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.

 

The Expanding Earth hypothesis.

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Hi ATS.

I know of the expanding Earth theory for quite some time now. I've noticed the ridicule and lack of attention which was logical, the lack of evidence and a theory don't go well together.


Have you got a link to his written research? I can read a whole lot faster than I can watch videos. I have time to read what he says but not a lot of video watching time.

But I can share with you the results of my investigation on other expanding Earth theories.

Question: Is the Earth expanding. Has the Earth expanded?
Answer: (Edited) The Earth is gaining a little mass, but is also cooling resulting in increased density and smaller size.

Question: By how much?
Answer: This is where the facts must be examined with great scrutiny.

There's little debate in the scientific community that the mass of the Earth is growing by 40 tons a day from cosmic dust and debris entering the Earth from space. And there's also little doubt that in the past, the figure was probably higher, and in the more distant past, the figure was even higher still. And we have large anomalies like whatever made that 200 mile wide crater in the Yucatan Peninsula. Certainly that impact added mass to the Earth. there are plenty of other impact sites that added mass to the Earth.

So I think science would agree that the Earth is gaining mass. If the snowball Earth theory is correct, then there has also been some cyclical size change in the Earth due to the thermal coefficient of expansion. Hot matter expands so a warmer Earth is probably slightly larger and slightly less dense than a colder Earth (and of course the odd behavior of water when it freezes complicates matters of calculating global density too). But this thermal coefficient of expansion is not a huge effect. It's small but measurable.

The bottom line is this. Every other expanding Earth theory has greatly exaggerated the claims for how much the Earth has expanded based on available evidence. So I'll reserve judgment on this theory until I see the evidence, but I can say based on other claims that yes the Earth has gotten more massive, but there's no conclusive evidence that the size is increasing and in fact it may be getting smaller as the core cools and density increases.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]




posted on May, 31 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thanks.

Yes I can give you those links. I even posted them in the OP.

Dr. James maxlow home page

Expansion tectonics explained.

And even in a Pdf Format. PDF download available here.

That was quick



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by cushycrux
 


That's a good question and I don't remember exactly...


He does have a theory ( the guy from the movie.) about the Earths core is some kind of inner sun where there is also fusion what creates the missing matter.

The post above talks about the hollow Earth and that theory talks about an inner sun in the core. So both theories are compatible to say the least.

We assume the Earth has an iron core and that the spinning of that core creates the magnetic field. There is one but... We don't know what is responsible for creating the magnetic field. Not so long ago there was a theory the oceans were creating the field.

If the Earth has an inner sun it would perfectly explain the magnetic field. We can observe the sun and we know it creates a magnetic field.



For all we know the earth could the remnant of a collapsed star. That some portion of the star's energy got condensed in the center isn't that far out there. The problem is that that to get research dollars you need to be in agreement with current scientific thought. Going against the grain is not the way to success.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by sligtlyskeptical]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 
Thanks for the links.

It seems he's skeptical about subduction. I'm not sure why, the evidence for it is very strong.

But the measurements of the Earths size may actually not be showing an increase in diameter corresponding with the mass increase:

Maxlow's claim:


Space geodetics is modern technology that uses satellites and radio telescopes to routinely measure the dimensions of the Earth and plate motions of the continents to sub-centimetre accuracy. During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were established to form a global network, the global excess in radius was found to be 18 mm/year – i.e. the measurements showed that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year.


But look at this:

www.physicsforums.com...


BONN, Germany (AFP) - The world is smaller than first thought, German researchers at the University of Bonn said on Thursday.

They took part in an international project to measure the diameter of the world that showed it is five millimetres (0.2 inches) smaller than the last measurement made five years ago.

Dr Axel Nothnagel, who led the Bonn researchers, told AFP the difference was crucial in the study of climate change.

"It may seem a very small difference, but it is essential for the positioning of the satellites that can measure rises in sea level.



If the inner core is cooling slowly and condensing liquid iron from the outer core sinking to the inner core could slowly reduce the size of the earth and increase the density of the core. As the nuclear energy from radioactive elements runs down the earth should cool and decrease in size.


I tried to follow up on that but the original link is broken. However that does make sense and whole I was right about the mass increase of the Earth, I forgot to allow for the cooling effect on density.

So apparently measurements do not support the expanding Earth claims. None of the speculative ideas Maxlow proposed for why the Earth would be expanding really make sense to me.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kybertech
 

think of it as spinning on a chair .. if the earth is expanding and getting dense it will have more mass cuz of the water



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


None !? Come on you have got to admit that the perfect fit of the continents makes perfect sense.

Another poster sad something about turning the inside out, creating a hollow Earth. I know

you don't have to tell me but I do find it interesting.

The explanation you give of the Earth shrinking could just as easily be the effect of Earths flexibility. You can not seriously take measurements made within five years as evidence for the geology of the Earth.

Have you read about the ocean mapping. He uses it to be a fundamental support of the theory.
Why do you also say it doesn't make sense. Is it a unreliable technique ?



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
None !? Come on you have got to admit that the perfect fit of the continents makes perfect sense.

Have you read about the ocean mapping. He uses it to be a fundamental support of the theory.
Why do you also say it doesn't make sense. Is it a unreliable technique ?

The perfect fit of the continents makes sense under the mainstream theory or his expanding Earth theory. The mainstream theory says that when 2 plates move apart in one place they are moving together somewhere else since the whole Earth is covered in tectonic plates. And where they are moving together is called subduction zones.

I don't see how ocean mapping supports his theory. His theory and the mainstream theory have to deal with the exact same ocean maps.

He never demonstrated in his writing how the ocean mapping proves what he says it does, that the expansion is increasing exponentially with time.

Just look at how he points out the problems with the first four explanations of how the Earth could be expanding in size, then says the 5th explanation is the "most popular theme":

"5. A cosmological cause involving a secular increase in the mass of the Earth. This suggestion remains the most popular theme."

I like to be able to have an open mind, but to believe that with the evidence he's provided, my brain feels like it's falling out as my signature says.

And his explanation for the formation of mountain ranges isn't consistent with observation. He refers to twisting and bending causing mountains. Well that's not what we see, we see very long mountain ranges that are more consistent in shape and size with plate collison, than with twisting and turning.

His offhand dismissal of subduction zone evidence is also not very rigorous. There's good evidence of Subduction Zones



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Hi

In the videos he explains that the mapping of the oceanic floor includes the age of the oceanic floor. He uses these age patterns that almost go in a straight line alongside the next. ( like rings in a tree ) next to this I without any arguments on the moment.

Thanks for the link I will read it



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Solid arguments about EE being wrong can be found (of course) on Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

I thought about a few of those before I even opened this page... Conservation of angular momentum is one.

PS. Accretion from space cannot possibly explain the amount of material needed in any case.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Yes I added that exact link to the OP.

The Dr. does not think the extra mass comes from outer space either.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Yes I added that exact link to the OP.

The Dr. does not think the extra mass comes from outer space either.


Since I like others don't have time to watch 2 hrs of video, could you please summarize the alleged origin of extra mass.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability

I like the diagrams with the pangea of continents from long ago to now. It fits!


But what about before Pangea - which is geologically quite recent. Where does Rodinia fit in? That's the biggest problem with the theory - it ignores most of Earth's history and assumes a starting point just 250 million years ago.


Originally posted by ethan_500
I think that it is shrinking due to the release of heat from inside. Through volcanoes and geo thermal energy in deep sea, it is cooling down.


That was in fact an early explanation for mountains - wrinkles caused as the Earth contracted.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I did in a previous reply in this thread.
The OP also has a few possibilities in it.


He does have a theory ( the guy from the movie.) about the Earths core is some kind of inner sun where there is also fusion what creates the missing matter.


Maybe you should consider to read the thread before you reply.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Please watch the videos.

The guy explains in plain English where Rodinia comes from



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Essan
 


Please watch the videos.

The guy explains in plain English where Rodinia comes from


Does he have a paper I can read? Or even a book? I'm happy to give him money for a book even if I think his theory is complete nonsense. I much prefer and digest what is said than to read than watch internet videos.

Be interested in how he explains orogenies - such as the Appalachian-Caledonian - without continental collisions which his theory seems to make impossible. How did the English Island Arc merge with Scotland under an expanding Earth? And lots more.

Where does snowball earth and the extinction of the edicarian lifeforms fit in?

I would hope to see something which provides a better explanation of all observations than the current tectonic model.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Yes I added that exact link to the OP.

The Dr. does not think the extra mass comes from outer space either.


Since I like others don't have time to watch 2 hrs of video, could you please summarize the alleged origin of extra mass.


He listed all 5 in the beginning of the thread, but #5 is the author's favorite:

"5. A cosmological cause involving a secular increase in the mass of the Earth. This suggestion remains the most popular theme."

Like I said a few posts up, I like to be open minded but to believe that I have to be so open minded my brain would fall out.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Essan
 


Please watch the videos.

The guy explains in plain English where Rodinia comes from


Does he have a paper I can read?


I asked the same question, here you go:


Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thanks.

Yes I can give you those links. I even posted them in the OP.

Dr. James maxlow home page

Expansion tectonics explained.

And even in a Pdf Format. PDF download available here.


But he apparently covers ocean mapping in the videos better than in writing. I may not have time to watch the videos but I don't understand his ocean mapping argument from what he's written.

If anyone knows which video his ocean mapping stuff is in I might find time to watch just that section on ocean mapping.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


If I remember correct he talks about it in part 2.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

He does have a theory ( the guy from the movie.) about the Earths core is some kind of inner sun where there is also fusion what creates the missing matter.


Maybe you should consider to read the thread before you reply.


Thank you. Be advised that fusion does not create matter. It actually destroys some fraction of it by conversion to energy. So maybe you should consider pondering the thesis you are about to post, lest it may turn out to be babbling of a 4-year old.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



Thank you. Be advised that fusion does not create matter. It actually destroys some fraction of it by conversion to energy. So maybe you should consider pondering the thesis you are about to post, lest it may turn out to be babbling of a 4-year old.


No need to be offended. I didn't intent to.

You probably say the same thing when someone asked questions which can be found in the OP or a reply.

No need for the insult either especially after the comment you made of a 4 year old.


Anyway. I always read your posts if I see one. Usually your posts make make me think.


This theory isn't mine either, I posted it because I'd like to hear what others think about it. For me it's easier to understand then just reading a page of theory. People here have a way to give an explanation as if they were talking to a 4 year old.

That works fine for me cause I do not have to do 2 tasks simultaneously. English is not my first language and sometimes I'll have to think about what I just read before I get it.


So fusion does not create matter. I know. Maxlow does not go deeper with his explanation and he makes it clear that it is just a theory.

What happens with the Sun then ?

It is burning a lot of matter yet it stays the same size. Is it burning just enough for it not to expand ? Or is the mass it burns replaced ?
The fusion obviously makes some matter disappear as energy.




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join