Is the earth expanding?

[rogerharris]

To the best of my recollection all of the expanding earth theories - certainly Maxlows at any rate, require matter creation of some kind. No consistent model for this has been put forward, but they require some interesting assumptions, for example, the existence of degenerate matter in the earths core, or for some kind of fusion process. Maxlow himself (IIRC) talks about prime matter, and bubbles and such.

Where does maxlow talk about prime matter. Thats neal adams. Maxlow does not put forward a theory as an honest scientist should if they dont know.

Lots of theories had or have no mechanism. Evolution, gravity, dark matter (dont even know what that is).

You misrepresent this area. There are quite a few interesting models such as reduction of the core and expansion of the crust, hydritic earth which researchers are working on just now due to the energy implications for our planet.

Also since we dont even understand gravity and calculations for light year periods (i.e. the earths expansion age) tell us that most of it some kind dark enery/matter then any models we produce for EE and matter, gravity are going to be flawed till this fundamental problem is resolved.

 

[Robittybob1]

You haven't understood what I actually said.

You are right I didn't. So could you explain it better?

 

[rogerharris]

That map was created by advocates of modern tectonic theory.

It was produced by geologists independent of theories as good science should. When other geological institutes try to animate continental drift using this it looks downright ridiculous, so they took it off the internet.

The results from doing a regression of this data are so astounding it has to be the primary focus for EE. Although i understand a team of geologists are privately working on a new mechanism I am not at liberty to discuss and not much point as this is a work in progress.

 

[Robittybob1]

Where does maxlow talk about prime matter. Thats neal adams. Maxlow does not put forward a theory as an honest scientist should if they dont know.

Lots of theories had or have no mechanism. Evolution, gravity, dark matter (dont even know what that is).

So you don't like compression? You didn't mention it.

 

[rogerharris]

I liked the video of how the continents fitted on a compressed Earth. I also watched on "Expanding Earth my Ass" and heard why people didn't like Neal Adam's explanation. I must agree with some of them.
Note in my hypothesis there is not increase in mass of the terrestrial part. The size reduction is caused by compression.
We must also animate using the actual shape of the continental plates (but i know they do change in shape as this is evident when you look at NZ the rocks in the ground have been distorted over the eons. So shape of the more massive parts might have stayed relatively constant but other regions have been squashed out of their original shape without a doubt.
If he is still talking about mass creation - this is too whacky and basically unnecessary.

Forget neals ideas, well you never know, but I Just stick with the serious geologists. Neal is a high achiever, always has been. So he will give the prime matter thing a go, why not, at least he tried. But fact is that work requires a degree of expertise he does not have to write up properly.

What neal contributed primarily was driving this forward with his primary area, visual spatial skills and bringing it to light. This theory does not go away, it gets better with new data. Previousy we didnt have the seafloor age map, and it was still a proposal, but people said well its just a co-incidence the plates go like that.

Now that we have this new seafloor data we actually see them winding right back as if on rails. that means this is not pseudosience. Its improving with new data and continental drift is not.

You cannot get continental drift to regreess to a pangea and stay consistent with the seafloor age. Somebody has to write this into a paper, but i do not have that background.

It wont get published anyway. I had an email from a team of young geologists who are working on an EE mechanism. Do you know that they have to hide the fact the mechanism is linked to EE. i.e. not mention EE in their papers. Thats how closed down this area is in dogma.


rergarding neals animations if If you close ups, on his other videos, all they do is push the land masses back together. From a distance on the rainbow animation it looks fudged. Thats why re-rendering is required from 4 viewpoints with close ups on controversial areas.

 

[rogerharris]

So you don't like compression? You didn't mention it.

im not sure what this means. I mean its all relative whether something is compressed. Even relativity has gravity exerting a reverse effect (i.e. expansion) if mass is compressed.

Compression is a relative term.

 

[Trippy]

Where does maxlow talk about prime matter. Thats neal adams.

That's nice. Now go back and pay attention to the caveat in my post. And not that in spite of all your railing and twisting and turning this statement:
"...certainly Maxlows at any rate, require matter creation of some kind. No consistent model for this has been put forward..."
Remains correct, and indeed confirmed.

Lots of theories had or have no mechanism. Evolution,

Evolution has a mechanism - to the point where somebody has taken the trouble to use Mathcad to model the evolution of clocks as an exaple of how a complex system can arise.

...gravity, dark matter (dont even know what that is).

These claims are equally spurious. The mechanism of gravity is space-time curvature, the mechanism by which dark matter influences the universe is gravity.

You misrepresent this area.

I misrepresent nothing.

Also since we dont even understand gravity and calculations for light year periods (i.e. the earths expansion age) tell us that most of it some kind dark enery/matter then any models we produce for EE and matter, gravity are going to be flawed till this fundamental problem is resolved.

No, because there are lines of evidence that can be infered from observations of stellar evolution, from multiple sources from which we can infer that, for example, G - the universal gravitational constant has not varied by more than some absurdly low amount in at least the last 5 billion years, and probably longer (again, this has already been gone over in this thread).

 

[Trippy]

You are right I didn't. So could you explain it better?

For one thing, I was talking about the relative heights of oceanic crust, not continental crust.

As far as the continental shelf thing goes... I'm not sure how to explain it any clearer.

 

[Gneiss2011]

Carey's hypothesis admits some subduction

Where have you seen that? This seem to contradict all Carey's publications since 1960, e.g. Carey, Theories of the Earth and Universe, 1988, chapter 13 The Subduction Myth.

 

[Trippy]

It was produced by geologists independent of theories as good science should.

It was still produced by the mainstream, which is the point that I was making.

When other geological institutes try to animate continental drift using this it looks downright ridiculous, so they took it off the internet.

Baloney.

Here it is at Purdue University.
Muller's homepage at UCSD
Here's a variation of it at GSA Pubs
Here's Mullers 1997 poster at NOAA - you should probably take a moment to download this higher res version of it.
Here's a newer version from 2008 also at NOAA - it looks like if you have access to GIS software, you might be able to download their data files.
Here's a 1998 version:

Source
That is being used in the Department of Geoscience at San Francisco State University as part of their Oceanography course.
Here is a derivation using Mullers Dataset from SOEST in Hawaii.
Here it is, again making an apperance in Oceanography lecture notes, this time at University of Washington
And here it is available in a variety of formats from Rice University

So I really don't know where you're getting this conspirational nonsense from. Not only is it freely available on the internet, but it's freely available from a wide variety of academic institutions.

You may want to look into some of those links closely, they may be of assitance to you.

Oh yeah, there's also this link:
Earthbytes Resources
Note that Earthbytes is an international mainstream colaboration of the following partners:

University of Sydney
AuScope
Monash University
CSIRO
APAC
ACcESS
NGU
Caltech
Geoscience Australia
Uni of Oslo PGP
ANU RSES
Munich GeoCenter
CODES UTAS
Uni of Wollongong
IMAS UTAS

And one of the points of contact is Dietmar Muller - the lead author of the group that publised that data set you've been using. Also note that the link I provided you contains a download for it in a format for Google Earth.

Some conspiracy eh?

 

[Trippy]

Where have you seen that? This seem to contradict all Carey's publications since 1960, e.g. Carey, Theories of the Earth and Universe, 1988, chapter 13 The Subduction Myth.

My recollection is that where he differs from the mainstream is what gives the apperance of subduction and the WBZ. My recollection is that he would explain (for example) the apperance of subduction off the coast of south america as being a result of burial by the andes, thus accounting for the apperance of the WBZ, but that he would argue that there is no slab pull, or push, and that any recycling is insignificant, and unable to accomodate for ridge spreading.

At least that's what I recall anyway. I don't have any of his PDF's in front of me.

I'll have a nose around in a few hours when I get home and see if I can find somethinf more specific (it's posible I'm thinking of Scalera rather than Carey).

 

[Robittybob1]

im not sure what this means. I mean its all relative whether something is compressed. Even relativity has gravity exerting a reverse effect (i.e. expansion) if mass is compressed.

Compression is a relative term.

It is just straight out physical compression.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=110921

I have tried to explain it in that thread.

Nothing to do with relativity. I would like you to make a decision. Is it compression or not?

 

[AlexG]

Even relativity has gravity exerting a reverse effect (i.e. expansion) if mass is compressed.

Please show a reference for this.

Because it doesn't.

 

[Robittybob1]

Please show a reference for this.

Because it doesn't.

There seems an abundance of bad science associated with the EE Theory which is making the rest of us look like nutters.

 

[Robittybob1]

When you think in terms of subduction of ocean slabs going on for billions of years as the Tectonic Plate Theorists do you would think the Earth would be showing signs of cooling by now? To reheat these subducted slabs would take a lot of heat out of the mantle.
The Earth should be showing signs of cooling and associated shrinkage. For the amount of radioactive materials in the Earth must be declining all the time.

 

[Robittybob1]

Sea levels are as dependent on the distribution of the continents as anything else.

I don’t see the connection.

When you have many continents you have more shallow sea, and less deep ocean, so the sea level tends to be higher. But when you have a few big continents, you have less shallow sea and more deep ocean, and so the sea level tends to be lower.

I don’t agree with any of that sorry.

Also consider that the age of the oceanic crust and the depth of the ocean are related, this is because as oceanic crust cools and thickens it becomes denser, and so sits lower than younger oceanic crust.

If it cools and thickens the thickening is from underneath and if it gets denser it will tend to sink increasing the volume of the ocean and create uplift of the continental plates.

This is important to realize, because - at least if you accept modern plate tectonic theory, when you have many small continents, you would expect to have many small oceanic plates, which would be younger and sit higher, thus exacerbating the rise in sea level, but, where you have a few large continents, you would expect to have a few large oceanic plates (or fewer small ones) that would sit lower, and thus exacerbate the fall in sea levels.

Some that could be correct.

 

[Robittybob1]

Just did the calculation: If the expansion began to take place 3.42 Billion years ago to take the Earth's radius up from 62% of todays value it only requires and annual linear expansion of 0.707 mm / Year.
Now that sounds so little but over that time span it will add 2420 km to the Earth's radius to bring it up to today's value of 6371 km.
0.707 of a millimeter no that doesn't sound very much does it!

There was discussion saying that recent measured values were as high as 18 mm/year.
I'll see if I can find the reference giving that figure.

 

[sathearn]

You seem to have quite an interest in this topic, so can I ask why are you so in to it?

I guess I'm just a curious person who long ago developed a habit of haunting academic libraries to follow up on references. I discovered that there is a scientific literature on the topic, with many facets which are intellectually challenging to assimilate. Of course, there's much in it I still don't understand well, if at all. Also, given the controversial nature of the hypothesis, preconceptions and misconceptions are somewhat rampant, and I began to have things to say about some of them.

On another thread it was given that the rate of cooling of the Earth is 100 degrees per billion years, so that has to result in the contraction of the internal layers of the Earth.

How is that rate of cooling estimated? By heat flow measurements, and calculations using estimates of remaining radiogenic element abundances?

The fact that it seems to be measured as increasing in size, even by a little

You're supposed to challenge the premise that such an increase has been measured, of course.

goes against scientific logic if you accept that it is cooling. Which it is, without a doubt.

Why no doubt?

That shows the rebound expansion is still going on.
So at the moment, I think it is fair to say, the two effects are virtually cancelling each other out.

Not sure I follow. Are you talking about glacial rebound (in some regions) canceling with the contraction caused by cooling of the interior? Or some more global "rebound" - i.e. expansion - on that side of the equation? If the latter, is the basic idea that cooling of the interior might still be causing residual expansion in outer layers, as the heat migrated outwards? Just trying to follow.

It may be this near equilibrium has allowed Tectonic plates to spread out. For when the Earth's expansion was faster than the cooling the production of sea floor plate would have had to be rapid and the pressure to hold the land mass would have been greater.

Please clarify.

 

[sathearn]

Even relativity has gravity exerting a reverse effect (i.e. expansion) if mass is compressed.

Please show a reference for this.

Because it doesn't.

What is the force responsible for resistance to compression supposed to be, anyway?

 

[sathearn]

Maxlow who is the proponent that carey handed the theory over to.

Quoting Carey's letter to Maxlow: "With warm greetings, and my welcome to you as the one to whom I must pass my baton. Yours sincerely, S. Warren Carey"

As a way of closing an encouraging letter to a younger ally, this was without doubt more classy than the cumbersome "With warm greetings, and my welcome to you as one of the ones to whom I must pass one of my batons."