Jump to content
Rich_A12

Expanding Earth Theory (missing mass resolved)

Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by Rich_A12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

No, the problem is that so far you have presented nothing that supports your idea... First you really should point out why your idea is better than plate tectonics, you have failed to do that in any way so far.

 

Then you have to propose a mechanism that would allow the Earth to expand, so far you have presented nothing to support that assertion.

 

A temperature increase big enough to make the Earth expand would vaporize the surface of the earth...

 

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.

 

 

Pressure does not necessarily equal expansion, but if you raised the Earth's temperatures high enough to cause the planet to expand you would vaporize the surface of the earth and it would still be a minuscule amount of expansion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Rich_A12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

No, what i am doing is trying to get you to explain your thoughts on this. You make a very vague assertion "The Earth is expanding" You have proposed several things that simply have no bearing on the idea of an expanding earth.

 

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.

 

Again, if you raised the temperature of the Earth enough to expand the earth significantly the Earth's surface would vaporize, at the very least the oceans would boil and all life would die.

 

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.

 

I am trying to get some idea of what you are talking about so some kind of model can be built to see if your ideas have merit, so far they do not...

 

You have to be specific, the standard expanding earth theory says the earth was much smaller, about the size of Mars sometime in the last half a billion years or so and gravity was much lower then as well. Is this part of your idea?

 

Expanding Earth theory proposes that mass is being added to the earth in some way that allows the earth to expand but does not disrupt the surface enough to wipe out life.

 

You need to tell us what your expanding earth idea is about,

 

How much expansion...

 

How fast did it expand..

 

How big was the Earth before it started expanding...

 

How long ago did it start expanding...

 

And last but not least, why did it expand... What is the mechanism that allows and or causes the expansion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is you expect science to be presented a certain way, in the stereo typical way.

 

This much is true - we expect assertions to be backed up with evidence, not hand waving and repetition of the same idea over and over again. Contrary to popular belief, saying something repeatedly does not necessarily mean it's true.

 

Unfortunately for you, that's the way the rest of the scientific community expects it to be presented too.

 

Also, your analogy to the man creating fire is a bad one. Man discovered fire, he didn't research it. Most probably he found a burning bush or tree from alighting strike, or some other source - who knows. The point is, he didn't need science to discover the fire itself. It was already out there waiting for him to stumble over it.

 

Where the science comes in is, how does fire work? What does it mean to burn something? What changes are happening during the burning? These DID require a scientific approach, positing of theories and then testing those theories to acquire evidence. As a result, we now have a pretty solid idea of the chemical changes that happen in fuels being burned.

 

The problem with your idea is all the evidence for the last century refutes the idea that the earth is expanding, and you haven't presented any new mechanisms or causes that might force a reversal on that course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Rich_A12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Really? WTF? We have refuted every half backed "mechanism" you have come up with so far...

 

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.

 

 

So you pulled this out of your ass two days ago and expect us to solve the problem for you? Your assertion of an expanding Earth is nothing but horse apples...

 

If you are to assert that an expanding earth accounts for the spreading of the continents then the Earth must have been the size of Mars just a 150 million years ago or so....

 

Now you have one parameter to deal with... explain it... that would mean the Earth is expanding on average about 21.45 millimeters a year... maybe not, i can't seem to get the same answer more than twice today for some reason but the rate of expansion is big enough to measure easily for sure. Looks more like .4 millimeters a year... I'm not doing something right, maybe... ok, I dropped a decimal point, it's 39 millimeters a year...

Edited by Moontanman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point I am not even sure what to say. We've essentially refuted your idea with science that's been done over the last hundred years, yet you offer no new reasons why we should reconsider your idea. You're not offering any mechanisms for the expansion of the earth which haven't already been shown to be wrong (or just flat out impossible) and when we ask you to back up your assertions with some kind of evidence, or even a proposal for some new mechanism, you tell us you haven't thought that far ahead yet.

 

This is what my dad would call a half baked idea. Put it back in the oven a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a chemist - this is why I come to this forum, to get some ideas as to how it's possible.

 

So why is it you refuse to listen to the problems with your idea?

 

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

 

 

I don't think it was ever said they couldn't, only that the Earth obviously is not.

 

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

 

Iron ore isn't iron oxide, the oxygen could come from many different places.

 

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

 

They wouldn't need to.

 

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.

 

No one is arguing that pressure happens when gases are contained, only that it doesn't matter because the pressure and heat you describe would be catastrophic.

 

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.

 

There's a reason science is presented in a certain way. Idea's are wonderful, but they don't amount to anything if they aren't based in what is already known. Even less so when they can't even be shown to be false. As I've said before even if your idea is so beautiful, simple, elegant, and makes so much sense if it doesn't agree with experiments it is wrong.

 

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.

 

Of course science is for everyone, but to do science you must work under science's guidelines. I can't expect to walk into a kitchen and start pouring poison into the food and then be angry because I get kicked out. Even though anyone can cook, when you do it wrong the result must be thrown out. Just because you don't like that you're doing it wrong doesn't mean we are somehow elitists, it's your fault for not accepting the methodology that is required for science. That's why science is self correcting, science, eventually, calls b.s. on everything, no matter who it comes from.

 

 

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.

 

Because it's your idea and you want us to accept it. It's fairly simple to figure out the partial pressures of gases at different temperatures, see how much expansion you expect and then see how much the gas would need to expand to match that, then see how much of a temp increase would be needed.

 

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

 

The thing is you haven't shown a good grasp on basic statistics, physics, chemistry, etc. that would be necessary to understand the effects that would be caused by your idea.

 

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.

 

Strength doesn't matter for melting/freezing temp. If the planet was cooled by rotation your idea, again, would be nullified since the heat is necessary for expansion. The coldness of space would help the vaporization process because boiling points rely on the atmospheric pressure exerted on the liquid. If there is no pressure on the liquid it will become gas, hence why water boils at a lower temp at higher altitudes. Now you make a new thing about the Earth having no atmosphere at all?

 

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.

 

How so? Find the melting point of the rocks and the temp change needed for the gases to come out and see which one is higher. That seems pretty simple.

 

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

 

And we have refuted them with evidence that you have ignored. That's not a problem with science, that's a problem with 'pet theories'. Modern science has done more with the methods you see here than anything thing else. To say our disputing you is a problem with modern science is to say the scientific methodology is bunk. If that's the case you shouldn't be using all these bunk electronic devices.

 

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.

 

Science is the process of disproof. Yeah science shows things correct every once and a while, but most of the time it shows us how wrong we always are. One person making a discovery isn't science. One person making a discovery and that discovery is still valid after other scientists try to tear it apart, now that's science. It's a world of dashed hopes and broken dreams.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iron ore isn't iron oxide, the oxygen could come from many different places.

 

ahem.

 

magnetite is Fe3O4

hematite Fe2O3

 

Other ores also contain oxygen but also other compounds like carbon and hydrogen.

 

carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to use this thread as an example of the need for another forum, something like Crackpot Theories. This topic is not even a reasonable scientific speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how to figure it but I'm betting that you wouldn't need a super computer to figure it out. For the idea to be real at all the Earth must have expanded almost 200% in the last 150,000,000 years *due to heating but if you go with say .01% in say 1,000,000 years I'm betting the energy required would extinguish life on earth.

 

 

 

 

*Rich_A12 main mechanism of expansion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ahem.

 

magnetite is Fe3O4

hematite Fe2O3

 

Other ores also contain oxygen but also other compounds like carbon and hydrogen.

 

carry on.

 

And there's an example of;

1.) The Science Man trying to put me down

2.) Why one should always look things up instead of trusting their memeory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't the scientist who has put you back in your place.

Reality did that.

You were wrong before anyone pointed it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there's an example of;

1.) The Science Man trying to put me down

2.) Why one should always look things up instead of trusting their memeory

 

 

I'll take door #2 for the win Alex....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just to point out, i said compounds such as hydrogen and carbon, i should have said elements such as hydrogen and carbon.

 

gotta admit when you're wrong. otherwise you'll never learn anything new that is also true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Rich_A12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Do you read what you write? Think about what you are saying, heat input causes the Earth to expand from around 4000 miles 150,000,000 years ago to around 8000 miles today? The earth would be incandescent from that much heat input over that period of time.

 

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.

 

This simply makes no sense.

 

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.

 

What does this have to do with an expanding Earth... ?

 

I think it's safe to say that the Earth could have migrated to a five day orbit around the sun and not expanded that much....

Edited by Moontanman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

The Earth is less cold now than it was millions of years ago? Less cold enough to make it expand by 200%? That much less cold would cause the Earth to be incandescent... is that better?

 

It's all relative, everything depends on what orientation or angle you are looking at things.

 

 

From this angle it looks amazingly like horse feathers...

Edited by Moontanman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where have you got that 200% from, did you work that out?

 

You claimed that the present arrangement of the continents is a result of an expanding Earth, your lack of belief in plate tectonics was the driver. For the Earth to have it's present arrangement of continents from a super continent like Pangea via expansion would require the Earth start out the size of Mars. This happened in 150,000,000 years. With out this premise there is no reason to think the Earth has expanded at all.

 

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.

 

No, the available evidence suggests all the continents were in one place 150,000,000 years ago, not billions...

 

No matter what there remains the fact that no known process could possibly expand the Earth significantly due to a rise in temperatures. Your premise is trivially falsified...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

Radioactive dating of the Earth?

 

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.

 

Again, how much expansion and what evidence do you have to support the notion of the Earth expanding? Why do you think the Earth expanded? Current models explain the current state of the Earth very well and require no mysterious processes that cannot be explained...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.