Mechanism for Earth Expansion

[HappyCoder]

 

You just quoted yourself and asked for an explanation.

 

 

Man. That's classic.

 

I guess I didn't make it clear that I wanted somebody to explain how that evidence backing the expanding earth could fit into plate tectonics.

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

Answer this question first: How does perpetual motion fit into the Law of Conservation of Energy?

Edited September 16, 2008 by I_Pwn_Crackpots
multiple post merged

[HappyCoder]

Answer this question first: How does perpetual motion fit into the Law of Conservation of Energy?

 

No, people asked for evidence and I gave it to them. I don't want people to just ignore it or change the subject.

 

Agian

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.

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

No, people asked for evidence and I gave it to them.

 

So then you shouldn't have any problem convincing people of the validity of your theory, should you .

 

I don't want people to just ignore it or change the subject.

 

Agian

 

I asked that question because you are starting from a false premise.

[HappyCoder]

I asked that question because you are starting from a false premise.

 

Do not change the subject. If you were following this thread at all you would know I was told I need evidence before I start speculating about mechanisms. Now you are telling me I need a mechanism before I can begin considering evidences.

 

Now to get back on subject. Evidence for expansion.

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.

[iNow]

The false premise is that the earth is not static sized as you say. It is dynamic, flexing... but not growing or expanding.

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

Do not change the subject. If you were following this thread at all you would know I was told I need evidence before I start speculating about mechanisms. Now you are telling me I need a mechanism before I can begin considering evidences.

 

I never said or implied that. What I stated was that you were starting from a false premise. You were assuming something to be true and then asking how it fits into an already established theory which doesn't support your hypothesis.

 

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.

 

I think the correct term for this is misunderstanding, not evidence. You don't understand plate tectonics so therefore you conclude that it must be wrong (If only I could be THAT rigorous!).

Edited September 16, 2008 by I_Pwn_Crackpots

[HappyCoder]

I think the correct term for this is misunderstanding, not evidence. You don't understand plate tectonics so therefore you conclude that it must be wrong (If only I could be THAT rigorous!).

 

I don't think this fossil evidence has anything to do with plate tectonics. If there is a simple explanation that allows the pacific to be open, please, enlighten me.

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

That's not fossil evidence. That's just some guy talking out of his ass.

 

Have you ever heard of subduction?

 

And, even if we assume that this ridiculous hypothesis has any merit, how do we explain the fact that life began in the sea?

Edited September 16, 2008 by I_Pwn_Crackpots
multiple post merged

[HappyCoder]

That's not fossil evidence.

 

Have you ever heard of subduction?

 

So subduction put related fossils into Australia and South America?

 

Yes I have heard of subduction. That is where solid rock will bend at an angle of about 45 degrees, although the angle varies, and then straighten back out into a straight line again.

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

No, that's not subduction.

 

It's where two plates collide, where one plate goes under another and pushes material up from the mantle.

 

Have you ever heard of Pangaea? All continents were part of it at one time.

[brian334]

Light has mass, every day light from the sun hits earth. Where does that mass go? Does it stay on earth? Every day space junk hits earth, does that increase the mass of earth? How could it not? How much mass leaves earth every day? Answer - none. How much mass comes to earth every day? Answer -- lots

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

Light does not have mass.

[ydoaPs]

light has mass

 

no!

[Bignose]

How much mass leaves earth every day? Answer - none.

 

On top of the other responses,

 

This is wrong, too. There is some atmosphere that escapes all the time.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast08dec98_1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/helium.asp

 

Many, many of your notions in that post are mistaken.

[Klaynos]

To add to the above 3 posts which I agree with...

 

And by the same logic...

 

The earth actually emits photons as well as collects them...

[mooeypoo]

HappyCoder, you've completely ignored my post, which should answer about 3/4 of your complaints and show you why your insistence against evidence is ridiculous.

 

It's so very cute that you're ignoring what you don't want to answer, it is. But it's not quite convincing, is it?

 

Take responsibility and answer our claims, and stop blaming us for your lack of desire to go STUDY what the counter theory says. We're not a geology 101 class and we're not going to lay out the entire philosophy and methodology of Geology. Those answers are available online, we are here to give you pointers, not to teach you from 0 while you stomp your feet on the ground yelling that we're a pack of ignorant blinds.

 

Go do your homework, read about the theory you're fighting so vigilantly against, sort out your claims, and stop avoiding claims that you find hard to answer.

 

Don't ignore questions and claims you don't feel like answering; doing that is moving your already-questionable hypothesis from the realm of interesting (if completely unscientific and unproven) debate to utter crackpottery.

 

~moo

[npts2020]

Just a simple question, if the earth is expanding why are we not (at the surface) getting closer to the sun, moon, planets, etc.?

[Genecks]

I assume there is an accumulation of matter from space coming toward Earth. This would allow Earth to expand. Also, the amount of failed Earth experiments creating space junk, for what I assume, has let out lesser amount of mass than what space has brought into Earth's orbit. Therefore, I'm going to assume that the Earth is indeed expanding that way but not by an amazingly large amount.

[insane_alien]

not enough (or even in the right way) to cause such big gaps in the 'origional' crust as the oceans.

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

Not anywhere near the amount necessary to cause a dramatic change in Earth's diameter.

[HappyCoder]

To appeal to the people who want some evidence for an expanding earth I am going to put down what I have found.

 

As you read through this I want you to take the evidences and try to see the big picture. Most of the things I have found don't prove anything on their own but as evidences are added a clear picture begins to come into view. I realize that many of the evidences I will point out will have alternate explications, but I want you to look at the big picture.

 

Here is a simple picture I put together illustrating what a perfectly rigid continent would look like on an expanded earth.

 

Please note two things. One thing is that the edges of the continent are lower then the center of the continents. Look at any continent and you will find that the centers of the continents are higher than the edges. The other is the angle formed between the continent edge and the ocean floor. Notice how the angle formed could be mistaken for a subduction zone.

 

Another thing about the curve, becuase continents cannot hold that shape becuase of the forces of gravity, the curve will collapse with the expansion of the earth. This is what forms mountains. For one thing it is a consistent explanation for every mountain range. This explanation for mountain forming is also very consistent with what can be observed with actual mountains. It is consistent with the fact that the Himalayas and the Rockies are roughly the same age. It is consistent with the fact that larger continents tend to yield larger mountain ranges.

 

Age of the seafloor

 

This is the age of the seafloor around the world. Please note the continuous ridge that circles the globe. Notice how the ridge matches with the outlines of nearby coastlines. Look at the ridge to the west of South America. Notice how well it follows the coastline of South America.

 

Also notice how the age range of the Pacific matches that of the Atlantic as well as every other ocean in the world. There is nothing on the ocean floor that is older than 180 million years old. The oldest of the crust is near the continental crust and new crust is being formed at the ridges everywhere on the globe. This data is a perfect match for an expanding earth. This data was discovered after the proposal of an expanding earth.

 

Look at the indent on the east side of South America then look at the outdent in Australia. Notice how they fit together. Just like South America and Africa fit together. Another thing about South America and Africa. If you try to piece them together, there is a spread. If you like up the top, but bottom doesn't connect. If you like up the bottom, the top doesn't. If they are curved to a smaller globe, they fit on the top and the bottom.

 

Take a look at this paper.

The trans-Pacific zipper effect.

It goes into matching outlines but it also addresses the fact that there are fossils that are found on either side of the pacific and nowhere else in the world.

 

Just like fossil evidence, matching outlines, and seafloor age data provides evidence for a closed Atlantic. This same evidence applies to the Pacific. 180 millions years ago the Pacific was closes, just like the Atlantic. Pangaea existed, it just wrapped around the entire earth when it was smaller.

 

Another insight fossil evidence offers is the larger size of creatures that existed millions of years ago. While most of them where not massive, the average size of creatures was larger than that of the average size today. Dragonflies, elephants, and crocodiles among other animals all have ancestors that are larger than their descendants today.

 

Another interesting thing to note is that Ganymede (Another Picture) and Mars both show signs of expansion. With Ganymede, just look at the edges of the dark areas and how they match up. Even better than the image of Ganymede is the one of Mars. The image I linked to show the elevation of mars. Notice how the higher crust has more craters. More craters means older crust. This means that the higher crust is older, just like earth.

 

All these small details all coherently fit together under the assumption that the earth is expanding. I don't need you to start telling me alternate explanations to what I outlined. Just read over this a few times and try to get the big picture.

[iNow]

Reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC2rDq-WaT0

[mooeypoo]

I don't even know how to start with your thesis, HappyCoder. You're missing a whole bunch of information there, and this idea is ONLY working if you ignore EVERYTHING ELSE WE KNOW.

 

So.. here are some texts for you to read. It's all there, the information about what plate tectonics really is (as opposed to what you seem to think it is) and on to why expansion is just not physically happening.

 

 

• http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm06/fm06-sessions/fm06_MR53A.html
  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
  Specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#Plate_tectonics_on_other_planets
  
• http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html
  
• http://geoinfo.amu.edu.pl/wpk/pe/a/harbbook/c_iii/chap03.html
  
• A bit about the history and discovery of Plate Tectonics: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/techist.html
  

I understand that you want instant answers to your claims, but that is quite unfair; there are answers, many of them, but they're not instant, and you must stop ignoring what you don't feel like knowing or dealing with.

 

What you are doing is more or less like if I would claim that gravity is untrue because I defy it every time I throw a ball into the air. That statement shows that I clearly don't know the basic principles of the theory I am trying to undo. Arguing with such statement is moot; first I must change my basic assumptions to one that are actually CLAIMED by the theory.

 

In fact, that principle (claiming that a theory is one thing when it is not) is called a Strawman. And you've been doing it, knowingly or unknowingly, throughout this thread.

 

Plate tectonics is not the only reason why we know the Earth is not expanding; it's just one of the *FACTS* (yes, facts, we KNOW the plates are moving in EXACTLY this way) that shows the Earth is absolutely, utterly, entirely, unequivocally, not expanding.

 

So. Go read. I know it sounds condescending, but I don't mean it this way at all. If you want a scientific debate over a theory, this is a good place to do it, we just can't do it while your claims are illogical and unsupported by evidence, and/or when you present our "side" (the theory) in wrong terms so that you can answer it the way you want to.

 

Good luck,

 

~moo

[Edtharan]

Please note the continuous ridge that circles the globe.

A continuous ridge does not indicate whether the Earth is expanding or not. Plate tectonics also allows (in fact requires) that there be a "continuous" ridge over some scale. This is because a "Plate" is just that a plate of crust not actually directly connected to another plate (although they may be touching).

 

An expanding Earth does not actually require there to be a continuous ridge at all. If the Earth was expanding, then all you need is a single main ridge through which new crust can flow that runs across one hemisphere with a few smaller, unconnected cracks joined to that.

 

In fact, this would be the far more likely scenario of an expanding earth. These ridges would be created when the tension (from the expansion) exceeds the tensile strength of the crust causing it to crack. Once you have a crack, then that would begin to release the tension of the expansion reducing the likelihood that other cracks would form.

 

When one crack formed then over time the tension would be concentrated at the ends of the crack causing it to expand. However, once the crack had expanded to cover an entire hemisphere of the Earth, then it would not gain more tension.

 

This means that the fact that there are ridges running completely around the world is evidence, not for an expanding Earth, but for a non expanding tectonic plate Earth.

 

The other result is that the plates "Stick" to the underlying structure of the Earth (this is what would occur in Mooeypoo's balloon experiment). If this occurs, then you will get lots of little local cracks.

 

If enough of these small, local scale cracks occurred, then this would release the tension enough to stop further crack form appearing or spreading into a global system.

 

Again, this is not what we see on Earth which indicates that we do not have an expanding Earth.

 

Look at any continent and you will find that the centers of the continents are higher than the edges.

This is isn't true. The centre of Australia is actually below seal level and the coasts are obviously not (or it would be flooded).

 

Not only that, Australia lies in the middle of a tectonic plate, so by your model, the centre of Australia should be well above sea level.

 

Notice how the angle formed could be mistaken for a subduction zone.

Subduction zones are determined by the fact that one part of a plate is lower than another. They are determined by the motion of the plate relative to the other.

 

We can determine the motion of a plate relative to another in several ways. The simplest is to use two sticks and a piece of string.

 

What you do is place the two sticks either side of a fault line and tie a piece of string to the sticks, and wait.

 

If the plates are moving away from each other, then the string will get tighter and eventually break (or pull the sticks out of the ground). If, however, the plates are moving towards one another, then the string will get slacker.

 

Now in reality, they don't use sticks, but instead use Trig Points and Triangulation. They can place trig points on top of mountains and use this network of trig points (there are literally millions of these things all over the world, so the data set is quite extensive) to measure changes from one relative to others.

 

This means we can measure the motion of millions of points on the surface of the Earth and determine how it is moving. What all this data does not show is an Expansion.

 

Another thing about the curve, becuase continents cannot hold that shape becuase of the forces of gravity, the curve will collapse with the expansion of the earth. This is what forms mountains.

Going back to the Trig Stations, if this were so, then it would be measurable. When mountains form, trig stations nearby, would actually measure a drop in height as the mountains form (because they form from a collapse of the crust). However, mountains are quite definitely shown to rise up when they form.

 

This again is contrary to what an expanding Earth should show.

 

It is consistent with the fact that the Himalayas and the Rockies are roughly the same age.

That is actually completely irrelevant. In either an expanding Earth scenario, or the Tectonic Scenario, there is no reason why the Rockies and the Himalayas needs to have formed at the same time.

 

Notice how the ridge matches with the outlines of nearby coastlines. Look at the ridge to the west of South America. Notice how well it follows the coastline of South America.

Again, another irrelevancy.

 

In Africa there is the Great Rift Valley. This is where the plate is splitting apart and a Rift is forming.

 

Over time, this rift will grow and spread oceanic crust between the two pieces. Because this Rift is formed as the plate split and the splitting of the plate creates the oceanic ridge where new crust is formed, then the ridge and the edge of the plate will match.

 

This will occur in either an Expanding Earth or a Tectonic Earth. This "evidence" is competently irrelevant.

 

So what advantage did the large size bring the dinosaurs?

The larger the Herbivores the longer they could take to digest the plants that they ate. The main plants were conifers (grasses hadn't yet evolved) which have a waxy coating on their leaves which make them a lot harder to digest. Also, dinosaurs didn't have well developed teeth so could not chew their food well (they were simple peg like things).

 

The predators would then have had to evolve into larger forms to tackle the larger prey species.

 

However, the life of a predator is much harder on the body than that of a herbivore, so predators could not grow to the immense size that the herbivores could. This also gave the herbivores a distinct advantage as the largest herbivores, once mature, would no longer be feasible prey for the predators.

 

Larger bodies cool down slower than small bodies, so large dinosaurs would have had an easier time regulating their temperatures.

 

Long necks would have been able to sweep large areas for food with little motion of the body, this would allow herbivores that were consisting on such a poor diet of ferns and conifers to conserve their energy while also being able to gather a lot of food.

 

So yes, there is a very distinct advantage (in fact several) for the dinosaurs to grow larger.

 

An interesting thing to note is that over time dinosaurs did evolve better teeth, and in the species that this occurred in, developed into smaller forms. This is good supporting evidence that one of the main factors in dinosaur size was that of digestion and food acquisition.

 

I am trying to move toward an explanation for expansion.

An explanation is meaningless if there is nothing to explain. If there is nothing to explain, then you can never be sure that you have the right explanation (infect it is impossible to get one as there is nothing to explain).

 

To establish if something is occuring, then you have to show the current thinking is wrong and then you have to establish that the phenomena is happening how you state (remember even if you were to prove that Plate Tectonics is false, it does not necessarily mean that you are right, it could actually be a third possibility and that both Tectonic and Expanding Earht are wrong).

 

What about the groups of sister taxa line both sides of the pacific.

Plate Tectonics explains that. The reason that they are not responding to it is that it is an irrelevancy. It neither proves an Expanding Earth or Disproves Plate Tectonics.

 

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.

A zone that was expanding and then enters into a subduction zone is only inconsistent with an expanding Earth.

 

With plate Tectonics, it is perfectly possible for a plate to change direction. The motion of the plates are determined by convection currents beneath the crust and by the motions of other plates.

 

If Plate 1 was moving 1cm/year westwards and Plate 2 (lying to the West of Plate 1) was moving at 2cm/year west, then you would get a ridge that forms between the two plate.

 

But then if Plate 2 collided with another plate (Plate 3) and that changed it's motion to that of 2cm/year northwards, then Plate 1 would now be moving 1cm/year into Plate 2.

 

This means that what was once a ridge, would now becomes a subduction zone as one of the plate was subducted beneath the other.

 

Plate tectonics is perfectly consistent with this situation, it is an Expanding Earth that isn't.

 

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.

And this is why you have a problem. You don't understand the processes that are going on in either situation (expanding Earth or Tectonic Earth).

 

Well the sun isn't a balloon either, and it is expanding.

Well it is whole different ball of gas... Literally.

 

The Sun is active, the gasses that make it up are being compressed by gravity, but this compression has caused the hydrogen to fuse in its core and this releases energy. Over time this fusion causes Helium to build up (if you fuse hydrogen together you get helium). Helium change the amount of energy released (it increases it). When you heat up a gas it expands. Thus the Sun gets bigger.

 

Earth, on the other hand, is not actively producing energy like the Sun. The contraction due to gravity has been stopped because the physical structure of the material that makes up Earth can't be compressed any more by the strength of the Earth's gravity. In fact, the Earth's gravity is pretty feeble and the amount of compression of the material that makes up the Earth is not all that much (so not even a reduction of the strength of gravity - and all the problems that would create - could explain an expansion great enough to account for the amount you are needed for your theory).

 

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.

ALL measurement taken indicate that the Earth is not expanding. It is this that states that the Earth is not expanding. So the only way there could be some way for the Earth to expand is one that simultaneously makes it shrink at the exact same rate (which leads to no expansion).

 

In fact, a lot of the "evidence" that you have presented, when you actually examine the consequences of it, instead of just latching onto it because it superficially sounds like to might be correct, actually disproves an expanding Earth.

 

This is so rampant that ff it wasn't your repeated statements that you believe that the Earth is expanding, I would think you are trying to disprove it.