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.

 

The Earth Is Growing!? Watch These Videos!

page: 6
31
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bspiracy
How bout we compare what percentage of the Earth doesn't support the subduction rule compared to the few areas of the earth that seem to be fighting to expand faster than the other to give the appearance of a subduction rule..


Right then. Subduction zones aren't everywhere. South America West Coast, is one. East of New Zealand and to it's north,, is another. East coast of Japan is yet another. South West Jakarta and South of Sumatra (think I got those two the right way round) are more. In fact, the area/distance of the faults isn't an issue, the rate at which the plates are moving relative to each other is the issue. Similarly, the rate at which new crust is being formed is the counter to that.


on a spherical map rendered flat like this gives a false representation of the actual distance. The hotter areas of the earth are exploding in comparison to the poles.


er, hotter areas? And exploding? Nothing's exploding.




posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
Right then. Subduction zones aren't everywhere. South America West Coast, is one. East of New Zealand and to it's north,, is another. East coast of Japan is yet another. South West Jakarta and South of Sumatra (think I got those two the right way round) are more. In fact, the area/distance of the faults isn't an issue, the rate at which the plates are moving relative to each other is the issue. Similarly, the rate at which new crust is being formed is the counter to that.

This is the kind of stuff I like to see evidence of. Given the age of the crust over the whole, I don't see where you mean by that statement.



er, hotter areas? And exploding? Nothing's exploding.

Forgive me as I like to jive the language up a bit.. and my browser shut down and I lost a large post with map links etc.. spent too much time on it to redo





This is what I meant by exploding..
it looks like a fireworks display but it's oddly centered mostly in the equator where it's hotter... so while we aren't flying off into outer space from a huge explosion, the centered Earth is explosive.


the "ring of Fire" looks to me like the larger ocean floor is pressing the continents towards each other becasue the floor is thinner and able to expand faster than the thick continents.

Subduction is a natural part of this process. I'd like to see a map of reciprocal subduction and formation areas to really blow this theory out of the water. No pun intended.

what's interesting to me is the strength of activity is stronger towards the north. the south has much larger stretch marks than the top. It looks like the south is expanding faster than the north because the major land masses are moving slower in reaction to the expansion. Hence less strength in the volcanoes and earthquakes.

IF the south is expanding faster due to less land mass, subduction is easily explained instead of relying on traditional science that doesn't have all the answers.

b

edited to add a simple experiment. blow a balloon up at half pressure.. just make sure it's nice and round. Get some blue house paint and cover it, let it dry. now paint the land masses in green. keep layering paint similar to the thickness of land masses then blow the balloon up.. I wonder how close a match cracks would appear in relation to current volcanic activity and see floor. silly simple but I don't see why it wouldn't work somewhat similar...

[edit on 13-1-2009 by Bspiracy]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
You know... I still haven't heard an explanation for the rate of lunar recession. If the Earth is expanding due to new matter being created, then it will have a greater gravity well. The OP proponent of this theory claims the Earth was 1/4th it's present size at one point, and only 1/4th the gravity. Be that the case, then the rate of lunar recession would have been MUCH greater in the past. So great, that the Earth wouldn't have been able to maintain a grasp on the Moon and it would have flung out into space. To counter this, the OP proponent suggests that the Moon is also growing proportionately to the Earth.

However, if this were the case, why do we not see significant levels of vulcanism on the Moon? Why are there no rifts on the Moon similar to that on the Earth? If the Moon were undergoing the same expansion phenomena as the Earth, then it should show signs of it similar to what we see on the Earth. Indeed, the signs should be even more clear - even if the expansion has somewhat recently stopped before our time, because the Moon has no atmosphere, water, or weather to erode features caused by this phenomena.

Also, insofar as Dinosaurs, the vast majority of Dinosaurs were no larger than any of the fauna we currently have. The truly titanic creatures were the aberration, not the norm. 1/4th the gravity would have been a benefit to the mobility of these larger Dinosaurs - but it would have hindered the majority of smaller Dinosaurs and Mammals. Further, the argument that lower gravity would have kept the T-Rex from "Snapping his neck" when turning at high speed (as found in the Art Bell interview) is bogus. Even in zero gravity, if the T-Rex's neck could break in such a manner - it would have. It has more to do with Mass and Momentum than it does with gravity.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Actually, there was a failed subduction zone on west coast of S. America, which caused the erogeny along the coastal area of Chile (and Peru?). The active northern part is still moving underneath California. For whatever reason, the basalt never went down, and just continued pushing, causing the uplift and faulting.
I would imagine the main reason for crustal expansion would be a increase in core/mantle temperatures. This should mean outgassing and lava eruptions, as the expansion fights against the gravitional mass attraction on the surface, and in the mantle (more energetic convection currents in the mantle). Temperature variation is the main cause of differing rates of sea floor spread at oceanic ridges. The rate at which mid-ocean ridges are exuding, is pretty constant, and is evident in the recording of the magnetic polarity within the sea floor basalt, which are pretty uniform in relation to the output of it's originating ridge.
I've completely forgot what my point was...
The Earths core is slowly getting bigger as it cools, but surface temperatures fluctuate dependant on the Milankovich cycles.
There is a point between the outer edge of the inner core, and the inner edge of the outer core meet, and it's believed there is freezing process takes place. The freezing conglomerates the heavier metals, forcing the lighter liquid metals to rise out to the mantle/core boundary. There's another freezing process at this boundary, which causes frozen metals to be drawn back down towards the inner core. This is probably a big influence on the cause of the convection within the mantle, and plumes.
I can't find info for the freezing, without digging, and I aint got time now. This link explains the (probable) cause of the convections within the mantle.
geology.about.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
You know... I still haven't heard an explanation for the rate of lunar recession.


I answered this actually.

Radioactive Decay. this release atoms from one another to be free to join anew. I don't say we are GAINING, I say we are CHANGING.

use the "thread" option under my name and read the links regarding the chicken and Nobel peace prize in 1939. The chicken is real and radioactive decay is real. 5 billion years ago we were SUPA RADIOACTIVE.. since then there's been plenty of changes the earth has gone through and I don't see a way to dispute the fact that what is here now is not the same as it was 4 billion years ago.

I pointed out that tritium is a good source to start with in the learning process since it's used in so many products and is commonly used as a starting point to learn about the process.

The Aerogel image I posted and reference to the UnitedNuclear site was a simple visual way to explain that you can get a lot of mass out of a little bit of material. the Aerogel is EXTREMELY fascinating imo.

b



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by cruzion
For whatever reason, the basalt never went down..
I would imagine...
This should mean..
...and it's believed ..
This is probably a big influence ...


I'm not knocking you in this quote.. just pointing out that geologists, institutions and the government all use these phrases as well.

I'm not saying I'm right or the people who promote the expansion process are right ether.. but with so of the above phrases inserted in text books and every other teaching aid, the expansion process fills in alot of gaps and provides answers to questions unanswered.

Kinda like the electric universe theory.. oh boy what a debate that one is..

b



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
You know... I still haven't heard an explanation for the rate of lunar recession.


Simple...

The engines fire up from time to tie and 'nudge' the moon further out. That way as the moon expands it will still appear the same size in the sky...

there you have your lunar recession.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Bspiracy
 


You really haven't, actually. What you're basically saying is that the mass of the Earth hasn't changed - but that volume is greater. You give Aerogel as an example. The problem here is, Aerogel is over 99% empty space, and due to this structure it is highly fracturable. Even with Aerogel's amazing ability to support nearly 1,000 times it's own weight - it still simply couldn't exist at the heat and pressures near the core of the Earth as it'd be crushed into a much, much, smaller volume. Especially considering the tidal forces exerted by the moon which would change the direction of the pressure force exerted on it. Yeah, an aerogel block can support a brick, but can it survive being ground between those bricks at high pressure? Even just a few miles down you have pressures capable of compressing coal into diamond. So I don't see how this would explain expansion since those conditions are prohibitive to high-volume/low-density structures.

Also... insofar as the chicken alchemist, it's bunk science that has never accurately been modeled or reproduced. It won the 1993 Ig Nobel Prize in physics. The Ig Nobel Prize is a mock award like the Golden Raspberry or the Darwin Awards, but for interesting/humorous - yet faulty - pseudoscience. What it basically boils down to is cold fusion, which has already been rigorously researched and tested by much more qualified scientists than Kervran and found to be insubstantial.

Further, the OP's proponent suggests that the Earth is expanding at the rate of 6 inches in diameter each year. Diameter, not circumference. This would equate to about three inches on either side of a straight line through it. A straight line that, perhaps, can point towards the moon. So, even if you assume that no mass is gained - only volume - this doesn't solve the problem since the Moon recedes from the Earth at about 3.8 centimeters a year. This is about an inch and a half. If the Earth were expanding, the Moon would be getting closer to the surface of the Earth (our observation point) even if further from the center of the Earth. It would appear to us as if the Moon were coming closer by about 1.6 inches a year. Consider, also, that the current rate of Lunar recession is much faster than it was in the past due to the configuration of the land masses. Earth's surface would eventually overtake the Moon.

This doesn't appear to be happening.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by Lasheic]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by Bspiracy
 


You really haven't, actually. What you're basically saying is that the mass of the Earth hasn't changed - but that volume is greater. You give Aerogel as an example. The problem here is, Aerogel is over 99% empty space, and due to this structure it is highly fracturable. Even with Aerogel's amazing ability to support nearly 1,000 times it's own weight - it still simply couldn't exist at the heat and pressures near the core of the Earth as it'd be crushed into a much, much, smaller volume. Especially considering the tidal forces exerted by the moon which would change the direction of the pressure force exerted on it. Yeah, an aerogel block can support a brick, but can it survive being ground between those bricks at high pressure? Even just a few miles down you have pressures capable of compressing coal into diamond. So I don't see how this would explain expansion since those conditions are prohibitive to high-volume/low-density structures.

There's splitting hairs and then there is grossly over examining something. the Aerogel is an example of a substance that essentially glass yet super expanded. If I take it as literally as you take it, the earth would be absolutely monstrous. The Aerogel is fascinating but only a tangible ,albeit extreme for illustrative purposes only, example... not a direct comparison or formula to follow.
Jumping on this looks like you just want something to jump on.



Also... insofar as the chicken alchemist, it's bunk science that has never accurately been modeled or reproduced. It won the 1993 Ig Nobel Prize in physics. The Ig Nobel Prize is a mock award like the Golden Raspberry or the Darwin Awards, but for interesting/humorous - yet faulty - pseudoscience. What it basically boils down to is cold fusion, which has already been rigorously researched and tested by much more qualified scientists than Kervran and found to be insubstantial.

You're opening the doors to other arguments with the cold fusion and I've spent enough time on this one already. We all pick our pets to play with. Talk to the Discovery Channel about how they reproduced it with some other scientists and how they are bunk. I'm sure they'd like to hear what you had to say. It's rather hard to dig up certain facts and figures on the internet when it's that precise and fringe but this whole chicken thing has not at all been proven as bunk.
If you have definitive proof it's bunk, by all means show me.
A person should always remain objective enough to find out they are wrong later.

As far as the Prize link is concerned, it was the introduction to the concept of radioactive decay which is now accepted as mainstream fact. It had nothing to do with the chicken and it tells me you have no idea what you're talking about. I used the chicken and the radioactive decay as a common reference point to explain a concept.
Did you at all look at tritium and radioactive decay viewpoint or are you just jumping on a bandwagon?

I read the links people post before I attack their viewpoint.. it's common courtesy.. Please.. I have no problems being disproved with fact but emotions just muddy the water. Being disproved isn't even necessary. Having a strong and semi-supportable viewpoint is good enough for me to agree to disagree.



Further, the OP's proponent suggests that the Earth is expanding at the rate of 6 inches in diameter each year. Diameter, not circumference. This would equate to about three inches on either side of a straight line through it. A straight line that, perhaps, can point towards the moon. So, even if you assume that no mass is gained - only volume - this doesn't solve the problem since the Moon recedes from the Earth at about 3.8 centimeters a year. This is about an inch and a half. If the Earth were expanding, the Moon would be getting closer to the surface of the Earth (our observation point) even if further from the center of the Earth. It would appear to us as if the Moon were coming closer by about 1.6 inches a year. Consider, also, that the current rate of Lunar recession is much faster than it was in the past due to the configuration of the land masses. Earth's surface would eventually overtake the Moon.

This doesn't appear to be happening.


So what you're trying to do here is fuse two sciences into one to disprove one science that hasn't even been considered in the original equation. You just sound angry and grasping..
The thing with this expansion theory is that it means going back to the drawing board for all sorts of issues like this. When the age of the ocean floor is adequately explained then I'll argue about the couple centimeter distance from the moon..
b



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Bspiracy
 




There's splitting hairs and then there is grossly over examining something. the Aerogel is an example of a substance that essentially glass yet super expanded. If I take it as literally as you take it, the earth would be absolutely monstrous.


So what you're basically saying is that you think there is some unknown compound being formed in the Earth that exhibits properties similar to Aerogel - but miraculously able to withstand the heat and pressures of the inner Earth.

Where.... is any of the evidence for such a compound? You can't just suppose and make things up to support a claim unless the evidence dictates that you ARE missing something which must be accounted for. At which point you should be able to figure out what the compound is by using the evidence to determine it's properties. There's as of yet no real evidence for expansion. All you're offering is alchemy and apologetics.



You're opening the doors to other arguments with the cold fusion and I've spent enough time on this one already. We all pick our pets to play with. Talk to the Discovery Channel about how they reproduced it with some other scientists and how they are bunk.


You can't seriously be using the Discovery Channel as a source of information. They are not a scientific medium. They are not peer reviewed. They are entertainment. Period. Claims brought forth by the discovery channel are not subject to review and are not scrutinized for accuracy. This is why you see them often airing specials about ghosts, psychics, ufos, and other paranormal phenomena. Not because it's scientific, but because it's entertainment.

Further, you failed to even list the show that you saw it on. Then to suggest that I "take it up with the Discovery Channel", as if they're some sort of authority, is just ludicrous.



If you have definitive proof it's bunk, by all means show me.


You haven't even proven it to be substantiated. The burden of proof rests upon the one making the positive claim.




As far as the Prize link is concerned, it was the introduction to the concept of radioactive decay which is now accepted as mainstream fact. It had nothing to do with the chicken and it tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.


/facepalm

No, good sir, it's is YOU who has no idea what they're talking about. I wasn't even referencing radioactive decay. I was referring specifically to Corentin Louis Kervran his "experiment" with the chicken. THAT is what received the Ig Nobel Prize.

Ig Nobel Prize

1993 Ig Nobel Prize Winners

In fact, I said nothing on the subject of radioactive decay.



Did you at all look at tritium and radioactive decay viewpoint or are you just jumping on a bandwagon?


If you think they support your position, then by all means - extrapolate. Just saying to "look at them" is meaningless, because you're avoiding taking a stance and thereby attempting to avoid criticism for mistakes. Any inability of others to see how they substantiate your claim will only be mocked as not understanding, or not having the proper insight, despite the fact that you haven't proven you understand the concept either. It's an illusionary trick of vaugery to make you appear smarter than you are, which often employed by pseudoscience and spiritualists.


So what you're trying to do here is fuse two sciences into one to disprove one science that hasn't even been considered in the original equation.


Reality doesn't exist in separate "spheres" of scientific influence. It all affects each other as a part of a single functioning system. Further, I'm not the one to whom that claim was addressed. Admittedly, I'm not well versed in the varying ages of the sea floor. However, what the sea floors and the moon have in common is that they both exist in our planet/moon system. They are a part of reality as we understand it. Even if you could prove that the age of the sea floor does not match what Plate Tectonic theory suggests - if the problems with lunar recession cannot be resolved and ends up proving the theory wrong, then nothing is going to salvage it. It would simply mean that the theory of Plate Tectonics has a gap in it's understanding, and that expanding Earth theory is bunk.

Is is a major problem I noticed with the Art Bell interview. Neil Adams accused scientists of not crossing their knowledge base over into other fields of science. This is completely inaccurate. While nobody has the capacity become high versed in ALL fields of science, most scientists do research into other fields to help support or identify problems with theories in their own fields. AI researchers study evolution. Paleontologists study Geology. Astronomers study physics. Biologists study Climatology. Again, it's not their expertise, but they are knowledgeable in the subjects and often work together with experts IN those fields to solve problems.

This is because, again, reality is the common tie that binds all the different sciences together. They ALL affect each other. You cannot gain a comprehensive understanding of one system without a basic understanding of the other fields of study associated with it.




You just sound angry and grasping..


I don't believe I've come across as angry, but inflection is rather difficult at times. However, you seem to be completely deflecting through vague references any criticism rather than clarifying your position. So if it seems as if I'm on the attack, then perhaps it's because your argument is weak and I'm trying to strike home a point.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   


So what you're basically saying is that you think there is some unknown compound being formed in the Earth that exhibits properties similar to Aerogel - but miraculously able to withstand the heat and pressures of the inner Earth.
Where.... is any of the evidence for such a compound? You can't just suppose and make things up to support a claim unless the evidence dictates that you ARE missing something which must be accounted for. At which point you should be able to figure out what the compound is by using the evidence to determine it's properties. There's as of yet no real evidence for expansion. All you're offering is alchemy and apologetics.

Evidence of a compound?
RADIOACTIVE DECAY



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Post messed up. Will rewrite after company leaves.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by Lasheic]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Radioactive decay loses mass to generate heat (mostly). I can't see how it really fits into this argument really. By itself, it doesn't really produce enough energy to heat something like the planets core. It certainly doesn't produce enough heat to cause the earth to expand.

As to your opinion on his link to the Ig Nobel prize, it's on wikipedia, and you claim it to be a "fox newsish smear" or something like that? But before that you've used wikipedia as a source? Don't you think that may be slightly hypocritical?

Now, as to the age of sea floor, the age doesn't really make much difference, it's usually the thickness that decides which plate will subduct.

Now, as to the location of the earthquakes, they're centered round the subduction zones. I'd really like to hear Neal "Subduction doesn't Exist" Adam's explanation for that. The latitude doesn't have anything to do with it.

And before I comment on it, please define what you mean by "reciprocal subduction".



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Bspiracy

Apparently I will have to truncate the post, as it's not going through in it's full form.




Evidence of a compound? RADIOACTIVE DECAY



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex
Radioactive decay loses mass to generate heat (mostly). I can't see how it really fits into this argument really. By itself, it doesn't really produce enough energy to heat something like the planets core. It certainly doesn't produce enough heat to cause the earth to expand.

The decay process does lose mass, but you can't get rid of the mass.. it doesn't disappear.
---From the wiki link----

the energy does not change, but at the end of the process, the total energy is more diffused in spacial volume. The resulting transformation alters the structure of the nucleus


What is absolutely key is

alters the structure of the nucleus

It's important because the decay process has many forms. I'll quote a few of them:


SOME MODES OF DECAY
Alpha decay --An alpha particle emitted from nucleus
Proton emission --A proton ejected from nucleus
Neutron emission --A neutron ejected from nucleus


What happens next? Those ejected particles are free to combine with other particles. New elements are formed such as hydrogen which can combine with oxygen and you have more water or more whatever.. it depends on the environment where the decay is taking place and the factors involved are way more than this forum should contain in trying to prove exactly what is happening per element..
This is the basis for my argument.



As to your opinion on his link to the Ig Nobel prize, it's on wikipedia, and you claim it to be a "fox newsish smear" or something like that? But before that you've used wikipedia as a source? Don't you think that may be slightly hypocritical?

No I do not
I hadn't used wiki before his post. The only link he gave was the IG Nobel Prize which tells me that it took 15 seconds to google the chicken argument and he went "HAHA!!! I can't wait to copy paste this link to cast doubt"
If that's how someone wants to banter on here, well that makes it easy for me to use wiki.
---Recently an article pointed out that wiki is so profoundly wrong in many cases that students were getting lower scores in college courses because they started relying on wiki as a quick study aid. I stay away from it as much as possible. It is handy though.
I was trying to be creative with my other links to help spur the thought process. I further provided a custom graphic and linked maps..
Hypocritical? nah.. disappointed and resigned by his aggressive involvement with nothing to add other than a smear tactic smothered in laziness.



Now, as to the age of sea floor, the age doesn't really make much difference, it's usually the thickness that decides which plate will subduct.

I have to respectfully disagree. It's paramount to understand what is moving where and how long it took to get there. A younger sea floor expanding towards older resistant landmasses that are rather thick is where the subductions, volcanoes and earthquakes are occurring. There's really not much that can't be explained by expansion in that arena. Of course some anomalous interactions happen but that's how mother-earth rolls.


Now, as to the location of the earthquakes, they're centered round the subduction zones. I'd really like to hear Neal "Subduction doesn't Exist" Adam's explanation for that. The latitude doesn't have anything to do with it.

The argument for me is not that subductions don't exist but WHY they are happening.
An expansion viewpoint says "Big masses don't move as fast so the faster expanding areas are moving faster and therefore sliding underneath. It's softer and easier to slide under a coastline. In some areas it goes up. With enough force from sea floor pushing on coastlines, the land masses can buckle and form mountain ranges.
Not everyone agrees and in this forum and I am drawing from multiple sources that make sense to me. If you can knock that out of my head then I thank you for it as I like to grow.



And before I comment on it, please define what you mean by "reciprocal subduction".

I may have used the wrong wording there but you mentioned an evenly distributed movement. What is subducting should have an equal amount of formation elsewhere from your viewpoint. This is what I was asking validation of.

It looks to me like it goes from simply new to oldest from the ocean floor to the land mass tip. The tectonic process explains this ?


b



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bspiracy
The decay process does lose mass, but you can't get rid of the mass.. it doesn't disappear.
---From the wiki link----

the energy does not change, but at the end of the process, the total energy is more diffused in spacial volume. The resulting transformation alters the structure of the nucleus


But IIRC, the mass of the ejected particle and the mass of the nucleus isn't the same as the mass of the original nucleus, due to the strong nuclear force (I think it's that one). So some mass is indeed lost. Otherwise there would be no heat by product of the reaction.


What happens next? Those ejected particles are free to combine with other particles. New elements are formed such as hydrogen which can combine with oxygen and you have more water or more whatever.. it depends on the environment where the decay is taking place and the factors involved are way more than this forum should contain in trying to prove exactly what is happening per element..
This is the basis for my argument.


Hydrogen perhaps, but anything heavier needs fusion in a star to produce. Oxygen cannot be produced in a planet with fusion, it just needs too much energy to start the reaction and it releases too little unless you have a big star handy.

So there would never be enough energy to produce the new elements in the planet, and as such you can't create water this way.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Some nice Ideas Bspiracy, you might want to also check under Torsion tectonics, I'm not sure if it's been mentioned but the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere move at different speeds, the southern hemisphere is sort of lagging. There also seems to be some differential along the 0 - 180 axis I think. Making for a twisting effect.
Also from time to time there are gravitational anomalies between the equator and the poles, with bulges swelling in the gravitational field at the Earths equator.

I like the radioactive decay stuff, it's was recently found that the decay rate is not a constant but varies with distance to the Sun, I'd go further and say that it varies with output of the Sun. Another constant down the tubes.

I think I know what you talking about with the relationship with gravity and mass, this is the unknown element, quite simply no one really knows in what way mass is connected to gravity (excluding possible hidden tech). If certain conditions affect this relationship then gravity also is not a constant.

So many unknowns. Competing theories should be viewed as a positive thing IMO.

Oh yeah check this out, this will get the doomers something to chew on, full article not available, this is the abstract.


A processing of the results of the precise time measurements in the two hemispheres (Pavlov, 1970) revealed an apparent twisting effect. It is shown in the present study that the two hemispheres are subjected to constantly applied torsion momenta changing with periods of one year and 26,000 years. This follows from the annual and the 26,000-yr periodic transport of mass across the equator established in an earlier study (Shkodrov and Ivanov, 1980).


adsabs.harvard.edu...

Holy crap!! it's a strange world.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Also from time to time there are gravitational anomalies between the equator and the poles, with bulges swelling in the gravitational field at the Earths equator.

I like the radioactive decay stuff, it's was recently found that the decay rate is not a constant but varies with distance to the Sun, I'd go further and say that it varies with output of the Sun. Another constant down the tubes.

I think I know what you talking about with the relationship with gravity and mass, this is the unknown element, quite simply no one really knows in what way mass is connected to gravity (excluding possible hidden tech). If certain conditions affect this relationship then gravity also is not a constant.



I believe gravity and magnetism are the same and mass is not the main factor to gravity. You will find that iron composition is very important where gravity(aka magnetic) field strength is concerned. This fact is evident in various NASA satellite tests where iron deposits have higher gravitational pull. Even the sun has a large molten iron core and its magnetic field is capable of bending light! (Don't believe the gaseous sun model that NASA is peddling, it is complete B.S.) www.thesurfaceofthesun.com...

Another interesting fact I'd like to mention is how every magnet shares the same resonant frequency as our planet.. 7.8 Hz

Earth is likely one big electromagnet powered by the sun and/or space radiation. If there is a growing core (animations are irrefutable) then we should expect:

1.) different iron isotopes
2.) some radiation from nuclear reactions possibly from an external source of energy (sun: neutrinos?)
3.) pressure from expansion
4.) stronger magnetic(gravitational) field
5.) heat
6.) gradual change of earth's resonant frequency

ALL of these observations have been made and most characteristics(1-5) are present in magma!

[edit on 14-1-2009 by platoslab]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 





Hydrogen perhaps, but anything heavier needs fusion in a star to produce. Oxygen cannot be produced in a planet with fusion, it just needs too much energy to start the reaction and it releases too little unless you have a big star handy. So there would never be enough energy to produce the new elements in the planet, and as such you can't create water this way.


Even were this not the case, the Earth is 4.5 billion year old (est). Life is thought to be nearly this old. 4-3.5 billion years old. The Cambrian explosion only occurred about 500 million years ago, and represents the largest explosion into diversity that we know of. Before then, life was either single-celled or extremely simplistic multicelled organisms. We still have some surviving remnants of these archaic designs around today - such as the Man-o-War jellyfish (which isn't really a single organism - but a colony of several simpler organisms working in such close cooperation that they appear to be a single creature), Spounges, Coral, etc.

Assuming "Radioactive Decay" is responsible for the expanding Earth, one would have to assume that growth of the Earth is either slowing down substantially (as shorter half-life elements decay into more stable elements) or that something recent has triggered non-radioactive materials to suddenly become radioactive. It's unlikely to be Radioactive materials since what is left is in such insubstantial numbers that it wouldn't contribute significantly to the size of the Earth without completely irradiating and killing it. We actually are exposed to radiation levels from our food, soil, space, etc - but concentrations are so low that have no significant effect.

There is evidence that the three radioactive elements I mentioned earlier, especially Potassium 40, contribute significantly to the Earth's internal heat - however their half-lives are so long that it's unlikely that they could have contributed to any recent expansion as proposed by the OP. For example, K-40 has a half-life of about 1.4 billion years. U-238 has a half-life of about 4.3 billion years. Further, the daughter elements that they decay into would, IIRC, be less dense than parent element. So that doesn't quite work out either.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by platoslab
 


Question: How do the authors of the site explain the presence of an iron surface on the Sun in contrast to the recorded temperatures of the surface which are hot enough to vaporize iron? Further, we've observed sunspots moving at different speeds across the surface - indicating that the equator rotates faster than the poles.

You might want to take a look at this forum, where the author of the webpage you're referencing is debating other posters FAR more knowledgeable that most people you'll find here. It gets quite interesting. I wouldn't completely dismiss the concept out of hand, but acknowledge that there are some large hurdles to making a fully workable model that can be considered for scientific review. He claims to have submitted his paper for peer-review, and I would be interested to hear the results of this.

I'll look into it a bit later.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Lasheic]



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join