What if... the earth was flat... but then it grew?

The Growing Earth


A Possible explanation for expansion or growth.

Nuclear fission uranium core originally underneath but now at the center of the earth fuels the pair production process. Over time the fission process loses mass to energy reducing the overall gravitational constant of the earth allowing not only the planet to grow but to expand while heat escapes the earths crust causing mid-ocean rifting and nuclear volcanism. All types of matter are produced and ocean levels throughout history are a delicate balance of more matter and more ocean volume capacity.

"Nuclear Planet"
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/aug/cover

GPS systems have been calibrated to average out this growth across mountain uplift while minimizing plate motions. This explains why different GPS plate motion studies produce vastly different measurements. Glacial rebound measured at 1cm across most major continents due to the last ice age ending 10,000 years ago are in fact a growing phenominon and the recent buldges around the earths equator as detected by Nasa's Grace lead to the conclusion of a fattening earth as result of glacial rebound being accounted for.

Here's some history behind this theory...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory

The wiki argues these five things against this thoery...

1. The existence of Wadati-Benioff zones...
Easily interpreted as rifting areas of crust.

2. Seismic tomography show cold zones of sinking material...
Easily interpreted as rift zones allowing water to seep further into the earth.

3. Eclogite in many mountainbelts indicates material was "pushed" to depths...
Recurvature of the earths crust forces material into it while expansion stretches the land out.

4. rocks that are now lying next to each other were originally thousands of kilometers apart...
Again... Re-curvature of the earth forces material downwards into the Earth.

5. Rare earth isotope compositions of volcanic rocks that formed above subduction zones are similar to those of sediments on top of the subducting plate.
And why wouldn't they be... the sediments come from volcanoes themselves...

Additionally, paleo-magnetic measurements in the 1970's were not only poor quality but failed to understand the nature of the earth's electromagnetic field to a degree where it could have refuted possible Earth growth or expansion...

"Geocentric axial dipole hypothesis: A least squares perspective"
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16287341

"Sensitivity of the geomagnetic axial dipole to thermal core–mantle interactions"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v405/n6782/full/405063a0.html

Your thoughts?




ADDITION:

Really I cannot do this because I don't have enough data. I don't have access to the data used for GPS systems and the equations used to calculate earth positions. I don't have the means to come up with data.

The first thing you have to understand is the Terrestrial Reference frame which is used to calibrate the position of the earth in the universe.

Some people calibrate the position relative to the stars and some will attempt to calibrate the system to a fixed point at the center of the earth for other reasons.

I have only started to learn about frame dragging and gravitomagnetism but I do believe it can effect calibration as well if the prediction of it's effect is true. It is a relativity prediction.

As far as I know the Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) system is the main satellites system to which all other GPS and other satellites services are calibrated to. As for Geologists... for the most part they take measurement relative from one station to the next and adjust for the curvature of the earth using Eulerian pole.

Nasa JPL has GPS data which is accessible. http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html

I trust this info first and foremost but I do understand that many geologists draw conclusions which are in conflict as to what this data set says. It is most likely due to relative vs absolute positioning and measurements, I am not sure.

People also argue that Gravimeter data has effectively been used to measure the size of the earth but they are spot measurements which often have to deal with atmospheric effects and natural uplift.

Post Glacial rebound is another phenominon caused by the recession of the 2-4 km ice sheet from the 30-40km thick upper continental crust 10,000 years ago. Something to consider.

This article may upset some as it has already been suggested as glacial melt and mentioning it here might suggest that it's some sort of proof when it is not. In any event the gravity bulge is something to consider when examining the dynamics of earth.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0807_020807_earthgirth.html

Again... JPL has nice gravity maps. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2003/103.cfm

Paleo-Magnetism is essentially which turned the paradigm back in the seventies. Here is the paper which refuted it.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v271/n5643/abs/271316a0.html

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16287341

From the same author recently. The GAD is the substructure system which all paleo-magnetic measurements are made. Additionally there are paleo-tide studies which if I am not mistaken have been used for gravitational constants proof.

More Paleo Papers and Info.

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_97425.htm

http://geomag.usgs.gov/movies/

James Maxlow Geologist PHD... has Paleo-Radius models calibrated to a small earth on display in the Geological Museum of the Polish Geological Institute. He seems to have done work with Paleo-Magnetism.

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/launchpad/6520/QUANTITATIVE-MODELING.html



As for mechanisms. Pair production has been reproduced in the lab and it is recognized as a matter generation mechanism which could be occurring elsewhere in nature. ( I do not have the knowledge regarding particle physics to understand this in full ). Something like two high energy photons are capable of creating a Proton and Anti-Proton result.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003hep.ex....6017L

Another Person to watch is Frank Wilczek  who seems to have theories regarding the origins of mass. He is a Nobel laureate and he has said his  theories will be tested at the LHC...

http://www.frankwilczek.com/Wilczek_Easy_Pieces/342_Origin_of_Mass.pdf



Someone else to watch is... J. Marvin Herndon PHD Nuclear Physicist who has theorized fission processes happening at the earths core. He has geology theories as well regarding the expansion of the earth due to decompression. I am not a big fan of his sub-duction model but his georeactor theory has merit. I am not sold on an Uranium core but I am nearly sold on the idea of Natural Fission reactors in and around the core or mantle somehow influencing earths radioactivity and heat. KamLand is searching for Geo-Neutrinos.

http://discovermagazine.com/2002/aug/cover

For a list of his papers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Marvin_Herndon



IN any event.. these people seem to have done a good job of analyzing some of the methods mentioned above.

http://pecny.asu.cas.cz/cedr/download/Bajgarova_Kostelecky.pdf?PHPSESSID=10c87abce3666cd84fe4b01b9f969a46



The Japanese have an excellent map of the Moon... It has mountains too... so whatever mechanisms on earth which are causing those mountains... something without the assistance of plate tectonics and sub-duction are possibly building those ones...

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/04/20080409_kaguya_e.html

Mercury is also a planet which has been recognized as cooling. So this besides the Sun are two bodies which have changed size regardless of accretion theory alone. Jupiter is another planet of interest regarding accretion theory.

Mercury...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/07/03/scimercury103.xml

"Does the Sun Shrink with Increasing Magnetic Activity?"
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001astro.ph..1473D

Jupiter
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-does-a-planet-grow

On that note... This is a very interesting development in GPS measurements. Who knows... Maybe the planet is currently shrinking? Personally... if there is matter generation occurring within the earth then I would be partial to a fluctuating earth... This would help solve some of the non-conformities and pre jurassic orogeny events.

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63519



The first thing to think about when choosing to do battle with a scientific debtor are these doctrines. They are often used as the rulebook for academic debates foremost and to mis-understand these principles will result in any real information you have being dismissed while your credibility or logic is attacked.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

It is not worth arguing anything with people who know more about theoretical physics, geology, and astronomy than you do. Your only option is to learn and accept everyones paradigm with a grain of salt... :eyebrow: