Is the earth expanding?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yep, "debunked" without reading any serious scientific literature about it. Very impressive...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Rubbish.

 

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.

 

Try and say "rubbish" to that one!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A quarter of a millimeter per year. Rubbish.

 

Whole-earth decompression dynamics by J. Marvin Herndon.

 

Is that too much or too little? That is recent; they are not making any assumptions about the past.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How about this one?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

Tell me what do you others think? Why has the Earth a lot of water? How and when did it get here?

 

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.

 

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)

 

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?

"Pseudoscientists" is considered as an insult by any research scientist. Don't open that door, James.