So when the earth is expanding, how should it interact with the rest of the solar system? The gravity model provides a method for predicting outcomes. Using an electric model, what would you predict to happen if Earth expands?
The Expanding Earth
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
So when the earth is expanding, how should it interact with the rest of the solar system? The gravity model provides a method for predicting outcomes. Using an electric model, what would you predict to happen if Earth expands?
I hope you would agree that the more information one has the closer they are to knowing how -things-actually-work, not just the topic of this thread.
In the paragraph below it is saying BC and Alberta came at each other from different directions. That was a result of the North American plate riding over the Pacific plate, if the Pacific plate is moving northwards at the same time then there should be a definite mark where that begins to happen. In California it is marked by a rift that shows not only northward movement but also movement in opposite directions.
Google Earth 5 shows the floors of the oceans. The floor of the Atlantic has a spreading Zone, right. It goes in a jagged line that is mostly north/south. At about 24 degrees N it takes a jog to east/west. That should mean the spreading is also in that direction rather than it being a sheering-only motion. If that crack is expanding then all the other cracks (and there are many) that are similar would also be expanding.
The north/south rift is expanding east/west at (say) 5cm/yr. If there are 1,000 cracks in a east/west direction that results in movement to the north/south from all 1,000 cracks then all cracks would have a combined movement that was equal to the 5cm/yr.
In the Pacific things work quite differently. From a height of 4,000 miles you can see 3 formations that run east/west that are expansion rifts. The lowest one runs on a line going from Hawaii to the bottom of Baja. The other two are equally spaced between there and Alaska. Rather than a main rift like the Atlantic the Pacific has a spider web of them. When the Rockies were formed it was from a sudden cracking of the crust and an outflow from the mantle. The main fault for that goes from California to the western tip of Alaska. That rift was originally on the coast-line of North America, in the 180 million years it has been spreading it has created about 400 miles of new land between Vancouver BC, on the other side of the rift about 5,000 miles of new land has been created in that same time. The North American plate is the reason so little new land has been formed there. At first BC was right above the rift so there was only uplifting, all outflow was was to the west. The land masses that surround the Atlantic also provide resistance to expansion, that is why it is so much smaller than the Pacific.
Once you wind back the clock to where there were no modern oceans and all the current land masses fit tightly together and remained just like that for eons. The water that makes up what we have today could have been in any combination of solid, liquid, and gas. A large shallow sea rather than the deep oceans of today and high land masses. Enter a icy comet the size of Hudson's Bay at such a high rate of sped that it enters deep into the mantle.
This is where Cliffy's idea comes into play. If the crust was much thinner the ice would make it to the mantle. That sudden change from ice (smallest size) to super-heated gas (largest size 600km cube of ice) would be an explosive type of event. The 1st crack would have been mantle outflows that mark Canada/Russia today. Greenland and the Canadian Islands broke off later because they first moved towards the Canadian/US border and then changed direction (floating means you seek the lowest altitude), the rest of the crust experienced a tearing motion because the force of the expansion of that water-vapor was enough to lift North America. The drop (of liquid mantle) that is ejected at fist impact and then returns was about 300km in dia. Yellowstone would have been a burp before the beginning of the Rockies being built . The continents would have looked like blankets being shook (slowly) as the first pressure wave went all through the upper mantle.
The above is an instance where very little added mass (600km round comet of ice) can cause much more damage than an iron one of the same weight as one that size if iron might be a moon-maker.
Depending at what angle the comet entered, nearly straight in would cause the most damage.
"As the Pacific Plate moved north, the crust over which it moved was forced down by the North American Plate, back towards the Earth's core. However, as the plate closed in on the 1st Terrane, this land mass was too buoyant to be forced downward and so it was added onto the edge of the continent. This is where much of British Columbia joined North America. Along with this collision came intense forces compressing the already existing land mass. This brought on the first orogeny, known as the Columbia (it formed the Columbia Mountains made up of the Caribous, Selkirks, Purcells and the Monashees)"
"One hypothesis for the information of the Rocky Mountain structures in late Cretaceous through Eocene time is that plate of oceanic lithosphere was underthrust horizontally along the base of the North American lithosphere. "
Basically that is saying the Pacific plate is moving eastward (or the North American plate is moving westward) and is going under the North American plate. In what year was that theory proposed because when they did survey ot the age of the ocean floors the youngest crust in the Pacific region was right next to the Rockies. That is a rift that has out-flow from below the crust.
How many of those 13 or so vids did you watch? It wouldn't appear that you watched them all.
The mountains in the eastern regions of North America are said to be old and weathered, those are an example of the sort of 'hill-building' that will occur when the crust has to flatten out some to fit the new larger diameter. That is as close to subduction as you will ever get in the earth's crust. Notice the material in collision goes up and away from the mantle simply because the mantle is twice the density of granite.
I believe I read somewhere that it is best to think of it as a homopolar motor.Earth: A Self-Repairing Capacitor
Last edited:
All bodies in the solar magnetic field adjust at the same time Juan and by the same relative ammounts. It wobbles a bit during the normal adjustments and it wobbles a lot during the big adjustments but it always goes arround and arround in much the same manner it does every other day I suppose.
DB the following link is to a site that echos my view of astronomy and the formation of the planets. Admittedly, I'm just an amateur astronomer but the electric universe just doesn't do it for me. You say accretion has been debunked but all the craters on the various moons and some of the planets would certainly appear to be evidence of how some of the mass got there.
Chapter 7
Juan, There is some very plausible aspects to a partially electric universe if you look in the right wavelengths.
What does that mean "removed to the Earth"?
Do you mean it is removed from Earth? Where does it go when it's taken from Earth? Through a wormhole to a parking place next to DS9? Aliens come with wheelbarrows and take it away?
Last edited:
Yes, and physics knows about them. What DB's pushing is nonsense. It's fairly simple, for instance, to show with nothing more difficult than second year electromagnetic theory that the sun cannot be powered by electric currents as he and the sites he cites claim, they'd produce a magnetic field vastly more powerful than the earth's even at the earth's distance from the sun, and both the currents and the resulting field would be easily detectable. The solar wind would be highly charged, which it isn't, it's electrically neutral. Of more immediate relevance, compasses wouldn't be usable for navigation on the earth's surface, they'd be overwhelmed by the fields induced by the currents powering the sun. DB's electric universe is pseudoscience; those guys talk a lot about physics, but can't actually do any physics.
And here I could have sworn one plate was moving westward and one northward. That isn't opposite in my books. Opposite of northward would be southward.
If you say so. As I said, I am not a geologist.
Sounds like a lot of "if" to me.
I am pretty sure it said the Pacific plate is moving north and the NA plate is moving west.
I don't like watching vids on the monitor.
Or it could be like the geologists said and they are simply really old and were worn down by erosion.
Subduction zones don't seem to happen anywhere except at the junctions between oceans and land masses, not in the middles of continents.
Structure, Tectonics, and Sediment Flow into the Lesser Antilles Subduction Zone
One way to figure out if the Earth expands is to find the deviation from 1.083206×10^21 m3. And if the mass increases at the same rate as the volume, then the expansion is due to space debris.
I have a suspicion that the Earth's surface simply changes shape a little rather than the planet expanding.
Here this isn't a vid so you need to do the animation yourself.
http://z.about.com/d/geology/1/0/V/J/seafloorage.gif
Zones that are spreading are in red. That is the color used for the youngest part of the ocean floor. If that depth is deeper than the average dept then the oceans will be getting deeper over time water will leave the shores with land to fill that void. That is a drop in ocean levels. Apply that map to what you wrote just below, when I try and apply the two the blue area came out from under BC 180 million years ago, even if North America was being pushed westward by the mid Atlantic rift new ocean floor was coming out from the west coast of the Americas. The flow was only westward for
Yet when you look at the map of the age of the ocean floor then something has been changing over the last 180 million years.
http://z.about.com/d/geology/1/0/V/J/seafloorage.gif
Zones that are spreading are in red. That is the color used for the youngest part of the ocean floor. If that depth is deeper than the average dept then the oceans will be getting deeper over time water will leave the shores with land to fill that void. That is a drop in ocean levels. Apply that map to what you wrote just below, when I try and apply the two the blue area came out from under BC 180 million years ago, even if North America was being pushed westward by the mid Atlantic rift new ocean floor was coming out from the west coast of the Americas. The flow was only westward for
Like you say, when you have a link to a certain theory then that makes you equal to the title of the person who wrote the article. I don't have a problem with that. The ocean floors only go back about 200 million years
How would you like me to explain something that is a 'chain of events' type of event that has many variables. the use of if/then is used in most problem solving solutions.
How about a stick in the dirt? Looks like our only choice is through descriptive language.
The Canadian Shield is said to be about 2.5 Billion years old. It is also said to be some of the strongest rock on earth. It is said to be the 1st land that was raised in elevation. The destruction of the crust that is the size of Hudson's Bay was the only part of the crust that did not survive. When a new crust had first formed it left a depression because the magma as thick and it solidified before. The magma on which Greenland 'floated' resulted in the southern end being slightly 'lower in the water' when the formation of a new crust stopped the 'floating'.
Yet when you look at the map of the age of the ocean floor then something has been changing over the last 180 million years.
In answer to your questions.
1. The Earth is not expanding by any consistent or significant amount.
2. No undersea eruptions are not causing the polar ice caps to melt.
Undersea eruptions are not heating the worlds oceans by ever increasing amounts as it is a known input
in to a more or less historically balanced system.
3.Your third question is irrelevant because the world is not expanding.
4.If we wait around until we have definitive proof that mankind is indeed partially responsible for
global warming the argument can be made that time will have been wasted and solutions
not implemented.
Trex
I would tend to agree with your statement that the more information one obtains about a given subject the closer they may become in understanding how things work.
I would also postulate that it is possible that the more valid information you gather about a particular field the more you may realize how little you really know and how complex the subject in question may be.
I suffered through several geology courses during my time in college including,crystallography,historical geology,mineralogy,structural geology,petrology and sedimentary geology as well as geophysics.
And I should point out that I make no claims of any kind to being either a geologist or an expert on matters concerning geology.
I can however,tell you that is a very complex and throughly studied and researched field of science.
Plate tectonics, Orogeny (mountain-building), subduction, vulcanism and erosional and depositional cycles are pretty well understood.
MHz I am not trying to be critical but I tend to find some of your assumptions flawed.
Trying to analyze plate interference and plate stress loading( and thus faulting and folding) simply cannot be done from looking at a few large scale pictures.
If you try to analyze or even understand a very, very small section of regional plate interaction you will need to be capable of understanding and practising structural geology concepts.
And to practice structural geology you need a basic understanding of tectonics, historical geology and the like.
And to really sink your teeth into whats going on under the ground you need to be capable of understanding geophysics and seismic interpretation.
And then you need access to good data.
Some full blown geology courses are now available online for those who are interested.
I think MIT may offer full courses online for free however I am not sure which institutions offer which particular courses anymore.
In any case a little surfing should be able to locate a bunch of them
There are many,many good books on geology available online or at the library.
A fairly new one that I just picked up is called "Canada Rocks" and it is $60 at Chapters.
It covers the basics of tectonics and structural geology as it pertains to Canada quite well.
It wouldn't hurt for some of the resident earth sciences conspiracy theorists like DB to give it a read either.
Trex
Plasma is often mischaracterized as a "gas," but its conductivity and dynamic response to electricity and magnetism distinguishes it from a gas. The "quasi-neutrality" of plasmas means they tend overall to be electrically neutral. But plasmas can also violate quasi-neutrality, producing charged regions in electrical double layers (DLs) and particle beams. Plasma is a better conductor of electricity even than copper, and it is this characteristic that allows for electrical circuitry throughout the cosmos.
Hannes Alfvén Photo credit: Welinder Jaeger Bergne
Alfvén and his colleagues also established that the behavior of electrified plasma can be scaled up an incredible 14 orders of magntiude -- what is observed in the laboratory can occur at galactic dimensions as well. Furthermore, the electric force is incomparably more powerful than gravity. Electric currents across cosmic distances have the power to shape cosmic structure, and at the local scale, to light the sun, to energize planetary auroras, and periodically, to create spectacular comets.
Is the Universe Electric?
"Groove lane morphology and development consistent with that predicted for passive rifts suggest a major role of global expansion in grooved terrain formation." -- Scott L. Murchie, geologist, et al., November 1986
"The bright terrain formed as Ganymede underwent some extreme resurfacing event, probably as a result of the moon's increase in size." -- Louise M. Prockter, physicist, 2001
"In fact, it is now widely accepted that the Jovian moon, Ganymede, has experienced significant, internally-generated, post-formation expansion. As Prockter (2001) writes: 'The bright terrain formed as Ganymede underwent some extreme resurfacing event, probably as a result of the moon's increase in size'. Collins et al. (1999) agree that the formation of the grooved terrain on Ganymede was likely the result of post-formation 'global expansion'. " -- Dennis J. McCarthy, geoscientist, November 2005
"Since planets and moons did not pop into existence at their current size, everyone agrees they must have expanded at some point in their history." -- Dennis J. McCarthy, geoscientist, November 2005
"Ganymede's grooved terrain likely formed during an epoch of global expansion...." -- Michael T. Bland and Adam P. Showman, planetary scientists, 2007
"Ganymede's surface is dominated by relatively young, extensional tectonic deformation. While it is generally accepted that this deformation formed during global expansion of the satellite, the cause of the expansion remains unclear." -- Michael T. Bland, astrogeologist, et al., 2007
"Why does plate tectonics occur only on Earth? This is one of the major questions in earth and planetary sciences research, and raises a wide range of related questions: has plate tectonics ever occurred...?" Paula Martin, astrophysicist, et al., 2008
"The bright terrain formed as Ganymede underwent some extreme resurfacing event, probably as a result of the moon's increase in size." -- Louise M. Prockter, physicist, 2001
"The bright terrain formed as Ganymede underwent some extreme resurfacing event, probably as a result of the moon's increase in size." -- Louise M. Prockter, physicist, 2001
"In fact, it is now widely accepted that the Jovian moon, Ganymede, has experienced significant, internally-generated, post-formation expansion. As Prockter (2001) writes: 'The bright terrain formed as Ganymede underwent some extreme resurfacing event, probably as a result of the moon's increase in size'. Collins et al. (1999) agree that the formation of the grooved terrain on Ganymede was likely the result of post-formation 'global expansion'. " -- Dennis J. McCarthy, geoscientist, November 2005
"Since planets and moons did not pop into existence at their current size, everyone agrees they must have expanded at some point in their history." -- Dennis J. McCarthy, geoscientist, November 2005
"Ganymede's grooved terrain likely formed during an epoch of global expansion...." -- Michael T. Bland and Adam P. Showman, planetary scientists, 2007
"Ganymede's surface is dominated by relatively young, extensional tectonic deformation. While it is generally accepted that this deformation formed during global expansion of the satellite, the cause of the expansion remains unclear." -- Michael T. Bland, astrogeologist, et al., 2007
"Why does plate tectonics occur only on Earth? This is one of the major questions in earth and planetary sciences research, and raises a wide range of related questions: has plate tectonics ever occurred...?" Paula Martin, astrophysicist, et al., 2008
"The bright terrain formed as Ganymede underwent some extreme resurfacing event, probably as a result of the moon's increase in size." -- Louise M. Prockter, physicist, 2001