# the EARTH is expanding!!!!

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by kwhilborn, May 11, 2013.

1. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
The Yo-yo Moon Capture Hypothesis

I hope you all have played with a yo-yo and know how it works, how the stored rotational momentum enables it to climb up the string again.
I am going to show how this principle can be proposed as an alternative method to Moon formation as opposed to the widely accepted Giant Impact Theory.

I have written up the proposal on another forum, but I will paste and modify posts from there and modify them so they will not be the same. If there are any questions or discussion this thread will have a life of its own.

I am combining the Moon capture (the Yo-yo Moon Capture Hypothesis) with the "Compressed Earth" theory:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=Post&CODE=06&f=27&t=29842&p=602331 from around that post and onward.
It is a very interesting idea and seems to have lots of support for it as I will show.

Last edited: May 13, 2013

3. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
ordinarily I move this discussion to one of the pseudoscience boards or the cess pool because that's precisly what expanding earth hypotheses are - Pseudoscience.

There is currently no evidence for G varying with time. If there was we'd be able to see it when we looked out at stars and galaxies, or even our own sun.

We have computer models of varying accuracy that model the transfer of angular momentum from the earth to the moon.
We have geological evidence, in the form of rythmic tidalites, that give us information regarding the relative lengths of the day, month, and year.
There have been comparisons done between the observations from tidal rythmites and the models of the evolution of the earth-moon system and there are no discrepancies that would allow for an expanding earth.
There is no evidence in satelite ephemerides that supports an expanding earth.
There is no archeological evidence that supports an expanding earth.

Do I need to go on?

And KWHilborn, before you reply with your standard rhetoric (based on your replies so far) I have read much of the work regarding this, from Carey through to more modern sources.

5. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,152
Er, no, animals are most definitely NOT "more recent than Pangaea".

Pangaea is believed to have existed approximately between the Permian and the early Jurassic, ~300m - 200m years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

So that would put Pangaea around the time of the early reptiles, the Permian/Triassic extinction event and the subsequent appearance of the dinosaurs.

Animals have been around since the Pre-Cambrian, and tetrapods (land animals with 4 limbs) since the Devonian.

7. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
I see my new thread has been incorporated into this thread. Which is a bit of a problem for the subject is really quite different.
I'm not arguing that the Gravitational Constant has changed at the level of the Earth or Earth-Moon system. Tidalites are something like 600 million years old and they are useful showing that there was something like 400 days in a year at that time Can that tell if the Earth has changed in size, or mass? The period of a satellite is not dependent on the mass of the satellite but on the mass of the Sun in this case.
I doubt whether anyone could tell if all the expansion had occurred in the first 3.5 billion years of Earth's existence.
But what I was trying to show with the Yo-yo Moon Capture theory was that with a very massive Earth it is possible to capture the Moon. A massive Earth implies a degree of compression of the Earth, and as the mass (mainly water) is lost to space there is a rebound expansion.

I just don't see the need to limit all that expansion to the last 250 million years as the Expanding Earth proponents do.

8. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Sorry about that, I should have spent a little more time checking the dates, but this reference also from Wikipedia gives a more favourable timeline (I think)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondwana
Is that: Land "Animals have been around since the Pre-Cambrian"? I'm not strong on the geological time periods. All I sort of understood was that there were no land animal before about 500 million years ago. But I'm no expert.

9. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
The Capture Theory has been proposed before but not the Yo-yo Capture Theory:
Trouble for TJJ See was that the method to slow the Moon was not able to be found. What I noticed is that if there was a substance that would slow the Moon it would have slowed it down all the way till it impacted with the Earth. Way back then I wonder if they knew the Moon was currently regressing.

From the article "The origins of the Moon"
http://www.astronoo.com/en/articles/origins-of-the-moon.html
Maybe tidal deceleration was the "resisting medium in space" substance Thomas Jefferson Jackson See was looking for?

His actual paper is mentioned here: " See, T. J. J. 1910, "Researches on the evolution of the stellar systems: v. 2. The capture theory of cosmical evolution, founded on dynamical principles and illustrated by phenomena observed in the spiral nebulae, the planetary system, the double and multiple stars and clusters and the star-clouds of the Milky Way." T.P. Nichols (Lynn, Mass.)"

10. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,152
Yes indeed that sentence in your Wiki quote is ambiguous, but you are reading it the wrong way. What the article means, as is made clear if you read further, is that it was Gondwana that existed from 510m - 180m yrs ago, and that this and Laurasia were the 2 big lumps that later coalesced to form Pangaea. You will see lower down in the same article that it says Pangaea itself existed from the Permian (that is from ~300m yrs ago).

Regarding land animals, the start of the Devonian was ~ 420m yrs ago and from what I have read it was during this period that land animals first arose. So Gondwana came together before the first land animals, 100m yrs later came the first tetrapods and about 100m yrs later again, Pangaea finally formed. Interestingly it seems the first insects (also land animals of course) arose about the same time as the first tetrapods - about 400m yrs ago, in the Devonian.

So, the key point remains: any new theory of the Earth radically changing its size or mass has to be able to be reconciled with evidence of life on Earth, as well as the geo- and astrophysical evidence. Interestingly, the biggest mass extinction event did in fact take place between the Permian and Triassic, i.e. while Pangaea was in existence:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event

Nobody knows for sure what caused this. But personally I would really struggle to believe that a sudden change in the size of the Earth could have sustained life at all.

11. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
Don't care. I've decided to start trying to treat this nonsense the same way that Herc treats creationism in Biology. This nonsense keeps cropping up, and I keep moving, and it keeps cropping back up.

Be grateful it didn't get locked and cesspooled, which is where I was originaly leaning.

Oh dear. It looks like you need to do some reading about rythmic tidalites.
There's no evidence that G has changed in the scale of the Earth-moon system.
There's no evidence that G has changed in the scale of the Earth-moon-sun system.
There's no evidence that G has changed in the scale of the observable universe.

As I have pointed out, at length elsewhere, if the Earths orbit around the sun had changed in an unexpected way, there would be evidence of it in tidalites, unless it changed in a way that resembles no change at all.

12. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
1. What keeps on cropping back up?
2. I'm just in the early stages of formulating the Yo-yo Capture Theory, and as far as I recall I have said nothing at all about the Earth's orbit around the Sun, so I don't know why you are so negative toward me at this stage.

13. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
Exercise your critical reading skills. What do you think keeps cropping back up.

It's abundantly clear to me that you don't even fully understand the problems of the capture theory.

Anything that changes the mass of the earth is going to change the earths orbit about the sun and the moons orbit about the earth. It's unavoidable.

14. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
@exchemist - Please understand that I am not advocating any sudden change in anything.

Yes, I see the way you read my quote is the correct way. It must have been Gondwana and Laurasia as the continents I should have mentioned in the first place. Thanks for clearing that up. As I said to Trippy, I am working through a new theory and no doubt there will be times it needs tidying up. It is not an easy thing to come up with a comprehensive new theory. But I will take it step by step to get it right.

15. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Look Trippy, I want to delve into the problems of the Capture Theory then if that is the case.
But you are wrong about the mass of the Earth affecting the Earth's orbit about the Sun. It is too late for me just now but a satellite's mass is not important. It is the mass of the central body that determines the orbital period. I'll you get the reference tomorrow.

16. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,501
This quite simply incorrect. So it appears that your belief is that if the mass of the moon were to suddenly double, it would have no effect on the moons orbit - that is rather astounding! I do not have high hopes for your 'theory' my young fellow...

I am very curious to see your reference on your 'alternative' graviational mechanics.

Messages:
36,948
18. ### Janus58Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,285
This is actually wrong. it is the sum of the masses that determine the orbital period. Granted, if one body is greatly more massive than the other, then depending on how accurate an answer you need, you can neglect the smaller mass. For example. If we ignore the Moon's mass, we get an answer of 656.35 hrs for its orbital period. If we calculate it including the Moon's mass you get 652.35 hrs, or 4 hrs shorter.

If you doubled the mass of the Moon, it would decrease by almost another 4 hrs.

19. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
OK if the satellite has significant mass that has to be taken into account. No problem for we want to get the math correct.
I have not said anything about a "sudden change in the Moon's mass" so why is everyone here intent on mocking me. Have I said anything about an "'alternative' gravitational mechanics"
Hey, but thanks for calling me a "young fella" for it is not every day a 60 year old gets good news like that.

20. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Thanks for that Janus. I had forgotten that bit about the satellite orbital speed. OK the period is affected by the Moon's mass as well. That probably will make it easier to explain the effects (of the Yo-yo Capture Theory (YCT)) in the end, for we need the Moon, after capture, to transfer a lot of momentum to the Earth and if the Moon is going at a higher velocity that helps not hinders.

21. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Just an aside:
I am finding the understanding of the orbital speed changing with mass a bit odd.
Say if the US wanted to build a space station and it joins two pieces of hardware (equal masses) together in space. So is the orbital velocity required different when the two bits are joined than it was when they were separate?
I think I get it now. When the masses were orbiting either side the Earth, the Earth is nicely in the middle. But when you bring the masses together, the tug on the Earth is on the same side and the Earth will move toward the combined mass, so to keep it in orbit at the original height it would need to be sped up.
That speeding up occurred long before they were ever joined together.

22. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
Do you disagree with with $F=\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r^2}$?

23. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
One site said there are about 150 moons orbiting bodies in the Solar System, and I would say at a guess that many of these have been captured by the bodies they are orbiting. So moon capture is nothing new, but it is the mechanism that needs to be understood. How many of the 150 Moons have been formed via Giant Impacts? I think the odds are in favour of our Moon being a captured body rather than being formed by some other mechanism.
Can the Yo-yo CT be made to explain how the Moon was first captured, drawn in near the Earth and then later tidally accelerated away from the Earth?
That is the challenge I have set before us.