Expanding Earth Theory (missing mass resolved)

[Rich_A12]

Hello there, had some ideas the other day and made a video ..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfrUxcCzfks

 

I also have some other ideas about gravity but I will wait and see what response I get here. I have discussed this else where and got a very negative response. Please don't talk from your emotional perspective, I am only interested in the science.

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to speculations.

You're unlikely to get anyone with the knowledge to suitably critique your idea to watch a 20+min video. You'd be far better off writing a brief summary here.

Please review the speculation forum rules, a link to which can be found at the top of this page.

Do not reply to this modtip.

[Moontanman]

Hello there, had some ideas the other day and made a video ..

 

I also have some other ideas about gravity but I will wait and see what response I get here. I have discussed this else where and got a very negative response. Please don't talk from your emotional perspective, I am only interested in the science.

 

 

I watched the entire video, you start out with a totally false assertion, objects do not contract when you add energy, they expand. A cooling earth would contract not expand. your analogy of a star expanding is also false, a star expands because it begins to fuse helium which cases it to expand because more energy is added not taken away. All else you say fails due to this one fact. It is also a good idea to show that even though the processes of plate tectonics it still making the continents move around the earth and heat energy is still being lost it can be shown the Earth not expanding, we can measure the size of the earth down to minuscule amounts no expansion is shown.

[Rich_A12]

Been a while but have had another thought as to the reason for the missing mass.

 

This interests me as I have always felt even from a young age that plate tectonics was ugly and didn't make much sense. My biggest argument against it is, what are the chances mathematically of there being one giant super continent if there are no rules governing what the plates do?

 

Anyway, I believe the Earth has expanded but I've been struggling to understand why. Then I watched a video on weird planets on youtube. One of them was said to have a mass much lower than Jupiter but was 5x bigger than Jupiter mostly because it was much closer to the sun. The increased heat causes the gases to expand. This video also described how planets can tumble in towards a star over time until eventually their speed and so centrifugal force, reaches an equilibrium with the star's gravity.

 

This got me thinking that maybe the Earth used to be much further away from the Sun and over time has moved closer to it, thus causing the gases within the core to expand which creates an outward pressure.

 

I believe that there was an initial and violent cracking of the Earth's crust which created the fractures that we recognise today as land masses. After the initial cracking, the Earth would have rapidly expanded because the fractured crust made it easier for the Earth to expand.

 

I also believe that the presence of an atmosphere has an affect on a planet's ability to expand. An atmosphere might cause a planet to retain more of the Sun's energy therefore gases within the planet gain energy and cause more outward pressure. Actually I think the pressure has no direction, the gases simply want to occupy more space.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Rich_A12

[Rich_A12]

http://www.thescienceforum.com/pseudoscience/28911-expanding-earth-theory.html#post331280

[Moontanman]

Been a while but have had another thought as to the reason for the missing mass.

 

This interests me as I have always felt even from a young age that plate tectonics was ugly and didn't make much sense. My biggest argument against it is, what are the chances mathematically of there being one giant super continent if there are no rules governing what the plates do?

 

Anyway, I believe the Earth has expanded but I've been struggling to understand why. Then I watched a video on weird planets on youtube. One of them was said to have a mass much lower than Jupiter but was 5x bigger than Jupiter mostly because it was much closer to the sun. The increased heat causes the gases to expand. This video also described how planets can tumble in towards a star over time until eventually their speed and so centrifugal force, reaches an equilibrium with the star's gravity.

 

This got me thinking that maybe the Earth used to be much further away from the Sun and over time has moved closer to it, thus causing the gases within the core to expand which creates an outward pressure.

 

I believe that there was an initial and violent cracking of the Earth's crust which created the fractures that we recognise today as land masses. After the initial cracking, the Earth would have rapidly expanded because the fractured crust made it easier for the Earth to expand.

 

I also believe that the presence of an atmosphere has an affect on a planet's ability to expand. An atmosphere might cause a planet to retain more of the Sun's energy therefore gases within the planet gain energy and cause more outward pressure. Actually I think the pressure has no direction, the gases simply want to occupy more space.

 

 

Gasses inside the earth, causing the earth to expand? Heat from the sun is going to matter to an earth's interior that is hotter than the surface of the sun?

 

http://www.thescienceforum.com/pseudoscience/28911-expanding-earth-theory.html#post331280

 

 

Equally meaningless link to another science forum...

 

Come on Rich_A12, can you support this with anything other than your disbelief in an non expanding earth?

[Rich_A12]

Take it to an extreme, double the distance between Earth and Sun. Add a thousand years, which core is cooler and so therefore has lower pressures, the one closer to the sun or the one twice as far away? It's not so much about heat from the sun and more about rate of loss of heat into space.

[D H]

Anyway, I believe the Earth has expanded but I've been struggling to understand why.

There is no reason why. That's why you are struggling.

 

 

This got me thinking that maybe the Earth used to be much further away from the Sun and over time has moved closer to it, thus causing the gases within the core to expand which creates an outward pressure.

It's a good thing I wasn't drinking a soda when I read this. You would owe me a computer screen if I had been.

 

 

This expanding earth nonsense is one of the silliest notions to come out of the crackpot community for quite some time. You would serve yourself much better if you learned some real science instead.

[Greg H.]

This is one those theories that, years from now, people will look back on and wonder how anyone even thought this might actually be right.

[ACG52]

As I posted to Rich in another forum,

 

Here's a study done last year by NASA and JPL.

 

To quote the salient part:

 

 

The previously discussed geodetic techniques (satellite laser ranging, very-long baseline interferometry and GPS) were used to obtain data on Earth surface movements from a global network of carefully selected sites. These data were then combined with measurements of Earth's gravity from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) spacecraft and models of ocean bottom pressure, which help scientists interpret gravity change data over the ocean.

 

The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.

 

"Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.

 

 

NASA Research Confirms it's a Small World, After All - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

[Rich_A12]

They said this ..

 

The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.

 

Er how can 0.1mm per year be insignificant? 0.1mm = 0.0001m x 1,000,000 years = 100m or 0.1km. If you can imagine a curve showing the rate of expansion from pre fragmentation to present day, there would be a sharp rise (explosive release of pressure post fragmentation) and then a sharpish fall and then a levelling off over a long period of time. The part we are at now would probably be almost entirely flat.

 

Let's say the rate is linear. 0.1km x 4500 (4.5 billion years) = 450km, the Earth is 12,756km in diameter, 12,756 - 450 = 12,306km that's about 3.5% smaller. Even using a linear rate at what I would consider the slowest rate of expansion results in a 3.5% increase in size over 4.5 billion years, I fail to see how that is insignificant.

 

I still argue that they aren't recording in enough places to make entirely accurate recordings and they would need to be doing it for a long time, 50 years maybe before being able to draw conclusions.

[insane_alien]

its insignificant because the margin for error is larger than that. which means the actual rate could be zero. measuring zero is surprisingly difficult to do.

[Rich_A12]

http://www.thescienceforum.com/pseudoscience/28911-expanding-earth-theory.html#post331369

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Rich - it is not acceptable to attempt to answer a members valid argument by merely providing a link to your post on another forum

[Rich_A12]

OK point taken but it's the exact same conversation. I am getting emails from this topic and will reply if something different comes up.

[insane_alien]

Rich, you do understand the concept of measurement error don't you?

 

Lets take GPS as an example because that can sometimes be comically wrong.

 

my gps on my phone currently says i'm across the street at my neighbours house because i'm only getting a few connections(i'm indoors). The program says the current accuracy is to within 30m which is pretty big (if i go outside it'll go down to about 3m). now my neighbours house is maybe about 20m away so while the actual location reported is wrong, when applying the error margin appropriately it is actually correct. if it was saying i was in bangladesh and the error was 30m then there would definitely be some cause for concern.

 

with this result they've measured 0.1mm/year +/- some amount. if it's +/-0.2 mm/year then the earth could actually be shrinking by 0.1mm/year and still be consistent with their measurement.

 

unless a growth of zero was explicitly ruled out by the margin of error then it is not proof that the earth is expanding at any significant rate. It would also be intellectually dishonest to claim that it is conclusive proof.

[Rich_A12]

Anything between 0.01mm and 0.1mm+ is significant. The measurements need to be accurate to 0.01mm. If they are only accurate to 0.1mm, well would need to keep recording for a good few decades.

 

So I think it's very difficult to record accurately in a short space of time. I would perhaps try and develop a computer simulation. It sounds stupid saying 0.01mm is significant. This is why understanding physics and biology in terms of geological time is so difficult.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Rich_A12

[Moontanman]

Anything between 0.01mm and 0.1mm+ is significant. The measurements need to be accurate to 0.01mm. If they are only accurate to 0.1mm, well would need to keep recording for a good few decades.

 

So I think it's very difficult to record accurately in a short space of time. I would perhaps try and develop a computer simulation. It sounds stupid saying 0.01mm is significant. This is why understanding physics and biology in terms of geological time is so difficult.

 

 

Rich_A12, you assert the earth is expanding but you fail to not only show evidence of any expansion you give no viable mechanism for that expansion. There is no evidence the earth is expanding, if you have any evidence of such an expansion please give us that evidence. Gasses expanding inside the earth is nonsensical, such gases would rise to the surface and join the atmosphere not stay inside the earth make it expand. Measurements of the earth are accurate to an incredible degree, any expansion currently taking place would be obvious.

 

You need to give a reason why you think the Earth is expanding and a mechanism for that expansion not to mention evidence of that expansion, you fail on all three accounts...

 

[Rich_A12]

The mechanism is pressure. Without deep fragmentation or fault lines, well let's just say I don't think volcanoes and minor fragmentations would be enough to cause significant expansion. Just imagine the entire crust cracking open in a matter of days, giant cracks several hundred kilometers wide with nothing put red hot magma spewing out millions of tonnes of gases and lots of heat into most likely space as I doubt there was much of an atmosphere pre fragmentation. The fragmentation would have released lots of elements into the atmosphere, hydrogen and oxygen and probably gave birth to the oceans.

 

You're asking for proper scientific process which is quite unreasonable, all I can give you are my thoughts. What more can you expect from a mere forum poster!? Pure thought is what got us where we are today, before action and testing comes thought. Before someone made fire, they had the thought, "how can I make fire and what could I do with it". The thought is the spark that lights the fire!

[Moontanman]

The mechanism is pressure. Without deep fragmentation or fault lines, well let's just say I don't think volcanoes and minor fragmentations would be enough to cause significant expansion. Just imagine the entire crust cracking open in a matter of days, giant cracks several hundred kilometers wide with nothing put red hot magma spewing out millions of tonnes of gases and lots of heat into most likely space as I doubt there was much of an atmosphere pre fragmentation. The fragmentation would have released lots of elements into the atmosphere, hydrogen and oxygen and probably gave birth to the oceans.

 

How is this related to an expanding earth? Gasses pouring out of the earth does not make the Earth expand...

 

You're asking for proper scientific process which is quite unreasonable, all I can give you are my thoughts. What more can you expect from a mere forum poster!? Pure thought is what got us where we are today, before action and testing comes thought. Before someone made fire, they had the thought, "how can I make fire and what could I do with it". The thought is the spark that lights the fire!

 

yes, but the guy who's pure thought led him to conclude that urinating on the fire would make it burn better was discredited.

 

I think aliens live in the ort cloud, I can think it all day long, all my life, but it's just a thought, no evidence supports it, it's just a thought. But it is possible, does that mean it should be seriously considered? So far your idea isn't even possible, you show no reason what so ever why we should consider the idea of an expanding earth.

[Rich_A12]

Haha

 

The release of gases is a consequence of there being massive pressures under the crust and because there are huge gaping cracks in the Earth's crust, sort of like bleeding gases in a way. The expansion is also a result of these pressures. Pressures exert force, this force caused the fragmentation and the fragmentation made it easier for the pressure to literally blow the world up like a balloon. All pressure was not lost after fragmentation, the fragmentation was like releasing a pressure valve, the pressure keeps pouring out for quite some time once the valve is released.

[Greg H.]

I would just like to point out that pressure vessels that fail (the pressure causes them to crack or fragment) do not normally remain in a single identifiable piece. They normally end up scattered all of the landscape. If you've ever seen a pressure cooker with a bad lid, you know what I'm talking about. What you are suggesting is that the earth cracked just enough to bleed off pressure, without shattering.

 

We know that the earth's crust is somewhat flexible due to the uplift in the crust that happens after massive glacial regression. If however, there were a massive bubble of gaseous pressure at the core of the planet that suddenly popped it's way out, you would expect to see the surface of the earth suddenly retract from that spot, in exactly the same way a stretched balloon does when you put in too much gas. In short, expelling the gas inside a volume doesn't make the body larger - it makes it smaller. Unless your proposing that the rate of gas formation is larger than the rate of release. In which case we should expect to see the fracture sites getting larger over time (since pressure, like just about every other force in nature, will take the path of least resistance). You'd also need to explain why the gas pressure generation increases over time, since eventually the gas creation rate and the expulsion rate should reach equilibrium (otherwise we're back to the shattered planet scenario). Oh, and while you're working out the increasing gas production issue, feel free to work on the why this hasn't cracked the planet in half like a walnut issue too.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Greg H.

[Moontanman]

Haha

 

The release of gases is a consequence of there being massive pressures under the crust and because there are huge gaping cracks in the Earth's crust, sort of like bleeding gases in a way. The expansion is also a result of these pressures. Pressures exert force, this force caused the fragmentation and the fragmentation made it easier for the pressure to literally blow the world up like a balloon. All pressure was not lost after fragmentation, the fragmentation was like releasing a pressure valve, the pressure keeps pouring out for quite some time once the valve is released.

 

 

No!!! The Earth is not a balloon! It is not puffed up by internal gas pressure, if all the gases on the Earth including water, were somehow re-injected into the ground the earth would not expand. The gases would be compressed...

 

Again, why is the expanding earth theory better than plate tectonics? What does it explain that is not explained better with plate tectonics? You have no evidence, no mechanism, no observations that are explained better by the expanding earth claim, you have nothing but your own inability to understand plate tectonics...

 

Why do you think the Earth is expanding is better than the theory of plate tectonics?

[D H]

Some questions for you, Rich.

 

1. Do you understand why that 0.1 mm/year figure is statistically insignificant in light of the ± 0.2 mm/year uncertainty, why one cannot reject the null hypothesis (that the Earth is not expanding) on the basis of that measurement, and why the null hypothesis is the best answer? (Do you even understand what the terms "statistically insignificant" and "reject the null hypothesis" mean?)

 

2. For the sake of argument, let's assume that that 0.1 mm/year radial expansion is correct. That means the Earth's circumference is expanding by 0.63 mm/year. I'll be generous and call it 1 mm/year. The question: How does your expanding earth model explain the observed fact that some parts of the Earth such as the north Tonga trench are moving 240 times faster than this 1 mm/year?

 

3. How does your expanding earth model explain convergent boundaries, which have been observed?

 

4. How does your expanding earth model explain subduction zones, which also have been observed?

 

5. How does your gas-filled Earth model explain the Earth's observed mean density of 5.52 grams/cubic centimeter, about twice the density of surface rock?

 

6. How does your gas-filled Earth model explain the over 100 years of seismic waves observations, which show that the Earth has a very dense liquid outer core and an even denser solid inner core?

[Rich_A12]

I would just like to point out that pressure vessels that fail (the pressure causes them to crack or fragment) do not normally remain in a single identifiable piece. They normally end up scattered all of the landscape. If you've ever seen a pressure cooker with a bad lid, you know what I'm talking about. What you are suggesting is that the earth cracked just enough to bleed off pressure, without shattering.

 

We know that the earth's crust is somewhat flexible due to the uplift in the crust that happens after massive glacial regression. If however, there were a massive bubble of gaseous pressure at the core of the planet that suddenly popped it's way out, you would expect to see the surface of the earth suddenly retract from that spot, in exactly the same way a stretched balloon does when you put in too much gas. In short, expelling the gas inside a volume doesn't make the body larger - it makes it smaller. Unless your proposing that the rate of gas formation is larger than the rate of release. In which case we should expect to see the fracture sites getting larger over time (since pressure, like just about every other force in nature, will take the path of least resistance). You'd also need to explain why the gas pressure generation increases over time, since eventually the gas creation rate and the expulsion rate should reach equilibrium (otherwise we're back to the shattered planet scenario). Oh, and while you're working out the increasing gas production issue, feel free to work on the why this hasn't cracked the planet in half like a walnut issue too.

 

Gases are not in there natural gaseous state when under high pressure, they become liquids. Different liquids tend to dissolve into one another so the gases would have been reasonably evenly distrubuted throughout much like stiring sugar into tea. The liquid gases would most likely be near the crust as they are less affected by gravity in comparison to heavier elements like iron.

 

No!!! The Earth is not a balloon! It is not puffed up by internal gas pressure, if all the gases on the Earth including water, were somehow re-injected into the ground the earth would not expand. The gases would be compressed...

 

Again, why is the expanding earth theory better than plate tectonics? What does it explain that is not explained better with plate tectonics? You have no evidence, no mechanism, no observations that are explained better by the expanding earth claim, you have nothing but your own inability to understand plate tectonics...

 

Why do you think the Earth is expanding is better than the theory of plate tectonics?

 

The main problems I have with plate techtonics is the idea of Pangaea. To create one giant super continent, there would have to be one focal point at the exact polar opposite of the center of the super continent which is pushing the continental plates into one giant continent at the exact polar opposite of this focal point. This focal point would be exerting a force equally in all directions outwards. This is ludicrous, no focal point exists and it could never exist. If there is no focal point there are no rules governing where the plates go and so therefore the chances of them forming one super continent are zero.

 

Since being taught this at school when I was 13, I always had a feeling that it wasn't right - more than anything it's ugly and nature is not ugly. And I always figured that currents within the core are no where near sufficient to move entire continents and create huge mountain ranges. If the currents had that much energy we would have volcanoes spewing out lava into space! My thought processes are mathematical in nature and in short, none of the current theories add up for me.

 

Some questions for you, Rich.

 

1. Do you understand why that 0.1 mm/year figure is statistically insignificant in light of the ± 0.2 mm/year uncertainty, why one cannot reject the null hypothesis (that the Earth is not expanding) on the basis of that measurement, and why the null hypothesis is the best answer? (Do you even understand what the terms "statistically insignificant" and "reject the null hypothesis" mean?)

 

2. For the sake of argument, let's assume that that 0.1 mm/year radial expansion is correct. That means the Earth's circumference is expanding by 0.63 mm/year. I'll be generous and call it 1 mm/year. The question: How does your expanding earth model explain the observed fact that some parts of the Earth such as the north Tonga trench are moving 240 times faster than this 1 mm/year?

 

3. How does your expanding earth model explain convergent boundaries, which have been observed?

 

4. How does your expanding earth model explain subduction zones, which also have been observed?

 

5. How does your gas-filled Earth model explain the Earth's observed mean density of 5.52 grams/cubic centimeter, about twice the density of surface rock?

 

6. How does your gas-filled Earth model explain the over 100 years of seismic waves observations, which show that the Earth has a very dense liquid outer core and an even denser solid inner core?

 

1.Like I said already, 50 years is nothing in geological time. I have said already that some polar opposites might show a decrease in expansion due to continental collapse caused by gravity. So 50 years of data +/- 1mm means absolutely nothing. I didn't spot that it said radius, thought it was diameter. But still the maths I posted goes to show that fractions of millimeters results in significant changes over billions of years however fractions of millimeters can be accounted for by a number of factors which do not directly correlate to expansion i.e. weathering, crimping activities, collapse caused by gravity and shifts. In other words there is a lot of noise which cannot be filtered out over a short period of time and especially not in a time when the expansion rate is most likely to be at it's lowest rate.

 

Here's a bit more maths ..

 

2000km (diameter) x 1,000,000 (for mm) / 4.5 billion years = 0.45mm per year assuming a linear rate of expansion.

 

I have suggested the Earth is currently at an extremely flat part of the expansion curve. So the rate is most likely no where near 0.45mm per year, more likely 0.0001mm per year. Let's assume at peak rate the expansion rate was 100mm per year, that's not unreasonable considering the energies involved, in fact it is probably much more than that but have attached a graph with 100mm per year at peak.

 

This describes the release of an explosive type event caused by pressure release. It is comparible to most other graphs describing pressure release.

 

2. In the other forum I talked about shifts. I don't discount the possibility of sections of the Earth's crust shifting because after all they are sitting on a liquid. With the expanding Earth theory there are 3 types of seizmic type activity. The first is collapse, if the Earth's crust expands, continental plates won't immediately adopt the new curvature of the Earth, therefore the center of continental plates may be subject to collapse due to gravity. As a result of collapse a continental plates exerts on outward force at it's edges. As a result of this the second seizmic activity takes place which is crimping whereby the outward forces fragments the rock at the edges of a continental plates and pushes it upwards thus creating mountain ranges. The third seizmic activity is caused by shifts whereby instead of a plate crimping, it might shift and resposition itself slightly. But these shifts do not result in trends i.e. shifting in the same direction over thousands of years does not necessarily mean that plate will continue to shift in that direction indefinitely, in fact it might start shifting in the other direction.

 

because of all of this it's extremely difficult to find trends and laws, in fact the physics is entirely chaotic. Much like trying to predict exactly and precisely what water will do when poured over a surface.

 

3 and 4. Subduction is still viable with an expanding Earth due to a combination of crimping and shifting. Also the outward pressure caused by collapse attempts to increase the width if you like of a continental plate. An anology, bend a piece of card from edge to edge, lat it down on a table, measure the distance between edges, press it flat and then measure the distance between edges. The flattened card covers a greater distance. So subduction can occur but it takes a lot of energy to push one section of solid matter under another section of solid matter. So the oceanic plate would have to bulge up a lot against the harder continental plate before subduction takes place, the bigger the bulge the more gravity there is pulling the bulge down and because the oceanic crust is much softer and more malleable than the continental crust it is likely that it will get pushed under the continental plate. But I don't feel that this force alone is sufficient to push mountains into the air, for that to happen the continental plate needs to collapse and crimp up.

 

5. Don't really know what you mean by that, please elaborate.

 

6. Gases under the crust are pressurised into liquid states. If pressure is released the gases will transform from their liquid state to a gas state in a explosive manner.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Rich_A12