posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:26 PM
reply to post by Odeian
1. You mention accretion - look at the Moon's surface. There has been little accretion over billions of years. I t measures in centimeters of
2. Creation of matter. The claimed rates require the energy of millions of Hiroshima bombs passing through every square kilometer a day. It's not
Following this through, the central core of the planet is neither solid nor molten iron - it is a super heated, highly energised state of matter i.e.
For a while you were moving along smoothly and then this giant claim unrelated to the other issues you stated. What is known from seismic data is that
the center of the Earth is solid, not liquid like the outer core.
Perhaps when the mass of a planet is large enough, it begins this process of changing and joining elements until it produces fissionable
material and it ‘ignites’.
If something on that scale were happening then we'd detect the vibrations through seismographic stations and we'd detect the nuclear reactions with
the many sensitive detectors that have been built.
Such energy levels would be created at the central core of a large enough body of mass because of the intense pressure it would be under.
The pressure inside of the Earth is insufficient to promote nuclear reactions such as those found in a brown dwarf which is at least 13 times the mass
It would then not only be able to add electrons/protons to existing atoms or join atoms together to create compounds and molecules but actually
create new matter from condensed energy. The first atoms would of course be the simplest, hydrogen and helium for example, which just so happens to be
the most abundant elements in the universe. [/quote
This is another leap not suggested by the material before it. First you suggest that pressures allow fusion and not you want to create protons and
electrons from energy. Not happening! Besides if it were possible the process of converting energy to matter would soon cool down the core and the
process would cease without much mass having been created.
Accretion is irrefutable.
True, but it is remarkably small, centimeters in billions of years.
Matter creation is theoretical, but it is a logical deduction and therefore quite probable.
It's your guess or theory. It does not follow from scientific theories,
They knew about seafloor spreading, but dismissing accretion of cosmic dust as insignificant (with evidence to the contrary; silt levels in
oceans, stratification (layers) of different types of rock – these come from above, not pushed up from below) and believing the core of the planet
was molten iron (without any evidence) they preferred the idea of a fixed size Earth.
How wrong you are! Again!
1. Silt from above has a terrestrial origin, not an extra-terrestrial origin. The material of the sea floor are well known, well studied, and are from
2. The iron core evidence includes seismology, studies of element abundance in the universe, direct studies of mantle rocks, geomagnetism, known mass
of the Earth, ...
In order to make this idea work they invented the idea of subduction zones whereby the seafloor spreading was cancelled out by the other side
of the ‘tectonic plate’ sinking underneath another one. This defies both logic and physics. A lighter, less dense material cannot push down
through a heavier, denser material whilst also going against the pressure pushing everything up (if there was no pressure pushing up we wouldn’t
That's just silly talk. Subduction zones are well mapped by seismological evidence, volcanic evidence, and orogenic studies that show the plates
moving down and into the mantle.
However, some very god animations have been created which helps us along with this. Do youtube search for Expanding Earth.
Skip the science and head for the videos done by hoaxers. Good plan.
but nevertheless the continents match up.
So the idea is to attach to mismatched geological structures using graphics that do not consider what happens when objects are heavily restructured
If gravity was less then creatures would not be as limited in size as they are now which explains (and is the only explanation) why dinosaurs
grew to such massive sizes.
Perpetuating a falsehood is just another clear sign that this expanding earth claim is just nonsense. The claims of a requirement for a lower gravity
have also been made about redwood trees. Obviously, the initial ideas on how plant vasculature works in these tall trees is incorrect and since been
The future of Earth (and all heavenly bodies)
All of what follows appears to be flawed claims based on the flaws already pointed out.