Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Expando Planet Theory more likely than Nirubu/Planet X...and happening NOW?!!!!

page: 15
85
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Byrd
 


While the Milankovitch cycle is claimed, there is no evidence that this cycle actually occurs.


Actually, looking at charts, the pattern seems fairly good. I do note that there are temperature variations and one ice period/ice age may be colder than another, depending on the arrangement of the continents.
en.wikipedia.org...


First of all, the cycles of the ice ages varies considerably, and can only be claimed as a repetitive cycle very loosely. Such a wobble in the Earths axis and rotation around the sun should form a very precise pattern, and it just isn't there.


Err... whatever you were trying to link just doesn't process, I'm afraid. However, the Earth's position in space is not the only thing that impacts climate -- the shape of the land masses does as well.


The Milankovitch cycle taught as fact, when there is very little evidence to support the theory, and a great deal of evidence to demonstrate that it is wrong. The most likely cause of the ice ages is large events that vastly change Earths climate, such as volcanic eruptions and large asteroid strikes.


There's more data to support Milankovitch than there is to support volcanic eruptions and asteroid strikes. No ice age occurred at the Cretaceous impact (whe you had not only the impact but a supervolcano erupting in India (the Deccan traps). At the time of the last temperature drop into the ice age, no outstanding volcanic or meteor activity occurred. During the great Permian extinction 250 million years ago, the Siberian traps were indeed active -- but the climate was warm and continued to warm (see the "timeline of glaciation" image, which won't link properly for whatever reason... en.wikipedia.org...



We have seen proof of the effects that volcanic eruptions have on global climate. There is tremendous evidence of meteor strikes that had as great of an impact as volcanic eruptions.


Yes... they do impact climate. But they tend to be fairly short term impacts as a rule (the exception would be the Deccan traps and Siberian traps. The Yellowstone caldera ("supervolcano") eruptions aren't tied to ice ages, either:
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 17-3-2011 by Byrd because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Do not confuse plate tectonics with continental drift. They are very different ideas. Plate tectonics is a theory. Theories are based on facts. The facts are very clear that plates exist. The facts are very clear that the Earth is NOT expanding.


Continental drift was the accepted theory before plate tectonics was deemed a better fit. Just as the Expanding Earth theory may someday be the accepted theory, at the conclusion of more research and knowledge. As our knowledge increases, may formerly accepted "facts" are overturned by another theory that seems to make more sense.

I personally think what is actually happening may be combination of the action of plate system with an sudden expansion of matter from space, or from within the earth itself, causing a sudden expansion, or an influx of energy that could cause faster heating of rock into a magma state, thereby causing an expansion.

If you consider that the earth may be like a semi-soft boiled egg, and where the shell is cracked, when the inside of the egg goes through a burst of energy, such as boiling the egg, the white will ooze out of the egg along the cracks and become a ridge of hardened egg white outside of the shell.

Most of the time, if the egg has a very small crack or two, nothing will happen to the egg, until the egg gets put into the boiling water.

The energy source could be from either inside or outside the earth, we don't know.

The thing is, we can theorize all we want, and some theories seem to be more promising or to make more sense, but theories fall based on new information and people willing to give up accepted thought for finding the truth.

Finding the truth can only be accomplished by questioning what's thought to be known.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Okays the moon has no affect on the earth or techtonics,well if its gone the planet will wobble wildly,thats alot of movement stabalized by a orbiting rock,I get the picture,I wonder will everybody else,the moon stabalizes the planets wobble,sure is affecting techtonic plates,when it goes there willl be less techtonic movement as the planet itself will wobble wildly, are we all missing something here,its right in front of our faces but Alas we all deny it ,also notice the affects to marine life. ..
edit on 17-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by gringoboy
 



1.New ocean floor is being stretched by additional water from melting icecaps ,not due to global warming in the goretex sense but a fundamental component of the earths cycles in the expanding meduim of space,due to this increase volume of water the moon has greater affect to stretch the ocean floor as it to is being forced by the expanding universe,tugging the volume of water on earth ,hence stretching the crust !

Water does not stretch the crust. The volume of water does not affect any deformation of the crust by the Moon. The expanding universe has no perceptible change on the Earth.


3.The oceans cannot rise in the observable sense as the volume of water is constantly moving,and the sheer weight and energy of the ocean of water ,defies mountains to rise and subduction in ocean floor as you explained,although everybody and his cat knows the sea levels are rising,maybe historical accounts of flooding are more evidence of water being part of the whole picture of expansion,from melting periodal icecaps and re iceingt as I postulate in this thesis of new paradigm,when water freezes it expands,ergo...moving any rock,crust,expanding it,then melting and the moon does the rest by pulling the excess volume of water,so it is a continual process.contraction ,expansion,yes quite truly mother earth is allways giving birth.Yes ,to volcanic,and meteor interaction play there part but so does the suns solar cycle variation,which currently is being observed as a complete oddity,and time will reveal the true extent of changes that occur to sol(solomon),sun.

I found this a bit choppy and hard to read so please bear with me if I misunderstand your intent.

Oceans do rise and fall relative to land. It appears you claim that they can't for some reason or that the water affects tectonic processes and subduction. Not true.

Right now there are places in the world where the land is rising and the land is falling. This is due to the crust moving due to the principle of isostacy. Vermont is rising. At the end of the ice ages it was underwater as evidenced by the whale and seal fossils. Now Viriginia is dropping and Vermont is rising as the land rebounds.

Ice as I already pointed out doe snot really affect much of the crust. In most of the world the ground never freezes down more than 1/2 meter. Water and ice affect only the very top portion of the crust. The Moon has little affect on the crust as shown by the minimal correlation with a very few earthquakes and no apparent link to volcanism.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


]There is little reason to believe that slight variations in the distance the Earth orbit would change the energy received from the Sun a significant amount.

The Milankovitch cycle taught as fact, when there is very little evidence to support the theory, and a great deal of evidence to demonstrate that it is wrong. The most likely cause of the ice ages is large events that vastly change Earths climate, such as volcanic eruptions and large asteroid strikes. We have seen proof of the effects that volcanic eruptions have on global climate. There is tremendous evidence of meteor strikes that had as great of an impact as volcanic eruptions.
Instead of guessing you might want to find out how this actually works. You might also want to see how rare large impacts are. One of the more recent impacts was in Winslow Arizona. Was that associated with an ice age?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 




Take a plate of steel, pile some sandstone on top if it, and try to push the sandstone into the steel.

This might be a bit of an extreme, but the reality is the same.

For a continental plate to move on top of an oceanic plate, either the continental plate must rise up over 10 KM, or over 10 KM of material must be moved somewhere.

That is elemental physics.

It's an enormous failure on your part to suggest that a steel plate or plywood represents the physics of a tectonic plate.

To suggest that something must rise up kilometers distance simply shows a remarkably poor understanding of geophysics, plate tectonics, and basic science. Take the time to learn what is actually happening instead of making statements which are completely unrelated to the actual situations.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by EdWard54
 



I have personally seen the two suns...so i know it is true...

Why can't I or any one else I know see two suns? Why don't the tens of thousands of amateur astronomers report such an event? Why?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 



Mountains occur where two plates push together. If you have an "expanding earth" there is no way for mountains to form.

I had to slap my forehead and say Duh! just now. That is so obvious.

Many thanks for pointing out an obvious major fault with the expanding Earth claim.

On the Venus transit note, I was able to view the event with family in 2004. We are looking forward to viewing the transit again in 2012.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


well,well still have your attention then,so explain away then the scientific communities understanding that the moon stabilizes the earth from wobbling more than it would if thre as no moon ,and heres another point ,if the earth was in a iceage when closer to the sun in previous centuries ,what do you think would happen to the movement of water when it is mostly frozen.Obviously ,you still don`t see the moon does`nt just affect the sea and ocean.

mmm...are these geologist and scientists wrong or are we blind.
edit on 17-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 


Continental drift was never the big theory of the day. Plate tectonics is now confused with continental drift. It shouldn't be since the mechanisms are so very different. The expanding Earth claims will never be accepted since they were shown to be wrong decades ago.

The suggestion that the Earth could expand simply by increasing the internal temperatures of the Earth are wrong. Just check out the coefficient of expansion of rock and see that it is far smaller than metals. Can you think of a metal that could double in volume from heating?


If you consider that the earth may be like a semi-soft boiled egg, and where the shell is cracked, when the inside of the egg goes through a burst of energy, such as boiling the egg, the white will ooze out of the egg along the cracks and become a ridge of hardened egg white outside of the shell.

The egg claim is wrong because it leads to a void inside of the shell. There can be no void inside of the Earth that is large.


The thing is, we can theorize all we want, and some theories seem to be more promising or to make more sense, but theories fall based on new information and people willing to give up accepted thought for finding the truth.

This is not theorizing in any sort of scientific way. This is speculating. That is not how scientific theories are developed. In science theories are based on facts. The theories explain the facts. The theories can be tested to see if they hold.


Finding the truth can only be accomplished by questioning what's thought to be known.

I disagree. Theories can be tested by questioning what is known. New theories can be developed by collecting more facts. It is not necessary to question what is known to develop a new theory.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by gringoboy
 



Okays the moon has no affect on the earth or techtonics,well if its gone the planet will wobble wildly,thats alot of movement stabalized by a orbiting rock,I get the picture,I wonder will everybody else,the moon stabalizes the planets wobble,sure is affecting techtonic plates,when it goes there willl be less techtonic movement as the planet itself will wobble wildly, are we all missing something here,its right in front of our faces but Alas we all deny it ,also notice the affects to marine life. ..

Does Venus wobble wildly? It's about the same size as Earth and has no Moon. I think this claim of a wildly wobbling Earth needs to be supported with some evidence.

The Moon does appear to affect a few rare types of earthquakes as I've already shown in a link. So there might be some affects on the plates. The effects are very slight if at all.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 



mars is that enough for you or are you even disputing that,www.space.com...
l

Wobbles in the rotation of Mars swung the planet into about 40 extreme ice ages in the past 5 million years and allowed thick ice layers to remain far away from the poles, an astronomer says
Various spacecraft have revealed evidence for ice ages on Mars. Around 4 million to 5 million years ago, precipitation events sent piles of snow and ice that accumulated around the ice caps. Nowadays, the only visible ice on Mars is the pair of polar caps. But in recent years, orbiting probes have found solid evidence for vast sheets of underground ice near the red planet's equator, at what scientists call mid-latitudes. How ice ended up so far from the poles has remained a mystery. The answer could be in the wobble of Mars, concludes Norbert Sch?rghofer of the University of Hawaii's Astrobiology Institute. Moon mechanics Earth's rotation axis is tilted by about 23.5 degrees, a slant that is pretty much fixed due to the gravitational influence of our moon. Mostly due to Mars' lack of a stabilizing moon, its tilt can wobble as much as 10 degrees from the current 25-degree angle. Using computer simulations, Sch?rghofer found that while not topsy-turvy, the wobbles change the amount of sunlight reaching Mars' surface and can cause vast amounts of ice to shift between the poles and the rest of the planet every 120,000 years. Here's how it works: When the planet's axis swayed one way, sun rays vanished from some areas and beamed down on others. Regions beneath sunlight became dry with warmer temperatures, causing the ice to recede or disappear entirely except at the highest latitudes.

Theres the evidence venus is a different matter being closer to sun but...www.dailymail.co.uk... a solar system 'wobble' could make the Earth crash into Mars... but don't worry, it won't happen for 3 billion years



How a solar system 'wobble' could make the Earth crash into Mars... but don't worry, it won't happen for 3 billion years By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 4:40 PM on 12th June 2009 * Comments (0) * Add to My Stories A wobble in the precise clockwork of the solar system could see the Earth collide with Mercury, Mars or Venus, scientists predict. But they say reassuringly that such a mishap is unlikely to occur for billions of years. The orbits of the planets are not completely stable because of the gravitational interplay between them. Over time, the system can become increasingly disordered - like a poorly balanced tyre that eventually tears itself off the axle of a moving car. earth collision Scientists have discovered that small rocky planets like Earth are far less stable than the gas giants In a similar way, planets can end up being flung out into space, diving into their parent star, or smashing into each other. Two French scientists have now calculated the chances of our solar system falling apart within the Sun's remaining lifespan of about five billion years. They found that while the 'gas giants' - Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune - are pretty stable, smaller rocky planets - including the Earth - are on a far less solid footing. Computer simulations of 2,501 scenarios uncovered around 25 - or 1% - which led to a disruption of Mercury's orbit and potential interplanetary collisions. In one case, all the terrestrial planets were destabilised, raising the possibility of Mercury, Mars or Venus smashing into the Earth. Another scenario saw Mars and the Earth approaching to within just 794 kilometres of each other. solar system Scientists have calculated the chances of the solar system falling apart over the next five billion years 'Such a close approach would be disastrous for life on the Earth, with a possible tidal disruption of Mars and subsequent multiple impacts on earth,' Dr Jacques Laskar and Mickael Gastineau, from the Paris Observatory, wrote in the journal Nature. Slight adjustments of the Mars near-miss produced five outcomes with Mars being ejected from the solar system and another 196 which included a collision. In 48 of these, the Earth ends up crashing into Mars or Venus. In an accompanying News & Views article, Dr Gregory Laughlin, from the University of California at Santa Cruz, said there were implications for planet populations around stars other than the Sun. He wrote: 'With 99% certainty, we can rely on the clockwork of the celestial rhythm - but with the remaining 1% we are afforded a vicarious thrill of danger. 'What now remains is to understand the extent to which the hand of dynamical chaos that so lightly touches our solar system has moulded the galactic planetary census.' Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

eyes wide open ,andnasa

To make the Earth wobble, large amounts of mass need to be moved from one place to another so that the Earth is “off balance,” according to NASA-funded researcher Blewitt, who said the North Pole then adjusts to a new position to compensate. Large amounts of water are displaced seasonally when glaciers and ice sheets melt in spring, for example. The mass shifts back when they refreeze in winter.

Surely thats enough evidence.Like I say ,everythings moving man...
edit on 17-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by gringoboy
reply to post by stereologist
 



mars is that enough for you or are you even disputing that,www.space.com...
l

Wobbles in the rotation of Mars swung the planet into about 40 extreme ice ages in the past 5 million years and allowed thick ice layers to remain far away from the poles, an astronomer says
Various spacecraft have revealed evidence for ice ages on Mars. Around 4 million to 5 million years ago, precipitation events sent piles of snow and ice that accumulated around the ice caps. Nowadays, the only visible ice on Mars is the pair of polar caps. But in recent years, orbiting probes have found solid evidence for vast sheets of underground ice near the red planet's equator, at what scientists call mid-latitudes. How ice ended up so far from the poles has remained a mystery. The answer could be in the wobble of Mars, concludes Norbert Sch?rghofer of the University of Hawaii's Astrobiology Institute. Moon mechanics Earth's rotation axis is tilted by about 23.5 degrees, a slant that is pretty much fixed due to the gravitational influence of our moon. Mostly due to Mars' lack of a stabilizing moon, its tilt can wobble as much as 10 degrees from the current 25-degree angle. Using computer simulations, Sch?rghofer found that while not topsy-turvy, the wobbles change the amount of sunlight reaching Mars' surface and can cause vast amounts of ice to shift between the poles and the rest of the planet every 120,000 years. Here's how it works: When the planet's axis swayed one way, sun rays vanished from some areas and beamed down on others. Regions beneath sunlight became dry with warmer temperatures, causing the ice to recede or disappear entirely except at the highest latitudes.

Theres the evidence venus is a different matter being closer to sun but...www.dailymail.co.uk... a solar system 'wobble' could make the Earth crash into Mars... but don't worry, it won't happen for 3 billion years



How a solar system 'wobble' could make the Earth crash into Mars... but don't worry, it won't happen for 3 billion years By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 4:40 PM on 12th June 2009 * Comments (0) * Add to My Stories A wobble in the precise clockwork of the solar system could see the Earth collide with Mercury, Mars or Venus, scientists predict. But they say reassuringly that such a mishap is unlikely to occur for billions of years. The orbits of the planets are not completely stable because of the gravitational interplay between them. Over time, the system can become increasingly disordered - like a poorly balanced tyre that eventually tears itself off the axle of a moving car. earth collision Scientists have discovered that small rocky planets like Earth are far less stable than the gas giants In a similar way, planets can end up being flung out into space, diving into their parent star, or smashing into each other. Two French scientists have now calculated the chances of our solar system falling apart within the Sun's remaining lifespan of about five billion years. They found that while the 'gas giants' - Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune - are pretty stable, smaller rocky planets - including the Earth - are on a far less solid footing. Computer simulations of 2,501 scenarios uncovered around 25 - or 1% - which led to a disruption of Mercury's orbit and potential interplanetary collisions. In one case, all the terrestrial planets were destabilised, raising the possibility of Mercury, Mars or Venus smashing into the Earth. Another scenario saw Mars and the Earth approaching to within just 794 kilometres of each other. solar system Scientists have calculated the chances of the solar system falling apart over the next five billion years 'Such a close approach would be disastrous for life on the Earth, with a possible tidal disruption of Mars and subsequent multiple impacts on earth,' Dr Jacques Laskar and Mickael Gastineau, from the Paris Observatory, wrote in the journal Nature. Slight adjustments of the Mars near-miss produced five outcomes with Mars being ejected from the solar system and another 196 which included a collision. In 48 of these, the Earth ends up crashing into Mars or Venus. In an accompanying News & Views article, Dr Gregory Laughlin, from the University of California at Santa Cruz, said there were implications for planet populations around stars other than the Sun. He wrote: 'With 99% certainty, we can rely on the clockwork of the celestial rhythm - but with the remaining 1% we are afforded a vicarious thrill of danger. 'What now remains is to understand the extent to which the hand of dynamical chaos that so lightly touches our solar system has moulded the galactic planetary census.' Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

eyes wide open ,andnasa

To make the Earth wobble, large amounts of mass need to be moved from one place to another so that the Earth is “off balance,” according to NASA-funded researcher Blewitt, who said the North Pole then adjusts to a new position to compensate. Large amounts of water are displaced seasonally when glaciers and ice sheets melt in spring, for example. The mass shifts back when they refreeze in winter.

Surely thats enough evidence.Like I say ,everythings moving man...
edit on 17-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)


Yeah, it doesn't take a genius to deduce that 3 billion years is a long time.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by gringoboy
 



I think this claim of a wildly wobbling Earth needs to be supported with some evidence.

I simply asked for evidence and you provided it. Thank you. Well done. I did recall something to that effect, but wasn't sure of the details of the matter. Thanks again.

It is this wobble that has led to the recent change in Mars' climate, which 2012 hoaxers claim is evidence of the entire solar system going "global warming."


a solar system 'wobble' could make the Earth crash into Mars... but don't worry, it won't happen for 3 billion years

Don't trust the Daily Mail to get anything correct. It's a terrible yellow rag at dispensing scientific information. It's a sensationalistic rag at best. Notice that it has nothing to do with Venus not having a moon.

The wobble discussed in the NASA articles is based on the measurements of the shape of the Earth. Despite such sophisticated measuring capabilities these people are not reporting an expanding Earth.

Thanks so much for posting strong evidence against the expanding Earth claims.

BTW, both of your links were bad.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 

Ohhhh baaaaad,that does`nt make it invalid to the claim the earth does`nt wobble,that is bad and false,,are you sure the world is`nt flat,come on ,and yes the event described will be 3 billion years but yet again ,stupification of observable data is just that.
Remember also the earth is moving away from the sun 15cm a year,as i say the observations are right in front of everybodies faces and belittling the info is just that,I am not ignorant to what is evident.
You can live in the past if you wish but this is the future and its unfolding like a scroll.
edit on 17-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by gringoboy
 



hhhh baaaaad,that does`nt make it invalid to the claim the earth does`nt wobble,that is bad and false,,are you sure the world is`nt flat,come on ,and yes the event described will be 3 billion years but yet again ,stupification of observable data is just that.
Remember also the earth is moving away from the sun 15cm a year,as i say the observations are right in front of everybodies faces and belittling the info is just that,I am not ignorant to what is evident.
You can live in the past if you wish but this is the future and its unfolding like a scroll.


I have never stated that the Earth didn't wobble. In fact, I know it wobbles. What was of interest is why you were claiming that the Moon affects the wobble. That's all.

To make any claims that I ever stated that the Earth does not wobble shows that you are not taking the time to understand what I wrote. Please go back and reread if you think otherwise. You probably do need to understand where you, not me, are quite mistaken.

So what if the Sun is moving away from the Earth. That change in orbit is due to the same reason that the Moon moves away from the Earth: tidal interactions. I have not belittle any real information. I have pointed out, and quite vigorously at times, that the misrepresentation of evidence is rampant by those pretending that there is any legitimacy to the expanding earth claim.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


If the Earth's wobble in its rotation on its axis is causing the ice ages, then the pattern of the time periods for the ice ages should be very precisely repetitive. The pattern should be very clear, and obvious, which it is not. There is kind of a pattern, but the periods vary considerably. I just don't think the concept is probable.

Here is another hypothesis. Our solar system is moving through the galaxy at 486,000 miles an hour. That means we travel a great distance through space. That is 4.25 B miles in a year. Pluto is only 3.7 B miles away from the sun. In a million years, we move a great distance through space. Now, if we wind up traveling through clouds of matter, this could have a great deal of effect on Earths climate, not to mention explain how the Earth could experience so much accretion of mass. This makes sense.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
By the way, the expanding oceans would indeed put considerable pressure on the continents, and provide ample reason for the creation of mountains. After all, the older parts of the oceans have considerable mountain ranges.

Of course there is also the volcanic activity.

I notice nobody has provided any links or information to plug the gaping holes in the plate tectonics theory.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by gringoboy
 


The Earth actually is deformed by the weight of the glaciers on Antarctica.

In addition, the southern hemisphere bulges. When you look at the oceans ridges where new ocean floor is being formed, it is easy to see why. The Southern hemisphere would have to show signs of bulging.

books.google.com... 9JaaAbTc&hl=en&ei=_HODTbyIEou4sAOQ-dnuAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

Probably this link isn't going to work either. Google books, The New Scientist from Oct 24, 1963 page 191.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



If the Earth's wobble in its rotation on its axis is causing the ice ages, then the pattern of the time periods for the ice ages should be very precisely repetitive. The pattern should be very clear, and obvious, which it is not. There is kind of a pattern, but the periods vary considerably. I just don't think the concept is probable.

Here is another hypothesis. Our solar system is moving through the galaxy at 486,000 miles an hour. That means we travel a great distance through space. That is 4.25 B miles in a year. Pluto is only 3.7 B miles away from the sun. In a million years, we move a great distance through space. Now, if we wind up traveling through clouds of matter, this could have a great deal of effect on Earths climate, not to mention explain how the Earth could experience so much accretion of mass. This makes sense.


It might seem reasonable that the wobble should be predictable, but the article goes into the nature of the wobble and points out that the source of the wobble is the redistribution of mass on the Earth. This affects the Earth's spin orientation, hence a wobble. The distribution is not consistent over time and thus the wobble is not repetitive. The wobble is not trivial to predict.

Despite the great distance we are traveling through space, there has been very little accretion in the last several billions years. We know that. The Moon's surface makes that case very clear.





new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join