The Earth is Growing?

I daresay you are right. It seems to me that if you scaled up an elephant by a factor of two it would collapse under its own weight. If you gave it even bigger legs it would look ridiculous. Explain to me please what I am neglecting to take into account!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aether Wave Theory

By Aether Wave Theory the Earth expansion can be really possible. We can even observe during last forty years by elongation of PtIr meter prototype.

hxxp://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/12667_time.html
hxxp://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/collapse_matter.gif

How such stuff is working? The Aether foam forming both vacuum, both observable matter is slightly compressible, but the compressibility of matter is lower due the higher density of matter. If we consider, the vacuum is forming by interior of black hole, which is collapsing gradually, we can expect, the vacuum will collapse faster, then the observable matter. Such difference would manifest itself into a gradual expansion of matter relative to vacuum, when measured by optical methods, i.e. by frequency of light spreading.

Such insight renders the Universe as much more dynamic and enjoyable stuff, then we ever realized. Here are a growing number of evidences of this phenomena. For example, it was found recently, the standard candle supernovae are getting gradually less brighter, because the relative density difference between vacuum and matter density decreases. Furthemore, we can expect, this phenomena changes the gravitational constant at the cosmological scale and it can result into repulsive force at the longer distances, as being considered by MOND gravity theory.

hxxp://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12745-brighter-supernovae-make-dark-energy-even-murkier.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

RiverApe, I am sorry you feel I am 'having a go at you'. In my first post I supported your view that an expanding Earth had been a perfectly valid, mainstream hypothesis. I did express puzzlement as to why you felt Venus's surface was 'concealed' and my reasons for this were expanded in my next post. I am simply trying to understand why you feel we can't 'see' its surface, when I know we can.

You also suggest Laika and I are in dispute. I don't think that is the case. In many respects, exactly as Laika says, Earth and Venus are similar. For example, diameter, density, composition, internal structure. In other respects they are different. The tectonics are definitely different - plate tectonics seems to be absent and, as noted the surface was largely replaced round about 600 million years ago. I don't see anywhere that Laika challenges this. In fact I've read through all her posts and she seems to make lots of sense.

So I'm not trying to give you a hard time and I apologise if it seems that way. At this point I am just trying to understand why you think we can't examine, interpret and understand the surface of Venus.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I enjoy people having a go at me! That's why I participate in these forums. No complaints.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If I find that I am being challenged by people making contradictory points, of course, I am inclined to point this out. As you say, and as is widely agreed, it looks like the surface of Venus was renewed between 300mya and 600mya according to your reference. This is hardly consistent with Laika's claim that "Venus and Earth are so similar". I really do not think they are very similar at all -- and since expansion is likely to manifest itself so differently** according to the composition, size, structure, atmosphere (etc) of bodies, I am not sure how I would "test" Venus for expansion on the data we have available. That data is not negligible, and if I seemed to suggest that it was, then I accept your correction. However, there would be thousands of times more data from which to extract clues if Venus were as well known to us as Mars. Consider, after all, how speculative in nature is much of what is written about Venus.

**One cannot even be certain that internal expansion would necessarily be detectable by surface features at all. Nor do I insist that expansion is universal -- it may require certain conditions to be present. Still less, by the way, do I insist that it is ongoing at the same rate.

 

new real estate sounds good to me lol

 

River Ape, I have difficulty believing that such a misinterpretation is anything but deliberate but, just in case, I will confirm what Hipparchia has clarified above. Earth and Venus are similar in size, mass and (presumably) composition. They are decidedly different in that Earth bears the scars of ongoing (local!) crustal expansion, while Venus apparently does not.

To avoid further misunderstanding, and to curtail further nibbling at the edges of the issue, I will present simply two of the most major arguments against global expansion for you to really get your teeth into:

1. Subduction zones exist on the Earth. This is demonstrated by seismic tomography and earthquake focal mechanism studies. (There are sure to be additional lines of evidence that others are happy to provide.) This is in direct contradiction to what Neal Adams claims.

2. Some plates show convergent motion. This is demonstrated by GPS measurements. This also contradicts Neal Adams's claims.

I look forward to reading your opinion about these points.

I am flattered. Thank you.

 

Earth and Venus are similar in size and mass -- and in practically nothing else! We can only speculate about the composition of Venus, but that planet's lack of a magnetic field suggests some major differences from Earth.

I have been reluctant through lack of time to repeat the debates over subduction which (as I have indicated) can be found elsewhere, and which must to a large extent come down to analysis of individual sites. So just a couple of points about the big picture:

1: A model which asserts continuous formation of new oceanic crust at Earth's mid-ocean-ridges and eventual removal of oceanic crust in deep ocean trenches suffers from the major weakness that there are far more sites of new oceanic crust generation than trenches to equally dispose of oceanic crust.

2: The mechanical resistance to tractional transit of oceanic crust across an ocean basin is orders of magnitude greater than the energy available from all the proposed motivating mechanisms combined. If you can produce any satisfactory explanation of the power source please do so.

 

Yet these are not insignificant similarities. Based on these similarities we can do more than speculate about the composition: we can infer that it is similar to Earth's. This is supported by Venus's flood-basalt-like surface features. I admit that there are major differences between Earth and Venus - this was, in fact, my whole point in comparing these planets! One has supposedly grown six-fold in the last 200 million years (and is still expanding furiously), while the other planet, similar in size and mass, has been unchanged for about 500 million years.

I would also be reluctant to talk about clear evidence of subduction zones if the position I had adopted required their nonexistence. Perhaps, if you are determined not be drawn on this subject, you could provide a link to such a debate.

Again, this seems to me like willful misrepresentation. As you have clearly studied geology at least casually, you must know that not all subduction zones are signified by deep ocean trenches. Also, in many instances crustal shortening is accommodated at continental-continental plate margins by folding and thrusting. If you have trouble with the model, try looking at actual plate motion and at an actual subducting slab.

I have said before that I am not a physicist; such quantitative investigation is beyond me. However, I am interested to know the reasoning behind your(?) estimates. What value do you assign to the "energy available from all the proposed motivating mechanisms combined", and just how many orders of magnitude smaller is it than the value necessary to overcome the friction you talk about?
Something I can say about this point is that the plates do not move over the mantle like a table cloth over a table. The fact that the lithosphere is coupled with the mantle below allows mantle convection to be expressed as plate motion. Such convection is just one of the probable processes to which plate motion can be attributed. I am sure that you have included this factor and others in your calculations, which I am looking forward to you explaining.

 

Sure, but just find me -- somewhere -- an explanation of the driving mechanism that seems vaguely plausible!

PS How deep are the lateral movements which you envisage?

 

You could start here. Or, if you regard Wikipedia as insufficiently academic, you could try Science (I went on Google Scholar and this is the first paper I found). I look forward to finding out why you consider plate tectonics so implausible.

 

Although I am interested in learning what it is specifically about conventional plate tectonics that you disagree with, I would also like to point out that in previous posts we apparently agreed that the causal mechanism for supposed global expansion could be left unspecified. Therefore, it seems a little inconsistent to me that you consider your speculative musings about dark matter and neutrinos as a satisfactory underpinning for the expansion theory, yet denounce as implausible the relatively robust geophysical framework behind conventional plate tectonics.

Edited to add:

Please don't interpret this post as meaning that I wish to ignore the theory behind either theory - I still want to know what you find so implausible about plate tectonics.

 

I do not think there can be much debate about neutrinos. These particles began as speculation; they were later discovered to exist; they were quite recently discovered (to the general satisfaction of the scientific community) to have a miniscule mass. They are generated by the sun (as a by-product of fusion) among other sources. A tiny fraction of the squillions which at every moment course through the planet are intercepted. Their mass is added, internally, to the planet, causing an outward pressure -- a near-unstoppable force. (Incidentally, this must happen also to Venus.) Thus, however small a contribution is made to the expansion of the Earth by neutrinos, I think it is established that internal growth takes place -- which many people find hard to imagine. I am happy to accept the term "musings" for my hypothesis that other forms of dark(ish) matter may also be intercepted.

Given that the Earth is swelling, one can readily imagine that an outward force would create fractures and that internal material would spill out along the surface lines of those fractures, rearraging the surface features of the planet over a long period of time. (On other planets/moons, depending on structure and composition, such fracturing might not occur in the same way.) On the face of it (though you cannot always trust faces), it is inherently more plausible that an unstoppable outward pressure would force apart trillion of tons of rock than that the surface features would slither around driven by forces which are best described as "still very active subjects of on-going discussion and research in the geophysical community" (to quote Wikipedia).

I really did not discover in the Wipipedia article a satisfactory causative mechanism able to force thin ocean floors only 10 km thick to dive beneath thick continental shields 25-40 km thick without leaving behind some physical evidence. How about the problem of unconsolidated sediments covering the floor of the Pacific to very varying depths -- but let's say an average of ten meters. Massive amounts of sediments should be piled up against continental shores, or in the deep ocean trenches off the eastern coasts of Asia and Australia, the western coasts of North and South America, or in the Aleutian Trench. The sediments just aren't there; the ocean trenches are relatively free of sediments and there are no mountains of soft sediments piled up against any Pacific shore, nor indicative remnants.

Also, please explain to me why none of the ocean floors date back to more than 200mya. Why would every last bit of ocean floor get subducted someplace or other before it got any older? Coincidence?

BTW, I think you are a little too trusting of the data said to be deduced from global positioning satellites. It is some time since I read anything on this, but I seem to remember that the data relating to the Pacific was notably contentious. (There might be something on this on the bautforum site referred to in a previous post.)

I notice that no one has so far offered to explain how creatures up to fifteen times the size of an African elephant lived upon the surface of the Earth in past times -- unless gravity was much less strong. One does not need to be a biologist to see that the elephant represents something approaching the "maximum design stretch" for quadrupeds. I have read the books that seek to explain the dynamics of dinosaur motion under present Earth gravity (they are in my personal library). They do indeed explain that a 100-ton beast might exist today, provided it stood still. I cannot entirely overturn their mathematics -- but they rely on Nature not having built in the engineering "margins" and "tolerances" that she does today, and I will not wear that idea. I don't think that is something that would change.

 

River Ape, I am genuinely puzzled by some of the statements you are making. It seems apparent from your posts that you are both well read and intelligent. (That is not meant to be in any way patronising, but is a real observation.) Despite that you post these strange statements that just don't match up to reality. Compare Earth and Venus with any other two planets in the solar system and ask which is it closest to. There is no competition - Earth and Venus are twins.
You mention that we can only speculate on Venus's composition. It's pretty solid speculation. We have an excellent theory for the origin and development of the solar system. Meteorites give us clear measures of the composition of the non-volatile portion of the nebula that gave birth to the sun and the planets. Spectroscopic analysis of the sun gives us insight into the whole composition, volatiles included. And, as I understand it, the two match up nicely.
Consequently we know the bulk composition from which Venus formed. We know how massive it is. We can work out, with some accuracy not only its composition, but its probable internal structure.

You mention the absence of a magnetic field. Given that Venus rotates very slowly on its axis this alone, I think, is sufficient to explain that difference.

Why does it rotate more slowly on its axis? It is closer to sun and so tidal forces are greater. Although I understand there is also the possibility of a much older collision.

River Ape, it's just that we know so much more about Venus than you seem willing to concede. It is almost as if you wish to ignore this data because it is at odds with what you think about an expanding Earth. Please look again this information with an open mind. It does not, of itself, prove expansion could not occur, but it certainly shows no evidence in support of it.

My apologies. I posted the bit above in response to one of your earlier posts before reading your last one. In this you say:

It isn't just the ocean floor that is taking the dive, but the mantle below the ocean floor. As to evidence, we have lots:
1) Earthquakes occuring on a plane diving beneath the continent.
2) Deep trenches, in some instances.
3) Sequences of submarine lavas, black shales, cherts, serpentinites etc 'scraped' onto the continental margin.
4) Lines of volcanoes extending above the descending plate, where partial melting has generated magmas.

 

I just don't think we are going to agree over this. I expect the value of real estate to remain much higher on Earth.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How about the other questions I raised? I mean, think about this age of the ocean floor thing. If the oceans have been around for a few billion years, why would every bit of ocean floor dating back above c.200mya just happen to have disappeared? We are dealing with a pretty complex and irregular set of shapes here. Wouldn't you expect a patch of old ocean to survive tucked away in some odd corner? Think about when you do the hoovering (of course, as a man, I may be less diligent) . . .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

River Ape, I did not dismiss the existence of neutrinos as speculation (as I think you know very well), but the mechanism my which they contribute to planetary expansion. I have learned that when a neutrino interacts with matter, it can either transfer its momentum to the impactee, causing EM radiation to be emitted, or it can cause a neutron to become a proton and an electron. The Earth is composed largely of iron and iron/magnesium silicates. If iron gains a proton, it will presumably become a light (stable?) isotope of cobalt. Is this the process you envisage? Gradual transmutation of Earth's elements by neutrino interaction? By my admittedly elementary calculations, the combined mass of the proton + electron is actually lower than that of a neutron, but I'm on shaky ground. Please explain.

If it is established, I imagine you can supply a reference or two. Perhaps you can do this in the same post in which you provide your calculations showing that the "mechanical resistance to tractional transit of oceanic crust across an ocean basin is orders of magnitude greater than the energy available from all the proposed motivating mechanisms combined", and in which you also demonstrate matthyaouw's and my naivete regarding the Moon's recession from the Earth.

I concede that expansion might be expressed differently on the surfaces of different bodies. But I will point out again the differences and similarities between Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. All similar in same size and make-up, but decidedly different in surface age and morphology.

This adds nothing. You've merely restated your position. We know that you think it's "inherently more plausible", but that's not important. Incidentally, another subject of ongoing discussion and research is the nature of gravitation - I assume you don't doubt the existence of gravity simply because the theory has not yet been nailed.

I will reiterate for emphasis what Hipparchia has already said very eloquently above. I apologise if you already got the message.
It is the whole ocean lithosphere that gets subducted, not only the crust. The lithosphere can be more than 100 km thick, and subducts because it is denser than the over-riding lithosphere and the mantle below. And if you don't regard as evidence the actual imaging of subducting plates and the measurement of plate motion, then I really don't know what to say.

You have described accretionary prisms. I mentioned them in a previous post, and they do exist.

The ocean lithosphere thickens as it moves away from the rift. This is because the upper mantle cools by conduction and by water circulating through cracks. Eventually, enough cooler (denser) mantle material will have been underplated to compensate for the more buoyant, slightly more felsic crust above, and the lithosphere as a unit will have become denser than the mantle immediately beneath. This is when a slight disturbance can initiate subduction, and is the reason that oceanic crust tends to have a maximum age. However, not all oceanic crust is recycled; in some tectonic environments oceanic crust can be obducted onto the continent, where it is preserved. These are ophiolites (I think that matthyaouw already mentioned them), and have been studied extensively.

GPS measurements are not the only method of geodesy. Look up, for example, very long baseline interferometry.

I did not respond to your previous post about dinosaurs for two reasons:
1. I am as much a palaeontologist as I am a physicist;
2. I don't recall that you made any specific points that needed to be addressed.

On the contrary, I think that expertise in biology (and possibly structural engineering) is very much necessary to make such a confident assertion.

 

I'll answer the one you repeated, but could you go back an address my points about the evidence for plate tectonics - and include by all means the points Laika raised.

The shapes are complex, but the basic principle is simple: ocean crust can get absorbed, continental crust doesn't. I have no dificult imagining all the floor beign absorbed. Equally I would not be surprised to find that a small portion of older floor is to be found in a poorly explored region of the oceans - under arctic ice for example.

 

it is true that earth is expanding because it is living thing like tree and its birth is from seed or meteroids.it has core and crust same tree log has.

 

Some Logics That Earth Is Living Thing Like Tree And Its Birth Is From Seed.
1. It Is Expanding Like Living Thing
2. It Has Skin Or Core That All Living Thing Has.
3. It Has Mountains Same Trees Has Tree Knot.
4. Its Core Has Temprature Like All Living Thing.
5. When We See The Map Of Earth It Seems It Has Expanded From Small Globle Wnen See The Land Area
6.it Has Crude Oil Same Tree Abstract Milk Or Wax Oil
7.stroke Of Earth Quake Is Stoke Of Expantion.
8. It Has Gravity
Lot Of Other Similarties Are There Showing Birth Of Planets Are Like Birth Of Plants.
Suresh Bansal
+91 9814058342

 

Hello all

Here are some of the problems I see with the expanding Earth theories.

1) Conservation of momentum. In this case the spin of the Earth. More mass would decrease the momentum and spin. The current decrease is well calculated as a loss from tidal interaction with the moon.
2) The plate drift directions do not fit any type of expansion. Plate drift directions are well documented with "hot spots" and their resultant volcanic activity. There are also the more modern GPS measurements.
3) The two main types of lava viscosity correlate with different types of sources.

As for a cause for the movement of the plates I will give you this idea. The reduction of the Earth's spin and the Coriolis effect generates a force on the Earth's crust. The Earth's shape is a geoid which is caused, for the most part, by the interaction of gravity and centrifugal forces. Reduction of spin causes a "down hill" force to be present at the equator. Currently. for the Earth, the polar radii is approximately 22km less the the equatorial radii.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hmm, upon retrospect and new information...I will add the Hexagonal shape upon the top of Jupiter and Saturn, other dimensions(string theory), the relationship between sound/frequency/vibration and matter, zero point energy/dark matter and all of the discoveries in between.
Too much to share,...anyone with questions better get on it or get left behind.
Incredible information surfacing about our physical universe.
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgu...128&prev=/images?q=saturn+hexagon&gbv=2&hl=en