Opinions on the Expanding Earth Hypothesis

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the Expanding Earth Hypothesis, with participants expressing skepticism about its validity due to its failure to adequately explain geological phenomena like subduction. Some argue that the hypothesis dismisses subduction entirely, which contradicts observable evidence such as volcanic activity and tectonic movements. Concerns are raised about the implications of Earth's increasing mass on its orbital mechanics and gravitational forces, questioning the feasibility of the hypothesis. Critics highlight that empirical evidence, including fossil records and geological formations, contradicts the notion of a significantly smaller Earth in the past. Overall, the consensus leans towards skepticism regarding the Expanding Earth Hypothesis, emphasizing the need for robust explanations for established geological processes.
  • #61
Anyone still interested in this topic?

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.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #62
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.
 
  • #63
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #64
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'?
 
  • #65
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 :wink:
 
  • #66
Shenme?

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 :wink:
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. :wink:
 
  • #67
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 separate 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
 
  • #68
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?
 
  • #70
Expanding Earth is logical

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
 
  • #71
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

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #72
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.
 
  • #73
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 comes into mind.

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.
 
Last edited:
  • #74
Newboy

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.
 
  • #75
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?
 
  • #76
Starting four posts

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 occurring 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[/url] 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 gravitational 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 [PLAIN]www.astrogeology.usgs.gov/gallery/mapsandglobes/mars.html let's 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77
Mass X 6 effect on Erth's orbit

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.
 
  • #78
The moon does not revolve around the Earth

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.
 
  • #79
Smooth paleomagnetic swings

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 because 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.
 
  • #80
2 paleomagnetic sciences

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.
 
  • #81
Magnetic latitudes

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.
 
  • #82
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
 
  • #83
Response to Andre

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.
 
  • #84
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #85
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.
 
  • #86
numbers?

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).
 
  • #87
Greetings

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
 
  • #88
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 :wink: 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).
 
  • #89
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).
 
  • #90
Moon Response

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.