It isn't about "proof"; it's about evidence. Before you try to stand science on it's head, you should understand what evidence is.
No. There isn't any. Learn what evidence is.
Chinese Scholar Yang Jian liang Putting Wrongs to Rights in Astrophysics
- Thread starter heyuhua
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
That's interesting. I have never heard of any evidence that the Earth is expanding.
Can you provide a link to a reference to this evidence, so I can read about it?
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Thanks. The Wiki entry points out this notion has been killed off by plate tectonics, while the other links are to crank websites.
This link summarises it fairly well, it seems to me: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
plate tectonics cann't kill the theory of expanding earth,and instead, the theory of expanding earth kill plate tectonics. The biggest problem with inflation theory is the energy and power source of expansion, and today Yang's theory (namely, new matter or energy is continuously creating in celestial bodies) solves better this problem. In fact, plate theory has also had a lot of trouble, and its biggest problem is that it can't explain a sustained lateral movement. The Earth formed billions of years ago, and without a sustained supply of energy, this lateral movement must had been exhausted long ago by strong friction. Expansion theory does not recognize lateral motion, it thinks so called lateral motion to be merely a manifestation of expansion, and the continents look drifting from each other, but all the ocean are actually expanding. So far No ocean was found contracting, which implies no actual drifting movement
Last edited:
must? (evidence please) had been exhausted long ago by strong friction (reference please)
Are not plate movements still causing earthquakes all around the world
and somehow
making new matter (out of ???? what exactly) solves the problem
Seriously?
Can you supply the mechanics and formula of how new matter is made please?
You appear to be the MR of wacky ideas of physics
Last edited:
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
indeed aren't plate movement causing earthquakes. An earthquake is actually a rupture of the earth. When new material or energy accumulates to a certain extent inside, the crust breaks down and forms an earthquake. Therefore, before the earthquake, the crust was raised locally，the phenomenon can be used to predict earthquakes, which was considered before. It is the rupture of the Earth that causes the material on the surface to look moving horizontally
Last edited:
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
well, please see Yang's papers， and the creation of matter in the celestial body is fully discussed in Yang's thesis.
Yep, in particular, https://www.xearththeory.com/expanding-earth-theory-debunked/ has a link to....Sciforums!
Nice of xearththeory.com to provide strong evidence against an expanding Earth, via NASA satellite data: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110816.html
An interesting passage there:
"Enter an international group of scientists led by Xiaoping Wu of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and including participants from the Institut Geographique Nat Enter an international group of scientists led by Xiaoping Wu of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and including participants from the Institut Geographique National, Champs-sur-Marne in France, and Delft University of Technology in The Netherlands. The team set out to independently evaluate the accuracy of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame and shed new light on the Earth expansion/contraction theory.
The team applied a new data calculation technique to estimate the rate of change in the solid Earth's average radius over time, taking into account the effects of other geophysical processes. The previously discussed geodetic techniques (satellite laser ranging, very-long baseline interferometry and GPS) were used to obtain data on Earth surface movements from a global network of carefully selected sites. These data were then combined with measurements of Earth's gravity from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) spacecraft and models of ocean bottom pressure, which help scientists interpret gravity change data over the ocean.
The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.
"Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu."
Eminent NASA Chinese scholar et. al. vs esteemed Chinese scholar Yang et. al. Epic clash!
Orbital mechanics also seems problematic for celestial bodies steadily growing in mass. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics#Circular_orbits
$$ v = \sqrt(GM/r)$$
Any steady cosmic expansion originated mass gain by a body plays havoc with (non)conservation of linear and nominal angular momentum, but what the heck. We must expect that as central gravitating mass $$M$$ grows, $$v$$ will also grow, while $$r$$ must decrease. Which conflicts with OP claim Earth-Moon distance is growing anomalously 'owing to space expansion'. Mass gain works the opposite way.
The two purported effects could only cancel for very particular choices of orbital parameters, outside of which either one will dominate. In particular, for relatively tight orbits, mass gain will dominate the orbital mechanics - orbital radii will shrink.
[Above allowing for the minority view that cosmic spacial expansion - coasting or accelerated - has any effect on e.g. Earth-Moon changing orbital radii. Earlier this thread I argued it did not.]
Inspiralling elliptical orbits owing to mass gain should surely have long ago shown up as a perplexing perihelion advance anomaly. Absence of such seems immediately fatal.
Has Yang convincingly refuted all such issues? Surely not.
Further, according to OP, mass gain supposedly operates on all forms of matter more-or-less equally (mineral deposits, coal oil etc. all increase). That fundamentally conflicts with established particle physics. Which requires conversion of energy to matter to always manifest as particle-antiparticle pairs. The end result being EM radiation owing to mutual annihilation. Hence, any energy gain should appear as excess heat, not stable matter in the form of plasma (stars), or atoms and often complex molecules etc (planets, moons etc). Only at the extremes of early BB was a matter-antimatter asymmetry assumed to operate by as yet unknown BSM physics, and even then only to the extent of less than one part in a billion.
$$ v = \sqrt(GM/r)$$
Any steady cosmic expansion originated mass gain by a body plays havoc with (non)conservation of linear and nominal angular momentum, but what the heck. We must expect that as central gravitating mass $$M$$ grows, $$v$$ will also grow, while $$r$$ must decrease. Which conflicts with OP claim Earth-Moon distance is growing anomalously 'owing to space expansion'. Mass gain works the opposite way.
The two purported effects could only cancel for very particular choices of orbital parameters, outside of which either one will dominate. In particular, for relatively tight orbits, mass gain will dominate the orbital mechanics - orbital radii will shrink.
[Above allowing for the minority view that cosmic spacial expansion - coasting or accelerated - has any effect on e.g. Earth-Moon changing orbital radii. Earlier this thread I argued it did not.]
Inspiralling elliptical orbits owing to mass gain should surely have long ago shown up as a perplexing perihelion advance anomaly. Absence of such seems immediately fatal.
Has Yang convincingly refuted all such issues? Surely not.
Further, according to OP, mass gain supposedly operates on all forms of matter more-or-less equally (mineral deposits, coal oil etc. all increase). That fundamentally conflicts with established particle physics. Which requires conversion of energy to matter to always manifest as particle-antiparticle pairs. The end result being EM radiation owing to mutual annihilation. Hence, any energy gain should appear as excess heat, not stable matter in the form of plasma (stars), or atoms and often complex molecules etc (planets, moons etc). Only at the extremes of early BB was a matter-antimatter asymmetry assumed to operate by as yet unknown BSM physics, and even then only to the extent of less than one part in a billion.
Last edited:
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
There's no conflict，the deviation between the theoretical prediction and the measurement results is normal, and the measurement error may be too large. Yang's theory predicts that the radius of the earth will increase by 0.4 millimeters a year,their measurements were 0.1 millimeters, the order of magnitude is still relatively close. The initial measurement of the Hubble constant is also a big error, but the value of the Hubble measurement cannot be denied because the error is large. This does not affect Hubble's conclusion that the universe is expanding. Similarly, although this 0.1 millimeter is insignificant, the conclusion can be drawn that the earth is expanding.
Don't underestimate this 0.1 millimeter. The important thing is its cumulative effect. A billion years later is 100 kilometers, which is not a trivial thing and enough to upset your world view. Obviously, not only Wu ignored major discoveries and but also misled the world
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
but Yang's theory can meet these, Yang proved that with the expansion of spacetime, the mass of all stars increases, the orbit's radius of the planet is increasing, and the speed of the planet is increasing, but the periods of rotation and revolution remain unchanged. This is Yang's principle of convex lens for the expansion of the universe, that is to say, the space we see today with a magnifying glass is the real space in some years; the solar system we see today with a magnifying glass is the real solar system some years later. in a word, all are magnifying in the same time no matter space or celestial bodies.
Last edited:
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
Do you think that the increase in the mass of celestial bodies must decrease in orbit? that's not true. Your view of point means you don't really understand the expansion of the universe. You should think of space-time expansion as a force, so all confusion will disappear immediately. The increase of celestial mass is the result of work done by space-time expansion force. Yang proved that the pressure in a celestial body is negative, so as the space occupied by the matter that forms celestial body increases, so does its mass, that is, dm=-pdv > 0, the volume of the celestial body is proportional to the cube of the cosmic scale factor.
Note that the increase of celestial mass does not contradict the usual law of conservation of energy. The law of conservation of energy is established without considering the expansion of space and time. Once the expansion of space and time is considered, the law of conservation of energy should be adjusted accordingly.
At the microscopic level, the continuous production of matter can be considered as that the expansion's force pulls a neutron into two neutrons, a proton into two protons, and so on，Nuclear mitosis
Last edited:
At nuclear and below length scales, Yang's cosmic expansion negative pressure would be an incredibly weak perturbative effect. Whereas the forces and energy densities needed to enact such mitosis would be huge. No problem there?
Further, it's unreasonable to suppose, even admitting an occasional super concentration of negative pressure somehow occurs and yields an occasional mitosis on say a neutron, such events would be other than purely random. Which would lead to generation of way more radioactively unstable nuclei than conventional theory admits. Similarly, if such random mitosis operates on a proton, charge conservation locally fails for long extended periods, untill said mitosis operates on an electron. Actually the much smaller mass of the latter suggests far higher rate of electron mitosis than for protons. Much lower energy barrier. Hence a steadily growing excess negative charge on average. Any evidence for that? Or does this amorphous negative pressure matter creation process know all about the need to conserve charge, at least on a long term statistical basis? Sounds more like magic than real physics.
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
no problem. First of all, the negative pressure in celestial bodies is not a hypothesis, it is calculated from the field equation. However, no matter we are willing to accept it or not, we have to accept it. The order of magnitude of the negative pressure is density times the square of the speed of light, which is exactly the negative value of the total energy, which is quite large. The variation of the mass of celestial bodies satisfies the dm=-pdv, and in the international unit it is dm=-pdv / cc. apply this formula to a nucleon, when the volume of the nucleon increases by double, the mass doubles, which means that one nucleon splits into two. Of course, although mass of celestial body macroscopically satisfies dm=-pdv, the microscopic mechanism proposed here is still crude and needs to be supplemented and perfected
Last edited:
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
，It is not necessary to increase the negative charge. Although the mass of the electron is small, the tensile force acting on it, that is, the expansion force, is also small.So it doesn't have to split faster than proton. Of course, the radioactivity in celestial body doesn't stop, because neutrons are produced continuously inside nucleus
Ah. So this matter creating negative pressure is not the large scale, tiny cosmic vacuum one corresponding to conventional 'dark energy', but locally associated with matter density directly? Or does the local matter pressure somehow couple to the cosmic vacuum pressure? Whence the driver for very occasional mitosis?
A celestial body can have a substantial net positive pressure owing to self-gravity. There is no such ability for say a neutron. It must be pressure neutral in order to satisfy mechanical equilibrium. For a proton, positive charge density implies a large negative stress of opposite sign to that of self-gravitating neutral bodies. Therefore you can't have both celestial bodies and protons growing according to your formula dm=-pdv / cc. Consistency problem!
Huh?! Mass doubles whether nucleon volume halves OR doubles??!! Tricky physics indeed.
[EDIT: heyuhua has edited above quoted passage prior to this posting. My comment remains]
Best of luck with that task!
Doesn't make sense to me. Pressure not absolute force is supposed to be the determinant. Proton and electron charge are equal and opposite. It's known the proton has a finite size whereas any possible electron size is many orders of magnitude smaller. So negative electrostatic stress i.e. 'pressure' is vastly greater for the electron. Hence purported pressure-induced 'mitosis production rate' also.
IF there was any real physics to the idea pressure generates matter, energetically the far more likely outcome would be radiation i.e. photon pairs generated from perturbed vacuum fluctuations of EM field. Hence we should be flooded with presumably black-body radiation far in excess of comparatively very rare matter particle creation. By rough analogy with so-called Hawking radiation.
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
If not associated with space-time expansion, there is no reasonable solution to explain the continuous creation of matter，in other words, the continuous creation of matter is a cosmological problem. We seem to be solving the problem of continuous creation of matter, in fact proving that the singularity of the Big Bang does not exist. Particle physics must be combined with cosmology in order to have a real future, this is to say, develop particle physics by explaining the microscopic mechanism of material creation, rather than constraining cosmology with current particle physics conclusions, must understand that our particle physics is based on a small range of experiments in a short period of time, there must be a lot of limitations. In short, it is not possible to use current knowledge of particle physics to explain the continuous creation of matter，and it can be expected that particle physics will be greatly developed in an attempt to explain the continuous creation of matter
Last edited:
heyuhua
Registered Senior Member
If not associated with space-time expansion, there is no reasonable solution to explain the continuous creation of matter，in other words, the continuous creation of matter is a cosmological problem. We seem to be solving the problem of continuous creation of matter, in fact proving that the singularity of the Big Bang does not exist. Particle physics must be combined with cosmology in order to have a real future, this is to say, develop particle physics by explaining the microscopic mechanism of material creation, rather than constraining cosmology with current particle physics conclusions, must understand that our particle physics is based on a small range of experiments in a short period of time, there must be a lot of limitations. In short, it is not possible to use current knowledge of particle physics to explain the continuous creation of matter，and it can be expected that particle physics will be greatly developed in an attempt to explain the continuous creation of matter
Last
Last