Expanding Earth Theory (missing mass resolved)

[Rich_A12]

OMG, the reason is in that video I posted, they got their proof from the billion dollar telescopes we put in space. Planets can and likely do migrate towards a star. Let's say a planet migrates 50,000,000 miles closer to the Sun over the course of 4 billion years and the critical pressure point occurs at 4.4 billion years, what's going to happen? Seems your suggesting that nothing will happen or the planet will explode with nothing in between. That's a bit extreme and the physics is far more complex than all or nothing.

[Moontanman]

OMG, the reason is in that video I posted, they got their proof from the billion dollar telescopes we put in space. Planets can and likely do migrate towards a star. Let's say a planet migrates 50,000,000 miles closer to the Sun over the course of 4 billion years and the critical pressure point occurs at 4.4 billion years, what's going to happen? Seems your suggesting that nothing will happen or the planet will explode with nothing in between. That's a bit extreme and the physics is far more complex than all or nothing.

 

 

You are still talking nonsense, rocky planets are not going to expand like a gas giant would. Why would you assert that the Earth has expanded? What does the expansion theory explain better than current models? You still have yet to show any mechanism for the expansion. You have yet to show any evidence of expansion.

 

I am asserting that nothing will happen other than the surface of the planet will get warmer if a rocky planet migrates towards it's parent star.

 

I watched your video and it was nonsense as i pointed out at the beginning of this thread. It seems a little funny that your video is now set to private and it can't be watched...

Edited June 19, 2012 by Moontanman

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Enough.

Rich_A12, if you have the humility to recognize that you 'can't give the math', that this is 'only a theory' you came up with like, 48 hours ago (please, by the way, look up what a scientific theory actually is; what you have is not a theory) and that you're 'not a chemist', then you also need to recognize that maybe, just maybe, the criticisms people have given you here have much more merit that what you're presenting.

The problem isn't that you're not presenting this in whatever you seem to think the stereotypical way is, it's that you appear to not be making any effort to present this convincingly at all. If you've come here with preconceived notions that you have no intention of being swayed from, as you seem to have, then I'm afraid that you have come to the wrong place; this is after all a discussion forum, not a crackpots anonymous preaching post.

So, here's what you need to do.

1. Present some actual evidence. Note, that this does not include hack job YouTube videos. We want actual data and actual science.

2. Stop ignoring people, calling them bonkers or stupid or accusing them of being snobs simply because they've asked you to provide evidence to support what you're saying. Doing otherwise is disingenuous, and as it happens, against our rules.

If you cannot do this, this topic will be closed and / or your account considered for suspension.

Please also read these:

Speculations Forum Rules

ScienceForums.net Rules

Science Forums Etiquette

This mod note is not up for debate in thread. If you have a question, or believe this was misplaced, use our report feature (found at the bottom left of each post), or contact staff via PM.

[Rich_A12]

I made this topic to see what angles others would take on the theory and there have been some interesting angles. Using only very basic physics and science, this thoery does not at any point so far fall apart. I will make a video to summerise this, maybe that will make things more clear for some.

 

That video is by National Geographic, a very reputable documentary channel. The guy that talked about migration said it will fundamentally change the way we think about planet formation! The proof for migration was gained by real scientists and billion dollar telescopes in space!

 

You want maths and quantities and I cannot give you them. It's like asking the guy who thought the world was round not flat, to build and put a satelite in space to prove it. You're asking me for proof in the form of mathematics which are way beyond my means and indeed it would take years to program the maths into a computer, I wouldn't even know where to begin. You're expectations are way too high and unreasonable and it really doesn't take much of an understanding of physics to visualise what I've described, to play the physics out in your mind. That's all you can do to be honest with this, because there are some things we'll never know and some things will always remain a mystery to us whether we like it or not.

 

If some here expect the maths and demand the maths, well I cannot give you them but if you understand the maths and can do the maths, well maybe you can use the maths to disprove what I have said? I don't know how much energy is released from gases collapsing into a star, I don't know how much gas was present before collapse, neither do I know how much the gases were rotating before collapse, or know how far Earth was from the Sun to begin with or how many collisions Earth had with other massive bodies; these things are mostly random chaos physics. These things could possibly be reverse engineered but there will always be huge margins of error.

 

The exact quantities are not so important, I am only interested in how likely certain processes are - think it's called, a rough idea.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Rich_A12

[Greg H.]

I made this topic to see what angles others would take on the theory and there have been some interesting angles. Using only very basic physics and science, this thoery does not at any point so far fall apart.

 

We've given you about a hundred different posts on why this idea of yours (stop calling it a theory - it's not a theory, at least not in the scientific sense. It barely counts as a hypothesis) falls apart, and you have not yet provided any reason to make us recant our collective position.

 

It's not that the scientific community is "out to get you" or "hide the truth from the masses". You're just wrong.

[D H]

Rich, you completely missed the point about planetary migration. It happens during the formation of a planetary system. When a newborn star ignites it blows away all the gas and dust in the protoplanetary disk. Migration pretty much stops when the star ignites and does come to a stop when the planetary system has stabilized. Our solar system stabilized about 4.5 billion years ago. The planets haven't moved much at all since then.

 

Your conjecture regarding gas as the explanation is flat out wrong for a number of reasons. One is that a substance compromising a solid and a gas dissolved in that solid behaves like a solid, not a gas. Another reason is that the 1977 article you cited is based on estimates from that time regarding how iron behaves at very high temperature and pressure. Scientists have developed the tools and techniques needed to create those high pressures and temperatures in the 30+ intervening years since that article was published. Those 1977 estimates weren't quite right; it doesn't take near as much low density elements as posited in that article to explain the apparent density deficit in the Earth's core. Yet another reason is that heat flows from the core outward, not from the surface inward. Heating the Earth's surface would not heat the core. It would at best slow down the rate at which the core is cooling.

 

You don't like plate tectonics because of Pangea. That's silly. Just because your middle school teacher couldn't teach the topic, the text was oversimplified, or you misheard / misread does not mean the theory is wrong. It just means that you had a lousy teacher, a lousy text, or that you misheard/misread. The fact is that the mechanisms why Pangea and other supercontinents formed and broke up are fairly well understood. BTW, it's not just Pangea. Several supercontinents have formed and broken up. Pangea was just the last of several.

 

One last point: In your answer to my questions, you have essentially added plate tectonics to your model that you created explicitly to get rid of plate tectonics.

Edited June 19, 2012 by D H

[Rich_A12]

Sorry, run that reason why it falls apart by me again please I must have missed it. The physics of what I've described are so basic and elementary that even a teenager in school could understand it. You haven't found a reason why it would fall apart, your argument is that others have already considered it and they decided against it but "they" did not know about migration when they made that decision therefore that decision must be reconsidered.

 

Rich, you completely missed the point about planetary migration. It happens during the formation of a planetary system. When a newborn star ignites it blows away all the gas and dust in the protoplanetary disk. Migration pretty much stops when the star ignites and does come to a stop when the planetary system has stabilized. Our solar system stabilized about 4.5 billion years ago. The planets haven't moved much at all since then.

 

If migration stopped when the gases ignite and form a star, there would be no migration at all. Let's say it takes millions of years for large bodies to form and for the star to wind up the rotational forces post blast, this again is an exact science which I am unable to find out but it is possible to work out using computer simulation. Migration can happen and most likely does happen, that National Geographic video says it can happen therefore our planet might very well have migrated, in fact it's probably inevitable.

 

Also for the oceanic floor to crimp and ripple, the Earth might actually have to shrink a little which is unlikely. The bulging and crimping that goes on in the oceans is as a result of the continental sections occupying more distance due to gravity making them take on a wider curvature. The problem is we think currently that Earth is spewing out new rock from the fault lines i.e. the oceanic sections are being pushed apart but they aren't, they are being pulled apart due to expansion.

 

Your conjecture regarding gas as the explanation is flat out wrong for a number of reasons. One is that a substance compromising a solid and a gas dissolved in that solid behaves like a solid, not a gas. Another reason is that the 1977 article you cited is based on estimates from that time regarding how iron behaves at very high temperature and pressure. Scientists have developed the tools and techniques needed to create those high pressures and temperatures in the 30+ intervening years since that article was published. Those 1977 estimates weren't quite right; it doesn't take near as much low density elements as posited in that article to explain the apparent density deficit in the Earth's core. Yet another reason is that heat flows from the core outward, not from the surface inward. Heating the Earth's surface would not heat the core. It would at best slow down the rate at which the core is cooling.

 

Microwave radiation maybe? It is also likely about reduced loss of heat to space combined with an ever developing and insulating atmosphere.

 

You don't like plate tectonics because of Pangea. That's silly. Just because your middle school teacher couldn't teach the topic, the text was oversimplified, or you misheard / misread does not mean the theory is wrong. It just means that you had a lousy teacher, a lousy text, or that you misheard/misread. The fact is that the mechanisms why Pangea and other supercontinents formed and broke up are fairly well understood. BTW, it's not just Pangea. Several supercontinents have formed and broken up. Pangea was just the last of several.

 

One last point: In your answer to my questions, you have essentially added plate tectonics to your model that you created explicitly to get rid of plate tectonics.

 

Actually my Geography teacher was a good teacher and it was because of him why I paid as much attention as I did. What is the evidence for there being more than one Pangaea type continent?

 

I accepted that subduction is viable with an expanding Earth due to shifting and gravity but I don't agree that entire continents continue moving in a direction indefinitely, instead they shift about a bit on the surface, they might go left and then go right but there are no trends. Current science uses magnetic records to determine continental movement, but I don't agree that magnetic records directly correlate to continental movement. I don't believe the oceanic sections are strong enough either to move entire continents, the softer oceanic sections are more likely to just bulge and ripple but over time the continental sections will find it difficult to manipulate the oceanic sections so there will be some crimping between oceanic sections and continental sections. But the biggest crimping affect will be where continental sections rub up against other continental sections.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Rich_A12

[Greg H.]

At this point I am withdrawing from this discussion so that I don't violate the rules of the forum. I may rejoin if the OP decides to post some actual science, as opposed to conjecture.

 

Good luck gentlemen -- I have a feeling you'll need it.

 

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple...and wrong.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Thread closed, pending staff review.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

After extensive discussion amongst staff and communication with Rich_A12 via PM, the consensus decision is to keep this thread closed due to continued ignorance of staff warnings by the OP and by association, continued violation of our rules against soap boxing and against rule 1 of the Speculations forum rules.

Rich_A12, you were given plenty of opportunity to revise your posting and your attitude towards other members here. Since you have chosen to disregard these, you will not be permitted to reopen this topic here or in any other thread.