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: 321
view profile
History
the earth is growingPage 29 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)

As you can see by the diagram provided from your link, there is no counteracting subduction mechanism in this new rifting ocean happening.

Read what I said. African Rift Valleys are due to the Indian Plate spreading away from the African Plate, and being SUBDUCTED into the Java Trench. If you still don't get it, read it again, label your diagram as I suggested, and try again.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 323
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 7/26/2010 9:35:07 PM

Well, at least you can sit confidently beside the creationist in the firm belief that the planet has not changed since it's original formation billions of years ago. Evolution isn't just for the animals anymore.

Yeah... you missed my point. My point was that if you like simpler explanations instead of scientific ones, skip this "stuff comes out of nowhere and makes the earth grow" nonsense and just say "IT'S MAGIC. IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE".

It's "simpler".


One of the objectives of the LHC "The collider will seek the Higgs boson (or what stands in its place) and determine its properties. " It also has the goal of learning more about dark matter candidates. Discovery in these areas could support growing earth hypothesis.

And the Higgs Boson is not a prime matter particle. Or anything nearly close.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 324
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 7/27/2010 6:53:25 AM

UC Santa Cruz Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Astrobiology Professor Gregory P. Laughlin is interviewed on The History Channel's The Universe Season 2. He says the following about the Expansion Tectonics of expanding planets:

"... we think that the reason why that's happening [planetary expansion tectonics] is because they have an internal source of heat which is raising the pressure inside the planet and causing it to expand. That's very similar to a steam boiler on a steam train. In a steam boiler you have water which is being heated by a heat source. That water is turning to steam. The pressure is increasing and that's causing the piston of the boiler to move out, to expand. If you didn't have the gases ability to expand, planets wouldn't inflate. Steam trains wouldn't work. We wouldn't be climbing up this mountain. " -- Gregory P. Laughlin, planetary scientist, November 2007

~http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2009/09/gregory-p-laughlin-on-expanding-planets.html


Light, you should be more careful with your "evidence." Here's Laughlin's response to the use of that quote to say he supports Expanding Earth. Quote mining is lame as hell.


Hi Jeffery,

I'm not a proponent of the Expanding Earth Hypothesis.

In the history channel documentary, I was referring to highly irradiated gas-giant planets, and using an analogy to explain why they are systematically observed to have larger radii than planets like Jupiter which have much lower surface temperatures.

In essence, I was talking about the ideal gas law. The analogy does not apply to a solid-state body such as the Earth, where the equation of state shows essentially no increase in pressure with temperature.

cheers,
Greg Laughlin


It's always loverly when someone takes a quote made by a reputable scientist and uses it completely out of context to support their crackpot bullsh!te. Which is what Expanding Earth is, crackpot bullshi!te.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 326
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 7/27/2010 2:29:22 PM

Everying suddenly makes sense about from the lanscapes oceans to mountains.

Everything already made sense if you were familiar with the science of plate tectonics.


Religion is based on the cleverness of a few and the fears of the many.

And the "prime matter particle" and this retarded disregard for accomplished and established science is based on the gullibility of a few, and being ignored by many.


If you know as much about HB as you do PT, I'm going to assume that it's not much.

The Higgs Boson is hypothesized to exist and have certain behavior because of established science pointing to a particle's existence that must have certain properties.

The "Neal's Particle" is hypothesized to exist because a few kooks didn't want to go through the rigors of understanding that science.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 327
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 7/28/2010 12:05:50 PM

Neals theory is interesting...

So is Lord of the Rings. But I know to approach it as a work of fiction, as well.


do you even know what his definition of a prime particle is? or you just screaming "no, no, NO!" at something you didn't even try and look at?

I read about it, unfortunately. And I'll never get that time of my life back. Neal's particle is the coupling of an electron and a positron. He claims these are fundamental subparticles whose cosmic reuniting magnetic force is the fundamental force of the universe. We know this to be not true, but we also know that there are other particles other than Neal's, so it's kind of a moot point. Hell, we know that atomic forces aren't magnetic, they're electric. In fact, the number of things that we know in science for a fact that have to be disregarded to get through a basic introduction to Neal's particle is staggering and disorienting. It's tough to get through for someone like me, with a scientific background, because I start to lose track of where Neal wants to draw the line at reality and where Neal's world begins. Reading about his crap, I have to try and suspend so much factual science that I lose track of what knowledge I can try and apply to his claims. Can I keep my knowledge of neutrinos? Probably not, because scattering experiments have to be forgotten to let Neal's particle slide. Can I keep my knowledge of gravity and space-time? Nope, that's not Neal's fundamental force. Can I keep my knowledge of electron spin? Nope, or at least I think not. Neal doesn't address the phenomenon of electron spin, but angular momentum conservation doesn't seem to be compatible with Neal's particle. Actually Neal doesn't seem to have any use for any laws of any conservation.


From my understanding, it's one of those things we need to find to explain an interesting phenomenon called 'mass'.


Question boils down even further in the search to explain 'mass' in the crazy world of quantum mechanics.

Mass is not a phenomenon. I don't know what your education level is in science, but if you think "mass" is an interesting phenomenon, it appears to end at about 6th grade. Mass is not really a pivotal issue in quantum mechanics, momentum and energy are. And since massless particles can have momentum.... am I wasting my time writing this? I don't think you're going to follow this.

I'll stop.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 328
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 7/28/2010 7:47:51 PM
That's something I got over in high school physics and chemistry, dude. I know what mass is. I know the difference between mass, weight, moles, inertia, and acceleration. And I can apply all those concepts to angular situations, too. I do know and understand Newton's three laws, and can make advanced derivations off them, so you don't have to loosely allude to them like they're some advanced issue you should avoid broaching. I understand that someone with your level of science background may not have caught up to that yet, but quit painting elementary intro science as some big mystery.

It's not. And you're not talking to someone with a half-high school education in physics.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 329
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 7/31/2010 3:53:22 PM
There is no math to check over. There are no equations. There is no science. That's what we've been fighting over.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 331
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 8/4/2010 10:05:53 AM
Yeah, I get lost at quantum field theory. Didn't cover that in undergrad, and my physics education stops there.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 333
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 4/9/2011 12:12:24 PM
At the end of the last glacial, 12000 years ago or so, the Mediterranean was in fact MUCH lower, and the Black Sea was a much smaller freshwater lake. Rising ocean levels breached first at Gibraltar, and then the Dardanelles/Bosporus.

The idea that many ancient seas were freshwater is wrong. Ocean chemistry can be determined by the rocks formed in those oceans. Some types of minerals form only in freshwater, some only in air, and some only in marine waters. Conclusions by the scientific community at large regarding ocean chemistry and size aren't pulled magically from their collective asses - they're firmly backed by geology.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 336
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 4/13/2011 5:38:50 PM
An obviously unimportant note, in an obviously unimportant thread:

"Biblical references where[sp] used in finding Troy and are now being referred to in the next best possible location for Atlantis." Both false. Homer's Iliad was the source for finding Troy (which is never mentioned in the Bible), and Plato's dialogs are the SOLE source for Atlantis, at least by name.

Almost all the calculations being thrown around about sea levels over time are RELATIVELY invalid. The entire surface of the Earth has been in motion in all sorts of directions for a very long time. In fact, if one viewed it rapidly over time, from a safe vantage point, it might well resemble a group of cloth chunks, rumpling, wrinkling, tearing, sinking, rising. It is believed right now, for example, that it is simultaneously true that the Eastern half of the U.S. is sinking (due to the melting of the ice in Greenland removing teeter-totter-like pressure from the other "end" of that plate), AND that the sea level itself is rising, also due to melting polar ice.
By the way, as some folks at least seems to realize, the level of water on ONE spot on the Earth is NOT actually tied to the level of water on every OTHER spot in the surface. Gravity itself varies over the surface of the planet, the turning of the planet means that there is a BULGE of water around the middle, AND, there are specific measurable amounts of time required for a rise in water in ONE place, to affect another one. There's that MOON thing running around us in a circle, too, which (so it has been rumored) has SOME effect on the water. I think they named some kind of soap after it.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 339
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 4/13/2011 10:28:11 PM

We know that 200 million years ago the Atlantic was closed. We know that the Pacific is the same age as the Atlantic, yet still grip to the idea that an ancient ocean floor once existed (conveniently absolutely no evidence of what so ever) in order to maintain the notion of a static earth radius.

Why cherry-pick two oceans when you have at least six to choose from? Yes, six. Tethys is still around, after a fashion. Some of it has been compressed and uplifted as mountains, some is landlocked desert, and some is still marine. You're commiting a post hoc fallacy. All probabilities are 100%, after the fact. Not surprisingly, the oldest submarine crusts are furthest from rift zones. Some of those are not at subduction zones, and some are. It should be fairly obvious that where there are subduction zones, anything older has already been subducted! Pick any age of crust you like, you could make the same argument. Why is there no submarine crust older than 1.5 billion years? 600 million years? 8 years? The only clear answer is that at SOME point you must reach a maximum age. Anywhere that crust is raised it will last longer and thus achieve a greater age - that would be terrestrial cratons. Anywhere that crust is depressed it will be more subject to subduction and thus more likely to have its aging curtailed. Hello, ocean floors, and most especially trenches!


This argument assumes that the volume of the ocean waters has been constant throughout geological history. On an Expansion Tectonic Earth the sea floor crust, ocean water and atmosphere all originate from deep within the Earths mantle and have been added to the surface crust at an accelerating rate throughout geological time. This increase in new ocean water and atmosphere is considered to have resulted by a process of mantle out-gassing, as a natural response to a decrease in mantle temperature and pressure conditions with time. " ~James Maxlow (www.jamesmaxlow.com)

This is idiotic. Do the addition:
The planet expands, reducing pressure and releasing water and gas. Try this at home folks: soak a sponge. Now increase the pressure on it.

Now as the pressure decreases and the planet continues to expand...the amount of water and gas released INCREASES!

Since when does a DECREASE in temperature OR pressure lead to an INCREASE in out-gassing?


The ancient coastlines, when plotted on Expansion Tectonic models, show that large Panthallassa, Tethys and Iapetus Oceans are not required during reconstruction. This is because on an Expansion Tectonic Earth all modern oceans are removed and continents are assembled as a single continental crust. These inferred oceans are instead replaced by smaller Panthallassa, Tethys and Iapetus Seas located on or between the ancient continents.

That's great. But try to do this bit of puzzle magic after you remove the uplifted seabeds from the terrestrial parts of the maps. You know - all the mountains and flatlands composed of marine sediments which could not have been part of any shoreline.


The geomorphology of mountains and their recent origin make plate tectonics an improbable mechanism for mountain building.

Only the RECENTLY formed mountains would be largely uneroded. The older they are, the lower and more eroded they are. The sediments which gave rise to metamorphic rocks over a billion years ago eroded from somewhere and were deposited in an ocean before ultimately being lifted up to erode again. This is pretty trite stuff.


It is you who seems to refused to acknowledge that before the expansion of the pacific and atlantic oceans, water level was several hundred meters higher then it is today.

Relative to what? There's ample evidence of massive archaic climate fluctuations, including “snowball” glaciation and massive deserts. Add to that the fact that most modern land areas were submarine for vast periods. Total sea levels will fluctuate with global climate, total volume of glaciation, and relative depths and surface areas of water bodies. To top it off, you are selectively referencing periods of higher sea levels while conveniently ignoring periods of LOWER sea levels. Current levels are approximately the same as the levels of 550 mybp, so while sea levels HAVE been much higher, before they rose they were just as low, sometimes lower, and sometimes higher:
http://www.hgs.org/attachments/articles/2048/Paleozoic%20Sea%20Level%20Paper%20(Haq%20and%20Shutter).pdf


There was a drilling accident in Eastern Java, Indonesia that seems to illustrate how this very theory. Science is calling it a mud volcano phenomenon. In short, a pocket of compressed water was tapped into, and engineers can not stop the disaster. Enough water coming up to the surface to fill more than 50 Olympic swimming pools a day. The disaster has flooded out many villages and destroyed several factories. Much of mud is now being pumped out into the ocean to try and maintain control of it

So? There are many mud volcanos along the western edge of the deepest subduction zones [trenches] of the western Pacific. The rocks which are subducting in this area are primarily serpentine, which melts easily. That's why it subducts faster and deeper with fewer earthquakes or magma volcanos. As it subducts, it's taking a large amount of water-logged mud with it, in addition to the water bound into the serpentine itself. Guess why there are mud volcanos formed here?
Some actual science on that matter:
http://www.perplex.ethz.ch/papers/Ruepke_EPSL_04.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFM.T22D..02P


The point I was making to Paul is that an object from the size of a cell to the size of a star can change in volume without changing in mass without needing an empty void in it's centre. To just say it can't happen to planets is pretty ignorant in my opinion.

Dude. You are comparing rocks and cookies. LITERALLY. Do you have any idea what a false analogy is or why it is a fallacy?


It should also highlight the explanation as to why there is absolutely no evidence what so ever of an any ocean floor that is older then 300 million years.

Of course there is. Being at the lowest points, it only has two places to go: down, or up. If it's subducted, it ceases to be recognizable. If it goes up...

These are ALL sites with marine fossils over 1/2 BILLION years old, with at least one of them being deepwater deposits [below the effects of waves or light]. There are many such sites worldwide:
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/Burgess_Shale/
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/Chengjiang.htm
http://cambrian.tripod.com/IntrotoEdiacaran
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/mistaken.html

One site of many:
http://greenfield.fortunecity.com/dwellers/176/index.html
To summarize - a mountain range made up almost entirely of marine rocks, many of which are over a billion years old. That is, rocks formed in a sea by sedimentation over one billion years ago.


The Theory has a lot less to do with the Physics

No kidding.


This should not be a stopping point in recognizing the observations of his science.

Given that the accepted theories are ALL compliant with established and unrefuted laws of physics, chemistry, and a vast number of additional theories...
And given that “expanding Earth” requires ignoring or throwing out so much that has empirical support...
then it is NOT “science”. Science requires seeking the best explanation which is consistent with the facts, including all other explanations which accord with evidence. Like creationism, it's a house of cards, and while neither you nor Maxlow realize it, he's removed the ground floor. And because neither of you seem to have a grasp of the fundamentals involved, you're not capable of seeing the repercussions of selectively ignoring established and proven methodologies.


Now imagine our moon sized core. Imagine when the earth formed billions of years ago that the pressure of that internal structor was significantly higher then it is now. As the planet ages and cools, that super density transforms to a less dense state. It would cause everything starting at the core to expand without changing in mass.

Gravity creates that pressure. Gravity is entirely contingent upon mass. Gravity dictates that neither the mass nor the pressure are going anywhere. Care to discard gravity?


That is the point I'm trying to make without breaking any laws of physics or make up imaginary theory's about how the planet could increase in size over time.

See above.
F-
Epic fail.

At one of the last stand up presentations done by Maxlow, the majority of the audience polled disagreed with the theory. They also didn't didn't read any of his papers. Are you one of those people? Just screaming "No" without even looking at his work?

I have. It was actually one you have pointed out, although I came across it separately while researching other things. I have also found it referenced elsewhere. There was plenty “not quite right” about it - things that didn't add up, even without picking apart why they didn't add up. I have always found that when I have that impression it's because I am subconsciously analyzing the data and coming to the same conclusion as when I make the conscious effort. No, that's not an especially helpful commentary, but that's how my mind works - I just DO the puzzle without thinking about it. Maxlow's pieces don't fit.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 345
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/17/2011 4:57:26 PM
I want to believe this

To study it

Then apply it to my penis

Cuz everyone could use an extra inch ;)
 Bloke_up_North
Joined: 12/13/2008
Msg: 347
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/19/2011 5:03:19 PM


The great Global Rift is 65,000km



The Earth CIRCUMFERENCE around the poles is only 40,075.16 km. So where do you get your measurement from?



Hawaii isn't much older then the ocean floor around it.



Some of it is being created as I type. It's made by an active volcano and it forms a chain of islands because the plate that it sits on is moving.
 Bloke_up_North
Joined: 12/13/2008
Msg: 348
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/25/2011 1:05:01 PM
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-plate-tectonics-age.html

Evidence that plate tectonics goes back 2 billion years
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 349
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/25/2011 1:24:32 PM
This is weird

My mobile phone provider keeps telling me that the world is getting smaller not larger
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >