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.)

don findlay wrote:

[snip]

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.


It's also consistent with the tidal forces exerted by the Moon.

Serious mechanics question; does conservation of angular momentum still
apply if the spinning body is gaining mass? I saw some verbiage about
angular momentum being conserved in a closed system, but I'm not sure
if a mass-gaining Earth qualifies as a closed system.

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.)

Is the Moon (or any other planet) gaining mass as well? This is a
serious question; I'm trying to think through the physical effects of
Earth gaining mass as part of the Earth-Moon system.

In article . com,
John Bode wrote:

don findlay wrote:

[snip]

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.


It's also consistent with the tidal forces exerted by the Moon.

Serious mechanics question; does conservation of angular momentum still
apply if the spinning body is gaining mass? I saw some verbiage about
angular momentum being conserved in a closed system, but I'm not sure
if a mass-gaining Earth qualifies as a closed system.

You would have to add the angular momentum of the added mass. The
added mass will also change the moment of inertia of the earth, so the
effect on rotation rate is even less obvious.

Still, we do have geologic record that the length of day has been
very nearly constant over at least the last 600 million years (going
well before the claimed expansion period of the earth). The change
is a slight slowing of the earth's rotation, from ca. 18 hours to
24 hours. Science explains this by tidal friction (which also
accords with the observed recession of the moon's orbit).

The angular momentum is I*omega, where I is the moment of
inertia (tensor) and omega is the rotation (vector). Taking the
earth to have constant density, and looking at the scalar magnitude,
I is prortional to the 5th power of the radius (times density).

For doubling the radius, with omega being approximately constant,
the angular momentum of the earth increases by a factor of 32.
That's rather a problem. The added mass (equivalent to 8 times the
prior mass of the earth) has to have a very specific angular momentum
associated with it. The absence of a mechanism to produce that mass
is a sufficient barrier to expanding earth. But we now have a
further requirement that the added mass have a specific angular
momentum (strongly constrained by those length of day observations).

One could try to excuse that problem by hiding it in the density
(which would also hide from the mass source problem). But the
average density would have to have been 24 times higher in the
past (not quite 32 because of the slight slow down in length of
day). Present density of 5.5 g/cc means paleo density would have to
have been 132 g/cc, a figure, iirc, reached only in stellar interiors.

With the paleodensity being that high (ignore, for the moment,
the impossibilty of making the density that high on a planet with
terrestrial-type life), you then have the problem of ripping away
3 times the mass of the present earth. And doing so in such a way that it
doesn't kill everything here, nor leave blazing signatures across
the geological record. So you go from a mass source problem to
a mass sink problem, either of planetary scale.

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.)

Is the Moon (or any other planet) gaining mass as well? This is a
serious question; I'm trying to think through the physical effects of
Earth gaining mass as part of the Earth-Moon system.

The only known mass gains are those of accreting meteorites. While
it isn't zero, it isn't planetary scale on geologic time.


--
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

Robert Grumbine wrote:
In article . com,
John Bode wrote:

don findlay wrote:

[snip]

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.


It's also consistent with the tidal forces exerted by the Moon.

Serious mechanics question; does conservation of angular momentum still
apply if the spinning body is gaining mass? I saw some verbiage about
angular momentum being conserved in a closed system, but I'm not sure
if a mass-gaining Earth qualifies as a closed system.

You would have to add the angular momentum of the added mass. The
added mass will also change the moment of inertia of the earth, so the
effect on rotation rate is even less obvious.

Still, we do have geologic record that the length of day has been
very nearly constant over at least the last 600 million years (going
well before the claimed expansion period of the earth). The change
is a slight slowing of the earth's rotation, from ca. 18 hours to
24 hours. Science explains this by tidal friction (which also
accords with the observed recession of the moon's orbit).

The angular momentum is I*omega, where I is the moment of
inertia (tensor) and omega is the rotation (vector). Taking the
earth to have constant density, and looking at the scalar magnitude,
I is prortional to the 5th power of the radius (times density).

For doubling the radius, with omega being approximately constant,
the angular momentum of the earth increases by a factor of 32.
That's rather a problem. The added mass (equivalent to 8 times the
prior mass of the earth) has to have a very specific angular momentum
associated with it. The absence of a mechanism to produce that mass
is a sufficient barrier to expanding earth. But we now have a
further requirement that the added mass have a specific angular
momentum (strongly constrained by those length of day observations).

One could try to excuse that problem by hiding it in the density
(which would also hide from the mass source problem). But the
average density would have to have been 24 times higher in the
past (not quite 32 because of the slight slow down in length of
day). Present density of 5.5 g/cc means paleo density would have to
have been 132 g/cc, a figure, iirc, reached only in stellar interiors.

With the paleodensity being that high (ignore, for the moment,
the impossibilty of making the density that high on a planet with
terrestrial-type life), you then have the problem of ripping away
3 times the mass of the present earth. And doing so in such a way that it
doesn't kill everything here, nor leave blazing signatures across
the geological record. So you go from a mass source problem to
a mass sink problem, either of planetary scale.


Thanks. I was trying to work out the implications for the Earth-Moon
system (how would the change in Earth's mass affect the Moon's orbit),
and that's when I got stuck the angular momentum question.

I know there are serious problems with Findlay's postition, I just
don't have the skills to quantify them all. I had gotten as far as the
eightfold increase in mass, but that was pretty much it.

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.)

Is the Moon (or any other planet) gaining mass as well? This is a
serious question; I'm trying to think through the physical effects of
Earth gaining mass as part of the Earth-Moon system.

The only known mass gains are those of accreting meteorites. While
it isn't zero, it isn't planetary scale on geologic time.

Yeah. I know Findlay's a crank, but I want to get a feel for the
depths of his crankery, which is why I'm asking these questions. I'm
particularly interested if his planetary expansion phenomenon is
limited to Earth, or if all the other bodies in the solar system are
expanding and gaining mass as well. There are non-trivial implications
for both positions.