14 votes

Is the Earth growing?

I thought I had seen all the interesting & unorthodox theories on the internet, but I stumbled across this one the other night via Clif High's Half Past Human.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

There's a Wikipedia page on it, too. Expanding Earth Hypothesis

Here's Clif High's take on it.

FYI mainly, because it is interesting.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Seen this before... Interesting idea.

BTW no water can escape the earth. Every ice ball that has ever hit us is still with us.

In Liberty

Wow, this guy just totally

Wow, this guy just totally ignores Panthalassa!

Actually the earth should be contracting ever so slightly over time as it cools.

The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old....

it is still to this day spewing molten lava out at the top.
and the evil warlord thinks it is cooling off?

Why don't you set up a series

Why don't you set up a series of differential equations and figure out how long it would take earth to cool off?

Do a heat load calculation on the earth?

you really are a dipstick.
lets keep it simple for you, there is pressure down there, and it is hot. do the math and you will find it is LESS than .001% below the surface.
go ahead and thump me with your Bible. but there is water. H2O spewing 46 miles into space, on a moon of Saturn.
there is another moon of Saturn. that has more "organic" chemicals (hydrocarbons) on it than we have here.
so, how did it get there? did the cow jump over it cowboy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHCsbrc8xKA&feature=related

Somewhere about the middle of

Somewhere about the middle of your post, I totally lost track of what the hell you were talking about.

pressure does not flow. pressure difference causes flow.

if there is flow, it is indicative of a pressure differential.
if there is still molten lava pouring out the top of the earth, there is probably something down there generating the heat.
it must be the same with the moon that is spewing water. there is growing evidence that there is nothing particularly special about this planet. my mind is not full of trash, but it is open to new ideas.

peace. even if you are a troll.

What if..... the Earth is producing it"s own Water?

it would seem we now have evidence that it happens in other places. this is getting good!

"Cassini made its lowest pass yet over the south pole of Enceladus, at at an altitude of 74km (46 miles).

This allowed it to "taste" the jets of water vapour and ice that the moon spews forth into space."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17550834

10 minutes of stupidness....

This is the dumbest video I've ever seen, except for possibly this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zJvSLG8jnk

Cuimhnigh orm, a Dhia, le haghaidh maith.

More questions!

Have you ever studied “sacred geometry?” Are you aware that the bodies of all living creatures and organisms must grow by these proportions? Are you aware that the Earth is a living organism? Did you know that these geometries are “harmonic,” meaning that they have all the same mathematical and vibrational properties as music and color? Could it be possible that this unseen harmonic energy is structuring all of physical space, including the spacings of the stars and planets and even the precise arrangement of continents on Planet Earth?

http://divinecosmos.com/resources/scienceofoneness/prologue....

Who do that voodoo?

A guy named Kepler once believed in that kind of stuff. He was into geometry - perfect solids - that sort of thing. He tried for decades to make his heeby jeeby fit with observations. When he finally freed his mind from wishful pattern-matching, he discovered the laws of planetary motion.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

vibrational properties

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zoTKXXNQIU&feature=related

As long as the vibration vibrates steady and eternal, our DNA and what you say holds together. If it were to stop, reality would cease. I think. Word is vibration, light is vibration.

see; Golden ratio.

this is not a new idea.

I tend to see it better through an architectural perspective than a mathematical one.

enjoy!

I hope so

We need more beaches and farm land imo. looking forward to it.

donvino

Conservation of angular momentum

This theory would seem to completely ignore the law of conservation of angular momentum. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum

According to Kepler, a body should sweep out equal area in equal time. Thus if the radius is doubled, the cross sectional area would increase by a factor of 4 (a=pi*r^2), hence rotating at one quarter the speed of the sphere with radius 1.

The reverse effect can be seen when a figure skater in a spin pulls his or her arms in. The mass has not changed, but the rate of rotation increases dramatically as a consequence of conservation of angular momentum.

Thanks to corals whose skeletal growth patterns produce both daily and annual records, we know how the length of the day or number of days in a year has changed over time. 400 million years ago there were 410 days in a year, 180 million years ago it was 381 days, and today it is of course 365 and change.

The average rate of slowing has been about 2 seconds per 100,000 years. Interpolating to 70 million years ago, there then were 372-373 days in a year. An insignificant slowing since then if in fact the radius of the Earth had doubled.

This assumes the mass remains the same. Increasing the mass makes the problem even worse unless it can be explained how this additional mass (by a factor of 8 if proportional to volume) also imparted additional angular momentum.

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.

— Ed Howdershelt

This theory says mass is increasing.

And it isn't necessarily by a factor of 8. (not sure where you got that one)

We have no data on the rotation speed prior to when we first measured it. So you can extrapolate all you want, but without actual data, you can't assume the extrapolation backwards was always constant.

This is a similar false assumption with half-lives of atoms. Carbon dating is built on the premise of a constant rate of decay. But there is evidence, solar activity can influence this rate.

While we can presume it has been rather stable since the last ice age, we can't be certain to any degree beyond that. Thus C14 dating is only good to 11,000 years ago. Older than that, and it's a wild guess.

If the decay rate were faster in the past, something appearing to be really old, might not be at all.

Likewise, you can't work the rate of speed backwards at a constant over time and use that to disprove this theory. There is nothing saying it had to be constant.

In fact, the law of angular momentum lies in contrast to the super continent theory. The density of the continents all piled up on one side being twice that of water, would disrupt the angular momentum and either tear the planet apart, or set it in a violent wobble.

This means it isn't even probable that a super continent could form, but perhaps only be broken up. The only way for that to happen is Adam's theory.

well.... 1.2

The post I commented on originally states scientific fact that the days of the year were getting fewer, this to me supports the idea of the Earth expanding under the basic principals I discussed earlier (mathematical equation removed). I say this because if the earth wasn't spinning at a different velocity and it remained constant through out history. IF circumference of it did expand then the speed of it would slow down on the outside, but would cover more distance because of newton's law of motion. However since it has gained size (theoretically) then the days would inevitable become longer, thus making fewer days in a year. Note that the larger mediums haven't changes, like specific rotation of the earth and the speed at which the earth moves through the solar system.

Think of it this way, an electric motor, it runs at 1250 RPM as a constant, you put a variable pitch shiv on there. Being variable means we can adjust the size of the pulley. If we made the variable part of it the same size as the work it was doing, then it would correlate as a 1:1 ratio and the work would spin at exactly the same speed as the motor. But if we adjusted said shiv and made it two times the size of the work to be done it would double the speed of the work (remember the motor speed stays constant). Why is that? Well its because the distance of which the pulley moves has become greater causing it to do more work with less rotation, however the speed hasn't changed just the distance in which it traveled.

The only other argument for the days growing longer and there being fewer days in a year, would be that the earth is slowing down. But then we get into gravitational pull and we still haven't figured out the differences on that. Most of what direct answers we have relating to gravity are given from measurements taken within the last few hundred years. There is no way to tell what the strength of gravity was on earth some 70 million years ago.

Einstein once said : "if you can't describe it simply then you don't understand it well enough" He didn't account for dereliction ... :-P

Unwell :)

There is no motor on the Earth or gear ratio to adjust its speed. The one in Atlas Shrugged was just a metaphor. :) Its momentum is what it is since no additional energy is being applied to the system (well so little that it can be discounted). Thus conservation of angular momentum, which itself is just a variation on conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics, otherwise known as the no free lunch law) rules.

We also know that gravity has been relatively constant. If for instance, the Earth's gravity were only 30% less, it would have gone the way of Mars, having nothing more than a trace of an atmosphere left. In fact the Earth would have lost it faster, since it is closer to the Sun and thus subject to stronger solar winds.

I suppose you could argue that it gained it as it gained mass, but the fossil record, among others, clearly disputes that.

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.

— Ed Howdershelt

well..

Do you agree that Jupiter is larger than the Earth? Do you agree that Jupiter's gravity is also greater than the Earths? Would you also agree the the size of a celestial body affects its gravitational pull? Then you look at fossil records.... bird and dinosaur bones where much less dense than our current animal bones, hmmm... Wouldn't that correlate with less gravity? Lets really look for science, not belief. I'm actually impartial as a good scientist should be. I'm merely pointing out what I know to be true and not trying to use these opinions of truths to sway one way or the other, I'm just pointing out that it adds up... Gears on the Earth? What the hell? I was using the electric motor and pulley as a medium of something that has a constant speed, not slowing down or speeding up. I would never cite fiction in the name of truth, mere intelligence tells me that the axis of something unrestricted such as a planet would likely not gain or lose speed (space has no restriction on speed or mass because there is nothing to create friction). If you can find literature to prove me wrong on the restrictions of space then I'll happily retract that.
Entropy? You meant entropy right? These processes reduce the state of order of the initial systems, and therefore entropy is an expression of disorder or randomness. Would you consider the earth to be a closed or open system?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

The density of dinosaur and

The density of dinosaur and bird bones has nothing to do with gravity and everything to do with size. The bones in dinosaurs had to become less dense in order to achieve great size. Birds then inherited this trait which is what allowed them to be light enough to fly. It should be noted that contemporaneous mammals and reptiles do not show any lighter bone density than today.

Secondly it is a matter of magnitude, not whether they were lighter. If mass is proportional to volume then gravitation would have to be roughly 1/8th what it is today. IOW, a lower gravity than the moon. Clearly that could not have happened because the Earth would have virtually no atmosphere left if it did.

As for entropy, that is the second law of thermodynamics, the first law is as I stated, conservation of energy. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Not that the ordinality really matters, but I did explicitly identify it as conservation of energy.

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.

— Ed Howdershelt

well....

First you defeated yourself by implying a rule of a geometric sphere that doesn't take into account for expansion. Common sense tells us that if you increase the diameter of a round object that is spinning then its speed over it's circumference would indeed slow down, however because it is covering more distance, you stated that in your "for instance" then you went on to back it up with chronological fact that actually supports exactly the opposite of what you say.

\mathbf{L}=\sum_i \mathbf{R}_i\times m_i \mathbf{V}_i

Whereas L= length R = rotation M= mass and V = velocity

You can use this algorithm in a case for finding a direct answer but you can't in a chaotic state where the dimensions are changing, this law only puts a limit on how fast something can change size, rotation, and velocity without becoming unstable, all the facts and figures so far fall well with in this criteria, thus the Earth hasn't broken any laws...

Er, huh?

Common sense says that if a figure skater in a spin pulls their arms in, their speed of rotation is is going to increase by significantly more than a couple percent. The same common sense says that if the radius of the Earth is doubled, the rate of rotation is going to slow down by significantly more than the sub 2% the Earth has slowed in the last 70 million years.

No matter what machinations are used to explain how the Earth "grew", it cannot overcome the fact that the slowing of the expected rate of rotation is off by orders of magnitude.

Further, I do not see what you mean by in chaotic state. While there is some chaos introduced by the effects of the moon, sun and other gravitational bodies (which BTW are mostly responsible for the slowing of the Earth's rotation), compared with a doubling of the radius, they are insignificant. Further if a star can go from say twice the size of the sun to a 10-20km diameter neutron star with a rotational period of milliseconds to seconds, and without becoming unstable, a halving or doubling in size should be a cake walk.

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.

— Ed Howdershelt

Joη's picture

really.

why not support what you say by making an order of magnitude calculation to show what change in radius of how much mass over what time would comport with the known data presented?

You'd be the first person ever to do so.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

What language is that? It

What language is that? It doesn't work in OpenOffice Math.

Joη's picture

I think he's trying to say

Length = Σ Rotation × Mass · Velocity

Though the units don't match up...there's:

ω = v*r
angular velocity = linear velocity * its distance from spin axis

L = I*ω
angular momentum = inertia * angular velocity

p = m*v
linear momentum = mass * velocity

L = p*r
angular momentum = linear momentum * its distance from spin axis

...thinking...

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

well...

the algorithm I copied didn't paste so well, my apologies. But to my defense, can someone give an exact diameter of the earth as of right this moment? A lot of this retort is based on old figures that were created in the 70's and also older theories. Are we so intelligent that new ideas and theories can't be introduced? Do we really know everything? How much time and money has been spent to prove or disprove various theories? To me this makes perfect sense, if you took a piece of square latex and griped it tightly at two sides with both hands and used the protrusion of your hands as land mass, and poured a cup of water in the trough created and then stretched it, then the water that touched the "land mass" would recede explaining the amount of new land. Also if you want to discuss plates and mountains, then half blow up a balloon, some parts stretch further than others and some even contract. I apologize again in that I'm leaving for work and won't be able to follow up on my statements as fast as i would like, however i can take criticism, and i can be wrong, I'm a mere homosapian with opposable thumbs.

Joη's picture

I either mis/do not understand what your examples show

choose your numbers:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=an+exact+diameter+of+th...

PS, I like how you request the diameter of the earth as if it may substantially change from moment to moment. : )

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

Reminds me of the old

Reminds me of the old argument of precision in physics class where you try to measure Britain's coastline and how it proceeds towards infinity as one uses smaller and smaller minimal measurements.

I guess best guess on earth's diameter is around 7200 miles or so, but it's not perfectly spherical, even ignoring tidal effects, etc. I saw a graphic somewhere that exaggerated earth's asymmetry several hundred times and it was pretty interesting to see that the Andes are actually further from the centroid than Everest, even though they're at a lower altitude. If I can remember where I saw that, I'll post a link.

hmmm....

i thought to myself, now there's a direct answer, i like direct answers, i get so few these days...

then i thought to myself, "so what if the earth was expanding, and i used a time and distance medium and made the measurement small and the time almost rapid (in the course of a universe nothing is rapid, but lets entertain that it is"

here we go, lets make it expand at one millimeter per one minute, that's a minute amount of distance and a rather rapid rate

going off of Jon's link (thanks a bunch for that) I'm now going to calculate this very simple algorithm

diameter of the earth 7913.1 miles, which makes a circumference of 24859.73682 miles around thats pretty big!!!!
forgive the next large numbers
5280 feet in a mile would make the earth 41,781,168 feet in diameter!!!
making it 131,259,410.409 feet in circumference!!!!

multiplying by 12 to create inches is 1,575,112,924.9

then using the common 2.54 centimeters to an inch
equals 4,000,786,829.24 centimeters

multiplying by 10 to get millimeters 40,007,868,292.4!!!!

remember i apologized before i put the large numbers up there lol

now we get to millimeters in a mile 1609344

so if we simulate one millimeter per minute we divide that number by 60 = 26822.4 hours

divide by 24 = 1117.6 days

divide by 365 = 3.0619 years

conclusion: if the earth expanded at one millimeter per minute it would take three years to make 1 mile at it's equator which is .0079131% now that's something to think about, i doubt we would even feel that...

7900, that's what it is..

7900, that's what it is.. either way, it'd take me a long long time to cross it with an army of horse mounted marauders and pirate ships.