# Thread: Is the earth expanding?

1. Originally Posted by origin
OK. Then my theory is that matter is formed at the mid ocean ridges and the matter then disappears at the subduction zones.

$M_f - M_a = 0$

Where
$M_f$ is the formation of mass
$M_a$ is the annihilation of mass

This is mathematical proof that the earth is not expanding.

I call my theory the JASATEE Theory*.

*Just As Stupid As The Expanding Earth Theory
I notice no one seems to use the word compression or decompression in their replies. Answer the point; does that account for the EE theory? Not magic just science.

2. Originally Posted by origin
Then my theory is that matter is formed at the mid ocean ridges and the matter then disappears at the subduction zones.
Your theory relies on zero observations and makes zero predictions. You failed.

3. Originally Posted by florian
Your theory relies on zero observations and makes zero predictions. You failed.
You are debunked Florian for you don't answer my questions.
Does decompression account for the EE theory?

4. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Does decompression account for the EE theory?
I gave you some arguments refuting the decompression theory. What do you want more? If you're not convinced then I can't do more for you that I can do for those who believes in plate tectonics. After all, anyone is free to believe in whatever he wants. But don't call it "Science".

5. Originally Posted by florian
I gave you some arguments refuting the decompression theory. What do you want more? If you're not convinced then I can't do more for you that I can do for those who believes in plate tectonics. After all, anyone is free to believe in whatever he wants. But don't call it "Science".
Hmm, I doubt it. Do you have a reference for that? For sure one does not have to go very deep in the ocean to render photosynthesis unpractical (about 30 m for green chlorophyll).

Anyway, the compression as described by Herndon would have left clear evidence at the surface of Earth. These evidence simply do not exist.
And there are many other evidence that refute Herndon's hypothesis, like the measured rate of growth that is linearly increasing with time.
You did too, must have come in while I was typing.
You say "the compression as described by Herndon would have left clear evidence at the surface of Earth." well the shape of the continental plates is the evidence for this, silly. Do you not understand that yet?

6. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Just did the calculation: If the expansion began to take place 3.42 Billion years ago to take the Earth's radius up from 62% of todays value it only requires and annual linear expansion of 0.707 mm / Year.
If the expansion began to take place 220 million years ago to take the Earth's radius up from 62% of todays value, then it requires an annual linear expansion of 11 mm / Year.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1
There was discussion saying that recent measured values were as high as 18 mm/year.
18 mm/year is not far the average estimate among expanding earth believers.

7. Originally Posted by florian
Always the same mental error. The correct statement is "There is currently no know mechanism that can explain how matter is added to Earth".
Corrected: "There is currently no know mechanism that can explain how matter could be added to Earth"

8. Originally Posted by Gneiss2011
If the expansion began to take place 220 million years ago to take the Earth's radius up from 62% of todays value, then it requires an annual linear expansion of 11 mm / Year.

18 mm/year is not far the average estimate among expanding earth believers.
Now that is true, so how does the Earth retain its compressed state until 220 million years ago and just start expanding from then on?

It could have something to do with heating. Without a heat source the Earth would not rebound. I'm trying to get my head around this. Will a compressed spring not expand if it was cooled to near absolute zero?

9. Originally Posted by Gneiss2011
Corrected: "There is currently no know mechanism that can explain how matter could be added to Earth"
Why do you want it? Why do you need the extra matter? When do you need it?

10. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
You did too, must have come in while I was typing.
You say "the compression as described by Herndon would have left clear evidence at the surface of Earth." well the shape of the continental plates is the evidence for this, silly. Do you not understand that yet?
No, I was thinking to other specific evidence. Like specific metamorphism due to the high pressure.

11. Originally Posted by Gneiss2011
18 mm/year is not far the average estimate among expanding earth believers.
18 mm/year is the calculated value taking into account the lack of large scale recycling and intercontinental extension. But this is the rate for the last 3 millions years. The rate has been steadily increasing for at least the last 200 millions years.

Originally Posted by Gneiss2011
Corrected: "There is currently no known mechanism that can explain how matter could be added to Earth"
Nope. I insist: "There is currently no known mechanism that can explain how matter is added to Earth".
And I could add "and to other active planets".
I don't really care if you're stuck with an obsolete Earth science theory, but please don't alter the facts with your biased view.

12. Originally Posted by florian
18 mm/year is the calculated value taking into account the lack of large scale recycling and intercontinental extension. But this is the rate for the last 3 millions years. The rate has been steadily increasing for at least the last 200 millions years.

Nope. I insist: "There is currently no known mechanism that can explain how matter is added to Earth".
And I could add "and to other active planets".
I don't really care if you're stuck with an obsolete Earth science theory, but please don't alter the facts with your biased view.
Who says there is matter being added? You both seem to agree yet are arguing about it.
In the Compressed Earth Theory matter is lost not gained. There is are mechanisms to loose matter - The Solar wind and atoms meeting their escape velocity.

13. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Who says there is matter being added?
The data.

BTW, I meant intracontinental extension, not intercontinental.

14. Originally Posted by florian
The data.

BTW, I meant intracontinental extension, not intercontinental.
I should ask what do you mean by "intracontinental extension"?

Did you know that through decompression you could get this without needing to have mass added to the Earth?

Have you considered decompression?
Do you understand the idea of decompression?

15. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Do you understand the idea of decompression?
Oh yeah. I read Herndon's papers a long time ago. Typical example of a physicist that don't know shit about geology.

16. Originally Posted by florian
Oh yeah. I read Herndon's papers a long time ago. Typical example of a physicist that don't know shit about geology.
And you do? What do you mean by "intracontinental extension"?

17. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
And you do?
that's easy to know more geology than Herndon (or Adams)

Originally Posted by Robittybob1
What do you mean by "intracontinental extension"?
If you are at the point to ask what is intracontinental extension, then I suggest you to read a basic tectonics textbook, like say, this one. I have it, and I love it. Alternatively, if you don't want to invest money, just go look at "basin and range" on wikipedia.

18. Originally Posted by florian
that's easy to know more geology than Herndon (or Adams)

If you are at the point to ask what is intracontinental extension, then I suggest you to read a basic tectonics textbook, like say, this one. I have it, and I love it. Alternatively, if you don't want to invest money, just go look at "basin and range" on wikipedia.
But what do you know about the protoplanetary disc? I still think most of the geological evidence neither confirms nor denies either hypothesis.
So I don't know how we are going to sort it out.

19. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
I still think most of the geological evidence neither confirms nor denies either hypothesis.
You think, but you are wrong.

20. Originally Posted by florian
You think, but you are wrong.
So what is the most glaring error in the Decompressed Earth Theory?
The one thing you would draw a line on? If I could show it could happen in another situation you might consider the alternative?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•