Rich_A12

Sorry, run that reason why it falls apart by me again please I must have missed it. The physics of what I've described are so basic and elementary that even a teenager in school could understand it. You haven't found a reason why it would fall apart, your argument is that others have already considered it and they decided against it but "they" did not know about migration when they made that decision therefore that decision must be reconsidered.

Rich, you completely missed the point about planetary migration. It happens during the formation of a planetary system. When a newborn star ignites it blows away all the gas and dust in the protoplanetary disk. Migration pretty much stops when the star ignites and does come to a stop when the planetary system has stabilized. Our solar system stabilized about 4.5 billion years ago. The planets haven't moved much at all since then.

If migration stopped when the gases ignite and form a star, there would be no migration at all. Let's say it takes millions of years for large bodies to form and for the star to wind up the rotational forces post blast, this again is an exact science which I am unable to find out but it is possible to work out using computer simulation. Migration can happen and most likely does happen, that National Geographic video says it can happen therefore our planet might very well have migrated, in fact it's probably inevitable.

Also for the oceanic floor to crimp and ripple, the Earth might actually have to shrink a little which is unlikely. The bulging and crimping that goes on in the oceans is as a result of the continental sections occupying more distance due to gravity making them take on a wider curvature. The problem is we think currently that Earth is spewing out new rock from the fault lines i.e. the oceanic sections are being pushed apart but they aren't, they are being pulled apart due to expansion.

Your conjecture regarding gas as the explanation is flat out wrong for a number of reasons. One is that a substance compromising a solid and a gas dissolved in that solid behaves like a solid, not a gas. Another reason is that the 1977 article you cited is based on estimates from that time regarding how iron behaves at very high temperature and pressure. Scientists have developed the tools and techniques needed to create those high pressures and temperatures in the 30+ intervening years since that article was published. Those 1977 estimates weren't quite right; it doesn't take near as much low density elements as posited in that article to explain the apparent density deficit in the Earth's core. Yet another reason is that heat flows from the core outward, not from the surface inward. Heating the Earth's surface would not heat the core. It would at best slow down the rate at which the core is cooling.

Microwave radiation maybe? It is also likely about reduced loss of heat to space combined with an ever developing and insulating atmosphere.

You don't like plate tectonics because of Pangea. That's silly. Just because your middle school teacher couldn't teach the topic, the text was oversimplified, or you misheard / misread does not mean the theory is wrong. It just means that you had a lousy teacher, a lousy text, or that you misheard/misread. The fact is that the mechanisms why Pangea and other supercontinents formed and broke up are fairly well understood. BTW, it's not just Pangea. Several supercontinents have formed and broken up. Pangea was just the last of several.

 

One last point: In your answer to my questions, you have essentially added plate tectonics to your model that you created explicitly to get rid of plate tectonics.

Actually my Geography teacher was a good teacher and it was because of him why I paid as much attention as I did. What is the evidence for there being more than one Pangaea type continent?

I accepted that subduction is viable with an expanding Earth due to shifting and gravity but I don't agree that entire continents continue moving in a direction indefinitely, instead they shift about a bit on the surface, they might go left and then go right but there are no trends. Current science uses magnetic records to determine continental movement, but I don't agree that magnetic records directly correlate to continental movement. I don't believe the oceanic sections are strong enough either to move entire continents, the softer oceanic sections are more likely to just bulge and ripple but over time the continental sections will find it difficult to manipulate the oceanic sections so there will be some crimping between oceanic sections and continental sections. But the biggest crimping affect will be where continental sections rub up against other continental sections.

I made this topic to see what angles others would take on the theory and there have been some interesting angles. Using only very basic physics and science, this thoery does not at any point so far fall apart. I will make a video to summerise this, maybe that will make things more clear for some.

That video is by National Geographic, a very reputable documentary channel. The guy that talked about migration said it will fundamentally change the way we think about planet formation! The proof for migration was gained by real scientists and billion dollar telescopes in space!

You want maths and quantities and I cannot give you them. It's like asking the guy who thought the world was round not flat, to build and put a satelite in space to prove it. You're asking me for proof in the form of mathematics which are way beyond my means and indeed it would take years to program the maths into a computer, I wouldn't even know where to begin. You're expectations are way too high and unreasonable and it really doesn't take much of an understanding of physics to visualise what I've described, to play the physics out in your mind. That's all you can do to be honest with this, because there are some things we'll never know and some things will always remain a mystery to us whether we like it or not.

If some here expect the maths and demand the maths, well I cannot give you them but if you understand the maths and can do the maths, well maybe you can use the maths to disprove what I have said? I don't know how much energy is released from gases collapsing into a star, I don't know how much gas was present before collapse, neither do I know how much the gases were rotating before collapse, or know how far Earth was from the Sun to begin with or how many collisions Earth had with other massive bodies; these things are mostly random chaos physics. These things could possibly be reverse engineered but there will always be huge margins of error.

The exact quantities are not so important, I am only interested in how likely certain processes are - think it's called, a rough idea.

OMG, the reason is in that video I posted, they got their proof from the billion dollar telescopes we put in space. Planets can and likely do migrate towards a star. Let's say a planet migrates 50,000,000 miles closer to the Sun over the course of 4 billion years and the critical pressure point occurs at 4.4 billion years, what's going to happen? Seems your suggesting that nothing will happen or the planet will explode with nothing in between. That's a bit extreme and the physics is far more complex than all or nothing.

If your number is accurate, there's no reason why the Earth could not form as we know it in that time. What is your argument against it happening in that amount of time? If it did happen in that amount of time, well the Earth must have taken a long time to migrate towards the Sun and have been cocooned in it's crust for the majority of it's life time. There are no real rules governing how long things should take, there are an infinite number of permutations as to what can and might happen.

Where have you got that 200% from, did you work that out? It happens over billions of years, didn't you see my hypothetical graph? You got to remember that the new crust created as the Earth expands (the ocean floors) is very soft and malleable compared to the land masses which are much thicker and more dense. The ocean floors are like marsh mellow compared to the land masses so it doesn't take much energy to keep on expanding once the intial fragmentation has occured.

You looking for maths again Moontanman and I can't give you any. And you're thinking about it purely in terms of things being hot. Instead, think of it as things being less cold. If a planet migrates in 50 million miles closer to the Sun, that planet is going to be a heck of a lot less cold than it was previously. Coldness in that sense is a form of energy as it takes a lot of energy to stop a gas element from moving around. It takes a tremendous amount of energy for us to acheive very low near absolute zero temperatures. It's all relative, everything depends on what orientation or angle you are looking at things.

Haha, you lot are just as bonkers as I am.

So the main concern is that the pressures would have vapourised the crust? Well you know, under different circumstances in another solar system, maybe that has happened. There are an infinite number of permutations but with regards to fragmentation, the crust will have a critical pressure point at which it will begin to crack open. A thinner crust might have a lower critical pressure point and so the explosive release of pressure would be reduced therefore there might only be a couple of fragmentations or partial fragmentations. On another planet the crust might be thicker and so the critical pressure point higher, resulting in a huge number of fragmentations which leads to other consequencies. Perhaps there is a critical pressure Goldilocks zone.

If the pressure was too extreme and there was too much fragmentation, well the surface would just crust over again but there would be some expansion going on before that. Maybe that planet wouldn't get another chance to reach a critical pressure point again because it might no longer be migrating towards the Sun and so it becomes a dead planet.

Am sure some of you have the skills to make some estimates and calculations. But you know I just watched another documentary which estimated (based on computer simulation) that our solar system had around 10 massive solid bodies within the radius of Mars at one time. Some bodies got flung out of the solar system and some collided. These collisions might also significantly affect the speed at which a body rotates around the star. Therefore speed is not entirely determined by rotational acceleration caused by the star, it can be affected by other bodies and therefore collisions can affect the rate at which a body migrates towards the star.

I have presented the mechanisms, you're just not thinking about it for yourself which is another problem with modern science.

Science is a process of discovery as you say, what I am talking about for me at least is at that point of discovery. How can you expect anything on paper when I only just thought of it like 48 hours ago! I will try and make a video though to summarise it all.

Mass is unchanged, gravity is unchanged except for any asteroids that collide with Earth. Bare in mind that pre fragmentation there was virtually no atmosphere, there was no water, just solid rock - like Mars is now I guess.

Again, you're asking for quantities and all I can give you is a theory. You got to be reasonable and have some imagination. I have explained the expansion as best I can in previous posts and followed that up with analogies is subsequent posts (packet of crisps in a car on a hot day).

I hope you know what I mean by fragmentation. It is the moment when the Earth's crust cracks open, it is the moment that all our land masses, our continents are created. The physics behind it are totally random, the crust would never crack or fragment the same way twice. After this happens it becomes very easy for the pressures to expand the Earth. A bit like when ice starts to break up on water, can have massive slabs of ice wobbling and squirming around one another, only there isn't much room for lateral or vertical movement, so the next easiest thing for the pressures to do is expand the Earth.

The mechanisms are basic physics, physics which most of us already understand. What you want are quantities and I can't do that.

The Earth wouldn't vapourise, the crust is several miles thick and is made of solid matter, it's extremely strong. Also the planet rotates so heat is distributed around the surface. And then you have gravity and the coldness of space keeping the crust from vapourising. Without an atmosphere there would have been bare rock in contact with space, so I imagine when the Earth was smaller, it would have had a much thicker and stronger crust.

You are the one now suggesting and saying things which cannot easily be proven Moontanman, things which demand further investigation. You're quite right to do that.

The problem is you expect science to be presented a certain way, in the stereo typical way. Am sorry but the thought comes first, then the science. Before man made fire he thought, how can I make fire, he then made fire and proceeded to understand it scientifically. He did not discover fire by first understanding it scientifically, might even have discovered how to make it by accident. And he certainly did not need to present a thesis to everyone before his methods were accepted.

Science is for everyone, not just those in white coats with degrees. If you choose not to take what I said seriously because it's not "presented" correctly, that's your loss and you ought to examine whether what you choose to do and how you choose to think is beneficial or a hindrance to you.

The core of the Earth is about 10,000 degrees, it is still a very dense solid despite the heat due to pressure. How much temperature increase are you talking about? 100c? 1000c, 10,000c? Any temperature change great enough to significantly expand the earth would result in a rock vapor atmosphere...

How the heck am I supposed to know that, like I said before I cannot give quantities - only a computer can simulate it. But all elements would gain energy therefore everything under the crust would attempt to occupy a greater space, but it can't because the crust is stopping it therefore the result is increased pressure.

A century ago they couldn't look at planets orbiting other stars!

As to the exact chemisty, I don't know. I'm thinking maybe it's not just gas elements that can create pressure. Energised elements will act like energised gas elements. If you have two containers the same size, one is filled with iron ore at 1,000'C and the other is filled with iron ore at 2,000'C - which exerts a greater pressure on the container? Of course all elements expand when they are heated. If this expansion is contained, the result is pressure.

How long have you spent trying to find that out?

Can get carbon dioxide from iron ore by mixing it with carbon at high temperatures.

Stop being so snobby. Bonds can be broken as environments change, I'm not a chemist - this is why I come to this forum, to get some ideas as to how it's possible.

BTW watch from 8 min for proof that planets can migrate towards a star ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOBjlZz5ZHk

http://www.nature.co...s/268130a0.html

http://library.think...s_of_earth.html

(From second link)

Looking at the lower mantle, its chemical composition includes silicon, magnesium, and oxygen.

(Inner core) According to scientists, about 10% of this layer is composed of sulfur and/or oxygen due to the fact that these two elements are abundant in the cosmos and dissolve readily in molten iron.

That's the nature of gas elements, they gain energy and want to occupy more space as temperature increases. What happens on a real hot day when you leave a packet of crisps in the car? No extra gas gets into the bag, the gas in the bag expands with the increased heat and might even break the seal on the bag. But in space it's not so much a matter of increased heat, more a matter of decreased cold or at least that's how I prefer to look at it.

how does a release of gas equate to an expanding earth?

It's the release of pressure that equates to an expanding Earth so long as the crust doesn't prevent it. Pressure always tries to equalise itself. Imagine that the crust is totally solid, no fractures or volcanoes or anthing, just solid rock. Move it 50 million miles towards the sun, what happens? The pressures rise under the crust and create an outward force on the crust. The crust fractures violently, the outward force causes expansion and the pressure become more equalised. There is always pressure under the crust, the pressures never fully equalise or cause the Earth to deflate lol. There is a balance between pressure and how much the crust allows that pressure to cause expansion.

If you moved Jupiter to the same distance from the Sun as Earth is, it would be maybe 10x bigger than it is right now and it would be more gaseous i.e. less dense.

I cannot give you exact physics and numbers, only a super computer powering years of programming could do it! But it's not too hard to visualise. Also bare in mind that Earth was struck by a massive body about half the size that Earth was at that time and Earth did not explode then. It totally deformed Earth and smashed the crust into pieces leaving bare molten rock, so I doubt there is anything that can make a planet explode although a dying star would devour a plent in seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO45ZiGql8E

Moontanman, difficult to say when as it depends how fast the planet was getting closer to the sun and how thick the crust was and how much pressure there was. Like I said, only a super computer can process and predict these things. I'd guess that fragmentation took place within 1 billion years but it may have occured within 1 million!

The gas elements were released into the atmosphere. Hydrogen and Oxygen combined to create the oceans. Again exact quantities can only be predicted by a computer.

His analogy works just as well for liquids as gases.

 

Also, when did it go from gases to liquids in the core?

When there was enough gravity and mass to create enough pressure. As the crust formed the pressures would have increased yet further because the crust would be acting as a seal or container. As the planet falls closer to the sun the pressures become extreme and cause the crust to crack open, the pressures then try to equalise which results in expansion. It sounds too simple to be true I know but there is a kind of beauty in simplicity, that's what I was looking for - the simple truth and simple beauty because in my heart, I knew it existed.

So the other super-continents don't bother you? What do you mean by it needs a a polar opposite?

 

I don't think you know your statistics well enough to say the chances are zero. In fact I know you don't because 1.) Even if they moved in completely random directions there is still a chance of collision 2.) The chances of anything happening that has happened is by definition 1.

In order to combine seperate object into a group there needs to be a surrounding force pushing those seperate objects into a single location. On a sphere there would need to be a source for that surrounding force, the super continent would then form at the exact polar opposite of that source. This is ludicrous, the source doesn't not exist therefore the chances of it happening based on random physics, are zero.

Let's see the math for that claim that the lava could go into space.

We're talking about enough energy to move entire continents, to push rock several kilometers into the air and create mountain ranges. Are convection currents under the crust going to have sufficient energy for this? I don't believe they would, not even close to enough.

Your analogy doesn't work, you are changing the card's shape not it's area. Your premise needs you to show how, with consistent growth, these things can happen instead of the more likely scenario that the world would just blow-up.

The crust will not immediately take on the new curvature of the Earth post expansion. It will take time for gravity to make the crust conform with the new curvature. As the crust conforms, it will try to occupy a wider distance. This is the force that creates mountains and probably fractures too.

There is a lot of noise when it comes to what exactly the crust is doing at any one time. This noise makes inaccurate any tiny measurments we make in this time, the paradox is that tiny variances are indeed significant in geological time.

Gravity prevents the planet from exploding. Equilibrium may already have been realised, but the consequences of a change in curvature play out over millions of years, that's why we still see the affects in the form of earthquakes, volcanoes, subduction and shifting. Gravity takes a long time to act, hang a piece of glass horizontally and come back 100,000 years later, gravity will have caused the glass to bend into a semi circle.

Seizmic activities seem significant to us because they significantly affect our lives but go back 2 billion years and there would have been a heck of a lot more activity. The atmosphere also affects pressure under the crust, a hotter atmosphere insulates the core from the cold of space therefore pressure might begin to increase again if core temperatures rise.

I would just like to point out that pressure vessels that fail (the pressure causes them to crack or fragment) do not normally remain in a single identifiable piece. They normally end up scattered all of the landscape. If you've ever seen a pressure cooker with a bad lid, you know what I'm talking about. What you are suggesting is that the earth cracked just enough to bleed off pressure, without shattering.

 

We know that the earth's crust is somewhat flexible due to the uplift in the crust that happens after massive glacial regression. If however, there were a massive bubble of gaseous pressure at the core of the planet that suddenly popped it's way out, you would expect to see the surface of the earth suddenly retract from that spot, in exactly the same way a stretched balloon does when you put in too much gas. In short, expelling the gas inside a volume doesn't make the body larger - it makes it smaller. Unless your proposing that the rate of gas formation is larger than the rate of release. In which case we should expect to see the fracture sites getting larger over time (since pressure, like just about every other force in nature, will take the path of least resistance). You'd also need to explain why the gas pressure generation increases over time, since eventually the gas creation rate and the expulsion rate should reach equilibrium (otherwise we're back to the shattered planet scenario). Oh, and while you're working out the increasing gas production issue, feel free to work on the why this hasn't cracked the planet in half like a walnut issue too.

Gases are not in there natural gaseous state when under high pressure, they become liquids. Different liquids tend to dissolve into one another so the gases would have been reasonably evenly distrubuted throughout much like stiring sugar into tea. The liquid gases would most likely be near the crust as they are less affected by gravity in comparison to heavier elements like iron.

No!!! The Earth is not a balloon! It is not puffed up by internal gas pressure, if all the gases on the Earth including water, were somehow re-injected into the ground the earth would not expand. The gases would be compressed...

 

Again, why is the expanding earth theory better than plate tectonics? What does it explain that is not explained better with plate tectonics? You have no evidence, no mechanism, no observations that are explained better by the expanding earth claim, you have nothing but your own inability to understand plate tectonics...

 

Why do you think the Earth is expanding is better than the theory of plate tectonics?

The main problems I have with plate techtonics is the idea of Pangaea. To create one giant super continent, there would have to be one focal point at the exact polar opposite of the center of the super continent which is pushing the continental plates into one giant continent at the exact polar opposite of this focal point. This focal point would be exerting a force equally in all directions outwards. This is ludicrous, no focal point exists and it could never exist. If there is no focal point there are no rules governing where the plates go and so therefore the chances of them forming one super continent are zero.

Since being taught this at school when I was 13, I always had a feeling that it wasn't right - more than anything it's ugly and nature is not ugly. And I always figured that currents within the core are no where near sufficient to move entire continents and create huge mountain ranges. If the currents had that much energy we would have volcanoes spewing out lava into space! My thought processes are mathematical in nature and in short, none of the current theories add up for me.

Some questions for you, Rich.

 

1. Do you understand why that 0.1 mm/year figure is statistically insignificant in light of the ± 0.2 mm/year uncertainty, why one cannot reject the null hypothesis (that the Earth is not expanding) on the basis of that measurement, and why the null hypothesis is the best answer? (Do you even understand what the terms "statistically insignificant" and "reject the null hypothesis" mean?)

 

2. For the sake of argument, let's assume that that 0.1 mm/year radial expansion is correct. That means the Earth's circumference is expanding by 0.63 mm/year. I'll be generous and call it 1 mm/year. The question: How does your expanding earth model explain the observed fact that some parts of the Earth such as the north Tonga trench are moving 240 times faster than this 1 mm/year?

 

3. How does your expanding earth model explain convergent boundaries, which have been observed?

 

4. How does your expanding earth model explain subduction zones, which also have been observed?

 

5. How does your gas-filled Earth model explain the Earth's observed mean density of 5.52 grams/cubic centimeter, about twice the density of surface rock?

 

6. How does your gas-filled Earth model explain the over 100 years of seismic waves observations, which show that the Earth has a very dense liquid outer core and an even denser solid inner core?

1.Like I said already, 50 years is nothing in geological time. I have said already that some polar opposites might show a decrease in expansion due to continental collapse caused by gravity. So 50 years of data +/- 1mm means absolutely nothing. I didn't spot that it said radius, thought it was diameter. But still the maths I posted goes to show that fractions of millimeters results in significant changes over billions of years however fractions of millimeters can be accounted for by a number of factors which do not directly correlate to expansion i.e. weathering, crimping activities, collapse caused by gravity and shifts. In other words there is a lot of noise which cannot be filtered out over a short period of time and especially not in a time when the expansion rate is most likely to be at it's lowest rate.

Here's a bit more maths ..

2000km (diameter) x 1,000,000 (for mm) / 4.5 billion years = 0.45mm per year assuming a linear rate of expansion.

I have suggested the Earth is currently at an extremely flat part of the expansion curve. So the rate is most likely no where near 0.45mm per year, more likely 0.0001mm per year. Let's assume at peak rate the expansion rate was 100mm per year, that's not unreasonable considering the energies involved, in fact it is probably much more than that but have attached a graph with 100mm per year at peak.

This describes the release of an explosive type event caused by pressure release. It is comparible to most other graphs describing pressure release.

2. In the other forum I talked about shifts. I don't discount the possibility of sections of the Earth's crust shifting because after all they are sitting on a liquid. With the expanding Earth theory there are 3 types of seizmic type activity. The first is collapse, if the Earth's crust expands, continental plates won't immediately adopt the new curvature of the Earth, therefore the center of continental plates may be subject to collapse due to gravity. As a result of collapse a continental plates exerts on outward force at it's edges. As a result of this the second seizmic activity takes place which is crimping whereby the outward forces fragments the rock at the edges of a continental plates and pushes it upwards thus creating mountain ranges. The third seizmic activity is caused by shifts whereby instead of a plate crimping, it might shift and resposition itself slightly. But these shifts do not result in trends i.e. shifting in the same direction over thousands of years does not necessarily mean that plate will continue to shift in that direction indefinitely, in fact it might start shifting in the other direction.

because of all of this it's extremely difficult to find trends and laws, in fact the physics is entirely chaotic. Much like trying to predict exactly and precisely what water will do when poured over a surface.

3 and 4. Subduction is still viable with an expanding Earth due to a combination of crimping and shifting. Also the outward pressure caused by collapse attempts to increase the width if you like of a continental plate. An anology, bend a piece of card from edge to edge, lat it down on a table, measure the distance between edges, press it flat and then measure the distance between edges. The flattened card covers a greater distance. So subduction can occur but it takes a lot of energy to push one section of solid matter under another section of solid matter. So the oceanic plate would have to bulge up a lot against the harder continental plate before subduction takes place, the bigger the bulge the more gravity there is pulling the bulge down and because the oceanic crust is much softer and more malleable than the continental crust it is likely that it will get pushed under the continental plate. But I don't feel that this force alone is sufficient to push mountains into the air, for that to happen the continental plate needs to collapse and crimp up.

5. Don't really know what you mean by that, please elaborate.

6. Gases under the crust are pressurised into liquid states. If pressure is released the gases will transform from their liquid state to a gas state in a explosive manner.

Haha

The release of gases is a consequence of there being massive pressures under the crust and because there are huge gaping cracks in the Earth's crust, sort of like bleeding gases in a way. The expansion is also a result of these pressures. Pressures exert force, this force caused the fragmentation and the fragmentation made it easier for the pressure to literally blow the world up like a balloon. All pressure was not lost after fragmentation, the fragmentation was like releasing a pressure valve, the pressure keeps pouring out for quite some time once the valve is released.

The mechanism is pressure. Without deep fragmentation or fault lines, well let's just say I don't think volcanoes and minor fragmentations would be enough to cause significant expansion. Just imagine the entire crust cracking open in a matter of days, giant cracks several hundred kilometers wide with nothing put red hot magma spewing out millions of tonnes of gases and lots of heat into most likely space as I doubt there was much of an atmosphere pre fragmentation. The fragmentation would have released lots of elements into the atmosphere, hydrogen and oxygen and probably gave birth to the oceans.

You're asking for proper scientific process which is quite unreasonable, all I can give you are my thoughts. What more can you expect from a mere forum poster!? Pure thought is what got us where we are today, before action and testing comes thought. Before someone made fire, they had the thought, "how can I make fire and what could I do with it". The thought is the spark that lights the fire!

Anything between 0.01mm and 0.1mm+ is significant. The measurements need to be accurate to 0.01mm. If they are only accurate to 0.1mm, well would need to keep recording for a good few decades.

So I think it's very difficult to record accurately in a short space of time. I would perhaps try and develop a computer simulation. It sounds stupid saying 0.01mm is significant. This is why understanding physics and biology in terms of geological time is so difficult.

OK point taken but it's the exact same conversation. I am getting emails from this topic and will reply if something different comes up.