Hi nick c:
I appreciate your response, it is food for thought
nick c states:
"It seems to me, that matter raining down on the Earth, is not going to account for the details of the hypothesized expansion. I say this because it seems self evident that the matter would accumulate on the surface, burying the pre existing surface."
The additional matter is constituted primarily of energenic electrons and hydrogen ions (one protron) along with lesser amounts of heavier positive ions, these charged particles have the ability to penetrate into the crust of the Earth. Using Dr. Anthony Peratt's work as outlined on the other thread (Could the earth be warming up from the inside?) this would be part of a larger dynamic, the plasmoid, plasma cage. This dynamic would act as a energetic conduit for the charged particles.
The question you raise is a reasonable objection, but there is evidence that both electrons and ions have the ability to penetrate the crust. There seems little question that electrons can and do penetrate the Earth's surface and enter the interior crust and then follow electrically conductive conduits further into the depths of the Earth (lightning).
So, the outstanding issue remains the ability of the positive ions to penetrate the crust.
A possible analogy is the ability of cosmic rays (energetic ions) to penetrate the Earth's crust into the interior. Scientific observation & measurement has detected and recorded cosmic rays:
"Almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic ray particles are protons, about 9% are helium nuclei (alpha particles) and about 1% are electrons."
(See Wikipedia entry below.)
Cosmic rays have been detected underground:
"Cosmic-rays detected half a mile underground in a disused U.S. iron-mine can be used to detect major weather events occurring 20 miles up in the Earth’s upper atmosphere, a new study has revealed."
(see ScienceDaily link below)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091228.htm
The difference between cosmic rays and charged particles from the Sun would seem to be only their origin of emission (cosmic rays from interstellar space), but not their atomic structure and potentially not their energetic nature.
An associate made this comment:
"Cosmic rays are charged particles in motion. Engineers call that electricity. Hence "Electricty Detected Inside the Earth".
It should be remembered that electrons and positive ions do not "just float down from above like dust on a shelf" to the surface of the Earth, but rather are individual ions and electrons that are part of a dynamic and energetic flow of electric current (Peratt's plasmoid, plasma cage. Electric current is known to flow within the Earth's crust through molten rock and minerals, but even through solid rocks and crystals, all metalic minerals have a crystal lattice that will support electron transport and apparently ion transport, as well.
There is additional support that ions can flow into the Earth's crust:
A scientific paper on positive electron holes (p-holes) (Warning PDF file) "Rocks That Crackle and Sparkle and Glow:
Strange Pre-Earthquake Phenomena"
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... freund.pdf
And a paper on accumulation of matter and growth in the Earth (warning PDF file) "An Integrated Alternative Conceptual Framework to Heat Engine Earth, Plate Tectonics, and Elastic Rebound"
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... tassos.pdf
An interesting phenomenon is known as the Plasma Fountain per Wikipedia:
"Plasma Fountain is in the North Pole of the Earth. This figure depicts the oxygen, helium, and hydrogen ions that gush into space from regions near the Earth's poles. The faint yellow gas shown above the north pole represents gas lost from Earth into space; the green gas is the aurora borealis-or plasma energy pouring back into the atmosphere."
(See Wikipedia link below)
Also, available is a schematic (see link below):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... untain.gif
What is the significance of the the Plasma Fountain?
Well, if plasma can be emitted by the Earth then I see no logical reason why the Earth can't also absorb plasma into the interior.
As I stated in the other thread:
"A recurrent plasmoid cage and the twisted braids inside the cage are known to form. If a plasmoid cage existed around the Earth, it is also likely that a "plasmoid axis", the twisted braids, would exist inside the Earth where electrons and ions would come together for recombination and energy release."
These "twisted braids" would act as a conductive and forcing conduit for the electrons and ions flowing from the Sun to the Earth. The magnetic fields around the twisted Birkeland currents acting as guiding conduits within the Earths crust (think telluric currents).
Please review schematic of plasmoid:
http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Gal ... asmoid.jpg
nick c states:
"in the EU knowledge of the composition, density, etc of the interiors of planets (and other celestial bodies) is not known with a great degree of certainty."
I agree, there is not near as much certainty about interior composition of planets as geologists and astrophysicists contend.
nick c states:
"Is the conservation of angular momentum a possibile avenue of investigation?"
Yes, it's a possibility.
Another possible avenue that has nothing to do with Plasma Cosmology is that when certain minerals react with each other to form new compounds, the compounds take up more volume than the original reactants.
I hope I have been able to address your concerns.
I realize that the "official" line from some people in the Electric Universe community is that Expanding Earth theory is invalid. I've read their arguments. I did not find them compelling (principally a line of TPOD articles where the best scientific evidence supporting Expanding Earth theory was never raised or addressed).
It's seems that there is an area of overlapping evidence, namely "cracks" that each camp claims as their own for each of their respective theories.
Electric Universe claims the "cracks" or cosmic scars as evidence of EDM (Electric Discharge Maching) and Expanding Earth theory claims these same 'cracks" as evidence of expansion joints.
This conflict is regrettable because I find the two theories complimentary, not in conflict.
I see the world as I find the scientific evidence and it is provided to me and draw my own independent conclusions accordingly: I don't see the world as one or another "camp" would dictate.
If possible cooperation and collaberation are the best possible avenue for advancing scientific knowledge.
nick, I appreciate your raising questions as it makes me think and marshall the scientific evidence supporting my position. And just perhaps it might persuade open-minded folks to investigate the evidence on their own and draw similar conclusions