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 it. What geological acid test
could be used to FALSIFY Earth Expansion? ....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:
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.

Hang on.

1 Earth Mass (today) = 6.0e24 kg

0.5 Me = 3e24 kg

E = m c^2
= 3e24 * (3e8 m/s) ^2
= 3e24 * 9e16 kg m^2/s^2 (J)
= 2.7e41 J

Now 300 Myr is 9.5e15 seconds (can we call it 0.9e16 please?)

So the 'average' creation of matter over 300Myr would be 'about'

P = 2.7e41 / 0.9e16 J/s (W)
= 3e25 W

Now the sun provides 1.4 kW/m^2 of solar energy at one Earth orbit radius,
but according to Wikipedia, only abour 1kW/m^2 makes it to the ground.

Neglecting the fact that the Earth reradiates energy in the infrared,
then the total amount of energy hitting the ground also varies with
the angle of insolation, which is getting ugly, so I'll pretend the earth
is a flat disk, not a sphere!

Total crossectional area = pi * r^2
= 3.14 * (6.4e6 m ) ^ 2
= 1.29e14 m^2

So the total solar energy hitting my flat earth (ha!) would be about
1.3e17 W.

So if the Sun's total energy output hitting the Earth is 1.3e17 W,
but the power required to drive the creation of the needed matter
to make the Earth grow is about 3e25 W.

Then add the fact the Earth reradiates energy. And the fact that
the claim has been made that the process is discontinuous, IIRC.

So even admitting that a lot of energy from the Sun would not be
in the visible band, you're missing 8 orders of magnitude of energy
to source the conversion to matter.

So your theory breaks the conservation of energy, creaing matter
from nothing. If you can think of an energy source 8 orders of
magnitude bigger than the Sun, please posit it.

(Note: check my math, let me know if I've blundered.)


--D.




Not so easy is telling how to falsify it. What geological acid test
could be used to FALSIFY Earth Expansion? ....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).

David Iain Greig wrote:
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.

Hang on.

1 Earth Mass (today) = 6.0e24 kg

0.5 Me = 3e24 kg

E = m c^2
= 3e24 * (3e8 m/s) ^2
= 3e24 * 9e16 kg m^2/s^2 (J)
= 2.7e41 J

Now 300 Myr is 9.5e15 seconds (can we call it 0.9e16 please?)

So the 'average' creation of matter over 300Myr would be 'about'

P = 2.7e41 / 0.9e16 J/s (W)
= 3e25 W

Now the sun provides 1.4 kW/m^2 of solar energy at one Earth orbit radius,
but according to Wikipedia, only abour 1kW/m^2 makes it to the ground.

Neglecting the fact that the Earth reradiates energy in the infrared,
then the total amount of energy hitting the ground also varies with
the angle of insolation, which is getting ugly, so I'll pretend the earth
is a flat disk, not a sphere!

Total crossectional area = pi * r^2
= 3.14 * (6.4e6 m ) ^ 2
= 1.29e14 m^2

So the total solar energy hitting my flat earth (ha!) would be about
1.3e17 W.

So if the Sun's total energy output hitting the Earth is 1.3e17 W,
but the power required to drive the creation of the needed matter
to make the Earth grow is about 3e25 W.

Then add the fact the Earth reradiates energy. And the fact that
the claim has been made that the process is discontinuous, IIRC.

So even admitting that a lot of energy from the Sun would not be
in the visible band, you're missing 8 orders of magnitude of energy
to source the conversion to matter.

So your theory breaks the conservation of energy, creaing matter
from nothing. If you can think of an energy source 8 orders of
magnitude bigger than the Sun, please posit it.

(Note: check my math, let me know if I've blundered.)




(Well yes-but, the question was a geological one. I know I'm posting to
physics/ astro/ talk, but that's in the belief we might come across
some information there since geologists here seem not able to address
the question. But the question is geological.

That 1.3e17W, ..is that the amount of energy hitting the Earth in 300m
years? Does that mean we can rule out sunlight?

And when you say we need "bigger than the sun", do you mean the sun?
Or sunlight intensity at a distance of 93million miles?

don findlay wrote:

David Iain Greig wrote:
So if the Sun's total energy output hitting the Earth is 1.3e17 W,
but the power required to drive the creation of the needed matter
to make the Earth grow is about 3e25 W.

Then add the fact the Earth reradiates energy. And the fact that
the claim has been made that the process is discontinuous, IIRC.

So even admitting that a lot of energy from the Sun would not be
in the visible band, you're missing 8 orders of magnitude of energy
to source the conversion to matter.

So your theory breaks the conservation of energy, creaing matter
from nothing. If you can think of an energy source 8 orders of
magnitude bigger than the Sun, please posit it.

(Note: check my math, let me know if I've blundered.)




(Well yes-but, the question was a geological one. I know I'm posting to
physics/ astro/ talk, but that's in the belief we might come across
some information there since geologists here seem not able to address
the question. But the question is geological.

No, the question is if your model violates the conservation of matter/energy,
we can ignore it as it is physically impossible.

That 1.3e17W, ..is that the amount of energy hitting the Earth in 300m
years? Does that mean we can rule out sunlight?

No, 1.3e17W is the amount of energy per second hitting the planet.
Likewise, the average energy required to create 0.5 Earth masses of
matter in 300 Myr is 3e25W. I've seen you state your growth model
is discontinuous, so the average would represent the total energy
over time, right?


And when you say we need "bigger than the sun", do you mean the sun?
Or sunlight intensity at a distance of 93million miles?

The Earth receives some 1 billionth of the radiated energy of the Sun.
As it happen, it re-radiates most of that anyhow, making it unavailable
to create matter via any process whatsoever.

Where do you get your 3e25W of energy to grow the planet from if
the *Sun* isn't enough?a

Again, please check my math, maybe I missed some zeros somewhere.
Otherwise, there simply isn't enough energy available to convert
energy to matter to grow the planet like that in 300Myr. Plus
that much energy being absorbed would likely melt or vaporize the
entire planet in the first place, wouldn't it?


--D.

David Iain Greig wrote:

don findlay wrote:

David Iain Greig wrote:

So if the Sun's total energy output hitting the Earth is 1.3e17 W,
but the power required to drive the creation of the needed matter
to make the Earth grow is about 3e25 W.

Then add the fact the Earth reradiates energy. And the fact that
the claim has been made that the process is discontinuous, IIRC.

So even admitting that a lot of energy from the Sun would not be
in the visible band, you're missing 8 orders of magnitude of energy
to source the conversion to matter.

So your theory breaks the conservation of energy, creaing matter
from nothing. If you can think of an energy source 8 orders of
magnitude bigger than the Sun, please posit it.

(Note: check my math, let me know if I've blundered.)




(Well yes-but, the question was a geological one. I know I'm posting to
physics/ astro/ talk, but that's in the belief we might come across
some information there since geologists here seem not able to address
the question. But the question is geological.


No, the question is if your model violates the conservation of matter/energy,
we can ignore it as it is physically impossible.


That 1.3e17W, ..is that the amount of energy hitting the Earth in 300m
years? Does that mean we can rule out sunlight?


No, 1.3e17W is the amount of energy per second hitting the planet.
Likewise, the average energy required to create 0.5 Earth masses of
matter in 300 Myr is 3e25W. I've seen you state your growth model
is discontinuous, so the average would represent the total energy
over time, right?

Wouldn't that be 0.875 earth masses? The diameter has apparently
increased by a factor of 2, meaning that the mass must have gone up by a
factor of 8. Of course you have to integrate the amount hitting the
earth over the range of sizes -- smaller original cross-sectional area
equals less energy hitting the planet.

And when you say we need "bigger than the sun", do you mean the sun?
Or sunlight intensity at a distance of 93million miles?


The Earth receives some 1 billionth of the radiated energy of the Sun.
As it happen, it re-radiates most of that anyhow, making it unavailable
to create matter via any process whatsoever.

Where do you get your 3e25W of energy to grow the planet from if
the *Sun* isn't enough?a

Again, please check my math, maybe I missed some zeros somewhere.
Otherwise, there simply isn't enough energy available to convert
energy to matter to grow the planet like that in 300Myr. Plus
that much energy being absorbed would likely melt or vaporize the
entire planet in the first place, wouldn't it?


--D.

"don findlay" wrote:


David Iain Greig wrote:
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.

Hang on.

1 Earth Mass (today) = 6.0e24 kg

0.5 Me = 3e24 kg

E = m c^2
= 3e24 * (3e8 m/s) ^2
= 3e24 * 9e16 kg m^2/s^2 (J)
= 2.7e41 J

Now 300 Myr is 9.5e15 seconds (can we call it 0.9e16
please?)

So the 'average' creation of matter over 300Myr would be
'about'

P = 2.7e41 / 0.9e16 J/s (W)
= 3e25 W

Now the sun provides 1.4 kW/m^2 of solar energy at one Earth
orbit radius, but according to Wikipedia, only abour 1kW/m^2
makes it to the ground.

Neglecting the fact that the Earth reradiates energy in the
infrared, then the total amount of energy hitting the ground
also varies with the angle of insolation, which is getting
ugly, so I'll pretend the earth is a flat disk, not a sphere!

Total crossectional area = pi * r^2
= 3.14 * (6.4e6 m ) ^ 2
= 1.29e14 m^2

So the total solar energy hitting my flat earth (ha!) would
be about 1.3e17 W.

So if the Sun's total energy output hitting the Earth is
1.3e17 W, but the power required to drive the creation of the
needed matter to make the Earth grow is about 3e25 W.

Then add the fact the Earth reradiates energy. And the fact
that the claim has been made that the process is
discontinuous, IIRC.

So even admitting that a lot of energy from the Sun would not
be in the visible band, you're missing 8 orders of magnitude
of energy to source the conversion to matter.

So your theory breaks the conservation of energy, creaing
matter from nothing. If you can think of an energy source 8
orders of magnitude bigger than the Sun, please posit it.

(Note: check my math, let me know if I've blundered.)




(Well yes-but, the question was a geological one. I know I'm
posting to physics/ astro/ talk, but that's in the belief we
might come across some information there since geologists here
seem not able to address the question. But the question is
geological.

That 1.3e17W, ..is that the amount of energy hitting the Earth
in 300m years? Does that mean we can rule out sunlight?

And when you say we need "bigger than the sun", do you mean
the sun? Or sunlight intensity at a distance of 93million
miles?

It's funny that you make an issue of that apparent ambiguity
after claiming that Earth has doubled in "size." Radius?
Volume? Mass? (Maybe you clarified that somewhere earlier, I
wasn't lookin'.)

There are no records of any attendant changes in surface gravity
or magnetic field. (I'm just saying that without any backup--
it's "The USENET Way.")

"don findlay" wrote in message
ups.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 it. What geological acid test
could be used to FALSIFY Earth Expansion? ....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?


Much simpler than that. If the Earth is expanding then this could be
directly detected by a lengthening of the diurnal period and by retardation
of the pendulum.

--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/




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).

Zachriel wrote:
"don findlay" wrote in message
ups.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 it. What geological acid test
could be used to FALSIFY Earth Expansion? ....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?


Much simpler than that. If the Earth is expanding then this could be
directly detected by a lengthening of the diurnal period and by retardation
of the pendulum.

Again, though, ..the question is geological, in the belief that we have
to begin with the facts. If the facts bear on the theory, to the
extent that the theory is in question, then we cannot use the theory to
assess the validity of the facts. Fair statement?

I realised after posting I should not have used the emotive word
'expansion', but rather stuck with the word 'conclusion' ('got
bigger'). 'Expansion' has unfortunate connotations.

don findlay wrote:

Much simpler than that. If the Earth is expanding then this could be
directly detected by a lengthening of the diurnal period and by retardation
of the pendulum.

Again, though, ..the question is geological, in the belief that we have
to begin with the facts. If the facts bear on the theory, to the
extent that the theory is in question, then we cannot use the theory to
assess the validity of the facts. Fair statement?

I realised after posting I should not have used the emotive word
'expansion', but rather stuck with the word 'conclusion' ('got
bigger'). 'Expansion' has unfortunate connotations.


As the question is geological, why not go away and learn something
about geology?

RF

don findlay wrote:



Again, though, ..the question is geological, in the belief that we have
to begin with the facts. If the facts bear on the theory, to the
extent that the theory is in question, then we cannot use the theory to
assess the validity of the facts. Fair statement?

All facts come with an attached "theory". The attached theory is that
our senses do not delude us and we are not hallucinating reality. If we
do not make that assumption we cannot do science or engineering.
Moreoever we -assume- our physical laws are true everywhere and
everywhen. Since we have not been everywhere and we cannot be everywhen
this must remain an assumption. On the other hand if we do not make this
assumption, once again we cannot do science or engineering. Our survival
as a species depends are the relative constancy of our environment and
its laws of operation. Otherwise we could neither learn nor anticipate
dangers.

Bob Kolker


I realised after posting I should not have used the emotive word
'expansion', but rather stuck with the word 'conclusion' ('got
bigger'). 'Expansion' has unfortunate connotations.