Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > the earth is growing      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 576
view profile
History
the earth is growingPage 24 of 29    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
Stargazer...

Nah - it had to have started out as a hydrogen atom... Prime Matter Decay inflated a single proton to that size.

The question is - does it have a single planet that grew from the electron...?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 577
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/4/2009 1:10:20 PM
It's an interesting idea. When I first saw this, I thought it was nuts. Some bogus idea someone came up with when drunk. I was quite surprised to find out that a number of scientists have held the idea, and also, that it's not been proved so fundamentally, that everyone agreed with it, like when Newton proved Heliocentrism. I guess it's still a valid viewpoint. Not one I've ever thought of before. But I don't think of everything. Who knows? It might be true. It might be not.
 coolnomad
Joined: 5/4/2007
Msg: 578
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/5/2009 1:55:12 AM
Did he prove it or did he just assume it?
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 579
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/5/2009 6:28:39 AM
Scorp...

Quick correction - it wasn't Newton who proved the Heliocentric Model of the Solar Sytem, it was Copernicus.

The question that comes to mind about growing planets is - we've had close observations of several asteroids as well as planets, why do we not see the rifts, cracks, and mountains that GP suggests should be there? (After all... if mountains and rift-valleys are evidence that planets are growing, a growing asteroid should show the same features, yes...?) Or is there some kind of lower 'limit' that prevents one body from starting to grow, while allowing another to do so?
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 580
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/5/2009 9:03:00 AM

The question that comes to mind about growing planets is - we've had close observations of several asteroids as well as planets, why do we not see the rifts, cracks, and mountains that GP suggests should be there? (After all... if mountains and rift-valleys are evidence that planets are growing, a growing asteroid should show the same features, yes...?) Or is there some kind of lower 'limit' that prevents one body from starting to grow, while allowing another to do so?


Are you saying you haven't seen the mountains or rift valleys on other planets we have observed? Here is a link to talking tectonic spreading on Mars via the process of plate tectonics

Ref: http://geology.com/nasa/mars-plate-tectonics.shtml

However, what you are NOT going to read about anywhere in that article is anything about subduction, because the planet does not have oceans, there is no lubrication for the plates to slide under or over top of one another, and yet mars still has mountains and rift valleys.

So if there is supporting evidence that new material has surfaced and created a new land volume, and the old material spread out without subduction, the question of weather or not the planet grew in unavoidable.

Ganymede is by far the most clear examples of ongoing tectonic spreading and multiple scientist have agreed that it HAD to have grown in order to explain phenomenons observed all over it's surface.

"Ganymede's grooved terrain likely formed during an epoch of global expansion...." -- Michael T. Bland and Adam P. Showman, planetary scientists, 2007

"In fact, it is now widely accepted that the Jovian moon, Ganymede, has experienced significant, internally-generated, post-formation expansion. As Prockter (2001) writes: 'The bright terrain formed as Ganymede underwent some extreme resurfacing event, probably as a result of the moon's increase in size'. Collins et al. (1999) agree that the formation of the grooved terrain on Ganymede was likely the result of post-formation 'global expansion'. " -- Dennis D. McCarthy, geoscientist, November 2005

"Researchers now believe that Ganymede's more youthful-looking half could be due to a crust that stretched--as has happened in the past few million years on Europa--rather than any sort of icy volcanism, as many had assumed." -- Richard. A. Kerr, physicist, 2001

"The bright terrain formed as Ganymede underwent some extreme resurfacing event, probably as a result of the moon's increase in size." -- Louise M. Prockter, physicist, 2001
 DartmouthRunner
Joined: 3/5/2009
Msg: 581
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/5/2009 12:20:00 PM
Interesting thread but 24 pages of catch up reading to do. So I'll just ask what's nagging me. I'm not saying whether I aree or disagree with it, just want some clarification about this theory.

IS the growth process one of collecting more and more mass over time?

Or is it one of the sheer fact the planet is spinning and the internal contents are being pushed outward
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 582
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/5/2009 12:29:38 PM
Re: not mike holmes


IS the growth process one of collecting more and more mass over time? Or is it one of the sheer fact the planet is spinning and the internal contents are being pushed outward


There are two definitions proponents use.... Growing Earth or Expanding Earth... and please do not confuse Expanding Earth with Hollow Earth because they are different

Expanding Earth hypothesize that the earth is increasing in size because as the core decays it's transforming from a super dense solid material to a less dense semi solid material, and that material wants out pushing outwards.

Growing Earth hypothesize that the planet is increasing in mass via a process that could reside in the very explanation of where matter came from in the begging of time as we know it. So as planets grow bigger, they also increase in mass causing an increase in gravity.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 583
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/5/2009 3:20:55 PM
Storm...

I said *asteroid* - small worlds like Ceres or Pallas. The NEAR probe photographed the surface of Ida for weeks, and found no evidence of spreading features.

So - is there a limiting factor, that anything smaller than a certain size will not 'grow'...?
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 584
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/6/2009 1:04:36 PM
I looked up pictures of Ceres, Pallas and just for the hell of it Pluto to see if I could get a detailed look at the surfaces. Sadly none of them have high resolution surface pictures... I find that kinda supposing to be honest with you. If you know of a link, please direct me to it. Ida is an asteroid, and worth looking into to see. I guess my first question would be, is this asteroid an example of something with an inner driving core that will continue to cause it to grow, or is it just the dead rem anent of something that already did grow and then blew up? When looking at smaller rocks for examples of Growth, there are different kinds of rock, there are the remnants of previously living molten rock which we often kick around on the dirt paths, and there are living rocks, ones that do in fact grow like the Geode. Geodes are unique examples of nature, and are called Geodes because there often spherical like that of a planet. Interestingly enough they grow from the center outward, and they do this via a process of chemical reaction. Planets are a little big bigger, and aren't really sitting in pools of various elements to draw energy from to grow... or are they? They do sit in pools of various gravitational forces, not only being bombarded with energy from the sun, but the entire galaxy, not to mention the countless tons of incoming space debris we collect daily. Dennis McCarthy believes firmly that the process of planet growth has something to do with gravity, and the bigger it gets, the faster it will continue to grow.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 585
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/6/2009 1:47:50 PM

I looked up pictures of Ceres, Pallas and just for the hell of it Pluto to see if I could get a detailed look at the surfaces. Sadly none of them have high resolution surface pictures... I find that kinda supposing to be honest with you.


That's because there's been no close-by passes by probes...yet. The Dawn probe is on its way to Ceres and New Horizons is on its way to Pluto.

As for the rest of it...meh! Pointless to discuss actual science here. Geodes! Really!
 iSeal
Joined: 10/17/2007
Msg: 586
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/6/2009 10:08:27 PM
However, what you are NOT going to read about anywhere in that article is anything about subduction, because the planet does not have oceans, there is no lubrication for the plates to slide under or over top of one another, and yet mars still has mountains and rift valleys.

That is incorrect. Water is not a lubricant for tectonic activity - it never gets down to where the movement is happening. The reason you see plates form around continental crust is that its stronger than the thin oceanic crust, so its the point of least resistance for the stress to be released. But tectonic activity is not limited to these boundaries.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 587
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/7/2009 6:18:26 AM
Storm...

I did a little looking around for info on geodes... and it's become clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. Geodes do NOT 'grow from the center outward' - the minerals cool around a gas pocket within molten rock. And just what the HECK is 'living rock'?????

This idea that a planet needs a molten core to expand, versus a 'dead' asteroid, sounds like the idea of epicycles to account for anomalies in planetary motion, when the geocentric model of the solar system was the accepted norm.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 588
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/7/2009 8:07:03 AM
Re: stargazer1000


As for the rest of it...meh! Pointless to discuss actual science here. Geodes! Really! (various little laughing emicons)


I know you can't take the entire subject of Growing Earth seriously because 'Neal Adams' is behind the animations circulating YouTube and the science forums. Hell, I've read blogs of people who critisise the theory based on 'Neals Theory' but it's not Neals theory, it belongs rightfully to many great scientists before him.

If there is one thing I can point out that Neal gets right, and I don't beleive you have addressed it... and only a couple of people have... (and only at mocking Neals loosy shorelines, or that they did fit together only as Pangaea) He shows how the continents fit together not just on the Atlantic ocean side but also on the Pacific ocean side. The fit is uncanny.

The response fails to address Neal's point -- that the continents fit together not only in the Atlantic (which would be expected under PT) but also along the expansion zones in the Pacific -- which is not predicted by the Pangea model. You've simply evaded the fact at issue. How does PT explain their fitting together on both sides?

Re: iSeal



However, what you are NOT going to read about anywhere in that article is anything about subduction, because the planet does not have oceans, there is no lubrication for the plates to slide under or over top of one another, and yet mars still has mountains and rift valleys.


That is incorrect. Water is not a lubricant for tectonic activity - it never gets down to where the movement is happening. The reason you see plates form around continental crust is that its stronger than the thin oceanic crust, so its the point of least resistance for the stress to be released. But tectonic activity is not limited to these boundaries.


Thank you iSeal, now if you can please just site references to you're source, we can finally send the theory of plate tectonics to it's grave. In order to maintain a static earth size, Plate Tectonics NEEDS to eat previous existing surface material. Many geologists have been saying for years that the subduction on a global scale is complete crap yet the non believes of growing earth still cling to it religiously.

RocketMan_Len


I did a little looking around for info on geodes... and it's become clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. Geodes do NOT 'grow from the center outward' - the minerals cool around a gas pocket within molten rock. And just what the HECK is 'living rock'?????


You didn't look very hard, and to be honest, I hadn't even heard of the ones the form around a molten gas pocket. They might have been originally nodules of limestone or anhydrite. Some are formed within a soft sediment by concentric outward growth around small nucleus or core and they take about 240 million years to form... so please don't confuse it with one of those 10 day elementary school science projects.

I found a link for you :) "Rocks for Kids" learn all about the many and various types of Geodes.

http://www.rocksforkids.com/R&M/geodes.html

Sorry about my definition of 'living'. A while back I made this big deal about the definition of life. One of the examples I used was that anything that Consumes, Grows and dies could be defined as a living energy. My argument was in support that 'Fire' could be defined as a living chemical reaction.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 589
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/7/2009 9:29:37 AM
Light:

You don't understand what iSeal is saying. He's not saying subduction doesn't happen, he's just disputing whether water acts as a lubricant. He's also neglecting the effect of hydrates under pressure.

You REALLY don't understand the geode formation page you yourself provided. At no point do they say the geode grows from the center, they're saying the hollow that later becomes the geode is formed by a different method, growth of a nodule, followed y hollowing through chemical/solution means.

You really need an education. You continue to sound like an idiot who gets what little information he has solely from google.

Go.
To.
School.

Better yourself. Seriously.

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/ecol438/lect06.html
 Funcuz
Joined: 1/16/2009
Msg: 590
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/7/2009 11:28:14 AM
If there is one thing I can point out that Neal gets right, and I don't beleive you have addressed it... and only a couple of people have... (and only at mocking Neals loosy shorelines, or that they did fit together only as Pangaea) He shows how the continents fit together not just on the Atlantic ocean side but also on the Pacific ocean side. The fit is uncanny.

The response fails to address Neal's point -- that the continents fit together not only in the Atlantic (which would be expected under PT) but also along the expansion zones in the Pacific -- which is not predicted by the Pangea model. You've simply evaded the fact at issue. How does PT explain their fitting together on both sides?

Huh ? The fit is uncanny like the way an '80's rock star could make "Platypus" rhyme with "Love muscle".
How exactly did Neal manage to fit Alaska along the Pacific side ? Come to think of it , no , it doesn't fit at all. If anything , they're like mirror images of each other which is to say that any points jutting out of the two landmasses would touch long before they "matched up". You'd basically have to squish them together to get any sort of match and that's entirely at odds with the idea that they were ever together in the first place. Furthermore , if the Earth was expanding in this way , one would expect to continents to be equidistant from each other. Actually , there wouldn't be any continents at all. It should all be islands. Actually , if any of this were even remotely plausible , the continents wouldn't necessarily fit together at all anyway. The assumption would be that the Earth has managed to accrue both water and other forms of mass at equal rates otherwise there would have had to be a time when there were no oceans at all. While there was indeed a time when this was true , it ended early in Earth's history. Frankly I've got to know ; Why do you believe in this nonsense man ? I mean seriously , this is just a stupid idea. How can you exhibit intelligence in so many areas yet completely buy into what is obviously a crackpot theory ? I just don't understand why you cling to this idea despite it's obvious and utter lack of credibility .

They don't fit together one bit on the Pacific side and if you honestly manage to see that they do then I suggest you have your eyes checked.
 iSeal
Joined: 10/17/2007
Msg: 591
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/7/2009 1:36:02 PM
Thank you iSeal, now if you can please just site references to you're source, we can finally send the theory of plate tectonics to it's grave. In order to maintain a static earth size, Plate Tectonics NEEDS to eat previous existing surface material. Many geologists have been saying for years that the subduction on a global scale is complete crap yet the non believes of growing earth still cling to it religiously.

It is not a necessity for all plates to "eat" one-another. Convergent boundaries are but one of three different types of interactions that can occur.

For those ill versed with tectonic theory, think of the Earth as made up of a collection of plates that move around thanks to the currents found deep within the Earth. The plates aren't static though: in some spots magma comes up and adds to the plates, in others a plate hits another and goes underneath it (melting the material back down and re-integrating it with the mantle), in others yet the plates slide past each other.

It's all very measurable. For instance, we can literally see new material form in the mid-Atlantic ridge and measure at what rate it does so using magnetic records, we can measure the speed at which each plate moves using GPS, and we are surrounded by the evidence of the pressures put on these plates (mountains, folds, some valleys, etc.)

It's thanks to our understanding of plate tectonics that people like me have been able to find new oil sources for the last fifty years. We have former shore areas (good for oil) that are now up high in the mountains (pushed up when one plate went over the other), and its thanks to knowing stuff like this that we find new reservoirs. Thanks to our understanding, it's very predictable, and we're proven right all the time.

Plate tectonics is as indisputable as the theory of evolution.
 iSeal
Joined: 10/17/2007
Msg: 592
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/7/2009 1:54:48 PM
Oh and another thing: If you alter the mass of Earth, our orbit around the sun becomes affected. At our current orbital velocity, with a smaller mass, our orbit size would increase due to the weaker pull of gravity from the Sun. In fact, we wouldn't be able to sustain liquid oceans made of water if we were out by even a little bit more. Naturally, the records from 1.5 billion years ago shows liquid water oceans.

In other news, I literally weigh the Earth as part of my job (another tool to help find oil) by use of a very precise gravity measuring instrument. Very precise measurements have been done for the past eighty years, and frankly, if the Earth were to increase in size by even the smallest smidge, we could measure it. But it doesn't. The truth being of course that the Earth does increase in mass due to incoming stardust, but that amount is infinitesimally small.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 593
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/7/2009 2:25:20 PM
everything is star dust, I think.

that star dust you speak of, wouldn't it have added up over time?
 iSeal
Joined: 10/17/2007
Msg: 594
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/7/2009 6:45:14 PM
everything is star dust, I think.

that star dust you speak of, wouldn't it have added up over time?

The estimate is that one quadrillionth of one percent to Earth's weight is added each day from star dust. Even over Earth's entire lifespan of 4.5 billion years, that amounts to 0.001 percent - and that's not factoring any mass loss mechanism.
 Light Storm
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 595
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/7/2009 7:31:42 PM
Re: desertrhino


You REALLY don't understand the geode formation page you yourself provided. At no point do they say the geode grows from the center, they're saying the hollow that later becomes the geode is formed by a different method, growth of a nodule, followed y hollowing through chemical/solution means.


Yes, molecules do add to the inner ends creating compression and having no inward release they must push outward. By Growing inwards, Geodes do expand outwards, ergo, they grow. I honestly don't want a huge debate on Geodes, create a topic for it if you want.


http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/ecol438/lect06.html


Interesting site... I was fascinated to find a link to http://www.expanding-earth.org/ at the bottom. One of the last expanding earth sites I would recommend, but still interesting to find it there.

Re: Funcuz


Huh ? The fit is uncanny like the way an '80's rock star could make "Platypus" rhyme with "Love muscle".


Uncanny as in having or seeming to have a supernatural or inexplicable basis; beyond the ordinary or normal; extraordinary.


How exactly did Neal manage to fit Alaska along the Pacific side ? Come to think of it , no , it doesn't fit at all. If anything , they're like mirror images of each other which is to say that any points jutting out of the two landmasses would touch long before they "matched up". You'd basically have to squish them together to get any sort of match and that's entirely at odds with the idea that they were ever together in the first place.


In order to see how they fit together, look at the rainbow map of the ocean floor age. You can see very clearly how the age of the ocean floor evolved over time. Run the clock 10 million, you take away the newer colors until your only left with the ancient granite continents witch fit together pretty elegantly.

"...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)..."

Ref: http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_72.pdf

Also Denis McCarthy has talked about the Pacific fit in advanced detail to the measurements of tectonic spreading being above and beyond the amount subducted. You have ultra fast spreading in the south poll to ultra slower spreading as you move northward. This is why the planet is mostly new and oceanic in the southern hemisphere while the northern is largely ancient and continental.

I welcome you to read his published paper on the subject : http://www.4threvolt.com/files/McCarthy2005.pdf

And oh yah, that Adams guy put them together in like every other animation hes ever done... you should watch them as a good starting point to getting a general overview to the theory before reading what some scientists have to say about it.


The assumption would be that the Earth has managed to accrue both water and other forms of mass at equal rates otherwise there would have had to be a time when there were no oceans at all. While there was indeed a time when this was true , it ended early in Earth's history.


One of the first questions ever asked of me was 'If the Earth Grew, where did the water come from?' I found it interesting to learn that sea level used to be 1-2km high than it is today. My question is, if the earth didn't expand, why isn't that sea level still the same?

Also, when lava hardens, it releases water vapor. Now, that something new I've recently learned about, but considering 2/3rds of our planet is the new ocean floor created by volcanic activity, I have to say... that's a lot of water over hundreds of millions of years. It also falls into place beautifully with James Maxlows idea's on the oceans being the result of volcanic out venting.


Frankly I've got to know ; Why do you believe in this nonsense man ? I mean seriously , this is just a stupid idea. How can you exhibit intelligence in so many areas yet completely buy into what is obviously a crackpot theory ? I just don't understand why you cling to this idea despite it's obvious and utter lack of credibility .


It's simple, it makes sense, and for me, it answers many flaws I find in PT


They don't fit together one bit on the Pacific side and if you honestly manage to see that they do then I suggest you have your eyes checked.


Please read the link to McCathys paper on the subject, and tell me what you think after you give it a fair chance.

Re: iSeal


For those ill versed with tectonic theory, think of the Earth as made up of a collection of plates that move around thanks to the currents found deep within the Earth. The plates aren't static though: in some spots magma comes up and adds to the plates, in others a plate hits another and goes underneath it (melting the material back down and re-integrating it with the mantle), in others yet the plates slide past each other.


In 1909 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 was in 1915 that Alfred Wegener started publishing his work, and for the most part it was ALL identicle to Roberto Mantovani's work except that he made no mention what so ever about earth expansion.

James Maxlows explains it best as he can as 'expansion tectonics' because the theories are not all that much different. James Maxlow also points out how the earth remaining static in size is an assumption carried on.


It's thanks to our understanding of plate tectonics that people like me have been able to find new oil sources for the last fifty years. We have former shore areas (good for oil) that are now up high in the mountains (pushed up when one plate went over the other), and its thanks to knowing stuff like this that we find new reservoirs. Thanks to our understanding, it's very predictable, and we're proven right all the time.


"An important reason for the persistence of a flawed theory, such as I believe plate tectonics to be, is that many people and institutions make their living or business upon those premises. So if the premises of such a theory are weakened, then so shall the power and interests of those persons and organizations be destabilized.

If one makes his life's work the proof of, say, flying carpets and you come along and conclusively show that carpets are incapable of flight, then what has become of that man's life's work and his pride? So he zealously protects what he does.

That is what I will call Institutional Inertia --The grants, the gifts, the tenures, the thesis papers, whole careers...

Academic science is powerful and important. But Big Science is not just science, there is also a very powerful aspect of politics in it. So and so is a whacko, because his work or ideas are unorthodox, but then later he is the acclaimed discover of this or that. Take Nicola Tesla for instance. He was brilliant and weird and his idea for AC power transmission was the dark horse that beat plodding, favorite Edison's inferior scheme for DC transmission." ~ Melissa

Lets not also discount James Maxlows usefulness in the finding of oils, only he uses expansion tectonics to more accurately locate it. He is world famous for it to.


In other news, I literally weigh the Earth as part of my job (another tool to help find oil) by use of a very precise gravity measuring instrument. Very precise measurements have been done for the past eighty years, and frankly, if the Earth were to increase in size by even the smallest smidge, we could measure it. But it doesn't. The truth being of course that the Earth does increase in mass due to incoming stardust, but that amount is infinitesimally small.


That's eighty whole years? Well gee wiz, as I've been trying to find data on gravity, I would love it if you could direct me to some kind of link. Now, the ocean floors have been spreading over the last two hundread and fifty million years. Your eighty makes up exactly 0.000032% of that time... while I'm sure the equipment is very well made... I wouldn't expect mind blowing results for thousands of generations of my kids, kids, kids.


The estimate is that one quadrillionth of one percent to Earth's weight is added each day from star dust. Even over Earth's entire lifespan of 4.5 billion years, that amounts to 0.001 percent - and that's not factoring any mass loss mechanism.


"Second, there are mechanisms proposed for EE -- google "expanding earth." The argument is that the Earth is acquiring mass from extraterrestrial sources, and that the increase in mass is increasing pressure on the mantle and core, and that the mantle and core are relieving that pressure by expanding the Earth at the seams.

Is it true? I don't know. But it's certainly a proposed mechanisms which makes predictions (that the Earth is increasing in mass due to the the acquisition of extraterrestrial matter). Is this prediction true? Why yes, it is! Albeit today, the increase to present mass quotient is quote low, that does not mean it has never been higher in the past -- indeed, if a massive asteroid or meteor hit the Earth (as, it is argued, one did, causing the extinction of the dinosaurs), that would cause a significant increase in mass, which would increase mantle pressure a great deal, quite quickly. That pressure may well be "relieved at the seams."

So again, the model proposes a mechanism -- increases in mass driving increased interior pressure and temperature which is relieved through volcanic activity." ~ungtss.blogspot.com
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 596
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/7/2009 7:54:28 PM

The response fails to address Neal's point -- that the continents fit together not only in the Atlantic (which would be expected under PT) but also along the expansion zones in the Pacific -- which is not predicted by the Pangea model. You've simply evaded the fact at issue. How does PT explain their fitting together on both sides?


Asserting something is so doesn't make it so. Asserting that all edges of the continents fit together "just so" is wrong. Yes, the continents fit together where they spread apart from the Atlantic because...ta da!!...there's spreading taking place in the atlantic. there's also areas where there is spreading in the pacific. Indeed, the continents have come together and split apart through several periods of Earth's 4.5 billion year history. So interrelation between them is not surprising just on that basis alone.

And yet, you contend that all this supposed growth happened in the last 250 million years. Question. Do you know the difference in scale between billion and million? Clearly not.

What you've failed to address is the need for a "mechanism." All you've offered is...well...what can only be construed as "magic."

This so-called "theory" is a solid FAIL all the way through. Seriously, give it up. Don Quixote you're not.
 Funcuz
Joined: 1/16/2009
Msg: 597
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/8/2009 3:05:03 AM
Uncanny as in having or seeming to have a supernatural or inexplicable basis; beyond the ordinary or normal; extraordinary.

Well yeah , I'd say that describing this idea as magical or supernatural sounds about right.

In order to see how they fit together, look at the rainbow map of the ocean floor age. You can see very clearly how the age of the ocean floor evolved over time. Run the clock 10 million, you take away the newer colors until your only left with the ancient granite continents witch fit together pretty elegantly.

And that requires an incredible amount of mental gymnastics .
That actually creates far more questions than it answers. For example : How come we're only accumulating mass on the currently exposes land masses ? Why isn't the Earth one grossly lopsided mess if mass accumulation only occurs at some places and not on others ? Why is nothing stretched like some sort of geological toffee ? Why does mass sometimes accumulate to form sharp ridges at the top of mountains ? Why are there ocean trenches ? Why aren't we gaining water anymore ? Why didn't we gain water before ? But we did gain water before so how come it switches back and forth ? The list of questions this raises is endless and not one of them can be answered with our current understanding of everything from quantum physics to plain old gravity . Well , you can't do it while also clinging to the idea that the Earth is expanding anyway. This just doesn't make one bit of sense.

Mostly though , the Americas clearly do not conform to the contours of the Asian or Oceanian landmasses across the Pacific. If the Earth is expanding then it stands to reason that it's expanding from a central point since it also happens to be a slightly squished globe. Every continent should be broken apart or stretched out so much that no mountain ranges should exist. Not to mention that there never could have been any mountain ranges in the first place since , without tectonic displacement mountain chains couldn't form. Either way , if the Earth was expanding like a balloon having more air pumped into it then the continents would essentially form a perfect sphere if the globe was shrunk back down. That's obviously not the case no matter how much anybody wants to hammer this square peg into the round hole of "Expanding Earth" crackpottiness.


One of the first questions ever asked of me was 'If the Earth Grew, where did the water come from?' I found it interesting to learn that sea level used to be 1-2km high than it is today. My question is, if the earth didn't expand, why isn't that sea level still the same?

And where exactly did you read that ? One to two kilometers ?....according to whom ? Not only can I find no hint of this little nugget of misinformation anywhere , even if it were true it and so was the expanding Earth hypothesis , it would mean that there was a time when there was practically nothing but ocean. And when would this have been ?
 RATHLINLIGHTHOUSE
Joined: 2/10/2009
Msg: 598
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/8/2009 7:03:31 AM
lightstorm

>However, what you are NOT going to read about anywhere in that article is anything about subduction, because the planet does not have oceans, there is no lubrication for the plates to slide under or over top of one another, and yet mars still has mountains and rift valleys.

Subduction on earth goes down to about 120 km
There is absolutely no evidence that H2O does not exist on Mars "lithosphere".

Subduction is probably powered by upwelling magma and circulation of a semi liquid core (simplified)
The subduction is caused by the downward motion and suction of the circulation cell.
Whether water is required is conjecture.
Once the "lithosphere" is hot enough minerals decompose and become liquid c >400C and if lubrication was required this would suffice.

Is there a circulatory system on Mars? Is there water locked up in minerals on Mars or in intestitial spaces between crystals and "sediment"
 Paul K
Joined: 3/10/2006
Msg: 599
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/8/2009 1:39:23 PM
Hey mark

I am sorry to hear that you are being censored, but this is a PRIVATE entity, and they can censor whomever they want, without cause.

Paul K
 Funcuz
Joined: 1/16/2009
Msg: 600
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 12/8/2009 1:54:18 PM

My message to the fonder of POF

I am reporting some clown called *Cowboy* who continues to delete threads in the Science forums. If he does it one more time for no good reason, I will never come back to POF. I get several contacts every week.
It is CENSORSHIP.

Are you on crack or something ?
First of all , there is no "censoring" here the way you're thinking about it. The problem is that you're not following the rules. Put your threads in the right place , make sure they're not redundant (that's what the search function is for) and don't post nonsense or advertise something.
If you can manage to follow those simple rules then you won't be "censored".
As for your 'threat' to never come back to POF...bon voyage !
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > the earth is growing