Is the earth expanding?
- Thread starter bgjyd834
- Start date
Gneiss2011
Registered Senior Member
G
Wonderful! Please show those observation and measurement of Earth expansion. I'll switch to EE if you show me independent observation and measurement of Earth expansion.
About 80 pixel between 1 and 3.
No. I made a mistake. I confused b and c.
Wonderful! Please show those observation and measurement of Earth expansion. I'll switch to EE if you show me independent observation and measurement of Earth expansion.
How much convergence between a and b?
About 80 pixel between 1 and 3.
No. I made a mistake. I confused b and c.
How do you count pixels?
I prefer that. So there is convergence, something that is claimed could not happen in EE.
At the same time, the distance between a and c does not change, so there is a balance between seafloor destruction at the front of the arc, and extension in the back-arc. This is exactly what happens in the eastern mediterranean basin. There is convergence between the hellenic arc and Africa, but not between Macedonia and Africa.
The network of GPS stations help to visualize what is a flow motion, not a plate motion (as noted by Le Pichon). The Benioff zone materializes the front of the flowing material. The flowing material weights on the lithosphere found on its path and the latter is progressively pushed down and engulfed in the mantle. The engulfed lithosphere is not sliding toward the trench, it is rolling back as the flowing material progresses.
I'm afraid I really don't see what Florian is going on about. What he's showing us are graphics, produced using a tool called GMT, which I think stands for Generalized Mapping Tool. There are no figures or observations, simply computerized drawings, which we are supposed to except as evidence.
:shrug:
:shrug:
I agree with you on this AlexG. You can't take one isolated area of tectonic plate movement and use it to confirm or refute an theory.
The graphics are from the Jules Vernes UNAVCO server. The figure is similar to Figure 2 of Le Pichon's paper.
Like any figure, it is a representation of data, hence observations.
This is a practical example that can be generalized to every active margins, thus a starting point to refute the validity of the plate concept.
Gneiss2011
Registered Senior Member
Wonderful! Please show those observation and measurement of Earth expansion which don't use EE model. I'll switch to EE if you show me independent (from EE model) observation and measurement of Earth expansion.
That's because most of EE proponents, including Carey that you called a genius, deny convergence, or deny subduction, or claim that convergence is negligible.
Convergence? What is the meaning convergence when used in your statement?
Negligible convergence by comparison to divergence at Mid Ocean Ridges? Certainly.
Carey identified diapirism in the back arc and thus thought that active margins were tensional features, because tension in the lithosphere usually induces diapirism (just a consequence of isostasy). But those diapirs are passive. This is actually what happens during rifting and later at a Mid Ocean Ridge. This is typical top-down tectonics.
But in the case of active margins, the diapirs are actively rising toward the surface due to a lower density than the average mantle (higher temp and/or composition). As the column of lighter mantle material rises up to the surface, the top of the column will finally be out of equilibrium and spread/flow laterally away from the uplift center, and overrun the lithosphere on its path. This is bottom-up tectonics.
In summary:
Mid Ocean Ridge and Rift => top-down tectonics
Active margins => bottom-up tectonics
and both form of tectonics constitute auxotectonics.
Last edited:
Gneiss2011
Registered Senior Member
Wonderful! Please show those observation and measurement of Earth expansion which don't use EE model. I'll switch to EE if you show me independent (from EE model) observation and measurement of Earth expansion.
I could add that the creator of the thread "Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere", an other EE proponent, has been banned.
Here you go:
These measurements of the ocean floor growth are based on the isochrons data available at earthbyte.org
Since these data only represent the ocean growth and not the continental growth, the average growth rate about 3 km2/y is the lower limit of the global growth.
To get a 3 km^2 increase in surface area of the ocean plates - how much is the in crease in radius of the Earth? It doesn't seem like very much at all.
Surface area 510,072,000 km2
Mean radius 6,371.0 km
A = 4pi r^2
Comes out to about 20 mm increase in radius /year. Seems too high.
Here you go:
These measurements of the ocean floor growth are based on the isochrons data available at earthbyte.org
Since these data only represent the ocean growth and not the continental growth, the average growth rate about 3 km2/y is the lower limit of the global growth.
Ocean floor spreading does not mean the earth is expanding, and are certainly not any measure of expansion.
Was the early Earth 42 times as massive as the current one? http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29842&view=findpost&p=500035
Gneiss2011
Registered Senior Member
Wonderful! Please show those observation and measurement of Earth expansion which don't use EE model. I'll switch to EE if you show me independent (from EE model) observation and measurement of Earth expansion.
Here you go:
These measurements of the ocean floor growth are based on the isochrons data available at earthbyte.org
These measurements are obviously based on the assumption that seafloor subduction doesn't exist or is negligible (so most of "ocean floor" that has "growth" in the past can be seen today).
But something interesting would be "measurements of the ocean floor growth [...] based on the isochrons data available at earthbyte.org" and based on the assumption that seafloor subduction exist at the rate claimed by mainstream geology. Could you do this?
Subduction does exist: oceanic lithosphere get subducted by mantle flows.
It has been demonstrated in this thread that mantle flows recycle negligible surface, so it is not an assumption but a fact.
There is no evidence that it was more massive or more dense. But less dense and less massive is a working hypothesis.
Did you see the evidence that i presented. I'll try and summarise and bring it across to here. Prior compression is the only scientific mechanism for an expanding Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System
QUOTE
"The principal component of the Solar System is the Sun, a main-sequence G2 star that contains 99.86 percent of the system's known mass and dominates it gravitationally.[3] The Sun's four largest orbiting bodies, the gas giants, account for 99 percent of the remaining mass, with Jupiter and Saturn together comprising more than 90 percent.
The Sun is the Solar System's star, and by far its chief component. Its large mass (332,900 Earth masses)[19] produces temperatures and densities in its core great enough to sustain nuclear fusion,[20] which releases enormous amounts of energy, mostly radiated into space as electromagnetic radiation, peaking in the 400–700 nm band we call visible light.[21]"
So working in Earth Mass (Me) The whole Solar system is about 333366.7134 Me.
466.7133988 Me tied up in the planets etc.
Multiply this by 10 => 4667.133988 Me in the protoplanetary disk
You start to see that the planets if they were to share this protoplanetary disk mass in proportion to the area of their annulus are going to be much larger than their current sizes.
Planet Real distance (AU)
Planet, , Inner R1 , Outer R2
Mercury 0.39, , 0.195 ,0.555
Venus 0.72, , 0.555 ,0.86
Earth 1, , 0.86 , 1.26
Mars, 1.52 , 1.26 , 2.145
Ceres, 2.77 , 2.145 ,3.985
Jupiter, 5.2 , 3.985 ,7.37
Saturn, 9.54 , 7.37 , 14.37
Uranus, 19.2 , 14.37 ,24.63
Neptune, 30.0 , 24.63 ,34.75
Pluto, 39.44, 34.75 ,44.72
These are the proposed bands for the planetary masses. All mass within the annulus is available to contribute to the proto-planet. How long it stays associated with that planet depends on the strength of the Solar Wind. If it moves it can contribute to the mass of the next planet further out, for the wind and radiant pressure drive the dust outward.
So now looking at the Earth, an with of annulus of 0.4 AU containing an estimated 41.92821101 Earth masses of matter in the protoplanetary disk.
These are the figures for the Earth from the previous table. That was from using NASA figures indicating that in the region of the Earth there was enough matter in the protoplanetary disk to form an Earth with nearly 42 times its current mass.
What this implies is that the early Earth had an enormous amount of volatile gasses liquids associated with it. Enough to cause the compression as in the Compressed Earth Hypothesis. This fits with the findings which initiated the Expanding Earth Theory, but EE exponents never had the mechanism for expanding the Earth. Clearly from these figures the expansion made possible by the release from the extreme compression as the volatiles were ripped away from the Earth in the early stages of Earth history.
QUOTE
"The principal component of the Solar System is the Sun, a main-sequence G2 star that contains 99.86 percent of the system's known mass and dominates it gravitationally.[3] The Sun's four largest orbiting bodies, the gas giants, account for 99 percent of the remaining mass, with Jupiter and Saturn together comprising more than 90 percent.
The Sun is the Solar System's star, and by far its chief component. Its large mass (332,900 Earth masses)[19] produces temperatures and densities in its core great enough to sustain nuclear fusion,[20] which releases enormous amounts of energy, mostly radiated into space as electromagnetic radiation, peaking in the 400–700 nm band we call visible light.[21]"
So working in Earth Mass (Me) The whole Solar system is about 333366.7134 Me.
466.7133988 Me tied up in the planets etc.
Multiply this by 10 => 4667.133988 Me in the protoplanetary disk
You start to see that the planets if they were to share this protoplanetary disk mass in proportion to the area of their annulus are going to be much larger than their current sizes.
Planet Real distance (AU)
Planet, , Inner R1 , Outer R2
Mercury 0.39, , 0.195 ,0.555
Venus 0.72, , 0.555 ,0.86
Earth 1, , 0.86 , 1.26
Mars, 1.52 , 1.26 , 2.145
Ceres, 2.77 , 2.145 ,3.985
Jupiter, 5.2 , 3.985 ,7.37
Saturn, 9.54 , 7.37 , 14.37
Uranus, 19.2 , 14.37 ,24.63
Neptune, 30.0 , 24.63 ,34.75
Pluto, 39.44, 34.75 ,44.72
These are the proposed bands for the planetary masses. All mass within the annulus is available to contribute to the proto-planet. How long it stays associated with that planet depends on the strength of the Solar Wind. If it moves it can contribute to the mass of the next planet further out, for the wind and radiant pressure drive the dust outward.
So now looking at the Earth, an with of annulus of 0.4 AU containing an estimated 41.92821101 Earth masses of matter in the protoplanetary disk.
These are the figures for the Earth from the previous table. That was from using NASA figures indicating that in the region of the Earth there was enough matter in the protoplanetary disk to form an Earth with nearly 42 times its current mass.
What this implies is that the early Earth had an enormous amount of volatile gasses liquids associated with it. Enough to cause the compression as in the Compressed Earth Hypothesis. This fits with the findings which initiated the Expanding Earth Theory, but EE exponents never had the mechanism for expanding the Earth. Clearly from these figures the expansion made possible by the release from the extreme compression as the volatiles were ripped away from the Earth in the early stages of Earth history.