Is the earth expanding?

[Gneiss2011]

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.

Sorry, I made a mistake. You can forget my post #2880172.

Your "observation" and "measurement" of Earth expansion use a EE model, isn't it?

Of course not!

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

and are obviously using the idea that seafloor subduction doesn't exist or is negligible (so all or almost all of "ocean floor" that has "growth" in the past can be seen today). An idea which is part of your EE model.

use a EE model.

Two week ago, you claimed there are observation and measurement of Earth expansion which do not use a EE model.

Since two week, you have not show any measurement of Earth expansion which do not use a EE model, altought I (gently) asked you to do so.

 

[Robittybob1]

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29842&st=690&# In the last 2 pages of this thread there is proof presented that would confirm the Earth was compressed before it expanded.

 

[florian]

and are obviously using the idea that seafloor subduction doesn't exist or is negligible (so all or almost all of "ocean floor" that has "growth" in the past can be seen today). An idea which is part of your EE model.

Negligible recycling along active margins is not an idea, it is a fact independent of any model.

This fact combined to seafloor spreading, implies that the ocean floor has been growing, independently of any model.

The quantification of seafloor spreading is a measurement of the net increase in surface of the ocean floor, independently of any model.

If the surface of the globe has been increasing then the volume of the globe has been increasing, i.e., Earth is growing.

The quantification of seafloor spreading floor is a measurement of that growth.

Can't be clearer than that.

 

[florian]

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29842&st=690&# In the last 2 pages of this thread there is proof presented that would confirm the Earth was compressed before it expanded.

Using the evolution of the moon's orbit? You have to learn about tidalites first, to understand what are the constraints on the Moon revolution and the rotation rate of Earth.

 

[Robittybob1]

Using the evolution of the moon's orbit? You have to learn about tidalites first, to understand what are the constraints on the Moon revolution and the rotation rate of Earth.

I did look at the current tidalites and that was throwing the Moon out by a mere few mm per year so even after 5.5 billion years it will only move the Moon by the distance of half it's
diameter. In other words if there isn't enormous oceans as I proposed tidal effects are insignificant.

 

[Robittybob1]

The Moon capture requires a large gaseous planet Earth to slow the incoming Moon. The amount of matter in the protoplasmic disk allows for an Earth with about 42 Earth masses.
In the process of slowing the moon, the mass of volatiles removed could have been as much as 35 Earth masses.
The vastness of the mass pressing down on the terrestrial part of the Earth caused it to compress. During the decompression the continent plate which was once a continuous covering cracked.
Later in the Earth history the single continental plate broke up into 7 major chunks once the expansion slowed.
So the Moon's position and angular momentum is explained by the capture theory, which is only possible with a large "volatile covered" compressed Earth.
So EE Theory is more likely a fact rather than a myth. Continental drift is quite a late phenomenon. That is then when the theory of Continental drift and plate tectonics plays its part.

 

[Gneiss2011]

and are obviously using the idea that seafloor subduction doesn't exist or is negligible (so all or almost all of "ocean floor" that has "growth" in the past can be seen today). An idea which is part of your EE model.

Negligible recycling along active margins is not an idea, it is a fact independent of any model.

I was talking about negligible seafloor subduction, not about negligible recycling along active margins.

 

[Robittybob1]

I was talking about negligible seafloor subduction, not about negligible recycling along active margins.

Seafloor subduction and continental drift are all late events in the history of the Earth.
The expansion had occurred long before that happening. The Moon being as far out with the angular momentum it has proves it was captured by a massive gaseous Earth and has subsequently drifted out to there.
I can't even imagine how the debris from an impact with another small planet would ever result in the formation of the moon. It surely would be unlikely to have the kinetic energy to get to that height and to be close enough and gravitationally regroup as the Moon.

 

[florian]

I was talking about negligible seafloor subduction, not about negligible recycling along active margins.

As if you did not know that negligible seafloor subduction=negligible recycling along active margins.

 

[florian]

Seafloor subduction and continental drift are all late events in the history of the Earth.
The expansion had occurred long before that happening. The Moon being as far out with the angular momentum it has proves it was captured by a massive gaseous Earth and has subsequently drifted out to there.
I can't even imagine how the debris from an impact with another small planet would ever result in the formation of the moon. It surely would be unlikely to have the kinetic energy to get to that height and to be close enough and gravitationally regroup as the Moon.

Computer models do that. So it must be true right?

 

[florian]

I did look at the current tidalites.

The current tidalites?? What about My old tidalites?

 

[Robittybob1]

The current tidalites?? What about My old tidalites?

Could you please give me a clue? What exactly are you talking about?

 

[florian]

Could you please give me a clue? What exactly are you talking about?

?? about tidalites: http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf

 

[Robittybob1]

?? about tidalites: http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf

The above article in the abstract said

suggesting that a close approach of the Moon did not occur during earlier time.
Concentrated study of Precambrian tidal rhythmites
promises to illuminate the evolving dynamics of the early
Earth-Moon system and may permit the lunar orbit to be
traced back to near the time of the Moon’s origin.

So if their conclusion was that the Moon never came close to the Earth how does one presume it formed? Both the Massive Impact and Capture hypothesis rely on a close encounter. That is a very good article on the whole and will require some analysis.
One odd thing I noted was even though 500 mya the days were shorter there were more of them in a year, so it seemed we still took the same time to get around the Sun. Spinning slower with the rotational momentum transferred to the Moon with an increasing rate of recession!

 

[wlminex]

The above article in the abstract said

So if their conclusion was that the Moon never came close to the Earth how does one presume it formed? Both the Massive Impact and Capture hypothesis rely on a close encounter. That is a very good article on the whole and will require some analysis.
One odd thing I noted was even though 500 mya the days were shorter there were more of them in a year, so it seemed we still took the same time to get around the Sun. Spinning slower with the rotational momentum transferred to the Moon with an increasing rate of recession!

Perhaps all of the green "wind generators" will also effectively slow the earth's rotation? (<-- humor here!)

 

[florian]

That is a very good article on the whole and will require some analysis.

Yes, you should read it critically, though.

One odd thing I noted was even though 500 mya the days were shorter there were more of them in a year, so it seemed we still took the same time to get around the Sun.

Interesting. You went straight to the most important point. The revolution period of Earth is assumed to remain constant in all the calculations, including length of the day and the Moon's orbital parameters.
Do you think that it is a reasonable assumption?

 

[Robittybob1]

Perhaps all of the green "wind generators" will also effectively slow the earth's rotation? (<-- humor here!)

Wind generators based on my analysis should speed up the Earth's rotation as the net movement of wind is in the same direction as the Earth's rotation.
So putting a barrier in the way will take momentum out of the wind and transfer it to the land. <---- no kidding.

 

[Gneiss2011]

How do EE proponents explain the non-negligible seafloor subduction, and the non-negligible convergence between a and b, in the following diagram?

How do they explain the non-negligible seafloor subduction under Crete and the non-negligible convergence between Aegean Sea and Cyrenaica? http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/291/1/1

Your "observation" and "measurement" of Earth expansion use a EE model, isn't it?

Of course not!

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.

 

[Robittybob1]

..... 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.

The study in this link mentions a factor of Earth expansion.
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453w...99RG900016.pdf
Might be worth looking into it.

 

[Robittybob1]

Yes, you should read it critically, though.

Interesting. You went straight to the most important point. The revolution period of Earth is assumed to remain constant in all the calculations, including length of the day and the Moon's orbital parameters.
Do you think that it is a reasonable assumption?

When you ask me that question I had put the article aside for a while as I have other things to do.
But before I did I was thinking of all the factors to consider:

Earth mass changing,or staying the same

Earth orbital speed changing, or staying the same.

Distance to the moon changing, or staying the same.

Moon angular momentum changing or staying the same.

And to put all those dynamics in your head is quite a difficult thought.

So we are left with these findings in this study and one has to try and fit it into the broader picture of whatever hypothesis one favours.
It left me feeling uneasy to point one way or the other. I did not see the authors suggest how the Moon originated, other than they thought it hadn't been close to the Earth, and that in itself was a surprise.

How do you think the Moon originated when taking into account these findings?