It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Expanding earth theory now plausible science?

page: 1
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   
I wanted to share some new ideas saying the earth might be expanding.
The idea or suggestion comes from an older study where they identified hundreds of solar and lunar eclpises thoughout history for a period of 2690 years saying the LOD(lenght of day) is undergoing a secular variation of about +17.00 +-5.00 μs/yr

Where the new paper says these variations might be caused due to a different size of the earth

Secular Increase in the Earth’s LOD Strongly implies that the Earth might be expanding radially on a Global Scale )

I will post the conclusion, the rest you can read in the pdf


' Assuming the correctness or the acceptability of the thesis put forward herein, we hereby make the following
conclusion that if one assumes the Earth to be an isolated system (of which it is not), the current secular change
in the LOD deduced by Stephenson and Morrison of 17.00 5.00 μs/yr ± , then, the Earth may
very well be expanding radially on a global scale at a steady rate of at least +0.60 mm/yr.




The problems or still unaswered questions on the EEH is what caused the expansion and where did the water come from?
I'm not a believer that water on earth comes from comets but rather that it comes from a chemical process inside the earth.
Maybe the following paper has the answers.
This is a link to a blog where you can find the original paper.

''Mass, Entropy and Our Growing Earth''

from the blog

'"The decay of five elements (O, Fe, Si, Mg and S) as exemplified by their ionization properties is responsible for the Earth accumulating
sufficient mass to double its radius at least twice in the past billion years [and was]
responsible for the oxygen in water doubling seven times in mass and volume for a one hundred and twenty-four fold increase
to incrementally fill the growing ocean beds created during the crustal expansions of (the) past 180 to 200 million years."


These ideas are far from conclusive but i hope it wil get some attention for further investigation.
I've always had troubles believing the current mainstream theory on the evolution of the earth and forming of the continents, after learning it in school and even many years later reading back on the subject.
Though i understood the working process, it never 'clicked' for me.

After reading the book 'Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth' ( by Stephen Hurrell) I was kind of intrigued by the idea of an expanding earth.
There was something about this, something more logical, making sense, something more naturally, call it what you like, it kinda fitted ( but that's what everybody tries to do when they want you to believe their theories, so yes beware).
Eventually it didn't made it to 'real science' so it got forgotten or laughed away
Many years after reading that book, i saw J. Maxlow's presentation on the EEH and it got me hooked again and noticed the idea made a sort of come back.
More and more scientist are studying the subject today and who knows maybe one day we will have a definite answer on it.


James Maxlow

Short video of Stephen Hurrell on Expanding earth and dinosaurs


Stephen Hurrell website

I'm always interested in ideas of other members on the EEH, what do you think is missing in it to stand as a theory?
And another question, as this was how i got into the EE, what do you think of the relation between and expanding earth and dinosaurs?


World Science Databace on Expansion Tectonics

' Long-Term Fluctuations in the Earth's Rotation: 700 BC to AD 1990'




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

So is this study saying that the mass of the earth is increasing? Please break it down into layman's terms for me. This may verify something that I remember hearing from the Ra material and got interested in.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   
The concept of the expanding earth, to me, seems akin to evolution insomuch as it is kind of an obvious.

The solar wind is a source of water. And over billions of years of constant sunlight, I can imagine that the cumulative effect would be somewhat profound.

Not to say that solar wind has created our oceans. But I refuse to believe that comets have created enough impact overall in the water table that we would actually find any real and tangible measurement.

The things in a system accrete. That is what gravity does. And accretion is another word of "expanding".



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   
After watching this a few years ago by accident i completely agree with the theory , even before I saw the video I sometimes thought the land masses looked like they connected . But even if this theory if wrong there still we get up to 10 to 100 tons a day of space dust times a few million years would grow slowly as well . Maybe why dinosaurs were so big was there was less gravity hundreds of millions years ago when they started to roam the earth



one the same guy did of mars and shrunk down the rift

edit on 21/4/14 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

It's an interesting theory and I have been following it for many years. What is quite striking are the parallel line striations on the floor of the Pacific Ocean, it almost appears as pulled toffee, which makes one really wonder as to their cause. The present theory concerning tectonic plate displacement does not match up with the production of large scale striations. It is more like two plates that are constantly spreading apart and the seam between the two allows for the slow ejection of magma to fill in the gaps and cool, thereby creating a linear and recognizable pattern. I'm not a geologist, but it just seems common sense.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 4/21.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: brazenalderpadrescorpio

To break it down in one word, yes.


The why is a bit more complicated to say in one word



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

It's interesting, but I don't think it adds up.

If the Earth were expanding by a constant rate of .6 mm a year, over 4.5 billion years that would come out to a bit less than 1,700 miles. Meaning that the Earth would have started out at around 6,200 mile in diameter. Bringing us to it's current size of 7,918 miles.

Using these numbers it does not fit with the expanding earth theory referenced in your sources.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: freedomSlave Maybe why dinosaurs were so big was there was less gravity hundreds of millions years ago when they started to roam the earth



I used to think that, but I was told it was due to there being more oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the time.

I could believe the Earth was smaller at the time too, surely there is more land mass now due to lava setting from volcanic eruptions? When people do archaeological digs, there discoveries tend to be under several feet of earth, so again that indicates the Earths land is a bit bigger.

But for the Earth to be overall bigger...where did the extra mass come from?



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   
I've always been really interested in this topic. One thing that makes me believe is that dinosaurs were impossibly huge Along with all the mega fauna and such. I read an article that came to the conclusion that the megasauruss could not exist in our present day gravity because there is a max size limit that bones can withstand before they break and where muscles just are too big to move their own weight. On top of that it said the Dino needed an incredibly high blood pressure to pump blood to its head. Giraffes at their size and length already struggle to pump blood and I've read they commonly have heart problems early on. I wonder if the energy from the sun or galaxy, high energy particles, neutrinos, I wonder if they might collide with the earths dense core and by some QM mechanism turn in to mass? So many questions I can't wait to know he answers to.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: woogleuk

Maybe there was a denser oxygen rich atmosphere because the size of the earth was smaller and now that it's expanded it's not as dense as it was.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Golden Nyambuya (whoever he is) does not seem to consider the fact that the Moon is tidally locked with the Earth.

Besides causing the Moon's rate of rotation to match its orbital period (meaning we only see one face of it), this also causes the Earth's rotation to slow and the Moon move away.

No expansion required. Tidal locking accounts for change in the length of a day quite well.


The Moon is also pulling back on the tidal bulge of the Earth, slowing the Earth's rotation. Tidal friction, caused by the movement of the tidal bulge around the Earth, takes energy out of the Earth and puts it into the Moon's orbit, making the Moon's orbit bigger (but, a bit pardoxically, the Moon actually moves slower!).

The Earth's rotation is slowing down because of this. One hundred years from now, the day will be 2 milliseconds longer than it is now.

curious.astro.cornell.edu...

2 milliseconds in 100 years is 20 microseconds per year.

edit on 4/21/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: woogleuk



But for the Earth to be overall bigger...where did the extra mass come from?


I would say a combination of many things lava surfacing, space dust , particles from the sun the sun is always ejecting mass , if e=mc2 what happens with all the energy created by a spinning core of a planet . At what point does energy manifest its self into mass, particle after particle many particles have weight trillions of particles have to go somewhere . Where did all mass come from ? what is mass ? what ever mass is and where is comes from it seems to be never ending

ETA No one has the answers it is one of the biggest mystery of all time. To me this feels the most right direction


edit on 21/4/14 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yes that could be, but to say these are responsible for all the amount of water today, i also find it hard to believe.
I don't know about solar wind as most of it is deflected back into space by the magnetosphere.
Maybe it could be a factor for the decay of the elements.

I like the ionic growing earth theory, it got some potential and 'for me' an interesting explanation for where the water came from and why today we have more water than land



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: intergalactic fire

It's interesting, but I don't think it adds up.

If the Earth were expanding by a constant rate of .6 mm a year, over 4.5 billion years that would come out to a bit less than 1,700 miles. Meaning that the Earth would have started out at around 6,200 mile in diameter. Bringing us to it's current size of 7,918 miles.

Using these numbers it does not fit with the expanding earth theory referenced in your sources.


If I remember right, the theory was that the earth, when formed, started out around 6000 miles in diameter. As material cooled and the earth acted like a giant dust collector, expansion began and resulted in the size we see today. And of course we get striations, the earth is rotating and it is probable that there will be some level of centrifugal drag between crustal layers, the magma and the core.

BTW, someone else mentioned that comets could not have seeded the earth with water, don't be too sure. All the water on the planet would fill a very small sphere, 900 miles in diameter, relative to the earth's size. Comets left as residual material in the inner solar system would melt if not impacted and might provide dispersed water from the partial vacuum of space. Comets from the Oort Cloud and the asteroid belt might have provided the rest. It's a possibility, but I do like the idea of the alternative as well, that being processes within the earth coupled with solar radiation and CME's.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Ok maybe i should not have posted the two ideas in one thread, as this could be of some confusion. Maybe just the second as it is a lot more interesting and goes into more detail. Would rather like to know your view on that one.

Well mister Golden is from Zimbabwe, everyone knows that


But yes like you say 2 milliseconds over 100 year caused by the moon, that's nothing indeed.
And i'm guessing he knows that but this didn't match up with the findings of Stephenson and Morrison, so there has to be something else besides the moon causing the deceleration.
I would like to read the full paper but as a non registered member i'm not allowed to download it.
edit on 21-4-2014 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

I don't hold much truck with the EEH. One reason being that there is strong evidence against it.

From a qualitative argument, it is shown that the observed Late Palaeozoic and Early Mesozoic palaeomagnetic data are not what should be expected from an expanded Earth. We conclude that it appears unlikely that the Earth has expanded significantly since the Early Mesozoic.

gji.oxfordjournals.org...


The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.

www.sciencedaily.com...

The Earth wasn't expanding 250 million years ago and it isn't expanding now. But the continents were moving and still are.

edit on 4/21/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Golden Nyambuya (whoever he is) does not seem to consider the fact that the Moon is tidally locked with the Earth.

Besides causing the Moon's rate of rotation to match its orbital period (meaning we only see one face of it), this also causes the Earth's rotation to slow and the Moon move away.

No expansion required. Tidal locking accounts for change in the length of a day quite well.


The Moon is also pulling back on the tidal bulge of the Earth, slowing the Earth's rotation. Tidal friction, caused by the movement of the tidal bulge around the Earth, takes energy out of the Earth and puts it into the Moon's orbit, making the Moon's orbit bigger (but, a bit pardoxically, the Moon actually moves slower!).

The Earth's rotation is slowing down because of this. One hundred years from now, the day will be 2 milliseconds longer than it is now.

curious.astro.cornell.edu...

2 milliseconds in 100 years is 20 microseconds per year.


I agree, except it is not paradoxical. Objects with a constant angular momentum energy, change in rotational rate as their surface (or rotational mass around a center) moves out from the center, specifically, the rotating object slows down. The same can be seen in a skater when they spin, as they move their arms out they slow down, as they pull their arms in they speed up. That would be conservation of angular momentum and conservation of energy.

Since the moon and earth are tidally locked, it stands to reason that as the earth expands, surface rotation *will* slow down, which in turn will transfer energy to the moon, which will also move the moon outward and slow its orbit down because the positive energy transfer away from center to the moon's orbit requires an equivalent change in momentum, slowing down. Because of gravity and the inverse square law, the energy in the entire system still has to follow the conservation of angular momentum law, so there would still be equivalency in rate changes in this two body scenario. The moon would still present the same face to the earth with little to no deviation over time.

It's late, I'm tired and I have Easter dinner later, but I think I said that right ;-)

Cheers - Dave



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Just a question, does cooling rock expand?

Say when magma cools off, does it grow in size (not mass)

Like water freezing ?

I'm not to familiar with geology, so excuse my ignorance, just extrapolating on the thought.

But do Lighter weight and density materials tend to be expelled through the natural tectonic process? I would imagine the gradual march of time, would allow for some expansion and or contraction based on the Earth still having Tectonic activity?

Liquid magma, under pressure in the core, lighter material less dense, makes its way out, expands with cooling, etc.

Just thinking out loud.

I remember recently about the discovery of water at depths not thought possible in the crust as well, it would seem to me, that we may not know entirely the mechanisms at play.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



From both quantitative and qualitative arguments, significant Earth expansion since the Late Palaeozoic is unlikely. If expansion of the order required by Carey’s model has occurred at some time during the Earth’s history, then from palaeomagnetic data it would appear to have occurred before Late Palaeozoic times.

gji.oxfordjournals.org...

So that's what the Ionic growing earth shows, it is shown in the graph i posted before.
During that period the mass and radius stopped growing for a period between 241 and 264 mya.
Expansion took place before and after this period.

Can't quote from the article(protected)
Don't know if this link will work
onedrive.live.com...
edit on 21-4-2014 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle


Since the moon and earth are tidally locked, it stands to reason that as the earth expands, surface rotation *will* slow down, which in turn will transfer energy to the moon, which will also move the moon outward and slow its orbit down because the positive energy transfer away from center to the moon's orbit requires an equivalent change in momentum, slowing down.


The Moon raises tides (both in water and earth). If the Earth were not rotating the tides would follow directly under the Moon. But since the Earth is rotating faster than the Moon is orbiting the high tides are constantly "running away" from the Moon and the Moon keeps pulling them back. The result is that the Earth's rotation is gradually slowed down. But it's a two way street, that high tide bulge also pulls the Moon forward, increasing its orbital energy and thus, the distance between it and Earth. Momentum is being transferred from Earth's rotation to the Moon's orbit.

A skater's spin slows when they spread their arms because angular momentum is conserved. If the Earth were expanding its rate of rotation would indeed decrease because angular momentum is conserved. There would be no momentum to be transferred to the Moon because it is conserved by the slowing of its own rotation due to the increase of its radius (and/or mass).

If the Earth were expanding it would also be subject to tidal "drag", so the length of a day would be shortened by both effects. The trouble is, the calculations show that the Moon pretty much accounts for the observed rate of change.







 
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join