Is the earth expanding?

You have yet to provide any evidence of such an increase. You have claimed it's been measured, but never said where, how, or by whom.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

:roflmao:
I wrote that Earth expansion is observed by anyone looking at the evidence. Guess what, that includes YOU, if you dare looking at the evidence...

If a sphere increases in surface what about its volume?

So you deny this evidence:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is the average spreading rates of the MORs from the isochrons data: steadily increasing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So? That says nothing about any expansion.

You get asked for sources and reply with nothing.

 

Then its volume increase.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth
Scientific consensusGenerally, the scientific community finds no evidence to support the expansion of the Earth theory, and uses the following arguments to dismiss it:

Measurements with modern high-precision geodetic techniques show that the Earth is not currently increasing in size to within a measurement accuracy of 0.2 mm per year.[13] Furthermore, the motions of tectonic plates and subduction zones measured by a large range of geological, geodetic and geophysical techniques supports plate tectonics.[14][15][16]
Mass accretion on a scale required to change the Earth's radius is contradicted by the current accretion rate of the Earth, and by the Earth's average internal temperature: any accretion releases a lot of energy, which would warm the planet's interior. Expanding Earth models based on thermal expansion contradict most modern principles from rheology, and fail to provide an acceptable explanation for the proposed melting and phase transitions.
Paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius.[17][18]
Examinations of data from the Paleozoic and Earth's moment of inertia suggest that there has been no significant change of earth's radius in the last 620 million years.[19]
1. 17 ^ McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271 (5643): 316–321, doi:10.1038/271316a0
2. 18 ^ Schmidt, P. W. and Clark, D. A. (1980), The response of palaeomagnetic data to Earth expansion, Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 61: 95–100, 1980, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1980.tb04306.x

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You're welcome.
The figure of the GPS-measured displacement of the lithosphere of the agean/anatolian flow proves the true nature of a WBZ (the front of a progressing flow), which implies no net surface consumption, which implies a global net increase in the surface of Earth, and thus a net increase in its volume.

 

The spreading rate of ocean floor steadily increases with time and this does not tell you something about the rate of growth? :bugeye:

 

Subduction.

The material comes from the interior and returns to the interior. There is no additional substance, and no net expansion.

 

What about the study in post #526? "Paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius.[17][18]"

 

Don't you read messages? Subduction is shown to be actually mantle flow driven and thus only consuming the lithosphere on the flow path and not one additional km2.

 

It was debunked by Carey himself at the time of publication. Ignoring refutations is not good science practice.

 

Why would he want to debunk that?
It gave nearly enough expansion to account for my version, maybe not his version of the EET. Certainly the margin of error covers the rates I need.

He doesn't have to right on all points of the EET, you realise?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thank you. Will you publish this demonstration in a scientific journal?

 

Does no one like the decompression reason for the Expanding Earth Theory?

 

I'm still refining it, but yes, very likely.

 

Science is not about liking or not liking. It is about evidence. And there are no geological evidence supporting the decompression hypothesis.
I see no interest in investing time in an hypothesis that is not supported by evidence.

 

Originally Posted by Gneiss2011
To the lurkers: please notice that
the two above claims by Florian aren't thus far backend by any evidence.

Now why on earth (expanding of course) would you be concerned to address lurkers on an open forum ?

Presumably because what is appeared to be be able to be stated with certainty in public social situation is of more value than what your personal opinion is ?

I notice a common aspect to EE deniers. They are completely zealous on controlling social opinion. More interested in this than the topic itself. You should see what it like on ratkskep. Practically all their effort is directed to close down the public debate, denigrate proponents, drown them in irrelevancies, play games, put in moderator reports on somebody when their points are threatening to make their case appear weak at the scientific level.

I get the impression these are not people that are good at thinking for themselves and are scared (or jealous ?) of those that can. They aren't your craftsman type who can just get on with doing good consciousness work on their own for years on end purely on personal pride and satisfaction. They are addicted to logging on and having a load of people agreeing with them. Truth of the matter is secondary to that aim.

With these people social narcissm has taken over reason, yet they pronounce that they are the voice of reason. crazy.

 

To prevent them being taken in by agenda driven, self indulgent, minimally educated, intellectually stunted, socially warped demagogues.

 

So, I'm an "agenda driven, self indulgent, minimally educated, intellectually stunted, socially warped demagogue". That's rude.