Is the earth expanding?

[Robittybob1]

Using the evolution of the moon's orbit? ....

http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/visualizations/es2501/es2501page01.cfm

ES2501 Observe images illustrating the impact theory of the moon's formation.

From the animation, and the way debris is scattered all around the Earth with the Earth the main gravitational body in close proximity, the chances of the material regrouping to form the Moon seems rather improbable. For the gravitational attraction between the objects, Object to Object will be less than Object to Earth. My bet is on each object just falling back to Earth

How long would the regrouping take? for the migration of the Moon to a higher orbit can only take place once it has otherwise the tidal effects would separate the cloud of particulates.
For certain there would be some rocks found that was the result of this collision. I haven't heard of them so far.
I see there must have been an incorrect calculation somewhere for an annual migration of 80 MM per year for 4.5 billion years will get you out to 350,000 Km.


I'm wondering if I will be able to link the Moon Capture with the Study findings.

 

[Trippy]

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.

It's already been done though - the tidalite data is consistent with modeling of the evolution of the moons orbit (and subsequent revisions to that modeling to improve accuracy).

The modeling is carried out on the assumption that the above factors have remained constant, and so the fact that the measurements confirm the predictions, confirms the assumptions, and leaves only one alternative - that is that if they have changed, the have changed in a 'just so' manner, to give the apperance of remaining constant.

 

[Robittybob1]

It's already been done though - the tidalite data is consistent with modeling of the evolution of the moons orbit (and subsequent revisions to that modeling to improve accuracy).

The modeling is carried out on the assumption that the above factors have remained constant, and so the fact that the measurements confirm the predictions, confirms the assumptions, and leaves only one alternative - that is that if they have changed, the have changed in a 'just so' manner, to give the apperance of remaining constant.

I can't comment Trippy as I'm quite confused by the whole complexity of the situation. It going to take a little while to sink in.

 

[Robittybob1]

What evidence is there that the Earth had a a five hour day to begin with?

 

[origin]

From the animation, and the way debris is scattered all around the Earth with the Earth the main gravitational body in close proximity, the chances of the material regrouping to form the Moon seems rather improbable. For the gravitational attraction between the objects, Object to Object will be less than Object to Earth. My bet is on each object just falling back to Earth

So my choice concerning the formation of the moon is:

1. A tested and generally accepted theory based on celestial mechanics worked out by astrophysicist.

2. Your visual assesment of a video simulation.

I will have to go with number 1.

 

[Robittybob1]

So my choice concerning the formation of the moon is:

1. A tested and generally accepted theory based on celestial mechanics worked out by astrophysicist.

2. Your visual assesment of a video simulation.

I will have to go with number 1.

But what is your gut feeling? If the Moon was created that way there would be still rocks in space returning to the Earth, left over from the collision and not gathered by the moon formation. Are there any of these being found? Actual Earth sourced meteorites? I have not specifically looked for them on a Google search but I'm sure if there had been one we'd be hearing about it.

 

[Trippy]

But what is your gut feeling? If the Moon was created that way there would be still rocks in space returning to the Earth, left over from the collision and not gathered by the moon formation. Are there any of these being found? Actual Earth sourced meteorites? I have not specifically looked for them on a Google search but I'm sure if there had been one we'd be hearing about it.

There was recently a hypothesis proposed to explain the dichotomy between the lunar near side, and the lunar far side, which involved the formation of a second moon.

Debris such as your describing has a tendency to collect at Lagrange points, or be thrown out of orbit. My recollection is that there are long term problems with the stability of objects in the Earth-Moon lagrange points because of instabilities jovian perturbations.

Finally, I recall another paper recently that suggested that on average Earth has 1-2 NEO's orbiting it in any given year, with them spending an average of 2-3 years in orbit around earth.

Point being that: 1. Who says they are missing? 2. If they are missing, there are good reasons to expect that they should be.

 

[origin]

But what is your gut feeling?

Well based only on my everyday experience, the speed of light should not be constant, sub atomic particles should not tunnel, electrons have no wave aspect and no sane person could actually watch Jersey Shore.

Gut feelings do not work very good on the very small and the very large (they are outside of our normal experience) as well entertainment tastes. So I advise you to take some science courses and then you will start to rely more on mathematics and experiementation and less on gut feeling.;

 

[Robittybob1]

Well based only on my everyday experience, the speed of light should not be constant, sub atomic particles should not tunnel, electrons have no wave aspect and no sane person could actually watch Jersey Shore.

Gut feelings do not work very good on the very small and the very large (they are outside of our normal experience) as well entertainment tastes. So I advise you to take some science courses and then you will start to rely more on mathematics and experiementation and less on gut feeling.;

It keeps you keen to solve the mysteries when it goes against your gut feelings.

I would say plenty stop reading my posts for the very same reason. I don't know the program Jersey Shore.

 

[Robittybob1]

With my hypothesis having the Earth surrounded with an enormous ocean of volatiles, even though the tides would have been enormous when the Moon was closer, there is a suggestion this situation would not result in tidal acceleration. (Or put it like this at this stage I think that is what it means???)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration#cite_note-10

The rotational angular momentum of the Earth decreases and consequently the length of the day increases. The net tide raised on Earth by the Moon is dragged ahead of the Moon by Earth's much faster rotation. Tidal friction is required to drag and maintain the bulge ahead of the Moon, and it dissipates the excess energy of the exchange of rotational and orbital energy between the Earth and Moon as heat. If the friction and heat dissipation were not present, the Moon's gravitational force on the tidal bulge would rapidly (within two days) bring the tide back into synchronization with the Moon, and the Moon would no longer recede. Most of the dissipation occurs in a turbulent bottom boundary layer in shallow seas such as the European shelf around the British Isles, the Patagonian shelf off Argentina, and the Bering Sea.[11]

So an ocean world would have no where to slow down and drag the wave. The wave would advance practically the same rate as the Earth rotates and the wave would be in line with the moon earth centres. Hence limited gravitational attraction would be limited. Ok there must still be some friction in the liquids so it definitely is not going to be absolute zero.
But once dry land appeared the tidalites mentioned could quite possible be correct. That means for the last 600 millions years the mechanism was different that for the previous 3.8 billion years.

 

[universaldistress]

I think I read somewhere once that atoms are closer together (or that atoms have less volume) closer to the centre of our galaxy?

If the position within the galaxy has some relevance, then if the solar sytem is slowly moving outwards this could be having an effect?

 

[florian]

I can't comment Trippy as I'm quite confused by the whole complexity of the situation. It going to take a little while to sink in.

Yep. We had a long discussion about it but Trippy still believe that orbit parameters from tidalites data are supporting modeling of the tidal effect.

 

[florian]

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

This figure illustrates how convergence is possible on a growing Earth. The mantle upwelling runs over the lithosphere on its path, dragging the arc so that b (on the arc) and a converge. But a and c do not converge because b and c diverge by the same amount (back-arc extension).
This explains why there is no net reduction of surface along active margins despite the convergence.

The following figures illustrate the anatolian flow running over the immobile mediterranean seafloor.

There is convergence of the hellenic arc and North Africa, but not net decrease in surface between macedonia and North Africa as illustrated in the scheme.

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.

Be realist, you can't understand why convergence does not imply a net reduction of surface despite exhaustive explanations and illustrations (as those above).
The conclusion is that all of this is way over your understanding abilities.

Does anyone else has an understanding issue with this?

(à force de jouer au simplet, tu risques de vraiment passer pour un simplet).

 

[AlexG]

The conclusion is that all of this is way over your understanding abilities.

Perhaps the conclusion should be that your drawings show nothing.

You've stated that expansion has been observed and measured. This is not the case. Instead, you've supplied drawings and an explanation of what those drawings are supposed to show.

No measurements. No observations. Just speculation.

 

[florian]

Perhaps the conclusion should be that your drawings show nothing.

You've stated that expansion has been observed and measured. This is not the case.

False. It has been measured from ocean and continental growth.
And apparently, this scheme is necessary for you to understand that the "no, because there is subduction" argument does not hold one second.

 

[Robittybob1]

False. It has been measured from ocean and continental growth.
And apparently, this scheme is necessary for you to understand that the "no, because there is subduction" argument does not hold one second.

Have you considered decompression yet?

 

[AlexG]

False. It has been measured from ocean and continental growth.

False. You've been asked for the measurements and sources, and you only reply with drawings. The only numbers you supply are for sea floor spreading, from which you extrapolate to get the answer you want.

There are no measurements of earth expanding.

because there is subduction" argument does not hold one second

Something you keep saying, but that's all you do, make the assertion and think that's sufficient.

You haven't managed to back up a single thing you've claimed.

 

[Robittybob1]

False. You've been asked for the measurements and sources, and you only reply with drawings. The only numbers you supply are for sea floor spreading, from which you extrapolate to get the answer you want.

There are no measurements of earth expanding.



Something you keep saying, but that's all you do, make the assertion and think that's sufficient.

You haven't managed to back up a single thing you've claimed.

@AlexG What was the rotational period of the Earth when it was young, like at the time the Moon "formed".

If it has gone from a 5 hour day to a 24 hour day do you think that some of that rotational momentum could not be easily accounted for in expansion of the terrestrial Earth?

 

[florian]

There are no measurements of earth expanding.

Sounds like "there are no evidence for life evolution", and false: Quantification of an Archaean to Recent Earth Expansion Process Using Global Geological and Geophysical Data Sets

 

[florian]

Have you considered decompression yet?

Yes, I examine this theory. There is no evidence of compression 200 My ago.