Expanding Earth Theory - WTF???

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Just curious Jerome.

Do you enjoy living in a self made world where your version of physics, politics, biology and reality is not accepted by anyone except perhaps those with schizotypal personality disorder and schizophrenics?

Curious that science is stating that planets DO change in diameter.

Smallest planet shrinks in size
Credit to Beth for the link.

You are by your above statement making the claim that theses scientist have and are "schizotypal personality disorder and schizophrenics".

Would you like to clarify your characterization of these scientists?

 

[paximperium]

I wasn't talking about this issue but all the other "interesting" ideas you have. Just curious how your mind works. How does your paranoid and magical world goes?

BTW: Earth is not a "smallest" planet. Isn't it interesting you trust "those scientists" on this issue but refuse to believe them on others...huh...how odd.

 

[shadron]

If new seafloor is constantly being created - and I'm not aware of any disagreement on that point - where is all the old crust going? I'm aware of a number of well established places where the seafloor is spreading and magma wells up and creates new crust. I'm also aware of a few established subduction zones where crust is being recycled into the magma. But are they equal or is it possible that more creation of new crust is going on than subduction of old crust? That's harder to establish and it's not at all clear to me which is the case.

Beth, the current theory is that, yes, there is just as much subduction going on as there is sea floor spreading. If the size of the constituent molecules is constant, and we have no evidence otherwise, this thread to the contrary notwithstanding, then there has to be - roughly all the goes up must come down. There are subduction zones off the Pacific coast of Washington and Oregon, that are responsible for the Klamath mountains and the volcanoes there. That subduction zone has even "come ashore" in California and is responsible for tearing the state apart along the San Andreas (and a host of other) faults.

In answer to an implied question above about the age of the continents vis-a-vis the young ocean floor, the continents are seen as relatively lighter rock (granitic as opposed to sea floor basaltic) that "floats" on top of the plates. It is split apart where spreading starts occurring, as it did along the Atlantic ridge long ago, and is currently doing in the Rift Valley through eastern Africa, through the Red Sea and up into the Dead Sea Valley. Where these lighter island-continents come together over subduction zones, the meeting continental masses are pressed together forming mountain chains (the Himilaya's are caused by the Indian subcontinent moving northwards into the Asian continent, for example). The North American shield is the core center of an ancient North American continent (centered roughly around Minnesota) where the rocks are 4.5 billion years old, among the oldest known. Around the periphery of NA is a series of odd rock formations that are pieces of other continents that were slapped up against that core by subductions in past times; most of the eastern seaboard used to be parts of Europe and Africa. The continents ride along the tops of the mantle segments until rifted, or pushed together and scraped off of them at various places and times.

One of the things this theory successfully predicts is that many of the subduction zones will be under land rather than under the sea. That's simply the result of the accumulation of crust at the subduction zones, as it generally cannot follow the mantle as it dives. That makes subduction zones a little harder to locate, so their exact locations are a little fuzzier than the spreading zones are, but not much more. There are clues, both grossly visible (like plutons and volcanoes) and visible only to exploration geologists (seismic and manmade echos, drilling cores and other evidences).

There was a great series of programs (6 1-hour episodes) created in the 80's by the BBC called "The Making of a Continent", in which the various pieces and parts of the geography and geology of North America was explained and discussed. No doubt parts of it need revision now, but it was really great about the broad brush strokes of NA's natural history, and plate tectonics in general.

As I said above, there is no convincing evidence that matter in general is changing in volume or density over time. There are a good many reasons to disbelieve it, as size is not a simple thing to scale. Think about why, for example, you can drop an ant any distance at all and it will survive, but an elephant would not easily suffer a fall of a couple of feet in height. That has to do with the scale of things, and why you cannot simply scale an ant to elephant size and have it work.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

As I said above, there is no convincing evidence that matter in general is changing in volume or density over time.

Water changes in volume and density all the time.

 

[shadron]

Curious that science is stating that planets DO change in diameter.

Smallest planet shrinks in size
Credit to Beth for the link.

You are by your above statement making the claim that theses scientist have and are "schizotypal personality disorder and schizophrenics".

Would you like to clarify your characterization of these scientists?

Yes, Mercury may have shrunk a mile (say, about .05% in diameter, or .15% in volume) over its 5 billion year lifetime due to cooling. Indeed, I have no problems with saying the Earth also went through a similar shrinkage over its lifetime (though likely proportionally smaller, due to its larger volume and insulative effect), in fact I see no way of denying it, in view of the physics of thermal expansion. But that's not the scale of things that causes the continents today to cover only 30% of the surface of the planet, nor the right direction of expansion from contraction, nor the scale of things that the shrinking earth people specify - not by at least three orders of magnitude. I do not hesitate in calling these "scientists" crackpots on the basis of their claims, and on the basis of the way they claim it, and on their bogus evidence, and on the basis of their lack of explanation about how modern physics would not be able to either explain nor detect it. All of these converging lines of thought lead me to that conclusion.

I do hope that is sufficient clarification of my personal position for you, Jerome. I would not say they are schizophrenics, as that would require a medical diagnosis that I lack. But they are wrong, for several reasons, all of which you have ignored in this thread, which is typical of your contrarian manner of argument.

 

[Beth]

Beth, the current theory is that, yes, there is just as much subduction going on as there is sea floor spreading.

Yes, I'm aware of that. However, I don't think that the evidence supporting that is solid enough to preclude the hypothesis of expansion.

If the size of the constituent molecules is constant, and we have no evidence otherwise, this thread to the contrary notwithstanding, then there has to be - roughly all the goes up must come down.

Actually, no. It's not just the size of the constituent molecules, but how they are positioned relative to one another. When I bake a cake, the volume of the batter going in is different than the volume after baking. The texture and density has changed over time due to heat.

There are subduction zones off the Pacific coast of Washington and Oregon, that are responsible for the Klamath mountains and the volcanoes there. That subduction zone has even "come ashore" in California and is responsible for tearing the state apart along the San Andreas (and a host of other) faults.

I am aware of an understand these facts. They do not preclude the alternate hypothesis because we don't yet know with certainty whether or not the diameter of earth is actually expanding. At some point, our measurements will be accurate enough to make that determination.

In answer to an implied question above about the age of the continents vis-a-vis the young ocean floor, the continents are seen as relatively lighter rock (granitic as opposed to sea floor basaltic) that "floats" on top of the plates.
- snip of excellent lection of current best theory of earth formation -

Thanks. That was interesting. I tend to trust the geologists on this matter. I certainly don't rank the idea as a fact. But given that there are some geologists championing this idea, and that it also successfully predicts the things you mentioned above, I just don't find it immediately dismissable at this point. I'll wait until the direct measurement data comes in.

As I said above, there is no convincing evidence that matter in general is changing in volume or density over time.

You're right, there isn't. On the other hand, we've only been measuring things for a few hundred years at best. I don't have the faith you do that such changes might not ever occur. The news about Mercury shows both that planets can be dynamic, changing size over time. It also shows that we can detect such changes. So I'll wait until more evidence comes in to make up my mind on the matter.

Sometimes a new theory like this comes in and changes the way we view our world. The earth is a dynamic living planet.

There are a good many reasons to disbelieve it, as size is not a simple thing to scale. Think about why, for example, you can drop an ant any distance at all and it will survive, but an elephant would not easily suffer a fall of a couple of feet in height. That has to do with the scale of things, and why you cannot simply scale an ant to elephant size and have it work.

Yes, there are good reasons to doubt it, and doubt it I do. I don't think you've even scratched the surface of problems with the theory. But I gather there are problems with the current theory as well.

I enjoy the speculation. It gives me a reason to anxiously await new data to see what the results are.

 

[shadron]

Water changes in volume and density all the time.

Sure it does - it changes from about 958 kg/m^3 at 100 degrees C to 1000 at 4C to 999 at 0C, or a total difference in density in the liquid phase of slightly more than 4% (see http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2odenscalc.html). For ice, the density at 0C is about 917 kg/m^3, and at -45C is about 920kg/m^3. As you can see he expansion coefficient for a solid is much less than it is for a liquid and very much less than that for a gas (which approaches Boyle's law) - that is a universal observation, only disagreed with (AFAIK) by water within a small range of 0 degrees. And the Earth would likely have shrunk too, due to loss of heat derived from its original potential energy. But the amount of temperature difference would not account, by three or more orders of magnitude and a total change in direction, with what the expanding earth people specify. They explain the fact that the continents do not cover the surface by saying once they did, but the earth expanded to the point where they now only cover 30%, and that is far, far more than thermal expansion (even inexplicably reversed) will ever cover.

 

[shadron]

Beth, the current theory is that, yes, there is just as much subduction going on as there is sea floor spreading.

Yes, I'm aware of that. However, I don't think that the evidence supporting that is solid enough to preclude the hypothesis of expansion.

The preclusion of this expansion theory is not based on the results of some study of plate tectonics; the volumes and masses have not yet been sampled in sufficient amounts to make any but the roughest of computations about their magnitude. Rather, the expansion theory and plate tectonics both answer to general physics, which has not yet found any reason besides change in temperature or pressure for the density of any material to change over time. No one seriously proposes that measurements of volume in plate tectonics says that expansion is not occurring; rather they predict that such measurements will confirm that as much mass and volume goes down as comes up.

If the size of the constituent molecules is constant, and we have no evidence otherwise, this thread to the contrary notwithstanding, then there has to be - roughly all the goes up must come down.

Actually, no. It's not just the size of the constituent molecules, but how they are positioned relative to one another. When I bake a cake, the volume of the batter going in is different than the volume after baking. The texture and density has changed over time due to heat.

Actually you're right (see, I can be reasonable!!) Some of the growth of your cake is strictly from heat - perhaps 1% of increase in linear measurement - that also explains some of why it shrinks marginally when it cools. But - and its a very big but here - your cake is mostly rising because of a completely different reason - it's rising from production of CO2 from either a chemical reaction (baking powder) or because of yeast growth. The easy tes of that is to bake a cake without either. You cannot use either of these to explain the huge increase in volume these expanding earth people are requiring; there's simply not enough baking powder or yeast in the world (and I'm only being a little bit facetious in making that point).

In general, chemical change will lead to density change, that is true. That's why iron can turn wholly to rust, unlike aluminum. However, the vast majority of the Earth's mass is elemental, not chemically molecular. Iron is probably the largest contributor. All the chemical changes that are possible on the surface will never change the density of the planet more than infinitesimally on the planetary scale.

There are subduction zones off the Pacific coast of Washington and Oregon, that are responsible for the Klamath mountains and the volcanoes there. That subduction zone has even "come ashore" in California and is responsible for tearing the state apart along the San Andreas (and a host of other) faults.

I am aware of an understand these facts. They do not preclude the alternate hypothesis because we don't yet know with certainty whether or not the diameter of earth is actually expanding. At some point, our measurements will be accurate enough to make that determination.

No, there you are wrong. We have made measurements of the geodesy of the earth that are accurate enough to preclude expansion, at least in the magnitude these people claim. Among other ways, precise measurement of satellite orbits and measurements made by reflecting radar and laser light off of the moon (specifically, the reflectors left there by Apollo) have accuracies into the inches for supporting various other observations, such as the slow expansion of the moon's orbit size due to energy transfer from Earth's rotational momentum to the moon's orbital velocity.

As I said above, there is no convincing evidence that matter in general is changing in volume or density over time.

You're right, there isn't. On the other hand, we've only been measuring things for a few hundred years at best. I don't have the faith you do that such changes might not ever occur. The news about Mercury shows both that planets can be dynamic, changing size over time. It also shows that we can detect such changes. So I'll wait until more evidence comes in to make up my mind on the matter.

Ah, but what is the point to science if we don't take our observations and infer general rules about the way things work from them? If we never allow ourselves to extrapolate about things then observation buys us nothing.

For example, you point out that we've only been making measurements for a couple of hundred years. Depending on the accuracy you require, that might be 30 years, or 5 years, or only in the last 25 minutes. Certainly we've been observing animals, say, for at least 10,000 years, and I hear nothing about elephants having been less fragile due to falling in the past - indeed, we have archaeological evidence of large animal traps in which this fact about size was purposefully used against them, and the fossil evidence going back 100as of millions of years doesn't show any way to consider large animals being less fragile than they are today (this is, by the way the obverse side of one the the young Earth arguments). So, because we weren't here to measure their freshly gnawed femurs we must throw away all that evidence? No.

Sometimes a new theory like this comes in and changes the way we view our world. The earth is a dynamic living planet.

Yes, but being dynamic and living doesn't say it followed different physics in the past than it does today. The physics is the same.

There are a good many reasons to disbelieve it, as size is not a simple thing to scale. Think about why, for example, you can drop an ant any distance at all and it will survive, but an elephant would not easily suffer a fall of a couple of feet in height. That has to do with the scale of things, and why you cannot simply scale an ant to elephant size and have it work.

Yes, there are good reasons to doubt it, and doubt it I do. I don't think you've even scratched the surface of problems with the theory. But I gather there are problems with the current theory as well.

Oh? Such as? Perhaps there are other explanations for these anomalies or objections which can be brought forth without wrecking what we believe we know about the past. Occasionally (very occasionally) they can lead to a change in science theory. I don't believe the expansionists are there, though.

I enjoy the speculation. It gives me a reason to anxiously await new data to see what the results are.

As do I.

 

[Beth]

Actually you're right (see, I can be reasonable!!) Some of the growth of your cake is strictly from heat - perhaps 1% of increase in linear measurement - that also explains some of why it shrinks marginally when it cools. But - and its a very big but here - your cake is mostly rising because of a completely different reason - it's rising from production of CO2 from either a chemical reaction (baking powder) or because of yeast growth. You cannot use either of these to explain the huge increase in volume these expanding earth people are requiring; there's simply not enough baking powder or yeast in the world (and I'm only being a little bit facetious in making that point).

Yes, I quite agree the question of the mechanism - how - it might occur is a major problem for the hypothesis. I didn't suppose it was baking powder.

No, there you are wrong. We have made measurements of the geodesy of the earth that are accurate enough to preclude expansion, at least in the magnitude these people claim. Among other ways, precise measurement of satellite orbits and measurements made by reflecting radar and laser light off of the moon (specifically, the reflectors left there by Apollo) have accuracies into the inches for various other observations, such as the slow expansion of the moon's orbit size due to energy transfer from Earth's rotational momentum to the moon's orbital velocity.

This interests me. When last I looked into it, which was over a year ago, perhaps two, such measurements were not conclusive. Do you have a cite for that? I'd be interested in seeing the published data on it and compairing it with the magnitude predicted.

Ah, but what is the point to science if we don't take our observations and infer general rules about the way things work from them? If we never allow ourselves to extrapolate about things then observation buys us nothing.

I feel the same. There's nothing at all wrong with it. That's what we do. That's what the expanding earth proponents are doing. We just can't assume that the extrapolation will be correct.

For example, you point out that we've only been making measurements for a couple of hundred years. Depending on the accuracy you require, that might be 30 years, or 5 years, or only in tthe last 25 minutes. Certainly we've been observing animals, say, for at least 10.000 years, and I hear nothing about elephants having been less fragile due to falling in the past - indeed, we have archaeological evidence of large animal traps in which this fact about size was purposefully used against them, and the fossil evidence going back 100as of millions of years doesn't show any way to consider large animals being less fragile than they are today (this is, by the way the onverse side of one the the young Earth arguments). So, because we weren't here to measure their femurs we must throw away all that evidence? No.

Heaven's no. Where did you get the idea I wanted to throw evidence away? We can also, fairly accurately, determine atmospheric conditions on earth in the past from measurements of ice cores taken. Very cool stuff. I'm not advocating throwing out anything.

Yes, but being dynamic and living doesn't say it followed different physics in the past than it does today.

Quite right! But it does make change in the earth over time a certainty. Exactly how it changes is still being explored.

The physics is the same.

Well, that's our best guess anyway .

 

[MattusMaximus]

Beth and Jerome, you keep making inferences that the Earth is indeed "expanding", but the claims you are making are vague. How about some specifics as to both the amount and rate of said expansion?

Please state the hypothesis of the EET in specific, quantitative terms. That is, over X period of time the Earth will have been measured to have expanded by Y amount, and in the future the Earth will expand by Z amount... you know, claims that can actually be tested with numbers and calculations?

You should note that unless you can provide some kind of testable hypotheses (quantitative ones) for the EET, then scientifically you're dead in the water. Making arguments against standard plate tectonic theory is no good - even if plate tectonics is 100% wrong, it still does nothing to further your own arguments.

That kind of argument (since not A then B - without positive evidence for B) is a common error in logic that is often made by creationists of all stripes when they criticize evolution and then claim that, by default, ID is correct.

So to avoid falling into the same pseudo-scientific category as creationists, please make sure you don't argue like them.

So back to my challenge: please provide a specific, quantifiable hypothesis which can test the validity of EET. And no, YouTube videos don't count.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Well, that's our best guess anyway .

Beth, why would you even say something like this? Your counter-argument to the argument that Neal Adam's EET contradicts known physics is to say that "we're guessing at physics"? To rescue EET from the dustbin, you have to bring into question all of physics - right...

What evidence do you have that physics was "different then" than now? Do you have anything at all to back up this claim, or is this just a hand-waving attempt to make your EET arguments appear sound?

Seriously, is this the best you can do? Not very impressive...

Since you are claiming that physics was "different then" than now, please provide specifics. Tell me what specifically was different, and how you know this to be true. And be warned - I am a physics professor, so I'll nail you to the wall if you say something bogus.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Beth and Jerome, you keep making inferences that the Earth is indeed "expanding"

Your premise is incorrect. No body has stated such.

I would be happy to have a conversation with you, but if your initiation is false than what are we to do?


We can begin here. Just a check of your honesty.

Can planets change diameter?

Do planets change diameter?

 

[Correa Neto]

A few comments which I hope may be helpful:

"Why no old oceanic crust?"
There are pieces of oceanic crust which are pretty old, a couple of billions of years or more. They are stuck within continental crust (by a process called obduction) and called ophiolites. Their characteristics are identical -or nearly identical- to nowaday's oceanic crust. The older slices of oceanic crust are, the more different they are, but this is due to geodynamics. Older Earth was hotter than today's. Here's a hint on why Mercury is shrinking.

"Why the oceanic crust is younger than the continental crust?"
Because oceanic crust is being continously generated and at a faster pace than continental crust. Continental crust is not as dense as oceanic crust, thus it "floats". It is not subducted in to the mantle; once formed, it stays there, "unsinkable". Continental crust is generated by partial melting of subducted oceanic crust. Here's a hint about how complex the recycling of oceanic crust can be.

"What happens to the old oceanic crust?"
The simple answer is - it sinks in to the mantle and is recycled. That's why no expansion is needed to accomplish creation of new crust at mid-oceanic ridges. Of course, the actual processes are much more complex. Yes, the consumption and creation rates are equal.

 

[Beth]

Beth and Jerome, you keep making inferences that the Earth is indeed "expanding", but the claims you are making are vague. How about some specifics as to both the amount and rate of said expansion?

I'm not making claims. I'm merely stating that I don't find the hypothesis completely ridiculous. It's intriguing, but not yet convincing to me. If Shadron can provide a cite for his claim that we can rule out expansion based on our measurements, that would be convincing evidence to me that it's wrong. And I'll have to go and look up some of the papers I read a while back as far as what expansion rate they claim is currently going on. But it's an interesting enough hypothesis to do that.

Beth, why would you even say something like this? Your counter-argument to the argument that Neal Adam's EET contradicts known physics is to say that "we're guessing at physics"?

It was an attempt at humor. That' s why I put the winking smilie after. And a reminder that we cannot be certain that our current understanding will not be superceded by another, better one. It almost certainly will.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Your premise is incorrect. No body has stated such.

I would be happy to have a conversation with you, but if your initiation is false than what are we to do?

How about addressing my challenge for a testable, quantitative, and specific hypothesis of EET? Put up or shut up, please.

We can begin here. Just a check of your honesty.

Can planets change diameter?

Do planets change diameter?

Yes to both, which does nothing to further the claims of the EET woosters.

Provide that hypothesis Jerome, or be relegated to the dustbin... again.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I'm not making claims. I'm merely stating that I don't find the hypothesis completely ridiculous. It's intriguing, but not yet convincing to me. If Shadron can provide a cite for his claim that we can rule out expansion based on our measurements, that would be convincing evidence to me that it's wrong. And I'll have to go and look up some of the papers I read a while back as far as what expansion rate they claim is currently going on. But it's an interesting enough hypothesis to do that.

Great, have fun with that.

It was an attempt at humor. That' s why I put the winking smilie after. And a reminder that we cannot be certain that our current understanding will not be superceded by another, better one. It almost certainly will.

True enough, but making such assertions, even in jest, do nothing to further the scientific discussion. You might as well joke that undetectable leprechauns are underneath the crust pushing the Earth out. At this point, without solid evidence, it is idle speculation at best and pseudo-scientific crapola at worst.

So I take this to mean that you have precisely zero evidence for your previous claims about physics being "different then" than now? Duly noted.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

How about addressing my challenge for a testable, quantitative, and specific hypothesis of EET? Put up or shut up, please.





Yes to both, which does nothing to further the claims of the EET woosters.

Provide that hypothesis Jerome, or be relegated to the dustbin... again.

I think you are not being honest in this talk. This is not a peer review. For you to portend such as above, you example your dishonesty. You have presented no interest in talk about this interesting subject. Your goal seems to be looking for a reason to name-call others.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

A few comments which I hope may be helpful:

"Why no old oceanic crust?"
There are pieces of oceanic crust which are pretty old, a couple of billions of years or more. They are stuck within continental crust (by a process called obduction) and called ophiolites. Their characteristics are identical -or nearly identical- to nowaday's oceanic crust. The older slices of oceanic crust are, the more different they are, but this is due to geodynamics. Older Earth was hotter than today's. Here's a hint on why Mercury is shrinking.

"Why the oceanic crust is younger than the continental crust?"
Because oceanic crust is being continously generated and at a faster pace than continental crust. Continental crust is not as dense as oceanic crust, thus it "floats". It is not subducted in to the mantle; once formed, it stays there, "unsinkable". Continental crust is generated by partial melting of subducted oceanic crust. Here's a hint about how complex the recycling of oceanic crust can be.

"What happens to the old oceanic crust?"
The simple answer is - it sinks in to the mantle and is recycled. That's why no expansion is needed to accomplish creation of new crust at mid-oceanic ridges. Of course, the actual processes are much more complex. Yes, the consumption and creation rates are equal.

And during this process over many years the continents stay within their approximate borders, just pushed about the Earth?

This seems plausible?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I think you are not being honest in this talk. This is not a peer review. For you to portend such as above, you example your dishonesty. You have presented no interest in talk about this interesting subject. Your goal seems to be looking for a reason to name-call others.

So you can't come up with any such hypothesis either? Attempt to derail and hand-waving lack of science duly noted.

 

[paximperium]

How about addressing my challenge for a testable, quantitative, and specific hypothesis of EET? Put up or shut up, please.

Provide that hypothesis Jerome, or be relegated to the dustbin... again.

Why bother asking Jerome for this? He is an intellectual coward. He tries to dishonestly escape from providing evidence or even logic by refusing to state a hypothesis. He enjoys insinuating and "discussing" and then when held to account he enjoys calling others close-minded or some other such BS.

I find him as amusing as a parrot. Loud, colorful but intellectually a bird-brain.