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 - 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.
Good reading.
14 comments:
Thanks for highlighting those links Don. Although I've received details of this concept before I didn't realize they were available on the web now.
Yes, .. Gene wrote me. Unfortunately I don't know enough to comment, but hopefully somebody who does, will. But as I keep saying, the geology still has to be argued.
I don't know any of the science behind it but it doesn’t have to be a “versus” situation between expanding Earth and tectonics. Obviously tectonics are fact currently in Earths history, but we have no real experience to draw on as far as what kinds of chemical reactions are possible on the cosmic size/pressure/temperatures we are talking about here, we cannot conclusively dismiss that at some stage in Earths history the planet was smaller. The oceans do not provide much in way of debunking the possibility, but that alone could lend credence to the theory.
Hi Ray,
Thanks for stopping by.
"Versus situation".
Yes, .. some would say, .. I know. But actually, I really do think it *does* have to be a 'versus' situation, because the 'subduction' that was orginally posited is, in its upper levels (and Plate Tectonics says so too), is 'overriding' (action from the 'continental' side). All manner of invention is then further posited to make the action from the oceanic side in depth in order to maintain the hypothetical destruction of the ocean floors, but that's not what the whole (global) picture is telling us.
'Tectonics' = Greek tekton ('builder').
Meaning 'mountain building'. ('Orogenesis' carries the same connotation.) But the only 'building' we see going on is the building of the mantle, extruding all over the place, where mountains are all erosional features (and we don't see any 'hills' building').
"Oceans".
That's right. Just their very existence tells us tells us something *big* is happening beneath the crust The sixty four thousand dollar question is 'why'. The whole of geology answers the question 'how'.
*Expansion*.
It's a perspective that presses the reset button on the whole of geology. Plate Tectonics is an attempt to keep it where it used to be since its creation. For some strange reason geologists are not very keen to explore the how. They're all focussed on the why, which anyway suggests a certain positive ambiguity regarding face value acceptance of the how.
Mr Ellis' post (above) attempts to address the why.
Smaller planet? Sure, .. That's what the geology tells us.. And the growth is from the inside, not planetisimals or 'collisionals' from the outside. Weird, eh? :))
Thanks for the reply Don, I came up with this bunch of speculation I think you may have interest in.
From what I have seen so far, while looking into this, (after a day of knowing about the theory) IF there was such an event, I would place it somewhere around 200 million years ago to about 70 million years ago. It would have been a relatively rapid event, many EE advocates claim it is an ongoing thing for billions of years and still is, but I don’t, I’d place it in that given era.
I think that because Pangaea/super continent was roughly that time 200m ago, and suggestions that the ocean floor is aged between those two points. I’d say such a reaction would had to of released hydrogen(perhaps some other gases) over this period, and that hydrogen into an oxygenated atmosphere, via lightening and perhaps volcanic activity, would have created a constant pour of water into the valleys that were opening up between the continents.
Before this event there would had to of been water but I would presume it was shallows and much less abundant, likely the reason life was pushed onto land in the first place, the seas were teeming with life to overflow.
One EE advocate told me that the Earth is still growing and gave numbers like “the thickness of a human hair per year” and went on to say that people do not find this significant, but it is over time. I basically said if this were true it wouldn’t have been possible for the Earth to expand at that rate from 200 million years ago to its current size, you would only be looking at 12miles of growth (or something along those lines) So under my theory of “the rapid event” it stabilised around the size it is 70 million years ago and maybe has a residual growth rate carrying over til now.
Someone, who is not an EE advocate, suggested to me that human physiology seems to be suited for a different gravity. Now under this theory I have given, the mass of the Earth hasn’t changed, but all this hydrogen, and other gases, was mass at the centre, a greater density below, a greater pull, but as it spilled to our level the centre mass reduced. So this lessening of G-force would have been advantageous to Dinosaurs, and they didn’t go extinct until around the time the event concluded at 70m, which raises more questions like if the two events are linked somehow(?).
As for the Reaction itself that would had to of taken place for such an event, remember you have opposing physics here; you have the expansion of the planet, but at the same time the inner planet is losing massive amounts of matter/gas into the atmosphere. You see the conundrum? At a time physics should be asking for more matter into the core to account for the expansion, in fact it is losing matter out of the core, so riddle me that, what kind of chemical reaction could do that?
I don’t know much but I believe the fusion on the sun is caused from the gravity and pressure pushing atoms so close together that they give off massive amounts of energy, their electrons are colliding etc. This would mean that you could get more atoms into a smaller area, a fusion compression of matter, so an idea I am entertaining is that the planets were basically birthed from our star as compressed fusion clumps, but after a time being free of that powerful gravity, and perhaps something to do with cooling or de-fusion, the result is this sudden expansion. So basically Earth had a fusion core up until 200 million years ago, at which point it burned out, and now it is cooling.
Now I am just basically humouring here, but if there were any science behind it I think it would look like this. It would be a general premise, but obviously Earth has a tectonic situation going on now, with perhaps a residual growth, but is otherwise stable.
Ray again, ..
Right about the gas. It's the biggest component of volcanism generally, and the intial opening of the continental crust ('Pangaea') was marked by huge volcanic provinces (nothing like it since). As well, the 'tectonics' of the Pacific rim tells us that its initial opening was *extremely* rapid (horrendously rapid in geological terms) off what was essentially a radially collapsing, essentially circular elevation in the Indonesian region centred on the Pangaean equator.
Tsunamis, volcanic midnights, gas, .. you name it. Marine is easy, but it's very difficult to preserve bones at the best of times in a terrestrial environment, and yet we have whole bone beds preserved. Under the conditions of the time it's very easy to see these as local populations washed into lagoons /swamps /sundry receptacles and left to rot with no predators to disturb the bones, except maybe a few fish to nibble on them. This was the time the inland seas were withdrawing from the land, and water level dropping globally to leave the earlier stratigraphic sequence high and dry. It's quite likely too the initial breakout was largely water.
So I'm with you there. Certainly since then, the Earth has seen *nothing like* that rate of opening. Regarding rates of loss / production, I don't know. The only thing certain is that there's been atmosphere and water all through geological time.
All of that has to do with geo-logical sequence of events, which I think geology should stick to. Going by track record I think the atomic particle 'why' of it all will be difficult - and on that score Mr Ellis is still waiting for a comment on his paper from someone with an informed opinion. And because the physics part is difficult and will be much argued, geology's job is to *ruthlessly* provide the support to help speculation along those lines, not to try to solve that particular problem, because even if it does look like getting solved the geology will still have to be straightened out. (PT is badly bent and won't be straightened out overnight. )
True, the Earth seems to be a lot more stable than it used to be. There isn't the restraint of confining pressure of the Pangaean crust. But that was a one-off. It's all happening at the ridges now, and I don't think there's an easy way of telling what ridge behaviour was like 'before' v. 'after'. ('Before' prior to breakthrough was forceful in the Pacific and Passive in the Atlantic.)
Maybe the Higgs boson is Le Sage's graviton. The conveyor of mass (and, perhaps, gravity?)
Hello Bill,
You know I'm a paid up member of rednecked geologist who don't give a fig about mechanism. It woud be nice to know, but that water's far too deep for me. The name's familiar. That's about all. I can't comment, other than to suspect the current exploration in that field could be uncomfortably like the current one in geology, namely consensus-driven.
(Gene Ellis responds to Bill's comment)..."Maybe the Higgs boson is Le Sage's graviton. The conveyor of mass (and, perhaps, gravity?)"...is a question for Physics. The ionic paper does not portend an answer for a mechanism converting energy to matter. It merely accepts the interchangeability of mass and energy provided by the Laws of Conservation. I think re-opening Le Sage will sidetrack discussing ionization.
I have changed the decay rate of 1 eV every 2 MY to every 1.75 MY which moves all the points shown in Figure 3, at or very close to a geological boundary. The paper is in the final draft stage and will be out soon.
If the events presented in these papers are Geo-Logic and supportable, it will be up to the physicist to find the heat that initially warmed the planet to disprove the ionic theory.
I still cant understand how the scientific community is so blind to the evidence for an expanding earth. The map of age of the ocean seafloor is evidence enough for me, yet there is even more in the fossil record.
A mechanism for mass forming inside the earth is not outside the real of possibility. We know that protons and neutrons can be broken apart, we do it in particle colliders. What if inside the earth, the reverse process is happening. The source of all of that matter could be from dark matter. Dark matter can pass right through the earth and has mass. What if some of it is combined to form matter?
Basically, it's not a scientific issue, but a political one and the need for a community (rather than individual) to find funding. That's the end that must be served first. Individuals that threaten it get tramped. It's a fantastic recipe for stagnation, when it's individuals (usually) who make the difference.
On the scientific front it's 'a scale thing' again, overlain by our collective inability to properly perceive geological time and the control it exerts on how rocks behave, and further overlain by how science is done these days- where too much theory is allowed to trump too little observation.- and the inappropriate application of the 'scientific method' - theorising too much on too little evidence, when 'the evidence' is what best serves the political purpose. Nobody will publish whatever threatens their own demise.
It's a very bad state of affairs that will not be overcome till the computer can think for itself, which when /if it does, will lead to the demise of the species. We will have served the grand purpose of evolution. (Technology trumps science.) Unless it also evolves a quality of compassion as well - of which there isn't a great deal of evidence amongst our lot. Who knows, maybe being powered by the sun instead of eating other life, these technobeans will all lie about in it, show off their fantastic boobs and butts on the beach, and play football. :-))
Great site. I have only one thing to mention: the earth is HOLLOW. Expanding earth is the first step to accept. There is no sufficient mass addition.
Check the cassini jupiter pole video and censor of nasa for proof.
Is that you, Ray ("Jupiter pole video")
I can't offer any authoritative opinion about Hollow Earth, except the usual about earthquakes and seismology. Satellite gravity shows it's solid down to the upper part of the lower mantle (though now exhumed of course to the level of the ocean floor.)
I'd never heard of the "Censor of Nasa" so looked it up, but I don't see the connection. Can you be more specific?
Good article..
Post a Comment