Is the earth expanding?

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

  1. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    staying metric that is a radius increase of 125 km which isn't much. So why did you take fright?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Thanks for showing up an error! I should have said more than 500 million years ago.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    33,118
    My guess is that if you have any qualifications at all they are not in earth sciences. My guess is that the only "research" you have done on the expanding earth theory is collecting links from around the internet that appear favourable to that theory, while ignoring everything unfavourable to it. And, apparently, you're on a crusade to preach the expanding earth to as many parts of the internet as you can access.

    Would you like me to guess as to your motivations, too?

    Over 4.5 billion years, that's an increase of 1125 km. The Earth's radius is currently 6370 km, so this would be a 466% increase in radius over the age of the Earth.

    Yes, I'd call such an increase significant. And there ought to be some evidence of it if it happened. But there isn't any. Nor is there any mechanism that would produce such an increase.

    You're (probably deliberately) confusing the densities of the computer components with the density of the computer as a conglomeration of components. If I put my computer in a safe and leave it for a few million years, when I take it out it won't have changed significantly in density.

    [quite[James assumes if he can't see it happening it doesn't happen.[/quote]

    Depends what you mean by "see". Certainly, if there's zero evidence of such a thing happening then there's no reason to suspect it does.

    Got any evidence that things just expand for no reason?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105

    If you put your computer in a safe and the very next day every person on this planet died, and there was nobody left to perform maintenance, the computer would not exist as an object in a few million years.

    I'm assuming the safe is in your house, and the house is presumably made of wood, let's say. In a very short time the house would rot away, collapse and fall to the ground. The rain, wind, and sun light would eat away at the safe, meaning the safe would be becoming less dense, as the material from the safe would start deteriorating and occupying more volume than it originally did. More volume and the same mass means less dense!

    Once the safe was destroyed and the computer was exposed, the computer would fall to the same fate as the house and the safe, destroyed by the elements of space, meaning the mass that once formed the computer "evaporated", or "decayed" into less dense matter.

    There is no free ride, James. Mass is motion, and just like all mass in motion there is a cost to that motion. Motion is not perpetual. The natural progression of a given mass is for the mass to become less dense by means of expanding its volume. The ONLY other choices are for the mass to perpetually exist, or for the mass to become MORE dense over time, which requires either adding more mass or to compress the existing mass into a smaller volume. So take your pick, James? Which shall it be, more dense, the same, or less dense? The second law says it's less dense!

    The second law of thermodynamics has never been wrong, and the second law says that an object has to become less dense over time!

    The moon is but the earth expanding. The earth is but the sun expanding. The sun is but the galaxy expanding. The black hole is but.....

    EVERY object in the infinite volume of space is expanding because there are no free rides. Motion occurs at a cost, and the cost is that the object has to expand to be in compliance with the second law of thermodynamics! We are but a spark flying away from a sparkler, on a large scale (earth flying away from the sun)!
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2012
  8. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,892
    No, it doesn't.
     
  9. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Maybe it does in MD's universe. It's different than ours.
     
  10. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    @ JamesR there is something wrong with your maths The smaller Earth with those figures began with a radius of 5,245,000 KM or a 21.5% increase to get to today's value.

    That result was from several research papers and fits in with all measurements done on the Earth. I'll go back and relink the references.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2890785&postcount=863
    Post # 863, Post # 865, Post # 868, Post # 870 all are recent work showing a small steady increase in the size of the Earth.
    The mechanism as I have said ad finitum is the rebound from the previous compression. So why do you say there is no mechanism?
    Evidence that proves a previously larger more massive Earth, is
    1. Mass was there in the protoplanetary disk.
    2. Large atmosphere enables Moon capture
    3. No need for countless millions of comets to replenish the oceans of water
    4. Late evolution of land plants and animal shows there was no dry land more than 500 million years ago.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2012
  11. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Evidence that proves a previously larger more massive Earth, is
    1. Mass was there in the protoplanetary disk.
    2. Large atmosphere enables Moon capture
    3. No need for countless millions of comets to replenish the oceans of water
    4. Late evolution of land plants and animal shows there was no dry land more than 500 million years ago.


    Do those who don't believe in an Expanding Earth
    1. go for the Giant impact theory of moon formation (for which there is no evidence)?
    2. Need countless millions of comets required to replenish the oceans with water (for which there is no evidence)?

    3. Even though there was always dry land for plants and animals to inhabit. there is no evolution of them till late in Earth's development.

    When I list these I know what theory I am backing!
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2012
  12. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    1 is meaningless.

    2 is purely your own unsupported conjecture

    3 means nothing

    4 is simply wrong

    Your idea of evidence is conjecture you like.
     
  13. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    1. Are you denying the fact that there was a protoplanetary disk with sufficient mass to form an Earth at least as large as 42 times the current mass? Those are from NASA and science approved figures. The mass was available it is undeniable. So you are wrong Alex.
    2. When I researched Moon capture it required an Earth with a massive amount of atmosphere. This can only happen in an Earth that is compressed by this atmosphere. It is not my conjecture but what others have calculated as a requirement for Moon capture. Wrong again Alex.
    3. So can you honestly say there were millions of water bearing comets to replenish the oceans? Do you go along with that theory? Make a stand Alex.
    4. Every sea creature is found as fossils on land masses. All land mass was covered with ocean till sufficient water was lost and the Earth expanded the ocean floor. That is pretty hard to deny Alex.

    So as usual knocking but providing no real evidence. That must surely be trolling?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    And meaningless. You look at the mass of the protoplanetary cloud and from this claim that it all went into earth's formation. You have no evidence of any kind, just your 'it seems to make sense to me' position.

    Your idea of 'research' appears to be cherry picking anything you can find and then wildly extrapolating. You begin with your conclusion and find something someone wrote which you can distort to support you.

    False dilema. Oxygen and hydrogen have been around in copious amounts since the beginning, and they yearn to form water.

    I do deny it. Plate tectonics explains it quite nicely. As has been shown, all land mass was not covered with ocean. I don't know where you got that piece of nonsense from, unless it's the bible. Perhaps you should try expanding your sources.

    Here's a simple example describing the geography of earth at 1.5 Billion years ago.

    http://www.jamestown-ri.info/prelude.htm

    There are of course, many more sources. I'd encourage you to learn something about it before making such inane statements.
     
  15. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Well some of that could be true but it was all happening under water. The continents were forming but under water.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    You simply refuse to accept anything which contradicts your ideas, no matter how little sense or support your ideas have.
     
  17. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    I'm listening but you are not saying much.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. florian Debunking machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    305
    Easy guess. My activity on the internet is all about debunking the fallacies that wannabe scientists spread with authority while they know actually nil.
    These wannabes do as much damage to science than other crackpots. And there are some good specimen in this forum you own.

    For you information, my primary source is evidently not internet discussion stuff, but the scientific literature. All the scientific literature.

    Don't you want to reopen a new formal debate on EE to figure out how well you can perform against myself? You look so confident, that debate should be a piece of cake for you...
     
  19. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    Maybe I converted units wrong to ft? That's why I asked someone to check the math . . . I'm just a lowly geologist . . . .
     
  20. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    No you are right 125 km = 410100 feet, but this was just over 500 million years, whereas James and I also look at how much expansion that would give us over 4.5 billion years as well.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    How nice to see James collaborating with you. :bravo:
     
  22. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    BTW, thinking about it, I don't think I've ever seen you actually describe the mechanism of 'expansion'.

    The earth gets hotter, and hotter things expand? No,,, that can't be it, can it? After all, the earth has been cooling, and cooling contracts things, doesn't it?

    Bombardment by meteors?... No, there haven't been that many in the past few eons, have there.

    Mystery mass from the Daleks dimension?... No that would only work on the BBC...


    So what is the mechanism of expansion, in your imagination?
     
  23. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Seems a bit "Trolling / Meaningless Post Content".

    James did look at what the miniscule increase of 0.25 mm per year ( which on a yearly basis seems rather like nothing) but when multiplied by the age of the Earth reveals just how much that turns out to be, and for those who feel for the EE theory it is just about enough.
    Now this was the amount that the group of scientists (Post #863) measured as the rate of Earth expansion. So it looks like we have the evidence on our side so far.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page