Darkchilde wrote:Wrong...

The hotter a substance is the faster its molecules move, so they have more kinetic energy. In order for density to increase you need to do one of the following things:

1. reduce the volume without any change in the mass
2. increase the mass without any change in the volume
3. reduce the volume and increase the mass.

As for the rest, I am not going to comment because I think the whole expansion thing is total bollocks. There is no clear mechanism for expansion, no clear mechanism where the extra mass/energy comes from, and I am again repeating myself, with questions that are still unanswered.

The reason I kept asking Mr Adams what software he used was to illuminate the suspicion that his animation were a technical realisation of what he imagined the expanding Earth to do.......(picture of Daffy duck in there somewhere... and then something about discs, pyramids and doughnuts)

1) Please provide any evidence whatsoever that Mars was once covered by an ocean - not just depression areas like Hellas, but the whole planet.

2) Please provide evidence that the Valles Marinaris is a rift or expansion feature and not the water-carved canyon that most scientists view it to be.

3) Please define which is important to allow a planet to expand - mass or density?

4) Please explain why you continue to believe that EE has any value as a hypothesis, given your admissions that the planet is not currently expanding (as measured by Wu et al) and that there is no change in surface gravity to suggest expansion?

Light Storm wrote:

Re: Weaver

1) Please provide any evidence whatsoever that Mars was once covered by an ocean - not just depression areas like Hellas, but the whole planet.

Mars Ocean Hypothesis : Good Starting Point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Ocean_Hypothesis

Light Storm wrote:
I use Mars as an example of our possible future

It doesn't have the Mass or Density of Earth, but there is certainly a lot of evidence on that planet that would seem to suggest it underwent some form of major expansion in it's past. There is a lot of evidence now that seems to suggest the planet was once covered in a shallow ocean. A lot of mystery surrounds thoughts on what happened to this massive body of water. This EE proponent thinks the answer could be found in taking the EE hypothesis a little more seriously.

Light Storm wrote:I£ of solid Iron will use the least volume. 1£ of iron liquid will use up more volume. 1£ of iron gas would use significantly more space. 1£ of iron plasma would require the most space.

Light Storm wrote:Re: THWOTH

The reason I kept asking Mr Adams what software he used was to illuminate the suspicion that his animation were a technical realisation of what he imagined the expanding Earth to do.......(picture of Daffy duck in there somewhere... and then something about discs, pyramids and doughnuts)

This has nothing to do with Expanding Earth Hypothesis

Spearthrower wrote:

sathearn wrote:
I agree with Weaver's statements which precede and follow Florian's. However, Florian's questions are highly apropos of some statements that have been made on this forum (though I don't recall authorship offhand) to the effect that expanding Earth proponents must now "put up or shut up" in the wake of this study, and to others which express an uncritical attitude toward the calculated error margins. These questions are highly relevant to the question of the study's validity.

Let me slightly amend that: "expanding Earth proponents should now "put up or shut up" in the wake of this study" - there is no 'must' - people are entirely free to be stupidly wrong and to publicise it.

Florian wrote:What stations did they use to make the measurement? all? a subset? what guided their choice? Is their choice adapted to measure a growth? What kind of growth do they expect? homogenous? heterogenous? by bulging? Why? Was vertical displacements separated from horizontal displacements in the data treatment? Why? What model was used to model horizontal displacement? Why? Is the methodology appropriate to measure a growth?
These are the questions you should answer before jumping to conclusions.

sathearn wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

sathearn wrote:
I agree with Weaver's statements which precede and follow Florian's. However, Florian's questions are highly apropos of some statements that have been made on this forum (though I don't recall authorship offhand) to the effect that expanding Earth proponents must now "put up or shut up" in the wake of this study, and to others which express an uncritical attitude toward the calculated error margins. These questions are highly relevant to the question of the study's validity.

Let me slightly amend that: "expanding Earth proponents should now "put up or shut up" in the wake of this study" - there is no 'must' - people are entirely free to be stupidly wrong and to publicise it.

Amendment accepted. May I take it as an unstated corollary that they should not be asking questions about the study's validity, such as those posed by Florian?

Florian wrote:What stations did they use to make the measurement? all? a subset? what guided their choice? Is their choice adapted to measure a growth? What kind of growth do they expect? homogenous? heterogenous? by bulging? Why? Was vertical displacements separated from horizontal displacements in the data treatment? Why? What model was used to model horizontal displacement? Why? Is the methodology appropriate to measure a growth?
These are the questions you should answer before jumping to conclusions.

African ~2.15

South American ~1.45

Weaver wrote:

Light Storm wrote: ... said look it up here with a link to which you said ...

Now, please provide evidence that, as you asserted, "There is a lot of evidence now that seems to suggest the planet was once covered in a shallow ocean."

"There is a lot of evidence now that seems to suggest the planet was once covered in a shallow ocean."

Light Storm wrote:Solid Material being the most dense with tightly packed molecules. I£ of solid Iron will use the least volume. 1£ of iron liquid will use up more volume. 1£ of iron gas would use significantly more space. 1£ of iron plasma would require the most space.

I'm using Iron as an example, as it's speculated to be one of the primary ingredients of the Earth Cores. As you get closer towards the Earth Center, you are subjecting this material to increasing pressures and stress. I've read about tests on Iron done in controlled labs up to 20GPa and 2000k to get a better understanding of the effects on Fe(iron). The results have shown an increase in vibration measured as sound. With increasing pressure, The molecules heat up and transform into new structures to allow increasing density. In short, the rules are pretty much reversed down inside the earth at extremely high pressures. Solid matter can not handle the threshold of the pressure, and the molecules transfer between atomic packing factors until they are in a liquid state, and then use less volume, with increased density.

Light Storm wrote:Estimates vary but seems the further you go down, obviously more dense the materials get
Continental Crust: 2.7 to 3.0
Oceanic Crust: 3.0 to 3.3
Mantle (silicates): 3.3 to 5.7 (increasing with depth?)
Outer Core (liquid): 9.9 to 12.2
Inner Core (solid): 12.6 to 13.0

Light Storm wrote:Speculation: There is still a lot of speculation and ideas on why the Earth is broken up into all these layers. My idea is that Proto Earth was significantly more dense with a molten surface. As the outer surface cooled, the molecules lost density. As the Earth continues to cool over geological time, the entire planet is transforming from a super dense, to less dense state. As the Mantle transforms into oceanic crust for example, it looses density increasing in volume.

"The midocean ridges migrate over the Earth like Roombas, extracting the basaltic component from the mantle as they go. What that means has to do with rock chemistry. Basaltic rocks contain more silicon and aluminum than the peridotite left behind, which has more iron and magnesium. Basaltic rocks are less dense. In terms of minerals, basalt has more feldspar and amphibole, less olivine and pyroxene, than peridotite. In geologist's shorthand, oceanic crust is mafic while oceanic mantle is ultramafic.

Oceanic crust, being so thin, is a very small fraction of the Earth—about 0.1 percent—but its life cycle serves to refine the rocks of the upper mantle into new rocks with a lighter blend of elements. It also extracts the so-called incompatible elements, which don't fit into mantle minerals and move into the liquid melt. These in turn move into the continental crust as plate tectonics proceeds. "

Light Storm wrote:What if the Inner Core Froze Like Water Into Ice. A solid state would not allow that kind of density, and it might very well expand to allow the density to drop to a solid state. Imagine the entire Earth at a Density of the surface, it would need several times the volume. At that point, I think the inner structure of a planet would look more like our moons.

ginckgo wrote:Water is unique in that it's solid state is less dense than the liquid form at a similar temperature - I hope you're not implying that other materials all work that way?

Other substances that expand on freezing are silicon, gallium, germanium, antimony, bismuth, plutonium and other compounds that form spacious crystal lattices with tetrahedral coordination.

ginckgo wrote:So how come the inner core is considered solid, while the outer core is liquid, if supposedly the liquid state is denser? I don't think it's the heat that caused the increased density, but rather the pressure.

If indeed the solid crystal were less dense than the magma it came from, then we wouldn't see the fractional crystallisation structures that are observed in batholiths that used to be magma chambers, i.e. crystals sink to the bottom while magma rises, sometimes erupting. They certainly point to hot

Water is unique in that it's solid state is less dense than the liquid form at a similar temperature - I hope you're not implying that other materials all work that way?

Nasa's Mars rover Opportunity has found slivers of a bright material that looks very much like it is gypsum (calcium sulphate)...

"This stuff formed right here. There was a fracture in the rock, water flowed through it, gypsum was precipitated from the water. End of story. There's no ambiguity."

lucek wrote:

sathearn wrote:<snip>

I agree with Weaver's statements which precede and follow Florian's. However, Florian's questions are highly apropos of some statements that have been made on this forum (though I don't recall authorship offhand) to the effect that expanding Earth proponents must now "put up or shut up" in the wake of this study, and to others which express an uncritical attitude toward the calculated error margins. These questions are highly relevant to the question of the study's validity.

You may want to review that. We had special pleading from the proponents that an error bar could meant that there is expansion.

But here's the thing. if we grant you the 0.1MM/years you still have problems. If the earth radius is increasing by .1 MM/year then the circumfrance is increaseing by ~1/3MM/year. However we observe continents moving faster then that by an order of magnitude. So basically if that's the case then subduction is the dominant mover of plates. And again if that's the case then the pretty lines Maxlow and Adams draw are completely wrong.

Still another trap confuses the interpretation of NASA measurements in relation to radius change. Whenever new crust 100 km wide is inserted at a spreading ridge, the angle subtended at the center of the earth by each degree around the great circle is reduced by 9 seconds to accommodate the added segment. As all NASA chord measurements ultimately involve the angle subtended by that chord at the center, any continental block or stabilized oceanic crust will appear to shorten if constant radius is assumed.

Consider the great circle through Tokyo, Hawaii, and the All-American Observatory in Peru. Nearly 8000 km of new crust has been inserted in the Peru-Hawaii segment during the last 100 million years, and the East Pacific rise is still spreading, whereas no new crust has been inserted between Honolulu and Tokyo in that time. According to the above rate of expansion, the great circle has increased by 17,600 +- 5000 km whereas the Honolulu-Tokyo segment of this great circle has remained constant in length, which means that the angle subtended by this arc at the earth's center has nearly halved. Hence if the analysis of the NASA measurements of this arc assumed constant radius, the Hawaii-Tokyo distance would appear to be shortening by about 6 cm per year although in fact the distance had not altered.

The plate tectonics idea of regarding Eurasia together with half of the Atlantic Ocean as a single plate demands that distances within this plate be kept constant, including distances between the space geodetic tracking stations of Europe and Japan. However, according to the literature, space geodetic observations always indicate a significant shortening of this distance. For example, according to Biancale et al. (1990) this shortening for 5 different stations in Europe and Simosato station in Japan equals 15-36 and 12-36 mm/year according to variants of calculations 'c' and 'd', respectively (in four cases of both variants it is 28-36 mm/year). According to Smith et al. (1990) it gave from 28 to 36 mm/year, and according to Reigber et al. (1991) from 16 to 22 mm/year. As already mentioned, there are no geological data about recent longitudinal contraction in the Central and Northern parts of Eurasia.

Three baselines (Smith et al., 1994) between western Europe and Shanghai for several years indicate consistent decreases of about one centimeter per year, despite eastward movement of China implied by the "escape tectonics" theory of Molnar and Tapponier (1975).

lucek wrote:
For note that is unnecessarily speculation. The data is available. If Florian is so shore that the measurements are sued by error then he can look and find it.

But to a point, let's look at the speed that earth would be growing under current continental drift. For the moment we'll just look at the South Atlantic as Africa and south america are easy to use.

African ~2.15

South American ~1.45

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml so we can see a net movement of 3.6CM/yr At this point all we need do is divide by pi to get the increase in diameter that would result in the increasing circumference here. 1.15CM/yr or an error in the paper of 11,465%. Now this is a gross underestimation as we still have the proposed expansion in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

To move on however, If we assume that the .01cm/yr figure is an actual measure of expansion then we are left to see that most of continental drift (99.14%) is due to subjection.

Light Storm wrote: If the earth was only expanding by the width of a human hair... it would be significant over millions of years.

ginckgo wrote:0.1mm change in radius would be 1km per 10 million years. That's 20 km in the past 200 million years.

mean Earth radius at present is 6,371km (surface area = 4*pi*R2 = 510,100,000km2), which would make the 200Ma radius 6351km (506,900,000km2) - a difference of 3,200,000km2, or just over 0.6%. Still not going to significantly affect any continental scale things.

Remember that Maxlow think that 22mm/year is necessary for his conclusions (and he's being held up as the most credible EE geologist on this), and that should have shown up on the satellite measurements.

lucek wrote:

ginckgo wrote:Water is unique in that it's solid state is less dense than the liquid form at a similar temperature - I hope you're not implying that other materials all work that way?

Fun fact water isn't the only compound that expands as it is cooled.

Other substances that expand on freezing are silicon, gallium, germanium, antimony, bismuth, plutonium and other compounds that form spacious crystal lattices with tetrahedral coordination.

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

sathearn wrote:...However, a point I would like to make is that the calculated level of uncertainty of 0.2 mm/yr - this level of precision - depends on the validity of all the assumptions used in processing and analyzing the raw data. In this area, with its high level of complexity, and with, for example, separate agencies in charge of the data pertaining to each of the various techniques, and with a twenty-five year legacy in which a static radius assumption went basically unquestioned while these sophisticated techniques for processing and analysis were being refined, a real potential exists for spurious results, despite the best intentions of the researchers involved...

Light Storm wrote:Re: Sathearn

Thank you for raising doubt in Wu's findings. If I could write a review on the paper, the paper seemed to focus on 'is the earth expanding right now' and made no comments about the past 60 million years, and made no predictions for the next 60 million years. They only make the comment that the rate of expansion is so insignificant, it may as well be zero. If the earth was only expanding by the width of a human hair... it would be significant over millions of years. So to say 'it sorta, kinda is expanding but not really' seems like a very politically determined conclusion. I also see they only referred to Carey for references to Expanding Earth Hypothesis. Why not any of todays proponents, like Maxlow. I would be in favour Maxlow being involved in a study like that so that they can say they brought in the worlds leader in Earth Expansion to work with.

Light Storm wrote:

ginckgo wrote:So how come the inner core is considered solid, while the outer core is liquid, if supposedly the liquid state is denser? I don't think it's the heat that caused the increased density, but rather the pressure.

Our knowledge of the Inner Core comes exclusively from Seismic Readings only. We know that it's bouncing waves back like that of a fully solidified object and so the best educated guess is that it is solid. Some people have presented ideas that it may even be a pure crystal element. Personally, I think anything that has a similar temperature to the surface of the sun has got to have 'some' form a movement to it. I think the molecules are simply so tightly packed that they are at maximum allowable density and appear solid in the readings.

Light Storm wrote:

If indeed the solid crystal were less dense than the magma it came from, then we wouldn't see the fractional crystallisation structures that are observed in batholiths that used to be magma chambers, i.e. crystals sink to the bottom while magma rises, sometimes erupting. They certainly point to hot

Speculative Question: Look at it from this persecutive. Do you think the Density of proto-earth crust was the same as todays cooled Crust?

Light Storm wrote:

Water is unique in that it's solid state is less dense than the liquid form at a similar temperature - I hope you're not implying that other materials all work that way?

Look at it from this perspective

Q: If I could teleport anywhere, I would appear at the bottom the Mariana Trench. I fill a 1 litre container with water. I re-appear at the surface. What happens to the density/volume of the water?