the EARTH is expanding!!!!

[kwhilborn]

The EARTH is expanding!!!!

I saw some theories recently that make sense logically.

Sorry about the Melodrama, but look at this video for a minute or two.

[video=youtube;3HDb9Ijynfo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HDb9Ijynfo[/video]

There are others.

The Pangaea Theory has always told us that there was originally one land mass perhaps after the moon separated. The land masses have been proven to fit together by measuring core magnetic properties.

If this is true we should be able to more closely examine the research already in existence and be able to determine the earths size based on magnetic lines.

These "expanding Earth" people are saying that the other edges of Pangaea (the one land mass) also fit together if wrapped around and condensed.

Pangaea was definitely real. The continents fit together like a jigsaw puzzle often with gaps less than 90 miles wide.

I do not know if the expanding earth is real. It does seem to have a lot of observational evidence.

How then would a planet expand? Were we in the way of a zillion Comets bringing water to us? I have no idea. It is just interesting.

Please watch the 10 minute video before just commenting with grade 11 textbook knowledge. This is obviously not what is taught in highschool.

 

[joepistole]

The EARTH is expanding!!!!

I saw some theories recently that make sense logically.

Sorry about the Melodrama, but look at this video for a minute or two.

[video=youtube;3HDb9Ijynfo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HDb9Ijynfo[/video]

There are others.

The Pangaea Theory has always told us that there was originally one land mass perhaps after the moon separated. The land masses have been proven to fit together by measuring core magnetic properties.

If this is true we should be able to more closely examine the research already in existence and be able to determine the earths size based on magnetic lines.

These "expanding Earth" people are saying that the other edges of Pangaea (the one land mass) also fit together if wrapped around and condensed.

Pangaea was definitely real. The continents fit together like a jigsaw puzzle often with gaps less than 90 miles wide.

I do not know if the expanding earth is real. It does seem to have a lot of observational evidence.

How then would a planet expand? Were we in the way of a zillion Comets bringing water to us? I have no idea. It is just interesting.

Please watch the 10 minute video before just commenting with grade 11 textbook knowledge. This is obviously not what is taught in highschool.

The video is a hoax. The Earth expands and contracts daily in reaction to lunar gravitational forces. The only expansion and contraction occuring on Earth is caused by gravitational forces only.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Joepistole,

What makes you think this is fake?

Please do not say because your textbooks say so as much science discussed here is new.

Do you believe in The Pangaea Theory that all continents were attached?

I do not think many people realize how well the continents fit together, and this has nothing to do with the video. If you want to see how well Pangaea fits together then I am sure you can do that elsewhere.

We know the Atlantic Coasts fit together almost perfectly. It is when people start looking at how the pacific coasts also fit together that we have a problem. You can fit one or two together and not both.

What part of the Video do you think is a hoax?

Nicola Tesla was a scientist ahead of his time and he believed there is an Aether-energy that can be transformed into matter.

Mass accretion [edit]
In 1888 Ivan Osipovich Yarkovsky suggested that some sort of aether is absorbed within the earth and transformed into new chemical elements, forcing the celestial bodies to expand. This was connected with his mechanical explanation of gravitation.[9] Also the thesis of Ott Christoph Hilgenberg (1933, 1974)[10][11] and Nikola Tesla[12] were based on absorption and transformation of aether-energy into normal matter.

This topic should not be instantly dismissed as its implications are far ranging and seem very possible.

Imagine that there is a universal gravitational constant that is getting weaker and weaker over hundreds of billions of years. Everything would expand. There is room to view gravity itself as a mechanical device.

It is a fact that all the continents appear to fit together quite well in a smaller world. I am not yet prepared to say it is a hoax. Please at least argue your point if you are going to make such a claim. I said in OP I did not want anybody too lazy to contribute an original thought and are just quoting your grade 11 textbooks.

Why is it a hoax? It seems quite credible. I also acknowledge the scientific community seems to be somewhat slow in acknowledging they were wrong. This is very plausible, and after spending the past hours researching it it seems more legitimate. This video does not stand alone. Even Charles Darwin had thought of this.

 

[Robittybob1]

If there were no oceans 200 million years ago where did all the seawater fit into the picture? Was it on top of the land? Where did the land animals live if that was the case. I am an expanding Earth advocate but I can't accept it all happened in the last 200 million years. I don't have the answers but this just can't be right.

 

[andy1033]

I doubt we know the answer, but interesting question it brought up.

I am sure the universe is very strange to what we imagine it.

Interesting, never heard of it before, not sure if i am into this theory, but at least people are thinking outside the box.

I am sure we will never answer anything though.

 

[Robittybob1]

This topic has be argued extensively before about two years ago (I have the threads subscribed if you want to read them). As I understand the Earth was compressed and as the water has been lost to space over the 5 billion years the compressive forces are reversing so the expansion was more likely to have happened years ago not recent. Recent tests showed an expansion but very minimal (below errors of measurement) but it showed a growth more in line with a gradual rebound rather than rapid expansion over the last 200 million years.

 

[Janus58]

Do you believe in The Pangaea Theory that all continents were attached?

The actual theory is that Pangaea is the most recent of a number of super-continents that formed and then broke up throughout Earth's history. Neither is it predicted to be the last.

 

[joepistole]

@ Joepistole,

What makes you think this is fake?

A) You have presented no evidence to support the claims. There is a difference between baseless speculation and proof.
B) Two, there is a very extensive and sensitive network of satellites which support GPS and a number of other communications technologies that would have to be adjusted for an Earth expansion, if it existed, in order to work. Those satellites are so finely tuned they have to adjusted for minute little things like the time differential identified by Einstein’s Relativity. The satellites work and they are not adjusted for some unspecified unproven Earth expansion.
C) Three, it doesn’t explain why current Plate Tectonics is wrong. Probably, because it is not wrong.
D) And finally, the speculation doesn’t even make sense. It doesn’t explain why the Earth would be expanding. If the Earth was expanding, the inner core would necessarily be getting hotter due to friction. And it is not getting hotter, it is cooling.

Additionally, there are only two things that could drive an expanding Earth, a increase in the nuclear reactions that fuel the core and gravitational influences. As I said before there is no indication that the internal reactor that drives the mantel is heating up. And there is no evidence of any unexplained gravitational influences on the Earth or Moon.

 

[AlexG]

Expanding Earth is a fairly old idea, which has been debunked numerous times.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Joepistole,

One of the explanations given is that over billions of years (not annually) The gravitational constant has been becoming less. This seems to fit with our expanding universe. I cannot see how you can fit all pacific shores together while retaining shape without this.

@ Alex G,
I'm sure there were times when the radio was debunked. We used to think slaves built the pyramids, etc. I am not decided on this topic, but I at least want to hear the pros and cons. The points given by JoePistole above are all Gibberish. a) There is plenty of observational evidence if you can fit the Pacific shores together reasonably. b) Satellites are not active for billions of years. This is like saying he is measuring Continental drift with a ruler. c) if expanding earth is real then of course Plate Tectonics can fit partially into the concept. d) and I gave the lessening of gravity as one possible cause.

It is easy to say it is Debunked. But let's debunk it ourselves.

Here is a better reason why it is not true without talking about lame satellites, etc. Magnetic core readings from 400 million years ago say the earth was the same size. 102% +- 3%

Now that could be true or it could be a case of miscalculations. I said in the OP this would be one method of determining this theory and new this fact then. Am I the only person around that still reads?

I still say this looks plausible. I AM NOT saying it is true. I am saying I am still undecided.

I also love Tesla. If he thinks there is an Aether/Energy floating around then I will take his side all the time despite no such energy has been measured. It is fun to at least explore aspects of science that seem controversial because despite my Moniker I really think we are far from knowing everything yet


Here is a paper on it.
http://www.aoi.com.au/bcw/FixedorExpandingEarth.htm

They also conclude the Expanding Earth Theory makes more sense. I do not want to get too far into the ample evidence here as it is presented well in both this paper and the video.

Point me to a paper debunking this. I just hope it doesn't say "This cannot be true because it is not what I learned in High School."

The more I look at both sides of this argument the more I favor Expanding Earth.

 

[AlexG]

@ Alex G,
I'm sure there were times when the radio was debunked. We used to think slaves built the pyramids, etc. I am not decided on this topic, but I at least want to hear the pros and cons. The points given by JoePistole above are all Gibberish. a) There is plenty of observational evidence if you can fit the Pacific shores together reasonably. b) Satellites are not active for billions of years. This is like saying he is measuring Continental drift with a ruler. c) if expanding earth is real then of course Plate Tectonics can fit partially into the concept. d) and I gave the lessening of gravity as one possible cause.

Given your championing of many unfounded, lunatic ideas, I'm not at all surprised that this one appeals to you.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Alex G,

drawing together expansion-related land areas into a single whole. This process could be computerised, but simple graphic methods have shown the results are the same for any chosen area, anywhere in the world, and have an accuracy approaching 100 km in re-assembling areas separated by Earth expansion.

We can fit all of the worlds continents together in a single piece if we wrap and condense with an accuracy of close to 100km between shores.

championing of many unfounded, lunatic ideas

Yet I Championed LENR and was one of the only few, and now it has been replicated and proven to exist beyond doubt to those educated on the topic. Argue this and I will simply think you are a fool. That thread has been somewhat inactive but last I looked the consensus seemed to be that LENR was in fact real, but people still view Andrea Rossi as a buffoon. I don't but some do.

A lot of what we consider science is based on "common sense". Of course the world is flat, etc. Everyone knows the world cannot expand, don't be ridiculous, etc.

Yes. I cannot fathom skeptic views on some paranormal topics as well such as telepathy. I have shown that people can easily influence dreams of Family or Friends if they try, but many will never try because they "Know"... oooooooo .

So yes. I do like science. I like cutting edge science. I do not think the Expanding Earth Theory should be written off so easily.

Maybe actually read the paper I posted, although that may take an entire 5 minutes of your precious time and maybe you will alter your own views.

I had asked for a paper debunking this. I think most will rely on pole variations from core samples. This simply could be that the geologists assumed a fixed earth and orientated their land masses in a variety of interesting positions among a free ocean backdrop.

 

[joepistole]

@ Joepistole,

One of the explanations given is that over billions of years (not annually) The gravitational constant has been becoming less. This seems to fit with our expanding universe. I cannot see how you can fit all pacific shores together while retaining shape without this.

We have a giant window into the past right above our heads. The images arriving every moment of every day are thousands, millions and even billions of years old. And there is no indication that gravity has changed or is changing.

I don’t understand why you have such difficulty with plate tectonics. It is pretty straight forward.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tectonics.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tecall1_4.mov

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Joepistole,

Take 5 minutes and read the Paper I posted and you will see the problems I have with Plate Tectonics. I do agree that Plate tectonics exist, but that the movement is based upon expansion. If Plate Tectonics did not exist then we would simply have 1 large land mass even if the world was expanding.

Looking at snapshot from Billions of years ago is all nice and that, but let me know when you have observed a planet for a billion years. There is quite a difference. I was educated quite a bit in Plate Tectonics while in school. I am a retired Soil Engineer and even though that is more of a glorified driver telling people where to drill for samples my education included much Earth science.

It is my own preoccupation with Earth Science that had me even looking at the Expanding Earth Theory. I can say from an educated standpoint that The Expanding Earth Theory has many merits. It is a shame people with closed minds will not spend 5 minutes at least looking at them.

I do not know if you realize how well all the Continents fit together with the well known and accepted Pangaea Theory. Coastline matches coastline within a discrepancy of about 100 kilometres. This is Amazing and Well accepted.

What is not know or accepted is that if you took Pangaea and wrapped it around a condensed sphere the Pacific shores also line up with the same discrepancies. This cannot be chance unless you like extreme odds.

 

[AlexG]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth#Scientific_consensus

Measurements with modern high-precision geodetic techniques show that the Earth is not currently increasing in size to within a measurement accuracy of 0.2 mm per year.[16] The lead author of the study stated "Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties".[17] The motions of tectonic plates and subduction zones measured by a large range of geological, geodetic and geophysical techniques supports plate tectonics.[18][19][20]

Paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8 percent of today's radius.[21][22]

Examinations of data from the Paleozoic and Earth's moment of inertia suggest that there has been no significant change of earth's radius in the last 620 million years.[23]

I do not know if you realize how well all the Continents fit together with the well known and accepted Pangaea Theory.

No one is debating Pangaea Theory. It is well explained by plate tectonics and subduction.

 

[Janus58]

Imagine that there is a universal gravitational constant that is getting weaker and weaker over hundreds of billions of years. Everything would expand. There is room to view gravity itself as a mechanical device.

Wait, your suggesting a smaller Earth and a stronger gravitational constant is the past?

Let's consider first the effect of a smaller Earth. If the earth was small enough such that Pangaea covered the entire planet, the surface area of the Earth would have to have been ~28% of what it is now and its radius 1/12.8 of what it is now. Since surface gravity is dependent on the square of the radius, this would make the Earth's surface gravity ~163 times greater than it is now. A stronger gravitational constant would only make this worse.

Now Pangaea existed 200-300 million years ago. We can tell from how fossils of the time are distributed. This is around the Triassic, and there were some pretty large dinosaurs around at that time. The skeletal structure of an animal is determined by how much weight it must carry and there is no indication that these already large animals were having to support 160+ times more weight.

It seems quite credible.

Only if you ignore everything that shows it to not be so. That's the thing with these type of ideas, they seem all so reasonable as long as you don't look for the flaws.

 

[Robittybob1]

@ Joepistole,



Here is a better reason why it is not true without talking about lame satellites, etc. Magnetic core readings from 400 million years ago say the earth was the same size. 102% +- 3% ....

That is the sort of rates I am looking at as all that is needed. Nothing dramatic rapidly but real significant over the 5 billion life span of Earth.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Robbitybob,
If geologists assume the Earth is fixed it is easy to manipulate the data to prove that. The main qualifications they use to fit their puzzle pieces are based on magnetic North an south. If you are placing these on a smaller sphere they would also fit but in a different position.

I linked a paper in my second post that deals with the seawater questions.

A lot of the arguing against the expanding earth has been based on measuring magnetic alignments in drill samples dating back millions pf years.
One major problem with this is if you are placing a continent such as Australia based on its magnetic poles and you ASSUME the earth was a fixed size then you could simply make the equation fit the data. You may place the Continent sideways from how it was , but it will let some sleep better.

As far as Animals and Dinosaurs. Many similar species on separate continents (i.e. Dinosaurs) give the impression that the continents on which they thrived were attached. The expabding world theory seems to have a more logical flow to these events than simple Pangaea.

If this topic is new to anyone watch the OP video and read the paper I linked in my second post. It is hard to get people to take a second look at things once minds are set, but I find more reasons to accept it than dismiss it so far.

I should do a pros an cons list.

 

[exchemist]

@ Robbitybob,
If geologists assume the Earth is fixed it is easy to manipulate the data to prove that. The main qualifications they use to fit their puzzle pieces are based on magnetic North an south. If you are placing these on a smaller sphere they would also fit but in a different position.

I linked a paper in my second post that deals with the seawater questions.

A lot of the arguing against the expanding earth has been based on measuring magnetic alignments in drill samples dating back millions pf years.
One major problem with this is if you are placing a continent such as Australia based on its magnetic poles and you ASSUME the earth was a fixed size then you could simply make the equation fit the data. You may place the Continent sideways from how it was , but it will let some sleep better.

As far as Animals and Dinosaurs. Many similar species on separate continents (i.e. Dinosaurs) give the impression that the continents on which they thrived were attached. The expabding world theory seems to have a more logical flow to these events than simple Pangaea.

If this topic is new to anyone watch the OP video and read the paper I linked in my second post. It is hard to get people to take a second look at things once minds are set, but I find more reasons to accept it than dismiss it so far.

I should do a pros an cons list.

Suggest reading the comments from Janus58, which strike me as being very much to the point. He or she points out 2 crucial difficulties with the expanding Earth idea:

1) The geophysical evidence is that Pangaea formed, not that long ago in geological terms, from previously separate continental masses that came together for a while. This obviously implies there was enough space on the surface of the Earth for them to have been separate previously.

2) the effect of the force of gravity experienced at the surface, which would have made the life forms we observe in fossils unsustainable.

Any reputable expanding Earth theory would to have to address these difficulties satisfactorily.

I would add a tentative further point of my own, as follows. If one accepts the conventional theory that (a) the continental masses drift over the surface and occasionally fuse and then split along new lines of fracture and (b) that the last time they did so was when Pangaea formed, i.e. joined along Atlantic and Mediterranean, but open at the Pacific side, then would one not expect the Pacific edges to still carry the shape of the last time they were joined at that side, even though this might have been long before Pangaea was created? If so, there is nothing about the ability to fit them together at both edges that implies they must have done so at the same time.

 

[Robittybob1]

Suggest reading the comments from Janus58, which strike me as being very much to the point. He or she points out 2 crucial difficulties with the expanding Earth idea:

1) The geophysical evidence is that Pangaea formed, not that long ago in geological terms, from previously separate continental masses that came together for a while. This obviously implies there was enough space on the surface of the Earth for them to have been separate previously.

2) the effect of the force of gravity experienced at the surface, which would have made the life forms we observe in fossils unsustainable.

Any reputable expanding Earth theory would to have to address these difficulties satisfactorily.

I would add a tentative further point of my own, as follows. If one accepts the conventional theory that (a) the continental masses drift over the surface and occasionally fuse and then split along new lines of fracture and (b) that the last time they did so was when Pangaea formed, i.e. joined along Atlantic and Mediterranean, but open at the Pacific side, then would one not expect the Pacific edges to still carry the shape of the last time they were joined at that side, even though this might have been long before Pangaea was created? If so, there is nothing about the ability to fit them together at both edges that implies they must have done so at the same time.

I don't disagree with anything you say.
Animals are even more recent than Pangaea, so unless they are floating in water, their ability to stand on the surface would be difficult in a high gravity situation. I have been studying this Compressed Earth for over a year now and still feel it is the answer. I don't go along with the Expanding Earth Theory as it is commonly expressed, for I have my own theory, which has some support as it is similar to some others (Hearndon?)
I am tying in the Moon capture (the Yo-yo Moon Capture Hypothesis) with the existence of the "Compressed Earth" in another forum.
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 I have been thinking of bringing part of it over to Sciforums too.