Expanding Earth Theory

[Trevor]

Earth is a rather large chuck of rock held together by gravity. I think everyone here can agree on that. Gravity compresses matter together until an equilibrium point is reached - at any given point inside the planet the pressure exerted outward by matter inside Earth is equal to the pressure exerted downward by matter on top of it.

My counterpoints to an expanding Earth presented as a list!

1. In order for the planet to be able to expand without matter being added to the system, the planet would need to become less dense.
2. If the planet suddenly became less dense, the core would become inherently more compressible.
3. The force exerted by matter downward would be the same because gravity remains unchanged because the total mass of a less dense Earth is still exactly the same.
4. However, the force exerted against gravity would be lower because the interior of the earth would not be as compressed.
5. The force inward would overwhelm the force outward, and the planet would collapse until equilibrium was reached again.

The only way for a planet to expand is for matter to be added to the system. Let's calculate exactly what would be required for this to be occurring!

The rate of North America drifting away from Europe is about 25mm per year. But wait, silly Trevor, it's not drifting, the Earth is expanding! So, how much matter per year would it take to sustain that growth?

The average (remember, Earth is an oblate spheroid) radius of the Earth is 6,378.1km, making the circumference 40,074.8km.

If in order for the Earth to grow 0.25m in circumference in 100 years, 20,340 cubic meters of material would be necessary.

This translates into a 40,680,159kg (average) asteroid or an 86,445,339kg iron-nickel meteor striking the Earth every 100 years. Its diameter would be 34m.

To put it in perspective, the crater at Meteor Crater, AZ is from a 50m diameter meteor. That crater is 50,000 years old. Since that time, the Earth would have needed to see at least a few hundred major meteor impacts, along with untolds thousands of small meteors that just break up in the atmosphere.

Most meteor showers are composed of rather small chunks of rock; a 10cm diameter meteor puts on a really good light show. 44 10cm meteors per hour, 365 days a year would be required to sustain the growth of expanding Earth. There are orders of magnitude more pebble-sized meteors than 10cm, so all you would have to do is go outside to see a really nice meteor shower all night, every night.

You'd think the astronomical studies of humany would include orders of magnitude more recorded instances of "shooting stars" if this were the case.

In Earth's infancy, it most certainly acquired matter from extraterrestrial bodies colliding with it. But that's slowed down by many orders of magnitude in the last couple billion years as objects in the Milky Way have been snatched into orbits of larger objects.

I dunno... I don't buy this theory.

Trevor

 

[Jmillerdoc]

Trevor, you did not take into account the one factor that could explain expansion, energy. Energy exerting it's force from the inside out. Just like the later stages that some stars (are theorized to) undergo when the energy exceeds gravity. As the the source of this strange energy, why not same mysterious force that (again theoretically) causes 80km thick continental plates to appear to glide so effortlessly over the thick putty like mantle underneath them. Why is one so preposterous and the other not? I'm sorry, but to be quite honest both seems bit preposterous to me.

I could be wrong but I suspect you build your argument from the paradigm of the solar accretion disk theory where by our solar system was created millions of thousands of years ago when the force of gravity began to cause a small central area to begin to accumulate more and more dust and gas, begin to spin somehow, and eventually the matter became so dense it ignited to become our sun. All the while our planets came into being in a similar fashion, gaining more and more angular momentum to ultimately have spin rates that exceed even the sun itself (but never mind the little guy behind the curtain),and several of which have angular momentum that are not in the same plane as the original accretion disk. Of course those were certainly knocked out of the plane by a collision with a large asteroid or something....yeah, that sounds correct.

I guess I'm just not willing to accept things at face value because there is so many things that seem to fly directly in the face of the most widely held theory of the day. Once you accept a theory and start to treat it as fact, you have completely lost the ability to think outside the box so to say. Everything forward gets tested against that theory and not observable facts or alternate theories. What does the scientific method say? What ever happened to the idea that should a piece of evidence be found that does not support a given theory, the theory is trashed and you look for another theory that assimilates the new evidence? Today it seems, especially in the area of astrophysics, that if a piece of evidence is found that does not support the standing theory it is either completely disregarded or is twisted beyond recognition to fit into the standing theory. Some I've mentioned already like the angular momentum of some planets being in the wrong direction or far too great to be accounted for by the current models of accretion disk theory. Others not mentioned are the force of gravity being so absurdly small to account for the observable universe without having to inject "dark matter" into the equation which constitutes almost as much as observed matter yet has not been actually seen (I know I know, that's why the name...). Also, the fact that electromagnetic force is massively greater than gravity yet all current theories seem to focus on the much weaker force as causal for the observed order of things.

Ultimately I like to try to keep an open mind about everything, especially when I see things that just don't seem to add up. I've always had a hard time with authority and the establishment I guess. Does that make me a nut job?

I wonder if anyone has ever posted anything here at LPF on Setterfield's theory of the decay of the speed of light over time. That's another really "out there" theory that is pretty cool to consider. Think of all the paradigms that would get thrown out the window if it could be proven that the speed of light is slowing down over time.

Anyways, I appreciate everyone's input. I also appreciate not being berated as a fool or nut job for posting this outrageous theory. At the end of the day proving this one way or another doesn't change the fact I've got to wake up at 4:30 tomorrow morning and go to work 2 hours earlier than usual. So, with that said I'm off to the reality of my dreams...

Good night!
JM

 

[Pi R Squared]

Here's an idea for you, maybe as the universe expands everything in it also expands too. Where the matter would come from I have no idea.

Alan

 

[xirrious]

Accretion is an electrostatic effect.

 

[NightExplorer96]

Here's an idea for you, maybe as the universe expands everything in it also expands too. Where the matter would come from I have no idea.

Alan

I have also been asking myself that question too. I mean...the "Law Of Matter" I think it is called states, "no matter can't be created or destroyed, only moved". I often wonder how with all the thing the human species builds(buildings, roads, appliances, etc...) we aren't worried about running out of materials.

-Alex

 

[Pi R Squared]

I have also been asking myself that question too. I mean...the "Law Of Matter" I think it is called states, "no matter can be created or destroyed, only moved". I often wonder how with all the thing the human species builds(buildings, roads, appliances, etc...) we aren't worried about running out of materials.

-Alex

I believe your thinking of the "law of the conservation of energy". Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only changed, however energy can be changed into matter and matter into energy.

Alan

 

[Trevor]

Trevor, you did not take into account the one factor that could explain expansion, energy. Energy exerting it's force from the inside out. Just like the later stages that some stars (are theorized to) undergo when the energy exceeds gravity. As the the source of this strange energy, why not same mysterious force that (again theoretically) causes 80km thick continental plates to appear to glide so effortlessly over the thick putty like mantle underneath them. Why is one so preposterous and the other not? I'm sorry, but to be quite honest both seems bit preposterous to me.

Yes, I did indeed fail to take into account the energy in the Earth's core.

You, however, failed to take into account the fact that the Earth is NOT a star.

Besides, supernovae occur when the force of gravity exceeds the force exerted outward by nuclear fusion. At that point, the star collapses.

The phenomena that occur at the core of a star and the phenomena that occur at the core of the Earth are metaphorically and literally worlds apart.

The Earths core is (very, very slowly) cooling... no new energy is being released.

Continental plates drifting around are happening on a planetary scale. Do you not believe that glaciers flow down mountains very slowly, despite it being ice on rock?

I could be wrong but I suspect you build your argument from the paradigm of the solar accretion disk theory where by our solar system was created millions of thousands of years ago when the force of gravity began to cause a small central area to begin to accumulate more and more dust and gas, begin to spin somehow, and eventually the matter became so dense it ignited to become our sun. All the while our planets came into being in a similar fashion, gaining more and more angular momentum to ultimately have spin rates that exceed even the sun itself (but never mind the little guy behind the curtain),and several of which have angular momentum that are not in the same plane as the original accretion disk. Of course those were certainly knocked out of the plane by a collision with a large asteroid or something....yeah, that sounds correct.

What's your alternate theory? Just because it doesn't make sense to you personally, or work within the framework you believe the universe is constructed does not mean it can't be true.

Do an experiment that will show you what happens when two celestial bodies collide. Get two spherical magnets and roll them toward each other on a table. When they collide, what do they do?

Spoiler: They rotate.

Why must the sun necessarily have a greater rate of rotation than the planets? What have you based that theory on?

Why must the sun "somehow ignite?" Are you familiar at all with the process of nuclear fusion?

Accretion is an electrostatic effect.

Uhh, not in the framework of astrophysics... :thinking:

Anyway, I'll just leave this here to cover anything I missed...



Trevor

 

[Soiguapo]

Let me present some evidence for an expanding earth.

This video summarizes most of it up.

To recap the video, the ocean plate in the pacific is less than 200 million years old.
Age of the Ocean

Coastlines in the pacific match up. The most obvious one is Australia and South America. They fit together like pieces of a puzzle.

Lastly, Biogeography suggests that the pacific was closed. Iguanas, for example, are found only in central america and polynesia.

More details can be found here, by the same guy who made that video.
4th Revolt

Another small piece of evidence is that south america and africa don't match up right. When you match up the northern end, the southern end is seperated, unless you fit them on a smaller globe. On a smaller globe the gap closes up.

I am convinced that the earth is expanding. The evidence is there. Simply because I don't know how it could be expanding doesn't mean its not happening. It would be like finding en elephant in my bedroom but denying that it is there because I can't imagine how it got there.

Also, here is a quote from George Gaylord Simpson, a well respected and leading scientist of his time.
"The fact that almost all paleontologists say that paleontological data oppose the various theories of continental drift should, perhaps, obviate further discussion of this point and would do so were it not that the adherents of these theories all agree that paleontological data do support them. It must be almost unique in scientific history for a group of students admittedly without special competence in a given field thus to reject the all but unanimous verdict of those who do have such competence."
-Simpson in Mammals and the Nature of Continents

Simpson was arguing that continents don't move. The argument quoted above is basically saying that since almost all scientists agreed that all continents are fixed then it must be true. We know now that Simpson was wrong. Scientists just assumed that the continents were in fixed positions, with no data to support it. Of course, biogeography and matching coastlines eventually showed that the continents are in fact moving in relation to each other.

Despite not knowing how the continents move science could not deny that it was happening. Magma convection has been hypothesized to try to explain it. In reality the expanding earth is causing the plate movements.

As science continues to advance, more evidence will emerge and eventually uproot the assumption that mainstream science has that the earth is of fixed size.

 

[Trevor]

Let me present some evidence for an expanding earth.

Awesome!

This video summarizes most of it up.

Not worth my time, sorry.

To recap the video, the ocean plate in the pacific is less than 200 million years old.
Age of the Ocean

Plate tectonics explains this.

Coastlines in the pacific match up. The most obvious one is Australia and South America. They fit together like pieces of a puzzle.

Which is more preposterous...

Mass appearing out of nowhere?

OR

Two continents coincidentally having complementary coastlines?

When you hear hoofbeats, you should think horses... not zebras.

Lastly, Biogeography suggests that the pacific was closed. Iguanas, for example, are found in central america and polynesia.

Place tectonics explains this as well.

Another small piece of evidence is that south america and africa don't match up right. When you match up the northern end, the southern end is seperated, unless you fit them on a smaller globe. On a smaller globe the gap closes up.

Under the expanding Earth theory, Alaska doesn't fit either. I guess we should throw out both theories then!

I am convinced that the earth is expanding. The evidence is there. Simply because I don't know how it could be expanding doesn't mean its not happening. It would be like finding en elephant in my bedroom but denying that it is there because I can't imagine how it got there.

Plate tectonics explains everything that expanding Earth does, only better in every way. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean the rest of us do not.

Also, here is a quote from George Gaylord Simpson, a well respected and leading scientist of his time.
"The fact that almost all paleontologists say that paleontological data oppose the various theories of continental drift should, perhaps, obviate further discussion of this point and would do so were it not that the adherents of these theories all agree that paleontological data do support them. It must be almost unique in scientific history for a group of students admittedly without special competence in a given field thus to reject the all but unanimous verdict of those who do have such competence."
-Simpson in Mammals and the Nature of Continents

Simpson was arguing that continents don't move. The argument quoted above is basically saying that since almost all scientists agreed that all continents are fixed then it must be true. We know now that Simpson was wrong. Scientists just assumed that the continents were in fixed positions, with no data to support it. Of course, biogeography and matching coastlines eventually showed that the continents are in fact moving in relation to each other.

He was a scientist at the time plate tectonics was proposed. He died in 1984.

A lot has happened since 1984.

Despite not knowing how the continents move science could not deny that it was happening. Magma convection has been hypothesized to try to explain it. In reality the expanding earth is causing the plate movements.

Yet we can measure the diameter of the Earth and have never observed it expanding.

And we HAVE observed subduction of plates through precise detection of earthquakes at subduction zones.

As science continues to advance, more evidence will emerge and eventually uproot the assumption that mainstream science has that the earth is of fixed size.

The modern world will be waiting.

Trevor

 

[Jmillerdoc]

Trevor, although everything you said sounds good there is still a problem with it. It's all theory yet you state it as if it were fact. I would submit to you that there is no clear observable evidence for much of what you stated that can be translated into fact, except for maybe that the earth is not a star.

What happens if you pull the foundation out from under a building? It usually collapses. This is what I view to be the problem with everything spoken about in the currently held models. Theories can be very poor foundations, and in this field almost everything is theoretical and theories are built upon theories are built upon theories, ad infinitum.

I'm not suggesting that some of them are not excellent theories, just that they are what they are. Again, once you attempt to establish a theory as fact you lose something so crucial to scientific advancement. Namely, the ability to truly think outside a given paradigm and possibly never come to a realization of truth.

The life of a theory should be one of criticism and skepticism, always being tested against newly discovered information to see if it stands or falls. The ego should have no place in the scientific method because it clouds judgement and works to sometimes sustain the unsustainable. It is at it's core the enemy of truth and many such theories today seem plagued by the egos of the "scientists" that adhere to them.

I'm curious how the giants of centuries and even decades ago would approach a discussion like this? Einstein, Newton, Kepler....

JM

 

[Trevor]

Trevor, although everything you said sounds good there is still a problem with it. It's all theory yet you state it as if it were fact. I would submit to you that there is no clear observable evidence for much of what you stated that can be translated into fact, except for maybe that the earth is not a star.

What happens if you pull the foundation out from under a building? It usually collapses. This is what I view to be the problem with everything spoken about in the currently held models. Theories can be very poor foundations, and in this field almost everything is theoretical and theories are built upon theories are built upon theories, ad infinitum.

I'm not suggesting that some of them are not excellent theories, just that they are what they are. Again, once you attempt to establish a theory as fact you lose something so crucial to scientific advancement. Namely, the ability to truly think outside a given paradigm and possibly never come to a realization of truth.

The life of a theory should be one of criticism and skepticism, always being tested against newly discovered information to see if it stands or falls. The ego should have no place in the scientific method because it clouds judgement and works to sometimes sustain the unsustainable. It is at it's core the enemy of truth and many such theories today seem plagued by the egos of the "scientists" that adhere to them.

I'm curious how the giants of centuries and even decades ago would approach a discussion like this? Einstein, Newton, Kepler....

JM

The theory of plate tectonics has stood the test of time. We have observed mountains (heh) of evidence in its favor. The expanding Earth hypothesis was dismissed decades ago because of a lack of evidence in its favor.

Both hypotheses were approached by people far more qualified than you and I, and plate tectonics became the accepted explanation for the way the Earth works. It has been tested as both technology and scientific understanding have advanced, and it has held up admirably. The study of plate tectonics did not cease once it became accepted. What gives you that idea? Are you a publishing researcher in geology who is unsatisfied with the amount of annual research published on the matter?

Belief in an expanding Earth requires VERY selective acceptance of evidence, an inherently unscientific practice.

I honestly don't understand how you can attack the methods used to prove plate tectonics while simultaneously ignoring the horrendously unscientific methods used to "prove" the expanding Earth theory.

Trevor

 

[RayJay]

Trevor, although everything you said sounds good there is still a problem with it. It's all theory yet you state it as if it were fact. I would submit to you that there is no clear observable evidence for much of what you stated that can be translated into fact, except for maybe that the earth is not a star.

What happens if you pull the foundation out from under a building? It usually collapses. This is what I view to be the problem with everything spoken about in the currently held models. Theories can be very poor foundations, and in this field almost everything is theoretical and theories are built upon theories are built upon theories, ad infinitum.

I'm not suggesting that some of them are not excellent theories, just that they are what they are. Again, once you attempt to establish a theory as fact you lose something so crucial to scientific advancement. Namely, the ability to truly think outside a given paradigm and possibly never come to a realization of truth.

The life of a theory should be one of criticism and skepticism, always being tested against newly discovered information to see if it stands or falls. The ego should have no place in the scientific method because it clouds judgement and works to sometimes sustain the unsustainable. It is at it's core the enemy of truth and many such theories today seem plagued by the egos of the "scientists" that adhere to them.

I'm curious how the giants of centuries and even decades ago would approach a discussion like this? Einstein, Newton, Kepler....

JM

PLEASE read this.. The Six Most Misused Words in Science


The definition of "Scientific Theory" is not the same as the general use word "Theory"

Like when creationists say "evolution is just a theory" .. It actually really pisses me off.

Also, just in case no one bothers to click the link..

Theory is probably one of the most abused scientific terms out there. The phrase “that’s just a theory” is a common attack on scientific theories by people who don’t understand the term. How many times have you heard anti-evolutionists use the phrase “well, evolution is just a theory. Get back to me when it’s a law.” Theories are one of the pinnacles of science and are widely accepted in the scientific community as being true. A theory is not a random idea that scientists came up with on the spur of the moment; they have been well tested and shown to be true under the rigors of scientific experiment. Whereas a theory can never be proven true, they do have evidence that supports the original idea, demonstrating its “trueness.”

 

[Soiguapo]

Which is more preposterous...

Mass appearing out of nowhere?

I don't think it is coming out of nowhere. I think there is a an explanation coincides perfectly with science. We know about neutrinos. Trillions of them are passing through you every second. These particles also have mass. I think other particles exist that pass through earth and have mass, we just haven't discovered them yet. Of course a bunch of invisible particles can't expand the earth. They have to form into larger particles. Kinda like the reverse of what particle accelerators do. Based on that, I don't find it that preposterous that the earth is gaining new mass.

Place tectonics explains this as well.

Are you referring to rafting events? You know that Simpson held on to that explanation to deny that the Atlantic was once closed. Many of these "rafting events" happen across the pacific and line up across the coastline, meaning that Polynesia matches up with central america. Australia and new zealand matches with south america. Start adding up the data points and the random rafting event explanation becomes weaker and weaker.

Under the expanding Earth theory, Alaska doesn't fit either. I guess we should throw out both theories then!

I am not suggesting that the gap disproves continental drift as it stands. I am simply saying it matches up better under the expanding earth. I understand that there are many other variables in play here

Plate tectonics explains everything that expanding Earth does, only better in every way. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean the rest of us do not.

Could you explain how plate tectonics explains the age of the pacific better than the expanding earth? I understand that I am supposed to believe that all of the ocean crust older than 200 millions years old has subducted. I just think that it is quite coincidence that nothing older than 200 my survived.

Yet we can measure the diameter of the Earth and have never observed it expanding.

I assume you are referring to the GPS measurements that have been taken of the earth. In order to keep the GPS system from drifting it needs to be constantly calibrated and the mathematical model used to calculate gps positions assumes a fixed size earth. This means the conclusion of a fixed size earth is embedded in the GPS, so it doesn't make a good candidate for measuring earth growth.

And we HAVE observed subduction of plates through precise detection of earthquakes at subduction zones.

Expanding earth explains that too.

"Subduction Zone"

When you try to place a continent with higher curvature on a larger planet, the continental crust forms an angle with the adjacent oceanic crust. This is what makes that subduction shape.

The modern world will be waiting.

Trevor

Remember this discussion when it happens.

 

[Trevor]

I don't think it is coming out of nowhere. I think there is a an explanation coincides perfectly with science. We know about neutrinos. Trillions of them are passing through you every second. These particles also have mass. I think other particles exist that pass through earth and have mass, we just haven't discovered them yet. Of course a bunch of invisible particles can't expand the earth. They have to form into larger particles. Kinda like the reverse of what particle accelerators do. Based on that, I don't find it that preposterous that the earth is gaining new mass.

I'd love to see a citation of a particle physics paper that indicates an observation of this phenomenon, or even just a hint that it MAY POSSIBLY be true.

Are you a particle physicist?

Are you referring to rafting events? You know that Simpson held on to that explanation to deny that the Atlantic was once closed. Many of these "rafting events" happen across the pacific and line up across the coastline, meaning that Polynesia matches up with central america. Australia and new zealand matches with south america. Start adding up the data points and the random rafting event explanation becomes weaker and weaker.

I'm going to need to see a citation on that, from a credible source published in this millenium. Get back to me when you finf it.

I am not suggesting that the gap disproves continental drift as it stands. I am simply saying it matches up better under the expanding earth. I understand that there are many other variables in play here

If you understand there are other variables in play, perhaps you should consider taking them into account.

Could you explain how plate tectonics explains the age of the pacific better than the expanding earth? I understand that I am supposed to believe that all of the ocean crust older than 200 millions years old has subducted. I just think that it is quite coincidence that nothing older than 200 my survived.

...imagine a conveyor belt?

I assume you are referring to the GPS measurements that have been taken of the earth. In order to keep the GPS system from drifting it needs to be constantly calibrated and the mathematical model used to calculate gps positions assumes a fixed size earth. This means the conclusion of a fixed size earth is embedded in the GPS, so it doesn't make a good candidate for measuring earth growth.

I am not talking about GPS.

We can precisely measure the uplift of mountain ranges (rising due to plates colliding!) to sub-millimeter accuracy. We would have noticed if the entire planet were growing.

It is not, of course.

Expanding earth explains that too.

"Subduction Zone"

When you try to place a continent with higher curvature on a larger planet, the continental crust forms an angle with the adjacent oceanic crust. This is what makes that subduction shape.

WOW. NO. Just no.

Plates collide at a subduction zone, causing pressure to build up. That pressure is released in the form of earthquakes.

In the expanding Earth theory, the plates are always SPREADING - therefore there is no pressure buildup, and it cannot even come close to explaining the observed pattern of earthquakes that matches the prediction of plate tectonics.

This theory is the blind leading the blind. It's astounding.

Remember this discussion when it happens.

And you remember this discussion when you're browsing geoscience journals and see no papers published after the early 80's that defend this crackpot theory.

Trevor

 

[Jmillerdoc]

Attacked? Really?

And which horrendously unscientific methods are you referring to?

 

[Trevor]

Attacked? Really?

And which horrendously unscientific methods are you referring to?

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