|
|
|
|
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/21/2009 11:21:01 AM | Probably quite interesting:
http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/11/14/subduction-denialism-part-1-the-backstory/
http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/11/14/subduction-denialism-part-2-subduction-zones-trenches-and-accretionary-complexes/
http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/11/14/subduction-denialism-part-3-sedimentation-in-the-cascadia-subduction-zone/ | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/21/2009 11:26:29 AM | Light, here is some real, honest-to-gosh GPS data over time for you to look at. (This would be what I've been asking you for all along... actual data. Just so you know what information looks like next time you get in a debate about something scientific.)
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/all/table2.txt
First off, could you show me where the plates are converging towards Antarctica? Second, look through the data sets and count how many are showing slight rises (or sharp, due to tectonic activity) over the 3 years, how many show NO ALTITUDE CHANGE, and how many show an altitude DECREASE.
This? spits fact in the face of the Expanding Earth fantasy. http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/all/images/geo.jpg Look at "TZ." The Earth is NOT expanding in any measurable sense, except for the <100,000 tons/yr of meteoric/dust influx.
This "theory" is dead. Can we let it die? Sadistic, hippophilic necrophilia aside, of course. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/21/2009 11:41:43 AM |
Here is a link talking about it http://www.johnkharms.com/gravity-growth.htm
Well that was a pointless 10 minutes I'll never get back again. I noticed, beyond E=mc^2, he doesn't have a single equation in his...what do we call that, other than unprinted birdcage liner? So I'm guessing not a physicist of any repute. Actually, not a physicist at all. One of those "This is how I think it would be so that's the way it must be" types. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/22/2009 8:23:03 AM | Re: RocketMan_Len
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".
To a degree, Stargazer was kind enough to even provide some links to science pages discussing tectonic spreading on other planets on this thread. These are pages that of course have nothing to do with Neal Adams. Stars point of course was to prove Plate Tectonics is working on other planets as well. But I have to point out that subduction is unique to earth because of our oceans.
Re: RobinsonUK
Probably quite interesting: (Links)
It's a good read for someone who flat out argues Subduction, which I do not. Evidence of subduction is more than readily available and clearly discussed in a fashion I can understand and agree with. Neal Adams and a few others reject the idea for reasons I don't understand. Even James Maxlow acknowledges subduction, but he maintains that the plate edges don't carry down as far into the mantle as it's assumed and that there is a net growth above and beyond the amount subducted. Dennis McCarthy agrees.
Re: desertrhino
Light, here is some real, honest-to-gosh GPS data over time for you to look at. (This would be what I've been asking you for all along... actual data. Just so you know what information looks like next time you get in a debate about something scientific.)
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/all/table2.txt
I've seen these tables and charts before, they are the same table and charts Dennis McCarthy uses to prove that the earth is increasing in size. I'm sure that you will notice that the data sheet refers to every single positive hight increase as an 'error'
First off, could you show me where the plates are converging towards Antarctica? Second, look through the data sets and count how many are showing slight rises (or sharp, due to tectonic activity) over the 3 years, how many show NO ALTITUDE CHANGE, and how many show an altitude DECREASE.
None of them show a 0.00 Altitude change... and while it would be interesting to stick all those numbers on a spread sheet, I prefer to read the conclusions of people that discuss them in detail. I do think it's interesting that they display 'error' numbers, why are they error numbers? Is that what James Maxlow is talking about?
This? spits fact in the face of the Expanding Earth fantasy. http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/all/images/geo.jpg Look at "TZ." The Earth is NOT expanding in any measurable sense, except for the <100,000 tons/yr of meteoric/dust influx.
That's a interesting chart, if you could please, tell me what I'm looking at. I would like to understand why the pastern in 1994 is so much more random than it is in 2006. I agree with you on the metric dust influx. dust/meteor activity can not account for for the volume needed to explain a growth in earth size. On another forum, someone even went as far to point out the depth of the top soil on the moon was a result of that type of dust collection, and I don't think it's even a foot deep.
Re: stargazer1000
Well that was a pointless 10 minutes I'll never get back again. I noticed, beyond E=mc^2, he doesn't have a single equation in his...what do we call that, other than unprinted birdcage liner? So I'm guessing not a physicist of any repute. Actually, not a physicist at all. One of those "This is how I think it would be so that's the way it must be" types.
I researched his name after you posted that... yah... lol
My search for a good explanation for a cause of Growth continues... what I would like to find is Dennis McCarthys explanation for Growth... I've yet to find a detailed one. I just know it has something to do with gravity. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/22/2009 10:55:09 AM | I've seen these tables and charts before, they are the same table and charts Dennis McCarthy uses to prove that the earth is increasing in size. I'm sure that you will notice that the data sheet refers to every single positive hight increase as an 'error'
Uhhh... then he's cherry-picking in the most extreme sense. Could you point to where it refers to "every single positive height increase as an error?" Because I can't find that particular notation. (except see below, regarding the presentation of "error" as a positive decimal number)
I do think it's interesting that they display 'error' numbers, why are they error numbers? Is that what James Maxlow is talking about?
There are error bars because real scientists take the time and effort to note the systematic variation in their measurements. Error bars are an indication of statistical confidence. Note that each error is indicated in a shorthand, that is, they left off the "plus or minus" in front of each value. They are NOT ALL POSITIVE. Ignorance of the conventions used in presenting data is not an excuse for making boneheaded assumptions like McCarthy appears to, and you may also be. (Though I suspect he is doing it on purpose, and you are most likely simply ignorant of the conventional notation... a fact McCarthy would then be exploiting.)
That is to say, a 5.0 mm increase with a PLUS OR MINUS 0.1 mm "error" is a highly precise, very probably significant change with respect to the systematic variation in the measuring devices/protocol. The true value is likely to reside somewhere between 4.9 mm and 5.1 mm. A 5.0 mm increase with a PLUS OR MINUS 10.0 mm "error" is possibly significant, but is smaller than the systematic variation of the measurements, so it's far, far, FAR less likely to be significant. The true value in this case is likely to reside somewhere between -5.0 mm and 15.0 mm. As you can see, much less informative.
Again, don't allow ignorance of a system to drive you to make assumptions. Anyone who doesn't provide error analysis in this kind of data is being sloppy or LYING to you. When it IS provided, it is not telling you the data are WRONG, it's telling you the data are RIGHT as long as the variance from the control or initial value is significantly larger than the error bars.
And honestly, I have no idea what Maxlow's talking about, because he doesn't provide his source data in anything you've yet shown us. I suspect he's just shoveling shit and hoping you won't notice.
Just for the record, I DID import that dataset into Excel and it shows a -0.44 mm/year (negative 0.44 mm/yr) growth (mean of all Z velocity datapoints (907 of them) ) with an error mean of plus or minus 0.27 mm. This means the likely ACTUAL value, based on the measurements and their error bars is very likely to lie somewhere between -0.17 mm and -0.71 mm per year. Note neither of these values, even accounting for error, is at all POSITIVE. Both are NEGATIVE. Negative growth = SHRINKING
The Earth is slightly shrinking. Adapt, adjust, or do whatever you have to do to put yourself in a "good place" with regards to the fact that the "Expanding Earth" fable is just that, a fable, completely unsupported by all available data and contrary to just plain good sense. You've been deluded and misled by people trying to SELL SOMETHING. (Lectures and books) Your desire to see conspiracies in complicated systems you don't really understand has made you a credulous victim of a con, fraud, shell game, or whatever you'd like to call it. It's a sham. A fake. Not real. A means to separate the gullible from their money. A desperate ploy for fame and fortune by people who can't make a REAL contribution to science.
And now it's separated me from a fair number of hours of my finite time on this Earth that I WILL NEVER GET BACK.
I am SO done with this sadistic hippophiliac necrophilia. Get a hobby or something, Light. Something constructive, like art or recreational drug use, not this conspiracy theorist, time wasting, destructive bullshit. Just my US$0.02 worth.
/end
Note: In RobinsonUK's post, the third link, you can BLOODY WELL SEE the subducting plate in the first image. Buy a clue! | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/22/2009 11:59:16 AM | I'll point out one obvious thing...
If this "scientist" is relying on GPS data, then he's clearly forgotten that a "growing Earth" is going to have significant impact on the orbits of those very same GPS, adding an additional amount of error to the data, rendering it useless to what it is he is trying to study.
"Ah, but they're compensating by changing the orbit," you say.
No!, I reply. After all, to make corrections to a satellite's orbit would require known quantities which is what these instruments are supposed to be showing him in the first place. Additionally, a "growing" Earth would do wonders at clearing out the space junk in orbit as the ground slowly rises up to greet it. Especially if that growth is exponential, as has been suggested. So we should be seeing a predictable amount of space debris coming down as a result.
But we don't. Hmm, I wonder why. Actually, no. I don't really. Hear that prolonged "beep" sound? That's the death of the "growing Earth" hypothesis. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/22/2009 2:06:47 PM | That's the thing about statistical data... People that don't have a clue how the data was originally generated, seem to be quite happy to reinterpret that data any way they want. Usually in a highly erroneous manner!
Politicians and the media have been spinning and spicing up data to fit whatever facts seems fit to them for YEARS.
The fact that we're even in Iraq is a testament to this!
And, just like what's going on in Iraq right now, spinning data is very, VERY dangerous... On multiple fronts!
A lot of people just seem ill equipped to interpret data properly. Especially when they have a hidden agenda.
EDIT:
Excellent post by the way desertrhino! If this doesn't nail this thread into the coffin where it belongs... I don't know what will... | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/23/2009 7:23:18 PM | Another expert steps up to the plate
Monday, September 21, 2009
UC Santa Cruz Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Astrobiology Professor Gregory P. Laughlin is interviewed on The History Channel's The Universe Season 2. He says the following about the Expansion Tectonics of expanding planets:
"... we think that the reason why that's happening [planetary expansion tectonics] is because they have an internal source of heat which is raising the pressure inside the planet and causing it to expand. That's very similar to a steam boiler on a steam train. In a steam boiler you have water which is being heated by a heat source. That water is turning to steam. The pressure is increasing and that's causing the piston of the boiler to move out, to expand. If you didn't have the gases ability to expand, planets wouldn't inflate. Steam trains wouldn't work. We wouldn't be climbing up this mountain. " -- Gregory P. Laughlin, planetary scientist, November 2007
~http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2009/09/gregory-p-laughlin-on-expanding-planets.html
"Gregory Laughlin received a PhD in Astronomy and Astrophysics from UC Santa Cruz in 1994. He held an NSF/JSPS Fellowship in Tokyo, and also did postdoctoral research at the University of Michigan and the University of California, Berkeley. From 1999-2001, he worked for NASA as a Planetary Scientist at the Ames Research Center in Mountain View, CA. He joined the UCSC faculty in 2001. In 2004, he was recipient of an NSF CAREER award, and was promoted to Full Professor in 2007." | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/23/2009 7:56:40 PM | Found a link to some of the work by Dennis McCarthy
Here is some questions and answers on his Expanding Earth theory's... might be good to go over.
http://www.4threvolt.com/EEFAQ.html | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/23/2009 11:59:17 PM | | Light Storm, thank you for bringing some knowledge to this topic. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/24/2009 12:43:27 AM | | Ths would cause a reduction in density. Measurement of sound waves from things like nuclear explosions and earthquakes indicates densities consistent with solid and liquid metals, not gases. The GPS and other measurements also indicate no expansion. NEXT! | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/24/2009 1:36:22 AM | Oops...forgot to submit my "edit":
Light Storm, thank you for bringing some knowledge to this topic
By his own admission, this is one thing he does NOT bring to the discussion. Unsubstantiated fantasies do not equal "knowledge". | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/24/2009 8:16:06 AM | Frog, this isn't a class about how to limit your thought and justify the outdated theories of your teachers. Western 'science' is not knowledge. Western 'science' which you are so adamantly defending studies the lower dimensions and is just now starting to realize that there is much more going on than they imagined.
Western 'science' is not knowledge.
It is a vehicle of the capitalistic economic system that regulated information to maintain the status quo because it is unstable and advancements in knowledge is it's worst enemy. It's based on control by a few and scarcity is it's rule. Western 'science' is about boosting up a few peoples egos by giving them a degree so they can be little soldiers to espouse the positions and opinions of the ruling class. Capitalism demands a class system to maintain itself.
This is a forum where people would like to share ideas. This topic is "The Earth Is Growing" If you don't like the premise, it's a waste of time trying to stop the discussion and stand at the door and demand rules and regulation to stop the topic from being discussed. Why don't you start a thread that says "The Earth is Not Growing" and share all the ideas you have on supporting that topic. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/24/2009 9:09:32 AM | The first hurdle for most scientists to understand the idea of growing is to realize that the universe is alive and conscious and operating on principles or laws. Usually this is difficult because there is a big debate about religion and science when that is really about one system which is working together to limit thought. When you toss out both of them, you can begin to see that the universe and beyond operates with the intention of harmony by design. The western 'science' studies the physical dimensions. There is a wealth of information that is valuable. However, the scientific method fails to take into consideration that the mind of the scientist influences the experiment. Harvard scientist studied that plants react when someone is thinking about watering them and the department stopped the experiments. Mind or Spirit operates everything because prana cosmic life force is the smallest foundation of everything and it is aware and consciously giving of itself and open to tranformation. Einstein even found the equation for it. The internet operates on the principle of open to all. We are beginning to live in that awareness and see its possibilities.
The Universes are growing and changing and moving from prana energy to ether to substance and back again. When the prana is not there form returns to prana. The same principle operates throughout the universe. The suns birth the planets. Each planet is electromagnetically communicating with it's father sun as it grows and changes. When the next planet is birthed, it moves out of the cradle position making room for the next. The suns are conscious beings who hold the image of each planet in the spirit mind, then allow it to lower in vibration into physical form. The universe operates on LOVE. The transmutation from prana cosmic life force to ether to substance (the trinity) is love in action. And physical form transmutates back into Prana. All possibilities are happening on many levels.
This same process is mirrored on Earth. As humans, we have the birth right to create with our minds and desires by holding an ideal in our minds in the spiritual dimension and lowering the vibration into physical form. This process is the foundation of everything. We are fractals of the Universe and it is filled with Prana, Cosmic Life Force which is a very subtle light which follows the spiritual laws and is of the highest dimension. It's laws are over all other lower dimensions which move down into the physical dimensions.
We are made of Prana energy and this is our life force, what truly keeps us young and eternal. It is life giving quality in the air that we breath. To consciously breath in the prana is like trying to catch a particle of dust falling in the air, the more force we make to get it, the further it moves away, but when we calmly hold out our hand with confidence it comes to us. This is the nature of prana, it is everywhere but requires out attention and conscious desire to receive it. It takes conscious desire to connect with it and breath it in. When you do that, you're whole being begins to expand in consciousness and your vibration is raised to the laws of spirit which are over the physical laws. By your consciousness, you can operate in the purely physical dimension if that is all you are aware of but why? Why limit yourself? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/24/2009 9:19:21 AM | This is a forum where people would like to share ideas.
The forum subject is in fact Science/Philosophy, the latter as defined by the former in regards to context.
This topic is "The Earth Is Growing" If you don't like the premise, it's a waste of time trying to stop the discussion and stand at the door and demand rules and regulation to stop the topic from being discussed.
There is if the topic, or contributions to the discussion/debate topic are either:
- Not germane to the OP (either as a confirmation or refutation)
- Not germane to the forum subject of science and philosophy related to it.
If you are unaware of this, I suggest you try to acquire a more in depth understanding of the forum rules, guidelines and stated purpose.
Why don't you start a thread that says "The Earth is Not Growing" and share all the ideas you have on supporting that topic
Probably because that topic is inclusive to this thread, as such it would be redundant. Exclusion of a science facet alone renders this thread off-topic to the forum.
When considered under the aegis of this forum topic, it is quite arguable indeed, what is and isn't "correct" in regards to the OP's tabled premise: "the earth is growing", and the validity of evidence for and against.
Western 'science' is not knowledge.
In and of itself, no, it's more properly defined as is a means of acquiring knowledge with specific terms and frame of reference.
Science is validated by evidence, the evidence is validated by peer-review and the concept of falsifiability. That the forum subject is inclusive of this concept is self evident.
We are made of Prana energy and this is our life force
Entirely meaningless in both the purview of this thread and the forum subject both. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/24/2009 9:27:49 AM | | Yes the subject is rather odd. Philosophy would suffice as a subject. It's like saying "Mexican Food/Culinary Arts" | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/24/2009 9:32:04 AM | So as I see it, you want to talk about tacos all day and limit the discussion to mexican food.
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence,
knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. The love of wisdom.
Lighten up and enjoy the discussion. If it's too hot a topic for you, stay out of the kitchen. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/24/2009 10:08:15 AM | Yes the subject is rather odd. Philosophy would suffice as a subject. It's like saying "Mexican Food/Culinary Arts"
Not odd at all, as it relates to the various "philosophies of science", and by extension the related philosophical aspects of epistemology. The contextual tie-in to philosophical/epistemological avenues related to science should be obvious. All other avenues of philosophy have their contextual homes in "Religious/Supernatural" and "Off-Topic" forums respective of subject content.
The inclusion of "Philosophy/Supernatural" to the two corresponding forums was to intentionally exclude subjects inclusive to either, from the other.
So as I see it, you want to talk about tacos all day and limit the discussion to mexican food.
What I "want to talk about" is inconsequential, the validity or lack thereof concerning "what is to be discussed" is already clearly defined by the thread topic, the purpose of this forum and the rules/guidelines supporting that purpose.
Q.E.D.
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. The love of wisdom.
As far as philosophy is concerned, context is obvious.
Any and all evidence tabled for an "expanding earth" in this thread (so far), can be, and has been refuted by those with an understanding of the physics (science) frame of reference involved. So far, any non-evidentiary replies to the contrary are also refuted in terms of logic and frame of reference of epistemology. These are the two valid frames of reference in this thread/forum.
I respectfully suggest that you take your culinary analogy and apply it as, "if you can't take the heat (context of the forum), stay out of the kitchen (forum/thread)." As this is already explicitly stated and defined by the minimal factors required for a post to be valid in the rules/guidelines/purpose of the forums.
If it's too hot a topic for you, stay out of the kitchen.
The former is immaterial, the latter is however, quite germane in regards to your own thread contributions and the concept of, "meaningful" and "on-topic".
| |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/24/2009 12:38:48 PM | At first blush this would seem like a silly subject, in that the earth is not a plant that has seasons and grows, but rather a sphere that is for the most part effectively sealed off. The few meteorites that hit it, and the couple of hundred pounds of moon rocks really are irrelevant.
However, if the statement that energy never goes away, it is only changed, is to be true, then what happens to the energy that we receive from basking in the sun each and everyday? Part of it will be reflected for sure, but that still leaves a lot of energy that something has to happen to.......... What happens to it? Is it stored somehow and then released? Is it changed into matter?
Paul K | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/24/2009 12:42:34 PM | Much of that energy is stored in chemical bonds. It remains as energy.
Another large chunk is re-released to space as heat or other radiation. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/24/2009 12:54:48 PM | Much of that energy is stored in chemical bonds. It remains as energy.
Another large chunk is re-released to space as heat or other radiation.
Every bit of it that isn't immediately re-radiated will EVENTUALLY become heat.
Edit: ESPECIALLY if we burn all the fossil fuels. :) | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/24/2009 11:41:09 PM | Has anybody heard of an experiment where a sealed glass globe with water, and some types of vegetation that could live symbiotically is observed to see what happens as the plants grow. This is based on the assumption that there is some type of vegetation that could live together in a sealed environment, with nothing but sunlight streaming in.
It should be rather transparent where I am going with this question, and that is, as the plants inside the sealed globe grow, what would happen to the weight of the globe?
Admitedly, this is not even close to the complexity of earth, where there are lots of symbiotic systems that control each others size....................
I followed the few experiments where an attempt was made to create a sealed area and see if an environment could be devised that would be self sustaining, but recall losing interest, as they all seemed to not flourish. It seems like there are a lot of details that are required for a slef sustaining environment that even every learned men couldn't duplicate.
Paul K | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/25/2009 4:48:55 AM | as the plants inside the sealed globe grow, what would happen to the weight of the globe?
Nothing.
Energy enters the system as photons. These photons are absorbed and increase the energy levels of valence electrons in some compounds, allowing them to form higher energy chemical bonds [such as those in sugars]. As the plants grow, they "burn" these higher energy bonds. The electrons drop to lower energy orbits again, releasing the excess energy as photons of infrared light [heat].
Ultimately, nothing added to the system remains in the system. More importantly, energy added is NOT converted to mass; it is simply stored, as energy, in chemical bonds. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/25/2009 10:01:00 AM | Will this hypothetical globe reach a point where it can no longer store energy in chemical bonds, and what happens at that point?
Paul K | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/25/2009 10:05:55 AM | | No. It's a closed system for most purposes. No matter how much light enters it, nutrients and water are limited. Parts of the plants will die due to lack of resources, and those parts will decay, freeing up resources for the remainder. | |
|
|
| Page 15 of 22
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 |
|
Home
login 
