Growing earth theory explains a few things

page: 3
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
To the clever people here...

Would it be possible for the Earth to have originally been a gaseous planet like Jupiter or Saturn. ?



No. Zircon dating shows Earth was solid planet 4 billion years ago.




posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freelancer

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by CrashUnderride
 


There is no "point". The growing Earth theory isn't even a scientific theory, it is a joke.


That's a bold statement you make, especially when you consider how little we know about the way the universe evolves and what weird and wonderful mechanism's are at play within our universe. (Your statement gave me a few laughs, thank you.)

OK back to being serious, the idea of an expanding planet, in this case the Earth should NOT be discounted out-of-hand, even though it does sound kinda far fetched at the moment. Consider if-you-will, the following way-out theory's that were later found to be true.


1. The Round Earth theory.
2. Perturbation theory and the existence of Neptune
3. Comets being a celestial phenomenon
4. The expanding universe

WRONG not "proven" in ANY WAY

5. Atoms
Theoretical, never been observed

6. Quarks
Even more theoretical, even less than never observed

7. Tycho Brahe and the "stella nova"
8. Black Holes

The biggest load of hogwash of all....never been observed, doesn't even make sense.

9. Heliocentric solar system
10. The Big Bang theory.
And here, the KING of all NONSENSE THEORIES

All of the above were once considered as wacky idea's according to the scientific community or popular belief at that time, however, as far fetched as they all sounded, they were all proven true, or accepted as true later on.

I personally do believe planets do expand over time, whether its because of heat expansion from the core or by other means, rather like a balloon filled with an internal gas/heat source. I just hope I'm still around when this Expanding Earth theory is also proven true.

~Freelancer~
edit on 8/7/2011 by Freelancer because: correcting typo's



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   



An excellent video series in 14 parts, Dr. Maxlow gets pretty in depth and touches on some of the info posted already.

Dr. James Maxlow



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by ken10
To the clever people here...

Would it be possible for the Earth to have originally been a gaseous planet like Jupiter or Saturn. ?



No. Zircon dating shows Earth was solid planet 4 billion years ago.



Wasn't quite the answer i was looking for.

The Galapagos Island are only a few million years old, so where did the matter come from to make them ?
Proving the age for some of the "solid" material doesn't give an answer to what i was asking, and since i believe some of our universe is possibly in the 10s of billion years old..there is no time scale back to year dot.

Anyone who has done Oxy/acetylene welding will know that when you light the torch with acetylene only, it gives off a black soot floating about.........showing a conversion from a gas to a solid, which is kinda what I'm getting at.

This goes along with the science that there was supposedly 30% more Oxygen 250 million years ago than now, Although I don't know if that would be the same for all gasses in our atmosphere back then.


Its just a theory I hold to that Planets have a "lifecycle", With planets like the Moon and Mars being the end.....Just dead rocks having converted all other states of matter into a final "Solid".



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ken10

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by ken10
To the clever people here...

Would it be possible for the Earth to have originally been a gaseous planet like Jupiter or Saturn. ?



No. Zircon dating shows Earth was solid planet 4 billion years ago.



Wasn't quite the answer i was looking for.

The Galapagos Island are only a few million years old, so where did the matter come from to make them ?




I'm only 45 years old. Where did the matter come to make me?


You need to do some very basic reading on geology. Then come back. I'm not paid to be a teacher.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by ken10

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by ken10
To the clever people here...

Would it be possible for the Earth to have originally been a gaseous planet like Jupiter or Saturn. ?



No. Zircon dating shows Earth was solid planet 4 billion years ago.



Wasn't quite the answer i was looking for.

The Galapagos Island are only a few million years old, so where did the matter come from to make them ?




I'm only 45 years old. Where did the matter come to make me?


You need to do some very basic reading on geology. Then come back. I'm not paid to be a teacher.


Well I'm sorry, I'm 51 and not gonna go back to school now lol,
All I'm asking is where the rocks that Geologists study came from ? I don't think Geology can answer that.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.




Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant

So we readily dismiss the Expanding Earth Theory because the “accepted” dogma is Plate Tectonics – a theory whose most basic mechanism cannot be understood or explained?


No.

We falsify EE because it fails to explain observations. In the same way that the flate Earth theory does.

Plate tectonics may not be perfect and we accept that it will in time be modified.

Have you actually studied the subject?



First..... of course I've studied the subject..... but, as I expressed in my previous post, I'm no earth science professional.

Secondly, I hardly see where there is any sort of "falsification" to the "Expanding Earth Theory". It's really rather straight forward. Yes, there are issues which warrant more study and confirmation but, as I was trying to express, so does Plate Tectonics.

As i was saying in my previous post, one major issue with Plate Techtonics -- formerly known as The Continental Drift Theory -- is that the mechanism by which the plates actually move is unknown. In fact, a major issue with Plate tectonics is that the force or energy needed to form mountain ranges is, apparently, not present!


There has long been a preference for top-down, density-driven slab pull as the dominant driver of plate tectonics. Sometimes this is simply stated as a fact".1 "One of the most uncomfortable contradictions in current plate tectonic theory [is] the protracted collision between India and Asia. That the two continents should collide by subduction of the intervening ocean is reasonable; that India should continue to drive northward into Asia for some 38 million years after the collision is not."3 In fact, "the protracted continental collisions in the Alps, Zagros, and Himalayas, which have continued to deform continental crust since the early or middle Cenozoic, are therefore anomalies in standard plate tectonic theory."1 "In plate tectonic theory, collision between two continents should quickly terminate because of continental buoyancy."1 "Buoyancy considerations predict that shortly after such a continent-continent collision, a new subduction zone should form"3. "This has not occurred, and of the apparently important driving mechanisms for plate tectonics... slab pull clearly cannot be forcing India deep into Asia, and ridge push is generally thought to be too weak to accomplish such a task.

1. Alvarez, Walter. 2010. Protracted continental collisions argue for continental plates driven by basal traction. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 296, pp. 434-442.

3. Alvarez, Walter. August 10, 1982. Geological Evidence For The Geographical Pattern of Mantle Return Flow and the Driving Mechanism of Plate Tectonics. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 87, No. B8, pp.6697-6710.

SOURCE



I am no expert on Earth sciences, I've repeated stated this. Nevertheless the information is readily available to everyone who wishes to do the research. I have found no "falsification" {?} , as you have mentioned , in the material that I have read regarding Expanding Earth Theory. However, in regards to Plate Tectonics, I have found that it seems to "gloss over" or even ignore major issues in an apparent effort to maintain it's dominance.

.

edit on 7/8/2011 by benevolent tyrant because: to amend the text and to correct spelling errors.
extra DIV



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Your logic is flawed.

When regarding an expanding earth under the premise that it does not expand, then you get something that appears like moving plates - when in reality the apparent movement is caused not by the moving plates but the "background" expanding - thus making them appear as if they move.

The difference between you and the OP is, that the OP used his own wit and thought to provide a theory, while you just appear to be spouting stuff that you read somewhere, not using your own brain.

S+F for the OP

P.s. The "Growing earth theory" was commonly found in east-german geology books but disappeared after the east was swallowed by the west.

Go figure.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TheIrvy
 


First things first I am no scientist, second thing I am no mathematician, well kind of but my specialty is accounting and finance. However according to my use of logic and estimates based on your numbers:

4,500,000,000,000,000 cubic meters
4,500,000,000,000 cubic kilometers.

Surface area, 510072000 km2. 148940000 km2 land (29.2%)

Let's say only 30% of this dust hits land and the rest is semi swallowed at about 70% (so 30% adds volume) as a rough guess.

.6*4500,000,000,000 = 2,700,000,000,000 cubic kilometers

2700billion / 5100720000 = 529 cubic kilometers of dust PER every kilometer of surface area ASSUMING 1000 tons per year with a total density of 1km cubed AND earth being 4.5billion years old. That means the Radius of the earth has expanded by roughly 529 kilometers (we will round to 500 for simplicity to take into account curvature of the earth).

radius of Earth = 6 378.1 kilometers
circumference of the Earth = 40,075.16 kilometers

approximate radius 4.5billion years ago = 5878.1 kilometers
therefore circumference was = 36933.19 kilometers

a difference of approximately 3100 kilometers.

I could only find the width of the USA east to west coast which actually is approximately the distance between USA east coast and Europe west coast the magical number is....

"The shortest distance from the East to West Coast (as the crow flies) would be 2,092 miles (3,347 km) from San Diego, CA to Jacksonville, FL.
More input from WikiAnswers contributors:
The precise distance depends on the exact latitude where you make the measurement but it is approximately 3,000 miles. "

However the are other areas to consider for Earth's expansion along the latitude line but my estimate was create out of skepticism so I think I vastly underestimated the calculation (since the density of limestone is actually 3km^3 per 1000 metric tonnes). So a 9000km expansion in the earth's circumference isn't too improbable...

edit on 8-7-2011 by ThisIsMyName because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
When regarding an expanding earth under the premise that it does not expand, then you get something that appears like moving plates - when in reality the apparent movement is caused not by the moving plates but the "background" expanding - thus making them appear as if they move.
I'm not sure that your statement makes much sense. If the Earth was expanding, this would explain why some plates are moving apart.

But, it doesn't explain why some plates are moving together. If the Earth was expanding, shouldn't all the plates be moving apart?

You also don't explain why the Earth would expand.
edit on 8-7-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThisIsMyName
 


4,500,000,000,000,000 cubic meters
4,500,000,000,000 cubic kilometers.



Hey man, I might be wrong (it's quite late over here and I've got tiredbrain), but isn't that conversion incorrect?

Cubic meters to Cubic kilometers is a factor of [1000]^3, not just a [1000].

Therefore 4,500,000,000,000,000 cubic meters = 4,500,000 cubic kilometers.
Is this correct?

EDIT: With the 'moving plate' model, the movement of the tectonic plates are apparently caused by convection currents in the mantle. It seems to me that those currents would have to flow for quite a while, in order to move the continents so far. At about 1cm a year, or something like that, those currents must have remained unchanged for quite a while. This unchanging natural aspect doesn't seem very true to me. Frontal weather systems move, eddy currents alternate, etc... The 'expanding earth' theory is therefore something to at least investigate, i think.
Just my thoughts
edit on 8-7-2011 by dyllels because: Forgot to add my actual point



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Millions of tons of space dust, rocks, etc, fall on the earth yearly. While this may not add noticeable inches in our lifetime, it does so over millions of years. However I doubt it would significantly enlarge the girth of the planet.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 


I'm a fan of the theory but not entirely convinced of it/ everything you said.

I can definable see how it could work. And how the most dense parts of the earth fit together perfectly in full 3d on a smaller world. It simply makes sense given the evidence of stretch marks everywhere. The growing crystal idea is interesting, but I would maintain that the core is liquid metal rotating. Perhaps a crystal around that. Not sure if there's any crystal that is partly iron-based and grows. But that would be cool if true.

Nice thinking. S+F



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThisIsMyName
First things first I am no scientist, second thing I am no mathematician
Yes that's about the only part of your post I can agree with. However I would have thought you'd be a little better at simple math as an accountant.


Originally posted by dyllels

Originally posted by ThisIsMyName
 


4,500,000,000,000,000 cubic meters
4,500,000,000,000 cubic kilometers.



Hey man, I might be wrong (it's quite late over here and I've got tiredbrain), but isn't that conversion incorrect?

Cubic meters to Cubic kilometers is a factor of [1000]^3, not just a [1000].

Therefore 4,500,000,000,000,000 cubic meters = 4,500,000 cubic kilometers.
Is this correct?
That conversion is more accurate than the one by the guy who's not a mathematician. I'm better at math than ThisIsMyName and in fact most people.

Let's see about how much the Earth might have grown over the last billion years:

40 tons of material is added to the Earth daily. This is 36,287 kg
How much is this in 1 year? 36287 x 365 = 13,243,660 kg
How much is this in 1 billion years? = 13,243,660 x 1,000,000,000 = 13,243,660,000,000,000 kg = 1.324 x 10^16 kg

Mass of the Earth today = 5.9742 × 10^24kg
Mass of the Earth 1 billion years ago = (5.9742 × 10^24kg) - (1.324 x 10^16 kg) = 5.9742 × 10^24kg

Amount of change in the Earth's mass in 1 billion years = (1.324 x 10^16 kg) / (5.9742 × 10^24kg) = 2.2162 x 10^-9 which is 0.0000000022162 which is 0.00000022162 %

Now, how much does this change the size of the Earth? To keep the math simple let's assume a spherical shape for the Earth even though it's not a perfect sphere...it's pretty close to a sphere.

The volume of the Earth has increased by a fraction of 0.0000000022162 in a billion years (assuming density stays similar).

The volume of a spherical Earth is given by the formula: V = 4/3 x Pi x r^3

The current volume of the Earth is 1.08321 x 10^12 km

Solving for r, we get: r = ( (1.08321 x 10^12 km x 3/4)/Pi )^1/3 = 6371.0078384 km

Solving for the change over 1 billion years, we get an increased r of 6371.0078431187 km

Solving for the difference in radius over 1 billion years, we get:

6371.0078431187-6371.0078384 =4.71867^-6 km = 4.72mm = 0.18577 inch

So, in a billion years of collecting 40 tons of material a day on average, the Earth's radius has increased 4.72mm or less than 2 tenths of an inch.

This is an increase in circumference of about 15mm (0.583 inches).

And lets say these calculations don't account for a few things like the density of the debris not exactly matching the current density of the Earth, and a few larger asteroids impacting Earth. You're still talking about a growth in circumference of maybe 25mm or one inch, over a billion years. So if anyone claims the Earth has grown somewhere near that amount in the last billion years, I would agree with them.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by dyllels
 


lmao! as i said i am no mathematician. you are correct!

.6*4500,000,000,000 = 2,700,000 cubic kilometers

2.7million / 5100720000 = 0.000529 cubic kilometers of dust PER every kilometer of surface area ASSUMING 1000 tons per year with a total density of 1km cubed AND earth being 4.5billion years old. If you lay 529,000 cubic metres of dirt on 1000 metres squared of area (1 square kilometer) you get an increase in radius of 529 metres which in no way can really support expanding earth theory.

Any other theories to how the earth could grow that much? Hollow earth theory lmao?
edit on 8-7-2011 by ThisIsMyName because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThisIsMyName
lmao! as i said i am no mathematician. you are correct!

That means the Radius of the earth has expanded by roughly LESS THAN A METER
Nice to see you've redeemed yourself with that post!


You are now correct on both counts.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


lmfao double fail eh

i noticed it immediately and tried to edit it before anyone saw
teehee



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
I love this topic! Too bad the skeptics are so grouchy...

Earlier this year I saw a science article floating around the web suggesting that the earth's core may be a giant crystal....here's one story on it, google for more:

Crystal At the Center of the Earth

And for the grouchy skeptics, I suggest watching Phil Plait's video about being nice in in debates:

Phil Plait

Great topic, OP



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Oh, one more thing:

We don't know diddly about our universe, we are still learning as we go. Did you know the sun appears to be emitting a strange, new particle? Or that the half life of Carbon 14 is changing? Couldn't weird facts such as these affect what we understand about our planet? Here's an article about those two topics....maybe the strange particle interacts with the crystal at the center (see my last post)...

Is Sun Emitting New Particle?




posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
I really wish I could follow that math work, mathematics and I agreed a very long time ago that we just weren't compatible and went our separate ways.

However, all of what's been said in the last page in regards to the math is built on assumption after assumption, and we all know what happens when we assume.

The math is firstly assuming that the earth is solid. I remember hearing when I was a child, which means it may now be out of date, that if the earth were a balloon, we've not dug deep enough into it to burst it yet. That means, if it were a balloon, that we've dug down part way through the skin and assumed the rest is the same.

Only not even the skin is the same. Sure, there are solid parts, but there's also caverns, the earth looks more like a sponge than a solid block, with bigger and bigger caverns as we go down. Surely it's sensible to keep that in mind when speculating on what the rest of the planet may be like deeper down.

Pointing to unproven theories and scientific speculation and using them to argue against an idea is remarkably similar to those who point at some obscure verse in the Bible as proof that something can or cannot be. Wikipedia might be able to make you sound smart, but even it's not compiled by experts.

If we take a wider look at what's going on, the earth's surface is currently cracking, with earthquake after earthquake, and huge cracks forming in the skin of the earth, largely unreported or underplayed in the media. The magnetosphere is diminishing, and we have speculation of a large iron object headed this way, that's already apparently turned Pluto red (although Pluto may just be blushing from the embarressment of being demoted).

If we can all accept that the possibility exists that the universe may be a little more complex than just balls of rock and gas, and that perhaps there's maybe something going on in the 97% of everything that we can't even see, you'd realise that all of our knowledgable pontification about what can and cannot be is kindergarten explanations for things far beyond our ken.





 
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def