Is the earth expanding?
- Thread starter bgjyd834
- Start date
Is this right? This can only mean you have not read my posts or ever attempted to understand them. Repeating the mechanism one more time will not make any difference then will it.
Mass => Gravitationally induced Compression => time passes => loss of mass and reheating => decompression => rebound expansion.
There is a time delay between decompression and expansion which is related to the viscosity of the material and the energy required for the rebound.
Heat is released in the gravitational compression and the rebound only happens after decompression and reheating (takes time so there is apparent delay, so the expansion seems to be happening without a recent cause to explain it).
Last edited:
How does the Earth heat up?
With less water on the surface less conduction.
Radioactive materials keep breaking down,
The Sun's activity is increasing so less radiation from the surface.
The tidal affects of the Moon on the Earth. (Energy previously tied up in kinetic Energy has been converted to heat. Rotation of Earth has slowed.)
Formation of the global crust with a slower heat conduction rate.
What causes mass loss of volatiles?
The protosun turning to T-Tauri star and then to main sequence (enormous pressure wave when that initiated).
Longer term Solar wind, and periods of no magnetic field?
Moon capture. Moon was slowed by impacting volatiles on the surface of the Earth.
Longer term comets and astroids disrupting the atmosphere.
Last edited:
But solid ground loses heat faster than water. So less water on the surface would result in faster cooling.
Yes they do. And there is less of them now than there was in the past. More of the radioactive materials have already 'broken down', so they are cooler as time goes on, not hotter.
Less radiation FROM the surface? The sun's activity has periodically increased and decreased.
No, it hasn't. It has been transferred to the moon, increasing it's angular momentum, which is why the moon's orbit has increased in diameter over time.
This is just a restatement of your first incorrect point. It's still incorrect.
As for the rest, you could just as well say 'the tooth fairy'.
Since you've implied he's collaborating with you, perhaps James could supply you with some supporting arguments?
I am beginning to wonder about your mental stability Alex. Your logical reasoning is apparently lacking.
Maybe you could prove to me "solid ground loses heat faster than water. So less water on the surface would result in faster cooling"?
The stratification of the Earth cores and mantle result in the concentration of the radioactive material and that can speed up the reaction rate.
OK the total amount of material is less as the time goes on, but it still can get hotter depending on the ability to lose heat.
The Sun is said to be 30% more intense than when first commencing.
Only a small portion of the angular momentum is transferred to the Moon. (from memory it was about 20%).
JamesR is not working with me on this but does from time to time check and discuss the ideas I am raising.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/dynamic/session4/sess4_act3.htm
More water, more heat retained.
ROFLMFAO!!!
Sea breeze on Wikipedia
See also Mountain breeze/valley breeze, lake effect snow, so on and so forth.
That article relates to the way solar radiation is handled differently by the land and the water, so you might feel right, but the science is vastly different when it comes to heat loss/insulation regarding the core of the Earth.
With Wiki down things are a little slower. I'll add the URLs later when I find them.
But basically heat is lost at the mid ocean ridges, ocean crust thinnest there so conduction losses are greatest there. Soon as heat is in the sea convection currents transmit heat to the surface.
Whereas the Continental crust is 100s of km thick and loses heat slowly. (Acts as insulation)
and for the ocean floor:
Last edited:
ROFLMFAO!!!
I hope you have stopped laughing now you have read the articles above. You started laughing a bit too quickly Trippy.
ROFLMFAO!!!
I hope you have stopped laughing now you have read the articles above. You started laughing a bit too quickly Trippy.
Nothing new in it, and you seem confused.
Water still has a higher heat capacity than either oceanic or continental crust.
Oceanic crust and continental crust still 'loose heat' faster than water because of this.
None of which has anything to do with the article you posted, that has to do with factors such as how thin the crust is, and what actually happens there.
So yeah, I'm still laughing.
If you don't believe me, take a trip to Taupo some day
I'm not sure if you understand what I was trying to prove. I was originally talking about the reheating of the core of the Earth. There would have been very little water down in the core and in the Mantle, but once the Crust had formed the heat continually being generated could reheat the mantle.Nothing new in it, and you seem confused.
Water still has a higher heat capacity than either oceanic or continental crust.
Oceanic crust and continental crust still 'loose heat' faster than water because of this.
None of which has anything to do with the article you posted, that has to do with factors such as how thin the crust is, and what actually happens there.
So yeah, I'm still laughing.
If you don't believe me, take a trip to Taupo some day
Unless the matter in the mantle softened there would never be any tectonic plate movements. So the tectonic plate movements and the rebound expansion were both dependent on the heating of the Earth.
In the Compressed Earth scenario as the core heated the energy was available for expansion so that would act like the latent heat the temperature would not go up beyond a certain point till the expansion was complete. It is possible that effects resulting from this meant the mantle never got hot enough for plate tectonics till the expansion had virtually been completed.
It certainly is a mystery why there isn't ocean floor older than around 200 million years old. I don't like the sudden rebound concept that would have to be adopted if the expansion was delayed and it sprung back rapidly over a period of 200 million years.
I have not formulated a concept that acocounts for this "fact" at the present time.
It certainly is a mystery why there isn't ocean floor older than around 200 million years old. I don't like the sudden rebound concept that would have to be adopted if the expansion was delayed and it sprung back rapidly over a period of 200 million years.
I have not formulated a concept that acocounts for this "fact" at the present time.
So MD thinks the Earth is slowly exploding and you think the Earth is heating up as its contracting.
Am I following the thread correctly?
Am I following the thread correctly?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
The temperature of the earth over its lifetime has decreased since it was once part of the sun and has since cooled, the exterior of the earth obviously cooling first, resulting in a hard shell and molten interior. The interior is cooling, but at a much lower rate due to being insulated by its outer layers.
In the beginning there was no water, so there was no ocean floors. The earth at that point was more like a ball of lava that had cooled more on the exterior than the interior. The atmosphere was very dense, not like we know today. Water was forming as the earth continued to cool and evolve to space. The oceans formed. The surface of the earth continued to cool, decay, and erode, forming the deserts. The atmosphere got less dense. Water formation had stopped and the water has since started to evolve to space. The earth will continue to cool, at its core, slowly, as the earth continues its expansion into a gas giant that resemble the outer planets, as they too once looked like earth, just like the earth once looked like Mercury and Venus. Planets came from the sun and move away from the sun and continue to cool and evolve and become less dense as time goes on.
In the beginning there was no water, so there was no ocean floors. The earth at that point was more like a ball of lava that had cooled more on the exterior than the interior. The atmosphere was very dense, not like we know today. Water was forming as the earth continued to cool and evolve to space. The oceans formed. The surface of the earth continued to cool, decay, and erode, forming the deserts. The atmosphere got less dense. Water formation had stopped and the water has since started to evolve to space. The earth will continue to cool, at its core, slowly, as the earth continues its expansion into a gas giant that resemble the outer planets, as they too once looked like earth, just like the earth once looked like Mercury and Venus. Planets came from the sun and move away from the sun and continue to cool and evolve and become less dense as time goes on.
So things expand while they cool?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Yes. Heat travels from hot to cold. Heat is a mass loss into a greater volume, which means the mass occupies more volume. You are tracking the volume of the entire original mass, aren't you? Are you just allowing heat to escape (mass to escape) and claiming the object contracted? The object doesn't contract, the original mass gets less dense because it occupies a greater volume cold then warm. You aren't gonna say an object expands in volume when you heat it up are you? We are talking about the ORIGINAL mass of the object and the volume in space it occupies. We are not talking about adding mass to an object and watching it grow!
They could do.
Gas and liquids heat up when compressed, and expand while they cool, or (as usually said) "cool while they expand". (Principle of heat pumps and refrigeration.) Allow them to expand and they will cool their surroundings as energy is taking in to promote the expansion.
You could throw a compressed spring into liquid nitrogen. It would expand as it cools.
In the situation I am describing there is residual compression and this only manifests as it reheats. It is the core and mantle that are still heating beneath the lithosphere (crust). The rate of heating has slowed over the billions of years.
There could be nett cooling (with resultant contraction soon).
Last edited:
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
You mean how much time did it take for the mass of a spiral galaxy that surrounds the black hole at the center of the spiral galaxy to expand into the volume it now occupies, from the previous smaller volume it once occupied?
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
BTW, you do know that a spiral galaxy is nothing more than the black hole itself, where the core of the black hole is the most dense and the outer boundary of the black hole is the least dense, don't you?
Just like our solar system (sun) is the most dense at the core and the least dense at the outer boundary? Yes, I am saying that our solar system is nothing more than the sun evolving to space. Our entire solar system IS the sun, evolving to space getting less dense as time goes on!
Last edited: