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 Amagnon
The matter I was discussing is formed as a plasma, - and may or may not end up in any particular state. The point was to demonstrate the impossibility of trying to determine a radius for the earth at a particular time when the state of matter, and its distribution across various states is unknown.
The simple answer is the universe cheats - it borrows the necessary energy from the future to create the particles now.
So an object with a fixed period that was increasing in mass would have an increasing orbital radius and the direct relationship between mass and velocity tends to diminish the total increase necessary.
Originally posted by Amagnon
Can you point to a magnetic field that would indicate a live singularity on Mars or the Moon?
As to the circumference and diameter - the calculations are complex, and the data required doesn't exist in most cases - the obviousness of this is not lost on you, however you want this to be a reason to cling to a failed model - I have no interest in changing your mind.
Originally posted by Byrd
Originally posted by Amagnon
Yes, the world was far smaller - when the land masses were aligned like this there were basically no oceans.
The presence of fossils of clams, fish, jellyfish, and more oceanic lifeforms from that time period and before disputes your claim.
Perhaps in some years from now someone will actually engage their brain and realize that the earth is in fact expanding.
The "expanding earth" idea was the creation of an artist (I know him slightly) who doesn't know beans about geology, but has a very ... strong ... belief that he can look at things and explain them by the power of his own brain. Having studied these matters (instead of believing I can answer everything by looking at them) I think that his own opinion of his own abilities is quite overrated.
Looking at the rock layers on the continents (and what relates to what) is very interesting.
Originally posted by Hanslune
Interesting Byrd I thought the expanding earth was a creationist attempt to explain (besides magic) why there was enough water to flood the planet....
Originally posted by Byrd
Originally posted by Hanslune
Interesting Byrd I thought the expanding earth was a creationist attempt to explain (besides magic) why there was enough water to flood the planet....
Nope.
It's by Neal Adams. While he's a fabulous artist, his understanding of other subjects is not on the same level as your understanding or mine. However, it's grapically presented so people don't notice the inherent problems in the concept. en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by Byrd
Originally posted by Amagnon
Yes, the world was far smaller - when the land masses were aligned like this there were basically no oceans.
The presence of fossils of clams, fish, jellyfish, and more oceanic lifeforms from that time period and before disputes your claim.
Perhaps in some years from now someone will actually engage their brain and realize that the earth is in fact expanding.
The "expanding earth" idea was the creation of an artist (I know him slightly) who doesn't know beans about geology, but has a very ... strong ... belief that he can look at things and explain them by the power of his own brain. Having studied these matters (instead of believing I can answer everything by looking at them) I think that his own opinion of his own abilities is quite overrated.
Looking at the rock layers on the continents (and what relates to what) is very interesting.
Originally posted by Hanslune
Originally posted by Amagnon
Can you point to a magnetic field that would indicate a live singularity on Mars or the Moon?
Since there is no evidence of one on earth that would be pointless wouldn't it?
Really complicated or simply never done by you? Since your idea doesn't solve problems and cannot be expressed in maths - why should we believe it?
How have you proved that the traditional explanation is incorrect? Again I ask PRP or MTU?
How do you explain Ophiolites in your theory?
How do you explain the age of rocks that make up the ocean bottoms most date to around 200 million years and no older (there are a few places were remants exist that go back 3.8 billion.
Also how do you explain the relationship between the measured flips in the poles recorded in the rocks of the ocean bottom also point to the dates I mentioned
One last question how old do you think the earth is?edit on 4/6/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Byrd
Originally posted by Amagnon
The matter I was discussing is formed as a plasma, - and may or may not end up in any particular state. The point was to demonstrate the impossibility of trying to determine a radius for the earth at a particular time when the state of matter, and its distribution across various states is unknown.
This is quite true during the formation of the planet from the initial accretion disk and during times when the Earth was unstable. However, it's been in a solid state for over 4 billion years.
And analysis of the Moon's rocks show that the Moon was created from the Earth's mantle (by something large hitting the Earth.)
The simple answer is the universe cheats - it borrows the necessary energy from the future to create the particles now.
Given that things are entropic, this does not follow.
So an object with a fixed period that was increasing in mass would have an increasing orbital radius and the
direct relationship between mass and velocity tends to diminish the total increase necessary.
Originally posted by Amagnon
Ive heard of the theory and guy you are talking about, but Im working on high amplitude particles and .. well other stuff.
Im not any expert on paleontology and its not really part of my thesis.
I do however have a question, can you explain the fossil evidence in terms of it not aligning with an expanding earth? When we look at the age of the rocks we see that rocks get younger as they approach mid oceanic ridges.
pansion theory is that lava comes from out of the oceans where the crust is thin, it freezes, then does the same thing again - jacking the crust apart. If you have a look at the patterns of ridges it certainly appears that its a valid way of looking at it.
Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Amagnon
You have the mechanism approximately correct but are not taking into account the subduction.
I noticed you continue to ignored my questions, I believe you are doing that because you simply have no answer to them. Which rather undermines you pretensions to having a new 'theory'.
Originally posted by Amagnon
As I mentioned before, I dont think 'continental plates' are sliding under each other - there seems to be plenty of explanation for rock layers getting compressed and moving in relation to each other without the whole crust of the earth sliding over itself. The continents seem to be fairly stable and quite old in comparison to ocean floors, if material is being crushed downwards - it seems most likely to very localized phenomenon - mainly along the edges of the thicker continents - due to flexing, not floating over solid rock.
Originally posted by Alda1981
I mean... every living thing grows... why wouldn't the Earth?