Earth Growing

[Loonytoony]

I have seen a few interesting small documentaries and read information about the earth growing.

They sound quite fasinating and plausible.

It makes sence how the earth could be growing and they say that the contenants are streatching apart.

I have seen their argument on how all the contenants fit together if you were to make earth smaller.

But one thing doesn't quite make sence to me, where does all this water come from that we have.

 

Is it that when our planet was smaller that is was all water on the surface and after millions/billions or years the contenants emarged from stretching/growing apart as they say.

 

Please let me know what you think.

[Moontanman]

Please watch this video...

 

but the main thing to remember is that no, our earth is not getting bigger by any amount that would allow this to happen...

Of course if you have a mechanism that would make the earth expand please let us know what it is, an expanding earth would also mean an Earth that is getting more massive, higher gravity, the expansion of the earth continents we see today has happened in around 500 million years, in fact the continents have moved together and apart more than once in that time span, does that mean the earth is expanding and contracting?

[Dekan]

The OP raises a good query. The interior of the Earth is supposed to be extremely hot. With temperatures of thousands of degrees. Where does all this heat energy go - shouldn't it push outwards - and so make the Earth's crust expand. And also bring all the Earth's oceans to boiling point. Why hasn't that happened yet?

Edited April 14, 2013 by Dekan

[Moontanman]

The OP asks a good question. The interior of the Earth is supposed to be extremely hot. With temperatures of thousands of degrees. Where does all this heat energy go? Surely it must push outwards - and so make the Earth's crust expand.

 

No, in fact it is this heat that drives plate tectonics not the expansion of the Earth, for the Earth to actually expand would require heat that would vaporize the surface or adding mass. for the earth to expand enough to have split the continents apart from a point where they are all joined to the point they are now would require adding something like 6 times the Earth's volume in extra matter. Not the present volume of the Earth but the proposed volume of the smaller Earth. for the continents to be all together due to the Earth being smaller would mean the Earth at that time was about the size Mars is today..

Edited April 14, 2013 by Moontanman

[Ophiolite]

Welcome to the forum loonytoony

I have seen a few interesting small documentaries and read information about the earth growing.

It is an interesting subject, but you need to be very cautious about what you learn from documentaries. These are produce for two primary reasons: to generate an audience by providing entertainment. As a consequence, two things happen to the science content:

• It is greatly simplified.
• The most dramatic (and sometimes outlandish) interpretations of the data are presented

This problem is much worse with the small documentaries you may see on YouTube. There are some outstanding exceptions to the general rule that science on YouTube is best ignored. I have not seen any on Earth Expansion Theory that fit into that category.

 

They sound quite fasinating and plausible.

It makes sence how the earth could be growing and they say that the contenants are streatching apart.

Earth expansion theory (EET) does, initially sound quite plausible. Geologists struggled for more than a century after the birth of the science to explain mountain building. Earth expansion was one explanation that attracted some (minor) attention. This was reinforced when sea floor spreading was first recognised in the 1950s. However, at the same time the plate tectonics paradigm was being developed. With the subduction zones that had been identified, where oceanic crust was absorbed into the mantle, there was now need of EET to explain how room was made for new crust.

 

In short, EET was an interesting idea, a plausible suggestion - bar the absence of any mechanism for the huge volume increase noted by Moontanman - but it is an idea that has been superseded by a far more productive explanation: plate tectonics.

 

Dekan should also note that the Earth is cooling and when things cool they contract. They don't expand.

 

But one thing doesn't quite make sence to me, where does all this water come from that we have.

Is it that when our planet was smaller that is was all water on the surface and after millions/billions or years the contenants emarged from stretching/growing apart as they say.

You have identified one of the many weaknesses in the theory. There is no problem explaining the water of the oceans with plate tectonic theory. The bulk of it arrived by comet or asteroid during the first half billion years or so of the planet's life. Some has been produced by subsequent degassing of the mantle.

 

 

Please let me know what you think.

I think you would get a lot more pleasure from following the conventional ideas in geology, for which there is such a wealth of supporting information no one person could process it all in their lifeltime.

[arc]

Loonytoony, this is a great time to be a novice geologist. Ya, it kinda rhymes. You can access the world's surface through Google Earth and Geomapapp. To me these two resources are equivalent to novice astronomers having access to any observation facility anytime they want. And you can research your findings on the web. The amount of geology research on line is staggering, much of it unfortunately is so dry it hurts to read. It is an acquired taste that grows as you learn the language. And there are many user friendly geology sites that are great for us independent thinkers. The important thing is to stay as close to "what is possible" and more important "what is probable" as you can. Its o.k. to push the boundaries because that is where new ideas are generated, but you can't change the laws of physics while doing it. Expanding Earth is a historic relic, a mile post of where geology once was and will never be again. It was once a compromise of its adherents to what they where observing with there senses and what the boundaries would allow for answers. Plate Tectonics moved that boundary back to within the realm of probable and it is solidly in place as the central support to geology for this time going forward.

[Dekan]

.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Dekan

[CaptainPanic]

The OP raises a good query. The interior of the Earth is supposed to be extremely hot. With temperatures of thousands of degrees. Where does all this heat energy go - shouldn't it push outwards - and so make the Earth's crust expand. And also bring all the Earth's oceans to boiling point. Why hasn't that happened yet?

Insulation, and a low surface/weight ratio.

 

If the walls of your house can keep the heat inside for a day, then imagine what 30-60 kilometers of rock plus an entire atmosphere full of air can do. It takes billions of years to cool down...

 

And in addition, the amount of heat in the earth is really huge, whereas it's outer surface is relatively small. A larger object gets a larger volume by the 3rd power (V = 4/3*pi*r^3), but it's surface only increases by a 2nd order (A=4*pi*r^2). Heat loss is proportional to the surface area that you cool through, but the heat contained within is proportional to the volume.

 

So, in summary: the Earth has a very good insulation, and it has so much heat and so little surface that it takes really long to cool down.

[Ophiolite]

So, in summary: the Earth has a very good insulation, and it has so much heat and so little surface that it takes really long to cool down.

For completeness we should note that theEarth would have cooled substantially eons ago if it were not for heating from radioactive elemtns within, primarily, the mantle.