Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

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  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 64
view profile
History
the earth is growingPage 2 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)
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.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 66
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/17/2008 7:22:49 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?


The fact that you don't understand the physics and chemistry involved doesn't make it wrong.

*I* don't understand the forces that drive economic markets, but I'm also not saying that money grows on trees.

There's really no sense talking with you. You don't understand what you're talking about, yet you make grandiose claims. What's the point?
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 67
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/17/2008 7:41:18 PM
When the Earth formed, AFTER the impact that formed the Moon, it was approximately the same size as it was now. Yes. There's been some influx through meteorites. There's also been some loss due to atmospheric stripping. All of this is pretty well understood. You? have no idea what you're talking about, and no evidence to back it up except for the ravings of a cartoonist.

You're speaking from ignorance... all I'm doing is telling you to do the research, educate yourself... who, exactly, do you think is trying to brainwash you?
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 71
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/17/2008 10:27:42 PM
Because they once WERE connected. Plate tectonics explains that, and the movement of the continents is measured, constantly. The annual measured rates of drift are consistant with the ages of past connections and radiometric dating of shared rock formations.

There's no no massive source of energy magically creating more matter.

There's no rational reason matter would be created from below...and bury things from above.

Adams is a fool. He can't make rational arguments supported by evidence any better than the average forum troll. It's remarkable ANYone would be convinced.
 kenpoboy
Joined: 9/22/2008
Msg: 73
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/20/2008 5:09:30 PM
That must be the wackiest theory I have ever seen. Planets growing? LOL. The only growth this planet has experienced was likely "Thea", which ended up becoming both the moon and the Earth's core. I would assume that a tectonically active planet like ours would eventually start to shrink, if nothing else. *

* I am not a geologist. At all.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 74
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/20/2008 8:13:48 PM
"radiative" materials that "knows how to create matter." Yeah.

Umm... You really, really, REALLY need to get yourself a basic science education before you start trying to tear down the very foundations of particle physics (among other disciplines).

Let me draw you an "arts" analogy: Suppose one felt the Mona Lisa really needed eyebrows. Now, there are a number of reasons for her to NOT have eyebrows, including some that I'm sure followed da Vinci to his grave. But, let's assume that one felt for some arcane reason she needed eyebrows.

One way to approach this might be to complete a formal training and education in art, specializing in Renaissance oil techniques, and re-create the Mona Lisa as she would have appeared with eyebrows. I, and much of the rest of the world would applaud this artist for creativity and dedication.

Another way to approach this might be to take a can of black spray lacquer and spray some eyebrows on the original.

You're approaching science in the second manner. Just saying, is all.
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 75
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/20/2008 8:58:09 PM
Roof hasn't fell in yet so apparently the walls of my house haven't moved apart in the past week or so..
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 77
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/20/2008 10:03:28 PM
Dude, it just kind of HAPPENS. The substances in the center of the Earth know how to make new matter.

You can't put EQUATIONS to that kind of mystical happening. What the hell are you thinking?
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 78
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/20/2008 10:11:45 PM
It's an analogy. It's not supposed to be a perfect representation.

Present one iota. One speck. One DOT of evidence that the Earth is growing even 1/100th as fast as it would have to for this "growing Earth" fantasy to be even remotely real.

Seriously, dude, you haven't even been issued a crayon.
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 79
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/20/2008 11:30:30 PM

Yah well, if either subduction or spreading kicked in by what ever goes on under us.... you might have to kiss those walls and roof goodbye :)

I'm 5 miles inland from the San Andreas, any idea how long before my property is beachfront?
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 81
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/21/2008 10:43:22 AM
Let me be very clear:

Evidence.

Of.

Growth.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 82
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/21/2008 7:24:57 PM

Some of the rocks kicking around the rockys are 3-4 billions of years old

Very sizable chunks of the Rockies are only tens of millions of years old; some are hundreds of millions. If you want old rocks, you don't look in the Rockies. You find them in cratons, such as the Canadian Shield. Those rocks are mostly NOT mountainous, are widely exposed on the surface, and are typically over 3 billion years old. Not only is the logic you're citing faulty, but the evidence supporting it is wrong.

Now if rocks on the surface are older than rocks on the bottom... wouldn't this tell us that the earth is pushing rocks up from underneath?

No. There are multiple possibilities. First - you compared the Rockies. You made NO mention of the age of surface rocks at the borehole. The assumption they'd be the same is simply wrong. Further, the Rockies are far younger, NOT older. Second, subduction would push younger surface rocks beneath older basement rocks. This evidence is, at best, equivocal. At worst, it's strongly against you.

They grow from the outside in, and the grow from the inside out at the same time.

Zero evidence in favor of this being a valid geological mechanism, and abundant evidence against it, including pretty much all fundamental laws of physics and anything dependant on them.

Or... maybe the earth is subducting... tell me, if it's subducting all this material... where is it going?

It's not GOing anywhere. Watch a lava lamp, or root vegetables in a boiling pot, or a smelter full of metal. Radiation is emited at the center [or bottom], which heats the fluid. The fluid rises, cools, and drops. Everything subducted is replaced by something rising. For a planet, the rising substance may simply be the overlying crust, which rises higher until pressure is released at a fault line or through a volcanic event [or series thereof]. Not coincidentally, core radiation is known, gravitic strength indicates the composition of the core to be largely ferrous, and circulating ferrous fluid would generate a magnetic field. Not coincidentally, tectonic movements are measured daily, and support past plate arrangements. Not coincidentally, planets without significant plate movements also have weak magnetic fields. No moving iron, no magnetism, no tectonics. A core of nickle-iron, melted by continuing radiation, adds up. It provides the measured mass, it provides the measured tectonics, it provides the measured magnetic fields, and it's consistant with laws of physics.

considering how much land has moved around via tectonics... over 2/3rd of the crust should be missing!

Not only does this completely omit the CYCLE aspect of the process, but it cites MISSING EVIDENCE! The blatantly obvious flaw in that reasoning is - if 2/3 of the crust would be missing, MAYBE IT IS! It's not like it would be there if it was missing! The "evidence" in this case, is identical no matter what.

 TomHorne
Joined: 9/14/2008
Msg: 85
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/22/2008 8:53:58 PM

Now if rocks on the surface are older than rocks on the bottom... wouldn't this tell us that the earth is pushing rocks up from underneath?

No. The fact that rocks deeper down solidified more recently does not mean that they were "pushed up". This is exactly what one would expect given the long, slow radiation of earth's inner heat into space. Imagine a puddle of slowly cooling liquid wax (Or if you want an even more accurate model, a blob of cooling wax floating in zero gravity): A thin crust forms on the surface, which slowly thickens as heat is lost through air contact (or radiated away, if it is in a vacuum). The solid wax on the outside is "older" than the solid wax deeper down. That is clearly not evidence of expansion.


The crust of the earth could be viewed like the bark on a tree...

Yes it could, but that would be stupid for this discussion. A tree is surrounded by other matter, so it is easy to explain how it grows: It absorbs matter from it's environment. The soil to be exact.

The earth, on the other hand, is floating in the vacuum of space. There is extremely little matter around for it to pick up, certainly not enough to increase it by 40% in 200 million years. You say the earth is picking up "hundreds of tons of matter from space everyday"? Lets round that up to an even 1,000 tons a day. That gives us 1000 x 365 x 200,000,000 = 73x10^12 tons accumulated since expansion started. Given that the earth is currently 6.5*10^21 tons, that gives us an increase of 0.000001%. Not QUITE 40%, is it? But then, who can be bothered with performing simple math when we're trying to prove we're smarter than everyone else, right?

That leaves "growing from the inside via means we know nothing about" to account for the remaining 39.999999% increase. I can't even argue against you directly on that one, since you state quite clearly that you don't know of any way this could occur. But seriously, stop and ask yourself what state our understanding of the world would be in if everyone accepted "It just FEELS right to me" as sufficient explanation for a theoretical phenomenon.

Also, I feel I need to reiterate one important point: Scientists love to prove each other wrong. If there were any real possibility of the expanding earth theory being true, I can guarantee that it would be being studied by ACTUAL GEOLOGISTS. A lot of them. They would be climbing over each other scrambling to be the first to prove this radical new concept. It's what they live for! Scientists DREAM about that kind of opportunity.
 father3
Joined: 7/11/2006
Msg: 86
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/22/2008 10:28:59 PM

No. There are multiple possibilities. First - you compared the Rockies. You made NO mention of the age of surface rocks at the borehole. The assumption they'd be the same is simply wrong. Further, the Rockies are far younger, NOT older. Second, subduction would push younger surface rocks beneath older basement rocks. This evidence is, at best, equivocal. At worst, it's strongly against you.


This might be true, but...

Isn't it quite obvious that the earth is expanding at a rate of 9.8m/s^2 ? I mean, just stand where I stand, you'll feel the push of this acceleration!! If you don't or can't agree with this statement, please devise me an experiment that proves conclusively that the earth is not expanding at an accelerating rate.

My experiment.

Hold a ball ten feet from the ground. Let go of that ball. I guarantee the earth will come up and catch that ball and carry it along in it's accelerating expansion.
 Printscharming
Joined: 4/19/2006
Msg: 93
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/24/2008 9:44:50 AM
Stargazer,

It has been presented that the Earth was once covered with a thick vapor layer above in the upper troposphere and subterranian water was trapped within the Earth during multiple collisions of cometlike bodies during the formation of the planet. This could have accounted for the extra water not being present on the Earth's surface.

Picture the Earth being smaller, with a percentage of the gravity. If we take a look at the reditions of dinosaurs made from fossil reconstructions, we see that there legs may not have been able to support their large mass. Thus proving that the Earth's gravitation pull must have been less because of it's mass and size. Now picture Earth's atmosphere at a constant volume. The troposphere may have terminated at a higher altitude above Earth's surface making it feasible to have a large vapor canopy encircling the Earth.

Where did all the water come from, simple, another instance of cosmic bombardment. The large craters were asteroids adding mass to the Earth, causing sufficent tremors to start a cascade of "cracking" the Earth's suface. Add a couple of good size comets to increase water volume and you have a cataclismic flooding. On a smaller Earth it would be easy to picture most of the Earth's suface covered with water until expansion caused the land masses to rise. Gravity from a large body cause the vapor canopy to deplete, it rained for a very long time.

Fossil are found in sedimentary layer, dust and debris from asteroid impacts could have contribute to the extra media to form those layers underwater. As far as formation of ice caps on mountains and glacial bodies, what could contribute to that is the fact that since our atmospheric layers stay at a constant volume, the rising of the Earth surface puts it closer to a cooler region near space.

I hope this hypothesis sounds logical and reasonable.
 Printscharming
Joined: 4/19/2006
Msg: 95
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/24/2008 11:27:50 AM
Problem 1: The whole concept of "gaining mass" - from where? We're not talking a small amount of mass. OP is suggesting that, at some point millions of years in the future, Earth will have the mass of Saturn. Where is this coming from? Energy from the core? That's the only place with a enough energy in this kind of mechanism. However, no. That's because, even with the cooling of the big bang creating the earliest atoms, we are talking protons, neutrons and electrons forming the simplest one - hydrogen. It took the energy of supernovae from supermassive stars to create heavier elements, including those that go into the bulk of our planet. To say "we are made of stardust" is not just being poetic. We see planets forming from material in gas and dust clouds all over the visible universe, the remnants of these ancient explosions. There's an example only 1,000 light years away in Orion. Once they've formed and cooled, the only additional mass is accretion from planetary disk debris. At this point, it is now less than a trickle. Compare total amount coming in now to the total mass of Earth and you'll see what I mean.


Matter, or mass can be produced by energy, if we use Einstiein's equation, E=mc^2 right? m=E/c^2. Or have things changed since I left school?


Problem 2: There would be a record in the geological record of the kinds of bombardments you're talking about. The Late Heavy Bombardment, the last recorded bombardment was about 3.7 billion years ago, if I remember my figures correctly. Still in the solar system's youth.


Global imagining is producing a lot of evidence of recent impacts. Very large impacts. The most recent as 20,000 years ago in Bolivia.


Problem 3: A smaller planet with less gravity - indicates less mass because mass = gravity. See Problem 1. A smaller mass would not have been able to retain the moon. Also, an increasing mass would result in the moon being pulled toward Earth, not pulling away as has been proven. In addition, smaller mass means holding an atmosphere becomes even more problematic, especially close to the sun. And, before you bring in Titan, don't forget: Titan is extremely cold, it is extremely far from the sun and it is, to a certain extent, protected by Saturn.


Cause and effect, Neal Adams presents a theory that was "poo-pooed" many years ago , because it went against conventional thinking at the time. When presented in the format he uses, with contemporary data acquired, not only does it seem logical but it makes sense and opens the scientific community to evaluating many other theories out there presented by observations made. What, has science all of a sudden got lazy? Or do people have a fear in thinking that what they were taught could somehow be wrong?


Problem 4: Dinosaurs - unfortunately, I'm not a paleontologist but, quite frankly, I think one would have any number of issues with the statement you made. What proof is there "that their legs may not have been able to support their large mass?" I've heard a number of reasons why they grew to the size they did, not to mention the increased levels of oxygen in their environment which sped up metabolism, etc. However, no arguments against it. In fact, I suspect a scenario in which we have a thicker atmosphere would be more of a problem for large animals, since it would be harder for their lungs to process. Since we don't have an actual dinosaur lung to study, however, this can only be mere speculation.


I presented an answer to the atmosphere quandry. The volume stayed the same. The cap of the troposphere was at a higher altitude and had no impact on air pressure. Yes theories are just a conglomeration of speculation, assumptions, suppositions, and unproven facts.


Problem 5: Well, Neal Adams seems to be suggesting in his videos that the planets are more like geodes with cooling, hollow interiors, there's been some suggestion that the source of this new "mass" is from energy at the core of the planets. Well, if that's the case, Jupiter should be a small star by now. It's hellishly hot at its center. Far more energy is coming out of Jupiter than is coming in from the sun.


Hollow, maybe not, but at a time when the world was smaller the crust could have been floating on a layer of steam cause by subterranian aquafields.


Problem 6: The sun: Well, if energy at the core is the source of all matter, then what's happening to the sun? It is mass and it has tremendous energy coming out of it. However, by this scenario, the sun should collapse into a supernovae. However, that is not the case. As it evolves, it will eventually "snuff out" as it loses grip on its outer layers and its core goes from hydrogen burning to helium burning, ultimately becoming a carbon cinder. It seems the process actually works in reverse.


Back to E=mc^2.
 TomHorne
Joined: 9/14/2008
Msg: 97
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/24/2008 4:37:50 PM
Light Storm, I am once again astounded at your ability to completely miss the point.

Your post would have been a legitimate reply had I said something like "Nothing ever grows, ever!" But that's not even close to what I said. I said that when things do grow, their new mass comes from somewhere. In most cases (trees, fruit and geodes all being examples), the new matter comes from the surrounding environment. In very special cases, it is possible for energy to be transformed into matter, at a ratio we are very familiar with.

I've shown that the matter the earth collects from space, even using the numbers given by proponents of expanding earth, is laughably inadequate. I've also shown that even if the energy the earth receives were being turned into matter (it isn't), there would be far too little of it to support this theory.

You chose to respond to this, for some bizarre reason, by mathematically proving that apples grow. I guess the underlying logic must have been something along the lines of "if at least one thing grows, all things must grow". (Actually, I find it more likely that there was no underlying logic at all).

I know I haven't put forward any new information here. There was no reason to - you have completely failed to respond meaningfully to that which I've already provided.
 father3
Joined: 7/11/2006
Msg: 98
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/24/2008 6:35:18 PM
Re: msg 137: Alternative experiment: Tie a string around the perimenter of the Earth. Any great circle would do. If you cut the string at a point you're standing near to, the two ends thus created should accelerate away from each other at 9.8 m/s**2


Okay, I did what you said. I tied a string around the earth. It expanded at 9.8m/s^2 as well !! How much more conclusive can that be?
 father3
Joined: 7/11/2006
Msg: 99
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/24/2008 6:47:47 PM
^ Don't laugh at me, but I used to think that.


I am not laughing. Because it's true. It is expanding and contracting in a 4th dimension of space. To picture what is going on consider two dimensional space (a planer surface) and a three dimensional sphere passes through the plane. For an observer on the two dimensional plane he/she would see a circle getting bigger to a max, then the circle would appear to get smaller.

Do the same experiment in three dimension space, with a four dimensional sphere passing through our three dimensions. What we would see is a three dimensional sphere expanding/contracting. Gravity is the expansion stage.

Also, distant galaxies aren't accelerating away from us and each other. They are contracting, getting smaller and thus red shifting to our observations.

Now why is the local affect of this expansion/contraction observed as expansion, but far out in the universe it is seen as contraction? Your guess is as good as mine.
 TomHorne
Joined: 9/14/2008
Msg: 100
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/24/2008 10:49:56 PM
Everything grows... EVERYTHING... Rocks grow, fires grow, babies grow into adults, adults have more babies, population grows and diversify. The only things that don't grow are things that are dead or dieing. How ignorant of us to think if the rules of life apply down here on our little flower bed... why can we not assume they apply up in space.


Rocks grow when more rock arrives in the form of compressed sediment or cooling magma. Fires (which are not even really "things" in the relevant sense, so much as chemical reactions) grow when they have fuel to consume. Babies grow because they take in nutrients, first through the umbilical cord, then through milk, and eventually through food from plants and animals, which can be traced back through the food chain to the soil. This food is what they use to produce more babies and expand the population.

This is, however, only one side of the coin. If there is no new rock being deposited, a rock does not grow. In fact, in many cases it slowly erodes away. Without fuel to burn, a fire will shrink away to nothing. Without food, a person will lose weight and eventually die. If famine goes on for a long time, the population will shrink, not grow.

Your claim, therefore, that everything grows is simply false. The thing that all of your examples have in common - indeed, the thing that ALL things have in common - is that they grow only as something else shrinks, and shrink as something else grows.

The rock grows as sediments are laid down from the water. Fires grow by burning away at a fuel, which will eventually be exhausted. People grow by eating food, which came from plants (with some other animals acting as proxies), which absorbed it from the soil.

Again, the coin has another side: The water which lays down the sediment picked it up by eroding other rocks. The fire releases the chemicals it consumed into the air. When people die, they decompose back into the basic nutrients they took from the soil.

The point is, it's all a circle, and the circle is always closed. Balance is always maintained. Whenever one thing grows, another must shrink. No matter how you shuffle matter around, it will always add up to the same total.

What this all means is that the claim that the earth is growing is not keeping in line with the pattern of the things we know, but rather breaking it. It is asking us to believe that unlike everything else, the earth is somehow able to grow without anything else shrinking to balance it out. Even in the exceptionally rare cases when energy turns to matter or vice-versa, and one's view must expand to see energy as well as mass, the balance is still maintained.

I challenge you to provide one example of anything ever growing without maintaining this balance. WITHOUT degenerating into vague, whimsical, ellipses-ridden ramblings please.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 107
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/26/2008 11:07:37 AM
"Reptiles" are an artificial taxon. That is, the living animals we call reptiles are not related to one another. To call them all reptiles and assume they are related, would require that birds and mammals also be called reptiles. Turtles are now recognized as a separate class, and one of the most ancient. They have a three-chambered heart.

Reptiles are limited to beakheads [tuatara] and lizards [including mosasaurs, snakes, and amphisbaenians], and have a three-chambered heart. However, some groups have heart and lung anatomy and physiology closer to birds or mammals.

Crocodilians are archosaurs, not reptiles. Archosaurs include dinosaurs, and birds are an offshoot of a tiny branch of predatory dinosaurs. The three groups are one. Living species have a four-chambered heart. Further, although living crocodilians "sprawl", a great many did not, including the various land crocodiles. The last known land crocodile became extinct probably about 3000 years ago. Most dinosaurs did not sprawl. Lastly, there are some dinosaur soft anatomy fossils, including a heart:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/04/21/science.dinosaur/

Not to be harsh, but most of your conjectures are of this nature: false assumptions which defy contrary evidence. This just happens to be an example which is very easy to illustrate.

Re - fall rate of 9.8 m/s/s explained as a consequence of the Earth expanding at 9.8 m/s/s

Has no-one even contemplated the math of that? The Earth would have been larger than the universe long ago! That's an increase in radius of 9.8 meters in one second, or an increase in diameter of 19.6m. In the second second, that's another 39.2m, then another 58.8m, and so-on. It's an acceleration of 9.8 m in all directions every second. The Earth's increase in diameter, without calculating acceleration [which makes it VASTLY greater] would be:
9.8 m/s x time x 2
For the last 65 million years, that would be:
2 x 65000000 x 365.25 x 24 x 60 x 60 x 9.8 / 1000 [converts to kilometers of diameter]
The result:
40204382400000 kilometers

Current diameter:
40,075.16 km
Distance to sun:
149,669,180 km
Diameter of sun:
1400000 km
Diameter of solar system to Neptune:
4500000000 km
If we calculate to the midway point to Alpha Centauri, that's about 2000 times further:
9000000000000 km diameter of the solar system. Back to diameter of Earth:
40204382400000 kilometers
Still bigger!
How about 200 million years of expansion?
123705792000000 km
Of course, with acceleration, every second, it would grow 19.6m faster. In 1000 seconds, growth would be 19.6 km per second.

I kinda hope no-one meant this concept seriously, although the suggestion was certainly worded that way!
 father3
Joined: 7/11/2006
Msg: 108
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/26/2008 3:28:15 PM

Has no-one even contemplated the math of that? The Earth would have been larger than the universe long ago!


It contracts just as often as it expands. The contraction isn't observed by us because it happens in a fourth spacial dimension. We see a stable diameter of the earth, ie Symmetry. Or the contractions could happen in a second dimension of time at right angles to the time we experience.


I kinda hope no-one meant this concept seriously, although the suggestion was certainly worded that way!

No it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. It just kind of fit into the topic of this thread about the earth getting bigger!! It's about as valid as string theories right now.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 112
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/28/2008 9:05:38 AM

Has no-one even contemplated the math of that? The Earth would have been larger than the universe long ago! That's an increase in radius of 9.8 meters in one second, or an increase in diameter of 19.6m. In the second second, that's another 39.2m, then another 58.8m, and so-on. It's an acceleration of 9.8 m in all directions every second. The Earth's increase in diameter, without calculating acceleration [which makes it VASTLY greater] would be:
9.8 m/s x time x 2
For the last 65 million years, that would be:
2 x 65000000 x 365.25 x 24 x 60 x 60 x 9.8 / 1000 [converts to kilometers of diameter]
The result:
40204382400000 kilometers


FrogO - your math is off. Remember that we're talking distance here... and to calculate distance, given an acceleration and a time, is

S = 1/2 * A * t^2

Using that, over the 65 million years, I get an increase of 20*10e27 kilometers. I fear that, if I were to try calculating for the entire 4.5-billion year span since Earths' accretion, my calculator would overload.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 113
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/28/2008 7:20:10 PM
I knew my math was off. I couldn't recall the formula and went with a simple constant, which I acknowledged as FAR from the real story.

Also, I substituted the circumference of Earth for the diameter.

I wasn't concerned about the light speed limit. The entire concept already violates laws of physics.

As for Mars...who cares? The assumption of Earth beginning as Mars-sized is as arbitrary and unsupported as the rest. Is this a universal standard? If Mars started Mars-sized, why is it not Earth-sized now? If it was smaller, why? Why all the assumptions which violate testable, measurable, observable, confirmed chemistry and physics???
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 114
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/28/2008 8:36:25 PM

I wish it would stop growing because having to cut my lawn every 5 days is getting a bit burdensome.

& this whole driving to work thing. Used to be I could get there in about 45 minutes, but with the earth growing at some ridiculous rate I now have to leave for work before I got home from there last night..
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >