Is the earth expanding?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by bgjyd834, Apr 26, 2011.

  1. Jack1941 Registered Member

    Messages:
    12
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,108
    Moderator note: 15 miscellaneous posts have been removed. These included personal insults, some pointless cheer-leading and a few off-topic flames.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    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"?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    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.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,108
    Where does the extra matter come from?
     
  9. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    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!

     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,108
    Robittybob1:

    Your explanation disagrees with florian's. I guess the two of yout will have to sort out your differences.
     
  11. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    . . . 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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2012
  12. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    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.
     
  13. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    . . . 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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2012
  14. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    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.
     
  15. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    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.
     
  16. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    So true no one has taken up my scenario as yet, even though Marvin Herndon suggested a similar concept.
     
  17. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    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.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,108
    O goody! I can't wait for this explanation from you.

    At what rate is it growing? Is the rate constant?

    Do you seriously believe that the radius of the Earth has doubled in the past 250 million years? What are you on?

    Where does the extra matter come from? That was the question I started with. Remember?

    So, you're arguing that the Earth magically doubled in size in the blink of a geological eye, but you have no idea what could have caused the doubling and, moreover, you think that we'll never solve that problem.

    Ok...

    *backs away slowly*
     
  19. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    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!
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,108
    If the Earth had been half its current radius 250 million years ago and the same mass then the surface gravity would have been 4 times what it is now. There's a ton of evidence that the surface gravity has never been 4 times what it is now.

    Motor Daddy: I've already debunked that nonsense.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,108
    I suggest that florian, Robbitybob1, wlminex and Motor Daddy get together and work out an agreed scenario for the Earth's supposed expansion.

    Having four pseudoscientists all advancing separate theories of the expanding Earth against the orthodox position that the Earth isn't expanding does not inspire confidence.

    What is the consensus on the expanding earth among pseudoscientists? Is there one?
     
  22. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    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...
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,108
    The mass of the Earth includes the atmosphere.

    If the atmosphere was so dense, how did the dinosaurs breathe? How did anything breathe? How dense was it? Does your "theory" give a number?

    Mercury and Venus are very different planets. The main differences are due to their different distances from the Sun.

    The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to say about your "theory".

    What fundamental force is involved in this decrease in density?

    No. The universe is expanding due to the big bang and the effects of dark energy.

    Stars both expand and contract. Some even pulsate. How does your theory account for the contraction of stars?

    The mass around a black hole mostly either orbits the hole or moves into it. How does your theory account for that?

    The planets didn't come from the Sun.

    A meaningless mantra. Endless repetition doesn't make it any truer than the first time I debunked it.
     

Share This Page