Is the earth expanding?

[insane_alien]

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.

 

yes, but i was just talking about the equations of gravity. Light storm said the equations of gravity could not cope with a changing radius. This is both a) false and b) irrelevant as its mass that counts.

[michel123456]

Wait, are you saying that you where amused at a post close to fourteen hours before it was made?

 

 

He made almost the same statement in post #28, although not so clearly.

 

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. [/size][/font]

 

And you have no obligation to find that funny. I do.

Mainly because when fighting the EET, some are giving arguments for the (unexisting) Shrinking Earth Theory.

Edited May 6, 2011 by michel123456

[Moontanman]

yes, but i was just talking about the equations of gravity. Light storm said the equations of gravity could not cope with a changing radius. This is both a) false and b) irrelevant as its mass that counts.

 

 

Oops, sorry, I should pay better attention insane_alien... My calculations were simple do to my own lack of math skills but still relatively accurate and based on the idea that Mars has approximately the same surface area as the land surface of the Earth which was were the OP vid started out and that the Earth is approximately twice as big as mars, a little more i think, I got my idea by using this site http://www.johnbray.org.uk/planetdesigner/

[Spyman]

...some are giving arguments for the (unexisting) Shrinking Earth Theory.

Not unexisting, only disproven and considered obsolete...

 

Before the concept of plate tectonics, global cooling was a reference to a geophysical theory by James Dwight Dana, also referred to as the contracting earth theory. It suggested that the Earth had been in a molten state, and features such as mountains formed as it cooled and shrank. As the interior of the Earth cooled and shrank, the rigid crust would have to shrink and crumple. The crumpling could produce features such as mountain ranges.

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

[Moontanman]

Not unexisting, only disproven and considered obsolete...

 

Before the concept of plate tectonics, global cooling was a reference to a geophysical theory by James Dwight Dana, also referred to as the contracting earth theory. It suggested that the Earth had been in a molten state, and features such as mountains formed as it cooled and shrank. As the interior of the Earth cooled and shrank, the rigid crust would have to shrink and crumple. The crumpling could produce features such as mountain ranges.

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

 

 

I remember that, I have old books that show that as the reason we have mountains. It is a Time Life book called "The World We Live In" it's first printing was in 1952, my copy was printed in 1963, it shows the way the Earth wrinkled up to form mountains, there is no mention of plate tectonics. I saved up money from odd jobs to buy those books, I loved them, lots of cool illustrations.

[Moontanman]

If you can get by the good natured humor in this u-tube video you will see someone totally refute the idea of the EET. I enjoyed it and learned some things I didn't know.

 

 

[Light Storm]

Re: Cap'n Refsmmat

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?

 

Out of interest, I wanted to look into the earliest results from Satellites that have been in space for a long time.

 

I looked into Vanguard 1. Not only has it been in space since 1958, it's original orbit was predicted to last 2,000 years. But apparently 'Atmospheric drag' is slowing it down every year. This drag due to 'radiation pressure' has apparently reduced it's orbit life time to 240 years. Sadly, we lost communication with it in 1964, but it would be interesting to know how much it's slowing down per year, and if it's 'mysteriously' loosing orbit by several mm per year.

 

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 centimetres per year. This would imply that the Earth is shrinking, not expanding.

 

Or, it's related to gravity. As the earths rotation slows it's angular momentum drops. The moons momentum would compensate by rising to the same amount. With the increase in speed, it's going to move further away from Earth. Why is the earths rotation slowing down? Have you considered the idea that an Expanding earth might have something to do with it? The rotation would be effected by the volume increase.

 

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.

 

Well, Maxlow has put the numbers on his thesis, Have you tried going through them to see his breakdowns?

I'm sure I've already made links to it on previous posts.

 

But if you want to see the honest to God GPS data sets, this is a good starting location

WOW... they have really improved the map since I last looked at it

 

http://sideshow.jpl....mbh/series.html

 

With several spot checks, the data matched up with Maxlows at that time. Maxlow is more interested in the HEIGHT increases over the LAT, LON shown on the pretty map.

 

http://sideshow.jpl....bles/table2.txt

 

Re michel12345

 

And you have no obligation to find that funny. I do. Mainly because when fighting the EET, some are giving arguments for the (unexisting) Shrinking Earth Theory.

 

Ever bounce an iron ball off the ground?

It's able to 'bounce' because at the moment of intact the molecules push them selves together, the spring off the ground is the molecules quickly re-setting their original density.

 

Put solid iron under enough pressure and the effect will not only decrease the volume but increase heat of the object

As it's gets hotter and the molecules move more quickly, the pressure is able to pack them closer together

Decreasing the heat will increase the volume as it's density is able to return to normal

Made sense to me

 

Re: Spyman

 

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...

 

Speculating:

No, every engine needs fuel. Energy in any form is not limitless. It is more likely the cores of the earth will calm down to a point where volcanic energy ceases to exist on the surface. The surface will get thicker inwards. We will loose the oceans as the crust takes them back. Nothing good for humans after that.

 

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.

 

For the record: I do not support Adams explanation for 'Planet Growth' as it grossly to break the rules of thermodynamics

The video was meant as an 'overview' of how the continents fit back together on a smaller globe... that is all.

 

Give this video a try:

Skip ahead to 3:59... and Adams will shrink his animation model on both sides without spinning the globe

 

I personally prefer Maxlows Globes as he put extensive research into every aspect of dating back the globe by closing the newest to oldest surface material.

 

Pangea_animation_03.gif

 

Keep in mind that everyone agrees the atlantic did no exist 250 million years ago.. Even that little globe...

 

The map of the age of the sea floor does not support this at all...Take a look at Antarctica for example on the Pangea model, we see it pushed southward away from the massive Pangea, across an ocean floor no one seems to have even a speculative map for.

 

 

 

Now... if we close The Atlantic by the measurements of the sea floor... And looking at this map, it would appear that everything comes back together connecting to the Arctic. Biological evidence laid out by Dennis McCarthy also supports a closed pacific. This to me is the driving evidence for a smaller Earth... How... Speculation at best... but I think the question of how should be taken more seriously.

 

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?

 

Before one can ask this question, they have to take a good hard look at the age of the sea floors not only in the atlantic, but on a global scale.

 

Finally, ancient observations of solar eclipses

 

When you say 'ancient' how many millions of years ago are you referring to... exactly? 2 Thousand years ago? in the time of Ancient Greece? roughly 22meter difference on a global scale. Is that really going to effect the solar eclipse when you compare it to the size of the moon?

 

Ok, so I also did some rough math to get a grip on the all the values mentioned in this thread:

 

Your much better at math then anyone else here

Hope you don't mind, but I've created a copy of it for future reference.

 

RE: Moontanman

 

You Tube reference "Expanding earth my ass" video

 

Interesting... more fancy cross sections not really based on any real locations anywhere that discuss rifting and subduction.

 

It's from about 7:19 and on that have HUGE problems with in regards to plate tectonics. I mean... come on... basically portrays the earth as a giant lava lamp where continents are spinning, changing size, turning into play-doh and playing bumper cars... and yet you poke at Neals video like it's ludicrous. What's sad to me is that a non-scientist cartoonist can see the elegance and simplicity of the expanding earth model in comparison to that jumble of horse crap. A room full of you scientifically inclined here can't get why.

 

By the way, my favourite Plate Tectonic Video is this one

 

 

Quote: "If your confused... join the club, even the earth seems confused"

 

(at 2:26, you can start to see some rifting lines on the ancient floors... they just seem to move them around randomly like they aren't really important. Sadly, all there location do not work even at an imaginary stretch with the current age ocean floor maps)

 

 

 

 

 

[Klaynos]

Nothing you have cited so far as reputable evidence is not explained in the literature by plate techtonics. The retirement for such a speedy expansion of the earth (of order mm per year) would be detectable. We do not detect it. This idea has failed on at least two counts required to replace an existing theory in science therefore I feel we should probably put this to bed, again.

[Spyman]

If you can get by the good natured humor in this u-tube video you will see someone totally refute the idea of the EET. I enjoyed it and learned some things I didn't know.

Nice find Moontanman, very good video.

[Moontanman]

Light storm, did you not see the ideas of the main proponent of EET? He does not say the Earth is not gaining mass as you have indicated and so you have to deal with the acquired mass which should be now 8 times the mass of what the Earth was then. At first he claims that hydrogen fusion ( a small sun at the center of the Earth) is creating energy that is turned into mass, can any one say WHAT? Then he claims matter is being made inside the earth by imaginary pipes that carry twists of nothing to the center of the earth where there is a small sun, which again somehow turns the twists of nothing (prime matter?) into mass I mean really!

Edited May 7, 2011 by Moontanman

[swansont]

Or, it's related to gravity. As the earths rotation slows it's angular momentum drops. The moons momentum would compensate by rising to the same amount. With the increase in speed, it's going to move further away from Earth. Why is the earths rotation slowing down? Have you considered the idea that an Expanding earth might have something to do with it? The rotation would be effected by the volume increase.

 

I've already asked you for a calculation on this, instead of your hand-wavy argument. If the slowdown of the earth matches the moon recession rate, there is no room for any earth expansion causing additional slowdown. It's put up or shut up time. Again, I cite Speculations rule #1.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Out of interest, I wanted to look into the earliest results from Satellites that have been in space for a long time.

 

I looked into Vanguard 1. Not only has it been in space since 1958, it's original orbit was predicted to last 2,000 years. But apparently 'Atmospheric drag' is slowing it down every year. This drag due to 'radiation pressure' has apparently reduced it's orbit life time to 240 years. Sadly, we lost communication with it in 1964, but it would be interesting to know how much it's slowing down per year, and if it's 'mysteriously' loosing orbit by several mm per year.

Effects such as atmospheric drag and radiation pressure can be modeled very accurately.

 

OutOr, it's related to gravity. As the earths rotation slows it's angular momentum drops. The moons momentum would compensate by rising to the same amount. With the increase in speed, it's going to move further away from Earth. Why is the earths rotation slowing down? Have you considered the idea that an Expanding earth might have something to do with it? The rotation would be effected by the volume increase.

I thought the Earth's rotation slows down because it's expanding, conserving angular momentum, and so the net angular momentum of the Earth doesn't change at all.

 

Surely you could provide calculations and models to the contrary, and demonstrate that the current recession rate of the moon is to be expected under your model.

 

OutWell, Maxlow has put the numbers on his thesis, Have you tried going through them to see his breakdowns?

I'm sure I've already made links to it on previous posts.

 

But if you want to see the honest to God GPS data sets, this is a good starting location

WOW... they have really improved the map since I last looked at it

That is not what I asked for. Maxlow claims researchers discovered the Earth is expanding and then decided it must not be. Surely if this is the case there are published papers of scientists going, "Hey, we found something weird," and other papers saying "It makes more sense if you set the expansion to zero." Where are these papers? Maxlow cannot claim researchers did this without citing the actual research. The quote he makes does not come from any research paper I can find, and without a citation he may well have just made it up.

OutPut solid iron under enough pressure and the effect will not only decrease the volume but increase heat of the object

As it's gets hotter and the molecules move more quickly, the pressure is able to pack them closer together

Decreasing the heat will increase the volume as it's density is able to return to normal

Made sense to me

It's false. The majority of materials expand when heated and contract when cooled, rather than vice versa. The level of expansion and contraction can be calculated with a formula I learned in 10th grade -- perhaps you could use that to demonstrate that the expansion you talk about is feasible?

[Light Storm]

Re: Klaynos

 

Nothing you have cited so far as reputable evidence is not explained in the literature by plate tectonics.

 

As I explained to mooeypoo... (who not unlike moontaman likes to use Neal Adams credibility to bring down the theory before hiding behind a demand of peer reviews) Expanding Earth and Plate Tectonics share the same evidence. The only difference between the two is the Expanding Earth accepts that the Earth has been changing in size and Plate Tectonics assumes the size is static.

 

Re: Moontanman

Light storm, did you not see the ideas of the main proponent of EET? He does not say the Earth is not gaining mass as you have indicated and so you have to deal with the acquired mass which should be now 8 times the mass of what the Earth was then. At first he claims that hydrogen fusion ( a small sun at the centre of the Earth) is creating energy that is turned into mass, can any one say WHAT? Then he claims matter is being made inside the earth by imaginary pipes that carry twists of nothing to the centre of the earth where there is a small sun, which again somehow turns the twists of nothing (prime matter?) into mass I mean really!

 

Your main proponent Neal Adams? He does not agree with EE. He is lobbying for GE! (Growing Earth). He's not even a scientist and you want to label him the main proponent for Expanding Earth... your embarrassing yourself. Do you know the difference between Growing Earth and Expanding Earth? Expanding Earth is an increase to earths volume, but not an increase in mass. If you scratch the surface on Adams you learn a few things

 

1. He is not a geologist, physicist or even a scientist.

2. He has a deep rooted love for the works Of Professor Samuel Carey (who was a famous Geologist).

3. It was Careys belief that subduction was a myth, and based on the evidence of his time, he was right in saying so

4. It was Careys belief that new matter must be forming at the centre of the earth and speculated that the answer for additional mass may help us understanding the creation of matter in the universe for an expanding universe.

 

Wanting to take it to the next level, Adams looked into the detailed works of famous physicists (Carl David Anderson) and found pair production. He then surmised that the universe is made up of (prime matter). I lovingly rename it to 'magic matter!' that is totally un-dectable. This magic matter is transformed into real matter at the cores of celestial bodies. If magic matter didn't break the majority of everything we know about how the universe works, I might entertain the idea for an increase in Earth mass.

 

He does not say the Earth is not gaining mass as you have indicated and so you have to deal with the acquired mass which should be now 8 times the mass of what the Earth was then.

 

Wow... your as good at reading as you are at math. At no point have I stated agreement with an increase to Earths mass. I've readily told others, including yourself, if the Earth was increasing in mass, I would need to know where it was coming from. I even went as far as verify that statement with references to the layers of lunar dust on the moon. So... unless you can learn to stop putting words in my mouth, please stop posting.

 

In Conclusion... Before you go poking fun at Adams, consider readying Careys book on Expanding Earth first, it will help you understand the scientist behind the cartoonist. Hopefully this concludes any more back and forth about Neal Adams explanations.

 

The retirement for such a speedy expansion of the earth (of order mm per year) would be detectable. We do not detect it.

 

Have you looked at the GPS data?

 

Re: Swansont

 

I've already asked you for a calculation on this, instead of your hand-wavy argument. If the slowdown of the earth matches the moon recession rate, there is no room for any earth expansion causing additional slowdown. It's put up or shut up time. Again, I cite Speculations rule #1.

 

Rule #1. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof.

I gave the community a list of evidence, I've made follow up references to the post. Still, it remains un-addressed.

Lets ask 'Spyman'

 

Speculation Question:

If the Earth Rotation was slowing down due to an expansion of the earths size, and the moons recession from the earth was a result of the Earths slowing rotation, how much would the earth be expanding yearly?

I've also put the question to Donald L. Hamilton, I'll post a response if I get one. If the answer works out between 11 and 22mm a year, would move this post back into Earth Science? Or would the idea of continuing to entertain this subject be to much of an embarrassment for your forum?

 

Re: Cap'n Refsmmat

 

Effects such as atmospheric drag and radiation pressure can be modeled very accurately.

 

You told me "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. and asked Is there evidence that this effect occurs?"

 

I then made reference to one of the oldest satellites in space. Not only is it slowing down every year, but it's life expectancy has dropped exponentially from early predictions. So, is there evidence that this effect occurs... apparently.

 

Surely you could provide calculations and models to the contrary, and demonstrate that the current recession rate of the moon is to be expected under your model.

 

The rate the moon moves away from the earth is fixed and measurable. Why would I create a model that would demonstrate otherwise? However, it would be interesting to learn the Moons recession may be the result an expanding earth and not the cause of earths declining rotation.

 

That is not what I asked for. Maxlow claims researchers discovered the Earth is expanding and then decided it must not be. Surely if this is the case there are published papers of scientists going, "Hey, we found something weird," and other papers saying "It makes more sense if you set the expansion to zero." Where are these papers? Maxlow cannot claim researchers did this without citing the actual research. The quote he makes does not come from any research paper I can find, and without a citation he may well have just made it up.

 

Wow.. I'm sorry if you didn't understand the data set. I've gone through those numbers with a Geologist to understand better where Maxlow was coming from. Maybe you should try doing the same.

 

It's false. The majority of materials expand when heated and contract when cooled, rather than vice versa.

 

True... at atmospheric pressure... you're still not accounting for the enormous pressure the Earth is under

 

Make yourself a nice ball of plastic wrap

Regardless of temperature... You can crush all that mass into a tiny ball.

When you start releasing the pressure from the outside, the tiny ball will expand in your hands.

There is no magical increase in plastic mass

 

Due to the core temperatures, pressures and densities of the earth, an expansion would result in cooling and a decrease in density. Or the resulting of cooling is decreasing the density which would result in an increase to volume of all the existing matter underneath our 1% surface material. Want to compare numbers on how much Earth is under pressure compared to how much isn't.

[Klaynos]

Re: Klaynos

 

[/size]

 

As I explained to mooeypoo... (who not unlike moontaman likes to use Neal Adams credibility to bring down the theory before hiding behind a demand of peer reviews) Expanding Earth and Plate Tectonics share the same evidence. The only difference between the two is the Expanding Earth accepts that the Earth has been changing in size and Plate Tectonics assumes the size is static.

 

 

 

So, the one distinquishing factor is the expansion of the earth, which is not measured so the idea can be safely chucked out, thank you for agreeing that applying the scientific method in this case results in expanding earth being disguarded.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You told me "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. and asked Is there evidence that this effect occurs?"

 

I then made reference to one of the oldest satellites in space. Not only is it slowing down every year, but it's life expectancy has dropped exponentially from early predictions. So, is there evidence that this effect occurs... apparently.

And of course before the first satellite was launched we had no idea what the density of the atmosphere at high altitudes was, what radiation pressure effects to expect, and so on. Of course the early predictions would be wrong. How about recent data?

 

Wow.. I'm sorry if you didn't understand the data set. I've gone through those numbers with a Geologist to understand better where Maxlow was coming from. Maybe you should try doing the same.

I am not talking about the data set. Maxlow makes claims about what scientists said, and I want to see evidence that scientists actually said those things. When did scientists say "let's set the expansion to 0, despite this evidence to the contrary?"

 

I'm not asking about the data set. I'm asking about Maxlow's claims about what scientists wrote.

 

Or the resulting of cooling is decreasing the density which would result in an increase to volume of all the existing matter underneath our 1% surface material.

Please prove to me, using experimental data or mathematics, that under core-like conditions material will expand when cooled. I will accept only experimental results or models using known physics.

 

Generally, material contracts when cooled. The exception is water under certain conditions.

[Light Storm]

So, the one distinquishing factor is the expansion of the earth, which is not measured so the idea can be safely chucked out, thank you for agreeing that applying the scientific method in this case results in expanding earth being disguarded.

 

GPS Data sets seem to support an expanding earth

The data is often corrected as a 'mistake' because how can the earth be expanding?

I put up a list of arguments which supports the expanding earth... and still... your saying I've offered up nothing.

 

Re: cap'n refsmmat

 

And of course before the first satellite was launched we had no idea what the density of the atmosphere at high altitudes was, what radiation pressure effects to expect, and so on. Of course the early predictions would be wrong. How about recent data?

 

The hubble telescope seems to also suffer from 'orbital decay' blamed on 'drag' Apparently if it's not re-boosted by a shuttle or other means, it will re-enter earth's atmosphere sometime between 2019 and 2032.

 

Ref: http://en.wikipedia....e#Orbital_decay

 

I am not talking about the data set. Maxlow makes claims about what scientists said, and I want to see evidence that scientists actually said those things. When did scientists say "let's set the expansion to 0, despite this evidence to the contrary?" I'm not asking about the data set. I'm asking about Maxlow's claims about what scientists wrote.

 

Here is a an idea... look at his thesis.

 

If you go into his thesis... Go to Chapter 3 part A p72-82 It's honestly to much information in regards to that summary you've been quoted to just copy and paste onto the forum.

 

Please prove to me, using experimental data or mathematics, that under core-like conditions material will expand when cooled. I will accept only experimental results or models using known physics.

Generally, material contracts when cooled. The exception is water under certain conditions.

 

I think we first need to re-define what I mean by cooling. The inner Core of earth has a temperature similar to the surface of the sun 5778K.

I'm not meaning it's freezing like liquid water into an ice cube, rather that the Earth is slowly loosing it's internal heat over time. Like a fire in a furnace going out, but it's got a long ways to go before it goes cold. By being hotter, it could maintain a higher density. But without the heat, the material density is going to compensate.

 

"Little is known about how the inner core grows. Because it is slowly cooling, many scientists expected that the inner core would be homogeneous. It was even suggested that Earth's inner core may be a single crystal of iron;^[13] however, this is at odds with the observed degree of disorder inside the inner core.^[14] Seismologists have revealed that the inner core is not completely uniform and contains large-scale structures that seismic waves pass more rapidly through than others." Ref: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Inner_core

"Though nearly pure iron, the outer core is thought to have the consistency of water, and convection in the outer core is thought to create the Earth's magnetic field. At the bottom of this ocean of iron, however, iron crystals settle out onto the inner core, causing it to grow at a slow rate of perhaps an inch every 50 years." ~Ref: http://www.berkeley....egacy/iron.html

Edited May 7, 2011 by Light Storm

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The hubble telescope seems to also suffer from 'orbital decay' blamed on 'drag' Apparently if it's not re-boosted by a shuttle or other means, it will re-enter earth's atmosphere sometime between 2019 and 2032.

Yes, I know. That's why I mentioned the density of the upper atmosphere, which causes slight drag on spacecraft. Do you have any data attributing orbital decay to anything other than drag?

I think we first need to re-define what I mean by cooling. The inner Core of earth has a temperature similar to the surface of the sun 5778K.

I'm not meaning it's freezing like liquid water into an ice cube, rather that the Earth is slowly loosing it's internal heat over time.

Yes, that's what cooling means. I am aware of that. I have taken basic thermodynamics.

 

By being hotter, it could maintain a higher density. But without the heat, the material density is going to compensate.

Prove it. Heat makes things expand. Cold makes things contract. Being hotter does not make things maintain a higher density. If you want to prove otherwise, you will need experimental evidence.

 

The quotes from Berkeley you cited claims the solid portion of the inner core expands due to added mass from solidified iron crystals settling. It says nothing about cooling causing a contraction.

[Spyman]

Lets ask 'Spyman'

Why are you asking me? I thought I made it very clear in my post #75 that:

 

In fact all models predicting any large change of Earth's radius are wrong according to observation.

 

 

Speculation Question:

If the Earth Rotation was slowing down due to an expansion of the earths size, and the moons recession from the earth was a result of the Earths slowing rotation, how much would the earth be expanding yearly?

Let me explain it once more, our current model of the Earth does not include any changes in neither the radius or mass. By assuming that both the radius and the mass of the Earth are not changing while calculating how much Earth's rotation is slowing down and how much farther that rotational momentum brings the Moon each year, scientist gets a value of approximately 38 millimetres.

 

Any change whatsoever in either Earths radius or mass would NOT yield the same result as for a none changing Earth.

 

Very precise measurements of how much farther the Moon gets from Earths surface is consistent with the predicted 38 millimetres for an unchanging Earth.

 

The Earth is neither growing, expanding nor shrinking - IF it was we would be able to observe it relative the surface of the Moon.

 

Or if I answere the question as you are asking it:

According to our current measurements of the recession of the Moon, the Earth is expanding with ZERO millimetres each year.

 

 

I've also put the question to Donald L. Hamilton, I'll post a response if I get one. If the answer works out between 11 and 22mm a year, would move this post back into Earth Science? Or would the idea of continuing to entertain this subject be to much of an embarrassment for your forum?

You need to post an explanation for how the gravitational field of the Earth, including that of the tides, is interacting with the Moon and how an proposed expansion of Earth's radius, is causing the Moon to recess the 38 millimetres farther away each year as we currently are observing.

 

Good Luck!

[Klaynos]

Orbital drag is quite well understood, it's really quite similar to normal drag. Your suggestion for an expanding earth would be trivially measurable at the rate required. This is not observed.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

There has been ample opportunity to comply with the Speculations rules for providing evidence, but since all we've seen is tap-dancing, this is closed.

Light Storm should not reintroduce the subject.