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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:22 pm

webolife wrote:Good questions.
First, let me suggest a slightly different take on "spreading" zones...
assume that the earth is splitting from some interior activity as the SM suggests, then the lavas spew from the fissure in relatively global manner, producing the stripy zones. Magnetically speaking, if these outpourings are relatively recent and not particularly long-age correlated, it only makes sense that not-quite-totally-solidified consecutive flows would exhibit magnetic striping effects. Remember that the same "spreading evidences" would appear if only one side of the zone was moving! The entire fissure could be migrating away from the Antarctic continent even if the continent was not acting as a brake, so to speak. The layering, which even your linked images shows, is based on a lot of supposition based on a smattering of evidence [those seismic dots, for example], and may not be so correlated as it appears in the colored graphics, particularly by age, which is based on assumptions of past magnetic reversals, and their alleged timelines. Again look back at the supposed directions of spread in those zones to see they are not all southpole directed.
OK lets assume that the movement is the other side of the fissures. That means the other continents were and are moving away from Antartica. As its clear and undisupted that Europe/Africa is moving away from America these must both also be moving north together also. However, when you look at the north pole you can see that spreading indicates that northern Europe is actualy moving away from greenland/North America where they should logically be pushed together. It just doesn't add up.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by webolife » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:29 am

Try that objection again in the light of the plasticity of the continents, the mountain forming regions, etc.
Where there is "give" in one location, there is "take" in another, just as the SM suggests. Realize I am not strictly an SM-er, as I see the entire event happening in a much shorter time frame... The plasticity of Antarctica is included here as well, but there is limited evidence due to the glacial cover. In the expanding earth scenario there is absolutley no need for mountain ranges or trenches, as I see it.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

User avatar
Brigit Bara
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Brigit Bara » Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:24 pm

allynh >> Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:31 pm

Great Freund summary. This forum is one of the best kept secrets on the internet!

He also does research on the presence of oxygen in our atmosphere.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:20 pm

webolife wrote:Try that objection again in the light of the plasticity of the continents, the mountain forming regions, etc.
Where there is "give" in one location, there is "take" in another, just as the SM suggests. Realize I am not strictly an SM-er, as I see the entire event happening in a much shorter time frame... The plasticity of Antarctica is included here as well, but there is limited evidence due to the glacial cover. In the expanding earth scenario there is absolutley no need for mountain ranges or trenches, as I see it.
However there is far more give than there is take. The newer crust around Antartica (and the planet generally) in the last 50 my is far more than can be explained by the creation of mountains or the limited areas of supposed subduction. And the mountains are easily explained by expanding earth. As it expands the curvature reduces causing a crumpling of the crust. Just look what happens to the skin on your knuckles when you extend you finger; its the same effect. This also explains why the mountains are as young as the ocean floor; something that SM cannot explian. According to SM there have been multiple pangea so why are most mountain ranges only as old as last one? Are we expected to accept that the moutains plateau each time?

User avatar
tolenio
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:17 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by tolenio » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:10 am

Hello,

Can't a planet grow or shrink with little change in mass? Why can't its magnetic field strength have influences on the size of the sphere?

I think after watching Lorenz/Zahn's demonstration on the effects of a rotating axial magnetic field on a ferrofluid's mass movements it is a reasonable suggestion as to why.

Note the initial expansion of the mass as the field comes up to strength.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu6L2M2gpu4

Change the field strength, change the distribution of mass. Since average incoming instellar plasma varies over the 225 million years of galactic orbit the sun and its planets should vary in diameter with field strength variations.

Tom
"The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so. As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves." Gospel of Thomas http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:28 am

The ferrofluids are so cool, but I don't think they account for the growth.
800px-Ferrofluid_Magnet_under_glass_edit.jpg
You have to remember, there is Expanding Earth and Growing Earth, two different things. The first would have constant mass (whatever mass is), the other would be increasing mass over time. The first would start with a small Earth with high gravity (whatever gravity is), the second would start with a small Earth and low gravity.

The existence of large insects (centipedes the length of a bus) and animals (flying dinosaurs that can eat a human in one bite) in the distant past indicate a lower gravity than today, thus Growing Earth Theory is the best fit for the facts.

Yet, the ferrofluids are so cool.
800px-Ferrofluid_close.jpg
Ferrofluid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrofluid

BTW, the spikes on the ferrofluid would be the points where the magnetic field lines (whatever they are) come out of the surface, like this.
100322magfield.jpg
Look at the computer image of the Sun and realize that each planet and moon is embedded in the same mesh of magnetic fields.

And that is the fundamental problem with trying to communicate these concepts, we are limited by what we can see. Yet when we use computers to visualize magnetic fields, or infrared/ultraviolet/radio waves people will not see because if they do, then they have to accept the fact that the Earth is not stable, and that what has happened to places like Haiti and Chile in the past year could happen world wide on a scale that is unsurvivable for the majority of the population.

That's why I love disaster movies like 2012, they give you an idea of the level of devastation that would happen if any of the catastrophe events occurred again.

2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_(film)

Once you can wrap your mind (whatever mind is) around the concepts of EU and GET and what they imply, then we can focus on developing some kind of "aether technology" and get off this planet (lifting whole cities) before the next "Big One" hits.

Doomsday event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_event

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by webolife » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:42 pm

Aardwolf,
Your expanding earth analogy of the finger extension doesn't work... as soon as you restrict the amount of space [eg the amount of skin] available for morphing, you are back to a nonexpanding view, au contraire to what you were thinking. As with the big bang theory, the expanding earth theory falls down when clumpiness is brought into the picture. If anything the surface should be becoming more smooth with expansion.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:01 pm

webolife wrote:Aardwolf,
Your expanding earth analogy of the finger extension doesn't work... as soon as you restrict the amount of space [eg the amount of skin] available for morphing, you are back to a nonexpanding view, au contraire to what you were thinking.
Not sure I follow. While the Earth is still curved the continental crust will continue to crumple until its completely flat (which can never happen with an expanding sphere). All that's happening is that the growth of the mountains would be slowing compared to the initial expansion. Another analogy would be to take the skin of an orange and flatten it out. It splits in places and crumples in others just like the continents.
webolife wrote:As with the big bang theory, the expanding earth theory falls down when clumpiness is brought into the picture. If anything the surface should be becoming more smooth with expansion.
Only if the continental crusts were perfectly consistent in structure and depth. The clumpiness you mention is the continents and when you flatten one of these clumps you create mountains and cracks. Considering all the different types of rock it would be ridiculous to expect them to dissipate evenly. The earth will expand and express matter at the weakest points and once established continue along those weaker and also thinner areas.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by webolife » Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:09 pm

The problem with your orange peel is the same problem with your skin analogy.
Neither the orange peel nor the skin are expanding, in fact they are both contracting in your illustrations.
The texture of the continents and ocean basins is precisely what the theories are trying to explain!
If you premise your theory that texture is already in place, who needs any other theory?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:40 pm

webolife wrote:The problem with your orange peel is the same problem with your skin analogy.
Neither the orange peel nor the skin are expanding, in fact they are both contracting in your illustrations.
The texture of the continents and ocean basins is precisely what the theories are trying to explain!
If you premise your theory that texture is already in place, who needs any other theory?
I didn't say the crust is expanding. It's whats inside the earth (probably in magma form) that's expanding and causing the cooled crust around it to crack and crumple and form new crust in the gaps/faults. By definition the original continental crust hasn't expanded because when you track back 250 my it fits together in a much smaller sphere with no oceans, less gravity and no mountains because of the increased curvature.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by webolife » Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:36 pm

Oh, I get what you're seeing... the orange peel is just a single continent with a reducing curvature...
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:40 pm

Krackonis posted a great concretion that looks similar to what we are talking about here.
concretiongenesee.jpg
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 105#p31187

But since we are talking fruit, lets start by looking at a tangerine.

- The tangerine is the Earth when it was the size of the Moon.

Now peel the tangerine skin off in continent size pieces and glue the skin onto an orange, trying to make the tangerine skin as flat as you can.

- The orange with the tangerine skin glued on is when the Earth was about the size of Mars.

Where the orange peel is you have shallow seas, with tangerine continents. This is the time of the dinosaurs. They died off when the growth continued, splitting the orange peel, increasing the gravity.

Now peel the orange with the tangerine skins still glued on, and glue those onto a grapefruit, trying to flatten both orange/tangerine skin flat.

- That is the Earth as it is now, with deep grapefruit oceans and orange/tangerine continents.

Notice, that it is getting harder to force the orange/tangerine continents flat. Places are bunching up to form mountains, or splitting and flattening out like Africa.

Now here is the scary part, the growth has not stopped. The deep ocean trenches are where you are starting to see the grapefruit skin start to split open.

To see what the Earth will look like next, peel the grapefruit, keeping the orange/tangerine continents on, and glue it on a cantaloupe. To flatten the grapefruit/orange/tangerine skin out, large pieces are splitting, breaking up the familiar shapes we know.

This is where we start to see the next stage of growth where we will be grapefruit/orange/tangerine continents with deep cantaloupe oceans, and where the Earth is twice the gravity.

Remember, the dinosaurs died off when the gravity grew greater than Mars levels (a third gravity). When the gravity increases, large land animals like elephants, giraffe, horse, etc..., will die off. Large birds like crows, eagles, will not be able to fly. Only small birds and insects will be able to fly.

If the water and atmosphere does not increase, the oceans will only be where the cantaloupe is. The edge of the grapefruit skin will be the coastline and the tangerine skin will be high mountain plateaus outside the atmosphere, with the only livable areas being on the grapefruit/orange skin.

If the water and atmosphere increases equally, then the cantaloupe oceans will all be 33,000 feet (6.25 miles) deep and the grapefruit/orange/tangerine continents will split and flatten out like Africa has.

These are all fairly rough sizes, because I'm running out of fruit to peel and glue on, so I'll just mention that James Maxlow has done all this work, but without fruit, and taken the Earth all the way back to when it was smaller than the Moon.

This is his lecture series on Youtube.
http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/index.p ... sition=5:5

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by webolife » Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:30 pm

Watched the entire fascinating video by Maxlow. Very nice animations and presentation of topographical and geological evidence. The fit of the actual continental masses in the original earth is quite impressive. Some objections I have:
1. He never did give a mechanism for expansion.
2. He never told whether the incredible thickness of mantle and crustal material was produced from a rather small thickness of extruding molten material, or whether it may have been from colliding extraterrestrial objects, or...?
It seemed to me he was saying that the mass of the earth did not significantly increase during the expansion...?
He never addressed the possibility of a hollow earth, so what is the origin of the material added to the surface during expansion?
3. He never explained where the extra volume of present oceanic water came from.
4. He relies on standard radiometic dating assumptions.
5. In his expanding earth model, the oldest materials should generally be found at higher levels [altitudes] than more recent materials, and while I readily acknowledge that the exceptional cases in which this is found to be true are nonsupportive of the standard model, I am curious as to what geologic evidence he would put forth to support this view.
6. He did not discuss atmospheric conditions which must have had a tremendous impact on survival of life through the changes.

I like the concretion... but the forms on the "continent" parts of the concretion are not apparently bumpy as a result of the crinkling orange peel scenario. Their "topography" seems to have been already in place before the concretion split... that's a great object, but how do geologists figure the inside material expanded to form it? If you can explain this to me, many of the objections I just noted may fall by the wayside....
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:39 pm

Where the new matter has come from is certainly the most dificult aspect to expanding earth theory. I think the answer lies in the EU theory. Most geologists also buy into gravity only model of the universe so they cannot conceive of the earth receiving energy/matter from external sources. My feeling is that there is a mechanism within the Earth that converts electromagnetic energy received from the sun into matter (incl water, atmosphere, oil etc.). I see no reason why this is more unreasonable that the standard theory that expects us to accept that continents cyclically travel around the planet and then all gather together only to repeat the process; a ridiculous process invented to explain problems in the same way as dark matter, dark flow etc.

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

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:58 am

Remember, what Maxlow did was work with what we actually know about the surface rock, rather than what is still unknown.

This is a pretty picture, but none of it is actually based on what is "known".
500px-Earth-crust-cutaway-english.svg.jpg
Earth Crust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_crust

The majority of "facts" that are listed as "known" in the Wiki article are actually fantasy. We don't actually know what the core looks like. We only have a vague idea of the crust itself. They only recently started developing a method to image the crust using multiple sources of noise, to produce a rough image the way a sonogram does. Once they develop a way to actually image the crust, like a sonogram with high resolution, then everything will be clear.

Maxlow took the surface data, the facts that we have known for almost a century, and unwound time back to the limits of known data. On his website you will find a summary of his work, and the abstract to his Phd thesis, with links to the actual thesis, and links to buy his book.

Dr. James Maxlow
http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/index.p ... sition=1:1

Expansion Tectonics Explained
http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/index.p ... sition=4:4

Dr. James Maxlow's PHD Thesis - Abstract
http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/index.p ... sition=8:8

Then at the Growing Earth Consortium website you will find many of the different models that have been presented. Keep an eye on the site for new information.

Welcome to Growing Earth Consortium
http://michaelnetzer.com/gu/mos/Frontpage/Itemid,1/

Just to get you started, here is more stuff by Maxlow.

Back to the Womb
http://michaelnetzer.com/gu/content/view/35/64/
Dr. James Maxlow wrote: We are led to believe that the "Big Bang" event was an explosive event, exploding debris from a singularity - nothing. We are then further misled into thinking that the Universe as we now know it accumulated from the explosive debris cast off from this Big Bang explosive event - your meteorites - their dust/rocks/etc; surely it would be material transitional from pure energy to ?plasma to matter.

So why are meteorites in orbit around the Sun? Well if you expand a rocky planet (as distinct from a wet planet such as Earth) chances are that it will disintegrate/fragment rather than grow. The Earth is a wet planet i.e. it has a huge amount of volatile material (gas/water)tied up in the crystal lattice of the mantle rocks, and as I see its growth history it is in a transitional phase from the inner rocky planets to the giant gaseous planets. I maintain that all of the solar planets originated from the Sun.

In other words as the Earth grows it eventually becomes a giant gaseous planet (for Earth in about 300-500 million years time). By stripping off the light gasses from the giant planets you are then left with a dead remnant rocky core/mantle planet i.e. the remnants of the core/mantle growth/expansion mechanism on Earth.

My vision of the Solar System, as outlined in my book, is that all of the planets/moons ultimately originated from the primitive young Sun. The primitive Sun in turn originated from within the primitive Galaxy - which in turn forms part of an even more primitive Universe. Moving back in time all things move back to their womb - so to speak. Be it plasma, hydrogen, or whatever we must move back beyond our planetary stage to begin to understand the birth of the Solar System.
Read through my description of the GET using fruit peels again, then read this essay where Maxlow describes the same thing, minus the fruit. Personally, I like my cantaloupe/grapefruit/orange/tangerine Earth description better, because it is tastier.

Primordial Earth
http://michaelnetzer.com/gu/content/view/48/63/
Dr. James Maxlow wrote: With regard to the size of the primordial Earth, we must understand what continental crust really is (ask a geologist - we have generally licked enough rocks to know). Imagine an ancient continental crust - basically granite, greenstone, plus ancient sediments, that covers the entire Earth surface about 4000 million years ago. This crust solidified from granite and volcanic magmas, plus eroded to form the sediments. Present day exposures of remnants of this ancient crust show that this crust was once up to 40km thick and subsequent erosion has been around 10-15km i.e. this crust is generally now 25-30km thick. The shear volume of this material implies that the Earth was once molten, or at least at a very high surface temperature (cooling and crystallization of minerals at that time - plus preservation to the present day, then represents the beginning of recordable geological time - but NOT necessarily the beginning of Earth existence).

Earth expansion/growth within the core/mantle will fracture and fragment this crust to form a network of rift zones surrounding the ancient crusts. These rift zones represent low-lying areas and hence will form the loci for the continental seas, plus sediments eroded from the exposed lands will accumulate in these low-lying areas. Continue this process through time and the rifts will continue to stretch and sediments will continue to erode from the exposed lands (note; sediments will not accumulate on high ground - only low ground - basins. The presence of sediments automatically implies that these were originally low-lying sedimentary basins).

Moving forward in time to the Permian Period (~250 million years ago) the ability for the continental crust to rift and stretch was finally exceeded and we had rupturing of the continental crust to form the modern continents plus opening to form the modern oceans. The rest is history for you and me.

In order to determine the primordial Earth size, we have the existing Earth to work from, plus the distribution of existing rocks (note, the granite/greenstones represent the most ancient crusts but do not necessarily occur under all crusts). By working back in time we can progressively remove the sediments from each of the sedimentary basins and return these to the exposed lands. In doing this we also progressively close each of the rifts/basins and reduce the radius of the Earth.

Continue this process back long enough in time and we are simply left with the most ancient granite/greenstone plus/minus sedimentary crusts - all else have been returned to where they came from. Coincidently, but as expected each of these ancient crusts assembled together precisely to form a primordial Earth at approximately 1700km radius (in exactly the same way as we close off the modern oceans to form the Pangaean assemblage).

The 1700km is dictated by the surface area of remnant ancient crusts existing at that time. we then simply married the 2 facts (surface area of remnant ancient crusts, and ages of these crusts) and concluded that the radius of the primordial Earth at approximately 4000 million years ago was approximately 1700km.

The fact that the vast majority of crustal rocks existing at that time were of magmatic and volcanic origin i.e. they were molten when they were originally formed and subsequently cooled and solidified to form the crust, suggested to me that, prior to approximately 4000 million years ago the Earth must have been molten - because there was so much of the stuff being intruded or extruded at the same time). If the primordial Earth were molten prior to 4000 million years ago then it goes a long way towards explaining why we do not have age dates older than this time. This time - which I call the pre-Archaean is indeterminate, i.e. you cannot assign an arbitrary time of 5,000 million years as you suggest. This time can be 10,000 million years or more, hence our start point could be much further back in time than previously implied. That is why I choose to start at my known point in time, 4000 million years ago, at 1700km radius.

The confusion regarding molten/melting is clearly justified. However, to go from a plasma state to a solid state we must pass through a molten state, hence my stance that the pre-Archaean (pre-4000 million year old Earth) was already molten. Moving forward in time the Earth then cooled and solidified. This is the mistake that the Pangea Theorists make, in that they imply that solid planetisimals accumulated, then magically melted, then magically cooled again. This is not what I am implying at all.
Then under Visual Media you will find clips from both Neal Adams and Maxlow on their models.

Visual Media
http://michaelnetzer.com/gu/content/blogsection/9/66/

Here are the Maxlow clips.

James Maxlow Video Clips
http://michaelnetzer.com/gu/content/view/46/66/

We don't know what the mechanism for growth is. This is Maxlow's comment.

Cause of Growing Earth
http://michaelnetzer.com/gu/content/view/26/63/
Dr. James Maxlow wrote: Concerning the physical cause of Earth expansion Creer (1965) maintained that, "we should beware of rejecting the hypothesis of Earth expansion out of hand on grounds that no known sources of energy are adequate to explain the expansion process". Creer further considered that, "it may be fundamentally wrong to attempt to extrapolate the laws of physics as we know them today to times of the order of the age of the Earth and of the Universe".

Carey (1976) stated that, he "may not necessarily be expected to know" the cause of Earth expansion since the answer could only be expected to be known if all relevant fundamental physics were already known. This remains equally true today, as in the past, since historically, in the evolution of knowledge, empirical phenomena have commonly been recognised long before their cause or reason has been understood.

Egyed (1963) summarized hypotheses proffered on the cause of Earth expansion since the theory of Earth expansion first gained recognition in the 1890s, and Wesson (1973) gave a comprehensive review of the cosmological implications of an expanding Earth. Carey (1983a) provided a comprehensive list of authors who have contributed to the causes of Earth expansion and recognised five main reoccurring themes:
  • a pulsating Earth (eg. Khain, 1974; Steiner, 1967, 1977; Milanovsky, 1980; Smirnoff, 1992; Wezel, 1992), where cyclic expansion of the Earth opened the oceans and contractions caused orogenesis. The proposal fails to satisfy exponentially waxing expansion and Carey (1983a) considered the theme to have arisen from the "false axiom" that orogenesis implies crustal contraction, and saw no compelling evidence for intermittent contractions;

    meteoric and asteroidal accretion (eg. Shields, 1983a, 1988; Dachille, 1977, 1983; Glikson, 1993). Rejected by Carey (1983a) as the primary cause of Earth expansion since expansion should then decrease exponentially with time, nor was ocean floor spreading explained;

    constant Earth mass, with phase changes of an originally super-dense core (eg. Lindemann, 1927; Egyed, 1956; Holmes, 1965; Kremp, 1983). Rejected by Carey (1983a) as the main cause of Earth expansion [however reviewed favourably within this page] because he considered the theme to imply too large a surface gravity throughout the Precambrian up untill late in the Palaeozoic, which he further considered was denied by several kinds of evidence (eg. Stewart, 1977, 1978, 1983).

    secular reduction of the universal gravitation constant G (eg. Ivanenko & Sagitov, 1961; Dicke, 1962; Jordan, 1969; Crossley & Stevens, 1976; Hora, 1983). Such a decline of G would cause expansion through release of elastic compression energy throughout the Earth and phase changes to lower densities in all shells (Carey, 1983a). Carey again however rejected the proposal as the main cause of expansion for three reasons; that formerly surface gravity would have been unacceptably high; that the magnitude of expansion is probably too small; and the arguments for such reduction in G were considered not to indicate an exponential rate of increase and;

    a cosmological cause involving a secular increase in the mass of the Earth as proposed by Hilgenberg (1933), Kirillov (1958), Blinov (1973, 1983), Wesson (1973), Carey (1976), Neiman (1984, 1990) and Ivankin (1990).
Carey (1983a) considered that each of the proposals briefly indicated above are soundly based and may have contributed to Earth expansion, however he considered that, because of the limitations of surface gravity in the past, there may be no alternative to an exponential increase of Earth mass with time. Where the excess mass came from was considered at length (Carey, 1983a; 1988; 1994) and he suggested that Einstein's equation E=Mc2 implies that matter and energy are interconvertable, and therefore matter is the antithesis of energy. The instant that new matter, of mass M, appears in the Universe, the potential energy E of the whole Universe increases by Mc2. Carey (1983a) considered that new mass added to the Earth must appear deep within the core, and the ultimate cause of Earth expansion, Carey concluded, must be sought in a cosmological expansion of the Universe.

More recently Kremp (1992) suggested that new geophysical evidence indicates that the Earth has been growing rapidly in the last 200 million years. Kremp indicated that seismologists have located the existence of a zone, about 200 to 300 kilometres thick at the base of the mantle, designated some 40 years ago as the "D" region. Yuen & Peltier (1980) as well as Boss & Sacks (1985) postulated the existence of a substantial flow of heat across the core-mantle boundary and concluded that if whole-mantle convection occurs in the Earth's mantle then this "D" region should be the lowest thermal boundary layer of the whole-mantle convection circulation system. With the temperature of the outer core of the core-mantle boundary estimated to be about 800 degrees higher (Lay 1989) than the "D" layer of the mantle, or perhaps even 1500 degrees higher (Williams et al 1987), Kremp (1992) concluded that this thermal increase in the outer core may be a fairly recent process forcing a rapid expansion of the Earth during the Hercynian and Alpine orogenies.

Once again it is considered that caution should be excercised in consideration of the cause of Earth expansion for fear of scientific ridicule. Old data and old modeling techniques suggested that there were limitations to surface gravity in the past (Stewart, 1977, 1978) and hence there may be no alternative to an exponential increase of Earth mass with time. It is now time to apply modern global tectonic principles to quantify the cause of Earth expansion.
Check out all the articles at the Growing Earth Consortium and see if they can answer some of your questions.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 14 guests