farmboy Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 No, it makes no sense at all. Even in the video you can see that they are massively distorting the shapes of the continents to make them fit together in the pacific. Also if the earth were growing in the way they are describing wouldn't it rip the continents up into little tiny pieces since the stuff under it is all apparently expanding. It would be like having every single inch of the planet as a fault line.
mooeypoo Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 For the sake of fairness, here are a few links as to *WHY* all of us on the forum are so cynical when it comes to this question. We've all dealt with that ridiculously unscientific movie at least 5 or 6 times directly, and about a dozen times indirectly. It's pure bunk coming of a person who has no idea how geology works, how our planet behaves, or how to do proper scientific inquiry. So, if you're interested in what REALLY goes on inside the Earth and why this "expanding earth" "theory" is just scientifically silly, check these out, do your own concluding: Histoy of plate tectonics (and the theories before it, including the expanding earth) and why all other theories were found much less plausible: http://www.geologynet.com/tectonics1.htm Plate tectonics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics How do planets form: http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/discovering_planets_beyond/how-do-planets-form The Earth's internal structure: http://geology.com/nsta/earth-internal-structure.shtml ~mooey
lemur Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 Maybe Earth is a transforming-Bakugan: http://vimeo.com/14424476 2
John Cuthber Posted April 9, 2011 Posted April 9, 2011 "For the sake of fairness, here are a few links as to *WHY* all of us on the forum are so cynical when it comes to this question." And the fact that it was posted by the guy who started this http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/56035-the-sun-is-giving-birth-to-planets/page__pid__600091__st__80#entry600091
michel123456 Posted April 9, 2011 Posted April 9, 2011 If the Earth were expanding, it would be measurable. What measurements show is rather a stand-by situation. See here an article about the Earth measured slightly less than thought. But even in the expanding earth theory, the animation is peculiar. The Earth is supposed to begin as a small dry planet, then as it expands, oceans appear in the cracks. Why? Where do the water come from? And also, where is the explanation for the mountains? And ... there is no conspiracy. 1
Light Storm Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 (edited) Re: Mooeypoo It's pure bunk coming of a person who has no idea how geology works, how our planet behaves, or how to do proper scientific inquiry. First off, it's not Neals theory! During the start of the 1900's Roberto Mantovani published his work on earth expansion and continental drift. He was really one of the originals to say that all the continents of the earth fit together near perfectly, on a much smaller globe. He was also one of the first to say that it was volcanic activity, which broke the land up into smaller continents. A few years later Alfred Wegener pretty much published the exact same work, only it excluded Earth Expansion as a mechanism for continental drift. Expansion Earth and Plate Tectonics really are not that much different! "While arguments can be given for and against both theories, it is emphasized that the exact same crustal fragments making up both the ancient supercontinents and modern continents can be fitted together precisely, somewhat like a spherical jigsaw, on a smaller radius Earth to form a single supercontinent. The question that must then be answered is, is this empirical phenomenon fact or mere coincidence?" ~James Maxlow If Roberto Mantovani could see what was happening out in the African Desert today, I'm sure he would be truly proud of his theories. Ref: http://www.rochester...how.php?id=3486 Re: Michel123456 If the Earth were expanding, it would be measurable. Having looked over the GPS information conclusions on the data, I was absolutely mind blown by the 'corrections' made to yearly numbers. Have you looked over the data for yourself, or just laugh because the theory is quoted as being debunked on Wikipedia? But even in the expanding earth theory, the animation is peculiar. The Earth is supposed to begin as a small dry planet, then as it expands, oceans appear in the cracks. Proto Earth grew by accretion, I seriously doubt anyone is going to argue that. The super massive crushing power of the early Earth formation must have been astronomical. After the collision with Thea, and earth was gifted with an absolutely amazing amount of iron and the remnants of that disaster began to form our moon. Over time the surface of earth would have begun to cool and eventually solidified and became the cool granite rocky surface. The question really should be... how big was Earth at that point in history? I should point out that if the moon and earth where the size they are now then, the proximity of the moons mass would have been strong enough to destroy our surface, preventing earliest life from evolving. Plate tectonics says it hasn't changed significantly in volume at all. It goes on to say that the earth land was a series of super continents that formed like the Hawaiian islands. They drifted around and collided together forming Pangea, which also drifted around like an iceberg and broke up forming that continents of today. It's almost a shame there is absolutely 0! evidence of this ocean floor, I would love to see even a theory that discusses it. Advocates for an Expanding Earth agree that it was closer to the size of Mars. Pangea was the entire surface of earth. The hypothesis suggests that the mountains of today had not yet started forming. As the planet expanded in volume, that super hard surface would break up and begin to separate. As the curvature under the surface expanded, flattening it out, massive eruptions in the rock would adjust, stretching and wrinkling into mountains. The majority of spreading is shown to happen in the southern hemisphere. This is why the majority of the surface is mostly NEW while the majority of the northern hemisphere is ancient and continental. Why? The Earth's crust makes up less then 1% of the massive volume of this planet. The majority of that internal volume is under unimaginable pressure. Over 350 gigapascals in some areas. That's enough pressure to change the density of solid iron to double or even triple it's density and reduce it's volume. If the Earth's inner/outer cores are changing from a super dense state from the original crushing birth to a less dense cooler state over geological time, it would only take about a 15% change to double or even triple volume of the planet without changing the mass. When you really research our advanced knowledge of how the inner workings of this planet operates, you quickly discover that everything about the inner/outer cores is based on best guess. Honestly, we do not poses the materials, technology or knowledge on how to even penetrate that 1% crust. The core samples we do have come from volcanic activity. Where do the water come from? Go back 200 million years, the average sea level was about 200 meters higher then it is today, go back 60 million years it is about 70 meters higher then it is today. This is why you find ancient fish fossils on the land, and not in the newly rifted open ocean floors. For that matter, the majority of the ocean floor isn't much older then 60 million years. One valid hypothesis for the oceans is that it comes from the mantle of the earth, and continues to be vented to the earth surface over geological time. Some recent studies have shown ocean quantities of waters still trapped in the mantle. And ... there is no conspiracy. No, there is only sheer ignorance to even the idea of possibly. It could be one of the most important keys in understanding not only the evolution of Earth, but of all planets. Edited April 28, 2011 by Light Storm
mooeypoo Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 It's not ignorance, it's science. I posted links that show you the physics of what happens. If you have refutations to any fo this that include more than just a fancy youtube video, feel free to post them. Otherwise, sheer "arguing" against scientific facts is not really going to help convince anyone that there's merit to this. Give us the evidence, and we'll discuss it. Otherwise, at the very least examine the evidence for the theory you seem so eager to counter. We're open minded, but we still keep our brains from leaking out. ~mooey
Light Storm Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 It's not ignorance, it's science. I posted links that show you the physics of what happens. If you have refutations to any fo this that include more than just a fancy youtube video, feel free to post them. I would start with looking over the works by geologist James Maxlow His web page presents an excellent overview of his thesis: http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/ If you want to follow up by reading his open access thesis at Curtin University Library: http://espace.librar...&object_id=9645 Another scientist I follow is Dennis McCarthy. His evidence for an expanding earth is pretty solid. Video reference: Otherwise, sheer "arguing" against scientific facts is not really going to help convince anyone that there's merit to this. As I explained above, the difference between the theories is not like comparing apples to oranges. They are pretty much identical in all regards with exception of expansion. One says it's true, the other says it's false. No one has really ever asked the question before, scientifically of religiously, so in that regard, when taken seriously, it's a pretty new question. Give us the evidence, and we'll discuss it. Otherwise, at the very least examine the evidence for the theory you seem so eager to counter. If you can say the Atlantic was closed, and knowing the Pacific ocean basin in the same age, how can you not close it at the same rate? Dennis McCarthy presents the same question in a rather cheesy video if you want to see it Video Reference:
John Cuthber Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 "Expansion Earth and Plate Tectonics really are not that much different! " Except that one means the earth keeps getting bigger, but the other doesn't. OK, for one of those to be plausible the extra "stuff" has to come from somewhere. Where is that stuff from? Without an answer to that question this "expanding earth" idea is dead and should be left to rot.
Light Storm Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 Expansion Earth and Plate Tectonics really are not that much different! Except that one means the earth keeps getting bigger, but the other doesn't. OK, for one of those to be plausible the extra "stuff" has to come from somewhere. Where is that stuff from? Without an answer to that question this "expanding earth" idea is dead and should be left to rot. I presented a 'suggestion' as a means of explanation that doesn't break the basic laws of thermodynamics. It's not really my idea as it's more of a vague reference to the explanation given by James Maxlow. You must have glazed over it before responding. Before I could even entertain the idea of presenting idea's or evidence that suggests the earth is continuing to expand, you would have to look with eyes open at the overwhelming evidence that the earth has expanded in size over the past 250 million years. A lot of expanding earth hypothesis have presented ideas about Earth increasing mass over time. If true, and even I would have a hard time accepting that as I've reviewed the math myself, the best explanation is "I don't know." The line probably not good enough for you, but in science, "I don't know" is a hell of a lot better then "God did it" or "It's always been that way." Last time I checked we still don't fully understand the underline mechanisms to things like 'light' or 'gravity' and continue to strive to solve those 'I don't know's'. All above aside, the amount of energy required to support the recycling convection cells for plate tectonics would is equally be impossible as expanding earth. If you had gone over the links presented by mooeypoo like I did, you would learn that. Carey said understanding the source of new mass in the universe may be key in understanding where existence comes from. Lastly, considering an "infinite" amount of mass just popped into existence from nothing to create the big bang, I still prefer "I don't know" to "It just happened.
Moontanman Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 I presented a 'suggestion' as a means of explanation that doesn't break the basic laws of thermodynamics. It's not really my idea as it's more of a vague reference to the explanation given by James Maxlow. You must have glazed over it before responding. Before I could even entertain the idea of presenting idea's or evidence that suggests the earth is continuing to expand, you would have to look with eyes open at the overwhelming evidence that the earth has expanded in size over the past 250 million years. A lot of expanding earth hypothesis have presented ideas about Earth increasing mass over time. If true, and even I would have a hard time accepting that as I've reviewed the math myself, the best explanation is "I don't know." The line probably not good enough for you, but in science, "I don't know" is a hell of a lot better then "God did it" or "It's always been that way." Last time I checked we still don't fully understand the underline mechanisms to things like 'light' or 'gravity' and continue to strive to solve those 'I don't know's'. All above aside, the amount of energy required to support the recycling convection cells for plate tectonics would is equally be impossible as expanding earth. If you had gone over the links presented by mooeypoo like I did, you would learn that. Carey said understanding the source of new mass in the universe may be key in understanding where existence comes from. Lastly, considering an "infinite" amount of mass just popped into existence from nothing to create the big bang, I still prefer "I don't know" to "It just happened. I can honestly see how one might think the expanding earth fits the ide of the earths continents once being close together and how they seem to fit together but there is no mechanism that would allow for the expansion of the earth. How ever there is a mechanism that explains plate tectonics. The energy to drive plate tectonics comes from radioactive decay and gravitational compression. There is even a school of thought that says there is a huge ball of uranium and thorium at the center of the earth about 5 miles across, a natural nuclear fission reactor kept from exploding by the gravitational pressure of the earth. All of these things are possible and violate no laws of thermodynamics. The idea of the earth expanding has no mechanism and does violate the laws of nature. Until you come up with a mechanism for the earths expansion i see no reason to entertain a theory that doesn't explain anything any better than the current theory and violates the basic laws of nature as well. Come up with a mechanism and then your theory will be looked at less sceptically.
Ophiolite Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 Plate tectonics says it (the Earth) hasn't changed significantly in volume at all. It goes on to say that the earth land was a series of super continents that formed like the Hawaiian islands. They drifted around and collided together forming Pangea, which also drifted around like an iceberg and broke up forming that continents of today. It's almost a shame there is absolutely 0! evidence of this ocean floor, I would love to see even a theory that discusses it. Your ignorance on this point is surprising. You appear to have done some reading of the geological literature relating to plate tectonics, yet you are wholly unaware of the process of obduction, or the significance of ophiolite suites. Ancient ocean floors, 'scraped' onto continental masses during the subduction process are found in many locations around the planet, with many differing ages. These references may help to educate you in the matter. Perhaps them you will retract your amazement at the absence of ancient ocean floor. We don't just have evidence for ancient ocean floor - we have the ocean floor. The late Creataceous Oman ophiolite. Ordovician Appalachian ophiolites. The Bay of Islands ophiolite. The Ballantrae ophiolite. The Troodos ophiolite. And here is a general review of accretionary tectonics: Accretionary orogens in time and space. There are many more examples. You seemed to think you had a very telling point to make about the absence of ancient ocean floors. The ease with which it is dismissed causes me to doubt, in advance, the other points you have raised. Do they have a similarily flimsy basis? 1
mooeypoo Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 I would start with looking over the works by geologist James Maxlow His web page presents an excellent overview of his thesis: http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/ If you want to follow up by reading his open access thesis at Curtin University Library: http://espace.librar...&object_id=9645 Another scientist I follow is Dennis McCarthy. His evidence for an expanding earth is pretty solid. Video reference: As I explained above, the difference between the theories is not like comparing apples to oranges. They are pretty much identical in all regards with exception of expansion. One says it's true, the other says it's false. No one has really ever asked the question before, scientifically of religiously, so in that regard, when taken seriously, it's a pretty new question. If you can say the Atlantic was closed, and knowing the Pacific ocean basin in the same age, how can you not close it at the same rate? Dennis McCarthy presents the same question in a rather cheesy video if you want to see it Video Reference: Look. We're a science forum, not a mass-media study group. We go by scientific evidence and experimentation and observation. Plate tectonics is supported by established, peer-reviewed evidence. Giving us anything *less* than established peer reviewed evidence is going to fail hitting the mark. Videos are not evidence, they're videos. A single person explaining a theory with zero evidence and no supporting corroborating scientific evidence is not enough. This wouldn't have been enough regardless; but here you have a further problem that the current observations go AGAINST an expanding earth. So not only should you first establish that an "epanding planet" is plausible, you should also show that this is what happens to earth DESPITE what we see to the contrary. Until you do that, we can't really accept this theory. The alternative theory makes more sense in reality, because it explains the different phenomena that happen on the Earth's crust and inside its core and predict events. Expanding earth cannot. You seem to expect us to replace a working theory that gives us full explanation AND prediction with an alternative that gives only some imaginative videos and random word-filled pseudo-logical explanations. That doesn't cut it in science. ~moo 1
Moontanman Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 I think it should be pointed out that the video portrays the earth expanding in 40 million years or so, that would mean adding two or three earth masses to the earth in that time span. Such an addition should be quite energetic and would leave the earth molten, possibly even leave the out layers of the earth as Gaseous rock. I mean really? Really? REALLY?
Light Storm Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 Re: Moontanman I can honestly see how one might think the expanding earth fits the ide of the earths continents once being close together and how they seem to fit together but there is no mechanism that would allow for the expansion of the earth. The match is uncanny. Some of the similarities in matching coast lines is screaming to obvious to ignore. In past forum discussions, I've been present with the argument that they where connected pre - Pangea to justify the similarities. Even if so, the matching coast lines should not share matching sister taxa not found anywhere else in the world. Because I'm getting chastised for not backing up my statements, here is the biographical and geological evidence for a smaller, completely-enclosed Pacific Basic in the Late Cretaceous written by Dennis McCarthy (Journal of Biogeography (2005) 32, 2161-2177 http://www.4threvolt...cCarthy2005.pdf How ever there is a mechanism that explains plate tectonics. The energy to drive plate tectonics comes from radioactive decay and gravitational compression. There is even a school of thought that says there is a huge ball of uranium and thorium at the center of the earth about 5 miles across, a natural nuclear fission reactor kept from exploding by the gravitational pressure of the earth. References please, I have a feeling you made half of that up. Convection theory is under huge debate even by geo-scietists that aren't interested in alternate theories like expanding earth. All of these things are possible and violate no laws of thermodynamics. The idea of the earth expanding has no mechanism and does violate the laws of nature. Until you come up with a mechanism for the earths expansion i see no reason to entertain a theory that doesn't explain anything any better than the current theory and violates the basic laws of nature as well. Come up with a mechanism and then your theory will be looked at less sceptically. Refer to my first post: not my theory Refer to follow up posts: I would not present or agree to a theory that would violate the laws of nature Re: Ophiolite Your ignorance on this point is surprising. You appear to have done some reading of the geological literature relating to plate tectonics, yet you are wholly unaware of the process of obduction, or the significance of ophiolite suites. I'm aware of uplifted and exposed sections of the oceanic crust. I've been using rather gross references to make more of a quick statement. I feel a need to get this out now. I strongly disagree with Neal Adams on the statements like "note there is no subduction". That's a load of crap! His knowledge about subduction comes strait out of Careys book on Expanding Earth. Alas, the advanced understanding of subduction was little in Careys time. Follow up actual scientists in the theories of expanding earth do not deny subduction. They are also pretty quick to point out that rifting lines around the globe more then double, maybe even triple the distance of subduction lines. Also, as in the Dennis McCarthy video that Mooeypoo rejects without even watching is detailed explanation of Lopsided Hemispheres. He discusses how ultra fast and ultra slow rifting ridges statistically and profoundly out numbers the amount of material being subducted. Basic Math tells you an when you add more then you subtract, the total becomes larger. We don't just have evidence for ancient ocean floor - we have the ocean floor. *Follow up links* As I was explaining to mooeypoo above, the difference between expanding earth and plate tectonics boils down to "is the earth expanding?" everything else is pretty much the same. Maxlow has created reconstructions of the convenal Pangea, Gondwanaand Rodinia super contanents and smaller sub-continents in his very detailed Expansion Tectonics Theory. When I said we have no evidence of an ocean floor previous to 200 million years ago, I was referring to the geographical maps detailing the age of the ocean floor between 0 and 300 million years ago. Please note the simplicity of the spreading pattern evenly disturbed across the earths globe. *Subduction zones are indicated by green lines In order to maintain a static earth radius, the rifting lines must push 100% old material into subduction zones. Yet, we see no evidence of bottle necking material, or remnants of left over previous ocean basin, almost like, it was never there. That is what I meant when I said there was 0 evidence for deep ocean floors prior to 200 million years ago. I have never seen a geographical map, not even a guess or theory map of what the ocean floor looked like 300 million years ago. Believe me, I've looked, if you have a reference, I would happily give it an honest vetting. I would primarily be interested in understanding how it evolved with continental drift to form the rainbow map we accept as scientific fact today on the age of the ocean floors. And here is a general review of accretionary tectonics: Accretionary orogens in time and space. A lot more text book cross section on rifting/subduction zone relationships I've come to expect from everything I've learned about plate tectonics. In the many more examples at your disposal, do you have anything that takes a best guess at subduction/rifting line relationships say during the time of Pangea. Even a hypothesis, best guess map would do. As far as I can tell, there isn't one, just a big body of water hiding all the inconsistencies in comparison to todays oceanic age maps. James Maxlow has created detailed globes of the ocean floor dating back prior Early Jurassic using his Expansion Tectonic theory. Re: mooeypoo We go by scientific evidence and experimentation and observation. Me to! Plate tectonics is supported by established, peer-reviewed evidence. It's also equally discredited by established, peer-reviewed evidence. Giving us anything *less* than established peer reviewed evidence is going to fail hitting the mark. Okay, I mentioned James Maxlow and Dennis McCarthy above... I thought for sure they would be a little more credible then the Cartoonists video the OP made reference to. But if your interested in some more references, I would highly recommend a few other professionals leading this field. Giancarlo Scalera is an Italion Geologist publishing many accepted papers in the community and using the expanding earth for finding oil. Professor Lance Endersbees is a world authority on rock behavior and tunnelling who claims the world's water supplies as being ancient and coming from within the earth. Vedat Shehu is an Albanian field geologist who has been working on evidence for a growing and developing earth. There is also a pretty good paper by David de Hilster that really sumarizes the theory in comparison to plate tectonics. Videos are not evidence, they're videos. A single person explaining a theory with zero evidence and no supporting corroborating scientific evidence is not enough. I don't think you answered the question presented in my last follow up with you. So not only should you first establish that an "epanding planet" is plausible, you should also show that this is what happens to earth DESPITE what we see to the contrary. Did you look at Maxlow's page, or his several hundred page thesis? Until you do that, we can't really accept this theory. And this is why my first post ended in the conclusion that it did. The alternative theory makes more sense in reality, because it explains the different phenomena that happen on the Earth's crust and inside its core and predict events. Expanding earth cannot. Not only does it explain EVERYTHING plate tectonics can, it goes into amazingly advanced detail on everything else plate tectonics fails to explain. In reality, when you have two opposing theories that share the same evidence, more often the simpler one is the correct one. In this particular case, an Expanding Earth details how and why our planets continents are shaped the way they are. The other says it's random interactions of anyones best guess. You seem to expect us to replace a working theory that gives us full explanation AND prediction with an alternative that gives only some imaginative videos and random word-filled pseudo-logical explanations. To be honest, I didn't expect anyone here to even try and take it seriously, I just really wanted you to know that there was a lot more to the theory then videos made by Neal Adams. That doesn't cut it in science. Then why does the theory work so well? Re: Moontanman *Rambling Giberish* really, really REALLY? Expanding Earth theories suggest a 50% volume increase over the past 300 million years. The radius of earth is 6,378.1 kilometres. So lets do some math... 50% of 6,378.1 is 3189.05. 3189.05km / 300,000,000years = 0.0001km or 11mm per year. 3 Earth Masses? Something about gaseous molten rock? James Maxlow explains that the growth is exponential, not consistent and is why the planet has received the most growth over the last 300 million years when compared to the massive age of the earth which is about 5 billion years. Think of a star as it reaches the end of it's life span, it exhausts it's internal fuel and is no longer able to counteract the force of gravity. The density of the star will rapidly increase in volume. This is not saying a planet is like a star, or that the interactions with the core are the same, it's just an interesting observation.
swansont Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 11mm per year We measure the recession of the moon to be about 45 mm per year, which is consistent with the average slowdown of the earth rotation. How does the purported expansion fit in with this? You now have the recession from the center at about 56 mm per year — a larger transfer of angular momentum — and you have a change in the moment of inertia of the earth which is adds a component of slowing. If you're adding mass, it gets worse.
Klaynos Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 Re: Moontanman The match is uncanny. Some of the similarities in matching coast lines is screaming to obvious to ignore. In past forum discussions, I've been present with the argument that they where connected pre - Pangea to justify the similarities. Even if so, the matching coast lines should not share matching sister taxa not found anywhere else in the world. Because I'm getting chastised for not backing up my statements, here is the biographical and geological evidence for a smaller, completely-enclosed Pacific Basic in the Late Cretaceous written by Dennis McCarthy (Journal of Biogeography (2005) 32, 2161-2177 http://www.4threvolt...cCarthy2005.pdf And here's a paper that explains this within the mechanism of plate tectonics.... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V62-4RVG3PC-1&_user=122866&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000010082&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=122866&md5=c0c908fbb7c73e54c2586411aaec8c29&searchtype=a As swansont suggests we'd notice an increase in the earths radius due to the change in angular momentum... Also, if we're doing this by adding mass work out just how much mass you'd need to add to the earth to increase it's radius by 11mm... I'm pretty sure we've been over this before. Really my opinion is pretty set that until someone can give me a decent mechanism for an alternate idea I don't see the point in looking at it.
mooeypoo Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 It's also equally discredited by established, peer-reviewed evidence. By all means, I'd love to read them. Can you give us these resources? up to now, the resources given were not peer reviewed or scientific. Can you direct us to the papers?
Light Storm Posted April 30, 2011 Posted April 30, 2011 (edited) We measure the recession of the moon to be about 45 mm per year, which is consistent with the average slowdown of the earth rotation. Think about a figure skater in a tight spin and then slowly spreads her arms out while spinning. How does the purported expansion fit in with this? You now have the recession from the center at about 56 mm per year — a larger transfer of angular momentum — and you have a change in the moment of inertia of the earth which is adds a component of slowing. If you're adding mass, it gets worse. James Maxlow, the geologist cited in Ogrisseg's article, has excerpted and replied to these moment-of-inertia arguments, e.g. Keary and Vine's (Global Tectonics, Blackwell, 1990) conclusion that "A very slight expansion, or, indeed, contraction, of the Earth could be tolerated by this analysis, but, certainly, the very large increase in radius required by the expanding Earth hypothesis can definitely be ruled out." Maxlow responds as follows: The three tests proffered by both Clarke and Cook (1983) and Keary and Vine (1990) work because they all rely on plate tectonic premises to make them valid on a static radius Earth….Calculation of the ancient moment of inertia relies on the premise that the Earth's mass has remained constant with time in order to conserve angular momentum. While the rotational history of the Earth-Moon system using fossil organisms and sedimentary rhythmites assumes the yearly cycle has remained constant or near constant. What the fossil and sedimentary epithecal banding represents is daily, monthly and yearly _cycles_ [emphasis Maxlow's] of growth, not time. Earth expansion studies have demonstrated that Earth mass may not necessarily be constant, hence moment of inertia and solar cycles are also not necessarily constant." Maxlow also argues that the paleomagnetic and space geodetic arguments similarly covertly bring in premises which invalidate the conclusions against Earth expansion, and adds, "in addition to these three standard tests should be added a fourth, that of empirical modeling of global geological data without prejudice" – a reference to his own empirical modeling work. Ref: James Maxlow, Earth Expansion: Myths and Misconceptions, New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 13, December 1999, pp. 19-22, online at http://www.ncgt.org/ Re: Klaynos And here's a paper that explains this within the mechanism of plate tectonics.... http://www.sciencedi...29&searchtype=a Hmmm... in counter to the mechanism for plate tectonics, take a look at http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php Issue 2 Title : "Plate tectonics: everything goes and nobody knows." And guess what, it's open source which means it's not going to cost you $40.00 like your reference. http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php As swansont suggests we'd notice an increase in the earths radius due to the change in angular momentum... Please see above reference to swansont in references to questions about angular momentum of an expanding earth. Also, if we're doing this by adding mass work out just how much mass you'd need to add to the earth to increase it's radius by 11mm... I could sit here and work out the math, but my question is would it make a difference to you're perception for expanding earth theory? if a 15% decrease in core density over 300 million years is enough to double the volume of earth, I imaging the percentage for 11mm would be a ridiculously small figure. Really my opinion is pretty set that until someone can give me a decent mechanism for an alternate idea I don't see the point in looking at it. As nobody here is interested in reading the Maxlow page I've tossed up, You can see a series of videos shot from one of James Maxlows conferences. In video 12/14 he discusses a proposed mechanism. I've also given my view point on underline mechanism on previous posts. Re: Mooeypoo By all means, I'd love to read them. Can you give us these resources? up to now, the resources given were not peer reviewed or scientific. Have you even looked at Maxlow's page yet? I have yet to get any kind of opinion from you on him. You where pretty quick to bash Adams credibility. Dr. James Maxlow 'Geologist and proponent of Expansion Tectonics' ref: http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/ Please read Dr. Maxlows quick explanations of Expansion Tectonics ref: http://www.jamesmaxl...MN_position=4:4 Can you direct us to the papers? Here is a couple to start out with, if you want more they aren't hard to find. http://www.ncgt.org/ I've yet to get through all of them Edited April 30, 2011 by Light Storm
mooeypoo Posted April 30, 2011 Posted April 30, 2011 Have you even looked at Maxlow's page yet? I have yet to get any kind of opinion from you on him. You where pretty quick to bash Adams credibility. Dr. James Maxlow 'Geologist and proponent of Expansion Tectonics' ref: http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/ Please read Dr. Maxlows quick explanations of Expansion Tectonics ref: http://www.jamesmaxl...MN_position=4:4 Here is a couple to start out with, if you want more they aren't hard to find. http://www.ncgt.org/ I've yet to get through all of them I *have* looked, but you promised me peer-reviewed evidence, and this is a website that has zero peer-reviewed publications in it. Even his PhD Thesis is not published anywhere other than the university he did his thesis IN. That's not peer reviewed. Plate tectonics is explained (as people show you above) with evidence that was tested, retested and observed and can be explained and explain phenomena we see. For this 'expansion' theory to pass it needs to do all the above, and it does none. You can't even explain the MECHANISM that causes the Earth to expand, or where the matter that it expands with comes from. How could we replace a well established theory with something that has no proper scientific explanation, evidence or research behind it? Where's the evidence? Scientific evidence, please, not just a single site of a single person who wrote a PhD thesis. ~mooey
John Cuthber Posted April 30, 2011 Posted April 30, 2011 "Think about a figure skater in a tight spin and then slowly spreads her arms out while spinning. " I did, and I realised that, if she were as big and heavy as the earth, then spreading her arms out against the gravitational attraction of the rest of her body would require a lot of energy. Where do you imagine that energy comes from?
Recommended Posts