Sly
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Johnson City, TN
clubs:
 ·Packet8
·Callcentric
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to haamster
Re: [video] Expanding Earth Theory
said by haamster  :Plus, in order to support this claim, the proponents say the earth is not only gaining volume, but mass. Do they? Where did you read that people believe the Earth is gaining mass? Volume? Possibly. Mass? No.
--
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
- Plato -
|
|
DataDoc
My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC
·Suddenlink
| said by Sly :said by haamster :Plus, in order to support this claim, the proponents say the earth is not only gaining volume, but mass. Do they? Where did you read that people believe the Earth is gaining mass? Volume? Possibly. Mass? No. Yes, they do:
»www.expanding-earth.org/page_10.htm
This site has a pretty complete description of the theory.
--
That Snows the Goat & Craig's Crafts |
|
benm3218
join:2005-12-16
USA
| reply to DataDoc
Okay, so please don't turn thi sinto a belief bashing... because i want this thread to stay open. BUT.... If the globally recognized account of a catastrophic flood is true, then this could account for the expanded earth and all the water. The bible says that there was a water canopy above the earth and that it all came crashing down and flooded the earth. couldnt a flood of that magnitude have initiated continental drift and explain the extra water, and account for more mass and a larger planet? I am not asking if you believe the bible! Lets don't go there, just asking if the theory of a global catastrophic flood could help to explain it? |
|
dolphins
Miami Dolphins
Premium
join:2001-08-22
Westville, NJ
·Comcast
| reply to haamster
said by haamster :How is this the simplest solution? Where is all this volume that the earth is gaining come from? And the oceans? And if all land is expanding, why are there mountains? Plus, in order to support this claim, the proponents say the earth is not only gaining volume, but mass. And not only is it gaining mass, but it is creating it out of nothing. From the inside (since it's causing the plates to spread out). At the rate of 3,108 cubic miles a year. Ok, we already discussed where the water came from so lets move on to where the mass is coming from. The earth does create mass from nothing through photosynthesis. Plants, animals, people accumulate mass, yet come from nothing. Magma secretions, meteors, space dust all create mass. As for the rate and volume at which these things happen, I have no idea.
--
Prevent Malware |
|
Sly
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Johnson City, TN
clubs:
·Packet8
·Callcentric
·Comcast Formerly ..
| I'm not too sure about that. Volcanic eruptions are not "mass being created". Instead they are mass being re-distributed. The mass was already there but instead of being within the Earth, it is on the outside of it. The system does not gain any more matter... it only redistributes what it already has. People gain mass but they consume food which reduces mass. Again, it's just a redistribution. Plants grow due to photosynthesis but the energy they get from the sun is just that... energy. It is the mineral content and water they absorb which make up the structure of the plant. The energy from the sun does not make any more matter... it just redistributes it from the ground to the plant. Once the plant dies, the matter goes back to the ground and so the net mass of the system does not change.
I can not see how the Earth would be gaining mass. Volume, yes. Mass? I don't see it. It is easy to see that the volume of an object can change. All you have to do is decrease the density. Same mass, bigger volume= lower density. Erupted magma has a lower density than does it's liquid counterpart. Therefore I would expect the size to increase due to an eruption. Pumice rock is a good example of a low density, yet large object. However if you compress that matter down to granite, you still end up with the same mass; just in a smaller size.
I am open to ideas about how the Earth could be gaining mass, but I personally don't think that is happening on any significant scale (accounting for small amounts of space dust that get caught in the atmosphere).
--
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
- Plato -
|
|
BodyBumper
join:2004-06-21
Beverly Hills, CA
| reply to benm3218
said by benm3218 :Okay, so please don't turn thi sinto a belief bashing... because i want this thread to stay open. Take that beliefs! *smash* *smash* *smash* *smack* *punch* |
|
Concept81
Premium
join:2003-10-11
Cleveland, OH
·Cox HSI
| reply to Sly
said by Sly :I personally don't think that is happening on any significant scale (accounting for small amounts of space dust that get caught in the atmosphere). Page 10 link from above. |
|
dolphins
Miami Dolphins
Premium
join:2001-08-22
Westville, NJ
·Comcast
| reply to Sly
said by Sly :I'm not too sure about that. Volcanic eruptions are not "mass being created". Instead they are mass being re-distributed. The mass was already there but instead of being within the Earth, it is on the outside of it. The system does not gain any more matter... it only redistributes what it already has. If that's true, then what fills the void where the magma has been displaced?
said by user=Sly :
People gain mass but they consume food which reduces mass. Again, it's just a redistribution. Plants grow due to photosynthesis but the energy they get from the sun is just that... energy. It is the mineral content and water they absorb which make up the structure of the plant. The energy from the sun does not make any more matter... it just redistributes it from the ground to the plant. Once the plant dies, the matter goes back to the ground and so the net mass of the system does not change. Yes, when all these things go back into the ground, they are creating layers of matter which has mass.
--
Prevent Malware |
|
haamster
Premium
join:2002-12-02
Monroe Township, NJ
| reply to dolphins
said by dolphins :Ok, we already discussed where the water came from so lets move on to where the mass is coming from. The earth does create mass from nothing through photosynthesis. Plants, animals, people accumulate mass, yet come from nothing. Magma secretions, meteors, space dust all create mass. As for the rate and volume at which these things happen, I have no idea. Magma secretions do not create mass. The mass was already in the earth and is now leaking to the surface.
Meteors and dust fall on the surface and would not cause the earth to balloon from the inside out causing the plates to shift. If there was enough stuff coming from space to double the diameter of the earth in 200 million years, it would just have buried everything almost 2,000 miles deep of meteors and dust. And geology shows that that didn't happen.
Photosynthesis does not create mass from nothing. It doesn't create mass at all:
6 CO2(gas) + 12 H2O(liquid) + photons → C6H12O6(aqueous) + 6 O2(gas) + 6 H2O(liquid)
All the light does is provide energy to do the work of turning CO2 and water into glucose and oxygen. You are left with the same mass that you started with.
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say animals and plants and people create mass from nothing. That's absurd.
And I don't think it's a matter of where the water for the oceans came from, but when.
The question that I have specifically pertaining to this half-assed theory is if 200 million years ago all we had were shallow seas, and this earth expansion explains how the shallow seas became the vast oceans, then the water must have arrived between then and now, or else the Earth would have been covered with 8 mile deep oceans. Where is the geological evidence of the water's sudden arrival? 200 million years is a blink of an eye in geological terms. The Earth already had complex life roaming on the surface. Certainly it could not have been easy to hide 326 million cubic miles of water, especially in an earth that A) already had massive dinosaurs (and thus could not have had stronger gravity than today), b) was supposedly half the diameter of the current planet, and c) shows no cataclysmic event such as "the great water pitcher in the sky" in the geological record to support the ocean's sudden arrival. In fact the evidence points to the oceans being formed over 3 and a half billion years ago from the escaping gasses of the earth as it cooled from its original molten state over the course of a billion years.
Thus if the earth was this small 200 million years ago, those dinosaurs must have been good swimmers. The Earth truly would have been a water world with the floor of this one big earth covering ocean 8 miles down (or only 3 miles down if you happen to be floating over Mount Everest, which couldn't exist since it resulted from the Indian Subcontinent slamming into Asia proper, which wouldn't happen if all of the continents were being pulled apart by the expanding Earth. If you don't believe me, paste a bunch of construction paper pieces to cover a partially inflated balloon. Blow more air into the balloon. None of the papers will get closer to each other). |
|
dolphins
Miami Dolphins
Premium
join:2001-08-22
Westville, NJ
·Comcast
| What I mean is, photosynthesis was necessary for the plants to grow and accumulate mass. Which then enabled animals and then people to grow and accumulate mass who then procreate creating more mass.
Are you telling me all this mass just disappears?
--
Prevent Malware |
|
haamster
Premium
join:2002-12-02
Monroe Township, NJ | No. But neither does it just appear. Plants and animals get their mass from the earth, then their mass goes back to the earth when they die. Nothing changes. |
|
BodyBumper
join:2004-06-21
Beverly Hills, CA
1 edit | said by haamster :No. But neither does it just appear. Plants and animals get their mass from the earth, then their mass goes back to the earth when they die. Nothing changes. You sir are correct. |
|
Nightwing
Premium
join:2002-04-08
CT
| reply to haamster
said by haamster :No. But neither does it just appear. Plants and animals get their mass from the earth, then their mass goes back to the earth when they die. Nothing changes. Isn't that called something like the conservation of matter law? |
|
shaner
Premium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB
1 edit | reply to dolphins
said by dolphins :said by Sly :I'm not too sure about that. Volcanic eruptions are not "mass being created". Instead they are mass being re-distributed. The mass was already there but instead of being within the Earth, it is on the outside of it. The system does not gain any more matter... it only redistributes what it already has. If that's true, then what fills the void where the magma has been displaced? More magma?
I don't know why, but when I read your question I immediately thought "Why does my nose fill up with snot right after I blow it?"
--
Click this and read. -> »www.actsofgord.com/
»Canadian Wireless FAQ
I'm laying pipe,
all night long,
laying pipe,
to satisfy that woman.
- David Wilcox
|
|
dolphins
Miami Dolphins
Premium
join:2001-08-22
Westville, NJ
·Comcast
| reply to Nightwing
said by Nightwing :said by haamster :No. But neither does it just appear. Plants and animals get their mass from the earth, then their mass goes back to the earth when they die. Nothing changes. Isn't that called something like the conservation of matter law? »dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/The···rgy.html
Guess I need further my edumacation.
--
Prevent Malware |
|
35375105
Premium
join:2002-11-20
127.0.0.1 | reply to DataDoc
Hmm interesting theory, and seems to make sense. And wow, those continents fit together like jigsaw puzzle.
--
A sophisticated rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity. |
|
ZOverLord
Premium
join:2003-10-20
Minneapolis, MN
| reply to DataDoc
What is so plausible about this theory is that science now admits 2 things.
1. The Universe is made up of more Dark Energy than Mass as we know it. Most agree that Dark Energy makes up more than 90 percent of the universe and that Mass as we know it is less than 10 percent of the total universe.
2. Galaxy expansion does not happen at the same level as the expansion of the voids between galaxies where no large concentration of Mass as we know it is present in these voids between galaxies, yet these voids are increasing in expansion. In other words, the universe is expanding, at an increasing rate, yet each Galaxy is not doing the same,within the galaxy as a whole, only the voids between galaxies are doing this.
We have no method to measure dark energy, so....is it possible that dark energy is present as well in some concentration in our earths core, that could be the cause of this expansion?
While hard to believe at first that something could be created from nothing, the proof is the voids between galaxies are expanding from nothing, in the sense that there is nothing we can measure as the cause.
So, would the earth be expanding from nothing, if over 90 percent of the universe, as we know it, is expanding, faster and faster, from nothing we can measure, as we speak?
What would the symptoms of Dark Energy expansion be when Dark Energy is surrounded by Mass?
So is Dark Energy always remote, or could the same energy be local, and just as hard to measure? yet show results as symptoms?
Are we saying that Dark Energy as a theory only applies to the universe which is distant, a "Yes, but NOT in my back yard" theory? Or that Dark Energy is confined to voids in space and never inter-mingle with Mass as we know it.
So, there really are only three choices that can explain the earths expansion.
1. The earth is getting more hollow inside, giving up internal Mass to create External Mass on the outside.
2. The earth collects enough outside junk from space to justify the expansion over time.
3. Some form of Dark Energy is allowing the earth to expand, both inside and outside.
The voids between galaxies, for example, don't seem to expand faster on the voids edges than from the centers of the voids, These expansions of voids appear to be equal from all points.
As this video shows, it seems that expansion is not confined to earth as a planet as well.
If one applies these same expansion theory to stars, it makes one ponder if there is not a Dark Energy connection to Super Novas as well.
As for the remote water theory. It would be a hard sell to say water came from space to the earth via methods such as comets, because now one needs to say, what are the odds that the moon is lacking anything near a percentage of water from earth near misses? After All these are random comets carrying this water, and if there are enough of them to create the earths oceans, where is some proof, some hit the moon at times?
Unless the water came to earth before the moon was present via comets, the moon should have a much more abundant sign of water than it does today, or some history, that water once was abundant, and flowing, at some time in the past.
--
Black, Grey and White Hats Unite here -> »testing.OnlyTheRightAnswers.com |
|
haamster
Premium
join:2002-12-02
Monroe Township, NJ
| said by ZOverLord :What is so plausible about this theory is that science now admits 2 things. 1. The Universe is made up of more Dark Energy than Mass as we know it. Most agree that Dark Energy makes up more than 90 percent of the universe and that Mass as we know it is less than 10 percent of the total universe. Yes, maybe. I don't know that "science admits" this but it is a theory.
2. Galaxy expansion does not happen at the same level as the expansion of the voids between galaxies where no large concentration of Mass as we know it is present in these voids between galaxies, yet these voids are increasing in expansion. In other words, the universe is expanding, at an increasing rate, yet each Galaxy is not doing the same,within the galaxy as a whole, only the voids between galaxies are doing this. Huh? That's called "gravity". Why would galaxys expand after gravity spent 11 billion years clumping them together? So if the galaxies are gravitationally bound, and the universe is expanding, then of course the voids between them are what is increasing in size. What other definition of "expanding" could there be?
We have no method to measure dark energy, so....is it possible that dark energy is present as well in some concentration in our earths core, that could be the cause of this expansion? Of course it's possible. But without any explanation as to why, it's just as possible as there is a giant monster stuck at the center of the earth who eats alpha particles and craps lead bricks.
While hard to believe at first that something could be created from nothing, the proof is the voids between galaxies are expanding from nothing, in the sense that there is nothing we can measure as the cause. Nothing from nothing is nothing. You gotta have something if you want your sentence to make any sense. Voids ARE nothing. That's the definition of void. How does an increase in the size of nothing equate to mass being created in violation of physical laws?
So, would the earth be expanding from nothing, if over 90 percent of the universe, as we know it, is expanding, faster and faster, from nothing we can measure, as we speak? Two cars drive down the same highway. One goes faster than the other one. The void between them is increasing. Does that mean the cars must be getting bigger too? It's nonsensical.
What would the symptoms of Dark Energy expansion be when Dark Energy is surrounded by Mass?
So is Dark Energy always remote, or could the same energy be local, and just as hard to measure? yet show results as symptoms?
Are we saying that Dark Energy as a theory only applies to the universe which is distant, a "Yes, but NOT in my back yard" theory? Or that Dark Energy is confined to voids in space and never inter-mingle with Mass as we know it. The problem is that you're making out dark matter and dark energy to be some kind of known phenomenon in the universe where it is actually a placeholder for some as yet undiscovered mass. No one knows where it exists. We can't observe it. That's why it is still dark matter/energy.
So, there really are only three choices that can explain the earths expansion.
1. The earth is getting more hollow inside, giving up internal Mass to create External Mass on the outside.
2. The earth collects enough outside junk from space to justify the expansion over time.
3. Some form of Dark Energy is allowing the earth to expand, both inside and outside.
You forgot 4. The Earth is not expanding and doesn't need a convoluted explanation to show why. |
|
dolphins
Miami Dolphins
Premium
join:2001-08-22
Westville, NJ
·Comcast
| Ok, I've been trying to figure this out without any outside influence and without the known laws of physics. We all know that theories proven correct at one point in time can later be disproved. So in order to look at this with a clean slate so to speak, I feel I must not be bound by these laws.
I want to start with the oceans and how they came to be so vast in such a short period of time as 200 million years.
said by user=Sly :
Finally, volcanism continuously emits water vapor from the interior. Earth's plate tectonics recycle carbon and water as limestone rocks are subducted into the mantle and volcanically released as gaseous carbon dioxide and steam. It is estimated that the minerals in the mantle may contain as much as 10 times the water as in all of the current oceans, though most of this trapped water will never be released.
Is there a way to get this water to be released in huge amounts? Not through volcanic eruption but being forced or even percolated to the surface as a gas or steam on a massive scale not unlike what happened in the so called, “killer lakes” »vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Lake···ase.html
but on a much larger scale?
Now we jump into what makes up the land masses of earth?
I have to skip ahead to when dinosaurs existed but will go back to the beginning as needed to explain myself.
As for why dinosaurs were so huge contributes to the idea that the earth was indeed smaller and had less gravity.
This still a work in progress so please bare with me.
--
Prevent Malware |
|
haamster
Premium
join:2002-12-02
Monroe Township, NJ
| said by dolphins :As for why dinosaurs were so huge contributes to the idea that the earth was indeed smaller and had less gravity. If the Earth were half the diameter as today (as the proponents of the theory believe), and the same mass as today (which they don't), the gravitational force would be 4 times greater, not less.
The fact that dinosaurs existed at this time is why proponents of this theory are stuck saying that the earth was also less massive than it is now and is gaining mass along with volume through some unknown to physics process. Yet it is gaining mass and volume at the perfect ratio to allow gravity to remain exactly the same throughout the process.
You mentioned Ockham's Razor. To paraphrase, it says there are so many unnecessary variables needed to make this theory work that it is pointless to continue to entertain it. |
|
