The Earth is expanding , hence geological vault lines .
- Thread starter river
- Start date
I suspect that the only reason any reasonable person read anything you recommend is to have a good chuckle at the idiocy therein, river.
There's a very good reason you're excluded from the more serious parts of this forum.
That was way too many "reasons" for such a short reply
There's a very good reason you're excluded from the more serious parts of this forum.
That was way too many "reasons" for such a short reply
Ah the know it all . Not someone to inspire an understanding from a different perspective . Your loss .
For those that are curious , they will read a book about this . Therefore They will understand .
Last edited:
I'm curious - but not curious enough to read a book about an idea that has been so thoroughly debunked. I (and others here) DO understand - that the idea is nonsense. And your endorsement of the idea only reinforces that conclusion.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
What book have any of you read about the expansion of Earth theory ? None no doubt .
I asked you how the expansion of the earth is even physically possible and you said you didn't know. Didn't the book explain it? If it didn't explain it, what's in it worth reading?
I've read The Story of Earth:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-story-of-earth-robert-m-hazen/1107076279
It's science based, though, so it might not be your thing.
Because Earth is losing mass . Its becoming less dense . Hence less gravity .
The heavier elements , break down into lighter elements .
The Earths' surface area is expanding . Earth's volume is increasing .
Last edited:
That's just such a pile of nonsense that it isn't worth addressing. Nobody could be that stupid.
1) Earth is losing mass through hydrogen and helium being blown away by the solar wind. The remaining elements are MORE dense, not less dense.
2) Since the loss is in the atmosphere, it's not affecting gravity.
No, no they really don't. You are thinking of radionuclides, which often DO break down to lighter elements. 99% of elements (including the heavier elements) are not radionuclides.
Again, no. As the Earth's interior cools it shrinks. It's been cooling for a few billion years and will continue to do so; it is currently cooling at the rate of 100C per billion years.
Usually you accidentally get one or two facts right, but this time you batted exactly 0%. That's pretty impressive actually; I mean, even if you just randomly guessed you'd get about half those claims right.
So then why can't we put Pangea , 400 million yrs ago or more , together as a soild land mass ( all land masses connected together ) at Earths cuurent volume . That is a problem . Because if true then your thinking is wrong .
Last edited:
Why is it a problem? The Earth's surface is about 70% ocean. There's plenty of space to move the continents around.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
"Fascinating, Captain. Sensors indicate negative intelligence."
Your question makes no sense.
If the planet was perfectly flat there would be no land at all, and average ocean depth would be about 7000 feet. The only reason we have dry land is that tectonic processes push land upwards faster than erosion brings them down. So talking about the area of a solid land mass depends entirely on what those tectonic processes are doing, and nothing on the earth shrinking or expandind.
The Earths shape is a product of the rotational force . The Earths rotation is slowing down slightly and as a consequence of this will slightly expand but remain the same mass . The density will be affected !
Technically and more precisely , the longitude will contract in dimensions whilst simultaneously the latitude ''expands'' in dimensions. I loathe the word expand , increase suffices !
Last edited: