|
|
|
|
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/10/2009 6:35:26 AM | I'm sorry light_storm, but your post actually refutes your claims of global expansion. Or at least it would if you combined it with the data for the REST OF THE WORLD.
Firstly, there is the fact that you are ussing evidence of Post glacial rebound at the poles as proof the earth is expanding, yet there is no evidence for expansion at the equator. In fact the evidence sugest that outside of the polar regions, the land is shrinking, as would be expected for conservation of mass. If you do not belive that the land is sinking outside of the rebound zones, then why not come to the UK and take a look at this thing we have called the north sea and the english channel. It keeps getting biger as the land around it sinks year after year. I could show you vilages that now rest under several feet of water. And thios is not erosion, this is a rising of the water table relative to the land which could only happen at this rate if the land was sinking.
Secondly, The global zeroing thing is an outright lie. you have to check your sourcess better i'm afraid. There was no such argument and it would never have been acepted by the scientific comunity if it had been propsed. To think that a couple of scientists would say, there is a rebound at the poles of 18 mm but we can not explain it so we think it should be ignored, and that other scientists would agrea to go along with this, is not just stupi, ignorant and delusional, but a clear case of severe paranoia.
Let me put this straight. There is no "zeroing" value. It is a lie to claim there is. The scientific comunity would never stand for such a thing. The calculations are noy fudged in any way. Tey reach zero because there is sinking as well as expanding. The earth dose not expand, it only gets squashed. try it yopurself, take a lemon, and squeeze it. when you take your hand of the lemon it will rebound, the lemon, as you well know, is not sudenly growing, it simply moving back to its original shape.
And thirdly, what the hell are "FLUID SINK GRAVITY" and "ULTRA MUNDANE MATTR" because I can find no referance to them anywhere but on expansion earth websites. There is not a single phisiscist or chemist out there that seems to know what these thins are? So what do meaningless terms have to do with real science?
I think I should take this oportunity to explain a little bit about plate tectonics, because the dat your sources are ussing has little to nothing to do with tectonic motion.
Lets start with the number of plates. there are sixteen (or seventeen) major plates, many minor plates. However the minor plates are just fragments that have split off of the major plates, so they tend to move in line with the plates surrounding them, meaning that the relative and absolute motions of the minor plates are relativly unimportant.
Major plates:
African Plate
Antarctic Plate
Arabian Plate
Caribbean Plate
Cocos Plate
Eurasian Plate
Indo-Australian Plate (breaking in two)
Australian Plate
Indian Plate
Juan de Fuca Plate
Nazca Plate
North American Plate
Pacific Plate
Philippine Sea Plate
Scotia Plate
South American Plate
http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/tectonic.htm
Now I should explain about absolute and relative motions. You see in order to understand plate tectonics, you need to make two seprate measurements. The relative motion of the plate and the absolute motion of the plate.
"Absolute plate motion: The motion of a plate with respect to hot spots, which appear to be at relatively fixed locations with respect to the Earth's mantle"
There are several hotspots around the world, the best known being under Hawaii. By measuring the motion ofplates relative to comon points like this, we can get an acurate picture of the overal movement of the plates. But it dose not tell us the rate of spread or subduction. For that we need Relative motion.
"Relative' plate motion: The relative movement that takes place along an individual plate boundary. Controls the amount and type of earthquake activity, the presence and style of volcanism, and the geologic processes that take place along the plate boundary and in neighboring areas of the adjacent plates. "
This tells us how fast a plate is beig subducted or is growing, but only at a single plate boundry. Even adding all of the groth and subdution zones together dose not give an acurate idea of the tectonic motion as there are boundry zones where there is no growth or subduction, but they still contribute greatly to the overal tectonic motion of the plates. (through transverse faults and other similar processes)
http://www.dpc.ucar.edu/VoyagerJr/glossary.html
Now it just a cas of calculating the relative motion of each plate to all its plate boundries, and adding them all up. If they match the absolute motion of each plate, then there is no growth.
However the story gets even more complicated than that, because the earth is not a perfect sphere, it is a geoid, that means it is slightly squashed on top and bottom and bulges in the middle. This happens because of the spin of the earth. I you take any ball and spin it at the same speed as the earth, it will deform in the same way. The poles are in fact 13 miles closer to the centre of the earth than the equator. If you were to mesure mountains from the centre of the earth, then the beaches of equador are higher than the himlayas!
What is important about this is that the earth is in fact slowing down due to gravitational friction. The pull of the sun and moon on the oceanoshere and lithosphere cause theland and ocean to bunch up slightly towards the sun and moon. this creates friction in the planet and friction slows motion. every year the earth slows by a few fractions of a mile per hour and this equates to a change in the difrence between the poles and the equator , of a few milimeters per year.
So in fact the earth is shrinking at the equator and growing at the poles. And all of this can be seen in the data, where the longtitudinal motions do not match the latitudinal motions, but the combined figures math up.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml (I can only find the mesausurements for the pacific plate online, but will keep searching for the rest) | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/10/2009 7:48:12 PM |
So what do meaningless terms have to do with real science?
I don't know, but Fluid Sink Gravity sounds bad ass. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/14/2009 9:03:09 AM | Re: Bright1Raziel
Firstly, there is the fact that you are ussing evidence of Post glacial rebound at the poles as proof the earth is expanding, yet there is no evidence for expansion at the equator. In fact the evidence sugest that outside of the polar regions, the land is shrinking, as would be expected for conservation of mass. If you do not belive that the land is sinking outside of the rebound zones, then why not come to the UK and take a look at this thing we have called the north sea and the english channel. It keeps getting biger as the land around it sinks year after year. I could show you vilages that now rest under several feet of water. And thios is not erosion, this is a rising of the water table relative to the land which could only happen at this rate if the land was sinking.
Expansion theorist Dennis McCarthy talks extensively about the shape of the earth, and where it's expanding. He talks about extreme sea floor spreading being a lot more extensive in the southern hemisphere above and beyond the amount subducted. Hence why we have a young southern hemisphere that is very oceanic and a northern hemisphere that is very old and continental.
You can see a video he did on it here, he is one of few expansionists that manages to get his work published.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om9H0Qv0LSU&feature=related
Secondly, The global zeroing thing is an outright lie. you have to check your sourcess better i'm afraid. There was no such argument and it would never have been acepted by the scientific comunity if it had been propsed. To think that a couple of scientists would say, there is a rebound at the poles of 18 mm but we can not explain it so we think it should be ignored, and that other scientists would agrea to go along with this, is not just stupi, ignorant and delusional, but a clear case of severe paranoia.
Every single study I've read on the GPS data concludes an increase in earth size. No, I don't limit myself to the research of expansionists. I've yet to find anyone say the Earths size remains constant or that it has decreased in size. I have however noticed, that an increasing number of people that conclude the earth size is increasing are not taken seriously, there numbers are assumed wrong and they don't get published.
I've looked extensively for a conclusion about the size of the earth from Nasa, you would think they would have the end all data on the subject, yet extensive searching has resulted in no conclusions either way from our worlds lead scientists on the subject.
And thirdly, what the hell are "FLUID SINK GRAVITY" and "ULTRA MUNDANE MATTR" because I can find no referance to them anywhere but on expansion earth websites. There is not a single phisiscist or chemist out there that seems to know what these thins are? So what do meaningless terms have to do with real science?
Dennis McCarthy is firm believer in the Graviton model as a means for expansion. I don't fully understand it myself, just has something to do with gravity and gravitons pushing their way to the center of celestial body's.
In a recent paper written by David de Hilster, he talked about the various theories that are in place about a cause of mechanism to the Growing Earth. I found it to be one of the best references, as he manges to spell out the theories in plain English... he even comments on Neal Adams theorie about pair production so that I could understand it... and I quote...
"Mechanisms for Expansion
It is the opinion of this author that the most important question in science today is what is causing the growth of celestial bodies. Right now, there is no agreed upon answer but various theories as to what causes the growth. Most likely, it will end up being a combination of various ideas and principles.
Aether
Ivan Opsipovich Yarkovsky suggested that some sort of aether is absorbed within the earth and transformed into new chemical elements, forcing the celestial bodies to expand.
Accretion
Accretion is the process by which mass is gained by the physical accumulation of mass from other sources. There are various forms of accretion including space dust, mass from the Sun’s solar wind, passing objects. The main problem with this theory for growth is the apparent lack of volume needed to account for all growth.
Dirac’s
Paul Dirac, the famous British physicist suggested in 1938 that the Earth's gravitational constant had decreased over billions of years. In 1964, German physicist Pascual Jordan inspired by this idea suggested a modification of general relativity that would cause all planets slowly expand.
Atomic Core Reactions
It is well known that stars expand as they grow old. Since it is also accepted widely that the earth’s core is molten and hot like a star, it too could be going through some type of atomic process which is making it expand. This process is could explain the sudden and exponential increase of the earth during the last 200 million years.
Neal Adams Prime Matter
A new theory that has taken over 30 years to develop is the “prime matter” theory by Neal Adams. Neal Adams is a world-famous comic book artist who has dedicated a lot of time searching and theorizing a mechanism for the growth of celestial bodies. His work is based on Carl David Anderson’s discovery of the positron. Anderson was the youngest scientist to win a Nobel Prize at the age of 31 and discovered the positron and what is called today as “anti-matter”. This lead to the discovery a photon could transform into an electron and positron in effect, creating mass. Adams has come up with a theory he calls prime matter where prime matter transforms into matter at the center of celestial bodies that then move outward towards the surface where like atoms attract other like atoms forming a silicate crust, salt domes, and water.
Graviton
The Graviton model for gravity has lead many to the conclusion that mass increase is a natural part of the process that we measure as gravitational force. This explains the growth of the earth prior to its sudden expansion. The problem with this being the only reason for a growing earth is the substantial evidence that the earth put on a sudden growth spurt about 180 MY ago and is increasing in size exponentially. The graviton model does not explain this at of yet.
Reference: http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_72.pdf | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/14/2009 11:43:14 AM |
Every single study I've read on the GPS data concludes an increase in earth size. No, I don't limit myself to the research of expansionists. I've yet to find anyone say the Earths size remains constant or that it has decreased in size. I have however noticed, that an increasing number of people that conclude the earth size is increasing are not taken seriously, there numbers are assumed wrong and they don't get published.
references for some subset of "every single study" would be great. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/14/2009 12:06:01 PM |
It is well known that stars expand as they grow old. Since it is also accepted widely that the earth’s core is molten and hot like a star, it too could be going through some type of atomic process which is making it expand. This process is could explain the sudden and exponential increase of the earth during the last 200 million years.
No.
Gawd, I don't know why I'm going to contribute more to this ridiculous thread, but what the hay.
Let's start with the obvious. Stars are not planets. They operate under completely different processes. Core heating at the center of Earth results from radioactive decay.
Heating at the core comes from pressure and heat resulting in nuclear fusion. Again, a net loss for the planet in that uranium becomes lead and the energy of that decay is lost as heat.
Stars don't "grow" at the end of their life cycle. In fact, stars are continually losing mass. However, they can expand in diameter. Let me emphasize something an expansion of diameter does not equate to growing in mass.
At the core of an "average" star like ours, a helium "ash" will accumulate. The result is that eventually it will begin be put under pressure and fuse into heavier elements. This will cause energy to push outward on the above layers, causing the photosphere to pulse outward.
Again...this is not the star growing. This is simply energy pushing outward. In fact, the net result is a loss of mass. Eventually the energy output from the core will be enough to push the remaining outer layers out into a gaseous "planetary nebula." | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/15/2009 10:18:21 AM |
Gawd, I don't know why I'm going to contribute more to this ridiculous thread, but what the hay.
LOL! I've reached this stage a LONG time ago stargazer1000. As they say... “You can lead a horse to water...”
Although Light has left a lot of REALLY tempting targets to shoot down... And I mean, REALLY tempting. Just take the top of the list:
Aether
Now this is like trying to resurrect a REALLY old dinosaur. Been there, done that Light...
But anyway... I've given up trying to use Reason and sound Science... So let me try another approach.
Light... If all what you say is true... Then this would constitute NEW Physics. New Physics usually generates News. So then, why oh why isn't ANY of what you say headline news? Unless you think that there's some kind of conspiracy and that the Science community is hiding the Truth.
So c'mon... Why aren't the issues that you are proposing accepted by the Science community at large?
Also does this...
Neal Adams is a world-famous comic book artist who has dedicated a lot of time searching and theorizing a mechanism for the growth of celestial bodies.
mean Neal Adams is an expert on Geophysics then? If that's the case, are you then implying that people with degrees in Geophysics have no idea on what they are talking about, but a comic book artist does? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/15/2009 1:05:51 PM | No no, please encourage him! This is by far the most fun thread to read!
Also yes he does imply that Neal Adams knows more than geophysicists.
Also I've dug a trench around my yard, by this theory, I should have my own island soon... | |
|
| |
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/15/2009 6:38:03 PM | Re: desertrhino
references for some subset of "every single study" would be great.
I'll share with you two of my personal favorite
This is a short summary of someone who ran the numbers on GPS data and is written by by Michael W. Clark: http://michaelnetzer.com/gu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=63
But possibly the most extensive study of GPS numbers comes from James Maxlow who IS a geophysicist. and here are the page numbers from his thesis
DATA ON AN EXPANDING EARTH 72
3.1 Space Geodetic Measurement Data 73
3.1.1 Modelling Space Geodetic Data 76
3.1.2 Vertical Plate Motion Trends 76
3.1.3 Horizontal Plate Motion 80
3.1.4 Summary of Space Geodetic Results 82
There is a link to the full PDF from here http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au/R?func=dbin_jump_full&object_id=9645
Re: Stargazer1000
Gawd, I don't know why I'm going to contribute more to this ridiculous thread, but what the hay.
It's my opinion without more physical evidence from the core of the earth, everything about it is based on best guess. Yes I have read up on what we know, and I really wish we had more to go on.
I do know this... The Well to Hell project resulted in the obliteration of many scientific theory's about what we would find at even that ridiculously shallow depth. We want to know how the heart works, and yet we haven't even scratched the skin.
But you raise a great point about how stars expand without increasing in mass... I think this might be a good time to point out the difference between 'growing earth' and 'expanding earth' as they are different theories.
Expanding Versus Growing
There is much debate in the growing / expanding earth community as to the terminology of expand versus grow. The word expand is the historical word used to explain that the radius of the earth is increasing versus being static. The term “grow” is a newer term that includes the increase of mass as well as size. It is considered today by most all who subscribe to an increasing radius of celestial bodies that mass is also increasing. It should be noted that the term “matter creation” is not the actual creation of matter from nothing but a transformation of mass or energy.
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_72.pdf
Re: Kinky**stard
Light... If all what you say is true... Then this would constitute NEW Physics. New Physics usually generates News. So then, why oh why isn't ANY of what you say headline news? Unless you think that there's some kind of conspiracy and that the Science community is hiding the Truth.
History has PROVEN over and over that radical possibly even revolutionary leaps forwards are squashed and hindered upon by the masses because change is bad. Tossing 150 years of scientific theory out the window is a lot to give up... it would be like asking creationists to give up the idea the God created everything with a thought 5,000 something years ago. People believe what feels right to them, and will defend it violently if necessary. Scientists are certainly not exempt from this rule. I think this question can be best answered by a quote from my favorite expanding earth theorist James Maxlow... who is a geophysicist.
"One of the most profound statements the late Professor Sam Warren Carey (Emeritus Professor of Geology from the University of Tasmania) said to me when I first started researching Expansion Tectonics was: If 50 million believe in a fallacy it is still a fallacy. The point he was making was that the validity of any theory does not depend upon the number of people believing it; hence, an accepted theory may still be fundamentally wrong regardless of how many people believe it is correct." ~ James Maxlow
mean Neal Adams is an expert on Geophysics then? If that's the case, are you then implying that people with degrees in Geophysics have no idea on what they are talking about, but a comic book artist does?
Yes... Neal Adams is a comic book Artist
Dennis McCarthy is a research associate at the Buffalo Museum
But what about
Samuel Warren Carey who pretty much inspired everyone who follows it today... people like
Dr. James Maxlow (Australian geologist) <--- My personal favorite
Giancarlo Scalera - (Italian Geologist)
Professor Lance Endersbees – (A world authority on rock behavior and tunneling who claims the world’s water supplies as being ancient and coming from within the earth.)
Vedat Shehu – An Albanian field geologist
It is a growing list, but those are some of the bigger names of people who are NOT comic book artists for you to look up if you can give it a chance. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/15/2009 9:08:04 PM | From Clark's cocktail-napkin ramblings (with no original data provided)
Simplifying 11.6 mm +/- 7.4 mm per year increase in the radius of the Earth via the bracketed scientific - wild ass guess method (BS-WAG).
I am coming to the conclusion that every time you mess with measuring something, there will be some other contributing factor that will mess back with your basic assumptions.
Sounds like a real scientist... upset that his data don't mash into his preconceived notion of expansion.
From Maxlow's 2001 thesis:
Mathematical modelling of crustal surface area data provides a means to
accurately qualify a rate of change of palaeoradius from the Archaean to Recent. The
Earth is shown to be undergoing an exponential increase in palaeoradius,
commencing from a primordial Earth of approximately 1700 kilometres radius
during the Early Proterozoic. The current rate of increase in Earth radius is calculated
to be 22 millimetres per year. Extrapolation of radius to the future suggests that the
Earth will increase to the size of Jupiter within approximately 500 million years.
James Maxlow's thesis at least provides a testable prediction, that the Earth is expanding at 22 mm / year. And nothing I've seen shows anywhere near that. Therefore, his thesis is false.
End of story, unless someone comes up with a better one.
Your continued clinging to this fantasy is just that. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/16/2009 7:13:44 AM |
History has PROVEN over and over that radical possibly even revolutionary leaps forwards are squashed and hindered upon by the masses because change is bad. Tossing 150 years of scientific theory out the window is a lot to give up... it would be like asking creationists to give up the idea the God created everything with a thought 5,000 something years ago. People believe what feels right to them, and will defend it violently if necessary. Scientists are certainly not exempt from this rule. I think this question can be best answered by a quote from my favorite expanding earth theorist James Maxlow... who is a geophysicist.
LOL! You make it sound as if the Science Community hasn't moved on from the bad old days when, sure, many people thought Einstein was a complete nutter when he submitted his paper on Relativity for instance.
I like to think that the Community has moved on somewhat, along with the rest of Civilization. These days, just like in Einstein’s time, anyone can submit a scientific paper to the Community. Sure, many will fail under extreme scrutiny and some may advance Science forward.
But given the length of time of the Growing Earth Theory suggests to me that this theory has already joined the ranks of numerous theories that have simply not passed the test. Some of Neal Adams' videos completely turns EVERYTHING we currently know about the Universe on its head. Now modifying Physics is one thing. Inventing your own from scratch is quite another and some of the topics you have highlighted seem more like something that comes straight out of a comic book.
Bloody hell... What AM I doing? I promised myself not to get involved here but to be merely an amused observer... But heck... I can't pass this one up:
This lead to the discovery a photon could transform into an electron and positron in effect, creating mass.
This quote really suggests to me that you don't really understand modern Quantum Field Theory. It is true that photons can, by chance, turn themselves into an electron-positron pair but, that pair (barring a nearby black hole) will subsequently destroy themselves again and thus turn back into photon(s), thus enforcing the Principle of mass-energy conservation.
Therefore no new mass can simply come into existence "just like that" without violating some of our most cherished laws in Physics.
Anyway, at the end of the day, simply saying that the Science Community doesn't like change simply doesn't cut it. The community is always looking to advance Science. Why build multi billion dollar particle accelerators or state of the art space telescopes if Science did NOT want to seek out new answers. In fact, if they don't find the Higgs Boson at the Large Hadron Collider, many scientists will look upon this as an exciting opportunity to redefine some of their standard models.
Science is changing all the time, and that's a good thing! But what we don't want is for Science to look back at old, dead theories that have been around for ages which have little or no proof whatsoever.
You might like the idea of planets growing... Neal Adams is an obvious fanatic about such claims but that, in itself, simply does not make it true. Hell... I for one wish the warp drive was a reality, but it isn't. And there's no point in me continuing to fantasize about such a fantasy... Unless of course, I'm reading a comic book.  | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/16/2009 9:14:54 PM | Re: desertrhino
James Maxlow's thesis at least provides a testable prediction, that the Earth is expanding at 22 mm / year. And nothing I've seen shows anywhere near that. Therefore, his thesis is false.
No, Many papers written in regards to GPS tracking the size of the planet conclude a continual growth in the size of the planet. Mind you it often ranges from 5mm to 5cm. Most of those papers (like extreme 5cm one) are not published in America.
Your continued clinging to this fantasy is just that.
My continued interest in this subject is fueled by it's increasing following. I would guess if I tallied up all the Youtube comments, more people such as myself are in favor of this idea over plate tectonics. I'm not saying these people know the truth to the subject, but it is defiantly the simpler of two opposing theories. Occam's razor should be considered.
Re: Kinky**stard
But given the length of time of the Growing Earth Theory suggests to me that this theory has already joined the ranks of numerous theories that have simply not passed the test.
I honestly don't feel it's been given it's day in court. Many... your self included... scream that it must have an iron clad mechanism to support Growth. You ignore all the other evidence that it's happening because you don't understand how it could be happening. We don't really understand the mechanism to things like Light or Gravity, yet we accept them, measure them, time them and weigh them. This is what expansionists can all agree on... bountiful evidence in support that IT IS happening... asking how is as far reaching as coming up with iron clad mechanisms for light or gravity.
LOL! You make it sound as if the Science Community hasn't moved on from the bad old days when, sure, many people thought Einstein was a complete nutter when he submitted his paper on Relativity for instance.
I think of this subject as a very serious one, and I think it has more than enough evidence to support it's validity. Yet I bring it up in science forums, it gets moved to 'off topic'. My posts didn't even make it past the moderators on 'Myth Busters'. Most people don't look at the links and just toss their hands up at it. I give desertrhino kudos, as he does follow up on the links and at least give them time of the day.
On these very Forums, I created a topic to discuss James Maxlows thesis in detail. It barely made it past the user vote, but a day later a moderator decided it was to ridicules or redundant of a subject and deleted it off the science/philosophy forum. It's not surprising to me that the comic book artist often lashes out and attacks peoples opposing points of view on the youtube forums. I lost a lot of respect for him over some of his posts, but it doesn't lesson my love for the concept that all planets grow while they spin through their orbits.
Some of Neal Adams' videos completely turns EVERYTHING we currently know about the Universe on its head. Now modifying Physics is one thing. Inventing your own from scratch is quite another and some of the topics you have highlighted seem more like something that comes straight out of a comic book.
Neal Adams' loves and embraces the concept as much as I do, only he has years more researching it than I do. I've learned that his idea for a mechanism for growth didn't come from nothing. His work is based on Carl David Anderson’s discovery of the positron. I think I read he won his Nobel Prize at the age of 31 by shooting Gama rays produced by radioactive material though various elements resulting in massive amounts of pair production. Now... I'm certainly not physicist, so I barely understand what any of that means... but I have read somewhere that radioactive decay is pretty abundant in the core of the earth.
This quote really suggests to me that you don't really understand modern Quantum Field Theory.
Nope, I sure hell don't understand it... What I see is the evidence to support a growing earth theory... the person that comes up with a testable explanation as a means of growth is the one who will take home their own Nobel Prize. I feel I've stated pretty clearly... repeatedly... I don't conform to any one of the many different theories to a means of growth in planets. I just accept that their is evidence that they are growing... 'how' is a question I would really like answered. Ignoring this evidence is what scientists and yourself a like are doing because for reasons I don't understand, you believe the earth size remains static. I bet previous to threads like this one... you never even gave the question of the earth size remaining constant a second thought... doesn't the possibility that it could somehow be changing... drastically inspire you to want to learn more about it?
Therefore no new mass can simply come into existence "just like that" without violating some of our most cherished laws in Physics.
It's my understanding of Physics that energy and matter are interchangeable. One of those E=mc2 things.
Why build multi billion dollar particle accelerators or state of the art space telescopes if Science did NOT want to seek out new answers. In fact, if they don't find the Higgs Boson at the Large Hadron Collider, many scientists will look upon this as an exciting opportunity to redefine some of their standard models.
One of the list of project objectives of the LHC is to get a better understanding of darkmatter. Darkmatter is pretty much the same thing Mr Adams is talking about when he says 'Primematter'. I'm very interested in following those results as it could be a huge step in validating a means of cause for growth in celestrial bodys.
Science is changing all the time, and that's a good thing! But what we don't want is for Science to look back at old, dead theories that have been around for ages which have little or no proof whatsoever.
Yet when we do look back... we find it so hard to believe that so many people believed that the earth was flat, or that it was the center of the universe. We think... What where they thinking... so much evidence showing them the truth... The shadow on the moon for example... 'round'... but yet... they ignored the evidence. I guess they just sat around and said "There is no Mechanism proving it's not the center of the universe!"
You might like the idea of planets growing... Neal Adams is an obvious fanatic about such claims but that, in itself, simply does not make it true. Hell... I for one wish the warp drive was a reality, but it isn't. And there's no point in me continuing to fantasize about such a fantasy... Unless of course, I'm reading a comic book.
It's not hard to fantasize about your 'warp drive' You just have to come up with a means to make an object weightless. (And by weightless, I mean appear massless in gravity or not) Basically create a bubble of sorts that you could sit inside of. On the outside, the bubble is weightless, so it has no mass... You can now accelerate this bubble to what ever speed you want. If you could create your bubble to be a negative weight, you could drive it even faster than the speed of Light. For giggles... shape your bubble like a photon :)
Imagination is what allows all things to be possible, without it... we would be no different than all the other animals on this planet. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/16/2009 9:49:02 PM | Wow. I can fantasize green Unicorns and Denver Broncos cheerleaders in my bedroom.
We're talking about something that COULD HAPPEN. Occam's Razor doesn't apply when one of the possibilities involves "and then a miracle occurs" as one of the core steps.
Expanding Earth and 6-day-Creation have the same problem: There is no "how" for science to even begin looking at.
And Light? Your E=mc^2? Where is the energy coming from? Seriously. 10^10 tons/year is one HELL of a lot of energy. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/16/2009 10:23:48 PM | Re: desertrhino
Wow. I can fantasize green Unicorns and Denver Broncos cheerleaders in my bedroom.
No problem to small for photo shop and a printing store couldn't handle... and seriously... I think they might go well together :)
We're talking about something that COULD HAPPEN. Occam's Razor doesn't apply when one of the possibilities involves "and then a miracle occurs" as one of the core steps. Expanding Earth and 6-day-Creation have the same problem: There is no "how" for science to even begin looking at.
Interesting... you say Growing earth is like that of the creationists point of view because it lacks a solid testable mechanism. I say Plate Tectonics is like that of the view of creationists in that in the moment of it's creation, it has not evolved in anyway in the 4. what ever billion years ago it started out. I can just imagine a creationist reading this post over thinking "Everyone is wrong... God did it!.... 5,000 years ago." I think we can both safely agree creationists defiantly have it wrong.
And Light? Your E=mc^2? Where is the energy coming from? Seriously. 10^10 tons/year is one HELL of a lot of energy.
Possibly why Dennis Mcarthy follows the Graviton Model... How much energy could be calculated from the presence of the combined gravitational forces pushing it's self from all directions towards the center of our planet? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/17/2009 8:37:55 PM |
How much energy could be calculated from the presence of the combined gravitational forces pushing it's self from all directions towards the center of our planet?
Irrelevant. Gravity does not push, it in fact causes dispersed matter to coalesce. Needless to say, the gravitational binding energy of Earth is enough to keep it from self induced expansion.
...since, you know...it hasn't expanded. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:28:36 AM |
Irrelevant. Gravity does not push, it in fact causes dispersed matter to coalesce. Needless to say, the gravitational binding energy of Earth is enough to keep it from self induced expansion....since, you know...it hasn't expanded.
Interesting choice of words.... 'to coalesce' "to grow together or into one body...'
I think Gravity is highly underrated as far as the forces go. Continued debate about the 'graviton' still rages among the scientific community to this day. What do we know about Gravity... we know that it's real, and it is working. The force from the moons mere presence is enough to pull all the oceans of earth as much as 15-20 feet. It also pulls the plates of the earth up as it circles above... I'm not sure how much a plate of earth weighs... but I bet it's a lot. That's just scratching the surface of the power of gravity.... gravity is the driving force to the creation of stars and planets. It's what keeps our solar system in place, and it's what keeps our galaxy together, and it is possibly also the glue that holds this known universe together. I could start talking about the gravity force of black holes, but that be a little off topic.
In short, gravity is what started the formation of planets, no reason not to assume that the process of adding onto all planets causing them to grow doesn't continue to this day. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:49:08 AM | | Gravity isn't energy "created" by anything; it is the result of mass and the density of said mass. You're really getting yourself into tighter and tighter circles with that one. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:37:59 AM | Light Storm...
It is quite revealing when we sit here debating “Science” because you yourself have claimed, on MANY occasions, of your own uncertainly about your own knowledge on Science.
I'm also betting that Neal Adams has a huge amount of uncertainty regarding his scientific knowledge... Now... I'm not saying that people without Science degrees shouldn't have their say. I assume that we all live in democracies and democracies necessitate freedom of speech...
However, if I was going to debate on a topic... Say Law for instance... Then as a non lawyer I would have to probably admit that I am NOT an expert on this subject and that listening FIRST and then asking questions LATER is probably the best way to go.
What Neal Adams appears to be doing... Using the above Law analogy… Is simply not just debating in a field in which he has next to little or no formal training whatsoever, but in fact he also wants to rewrite the ENTIRE Law from scratch.
If you were a lawyer Light... With X amount of years of experience in the field, would you be happy for some "outsider" to come in and try and "revolutionize" a subject that you have been studying for years?
This is one of the problems that I have with people like Neal Adams. The dude should simply stick to what he is good at... Comic books and fantasy.
Anyway perhaps one day Light, I'll look deeply into what evidence you have proposed. I feel that this is a somewhat dubious exercise because if there WAS real evidence that the Earth was growing, it would have been BIG news in articles likes Scientific American and New Scientist.
Rocky planets growing into the size of Gas Giants is simply bizarre and even the mechanism is unknown, even if it IS true. But heck... I will look at what you've proposed knowing that the evidence is perhaps somewhat erroneous.
But going back to my previous point... I would seriously look into "accepted" science first and THEN make your claims. Understand the subject first BEFORE you jump to conclusions. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/19/2009 1:23:13 PM | Re: stargazer1000
Gravity isn't energy "created" by anything; it is the result of mass and the density of said mass. You're really getting yourself into tighter and tighter circles with that one.
When it comes to gravity... 'created' or 'result of' is kinda the same thing. I understand how gravity is measured. It's not that complicated to understand. A hammer on Earth is going to weigh more than it does on the moon... ect.
But even you Stargazer have to admit that there is a lot to gravity we don't understand. It just kinda gets chalked up there as unexplained phenomenon. For example. When a pencil is placed purposely to be still in the cabin of a space shuttle in space... over time, and on its own with no application of force, it will begin to spin. The conservation of angular momentum does not explain why a pencil will suddenly start to spin... interestingly enough... it's always counter clockwise, the same direction all planets and our sun spin. After some searching... the cause of celestial body's spinning appears to be somewhat of a mystery, but there is a lot a talk about the spinning motion that forces themselves together. There is a point in the very center of our earth where gravity collides on it's self and pushes back out. If one of us was to experience that location (without being instantly squashed by pressure or nuked to a crisp) it would kinda feel like being weightless as you would simultaneously feel pulled in all directions at once.
Re: Kinky**stard
It is quite revealing when we sit here debating “Science” because you yourself have claimed, on MANY occasions, of your own uncertainly about your own knowledge on Science.
Depends, if it makes sense, it's pretty easy to understand. If it doesn't make sense, uncertainty makes me start asking questions the teacher might get annoyed about.
For example, as a child I was put in bible school and none of it made sense and I was asked to stop asking so many questions.
The facts about Growing earth make sense... and to me... they are so clear that I have no problem stepping over the fact that there is no clear mechanism to explain how.
The facts about Plate Tectonics create that same level of uncertainty that I felt as bible class teachers attempt to brain wash their students with. I remember in school learning about Pangaea... and the giant ocean... I remember thinking "That can't be right"
I'm also betting that Neal Adams has a huge amount of uncertainty regarding his scientific knowledge... Now... I'm not saying that people without Science degrees shouldn't have their say. I assume that we all live in democracies and democracies necessitate freedom of speech... However, if I was going to debate on a topic... Say Law for instance... Then as a non lawyer I would have to probably admit that I am NOT an expert on this subject and that listening FIRST and then asking questions LATER is probably the best way to go. What Neal Adams appears to be doing... Using the above Law analogy… Is simply not just debating in a field in which he has next to little or no formal training whatsoever, but in fact he also wants to rewrite the ENTIRE Law from scratch. If you were a lawyer Light... With X amount of years of experience in the field, would you be happy for some "outsider" to come in and try and "revolutionize" a subject that you have been studying for years? This is one of the problems that I have with people like Neal Adams. The dude should simply stick to what he is good at... Comic books and fantasy.
Neal Adams has created some great videos in support of growing earth.
I do not agree with his views of subduction
I do not fully understand how his 'Prime Matter' explanation as a means to a mechanism.
Neal Adams is more of a lobbyist for the theory than he is the name YOU apply to the Theory. He did not come up with the idea, but he is very responsible and very good at creating awareness for it. He's by no means an expert on the subject... I agree with you. I by no means am an expert on the subject, I never said I was. But I am interested!
Attacking Neal Adams only attacks Neal Adams. Attacking Neal Adams does not in anyway change my opinion of the Theory. Just like attacking Leonardo da Vinci would in no way change my opinion of Mona Lisa painting... Savvy?
Anyway perhaps one day Light, I'll look deeply into what evidence you have proposed. I feel that this is a somewhat dubious exercise because if there WAS real evidence that the Earth was growing, it would have been BIG news in articles likes Scientific American and New Scientist.
The theories need a solid mechanism, without it, all the evidence in the world to suggest it's happening is a joke to the publishers of those kind of magazines, and they wouldn't dare publish such a story without thinking it might hurt their reputation.
But going back to my previous point... I would seriously look into "accepted" science first and THEN make your claims. Understand the subject first BEFORE you jump to conclusions.
So you're saying I should BE a geologist before I could disagree with Plate Tectonics? That would be kinda like me saying you should become a priest before you can disagree with religions point of view on creation... right? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/19/2009 4:39:02 PM |
For example. When a pencil is placed purposely to be still in the cabin of a space shuttle in space... over time, and on its own with no application of force, it will begin to spin.
Hmm, as I understand Newton's law of inertia, an object will only begin to move if an outside force acts on it. But then, that's not gravity. However, if the pencil is in the cabin of the shuttle, then i'm guessing there's all kinds of forces to act on it. The big one is the astronauts, the circulation of air, etc.
it's always counter clockwise, the same direction all planets and our sun spin.
Really? Says who. That sounds like one of those "facts" conveniently dredged up to prove an incorrect point. Also known as fiction.
the cause of celestial body's spinning appears to be somewhat of a mystery
not really. It's called angular momentum.
There is a point in the very center of our earth where gravity collides on it's self and pushes back out.
Well, since as you correctly point out, that is unproveable. However, even if true and the exact center of the Earth was an essentially "weightless" environment, it means nothing since gravity is an attractive "force." It doesn't "push" in the sense you are trying to imply in the hopes of bolstering your argument.
And expanding Earth fails the sniff test again. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/19/2009 5:48:22 PM |
So you're saying I should BE a geologist before I could disagree with Plate Tectonics?
Well, yes. If you don't understand plate tectonics, particularly all of the evidence in its favour, how can you be "against" it? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/20/2009 5:20:13 PM |
So you're saying I should BE a geologist before I could disagree with Plate Tectonics?
It’s difficult to agree, or disagree for that matter, with something that one does not understand. If you don't understand it... Then you don't understand it... And until you try to understand it, you do not know what you can agree with and what you can't.
And no, I’m not saying that you have to become an expert on the subject. I already said people have a right to debate on anything they like… Regardless of their background… But ask yourself… Have you really investigated Plate Tectonics? Or is it a matter off… “It’s too complicated and I don’t like it!”
Considering that this is the currently accepted theory at the moment, simply pushing it aside and embracing other theories is a bit one sided. Why not investigate BOTH sides first then come up with a conclusion?
So you're saying I should BE a geologist before I could disagree with Plate Tectonics? That would be kinda like me saying you should become a priest before you can disagree with religions point of view on creation... right?
This is a poor analogy because religion isn't simply just about pure knowledge... And let’s face it... “Religious knowledge” (if there even IS such a thing!) seems to vary from person to person... because religion transcends many areas of Humanity.
Science is purely concerned with knowledge... The "right" knowledge. And there is no way in hell that I would go in, guns blazing, on a topic in Science that I simply did not understand. I would get humiliated! | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/21/2009 6:33:22 AM |
In short, gravity is what started the formation of planets, no reason not to assume that the process of adding onto all planets causing them to grow doesn't continue to this day.
No, you are wrong completely. The process that formed them used the available particles 4.5+ billion years ago when our lucky rocky body achieved hydrostatic equilibrium and cleared its orbit. Gravity will only cause bodies to come closer together, and never will it cause a body to expand.
You made a good point as well. I should not have used the word coalesce as you are able to misinterpret my point. I should correct that sentance with:
"Gravity does not push, it in fact causes dispersed matter to reduce the mean distance between constituent particles to achieve a lowered potential energy throughout the system, whereby the mean distance is the point when gravitation no longer dominates and the particles are repulsed by the electrostatic force, or strong nuclear force for extreme densities and masses." | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/21/2009 9:10:25 AM | Re: stargazer1000
Re: The Bassist
(Gravity can't be a source of expansion)
John K. Harms among others proposes that the mass-growth of a planet is caused by a gravitational photonic energy accumulation at the core. "Such energy is absorbed by the dense matter at (or near) a planet's center-of-mass. This accumulation would necessarily be exponential because as mass increases, so does gravity. As gravity increases, an increased amount of gravitational energy is available to be absorbed by a planet. Hence, planetary mass-growth becomes a self-feeding system over time. Because denser and more massive regions absorb more photons, the core of a planet absorbs most of the long-wavelength gravitational energy. Hence, planets are expanding from the inside-out and at an exponential rate. The heat generated from the absorption of gravitational photons might be the source of planetary volcanism (the heating of rock by gravitational energy), which is common to planets throughout the solar system. A similar model by Martin Holla is also discussed, as are the probable consequences of these ideas."
Here is a link talking about it http://www.johnkharms.com/gravity-growth.htm
Re: RobinsonUK
Re: Kinky B a stard
(If you don't understand it, how can you be against it?)
In fairness to the theories of plate tectonics, I grew up in school learning about it. Going back and re-reviewing everything after entering into an interest about Growing Earth was very important thing to do. A lot of the talk about Plate tectonic involves generic cross sections of an ocean, and ocean floor, the volcanic ridge that is pushing out new material and of course... the subduction zones at the edge of landmasses. That looks really pretty on paper, but I wanted to see how it works as a giant globe. The videos I did find often completely ignored the oceanic spreading ridges and just seemed to make pretty crazy path lines... some 'plates' obviously moving several feet per year in order to to achieve their speed. Antarctica is completely surrounded by a ring of spreading ridges... all spreading towards Antarctica... I have yet to find any subduction experts talking about that one... Well... Dennis McArthy talks about it in detail (ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om9H0Qv0LSU&feature=related ), but I should point out that is pro Expansionist. Also... if the ocean floor in it's entirety, not partially, is no order than 60-250 million years old... and you agree that the ridges do push the plates apart... than 250 million years ago, the ocean floors in there entirety had to be closed.
"... The hypothesis of an expanding Earth is inescapable" --Derek Ager Presidential address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
But one of the biggest things I don't understand about plate tectonics... and Stargazer has tried to explain this to me over and over, but it still doesn't make sense... is if subduction is unique to planets with oceans... (Earth being the only one) than why is tectonic spreading being observed on other planets like Mars if there is no place for old material to subduct.
You're right about the Priest comment, that was a little un-called for... let me try and put it another way... I don't feel I would have to be a movie critic in order to create my own opinion of movies. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and I for one like to have all the facts on the table in order to come to a decision. If you have a link that will show me why Tectonics has it right... not just for earth, but all planets... please share. If you have a link of someone screaming why the earth remains static in size... please share... cause at this point... it seems to just remain an accepted assumption by anyone who isn't an expansionist. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/21/2009 9:23:45 AM | Storm...
Has this tectonic spreading on other planets been measured...? I'm not aware of any of these expansions being determined in a manner *other* than looking at the photos and saying "Hmmm... if I squish these bits together, they fit". | |
|
|
| Page 14 of 23
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 |
|
Home
login 
