how that process works, and also knows that pressure is just as important as temperature in condensation.

 

the sun provides a gripload of vacuum pressure in the form of gravity. this extremely low pressure would freeze the surface of anything near it by expanding its constituents (imagine making ice at room temperature just by putting water in a vacuum; it's the same principle). the mass of a satellite provides its shape in much the same way a blob of water in a NASA space shuttle assumes an orb. a cluster of mass in a vacuum will tend toward itself as efficiently as possible. the greater the mass gets, the greater the implosive force of gravity, the likelier the insides will liquify.

 

the theorized expanding earth need not be called hollow in much the same way a bubble need not be hollow in order to be called a bubble. consider a bubble of oil in water, ballooned by oil. consider a soap bubble, ballooned by air. there is no "emptiness" or "hollowness" in a bubble.

 

bear in mind our approximations of the composition of the earth are simplifications, brilliant estimates based on MOUNTAINS of data, open-armed submissive to correction. we didn't have to rewrite the rulebook when we discovered the solid-state dominating where we thought there to be liquid on the underbelly of our crust. thanks to scientific method, our system is immune to crippling blunder. don't fear the wrongness, gents. it won't hurt. not ever.

Edited August 10, 2008 by EnjoyItClem

[mooeypoo]

You know, we *can* look at other planets and stars, and we *can* see how they're formed and how they "behave".

 

Planets with a rocky-surface (such as earth) do not expand.

If they would've been, we'd be VERY confused and have to deal with a messload of unanswered questions about conservation of energy and the way our universe operates, but since non of them does that, we're safe.

 

The earth is not expanding either. Other than proofs against the expansion (which you already have in this LOOOONG thread, and in other threads, sadly, in this forum, and in MANY other *scientific* websites), the proof *FOR* plate tectonics is overwhelming (again, just read again the thread, if you don't feel like actually reading scientific publications about it).

 

If you have a WORKING theory, that explains the phenomena well, is based on real proof, is consistent and can be used to *CORRECTLY* predict other phenomena, then in order to push it out of the way you need - at the very LEAST - an equally convincing (SCIENTIFICALLY convincing, not opinion'ally convincing) theory, that can - again, at the very least - predict the same accuracy (if not more), based on facts, etc etc.

 

Just saying "but it might be!" is not enough. Giving random arguments for the "alternative" theory is not enough either. A single argument can be persuasive, and yet the theory can still be invalid.

 

I suggest you go read a bit about Geology and Cosmology to see how planets form, why, what the mechanisms behind the formations are and therefore how Geological phenomena are predicted, analyzed and *follow* the same logic of such theories.

 

 

Don't forget that we no longer live in the dark ages; we have satellites today that can measure the TINIEST changes in heights, sizes, shifts, movements, etc with quite a good accuracy on earth. The fact we can tell that the plates are MOVING, and that the earth is NOT expanding, should - by itself - give us a clue of what is going on.

 

~moo

[Klaynos]

i'm not gonna take a side, but i'm gonna proffer a mechanism in favor of expansion:

 

It's not about sides it's about evidence...

 

all heavenly bodies, earth included, are by definition chemical reactions

 

Mostly physical. Very little chemical.

 

kept in check by the same mechanism keeping their forms spherical and their orbits round: gravity.

 

Very little of the heat of the earth is due to gravity contraction, mostly it's from heat left over from the planet's formation, the decay of radioactive elements (quite small), and the freezing of the inner core. It's still hot now because the core doesn't loose much heat...

 

lesser reactions--earth, mercury, moons, asteroids--are clearly 'shelled,' so-called because inside they are, in many cases, relatively molten and highly active. the gas giants are allowed to be more volatile due to their great distance from the sun,

 

Could you please explain what you mean by this? Do you refer to the giant storms on them? If so there are other reasons than their distance from the sun.

 

and even from one another, and, as a result, they have much more active surfaces and can even produce their own chemical light (which pales, however,

 

Jupiter the largest planet in the solar system is not massive enough to start deuterium burning, which is teh coldest type of nuclear burning, which is what powers the sun, they are also not collapsing so are not radiating that way... There may be slight endothermic reaction on the surface but I somehow doubt that'd even have a measurable effect from earth. If I'm wrong can you cite evidence?

 

in comparison to the chemical sunlight which illuminates these bodies.

 

The light from the sun is due to main sequence Hydrogen burning, it is a physical nuclear effect not a chemical reaction.

 

we've all seen a weak lightbulb turned on outside in broad daylight, and it looks like it's not even on.)

 

But with a photon detector I can still tell it's on.

 

in truth, the sun produces light wholly accounted for by chemistry,

 

Wrong. Neutrino evidence clearly states otherwise and IIRC the sun is not massive enough to be powered by any endothermic chemical reaction for very long at all.

 

so it's not a laborious stretch of the imagination to understand how the deeply active surface of venus could also produce some (relatively invisible) light of its own.

 

Well actually it is, and you don't seem to understand how the sun creates light, so I don't think you're qualified to comment. You need a certain mass (80 ish Jupiter masses) to create hydrogen (well P-P) nuclear fusion...

 

earth's lightning is a good example of even a lesser satellite's ability to produce it's own light, so long as we agree that a bolt of lightning is not a species of sunlight.

 

OK, but the amount of light is tiny.

 

all the planets formed from dust and gas and debris in the midst of a sun (or BIGGER form of dust and gas a debris in the midst of a BIGGER BIGGER form we hardly know jack about)

 

Well actually we know ALOT about star formation and quite alot about planet formation, we've imaged protostars and young stars with planet forming disks... The big cloud fragments until you get a region with a low enough jeans mass which then callapses, if it's big enough it forms a star, else a "free floating planet" (which is an AWFUL name as they're not formed like planets), or a brown dwarf. These have disks which form planets from planetesimals.

 

which kept them round and spinning.

 

Gravity keeps them round (it's spherically symetric) and conservation of angular momentum keeps them spinning...

 

even our sun orbits a greater mass at the center of the galaxy, (as previously parenthetically mentioned).

 

The rocky debris that formed the planets could not always have been rocky. it too was once gaseous. anyone who's taken chemistry 101 knows how that process works, and also knows that pressure is just as important as temperature in condensation.

 

It's actually a physcal effect to start with you get clusters of gravitationally bonded areas which slowly grown until they callapse you will then get quite alot of chemical bonding in a short time but what mostly holds the planet together is gravity.

 

the sun provides a gripload of vacuum pressure in the form of gravity.

 

Vacuum pressure? The gravity gradient across most planets due to the sun is pretty much ignorable.

 

this extremely low pressure would freeze

 

This makes no sense there is low pressure in space anyway ignoring the sun...

 

the surface of anything near it by expanding its constituents (imagine making ice at room temperature just by putting water in a vacuum; it's the same principle).

 

You mean evaporation cooling? Because if you're talking about radiative cooling in a vacuum it's rather slow...

 

the mass of a satellite provides its shape in much the same way a blob of water in a NASA space shuttle assumes an orb.

 

That'd be because it's in free fall so the most significant force action on it's shape is it's own bonding and surface tension which are EM forces and are spherically symmetric, as is gravity.

 

a cluster of mass in a vacuum will tend toward itself as efficiently as possible. the greater the mass gets, the greater the implosive force of gravity, the likelier the insides will liquify.

 

I can agree with you there.

 

the theorized expanding earth need not be called hollow in much the same way a bubble need not be hollow in order to be called a bubble. consider a bubble of oil in water, ballooned by oil. consider a soap bubble, ballooned by air. there is no "emptiness" or "hollowness" in a bubble.

 

There is an applied force or a change in force in all the cases you mention, you need to provide a mechanism for this for the earth. That we've either measured as something else or we're yet to measure (why would that be?).

 

bear in mind our approximations of the composition of the earth are simplifications, brilliant estimates based on MOUNTAINS of data, open-armed submissive to correction. we didn't have to rewrite the rulebook when we discovered the solid-state dominating where we thought there to be liquid on the underbelly of our crust. thanks to scientific method, our system is immune to crippling blunder. don't fear the wrongness, gents. it won't hurt. not ever.

 

We'd need evidence to show plate tectonics wrong... currently there seems to be none.

 

Don't forget that we no longer live in the dark ages; we have satellites today that can measure the TINIEST changes in heights, sizes, shifts, movements, etc with quite a good accuracy on earth. The fact we can tell that the plates are MOVING, and that the earth is NOT expanding, should - by itself - give us a clue of what is going on.

 

I heard a news report this morning (I only heard the end of it and have not been able to google it as I think it was on some weird BBC science news prog on the BBC news channel ) that was saying some scientists in Greece have developed a method for measuring the electrical charge built up and discharged due to friction when plates move against each other!

[EnjoyItClem]

First off: Those who toe an imaginary line between physics and chemistry ought not to reply to my posts at all. Saying this isn't about sides is just like a giant army telling a rogue horde to f*ck off.

 

1. "...little of the heat of the earth is due to gravity contraction, mostly it's from heat left over from the planet's formation, the decay of radioactive elements (quite small), and the freezing of the inner core. It's still hot now because the core doesn't loose much heat..."

 

All of this is agreeable, and naturally has little to do with what I said. You sidestepped my offer entirely and then said several facts in an argumentative tone as if I were trying to contend with fact. I will not return the favor. Here is where you went wrong: Gravity plays a pivotal role in the shape of the planets *and* their orbital paths, as well as in maintaining the shape of the sun (corona included) itself.

 

2. I mean volatile as in predominantly gaseous and teeming with activity. I mean 1000+ km/hour winds. I mean cyclones the size of continents. I mean air so full of debris it's practically liquid. I mean relative to the bland goings-on at Mercury or on the surface of the moon, the gas giants are where the part is clearly at.

 

3. "Jupiter the largest planet in the solar system is not massive enough to start deuterium burning, which is the coldest type of nuclear burning, which is what powers the sun."

 

Deuterium! I couldn't remember that word for the life of me. Thank you thank you. But back on topic:

 

4. "they are also not collapsing so are not radiating that way... There may be slight endothermic reaction on the surface but I somehow doubt that'd even have a measurable effect from earth. If I'm wrong can you cite evidence?"

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa. But CLEARLY Uranus is having a dramatic effect on earth in so many ways, I can't even find the words to begin an argument!

 

Kidding. I never said that, or anything remotely like it. I said planets behave similarly, being planets under the influence of a common sun and all, but I didn't say their behavior was interactive.

 

5. "The light from the sun is due to main sequence Hydrogen burning, it is a physical nuclear effect not a chemical reaction."

 

Chemistry has nothing to do with main sequence Hydrogen burning. Only physics. For that matter, nothing that ever happens has anything to do with Chemistry. Lightning. Bunsen burners. That type of burning is completely reserved for physics. Heat produced by chemical reactions, that's physics too.

 

 

 

Alright, like I said, I'm not going to stoop to your level of mean-ness. That's right. I said it. You're mean. Really mean. I'm going to stop here and let you deal with these 5 points before I continue. Perhaps you'll see how swiftly you spiraled out of control of your understanding of my understanding of your understanding. And then you'll be like "sorry man, let's just be cool about this from now on but still talk about it." We can at least PRETEND to be friends.

 

<3

[Klaynos]

First off: Those who toe an imaginary line between physics and chemistry ought not to reply to my posts at all. Saying this isn't about sides is just like a giant army telling a rogue horde to f*ck off.

 

There's no evidence the army exists you just should f*ck off at the empty desert....

 

1. "...little of the heat of the earth is due to gravity contraction, mostly it's from heat left over from the planet's formation, the decay of radioactive elements (quite small), and the freezing of the inner core. It's still hot now because the core doesn't loose much heat..."

 

All of this is agreeable, and naturally has little to do with what I said. You sidestepped my offer entirely and then said several facts in an argumentative tone as if I were trying to contend with fact. I will not return the favor. Here is where you went wrong: Gravity plays a pivotal role in the shape of the planets *and* their orbital paths, as well as in maintaining the shape of the sun (corona included) itself.

 

My break in your text was in the wrong place, it clearly should have been lower down where it made sense and showed that you didn't understand the fundamentals of what's happening. On which you base your final suggestion.

 

2. I mean volatile as in predominantly gaseous and teeming with activity. I mean 1000+ km/hour winds. I mean cyclones the size of continents. I mean air so full of debris it's practically liquid. I mean relative to the bland goings-on at Mercury or on the surface of the moon, the gas giants are where the part is clearly at.

 

That'd be due to the fast rotation, (as it's bigger got a faster outer edge rotation conservation of angular momentum again) and the fact it's gaseous there is less friction for a greater depth... So what was your point?

 

3. "Jupiter the largest planet in the solar system is not massive enough to start deuterium burning, which is the coldest type of nuclear burning, which is what powers the sun."

 

Deuterium! I couldn't remember that word for the life of me. Thank you thank you. But back on topic:

 

You claimed that planets radiated like stars (or brown dwarfs) which is clearly not the case you brought this up as evidence for your suggestion, it's flawed, anything based on it is flawed, therefore your final suggestion if flawed.

 

4. "they are also not collapsing so are not radiating that way... There may be slight endothermic reaction on the surface but I somehow doubt that'd even have a measurable effect from earth. If I'm wrong can you cite evidence?"

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa. But CLEARLY Uranus is having a dramatic effect on earth in so many ways, I can't even find the words to begin an argument!

 

Kidding. I never said that, or anything remotely like it. I said planets behave similarly, being planets under the influence of a common sun and all, but I didn't say their behavior was interactive.

 

You claimed that the planets where radiating due to some process, you need to cite evidence for this.

 

5. "The light from the sun is due to main sequence Hydrogen burning, it is a physical nuclear effect not a chemical reaction."

 

Chemistry has nothing to do with main sequence Hydrogen burning. Only physics.

 

Yep. Everything is ionised... infact main sequence Hydrogen burning is just protons flying about... well not really flying but you get the idea...

 

For that matter, nothing that ever happens has anything to do with Chemistry. Lightning. Bunsen burners.

 

No, you're strawmanning here, just because one thing is not chemistry doesn't mean everything isn't.

 

That type of burning is completely reserved for physics. Heat produced by chemical reactions, that's physics too.

 

Fundementally yes, but chemistry works fine for it (infact it's better for calculating most things, but things like the gibs free energy etc.. are all physical phenomena that are used greatly in chemistry). The reactions in the sun are NOT chemical reactions, they're fusion reactions, which is a totally physical process, there is NO chemistry here.

 

Alright, like I said, I'm not going to stoop to your level of mean-ness. That's right. I said it. You're mean.

 

Science is by fire, you've got to defend your arguments or sink. If you don't like the arguments put against you, you probably know you're wrong.

 

Really mean. I'm going to stop here and let you deal with these 5 points before I continue. Perhaps you'll see how swiftly you spiraled out of control of your understanding of my understanding of your understanding. And then you'll be like "sorry man, let's just be cool about this from now on but still talk about it." We can at least PRETEND to be friends.

 

<3

 

I've no problem with you at all, non of this is possible, you posted ideas I told you where they are against current science.

[mooeypoo]

Here's the basic, quite repetitive, argument that is done throughout this (and previous) thread(s) about the expansion of the earth. It's not *PRECISELY* the same argument, and it is a bit dramatized, but it's written here to make a point. Please try to grasp it:

 

Bob: "The bowling ball is expanding in average about 5 centimeters every 10 years. Look at the shapes of balls 10 years ago, and look at them now."

John: "Okay, 5 centimeters in 10 years is 0.5 centimeter a year, which is about .042 centimeters a month, which are a bit less than half a millimeter. With today's instruments we can measure this fairly easily. Let's have that ball."

 

== 6 MONTHS LATER ==

Bob: "The bowling ball is expanding because it is such a nice theory, and some of its claims are too beautifully put to ignore."

John: "... But the ball is not expanding."

Bob: "Says you."

John: "Say the instruments."

Bob: "But the theory of static bowling balls must be false, even if it does not fit reality. Our instruments must be bad."

John: "If the bowling ball expands 'just because', it violates the laws of physics."

Bob: "The laws of physics as we know them today are wrong."

John: "But we can SEE the bowling ball does not expand!"

Bob: "Says you."

 

 

 

 

==

 

The earth is not expanding. We can measure it for at LEAST the past 50 years, and we would've SEEN, noticed and measured it. It's simply doesn't.

You'd think that satellites would've proven Expansion right, if it exists, and yet it keeps proving plate tectonics right and expansion dead wrong. As Klaynos has said, our measuring instruments grew SO precise, that we can actually measure the effect of PLATE TECTONICS on the electromagnetic fields now (on top of all the other measurements we ARE doing and ARE GETTING RESULTS in that SUPPORT plate tectonics and NOT expansion, inflation, or alien flatulation theories).

 

 

Why we are still arguing for almost 100 posts about this, is beyond me.

 

~moo

[Sayonara]

Me too Mooey.