Thursday, September 20, 2012

Expanding Earth. Bullshit hypothesis.

There is one huge train wreck of a thread in a forum I am a member of. This thread is about a hypothesis called Expanding Earth (EE). Yes, these people believe without a shred of evidence that the Earth is expanding by mass addition. Most of them argue about geology, and that the geological features are best explained by this mysterious mechanism of adding mass to the Earth, and not by our current theories of plate tectonics. However, the Expanding Earth proponents are forgetting physics. Because the underlying problem is one of physics, not geology. The questions which cannot be answered and have not been answered are the following:

First of all no extra matter being added has ever been detected, on Earth or on any other planet. And if the Earth is expanding, then so should other planets and bodies be expanding too. Unless of course, the Earth is the only body expanding, for which EE proponents need to show why it's only the Earth that is expanding and not all the other planets, and for that matter all the bodies in the Universe, whether they are planets, stars, comets, etc.

But let's start from the basic question: where does this extra matter come from? How is it produced? What is the mechanism of this mysterious mass addition? And what is the mass being produced? Is it quarks, protons, neutrons, what? And how does it combine into atoms heavier than hydrogen in conditions that are nowhere near the conditions in the cores of the less massive stars? And where does the extra energy from to combine protons and neutrons into atoms heavier than iron? These last conditions are found only in the tremendous explosions of supernovae! And how does all this matter get distributed at the right places? What about conservation laws? These are questions to which the EE proponents have no answer for.

Even if we take the view that bodies do expand, more problems to account for: if the Sun was less massive, [and in fact the opposite is true because the Sun is losing mass due to solar wind, radiation, etc.], it means less gravity in the past, and increasing gravity! Which should be seen in the evolution of the Solar System, and probably some of the outer objects like the Kuiper belt objects would not have been gravitationally bound by the Sun.

But the problem for EE proponents is even worse: if all bodies expand due to mass addition, then most stars would have turned to black holes by now. Because at a certain point, gravity exceeds the radiation pressure of the core, and the star collapses into a neutron star or a black hole, depending on its mass. But if mass addition continues, then black holes is all that should have remained. So, we should see more black holes in galaxies; in fact, more than half of the stars that we now see in our skies should have turned into black holes, due to the extra mass.

And we do not see any expansion in the Earth right now, nor in any of the planets of the Solar System or the Sun, for that matter. Did expansion by matter addition magically stop? And if it did, why did it stop? What is the mechanism that starts and stops this expansion?

The EE hypothesis is nothing more than utter fuckwittery of the highest order. I am just writing this post to get my frustrations out with all the retards that believe this kind of shit. And if you are one of them, then please go get an education before coming here and start talking utter bullshit.

4 comments:

unknown said...

I have observed that biology has played a major role to form the
earth.infect earth itself is a single living organism like a tree.please
observe the following explanation for this hypothesis. this hypothesis is
like a Gaia hypothesis supported by some more evidences.
1. Amino acid and Biological chemistry in chondrite meteorite.
we have found amino acid and biological chemistry inside the
chondrite meteorite. as i consider them seeds of planets. one planet is a
result of one asteroid as one tree is a result of one seed. these amino
acid and biological chemistry is a main property of any seed.
http://yfrog.com/m9meteoriodj
2. bark as continent; if you will observe the continents can be fit in
small globe like a puzzle game same bark can be fit in small gorth of same
log of tree.

http://img861.imageshack.us/i/treebarkcontinents.png/ --- Bark &
Continents
http://yfrog.com/gh08810treebark1221170loj TREE BARKS
http://yfrog.com/6zpicxaj bark Earth & Tree
http://yfrog.com/h4moo6j Safeda

3. core and crust; same as in log of tree.
http://yfrog.com/5ucorecrustj Core Crust
4. plate tectonic; yes i agreed with PT but at the end biological process
beneath the earth surface is responsible for the motion of plates. same PT
is happening in the log of tree.
http://yfrog.com/0g72697054j Plate Tectonic 4.
http://img705.imageshack.us/i/platetectonics.jpg/ PLATE TECTONIC LINK
5. subduction zone;same in log of tree.
http://yfrog.com/0tplatetectonics2j Subduction Zone

6. HYDROCARBON a scientific ; this is a scientific evidence of my
hypothesis.that earth itself is a single living organism and producing
hydrocarbons like any all living organism. I believe crude oil has both
deep and organic origin . fossil oil theory is not correct. we have
observed hydrocarbons at almost whole universe including Titan. there is no
solid reason that hydrocarbons at earth has been from fossils of past life
and at rest universe with different method where no life has been observe
yet.
More over i have solved the mystery that why sediments are signatures of
presence of oil while has no involvement to produce it. this is the main
logic of fossil oil theory. infect i have solved this mystery of
petroleum. my theory is between the current biogenic and abiogenic
theories. I believe oil has both deep and organic origin like a bark oil.
Making Oil From Birch Bark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7i5CY6XNo&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3lG3FX9D68

7. presence of same minerals like iron,nickel,moly,crome,V,MN,ZN,,,,,,,,,
etc at earth are also present in all living organism.this is very much
common factor in all living organism inculding hydrocarbons.
I have lot of these type of evidence and putting all together we can
conclude it that earth itself is a living thing that has been grown from
small asteroid.I need some assistance for further examinations.
regs

auxo tectonics said...

Hi Paraskevi,

You seem very disturb by the Expanding Earth theory. Did you ever read a paper explaining why some scientists came to the conclusion that Earth must be expanding? Try this paper published in Earth Science Reviews:
"The Expanding Earth - an Essay Review" SW Carey (1975) Earth-Science Reviews 11 p 105-143

You should easily find a pdf reprint by googling it.

Lanzalaco said...

what you are failing to take into account is that the geology stands on its own. As we acquire more data, i.e. the ocean floor map completely maps out the earths development to every detail. No fragmentation or holes now. These facts now fit the theory of EE better than PT. We are setting up a probability regression model for this dataset. Its looking that might actually be infinitely impossible for the earth not to regress along the isochron model to a closed form. We will know more after the US navy data is re-assessed.

So that is really inconvenient to the physics.

Worse still for the physics, wait till we actually understand mass or even gravity. Currently only 5% of mass we understand how its calculated... so I think we should stick with the more complete datasets like the geology.

What we find here is a need for certainty in science. Since very little about astrophysics is certain, I would either focus on solving the problems or find another area that can provide that.

Lanzalaco said...

Something else, as "Darkchilde" Paraskevi Oppio, binned theories into pseudoscience on ratskep forum which proposed dark matter in terms of variable speed of light. And many other works that did not deserve this labeling.


If you check out wikipedia you will find some recent works along this line were published in nature.

This is a valid area of research that is growing very rapidly now, but it takes more than Open university level physics or math to understand, at least if you want to comprehend the math, maybe some of the third year courses might help, but it will still require a fair bit of effort on the self. I am doing the OU math, physics and algorithmic modules myself, and they do not provide a basis for me to follow the derivations in these papers. At least not without taking them into mathematica and contacting the authors for clarification.

Since you were taking pleasure in jumping to conclusions i did not see such the motivation for such an objective outcome appear to be possible at that time.