Search results

Trevor

If the mass is the same and gravity is the same, the less dense Earth would not be at equilibrium and would collapse back to the size it should be, as dictated by physics. Trevor

If I recall correctly, gravity is really absurdly weak compared to other fundamental forces... and that's the extend of my knowledge of the theoretical/crazy/whatever side of the fundamental forces. Honestly I don't feel at all qualified to comment without a serious literature review. :o Trevor

The Earth rotates at a given speed and the moon is of a given constant mass. As long as you average a measurement out for the right amount of time at a constant location so that the effects of other celestial objects cancel themselves out (a sine wave averages to zero over one period), the...

Either way, we can establish that we have measured no change in gravity... so there has been no change in mass of the Earth since those observations began. We HAVE, however, observed continents moving around in that timeframe. If the Earth is not expanding and the continents are moving...

One of my formulas effed up. So, now that my sheet has been checked, rechecked, and checked again... rEarth= 6378.1 km GrowthRate= 0.0125 m Years= 1 y TotalGrowth= 0.0125 m rEarthEnd= 6378.10000125 km EDIT: Corrected this value in Excel manually. The formula tried to round...

I messed up a formula. Your math is, however, still off. I'm copying numbers in to reply. Stand by... Trevor

EDIT: Hold the phone. Gotta check something. Trevor

Ok, here's an update to my numbers. I halved the increase in radius to make it more conservative and also accounted for the small radial increase (I had forgotten)... now you're only off by a factor of 46,782! :) Trevor

The mass of the sensor is irrelevant. I confirmed in my excel sheet - changing the mass of the sensor does not affect the change in gravitational force. The change in force of a larger Earth is greater than an 80kg person. Run the numbers and use the right formula. Trevor

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...

Haha, yes, I know. :) But regardless, it's always a generally good idea to actually check numbers before making claims! Trevor

Okay, just do your math! :p Trevor

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...

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. Regarding the earthquakes, those records extend back to the 1960's if you...

This is another image that wasn't what I was looking for, but shows my point well. There are many more deep, powerful earthquakes at subductions zones than any other plate boundary, showing that the plate is being force laterally into another and subducted. EDIT: The direct link looks...

Whoops! I was actually referring to a "map" like this: It shows the pattern of underground earthquakes at midocean ridges, showing the difference between it and a subduction zone as pictured above. Thanks though! :) Trevor

I hate to bail out of this discussion, but I don't really have the time to be reading about this stuff. Just want to point a couple things out though. First of all, if someone really truly believes that there is a big secret that all scientists are keeping from the public, I can never convince...

Okay. Plate tectonics and the expanding Earth idea coexisted for a while. As evidence was collected by scientists in the following decades, plate tectonics had an increasingly large body supporting it while the expanding Earth hypothesis did not. That is precisely why plate tectonics became...

This millenium's rendition of the expanding Earth theory is based on carefully cherry-picked evidence and a painstaking lack of observation over the past couple decades. Trevor