Is the earth expanding?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its possible. If you think about it, earth has been continuously bombarded by Meteors Since it was formed. That is 4.54 Billion years of added rock to the surface of our planet. Does it have any effect on the actual radius of the planet? Probably not, But there is the possibility that the added mass is increasing the density of the planet. I really have no idea, just proposing a theory of my own.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

. . . Thanks Trippy . . . you'd think a geologist (me) would know such things!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks again . . .look great! . . . Note: some densities may be slightly 'off' recalling from memory (?) . . . did not confirm exact values.

 

@wlminex Give us an example of a phase change that will result in a lower density please?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Some . . . .
Graphite (lo density) <-- (hi density) diamond; T & P dependent
olivine (lo) <-- spinel (hi) T & P dependent
alpha quartz <-- beta quartz (mostly T dependent), also, stishovite is a hi-P SiO2 polymorph common in metor impact and kimberlites.

. . . a few off the top of my head . . . in general mantle mineral structures become unstable at greater depths (i.e., higher density polymorphic phases). . . same overall chemical, but different crystal structural configurations due to extant T & P conditions.

(humor here-->) . . .AND everyone remembers how superman 'squeezed coal into diamond'!!

Also, Google phase transitions and polymorphic phase transitions . . . also on Wikipedia

 

Example of a 'rock' phase change . . . . garnet peridotite (Hi T&P, hi density mantle) ---melt ---> equivalent basalt (oceanic crust and other; much lower P; lower density)

 

Yet what I find laughable is that the standard theory of Earth development is that sufficient comets arrive delivering enough water to the Earth to fill the oceans! The same proportions of comets should have arrived at the other planetary locations as well.

That is something I just can't buy.

In my Compressed Earth Hypothesis the water is always here in vast quantities.

Mercury, the Moon, Mars and Earth were all formed about the same time. The first three are heavily cratered, but the Earth - no. Why?
Any meteor/comet coming to Earth had to get through a very dense atmosphere and oceans of volatiles. There was this thick layer of protection around the Earth.
I don't have to magically come up with new matter, for the matter I use to build the Compressed Earth CE was in the protoplanetary disk.

Now there was some objection discussed earlier to CE. I'd better go and check it up.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The water was not always here. The water is a result of a more dense mass evolving to space and getting less dense. The water was actually formed from greater density mass as it evolved to a less dense mass, which we know as water.

Vegetation grows because the earth is getting less dense. Wood and leaves are less dense than dirt! Vegetation is a direct observation that the earth is getting less dense over time!

 

I've explained the mechanism over and over to you, James. Mass evolves to space. Mass gets less dense over time as a consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is no free ride! A banana can not stay a banana forever. Leave it on the counter and you can clearly see that mass evolves to space.

 

Heck, go look at some trees and vegetation outside. That is a direct observation of the earth getting less dense!

 

Want to see a faster process? Start a fire!

 

There are a variety of ideas but from this Wikipedia link it isn't as dramatic as was on another I read over the weekend.

 

No not with Florian.

Well, who agrees with the Compressed Earth Hypothesis as the mechanism for the EE theory? I don't think there are many.
But if the new approach is that water always covered the Earth that goes some way to aligning CE with the standard, for then we are really only debating the depth of the ocean.

Oh yeah I remember now, they were saying in the Giant Impact theory for the development of the moon the whole Earth became molten, so that doesn't sound like there was much water on it then.

It all depends on how the Earth Moon system established. What do you think?
I favour the close encounter capture hypothesis. For my Earth has sufficient mass to slow it down.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

. . . If I remember from my meteoritics research (yes, I did some . . .also returned lunar samples) . . . . the average composition of the earth is similar to that of an average carbonaceous chondrite. IMO . . . the core of the earth (if crystallized/solid) is compositionally similar to the nickel-iron meteorites . . . the mantle of the earth is similar to the stony-irons, or a mix of stony-irons and achondrites. Equivalents to earth-crustal compositions are rare (so also are earth sialic, continental crustal rocks compared to the overall earth volume). Overall, if one 'averages-up' varieties of meteorites, the approximate solid planetary bodies. IMO, the asteroid belt could be a mixture of one or more (or more) former or proto-planetary bodies that contain most, if not all, of the meteorite types (i.e., 'average planet').

 

In my planet building hypothesis the planets, Mercury, Venus Earth (plus moon) and Mars form in the late protosun period. The Astroid belt was in the process of forming into the torus and accreting into the planetesimals form the protoplanetary disk. Part way through the gathering up process the Sun fired up and blew the necessary volatile material away and stopped the planet building it its tracks.
So I agree with your deduction, for what it is worth. To me it was interesting to see evidence of the timing of the planet building still present in the Solar System.