Earth Growing

[Kranis]

What if the Earth is growing? As in increase in mass, total size of earth overall through time? Objects hitting Earth from space all the time can be a source of growth, or what if the Earth just grows naturally, kind of like an organism..

[Phi for All]

We can measure the Earth pretty accurately now, we've got satellites practically everywhere, and all the measurements coincide with plate tectonics. Plate tectonics is also supported by everything we know about geology, seismology, oceanography and many other related areas.

[John Cuthber]

If the earth was growing at any significant rate then GPS wouldn't work.

GPS works therefore the earth isn't growing.

[Airbrush]

What if the Earth is growing? As in increase in mass, total size of earth overall through time? Objects hitting Earth from space all the time can be a source of growth, or what if the Earth just grows naturally, kind of like an organism..

 

The Earth is definitely growing from meteorites and that is natural, about 1,000 tons per year. I suppose space dust does not burn up in the atmosphere, but mixes into the atmosphere and gradually settles to Earth.

 

"Estimates vary, but the USGS says at least 1,000 million grams, or roughly 1,000 tons of material enters the atmosphere every year and makes its way to Earths surface."

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_space_dust_falls_to_Earth_each_year

Edited May 16, 2012 by Airbrush

[Phi for All]

The Earth is definitely growing from meteorites and that is natural, about 1,000 tons per year. I suppose space dust does not burn up in the atmosphere, but mixes into the atmosphere and gradually settles to Earth.

 

"Estimates vary, but the USGS says at least 1,000 million grams, or roughly 1,000 tons of material enters the atmosphere every year and makes its way to Earths surface."

 

http://wiki.answers....Earth_each_year

So, about one quadrillionth of one percent is added to the Earth's weight each day. No wonder GPS still works.

[Pymander]

What if the Earth is growing? As in increase in mass, total size of earth overall through time? Objects hitting Earth from space all the time can be a source of growth, or what if the Earth just grows naturally, kind of like an organism..

 

 

Here is another point of view. The Geological Map of the World, compiled by the French, second edition 2000, may be purchased on line. It speaks volumes. Rocky planets close to the Sun were robbed of hydrogen during formation, ultimately lacking gravity to hold hydrogen and helium in their atmospheres. These molecules move at escape velocity on Earth. Pluto freezes it as do comets and outer moons. Therefore, the water on our neighbours is scanty, on Venus as fuming sulphuric, and on mars a little ground water. Life on earth began in fissures, hot springs and pools. Cyanobacteria were the first prokaryotes to exploit CO2 and create O2, a significant evolutionary step, around 4000MYA. By 3900MYA stromatolites began a long domination of the shallow seas up to the Cambrian 550MYA or just prior. As today, they lived in highly saline conditions only bacteria can tolerate, seas that took 3500MY to almost cover the earth, in a seascape dotted with volcanoes and similar tectonic features. Protons from the solar wind, some from intergalactic space as cosmic 'rays', were burned by the O2 and O3 combined with the particle energies. Auroras, not well understood, most likely are significant water producers. Minerals released from rocks and dissolved included lower salts of today's ore metals, largely as banded iron formations. Rains as far back as 3900MYA had accumulated the salts in one great worldwide Dead Sea.

 

The crust slowly thickened by miles, thoroughly water cooled. The lithosphere slag that floated on the stardust thermite contains only traces of the core metals, but while lighter elements rose, heavy radioactive elements sank, and have been concentrating, like fuel rods pushed into a reactor. The dissipation of generated heat being compromised, rifts appeared, like the Great Rift Valley in Africa, or the Jordan Valley in the present. The latter is a continuation of the Indian Ocean mid ocean ridge, which almost separated Africa and Asia. The resulting Precambrian chasms, miles deep and sealed below with basalt, drained salty water, and the world became fresh water lakes, marshes and streams. The Cambrian explosion began in the fresh waters, and grazers evolved to largely eliminate the hundreds of miles of stromatolites, that had oxygenated to atmosphere. Prokaryotes symbiotically entered the 1000 times larger evolving eukaryotes to become chloroplasts and mitochondria, efficiently exploiting the oxygen environment in fresh water. In a few paleontological ages the Carboniferous saw club mosses 40 meters high creating 30% atmospheric oxygen. These 'trees' fell in swamps and so did not rot, but became our coal resources. All the early life forms of the Palaeozoic were, and still are today, fresh water creatures. Climate was very wet and quite temperate, shown by a series of ice ages. (Consider the surviving Ginkgo which gave the butterfly its shape and lifestyle of poisonous foods. Early reptiles, presumed to require cooling, had sails to navigate a watery world).

 

High O2 levels meant high water production. Through the Permian, the growing earth vented through massive lava flows, giant volcanoes, and massive rifting, and several mass extinctions preceded the greatest of all time, so far, for planet Earth. Two vast rifts joined around what is now the far side of the Moon. The Earth went pear-shaped, and dragged the centre of mass of the system into space. 245MYA the Palaeozoic Era ended with the extinction of 95% of species, and 50% of groups, and coral reefs did not reappear for millions of years. While many theories have been advanced to explain this event, none have so far been free of anomalies.

 

Surviving individuals, from dark corners of the world, restarted evolution for the Mesozoic, with very different Triassic creations. The jigsaw of continents today surrounded a globe 55% of the present radius (with a hole in the Pacific). But the largest ocean's mid-ocean ridge borders the land which rose on that side, and sank on the other about 10500 years ago, apparently unstable because of the throwing off of the Moon. This was the last ice age, and to many cultures from the Hopi Indians to the Australian Aborigines, a flood.

 

The launching has preserved the angular momentum with distance, so that the mares (seas) on the near side are all we can see from Earth. These flooded with lava after larger meteor strikes, the crust here being only 245MY old. The 4600MY old far side is more like 20 miles thick, and even the largest meteor strike in the solar system, topologically discerned, did not mare. It is pockmarked with craters and well hidden. Theia may be a myth (contrary to Theia of 'The Sorry Tale'), and if so, we can expect 20 times more meteor strikes than presently calculated. Chevrons from prehistoric tsunamis support a far greater rate.

 

The release of pressure from the Earth saw further rifting halted until the world began to flood again into the Jurassic, rifting beginning all our present oceans, and giant semi aquatic sauropods dominating the earth. As the oceans grew wider, the drier Cretaceous began, and many giants became marine animals. Some of these may still exist in lochs and in the Southern Ocean, especially if a Supernova caused the KT extinction. A dead plesiosaur was very likely that netted off NZ in 1977. Again, mathematically, volume determines cooling rate inversely, decreases to the cube or radius. Heat dissipation at the surface increases to the square, as does cross section to the solar wind.

 

There is no rock on the ocean floor other than basal and sediment . All Prejurassic rock is on the continents or under limestone where land has been submerged by pole shift (eg: The Bahamas sporting submarine stalagmites and the Nullarbor edging a limestone sea cliff, The Great Australian Bite). Evidence revealed by The Geological Map of the World indicates an exponential growth rate of the planet since the Jurassic, as it was discovered that ocean basins could be magnetically dated. Earth Expansion was covered by Scientific American, and the theory presented as Tectonic Expansion is championed by Australian Dr. Maxlow, whose articles may be found in Nexus. Refinements of the theory beyond geology (mathematics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics, palaeontology, etc. but not very specialised, life is too short) are my own. A pneumonic for the Palaeozoic Era might be "Can Other Scenarios Demonstrate Consistent Proof?"

 

 

 

 

[Greg H.]

Here is another point of view. The Geological Map of the World, compiled by the French, second edition 2000, may be purchased on line. It speaks volumes. Rocky planets close to the Sun were robbed of hydrogen during formation, ultimately lacking gravity to hold hydrogen and helium in their atmospheres. These molecules move at escape velocity on Earth. Pluto freezes it as do comets and outer moons. Therefore, the water on our neighbours is scanty, on Venus as fuming sulphuric, and on mars a little ground water. Life on earth began in fissures, hot springs and pools. Cyanobacteria were the first prokaryotes to exploit CO2 and create O2, a significant evolutionary step, around 4000MYA. By 3900MYA stromatolites began a long domination of the shallow seas up to the Cambrian 550MYA or just prior. As today, they lived in highly saline conditions only bacteria can tolerate, seas that took 3500MY to almost cover the earth, in a seascape dotted with volcanoes and similar tectonic features. Protons from the solar wind, some from intergalactic space as cosmic 'rays', were burned by the O2 and O3 combined with the particle energies. Auroras, not well understood, most likely are significant water producers. Minerals released from rocks and dissolved included lower salts of today's ore metals, largely as banded iron formations. Rains as far back as 3900MYA had accumulated the salts in one great worldwide Dead Sea.

 

The crust slowly thickened by miles, thoroughly water cooled. The lithosphere slag that floated on the stardust thermite contains only traces of the core metals, but while lighter elements rose, heavy radioactive elements sank, and have been concentrating, like fuel rods pushed into a reactor. The dissipation of generated heat being compromised, rifts appeared, like the Great Rift Valley in Africa, or the Jordan Valley in the present. The latter is a continuation of the Indian Ocean mid ocean ridge, which almost separated Africa and Asia. The resulting Precambrian chasms, miles deep and sealed below with basalt, drained salty water, and the world became fresh water lakes, marshes and streams. The Cambrian explosion began in the fresh waters, and grazers evolved to largely eliminate the hundreds of miles of stromatolites, that had oxygenated to atmosphere. Prokaryotes symbiotically entered the 1000 times larger evolving eukaryotes to become chloroplasts and mitochondria, efficiently exploiting the oxygen environment in fresh water. In a few paleontological ages the Carboniferous saw club mosses 40 meters high creating 30% atmospheric oxygen. These 'trees' fell in swamps and so did not rot, but became our coal resources. All the early life forms of the Palaeozoic were, and still are today, fresh water creatures. Climate was very wet and quite temperate, shown by a series of ice ages. (Consider the surviving Ginkgo which gave the butterfly its shape and lifestyle of poisonous foods. Early reptiles, presumed to require cooling, had sails to navigate a watery world).

 

High O2 levels meant high water production. Through the Permian, the growing earth vented through massive lava flows, giant volcanoes, and massive rifting, and several mass extinctions preceded the greatest of all time, so far, for planet Earth. Two vast rifts joined around what is now the far side of the Moon. The Earth went pear-shaped, and dragged the centre of mass of the system into space. 245MYA the Palaeozoic Era ended with the extinction of 95% of species, and 50% of groups, and coral reefs did not reappear for millions of years. While many theories have been advanced to explain this event, none have so far been free of anomalies.

 

Surviving individuals, from dark corners of the world, restarted evolution for the Mesozoic, with very different Triassic creations. The jigsaw of continents today surrounded a globe 55% of the present radius (with a hole in the Pacific). But the largest ocean's mid-ocean ridge borders the land which rose on that side, and sank on the other about 10500 years ago, apparently unstable because of the throwing off of the Moon. This was the last ice age, and to many cultures from the Hopi Indians to the Australian Aborigines, a flood.

 

The launching has preserved the angular momentum with distance, so that the mares (seas) on the near side are all we can see from Earth. These flooded with lava after larger meteor strikes, the crust here being only 245MY old. The 4600MY old far side is more like 20 miles thick, and even the largest meteor strike in the solar system, topologically discerned, did not mare. It is pockmarked with craters and well hidden. Theia may be a myth (contrary to Theia of 'The Sorry Tale'), and if so, we can expect 20 times more meteor strikes than presently calculated. Chevrons from prehistoric tsunamis support a far greater rate.

 

The release of pressure from the Earth saw further rifting halted until the world began to flood again into the Jurassic, rifting beginning all our present oceans, and giant semi aquatic sauropods dominating the earth. As the oceans grew wider, the drier Cretaceous began, and many giants became marine animals. Some of these may still exist in lochs and in the Southern Ocean, especially if a Supernova caused the KT extinction. A dead plesiosaur was very likely that netted off NZ in 1977. Again, mathematically, volume determines cooling rate inversely, decreases to the cube or radius. Heat dissipation at the surface increases to the square, as does cross section to the solar wind.

 

There is no rock on the ocean floor other than basal and sediment . All Prejurassic rock is on the continents or under limestone where land has been submerged by pole shift (eg: The Bahamas sporting submarine stalagmites and the Nullarbor edging a limestone sea cliff, The Great Australian Bite). Evidence revealed by The Geological Map of the World indicates an exponential growth rate of the planet since the Jurassic, as it was discovered that ocean basins could be magnetically dated. Earth Expansion was covered by Scientific American, and the theory presented as Tectonic Expansion is championed by Australian Dr. Maxlow, whose articles may be found in Nexus. Refinements of the theory beyond geology (mathematics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics, palaeontology, etc. but not very specialised, life is too short) are my own. A pneumonic for the Palaeozoic Era might be "Can Other Scenarios Demonstrate Consistent Proof?"

 

 

This is some of the most ridiculous nonsense I have read in a very long time. The Earth went pear-shaped? The moon's surface is two different ages? This is pure unadulterated crap, and I would suggest you marshal some actual evidence to support your claims aside from a vague reference to a single map.

[D H]

This is some of the most ridiculous nonsense I have read in a very long time. The Earth went pear-shaped? The moon's surface is two different ages? This is pure unadulterated crap, and I would suggest you marshal some actual evidence to support your claims aside from a vague reference to a single map.

You missed a lot of other crap, a whole lot of other pure unadulterated crap, that deserves highlighting. There would have been very little plain text left had you highlighted all the crap.

 

 

The moon's surface is two different ages?

The cited ages, mechanisms, and effects are completely wrong, but yes, the Moon's surface is of two different ages. The crust on the far side of the Moon is indeed much thicker than that one the near side, and the lunar mare (which only exist on the near side) are younger than the rest of the surface of the Moon, about half a billion to a billion years younger than is the Moon itself.

 

Taking a truth and twisting it into something completely different is one of the best ways to lie.

[Greg H.]

You missed a lot of other crap, a whole lot of other pure unadulterated crap, that deserves highlighting. There would have been very little plain text left had you highlighted all the crap.

 

I know, but I only grabbed the ones that really jumped out at me.

 

The cited ages, mechanisms, and effects are completely wrong, but yes, the Moon's surface is of two different ages. The crust on the far side of the Moon is indeed much thicker than that one the near side, and the lunar mare (which only exist on the near side) are younger than the rest of the surface of the Moon, about half a billion to a billion years younger than is the Moon itself.

 

Taking a truth and twisting it into something completely different is one of the best ways to lie.

 

I did not know that. That's interesting. And that's why I love this forum. I'm always learning something new.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

I'm moving this to Speculations, since there is no more doubt which deserves benefit.

Please remember to back up your ideas with rigor and as much supportive evidence as you can.

[md65536]

If the earth was growing at any significant rate then GPS wouldn't work.

GPS works therefore the earth isn't growing.

Please don't ruin the "GPS works, therefore science" argument by misapplying it.

 

OP is talking about "overall through time". GPS hasn't worked through that time period.

What is "significant rate"? Are geologically significant rates the same as "it breaks GPS" rates?

Is there a single objectively "significant" rate?

 

How is your argument different from this?:

"If the continents were shifting at any significant rate then GPS wouldn't work.

GPS works therefore plate tectonics is false."

 

 

Planet formation doesn't occur in an instant, where a planet's shape and size is set in stone for all of eternity. Any argument along the lines of "GPS works, therefore the Earth has always been exactly the same size" is ridiculous and impedes others' attempts at actually learning any real science about planets.

 

 

Can planet-wide geological activity change the density (and thus size) of a planet?

Earlier in Earth's history, there was greater geological activity and also a lot more stuff in the solar system to fall into the Earth. So today's rate of change --- even if "insignificant" on whatever time scale you choose --- wouldn't be the same as historical rates.

 

 

But yes: The Earth isn't growing at a rate that would break GPS over its expected lifetime.

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

at any significant rate

[ACG52]

From a joint NASA/JPL study released in August of last year.

 

http://www.jpl.nasa....elease=2011-254

 

 

But measuring changes in Earth's size hasn't exactly been easy for scientists to quite literally "get their arms around." After all, they can't just wrap a giant tape measure around Earth's belly to get a definitive reading. Fortunately, the field of high-precision space geodesy gives scientists tools they can use to estimate changes in Earth's radius. These include:

• Satellite laser ranging -- a global observation station network that measures, with millimeter-level precision, the time it takes for ultrashort pulses of light to travel from the ground stations to satellites specially equipped with retroreflectors and back again.
• Very-long baseline interferometry -- a radio astronomy technology that combines observations of an object made simultaneously by many telescopes to simulate a telescope as big as the maximum distance between the telescopes.
• Global Positioning System -- the U.S.-built space-based global navigation system that provides users around the world with precise location and time information.
• Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite -- a French satellite system used to determine satellite orbits and positioning. Beacons on the ground emit radio signals that are received by satellites. The movement of the satellites causes a frequency shift of the signal that can be observed to determine ground positions and other information.

The team applied a new data calculation technique to estimate the rate of change in the solid Earth's average radius over time, taking into account the effects of other geophysical processes. 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.

 

"

[md65536]

The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year

 

So it is growing.

 

Or shrinking. Note that if the rate were constant throughout Earth's history (it wouldn't be, of course) that would add up to a change of about 7% of Earth's current radius.

 

Thanks, that post is quantitative and based on experimental results. I suppose that if current rate of change must be determined by precise measurement, there's probably not a very certain record of Earth's size in early geological history?

 

 

 

Not sure how they would use GPS to measure change in size if it can only measure insignificant changes without breaking...

 

 

[ACG52]

So it is growing.

 

 

 

No, because "a rate considered statistically insignificant" does not mean 'it's so small we don't have to pay attention'. It means there's no valid result, i.e. they found no expansion.

[md65536]

No, because "a rate considered statistically insignificant" does not mean 'it's so small we don't have to pay attention'. It means there's no valid result, i.e. they found no expansion.

Oh. But it doesn't rule out such small changes, which would be significant over larger time frames, right?

 

Regardless, current understanding of Earth's history (including "space dust", larger impacts, formation of the moon, geological changes etc) includes a "significant" change in the Earth's size over its entire history, doesn't it?

 

 

[Pymander]

This is some of the most ridiculous nonsense I have read in a very long time. The Earth went pear-shaped? The moon's surface is two different ages? This is pure unadulterated crap, and I would suggest you marshal some actual evidence to support your claims aside from a vague reference to a single map.

 

Thank you for reading one of my articles. My intention is only to nutshell some theories, viewpoints, opinions or whatever, that I have researched and incubated over time. Each contains "nails and goads" to direct the interest of others to research my ideas, especially those more specialised than myself, should they bother with this stuff. In the space (and attention spans) available there is little more possible. Please take time to investigate, especially where more conjectural hyptheses of science are concerned. Theories have changed, and no doubt will again. Here's an idea that deserves some work - primates have evolved independently on three continents, long separated by Tectonic Expansion (I could never swallow "Subduction or Plate Tectonics" - thanks Dr. Maxlow for sticking your neck out). In fact, four, if bats really are primates as was originally decided. These were the only 'mammals' found in New Zealand. We are not mammals, but independant descendents of the pterosaurs, and paleontology has yet to find a satisfactory candidate. Fallen angels indeed! DNA can resolve this if anyone should bother to check it out, just as other cladistries have been redecided beyond morphology. Maybe you would like to start this up as a new topic, if only in the negative.

 

The Earth is definitely growing from meteorites and that is natural, about 1,000 tons per year. I suppose space dust does not burn up in the atmosphere, but mixes into the atmosphere and gradually settles to Earth.

 

"Estimates vary, but the USGS says at least 1,000 million grams, or roughly 1,000 tons of material enters the atmosphere every year and makes its way to Earths surface."

 

http://wiki.answers....Earth_each_year

 

To clarify, the Sun has been calculated to lose the mass of the Earth as solar wind in 150 million years, or 30 Earths in protons over its estimated existence, and 26 since the first rains. That would account for our oceans, if water is produced as suggested. As for the increasing size of the planet, we may be sitting on a core of radioactive material, not just iron (judging from the remaining traces in the lithosphere), and under the weight, temperatures may be that of plasma. Calculations of % traces, heat production, and disipation, versus temperature and temperature gradient could make this quite plausible, even if it is a possible eventual "Krypton" scenerio, resulting in another asteroid belt. Some predictive efforts far into the future would also be necessary to release such information. One more way to Zephaniah Chapter 3 (KJV). That predictive effort was certainly inspired.

[D H]

Here's an idea that deserves some work - primates have evolved independently on three continents, long separated by Tectonic Expansion

Primate evolution on Asia and Africa was far from independent. There was a lot of back and forth. The origin of New World moneys is an interesting problem, but key signs point to an origin in Africa about 35 million years or so. I'll get to that Tectonic Expansion nonsense at the end of this post.

 

 

We are not mammals, but independant descendents of the pterosaurs, and paleontology has yet to find a satisfactory candidate. Fallen angels indeed! DNA can resolve this if anyone should bother to check it out, just as other cladistries have been redecided beyond morphology.

I've seen lots of woo nonsense at this site, but this is one of the biggest crocks of such. Morphology and DNA have resolved this. We're mammals.

 

 

To clarify, the Sun has been calculated to lose the mass of the Earth as solar wind in 150 million years, or 30 Earths in protons over its estimated existence, and 26 since the first rains. That would account for our oceans, if water is produced as suggested.

No, it wouldn't. For one thing the Earth comprises about 10^-9 of a 1 AU sphere. For another, the Earth's magnetic field steers the solar wind around the Earth for the most part. For yet another, the isotope ratio is wrong. This conjecture isn't even wrong. It's wronger than wrong.

 

As for the increasing size of the planet, we may be sitting on a core of radioactive material, not just iron (judging from the remaining traces in the lithosphere), and under the weight, temperatures may be that of plasma.

No, it isn't. This, too, is wronger than wrong.

 

 

 

I could never swallow "Subduction or Plate Tectonics" - thanks Dr. Maxlow for sticking your neck out

I am very curious of the psychology that leads one to reject plate tectonics. It is the grand unifying theory of geology. It is falsifiable, it has mechanisms, it is observable. It is science. Maxlow's Tectonic Expansion is not science. It has no mechanisms. There are huge chunks that are not falsifiable. What little that is falsifiable has been falsified. It is not observed. The same goes for every other flavor of expanding earth nonsense.

 

Subduction is very real. Here's a thousand word essay (a picture is worth a thousand words) on plate tectonics and subduction zones:

 

 

 

There is a whole lot of evidence for plate tectonics beyond these simple graphs of earthquake locations. Just a smidgen of this evidence: Very long baseline interferometry and GPS provide scientists the means to measure the relative motion between different spots on the Earth. What they see are plates separating from one another at divergent boundaries, colliding into one another at convergent boundaries, and slipping past one another at transverse boundaries. The very same math that underlies ultrasound, CAT scans, and magnetic resonance imaging can be applied to seismograph returns. This lets geologists see inside the Earth. What they see at subduction zones is subducting slabs of Earth. This is the tip of the iceberg. Plate tectonics is about as good as science can get. Why people reject it is beyond me.

[Pymander]

Primate evolution on Asia and Africa was far from independent. There was a lot of back and forth. The origin of New World moneys is an interesting problem, but key signs point to an origin in Africa about 35 million years or so. I'll get to that Tectonic Expansion nonsense at the end of this post.

 

 

 

I've seen lots of woo nonsense at this site, but this is one of the biggest crocks of such. Morphology and DNA have resolved this. We're mammals.

 

 

 

No, it wouldn't. For one thing the Earth comprises about 10^-9 of a 1 AU sphere. For another, the Earth's magnetic field steers the solar wind around the Earth for the most part. For yet another, the isotope ratio is wrong. This conjecture isn't even wrong. It's wronger than wrong.

 

 

No, it isn't. This, too, is wronger than wrong.

 

 

 

 

I am very curious of the psychology that leads one to reject plate tectonics. It is the grand unifying theory of geology. It is falsifiable, it has mechanisms, it is observable. It is science. Maxlow's Tectonic Expansion is not science. It has no mechanisms. There are huge chunks that are not falsifiable. What little that is falsifiable has been falsified. It is not observed. The same goes for every other flavor of expanding earth nonsense.

 

Subduction is very real. Here's a thousand word essay (a picture is worth a thousand words) on plate tectonics and subduction zones:

 

 

 

There is a whole lot of evidence for plate tectonics beyond these simple graphs of earthquake locations. Just a smidgen of this evidence: Very long baseline interferometry and GPS provide scientists the means to measure the relative motion between different spots on the Earth. What they see are plates separating from one another at divergent boundaries, colliding into one another at convergent boundaries, and slipping past one another at transverse boundaries. The very same math that underlies ultrasound, CAT scans, and magnetic resonance imaging can be applied to seismograph returns. This lets geologists see inside the Earth. What they see at subduction zones is subducting slabs of Earth. This is the tip of the iceberg. Plate tectonics is about as good as science can get. Why people reject it is beyond me.

 

Now we are getting somewhere with this. Will someone please look at the Scientific American article on Earth Expansion, Dr. Maxlow's two Nexus articles on Expansion Tectonics, and The Geological Map of The World (GMW) he uses as evidence. Breifly, Plate Subduction Tectonics is a necessary further hypothesis and is based on the implicit Constant Earth Radius hypothesis. This latter is false, just as absolute time and space were false implicit assumptions, hypotheses, prejudices, whatever name you like. Building on a false hypothesis with further more questionable hypotheses to explain anomalies is a sad feature of post-Einstein 'science', and highly un-Einstein-like.

 

In Maxlow's second article he admitted his theory had two problems.

 

1. Where has the water come from since the Earth had 55% current radius 180MYA clearly indicated by GMW.

 

2. What can explain the evidenced exponential rate of expansion.

 

 

Other than iconology, I needed to study paleontology and read Stephen Jay Gould's "Book of Life" twice before the second article was published. This allowed me to integrate Geology and Paleontology (all sciences are required for both these subjects). Why turn a blind eye and a deaf ear as a thrall to what exactly? Competition between capitalists, and their control of media and education, unchecked.

 

Now here's some real woo. Edgar Cayce is now a DVD containing 20 time the text of The Bible & Apocrypha KJV just in readings. Woodrow Wilson said "No man is that good a liar" and employed EC to end The World War ("The Fourteen Point Plan") and prevent another. According to this psychic (1877 - 1945) "the Moon was thrown off from the Earth". I have no reason, having studied these readings, to disbelieve Cayce, and time only verifies his predictions and philosophy (Hermetic). Patience Worth is another such source from the same timeframe. Together with Plato's "Critias and Timaeus", all need to be discarded with extreme prejudice to be honoured as a scientist. Quoting Isaac Newton, "...I have studied it, and you have not." What's the excuse? Oh yeah, "Genius borders insanity". We need to reexamine exactly what is CRAP.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Pymander

[Greg H.]

In Maxlow's second article he admitted his theory had two problems.

 

1. Where has the water come from since the Earth had 55% current radius 180MYA clearly indicated by GMW.

 

2. What can explain the evidenced exponential rate of expansion.

 

 

That's not the only problems it needs to solve. Where did all the new mass come from? Because either the Earth was on a heck of a diet back then, or someone needs to explain away the four fold higher surface gravity at the time.

 

In order for the gravity to remain relatively constant over the intervening 180 million years, the earth would need to have had 1/4 of the mass it does now. That's not an insignificant problem to surmount. Essentially, you're trying to prove that the earth went from roughly the same radius as Mars and a little more than twice the mass to the size it is now in 180 million years.

 

And that's AFTER blooping off 5% of it's total mass at the time as the moon (unless you're saying it, too, is gaining mass).

 

So we have the earth gaining (if my math is right) 55,300,000,000,000,000 kgs a year. That's roughly 1.8 million kgs a second worldwide. I think we'd have noticed by now.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Greg H.

[Moontanman]

One of my fav vids

 

[D H]

Now we are getting somewhere with this.

Apparently not. You are ignoring everything I wrote.

 

Will someone please look at the Scientific American article on Earth Expansion, Dr. Maxlow's two Nexus articles on Expansion Tectonics, and The Geological Map of The World (GMW) he uses as evidence.

Links, please.

 

Maxlow rejects subduction because he doesn't like it. Just because he (or you) don't like it doesn't mean that it is false. It just means he (and you) don't like it for some irrational reason. Subduction is an observed phenomenon. It is his irrational rejection of subduction that led to his erroneous conclusion that all of the oceans are expanding. The Pacific Ocean is shrinking. Look at the map in my previous post. Those earthquakes that light up the Ring of Fire occur predominantly at subduction zones.

 

Breifly, Plate Subduction Tectonics is a necessary further hypothesis and is based on the implicit Constant Earth Radius hypothesis. This latter is false, ...

Um, no. Subduction has a well-defined mechanism, and is based on multiple lines of evidence. Plate tectonics has a well-defined mechanism, and is based on multiple lines of evidence. A constant-sized Earth does not need a mechanism based on magic / ill-formed physics, and is based on multiple lines of evidence.

 

Regarding the latter,

 

M. A. Ward, "On Detecting Changes in the Earth's Radius", Geophysical Journal 8:2 (1963)

Estimates of the Earth's radius in the geological past can be made from paleomagnetic evidence. A method appropriate to the spherical environment of the data for dealing with this problem is given, which is applied to Devonian, Permian and Triassic data from Europe and Siberia, yielding estimated radii for these periods of 1.12, 0.94 and 0.99 times the present radius respectively. These estimates are not considered to be significantly different from the present radius.

 

M. W. McElhinny et al., "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271, (1978)

New estimates of the palaeoradius of the Earth for the past 400 Myr from palaeomagnetic data limit possible expansion to less than 0.8%, sufficient to exclude any current theory of Earth expansion.

 

G. E. Williams, "Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit", Reviews of Geophysics, 38:1 (2000)

These figures are the only available direct estimates of I/I0 for the Precambrian and argue against significant overall change in Earth’s moment of inertia since ~620 Ma. Moreover, they rule out rapid Earth expansion since that time by endogenous (noncosmological) mecha- nisms, particularly the hypothesis of rapid expansion since the Paleozoic.

 

 

 

just as absolute time and space were false implicit assumptions, hypotheses, prejudices, whatever name you like.

That is a false analogy. There were very strong evidential and theoretical reasons to overturn the Newtonian view of the universe. What is a good analogy is that quantum mechanics, relativity, and the big bang theory turned a good number of formerly good physicists and astronomers into sad has-beens who clung too tightly to the old paradigm. That is exactly what has happened with Maxlow. He isn't advancing a new bold theory. He is instead irrationally clinging to a long-since discarded notion.

 

 

Building on a false hypothesis with further more questionable hypotheses to explain anomalies is a sad feature of post-Einstein 'science', and highly un-Einstein-like.

This describes Maxlow to a T. He is a formerly good geologist who has turned into a nut. Formerly good scientists turning wacko is an unfortunate side effect of every major paradigm shift in science.

 

 

We need to reexamine exactly what is CRAP.

That's the old expanding earth nonsense, of course.

[Pymander]

That's not the only problems it needs to solve. Where did all the new mass come from? Because either the Earth was on a heck of a diet back then, or someone needs to explain away the four fold higher surface gravity at the time.

 

In order for the gravity to remain relatively constant over the intervening 180 million years, the earth would need to have had 1/4 of the mass it does now. That's not an insignificant problem to surmount. Essentially, you're trying to prove that the earth went from roughly the same radius as Mars and a little more than twice the mass to the size it is now in 180 million years.

 

And that's AFTER blooping off 5% of it's total mass at the time as the moon (unless you're saying it, too, is gaining mass).

 

So we have the earth gaining (if my math is right) 55,300,000,000,000,000 kgs a year. That's roughly 1.8 million kgs a second worldwide. I think we'd have noticed by now.

 

The mass has not changed (other than by more solar wind becoming water and any meteorites). The temperature of the core is rising. Reactors produce unprecedented amounts of heat from fuel slowly. Atom bombs do it quickly. Slowly decaying uranium, thorium, potasium and whatnot on the surface is also decaying, but the heat disipates into space. This is not so in the core. The heat has nowhere to go in any hurry. The tempratures at the surface layers decreases over time, and since the Earth formed, thickens the crust slowly. In the core heat is trapped and takes time to reach the surface. Temperatures can be millions of degrees, while we presume it is cooling instead. The heavier elements have sunk and tend to have the more radioactive isotopes, perhaps all isotopes for elements like uranuim. Who presumed the core is only molten iron, yet uranium ore exists at the surface. Uranium is the heaviest element occuring naturally because its half life is relatively long. Since supernova created these elements until the present, all with suffiently long half lives will still exist, and plutonium with half life 2000 years will be all gone. The earth has been cooling its skin for 4600 million years. From the moment the crust thickened volcanoes would have vented this heat in large numbers originally but not very big. It is now 20 miles thick under continents, but only about five under oceans. Volcanoes are now few and huge. Instead rifting, like the Great African Ridge (a new future ocean), vents much of this heat, and is caused by expansion. The planet grows from the mid ocean ridge found in every ocean, and the basins are basalt, new at the ridge, and up to 180 million years old at the edges of continents. On the contrary, rocks as old as the Earth exist only on the continents. Pangea and Gondwanaland make no sense. Why come together to split up? The continents jigsaw together into the entire planet without oceans, 55% of current radius! There is no certainty of tectonic plate boundaries, nor of the causes of the greatly insufficient subduction sites, nor of their nature as such rather than rifting or both. This speculation long preceeded The Geological Map of tThe World, and should, like much else, never have been set in stone. Why do they do this?

 

That's not the only problems it needs to solve. Where did all the new mass come from? Because either the Earth was on a heck of a diet back then, or someone needs to explain away the four fold higher surface gravity at the time.

 

In order for the gravity to remain relatively constant over the intervening 180 million years, the earth would need to have had 1/4 of the mass it does now. That's not an insignificant problem to surmount. Essentially, you're trying to prove that the earth went from roughly the same radius as Mars and a little more than twice the mass to the size it is now in 180 million years.

 

And that's AFTER blooping off 5% of it's total mass at the time as the moon (unless you're saying it, too, is gaining mass).

 

So we have the earth gaining (if my math is right) 55,300,000,000,000,000 kgs a year. That's roughly 1.8 million kgs a second worldwide. I think we'd have noticed by now.

 

The Moon has not likely been ripped out of the Earth's core materials where the heavier elements would be. It therefore seems to lack tectonic activity. The ring of fire seems a little isolated to account for all necessary subduction activity. Then, what happened to the planet that is now asteroids. And why is someone who questions current but transient 'scientific' opinion a fruit loop. Some theories (Pacific caused by throwing off of moon, bats are primates, KT extinction caused by supernove, etc) seem to have been correct to me and then changed. To be an immaculate sheep, one must first of all be a sheep - Albert Einstein. Too bad about the bomb. We likely would still call "time and space not real" theories (once occult) woo woo. He was no sheep and very woo woo, and both were a necessary part of his genius. Yet I've seen him portrayed as an aetheist in a school doco, arguing with a priest. Not much more can be accomplished here, check out the links I have given, if you find time. I just can't see how anyone can look at The Geological Map of The World and not believe in expansion tectonics. Then ... Jesus performed miracles, and the authorities vied with him and had him murdered, or is that myth? Are you absolutely sure? So Jews don't really exist either and the Bible was written by Tolkein's ancestor. Cool. I'm a nut.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Pymander

[Greg H.]

The mass has not changed (other than by more solar wind becoming water and any meteorites).

So you're saying the surface gravity of the earth 180 million years ago was 4 times higher than it is today?

 

The continents jigsaw together into the entire planet without oceans, 55% of current radius!

I have two words you need to explain - continental shelves.

 

The Moon has not likely been ripped out of the Earth's core materials where the heavier elements would be. It therefore seems to lack tectonic activity.

What does this have to do with anything at all?

 

Then, what happened to the planet that is now asteroids.

And...wait, what? I thought we were discussing the earth.

 

I'm a nut.

While I realize I have taken this out of context, it's the only portion of your post that makes any sense at all.

[Ophiolite]

The temperature of the core is rising.

What evidence do you have for this? Radioactive decay generates progressively less heat over time because there is less material to decay. Temperatures may be restrained in their rate of decrease, but decrease is what they do. What justification do you have for asserting the opposite?

 

Uranium is the heaviest element occuring naturally because its half life is relatively long.

Uranium is a lithophile element. Nearly all of it is present in the crust, not the mantle, not the core. Herndon's position on this is as a minority of one.

 

From the moment the crust thickened volcanoes would have vented this heat in large numbers originally but not very big. It is now 20 miles thick under continents, but only about five under oceans. Volcanoes are now few and huge.

Volcanic activity along the mid-ocean ridges is in small pockets of which there are a great many. Your assertion is refuted by the facts.

 

 

Pangea and Gondwanaland make no sense. Why come together to split up?

Argument from incredulity will carry no weight around here. The universe doesn't care that you can't understand it.

 

There is no certainty of tectonic plate boundaries, nor of the causes of the greatly insufficient subduction sites, nor of their nature as such rather than rifting or both.

What is a 'greatly insufficient subduction site'?

 

Then, what happened to the planet that is now asteroids.

The asteroids are not the remains of a planet. Some information that may help you: this 2012, not 1912.

 

Some theories (Pacific caused by throwing off of moon, bats are primates, KT extinction caused by supernove, etc) seem to have been correct to me and then changed.

so the evidence that demonstrates why these are fallacious is wrong? Or you just don't like it? Or you've found a neat way of ignoring by.....ignoring it?

 

 

I just can't see how anyone can look at The Geological Map of The World and not believe in expansion tectonics.

That is correct. You are unable to do so. That speaks volumes about your approach to science and nothing about science.

 

. I'm a nut.

Who am I to disagree?