Is the earth expanding?

[Robittybob1]

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.



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



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



Why no doubt?



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.



Please clarify.

I have not mastered mutiquoting.

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

This was just quoted on a recent thread which I have been writing too called Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=110903
”
Sathearn asks “You're supposed to challenge the premise that such an increase has been measured, of course."
Also as discussed as above.
”
Sathearn asks “Why no doubt?”
Heating is radioactivity and the half life of the elements has long passed so the amount must have already met its maximum.
”
Sathearn asks “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."

The rebound from the compression from the volatiles which have since left. Herndon talked of an Earth with 300 Earth Masses, but I doubt if you need that much.

Sathearn asks “Please clarify."
Originally there was just the one ocean putting pressure on the one continent and this kept it together.
Once there was a "near equilibrium" this allowed the 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 generated the pressure to hold the land mass together. Like a boiling effect and strong convection currents.

 

[Robittybob1]

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

The electrons resist being squashed into a smaller volume (it takes a force to compress anything and when the force is removed, depending on the properties of the material, it will rebound but not necessarily immediately.

 

[sathearn]

The electrons resist being squashed into a smaller volume (it takes a force to compress anything and when the force is removed, depending on the properties of the material, it will rebound but not necessarily immediately.

But the electrons are supposed to be confined to discreet energy states. Last I heard, experimental compressibility functions are continuous rather than discreet.

 

[Robittybob1]

But the electrons are supposed to be confined to discreet energy states. Last I heard, experimental compressibility functions are continuous rather than discreet.

I'm not sure why you have given me such a short answer, but think of it like this, the core of the Earth is currently compressed and if the pressure was to come off, what would turn the solid compressed inner core back to a liquid like the outer core?
It would require heat wouldn't it? And where is that heat going to come from?
So you can pressurise a gas, it turns to a liquid, it condenses and looses heat you take the pressure off it, it doesn't instantly turn back to a gas does it!
So it is with some compressions, sometimes the rebound is delayed. And it could be like that with the Earth????
An ideal spring rebounds quickly but no spring rebounds instantly.

It took me a while to get my head around the idea of compressing a solid piece of iron nickel alloy like the core of the Earth, but it happens, and has happened. The core of the Earth is 60% more dense that it would be if it was brought to the surface, The weight of the material above it is squashing it into a smaller volume. It has a density of somewhere around 12 g/cm^3 whereas the same alloy and ground level would have a density of around 8 g/cm^3.
The electrons are still in their orbitals but they are distorted somewhat.

 

[florian]

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.

I really wonder who made the format for Google Earth that is linked in this page?

 

[florian]

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).

Actually, you'e thinking of me. But both Scalera interpret subduction zones as the overthrusting side of tensional diapirs. Koziar does as well. My personal interpretation is that these diapers are compressional diapir, hence the difference with say, a MOR.

 

[florian]

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.

Yeah, but to write that in a paper, we need a good computer model. And this is really tricky to get one because its all 3D stuff.

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.

Could tell me who they are? Privately if necessary.

 

[sathearn]

”
Sathearn asks “Why no doubt?”
Heating is radioactivity and the half life of the elements has long passed so the amount must have already met its maximum.
”
Sathearn asks “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."

The rebound from the compression from the volatiles which have since left. Herndon talked of an Earth with 300 Earth Masses, but I doubt if you need that much.

Sathearn asks “Please clarify."
Originally there was just the one ocean putting pressure on the one continent and this kept it together.
Once there was a "near equilibrium" this allowed the 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 generated the pressure to hold the land mass together. Like a boiling effect and strong convection currents.

Thanks for the additional information. So the rebound you are talking about refers to Herndon's theory. I know the basic concept, not much else, so perhaps you can enlighten me further. When you say one ocean putting pressure on one continent, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean the Panthalassa/Pangea division? Or is the idea instead that at some stage, the hydrosphere ("the one ocean") completely enveloped the rocky crust ("the one continent"), thus putting pressure on the latter? I'm still having some trouble with the concepts, though.

 

[sathearn]

I'm not sure why you have given me such a short answer, ....
The electrons are still in their orbitals but they are distorted somewhat.

Part of the reason for my short answer was that it was all I could muster over breakfast. The other part is I was tiptoeing around the fact that I don't think there are any electron orbitals, and that I know a theory in which the force responsible for resistance to compression is gravity (sorry Florian) - just as Roger perhaps inadvertently suggested (though of course that theory isn't Relativity).

I'm fairly certain that some very serious errors were made at the very foundation of the concept of the nuclear atom, which have never been squarely faced by the scientific community. Of course, there's been a huge amount of theoretical and experimental work built up on the basis of this concept, and the reaction of most people who are more familiar with that work than I am will take a dim view of the claim that the basic concept is wrong.

 

[Robittybob1]

Thanks

Thanks for the additional information. So the rebound you are talking about refers to Herndon's theory. I know the basic concept, not much else, so perhaps you can enlighten me further.

In a way it does as it uses the same mechanism – gravitational compression.
From some provisional figures of the amount of material in the proto-planetary disc I worked out there could be 27 Earth masses of volatiles to do the job. The question was is this enough and why did Herndon think there was 300 Earth masses of material available?

When you say one ocean putting pressure on one continent, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean the Panthalassa/Pangea division?

I want to go home so not looking anything up at the moment. This Panthalassa word is a new one for me. If it is the first area of the EE that is not covered by continental plate but basaltic crust that would be right. For the movement from the mid ocean ridge would be toward the continent in 2 or more directions.

Or is the idea instead that at some stage, the hydrosphere ("the one ocean") completely enveloped the rocky crust ("the one continent"), thus putting pressure on the latter?

Well that was happening to in my theory right up to about 500 million years ago when the first dry lands appeared. So everything was being pressed down. But the pressure has been steadily coming off since the Earth formed.

I'm still having some trouble with the concepts, though.

It is dramatically different but it fits the evidence.
1. Matter available in proto-planetary disc
2. Continents fit as in Compressed Earth (like EE theory)
3. Land animal appeared 450 million years ago.
4. The mass of material available for planet building in the 4 Terrestrial planets matches the excess that the Gas Giant planets have.
(Mass has shifted further out in the Solar System at some time.)
5. Planets formed during the mid to late protosun period. So the volatile materials were there to help build up the critical density for it to happen.

 

[Robittybob1]

Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics
J. Marvin Herndon (2005) Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics. Current Science, Vol. 89, No. 11, pp. 1937-1941
http://understandearth.com/Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics.htm

“There have long been mainly two ideas about how the planets of the Solar System formed. In the 1940s and 1950s the idea was discussed about planets “raining out” from inside of giant gaseous protoplanets. But that idea fell out of fashion and scientists began thinking of the primordial matter, not being dense protoplanets, but rather spread out into a very low-density “solar nebula”.


The idea of low-density planetary formation envisioned that dust would condense at fairly low temperatures, and then gather into progressively larger grains, and become rocks, then planetesimals, and ultimately planets. The gaseous components would just go away in an unspecified manner. This is the prevailing, popular view of planetary formation. But remember, popularity only measures popularity, not scientific correctness. So how can you know whether an idea is right or wrong? One way is to look for a contradiction, a consequence that is in conflict with what is observed.”

 

[Robittybob1]

Accepted for Publication in Neutrino Geophysics A Special Issue of Earth, Moon, and Planets
Solar System Processes Underlying
Planetary Formation, Geodynamics, and the Georeactor
J. Marvin Herndon

mherndon@san.rr.com
http://UnderstandEarth.com
Submitted February 9, 2006
Accepted August 22, 2006
Abstract: Only three processes, operant during the formation of the Solar System, are responsible for the diversity of matter in the Solar System and are directly responsible for planetary internal-structures, including planetocentric nuclear fission reactors, and for dynamical processes, including and especially, geodynamics. These processes are: (i) Low-pressure, low-temperature condensation from solar matter in the remote reaches of the Solar System or in the interstellar medium; (ii) High-pressure, high-temperature condensation from solar matter associated with planetary-formation by raining out from the interiors of giant-gaseous protoplanets, and; (iii) Stripping of the primordial volatile components from the inner portion of the Solar System by super-intense solar wind associated with T-Tauri phase mass-ejections, presumably during the thermonuclear ignition of the Sun. As described herein, these processes lead logically, in a causally related manner, to a coherent vision of planetary formation with profound implications including, but not limited to, (a) Earth formation as a giant gaseous Jupiter-like planet with vast amounts of stored energy of protoplanetary compression in its rock-plus-alloy kernel; (b) Removal of approximately 300 Earth-masses of primordial volatile gases from the Earth, which began Earth’s decompression process, making available the stored energy of protoplanetary compression for driving geodynamic processes, which I have described by the new whole-Earth decompression dynamics and which is responsible for emplacing heat at the mantle-crust-interface at the base of the crust through the process I have described, called mantle decompression thermal-tsunami; and, (c) Uranium accumulations at the planetary centers capable of self-sustained nuclear fission chain reactions.
Keywords: crustal heat, Earth core, Earth structure, georeactor, geodynamics, geo-antineutrino, Solar System formation, thermal-tsunami, whole-Earth decompression dynamics

 

[florian]

(b) Removal of approximately 300 Earth-masses of primordial volatile gases from the Earth, which began Earth’s decompression process, making available the stored energy of protoplanetary compression for driving geodynamic processes, which I have described by the new whole-Earth decompression dynamics and which is responsible for emplacing heat at the mantle-crust-interface at the base of the crust through the process I have described, called mantle decompression thermal-tsunami;

There are photosynthetic animals that are more than 2 billion years old. If Earth had a thick atmosphere at that time, they would not get any light. That single fact alone is sufficient to definitively refute Herndon's hypothesis.

 

[origin]

There are photosynthetic animals that are more than 2 billion years old. If Earth had a thick atmosphere at that time, they would not get any light. That single fact alone is sufficient to definitively refute Herndon's hypothesis.

There is no mechanism for matter to be spontaneously added to the earth causing it to expand. That single fact alone is sufficient to definitively refute the expanding earth hypothesis.

 

[florian]

There is no mechanism for matter to be spontaneously added to the earth causing it to expand. That single fact alone is sufficient to definitively refute the expanding earth hypothesis.

Always the same mental error. The correct statement is "There is currently no know mechanism that can explain how matter is added to Earth". Which evidently does not exclude that we will find that mechanism at some point.

 

[Robittybob1]

There are photosynthetic animals that are more than 2 billion years old. If Earth had a thick atmosphere at that time, they would not get any light. That single fact alone is sufficient to definitively refute Herndon's hypothesis.

I'm not saying he is absolutely right for 300 Earth Masses are just about unbelievable. But any ocean has got floating photosynthetic plant organisms in it so the depth of the ocean is not really a limiting factor in my opinion. The thickness of the atmosphere is really dependent on what type of molecules were in the volatile layer, whether it remained as a gas or was primarily liquid like today.
The intensity of the Sun is thousands of times brighter than is required for photosynthesis.

I would love to work it out as to the minimum required liquid volatile mass required to cause the Earth to compress to the degree enough to explain the EE theory.

 

[Robittybob1]

There is no mechanism for matter to be spontaneously added to the earth causing it to expand. That single fact alone is sufficient to definitively refute the expanding earth hypothesis.

You obviously have not read or understood what Herndon and I have been postulating. The extra matter was here in the protoplanetary disc from the beginning. Nothing is added, but matter is taken away allowing the Earth to rebound (decompression).

 

[Robittybob1]

Always the same mental error. The correct statement is "There is currently no know mechanism that can explain how matter is added to Earth". Which evidently does not exclude that we will find that mechanism at some point.

Once you understand what I have proposed there is no odd science to explain. Decompression expansion is a valid and well studied science. Why make it too complicated.

 

[origin]

Always the same mental error. The correct statement is "There is currently no know mechanism that can explain how matter is added to Earth". Which evidently does not exclude that we will find that mechanism at some point.

OK. Then my theory is that matter is formed at the mid ocean ridges and the matter then disappears at the subduction zones.

$$M_f - M_a = 0$$

Where
$$M_f $$ is the formation of mass
$$M_a $$ is the annihilation of mass

This is mathematical proof that the earth is not expanding.

I call my theory the JASATEE Theory*.

*Just As Stupid As The Expanding Earth Theory

 

[florian]

The intensity of the Sun is thousands of times brighter than is required for photosynthesis.

Hmm, I doubt it. Do you have a reference for that? For sure one does not have to go very deep in the ocean to render photosynthesis unpractical (about 30 m for green chlorophyll).

Anyway, the compression as described by Herndon would have left clear evidence at the surface of Earth. These evidence simply do not exist.
And there are many other evidence that refute Herndon's hypothesis, like the measured rate of growth that is linearly increasing with time.