Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Expanding Earth

  1. Jul 27, 2003 #1
    What is your opinion on this hypothesis ?

    http://www.wincom.net/earthexp/n/navback.htm

    http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nav.html

    http://www.expanding-earth.org/

    http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Campus/2730/

    http://www.es.usyd.edu.au/geology/people/staff/dietmar/Agegrid/Images/crustageposter.gif

    I first came across this hypothesis when I was studdying the digital agegrid of the ocean floor. But knowing what I know, I dismissed it immediately. It wasn't until yesterday I realized I wasn't the only one to have reached this conclusion.

    If I were to have a completely openminded position on this and just focus on the geological data, I'd definately think expansion was a more likely explanation.

    But the implications of this hypothesis being correct is so absurd, I dare not consider it a serious alternative.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 27, 2003 #2

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    There is a lot of material to go through, there. I've not read all of it yet, but I've scanned over the titles of the chapters I've not read, and I see nothing to address the phenonminon of subduction. Is it talked about in any of the sites? Unless some other explanation for subduction can be found, I don't think I could take the expansion idea seriously.
     
  4. Jul 27, 2003 #3

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Haven't had a chance to review all that...just peeked at one link. I didn't see anything that considered the implications of the Earth's orbit around the sun (or the Earth-Moon interaction) if the Earth's mass/size is really increasing by huge amounts. I think that would be a good test of the idea.
     
  5. Jul 27, 2003 #4
    http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_2.htm

    http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_4.htm

    Actually, subduction is the main problem with the tectonicstheory. The expansiontheory does not offer an alternative explanation for subduction, but argues there ain't no subduction going on at all. I haven't read the whole text at the above links either, but I believe it covers all objections against the subduction hypothesis.

    I haven't found any extensive material on this either, but I found this searching google: http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword14d.htm

    I also believe there are some things suggesting gravity wasn't as strong before as it is now, e.g. the size of the dinos. Not sure about that one though . [ edit: found a site -> http://www.dinox.freeserve.co.uk/english/ ]
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2003
  6. Jul 27, 2003 #5
    Have a look at point 1 & 3 on this page: http://www.wincom.net/earthexp/n/opdrift.htm

    Aren't these two alone enough to dismiss the continental drift theory ? ...
     
  7. Jul 27, 2003 #6

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.

    Also, one of the linked sites makes reference to sattelite measurements taken using VLBI, which show that Asia, Australia, and North America are moving towards each other. The site claims that

    How this change of latitudinal and longitudinal gridlines effects the the interferometric patterns of radio waves is not discussed.
     
  8. Jul 28, 2003 #7

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Interesting, but not much to go on there for orbital mechanics with respect to the moon & especially the sun.

    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.)

    Also, how ironic that a site which thinks dinosaurs were too big to function under 1 G cites Robert Bakker's book "The Dinosaur Heresies" as recommended reading (Bakker's book explains how even the big dinos were quite agile...and lower gravity was not mentioned in his book as far as I recall*).
    * - read it a few years ago
     
  9. Jul 28, 2003 #8

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  10. Jul 30, 2003 #9

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  11. Aug 6, 2003 #10
    I haven't been able to respond this past week due to extensive relaxing on my vacation :smile:

    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 .. 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 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 <<. Bring up 180°E (centered on 45°N).... Just to further illustrate the difference between the subduction zones.

    >> Fascinating relief map <<

    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.

    Hmm... Not knowing very much about animal dynamics, their statements sound pretty reasonable to me :smile:. So I'm sorry but, I think you'll have to point out those obvious problems ... if you don't mind.

    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.

    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.

    I don't think "40% smaller" was refering to the radius. Try volume instead...

    Again, this is clearly nonsense... He hasn't got it all figured out yet...

    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.
     
  12. Aug 7, 2003 #11

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    hang on, Hydr0matic, I do plan to respond...(busy week for me)
     
  13. Aug 7, 2003 #12

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    here's one quick tidbit...

    that link says the following:
    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.
     
  14. Aug 7, 2003 #13
    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?
     
  15. Aug 7, 2003 #14

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  16. Aug 8, 2003 #15
    You misunderstand

    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.
     
  17. Aug 15, 2003 #16
    The Earth Expands

    Far reaching theoretical considerations in favor of the expanding earth can be found also in Eugene Savov's Theory of Interaction.
     
  18. Oct 8, 2003 #17
    New Paper on Expanding Earth in mainstream journal...

    This may be interesting to this group:

    http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/li...699.2003.00929.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.
     
  19. Oct 8, 2003 #18

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I must have missed it; where is this conclusion stated?
     
  20. Oct 8, 2003 #19
    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...."
     
  21. Oct 8, 2003 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2003
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Expanding Earth
  1. Earth worms (Replies: 3)

  2. Life on Earth (Replies: 28)

  3. Life On Earth (Replies: 12)

Loading...