For some considering this matter of an expanding Earth, a mechanism for expansion would appear to be central to their acceptance before any physical expression such as the creation of the ocean floors ( = two thirds of the Earth's surface) would be credible. Seeing, it would appear, is not necessarily believing. However, if such a mechanism were to be discovered (such as the much-celebrated Higgs boson, discovered on the stroke of a funding midnight and considered to be a credible expression of an expanding universe) would they abandon their conviction of the 'reality' of subduction? I doubt it.
In the meantime therefore, they may care to read Mr E. Ellis' assessment of how an expanding universe is expressed on Earth.
Mr Ellis posits that :-
"The decay of five elements (O, Fe, Si, Mg and S) as exemplified by their ionization properties is responsible for the Earth accumulating sufficient mass to double its radius at least twice in the past billion years [and was] responsible for the oxygen in water doubling seven times in mass and volume for a one hundred and twenty-four fold increase to incrementally fill the growing ocean beds created during the crustal expansions of (the) past 180 to 200 million years."
.. and supports his narrative with six tables and seven figures that clearly reflect the considerable time and thoughtful effort he has invested in this enterprise :-
Table 1 = Mass doubling rates for the above-mentioned elements
Table 2, 3 = Earth mass and radius growth over past 540my
Table 4 = Ionisation potentials of the five elements
Table 5 = Variable Earth-mass growth rates from ionisations of the five selected elements
Table 6 = Mass from table 5 with lagging radii
Fig.1 = Geological time scale of five ions
Fig.2 = Percentage mass v. time (Graph of table 5)
Fg.3 = Mass, Radius, Density and gravity curves of Table 6.
Fig.4 = Uncertainty on mass calculation
Fig.5 = Uncertainty on radius calculation
Fig.6 = Uncertainty on density calculation
Fig.7 = Uncertainty on gravity calculation
I don't have a background in physics sufficient to evaluate Mr Ellis' work, but I do recognise that in addressing this subject from a perspective of the atom rather than from the traditionally geological one (as I do), he takes an angle that not only returns us to considerations about the age of the Earth, how it formed and how it is warmed, but also invites us to consider how the intrinsic properties of elemental atoms may increase over time to form the material stuff of the planet.
Mr Ellis tells me that according to our present understanding of the universe the standard model of particle physics involves 2 entities, matter (4.9% atoms and 26.8% dark matter) and energy (68.3% dark energy) which are interchangeable. However the mathematics of the standard model indicates something is lacking, .. hence the need for more sub-atomic particles and more complex math. Mr Ellis believes that the ionic paper fills that void with a third entity - entropy, which is not interchangeable with the other two - mass can convert to entropy all right (burn a piece of paper), and energy can convert to entropy (how the Earth came to be heated in the first place), but not the reverse :: entropy is a one-way street.
The paper should be viewed as offering a method for finding the mass and radius of an expanding Earth that matches the observed geology. It is significant that all the points in Table 5 and Figure 4 are at, or very close to, a geological boundary where highly significant changes in the fossil record are noted.
Comments are welcome either here, or on the 'contact author' link provided in Mr Ellis' paper.