Pegasus Research Consortium

Greetings PRF,

I posted this bit on ATS a while back without receiving much feedback (probably needed a LOUDER SEX SEXIER or DOOM DOOMIER title...).  http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread742403/pg1

Anyways - here we go:


If you read the article linked below, you will discover that the earth is not expanding. And that it is expanding. But that the expansion is "statistically insignificant." (Insert NASA jokes here re Never a Straight Answer, etc.)

This OP is intended to provide an opportunity for us to debate just how "statistically insignificant" the expansion is/has been by breaking down the numbers provided by a "NASA led research team."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110817120527.htm




Here are a couple of pertinent quotes from the article, which is titled "It's a Small World, After All: Earth Is Not Expanding, NASA Research Confirms":


First, the conclusion:

Quote"Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.

Now here's where it gets interesting: the conclusion to the article quoted above is immediately preceded by this little gem:

QuoteThe scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.

"Statistically insignificant..."

Let's play with the numbers (and it is important to note: I am NOT a mathematician, at all -- so please forgive my mistakes and feel free to correct!).

The article provides that the change to the Earth's radius is .004 inches, or .1 mm per year, which, by itself, would seem statistically insignificant. But the Earth is over 4 billion years old, right? So, let's see: .1mm per year for just a billion years......that equals 100,000,000 mm, which equals 100,000 meters, or 100 kilometers.

Doesn't sound exactly "insignificant" to me, but let's power on.

The earth's surface totals 510,072,000 sq km, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth).

According to NASA, the earth's mass and volume are as follows:

QuoteMass (1024 kg) 5.9736
Volume (1010 km3) 108.321

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

Translated, that means that the earth's current mass is 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms, and its volume is 1,083,210,000,000 square kilometers.

This gives an average for us to utilize: each square kilometer of earth currently averages 5,514,720,137,369.48 kg. (mass divided by volume).


If we take the earth's surface area, add the "statistically insignificant" change to the earth's radius to calculate the additional volume and mass added over the last billion years, we get:

Current surface (510,072,000 sq km) times averaged "statistically insignificant" change over a billion years (100 kilometers) = an additional 51,007,200,000 sq km of volume. Insignificant?

Now let's take the additional volume to calculate the additional mass: additional 51,007,200,000 sq km of volume times average mass of earth's volume (5,514,720,137,369.48 kg from above, I am using this average because we don't know exactly what is being accreted, so I am assuming (I know, I know - but stay with me) that the same "stuff" that formed our planet by accretion is still being accreted...and I understand that technically the earth's surface area would've been smaller a billion years ago and that I am not accounting for the volume and mass between the "columns" of square kilometers that I am adding, but I am not smart enough to calculate that...) we get an additional 285,194,744,200,745,813,066,552 kg of mass. That's over the course of just a billion years...

Over 4 billion years at .1 millimeter of accretion per year, we get 2,040,288,000,000 accumulated square kilometers and 1,140,778,976,802,983,252,266,208 kilograms of added mass. Approximately.

That additional "statistically insignificant" mass equals nearly 20% of earth's current mass (19.09, but who's counting?).

Doesn't look so "statistically insignificant," does it?

I have never subscribed to the expanding earth theory, but...

Kick the tires, look under the hood, drive it around the block, and give me your thoughts...

Note: there are a couple of assumptions (ok, MASSIVE assumptions) that I need to clarify. First, I am "assuming" that if the NASA led research team is correct then the earth's "statistically insignificant" growth is the result of accretion. This is obviously up for debate. However, for the purposes of this OP, I am assuming that earth is continuing to gather up space dust, particles, meteors, asteroids, comets, etc... If the earth was formed by accretion, who's to say it ever stopped "accreting"? (and one would assume that the accretion rates have fluctuated and gradually reduced as a result of the planets of our solar system mopping up the debris over the last few billion years...).


Thanks,
Yuk   

Hey Yuk
for not being a math wiz that was pretty cool
but i think the whole Nasa bait and switch lies in the phrase..'solid earth' is not expanding


i think most problems arise from not defining  your terms
they need to define  solid earth  here....just what are they  calling solid ?

just the core ?..in which case how do they measure it?

in hunting up the spelling ( i am a terrible spelier and i know it) of what the solid part of earth  is called..which is Lithosphere

i found a really cute little thing at this link

sorry to go sideways on this but down the page a bit is this..which kinda -sorta surprized me



http://www.universetoday.com/14382/10-interesting-facts-about-planet-earth/

Earth has 1 moon and 2 co-orbital satellites
As you're probably aware, Earth has 1 moon (The Moon). But did you know there are 2 additional asteroids locked into a co-orbital orbits with Earth? They're called 3753 Cruithne and 2002 AA29. We won't go into too much detail about the Moon, I'm sure you've heard all about it.

3753 Cruithne is 5 km across, and sometimes called Earth's second moon. It doesn't actually orbit the Earth, but has a synchronized orbit with our home planet. It has an orbit that makes it look like it's following the Earth in orbit, but it's actually following its own, distinct path around the Sun.

2002 AA29 is only 60 meters across, and makes a horseshoe orbit around the Earth that brings it close to the planet every 95 years. In about 600 years, it will appear to circle Earth in a quasi-satellite orbit. Scientists have suggested that it might make a good target for a space exploration mission

Reference:
NASA Solar System Exploration

:)
 

anyway back to the lithosphere
defined by http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/lithosph

as

(l?th´sf?r ´´) , brittle uppermost shell of the earth, broken into a number of tectonic plates. The lithosphere consists of the heavy oceanic and lighter continental crusts, and the uppermost portion of the mantle. The crust and mantle are separated by the Moho or Mohorovicic discontinuity (see earth and seismology). The thickness of the lithosphere varies from to around 1 mi (1.6 km) at the mid-ocean ridges to approximately 80 mi (130 km) beneath older oceanic crust. The thickness of the continental lithospheric plates is probably around 185 mi (300 km) but is uncertain due to the irregular presence of the Moho discontinuity. The lithosphere rests on a soft layer called the asthenosphere, over which the plates of the lithosphere glide. See plate tectonics  

so if the plates break apart..they can't be considered solid..can they?

thus my question..what is nasa calling solid...

:D

Quoteso if the plates break apart..they can't be considered solid..can they?

Hey Otter -- still digging through your response, good stuff -- thanks.

Here's a guy with some interesting takes on the issue of the plates "breaking apart" -- http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html.

He doesn't ascribe to the accretion theory, but he does explain how he understands the plate paradigm.