It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Expanding earth theory now plausible science?

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire


Expansion took place before and after this period.


Let me quote again:

We conclude that it appears unlikely that the Earth has expanded significantly since the Early Mesozoic.
gji.oxfordjournals.org...

Recent evidence supports that conclusion.

edit on 4/21/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Concluded by who or what? Ward's method? Yes it seems this is the major reason why scientists refute the EE.
Maybe it's time they review this method as it's been considered in the past to contain errors.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

It is a given that the Earth has "expanded" to some extent. The current process of planet building is one of accretion. At some stage the Earth's solid surface was considerably smaller and as mass was added, the internal pressures rise and the surface diameter increases.

That accretion process has never stopped, it continues to this day, but there is no evidence that it is in ay way significant in human time frames or would be evidenced in shifting techtonic plates apart (which is only half the story, for every divergence between plates, there is a convergence opposite to it).

If current accretion is not significant enough to explain any expansion, then where is the extra "stuff" coming from?

Could the Earth be "frothing up" allowing for increased size without increased mass? We can measure seismic transmission rates and from that discern densities of subsurface regions and we don't see evidence of low density "foamy" features.

It could be that the Earth is increasing or decreasing in size on long timescales and by small increments, but the reasoning of most "expanding Earth" adherents requires an amount of expansion that has simply not been observed.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:33 AM
link   
If like the rest of the universe the starting matter were gasses, then of course the Earth grew to its current size.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Doesn't the sun also tidally affect us? Or is the result minute compared to the grasp of the earth moon system and there for negligible? I'm also curious of the affect while we were a snowball earth, since ice is less dense do they take in to account the gravitational change imposed by an ice age since the tide would most certainly be different and change the current day models. I haven't seen anything about it but if it's not taken to account could that fudge the numbers?



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

I personally find it a compelling theory, I do not actually believe it myself but it is well thought out and makes a lot of sense also the study on the age of the ocean bed rock compared to the age of the continental crustal rock seem's to support it, You know weather this is right or wrong the earth is actually larger than when the dinosaurs were around by this much,
www.universetoday.com... So at 100-300 ton's of cosmic dust per day and not factoring in the earth's possible oscillating passage through the denser galactic plane every 50.000 or so years which may increase the amount of cosmic dust then at 365 time that times the 65000.000 years since the end of the age of the dinosaus (Or as a certain spirit just said since the end of the cretacius) that factors at between 2.372.500.000.000 to 7.117.500.000.000 ton's heavyer now than it was then and this is not factoring in other fluctutions such as the likleyhood of more debris further back in time of possible atmospheric depletion of lighter gasses.
So wheather the theory is correct or not the earth is actually growing.
S+F.

edit on 21-4-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   
I wrote about this some years ago and it was slammed by many on ATS. To me it makes sense, Earth is also part of an expanding universe and these recent studies bringing the theory into mainstream science is a good idea.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Pretty heavy stuff to think about, but as memory of my youth and falling was a common thing that didn't result in any damage ,today ,being much older I no longer fall ,but plummet . I have thought that the expanding earth hypothesis was a reasonable one .With many cosmic rays entering the earth at the poles it would not be far fetched to imagine these particles combining within the earth and forming matter .



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Pretty heavy stuff to think about, but as memory of my youth and falling was a common thing that didn't result in any damage ,today ,being much older I no longer fall ,but plummet . I have thought that the expanding earth hypothesis was a reasonable one .With many cosmic rays entering the earth at the poles it would not be far fetched to imagine these particles combining within the earth and forming matter .


I wonder if this could have been the cause of the great flood. If too much water accumilated beneath the crust, perhaps most of earth's expansion happened instantaneously with an explosive force rather that gradually as the theory proposes.

Edit:

If all continents were connected in a static state, it would take an explosive force to break them apart into the tectonic plates we have today. Now that the continents have been broken, the plates are now free to drift in a more gradual manor.
edit on 21-4-2014 by BELIEVERpriest because: added thoughts



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest I could imagine something like this www.youtube.com...

This is a scientific view by differing PHD's to explain how it might have happened www.youtube.com...


edit on 21-4-2014 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If that would be the major evidence to say the EEH is wrong then you might start questioning all mainstream science.

There are more flaws in the 'current excepted theory' of a fixed earth, Pangaea and subduction, than there are with the EE model.
When will they show real evidence of subduction? If this recycling is taking place, wouldn't the composition of the new material vary, rising from the mid-ocean ridges?
Also if the earth stay fixed, why is the total amount or length of the subduction zones smaller(1/3th) than the spreading zones, wouldn't they be more or less the same?

Another thing is mountain building. How would you explain the formation of mountains that are far from coastal areas? Collisions? Like the Himalayas, when India collided with Asia (which is another hard-to-proof theory).
According to today's theory mountains should only exist near subduction zones.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Not to mention what a previous member said that neutrinos could play a role in this.
We still don't know much about them and what they affect, when detection methods will get more precise maybe we will see a correlation between neutrinos, matter forming and expansion of the earth.
But yes, we still even don't know what's really going on inside the planet or what the core is made off.
There is still a lot to do



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I kid you not, the Earth we stand on is hollow. So are most other planets in our system. The moon included. There are ones like us inside and above our heads. Maybe this world is "Middle Earth".



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: NiZZiM

Tidal effects are more closely related to the distance between two bodies than the gravitational attraction between them. The nearer they are to each other the greater the gravity gradient, the change in gravitational force with distance. This is because the force of gravity acts in an inverse squared relationship with distance.

Because the Earth is relatively near the Moon, the surface on the side closer to the Moon experiences a significantly greater pull than the surface on the opposite side. This is what causes tides. This is why there are two high tides each day. Because the Sun is so much farther away, the gravity gradient is much less so the tides produced by the Sun are much less than those of the Moon. The tidal locking effect from the Sun is magnitudes less. It would take longer than the life of the Sun for Earth to become tidally locked with it.

A great depth of ice may have an expansive effect on Earth's average radius so yes, it would affect the rate of rotation (slowing it). With the loss of that ice, the rotation would increase. These would be very small effects (as well as temporary) though because the change in radius is very small.
edit on 4/21/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire



According to today's theory mountains should only exist near subduction zones.


The southern edge of the Himalayas is at the subduction zone at the collision the Indian plate and the Eurasian plate.
i1075.photobucket.com...

edit on 4/21/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: NiZZiM

I still cannot find conclusive evidence to why animals were much bigger back then compared to today's animals.
What they are saying is they were big because of some survival issue. If you are big you wouldn't be attacked or eaten by other predators. So why today the biggest land animals getting attacked and killed by much smaller animals?(and i'm not referring to humans being the smaller animal).

Maybe it's not a coincidence that the biggest land animals living today are living in places where gravity is the lowest?



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes, but that's not what the theory is saying.
'The Himalayas were formed by collision, not by subduction'
If it was true the Himalayas would have been there prior to 50 MYA.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire


'The Himalayas were formed by collision, not by subduction'
Collision results in subduction.

The researchers discovered that as the Indian and Eurasian tectonic plates collide, the Indian lower crust slides under the Tibetan crust, while the upper mantle peels away from the crust and drops down in a diffuse manner.

oregonstate.edu...



If it was true the Himalayas would have been there prior to 50 MYA.

Why?



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

What was there prior to the collision, what filled the gap?

I'm trying to get an understanding the fact plate tectonics is saying that these plates all move separately, floating, not fixed to each other and can even rotate.
Aren't we supposed to see 'gaps' or something?

If what you are saying every subduction zone is created due to collision, there must be Himalayas at every plate edge, no? Or deep ridges( not only in the sea but also at land)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

What was there prior to the collision, what filled the gap?
What is now referred to as the Tethyan Ocean. Lacking the thickness of a continental mass, it did not cause significant uplift. It was not until the mass of India itself collided that the Himalayas began to form.



If what you are saying every subduction zone is created due to collision, there must be Himalayas at every plate edge, no?
It depends upon the nature of the crust at the area of the collision. Collisions between continental masses are not the same as collisions between ocean masses because of differences in the thickness of the crust.

edit on 4/21/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join