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  > the earth is growing      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 4
view profile
History
the earth is growingPage 1 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)
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.
 AwP
Joined: 12/31/2006
Msg: 5
view profile
History
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.
 2findU
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 6
view profile
History
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.
 GreenEyesAndHam
Joined: 2/11/2005
Msg: 9
view profile
History
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
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 10
view profile
History
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].
 GreenEyesAndHam
Joined: 2/11/2005
Msg: 11
view profile
History
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
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 13
view profile
History
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.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 16
view profile
History
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?
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 19
view profile
History
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.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 21
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 6/6/2007 6:01:26 PM
From tomorrow's treasure trove issue of Nature:
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7145/edsumm/e070607-12.html)

Editor's Summary
7 June 2007

Mantle recycling

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The volcanic and seismological activity of the Earth are indicative of its active interior and the recycling of surface oceanic plates through the mantle, but the nature and timescales of this process are not well understood. To help constrain the extent of such deep recycling, Turner et al. analysed the oxygen, niobium, boron and osmium isotope content of basalts from the Azores Islands. The results suggest that some of this material derives from melt- and fluid-depleted lithospheric mantle that is at least 2.5 billion years old, whereas other Azores basalts are thought to contain a contribution from melt-enriched basalt some 3 billion years old. It seems likely that both components derive from an Archaean oceanic plate that was subducted and stored at depth, until thermal buoyancy caused it to rise beneath the Azores islands some 3 billion years later.

Letter
: Boron and oxygen isotope evidence for recycling of subducted components over the past 2.5 Gyr
Simon Turner, Sonia Tonarini, Ilya Bindeman, William P. Leeman & Bruce F. Schaefer

doi:10.1038/nature05898
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 23
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 6/6/2007 9:01:26 PM
I wasn't actually looking for evidence of anything. It was in my email and it was relevant. I presented it without comment. You dismissed it out of hand and then accuse others of "faith", "religion", etc etc. Agenda much?
 electrifying84
Joined: 6/24/2008
Msg: 30
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/5/2008 8:51:26 PM
I never heard of this before but it wouldn't surprise me any, I see it as possible.
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 32
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/8/2008 8:03:29 PM
So, As the planet swells in size, how long do I have to wait for my 25,000sqft back yard to be a 50,000sq ft back yard?
& as the planet swells it would follow that the walls in my house will move further apart.. So at some point my roof will fall in as it will be smaller in area than the floor of my house...

Did you know that the moon used to orbit the Earth a LOT closer than it does now? This explains the extinction of the dinosaurs.... well, the taller ones anyway...
 TomHorne
Joined: 9/14/2008
Msg: 38
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/10/2008 11:16:24 PM
Interestingly enough, Adams' reply to the water question exposes a whole new flaw:

According to him, the placement of the shorelines on his pretty little animations were not "real", but rather there to illustrate how perfectly the continents fit together on the smaller earth, and that the actual shorelines moved towards their present positions as the earth expanded. This occurred because, as he states, "Water will increase in amount,but not percentage". So presumably, this means that about 70% of the land was submerged, as it is today, and as it will always be.

At the same time, look at the percentage of "new" land versus "old" land - the animation shows that in the beginning we had all "old" land, which cracked as the earth grew and "new" land - the suspiciously young sea floor - formed as they were pulled apart by the expansion. So, we started with 0% "new", and it has been growing ever since.

Here's where it falls apart: according to the theory, the land we see exposed today as continents is all old land, and the sea floor is all new land. In fact, this is the whole point of the theory in the first place - the notion that the shapes defined by today's continents fit together perfectly on a smaller sphere with no space between. Since all dry land is old land and all ocean floor is new land, that means the earth is currently 70% new land.

Think of what this means: it means that by some incredible cosmic coincidence, just as humanity showed up on the scene to witness it, the percentage of old vs. new land, which has always been increasing, JUST HAPPENED to coincide with the percentage of water, which is constant, thereby perfectly lining up our shorelines - which remember, have been moving the whole time - with the borders on which the continents first broke apart all those eons ago.

So now, on top of the question of where this astronomically huge quantity of new matter came from, we also have to deal with this magical coincidence.
 TomHorne
Joined: 9/14/2008
Msg: 40
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/11/2008 10:17:40 AM
I wrote 3 paragraphs (5 technically, but only the middle three were really significant). The first two were not even disagreeing with you, rather summarizing previous points and drawing some simple conclusions - specifically, that the percentage of water is constant while the percentage of new land is increasing. The argument I actually made against the theory came in paragraph 3. I can only assume that you didn't understand my argument, since the one paragraph that disagreed with you is the only one you DIDN'T respond to.

The youtube video (or at least the one I saw - it seems to have been re-edited several times) ends with the narrator admonishing those who doubt his genius for their primitive notion that the earth is "special", and that the universe is centered around our species. This is exactly the problem I am pointing out - the theory is suggesting that our species just happened to come along at this exact moment in time when current ocean shores line up with the ancient dividing lines. This is not the kind of coincidence one should be willing to accept in a valid scientific theory.

As for your suggestion that "it is thought pair production" (I assume you meant "it is through pair production - spellcheck is not a substitute for proofreading), that is not even remotely close to an explanation, for 3 reasons. Pick one - each destroys the hypothesis all on it's own.

First: pair production produces PAIRS. One is matter, the other is antimatter. In the very rare scenario in which they do not annihilate each other instantly, the antimatter particle will quickly run into another matter particle instead. Net gain of mass is zero.

Second: pair production produces elementary particles. Even if we could find a way to dispose of or safely store the excess antimatter, all we would get is electrons, or at the very most hydrogen. The growing earth theory requires new rocks, new water, new gasses... new everything. Hydrogen ain't gonna cut it, and I assure you the earth cannot fuse hydrogen outside of a few laboratories constructed by humans.

Third: in order to get new particles at all, an existing atom needs to be hit by a very energetic photon. In order to produce an electron/positron pair, the required photon must have an energy of about 1 million electron volts (1.022 MeV). This gives it a frequency of 2.5x10^20, making it VERY intense gamma radiation. To get protons, required for hydrogen or any other element, requires a photon 1,800 times MORE energetic. To double the mass of the earth would have required about 2.6x10^41 joules of energy. This about 11 million times the total energy imparted by the sun to the earth in the entire 4 billion years the earth has existed. That amount of intense gamma radiation would have, shall we say, been noticed. Or rather, it would not be noticed, as there would be nothing alive TO notice it.
 TomHorne
Joined: 9/14/2008
Msg: 42
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/11/2008 1:40:19 PM

It is thought pair production could create the massive amount of mass over that massive length of time.


On closer inspection... That sentence actually makes perfect sense (from a strictly grammatical perspective) . I apologize for my earlier rudeness. In the future I'll stick to the math and physics, and let the english majors watch for spelling errors.

You know... like when I said "This about 11 million times" instead of "This is about 11 million times". D'oh...
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 43
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/11/2008 9:43:05 PM
The expanding earth theory does not account for subduction (when two crusts meet one slides underneath the other) and the evidence for subduction is overwhelming. For one thing, we can see evidence of it using seismic tomography.

Evidence using paleomagnetic data suggests that 400 million years ago the earth's radius was about 2% larger than today.
However, the earth is expanding slightly. The enormous weight of the glaciers during the last ice age squished the earth and the glacial rebound from the loss of that weight from areas that had glacial ice sheets show slight expansion. And the earth accumulates a few tonnes of dust per year from space. Of course, neither of these support the expanding earth theory however.
Its all about subduction, baby
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 45
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/11/2008 11:46:16 PM

Light Storm: I strongly recomend you check out this womens book "The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science (1999) "

call me lazy if you like but I really have no interest in reading a book in order to continue this discussion. Perhaps you could bring up some key points and I'll do my best to address them.
 TomHorne
Joined: 9/14/2008
Msg: 49
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/12/2008 12:22:01 AM
No. You did not get "a little off track", you were never anywhere near the track in the first place. Though, in a way, I prefer your vague ramblings to your earlier claims, if only because you are no longer trying to drag the work of reputable scientists, such as our understanding of pair production, into your fantasy world.

Still, I have to ask... Are you even trying anymore? Seriously, now you're making up your own theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs, without suggesting any problems with the existing theories except that you didn't "like them"? It's hard to decide if I'm more in awe of the absurdity or the irrelevance.

And your response to my point about the energies involved in pair production... wow. Could I even call that a response? Are you afraid I hurt the self-esteem of photons? Yes, it's true that many photons will do more than one photon. In fact, 1000 photons of equal wavelength will have exactly 1000 times the effect of one of them. The math is all there. It does not come anywhere close to adding up to the conclusion you hope for, and no amount of poetry will change that.

Scientific theories are not accepted on the basis of how cool they are. They are accepted when those who propose them do the work involved in demonstrating that they are more plausible than all alternatives. If Adams manages to do this, by finding new evidence supporting his theory or against the existing theories, and most importantly addressing the gaping holes in his (starting with where all the new matter came from), I will happily take another look at it. Until then, I find the idea that I am expected to look at his first, pitiful attempt and say "Sure, it violates all the laws of physics, but the animation looks so neat! It must be true!" somewhat insulting.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 50
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/12/2008 12:46:50 AM
Then there are little things liked ocean sediments lifted a half mile or more above the surrounding sediments wherever one plate slides under another: The Rocky Mountains and their relatives from the Arctic Ocean to Tierra del Fuego, the Coast Mountains, the Appalachians, the Himalaya. Add to those, the mountain ranges with large numbers of volcanos created in the process, such as the Cascades Mountains. There's plenty of good evidence of a past connection between India, Madagascar, Africa, Australia, South America, and Antarctica...yet the inflating balloon stretched India some 5000 miles from Africa, while Madagascar only moved 100. In the process, India slammed into Asia. Likewise, a chunk of the Appalachians has been twisted sideways, broken off, and is now known as the Ozarks. That's not possible without plate tectonics, regardless of whether the Earth is inflating or not. Plate tectonics is required of the inflationary Earth model, but also matches the data fine all by itself.

The whole "matter from energy" concept is utterly ludicrous. There is no free ride. E=MC^2. The equation balances; energy and matter combine to a constant sum. The amount of radiation released is tiny in comparison to the amount of matter it is expected to create. To create one atom, you must completely convert another atom into energy, not simply use the small number of particles produced by radioactive decay. If you create one atom, you lose one atom [on average].

An ancient Earth without mountains? Also ludicrous. All kinds of evidence of worn down ancient mountain ranges, such as the Appalachians. Hundreds of feet of sand, dust, mud and clay eroded, reformed into sandstone, mudstone, shale, limestone, and then into gneiss, schist, marble, and slate. That's a lot of flat-ground erosion. At a bare minimum, there would be mountains created by impact craters and volcanos. There are a number of very large craters ringed by mountains. I can think of at least one on Australia's east coast, and the monster of Xixchulub happens to coincide with the timing of the last major extinction.

THEN...people forget, or are simply unaware, that Pangea was NOT the "original" land mass. Pangea itself was actually formed by the collisions of multiple previous continents, which were themselves formed by the breakup of Rodinia. These geographic arrangements are determined not only by shape of current continents, but by paleomagnetism, rock types, etc. Much of that data is used to support the inflationary model, but it ONLY works for that model if you exclude everything before Pangea, and even then it's a stretch [so to speak]. It would require inflation, distortion, deflation, inflation, more distortion. It defies physics and chemistry which work just fine otherwise.
 TomHorne
Joined: 9/14/2008
Msg: 51
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/12/2008 10:33:43 AM

Why are we even having to debate this?


We don't have to. I choose to debate it because of the chance, however small, that someone, somewhere out there, reading this thread, will not not be sucked in by this. I hope to demonstrate that real science is not, as many here seem to characterize it, a bunch of old men in lab coats yelling that their theory is best just because they say so.

Rather, true scientific progress is based on thoroughly studied facts, held to very strict standards of proof, and this is a good thing. The established scientific knowledge is reliable precisely because of the skepticism that people like Light Storm whine about. The fact that the scientific community dismissed continental drift at first does not make it less plausible now. Just the opposite: the fact that enough supporting evidence was found to beat that skepticism makes it far more convincing than if the scientific community had reacted to it by saying "Hmm, yeah. That sounds pretty cool. Ok, guys, listen up! This is the new theory! Start updating the textbooks!"

If I can convince only one person that theories that are rigorously questioned, tested and proven are better than ones that someone with no experience in the field just made up posted on youtube, I will say it was a good use of my spare time.
 TomHorne
Joined: 9/14/2008
Msg: 53
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/12/2008 11:38:34 AM

I can tell you this... as a 'feeling' 'perceiving' type I go off gut feelings a lot more than the logical 'thinking' 'judging types'.


I don't want to put down gut feelings and intuition - they are very important in many areas of life. A basketball player does not solve quadratic equations and adjust for air resistance to decide angle and speed when shooting a free-throw - he goes by his gut and intuition. A detective will often solve a case with a theory that came to him as a 'gut feeling'. These are good, and helpful.

HOWEVER (you knew that was coming, didn't you?) - except in situations where time is critical or the outcome is relatively unimportant, the gut feeling should be backed up by concrete fact. The basketball game fits these criteria, but the homicide investigation does not. Imagine a detective going before a judge and jury and saying "This man is guilty, 'cause I got a gut feeling!" It would be, to use your word, ludicrous. Instead, the detective must find hard facts that prove his intuition right. Fingerprints, DNA, polygraphs, all can be used to support his theory.

Another, equally important but far more difficult thing for the detective to do, is to abandon his intuition if the facts contradict it. It is an unpleasant task for anyone to admit they were wrong, even to themselves, but the alternative is to waste vast amounts of time trying to prove a false conclusion to be true, which ultimately must fail.


Do you agree that all living things start out small, and get bigger as time goes on... and this doesn't just apply to ones life, but the life of it's DNA... over a massive amount of time, what started out as a single cell, is now an elephant. I don't think it's a giant leap to take what we know about life and be able to apply it to things bigger than ourselves.


Organisms do get bigger. The difference is that they have a source for their increased mass. Plants absorb the chemical components from the soil, and use solar energy to combine them into organic compounds (Please note: the solar energy is used to COMBINE the molecules, not CREATE them. The matter is all absorbed fom the environment.) Animals get their increased mass by eating those plants.

This points out another problem with intuition - it works well with things we've experienced before, like basketballs and organisms, but we can often be too willing to apply it to things that we don't have experience with, and look only superficially similar. Earth may look like a basketball, but it does not behave like one. NO ONE has direct experience with the behavior of objects as large as the earth, or time periods on a geological scale. When it comes to these situations, we must be willing to let the math of physics and statistics take over for our limited intuition.

I actually have some direct experience with this - in elementary school (I don't remember exactly what grade), I wrote a report on volcanoes. In my conclusion, I made the prediction that as volcanoes continued to erupt, the earth would become hollow. This was, as you can see, a variation of the growing earth theory. As I became more aware of the physics involved in such huge systems over such vast time, I came to realize how silly it was to think that hollow cavities in the earth would not collapse LONG before they came anywhere near large enough to justify a description of the earth as being even porous, let alone hollow. I therefore gave up the idea. What if I had not had the humility to admit that my theory was wrong? Would I still be trying to convince people of it, while shunning any evidence that may contradict it? Would I be telling skeptics that they just need to use their imagination? Would someone on an internet forum be kind enough to try to set me straight?
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 54
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/12/2008 1:47:30 PM

I'm not an expert on this kind of stuff, but it's a question I attempt to answer by tossing in idea's. I can tell you this... as a 'feeling' 'perceiving' type I go off gut feelings a lot more than the logical 'thinking' 'judging types'.


To be fair and honest, "feeling, perceiving types" should probably stick to something more compatible with their basic mental makeup like the arts. Science and math truly are the playground of "thinking" types. We need both. It just mucks things up when one who is completely unsuited to the field tries to force themselves to "fit." Kind of like saying "Gandhi, mathematician," or "Bill Gates, sculptor."
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 55
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/13/2008 1:08:24 AM
Light Storm
Thanks for bringing up some interesting points.

This dinosaur is the Tarascosaurus, a type of Tyranosaur that lived between 88 million years ago to 93 million years ago. Bones from this dinosaur have been found and studied in Southern Africa. It's a well known dinosaur and it's my checkmate to the scientific community.
Just so you know, they found a few vertebrae, teeth, and a femur in southern France and they called it a Tarascosaurus. This dinosaur is viewed dubiously due to a lack of diagnostic evidence.
Also, it is the only known abelisaurid from the Northern Hemisphere. If africa and europe were connected, why did this one species migrate while others didn't?

Well, it's not just the bones and the fact that they exactly match dinosaurs in Africa so that there can be no doubt.
*snicker *snicker

This is irrevocable and incontrovertible proof, for which there can be absolutely no doubt.
There are absolutely, inctrovertibly, irrefutably way too many adjectives in this sentence.

I'll explain.
The study of tectonics is filled with nonsense and jibberish.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 59
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/14/2008 12:30:44 AM

Or the earth will continue to expand by reasons will will only begin to explore when we measure some kinda of substantial mass increase that we can measure...
In other words, plate tectonics is a well understood explanation for many different observations and data that makes perfect sense in light of the evidence, and although you know of no other explanation to replace it, you imagine the earth is expanding and entertain the notion of what it would be like to measure this non-existant expansion.

In short, you dismiss the long-established explanation that actually explains the evidence and you pursue the completely unsubstantiated explanation that makes no sense of the evidence.

So which story do you like more?

You make it sound like popularity is the deciding factor on what is true.
I like the story that does a better job of explaining the evidence and doesn't have confounding factors - wasn't it you who mentioned that expanding earth theory doesn't explain where the matter comes from?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > the earth is growing