|
|
|
|
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/5/2009 8:36:08 AM | | And what did you learn from this map that seems, to me anyway, to do quite well at indicating subduction is an active process in Earth's development? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/5/2009 9:25:46 AM | Re: Stagazer1000
And what did you learn from this map that seems, to me anyway, to do quite well at indicating subduction is an active process in Earth's development?
I don't disagree with subduction... Read lots about it
I disagree that earth maintains a static size/mass
Plate Tectonics does not say the earth remain static in size... it's just an assumption
If Earth did remain static in size, we shouldn't have rifting zones at all
I might be convinced the earths remains static in size if the pacific ocean was the same age as the continents, and the new material was pushing old material under... but that is not what we see... The Pacific is just as young as the Atlantic... do you overlook this tiny detail? If we agree the Atlantic was not there 200 million years ago... why would the pacific be any different?
We see an entirely new surface combined with a bunch of very old surface. The old surface never went anywhere... the new surface is just that... new... Some of it may have slid under other plates... but not all of it. Most of it is new... and continues to spread... | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/5/2009 10:19:46 AM |
We see an entirely new surface combined with a bunch of very old surface. The old surface never went anywhere... the new surface is just that... new... Some of it may have slid under other plates... but not all of it. Most of it is new... and continues to spread...
And so this would actually be an argument for plate tectonics. So I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Plate Tectonics does not say the earth remain static in size... it's just an assumption
To a certain amount, you're right. However, since Earth growing proponents have yet to come up with a logical method for Earth to attain mass out of nowhere (or the moon, or other planets, or their moons, for that matter), it is a reasonable conclusion.
If Earth did remain static in size, we shouldn't have rifting zones at all
Unless you realize what the mechanism is driving everything...specifically, the transfer of heat from Earth's core to surface and beyond. Earth still has lots of heat from radioactive decay in its core. Mars has virtually a "frozen" core. So does the moon. Which is why we see none of these Earth processes there.
Are we prepared to declare this "theory" dead yet? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/5/2009 11:53:58 AM | Storm...
The Pacific is just as young as the Atlantic... do you overlook this tiny detail? If we agree the Atlantic was not there 200 million years ago... why would the pacific be any different?
You're forgetting that the Pacific plate undergoes the SAME process as the rest of the oceanic plates - it's in motion as well... as evidenced by the Hawaiian Island chain. Since it moves in a roughly north-westerly direction, at the same rate as the rest of the plates, it's just not logical to assume that the plate would be older than everything else - it's being subducted as well, so older rocks are being reabsorbed back into the mantle.
Now... if you WERE to find Pacific-plate rocks that dated at, say, the 500-million-year range... THAT would be evidence in support of an expanding Earth.
Unfortunately, nothing like that has ever been found...  | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/5/2009 7:57:34 PM | Re: Stargazer
We see an entirely new surface combined with a bunch of very old surface. The old surface never went anywhere... the new surface is just that... new... Some of it may have slid under other plates... but not all of it. Most of it is new... and continues to spread... And so this would actually be an argument for plate tectonics. So I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Lets make a simple math problem for you
Lets say you have 1 Mile of ancient land
Lets say you cut it in the middle and separate them by 1 mile of NEW land
How much land do you have?
Did it remain the same size?
If you have a Vase and you break in 12 peices... odds are pretty good you can glue them back together. The peices of earth, that are the oldest... fit together damn near PERFECTLY... on a much smaller planet. What are the Od's they would fit together so perfectly if they had all evolved like the Hawaiian islands?
To a certain amount, you're right. However, since Earth growing proponents have yet to come up with a logical method for Earth to attain mass out of nowhere (or the moon, or other planets, or their moons, for that matter), it is a reasonable conclusion.
What did you think of that write up by Sean Phillips on my post #424
Personally I thought it was on the right path to a right answer
"...Basically, we have a transformation of non-visible material space into visible matter of EQUAL mass, and not an energy to matter conversion." ~Sean Phillips
Unless you realize what the mechanism is driving everything...specifically, the transfer of heat from Earth's core to surface and beyond. Earth still has lots of heat from radioactive decay in its core. Mars has virtually a "frozen" core. So does the moon. Which is why we see none of these Earth processes there.
A) We haven't even scratched the surface of our own planet
B) Guessing what is going on under the frozen surfaces of distant planets is highly assumptive.
Are we prepared to declare this "theory" dead yet?
When someone gives me a Nasa reference to a page that proudly states it is the opinion of the name "Nasa" that planets remain static in size.
Re: RocketMan_Len
You're forgetting that the Pacific plate undergoes the SAME process as the rest of the oceanic plates - it's in motion as well... as evidenced by the Hawaiian Island chain. Since it moves in a roughly north-westerly direction, at the same rate as the rest of the plates, it's just not logical to assume that the plate would be older than everything else - it's being subducted as well, so older rocks are being reabsorbed back into the mantle.
You know that none of those islands are older than about 60-70 million years right? One might ask themselves Why wouldn't they have just started forming the same time the continents did... oh... maybe the space wasn't there... perhaps?
ref: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html
They might very well be great examples to show us how new land forms and evolves, but it certainly doesn't compare to the MASSIVE continents that are over 2 billion years old. As an experiment... blow up a balloon to half size... cover it with big clay and let it all dry and become really hard... now blow up that balloon to twice it's size.... giant cracks split chucks of the clay apart as new volume from underneath push them apart. If you where to let that air out... the giant chunks come back together to form a perfect sphere again... This is what proponents for a growing earth see... this is why they scream that the earth is growing, yet the idea seems ridicules to you... why?
If you wanna add in your Hawaiian islands in your experiment... after you have expanded your balloon... you can start dabbing on new clay dots in the hugely rifted open spaces...
Now... if you WERE to find Pacific-plate rocks that dated at, say, the 500-million-year range... THAT would be evidence in support of an expanding Earth
No... that would be evidence for a planet that doesn't grow... you see... All the ocean floor in both the pacific and Atlantic are less than 200 million years... hence... 200 million years ago, they where not there. You find a rock on the floor of one of them that was say 500 million years old... you could say.. "See... didn't grow there!" | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/5/2009 8:51:07 PM | Light, you are living proof of the old adage that there is no one more blind than he who will not see.
Lets make a simple math problem for you
Condescending much? Okay, let me ask you a simple math question. What does exponential mean? Especially since it's been suggested that Earth is experiencing "exponential" growth, why don't we tackle that one.
You see, Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. That's a long time. Entire orders of magnitude more than the 500 million that multi-cellular life is estimated to have existed. And yet, we're supposed to believe that Earth has mysteriously, by no known mechanism observable or observed, is growing exponentially in all that time. What would Earth's starting mass have to be to account for it's current state? How long until Earth becomes a blackhole?
What did you think of that write up by Sean Phillips on my post #424
Personally I thought it was on the right path to a right answer
Another adage pops into mind. If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS. Sean is definitely in the latter camp.
fit together damn near PERFECTLY.
Well, not really. After all, there's Iceland. There's also the Hawaiian Island chain. Oh yes...
They might very well be great examples to show us how new land forms and evolves, but it certainly doesn't compare to the MASSIVE continents that are over 2 billion years old.
Um, okay. So it's a little fly in the oinment so we're going to ignore it. Is that what you're saying.
Especially since it clearly shows progressive movement which it wouldn't otherwise in a "growing Earth" model. After all, if Earth was "growing" the source of upwelling that is creating the Hawaiian volcano would, in fact, remain relatively stationary. Try and imagine blowing up your balloon with something sitting stationary in the middle. See any lateral movement as the baloon expands? Didn't think so?
Oh, by the way, did you forget Pangea or the many other perturbations of the super continent that came together, broke apart and came together again? Again, 4.5 billion years for the planet's existence. Even accounting for the impact of Theia (the only way planets do acquire mass is through accretion) 4 billion years ago, Earth has been around a long time. So these plates have been shifting and jostling around for eons. Is it surprising if some of the picture gets a little muddied. Nevertheless, it still tells the same story.
You know that none of those islands are older than about 60-70 million years right? One might ask themselves Why wouldn't they have just started forming the same time the continents did... oh... maybe the space wasn't there... perhaps?
I'd suggest that, before you make such a blatantly absurd statement, you might want to check out what you're talking about. Especially since the chain itself is on the order of thousands of kilometers long with progressively more worn down and eroded features the further away from Kilauea you get. So what if they're 70 million years old. Who's to say the underlying "hot spot" had to exist since the beginning of time. You still haven't addressed the assorted supervolcanoes that show progressively moving calderas either.
A) We haven't even scratched the surface of our own planet
B) Guessing what is going on under the frozen surfaces of distant planets is highly assumptive.
This is why we listen to geologists and geophysicists. And the majority of them are of similar positions about how planets works. Science isn't saying that we know everything there is to know about the planets, however, they're far more qualified to render opinions about them than you or I. I'd suggest that, since they're saying certain aspects of Mars and the moon, such as a lack of magnetic field, then it's a safe bet they're on the right track. And if they find some evidence to the contrary, so be it. It's about good data.
Could it be that the science is leading in a particular direction? Oh, but the strongest proponent of the "growing Earth" is geophysicist you might say. To which I would replay, just because people have a dissenting opinion, doesn't make 'em right.
Everybody loves the maverick, the iconoclast. However, there comes a point where being the dissenter goes from legitimate challenging of the status quo pure quackery. Hmmm, I wonder where growing Earth fits on this spectrum... | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/6/2009 9:13:36 AM | Re: stargazer1000
Light, you are living proof of the old adage that there is no one more blind than he who will not see.
During the life of Galileo Galilei, I'm sure many would say the same about him, ironicly before his death he did go blind and couldn't see... but the history books show, that he saw something obvious and endured overwhelming hardship to let the truth be known.
Condescending much? Okay, let me ask you a simple math question. What does exponential mean? Especially since it's been suggested that Earth is experiencing "exponential" growth, why don't we tackle that one.
Sorry about coming across condescending, honestly that was not my attempt. I am just trying to give pitch this idea to you from my perspective.
Exponential growth: We see exponential growth in everything. We could easily observe it in everything from Biology to Physics. Sometimes all it takes to start a huge wild forest fire is 1 spark from a tossed cigarette. Even you're body stargazer1000, is made up of trillions of cells... but don't forget that you like the rest of us started out as 1 single cell that was 100 micrometers in diameter... how many times did you double in size before the growing stopped. James Maxlow believes the Earth will stop growing, but he doesn't predict it would happen for million of years.
In Video A.1.1a of James Maxlows thesis, he reduces the size of the earth back back to the Triassic time. It is at that point the magnetic striping on the ocean floor is no longer there to track backwards.
In an interview with Neal Adams tho, he takes it back even further. He point out that if we can say this part of the word is 4 billion years old, and this part is 2 billion years old, who is to say it didn't grow in between as well.
And yet, we're supposed to believe that Earth has mysteriously, by no known mechanism observable or observed, is growing exponentially in all that time. What would Earth's starting mass have to be to account for it's current state? How long until Earth becomes a blackhole?
There is no way we could observe it in a single life time... You can only look at the clues the past has left us. James Maxlows prediction is that it's currently around 22mm a year. Going backwards in time, that number decreases... going forwards in time, he predicted it will increase. Various studies on that GPS data put growth everywhere between 5mm and 5cm a year. There is very little consistency to it, and I wish someone would come up with an iron clad means of determining the size of the earth and comparing it year to year. But if true, over your entire life time, the spread on the planet will have only pushed apart a couple cm.
Another adage pops into mind. If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS. Sean is definitely in the latter camp.
What's wrong with the idea?
Well, not really. After all, there's Iceland. There's also the Hawaiian Island chain. Oh yes...
As I pointed out before... The Hawaiian island chains are the same age as the new ocean floor they sit on.
since they're saying certain aspects of Mars and the moon, such as a lack of magnetic field, then it's a safe bet they're on the right track. And if they find some evidence to the contrary, so be it. It's about good data.
"The published ancient magnetic pole information (the location of ancient magnetic poles established from measuring the remnant magnetism in iron-rich rocks) in particular provides conclusive evidence in support of Expansion Tectonics. When this magnetic pole data is plotted on Expansion Tectonic models it demonstrates that all pole data plot as diametrically opposed north and south poles for each model.
These models show that the ancient North Pole was located in eastern Mongolia-China throughout the Precambrian and Paleozoic Eras. As the continents slowly migrated south, during subsequent increase in Earth radius, there was an apparent northward polar wander through Siberia to its present location within the Arctic Ocean. Similarly, the ancient Precambrian and Paleozoic South Pole was located in west central Africa, and, as the continents slowly migrated north, there was an apparent southward polar wander along the South American and West African coastlines to its present location in Antarctica.
The locations of these magnetic poles, as well as the derived ancient equators, independently confirm the model reconstructions shown in Figure 3 and again suggest that Expansion Tectonics is indeed a viable process." ~James Maxlow
Could it be that the science is leading in a particular direction? Oh, but the strongest proponent of the "growing Earth" is geophysicist you might say. To which I would rplay, just because people have a dissenting opinion, doesn't make 'em right.
"If 50 million believe in a fallacy it is still a fallacy." ~Sam Warren Carey
Everybody loves the maverick, the iconoclast
Like Galileo Galilei? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/6/2009 10:33:05 AM |
During the life of Galileo Galilei, I'm sure many would say the same about him, ironicly before his death he did go blind and couldn't see... but the history books show, that he saw something obvious and endured overwhelming hardship to let the truth be known.
False appeal to authority. Galileo had EVIDENCE. Evidence that he could show others that was NOT BETTER EXPLAINED by ANOTHER THEORY.
Like Galileo Galilei?
You can touch your false totem a thousand times, it doesn't make your comparison valid. Galileo had strong, compelling evidence to back up his claims, and those resisting his claims were people who insisted on believing whatever they believed in spite of any real evidence... Sounds like the Expanding Earth camp has the whole Galileo comparison BACKWARDS. YOU are The Church, not Galileo.
Various studies on that GPS data put growth everywhere between 5mm and 5cm a year. There is very little consistency to it, and I wish someone would come up with an iron clad means of determining the size of the earth and comparing it year to year. But if true, over your entire life time, the spread on the planet will have only pushed apart a couple cm.
You still haven't provided us with these studies or their underlying datasets. The one dataset we have ready access to shows about a 0.4mm/year SHRINKAGE. You have never addressed this issue except to simply state that other unverifiable studies say otherwise.
Also, at 22mm/year and increasing, the Earth would expand more than 8 FEET, almost 3 METERS in your lifetime. You should at least have enough of a grasp on your own figures to understand what they imply. *shaking head*
Another adage pops into mind. If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS. Sean is definitely in the latter camp. What's wrong with the idea?
You mean aside from the fact that it's complete handwaving horsecrap with no science behind it? A few energy/mass values thrown in to make it sound "scientific" does not make it make SENSE. At its core, it's horsecrap: Can you tell me:
How do you sequester a positron from its pair-electron and keep it from annihilating with an electron IN THE GIANT SEA OF ELECTRONS CALLED A SOLID IRON CORE?
Assuming you can somehow sequester these positrons and somehow magically remove them from the Earth's core without having them annihilate with an electron: How do you keep the Earth from FLYING APART as its intrinsic charge decreases by one for every single electron that is added to the Earth through this farcical mechanism?
QUIT IGNORING THE VALID REBUTTALS TO YOUR CLAIMS. IT MAKES YOUR ARGUMENTS LOOK WEAK AND FOOLISH. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/6/2009 11:44:34 AM | He can't help but ignore them unfortunately, as he does not understand the words he uses himself.
Also, how come this expansion process is not observed everywhere? What makes stellar and planetary cores the ideal location when you consider that annihilation of virtual pairs can occur everywhere. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/6/2009 3:18:56 PM | Ah... I was hoping this thread died a quiet, silent death as I have not seen it on the main page forums list for a while... Trust Light (again) to shock this VERY dead horse back to Life aye!
Light... You know, during our last little tussle I am SO glad I finally got you to admit the existence of subduction. I've been reading around and apparently, many, if not all, growing earth theories claim that such phenomena do NOT exist.
So right now, I'm not quite sure what camp you're in. It seems you are now "in-between" theories, perhaps just like Neal Adams who, like yourself, has no formal scientific background.
I suppose its progress, of a sort, but what you really need to do now is look at some of the logical consequences of living on a planet whose plates are going through a highly complex process of destruction and renewal.
Do that and hopefully you will conclude that the Earth, although not entirely static, is nonetheless definitely NOT expanding at an exponential rate. And at times, may even appear to SHRINK! | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/6/2009 6:36:11 PM |
During the life of Galileo Galilei,
Like Galileo Galilei?
Oh, they always bring in Galileo. *shakes head*
Here's how Galileo was different: he was observing fundamental and observable aspects of nature and his "competition" if you will, was the Catholic Church.
Geology is not religion. It's science. Geologists are not chanting monks...they go out, they gather data and study and they say that Earth is not growing.
"If 50 million believe in a fallacy it is still a fallacy." ~Sam Warren Carey
In the case of fallacy, that would be true. Standard plate tectonic theory is not fallacy. "Growing" Earth is. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/6/2009 7:32:22 PM | I'm sure you guys are going to love this
------
Grains of Sand Grow Into Planets
Based on an Rice University news release
In a find that sheds light on how Earth-like planets may form, astronomers this week reported finding the first evidence of small, sandy particles orbiting a newborn solar system at about the same distance as the Earth orbits the Sun. The report will be published online in the journal Nature.
"Precisely how and when planets form is an open question," said study co-author Christopher Johns-Krull, assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Rice University. "We believe the disk-shaped clouds of dust around newly formed stars condense, forming microscopic grains of sand that eventually go on to become pebbles, boulders and whole planets."
In previous studies, astronomers have used infrared heat signals to identify microscopic dust particles around distant stars, but the method isn't precise enough to tell astronomers just how big they become, and whether the particles orbit near the star, like the Earth does the Sun, or much further away at a distance more akin to Jupiter or Saturn.
In the new study, Johns-Krull and co-authors in the United States, Germany and Uzbekistan used reflected light from the sand itself to confirm the Earth-like orbit of grainy particles around a pair of stars called KH-15D in the constellation Monoceros. The stars are about 2,400 light years from Earth in the Cone Nebula, and they are only about 3 million years old, compared to the sun's 4.5 billion years.
"We were attracted to this system because it appears bright and dim at different times, which is odd," Johns-Krull said.
The researchers found that the Earth has a nearly edge-on view of KH-15D. From this perspective, the disk blocks one of the stars from view, but its twin has an eccentric orbit that causes it to rise above the disk at regular intervals.
"These eclipses let us study the system with the star there and with the star effectively not there," Johns-Krull said. "It's a very fortuitous arrangement because when the star is there all the time, it's so bright that we can't see the sand."
The team conducted both photometric and spectrographic analyses of data collected during the past 12 years from a dozen observatories, including the McDonald Observatory in west Texas, the Keck Observatory in Hawaii and the VLT on Mount Paranal in Chile.
"Because of how the light is being reflected there are opportunities to make observations about the chemical composition of these sand-like particles," said co-author William Herbst, an astronomer at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn. "That's very exciting because it opens up so many doors for new type of research on this disk."
The research was funded by NASA and the Keck Foundation. Co-authors include Catrina Hamilton of****nson College; Katherine LeDuc of Wesleyan University; Joshua Winn of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Reinhard Mundt of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany; and Mansur Ibrahimov of the Ulugh Beg Astronomical Institute in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
Reference: http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/2654/grains-of-sand-grow-into-planets | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/6/2009 8:32:26 PM | Read it again, Storm... they're talking about ACCRETION, not EXPANSION.
Nobody here has been disputing that planet-sized bodies are formed by the accumulation of particles from the stellar nebula. It's the notion that planets grow from the inside out, like your balloon analogy, that there isn't a lot of supporting evidence for. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/6/2009 8:51:28 PM | Indeed, the article only bolsters that model. The individual grains of sand aren't "growing." They're coming together.
Indeed, many asteroids are little more than agglomerations of material barely held together by gravity. That's the way of solar systems. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/6/2009 8:55:00 PM | It takes large clouds of dust and sand to dim the light of a star, just like it takes large clouds of dust and sand to condense into planets. Compared to the size of a solar system and the amount of available debris, there's no shortage of materials. There's no indication of any small objects growing into larger ones.
Every point thus far has been easily refuted. Do the Pacific shores line up? Maybe...if you exclude the fact that most of America west of the continental divide didn't exist 65 MYBP! Every possible point for a "growing" planet is contradicted by more abundant evidence against it. In a few cases it is simply wrong. The OP wishes to advocate an hypothesis which depends on underlying principles for which there is zero evidence. An hypothesis for which the evidence is equivocal at best, and more often contradictory. In ALL cases, the OP is actually ignorant of the basic principles, and professes his own inability to understand the basics. Um...not understanding the basics is HIS fault, not a flaw in theories which most of us DO have a decent grasp of!
If you don't understand - STUDY! Learn the basics before doubting the conclusions and leaping head-first into alternatives which don't HAVE substantial underpinnings!
I would recommend the following book as a great introduction:
Ghost Mountains and Vanished Oceans
I've looked through it a few times, but have held back buying it. It covers a few details of direct relevance to my interests, but also covers a great deal which is relevant to this discussion. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/6/2009 9:09:32 PM | So in order to accept the idea of a growing earth you have to dismiss the mountains (pardon the pun) of evidence against it, avoid talking to geologists, and swallow the fact that there is no rational explanation for what it is that makes the earth grow.
I think the only way you could convince a rational mind of this would require a lobotomy. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/7/2009 9:11:14 AM | Re: desertrhino
False appeal to authority. Galileo had EVIDENCE. Evidence that he could show others that was NOT BETTER EXPLAINED by ANOTHER THEORY.
Ah, but there was another Theory in Galileo's time... and in perspective of things, it really wasn't that long ago that we believed the earth was the 'center of the universe.' He used his observation to argue in favour of the sun-centered, Copernican theory of the universe against the dominant earth-centered Ptolemaic and Aristotelian theories. Opposition arose to the Sun-centered theory of the universe which Galileo supported, and I would be willing to throw down a lot of cash that the opposition wasn't just priests and leaders of that time. But by regular Joe's and Janes' like you and me that grew up.... taught to believe things where a certain way, and when a radical new idea is presented, it seemed 'ridicules' or 'horsecrap' because we wouldn't take the time to really give the evidence being presented a chance.
Evidence for a growing earth
~Atlantic fit: "It is quite easy to see that the Atlantic Ocean must be growing giving the "fit" between Africa and South America..."
~Pacific Fit: "The Pacific on the other hand has two handicaps. The first is that the visual clues are impossible to see on a globe given that from the Pacific side, you can't see the edges Asian and American continents at the same time. This is a "Blind Spot" that prevents any visual queue that continents lining the Pacific in fact fit together. This is only obvious when looking at certain type of map projections. The second handicap is that it is bigger because it was the first place to split when the earth expanded. This evidence was not understood completely until the 1960s when the ocean bottoms were mapped and aged. Once this was done, the "path" of expansion could be traced back, and the Pacific "fit" could be reconstructed. The fitting of continents in the Atlantic are simple to see because they are very close on the globe and map and the match is visually apparent. Two obvious visual clues do exist today when studying flat maps of the pacific with some sea bottom: Australia and South America fit nicely together (figure 3), as do North America and the sea floor contours next to Asia (also figure 3) [2]." Reference: http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_72.pdf
~Young Oceans As predicted by expanding Earth theory, all current seafloor in the world is young (less than 200 million years old.) This was not expected given the conventional
view of the time: continental fixism.
~Sea Floor Bottom Maps I don't think I need to go into details on this one, I'm sure you've all seen the video's where the cartoonist says... okay, this land is 10, 20, 30 - 70 million years old... so he takes it back 10 million years showing what happens when you don't have that material. Than he takes it back 20, 30 ect... it's pretty obvious conclusion... the fact the land masses come together perfectly should make it as clear as what Galileo could see looking through his telescope.
~Spreading Contours and Growth Patterns
~The Continents Fit onto A Small Orb You disprove this one, the theory would be dead. It's the crowning end all argument for a Growing Earth. "The most striking visual evidence of the earth growing is when the sea floor is systematically removed by age, the continents fit together without any change on a smaller orb. The mathematical chance that all the continents fit together on a smaller orb is quite astronomically small given that plate tectonics describe a process whereby the continents morph, twist, and float about at an incredibly varied fashion. The growing earth theory removes the sea floor and with no change in continent shape, and only a few areas of rotation as dictated by magnetic striping, has the continents come together, perfectly fitting like a jigsaw puzzle. How proponents of the fixed radius earth argue this point away is by not addressing this issue at all." ~David de Hilster
~Growth Fractures : Growth fracture types as described by Shehu (An Albanian field geologist) and shatter fracturing as exemplified by Carey on the continent of Africa Ref: http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_72.pdf
~Celestial Body Expansion : The expansion is so obvious on planets that don't even have oceans or subduction that it can easily be pointed out by a cartoonist. When the ages of certain types of Terain are presented by Nasa, this only reinforces conclusions that planets are increasing in size.
~Trans-Pacific Biotic Disjunctions The regions that interlock along matching outlines (New Zealand - South Chile; Tasmania and South-central Chile, etc.) share hundreds of poor-dispersing sister taxa found nowhere else in the world. The distributional problems created by the hypothesis of a now vanished pre-Pacific superocean are overwhelming. This webpage link focuses on this evidence. http://www.4threvolt.com/Evidence/Biogeogr.html
~The Dinosaur Circuit : Even in conventional reconstructions of the Late Cretaceous, North America and East Asia were connected by the Bering bridge while South America and Australia were both connected to Antarctica. During that same time, a great number of terrestrial taxa including the largest of dinosaurs moved between South America and North America -- and Australia and East Asia. This requires direct terrestrial connections completely around the Pacific, confirming its smaller size. http://www.4threvolt.com/files/McCarthy2005.pdf
~Successful expanding Earth predictions vs. post-hoc plate tectonic explanations. http://www.4threvolt.com/Evidence/Table.html
~Geological, Geographical and Geophysical Evidence I'm sure by now, you guys have seen me go into details about James Maxlows very detailed, and very educated lifes work on this subject. If you havn't seen it... here is a link to his several hundread page thesis.
http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au/R?func=dbin_jump_full&object_id=9645
And desertrhino .... if you check out the 13Appendices... you can find the raw data he draws his conclusions from.
Like I said, it's a growing list of evidence... but how much do you need before you can admit that maybe there is something to it?
sounds like the Expanding Earth camp has the whole Galileo comparison BACKWARDS. YOU are The Church, not Galileo.
Aren't you the one that keeps using the words "Horse Crap" every time I try to present an idea to how the earth could be growing? That's the only thing missing from monumental stock piling evidence for a growing earth that makes you toss up you're arms to the entire idea.
QUIT IGNORING THE VALID REBUTTALS TO YOUR CLAIMS. IT MAKES YOUR ARGUMENTS LOOK WEAK AND FOOLISH.
I don't ignore your valid rebuttals, for that matter, I reworded (As not to come off like an ass) you're rebuttal and sent it off as an email to the guy who wrote that up. I'm hoping he will have an answer for you, he has not responded. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/7/2009 10:11:19 AM | Ummm, Light? The data in those appendices, the Earth Geodetics, argue against your point.
The "Earth Expanding" line in each graph is what the projected growth would be. NO CHART MATCHES IT. As many show decreases as increases, and all the increases are clustered around major tectonic activity.
You really should look at the data you present as evidence, and at least try to understand what it implies.
If I felt like wasting another dozen hours on this crap, I'd crunch those data for you, too. It's YOUR crazy assertion, why don't YOU crunch this set? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/7/2009 7:55:58 PM | Re: The Bassist
He can't help but ignore them unfortunately, as he does not understand the words he uses himself.
So is it your opinion Bassist that anyone who defends proponents for Growing Earth theory must be completely ignorant to the accepted Plate Techtonics... or just me?
Re: KinkyBastard
So right now, I'm not quite sure what camp you're in. It seems you are now "in-between" theories, perhaps just like Neal Adams who, like yourself, has no formal scientific background.
Static Earth Radius
or
Growing Earth Radius
Based on the evidence provided, I honestly feel there is more questions answered for a Growing planet than one that doesn't change. Yes, mechanism for Growth remains un-answered via a means everyone could agree with but this does not take away from the evidence that does show it IS growing. I believe there is more then enough evidence to justify a search for understanding that mechanism. Possibly even moving forward learning more about the history of stellar evolution, and possibly opening doors to understanding how existence as a whole has came to be.
Geology is not religion. It's science. Geologists are not chanting monks...they go out, they gather data and study and they say that Earth is not growing.
Ummm, no they don't go around saying "The Earth is not growing" for that matter... most of them are completely unaware that the theory of a Growing earth even exists. They obviously don't spend as much time watching YouTube videos as we do. That last Geologist I talked to in person about it was interested in learning more about it. When I asked if he would have any ideas about how it could be Growing, he told me it would probably be a better question to ask a physicist. Funny, when you start talking to a physicist, they say consult a Geologist... pretty funny little circle that is.
Re: RocketMan_Len
Read it again, Storm... they're talking about ACCRETION, not EXPANSION. Nobody here has been disputing that planet-sized bodies are formed by the accumulation of particles from the stellar nebula.
I don't believe the word accretion or expansion was used anywhere in that opening statement. I believe the wording was ""We believe the disk-shaped clouds of dust around newly formed stars condense, forming microscopic grains of sand that eventually go on to become pebbles, boulders and whole planets." Considering the title of the article is "Grains of Sand Grow Into Planets" Probably a pretty poor choice of words on their part.
It's the notion that planets grow from the inside out, like your balloon analogy, that there isn't a lot of supporting evidence for.
Did you see some of the supporting evidence I posted above?
Re: FrogO_Oeyes
It takes large clouds of dust and sand to dim the light of a star, just like it takes large clouds of dust and sand to condense into planets. Compared to the size of a solar system and the amount of available debris, there's no shortage of materials. There's no indication of any small objects growing into larger ones.
Except that around new stars, we find dust near the sun... and around ancient stars, we find jupitar sized and bigger planets near the sun... Now, I'm no math wizard here... but I think I could argue that maybe those huge planets started out really small... and kept growing to that massive size... and didn't stop growing after 4 billion years, but have kept growing over the duration of the stars life.
Every point thus far has been easily refuted.
Most of my points aren't even refereed to, unless it's an idea for a Mechanism to explain Growth, or questionable about who's right GPS data.
Do the Pacific shores line up? Maybe...if you exclude the fact that most of America west of the continental divide didn't exist 65 MYBP! Every possible point for a "growing" planet is contradicted by more abundant evidence against it.
I haven't seen anyone say "This evidence disproves the possibility that the planet could be growing" Most cases in everything from Creationists to Plate Tectonics just 'Assume' that the planet remains static in size.
In a few cases it is simply wrong. The OP wishes to advocate an hypothesis which depends on underlying principles for which there is zero evidence.
I posted a list of evidence above... I'm also not the OP, I had to hijack this thread as it's the only one that doesn't get deleted by moderators.
An hypothesis for which the evidence is equivocal at best, and more often contradictory. In ALL cases, the OP is actually ignorant of the basic principles, and professes his own inability to understand the basics.
Hmmm... Pretty sure I understand what I'm talking about when I talk about it. Pretty sure I also admit honestly if I don't understand something... like Neal Adams idea on pair production. But because, I personally can't provide you with an answer to a mechanism to explain Growth does not automatically invalidate the very real possibility that something is increasing the size of planets. If someone comes up with an idea on how to test an idea, I would be the first to ask for it tested before I would agree with it. That doesn't mean I don't disagree with the very real, and IMO, obvious evidence that the planet is possibly... growing.
If you don't understand - STUDY! Learn the basics before doubting the conclusions and leaping head-first into alternatives which don't HAVE substantial underpinnings!
Good Advice...
Tell me what you think of this table, written out by one of my favorite proponents Dennis McCarty
http://www.4threvolt.com/Evidence/Table.html
I would recommend the following book as a great introduction:
Ghost Mountains and Vanished Oceans
I wrote it down as a book to look for
Re: rockondon
So in order to accept the idea of a growing earth you have to dismiss the mountains (pardon the pun) of evidence against it, avoid talking to geologists, and swallow the fact that there is no rational explanation for what it is that makes the earth grow. I think the only way you could convince a rational mind of this would require a lobotomy.
Most Geologists pre 1960 flat out denied the possibility that the Atlantic could have once been closed. Now they just kinda try to hide the notion they believed that under a rug. I can't help but think... if they where wrong about the Atlantic... who is to say they arn't wrong about the Pacific.
But as for a word on Geology... which is basically a study of rocks... Talking about an entire planet falls into several aspects of specialized science, and they would defiantly include Geology, Astronomy, and defiantly Physics. So if someone worthy really where to step up to the plate and say the Earth was growing, they should have some kinda degree in all those things. One of the reason I love James Maxlow so much, he focuses on the aspects of a growing earth that match his specialty, and generally stays away from stuff that isn't his specialty. Same with Dennis Mcarthy, You find him talking a lot more about fossils, and the biological evidence in support of a growing earth than anything else. James Maxlow is a Geologist... and he concludes that the earth is growing... he would like to find the answer as to why, but stresses the point that people have to accept the possibility that it is Growing first, because the question has never been asked by Religion or Science until recently making it a fairly new question when taken seriously.
Re: desertrhino
You really should look at the data you present as evidence, and at least try to understand what it implies.
Evidence: 2/3rds of the planets surface is less then 200 million years old
Now... I may not be a rocket scientist... But I feel I'm smart enough to 'get' why Growing Earth proponents feel the idea that a growing Earth should be obvious. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/7/2009 8:05:45 PM | So, 18 pages later........
Have you guys resolved the 'earth-growing hypothesis' yet ?
I thought not. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/7/2009 8:27:10 PM |
So is it your opinion Bassist that anyone...
Yes, because you are wrong.
You also dodged my question;
Why does this mechanism only exist in stellar and planetary cores? Your "pair-production' method is flawed as is your "neutral matter' or what ever it was called method was also nonsense. Regardless, this expansion process should occur in any celestial body, or any conglomeration of matter based on its supposed affect.
Why are comets and asteroids not expanding "exponentially" as well? For that matter, why are neutron and other degenerate matter objects not expanding against their gravitational attraction as well? How does this mechanism not prevent the production of black-holes?
This expansion mechanism would also produce an astronomical amount of heat, why are we not able to obverse it throughout the universe?
What mechanism caused the planet Earth to expand, then stop expanding, then start expanding exponentially once again? Why is this process cyclical?
How does the expansion theory account for the subduction of the Australian plate under the Pacific plate? Furthermore, how does expansion account for translational motion of plates (that means side to side, not up and down)?
How does this theory account for observed tectonic action caused by gravitational interaction in the Galilean moons with Jupiter?
Why is there no evidence for a particle that would be involved in this mechanism?
Why do growth differentials exist throughout the surface? The obvious are trenches in the ocean and large mountain formations. Why is the growth not uniform? Why is the growth not uniform on any celestial body observed?
Why does nebulous matter exist in space? Should this mechanism not cause loosely-connected matter to disperse exponentially? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/7/2009 8:36:41 PM | You really should look at the data you present as evidence, and at least try to understand what it implies. Evidence: 2/3rds of the planets surface is less then 200 million years old Now... I may not be a rocket scientist... But I feel I'm smart enough to 'get' why Growing Earth proponents feel the idea that a growing Earth should be obvious.
You're moving the goalposts and taking my statement COMPLETELY out of context to try and "refute" it. Stay in the context of the discussion.
I said the data in Maxlow's appendices don't appear to support your assertion that the Earth is growing, based on the diameter plots provided in each set (they actually appear to agree with the JPL dataset that *I* crunched for you, based on spot checks). Here would be where YOU show definitively that they DO support your assertion, or you concede the point. As I said, if you're convinced they support you, put in the time and crunch the numbers for us.
It is NOT where you start talking about a completely different observation as though it refutes my concerns with Maxlow's data.
As for "getting it," it may make you feel SMRT and SPESHUL, but what people are suggesting you do is learn some physics basics, so you can actually speak from a position of knowledge, instead of "feel it" "understanding" gleaned from a couple of webcasts. You lack the basic framework to MAKE sense of what these guys are saying, or to spot the glaring horsecrap they're shoveling, so OF COURSE it sounds reasonable.
Have YOU written NASA and asked someone there what the Agency's official stance is on the issue of an Expanding Earth?
Every point thus far has been easily refuted. Most of my points aren't even refereed to, unless it's an idea for a Mechanism to explain Growth, or questionable about who's right GPS data.
*points up*
Nineveh. Mosul. ?????
CRUNCHED complete dataset from JPL's GPS data, showing shrinkage. Your rebuttal? "Well look at Maxlow's data." with no analysis, no conclusion, no examples of how my understanding of Maxlow's data is incorrect.
You're just playing the victim. It comes off as incredibly lame. People are refuting your arguments left and right, and you have yet to show any of them are wrong. Grow a pair and either put in the work to provide evidence that is not a made-up video or someone else's handwaving BS, or admit you're probably wrong. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/7/2009 9:10:07 PM | Re: The Bassist
Yes, because you are wrong.
Okay... Show me anything that clears shows the ages of the sea floors 200 million years ago... not just the Atlantic, but the pacific as well.
You also dodged my question;
No, I ignored you're question not because I found the first part of your post insulting... kinda like this one.
Why does this mechanism only exist in stellar and planetary cores? Your "pair-production' method is flawed as is your "neutral matter' or what ever it was called method was also nonsense. Regardless, this expansion process should occur in any celestial body, or any conglomeration of matter based on its supposed affect.
First off, it's not my theory, it belongs rightfully to Neal Adams
As I've stated several times in the past, I don't fully understand Neal's theory, however I do attempt to learn more about it through the work of others.
Why are comets and asteroids not expanding "exponentially" as well? For that matter, why are neutron and other degenerate matter objects not expanding against their gravitational attraction as well? How does this mechanism not prevent the production of black-holes?
Not really sure, why don't comments disintegrate into nothing as material being blasted off their surfaces create those massive tail debris's. I recently read a theory that suggested the core of suns could be like that of a black hole.
This expansion mechanism would also produce an astronomical amount of heat, why are we not able to obverse it throughout the universe?
What was the last estimate for the temperature at our earths core... I forget?
What mechanism caused the planet Earth to expand, then stop expanding, then start expanding exponentially once again? Why is this process cyclical?
There is no agreed upon set mechanism to explain Growth that even I would agree with at this time
How does the expansion theory account for the subduction of the Australian plate under the Pacific plate? Furthermore, how does expansion account for translational motion of plates (that means side to side, not up and down)?
subducting material doesn't 1 for 1 equal new material being created at the ridge lines... otherwise, we wouldn't have the Atlantic of Pacific ocean floors would we? New Material is being created in excess to the amount Subducted as clearly pointed out by Dennis McCarthy. If you want to get technical about his work, He points out that it's being created much faster in the southern hemisphere then than northern, and this is why the southern hemisphere is largely oceanic while the northern is largely continental.
How does this theory account for observed tectonic action caused by gravitational interaction in the Galilean moons with Jupiter?
Galilean moons of Jupitar are some great Examples Neal loves to use in his Videos. I believe Nasa is also quoted as saying they think Europa could be expanding.
Why is there no evidence for a particle that would be involved in this mechanism?
Not sure... why is there no evidence for a particle that would be involved with the mechanism for something simple like... Gravity?
Why do growth differentials exist throughout the surface? The obvious are trenches in the ocean and large mountain formations. Why is the growth not uniform? Why is the growth not uniform on any celestial body observed?
I'll refer you to one of Dennis McCarthys Videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om9H0Qv0LSU&feature=related
Why does nebulous matter exist in space? Should this mechanism not cause loosely-connected matter to disperse exponentially?
Hmmm... I did read somewhere that the further a distant galaxy is from us, the faster it is moving away from is... I guess one could say the space between galaxy's is growing exponentially huh. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/7/2009 11:37:55 PM | Sigh...
Your sea-floor ages: http://www.tectonics.caltech.edu/images/maps/seafloor_age.pdf Brought to you by the wonderful REAL scientists at CalTech.
The material blasted of comets is water vapor for the most part which can expand into a large and very reflective tail. Very low mass and does eventually lead to the complete disintegration of the comet. Fortunately for most comets, their orbits are highly-elliptical which keeps them away from the high solar winds for many years at a time.
Show me the theory that nuclear fusion in a stellar core is like a black hole with a link to the peer-reviewed article. Otherwise that is hear-say and nonsense.
The estimated temperature of Earth's core is high enough for iron and silicate materials to be molten. This release (also from CalTech) mentions boundary temperatures: http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/12467
I did not ask about 1:1 creation of material. I asked how an expanding theory could explain why a plate is sinking below another. Answer with cited material please.
NASA did say Europa expands. It expands during the portion of its orbit that brings it closer to Jupiter, where very-high gravitational stresses deform the planet as a whole. This is visible in opening and closing fissures around the moon. Its also the same effect that causes Io to experience extreme volcanism.
Gravity is anything but simple. It is also a geometric result of the deformation of space-time in the presence of energy and matter where motion through a gravitational potential follows a geodesic curve. The graviton is still only hypothetical and will be re-evaluated should it not be discovered where expected.
Youtube.com is not a valid medium for a scientific discussion. Provide a peer-reviewed article or do not even bother to attempt a rebuttal.
The space between galaxies is not expanding exponential, it expands according to Hubble's Law, whereby the speed of recession is directly proportional to its distance from us.
Most important: These "scientists" and promoters of the expanding earth conjecture keep mentioning that the mechanism behind the expansion is not important. This is wrong. We have to have a clear understanding of this presumed physical process, i.e., from what reservoir does it draw energy, its efficiency, its long term effects, and how it behaves according to thermodynamics, etc. Without a clear understanding of this mechanism all of the arguments for the conjecture are based on a very shaky house of cards.
Dissembling your arguments for the expanding earth conjecture is becoming easier at an increasing rate as you fail to provide cited papers and actual documentation of the expansion process. The mountain of evidence against it increases everyday as REAL scientists with no political agenda preform actual experiments and observations to further our knowledge of how the universe works. You embarrass them and anyone else who is trying to further our knowledge by simply ignoring them because you feel your intuition is more accurate. General and Special Relativity have already proven that the universe does not always behave as our intuition would expect. From a psychological view point, people like Neal Adams use persuasive language that is geared to draw people into their line of reasoning. These people use words out of context and generate relations based on false analogies as well as an abuse of numbers and mathematical reasoning to influence those with no training in a subject.
The sooner you realize that they are not doing actual science in this conjecture, the sooner you can put your efforts into learning about an actual physical process! You might even learn that the true nature of the universe is stranger than fiction (to abuse the quote)!
I for one, enjoy very much so doing the research into countering your statements as I enjoy learning and doing the science if possible. As a physicist in training I'm learning to be as skeptical and inquisitive as I can be and to reject my own bias and intuition when confronted with evidence and observation.
I apologize for insulting and belittling your posts as it was not my intent to insult you personally; but to point out the flaws and inconsistencies of the expanding earth conjecture as a whole.
I await your response eagerly. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/8/2009 6:24:10 AM | Storm...
I don't believe the word accretion or expansion was used anywhere in that opening statement. I believe the wording was ""We believe the disk-shaped clouds of dust around newly formed stars condense, forming microscopic grains of sand that eventually go on to become pebbles, boulders and whole planets."
Reading the last line here - "dust around newly formed stars CONDENSE"!!! Meaning the particles clump together, forming larger and larger concentrations of matter. Nowhere in that article did it suggest that the particles themselves magically 'blew up' into world-size blobs.
Now... if I were to make a mound by piling sand into one place, would you say that the mound is growing...? To the outside observer, it looks like it is. Would you then say that the grains are getting larger...? No, you'd say that more material was added.
Show me a mechanism for growth, that DOES NOT depend on throwing out just about everything we currently know about the nature of matter, or explain why the Asian plate and the Pacific plate are moving towards each other (when a growing Earth implies that they should be moving apart...) and I'll start taking it seriously. | |
|
|
| Page 18 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 
