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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What does "beadling" and "beadlingism" mean?

What is "starom" and why has no-one else mentioned it?

This is meaningless.

What evidence do you have for this "hypothesis"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

. . . 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.

 

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.

 

. . . 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.

 

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.

 

So true no one has taken up my scenario as yet, even though Marvin Herndon suggested a similar concept.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

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