Opinions on the Expanding Earth Hypothesis

[Nereid]

text manipulation

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]

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]

Nereid references

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]

GRACE and EE

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]

Geodesy

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]

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]

GPS

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?

 

[Andre]

I have another idea.

Earth is shrinking.

Why? Remember the dinosaurs. They were so big that they would probably not be able to move around on Earth right now. Same for the Pterodactylus and Aercheopteryx. These anumals would not have been able to soar of fly, given their mass and primitive equipment. However, both enigmas could be explained if the gravity was a lot less, millions of years ago. Assuming that yesNewton was correct with his universal law of gravity, then Earth gravity could only have been less if its mass was less or it's radius was bigger. Since mass is only increasing due to cosmic dust accumulation, we are left with the remaining possibility of an increased radius in the past. Hence, a shrinking Earth would explain the features from the past.

Now before you ridiculize my outrageous hypothesis with your brilliant tongue, more than compensating for your lack of physical awareness, NotNewton, you might be aware that an EE would work the other way around gving these creatures not a change to have existed.

 

[Colesakick]

Actually, the Earth could be expanding from the core, as with all accumulated space plasma. Let me explain (brace yourselves; this requires thinking outside the box):

Stars grow, this we know, but perhaps we were wrong about how and why they grow.

Though still not understood, plates of opposite charge, when placed ever so close together, produce new energy from “somewhere.” The process that produces this unexplained new energy is known as the Casimir effect. Has anyone considered that this surprising energy formation is a violation of what was thought to be a law forbidding the creation of energy from “somewhere” other than physical space? Of course they have, which is why zero point energy research is so lively today.

Having said that, suppose that plasma separate out into layers by the mass of the matter that comprise it. These layers (silicone, calcium, etc.. . ) carry specific charge. Some of these layers may very well be carrying out whatever physics it is that gives rise to the casimir effect, thereby adding mass to stars. Why shouldn’t this same process (or another, whatever you need to believe is the mechanism behind stars growing) that happens to plasmas in stars also cause earth’s plasma core to grow?