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 Expanding Earth hypothesis.

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
That works fine for me cause I do not have to do 2 tasks simultaneously. English is not my first language and sometimes I'll have to think about what I just read before I get it.


English isn't my mother tongue either.


So fusion does not create matter. I know. Maxlow does not go deeper with his explanation and he makes it clear that it is just a theory.


It does ring an alarm bell that he doesn't see the obvious absurdity of such "theory".


What happens with the Sun then ?

It is burning a lot of matter yet it stays the same size. Is it burning just enough for it not to expand ? Or is the mass it burns replaced ?
The fusion obviously makes some matter disappear as energy.


I'm pretty sure the size of the Sun fluctuates, although not in any epic proportions. It is losing mass and you can look it up (or calculate just using E=mc2 with E being energy emitted by the Sun in unit time, that's something not so difficult to find or estimate, given that we get very roughly 1 kW of energy on the surface of Earth per 1 square meter).




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I am still investigating but.....


I'll reserve judgement on this theory until I see the evidence, but I can say based on other claims that yes the Earth has gotten more massive, but there's no conclusive evidence that the size is increasing and in fact it may be getting smaller as the core cools and density increases.


It would appear that you will not get to see the evidence since like in the climate change debate data has been fiddled.

NASA has measured the expansion, using satellites, as 18mm which is very close to the 22mm that the expanding earthers are postulating.

Regrettably, like with so much 'science' these days, the results did not fit the concept and far from looking at it and asking why, it was simply zeroed as 'an error'! The lowering or earlier temperature was a further example of making the data fit the result instead of the other way round. (And before anyone jumps on me they admit to doing this. What is in question is the reason for so doing.)

I really cannot understand how these so called 'scientists' can simply remove or alter valid data because it does not fit the theory and therefore MUST be wrong. What happened to real investigation???

So we have more massive, and we have expansion, albeit cloaked by NASA. All we need now is the mechanism.

To those saying you do not understand the ocean mapping, this is just the measurements of the age or the various bands of rock spreading out from the mid ocean rifts in each ocean. This includes mapping of magnetic reversals trapped by the cooling rock. The patterns of these bands displayed on the maps is the mapping of the spreading of the ocean floor.

The actual formations for both plate tectonics and expansion tectonics are the same. There is no suggestion otherwise. The difference between the two theories - and let us not lose sight of the fact that BOTH are theories as neither can be proven (yet?) - is that one says the earth expands and the other that the lithosphere subducts.

Consider also that it is necessary to add leap seconds to time to maintain its accuracy. Ah, this is because the rotation of the earth is slowing you say. But equally it could be because the earth is expanding. I have not resolved the lunar drag effect in my head yet so I will get back to you on that one.

By the way I believe that the later figure you quote, where there has been a decrease, is where the 18mm has already been discounted - but I can't be positive about that.


It seems he's skeptical about subduction. I'm not sure why, the evidence for it is very strong


I am not sure what evidence you might be referring to? Could you please point out some papers where there is evidence of subduction? As I said subduction is a theory and there is no method of proving it as far as I am aware. The 'evidence' is simply reasoning that makes the theory fit. Nothing wrong with that as such, but expansion tectonics is just as relevant and has just as much 'evidence'. Subduction theory did not exist when I was in school!

The only nail in the coffin of expansion tectonics that I can see is where the additional material comes from, and I am still investigating that to see if the theory can produce a viable explanation. 'Evidence' postulated for subduction runs to volcanoes round the ring of fire and deep subduction earthquakes - and the weakest of all - because it has to be the case otherwise the oceans could not be expanding in the centre, but these are only evidence if you believe the theory. Expansion tectonics has it's own explanation of these. I am not saying either is the definitive answer yet.

When you state

So apparently measurements do not support the expanding Earth claims. None of the speculative ideas Maxlow proposed for why the Earth would be expanding really make sense to me.

I detect a suddend change in belief since you first thought the theory reasonable. Now you have been swayed by fixed figures where the expansion has been removed and you are agreeing with them???

I note also that there is much talk about liquid iron condensing to solid as the core cools. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the core of the earth is iron. It could be another substance. This hypothesis came about originally because of the magnetism of the earth I believe, but that is not required as a core if you look at other theories. I will say however that I do not agree with any theory that states the earth is hollow. There is just too much evidence, seismological and other, against that possibility.

[edit on 3/6/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



English isn't my mother tongue either.


Maybe your English is better then mine.



It does ring an alarm bell that he doesn't see the obvious absurdity of such "theory".


Why ? Imagination is the first part of any question. Isn't it ?


I'm pretty sure the size of the Sun fluctuates, although not in any epic proportions. It is losing mass and you can look it up (or calculate just using E=mc2 with E being energy emitted by the Sun in unit time, that's something not so difficult to find or estimate, given that we get very roughly 1 kW of energy on the surface of Earth per 1 square meter).


You might want to read this thread called : The Sun's Unchanging Size Baffles Scientists

I do understand you. Is the amount of radiant energy that the Earth receives always the same and do we know if it does not fluctuate on other parts of the Sun ? The Earth is just a small receiver of energy. Where does the rest go and is it also in a stable amount ?

However do to the unchanging size of the Sun, can your explanation be wrong ?
How can it be that the math works but observations show that something does not do what it is expected to do ?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

It does ring an alarm bell that he doesn't see the obvious absurdity of such "theory".


Why ? Imagination is the first part of any question. Isn't it ?


Saying that a group of spaghetti monsters are living inside Earth would be a sign of imagination, but posing questions of whether this is real or not is a waste of time.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

It does ring an alarm bell that he doesn't see the obvious absurdity of such "theory".


Why ? Imagination is the first part of any question. Isn't it ?


Saying that a group of spaghetti monsters are living inside Earth would be a sign of imagination, but posing questions of whether this is real or not is a waste of time.


I'm little disappointed here. Are you going to show some proof that his claims are in fact proven, not true ?

Only responding to a sentence of a post that you can ridicule looks like trolling to me.
Please show me you are not a troll ?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
I'm little disappointed here.


You'll have to deal with it.


Are you going to show some proof that his claims are in fact proven, not true ?

Only responding to a sentence of a post that you can ridicule looks like trolling to me.
Please show me you are not a troll ?


It's up to you what you call me. Personally, I do care about quality of material posted here on ATS because I find it a good and interesting resource. And where I find what appears to be utter BS, I often chime in to point it out. This also relates to absolutely fantastical propositions (like a star burning inside our planet) with no foundation in facts or theory. Proclamations of how we should value "imagination" when looking at this detritus are pretty lame IMHO and yes, I will attack these.


[edit on 3-6-2010 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux
pretty logic hypotheses. the age of the earth undersea ground underpins the growing earth theory. But I have some questions:

Where does al the water come from? If earth grows like a balloon is there a huge big hole in the earth inner side? Is it in center of mass (must).

Is it possible that all this material comes from space with asteroids and meteoroids?

And when this is fact, was it before earth had an atmosphere?

Anyway - the Continents fit 360° together, so from me this is proof. isn't it?


Geodes is how the earth grows. Look at a geode and you will see how the earth is growing.



Peace



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
I'm little disappointed here.


You'll have to deal with it.


Are you going to show some proof that his claims are in fact proven, not true ?

Only responding to a sentence of a post that you can ridicule looks like trolling to me.
Please show me you are not a troll ?


It's up to you what you call me. Personally, I do care about quality of material posted here on ATS because I find it a good and interesting resource. And where I find what appears to be utter BS, I often chime in to point it out. This also relates to absolutely fantastical propositions (like a star burning inside our planet) with no foundation in facts or theory. Proclamations of how we should value "imagination" when looking at this detritus are pretty lame IMHO and yes, I will attack these.


[edit on 3-6-2010 by buddhasystem]


Instead of attacking the "Hypothesis" or the op with insults, try actually addressing what is being said with a counter argument based on what you consider to be true explaining along the way how "these" arguments show "those" arguments to be wrong, otherwise you have fulfilled the definition of troll which I'm sure is not what you were trying to do...right?


In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion


Defining Troll

Peace



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



You'll have to deal with it.





It's up to you what you call me. Personally, I do care about quality of material posted here on ATS because I find it a good and interesting resource. And where I find what appears to be utter BS, I often chime in to point it out. This also relates to absolutely fantastical propositions (like a star burning inside our planet) with no foundation in facts or theory. Proclamations of how we should value "imagination" when looking at this detritus are pretty lame IMHO and yes, I will attack these.


I'm not going to call you anything and I absolutely agree with you when it comes to quality. I want you to attack what appears utter BS ( You mean you do not actually know for sure ? ) it is what makes ATS special.
However... It would be nice if you say why you attack it. Why should I care about anything you've got to say if you only say it is BS ? You ask for quality, then I'd like it in return. Maybe you didn't notice but most of ATS forums I'm everything but an expert in but I learn a lot from other members.

I'd like to learn from you. If you don't like that, why waste your time posting then ?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 



Geodes is how the earth grows. Look at a geode and you will see how the earth is growing.


Hi.


That is really cool. I have seen a lot of similar rocks. Do you know what causes these rocks to form like that ?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 



Geodes is how the earth grows. Look at a geode and you will see how the earth is growing.


Hi.


That is really cool. I have seen a lot of similar rocks. Do you know what causes these rocks to form like that ?


Honestly?

No idea...but that doesn't mean I don't know how the earth grows...


Here's from Wikipedia...

Geodes can form in any cavity, but the term is usually reserved for more or less rounded formations in igneous and sedimentary rocks, while the more general term '"vug"' is applied to cavities in fissures and veins. They can form in gas bubbles in igneous rocks, such as vesicles in basaltic lavas, or as in the American Midwest, rounded cavities in sedimentary formations. After rock around the cavity hardens, dissolved silicates and/or carbonates are deposited on the inside surface. Over time, this slow feed of mineral constituents from groundwater or hydrothermal solutions allows crystals to form inside the hollow chamber. Bedrock containing geodes eventually weathers and decomposes, leaving them present at the surface if they are composed of resistant material such as quartz.


Also this...



Osmotic pressure
As mentioned before, osmosis may be opposed by increasing the pressure in the region of high solute concentration with respect to that in the low solute concentration region. The force per unit area, or pressure, required to prevent the passage of water through a selectively permeable membrane and into a solution of greater concentration is equivalent to the osmotic pressure of the solution, or turgor. Osmotic pressure is a colligative property, meaning that the property depends on the concentration of the solute, but not on its identity.


Peace



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Geodes are absolutely fascinating and beautiful things.

I am aware that one of the theories of how the earth grows is geodes but I am not convinced yet that this is the (complete?) answer.

As regards the earlier posts and the sun, it would seem that the fact that the sun does not shrink/grow may be because it is not quite the reaction that we think it is. I am still intrigued by the concept of a body with a surface temperature of 6000 deg C (if that is correct) putting out filaments at several million deg C (again if that is correct) yet exhibiting 'cooler'(?) areas [sunspots] which would appear to be deeper than the surface.

Now that is an anomalous situation that requires investigation and explanation.

I do have to say once again however that the idea that there is a sun inside the earth is fraught with so many problems that I consider it to be highly unlikely. Consider air temperatures/no day/night (if we are believing that 'people' are in there); why not visible from the outside if there are 'holes'; why do seismological investigations show it as solid; gravity and centripetal force do not explain how the junction of the layers can exist. That is a few. It is curious (and probably has another explanation) that they consider the temperature of the core of the earth to be the same as the surface of the sun.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



It seems he's skeptical about subduction. I'm not sure why, the evidence for it is very strong


I am not sure what evidence you might be referring to? Could you please point out some papers where there is evidence of subduction?


Well I did post this:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
His offhand dismissal of subduction zone evidence is also not very rigorous. There's good evidence of Subduction Zones


I also typed up some comments about Wadati-Benioff zones www.see.leeds.ac.uk...

But that post was so long already I deleted them to keep it a reasonable length post.

Of course he has alternate explanations for Wadati-Benioff zones but I don't find his explanation credible.


Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


When you state

So apparently measurements do not support the expanding Earth claims. None of the speculative ideas Maxlow proposed for why the Earth would be expanding really make sense to me.

I detect a suddend change in belief since you first thought the theory reasonable. Now you have been swayed by fixed figures where the expansion has been removed and you are agreeing with them???


The theory I thought was reasonable and still do is that of an increasing mass Earth. But increasing mass doesn't necessarily equal increasing size in spite of observational evidence on my bathroom scale and bathroom mirror to the contrary


The reason is density isn't constant. With the exception of ice, most solids take up less space than liquids. So as liquid substances turn into solid substances, volume goes down and density goes up.

Also, 40 tons a day sounds like a lot of material added to the Earth. But look up the current mass of the Earth, and figure out how much 40 tons a day is for say, a million years. Divide that by the mass of the Earth. Is that a big number? No. My initial point was that it's not zero, but 40 tons a day is not a big number relative to the mass of the Earth, and I never thought it was. I was trying to inspire people to look up the numbers and do the calculations themselves which apparently nobody did. But I've done them.


Originally posted by PuterMan
I am aware that one of the theories of how the earth grows is geodes but I am not convinced yet that this is the (complete?) answer.


The fact that you seem to be even considering such a Geode Earth theory I find shocking from someone who writes such otherwise intelligently constructed posts. The process by which geodes are formed is so much different from the process by which planets are formed should make the geode Earth theory unworthy of any consideration.

This is what I call "Don Scott" science. Something looks like something else so because of that he theorizes that what looks like a duck may be a duck. Well I got news for you, Don Scott and anyone else considering the Geode Earth theory. A piece of wood carved and painted to look like a duck, looks like a duck, but, it's NOT a duck! Don Scott's embarrassing revelation that he thinks the grand canyon looks like it was formed by lightning means maybe it was formed by lightning is an example of this irrational thought process. And a geode Earth would be another example.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
However... It would be nice if you say why you attack it. Why should I care about anything you've got to say if you only say it is BS ? You ask for quality, then I'd like it in return.


Look, there is no star burning inside Earth. And fission does not create extra mass. Seriously, it amazes me that anyone should even point this out. A short alias, "BS", does nicely in this situations, imho. And no, there are no spaghetti monsters in the center of the planet, either.


I'd like to learn from you. If you don't like that, why waste your time posting then ?


I don't mind you learning. But to be efficient, applying Occam's razor is the order of the day. Part of the reason I post is to plant red flags for others lest they even remotely entertain the idea that Earth is flat, or hollow, or that osmosis can inflate our planet 3 times over.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Instead of attacking the "Hypothesis" or the op with insults, try actually addressing what is being said with a counter argument based on what you consider to be true explaining along the way how "these" arguments show "those" arguments to be wrong, otherwise you have fulfilled the definition of troll which I'm sure is not what you were trying to do...right?


No, it's not right. There is a minimum threshold for a reasonable discussion to take place, and stars burning deep inside planets do not meet this threshold. Fission reaction producing extra mass doesn't meet it either. I can't reasonably argue with ridiculous statements, and no, the Supreme Being Zmorrg did not inflate Earth with his giant f@rt.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Thank you.

I do not think a star is burning inside the Earth. Maxlow did. After watching his videos and reading his Thesis he just looks like another scientist to me. That's why I posted this thread. You and other members always come up with info or ideas totally new to me.
That helps me further.

A sun within the Earth I find ridiculous but since I don't know you both his word is as good as yours.
Please give me at least a link or something when you attack it ? It helps me along and you don't have to to argue about it.

It was actually not even part of his theory. He brought it up as what he thinks it could be.
Lets move on.


Anything else you think is absolute ridiculous about this theory ?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Instead of attacking the "Hypothesis" or the op with insults, try actually addressing what is being said with a counter argument based on what you consider to be true explaining along the way how "these" arguments show "those" arguments to be wrong, otherwise you have fulfilled the definition of troll which I'm sure is not what you were trying to do...right?


No, it's not right. There is a minimum threshold for a reasonable discussion to take place, and stars burning deep inside planets do not meet this threshold. Fission reaction producing extra mass doesn't meet it either. I can't reasonably argue with ridiculous statements, and no, the Supreme Being Zmorrg did not inflate Earth with his giant f@rt.


I think that giant f@rt theory got a little distorted by the time it reached you. Peter Griffin started that theory but it's an alternative for the big bang theory, not for the expanding Earth theory:

(click to open player in new window)

Sorry I already had that uploaded for a debate in a "scientific creationism" thread and I couldn't resist posting it when you mentioned the f@rt.

And we even have that video evidence so maybe we should start a thread to talk about that f@rt theory? No, I think not, it probably doesn't meet the "minimum threshold for a reasonable discussion to take place"


But the galaxies are all moving away from each other so it could have happened that way right? No I don't think so, we have to be reasonable.

As I said before, Maxlow himself points out the flaws in his first 4 explanations of how the Earth could be getting so much bigger. His 5th explanation that he thinks is more likely doesn't make any more sense, as we've never seen any other sudden cosmological cause like the one he proposed.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



The fact that you seem to be even considering such a Geode Earth theory I find shocking from someone who writes such otherwise intelligently constructed posts. The process by which geodes are formed is so much different from the process by which planets are formed should make the geode Earth theory unworthy of any consideration.


I suppose I was trying to be less contentious to those who do believe the theory. A mistake really but there is always a need I feel to at least show that one is/has considered other possibilities.

Actually I am aware of how geodes form, and that would not explain the increase in the size of the earth as the material in the geode in effect is already here but in a different form.


I also typed up some comments about Wadati-Benioff zones www.see.leeds.ac.uk...

But that post was so long already I deleted them to keep it a reasonable length post.


I was interested in this but the link only showed what appear to be GPS reading with little or no explanation. I tried to go back to the main page for that but it seems very skimpy information, with little of no real explanations. Do you have any further links?


But increasing mass doesn't necessarily equal increasing size in spite of observational evidence on my bathroom scale and bathroom mirror to the contrary


This known phenomenon is probably worthy of a thread on it's own, however I would agree with your observations on the "Expanding Waist Theory"



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


No spaghetti monsters? No osmosis? The earth is not hollow? The supreme being did not inflate it with his Holy Wind? My world is destroyed. How could you do this to me?


lest they even remotely entertain the idea that Earth is flat


Of course it is flat!

I can see it is! The fact that it curves away in the distance is merely an effect of gravity on light similar to the lensing and/or light bent when passing by another sun.



On a more serious note:


Despite the success that standard plate-tectonics theory has enjoyed, there are phenomena that it currently is not able to model. Perhaps the most adequate model would incorporate Owens' suggestion that there is both subduction and expansion. This would allow the earth to expand at a modest rate with reasonable changes in surface gravitation and also require some subduction for which the evidence seems convincing. But such a model presents the difficulty of finding suitable mechanisms for expansion, plate motion and subduction!


This is the summary from EXPANDING EARTH? Bill Mundy, Professor of Physics and takes a very reasonable look at both sides of the argument.

(Brief synopsis here)

It is a long read but worth it. Unfortunately (?) there is no 100% positive solution one way or the other so on we go.......

[edit on 5/6/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
I was interested in this but the link only showed what appear to be GPS reading with little or no explanation. I tried to go back to the main page for that but it seems very skimpy information, with little of no real explanations. Do you have any further links?


Any researcher would have typed Wadati-Benioff zone in Google and immediately found the many articles including the Wiki:

en.wikipedia.org...

So you're not much on research I guess. The graphs are literally a map of the subduction zone showing the depth of the Earthquake and they are too deep to have the explanation proposed by Maxlow.


The deep earthquakes along the zone allow seismologists to map the three-dimensional surface of a subducting slab of oceanic crust and mantle. The angle of dip of the zone is the same as that of the subducting slab.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join