Subduction

[Moontanman]

Well my hypothesis suggests that equilibrium is attained eventually, perhaps Earth is already at that equilibrium therefore there would be no signs of further expansion. We do not have records of Earth's size dating back any more than a hundred years which is a totally insignificant amount of time. You would have to go back hundreds of thousands of years, even before we as a species existed to make a valid comparison. Therefore you cannot prove if this notion is true or false and there is no harm in making furhter notions or hypothesis based on the original hypothesis being true, in fact that is a form of validating or invalidating on unknown, also know as reverse engineering.

 

What part of "things don't expand as they loose energy" didn't you understand?

 

Edited January 26, 2012 by Moontanman

[D H]

We do not have records of Earth's size dating back any more than a hundred years which is a totally insignificant amount of time.

Try 400 million years. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v271/n5643/abs/271316a0.html. Your conjecture is nonsense.

[Rich_A12]

Try 400 million years. http://www.nature.co...s/271316a0.html. Your conjecture is nonsense.

 

What is it saying or predicting though? Is it predicting that the magnetic fields gets stronger as the Earth get's smaller and that because there are no changes in magnetic strength the Earth has therefore not changed size? I thought magnetism was more about how fast the Earth spins and it's iron core content but as you can probably tell I am not good with the technicalities. However my hypothesis predicts that if the Earth was smaller, it would have had more gravity and it would have been spinning faster. I don't know how this affects things but the end result might be that all affects negate any changes in the magnetic field i.e. decreasing gravity while the rate at which the Earth spins decreases, negates any changes in the magnetic field.

 

Without more information I would say paleomagnetism evidence is speculative and not conclusive.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Rich_A12

[Acme]

THe OP is anything but specific. Keep in mind that this poster apparently believes in the ultra-crackpot nonsense of the expanding earth "theory": http://www.sciencefo...g-mass-resolved.

How did I miss that!? I was taking the original question at face value. My mistake & thanks for the heads-up. Marking topic ultra-super-dooper crackpot nonsense. And I thought I had joined a science forum. D'oh.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Acme

[D H]

How did I miss that!? I was taking the original question at face value. My mistake & thanks for the heads-up. Marking topic ultra-super-dooper crackpot nonsense. And I thought I had joined a science forum. D'oh.

You did, you just joined a science forum that allows crackpots to have their say. For a while.

 

It keeps us on our toes, and we do learn something when someone truly knowledgeable slaps the silly posters upside the head. Your posts were appreciated. Some of us did learn something from them. Thanks!

[Rich_A12]

I'm sorry, I think you missed my questions on paleomagnetism evidence? Anyone can print a document or web page that says this is this or that is that. That web page does not go into detail as to what would be expected if indeed the Earth did expand.

[doG]

However my hypothesis predicts that if the Earth was smaller, it would have had more gravity...

Gravity is dependent on the mass of the Earth, not its size.

[D H]

Anyone can print a document or web page that says this is this or that is that. That web page does not go into detail as to what would be expected if indeed the Earth did expand.

"That web page"?? Seriously?

 

That web page happens to be either the #1 or #2 science journal in the world. Not just anyone can publish there.

[doG]

I'm sorry, I think you missed my questions on paleomagnetism evidence? Anyone can print a document or web page that says this is this or that is that. That web page does not go into detail as to what would be expected if indeed the Earth did expand.

I'm guessing you missed the 69 references listed on that page.

[Rich_A12]

Gravity is dependent on the mass of the Earth, not its size.

 

My basic question is if you could take all the energy out of a massive object (yes we know that it's mass would decrease fractionally which would fractionally decrease gravity, but ignore this), would taking all of the energy out of a massive object affect gravity?

 

I don't have much knowledge, I would like proper scientific explanation as to why energy does not apparently influence the fabric of time space.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Rich_A12

[Moontanman]

My basic question is if you could take all the energy out of a massive object (yes we know that it's mass would decrease fractionally which would fractionally decrease gravity, but ignore this), would taking all of the energy out of a massive object affect gravity?

 

Not significantly in relation to the Earth...

 

I don't have much knowledge, I would like proper scientific explanation as to why energy does not apparently influence the fabric of time space.

 

 

It does, I'm not sure why you would think it does not...