Is the earth expanding?

Motor Daddy said:
I can do better than that.

I can explain how the entire universe works in 4 words: Mass evolves to space!

The planets came from the sun and move away from the sun.
The mass surrounding the black hole came from the black hole.
Dark matter is matter that has since got less dense.
The absolute frame is the infinite volume of space.
Light travels away from the point in space that it was emitted, regardless of what the source does during that light travel time.
v=(ct-l)/t
Gravity is the repositioning of matter to the equilibrium state of mass, which is a sphere which is the most dense at the core and the least dense at the outer edge of the sphere.

What more would you like?
Click to expand...
A cure for the common cold.

You say: "The planets came from the sun and move away from the sun." Not entirely true, both are formed from the original Nebula but not from the Sun directly.

You say: "The mass surrounding the black hole came from the black hole." Not true. The Black Hole (BH) in the centre would have been a large star itself then died to become the BH. From then on drawing stuff in toward itself.
You say: "Dark matter is matter that has since got less dense." They hardly know what Dark Matter is yet.
 
Last edited:
Motor Daddy said:
I can do better than that.

I can explain how the entire universe works in 4 words: Mass evolves to space!
Click to expand...

An empty mantra.

The planets came from the sun and move away from the sun.
Click to expand...

Except that they didn't.

The mass surrounding the black hole came from the black hole.
Click to expand...

Impossible, since no matter can escape from a black hole.

Dark matter is matter that has since got less dense.
Click to expand...

Dark matter cannot be baryonic matter.

This is like your magical turning of other substances into water.

The absolute frame is the infinite volume of space.
Click to expand...

There is no absolute frame.

Light travels away from the point in space that it was emitted, regardless of what the source does during that light travel time.
Click to expand...

Simple relativity.

v=(ct-l)/t
Click to expand...

Basic 1-dimensional kinematics.

Gravity is the repositioning of matter to the equilibrium state of mass, which is a sphere which is the most dense at the core and the least dense at the outer edge of the sphere.
Click to expand...

Complete fantasy, contradicted by many many facts.
 
James R said:
No. The earth is not appreciably expanding.
Click to expand...

If you continue to ignore the relevant literature, this remark will place you in good company with the flat-earther and the creationists. So don't ignore the relevant literature.

I give a list of relevant basic literature:

"The Expanding Earth - an Essay Review" SW Carey (1975) Earth-Science Reviews 11 p 105-143 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/6yzgaq4)

"The Necessity for Earth Expansion" S. Warren Carey (1983) pp375-393 in Carey, SW (ed): Expanding Earth Symposium, Sydney, 1981. (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/3hrh5x8)

"Quantification of an Archaean to Recent Earth Expansion Process Using Global Geological and Geophysical Data Sets" J. Maxlow 2001 PhD thesis, Curtin University (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/kklg6y)

"Fossils, frogs, floating islands and expanding Earth in changing-radius cartography – A comment to a discussion on Journal of Biogeography" G Scalera (2007) Ann Geophys 50(6) p789 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/ycs8en6)

"Earthquakes, phase changes, fold belts: from Apennines to a global perspective" G Scalera (2010) GeoActa, Special Publication 3, pp. 25-43. (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/3bv2e8c)

"Mantle plumes and dynamics of the Earth interior — towards a new model" S Cwojdziñski Geol Rev 52, p817 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/3vpafys)

When flat-earther and creationists are facing scientific literature destroying their belief they usually dismiss it by carefully avoiding to argue the content of the papers.

What will you do James?
 
James R said:
No. The earth is not appreciably expanding.
Click to expand...
Thank you James. I that to mean a 0.5 mm/year increase in the Earth radius is in the not appreciable category. Even I can't consider that expanding but the minuscule effect over aeons is when it does become noticeable.
 
florian said:
If you continue to ignore the relevant literature, this remark will place you in good company with the flat-earther and the creationists. So don't ignore the relevant literature.
Click to expand...

Why don't you check the relevant literature. It would be just about all of the literature on geology and cosmology except for the few fringe papers that cite.;)

I think it is rather ironic that you accuse someone who doesn't agree with your far fringe idea as a flat-earther and the creationists.:rolleyes:
 
origin said:
Why don't you check the relevant literature. It would be just about all of the literature on geology and cosmology except for the few fringe papers that cite.;)

I think it is rather ironic that you accuse someone who doesn't agree with your far fringe idea as a flat-earther and the creationists.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You are just stirring for there have been no such accusations made at all.
:)
 
origin said:
Why don't you check the relevant literature. It would be just about all of the literature on geology and cosmology except for the few fringe papers that cite.;)
Click to expand...
I check all the literature about tectonics. The last paper I read is "Geodynamic reconstructions of the South America–Antarctica plate system".

origin said:
I think it is rather ironic that you accuse someone who doesn't agree with your far fringe idea as a flat-earther and the creationists
Click to expand...
Ironic? No. Sad.
Accusing? Neither.
And disagree about what? You never discussed the content of these papers...
 
florian:

florian said:
If you continue to ignore the relevant literature, this remark will place you in good company with the flat-earther and the creationists. So don't ignore the relevant literature.
Click to expand...

It looks like nothing has happened in your literature since 1975 or so. That's not exactly at the cutting edge of geology, is it?

The expanding earth hypothesis is only pushed by a looney fringe.
 
James R said:
florian:



It looks like nothing has happened in your literature since 1975 or so. That's not exactly at the cutting edge of geology, is it?

The expanding earth hypothesis is only pushed by a looney fringe.
Click to expand...
I don't know if I'm in that number or not, but I still think a "Compressed Earth" followed by rebound expansion is a possibility. I am planning to go back over the sources which have suggested a minor measured expansion.
I certainly don't go along with the traditional Expanding Earth Theory. :)
 
Florian:

Is there really any need for me to go through again what others took you through back in August 2011 when you posted your list of articles on usenet?

I don't think so.
 
James R said:
Is there really any need for me to go through again what others took you through back in August 2011 when you posted your list of articles on usenet?

I don't think so.
Click to expand...

It is well known that cranks always dismiss the scientific literature that prove their crankiness.
 
Florian:

You said it!

I've already debunked the expanding earth extensively in a Formal Debate here, by the way. Here it is for your reading pleasure.

[thread=86898]Debate: The Earth is expanding[/thread]

Seeing as you're spamming this stuff across the internet, I'm sure you're familiar with OilIsMastery.

Do you think you can you do any better than OilIsMastery?

If so, please point out what you think were the most fatal mistakes he made in our debate.
 
I heard an astrophysicist mention today (radio) that 1 ton of debris enters the atmosphere and is added to earth daily.
 
Robittybob1 said:
I don't know if I'm in that number or not, but I still think a "Compressed Earth" followed by rebound expansion is a possibility. I am planning to go back over the sources which have suggested a minor measured expansion. I certainly don't go along with the traditional Expanding Earth Theory. :)
Click to expand...
This is called cherry picking. It is not the mark of a scientist, but of a crank, a creationist, or some other word beginning with c.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top