Mechanism for Earth Expansion

[HappyCoder]

I know I have discussed the evidence for an expanding earth in the past and got nowhere mostly because there was no explanation for the mechanism. I have been working through an explanation for it and I think I have come up with something that fits into my understanding of science.

 

For starters you all know what particle colliders do. The take charged particles and accelerate them to as near to light speed as possible then collide them together to see what they break up into. It's known that particles will even do this naturally in the upper reaches of the atmosphere. My thoughts are if there is a way to break up subatomic particles into elementary particles. Shouldn't it be possible to assemble them back together as well?

 

The other half of my idea involves dark matter. It has mass, but does not interact with electromagnetic fields thus allowing it to pass through earth. It should be possible that dark matter could assemble together to form electrons, protons, and neutrons depending on what exactly dark matter is.

 

This idea also is consistent with the data for the expanding earth. It has been found that the earth would be expanding exponentially. This indicates that the rate of expansion is related to the size of earth. A larger earth would have a stronger gravity to pull in more dark matter and the earth would also be a larger target for the dark matter to pass through.

 

I am assuming that there is a couple of things wrong with this hypothesis. What I want to do is find out what is wrong with it so I can improve this idea or shoot it down entirely and try a different approach to find a mechanism for an expanding earth.

[mooeypoo]

Welcome back.

 

We've answered all this bunk theory (Yes, its bunk completely, for the reasons we've ALREADY DISCUSSED with you) in the other thread.

 

Use the search feature, the answers (IT'S TOTALLY, UTTERLY, COMPLETELY PROVEN TO BE BUNK).

 

But nice try.

 

~moo

[Bignose]

Science isn't a poll. Theories aren't decided by popularity. Theories are decided based on evidence. No evidence? No theory. No matter how many votes are cast pro-expanding earth, that doesn't mean anything without evidence.

[iNow]

My thoughts exactly while reading that post.

[Edtharan]

For starters you all know what particle colliders do. The take charged particles and accelerate them to as near to light speed as possible then collide them together to see what they break up into. It's known that particles will even do this naturally in the upper reaches of the atmosphere. My thoughts are if there is a way to break up subatomic particles into elementary particles. Shouldn't it be possible to assemble them back together as well?

However, even in -particle accelerators the Matter/Energy is conserved. For the Earth to be expanding like this there must be an influx of either matter or energy. Also, the amount of matter would be noticeable if it was arriving (ie coming from outside the Earth), and if it was energy, the amount of energy needed would be immense.

 

Remember the E=MC^2. The amount of energy needed to create a mass of M is equal to the amount of mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light.

 

The other half of my idea involves dark matter. It has mass, but does not interact with electromagnetic fields thus allowing it to pass through earth. It should be possible that dark matter could assemble together to form electrons, protons, and neutrons depending on what exactly dark matter is.

This is good, you are proposing a mechanism by which matter/energy could be added to the Earth.

 

However, this mass is coming from outside (the dark matter is accreting within the Earth). Now some theories about Dark matter do have Dark Matter decaying into standard matter, the process is very slow (only occurs occasionally). This means that the amount of Dark matter needed to give any significant increase in actual matter to make the Earth expand would have to be absolutely huge.

 

It means that there must be a massive amount of Dark matter within the Earth to account for the rate of mass increase needed. But if you had this amount of Dark matter then the gravitational effects from it would far exceed the gravity from normal matter and we would be able to detect this.

 

Lets do some back of the envelope calculations here:

 

We know that Dark matter far exceeds the amount of actual matter in the universe. So if the Dark matter theories are correct that allow conversion from dark matter to normal matter, then we know the rate of conversion must have a Half life of greater than the current age of the universe.

 

It is estimated that 4% of the matter in the universe is Normal Matter, and around 22% is Dark Matter.

 

If we assume a 1 to 1 conversion (ie 1 gram of Dark matter converts to 1 gram of Normal matter), then roughly (a bit less than) 1/5th of the Dark matter has been converted.

 

If we then use an estimate of 30 billion years for 50% of the Dark matter to be converted, we can work out how much Dark matter there has to be for a given rate of expansion of the Earth.

 

If we use the mass of the earth to be 5.9 X 10^24kg, and assume a doubling of the Earth's mass over it's 4.5 billion year history, then the amount of Dark matter within the Earth must be around: (2.45 X 10^24) X 6 = 14.7 X 10^24kg.

 

So the amount of Dark matter is more than twice the current mass of the Earth.

 

I think we would have noticed that.

[HappyCoder]

However' date=' this mass is coming from outside (the dark matter is accreting within the Earth). Now some theories about Dark matter do have Dark Matter decaying into standard matter, the process is very slow (only occurs occasionally). This means that the amount of Dark matter needed to give any significant increase in actual matter to make the Earth expand would have to be absolutely huge.

[/quote']

 

How I see it is that there are things that can speed up or slow down a chemical reaction. Why shouldn't there be variables that speed up or slow down dark matter decaying? What if the conditions inside planets and suns increase the rate at which this happens.

 

It means that there must be a massive amount of Dark matter within the Earth to account for the rate of mass increase needed. But if you had this amount of Dark matter then the gravitational effects from it would far exceed the gravity from normal matter and we would be able to detect this.

 

I'm not saying that this mass travels with the earth. I am saying it would pass through the earth. I imagine this happening where there is dark matter distributed throughout the galaxy. In fact I imagine there is a complex system of dark matter circulating through the galaxy.

 

It starts with the black holes in the center of the galaxy. As matter is pulled into the center of the galaxy it compacts into the black hole. There is sometimes a phenomena that occurs where matter can be seen spewing out of these black holes perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy. I think that dark matter is constantly coming out but on occasion it is thick enough to condense into visible matter.

 

This matter will curve around and fall back towards the plane that the galaxy lies on. This would kinda look like a magnetic field. As it passes through the plane the galaxy lies on the mass of surrounding objects disrupts its heading and throws the dark matter into complex orbits around any nearby objects. Only these orbits run perpendicular to the plane the galaxy lies on. As dark matter passes through planets from top to bottom this matter become converted into standard matter.

 

I also visualize this effect will induce forces on the mass in passes through perpendicular to the velocity of the dark matter and some other vector. I am not sure what other vector to cross the up/down vector with. Either way I think that the force induced is what causes objects to be put into orbits as well as account for their rotation.

 

This would explain the flat shape of galaxies as well as the circular orbits that objects in the galaxies.

 

Science isn't a poll. Theories aren't decided by popularity. Theories are decided based on evidence. No evidence? No theory. No matter how many votes are cast pro-expanding earth, that doesn't mean anything without evidence.

 

I know, I just want to get a feel for what people think about this idea. Although the poll is going how I expected it to, but I will just quote you on this one. "Theories aren't decided by popularity." There is evidence for an expanding earth. I am not going to go into that because it would probably just turn into the previous thread and get closed.

[iNow]

Although the poll is going how I expected it to, but I will just quote you on this one. "Theories aren't decided by popularity." There is evidence for an expanding earth.

There is not.

 

If you disagree, then share your evidence so we can see for ourselves and make an informed decision.

[HappyCoder]

There is not.

 

If you disagree, then share your evidence so we can see for ourselves and make an informed decision.

 

Just the number of similarities between the Atlantic and the Pacific is enough to convince me.

 

 

This is a good introductory video. I know that youtube videos do not make good science but this is just a primer. If you go to the web site there are some scientific papers that Dennis McCarthy has done.

 

If you follow the mid ocean ridges they circle the entire globe. Every ridge is connected. I have a hard time visualizing how continental drift can account for this. It fits very nicely into an expanding earth.

 

The average size of animals millions of years ago was larger. Some of the dinosaurs would so large that some paleontologists believe that they would have to be slow moving because their they would have weighed to much to move quickly. Other paleontologists say that based on bio-mechanical studies. That these large creatures were very active. Two contradicting views that both seem to be correct. This paradox can be cleared up with an expanding earth. A smaller earth means less gravity so these creatures can be both large, and active.

[mooeypoo]

I want to find a hypothesis to explain the phenomena of the moon bouncing up and down in the air every month.

But the phenomena doesn't exist. It doesn't happen.

But I will find an explanation of why that is happening.

 

It doesn't happen. The moon is not bouncing up and down.

But I have a good way of explaining why it might be possible that the moon is bouncing up and down each month!

 

But it's NOT bouncing up and down, we know it's not, it's PROVEN that it's not.

But I can explain why it is bouncing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Earth is NOT EXPANDING.

If you want to explain the phenomena of the expansion of the earth, the first thing you need to do is prove that the phenomena exist. Which it doesn't, or at least you haven't proven that it expands.

 

First step: Prove the Earth disobeys all known physical and astrophysical laws and does, in fact, expand.

Hence, that the phenomena exists.

 

Then, and only then, will it be logical for you to hypothesize what causes such phenomena.

And that's why your theory is bunk. Not just because of the poll, and not just because you have no proof of the METHOD, but because you have no proof for the phenomena, while there's a billion proofs AGAINST THIS PHENOMENA, and about double that amount of proofs for the methodology that explains why this DOESN"T happen.

 

 

 

~moo

[HappyCoder]

If you want to explain the phenomena of the expansion of the earth, the first thing you need to do is prove that the phenomena exist. Which it doesn't, or at least you haven't proven that it expands.

 

Really I cannot do this because I don't have enough data. I don't have access to the data used for GPS systems and the equations used to calculate earth positions. I don't have the means to come up with data.

 

What I don't understand is how you ignore the evidence for a closed Pacific. Especially when the same evidence can be used to prove a closed Atlantic.

 

 

The earth is expanding. I don't know how long it will take science to come around. Just remember this. Maybe it will be proven within our lifetimes. Then you can look back and think, remember when I was convinced that it was impossible for the earth to expand. Remember when I though that continents floated around and crashed into each other and that solid rock would bend at around a 45 degree angle and straighten back out again.

[mooeypoo]

Really I cannot do this because I don't have enough data. I don't have access to the data used for GPS systems and the equations used to calculate earth positions. I don't have the means to come up with data.

Well, you have a lack of data then. That's hardly proof.

 

And this might've been true 10 years ago, but today you have the internet. You have all the information you need for a *beginning hypothesis* about this online. Certainly information about GPS satellite history (google search).

 

In any case lack of data is not proof. I don't have data the leprecauns exist. Should I devise a hypothesis of what makes them vanish and appear out of thin air?

 

What I don't understand is how you ignore the evidence for a closed Pacific. Especially when the same evidence can be used to prove a closed Atlantic.

I don't ignore it. It's proving continental drift.

 

 

The earth is expanding.

Prove it.

 

I don't know how long it will take science to come around. Just remember this. Maybe it will be proven within our lifetimes. Then you can look back and think, remember when I was convinced that it was impossible for the earth to expand. Remember when I though that continents floated around and crashed into each other and that solid rock would bend at around a 45 degree angle and straighten back out again.

Prove it. Prove it. Prove it.

 

Until you do, it's not existing.

Just like the moon bounce doesn't exist.

 

~moo

[Bignose]

If you go to the web site there are some scientific papers that Dennis McCarthy has done.

 

Yeah, um, ok, so I downloaded several of the papers authored by McCarthy as listed on that website (and even a few that cited McCarthy's paper to see what other authors were saying about McCarthy's work). And, while I didn't read them all in detail, I didn't see anything relating to an expanding earth. If I missed something, I will take a second look if you could be a little more specific as to what I should look at (i.e. exactly what page in what article in what journal).

 

So, exactly how does that "evidence" support your case?

 

Can you possibly cite any peer reviewed paper that has appeared in a scientific journal that explicitly lays out the support for an expanding earth?

[HappyCoder]

Yeah, um, ok, so I downloaded several of the papers authored by McCarthy as listed on that website (and even a few that cited McCarthy's paper to see what other authors were saying about McCarthy's work). And, while I didn't read them all in detail, I didn't see anything relating to an expanding earth. If I missed something, I will take a second look if you could be a little more specific as to what I should look at (i.e. exactly what page in what article in what journal).

 

So, exactly how does that "evidence" support your case?

 

Can you possibly cite any peer reviewed paper that has appeared in a scientific journal that explicitly lays out the support for an expanding earth?

 

Try this one.

 

I don't ignore it. It's proving continental drift.

 

So how is near identical evidence for a closed Atlantic and Pacific translate into evidence for two completely different histories for each ocean where only the Atlantic is closed?

 

Until you do, it's not existing.

Just like the moon bounce doesn't exist.

 

Or how the continent bounce doesn't exist.

[Klaynos]

I've only read the first post, and skimmed the replies quickly... I apologise for this...

 

Particle accelerator collissions rely on 3 of the 4 fundemental forces...

 

Weak

Strong

EM...

 

Just the 3 which dark matter probably don't interact using measurably at all...

 

Also this would produce very very easily detectable radiation, which again we would not only see down on earth but also in the large areas of dark matter which we know where they are...

 

All the other "evidence" for a significantly expanding earth has been debunked many times before, I don't see a point in discussing it again...

[Sisyphus]

How were there two people that said yes on the poll? I smell a sock puppet.

[Edtharan]

How I see it is that there are things that can speed up or slow down a chemical reaction. Why shouldn't there be variables that speed up or slow down dark matter decaying? What if the conditions inside planets and suns increase the rate at which this happens.

Chemical reactions are very different to that of particle decay. So this analogy fails.

 

A "what if" is not a good argument. It is indicative of a (potential) hole in your argument. When ever you ask a "what if" there is always an "if not" as well.

 

Each "what if" you use is an unstable support for your argument.

 

As mooeypoo said, you need to show that the phenomena you are arguing for actually exists before you use it.

 

When ever you use a "what if", it means that you can't show that the phenomena actually exists.

 

I'm not saying that this mass travels with the earth. I am saying it would pass through the earth. I imagine this happening where there is dark matter distributed throughout the galaxy. In fact I imagine there is a complex system of dark matter circulating through the galaxy.

Then this Dark Matter is not the Dark Matter postulated by current theory. Dark Matter (as in the one predicted by certain theories, not the one you made up), has gravity and is effected by gravity. So that if an object made of normal matter had a gravitational field, then the Dark Matter will be attracted to that object through Gravity.

 

This means that if Dark Matter is converting to normal matter, then this Dark Matter would be attracted to the Earth and would be pulled in by the Earth and the situation I described would occur.

 

Also, if the Dark Matter was as you described, it, then you have to account for Conservation of energy. If the Dark Matter was not "Moving with the Earth", then it would not have the same momentum as the Earth. This means that when the Dark Matter converted into Normal Matter, it would provide a force on the Earth (either to slow down it's orbit or speed it up). This force would also be measurable (and we haven't detected anything like that at all).

 

It starts with the black holes in the center of the galaxy. As matter is pulled into the center of the galaxy it compacts into the black hole. There is sometimes a phenomena that occurs where matter can be seen spewing out of these black holes perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy. I think that dark matter is constantly coming out but on occasion it is thick enough to condense into visible matter.

These "Matter Jets" from black holes already have an explanation that does not require dark matter to be involved. These Jets occur because as the gasses swirl around the black hole, the bump into one another and heat up. If you heat up gasses high enough they ionise and turn into a plasma.

 

When you get ionised gasses moving it sets up an magnetic field, when you have electrically charged particles moving in a magnetic field (such as a plasma), these particles are deflected. This deflection will send particles streaming out away from the axis of rotation at high velocities.

 

Thus we get ionised gasses streaming out from black holes without the need for dark matter (and dark matter that has different properties than predicted by current physics).

 

This would explain the flat shape of galaxies as well as the circular orbits that objects in the galaxies.

Again, Dark Matter is not needed to explain the disk shape of galaxies.

 

As the gasses that make up a galaxy swirl around and are drawn nearer to the centre of the protogalaxy, they will collide, and gravitationally effect nearby gas.

 

Even if the distribution and velocities start out random, these interactions will work to average out the motion. The average motion will cause the gasses (and any resulting stars, planets, etc) to coalesce into a disk shape as this is an average shape of the motion. Also the velocities will average out so that wildly elliptical orbits will become more circular.

 

This then explains the shape of galaxies., without the need for dark matter (although dark matter would help by providing more gravity, but that is only needed really to explain the velocity of the gasses around the galaxy, not how the gasses are moving around the galaxy).

 

I know, I just want to get a feel for what people think about this idea.

I think it is not a good idea. You have to change so much about the concepts that you are basing it on to use them as a rationale for your argument.

 

You have had to change

1) The properties of Dark matter

2) You seem to require that Dark Matter both be effected by gravity and simultaneously not be effected by gravity

3) You have had to take known phenomena with known causes and remodel them completely to account for the changes you have made to the basic principles.

 

Occam's Razor states that if you have two competing theories that give the same predictions, then you should use the one that is simpler.

 

You have had to change a lot of basic physics (and ignored the consequences of those changes on anything but how it relates to your theory), where as all these things already have a simple explanation that can be tested (we know how plasmas behave, and we can simulate the motion of gasses in a forming galaxy on computers).

 

So until you can show where the current theory fails and that your theory successful works there (and that the failures of your theory aren't actually failures at all), we have to say that your theory is wrong.

 

The average size of animals millions of years ago was larger. Some of the dinosaurs would so large that some paleontologists believe that they would have to be slow moving because their they would have weighed to much to move quickly. Other paleontologists say that based on bio-mechanical studies. That these large creatures were very active. Two contradicting views that both seem to be correct. This paradox can be cleared up with an expanding earth. A smaller earth means less gravity so these creatures can be both large, and active.

Actually you are getting confused here.

 

It used to be believed that Dinosaurs were slow because they died out. The theory was, that the faster animals could out run them and that they therefore couldn't catch them and so became extinct.

 

They then realise that Dinosaurs were actually reptiles.

 

The theory then changed to that since Reptiles are cold blooded then they would not be able to move fast, and so that means that they must have been slow.

 

However, they then learned that not all reptiles are slow moving, some reptiles can move fast, especially over short distances (it has to do with the fact that warm bodies can have faster chemical reactions).

 

The theory then changed so that Dinosaurs could move fast over short distances, but not over long distances.

 

However, being "Cold Blooded" does not mean that your body temperature is actually low. It just means that it is equal to the ambient temperature. It was also found that the shape of an organism, and the colouring of that organism can allow it to regulate it's body temperature almost as well as a warm blooded organism, and also to maintain that temperature at similar level to warm blooded organisms.

 

The theory then changed so that Dinosaurs were only slow at night and early morning.

 

However, it was found that Dinosaurs had biological structures similar to that of birds. not only that, there are some reptiles that can actively warm their bodies without the need of sunlight (it is actually pretty poor, but they can do it).

 

So the theory changed so that Dinosaurs could have a crude internal temperature control, augmented by external source (sunlight).

 

They also have tested the load bearing capacity of dinosaur's bones (by knowing the structure of them and knowing the strength of bone). For some of the biggest dinosaurs, this means that they needed at least 3 feet on the ground at all times and that they could not run, but this by no means states that they were not very active.

 

Also, this really only applies to the very largest of the dinosaurs (the Sauropods), and the dinosaurs that were less massive (the Therapods) did not need to have so much support and could really be quite active.

 

It would be a little like looking at an elephant and concluding that no mammal could run as fast as 112km/h (Cheetahs), or that horses are not active.

 

Really I cannot do this because I don't have enough data.

But then you write this:

 

The earth is expanding. I don't know how long it will take science to come around.

 

So you have no proof to support your claim, but you state it as FACT that the Earth is expanding.

 

If you have enough data to convince yourself that it is an absolute certainty, then you should have enough data to support your claims in this thread. We are not actually asking for absolute certainty, we are asking fro ANY proof of your claims, or at the very least, proof that we are wrong.

 

And yet, you give nothing...

 

Just the number of similarities between the Atlantic and the Pacific is enough to convince me.

There are only similarities if you ignore all the differences.

 

There are far more differences that similarities. Also, all those similarities have explanations that don't require that the Earth needs to expand.

 

Even more: There is data that completely contradicts an expanding Earth. For one: There are places where the tectonic plates are being "subducted" (that is being pushed under) another tectonic plate. If the Earth is expanding, this should not occur. Or if it did, it should not occur as frequently as it is; which is at the exact same rate as the crust is being created.

 

If the Earth is expanding, then it is also shrinking at the exact same rate...

 

Actually, one of the similarities you have pointed out about the Pacific and the Atlantic was the mid ocean ridges. Well that one in the Pacific is actually a subduction zone.

 

The reason that the edge of the plate in the Pacific is the same as the one in the Atlantic is that the edge that lies in the Pacific was created in the Atlantic and is pushing the Pacific plate under it.

 

Yes, here it is that simple explanation we have been trying to get you to understand. The very data that you are using to support your claims actually, when you look at it (that the pacific edge is actually a subduction zone where the crust is being destroyed and not a ridge where the crust is being created), completely disproves your claim and supports the claim you are trying to disprove.

 

This is what happens when you only look at the parts of the data that seems to support your claim and not look at the parts of the data that don't. You only looked at the fact that the Pacific edge of the plate is similar to the edge in the Atlantic.

 

However, the fact that the opposite process (creation as opposed to destruction) was not considered, nor was the fact that that edge of the plate in the Pacific would have been created in the Atlantic.

 

Furthermore, if the Earth was expanding, there would not actually be a reason for the Pacific side of the Plate to be the same as the Atlantic side of the plate. If the Earth was expanding, then what occurs on one side of the plate is not necessarily influenced by what occurs on the other side of the plate, so long as the "average" rate of expansion along that line of latitude is maintained (which could allow that all expansion for that latitude occurred on a single ocean ride and no others).

[mooeypoo]

Actually, you could try this out in a relatively simple experiment:

 

Take a balloon, blow it up but not too much (so it's round enough to simulate the Earth but still has space to grow bigger).

 

Take a bit of flour and water, and mix the two -- you will get a paste. Cover the balloon with this paste and let it dry (takes a few minutes).

 

Now blow more air into the balloon and watch the "crust" break and expand.

 

Do this experiment more than once if you really want an understanding of the process (to have more than one event that might be random).

 

Look at the cracks and movements of your crust. See if it is similar to what you see on Earth.

 

No matter how many times you try this, you will never get an area where matter "disappears" -- destroyed -- falls "into" the balloon.

 

But you do get that on Earth. Why do you think that is?

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd have answered that it is in fact expanding a nearly unmeasurable amount due to meteorites, if I didn't know happycoder was crazy and would think I was talking about the earth expanding from the inside.

[John Cuthber]

I Gues this may have been covered before, but if the earth expanded then, either by some miracle something would add exactly enough air to balance the expansion, or the atmosphere would get spread out thinner. It would therefore exert less pressure.

However we know that atmospheric pressure has remained the same since it was first measured in about 1643.

A 1% change in the earth's radius would give rise to a 2% change in the pressure (to a first order approximation) and we know that the pressure change has been much smaller- probably less than 0.1mmHg over the last couple of hundred years so the change is less than about 0.05 parts in 760 over 200 years. That's less than about 3 parts in ten million per year. How big an expansion is "happycoder" pretending there is?

[HappyCoder]

*Response to my ideas on possibilities for expansion*

 

I recognize that my ideas are probably wrong. I am trying to move toward an explanation for expansion. One that is better than hollow earth, pair production, volume only expansion, and the idiotic meteor one.

 

*Response to my point on dinosaur size.*

 

So what advantage did the large size bring the dinosaurs? Then what happened to that advantage? I think an increase in gravity would make a good selection pressure. The very fact that average size as well as upper extreme size of species has declined over the years should mean something.

 

So you have no proof to support your claim, but you state it as FACT that the Earth is expanding.

 

I do offer evidence. Just becuase you reject it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What about the groups of sister taxa line both sides of the pacific. I have not heard an good explanation that calls for a static sized earth.

 

Actually, one of the similarities you have pointed out about the Pacific and the Atlantic was the mid ocean ridges. Well that one in the Pacific is actually a subduction zone.

 

You mean the ridge that is surrounded by new crust that gets older as it gets further away from the ridge? That Ridge?!? Was it a creation zone up until it recently flipped into a subduction zone? I thought science was supposed to come up with models that were predictable.

 

Furthermore, if the Earth was expanding, there would not actually be a reason for the Pacific side of the Plate to be the same as the Atlantic side of the plate. If the Earth was expanding, then what occurs on one side of the plate is not necessarily influenced by what occurs on the other side of the plate, so long as the "average" rate of expansion along that line of latitude is maintained (which could allow that all expansion for that latitude occurred on a single ocean ride and no others).

 

I don't see what you are getting at here.

 

*mooeypoo's balloon experiment*

 

Becuase the earth is not a balloon.

 

Exactly' date=' the earth is not a balloon. So why do you think it is expanding?

[/quote']

 

Well the sun isn't a balloon either, and it is expanding. I recognize that what could cause the sun to expand could not apply to how the earth could expand, but who is to say there is an undiscovered way for the earth to expand. To say that our universal understanding of everything is enough to throw out every unexplored possible explanation for an expanding earth.

 

However, being "Cold Blooded" does not mean that your body temperature is actually low. It just means that it is equal to the ambient temperature.

I'd have answered that it is in fact expanding a nearly unmeasurable amount due to meteorites, if I didn't know happycoder was crazy and would think I was talking about the earth expanding from the inside.

 

Well it has seemed that my ethos have flat lined. Although I think they were probably like that from the start. No matter what I could say you would immediately assume it would be wrong. I am getting the feeling that you don't find me very intelligent. I can see why you would. I know how dumb some people look when trying to back something like the moon landing hoax. I can see why you would see me in that same light.

 

One thing I still need you to explain to me is this.

"What about the groups of sister taxa that line both sides of the pacific. I have not heard an good explanation that calls for a static sized earth."

 

And as a side note I am sick of responses that tell me i'm wrong and don't go into any detail why. Edtharan is the only person making responses that are any good.

[iNow]

You're wrong because the earth is not expanding. I'm sorry you're sick of hearing it, but it's true all the same.

[mooeypoo]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

I am not sure about the rest of the skeptical community, but I *am* trying to be skeptical of everything. I think that's the right thing to do, specifically going for research in astrophysics (and research in general).

 

However, there are different "measures" of my skepticism. Different claims would "meet" different levels of skepticism, and hence different requirements for evidence.

 

Example:

 

Claim #1: The boss at work is sleeping around with other women while his wife is out of the country and uses office money to pay his multiple girlfriends.

Response: I have no real reason to believe this, but the claim is not over-the-top outrageous. It might be true. I would require evidence, but probably would settle for relartively few evidences.

Also, it's not affecting a lot of other subjects, which makes it less significant than if it would've affected other claims, proofs or situations.

 

Claim #2: Aliens took over the government and are now running the most powerful nation in the world.

This is a much more outrageous claim, and the same amount of evidence I'd have required from the previous claim would NOT be sufficient. Not by a long shot.

First, this is affecting other subjects, such as astrophysics (the proven existence of other life forms), exobiology (how they look like, what their biological systems are, etc) and a whole bunch of other fields, scientific or not.

 

In the Claim#2 case, I would first require evidence to show any REASON to start a more thorrough hypothesis before I waste my time. I am not saying I would never believe it, but I would definitely be skeptical, and the amount of proof necessary to convince me, or to start convincing me, is quite large.

 

the claim of the expanding Earth is similar to claim #2. It's not just another hypothesis, it's a claim that states that EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT OUR PLANET and OTHER PLANETS (and about geology, astronomy, and a whole bunch of other subjects) is WRONG.

 

That's a huge claim. Huge. I demand evidence, and I think I'm not overboard when I demand a LOT of evidence. I certainly demand more evidence for this than I would for a claim of the type of claim #1.

 

To remind everyone, Dark Matter wasn't accepted in the scientific community. Not until the proofs *for its existence* were overwhelming, and still it is being treated as a "transitional hypothesis" -- a hypothesis that works for now, but most likely would be replaced when we find out WHAT that dark matter is.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

This really is what a lot of it is about. And in this case, it's even "worse": It's not just that I doubt the Earth is expanding, it's that there is an AMAZINGLY VAST AMOUNT of evidence (PROVEN EVIDENCE!) to prove otherwise.

 

So claiming against such a huge amount of evidence (whether one understands it or not) requires quite a rigorous demand for evidence.

 

 

~moo

[HappyCoder]

What about the groups of sister taxa that line both sides of the pacific. I have not heard an good explanation that calls for a static sized earth.

 

explain.

[iNow]

 

You just quoted yourself and asked for an explanation.

 

 

Man. That's classic.

[DrP]

I have not heard an good explanation that calls for a static sized earth. .

 

Consevation of energy/matter?