Newstein wrote:I had plenty of time to do the experiment myself. If the isochrons do not fit on a same sized sphere, they must fit on a smaller sphere according to the expanding Earth theory. You may be happy or start to cry, but they FIT PERFECTLY on the calculated sphere. Thank you, where is that Nobel Prize? (kiddin)

Could you explain the methodology used to make this figure?

Thank you

It's in 3d. Double bend to fit the continent on a smaller sphere.
It fitted amazingly good.
This.is.perfect proof!

There's a problem with Earth expansion: as the Earth expands, the continents get flattened, and that would make them fracture radially from their centers.

I will now work it out mathematically. Consider a ring at polar angle a and angular with Da on a sphere with radius r. Its area is (2*pi)*sin(a)*Da*r2, and the area inside of it is (2*pi)*(1 - cos(a))*r2. These areas must stay unchanged as the sphere expands. So

sin(a'/2)/sin(a/2) = (r/r')

using a half-angle trigonometric identity, and

(Da')/(Da) = (r/r')2*(sin(a)/sin(a')) = (r/r')*(cos(a/2)/cos(a'/2))

using another half-angle identity and simplifying.

Let's use s = r*a as the distance from the pole, with Ds = r*Da, and let's use the small-s limit. Then

s' = s * (1 - (1 - (r/r')2)*((s/r)2/24) + O(s/r)4)

Ds' = Ds * (1 - (1 - (r/r')2)*((s/r)2/8) + O(s/r)4)

As one would expect, the ring shrinks from the Earth getting larger. Its circumference increases in proportion:

C' = C * (cos(a'/2)/cos(a/2)) = C * (1 + (1 - (r/r')2)*((s/r)2/8) + O(s/r)4)

So the crust gets squeezed in the polar direction and stretched in the azimuthal direction. Thus, their expected radial fractures.

Yes, but you are missing something.

First of all, yes, radial fractures could be very real. Here you got 2 examples of that:



But the areas do change. The continent bend outwards, so the continent must be shortening at the upper crust because of the expansion. What you forgot is that the continental crust has a THICKNESS.
The crust at the top shortens, the crust at the bottom fractures.

How thick is the "outer shell" of your "hollow Earth" model?

Weaver wrote:How thick is the "outer shell" of your "hollow Earth" model?

From my calculations, the shell is max 480km thick.

EDIT: a new calculation is underway.. I have changed the primitive radius a little bit. That calc is from 3 years ago.

Update:
If the inner core has a radius of 500km, the shell is 570km
If the radius is 1000km, the shell is 560km

Newstein wrote:Update:
If the inner core has a radius of 500km, the shell is 570km
If the radius is 1000km, the shell is 560km

Which one is accurate? This is your model - define it.

Weaver wrote:

Newstein wrote:Update:
If the inner core has a radius of 500km, the shell is 570km
If the radius is 1000km, the shell is 560km

Which one is accurate? This is your model - define it.

The first one seems to give an average relative density of the earth's material of about 22.7, and I can't imagine the second is much different.
I wonder what he thinks it's made of?

Weaver wrote:How thick is the "outer shell" of your "hollow Earth" model?

Thick as a short plank.

Newstein wrote:It's in 3d. Double bend to fit the continent on a smaller sphere.
It fitted amazingly good.
This.is.perfect proof!

I would need a more detailed description, so that anyone can reproduce it. what software was used, what initial data, the exact procedure etc

lpetrich wrote:There's a problem with Earth expansion: as the Earth expands, the continents get flattened, and that would make them fracture radially from their centers.

No, because it depends on the upper mantle movement under the lithosphere.

Newstein wrote:Update:
If the inner core has a radius of 500km, the shell is 570km
If the radius is 1000km, the shell is 560km

Nope, there are a few Earthquakes that are more than 600 km deep.
More importantly, we record thousands of seismic waves traveling thru Earth, which would be impossible if Earth was hollow.

Florian wrote:

Newstein wrote:Update:
If the inner core has a radius of 500km, the shell is 570km
If the radius is 1000km, the shell is 560km

Nope, there are a few Earthquakes that are more than 600 km deep.
More importantly, we record thousands of seismic waves traveling thru Earth, which would be impossible if Earth was hollow.

Oh, don't spoil the punchline ...

ginckgo wrote:

Newstein wrote:

Weaver wrote:Pre-Pangea supercontinent data is among the most glaring data which EE proponents utterly ignore - if they admit that it exists, it totally refutes their claims that the oceans only started appearing <250Mya.

You are making this claim, you have to back it up.
Show me the proof. You have absolutely no evidence for this ridiculous claim.

Here, the first few in my supercontinent folder:
A Proterozoic Wilson cycle identified by Hf isotopes in central Australia: Implications for the assembly of Proterozoic Australia and Rodinia

The palaeomagnetically viable, long-lived and all-inclusive Rodinia supercontinent reconstruction

Style of rifting and the stages of Pangea break-up: Style of rifting and Pangea break-up

The making and unmaking of a supercontinent: Rodinia revisited

Hey Ginckgo, instead of playing pigeon chess (you know perfectly that EE resolves the two main mutually incompatible Rodinia reconstructions), could you please address post #11116 ?

Florian wrote:

lpetrich wrote:There's a problem with Earth expansion: as the Earth expands, the continents get flattened, and that would make them fracture radially from their centers.

No, because it depends on the upper mantle movement under the lithosphere.

Surely, the basic 3D geometry change of the lithosphere must happen, regardless of what is underneath?

Evidently, wherever you think matter is appearing, it isn't uniformly throughout the whole planet including the lithosphere, but under the lithosphere.

tolman wrote:

Florian wrote:

lpetrich wrote:There's a problem with Earth expansion: as the Earth expands, the continents get flattened, and that would make them fracture radially from their centers.

No, because it depends on the upper mantle movement under the lithosphere.

Surely, the basic 3D geometry change of the lithosphere must happen, regardless of what is underneath?

My point is that radial fracturing of the lithosphere is not the rule, because mantle flows are the dominant phenomenon here.

For example, in the basin and range province, mantle flows lead to a lithospheric extension that is not radial. The faults are parallels and the lithospheric blocks are tilted.

Similarly, Ganymede's icy and dirty crust displays extension faults that are roughly parallel (not radial) as seen on this image:

tolman wrote:
Evidently, wherever you think matter is appearing, it isn't uniformly throughout the whole planet including the lithosphere, but under the lithosphere.

Absolutely, all the evidence support matter advection from the mantle to the surface.

You'd think with all this evidence, that you'd be able to correlate it with some meaningful and persuasive data which showed the rate of planet growth.

Instead its pigeon chess all the way down.

So we don't merely supposedly have an entirely unexplained physical process supposedly creating matter from nowhere, but as well as creating the right kinds of atoms not to be out of place with the local surroundings, it's supposedly choosy in where it creates them and doesn't like doing it in the lithosphere?

That seems oddly stealthy and selective for a physical process.