Graviton Absorption - Heat, Mass or both?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />What is your position on this? Do you believe in slowly expanding planets in addition to explosively expanding ones?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In science, never allow "belief" in anything to creep in. It biases and blinds one from seeing nature's truth.

In my book <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i>, I mentioned the "expanding Earth" hypothesis as one that should be given serious attention. The Atlantic basin is known to be expanding. If continental drift is right, then the Pacific basin must be contracting to take up the Atlantic expansion. If expanding Earth is right, then both Atlantic and Pacific basins should be expanding.

It's a simple hypothesis-distinguishing falsification test. The rules of scientific method call for a fair, unbiased, distinctive test of this type. But most importantly, they require us never to make excuses if a test's outcome goes against our hopes or expectations. It is pure bias to revise the terms of a fair test <b>after</b> the results are in.

And the results do seem to be in. Most VLBI and GPS cross-Pacific chords show the Pacific basin shrinking. There is perhaps still a slight bit of wiggle room because not all the chords agree. The plate motions seem to be more complex than in any existing theory. But ever tighter limits are continually being set on possible global expansion. -|Tom|-

"The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact." - Thomas Huxley

The flux of Earth's mantle is not understood at all. It is not even estimated correctly. And in my opinion the cause of Earth's mantle heat is never going to prove any of the silly theorys some call beautiful. It is the facts that are good and the theory bad not the other way round.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
The Atlantic basin is known to be expanding. If continental drift is right, then the Pacific basin must be contracting to take up the Atlantic expansion. If expanding Earth is right, then both Atlantic and Pacific basins should be expanding.

...

And the results do seem to be in. Most VLBI and GPS cross-Pacific chords show the Pacific basin shrinking. There is perhaps still a slight bit of wiggle room because not all the chords agree. The plate motions seem to be more complex than in any existing theory. But ever tighter limits are continually being set on possible global expansion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It seems to me that trying to determine the net subduction rate of the pacific basin to a sufficient level of accuracy is very problematic to say the least. Is there perhaps a better way to detect net expansion or rule it out?

Also, does expansion or lack of it have any major implications for MM as it would for some of the other Le Sage type theories, e.g. Arp? I would think that knowing whether graviton interaction causes gravitating matter to gain mass or energy or both and in what proportion would be very important to further developing MM.


JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />Is there perhaps a better way to detect net expansion or rule it out?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Expansion of circumference should happen at six times the rate of expansion of radius. So the Pacific Basin test should be fairly optimal in deciding. It shouldn't be many more years before the relative motions of all plates are established. They must then either add to a zero net sum, or not.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">does expansion or lack of it have any major implications for MM as it would for some of the other Le Sage type theories, e.g. Arp? I would think that knowing whether graviton interaction causes gravitating matter to gain mass or energy or both and in what proportion would be very important to further developing MM.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Gravitons do deposit energy, but elysium wisks that away to help keep large masses in thermodynamic equilibrium. If that balance were interrupted for even a millisecond, the mass would explode, which is probably what happens in novas and supernovas. -|Tom|-