Is the earth expanding?

[csmyth3025]

"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?

I've read through this thread out of curiosity. I was unaware that an "expanding Earth" theory even existed. Two pages of comentary and numerous links have convinced me that the proponents of this idea are as sincere in their belief as they are wrong.

 

I have no idea why anyone would believe that the scientific community would conspire to hide the fact that the Earth is expanding if there was a shred of evidence supporting this notion.

 

Ultimately, this theory ignores the inescapable fact of gravity - as your post points out. The Earth is essentially a ball of gravitationally bound material that, if anything, will shrink (slightly) over the eons of its existence as its core cools.

 

Chris

 

Edited to correct spelling error

Edited April 30, 2011 by csmyth3025

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

As Light Storm is acting as a proponent for this, it has been moved to speculations

Think about a figure skater in a tight spin and then slowly spreads her arms out while spinning.

The skater slows down. Which means if the skater is also losing angular momentum to some other body, the skater must slow down even more.

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."

Here's the problem with this: if the mass increases, the moment of inertia increase is larger than that for a constant mass. Which requires an even larger slowdown of the earth. Maxlow's suggestion that the orbit has changed in order to compensate for the rotation variation and keep the number of days per year close to constant is one something that can be calculated, and implies more predictions that can be tested. It has implications on how much solar radiation we get, for example.

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.

You just got done arguing that the mass was increasing. Can't have it both ways. So pick one argument and either do the added mass calculation or the one John Cuthber called for (the work the constant-mass expansion requires)

(in accordance with speculations rule 1, I will add)

[Light Storm]

Re: Mooeypoo

 

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.

 

In fairness, I went searching specifically for Peer Reviews on James Maxlow. I found this letter someone posted to another forum and it's response.

 

byofrcs wrote:

 

That is not really how science works - a theory is only as strong as its weakest objection.

 

The quirkiest of objections which shows the tiniest of discrepancies, could be the spanner in the works that kills the theory dead.

 

All objections are equal. The theory is in fact held up by a chain of objections, any of which, if proven, destroys the theory. So unless you have some magic skills that allow you to judge as an expert the probability of each of the objections then all objections in that list are equal though for my density question I'd like to add the current mass and accretion rates just to show how mind-numbingly stupid the expanding earth actually is.

 

All objections are not equal, although small points can break a central premise, then it is really a big point in action.

 

I had stuff peer reviewed and you get massive lists back that are pages long is typical. A lot of it is little things, but they all need to be addressed. More importantly its up to the author to expound the possibility of every small point, and be honest to explore fully the ramifications, more than the critics intended.

 

I can only imagine how peer reviews must turn out.

 

How many letters do you think Maxlow must receive daily from ammeter scientists that must tell him his full of crap. The fact that he holds his ground on a theory that has overwhelming objection and very little peer support show me what an amazing strength in belief he has in his own highly educated lifes work.

 

Here is a video narrated by Neal Adams talking about what happened to another scientist legacy while supporting the expanding earth.

 

 

Even this thread can't be taken seriously enough to keep it in you're earth science forum.

 

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.

 

A great quote by Professor Sam Warren Carey "If 50 million believe in a fallacy it is still a fallacy."

 

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?

 

You can't even explain the mechanism that powers the complete 100% recycling of 5.9742 × 10^24 kilograms of mass that has reset over 70% of the floor of this planet! I've asked for a valid map of the ocean floor 250 million years ago to justify the plate movements on a static earth radius, and the request hasn't even been acknowledged. If there is something powerful enough to move that much mass on an ongoing cycle, it's powerful enough to expand a planet.

 

Where's the evidence? Scientific evidence, please, not just a single site of a single person who wrote a PhD thesis.

 

The Earth should be all the evidence to make it very simple to accept. If I take a hollow glass sphere, drop it on the ground, pick up the shattered pieces and attach them to a larger sphere and say to you... if the sphere underneath the glass shards was smaller, the pieces come together... you would toss up you're hands and say that's absurd!

 

Re: Klaynoss

 

My reference was peer reviewed, yours is not.

 

Is that why it costs $40 to read it? I think I'll stick to my books on plate tectonics, even if they aren't peer reviewed either.

 

Re: John Cuthber

 

Where do you imagine that energy comes from?

 

Now I know this is a stretch, but work with me here (whispers) "I think it's rotates because of leftover momentum from our solar systems formation!"

 

Re: csmyth3025

 

I've read through this thread out of curiosity. I was unaware that an "expanding Earth" theory even existed. Two pages of comentary and numerous links have convinced me that the proponents of this idea are as sincere in their belief as they are wrong.

 

That's just contradiction, not an argument.

 

I have no idea why anyone would believe that the scientific community would conspire to hide the fact that the Earth is expanding if there was a shred of evidence supporting this notion.

 

I have no idea why anyone in the scientific community would support earth being the centre of the universe. Sadly, up until a couple hundred years ago... they did.

 

Ultimately, this theory ignores the inescapable fact of gravity - as your post points out. The Earth is essentially a ball of gravitationally bound material that, if anything, will shrink (slightly) over the eons of its existence as its core cools.

 

Ah, you said one of my earliest objections. What I didn't account for was the pressure of the interior mantle and cores. Apparently when you cool something that is under enough pressure (350 gigapascals) it tends to significancy change it's density. When you cool it. The density decreases with and a long with it, pressure.

 

I looked up a research paper on the subject... honestly... the math went way over my head.

 

Links to papers mentioned:

 

http://www.me.ucsb.e...mputational.pdf

 

http://www.me.ucsb.e...core_mantle.pdf

 

Re: Swansont

 

As Light Storm is acting as a proponent for this, it has been moved to speculations

 

Figures... props for not moving it strait into 'off topic'

 

The skater slows down. Which means if the skater is also losing angular momentum to some other body, the skater must slow down even more.

 

And that can't happen to a planet because??

 

I mean... look at Venus

 

Here's the problem with this: if the mass increases, the moment of inertia increase is larger than that for a constant mass. Which requires an even larger slowdown of the earth. Maxlow's suggestion that the orbit has changed in order to compensate for the rotation variation and keep the number of days per year close to constant is one something that can be calculated, and implies more predictions that can be tested. It has implications on how much solar radiation we get, for example.

 

One can't help but ponder "Why" 250 million years ago a few creatures grew to more then 4x the largest land animals of today. Their bones where also hollow, more like that of the ultra light bird then the super reinforced bones of our elephant. Many elephants today suffer bone related problems, almost like they are too big for this environment. I understand that there was once a dragon fly with a 2.5ft wingspan... I mean... Wow, would such a creature today even have the strength to lift an exoskeleton that big off the ground despite how much oxygen it's sucking in? I wonder if the 'radiation exposure' at that time could have anything to do with it.

 

Size reference: http://en.wikipedia....i/Dinosaur#Size

Dragonfly reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura

 

You just got done arguing that the mass was increasing. Can't have it both ways. So pick one argument and either do the added mass calculation or the one John Cuthber called for (the work the constant-mass expansion requires)

 

I think you need to go back and re-read my posts. My argument for an expanding earth is a change in core density, not a change in mass. IF there was that much change in solid mass, even I would want to have an explanation for it!

 

in accordance with speculations rule 1, I will add

 

I'm new here, sorry for only familiarizing myself with the sticky posted rules of your earth forum.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2011 by Light Storm

[mooeypoo]

Without testing the claims scientifically, checking for repeatability and flaws in the arguments, presenting counter-arguments with existing flaws, etc, how would you expect anyone would choose which theory is better than another?

 

This is what peer-review does. It's not just a group of elders with pipes discussing papers. It's the testing of a theory empirically and under the empirical methods of the scientific method to sift through the different ideas out there and see which one makes sense not just in the mind of a group of people, but actually follows reality.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think we can get forward much longer with this if you can't answer the contentions above *AND* can't produce papers that proved to be repeatable and evidence-based.

 

Would you accept ANY other theory that has no evidence and no testing to it? Would you expect us to?

 

~mooey

[swansont]

I can't help but notice that you have completely failed to answer several questions put to you. (you've provided some answers that had nothing to do with the question, but you get no credit for that)

 

Now I know this is a stretch, but work with me here (whispers) "I think it's rotates because of leftover momentum from our solar systems formation!"

 

And when can we expect a calculation to see if this is anywhere close to plausible?

 

And that can't happen to a planet because??

 

I mean... look at Venus

 

I didn't say it couldn't happen, the question is whether there's any hope of showing that it did happen; we were discussing the amount of slowdown that we can measure and comparing it to the angular momentum taken up by the moon. An expanding earth slows down more. You need to reconcile measurement with your theory.

 

 

I think you need to go back and re-read my posts. My argument for an expanding earth is a change in core density, not a change in mass. IF there was that much change in solid mass, even I would want to have an explanation for it!

 

Then why are you offering up material from Maxlow, who discusses changes in the earth's mass, as a defense/explanation?

[Light Storm]

Without testing the claims scientifically, checking for repeatability and flaws in the arguments, presenting counter-arguments with existing flaws, etc, how would you expect anyone would choose which theory is better than another?

 

 

I would expect most people to employee there own level of critical thinking. To be able to question for themselves assumptions laid out by others. When someone tells me something is 'fact' and someone else say's it's 'myth' I want to collect the information for myself, weigh the pro's and con's to my own end and judge for myself on what makes more sense.

 

This is what peer-review does. It's not just a group of elders with pipes discussing papers. It's the testing of a theory empirically and under the empirical methods of the scientific method to sift through the different ideas out there and see which one makes sense not just in the mind of a group of people, but actually follows reality.

 

No Question, peer reviews are absolutely important. In fairness, James Maxlow is fully support by his peers in the field of 'expanding earth'. For that matter, he displayed on his page a letter he received from S. Warren Carey that even he had no question that James Maxlow was the successor to his own work. One hell of a Kudos if you ask me by a fellow peer.

 

I don't think we can get forward much longer with this if you can't answer the contentions above *AND* can't produce papers that proved to be repeatable and evidence-based.

 

So in your opinion... If a Christian says "God made the earth in 6 days!" You would say, "You need a peer to back up that statement" and 50,000 Christians stand up behind that one Christian and say in unity with one another "We support the statement" only then... it would be okay for you to accept it and not derive your own opinion?

 

I wouldn't care if I was the last person on earth that didn't agree with creationism, to me, the immutable laws of the universe can teach me more impressive and exalted lessons than any holy book of all the religions on earth.

 

Would you accept ANY other theory that has no evidence and no testing to it? Would you expect us to?

 

First and for-most, I would arrive to my own decision about a subject before listening to others opinions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[csmyth3025]

Re: csmyth3025

 

Ultimately, this theory ignores the inescapable fact of gravity.................. The Earth is essentially a ball of gravitationally bound material that, if anything, will shrink (slightly) over the eons of its existence as its core cools

.....Ah, you said one of my earliest objections. What I didn't account for was the pressure of the interior mantle and cores. Apparently when you cool something that is under enough pressure (350 gigapascals) it tends to significantly change it's density. When you cool it. The density decreases and, along with it, pressure.

 

I looked up a research paper on the subject... honestly... the math went way over my head.

 

Links to papers mentioned:

 

http://www.me.ucsb.e...mputational.pdf

 

http://www.me.ucsb.e...core_mantle.pdf

The links you've provided have nothing to do with an expanding or even a contracting Earth. These papers discuss the possible energy source of the Earth's geodynamo - which produces the Earth's magnetic field.

 

If you're going to cite papers in support of your point of view, you should at least understand what they're about - even if you don't understand the math they employ.

 

Your claim that "...Apparently when you cool something that is under enough pressure (350 gigapascals) it tends to significantly change it's density. When you cool it. The density decreases and, along with it, pressure..." is simply not true of the Earth's core - which is gravitationally compressed by the 6x10^24 kg of the Earth's mass.

 

Chris

[Moontanman]

How many letters do you think Maxlow must receive daily from ammeter scientists that must tell him his full of crap. The fact that he holds his ground on a theory that has overwhelming objection and very little peer support show me what an amazing strength in belief he has in his own highly educated lifes work.

 

I believe there is a reclining chair in orbit around Uranus, i am quite firm in my belief, I have no evidence to back that up what so ever but I firmly believe it to be true, no amount of objections by anyone can convince me there is not a reclining chair in orbit around Uranus... Does that make the reclining chair real?

 

Here is a video narrated by Neal Adams talking about what happened to another scientist legacy while supporting the expanding earth.

 

So far no one has provided any evidence to support the expanding earth theory at all, none, all i see are claims not backed up by any evidence what so ever, much like the reclining chair in orbit around Uranus.

 

 

Even this thread can't be taken seriously enough to keep it in you're earth science forum.

 

And rightly so because it is not science it is belief, much like "creation science" it contains no real science just stuff that sounds "sciency" I think in fiction it is called technobabble... there is another word for it as well, male bovine excrement I believe is the technical term...

 

 

A great quote by Professor Sam Warren Carey "If 50 million believe in a fallacy it is still a fallacy.

 

This is quite true, all who believe in the fallacy of an expanding Earth should take this to heart... The number of people who believe either theory is not significant to it's veracity.

 

You can't even explain the mechanism that powers the complete 100% recycling of 5.9742 × 10^24 kilograms of mass that has reset over 70% of the floor of this planet!

 

Yes we can, radioactive decay and gravitational compression explain it quite accurately, have you not even bothered to read the people who have taken their time to answer you?

 

I've asked for a valid map of the ocean floor 250 million years ago to justify the plate movements on a static earth radius, and the request hasn't even been acknowledged.

 

Yes it was

 

If there is something powerful enough to move that much mass on an ongoing cycle, it's powerful enough to expand a planet

 

No it's not...

 

 

The Earth should be all the evidence to make it very simple to accept. If I take a hollow glass sphere, drop it on the ground, pick up the shattered pieces and attach them to a larger sphere and say to you... if the sphere underneath the glass shards was smaller, the pieces come together... you would toss up you're hands and say that's absurd!

 

What is that supposed to mean? Who attached the shards of the earth to a larger sphere? Your analogy falls badly but the idea of plate tectonics explains why the Earth looks that way.

 

 

Is that why it costs $40 to read it?

 

So you have no libraries where you live?

 

I think I'll stick to my books on plate tectonics, even if they aren't peer reviewed either

 

Good for you, i have a reclining chair in orbit around Uranus I'd like to sell you.

 

I have no idea why anyone in the scientific community would support earth being the centre of the universe. Sadly, up until a couple hundred years ago... they did.

 

This is true and it was mainly because the idea of the Earth as the center if the universe was religious in nature not science. Your expanding Earth theory has a similar flaw, it is based on belief not evidence...

 

 

Ah, you said one of my earliest objections. What I didn't account for was the pressure of the interior mantle and cores. Apparently when you cool something that is under enough pressure (350 gigapascals) it tends to significancy change it's density. When you cool it. The density decreases with and a long with it, pressure.

 

I am very curios, do you have any idea of how much volume would have to be created by this expansion? The Earth, if it was reduced to the size necessary for the current land surface to be it's entire surface (as your opening video claimed) would only be the size of Mars, it would take ten planets the size of Mars to make the mass of the Earth so a Mars sized Earth would have to increase it's mass by ten X Mars to be as big as it is today. The Earth is 6.75 times the volume of mars so to increase it's volume by that amount would mean 6.75 Mars sized bodies to make up the Earth as we see it today. This is far beyond what it would take to just move the continents around, there is so much evidence that falsifies your idea it's quite difficult to list them all. Oh yeah another one, why would the mechanism that expanded the earth not expand the continents as well? if that happened the crust of the earth would not have separated to begin with but would have grown along with the Earth.

 

 

And that can't happen to a planet because?

 

Venus is thought to have slowed down due to an impact event similar to the one that formed the Earth/Moon system but Venus wasn't as lucky as the Earth and the impact event slowed down the planets rotation instead of forming a large moon. This is more likely than the event that formed the Earth moon system. It has nothing to do with Venus expanding or contracting..

 

One can't help but ponder "Why" 250 million years ago a few creatures grew to more then 4x the largest land animals of today.

 

250 million years ago? Do you not even know when the dinosaurs lived? And your own theory says the Earth has not changed in mass, if your idea is true then the gravity would be higher then than now, if the Earth was smaller but had the same mass as now the gravity would be much higher not lower.

 

 

 

Their bones where also hollow, more like that of the ultra light bird then the super reinforced bones of our elephant.

 

Also not true, the bones of the sauropod dinosaurs (the ones you are talking about) were not hollow, it was the theropods that had hollow bones and yes they got large too but hollow bones are stronger than solid ones. Just like a hollow tube of metal is stronger by weight than a solid tube of metal.

 

Many elephants today suffer bone related problems, almost like they are too big for this environment.

 

Besides this being total bullshit, elephants are not the largest land mammals to have existed anyway.

 

I understand that there was once a dragon fly with a 2.5ft wingspan... I mean... Wow, would such a creature today even have the strength to lift an exoskeleton that big off the ground despite how much oxygen it's sucking in?

 

Even if the air was the same density as it is today (and there is evidence there was not only more oxygen but denser air) such a large insect is not impossible or even hard to understand, it was the evolution of flying vertebrates that killed of such large flying insects, they could not compete with flying vertebrates.

 

I wonder if the 'radiation exposure' at that time could have anything to do with it.

 

Why would you think radiation exposure was any higher then than now?

 

 

I think you need to go back and re-read my posts. My argument for an expanding earth is a change in core density, not a change in mass. IF there was that much change in solid mass, even I would want to have an explanation for it!

 

Even though the core is if anything denser now than it was then (not by much I am sure) but if the core density changed it would be denser not less dense and then as you say there is the mechanism for it, how did it happen. It goes against all we know in physics, there is no reason or mechanism for planets to become less dense and larger in volume other than heat and that much heat would have vaporised the Earth.

 

BTW the idea of an expanding Earth smells very much like creationism in sheep's clothing, smells very similar.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Moontanman

[csmyth3025]

This discussion seems to have reduced itself to the question of whether the interior of the Earth has increased in volume over time. Apparently the question of whether the Earth has gained non-trivial mass is not an issue - all parties agree that it has not.

 

Let's concentrate on this issue. Light Storm has proposed that the interior of the Earth has expanded as a result of cooling. I know of no physical mechanism that supports this claim. It's now up to Light Storm to present some physical process or theory that explains this phenomenon.

 

Chris

[Moontanman]

I'd like to just have him tell me why gravity would be less on a smaller but same mass Earth....

[Light Storm]

Re: Swansont

And when can we expect a calculation to see if this is anywhere close to plausible?

 

I'm not an astro physicist, but last time I checked, the conclusion was the earths rotation is slowing down.

 

"The Earth's rotation is slowing but at a much slower rate than 1 leap second every so many years. The length of time it takes the Earth, at the present time, to rotate once is 86,400.002 seconds compared to 86,400 seconds back in 1820. The rotation has slowed roughly only by 2 milliseconds since 1820. That seems like an insignificant amount of time BUT over the course of the planet's entire lifetime, it has had very profound effects on the geophysics of the planet."

 

Ref: http://novan.com/earth.htm

 

I didn't say it couldn't happen, the question is whether there's any hope of showing that it did happen; we were discussing the amount of slowdown that we can measure and comparing it to the angular momentum taken up by the moon. An expanding earth slows down more. You need to reconcile measurement with your theory.

 

I honestly forget what the rotation of the planet was concluded to be 300 million years, but I do remember it being between 6-12 hours faster then it would be today. That math (which has nothing todo with EE Theories) works for the expanding earth theory better then it does for plate tectonics.

 

Then why are you offering up material from Maxlow, who discusses changes in the earth's mass, as a defense/explanation?

 

I don't think you been reading Maxlow's theory very well, I believe his official response is, and I quote

 

"Because the Earth has always been considered the same size since creation; from either a cosmological or religious point of view, it has not been necessary to ask this question. Because the question has not been asked, or taken seriously, where the additional mass comes from remains speculative." ~James Maxlow

 

I read that as "I don't know!" an answer I'm perfectly happy with based on the evidence supporting expanding earth. Wanting a better answer then that, I looked into research done into understanding the earths core. Aside from really fancy data from very sophisticated shock wave machines, our understanding of the inner workings of the earth is equally speculative. With the Russia Kola Superdeep Borehole aka "Well to hell" project, they where able to drill over 9km into the earth before the drill was damaged beyond repair. That is the deepest we have ever been, the project had shattered many geology based predictions about what would be at that depth. The project was slated to go 15km. Considering the Earths crust is between 100-200km.... lol, we literally haven't even scratched the surface.

 

Re: Chris

If you're going to cite papers in support of your point of view, you should at least understand what they're about - even if you don't understand the math they employ.

 

I understood what the papers where about, and I knew they where not about any expanding earth theories. I was primarily interested in the parts that discussed the cooling effects on the earths core. Forgive me if I don't understand that math... I like to think I'm pretty good at math, but not that good.

 

Re: Moontanman

 

I believe there is a reclining chair in orbit around Uranus

 

Interesting

 

So far no one has provided any evidence to support the expanding earth theory at all

 

Evidence for a closed Atlantic

Evidence for a closed Pacific

(at the same time in history)

 

Do you need more? Please see previous reference to Dennis McCarthy in an earlier post

 

...male bovine excrement...

 

Interesting

 

have you not even bothered to read the people who have taken their time to answer you?

 

Yes, with the exception of the $40 peer reviewed plate tectonic pdf. Still, other references only included fancy cross sections I'm sure I could easily pass a test on. I'm not interested in seeing any more cross sections, rather, a map of the ocean floor 250 million years ago, with the rifting and counter matter eating subduction lines that evenly work with the geographically age maps of today. Please keep in mind that plate tectonics is way older then the new map of the age of the ocean floor, and completely took the geological community by shocking surprise. I have found a lot of great animations that show the formation of earth via plate tectonics, but every single time, the ocean floors are covered by water. Hiding it doesn't make it valid. Expanding Earth Theories don't need to hide the evolution of of rifting lines, for that matter, it's pretty much the main argument in the theory for an expanding earth.

 

Yes it was

 

No... cross sections no longer count... normally aren't even based on real location

 

The Earth should be all the evidence to make it very simple to accept. If I take a hollow glass sphere, drop it on the ground, pick up the shattered pieces and attach them to a larger sphere and say to you... if the sphere underneath the glass shards was smaller, the pieces come together... you would toss up you're hands and say that's absurd!

What is that supposed to mean? Who attached the shards of the earth to a larger sphere? Your analogy falls badly but the idea of plate tectonics explains why the Earth looks that way.

 

The upper plates of earth come together on a smaller globe. If you want to run the experiment yourself, cut the continents out of a map, and see for yourself how they can come together. Or watch the video made by the cartoonist on OP.

 

This is true and it was mainly because the idea of the Earth as the center if the universe was religious in nature not science. Your expanding Earth theory has a similar flaw, it is based on belief not evidence...

 

The same thing can be said the other way. The notion that the earth didn't expand over the past 250 million years is an assumption, not backed by evidence.

 

I am very curios, do you have any idea of how much volume would have to be created by this expansion?

 

Yes

 

Oh yeah another one, why would the mechanism that expanded the earth not expand the continents as well? if that happened the crust of the earth would not have separated to begin with but would have grown along with the Earth.

 

1. It does stretch the continents out... I think Neal did a video on that as well, but if you want to hear it from a scientist, you need to look up the works of Vedat Shehu. I imagine one way to test the idea would be to inflate a ballon to half density, cover it in wet mud, wait for it to dry and become solid, then blow it up to max capacity. I think you can imagine the results as well as I can, the hard mud would crack and break at it's weakest points in be lifted up in chunks more then an even distribution pattern.

 

2. The same thing can be said for subduction, if the earth eats it's self at the same rate it creates new surface material, why does it not take the continents with it? What will happen to Hawaii when it reaches the subduction zones?

 

Cartoonists ref :

Scientists ref: Shehw, Veduh (2005), The Growing and Developing Earth, page 115.

 

250 million years ago? Do you not even know when the dinosaurs lived? And your own theory says the Earth has not changed in mass, if your idea is true then the gravity would be higher then than now, if the Earth was smaller but had the same mass as now the gravity would be much higher not lower.

 

Have you factored in planetary spin? If the Earth was half the size, and it's spin was twice as high, gravity would be about the same as it is now. Earth spin is not directly responsible for gravity but it does factor in a small part of the correction.

"The figure 9.8 m/s/s is a measured value, and it includes the effect ofthe Earth's spin as a small correction. If the Earth were not spinning,the measured value would be .034 m/s/s larger. If the Earth were spinningso fast that a day took only five minutes, then the gravitational accelerationwould be spent entirely to keep us moving in a circle, and we'd all feelweightless." ~Tim Mooney

http://www.newton.de...99/phy99x82.htm

 

Besides this being total bullshit, elephants are not the largest land mammals to have existed anyway.

Regardless of who was the biggest, elephants have a substantial percentage of health problems related to there feet and hind legs. Look it up. This is somewhat off topic and just an observation.

Why would you think radiation exposure was any higher then than now?

Because there was question about the earths orbit in relation to the sun. If the earth was smaller, it would have a tighter orbit. One of the points addressed was radiation exposure. My response about the size of creatures was to imply that higher radiation exposure might have had something to do with it. Someone once said to me 'Planets can't change orbit' ...My response to that was ' and why can't they? 'That is James Maxlow's response to people that are under the presumed assumption that our orbit to the sun is infallibly stable.

Even though the core is if anything denser now than it was then (not by much I am sure) but if the core density changed it would be denser not less dense and then as you say there is the mechanism for it, how did it happen. It goes against all we know in physics, there is no reason or mechanism for planets to become less dense and larger in volume other than heat and that much heat would have vaporised the Earth.

Your going to run with the argument that Proto Earths Core was less dense then it is now? While original crushing accretion was sweeping up the solar system of massive debris from the stars formation... When the entire crust of the earth was so hot it was liquid molten magma? So hot that it would liquify debris in space to form our moon.... Good luck!

BTW the idea of an expanding Earth smells very much like creationism in sheep's clothing, smells very similar.

Funny, I would could say the same thing about Plate Tectonics... I mean... You will stand side by side with a creationist and agree that the Earth was made the size it is, and has not changed at all in some 4 billion years. Maybe you should agree with them that humans have always had this same average hight to.

Re: Chris

Let's concentrate on this issue. Light Storm has proposed that the interior of the Earth has expanded as a result of cooling. I know of no physical mechanism that supports this claim. It's now up to Light Storm to present some physical process or theory that explains this phenomenon.

Further study of the earths core is needed

strictly guessing

Eastimates vary on core density... but here is a good starting point

Continental Crust: 2.7 to 3.0

Oceanic Crust: 3.0 to 3.3

Mantle (silicates): 3.3 to 5.7 (increasing with depth?)

Outer Core (liquid): 9.9 to 12.2

Inner Core (solid): 12.6 to 13.0

If the mantle was more compressed with a higher density into the outer core, and the outer core was packed as a higher density into the inner core. So, my guess would be the inner core changing from a super dense state into a less dense state adding to the outer core. The outer core transforms from a super dense state to a mantle state. The mantle, transforms from it's dense state to the crust state, thus, adding to the expanding earth.

I'd like to just have him tell me why gravity would be less on a smaller but same mass Earth....

Orbital spin and velocity around the sun have a factor on earths gravity.

[mooeypoo]

I think the main issue here is the different view on what is and isn't "evidence".

[Moontanman]

Orbital spin and velocity around the sun have a factor on earths gravity.

 

NO IT DOESN'T!

[Light Storm]

NO IT DOESN'T!

 

ffs

 

"The Earth does not have gravity because it spins. The gravitationalattraction between the Earth and a person on the Earth depends only onthe mass of the Earth, the mass of the person, and the distance betweenthe Earth's center of mass and the person's center of mass.However, the force a person's feet exert on the ground (i.e., theperson's weight) does depend on the Earth's spin. What if the Earthstarted spinning faster and faster? At some speed, the Earth'sgravitational force would not be enough to keep us on the surface.We'd fly off into space because the acceleration (v^2/r) required to keepus moving in a circle of the Earth's radius at the rotational speed of theEarth would be greater than the acceleration of Earth's gravity.The figure 9.8 m/s/s is a measured value, and it includes the effect ofthe Earth's spin as a small correction. If the Earth were not spinning,the measured value would be .034 m/s/s larger. If the Earth were spinningso fast that a day took only five minutes, then the gravitational accelerationwould be spent entirely to keep us moving in a circle, and we'd all feelweightless.Here are the numbers and equation I used:radius of Earth: 6.4x10^6 metersspeed of object at the equator: 465 m/sacceleration required to keep an object moving at speed v in a circle of radius r:v^2/rTim MooneyBeamline Controls & Data Acquisition GroupAdvanced Photon Source, Argonne National Lab"

 

 

[Ringer]

Yes if the Earth were to spin faster we may fly off if we couldn't keep up with the change in direction, but it still wouldn't affect our gravity.

[Moontanman]

ffs

 

"The Earth does not have gravity because it spins. The gravitationalattraction between the Earth and a person on the Earth depends only onthe mass of the Earth, the mass of the person, and the distance betweenthe Earth's center of mass and the person's center of mass.However, the force a person's feet exert on the ground (i.e., theperson's weight) does depend on the Earth's spin. What if the Earthstarted spinning faster and faster? At some speed, the Earth'sgravitational force would not be enough to keep us on the surface.We'd fly off into space because the acceleration (v^2/r) required to keepus moving in a circle of the Earth's radius at the rotational speed of theEarth would be greater than the acceleration of Earth's gravity.The figure 9.8 m/s/s is a measured value, and it includes the effect ofthe Earth's spin as a small correction. If the Earth were not spinning,the measured value would be .034 m/s/s larger. If the Earth were spinningso fast that a day took only five minutes, then the gravitational accelerationwould be spent entirely to keep us moving in a circle, and we'd all feelweightless.Here are the numbers and equation I used:radius of Earth: 6.4x10^6 metersspeed of object at the equator: 465 m/sacceleration required to keep an object moving at speed v in a circle of radius r:v^2/rTim MooneyBeamline Controls & Data Acquisition GroupAdvanced Photon Source, Argonne National Lab"

 

 

Just how fast are you proposing the Earth was spinning when it was small as Mars? BTW an Earth the size of Mars would have surface gravity 3.5 times that of the present day Earth. I'm not sure the Earth has enough tensile strength to hold it's self together if it was spinning fast enough to make the gravity lower than is it now when it was 3.5 times it's present value

Edited May 2, 2011 by Moontanman

[mooeypoo]

Where is this quote from?

[michel123456]

(...)Ultimately, this theory ignores the inescapable fact of gravity - as your post points out. The Earth is essentially a ball of gravitationally bound material that, if anything, will shrink (slightly) over the eons of its existence as its core cools.

 

Chris

 

emphasis mine.

 

Do you mean there is a well-known mechanism that could make the Earth shrink?

[John Cuthber]

"Now I know this is a stretch, but work with me here (whispers) "I think it's rotates because of leftover momentum from our solar systems formation!""

That makes no sense. Momentum is a conserved property.

Whatever momentum (including angular momentum) the solar system had when it formed, it still has.

You can't use something that doesn't change a a source of energy.

 

Please come up with a plausible source for the energy required to lift the earth's crust away from it's centre.

[Klaynos]

 

 

Evidence for a closed Atlantic

Evidence for a closed Pacific

(at the same time in history)

 

 

My reference showed how this was ok in plate techtonics, so, back to no evidence.

[Moontanman]

Just how fast are you proposing the Earth was spinning when it was small as Mars? BTW an Earth the size of Mars but with the mass of the Earth would have surface gravity 3.5 times that of the present day Earth. I'm not sure the Earth has enough tensile strength to hold it's self together if it was spinning fast enough to make the gravity lower than is it now when it was 3.5 times it's present value

Edited May 2, 2011 by Moontanman

[swansont]

Re: Swansont

 

I'm not an astro physicist, but last time I checked, the conclusion was the earths rotation is slowing down.

 

 

And from that we can conclude that the moon is having the tidal effect on the planet. But this why we quantify things. It's not enough to just say the earth slows down; you have to say by how much it must slow down.

 

If you don't do that, you don't have any evidence. And you need evidence.

[Spyman]

(...)Ultimately, this theory ignores the inescapable fact of gravity - as your post points out. The Earth is essentially a ball of gravitationally bound material that, if anything, will shrink (slightly) over the eons of its existence as its core cools.

 

emphasis mine.

 

Do you mean there is a well-known mechanism that could make the Earth shrink?

As an architect you should know about thermal expansion.

 

Thermal expansion is the tendency of matter to change in volume in response to a change in temperature.

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

[Light Storm]

Just how fast are you proposing the Earth was spinning when it was small as Mars? BTW an Earth the size of Mars would have surface gravity 3.5 times that of the present day Earth. I'm not sure the Earth has enough tensile strength to hold it's self together if it was spinning fast enough to make the gravity lower than is it now when it was 3.5 times it's present value

 

As I stated above, I'm not as astrophysicist. That would be an excellent question for one

 

"If the Earth was the size of mars 300 million years ago, how fast would have been spinning"

 

I'm sure someone would have a real fancy equation based on the equator from the centre and able to account for the reduction in planetary spin over time.

 

Here is a reference from 'Earh's Slowing Rotation' 'Chapter 13'

 

"Tracing these tiny milliseconds back for 4.5 billion years adds up to a very significant amount of time for a solar day. I have determined that the day/night rotation was 63,000 seconds shorter than the present 86,400 seconds it is today. This would put the Earth's rotation at about 6.5 hours per day/night cycle, when it was created, 4.5 billion years ago."

 

...More evidence....

 

James Maxlow uses Geological, Geographical and Geophysical Evidence in advanced detail "All rocks contain an immense amount of geological, geographical and geophysical evidence which, to the trained eye, has a complex but variable history of formation, metamorphic change, chemical and erosive weathering, climatic influence, biotic activity and metallic worth to tell us. Using the models shown in Figure 3 we now have a platform on which we can piece together this physical evidence so as to locate the ancient poles and equators, distributions of exposed lands, mountains, ice-caps, seas and shorelines, the distribution, dispersal patterns and extinction histories of flora and fauna, the ancient climatic zones - ranging from polar ice-caps to equatorial zones, and the formation and distribution of metallic and hydrocarbon resources." ~James Maxlow

 

James Maxlow also used Ancient Magnet Poles as Evidence "The published ancient magnetic pole information (the location of ancient magnetic poles established from measuring the remnant magnetism in iron-rich rocks) in particular provides conclusive evidence in support of Expansion Tectonics. When this magnetic pole data is plotted on Expansion Tectonic models it demonstrates that all pole data plot as diametrically opposed north and south poles for each model.

These models show that the ancient North Pole was located in eastern Mongolia-China throughout the Precambrian and Paleozoic Eras. As the continents slowly migrated south, during subsequent increase in Earth radius, there was an apparent northward polar wander through Siberia to its present location within the Arctic Ocean. Similarly, the ancient Precambrian and Paleozoic South Pole was located in west central Africa, and, as the continents slowly migrated north, there was an apparent southward polar wander along the South American and West African coastlines to its present location in Antarctica. The locations of these magnetic poles, as well as the derived ancient equators, independently confirm the model reconstructions shown in Figure 3 and again suggest that Expansion Tectonics is indeed a viable process." ~James Maxlow

 

That is before he goes into Acient Geography, Ancient Biography, Ancient Climate and various other aspects you obviously haven't bothered to read for yourselves. He also rips apart current methods of measuring the earth, and why the conclusions are wrong.

 

Dennis McCarthy focuses on

 

1. Young Oceans "As predicted by expanding Earth theory, all current seafloor in the world is young (less than 200 million years old.)

This was not expected given the conventional view of the time: continental fixism."

2. Matching Trans-Pacific Outlines "The continental outlines that bracket each ocean, Pacific included, fit together like pieces of a puzzle." Ref: http://www.4threvolt...e/Biogeogr.html

 

3. Trans-Pacific Biotic Disjuntions "The regions that interlock along matching outlines (New Zealand - South Chile; Tasmania and South-central Chile, etc.) share hundreds of poor-dispersing sister taxa found nowhere else in the world. The distributional problems created by the hypothesis of a now vanished pre-Pacific superocean are overwhelming. The webpage link above focuses on this evidence."

 

4. The Dinosaur Circuit "Even in conventional reconstructions of the Late Cretaceous, North America and East Asia were connected by the Bering bridge while South America and Australia were both connected to Antarctica. During that same time, a great number of terrestrial taxa including the largest of dinosaurs moved between South America and North America -- and Australia and East Asia. This requires direct terrestrial connections completely around the Pacific, confirming its smaller size."

 

5. Simple Geometic Problems "In the Cretaceous, both the Pacific plate and South America were connected to Antarctica. Since that time North America and its Bering region has moved away from South America while South America has moved away from Antarctica, requiring that the distance between Antarctica and the Bering regions is greater today than in the Late Cretaceous. The Pacific has expanded north-south since that time. It has not significantly contracted as static radius assumptions require." Ref: http://www.4threvolt...cCarthy2005.pdf Finally

 

6. He details the successful expanding Eath predictions vs. post-hoc plate tectonic explanations "While many "surprising" geophysical discoveries were predicted by expanding Earth theory, plate tectonics has had to develop new hypotheses to explain the problematic observations. " Ref: http://www.4threvolt...ence/Table.html

 

There are various other forms of evidence used for justify that the earth has expanded over the past 300 million years. But if the two above aren't enough to convince you this subject doesn't belong under Pseudocience I don't know what could.

[Moontanman]

 

As I stated above, I'm not as astrophysicist. That would be an excellent question for one

 

"If the Earth was the size of mars 300 million years ago, how fast would have been spinning"

 

I'm sure someone would have a real fancy equation based on the equator from the centre and able to account for the reduction in planetary spin over time.

 

Here is a reference from 'Earh's Slowing Rotation' 'Chapter 13'

 

"Tracing these tiny milliseconds back for 4.5 billion years adds up to a very significant amount of time for a solar day. I have determined that the day/night rotation was 63,000 seconds shorter than the present 86,400 seconds it is today. This would put the Earth's rotation at about 6.5 hours per day/night cycle, when it was created, 4.5 billion years ago."

 

 

James Maxlow uses Geological, Geographical and Geophysical Evidence in advanced detail "All rocks contain an immense amount of geological, geographical and geophysical evidence which, to the trained eye, has a complex but variable history of formation, metamorphic change, chemical and erosive weathering, climatic influence, biotic activity and metallic worth to tell us. Using the models shown in Figure 3 we now have a platform on which we can piece together this physical evidence so as to locate the ancient poles and equators, distributions of exposed lands, mountains, ice-caps, seas and shorelines, the distribution, dispersal patterns and extinction histories of flora and fauna, the ancient climatic zones - ranging from polar ice-caps to equatorial zones, and the formation and distribution of metallic and hydrocarbon resources." ~James Maxlow

 

James Maxlow also used Ancient Magnet Poles as Evidence "The published ancient magnetic pole information (the location of ancient magnetic poles established from measuring the remnant magnetism in iron-rich rocks) in particular provides conclusive evidence in support of Expansion Tectonics. When this magnetic pole data is plotted on Expansion Tectonic models it demonstrates that all pole data plot as diametrically opposed north and south poles for each model.

These models show that the ancient North Pole was located in eastern Mongolia-China throughout the Precambrian and Paleozoic Eras. As the continents slowly migrated south, during subsequent increase in Earth radius, there was an apparent northward polar wander through Siberia to its present location within the Arctic Ocean. Similarly, the ancient Precambrian and Paleozoic South Pole was located in west central Africa, and, as the continents slowly migrated north, there was an apparent southward polar wander along the South American and West African coastlines to its present location in Antarctica. The locations of these magnetic poles, as well as the derived ancient equators, independently confirm the model reconstructions shown in Figure 3 and again suggest that Expansion Tectonics is indeed a viable process." ~James Maxlow

 

That is before he goes into Acient Geography, Ancient Biography, Ancient Climate and various other aspects you obviously haven't bothered to read for yourselves. He also rips apart current methods of measuring the earth, and why the conclusions are wrong.

 

Dennis McCarthy focuses on

 

1. Young Oceans "As predicted by expanding Earth theory, all current seafloor in the world is young (less than 200 million years old.)

This was not expected given the conventional view of the time: continental fixism."

2. Matching Trans-Pacific Outlines "The continental outlines that bracket each ocean, Pacific included, fit together like pieces of a puzzle." Ref: http://www.4threvolt...e/Biogeogr.html

 

3. Trans-Pacific Biotic Disjuntions "The regions that interlock along matching outlines (New Zealand - South Chile; Tasmania and South-central Chile, etc.) share hundreds of poor-dispersing sister taxa found nowhere else in the world. The distributional problems created by the hypothesis of a now vanished pre-Pacific superocean are overwhelming. The webpage link above focuses on this evidence."

 

4. The Dinosaur Circuit "Even in conventional reconstructions of the Late Cretaceous, North America and East Asia were connected by the Bering bridge while South America and Australia were both connected to Antarctica. During that same time, a great number of terrestrial taxa including the largest of dinosaurs moved between South America and North America -- and Australia and East Asia. This requires direct terrestrial connections completely around the Pacific, confirming its smaller size."

 

5. Simple Geometic Problems "In the Cretaceous, both the Pacific plate and South America were connected to Antarctica. Since that time North America and its Bering region has moved away from South America while South America has moved away from Antarctica, requiring that the distance between Antarctica and the Bering regions is greater today than in the Late Cretaceous. The Pacific has expanded north-south since that time. It has not significantly contracted as static radius assumptions require." Ref: http://www.4threvolt...cCarthy2005.pdf Finally

 

6. He details the successful expanding Eath predictions vs. post-hoc plate tectonic explanations "While many "surprising" geophysical discoveries were predicted by expanding Earth theory, plate tectonics has had to develop new hypotheses to explain the problematic observations. " Ref: http://www.4threvolt...ence/Table.html

 

There are various other forms of evidence used for justify that the earth has expanded over the past 300 million years. But if the two above aren't enough to convince you this subject doesn't belong under Pseudocience I don't know what could.

 

 

6.5 hours 4.5 billion years ago, this one thing refutes your entire premise, 300 million years ago the earth was spinning much slower than it was at the beginning but even at 6.5 hours that is not enough to negate any significant amount of gravity, ie the earth's gravity was the same then as now to with in a tiny fraction. Unless of course the Earth was the size of mars, then the gravity would be 3.5 times as high as it is now.