Expanding Earth Theory

Soiguapo wanders into a laser forum 3 days ago and delves straight into a huge mathmatical debate :crackup:

"I only wanted some info on a LM317 sheesh " :fightin:

Respect.

Have four green blocks.

That's clearly a debate however the universe is an amalgamation of 4 forces their associated bosons and the fermions they interact with. No single force is dominant. Without any one of them at precisely the strength they are found to be at molecules would collapse, stars wouldn't form, galaxies wouldn't form. We would be a hot plasma soup instead of an organization of complex proteins.

The early universe had to go through an accretion stage where nebulae had to turn from dust and gas to a solar system and this happened billions of times in our galaxy alone... During this process the electromagnetic force is clearly the culprit for Kickstarting thIngs into motion via electrostatic forces causing particles to combine until growing large enough gravity rears it's head and becomes the overwhelming force. Gravity is the weakest of our 4 known forces so I can see why someone may argue the electroweak force as its known now among many physicists is the dominant force in our existence.

It helps to know your math before you argue your point based on it. Lol

Isn't the weak nuclear force the weakest of the four? This is the force through which neutrinos are thought to interact with matter.

When it comes to the four forces and which is dominant, it depends on scale. At a purely subatomic scale, the strong nuclear force dominates and gravity is negligible. Although the electromagnetic force does not seem to be affected by scale like the other 3 forces.

No gravity is the weakest. The weak force has short action radius because it's boson is heavy and can't interact over large distances.

One thing about the "let's check gravity to rule out expansion".... What if.....

The Earth IS expanding(increasing volume) but also having its density decreased in a proportionate amount. Would that not result in a similar gravitational field?

Just a thought. I didn't read pages 2-4 though so someone may have mentioned this earlier.

Yes it would Isaac only mass incurs gravity not volume.

Also though just because it'd be similar doesn't mean the same. If the earth was small enough it's gravity could theoretically become a black hole if squeezed to a point small enough.

The biggest problem I see with that is there would be an accumulation of empty space. If volume increases while density decreases, it would seem vacuum pockets would be forming. Since we know the density of all known matter that forms the earth, unless matter is being added there should be empty space.

Density can be changed by temperature and pressure. Let's not forget these things can change. And do change all the time. Also, I am sure we have tons of vacuum pockets. What do you think is left after we tap oil wells? Or how do you explain underground cave systems. We aren't on a solid metal ball. It is a heterogenous mass of all the elements...it is a galactic fingerprint that is constantly in flux. Changing with every passing year. We are on a living entity flying, hurtling, through space.

This thread has veered off the path of scientific or mathematical accuracy so far it's a pointless discussion at this point in all honesty.

True, but if the crust of the earth were heated significantly enough to cause a density change, we would at the least be aware of it. Not to mention the oceans.

Also true that many things can leave pockets in the earth, such as mining, oil and natural gas extraction. Underground cave systems generally form from underground river systems. It doesn't leave vacuum. At least in some cases, something is there to fill in the space. Air, dirt, water, stone can all rush in to fill the vacuum. If the earth was expanding for the billions of years of it's existence, even more of these spaces would be there. It would seem by now we would have found some that couldn't be explained by known processes.

Deleted.

xirrious said:

Dude what are you talking about? That oil and any other resource stays here on the earth.. oil is turned to gas after its burnt. The matter is still there we should kill this thread it's plaqued by bad information nobody should read. This forum should be dedicated to accurate info based on science not bs speculation. Based on incorrect data and interpretation of theory.

Click to expand...

Wow. First, this is off topic. Why can't people post what they think?

Second, this is a laser forum, and it's not like a scientific paper is being written.
It's a discussion, no need to be rude.

Why should an off topic thread be killed that has no bearing on anyone? It isn't the same as misinformation on lasers, which can be a safety concern. Chill out, or just ignore the thread.

Good point it's no safety hazard but it's become bad info still. Sorry to be rude but bad info is bad info regarding lasers or not it ruins integrity on a forum wide scale in my opinion. However I am sorry for any rudeness I do apologize sincerely.

Also if you read a few posts back you'd see my post isn't off topic it's relevant to a previous post made.

Opinions should be allowed to be made absolutely but not information given as fact or truthful in any sense when it is the opposite.

Funny how acceptance of plate tectonics was a hard-fought battle when it was first introduced. Lots of unscientific appeals to authority came from that period. So for those reason I'm not going to ignore the claims of the expanding earth theory just out of hand. Plus, "scientific consensus" (as an argument) is an oxymoron, as such thing shouldn't be about "votes" but what evidence there is.

In that light, however, I want to see the evidence, and I want explanations for certain inconsistencies:

• If the earth is expanding, what is filling the void? We can't assume that there is additional mass being added. Crystalization (not likely)? Pressure? This would need to be a strong force, and one that slowly grows over time. This lack of a mechanism of action is really the biggest hurdle in accepting such a theory.
• If the plates of the earth only expand in certain locations, as is evidenced in oceanic ridges, where are the locations of significant differences in expansion required to maintain a spherical shape? When we look at the accretion zones, they really do show a plate-like motion, not a spreading-out motion.
• Following that, how to explain trenches and subduction zones, even if there is a net expansion?

Also, lots of these arguments for an expanding earth are equally valid for plate tectonics. While the theories may not necessarily be at odds with each other, other than plates sliding back into the mantle, citing plate tectonic evidence doesn't prove an expanding earth theory. We need to see evidence of the size of the earth increasing, not just moving around on the surface.

We'd probably see something like the subduction zones acting only as collision zones in line with how much the earth would be expanding. We should expect roughly the same age of rock at the "collision zones." However, what we see is that the top layer of the subduction zones have older material than the one sliding underneath. Also we don't see a sea floor older than about 200M years old. Only the "buoyant" continents are found to be extremely old.