Expanding Earth [Archive] - Physics Forums

Phobos

Jul28-03, 01:41 PM

From the third link... (http://www.expanding-earth.org/)

The evidence is empirical and the conclusions obvious—the Earth ~200 million years ago was a single planetary landmass ~40% smaller than it is today, and at that moment in geologic time there were NO OCEANS!

Nonsense. There is ample fossil evidence of marine life that pre-dates 200 million years ago.

More nonsense re: grand canyon...

But, more importantly, think of the BOTTOM layer. When that bottom layer accreted onto Earth’s surface it was the TOP layer and exposed to the sun. All layers now above it were laid down, one by one, in subsequent years. Where could all this material have come from except outer space?

The layers were sedimentary (underwater at one time in the past). Then the massive water body went away. Then the Colorado River cut down through & exposed the existing layers.

The planet is slowly accreting new mass consisting of at least TWO types of matter from outer space—meteorites and meteor dust, plus solar energy captured by photosynthesis in living organisms—which could happen only after water appeared on the planet’s surface to support organic growth.

Meteorites falling to Earth, large and small, have been known for centuries, but more recent scientific measurements discovered that an even greater volume of dust and micrometeorites (hundreds of tons) accretes onto Earth's surface every day!

The estimates vary widely (wildly?)—from ~274 to ~55,000 tons per day [Newkirk in Meteor Orbits and Dust, NASA, 1967], but one can imagine the potential volume of accreting extraterrestrial material from the very large number of meteor streams (10 major and 374 minor, of which 154 are the most authentic) reported by Terentjeva [ibid.] She reported “Generally, the existence is accepted of several hundred minor meteor showers with a duration of not less than 3 to 7 days and an average rate not exceeding 2 meteors per hour.”

quick calc...
Let's use his cited highest figure of 55,000 tons/day...
I'll assume 2 tons/cubic yard (much heavier than typical dirt/gravel mixes)...
I'll use his numbers that the EArth was 40% smaller 200 million years ago...

55,000 tons/day for 200 million years is 4.02e15 tons
which is 2.01e15 cubic yards (or 5.4e16 cubic feet or 3.7e5 cubic miles) of material

The current radius of the Earth is 3960 miles which gives a surface area of 1.97e8 square miles. He says the EArth was 40% smaller...2,380 mi...surface area of 7.1e7 sq mi.

So, spread out evenly over the surface of the Earth, that's an additional 27 ft of material. Not quite 1,500 miles is it? (3960 mi - 2380 mi)

I'll stick with my crackpot detector readings.

LURCH

Jul30-03, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Phobos
From the third link... (http://www.expanding-earth.org/)

Nonsense. There is ample fossil evidence of marine life that pre-dates 200 million years ago.

More nonsense re: grand canyon...

The layers were sedimentary (underwater at one time in the past). Then the massive water body went away. Then the Colorado River cut down through & exposed the existing layers.

quick calc...
Let's use his cited highest figure of 55,000 tons/day...
I'll assume 2 tons/cubic yard (much heavier than typical dirt/gravel mixes)...
I'll use his numbers that the EArth was 40% smaller 200 million years ago...

55,000 tons/day for 200 million years is 4.02e15 tons
which is 2.01e15 cubic yards (or 5.4e16 cubic feet or 3.7e5 cubic miles) of material

The current radius of the Earth is 3960 miles which gives a surface area of 1.97e8 square miles. He says the EArth was 40% smaller...2,380 mi...surface area of 7.1e7 sq mi.

So, spread out evenly over the surface of the Earth, that's an additional 27 ft of material. Not quite 1,500 miles is it? (3960 mi - 2380 mi)

I'll stick with my crackpot detector readings.

Also note that the new material is said to be sifting down through the atmosphere from space, yet the expansion is occuring as magma surfacing at the mid-Atlantic rift, NOT as sedimenary layering on the surface.

Additionally, the artical states that the expansion of the Atlantic basin has been measured accurately (by the same sattelites who's measurements we should not trust, I believe), but the expansion of the Earth, which would consist of the sum total of the Atlantic, AntArctic, and all other expansion zones, has gone unnoticed because it is too gradual to measure.

Hydr0matic

Aug6-03, 09:10 PM

I haven't been able to respond this past week due to extensive relaxing on my vacation [:)]

Originally posted by LURCH
Yea, that's what I was afraid of. "...it covers all objections against the subduction hypothesis" in exactly the way you say, it argues there is no subduction. Subduction zones exist, like the west coast of the US. The ocean floor is pushed down, mountain ranges are pushed up, volcanic activity is frequent and mostly pyroclastic rather than magmatic. All these things are evidence that subduction is taking place. They're indications that subduction is taking place, but other explanations are available. I've studied ocean floor relief maps for a while now and I definately do not believe subduction can account for the data. For example:

* Have a look at this image (http://hydr0matic.insector.se/geology/antarctica.jpg) .. I've tried to illustrate the continental drift since the breakup.
Antarctica constituted the southern part of Pangea, so along this coastal line there should have been some very old (>200Ma) ocean floor. The question is, where did this ocean floor go ? If I have understood correctly, the only way for the old floor to disappear is by going down a subduction zone. And if my sourses are correct, there's practically no indication of a subduction zone around Antarctica ... -> http://core2.gsfc.nasa.gov/dtam/images/global.gif

* Study these maps (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif) a few minutes while thinking about this: Our planet is scarred. There are stretchmarks from head to toe beginning at the North pole. They go down through the Atlantic and around Africa, continue from the Indian ocean down under Australia and all the way around Antarctica. Now these stretchmarks are undeniably the result of continents moving away from each other.... So _Why_On_Earth_ should this not be the case in the Pacific ?? Why this absurd inconsistency ?

And another thing: compare the eastern subduction zone around the ring of fire with the western one; yet another inconsistency appears. In the east, huge mountain ranges are pushed up and cover almost half the US. In the west on the other hand, the opposite occur - the zones are actually pulling away land from the coast creating new ocean floor in between. How is this possible if Asia is moving towards the Pacific ?

And I guess it's just a coincidence that the oldest ocean floor in the pacific is the same age as the ocean floor at Pangea breakup locations ? ... and yet another coincidence that during the last 200Ma, the subduction process has removed all ocean floor older than 200Ma ...

More images >> here << (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/relief_slides2.html). Bring up 180°E (centered on 45°N).... Just to further illustrate the difference between the subduction zones.

>> Fascinating relief map << (http://hydr0matic.insector.se/geology/oceanfloor.jpg)

Originally posted by LURCH
How this change of latitudinal and longitudinal gridlines effects the the interferometric patterns of radio waves is not discussed. Yes, that stinks. Although I don't know anything about these systems, I'm sure the people handling the measurements know what they're doing.

Originally posted by Phobos
My crackpot detector is ringing!
(especially from here...http://www.dinox.freeserve.co.uk/english/sizecomp.htm)
If this is link is typical of the kind of thinking for the expanding Earth folks, then we need look no further into their ideas.
(We can go over this link in detail if you want, but I think the problems should be obvious.) Hmm... [6)] Not knowing very much about animal dynamics, their statements sound pretty reasonable to me [:)]. So I'm sorry but, I think you'll have to point out those obvious problems [:D]... if you don't mind.

Originally posted by Phobos
Nonsense. There is ample fossil evidence of marine life that pre-dates 200 million years ago. I'm sure he didn't mean that there wasn't any water on earth. With "oceans" (plural) he is refering to the large bodies of water into which _The_ ocean is divided. So in a sense there were no oceans, just _an_ ocean.

Originally posted by Phobos
More nonsense re: grand canyon... Yes, I agree... His "Accretion of mass from space" idea as a mechanism for expansion is nonsense too. That kind of speculation discredits the expansion theory and his entire site..... too bad.

Originally posted by Phobos
quick calc...
He says the EArth was 40% smaller...2,380 mi... I don't think "40% smaller" was refering to the radius. Try volume instead...

Originally posted by LURCH
Also note that the new material is said to be sifting down through the atmosphere from space, yet the expansion is occuring as magma surfacing at the mid-Atlantic rift, NOT as sedimenary layering on the surface. Again, this is clearly nonsense... He hasn't got it all figured out yet...

Originally posted by LURCH
Additionally, the artical states that the expansion of the Atlantic basin has been measured accurately (by the same sattelites who's measurements we should not trust, I believe), but the expansion of the Earth, which would consist of the sum total of the Atlantic, AntArctic, and all other expansion zones, has gone unnoticed because it is too gradual to measure. I agree, his arguments against the accuracy of the sattelite measurements are unfounded and discredits the rest of his arguments.

Just so we are clear on this - these expansion sites does not represent my personal beliefs.

Phobos

Aug7-03, 02:01 PM

hang on, Hydr0matic, I do plan to respond...(busy week for me)

Phobos

Aug7-03, 02:12 PM

here's one quick tidbit...

that link says the following:

The African Elephant for instance is so heavy that the maximum speed it can reach is a fast walk.

This is way off. They can run up to 25 mph (faster than most people).
http://www.thebigzoo.com/Animals/African_Elephant.asp

Their walking speed is about 5 mph (a fast walk).
http://wonderclub.com/Wildlife/mammals/AfricanElephant.htm

That whole expanding-Earth link is based on the premise that animals cannot get much bigger under existing gravity because they would be too immobilized. Seems to be incorrect.

Jonathan

Aug7-03, 11:00 PM

I have only skimmed, but does anyone have a good way to discredit the lop-sided crust argument? As for the size of animals, I think the size of reptiles and mammals is a bad example. But, I have heard that the reason you never see giant bugs is because their exoskeletons limit their size, however, it is know that there were 15 inch dragonflies in the time of the dinos. So why did they die out? I've knew heard an arguement to explain this. If earth's gravity is continually increasing, then their flight abilities would be continually decreased, there by favoring any genetic oddities, ie midgits, like we see to today. I their defence, the only people who would devote a fair amount of their time to studing something science says is wrong will tend to be nutty, and won't be able to have anyone take them seriously. So it'd be hard for them to realize even the most obvious problems with their theories with out outside input. From this, I think that just because some of his arugments are obviously wrong, doesn't mean there is no merit to the theory. And again, what about the giant ferns of old? I used to live in the Pacific Northwest, and the ferns are never more than hip high, and aren't very strong. If their biochem is similar to the old ones, how did the old ones get so big?

LURCH

Aug7-03, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Jonathan
I have only skimmed, but does anyone have a good way to discredit the lop-sided crust argument?

I've always had reservations about the current theory as to the origin of the Earth-Moon system. This theiry states that the system was formed when two protoplanets collided. The smaller one was absorbed into the larger, for the most part. That which wasn't absorbed became a thick ring system, which eventually congeeled into the Moon.

Like I said, I am somewhat sceptical of this model, but it would answer the question at hand. The larger protoplanet, which went on to become the Earth, is the result of a collission of two bodies. The Moon, on the other hand, formed out of a more homogenous disk of debris, and so came together as a more ballanced body.

Jonathan

Aug8-03, 12:24 PM

When the 'Earth' and 'Moon' collided, they were both soupy magma balls. They were that way afterwards for millions of years. My point is how would a liquid planet solidify in a way that has half the planet farther from the center. It should have been very spherical and then get increasingly deformed by geologic processes.

clicky

Aug15-03, 05:54 PM

Far reaching theoretical considerations in favor of the expanding earth can be found also in Eugene Savov's Theory of Interaction.

djmenck

Oct8-03, 10:07 AM

This may be interesting to this group:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00929.x/abs/;jsessionid=cB5zNhB-2Vid

It concludes the Earth has expanded since the late Triassic. Abstract is below.
(Note; The commment that there were "no oceans" pre-Jurassic does not imply no large marine environments. Large marine seas still existed on continents -- and this is why *all* pre-Jurassic marine fossils are found on continents (not in oceans.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Journal of Biogeography
Volume 30 Issue 10 Page 1545 - October 2003
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00929.x

The trans-Pacific zipper effect: disjunct sister taxa and matching geological outlines that link the Pacific margins
Dennis McCarthy*
Abstract

AimTo combine analyses of trans-Pacific sister taxa with geological evidence in order to test the hypothesis of the existence of a Panthalassa superocean.

Location The study is concerned with taxa, both fossil and extant, from East Asia, Australia, New Zealand, South America and North America.

MethodsPhylogenetic and distributional analyses of trans-Pacific biota were integrated with geological evidence from the Pacific and circum-Pacific regions.

ResultsA series of recent biogeographical analyses delineates a zipper-like system of sister areas running up both margins of the Pacific, with each section of western North and South America corresponding to a particular section from East Asia/Australia/New Zealand. These sister areas coincide neatly with a jigsaw-like fit provided by the matching Mesozoic coastlines that bracket the Pacific.

Main conclusionsThe young age (<200 Myr) of oceanic crust, the matching Mesozoic circum-Pacific outlines, and a corresponding system of interlocking biogeographical sister areas provide three independent avenues of support for a closed Pacific in the Upper Triassic-Lower Jurassic. The hypothesis of the existence and subsequent subduction of the pre-Pacific superocean Panthalassa is not only unnecessary, it conflicts with this evidence. Panthalassa-based paleomaps necessitate the invention of dozens of additional hypotheses of species-dependent, trans-oceanic dispersal events, often involving narrow-range taxa of notoriously limited vagility, in order to explain repeated examples of the same biogeographical pattern. Removing the vanished-superocean hypothesis reunites both the matching geological outlines and all the disjunct sister taxa. In brief, what appears to be a multi-era tangle of convoluted, trans-oceanic distributions on Panthalassa-based paleomaps is actually a relatively simple biogeographical pattern that is explainable by a single vicariant event: the opening and expansion of the Pacific.

Nereid

Oct8-03, 10:22 AM

It concludes the Earth has expanded since the late Triassic. I must have missed it; where is this conclusion stated?

djmenck

Oct8-03, 10:52 AM

The conclusion is stated in the paper. But if there is no Panthalassa, then the Earth must have been smaller. The hypothesis of a now vanished superocean, Panthalassa, is required in order to maintain constant radius.
Excerpts from the paper (D. McCarthy, Journal of Biogeography):

"In a book dedicated to Alfred Wegener, Otto Hilgenberg (1933) theorized that all continents had united to form a single crust that encompassed a much smaller globe pre-Jurassic (Hilgenberg, 1933; also discussed in Carey, 1988). Previously, Roberto Mantovani (1909) had put forth the same argument, suggesting that the oceans had been created as the result of crustal fracturing and sea-floor spreading between continents (Scalera, 1997). This view entails that all of the world's ocean crust is less than 200 million years old (i.e. less than the age of the vast majority of continental crust), a prediction that, in the first half of the twentieth century, clearly differentiated expanding Earth theory from both Wegener's view of continental drift and the mainstream stabilist theory.
"In the 1950's and 1960's, advances in oceanographic analyses and the discovery of seafloor spreading confirmed that all oceanic crust had been created within the last 200 my at mid-oceanic ridges, and the majority of it had formed during the Cenozoic (Fig. 1). The verification of this particular consequence of expanding Earth theory surprised mainstream geologists. The hypothesis that the ancient Panthalassa superocean and its Tethyan embayment had been completely subducted and replaced by the modern oceans (e.g. Oliver and Isacks, 1967; Isacks et al., 1968) then had to be developed in order to reconcile the assumption of a fixed global radius with the expansive consequences of seafloor spreading...."

russ_watters

Oct8-03, 01:01 PM

The utter absurdity of this "theory" (not a theory) makes me wonder how - and more importantly WHY it persists. Since the main thrust of the theory isn't supporing itself (it has one heluva big, ugly, fat flaw that is ignored by its proponents), its attacking continental drift (and therefore proving x, y, z - as if thats how science worked), there must be something about continental drift that they don't like for reasons that are not scientific.

Can anyone tell me what non-scientific objection to plate techtonics/continental drift is at work here?

If I had to hazard a guess, I'm thinking its religious (isn't it always?). Specifically, the geological evidence it provides to evolution.

djmenck

Oct8-03, 02:20 PM

Russ Watters: "The utter absurdity of this "theory" (not a theory) makes me wonder how - and more importantly WHY it persists. Since the main thrust of the theory isn't supporing itself (it has one heluva big, ugly, fat flaw that is ignored by its proponents),

DJM: Which is?

Russ: its attacking continental drift (and therefore proving x, y, z - as if thats how science worked),

Dennis: Expanding Earth and plate tectonics disagree about the hypothesis of a superocean (Panthalassa). Plate tectonics claims this ocean existed and has since vanished (every square centimeter of all 200 million square km of this oceanic crust) , expanding Earth theory claims that it never existed. Geological, biogeographical, and paleomagnetic evidence suggesting the existence or non-existence of this ocean is of course germane to the validity of the theories. Such tests are a part of science.

Russ: there must be something about continental drift that they don't like for reasons that are not scientific.

Can anyone tell me what non-scientific objection to plate techtonics/continental drift is at work here?

If I had to hazard a guess, I'm thinking its religious (isn't it always?). Specifically, the geological evidence it provides to evolution.

Dennis: LOL. You should read the paper above -- as you would discover that biogeographic arguments for a closed Pacific (just like biogeographic arguments for a closed Atlantic and closed Indian) are based on evolutionary theory. Specifically, according to the theory of evolution, you can't have a host of closely-related, poor dispersing taxa suddenly appearing on opposite sides of an ocean -- when it is highly improbable for any of the ancestral taxa to cross oceans. So according to the referenced paper above, unless plate tectonic theorists want to rely on divine intervention, a slew of creation stories or a myriad of impossible trans-oceanic crossings of terrestrial taxa, their paleomaps are wrong. Panthalassa could not have existed between all of the hundred plus referenced taxa, which is to say, it didn't exist....

Nereid

Oct10-03, 12:56 AM

Have the proponents of the expanding Earth idea calculated what their idea would mean in the Earth-Moon system? In particular, what the length of day, mean orbital distance to the Moon, and size of the tides would be in times of old? (and how their predictions match the observed data)

Andre

Oct10-03, 10:20 AM

So did NASA detect any growing of the Earth lately? or perhaps the geophysisists who monitor Earth movements on the millimetre with GPS?

The hypothesis is testable and should have tested already.

russ_watters

Oct10-03, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by djmenck
DJM: Which is? MASS.Dennis: LOL. You should read the paper above -- as you would discover that biogeographic arguments for a closed Pacific (just like biogeographic arguments for a closed Atlantic and closed Indian) are based on evolutionary theory.....when it is highly improbable for any of the ancestral taxa to cross oceans. Not quite. The most reasonable explanation is simply that they walked, just like our ancestors did. As late as a hundred thousand years ago, it was possible to walk across the Bearing Strait. Geological, biogeographical, and paleomagnetic evidence suggesting the existence or non-existence of this ocean is of course germane to the validity of the theories. Since evidence does suggest subduction, it does help invalidate expanding earth. But we're getting ahead of ourselves - before we start testing a theory with new evidence, you have to construct it in such a way as to explain known data. Thats how the scientific method works. Even if it makes a hundred valid future predictions, its structural flaws still make it wrong. The BUFF makes the very concept so fatally flawed it will never pass the "hypothesis" stage of the scientific method. Originally posted by Andre
The hypothesis is testable and should have tested already.

So did NASA detect any growing of the Earth lately? or perhaps the geophysisists who monitor Earth movements on the millimetre with GPS?
Hehe, thats on the first page of this thread. Yes, it has been tested via satellite observation. The incontrovertible results are ignored.

Ignoring incontrovertible evidence a symptom, not the root cause. But the inevitable conclusion must be that the evidence is ignored because of some ulterior motive for espousing this theory. The usual reason for ignoring/misusing science is religion, but there are others.

djmenck said its not a religious objection, but he didn't say what the objection is. So I'll repost: Can anyone tell me what non-scientific objection to plate techtonics/continental drift is at work here?

Hydr0matic

Oct11-03, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
But we're getting ahead of ourselves - before we start testing a theory with new evidence, you have to construct it in such a way as to explain known data I'm curious, do you think continental drift passes this criteria ? Is any explanation acceptable, or does it actually have to make sense ?

Originally posted by russ_watters
Can anyone tell me what non-scientific objection to plate techtonics/continental drift is at work here? There is none. They are all based on reason.

What I can't figure out is why you don't understand our objections ? It seems like you know something we don't... as if the answers to our questions are so obvious that you don't even bother to provide them ..

How was the lopsided crust formed ?
Where is the subductionzone along Antactica ? - If there isn't any, where is the old (>200ma) ocean crust ? http://hydr0matic.insector.se/geology/antarctica.jpg
Originally posted by Hydr0matic
..compare the eastern subduction zone around the ring of fire with the western one; yet another inconsistency appears. In the east, huge mountain ranges are pushed up and cover almost half the US. In the west on the other hand, the opposite occur - the zones are actually pulling away land from the coast creating new ocean floor in between. How is this possible if Asia is moving towards the Pacific ?
Now, my objections against plate tectonics has nothing to do with me favorizing the expansion hypothesis. I had these objections long before I ever laid eyes on a crustageposter and concluded earth had expanded. I say "had" because my own idea about expansion does not preclude the possibility that earth isn't expanding right now. On the contrary, it might be contracting. Contraction seems to be the only reasonable explanation for mountain ranges raised around our earth, specifically those in Africa, Europe, the mideast and Asia. "The amazing journey of India" does not qualify as a reasonable explanation for the Himalayas.

Our earth might have expanded and contracted many times in the past, and the result we see today are strechmarks and wrinkles.

Originally posted by russ_watters
MASS. The mechanism controlling the expansion/contraction isn't necessarily an increase/decrease in mass, it might be an increase/decrease in density. A process perhaps very similar to that which goes on inside the sun making it expand and contract.
Even if an increase/decrease in mass could be the only mechanism I still wouldn't consider that a "big, ugly, fat flaw". Perhaps geologists have something to teach physicists about how our world was created.

russ_watters

Oct11-03, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Hydr0matic
I'm curious, do you think continental drift passes this criteria ? Is any explanation acceptable, or does it actually have to make sense ? It most certainly does pass the criteria of real science and it does make sense. What I can't figure out is why you don't understand our objections ? It seems like you know something we don't. It is obvious and I'm not the only one who knows something you don't. What I don't understand is why you don't see the obvious flaws in your objections..... wait, we're doing it again, we're not arguing FOR expanding earth, we're arguing AGAINST plate techtonics. I must admit I sometimes fall into the trap and join the arguement. Back to the point: expanding earth has obvious and unsurmountable flaws.Our earth might have expanded and contracted many times in the past, and the result we see today are strechmarks and wrinkles. I'm trying very hard not to laugh.The mechanism controlling the expansion/contraction isn't necessarily an increase/decrease in mass, it might be an increase/decrease in density. Still trying.A process perhaps very similar to that which goes on inside the sun making it expand and contract. Phew, ok finally a real arguemnt I can sink my teeth into: The sun isn't a solid, plastic, or incompressible liquid. The analogy is fatally flawed as is the theory.Perhaps geologists have something to teach physicists about how our world was created. I'm an engineer, not a physicist or geologist. Either way, both geologists and physicists follow the same rules. You can't call something a "theory" if its based on a concept (or data) that is fundamentally flawed. Thats against the rules.

Hydr0matic

Oct11-03, 06:14 PM

It is obvious and I'm not the only one who knows something you don't. What I don't understand is why you don't see the obvious flaws in your objections..... So you think I don't know enough, and yet you don't understand why I don't see the obvious flaws ? .. well then... I don't understand why you don't understand why I don't understand. [zz)]

wait, we're doing it again, we're not arguing FOR expanding earth, we're arguing AGAINST plate techtonics. Well, that was my intention. Since I don't understand why you think plate techtonics passes the criteria stated above I was hoping you could explain a few things that, at least to a few of us in here, isn't that obvious.

I'm trying very hard not to laugh. Don't hurt yourself.

Phew, ok finally a real arguemnt I can sink my teeth into: The sun isn't a solid, plastic, or incompressible liquid. Which is why the sun's cycle is a couple of years and our earth's millions (.. perhaps.. just brainstorming here). I don't know so i'm just asking... Is there absolutely no chance of earth increasing or decreasing in size as a result of relatively high changes in temperature occuring over a period of millions of years ? (meaning a general change from the crust to the innermost parts of our globe).

I'm an engineer, not a physicist or geologist. Either way, both geologists and physicists follow the same rules. You can't call something a "theory" if its based on a concept (or data) that is fundamentally flawed. Thats against the rules. I totally agree. I'm pretty sure I've used the word "hypothesis" most of the time.

It most certainly does pass the criteria of real science and it does make sense. Ok, I'm gonna be as strait forward as I can now so there might be a chance of you actually answering a question for once.

How and why did Earth solidify with a lopsided crust ?

... and just in case you wonder - No, it is not obvious to me.

russ_watters

Oct12-03, 07:48 PM

Is there absolutely no chance of earth increasing or decreasing in size as a result of relatively high changes in temperature occuring over a period of millions of years ? Yes. Unless of course everything we know about geology and materials science is wrong - but I doubt it because my golf clubs work fine. The thermal and mechanical properties of materials are equisitely well understood.

And beyond that of course, there have been no large changes in temperature - we have evidence that the global climate has been relatively stable for a billion years or so. How and why did Earth solidify with a lopsided crust ? The fact that the crust was lopsided doesn't really mean anything. The mass distribution of the earth itself was even. Thats how buoyancy works. Further, buoyancy and surface tension makes solids floating on top of liquids "clump up." It would have been surprising if the first land had NOT been together in one clump.

For other examples, there is a thread somewhere around here where someone asked why a cork always clings to the edge of a glass its floating in. Same reason.

Andre

Oct14-03, 02:26 AM

I see that
http://www.expanding-earth.org/

However, far more significant is the trench system encompassing the right-angled Vityaz-Tonga-Kermadec Trench, New Zealand, and Macquarie Ridge that ends in a distinct eastward curvature (white rectangle). This fishhook-shaped configuration clearly matches the western coast of South America from the notch at 20° South Latitude to the tip at 60° South Latitude, where it curves perfectly around Cape Horn. (This Australian trench is even more remarkable because it replicates the shape of the eastern coast of South America that was once attached to Africa as part of Wegener’s Pangaea (1912). The only difference is that the Australian trenches are now under water.)

is the main evidence of expanding Earth. Now I could not find it back at the moment but there was a picture of the South Pole with the Antarctic plate. Check the chain of islands from the south of Argentina curving to the east (the hockey stick) and then curving back to the south and west to West Antarctica.This behavior is repeated at the New Zealad trench. Puzzling?

Not really; imagine that the Antarctic plate may have rotated slightly in all those million years, causing these simultaneous curves. Since the Earth is rotating causing al kind of forces it should not be unusual that coninental plates also rotate a little.

djmenck

Oct14-03, 06:22 PM

Dennis: LOL. You should read the paper above -- as you would discover that biogeographic arguments for a closed Pacific (just like biogeographic arguments for a closed Atlantic and closed Indian) are based on evolutionary theory. Specifically, according to the theory of evolution, you can't have a host of closely-related, poor dispersing taxa suddenly appearing on opposite sides of an ocean -- when it is highly improbable for any of the ancestral taxa to cross oceans....

Russ:
Not quite. The most reasonable explanation is simply that they walked, just like our ancestors did. As late as a hundred thousand years ago, it was possible to walk across the Bearing Strait.

Dennis: I don't think the actual point of the paper has been successfully communicated, but I will try to be less clumsy in my effort. (But please note: If the resolution were really something as simple as that, the paper wouldn't have passed peer review.)
1) Many of the taxa are plants, freshwater fish, and shallow-water benthic taxa. They can't just "walk" from one side of the globe to the other. The notion that they experienced slow range expansion from one side of Pangea to the other (from say the western Americas to East Asia or eastern Australia) may be dismissed as very improbable as there is no fossil evidence for these taxa anywhere else.
2) The importance of distributions of fossil taxa in determining past locations of continents is well known. The exact same biogeographic argument has also been used to argue for a closed Atlantic and a closed Pacific. The name"Gondwana" is based on a region in India where Glossopteris was found -- and Glossopteris found in India, Madagascar, South Africa, South America and Australia suggested the Indian and Atlantic oceans were closed. The reason: They can't cross oceans. Ironically, geologists who were defending the mainstream view of continental fixism actually adopted the argument put forth by Russ: They simply "walked" or spread from one location to the other. They accepted this argument despite the biogeographic evidence because they felt it impossible for continents to move. But of course we now know that it was rather silly to assume that Glossopteris migrated to each of the southern continents via northern routes -- and then all fossil records of them disappeared in the northern regions. This argument is pretty basic and well known -- and is shown here:
http://www.es.usyd.edu.au/geology/people/staff/dietmar/restrict/GEOL2001_PlateTec/PlateTec_Lec1.pdf

This exact same argument is used in the paper regarding trans-Pacific biotic links (except it involves a much wider array of poor dispersing taxa.

quote:

"Geological, biogeographical, and paleomagnetic evidence suggesting the existence or non-existence of this ocean is of course germane to the validity of the theories. "

Russ: Since evidence does suggest subduction, it does help invalidate expanding earth.

Dennis: What evidence suggests subduction in general and that all 200 million sq km. of Panthalassa has been subducted in particular?

djmenck

Oct14-03, 06:28 PM

Andre:
The hypothesis is testable and should have tested already.

So did NASA detect any growing of the Earth lately? or perhaps the geophysisists who monitor Earth movements on the millimetre with GPS?

Russ:
Hehe, thats on the first page of this thread. Yes, it has been tested via satellite observation. The incontrovertible results are ignored.

Dennis: I'm sorry I must have missed that post. But here's actual references to peer reviewed papers discussing the VLBI data, SLR data, GPS data, etc.

Here is a quote from one of those papers (Shields, 1997):

"The Pacific would have to contract fairly rapidly to maintain a constant
Earth diameter since the Atlantic is widening and Antarctic plate is also growing in size....
Instead, the SLR geodesic data in the South American frame of reference show
Pacific Basin perimeter expansion, more pronounced in the South Pacific than the North Pacific, despite
concurrent geodesic convergence at Pacific trenches. This is startling since convergence rates at the Tonga Trench are the world's fastest (Bevis et al., 1995)"

Sheilds, O. (1997) "Geodetic Proof of Earth Expansion?" New Concepts in Global
Tectonics. Sept. 1997, pp 17-18.

Another example from "Monitoring the Earth":

http://www.rjpc.demon.co.uk/mtesampler.pdf

"On the whole, the notion of an expanding Earth is not in favour, but the topic may be revived by global geodesy, witness the recent claim that SLR to LAGEOS (Laser Geodynamics Satellite: see Frontispiece) and VLBI data for stable continental regions indicate an increase of 4.15 +/- .27 mm/yr in terrestrial radius since the techniques came into operation (Scalera 2000)."

Unfortunately, this .pdf does not contain the actual Scalera reference, but I know Scalera (if it is indeed Giancarlo), an Italian geophysicist -- and I have written him about this citation. He thinks the date is wrong -- and he provided
three other references regarding geodetic data:

Scalera, G., 2001: The Global paleogeographical
reconstruction of the Triassic
in the Earth’s dilatation framework and
the paleoposition of India. Annali di
Geofisica, 44 (1), 13-32.

Scalera, G., 2002: Possible relations among
expanding Earth, TPW and Polar Motion.
In: Maslov, L. (ed.): Proceedings International
Symposium on New Concepts in
Global Tectonics, held in May 2002 in La
Junta, Colorado, Otero Junior College
Press, La Junta, 37-50.

Scalera, G., 2003: The expanding Earth: a sound idea for the new millennium.
In: Scalera, G. and Jacob, K.-H. (eds.), 2003:
Why Expanding Earth? A book in Honour
of Ott Christoph Hilgenberg.
Proceedings of the 3rd Lautenthaler Montanistisches Colloquium,
Mining Industry Museum, Lautenthal (Germany)
May 26, 2001, INGV, Rome, 181-232.

Perhaps the most careful study of VLBI data and Earth radius was conducted by James Maxlow in his Ph.D thesis:

"Quantification of an Archaean to Recent Earth Expansion Process Using Global Geological and Geophysical Data Sets"

http://adt.curtin.edu.au/theses/available/adt-WCU20020117.145715/

Here's a quote:

(Emphasis added:) "Calculations of a potentional increase in Earth radius based on published GSFC VLBI baseline vectors (Ma & Ryan, 1998) now indicate a mean global increase in radius of 4.1 +/- 3 mm/yr.
"In contrast when Robaudo & Harrison (1993) combined SLR solution UT/LLA9101 (including all data from 1976 to the beginning of 1991) and VLBI solution GBL66- (containing data up to the end of 1990) data sets to derive observation station horizontal motions for plate motion studies, they allowed all stations to have three independent motion velocities. These calculations, based on a global observational network, gave
"A ROOT MEAN SQUARED (RMS) VALUE OF UP-DOWN [INCREASE IN EARTH RADIUS] MOTIONS OF OVER 18 MM/YR" (ROBAUDO & HARRISON, 1993, PG. 53.) This value was considered by Robaudo and Harrison (1993) to be extremely high when compared to expected deglaciation rates, estimated at les than 10 mm/yr (Argus, 1996). "It is significant to note that Robaudo & Harrison (1993) 'expected that most VLBI stations will have up-dwon [radial] motions of only a few mm/yr' and RECOMMENTDED THAT THE VERTICAL MOTION BE 'RESTRICTED TO ZERO, BECAUSE THIS IS CLOSER TO THE TRUE SITUATION THAN AN AVERAGE MOTION OF 18 MM/YR" (ROBAUDO AND HARRSION, 1993, PG. 54)....' "As recommended by Robaudo & Harrison (1993) the EXCESSES IN VERTICAL MEASUREMENT ARE GLOBALLY ZEROED, RESULTING IN A STATIC EARTH RADIUS PREMISE BEING IMPOSED ON SPACE GEODETIC OBSERVATIONAL DATA."

There's another point that is also of interest to this subject. According to Scalera's quote above Maxlow's, Scalera confined himself to terrestrial locations at "stable continental regions"-- and these locations, in my opinion, are the least likely place for expansion processes to be noticeable by definition. In EE theory, spreading is the result of magmatic extrusions and uplift -- which is occurring predominantly in and around the oceans (seafloor spreading) (not on the on the most stable part of the continents.) Places that are in obvious uplift (mountains, calderas, volcanoes, islands that are being built etc.) are always ignored in these situations; new material extruded onto the surface via volcanic processes are also ignored, places experiencing uplift due to "super plume uplift" or "post glacial rebound" are also carefully ignored. I think it is reaching to assume, given the complicated structure of the Earth, that at all times every part of the globe rises at the same rate simultaneously. The most reasonable expectation for expansion is that at any one time, different parts of the globe experience more uplift and volcanic related extrusions and riftings than others.
For example, 71% of the Earth's surface is covered by oceans -- and as shown in the reference here:

http://www.csr.utexas.edu/gmsl/tptemporal.html.

, this is rising skyward at an average rate of 3.1 mm/yr.
Even if we assume that all the continents are perfectly stable, this necessarily means that the geoid is expanding outward and the circumference is increasing.
However, even neglecting the papers by Shields and Scalera, we know the continents are not completely stable.
All of the high latitude regions are also known to be rising. This is accepted and explained, perhaps plausibly, by the post hoc hypothesis of post glacial rebound. Lots of free parameters are allowed (particularly regarding the inner viscosity of the Earth) in order to explain away this increase. Here are some quotes:

According to Milne et al. (2001), PGR is affecting all of Fennoscandia: "The Fennoscandian region is in active uplift, with a maximum uplift rate of 11.2 +/- 0.2 mm/year for the site of Umea."
(Milne at al. (2001) "Space-Geodetic Constraints on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment in Fennoscandia." Science. Vol. 291, pp 2381 -2385) 2)

According to Donnellan and Luyendyk, 2001, PGR is also occurring in Antarctica: "The network also suggests a dome of uplift centered near the Rockefeller Mountains, with the maximum rate being in the Rockefeller Mountains of 12 +/- 8 mm/yr. This is consistent with proposed post-glacial rebound for the region." (Donnellan, Andrea, and Bruce P. Luyendyk, GPS Measurement of Tectonic Deformation and Isostatic Rebound in Marie Byrd Land, Antarctica, Eos Trans. AGU, Fall Meet. Suppl., Vol. 82, no. 42, F801, 2001.) 3)

According to Argus (1999) and Pagiatakis and Salib, (2002) PGR is also pushing up Canada: (Argus et al. (1999) JGR v. 104, p. 29077-93, 1999.) In fact, Argus wrote in a personal communicaton: "Canada is still rising," and "that gps observations shows that postglacial rebound is undoubtedly still occurring in Canada and Scandinavia.

Now, what exact data are you referring to?

Russ:
Ignoring incontrovertible evidence a symptom, not the root cause. But the inevitable conclusion must be that the evidence is ignored because of some ulterior motive for espousing this theory. The usual reason for ignoring/misusing science is religion, but there are others.

djmenck said its not a religious objection, but he didn't say what the objection is. So I'll repost:
quote:

Can anyone tell me what non-scientific objection to plate techtonics/continental drift is at work here?

Dennis; The above are all scientific objections and analyses obviously. That you are unaware of the significance and rationale behind biogeographic arguments -- or what thorough analyses of geodetic data reveal does not mean that they are "unscientific" or that you can quickly label those with whom you disagree.

Originally posted by djmenck
DJM: Which is?

Russ: MASS.

Dennis: Well, one assumes you don't believe the Earth popped into existence at its present mass, right?
Simply because something increases in mass does not suggest mass conservation is violated. The most reasonable mechanism for planetary expansion, in my opinion, involves fluid-sink views of gravity which involves the collection (not the spontaneous generation) of ultra-mundane matter at the cores of astronomical bodies.

Andre

Oct15-03, 07:04 AM

Very interesting. I'll try to do some simple calculations on the back of an envellope with those data. Is the earth expanding or is the equatorial bulge pulsating. The mass of the Earth can only increase with the accumulating cosmic debris. The radius of the Earth is a function of many parameters, including heat. Would it be an idea if the interior of the Earth is heating up, causing the expansion?

djmenck

Oct15-03, 07:49 AM

Andre:
Very interesting. I'll try to do some simple calculations on the back of an envellope with those data. Is the earth expanding or is the equatorial bulge pulsating. The mass of the Earth can only increase with the accumulating cosmic debris.

Dennis: Well, with "accumulating matter" of some sort. Recently, various physicists have begun inspecting ether views of gravity (and ether views of electromagnetism has a very old and classic tradition). Most don't advocate an expanding Earth -- because they are unaware of the evidence -- but a background, superfine universal ocean of particles that served as the medium for light and gravity would allow such an accumulation of mass at the cores of astronomical bodies. Indeed, the drift of these particles toward the cores would be the cause of gravity. This is speculative of course -- but so is the notion that all matter, all space, and all time exploded from a singularity in a colossal creation event called the "
Big Bang."

Nereid

Oct15-03, 08:25 AM

After GRACE has been gathering data for a couple of years, I expect this expanding Earth idea will have some very hard data to chew on.
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/

BTW, I didn't see any response from djmenck to my question regarding the celestial mechanics, Earth-Moon system implications of this expanding Earth idea. AFAIK, anything as radical as a ~100 km change in the Earth's radius per 100 million years will surely show up in the Moon's orbit!djmenck Recently, various physicists have begun inspecting ether views of gravity IIRC, nothing new here; (a)ether alternatives to SR and GR have been around for a long time; unfortunately, they all fail to account for at least one of the major sets of experimental/observational data; SR and GR have passed them all, with flying coloursdjmenck This is speculative of course -- but so is the notion that all matter, all space, and all time exploded from a singularity in a colossal creation event called the "Big Bang" Er, no, the Big Bang has some pretty solid observational support, so it's moved a long way from being 'speculative':
- Hubble flow (aka expansion of the universe)
- primordial nuclide abundances
- cosmic microwave background (CMB)

djmenck

Oct15-03, 09:17 AM

Neried:
After GRACE has been gathering data for a couple of years, I expect this expanding Earth idea will have some very hard data to chew on.
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/

Dennis: Actually, no one is really denying that the geoid and Earth's surface is expanding.
There's 3.1 mm of sealevel rise every year (which covers 71% of the Earth's surface), post glacial rebound dominates high latitude regions, and VLBI, GPS data of mid to lower latitude regions also show some increase. This is all explained away, not denied.
Also, Grace, unfortunately, is not an absolute gravitational test, it just details local differentiations in the gravitational field by measuring the difference in way the field attects the pair of orbiting detectors.

Nereid,
BTW, I didn't see any response from djmenck to my question regarding the celestial mechanics, Earth-Moon system implications of this expanding Earth idea. AFAIK, anything as radical as a ~100 km change in the Earth's radius per 100 million years will surely show up in the Moon's orbit!

Dennis: A lot of people are asking for a lot of information, and I'm typing as fast as I can. (BTW, I haven't seen a serious response to the biogeographic paper -- and matching geological outlines.) Anyway, yes, of course, an increase in oceans and mass will increase both the gravitational force and tidal forces -- forcing the moon to speed up and expand its orbit. Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extapolate back in time -- the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963). This was a mystery for decades that surprised mainstream planetary scientists. It is now explained away by assuming that tidal forces were not as great during the Mesozoic as they are today.
"Slichter, L. B. Secular Effects of Tidal Friction upon the Earth's Rotation. Journal of Geophysical Research 68(14), July 15, 1963"

quote:
djmenck Recently, various physicists have begun inspecting ether views of gravity

Nereid:
IIRC, nothing new here; (a)ether alternatives to SR and GR have been around for a long time; unfortunately, they all fail to account for at least one of the major sets of experimental/observational data; SR and GR have passed them all, with flying colours

Dennis: 1) While, as I wrote, ether descriptions of EM have a classic tradition, recent fluid (ether) analogues describing gravity are currently emerging as an entire, new physics field:

Matt Visser, "Acoustic black holes: horizons, ergospheres, and Hawking radiation" Journal-ref: Class.Quant.Grav. 15 (1998) 1767-1791
G. E. Volovik, "Induced Gravity in Superfluid 3He" cond-mat/9806010
Barcelo, S. Liberati, and M. Visser, "Analogue gravity from Bose-Einstein condensates", Classical and Quantum Gravity, 18, 1130-1156 (2001).
Or Barcelo, Liberati, and Visser, "Analogue Models Of and For Gravity," which can be found here: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0111111

Volovik's theory is an ether view of gravity -- though not an ether sink view. The description by Visser is essentially an ether sink.

2) There are a variety of problematic phenomena not explained or explained away with post hoc hypotheses involving relativity -- including:
a) The Information Paradox
b) The Pioneer Effect
c) Indeed, GR does not correctly predict the rotation curves (velocity profile) of any of the billions of galaxies -- and requires the post hoc invention of dark matter, a substance that has eluded detection for seven decades, in order to reconcile the motion of galaxies with GR predictions.
d) Many, if not all, of the successful predictions of GR -- and necessarily all the successful predictions of SR -- are reproducible with ether theory. Etc...

quote:

djmenck This is speculative of course -- but so is the notion that all matter, all space, and all time exploded from a singularity in a colossal creation event called the "Big Bang"

Nereid:
Er, no, the Big Bang has some pretty solid observational support, so it's moved a long way from being 'speculative':
- Hubble flow (aka expansion of the universe)
- primordial nuclide abundances
- cosmic microwave background (CMB)

Dennis: All have other and less fantastic explanations -- particularly red shift. Moreover, the theory continues to be tweaked and transformed in order to match data. Inflation, dark energy, cosmo constant are all post hoc notions invented -- or reintroduced -- to save the Big Bang interpretation from troublesome observations. Moreover, none of what you describe remotely suggests the extraordinary notion that *time* and *space* exploded from a dimensionless point. This is based on many different assumptions.

Nereid

Oct15-03, 12:47 PM

Dennis,

Is this all connected? In other words, is it more appropriate to start a thread in Theory Development on alternatives to the 'mainstream' physics that underlies celestial mechanics, astrophysics, geophysics, and cosmology? Or perhaps just a more restricted view (still in Theory Development), e.g. alternatives to GR?

Being a newbie, I rely on Mentors to make a call about "Other Sciences -> Archives". Personally, I'd welcome the chance to discuss cosmology (the Big Bang and alternatives) and astrophysics. I'd be a keen follower of discussions on nuclear and particle physics, as well as SR and GR.

If we're just discussing an idea or two about the Earth and whether its radius and/or mass has changed, and still is changing, significantly, could we have some specific hypotheses to get stuck into please?

BTW, GRACE + GPS + VLBI = pretty stringent tests of any expanding Earth hypothesis, esp as it allows for estimation of the systematic biases you referred to (e.g. location of radio telescopes), and seems to be exactly what one of the people you quoted is looking for ("On the whole, the notion of an expanding Earth is not in favour, but the topic may be revived by global geodesy").

djmenck

Oct15-03, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Nereid
Dennis,

Is this all connected? In other words, is it more appropriate to start a thread in Theory Development on alternatives to the 'mainstream' physics that underlies celestial mechanics, astrophysics, geophysics, and cosmology? Or perhaps just a more restricted view (still in Theory Development), e.g. alternatives to GR?

Being a newbie, I rely on Mentors to make a call about "Other Sciences -> Archives". Personally, I'd welcome the chance to discuss cosmology (the Big Bang and alternatives) and astrophysics. I'd be a keen follower of discussions on nuclear and particle physics, as well as SR and GR.

If we're just discussing an idea or two about the Earth and whether its radius and/or mass has changed, and still is changing, significantly, could we have some specific hypotheses to get stuck into please?

I'm not sure what you mean -- but let me try to be specific:
Earth's radius was 55 -60% of its current radius in the Upper Triassic (200 mya.) Thus, the size of the Earth at that time was on the order of Mars.
It has recently been noted that Ganymede and probably Europa have experienced some post-formation expansion:

Consider for example the following:

Kerr, R. A. 2001 "Jupiter's Two-Faced Moon, Ganymede, Falling Into Line."
Science, 291, 22-23

And the following paper documents one effort to explain the expansion of Ganymede.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/LPSC99/pdf/1695.pdf

The reason the discussion veered toward physics is because any questions regarding mechanism suggest a relook at solar system formation theories, which are not chiseled in marble and have some problems. Current theory of gravity (GR) is very successful -- and many of its equations and principles are undoubtedly accurate -- but minor differences in the conceptual interpretation of general relativity (ether sink analogues) do allow for a convenient mechanism for expansion (as well as new theories of planetary formation).
But I do think we should look at what the evidence demands before we start analyzing pros and cons of possible mechanisms.

Andre

Oct15-03, 02:27 PM

Intrueging isn't it. Just playing with thoughts.

There has been a very long discussion here somewhere about gravity being related to the density of the universe. With the universe expanding the density would be decreasing and the gravity constant would be increasing. Hence gravity would have been lower in the past, also the reason of the gigantic dinasaur creatures of the past. However this would mean that the earth was to be contracting with gravity increasing. This would be measurable too.

A smaller Earth with the same density would have had a much higher gravity. Big problem for the dinasaurs. Again, just toying thoughts.

djmenck

Oct15-03, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Andre
Intrueging isn't it. Just playing with thoughts.

There has been a very long discussion here somewhere about gravity being related to the density of the universe. With the universe expanding the density would be decreasing and the gravity constant would be increasing. Hence gravity would have been lower in the past, also the reason of the gigantic dinasaur creatures of the past. However this would mean that the earth was to be contracting with gravity increasing. This would be measurable too.

A smaller Earth with the same density would have had a much higher gravity. Big problem for the dinasaurs. Again, just toying thoughts.

Hi Andre,

Actually a smaller Earth with the same density would have a lower surface gravity. Running the tape backward in time, the volume assuming constant density) and mass of a shrinking sphere reduces in proportion to the cube of the radius -- while the force only would increase inversely proportional to the square of the radius.
Smaller planets and moons of similar density have lower surface gravity.
The website below discusses expanding Earth in the context of lower surface gravity and massive dinosaurs:

http://www.dinox.freeserve.co.uk/english/

--D

Nereid

Oct15-03, 06:16 PM

djmenck: ... let me try to be specific:
Earth's radius was 55 -60% of its current radius in the Upper Triassic (200 mya.) Two data points then; any others?

Also, what was its mass 200 mya?

russ_watters

Oct15-03, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by djmenck
...Recently, various physicists have begun inspecting ether views of gravity... So in other words, the Big, Ugly, Fat Flaw can only be explained by completely trashing and rewriting most of what we know about physics. Good to know - and maybe this points to the real motivation behind this idea? Plain ordinary distaste for "established" science. Dissapointingly mundane.

Incidentally, evolution is mentioned as evidence for EE, but what about all the fishes in the seas for the past 4 billion years? If there were no oceans, where did they go? And don't tell me they were camping in New Mexico and got caught in the mud and thats where the fossils came from.

djmenck

Oct16-03, 08:50 AM

Russ: So in other words, the Big, Ugly, Fat Flaw can only be explained by completely trashing and rewriting most of what we know about physics.

Dennis: 1) You claim rather vaguely the "big, ugly, fat, flaw" is "mass" -- yet all known theories require steady increase of planetary mass at some point. Planets didn't just pop into existence at their present mass. Moreover, Big Bang assumes all mass (and space and time) spontaneously generated out of a singularity. So even though such a violation of conservation of mass is not part of EE, you don't think it much of a flaw anyway.
2) The analogue models of gravity, for which I provided four references in mainstream journals, are based on standard fluid dynamics. No new physics at all.
3) Russ's complaints are precisely the same as mainstream geologists of the first half of the twentieth century who were claiming Pangaea and the motion of continents were a "physical impossibility" and would "rewrite the laws of physics." They too ignored the most obvious of biogeographic data as well as the matching geological outlines, claiming that the matching outlines were a coincidence and that all the trans-oceanic biotic links simply crossed the ocean or spread from one region to the other and then conveniently disappeared (just like Panthalassa) from the interim regions.

Russ:
Good to know - and maybe this points to the real motivation behind this idea? Plain ordinary distaste for "established" science. Dissapointingly mundane.

Dennis: Well, it's actually you who is denying established biogeography -- which is based on evolution -- and in fact you are ignoring a myriad of biogeographic facts in order to maintain certain fashionable assumptions.

Russ:
Incidentally, evolution is mentioned as evidence for EE, but what about all the fishes in the seas for the past 4 billion years? If there were no oceans, where did they go?

Dennis: Glad you asked: All marine fossils from 200 million years ago or earlier are found exclusively on continental locations -- just as expanding Earth theory predicts. That's because all large marine environments pre-Jurassic were epicontinental seas -- not oceans. Incredibly, if we deny expanding Earth theory, all the pre-Jurassic oceanic marine fossils must have vanished, along with all pre-Jurassic oceanic crust, as well as all of the fossils of all the trans-Pacific taxa that simply "walked" from one location to the other. Hmmm. Even your mainstream fixist geologist counterparts of the first half of the twentieth century didn't have to accept that many miracles.
So it's not really about "established" vs. "dissident" science; it's about what part of planetary science are you willing to reject: 1) the fashionable assumptions of geology or 2) a plethora of biogeographic and geological facts?

Nereid

Oct16-03, 09:16 AM

djmenck: Earth's radius was 55 -60% of its current radius in the Upper Triassic (200 mya.) Thus, the size of the Earth at that time was on the order of Mars. Where's my old envelope, ah, here it is ... let's see now, formula for volume, g, density, ah, OK:
If the mass of the Earth remained constant, 200 mya it's average density would have been ~28,000 kgm-3 (more dense than iridium, the densest element), and the surface gravity would have been ~30 ms-2.
If the density remained constant, 200 mya g would have been ~5.6 ms-2, probably low enough for oxygen to have escaped the same way hydrogen did much earlier.

As there're only two data points, we can fit any curve we like, so I'll choose a straight line - mass or volume change per unit of time is constant. Let's see now, .... got it! The Earth sprang into existence ~246 mya (before then it had negative volume, or mass).

Got a third data point Dennis? Or maybe a bigger envelope?

Andre

Oct16-03, 09:20 AM

DJ
Actually a smaller Earth with the same density would have a lower surface gravity

True, but that's not what I was thinking about. I just assumed the gravitational constant not to be constant but increasing in time due to the idea that the density of the universe is decreasing. Just very hypothetical of course. This would mean a contraction of the Earth while maintaining a constant mass. This would decrease the radius and hence increase gravity.

Working backwards, the radius of the Earth would have been bigger in the history and also due to the increased radius Earth gravitation force would have been less, facilitating the giant dinosaurs and the assisting the first flying animals of course.

But great thinking outside the box here. I Love it. Did I mention that the ice ages did not exist? After finishing laughing I'm happy to proof it.

djmenck

Oct16-03, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Nereid
Where's my old envelope, ah, here it is ... let's see now, formula for volume, g, density, ah, OK:
If the mass of the Earth remained constant, 200 mya it's average density would have been ~28,000 kgm-3 (more dense than iridium, the densest element), and the surface gravity would have been ~30 ms-2.
If the density remained constant, 200 mya g would have been ~5.6 ms-2, probably low enough for oxygen to have escaped the same way hydrogen did much earlier.

As there're only two data points, we can fit any curve we like, so I'll choose a straight line - mass or volume change per unit of time is constant. Let's see now, .... got it! The Earth sprang into existence ~246 mya (before then it had negative volume, or mass).

Got a third data point Dennis? Or maybe a bigger envelope?

Yes, I got a much bigger envelope. Here's Maxlow's Ph.D thesis on volume of Earth from the Archaen to the Recent:

http://adt.curtin.edu.au/theses/available/adt-WCU20020117.145715/

which suggests a paleoradius of 1700 km during the Mesoproterozoic

You write: "If the density remained constant, 200 mya g would have been ~5.6 ms-2, probably low enough for oxygen to have escaped the same way hydrogen did much earlier."

These are just shoot from the hip efforts to dismiss quickly a rather well tested and rich theory that has been the subject of 100+ peer reviewed papers and many books. It's obviously not that simple.
Mars, which is smaller than Triassic Earth and has less surface gravity than your guesstimate above, has a thin atmosphere -- despite lacking the relatively extreme Triassic Earth volcanism (and plants) that would continuously replenish it.

Nereid

Oct16-03, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by djmenck
Yes, I got a much bigger envelope. Here's Maxlow's Ph.D thesis on volume of Earth from the Archaen to the Recent:

http://adt.curtin.edu.au/theses/available/adt-WCU20020117.145715/

which suggests a paleoradius of 1700 km during the Mesoproterozoic

You write: "If the density remained constant, 200 mya g would have been ~5.6 ms-2, probably low enough for oxygen to have escaped the same way hydrogen did much earlier."

These are just shoot from the hip efforts to dismiss quickly a rather well tested and rich theory that has been the subject of 100+ peer reviewed papers and many books. It's obviously not that simple.
Mars, which is smaller than Triassic Earth and has less surface gravity than your guesstimate above, has a thin atmosphere -- despite lacking the relatively extreme Triassic Earth volcanism (and plants) that would continuously replenish it. Thanks for the link Dennis. From Maxlow's Conclusions: Maxlow: While the extensive spherical model studies presented in this thesis empirically demonstrate that the concept of an expanding Earth is a viable global tectonic process, the problem of where the excess mass comes from remains a very real enigma. These conclusions, therefore, are simply based on the observations made from the published global geological and geophysical data. In Chapter 6 he says:Maxlow gain: Mathematical modelling of oceanic and continental surface area data demonstrates that the Earth is undergoing an exponential increase in palaeoradius commencing from a primordial Earth of approximately 1700 kilometres radius during the Early Proterozoic. IIRC, 1700 km is about the radius of the Moon, and the Early Proterozoic was ~1600 Mya. Maxlow's thesis is silent on the question of the Proterozoic atmosphere.

Using Maxlow's figure, and assuming a constant density, my envelope says g would have been ~2.6 ms-2 in the Early Proterozoic, and that methane, ammonia, nitrogen, oxygen, ... but maybe not CO2 ... would all have escaped between the period of late heavy bombardment and 1600 Mya.

Of course, as Russ said, and as Maxlow implied, an exponential increase in the Earth's mass, from ~1600 Mya to now, does rather upset a few applecarts. Speculating wildly for a moment, if the effect were not limited to just the Earth, the whole of astrophysics would need to be re-written, as well as (most likely) much of nuclear and particle physics. Seems I'm going to need more envelopes.[;)]

djmenck

Oct16-03, 01:48 PM

Unfortunately, there has been no serious discussion of the referenced biogeographic facts, the matching coastlines, the juvenile age of seafloor, and the geodetic data. These uncontroversial and problematic facts are all ignored while quick and faulty objections, based on naive assumptions, continue to be flung outward -- perhaps in the hope that something sticks.

Nereid:
"Thanks for the link Dennis. From Maxlow's Conclusions:"

Maxlow, like many EE'ers, is accepting what the geological and geodetic data state -- despite being unaware of the possible mechanism for planetary expansion. I, however, provided a possible mechanism -- as well as references for it.

Nereid: In Chapter 6 he says: IIRC, 1700 km is about the radius of the Moon, and the Early Proterozoic was ~1600 Mya. Maxlow's thesis is silent on the question of the Proterozoic atmosphere.

Using Maxlow's figure, and assuming a constant density, my envelope says g would have been ~2.6 ms-2 in the Early Proterozoic, and that methane, ammonia, nitrogen, oxygen, ... but maybe not CO2 ... would all have escaped between the period of late heavy bombardment and 1600 Mya.

Dennis: You naively equate surface gravity with atmosphere -- while ignoring the fact that atmospheres can and are replenished (as predicted in EE theories.) Titan has a radius perhaps 40% that of Earth -- yet has an atmosphere 10 times thicker and atmospheric pressure 1.5 times as great as Earth. This atmosphere even includes non-negligible amounts of hydrogen -- something that would not be consistent with your back of the envelope calculations.

Nereid: Of course, as Russ said, and as Maxlow implied, an exponential increase in the Earth's mass, from ~1600 Mya to now, does rather upset a few applecarts.

Dennis: 1) Well, actually and again, current theory demands a much more rapid rate of mass increase for the Earth -- essentially all the increase occuring in 500 my (as opposed to the comparatively slower increase over 4.5 by suggested by EE.)
2) Again, you sound like the mainstream geologists who argued for fixed continents (and fixed radius). They all said it was physically impossible for continents to move. Despite vehement denials and the fact that Wegener died unknown, their applecart was overturned.

Nereid: Speculating wildly for a moment, if the effect were not limited to just the Earth,

Dennis: You mean like it may also occur on, say, Ganymende or Europa? Well, we don't have to speculate. It's already accepted that Ganymede (and possibly Europa) has experienced post-formation expansion.
Check for example:

Kerr, R. A. 2001 "Jupiter's Two-Faced Moon, Ganymede, Falling Into Line."
Science, 291, 22-23

And the following paper documents one effort to explain the expansion of Ganymede.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/LPSC99/pdf/1695.pdf

So I don't have to overturn that particular applecart. Galileo photographs have already done it for me. [;)]

--Dennis

PS. But I suspect the expansion of Ganymede will be ignored here -- just as the hundreds of trans-Pacific biotic links, the matching outlines, the juvenile oceanic crust, the geodetic data are ignored.

PPS. Also, and I repeat, the mechanism for expanding planets and moons is based on pure fluid dynamics. The equations and principles of particle physics, nuclear physics, etc. will remain unscathed.

Andre

Oct16-03, 02:23 PM

Maxlow sais:
...the problem of where the excess mass comes from remains a very real enigma...

but nevertheless DJ says:

Also, and I repeat, the mechanism for expanding planets and moons is based on pure fluid dynamics. The equations and principles of particle physics, nuclear physics, etc. will remain unscathed.

My two cents: an hypothesis that requires the production of mass out of nothing seems to be defeating physical laws. This is not doing much good to the credibility of his hypothesis. Exceptional claims require exceptional substantiation. I guess Maxlow should try and have a solid explanation first for this magic trick before proposing such an idea.

russ_watters

Oct16-03, 04:26 PM

Maxlow: While the extensive spherical model studies presented in this thesis empirically demonstrate that the concept of an expanding Earth is a viable global tectonic process, the problem of where the excess mass comes from remains a very real enigma. These conclusions, therefore, are simply based on the observations made from the published global geological and geophysical data.Well, I gotta give the guy credit - at least he recognizes the B.U.F.F. even if he makes no attempt to explain the phenomenon. He essentially puts it outside the scope of his thesis, but in doing so makes EE a tough pill to swallow.

Also, the article about Ganymede is talking about expansion and contraction on the order of 1%. The mechanism required for that is far different from what we are talking about here: no one is disputing that its possible for a planet to expand or contract by 1% or so. The earth's current expansion (that you cited) is explainable by the ice caps melting for exmple (note however, since its ICE melting that makes the ocean rise, the total volume of the earth is going DOWN even as the oceans rise).

Also, arguing that science is dogmatic doesn't help prove your point - it only strengthens our perception of your non-scientific objection. You cannot win a scientific arguement by attacking the scientific process - you just end up cutting yourself off at the knee.

EE cannot ever become a theory unless it can adequately deal with the B.U.F.F (and Maxlow acknowledges that). It can't just be left dangling or chalked up to the standard model of physics being vastly wrong.

Nereid

Oct16-03, 05:00 PM

djmenck: Unfortunately, there has been no serious discussion of the referenced biogeographic facts, the matching coastlines, the juvenile age of seafloor, and the geodetic data. These uncontroversial and problematic facts are all ignored while quick and faulty objections, based on naive assumptions, continue to be flung outward -- perhaps in the hope that something sticks. So let me be clear then, my primary interest is in drawing attention to the amount of 'unexplaining' that would need to be done if the Earth is expanding, to the extent that, and at a speed which, the authors of the papers you cite propose. My principal means of doing this will be, as far as possible, quantatitive, drawing upon 'lab physics' and high school math. An example is a 'back of the envelope' calculation which shows that the Earth would have had an average density greater than that of iridium (and much greater than that of lead) if it had a radius ~3,700 km and the same mass as it does today.

I'm now looking up the links in this thread, and have got up to the Lawrence S. Myers website. He states that: Myers: WHAT’S CAUSING RAPID GROWTH AND EXPANSION? ANSWER: TWO concurrent basic mechanisms reinforcing each other: ACCRETION OF MATTER FROM SPACE GRADUALLY INCREASING EARTH’S MASS, GRAVITY, SURFACE AREA AND DIAMETER INTERNAL CORE EXPANSION BY TECTONIC FORCE OF EXPANDING MAGMA MELTED BY GRAVITY-GENERATED COMPRESSIVE HEAT Looking only at the first of these, Myers goes on to say: Myers again: The planet is slowly accreting new mass consisting of at least TWO types of matter from outer space—meteorites and meteor dust, plus solar energy captured by photosynthesis in living organisms Lab physics: solar energy captured by photosynthesis in living organisms does not produce new mass.
Question for Dennis: Are you willing to start a thread, in Theory Development, on how "solar energy captured by photosynthesis in living organisms produces new mass"?

High school math: If the Earth had the same density 200 Mya as it does today, a radius then of ~3,700 km, and a fixed rate of growth in mass, the other source cited by Myers (meteorites and meteor dust) would amount to ~60 billion tonnes per day (cf the highest observed rate, quoted by Myers, of 55,000 tons/day).

Nereid

Oct16-03, 05:33 PM

djmenck: Unfortunately, this .pdf does not contain the actual Scalera reference, but I know Scalera (if it is indeed Giancarlo), an Italian geophysicist -- and I have written him about this citation. He thinks the date is wrong -- and he provided three other references regarding geodetic data:
Scalera, G., 2001: The Global paleogeographical reconstruction of the Triassic in the Earth’s dilatation framework and the paleoposition of India. Annali di Geofisica, 44 (1), 13-32.
Scalera, G., 2002: Possible relations among expanding Earth, TPW and Polar Motion. In: Maslov, L. (ed.): Proceedings International Symposium on New Concepts in Global Tectonics, held in May 2002 in La Junta, Colorado, Otero Junior College Press, La Junta, 37-50.
Scalera, G., 2003: The expanding Earth: a sound idea for the new millennium. In: Scalera, G. and Jacob, K.-H. (eds.), 2003: Why Expanding Earth? A book in Honour of Ott Christoph Hilgenberg. Proceedings of the 3rd Lautenthaler Montanistisches Colloquium, Mining Industry Museum, Lautenthal (Germany) May 26, 2001, INGV, Rome, 181-232. Couldn't find any of these on the web, and you already quoted Vita-Finzi's single sentence. Is Maxlow's work enough to make your point (about hard data supporting the hypothesis that the Earth is expanding at a rate of ~1-100 mm/year today)? If not, would you be so kind as to provide another link?

djmenck

Oct16-03, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Andre
Maxlow sais:

but nevertheless DJ says:

"My two cents: an hypothesis that requires the production of mass out of nothing seems to be defeating physical laws.
This is not doing much good to the credibility of his hypothesis."

Dennis: It is only Big Bang theory and modern conceptions of particle physics that has mass appearing out of nothing (whether vacuum or a singularity) -- so please address your complaints to them. Fluid dynamic (ether) sink views of gravity contend that ultra-mundane sub-sub-sub-atomic particles are drifting toward the cores of gravitating bodies. In this view, matter is not created out of a singularity or pure vacuum (as it does in Big Bang/or particle physics) it is merely collecting at the cores.

Andre: Exceptional claims require exceptional substantiation.

Dennis: Right, and the exceptional claims that the Earth gained all of its mass in a scant 500 million years and an entire pre-Pacific superocean has completely vanished and hundreds of terrestrial and freshwater trans-Pacific poor-dispersing taxa managed to raft, piggy-back on birds, seamount hop, island hop, etc across an ocean that is larger than the Pacific and Atlantic combined should require some sort of exceptional substantiation. Yet not only is there no evidence for this, all evidence runs the other way.

I guess Maxlow should try and have a solid explanation first for this magic trick before proposing such an idea.

Dennis: Just like the old geophysicists who used to claim moving continents were impossible. ;-)

djmenck

Oct16-03, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Nereid
So let me be clear then, my primary interest is in drawing attention to the amount of 'unexplaining' that would need to be done if the Earth is expanding,

Dennis:
Well, my primary interest is having an honest discussion about all of the evidence, both pro and con -- rather than having people ignore all the insurmountable problems created by radius fixism, while they invent false objection after false objection.

An example is a 'back of the envelope' calculation which shows that the Earth would have had an average density greater than that of iridium (and much greater than that of lead) if it had a radius ~3,700 km and the same mass as it does today.
[/B]

Which is a point I do not argue and will not defend.
Again, the mechanism I propose is very simple: It's fluid dynamic (ether) sink view of gravity -- references for which you have been given. Ultra-mundane particles (sub-quantum) are drifting toward the cores of gravitating bodies. These particles form, eventually, the atoms and molecules that are forced toward the surface. Mass increases with volume.

djmenck

Oct16-03, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Well, I gotta give the guy credit - at least he recognizes the B.U.F.F.

Unfortunately, the "BUFF"as you name it actually affects Big Bang theory -- where all mass in the universe (not just the measely Earth) popped out of a singularity. However, the mechanism I follow
adheres strictly to conservation of mass.

even if he makes no attempt to explain the phenomenon. He essentially puts it outside the scope of his thesis, but in doing so makes EE a tough pill to swallow.

Not as tough as moving continents seemed to be to geophysicists in the first half of the twentieth.

Also, the article about Ganymede is talking about expansion and contraction on the order of 1%. .

That's an interesting point, because I have no idea where that figure came from. As shown in photos and as discussed in various papers nearly half the surface is bright and juvenile. Here's the quote from Kerr in the Science article I referenced earlier:

PLANETARY SCIENCE:
"Jupiter's Two-Faced Moon, Ganymede, Falling Into LineRichard A. Kerr
SAN FRANCISCO--An ocean within Jupiter's giant moon Ganymede was all the news here last month, but planetary scientists were more intrigued by what they were learning about how the moon acquired its odd visage: half bright and new and half dark, heavily cratered, and ancient.
At the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, researchers studying data returned by the Galileo spacecraft--which has been orbiting Jupiter since 1995-- reported that Ganymede, like its neighbors Callisto and Europa, probably has a salty ocean. Ganymede's is far below its icy surface and far less promising of life than Europa's, however. As for Ganymede's split personality, researchers now believe that the more youthful-looking half could be due to a crust that stretched--as has happened in the past few million years on Europa--rather than any sort of icy volcanism, as many had assumed."

Assuming half the crust is young demands a 40% increase in radius.
But let's take the 1% expansion accepted by Russ:

Russ: The mechanism required for that is far different from what we are talking about here: no one is disputing that its possible for a planet to expand or contract by 1% or so.

Great. I only contend .3% increase in expansion of Earth when at a size much larger than Ganymede every 1 million yrs or so.
So, now, we're only arguing about rate.

Russ: The earth's current expansion (that you cited) is explainable by the ice caps melting for exmple

Dennis: No. Melting ice can only account for a small percentage of sea level rise. THe rest is assumed to be the result of thermal expansion.

Russ: Also, arguing that science is dogmatic doesn't help prove your point -

Dennis: I haven't argued that science is dogmatic. I have simply pointed out that your argument, which ignores all of the biogeographic data by supposing the taxa "walked" from one side of the planet to the other and that expanding planets violates known laws of physics is reminiscent of the exact same argument used by mainstream geologists when defending continental fixism. This highlights the weakness of your argument.

Russ: it only strengthens our perception of your non-scientific objection.

Dennis: While you try to label and denounce, I have provided countless references to mainstream science journal papers that show the actual data. Your continued effort to ignore these arguments and claim that I have some sort of hidden "non-scientific objection" is bizarre and is quickly refuted by just a glance at the recent posts.

Russ: You cannot win a scientific arguement by attacking the scientific process -

Dennis: I haven't attacked the scientific process -- but have embraced it. You are the one ignoring the standard science practices of biogeography, etc.

EE cannot ever become a theory unless it can adequately deal with the B.U.F.F (and Maxlow acknowledges that).

Dennis: Maxlow never remotely suggested EE is not a "theory" unless it explains mechanism -- there are countless phenomena that are part of scientific scrutiny and theory for which no mechanism is yet known. Moreover, I have provided a mechanism that doesn't have what you call a mass conservation "flaw" -- unlike say Big Bang.

Andre

Oct17-03, 05:40 AM

Dennis
However, the mechanism I follow adheres strictly to conservation of mass

That's the gradual or slow big bang I presume. OK So the trick of creating matter out of nothing is the analogy with the big bang. Now, let’s entertain this thought for the moment. I’m not trying to sound skeptical, please understand that, just plain clean reasoning to see what the physical consequences would be of this potential major paradigm shift.

Assuming that the earth is expanding, would it be far fetched then to assume also that it is the Earth its mass that creates mass? And if so, would it also be reasonable to expand this to the notion that mass creates mass in general? Then all the celestial bodies are increasing their mass.

We are also creating energy this way, defying another old physical law. Since the relative increase of the radius of the Earth with a factor of 1,7 would increase the spinning energy 15 fold (fifth power I believe) or else it would have slowed down the spinning of the Earth to a near halt. Furthermore, the newborn mass of the sun is increasing its gravity pull on the Earth, decreasing its distance to the sun. (BTW the increasing mass of Earth does not contribute to this effect – why?) This happens to all planets of course. I also wonder about the effects on the expanding universe.

Did NASA experience that effect when calculating the trajectories of all the spacecraft over the years? I don’t know. It seems that one of the mysteries is that there is a small but definite difference between the calculated gravity pull and the reality. Would this effect explain that difference? This is verifiable. Anybody?

Apart from this example, I guess that there may be many more physical processes that would substantiate or falsify the mass creating notion. If so, you may have got yourself a major physical revolution. I would be overthrowing the primary physical laws that were believed to be fundamental and that seemed to be working in real life. If not, it’s time to think of other explanations for the Earth lithosphere phenomena within the restrains of (at least perceived) physical realities. But I agree that even within those confines, Earth seems to be capable doing some pretty unbelievable tricks.

Andre:
I guess Maxlow should try and have a solid explanation first for this magic trick before proposing such an idea.

Dennis: Just like the old geophysicists who used to claim moving continents were impossible. ;-)

OK So I am rigid and dogmatic [:D][:D][:D] You have no idea what kind of weird mechanism I have figured out for this kind of weird Earth phenomena. But I don't need to step outside "dogmatic" physics.

djmenck

Oct17-03, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Andre
[B]Dennis

That's the gradual or slow big bang I presume.
OK So the trick of creating matter out of nothing is the analogy with the big bang.

Let me be very clear. The theory I follow does *not* generate mass out of nothing. It is an ether sink theory where matter simply congregates (i.e. it drifts toward) the cores of gravitating bodies.
Big Bang theory is the theory that creates all matter (and all space and all time!) out of dimensionless point. It is particle theory that suggests energetic empty space can create massive particles. So those are the theories you have trouble with.

Now, let’s entertain this thought for the moment. I’m not trying to sound skeptical, please understand that, just plain clean reasoning to see what the physical consequences would be of this potential major paradigm shift.

Assuming that the earth is expanding, would it be far fetched then to assume also that it is the Earth its mass that creates mass? [\Quote]

The theory suggests the mass of Earth *collects* mass -- it's Big Bang theory and modern particle physics that demands that singularities or vacuum can *create* mass.

[Quote]And if so, would it also be reasonable to expand this to the notion that mass creates mass in general? Then all the celestial bodies are increasing their mass.

Well, not necessarily. For astronomical bodies with relatively low mass have a much easier time shedding mass -- in the form of, say, outgassings. However, larger mass objects, like stars, are certainly collecting more mass than they expel -- which is why all stars expand throughout their history.

We are also creating energy this way, defying another old physical law. Since the relative increase of the radius of the Earth with a factor of 1,7 would increase the spinning energy 15 fold (fifth power I believe) or else it would have slowed down the spinning of the Earth to a near halt.

Dennis: No, fluid sink theory provides a natural mechanism for rotational energy -- sinks tend to create vortices, which is why we have spiral vortex galaxies and spiral vortex solar and planetary systems. As the sink grows stronger, the rotational energy increases (at the expense of loss of energy from the surrounding fluid system). It's just straight fluid dynamics where energy and matter move around and matter may change state -- but there is no net loss or gain of energy or mass.

Andre: "Furthermore, the newborn mass of the sun is increasing its gravity pull on the Earth, decreasing its distance to the sun."

Dennis: Not necessarily. Increasing force can speed objects up and fling them outward. Orbital mechanics becomes a delicate balance between gravitational force, aberration, drag, vortex strength, and to a lesser extent tidal forces. This suggests that orbital changes are possible and often likely -- which is in fact consistent with the motion of extra-solar planets, which suggest much wandering.

Andre: I also wonder about the effects on the expanding universe.

Dennis: Well, the "expanding Universe" (or "Big Bang") theory relies on a tremendous creation of mass out of a singularity -- so I assume you have the same problems with that theory.

russ_watters

Oct17-03, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by djmenck
radius fixism Oh dear god, I'm infectied with an -ism. Why doesn't Greg have an animation of eyes rolling over there? Oh well, I guss this will have to do: [o)]

djmenck, you've made your point: all of physics is wrong and science in general is dogmatic. You may want to take up those arguements a piece at a time in the theory development section. Good luck.

djmenck

Oct17-03, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Oh dear god, I'm infectied with an -ism. Why doesn't Greg have an animation of eyes rolling over there? Oh well, I guss this will have to do: [o)]

djmenck, you've made your point: all of physics is wrong and science in general is dogmatic.

Low whistle. It is amazing how inept I have been in communicating what I believe are very simple points. Let me try again.
1) The theory (ether sink views of gravity)is based on standard fluid dynamics. It's not new. It's old.
There's nothing exotic about it (as there is with say string theory.) And there is no known physical principle, no known physics law, no known physics theory, and no known physics equation which remotely suggests that planets and stars cannot gain mass via collection of sub-sub-sub atomic particles. None. There is no violationg regarding known lows of physics. Indeed, the Earth does gain some mass (a small amount) due to being pelted with solar wind, neutrinos, etc. Does this change all of physics?
It does not change or alter basic physics -- or even modern physics. It merely reinterprets the equations of general relativity.
It is consistent with mass conservation and energy conservation.
I really can't state this any more simply.
2) I not only did not say that "science is dogmatic" -- I specifically explained that I never said that and that is not what I meant. The point, again, is that the notion all of the trans-Pacific links just "walked" from one side of the planet to the other coupled with the belief that closed oceans are a physical impossibility is precisely the same argument used by those following the notion of fixed continents. This doesn't mean science is dogmatic, it means your argument has been used before and been shown to be wrong.

You may want to take up those arguements a piece at a time in the theory development section. Good luck. [/B]

Well, I started with the biogeographic and geological evidence and that was ignored.
I then went to VLBI data and that was ignored as well.
You started to complain that "mass" was a "flaw" -- and so had to explain mass increase without violation of conservation laws.

--Dennis

Andre

Oct18-03, 08:50 AM

Well Dennis, too bad you were ignored. I'm afraid that the world isn't ready yet for your advanced physics. Such would take a generation or two.

In the mean time geologists will continue trying to find solutions for the enigmatic behaviour of the Earth, perhaps a poleshift or something [:D]

djmenck

Oct18-03, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Andre
Well Dennis, too bad you were ignored.

Dennis: ? *I* wasn't ignored at all. It is just that the biogeographic and geologic evidence detailed in the latest referenced peer reviewed paper, which just came out this month in a mainstream journal, was not analyzed in any way. I think people tend to be nervous of evidence that contradicts fashionable views -- and suggests the possibility of something new -- so they don't like to focus on troublesome evidence.

I'm afraid that the world isn't ready yet for your advanced physics.

Dennis: Actually, fluid dynamic analogues of gravity are a very fertile section of physics right now -- as my references in a previous post indicate.

Nereid

Dec5-03, 11:12 PM

If DJ is still around, it might be interesting to continue this thread.

First, I read Maxlow's thesis, focussing on just one of the sets of data Maxlow cites to support the expanding Earth hypothesis - 1992 to 1997 increases in the radius of the Earth, from VBLI, DORIS, SLR, and GPS data. I did not go look at the sources he cites, and the references he quotes.

Some conclusions I drew:

-> the data, as Maxlow presented it, does not permit an unequivocal result re a radial expansion of ~20 mm/year

-> "The primary limiting factor to accuracy of measurements in all four
methods is the systematic errors, which come from seasonal atmospheric interference [sources]. For SLR, GPS, and DORIS, additional factors include satellite tracking and force field modelling used for satellite altimetry control." IIRC, these are some of the errors which GRACE was designed to better characterise.

->> with five more years of data, and first results from GRACE, we should be able to test Maxlow's hypothesis (radial expansion of ~20 mm/year) much more stringently today.

Any PF member familiar with the research results from this field?

BTW, Maxlow does explore which physical property should be held constant, accepting his expanding Earth hypothesis, and concludes that an increase in the Earth's mass is the least inconsistent with other data, especially astrophysical.

Nereid

Dec5-03, 11:21 PM

djmenck wrote: Here's the quote from Kerr in the Science article I referenced earlier:

PLANETARY SCIENCE:
"Jupiter's Two-Faced Moon, Ganymede, Falling Into LineRichard A. Kerr
SAN FRANCISCO--An ocean within Jupiter's giant moon Ganymede was all the news here last month, but planetary scientists were more intrigued by what they were learning about how the moon acquired its odd visage: half bright and new and half dark, heavily cratered, and ancient.
At the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, researchers studying data returned by the Galileo spacecraft--which has been orbiting Jupiter since 1995-- reported that Ganymede, like its neighbors Callisto and Europa, probably has a salty ocean. Ganymede's is far below its icy surface and far less promising of life than Europa's, however. As for Ganymede's split personality, researchers now believe that the more youthful-looking half could be due to a crust that stretched--as has happened in the past few million years on Europa--rather than any sort of icy volcanism, as many had assumed."

Assuming half the crust is young demands a 40% increase in radius. If you're still around DJ, would you please explain why 'half the crust is young' demands 'a 40% increase in radius'?

After all, all of Io's crust is young (as it Europa's) and no increase in radius is needed to explain that - tidal heating does the trick nicely.

Andre

Dec8-03, 10:40 AM

Well Nereid, (or is it slamina?)

This investigation would most certainly have detected an expanding earth:

August 01, 2002 - (date of web publication)

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020801gravityfield.html

SATELLITES REVEAL A MYSTERY OF LARGE CHANGE IN EARTH'S GRAVITY FIELD

Satellite data since 1998 indicates the bulge in the Earth's gravity field at the equator is growing, and scientists think that the ocean may hold the answer to the mystery of how the changes in the trend of Earth's gravity are occurring.

Before 1998, Earth's equatorial bulge in the gravity field was getting smaller because of the post-glacial rebound, or PGR, that occurred as a result of the melting of the ice sheets after the last Ice Age. When the ice sheets melted, land that was underneath the ice started rising. As the ground rebounded in this fashion, the gravity field changed.

"The Earth behaved much like putting your finger into a sponge ball and watching it slowly bounce back," said Christopher Cox, a research scientist supporting the Space Geodesy Branch at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

Currently, the Earth has a significant upward bulge at the equator, and a downward bulge at the poles. "Observations of the Earth's gravity field show that some phenomena are counteracting the gravitational effects of PGR. Whereas PGR has been decreasing the bulge in the Earth's gravity field at the equator, this recent phenomena is causing the bulge to increase," Cox said. Such changes in the gravity field can be sensed using ultra precise laser tracking of satellites to observe tiny changes in the orbits of those satellites and by tracking changes in the length of day or rotation of the Earth.

So not a trace of mass increase. But I have my thought about the hypotheses attempting to explain things.

Nereid

Dec8-03, 07:39 PM

Good one Andre.

A couple more things I didn't note from my read:
-> Maxlow says that a detailed statistical analysis of data from 88 stations with 5+ years of data on height show a clear signal for an expanding Earth
-> however, I couldn't see the analysis, or any reference to it, in the thesis (there may have been such analyses in the sources he referenced)
-> likewise, I couldn't see the data on all 88 stations in the thesis, just four.

It may be that the signal Maxlow found is better explained by the PGR mentioned in the article your link points to?

On another topic, did you make the energy estimates, of heat generated by slow changes in the differential core-mantle rotation rates of the Earth?

BTW, what is a 'slamina'?

Andre

Dec9-03, 02:07 PM

Nereid

the energy estimates, of heat generated by slow changes in the differential core-mantle rotation rates of the Earth?

In a slow process this would probably be minute but what I'm thinking about is a intermitted but much more violent process that may happen when the outer core is no longer able to correct the inner core spin axis to follow the mantles precession. Then ample energy would be released to heat up the core.

What is Slamina? that is "animalS" backwards which translates to Dutch in "diereN", etc. I love little riddles [;)]

Nereid

Dec9-03, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Andre
Nereid

In a slow process this would probably be minute but what I'm thinking about is a intermitted but much more violent process that may happen when the outer core is no longer able to correct the inner core spin axis to follow the mantles precession. Then ample energy would be released to heat up the core.

What is Slamina? that is "animalS" backwards which translates to Dutch in "diereN", etc. I love little riddles [;)] Why wouldn't the outer core and inner core keep pretty much in sych? Isn't there a quite sufficient level of interaction to bring any 'out-of-synch' condition back to equilibrium? Or maybe you're considering a rapid restoration of equilibrium; if so, how would the system get out of balance in the first place?

Re Slamina: while I am an animal (as are all who are reading this), I'm also a daughter dutifully guarding her father. Oh, and "#2 person" as well. [;)]

Andre

Dec11-03, 05:59 AM

Nereid, my regards to Nereus and Doris ;)

About that unbalance. I'm trying to figure out the complications of the precession of the equinoxes as explained by Newton.

http://www.copernican-series.com/precession.html

This is putting stress on the equatorial bulge and causes precession. The inner core with its own rotation is a seperate gyroscope and needs to be forced to follow the mantle precession. This needs a stabilizing mechanism (mechanic and/or magnetic). This stabilization may fail and may have failed temporarely in the past. This may have noticeable consequentes on the mantle dynamics.

We have been looking at this mechanism and we hypethotise that this has happened several times in the Pleistocene era. It appears that with this mechanism we can explain the whole of the "ice ages" in a totally different way.

But it is about impossible to get such an paradigm shift in so I am a bit cautious how to sell the story.

Regards

Nereid

Dec12-03, 10:09 AM

Andre wrote: But it is about impossible to get such an paradigm shift in so I am a bit cautious how to sell the story. A clear exposition of your idea, backed up with quantitative calculations of likely effects, and demonstrating that these predictions match the publicly available data from observations and experiments ... how's that for a start?

Andre

Dec12-03, 12:54 PM

Thanks for the suggestion, Nereid.

If you have some time left, you may drop by at Randi's place and see futile paradigm change attempts in action:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31467&pagenumber=1

But it's fun. :)

Max Mortar

Dec12-03, 04:07 PM

Hi to all,

I'm very pleased to find this forum.

For many years now, maybe a decade or more, I've held a belief in this concept but have always been too busy to do anything much about it.

I am firmly convinced that it is a logical planetary development. I further believe there is evidence to support such a theory but I'm not the one who can prove it. I'm not of the scientific fraternity. Geologists and paelentologists (sp?) would hold that evidence.

There is much to discuss and I don't wish to write a book on my first post, so where to start?

Well, a simple experiment. I roughly traced around the outlines of the continents on my son's globe of the world. I marked major latitude and longitude lines on each tracing. Then I cut them out. I then taped them to a smaller sphere, about 60% of the globe's size, a soccer ball. The fit of the pieces was very rough but confirmed my belief positively.

Interesting points were that latitude and longitude remained roughly correct when the pieces joined together. Naturally, I did get some overlaps and some holes, but generally, and including the poles, everything fitted together rather elegantly, I thought.

Except for an enormous hole in the Pacific Ocean. A big question mark! Where did that go? What happened there? Who knows! But the general fit of the rest was very good and it thoroughly convinced me that the idea was sound. What it needed was evidence. Knowledge that I don't have and very specialised study that I neither have the inclination for, nor the time nor the resources to pursue.

Hence why I'm so pleased to find this forum. Hopefully there's some of you who have the knowledge to point this idea into the right direction. Please continue the discussion, I have many more thoughts and concepts to add in support of the argument.

Max

Andre

Dec13-03, 01:59 PM

Hi Max and welcome,

About that expanding Earth, we have just about concluded that nowadays Earth observation with the most modern means do not indicate a growing, whereas there are other indications of Earth movement.

The alternative of a growing Earth, the plate tectonics are sort of provable by doing a lot of research to magnetic residual fields. It is possible to determine the individual three dimensional magnetic field directions in cores samples from sediment rocks. The steepness of the field tell something about the lattitude where that sample was when it was composed Combined with dating these field indications can be used to reconstruct the actual position of those rocks at a certain time. This seems to show a regular path:

http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/plate_tectonics/rift_man.html

This overview (http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.scotese.com/newpage5.htm) is not the result of plain speculation but calculations of Earth magnetism.

Max Mortar

Dec19-03, 06:11 PM

Thank you Andre for your response.

I get little time to pursue this matter and I'm afraid my posts may be infrequent. But the Earth's been here a long time and so I figure there's no great rush to sort it's mysteries. It (Earth) seems to have managed alright without us meddling in its affairs - at least to date anyway. I thank you in advance for your patience.

I appreciate the points you raise. I shall, at this time, address them as I see them. I would of course at a later date like to put forward an encompassing view of the idea of an expanding Earth in stages for disscussion. But today I shall address the good points you've raised.

With respect to the point of no significant "growth" of Earth in the present time and evidence to support tectonic plates. Very valid arguments.

1. I'd like to define the terms expansion and growth, just so we're talking the same things. I perceive expansion like a balloon, a sphere with variable size, but maintaining more or less the same matter at any given time (although previous posts acknowledge some accretion of space dust - I can't see that that's going to have a lot to do with it, appreciable as it may be). The term growth I take to mean an increase in size due to an increase in mass by some process of generation of new material - such as a child growing into an adult - there being more stuff at the end than there was at the beginning.

No, I'm suggesting here expansion of the external sphere, surface area, but of Earth maintaining the same mass, hence a change of density, which I believe will play a significant part in later discussion. So "expansion" not "growth".

2. With respect to "nowadays Earth observation with the most modern means do not indicate a growing". I have no problem with that. In fact, as I explain in future discussion, Earth may be experiencing a stable phase of "life" (how long - who knows?) and may in the future even shrink or contract.

The rate of this expansion (or possible contraction) is most likely to be irregular or at a regular-ish rate, but on a very big time scale not necessarily noticeable within our daily lives. It may occur in spurts, even events of extreme violence, such as may have caused the quoted "99% of all life to perish". Hmm, there's a hint! But much more to explain. It could also be a bit of a worry for future humans - who knows?

3. Plate Tectonics and residual magnetic fields. I don't have a problem with this data or research either. I don't see that continental drift goes against the possibility of expansion, in fact if anything it may strongly support it. I'm quite happy to accept continental drift theory.

4. Finally, I refer to the link you kindly provided - "This overview is not the result of plain speculation but calculations of Earth magnetism." Yes, very good. I have no problem with this except for one major thing. It's what made me think of an alternative in the first place. I have a major problem accepting the visual result of an Earth, covered with water and on one side, just one side, one single great land mass sticking out like a pimple on a pumpkin. It's not natural!

In a universe that displays (from what we know presently) a general uniformity from stars to molecules the one thing that appears regularly, throughout, is symmetry and unformity. This map screams at me that it's a corruption of natural design. Think about it. All of the land, about 1/5th of the entire Earth's surface sticking out of just one place of an otherwise perfectly uniform sperical surface of water. The very first time I saw this diagram it offended me. It should offend anyone with a rational mind, I believe. Where is the precedent for such a grotesque, unbalanced, unexplained geological peculiarity?

This single land mass on one side of the Earth has never been explained. Such a ridiculous - to me - arrangement seems to have never even been queried. It's just been accepted. What event on Earth could have caused such a bizarre, assymmetrical blob of elevated rock?

It doesn't make any sense, there must be more going on here. Expanding Earth? Maybe or maybe not. For now, my soccer ball with continental paper cutouts taped around it sure looks natural, logical and pretty darn good compared to that stupid looking map. What's more, expanding Earth doesn't need a peculiar answer to a peculiar looking problem. It's pretty simple astro-physics I believe, maybe. But then I could be way wrong too.

But I do believe the answers are quite natural, already explained and probably simple to apply. But someone, not me, needs to test the evidence. It should not be difficult to prove or disprove.

Catch you all next week.

Andre

Dec20-03, 07:57 AM

Interesting thoughts Max.

I'm not trying to debunk anything but it may be food for an interesting discussion.

First of all I'm not sure if the assymetric bulge is a real design error. It has been suggested that a cosmic collision caused the moon to separate in a proto planet phase zillards of years ago. This could have left some scars. Alternately, the spinning planet may have experienced assymmetric accumulation of material in the complicated Earth moon gravity system. Just thinking loud of course.

Now if you want to play with the expanding Earth thought within the confines of the physical laws and accept that the cosmic dust accretion is not sufficient, the problems with the universal law of gravitation (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html) comes into mind.

Nigel (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/) posted a long and spectacular thread here, some time ago about the gravitational constant G not being constant in the gravity law.

If the gravity constant would decrease over time, the Earth would expand logically. Would we have indications that such could have happened in the past?

I'm thinking of the big Dinosaurs and gigantic flying beasts in the past like Pterodactylus and the giant dragon flies. If it would mean anything then it would indicate less gravity in the past. But with a smaller Earth and hence a smaller radius and a bigger gravitational constant, the gravity on Earth would have been much higher instead of lower.

I'm afraid this way, things don't add up.

notnewton

Jan4-04, 06:04 PM

Gentleman: The sign in name should explain that I'm not a Physicist. I have become quite a believer in EE as it's known but also needed to track back science to convince myself it was true. The exploration revealed more than a little about not good science as it was taught us, the non-intentional partial truths we've received and primarily the basic assumptions that were imbedded in the theories, that we weren't made aware of. I'd like to share the ones I think I've found and improve on them with you all. Reviewing the board has become quite lengthy. Some questions that seemed unanswered were if the earth's mass expanded significantly, how would that affect the earth and earth moon orbit?, what is the problem with Plate Tectonics, doesn't paleomagnetics show the location through latitude? These I think I can answer. Since this is my first post, I'm not yet certain it will show up on the board. So here goes.

Nereid

Jan6-04, 11:17 AM

Welcome to PF notnewton!

Please do post your observations etc. A suggestion if I may: make three separate posts (on a) if the earth's mass expanded significantly, how would that affect the earth and earth moon orbit?, b) what is the problem with Plate Tectonics, c) doesn't paleomagnetics show the location through latitude?). That way we can address each of your ideas separately.

For myself, I have a question for you: do you think the Earth is unique, in the sense that it's the only planet/satellite which has expanded significantly over the past ~4 billion years? If you do believe this, why should the Earth be unique? If the Earth isn't unique, what evidence is there that the other planets, and their moons, have expanded? How about the Sun?

notnewton

Jan7-04, 08:35 PM

re: my 01-04
Neriod 01-06
Thank you for the greeting and the intelligent observation on how to post. I will post my first 3 observations but will start with your question.
In many ways we must all feel Earth is unique, and owe our lives to that uniqueness. But with Billions of galaxies and trillions of stars, whatever force created the universe did not make Earth's physics unique. What is acting here is acting, or has the capability to be acting elsewhere. This is not to mean expansion is occuring everywhere, nor at the same time or way. In our solar system there are many small to large bodies. The site
www.expanding-earth.org/page_1.htm lists in sequential size a representative sample from small to large. That site makes the point that over time bodies get larger through gravitational attraction of mass. When small - no expansion. At a certain point the bodies get larger and near sperical. Larger still more sperical. Larger still, and the gravitional force on the core gets centered and something happens that we don't understand. The moon does not seem to be expanding - yet. Humans are visual creatures. The blue earth oceans and the green continents can allow those who want to see, to see the expansion effects here. Mars is all brown. Gaining a colored mars mini globe with colors for heights and depths from www.astrogeology.usgs.gov/gallery/mapsandglobes/mars.html lets you see what looks like expansion/oceans in the Northern hemisphere (opposite earth's), and the Valles Marineris certainly looks like a torsional tear many times the size of the Grand Canyon. Carey is the prime thought mover and I will defer to him. On the Cape Canaveral website for his 1996 book he states the opinion on how Venus is reacting and expanding. The gaseous planets are certainly acting different that the inner three solid ones. If anything it looks like they have been expanding longer or from a different method. Bodes Law used math to place the planets from the sun and predict the missing gaps. On p348 of his 1988 book Carey shows that Bodes law works even better when using Jupiter instead of Earth as datum, and references a study that shows Bodes law works on the moon's of Jupiter. Is Jupiter getting ready to become a second sun? Perhaps. What of the sun? It seems high likelihood that it must have been expanding if the other's have. And since it dominates the solar system mass, if mass is being created you would be working with chump change if you didn't include the sun. But then wouldn't that mean that the sun have been getting hotter? 65 MYA the earth was about 15 d C warmer so that doesn't show an obvious link. Since the Earth is in such a tight perfect orbit in the "water zone" wouldn't both bodies increasing in mass fly into each other or fly apart or move the earth out of the water zone? Those are important points to ponder but are secondary and detract from the prime point. The issue is to show and prove that the Earth expanded. If then, like the first to break the four minute mile the flood gates will/must open. The few that believe in EE are forced to answer every question of the Universe and that's not possible. Some try and they may not be literate enough to connect with individuals and so their key point is lost. But the point is there in each article if one searches for it. The Earth is expanding. Some large enough solar bodies are likely expanding. The gaseous bodies leave no obvious physical evidence but are likely expanding the most. The world of ideas and brilliant discoveries are coming open for young physicists who want to make their mark and teach us the why's.

notnewton

Jan7-04, 09:09 PM

re: my 01-04
Post 2
Part of the problem of really believing EE is that we think things that aren't true, but we "feel" them intensely. Certainly if the Earth gained 6 times it's mass it's orbit would be significantly effected and we would all be gone. Let's assume that the Earth started expanding from 1/2 it's present size (diameter). Assuming the Density was the same as now, then the mass of the Earth would be 12.5% of today's and the Gravity would be 50% (not bad when you are thinking TRex). Mars is 53% of current Earth size and 11% of it's mass with a gravity of 39% Earth's, so not a bad assumption starting point.
The Earth is 1 A.U. distant from the Sun and varies only a few percent in it's orbit. It is in the sweet spot of the water zone. Water doesn't freeze and doesn't burn off, so we live. If mass were added to the earth, then wouldn't we be pushed out of the water zone? I conceived so and checked it out. From Principles of Astronomy 1964, p. 167. Referring to Newton's modification of Kepler's 3rd law (one of my saturday night favorites) "One deduction we can make from this more general formula is that the orbital period of a marble around the sun, if it's mean distance is 1 a.u., is longer than one year, because the combined mass of the sun plus marble is less than that of sun plus earth; the gravitational bond is weaker. But the marble's period is not much greater than the earth's; it is 1 year plus 47 seconds. Alternately, if a second marble has a period of precisely 1 year, it's mean distance from the sun is less than 1 a.u. - about 90 miles less."
So no matter what are gut feelings tell us, the Earth can expand to it's heart's content without effecting it's orbit enough to be noticeable.

notnewton

Jan7-04, 09:41 PM

re: my 01-04
Post 3
If the mass of the Earth expanded 6X, even though the Earth's orbit around the sun doesn't get effected, certainly the moon being much closer would have gotten much closer or collided with us by now. I thought this possible, then I found the rest of the story. I personnaly like this one because it goes to the heart of trusting authority figures. They tend to teach us just a little bit wrong. We've obviously all been taught that the moon revolves around the Earth. It is a basic tenant of belief. It is also not true.
This is not a simple semantic gag. The moon is an unusual object. The moon has an apparent size equal to that of the sun's. It is visible on both sides of the Earth and makes a full cycle approximately 13 times a year. Every illustration ever shown shows the moon in a tight circle around the Earth. Let's begin. The Earth makes a CONVEX orbit around the sun. All planets do. All moons make a convex orbit around their planet (except the moon). If you look from the Earth to Mars or Jupiter or Saturn, you will see the moons in front of the planet typically moving left to right. When they orbit around the planet they move right to left to get back to their starting position. Obvious. If you looked from the sun to the Earth you would see the moon moving right to left. And then? Right to left. Always. If you took that Martian moon Phobos, looking from the sun, when the moon was on the farside of mars moving right to left, then phobos would be making a Convex arc orbit to the sun. When Phobos came around and was inside Mars and moving left to right, phobos would be making a CONCAVE orbit to the sun. This must be. Does our moon ever make a Concave orbit to the sun. NEVER. So what is happening? The Earth and the moon are two space objects flying virtually wing tip to wing tip in a sensuous and unique dance in the solar system. The best analogy is a 2 mile round NASCAR track with the Sun and Moon being two cars. The moon is drafting behind the Earth and then passes slowly on the right. The moon slows and the Earth passes slowly on the right. They go around each other, but they never make a concave curve to the sun. The moon is moving away from the earth at 5 cm/year. A large growth in the mass of the Earth won't effect the moon's orbit. So how exactly did the Earth capture the moon? I would hope some would wonder what else about Plate Tectonics was not taught or shared quite openly or in the most truthful manner.

notnewton

Jan8-04, 11:34 PM

Post 4
re: Andre's 10-16-03
Andre's 12-13-03
The quote of "exceptional claims requires exceptional substantiation" is typically taken to be Sagan's, and is probably the worst quote ever for taking science forward. In all engineering, business, production, etc -let's take the Lockheed Skunkworks - you seek a new idea, nurture it, create a team and demand all input and after it is birthed you scrutinize it. Sagan's statement is like a religion which only gives the pope power. Gravity has never been explained. The Big Bang works out in math but it would be hard to conceive of the solar system fitting into a point much less 65 Billion Galaxies. Subduction has never been proven with any direct proof, only indirect proof, but EE has to explain everything. You directed us to a sight showing the continental fit that "science" gave us that shows a smooth fit. That map is from 255 mya. The source document for "standard science" fit is "Phanerozoic paleocontinental world maps." Cambridge Earth Science Series A.G. Smith et. al. 1981. You'll have to find this source document in a good science library cuz it's not on the net. It shows a standard look like your map back to 220 mya. Later they published maps from 240 mya - 400 mya. The smooth fit was gone. They show the East Coast of North America approximately 3000 miles west of the South American connection that they showed so smoothly at 220mya. No explanation. Just the best they could do with limited data. If you look at different world atlas's on PT movement you will see they do not all compare because there is no smooth magnetic path, but everyone takes great creative license in their drawings and apparently don't have to answer to Sagan's blocking statements because they are in the Fraternity.

notnewton

Jan8-04, 11:56 PM

Post 5
Paleomagnetics is a wonderful tool but has it's flaws. What's worse is the scientist's that don't tell you the underlying assumptions. First, as most know, the magnetics only work on magma, where there is iron or other magnetic particles. When the particles get heated past the curie point which I believe is 571 d, F., the particles reorient and align with the magnetic poles. When the lava cools below the curie point the particles are frozen in alignment and so can give a clue to magnetic north and latitude. Assuming the particles aren't disturbed or reoriented in the next 30 million or so years.
The two science's separate; 1) Age dating, 2)location finding.
1) Age dating. The Earth's polarity switches every 750,000 years or so. Now that we have discovered the switch timing, these changes can be read like tree rings to give accurate age dating. This is one of the conclusive proofs for spreading ranges. The magma on each side of the range age spread by the tree rings consistently. The most beautiful and important track that proved PT growth and led to the supposed subduction theory was from the ship Eltanin on it's 19th (E - 19)core. This was done on the spreading zone around Antarctica south of Easter Island or so. Using a trailing magnetometer they got a nearly exact pulse reading from the left to the right. Now the un stated interesting thing here is that Antartica is a huge continent, and the highest elevation in the world. It is absolutely surrounded by growth zones and has no subduction zones. So if subduction occurs it must be in the Pacific rim, far to the NW. Now picture this gentle magma erupting and flowing evenly in both directions over eons of time, one side being pulled by the subduction zone 5000 miles NW and the other side pushing Great Antarctica which is being pushed on it's other side by another spreading zone. You wouldn't expect an even magnetic record. Picture a kid pushing a football tackle sled uphill with 3 lineman standing on it and four behind them pushing back. Which would be easier, up hill or down hill? Now picture a draw bridge. As the draw bridge lifts smoothly the edge of each draw bridge stays exactly equidistant from the center. Exceptional claims require exceptional substantiation.

notnewton

Jan9-04, 12:31 AM

Post 6.
The second magnetic science tells where the North Magnetic pole is. Well kinda. The magnetic north pole as we know is not the true north pole. There is an assumption that the differences even out over time and the magnetic north pole approximates true north on the magnetic readings(but I haven't seen this substantiated. The north pole is now in Canada, probably 1000 miles from the true pole so it is obvious there can be deviation. Given that, the particles do point to magnetic north. Of course since there is erosion and folding some samples won't be accurate and the scientist will have to select which samples to take to be accurate. I will not imply that knowing the results wanted could influence the selection but it is not perfectly accurate. The other thing that occurs is that besides pointing to north the compass needle will show a declination that gives an "idea" of Latitude. At the equator the needle will be perfectly horizontal. At the pole position the needle will decline to be perfectly vertical. Perhaps not exactly but for example, at 15d N. Latitude the needle will decline 15 degree, and at 45 north Latitude the needle will decline 45 degrees, so we can get a good approximation of Latitude also. Usually, to plot a continent, researchers take age and direction and declination from all over the continent to plot some what of a central point and plot that continents location at say 30 mya. If you do that and you plot NA, India, Japan, Russia, etc the plots will each be somewhat beyond the pole. This is known as overshoot. The BIG ASSUMPTION made is that latitude is constant so that a 45 degree North latitude will always be the same number of miles to the North pole. If instead you insert a continually expanding earth with increasing distances from the equator to the pole, then the polar overshoot goes away. It wouldn;t be hard to recreate the maps using the standard assumption and the EE assumption, but it isn't done. At one point at one time the equator ran through NYC and Paris at perhaps 200 MYA. For that to happen, no PT map can explain the movements but EE does. So Carey plots the maps but no one listens to him. Remember exceptional claims requires exceptional substantiation. What would a corallary be? Toe the line if you want to keep your job?
So one last thought. If we say that Africa held it's position, then South America pushed away West, Australia pushed East, Antartica flew South, and India hugged the coast line and went North. India makes no sense except for the magnetic data. No PT model that shows how magme flows could have done this has been presented, because it is not apparently an "exceptional claim". Wegener's theory and Wegener's charts show India's position firmly attached to Asia and the Saudi Peninsula, but PT saw fit to through that part of Wegener out and changed that. The magnetics would show that India moved from just South of the Equator to the equator to just North of the Equator to it's present position North of the equator. If you assume a constant diameter earth than you would reach a PT conclusion. If you assume an earth expansion on Carey's order than with 70% of the growth coming from the southern hemispere, India would have stayed attached to Asia and been pulled North exactly following the latitudes paleomagnetics plotted. But hey, exceptional claims require exceptional substantiation because otherwise we might have to change our opinions.
Thank you board, whoever may read this. I said I would explain what I know and that's done. If you are open minded and want an education, read Carey.

Andre

Jan15-04, 09:42 AM

Thanx for your elaborations Notnewton. Many statements seem resonable but the essential ones look a bit problematic. There are loads of problems for science that can't be explained and that we can't percieve. But some we think we can, for instance like the temperature measurement of boiling water at one atmosphere pressure. That is simple and understandable and every time we repeat the experiment we get the same result. So we call it a physical law. I'm afraid that the expanding earth thesis holds several of those laws in contempt. For instance the law of constant angular momentum that you disregard with:

So no matter what are gut feelings tell us, the Earth can expand to it's heart's content without effecting it's orbit enough to be noticeable.

You tell us that from now on water boils at 424 degrees F instead of 212F

notnewton

Jan15-04, 10:21 AM

Making up arguments that are invalid was not how I learned science. I gave you a very specific example and a very specific end result. If the earth expanded 6 x in mass, which may be possible under expanding earth theory, would that be enough to throw the earth's orbit outside the water zone. Postulated and proven no with standard science orbital math, done by a standard science astronomy professor. 47 sec delay (slower orbit) or 90 miles closer for a MARBLE!! I explained the moon's orbit. Did you bother to ask as astronomy friend or professor whether this is accurate? I doubt it. Believe what you've been taught but your blind selection of boiling example is simply sophomoric.

Andre

Jan15-04, 11:14 AM

Come on, Notnewton, you merely explained with hundreds of words that mass is not a factor in the orbit of a body as you see immediately when solving the equation for gravity force against centrifugal force on an orbit in equilibrium.

No, you increase mass generating out of nothing. Okay perhaps with some very weird not understood process, but you also increase angular momentum by increasing mass and that is a simply proven 212 degrees F empiric law. So this is defying common physical laws.

notnewton

Jan15-04, 12:56 PM

If I'm not misreading you, the 212 analogy has nothing to do with orbit. Is that correct? If not, how exactly does it apply. If so let's throw it out. Then,what exactly are you saying about "angular momentum" with an increase in mass that I am missing or not addressing? If the issue is that creating mass out of nothing would be hard to swallow, I agree. However,to analyze the whole you have to break it into bite size little parts. The point was only that IF Earth MASS increased significantly, would the Earth's ORBIT or the moon's ORBIT be significantly and negatively affected. One would suppose that both would be significantly affected. I believe I've shown that NO, they would not be significantly affected. That's all, no proof of EE, just a scuttling of the orbit argument. But if I cannot reach those conclusions, please show me the error in my thinking. For this point I throw out no LAWS.

Nereid

Jan19-04, 10:58 PM

notnewton,

1) How much is the Earth expanding today? Is it ~mm/year, or ~m/year?

2) Ditto, all the other planets and large moons (those which are approx spherical)?

3) What were the Earth's radius and mass at key times in the past? For instance, 1 mya, 10 mya, 100 mya, 1 bya?

4) Ditto, all the other planets and large moons?

5) How much is the Sun expanding today? What was its mass and radius at key times in the past?

6) About those convex and concave orbits (the Moon being unique among all moons in the solar system), please give it to me in equations and numbers. In particular, please explain why the shape of an object's orbit - as seen from different perspectives - is relevant to whether the Earth is expanding. I'm also curious as to how you account for the >40 satellites of Jupiter in retrograde orbits (cf the prograde orbits of the Galilean moons, Phobos, and the Moon; among many others).

notnewton

Jan20-04, 09:16 PM

Hmm. I sense more angst than joy over my factual posts that have not yet been refuted. So I answer somewhat tongue in cheek to keep the board interested (maybe :)). Andre is correct about hundreds of words. Brevity will follow. But I will not be brief in necessary explanations nor in agreeing with what a professor taught that is factually incorrect.
Q.1 mm not m. Where did you get M? Reference please? Best estimates are 3mm to 12 mm in radius per year.
Q.2 Off subject on this thread - EXPANDING EARTH
Q.3 Size (radius) estimates vary from 55% to 80% of current, depending on source. Not experimentally provable in same way PT is not. IF we take Owens (Atlas of Continental displacement, 200 million years to the present, Cambridge University Press), he believes in an 80% size 200 mya ago. More specifics, Oligocene 28 mya, 97%; Palaeocene 56 mya, 94%; Turonian 90 mya, 90%; Hauterivian 119 mya, 87%, Oxfordian 145 mya, 84%; Pangaea 180-200 mya; 80%. (You would be hard pressed to refute his credentials or his methodology)
Mass; you need to make "what if" estimates based on Density. 4 broad options. Let's only do 80% OF CURRENT SIZE, for brevity. Option 1. same mass as today but 80% of size (no mass addition) 156.5% present gravity. 200 # man would "weigh" 313#. Option 2. Density of mass was the same as present earth and the same density mass was added, 80% present gravity. 200# man would "weigh" 160#. Option 3. Start with HIGHER density mass Earth, and add lower density, 74.6% present gravity, 200# man weighs 149 #'s. Option 4. Start with LOWER density mass, and add higher density, 90.9% of present gravity, 200# man weugh's 182. You did not ask for conclusions. You get to pick your option. Clearly calculations would vary at 65% size. At that size you could have a 50-65% mass/gravity/mass. Hello T-Rex?
Q.4 Ditto Q.2; Reductio ad absurdum, i.e. I choose not to play this game.
Q.5 Ditto/Ditto. But ... Fact 1: On the Earth ALL subduction zones are ~20,000 feet under water and therefore invisible; i.e. none of you have experimented on them or seen them. Fact 2: No liquid water is known to exist on other solar bodies except perhaps Europa. ~ Key Assumption: Subduction effects should be readily visible on all of the objects you wish to discuss. Please list the objects with visible subduction zones and references.
Q.6 Brevity. My 1-15-2004 @ 11:56 restated my case. Please re-read. With over 5,000 members on a global Physics board, my case should easily be refuted with factual science. If not, Check Mate on the point. OTTMCO

Nereid

Jan20-04, 10:29 PM

notnewton wrote: Q.1 mm not m. Where did you get M? Reference please? Best estimates are 3mm to 12 mm in radius per year. references please? It's your idea, so I get to ask the questions [;)] When it's my idea, you can have a go.notnewton wrote: Q.2 Off subject on this thread - EXPANDING EARTH on topic question then - why is the Earth unique? Thanks for the figures (Q3); they'll be helpful.notnewton wrote: Q.4 Ditto Q.2; Reductio ad absurdum, i.e. I choose not to play this game. You gave up the choice 'not to play this game' when you posted here; this is Physics Forums, and a key principle is there are no 'special places'notnewton wrote: Q.6 Brevity. My 1-15-2004 @ 11:56 restated my case. OK, will do (and Q5 later).

Nereid

Jan24-04, 05:58 AM

Nereid: "6) About those convex and concave orbits (the Moon being unique among all moons in the solar system), please give it to me in equations and numbers. In particular, please explain why the shape of an object's orbit - as seen from different perspectives - is relevant to whether the Earth is expanding."notnewton wrote: Q.6 Brevity. My 1-15-2004 @ 11:56 restated my case. Please re-read.
from that post:*SNIP The point was only that IF Earth MASS increased significantly, would the Earth's ORBIT or the moon's ORBIT be significantly and negatively affected. One would suppose that both would be significantly affected. I believe I've shown that NO, they would not be significantly affected.I'm a little confused. You seem to be saying that a change in the mass of either the Earth or the Moon (or both) would not significantly affect their mutual orbits. However, my question was about the relevance of the shape of the Moon's orbit to your EE idea.

BTW, one cannot tell whether a significant change in the Earth's (or Moon's) mass would result in a significant change in the Moon's orbit (or the Earth's, around the Sun) - it all depends on what, how, and where. For example, if the Earth's mass doubled, over a relatively short time (say 1 million years), and if the extra mass were distributed so that the Earth's bulge was more massive, then the Moon's orbit would be significantly affected - the exchange of angular momentum (due to tidal drag) would result in the Moon moving away from the Earth faster than before. (leave aside for now the question of how the Earth's angular momentum is conserved as the mass is added).

notnewton

Jan24-04, 09:44 AM

Let me try to more clearly restate my point. First, it is clear that the vast amount of opinion is on the side of Plate Tectonics(PT), not Expanding Earth (EE). IF EE is correct, then the first issue is to move people's brain into a more open minded position, so that issue's - even apparently highly unlikely issues - can be discussed and thought about without immediate negative close mindedness. That is not easy to do with most people. I selected the moon analogy, because first I thought that if PT were correct and EE incorrect, you would see it dramatically in their orbits. Without a great deal of math, or delving into all the possibilities, it seemed clear that the Earth could expand 6 fold in mass and the Earth/Sun orbit could survive enough that we could continue this discussion. I found the moon information fascinating because it is universally mis-taught. Not just a little mis-taught. I didn't know it and I admit it. I would say perhaps only 1 in 1,000 or perhaps 10,000 or perhaps even fewer would know the moon doesn't revolve around the Earth. Most scientists wouldn't know it and I believe most wouldn't admit they didn't know it. These built-in incorrect assumptions we all have color our decisions and need to be rooted out when possible. If I receive information I don't know of, I am much more open to discussing that topic open mindedly, rather than snapping back to standard blather. On the same vane, read any survey of geography knowledge. People know very little and most of it is wrong. And what they do know comes from looking at Mercator projection flat maps which are violently wrong in many cases. How do you get Mercator images out of people's minds when discussing what they think they know?
You have wanted to delve into discussions off the Earth. I'm not totally against this, but my point is that we have massive amounts of data concerning the earth and yet we truly know little yet about the Earth. We know infinitely less about all other bodies. Speculation about them tends to naturally follow standard science thought patterns, and so it is even harder to break into those thought patterns. If EE is correct, I do not feel Earth is unique. But that does not mean that all other bodies are expanding, or expanding equally, or at the same time during their history or a thousand other questions. I'm not competent to prove an expanding earth. I am certainly not competent to answer all questions on all other bodies. So a focus on earth issues seems appropriate, at least through me.
As I've stated, I do not have in my quick reference data base, a knowledge of the effects of "angular momentum" that has been stated by several, as if it is universally understood. I do not know to which you refer and would like it explained. I also haven't figured out how to cut and paste relevant snippets from other posts to gain brevity as you know how to do.

Nereid

Jan24-04, 10:09 AM

notnewton wrote: I also haven't figured out how to cut and paste relevant snippets from other posts to gain brevity as you know how to do. A few quick words ...
- find the text you want to copy
- highlight it ('select' it)
- Ctrl-C (holding down the 'Ctrl' key and 'C' key at the same time)
- move cursor to where you want to copy the text to
- Ctrl-V

In PF, Greg has provided a set of tools to make writing text, with visual effects, easier. Try clicking on some to see what happens. You can always see the effect of what you've written before you actually post it by clicking on Preview Reply.

How did I get your words at the top of this post? Today, here's what I did (I sometimes do something different):
- highlighted the text, Ctrl-C
- clicked the Quote button
- Ctrl-V
- cursor at the start of your text, in the reply window
- type '[ i]notnewton wrote:[ /i][ b]' (I'm leaving a space in the commands - inside the square brackets [ ] - so you can see what I'm doing; when you do it yourself just leave out the space)
- at end of your text, type '[ /b]'

Nereid

Jan24-04, 10:15 AM

notnewton wrote: *SNIP If EE is correct, I do not feel Earth is unique. But that does not mean that all other bodies are expanding, or expanding equally, or at the same time during their history or a thousand other questions. I'm not competent to prove an expanding earth. I am certainly not competent to answer all questions on all other bodies. So a focus on earth issues seems appropriate, at least through me. OK, so I've got just two questions then (repeating what's in earlier posts):
A) References to papers with data and analyses showing that the Earth is expanding at 3 to 12 mm in radius pa.
B) How has the Earth's radius changed over geological time? You've posted some numbers, now I'll do some analyses of my own.

notnewton

Jan24-04, 06:18 PM

I didn't notice that you wanted specific references. Carey's 1988 book Theories of the Earth and Universe P. 170 2.8cm, +/-0.8 cm per year based on early NASA data. Non of the EE authors starts with their exact measurements. One has to dig and it is not always clear. The PF page one lists Maxlow which I believe is the 3mm quote. Carey states he believes that growth is expanding "exponentially" now. He does not clearly state whether that is radius, circumference or volume. A consistent radius increase would should an exponential volume growth over time. Therefore, 3mm to 12 mm, up to 24 mm likely is appropriate and if necessary I could track down more specifics. Authors leave open whether growth is consistent or happens in rapid spurts. I know of no source that mentions M growth unless they made a typo in a e-mail.
I'll work on your clipping suggestions. Thanks.

Nereid

Jan25-04, 11:45 AM

I think you'll find the sources you mention use data that's at least 5 years old now (e.g. Maxlow). In the last five years the precision of geodesy has improved considerably, and is set to improve by an OOM with GRACE: http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/geodesy.html

notnewton

Jan25-04, 01:22 PM

You would have to give the Geodesy nod to the PT argument - no question. Except . . . unless there is something inherently flawed in the geodesy argument. I think Maxlow sums up the main argument best. 1). GPS is what we are using as a base line. GPS is based on the VLBI baseline data. VLBI baseline data assumes a constant size and constant mass. It cost $500 million to run the VLBI baseline and many PT careers are linked to it. It won't likely be repeated soon. 2) GPS satellites are not acting as expected. Their orbits are degrading slighlty faster than they should. Standard science says it must be normal resistance. EE might say,"If you recalculated mass for different assumptions, would that account for the orbit loss and then what does the GPS data look like." Clearly unproven speculation, but it shouldn't be thrown away as a back drawer memory for now. 3) So, as I look at GPS data, while standard science says "It corresponds to PT projections." I see a number of areas that don't seem to correspond. I look at different ones and I'm not sure they are all the same. I need to find the perfect accepted base line global GPS reading and then take the Mercator projection plots onto a globe and see what it says. If the "Moon" didn't excite anyone, I don't expect this explanation to fly.[;)] But someone has to be the counterpoint.

Nereid

Jan25-04, 01:35 PM

Much to comment on here!Maxlow sums up the main argument best. 1). GPS is what we are using as a base line IIRC, he had four sources; GPS was just one.GPS is based on the VLBI baseline data. Again, IIRC, they are independent, though related.VLBI baseline data assumes a constant size and constant mass. Evidence? sources (other than Maxlow)? Even if it were true, why not take the data and do your own calculations? That's what Maxlow says he did, but as I pointed out earlier in this thread, his PhD thesis doesn't seem to show that he did. In any case, his work was based on data that's now over five years old.It cost $500 million to run the VLBI baseline Evidence? sources?GPS satellites are not acting as expected. Their orbits are degrading slighlty faster than they should. Standard science says it must be normal resistance. Evidence? Sources?I need to find the perfect accepted base line global GPS reading and then take the Mercator projection plots onto a globe and see what it says. OK, please let us know what you find when you've done the analyses. BTW, how will you account for the fact that the geoid isn't a sphere?

Finally, it seems you've not commented on GRACE. What evidence do you have that it suffers from the same systematic problems that you assert for GPS and VBLI?

notnewton

Jan25-04, 07:41 PM

There is a lot to know about the different satellite, et.al. methods. I've found sites that throw the terms around easily but don't explain them in depth. Too much to know. Too little time. I know less about Grace and will assume it will be very accurate. I don't think we should ever throw out the slim possibility that the experts are wrong because they made a deeply imbedded assumption in their calculations that we were never privey to. This is not conspiracy theory, it is Trust (and verify). I don't think I will ever be able to verify. I've recently delved deeper to know that GPS is more accurate than I had assumed (a few mm.
I've got 4 globes with crap plotted on all of them. Interesting results, but without pictures . . . words won't do.
On GPS according to PT Eastern Europe should be going SE and yet it is going NE, as is Africa. South America is not moving west as it should. Antartica, fully surrounded by growth ridges isn't moving at all. What I think is needed is information about GPS reference point.
As in Easter Island is moving East ward. Question? Relative to what? Does GPS work off of a fixed LAT/Long datum? I think we are to believe that Easter Island is moving Eastward from where it was yesterday. Same with everywhere else. But while I can't prove it, I think GPS does likely have a universal reference point. I would like info from a thoughtful physicist or someone linked into MIT which seems to have a lot of info.
I'm not certain what you meant by the geoid/sphere comment? The earth is nearly perfectly spereical but it is oblate but to a small amount. The earth's polar diameter is 30 miles less than equatorial. On a 12" globe that would correlate to the thickness of 5 sheets of paper. If the earth expands gravity and isostasy would move the growth around maintaining spericalness.The expanding Earth website of Myers has good listing showing bodies in our solar system changing shapes consistently as they get bigger. Was that the question?