Your Ever Expanding World.

[Duper]

No, not in numbers of population but rather quite literally.

I found this rather interesting. Still not sure what I think about it, but I can't say with 100% certainty that this \"guy\" is incorrect.

What do YOU think?

[roid]

first port of call is always wiki for me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_Earth_Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory

i've never heard this theory before, it's very interesting.

[Genghis]

I never heard this one before, either. Amazing how much crank science there is out there.

I watched about 50% of the video, skipping a minute here and a minute there. This guy's whole argument seems predicated on there being no subduction, only seafloor spreading. But it didn't appear he had a good reason to doubt subduction occurs, just some personal incredulity.

However, you can quite clearly see the subducting plates when you map out earthquake epicenter data in 3 dimensions. Plain as day.

Better yet, the subducting plate melts when it gets deep enough, and the less dense melted material comes up again as volcanoes a couple hundred miles inland, building mountain chains. Heck, the cascades are exactly that!

[dissent]

first port of call is always wiki for me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_Earth_Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory

i've never heard this theory before, it's very interesting.

Me neither.

It sounds very bogus. Where does the mass come from? Where did the oceans go on this much smaller earth?

[Kilarin]

Where does the mass come from?

THAT is the question. The fascinating thing, of course, is that if you ignore that one question, all the rest seems to work out so incredibly well!

I'm not buying it, not yet at least, but it is FASCINATING. It feels like a theory that MIGHT be saying something important, they just haven't quite figured out exactly what it's saying yet.

Sort of like when all of the mathematicians were busily trying to prove the parallel postulate and getting such strange results that they kept dismissing because they didn't FIT. They didn't realize they had discovered non-Euclidean geometry.

[Duper]

Mass come from???

no mass is added, my guess would be that the core becomes less dense.

I'm thinking that there is some kind of fusion reaction going on in our planet's core, much like the Sun's only on a smaller scale. We don't really know that much about the core. It's guessed that it's comprised mostly of nickel. (why that I have no idea) But let's say that there is a fusion reaction going on in the core involving a dense material, as things continued to be hot.. or get hotter... wouldn't that material expand? most do. And thus, as it expands, it becomes less dense but maintains the same overall mass.

Personally, I think that this is a good theory, but I also think that it's only part of the equation. There are massive mountain ranges on the edge of the commonly known subduction zones. This theory offers no explanation for these mountains or any MASSIVE geological upheaval. I don't think that it would take a lot of plate movement to create a mountain range large or small. Land isn't very forgiving ... of course, that depends on the material that is being moved.

[Isaac]

they only way that could work, is if a hot core made rock expand like popcorn, causing large air pockets.

[Duper]

What do you think comes out of volcanoes Issac? That blew the top off of St. Helens? Trapped gas.

[Isaac]

What do you think comes out of volcanoes Issac? That blew the top off of St. Helens? Trapped gas.

Ever have a wet fart?

[roid]

the Earth does capture something like a bajillion tons of interstellar dust every year - So in this way it is slowly growing. I wonder if this could be relevant to the theory - ie: maybe Earth was bombarded with an interstellar duststorm so large that it increased it's size dramatically.
just throwing ideas

[dissent]

yes, and the mass of the earth is about 6 x 10^24 kg; which is about a bajillion bajillion bajillion tons. Accreting interstellar mass (at least at about the current rate of about 40000 tons/year) fails to account for this increase by roughly 7-8 orders of magnitude.

[Kilarin]

no mass is added, my guess would be that the core becomes less dense.

But we have pretty good seismic readings of the center of our planet. If our planet had expanded to twice it's previous size, without adding mass, there would be an enormous amount of empty hollow space in the interior. There isn't.

[Testiculese]

It's a joke of a theory. The guy has absolutely no concept of continental drift, and no concept of the inner workings of the planet.

The Earth does not have fusion at it's core. It's nowhere NEAR hot enough or enough pressure. Earth has a mostly nickel-iron core because they are the heaviest elements in the liquid.

There are mountains near subduction zones because the land masses pushed together, rippling the ground, and one or the other went under eventually. he mountains are just still there.

[Kilarin]

I came up with another interesting argument AGAINST the expanding world theory.

The theory assumes that the earth was about half of it's current size, which would put it at right about the same size as Mars, which means it should have 1/3+ of earths current gravitational force.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here folks, but hasn't it been pretty well established that the dinosaur bones are sufficient to support their weight in 1G? Which would be a VERY odd thing if this planet had only 1/3G at the time Dinosaurs ruled the earth.

[Duper]

hmm. well, if no mass was lost or gained; would gravity intensity changed?

[Blue]

Just want to add that mass is gained from small asteroids landing on earth millions of time a day.. all pieces small as a quarter and burn up into dust which mixes into the air and settles on the ground.

But....that ...doesn't make this theory true in any right. For this theory to be true the earth must expand from the core...


The earth is growing just by picking up space debree but i doubt it is even enough to be noticable...

[Bet51987]

The earth is growing just by picking up space debree but i doubt it is even enough to be noticable...

The gain/loss of Earths mass averages about +200 tons each year from space debris which makes it barely noticable. The video is psuedoscience.

Bee

[Duper]

The video is psuedoscience.
Bee

lol, I'd say it was more like an infommercial. In a serious documentary, you never say "I love this.." with the implication of "what a bunch of loosers".

200 tons eh? That's like what.. someone dropping an empty barge on the planet every year...
we probably send more than that each year OFF planet.

[snoopy]

In a very real way, we are contributing a decrease in density of the earth- by leaving air pockets all over under the surface in the form of mines. Now, is this a significant change? Probably not.

Gravity would probably change, though it doesn't have to. Fg = G * (m1*m2)/(d^2) - So, if the diameter of the earth halved, and the mass of the earth quartered, one's weight on the surface would be the same- this means, however, that the density would have to change drastically. I think core densities are pretty close across known space bodies- with earth landing on the low end- thus having an older earth with half the core density of the current earth seems pretty unlikely. The real question to ask is what has happened to the outer limits of the atmosphere over time, as this diameter would be independant of local density changes within the earth, and in theory should be static unless the actual mass of the earth changes.

[Sedwick]

Something else to keep in mind--the Earth's rotation is slowing down. The day grows one second longer every 88 years. I bet all that accumulating mass likely has something to do with it, increasing the distribution of Earth's angular momentum.

I've also heard that damming is affecting rotation speed, by creating pools of water that weren't there before and redistributing the water's mass.

[Krom]

Something else to keep in mind--the Earth's rotation is slowing down. The day grows one second longer every 88 years. I bet all that accumulating mass likely has something to do with it, increasing the distribution of Earth's angular momentum.

I've also heard that damming is affecting rotation speed, by creating pools of water that weren't there before and redistributing the water's mass.

o_O

No really.

The effect from accumulating space debris has next to nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth slowing. The real culprit for that is a much bigger much more obvious source, hereafter we will refer to this source as: The Moon.

The Moon just happens to apply a tremendous amount of torque to the Earth as the Earth spins relative to The Moon. It is the same reason The Moon has completely stopped its rotation relative to the Earth. (Meaning this is why one side of The Moon always faces the Earth. Torque from the Earth slowed the rotation of The Moon gradually after its formation and eventually stopped it relative to the earth entirely, resulting in the current duration of Lunar days.)

The Tide isn't the only effect The Moon's gravity has on the Earth.

[Kilarin]

The real question to ask is what has happened to the outer limits of the atmosphere over time, as this diameter would be independant of local density changes within the earth, and in theory should be static unless the actual mass of the earth changes.

Oooo! Good Point!

But I still like the way it all fits together so well. Like I said, I'm not buying it, but I find it interesting.

[Duper]

as they are saying that this is taking place over \"billions\" of years, I don't think that the atmosphere would be an issue.

Density in the atmosphere has changed over the eons. That can be found in the fossil records.

[Sedwick]

The Moon just happens to apply a tremendous amount of torque to the Earth as the Earth spins relative to The Moon. It is the same reason The Moon has completely stopped its rotation relative to the Earth. (Meaning this is why one side of The Moon always faces the Earth. Torque from the Earth slowed the rotation of The Moon gradually after its formation and eventually stopped it relative to the earth entirely, resulting in the current duration of Lunar days.)

The Tide isn't the only effect The Moon's gravity has on the Earth.

Oh yeah, forgot about ol' Luna. A Discovery Channel show I saw theorized that the moon was formed when a large foreign body struck young Earth (which then had only 6-hour days). The impact sent a great mass into orbit, kind of a ring around the planet, until gravity eventually pulled it all into a spheroidal mass, which I understand had not much rotation to begin with. Since the early moon was much closer, tides were stronger (as in 1000-ft-high waves), and their friction went a long way in slowing down Earth's day. It's also possible the increased interaction between far-flung ocean water and the land enabled life to form.

[Isaac]

[snoopy]

right.... I'm not sure that this applies, on multiple levels.

1. After the outer, dried surface becomes thick enough, vapor won't be able to pass through it, and the inner portion of glue will simply stop drying- you will end up an equililibrium long before vapors & air pockets start blowing holes in the outer surface. (When the vapor can't escape into the atmosphere, you end up getting into a liquid/gas phase equililibrium like you learned about in chemistry- the only way you'll actually build up appreciable pressure at a constant temperature is if you have a chemical reaction whose product has more gas molecules than source gas molecules.)

2. Most material have a more dense solid phase than liquid phase, thus the outer surface is most likely to crush, which I would think would have less of a tendancy to rupture the surface, and more of a tendancy to just kinda wrinkle it.

3. Likewise, I think that overall the cooling of earth's core will generally produce a shrinking of the earth, rather than a growing- however millions of tons of magma solidifying > whatever air pockets/cavities produced. What's more, I think the natural production of cavities would be mostly driven by the shrinking of the magma & the crusts resistance to this. So, unless the contention is that the earth's core is actually heating up (which I wouldn't believe) I would expect the natural tendancy to be to have an ever-shrinking surface.

[woodchip]

All right, looked at vid and here's my problem. The authors assumption is that the pangia concept of all the landmasses were once connected (true) but that a total pangiac landmass covered the whole earth is not necessarily true. While he claims all the seas were shallow, I'm not sure how that is determined. The mid atlantic and mid pacific ridges are fact and the upwelling of magme from these fault lines is fact. The ocean bottom travelling away from these faults is also fact.
Simple expansion cracking I don't think accounts for enough force to uplift mountain ranges such as where the Indian continent has collided with the Asian continent to form the Himilayan range. It would seem to me that the mass expansion theory would lead to a equilibrium of drift and not contain enough energy to collide continents with such titanic force.

[Isaac]

right.... I'm not sure that this applies, on multiple levels.

1. After the outer, dried surface becomes thick enough, vapor won't be able to pass through it, and the inner portion of glue will simply stop drying-...


2. Most material have a more dense solid phase than liquid phase, thus the outer surfa....

3. Likewise, I think that overall the cooling of earth's core will generally produ....

When lava turns to rock, I think it expands. If it dose expand then you will have pressure under the crust. The crust is very thin and should crack here and there under the pressure.

As for the glue ball story, the type of glue and how big the ball would be is left to the imagination other than it would have to be a fast drying glue and probably over 100lbs worth.

[Testiculese]

The only liquid that expands when turning solid is water.

The glueball idea is not even close.

[DCrazy]

The only liquid that expands when turning solid is water.

Uh... no? The fact that silicon does so as well (check its density at STP vs. at melting point) is very important.

[BUBBALOU]

There is no rule of equivalent exchange here..... roflz...

Here is a little test for you to do

when your done resubmit your posts

----------------------------------------------

Take 6 peices of white bread remove the crust.

put them together and roll them up in a ball measure the diameter.

Place the said ball of bread in a Tupperware container and seal the top and weigh the container.

Place container on window sill

Check status of said ball every 4 days

--------------------------------------

did it expand?
was their growth/shift?
any byproducts?

What if I repeat this project in the shade?
What if I repeat this project in full sun?

[Duper]

...er.. and the moon is made of cheese?

[Isaac]

The only liquid that expands when turning solid is water.

The glueball idea is not even close.

Well the ball isn't real. But what i say happens do it (if glue were to expand or shrink) should be what happens to lava. Adiabatic heating and cooling is said to cause things to expand while cooling. Bismuth, zinc, and lead expand while cooling. But regardless of it shrinking or expanding, MAGMA DOSE CHANGE. If there were no change then my 'glue ball' wouldn't work, but since there is a difference, it would have to.

You have a volume being wrapped by another that wants to be a completely different size. They’re not going to be friends. Glue ball works.

[Duper]

psst.. \"does\"

[snoopy]

The final density of volcanic rock depends on the mechanics of the drying process, but obsidian (solid volcanic rock, without pores) is more dense than magma... if the solidifying is happening below the surface I'm pretty sure what's produced is almost all obsidian.