Yes, easily measured if one was looking for that. Enlighten me as to if anyone has actually done a global analysis using and array of GPS looking for expansion?

__________________
"In the end the aggressors always destroy themselves, making way for others who know how to cooperate and get along. Life is much less a competitive struggle for survival than a triumph of cooperation and creativity."- Fritjof Capra

www.gonzoscience.com

Yes, it appears to be another case of extreme misunderstanding and embellishment.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

My thoughts exactly. (I've just got over my flashbacks to PN junctions, circa 1982.)

I'm fascinated with Total Science's unique approach to wagging the dog.

1. Adopt a bullying attitude; go onto one of the most civilised sites anywhere ever, and behave as if it's a bar-room brawl.

2. Compile a list of quotations, consisting of several from respectable scientists which touch on the relevant subject (but don't actually support Total Science's views at all), together with one or two quotes that do support Total Science's views, but which are written by crackpots.

3. Make vague allegations which don't quite count as ad homs because nobody is mentioned by name.

4. When challenged, quote a source that appears to support your stance (whether from the respected scientists or the other group - by now people have supposedly forgotten which is which). Remember to do so in a belligerant manner.

5. If in doubt, make a very short statement that contains a germ of science but which could mean almost anything.

6. Carry on as long as possible.

But now you are making a large assumption here by claiming that this process has been going on for the entire life of the Earth.

Also, according to EE Theory, expansion has only been occurring for the last 200my, at least evidenced by ocean crustal age. This amounts to (at claimed rate)
Assumed mass gain from TS numbers -26,280,000,000,000,000,000
Mass of Earth (present, tons) -6,580,000,000,000,000,000,000

This is less than 1% gain in mass @ 2 tons every 8 minutes for 200my.

The Sun ejects 6.7 billion tons of mass every hour (Wiki). If, lets say, even .0001% of this mass encounters Earth, that is 670,000 tons of charged particles impacting Earths magnetosphere every hour.

Now, big assumption, but IF there is some kind of new physics allowing even some of those charged particles to accrete at Earth's core, there would be your hypothetical mechanism.

Who knows, maybe the LHC will reveal something supportive. About as likely as finding dark matter.

__________________
"In the end the aggressors always destroy themselves, making way for others who know how to cooperate and get along. Life is much less a competitive struggle for survival than a triumph of cooperation and creativity."- Fritjof Capra

www.gonzoscience.com

Total Science: Have someone else do the math for you if you can't.

No, why don't YOU show us the math. (Wish I would have seen that post before I did that above^) I am curious if you can even coherently represent even hypothetically what you are talking about.

__________________
"In the end the aggressors always destroy themselves, making way for others who know how to cooperate and get along. Life is much less a competitive struggle for survival than a triumph of cooperation and creativity."- Fritjof Capra

www.gonzoscience.com

Torsten:
If there is one these events happening every 8 minutes, that's 365.25*24*60/8 = 65745 such events per year.

If there are 1,000,000 tonnes of stuff coming in and sticking to the Earth, that's 65745*1,000,000 = 65,745,000,000 tonnes per year.

If this has been happening for 4,600,000,000 years, then 3.0242x1020 tonnes have been added this way.

The present mass of the Earth provided by Google Calculator is 5.9742 x 1024 kg, or 5.9742 x 1021 tonnes.

So, 3.0242x1020 / 5.9742 x 1021 = 0.0506 or about 5.1% of the current mass of the Earth. Under such a scenario the original mass of the Earth would have been 0.949 that of today. If the density of the new stuff is the same as what was there to begin with (for lack of a better estimate), then the Earth's diameter would have been 0.9491/3 = 0.983 its present diameter.

So much better than mine....

__________________
"In the end the aggressors always destroy themselves, making way for others who know how to cooperate and get along. Life is much less a competitive struggle for survival than a triumph of cooperation and creativity."- Fritjof Capra

www.gonzoscience.com

Just like the Creationists over on Talk.Origins

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

That must be a horrific place to visit...

__________________
"In the end the aggressors always destroy themselves, making way for others who know how to cooperate and get along. Life is much less a competitive struggle for survival than a triumph of cooperation and creativity."- Fritjof Capra

www.gonzoscience.com

you have no idea!

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Please explain what P-holes are. As others have commented, they sound suspiciously like P-type semi-conductors, which if true doesn't do what you want.

Also, why have you suddenly jumped to charged particles? Only a couple of posts back you were talking about neutrinos (uncharged and neutral, hence the "neut" part of the word neutrino.) What is it that you are proposing ends up in the core?

LOL! My thoughts exactly.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

I don't think Total Science knows what the mechanism is or couldbe, he doesn't seem to even have a consistent idea just some vague suggestions of expansion.

Please TS give us a concise summery of your ATM idea and what you consider to be evidence supporting it. Please do this in your own words and not with a list of random links to websites.

I want to know what your idea/theory is, n ow what someone else has on a website somewhere.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

That suggests another back-of-the-envelope calculation:

Let's imagine that every single bit of that 6.7 billion tons/hr of stuff is confined to the ecliptic plane, but is spread uniformly in all directions on that plane. That would represent a major concentration of stuff compared to what actually happens.

The circumference of the Earth's orbit around the Sun is about 940,000,000 km. Its diameter at the equator is 12,756 km. So, every hour, in this extreme, contrived model, 12,756 / 940,000,000 x 6,700,000,000 = 90,920 tons of stuff from the Sun arrive at Earth.

In a year that's 365.25 x 24 x 90920 = 797,008,450 tons, or ~8x10⁸ tons

This number is 8x10⁸tons / 6.5745x10¹⁰tonnes x 0.91 tonne/ton = 0.011 or 1.1% of the earlier calculation that used an arbitrarily large 1 million tonnes every 8 minutes and could only account for 5.1% of the Earth's current mass in 4.6 billion years.

Are you following this Total Science? While I may suffer embarrassment if my calculations are wrong, please feel free to correct me.

And, I'll second captain swoop's comment. Having watched that video linked in the OP, I suspect that Total Science believes that Ganymede has grown in volume - somehow - by ~30% in the "recent" (define?) past, and this accounts for the appearance of the smoother areas of its surface compared to the older, darker, and more cratered area.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak