Expando Planet Theory more likely than Nirubu/Planet X...and happening NOW?!!!!

reply to post by CVinWA

note: could oceans currents be created by magma currents? what would this explain if it was the case? (the expanding of the oceans?)

Nice observation. You don't hear much from science looking at the effects of volcanic heat on ocean currents. If the expanding ocean ridges are being created by hot magma, it makes sense that they would have considered affects on the ocean currents.

reply to post by CVinWA


That is a good question.

1) The subduction zones can be mapped by seismic evidence. That evidence also shows not only the plate boundaries and shapes, but also the direction of movement when quakes occur. That shows the plate descending.
The magma is far below the crust surface and does not cause ocean currents. The fact that water is liquid and not frozen is due to the sun. The rotation of the Earth is the main cause of currents and winds on Earth.

2) No explanation for an expanding Earth has been given. To suggest that Mars would go through this process now when it has been its size for 4.5 billion years makes no sense to me. Why would Mars be unchanged for so long and then begin to grow? It is more reasonable that Mars would never change since it has not in billions of years.

Also, I cannot provide evidence to support my theory, because as I have said before, I am not a scientist. I do not have an education in planetary geology. I did not go to college to get a degree that would certify my opinions in this matter. I aim to ask questions that might help me understand how things work.

That's fine. What you are doing is laying your cards on the table and that is admirable.

The basic problem for an expanding Earth is that it requires more matter to make it bigger. For the diameter to double is must also be true that the radius doubles. That should be fairly clear I think. The volume of a sphere is given by the following formula:
V = 4/3 pi r^3
The caret indicates exponentiation. So the volume of a sphere is proportional to the cube of the radius. If the radius doubles, then the volume increases 8x. Let me know if this isn't clear enough.

If the Earth had volume v before it enlarged, then it has volume 8v after the diameter doubles. The difference is 8v-v = 7v. That means 7 times the original size of the Earth has to be added to the Earth to double the diameter.

Where did all of this extra matter come from? So far this obvious and glaring flaw has been skipped over by those supporting the notion of an expanding Earth. If you add 7x more material does gravity double? No. What about the surface area? That's proportional to r^2. So there is 4 times as much surface area. Where does all of the additional water come from? I suppose the same made up malarkey that was needed to increase the volume.

None of this works out. It's a huge failure.

reply to post by poet1b

Yepper, it considered to have been pretty much proven that Australia and Antarctica were once connected to Northern America, which means the Pangaea theory is pretty much toast.

Got any evidence for that? No. That's not surprising.

The only reason you are making this failed statement is that it shows the expanding earth claims to be phoney.

How do we explain that there are ancient fossils of sea creatures in the mountains without recognizing that they must have been under the sea.

And they were uplifted at subduction zones in orogenic events.

We know the ocean floors are expanding, this is also something that the plate tectonics theory has recognized. This fits in with an expanding Earth theory. We also do not know what caused the ice ages.

Tsk, tsk, please be honest. Ocean floors are not expanding. New ocean floor is created at spreading ridges, not in the middle.

To me, it all points to a period in Earths history when we must have been inundated with matter from space, which explains why and how Earth expanded.

Once again why is the moon not covered in this material? The answer is that very little material has been inbound for billions of years.

Spreading means expanding

That's starting to sound like a lie to me. Spreading is not expanding. In spreading new material appears at the edges of the plate and not in the middle.

The Pacific Ocean is not getting smaller, it is getting bigger. [/.quote]
Another lie unless you can provide any evidence for it.

reply to post by poet1b

Nice observation. You don't hear much from science looking at the effects of volcanic heat on ocean currents. If the expanding ocean ridges are being created by hot magma, it makes sense that they would have considered affects on the ocean currents.

The amount of energy heating the oceans is negligible compared to the influx from the Sun.

reply to post by stereologist


All you need is evidence to support your claims, which of course is something you have yet to produce.

There is no evidence that proves the subduction theory. There is no evidence that shows that volcanic heat does not affect ocean currents.

reply to post by poet1b

There is no evidence that proves the subduction theory. There is no evidence that shows that volcanic heat does not affect ocean currents.

You are the one makes these ridiculous claims. It is not my burden to show that everything you have stated is nonsense. It is your job to support your position.

There has been only 3 failed efforts to suggest where the extra mass comes from to expand the Earth.
Failure 1 - pores in granite (not sufficient to increase the size of the Earth)
Failure 2 - energy from the Sun (requires millions of Hiroshima sized bombs per square km per day!)
Failure 3 - influx from space (the amount of material coming in during the last billion years would add less than 10cm)

This leaves the expanding Earth claims as no more than a whimsical fantasy.

I'll help you with the massive failure on ocean currents.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_%28geology%29]Geothermal gradient

Heat flows constantly from its sources within the Earth to the surface. Total heat loss from the earth is 42 TW (4.2 × 1013 watts). This is approximately 1/10 watt/square meter on average, (about 1/10,000 of solar irradiation,) but is much more concentrated in areas where thermal energy is transported toward the crust by Mantle plumes; a form of convection consisting of upwellings of higher-temperature rock.

The sun is what heats the Earth's surface. Everyone should know that.

reply to post by stereologist


I see you're still here stating that no one has given you any answers to your questions, and that you are calling the theory an outdated failure, without giving any PROOF of why the theory is a failure.

I gave you the information with links that scientists have discovered water issuing from black holes in space, and also information with links that scientists have discovered water in the sun. Plenty of us have given information showing that all the matter needed is in space, and coming from the sun in the form of chemicals such as carbon, neon, hydrogen, silica, copper, iron, basically every chemical found in the rocks and dirt on the planet.

Can I say exactly what process may be at work, or how fast the process is occurring? No, I can't. But by the same token, YOU can't positively tell me that all your theories are correct, either.

200 years of scientific knowledge is not enough time to confirm if a theory is correct because 200 years is an extremely short period of time in a process that may take hundreds of thousands of years if the planet is actually expanding. (Which it is, as seen in the oceans, you do agree that the ocean floor is expanding, correct?)

You act like the theory you are supporting is the only one that could be correct, when others have stated that there is no reason why the two theories might not be a part of the same process.

Scientific theories fall and are changed, but it usually takes a while for a new theory that's better, to be accepted, because so many people have their pride and their livelihood caught up in it. The more stake you have in an idea, the more likely you would be to vehemently defend that idea.

Even when a new theory becomes accepted by the scientific community, the old theory is still taught and takes even longer to be discarded because some people never hear about the new theory.

As far as your comment about the expansion theory not being written up in peer reviewed journals, do you positively know that this theory is not in the process of replacing all or part of the tectonic plate theory, or the subduction zone theory. Do you positively know that this theory has NOT been written up and published in any scientific journals?

Then, we come back to, who accepts articles for publication in scientific journals? If 6 people are a part of the decision making process, and 5 of them support the tectonic/subduction/iron core idea, then I doubt the article would be published.

Look at your own behavior for proof, You aren't willing to even consider the idea, so much so in fact, I have wondered what your stake is in refuting the possibility of the expansion theory.

I have read a few times that peer reviewed journals are not the open-minded bastions that you might think, and that preferential treatment is frequently the driver of what is published.

I realize this is a scary theory because it means, if true, the earth could possibly just break up anywhere, and that means that even if you aren't in a place that is known to be earthquake or volcanic prone, there could still be a danger.

reply to post by stereologist


Evidence has been provided throughout the thread that supports all the reasons, doesn't have to be just one, for recognizing the validity of the expanded Earth theory.

You whole response can be summed up as, "is not is not is not". That is quite a level of denial you have going.

reply to post by poet1b

Evidence has been provided throughout the thread that supports all the reasons, doesn't have to be just one, for recognizing the validity of the expanded Earth theory.

You whole response can be summed up as, "is not is not is not". That is quite a level of denial you have going.

You are quite mistaken. Nothing has been provided to support the failed expanding Earth claim.

This claim is a big fat zero.

What about the source of the extra mass. I have listed the 3 failed suggestions for the source of the mass. All of them are stunning failures. Do you have another idea for the mass that you'd like to add to the list? Did I overlook another suggestion?

reply to post by sezsue

I see you're still here stating that no one has given you any answers to your questions, and that you are calling the theory an outdated failure, without giving any PROOF of why the theory is a failure.

I have shown that the 3 suggestions for the source of the mass to expand the Earth were failures. Where have you been?

I gave you the information with links that scientists have discovered water issuing from black holes in space, and also information with links that scientists have discovered water in the sun. Plenty of us have given information showing that all the matter needed is in space, and coming from the sun in the form of chemicals such as carbon, neon, hydrogen, silica, copper, iron, basically every chemical found in the rocks and dirt on the planet.

Water exists outside of the Earth. So what? What does that have to do with adding mass to the Earth? Nothing at all. It is demonstrably false that matter from space has provided any significant accretionover the last billion years.

Can I say exactly what process may be at work, or how fast the process is occurring? No, I can't. But by the same token, YOU can't positively tell me that all your theories are correct, either.

In other words you have no idea and are employing an argument of ignorance. You do realize that is a logical fallacy.

200 years of scientific knowledge is not enough time to confirm if a theory is correct because 200 years is an extremely short period of time in a process that may take hundreds of thousands of years if the planet is actually expanding. (Which it is, as seen in the oceans, you do agree that the ocean floor is expanding, correct?)

False. Most theories do not require a 100 years of data. At best you are continuing to make an argument from ignorance.

You act like the theory you are supporting is the only one that could be correct, when others have stated that there is no reason why the two theories might not be a part of the same process.

False. I am not arguing that there is a better theory. I am simply arguing that the expanding Earth theory is a flop, a no-go, a dud , a failure.

Scientific theories fall and are changed, but it usually takes a while for a new theory that's better, to be accepted, because so many people have their pride and their livelihood caught up in it. The more stake you have in an idea, the more likely you would be to vehemently defend that idea.

That is why the expanding Earth theory was tossed in the circular file decades ago. There are better ideas and the expanding Earth theory was a miserable failure.

As far as your comment about the expansion theory not being written up in peer reviewed journals, do you positively know that this theory is not in the process of replacing all or part of the tectonic plate theory, or the subduction zone theory. Do you positively know that this theory has NOT been written up and published in any scientific journals?

This is your theory. Support it. Show me a peer reviewed article.

Then, we come back to, who accepts articles for publication in scientific journals? If 6 people are a part of the decision making process, and 5 of them support the tectonic/subduction/iron core idea, then I doubt the article would be published.

Guess you don't spend much time reading peer reviewed articles. There are many published articles that are wrong. In fact, we'd expect 5% of them to be wrong if they are based on meeting the 95% confidence level.

I have read a few times that peer reviewed journals are not the open-minded bastions that you might think, and that preferential treatment is frequently the driver of what is published.

This is the trite excuse given for why a nitwit concept is not published.

Are you admitting that this so-called theory does not pass muster?

I realize this is a scary theory because it means, if true, the earth could possibly just break up anywhere, and that means that even if you aren't in a place that is known to be earthquake or volcanic prone, there could still be a danger.

It's not a scary theory. It is a bad idea. There is no explanation for a massive injection of matter to the Earth. That is the problem with it. The claims of this theory do not match the world we see around us.

reply to post by stereologist


Dark Matter; said to "constitute 80% of the matter in the universe"*

could this be the missing link in the expando planet theory?

can you explain away the possibility that dark matter could be converted into ordinary matter via an unknown process (I am assuming the sun has something to do with it)?

can you definitively say that without a doubt dark matter could play no part in the expansion of a planet? can you prove your view of the issue?

*en.wikipedia.org...

note: other than that one fact(?) I provided, I know nothing about dark matter. I had heard of it before and it recently jumped out at me as a possible way to prove/disprove/explain EPT.

reply to post by CVinWA


Notice some important issues stated in the article you linked to:
1. Dark matter can be ordinary matter that we do not see
2. Dark matter may be some exotic form that does reveal itself via gravity
3. "nonbaryonic dark matter does not contribute to the formation of the elements in the early universe"

can you definitively say that without a doubt dark matter could play no part in the expansion of a planet? can you prove your view of the issue?

So what you are asking me to do is to prove that there isn't some exotic and unknown process that props up a theory that appears to be a false idea. That is called proving a universal negative and is considered to be a logical fallacy.

Suppose that there were some exotic form of matter in the solar system that could be converted into atoms. That would be a requirement right? The description of matter is that it exhibits gravity. So if there is a large amount of matter in the solar system then it exhibits a gravitation attraction.

Consider 2 cases. One that this unknown matter which can't be detected through EM, but its gravitational attraction is uniformly spread throughout the solar system. This would seem to be the case.

One of the interesting issues that was discovered by Newton is that if you go down into the Earth the gravity eventually balances out so that as you descend the gravity is less. If the solar system were uniformly filled with this matter, then gravity would appear to be less.

Thus this exotic matter must be nonuniformly distributed. If it were clumped at all in the solar system then we would notice its presence because it would affect the motions of the known planets and other objects in the solar system. Consider the asteroid belt. It has a small total mass, not nearly enough to bundle up into a new planet. If there were any clumps of this exotic matter around we'd notice that objects were moving oddly. That is not seen.

I believe it is fair to suggest that no large planet growing clumps of exotic matter are in the solar system.

reply to post by stereologist


Here you go..........as we have all been saying, YOUR theory has just as many questions without answers, as the EPT.

Link to abstract of article printed in Annals of Geophysics. Vol 49, No 1 (2006)

A one-day symposium on new and conventional ideas in plate tectonics and Mediterranean geodynamics was held in Rome on February 19, 2003 at the headquarters of INGV. There were two main reasons for such an initiative. The first was an invitation to Giancarlo Scalera from the «Gabriele D’Annunzio» University of Chieti to present his alternative ideas on global tectonics to final year students of the Regional Geology course. The second was a reciprocal invitation to Giusy Lavecchia and Francesco Stoppa to explain their criticisms of the application of subduction-related models to Italian geology and to present their data on the recently discovered intra-Apennines carbonatite occurrences. It was decided to dedicate an entire day to seminars, involving people with a more conventional approach to geodynamics, especially those involved with seismic tomography.

In the last few years, high-resolution mantle tomographic models have been widely used to unravel the geometry of subduction zones. A turning point in the field, however, was a review paper written by Fukao et al. (Rev. Geophysics, 39, 291-323, 2001) showing that there was no clear evidence for slab subduction down to the core-mantle boundary, thus posing a major problem on the balance between the lithosphere subducted at consuming plate margins and the large amount of oceanic lithosphere accreted at diverging plate margins. This prompted the need to re-evaluate the nature of subduction and plate margin evolution.

Accepting the theory of plate tectonics, many problems remain open, especially those regarding plate driving mechanisms and their possible link with the forces developed at the core-mantle boundary. Might these forces trigger pulsating tectonic and magmatic activity, with mantle upwellings and large-scale emission of CO2, capable of causing dramatic changes in the composition of the atmosphere and changes at the Earth’s surface? Could these lead to major catastrophic changes in Earth history? During the one-day symposium, a stimulating discussion took place involving different interpretations of observations, especially those relating to the geodynamics of the Mediterranean region. Although the papers in this collection do not provide unique solutions, they do, however, provide new insights into some problems and in some cases suggest new interpretations. Many questions also arise about the relationships between the tectonics of the lithosphere and the deep mantle processes. May the denser portions of the inner parts of the Earth transform into shallower, lighter chemical phases, with a possible increase in the Earth’s volume?

Finally – as a link to fundamental physics – an original mechanism of energy conversion from gravitons to photons is proposed as a supply of energy for global tectonic processes. Obviously, because of an often diverse philosophical and scientific background, it is difficult for the ideas presented in this supplement to be shared by all readers and contributors. But we hope that these ideas will help to encourage critical evaluations of some commonly accepted concepts in modern plate tectonic theory.

Yeah........looks like some scientists, unlike other people, are willing to postulate, and even accept that the THEORY of plate tectonics, subduction zones, and seismology still have a lot of questions that need to be answered, and that even within the different theories, there are some instances in which there are anomalies that can't be explained by the current accepted theories.

I have done quite a bit of reading on these different subjects, and the thing that always jumps out at me in my reading on this, are words like, "proposed", "possibly", "might" and "think or thought". Words which mean, well.......a theory is proposed, a theory might possibly, we think or thought it might be this way.

The most important words are always left out.........we think, but we don't really know for sure.

reply to post by sezsue

Yeah........looks like some scientists, unlike other people, are willing to postulate, and even accept that the THEORY of plate tectonics, subduction zones, and seismology still have a lot of questions that need to be answered, and that even within the different theories, there are some instances in which there are anomalies that can't be explained by the current accepted theories.

Where does this say that plate tectonics is wrong? It doesn't.
Where does it state that the Earth is expanding? Nowhere.
Who suggests that plate tectonics is a 100% well understood process? No one.

As far as volume changes go I certainly have pointed out how the volume of oceanic crust is affected by thermal expansion. You point out that the article mentions phase changes. That's a well known process with many courses available at universities on the subject. It is even mentioned in introductory geology courses.

The most important words are always left out.........we think, but we don't really know for sure.

If everything was known then it would be time for scientists to pack up and stop researching.

None of this is any reason to believe that such a ridiculous story such as the expanding Earth has any truth behind it. Just because there are important questions to ask about one theory does not mean it is wrong. Just because there are always going to be issues that are difficult to understand does not mean another theory has any validity whatsoever.

If this were the unsolved problems in plate tectonics threads then the above article might be of interest. Instead, this is the expanding Earth theory.

1. Can anyone provide any links to peer reviewed articles on the subject?
2. Can anyone provide a mechanism that adds 7X the mass to the Earth to double its size?

Hmmm. Maybe my last calculation is off. I just looked up Mars and saw that Mars was:
53% the radius or diameter of Earth
10.7% the mass of Earth
Mars

I estimated the mass of a 50% Earth as 12.5% of present. Here a larger object is less than that. So now it appears that a 50% Earth may have been less than 1/9 the Earth so we need to figure out a mechanism to add 8x, not 7x, the mass of a 50% Earth. Yikes. It gets worse and worse.

Despite the repeated suggestions by some posters that the extra mass came from space we can look out to the asteroid belt and see that there is not much there. You couldn't form a new Moon let along add an appreciable amount to the Earth.
Astroid Belt

... combined with the belt's low combined mass, which is only about 4% of the mass of the Earth's Moon ...

Originally posted by stereologist

Where does this say that plate tectonics is wrong? It doesn't.
Where does it state that the Earth is expanding? Nowhere.
Who suggests that plate tectonics is a 100% well understood process? No one.

It says there are some problems with the theory, that can't be explained.

It does say the earth is expanding, not in those exact words, though.

You are acting like plate tectonics is so well understood that there is nothing else to be figured out about the process, and like no other theory makes any sense.

If everything was known then it would be time for scientists to pack up and stop researching.

Exactly, which is why we are discussing it, for now.

None of this is any reason to believe that such a ridiculous story such as the expanding Earth has any truth behind it.

At least you are now using the word "ridiculous" instead of "stupid" and other derogatory language that you were using before. ( Practically every post you made on Page 10, remember?)

Just because there are important questions to ask about one theory does not mean it is wrong.

If there are a lot of important questions to ask about a theory, or a lot of pieces that don't exactly fit, yes, that could mean it's wrong, that's why theories are questioned.....and SOMETIMES CHANGED.

Just because there are always going to be issues that are difficult to understand does not mean another theory has any validity whatsoever.

I just had to laugh at this one above.

So, you'll just keep trying to whittle that square peg so it will fit into that round hole, no matter what!!!

Every man should have a built-in automatic crap detector operating inside him - Ernest Hemingway

Oh, and by the way, even though I'm a woman, I do have one, and that's why I won't be responding to any more of your posts.

I hope the other posters here make the same decision.

Have a nice day

Thank you sezsue.

I have read this article by Clif several times and have forwarded it to some very smart and well educated lifelong friends to analyze, because I care about them and their loved ones and want them to have some understanding of the earth changes now unfolding around us. Clif has at many times been his own worst enemy and his reputation has taken quite a hit the past few years. But this particular article is a measure of redemption for him, probably the most important one he has ever written. I encourage everyone who sees these posts to read the entire article carefully. The issues raised and the comparative analysis of the iron core vs. plasma core theory are laid out succinctly in an understandable way, not new information but well summarized. There is a very important debate in this and one that is a little bit too timely for comfort. As I stated to one friend, "It will be ironic if we finally come to a real understanding of how our planet works just in time for the book to be closed on us."

I read the post by the debunker who stated that science disproves all of this and then has only speculation about GPS measurements to offer for evidence. I am not an expert but I have an opinion about his ideas. These tears in the earth opening up and other phenomenon described have now been percolating out there for only several months. I don't think that even the giant tear that recently occurred in Peru would be sufficient to significantly alter GPS readings or that all of the earth-tearing or giant sinkholes put together would be enough either. If GPS changes are used as the tool to measure all of this, I'm afraid that by the time we see big changes it will mean the surface of our world will be one dangerous place and self-evident.

Before anyone is too quick to dismiss Clif's assertions and conclusions, please consider that this is one in which if it is true, we will be watching it unfold before us as these weeks and months go by and the theory will prove itself or be disproved within a years. In the meantime, it provides a "guidebook" to help us understand what may be happening and why. For this reason alone it is worthwhile for all of us.

I do want to offer one speculative view of my own. It appears that since the fall of 2010 the sun has not behaved exactly as scientists expected and predicted prior to that, including NASA. We expected the longer than normal solar minimum to change over to a maximum cycle before now but the minimum drags on with only some recent activity of concern. Solar maximum is now not expected to be reached before mid-2013.

In my opinion, it would take a number of humongous earthbound discharges to kick this expansion into overdrive and that has not occurred yet. But if what little we have seen ( Queensland, Christchurch, Japan) is any indication of what we will be in for, little solace can be found in these delays. It means it may take a little longer for these changes to unfold. If for any reason the sun falters in the maximum and does not reach record breaking intensities, then we may be spared for a long time to come, things may settle back down on Terra.

In any case, I think it is long overdue for us to finally find out what kind of core we really have, we are trying to see the edge of the universe and the beginning of time without even knowing how our own planet works or how it was really made. The iron core theory really doesn't add up, the plasma core theory makes so much sense it is frightening. Prepare to be electrified? Or is that electro-fried? Love and concern for all life on our planet, Plus 1.

reply to post by sezsue


Nice link. It shows that the things we see on our planet that point to events in the past are still eluding an explanation.

Something that most people don't realize is that science, or reports about scientific results often greatly exaggerate the accuracy of their findings, or the probability that their assumptions are true.

All to many need to cling to some absolute belief when there are very few absolutes.

reply to post by stereologist




We understand now. You dont believe it but you also put of a vibe that you dont want to believe it no matter what. If you're so passionate about the subject I would recommend starting a thread proving Pangaea because it is still a theory and not fact it would be a good debate.