Is the earth expanding?

origin said:
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;)
Click to expand...
I notice no one seems to use the word compression or decompression in their replies. Answer the point; does that account for the EE theory? Not magic just science.:)
 
origin said:
Then my theory is that matter is formed at the mid ocean ridges and the matter then disappears at the subduction zones.
Click to expand...

Your theory relies on zero observations and makes zero predictions. You failed.
 
Robittybob1 said:
Does decompression account for the EE theory?:mad:
Click to expand...

I gave you some arguments refuting the decompression theory. What do you want more? If you're not convinced then I can't do more for you that I can do for those who believes in plate tectonics. After all, anyone is free to believe in whatever he wants. But don't call it "Science".
 
florian said:
I gave you some arguments refuting the decompression theory. What do you want more? If you're not convinced then I can't do more for you that I can do for those who believes in plate tectonics. After all, anyone is free to believe in whatever he wants. But don't call it "Science".
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
You did too, must have come in while I was typing.
You say "the compression as described by Herndon would have left clear evidence at the surface of Earth." well the shape of the continental plates is the evidence for this, silly. Do you not understand that yet?:)
:)
 
Robittybob1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the expansion began to take place 220 million years ago to take the Earth's radius up from 62% of todays value, then it requires an annual linear expansion of 11 mm / Year.

Robittybob1 said:
There was discussion saying that recent measured values were as high as 18 mm/year.
Click to expand...

18 mm/year is not far the average estimate among expanding earth believers.
 
florian said:
Always the same mental error. The correct statement is "There is currently no know mechanism that can explain how matter is added to Earth".
Click to expand...

Corrected: "There is currently no know mechanism that can explain how matter could be added to Earth"
 
Gneiss2011 said:
If the expansion began to take place 220 million years ago to take the Earth's radius up from 62% of todays value, then it requires an annual linear expansion of 11 mm / Year.



18 mm/year is not far the average estimate among expanding earth believers.
Click to expand...
Now that is true, so how does the Earth retain its compressed state until 220 million years ago and just start expanding from then on?

It could have something to do with heating. Without a heat source the Earth would not rebound. I'm trying to get my head around this. Will a compressed spring not expand if it was cooled to near absolute zero?
 
Last edited:
Robittybob1 said:
You did too, must have come in while I was typing.
You say "the compression as described by Herndon would have left clear evidence at the surface of Earth." well the shape of the continental plates is the evidence for this, silly. Do you not understand that yet?:)
:)
Click to expand...

No, I was thinking to other specific evidence. Like specific metamorphism due to the high pressure.
 
Gneiss2011 said:
18 mm/year is not far the average estimate among expanding earth believers.
Click to expand...

18 mm/year is the calculated value taking into account the lack of large scale recycling and intercontinental extension. But this is the rate for the last 3 millions years. The rate has been steadily increasing for at least the last 200 millions years.

Gneiss2011 said:
Corrected: "There is currently no known mechanism that can explain how matter could be added to Earth"
Click to expand...

Nope. I insist: "There is currently no known mechanism that can explain how matter is added to Earth".
And I could add "and to other active planets".
I don't really care if you're stuck with an obsolete Earth science theory, but please don't alter the facts with your biased view.
 
florian said:
18 mm/year is the calculated value taking into account the lack of large scale recycling and intercontinental extension. But this is the rate for the last 3 millions years. The rate has been steadily increasing for at least the last 200 millions years.



Nope. I insist: "There is currently no known mechanism that can explain how matter is added to Earth".
And I could add "and to other active planets".
I don't really care if you're stuck with an obsolete Earth science theory, but please don't alter the facts with your biased view.
Click to expand...
Who says there is matter being added? You both seem to agree yet are arguing about it.
In the Compressed Earth Theory matter is lost not gained. There is are mechanisms to loose matter - The Solar wind and atoms meeting their escape velocity.:)
 
Last edited:
florian said:
The data.

BTW, I meant intracontinental extension, not intercontinental.
Click to expand...

I should ask what do you mean by "intracontinental extension"?


Did you know that through decompression you could get this without needing to have mass added to the Earth?

Have you considered decompression?
Do you understand the idea of decompression?:)
 
Last edited:
Robittybob1 said:
And you do?
Click to expand...

that's easy to know more geology than Herndon (or Adams)

Robittybob1 said:
What do you mean by "intracontinental extension"? :)
Click to expand...

If you are at the point to ask what is intracontinental extension, then I suggest you to read a basic tectonics textbook, like say, this one. I have it, and I love it. Alternatively, if you don't want to invest money, just go look at "basin and range" on wikipedia.
 
florian said:
that's easy to know more geology than Herndon (or Adams)



If you are at the point to ask what is intracontinental extension, then I suggest you to read a basic tectonics textbook, like say, this one. I have it, and I love it. Alternatively, if you don't want to invest money, just go look at "basin and range" on wikipedia.
Click to expand...
But what do you know about the protoplanetary disc? I still think most of the geological evidence neither confirms nor denies either hypothesis.
So I don't know how we are going to sort it out. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top