Expanding Earth Theory

[mtkafka]

Got this link from Coast to Coast AM, its Neal Adams (the comic book artist) doing some animations on the Expanding Earth theory!

Seems pretty credible!

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

What you think about it?

Credible or crazy?

It actually seems more credible than the floating plates theory...

etc

[DeepT]

I didn't know that tectonic plates were a theory. I thought they were a fact.

[LarryLard]

Yes, because drawing *cartoons* really helps a crank 'scientific theory' gain credibility...

[Enidigm]

Credible? I'll have to actually, you know, read it; but where does the mass of a planet's "growth" come from? Love and honeybees?

[Odysseus]

Maybe the core expands as it cools. It's not mass you need, it's volume.

He certainly comes off as an obsessive kook, with all his railing against "the scientists."

[Quaro]

It's funny to think that continental drift WAS just a theory in the 50s and into the 60s. I remember learning about in fifth grade, it's just weird to think it was so controversial for awhile.

[noun]

Yeah, well, here's the real reason you shouldn't take Neal Adams seriously (http://www.nealadamsentertainment.com/pages/licensing.html).

[MattKeil]

I didn't know that tectonic plates were a theory. I thought they were a fact.

They are, but the term used for the description of the mechanics is "tectonic plate theory." In science, "theory" does not mean "we're not sure if it's true yet," it describes a set of laws/observations about something that's too complex to reduce down to a simple statement like a scientific law. A law is like a catapult: it does one thing, and that's all. A theory is like a car: you can swap out parts, change the tires, paint it a new color, but overall it still has the same function, and the legitimacy of the function is not in question.

There's no such thing as "just a theory" in science. That said, this Expanding Earth thing sounds more crazy to me than anything else. The videos are cool demos, and I can see where the idea comes from, but it leaves too many questions out there.

- If the planets are expanding...where's the extra volume coming from? Is their mass increasing? Is it just...what, air in the core or something?

- An expansion in size and volume would seem to play havoc with the orbits and motion of the planets. Since one of the videos mentions a time period when Jupiter became big enough to be our gravitational guardian against meteorite strikes (hence the lack of cratering on the "newer" surfaces), clearly an increase in mass is implied. How does the increase manage to remain constant throughout the solar system. Why didn't Jupiter's mass increase disrupt our orbits? Wouldn't more massive bodies require adjusted orbit trails, thus changing our proximity to the sun and possibly even pushing us out of the "life belt" in which terrestrial life can exist?

- The fossil record shows immense seas at the time of Pangaea. In order for the oxygenation of the primordial atmosphere to take place, you need large oceans to provide the planet with the source of rains that encourage plant growth. Unbeset by animal life, plants thrived and coverted much of the toxic CO2 in the atmosphere into oxygen that animal life could then utilize and this allowed them to leave the seas. If there were nothing but "shallow seas" at this time, where was the teeming mass of sea life the fossil record indicates living?

- Still on the ocean thing, the Sahara and many other desert areas were clearly at the bottom of an ocean at one point. Unless the simulation video is deeply flawed in its depiction of water distribution, this is not part of Expanding Earth theory. Where'd all the fish bones come from, then?

- The platypus and other marsupials wandered around Africa, Antartica, and South America 65 million years ago? I suppose marsupial-like animals could have, but platypi in the time of the dinosaurs? I think not. This comment makes me wonder if this is just one of a series of "SCIENCE IS WRONG!!!!!" theories this guy has.

- If gravitational pull can alter the emergence of new tectonic spread (the moon), how does the expanding body manage to remain spherical and not distend due to said gravitational pull? Last I checked, the moon is still pretty round.

- If there is no subduction, what the fuck are mountains?

I don't know. I'm loathe to just discount the theory, because it's actually kind of a neat idea, but it doesn't seem to really jibe with reality too well. It reminds me of how people used to think that maggots and flies and such were actually spontaneously generated by rotting meat and rancid milk. The observation has a certain surface logic to it, but appearances can be deceiving.

[Ben Sones]

Maybe the core expands as it cools. It's not mass you need, it's volume.

With the notable exception of water, most things contract as they cool.

[mtkafka]

If we can deduce that the sun expands and contracts why would it be so impossible to believe that planets can't, at least in a smaller degree?

Is the earth even a perfect sphere? Don't our balls expand and contract? The earth is a living scrotum!

etc

[dannimal]

No the earth is not a perfect sphere.

[Enidigm]

If we can deduce that the sun expands and contracts why would it be so impossible to believe that planets can't, at least in a smaller degree?

Is the earth even a perfect sphere? Don't our balls expand and contract? The earth is a living scrotum!

etc

I think you're having a hard time undestanding "science", in the sense that theories aren't just some vague idea with many contradictory opinions and no way for the ordinary person to sort through them.

I guess the better question i could respond with would be "why should the earth expand and contract?"

[Bill Dungsroman]

I think you're having a hard time undestanding "science", in the sense that theories aren't just some vague idea with many contradictory opinions and no way for the ordinary person to sort through them.

I guess the better question i could respond with would be "why should the earth expand and contract?"

Seriously. That stuff further up is almost Koontz Logic.

[Enidigm]

Oh, as to the gravitational question;

As long as the TOTAL mass and distribution of this mass remained constant relative to today, the net gravitational effects of these changes upon the solar system should be zero (ie, everything stays the same).

If the earth is, ahem, "growing" - you know, like a plant - then no, the system would change and the planetary orbits would be altered.

This individual is lacking some more detailed information; there is plenty of evidence of "micro-plate tectonics" occuring, such as the Colorado Shield, dozens of micro plate "islands" actually colliding with and accreting onto the Pacific coast states, ect.

I like all sorts of different inquiry; but if you want to overturn the apple cart the burdon of proof is on you, not on the establishment to disprove your wild ideas. Since he's spent more time creating web animations to demonstrate his little idea more then the hard research needed to prove it (not to mention all the previous research he needs to disprove), it's clear he's quite an adept in dumbassery.

[mtkafka]

I think you're having a hard time undestanding "science", in the sense that theories aren't just some vague idea with many contradictory opinions and no way for the ordinary person to sort through them.

I guess the better question i could respond with would be "why should the earth expand and contract?"

Yes, I do know of 'theory' as in scientific method and whatnut. Don't be so patronizing just because of a post you dont agree with (i just said it seemed credible yeesh,, never said it was fact). Some of you guys need to get the nuts out of your ass.

Do you believe in ghosts or the life hereafter or God? Whatever. It was Al Qaida.

etc

[shift6]

I'm not going to wave my hand and call this guy a complete tool, because I'm not a geologist. I don't agree that his bizarre ideas contradict tectonic plates though, since those are simply big hunks of rock floating on the earth's mantle. Big whoop. I can also think of at least one reason the Earth could grow in size, besides the absurdly small ones like annual accretion of space dust, etc.

For example, when a volcano spews out X million tons of lava, the outside of the Earth becomes larger (in that small limited area). It doesn't, as far as I've ever heard anyone claim, also shrink in size to make up for the missing stuff in the middle. There is plenty of material in the mantle, and as some of it comes out, a small portion of the ultra-dense core could easily become far less dense and fill in in the mantle. Just like compressing air into a diver's tank, then letting it out again: change in volume/size, no change in mass.

Also: the mass of the Earth would remain unchanged, therefore no change in gravity. Large-body gravity depends on the center of mass and so as long as it more or less grows in size equally around the center with no change in mass, there's no change in gravity. If the earth were twice as large and half as dense, the moon would continue to orbit exactly as it does now.

I'm going to watch all those videos now, though, to see if he does make some remarks which are completely outlandish. And because it's Saturday and there's nothing going on just this minute.

[MattKeil]

For example, when a volcano spews out X million tons of lava, the outside of the Earth becomes larger (in that small limited area). It doesn't, as far as I've ever heard anyone claim, also shrink in size to make up for the missing stuff in the middle. There is plenty of material in the mantle, and as some of it comes out, a small portion of the ultra-dense core could easily become far less dense and fill in in the mantle. Just like compressing air into a diver's tank, then letting it out again: change in volume/size, no change in mass.

Which, of course, would not cause the "skin" of the planet to tear and rip, pushing up new tectonic surfaces. His theory specifically requires the planet to expand in volume from the inside, thus tearing the crust apart like an orange peel. To do this requires either a massive change of the state of matter in the core, or additional matter somehow materializing inside the planet. At no point in the videos I watched does he even attempt to explain how this would happen.

Also: the mass of the Earth would remain unchanged, therefore no change in gravity. Large-body gravity depends on the center of mass and so as long as it more or less grows in size equally around the center with no change in mass, there's no change in gravity. If the earth were twice as large and half as dense, the moon would continue to orbit exactly as it does now.

You're correct, except his theory seems to demand an increase in mass and, therefore, gravity. Part of one of the Mars videos (don't remember which one, sorry) specifically mentions the lack of cratering on "new" tectonic surfaces as being due to Jupiter finally growing large enough to be the inner planets' gravitational shield against space debris. This, again, demands a change in actual mass in order to create a larger gravitational field. Or he doesn't understand the difference between mass and volume, which would hardly shock me.

Again, his ideas strike me as surface logic without any real in-depth rational thought behind them.

[Jasper]

Credible? The guy is a crank, with a background as a cartoon artist rather than as a scientist. The idea that the scientific community is one big conspiracy out to HIDE THE TRUTH!!! about geology is ridiculous; if he had something interesting to say other scientists would indeed listen. Taking a look at his website it's immediately obvious why it only gets play on a gaming web forum.

From what I've read there are indeed alot of unknowns about how the earth's core works and the details of Plate Tectonics. Nonetheless it's pretty well established, and this guy has just a bit more convincing to do before his hypothesis is even worth debating.

[Bill Dungsroman]

He loses either way. If mass increases as the Earth's volume increases, so would its gravity. But, if mass remains constant, the increase in radius would mean Earth's gravity on its surface would decrease, since gravitational pull of an object assumes pull by mass from the object's center and that all the mass is concentrated at that center.

Increasing volume = increasing radius = increasing distance from center of mass = decreasing pull of gravity by that object on objects on its surface.

Come on, guys. "He doesn't know physics...I don't know physics...sounds good to me!"

[wildpokerman]

With the notable exception of water, most things contract as they cool.

The cause of the expansion is crystilization. Many elements of the earth form crystals when heated to high temperatures and then rapidly cooled.

[Lunch of Kong]

The mass of the earth decreases as radiological events convert mass into energy. The mass of the earth increases as interstellar objects fall into earth's atmosphere.

Does anyone know which way the scale tips when weighing this loss and gain.

[Jasper]

The cause of the expansion is crystilization. Many elements of the earth form crystals when heated to high temperatures and then rapidly cooled.
Yah... and how many of them expand in size when doing so? Does Iron?

[Jasper]

The mass of the earth decreases as radiological events convert mass into energy. The mass of the earth increases as interstellar objects fall into earth's atmosphere.

Does anyone know which way the scale tips when weighing this loss and gain.
The effects mentioned are pretty small compared to the mass of the earth, and I've never heard of any change detected. Considering the complexity of figuring out the mass of objects under multibody gravitation I'd be surprised if Earth's mass were even close to accurately enough determined to detect any change.

Even if it were, the data wouldn't go far enough back to draw much of a conclusion.

[Ben]

When the fuck did "seeming credible" replace "being true" as the necessary condition for believing something?

[shift6]

He loses either way. If mass increases as the Earth's volume increases, so would its gravity. But, if mass remains constant, the increase in radius would mean Earth's gravity on its surface would decrease, since gravitational pull of an object assumes pull by mass from the object's center and that all the mass is concentrated at that center.

Increasing volume = increasing radius = increasing distance from center of mass = decreasing pull of gravity by that object on objects on its surface.
Increasing distance would decrease gravity, but not enough to be measured. The guy says his goofy theory happened over 200 million years(ish) and I don't know anything (ice cores, radiochronometers, etc) that we have which covers that span of time which would document any measurable change in gravity, if they measure it at all.

The mass of the earth decreases as radiological events convert mass into energy. The mass of the earth increases as interstellar objects fall into earth's atmosphere.

Does anyone know which way the scale tips when weighing this loss and gain.
An interesting question. Radiological pressure is what prevents the sun from falling in on itself, so maybe a similar pressure is what is making the earth expand but without enough accretia from space to counteract this expansion with extra weight? ;)

When the fuck did "seeming credible" replace "being true" as the necessary condition for believing something?
When did "we already have a theory" mean that someone could hand-wave anything else away? You can believe something has credibility inasmuch as it is worth spending time investigating/debunking it. This is the very definition of science, ya know. Consider faked fossils in the creation/evolution debate. Both sides have had fakes presented to support pre-existing notions, and both sides had to have someone come along, challenge the credibility, and show those hoaxes for what they were. This is good science by any metric.

Let's keep in mind plate tectonics is only 40 years old itself and there's a ton of work left to do just to get it started. Scientists are hardly as smug about it as some people here seem to be. Not that this guy's ideas replace tectonics anyway; they only replace the notion of subduction and mantle recycling (which I couldn't find any directly measured evidence for in ten minutes of Google; mostly still supposition since we can't effectively "see" the layout of the mantle except by inferring densities through measuring sound waves).

Of course, I just now watched all 12 of the guy's films then sat through the Jodie Foster movie "Flightplan", so I'm way deep into suspension of disbelief mode right now.

[baren]

The mass of the earth decreases as radiological events convert mass into energy. The mass of the earth increases as interstellar objects fall into earth's atmosphere.

Does anyone know which way the scale tips when weighing this loss and gain.
I recall learning in school that the earth is gaining weight over time. This site (http://www.ecology.com/earth-at-a-glance/earth-at-a-glance-feature/) suggests likewise. Excerpt:
Is Earth gaining weight? At the present rate, Earth gains about 40,000 metric tons each year from space debris that bombard our planet. Yet it loses an amount so small (atmospheric gases, etc.) as to not really warrant any serious consideration. So, will Earth's weight gain have an impact on its orbit, relative mass (gravitational pull) or any other properties? Although 40,000 metric tons a year sounds like a huge gain, when you compare it to the immense size of Earth, it dwindles to a meager 0.000003 of one percent of the Earth's mass. The impact is insignificant.

[bago]

Watch it happen (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,405947,00.html)!

[DeepT]

Bill already said this, and he is right. If the earth's mass stays the same, and the volume increases, the gravitational force goes down.

The gravitational formula is something like G = Mass / Volume * Universal gravitational constant.

Now if this guy's theory is correct we should see fluctuations in gravity. I am sure this would have shown up in the geolgical record somehow. It would be too hard to miss. All sorts of shit would change if gravity on earth changed. Imagine if everything got 10% lighter. Everything could get 10% bigger then. Plants and animals would take advantage of that. I am sure rocks would have a story to tell too. How does magma and basalt from under 90% G? I bet its quite differant then at 100% G.

If he wants to prove it, or at least prove that something happend with respect to gravity, evidence should not be hard to find.

One other note: Someone said something about mass turning into energy causes the mass of earth to decrease. This is not neccairly true.

Take a special ball that is 1m in diameter, and has exactly 100kg of mass. Now lets say that somehow, a 1 decimeter sphere in the center of our ball turned into pure energy. If this ball contained the energy 100% so that none of it leaked out, from the outside we would not detect any change in mass.

In the real world energy leaks. However, the mantle of the earth is a very, very, very good insulator. If somewhere, 1000 miles down, there was a nuclear incident causing a bunch of mass to turn into energy and if nearly all, if not all the resulting energy stayed within the earth, even though it might become widly distrubuted, then the earths apparent mass would not change.

[Dave Markell]

I didn't know that tectonic plates were a theory. I thought they were a fact.

This is a pet peeve of mine, and one that I wish the media was aware of. It plays an especially large role in discussions of evolution. Scientists use the word "theory" very differently from the public at large:

Hypothesis: an educated guess as to how things might work. A guide to future experiments. What most people use "theory" for.

Theory: the end result of rigorous hypothesis testing. A broad paradigm that explains many observations, facts, experimental findings, etc.

"The Earth revolves around the Sun" is a theory. "Plate tectonics" and "Evolution" are also theories. All are established, accurate, useful ways to explain natural phenomena. All can be further refined by additional work (the Earth's orbit is elliptical, not circular, and is subject to relativistic effects; plate tectonics is driven by sea floor spreading and mantle plumes; evolution proceeds via punctuated equilbria) that improve the paradigm without overturning its fundamentals.

When creationists say that evolution is just a theory, they prove they don't understand science at all. There is no higher level than "theory" to which evolution can aspire.

[MattKeil]

Are people in this thread still half-defending this nutball? What, is there some kind of hope that if plate tectonics can be wrong, so can evolution?

[Bill Dungsroman]

Yah... and how many of them expand in size when doing so? Does Iron?

What yurislave says up there isn't entirely correct. Crystallization of a solid is a phenomenom of two seperate parts:

-Most compounds that are solids under standard conditions (1 atmosphere, room temp) will be crystalline (even ones that aren't - water is obviously a crystal). If it isn't a crystal, it's considered amorphous. Stuff like glass, tar, and any nonpure solid is considered amorphous. Most of the things we think of as being a solid are either impure solids or ground-up crystals, or a mix of both.

-An impure solid can be made pure most easily by melting the solid, then cooling it slowly, not rapidly. A crystal forms due to a structured, organized arrangement of the ions/atoms of the pure compound into a lattice, free of any impurities (atoms/ions not part of the compound's chemical formula). A pure compound's crystal lattice is stronger than any heterogenous, impure mixture's bonds, thus it has a lower cooling point. This means that it will cool as a pure crystal lattice and impurities will often dissipate as a gases, or cystals will form within the impure mix and can be filtered out. Cooling is done slowly to allow the organized crystal lattice to form, and because melting/cooling points between pure crystals and impurities are typically fairly close.

Lastly, crystals are purer, more dense, and of smaller volume for almost all solids (except water and pure Gallium, for the most part). Expansion by crystallization is a rare phenomenon.

[Hunkpapa]

I want to know why they would hide the truth. In what possible way is the Tetonic Plate Theory some sort of conspiracy? WTF are the eggheads hiding by not accepting his theory?

Nice animations.

[Bill Dungsroman]

I want to know why they would hide the truth. In what possible way is the Tetonic Plate Theory some sort of conspiracy? WTF are the eggheads hiding by not accepting his theory?

Nice animations.


Because in science, you know, if you come up with a theory and everyone buys it, they give you a billion dollars.

[Glenn]

Not to mention all the groupies.

[Enidigm]

I hate to bring this back up, but here is some fairly realistic looking scientific research arguing over some of the supposed problems of plate tectonics.

Unfortunately Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm) was published by the esteemed Journal of Scientific Exploration (http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse.php), sharing space with such topics as "Testing a Language - Using a Parrot for Telepathy" and "The Sasquatch: An Unwelcome and Premature Zoological Discovery".

This article's home is under a certain David Pratt's "Exploring Theosophy" (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/homepage.htm), which he describes as the synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy. As well as some homegrown Theosophic slashfic (in three books!), and a rather scary Age of the Earth (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/homepage.htm) section that describes the earth as being 2 billion years old "a figure in agreement with ancient Hindu teachings." Which he explains by saying most of the earth's history to date has been characterized by the concretion of matter -- the opposite of radioactivity. On the upward arc, heavier elements tend to disintegrate into lighter elements, whereas on the downward arc lighter elements tended to integrate into heavier elements.

So, you know, feel free to browse. I've always thought there will be a few kernels of discovery amidst the reams of pseudo-science, and there might be a few here. But i'll leave it to you to thresh them out :).

[Ed Solomon]

So, you know, feel free to browse. I've always thought there will be a few kernels of discovery amidst the reams of pseudo-science, and there might be a few here. But i'll leave it to you to thresh them out :).
Not me, I've been afraid of telepathic parrots since that ugly cracker incident in '82.

[shift6]

Bill already said this, and he is right. If the earth's mass stays the same, and the volume increases, the gravitational force goes down.
At the surface of the Earth, yes. But with respect to the moon and other planets, no. Besides there are books on paleoscience I have read that suggest things were larger back in the day. Larger plants, larger animals, etc. Perhaps related to a slightly lower G on the surface of the Earth?

ART BELL KNOWS!

Are people in this thread still half-defending this nutball? What, is there some kind of hope that if plate tectonics can be wrong, so can evolution?
Hate to bust your chops, Matt, but not everything in science comes down to "Evolution or Not". In fact, that smacks more of a creationist tone: that the Evolution/Creation controvery is central to everything.

[Ben Sones]

At the surface of the Earth, yes. But with respect to the moon and other planets, no. Besides there are books on paleoscience I have read that suggest things were larger back in the day. Larger plants, larger animals, etc. Perhaps related to a slightly lower G on the surface of the Earth?



Wouldn't that imply that the Earth is contracting, not expanding?

Only the telepathic parrots know the truth.

[MattKeil]

Hate to bust your chops, Matt, but not everything in science comes down to "Evolution or Not". In fact, that smacks more of a creationist tone: that the Evolution/Creation controvery is central to everything.

Did I imply that everything in science comes down to it? Because I don't see how, if that's how you took it. To Creationists (I'd qualify that with "the crazy ones," but they're all crazy, IMO), everything is ammunition for that battle. I can't imagine a single reason to support this Expanding Earth Theory except as a silly attempt to show a generally accepted theory of science to be wrong, and thus fallaciously imply that the same could be true of evolution.

That is, of course, not how science works, but that's never stopped the God Squad before.

[Enidigm]

At the surface of the Earth, yes. But with respect to the moon and other planets, no. Besides there are books on paleoscience I have read that suggest things were larger back in the day. Larger plants, larger animals, etc. Perhaps related to a slightly lower G on the surface of the Earth?


In all honestly i think it's because it's easier to get bigger then get smarter. When facing evolutionary competitive pressures, getting bigger is a 100% guaranteed way to outcompete your main predator. (Foxes do not eat Men, ect., ). But that means gives the predator a strong push to get bigger as well. It seems like the dinosaurs were 'limited' by either their inherent diversity, a stable environment (comparatively), or the nature of the selective pressures back then.

Thermal regulation was probably a big limiting factor and push towards higher body size as well. It's a complete guess, but i'd wager bigger bodies came before warm-blooded features evolved. The dissapearence of the more exotic Steglasauriod types of dinos in-between the Triassic and Jurassic indicated a new form of thermal regulation. The strange plates on the back Steglasauroid and simliar forms (there was that one with the joined "fan" bladed back, whose name escapes me) were almost certainly directly related to thermal regulation.

[shift6]

Wouldn't that imply that the Earth is contracting, not expanding?

Only the telepathic parrots know the truth.
Ahh, sorry. I should have said "a slightly higher G".

Did I imply that everything in science comes down to it? Because I don't see how, if that's how you took it. To Creationists (I'd qualify that with "the crazy ones," but they're all crazy, IMO), everything is ammunition for that battle. I can't imagine a single reason to support this Expanding Earth Theory except as a silly attempt to show a generally accepted theory of science to be wrong, and thus fallaciously imply that the same could be true of evolution.

That is, of course, not how science works, but that's never stopped the God Squad before.
Well I read your post as if you were equating the two "debates". I don't see any members of the "God Squad" defending this guy's proposal which spans over 200 million years, although I suppose an OEC like myself could; so I thought it weird to equate it with creationism.