Is the earth expanding?

To wlminex:

Thank you; both the mechanic’s and effect are correct. The core does go through a metamorphous as I described. And the new material is less dense as I described. You can give the zones any name you like; I do not prescribe to their use for concerns that I buy in on other aspect that are carried with that name. Yes the expansion is moderate, partly caused by the very slow rate of conversion. Which is fortunate for us, there is enough violence as it is.
 
Moderator note: 15 miscellaneous posts have been removed. These included personal insults, some pointless cheer-leading and a few off-topic flames.
 
Jack1941 said:
YES, the earth is expanding. As explained in the Beadlingism of the earth, and the Beadling of Geoexpansionism
Click to expand...
What does "beadling" and "beadlingism" mean?

The Earth’s core is made up of Starom
Click to expand...
What is "starom" and why has no-one else mentioned it?

as the starom metamorphosis into its atomic state the particles of the starom realign in respect to each other. The rearrangement of the particles making up starom and assuming an atomic configuration brings some of the particles into orbit around the nucleus of the atom. This new proximity is the expansion of the mass.
Click to expand...
This is meaningless.

What evidence do you have for this "hypothesis"?
 
Jack1941 said:
The core does go through a metamorphous as I described.
Click to expand...

If it was the case, knowing that the radius doubled in the last 250 My, the density of Earth would have been unrealistically high. With an average density of 5.5, it is already in the upper part of the spectrum.

So this hypothesis is incorrect. The growth can't be explained by a kind of phase change, it has to be the consequence of a gain of matter.
 
James R said:
Where does the extra matter come from?
Click to expand...
I propose it is simply a rebound from previous compression. Compression was retained in the Earth till the core and mantle reheated. Heat is released on compression but heat is required on expansion. How was the heat going to re-enter the Earth? It took time, so the rebound and decompression are separated in time. :)
 
Robittybob1:

Your explanation disagrees with florian's. I guess the two of yout will have to sort out your differences.
 
James R said:
Where does the extra matter come from?
Click to expand...

. . . NO "extra matter" (mass) . . . . simply silicate and oxide phase transitions from higher density deep mantle ~ 5.2 g/cc at depth (high T & P) in lower mantle to lower density ~ 3.2 g/cc (upper mantle/basalt oceanic crust) . . . to ~ 2.8 g/cc (silicic continental lithospheric crust). . . . SAME mass in a greater volume. Net effect = added volume = increased radius.
 
Last edited:
wlminex said:
. . . NO "extra matter" (mass) . . . . simply silicate and oxide phase transitions from higher density deep mantle ~ 5.2 g/cc at depth (high T & P) in lower mantle to lower density ~ 3.2 g/cc (upper mantle/basalt oceanic crust) . . . to ~ 2.8 g/cc (silicic continental lithospheric crust). . . . SAME mass in a greater volume. Net effect = added volume = increased radius.
Click to expand...
Do you realize the order of volume change required to make the Expanding Earth Theory to work? The over all volume is gong to need to chance by approx. 5 times. Does the phase change you are talking about match that. If the "silicate and oxide phase transitions from higher density deep mantle ~ 5.2 g/cc at depth (high T & P) in lower mantle to lower density ~ 3.2 g/cc (upper mantle/basalt oceanic crust) . . . to ~ 2.8 g/cc (silicic continental lithospheric crust" material is a proportion of the Earth's make-up the changes would be even harder to explain.
 
Robittybob1 said:
Do you realize the order of volume change required to make the Expanding Earth Theory to work? The over all volume is gong to need to chance by approx. 5 times. Does the phase change you are talking about match that. If the "silicate and oxide phase transitions from higher density deep mantle ~ 5.2 g/cc at depth (high T & P) in lower mantle to lower density ~ 3.2 g/cc (upper mantle/basalt oceanic crust) . . . to ~ 2.8 g/cc (silicic continental lithospheric crust" material is a proportion of the Earth's make-up the changes would be even harder to explain.
Click to expand...

. . . dunno . . .I didn't make any calculations . . .however, one could easily calculate . . . depends on the volumes of earth materials involved in the phase transitions. Such phase transitions are real and can most easily be analogized by visualizing the relative density changes as liquid water becomes ice (frozen) with relative T & P conditions. BTW: Phase transitions (similar to the water-ice analogy) also 'bring-into-play' the process of isostasy as a driving mechanism for mantle-material movement.

One has to also consider (factor-in) the increased-radius compensating effects of subduction (oceanic crust geo-recycling) and continental accretion.
 
Last edited:
wlminex said:
. . . dunno . . .I didn't make any calculations . . .however, one could easily calculate . . . depends on the volumes of earth materials involved in the phase transitions. Such phase transitions are real and can most easily be analogized by visualizing the relative density changes as liquid water becomes ice (frozen) with relative T & P conditions. BTW: Phase transitions (similar to the water-ice analogy) also 'bring-into-play' the process of isostasy as a driving mechanism for mantle-material movement
Click to expand...
Ice - water phase transition gives about a 10% change in volume but we would need a 500% change across every molcule in the Earth to explain the EET.
 
Ice-water was just an analogy . . . so that readers could visualize the process of phase transitions . . . .BTW: your calculations for the 500% molecular change would be appreciated. I DID NOT say WHAT the quantitative volume change would be . . .just that a volume increase (of some magnitude) would be expected.
 
James R said:
Where does the extra matter come from?
Click to expand...

Let me explain you how the science works.

First, we make geological observations leading to the firm conclusion that Earth is growing in surface. We can quantify the growth in surface, thus in size. There are no postulate, just empirical evidence and this is fundamental.

Then this is just a suite of logical deductions combined to more observations.

Given that the quantification indicates a doubling in radius in the last 250 My, a growth in size at constant mass, would imply huge surface gravity (about 40 m.s-2) and density at that time.
This is refuted by all the observations we have from that time period. So we logically deduce that the growth in size is a consequence of a growth in matter amount.

We also have plenty evidence of huge matter transport toward the surface (advection). So the additional matter must come from inside.

And here we're stuck, because we have no observations on which we can base a theory explaining how this matter got inside Earth.

In summary, we have observations for the growth in surface, but not for how the matter arrive inside the planet. With observations, we can formulate theories, but without observations we just can't.
 
florian said:
Let me explain you how the science works.
Click to expand...

O goody! I can't wait for this explanation from you.

First, we make geological observations leading to the firm conclusion that Earth is growing in surface.
Click to expand...

At what rate is it growing? Is the rate constant?

Given that the quantification indicates a doubling in radius in the last 250 My, a growth in size at constant mass, would imply huge surface gravity (about 40 m.s-2) and density at that time.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously believe that the radius of the Earth has doubled in the past 250 million years? What are you on?

So we logically deduce that the growth in size is a consequence of a growth in matter amount.
Click to expand...

Where does the extra matter come from? That was the question I started with. Remember?

We also have plenty evidence of huge matter transport toward the surface (advection). So the additional matter must come from inside.

And here we're stuck, because we have no observations on which we can base a theory explaining how this matter got inside Earth.

In summary, we have observations for the growth in surface, but not for how the matter arrive inside the planet. With observations, we can formulate theories, but without observations we just can't.
Click to expand...

So, you're arguing that the Earth magically doubled in size in the blink of a geological eye, but you have no idea what could have caused the doubling and, moreover, you think that we'll never solve that problem.

Ok...

*backs away slowly*
 
What is happening to the earth is what is happening to all objects in the universe, they are getting less dense by means of retaining the same mass (generally speaking) and expanding their borders and growing in volume. They are evolving to space! Mass evolves to space. Mass does not come together and form greater and greater objects, mass gets less dense and evolves to space over time. It's why the "universe" is expanding. It's why a star expands, it's why all the mass around a black hole is moving away from the black hole, and it's why the planets came from the sun! Mass evolves to space!
 
If the Earth had been half its current radius 250 million years ago and the same mass then the surface gravity would have been 4 times what it is now. There's a ton of evidence that the surface gravity has never been 4 times what it is now.

Motor Daddy: I've already debunked that nonsense.
 
I suggest that florian, Robbitybob1, wlminex and Motor Daddy get together and work out an agreed scenario for the Earth's supposed expansion.

Having four pseudoscientists all advancing separate theories of the expanding Earth against the orthodox position that the Earth isn't expanding does not inspire confidence.

What is the consensus on the expanding earth among pseudoscientists? Is there one?
 
James R said:
If the Earth had been half its current radius 250 million years ago and the same mass then the surface gravity would have been 4 times what it is now. There's a ton of evidence that the surface gravity has never been 4 times what it is now.
Click to expand...

You're assuming a zero density space around the terrestrial part of the planet. But what if the surrounding atmosphere was much more dense at that time? The gravity would not be 4 times higher. That is to say, if an object was dropped from 16.087 feet above the "surface" back then, the time of impact would still have been approximately 1 second to reach the "surface." The surrounding atmosphere would have been MUCH more dense than what it is currently today.

Want to learn more about what earth used to approximately look like? Look to Mercury and Venus.

James R said:
Motor Daddy: I've already debunked that nonsense.
Click to expand...

Not a chance. The second law of thermodynamics says I'm right! It has never been wrong. You on the other hand...
 
The mass of the Earth includes the atmosphere.

If the atmosphere was so dense, how did the dinosaurs breathe? How did anything breathe? How dense was it? Does your "theory" give a number?

Mercury and Venus are very different planets. The main differences are due to their different distances from the Sun.

The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to say about your "theory".

Mass does not come together and form greater and greater objects, mass gets less dense and evolves to space over time.
Click to expand...

What fundamental force is involved in this decrease in density?

It's why the "universe" is expanding.
Click to expand...

No. The universe is expanding due to the big bang and the effects of dark energy.

It's why a star expands...
Click to expand...

Stars both expand and contract. Some even pulsate. How does your theory account for the contraction of stars?

it's why all the mass around a black hole is moving away from the black hole
Click to expand...

The mass around a black hole mostly either orbits the hole or moves into it. How does your theory account for that?

and it's why the planets came from the sun!
Click to expand...

The planets didn't come from the Sun.

Mass evolves to space!
Click to expand...

A meaningless mantra. Endless repetition doesn't make it any truer than the first time I debunked it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top