|
|
|
|
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/12/2008 12:33:28 PM | Lightstorm,
Is that what I said ? No...not at all.
There's a difference between explaining that nothing is absolutely certain and explaining that we have a pretty good idea of why things are the way they are. Apparently we're a little too focused on the former disposition.
By the way, it's a bit of a myth that most people ever thought the Earth was flat. We've been pretty sure it was a sphere since around 240 B.C. actually thanks to a guy named Eratosthenes. Before him Aristotle used logic and reason to come to the same conclusion. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/12/2008 1:47:30 PM |
I'm not an expert on this kind of stuff, but it's a question I attempt to answer by tossing in idea's. I can tell you this... as a 'feeling' 'perceiving' type I go off gut feelings a lot more than the logical 'thinking' 'judging types'.
To be fair and honest, "feeling, perceiving types" should probably stick to something more compatible with their basic mental makeup like the arts. Science and math truly are the playground of "thinking" types. We need both. It just mucks things up when one who is completely unsuited to the field tries to force themselves to "fit." Kind of like saying "Gandhi, mathematician," or "Bill Gates, sculptor." | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/12/2008 10:31:14 PM | To Stargazer1000
How about the effect on evolution of a smaller, denser Earth? After all, something of the same mass but smaller volume is going to mean a denser gravity field so basically the dinosaurs of old are going to have to be smaller, not larger. Not to mention the effect on the moon's gravity.
If earth was half the size... so wouldn't that mean the gravity be 1/4th or even 1/2 of what it is today? Lets look at the moon... much smaller... much less gravity. On a world with less gravity, it would be much easier for creatures to super size their mass because it would weigh a lot less.
I just found this article by Neal Adamns, it was written as a responce to an article "When Giants Had Wings and 6 Legs By HENRY FOUNTAIN Published: February 3, 2004" The article basicly is pro expanding earth as insects with that size wouldn't be able to support their body weight in todays gravity. Neal wrote about the dinosours...
------------
"Dinosaur Planet" exhibits conclusive proof against Pangea Theory.
You've watched the show??? Yes, of course you have.
This dinosaur is the Tarascosaurus, a type of Tyranosaur that lived between 88 million years ago to 93 million years ago. Bones from this dinosaur have been found and studied in Southern Africa. It's a well known dinosaur and it's my checkmate to the scientific community.
Why? Well, because (Phil) bones from this specific form of dinosaur have been found in France. What does this prove? What does this mean? It means:
1. The Pangea theory is completely wrong.
2. There is no Laurasia.
3. There is/was no Godswanaland
4. There was no Tethys Sea.
5. Finally it means that dinosaurs migrated (as Neal said) from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere as only birds do now.
How can this small discovery in France mean all of this conclusively?
Well, it's not just the bones and the fact that they exactly match dinosaurs in Africa so that there can be no doubt. It's the fact that this type of dinosaur is locked in time about 88 million years ago. This is irrevocable and incontrovertible proof, for which there can be absolutely no doubt.
I'll explain.
The study of tectonics is filled with nonsense and jibberish. It says continents or upper tectonic plates move about the Earth randomly, bumping and crashing into each other in their random way, making mountains and such (ssssilly.) around the Earth, moved by convection of the magma.
This is a 'stupid theory' because the upper plates are buried into and are part of the lower tectonic plate like a tree stump buried in the land. This lower tectonic land must move if the upper plate moves. They are part of each other. All physics says this can't happen.
Placing that aside and going with the insanity, science says about 600 million years ago all the upper tectonic plates gathered together (by some mysterious manner of means) into one big gigantic island and they 'fused' together. ???
Just a question here, is this he oddest damn planet you've ever seen?
Let me explain, by the way, that there is no, absolutely no proof of the existence of this gigantic ocean 600 million years ago, or 500 million years ago, or 400 million years, or 300 million years ago or even 200 million years ago. What do we have proof of? Well we have proof that shallow seas covered as much as 2/3's of the "land" or upper tectonic plate. (Of course I say this is "all" that existed, the "land" and shallow seas. No deep oceans!) So what was sea level at that time?
Now, according to science, about 180 million years ago, the island of Pangea began to tear in two! (odd, huh?)
The upper portion moved, for some reason, north to the north pole, (North America and Eurasia) the lower portion (South America, Africa, Australia and Antarctica) moved to the south pole. In between these two halves, a gigantic ocean spread around the equator that was one to three thousand miles wide. The scientists called this spread the Tethys Sea.
Antarctica would become the South Pole and in time the continents South America, Africa and Australia would peel off of Antarctica and incredibly begin again to move north. Eventually they say South America will crash into North America and Africa will crash into Europe. (This of course is simply too stupid for words, but I'll go on cause words are the devices we use.)
If you've been reading carefully, you will realize that at the time of Tarascosaurus that 83 million years ago was in the midst of the time that the vaunted Tethys Sea existed. No humble Mediterranean, but a two thousand mile wide ocean.
How then is it possible that Tarascosaurus existed in lower Africa and France.
It is, in fact impossible if the Tethys Sea existed! No dinosaur of any sort could have gotten from the northern continent to the southern continent.
If one did get to the opposite continent, the Tethys Sea simply and irrevocably could not have existed! No dinosaur can swim a 2000 mile wide sea. To find those bones in France could not have happened or the Tethys Sea cannot have existed. They are mutually exclusive.
Worse, if the Tethys Sea did not exist, the islands of Godswanna and Laurasia did not exist but even more Pangea can't have existed as described. It may have been a gigantic island that covered a smaller planet. That's possible! But Pangea, as described, without a Tethys Sea cannot make possible Antarctica reaching the south pole or make North America and Asia surround the North Pole. The house of cards built over a period of 35 years must now come tumbling down. The battle is won and lost. The soldiers of the vanquished army may still command the field but their efforts are doomed.
MIGRATION
You have read me and possibly heard me say that dinosaurs differ from reptiles in that dinosaurs evolved downfacing legs. And that they did this so that they could migrate from one hemisphere to the other as the concept of seasons came into a previously unchanging climate. All dinosaurs, I argue, migrated hemisphere to hemisphere with the seasons.
This activity will not only raise the dinosaurs above the reptiles and make them the lords and conquerors of the planet, but one sad day this superiority will be the dinosaur's downfall! One day the rifting and spreading will cut off dinosaur migration from hemisphere to hemisphere and 62 million years ago these conquerors will be driven to destruction. The balance tipped, new evolving mammals and marsupials will eat the exposed eggs of the dinosaurs. Except for the birds, the dinosaurs will die off!
But that's 62 million years ago! Eighty three million years ago, in reality, the Mediterranean had not rifted open, that Tarascosaurus who summered in France was easily able to migrate with hundreds of thousands of other dinosaurs to Africa.
That is the only possible way this type of dinosaur can exist in both France and Southern Africa.
FINALLY
This humble dinosaur's running speed is the subject of the scientific narrator of this series. He tells us "other scientists" have analyzed its running power at its weight. Their conclusion:
First: At his size, 80 percent of his body weight must be in his legs. Well, obviously this is not so.
Second: At his body weight, he must only run at a top speed of 10 miles per hour.
Well, even the animators have shown the Tarascosaurus running at 40 or 50 miles per hour. His body is made for speed. Clearly the analysis is wrong
But is it. An elephant, not as big, has shoulder blades that have grown forward to protect the elephant's neck from spin torque. The elephant also has a massive trunk that helps to counterbalance the elephant's head as he turns it side to side. The Tarascosaurus has no such protection.
The Earth that Tarascosaurus lived on was less than half the size of the Earth today. The weight of the Tarascosaurus was one quarter of what it would seem to be, and so he ran 50 miles per hour and his head didn't snap off when he swung it around.
From the front line,
Neal Adams | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/12/2008 10:49:19 PM | Ok, that's just about enough. Please stop this "discussion". Mr. Neal Adams has not given us any measurable, quantifiable, or repeatable information or proofs to his conjecture (Note: This isn't a theory, as was stated previously, this is a conjecture). Mr. Adams has offered us some very pretty pictures, and told us a lot of very big numbers so that people can repeat them without understanding any of the basic physics behind the science of a hydrodynamically stable planetoid.
Enough is enough. Imagination is fun and all; but let us please stick to reality a little more often there.
The Bassist. Honours Physics. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/13/2008 1:08:24 AM | Light Storm
Thanks for bringing up some interesting points.
This dinosaur is the Tarascosaurus, a type of Tyranosaur that lived between 88 million years ago to 93 million years ago. Bones from this dinosaur have been found and studied in Southern Africa. It's a well known dinosaur and it's my checkmate to the scientific community. Just so you know, they found a few vertebrae, teeth, and a femur in southern France and they called it a Tarascosaurus. This dinosaur is viewed dubiously due to a lack of diagnostic evidence.
Also, it is the only known abelisaurid from the Northern Hemisphere. If africa and europe were connected, why did this one species migrate while others didn't?
Well, it's not just the bones and the fact that they exactly match dinosaurs in Africa so that there can be no doubt. *snicker *snicker
This is irrevocable and incontrovertible proof, for which there can be absolutely no doubt. There are absolutely, inctrovertibly, irrefutably way too many adjectives in this sentence.
I'll explain.
The study of tectonics is filled with nonsense and jibberish.  | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/13/2008 3:41:52 PM | Actually, there is proof of oceans 500 million years ago. There are water-borne crustaceans are in what is now 550 million year old rock.
Anyways, what's the point of persisting in this debate when a non-expert, in the face of overwhelming and *simple* evidence by the experts, refuses to even consider their views? It's an incredibly unbalanced perception of things. It's like the 911 truthers, or the moon landing deniers.
A debate involves reason. This isn't a debate, it's a bunch of people trying to appease someone who would rather believe in magic. There is no room for reason there. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/13/2008 4:35:39 PM | ok if the earth was half the size it is now,
why are we finding fossils?
really wouldnt they be buried more deep then they are now?
just how deep would its oceans have been? or where did earth get all this extra water that fills our deep oceans now?
well you may be able to show how some events could relate to the earth growing its kinda weird all of them cant. if i find a broken plate on the floor with no way of knowing how it really got there and broke i would have to start making a theroy up how this event happend.
now lets say you take this new theroy into the event.
the plate started out on the floor, however the plate started expanding causeing the plate to break apart.
ok now the other side
the plate started on the counter, the counter which is made of wood due to temputure and seasing the wood shifted causing the plate to slowly move to its current state. (would take a damn long time)
now the truth the cat knocked the plate on the ground, maybe nethier idea is even close to right.
once you start looking for your idea to be the right one you stop looking for the right idea. science must be looked at with open minds and taking on new ideas. it seems most people now only can think in black and white.
just beacuse a answer seems to fit doesnt mean its right. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/13/2008 6:31:07 PM | To smackemhard
why are we finding fossils? really wouldnt they be buried more deep then they are now?
They don't find fossils at the bottom of the ocean, most of the time, the find prehistoric fish fossils on land... where there once was a shallow sea.
or where did earth get all this extra water that fills our deep oceans now?
Where does water come from in general? The water that makes our 'Blue Planet' such a nice place to live comes from space. In fact water is a quite common compound in space. Moreover, its presence can often be used as a clue to deduce other things, such as the formation history of our Solar System. ~ That's quotes from some random space page about where water comes from.
According to Lawrence S. Myers web site www.expanding-earth.org 200-250 million years ago the earth was a single planetary landmass, 40% smaller than it is today and that at that moment in geolofic time there were no oceans.
"Every island and seamount, and most of the water In today’s ocean basins that now cover over 70% of the planet, has evolved in the very short period of 200 million years! The Earth has been, and still is, steadily growing in size and expanding in diameter at an accelerating rate—contrary to what scientists believe because they are currently unable to detect and measure this relatively slow rate of growth."
Lawrence goes into great detail about a process he has called ACCREATION (creation by accretion) and uses it to demonstrate the evidence that confirms the Earth is gradually increasing in size, one layer at a time.
"The planet is accreting new mass consisting of TWO types of matter from outer space— meteorites and meteor dust, plus solar energy captured by photo- synthesis in living organisms—which could happen only after water appeared on the planet’s surface to support organic growth.
Meteorites falling to Earth, large and small, have been known for centuries, but more recent scientific measurements show that an even greater volume of dust and meteorites (hundreds, possibly thousands, of tons) accretes onto Earth's surface every day!
The estimates vary widely (wildly?)—from ~274 to ~55,000 tons per day [Newkirk in Meteor Orbits and Dust, NASA, 1967], but one can imagine the potential volume of accreting extraterrestrial material from the very large number of meteor streams (10 major and 374 minor, of which 154 are the most authentic) reported by Terentjeva [ibid.] She reported “Generally, the existence is accepted of several hundred minor meteor showers with a duration of not less than 3 to 7 days and an average rate not exceeding 2 meteors per hour.”
Although today the daily volume of extraterrestrial matter from space may be minuscule relative to Earth’s total mass, even one kilogram of new matter is unquestionably an addition of mass and gravitational power. This influx is well known but has been grossly underestimated and dismissed as insignificant—despite massive amounts of meteoric, geologic and organic evidence found in immense coal, oil, and limestone deposits, plus deep overburdens, on every continent and in all ocean sediments.
Some scientists may dispute the notion that additional solid matter is created from solar energy by photosynthesis in plants and other living organisms, but they should consider coal beds that were formed from trees in the Carboniferous (~360 to ~290 Ma) but are now buried under deep overburden that accreted later. The huge fossilized tree trunks found in the Petrified National Forest near Holbrook in eastern Arizona are additional evidence of mass from solar energy. Also consider the massive deposits of limestone created by marine fauna (fish, coral, bivalves, microfossils, etc.) in earlier epochs and this growth continues today. Today, piles of leaves, wood chips and fallen trees are rapidly converted to soil by nematodes. The whole question of added mass needs further research to more accurately determine the volume and sources."
(All that breaking plate stuff)
Your story suggests that the simplest explanation is the correct one... So which story do you like more?
That the earth started out much smaller than it is now, and as it expanded the upper shell of the earth broke apart forming the giant landmasses we know them to be today.
or
The earth has always been the same size, all the land as we know it used to be a giant island that broke up and went sailing until they settled on their current positions. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/13/2008 7:22:08 PM |
The earth has always been the same size, all the land as we know it used to be a giant island that broke up and went sailing until they settled on their current positions.
Actually the land masses haven't settled at all. They continue to move, and in 250 million years it is theorized that the Earth will have one large supercontinent with one gigantic ocean (again). A smaller, though considerably large on its own, lake will rest within the land mass. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/13/2008 8:52:14 PM | That the earth started out much smaller than it is now, and as it expanded the upper shell of the earth broke apart forming the giant landmasses we know them to be today.
or
The earth has always been the same size, all the land as we know it used to be a giant island that broke up and went sailing until they settled on their current positions.
...or the correct explanation:
The Earth was originally a molten ball of rock, which has undergone a continuous cooling process as its inner energy is radiated off into space. The solid crust on the surface of the Earth that consequently formed moves on the underlying fluid mantle. The movement is fueled by the inner flow dynamics of that mantle. And yshi is right, the tectonic plates are still moving. You can actually measure that movement on a daily basis with the right tools.
The mass added to Earth by meteorites is beyond insignificant. Contrary to what your quote asserts, you do not see their presence in limestone/coal/etc. deposits. Seriously, if you want to learn about this stuff, don't rely on websites written by ignorant cooks with laughable substantiations. Read a good book on Geology instead.
PS. Went through the site. Had a good laugh. Dude, it's a frickin' joke - why would you fall for that crap? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/13/2008 10:55:13 PM | Fair enough... I'll reward the question
That the earth started out much smaller than it is now, and as it expanded the upper shell of the earth broke apart forming the giant landmasses we know them to be today.
or
The Earth was originally a molten ball of rock, which has undergone a continuous cooling process as its inner energy is radiated off into space. The solid crust on the surface of the Earth that consequently formed moves on the underlying fluid mantle. The movement is fueled by the inner flow dynamics of that mantle.
The mass added to Earth by meteorites is beyond insignificant. Contrary to what your quote asserts, you do not see their presence in limestone/coal/etc. deposits. Seriously, if you want to learn about this stuff, don't rely on websites written by ignorant cooks with laughable substantiations. Read a good book on Geology instead.
Dr. Oreskes referd to Homer Le Grand’s book “Drifting Continents, Shifting Theories” as it will give me the whole history of the concept. I plan on doing just that. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/13/2008 11:10:40 PM |
Actually the land masses haven't settled at all. They continue to move, and in 250 million years it is theorized that the Earth will have one large supercontinent with one gigantic ocean (again). A smaller, though considerably large on its own, lake will rest within the land mass.
Or the earth will continue to expand by reasons will will only begin to explore when we measure some kinda of substantial mass increase that we can measure... I have high hopes for the 'Grace' project Nasa has been running for years, for some reason I can't find any data on the earths mass/gravity findings thus far. You should look at those picture grace makes of earth... NEAT is all I can say, we look more like a giant boulder than we do a sphere.
I asked Neal Adams what he thought would happen in the future of expanding earth... he said "The U.S. will eventually split in half but water levels will lower and provide more land, more spread apart. In 400 my's Earth will be the size of Saturn. Planets that don't crash into suns will become stars. "
Did you know there starting to find some planets in orbits of other stars? It's interesting when you look at the age of those stars (way older than ours) compared to our own and than the size of those planets. Planets as close to their star as our Mercury are many times the size as Jupiter. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/14/2008 12:30:44 AM |
Or the earth will continue to expand by reasons will will only begin to explore when we measure some kinda of substantial mass increase that we can measure... In other words, plate tectonics is a well understood explanation for many different observations and data that makes perfect sense in light of the evidence, and although you know of no other explanation to replace it, you imagine the earth is expanding and entertain the notion of what it would be like to measure this non-existant expansion.
In short, you dismiss the long-established explanation that actually explains the evidence and you pursue the completely unsubstantiated explanation that makes no sense of the evidence.
So which story do you like more?
You make it sound like popularity is the deciding factor on what is true.
I like the story that does a better job of explaining the evidence and doesn't have confounding factors - wasn't it you who mentioned that expanding earth theory doesn't explain where the matter comes from? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/14/2008 6:33:47 AM | The Earth is an oblate spheroid to be precise, not a perfect sphere. The reason has to do with our rotation.
As for gravity, that's what I work in. I measure gravity on the Earth's surface for the oil industry. Earth's gravity (and thus mass from the surface down) has been precisely measured on the surface for nearly a century now, at levels more accurate than GRACE.
Guess what - that mass ain't increasing. Ground-based grav measurements are sensitive enough that they can pick up very small increases.
Every time you speak, I easily refute you. Why? Because I'm a geophysicist relying on research, and you're someone with no knowledge of geology relying on the poorly substantiated words of a cook. If you want to be able to produce a debate where you won't be shot down in milliseconds, learn some basic geology first. Mind you, if you knew basic geology, you wouldn't even have this discussion.
Like I said - read a good book on geology. If you want to learn some history, read on history. But if you want to learn about why we know the Earth is the way it is, read a book on basic geology.
Or if you want to keep trolling, don't read a book. Don't educate yourself, and God forbid, don't look at the reams of research out there. Then keep having these debates with people who present you the evidence you need, who easily refute the lone cooks on which you rely, who ask that you but take an even handed look at things. Just keep ignoring them entirely, and especially don't counter any the evidence they may have. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/14/2008 9:08:51 AM | To Rockondon
So which story do you like more? You make it sound like popularity is the deciding factor on what is true. I like the story that does a better job of explaining the evidence and doesn't have confounding factors - wasn't it you who mentioned that expanding earth theory doesn't explain where the matter comes from?
Yes, I like the expanding earth theory because it feels better than the current alternatives. I also agree the expanding earth theory does not accurately describe where the matter comes from. I can work a basic calculator. From what I've learned by reading the works of people are are very much into this field, the earth DOES have new mass added every day... about 10 to the 8th power worth in kilograms. That might sound like a lot, but in perspective the earth is 10 to the 25th power in kilograms. In other words, Earth adds an estimated one quadrillionth of one percent to its weight each day.
The Earth is an oblate spheroid to be precise, not a perfect sphere. The reason has to do with our rotation.
As for gravity, that's what I work in. I measure gravity on the Earth's surface for the oil industry. Earth's gravity (and thus mass from the surface down) has been precisely measured on the surface for nearly a century now, at levels more accurate than GRACE.
Guess what - that mass ain't increasing. Ground-based grav measurements are sensitive enough that they can pick up very small increases.
Obviously not that sensitive, I've read many sites from people much like your self that the earth does increase in mass.... no where near 40% over 250 million years, but it does increase. To put in better persepctive... it's more like 0.0009% over 4.5billion years. Also I read things like Earth's rotation is slowly slowing down and the Moon is slowly getting further away because of interactions between the two.
Every time you speak, I easily refute you. Why? Because I'm a geophysicist relying on research, and you're someone with no knowledge of geology relying on the poorly substantiated words of a cook. If you want to be able to produce a debate where you won't be shot down in milliseconds, learn some basic geology first. Mind you, if you knew basic geology, you wouldn't even have this discussion.
Like I said - read a good book on geology. If you want to learn some history, read on history. But if you want to learn about why we know the Earth is the way it is, read a book on basic geology.
He's a cartoonist, not a cook. As I said above, I've been recommended to a book I am going to get and read... I'll be sure to let you know what I think of it when I'm done.
Or if you want to keep trolling, don't read a book. Don't educate yourself, and God forbid, don't look at the reams of research out there. Then keep having these debates with people who present you the evidence you need, who easily refute the lone cooks on which you rely, who ask that you but take an even handed look at things. Just keep ignoring them entirely, and especially don't counter any the evidence they may have.
Cartoonist... God, you can't even be bothered to look at his idea's long enough to get his profession right. Albert Einstein worked shipping out boxes... does that make his work any less credible?
Try to keep an open mind to new possibility's, it's what allows us to move forward :) | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/14/2008 11:35:06 AM |
"The planet is accreting new mass consisting of TWO types of matter from outer space— meteorites and meteor dust, plus solar energy captured by photo- synthesis in living organisms
This is a statement displays profound ignorance of both physics and biology.
All aerobic life on earth relys on sugars to fuel their metabolic processes.The solar energy used by photosynthesizing plants is used to assemble the sugars from the C, H and O extracted from their environment. Plant mass is not created by the light; it is converted from air, water and soil into vegetation and after death, into air, water and soil by decay processes. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/14/2008 6:51:09 PM | Okay, well, since GRACE launched in 2002, if they were to come across any significant new findings, I think we'd know about it by now. Not the case, I'm afraid.
Some basic cosmology here: "In 400 my's Earth will be the size of Saturn. Planets that don't crash into suns will become stars. "
Sorry Neal, but stars are not planets that grew bigger. They are the result of condensation of mass within molecular clouds containing hydrogen gas, an assortment of elements including carbon, various metals and, just as importantly, water. These clouds have been seeded with a lot of these elements by larger and earlier generation stars that formed whena younger universe contained more hydrogen gas and less heavier materials, allowing stars to grow much bigger and last a very short amount of time. We see the "modern" process in objects like the Great Orion Nebula in which stars are observed with dusty disks surrounding them.
This process has been studied for years and the space age has allowed us to see it in even deeper detail through various infrared satellites, as well as infrared studies with telescopes here on Earth.
The discovery of large planets near stars is believed to be a "observational bias" effect, brought on by the fact that the methods used to discover them - radial velocity studies through spectroscopy - is the best for discovering these "hot jupiters." They are gas giants like Jupiter that have wandered very close to their star. In fact, the atmospheres of a couple of them have been studied in detail as the heat of their star has caused material to ablate off the planet's atmosphere, detectable by spectrographic study. It has challenged the basic model for planetary formation, however, it does not need a "energy becoming matter" model for planet growth.
In fact, considering the proposed model you are suggesting, planets closest to their sun should be the largest and the smallest would be furthest. But that's not the case. That's because gas giants like Jupiter need cold environments in order to collect volatiles like hydrogen and other gases to gain mass. Somehow, it could be argued that a planet, in order to receive enough energy to gain mass from, say, a Mercury sized body to a Saturn size would require longer than the sun has on the main sequence.
Years of work in physics and astronomy have developed an effective means of explaining how the universe works the way it does on a large scale. I'm afraid the growing earth hypothesis doesn't work. Mr. Adams should stick to his cartoons and leave cosmology to the professionals. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/15/2008 8:58:38 AM |
In 400 my's Earth will be the size of Saturn. Planets that don't crash into suns will become stars. "
Okay, this shows just how much grasp of cosmology this comic book artist has! ("oh, your a tracer!")
To make it nicer and clear for you...
The big bang created all of the energy there is in the universe. Since then, no more has been created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another.
A few seconds after the big bang, there were such high levels of radiation, that the first atms were able to form. ALL of these atoms were hydrogen, and since that time, there have not been high enough radiation concentrations to create new atoms outside of lab conditions.
As this hydrogen cooled, it condensed into clusters, and then into stars. the mass of the hydrogen became so great that gravity cased the hydrogen to undergo fusion. this created helium.
Eventually the first stars ussed up all of thier hydrogen and colapsed in on themseklves where the presure became so great that they exloded out in huge supernova explosions. This caused a masive amount of fusion between helium and the few left over hydrogen atoms, creating a wide variety of elements, depending on the strength of the nova burst. This is where most of the other elements came from, the rest( all the elements up to carbon) came from the nuclear fusion of helium in second generation stars.
It is for this reason that the most abundant element in the universe is still hydrogen, the second most abundant element in the universe is helium and the third most abundant is Iron (Iron is the most electrochemically stable element and so when created in a supernova burst, will not continue to fuse or fision into other elements.)
Now on to the planets turning into stars... First generation stars are born from hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion into helium, at high preasures caused by gravity. First generation stars consist of nothing but hydrogen and helium. There are very few first generation stars left because they had to form at before the first supernova burst reached thier location.
Our star is a second generation star. It is still mostly hydrogen, undergoing fusion to helium, but it contains significant levels of other elements. Second geneartion stars, sometimes burn helium as well as hydrogen, and our sun (soll) will eventually begin this process as it is large enough to go to the red giant stage. This will create a carbon core at the centre of our sun, and once the helium is ussed up, the sun will die and turn into a white dwarf star. At this point, soll will be dead, no more heat will be produced and eventually the core will turn into a lump of cold carbon (posibly even diamond due to the imense presure and heat.).
This proces can only happen beacuse of the vast amounts of hydrogen (75%) and helium(25%) in the suns composition. There is less that one percent other elements in the suns composition and if there were more, then the sun would have dificulty maintaining its core temperature and so fusion would not ocour.
Even if you were to inflate Saturn up to the size of Soll, ussing nothing but hydrogen, it would not be able to sustain nuclear fusion of hydrogen because there is too high a level of impurites (elements other than hydrogen and helium) These impurities would not react in the hydrogen fusion and drop the core temperature to below 10MdegC, at which point nuclear fusion would no longer be posable.
So it would not be possible for any of the planets to undergue the necicery nuclear fusion to alow for the birth of a third generation star. Third generation stars (stars born from the death of second generation stars) are extreamly rare because there is often not enough hydrogen left to alow for fusion to begin. Fourth generation stars are thought to be imposible at present as there is no way for the helium to undergo fusion under its own mass, when filled with so many impurities (up to 1% impurities is all it takes to make fusion imposible, for hydrogen fusion, helium is not counted as an impurity, and for all other elements impurities are anything other than the populus element and hydrogen.) | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/15/2008 9:15:30 AM | To make it nicer and clear for you...
I know the theory of the big bang, it's another one of those theory's that somehow doesn't feel right. What if I where to suggest an idea like the big bang did happen, but it so small it was in a completely different exsitance from our understanding, I'm talking about a explosions that sent string theory into the cosmos. From there... like DNA in the ocean... it began to grow... like single cells in a shallow ocean they swim out reproducing and evolving bases on what the environment allows them to use.
I know your question already, Where does the energy come from to grow? Now that is a cool question... it might answer why the planets grow and everything we know about space would possibly need to be re-looked at. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/15/2008 9:42:22 AM |
I know the theory of the big bang, it's another one of those theory's that somehow doesn't feel right.
It doesn't have to "feel" right. The observations are there (cosmic expansion, the Cosmic Microwave Background). It's a solid explanation for how the cosmos got here. The fact that the universe expanded at a certain rate until a certain time gives an idea of the "power" of that initial expansion.
What if I where to suggest an idea like the big bang did happen, but it so small it was in a completely different exsitance from our understanding, I'm talking about a explosions that sent string theory into the cosmos. From there... like DNA in the ocean... it began to grow... like single cells in a shallow ocean they swim out reproducing and evolving bases on what the environment allows them to use.
Where's your observations to prove this hypothesis? String theory isn't a product but a fundamental principle for how the universe is thought to exist at a basic level. Matter is thought to exist as it does, according to how those strings "vibrate." However, it is not a proven theory, it just works mathematically. When the LHC gets up and running, it might go a long way to proving it. But it will take time and careful study.
Again, you're using biological analogues to describe unrelated processes and it's an approach that doesn't work. However, if you think you have a possibly workable hypothesis, I'd suggest going to university, studying astrophysics and cosmology and make it your doctorate thesis.
In the meantime, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you see a "coldness" to science and its explanations of the universe and how the world got here. However, having studied astronomy for many years, and who enthusastically gets under the stars with a telescope whenever I can, I can tell you nothing is further from the truth.
If you have an interest in science and how the universe got here, I'd suggest going out your next clear night into a dark place, with a pair of binoculars, and have a look around. Then, go back home, study some basic astronomy and go back out there again. I can tell you, from personal experience, an understanding of the science only adds to the beauty of what is above you. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/15/2008 6:59:44 PM |
Where's your observations to prove this hypothesis? String theory isn't a product but a fundamental principle for how the universe is thought to exist at a basic level. Matter is thought to exist as it does, according to how those strings "vibrate." However, it is not a proven theory, it just works mathematically. When the LHC gets up and running, it might go a long way to proving it. But it will take time and careful study.
Things begin from things before it
Things grow
Things repeat themselves
Things break down
Things are are transformed into many more things
Mostly, these simple rules apply to everything... everything from basic elements to complex living organisms. Each one of these steps has an enormously complex set of their own life cycles that allows each stage to happen.
The big bang doesn't feel right to me, because it doesn't fit these basic things as we see them happen around us all the time. The theory that the total energy of the known universe as we know it exploded out and the galaxy forms from it's remnants down to the stars and planets. If the nature of life is to be born, grow, feed, reproduce, and die, the big bang seems less like life... and more like the garden of eden (to me) | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/15/2008 7:56:12 PM | Dude, do yourself a favor and get an education. "It just doesn't feel right to me" isn't even a decent debating technique, much less an approach to a philosophical/scientific debate.
Planets are not alive. They do not grow. They're giant balls of gases, liquids, and solids, and their behavior is dictated by well-understood laws of physics. That you don't know those rules or don't understand them doesn't alter the behavior of the planet.
Hell, things that are alive follow the same rules. Plants don't create matter from sunlight. They use sunlight as an energy source to re-arrange the matter around them. They take water and carbon dioxide and nitrogen and other minerals THAT ARE ALREADY THERE, and use sunlight to turn them into more plant material. There is no net gain of mass for the planet based on frelling PHOTOSYNTHESIS.
Seriously. Educate yourself. This growing planet fantasy makes anyone who publicly supports it sound like a complete moron. If you're dead set of supporting it, go out and get yourself a geophysics degree and do the research to prove you're right and everyone else is wrong. You'll be famous. It'll be glorious. But until you do the work to understand what the hell you're talking about, nobody is ever going to take you seriously. Nobody who matters, anyway. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/17/2008 6:39:17 PM |
Hell, things that are alive follow the same rules. Plants don't create matter from sunlight. They use sunlight as an energy source to re-arrange the matter around them. They take water and carbon dioxide and nitrogen and other minerals THAT ARE ALREADY THERE, and use sunlight to turn them into more plant material. There is no net gain of mass for the planet based on frelling PHOTOSYNTHESIS.
Lets take an 1 block road and plop it down in the middle of a forest where it will be untouched by man. A year later, plant life would begin to take over the road. Seeds that fall into cracks of the road would germinate and force the hard surfaces apart with their roots. Mosses and lichens would cover road surfaces, eventually making a new top soil. As more simple plant life is born and dies off more these left over cells are used as composed for new bigger plants to take over. It's not that many years before a trees roots begin to demolish the road into rubble. Even when the tree timbers it becomes a new foundation of life for... well... life. A few thousand years later... that road is so far underground you have to dig with shovels to find what ever is left of it.
So where did all this new earth come from that highlights the point I try to make to you... oh yeah... it was already there? No! life creates way more than it uses. There have been some dinosaur fossils found over 2000 meters down If everything was transforming equally... Where the hell did it all come from? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/17/2008 6:54:10 PM |
So where did all this new earth come from that highlights the point I try to make to you... oh yeah... it was already there? No! life creates way more than it uses. There have been some dinosaur fossils found over 2000 meters down If everything was transforming equally... Where the hell did it all come from?
Well, carbon dioxide and nitrogen, for two. That's why it's called the carbon cycle. Besides, it does nothing to answer the basic question, do planets grow? Not "organically" as you are trying to convince everyone. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 10/17/2008 7:04:43 PM |
Well, carbon dioxide and nitrogen, for two. That's why it's called the carbon cycle. Besides, it does nothing to answer the basic question, do planets grow? Not "organically" as you are trying to convince everyone.
I like math, I won't argue with math... If the earth didn't grow... as the very idea is laughed at over and over.... what are the odds that if you were to shrink the sphere of Earth … by letting the oceanic plate re-enter the rifts they erupted from, over time … that continental crust would easily and completely fit back together?
Oh... and they do! | |
|
|
| Page 4 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 
