It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by stereologist
Yes, lava is sponge like in that it is very porous.
The magna released onto the surface expands as it cools.
Through erosion, rocks are broken down. The same amount of material then takes up more space.
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.
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.
The more repeatable your measurements are, the more accurate and the more precise you instrumentation is.
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?
I have over twenty years experience in this area, and it is clear that you don't know what you are talking about.
Do you realize that the explanation I am referring to pretty much proves expanding planet theory?
When you start thinking you have it all pretty much figured out, that is when you toss your scientific understanding out the window.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
calibration results were repeatable, repeatable, repeatable. Yes, the device was repeating the same errors again and again and again.
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?
Approximately 600 milligrams of mass were converted into energy.