Quote:
Originally Posted by dgavin
Incorrect, the repeated Ice-Age Glaciations of the planet explain far better then either of these, the cycle of rising and falling sea-levels.
|
That would explain some change. But ice ages have a totally different chronology. The growth is effective over millions of years and ice ages occur in the ten thousands. A steady fall of sea level can't be explained with glaciation at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgavin
The other thing to consider is that when the Expanding Earth was more mainstream, many expeiments tried to measue the expansion rate, and the failed at that repeatedly.
|
I didn't know, that this was popular once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgavin
There is also the fact that with GPS, and other Radar based Satelites used for Deformation detection, have never shown any evidence for expansion either.
|
There is some evidence: that is the incline of the solar year. It's very slow but measurable. I heard, that this is due to the influence of the moon. But that is wrong, because angular momentum is strictly conserved (friction or not).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgavin
The oldest known Oceanic Crust is only 200 million years old. The Continetial crust is over 20 times older then that in areas. An expanding earth would have oceanic crust almost as old as the continental crust.
|
A rift is assumed to be V-shaped. It opens at the bottom and spreads at the top. Since the bottom is deeper, water would float there. So that model would expect water where there are spreadings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgavin
The earth Started out Very hot, and cooled off over time. Hot things Expand, cooling things contract (with the exception of water ice). Some paeleomagnetic research has shown that at one point, the earth was 102% of it's current size, this evidence fits with a slowly cooling and contracting Planet and patently contridicts results expected in a growing earth.
|
The problem with the assumption of earth crust once been molten is the occurrence of some minerals. Some light elements are within the earth and some heavy on the surface. A totally molten earth wouldn't allow that. As you showed above, the crust is very old. How could than the earth have been bigger?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgavin
Back to Electric earth quakes. Again I'm not discounting electrical events coinciding with Earthquakes, however by what phsical mechanism could a discharge of an oscilating EM force, reduce the friction at a fault zone enough to trigger an earthquake?
|
Well, that's the unhappy part of this story. If plate tectonics is somehow wrong, than it can't possibly be a cause for anything. The process of movement (either by plate tectonics or by growth) would cause quakes due to opening of new cracks and of form fitting processes like shear movement. But that would be a relatively slow process, that only sometime cause severe damage. There are a lot of earthquakes, that are not related to faults. In these cases I would think of an relation to em-forces, because the patterns fit: mountains, rivers and weather influence the possibility to connect for those fields to the earth. In faults is more liquid and more charged material expected. That would be a preferred target, too.The mechanism of the quake I think is due to a Lorentz force that is applied in a Hall effect.
There is another (speculative) effect, coming from my own model (this why the test of the growing earth hypothesis is important). That model connects gravity, radiation and matter in a specific way. It's an angle I called theta. If you shift that angle, radiation 'materializes', what is a bit surprising effect. That angle is the same theta as in SRT and is effected by gravity. So matter could be kind of 'beamed' into our earth' crust and cause that to expand.