Replying to Orac.
Certainly every one has a problem as to where the Earth gets its extra mass for the expansion theory to work?
Then you cleverly ask the question "does the theory require this extra mass?"
This together with your National Geographic item (below) started me thinking.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0807_020807_earthgirth.htmlIt it possible that your fantastic glib answer is not a product of fantasy, but could actually be solved using some well thought out semi-scientific ideas?
Ideas that are typical of those that come out of the pages of SAGG, and are discussed daily.
I put some thought into Orac's suggestion....and am suggesting some analogys that might have some merit, for discussion...(if proved true?)
I'm suggesting that Gravity...that is Gravity caused by physical mass, is felt in virtually all directions, by any smaller mass/body, in the larger mass's vicinity.
Now the Victorians produced perfect lead shot for their muskets, by dropping beads of molten lead from a tall 'shot tower'.
On its way down to the ground, the molten lead assumed a perfect spherical shape, as it cooled and solidified.
My analogy is:- drop down globules of an aireated rubber solution, From a (taller) tower,which in its turn will form spherical balls of aireated rubber.
Which will form into small sponge rubber balls as evaporation sets in..
Now comes the crunch...I am suggesting that if these spong rubber balls were taken to a place where there was less Gravity... they would expand.?
(Forget about the air in the sponge rubber ball. Since it would be auto vacuum'd out, or replaced, according to where or what gasses were present in this theoretical place of lesser Gravity) Air/gas, is not part of this theory.
Furthermore I am suggesting that all molten Earthlike rocks and magma, will tend to expand as Gravity weakens.
i.e Any molten material might well expand as gravity lessens.... but that solid rock would definately not be noticable
Orac also put up the interesting National Geographic article.....that the Earth's Girth is Bulging....inspite of the fact that the earth should be getting rounder at the Poles due to the release of pressure of the polar caps, melting, or PRG.
And while the scientists are as equally uncertain as to the effects of a changed Gravity field that is more oblate, the change in shape curiously coincides with a span of years in which the world's timekeepers have not had to add any leap seconds.
So no leap year seconds added for a number of years, I suppose that means the Earth is not consistently speeding up or slowing down in the long time.
(slight rotational anomalies are due to Earthquakes and similar are not counted)
So if the Earth is neither speeding up or slowing (as proven by the non addition of leap seconds?) And yet the Scientists state that the Earth is bulging
around the equator.
Now like a spinning ice skater.....if she puts out her arms, she slows down!!.
So if the Earth is getting bigger around the Equator and is still spinning at a constant rate. .....That does not Make a lot of sense.
So what is going on?
Dare I suggest a simplistic answer?
Remembering that the moon is receeding from us at almost an inch a year.
It can only be caused by a weakening of Gravity?
With less gravity there is less 'Frame rate wrap around tugging' of a spinning Planetary object.
So with a minute increase in Earths equator (=slowing) and the lesser frame rate wrap around (=faster).......The two forces cancel each other out.
With the Moon receeding, the equator bulging, the weaker frame rate wrap, the heavier boned animals and larger trees in the past, might bring us back to
the possibility that gravity is weakening? It does seem to be the only catch-all solution?
It might even bring us back to reconsider Neil Adams unsubstantiated expanding Earth theory.....that is so disputed at this present time.
Right or wrongly I must admit I would like to see Neil Adams produce the expasion of the earth which includes all the continents, Continental Shelves included.
It would seem to make more sense and also lessen the amount of expansion his theory requires?
I have a number of other items I would like to comment upon, but alas I do not have the time at present. Prehaps later.
Without exception ...I have and enjoy reading everyones contribution to this contraversial item.
