Expanding Earth Theory

Pi R Squared said:

Good point but not just plate tectonics, the earths magnetic field is constantly and slowly changing position. The south pole hasn't always been the south pole.

Click to expand...

This is a common misconception about pole reversal. The Earth does not physically turn over, just the magnetic field. If Earth simply inflated in place, Antarctica would have always been at the "bottom" of the Earth.

I agree, the earthquake data is very consistent. This causes me to ask the question, did they establish the subduction zones based on the earthquake data or was the data of the distribution of earth quakes that came after. If it was the former then trying to use earthquake data as proof is circular logic and wouldn't hold up.

Click to expand...

Regarding the earthquakes, those records extend back to the 1960's if you read the webpage. Either way, the pattern of earthquakes show unidirectional lateral forcing... not sure what you're getting at.

All that means is japan and those other bits of continental crust were connected to the mainland between 40-80 million of years ago. Eventually, these pieces broke off and younger crust filled in the gap. This is similar to how iceland is currently being split in two.

Click to expand...

Umm. What? Did you look at the diagram? The part of the Pacific plate subducting under Japan is 140 million years old.

The Pacific plate is ENORMOUS, even if you only factor in the parts over 100 million years old.

If the expanding Earth hypothesis is true, ONLY the center of the Pacific plate could be that old, because it grew outward in all directions as the Earth expanded.

It is basic geometry. If the Earth supposedly expanded and kept its spherical shape, it MUST have expanded evenly, therefore no old rock must exist at the edge of oceanic plates.

You are denying a basic tenet of the hypothesis.

Trevor

I'm saying the idea doesn't jive with our current understanding of physics at this time. There may well be a other system that acts as the mechanism. However breaking this system down regardless of its composition leaves us with simple physical theories. For any mechanism or system acting as one to expand the earth we still must comply with nature's laws. Nothing has been shown here that's true proof. Solid math is better then throwing ideas out based on misinterpreted information.

So again for us to expand heat is required. Alot. We would notice this. We would also notice any other possible causes like a sudden density drop or any number of methods of expansion. Etc.

I was thinking if the earth only expanded at those "seams", it would not stay a oblate spheroid

The earth expands and contracts regularly due to our rotation. And the moon. And our orbit plays into it. But that's not what we are talking about here. Those seams you speak of have been moving for millions if not billions of years considering the earth's age.

Soiguapo said:

The changes are minuscule. We would need instrumentation precise to the billionth degree. If we wanted to measure the change in gravity, for example, the gravity your body would have on the gravity meter at just a meter away would be enough to overpower the change measured from the earth's mass increase.

Click to expand...

For the interest of the others in this thread, this is mathematically false.

If Earth grew 25mm by gaining more material of the same density, it would exert 0.0000093932576 more Newtons on a person weighing 80kg.

That is 140,346 times the effect of an 80kg person standing one meter away from you (or a sensor). They would exert a gravitational force of 0.0000000000669 Newtons.

You need to do the math, or you end up wrong by a factor of 140,000...

Trevor

I love that word, oblate spheroid.

As the OP I really was hoping this would remain a fairly civil discourse. Although I don't have the power to keep anyone from getting personal and tacky, I will still ask that we try to keep it friendly. I know it's possible to have a conversation and exchange of ideas here without hitting below the belt.

When I have some time later I wanted to point out a few of the arguments from the EE theory that I thought weren't easily dismissed. It's those particular points I would like to see some discourse around.

Gotta get my daughter to bed now, will try to "expand" a little more later.....

Okay, just do your math!

Trevor

May I agree?

xirrious said:

May I agree?

Click to expand...

You might....

By the way, the math above was not mine :yh:

Jmillerdoc said:

You might....

By the way, the math above was not mine :yh:

Click to expand...

Haha, yes, I know.

But regardless, it's always a generally good idea to actually check numbers before making claims!

Trevor

Trevor said:

If the expanding Earth hypothesis is true, ONLY the center of the Pacific plate could be that old, because it grew outward in all directions as the Earth expanded.

It is basic geometry. If the Earth supposedly expanded and kept its spherical shape, it MUST have expanded evenly, therefore no old rock must exist at the edge of oceanic plates.

You are denying a basic tenet of the hypothesis.

Trevor

Click to expand...

I guess I misunderstood the original question. Mid ocean ridges still apply to the expanding earth, the new ocean crust forms in the center of the ocean as the earth expands meaning the newer stuff is in the middle of the ocean. I don't see the problem here.

The little bit about japan breaking off was in reference to the small bit of young oceanic crust on the west of japan.

Trevor said:

For the interest of the others in this thread, this is mathematically false.

If Earth grew 25mm by gaining more material of the same density, it would exert 0.0000093932576 more Newtons on a person weighing 80kg.

That is 140,346 times the effect of an 80kg person standing one meter away from you (or a sensor). They would exert a gravitational force of 0.0000000000669 Newtons.

You need to do the math, or you end up wrong by a factor of 140,000...

Trevor

Click to expand...

I reworked the numbers, we both were wrong. Let me show my work this time.

Earths Radius
r=6371000 m
Change in circumference
dc = 0.025 m
Change in radius
dr = dc / (2 * pi) = 0.00397 m

Earths volume
v = 4/3 * pi * r^3 = 1.0827094964226x10^21 m^3
Volume a year from now
v' = 4/3 * pi * (r+dr)^3 = 1.08270949845117x10^21 m^3

Volume ratio
dv = v'/v = 1.0000000019

Force of gravity in a year
g' = 9.8 * dv = 9.8000000184 m/s^2

Change in gravity
dg = d' - 9.8 = 1.83611668091999E-008 m/s^2


Now for the acceleration a person has on an object a meter away
Mass of person
m = 80kg
distance
d = 1m
acceleration
a = G * m / (d ^2) = 5.339072E-009 m/s^2

That means its about a factor of
a/dg = 0.2907806489

Of course, move that person to only be half a meter away and you get
a/dg = 1.1631225957

meaning, at half a meter away, the gravitational pull of the person exceeded change of the earth's pull.

You used the wrong formula. You need to use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Your calcultion does not follow the laws of physics.

Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My calculation used a 25mm change in radius, but it still proves the point.

Besides, if you're measuring gravitation in the Z direction, a person standing near the sensor on the same XY plane will not alter the Z reading. Basic physics.

Trevor

Why use Newtons Law when Einstein said it better?

Trevor said:

You used the wrong formula. You need to use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My calculation used a 25mm change in radius, but it still proves the point.

Trevor

Click to expand...

Since we don't know the weight of the sensor we can't calculate Newtons, that's why I calculated the acceleration on the sensor instead

m1 = mass of the sensor
m1a = F = G * m1 * m2 / (r ^ 2)
a = F / m1 = G * m2 / (r ^2)

So the numbers using a change in radius instead of circumference
gives a ratio, at 1 m of
0.0462792209

So yeah, I guess these comparisons aren't doing much good without a good number for the change in radius. I will get back to you once I have a more solid number on the rate of growth.

That equation is wrong the end of the first just contains distance no radius or squaring

Gravity=F
Newtons constant=G
Distance=d
Mass of two object gravitationally attracted=m1 and m2.

F=G(m1*m2)/d^2