Terra Differential Density...

[Guest Lambus]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Tormod]

I must admit I am part of this conspiracy. Therefore I will not tell you where all the water has come from.

[Tormod]

I saw the whole video and apparently the narrator has no answer to the water, either.

 

But he is amusingly telling you that tectonics can't exist without subduction. Guess what! There is subduction!

 

Subduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I love scientific conspiracies.

[Guest Lambus]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Tormod]

So you're saying the water came from inside the Earth? Where did it come from before then, though?

[Guest Lambus]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Tormod]

For the third time: Where did the water come from in the first place?

[LaurieAG]

Where did the water come from in the first place?

 

Hello Tormod, I'll have a go, sorry if the following sounds like a SF synopsis.

 

When the solar system was formed around 4 billion years ago there could have been an extra planet between Mars and Jupiter, the remnants being what we currently call the asteroid belt.

 

The orbit of this planet meant that it was placed under extreme gravitational pressures due to its much larger neighbour, especially during 'unbalanced' solar polarity changes when many of the larger planets were on the one side during a long change, and it and Jupiter were on the other side. These pressures either tore the planet apart or hurled it into an unstable orbit careening around the solar system that broke it up through collision with other objects (Mars gouge and early Earth/Moon formation).

 

Either way the remains of the planet were strewn around the solar system with the less dense parts forming the asteroid belt and the more dense metallic core elements following solar orbits that had a tendency to cross the paths of other planets. The benefit to the solar system was stabilisation as the asteroid belt acts like an extremely large 'O' ring that distorts (the more dense elements are affected more) whenever we have a long solar polarity change (like in 2000) instead of a small planet acting like a loose cannon ball. Even today we observe elements from the asteroid belt that are pulled into solar orbits like short comets and Earth has its own quasi moons that orbit around the sun and the Earth in fixed patterns (including 1 stage from the Apollo missions).

 

While the object that struck Mars could have been responsible for stripping the atmosphere and much water from that planet and then depositing it on Earth to form the Moon and explain how the water got here, the loss of Mars magnetic field probably had more to do with this event than planetary colissions.

 

The denser core of the missing planet, after cooling down, would form what could be called a magnetic space anomally due to its density and higher proportion of metallic elements. It would be difficult to track and could, depending on how hard it was initially flung, go into a comet like orbit that streched from the Kuiper belt to the inner planets. Being a dense magnetic object, and despite it's relatively small size, it could attract the metallic cores (or even metallic dust) of icy Kuiper belt bodies and, over many circuits, induce these large icy objects into quasi solar orbits that also overlap the orbits of the planets, including Earth.

 

As well as distributing water (a necessity for life of all kinds) to the inner planets the original cataclysm could also serve to bring together other elements from the original destroyed planet, Mars and Venus onto the Earth to initiate the first forms of more complex life seen in our solar system.

[Guest Lambus]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Eclogite]

Based upon my studies on Equation of State for stars and gaseous planets, there are no constant radii,

However, we are not considering a large ball of heated plasma, but a solid, rocky body. Don't you think the rules might be different?

Therefore some radial differentiation based upon a liquid mantle is plausible,

Well, it might be; if the mantle were liquid; which it isn't. (If it were liquid then S-waves, from earthquakes, could not penetrate it.) Doesn't this inconvenient fact rather invalidate your hypothesis?

[Guest Lambus]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Tormod]

I don't understand the calculations you provide, and I do not understand what you are trying to explain.

 

Are you claiming that the Earth has been growing since it was formed, and that the hypothetical collision that created the Moon was brought water to Earth?

 

Are you claiming that the Earth is still growing? If so, what is causing it to grow?

 

Can we observe this planetary growth on other bodies in the Solar system? You mentioned Mars but I find no evidential information in your post.

[Guest Lambus]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[CraigD]

Though couched in conspiracy theory language, the hypothesis put forth by the maniacworld video page - that the Earth’s radius was once smaller, so that the current continents covered all of its surface area (The current continents cover about 30% of the earth’s surface, so it’s smallest radius under this hypothesis would be about [math]\sqrt{.3} \dot=[/math] 55% of its current radius). – appears to be a valid, testable scientific hypothesis.

 

The hypothesis raises some serious material physics problems. One is the Earth’s density. Currently, it’s calculated to be about 5515.3 kg/m^3. Compressed by a factor of [math].3^{-3/2}[/math], it would be over 33000 kh/m^3, over 4 times the density of iron, nearly half the density of the most dense observed solid, hydrogen, and within the range predicted for a brown dwarf star. While not at first glance impossible-seeming, no planet anywhere near this density has been observed, and, AFAIK, no physical mechanism for a body with a mass as low as Earth exists that could explain it. So, substantial new theoretical work is necessary to explain Earth having once had such a density.

 

The hypothesis raises more serious problems of geological evidence. Under it, all or nearly all tectonic motion since the Earth differentiated a solid crust containing the current land area has been expansion. We should therefore expect to find almost exclusively divergent boundaries between the continents tectonic plates – in particular, the ocean floor should consist almost completely of rift zones, where upwelling molten material filled in the gaps left by the increasing area of Earth’s above and underwater surface. What is found, however, are a mixture of convergent boundaries, divergent boundaries (eg: ocean trenches, mountains, volcanic lines, etc) and “transform” boundaries (eg: fault lines), strongly suggesting the currently accepted tectonic model in which, for every area where plates are moving apart, there is an area where they are moving together.

 

In summary, the “expanding Earth” hypothesis, though appealing in its simplicity, appears to be contradicted by geological evidence, and requires a material physics model beyond any currently existent. In my judgement, this places the hypothesis pretty decisively in the category “very likely false”. :thumbs_do

[Eclogite]

Negative, because a semi-liquid mantle-core phase transition must exist based upon Equation of State, and the Terra's Outer Core is a thermodynamic fluid, therefore it is not possible for the radius of Terra to be constant.

Incorrect. Terra's outer mantle is solid. If you are contending otherwise you must provide evidence (preferably peer reviewed) and an explanation for the transmission of S-waves through the outer mantle.

[Guest Lambus]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Guest Lambus]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.