Is the Earth expanding?

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

Originally Posted by ballaratdragons

Of course the Earth is expanding. Its mass is growing.

Just look how many millions on tons of space dust and meteorites land on it every day!

How much do we send back out there, never to return? A few tons a year in the form of satellites, space junk etc. That wouldn't decrease Earths mass by much

Sounds like its getting bigger to me

Sorry Alex

You beat me to it Ken.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Starman73

Hello All,

I just happend to do a Geology elective subject when I was at uni some 15yrs ago. Plate Tectonics and the Expanding Earth theory were both discussed. The lecturer that I had stated that if we were to go to any of the other Geology staff and spoke to them about it, we would be promptly told that the theory was garbage but that happens in science. When the majority of academics are pro one idea it is very difficult to introduce a new idea until a number of them can be convinced. This lecturer seemed to have an open mind.

We were taught that one piece of compelling evidence for Expanding earth comes when you look at the amount of areas of sea floor spreading as opposed to areas of subduction. Looking at maps it appears that there are more areas of sea floor spreading then there are of subduction. The question arrises that if more crust is being made then is being destroyed, where does it go?

If you look at the shape of the continents as the broke up and drifted apart, it is easier to put them back together using a smaller sized Earth then to move them and fit them together using the current sized Earth.

Unfortunately, this is all I can remember of the Expanding Earth theory. Geology was after all only an elective, and the subject was entitled something like Environmental Studies. When I saw that I thought it was something to do with looking into the environment on Earth, Greenhouse effect, salination, deforestation and errosion, that kind of thing, not looking at rocks. I did hear the lecturer say that the subject was named as such to pull more people in (the environment was really big back in the mid 90"s too and it worked on me).

I am sure that with out current technology, I am sure we would be able to measure if the Earth was expnading. I know that they are constantly measuring the distance from the Earth to the Moon, I am sure something would show up there for instance.

Anyway, I have put in my 2c worth.

Regards
Paul

I am a geologist (and an astronomer as well). That idea you posited there is as inane as it is ridiculous...whoever told you that was either having a lend of you or didn't really know their own subject. Seafloor spreading and subduction occur at different rates in different places all over the globe and whether more seafloor is being produced than subducted is far more easily explainable via plate tectonics than by any hocus pocus that EE could pull out of its top hat. Anyone who said there are more spreading centres than subduction zones needs to have a good look at a tectonic map and then go learn basic geology before they go make statements like that to students.

It's alright to be open minded, but not to the point that your mind becomes an open sewer. If people are going to be making outlandish statements or have alternative theories, they better have good convincing evidence which can be backed up via observation and testing....otherwise it's not science, it's just wild speculation at best.

Want to read something which sums it all up very nicely, go read Rick Nolthenius's page on science and clear thinking....here.

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by ballaratdragons

Of course the Earth is expanding. Its mass is growing.

Just look how many millions on tons of space dust and meteorites land on it every day!

How much do we send back out there, never to return? A few tons a year in the form of satellites, space junk etc. That wouldn't decrease Earths mass by much

Sounds like its getting bigger to me

Sorry Alex

Ken, Not to spoil a good yarn but the Earth receives an estimated 121 Tons per Day, 40.000 Tons of space Dust per year
No Millions involved unless you convert the amount to to Kilograms or even Grams
Cheers

[Starman73]

Hello Renormalised,

It really doesn't bother me at all whether the Earth is expanding or if Plate Tectonics is the real theory.

As I said in my previous post, surely there has to be accurate on going measurements of the Earths circumfrence that could put this whole debate to bed once and for all. Do you have any facts on this?

Paul

[OICURMT]

Question...

1) If the earth is expanding, is it because its mass is increasing?
2) If so, then why is the moon receding from the earth?

If the mass is increasing then the gravitation constant should be going up, thus the gravitation pull on the moon should increase and the moon should be getting closer.



or....

Alternatively...

The earth is expanding because it is like a loaf of bread... there's yeast at the core and we are still in the rising stage of earth evolution. When the sun reaches the Red Giant stage, we will be in the "baking" stage by where our crust will be nice and golden brown...

BTW: The moon is made of Cheese.

Thus, the new binary system will be known as "Fondue"


OIC!

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Starman73

Hello Renormalised,

It really doesn't bother me at all whether the Earth is expanding or if Plate Tectonics is the real theory.

As I said in my previous post, surely there has to be accurate on going measurements of the Earths circumfrence that could put this whole debate to bed once and for all. Do you have any facts on this?

Paul

If you're interested in science and how it's portrayed to the public, then it should be of interest. It's ultimately what's being taught in schools.

I don't have any figures at hand, but the guys who do geodesic measurements for the geological survey organisations, cartographic institutions and such, would be doing ongoing measurements of the Earth. NASA and the military would also be doing or having such surveys being done so that they can track orbiting satellites and the like, accurately. Also for navigation purposes (military and civilian). Much of the data would be public domain or at least available to universities and the like.

In any case, all planets expand and contract on a regular basis, but nothing to the extent as proposed by the EE fraternity. The whole notion makes no sense either in a geological or (simple) physics context.

Without even going into specific details, just the fact EE violates the law of conservation of matter and energy and the rest of thermodynamics is enough to consign it to the waste paper basket of bad ideas. Let alone having to account for the formation of different rock types and their geological settings, the internal structure of the planet and it's characteristics, the various processes which form all the geological features of the surface of the planet etc etc etc. Their whole premise is a load of crock. It's just a rehash of an old idea....(mostly 19th and early 20th Century) that was found completely wanting once they had the technology and knowledge to be able to explore and understand the processes which form and shape the planet. It was dubious even in its day!!!!.

[CraigS]

Hi Folks;

I've just returned from a short break in Tassie where I was fortunate enough to have the time to drop in on some Radio Astronomers at the Mt Pleasant facility just outside of Hobart.

These guys are active participants in the Federal Government's National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS). They tie Australian geodesy into the International Geospatial Reference Frame, which is tied to the International Celestial Reference Frame.

These guys are into Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) measurements, which provide the fundamental reference frame for all other types of geographic positioning techniques such as GPS. (VBLI was the first technique that directly measured the motions of the tectonic plates, and since 1998 is the only technique used to fix the Earth’s reference frame to celestial reference frames replacing the previous optical astronomy techniques). Mt Pleasant Observatory provides the fundamental position reference point for all of Tasmania.

They are doing precise measurements of the Australian continental drift which then spins off into other areas of astronomical research.

The overall project background is here. So far, they have accurately measured the precise location of the Mt Pleasant 26m and 12m telescopes, with respect to other world-wide telescopes to centimetre precision (one part in a billion). They've measured the Australian continental plate, which is apparently, the fastest moving plate on Earth, (moving north-northeast at a rate of 5.779 cm per year and colliding with the Pacific and Eurasian Plates to the north).

There's a lot more they're up to as well. This PDF gives a great outline of the full picture of what the overall project is about (albeit a bit out of date .. Sept 2008).

Notice the "Gravity Program" description:

The FG5 gravimeter can measure gravitational acceleration (g) to one part in 109 (8th decimal place in m s-2), or the equivalent of ~3 millimetres of height change. Therefore, monitoring small gravity changes over long time periods will allow changes in surface height to be accurately measured independently of other survey techniques.
…
The relative gravity program consists of a series of relative gravimeters suited to tidal gravimetry that will be used to improve the understanding of temporal gravity variations caused by tidal forces. Currently researchers rely on predictive models that have yet to be tested over most of the Australian continent {note: as at Sept 2008}. Currently there is some doubt about the accuracy of the models, particularly in the northern part of the continent. The greatest improvement to the understanding of the tidal models will come from observing the dominant tidal frequencies (which are in the diurnal and semi-diurnal tidal bands, around one and two periods/cycles per day respectively).

All measurements make use of measurements by the Satellite Laser Ranging Program which is used to accurately determine the variation of Earth’s centre of mass (over time), as the origin of the global reference frame.

If anyone could disprove a nonsense proposition like EE, these guys could do it in a heartbeat … and back it up with hard measurement data.

Cheers

[Starman73]

Hi Craig,

That was the kind of thing I was after. To me it is simple, Expanding Earth proponents have their evidence of the signs they see as proving the Earth is expanding. All it takes is measurements to prove that the Earth is not expanding to blow the whole thing out of the water.

If the scientific evidence is that the circumfrence of the Earth is not getting bigger, then it mustn't be getting bigger. I mean I have always thought if the Earth is getting bigger, what is making up the space that would be left behind by the expansion. I can't remember that ever being mentioned by the theory. I love the thought of it being made of bread.

Oh well for me this is the end of the debate.

Paul

[renormalised (Carl)]

I love the thought of it being made of bread.

Since the Moon is supposed to be made out of green cheese, and the Impact Formation Theory posits the Moon was formed from the collision of the Earth with a Mars sized object early in its formation, by the debris left over, it (the stuff filling the space as the earth expands) must be made of green cheese

Someone, somewhere, has a vast herd of green milk dairy cattle

[CraigS]

This is interesting … Wiki gives a nice concise list of what results the VLBLI network has achieved (somewhat more concise than my previous post, too )

Amongst these is the maintenance of the definition of the 'celestial reference frame'. This is done by measuring the positions of 212 extragalactic sources, (mostly quasars), which then gives the effective centre of mass of the Solar System.

This is then taken as the closest we can get to a 'true' inertial reference frame for defining the positions of all of the planets and other astronomical objects.

Wiki calls this a 'quasi inertial reference frame'. They say that Relativity implies there is no 'true' inertial reference frame although, I'm not sure this is accurate. I would have thought that this had more to do with the expansion of the universe and the Cosmological Principle, than with Relativity?

Interesting … this would seem to be the fundamental origin of all navigational and astronomical measurements/co-ordinates.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

It's accurate, Craig. For there to be a "true" frame of inertial reference we would have to be the centre of the Universe....literally. A true frame of reference implies a point of origin for all reference frames no matter where they are. Since we see things as apparently expanding away from our perspective, for the above condition to hold, the Solar System would be the centre of the expansion. A casual observation of what's out there might suggest this, but we know from careful study and the postulates of GR that this is not the case. The expansion has everything to do with Relativity...or at least the present mechanics of it has.

[CraigS]

Hmmm…

Whilst this point is almost entirely academic, in GR, an inertial frame of reference would be an approximation that applies in a region that is small enough that the curvature of space is negligible. It would seem that as the curvature becomes smaller, GR reduces and the SR conditions then come back into effect. (SR allows for consideration of inertial frames of reference).

Clearly, anywhere in space, fictitious forces, (such as gravity), would act on any mass, thus resulting in an acceleration, (and hence, a non-inertial frame).

I would therefore guess that a truly inertial frame would never really exist from a practical perspective, except as an approximation.

However, from a purely theoretical perspective, (which is formally what GR and SR is), an inertial frame of reference is just a specific case. I think they also regard SR as a "local theory" and this may be (perhaps) why, for all intents and purposes, the mass centre of Solar System could be regarded (from a practical perspective), as our "local" inertial reference frame (at least as far as Solar System scales are concerned).

Interesting.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Since the curvature of spacetime in our Hubble sphere is zero (flat), or as close to as it gets, GR is our main concern.

Yes...SR is considered a local theory, whereas GR is a global theory.

Here's a little conundrum for you....according to Einstein, gravity is nothing more than the curvature of space due to the presence of matter. But how is that matter curving spacetime and producing gravity??

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Since the curvature of spacetime in our Hubble sphere is zero (flat), or as close to as it gets, GR is our main concern.

Yes...SR is considered a local theory, whereas GR is a global theory.

Here's a little conundrum for you....according to Einstein, gravity is nothing more than the curvature of space due to the presence of matter.

Err… shouldn't this read: "curvature of spacetime" ?

Originally Posted by renormalised

But how is that matter curving spacetime and producing gravity??

At 'micro-scales', spacetime in our Hubble sphere is thought of as curved within the vicinity of dense matter … how else would we explain the observed effects of gravity in the form of things like lensing, the Shapiro effect, etc ?

If you are really asking what causes gravity, I would require a Nobel Prize for the answer. Are you up for it ?


Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Err… shouldn't this read: "curvature of spacetime" ?



At 'micro-scales', spacetime in our Hubble sphere is thought of as curved within the vicinity of dense matter … how else would we explain the observed effects of gravity in the form of things like lensing, the Shapiro effect, etc ?

If you are really asking what causes gravity, I would require a Nobel Prize for the answer. Are you up for it ?


Cheers

Yes, you know what I mean

All well and good, but my conundrum is summed up beautifully in your last sentence ....what is the interaction between matter and spacetime that curves it

Forces are basically propagated by an exchange of particles/energy. So, what is being exchanged between matter and spacetime on the quantum level to cause spacetime to curve in the presence matter. I'd say a very good candidate is the Higgs particle, but it may not even be the whole answer. I have a funny feeling this is going to require a version of quantum gravity based on String Theory....String Quantum Gravity, if you will.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Yes, you know what I mean

All well and good, but my conundrum is summed up beautifully in your last sentence ....what is the interaction between matter and spacetime that curves it

Forces are basically propagated by an exchange of particles/energy. So, what is being exchanged between matter and spacetime on the quantum level to cause spacetime to curve in the presence matter. I'd say a very good candidate is the Higgs particle, but it may not even be the whole answer. I have a funny feeling this is going to require a version of quantum gravity based on String Theory....String Quantum Gravity, if you will.

So just about every scientist who has chased this question has ended up heading towards M-Theory. Particles end up as strings, as things get down towards Planck dimensions, and then gravity is described as strings trying to escape D-Branes into other dimensions.

My personal preference is along the lines of M-Theory. Two reasons:
i) my master, 'Sir Ed the Invincible' prefers it and;
ii) the notorious 'Lisa Randall', (of locked thread fame), is also into other dimensions, as well.
At least I'd be in good company … over all those particle types, like Sir Brian-of-Cox, etc … if they don't find the Higgs at the LHC, at least we'll still be standing tall !!


Cheers

[AstroJunk (Jonathan)]

Back on the subject of Expanding Earth, what this theory fails to do is explain the known observations outside of simple geometric form. It is very convenient to formulate a convincing argument based on the ignorance of others, and make a great video (I did like the one I watched).

Some problems that EE fails to address:
1. The physical mechanism to grow the earth from the inside to some 4+ times its volume in a mere 200 My

2. Mountain building - Just how did those pesky mountains form in Nepal.

3. Vulcanism at the boundaries of (subducting plates) - no mechanism to explain the Pacific ring of fire.

4. Deep oceanic trenches - shouldn't exist at all in EE.

5. The magnetic signatures of Oceanic rocks - when rock is solidified at the mid-oceanic ridge, it aligns itself with the prevailing magnetic field. This field swaps from n-s to s-n every few million years and it leaves a distinct and measurable pattern which has been surveyed using ship mounted magnetometers. These patterns clearly show the areas of spreading and subduction consistent with Plate tectonics: http://www.geog.unt.edu/~williams/GEOG_1710/science.htm

That is an interesting link i found whilst looking for a image to best demonstrate point 5 as it makes no apology for Geological Science not being able yet to single out the mechanism for Plate Tectonics. However all of the known data supports that model, none of it supports the dross that is EE.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by AstroJunk

Back on the subject of Expanding Earth, what this theory fails to do is explain the known observations outside of simple geometric form. It is very convenient to formulate a convincing argument based on the ignorance of others, and make a great video (I did like the one I watched).

Some problems that EE fails to address:
1. The physical mechanism to grow the earth from the inside to some 4+ times its volume in a mere 200 My

2. Mountain building - Just how did those pesky mountains form in Nepal.

3. Vulcanism at the boundaries of (subducting plates) - no mechanism to explain the Pacific ring of fire.

4. Deep oceanic trenches - shouldn't exist at all in EE.

5. The magnetic signatures of Oceanic rocks - when rock is solidified at the mid-oceanic ridge, it aligns itself with the prevailing magnetic field. This field swaps from n-s to s-n every few million years and it leaves a distinct and measurable pattern which has been surveyed using ship mounted magnetometers. These patterns clearly show the areas of spreading and subduction consistent with Plate tectonics: http://www.geog.unt.edu/~williams/GEOG_1710/science.htm

That is an interesting link i found whilst looking for a image to best demonstrate point 5 as it makes no apology for Geological Science not being able yet to single out the mechanism for Plate Tectonics. However all of the known data supports that model, none of it supports the dross that is EE.

You've touched on only some of the things EE fails to address....there's a whole swarthe of of geophysical processes and phenomena that it fails to explain, least of which is the internal structure of the planet (division between crust/mantle/core)....then you have things like the geothermal gradient, geophysical boundaries due to mineralogical and crystallographic/structural differences w.r.t. P/T/t changes, mantle plumes, differential rotation between the inner core and the rest of the body of the planet, the planet's magnetic field, the variety of rock types present on the planet, the near complete absence of rocks older than 212 Ma in the ocean basins etc etc etc. The list is endless.

[avandonk]

CraigS it is far simpler than this. The universe is just a projection of higher levels of dimensions that we perceive as reality. Gravity is simply a force that is derived from the relationship of particles or energy that have a history of interaction. The reason it is so pissweak is that it has to cover all these putative dimensions. In other words the original force of gravity is some how divided by all the putative eleven dimensions of string theory. I have no proof for this!

But it gives me some direction to either prove or disprove this conjecture.

Bert

[CraigS]

Y'know Bert;

I hear this comment about gravity being 'weak' everywhere in my travels, and it kind of makes it all sound like some kind of competition.

There are those of us who definitely want to take sides in it, so they can get to win, also.

Pathetic, really.

It goes beyond this childishness however, as those folk develop stories about how it cannot possibly be responsible for the formation of moons, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.

I think all of this starts with comparative comments about how it doesn't measure up to our human expectations.

There's something about our inability to really comprehend the scale of the universe in all this, and gravitational influence over these vast distances.
(I'm just not yet sure how to articulate this properly).

Cheers