| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/10/2007 7:38:53 PM | | Anyone seen that youtube clip by Neal Admas of the Earth doubling in size? It's under Earth conspiracy. I think we all had the same doubting question when taught the pangeia continental drift theory in school, why would the super continent just break up like that and spread apart in the super ocean, it just didn't make sense, but this guy had the courage to question it a bit further check it out cool stuff. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/10/2007 7:52:46 PM | | My guess if the hot inside spits out enough it has to go someplace and cool off, leaving a hollow place inside, there for getting bigger. Not really that hard to guess on. Question is how many of them bigger burned out planets hold life on the inside of them. Even though the out side don't who is to say that the inside don't once it burns out to a point of being liveable. I think one day we will find other life, once we invent something to see deep into dead planets. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/10/2007 8:04:34 PM | | ^^^ Pretty cool hypothesis!! I've never heard of this getting bigger stuff, but it makes sense. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/10/2007 9:59:59 PM | We can see evidence for tectonic drift all around us. But he raises some interesting points. I'll have to go do the math myself and run the hypothesis by my geology professor. Something doesnt feel quite right about it though. I mean the crust takes up a tiny percentage of the earths mass, the earth isnt perfectly speherical, my rough guess (before i actually do the math) is that the centre of gravity shift would not be that great and nor would it affect water to the magnitude he claims, and also the continental and oceanic crusts are different thicknesses downwards toward the centre of the earth too so we would have to take that into account too.
Its certainly an interesting idea but until i see more data i'll be taking it with a grain of salt. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/10/2007 10:10:42 PM | Without looking at the clip, I would suggest this:
Gravity is an issue. Mutual gravitational attraction makes a solid sphere the most natural shape. What goes up, MUST come down. Anything that comes to the surface adds to the weight of the surface. There will be no cavity left. SOMEwhere, the weight of the surface will have an influence, directly or by displacing magma from elsewhere.
Even if you hollowed the earth completely, the center of gravity would still be in the center, and it would collapse. That wouldn't happen anyway, since there would come a point where it was easier for eruptions to move inward than outward.
A grain of salt is quite generous. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/11/2007 1:38:09 AM | | Even without the hollow earth theory, the earth is likely growing. All the tiny meteors that come into our atmosphere plus the occasional medium to large ones, is slowly adding to the mass of the planet. If we start doing something like shooting our garbage into space though, that would probably outweigh the effects and shrink it back down. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/11/2007 3:30:23 AM | | Earth doubling in size? Yeah right! And just when is this going to happen? Where will the material come from? Another loony. Just where do people come up with this crap? Don't forget about that other conspiracy, that shape shifting reptilian conspiracy that's going on in some other thread. Maybe its those reptiles that are doing it. And I haven't even heard about that one on Coast to Coast AM either. Although I have heard about that hollow earth story on that show. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/11/2007 9:07:54 AM | Now do you really think the earth would suddenly start increasing in mass without external mass inputs?
Msg 5 may be correct - its likely to be related to gravity flux related to magma circulation and Earths crustal thickness variations. I read a neat article yesterday on slight irregularities in the gravity field over Canada, measured by the new German-US GRACE twin satellite program; this international cooperative gravity monitoring program has been mapping gravity over the Earths surface. The Canadian irregularity is thought to be associated with slow rebound after the Laurentide glacier recession of 20,000 yrs ago (recovery from glacier compression of the mantle).
There is a suspected gravity 'hole' - theorized to have resulted from a large object impact below the ice of the Antarctic, also detected by GRACE. A controversial theory suggests that this gravity aberration resulted when a large extra-Earth object that crashed into the supercontinent Pangea, catalyzing the break up of Africa, Asia and Australia. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/12/2007 11:19:43 AM |
I read a neat article yesterday on slight irregularities in the gravity field over Canada,
Uh, that's probably all the crap in my barn. I really need to get some of that stuff out of there. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/12/2007 4:37:24 PM |
Even if you hollowed the earth completely, the center of gravity would still be in the center, and it would collapse.
If you work through the maths, you find that the gravitational field at every point inside a uniform hollow sphere is zero. A spherically-symmetric hollow Earth would not collapse under its own gravity.
However, it's utterly implausible that the Earth would ever get into such a state. A sphere like that would have to be constructed, it's just too unlikely that it would happen naturally. | |
|
| the earth is growling
Posted: 5/12/2007 4:55:12 PM | ImaginativeNickName: If you work through the maths, you find that the gravitational field at every point inside a uniform hollow sphere is zero. A spherically-symmetric hollow Earth would not collapse under its own gravity.
True, there's no gravitational force (exerted from the sphere) inside a hollow sphere. However, the sphere itself is still under gravitational force. If it wasn't strong enough, it would indeed collapse under its own weight.
GE&H | |
|
| the earth is growling
Posted: 5/12/2007 5:23:03 PM | Yes, my point was misunderstood. The gravity AT the center would be effectively zero [equal in all directions]. It WOULD though, be the CENTER of gravity. All matter is gravitationally attracted. Wherever the mass of the Earth is, the bulk of those mutual attractions operate by the shortest path: through the center or very near it.
The effective attraction of zero only applies at the center or centers of mass. The further you get from center, the more influence the nearest mass would have. [though my logic may have slipped here]. | |
|
| the earth is growling
Posted: 5/12/2007 6:30:07 PM | FrogO_Oeyes: The effective attraction of zero only applies at the center or centers of mass. The further you get from center, the more influence the nearest mass would have. [though my logic may have slipped here]. Well, yes and no. Your point is correct for a solid object but not for a hollow sphere. Anywhere inside a hollow sphere all the gravitational vectors equal out...no gravity.
GE&H | |
|
| the earth is growing??
Posted: 5/12/2007 8:17:13 PM | Don't subduction zones ensure that material is constantly being cycled back into the magma layer? Wouldn't this process preclude the "hollowing" of this planetary sphere for the foreseeable future (or at least until the heat engine which seems to be the "core" cools sufficiently)? Excluding major temperature shifts which would eliminate all life as we know it, wouldn't mass (and therefore volumetric) balances be conserved in this relatively "closed" system a la PV=nRT (yes, I know its the ideal "gas" law - but the concept still holds for mass and volumetric conservation in a worst-case type scenario - gases being far more subject to volumetric expansion than liquids or solids)?
 | |
|
| the earth is growing??
Posted: 5/12/2007 10:06:08 PM | | I'm very rusty on that, though I have a fair knowledge of tectonics [kinda necessary to understand amphibian evolution properly]. I think that whole hollow-Earth idea is borne out of a complete lack of understanding of planetary anatomy and function. In that case, I figured that gravity alone provides enough *easy to understand* reason for the impossibility. Explaining plate tectonics would do two things - fall on deaf ears, and preach to the congregation. | |
|
| the earth is growing??
Posted: 5/12/2007 10:53:50 PM |
Explaining plate tectonics would do two things - fall on deaf ears, and preach to the congregation.
You're correct, of course - the camps seemingly divide into those who already "get it" or those who don't (and don't want to)
and your gravity theory approach was novel - bonus points...
plate tectonic theory has been generally accepted for at least 27 years (since I learned about it in a *freshman* geology course that long ago - and it wasn't "new" then...) | |
|
| the earth is growing??
Posted: 5/13/2007 3:53:57 AM | | & seismological phenomena generally fit much more neatly into a solid earth theory than a hollow earth one. For example, we can measure earthquakes (probably the best example, but others exist) across the world (apart from at areas blanked by the core), by knowing the time that the earthquake happened in say, Turkey, & the time we picked it up in say, London, we can calculate the speed of the pressure waves (which can pass through solid, liquid & gas) and the shear waves (which only pass through solids). By measuring the speeds we can work out the medias which these waves have passed through: rock, magma etc. Funnily enough none seem to pass through gas. If the planet is totally void inside (vacuum) we'd not even be able to pick up the pressure waves (no medium for them to travel through). That & my job would be rather redundant. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/20/2007 2:35:05 AM | I have a degree in engineering and minors in physics, math and computer science. I looked over this theory carefully. I had doubts about the plate tectonics theory ever since I learned it.. just like I have doubts about the Big Bang theory. What convinces me that this guy is onto something is the fact that convincing evidence of this expansion theory can be found in just about every other terrestrial planet and moon in our solar system that has been photographed with enough detail. And more importantly, no other planet or moon has any evidence of subduction at all. Even the subduction found on earth is not nearly enough to account for how much material is constantly being added in the rift zones. And isn't it quite odd how all the ocean floors are no older than 200 or so million years old?? You'd have to be a fool not to take this expanding earth theory seriously and AT LEAST consider it a realistic candidate to what is happening.
The way I see the evidence on both sides is that the expanding earth theory literally blows the traditional plate tectonics theory out of the water. However, since we have no existing science to explain why the earth could be expanding, this prevents scientists from being able to consider this theory seriously. But those with truly open minds can not ignore the weight of the massive amount of evidence which suggests this could be true.
Given what I've read, I give it a good 90% chance the earth has expanded roughly as much as this guy claims. This then raises the question of how it is expanding. I agree one such explanation is the one mentioned earlier.. that the earth could be hollowing. That's definitely the first method I thought of when I heard of this theory. It makes sense too because the strong gravity inside terrestrial bodies could be causing enough heat energy to slowly "bake" the planet from within. But I'm starting to doubt this because this would mean the gravity on earth in the time of the dinosaurs would be much greater than it is today. This is because with a roughly constant mass and a smaller volume, the density of the earth would be higher, raising the gravity at the surface. There's already been experiments which suggests animals would collapse on their own weight if they were much bigger than an elephant. And if the gravity was higher, animals would have to be smaller.. unless of course dinosaurs were somehow lighter animals like birds. (birds did descend from dinosaurs) But even still, I don't think this could offset the higher gravity enough to create bigger animals. I think it makes more sense that the earths gravity had to be less back then (explaining the bigger animals).. which means the amount of mass had to be less back then.. regardless of whether the earth is baking or hollowing to some extent.
Now this brings us to an earth that is most likely growing mass somehow. The suggestion of cosmic dust adding to the earths mass is valid, but over the past 200 million years, there is NO WAY that much mass could be added by cosmic dust alone. So it has to be coming from the inside. I think it all could relate back to quantum mechanics somehow and perhaps answer the question of where the mass in supermassive blackholes at the center of galaxies eventually ends up. I think mass in these black holes just adds to the mass around the galaxy somehow (perhaps at the quantum level), resulting in expanding terrestrial bodies as they approach the center of the galaxy.
Of course this shoots major holes in the big bang theory.. but that's pretty shot up anyway.. and it's only a matter of time before it's put to bed. I bet if indeed this expanding earth theory is proven true, the big bang will be proven false at around the same time. I give it another decade. Not more than 2 decades though before this major awakening in science happens. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/20/2007 11:36:16 AM | | I want a couple of those degrees. Which brand of caramel popcorn do I have to buy? Or am I wrong and I should be buying Captain Crunch? | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/20/2007 12:50:28 PM | Hilarious topic.
1. If the earth's diameter was growing, then it would be immediately be discovered via the GPS satellites that give altitude information.
2. Any growth in global surface area would lead to a drastic lowering of sea level. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/20/2007 1:19:59 PM | The growth rate proposed is too small to be picked up by satellite measurements. Also it would vary from century to century depending on pressures within the earth. Current satellites have in fact detected patterns of change in the radius of the earth at the equator and at the poles. A lot of scientists agree the earth could be growing at a small rate.. just not as much as proposed in this theory.
As far as sea levels, the expanding earth theory explains the oceans better than the subduction theory. Water is trapped and/or formed within the earth. As the outer continental crust opens up, the water is released and forms the oceans. It's already a scientific fact that ocean water comes out of the rift zones. It's just that scientists theorize that it comes from existing ocean water somehow. The method in which the plate techtonics theory proposes this is a joke. It's the one of the most controversial pieces of evidence for plate tectonics because it goes against the laws of nature.
The expanding earth theory proposes that oceans formed as cracks in the continental crust (which enclosed the entire earth 250 million years ago) formed and salt water filled the space to form vast salty lakes.. which eventually expanded into oceans. There are such examples of these salt water lakes in Africa. Also this explains why we can prove "oceans" existed in areas on top of the continents 100's of millions of years ago before the ocean basins formed by this cracking process. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/20/2007 1:36:27 PM | Too small!? GPS can measure less than a quarter inch change which I believe is close to the average rate that the San Andreas fault is moving per year. How can there be such a descrepancy between the linear movement and global expansion, which should be much larger?
But I will agree with your theory if the rate of movement is so small that it is undetectable... oops, that means it ISN'T HAPPENING! | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/20/2007 6:43:34 PM | Depending on how you look at the data, the average vertical GPS movement of all the stations tracked on earth is increasing at a rate of 1.6 to 1.8 mm per year since it has been tracked over the past decade or so. In order for the expanding earth theory to be true, it is estimated that an average of 7mm per year would have to happen. Just because we only achieved a 1.7 mm average rate over the last decade or two doesn't mean the average rate over the past million years hasn't been 7mm. We are only looking at a small amount of time here. But in any event, the earth IS expanding and this is scientific fact. The problem is that the current measurement isn't enough to suggest what is proposed in the expanding earth theory. It doesn't disprove it either.
Remember, according to the expanding earth theory, the earth is expanded exponentially over the past 250 million years. Who knows what caused this and whether it is still happening. It's just what the evidence shows. Perhaps there are areas of space in the galaxy which causes terrestrial bodies to expand as they pass through? There are a number of possibilities. Assuming it expands linearly and constant is foolish. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/20/2007 7:53:41 PM | Speaking of foolish...
You realize that satellites are used to measure changes in ocean level? Public GPS is coarse. Military GPS is much more accurate. Satellites used specifically for measurement are much more accurate. They measure changes of ocean level on the order of 1-2 mm or better.
If you think that your major in engineering with minors in math, physics, etc, gives you special insight into the great gaping holes in Big Bang theory, astronomy, geology, geophysics...then I would suggest that it's more likely your understanding which is flawed rather than the understanding of the thousands of specialists in these fields and the many thousands more whose work ONLY works because the math and physics do.
No offence, but I won't be going to a lawyer for dental work either. | |
|
| the earth is growing
Posted: 5/21/2007 10:16:45 AM | Just because the scientific community considers one theory as more likely than all the others it doesn't make it true. Otherwise it would be a scientific law. There are MAJOR holes in both the current theory of plate tectonics as well as the big bang theory. If instead of blindly believing all scientific theories, you took the time to study how these theories came into being and the new evidence for/against them since they were proposed, you'd be a little more skeptical of some of these theories as well. Remember, humans are religious natured animals. It's in our nature to hold onto a theory that has been followed for decades even when the evidence starts to point the other way... and this is especially true when a whole community of scientists spend their whole lives embracing a certain theory. It doesn't change overnight.
Just google "expanding earth". There are many websites out there which scientifically lay out the evidence for both theories. It is NOT a weird faith based supernatural theory based on distorted evidence. If it was, I'd laugh at it as much as anyone. It simply fits the evidence a lot better than the current plate tectonics theory not only here on earth, but on most terrestrial planets and moons we have mapped in detail so far. Even the fossil record here on earth fits the expanding earth theory much better. In fact, there is growing evidence in the fossil record which flatly refutes the existing plate tectonic theory. | |
|
Home
login 
