|
|
|
|
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/28/2009 10:42:35 PM |
Hence, why he avoids the questions about a mechanism for growth, and focuses on the details that show that it is growing.
Yes because avoiding the entire science behind something is a great way to promote a theory. Did you ever stop to think for yourself that maybe, just maybe, they avoid these questions because they know they're wrong, and can't admit to themselves that they don't know what they're talking about.
Going through the process myself right now, I know that you aren't born with an innate understanding of the universe. You have to work hard doing the research, the math and the experiments to even consider putting forth your conjecture as a theory!
If I said I claim the ocean is made of the sky, your lines of reasoning and logic could not prove me wrong.
Join Scientology, you would look much less silly then you do now. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/29/2009 9:02:49 AM |
You want to throw out all the physics that keeps the sun shining, your food providing you energy, and the planets rotating and revolving, just because you "feel" it's right that a non-living entity, the Earth, should "grow" like living things.
I think you misunderstood my point, I'm not saying the Earth grows like a tree, or a Geode, or a crystal. But in respect to how life works, everything has a beginning, everything eats, everything grows, and everything eventually dies. Now if the Earth was growing, it would need a fuel source todo so, I wouldn't never argue it wouldn't. The Volume of space dust doesn't cut it.
The blue whale, Kinky**stard mentioned it above... it is a fascinating creature, it is by far the most massive creature ever recorded that we know of, and yet it doesn't consume food the same way as most. It goes after Krill... like other Baleen whales they are characterized by having baleen plates for filtering food from water, rather than having teeth. In comparison to it's size, i guess it would be like one of us having a diet on single celled organisms. Doesn't seem like much, but there is more than enough to go around.
Getting back to my point, If planets did grow, they would need a means to do it, and it would be in the form of Energy more than matter. The volume of space dust doesn't cut it. I don't think we can ever accurately calculate the energy bombarded onto celestial body's. Yes, a lot of heat is bounced back, ect... but that kinda works... most of the food we eat isn't kept either, just what it needs.
Let me stress this again... I'm not saying the earth is a giant life form... I'm just making analogy of how life works. Little tiny examples are all around us and they should be a blue print for us to understanding the universe.
One quibble: When presented with evidence that the 22 mm/year growth was really an approximately 0.4 mm/year shrinkage, you suddenly cough up this "pulsating Earth" horsecrap. You should go look up "no true scotsman" and figure out how it applies.
Question for you... I'm sure you will agree that Ancient oceans used to be all over the place... for that matter, 1/3 of the surface we all wonder around on used to be under the ocean. So either sea level has dropped by 1 mile or the water descended into the now rifted open deep seas... But if the size of the planet never changed... then we should still be a mile underwater? Why aren't we?
All ancient civilizations evolved first in high mountain regions of the world. Why? After that they moved steadily downward following the receding seas.
Ostia is now 3 miles from the sea yet in the time of the Punic War it was the port for Rome and sat at the mouth of the Tiber... where did that water go?? if the earth has NEVER changed in size?
LookAtMe89
Interesting concept, I would look into the Hollow Earth Theory if I were you.
Journey to the center of the earth was a fun book wasn't it... but having a giant hollow earth would be like having a giant hollow air bubble sitting on the bottom of the ocean. Since the pressure 2 miles down under water is about 11 thousand pounds per square inch... I'm thinking... No... | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/29/2009 9:50:53 AM |
Ostia is now 3 miles from the sea yet in the time of the Punic War it was the port for Rome and sat at the mouth of the Tiber... where did that water go?? if the earth has NEVER changed in size? Evaporation in the Meditteranean, especially in its eastern half, has resulted in decreased sea levels and increased salinity. Its hot there.
If the lower sea levels were caused by the earth expanding around it then the saltiness wouldnt have changed.
Out of curiosity, in order to accept expanding earth theory do you believe that mountain ranges don't actually exist? And if you believe they do exist, then what caused them? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/29/2009 11:14:38 AM | Re: Rockondon
Out of curiosity, in order to accept expanding earth theory do you believe that mountain ranges don't actually exist? And if you believe they do exist, then what caused them?
I personalty agree with James Maxlow
"What about mountain building?
In Plate Tectonics it is generally assumed that mountain building results from collision between ancient plates as they randomly move over the Earths surface under the influence of mantle convection currents. Researchers elsewhere have therefore concluded because Earth expansion is a radial process, and hence extensional, the process cannot explain the compression required for mountain building.
While seemingly logical from a Plate Tectonic perspective, it is illogical from an Expansion Tectonic perspective. As the Earth radius increases the continental crust must distort, bend, twist and turn as it continuously flattens and adjusts during change in surface curvature. During this ongoing gravity-induced crustal flattening process compression causes folding of the soft sediments within sedimentary basins, as well as faulting, volcanic intrusion and metamorphism (heating and compression of the rocks).
When the continents began to break-up and disperse 200 million years ago, the edges of the newly formed continents then flexed and rose vertically to form the great escarpments and mountain ranges as the interiors collapse during ongoing changing surface curvature. This process is cyclical during ongoing increase in Earth radius, resulting in multiple and overlapping phases of mountain building, planation, sedimentation, uplift and erosion." ~James Maxlow
Neal Adams also talks extensively about mountain building, and it's some of his strongest arguments for Growing Earth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwC_oaGYyhQ
He also talks a lot about Himalayas, and anytime in the past of me talking about this part of Neals video, it doesn't get responded to. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/29/2009 11:32:06 AM | Ah Light... I was going to post yet another quote by quote barrage of some of the seriously questionable views that you've posted. But it's quite obvious that you're 100% obsessed with questionable pseudo science.
With all due respect, you seem like a bright and inquisitive fellow, but you're barking up the wrong tree. If I'm honest I find your grip on science to be "half-baked", for want of a better word. You seem happy to throw in all sorts of weird conjecture and assumptions that fits your world view.
Personally, I think pursuing the Truth is a far better way to spend ones time, than to live in a world of complete fantasy. And you seem to indicate that, if we are not there to directly observe Nature in the past, way before Humans even existed, then we cannot, using available evidence, come up with reasonable conclusions.
If that's so, then you are saying that we can only conduct science on the things we can see and touch and feel... This cuts out 99.9999...% of Reality as we know it.
But if that's true, then why do you resort to exotic Physics which goes well above and beyond what we can perceive anyway?
Again, with respect, all that you say rests on very brittle foundations. It's contradictory at times, lacks clarity and scientific vigour and seems to rest on flights of fantasy which doesn't really help this debate along.
I almost feel like them I'm having a debate of Reality verses Fantasy here and, although anyone is fully within their rights to fantasise how they like, it does become problematic when the person fantasising claims that they are in fact talking about Reality.
Believe what you wish Light... That's your choice. However, I would encourage you to read up on science... And no, I don't mean watching films like Jurassic Park! I mean REALLY looking deeply into this subject.
I kinda get the feeling you didn't like this subject at school... But given your curiosity now, perhaps it's time to go back to this subject and give it another chance.
Science is a highly interesting subject and there are literally millions of books out there and many reputable websites. Its sooo rich a subject in itself, and it's growing in complexity all the time. Why overlook hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge, simply to pursue dubious, unfounded claims?
Unless of course, you are blinded by an urge to believe in conspiracies. Something which seems like a serious online hobby for many people. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/29/2009 7:47:00 PM |
Again, with respect, all that you say rests on very brittle foundations. It's contradictory at times, lacks clarity and scientific vigour and seems to rest on flights of fantasy which doesn't really help this debate along.
Okay, I'll try and simplify one point and ask you a question
Expansionists and Plate Tectonic scientists all agree that 200 million years ago the Atlantic ocean was closed. The ocean floor rift line between the two clearly shows the age of the ocean bottom, so you go back 70m, 80m ect you can clearly see the landmasses joining, the coastal outlines also match. The united regions share a wide variety of pre-Jurassic fossils.
Now... with all this evidence you can clearly agree with and accept because it is the current bible to plate tectonics... why is it you ignore that the Pacific ocean floor EXACTLY the same age as the Atlantic, ergo... it was also closed 250 million years ago also sharing similar variety's of pre-Jurassic fossils... the outlines also match from the north to south pole..... WHY is that?
Unless of course, you are blinded by an urge to believe in conspiracies. Something which seems like a serious online hobby for many people.
I'm by no means a conspiracy junky.... I have no interest in UFO's or Aliens until I can hang out with them in my living room. I'm not interested and don't care about who shot who from where. And Oh yes... Neil walked on the moon
I do find it interesting that when Nasa is strait out asked for a take on Growing Earth concepts, the answer comes back "No Comment." You find a Nasa scientist that refutes growing Earth... I honestly to God will shut up about it... The only Nasa scientist I found has even mentioned it is Professor Gregory P. Laughlin while interviewed on The History Channel's The Universe Season 2. From 1999-2001, he worked for NASA as a Planetary Scientist at the Ames Research Center in Mountain View, CA. Guess what... he says the earth is expanding... go figure.
I don't think it's a conspiracy... I honestly also don't think anyone who accepts Growing Earth Theories is holding back on any information they could use to prove it... it's just their voices are falling on depth ears. There seems to be this mental block people toss up as soon as you mention the idea that a giant rock floating in space could be growing. People keep saying "No... It can't... It doesn't make sense!" I'm sitting here thinking... Why not? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/29/2009 8:54:31 PM |
There seems to be this mental block people toss up as soon as you mention the idea that a giant rock floating in space could be growing.
Um...all rocks? Phobos? Deimos? Apophis? Ceres? How about Mimas? What about all tose little bits of rock and dust floating out there in space? How small is too small? Why aren't the rocks in my yard growing bigger by the day? After all, it should be visible if such growth can be exponential, shouldn't it?
The only Nasa scientist I found has even mentioned it is Professor Gregory P. Laughlin while interviewed on The History Channel's The Universe Season 2. From 1999-2001, he worked for NASA as a Planetary Scientist at the Ames Research Center in Mountain View, CA. Guess what... he says the earth is expanding... go figure.
Is that an accurate quote, or are you interpreting something he said to suit your purposes? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/29/2009 9:24:51 PM |
I do find it interesting that when Nasa is strait out asked for a take on Growing Earth concepts, the answer comes back "No Comment." You find a Nasa scientist that refutes growing Earth... I honestly to God will shut up about it... You're waiting on a NASA scientist to comment? Why didn't you choose a botanist, a baker, or a shoe salesman?
I imagine your thought process went like this:
hmmm....I believe in something ridiculous and don't want it refuted so lets see...who has relevant expertise in the field - geologists - therefore I don't want to hear what they have to say. Instead, I'll insist on maintaining my position until someone in an unrelated field tells me I'm wrong.
Seriously, what are you thinking? Its like a doctor explains to you a diagnosis and you tell him you refuse to believe him unless the kid packing groceries at the supermarket corroborates it as well. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/29/2009 9:34:44 PM | | Well, actually NASA does run geology research. They're not all about launching rockets. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/29/2009 9:59:26 PM | Getting back to my point, If planets did grow, they would need a means to do it, and it would be in the form of Energy more than matter. The volume of space dust doesn't cut it. I don't think we can ever accurately calculate the energy bombarded onto celestial body's. Yes, a lot of heat is bounced back, ect... but that kinda works... most of the food we eat isn't kept either, just what it needs.
Yes, we can calculate the energy influx. Personal incredulity aside, of course. You are welcome to continue disbelieving fact.
I'm not saying the Earth grows like a tree, or a Geode, or a crystal. But in respect to how life works, everything has a beginning, everything eats, everything grows, and everything eventually dies.
...
Let me stress this again... I'm not saying the earth is a giant life form... I'm just making analogy of how life works. Little tiny examples are all around us and they should be a blue print for us to understanding the universe.
Dude, it STILL sounds to me like you are saying the Earth is growing like a plant. Only because you keep coming back to "everything grows." Which is horsecrap, in the way you're applying it. The Earth has DONE its growing. It finished about 4.5 billion years ago.
then we should still be a mile underwater? Why aren't we?
Go LEARN about subduction and uplift. Then come back and we'll talk. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_uplift
Ostia is now 3 miles from the sea yet in the time of the Punic War it was the port for Rome and sat at the mouth of the Tiber... where did that water go?? if the earth has NEVER changed in size?
You understand that rivers carry sediment, and that this sediment tends to deposit around the mouth of the river, right? Over 2,000 years, the sediment has extended the alluvial fan of the Tiber river by about 4 km. This is a well-known, well-documented fact, and if you'd bothered to do the most rudimentary research on your "example," you'd have discovered this. Pathetic.
All ancient civilizations evolved first in high mountain regions of the world. Why? After that they moved steadily downward following the receding seas.
First of all, horsecrap. The fertile areas of the Fertile Crescent are at most a few hundred feet above sea level.
Secondly, how many examples of submerged cities would you need to see to understand that this is, indeed, horsecrap?
Edit:
Well, actually NASA does run geology research. They're not all about launching rockets.
Okay, so who asked, who WAS asked, When, Where, How... You know, like a citation, rather than a horsecrap "NASA said 'no comment' when asked about the Earth growing."
I note none of them have asked JPL, since JPL actually has data showing the radius of the earth to the millimeter over the last 20 years...... and we do have some data, but the only one who bothered crunching any of it was me, to be immediately "no true scotsman"ed... | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/30/2009 6:12:28 AM |
Okay, I'll try and simplify one point and ask you a question
Expansionists and Plate Tectonic scientists all agree that 200 million years ago the Atlantic ocean was closed. The ocean floor rift line between the two clearly shows the age of the ocean bottom, so you go back 70m, 80m ect you can clearly see the landmasses joining, the coastal outlines also match. The united regions share a wide variety of pre-Jurassic fossils.
Now... with all this evidence you can clearly agree with and accept because it is the current bible to plate tectonics... why is it you ignore that the Pacific ocean floor EXACTLY the same age as the Atlantic, ergo... it was also closed 250 million years ago also sharing similar variety's of pre-Jurassic fossils... the outlines also match from the north to south pole..... WHY is that?
I am NOT an expert in Geology or Geophysics and, as a matter of fact, neither are you Light, but here is my somewhat limited take on this...
The Earth's crust is made up of several tectonic plates. These plates "float" on the Earth's mantle and are VERY dynamic, at least in geological time. Hence these plates collide to form mountains and volcanoes and at places where they move apart, mantle fills those gaps, cools and reforms the plates in those areas, perhaps leading to new landmasses.
This picture is a highly simplified picture of course but the gist of all this is; the Earth's crust is dynamic. In order to account for an Earth in which its crust is constantly being reformed and remade, the weather erodes mountains and via a complex network of rivers and streams, landmass particulates are returned back into the seas and the oceans.
So, the Earth's crust is in a constant process of being destroyed and renewed. That said then, would seem to indicate that such puzzles that you've raised may have some sort of resolution.
As I said, this area of Science is not my area of expertise. It's all highly interesting of course, but not exactly my cup of tea. However, talk about things on a planetary scale and my interest peaks up dramatically.
So when someone dare claims that planets and moons and rocks can grow, of their own accord and for no apparent reason, and they invent insane concepts like Prime Matter which totally throws both Cosmology and The Standard Model of Particle Physics out of that proverbial window, then yes, I have a problem with that!
If what you've proposed is a genuine puzzle Light, then I'm pretty sure it can be resolved by using much more simpler ideas. Rewriting the Laws of Physics is a very dangerous idea, especially when one proposes such a wild idea to resolve a pretty insignificant puzzle, in my humble opinion at least.
I can understand our cherish laws being reviewed if it helped in our search for a Theory of Everything, or if our picture of the large scale universe was incorrect, but rewriting our laws simply to explain a puzzle regarding the oceanic plates on the Earth's surface, is a totally crazy idea!
I'll probably be here for hours if I was going to go over some of the MANY "interesting" points you've posted, but one in particular did raise my eyebrows.
You claim that we have no idea just how stable the Earth's orbit is over millions, if not billions of years. Well yes, of course the Earth's orbit has variations, but in order to account for the fact that Life has been on this planet since about 3.5 billion years ago, would indicate that the average distance between the Earth and Sun has been fairly constant, hence why we use this distance, called the Astronomical Unit, as a constant yard stick in Astrophysics.
Life needs certain conditions to thrive. Too close to the Sun, or too far away from it, and complex life forms would easily perish. So, the fact that we're here means that the Earth must have been orbiting within the Habitable Zone of this solar system, ever since it's creation.
By astronomical standards, this zone is in fact, quite narrow, which would then suggest that for most of its Life, the Earth has had a steady and stable mass. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/30/2009 9:04:04 AM | Re: Stargazer1000
Um...all rocks? Phobos? Deimos? Apophis? Ceres? How about Mimas? What about all tose little bits of rock and dust floating out there in space? How small is too small?
What about Ions... There is no such thing as too small
Why aren't the rocks in my yard growing bigger by the day? After all, it should be visible if such growth can be exponential, shouldn't it?
That would be like asking me why the wood on you're house doesn't continue to grow... cause it's dead. There was a point in time the rocks in your back yard where apart of something much hotter and could have been considered very much alive, like fire in it's own chemical reaction way.
Is that an accurate quote, or are you interpreting something he said to suit your purposes?
My Source for that : http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2009/09/gregory-p-laughlin-on-expanding-planets.html
Re: Rockondon
You're waiting on a NASA scientist to comment? Why didn't you choose a botanist, a baker, or a shoe salesman?
Hmmmm... Can I go with Cartoon artist?... most people here seem to feel the theory lacks credibility based on an a lobbyists opinion. They need to have someone they would listen to.
I imagine your thought process went like this: hmmm....I believe in something ridiculous and don't want it refuted so lets see...who has relevant expertise in the field - geologists - therefore I don't want to hear what they have to say. Instead, I'll insist on maintaining my position until someone in an unrelated field tells me I'm wrong.
More like "Wow, this is an interesting field, lets see what professionals in that area back it up..." Some of the leading professionals in the field include
Dr. James Maxlow (Australian geologist) - Carey's premier student, who has written a scientific book documenting many scientific arguments for a growing earth from well before the ocean expansion. He is currently writing a second book.
http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/
Giancarlo Scalera - (Italian Geologist) publishing many accepted papers in the geological community and using the expanding earth for finding oil. 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 who has been working on evidence for a growing and developing earth.
And certainly don't discount the work of Samuel Warren Carey (Australian Geologist) - (died in 2002) the modern “father” of the growing earth theory. Carey is the giant in the field and is recognized by both the plate tectonics people and the growing earth people as a major contributor to the field of continental drift.
Now the problem with all these experts, and I believe this was pointed out above when I heard Neal Adams talking about it. These people are geologists, and in order to explain a mechanism for growth, one would need to be a physicist. But all these Geologists are convinced the earth is growing!
Seriously, what are you thinking? Its like a doctor explains to you a diagnosis and you tell him you refuse to believe him unless the kid packing groceries at the supermarket corroborates it as well.
No... it's more like the kid packing groceries gives me a diagnosis, I don't discard it and say "what do you know.... you're just a kid packing groceries!..." I go out and back up those claims with a professional... a doctor!. When I first started learning about Growing Earth, I only knew about Neal Adams... then I learned by talking to him that his work is based on the work of Professionals... hes not just spewing stuff out his ass like some people here think.
Re: lsdime
he's right...what does NASA have to do with anything? if you ask a geologist, they will give you an answer. And they are the experts...not NASA.
A geologist like someone who has a PhD research into global tectonics... Hense why Dr. James Maxlow is one of my favorite contributers to the growing earth theories.
Re: desertrhino
...horsecrap!...
"Space Geodetics
This is a very new field where a variety of methods are used to track the movements of continental plates. The interpretation of this data is difficult given that many the measurements are not congruent and the overall result of movement on the planet is hard to combine in one intelligible picture. Here are some of the methods used in measuring continental movement:
• Very Long Baseline Interferomonetry (VLBI)
• Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR)
• Lunar Laser Ranging
• GPS
• Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning integrate by Satellite (DORIS)
There is new data from plate tectonics itself that use Space Geodetics to show the moving of continental plates. The controversy from the growing earth community is the interpretation of these movements. There is a site on the internet that allows one to plot and look at an archive of crustal movement [13]
These movements are interpreted by Plate Tectonics advocates to support the constant radius of the earth yet there are many problems. Growing earth proponents have examined this data carefully and plotting all the movement vectors on a globe, have postulated that the earth is indeed expanding. [14]
A paper to be published in China in 2008 reports taking 10 years of GPS data and concluding that the earth is expanding by at least 0.5 cm/year [15].”
~Source : http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_72.pdf
Re: KinkyBastard
I am NOT an expert in Geology or Geophysics and, as a matter of fact, neither are you Light
I certainly never said I was an expert... It's probably my limited knowledge on the subject that makes my eyebrows perk up and say "That makes sense"... I learned the same things you did about Plate Tectonics in High School.. I got an A on my tests for filling in the blanks... but the entire time, I always had this lingering doubt that something was wrong... like someone saying the earth is the center of the universe, or the earth is flat before the real knowledge of such claims was so strikingly obvious that we had to accept the truth to how these things are. I see the growing earth theories as having a lot more truth to them then plate tectonics ever did.
Have you watched the National Geographic explanation to Earths evolution... watching the landmasses play bumper cars with one another over 250 million years is now in my opinion "horsecrap" At least they admit in the video... "If you're confused, join the club, even the earth seems confused"
Watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDqskltCixA | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/30/2009 9:37:40 AM |
Have you watched the National Geographic explanation to Earths evolution... watching the landmasses play bumper cars with one another over 250 million years is now in my opinion "horsecrap" At least they admit in the video... "If you're confused, join the club, even the earth seems confused"
I have NO problem Plate Tectonics.
It explains a lot like mountains, volcanoes, earthquakes and how new landmasses form.
I'm pretty sure, as with ALL theories, it's probably not completely watertight because we are dealing with a phenomenon which plays out over millions of years, but nonetheless the evidence seems over-whelming.
As I said I'm not an expert in this field, but from what I can gather, the Growing Earth Theory doesn't seem to leave room for the possibility that the crust can also be reabsorbed back into the mantle, hence why the Earth just keeps on growing and growing like some demented God knows what!
But anyone with a basic understanding of plate tectonics understands that the crust is in a constant process of being created and destroyed, hence why we have phenomena such as volcanoes etc.
Anyway, ALL that aside, because we're arguing details here, I still want to challenge you on the FAR bigger picture of the Earth's stable orbit. Because this has MAJOR implications for Life.
If you're willing to accept that Life has been around on this planet for a long, long time, then you have NO choice but to accept that the Earth's orbit is fairly stable and is restricted to the Habitable Zone.
If you accept this then, geological puzzles aside, you've just accepted a stable Earth mass.
So Light... What say you! | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/30/2009 10:19:30 AM | So, like, I'm looking through the forum listing, and I see this science and philosophy forum, and at first I'm excited. But then it occurs to me...what kind of science discussion could I possibly expect out of a dating site? I ignore it.
Over time, I see it a few more times in the forum listing, and eventually decide to give it the benefit of the doubt.
So I find this. *facepalm* | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/30/2009 8:41:13 PM | ^^^^
You know, I've had exactly that same feeling ever since I was stupid enough to post here. Now it's like a never ending nightmare.
I just hope I learn from this very BIG mistake. If people want to believe that the Earth is flat (or that it grows for that matter), I'm just gonna let them. Why the heck should I care anyway?
 | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 9/30/2009 11:07:56 PM | Re: KinkyBastard
It explains a lot like mountains, volcanoes, earthquakes and how new landmasses form.
So does Growing Earth... only in ways that make much more sense than PT... By the way... did you know the possibly largest volcano we know of in this solar system is on Mars... It's so massive, that if you where standing at the base, you wouldn't be able to see the summit. Going to let you in on a little tip about subduction... it's 'unique' to earth... ergo... plates shifting under each other didn't create that little doosy.
If Growing earth is proven to be accurate, it might help explain how the earth can continue to generate new material to upchuck onto it's surface.
Anyway, ALL that aside, because we're arguing details here, I still want to challenge you on the FAR bigger picture of the Earth's stable orbit. Because this has MAJOR implications for Life.
The earth has gone through some pretty radical changes in it's past. We know at some points, the poles where even reversed. We know that it has gone through at least 3 pretty epic Ice ages where the Ice even made it down to the equator... Now... either the Earth orbit moves away from the sun... or the sun gets a lot cooler... I'm sure someone is going to say the atmosphere changes by volcanoes spewing off co2... yah... I'm betting it more likely has to do with the orbits... and possibly size of planets (which would effect the orbit).
There is a pattern to Ice Ages, and in the grand scene of things, I understand that we are still coming out of one. People can call it global warming or what ever, but there is a very real pattern of events where there has been no ice on this planet a few times over.... and I'm betting for that to happen, it wasn't from all the cars driving around.
I would also bet money that when the pattern changes again, and hell literally freezes over... I'm sure they will call it 'global cooling' and will find some means to make people panic and buy even more expensive eco friendly vehicles.
You ask... "If the planet is increasing in size... why is the orbit so stable... why don't planets crash into each other?" My answer would be... Reality is everything changes, and everything is changing all the time. There is no "Law" we the bacteria on the surface of this 'dot'... can write that the mysteries of the universe would give a crap about. That sun so much as hic-ups in our general direction, this conversation is over.
If people want to believe that the Earth is flat (or that it grows for that matter), I'm just gonna let them. Why the heck should I care anyway?
Inspiration to find a way to send settlers to colonize new planets so that humanity can live on?
| |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/1/2009 6:48:35 AM | Okay.... I think I got to the bottom of this...
The earth has gone through some pretty radical changes in it's past. We know at some points, the poles where even reversed. We know that it has gone through at least 3 pretty epic Ice ages where the Ice even made it down to the equator... Now... either the Earth orbit moves away from the sun... or the sun gets a lot cooler... I'm sure someone is going to say the atmosphere changes by volcanoes spewing off co2... yah... I'm betting it more likely has to do with the orbits... and possibly size of planets (which would effect the orbit).
As I said, there ARE variations in the Earth's orbit, such as it's orbital shape (eccentricity), axial tilt (obliquity) and axial precession to name just a few but, because Life depends sooo much on the Sun, it's fair to say that the mean, average distance between both the Earth and Sun has been fairly constant, when one takes such an average over BILLIONS of years.
And of course it should be, or else there would be a damn good chance of say Venus or Mars bumping into us! In fact, there IS a (small) chance that this could happen, billions of years from now, but the point I'm trying to make is STABILITY. And the modern Solar System is a reasonably stable place, stable enough anyway for something as complex as multi cellular Life to have evolved here.
A Solar System with planets that have rapidly (at least in geological terms) rising masses / volumes, would imply a very chaotic Solar System populated by highly variable planets. And in such an environment, the orbital changes I have pointed out would be even more severe, to the point that I don't think Life could even exist.
Anyway, on to the crunch point:
You ask... "If the planet is increasing in size... why is the orbit so stable... why don't planets crash into each other?" My answer would be... Reality is everything changes, and everything is changing all the time. There is no "Law" we the bacteria on the surface of this 'dot'... can write that the mysteries of the universe would give a crap about. That sun so much as hic-ups in our general direction, this conversation is over.
So... We "bacteria" are simply too dumb enough to see obvious patterns within Nature? So when Pythagoras comes up with his theorem regarding right angled triangles, we are simply too dumb to see that there is an obvious pattern.
When we conduct experiment after experiment to deduce the speed of light say, we are simply too dumb to see that it is constant.
When Neal Adams coughs up fantasy laws of Physics and strange particles out of thin air, are we simply too dumb to see that... Whoa wait... On this front I am HAPPY to be that dumb!
Ah c'mon Light... Now that IS the biggest cop out I have ever seen! So basically, we're simply too dumb to understand, or at least TRY to understand the Universe around us. Now I can see, in ALL its glory, your disgust at mainstream Science as a whole. You think it's an irrelevant subject. Which is strange since its SCIENCE that allows you to talk crap within these forums... It's SCIENCE that was there at the day of your birth, just in case there were any complications... It's SCIENCE that allows you to travel from one side of this planet, to another... Without SCIENCE we would still be living in caves dammit!
But then you already know that don't you Light. Anyway I've no idea why you wanna crap on us even trying to make sense of Nature, but Light, it sure beats the alternative, making crap up as we go along (aka Neal Adams). We used to do this before remember, when we worshipped strange looking rocks and sacrificed our kids whenever we had a bad season, because we were trying to make sense of it all back then.
I don't know about you, but I prefer reason over superstition ANY day. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/1/2009 7:40:17 AM | | I like how the problem of Ostia and the origins of civilization being in the mountains went poof once some actual information on the topic appeared... of course contradicting Light's "no true Scotsman" flailing du jour. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/1/2009 8:07:51 AM | It seems to me that the Growing earth would not be growth in mass, but diameter.
How would that affect the orbit? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/1/2009 9:34:43 AM | ^^^^ Agreed, an Earth that grew volume wise while maintaining a stable mass would, I suppose, in principle not effect it in a purely gravitational sense and would thus maintain a stable orbit.
However, there are variations to this theory that dictate that it is a mass wise increase as well as a volume wise increase, so that the gravity at the Earth's surface remains constant, thus being in agreement with the over-whelming evidence that it is indeed constant. Then there is the proposal that the universal gravitational constant has to change in order to accommodate this theory, a pretty hair brained idea if you ask me!
Anyway, going back to the point of a volume wise expansion. Putting aside the bizarre notion that the Earth's surface gravity would be diminishing as it lost density, if you look at some of Light Storms' posts, the Moon is also expanding too. Which means that eventually, these two objects will "merge".
Whatever mess gets left behind will, I think you'll agree, likely have it's orbit altered. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/1/2009 10:48:29 AM | Light... I've seen countless footage of subduction occurring within oceanic trenches. Now here is the million dollar question:
A) Was I hallucinating?
B) Is it all a conspiracy? "They're lying to us I tell you! Lying to us!"
C) Is it an undeniable fact which blows the Growing Earth Theory out of the water?
D) Or have you simply no clue whatsoever to address the fact that subduction is a scientific FACT, which is being observed as we speak.
Place your answer please and NO, you may NOT phone a friend (i.e. run off and post yet another irrelevant link). | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/1/2009 4:54:36 PM | Re: Kinky
So... We "bacteria" are simply too dumb enough to see obvious patterns within Nature? So when Pythagoras comes up with his theorem regarding right angled triangles, we are simply too dumb to see that there is an obvious pattern.
I'm sure this is completely my fault, but what the hell are you talking about? Not in regards to basic shapes, but in understanding how things work? I don't think I said we are to dumb to label and understand things that have a certain degree of common sense to them.
When Neal Adams coughs up fantasy laws of Physics and strange particles out of thin air, are we simply too dumb to see that... Whoa wait... On this front I am HAPPY to be that dumb!
-----------
Balance of Mass and Energy in Pair Production
By Sean Phillips
First of all, we know that space must be something, because it is the medium of all EMR, and it also has an impedance to EMR, plus the speed of light is a value (unless we change the medium itself!). Free-space has a permeability and permitivity value... So 'space' is material space... lets call it waving space, prime-matter or dark-matter or whatever...
I think that we will also find that electrical permittivity relates to the extensional quality of space and magnetic permeability relates to the compressional quality of space. These are the two quantities that relate to the speed of light in-space, just as in seismic, the incompressibility and the rigidity relate to the velocity of a seismic wave.
A standing wave is a quantum in waving space (one of Neal Adams' Prime matter particles). This standing wave has two opposing components. One pulling space apart in all directions (out-wave component), an action that must have an equal and opposite re-action. This opposite action is the in-wave component of the standing wave. This pressure of this universal force (spin), is distributed, isotropically, across space giving energy/mass to standing wave particles that make up waving space, essentially differentiating space into waving space that can be quantified, and having the physical quality of mass. Each quantum is an oscillation mode (standing wave) that can be represented by a complex wave function (real component(out-wave) super imposed with a imaginary component(in-wave)). So basically on a large scale space is isotropic, but on a microscopic scale space is anisotropic and is actually differentiated into these continuously waving quantums.
I must also stress that because waving space is the medium for all EMR, that it must be continuous, because a traveling wave function (such as a photon) would collapse if space was discontinuous. So each quantum is continuous within itself and also continuous with proximal space. In fact space is infinitely continuous, physically meaning that you cannot break its material with pressure, you can 'stretch' it for infinity. Space is infinitely small, just as it is infinitely big. not matter how small you go, you will never find 'nothing' or a 'vacuum'. So basically you cannot tear space so that there is 'nothing' between the tear. What i also must stress is that to have a wave we must have inertia and to have inertia we must have mass. A photon is the deformation of space as a traveling wave in space, with mass. The photon doesn't have mass, space has mass.
All photons are propagated through continuous waving space... the same mechanism, up to a point where the photon oscillation becomes too frequent for a local quantum of space. This frequency threshold corresponds to a maximum energy threshold. This energy threshold is (1.02MeV).
E=hf. Meaning the 'energy of the photon' equals Plancks constant times the frequency of the photon. So here we see that energy is directly proportional to frequency, times this physical constant. I also think that Plancks constant h (Joule seconds), can be thought of as analogous to resistivity (ohm metres), to the propagation of EMR.
Long wavelength, low frequency light, like EMR in the visual spectrum is low energy, therefore it is not energetic enough to make electron positron pairs. With higher frequencies we have lower amplitudes but more waves per volume of space.
Its just like a wave on the ocean surface. On the open ocean, in deep water the wave travels fast and the height of the wave is small, when the wave travels closer to the shore, the shallow water makes the wave slow down and increase in amplitude (wave height). The wave eventually breaks when the velocity of the elliptical motion of the wave exceeds the traveling velocity the wave itself, so it breaks.
Once the frequency of oscillation is of the order of a cosmic ray, then and only then will we observe pair production (Anderson's vacuum tube, 1932). This energy is 1.02MeV. This is why I say each quantum is in a metastable equilibrium, because it can still transfer low frequency photons. However, when we increase the frequency of the photon beyond the mass-production limit, the photon perturbs the quantum enough, to 'decouple' the two components that make up the standing wave. The high frequency energy actually transforms the original 'field' of the quantum, which is comprised of the two opposing components. Space must remain continuous. Before the transformation event, this quantum oscillates at a natural standing wave frequency. Thus this quantum can only support photon deformation of a lower frequency than the natural standing wave frequency of the quantum, in order to maintain its material continuity. Just as the elliptical motion of the ocean wave must remain below the traveling velocity, otherwise the wave will break!
If the frequency of the photon is any higher than meta-stable bound of the quantum's natural oscillation, then the transformation of the original field, will allow it to still support/hold the energy. With the transformed field, the energy of the high frequency photon can be supported and held, because energy cannot disappear, it must be held somewhere.
The transformation of this original field, or pair production means that the new electron is the remnant out-wave component, and the positron is the remnant in-wave component. Each particle now has half of the original mass of the quantum and has the added energy of the photon allowing them to become EM poles; 'source and 'sink'. So basically the electron and positron are two half particles, -1 and +1, equal in mass, opposite in spin and charge, but they join to make a WHOLE INVISIBLE particle.
So now we have an electron and a positron. As stated the energy that transforms these particles must be able to overcome the electric or coulomb force of attraction. If these 'new' particles are separated for long enough, possibly by a magnetic field (just like in the Earth's core) or an energy density differential, they won't annihilate.
The coupling together of an electron and a positron means transformation back into the original quantum state (re-joining, to become a standing wave again), NOT ANNHILATION INTO NOTHING! Two gamma rays of equal and opposite energy are released (0.51MeV each). Hence this does NOT violate the laws of conservation of energy and mass, as the energy of the high energy photon is exhausted in the pair-production process and is 'locked up' in the electron and positron pair, so that when they recombine, it is released! NO VIOLATIONS!
Basically, we have a transformation of non-visible material space into visible matter of EQUAL mass, and not an energy to matter conversion.
-----------
Ah c'mon Light... Now that IS the biggest cop out I have ever seen! So basically, we're simply too dumb to understand, or at least TRY to understand the Universe around us. Now I can see, in ALL its glory, your disgust at mainstream Science as a whole. You think it's an irrelevant subject. Which is strange since its SCIENCE that allows you to talk crap within these forums... It's SCIENCE that was there at the day of your birth, just in case there were any complications... It's SCIENCE that allows you to travel from one side of this planet, to another... Without SCIENCE we would still be living in caves dammit!
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth... I'm not saying anyone is dumb for trying to understand the universe... but you bring up the point about Orbits.... You Bring up Laws of Motion and say "SEE, Obviously you must be wrong because the earth has a stable orbit" I tell you That the earths orbit is not stable, and is probably prone to significantly major changes... You later on tell me this is true over the course of billions of years... so I fail to understand what your getting at here? I'm assuming you know they now think there used to be water on mars that has recently been sucked under the surface. I wonder how much different and interesting calculations would be if they factored in the possibility that planets might be increasing in size, and mass. For that matter... it would be interesting to know how much different a lot of calculations about the earths orbit may differ if they factored in that little snippet of info that it could be growing, instead of assuming it was the mass it is now 4 billion years ago.
Re: desertrhino
I like how the problem of Ostia and the origins of civilization being in the mountains went poof once some actual information on the topic appeared... of course contradicting Light's "no true Scotsman" flailing du jour.
Nineveh is in Mesopotamia and historians tell us that it is the oldest city in Assyria. What they dont tell us is that was the first city and the oldest in all Mesopotamia because every other city coming down the Tigris and Euphrates valleys are younger than Nineveh in descending order.
Re: Kinky
Anyway, going back to the point of a volume wise expansion. Putting aside the bizarre notion that the Earth's surface gravity would be diminishing as it lost density, if you look at some of Light Storms' posts, the Moon is also expanding too. Which means that eventually, these two objects will "merge".
If you go back and read my posts... I said if the moon was increasing in mass, and also building a stronger gravitational pole... wouldn't it be more likely to be pulled away, and possibly even put into it's own orbit by the sun? I don't think I need to tell you the Sun is a little bit bigger than we are.
Neal Adams makes an interesting observation that if mars was reduced in size by the same amount the earth is reduced in size, mars would be about the same size as our moon.
Re Kink
Light... I've seen countless footage of subduction occurring within oceanic trenches. Now here is the million dollar question:
K
A) Was I hallucinating?
No... James Maxlow and and Dennis McArthy agree with you... in a radio show with Neal Adams, he also agreed that Subduction is happening in some places on earth.
B) Is it all a conspiracy? "They're lying to us I tell you! Lying to us!"
I answered this previously... Growing Earth is not a conspiracy, anyone with an open mind about it's possibility is likely to agree with the concept.
C) Is it an undeniable fact which blows the Growing Earth Theory out of the water?
subduction is unique to earth... So no... it does not blow the theory out the window... just because the plates lubricated by they very liquid state of the oceans can shift under one another does not automatically mean an equal amount of material is being subducted that is being created.
D) Or have you simply no clue whatsoever to address the fact that subduction is a scientific FACT, which is being observed as we speak.
Are you arguing with me? or Neal Adams... because I've said before... many many times that subduction is well documented, and I've also read a lot of work on the subject. I was curious for a time as to WHY it was unique to earth, but that question has been answered by the knowledgeable people of this forum... thank you.
Place your answer please and NO, you may NOT phone a friend (i.e. run off and post yet another irrelevant link).
K
| |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/1/2009 6:50:10 PM | did you know the possibly largest volcano we know of in this solar system is on Mars... It's so massive, that if you where standing at the base, you wouldn't be able to see the summit. Going to let you in on a little tip about subduction... it's 'unique' to earth... ergo... plates shifting under each other didn't create that little doosy.
You must have completely ignored the post I offered in response to this earlier in the thread. Olympus Mons is a shield volcano, similar to Hawaii in that it developed over a hotspot in Mars' mantle.
However, if you're looking for signs of "motion," have you checked out the Tharsis region? Interesting how they are lined up one after the other, much like the Hawaiian islands. The result of the plate its moving over the hotspot. It's the same thing with several "mega volcanoes" including Yosemite.
Real science is cool!
The earth has gone through some pretty radical changes in it's past. We know at some points, the poles where even reversed. We know that it has gone through at least 3 pretty epic Ice ages where the Ice even made it down to the equator... Now... either the Earth orbit moves away from the sun... or the sun gets a lot cooler... I'm sure someone is going to say the atmosphere changes by volcanoes spewing off co2... yah... I'm betting it more likely has to do with the orbits... and possibly size of planets (which would effect the orbit).
A quality of Earth's orbit known as "eccentricity" or how elliptical its shape. Mars has a highly elliptical orbit and is in something of a "deep freeze." However, Earth's orbit is closer to "round" and so it's temperature regime is more temperate. It is also larger and so has more core heat...which is also an important part of Earth's geology. But nothing to do with growing. Sorry, it's just a non starter. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/1/2009 9:58:44 PM |
I like how the problem of Ostia and the origins of civilization being in the mountains went poof once some actual information on the topic appeared... of course contradicting Light's "no true Scotsman" flailing du jour. Nineveh is in Mesopotamia and historians tell us that it is the oldest city in Assyria. What they dont tell us is that was the first city and the oldest in all Mesopotamia because every other city coming down the Tigris and Euphrates valleys are younger than Nineveh in descending order.
Nineveh is contained within the modern city of Mosul. Elevation of Mosul is 719 feet above sea level. Mountains? Not. Nineveh's fortifications surround a hill a couple hundred feet high... for defensibility. Duh. Hills are inherently easier to defend than flat areas. Now, islands are better, but apparently they didn't have an island nearby.
Now, if you could show evidence that the area around Mosul was submerged in the sea any time in the last, oh... 20,000 years... you might have something. Maybe. But still, you'd be wrong about this growing Earth crap.
So now we have an electron and a positron. As stated the energy that transforms these particles must be able to overcome the electric or coulomb force of attraction. If these 'new' particles are separated for long enough, possibly by a magnetic field (just like in the Earth's core) or an energy density differential, they won't annihilate.
So, if you can isolate a positron for long enough, it will not annihilate with its electron. Okay, but you're talking about doing this IN THE CORE OF A PLANET, not VAST EMPTY SPACE!!!!! Do you have ANY IDEA how many electrons there are to annihilate that positron? Or even if that positron is sequestered somehow, what the HELL do you do with the obscene electric charge that the Earth would develop? It would fly apart just from electrostatic repulsion.
This is a flailing attempt to save a completely dead horse of a "theory" from annihilation by physics, logic, and observation.
Still waiting on that paper that shows the Earth is expanding 22 mm/year.
 | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/5/2009 8:19:22 AM | Finally found myself a great map that shows
Continental / oceanic convergent boundary
Continental rift / oceanic spreading ridges
Continetal / Oceanic transform faults
subduction zones
and some of the GPS movement data
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Tectonic_plates_boundaries_detailed-en.png | |
|
|
| Page 17 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 
