Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Polar

Expanding Earth

70 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Harte
6 hours ago, NicoletteS said:

I would consider the rapid expansion theory a more likely scenario. I think our proof is the moon. Wasn't it already posited that the moon is made of the dame material as the earth and was once split off when earth impacted with another body? Where did the other body go? 

The thinking is that the other body is still here - in combination with the matter in both the Earth and the Moon.

IIRC, the Earth got most of Theia's iron, and the Moon formed from debris that was thrown into orbit by the impact.

Harte

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Tatetopa
On 5/24/2018 at 5:41 AM, Jon101 said:

Forgive my confusion, (I am elderly, being over forty), but are you suggesting the expanding Earth theory is correct or not?.

Confusion forgiven youngster.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socks Junior
10 hours ago, Harte said:

The thinking is that the other body is still here - in combination with the matter in both the Earth and the Moon.

IIRC, the Earth got most of Theia's iron, and the Moon formed from debris that was thrown into orbit by the impact.

Harte

You indeed recall correctly. The thinking as to the partitioning of iron during the collision comes from the eensy-weensy core of Luna.

There is some paleomagnetic analysis of this issue, I recall. Although recollection of the exact analysis eludes me at this moment, it probably involves the comparison of paleomagnetic poles. Or actually probably directions, given that poles kind of assume the radius.

We measure the magnetic direction (literally, a vector) for a rock unit. From that, together with its location on the Earth surface, we can determine where the geomagnetic dipole (negative end) - aka the magnetic pole at that time - would have been relative to the rock unit as it was magnetized. Then, assuming that the continents are moving (not trivial, but let's roll with it), we can simply rotate that paleomagnetic pole to the present geographic North Pole, and that's how we reconstruct continents.

But for this you'd probably only need magnetic directions. Two sites of the same age, on the same stable geographic area. Then, if they have the same declination (direction away from true north), we can assume that they were at the same longitude at that time. The inclination, however, should be different! From inclination, it is easy to find paleolatitude using the dipole formula - tan(I) = 2*tan(latitude). This formula, notably, is independent of radius!

So, the two separate sites will have an angular distance separating them now. Since they were on the same line of longitude, they would only have been separated by a latitudinal distance then.

We simply could compare the angular distance separating them now with the latitudinal difference separating them then. If the ratio is ~1, Bob's your uncle. The Earth hasn't expanded. If not, then maybe it has.

This methodology, I think, would be a highly specific case study. Have to find a confluence of geometric factors to carry it out effectively. Doubtless there are ways of generalizing it better. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Socks Junior said:

You indeed recall correctly. The thinking as to the partitioning of iron during the collision comes from the eensy-weensy core of Luna.

There is some paleomagnetic analysis of this issue, I recall. Although recollection of the exact analysis eludes me at this moment, it probably involves the comparison of paleomagnetic poles. Or actually probably directions, given that poles kind of assume the radius.

We measure the magnetic direction (literally, a vector) for a rock unit. From that, together with its location on the Earth surface, we can determine where the geomagnetic dipole (negative end) - aka the magnetic pole at that time - would have been relative to the rock unit as it was magnetized. Then, assuming that the continents are moving (not trivial, but let's roll with it), we can simply rotate that paleomagnetic pole to the present geographic North Pole, and that's how we reconstruct continents.

But for this you'd probably only need magnetic directions. Two sites of the same age, on the same stable geographic area. Then, if they have the same declination (direction away from true north), we can assume that they were at the same longitude at that time. The inclination, however, should be different! From inclination, it is easy to find paleolatitude using the dipole formula - tan(I) = 2*tan(latitude). This formula, notably, is independent of radius!

So, the two separate sites will have an angular distance separating them now. Since they were on the same line of longitude, they would only have been separated by a latitudinal distance then.

We simply could compare the angular distance separating them now with the latitudinal difference separating them then. If the ratio is ~1, Bob's your uncle. The Earth hasn't expanded. If not, then maybe it has.

This methodology, I think, would be a highly specific case study. Have to find a confluence of geometric factors to carry it out effectively. Doubtless there are ways of generalizing it better. 

You could simply measure red shift and blue shift over a time, compare the now results and the future results, this comparison would also be suggestive in determining if the Earth is expanding or not. Or simplest method is to do a survey on GSP satellites. I would be very skeptical of an expanding Earth theory, for a number of reasons.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid

As far as I understand it, the fundamental issue with this is timing. The early Earth was "grown" - out of dust and rocks from the prototype universe.

But this had all cleared by the time the landmasses formed. Where on earth did all the matter come from? It can't be asteroids and comets, as to increase a planetary body's mass by that much would need so many impacts it would utterly pulverize the surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid

Either way, I don't think the OP is coming back.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

As far as I understand it, the fundamental issue with this is timing. The early Earth was "grown" - out of dust and rocks from the prototype universe.

But this had all cleared by the time the landmasses formed. Where on earth did all the matter come from? It can't be asteroids and comets, as to increase a planetary body's mass by that much would need so many impacts it would utterly pulverize the surface.

This is why Adams formulated some hoo-ha involving matter being created at the core in a process similar to vacuum flux energy, minus the annihilation. He's not simply saying the earth expanded but that it's still expanding

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
2 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

As far as I understand it, the fundamental issue with this is timing. The early Earth was "grown" - out of dust and rocks from the prototype universe.

But this had all cleared by the time the landmasses formed. Where on earth did all the matter come from? It can't be asteroids and comets, as to increase a planetary body's mass by that much would need so many impacts it would utterly pulverize the surface.

The matter came from the coalescing solar disc... and before that, from a generation of supernovas when the universe was much smaller.  It took a very long time (at least half a billion years) to "grow" Earth. https://www.space.com/58-the-sun-formation-facts-and-characteristics.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
20 hours ago, Kenemet said:

The matter came from the coalescing solar disc... and before that, from a generation of supernovas when the universe was much smaller.  It took a very long time (at least half a billion years) to "grow" Earth. https://www.space.com/58-the-sun-formation-facts-and-characteristics.html

Sorry, I meant "proto-solar system", not "prototype universe"

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
3 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

Sorry, I meant "proto-solar system", not "prototype universe"

Its okay Ms Acid, I wouldn't have known the difference of system even if the solar and the type of proto had been universal.

~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ove

Yes the earth was smaller, gravity was lower, animals were bigger and the earth moved faster around the sun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
29 minutes ago, Ove said:

Yes the earth was smaller, gravity was lower, animals were bigger and the earth moved faster around the sun.

You do know, don't you, that physics doesn't work like that?  Smaller planets don't move faster, low gravity planets don't move faster, and any animal that evolved on a lower gravity planet would be crushed on a higher gravity planet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
29 minutes ago, Ove said:

Yes the earth was smaller, gravity was lower, animals were bigger and the earth moved faster around the sun.

You do know, don't you, that physics doesn't work like that?  Smaller planets don't move faster, low gravity planets don't move faster, and any animal that evolved on a lower gravity planet would be crushed on a higher gravity planet.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
58 minutes ago, Ove said:

Yes the earth was smaller, gravity was lower, animals were bigger and the earth moved faster around the sun.

Do you have anything to back up those claims ?

In particular the claim that the size of a planet dictates its orbital speed. You have just dismissed several centuries of carefull astronomical observations, so I can only assume that you have evidence for this ?

(I won't hold my breath for this, as I don't want to die from asphyxiation)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan

Expanding Earth is falsified by the likes of Rodinia and Kenorland.  And, basically, all geology.

Unless the Earth contracts and expands like it's breathing?  :D

The hypothesis also fails to explain why Earth is no longer expanding .....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
2 hours ago, Ove said:

Yes the earth was smaller, gravity was lower, animals were bigger and the earth moved faster around the sun.

Why would gravity have been lower?

If the Earth were smaller, it's mass would be the same.  Unless you are suggesting the Earth has expanded as a result of the magical creation of matter out of thin air?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
13 minutes ago, Essan said:

Why would gravity have been lower?

If the Earth were smaller, it's mass would be the same.  Unless you are suggesting the Earth has expanded as a result of the magical creation of matter out of thin air?

Well if it rotated faster gravitional effect would be less than it is now due to centrifugal force. It's why you weight less at the equator than at the poles. But I highly doubt the Earth has had an expansion or was significantly smaller. Both the moon has an effect on the lenght of our day and in time our days will get longer so in the past the days were shorter due to the moon.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
On 05/06/2018 at 4:31 PM, Ove said:

Yes the earth was smaller, gravity was lower, animals were bigger and the earth moved faster around the sun.

No it wasn't; no it wasn't; yes they were (but this was because of the different atmosphere makeup); and I'm not sure about the last bit. I could well believe that matter in the proto-solar system moved faster than today, as it loses energy to the surrounding space - but can't/don't have time to look into it deeply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
On 06/06/2018 at 1:31 AM, Ove said:

Yes the earth was smaller, gravity was lower, animals were bigger and the earth moved faster around the sun.

Where’d the water come from? If the world was smaller, more of it would be covered in water.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

If you look at the videos of the expansion you see that there is a huge problem with the portion of the expansion that leads to the Pacific Ocean. Places where continents separated show related geology including minerals and fossils. The video shows continents separating where they were never in contact.

In a similar thread I wasted time calculating how much energy it would take to form new matter in the Earth to account for the claimed expansion. It was many Hiroshima sized bombs a day per square kilometer to account for the expansion. The depth of the regolith on the Moon also suggests that material arriving from space is insufficient to lead to any sizeable increase in the size of the Earth.

1 Hiroshima bomb converted 780g of matter to energy assuming 1-2%

light continental rocks have a specific gravity of 2.7

1 Hiroshima bomb energy converted to rock like granite creates 270 cc of rock

There are 10^10 square centimeters in a square kilometer

It takes roughly 34 million Hiroshima explosions of energy to make 1 centimeter of rock in a square kilometer

It takes roughly 94 Hiroshima explosion energies converted to matter per day to add a millimeter of rock in a square kilometer

I don't think that the making new matter idea has been well thought out

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.