Is the earth expanding?

**Robittybob1** · 01-12-12, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

I can do better than that.

I can explain how the entire universe works in 4 words: Mass evolves to space!

The planets came from the sun and move away from the sun.
The mass surrounding the black hole came from the black hole.
Dark matter is matter that has since got less dense.
The absolute frame is the infinite volume of space.
Light travels away from the point in space that it was emitted, regardless of what the source does during that light travel time.
v=(ct-l)/t
Gravity is the repositioning of matter to the equilibrium state of mass, which is a sphere which is the most dense at the core and the least dense at the outer edge of the sphere.

What more would you like?

A cure for the common cold.

You say: "The planets came from the sun and move away from the sun." Not entirely true, both are formed from the original Nebula but not from the Sun directly.

You say: "The mass surrounding the black hole came from the black hole." Not true. The Black Hole (BH) in the centre would have been a large star itself then died to become the BH. From then on drawing stuff in toward itself.
You say: "Dark matter is matter that has since got less dense." They hardly know what Dark Matter is yet.

**James R** · 01-13-12, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

I can do better than that.

I can explain how the entire universe works in 4 words: Mass evolves to space!

An empty mantra.

The planets came from the sun and move away from the sun.

Except that they didn't.

The mass surrounding the black hole came from the black hole.

Impossible, since no matter can escape from a black hole.

Dark matter is matter that has since got less dense.

Dark matter cannot be baryonic matter.

This is like your magical turning of other substances into water.

The absolute frame is the infinite volume of space.

There is no absolute frame.

Light travels away from the point in space that it was emitted, regardless of what the source does during that light travel time.

Simple relativity.

v=(ct-l)/t

Basic 1-dimensional kinematics.

Gravity is the repositioning of matter to the equilibrium state of mass, which is a sphere which is the most dense at the core and the least dense at the outer edge of the sphere.

Complete fantasy, contradicted by many many facts.

**Robittybob1** · 01-13-12, 02:54 PM

@JamesR - so is the Earth Expanding as I say?

**origin** · 01-13-12, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

@JamesR - so is the Earth Expanding as I say?

The percentage of individuals who have a college degree in any of the 'hard' sciences or technical fields that would agree with you is vanishinlgy small.

**Robittybob1** · 01-13-12, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by origin

The percentage of individuals who have a college degree in any of the 'hard' sciences or technical fields that would agree with you is vanishinlgy small.

Thanks Origin, but @JamesR - so is the Earth Expanding as I say?

**James R** · 01-14-12, 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

@JamesR - so is the Earth Expanding as I say?

No. The earth is not appreciably expanding.

**florian** · 01-14-12, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by James R

No. The earth is not appreciably expanding.

If you continue to ignore the relevant literature, this remark will place you in good company with the flat-earther and the creationists. So don't ignore the relevant literature.

I give a list of relevant basic literature:

"The Expanding Earth - an Essay Review" SW Carey (1975) Earth-Science Reviews 11 p 105-143 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/6yzgaq4)

"The Necessity for Earth Expansion" S. Warren Carey (1983) pp375-393 in Carey, SW (ed): Expanding Earth Symposium, Sydney, 1981. (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/3hrh5x8)

"Quantification of an Archaean to Recent Earth Expansion Process Using Global Geological and Geophysical Data Sets" J. Maxlow 2001 PhD thesis, Curtin University (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/kklg6y)

"Fossils, frogs, floating islands and expanding Earth in changing-radius cartography – A comment to a discussion on Journal of Biogeography" G Scalera (2007) Ann Geophys 50(6) p789 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/ycs8en6)

"Earthquakes, phase changes, fold belts: from Apennines to a global perspective" G Scalera (2010) GeoActa, Special Publication 3, pp. 25-43. (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/3bv2e8c)

"Mantle plumes and dynamics of the Earth interior — towards a new model" S Cwojdziñski Geol Rev 52, p817 (pdf: http://tinyurl.com/3vpafys)

When flat-earther and creationists are facing scientific literature destroying their belief they usually dismiss it by carefully avoiding to argue the content of the papers.

What will you do James?

**Robittybob1** · 01-14-12, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by James R

No. The earth is not appreciably expanding.

Thank you James. I that to mean a 0.5 mm/year increase in the Earth radius is in the not appreciable category. Even I can't consider that expanding but the minuscule effect over aeons is when it does become noticeable.

**origin** · 01-14-12, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by florian

If you continue to ignore the relevant literature, this remark will place you in good company with the flat-earther and the creationists. So don't ignore the relevant literature.

Why don't you check the relevant literature. It would be just about all of the literature on geology and cosmology except for the few fringe papers that cite.

I think it is rather ironic that you accuse someone who doesn't agree with your far fringe idea as a flat-earther and the creationists.

**Robittybob1** · 01-14-12, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by origin

Why don't you check the relevant literature. It would be just about all of the literature on geology and cosmology except for the few fringe papers that cite.

I think it is rather ironic that you accuse someone who doesn't agree with your far fringe idea as a flat-earther and the creationists.

You are just stirring for there have been no such accusations made at all.

**Robittybob1** · 01-14-12, 01:29 PM

Look at http://www.voanews.com/english/news/...137345588.html
There are the definite torus forming bands which will end up being planets or moons around the larger protosun or hot planet.

**florian** · 01-14-12, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by origin

Why don't you check the relevant literature. It would be just about all of the literature on geology and cosmology except for the few fringe papers that cite.

I check all the literature about tectonics. The last paper I read is "Geodynamic reconstructions of the South America–Antarctica plate system".

Originally Posted by origin

I think it is rather ironic that you accuse someone who doesn't agree with your far fringe idea as a flat-earther and the creationists

Ironic? No. Sad.
Accusing? Neither.
And disagree about what? You never discussed the content of these papers...

**James R** · 01-15-12, 12:21 AM

florian:

Originally Posted by florian

If you continue to ignore the relevant literature, this remark will place you in good company with the flat-earther and the creationists. So don't ignore the relevant literature.

It looks like nothing has happened in your literature since 1975 or so. That's not exactly at the cutting edge of geology, is it?

The expanding earth hypothesis is only pushed by a looney fringe.

**Robittybob1** · 01-15-12, 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by James R

florian:

It looks like nothing has happened in your literature since 1975 or so. That's not exactly at the cutting edge of geology, is it?

The expanding earth hypothesis is only pushed by a looney fringe.

I don't know if I'm in that number or not, but I still think a "Compressed Earth" followed by rebound expansion is a possibility. I am planning to go back over the sources which have suggested a minor measured expansion.
I certainly don't go along with the traditional Expanding Earth Theory.

**florian** · 01-15-12, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by James R

It looks like nothing has happened in your literature since 1975 or so.

So I conclude you cannot read past the first few lines? that must be a dramatic handicap

**James R** · 01-15-12, 06:25 AM

Florian:

Is there really any need for me to go through again what others took you through back in August 2011 when you posted your list of articles on usenet?

I don't think so.

**florian** · 01-15-12, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by James R

Is there really any need for me to go through again what others took you through back in August 2011 when you posted your list of articles on usenet?

I don't think so.

It is well known that cranks always dismiss the scientific literature that prove their crankiness.

**James R** · 01-15-12, 06:48 AM

Florian:

You said it!

I've already debunked the expanding earth extensively in a Formal Debate here, by the way. Here it is for your reading pleasure.

Debate: The Earth is expanding

Seeing as you're spamming this stuff across the internet, I'm sure you're familiar with OilIsMastery.

Do you think you can you do any better than OilIsMastery?

If so, please point out what you think were the most fatal mistakes he made in our debate.

**Michael** · 01-15-12, 07:25 AM

I heard an astrophysicist mention today (radio) that 1 ton of debris enters the atmosphere and is added to earth daily.

**Ophiolite** · 01-15-12, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

I don't know if I'm in that number or not, but I still think a "Compressed Earth" followed by rebound expansion is a possibility. I am planning to go back over the sources which have suggested a minor measured expansion. I certainly don't go along with the traditional Expanding Earth Theory.

This is called cherry picking. It is not the mark of a scientist, but of a crank, a creationist, or some other word beginning with c.