Earth Expansion from a Jupiter-like Protoplanet

[ExpErdMann]

Here's a new expanding Earth theory, proposed by geophysicist J. Marvin Herndon: Protoplanetary Earth Formation: Further Evidence and Geophysical Implications (http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0408/0408539.pdf). It continues his research on the nature of the Earth's internal structure, which he has published in PNAS and other notable publications.

Herndon suggests that the Earth's core could not have been as dense as it is if the Earth formed by accretion. He says it's more plausible that the Earth condensed out of a Jupiter-like protoplanet. The overburden on the Earth-like core region would have caused the Earth to have been condensed to about 64% of its present radius. When the gaseous part of the protoplanet was ejected, perhaps due to an event in the Sun's evolution, the compressed Earth was allowed to expand.

Unlike proponents of plate tectonics or expanding Earth, Herndon suggests that expansion does not proceed from mid-ocean ridges, but rather from 'expansion cracks' near continental margins. He says that consequently the process of expansion was not necessarily limited to the last 200 million years. This appears near the end of his paper. I'd be especially curious to get people's reactions on that.

The expanding Earth theory was earlier discussed in "Great New Book: Why Expanding Earth" and "Expanding Earth Video".

[A Thousand Pardons]

Here's a new expanding Earth theory, proposed by geophysicist J. Marvin Herndon: Protoplanetary Earth Formation: Further Evidence and Geophysical Implications (http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0408/0408539.pdf). It continues his research on the nature of the Earth's internal structure, which he has published in PNAS and other notable publications.
He begs the question a little: "there has been no adequate geophysical explanation to account for the Earth’s non-contiguous crustal continental rock layer, except by assuming that the Earth in the distant past was smaller and subsequently expanded." I would say that plate tectonics has been fairly adequate at explaining those features. :)

Also, his model has basalt "extruded mainly at midoceanic ridges" and creeping across the ocean floor and "plunging downward into distant expansion cracks." In other words, "emulating subduction." :)

So, it works just like plate tectonics, but instead of convection, it has expansion. How does he account for the varying ages of the continental crust then? I couldn't find that detail.

[ExpErdMann]

He begs the question a little: "there has been no adequate geophysical explanation to account for the Earth’s non-contiguous crustal continental rock layer, except by assuming that the Earth in the distant past was smaller and subsequently expanded." I would say that plate tectonics has been fairly adequate at explaining those features.
On this point, most EE proponents take the the division of the Earth's surface into ocean basins and continental 'uplands' as a key piece of evidence for expansion. From what I can tell (and this was discussed in the other threads I mentioned) PT proponents have no explanation for this bimodal division, but think that it is not an important thing to explain.

Also, his model has basalt "extruded mainly at midoceanic ridges" and creeping across the ocean floor and "plunging downward into distant expansion cracks." In other words, "emulating subduction."

I can't visualize what he's saying here. The basalt wells up into the 'expansion cracks', which are epicontental. But the surface appearance of the basalt is at the mid-ocean ridges. Why should that be?

So, it works just like plate tectonics, but instead of convection, it has expansion. How does he account for the varying ages of the continental crust then? I couldn't find that detail.

I don't think he tackles this. Some EE proponents (especially Maxlow) suppose that the oldest parts of the Earth's crust (such as Scandinavia) formed a continuous cover on a still smaller globe. That idea seems a little farfetched, though.

[A Thousand Pardons]

He begs the question a little: "there has been no adequate geophysical explanation to account for the Earth’s non-contiguous crustal continental rock layer, except by assuming that the Earth in the distant past was smaller and subsequently expanded." I would say that plate tectonics has been fairly adequate at explaining those features.
On this point, most EE proponents take the the division of the Earth's surface into ocean basins and continental 'uplands' as a key piece of evidence for expansion. From what I can tell (and this was discussed in the other threads I mentioned) PT proponents have no explanation for this bimodal division, but think that it is not an important thing to explain.

No explanation? What is it that is not being explained? I found the two other threads that you mentioned (Expanding earth video (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=6039) and Great New Book: Why Expanding Earth (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9902&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=21), although I am having difficulty displaying any of the first twenty posts to the second one), but they are both around 300 posts. Need some help, please! I tried to do a search on "bimodal" and it seems to appear only six times in all of the BABB, but none of them are in either of those threads.

Also, his model has basalt "extruded mainly at midoceanic ridges" and creeping across the ocean floor and "plunging downward into distant expansion cracks." In other words, "emulating subduction."

I can't visualize what he's saying here. The basalt wells up into the 'expansion cracks', which are epicontental. But the surface appearance of the basalt is at the mid-ocean ridges. Why should that be?

No, the oceanic basalt sinks into the cracks, pulled down and away from the mid-ocean ridges (slab-pull, the plate tectonicists would say, I think), allowing the magma to well up.

So, it works just like plate tectonics, but instead of convection, it has expansion. How does he account for the varying ages of the continental crust then? I couldn't find that detail.

I don't think he tackles this. Some EE proponents (especially Maxlow) suppose that the oldest parts of the Earth's crust (such as Scandinavia) formed a continuous cover on a still smaller globe. That idea seems a little farfetched, though.
Farfetched? That's a pretty ironic use of the word. :)

[iFire]

One thing I have always wonderd. Could the existance of life on earth have made it bigger... if only by a tiny bit? I mean, when somehting dies, it becomes part of the earth, adding a little more, when something is born, it creates more stuff. I hope that made sence...

[A Thousand Pardons]

a h*ck of a lot of limestone was created by the discarded remains of little sea creatures, but they were themselves built up mostly of materials that were already on or near earth

[ExpErdMann]

No explanation? What is it that is not being explained? I found the two other threads that you mentioned (Expanding earth video (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=6039) and Great New Book: Why Expanding Earth (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9902&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=21), although I am having difficulty displaying any of the first twenty posts to the second one), but they are both around 300 posts. Need some help, please! I tried to do a search on "bimodal" and it seems to appear only six times in all of the BABB, but none of them are in either of those threads.
It just refers to the division of the Earth's surface into two broad zones, the oceanic basins with average depths of several km below sea level, and the continental areas, with average elevation a little above sea level. PTers don't touch this. It's hard to see why an Earth which cooled out of molten material, supposedly, then got roughed up into this two-level pattern.


No, the oceanic basalt sinks into the cracks, pulled down and away from the mid-ocean ridges (slab-pull, the plate tectonicists would say, I think), allowing the magma to well up.
Yes, according to PT the lighter, hot magma comes through at the spreading centres, then cools and gradually the slabs sink into the subduction zones. What's he saying then - the magma originates at the expansion cracks, appears at the surface at the mid-ocean ridges, creeps across the seabottm, and then goes back down into the expansion cracks. Don't think so!

Here's (http://microlnx.com/expansion/ever_since_wegener.htm) a short history of some of the EE theory. It misses the Dirac-Jordan decreasing G hypothesis.

[Jpax2003]

Haven't we theorized that Europa has a plate tectonic system, albeit based on solid and molten water. Would this not validate the process of plate tectonics? Is there evidence that Europa is now, or has in the past, undergone massive compression and flexion on the same scale as that claimed for earth in the Earth Expansion hypothesis?

[The Bad Astronomer]

I'll have to read those papers later (no time now), but Herndon has published theories that could charitably be called "wacky" in the past. I talk about him in my review of "The Core", at the very bottom of the page. Judging from that, I will read his theories with an even larger grain of salt than I usually do.

[A Thousand Pardons]

No explanation? What is it that is not being explained? I found the two other threads that you mentioned (Expanding earth video (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=6039) and Great New Book: Why Expanding Earth (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9902&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=21), although I am having difficulty displaying any of the first twenty posts to the second one), but they are both around 300 posts. Need some help, please! I tried to do a search on "bimodal" and it seems to appear only six times in all of the BABB, but none of them are in either of those threads.
It just refers to the division of the Earth's surface into two broad zones, the oceanic basins with average depths of several km below sea level, and the continental areas, with average elevation a little above sea level. PTers don't touch this. It's hard to see why an Earth which cooled out of molten material, supposedly, then got roughed up into this two-level pattern.

I know what you mean by the bimodal distribution. What I don't know, is why you say that plate tectonics doesn't "touch this." Are you sure you understand plate tectonics?


No, the oceanic basalt sinks into the cracks, pulled down and away from the mid-ocean ridges (slab-pull, the plate tectonicists would say, I think), allowing the magma to well up.
Yes, according to PT the lighter, hot magma comes through at the spreading centres, then cools and gradually the slabs sink into the subduction zones. What's he saying then - the magma originates at the expansion cracks, appears at the surface at the mid-ocean ridges, creeps across the seabottm, and then goes back down into the expansion cracks. Don't think so!
I wasn't repeating what plate tectonics says--I was recapping what was said in the paper. He doesn't say what you say, at all, it seems to me. I don't see anywhere where he says the magma originates at the expansion cracks (which he says are the trenches of plate tectonics) and then appears the mid-ocean ridges.

[JustAGuy]

One thing I have always wonderd. Could the existance of life on earth have made it bigger... if only by a tiny bit? I mean, when somehting dies, it becomes part of the earth, adding a little more, when something is born, it creates more stuff. I hope that made sence...
Not really. When something is born, it's created out of the environment; it doesn't spontaneously bring matter into existance.

So a million years of life being born, living and dying gives a net mass gain of zero.

[ExpErdMann]

Haven't we theorized that Europa has a plate tectonic system, albeit based on solid and molten water. Would this not validate the process of plate tectonics? Is there evidence that Europa is now, or has in the past, undergone massive compression and flexion on the same scale as that claimed for earth in the Earth Expansion hypothesis?
The EE proponents have also claimed that several of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn show evidence of expansion. It's likely to be the same kind of evidence that PTers would say support PT, i.e., the raised up continent-like sections and lower ocean-like basins. I would be curious if you have any refs on this though.

By the way there was another thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=6628&postdays=0&postorder=asc&high light=expanding+mars&start=0)where the expansion of Mars was discussed.

[ExpErdMann]

I'll have to read those papers later (no time now), but Herndon has published theories that could charitably be called "wacky" in the past. I talk about him in my review of "The Core", at the very bottom of the page. Judging from that, I will read his theories with an even larger grain of salt than I usually do. I don't think his idea of the Jupiter-sized Earth is necessary for Earth expansion, but he's at least heading in the right direction!

Thanks, I'll read your review of his core hypothesis.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Thanks, I'll read your review of his core hypothesis.
I think that was his review of the movie "The Core"

[ExpErdMann]

I know what you mean by the bimodal distribution. What I don't know, is why you say that plate tectonics doesn't "touch this." Are you sure you understand plate tectonics?
In your own words then, how did the Earth become differentiated into the bimodal plan (basins and uplands) starting from a uniform crust?

I wasn't repeating what plate tectonics says--I was recapping what was said in the paper. He doesn't say what you say, at all, it seems to me. I don't see anywhere where he says the magma originates at the expansion cracks (which he says are the trenches of plate tectonics) and then appears the mid-ocean ridges.
Thanks, I'm finally getting his idea. The 'expansion cracks' are empty at first, the magma is extruded at the ridges, creeps over to the cracks and the basaltic slabs fall into the cracks, somewhat as in PT. Somehow I was reading it as though the magma was being formed in his 'expansion cracks'. I don't like his mechanism here, but I don't see right off where we could rule it out.

[A Thousand Pardons]

I know what you mean by the bimodal distribution. What I don't know, is why you say that plate tectonics doesn't "touch this." Are you sure you understand plate tectonics?
In your own words then, how did the Earth become differentiated into the bimodal plan (basins and uplands) starting from a uniform crust?
The two different types of rock have different density characteristics, a result of their different origins. Once the earth started to cool, its crust would start to solidify. If it got dense enough, it would sink. Viola.

[ExpErdMann]

Thanks, I'll read your review of his core hypothesis.
I think that was his review of the movie "The Core"
Check! I agree with the BA the Earth is not a nuclear reactor. But Herndon is just trying to account for the heat of the core. At geophysics conferences this is an active area these days and many ideas are being proposed.

[ExpErdMann]

In your own words then, how did the Earth become differentiated into the bimodal plan (basins and uplands) starting from a uniform crust?
The two different types of rock have different density characteristics, a result of their different origins. Once the earth started to cool, its crust would start to solidify. If it got dense enough, it would sink. Viola.
You say the Earth's outer layers started off at a uniform composition, density, etc. Then the heavier rocks sunk down and the lighter ones rose up. That would still give you a new uniform configuration across the planet. You haven't accounted for highlands and lowlands yet.

[A Thousand Pardons]

In your own words then, how did the Earth become differentiated into the bimodal plan (basins and uplands) starting from a uniform crust?
The two different types of rock have different density characteristics, a result of their different origins. Once the earth started to cool, its crust would start to solidify. If it got dense enough, it would sink. Viola.
You say the Earth's outer layers started off at a uniform composition, density, etc. Then the heavier rocks sunk down and the lighter ones rose up. That would still give you a new uniform configuration across the planet. You haven't accounted for highlands and lowlands yet.
Of course they have. :)

I assume by "lowlands" you mean the bottom of the ocean?

For instance, when ocean floor subducts, it remelts, mixed with water, and rises to the surface as a volcano--thus, the Pacific ring of fire. That creates new continental crust. Erosion produces sediment. Etc.

[ExpErdMann]

You're describing how the ocean basins are recycled in PT, but you haven't explained where the continents came from. Your partitioning process (heavier rocks sinking, etc) doesn't permit a crust at a uniform level to be split into lowlands (ocean basins) and uplands (continents). Don't worry about it too much, though. No one amongst the PT crowd has advanced an explanation for this.

Another point to keep in mind is that on the smaller globe all the continental areas can fit together to form a continuous cover. This alone suggests that the crust was of a uniform type at one time.

[Avatar28]

Another point to keep in mind is that on the smaller globe all the continental areas can fit together to form a continuous cover. This alone suggests that the crust was of a uniform type at one time.

As they do on the plate tectonics model as well. Does the expanding earth theory have an explanation for WHY they have actually MEASURED continental drift?

[ExpErdMann]

Another point to keep in mind is that on the smaller globe all the continental areas can fit together to form a continuous cover. This alone suggests that the crust was of a uniform type at one time.

As they do on the plate tectonics model as well. Does the expanding earth theory have an explanation for WHY they have actually MEASURED continental drift?

The continents fit together on a globe of present size, but not so well as on a smaller globe. This was shown for instance by S.W. Carey. If you use a present-sized globe there are large gaps between some continents, what Carey called "gaping gores".

The GPS measurements which seem to confirm continental drift also support Earth expansion. In EE all the continents are moving away from one another as new crust is inserted between them. There are complexities in the interpretation of the GPS data in EE, however, since the Earth's curvature is changing too. If you don't factor this in, it obscures the expansion that is also going on. This was discussed in the other expanding earth threads.

[Nergal]

How does EE explain mountain ranges in areas where tectonic plates have slammed together. How does EE explain subduction zones?

For my own education...does EE claim that Earth is expaning now, or only that the current configuration (continents/basins) is the result of expansion?

[ExpErdMann]

How does EE explain mountain ranges in areas where tectonic plates have slammed together. How does EE explain subduction zones? The idea of tectonic plates slamming together is mainly a PT idea. Mountain building in EE comes partly through a general uplift (advocated by Carey), or through uplift plus some realignment of continental blocks (others). Many papers on orogenesis appeared in the book Why Expanding Earth?.

For my own education...does EE claim that Earth is expaning now, or only that the current configuration (continents/basins) is the result of expansion? Most EE proponents would say it is expanding now. Check the threads listed at the beginning. The current rate is about 1 cm/yr increase in radius. But others have also argued for a slower rate, going back to the time of Earth's formation, of about .5 mm/yr. It's a complex topic and much has been written.

[A Thousand Pardons]

You're describing how the ocean basins are recycled in PT, but you haven't explained where the continents came from.
Did you miss the part where I said "That creates new continental crust"?
Your partitioning process (heavier rocks sinking, etc) doesn't permit a crust at a uniform level to be split into lowlands (ocean basins) and uplands (continents). Don't worry about it too much, though. No one amongst the PT crowd has advanced an explanation for this.
It's all right in front of you, if you want to read it. :)

[ExpErdMann]

You're describing how the ocean basins are recycled in PT, but you haven't explained where the continents came from.
Did you miss the part where I said "That creates new continental crust"?
Yes, new continental crust is being formed around the Ring of Fire - Krakatoa for instance. But no one is suggesting that, for instance, all of China formed that way. The question I'm posing is how did the original Earth get subdivided into raised up continents and lower lying ocean basins. Do you visualize the initial earth, once the crust cooled, as having the bimodal pattern? If so, why? My general understanding of PT is that the ratio of continental area to ocean area is more or less constant over time. In EE this ratio is gradually diminishing.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Yes, new continental crust is being formed around the Ring of Fire - Krakatoa for instance. But no one is suggesting that, for instance, all of China formed that way.

Yes, they are. I don't mean that each and every square inch issued directly from a volcano--clearly, some of the continental crust is sedimentary. That's a slightly different mechanism, but I won't go into the details.
The question I'm posing is how did the original Earth get subdivided into raised up continents and lower lying ocean basins. Do you visualize the initial earth, once the crust cooled, as having the bimodal pattern? If so, why? My general understanding of PT is that the ratio of continental area to ocean area is more or less constant over time. In EE this ratio is gradually diminishing.
It's not the ratio of continental area to ocean area that is constant, it's your general understanding of PT. :)

[ExpErdMann]

Seems like you're ducking the question here. [-X

Take me back to the start of the World as you envisage it. Is it a flat, even surface or are there already continents and basins? If it's the latter, why?

[A Thousand Pardons]

Seems like you're ducking the question here.
No, I'm not. What do you not understand?

Take me back to the start of the World as you envisage it. Is it a flat, even surface or are there already continents and basins? If it's the latter, why?
It's the former. But I would have started even earlier--unless you're an OEC. :)

[Nergal]

The idea of tectonic plates slamming together is mainly a PT idea. Mountain building in EE comes partly through a general uplift (advocated by Carey), or through uplift plus some realignment of continental blocks (others). Many papers on orogenesis appeared in the book Why Expanding Earth?.

What EE calls "general uplift", PT descibes as tectonic plates slamming together with either one pushing up (subducting the other) or both "bunching up" where they meet. I'm no geologist, but to me there is fairly strong evidence that PT accurately describes this process. I understand you were ony summarizing, but "general uplift" just isn't enough to explain it.

Also, I'd submit that "realignment of continental blocks" sounds an awful lot like plate tectonics. :D

Most EE proponents would say it is expanding now. Check the threads listed at the beginning. The current rate is about 1 cm/yr increase in radius. But others have also argued for a slower rate, going back to the time of Earth's formation, of about .5 mm/yr. It's a complex topic and much has been written.

I'm reading between the lines here (so correct me if I'm wrong), but from the way you worded that, it sounds like you subscibe to the "1 cm/yr" school...so I'll go with that number.

Assuming 1cm/yr expansion in radius (did you mean diameter?), that equates to roughly 4 INCHES per decade in radial expansion, or about 8 inches per decade in diameter increase. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that we'd definately notice that much expansion. In fact, if Earth were expanding at that rate, I doubt we'd be having this discussion.

Assuming 1cm/yr constant expansion (granted, that's a big assumption) also doesn't regress well. I haven't done the math, but I think that rate would significantly undervalue the accepted age of the Earth.

Now a much smaller rate of expansion (as you mentioned), or a variable rate of expansion, would be much harder to detect and would undoubtedly jive better with Earth age numbers...I'm still not buying it though.

[ExpErdMann]

The idea of tectonic plates slamming together is mainly a PT idea. Mountain building in EE comes partly through a general uplift (advocated by Carey), or through uplift plus some realignment of continental blocks (others). Many papers on orogenesis appeared in the book Why Expanding Earth?.

What EE calls "general uplift", PT descibes as tectonic plates slamming together with either one pushing up (subducting the other) or both "bunching up" where they meet. I'm no geologist, but to me there is fairly strong evidence that PT accurately describes this process. I understand you were ony summarizing, but "general uplift" just isn't enough to explain it.

I'm not a geologist either. I'm just pointing out that the real geologists who argue for EE have a variety of views on how different kinds of mountains are formed. You almost need to be a geologist to understand what they're saying. Some of them allow for a limited amount of subduction; others discount subduction.

Also, I'd submit that "realignment of continental blocks" sounds an awful lot like plate tectonics. :D

It does. But it's quite a bit more restricted. In PT the continents move all over the place as one supercontinent is formed after another. In EE the present configuration gradually develops out of a uniform 'continent-covered' Earth as the Earth expands. There is some bending about, but not unrestricted free flow.

Most EE proponents would say it is expanding now. Check the threads listed at the beginning. The current rate is about 1 cm/yr increase in radius. But others have also argued for a slower rate, going back to the time of Earth's formation, of about .5 mm/yr. It's a complex topic and much has been written.

I'm reading between the lines here (so correct me if I'm wrong), but from the way you worded that, it sounds like you subscibe to the "1 cm/yr" school...so I'll go with that number.

Assuming 1cm/yr expansion in radius (did you mean diameter?), that equates to roughly 4 INCHES per decade in radial expansion, or about 8 inches per decade in diameter increase. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that we'd definately notice that much expansion. In fact, if Earth were expanding at that rate, I doubt we'd be having this discussion.

Yes, I think we're getting 1 cm/yr increase in radius. We do have measurement of this if we assume the observed seafloor spreading is not offset by subduction. The reason we don't see it in GPS studies is as I've mentioned - neglect of the changing curvature of the Earth.

Assuming 1cm/yr constant expansion (granted, that's a big assumption) also doesn't regress well. I haven't done the math, but I think that rate would significantly undervalue the accepted age of the Earth.

The fast expansion models suppose that the expansion did not begin until about the Triassic. The slow expansion models suppose it began much earlier. So both kinds of model can lead to a significant expansion.

[Nergal]

I'm not a geologist either. I'm just pointing out that the real geologists who argue for EE have a variety of views on how different kinds of mountains are formed. You almost need to be a geologist to understand what they're saying. Some of them allow for a limited amount of subduction; others discount subduction.We'll leave subduction at that then, as I'm not comfortable enough with my knowledge base to go into anything more specific.

Also, I'd submit that "realignment of continental blocks" sounds an awful lot like plate tectonics. :D

It does. But it's quite a bit more restricted. In PT the continents move all over the place as one supercontinent is formed after another. In EE the present configuration gradually develops out of a uniform 'continent-covered' Earth as the Earth expands. There is some bending about, but not unrestricted free flow.

PT only states that the plates move, it makes no predictions about "one supercontinent is formed after another". Only that with all the plates moving, pure statistical chance dictates that at some point a super continent is bound to form. Symantics I know, but still a important difference. Again, I know you are generalizing, but "unrestricted free flow" is probably not a good way to describe PT movement...all ajoining plates exert pressures and "restrictions" on each other movements in some way (earthquakes being the most obvious side effect).

Something else that bothers me: "In EE the present configuration gradually develops out of a uniform 'continent-covered' Earth as the Earth expands." If expansion is uniform, then the continents should always be moving away from each other. Of course on the other hand, if expansion is not uniform, then we should see something that resembles PT (more varied movement).

Yes, I think we're getting 1 cm/yr increase in radius. We do have measurement of this if we assume the observed seafloor spreading is not offset by subduction. The reason we don't see it in GPS studies is as I've mentioned - neglect of the changing curvature of the Earth.That's a mighty big assumption. If seafloor spreading was not offset by subduction, we'd see significant increases in distance between continents (more than can be accounted for by PT movements). Granted GPS would be the easiest way to see that, but not the only.

You're going to have to explain what you mean by "neglect of the changing curvature of the Earth". I'm not convinced that would be enough to offset what would see to be significant changes in Earh's diameter.

Assuming 1cm/yr constant expansion (granted, that's a big assumption) also doesn't regress well. I haven't done the math, but I think that rate would significantly undervalue the accepted age of the Earth.

The fast expansion s suppose that the expansion did not begin until about the Triassic. The slow expansion s suppose it began much earlier. So both kinds of can lead to a significant expansion.

From Geologic Time Scales (http://www.starsandseas.com/SAS%20Evolution/SAS%20geoltime/geotime_triassic.htm): "Dating from 245-208mya, the Triassic Period lies at the beginning of the Mesozoic Era, the Age of the Dinosaurs."

From this site (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/EarthRadius.html), Earths radius is (now) 3963.19 miles.

Now, taking the near end of the Triassic at 208 mya and doing the math:
1) Divide by 10 to get decades...
2) Multiply by 4 to get inches of expansion...
3) Divide by 12 to get feet...
4) further divide by 5280 to get miles...

...and you get and expansion in the past 208My of 1313.13 miles of radius. That's about 1/3 Earths current radius...meaning the Earth then was 2/3 it's current size.

I'm just not buying it. Mass has to be conserved, therefor this pre-expansion Earth had to have been much more dense. Aside from the pure physics of compressing that much mass that much, the biological implications are enourmous.

I doubt a planet that small and dense would give rise to giant sized dinosaurs.

[Astronomy]

Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/egg-earth.html) has a pretty decent article debunking this Velikovskian idea.

[A Thousand Pardons]

PT only states that the plates move, it makes no predictions about "one supercontinent is formed after another".
I think it's possible that he may be referring to the interpretation of the data, which seems to show more than one assembly and breakup

[Nergal]

I think it's possible that he may be referring to the interpretation of the data, which seems to show more than one assembly and breakup.
Agreed. Although this pattern isn't "part" of PT theory, it's a necessary consequence of it. If nothing else, pure statistical chance dictates that at some point "super-continents" will form.

[ExpErdMann]

PT only states that the plates move, it makes no predictions about "one supercontinent is formed after another". Only that with all the plates moving, pure statistical chance dictates that at some point a super continent is bound to form. Symantics I know, but still a important difference. Again, I know you are generalizing, but "unrestricted free flow" is probably not a good way to describe PT movement...all ajoining plates exert pressures and "restrictions" on each other movements in some way (earthquakes being the most obvious side effect).
"Unrestricted free flow" was a bit over the top. I was just referring to the wide latitude for different continental assemblages in PT, Pangaea, Rodinia, ...

Something else that bothers me: "In EE the present configuration gradually develops out of a uniform 'continent-covered' Earth as the Earth expands." If expansion is uniform, then the continents should always be moving away from each other. Of course on the other hand, if expansion is not uniform, then we should see something that resembles PT (more varied movement).
Quite right! Keep in mind that the major volume expansion is in the mantle. When expansion first started, there was not as yet the system of spreading ridges that we have today. New crust was presumably added to form the Pacific basin, moving outward from the Pacific Rim of Fire (which was likely a truly contiguous ring at that time). As the supercontinent rifted, new crust could then be added at the rifts, which became the oceanic spreading centres. Because the nascent oceanic basins were not symmetrically distributed around the globe, the continental regions were subjected to torsional motions, giving rise to one form of orogenesis. As the rift system becomes more regular, the amount of torsional motion is reduced.

Yes, I think we're getting 1 cm/yr increase in radius. We do have measurement of this if we assume the observed seafloor spreading is not offset by subduction. The reason we don't see it in GPS studies is as I've mentioned - neglect of the changing curvature of the Earth.That's a mighty big assumption. If seafloor spreading was not offset by subduction, we'd see significant increases in distance between continents (more than can be accounted for by PT movements). Granted GPS would be the easiest way to see that, but not the only. No, the observed 'PT movements' can equally be seen as 'EE movements'.

You're going to have to explain what you mean by "neglect of the changing curvature of the Earth". I'm not convinced that would be enough to offset what would see to be significant changes in Earh's diameter.

I clipped this from a reply I made in another thread (slightly amended to VLBI rather than GPS):

In Scalera's article in the book, there is an explanation of why VLBI data may not reveal Earth expansion. Think of two stations located on the Earth's surface. Each one sends a signal to a satellite. The signal paths and the chord betwen the stations form a triangle. Now when the Earth expands, the curvature of the Earth changes. The Earth's surface is 'flatter' between the two stations than it was before. If nothing else is changed, except for the expansion, then the paths traced out by the signals will also change. They will no longer intersect at the satellite but at a point at higher altitude. An observer who was ignorant of the expansion might conclude that the chord betwen the stations was shorter than before. (If we 'move' the stations closer together, the signal paths intersect again at the satellite). Scalera cites a 1989 study by Keki et al purporting an analogous shortening of baselines for the VLBI network, proportional to the baseline length.
From this site (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/EarthRadius.html), Earths radius is (now) 3963.19 miles.

Now, taking the near end of the Triassic at 208 mya and doing the math:
1) Divide by 10 to get decades...
2) Multiply by 4 to get inches of expansion...
3) Divide by 12 to get feet...
4) further divide by 5280 to get miles...

...and you get and expansion in the past 208My of 1313.13 miles of radius. That's about 1/3 Earths current radius...meaning the Earth then was 2/3 it's current size.

I'm just not buying it. Mass has to be conserved, therefor this pre-expansion Earth had to have been much more dense. Aside from the pure physics of compressing that much mass that much, the biological implications are enourmous.

I doubt a planet that small and dense would give rise to giant sized dinosaurs. I'm not used to the miles/feet, but your numbers look to be on track. The fast expansion model has the Earth expanding about 40% since the Triassic. The fast expansionists think that new mass is somehow being added to the Earth. In this case the density of the Earth may not have been that different in the past. Its surface gravity would actually have been less in this instance, and so some (like Hurrell) say the dinosaurs would have had an easier time.

But I don't think new mass is being added. I think the gravitational force holding the planet together is diminishing over time, somewhat like the Dirac-Jordan expansion supposed. In this case the Earth's density was a lot greater in the past. And surface gravity would have been greater too. This was not a factor until life came out on the land, about 300 Ma ago or so. If you look at the first land plants and animals they are notable for being shorter and stalkier than later species. When the dinosaurs appeared, they could be a lot bigger because surface gravity had significantly diminished by the Jurassic.

[ExpErdMann]

Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/egg-earth.html) has a pretty decent article debunking this Velikovskian idea.
A little caution should be used when drawing information from discussion boards. I haven't read Rose's paper or the Talk Origins discussion around it, but nonetheless the debunking seems amateurish. As far as I'm aware, none of the academics pushing for EE adopt a Velikovsky line. (Ben Berends did, but that's another story). It's always best to draw from original sources. Regarding the person's sharpest criticism:

Thirdly, you or Rose have not provided an adequate explanation for what I consider the most important failure of the theory you presented: Why do you find marine animals like corals and rudists in rocks along the length of the "non-existent" Tethyan Ocean suture? Those animals had to live in an ocean. Where was/is it? How did they get there if the Tethys never existed?

There is abundant evidence that much of the present continental surface was submeged at earlier times. During the course of expansion the area of the basins increases, and so water gradually recedes from the continents. So finding all sorts of marine fossils where dry land exists today is the norm.

[Astronomy]

Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/egg-earth.html) has a pretty decent article debunking this Velikovskian idea.
A little caution should be used when drawing information from discussion boards. I haven't read Rose's paper or the Talk Origins discussion around it, but nonetheless the debunking seems amateurish. As far as I'm aware, none of the academics pushing for EE adopt a Velikovsky line. (Ben Berends did, but that's another story). It's always best to draw from original sources. Regarding the person's sharpest criticism:

Thirdly, you or Rose have not provided an adequate explanation for what I consider the most important failure of the theory you presented: Why do you find marine animals like corals and rudists in rocks along the length of the "non-existent" Tethyan Ocean suture? Those animals had to live in an ocean. Where was/is it? How did they get there if the Tethys never existed?

There is abundant evidence that much of the present continental surface was submeged at earlier times. During the course of expansion the area of the basins increases, and so water gradually recedes from the continents. So finding all sorts of marine fossils where dry land exists today is the norm.

I'm not sure you are spefically advocating for one particular model or not, but they were saying that there was no Tethyan Ocean.

Can you name the academics who are working on this theory and what their credentials are?

[A Thousand Pardons]

I think it's possible that he may be referring to the interpretation of the data, which seems to show more than one assembly and breakup.
Agreed. Although this pattern isn't "part" of PT theory, it's a necessary consequence of it. If nothing else, pure statistical chance dictates that at some point "super-continents" will form.
A necessary consequence of it could be considered a part of it, in a sense. However, I'd have to disagree with the statement that statistical chance dictates that a super continent will form. There is a dependence upon certain parameters that we really don't have a good handle on.

For instance, it is often stated that there is a statistical chance that all the air molecules in a room will at some point end up in one corner, leaving everyone to suffocate. If there a just a few molecules, that will happen--but the number of molecules would have to be so low that you would have suffocated anyway. Under normal circumstances, the probability is so low that it would not happen in the lifetime of the universe.

[ExpErdMann]

There is abundant evidence that much of the present continental surface was submeged at earlier times. During the course of expansion the area of the basins increases, and so water gradually recedes from the continents. So finding all sorts of marine fossils where dry land exists today is the norm.
I'm not sure you are spefically advocating for one particular model or not, but they were saying that there was no Tethyan Ocean.
I have supported different EE models at different times. Expansion at constant mass seems to be the least problematic way now. Expansion with increasing mass I just find hard to envisage. But others are following that idea (eg, Maxlow). The question on Tethys involves specific reconstructions of the early Earth. The Tethys Ocean itself had many stages of evolution, in the end being called the Tethys Seaway. I don't have a specific take on this. Here (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Tethys.htm) is a chapter by S.W. Carey which could be helpful.

Can you name the academics who are working on this theory and what their credentials are?
There were many distinguished ones in the past : Dirac, Jordan, and others, working from the variable G hypothesis. The EE concept precedes those workers though. It goes back to the 19th century with Russian and Italian researchers. Some of the history of the theory is discussed in the recent book Why Expanding Earth, edited by Scalera and Jacob. Unfortunately, the first few pages of the thread we had on that book are not viewable at the moment. I had the table of contents posted there.

Here (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Symposium/SYMPOSIUM.htm) is a page relating to a symposium (outdated I think), and another listing here (http://home.scarlet.be/~pin02936/expandingearth.html). For a good reference list on EE you can try this (http://myst-technology.com/mysmartchannels/public/item/7051?model=blog-contemporary&style=blog-contemporary&scheme=) .

For my money the best researcher on this today is Giancarlo Scalera, one of the editors of Why Expanding Earth. He is at the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Volcanologia in Rome. Most of the active research on this seems to be done in countries such as Italy, Germany and Australia. The North American contribution is less.

[Astronomy]

Can you name the academics who are working on this theory and what their credentials are?
For my money the best researcher on this today is Giancarlo Scalera, one of the editors of Why Expanding Earth. He is at the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Volcanologia in Rome. Most of the active research on this seems to be done in countries such as Italy, Germany and Australia. The North American contribution is less.

This is, indeed, the only person I have found who looks at this idea at all without dismissing it out-of-hand.

What makes you think it's a reasonable idea, then? Are you simply prejudiced against an Earth that doesn't change in size?

[ExpErdMann]

For my money the best researcher on this today is Giancarlo Scalera, one of the editors of Why Expanding Earth. He is at the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Volcanologia in Rome. Most of the active research on this seems to be done in countries such as Italy, Germany and Australia. The North American contribution is less.
This is, indeed, the only person I have found who looks at this idea at all without dismissing it out-of-hand.
More than that. He's an active proponent.
What makes you think it's a reasonable idea, then? Are you simply prejudiced against an Earth that doesn't change in size?
I've read up on it. Most people haven't. They just get the GEOL 101 treatment, straight PT. Here's an idea to keep in mind. When the discovery of new crust being formed at mid-ocean ridges was made, the logical interpretation (made by Heezen, Wilson and others) was that the Earth was expanding. Subduction was just an ad hoc supposition to prevent expansion. It seems that the bias was against EE.

[A Thousand Pardons]

I've read up on it. Most people haven't. They just get the GEOL 101 treatment, straight PT.
That's unfair. I've read Carey's book, and I've had a friend who was working with Carey. Based upon your questions above, you don't even seem to have achieved the Geol 101 level of understanding of plate tectonics--you really should have that much, before you accuse others of bias. And you say that I am ducking the question.
Here's an idea to keep in mind. When the discovery of new crust being formed at mid-ocean ridges was made, the logical interpretation (made by Heezen, Wilson and others) was that the Earth was expanding. Subduction was just an ad hoc supposition to prevent expansion. It seems that the bias was against EE.

[ExpErdMann]

I've read up on it. Most people haven't. They just get the GEOL 101 treatment, straight PT.
That's unfair. I've read Carey's book, and I've had a friend who was working with Carey. Based upon your questions above, you don't even seem to have achieved the Geol 101 level of understanding of plate tectonics--you really should have that much, before you accuse others of bias.
I'm glad to hear you've read Carey's book. On the questions above, however, I think we're talking past each other. Let me give a quote by the physicist Pascual Jordan on this point, from the book The Applications of Modern Physics to the Earth and Planetary Interiors, (Runcorn ed, p. 55):
Therefore the author again became interested when his late friend Fisher in New York made the remark that Dirac's decrease of G, if it existed, must have caused a marked expansion of the Earth in the course of its history. The author believed that here could be seen a possible answer to one of the great problems of earth research: why is there a division of the surface of the Earth into two different parts, continental areas and deep sea?
It is a big question - PT just chooses to ignore it.
And you say that I am ducking the question.
Maybe it's unfair to say you're ducking the question. I'll say you aren't yet recognizing the significance of the question.

I didn't accuse anyone here of bias. Astronomy did.

[A Thousand Pardons]

I'm glad to hear you've read Carey's book.

I've mentioned it before (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=180344#180344).

It is a big question - PT just chooses to ignore it.
I disagree.

Maybe it's unfair to say you're ducking the question. I'll say you aren't yet recognizing the significance of the question.

That's unfair, too. I thought I answered the question.

There are two different types of crustal development, continental and oceanic. Those processes are fairly well explained and understood chemically and physically. The oceanic crust is denser and heavier. Isostatic conditions result in two different levels of crust. That's from Geol 101.

I didn't accuse anyone here of bias. Astronomy did.
I didn't say you did.

[ExpErdMann]

Here I was thinking when's that guy gonna join the thread? Welcome back! :)

I should have known when you mentioned the Carey stuff - who else read up on that on this board? And the NC location. I'm getting rusty!

We talked about the crust before. Maybe we don't need to go at it again. What did you think of Herndon's hypothesis though? Can we rule out "Earth as Jupiter"?

[Astronomy]

Here I was thinking when's that guy gonna join the thread? Welcome back! :)

I should have known when you mentioned the Carey stuff - who else read up on that on this board? And the NC location. I'm getting rusty!

We talked about the crust before. Maybe we don't need to go at it again. What did you think of Herndon's hypothesis though? Can we rule out "Earth as Jupiter"?

Earth and Jupiter have entirely different formation models, one being a terrestrial planet and the other being a gas giant. The only similarity is they both came from the protoplanetary disk.

[ExpErdMann]

Earth and Jupiter have entirely different formation models, one being a terrestrial planet and the other being a gas giant. The only similarity is they both came from the protoplanetary disk.
But Herndon is proposing a specific mechanism for the Earth's formation. I'm inclined to exclude this from the list of possible EE mechanisms. Just wondering if I have grounds to do so.

[A Thousand Pardons]

We talked about the crust before. Maybe we don't need to go at it again.
Why not? you still think that plate tectonics does not have an explanation for the oceanic and continental crust?

[ExpErdMann]

Okay, here's whay you said:
For instance, when ocean floor subducts, it remelts, mixed with water, and rises to the surface as a volcano--thus, the Pacific ring of fire. That creates new continental crust. Erosion produces sediment. Etc.
You're suggesting that this is the main way continental crust is formed, but I don't think you've got the evidence. If it were true than Archaean rocks would be similar than rocks formed in later periods. That's not so.

[dgavin]

Any number of things could be causing Expansion like effects. Just because there is Expansion doesn't mean Earth is a remnent core of a gas giant.

In fact there is quite a few known scientific facts that condradict an EE Model.

Fact 1. Exanding things lose energy(heat) (Laws of Thermodynamics).

Supposition 1: if the EE model was true, the earth would most likely have a solidified Core by now, with a weaker magnetic field like Mars has.

Fact 2. Gas Giants have cores of Liquid Metal Hydrogen. Earth has a Core of Iron and even heavier Metals. The Earth does not have enough Mass/Density to have ever sustatined a Liquid Metal Hydrogen Core. Requires a planet with 1/2 the mass of saturn for a Liquid Metal Hydrogen Core to be sustained.

Supposition 2: If the EE model was true, where is proff from the byproducs of a Liquid Metal Hydrogen core?

Fact 3. The Earths Core maintains it's temperature by Nuclear Fisson (Atoms Splitting Apart). Gas Giants via Ultra High Gravity. A Gas Giant's core being Mostly Hydrogen, could not possibly have Fission, as the matter is unfissionable (Can't break an Atom of hydrogen, into smaller components). There is direct evidence of the Earths Core Fission processes.

Fact 4. A fissioning Core produces massive quantities of heat, and Convetion currents, as evidenced by the Vulcanic processes drivng Hot Spot Vulcanism, as opposed to Tectonics. Hot Spots are Vulcanism driven directly from heat plumes emenating from the core itself, which melts the crest until it's only a few miles thick. Examples of non techtonic vulcanism are Hawaii, Yellowstone, Etna.

Supposition 4: A core that was cooling, was Hydrogen based and not heavy metals, would not have the fission needed to support Hot Spot style volcanic activity.

Fact 5. A core with Fission processes itself can cause periods of exansion and contraction depening of fuel availability, rate of fission, etc from heat presssure.

Supposition 5: If there is proff of exapnsion, (which i don't think i've seen any presented? Any telelemtry or radar inferometry to back it up?) The earths Core and Fission processes explains it and is far more likely the cause, then the entire planent being the rememnet of a gas giant.

[ExpErdMann]

Any number of things could be causing Expansion like effects. Just because there is Expansion doesn't mean Earth is a remnent core of a gas giant.
Agreed!
In fact there is quite a few known scientific facts that condradict an EE Model.

Fact 1. Exanding things lose energy(heat) (Laws of Thermodynamics).

Supposition 1: if the EE model was true, the earth would most likely have a solidified Core by now, with a weaker magnetic field like Mars has.
The Earth is thought to have a solid inner core and a molten outer core

Fact 2. Gas Giants have cores of Liquid Metal Hydrogen. Earth has a Core of Iron and even heavier Metals. The Earth does not have enough Mass/Density to have ever sustatined a Liquid Metal Hydrogen Core. Requires a planet with 1/2 the mass of saturn for a Liquid Metal Hydrogen Core to be sustained.

Supposition 2: If the EE model was true, where is proff from the byproducs of a Liquid Metal Hydrogen core?
I'm not sure who among the EE proponents is arguing for a liquid hydrogen core. None, I think.

Fact 3. The Earths Core maintains it's temperature by Nuclear Fisson (Atoms Splitting Apart). Gas Giants via Ultra High Gravity. A Gas Giant's core being Mostly Hydrogen, could not possibly have Fission, as the matter is unfissionable (Can't break an Atom of hydrogen, into smaller components). There is direct evidence of the Earths Core Fission processes.
Well, maybe not. Most of the radioactive materials are thought to reside in the Earth's crust. It's an ongoing mystery why there should be so much heat generated apparently from the core.

Fact 4. A fissioning Core produces massive quantities of heat, and Convetion currents, as evidenced by the Vulcanic processes drivng Hot Spot Vulcanism, as opposed to Tectonics. Hot Spots are Vulcanism driven directly from heat plumes emenating from the core itself, which melts the crest until it's only a few miles thick. Examples of non techtonic vulcanism are Hawaii, Yellowstone, Etna.

Supposition 4: A core that was cooling, was Hydrogen based and not heavy metals, would not have the fission needed to support Hot Spot style volcanic activity.
True, but again no one is arguing for that.

Fact 5. A core with Fission processes itself can cause periods of exansion and contraction depening of fuel availability, rate of fission, etc from heat presssure.

Supposition 5: If there is proff of exapnsion, (which i don't think i've seen any presented? Any telelemtry or radar inferometry to back it up?) The earths Core and Fission processes explains it and is far more likely the cause, then the entire planent being the rememnet of a gas giant.
There is some evidence for expansion. See the new thread I've started. But I agree with you that other causes are more likely for expansion than the Earth being a remnant of Jupiter.

[A Thousand Pardons]

You're suggesting that this is the main way continental crust is formed, but I don't think you've got the evidence.
No, I'm saying that that is one of the ways--that's just one obvious example. There are hundreds of ways. None of them foreign to plate tectonics.

[ExpErdMann]

Your a tough crust to crack, KP! :)

[A Thousand Pardons]

Your a tough crust to crack, KP!
Try cracking that ol' Geol 101 textbook! :)