|
| Thread: Is the Earth expanding? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted June 25, 2008 07:36 PM |
|
|
Is the Earth expanding?
YouTube Video
This goes in more detail but is very long so you'll need some free time dedicated for it.
Neal Adams is the 'author' of these (you can check out his webpage); please this is not for flaming him or bashing prematurely because he's "OMG he's not a scientist!", take your time to think for yourself without bashing it away because it doesn't fit with your current views/beliefs (do it the same as you would any video from e.g NASA which some have been disputed btw).
It is a theory (I don't know if there's any 'evidence' but I might be wrong), but it isn't contradicted so it's a 'valid' one (also it explains how the dinosaurs would otherwise break their necks at their speed & size, but with a smaller gravity, they did not).
I'll admit: I haven't been interested deeply into it, I'm just presenting it here in case you did not hear about it -- it's unlikely I will answer your questions because I may not even know what you're talking about.
I'm not expecting this thread to turn into a bashing thread please 
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 08:10 PM |
|
|
As a Geologist / Geophycist, I have to point to the fact that there is in fact solid evidence that subduction takes place, something he discredits in the first sentence without offering ANY explanation (there is no subduction, he states as a fact). There is solid albeit indirect evidence that subduction has taken place during the last 3 bilion years (that's 66 % of Earth's lifespan) and siginificant and growing indirect evidence that this might have been the place since 3.8 bilion years (85 % of Earth's life span). In fact, there are indications that this might have taken place even before 4 bilion years ago.
Erosion is not an insignificant proces, as this guy claims. Let's take an example: Let's imagine the tops of the Himalayas. Now these are mountains and all, and pretty solid, but let's imagine that on average, 1 mm is removed each year. This is not a lot - maybe nothing is removed this year, but then in 10 years time, a peble of 1 cm is broken from the top. Hardly difficult to imagine, as it's probably pretty damn windy and cold up there, and freesing water in cracks is an incredible powerful defenerator (fact). Now let's consider this mountain over a period of 1 milion years: If 1 mm is removed each year on average, that corresponds to, over the duration of 1 milion years: 1 km (!) of material. Since the current relief of Earth's surface is about 10 km's (+/- a kilometer), and Earth has excisted for about 4500 million years ... that means the Himalayas could have been eroded to the ground quite a number of times (about 450 times, if we take the 10 km's at face value). Insignificant?
Finally, all the evidence he points to (continents matching form, trees similar in Alaska and Asia) is perfectly explained through current plate tectonic theories. And his final proves how faulty his logic is: Stating that Earth is unique is not at all the same as saying that Earth is the centre of the universe (as the ancient cultures said, bla bla).
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 08:13 PM |
|
|
Thanks for your input 
what about the dinosaurs? With their bone structure as we know them (from fossils, etc) some wouldn't even be able to walk at all, or stand up -- the T-Rex for example is a dinosaur which is designed for speed (from it's structure), but would be slow as an elephant with current gravity.
I don't know much about erosion to be frank so you maybe have a point
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 08:17 PM |
|
|
I'm not a Paleonthologist, I have only had invertebral paleonthology (which means animals without a backspine), so I'm not qualified to speak in this area.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 08:24 PM |
|
|
|
If you do have anything else interesting please post
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 08:31 PM |
|
|
Must admit I didn't go into detail with the whole thing. I could write a whole novel about the subduction thing (in fact, I already did, I made my master thesis by analyzing 3.8 bilion old rocks from Greenland for this very thing: Whether they showed signs of active subduction at that time) - however, that would probably bore you to death (duh!). However, I might look into this later, and try to address some of the things a bit more systematically.
Also, there is one thing I didn't hear him talk about from what I saw: If Earth expanded from something like 50 % radius (wasn't that the amount suggested?), that would correspond to an 8 (!) time volume growth. Does he talk about where all this material suddenly came from, and how it came from OUTSIDE and ended up INSIDE Earth?
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 08:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Does he talk about where all this material suddenly came from, and how it came from OUTSIDE and ended up INSIDE Earth?
As far as I could tell, he says that the extra growth comes from the core of the Earth (like a 'white hole'). Of course it also comes from particles from outer space -- but anyway the idea is that it is a slow process.
I could be wrong though
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 09:34 PM |
|
|
Why is the landmass of the continents not growing, but remain the same?
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 09:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why is the landmass of the continents not growing, but remain the same?
I don't think I understand, but if I did, it's because water is also 'created' so to speak from the core, so it's like filling a tank of 'floating' materials with water.
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 09:56 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 22:00, 25 Jun 2008.
|
A bit about the dinosaurs:
As long as my little knowledge of paleontology is concerned, dinos' bones were sufficiently strong to let them stand and walk and run, and many paleontologists argument that dinos are often believed to be more massive than they actually were.
There are paleobiologists who claim that t-rex could sprint at 45 km/h, with its biology and 6 t mass.
As for t-rex running, watch some elepants on documentaries from time to time. They are capable of running 30+ km/h. For hours.
Well this guy's theory is un-science for me, and, as Alcibiades pointed out, is disproven without much effort, and too much doubt.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 09:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A bit about the dinosaurs:
As long as my little knowledge of paleontology is concerned, dinos' bones were sufficiently strong to let them stand and walk and run, and many paleontologists argument that dinos are often believed to be more massive than they actually were.
There are paleobiologists who claim that t-rex could sprint at 45 km/h, with its biology and 6 t mass.
As for t-rex running, watch some elepants on documentaries from time to time. They are capable of running 30+ km/h. For hours.
But elephants don't have necks like a T-Rex
But of course the Earth could also expand solely from outer space (asteroids, comets, etc)
Quote:
1. mass of Earth is constant thorough the process
which means that the gravity at the surface is decreasing, therefore dino argument is absurduous
mass is not constant (that's what I understood from that guy), he says matter is created from the core.
but then again, said matter could also come from outer space! 
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 10:11 PM |
|
|
This article is so full of bull**** I cannot believe it. I'm completely stunned. Completely. Not only is it wrong, illogical, and full of faulty arguments, it might potentially cause significant damage in the common people's regard of the scientific community, and that's based on what can only be descriped as plain lies!
I went through the video, and here's a quick rundown of some highlights. Numbers refer to approximate timing in YouTube video this one.
0.15 "Going backwards in time in disciplined manner"
What does this mean? This is an empty sentence to establish his own credibility.
0.20 "Please notice there is no subduction, no rotation of plates etc."
This is a statement offered without proof or even argument!
0.45 "Yes there been some erosion, landslides, bla. bla., but overall, this activity has been insignificant.
Another statement offered without proof. I refer to my example in my post above.
0.50 "There is a kind of conspiracy of silence"
Sounds like direct paranoia. If this guy is really serious, he needs mental help. What's worse is, the choice of words is very clover, it causes unconcious disbelief in scientists in viewer.
1.20 - 2.20 Discussion of moving continents.
This is not contrary to current theories, in fact, it is explained perfectly by current models! That's one of the most convincing parts of the Plate Tectonic theory: It explains why the continents move apart and the continents, that were obviously once joined, are now split! Duh!
2.45 "The Pacific spread is impossible to visualize because it's so big"
Wrong, false statement. Pacific is surrounded by multiple spreading ridges, no problems with model. Also, these ridges have higher rates of spreading, which is proven through satelites measurements.
3.20 - 4.20 Discussion of ages of seafloor and concludes that earth grew.
Faulty argument. The fact that seafloor has low survival time - and hence does not come off as older than 70 milion years (I think this number is incorrect btw, think oldest seafloor dates back to jurassic time, i.e. ~ 200 milion years, but doesn't really change the argument) - the fact that seafloor is young and constantly created does not prove that earth grew. Quite on the contrary, the current theory holds a physically viable explanation for this (= subduction) and does not require some marvelous physical phenomena like those descriped below.
5.00 - 5.20 Discussion of why subduction is "a totally scientifically unsound idea".
Here, he lists a number of facts that are PLAIN WRONG. It is true, that the mantle is denser than granite - and close if not quite true that COLD mantly is twice as dense as granite. However, here's a clue: The mantly is not cold - the mantly is hot. Very hot, infact. As most of you probably know, when things heat up, they expand (think of baloons you fly in by heating up the air) and furthermore, when things expand, they gain LOWER DENSITY (hence: Baloon rises). Thus, the mantle rocks are hot and have lower density.
Furthermore: Ocean floor is NOT granite, ocean floor is basaltic, which is considerably denser than granite. And furthermore, when oceanfloor is >50 milion years old, it's COLD. And cold means dense, i.e. heavy. Thus: Subduction is perfectly logical within the frames of common physics.
Btw. to answer Minions question: Continents ARE granitic, i.e. much lighter than ocean floor. In perfect correspondance with observations, calculations show that basalts are dense enough to sink into the mantle (hence: Ocean floor is subducted) while granites are too light (hence: Continents are not subducted and survive).
5.30
Same faulty logic is previously. By repeating himself, he establishes a false base of credibility. Simple oratoric trick.
5.40 "Would change the whole of science, from the largest particle etc."
I can't quite make up with myself if he's overdramatizing things, here, to make the conspiracy theory more plausable, or whether this is in fact truth. If the latter is the case, however, I'd like to refer to the concept known as Occard's Razor, which goes something alike the lines of: It's vain to accept a complicated theory as truth, when there is a simpler one that meets the observations. This far, he has not listed a single fact which is not explained by common plate tectonics, and this would not require the marvelous multiplication of Earth's total mass!
6.20 Discussion of "direction rifts"
Again, this is perfectly in harmony with plate tectonics. Furthermore, plate tectonics also accounts for the bends and transversal faults, something which would not be required if the expanding earth theory was true. In fact, expanding earth would require UNPARALLEL lines, as two points move away from each other on an expanding surface - just consider dots on a baloon you inflate. However, this is not what we see.
7.00 - 8.00 Discussion of moving continents.
This part actually indicates that the guy has not really understood what the whole theory of plate tectonics is about. He sounds like the continents are moving around ACROSS the plates. That's not the theory at all. The plates are solid, i.e. continents are located fixed corresponding to surrounding ocean parts. However, along the ridges, spreading AND subduction happens, which causes relative movement of the plates (and hence: continents) according to each other and the underlying mantly.
We have solid evidence of this movement in Hot Spots - i.e. hot areas in mantly where magma rises. When plates move across these spots, a serie of volcanoes are created, something most evident in the Hawaiian area: Underneath the sea is a perfect string of now submerged volcanoes, created as the plate moves over the hot area, which is fixed in the mantle. We even see a bend in the line where the movement of the plate was changed.
8.20 "Trees in North Amerika and Asia are same."
Again (I'm growing tired of this) plate techtonics also had the continents being together. This is nothing new. We see continuate strata (i.e. soil layers) in South America and Africa. The ancient rocks in Norway and Scotland are the same as those in Eastern America. This is old news: The Atlantic was once not there, before spreading startet. However, that does not mean Earth expanded!
9.10 Draws analogy from Earth to Mars: It was so on Earth, "Therefore, the same must, MUST be true on Mars".
No. This argument is completely faulty, the logic is plain wrong. Just because it was on Earth, it DID NOT have to be like that on Mars. Mars was created in a different area of the solar system, Mars had other physical conditions, Mars is smaller - these things simply do not compare at all. The difference is in complete agreement with common physics.
9.50 "We can say like the ancients said: That the Earth is unique, is the centre of the Universe, and the Sun rotates around the Earth."
This is simple twisting of truth. Just because we say A, and they said A, doesn't mean we have to say B and C as well if they did. These things are completely unrelated.
Minion: See answer to your question in point labeled at 5.00
One more thing: A number of the things he discredits are scientifically proven through solid facts. He writes off subduction (i.e. plates sink back into Earth's interior) but we have in many years been able to do Tomography - something similar to large scale ultrasonic imaging - where we can actually SEE the plates in the mantly - not only in the top, but we can even follow their movement into the lower mantle. This is not some bogus someone has made up to misdirect the masses from the truth.
I need to adress the marvelous growth in Earth's volume. I've done a very crude calculation, and to achieve a growth from 30 % of today's surface area (= the continent area) to today's area, we need something which is in order of 8 times volume growth. 8 times. Where did this come from? A "white hole"? So, this guy invents a marvelous new mechanism to CREATE MATTER, something which renders ALL CURRENT PHYSICS OBSOLETE - and he does this, to overrule a theory WITHOUT PRESENTING A SINGLE FACT WHICH IS NOT EXPLAINED BY THAT VERY THEORY.
I must admit I'm quite shocked by this. The problem is, the guy is clever, he has his way with words. It does sound convincing. If I knew nothing about these things, I would believe him. The graphics are all very well made. But this is manipulation, I'm not afraid to use that words. Problem is, if he has success to manipulate the masses, they will loose their faith in the scientist - without any form of solid reason why (that I've seen yet). Maybe I've only seen the 10 minute excerpt, but please, if there IS evidence, why didn't he bring ANY up in this video? Potentially, this could push back scientific development in some parts of the world a lot, which is catastrophic from my point of view.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 10:26 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:27, 25 Jun 2008.
|
Wow alc you really are good 
Just a quick note:
Quote:
Here, he lists a number of facts that are PLAIN WRONG. It is true, that the mantle is denser than granite - and close if not quite true that COLD mantly is twice as dense as granite. However, here's a clue: The mantly is not cold - the mantly is hot. Very hot, infact. As most of you probably know, when things heat up, they expand (think of baloons you fly in by heating up the air) and furthermore, when things expand, they gain LOWER DENSITY (hence: Baloon rises).
If the balloon would expand and also 'create' matter (or teleport matter) that means the density would be the same, but more mass (due to the fact that it has expanded). Isn't this possible, I mean, in his theory with the white holes.
Quote:
So, this guy invents a marvelous new mechanism to CREATE MATTER, something which renders ALL CURRENT PHYSICS OBSOLETE - and he does this, to overrule a theory WITHOUT PRESENTING A SINGLE FACT WHICH IS NOT EXPLAINED BY THAT VERY THEORY.
I don't know if it renders all of them obsolete. I mean, so what if it's a 'white hole' in the center of the Earth? Does that mean that most what we know is obsolete? It's like discovering a new type of 'celestial' like e.g: when Black Holes were discovered.
Though I must admit you're pretty good alc. I'm not trying to defend the guy, I'm only pointing out some stuff that would be interesting for me -- or is it impossible?
EDIT: what do you think of the Pangĉa theory?
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 10:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If the balloon would expand and also 'create' matter (or teleport matter) that means the density would be the same, but more mass (due to the fact that it has expanded). Isn't this possible, I mean, in his theory with the white holes.
True, if the white hole theory is accepted, that would make the overall density constant (if the created matter had the same density at least). However, that would not change the fact that locally, density will be lighter when things are heated up. We know the composition of mantle rocks, and we know the physical conditions, and therefore, we know that subduction IS physically possible. And we can SEE that it happens.
Quote:
I don't know if it renders all of them obsolete. I mean, so what if it's a 'white hole' in the center of the Earth? Does that mean that most what we know is obsolete? It's like discovering a new type of 'celestial' like e.g: when Black Holes were discovered.
Physics has as one of the most fundamental principles that you don't create matter, just like you don't destroy it. Matter is energy, and energy is constant. Notice the difference here: Matter is not destroyed in Black Holes! In a black hole, the density becomes so big that not even light escapes. I can't really remember the full arguments for this, it's a bit vague, but it's something about the wave/particle duality of light I think. Anyway, point is, Black Holes don't destroy matter, they just cram a lot of matter into an awfully small place. Thus, they don't really go against the Energy Preservation principle.
However, these White Holes are something entirely different. Creating matter from nothing does in fact overthrow everything that's physics. Teleportation would be something different. We could have a wormhole ending up inside Earth. Wormholes, so far, are purely speculative, but not against the laws of classic or relativistic physics. However, I must admit I deem such a theory highly unlikely, and what's more important, I don't see any need of this theory to explain the observations we do in geology and geophysics about our Earth.
Quote:
EDIT: what do you think of the Pangĉa theory?
Pangea theory is pretty solid. We know from fact that these continents were linked. I don't see any reason why it should not have happened.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 10:56 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 22:58, 25 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
But elephants don't have necks like a T-Rex
Well I am no great expert but have you seen bones t-rex had in neck? Their construction allows more(and stronger) muscles being attached to them, supporting the neck, and big head. Mammals don't have such bones. Perhaps due to this mammals don't grow that big .
Alcibiades should give himself a Qpoint  .
And well, Pangaea theory fits so well with plate teconics that we could assume it to be a fact. But beware, before Pangaea was put together there were separate continents, like 600 mln years ago or so. So even before Pangaea plates did move .
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 11:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Physics has as one of the most fundamental principles that you don't create matter, just like you don't destroy it.
But it could be broken, and most of what we know are approximations anyway that will work.
Nothing to do with this guy's theory, but what if we eventually discovered some kind of object that creates matter? I mean, who knows.. (sure overcomplicating things with is not perhaps a good idea).
Quote:
Alcibiades should give himself a Qpoint .
Agreed
too bad mods can't get QPs
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 11:02 PM |
|
|
Yup, Pangea was just a stage, there was a before and an after. However, before Pangea, the continents as we know them now did not exists in that form, the borders were made when Pangea was split up, just lik the eastern part of Afrika has half split off, or Asia might crack up at some time (no signs of that happening, however). Some day, we might have new supercontinents - Africa is currently crashing into Europe, Mediteranean will soon be history, and then Europe, Asia and Africa are one continent.
Quote:
Alcibiades should give himself a Qpoint .
Thanx. Glad I didn't loose you completely in my rant.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 11:17 PM |
|
|
I already Know the earth is expanding slowly... It's scientific fact. The vegetation grows for one, but there are layers of sediment, debri, that grow more and more layers.
But there may be expansion OR implosion on a deeper level scientists cant prove. -inspired-
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 11:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I already Know the earth is expanding slowly... It's scientific fact. The vegetation grows for one, but there are layers of sediment, debri, that grow more and more layers.
The Earth really is expanding VERY SLOWLY due to outer space debris even without this guy's theory
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 11:26 PM |
|
|
Yes, it enters a segment of oxygen or gravity. When I get headphones for the library I will check out the youtube theory.
____________
What are you up to
|
| |
|
|
