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: 224
view profile
History
the earth is growingPage 5 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)
I like how the problem of Ostia and the origins of civilization being in the mountains went poof once some actual information on the topic appeared... of course contradicting Light's "no true Scotsman" flailing du jour.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 226
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/1/2009 9:58:44 PM


I like how the problem of Ostia and the origins of civilization being in the mountains went poof once some actual information on the topic appeared... of course contradicting Light's "no true Scotsman" flailing du jour.

Nineveh is in Mesopotamia and historians tell us that it is the oldest city in Assyria. What they dont tell us is that was the first city and the oldest in all Mesopotamia because every other city coming down the Tigris and Euphrates valleys are younger than Nineveh in descending order.

Nineveh is contained within the modern city of Mosul. Elevation of Mosul is 719 feet above sea level. Mountains? Not. Nineveh's fortifications surround a hill a couple hundred feet high... for defensibility. Duh. Hills are inherently easier to defend than flat areas. Now, islands are better, but apparently they didn't have an island nearby.

Now, if you could show evidence that the area around Mosul was submerged in the sea any time in the last, oh... 20,000 years... you might have something. Maybe. But still, you'd be wrong about this growing Earth crap.


So now we have an electron and a positron. As stated the energy that transforms these particles must be able to overcome the electric or coulomb force of attraction. If these 'new' particles are separated for long enough, possibly by a magnetic field (just like in the Earth's core) or an energy density differential, they won't annihilate.

So, if you can isolate a positron for long enough, it will not annihilate with its electron. Okay, but you're talking about doing this IN THE CORE OF A PLANET, not VAST EMPTY SPACE!!!!! Do you have ANY IDEA how many electrons there are to annihilate that positron? Or even if that positron is sequestered somehow, what the HELL do you do with the obscene electric charge that the Earth would develop? It would fly apart just from electrostatic repulsion.

This is a flailing attempt to save a completely dead horse of a "theory" from annihilation by physics, logic, and observation.

Still waiting on that paper that shows the Earth is expanding 22 mm/year.

 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 229
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/5/2009 11:53:58 AM
Storm...


The Pacific is just as young as the Atlantic... do you overlook this tiny detail? If we agree the Atlantic was not there 200 million years ago... why would the pacific be any different?


You're forgetting that the Pacific plate undergoes the SAME process as the rest of the oceanic plates - it's in motion as well... as evidenced by the Hawaiian Island chain. Since it moves in a roughly north-westerly direction, at the same rate as the rest of the plates, it's just not logical to assume that the plate would be older than everything else - it's being subducted as well, so older rocks are being reabsorbed back into the mantle.

Now... if you WERE to find Pacific-plate rocks that dated at, say, the 500-million-year range... THAT would be evidence in support of an expanding Earth.

Unfortunately, nothing like that has ever been found...
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 231
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/6/2009 10:33:05 AM

During the life of Galileo Galilei, I'm sure many would say the same about him, ironicly before his death he did go blind and couldn't see... but the history books show, that he saw something obvious and endured overwhelming hardship to let the truth be known.

False appeal to authority. Galileo had EVIDENCE. Evidence that he could show others that was NOT BETTER EXPLAINED by ANOTHER THEORY.


Like Galileo Galilei?

You can touch your false totem a thousand times, it doesn't make your comparison valid. Galileo had strong, compelling evidence to back up his claims, and those resisting his claims were people who insisted on believing whatever they believed in spite of any real evidence... Sounds like the Expanding Earth camp has the whole Galileo comparison BACKWARDS. YOU are The Church, not Galileo.


Various studies on that GPS data put growth everywhere between 5mm and 5cm a year. There is very little consistency to it, and I wish someone would come up with an iron clad means of determining the size of the earth and comparing it year to year. But if true, over your entire life time, the spread on the planet will have only pushed apart a couple cm.

You still haven't provided us with these studies or their underlying datasets. The one dataset we have ready access to shows about a 0.4mm/year SHRINKAGE. You have never addressed this issue except to simply state that other unverifiable studies say otherwise.

Also, at 22mm/year and increasing, the Earth would expand more than 8 FEET, almost 3 METERS in your lifetime. You should at least have enough of a grasp on your own figures to understand what they imply. *shaking head*



Another adage pops into mind. If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS. Sean is definitely in the latter camp.

What's wrong with the idea?

You mean aside from the fact that it's complete handwaving horsecrap with no science behind it? A few energy/mass values thrown in to make it sound "scientific" does not make it make SENSE. At its core, it's horsecrap: Can you tell me:

How do you sequester a positron from its pair-electron and keep it from annihilating with an electron IN THE GIANT SEA OF ELECTRONS CALLED A SOLID IRON CORE?

Assuming you can somehow sequester these positrons and somehow magically remove them from the Earth's core without having them annihilate with an electron: How do you keep the Earth from FLYING APART as its intrinsic charge decreases by one for every single electron that is added to the Earth through this farcical mechanism?


QUIT IGNORING THE VALID REBUTTALS TO YOUR CLAIMS. IT MAKES YOUR ARGUMENTS LOOK WEAK AND FOOLISH.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 233
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/6/2009 8:32:26 PM
Read it again, Storm... they're talking about ACCRETION, not EXPANSION.

Nobody here has been disputing that planet-sized bodies are formed by the accumulation of particles from the stellar nebula. It's the notion that planets grow from the inside out, like your balloon analogy, that there isn't a lot of supporting evidence for.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 235
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/6/2009 8:55:00 PM
It takes large clouds of dust and sand to dim the light of a star, just like it takes large clouds of dust and sand to condense into planets. Compared to the size of a solar system and the amount of available debris, there's no shortage of materials. There's no indication of any small objects growing into larger ones.

Every point thus far has been easily refuted. Do the Pacific shores line up? Maybe...if you exclude the fact that most of America west of the continental divide didn't exist 65 MYBP! Every possible point for a "growing" planet is contradicted by more abundant evidence against it. In a few cases it is simply wrong. The OP wishes to advocate an hypothesis which depends on underlying principles for which there is zero evidence. An hypothesis for which the evidence is equivocal at best, and more often contradictory. In ALL cases, the OP is actually ignorant of the basic principles, and professes his own inability to understand the basics. Um...not understanding the basics is HIS fault, not a flaw in theories which most of us DO have a decent grasp of!

If you don't understand - STUDY! Learn the basics before doubting the conclusions and leaping head-first into alternatives which don't HAVE substantial underpinnings!

I would recommend the following book as a great introduction:
Ghost Mountains and Vanished Oceans

I've looked through it a few times, but have held back buying it. It covers a few details of direct relevance to my interests, but also covers a great deal which is relevant to this discussion.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 236
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/6/2009 9:09:32 PM
So in order to accept the idea of a growing earth you have to dismiss the mountains (pardon the pun) of evidence against it, avoid talking to geologists, and swallow the fact that there is no rational explanation for what it is that makes the earth grow.

I think the only way you could convince a rational mind of this would require a lobotomy.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 237
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/7/2009 10:11:19 AM
Ummm, Light? The data in those appendices, the Earth Geodetics, argue against your point.

The "Earth Expanding" line in each graph is what the projected growth would be. NO CHART MATCHES IT. As many show decreases as increases, and all the increases are clustered around major tectonic activity.

You really should look at the data you present as evidence, and at least try to understand what it implies.

If I felt like wasting another dozen hours on this crap, I'd crunch those data for you, too. It's YOUR crazy assertion, why don't YOU crunch this set?
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 238
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/7/2009 8:36:41 PM

You really should look at the data you present as evidence, and at least try to understand what it implies.

Evidence: 2/3rds of the planets surface is less then 200 million years old

Now... I may not be a rocket scientist... But I feel I'm smart enough to 'get' why Growing Earth proponents feel the idea that a growing Earth should be obvious.

You're moving the goalposts and taking my statement COMPLETELY out of context to try and "refute" it. Stay in the context of the discussion.

I said the data in Maxlow's appendices don't appear to support your assertion that the Earth is growing, based on the diameter plots provided in each set (they actually appear to agree with the JPL dataset that *I* crunched for you, based on spot checks). Here would be where YOU show definitively that they DO support your assertion, or you concede the point. As I said, if you're convinced they support you, put in the time and crunch the numbers for us.

It is NOT where you start talking about a completely different observation as though it refutes my concerns with Maxlow's data.

As for "getting it," it may make you feel SMRT and SPESHUL, but what people are suggesting you do is learn some physics basics, so you can actually speak from a position of knowledge, instead of "feel it" "understanding" gleaned from a couple of webcasts. You lack the basic framework to MAKE sense of what these guys are saying, or to spot the glaring horsecrap they're shoveling, so OF COURSE it sounds reasonable.

Have YOU written NASA and asked someone there what the Agency's official stance is on the issue of an Expanding Earth?



Every point thus far has been easily refuted.

Most of my points aren't even refereed to, unless it's an idea for a Mechanism to explain Growth, or questionable about who's right GPS data.

*points up*
Nineveh. Mosul. ?????
CRUNCHED complete dataset from JPL's GPS data, showing shrinkage. Your rebuttal? "Well look at Maxlow's data." with no analysis, no conclusion, no examples of how my understanding of Maxlow's data is incorrect.

You're just playing the victim. It comes off as incredibly lame. People are refuting your arguments left and right, and you have yet to show any of them are wrong. Grow a pair and either put in the work to provide evidence that is not a made-up video or someone else's handwaving BS, or admit you're probably wrong.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 239
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/8/2009 6:24:10 AM
Storm...


I don't believe the word accretion or expansion was used anywhere in that opening statement. I believe the wording was ""We believe the disk-shaped clouds of dust around newly formed stars condense, forming microscopic grains of sand that eventually go on to become pebbles, boulders and whole planets."


Reading the last line here - "dust around newly formed stars CONDENSE"!!! Meaning the particles clump together, forming larger and larger concentrations of matter. Nowhere in that article did it suggest that the particles themselves magically 'blew up' into world-size blobs.

Now... if I were to make a mound by piling sand into one place, would you say that the mound is growing...? To the outside observer, it looks like it is. Would you then say that the grains are getting larger...? No, you'd say that more material was added.

Show me a mechanism for growth, that DOES NOT depend on throwing out just about everything we currently know about the nature of matter, or explain why the Asian plate and the Pacific plate are moving towards each other (when a growing Earth implies that they should be moving apart...) and I'll start taking it seriously.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 240
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/8/2009 10:47:09 AM
Storm...

Even a scientist who is a growing-Earth proponent is NOT going to say that they have a map of the ocean floor from 200 million years ago! To even ask for something like that is foolish.

And the simple fact that the rocks of the Pacific seafloor are as young as the ones in the Atlantic being 'the winning argument' for a growing Earth is another mistake. The Pacific seafloor moves at a rate similar to the Atlantic seafloor - it starts out at a ridge near South America, moves in a generally north-west direction, and drops below Asia (as well as North America, since that plate is pushing its way westward...)
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 241
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/8/2009 5:00:35 PM

So this is what we know... around new stars, we have giant rings of dust, and no planets... some have bulges in the dust like small planets are starting to take shape. Ancient stars we find Massive planets bigger than Jupiter.


Tau Boötis: White dwarf star, 1.8 to 2.0 billion years old, less than half the age of our sun, yet it has a gas giant planet orbiting closer than Mercury in our own system. How big is the planet? 3.64 times as large as Jupiter. Big enough to tidally lock the STAR to the planet.

Okay, your hypothesis is destroyed. Welcome to science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_Boötis
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 244
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/9/2009 9:47:38 AM
Cherry-picking at its finest.

I do appreciate you making your effort, but in the North America, Asia, and Europe sets, you have taken overwhelmingly datapoints from the far north, where glacial rebound is still occurring. You're also forgetting how a Mercator projection works and your points are a lot more clustered than even you think.

for example:

Western
DUBO Hight increase 0.55mm/y
FLINN Hight increase 2.27mm/y
Avg +1.41mm a year

Eastern Side... Direct opposite side to my best guess
KSTU Hight increase 0.89mm/y
IRKT Hight increase 0.83mm/y
Avg +0.86mm/y

If the western side hight increase is 1mm a year, and on the opposite side in also a hight increase of 1mm year... it would have me conclude that there is an overall yearly increase in the planets size above and beyond the amount subducted. No where near James Maxlows prediction, but very similar to Dennis McCarthys views on the subject for a Growing Earth.

DUBO == Lac DuBonnet, outside Winnipeg. glacial rebound central
FLIN == Flin Flon, a fair hike north and a bit east of Regina and Saskatoon, in an area of glacial morrain lakes!

KSTU == Kraznoyarsk, about as far north as civilization goes in that part of central Russia. Also glaciated at the last maximum.
IRKT == Irkutsk. Same, but a little east.

You can't select very small subsets of a dataset, and then take the mean. You end up with conclusions that can be extremely skewed.

Besides, we already know what the JPL dataset shows, overall. I was more interested in a COMPREHENSIVE crunch of MAXLOW's sets, particularly since that's what you seem to be basing a lot of your arguments on. :)

I'm also not sure where you get the impression anyone is arguing that subduction zones would have a net decrease in altitude. If anything, I would expect the overlying continental plate to RISE slightly as material is pushed underneath. Certainly I'd expect increase volcanic and earthquake activity, which would absolutely add a lot of "noise" to the data.

And if THIS was a lot of work, imagine how much work it would be to actually get a 4 year degree in geology or geophysics, and then go on another 6-8 years and get a PhD in the subject. Strangely, people who have done that are OVERWHELMINGLY convinced that Maxlow and McCarthy are nuts. (The artist who plays fast and loose with animations and coastlines isn't even worth mentioning)
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 247
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/4/2009 11:12:17 AM

Well, that's just stupid!

I don't know enough about physics to say one way or the other, but could we not look at the "big bang" as a time-reversed black hole? Are we positive the arrow of time (determined by entropy) is always unidirectional? What is the nature of entropy on the other side of the event horizon of a black hole?
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 248
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:34:46 PM
What makes you think that rock expands when it cools...? Unless my memory is VERY faulty, water is the only known substance that expands as it cools. Everything else shrinks...
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 249
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:07:33 PM
Thorb, see post #355 in this thread, on page 15. The Earth is slightly shrinking, according to the GPS data provided by the JPL dataset posted slightly above that one, even with the over-representation of data points in "glacial rebound" regions.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 250
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/5/2009 9:34:46 AM
Light, you can SAY anything you want. Back it up with some math, references, something... Except, perhaps, the rantings of a cartoonist turned animator (who plays very fast and loose with coastlines and such in his "wonderful" animations).
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 252
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/5/2009 2:41:02 PM
Thorb...


although the sun will expands as it cools and its not water. ... so ... so much for your "everything".


Where exactly did you come up with THIS idea...? Current models suggest that the sun will collapse as the hydrogen that drives it runs out - it will cool down, collapse, and start fusing helium. When that happens, it will heat up and expand.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 254
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/6/2009 5:42:46 AM
Thorb...


I got it from a planetarium show .
they said exactly that as the sun cools ... it becomes a red giant and expands.
the red giant is a cooler temperature than the sun is now so ...


Whatever planetarium show you got that from, they're WAY out of date.

They're partly right, though... the *surface* temperature will be lower, which is why it will be red instead of yellow. But the CORE temperature, where the bulk of the action is going on, will be significantly hotter - which is why it'll expand... as the hotter and more energetic gasses push outwards against gravity.

BTW - crystals don't really grow... they condense out of solution.

I doubt that the Earth is shrinking, too - but I'm also extremely skeptical about this 'growing' notion. If anything, I can picture the globe *vibrating* - rising in some places, falling in others - in response to forces beneath the surface.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 257
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/6/2009 8:18:43 PM
SEEing the subducting plate is not enough for you? What.ev.er.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 258
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/9/2009 8:51:15 AM

Yes, and there is also a certain level of satisfaction of warm tingly feelings associated with defending a theory I believe to be true over the mainstream accepted fallacy. I read once that the Growing Earth theory was just too simple for anyone who is over analytical. It's as easy to understand as a child's read along book in comparison to the complex texts of nonsense to support a static earth radius.

You should read this over and over again, until you understand what you are actually saying here. It's what almost everyone else has been trying to tell you, and I find it deeply amusing that you said it yourself... apparently without being aware of what you've actually said.


and the post was locked and closed by moderators... I guess hinting at the truth causes even the moderates of science forums to shut down topics that could possibly lead to some EXTREMELY important information about the future of our planet.

When you can tell us "why," it will be time for you to leave, grasshopper.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 262
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/9/2009 10:09:17 PM



Yes, and there is also a certain level of satisfaction of warm tingly feelings associated with defending a theory I believe to be true over the mainstream accepted fallacy. I read once that the Growing Earth theory was just too simple for anyone who is over analytical. It's as easy to understand as a child's read along book in comparison to the complex texts of nonsense to support a static earth radius.

You should read this over and over again, until you understand what you are actually saying here. It's what almost everyone else has been trying to tell you, and I find it deeply amusing that you said it yourself... apparently without being aware of what you've actually said.

Growing earth is a cinch, clean, elementary, incomplex, intelligible, not difficult, picnic, piece of cake, plain, quiet, self-explanatory, straightforward and uncomplicated. Plate tectonics is more complex, complicated, difficult, exacting, intricate, unclear, and unintelligible... I've been saying that for as long I can remember.

Just throwing a thesaurus at a question, while completely ignoring the point and failing to understand what you yourself have said, is truly pathetic.




and the post was locked and closed by moderators... I guess hinting at the truth causes even the moderates of science forums to shut down topics that could possibly lead to some EXTREMELY important information about the future of our planet.

When you can tell us "why," it will be time for you to leave, grasshopper.

If the pebble was the earth in your hand... I would leave in your hand so you could witness it growing... and then you will have finally seen the light.

Okay, you're truly having trouble comprehending my comments, so I'll clear this one up a bit: When you can tell us "why" the post was closed by the moderators and what the threat of the extremely important information is, and why "they" are working to hide it, it will be time for you to leave the nest.

Try to actually answer one or two of the questions this time. If you need help, you can always ask.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 263
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/10/2009 9:24:28 AM
Storm...



How does a static mass expanding earth increase the magnetic field so as to keep from "growing" into the Van Allen radiation belts?

Static mass doesn't expand... and I fail to understand your question, my fault entirely I'm sure.


Let's assume for a minute that the earth IS growing at the rates you suggest. If overall mass stays static, that implies that the magnetic field doesn't expand either... and thus the Van Allen belts are at the same diameter as they were originally.

So - why is there no evidence of the radiation belts getting closer to the surface? If the earth is growing at a measurable rate, then the overall distance from the Belts should be *decreasing* by that same rate... are they?
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 265
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/11/2009 11:12:16 AM

the question of whether or not the planet grew is pretty much unavoidable.

And based on the actual scientific evidence and all the known laws of physics, geology, geophysics, planetology, astrophysics, (ad nauseum), the answer is equally unavoidable: No!

(At least not after its initial accretion phase (ending about 4.4 to 4.6 billion years ago), and accounting for the extremely minor influx of extraplanetary dust, meteors, comets, etc... and the efflux of gasses from the upper atmosphere into interplanetary space.)
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 266
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/11/2009 11:34:09 AM
There is a zero % chance that earth is "growing". Rocky planets, such as earth, do not "grow" unless bombarded by asteroids, comets, etc.

The forces required to overcome gravity and expand the planet are so enormous that it's nonsense to even discuss it.

This coming from a physicist.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >