Talk:Expanding earth theory

I am no geologist, but some explanations seem to need some more work. I agree that theories like the expanding earth must be represented, but some of the reasoning listed looks doubtful. Perhaps someone who knows more than I can help fix a few areas.

In the Evidence for expansion? section, accretion is mentioned and the sedimentary layers in the Grand Canyon are given as evidence. Is that really what proponents think? and where does the material in the accretion come from? I presume it is from space and not just movement of sediment. Their position may need to be made clearer in how they think accretion works.

Also, how does their idea of accretion go against the nebular hypothesis? If the sediments come from space, isn't this a continuation of the influx of material that the nebular hypothesis proposes? We need to explain their position more carefully for those who aren't familiar with the arguments.

We state that the changing size of the earth would weaken gravity and alter the moon's orbit. This doesn't seem to work out right. If the earth expands, and has the same mass but is bigger, it is less dense and would have a lower surface gravity but the orbit of the moon wouldn't change. Orbits are calculated as if all the mass of the primary were located at its center, so the distribution of the mass would not change the orbit by itself. Are we saying that the slow expansion would increase the effect of tides on the moon? or is there something else here I am missing?

Thanks to Nlawrence and Dchung for trying to explain this proposal.--John Baab 15:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

I will answer all of your questions soon, but I have been very busy lately doing research for various things and school has started up again. I will answers your last question, concerning the moon, right now.

This would be true of the core expansion mechanism, but not for the others.Mr. Meyer points out two other mechanisms that would cause new mass and thus new gravitational power.

1: Objects such as meteors or dust.

2: Rocks that occur from the life cycle of planets, starting with the photosynthesis in plants. For example fossilized coral, diatomite, and chalk.

It is really hard to tell how much rock is due to organic organisms, but surely it far MORE then what is coming from space. Any look at maps and geological data will show this.

Think of all the earth's present coral reefs. Those will eventually turn into rock. That is a lot of rock. Just think about that happening for MILLIONS of years. Then consider all the earth's chalk, which is quite common, is organic. It comes from microscopic organisms. Then consider all the world LIMESTONE is organic, coming from marine fauna (fish, coral, bivalves, microfossils, etc.). One US geological survay said that the US alone produced 1.65 billion tons of crushed stone in 2005, of which 70% was limestone. (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/stone_crushed/stcrumcs06.pdf). Limestone is an insanely common rock. Imagine a world WITHOUT limestone.

This organic matter factors are alone capable of adding new mass to the planet.

I ran the number for space dust and so on, but I didn't get anything big compared to the mass of the planet. However Mr. Meyer points out that the rate may not be constant and is highly open to change.--Nlawrence 17:25, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Good points, and I certainly understand that busyness will keep you from adding comments. You should definitely answer only as you have time.

In preparation, I should list some of the things that may need to be clarified. The limestone and coral certainly make a lot of tons of rock. However, if (and I understand this is a big if) there were no extra dust floating in from outer space, the organisms could still take calcium and carbon out of the water and air and increase their size. This is just taking atoms from one place and putting them into a heavy structure, but the total weight of the system did not increase since no material came from elsewhere. Thus, people may not understand why creatures that make shells that are heavy can increase the mass of the planet, after all they may just be moving mass around, not creating new weight.

You pointed out that the present day estimated influx from meteor dust is not a lot, and maybe we should include those numbers somewhere in the article. That way people could understand how the expanding earth proponents are calculating the expansion. It was smart of you to run the numbers, and we may need to include your results in the article.

Good luck with your studies.--John Baab 10:22, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Does this new version suffice criticisms?
I reworked some of the sections to take in mind the so-called problems.

I personally think you did a fine job of answering my difficulties in understanding, and I feel the article has a better flow. The only part that I still struggle with is when we criticize the proponents of an expanding earth for not being able to explain the present measured moon recession rate. I confuse myself when I try to reason out the orbital distance of the moon if it were orbiting a smaller planet (like Mars) and just what would happen as the planet adds mass. Perhaps the moon would orbit with the same speed in a smaller orbit around Mars, but I can't think why it would expand its orbit size as the planet added mass. That may be just what you are saying, that lunar recession wouldn't work if the Earth were expanding, and so an Expanding Earth Theory does not explain lunar recession. Maybe later something could be added about that.

I appreciate your hard work to make the article more understandable for people like me.--John Baab 22:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your notes. Your thought greatly improved the article. After carefully looking at the data have come to the conclusion that expanding earth theorist don't have a good mechanisms for added mass to the earth, HOWEVER it's still what they believe and I can't do anything about that. The source I cited within the article claims the gravity was much stronger in the past and uses it as a mechanism to explain the size of dinosaurs. The book is highly regarded in the expanding earth theorist community.

I will look into the gravity of hollow spheres--Nlawrence 08:43, 21 September 2007 (EDT).

Problems to fix
First of all, the use of names needs work. Before you quote "Mr. Meyers", you have to introduce him. Also, while it is polite in conversation to address folks as "Mr." or "Mrs.", in an encyclopedia article, as in news reports, use of the last name, without honorific, is more typical. So, give his full name once, then use only his last name after that, except 1, in the summary, and 2, if you need to distinguish him from another person with the same last name.

Unless it is a normal part of the style at this wiki, I would suggest avoiding rhetorical questions; it makes the article seem very informal. To be taken seriously, we should speak seriously.

The primary evidence for expansion, according to the cited webpage, is the fit of the continents on either side of the Pacific, showing that Pangea once covered the globe. You do not even mention this one.

The data for the material from space argument seems to be interpreted incorrectly, and in a way that is far too generous to the expanding earth theory. Numbers in a range, such as "274 to 55,000 tons", are normally listed with the smaller number first. For example, "the weatherman predicts 3-6 inches of snow", or "a decision could take a week to ten days", or "these clothes are for babies 12-18 months old". Those numbers vary by two orders of magnitude, so the proper way to address the argument would be to make your assumptions as friendly to the opposing position as possible, and then show that it still does not work. In other words, skip the "averageing" step, and just use the bigger number (55,000 tons/day).

Yet alone a theory that says that the gravity of the earth was less in the past, thus giving a higher recession rate. The grammar needs some work here, but what I think you're saying is that expanding earth theory has an even greater problem with the recession of the moon. Better than your opinion would be a citation from a reliable source, but in any case, I think you're wrong. The recession of the moon has to do with tidal forces, not gravity (directly), so a smaller, more rigid earth would have had less of them, reducing the recession problem. Also, if earth's mass (and, hence, gravity) have been increasing, that would also slow down the recession. In short: don't guess. If there isn't a reliable source to cite, make a note to that effect.

Finally, in the conclusion: Flood geology, as presented by you, is not a theory, it is an assumption that underlies the various models listed. I also think the conclusion would be stronger if you used it to summarize, and did not try to spell out your judgment for the reader. ~ MD Otley (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

These are all completely valid. I will try to start making corrections as soon as possible. However I make the following comments:

1: The calculation of mass from space, in which I used an average, will stay the same. I will simply create a second set of calculation which use the higher rate.

2: Tidal forces are defined as "The tidal force is a secondary effect of the force of gravity and is responsible for the tides. It arises because the gravitational field is not constant across a body's diameter."(wikipedia).

So gravity it is an important factors. If the planet was expanding, It wouldn't be completely uniform, so it would actually create for tidal forces.

Also, if the earth was smaller, then the distance from the earth and the moon was larger. Since gravity is proportional to the distance, so the gravity would be less. (square inverse law)

However I completely understand your concern. I will delete that section.--Nlawrence 15:54, 21 September 2007 (EDT)