# Thread: Is the earth expanding?

1. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
There must have been another study somewhere for the 18mm dimension is not mentioned in the Nasa article.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-254

So where did the error values come from?
0.1 mm /year => 1 meter in 10,000 years or 100 Km in a billion years
so doesn't seem to be enough, but if it was 1.0 mm per year it would more than account for EE theory. 1000 km in a billion years is quite significant.
Beats me, could be an older study - but even if you look at the paper in the post florian linked to, in the abstract at least they discuss an upper limit of 0.2mm.

2. Originally Posted by Trippy
Beats me, could be an older study - but even if you look at the paper in the post florian linked to, in the abstract at least they discuss an upper limit of 0.2mm.
The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.
So even if it was 0.2mm/year or 200 km/billion years multiply that by 4.5 billion years you get close to 1000 kms.

To go back to an Earth with 64% of it's current linear dimensions we need a reduction of around 2300 km over the 4.5 billion years. Which means starting from the Small Earth we need a 512 km/billion years increase or .512 mm/year.
Now I would have not have a problem accepting that in times past the rate of expansion was greater than it is today. For in my theory the expansion is due to loss of volatiles and we know that is relatively stable at the current time.
So even with these very small changes in the radius of the Earth it comes to be very close to enough expansion to account for the EET.

3. Originally Posted by florian
Do you really prefer an argument of authority rather than examining evidence yourself?
No.

Please notice that I do not see you as an authority, and I have not seen any evidence that Earth is expanding, so either way (argument of authority and convincing evidence), I do not trust your claim that "Earth expansion [...] is observed!".

Do you demand that people acknowledge Earth expansion, acknowledge that Earth is expanding, acknowledge that "Earth expansion [...] is observed", as a requirement to discuss EET with you?

Originally Posted by florian
If not, then go back to figure page 4 in post 72 for a fresh start.
Let see:
Originally Posted by florian
flow-rollback.jpg
(I can't quote the IMG due to the young of my account)

A colorfull diagramm. I fail to see how this is an observation of Earth expansion, or a satelite view of Earth expansion, or a testimony of someone who observed Earth expansion.

Originally Posted by florian
This paper was debunked
If doi:10.1029/2011GL047450 is right, then we have 1 measurement of not increase of Earth radius vs 0 measurement of increase of Earth radius.

If your criticism is right, then doi:10.1029/2011GL047450 is not a reliable to measure a not increase of Earth radius, so we have 0 measurement of not increase of Earth radius vs 0 measurement of increase of Earth radius.

In both case, we have 0 (zero) measurement of increase of Earth radius.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1
There must have been another study somewhere for the 18mm
Robaudo, S., and C. G. A. Harrison (1993), Plate tectonics from SLR and VLBI global data, in Contributions of Space Geodesy to Geodynamics: Crustal Dynamics, Geodyn. Ser., vol. 23, edited by D. E. Smith and D. L. Turcotte, pp. 51–71, doi:10.1029/GD023p0051, AGU, Washington, D. C.
It therefore seems reasonable to restrict the vertical motions to be zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average of 18mm/yr.
Originally Posted by James Maxlow
The 18 mm/year excess was considered to be an error in atmospheric correction, so was simply zeroed out.
Originally Posted by sathearn
they decided to restrict vertical motion "to be zero" for the remainder of their study.
As far as I know, NASA has measured no increase of 18 mm/year.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1
0.1 mm /year => 1 meter in 10,000 years or 100 Km in a billion years
so doesn't seem to be enough, but if it was 1.0 mm per year it would more than account for EE theory. 1000 km in a billion years is quite significant.
No. EET expect 10 to 22 mm/year in order to balance the seafloor spreading/lithospheric accretion at oceanic ridge (because EET assume no subduction).

Originally Posted by Robittybob1
So even if it was 0.2mm/year or 200 km/billion years multiply that by 4.5 billion years you get close to 1000 kms.

To go back to an Earth with 64% of it's current linear dimensions we need a reduction of around 2300 km over the 4.5 billion years. [...] So even with these very small changes in the radius of the Earth it comes to be very close to enough expansion to account for the EET.
No. Expanding Earth Theory assume no subduction (see for example Carey, Theories of the Earth and Universe, 1988, chapter 13 The Subduction Myth). In order to balance seafloor youngest that 200 million years old (see map at ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustalimages.html), EET need an Earth with 64% of it's current radius 200 My ago.

4. Originally Posted by Gneiss2011
No.

Please notice that I do not see you as an authority, and I have not seen any evidence that Earth is expanding, so either way (argument of authority and convincing evidence), I do not trust your claim that "Earth expansion [...] is observed!".

No. Expanding Earth Theory assume no subduction (see for example Carey, Theories of the Earth and Universe, 1988, chapter 13 The Subduction Myth). In order to balance seafloor youngest that 200 million years old (see map at ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustalimages.html), EET need an Earth with 64% of it's current radius 200 My ago.
I don't go for previous EE theories I have developed my own. Similar to the work done by M Herndon. The expansion has gone on for billions of years, but the plate tectonics may be more recent.
So you can't just dismiss my scientific work by using other's concepts of EET.

5. You can't tell me they haven't noticed an expansion of 0.5 mm /year even today.
And now we have to account for contraction at the same time. so from now on the Earth might stop expanding and head into a period of net contraction due to Earth cooling.

6. Originally Posted by Gneiss2011
No.
Then why would you ask for the name of "reliable guy" who has observed it?
Who cares about the reliability of this or that guy? Only the observations and your understanding of these observations count.

Originally Posted by Gneiss2011
A colorfull diagramm. I fail to see how this is an observation of Earth expansion,...
So you admit that you do not understand key features of earth expansion. Good, that's a step forward. Back at the diagram, what is the net amount of lithosphere surface that is consumed on the right side of the diagram?

Originally Posted by Gneiss2011
No. EET expect 10 to 22 mm/year in order to balance the seafloor spreading/lithospheric accretion at oceanic ridge (because EET assume no subduction).
When you will understand the diagram, you will also understand that the claim "EET assume no subduction" is ill formulated, because this is all about questioning the surface of consumed (or recycled) lithosphere at a WBZ. And the answer to this question evidently leads you straight to EE.

7. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
So you can't just dismiss my scientific work nonsense by using other's concepts of EET.
Quite right. Your conjectures fail all on their own.

8. Originally Posted by AlexG
Quite right. Your conjectures fail all on their own.
When it is only you arguing I know I have the others pretty well stumped.

9. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
When it is only you arguing I know I have the others pretty well stumped bored.

10. Originally Posted by AlexG
What are you doing up this late?

11. It expands durring the day and contracts at night.

Gravity brings small amounts of cosmic dust to the surface adding statistically insignificant amounts of mass to our planet.

12. Originally Posted by florian
Earth expansion is not an explanation, it is observed!
by who?

Originally Posted by florian
Then why would you ask for the name of "reliable guy" who has observed it?
Because you wrote that "Earth expansion [...] is observed!".

Originally Posted by florian
Who cares about the reliability of this or that guy?
I do not trust anybody on the Internet.

Originally Posted by florian
Only the observations and your understanding of these observations count.
I have not seen Earth expanding. I have not seen any observation of Earth expansion.

Originally Posted by florian
So you admit that you do not understand key features of earth expansion. Good, that's a step forward. Back at the diagram, what is the net amount of lithosphere surface that is consumed on the right side of the diagram?

Originally Posted by florian
When you will understand the diagram, you will also understand that the claim "EET assume no subduction" is ill formulated, because this is all about questioning the surface of consumed (or recycled) lithosphere at a WBZ. And the answer to this question evidently leads you straight to EE.
I can't wait.

13. Can you see a 0.5 mm change in the radius of the Earth Each year? No it is in-perceivably small so it isn't noticed till you look at what this would do over 4.5 Billion years.
2000 km is not something to be sneezed at!

14. I'm not going to be alive that long... But I probably will travel 2000 km

15. Originally Posted by NietzscheHimself
I'm not going to be alive that long... But I probably will travel 2000 km
Well for as long as you live and as you make that journey, remember the Earth expanded.

16. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Can you see a 0.5 mm change in the radius of the Earth Each year? No it is in-perceivably small so it isn't noticed till you look at what this would do over 4.5 Billion years.
2000 km is not something to be sneezed at!
Why would you assume that the rate of change, if there is one, would remain constant over all the geophysical changes which have occured in the last 4.5 billion years?

17. Originally Posted by AlexG
Why would you assume that the rate of change, if there is one, would remain constant over all the geophysical changes which have occured in the last 4.5 billion years?
I have not made any assuptions like that. Previously I stated that the rate would have been higher earlier in the Earth's history, and the expansion may have virtually stopped now, for the Earth is now cooling and we may even go into a Shrinking Earth Phase soon.
The figures above just showed that a tiny amount adds up to a lot over eons of time.

18. Originally Posted by Gneiss2011
by who?
:roll eyes: By anyone looking at the evidence

Originally Posted by Gneiss2011
(about the amount of surface consumed at an active margin) About 0 pixel.
So if no surface is consumed at an active margin and large amount of surface is produced at MOR, what is the balance at the global scale?

19. Originally Posted by AlexG
Why would you assume that the rate of change, if there is one, would remain constant over all the geophysical changes which have occured in the last 4.5 billion years?
Especially when we measure that the growth rate has been steadily increasing, for at least, the last 200 millions years.

20. Originally Posted by florian
:roll eyes: By anyone looking at the evidence
So Earth expansion is observed by some people who did look at some evidence about something, whose names you can't tell.

Originally Posted by florian
if no surface is consumed at an active margin and large amount of surface is produced at MOR, what is the balance at the global scale?
An increase of the total surface.

Originally Posted by florian
Earth expansion is not an explanation, it is observed!
Originally Posted by florian
Especially when we measure that the growth rate has been steadily increasing, for at least, the last 200 millions years.
To the lurkers: please notice that the two above claims by Florian aren't thus far backend by any evidence.

#### Posting Permissions

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