Are the planets growing?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
Open Mind
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Sun Oct 27, 2019 2:04 pm

Thanks for all that info. I don't understand how the two dimensional distortion of the Mercator Projection has any relevance to what I was asking though.

My question is based on the idea that I read somewhere that mountain ranges are created as a result of the land masses flattening out as the earth radius grows and the arcs effectively open up and therefore land bursts up at weak points.

If that's incorrect in the first place, as a part of the expanding earth theory, then let me know. If its correct, then my inquiry in the last post still stands as a logical counter intuitive aspect of the actual evidence.

I'm not trying to disprove the theory. I like it. Not enough to publicly proclaim it, but it does help explain many other things, so I'm holding out hope. But no horizontal mountain ridges seems to go counter to this idea that arc opening forces mountain ridges up.

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Sun Oct 27, 2019 3:38 pm

You mean like this.

Neal Adams - Science: 08 - Conspiracy: Mountain Growth!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vznUwLAq14

Look at the mountains around the stretching polar region. They are crumple regions as the smaller curve flattens out.

Neal Adams - Science: 12 - The great Lakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D5UJj9MX4Y

Then this is from Samuel Carey.

Neal Adams/Samuel Carey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dxfJgKB0yk

moonkoon
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:37 pm

re the lack of compression ridges

Unread post by moonkoon » Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:33 pm

Open Mind wrote:
... the long axis is going to experience extreme arc changes along its length that will invariably compound the need for relief ridges.  

The absence of the expected relief or compression ridges suggests that if arc flattening of continental crust fragments affected by expansion does in fact occur, then compression tectonics does not play a big role in the process. Nor in my opinion does compression tectonics have much to do with the formation of the mountain regions that do actually exist. 

Most of the extant uplifted regions more or less align with with the north/south orientation of the coastlines (the initial rift boundaries) and show fractal/dendritic fracture patterns and extension activity that is more consistent with spreading/uplifting tectonics, in my opinion. The extension can also manifest as stretching and thinning (necking) producing depressions at the surface.

Compression activity would probably be contingent on the boundaries of the crust fragments being somewhat constrained, with limited ability to spread laterally. However more flexibility at the boundary would perhaps enable the crust to adjust via a fracture and extension process. The process would perhaps be more akin to a horizontal landslide. This flow mode might be facilitated by energetic activity in the underlying mantle.

Open Mind
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Sun Oct 27, 2019 11:56 pm

its all pretty cool. My approach was too oversimplified I'm sure. I do love how a shrinking earth visual explains the distortion of the fit between South America and Africa. Thanks for the info

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:41 am

Open Mind wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Why does anyone need to? Latitude is an artificial geometric construct. Compression can happen anywhere and is most likely just dependent on where the crust is weakest.
I guess. But if you look at north and south America, they're like a strip of land that runs nearly all the way from the south pole to the north pole. If I envision a shrinking planet folding compensation, it seems to be the most in need parallel to latitude lines, or in other words, horizontal. Think about it. If you are arbitrarily placing shapes on a shrinking balloon, don't you think if you put a long rectangle vertically from top to bottom, that shape will only experience a slight arc change on its short axis, where as the long axis is going to experience extreme arc changes along its length that will invariably compound the need for relief ridges.

To me its a bit of a no brain'r
Latitude lines are not "horizontal" on the surface of the Earth, they are curved. I'm not sure what you are trying to visualise here but I think you are confusing yourself trying to shoehorn a 2D expectation on a 3D sphere. The flat depiction of North/South America on a map does not accurately represent the shape as it's distorted so your expectation will likely be warped. As I said, the crust will deform where it is weakest as pressure mounts. There can be no up/down left/right horizontal/vertical expectations on a sphere where those terms are meaningless.

johnm33
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by johnm33 » Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:32 pm

Hello Open Mind, I'll tell you where I'm at in this, hope it's some use.
First I think the heavy planets are former cores of stars, the gas giants once were stars, they didn't waste billions of years as dust waiting for gravity to coalesce them instead they were formed direct from plasma at the heart the galaxy, if you like direct from aether. So when I look at an image like this https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/charting-the-m ... inside-out what I see is the 'long bar' rotating both around it's long axis and in the plane of the galaxy, the galactic bar is a residual of stars expelled by the long axis rotation, the galactic arms are made up of stars expelled by the rotation in the galactic plane, the long bar continues to rotate away from the point of origin of the arms, the stars move slowly away from the point of origin more or less aligned with the galactic plane with whatever inertia or spin they were concieved with. Once released they align themselves with the charge field of 'their' arm and recieve and generate energy from/into it's field. Then a long process of fusion takes place where the plasma in it's reaction to the charged field builds into particles which build into atoms, the heavier atoms build up to an island of stability around 56
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/pplato2/h- ... 9_3f_1.png these heavier elements sink and form the core, here they crystalise into an extremely dense electron starved masses over time many of these elements aquire new particles forcing them to become ever denser elements which are incompatible to the iron rich crystal and are slowly forced out.
Then a chance encounter with another star causes an abrupt change of direction/speed and one of them loses it's core, if the core is rapidly accelerated into a close orbital slot the heat energy it possess' will be transformed to kinetic energy and it'll rapidly cool and survive, if it evades capture then the accelerating fission in the crystalline iron core and exothermic chemical cascade in it's stony covering will cause it to explode, leaving remnants of all sizes littering it's captors orbital plane. The coreless star may be captured [like Jupiter] to become a gas giant or be thrown into a more random trajectory.
Once captured and energetically 'frozen' the core will evolve very slowly, even supercooled the fissioning of elements within it's iron core will continue as will the slow process of exclusion of incompatable elements from that crystalline structure.
Then another encounter happens and the em shock disrupts the field which orders the orbits or it temporarily freezes all the em spin so the planet looses momentum or stops spinning creating a huge temperature surge throughout the whole fabric, kickstarting a cascade of long repressed exothermic reactions. The heavier, platinum group, metals surrounding the core practically boil melting the outer layer of the core and catalysing endless numbers of chemical changes, all the products of eons of fission are loosened from their captivity and under enormous pressures wrought by all these effects head for the surface expanding as they go.
Over the eons the electron starved core has moved towards equilibrium but in a close encounter with a newly escaped core there will exist a massive gradient of charge and where these connect through to the core heated corridors will be created to allow ore bodies to bridge the gap. Where the expansion is most pronounced even molten products from the inner core will traverse the distance, like the polymetallic mineral nodules expelled from 'subduction' zones.

Open Mind
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:07 pm

aardwolf, we're just having a symanitic mix up. I was just trying to best explain what I'd expect to see if I put a strip of tape on a balloon from top to bottom, (how ever you want to orient your balloon). My point was that the initial shape of the strip of tape will experience the most deformation in the long axis of what it is which is a long rectangle, so I'd expect relief ridges forming in multiple places parallel to the short axis of that long rectangular piece of tape. My presumption being I guess incorrect, means to me that it is what happens seems to be counter intuitive, so I was just asking to clarify that.

Johnm33's explanation didn't address that, but thanks for your efforts.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:34 am

Open Mind wrote:aardwolf, we're just having a symanitic mix up. I was just trying to best explain what I'd expect to see if I put a strip of tape on a balloon from top to bottom, (how ever you want to orient your balloon). My point was that the initial shape of the strip of tape will experience the most deformation in the long axis of what it is which is a long rectangle, so I'd expect relief ridges forming in multiple places parallel to the short axis of that long rectangular piece of tape. My presumption being I guess incorrect, means to me that it is what happens seems to be counter intuitive, so I was just asking to clarify that.
Ok, but your expectation of the where the ridges will form is essentially incorrect.

What would you expect if you were to place a piece of tape on this balloon that was exactly square? What direction would you expect the ridges to form as the balloon expanded? Corner to corner? North/South? East/West? Randomly based on the weakness of the material? Something else? Please explain your decision.

Open Mind
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Wed Nov 06, 2019 9:28 am

Aardwolf wrote:
Open Mind wrote:What would you expect if you were to place a piece of tape on this balloon that was exactly square? What direction would you expect the ridges to form as the balloon expanded? Corner to corner? North/South? East/West? Randomly based on the weakness of the material? Something else? Please explain your decision.
Ok, sure. If it were square, then the stresses on that shape would be equal in all directions. So sure, I would go with 'based on weakness of material, or possibly perpendicular to the longest axis, being the diagonal cross lines maybe, just from a probability standpoint.

Lets say on my illustration of the piece of tape, as the arc of that long rectangle opens up, then perhaps in one situation relief buckling happens every 3". If the tape is only 2" wide on the short axis, it less likey you see any buckling on that short axis before you see it on the long axis, because the material at some point in the expansion of that arc, only demonstrates relief buckling in a pattern wider than the actual tape.

This is what I'm saying. What ever the parameters might be of what happens, it seem to me that from a probability standpoint, you should be seeing buckling on the long axis first and more often, and specifically perpendicular to that length, more readily than you might in the short axis. In other words, it will take more of an extreme radial change before you see buckling in the short axis than you would on the long axis.

Again, I'm not saying this is how it is, and I'm not presenting this as a demand of requirement for the theory to be valid. I'm just saying it seems logical to have the expectation I'm trying to explain, given the idea of the relationship between an expanding spherical surface and the buckling compensation that apparently causes it.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:25 am

Open Mind wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
Open Mind wrote:What would you expect if you were to place a piece of tape on this balloon that was exactly square? What direction would you expect the ridges to form as the balloon expanded? Corner to corner? North/South? East/West? Randomly based on the weakness of the material? Something else? Please explain your decision.
Ok, sure. If it were square, then the stresses on that shape would be equal in all directions. So sure, I would go with 'based on weakness of material, or possibly perpendicular to the longest axis, being the diagonal cross lines maybe, just from a probability standpoint.
Just concentrating on this point for now.

For a square I believe you accept the stresses don't really have a particular directional preference on this sphere. So if I put 20 squares in a straight line why would you expect the stresses to be in any specific direction? Does each square have some sort of sentient knowledge about the other squares it is lined up with?

Open Mind
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:58 pm

Aardwolf wrote:Just concentrating on this point for now.

For a square I believe you accept the stresses don't really have a particular directional preference on this sphere. So if I put 20 squares in a straight line why would you expect the stresses to be in any specific direction? Does each square have some sort of sentient knowledge about the other squares it is lined up with?
I see what you're getting at. But the ultimate evidence of that perspective would be an evenly distributed pattern of stress relief uniformly all over the place, which I don't see. What I do see is very specific area's where mountains and geological formations that could be reconsidered to be 'stress relief' are forming. So at this point, without the uniform pattern all over the land mass, then it sounds like what you main point is, is that stress relief from an expanding earth ONLY happens in area's of crustal weakness. And I could accept that. But I also have to accept that based on that assumption, it also no longer can be used as evidence of the theory that the expansion of the earth is causing it. If the locations of these stress reliefs is going to be entirely dependent on crustal integrity, then their existence can just as easily be rationalized by the standard geological model.

I'm not trying to be argumentative about this. I was just hoping to see how the idea of 'stress relief' as a cause of these mountain ranges could be substantiated. I'm still open to what you seem to be thoroughly convinced of. I'm just trying to see what about it is so convincing.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:31 am

Open Mind wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Just concentrating on this point for now.

For a square I believe you accept the stresses don't really have a particular directional preference on this sphere. So if I put 20 squares in a straight line why would you expect the stresses to be in any specific direction? Does each square have some sort of sentient knowledge about the other squares it is lined up with?
I see what you're getting at. But the ultimate evidence of that perspective would be an evenly distributed pattern of stress relief uniformly all over the place, which I don't see. What I do see is very specific area's where mountains and geological formations that could be reconsidered to be 'stress relief' are forming. So at this point, without the uniform pattern all over the land mass, then it sounds like what you main point is, is that stress relief from an expanding earth ONLY happens in area's of crustal weakness. And I could accept that. But I also have to accept that based on that assumption, it also no longer can be used as evidence of the theory that the expansion of the earth is causing it. If the locations of these stress reliefs is going to be entirely dependent on crustal integrity, then their existence can just as easily be rationalized by the standard geological model.
You incorrectly assume that stress on each square is equal between each square and equal within each square. Clearly a planet that has grown over millennia cannot produce a completely homogenous crust.

Retuning to my example, place the squares in a grid 10 x 10. As the sphere inflates the weakest point on the weakest square will crack. This crack will grow possibly in a fairly straight line until it reaches an edge. That deformity will cause stress on the adjoining square at that point, and so on. So on the grid I would expect a long straightish fault line in no particular direction. Now, when you look at the continents I can see that being played out, however, on many occasions these stresses (mountains) seem to be along coasts. I would argue the reason for this is because the coast is likely thinner and weaker. Is was after all the location of the original rift that separated the continents.
Open Mind wrote:I'm not trying to be argumentative about this. I was just hoping to see how the idea of 'stress relief' as a cause of these mountain ranges could be substantiated. I'm still open to what you seem to be thoroughly convinced of. I'm just trying to see what about it is so convincing.
What's so convincing about mountains being formed by continents forcing into each other with no explanation where that constant energy is coming from?

Also, a question I have asked many doubtful members here with no answer. All the plates are moving, so which direction is the Antarctica plate headed? Here's an image showing the continent and localised ocean rifts (dark red) to help.

Image

Open Mind
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:30 am

Aardwolf wrote:You incorrectly assume that stress on each square is equal between each square and equal within each square. Clearly a planet that has grown over millennia cannot produce a completely homogenous crust.

...the weakest point on the weakest square will crack. This crack will grow possibly in a fairly straight line until it reaches an edge. That deformity will cause stress on the adjoining square at that point, and so on. So on the grid I would expect a long straightish fault line in no particular direction. Now, when you look at the continents I can see that being played out, however, on many occasions these stresses (mountains) seem to be along coasts. I would argue the reason for this is because the coast is likely thinner and weaker. Is was after all the location of the original rift that separated the continents.
Yes. It works. I can agree with you. But this subject loses value as a convincing substantiation of expanding earth theory, because the elements of evidence of this focus are equally as useful in describing the mainstream theories as well. So its not a substantiating observation. Its just another way to look at mainstream evidence. And that's fine. I realized I was probably over simplifying the idea by my expectations. But as someone who instinctively likes the theory, but is concerned about not addressing any mainstream attack points, this exercise is necessary IMO.

When I look at the image, I have to presume the direction of movement, which would only really be a relative direction, as it technically would be moving in all directions to some degree at once, would be in the direction perpendicular to the area with the least number of recent expansion lines. So in this case it appears to be moving up into the Atlantic Ocean with a bias towards Africa, or put another way, is moving away from Africa the least of all its directional movements.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:19 am

Open Mind wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:You incorrectly assume that stress on each square is equal between each square and equal within each square. Clearly a planet that has grown over millennia cannot produce a completely homogenous crust.

...the weakest point on the weakest square will crack. This crack will grow possibly in a fairly straight line until it reaches an edge. That deformity will cause stress on the adjoining square at that point, and so on. So on the grid I would expect a long straightish fault line in no particular direction. Now, when you look at the continents I can see that being played out, however, on many occasions these stresses (mountains) seem to be along coasts. I would argue the reason for this is because the coast is likely thinner and weaker. Is was after all the location of the original rift that separated the continents.
Yes. It works. I can agree with you. But this subject loses value as a convincing substantiation of expanding earth theory, because the elements of evidence of this focus are equally as useful in describing the mainstream theories as well. So its not a substantiating observation. Its just another way to look at mainstream evidence. And that's fine. I realized I was probably over simplifying the idea by my expectations. But as someone who instinctively likes the theory, but is concerned about not addressing any mainstream attack points, this exercise is necessary IMO.
As an individual who also approaches subjects with an open mind I couldn't care less what attacks points the mainstream have. You should look at each theory based on its merit and Expanding Earth has far more merit than the Continental Drift logical contortion. Also, EE predates plate theory so it's the mainstream that is looking at EE evidence another way.
Open Mind wrote:When I look at the image, I have to presume the direction of movement, which would only really be a relative direction, as it technically would be moving in all directions to some degree at once, would be in the direction perpendicular to the area with the least number of recent expansion lines. So in this case it appears to be moving up into the Atlantic Ocean with a bias towards Africa, or put another way, is moving away from Africa the least of all its directional movements.
Indeed. And once that is obvious trying to pick a most favourable direction if frankly ridiculous, relative or absolute. The only conclusion you can safely deduce from that image is that it is indeed moving away from all the surrounding continents. In fact if you look at any of the continents they are all surrounded by continents moving away from them. They only logical explanation for this is that the globe is expanding.

Open Mind
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:30 am

"As an individual who also approaches subjects with an open mind I couldn't care less what attacks points the mainstream have. You should look at each theory based on its merit and Expanding Earth has far more merit than the Continental Drift logical contortion"

What you're addressing here is I believe two separate issues. You're right about looking at each theory based on its merit to determine whether you believe it or not. But not caring about the mainstream attach points is not constructive. Its like a lawyer knowing his clients innocence so confidently, that he doesn't look at the prosecuting attorney's line of argument. He likely loses that case and his client goes to jail as a result so everyone loses. Which is why my line of questioning is all about the mainstream attack points, (not that I happen to know what I was asking is in fact one of those, but with my limited knowledge, if I put myself in the mainstream shoes, those questions are what would give me hesitation).

However, overturning the current geological paradigm is the least of my interests. What grips me the most about this theory is the implications of a smaller earth and the implied lower gravity, and the many mysteries that could solve among which are:
Giant dinosaurs, plants insects, fish, etc
Some megalithic construction
The existence of Giants, (relatively speaking)

If you don't think I've taken this all too far, then I have a burning question for you.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests