falsification - trying again - no slide rules please.

Earth expansion and how to falsify it.

I say it's in the obvious category. The Earth has got bigger. Grown.
Which means the surface moves outwards from the centre, and that
crustal break-up and sideways movement of the fragments are a
consequence of adjustment to this outwards movement.

We can easily tell that this has happened from the difference in the
way the crust and the mantle have behaved, which leads axiomatically to
a conclusion that the Earth has got bigger - approximately doubled in
size since the Mesozoic.

Not so easy is telling how to falsify this observation. What
geological acid test could be used to FALSIFY it? ....how would you
assess, *GEOLOGICALLY*, if the Earth has got bigger? (Or not?) Really
substantially bigger; doubled in size in the last 10% or so of its
history.

This is not a question for homework. This is a serious attempt to
address how we understand global geology.

What would the first question be? Something to do with:-
The way that the crust has broken up?
The way that the crustal fragments have moved?
The way that the plates have grown/ shrunk/ moved/ been created/ been
destroyed?

Or maybe about mountain belts, stratigraphic sequence, ..et etc;
anything you like, but always the question must pertain to the geology
(rocks and things of the geological past - not slide rules and gps of
the present).

"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...
Earth expansion and how to falsify it.

I say it's in the obvious category. The Earth has got bigger. Grown.
Which means the surface moves outwards from the centre, and that
crustal break-up and sideways movement of the fragments are a
consequence of adjustment to this outwards movement.

We can easily tell that this has happened from the difference in the
way the crust and the mantle have behaved, which leads axiomatically to
a conclusion that the Earth has got bigger - approximately doubled in
size since the Mesozoic.

Not so easy is telling how to falsify this observation. What
geological acid test could be used to FALSIFY it? ....how would you
assess, *GEOLOGICALLY*, if the Earth has got bigger? (Or not?) Really
substantially bigger; doubled in size in the last 10% or so of its
history.

This is not a question for homework. This is a serious attempt to
address how we understand global geology.

What would the first question be? Something to do with:-
The way that the crust has broken up?
The way that the crustal fragments have moved?
The way that the plates have grown/ shrunk/ moved/ been created/ been
destroyed?

Or maybe about mountain belts, stratigraphic sequence, ..et etc;
anything you like, but always the question must pertain to the geology
(rocks and things of the geological past - not slide rules and gps of
the present).

If the earth is expanding wouldn't the crust be moving apart. You would see
magma well up and harden in the expansion gaps, unfortunately, the interior
would have to cool and then the crust would collapse back. I don't think
geologists have seen anything like this occuring in the rocks. Floating
plates moving on the surface colliding with each other still seems the best
explanation.

Ringer wrote:

If the earth is expanding wouldn't the crust be moving apart. You would see
magma well up and harden in the expansion gaps,

Ok, ..yes..

unfortunately, the interior
would have to cool and then the crust would collapse back.

(I see you are thinking in terms of heating and cooling/ expansion
contraction, but I'm not sure if by crust you are meaning continental
or oceanic crust.) You would be making an assumption then that after
the heat makes it bigger (doubles it's size) then cooling would make it
contract - but rather than suck the fragments back together, the mantle
'gapes' would collapse (by contraction)


I don't think
geologists have seen anything like this occuring in the rocks.

We can rule it out then?

Floating plates moving on the surface colliding with each other still seems the best
explanation.

But the question wasn't "what theory fits the geology that we see", it
was "what is it that we do see (geologically) that would falsify the
conclusion that the Earth has doubled in size".

don findlay wrote:


But the question wasn't "what theory fits the geology that we see", it
was "what is it that we do see (geologically) that would falsify the
conclusion that the Earth has doubled in size".

Using the gravitational redshift should do it. If the earth is expanding
then the surface is in a weaker part of the earth's gravitational field
and clocks should go faster. Our best atomic resinators (say, for
example, a cessium atomic clock) would be accurate enough to detect
this. Since they haven't we can conclude the earth is not expanding at
all or not expanding enough to register using the gravitational red shift.

In addition any change of the distance between the surface of the earth
and the moon would be picked up by timing light reflections from the
lasers that the astronauts left on the moon. The only change detected is
accounted for by the fact the moon is moving away from earth because of
tidal slowdown of rotation. An expanding earth would not negate the
conservation of angular momentum.

Bob Kolker

don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and how to falsify it.

I say it's in the obvious category. The Earth has got bigger. Grown.
Which means the surface moves outwards from the centre, and that
crustal break-up and sideways movement of the fragments are a
consequence of adjustment to this outwards movement.

We can easily tell that this has happened from the difference in the
way the crust and the mantle have behaved, which leads axiomatically to
a conclusion that the Earth has got bigger - approximately doubled in
size since the Mesozoic.


Quick question: by "size", do you mean diameter or volume (or something
else entirely)? Doubling the diameter multiplies the volume by 8,
whereas doubling the volume multiplies the diameter by the cube root of
2 (about 1.259).

Not so easy is telling how to falsify this observation. What
geological acid test could be used to FALSIFY it? ....how would you
assess, *GEOLOGICALLY*, if the Earth has got bigger? (Or not?) Really
substantially bigger; doubled in size in the last 10% or so of its
history.


Assuming constant mass, if the Earth has increased in volume, then
there should be voids throughout the interior (sort of like when bread
dough rises); these should be detectable via propagation of seismic
waves.

If mass has increased along with volume, then the Earth's gravitational
attraction has also increased over time; I'm not sure how to observe
this geologically, except to look for evidence of structures that could
have existed in that lower gravity environment, but not now (steeper
angles of repose, for example, assuming that kind of information gets
preserved; I'm not a geologist, so I don't know about that). It would
also have had interesting effects on the Moon's orbit, which would have
had an effect on tides (again, I'm not sure how that information would
have been preserved).

This is not a question for homework. This is a serious attempt to
address how we understand global geology.

What would the first question be? Something to do with:-
The way that the crust has broken up?
The way that the crustal fragments have moved?
The way that the plates have grown/ shrunk/ moved/ been created/ been
destroyed?

Or maybe about mountain belts, stratigraphic sequence, ..et etc;
anything you like, but always the question must pertain to the geology
(rocks and things of the geological past - not slide rules and gps of
the present).

Why not? What you're describing is a physical process that has
physical effects beyond geology. If the Earth is still expanding, then
that's a physical process that can be detected and observed by direct
measurement.

Just for giggles, I worked up a spreadsheet (yes, I know) with the
following scenarios: doubling of diameter, constant mass; doubling of
diameter, constant density; doubling of volume, constant mass; doubling
of volume, constant density. I worked out values for mass, volume,
diameter, density, and g for each.

Assuming density remained constant (i.e., new mass was created as Earth
expanded), then the value of g (force of gravity at the Earth's
surface) would have been somewhat lower in the past (4.9 m/s^2 if
diameter was half of what it is now, 7.78 m/s^2 if the volume was half
what it is now).

This would have had *really interesting* effects wrt the Moon's orbit,
I would think, and by extension tides. Someone smarter than me (or
with more spare time) will have to think through what those effects
would have been, though. And it will help to know if we're talking
doubling of diameter or volume.

John Bode wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and how to falsify it.

Assuming constant mass, if the Earth has increased in volume, then
there should be voids throughout the interior (sort of like when bread
dough rises); these should be detectable via propagation of seismic
waves.

If mass has increased along with volume, then the Earth's gravitational
attraction has also increased over time; I'm not sure how to observe
this geologically, except to look for evidence of structures that could
have existed in that lower gravity environment, but not now (steeper
angles of repose, for example, assuming that kind of information gets
preserved; I'm not a geologist, so I don't know about that). It would
also have had interesting effects on the Moon's orbit, which would have
had an effect on tides (again, I'm not sure how that information would
have been preserved).

Some think that the large dinosaurs of the past could only have existed
under conditions of lesser gravity (Bone structure/ density/ soft
organs/ heart size etc.)
google "bill erickson" dinosaurs" and "stephen hurrell"

Angle of repose? I think there has been some attempt to do something
along those lines, but measurement is up against really difficult
problems due to exposure.


Or maybe about mountain belts, stratigraphic sequence, ..et etc;
anything you like, but always the question must pertain to the geology
(rocks and things of the geological past - not slide rules and gps of
the present).

Why not?

Because (just for 'fun') it should be possible for geologists to think
of something in the geological record that could falsify any premise
that the Earth has doubled in size. But it seems that they are really
challenged by this one.

If you like, the question is a concession to the relevance of the Earth
sciences. We can't have creationsists, or Big Bangers, coming along
and telling us doubling can't be so, because there's a man in a white
coat and beard in a galaxy far, far away who created all this stuff
between 3.47 and 3.51 pm (sharp) last week. In a test tube.


What you're describing is a physical process that has
physical effects beyond geology. If the Earth is still expanding, then
that's a physical process that can be detected and observed by direct
measurement.

It certainly is, ..if you can suggest a reason why it should be
happening right now at this very minute, ..'this very minute' in
geological terms being the last twenty years (of 300million)


This would have had *really interesting* effects wrt the Moon's orbit,
I would think, and by extension tides. Someone smarter than me (or
with more spare time) will have to think through what those effects
would have been, though. And it will help to know if we're talking
doubling of diameter or volume.

That kind of work has been done, ..coral growth, rythmites, ..but not a
lot. I think there are fewer days now than in the Devonian, which
shows that the Earth is slowing down, hwich is consitent with it
getting bigger.

Doubling its diameter, ..but I really don't think that's a useful
avenue for thinking about process. If we are talking about the
creation of mass (or the conversion of energy into mass) then we really
have to be looking at the scale of how elementary particles come into
existence. That's not a question for geology, ..but falsification of
the Planet doubling its size from parameters in the geological record
most certainly is. ( Witness for yourself the contribution from fully
and partly paid-up professionals.)

In article ,
mcv wrote:
In talk.origins John Bode wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and how to falsify it.

[...]
Not so easy is telling how to falsify this observation. What
geological acid test could be used to FALSIFY it? ....how would you
assess, *GEOLOGICALLY*, if the Earth has got bigger? (Or not?) Really
substantially bigger; doubled in size in the last 10% or so of its
history.

Assuming constant mass, if the Earth has increased in volume, then
there should be voids throughout the interior (sort of like when bread
dough rises); these should be detectable via propagation of seismic
waves.

Unless the earth was denser in the past.

If mass has increased along with volume, then the Earth's gravitational
attraction has also increased over time;

Not necessarily. A long time ago, some (Russell?) recalculated the
entire SI system, basing it on real fundamental values instead of
arbitrary things like meters and the density of water. After he did
that, almost all fundamental constants were close to 1, with two
exceptions: gravitation, which was 10^-40, and the age of the
universe, which was 10^40 (or possibly the other way around, I
don't know).

You got the order (and orders of magnitude) correct.

The conclusion is obvious: as the universe ages, gravity drops, and
the earth (and other bodies) expand.

It's probably complete bull****, but it's an interesting theory.

This was actually one of the ideas (well, the theories of gravity
built out of it) which were tested by the lunar corner reflector
work. It got disproved. But it was good enough to be worth testing.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

mcv wrote:

In talk.origins John Bode wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and how to falsify it.

[...]
Not so easy is telling how to falsify this observation. What
geological acid test could be used to FALSIFY it? ....how would you
assess, *GEOLOGICALLY*, if the Earth has got bigger? (Or not?) Really
substantially bigger; doubled in size in the last 10% or so of its
history.

Assuming constant mass, if the Earth has increased in volume, then
there should be voids throughout the interior (sort of like when bread
dough rises); these should be detectable via propagation of seismic
waves.

Unless the earth was denser in the past.

If mass has increased along with volume, then the Earth's gravitational
attraction has also increased over time;

Not necessarily. A long time ago, some (Russell?) recalculated the
entire SI system, basing it on real fundamental values instead of
arbitrary things like meters and the density of water. After he did
that, almost all fundamental constants were close to 1, with two
exceptions: gravitation, which was 10^-40, and the age of the
universe, which was 10^40 (or possibly the other way around, I
don't know).

The conclusion is obvious: as the universe ages, gravity drops, and
the earth (and other bodies) expand.

It's probably complete bull****, but it's an interesting theory.

I'm struggling to understand why, if the mensuration system used is based on
"real fundamental values" the fundamental constants shouldn't be 1.

--
Robin Levett
(unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)

Robin Levett wrote:
mcv wrote:

In talk.origins John Bode wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and how to falsify it.

[...]
Not so easy is telling how to falsify this observation. What
geological acid test could be used to FALSIFY it? ....how would you
assess, *GEOLOGICALLY*, if the Earth has got bigger? (Or not?) Really
substantially bigger; doubled in size in the last 10% or so of its
history.

Assuming constant mass, if the Earth has increased in volume, then
there should be voids throughout the interior (sort of like when bread
dough rises); these should be detectable via propagation of seismic
waves.

Unless the earth was denser in the past.

If mass has increased along with volume, then the Earth's gravitational
attraction has also increased over time;

Not necessarily. A long time ago, some (Russell?) recalculated the
entire SI system, basing it on real fundamental values instead of
arbitrary things like meters and the density of water. After he did
that, almost all fundamental constants were close to 1, with two
exceptions: gravitation, which was 10^-40, and the age of the
universe, which was 10^40 (or possibly the other way around, I
don't know).

The conclusion is obvious: as the universe ages, gravity drops, and
the earth (and other bodies) expand.

It's probably complete bull****, but it's an interesting theory.

I'm struggling to understand why, if the mensuration system used is based on
"real fundamental values" the fundamental constants shouldn't be 1.


This is a somewhat garbled version of PAM Dirac's hypothesis of large
numbers. He proposed it way back in the late 1930's.

Dirac noted that the ratio of the radius of the observable universe
to the classical radius of the electron was a large number, on the
order of 10^40.

He further noted that the ratio of the electromagnetic force between
a proton and an electron was also a very large number, of
roughly the same order of magnitude -- it's actually about 10^39.
The same ratio for the forces between electrons is about 10^42.

In addition, the ratio formed by time for light to cross the
radius of an electron and the age of the universe in seconds
was also of the order of magnitude 10^40.

Dirac proposed that it was no coincidence that such very large
pure numbers could be formed and that this was somehow
fundamental: these numbers might in fact remain constant
throughout the evolution of the universe if fundamental
constants such as G (the Newtonian gravitational constant)
varied with time.

It was a pretty original suggestion actually, but most people
today would consider the suggestion in this form to be pure
numerology.

David

Robin Levett wrote:
mcv wrote:

In talk.origins John Bode wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and how to falsify it.

[...]
Not so easy is telling how to falsify this observation. What
geological acid test could be used to FALSIFY it? ....how would you
assess, *GEOLOGICALLY*, if the Earth has got bigger? (Or not?) Really
substantially bigger; doubled in size in the last 10% or so of its
history.

Assuming constant mass, if the Earth has increased in volume, then
there should be voids throughout the interior (sort of like when bread
dough rises); these should be detectable via propagation of seismic
waves.

Unless the earth was denser in the past.

If mass has increased along with volume, then the Earth's gravitational
attraction has also increased over time;

Not necessarily. A long time ago, some (Russell?) recalculated the
entire SI system, basing it on real fundamental values instead of
arbitrary things like meters and the density of water. After he did
that, almost all fundamental constants were close to 1, with two
exceptions: gravitation, which was 10^-40, and the age of the
universe, which was 10^40 (or possibly the other way around, I
don't know).

The conclusion is obvious: as the universe ages, gravity drops, and
the earth (and other bodies) expand.

It's probably complete bull****, but it's an interesting theory.

I'm struggling to understand why, if the mensuration system used is based on
"real fundamental values" the fundamental constants shouldn't be 1.


This is a somewhat garbled version of PAM Dirac's hypothesis of large
numbers. He proposed it way back in the late 1930's.

Dirac noted that the ratio of the radius of the observable universe
to the classical radius of the electron was a large number, on the
order of 10^40.

He further noted that the ratio of the electromagnetic force between
a proton and an electron to the gravitational force between them
was also a very large number, of roughly the same order of
magnitude -- it's actually about 10^39. The same ratio for the
forces between electrons is about 10^42.

In addition, the ratio formed by time for light to cross the
radius of an electron and the age of the universe in seconds
was also of the order of magnitude 10^40.

Dirac proposed that it was no coincidence that such very large
pure numbers could be formed and that this was somehow
fundamental: these numbers might in fact remain constant
throughout the evolution of the universe if fundamental
constants such as G (the Newtonian gravitational constant)
varied with time.

It was a pretty original suggestion actually, but most people
today would consider the suggestion in this form to be pure
numerology.

David

(Repost due to a slight omission in the first version.)