|
|
|
|
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/8/2009 8:25:29 AM | Re: The Bassist
Your sea-floor ages: http://www.tectonics.caltech.edu/images/maps/seafloor_age.pdf Brought to you by the wonderful REAL scientists at CalTech.
I didn't ask for a present day map, I asked for a map of the ocean floor 200 million years ago. See if you can get your REAL scientists at CalTech to drum that one up. The reason you're not going to find one is because then they would have to observe and admit the possibility that the earth is growing.
Turning back the clock on the Atlantic is Easy... but the winning argument for a growing earth is the Pacific is just as young as the Atlantic... The Pacific spread first, so it is a bit older than the Atlantic, it also spreads faster so it is a lot bigger.
I'm out of time, but I will follow up more later | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/8/2009 10:47:09 AM | Storm...
Even a scientist who is a growing-Earth proponent is NOT going to say that they have a map of the ocean floor from 200 million years ago! To even ask for something like that is foolish.
And the simple fact that the rocks of the Pacific seafloor are as young as the ones in the Atlantic being 'the winning argument' for a growing Earth is another mistake. The Pacific seafloor moves at a rate similar to the Atlantic seafloor - it starts out at a ridge near South America, moves in a generally north-west direction, and drops below Asia (as well as North America, since that plate is pushing its way westward...) | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/8/2009 4:09:13 PM | Re: desertrhino
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.
Alright, I will pile up the GPS Data, and see if I can make heads or tales of it for myself, I'll run the conclusion by you on here... but that's a lot of work.
Have YOU written NASA and asked someone there what the Agency's official stance is on the issue of an Expanding Earth?
Yes... and their response was.. and I quote...
"No Comment"
Now, they either said that because you think the idea is Horse Crap, and can't dignify the request with a response, or they think there is something to it, but are not going to allow their own foot in their mouth without 100% knowledge in every tiny aspect of what they would have to say about it.
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.
I notice the GPS locations for those things... there are some that are scattered several miles from one another... and somethings hundreds packed in really closely to one another. Sticking all the numbers on a spread sheet and seeing what the number on the bottom line in is not going to be an accurate + or - for or against a growing or in opinion... shrinking earth.
Re: RocketMan_Len
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.
And that is why I said... probably a poor choice of words on their part
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.
So this is what we know... around new stars, we have giant rings of dust, and no planets... some have bulges in the dust like small planets are starting to take shape. Ancient stars we find Massive planets bigger than Jupiter. Middle age stars, like our own sun, we find mid size planets. I see a pattern here... new stars have little planets... old stars have big planets.... is it possible that the planets continued to get bigger as time went on... or do you think the giant planets around ancient stars just started at those colossal sizes and remained that way forever?
I know the basics as well as you, but can you say what the driving force behind what holds clumps of sand together is? Cause last time I checked... when you pick up a pile of sand, it doesn't clump together very easily... even if it's wet it doesn't form together very well. So what is it that unify s these particles to collect together? I don't think anyone does... and might have a fair amount to do with the possible explanation in growing planets
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.
I would like to see one myself, but because we don't know of one, doesn't take away from evidence that planets are increasing in size.
Even a scientist who is a growing-Earth proponent is NOT going to say that they have a map of the ocean floor from 200 million years ago! To even ask for something like that is foolish.
Ummm... you really should check out James Maxlows models of the earth has he brings the size of the earth down pre Triassic times. It's only foolish from a perspective of Plate Techtonics because the current age of the ocean floor doesn't make any sense with a static earth radius.
And the simple fact that the rocks of the Pacific seafloor are as young as the ones in the Atlantic being 'the winning argument' for a growing Earth is another mistake. The Pacific seafloor moves at a rate similar to the Atlantic seafloor - it starts out at a ridge near South America, moves in a generally north-west direction, and drops below Asia (as well as North America, since that plate is pushing its way westward...)
I told desertrhino above I would run my own number crunch on the numbers and see what I come up with... await a follow up on this. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/8/2009 5:00:35 PM |
So this is what we know... around new stars, we have giant rings of dust, and no planets... some have bulges in the dust like small planets are starting to take shape. Ancient stars we find Massive planets bigger than Jupiter.
Tau Boötis: White dwarf star, 1.8 to 2.0 billion years old, less than half the age of our sun, yet it has a gas giant planet orbiting closer than Mercury in our own system. How big is the planet? 3.64 times as large as Jupiter. Big enough to tidally lock the STAR to the planet.
Okay, your hypothesis is destroyed. Welcome to science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_Boötis | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/8/2009 5:13:15 PM |
I didn't ask for a present day map, I asked for a map of the ocean ...
A map of 200mya would show a much older portion of the Pacific plate prior to it being pushed under other plates. Read the context provided on the map and recognize the difference in convergent and divergent zones on the map and where they exist. The oldest portions have already subducted below other plate boundaries (Twice said for good measure).
This is still the least important point you have raised and is from far from being a winning point for the conjecture. Though this is one of the least derivative points you have raised. Answering all the other questions I posed will be a challenge indeed. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/8/2009 5:14:16 PM | | Also awesome point desertrhino, I was unaware of that system! | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/8/2009 6:58:36 PM | There's also the sad case of 2 Pallas, one the larger of the thousands of asteroids that orbit the sun between Mars and Jupiter.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/091008-protoplanet-pallas.html
Show I guess this "planet" is having pituitary issues? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/8/2009 10:44:00 PM |
So this is what we know... around new stars, we have giant rings of dust, and no planets... some have bulges in the dust like small planets are starting to take shape. Ancient stars we find Massive planets bigger than Jupiter.
Light, one thing to remember is that astronomical evidence suggests that MOST star systems that we can observe, at least within the vicinity of our solar system, are multiple star systems.
This is perhaps why most extra solar planets found orbiting other stars, are in fact gas giants. This supports the evidence stated above that stars tend to be born along side sibling stars, since in the case of these extra solar gas giants, they are simply one or two steps away from being brown dwarves; sub stellar objects that are not quite planets but not quite stars either.
Also, the fact that most extra solar planets are gas giants, or perhaps even brown dwarves, is simply due to the insensitivity of our current astronomical instruments. We are, after all, trying to look for a needle in a VERY large haystack. And right now, the only way to do that is to look for indirect evidence.
Only the largest class of planets, gas giants, are massive enough to increase our chances dramatically of finding such indirect evidence, by "wobbling" their parent star due to a very tight and unusually close orbit.
So I just wanted to clarify that just in case you think that the evidence accumulated so far on extra solar planets backs up your Growing Earth theory. It doesn't. What little has been found, 373 planets and rising, are mostly gas giants, NOT super large rocky planets. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/9/2009 2:00:55 AM | Re: desertrhino
How Light simplifies data
Source: http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html
Going to be looking at numbers on a couple major continents from the Western/Eastern sides of the world.
Velocities given in mm/yr.
LAT, LON, HEIGHT
YELL VEL -10.97, -16.70, 6.50
CHUR VEL -3.34, -17.77, 11.37
FLIN VEL -6.93, -17.32, 2.27
Avg Sum/ 3 = -7.08, -17.26, +6.71
BRAZ VEL 12.86, -3.70, 0.83
UNSA VEL 11.25, 4.86, -0.27
LPGS VEL 11.93, -1.31, 1.87
Avg Sum/3 +12.01, -0.05, +0.81
HOFN +14.87, +13.09, +12.68
KIRU +14.65, +15.44, +7.32
ONSA +14.50, +16.61, +3.82
Avg Sum/3 +14.67, +15.04, +7.94
GOUG VEL +18.71, +19.95, -13.03
SIMO VEL +18.51, +15.75, +0.29
RBAY VEL +17.09, +15.63, +1.11
Avg Sum/3 +18.10, +17.11, -3.88
LAT, LON, HEIGHT
North America (YELL, CHUR, FLIN) -7.08 -17.26 +6.71
South America (BRAZ, UNSA, LPGS) +12.01, -0.05, +0.81
Europe (HOFN, KIRU, DNSA) +14.67, +15.04, +7.94
Africa (GOUG, SIMO, RBAY) +18.10, +17.11, -3.88
LAT, LON, HEIGHT
Western Avg +2.5, -8.7, +3.8
Eastern Avg +16.4, +16.1, +2.03
So I would conclude from my exceptionally simplified view of some of the data that these western and eastern continents are moving northward. They are both moving away from the Atlantic into the pacific, the Eastern side moving almost twice as fast. And there is continuing yearly hight increase... not sinking on both sides.
Just out of the sake of interest....of grabbing a couple more numbers
Western
DUBO Hight increase 0.55mm/y
FLINN Hight increase 2.27mm/y
Avg +1.41mm a year
Eastern Side... Direct opposite side to my best guess
KSTU Hight increase 0.89mm/y
IRKT Hight increase 0.83mm/y
Avg +0.86mm/y
If the western side hight increase is 1mm a year, and on the opposite side in also a hight increase of 1mm year... it would have me conclude that there is an overall yearly increase in the planets size above and beyond the amount subducted. No where near James Maxlows prediction, but very similar to Dennis McCarthys views on the subject for a Growing Earth. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/9/2009 4:09:31 AM |
So this is what we know... around new stars, we have giant rings of dust, and no planets... some have bulges in the dust like small planets are starting to take shape.
Well, there's the case of Fomalhaut in Pisces Austrinus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomalhaut
Some aspects to the planet formation process have still to be worked out, however, growth by mysterious forces that can't be observed is not one of the options on the table.
Ancient stars we find Massive planets bigger than Jupiter. Middle age stars, like our own sun, we find mid size planets. I see a pattern here... new stars have little planets... old stars have big planets.... is it possible that the planets continued to get bigger as time went on... or do you think the giant planets around ancient stars just started at those colossal sizes and remained that way forever?
No, no and no. Old and middle age stars have a range of planets with different sizes. Young stars have planetary disks in which planets are forming from the agglomeration of material from that disk. Again, no unseen forces involved. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/9/2009 9:47:38 AM | Cherry-picking at its finest.
I do appreciate you making your effort, but in the North America, Asia, and Europe sets, you have taken overwhelmingly datapoints from the far north, where glacial rebound is still occurring. You're also forgetting how a Mercator projection works and your points are a lot more clustered than even you think.
for example:
Western
DUBO Hight increase 0.55mm/y
FLINN Hight increase 2.27mm/y
Avg +1.41mm a year
Eastern Side... Direct opposite side to my best guess
KSTU Hight increase 0.89mm/y
IRKT Hight increase 0.83mm/y
Avg +0.86mm/y
If the western side hight increase is 1mm a year, and on the opposite side in also a hight increase of 1mm year... it would have me conclude that there is an overall yearly increase in the planets size above and beyond the amount subducted. No where near James Maxlows prediction, but very similar to Dennis McCarthys views on the subject for a Growing Earth.
DUBO == Lac DuBonnet, outside Winnipeg. glacial rebound central
FLIN == Flin Flon, a fair hike north and a bit east of Regina and Saskatoon, in an area of glacial morrain lakes!
KSTU == Kraznoyarsk, about as far north as civilization goes in that part of central Russia. Also glaciated at the last maximum.
IRKT == Irkutsk. Same, but a little east.
You can't select very small subsets of a dataset, and then take the mean. You end up with conclusions that can be extremely skewed.
Besides, we already know what the JPL dataset shows, overall. I was more interested in a COMPREHENSIVE crunch of MAXLOW's sets, particularly since that's what you seem to be basing a lot of your arguments on. :)
I'm also not sure where you get the impression anyone is arguing that subduction zones would have a net decrease in altitude. If anything, I would expect the overlying continental plate to RISE slightly as material is pushed underneath. Certainly I'd expect increase volcanic and earthquake activity, which would absolutely add a lot of "noise" to the data.
And if THIS was a lot of work, imagine how much work it would be to actually get a 4 year degree in geology or geophysics, and then go on another 6-8 years and get a PhD in the subject. Strangely, people who have done that are OVERWHELMINGLY convinced that Maxlow and McCarthy are nuts. (The artist who plays fast and loose with animations and coastlines isn't even worth mentioning) | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/2/2009 8:25:53 PM | It is my view that the earth has remained the same size at least since the major moon impact.
In effect plate tectonics is a continuous rock recycling system.
However I have often wondered about the initial creation of the solar system or indeed galaxies.
If the Big Bang is true and it seems plausible then the universe should have expanded evenly in all directions.
For some reason some points in the universe startedto gravitationally attract other mass such that stars would form of various sizes and somehow clusters of stars would form galaxies.
I beleive the reason this should be so has not been fully explained except by chaos or rnadomness.
So what lies in the heart of the earth which initially attracted so much post supernovae debris in the first place.
What could there be which overrode the gravitational attraction of all the other debris in other directions.
Perhaps something like a black hole which went through a period of being satisfied has evolved to going in the opposite direction.
Perhaps this zone of the universe was influenced by some form of gravity wave with a wavelenght of >4000 Ma which has now passed its maximum amplitude is the answer.
In the absence of any information on this I will stick to the conventional plate tectonic model. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/2/2009 9:37:19 PM | If the Big Bang is true and it seems plausible then the universe should have expanded evenly in all directions.
Actually , the observable universe isn't evenly spaced at all.
I beleive the reason this should be so has not been fully explained except by chaos or rnadomness.
A fair assumption to be sure but , unfortunately , very imcomplete. It's not quite as random as it appears.
The real culprits here are dark matter and dark energy. Poorly understood though they may be , they both almost certainly exist but have yet to be detected.
Try not to think of them as having any particular connection to each other though ... we could just as easily call them invisible mass and weak-anti-gravity respectively.
In any case , with these two we certainly have a lot of work to do. If they're both completely wrong and simply don't exist then there definitely is something that's doing the job we think both these phenomena are doing. In other words , we can't discount them out of hand as completely hypothetical constructs. There's definitely something else affecting the way the universe operates. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/3/2009 8:30:50 AM | Re: Enriquecalor
So what lies in the heart of the earth which initially attracted so much post supernovae debris in the first place. What could there be which overrode the gravitational attraction of all the other debris in other directions.
Perhaps something like a black hole which went through a period of being satisfied has evolved to going in the opposite direction.
Something like a black hole would explain a lot. I was recently reading about the work be a young physicist named Nassim Haramein. He's been saying for years that Black Holes are the source of the universe, galaxy and solor systems, and are not the end all destruction of them.
Since, I have a vague understanding of the theory, I'll quote from a publication on his theory, as it seems to be growing acceptance.
---------------
Haramein’s Universal Model Receives One of its Largest Confirmations
Nassim Haramein for more than two decades has been claiming that black holes are the source of creation, not the result of it. His model early on permitted him to predict that black holes would be found at the center of all galactic formations. In many cases Haramein produced large controversy stating that black holes were most likely there prior to galactic formation, or even star formation, and that even our own sun and the atomic structure that makes up our reality is centered by black hole dynamics, or what he calls the spin horizon of a white whole/black whole. Eventually, telescopic evidence supported the fact that all observed galaxies seem to be centered by super-massive black holes as Haramein predicted. Initially astrophysicists attempted to explain the presence of these black holes by describing the evolution of galaxies as gathering mass until black holes form at their center but further observation demanded that the galactic central black hole co-evolved with the galactic bulge plasma dynamics and the galactic arms.
Now, as recently reported at the American Astronomical Society, a study using the Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico and the French Plateau de Bure Interferometer has enabled astronomers to peer within a billion years of the Big Bang and found evidence that black holes were there first. This is a fundamental confirmation of Haramein’s theory described in his papers as a universe composed of different scale black holes from universal size to atomic size.
This may be one of the most exciting confirmations as of yet, as it leads directly to a continuous creation process where our universal black hole produces what we call super-massive black holes, which produce smaller ones we call stars, which in turn produce smaller ones we call atoms. In Haramein’s model, black holes are produced by density gradients in the geometry of spacetime itself, which produce spacetime torque, in turn curling the manifold, like water going down the drain or the slight gradient in air density that produces hurricanes and tornadoes. This results in the extraction of a percentage of the energy available in the vacuum structure, like the air coming up the drain, producing what we experience as mass and electromagnetic radiation (a layman’s explanation can be found in What is the Origin of Spin?). In various sections of his scientific papers (given below), Haramein described these processes and a scaling law is given to define the scale relationships of this creation dynamics. Further, Haramein gives a calculation in his Scale Unification – A Universal Scaling Law For Organized Matter paper (see equation #4 through #16) where he demonstrates that the nuclei of atoms can be described as a mini black holes, replacing the need for an ad hoc strong force with no source of energy to describe its strength with the gravitational force of a mini black hole extracting energy from the vacuum.
In the same conference, Dr. Elizabeth Humphreys reported that stars have been caught in the act of being born extremely close to the super-massive black hole near the Milky Way core. This contradicts the standard model that would predict that these stars would get ripped apart by the strong tidal gravity produced by the nearby black hole. It is clear that the mechanism that allows such young stars to be present so close to a super-massive black hole is not clearly understood by the standard model but is predicted by the continuous black hole creation model of Haramein’s theory. Stars could only exist in the vicinity of such tidal gravity if they were much more massive than previously expected, which may be the result of their harboring a black hole themselves. Of course it’s implied that all stars are born out of black holes, and are themselves smaller black holes, including our sun. In Section 4 of the Scale Unification paper, Haramein and his colleagues give powerful evidence of such a black hole at the center of our sun. This is as well described in a section of the special features of the “Crossing the Event Horizon: Rise to the Equation” DVD set.
Ref: http://theresonanceproject.org/blog/?paged=2
---------------
I asked Haramein's fan group if the young scientist had an opinion directly on growing earth theories. I haven't gotten a direct response as of yet. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/3/2009 9:08:49 AM | Let's be clear here light...black holes are bad things for matter. If a planet had a black hole in its center (or a star) then that would mean the star or planet was dead or about to die, disappearing from the rest of the universe. What goes in doesn't come out. And before you bring up hawking radiation, remember that hawking radiation is a negative-mass effect on the black hole. Indeed, it's been hypothesized that once a black hole reaches roughly the mass of the moon, the process accelerates and the result is literally explosive.
That the big bang spawned black holes is certainly nothing new and has been around longer than Haramein's theory. The fact that there is a relationship between galaxies and black holes in the former's development is nothing new and has been an ongoing area of research. in fact, a direct numerical relationship has actually been found between the mass of the black hole and the galaxy.
But that does not mean black holes are "creating" galaxies. The mass for galaxies comes from hydrogen gas formed after the big bang. Stars forming near black holes also aren't surprising since black holes pull in gas and gas clouds develop "condensations" of material which become stars. That usually happens within only a few light years of the black hole. Additionally, the chaotic nature of these environments allow for interactions that lead to stars slingshotting each other either towards the black hole or away form it, which is why we observe stars within light days or months from the black hole's event horizon.
Structure for the universe is likely a relic of density variations in the first milliseconds following the initiation of the big bang. The evidence for that is the CMB. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/4/2009 10:57:33 AM | | Haramein also said, and I quote, "there's a very strong possibility that we're in a black hole." If anyone can disprove that, I'd love to hear it. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/4/2009 11:01:19 AM |
Haramein also said, and I quote, "there's a very strong possibility that we're in a black hole." If anyone can disprove that, I'd love to hear it.
Well, that's just stupid! | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/4/2009 11:12:17 AM |
Well, that's just stupid!
I don't know enough about physics to say one way or the other, but could we not look at the "big bang" as a time-reversed black hole? Are we positive the arrow of time (determined by entropy) is always unidirectional? What is the nature of entropy on the other side of the event horizon of a black hole? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/4/2009 4:48:26 PM | I know what it is ....
your on a dating site so ....
you wish you were in a black hole.
my simplistic concept of the earth getting larger is ...
hmm... molton core ....
time should be cooling it
as molton rock cools it expands
also
cosmic dust and thousands of meteorites crashing into the earth probably out weigh the slipping away of parts of the atmosphere ....
i would have to conclude that the earth is probably getting slightly larger over time.
presently our global warming would also increase the size of the earth and its atmosphere slightly.
just my humble opinion from the little I think I know | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:34:46 PM | | What makes you think that rock expands when it cools...? Unless my memory is VERY faulty, water is the only known substance that expands as it cools. Everything else shrinks... | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:07:33 PM | | Thorb, see post #355 in this thread, on page 15. The Earth is slightly shrinking, according to the GPS data provided by the JPL dataset posted slightly above that one, even with the over-representation of data points in "glacial rebound" regions. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/4/2009 8:46:48 PM | Re: Stargazer1000
Let's be clear here light...black holes are bad things for matter.
As a very intelligent, and open individual to possibility beyond our understanding, you must be able to acknowledge and admit there is a lot about the universe we don't know. The Black Holes that we have seen mountains of evidence for, are not new, they are the destruction of super giants... and these black holes are VERY BAD for matter, as it will decimate any form of matter that gets caught into it's awesome gravitation forces. But Maybe... just MAYBE... the black hole wasn't created from the Suns destruction... maybe it was always there, growing with the star until it gained so much force that it destroys it's left over surroundings and becomes what we see as a black hole.
If a planet had a black hole in its center (or a star) then that would mean the star or planet was dead or about to die, disappearing from the rest of the universe.
I strongly recommend you read over some of his work, he is gaining a lot of respect among the scientist community as a genius
http://theresonanceproject.org/pdf/torque_paper.pdf (“The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein’s Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory” (PDF), by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher. (p. 164)
Haramein also said, and I quote, "there's a very strong possibility that we're in a black hole." If anyone can disprove that, I'd love to hear it. Well, that's just stupid!
We know so little about gravity, I don't think it's it's that far fetched of an idea to think in the center of the known universe could be a singularity that is the size of multiple dead galaxies that have united in the mother of all black holes, the driving force of energy that all current galaxy's ride.
Why doesn't solid matter have it's own gravitational force? You think it would to some extent. We know massive celestial body have it, but yet we don't see any other evidence of it. I'm sure the rocks in the rings around Saturn are always smashing into one another, so why don't they all just form into moons? Maybe there is something missing so they can't!... If I took all the mountains of the world, made a giant ball out of them and put it in space... would it have it's own gravity? Probably not, and it would probably just break apart like a giant pile of rocks would and float around until they got sucked into a real celestial body... Why? Because maybe there is a driving force at the center of each body that pulls matter towards it like a black hole pulls matter towards it. Only this force isn't strong enough to obliterate that matter all at once, so it just sucks it in, packing it in as close to it's center as it can get. We know that the closer we get to the center of the earth, the more pressure there is... maybe it's not the material above pushing down, but the material in the center pulling in.
I honestly believe there is more happening down there than just a giant iron goo swirling around. Something is driving it! And that something could very well be adding to it! | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/4/2009 8:53:50 PM | desertrhino
Thorb, see post #355 in this thread, on page 15. The Earth is slightly shrinking, according to the GPS data provided by the JPL dataset posted slightly above that one, even with the over-representation of data points in "glacial rebound" regions.
Or not... The JPL dataset gives a yearly elevation change for every GPS Unit. Here is the problem with tossing EVERY number into a giant spread sheet and looking at the total on the bottom.
The units are not evenly distributed across the globe... You could have 100 packed into one little area that all say they are loosing -1 elevation... there probably sitting on melting ice or something. Then you could have 1 sitting on a rock that says it's gaining +50 elevation... you add the two together and conclude the earth is shrinking.... doesn't work for me. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/5/2009 9:06:01 AM | Rocket
I'll give you that about rock ... although the sun will expands as it cools and its not water. ... so ... so much for your "everything".
Still collecting lots of space dust and debris though.
Rhino & Light....
The GPS thing ... I would only go along with if they used the same coordinates every years .. and not just over continents but also over the oceans.
It is probably something that could be done ... maybe will be done soon.
I am curious. ... as for the expansion of all the water as global warming occurs... hmmm. would that count? water expands both ways from 4 degrees C.
[so that means as you get a fever your head gets bigger ... lol]
still not convinced either way.
another thought is ... is gravity trying to compress the earth into being smaller?
we really don't know the composition of the earth core and how it works.
it could be expanding and contracting on regular cycles or irregular like the polar shifts.
any data we use from only recently would not give us a definitive answer to the question ... only a short term answer.
| |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/5/2009 9:21:41 AM | Re: thorb
I am curious. ... as for the expansion of all the water as global warming occurs... hmmm. would that count? water expands both ways from 4 degrees C.
Many people who have looked at the models for Growing earth, and often the first question asked is "If the earth grew... where did all the water come from?" Neal Adams has pointed out that over 1/3 of todays surface was once covered in water. The ancient fish fosils don't come from the deep oceans, but from the land where ocean once was and is no more, sometimes on mountains. He concludes that 200 million years ago, when the first significant rift lines began pushing continents apart, the oceans of the world descended into the now rifted open deep seas.
James Maxlow says that the increase in water is being vented to the surface from the earths interior. That's started to make more sense now after learning about water under the surface of mars, or watching videos from that massive mud volcanoes.
With the polar ice caps melting scientists expected huge increases to see level, and yet are still surprised that it isn't rising faster than expectations. | |
|
|
| Page 19 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 
