Is the earth expanding?

Motor Daddy said:
Hey, maybe the dinosaurs couldn't breath anymore when the atmosphere got to a point where it was not dense enough, and that's what killed the dinosaurs!!! :)

If they needed a real dense carbon dioxide type of atmosphere that they were used to and it got less dense, they were like a fish out of water.

We're next! As earth gets further away from the sun, and the atmosphere gets much less dense, we will die off. It will be a cold miserable place, like mars. No atmosphere and coldddddddd! You wouldn't want to live here anyway!
Click to expand...
II think you have made a good observation. One that fits in with the decompressing Earth hypothesis. The gradual loss of the atmosphere would make it impossible for Archaeopteryx to fly today.
The sudden loss of atmospheric pressure when the asteroid struck meant the blood couldn't get to the heads of the long necked dinosaurs. The blood pressure had atmospheric pressure assistance. (Weight of the blood was supported by the density of the air.) :)
 
Trippy said:
Wrong, and I tried explaining this to you earlier. If there were no tidal braking, Earth loosing mass would cause the moon to spiral outwards, Earth gaining mass would cause it to spiral inwards (it relates back to the conservation of angular momentum). Think of it this way, orbital velocity (or a satelite) is related to the mass of the primary as well as the distance from the primary. If there is nothing to speed the moon up, and we add a little bit of mass to the Earth, then the moon will fall a little bit closer to the 'correct' position for it's velocity.
Click to expand...

There is tidal braking. And that is what accelerate the moon on its orbit which force it to move to an higher orbit.
 
Robittybob1 said:
If in the weirdest way you were correct the additional mass would have to have exactly the same angular momentum as the rest of the Earth for from the tidalite studies the year length (hours in day times number of days in a year has stayed constant).
Click to expand...
Yes, the year length is not calculated from tidalites. It is assumed to remain constant during geological times.
And every other orbital parameters are linked to that key assumption.
This is the weakness of the method.
 
florian said:
Yes, the year length is not calculated from tidalites. It is assumed to remain constant during geological times.
And every other orbital parameters are linked to that key assumption.
This is the weakness of the method.
Click to expand...
Well did you identify the mechanism that was creating the additional mass?
Work back from that.
 
James R said:
I
What is the consensus on the expanding earth among pseudoscientists?
Click to expand...
I really don't give a fuck about what pseudoscientists and wannabe scientists are thinking. I'm only interested in the science.
 
Gneiss2011 said:
On one hand, convergence doesn't append and seafloor never disapear. On the other hand, convergence does append and seafloor disapear.
Click to expand...

So florian self contradict.

florian said:
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.
Click to expand...

I concur. Except that nobody has show observation or empirical evidence of Earth expansion until now (as far as I know).

James R said:
What is the consensus on the expanding earth among pseudoscientists? Is there one?
Click to expand...

No, there is no consensus among EE proponents. By example, Samuel Carey denied convergence and subduction, florian seem to acknowledge some convergence and some subduction, Neals Adams talk about PMP... You can meet several of them in this thread.

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

origin said:
There is no evidence what so ever that the earth is growing.
Click to expand...

But florian claim there are such evidence. Maybe he will tell you if you ask him politely? :shrug: He refuse to tell me. :bawl:

origin said:
I think it is kinda cool (for some reason) when intelligent people latch onto a goofy idea and then use their intellect to defend that goofy idea, ignoring all logical reasons against it, when even a highschool student could immediately see how absurd the idea is.
It is really fascinating and I have seen it before a few times. It is typically when a PhD goes out of his area of expertise.
Click to expand...

I think that it is also sad.

florian said:
That would be rather stupid to invent an increase in mass without the observations that the size of our planet increased. Remember You do not make up a postulate than then make up observations to support the postulate! . We start with observations and quantification of these observations.
Click to expand...

Show those observations.
 
florian said:
I really don't give a fuck about what pseudoscientists and wannabe scientists are thinking. I'm only interested in the science.
Click to expand...
So you know EE theory is a fact? So let’s do the calculations WRT the Moons orbit, Earth orbits and the tidalites. Surely me must be able to identify the reasoning behind it.

Right how was the Moon formed? Would a small Earth be able to capture it?
What would happen if the Moon whacked into a small Earth?

I can see problems with both those scenarios if a small Earth is involved.
 
florian said:
That is equally stupid to deny an increase in mass by denying the existence of observations proving that the size of our planet increased.
Click to expand...

Uh no. There are only a 'select' few who have convinced themselves that the earth is expanding. Take a good look at your 'expanding earth' friends.;)
 
Gneiss2011 said:
I concur. Except that nobody has show observation or empirical evidence of Earth expansion until now (as far as I know).
Click to expand...


Gneiss2011 said:
But florian claim there are such evidence. Maybe he will tell you if you ask him politely? He refuse to tell me. :bawl:
Click to expand...


Ouh the dirty lies. :spank:

You posted these observations in post #678 that I commented in post #679 .

I know only one guy who uses this kind of dirty rhetoric and that I encountered on some french fora.
Discussing with this guy proved to be as useless as arguing with a creationist.
Besides, this guy is an obsessional weirdos who tried many time to invade my private life.
I'm pretty sure now that you and this guy are the same person.
The only valid solution in this case is to ignore you.
So from now on, I will simply ignore your posts. :wave:
 
Last edited:
origin said:
Uh no. There are only a 'select' few who have convinced themselves that the earth is expanding. Take a good look at your 'expanding earth' friends.;)
Click to expand...

Frankly, I see no friends here.
Most of these EE supporters you find of forum have no more clues about EE than the other regular members. They have even lesser clues about plate tectonics. They give a disastrous image of EE.
At least, some of the regular members are knowledgable in geosciences.

Regarding the observations, look at my message #732.
 
florian said:
There is tidal braking.
Click to expand...
I didn't say there wasn't.

florian said:
And that is what accelerate the moon on its orbit which force it to move to an higher orbit.
Click to expand...
Only if the mass gain is below some critical value.
Above the critical value, the moon will spiral inwards regardless of tidal braking.
At the critical value a metastable state is acheived, where whether the moon spirals inwards or outwards depends on the configuration of the continents.
 
I'll repeat the challenge:
"let’s do the calculations WRT the Moons orbit, Earth orbits and the tidalites. Surely me must be able to identify the reasoning behind it.

Right how was the Moon formed? Would a small Earth be able to capture it?
What would happen if the Moon whacked into a small Earth?"

How did the Moon form?
 
florian said:
Pardon me? Did I send you personal emails or pursuit you all other the internet revealing personal informations?
I don't think so.
Click to expand...
You used what you thought was my name in this thread, and claimed to have tracked me down academicaly, so yeah, you did do at least some of that.
 
1. Conditions (assume 1kg mass)

mass-----density-g/cc----- Material------------Calc. Vol (cc)

1 kg ---- 5.2 g/cc--------- (Avg mantle)-------192 cc
1 kg ---- 3.3 g/cc--------- (Avg Basalt crust)---303 cc
1 kg----- 2.8 g/cc--------- (Avg sialic crust)----357 cc

2. Assume a spherical 1kg mass, then calculate metrics:

Material---d (g/cc)-----r(cm)------V (cc)----- A (cm^2)-----C (cm)

Mantle----5.2----------3.58------192--------160.9--------22.49
Basalt-----3.3----------4.17------303--------218.2--------26.18
Sial Crust --2.8----------4.40------357-------243.4--------27.65

Conclusion: Phase changes (higher density to lower density) increase radius (r)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top