Light Storm Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 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. Imagine how much different the equations might have been if they had factored in the possibility that the earth was half the size it is now in that predication.
Moontanman Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 (edited) Imagine how much different the equations might have been if they had factored in the possibility that the earth was half the size it is now in that predication. Yeah, imagine the Earth spinning so fast it cannot accrete from the protoplanetary disk and it flings it's self apart. In another 300 million years the Earth will be the size of Jupiter and will diffuse out into space due the low gravity, I can't wait... Does this mean the moon is getting bigger too ? How about the sun? Exactly what is increasing? Why didn't the crust expand too? Edited May 4, 2011 by Moontanman
michel123456 Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 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 That is amusing. Thus, if the core cools down, which is almost certain, and under the absence of any other mechanism, the Earth must shrink.
Spyman Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 That is amusing. Thus, if the core cools down, which is almost certain, and under the absence of any other mechanism, the Earth must shrink. I don't see the funny part... - Earth don't have time to cool down much and will likely get vaporized when the Sun becomes a Red Giant. The Sun, as part of its evolution, will become a red giant in about 5 Gyr. Models predict that the Sun will expand out to about 250 times its present radius, roughly 1 AU (150,000,000 km). Earth's fate is less clear. As a red giant, the Sun will lose roughly 30% of its mass, so, without tidal effects, the Earth will move to an orbit 1.7 AU (250,000,000 km) from the Sun when the star reaches it maximum radius. The planet was therefore initially expected to escape envelopment by the expanded Sun's sparse outer atmosphere, though most, if not all, remaining life would have been destroyed by the Sun's increased luminosity (peaking at about 5000 times its present level). However, a 2008 simulation indicates that Earth's orbit will decay due to tidal effects and drag, causing it to enter the red giant Sun's atmosphere and be vaporized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Future Conjectured illustration of the scorched Earth after the Sun has entered the red giant phase, seven billion years from now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth
Moontanman Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 I don't see the funny part... - Earth don't have time to cool down much and will likely get vaporized when the Sun becomes a Red Giant. The Sun, as part of its evolution, will become a red giant in about 5 Gyr. Models predict that the Sun will expand out to about 250 times its present radius, roughly 1 AU (150,000,000 km). Earth's fate is less clear. As a red giant, the Sun will lose roughly 30% of its mass, so, without tidal effects, the Earth will move to an orbit 1.7 AU (250,000,000 km) from the Sun when the star reaches it maximum radius. The planet was therefore initially expected to escape envelopment by the expanded Sun's sparse outer atmosphere, though most, if not all, remaining life would have been destroyed by the Sun's increased luminosity (peaking at about 5000 times its present level). However, a 2008 simulation indicates that Earth's orbit will decay due to tidal effects and drag, causing it to enter the red giant Sun's atmosphere and be vaporized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Future Conjectured illustration of the scorched Earth after the Sun has entered the red giant phase, seven billion years from now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth Naw, you are wrong spyman, the Earth is going to expand and consume the sun and the other planets, don't you read the links???
Light Storm Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 (edited) Yeah, imagine the Earth spinning so fast it cannot accrete from the protoplanetary disk and it flings it's self apart. Interestingly enough, what forces planets together in original formation remains somewhat speculative. Did you know that? We have discovered over 500 candidates for extra-solar planets. Some things that we know is that in some of the youngest stars have rather massive rings on debris and gas that are highly reflective. Around middle age stars like ours, they are finding planets with highly elliptical patterns, or hot Jupiter's. The highly elliptical patterns was an unexpected discovery which increases the uniqueness of life of this planet drastically. Around some much older stars, they have even found evidence for rocky planets. Six candidates as "habitual zone" planets (KOI 326.01, KOI 701.03, KOI 268.01, KOI 1026.01, KOI 854.01, KOI 70.03) are all almost twice the size of Earth. In another 300 million years the Earth will be the size of Jupiter and will diffuse out into space due the low gravity, I can't wait... Interesting Does this mean the moon is getting bigger too? No, The moon did under go some expansion over the past 4 billion years, Currently the planet exhibits no volcanic activity Currently The planet is tidal locked with Earth It's my opinion that the internal engine that fuelled the moon is spent and the planet is dead. The matter can no longer expand by a changing density. How about the sun? Yes, despite anything you say about expanding earth theories, the sun will expand exponentially Before you ask 'oh where does that mass comes from?' you should be aware that sun expansion will not be an increase in mass either just an increase in volume as the density becomes increasingly lower. Exactly what is increasing? In the case of planets and stars as discussed above, the only thing increasing is volume as density decreases Why didn't the crust expand too? You obviously don't read my replies, I've already answered this question once. Ref: #36 Re: jhnmichle nothing will happen if it's true. Plate Tectonics seems to allude to an infallible system of 100% recycling of the internal energy of the planet. Looking at how other planets have evolved and expanded Earth may unfortunately have a very different fate then we think. We seem to be under some kind of illusion that we have billions of years before the sun expands into a red giant. If the Earth is Expanding and the densities of the cores are changing, Earths fate may end up looking more like Mars in the not so distant future. IMO: Breakthrough evidence suggests Mars once had ocean which covered 1/3rd of the surface (Mars ocean hypothesis). What happened to all the water? The internal engine of Mars was not only smaller then Earths, but it cooled down much faster. Like Earth, Tectonic spreading is very evident on Mars. It may have also expanded over the last few billion years as well. However, the planets engine has probably cooled to a point where it can no longer expand the planet. The crust has become thick enough that the planet has very little volcanic energy left on the surface. If the density became large enough under the surface, like a massive sponge it could easily take back the water and it probably remains in the surface material. Ref to Mars Ocean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Ocean_Hypothesis Re: michel123456 That is amusing. Thus, if the core cools down, which is almost certain, and under the absence of any other mechanism, the Earth must shrink. You're still ignoring the importance of pressure. It's hard for us to imagine the effects of massive pressure on solid matter, but it is pretty key. Lets take one cup of water for example. At our sea level, it is pretty difficult for us to crush it's density closer together to use up less volume. But if you could magically teleport 2 miles down to the bottom of the ocean, and scoop up 1 cup of water, the density is higher then it is at the surface due to the weight of the ocean above it. Magically teleport back to the surface and that 1 cup of compressed water will expand and spill over the edge of the cup. Under higher temperatures, the molecules of matter can pack closer together under high pressures. If those temperatures go down, the molecules density is forced to decrease and the result is an increase in volume. Re: Moontanman Naw, you are wrong spyman, the Earth is going to expand and consume the sun and the other planets, don't you read the links??? Really? What link is that exactly? Edited May 5, 2011 by Light Storm
csmyth3025 Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 Interestingly enough, what forces planets together in original formation remains somewhat speculative. Did you know that?... ...Under higher temperatures, the molecules of matter can pack closer together under high pressures. If those temperatures go down, the molecules density is forced to decrease and the result is an increase in volume. I believe that it's generally accepted that "...what forces planets together in original formation..." is gravity. I don't think you'll find anyone in this forum that considers this idea speculative. Can you provide a reference for your statement: "...If those temperatures go down, the molecules density is forced to decrease and the result is an increase in volume..."? Chris
michel123456 Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 I don't see the funny part... The funny part is that following Light Storm, cooling has the opposite effect. see below (...)You're still ignoring the importance of pressure. It's hard for us to imagine the effects of massive pressure on solid matter, but it is pretty key. Lets take one cup of water for example. At our sea level, it is pretty difficult for us to crush it's density closer together to use up less volume. But if you could magically teleport 2 miles down to the bottom of the ocean, and scoop up 1 cup of water, the density is higher then it is at the surface due to the weight of the ocean above it. Magically teleport back to the surface and that 1 cup of compressed water will expand and spill over the edge of the cup. Under higher temperatures, the molecules of matter can pack closer together under high pressures. If those temperatures go down, the molecules density is forced to decrease and the result is an increase in volume. emphasis mine.
Ophiolite Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 Interestingly enough, what forces planets together in original formation remains somewhat speculative. Did you know that? As has been pointed out by csmyth gravity plays a central role in planetary formation. The exact mechanisms are not yet delineated, but the underlying theme is not in dispute. We have discovered over 500 candidates for extra-solar planets. Some things that we know is that in some of the youngest stars have rather massive rings on debris and gas that are highly reflective. Around middle age stars like ours, they are finding planets with highly elliptical patterns, or hot Jupiter's. The highly elliptical patterns was an unexpected discovery which increases the uniqueness of life of this planet drastically. Around some much older stars, they have even found evidence for rocky planets. Six candidates as "habitual zone" planets (KOI 326.01, KOI 701.03, KOI 268.01, KOI 1026.01, KOI 854.01, KOI 70.03) are all almost twice the size of Earth. The character of the planets discovered thus far are distorted by the nature and sensitivity of the detection systems. As these are improved and diversified we shall have a better handle on the true range of planetary system character. Using the current biased sample to support your hypothesis is wrong and wrong headed.
JohnB Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 Lets take one cup of water for example. At our sea level, it is pretty difficult for us to crush it's density closer together to use up less volume. But if you could magically teleport 2 miles down to the bottom of the ocean, and scoop up 1 cup of water, the density is higher then it is at the surface due to the weight of the ocean above it. Magically teleport back to the surface and that 1 cup of compressed water will expand and spill over the edge of the cup. Not quite. Water is virtually incompressible which is why we use it for pressure testing containers. A rupture in a vessel containing air at 3,000 psi results in a large explosion, a rupture in a vessel containing water at 3,000 psi gives a (very) short spurt. Scuba and other high pressure vessels are tested this way all the time.
Light Storm Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 Not quite. Water is virtually incompressible which is why we use it for pressure testing containers. A rupture in a vessel containing air at 3,000 psi results in a large explosion, a rupture in a vessel containing water at 3,000 psi gives a (very) short spurt. Scuba and other high pressure vessels are tested this way all the time. This is why I said it's hard for us to imagine high pressures inside the earth... It's so far outside of our environment, it's hard for us to even imagine. The fact is, you can compress any matter Water will compress about 10% at 30,000PSI I'm pretty sure most 'scuba gear' would also be obliterated at 30,000PSI The deepest part of the ocean exerts a pressure of over 15,000PSI Physics Reference: http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae15.cfm At the centre of the Earth, your going to find pressures over 350 gigapascals or or 50,763,208.2psi That is more then enough to not only crush anything man made, its enough increase the density of solid metals together.
Moontanman Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 This is why I said it's hard for us to imagine high pressures inside the earth... It's so far outside of our environment, it's hard for us to even imagine. The fact is, you can compress any matter Water will compress about 10% at 30,000PSI I'm pretty sure most 'scuba gear' would also be obliterated at 30,000PSI The deepest part of the ocean exerts a pressure of over 15,000PSI Physics Reference: http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae15.cfm At the centre of the Earth, your going to find pressures over 350 gigapascals or or 50,763,208.2psi That is more then enough to not only crush anything man made, its enough increase the density of solid metals together. What if anything does this have to do with the expanding Earth? You are still talking about an expansion of 10X, ten times lightstorm, ten times the volume of what you claim was thesize of the Earth 300 million years ago, not .5% or 1% but 1000%, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so far all you give is.... nothing, nothing but weird claims that have no basis in reality, cooling will not cause the earth to expand, there is no mechanism for your "expansion idea" and there is over whelming evidence that everything you claim is just wrong and easily explained other ways that are backed by, dare I say it again, overwhelming evidence...
csmyth3025 Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 This is why I said it's hard for us to imagine high pressures inside the earth... It's so far outside of our environment, it's hard for us to even imagine... ...At the centre of the Earth, your going to find pressures over 350 gigapascals or or 50,763,208.2psi That is more then enough to not only crush anything man made, its enough increase the density of solid metals together. The pressure at the center of the Earth is the result of ~6x10^24 kg of mass pressing down on it from all sides. By what mechanism do you suppose that this compressing weight has been reduced over the last 4 billion years? Aside from the problem of the overlying mass, there is also the problem of the sheer volume of expansion needed to support an expanding Earth hypothesis. As Moontanman points out, this expansion would have to be by a factor of 1000. The only possible way the interior of the Earth could expand this much is if it was vaporized. Here, again, you're left with proposing some means by which the temperatures inside the Earth could be so great as to vaporize nickel, iron and silicates at high pressures, yet leave the surface of the Earth as a shell of solid material. Have the proponents of the expanding Earth hypothesis addressed these seemingly insurmountable objections? Chris 1
Light Storm Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 ...not .5% or 1% but 1000% I'm sorry... 1000% you say If we close the surface material of the Earth that is less then 300 million years old the planet has roughly 50% it's current radius 3189.05km So lets do some math... 3189.05 x (1000%) = 31,890.5km Yah... so according to your math, apparently I'm saying Earth is currently somewhere between the size of gas giant Uranus and Saturn. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so far all you give is.... nothing, nothing but weird claims that have no basis in reality... As I seem to be the lobbyist here, it is up to me to present evidence for an Expanding Earth I presented a list of evidence on post #49 If you do not agree with points made, it's now up to members to dispute them So far, no one has disputed any of them By the way, crying "no no no" while pounding your fists and feet on the ground and putting "extraordinary" lies and claims in my mouth is not going to refute the expanding earth theory in my eyes. I'm doing my best to support my perspective, please respect that and I welcome rational counter arguments.
Light Storm Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 (edited) **delete ** copy post Edited May 6, 2011 by Light Storm
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 I'd like to step in with two comments: As per speculations rule 1, some slightly more rigorous evidence is going to need to be presented for this thread to remain open. How do satellites remain in orbit at constant altitudes if the Earth is expanding? Sorry, I couldn't resist asking that. Here's why: Earth is spherical. Its gravitational influence on distant objects is not dependent on its size but on its mass, and so a satellite or other object at a significant distance from the Earth will orbit in exactly the same way even as Earth expands. We would hence notice the satellite seeming to get closer to the surface of Earth as Earth expands out to meet it. Given the existence of very precise measurements of Global Positioning System satellites and the Moon's orbit around the Earth, I'm surprised this effect would not be observed with an expanding Earth. 1
Moontanman Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 (edited) I'm sorry... 1000% you say If we close the surface material of the Earth that is less then 300 million years old the planet has roughly 50% it's current radius 3189.05km So lets do some math... 3189.05 x (1000%) = 31,890.5km Yah... so according to your math, apparently I'm saying Earth is currently somewhere between the size of gas giant Uranus and Saturn. I respectfully suggest you re check your math, The Earth is more than twice the diameter of Mars if you double the diameter of a sphere the volume increases by 8, 2 X 2 X 2 = 8 the slight extra accounts for the extra two Mars volumes. As I seem to be the lobbyist here, it is up to me to present evidence for an Expanding Earth I presented a list of evidence on post #49 If you do not agree with points made, it's now up to members to dispute them So far, no one has disputed any of them By the way, crying "no no no" while pounding your fists and feet on the ground and putting "extraordinary" lies and claims in my mouth is not going to refute the expanding earth theory in my eyes. I'm doing my best to support my perspective, please respect that and I welcome rational counter arguments. I suspect that since you have ignored the overwhelming evidence that refutes your claims that no matter what we say you will not do anything but clinch your fists and say no no no I am right right right Edited May 6, 2011 by Moontanman
csmyth3025 Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 I'm sorry... 1000% you say If we close the surface material of the Earth that is less then 300 million years old the planet has roughly 50% it's current radius 3189.05km So lets do some math... 3189.05 x (1000%) = 31,890.5km Yah... so according to your math, apparently I'm saying Earth is currently somewhere between the size of gas giant Uranus and Saturn. ...So, lets do some math: (4/3)(pi)(3189.05 km)^3= ~1.36x10^11 km^3. (~1.36x10^11 km^3)(1000%)=~1.36x10^12 km^3 ((~1.36x10^12 km^3)/(4/3pi))^1/3= ~6873 km. This radius is about 8% larger than the Earth's current mean radius. It would seem that, using your numbers, an expansion of 1000% is a (very slight) overstatement. Does saying that the Earth has expanded by only 800% in the last 300 million years make the expanding Earth hypothesis any more plausible? Chris
michel123456 Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 I'd like to step in with two comments: As per speculations rule 1, some slightly more rigorous evidence is going to need to be presented for this thread to remain open. How do satellites remain in orbit at constant altitudes if the Earth is expanding? Sorry, I couldn't resist asking that. Here's why: Earth is spherical. Its gravitational influence on distant objects is not dependent on its size but on its mass, and so a satellite or other object at a significant distance from the Earth will orbit in exactly the same way even as Earth expands. We would hence notice the satellite seeming to get closer to the surface of Earth as Earth expands out to meet it. Given the existence of very precise measurements of Global Positioning System satellites and the Moon's orbit around the Earth, I'm surprised this effect would not be observed with an expanding Earth. Indeed. We are observing the contrary.
Light Storm Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Re: Cap'n Refsmmat 1. As per speculations rule 1, some slightly more rigorous evidence is going to need to be presented for this thread to remain open. No one has addressed a summary of evidence already laid out. If there is no counter argument to them, one assumes they agree with them Ref: Post #49 How do satellites remain in orbit at constant altitudes if the Earth is expanding? Sorry, I couldn't resist asking that. Here's why: Earth is spherical. Its gravitational influence on distant objects is not dependent on its size but on its mass, and so a satellite or other object at a significant distance from the Earth will orbit in exactly the same way even as Earth expands. We would hence notice the satellite seeming to get closer to the surface of Earth as Earth expands out to meet it. Where is this additional 'mass' you speak of come from? When we landed on the moon, we observed a layer of lunar dust. That was the result of new incoming matter on the moon since it was a proto state. This should conclude there is not enough inbound matter from space to justify any expansion to the earths 'mass'. Interestingly enough, your objection does raise a good question. I was interested in learning if Satellites take longer to get around the earth on a yearly basis, even if it's only by a minuscule amount of time. Unfortunately, it seems the equations used to determine how long it takes also assume a fixed earth radius. Given the existence of very precise measurements of Global Positioning System satellites and the Moon's orbit around the Earth, I'm surprised this effect would not be observed with an expanding Earth. I've already answered questions about the moons relationship with Earth. James Maxlow has gone into detail on several of these points about how we measure the earth. What about past measurements of Earth radius? "Palaeomagnetic measurements were first used during the 1960s to early 1970s to establish an ancient Earth radius. This information was then used in an attempt to resolve debate once and for all on whether the Earth radius is increasing or not. The outcome of this research was the conclusion that Earth radius is not increasing and this has of course since swayed popular opinion towards Plate Tectonics, without fully appreciating the implications of the outcome. While the various researchers went to great lengths to present quality data and sound methodology, it should be realized at that time there was very little agreement as to what a potential Earth expansion may or may not have been. What the researchers failed to comprehend was the significance of magnetic pole locations determined from conventional palaeomagnetic formulae. These are virtual pole locations, not actual locations. Because of this oversight they then made incorrect assumptions regarding application of the ancient latitude and colatitude to determine radius. When the Expansion Tectonic magnetic pole locations for Africa are correctly used, the palaeomagnetic data, in contrast to published conclusions, conclusively quantify a Triassic Expansion Tectonic Earth radius. This, in conjunction with the diametrically opposed North and South Pole plots, represents definitive proof in support of an expanding Earth. " ~Ref: James Maxlow What about space geodetic measurements? "Space geodetics is modern technology that uses satellites and radio telescopes to routinely measure the dimensions of the Earth and plate motions of the continents to sub-centimetre accuracy. During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were established to form a global network, the global excess in radius was found to be 18 mm/year – i.e. the measurements showed that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year. This value was considered to be "extremely high" when compared to expected deglaciation rates during melting of the polar ice-caps, estimated at less than 10 mm/year. The researchers in fact "expected that most … stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr" and went on to recommend the vertical motion be "restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr". This recommendation is now reflected in current mathematical solutions to the global radius, where global solutions are effectively constrained to zero. These recommendations are justified from a constant Earth radius Plate Tectonic perspective. The 18 mm/year excess was considered to be an error in atmospheric correction, so was simply zeroed out. What must be appreciated is that without an acknowledgment of a potential increase in Earth radius NASA had no option but to correct this value to zero, and hence adopt a static Earth radius premise. From an Expansion Tectonic Earth perspective, however, the 18 mm/year excess equates with a present day value of 22 mm/year increase in Earth radius, determined independently from measurements of areas of sea floor spreading." ~Ref: James Maxlow
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 No one has addressed a summary of evidence already laid out.If there is no counter argument to them, one assumes they agree with them That would be a mistake. Where is this additional 'mass' you speak of come from? When we landed on the moon, we observed a layer of lunar dust. That was the result of new incoming matter on the moon since it was a proto state. This should conclude there is not enough inbound matter from space to justify any expansion to the earths 'mass'. I did not speak of any additional mass. I predicated my argument on the assumption that the Earth's mass is constant. It seems you misunderstood. If the Earth expands but its mass remains constant, there will be no change in the forces on an orbiting satellite, and so the satellite will remain in the same orbit even as the Earth expands upwards to meet it. Eventually the Earth would be large enough that it will strike the orbiting satellites. Is there evidence that this effect occurs? Interestingly enough, your objection does raise a good question. I was interested in learning if Satellites take longer to get around the earth on a yearly basis, even if it's only by a minuscule amount of time. Unfortunately, it seems the equations used to determine how long it takes also assume a fixed earth radius. The best measurements to date of the Moon's distance from the Earth's surface indicate that the Moon is receding from Earth at roughly four centimeters per year. This would imply that the Earth is shrinking, not expanding. "Space geodetics is modern technology that uses satellites and radio telescopes to routinely measure the dimensions of the Earth and plate motions of the continents to sub-centimetre accuracy. During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were established to form a global network, the global excess in radius was found to be 18 mm/year – i.e. the measurements showed that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year. This value was considered to be "extremely high" when compared to expected deglaciation rates during melting of the polar ice-caps, estimated at less than 10 mm/year. The researchers in fact "expected that most … stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr" and went on to recommend the vertical motion be "restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr". This recommendation is now reflected in current mathematical solutions to the global radius, where global solutions are effectively constrained to zero. I would like to see the data behind this. In which papers was this effect observed, and in which papers was the motion restricted to zero? I searched for the quote Mr. Maxlow uses, but it is not used anywhere in scientific literature or the Internet apart from in quotes of Mr. Maxlow's own writing.
insane_alien Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Unfortunately, it seems the equations used to determine how long it takes also assume a fixed earth radius. They don't mention the radius of the earth at all. They reference the mass of the earth and it is simple to substitute in a function for the mass term and integrate.
Moontanman Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 They don't mention the radius of the earth at all. They reference the mass of the earth and it is simple to substitute in a function for the mass term and integrate. The OP's original video show the Earth approximately the size of Mars 300 million years ago, this would indicate a volume increase today of at least 8 mars volumes. an expansion of almost an inch a year should be easily detectable by our instruments I would think.
Spyman Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 (edited) Naw, you are wrong spyman, the Earth is going to expand and consume the sun and the other planets, don't you read the links??? Even with James Maxlow ridiculous claim that the Earth radius is expanding with 22 mm/yr, Earth will still only reach 1.6 times Jupiter size by then... The funny part is that following Light Storm, cooling has the opposite effect. Wait, are you saying that you where amused at a post close to fourteen hours before it was made? Despite that can you please explain how Light Storm's erroneous claim is funny for me? Is the earth expanding? This seems plausible Well, I finally got the time to watch the movie in the OP, it is using one of the oldest magical trick in the book to dupe people into belive, the illusionist fools the audience to look somewhere else while he performs his trick. The movie starts out boldly by accusing all scientists worldwide to deliberately hide the truth of a growing Earth and that all land areas on Earth can fit nicely together, while the Earth is shrinking. So instead of thinking of how it could be possible for the Earth to grow so much our attention is deliberately turned against Pangaea, which is explained as if the evidence for it is proof of an growing Earth. But the real truth is that a supercontinent called Pangaea some 250 millions of years ago is included in the current accepted scientific model of Plate tectonics and what's hidden is the lack of explanation for how Earth can grow. These two animations clearly shows that the biggest difference between the models is the huge changes in size of the Earth: Since I don't have much geological knowledge I can't really comment on any such evidence but it is evident that while any such proof possibly could object against the current Plate tectonics model, it is not enough evidence for a growing Earth. There needs to be observational evidence of a large size change and a valid explanation of how this change could take place before even considering them as proof of a growing or expanding Earth. Any possible geological differences in the evidence of how the continents once was joined together in a super continent called Pangaea some 250 millions of years ago seems to me to be very tiny and insignificant in comparison to the huge problems with either an large change in density or gravity. So where is the evidence and explanations of how Earth could grow ~1.85 times in radius and 6.3 times in volume during 250 million years? ---------- When checking up on the creator, it is made by this guy, Neal Adams who has an lifelong career as drawing superheroes like Batman in comics for children, and as it turns out it is no surprise that his proposed explanation involves an amazing "missing mechanism" where new matter is created out of nowhere in the core of the Earth by "materialization of energy as predicted by special relativity theory in the scientific realm of quantum electrodynamics", which sounds more like science fiction material for a new Marvel movie. And when he goes on and spices his claims with statements like: "It won't change our moral beliefs, but it will totally change our view of the universe." and "Most of what we know or assume to know is wrong one way or another." his credibility starts to drop really fast. http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20091122x3.html IMO The Dark Knight of Geology might try to challenge accepted science with fantasy and imagination but will fail without any rigorous evidence or valid explanations. ---------- James Maxlow claims that the Earth radius is currently expanding with 22 millimeter each year: "A formula for rate of change in Earth radius has been established and modeling of physical data completed. This mathematical modeling demonstrates that Earth radius has been increasing exponentially throughout time, increasing to a current rate of 22mm/year." http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=5&MMN_position=4:4 But we can calculate the distance the Moon should recede from Earth due to tidal acceleration and then measure the real increase in distance by bouncing a laser beam off the mirrors that was left there during the Apollo missions. During the period 1970 to 2007 the Moon moved 38 mm/yr outward which also is consistent with results from other measurements. The gravitational attraction that the Moon exerts on Earth is the major cause of tides in the sea; the Sun has a lesser tidal influence. ... The tidal bulges on Earth are carried ahead of the Earth-Moon axis by a small amount as a result of the Earth's rotation. This is a direct consequence of friction and the dissipation of energy as water moves over the ocean bottom and into or out of bays and estuaries. Each bulge exerts a small amount of gravitational attraction on the Moon, with the bulge closest to the Moon pulling in a direction slightly forward along the Moon's orbit, because the Earth's rotation has carried the bulge forward. The opposing bulge has the opposite effect, but the closer bulge dominates due to its comparative closer distance to the Moon. As a result, some of the Earth's rotational momentum is gradually being transferred to the Moon's orbital momentum, and this causes the Moon to slowly recede from Earth at the rate of approximately 38 millimetres per year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#Tidal_evolution The motion of the Moon can be followed with an accuracy of a few centimeters by lunar laser ranging (LLR). Laser pulses are bounced off mirrors on the surface of the moon, emplaced during the Apollo missions of 1969 to 1972 and by Lunokhod 2 in 1973. Measuring the return time of the pulse yields a very accurate measure of the distance. These measurements are fitted to the equations of motion. This yields numerical values for the Moon's secular acceleration in longitude and the rate of change of the semimajor axis of the Earth-Moon ellipse. From the period 1970-2007, the results are: -25.85"/cy² in ecliptic longitude (cy is centuries, here taken to the square) +38.14 mm/yr in the mean Earth-Moon distance This is consistent with results from satellite laser ranging (SLR), a similar technique applied to artificial satellites orbiting the Earth, which yields a model for the gravitational field of the Earth, including that of the tides. The model accurately predicts the changes in the motion of the Moon. Finally, ancient observations of solar eclipses give fairly accurate positions for the Moon at those moments. Studies of these observations give results consistent with the value quoted above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration#Quantitative_description_of_the_Earth-Moon_case If the radius of the Earth changed with several millimeters each year we would be able to notice this very accurately. Since we have NOT observed the change James Maxlow's model predicts this model is disproved by observation. In fact all models predicting any large change of Earth's radius are wrong according to observation. ---------- Ok, so I also did some rough math to get a grip on the all the values mentioned in this thread: Formulas for Volume and Area are: [math] V=\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3 [/math] and [math] A=4\pi r^2 [/math] Earth today: Mean radius is 6 371 000 m. Total Mass is 5.9736×1024 kg. and Land Area is 1.4894×1014 m2. For current land area to be the whole surface area the old radius would have to be 3 442 712 m. which is ~1.85 times smaller. Thus if Pangea covered the whole Earth 250 millions years ago the radius must have growed with a at least a mean of 11.7 millimeter each year. With that old radius 250 millions of years ago Earth would have had an Volume of 1.71×1020 m3. which compared to todays 1.08×1021 m3. is ~6.3 times smaller. Formula for surface gravity is: [math] g=\frac{GM}{r^2} [/math] where G=6.67428×10-11 If a change in mass has caused this growth and mean density have remained roughly unchanged then Earth's mass back then was 9.46×1023 kg. and surface gravity was 5.3 m/s2. which is ~1.8 times lower. But then an explanation is needed of how Earth managed to accumulate ~5 times its own weight in that timespan. If mass has not changed then surface gravity acceleration was ~33.6 m/s2. back then, which compared to todays 9.82 m/s2. is ~3.4 times larger. But then an explanation is needed how Earth have managed to expand and change its mean density by ~6.3 times. So far there is no valid explanation for either how the Earth has changed mass or density presented in this thread. Edited May 6, 2011 by Spyman 1
Recommended Posts