Most Thorough Model

[Aardwolf]

Well, that would depend on whether or not it was also being stretched.

To stretch something you need to pull it from either side. What force could be pulling the continents from their edges?

But just like the defenseless cereal bowls in our thought experiments, granite is much better at handling compressive stress than tensile stress, so even in the first case (of pressing inward on the bowl to make it fail) we'll see a lot of tensile strain, and very little compressive strain.

Your analogy may be valid if the entire crust was solid granite/rock. However, as the Russians discovered when they drilled the Kola Superdeep Borehole, at around 7 miles the rock turns "plastic";

Initially the major rifts, now mainly in oceans, would have split under pressure.

Do you mean "under tensile stress"?

Tensile stress caused by the pressure of internal expansion.

Ummm, you're questioning whether or not the continents are being stretched. And you're saying that they're under tensile stress, which causes rifts. And you're saying that compressive/tensile analysis is inappropriate, because 7 miles below the surface, the rock is plastic. That leaves me unsure of your position.

As I clearly stated, initially when the Earth was smaller prior to the existence on any oceans or rifts, internal pressure increased as the Earth attempted to expand but had little outlet. The exterior crust at the time would have been stretched until it split ultimately creating the continents separated by oceans. Now, jump forward a few hundred million years and the broken off and separated continents are now under compressive stress as they flatten out. Stretching is no longer applicable as there is nothing pulling at the edges.

Extinct and extant marsupials do not share a common border in Pangea, only in a smaller Earth where Australia is joined to the west coast of South America.

If the marsupials marched across Antarctica to get to Australia, the fossil record is there, but it's under a bunch of ice right now.

Convenient. However you still miss the point. Why did no marsupials from SA cross the massive shared border with Africa nor the AUS marsupials cross the massive shared border with Asia? Also it's not just marsupials. Hundreds of species are known to exist only on the West American coastline and the East Asian/Australian coastline with no credible transportation method. Look up Trans-Pacific Disjunctions.

The other continents are definitely moving away from Antarctica. But that doesn't prove the EEH -- it could be simply that Pangaea is still rifting.

So are you arguing all the other continents are heading North?

Yes, that's what it looks like to me.

Interesting. Therefore, considering the Eurasian and North American plate boundary is increasing through the North Pole, would you also argue that these 2 plates are both heading south?

No, the North American plate is twisting.

Firstly, where did you get that information? Secondly the Gakkel Ridge is clearly divergent. Here's the first paragraph from wiki which appears uncontroversial;

The Gakkel Ridge (formerly known as the Nansen Cordillera and Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge)[1] is a mid-oceanic ridge, a divergent tectonic plate boundary between the North American Plate and the Eurasian Plate.[2] It is located in the Arctic Ocean between Greenland and Siberia, and has a length of about 1,800 kilometers. Geologically, it connects the northern end of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge with the Laptev Sea Rift.

So where these two plates meet at the North Pole they are definitely moving south. Are you disputing this? What evidence do you have?

[BTW, in my model, the Moho is a supercritical fluid that presents a frictionless boundary on which the plates can slide around. This makes plate motion possible just under tidal forcing, and without the need for mantle plumes, which are problematic for a lot of reasons. Anyway, tidal forcing suggests why the continents are moving generally northward, away from Antarctica, and why so much of the Earth's land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere already. If the continents are just floating on a frictionless boundary, they're behaving like inflatable toys in a swimming pool -- all other factors being the same, wave action will push them away from the source of the waves. And tidal forces are the greatest when the Earth is nearest to the Sun, and this is also when the Southern Hemisphere is more directly facing the Sun. Thus the tidal wave action is stronger in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern. Consequently, the continents are drifting away from the most intense waves, which prescribes a northerly drift. They left Antarctica behind, because it straddles the South Pole, and therefore can't figure out which way to fall.

Your other serious problem is that evidence suggests the continents in the northern hemisphere are actually heading south and there isn't nearly enough subduction to hide all this supposedly converging crust.

[Aardwolf]

If the marsupials marched across Antarctica to get to Australia, the fossil record is there, but it's under a bunch of ice right now.

Just to follow up further on this point, are you saying that Wegener's fossil map is garbage? It has a fossil links running right through Antarctica. Should this evidence for Pangea be scrapped as unreliable?

[Aardwolf]

How about discussing expansion on the Expanding Earth thread? Hasn't it been talked to death yet? Yes, it has.

I see you are still trying to shut the discussion down rather than address the issues.

Is this thread really to discuss "anything in Charles Chandler's alternative EU model" or is it just for fans and supporters who agree with it? Isn't that the reason JREF/BAUT etc. are full of sheep.

[CharlesChandler]

Moho and Basalt Layers

The illustration in Figure 1 in your Moho paper led me to wonder if there is basalt under the granite continents. Do you think that's likely? Since the seafloors are mainly basalt, it seems likely that the entire Earth's surface or subsurface was basalt before the lunar impact produced the supercontinent. I suppose the basalt in the central area of the impact under the supercontinent was likely transformed chemically by the impact, but I'm guessing that most of the rest of the basalt under the supercontinent would have remained intact. Right?

Yes, I agree. The mantle is basaltic. So the basaltic oceanic crust is just the frozen outer layer of the mantle, while the continental granites float on top of the basalts in the mantle, and ride over oceanic crusts if there is a plate collision. The oceanic crust doesn't "subduct" because it is cooler, because it isn't -- it's actually warmer, but it's still heavier, because it's a different chemical that is more dense.

As I clearly stated, initially when the Earth was smaller prior to the existence on any oceans or rifts, internal pressure increased as the Earth attempted to expand but had little outlet. The exterior crust at the time would have been stretched until it split ultimately creating the continents separated by oceans. Now, jump forward a few hundred million years and the broken off and separated continents are now under compressive stress as they flatten out. Stretching is no longer applicable as there is nothing pulling at the edges.

This is where diagrams would help eliminate confusion. Your subjective vision might be crystal clear, and you might think that the words that you have chosen unambiguously define your intent, and only your intent. But the people reading those words don't know the same things that you know, hence the definitions don't mean the same thing. I do this all the time to my readers, so I know far too well how much of a disconnect there can be between what I'm thinking and trying to say, versus what they're hearing and not understanding. And sometimes it isn't just my readers who don't understand -- when I finally do the drawing, I find problems that were not apparent in my verbal descriptions. So the diagrams are worth doing, time consuming though they are.

Anyway, in consideration of the fact that rock has a much higher compression strength than tensile strength, if it's going to fraction due to a reduction in the degree of curvature, the crust will rift on the bottom, but without getting scrunched into mountains at the surface. So I'm still not convinced that expansion would cause mountain-building. Sorry.

Why did no marsupials from SA cross the massive shared border with Africa nor the AUS marsupials cross the massive shared border with Asia?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the climate favored their existence only at the very tip of South America, on Antarctica, and into Australia.

As a general rule, it's tough to prove things by an absence of evidence against, and this is especially true when the evidence is hard to get anyway. For example, does a missing link between apes and man prove that man was created ex nihilo? Hardly. Does an absence of marsupial fossils in Africa prove that marsupials could only have gotten to Australia by the Pacific route? No. It might just prove that we haven't dug up enough of Africa to know for sure.

No, the North American plate is twisting.

Firstly, where did you get that information?

Wikipedia. Look it up for yourself. (If you're going to tell me to go look up the information supporting your arguments, I'll do the same to you back-atcha.)

Secondly the Gakkel Ridge is clearly divergent.

Actually, as an extension of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the general scheme is that "subduction" in the Pacific is pulling Asia and the Americas toward each other, with the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (including the Gakkel Ridge) opening up as a consequence. Your conclusion that everything is moving northward relative to the South Pole, and southward relative to the North Pole, is unsupported.

Your other serious problem is that evidence suggests the continents in the northern hemisphere are actually heading south and there isn't nearly enough subduction to hide all this supposedly converging crust.

Another thing that you should consider is that divergence, in the (supposed) absence of sufficient convergence, might be evidence of crustal shrinkage due to cooling.

[Lloyd]

Lloyd wrote: How about discussing expansion on the Expanding Earth thread? Hasn't it been talked to death yet? Yes, it has.
Aardwolf said: I see you are still trying to shut the discussion down rather than address the issues.

The issues have already been addressed and don't need to be re-addressed over and over like they have been.

[Lloyd]

Comets
Here's a post about comets: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 60#p102766.
Comet jets are discussed briefly. Charles, you say comets have induced double layers, negative on the solid surface and positive in the center, I think. Would jets likely be the result of electric discharge currents between the layers? Or could they form when the comet encountered debris in space that caused electric discharge to the solid surface? I'm trying to think of how the jets initially formed. I guess it's not certain how deep the jets go, but maybe the pressure can be estimated. And maybe they compare to the geysers on moons and Mars. The latter have EDP double layers, while comets have induced double layers, by your model. So maybe there's something about double layers of either kind that tend to produce jets or geysers. Would there be electric tidal forces on comets?

[CharlesChandler]

Comets
Here's a post about comets: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 60#p102766.
Comet jets are discussed briefly. Charles, you say comets have induced double layers, negative on the solid surface and positive in the center, I think. Would jets likely be the result of electric discharge currents between the layers?

You're one step ahead of me. Viscount Aero pointed out that there is no evidence that the jets emanate from the interior of the comet, which leaves surface discharges as the only reasonable explanation. As the boundary layer gets charged up by frictional charge separation, perhaps it is sucking electrons from within the comet?

[Lloyd]

Solar Energy Budget

Charles, your accretion model is similar to (MM) Miles Mathis' model, but yours is more detailed. A major difference is that the MM model doesn't consider charge or energy to be stored in stars or planets. Instead, the radiation from stars, for example, is imagined to be the same as the amount of radiation they receive from the galaxy they're in.

I've been trying to get MM and his supporters to see that it's likely absurd to suppose that the energy isn't stored. All it should take to realize that is that the Sun puts out way more radiation than it receives. I found online that the Sun is said to emit 63 million watts per square meter. The Earth receives I think under 350 watts per square meter on average. I think that's almost entirely from the Sun. So that leaves very little that either the Earth or the Sun would be receiving from the galaxy.

I'm not sure, but I think the 63 million watts figure includes all radiation from the Sun, including IR and UV etc. I saw a graph that shows that the Sun's output is highest in visible light and less in both the IR and UV directions. I think the 350 watts figure for what the Earth receives also likely includes from all wavelengths. But I'm not positive. Have you seen figures on total radiation emitted and received for the Sun and/or the Earth?

The other guys seem to think that the Sun receives a lot of radiation, especially at its poles, that hasn't been detected or measured. But I think it's likely that nearly all of the frequencies have been measured by now. Do you agree? Or do you know? I've seen images of the Sun in IR and UV etc. That's why I think most frequencies have been measured.

Do you know if the radiation received by the Sun is detectable in images of the Sun? Or would it be detectable instead in images of the galaxy? Wikipedia says our galaxy has a luminosity of 5 × 10^36 W. Would that tell you how much radiation the Sun receives? (I don't know if that figure is just visible light power.) I think the galaxy has also been imaged in UV and IR etc. Do you know? If so, that should tell us how much radiation the Sun is receiving. Right?

If we can show that way more radiation is emitted by the Sun than is received by it, it should be easy to prove that most of the Sun's energy is stored. Do you agree? And if we prove that, I think it would be almost incumbent on them to study your model of accretion for explaining how energy is likely stored in stars and planets during formation.

Michael Vaicaitis' Model

Michael V (MV) is a member of this forum and he has a model that is similar to MM's model in some respects, but it differs in some important ways. It has what I consider a much better model of gravity (instead of the expansion of matter theory of gravity) and some other interesting views. MV's model is explained at
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/R ... nload/4286. If you get time to skim through it, I'd like to hear your impression.

[Aardwolf]

As I clearly stated, initially when the Earth was smaller prior to the existence on any oceans or rifts, internal pressure increased as the Earth attempted to expand but had little outlet. The exterior crust at the time would have been stretched until it split ultimately creating the continents separated by oceans. Now, jump forward a few hundred million years and the broken off and separated continents are now under compressive stress as they flatten out. Stretching is no longer applicable as there is nothing pulling at the edges.

This is where diagrams would help eliminate confusion. Your subjective vision might be crystal clear, and you might think that the words that you have chosen unambiguously define your intent, and only your intent. But the people reading those words don't know the same things that you know, hence the definitions don't mean the same thing. I do this all the time to my readers, so I know far too well how much of a disconnect there can be between what I'm thinking and trying to say, versus what they're hearing and not understanding. And sometimes it isn't just my readers who don't understand -- when I finally do the drawing, I find problems that were not apparent in my verbal descriptions. So the diagrams are worth doing, time consuming though they are.

Anyway, in consideration of the fact that rock has a much higher compression strength than tensile strength, if it's going to fraction due to a reduction in the degree of curvature, the crust will rift on the bottom, but without getting scrunched into mountains at the surface. So I'm still not convinced that expansion would cause mountain-building. Sorry.

Well that's just personal opinion then which you are entitled to. In no way are you able to dispute my proposal however. IMO I think both mechanisms are plausible hence mountainous regions, deep valleys and internal rifting.

Why did no marsupials from SA cross the massive shared border with Africa nor the AUS marsupials cross the massive shared border with Asia?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the climate favored their existence only at the very tip of South America, on Antarctica, and into Australia.

Not likely on balance though is it. More likely they shared a large common border comparative to all the other cross continental population spread used to support Pangea.

As a general rule, it's tough to prove things by an absence of evidence against, and this is especially true when the evidence is hard to get anyway. For example, does a missing link between apes and man prove that man was created ex nihilo? Hardly. Does an absence of marsupial fossils in Africa prove that marsupials could only have gotten to Australia by the Pacific route? No. It might just prove that we haven't dug up enough of Africa to know for sure.

It's not just about fossils. There are 334 extant species with 70% in Australia and 30% in America. This is a common problem for Pangea. As I mentioned previously (which you didn't reply to) is that there are numerous species (extinct and extant) common across the opposing Pacific coasts yet appear nowhere else. However, we are told to believe these coasts were even further apart than they are now. We complain here when mainstream science hand waves against the EU yet you are guilty of the same offence. It is certain that such common species were subject to vicariance. It is not possible for these species to cross the vast expanse of the Pacific via dispersal. Any species capable of such dispersal would be wide ranging and found everywhere via currents/winds. That's the biologists view. The plate tectonic supporting geologists of course tell them they must be wrong.

No, the North American plate is twisting.

Firstly, where did you get that information?

Wikipedia. Look it up for yourself. (If you're going to tell me to go look up the information supporting your arguments, I'll do the same to you back-atcha.)

Yet another JREF/BAUT tactic. It's common for the introducer of an idea to support it no? I already provided Wiki's description. It hardly took much research on your part unlike your (lack of) provision of information, however, I'll play the BAUT game. On the North American Plates own Wiki page it says;

For the most part, the North American Plate moves in roughly a southwest direction away from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Plate

So, did you use a different Wikipedia?

Secondly the Gakkel Ridge is clearly divergent.

Actually, as an extension of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the general scheme is that "subduction" in the Pacific is pulling Asia and the Americas toward each other, with the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (including the Gakkel Ridge) opening up as a consequence. Your conclusion that everything is moving northward relative to the South Pole, and southward relative to the North Pole, is unsupported.

Well I believe we were in agreement that the continents surround the Antarctic were heading North so I'll concentrate on the Gakkel Ridge and it's two opposing plates. Links followed by supporting comment;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gakkel_Ridge

a divergent tectonic plate boundary

http://www.divediscover.whoi.edu/expedition11/

perhaps the slowest-spreading ridge

http://www.awi.de/en/research/research_ ... dge_amore/

slow spreading rate

I know you like diagrams to visualise so here's an image of the plates meeting at the pole.

300px-Eurasian_plate.gif (24.05 KiB) Viewed 10848 times

As everyone is pretty much in agreement that the Gakkel Ridge is divergent maybe you can explain why the 2 plates either side of it in diagram are not heading south.

Your other serious problem is that evidence suggests the continents in the northern hemisphere are actually heading south and there isn't nearly enough subduction to hide all this supposedly converging crust.

Another thing that you should consider is that divergence, in the (supposed) absence of sufficient convergence, might be evidence of crustal shrinkage due to cooling.

No need to consider that as it's highly implausible. The ocean covers 70% on the planet and its much younger than the crust so you're suggesting it shrunk to 30% of it's original size. And how much does heated rock expand/contract exactly? Bear in mind land animals need to survive on the surface at this time.

[CharlesChandler]

I've been trying to get MM and his supporters to see that it's likely absurd to suppose that the energy isn't stored. All it should take to realize that is that the Sun puts out way more radiation than it receives.

I agree. The solar radiation at 1 AU is 1367 watts per square meter, with 1050 watts per square meter making it all of the way through the atmosphere to hit the surface of the Earth. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight) And this is coming the the Sun, which produces 63 million watts per square, as you said. That has to come from somewhere. Brant is brewing an idea that the Sun is a huge antenna, which picks up waves that we cannot detect, because we don't have anything big enough. Then, the EM energy is thermalized, producing the heat & light that we get. It's an interesting idea, but I still think that we have to fully investigate the things that we can see, before we postulate the existence of things we can't.

If we can show that way more radiation is emitted by the Sun than is received by it, it should be easy to prove that most of the Sun's energy is stored. Do you agree? And if we prove that, I think it would be almost incumbent on them to study your model of accretion for explaining how energy is likely stored in stars and planets during formation.

There will never be a way to prove that no energy is being received from external sources, especially if there is some reason why it isn't detectable by normal instrumentation. For that matter, there is no way to prove that cold dark matter doesn't exist, if it is defined as being something that defies detection by ordinary instrumentation. But we can tally up the effects of the known forces, and that might leave very little on the table for CDM proponents to explain. Likewise, for external energy sources to the Sun, IMO we should first make a thorough investigation of the known forces. If that makes a full accounting of the solar energy budget, then we never disproved any alternate theses, but we will have focused attention on what produces the lion's share of the energy.

Michael Vaicaitis' Model

I don't delve much into redefinitions of fundamental forces. I think that QM is a mess, and needs to be overhauled, but I'll leave that to somebody else. I already have a full plate, with what I'm doing in astrophysics & geophysics. And I can comfortably proceed, even knowing that the bedrock might move around on me, as advances are made in our understanding of wave & particle physics, just because the macroscopic behaviors aren't going to change, so all of the formulas will still work. This is why mechanical engineers didn't all get laid off when Einstein announced that Newtonian mechanics is just an illusion -- call it an illusion if you want, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't accurately represent the material world, at its level of description. So if somebody reinvents sub-atomic physics, I might have to learn some new jargon, but it isn't going to change any of the work that I've done.

Anyway, in consideration of the fact that rock has a much higher compression strength than tensile strength, if it's going to fraction due to a reduction in the degree of curvature, the crust will rift on the bottom, but without getting scrunched into mountains at the surface. So I'm still not convinced that expansion would cause mountain-building. Sorry.

Well that's just personal opinion then which you are entitled to. In no way are you able to dispute my proposal however. IMO I think both mechanisms are plausible hence mountainous regions, deep valleys and internal rifting.

Whatever. As concerns the rest of your comments, I'd just like to say that you're trying to pick a fight with somebody who already said that the Expanding Earth Hypothesis is somewhere between interesting and compelling (though I don't think that it's the whole story). OK, so it takes an adversary to sharpen one's wits, and you think that you have one in me. But my position is not so diametrically opposed that it would be useful. This is also something that I haven't studied in detail. I know a little bit more about Fischer's Shock Dynamics model, and he did such a thorough job that I consider it to be quite compelling. IMO, the whole truth is probably a combination. But it would take more study on my part to be a worthy adversary. In the meantime, I have been slowly accumulating the arguments for/against the various models of the Earth's crust, which you can find on my website:

QDL / Topics / Science / Geophysics / Tectonics

IMO, whenever a variety of hypotheses have undergone a substantial amount of development, without the issue being resolved, the most useful way to approach it is to lay out the various models, identifying the central contentions, the objections, and the rebuttals. Then at least you don't get lost in the vast expanses of arguments, where 90% of the literature is redundant, and many of the problems are coming from people just not being familiar with the legitimate points on both sides. So instead of burying the revelations under yet another layer of verbosity, it's useful to condense the arguments into good logical form, and to eliminate the repetitive arguments by having each statement occur in only one place, along with its objections and rebuttals. If you'd like to help with this organizational effort, you can either register on my site and do the work directly, or you can post well-formatted arguments & information here, and I'll transfer them to my site. When presented more clearly and more concisely, the truth is more compelling, so I'd like to encourage you to pursue it.

[Lloyd]

How much Energy Stored in DLs?
Charles, there's a question at another thread, http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15499, about how much potential energy there would be in charge separation. Are you able to calculate how much potential energy there is between the double layers in the Sun or the Earth? If a planetoid did not experience tidal forces, would the stored energy in its double layers be able to be released some other way? Wouldn't such a planetoid be able to remain a planetoid indefinitely, as long as it doesn't get hit by too large an impactor?

[CharlesChandler]

How much Energy Stored in DLs?
Are you able to calculate how much potential energy there is between the double layers in the Sun or the Earth?

I calculated that a total of 6.67 × 1046 J went into the Sun originally, mainly as energy stored in the momentum of the implosion. The fact that the matter didn't bounce off of itself means that the kinetic energy was converted to electrostatic potential.

If a planetoid did not experience tidal forces, would the stored energy in its double layers be able to be released some other way? Wouldn't such a planetoid be able to remain a planetoid indefinitely, as long as it doesn't get hit by too large an impactor?

Yes, the energy can stay trapped inside a dead star/planet, until/if/when there is a collision sufficient to blow it apart, and release all of the potential. And of course that collision will happen sooner or later. Then the whole cycle repeats.

[Aardwolf]

Whatever. As concerns the rest of your comments, I'd just like to say that you're trying to pick a fight with somebody who already said that the Expanding Earth Hypothesis is somewhere between interesting and compelling (though I don't think that it's the whole story). OK, so it takes an adversary to sharpen one's wits, and you think that you have one in me. But my position is not so diametrically opposed that it would be useful. This is also something that I haven't studied in detail. I know a little bit more about Fischer's Shock Dynamics model, and he did such a thorough job that I consider it to be quite compelling. IMO, the whole truth is probably a combination. But it would take more study on my part to be a worthy adversary. In the meantime, I have been slowly accumulating the arguments for/against the various models of the Earth's crust, which you can find on my website:

QDL / Topics / Science / Geophysics / Tectonics

IMO, whenever a variety of hypotheses have undergone a substantial amount of development, without the issue being resolved, the most useful way to approach it is to lay out the various models, identifying the central contentions, the objections, and the rebuttals. Then at least you don't get lost in the vast expanses of arguments, where 90% of the literature is redundant, and many of the problems are coming from people just not being familiar with the legitimate points on both sides. So instead of burying the revelations under yet another layer of verbosity, it's useful to condense the arguments into good logical form, and to eliminate the repetitive arguments by having each statement occur in only one place, along with its objections and rebuttals. If you'd like to help with this organizational effort, you can either register on my site and do the work directly, or you can post well-formatted arguments & information here, and I'll transfer them to my site. When presented more clearly and more concisely, the truth is more compelling, so I'd like to encourage you to pursue it.

Fair enough, at least you're keeping an open mind. I had a look at your link and I would add a few more items supporting an Expanding Earth that as far as I am aware no other theories can explain.

All Megaflora and Megafauna are explained not just dinosaurs.
The slowing of Earths rotation.
Far larger abundance of known and observed diverging plate boundaries compared to assumed and hidden converging boundaries.
Refilling of deep oil reserves.
Free hydrogen and water found in Kola borehole.
Trans-Pacific disjunctions of extant and extinct species.

and last but not least my personal favourite;

The continuous mass increases of the standard kilograms. From Wikipedia;

Caption: Mass drift over time of national prototypes K21–K40, plus two of the IPK's sister copies: K32 and K8(41).[Note 10] All mass changes are relative to the IPK. The initial 1889 starting-value offsets relative to the IPK have been nulled.[31] The above are all relative measurements; no historical mass-measurement data is available to determine which of the prototypes has been most stable relative to an invariant of nature. There is the distinct possibility that all the prototypes gained mass over 100 years and that K21, K35, K40, and the IPK simply gained less than the others.

Needless to say this is something that has baffled science ever since they created them.

[CharlesChandler]

I had a look at your link and I would add a few more items supporting an Expanding Earth that as far as I am aware no other theories can explain.

I added those to:

QDL / Topics / Science / Geophysics / Tectonics / Expanding Earth: the continents used to cover the whole Earth, but the Earth grew, and the continents separated. / Explanation

As time goes on, I'll fill in more of the details.

[Lloyd]

Causes of Present Atmospheres

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 30#p101606

Lloyd wrote: Maybe Charles has ideas too about how gravity may have been weaker in the past.

Postby CharlesChandler » Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:05 pm
In the CFDL model, if the Earth is expanding, it is not because of added mass, but rather, because of reduced electric forces. Thus the smaller Earth would have had the same mass, but the gravity field actually would have been more dense. So the dinosaur problem would only be solvable with Juenemann's hypothesis of a thicker atmosphere.
- Note that the thickness of the atmosphere, and the density of the gravity field, are not directly related. Venus is smaller than the Earth, but its atmosphere is much more dense. It's also highly electrified. So I think that Venus has an electric field that keeps the atmosphere bound to the planet.
- BTW, I "think" that the thicker atmosphere hypothesis is the only one that solves the problem for flying dinosaurs. If less gravity is coupled with a thinner atmosphere, it's no advantage. You need less gravity and/or a thicker atmosphere, and I "think" that the atmosphere is the bigger factor.

Is outgassing by a planetoid likely the source of its atmosphere? If so, it looks like the gas giants have done a lot of outgassing. Venus and Titan have done quite a bit too. Earth still retains a pretty good atmosphere. The others have only thin ones at best. How long would major outgassing likely last for a Titan-, Mars-, or Earth-sized planetoid? What would cause the outgassing?

Would you agree that Earth and Mars must have lost a lot of their atmospheres, since the megafauna and megaflora on Earth needed thicker air; and Mars, as you said, likely had torrential rains, which filled an ocean, when the air was thicker there, I presume? Aren't the existing atmospheres then likely an indication that Venus, Mars and Earth were also satellites of Saturn, like Titan still is?

When you say weakening electric forces in the past would have allowed Earth to expand, how much expansion and what electric forces are you talking about? Do you mean the electric forces between the Double Layers in the Earth? Do you think the impact that gave Earth its supercontinent would have weakened the DL electric forces? If so, can you explain why such a huge impact would weaken them? In the case of Mars, it looks like a grazing impact removed its northern hemisphere surface, which I imagine would have weakened its DL electric forces. But there doesn't seem to be evidence of significant expansion there.

Saturn Theory
Since the pieces of Comet SL9 followed each other in a straight line before impacting on Jupiter, do you agree that Saturn, Titan, Venus, Mars, Earth and maybe the proto-Moon could have followed each other in a similar way from outside the heliosphere to the present orbit of Saturn? If so, can you think of anything that could very plausibly have caused those planetoids to separate from the Saturn system and move to their present orbits? Would the influence of the Sun's or Jupiter's gravity-field or electric field be likely causes, especially if the planetoids were somewhat distant from Saturn?