The Earth Is Growing!? Watch These Videos!

lets look at this from the beginning. the ocean floor patterns are like that because of expanding and contracting plates. the expansion is not uniform along the entire fault and causes stair step fractures. at least that is the general overview why.

as far as this energy reacting with rematter and so on...

f=ma, newton learned us that the force required to move an object is equal to the mass of said object times how fast we want it to go. this is a basic form of einstiens famous yet rarely understood e=mc^2 equation. oddly enough it wasnt supposed to be that, it originally was ended as e/m=c^2 but thats irrelevant.

what i am trying to get at is it directly relates energy to matter, and outlines (for the most part, not talking about feymens near zero QD) the relationship between energy and matter... or the mass energy equivilence.

what is matter? well that is pretty much anything that has mass and volume... what is mass? well that is a measurable degree or amount of energy required to move a certain thing.. basically stating that the more mass something has the more energy it takes to move it.. .with me?

ok so now lets look at system. the earth is a system of matter and energy. it moves forward at a rate of about 30km/sec. and is spinning at about 0.5km/sec (on the surface that is...) and has a mass of about 5.24x10^24kg.

it takes a great inertial force to keep this rock moving about. now as we said before, the speed of an object is dependant upon its MASS and the FORCE acting upon it.

so, if the earth was growing... then the earth would be slowing. and it is.. but we could measure the amount of growth of the earth by measuring the speed. atomic clocks would start to go astray, it would be 6pm on our clocks but feel and look like noon. humans would age faster due to the time dilation effect as all matter on the earth slowed down. storms would go astray due to the weakening coriolis effect. the atmosphere would become more compact, ocean currents would go nuts.... yeah you know the rest.

now lets think about this... if the earth was moving slower, it would come under more gravitational effects from the sun, and we would begin to creep closer and closer moving toward a fiery doom in a matter of a few thousand years...

or... as the earth moves slower the lunar orbit would march wildly out of control as the earht gets bigger and drags the moon into the earth!!

yes i am aware that the moon creeps closer to the earth andsome of the above are happening to a degree, but that is part of the system. we have to deal with entropy. every little bit of space junk that we smash into causes the earth to slow.

the earth does gain mass each day but not due to some sci fi mass creation effect from suns and dark matter (look that up )but because of all the space debris that we run into each day. the amount is negligable and is like one quadrillionth of a quadrillionth of the earths mass and is considered negligable in our reference frame of a few hundred years.

if this doesnt show you why he is wrong i will get into the whole matter creation problem...

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso
Perhaps the matter is just being redistributed. There are two options here one of which has already been covered (additional mass due to cosmic collisions), the other is the obvious fact of volcanic eruption displacing matter from inside the earth to the surface. This would make the earth bigger, but the mass would stay the same. I am no scientist so it's just a thought.

Yes, it would mean the Earth is higher in that location. Everywhere else it will stay the same. Erosion will then reduce the height again anyway, and the weight of the new land will probably cause itself to be lower anyway(not sure about this, but it makes sense).

This theory has a lot of problems with it. Ignoring the mass problems (unless we are seriously suggesting some sort of vacuum energy/mass system naturally occurring within every planet, star, moon, etc) there is still the problem that since gravity is related to mass, the gravity of the early earth would be 1/8th of what it is now. Though the smaller size would mean a smaller distance, so 1/2th of now, but I think that would have a large effect on the atmosphere.

Additionally, there is the problem of explaining away the evidence for plate tectonics. Firstly, subduction volcanoes like the Cascades, the Andes, The rest of the Ring of Fire etc would not exist without this. As well as that, without continental drift the Hawaiian chain would be a single island - if in fact Mantle plumes were able to exist in such an expanding world. In fact, in this case Yellowstone would also be a stationary object, rather than an apparent chain there instead.

Would not gravity be related to density not Mass? I say that, because it seems to me that at the atomic level you are adding or subtracting protons or electrons. So the density right from the beginning, is the factor, not mass. Mass can be scaled in perspective so, It really should have nothing to do with mass, but how tightly together you can compress that mass or in this case uncompress.

I could be wrong, but mass doesn't make sense.

"Loraine, you are my density....I mean, my destiny..." Back to the Future George McFly

Peace

This has got to be the most RIDICULOUS thing I've ever heard.

So he has NO PROOF to explain the mechanism of HOW and WHAT that makes the Earth grows.

In the numerous interviews he just gave a half assed, made up unfounded dribble coupled with eehs, aahs you know, and a lot of other made up nonsense.

He should do the rest of this planet a favour and go back to drawing comic books.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by SkepticalSpectacle]

It is physically impossible for the large dinosaurs to exist in today's gravity, the math has been done.
Strength is proportional to the cross section of the muscle. A muscle twice the size in diameter will be four times as strong (the square of two) But
the weight increases with volume, so A muscle that's twice as big will weigh eight times as much.

Elephants are at the maximum level in today's gravity, yet a dinosaur of similar weight let's say a t-rex could run/sprint on it's tippy toes. Also many of these larger dinosaurs apparently carried their enormous tails off the ground! you also have the problem of blood supply along with simply being able to stand up and not be crushed under your own weight.

Something else I have to comment on is gravitational speed at the core, the centre of the earth should logically be a point of gravitational equilibrium.
Once again I'll impart my analogy, standing on the earth not only are the atoms beneath your feet are applying gravitational force on you but the atoms to the left, right, front, back etc.. are also pulling on you. Likewise the atoms on the other side of the Earth are also applying force. Now if you could travel to the centre of the Earth you would be affected by gravity equally in all directions therefore canceling out the gravitational force because you are surrounded equally by mass.
There is no logical conclusion as to why there should be intense heat generated at the core by the pressure of gravity. Movement yes but not gravitational pressure.

Another way to think of it is if you had a tunnel that ran right through the Earth, and you jumped in you'd would pass the centre and begin falling up, until gravity overcame your momentum then you'd fall the other way like a yo yo until your momentum left you floating at the centre of the Earth.

Expanding Earth is a great theory, and it's been around for some time, probably a lot longer than Mr Adams has.
It has it's problems yet plate tectonics has it's problems as well.
Another point to keep in mind is that the Earth's oblateness is affected by large Earthquakes. Gravity oblates the Earth and Earthquakes make it less oblate or more round. So not only does it grow but it also squashes and stretches.



[edit on 12-1-2009 by squiz]

reply to post by squiz


it wasnt a matter of a lesser gravity, but of a denser atmosphere. think about it. if the air was more dense today, then you would be able to jump higher and farther because of increased bouyancy.

The elevated levels of CO2 created a buoyancy capable of “floating” the great dinosaurs. (Dr. Octave Levenspiel, (2001) personal communication). Carbon dioxide levels peaked during the Jurassic and the Jurassic is not coincidentally the time of the greatest dinosaurs. “This denser atmosphere, it was claimed, also helped the ungainly pterosaur (some with wing spans of up to eleven meters across) stay airborne.” (43) The by-product of this building atmospheric density was increased temperatures, thus the Jurassic was a hot tropical time on Earth. Coral reefs extended as far as latitude 60 degrees (today it is about 23 ½ degrees) and dinosaurs lived within 5 degrees of the poles

excert from this link

reply to post by MsSmartypants


Could this have to do with Earth iron core and the closing of the solarMAx 2012? Iron and heat behaves wierd you know.Expands when heaten up,-
maby Earth will grow until it pops like an balloon.

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Would not gravity be related to density not Mass? I say that, because it seems to me that at the atomic level you are adding or subtracting protons or electrons. So the density right from the beginning, is the factor, not mass. Mass can be scaled in perspective so, It really should have nothing to do with mass, but how tightly together you can compress that mass or in this case uncompress.

Well....

Mass is the only thing that causes, and is affected by, gravity (if we're talking classical physics). Density doesn't come into it, really. If you built a very light, very strong sphere of Earth's radius around a black hole of the Earth's mass, you would experience the same weight force standing on the sphere. Technically you could also get an atmosphere around the shell as well, but thats beside the point. Density doesn't really matter so much, I don't think. If we were to say that all the mass was in a half diameter Earth, then the gravity would be 4 times what it is now, since the force is proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of the objects. As such, it would make an enormous dinosaur even less plausible than some say it is now. How such an expansion would be driven in this case is beyond me, since generally rock stays compacted once it is. That is how sedimentary rock forms, after all.

i was wondering how long it would be before someone mentioned 2012 seriously you cant have a discussion about anything here any more without someone jumping up and down like an excited puppy dog chanting 2012 2012 2012, well i for one hope it does all come to an end i might get some bloody peace and quiet!! sorry bit off topic but had to be said! and sorry for being picky but its 'heated' not 'heaten' which isn't even a real word!

[edit on 12-1-2009 by Neilc1972]

This theory nicely explains everything that current theories cannot. The continents are not moving around and colliding. They are expanding from the core on out.

Originally posted by MsSmartypants
reply to post by TheRealDonPedros

 

It certainly explains a lot. I don't entirely understand why it isn't of interest to geologists and other scientists. I would think it would be an exciting field of study.

Because it's not correct. And it's very obviously not correct.

Adams (who has no knowledge of geology) assumes the continents always were the same shape. They weren't. His "model" doesn't explain the fossilized limestone reefs here in Dallas, Texas that have bazillions of oysters and fish fossils in them (fossils of things without legs) and mosasaurs (fishy reptiles) that certainly couldn't have walked here (these suckers are HUGE).

Nor does it explain the 12 foot tall fossil turtle found here or why you can't find dinosaurs in Israel but you can find fossil fish. It doesn't explain young mountains (Alps) versus old mountains (Appalacians), shifting and folding of rock layers and many many other things.

The geological explanation (that the Earth was the same size for all time and that continents rose and sunk slowly with the changes in sea level and as they rose up over other plates) does.

He didn't bother to look into this, of course, when he came up with his theory.

He draws beautifully but, as anyone who has met him knows, he's very opinionated and doesn't often stop to research facts when he has an idea that he thinks is golden.

Originally posted by apex
Mass is the only thing that causes, and is affected by, gravity (if we're talking classical physics). Density doesn't come into it, really.

Actually, it does, which is why gravity is not the same strength over different areas of the globe.

If you built a very light, very strong sphere of Earth's radius around a black hole of the Earth's mass, you would experience the same weight force standing on the sphere.

Don't think so. Run the math. What you'd get is the solar system sucked into that black hole and serious distortion of space and time.

As such, it would make an enormous dinosaur even less plausible than some say it is now.

The largest dinosaurs weren't built like mammals but were built like birds with very hollow bones (I'm working on one at the moment, and have direct proof of this) and had air sacs that helped lighten the weight (there's fossil traces of them).

How such an expansion would be driven in this case is beyond me, since generally rock stays compacted once it is. That is how sedimentary rock forms, after all.

Actually, it doesn't. Things (like ice sheets) can compact them but they can "rebound" with glacial melt.

The Earth is a very dynamic place.

sorry but as a geophysics engineer I find this topic really ignorant =(

There is already a perfect theory explaining the plate tectonics and continental drift. I'm not going to try to explain what the current theory is but here are some information to help you figure it out.

upload.wikimedia.org...

upload.wikimedia.org...
(the plates move and they are going to keep moving, some countries, seas will disappear in some million years, as well as some new mountain ranges will rise and some new islands -just like the Hawaii- will pop.)

faculty.kutztown.edu...
www.uen.org...

(here you can see the plates. Remember it is not the continents that we know today are moving but it is the plates. The reason why we have massive earthquakes around the Pacific Ocean is because it is the Pacific Ocean rifts, that are on the same path as Hawaii, that release new matter to the ocean floor and cause it to expand towards continents. This is why we have that many earthquakes in Japan, and big ones in California and because of Pacific plate applying pressure on the Nazca Plate, it dives under South American Plate and cause some of the biggest earthquakes recorded in the world.

How do we know which plate dives under the other ones and which ones collide?

Well it is decided by the density of the plate. Oceanic plates such as the Pacific plate, have more density than the continental plates such as the Euroasian Plate. So it dives under the less dense plate. When two continental plates collide they form mountain ranges like Himalayas. A fine example to such plates are the Indian Plate and again the Euroasian Plate.

Also new islands are born. New matter is released through Ocean Rifts. When they reach the proper height they obviously start rising over the ocean and become volcanic islands. Just like the Hawaii. Here is a picture so that you can comprehend easily.

www.semp.us...

You may say "well you see new matter is released so it must be growing". However that is not the case.. As the new matter is released the old matter is either sinking at a plate border to become hot magma or colliding with another continental plate to form mountains.

I've tried to keep this as simple as possible so everone can have some idea on what is really going on below the surface.

P.S Humanity is a very young race and we are still kinda clueless about what is going on in our universe. But with our current technology we are almost certain about how our earth works. However leaving a door open won't hurt anybody. You gotta be ready for new ideas and theories at all times. =)



[edit on 12-1-2009 by Airties]

Originally posted by squiz
It is physically impossible for the large dinosaurs to exist in today's gravity, the math has been done.

By creation scientists... not paleontologists. It is possible for them to exist today.

Elephants are at the maximum level in today's gravity, yet a dinosaur of similar weight let's say a t-rex could run/sprint on it's tippy toes. Also many of these larger dinosaurs apparently carried their enormous tails off the ground! you also have the problem of blood supply along with simply being able to stand up and not be crushed under your own weight.

Okay... since I work with paleontologists and I'm working on dinosaur fossils at a museum, can I step in and correct some stuff here?

T Rex wasn't built like an elephant... he was built like an ostrich (which for all its size is a much lighter animal than (say) a llama. Birds can get very very large and not weigh a whole lot (bald eagles only weigh 10 to 14 lbs... less than my cat although they're much bigger than he is.)

The giant dinosaurs have hollow and spongy bones as well as air sacs (like birds) that helped with breathing and rebreathing. We know this because we find traces of them on the fossils (I've found some traces of them in the sauropod I'm working on.)

They maintained the rigid tails and long necks by things called "cervical ribs" which were ribs (look at any T-rex skeleton) that grew out of the neckbones and had very strong tendons attached. Their necks weren't terribly flexible, but they were well braced (like bridges.)

We also have found fossilized tendons and fused bones in the long tails... so there was a lot of load adjustment that made it possible for such huge creatures. I wish I could take you into the lab here and show you all this stuff directly. It's not things that most people pay attention to -- when they hear about T-rex, they don't want to hear about the endlessly replacing teeth, the cervical ribs, the spongiform bones, etc. They want the drama and not the details.

There is no logical conclusion as to why there should be intense heat generated at the core by the pressure of gravity.

Things heat up when you compress them. Next time you force air into your car tire, feel how the heat rises.

Another point to keep in mind is that the Earth's oblateness is affected by large Earthquakes. Gravity oblates the Earth and Earthquakes make it less oblate or more round.

Not really. Earthquakes release stress on rocks at plate boundaries. They don't affect the shape of the planet except in a few square miles at a time.

Originally posted by Byrd

If you built a very light, very strong sphere of Earth's radius around a black hole of the Earth's mass, you would experience the same weight force standing on the sphere.

Don't think so. Run the math. What you'd get is the solar system sucked into that black hole and serious distortion of space and time.

Wait, I may not be studying physics anymore, but since the basic equations assume all the mass is in a point, the small 'g' (for W=mg), would be the same at Earth's radius from a black hole with Earth's mass, as it would be from the Earth at the surface.

Using g = (G M)/(r^2);

If M = mass of the earth, r = radius of the earth, even if it's a black hole, 'g' at that radius is the same. The black hole event horizon is IIRC about a 2 cm radius. I'll admit at that point the distortion in space and time.

As such, it would make an enormous dinosaur even less plausible than some say it is now.

The largest dinosaurs weren't built like mammals but were built like birds with very hollow bones (I'm working on one at the moment, and have direct proof of this) and had air sacs that helped lighten the weight (there's fossil traces of them).

Hang on, I don't believe the dinosaurs were implausible. I was only saying that they are implausible according to some people. And with a surface gravity of 4g, I think their existence would be a bit odd.

How such an expansion would be driven in this case is beyond me, since generally rock stays compacted once it is. That is how sedimentary rock forms, after all.

Actually, it doesn't. Things (like ice sheets) can compact them but they can "rebound" with glacial melt.

The Earth is a very dynamic place.

I thought that was with reference to the rocks floating on the Magma beneath, such as Scotland/Britain for instance, rather than the rocks themselves expanding.

Anyway, nice to have a good debate going on here.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by apex]

Originally posted by zorgon

Here is a close up screen capture of one area...

Anyone care to explain why the ocean floor has these regular pattern markings along all the major rifts?

well clearly - tire tracks or the definition of sub urb

I love reading threads like this. The scientists get defensive, the mystical get fantastical but we all learn a lot.

I believe we really don't know what life is. None of us can say that Earth isn't alive and growing. Obviously we each grew in mass from the size of a pencil dot. And that wasn't by bouncing off each other and collecting mass from the collisions. So we do have proof that there are other ways of gaining mass. What we call eating may be what the Earth is doing from sun particles. What we call drinking may be what Earth does each time the icy Haley's Comet passes. We have no idea what life would be like if we were the size of earth and lived billions of years.

Just as we don't know what life is like for the little creatures that live on our skin, eyelashes, intestinal tract... We can try to understand, but it's all Horton Hears A Who really. Until we can grasp the concept of "life", it is hard for us to be so definite about the perimeters of "growth", I think.

Whether it's true Earth is growing or not, we are beginning to understand that we are all connected in an energy system. So, if we look at where mass goes or comes from, whether it's dark or radio active, concentrated, condensed, expanding, dissipating - whatever - it can't go anywhere we're not. There is no away, there's just more. More space, more universes, more dimensions. If we're connected to any of it, we're connected to all of it. Earth would be too. Why wouldn't she grow.

Makes sense to me. Think of ancient philosophy - the four corners, the god planets, it's not a new concept, just a little forgotten. Time for a refresher.

And why wouldn't scientists be encouraged to look at it? Well, because it makes us small and unimportant. We humans do better when we think we're at the top of the game. Impacting weather, environment, health, the peak of our species evolution.

Humans aren't much good if we're all bummed about being little critters on earth's skin.

What do you think?

Originally posted by MsSmartypants
reply to post by robwerden

 

It also seems to tie into the electric universe theory...but I am still listening to the Coast to
Coast interview so I haven't had time to assimilate everything yet.
And perhaps the hollow earth theory...but that's a little out there for me.


[edit on 1/11/2009 by MsSmartypants]

[edit on 1/11/2009 by MsSmartypants]

Just a thought, the earth will not gain more mass, if it is being blown up like a ballon. in fact what was on the inside, will stretch to form more of the surface.

The constant(by universe standards) volcanic eruptions, empty the inside, and cools to form new surface? it is thought that mercurys surface has been recoated many times due to this.


maybe the water was once inside the earth also, (during the triassic period?)
and filled up the surface as pangea was torn apart.
creating deep crators wich water rushed into?

Originally posted by Byrd
By creation scientists... not paleontologists. It is possible for them to exist today.

Please don't use the creationist angle to further your point, actually I've never heard this from any creationist.
My main source is from Ted Holden amongst others. If you can dispute the maths or find fault then please to so without resorting to the above tactics.

Okay... since I work with paleontologists and I'm working on dinosaur fossils at a museum, can I step in and correct some stuff here?

T Rex wasn't built like an elephant... he was built like an ostrich (which for all its size is a much lighter animal than (say) a llama. Birds can get very very large and not weigh a whole lot (bald eagles only weigh 10 to 14 lbs... less than my cat although they're much bigger than he is.)

The giant dinosaurs have hollow and spongy bones as well as air sacs (like birds) that helped with breathing and rebreathing. We know this because we find traces of them on the fossils (I've found some traces of them in the sauropod I'm working on.)

They maintained the rigid tails and long necks by things called "cervical ribs" which were ribs (look at any T-rex skeleton) that grew out of the neckbones and had very strong tendons attached. Their necks weren't terribly flexible, but they were well braced (like bridges.)

All very nice, must be a rewarding experience. But you haven't actually corrected anything, just ignored the original problem of muscle to weight ratio.
None of the above addresses the muscle mass problem. Regardless of how the animal is built the muscle to weight ratio increases exponentially.
Isn't the weight estimated to be around 6 tonnes for T-Rex? at this scale the comparisons between ostriches and llama are not relevant, due to the physics of muscle mass. A 6 tonne ostrich would still not work in our gravity.

We also have found fossilized tendons and fused bones in the long tails... so there was a lot of load adjustment that made it possible for such huge creatures. I wish I could take you into the lab here and show you all this stuff directly. It's not things that most people pay attention to -- when they hear about T-rex, they don't want to hear about the endlessly replacing teeth, the cervical ribs, the spongiform bones, etc. They want the drama and not the details.

Likewise academics tend to ignore details that raise difficult questions, bones in a lab can demonstrate the supporting structure but it is muscle that move those bones. Large muscle that decrease with efficiency as size is increased. I'm no paleontologist but I'm aware of the details.

As for the gravity at the core.....

Things heat up when you compress them. Next time you force air into your car tire, feel how the heat rises.

Well the earth is not pumped full of gravity. gravity is not contained by anything. So the analogy doesn't apply. Gravity is a property of mass of course, equal mass in all direction would cancel itself out. It's not that difficult to conceive.
Astrophysicists make the mistake of making calculations from a centre point, convenient but not accurate.

Not really. Earthquakes release stress on rocks at plate boundaries. They don't affect the shape of the planet except in a few square miles at a time.

Chao and Gross routinely calculate earthquakes' effects on Earth's shape and rotation. They also study changes in polar motion--that is, the shifting of the North Pole.

According to their latest calculations, the Dec. 26th earthquake shifted Earth's "mean North Pole" by about 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) in the direction of 145 degrees east longitude, more or less toward Guam in the Pacific Ocean. This shift is continuing a long-term seismic trend identified in previous studies.

The quake also affected Earth's shape. Chao and Gross calculated that Earth's oblateness (flattening on the top and bulging at the equator) decreased by a small amount--about one part in 10 billion. This continues the trend of earthquakes making Earth less oblate. Less oblate means more round.

science.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Byrd


I thought you would have known this is not Neil Adams theory.
The expanding Earth theory was a valid counter theory before one dominated the other. I believe plate tectonics was also a hard pill to swallow for the scientific community of the day and took about thirty years to become accepted.
Looks like the critics should do a little more research as well eh?
The expanding earth was proposed by geologists such as Carey, Hezeen and others. From what I've read of Carey he sated that plate tectonics was not at odds with earth expansion.
Personally I have no attachment to either theory. But I do feel it is a stretch to conclude the Earth has maintained a constant size, there is no proof for that claim.


[edit on 12-1-2009 by squiz]

Everything in the universe is expanding it is a logical balance of all that exists.

I find it strange that the normal person believes that the earth as it exists today is the way it has always been.

Even simple land changes.The area in Washington, D.C. that is called the tidal basin, where the Lincoln,Jefferson and Washington monuments are located ,was underwater when D.C. was first laid out. That land did not exist. It was part of the Potomac river.

There are numerous cities and areas of the world that are built ON TOP OF
ancient cities some of them to or three times over. They still exist below ground.

Even in the U.S. when they uncover old ruins of past settlements they dig DOWN to find them.

I realize this is not the same as Neal Adams theory but it is still evidence of a growing earth.