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

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
The ONLY thing that provides ANY type of evidence that the universe is expanding, is the redshift theory, stating that light is doppler shifted like a train whistle as it passes you. Since all this physics, based on mathematical thought experiments, can't even decide if light is a wave or a particle, they have come up with bizarre mathematical models that somehow claim it is BOTH. This is obviously impossible, but no one wants to admit that.


In quantum physics it's fully possible. Just like you if you lie down on the ground are not moving, but at the same time you are moving incredibly fast due to the earth you are lying on is moving through space. Everything is relative, you see. For all I know this whole universe with everything in it is just a product of my imagination. I was six when I first came to think about that.




posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Here's another little mind bender for you: Photosynthesis. What is it?

Plants are transforming energy into matter. That's right. Sunlight is somehow transformed into the plants themselves. How does that work? No one even TRIES to explain HOW it works, let alone WHY. It just IS. They simply made up a word for it. This is not science, this is a return to mystical magical thinking of days gone by. Not good enough, fellas.


No. Photosyntesis uses energy from the sun and water to turn CO2 into oxygen and plant material. No new matter is produced. Just like aerob lifeforms like you and me eat food to produce energy and what comes out the other end of our bodies.

[edit on 16/3/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Sorry, I am not trying to be combative, just to point some things out.

BZZZZZT. Wrong.

Mass is the measurement of the amount of matter. That defines NOTHING.

0 for 1. Care to try the other two?


Look again at your question:


Tell me the difference between mass and matter. YOU CAN'T.


I told you the difference. Here it is again:

Mass - is a measurement of the amount of matter within a given area. When we say it has mass, we talk about a quantitative amount (i.e.: a measurement). In this case, the amount would be the sum total of its atomic weights, i suppose. Or whatever other measurement you wish to impose, i suppose, would work. Regardless, what you are measuring is the amount of matter that is there (as opposed to the amount of energy,or the lack of either).

Matter - physical material, composed of atomic/subatomic particles that have mass.

They are not one in the same. They are different.

Regardless, i answered your question. If you feel i didn't, perhaps you should write better questions.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I like the theory, It seems plausible. The only problem I can think of off the top of my head is the many places in the world which have been called subduction zones have vertical Stratigraphy (vertical layers or rock that form horizontally); such as the horizontal layers of sediment which build up on the ocean floor . Also, couldn't regular continental drift account for the species of trees in northern Asia/America.

edit:clarify

[edit on 07/17/2009 by Mumbotron]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
If you take one kilogram of gold and one kilogram of iron, and you have a two equally sized buckets filled to the rims with water, and you drop the gold into one bucket and the iron into the other, water will flow over the rims of both buckets. But when you extract both the gold and the iron from the buckets, you'd notice that the water level of the two buckets is different.



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
If you take one kilogram of gold and one kilogram of iron, and you have a two equally sized buckets filled to the rims with water, and you drop the gold into one bucket and the iron into the other, water will flow over the rims of both buckets. But when you extract both the gold and the iron from the buckets, you'd notice that the water level of the two buckets is different.


Also, once the buckets have their respective metals in them, the bucket with gold will weigh more than the iron bucket since it is displacing less water and therefor contains more water. Wait, what was the topic of this thread again?



posted on Mar, 17 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


I am honored that my little text made you make such a detailed response...but I have nothing to tell you. If you don't want to believe in "expanding Earth" theory, you are welcome to do that.
I have learned in my life that most of the people either can't or don't want to change their opinion. It is mostly a waste of time to try. I am only talking to those who want to hear, and those are very few.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Mumbotron
 


Density and atomic weight is relevant to my view on growing earth, atleast. I may not support the whole case presented by Neal Adams, but I agree that the Earth differs in size today, from what it looked like let's say one billion years ago. The water problem shouldn't be a problem, since comets normally contain vast amounts of it, and I believe the Moon might have been either part of such a comet crashing with our Earth at some point in time, or a fragment chipped off Earth by the same comet.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


So with the size of the earth and the matter gained from comets.... about how long would it take for the earth to double in size?

Maybe this will help you see how insignificant your theory is.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


You forget aquired energy. No energy dissapeares. It is accumulated, and turned into matter. Insigniffisant? Maybe. Given the earth is 3-4, maybe six billion years old. With just the matter sent from the Sun to the Earth the Earth could easilly have trippled. And you wanted to sday?



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


are you factoring in the energy the earth emits? or that is also reflected?

I dont think you are.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


Really?


No energy dissapeares. It is accumulated, and turned into matter.


Really? Can you provide some sort of scholarly paper indicating and corroborating this thesis?

Because, on the surface, you seem to have just described the 'replicator' technology from "Star Trek".

I want one!



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


How about the Laws of Thermo Dynamics, Einsteins E=mc^2 and Newtons theorems? I'm not a scientist, but I'm quite intelligent. I don't speak the language, but I kinda understand what these people and laws were talking about. What happens if you heat something inside a crust? What happens when you bombard a planetary nucleus with vast ammounts of energy? It grows. Period. Inside the Earth I bet there is energy turned into mass, just like at the sun only in a closed cercuit, so the wasted matter turned into energy though not great enough (yet) is turnned inwards again and once again turned into matter. More dense or less dense, who cares. It was in clobular clusters that the heavier atoms were created, clusters once being black holes which again were stars turned into gas giants with cores of growing mass and density. This agains turned into gold or lead or your atomic bombs for all that matters. This is not only possible, it's the basics of stellar physics. NEUWXDT!!!!



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 



It was in clobular clusters that the heavier atoms were created...


You misunderstand a lot of thermal expansion physics, especially how solids behave, and attribute properties of gases to them...

BUT, you're partly correct about the formation of the heavier elements. SOME are formed within the extreme heat and pressures of stars. It's called FUSION. Two dissimilar elements fuse, and electrons are given off...the net result is smaller than the two originally!

Heaviest elements form in super-novae blasts....shock wave fronts, and such.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


FUSION creates heavier atoms, but it disintegrate matter, just like FISSION processes. What capsules wasted energy from FUSION processes happens inside giand clusters of Matter like what makes us witness older backgroundnoise than what can be monitored from "Big Bang". These universes, are ever developing, from big bangs to big crunches, in an ongoing multidimentional continuum equalling n^N^n^N and so on into eternity. This world is eternal, but everything will be refurnished and much of it will remail, whether energy or mass/matter. I never understood whay lightspeed was a limited entity. Explode anything and the photons will move away from eachother with 2mc^2 and that again will become E. Not even Einstein sought out explaining this, because it's obvious from looking at how stuff expands (in steller explosions) and contracts (in globular clusters) turning into wormholes between universes or what you caoll black holes. Print this out and show it to your physics professor. There is something very correct here, though I (damnit) don't speak your damned language made out of greek letters your sont even understand just placed there to limit knowledge. Tell me rather of pinpons turning into plastic waste and a sub-nano-part of energy. Only in stars it's measurable. Inside a globular crust it blows (not like in the porn movies, but like the phoney clowns do with those long baloons.....
)

[edit on 30/3/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]
Had to reenter an I here.

[edit on 30/3/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join