The Earth is expanding
Posts
Total:
59
-->
@Somebody
Why do all your theories involve a vast, global conspiracy?
-->
@Stronn
Because humans are the conspiratorial animal. Humans are generally incapable of doing anything in a straight forward and honest manner. We are the psychotic monkey.
-->
@Somebody
Please explain what measurements you have made to indicate the earth is expanding.
-->
@Ramshutu
-->
@Somebody
0.2;mm/year - sorry, I thought you meant substantially.
You still can't read - .35mm increase for 20 years. Times that by 4 billion years and it will be quite substantial numbskull.
-->
@Somebody
0.24mm of the solid mass, the rest thermal expansion - which can’t happen forever. There’s no evidence that it’s been expanding at that rate forever. Small amounts of expansion are not that controversial - you have post glacial rebound, and the gradual slowing of earths rotation have an impact that’s probably going to be fairly small.
Of course, I’m sure you don’t care - you will still leap to absurd conclusions I’m sure!
-->
@Ramshutu
Thermal expansion is expansion. The interior of the Earth is growing like a sun which emanates heat and matter plus gases. That is why you get volcanoes, fissures and glacier retreat. The video explains all but I guess you didn't see it and are just shooting your mouth off without looking as usual.
-->
@Somebody
It's easy to see why that article did not make it into a top journal, but was relegated to an obscure Chinese journal. The authors estimate the Earth's expansion over the last 20 years to be 0.35 plus or minus 0.47 mm. In other words, the uncertainty in their measurement is larger than the effect they purport to measure! That should have been a show-stopper for any competent reviewer.
The fact is, current scientific consensus is that the Earth is not expanding at any significant rate.
-->
@Somebody
Thermal expansion is expansion. The interior of the Earth is growing like a sun which emanates heat and matter plus gases. That is why you get volcanoes, fissures and glacier retreat. The video explains all but I guess you didn't see it and are just shooting your mouth off without looking as usual.
I have bolded the parts of your post that are completely unsupported by any evidence of justification and I’m fairly sure you just made up on a whim.
-->
@Stronn
Your website states that the Earth is only expanding at a rate of 0.1 mm per year which is insufficient to create an expanding Earth. This is false information. If you multiply 0.1mm x 4 billion years you get an expansion of 400,000 kms which is more than enough expansion for several Earth's. Now, we must take into account that this rate of increase would be exponential and not a constant growth rate. Thus, this adjustment would create the exact Earth size that we have today which proves that the Earth has indeed expanded.
1. Not to mention the fact that most continents do not subduct and therefore, throws a spanner into the continental drift theory.
2. Not to mention that all the Earth's animals have decreased in size due to increased gravity.
3. Not to mention that India supposedly travelled from the antarctic to Eurasia which is 4 times further than any other continents travel distance.
4. Not to mention that the rock age of the central ocean ridges is much younger than the ocean floor near the continents edge.
5. Not to mention that mountains can form due to slip back of the crust trying to fit over a larger inner Earth.
6. Not to mention that the central mountain rangers of Russian Urals and the Himalayan mountains don't fit the continental drift theory so they had to come up with an illogical excuse that India travelled 12,000 kms to crash into Eurasia. lol
-->
@Somebody
How confident are you in that number?If you multiply 0.1mm x 4 billion years you get an expansion of 400,000 kms
-->
@Somebody
Your website states that the Earth is only expanding at a rate of 0.1 mm per year which is insufficient to create an expanding Earth. This is false information. If you multiply 0.1mm x 4 billion years you get an expansion of 400,000 kms which is more than enough expansion for several Earth's.
Your math is way off. An expansion rate of 0.1 mm per year over 4 billion years yields a total expansion of 400 km, not 400,000 km. That is nowhere near enough to account for continental drift, especially since Pangaea began to break up only 175 million years ago. A rate of 0.1 mm per year only accounts for 17.5 km of expansion since Pangaea!
Even the larger figure of 3.7 mm per year from the dubious paper you cited only yields 648 km of expansion since Pangaea. Again, not nearly enough to account for continental drift.
Now, we must take into account that this rate of increase would be exponential and not a constant growth rate. Thus, this adjustment would create the exact Earth size that we have today which proves that the Earth has indeed expanded.
Ok, this is funny. It looks like, because your wrong calculation gives way too big a number for how much the Earth has expanded,(400,000 km, or 31 times the current diameter of the Earth), you throw in, with no justification, an assumption that the rate was less in the past, and has grown exponentially.
But your calculation was too high by a factor of 1000! If you had done the calculation correctly, you would need the rate to be greater in the past, not less!
What are you going to do now? Flip-flop, and say that the rate of expansion has actually been decreasing?
The rest of your post is a classic Gish Gallop of falsehoods and irrelevancies. I'll only bother to dismantle one of them.
2. Not to mention that all the Earth's animals have decreased in size due to increased gravity.
All animals?? This is completely untrue. Humans have not decreased in size. Nor have many other species, horses and giraffes, for instance.
And look at dinosaurs, the biggest creatures too ever roam the Earth..They appeared 240 million years ago. That is only 5 percent of the Earth's lifetime, which means that the Earth did most of it's expanding before dinosaurs. This completely contradicts your statement that an expanding Earth causes a decrease in animal size
-->
@Ramshutu
It will be interesting to see how he responds to this.
-->
@Stronn
You are so busy attacking my theory that you have done nothing to justify or prove your own theory. You can't win by just disproving my theory and not bothering to supply any justifications for the holes in your own theory. Now, The Pangaea Theory is a crazy theory because it disobeys the basic laws of physics and mathematical laws of probability. Firstly, a planet with only one ocean and one continent would be unstable and would wobble all over the place. Secondly, it would be statistically impossible for a planet to have only one continent and one ocean. This is just too convenient and too simplistic to be real. Nature; the laws of physics and mathematics just wouldn't allow such an unnatural formation. Its almost like finding a planet which has a cube shape. This would be a violation of the laws of physics and mathematics. The laws of mathematics and physics demand a randomness and not an artificial like structure. Only humans are capable of creating artificial structures. Nature can't create any artificial structures by itself. This just doesn't happen. Thus, the Pangaea continent is an artificial structure that has been created in the mind of some demented scientist who was pressured into coming up with something that would support the 'old timer's thinking' of the day.
The main reason that the establishment will never accept an expanding Earth is because it leads to the inevitable conclusion of the existence of an aether. Most scientists would rather commit suicide than agree with an aether based world because it leads to a simplification of physics and they wouldn't like that.
1 kilometer = 1,000,000 mm
4 billion = 4,000,000,000
Deduct 6 zeros from both = 4,000km add in some large meteor strikes which accelerated the growth and caused the main dinosaurs extinction event. Then, you end up with current planet Earth. Still a very plausible and logical explanation.Thus, we are both wrong and the answer was in the middle.
Quote - All animals?? This is completely untrue. Humans have not decreased in size. Nor have many other species, horses and giraffes, for instance.
And look at dinosaurs, the biggest creatures too ever roam the Earth..They appeared 240 million years ago. That is only 5 percent of the Earth's lifetime, which means that the Earth did most of it's expanding before dinosaurs. This completely contradicts your statement that an expanding Earth causes a decrease in animal size
Answer - The ocean sea floor near the coast is only 200 million years old which ties in with a large dinosaur extinction event.(end Triassic) Most sea floor is 70 million years old which ties in with a recent dinosaur extinction event.(end Cretaceous)
Humans are only new comers to Earth and only account for 3 seconds of a 12 hour clock rotation. Gravity increases have slowly caused animals to become smaller. This is proven by the recent extinction of the large Megafauna. Elephants - Mastodon and Mamoth. Rhinoceros - Elasotherium etc
-->
@Somebody
1 kilometer = 1,000,000 mm4 billion = 4,000,000,000Deduct 6 zeros from both = 4,000km add in some large meteor strikes which accelerated the growth and caused the main dinosaurs extinction event. Then, you end up with current planet Earth. Still a very plausible and logical explanation.Thus, we are both wrong and the answer was in the middle.xpanding Earth causes a decrease in animal size
That's two strikes. One more and you're out.
Hint: the rate of expansion is 0.1 mm per year.
-->
@Somebody
You just went from 400,000km to 4000km - pretending as if you were right both times - both are wrong
-->
@Stronn
The fact remains that the Earth has expanded as all the evidence proves it. You are just picking on a mathematical error and ignoring all the important stuff. The geological evidence is there on the ocean floor so you can't deny it. Rocks don't lie but humans can.
-->
@Ramshutu
Where have tweedle dee and tweedle dum gone too?
Are they are licking there fingers over a small mathematical error and too scared to go back into battle?
-->
@Somebody
Its not a small mathematical error, it’s 3 orders of magnitude.
The amount of expansion is tiny, it is practically explained by post glacial retreat - where land rebounds after being covered by a glacier. There is no evidence (and in fact evidence to suggest otherwise), to suggest this is a longer term trend over earth’s history. Even if it was, when you use the maths correctly, you end up getting 400km, which is about 3% of diameter of the earth, not exactly a large amount.
The issue is not the mathematical error, it’s the sloppy thinking that it indicates. The maths is trivial, and it appears you simply found an answer that agreed with you without double checking. You then did the same thing. This failure to check what you’re saying is indicative of a flaw in scientific thinking: Rushing forward when you think data agrees with you and failing to double check anything.
The sams goes for this:
Not to mention that the rock age of the central ocean ridges is much younger than the ocean floor near the continents edge.
I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, but I think you should go back and double check it.
-->
@Ramshutu
Not to mention that the rock age of the central ocean ridges is much younger than the ocean floor near the continents edge.
I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, but I think you should go back and double check it.
Sorry, I'll have to contact Encyclopedia Britannica to advise them of their mistake. lol That's where I got the information from. lol
post #16 repeated because you didn't respond.
You are so busy attacking my theory that you have done nothing to justify or prove your own theory. You can't win by just disproving my theory and not bothering to supply any justifications for the holes in your own theory. Now, The Pangaea Theory is a crazy theory because it disobeys the basic laws of physics and mathematical laws of probability. Firstly, a planet with only one ocean and one continent would be unstable and would wobble all over the place. Secondly, it would be statistically impossible for a planet to have only one continent and one ocean. This is just too convenient and too simplistic to be real. Nature; the laws of physics and mathematics just wouldn't allow such an unnatural formation. Its almost like finding a planet which has a cube shape. This would be a violation of the laws of physics and mathematics. The laws of mathematics and physics demand a randomness and not an artificial like structure. Only humans are capable of creating artificial structures. Nature can't create any artificial structures by itself. This just doesn't happen. Thus, the Pangaea continent is an artificial structure that has been created in the mind of some demented scientist who was pressured into coming up with something that would support the 'old timer's thinking' of the day.
The main reason that the establishment will never accept an expanding Earth is because it leads to the inevitable conclusion of the existence of an aether. Most scientists would rather commit suicide than agree with an aether based world because it leads to a simplification of physics and they wouldn't like that.
Answer - The ocean sea floor near the coast is only 200 million years old which ties in with a large dinosaur extinction event.(end Triassic) Most sea floor is 70 million years old which ties in with a recent dinosaur extinction event.(end Cretaceous)
Humans are only new comers to Earth and only account for 3 seconds of a 12 hour clock rotation. Gravity increases have slowly caused animals to become smaller. This is proven by the recent extinction of the large Megafauna. Elephants - Mastodon and Mamoth. Rhinoceros - Elasotherium etc
-->
@Somebody
I’m not attacking your theory. I’m attacking your unsupported conjecture you appear to throw together without any thought to logic or science. I was attacking your ridiculously sloppy thinking, and failure to check your own maths - which you have gotten wrong twice in a row and completely undermines your entire argument.
You don’t appear to have a theory at all.
Given this, for the rock at the edge of continents being older than by the ridges to support your theory of an expanding earth, you have to provide an explanation of why that is, rather than what you did, which is simply assert that it does.
However, it’s important to note that this fact was also predicted by the actual theory of continental drift. Which requires this to be true too. So you’re basically validating a key premise of the theory you irrationally oppose.
-->
@Somebody
The fact remains that the Earth has expanded as all the evidence proves it. You are just picking on a mathematical error and ignoring all the important stuff. The geological evidence is there on the ocean floor so you can't deny it. Rocks don't lie but humans can.
A result that is wrong by a factor of 1,000 in an calculation upon which your entire theory depends is anything but a small mathematical error.
And you are not addressing the fact that you made matters worse by doubling down on your error and asserting that the 400,000 was so large because the rate of increase has grown exponentially over time. Yet if you had done the calculation correctly, you would actually need a decrease over time to account for your claimed growth, not an increase.
Given just these two points, your "theory" is in tatters.
-->
@Stronn
It appears that you are acting like a 14 year old. You have found a little mistake and are clinging on to it because its your only life line that you have in a raging storm of incorrectness and faulty thinking.
post #16 repeated because you didn't respond.
You are so busy attacking my theory that you have done nothing to justify or prove your own theory. You can't win by just disproving my theory and not bothering to supply any justifications for the holes in your own theory. Now, The Pangaea Theory is a crazy theory because it disobeys the basic laws of physics and mathematical laws of probability. Firstly, a planet with only one ocean and one continent would be unstable and would wobble all over the place. Secondly, it would be statistically impossible for a planet to have only one continent and one ocean. This is just too convenient and too simplistic to be real. Nature; the laws of physics and mathematics just wouldn't allow such an unnatural formation. Its almost like finding a planet which has a cube shape. This would be a violation of the laws of physics and mathematics. The laws of mathematics and physics demand a randomness and not an artificial like structure. Only humans are capable of creating artificial structures. Nature can't create any artificial structures by itself. This just doesn't happen. Thus, the Pangaea continent is an artificial structure that has been created in the mind of some demented scientist who was pressured into coming up with something that would support the 'old timer's thinking' of the day.
The main reason that the establishment will never accept an expanding Earth is because it leads to the inevitable conclusion of the existence of an aether. Most scientists would rather commit suicide than agree with an aether based world because it leads to a simplification of physics and they wouldn't like that.
Answer - The ocean sea floor near the coast is only 200 million years old which ties in with a large dinosaur extinction event.(end Triassic) Most sea floor is 70 million years old which ties in with a recent dinosaur extinction event.(end Cretaceous)
Humans are only new comers to Earth and only account for 3 seconds of a 12 hour clock rotation. Gravity increases have slowly caused animals to become smaller. This is proven by the recent extinction of the large Megafauna. Elephants - Mastodon and Mamoth. Rhinoceros - Elasotherium etc
-->
@Somebody
As has been explained to you, it is anything but a little error. It was crucial to your claim. I don't know how to make that any more clear.
And you again did not address your claim that the rate has been increasing. Are you standing by this claim?
The rest of your post is a Gish gallop of bald assertions and irrelevancies. One ocean would not cause the Earth to be unstable. The oceans are a tiny fraction of the Earth's crust. You gave no physics to back up your claim, therefore it is a bald assertion. You said Pangaea is statistically impossible and violates the laws of probability, but never said what statistics you used or what law of probability it violates. Another bald assertion. And I already addressed the animals-getting-smaller nonsense.
-->
@Stronn
You are like a little useless baby that needs to be spoon fed. All the relevant information has been supplied. Now, its up to you to respond in an appropriate and civilised manner. Stomping up and down and demanding like a little child is not appropriate.
post #16 repeated because you didn't respond.
You are so busy attacking my theory that you have done nothing to justify or prove your own theory. You can't win by just disproving my theory and not bothering to supply any justifications for the holes in your own theory. Now, The Pangaea Theory is a crazy theory because it disobeys the basic laws of physics and mathematical laws of probability. Firstly, a planet with only one ocean and one continent would be unstable and would wobble all over the place. Secondly, it would be statistically impossible for a planet to have only one continent and one ocean. This is just too convenient and too simplistic to be real. Nature; the laws of physics and mathematics just wouldn't allow such an unnatural formation. Its almost like finding a planet which has a cube shape. This would be a violation of the laws of physics and mathematics. The laws of mathematics and physics demand a randomness and not an artificial like structure. Only humans are capable of creating artificial structures. Nature can't create any artificial structures by itself. This just doesn't happen. Thus, the Pangaea continent is an artificial structure that has been created in the mind of some demented scientist who was pressured into coming up with something that would support the 'old timer's thinking' of the day.
The main reason that the establishment will never accept an expanding Earth is because it leads to the inevitable conclusion of the existence of an aether. Most scientists would rather commit suicide than agree with an aether based world because it leads to a simplification of physics and they wouldn't like that.
Answer - The ocean sea floor near the coast is only 200 million years old which ties in with a large dinosaur extinction event.(end Triassic) Most sea floor is 70 million years old which ties in with a recent dinosaur extinction event.(end Cretaceous)
Humans are only new comers to Earth and only account for 3 seconds of a 12 hour clock rotation. Gravity increases have slowly caused animals to become smaller. This is proven by the recent extinction of the large Megafauna. Elephants - Mastodon and Mamoth. Rhinoceros - Elasotherium etc
-->
@Stronn
Picture a potters wheel with a lump of clay in the middle. If the clay is not centred the whole table will wobble. Thus, a planet with one ocean and one continent would spin out of orbit and either go into the sun or off into space. Because you don't believe in aether flow you need to create an illogical universe. Aether flow would push down on a planet that is irregular shaped and force it to be randomly uniform and balanced on all sides. Even the smallest deviation of shape can cause cataclysmic results. Note - The earth is currently well balanced which is evidence that I am right and you are wrong.
-->
@Somebody
Oh my good lord, are you for real?
No. Thats the most absurd nonsense you have used so far and demonstrates you don’t understand basic physics:
1.) Planets have gravity pulling oceans and continents to the Center of mass. There is no such equivalent force on a potters wheel. The lack of pulling force is what flings objects on a potters wheel.
2.) To change orbit the planet has to lose energy or gain energy. To move further from the sun, it must gain potential energy, or lose it by moving close to the sun. Nothing about the way planets can spin does that, meaning that it doesn’t matter how earth spins, it’s not going to move it’s orbit.
3.) A planet with one continent sticking out even 20km and a single ocean, compared to a planet with a radius of 12000 km would make the planet unbalanced by about 0.17%, which is close to being perfectly balanced.
You seem not to understand anything you’re talking about. It’s hilarious.
-->
@Ramshutu
Nature doesn't understand imbalance. Everything in nature is perfectly balanced. Nature doesn't understand pulling. This is a human concept and has nothing to do with nature. Nature only pushes. Thus, your understanding if incorrect and influenced by centuries of previous nonsense and stupidity.