nick c has challenged the Expanding or Growing Earth theory (hypothesis, although, the amount of scientific evidence supporting the hypothesis adds up to 'theory' in my opinion) as not being compatible with Electric Universe principles and cites a series of TPOD's in support for that assertion:
But when those TPOD's are reviewed, one finds two issues that must be pointed out: First, the TPOD's focus on Europa, not Earth; second, the TPOD's actually state Geology's standard model, Continetal Drift - Subduction, doesn't work.
So, while the TPOD's do discuss Earth's geology, the TPOD's focus is on Jupiter's moon Europa when attempting to falsify the concept that planetary bodies expand. There is a brief discussion of evidence of Earth's geology, which possibly could contradict Expanding Earth theory, however, Europa, while distant and remote, making it hard to make high resolution observations & measurements, is where the bulk of the TPOD's discussion is directed. So conclusions about whether Earth is expanding based on observations (measurements are even more sparse) of Europa is questionable.
The way to answer the question as to whether the Earth is expanding is to analyze & interpret the scientific evidence regarding the Earth's geology, not a distant small moon in another planet's orbit.
The TPOD's do discuss Earth's geology and it directly & firmly calls into question the standard model, Continental Drift - Subduction, by pointing out evidence which contradicts the model, concluding that hypothesis is unlikely or down-right impossible:
Part One:
According to the [Continental Drift - Subduction] theory, continents are supposedly built from lighter elements and the mantle made of denser materials - sial and sima are the two substances said to enable the continents to slide around. It is now known that the two materials are not separated in layers, but gradually merge into each other near the mantle boundary [making it highly unlikely that continents "slide" around on the mantle].
Since the continental "roots" extend down into the interior of the Earth for upwards of 700 kilometers, the force required to move those billions of tons is so improbable that plate tectonic models have been developed that depend on unsuspected crustal "subduction zones" and not on movement. Just as with Wegener, though, evidence is lacking for such zones.
Continents don't go "sliding around" when they have roots 700 kilometers deep, just as a trees don't go "sliding around" either.
Part Two:
Problems associated with the current [Continental Drift - Subduction] theory are as follows:
1. The power required to move continental landmasses around has not been adequately explained. If the power comes from thermal convection from the core of the planet, then heat energy equivalent to molten iron in the billions of megatons has been radiating from the interior for almost 4 billion years. There has been no process developed or seriously proposed for the initial spreading.
2. No consistent models of relative plate motion have been created. Spreading zones surround some places, such as the plate boundaries of Antarctica and Africa. Where are the so-called subduction zones needed for the recycling of the old crust?
3. The density paradox. Continental rock is supposed to be lighter than the oceanic crust into which it is extruded so that it accretes on the edge of the oceanic plate and doesn’t immediately sink back into the mantle. What causes the crust to become so dense that it then sinks under its own weight into a subduction zone and then back into the mantle? And why is a theoretically lower density plate sinking under the Alps?
4. Rocks other than oceanic sediments have been found in the deep trenches of subduction zones. Older material rather than younger has been found in trench slopes off Japan. Sediment anomalies have been found in the mid-Atlantic basin.
5. The elasticity paradox. The current theory requires that the continental rock be thick and elastic under mountain ranges, yet thinner and more brittle than the oceanic crust in the spreading zones.
This list of contradictory observations & measurements is an indictment of the Continetal Drift - Subduction model.
So, if the Continental Drift - Subduction model has been falsified by numerous observations & measurements as stated in this series of TPOD's, what is the alternative?
Well, the TPOD's state:
Part Two:
...the answer may lie elsewhere, in the evidence for electrical scarring of planets and moons.
Part Three:
In previous Thunderbolts Picture of the Day articles about Europa, it was shown many times that electric arcs playing across Europa in swirling, wavering blooms of plasma or in huge bolts of lightning are a more satisfactory explanation for what we see.
But electric arcs and lightning bolts don't explain mid-ocean spreading ridges that run for a total of 40,000 miles, where magma is extruded and new crust is formed or deep faults and fissures that reach down to the shallow mantle. Even electric discharge machining (EDM) doesn't account for these faults that reach down to the mantle.
Electric arcs and lightning bolts don't account for other evidence as stated by the first TPOD:
Over time, paleontologists found that some continents, now separated by oceanic gulfs, contained fossils on or near their coastlines that were identical. The conclusion was that the extinct animals had once lived side-by-side...
This evidence strongly suggests continents were once in 'contact' (as the TPOD implicitly acknowledges), but new oceanic crust was extruded beween the tectonic plates. Again, electric scarring, electric discharge machining, or planetary lightning bolts, have a hard time explaining these observations, while Expanding or Growing Earth does explain these observations & measurements.
Some have claimed that ALL basaltic oceanic basins are the result of electric discharge machining.
But that simply doesn't explain how the South American continent and the African continent fit hand-in-glove when the two are placed "side-by-side", especially when considering the distance the two continents are now seperated by.
There are other objections the TPOD's present against the Expanding Earth theory, but there are physical explanations for each objection raised.
It's too bad that some Electric Universe supporters have been persuaded that Expanding Earth theory and EU are incompatible because under close scrutiny, the two theories are not "incompatible", but rather the energy and matter required, necessarily, for one theory, flow from the other theory in a natural hiarchial physical relationship.
). 