|
| Thread: Is the Earth expanding? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
posted June 25, 2008 11:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Glad I didn't loose you completely in my rant.
You're welcome  . Maybe I'm weird, but your input was quite interesting to read. I even racall some of these from my geography classes in high school.
I just thought of one contrargument to this guy's theory. If Earth was gaining mass at the rate he is saying, why didn't our cute Luna fall onto the surface? The gravity pulling it would constantly increase.
But there are proofs that it is otherwise - Moon is slowly getting away from Earth.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 12:31 AM |
|
|
I find this ammusing: "Yes there been some erosion, landslides, bla. bla., but overall, this activity has been insignificant"
Lets look at Himalaya, 1mm per year(as somebody claims. I would say the amount decrease along with the height as logic is. Simply because there is more wind the higher you get, however the lower you get the force is decreasing.
If we where to follow the Himalaya teori, all land(or peaks) would go down 1mm each year. This does not happen........
The formula for the wearing out Himalaya does lack a few factors, currently it is based on X height(constante) with being worn out by Y amount per year(constant).
However Y depends on the amount of constante force, and that changes with the height and global anticipated weather.
Soo yeah, it does become insignificant.
PS: i am no dam scientist, just another student 
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 04:05 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 04:07, 26 Jun 2008.
|
Well the video is, to be honest, very silly. Anytime a "new theory" is based on the premise of a scientific conspiracy, that pretty much destroys any credibility is might have had as far as I'm concerned. We've already discussed Occam's Razor in the God thread, theDeath, and this falls firmly in the "violates it big time" category.
alcibiades already did a nice job debunking the whole thing, so I won't bother. Except for a few minor points:
Quote:
I must admit I'm quite shocked by this.
You shouldn't be. I've seen worse. This sort of scientific predatory charlatanism is borderline criminal.
Quote:
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.
Matter is not, as you say, destroyed in a black hole. It just becomes "inifinitely dense". The reason black holes become so dense is because the gravitational potential energy exceeds the energy barrier for violating the Pauli exclusion principle for subatomic particles. Consider for example a neutron star. In normal matter, a vast majority of the matter's "volume" is taken up by electrons that are flowing sort of like a cloud around each nucleus. To give you a scaled perspective, the traditional analogy is that if the nucleus of a hydrogen atom was a peae in the center of a football field, the closest electronic orbit would be about at the edge of the stadium. The width of the nucleus takes up only about 1/100,000 the width of the atom. And electronic clouds around other atomic nuclei are even larger. Anyway, the point is that a HUGE majority of the volume of an atom is taken up by electons and empty space, giving rise to the relatively low density of "normal" matter. As you compress matter into smaller and smaller spaces, a pressure ultimately developes because of quantum mechanical laws (Pauli exclusion principle) that forbid more than a certain amount of electrons from occupying orbits that are certain distances from the nuclei. This "electron degeneracy pressure" prevents supermassive objects (like old stars) from collapsing, unless they are so massive that gravity overwhelms this pressure. You can calculate what this critical mass is. In any case, stars more massive than this critical value have such large gravities that the electronic pressure can no longer hold off collapse, and the electrons essentially have enough potential energy to combine with protons to form neutrons. This of course causes the volume of matter to shrink enoromously (no more electron clouds), which is why neutron stars are so dense - basically, in normal matter, it's like having one pea in each of many adjacent empty football fields; in neutron star matter, all the peas are right next to each other. Further collapse of the neutron star is prevented by an analogous concept for neutrons, which have their own degeneracy pressure. Even higher gravities (more massive stars) will override this degeneracy pressure as well, causing further volume shrinkage (density increase) and so on until, in a black hole, the gravitational energy is so large than no particle degeneracy barrier can halt collapse. Hence: ultrahigh density. Well obviously that's sort of an easy way to look at it, but you get the idea.
Actually, black holes DO shrink - lose mass. But, they don't destroy matter. Matter radiates out of black holes (or at least, is theorized to) via Hawking radiation. But, I'm getting well beyond my field of expertise and the thread's topic. In short, the concept of a "white hole" in the center of our earth is ridiculous, especially if it's supposed to be some sort of "opposite" of a black hole. I can't believe anyone would take it seriously.
By the way, alcibiades, what is this "mantly" you keep talking about.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 07:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I find this ammusing: "Yes there been some erosion, landslides, bla. bla., but overall, this activity has been insignificant"
Lets look at Himalaya, 1mm per year(as somebody claims. I would say the amount decrease along with the height as logic is. Simply because there is more wind the higher you get, however the lower you get the force is decreasing.
If we where to follow the Himalaya teori, all land(or peaks) would go down 1mm each year. This does not happen........
The formula for the wearing out Himalaya does lack a few factors, currently it is based on X height(constante) with being worn out by Y amount per year(constant).
However Y depends on the amount of constante force, and that changes with the height and global anticipated weather.
Soo yeah, it does become insignificant.
PS: i am no dam scientist, just another student
I beg to disagree with you on this. While it is true that the simple 1 mm / year is obviously a simplification, trueth is things are eroded down extremely quickly. There are plenty of examples of this - just look at the Grand Canyon. Things are not eroded equally fast, however, lowlying flat areas are obviously not as prone to erosion as high relief areas like mountain ranges.
Also, the Himalayas have excisted for some 50 milion years. That does not mean there were origianlly 5 km's taller than now. The Himalayan range is constantly being lifted up through the Indian plate's movement up and under the Asian plate. At the same time, erosion is constantly wearing it down. For now, it's some sort of balance, and the Himalayan range obviously remain. With time, the Indian plate will probably slow down it's movement, as it becomes wedged onto the Asian plate, and rise will stop. At that time, erosion will start to dominate, and the Himalayans will be diminished until they're more or less level with the surroundings.
Obviously, at that time, now mountains will start being created in Europe, as the African plate crashes into southern Europe. That probably won't leave much of Spain, Italy and Greece.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 09:25 AM |
|
|
Beer causes erosion. Think about it. Take 6 billion people and put them on the Himalayas and give them all a case of beer. Now just imagine the erosion when 6 billion people all start peeing at the same time......bye bye Himalayas. HA, the Chinese knew what they were about when they named the Yellow River.
Of course we can't really put 6 billion people on the Himalayas. The people are all kind of spread out all over the place. But on average they also drink a lot more than a case of beer in their lifetime. OK, so some people don't drink beer (they probably drink that wimpy water stuff instead), so lets assume the average person drinks 2 L of beer per month. Now allowing for the well known fact that for every liter of beer consumed, 1-1/2 L of piss is generated, 6 billion people living an average of 70 years each generate (6*10^9) * (70*36) = 1.512*10^13 liters of beer piss.
That's a lot of beer piss and therefore a lot of erosion. Of course the beer companies don't want you to know about all this so they came up with something they call global warming to take the attention away from the real problem, global pissing. That's right, there's no such thing as global warming. It's a complete fabrication made up by the beer companies to protect their profits. They don't care about global pissing as long as they make money.
We all need to band together to
STOP GLOBAL PISSING!!!!!
STOP GLOBAL PISSING!!!!!
STOP GLOBAL PISSING!!!!!
____________
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted December 17, 2008 07:01 AM |
|
|
hehehehe
It's obvious then that we need to start recycling piss into beer, you know, to save the earth.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 17, 2008 07:39 AM |
|
|
|
About the dinosaurs. If I'm not completely wrong, it is supposed that Earth between 300.000.000 and 65.000.000 BC has been looking a lot different than now - in fact looking like it is supposed to look in a couple hundred or thousand years again, if global warming goes on like this. CO^2 percentage was higher, and things were quite swampy and hot-damp. The real biggies, the massive Brontos and so on, have supposedly been living in those swamps with the shallow water lowering the weight their bones had to carry.
|
| |
|
|
