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.
Originally posted by lonegurkha
No I'm not saying that at all. These are both theories, and therefore automatically suspect. There is some fossil evidence for Pangaea.I have seen little evidence for the expanding earth, at least nothing I would describe as convincing.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
True. And we can say the bread expands due to the yeast.
This is what the expanding earth theory is missing...any credible evidence of the "yeast" or whatever made the Earth expand. Come up with that and the theory might have some credibility. Without such a mechanism, it has no credibility.
Volcanic eruptions arise through three main mechanisms:
Gas release under decompression causing magmatic eruptions.
Thermal contraction from chilling on contact with water causing phreatomagmatic eruptions.
Ejection of entrained particles during steam eruptions causing phreatic eruptions.[1]
Link to this?
Originally posted by bjarneorn
NASA has already stated, that the earth is growing the thickness of a hair, each year.
You mean accreted? Yes it's 40 tons a day, times 365 days a year, or 14600 tons a year, or about 1.3245x10^7kg a year. Sounds like a lot, but even over a billion years it adds up to 1.3245x10^16kg which isn't much compared to the Earth:
Do you have any idea, of how much matter is being accredited to the earth every year, if it is growing by the thickness of a hair?
What statement? By who?
Basically, it's a statement that in the beginning, the earth was smaller than Venus and has grown to this size. So, it's a proof of the earth growing ...
Originally posted by mardukiscoming
reply to post by superman2012
Earth has,over billions of years been pounded by asteroids and comets and meteors,all of which contain some moisture in the form of ice.It is from these cosmic travellers that all the water on Earth originated.
Originally posted by bjarneorn
Take a book, and put it on a table. Then take a thin paper, put it so it resides besides the book. Now, please explain, how you are going to have this paper, go under the book. It isn't just unlikely ... IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Please, be my guest ... use any lubricant you want.
And this meachinism, is the heart of your continental drift theory ... and you call this the product of scientific minds?
It's pure idiocy.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Link to this?
The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.
You mean accreted? Yes it's 40 tons a day, times 365 days a year, or 14600 tons a year, or about 1.3245x10^7kg a year. Sounds like a lot, but even over a billion years it adds up to 1.3245x10^16kg which isn't much compared to the Earth:
Earth mass today, approximate = 5.9722x10^24kg
less mass added over last billion years: 1.3245x10^16kg
Earth mass one billion years ago= 5.9721999868x10^24kg
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Your model here is flawed; and I’m not even going to touch your plasma theory…...
Take a block of wood (continental crust) and a piece of water proof paper (oceanic crust) both floating on water (Earth’s molten mantle). Now push them together. The paper will subduct beneath the wood every time…
Oceanic crust is the part of Earth's lithosphere that surfaces in the ocean basins. Oceanic crust is primarily composed of mafic rocks, or sima, which is rich in iron and magnesium. It is thinner than continental crust, or sial, generally less than 10 kilometers thick, however it is denser, having a mean density of about 2.9 grams per cubic centimeter.
The continental crust is typically from 30 km (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust.
Continental Crust: 2.7 to 3.0
Oceanic Crust: 3.0 to 3.3
Mantle (silicates): 3.3 to 5.7 (increasing with depth?)
Outer Core (liquid): 9.9 to 12.2
Inner Core (solid): 12.6 to 13.0
Originally posted by bjarneorn
The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.
All you've demonstrated is your ignorance of measurement uncertainty. You haven't demonstrated any change in the size of the Earth.
The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.
"Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.
Originally posted by AnonUK
I swear there were fossil's found that support this theory. Certain animals that could not of moved along the different land masses
Originally posted by SLAYER69
Well you're half right.
They both are theories.
Hopefully this thread will have an actively open minded discussion.
The video may state that, but is it true? First magma isn't a uniform substance of a uniform density. There are different magma compositions with different densities, but if you averaged them it would probably average a little over 3 while granite is a little under 3 g/cc, so it's more dense than granite but not twice as dense.
Originally posted by skalla
in the first vid it states that the earth's magma is twice the density of granite, on of our commonest and densest rocks.
No, it is NOT a theory in the scientific sense of the word, it is a hypothesis. A scientific theory has supporting evidence. There is actually evidence AGAINST expanding earth.
Originally posted by skalla
i recognise that this is a theory (and not commonly accepted)
While suggested historically, since the recognition of plate tectonics in the 1970s, scientific consensus has rejected any expansion or contraction of the Earth....
The theory had never developed a plausible and verifiable mechanism of action, but neither had any of its competing theories. By the late 1970s the theory of plate tectonics made all other theories obsolete following the discovery of subduction, which was found to be an important part of a mechanism of action.
Generally, the scientific community finds that there is no evidence in support of the Expanding Earth theory, and there is evidence against it:
Measurements with modern high-precision geodetic techniques show that the Earth is not currently increasing in size to within a measurement accuracy of 0.2 mm per year.[14] The lead author of the study stated "Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties".[15] The motions of tectonic plates and subduction zones measured by a large range of geological, geodetic and geophysical techniques supports plate tectonics.[16][17][18]
Mass accretion on a scale required to change the Earth's radius is contradicted by the current accretion rate of the Earth, and by the Earth's average internal temperature: any accretion releases a lot of energy, which would warm the planet's interior.
Expanding Earth models based on thermal expansion contradict most modern principles from rheology, and fail to provide an acceptable explanation for the proposed melting and phase transitions.
Paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius.[19][20]
Examinations of data from the Paleozoic and Earth's moment of inertia suggest that there has been no significant change of earth's radius in the last 620 million years.