Graviton decay and the expanding Earth hypothesis

[ExpErdMann]

In the thread Intrinsic heating of white dwarfs, I mentioned that the central idea mentioned there was published in a paper of mine dealing with the expanding Earth theory. That paper has now become available online here. The basic idea is that gravitational potential energy is recycled slowly over time at a rate proportional to the Hubble constant H. In the process heat is given off at the rate:

dE/dt = -UH,

where U is the gravitational potential energy. There is no change in the gravitational constant G itself. In the paper I suggest that for the Earth about 5-10 per cent of the released energy appears as radiated heat and 90 per cent goes into expansion.

I would be curious to get the reactions of the BAUT members to this idea. In regard to the white dwarfs, I've found that the same general relationship holds as far as luminosity is concerned. That is, about 10 per cent or so of the released energy appears as radiant energy. This is a completely different explanation of white dwarf luminosities than the conventional one, which links luminosities mainly to age. The expansion of white dwarfs is more difficult to measure, but as Nereid pointed out in the other thread, it should be measurable as rotational slowing in neutron stars.

[stutefish]

I'm a layman, so please forgive my simple layman's questions.

In the opening paragraph of the paper you link, you conclude, "[t]he heat production is moreover sufficient to cause expansion of planetary radii and so affords a possible basis for the expanding Earth hypothesis."

I'm confused. Have we observed planetary radii increasing? If so, wouldn't that be basis enough for the EE hypothesis? Indeed, if we've been able to observe and measure planetary radius increases, then wouldn't that be the "EE theory", not the "EE hypothesis"? And if we have in fact observed and measured planetary radius increases, wouldn't that actually be the "EE fact"?

On the other hand, if we haven't observed (let alone measured) any planetary radius increases, then why mention it at all in this context? If the phenomenon doesn't exist, then what use is it to say that your theory could be the basis for a nonexistent phenomenon?

I guess a lot of my confusion stems from the fact that I don't actually know if we've observed or measured planetary radius increases. Could someone please fill me in on this?

Thanks!

[ExpErdMann]

Those are certainly reasonable questions. Perhaps I should have mentioned that the expanding earth hypothesis is not considered correct by most geologists. It was considered a viable hypothesis in the 1960s and 70s, around the time when seafloor spreading was discovered. At that time, it seemed like the Earth could be expanding, since new crust was being added at the ridges and it was not clear that crust was disappearing elsewhere. Generally speaking, the evidence for subduction at trenches was subsequently found to be convincing for most geologists.

Today the theory is having a bit of a resurgence. To begin with, it should be noted that EE comes in two main flavours, slow expansion (about .5 mm/yr increase in radius) and fast expansion (over 1 cm/yr). The fast expansion group suppose that most expansion occurred in the last 200 million years. It argues that all the ocean crust that was ever formed was formed in this time period. I personally find this idea problematic, since there would have been many effects of this rapid expansion which would have left footprints.

Slow expansion over a much longer period is feasible, however, since all the effects would have been more gradual. The advantages of the slow expanding earth theory are mainly that it explains the evolution of the Earth's crust in a much more convincing way than plate tectonics (PT). In particular, it explains why the crust is divided into raised up continents and lower lying ocean basins (see the paper by Weijermars, which is in the refs of my paper).

As for measurement of expansion, the current picture is unclear. Studies using VLBI or GPS seem unable to decide the issue clearly, either for slow or fast expansion. This is partly because expansion would throw off the baselines that are employed in such studies.

There have been other discussions of the expanding Earth theory in this forum. Just use "expanding earth" as a search term and you'll come up with many. There are also a lot of websites on EE now, but keep in mind that most of them favour fast EE.

[Dave Zelenka]

I sure do love EE hypothesis. My wife is a geologist, by schooling, so she doesn't think of it as well of it as I do. I especially like it because it solves some of the difficult biogeography questions, such as why is the closest relative of the Pacific Northwest's tailed frog in New Zealand.

However, I have always assumed that the earth could only expand through mass creation, which of course goes against everything we think we know about earth physics. I can't imagine that it occurred due to a thinning of the outer layers, because that would have left a massive gap in the interior, which doesn't seem to exist.

[ExpErdMann]

Mass creation is just one possibility, not a likely one in my view. I'm not sure why you think the outer layers are thinning in a constant mass scenario. True, the oceanic crust may be thinning over time, but all layers below that are getting thicker with expansion. The density of each layer simultaneously diminishes over time. Another way of looking at it is that the core may originally have been much greater in thickness than the mantle and that, with expansion, progressively more core material gets converted to mantle. That is what some EEers like Martin Pickford suppose.

[Dave Zelenka]

Mass creation is just one possibility, not a likely one in my view. I'm not sure why you think the outer layers are thinning in a constant mass scenario. True, the oceanic crust may be thinning over time, but all layers below that are getting thicker with expansion. The density of each layer simultaneously diminishes over time. Another way of looking at it is that the core may originally have been much greater in thickness than the mantle and that, with expansion, progressively more core material gets converted to mantle. That is what some EEers like Martin Pickford suppose.

How does the density change? Or how would an iron-nickle core get converted to a less dense mantle? I understand that the iron-nickle core is just a theory, isn't it based on the idea that we have a magnetic field? I expect that there are other ways that magnetic fields are produced. Here is a semi-related supposition, wouldn't a differntially spinning water droplet the size of the earth have magnetic field? If so, there wouldn't be the need of an iron-nickle core, would there?

If my questions show anything of my thinking, you might notice that I think water has something to do with the process. (1) I have my doubts that an iron-nickle core exists, because from my understanding of gravity, the denser material would doubtfully end up at the center of a differentially-spinning earth-size mass. And (2), so much of the data coming out of the new NASA explorations are showing that many of the moons and interplanetary materials out there are composed of substantial amounts of water, at least on the surface and in the case of Enceladus from part of its interior.

I also expect that expansion has something to do with gravity as you seem to be implying. Think about a simple vector diagram of gravity upon the earth. From all sides and angles gravity vectors (whatever that is) are pointing inwards. Those vectors must be doing something. What, is the question, which it seems like you are exploring.

I wouldn't rule out that those vectors and the subsequent differential rotation aren't 'creating' some sort of mass. I say subsequent differential rotation, because I feel that gravity may be the cause of stellar bodys' rotations. Couldn't those gravity vectors actually help to spin the earth; just like the incoming winds of a huricane help to influence it's rotation (with the help of the coriolis effect)?

[ExpErdMann]

How does the density change? Or how would an iron-nickle core get converted to a less dense mantle? I understand that the iron-nickle core is just a theory, isn't it based on the idea that we have a magnetic field? I expect that there are other ways that magnetic fields are produced. Here is a semi-related supposition, wouldn't a differntially spinning water droplet the size of the earth have magnetic field? If so, there wouldn't be the need of an iron-nickle core, would there?

If the change were due to a decrease in the gravitation constant, G, as once was thought possible, then each layer would increase in thickness and decrease in density. This would arise since the weight of overlying layers would decrease and so the lower layers would elastically rebound. This explanation fell from favour when other consequences of decreasing G were not found. Another possibility, howver, is that lighter elements from the core are being heated and pushed out into the mantle. If so, the core would be shrinking over time and the mantle would be getting thicker. This seems more feasible.

If my questions show anything of my thinking, you might notice that I think water has something to do with the process. (1) I have my doubts that an iron-nickle core exists, because from my understanding of gravity, the denser material would doubtfully end up at the center of a differentially-spinning earth-size mass. And (2), so much of the data coming out of the new NASA explorations are showing that many of the moons and interplanetary materials out there are composed of substantial amounts of water, at least on the surface and in the case of Enceladus from part of its interior.

You seem to have an ATM idea of your own here. I can't say it attracts me too much. The iron core is for certain. Don't look for too much water down there!

I also expect that expansion has something to do with gravity as you seem to be implying. Think about a simple vector diagram of gravity upon the earth. From all sides and angles gravity vectors (whatever that is) are pointing inwards. Those vectors must be doing something. What, is the question, which it seems like you are exploring.

Again, not possible. The gravity vectors are all pointed to the centre of the Earth and I don't see anyway for you to generate spin there.

I wouldn't rule out that those vectors and the subsequent differential rotation aren't 'creating' some sort of mass. I say subsequent differential rotation, because I feel that gravity may be the cause of stellar bodys' rotations. Couldn't those gravity vectors actually help to spin the earth; just like the incoming winds of a huricane help to influence it's rotation (with the help of the coriolis effect)?

Sorry, I don't think so.

[Dave Zelenka]

The iron core is for certain.

Please answer this:

If you could hover in the center of the earth's gravity, under current theory, an equal amount of force would attract you from all sides. You would be pulled equally on all sides, thus you would hover, if there was space for that. Then spin the center area. It is predicted that it rotates differntially from the surface of the earth. That would even further lessen the force upon the center of the earth. How could then the heaviest/abundant materials, iron-nickle, gather in that location? It seems illogical. All the forces combined (gravitation attraction on all sides and the equatorial centrifugal force) would push the heavier elements towards the surface.

[ExpErdMann]

It is true the gravitational forces acting on material at the very centre of the Earth cancel out, but the weight of all the overlying layers maximixes the pressure there. The heavier elements are not being forced out of the core, having settled out there billions of years ago.

In any case, I would kindly suggest that if you want to discuss your ATM idea more fully, you would do better to start a separate thread on it and leave this one for mine.

[Vermonter]

Can you provide any reasoning or evidence for your claim that heavy matter does not accumulate at the core? In the standard model, heavy metals such as iron sink toward the center of the planet. You'd need to provide a processs for matter to behave in the manner you are proposing.

[ExpErdMann]

I assume you're directing that query to Dave. As mentioned, I would prefer that Dave's idea be discussed in a separate thread.

[eagledare]

I assume you're directing that query to Dave. As mentioned, I would prefer that Dave's idea be discussed in a separate thread.

Hello all this is my first post in this forum. I would like to direct you to some EE models to have a look at then I will explain my interest and theory.

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html
http://www.continuitystudios.net/pangea.html
http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/fromthedesky.html
http://continuitystudios.net/dinosaur.html
http://www.nealadams.com/PhysicsOfGrow.html
http://www.itslikecool.com/prime
http://www.itslikecool.com/dinosaur.html

Enjoy

[eagledare]

Wednesday, 31 January 2007 at 19.00 o'clock
VPS: 19.00
Repetitions:
07.02.2007 around 16:50


And it moves still!

Documentation, France/Italy 2006, Second Channel of German Television, Erstausstrahlung
Direction: Franz Fitzke


Tears in the sea-bottom, which could be impressively filmed with dipping courses for the documentation, point on the fact that the earth grows. According to this theory of the earth expansion, which was for a long time smiled at, the planet was only half as large some hundred million years ago as today, and the different continents formed only one surface, which covered the earth. The documentation presents this theory and asks for the causes of earth growth.




Second Channel of German Television © F. Fitzke




Also at the age of four billion years the earth does not come to the peace. Their crust in the Pacific over up to 15 centimeters up, in the Atlantic annually tears is it three to four centimeters.
According to Lehrmeinung of plate tectonics the ground plates drifting apart in other place are again melted (“Subduktion”) or to fold with the collision with other plates mountains up. An older, but today nearly forgotten theory proceeds against it from a growth of the earth. According to this theory of the earth expansion the earth was only half as large a few hundred million years ago as today.

Although zerstritten among themselves, appoint yourself Plattentektoniker and earth expansionists together to the polar researcher Alfred Wegener. Wegener died 1930 in the grönländischen ice. Only 30 years later its smiled at theory of the Kontinentalverschiebung was developed to today valid plate tectonics. Wegener concluded from the exact fit of the coastal lines from South America and Africa that they must have formed once together a larger continent. It reconstructed a supercontinent named Pangäa, which covered all well-known continents and from the Weltmeer stood out. Paläo globes and computer animations show that with the today's continents a much smaller globe can be nearly completely closed. A good argument for the earth expansion.

For over 30 years scientists determine a slowing down of the earth rotation by atomic clocks. According to angular momentum set from it a growth of the earth would have to result to physics. Paleontologists could explain size and weight of the enormous dinosaurs according to this theory, if they accept a much smaller earth and thus a much smaller force of gravity for their time epoch.

The question about the cause for the earth expansion remains. The field physicist Konstantin Meyl assumes neutrinos from the universe are absorbed by the earth core and materialisiert and thus the mass of the earth grow. Meyls thesis decreases/goes back on the Edison competitor Nikola Tesla. Meyl has width unit-read revolutionary research continued and demonstrates in the documentation a sensational experiment.

http://www.google.com/translate?u=ht...&hl=en&ie=UTF8

Holger Isenberg <web@areo.info> wrote:
For German and French speaking members:
Take note of this new TV documentary about EE theory next week.

"Und sie bewegt sich noch!"
Documentation, France / Italy 2006, ZDF
Directed by: Franz Fitzke
Time: January 31, 2007 19:00 - 19:45 CET (18:00 UTC)
Station: arte
http://www.arte.tv/de/woche/
244,broadcastingNum=601193,day=5,week=5,year=2007. html


--
Holger Isenberg
http://areo.info
web@areo.info

[north]

Wednesday, 31 January 2007 at 19.00 o'clock
VPS: 19.00
Repetitions:
07.02.2007 around 16:50


And it moves still!

Documentation, France/Italy 2006, Second Channel of German Television, Erstausstrahlung
Direction: Franz Fitzke


Tears in the sea-bottom, which could be impressively filmed with dipping courses for the documentation, point on the fact that the earth grows. According to this theory of the earth expansion, which was for a long time smiled at, the planet was only half as large some hundred million years ago as today, and the different continents formed only one surface, which covered the earth. The documentation presents this theory and asks for the causes of earth growth.

perhaps I'm taking this too literally but if one surface "covered" the Earth where could water appear? which is of course the essence of life. and the only thing to "ooze" out of any expanding surface would be perhaps magma. closing any cracks and thicking any surface. I'm just thinking here

[Dave Zelenka]

Hello all this is my first post in this forum. I would like to direct you to some EE models to have a look at then I will explain my interest and theory.

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html
http://www.continuitystudios.net/pangea.html
http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/fromthedesky.html
http://continuitystudios.net/dinosaur.html
http://www.nealadams.com/PhysicsOfGrow.html
http://www.itslikecool.com/prime
http://www.itslikecool.com/dinosaur.html

Enjoy

The material above is very interesting.

On this page: http://www.itslikecool.com/prime/Meteorites.mov. What is he getting at? He compares geodes with meteorites. His implication is meteorites are formed in the same way as geodes, very interesting.

One reason his interpretation interests me, because under his model, it gives a simple method for galaxy evolution that follows this model.

[Nereid]

Hello all this is my first post in this forum. I would like to direct you to some EE models to have a look at then I will explain my interest and theory.

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html
http://www.continuitystudios.net/pangea.html
http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/fromthedesky.html
http://continuitystudios.net/dinosaur.html
http://www.nealadams.com/PhysicsOfGrow.html
http://www.itslikecool.com/prime
http://www.itslikecool.com/dinosaur.html

Enjoy

Welcome to BAUT, eagledare!

We already have a thread devoted to Neal Adams' ATM ideas - please continue discussion of those ideas there.

As ExpErdMann has noted, this thead is devoted to the ATM idea outlined in the OP; how are the other EE ideas, in the links you posted, related to the 'graviton decay' mechanism as the cause of EE?

[ExpErdMann]

Thanks, Nereid. I have to admire Eagledare's enthusiasm though, even if it is directed towards the somewhat problematic fast expansion models. And it is also interesting that a documentary on EE will appear on German television. This shows again how open-minded Germans are on such topics.

[JonClarke]

Today the theory is having a bit of a resurgence.

Not among geologists!

[ExpErdMann]

Just for fun, I checked Web of Science hits for journal articles on "expanding earth" over the last 30 years. This would pick up some but not all the papers. Here's what it showed:

1975-1979 14
1980-1984 10
1985-1989 2
1990-1994 6
1995-1999 7
2000-2006 13

A resurgence, I say!

[hhEb09'1]

1975-1979 14
1980-1984 10
1985-1989 2
1990-1994 6
1995-1999 7
2000-2006 13

A resurgence, I say!

but you use 7 years in the last interval, only 5 in all the others!

And since your original comment was "It was considered a viable hypothesis in the 1960s and 70s", shouldn't we be looking at intervals before 1975?

I sure do love EE hypothesis. My wife is a geologist, by schooling, so she doesn't think of it as well of it as I do. I especially like it because it solves some of the difficult biogeography questions, such as why is the closest relative of the Pacific Northwest's tailed frog in New Zealand.

That biogeography data has some interesting twists, but IIRC most of it has been resolved with the theory of the supercontinent supercycles, where the Pacific was closed long ago, just as the Atlantic was closed (not so) long ago.

We had some discussions here about some anomalies that don't fit into that neat picture. But a few anomalies can always turn up in odd ways, the regular pattern seems to obtain.

[ExpErdMann]

but you use 7 years in the last interval, only 5 in all the others!

And since your original comment was "It was considered a viable hypothesis in the 1960s and 70s", shouldn't we be looking at intervals before 1975?

Always the stickler! Okay, here is the full breakdown.

2000-2004 4
2005-2006 9

(even more of a rapid resurgence than I thought!)

1970-1974 3
1965-1969 5
1960-1964 5
1955-1959 0

Don't know why those earlier numbers are so low, except that the term "expanding earth" may not have been so much in use at the beginning.

[hhEb09'1]

2000-2006 13

Always the stickler! Okay, here is the full breakdown.

2000-2004 4
2005-2006 13

At the risk of increasing my rep as a stickler, I'd like to point out that your previous value was 13 for the entire period, whereas it is now 13 for just the last two years. Something doesn't add up.

1970-1974 3
1965-1969 5
1960-1964 5
1955-1959 0

Don't know why those earlier numbers are so low, except that the term "expanding earth" may not have been so much in use at the beginning.

The database may have been culled.

Or, it's not so much a resurgence, as the first flowering

[ExpErdMann]

At the risk of increasing my rep as a stickler, I'd like to point out that your previous value was 13 for the entire period, whereas it is now 13 for just the last two years. Something doesn't add up.

Oops! Edited.

The database may have been culled.

Or, it's not so much a resurgence, as the first flowering

One way or another, we're movin' on up.

[klaymen]

Wednesday, 31 January 2007 at 19.00 o'clock
VPS: 19.00
Repetitions:
07.02.2007 around 16:50


And it moves still!

Documentation, France/Italy 2006, Second Channel of German Television, Erstausstrahlung
Direction: Franz Fitzke
...

I saw this documentation yesterday, and I must say I was quite shocked that such a controversial (to say the least) theory is shown on a channel like arte that is known to be of high quality (unlike RTL, Pro7, etc), without pointing out how thin the ground is. I'm not mainly speaking of the EE theory now, but of the theoretical explanation that is given for this expansion, namely the "neutrinopower" postulated by Konstantin Meyl, an Austrian scientist. I'm a layman myself, but the idea that neutrinos (that hardly ever interact with matter) should have made the earth expand (and by the way also the sun), and that the moon during a solar eclips "bundles" neutrinos such that earthquakes occur in the area of the shadow on earth because the neutrinos hit the nucleus of the earth in a tangential way and move it towards earth surface... sorry, that sounds worse to me than speculations that men never actually were on the moon. It is somehow entertaining and good fun, but also sad because many people that watch it take it for accepted science, which it definitely isn't.

Don't get me wrong... it is perfectly fine to discuss such theories, but both sides should be shown. Meyl's postulations about longatudinal waves (referring to Tesla) and faster-than-light neutrinos (that constantly swap between electrons and positrons) are more than controversial. Also his referrals to Tesla are wrong. See for example this site for a good argumentation, unfortunately only in German.

[ExpErdMann]

The cause of the expansion is the big question and I agree neutrinos are not very convincing here. Did they do a good job on the explanation of why some people favour EE?