To me the expanding earth theory makes more sense than the
alternatives i've seen so far, but i do have these questions:
1) What would cause the Earth to expand like a balloon with a crust?
a) Given the proposed increase in volume, is there any evidence
that the Earth is now much more massive than in the past? (And how
could this increase be accounted for?)
b) If the inside has become less dense, why not the outside too?
2) How does this theory fit with the transmission of seismic waves
through the interior ('core' and 'mantle') of the Earth?
Sam Rothe <sambeth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To me the expanding earth theory makes more sense than the
> alternatives i've seen so far, but i do have these questions:
> 1) What would cause the Earth to expand like a balloon with a crust?
The expansion of Earth, like that of other telluric bodies (Ganymede,
Europa, Miranda, Mars, the Moon...) is due to a gain of matter inside
the planet.
> a) Given the proposed increase in volume, is there any evidence
> that the Earth is now much more massive than in the past? (And how
> could this increase be accounted for?)
> b) If the inside has become less dense, why not the outside too?
There are evidence that Earth was not significantly more dense, and that
surface gravity was not higher in the past.
> 2) How does this theory fit with the transmission of seismic waves
> through the interior ('core' and 'mantle') of the Earth?
It changes nothing.
> 3) What do the ancient maps & measurements of the Earth indicate?
> > To me the expanding earth theory makes more sense than the
> > alternatives i've seen so far, but i do have these questions:
> > 1) What would cause the Earth to expand like a balloon with a crust?
> The expansion of Earth, like that of other telluric bodies (Ganymede,
> Europa, Miranda, Mars, the Moon...) is due to a gain of matter inside
> the planet.
What would cause such "gain of matter inside
the planet"?
On Apr 19, 5:01 pm, Sam Rothe <sambeth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To me the expanding earth theory makes more sense than the
> alternatives i've seen so far, but i do have these questions:
> 1) What would cause the Earth to expand like a balloon with a crust?
The loss of massive atmosphere, such as exists on Neptune.
Had Neptune originated on this side of the asteroid belt,
solar radiation would have dissipated its hydrogen-helium
atmosphere. Removal of atmospheric pressure of several
million bars could produce an isostatic rebound resulting in
planet's expansion and rupture of its surface into tectonic
plates. John Curtis
> a) Given the proposed increase in volume, is there any evidence
> that the Earth is now much more massive than in the past? (And how
> could this increase be accounted for?)
> b) If the inside has become less dense, why not the outside too?
> 2) How does this theory fit with the transmission of seismic waves
> through the interior ('core' and 'mantle') of the Earth?
> To me the expanding earth theory makes more sense than the
> alternatives i've seen so far, but i do have these questions:
> 1) What would cause the Earth to expand like a balloon with a crust?
The loss of massive atmosphere, such as exists on Neptune.
Had Neptune originated on this side of the asteroid belt,
solar radiation would have dissipated its hydrogen-helium
atmosphere. Removal of atmospheric pressure of several
million bars could produce an isostatic rebound resulting in
planet's expansion and rupture of its surface into tectonic
plates. John Curtis
...........................
I've read that the current thinking is that
gas giants tend to form in the outer solar
system but often migrate in towards their sun.
The idea the Earth was once the core of
a gas giant isn't all that impossible. But
I wonder how the Moon would fit in
with that kind of scenario?
> a) Given the proposed increase in volume, is there any evidence
> that the Earth is now much more massive than in the past? (And how
> could this increase be accounted for?)
> b) If the inside has become less dense, why not the outside too?
> 2) How does this theory fit with the transmission of seismic waves
> through the interior ('core' and 'mantle') of the Earth?
> > To me the expanding earth theory makes more sense than the
> > alternatives i've seen so far, but i do have these questions:
> > 1) What would cause the Earth to expand like a balloon with a crust?
> The loss of massive atmosphere, such as exists on Neptune.
> Had Neptune originated on this side of the asteroid belt,
> solar radiation would have dissipated its hydrogen-helium
> atmosphere. Removal of atmospheric pressure of several
> million bars could produce an isostatic rebound resulting in
> planet's expansion and rupture of its surface into tectonic
> plates. John Curtis
> ...........................
> I've read that the current thinking is that
> gas giants tend to form in the outer solar
> system but often migrate in towards their sun.
> The idea the Earth was once the core of
> a gas giant isn't all that impossible. But
> I wonder how the Moon would fit in
> with that kind of scenario?
Moon's evolution is similar to Earth's.
A water planet is consistent with
iron and magnesium silicates in maria
and aluminum silicates in the highlands.
Discovery of volcanic granite suggests
the presence of oxygen in late lunar
atmosphere. John Curtis
> > a) Given the proposed increase in volume, is there any evidence
> > that the Earth is now much more massive than in the past? (And how
> > could this increase be accounted for?)
> > b) If the inside has become less dense, why not the outside too?
> > 2) How does this theory fit with the transmission of seismic waves
> > through the interior ('core' and 'mantle') of the Earth?
On Thursday, April 19, 2012 6:01:38 PM UTC-6, Sam Rothe wrote:
> To me the expanding earth theory makes more sense than the
> alternatives i've seen so far, but i do have these questions:
> 1) What would cause the Earth to expand like a balloon with a crust?
> a) Given the proposed increase in volume, is there any evidence
> that the Earth is now much more massive than in the past? (And how
> could this increase be accounted for?)
> b) If the inside has become less dense, why not the outside too?
> 2) How does this theory fit with the transmission of seismic waves
> through the interior ('core' and 'mantle') of the Earth?
Sorry, I'd hate to bust your bubble so to speak, but Earth is not expanding. For one where is this additional mass coming from? Two, subduction zones.
<vbzivko...@zivkovicgeophysical.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I'd hate to bust your bubble so to speak, but Earth is not
> expanding. For one where is this additional mass coming from? Two,
> subduction zones.
Subduction is mantle driven and mantle-driven subduction (overduction)
does not recycle lithosphere at the scale order necessary to
counter-balance seafloor spreading. So yes, the surface of Earth is
expanding.
-- Florian
La chance ne sourit qu'aux esprits bien préparés. Louis Pasteur.
> subduction (overduction)
> does not recycle lithosphere at the scale order necessary to
> counter-balance seafloor spreading. So yes, the surface of Earth is
> expanding.
Evidence?
--
« attendez-vous à me voir rappliquer à chaque fois que
vous tenterez de répandre des contre-vérités. »
>> subduction (overduction)
>> does not recycle lithosphere at the scale order necessary to
>> counter-balance seafloor spreading. So yes, the surface of Earth is
>> expanding.
> Evidence?
tu ne sais donc pas que l'expansion terrestre est due à des neutrinos gonfleurs !
Toutefois l'interlocuteur n'a pas jusqu'à présent précisé la pression de gonflage, ce qui bloque toute possibilité de calcul
On May 5, 11:40 pm, use...@nachon.net (Florian) wrote:
> <vbzivko...@zivkovicgeophysical.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, I'd hate to bust your bubble so to speak, but Earth is not
> > expanding. For one where is this additional mass coming from? Two,
> > subduction zones.
> Subduction is mantle driven and mantle-driven subduction (overduction)
> does not recycle lithosphere at the scale order necessary to
> counter-balance seafloor spreading. So yes, the surface of Earth is
> expanding.
> --
> Florian
> La chance ne sourit qu'aux esprits bien préparés. Louis Pasteur.
Your signature once contained this quote of Schopenhauer -
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-
evident." Arthur Schopenhauer
Just before sci-geo.geology imploded and everyone disappeared,the
issue was just a contention between those proposing convection cells
as opposed to the expanding Earth assertion but a separate one
entirely relating to rotational dynamics as a mechanism for both
crustal evolution/motion and the planet's 26 mile spherical deviation.
When they got wind of the possibilities of rotational dynamics as the
mechanism for crustal motion they threw the kitchen sink at it rather
than oppose it so we are in a new era where they no longer oppose
straightforward reasoning designed to provide a solution for
observations,they simply steal it and create a story by stitching
together references to make it appear that it was always accepted.
They never adopted an 'expanding Earth' Florian,they have attempted to
adopt a rotating Earth but in such a way that they took all the
goodness out of the reasoning that goes into the mechanism.That
reasoning was developed in 2005 by way of the sci.geo.geology forum
and emerged in a clumsy way into Wikipedia so the old saying of
Schopenhauer is no longer valid,they now basically try to steal an
idea .
>> subduction (overduction)
>> does not recycle lithosphere at the scale order necessary to
>> counter-balance seafloor spreading. So yes, the surface of Earth is
>> expanding.
> Evidence?
N'est-ce pas Jacques Lavau, le grrrand physicien, qui a établi
récemment que la Terre gonfle avec une accélération de 9,81m/s^2 ?
Encore plus gonflé que Florian !
"Dans un repère terrestre, être immobile, c'est être en accélération
constante" - Jacques Lavau 13/04/2012
"Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all
earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of
our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only
be reached by combing all this evidence. . . It is only by combing the
information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to
determine 'truth' here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets
out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore has
the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared
always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what
science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw." Alfred
Wegener. The Origins of Continents and Oceans (4th edition)
Rotational dynamics has the highest probability of success for
explaining both the 26 mile spherical deviation of the Earth and the
lag/advance mechanisn which creates a symmetrical evolution of crust
either side of the Mid Atlantic Ridge however there is a huge obstacle
to elevating this assertion to a proper theory.It is not possible to
exempt the Earth from the observed characteristics of all rotating
celestial bodies with exposed viscous compositions and specifically
the uneven rotational gradient between equatorial and polar latitudes
- differential rotation in other words.
No geologist can shift to a rotational mechanism without the most
basic fact of all - the Earth's equatorial circumference of 24901
miles turns at a rate of 15 degrees and 1037.5 miles per hour and its
full equatorial circumference in 24 hours.It is completely
unacceptable that this crucial set of values needed to connect the
flow of astronomical facts and principles into terrestrial effects
such as plate tectonics and why the large scale evolution of the crust
has a high rotational input.is contended with,something so unsightly
and hideous that the study of plate tectonics will remain moribund
until it is dealt with.The Earth has one ciorcumference and one
rotational speed as opposed to the unacceptable idea that the Earth
has two circumferences in order to justifty rioght ascension and
stellar circumpolar motion -
"Multiplying the value in rad/s by Earth's equatorial radius of
6,378,137 m (WGS84 ellipsoid) (factors of 2π radians needed by both
cancel) yields an equatorial speed of 465.1 m/s, 1,674.4 km/h or
1,040.4 mi/h. Some sources state that Earth's equatorial speed is
slightly less, or 1,669.8 km/h. This is obtained by dividing Earth's
equatorial circumference by 24 hours. However, the use of only one
circumference unwittingly implies only one rotation in inertial
space,"
It has been 7 years since I took the argument for rotational dynamics
from nothing to where it is now yet what I am seeing are wild
assertions thrown at rotation without even a basic understanding of
the maximum rotation speed of the Earth.The geological community
cannot disgrace themselves once again as they did with Wegener insofar
as anyone can assert a rotational mechanism however finding just the
right arguments have always been the mark of a proper theory just as
Copernicus found the right arguments for the daily and orbital motions
of the Earth.
I cannot even imagine what it must take for a person to get paid to be
a geologist and at the same time refuse to accept that the Earth turns
once in 24 hours but that unfortunately is the only fact that exists
today.
On Apr 19, 5:01 pm, Sam Rothe <sambeth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To me the expanding earth theory makes more sense than the
> alternatives i've seen so far, but i do have these questions:
> 1) What would cause the Earth to expand like a balloon with a crust?
The loss of massive atmosphere, such as exists on Neptune.
Had Neptune originated on this side of the asteroid belt,
solar radiation would have dissipated its hydrogen-helium
atmosphere. Removal of atmospheric pressure of several
million bars could produce an isostatic rebound resulting in
planet's expansion and rupture of its surface into tectonic
plates. John Curtis
> a) Given the proposed increase in volume, is there any evidence
> that the Earth is now much more massive than in the past? (And how
> could this increase be accounted for?)
> b) If the inside has become less dense, why not the outside too?
> 2) How does this theory fit with the transmission of seismic waves
> through the interior ('core' and 'mantle') of the Earth?
Perhaps someone could provide the evidence needed to show that the Earth ever had a Neptune-sized atmosphere. Perhaps not.
> On Apr 19, 5:01 pm, Sam Rothe <sambeth...@gmail.com> wrote:> To me the expanding earth theory makes more sense than the
> > alternatives i've seen so far, but i do have these questions:
> > 1) What would cause the Earth to expand like a balloon with a crust?
> The loss of massive atmosphere, such as exists on Neptune.
> Had Neptune originated on this side of the asteroid belt,
> solar radiation would have dissipated its hydrogen-helium
> atmosphere. Removal of atmospheric pressure of several
> million bars could produce an isostatic rebound resulting in
> planet's expansion and rupture of its surface into tectonic
> plates. John Curtis
> > a) Given the proposed increase in volume, is there any evidence
> > that the Earth is now much more massive than in the past? (And how
> > could this increase be accounted for?)
> > b) If the inside has become less dense, why not the outside too?
> > 2) How does this theory fit with the transmission of seismic waves
> > through the interior ('core' and 'mantle') of the Earth?
> Perhaps someone could provide the evidence needed to show that the Earth
> ever had a Neptune-sized atmosphere. Perhaps not.
