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 woogleuk
reply to post by bjarneorn
I am at work and do not have time to write down full explanations.
But, yes (according to main stream science), there was a big bang, and all that material flung out across the known universe. Now the gravity caused this gas (and dust) to fall into itself very tightly, which became very hot, voila, one sun. The left over gas and dust orbiting the newly formed sun all came together and created the planets we all know and love.
How you are getting creationism from what I am saying is beyond me.
Originally posted by sealing
reply to post by Section69
Brilliant video, Thanks for sharing. I think this subject
is going to be around for awhile. A lot of details come
together nicely . The ancient, faster spinning,smaller Earth
has large animals because of less gravity.
How would we know ? Last great measurements of Earth
were done arguably by the Egyptians in 2500 BC,
and fully accepted Earth measurements in 1840ish AD
by French mathemeticians.
I wonder how fast the sunrise and set when Earth was
at it's smallest with animal life. Think about how surreal
that would be to have the sun rise and set every say, 4 hours?
I know this Expanind Earth theory is an odd theory,
but it's really not that crazy.
Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by bjarneorn
What??? The Earth formed from material left over in the accretion disc orbiting the sun, after cooling down it was bombarded by comets which left water (as well as gases from volcanoes). As this cooled down and froze at the poles, it left a lot of land. Then the first single celled organisms (prokaryotes) sprang from some amino acids.
The Earth is not physically expanding
Originally posted by bjarneorn
reply to post by woogleuk
Unless you wanna go the creationist way, and say the sun spew the earth out ... I'll ask where the sun came from ... and we'll always end up with the same stupid anomalies, that somewhere there was a magnetic bubble that collected into an object ... and so began creation.
Originally posted by stillwind
Well, you seem to be well versed in the myth, but there isn't a scintilla of scientific evidence to support accretion theory. If it worked, we would not have an asteroid belt, and the outer planets would not have rings.
There is also no evidence that comets contain any appreciable amounts of water. In fact, all the recent expeditions to comets show hot dry rocks at the nucleus. No water or ice, other than what accumulates in the tail as it passes through the solar system.
There is also no evidence that life "sprang" from organic materials.
In short, you don't have a clue about real science, but you are obviously a good sheep.
Originally posted by rwfresh
Ohh the big bang. Hey where did the material that blew up in the big bang come from? Where was it? Where was the material that blew up into the universe?
Why is the big bang considered to be anything other than a fairy tale? It doesn't explain anything.
Originally posted by ZakOlongapo
...Earth is expanding! want proof? so, everybody know that animals, plants, insect atc. was in prehistoric time much larger... why? cos gravity was smaller! why? cos Earth was smaller planet that time and small object have small gravity ...
want more proof? ok. distance between (s,n)america and europe(africa) is every year a bit bigger... it is the same also between asia and (s,n) america... forget Pangaea theory, cos it not include gravity changes *
here is old but nice video...
www.youtube.com...
Originally posted by sealing
reply to post by rwfresh
Great proposal ! Everything in nature grows,
including the Sun, but not the Earth?
Ha! It's an amazing thing to contemplate!
Like I said, our memory, empirically, is only 12,000 years old.
So how would we know for sure what happens in the time scale
of the Earth. In other words to a dog everyday is like a week .
We live about 7 times longer. We live about 75 years,
& the Earth is over 4,500,000,000 years old.
It could be quite the dynamic Entity.
Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Wait, what? Did earth gain matter from then to now? If not, the gravity would have been higher!
Basically, the gravitational force follows 1/r², meaning that if you take the same mass and a smaller planet then the gravity on its surface will be higher.
Only in your mind, my friend..
Originally posted by bjarneorn
Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Wait, what? Did earth gain matter from then to now? If not, the gravity would have been higher!
Basically, the gravitational force follows 1/r², meaning that if you take the same mass and a smaller planet then the gravity on its surface will be higher.
Sorry, but that isn't true ... a totally unsound view of it ...
Not proven from your side
First of all, earth growin does not need added mass ... and neither does increasing gravity. Your just holding on to straws.
The sun is losing mass and energy, and is it does it will cool ... when cooling it will change ... and, it will enlarge to such a size, that it will engulf the earth. This, we know.
Inside the earth is plasma ... magma is magnetised plasma ... but in reality, the earth core is also plasma, because the earth itself is a huge plasma ball. If you buy a plasma ball in a toy store and watch it, you will see amazing similarities with the earths atmosphere ... hardly a coincidence.
True, as I said in my posting above.
But gravity is not just a function of mass, but also a function of radius ... meaning that the thicker the mantle ... the less the gravity
Sure? Any sources for this? As far as I understand vulcanism, there is indeed a magmatic volume below the caldera, stored in a bubble - which usually gets more filled until the internal pressure is high enough to break the barrage of solidified magma plugging the caldera. I don't see how such a small stream of matter should change gravity on a measurable scale.
... assuming a constant mass at the center. You can also watch this, through observing volcanic eruptions ... as these eruptions take place, there is an increase in gravity at that place, and a decrease when the magma leaves the chambers below.
The mantle getting thinner? Sources? Gravity is a function of masses and distances. If you have more mass in closer distance, you will experience a higher force pulling you towards that mass. But HOW is magma different from the mantles matter? It is and can only be molten stones and other materials, but there is no physical way we could get a cloud of plasma. Therefore there is no relevant difference in gravity, if or if not magma is replacing the mantles matter.
A very solid evidence, that gravity is a function of how close we are to the magma below ... so, gravity can change, without addition of mass ... with the mantle getting thinner ... which we very well know ... it has.
A point is a point, it has no size, mathematically spoken.
In your exampel of radius, you assume that all the mass is in a single point ... and this point stays the same size with increasing radius
... which of course, is a wrong approach. We are saying, that it is the center of the earth ... it's plasmatic core, and it's magnetized plasma ... that has increased in volume, and that it is the mantle ... that has thinned ... which means, that r has in reality, in your function ... decreased.
Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Not proven from your side
Originally posted by St Udio
your idea would fit with the old notion that the pre-flood sky was a dense canopy of water
and the oceans only came about after the rains fell big time & remained 99% in the sea floors and only 1% recycling into the sky or icesheets on a daily basis...