Talk:Expanding Earth

Scientific Consensus -- Do the Math

The scientific consensus is that drastic sea level changes would most certainly accompany any substantive change in the Earth's radius that is accompanied by a change in volume. Why is this not mentioned?

You are correct this should be mentioned, as it is possible that the whole planet was covered by water and as it expanded the land masses were exposed to the atmosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.174.93 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 May 2014

You are correct in that a drastic sea level change should be part of the concept, and, example locations mentioned where sea level was at a prior maximum. For example, the Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia, or lake Bonneville in Utah. In addition the concept should include the gradual, and pulsed increase in the total volume of the water on the surface of the Earth, and how it works in conjunction with the changes in surface area of the Planet, while at the same time, water is removed from off the continents, and, thinned out to fill in the forming and growing ocean basins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.151.6 (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Geology has more than its share of eccentric theories (and the continuous creation of oil in the Earth's crust is only one of those), but frankly, the Expanding Earth is one that surely belongs in the pseudoscience wing along with the hollow Earth, which for a while was a more popular idea.

I have no particular objection to presentation of a pseudoscience such as Astrology for the sake of remembering the historical significance of the artifact. However, including minor pseudoscience such as Expanding Earth, particularly when they are not tagged as such will eventually mean the demise of Wikipedia as a reliable scientific reference. How is the reader supposed to determine at a glance whether this is a viable theory? Including a "scientific consensus" section is not a very good answer. We don't need to read a "pseudoscientific consensus" section for reputable science articles too, do we? Perhaps someone like "Jacky Jerome" could write us some?

It states at the top of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." so this discussion portion should be deleted or reworded so that it is not a discussion on the topic but how to make the article accurate as possible. As stated below, it is very clear in the article that it is 1) a hypothesis, thus not science fact, and 2)scientific consensus has rejected any significant expansion or contraction of Earth. Maybe the title should add the word hypotheses just like other salient hypotheses on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.174.93 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 May 2014

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame is likewise responsible for an Expanding Universe theory which has been at least as popular as Neil Adam's theory of the Expanding Earth. Adams devoted an entire chapter to the subject at the end of one of his Dilbert books, but there is no reference to that theory in the pages of Wikipedia that I can find. Why is that? Danshawen (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)danshawen Danshawen (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)danshawen

Both the lede of the article and the "scientific consensus" section make it very clear that modern science rejects the Expanding Earth hypothesis. We have no obligation to readers who only read the first sentence of the article, or only read the title of a section. It's also unfair to label the entire "Expanding Earth" hypothesis as pseudoscience. There was a point in time (>40 years ago) when it was part of actual scientific discourse. As with many genuine scientific theories, it was disproved. Only in more recent times has EEH been revived by marginally notable pseudoscientists. No comment on Dilbert. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that no reliable source has made a commentary on Dilbert's theory. Neil Adams is mentioned mostly because Wired made an article on his theory. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting that a talk Page that wants you to do the Math has no Math, so I will Correct that. The density of rocky planets can be approximated using the following equation: R ( the radius ) must be entered into the equation in two locations as Kilometers only. The equation has a cubic term ( compression ), a linear term ( gravity ), and a constant ( material property of rock at the surface). The constant can be changed for ice planets, to a number around 1,000, or increased for iron dominated planets like Mercury which lies far above the graph of "R's". DENSITY ( Rocky Planet)= ( 1+Pi ) x 10^-9 X R^3 + ( 1 + SQRT 2 ) X 10^-1 X R + 2900 Kg/m^3. The Equation is useful for small rocky planets up thru planets larger than Earth, but, not up to the size of the gas giants. The Equation can tell The Density for a given radius R ( kilometers ), and R can be used for all the rest to acquire Surface Area, Volume, Mass, and Surface Gravity (acceleration)of any planet up thru at least a radius of 7,000 km. it may go higher, but, as of now, we do not yet have examples of planets between Earth size and Gas Giant size. It will give the Density of a mostly rocky planet to within 1 %. MWC, Golden, Colorado. You can also use it to estimate the Surface gravity of the Earth when it was smaller, had a lower gravity, and had far larger land animals such as sauropods. Unfortunately, there is no exact method yet to get the Size, Density, Mass, gravity, and maximum allowable animal size combinations. Perhaps some bright math mind would like to work on the structural limitations of dinosaurs of various sizes, applied forces, surface gravity of Earth, and Earth's Radius, Volume, and Mass at known time periods ( when the dinosaurs lived )....MWC, Golden, Colorado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.151.6 (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Peter Hadfield

Now that there is a Wikipedia article about Peter Hadfield (journalist), can we add his Expanding earth my ass, 2010-11-03, in the External links section? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Useful Concepts Not Explainable By Plate Tectonics

Growing and Expanding Planets ( like Earth ) have certain problems that can not be reasonably explained by any theory where the mass, density, volume, surface area, and surface gravity do not change appreciably. One area is the Excessive size of land animals in the past, sizes that are no longer possible in the current surface gravity conditions of the Earth, but, were no problem for more than 200 million years between 230 Mya and 65 Mya, and then again when mammals grew excessively large up to about 20 Mya. Either a Growing Earth, or and expanding Earth can easily provide combinations of conditions that allow reduced surface gravities for certain time periods. MWC Golden Co. 71.196.151.6 (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that that won't do. There are several physical explanations as to why physical largeness of animals is not generally the result of evolution in modern times: the ability of intelligence in predators to overcome the utility of largeness as a defence, for one. Using increasing gravity is much more far-fetched than that; in addition it has lots of inescapable consequences which are not observed. As far as I know, Expanding Earth Theory does not have any "Useful Concepts Not Explainable By Plate Tectonics" as the result of consideration. And if you think it does, the right thing to do is edit the article with appropriate sources to convince other editors, or even better, address the geological community through peer-reviewed publication, then use your article as a source, not try to convince anyone in a Talk article. SkoreKeep (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Considering that the original poster can't see that the span of 235-65 MYA is not "more than 200 million years", I have no problem with dismissing him/her completely. --Khajidha (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I messed up on the time span by combining concepts into a single sentence. The largest dinosaurs ran from 230 Mya to 66 MYA , and the Largest Mammals from around 65 MYA to approximately 130,000 years ago. The duration exceeds 200 Million Years. The general trend was for animals to get very large, then evolve toward smaller species. This is not something new, but was recognized by engineers in the late 1800's that the largest dinosaurs ( sauropods and their cousins ) are structurally not possible in the current surface gravity of the current sized Earth. The trend showed an absolute peak size before 160 MYA that may maximize at approximately 14.5 Male African Elephant Volumes at a surface gravity of 41 % of the current surface gravity. This would mean that the maximum weight of the largest animals would not exceed 0.41 ( 14.5 ) = 5.945 Male African Elephant Weights. The problem is that Male African Elephants are not standardized in size, or volumetric displacement, and, the ones we have left may not represent the maximum allowable size of animals anymore due to excessive hunting in the last 150 plus years. Even with these limitations, an average of several Male African Elephant is about 5.374 m^3 of volumetric displacement. The average volume of largest sauropods would be 5.374 X 14.5 = 77.923, round to 78 cubic meters of water displacement, but they would only weight about 31.98, round to 32 metric tonnes. An interesting sidebar is that an animal was found in Argentina that was first reported at 100 Tonnes, which was lowered to 77 Tonnes, and after further calculations, was lowered to 70 Tonnes. By conversion this would be approximately 70 cubic meters of water displacement, but the surface gravity would be higher than 41 %, but still estimatable but using the concept that the weight is the 2/3 rds power of volumetric displacement. Dividing 70 by 5.374 gives a value of almost exactly 13.0 Male African Elephant Volumes. Taking 1 divided by the cube root of 13.0 gives a surface gravity of 0.42529 g now. So the weight would be around 13.0 x 0.42529 x 5.374 = 29.71 Tonnes. This number is less than 32 tonnes as would be expected. This animal was 89.66 % of the calculated absolute maximum average volume, but almost 93 % of the maximum allowable average weight of big dinosaurs. The really interesting part is not the size, but the age of the animal. The age is in 100 million year old deposits, not in 160 plus million year old deposits. This is a big deal as it hints that the Earth not only undergoes normal planetary growth ( mass gain ) , but also undergoes periods of expansion that excessively increase the Radius, which lowers the average density of the Earth, and lowers the surface gravity far below what one would expect for that time period. This might also support the concept that size is also limited by food supply, and when the Earth was active 100 MYA, the average temperature was higher ( 26 centigrade ), sea levels were still rising ( maximum elevation at 92 MYA ), and the climate ( rainfall ) allowed for plentiful plant food. In short, the whole of conditions was good for very large animals. Comment By: Michael W. Clark, Golden, Colorado, USA. 73.3.187.143 (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, do you have any sources to cover this material? It all sounds like original research, which is not deemed useful in Wikipedia (see WP:NOR). Do that, and then we'll argue about the applicability and utility of your argument. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Expanding Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100820034800/http://search.japantimes.co.jp:80/cgi-bin/fl20091122x3.html to http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20091122x3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Other reference

Other reference:

• Sudiro, P.: The Earth expansion theory and its transition from scientific hypothesis to pseudoscientific belief, Hist. Geo Space. Sci., 5, 135-148, doi:10.5194/hgss-5-135-2014, 2014.

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Reduced Gravity seems to Lead to a Lower Soil Bearing Capacity, and larger feet in Sauropods

Current, The Largest Animals are elephants, and when they are standing still, with all four feet on the ground, they exert a pressure on the Soil of approximately 13 lbs per square inch under each foot. This is approximately 1872 lbs per square foot of surface area under their feet, which is about 75 % of the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Soils of approximately 2500 lbs per square foot, in the current Surface Gravity of 1.0 G. In comparison, the measured, and Calculated soil pressure under a sauropods foot at the Dinosaur Bulges at Dinosaur Ridge near Morrison Colorado, is approximately 9 lbs per square inch under their feet, which is only 1296 lbs per square feet of foot bottom surface area with all four feet on the ground. Assuming this is also 75% of the Soil Bearing capacity of the Dinosaurs time, the Ultimate Soil Bearing Capacity would be 1728 lbs per square foot. This is only about 69 % of the current soil bearing capacity. Additional calculations indicate that the surface gravity was around 50% of the Current Surface Gravity, the time period was less than 150 MYa, it may be as close as 140 MYa. 0.50 g occurs when the product of the Planets Density and Radius is one half of the current Product. That is when it is one half of 6372.4567 km X 5509.649049 = 35,110,000 km - kg/m^3. one half is 17,555,000 km - kg/m^3. This occurs at roughly 4172.2674 km and a Density of 5207.545 kg/m^3, and 140.61 Million years ago.

If the same Sauropod was alive today, and the bottom of its feet were the same surface area, it would exert a pressure of just over 18 psi (2592 PSF ). Just standing there it exceeds the current Ultimate Bearing Capacity of the current soils in 1.0 g. As soon as it raised one foot, the other three feet would be carrying all the load, and the pressure would go up to 4/3 ( 2592 PSF ) = 3456 PSF which is over 138 % of the ultimate soil bearing capacity of today's soils, in 1.0 g.

Additional Information: " IN Theory " at 0.5 g, Sauropods could be as large as ( 1/0.5)^3 = 8.0 Male African Elephant Volumes, but the one at Dinosaur Ridge was only 2.5317 Male African Elephant Volumes. The bottom surface area of four feet is approximately 1651 square inches X 9.0172 PSI = 14,887.4 lbs in 0.50 g. The reference elephant has a bottom of the four feet surface area of 886.137 in^2 X 13.367 psi = 11,845 lbs. The Ratio ( 2 X 14,887.4 ) / 11,845 = 2.5137 Male African Elephant Volumes. The Volume Ratio is 2.5317 to 1, but the weight ratio is half of that, 1.25685 to 1. Check, 14,887.4 / 11,845 = 1.25685 OK. 2.5137 / 2 = 1.25685 OK.

The Important thing to do when using foot comparisons is that the animals have similar feet. Both are four footed, both have large oval feet with internal padding. The make similar foot prints in the Mud. Structurally, Sauropods are not possible in today's surface gravity. Their necks, tails, and legs are too long, and their feet are too small, even in our higher gravity with more soil compression, and higher soil bearing capacity. Michael Clark, Golden Colorado, USA. 63.225.17.34 (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)