For crying out loud...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epwg6Od49e8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXjXFKdRb7ghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQAc5HpvyEYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbIJ_GIaGUohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf0o9ocmQwEIf you're Neal Adams, you should be ashamed by your attempt at using the forum to promote your nuttery-for-profit via DVD sales on your website.
If you're Neal Adams, you should be doubly-ashamed at having tried to censor scientific truth, all while you claimed some vague conspiracy to censor the truth, which only you hold, and which anyone can get their hands on via DVD for a small payment at your website... as evidenced by your attempt at having that last video removed.
Remember, matter has 25 terawatt-hours of energy bound up in each kilogram... so the "expanding earth" nuttery must account for a tremendous amount of energy. Earth weighs 5,974,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms... the "expanding earth" proponents claim the planet expanded by 1/SQRT(3) from its original mass, so the original mass according to them was 3,449,090,508,138,824,317,177,654 kilograms, for a difference of 2,524,909,491,861,175,682,822,346 kilograms.
Thus, it would require 63,122,737,296,529,392,070,558,650 terawatt-hours worth of energy to create that mass. This means that at current solar insolation levels, it would require 708,812,898,763,285,084
years to accumulate that heat. That's older than the
universe.
That's equivalent to ~92
years worth of the
total solar output of the sun.
But let's go with your figures... "
So that's 200% growth over 4.543 billion years." That means we have to account for 2,987,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms of mass. This means you'd need a solar insolation rate that is 26,299,801,893,022 times higher than current solar insolation, meaning the sun would be so large and energetic as to be physically impossible. Even Population III (very low metallicity) stars at the start of the Stelliferous Era were only a maximum of ~1000 times larger than our sun, and only ~17 times hotter... and they burned out far faster than your quoted 4.543 billion years, which is why a sun putting out 26,299,801,893,022 times as much energy would be physically impossible. That solar insolation rate would also be sufficient to plasmize the entire planet.
We know the planet receives approximately 10,166 terawatts per hour, which would be sufficient to create 406 kilograms per hour... except the planet, being in radiative equilibrium, is radiating back to that infinite heat sink of space the same amount of energy... so we can't use the sun as a source of the mass-energy.
We also know the sun was cooler in the distant past, and increases its solar output over time:
We also know that
if the planet had been smaller in the past, it would have received less solar irradiance due to less area for that sunlight to fall on.
So let's look at Uranium-235 decay, the by-far largest contributor to core heat... U-235 contains 2e
13 joules per kilogram, requiring 8.15e
18 kilograms of U-235. That's 1.4 ppm concentration by mass of U-235, throughout every kilogram of earth's matter... and that's doable... except natural Uranium is 99.3% U-238... so you'd require instead 200 ppm of U-235 to generate that amount of energy... enough to irradiate everything to death in short order, given that radiation levels would be ~5000% higher than current background.
And that's not to mention that mantle rock composition is iron and silicate, which is why olivine is often found around lava outflows... and that's incompatible with Uranium. The olivine can't hold Uranium in its crystalline structure, so the Uranium is concentrated into crustal rocks by magma flow. That's why Uranium concentration in mantle rock is measured in ppb (parts per billion)... so that avenue is scotched, as well.
How about Uranium in the core? Well, we know from seismic wave propagation tests that the core consists primarily of iron, nickel, silicon and sulfur. And we also know the Uranium concentration ranges from 1/100 to 1/10,000 of crustal Uranium concentration. We also know that the only naturally-occurring materials which can thermalize neutrons from un-enriched U-235 fission such that it reaches criticality are graphite and heavy water... and there isn't enough of either in the core to sustain criticality. So random fission events of U-235 can't be the power source, either.
So... just where is all this mass coming from? Did you not know the planet is
losing mass, to the tune of approximately 50,000 tons per year?
http://scitechdaily.com/earth-loses-50000-tonnes-of-mass-every-year/Did you not know that the heat loss from the core amounts (in mass-energy equivalency terms) to 16 tons per year?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-arguments-against-expanding-earth-theory*Studies of earthquake waves passing through the interior of the earth showed that significant parts were molten and much of the rest was only semi-solid.
* Gravity studies showed that there was barely any excess gravity above continents, so they had to be floating like icebergs.
* Estimates of radioactive heat showed that it would bring the interior to the point not just of melting but convecting, which would tend to stir up the innards and drag the surface along as well.
* Studies at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and similar places showed that there was a line of volcanoes on the seafloor, the sediment got steadily thicker away from the ridge, and the magnetic fields frozen into the rocks were symmetrical on either side, so new ocean floor must have been getting created.
* At the same time other places (like the Himalayas) fitted the idea of plates coming together, and other places fitted a scenario plates sliding edgewise. These two didn't really fit an expanding earth.
* No one ever found a convincing mechanism for the earth to expand.
Stop wasting everyone's time with this silliness, and get down to the business of finding how to generate clean, cheap, renewable, safe energy. That's the whole point of this forum, as detailed in the
forum name.
