Opinions on the Expanding Earth Hypothesis

[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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 that's where the fossils came from.

 

[djmenck]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 occurring 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]

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]

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 got to 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 argument 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Well, I got to 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 argument 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]

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 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]

Originally posted by Andre
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.

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]

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:

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]

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:

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]

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

 

[djmenck]

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]

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.

 

[Nereid]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

 

[Nereid]

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]

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]

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