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.

 

Is life on earth a part of its growing process?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   
This may be total nonsense and I accept that. However I was having fun with the idea so I figure I might share.

I was think about dirt and how there creatures off e dirt die and the plants of the earth grow up out and die and become a new layer of dirt eventually and I kinda realized the earth is growing and were suppose to be part of that process. Like giant mushrooms walking around spreading knowledge and dying and becoming part of the earth adding to its now newly forming new layer.

Add this together with magma coming to the surface and the movement of techtonic plates moving and spreading and it really looks to me like the earth is constantly growing and expanding at a fairly rapid rate.

I'm wondering if we ever end up looking like a Jupiter and if at one point Jupiter was a planet capable of sustaining life before expanding ever outward?

Thoughts?




posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Simply put, no. Regardless of how much magma rises to the surface, the Earth's mass isn't affected. The only things that would increase the Earth's mass are things that arrive from elsewhere in the galaxy. Think dust, meteorites, etc...And these accumulate so incredibly slowly (compared to the overall .ass of the planet) that they don't even make up a fraction of a percent of the total mass.

As for whether or not Jupiter was ever capable of sustaining life, if it was, it wouldn't have been life even remotely as we know it, as Jupiter is a gas giant, not a solid planet.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I didn't say it's mass is changing its density is changing.

Is there a difference?
edit on 4/11/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I have always seen it as this:

The Earth as we know it, oxygen and carbon and the intrinsic balance that seems almost too perfect is because life made it tgis way.

Just like simple organisms make the environment they live in suit their needs or how trees release chemicals to better improve it's ability to live.

We are but fungus on the face of the planet. It's why I believe only carbon based life exists here. Everything else never got the chance to have that run away effect.

The goldie locks theory is just that
a theory, we have nothing to compare to and for all we know life just needs acids a medium (liquid) and a base compound that is versatile (carbon) for all we know Earth itself might have had a tonne of other element based lifeforms.

Try grow some fungi in a bacteria ridden atmosphere or the other way round then check on it after a few weeks. One will dominate and you'll find little evidence of the loser ever existing.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

I think there's more to the story than what modern science presents.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion




Add this together with magma coming to the surface and the movement of techtonic plates moving and spreading and it really looks to me like the earth is constantly growing and expanding at a fairly rapid rate.

The crust is spreading in the mid-oceanic rifts, it is not getting higher.
That spreading becomes subduction at continental regions, it is not getting lower.

Staying pretty much the same diameter.

edit on 4/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So the spreading would indicate it's growIng in mass correct?



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Phage

So the spreading would indicate it's growIng in mass correct?

Huh? This is what you just said:

I didn't say it's mass is changing its density is changing.



But you are incorrect in either case. There is no source for increased mass of any significance.
It is a matter of recycling.

edit on 4/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'm not a geologist just playing with ideas.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

It's not as if you're the first one. Along with a flat Earth, the notion of an expanding Earth has been discussed repeatedly.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The earth does have some interesting. Features for sure.

It's probably more likely collecting dust than it is actually growing. I



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 01:24 AM
link   

edit on 4/12/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Nope sorry, you can't create Mass out of nothing, but you are right that earth is expanding, just a tiny tiny bit.
The Materials that were once harder, when this earth was created loosened themselves a bit, making life possible. There are materials from space coming on earth aswell, but that is just a tiny dust particle of mass compared to earth. ^^
Yet the earth hardens it's elements again inside of itself. As the earth crust. Everyone knows that stone is compressed earth.
We could also live on a giant compressed diamond.
Would be pretty, but we couldn't survive on there long...



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I'd say it's part of the dying process rather than a growing process.

The purpose of life is to consume and process everything in the action of decay therefore bringing us nearer our return to starstuff once again.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: nerbot
Yeah. Three or four billion years to go.

But that's because of the Sun, not anything that's going on here.



edit on 4/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: nerbot
a reply to: onequestion

I'd say it's part of the dying process rather than a growing process.

The purpose of life is to consume and process everything in the action of decay therefore bringing us nearer our return to starstuff once again.


The important part of what you said is 'process'. Life on Earth is an intermediary to create the end game: artificial intelligence.

Once that has been created, life on Earth, all forms of it, will quickly cease to exist. All of the matter and energy currently used for life and to support life will be repurposed to be or to support a new form of being much more capable at 'processing'.

Expect this to happen within the next 200 years.
edit on 4/12/16 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion


I'm wondering if we ever end up looking like a Jupiter and if at one point Jupiter was a planet capable of sustaining life before expanding ever outward?

Thoughts?


Nope, Jupiter, while being a planet is of a completely different makeup. We have guesses at what the core of it is, but no, earth will never become a gas giant. Though interesting fact, the sun will become a red giant eventually and gobble up lil ol earth.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: RedDragon

Interesting. I just don't agree about it happening in the next 200 years though.

AI could be the next "being" but what after that? I don't believe we could ever fathom what that being would be like. Perhaps it would be the AI's version of ... AI and so on and so on until we have an all powerful god that can help expand the universe.

Who knows..



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Well there is an expanding Earth or growing Earth hypothesis that asserts that "the position and relative movement of continents is at least partially due to the volume of Earth increasing. Conversely, geophysical global cooling was the hypothesis that various features could be explained by Earth contracting".

However the current accepted theory of Plate Tectonics contests any significant expansion or contraction of Earth.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 12-4-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

I read somewhere the other day that Olivine holds about 9000 parts water to the million at depths 360km...I'll get straight to the point because I'm not sure what I'm on about.

If a large region of the Earth was to be relieved of pressure (like the Himalyas) would this create more surface water?
Also would Icesheets create more possiblilty for large volumes of water retention due to the weight above?

We have plenty of evidence of lands rising and sinking due to pressure factors but water levels have drastically changed over time it seems. Again I'm not even sure what I'm on about....



new topics




 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join