Posted: Apr 19, 2012 5:44 am
THWOTH wrote:Why are error bars applied to such data LS?
Said best by James Maxlow...
- 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.
This value was considered to be “extremely high” when compared to expected deglaciation rates during melting of the polar ice-caps, estimated at less than 10 mm/year. The researchers in fact "expected that most … stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr" and went on to recommend the vertical motion be "restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr". This recommendation is now reflected in current mathematical solutions to the global radius, where global solutions are effectively constrained to zero.
These recommendations are justified from a constant Earth radius Plate Tectonic perspective. The 18 mm/year excess was considered to be an error in atmospheric correction, so was simply zeroed out. What must be appreciated is that without an acknowledgment of a potential increase in Earth radius NASA had no option but to correct this value to zero, and hence adopt a static Earth radius premise. From an Expansion Tectonic Earth perspective, however, the 18 mm/year excess equates with a present day value of 22 mm/year increase in Earth radius, determined independently from measurements of areas of sea floor spreading. ~James Maxlow ref: James Maxlows Home Page
lucek wrote:In other words No not 16 to 26mm/y -.2 to .2mm/y.
After you factor in all "margins or error"
Yup
theropod wrote:Again, how does water, released into the oceans by any means, become more of a gravitational factor than when trapped in rock? Does the mass of water increase with form shift? Volume isn't the same as mass, is it?
RS
ummm... well... Water inside the earth is a little more dense then water on the surface. That tends it happen when it's under several hundred thousand times atmospheric pressure. There is a little bit a difference between swimming through ocean water, and molten rock. While I honestly barely understand the moon/earth relationship, I grasp the basics enough to tell you that their is a significant tidal bulge caused by the close gravitational force of the moon. Based on the rate of the Earth's spin, that bulge has the effect of speeding up the moon causing it to move further and further away. While I'm sure the moons gravity has some effect on the liquid mantle, I haven't read anything about it's significance in comparison to the tidal bulge from the loose free flowing ocean waters.
I have seen more then a couple studies now that suggest there may be more water in the mantle, then there is currently in the seas.
one reference : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... world.html
If Maxlow is correct, and I believe he's correct on this. Sea water is a bi-product of mantle outgassing as the internal furnace of the planet cools. An increased surface ocean would prove to assist in the acceleration of the moon by added to that surface level 'tidal force'
hackenslash wrote:Utter ignorant fucking cock*......
If anything intelligent came out after that, I didn't read it, I was worried it might just descend down hill from there...
Weaver wrote:Just A Theory wrote:
You clearly have utterly no conception whatsoever of the quantity of mass that we are discussing. EE requires the addition of approximately 50% of the Earth's mass over several hundred million years. Mass of the Earth is approximately 5.9 x 1024 kg while mass of the Moon is approximately 7.3 x 1022 kg.
More like 82% of the current mass, assuming 50% radius and consistent 1G surface gravity.
No matter how you dress up the simple question "Where does the extra mass come from" the answer will remain "Unknown"
That question does not answer the empirical observations of an Expanding Earth Hypothesis.