Is the earth expanding?

Ophiolite said:
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.
Click to expand...

:mad: ***That is very unfair and I am offended. *** :mad:

It is part of a very well investigated hypothesis and just can't be dismissed by name calling.
I'm not finished as I explained to JamesR, there is a lot of work yet to be done. So if the scientific data shows even the slightest bit of growth that goes toward proof and is not cherry picking (I do like cherries in fact). :)
 
Robittybob1 said:
It is part of a very well investigated hypothesis and just can't be dismissed by name calling.
I'm not finished as I explained to JamesR, there is a lot of work yet to be done. So if the scientific data shows even the slightest bit of growth that goes toward proof..... :)
Click to expand...
Plate Tectonics and the Expanding Earth
http://www.geologynet.com/tectonics1.htm
"Carey (1970) makes a bold suggestion when he says his data indicates expansion must be occurring at the rapid rate of 8mm a year and almost all of it occurring since the Late Paleozoic-Mesozoic. Almost universally, other authors (Dooley, 1973; Creer, 1965; Egyed, 1960) have through their calculations based on paleomagnetic data suggest this is impossible. They have in turn, however, stated that the Earth could expand at a slower rate, upto 0.5mm a year, for long periods.

These authors, Creer (1965) in particular, suggest the Earth may have been expanding all its life at a slow rate. Therefore, at the time Pangea began to breakup, the Earth's radius would have been similar to its present radius. Numerous models have been constructed (Dooley, Creer) to illustrate how well the continents fit together to form Pangea. All agree that the best is obtained at present. This destroys Carey's model, which assumes to have a radius 76% of the present radius at the time of Pangea breakup. This does not destroy the suggestion that the Earth is expanding at a slower rate.

Creer (1965) says, "I think expansion should be regarded as something which may been gently, but persistently, occurring in the background. There may be little obvious geological evidence of expansion, most of this could easily have been obscured by more vicious and rapid processes, such as continental drift and orogeny." He goes on to say that to obtain a satisfactory explanation of expansion we may well have to wait until the origin of the universe has been successfully deciphered."
Click to expand...

Well I have given an explanation for the expansion (compression and then the slow reheating of the Earth allowing expansion and once molten plate tectonics).
 
Another article bristling with science and maths is "The expanding Earth at present: evidence from temporal gravity field and space-geodetic data" ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 54, 4, 2011; doi: 10.4401/ag-4951.
Abstract:
.... Calculations show that the Earth is expanding at present at a
rate of 0.24 ± 0.04 mm/yr. Furthermore, based on the Earth Gravitational
Model 2008 and the secular variation rates of the second-degree coefficients
estimated by satellite laser ranging and Earth mean-pole data, the principal
inertia moments of the Earth (A, B, C) and in particular their temporal
variations, were determined: the simple mean value of the three principal
inertia moments (i.e., [A+B+C]/3) is gradually increasing. This clearly
demonstrates that the Earth has been expanding, at least over the recent
decades, and the data show that the Earth is expanding at a rate ranging
from 0.17 ± 0.02 mm/yr to 0.21 ± 0.02 mm/yr, which coincides with the
space geodetic evidence. Hence, based on both space geodetic observations
and gravimetric data, we conclude that the Earth has been expanding at a
rate of about 0.2 mm/yr over recent decades."

Now the Maths in the article is beyond me at the moment, but the conclusion looks a lot like what I have been saying. Take a look at it.
 
Whole-earth decompression dynamics by J. Marvin Herndon.
Whole-earth decompression dynamics
J. Marvin Herndon
Transdyne Corporation, 11044 Red Rock Drive, San Diego,
CA 92131, USA
The principles of whole-earth decompression dynamics
are disclosed leading to a new way to interpret wholeearth
dynamics. Whole-earth decompression dynamics
incorporates elements of and unifies the two seemingly
divergent dominant theories of continental displacement,
plate tectonics theory and earth expansion theory.
Whole-earth decompression is the consequence of earth
formation from within a Jupiter-like protoplanet, with
subsequent loss of gases and ices and concomitant rebounding.
The initial whole-earth decompression is
expected to result in a global system of major primary
decompression cracks appearing in the rigid crust,
which persist as the basalt feeders for the global, midoceanic
ridge system. As the earth subsequently decompresses,
the area of the earth’s surface increases by the
formation of secondary decompression cracks, often
located near the continental margins, presently identified
as oceanic trenches. These secondary decompression
cracks are subsequently in-filled with basalt, extruded
from the mid-oceanic ridges, which traverses the ocean
floor by gravitational creep, ultimately plunging into
secondary decompression cracks, emulating subduction.
Much of the evidence presented in support of plate
tectonics supports whole-earth decompression dynamics,
but without necessitating mantle convection/circulation or
basalt recycling. Moreover, unlike in earth expansion
theory, the timescale for earth decompression is not
constrained to the last 200 million years, the maximum
age of the current ocean floor.
Now as I said before I don't know if we need to go as far as a Jupiter sized planet!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
florian said:
Yep, "debunked" without reading any serious scientific literature about it. Very impressive... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Are you saying that OilIsMastery failed to link to any "serious scientific literature" in our Formal Debate?

Where else did he go wrong?
 
James R said:
Are you saying that OilIsMastery failed to link to any "serious scientific literature" in our Formal Debate?

Where else did he go wrong?
Click to expand...
Did he quote the articles that can be found on the net once you include the name : "Creer"? The slow expansion accounts for the changes and allows plate tectonics at the same time. Reason: Compression from the volatile ocean around the Earth early on.
This allows for Moon capture and explains the "Water in the Oceans" without having to require countless millions of comets to replenish the oceans. :)
 
James R said:
Are you saying that OilIsMastery failed to link to any "serious scientific literature" in our Formal Debate?

Where else did he go wrong?
Click to expand...

Don't be confused. I'm saying that you claim to debunk a theory without ever reading any serious scientific literature about it. Dunning-Kruger effect.
 
Robittybob1 said:
Did he quote the articles that can be found on the net once you include the name : "Creer"? The slow expansion accounts for the changes and allows plate tectonics at the same time. Reason: Compression from the volatile ocean around the Earth early on.
This allows for Moon capture and explains the "Water in the Oceans" without having to require countless millions of comets to replenish the oceans. :)
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth
Origin of water on Earth
“The question of the origin of water on Earth, or the question of why there is clearly more water on the Earth than on the other planets of the Solar System, has not been clarified. There are several acknowledged theories as to how the world's oceans were formed over the past 4.6 billion years.”
Click to expand...

Tell me what do you others think? Why has the Earth a lot of water? How and when did it get here?
 
florian said:
Don't be confused. I'm saying that you claim to debunk a theory without ever reading any serious scientific literature about it. Dunning-Kruger effect.
Click to expand...

I commented explicitly in the debate on the various sources cited by OilIsMastery.

Where did he fail in his arguments?

Do you agree with his position?

You pseudoscientists really need to work out a consistent story for this expanding earth of yours. In the current thread alone we have about 3 or 4 contradictory points of view. The only thing you all seem to be able to agree on is that the earth is expanding. None of you have a mechanism for the expansion. You disagree on whether or not mass is being added or the mean density is changing. You're all talking past each other.

Why don't you discuss this amongst yourselves by PM and come back when you have a consistent position to present?
 
James R said:
....
You pseudoscientists really need to work out a consistent story for this expanding earth of yours. In the current thread alone we have about 3 or 4 contradictory points of view. The only thing you all seem to be able to agree on is that the earth is expanding. None of you have a mechanism for the expansion. You disagree on whether or not mass is being added or the mean density is changing. You're all talking past each other.

Why don't you discuss this amongst yourselves by PM and come back when you have a consistent position to present?
Click to expand...

Well am I included in that category? I have consistently given you the mechanism for the expansion, that being the rebound following previous compression. OK you might be right that the EE proponents are not consistent in their mechanism for the expansion. Even I have as much trouble eliciting a response from them as I do from the EE antagonists.

I was asked to provide evidence for my theory and I gave you a lot of information, and further post showing other scientists are thinking in terms of a slow incremental annual expansion.

That is why I threw in the question about "where did the Earth get its water from?" For without a reasonable explanation the Compressed Earth has the only truly viable answer.

No one has offered their view on that topic as yet. I would like to see those that think the Earth collided with a Mars sized planet and it shattered into pieces forming the Moon to stand up and say where the water came from after that event.
My hypotheses takes the whole Solar System into account from the formation of the protoplanetary disc, the planet formations and subsequent mass transfers after the Sun fires up. Right through to the Moon capture and the final positioning of the Moon.

I am a little annoyed if my ideas are just labeled "pseudoscience" for I have backed it up with plenty of standard and well known science, but feel I have been able to time the events together into a workable sequence.

If you don't like what I say provide some evidence against it. Please.
 
I have consistently knocked those other EE believers who just say there was some magical mass increase. Firstly asking to explain the mechanism, and then to explain how this mini Earth was able to have a moon.
For those who don't believe it I have asked just as difficult questions e.g where the water came from and also why the Earth has not cooled down if the tectonic plate movements have been going on since the beginning. The Earth should be shrinking by now if that was the case.
 
Robittybob1:

Please read the Formal Debate thread I linked to above. In it I refute the notion that the earth is expanding significantly at all.
 
Let's see . . . some simple math here . . . (please check for accuracy) . .

0.25 mm/yr (expansion rate)
that works out to about 820 ft per 1 my, doesn't it? (Note: I did the math/conversions roughly)
 
Last edited:
James R said:
I commented explicitly in the debate on the various sources cited by OilIsMastery.

Where did he fail in his arguments?

Do you agree with his position?
Click to expand...
In part yes, in part no.
I don't know him much, but OIM is not a peer, I don't think he's a research scientist.

Let's reopen the debate if it is your will. Shall we start with your list of statements?

James R said:
You pseudoscientists really need to work out a consistent story for this expanding earth of yours.
Click to expand...
"Pseudoscientists" is considered as an insult by any research scientist. Don't open that door, James.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top