Expanding Earth Theory

[Jmillerdoc]

I'm not sure you have been reading all of my posts. I would say that if I've attacked anything of either of these two theories it was with equal fervor on both.

I must confess that I did not expect a well stated response on my last question . Having said that, are you aware if any particular compilation of material that carefully outlines what you suggest? That information was cherry picked and that more recent observations have been ignored?

 

[Trevor]

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 accepted.

You would have to ignore all the evidence collected in the last thirty years supporting plate tectonics in order to believe that the expanding Earth hypothesis is even remotely plausible.

To place the theories on equal footing is to ignore more than fifty years of scientific research. If you want to see the progression of the theory of plate tectonics over the years, I encourage you to read the Wikipedia article as well as the academic papers and books that it cites as sources.

We can measure the miniscule drift of the North American plate toward Asia. We can measure the miniscule uplift of Mount Everest. We would have noticed the planet growing.

Soooo... out of curiosity, what classes did you take at Texas A&M, and how long ago was it?

EDIT: Interesting article... http://geology.about.com/od/platetectonics/a/Expanding-Earth-Animation.htm

Trevor

 

[Soiguapo]

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?

I'm not a particle physicist. I will keep an eye out for anything though. There is a lot in particles physics we have yet to learn. It not hard to imagine some form of quark/muon/neutrino/ect... reactions occuring that we have yet to discover.

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.

The trans-Pacific zipper effect

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

I do. Believe me, I run this around in my head all the time coming up with arguments and counter arguments. At the end of the day though, I still keep coming back to the same conclusion. The earth is expanding.

...imagine a conveyor belt?

I get the reasoning behind magma convection currents. I just find it very unfortunate for the theory of plate tectonics that no ocean crust older than 200 million years survived to support their claim that the pacific ocean was around way back then.

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.

Alright, so how are the measurements taken then? The expansion is only a few millimeters per year. That is only an increase in the billionths of the earths radius, even slight errors in calculations or measurements is enough to overpower the change is radius.

WOW. NO. Just no.

I'm sorry my drawing was so crude. I had to throw it together in gimp really quickly. Groundbreaking stuff doesn't have the advantage of google image search to rely on. Despite being so simplistic it still shows the basic principle of how "subduction zones" are compatible with the expanding earth.

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.

Earthquakes also happen at the mid ocean rifts. So obviously subduction isn't the only possible explanation for an earthquake. Although I do have to admit, I have no explanation for the distribution and magnitude of earthquakes, but I that is not reason enough to discount expanding earth all together. I'm sure there is an explanation for it.

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

I really do study this out. I have read through evidences for subduction and plate tectonics. I am not holding to this idea because I think mainstream science is corrupt or some other stupid conspiracy theory. I just know by studying history that scientific consensus, even backed by evidence, can be wrong. The evidence for an expanding earth is there. I realize that evidence does not mean proof, but when I look at the data the expanding earth just seems to match up better.

Do you really not see the evidence for it? At all?

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

I'm sorry you feel that way. It seems like you view me as some lunatic who thinks the earth is hollow, we didn't land on the moon, and that the government is run by space aliens. I'm not. I assure I work through this rationally and try to see both sides. Just because I haven't sided with mainstream science on this issue does not mean i'm an idiot. Any groundbreaking idea in science is bound to contradict current understanding. I mean to imply that something that contradicts mainstream science is groundbreaking. Such a claim would be absurd. I just wish you would give this some consideration, despite the fact that the scientific community disagrees with it.

 

[Soiguapo]

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 accepted.

I know the history of the two theories.

You would have to ignore all the evidence collected in the last thirty years supporting plate tectonics in order to believe that the expanding Earth hypothesis is even remotely plausible.

To place the theories on equal footing is to ignore more than fifty years of scientific research. If you want to see the progression of the theory of plate tectonics over the years, I encourage you to read the Wikipedia article as well as the academic papers and books that it cites as sources.

I will look into some of the evidences more. So far I have seen GPS measurements, mapping of subduction zones, and isotopes from volcanos. Do you have anything else to add to the list? I actually do appreciate the scrutiny. I want to refine my ideas and try to have proper explanations for things. If you and mainstream science are right, then that will lead me to plate tectonics.

We can measure the miniscule drift of the North American plate toward Asia. We can measure the miniscule uplift of Mount Everest. We would have noticed the planet growing.

Any movement needs a point of reference to measure from. I would be very interested in knowing from what frame of reference was the movement of north america measured.

Soooo... out of curiosity, what classes did you take at Texas A&M, and how long ago was it?

I am currently studying computer science at BYU, so no I don't have a science degree. True, this means I don't have as much credibility as someone who does, but it also means that my job doesn't depend on agreeing with mainstream science.

I have learned about subduction and plate tectonics many times in different science classes throughout my education. I even watched a Bill Nye episode about it when I was young.

There has always been one thing about subduction that has never made sense to me. Perhaps this is why I found expanding earth so intriguing in the first place. What has never made any sense, is how come a subducting slap of rock can bend at such a sharp angle, and then straighten back out? Isn't rock brittle? Wouldn't the subducting slab be crushed into gravel as it bent? If it would bend at the collision point then why doesn't it stay bent and curl around? As a kid, I always thought the sharp angle of subducting slab shown in diagrams was an exaggeration, and that it happened more gradually, or at less of a steep angle. Turns out that it is not an exaggeration at all. Perhaps its my lack of understand of rock in large quantities. Could you point me to some literature that explains how subduction zones can have such a sharp bend in rock?

EDIT: Interesting article... The Expanding-Earth / Plate-Tectonic Animation

Trevor

I've read that too

 

[xirrious]

Wow this is crazy. People misinterpret evidence lol. We aren't expanding. Plates shift they but I've yet seen good evidence we are expanding.

 

[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 them otherwise. In this case, my suggestion is to read academic material published by those scientists... if someone doesn't trust those thousands of scientists there is absolutely nothing that I can do.

Regarding the earthquakes, sure - there may be "some explanation" given by the expanding Earth hypothesis. But does it really explain better than plate tectonics? When I took physical geology, the textbook had one of those nifty earthquake maps for both the midocean ridge and a subduction zone. Was super neat... I'm trying to find a PDF of my book. Seems few people pirates geology textbooks.

Regarding this image... http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/image/age_oceanic_lith.jpg

How does the expanding Earth hypothesis explain the age of the Pacific plate where it bumps into Asia?

In order for the Earth to expand and remain a sphere, it woud need to expand evenly. Every single oceanic plate would need to be older in the center than it is on the edges. This is not the case with the Pacific plate - it is very young on its eastern edge and very old on its western edge. If it was formed due to an expansion of the Earth, the Earth would not be a sphere due to the uneven expansion. We are pretty sure the Earth is a sphere. Or rather, an oblate spheroid.

Trevor

 

[RayJay]

Here you go Trev..

 

[Trevor]

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

 

[RayJay]

Ahhh.. Sorry. Misunderstood..

So this..

 

[Trevor]

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 terrible. Images probably best viewed in a new tab on a white background... ><

And the legend:

This is a map of magnitude 5+ earthquakes. The color of the dot represents the hypocentral depth. Note that deeper earthquakes occur where a plate is being forced down into the mantle.

Source: Introduction to Plate Tectonics

Wooo, geology!

But I really need to head to work.

Trevor

 

[trencheel303]

His models are much more consistent with what is observed in the world as seen than the ones Plate tectonics puts forth IMHO.

That's exactly what the flat earth society says, and some of them can even make it sound plausible. "The earth looks flat, therefore it is flat". It sounds like a good argument until you realise that almost nothing is as it actually appears on face value.

The whole notion of the earth "expanding" just sounds ridiculous and that alone makes me very sceptical. If the earth was expanding we Earthlings would see the appreciable changes brought by it. I'll watch the video, but the whole thing does sound along the lines of theories like flat earth.

Some people have completely wacky theories - a guy on another forum I frequent believes global warming is basically a US government conspiracy changing the condition of the planet, and is nothing at all to do with the fact that we're coming out of an ice age and pumping pollution into the atmosphere.

 

[Soiguapo]

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.

I was going to say the same thing, this will be my last post. While I am very passionate about this subject, if we continue this discussion we will be just talking past each other and not get anywhere. I really do appreciate the discussion though. I did enjoy, I hope I haven't left you with a bad taste in your mouth.

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 them otherwise. In this case, my suggestion is to read academic material published by those scientists... if someone doesn't trust those thousands of scientists there is absolutely nothing that I can do.

I agree, scientists live to bring groundbreaking discoveries to the world. They wouldn't any knowledge back. I do, however, believe that the scientific community can misinterpret data. If something is enough to fool one smart person it is enough to fool many. In this situation, I may be the fool but since I don't need to agree with science to find and hold down a job, I am going to keep investigating the expanding earth theory on my own time.

Regarding the earthquakes, sure - there may be "some explanation" given by the expanding Earth hypothesis. But does it really explain better than plate tectonics? When I took physical geology, the textbook had one of those nifty earthquake maps for both the midocean ridge and a subduction zone. Was super neat... I'm trying to find a PDF of my book. Seems few people pirates geology textbooks.

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.

Regarding this image... http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/image/age_oceanic_lith.jpg

How does the expanding Earth hypothesis explain the age of the Pacific plate where it bumps into Asia?

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.

That's exactly what the flat earth society says, and some of them can even make it sound plausible.

This isn't the flat earth society.

The whole notion of the earth "expanding" just sounds ridiculous and that alone makes me very sceptical. If the earth was expanding we Earthlings would see the appreciable changes brought by it. I'll watch the video, but the whole thing does sound along the lines of theories like flat earth.

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.

Some people have completely wacky theories - a guy on another forum I frequent believes global warming is basically a US government conspiracy changing the condition of the planet, and is nothing at all to do with the fact that we're coming out of an ice age and pumping pollution into the atmosphere.

I agree that there are some wacky theories out there, but you comparing the expanding earth to these nutjobs does nothing to refute the evidences I have laid out here.


Anyway, it was fun. I will probably continue to follow this thread and resist the urge to keep posting. I think it would be a waste of all of our times since I don't see any of us convincing the other any time soon.

 

[xirrious]

This entire theory can be described as bunk based on simple thermodynamics. We aren't expanding with out a mechanism. We have one. Heat. However it is obvious that this mechanism is inactive. REAL evidence to the contrary would be appreciated mucho.

 

[trencheel303]

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.

And do we have access to this "precise to the billionth degree" instruments? The "would" in we would need suggests not. If so, why not? And if why not, then how can any of this be proven? Or is it still purely at a stage of hypothesis?

As for your "this isn't the flat earth society" comment, no shit Sherlock. But the argument sounds like theirs and just as (in)valid. The fact that the continents all look like they were joined together at one time isn't even news because we know at one time it was Pangea.

 

[Shakenawake]

still does not explain dinosaur fossils in antarctica. the south pole would still be the south pole in the E.E.T., and too cold for them, but plate techtonics tells us antarctica was not always at the south pole

 

[Pi R Squared]

This entire theory can be described as bunk based on simple thermodynamics. We aren't expanding with out a mechanism. We have one. Heat. However it is obvious that this mechanism is inactive. REAL evidence to the contrary would be appreciated mucho.

Are you saying that there couldn't be a mechanism that we are still unaware of or don't understand yet? I am not arguing there is, only that its a possibility.

still does not explain dinosaur fossils in antarctica. the south pole would still be the south pole in the E.E.T., and too cold for them, but plate techtonics tells us antarctica was not always at the south pole

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.

Alan