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

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by stereologist

 

Yes, lava is sponge like in that it is very porous.

Lava is a fluid (fluid rock). It can harden into a number of different forms, depending on certain conditions. Glassy A'a, pahoehoe, pillow lava, etc. It's dense and hard to erode.
en.wikipedia.org...

You may be thinking of pumice, which is actually formed when water and lava mix:
en.wikipedia.org...

The magna released onto the surface expands as it cools.

It shrinks. The only liquid that expands when it cools is water (ice). You can see a picture and explanation that lava shrinks when it cools here: www.factmonster.com...

(I'm just giving a quick page, here. I can give you a lot more detail if you really like.)

Through erosion, rocks are broken down. The same amount of material then takes up more space.

Not quite. It's mixed with air, yes, but the original volume of (say) silicon dioxide is still present. If you grind anything up, you can "fluff" it up with air but it still has the same weight and if you take the air out, the volume is still the same.

reply to post by poet1b

In instrumentation, first your data must be repeatable. If your tests are not repeatable, then they can not be accurate. If you can not get repeatable data, the same results consistently when making measurements, then you can not measure anything.

That is sort of close to a good answer, but not. The issue of repeatable is not the same as being accurate or even precise. It indicates that the method of data collection what ever it is, can be done time and time again.

If you don't get the same measurement repeatedly, whether your are looking at at tube of mercury or an electronic signal, then your technique is flawed.

Not true at all. It all depends on what you are trying to measure.

The more repeatable your measurements are, the more accurate and the more precise you instrumentation is.

A huge mistake. Repeatability is not related to accuracy and precision. That is a fundamental mistake often made.

This is the basis of all instrumentation, and all scientific testing. Why do you think organizations like NIST exist? What do you think "standards" are?

You continue to make the mistake that repeatable work is accurate and precise. Inf act, accurate and precise are very different issues aren't they?

Let's take an example. Suppose that I run a linear transect across a beach perpendicular to the ocean and determine the fraction of wrack crossed by the transects. This is a repeatable experiment in which the answer is precise, but not accurate. In other words, the bias is substantial, but the variance is low.

Another example. Suppose that I estimate the mean number of nephrons in a human kidney and determine a value of 500,000. The answer is accurate, but not precise.

I have over twenty years experience in this area, and it is clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

You obvious learned nothing in 20 years. That's a shame.

reply to post by Byrd


Pumice is an amazing material. I have seen it form "bath tub rings" in the "Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes" where particles of it have floated to the edge of seasonal ponds.

Thanks for pointing out that magma shrinks as it cools. This is partially what leads to the increase in depth of the oceans away from spreading ridges.

Thanks for stating things much clearer than I have.

reply to post by poet1b


The vesicular nature of pumice is a near surface response to the magma in a decreased pressure environment.

reply to post by poet1b


The spherical nature of bodies and limits to which an object can approach without being forced into a sphere have been known by real scientists for a very long time. To claim to have discovered this recently is done someone that has not done much research.

reply to post by poet1b

Do you realize that the explanation I am referring to pretty much proves expanding planet theory?

It does no such thing. Prove? Heavens to Betsy that's an odd claim.

Just because you were not taught what had been determined around the time of Newton or shortly thereafter, does not mean that real scientists were had not made such a determination.

When you start thinking you have it all pretty much figured out, that is when you toss your scientific understanding out the window.

That's a B-movie scenario that should be kept in the realm of bad cinema.

The biggest problem with the expanding Earth claim is, "where does all of the mass come from?" Where does the Earth get all of the new matter to increase the size.

The claim in one link is that the Earth is increasing in diameter in a linear fashion. That means that the matter is increasing in a cubic fashion because the volume is increasing in a cubic fashion. Where does this cubic increase in matter come from?

Anyone want to explain this?

reply to post by Byrd


When magma rises up out from the extremely dense depths its structure changes and it forms crystals as it cools, and it expands, the rate of expansion determined by the rate at which it cools. Most lava that hardens into rock is very porous. Even granite is porous.

facstaff.gpc.edu...

Here is a good link that explains how the magma is mixed with gases cause it to expand, which is why it is porous. Not an easy link to find.

books.google.com... en&ei=Gad1TYLxAsS10QGnnLnYBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=magma%20cooling%20expansion&f=false

books.google.com... en&ei=Gad1TYLxAsS10QGnnLnYBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwADgK

Hopefully one of those links works.

Not quite. It's mixed with air, yes, but the original volume of (say) silicon dioxide is still present. If you grind anything up, you can "fluff" it up with air but it still has the same weight and if you take the air out, the volume is still the same.

You are talking in circles here. The air bubbles formed as the magma escapes that make it porous do not go away. The volume of the material increases. We are talking about volume, not density.

reply to post by stereologist

Suppose that I run a linear transect across a beach perpendicular to the ocean and determine the fraction of wrack crossed by the transects. This is a repeatable experiment in which the answer is precise, but not accurate. In other words, the bias is substantial, but the variance is low.

That is because you are not making a scientific measurement, you are taking samples, as is the case in both of your examples, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion because we are talking about taking physical measurements that can be made with considerable precision. The way you do the analysis is completely different.

You must be one of those types who is completely dangerous with a tool in your hand.

reply to post by poet1b

That is because you are not making a scientific measurement, you are taking samples, as is the case in both of your examples, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion because we are talking about taking physical measurements that can be made with considerable precision. The way you do the analysis is completely different.

You must be one of those types who is completely dangerous with a tool in your hand.

Again you make it evident that you are confused by repeatability and precision. These are very different issues.

I remember a job many years ago in which a device was not performing to the requirements of the production line, but the calibration results were repeatable, repeatable, repeatable. Yes, the device was repeating the same errors again and again and again.

Precision and repeatability are completely different. Accuracy and precision are different. Many people are confused by these issues.

Despite the claim of having done something for decades the fundamentals have escaped you.

reply to post by stereologist


Easy

Most of the expansion is not from an increase in mass, but an increase in volume due to changes in density.

Get a sandstone, or any stone made from cooled lave, and grind it down to dust. You will see that the volume that the material takes up has increased. When you change the density, you change the volume. If you compress the dust or try some sort of water displacement test, you are once again changing the density.

A volcano erupts and spew ash and lava onto the surface of the planet. Through natural erosion and various chemical processes that ash and lave mixes with other materials and forms structures that changes the volume of the Earth.

Follow the link already provided, it explains all of this quite well.

reply to post by poet1b

When magma rises up out from the extremely dense depths its structure changes and it forms crystals as it cools, and it expands, the rate of expansion determined by the rate at which it cools. Most lava that hardens into rock is very porous. Even granite is porous.

Baloney. The site to which you linked is an intro to geology for poets site. There is no expansion. There is a contraction of the material as the crystals are formed. There is also a contraction as the materials cool.

Cooled lava is not porous. See where it says "Vesicular". Did you get this site by searching on a term I used? It even suggests that a vesicular dacite may float as in the VTTS. Very little lava is vesicular. Except for extreme materials such as pumice igneous rocks are not porous. That claim is beyond idiotic.

You are talking in circles here. The air bubbles formed as the magma escapes that make it porous do not go away. The volume of the material increases. We are talking about volume, not density.

Nothing you have posted other than your bad thinking suggests that the volume increases. Any minor increase in volume experience by the upper meter or so of an extrusion is by far offset by the contraction due to cooling.

Does anyone want to explain where the extra mass comes from?

The notion is so STUPID I cannot believe that anyone would fall for this STUPID idea of an expanding Earth.

So how long does it take to add a millimeter to the Earth according to these STUPID claims?

Here is what we are going to do:
1. Calculate the volume of mass.
2. Assume a specific gravity of 1 although 2.5 and 3.5 make more sense
3. Determine the mass created per year.

Come on folks. Step up to the plate and tell us how fast the Earth is expanding, ie adding mass.

reply to post by poet1b

Most of the expansion is not from an increase in mass, but an increase in volume due to changes in density.

Get a sandstone, or any stone made from cooled lave, and grind it down to dust. You will see that the volume that the material takes up has increased. When you change the density, you change the volume. If you compress the dust or try some sort of water displacement test, you are once again changing the density.

What a disingenuous falsehood. Sandstone is a sedimentary rock. Cooled lave? I think that is cooled lava or magma. You don't need to grind it down to dust. What sort of person would do such a pointless and ridiculous exercise to determine the density?

Intrusives have 0 pore space. Sandstones have substantial pore space. They are completely different.

A cooled intrusive takes less volume than the magma. It cools and shrinks.

reply to post by poet1b

A volcano erupts and spew ash and lava onto the surface of the planet. Through natural erosion and various chemical processes that ash and lave mixes with other materials and forms structures that changes the volume of the Earth.

Follow the link already provided, it explains all of this quite well.

What laughable stories people are turning to. You think that tephra is the issue? Not at all. What small percentage of surface rocks are tephras? What portion of continental masses are tephras? Hint: it's far less than the surface materials.

The question for all believers in this rather STUPID theory is how much mass is added each year. The claims on the websites are rather large such as the Earth gained how much diameter since some time during the Mesozoic?

reply to post by stereologist

calibration results were repeatable, repeatable, repeatable. Yes, the device was repeating the same errors again and again and again.

Then you weren't properly calibrating the instrument, or your testing process was not correct. The measurement process has to be set up properly in the first place. The technician has to know what he is doing.

Obviously you were not getting the results expected, so you knew something was wrong. This is why most systems use redundancy, don't forget murphy's law.

You must have repeatability, but just because you have repeatability, doesn't necessarily mean that your process is necessarily accurate. This is why it is always good to have more data to back up your claims. This is why calibration is measured in degrees of uncertainty.

However, once you get your set up working consistently, you trust it, until it gives you reason not to trust it. For example, your GPS directs you to a place a block or two away from your destination, or it lands your airplane on the wrong runway.

reply to post by stereologist


Granite is porous. I have already pointed this out.

Deny all you will.

Clearly you believe you know it all.

reply to post by poet1b


Granite is not porous. It is a complete falsehood to claim otherwise.

Show me anywhere that granite is porous. A typical granite is 60% quartz. The interlocking nature of the grains makes granite an ideal material for counter tops and building exteriors. In fact, granites are one of the rocks with the lowest amount of voids.

It's your claim to defend. Please show us that granite is porous.

reply to post by poet1b


Thanks for agreeing with me. I believe we seeing eye to eye at this point.

Cheers

Here is what I posted earlier:

The question for all believers in this rather STUPID theory is how much mass is added each year. The claims on the websites are rather large such as the Earth gained how much diameter since some time during the Mesozoic?

Let's see why this expando thingy is beyond stupid.

1. Let's take an area of land 1km by 1km.
   
2. The area is 1 sq km
   
3. 1 sq km = 1*1000*1000 = 10^6 sq m = 10^*100*100 = 10^10 sq cm
   
4. If the Earth gains say a billionth of a cm in height in a year then a new layer of matter a trillionth of a cm thick was added to the Earth in that year.
   
5. For simplicity let's assume that the additional mass does not compress the Earth.
   
6. The volume of matter under a sq km = 10^10 * 10^-9 = 10 cubic cm
   
7. Density of granite = 2.6 to 2.7 g/cm^3
   
8. The new mass under 1 sq km = 26 g
   

So in a year 26g or slightly less than an ounce of new mass appears under every square kilometer of land.

The claim is that some energy is transformed into new matter.

How can we measure how much energy is required to make this matter?

I know. Let's compare the Hiroshima bomb as a unit of energy. That bomb was called "Little Boy."

Approximately 600 milligrams of mass were converted into energy.

Little Boy
So 0.6g of matter were converted into energy. Another way to look at this is that every 0.6g of new matter comes about from the energy of a Hiroshima sized bomb.

So 26g divided by 0.6g/Hiroshima explosion = 43 Hiroshima explosions.

So where is all of this energy? Imagine the energy of 43 Hiroshima bombs going into the Earth over every square kilometer every year and that is assuming 100% conversion of energy to matter. I calculated this for a height gain of 1 billionth of a cm in a year.

The goofy Ray Tomes claim is .16cm a year. Let's see how many Hiroshima bombs of energy that is.

Wow. That's over 7 billion Hiroshima explosions of energy per square kilometer.

That's really, really, really STUPID!