|
|
|
|
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/5/2009 9:34:46 AM | | Light, you can SAY anything you want. Back it up with some math, references, something... Except, perhaps, the rantings of a cartoonist turned animator (who plays very fast and loose with coastlines and such in his "wonderful" animations). | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/5/2009 9:35:27 AM | yes there definitely is geological evidence that the capacity of the continents to hold water under the surface is enormous and has rarely been taken into account in the glacier melting scenario of global warming. They have assumed it will all go into the oceans but with increased atmospheric water from increased temperatures and then increased rainfall ... lots of that water will end up underground.
this underground water could expand the size of the continents due to its expansion.
We are now getting into a very complicated model.
oh and for clarity ... I do believe my studies told me the continents have been moving for much longer than 200 million years. They have joined and separated 2 or 3 times in the simulations that I saw. ... although its funny how they always kept them looking like today and did not allow for coastline change [maybe in future models]
| |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/5/2009 1:21:52 PM |
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.
People often say "well, we just don't know enough to say..." but the fact is that, when it comes to gravity, we're not all that dumb either. Remember that Einstein guy? He gave us a pretty good description for gravity and acceleration. Rhino's right. You can speculate that there's a "singularity" at the center of the universe. You can speculate there's a colony of magic unicorns. Without something more to go on than "it's possible," like actual evidence, it's a pointless speculation.
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?
First of all, the rings of Saturn are similar to the rings of the other gas giants. They are highly dynamic systems that result from the interaction of particles with the gravitational force of Saturn and its moons. It's entirely possible that the rings are the result of either a: a moon that broke up, b: moons that collided and their particles interacted and spread out or c: left over material that simply can't form into a moon because of the tidal actions of the moons of Saturn and Saturn itself.
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...
Yes they would. In fact, they would have a force of gravity exactly related to their aggregate mass. Because that's what gravity is...a function of mass. Generally, asteroids aren't solid bodies at all but are more along the lines of loose aggregated materials. There are even several small asteroids, less than a kilometer (Everest is 6 kms tall) that even have small "moons."
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.
No. That's not the case. Earth's mass is Earth's mass. It doesn't need a black hole at the center.
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 only thing driving things at the core of the Earth is heat and radioactive decay. Don't forget, in addition to iron, there's also heavier elements, not the least of which is elements like Uranium. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/5/2009 2:41:02 PM | Thorb...
although the sun will expands as it cools and its not water. ... so ... so much for your "everything".
Where exactly did you come up with THIS idea...? Current models suggest that the sun will collapse as the hydrogen that drives it runs out - it will cool down, collapse, and start fusing helium. When that happens, it will heat up and expand.
| |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/5/2009 2:58:08 PM | Stargazer
Well that's just stupid.
Say that to these guys.
Quantum black hole inflation
M.B.Altaie
Dept. of Physics, Yarmouk University, 21163 Irbid-Jordan
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0105/0105024.pdf
the universe may have been born as a black hole and is still is. This
idea is not new, and there are a number of investigations that support
it; for example it was already shown long ago by Oppenheimer and
Snyder [24] that the inside of the Schwartzchild solution could be a
Friedmann universe. Moreover it was shown by Pathria [25] that our
present universe may be described as an internal Schwartzchid solution
if it has the critical energy density. More recent investigations [26]
based on the assumption of the existance of a limiting curvature have
shown that the inside of a Schwartzchild black hole can be attached to
a de Sitter universe at some space-like junction which is taken to
represent a short transition layer. Other senarios in which the
universe emerges from the interior of a black hole are also
proposed[27-33]. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/5/2009 4:01:50 PM | sorry rocket...... I got it from a planetarium show .
they said exactly that as the sun cools ... it becomes a red giant and expands.
the red giant is a cooler temperature than the sun is now so ...
however it does it ...
its cooler and bigger
the earth's core may do something similar ...
whatever the chemistry is that could make it happen
crystals grow ... so maybe it will crystalize ... don't know.
no matter ... water expanding the rock can still increase size of the earth ...
so still not convinced its shrinking.
guess we better look deeper into those gps coordinates ...
some more ambitious person might want to apply for a grant | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/5/2009 6:29:51 PM | | I'm sorry the earth is not growing, it's a ridiculous claim. There is no known scientific mechanism for that kind of change. There would have to be some sort of fusion/fission reaction taking place below the crust of the earth (which would eventually cook the entire earth) and there is no such thing. They would have found it in Geophysics a long time ago. Try. Google "shock dynamics", that's what really happened. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/6/2009 5:42:46 AM | Thorb...
I got it from a planetarium show .
they said exactly that as the sun cools ... it becomes a red giant and expands.
the red giant is a cooler temperature than the sun is now so ...
Whatever planetarium show you got that from, they're WAY out of date. 
They're partly right, though... the *surface* temperature will be lower, which is why it will be red instead of yellow. But the CORE temperature, where the bulk of the action is going on, will be significantly hotter - which is why it'll expand... as the hotter and more energetic gasses push outwards against gravity.
BTW - crystals don't really grow... they condense out of solution.
I doubt that the Earth is shrinking, too - but I'm also extremely skeptical about this 'growing' notion. If anything, I can picture the globe *vibrating* - rising in some places, falling in others - in response to forces beneath the surface. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/6/2009 6:15:25 AM |
they said exactly that as the sun cools ... it becomes a red giant and expands.
the red giant is a cooler temperature than the sun is now so ...
however it does it ...
its cooler and bigger
the earth's core may do something similar ...
whatever the chemistry is that could make it happen
They're completely different processes. Earth's core is heated by radioactivitiy and relic heat from its formation. The sun's core heats from fusion, in the case of a red giant, a core of helium. It's that thermal pressure that pushes out the outer layers and, as gases expand, we know they cool.
Molten magma does expand outward somewhat. The best comparison I can think of is the behaviour of baking things with eggs. They "souffle". Features in the mares of the moon show the result of magma that cools and subsides.
However the fact that you have such subsidence features don't bode well for the theory of a growing moon since the moon's mare were supposed to have been formed from the "growing" process. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/6/2009 9:25:27 AM | Re: desertrhino
Re: Except, perhaps, the rantings of a cartoonist turned animator (who plays very fast and loose with coastlines and such in his "wonderful" animations
There is significant question about the tiny details, like the coast lines, but that is massively insignificant in comparison to the over all effect which he nailed. The ancient continents of planet earth fit together damn near perfectly on a smaller globe. It's an observation first made by Charles Darwin of all people during his second voyage of HMS Beagle. He theorized about it an means to explain the elevation of the landmass of South America as shown by mountain building in the Andes.
Re: Thorb
oh and for clarity ... I do believe my studies told me the continents have been moving for much longer than 200 million years. They have joined and separated 2 or 3 times in the simulations that I saw. ... although its funny how they always kept them looking like today and did not allow for coastline change maybe in future models
Yes, the continents are much older than the sea floors, some 1 billion, some 2 billion, and some more than 3 billion years old. However, There is not on tiny SPEC of the majority of this planet we know as the deep ocean floors that is older than 200 million years old... most of that is less than 60 million years old. Because it's stands to reason, and I don't know why it's such minority that gets this... but if the Atlantic was not there so many million years ago... and the ocean floor on the Pacific side is the SAME AGE... it should be common sense to see that the planet increased in size over the past 200 million years is undeniable. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/6/2009 10:18:51 AM |
Yes, the continents are much older than the sea floors, some 1 billion, some 2 billion, and some more than 3 billion years old. However, There is not on tiny SPEC of the majority of this planet we know as the deep ocean floors that is older than 200 million years old... most of that is less than 60 million years old. Because it's stands to reason, and I don't know why it's such minority that gets this... but if the Atlantic was not there so many million years ago... and the ocean floor on the Pacific side is the SAME AGE... it should be common sense to see that the planet increased in size over the past 200 million years is undeniable.
Okay, well, given the fact that a great deal of subduction and spreading occurs in the oceans, it seems to make a great deal of sense that most of the ocean floor is younger then the continents. So where's the problem? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/6/2009 6:10:34 PM |
Because it's stands to reason, and I don't know why it's such minority that gets this... but if the Atlantic was not there so many million years ago... and the ocean floor on the Pacific side is the SAME AGE... it should be common sense to see that the planet increased in size over the past 200 million years is undeniable.
The reason that only a small minority of people "get" what looks like common sense to them is because they don't "get" the rest of the picture.
Subduction is the part they're missing and it's the reason for earthquakes. Prove there's no such thing as an earthquake and there might be room to shoe-horn in the hypothesis that the Earth is actually growing. Despite ignoring the evidence that contradicts the growing-Earth hypothesis , the principles used to explain a growing Earth in the hypothesis also don't seem to apply anywhere else in the solar system. Why is that ? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/6/2009 6:59:20 PM | thanks for the sun explanations ...
crystals still seem to grow though when you watch them... whatever the chemistry.
[you end up with something solid where a crack used to be]
as for the earth core ... we are just speculating
[might be good speculation but not known]
also I have heard the expansion by magma/lava flow ... lava does seem to have bubbles in it so isn't as dense as other rock and won't be until it is covered and put under pressure ... on the surface it will take up more space.
I'm not saying the earth is getting hugely larger... its more minutely larger via. falling meteors and dust etc. plus possibly this lava flow frothing in a way ...
I do like the vibrating idea though ... since the sun seems to do that a bit too.
[the only constant seem to be change]
As for the continents fittling together on a smaller earth... you still have to take into account a larger pacific plate that has be sinking under its collisions with other plates.
I do find those simulations of continental drift fascinating but a bit speculative.
| |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/6/2009 8:18:43 PM | | SEEing the subducting plate is not enough for you? What.ev.er. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/6/2009 9:41:40 PM | Perhaps the big crack in Ethopia is proof to the earth-growers' theory that our mother planet is growing so much she's now splitting her pants wide open ?
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3486
..... just playing devil's advocate
 | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/6/2009 11:50:20 PM | Re: sweetbilly3Am
I'm sorry the earth is not growing, it's a ridiculous claim. There is no known scientific mechanism for that kind of change. There would have to be some sort of fusion/fission reaction taking place below the crust of the earth (which would eventually cook the entire earth) and there is no such thing. They would have found it in Geophysics a long time ago. Try. Google "shock dynamics", that's what really happened.
Shock Dynamics: "The key to creation geology" ... After seeing a couple references to God and quotes from Jesus, I stopped reading. Funny... seriously... ! Trust me when I say, the kingdom of heaven will never be found in anything you have to spend money on... that includes popular mythology.
Re: stargazer1000
Okay, well, given the fact that a great deal of subduction and spreading occurs in the oceans, it seems to make a great deal of sense that most of the ocean floor is younger then the continents. So where's the problem?
The problem is the planet generates new material... This you know... and if it instantly eats that same amount of material elsewhere, then there should not be a several thousand mile gap between western and eastern continents on the Atlantic and pacific sides... There should just be a long convection cell that gurgles up new material and them subducts it right back down... A very LARGE percentage of the planet should be ancient, but as it stands, 2/3rds of it is less than 200 million years old... You have land... NEW LAND... that has ADDED TO previously existing land... On BOTH sides of the planet. That is impossible unless the planet grew.
Re: Funcuz
The reason that only a small minority of people "get" what looks like common sense to them is because they don't "get" the rest of the picture. Subduction is the part they're missing and it's the reason for earthquakes. Prove there's no such thing as an earthquake and there might be room to shoe-horn in the hypothesis that the Earth is actually growing....
Several different types of moon-quakes have been verified taking place on the moon. While unverified, and not really considered a high priority either, earthquakes on Venus and Mars are assumed to occur as well... None of these planets have subduction, as subduction is unique to earth because of our oceans. So if quakes happen on planets without subduction, it's pretty safe to assume they could happen on Earth reguardless if it's growing... or eating its self. If the earth is growing, opposed to eating it's self, I'm pretty sure that as plates get lifted up on an increasing curvature of the globe, the granite rock is going to stretch, crack and break causing massive earth quakes. It's also explain tectonic spreading, mountains, volcanoes, and terrestrial stretch marks better than any previous existing, out of date theories.
From the what I've read in theories about Growing Earth, Neal Adams is the only one who kicks up a huge fuss about subduction being none existent.... however he did admit in a radio talk show that subduction does happens in a few select areas. Every other Growing earth (actual) scientist acknowledge subduction, but also point out that new material is generated above and beyond the amount subducted. Because more of it is generated on the south pole than the north, it explains why the south is largely oceanic and the north is largely continental. According to plate tectonics, the location of the continents is anyones best guess to random dice rolling or something. Growing Earth theory is simple... it makes sense.
What happens next?
Growing earth suggests that the planet will continue to increase in size pushing that continents further apart.
Plate tectonics says that The atlantic is going to continue to spread smashing the contanents into one another on the pacific side... not really sure what happens to all the newly formed islands... I guess at some point there all going to get sucked back down into the mantle to make that new material in the atlantic?
Despite ignoring the evidence that contradicts the growing-Earth hypothesis , the principles used to explain a growing Earth in the hypothesis also don't seem to apply anywhere else in the solar system. Why is that ?
You really want to run with that argument?
What principles are used to explain the growing earth hypothesis? Last time I checked, there was no agreed on mechanism to explain growth... just mountains of evidence that shows us that the earth has been growing, and that growth has caused huge changes in everything to do with life on this planet.
Tectonic spreading is being acknowledged on Mars.... It becomes really evident when you look at the fact newer land has hardly any impact craters on it, while ancient land is riddled extensively with craters... Because Mars does not have an ocean, (However it most likely did in it's past) it does not have subduction... ergo, tectonic spreading without subduction means planets are increasing in size... by the way, the only thing that is truly unique to earth and doesn't apply to any other planets... is subduction.
Re: Thorb
I'm not saying the earth is getting hugely larger... its more minutely larger via. falling meteors and dust etc.
When man walked on the moon, they found a layer of dust that blankets the entire planet... that loose dust is several inches deep, and is the end result of inbound debris breaking up over the planets surface. The only growth from outside material is a few inches over it's history. Even if you exaggerate inbound material that the earth collects daily, the amount is totally insignificant in comparison to the earths mass. Now the amount of energy the earth collects and holds in and doesn't bounce back out is a completely different story. If space plasma as it's called in some theories is transformed into matter, bobs you uncle to how fast the solar systems, galaxys and universe is growing. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/7/2009 12:02:50 AM | AncientMuse
Perhaps the big crack in Ethopia is proof to the earth-growers' theory that our mother planet is growing so much she's now splitting her pants wide open ?
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3486
I've been searching for an article like that one, Kudos AncientMuse, I plan to follow up on that and learn more about it. If true, and new rift opens... and new ocean floor forms, it is a HUGE push for Growing Earth Theories to be taken more seriously. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/8/2009 6:59:10 PM | do you actually take your self seriously?
here's a thread with a better discussion about the whole thing:
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/64739-another-big-blow-growing-earth-theory.html | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/9/2009 8:18:04 AM | Re: coolnomad
do you actually take your self seriously?
Yes, and there is also a certain level of satisfaction of warm tingly feelings associated with defending a theory I believe to be true over the mainstream accepted fallacy. I read once that the Growing Earth theory was just too simple for anyone who is over analytical. It's as easy to understand as a child's read along book in comparison to the complex texts of nonsense to support a static earth radius.
here's a thread with a better discussion about the whole thing:
I've seen that thread before, I even pulled a quote from it and used it earlier on this thread. That thread doesn't disprove anything to do with the growing Earth Theory, however it certainly does show me how a group of people like to tear down Neal Adams, who I'll remind you, is not a scientist. Since you obviously don't know much of the history of where EE came from... here is bit of a history lesson, and I quote this from one of my own threads on another forum.
In 1835, Charles Darwin was one of the first to theorize about the possibility that the earth could be growing. He came to the idea while trying to come up with an explanation for the elevation of the landmass of South America as shown by mountain building in the Andes.
During the start of the 1900's Roberto Mantovani published his work on earth expansion and continental drift. He was really one of the originals to say that all the continents of the earth fit together near perfectly, on a much smaller globe. He was also one of the first to say that it was volcanic activity, which broke the land up into smaller continents. He talked about giant rip zones like the ones we are starting to witness happening out in the African Desert. It might also be an interesting point to make that there is no subduction driving this rift... only spreading.
Ref: http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3486
In 1933 a Geophysicist named Ott Christoph Hilgenberg did extensive work on Growing Earth while working as a teacher of Geology and Paleontology at the Technical University of Berlin. One of his best known work was for is metal globes of various sizes to show how the continents of earth fit together near perfectly as the globe gets smaller.
As Plate Tectonics took over as the dominant explanation for the history of Earth, Growing Earth theories where pretty much tossed into the garbage bin as pseudoscience or worse, completely off topic. Hilgenbergs work on the subject was stripped from the school and his globes where taken off display like some kind of embarrassment to the school.
In the year I was born 1976 Samuel Warren Carey who most have come to say is the 'father' to Growing Earth published his work 'The Expanding Earth.' Samuel Warren Carey was a brilliant Geologist who believed in the Growing Earth model passionately! He pretty much made the subject his life work, and inspired many of the great scientists of today who continue his work. I agree with Neal Adams who said during a talk show that he said he wished Carey was a physicist as well. A geologist is very specialized in understanding the earth and rocks, but it would take physicist to explain a mechanism to explain growth that would be accepted by the scientific community. Carey said that the explanation for growth had to be found in understanding the expansion of the universe it's self. His best student, James Maxlow another brilliant geologist avoids the question all together saying, and I agree with him...
"The entire question as to where the additional mass comes from to explain an increase in Earth radius is a very important core issue to Expansion Tectonics, but a very difficult question to answer. Because the Earth has always been considered the same size since creation; from either a cosmological or religious point of view, it has not been necessary to ask this question. Because the question has not been asked, or taken seriously, where the additional mass comes from remains speculative." ~Ref James Maxlow
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/64739-another-big-blow-growing-earth-theory.html
It's almost funny as it took just 1 supporter for growing earth to jump into that conversation with this comment
"I have studied Neal Adams animations, both for Earth and various moons/planets. It does seem a strong case can be made for an expansion phase in planets and moons. No serious case can be made for perpetual growth. Therefore, if there was a nonlinear expansion phase, as continental Earth -> present Earth suggests, I would guess this is due to a phase change inside the Earth releasing - at a guess - hydrogen. And lots of it. This hydrogen could come from neutron decay (if neutrons are in some way stable in an Fe matrix at huge T & P) or from hydrogen dissolved in Fe. There is some strange chemistry with H being absorbed in Fe as Fe (H) x. Such an outgassing may also lend credence to claims of abiotic oil.
Do not lightly discount the EE theory - at least not without checking the geology and mineral deposits of the West Coast of America and the East Coast of Asia/Australasia
Can we be sure what can happen in an Fe core? Huge mag flux, pressure, temp. There is a theory that neutrons capture neutrinos and form proton and electron, If so, perhaps the Fe core acted as some kind of 'neutrino Faraday cage' until it had cooled sufficiently.
Another thing - Earth days used to be shorter. Think of the ice skater spin, as arms are outstretched."
and the post was locked and closed by moderators... I guess hinting at the truth causes even the moderates of science forums to shut down topics that could possibly lead to some EXTREMELY important information about the future of our planet.
On a final Note... NEAL ADAMS is NOT the face of growing Earth... tearing down the cartoonist who loves to back up real scientists with impressive animations is like ranting on a desk clerk at the gas station about the price of Gas. It isn't going to change anything. Neal Adams idea on Pair Production is also based on the work of a physicist who won a Nobel Prize... look it up... | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/9/2009 8:51:15 AM |
Yes, and there is also a certain level of satisfaction of warm tingly feelings associated with defending a theory I believe to be true over the mainstream accepted fallacy. I read once that the Growing Earth theory was just too simple for anyone who is over analytical. It's as easy to understand as a child's read along book in comparison to the complex texts of nonsense to support a static earth radius.
You should read this over and over again, until you understand what you are actually saying here. It's what almost everyone else has been trying to tell you, and I find it deeply amusing that you said it yourself... apparently without being aware of what you've actually said.
and the post was locked and closed by moderators... I guess hinting at the truth causes even the moderates of science forums to shut down topics that could possibly lead to some EXTREMELY important information about the future of our planet.
When you can tell us "why," it will be time for you to leave, grasshopper. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/9/2009 9:44:00 AM | It seems to me light that this has become your religion. Consider the following...
The proposal calls for the creation of mass from some unknown process. Rather than being seen as a weakness in the theory, you insist that it's simply something that "we cannot know." Belief in the absence of evidence. Sound familiar?
You see "proof" in the planets. And yet, despite contradictory evidence presented, you insist that its still true. Belief, not only in the absence of evidence but in the light of contradictory evidence. Sound familiar?
Oh, the water question. Where did it come from?...Bottom line, "We don't know. It just appeared." Almost a "miraculous" occurrence. Sound familiar?
And let's not forget, every religion has to have its prophets.
Hallelujah! | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/9/2009 11:49:13 AM | Re: desertrhino
When you can tell us "why," it will be time for you to leave, grasshopper
Growing earth is a cinch, clean, elementary, incomplex, intelligible, not difficult, picnic, piece of cake, plain, quiet, self-explanatory, straightforward and uncomplicated. Plate tectonics is more complex, complicated, difficult, exacting, intricate, unclear, and unintelligible... I've been saying that for as long I can remember.
If the pebble was the earth in your hand... I would leave in your hand so you could witness it growing... and then you will have finally seen the light.
Re: stargazer1000
It seems to me light that this has become your religion. Consider the following...
No
The proposal calls for the creation of mass from some unknown process. Rather than being seen as a weakness in the theory, you insist that it's simply something that "we cannot know." Belief in the absence of evidence. Sound familiar?
Evidence supports light as we can see, but don't know the mechanism
Evidence supports gravity as our feet stay on the ground, but we don't know the mechanism
And
Evidence supports Growing planets, yet we do not know the mechanism
You see "proof" in the planets. And yet, despite contradictory evidence presented, you insist that its still true. Belief, not only in the absence of evidence but in the light of contradictory evidence. Sound familiar?
You have contradictory evidence to the idea that that continents fit back together on a smaller globe? That be like taking a vase, smashing it into 12 pieces and then saying there is NO WAY that they could fit back together to form a vase.
Oh, the water question. Where did it come from?...Bottom line, "We don't know. It just appeared." Almost a "miraculous" occurrence. Sound familiar?
No, There are VERY good explanations for the water now
and let's not forget, every religion has to have its prophets.
? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/9/2009 11:59:21 AM |
No, There are VERY good explanations for the water now
No, there are, at best, fanciful and/or shoe-horned explanations for the water.
and let's not forget, every religion has to have its prophets. ?
Your cartoonist and the geophysicist you quote left, right and center.
You have contradictory evidence to the idea that that continents fit back together on a smaller globe? That be like taking a vase, smashing it into 12 pieces and then saying there is NO WAY that they could fit back together to form a vase.
No, it's not contradictory to anything. For instance, the fact that continents fit together might stem from the fact that they were together...in a massive 'super continent.' Which, in fact, there is evidence for.
Evidence supports light as we can see, but don't know the mechanism
Evidence supports gravity as our feet stay on the ground, but we don't know the mechanism
And
Evidence supports Growing planets, yet we do not know the mechanism
Argument based on ignorance. The fact that the mechanism for gravity is not fully understood has no bearing on the validity of "growing" Earth. Besides, given your apparent lack of understanding of even something so basic as gravity (i.e. planets and stars must generate their gravity from a central black hole), then how can you honestly assess your understanding for the science around this? It's called critical thinking. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/9/2009 1:17:13 PM | | How does a static mass expanding earth increase the magnetic field so as to keep from "growing" into the Van Allen radiation belts? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 11/9/2009 6:33:04 PM | | If we gain tons of star dust everyday. Is not the earth growing? | |
|
|
| Page 20 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 
