It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Expanding earth theory confirmed by scientists?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
This I think its worth to know ,that Scientist have somehow confirmed that the earth expands. It could explain all the strange weather patterns we have today? But every month there some other scientific phenomenon that strokes with the weather and Vulcan's and climate change. So find out for your selfs if its something important to know about?


Like many of its inhabitants, the Earth is getting thicker around the middle -- that's what a new study out this week says. The increased bulge is due to the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.




Inside science




edit on 21/12/2010 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I love this video
www.youtube.com...
also if earth is expanding
what's in the middle (sarcasm)
One would think more water near the equator has huge effects north, south and at the equator with plate movement due to expansion.There's action throughout these regions up, down, left, right
Things have to eventually balance out through earthquakes, volcanoes erupting, weather/climate.... bla bla bla Could expando earth be the reason for so much activity lately?
me thinks YES !!!!
edit on 29-7-2011 by A por uvas because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2011 by A por uvas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I want them to wrap a tape measure around the earth.I dont believe it and call b.s.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by A por uvas
I love this video
www.youtube.com...
also if earth is expanding
what's in the middle
edit on 29-7-2011 by A por uvas because: (no reason given)



oompa loompas...lot's and lot's of oompa loompas




Seriously though...all the earth plates are floating on the surface of the planet.


The Earth's Crust, Lithosphere and Asthenosphere

Crust, the upper layer of the Earth, is not always the same. Crust under the oceans is only about 5 km thick while continental crust can be up to 65 km thick. Also, ocean crust is made of denser minerals than continental crust.

The tectonic plates are made up of Earth’s crust and the upper part of the mantle layer underneath. Together the crust and upper mantle are called the lithosphere and they extend about 80 km deep. The lithosphere is broken into giant plates that fit around the globe like puzzle pieces. These puzzle pieces move a little bit each year as they slide on top of a somewhat fluid part of the mantle called the asthenosphere. All this moving rock can cause earthquakes.

The asthenosphere is ductile and can be pushed and deformed like silly putty in response to the warmth of the Earth. These rocks actually flow, moving in response to the stresses placed upon them by the churning motions of the deep interior of the Earth. The flowing asthenosphere carries the lithosphere of the Earth, including the continents, on its back.
www.windows2universe.org...



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 0bserver1
 

Did you even read the story?

The tectonic theory and "expansion" are not even discussed!

The Earth is measuring wider at the equator as the oceans grow in volume due toi ice-melt, if the story is to be believed.

The Earth is NOT growing in volume or mass, the mass is being re-distributed from the poles to the center.

Can't anyone on ATS try to understand what is written elsewhere and what they post?

jw



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Well thats why I put out the question mark , That as if this message has some slight resemblance of the expanding earth theory? I know that if there's more ice , that there will be less water at the equator, But there are in contradistinction of messages that the ice is growing? So why say its the ice?



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone


Seriously though...all the earth plates are floating on the surface of the planet.



Really?! We are living on a sinking ship?

Tell me, what is holding all that jelly from just "blurting" into space? Gravity?! Gravity from what?

Thinking that we are living on floating plates is the dummest idea I've ever heard of. What on earth is holding the planet together ... a magic gravity? A magical iron ball, that just magically appeared in a plasma universe? Where did this magical iron ball come from ... did God create it, and put it there so it came into a ball ... and than just magically plasma started to magically draw on it, like a magnet in the universe and just magically turned into a magnetised plasma (magma), to turn on the electro magnetic field. Wow, this Merlin they call God, sure is a great magician.

Jesus Christ ... or maybe I should cry out "Holy Chaos!"

I see no difference between people bowing to the holy grail, the holy big bang, or the holy plate tectonics. DON'T THINK ... BELIEVE IN THE FORCE, LUKE... use the force.

*grin*



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0bserver1
reply to post by jdub297
 


Well thats why I put out the question mark , That as if this message has some slight resemblance of the expanding earth theory? I know that if there's more ice , that there will be less water at the equator, But there are in contradistinction of messages that the ice is growing? So why say its the ice?


I mean ... really?!?

What happens when water freezes? it increases in volume ... what happens when the ice in the north increases, it presses out the water ... to where?

You really think that water is being "spinned" out to the equator, like some baby in a merrigoround? Which is lighter, by volume ... ice or water? ice. So, why should the ice, stick to the poles ... but the water wont?

People are just looking for answers to a bigger earth, by saying its the water ... do you REALLY, I mean, do you REALLY think that is true?

THINK

Tell me, do you have measurements showing that water levels at your place are generally different than last year? No? I wonder why ...
edit on 3-8-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Hmm so you mean the story is BS and the ice doesn't melt on polar caps? makes sense....so both caps are growing and exceed in volume and make the earth fatter and elliptical in shape?



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Ice doesn't take up any more space in the oceans than it does as water. Sure, water expands when it freezes, but, as ice, that difference in volume is what sticks up out of the water as an iceberg. Water freezing doesn't push water anywhere.

The article is saying, plain and simply, that ice melting at the poles is migrating to the equator, causing an increase in the equatorial circumference. A minuscule increase, but an increase nonetheless.
edit on 3-8-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


First of all, the ice at the poles is not merely frozen sea water. It is accumulated "snow" formation over thousands of years. The weight of the ice is thus more then merely the water, that originally was at that particular icecap and presses the water out.

Secondly, the moon-earth system, is not at the equator. And the moon is "tucking" at the water, with such force that it is causing tides.

Thirdly, there are no increasing water levels, to account for the "bulging" of water at the equator that alters the shape of the earth. We would be talking about several hundred meters in water level to account for it.


As I said, this explanation is simply to avoid talking about a growing earth ...



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
reply to post by CLPrime
 


First of all, the ice at the poles is not merely frozen sea water. It is accumulated "snow" formation over thousands of years. The weight of the ice is thus more then merely the water, that originally was at that particular icecap and presses the water out.


It doesn't matter, because this has nothing to do with the article. The ice (or, as you specified, compacted snow) at the poles is melting. This is adding to the volume of water in the oceans. Due to centripetal force, then, that added water causes a net migration of the oceans to the equator. This increases the measured "bulge" at the equator.



Secondly, the moon-earth system, is not at the equator. And the moon is "tucking" at the water, with such force that it is causing tides.


I do understand how tides work, but I fail to see the relevance.



Thirdly, there are no increasing water levels, to account for the "bulging" of water at the equator that alters the shape of the earth. We would be talking about several hundred meters in water level to account for it.


The increasing water levels is from the melting of ice at the poles - as per the scientists' claim.
As for the specifics of the increase in the "bulge" - the actual published article (linked in the InsideScience article) cites a measured change in Earth's oblateness of 3.7*10^-11 per year. In real units, that's an annual increase of about a quarter of a millimeter (one sixteenth of an inch). Hardly several hundred meters.



As I said, this explanation is simply to avoid talking about a growing earth ...


And, as I'm saying now... no, it's not.
edit on 3-8-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

I do understand how tides work, but I fail to see the relevance.



Really? What is it about tides, you understand?




The increasing water levels is from the melting of ice at the poles - as per the scientists' claim.
As for the specifics of the increase in the "bulge" - the actual published article (linked in the InsideScience article) cites a measured change in Earth's oblateness of 3.7*10^-11 per year. In real units, that's an annual increase of about a quarter of a millimeter (one sixteenth of an inch). Hardly several hundred meters.


Are you deaf? or just can't read?

THERE ARE NO INCREASING WATER LEVELS, that can account for a change in the shape of the earth.

Holy Chaos!

The polar icecaps melt, but the water levels are not increasing ... you explained why, yourself. The amount of melting water, is equivalent to the volume of melting ice.

Where were you during your physics lessons?

This doesn't account for the changing of shape of the earth ... for this to account for the shape of the earth, the past 50 or less years, since the measurments were done. Hong Kong should be unter sea level by now ... not to talk about amsterdam. The increasing sea level you are talking about, is for the past hundred of thousands of years... the change in shape of the earth, is during our lifetime.

Years ago, the earth was elongated like an egg BECAUSE the earth was spinning. Now, it's suddenly NOT elongated, BECAUSE the earth is spinning.

The article is partly counting for the change in shape during our lifetime. Partly, explaining why the earths shape does not look like the gravity formation of the earth. If the core of the earth was an iron ball ... the earth should basically look like it's gravity dictates.

The explanation is BS, more or less (not entirely though) ... just like plate tectonics, the god element, and big bang.

Get used to living in a universe of Chaos, with no God (or Merlin) and where all the stars and planets have their origin in plasma. And that origin, is to be found at the core.
edit on 4-8-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
You know what I'm not even near the mathematical numbers you guys talking about. So for me at the end is just another story that will be forgotten and finally trashed to a ball , unfold,rewritten by numerous other scientists,and in the end engineered to totally other conclusion. there's one word for it MF ....



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


You use the word "chaos" a lot...which seems adequate, given your chaotic responses. I'd find it easier to talk to you if you'd calm down a little.

What I know about the tides doesn't matter. What matters is their relevance to this conversation, which you seem reluctant to explain.

Also...as for me not reading my physics books. There are people here who would laugh at the idiocy of that statement. I've probably read more physics books in the past 2 months than you've seen in your entire lifetime. When you can talk to me without flipping out, then I will listen to what you have to say. Until then....
edit on 4-8-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2

log in

join