HappyCoder Posted September 18, 2008 Author Posted September 18, 2008 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. 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. I am getting the feeling you are doing exactly that for the Expanding Earth theory. I also get the explanations for plate tectonics. I just think the expanding earth makes more sense. I don't think I am doing a good job conveying what I see. Look at my last post and read over it again. Hopefully you can see how nicely it fits together. 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, True, but if both the Pacific and Atlantic are influenced by the same influences then they should yield similarities. 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 really think all expansion could have happened in one ocean. Imagine a cross section of this happening. A rock ring around the earth. A break happens on one side. Now in your mind try to straighten out this ring without breaking the other side. Keep in mind it is made out of rock, and not rubber. 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). I guess I haven't done a very good job showing that I do know some things about plate tectonics. You may understand Tectonics better than me but you do not understand the expanding earth better than me. I think that the earth is expanding not because I don't understand tectonics interpretations of evidences. I think the earth is expanding becuase I do know tectonics interpretations and I think the expanding earth can explain evidences much better. 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. I guess I didn't explain the mountain forming process well enough. Going back to where that curve that collapses. The continent has a larger surface area than the curve of the earth below it. Parts of the continent are pushed downward from gravity. Because the continent has more surface area the process of parts of the continent falling results in these parts also pushing outward. This sideways pushing results in compressing another part of the continent pushing it up. Read over my last post again. I am hoping you see how nicely that fit together into one simple idea. The earth is expanding. I think the expanding earth theory is a much simpler idea than plate tectonics. Taking a fresh slate, evaluate the evidence I posted. It is obvious the Atlantic was closed. There is matching outlines, young ocean in the middle, and fossil evidence that joins it up. The Pacific shares all of these evidences too. It only makes sense to assume that both the Pacific and Atlantic were closed, and the fact that the age of the oceans match would mean that they were closed at the same time. If you want to reject the evidence for a closed Pacific then you also reject the evidence for a closed Atlantic and you will need additional evidence for a closed Atlantic that doesn't exist for the Pacific. Compare how mountains formed for both plate tectonics and expanding earth. Plate tectonics does not offer one consistent explanation for mountain building. This just adds complexity to the idea of a fixed size earth. Expanding earth offers one explanation for mountains. You tell me that different evidences I posted are irrelevant. Is that just your way of justifying ignoring it? When looking over my last post don't ignore any part and try to see how well it all fits together. Even if it is not correct you should see how well it all fits together, and how simply it fits. 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). I know you would not accept me saying measurements indicate an expanding earth without backing it up. Please hold yourself to the same standard.
I_Pwn_Crackpots Posted September 18, 2008 Posted September 18, 2008 HappyCoder, all you've posted was just one gigantic non-sequitur and a strawman. We've tried pointing this out to you. But, if you don't want to listen, fine then. Believe in the expansion of Earth if you wish. Just don't expect us to simply flock to your theory, kneel down before your divine revelations, and see the error of our ways.
Edtharan Posted September 19, 2008 Posted September 19, 2008 Compare how mountains formed for both plate tectonics and expanding earth. Plate tectonics does not offer one consistent explanation for mountain building. This just adds complexity to the idea of a fixed size earth. Expanding earth offers one explanation for mountains. The reason that there is more than one explanation of mountain building is that there is differences in the underlying structures of mountains. Differences that can only be put down to differences in how they formed. Your expanding Earth has only offered one method of mountain building (partial collapse of a plate). This method would produce a different (and hence detectable) structure in the rocks. The mountains would form when the tension (pull) on a section of the plate would cause the rocks to split and form a valley, with the mountains as the walls of the valley. 1) This should mean that all mountains form as pairs, one of each side of a valley. This is not the case. 2) When rocks are split like that it produces a lot of heat. This will melt the rocks a bit and crystals will form. These crystals will have very different properties than if the mountains formed form other methods. Say the collision between plates. By examining these crystals under polarised light, we can see these differences (you can do this your self with two polarising filters so you don't have to just take mine, or any one else's word on this - it is not too difficult to do). Analysis of rocks like this for mountain ranges indicate that they were not formed due to the partial collapse of a plate like the expanding earth theory states. Differences between the way crystals effect polarised light between compression and stretching can be seen by this method. Crystals from rocks in mountains indicate compression in their formation. Therefore mountains are not formed by rocks being pulled apart as would have to happen in your expanding Earth. However, using this analysis technique, there is evidence that this is not the only way that mountains form. This only applies when two plate collide (as in the Himalayas). Actually try this experiment. Get two sheets of cardboard (not too thick) and push them together. One of 2 things will occur. 1) Both pieces of cardboard will buckle upwards and form a peak. This is the Mountain forming method that causes the compression of the rocks of the mountain. 2) One piece of cardboard will buckle upwards, but the other wont. This will result in one piece being slid over the top of the other and the other being slid underneath. This results in the other type of mountain forming. When this occurs, the plate that is pushed down is pushed into a region that is a lot hotter, as well as the heat caused by the friction of these massive pieces of the Earth's crust sliding over one another causes the plate pushed down to melt. The heat of this also melts the top crust a bit, and sends a plume of this heated, liquid rock upwards. This causes a lot of pressure underneath the top plate (and a bit inside it) which pushes up a mountain range. This creates a difference between the crystals that form in the rocks. If the rocks have been heated in this manner, then some crystals (not all will actually melt) will show sings, not of compression, but of extreme heating. These two types of mountain building also have more visible surface effects. In the case where the plate both get pushed up, there won't be a lot of volcanoes as there is not this liquid rock welling upwards from underneath. However, in the case where one plate is pushed under, then you will get volcanoes. Now, is there a simple test of this theory? Is there a way we can simply determine that this theory is true? Well the first thing to look for is the two causes. Both are caused where two plates are moving towards each other and have collided. Using the methods described in my previous post with the Trig stations, this bit is trivial. Well we know that the Indian plate is moving northwards into the Asian plate. We can also see that there is no subduction zone here, so this is an example fo the first case: That the two plates are both buckling upwards. This is the Himalayas. However, a subduction zone is where one plate is being pushed under another, as is the case with the Pacific plate and the South American plate. As the subduction zone is the indicator that one plate is being pushed under another plate, then this is a good test of our theory. Now as I said, the difference between the two scenarios was that if a plate was being subducted, then we should see a mountain range a little bit inside the plate that is being pushed over the top. As it is the South American Plate that is being pushed over the top we should see a mountain range a bit inside the South American plate. And we do. We cal it the Andes Now if you also recall that i said that there should be a surface difference between them that would allow us to determine that there is a different process going on. In the case where there is subduction, then we should see volcanism, but in the case where both plates are being pushed up, we should not see much volcanism. Notice here that I have presented a theory with a mechanism that can be tested. And here is the test, is there much volcanism in the Himalayas, or is there only a little? My theory states that there should only be a little. Also, is there much volcanism in the Andes or is there only a little? My theory states that there should be volcanism. Now your theory of mountain formation does not account for why there should be mountain ranges with lots of volcanism and other with none. Your theory can not account for these differences. However, Tectonic theory does. In fact it is extremely testable. In every case where there is subduction, we should see mountain ranges forming with lots of volcanoes. In cases of mountain formation where two tectonic plates are colliding but no subduction is occurring (both plates buckle upwards) then we will not see much volcanism. And this is the case all over the world In every case where there is subduction, there is an associated mountain range with volcanism. In every case where the mountain range is formed by the two plates buckling upwards, there is not a lot of volcanism. This means that the theory accounts fro EVERY single piece of observation: That there are two fundamentally different forms of mountain formation processes and that these processes produce different effects on both the terrain (volcanism vs no volcanism) and in the rocks (compression vs extreme heating). Your theory states only 1 method so there should be only 1 process and only 1 effect. But there are clearly 2 processes at work. Not only does your theory not account for these 2 different types of mountain ranges, it also states that the rocks should undergo stretching rather than compression. So lets look at this in terms of criteria that we have asked you to produce: 1) Show that current theory is either incomplete or does not match with observations. Your theory requires that rocks undergo stretching during mountain formation, where as observation (the crystals in the rocks) show either compression or extreme heating. Now, extreme heating is not explicitly excluded from your theory, but compression (of the mountain range) is. So we have evidence not accounted for by your theory (heating) and more importantly we have evidence that contradicts your theory (compression vs stretching). So if we assume your theory as the accepted theory, I have fulfilled the first criteria we have requested that you perform. 2) Show that the new theory explains all known observations. As I have gone through, analysis of rocks and the crystals that they contain show that there are two types of mountain formation occuring. One where both plates are buckled upwards and subduction of one plate. As two processes are going on, there must needs be two explanations of what is going on. As I have gone through, there are two explanations of mountain formation that explain the differences between the two types of mountains. So assuming your theory as the accepted theory, then the Tectonic theory explains the differences better than Expansion. 3) Have your theory make testable predictions. Again, the two theories of mountain formation make testable predictions as to volcanism associated with mountain ranges. Specifically that if a mountain range is formed through subduction, then you will get associated volcanism and if they are formed from both plates buckling, then you wont. These theories hold up under ALL mountains found on Earth. And so Tectonic theory is capable of answering all 3 criteria that we have asked you to do for Expansion theory. Taking a fresh slate, evaluate the evidence I posted. From the start, I have assumed that BOTH theories were under scrutiny. I have not assumed that one was right and the other wrong. Therefore both theories HAD to answer these 3 criteria. These 3 criteria are the scientific method. This means that if a theory was able to answer all 3 criteria, then it was scientifically sound (note that I didn't say correct here). If it could not answer all 3 criteria, then it is not scientifically sound. The reason that I didn't state that if a theory was able to answer all 3 criteria then it must be right is that it is possible that more than one theory can answer all 3 criteria. However, if a theory can't answer these 3 criteria, then it can not be an explanation of reality, as one of the criteria is to explain the observation (of reality). If it can not explain reality, then it is not a description of reality. Also, one of the criteria is that it produce testable predictions. that is not only does it have to describe past observations, it also has to explain future observations and be stated in a way that makes it easy to find problems with the theory (ie: easy to disprove). If a theory fails all 3 criteria, then the only conclusion is that it is wrong. As your theory fails all 3 criteria, it is clearly wrong. Expanding Earth can not account for mountain formation where as Tectonic theory can. Yes, Tectonic theory might be wrong. But it is far more right than Expanding Earth as Tectonic theory explains the observations and Expanding Earth doesn't. I don't really think all expansion could have happened in one ocean. Imagine a cross section of this happening. A rock ring around the earth. A break happens on one side. Now in your mind try to straighten out this ring without breaking the other side. Keep in mind it is made out of rock, and not rubber. Actually, you can fold, stretch, compress, etc rock. It takes heat, pressure and a long time, but you can do it. There are probably clear examples within around 10 minutes drive from where you are (it is that common). Also, you are ignoring the second scenario: that of lots of small fractures. Even with a global ring of cracks, you would still ge the same problems as you claim my proposition would produce. So your scenario is no more of a solution. However, you also missed the entire point. In an expansion scenario, you will not get a globally encircling "crack", because when the crack get big enough, this releases the tension that is causing the crack to occur in the first place. Expansion CAN NOT cause a globally encircling "crack". The very fact that we do have a globally encircling crack is actually evidence AGAINST expansion. You tell me that different evidences I posted are irrelevant. Is that just your way of justifying ignoring it? No. The reason it is irrelevant is that it does not allow us to determine which theory is wrong. With science, the aim is to disprove a theory. When testing a theory, you do not look for evidence that proves your theory (that should have already been done) but instead look for evidence that disproves it. All the evidence that I stated as "Irrelevant" is evidence that does not allow us to determine which is wrong. As it is not able to tell us which theory is wrong, then it is not useful in helping us tell which theory is wrong. One or the other must be wrong, they are mutually exclusive. You can have both Expansion and Static Earths. As you are trying to convince us that your theory is correct, and the current theory is wrong, then it is of utmost importance to the discussion that we try to determine which theory is wrong. Therefore presenting evidence that does not allow us to do this is irrelevant evidence. Specifically it is called a Red Herring. If you are only using evidence that agrees with your theory and are not looking for evidence that contradict your theory, then you are Cherry Picking.
MrGamma Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 (edited) 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. The first thing you have to understand is the Terrestrial Reference frame which is used to calibrate the position of the earth in the universe. Some people calibrate the position relative to the stars and some will attempt to calibrate the system to a fixed point at the center of the earth for other reasons. I have only started to learn about frame dragging and gravitomagnetism but I do believe it can effect calibration as well if the prediction of it's effect is true. It is a relativity prediction. As far as I know the Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) system is the main satellites system to which all other GPS and other satellites services are calibrated to. As for Geologists... for the most part they take measurement relative from one station to the next and adjust for the curvature of the earth using Eulerian pole. Nasa JPL has GPS data which is accessible. http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html I trust this info first and foremost but I do understand that many geologists draw conclusions which are in conflict as to what this data set says. It is most likely due to relative vs absolute positioning and measurements, I am not sure. People also argue that Gravimeter data has effectively been used to measure the size of the earth but they are spot measurements which often have to deal with atmospheric effects and natural uplift. Post Glacial rebound is another phenominon caused by the recession of the 2-4 km ice sheet from the 30-40km thick upper continental crust 10,000 years ago. Something to consider. This article may upset some as it has already been suggested as glacial melt and mentioning it here might suggest that it's some sort of proof when it is not. In any event the gravity bulge is something to consider when examining the dynamics of earth. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0807_020807_earthgirth.html Again... JPL has nice gravity maps. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2003/103.cfm Paleo-Magnetism is essentially which turned the paradigm back in the seventies. Here is the paper which refuted it. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v271/n5643/abs/271316a0.html http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16287341 From the same author recently. The GAD is the substructure system which all paleo-magnetic measurements are made. Additionally there are paleo-tide studies which if I am not mistaken have been used for gravitational constants proof. More Paleo Papers and Info. http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_97425.htm http://geomag.usgs.gov/movies/ James Maxlow Geologist PHD... has Paleo-Radius models calibrated to a small earth on display in the Geological Museum of the Polish Geological Institute. He seems to have done work with Paleo-Magnetism. http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/launchpad/6520/QUANTITATIVE-MODELING.html As for mechanisms. Pair production has been reproduced in the lab and it is recognized as a matter generation mechanism which could be occurring elsewhere in nature. ( I do not have the knowledge regarding particle physics to understand this in full ). Something like two high energy photons are capable of creating a Proton and Anti-Proton result. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003hep.ex....6017L Another Person to watch is Frank Wilczek who seems to have theories regarding the origins of mass. He is a Nobel laureate and he has said his theories will be tested at the LHC... http://www.frankwilczek.com/Wilczek_Easy_Pieces/342_Origin_of_Mass.pdf Someone else to watch is... J. Marvin Herndon PHD Nuclear Physicist who has theorized fission processes happening at the earths core. He has geology theories as well regarding the expansion of the earth due to decompression. I am not a big fan of his sub-duction model but his georeactor theory has merit. I am not sold on an Uranium core but I am nearly sold on the idea of Natural Fission reactors in and around the core or mantle somehow influencing earths radioactivity and heat. KamLand is searching for Geo-Neutrinos. http://discovermagazine.com/2002/aug/cover For a list of his papers... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Marvin_Herndon IN any event.. these people seem to have done a good job of analyzing some of the methods mentioned above. http://pecny.asu.cas.cz/cedr/download/Bajgarova_Kostelecky.pdf?PHPSESSID=10c87abce3666cd84fe4b01b9f969a46 The Japanese have an excellent map of the Moon... It has mountains too... so whatever mechanisms on earth which are causing those mountains... something without the assistance of plate tectonics and sub-duction are possibly building those ones... http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/04/20080409_kaguya_e.html Mercury is also a planet which has been recognized as cooling. So this besides the Sun are two bodies which have changed size regardless of accretion theory alone. Jupiter is another planet of interest regarding accretion theory. Mercury... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/07/03/scimercury103.xml "Does the Sun Shrink with Increasing Magnetic Activity?" http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001astro.ph..1473D Jupiter http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-does-a-planet-grow On that note... This is a very interesting development in GPS measurements. Who knows... Maybe the planet is currently shrinking? Personally... if there is matter generation occurring within the earth then I would be partial to a fluctuating earth... This would help solve some of the non-conformities and pre jurassic orogeny events. http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63519 The first thing to think about when choosing to do battle with a scientific debtor are these doctrines. They are often used as the rulebook for academic debates foremost and to mis-understand these principles will result in any real information you have being dismissed while your credibility or logic is attacked. http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html It is not worth arguing anything with people who know more about theoretical physics, geology, and astronomy than you do. Your only option is to learn and accept everyones paradigm with a grain of salt... Edited September 27, 2008 by MrGamma
bombus Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 (edited) can someone point me to stuff that refutes the expanding earth theory? There's not much on Wikipedia. Edited September 30, 2008 by bombus
iNow Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 can someone point me to stuff that refutes the expanding earth theory? Try here: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/ I did a search on "Satellite images of earth" to answer your question.
MrGamma Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 (edited) can someone point me to stuff that refutes the expanding earth theory? There's not much on Wikipedia. Maybe... I am looking for the definitive answer and I believe it would come from Geodesy. But not all Geodesy's are the same. There is the ICRF ( International Celestial Reference Frame ) which is what I would consider essential ( from a purely logical and laymans perspective ) to determining a fixed co-ordinate system which is not a product of the object which is being measured itself. There is the ITRF ( International Terrestrial Reference Frame ) which is the fixed point at which the earth is located. ITRF can be derived from the ICRF but some will derive the ITRF from the TRS which is the terrestrial reference system. It uses fixed points on the earth itself to derive a local co-ordinate system for the earth relative to itself. Again... from a purely laymans point of view I suspect this is scalar logic but for earth bound critical applications essential. For measuring a possible expansion not such a good idea... http://itrf.ensg.ign.fr/trs_trf.php From the definition it says... "A Terrestrial Reference System (TRS) is a spatial reference system co-rotating with the Earth in its diurnal motion in space. In such a system, positions of points anchored on the Earth solid surface have coordinates which undergo only small variations with time, due to geophysical effects (tectonic or tidal deformations)." ... "Such a TRF is said to be a realization of the TRS." So... My guess would be that someone who published a paper using the ITRF in combination with the ICRF avoiding the possibility of deriving any data from a TRS might have the answer. "International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service" http://hpiers.obspm.fr/icrs-pc/ I am open to criticisms regarding this conclusion. Frame Dragging might have an effect but I do not know enough about it and from what little I have read the effect would be minimal. Edited October 1, 2008 by MrGamma multiple post merged
sa'kin Posted October 26, 2008 Posted October 26, 2008 (edited) Hello. I've red this thread and I saw some difficulties on explaining either the Earth is expanding or not. Maybe I could say, "yes" and "no". "Yes." It almost convinced me that the Earth is expanding. Take the case of Pangaea. India, Madagascar, Africa, and Australia did fit. Africa and South America did fit, and the evidences of Australia fits with South America, and both "ends" of North America and Asia, have been proven. If Earth did not expanded, then one of the evidences I mentioned above is not true. "But, no." The Earth may not be expanding because of what we call "Subduction." Convection currents may be false if the Earth was expanding. However, there is one hidden question that we didn't notice earlier. Compare the rates of EVERY plate, or most of the plates. Compare the rates of divergent, convergent, and subduction rates. It may give you the answer if the Earth is expanding or not. Or, maybe we could merge the ideas. If Earth was taken as a model of a balloon, the rate of expansion of the balloon has a limit, so that it would not explode, thus giving the result of "the Earth wasn't expanding [anymore]," or at least the rate of subduction created by convection currents is maybe constant, or the rate of convection currents were increasing at a small rate [and it may give a limit, too], thus we could say that the Earth wasn't expanding. Oh. I remember. What is subduction again? The oceanic plate shrinks when collided with continental plate, because the oceanic plate is denser than the continental plate. The oceanic plate did subducted to a continental plate, and not for two continental plates. The theory of earth expansion did follows the "rules" with subduction, and therefore earth expansion did proven. However, if you still deny the earth was indeed expanded, give some evidences that the earth did not expanded. Just think twice, or even thrice, or many times. Like Newton, he had merged two opposite ideas so that he could make new formula, and he did not expect that from merging two different ideas to form another formula will prove that the heliocentric view of Universe is much true. The change of thoughts is up to a person, whether he/she accept it or deny it. Do not force people to change their view by saying "bad" words, or by "shouting." Better yet, give them clues or ideas relevant to your view, and let them realize what is true for him/her. If someone challenged other that he/she can prove the moon is bouncing, then you shall provide evidences that what you are trying to prove is true, and not by saying false arguments, like, "if the earth is expanding, the moon is bouncing," or something like that. That's all for now. Thank you for the ideas and arguments. ~addition to my post..~ Strawman. Actually 2 persons possess it. Edited October 26, 2008 by sa'kin I saw something that is indeed exciting.
Edtharan Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Compare the rates of EVERY plate, or most of the plates. Compare the rates of divergent, convergent, and subduction rates. It may give you the answer if the Earth is expanding or not. This has been done and it shows that the Earth is not expanding. A quick google search flagged up this: http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/animate/pltecan.html
bombus Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 None of the suggested websites prove much as far as I can see. The elephant in the room is that subduction has to equal plate creation EXACTLY, and there's little evidence of that from what I've been able to find.
Ophiolite Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 None of the suggested websites prove much as far as I can see. The elephant in the room is that subduction has to equal plate creation EXACTLY, and there's little evidence of that from what I've been able to find. That is incorrect. You are quite ignoring the effects of crustal shortening associated with orogeny. The net effects of crustal shortening, mid-ocean ridge crust generation and crustal destruction by subduction have to balance over a periods of centuries. They do not need to balance over a period of years. Plates move a centimetres a year. Consider how much movement occured when the Christmas tsunami struck Indonesia and newrby nations. That was the release of compression of several metres that had been ongoing for decades.
Edtharan Posted November 16, 2008 Posted November 16, 2008 That is incorrect. You are quite ignoring the effects of crustal shortening associated with orogeny. The net effects of crustal shortening, mid-ocean ridge crust generation and crustal destruction by subduction have to balance over a periods of centuries. They do not need to balance over a period of years. Plates move a centimetres a year. Consider how much movement occured when the Christmas tsunami struck Indonesia and newrby nations. That was the release of compression of several metres that had been ongoing for decades. Also, when you factor in that tectonic plates are slightly elastic and can buckle too, then you can easily have (over short periods and even quite long ones) variability in the rates of subduction and formation.
Moontanman Posted November 17, 2008 Posted November 17, 2008 explain. No problem, at one time all the land area of the earth was on Continent. A hot spot formed under this land mass caused by eh insulating properties of this land mass. all the animals at this time could walk anywhere (in theory) and mix with each other. As the hot spot spread the continents apart these animals lost contact with each other but still show signs of being related. Also land bridges do occasionally come up to connect continents, like central America connecting north and south America and the land bride that existed from Siberia to North America at one time. The is no reason what so ever to propose an expanding earth to explain animals all around the world being related. There is one thing that I can also address and that is the world wide ridge where the earth's crust spreads apart. On the coast of the Atlantic the continents are being spread away from the ridge at the center of the Atlantic. on the west coast the crust that was formed in the middle of the Pacific is being subducted under the north and south American plates. The Rocky Mountains and the Andes Mountains are evidence of this. As this oceanic crust is subducted some of the continental crust is folded up and the subducted Pacific ocean crust also comes up through active volcanoes. Eventually either the Pacific plate will reverse the motion of the north and south American plates or those plates will be pushed into Asia. The plates move because what we see as solid rock actually acts more like very stiff putty over the eons of times these plates need to move around. A good place to see this effect on a solid surface is arctic pack ice, this ice while solid to the touch acts like a thick putty over large areas in real time. This particular movement of the plates from all jammed up into one Continent into several is the second or maybe even third time this has happened. the one before Pangaea was called Gondwanaland. It preceded the current land mass by more than 300 million years or so. 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. Your little picture is cute but it doesn't even come close to describing reality. The continents are more like Ice floating in the ocean. Most of the continent is below with just a small amount of the lighter continental crust showing. Like an ice berg the continents are much thicker in the middle than they are at the edges. The continents are light rocks floating in an ocean of denser rock. the Earths crust is very thin compared to the molten mantle the continents float on. As the crust spreads and is subducted the lighter parts of the molten mantle that come up and spread from the mid ocean ridges are separated out as they are subducted. So in a very real way the Continental crust is getting larger and the oceanic crust is not really going any where any more than a rotating belt is going any where even though it's surface moves. the continental crust is moving on the belts of mantle material , they move and run into each other and get bigger as they collect lighter rocks from the mantle. At one time almost all if not all of the earth was covered by ocean but the process of lighter rock coming to the surface of the heavier mantle has slowly produced continents. Over the last 4.5 billion years the continents have grown. No expanding Earth, just a moving active dynamic crust floating on a sea of molten mantle. 1
Ophiolite Posted November 17, 2008 Posted November 17, 2008 No expanding Earth, just a moving active dynamic crust floating on a sea of molten mantle. Will people who should know better stop speaking about a molten mantle. The mantle is not molten, except in small isolated pockets. This kind of inaccurate statement just plays into the hands of the pseudoscience extremists.
Moontanman Posted November 17, 2008 Posted November 17, 2008 Will people who should know better stop speaking about a molten mantle. The mantle is not molten, except in small isolated pockets. This kind of inaccurate statement just plays into the hands of the pseudoscience extremists. Ok you are correct, from the stand point of human time frames the mantle is not molten. It is like a very dense putty or hot plastic but in the time frame of geology it does indeed act as though it were molten and the continents do float on top of the denser mantel.
NIN Posted November 18, 2008 Posted November 18, 2008 I'm pretty sure the planet expands, however a minuscule amount it may be. But, it has nothing to do with dark matter or whatever you mentioned, it's because the Earth takes in 20 tons of matter per day, through meteorites. Of course, whatever you mentioned can happen too, although I know too little in those subjects to really say anything of them.
bombus Posted April 5, 2009 Posted April 5, 2009 Can anyone with a better grasp of physics than me come up with a mechanism for earth exapnsion based on a thought I have had? Although I have known this for quite some time, it only 'clicked' a few days ago when reading a post by someone on a totally different thread. Gravity at the centre of the earth must be zero, because one would get pulled equally in every direction by the mass surrounding one in every direction. So, gravity pulling towards the centre of the earth must increase as one moves from the centre of the earth out towards the crust. Maximum gravity must I suppose be when one is sitting on top of the crust. So is it possible that the centrifugal force of the earth spinning is stronger than gravity pulling towards the centre for most of the region within the mantle? Could centrifugal force push magma outward towards the crust. Could the earth be hollowing itself, and the more magama that is forced outwards the less is left at the centre, so the gravitational pull from the centre of the earth is continually weakening hence expansion increases exponentially (small at first and then rapidly increasing). Have we a mechanism for earth expansion or am I totally wrong?
Sisyphus Posted April 5, 2009 Posted April 5, 2009 No. Gravity at the center is zero, but the pressure is still the result of the full weight of everything above. You can't hollow it out. Also, the centrifugal effect will also decrease as you get closer to the axis. At the center, it too would be zero, and increase linearly outward, just like gravity, and I'm sure you've noticed it isn't flinging things out into space at the equator, just causing a slight bulge. And the bulge isn't changing, as it's long since in equilibrium. Finally, the centrifugal effect is not directed away from the center, it's away from the axis. So even if, say, gravity were turned off, the result wouldn't be a hollowing out sphere, it would be a disk flying apart, leaving behind a spinning cylinder that was once the axis of the Earth. So, yes, you're totally wrong.
D H Posted April 5, 2009 Posted April 5, 2009 Have we a mechanism for earth expansion or am I totally wrong? You're totally wrong. First, a nitpick: Gravitational force would decrease with depth if the Earth had a constant density. It doesn't. The density at the center of the Earth is significantly greater than surface rocks for a couple of reasons. The Earth's core is mostly iron, which by itself is much denser than rock. The extreme pressure at the center makes the density even greater. Starting from the surface, the gravitational force first increases with increasing depth, reaches a maximum, and then declines to zero acceleration at the center of the Earth. The reason you are totally wrong is that you have forgotten about the pressure inside the Earth. This increases with depth, and very quickly. Think of it this way: pressure in a body of water increases by about one atmosphere for every ten meters of depth. That's just water, and that is ignoring compressibility. Rock is a lot denser than water. The pressure at the center of the Earth is estimated to be about 360 gigapascal, or about 3.6 million atmospheres. This compressive forces resulting from this huge pressure swamps the tiny centrifugal force resulting from Earth rotation by many, many orders of magnitude. 1
bombus Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 (edited) No. Gravity at the center is zero, but the pressure is still the result of the full weight of everything above. What weight is that? If gravity is zero, there will be no pressure as the pressure is due to gravity. Gravity will also be pulling in the opposite direction away from the core. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedYou're totally wrong.The reason you are totally wrong is that you have forgotten about the pressure inside the Earth. This increases with depth, and very quickly. Think of it this way: pressure in a body of water increases by about one atmosphere for every ten meters of depth. That's just water, and that is ignoring compressibility. Rock is a lot denser than water. The pressure at the center of the Earth is estimated to be about 360 gigapascal, or about 3.6 million atmospheres. This compressive forces resulting from this huge pressure swamps the tiny centrifugal force resulting from Earth rotation by many, many orders of magnitude. Again, your talking about pressure that is a result of gravity. There would be no gravitational pressure at the core of the earth (or less so at any rate), as it would be pulling away from the core as well. Shhhurly no gravity=no pressure Edited April 6, 2009 by bombus Consecutive posts merged.
Sisyphus Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 What weight is that? If gravity is zero, there will be no pressure as the pressure is due to gravity. Incorrect. The material at the center feels no weight, but the rest of the Earth does, and it's all pushing downwards, towards the center. Pressure at the center is almost 4000 metric tons per cm^2.
bombus Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 I'm sure you are both correct but I'm finding it hard to get my feeble mind around...
Sisyphus Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Well, think of it this way. In order to create a cavity at the center of the Earth, you have to displace the material that’s there. And in order to do that, you need to push everything else up (since every direction is “up”) by some small amount. The rest of the core, the mantle, the crust, everything. In the center, there’s very little gravity holding it in place, but it increases as you go farther out, and you’re quite literally trying to lift all of it, including the parts that have almost as much gravity as the surface.
mooeypoo Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Bombus, try to think of it this way -- Let's say you have a squeezeball (you know those that are used for relieving stress? you squash them in your hand..?) -- Now, if you put that sqeezeball between your alms and squeese both, you are applying pressure. Gravity, technically, applies on this squeezeball downwards - but the pressure you apply is "sideways" (inwards, horizontally). This is a good way of seeing how pressure is independant of gravity -- the fact that in the center of the Earth gravity cancels out doesn't mean that there can't be *pressure* applied, and that pressure, well, it's mighty uncomfy -- think of yourself being that squeezeball Does that help?
Recommended Posts