Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » Tech and Talk » Talk » 56k Lookout (Broadband Heavy) » [video] Expanding Earth Theory
Search Topic:
Uniqs:
1393
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Posting:
Post a:
Post a:
Links: ·YouTube ·Vid Stream ·Zoopy
[video] public farting »
« Why people hate tech support, and why tech support hates peo  
page: 1 · 2 · 3
AuthorAll Replies


dolphins
Miami Dolphins
Premium
join:2001-08-22
Westville, NJ
·Comcast

reply to haamster
Re: [video] Expanding Earth Theory

Forget my mention of Ockham's or Occam's Razor! I don't want theories or even mathematical equations proven to be true to interfere with my own logic and creativity.

You have already proven in my eyes that the known laws of physics disproves this theory in many ways.

I want to dwell even deeper by ignoring these laws and possibly touching on quantum physics where anything is possible.

Now with that being said, what about the theory I mentioned about the oceans percolating up from the earth's mantle on a massive scale?

I'll get back to the dinosaurs.

--
Prevent Malware


ZOverLord
Premium
join:2003-10-20
Minneapolis, MN


4 edits
reply to haamster
You never explained how areas of space are expanding ("At a ratio not equal to other areas") unless you are saying that things bound by gravity can't expand, and things that are not can.

We don't even understand Dark Energy, yet we admit without it galaxies could not stay bound as they are, so it's here, like it or not. So, without that 90+ percent of the Universe that virtually the entire scientific community admits is presently composed of Dark Energy, but cannot be located or measured, we would not be having this conversation, if you want to call it nothing, call it nothing, but it is the bulk of the universe and then some.

What does this mean?

"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?"

How does gravity make the distance between points a to d increase? I don't care if the distance between b to c gets smaller or larger that's got nothing to do with causing a to d to become farther apart, and at an increasing speed.

You say "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."

Fact. the areas, voids, in space between galaxies are getting larger, and increasing at a faster rate over time than the same area of space that contains matter. So there is a selective expansion going on, and we can measure it.

So some areas of space are growing larger than others, and at a faster rate as time goes on. The distance between a to b is increasing with no known source as a cause for expansion, yet other areas of space are not expanding.

This is in fact how the Universe was proved to be expanding. Dark Energy has been assigned the cause of this, because this expansion is at a rate greater than the areas within galaxies. This does not allow us to see Dark Energy nor measure it, but to be able to see the effect of it. Much like we cannot see a black hole, but we can see the results of a black hole.

Internally, even within galaxies, we can see that the outer portions of galaxies rotate at the same speed as the inner portion, and we know this is NOT mathematically possible without Dark Energy as well. This would cause galaxies to be thrown apart over time, without the force of Dark Energy holding it together and the outer portions of galaxies could not be moving at the same speed as the inner portions without Dark Energy as well.

--
Black, Grey and White Hats Unite here -> »testing.OnlyTheRightAnswers.com

ForteEXE

join:2004-04-04
Brooklyn, NY

Dark energy and dark matter are not the same thing. Dark matter is a "terra incognito" for a hypothetical mass that only interacts through gravity. Dark energy is a name for the cause of the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe. This expansion was determined by measuring the redshifts of "standard candles", a certain type of supernovae I think.

I disagree with dark energy behind the "expanding Earth", because if that were so, then shouldn't the Earth be torn long before today? I mean, dark energy would have dominated all other fundamental forces.


ZOverLord
Premium
join:2003-10-20
Minneapolis, MN


2 edits
reply to DataDoc
Dark Energy

Quote: "The most recent WMAP observations are consistent with a Universe made up of 74% dark energy, 22% dark matter, and 4% ordinary matter."

Also:

Equation of state

Quintessence

--
Black, Grey and White Hats Unite here -> »testing.OnlyTheRightAnswers.com

Fickey
Terrorists target your resolve

join:2004-05-31


2 edits
reply to dolphins
said by dolphins See Profile :

...I want to dwell even deeper by ignoring these laws and possibly touching on quantum physics where anything is possible...
Dang it, I was hoping nobody would bring quantum physics into this. Yes, quantum mechanics & string theory predict some pretty bizarre things like an 11 dimensional universe, but this is apparently only on the periphery of the 4 dimensional universe we're evolved to experience (the 4th dimension is time). Quantum physics does have some pretty mind blowing implications for our understanding of reality as a whole, but it's more that what we understand about the universe is only a part of a larger picture, not that what we understand about our 4 dimensions is fundamentally flawed. The Newtonian understanding of the macro universe is quite accurate. You can't just go tossing out science that's inconvenient while embracing that which doesn't seem to be. Thinking outside the box is essential, but creating fanciful new constructs just because we can imagine them is what gives us fundamentally flawed experiments like Communism or San Francisco.

“Reality is merely an illusion, although a very persistent one.” -Albert Einstein

“I reject your reality and substitute my own.” -Adam Savage
--
"The people of jihad need to carry out a media war... because we can observe the effect that the media have on nations." from al-Qaeda's The Global Media: A Work Paper for Invading the US Media. They are performing violence primarily for headlines!


Varlik
Without Honor You Will Never Be Free
Premium
join:2002-01-06
Anderson, SC
reply to DataDoc
Some folks will believe anything. What a load of BS.


haamster
Premium
join:2002-12-02
Monroe Township, NJ

reply to ZOverLord
said by ZOverLord See Profile :

We don't even understand Dark Energy, yet we admit without it galaxies could not stay bound as they are, so it's here, like it or not. So, without that 90+ percent of the Universe that virtually the entire scientific community admits is presently composed of Dark Energy, but cannot be located or measured, we would not be having this conversation, if you want to call it nothing, call it nothing, but it is the bulk of the universe and then some.
OK, like I said. It's a theory. An unproven theory. "We" do not admit anything. There are alternative theories, none proved. Dark matter or dark energy do not have to exist. It's just one way to explain what we observe. I don't believe it exists. It is a terribly inelegant way to force the universe into fitting our limited observations. I believe that within my lifetime, it will have been eliminated from credible discussion.

However, what in the bloody mary does this have to do with the Earth expansion theory? Are you suggesting, in some way that is peculiar to the Earth, that dark energy is causing the Earth to expand (only from the inside out or it wouldn't cause the plates to break up, remember. For some reason, dark energy doesn't also cause dirt to expand) and dark matter is filling the spaces in between? Why? How would this explanation be any more plausible than my alpha particle-eating-lead-crapping monster?

How does gravity make the distance between points a to d increase?
Well, without knowing what points you're referring to, I'll give an example of gravity causing the distance between objects to increase. The distance between planets in our own solar system increase all the time. Of course, they then decrease again, but then again I never claimed that gravity causes object to repel. I just said that galaxies don't have to expand. The reason they are galaxies in the first place is because gravity attracted all that mass together. It has no reason to then expand. Even the dark matter theories depend on this.

Fact. the areas, voids, in space between galaxies are getting larger, and increasing at a faster rate over time than the same area of space that contains matter. So there is a selective expansion going on, and we can measure it.
No, not a fact. An observance. Which could be flawed just as Newton's observance of gravity was flawed. And just as Einstein's understanding of gravitation was flawed. You know Einstein came up with Special and General Relativity when he was in his twenties and then struggled for the rest of his long life trying to make it push out quantum mechanics for explaining the very small. Einstein didn't believe that quantum mechanics was valid at all. Well certainly QM has some validity and Relativity has some validity, but they are both inherently flawed because they are incongruent. These observations that seem to add credence to dark matter/energy are biased by the lack of a more elegant theory, which I believe is already here, but being untestable, is discounted.

This is in fact how the Universe was proved to be expanding. Dark Energy has been assigned the cause of this, because this expansion is at a rate greater than the areas within galaxies. This does not allow us to see Dark Energy nor measure it, but to be able to see the effect of it. Much like we cannot see a black hole, but we can see the results of a black hole.
Black holes were predicted as a consequence of relativity that was not even intended. Dark matter/energy did not come about until someone needed a quick and dirty way to explain some odd observances.

Internally, even within galaxies, we can see that the outer portions of galaxies rotate at the same speed as the inner portion, and we know this is NOT mathematically possible without Dark Energy as well.
Oh yes it is possible. You realize there ARE competing theories, right? And it's not dark energy that is supposed to explain this one, it's dark matter. You've got to get your imaginary phenomena straight.


ZOverLord
Premium
join:2003-10-20
Minneapolis, MN

Quote from the original Dark Energy Link posted in my last post:

"The existence of dark energy, in whatever form, is needed to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), most recently by the WMAP satellite, indicate that the universe is very close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the Universe must be equal to a certain critical density. The total amount of matter in the Universe (including baryons and dark matter), as measured by the CMB, accounts for only about 30% of the critical density. This implies the existence of an additional form of energy to account for the remaining 70%.[6]"

You say "There are alternative theories, none proved."

Which are?

You say "The reason they are galaxies in the first place is because gravity attracted all that mass together."

Math proves that gravity is not strong enough to do this alone based on visible mass.

You say "Black holes were predicted as a consequence of relativity that was not even intended. Dark matter/energy did not come about until someone needed a quick and dirty way to explain some odd observances."

Again, the outer portions of galaxies are rotating as fast as the inner portions, and the math proves this is impossible to be done by the force of gravity alone.

The voids in space between galaxies are expanding at an ever increasing rate. This is measurable.

You say "You realize there ARE competing theories, right?"

What are some others?

I find it interesting that you are able to refute Dark Energy/Matter theory, but yet not open minded to other theory as well. What gives with that?
--
Black, Grey and White Hats Unite here -> »testing.OnlyTheRightAnswers.com


haamster
Premium
join:2002-12-02
Monroe Township, NJ

said by ZOverLord See Profile :

You say "There are alternative theories, none proved."

Which are?
You accuse me of being closed minded, but you don't even look past the end of your nose to reach a definitive conclusion.

Modified Newtonian Dynamics
Tensor-Vector-Scalar Theory
Non symmetric Gravitational Theory
Metric-Skew-Tensor Theory
Scalar-Tensor-Vector Theory

I think that TeVeS comes closest to the truth, but I'd rather see a construct of M-Theory make an attempt.

You say "The reason they are galaxies in the first place is because gravity attracted all that mass together."

Math proves that gravity is not strong enough to do this alone based on visible mass.
Show me the math that proves that. I'll show you 5 different theories that show the math is based on flawed assumptions.

You say "Black holes were predicted as a consequence of relativity that was not even intended. Dark matter/energy did not come about until someone needed a quick and dirty way to explain some odd observances."

Again, the outer portions of galaxies are rotating as fast as the inner portions, and the math proves this is impossible to be done by the force of gravity alone.
See last comment.

The voids in space between galaxies are expanding at an ever increasing rate. This is measurable.

You say "You realize there ARE competing theories, right?"

What are some others?

I find it interesting that you are able to refute Dark Energy/Matter theory, but yet not open minded to other theory as well. What gives with that?
I'm totally open minded to other theories. You don't even seem to know that other theories exist. I don't think any gravitational theory that is currently accepted is completely correct. I'm waiting for another M-theory breakthrough.


Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online

reply to DataDoc
"Very few geologists or geophysicists today support the expanded Earth. Many of those that remain are proponents of the ideas of the late Australian geologist S. Warren Carey. While Carey's ideas were popular for a time in the 1950s and 1960s, most workers in earth science believe that evidence collected over the last several decades supports a fixed size Earth, due to subduction, over the expanded Earth."
-Wikipedia, though I bet it speaks the truth.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory

Need I say more?

Most people on this site are not scientists, and this theory has been around for decades. It has been disproved, and only a small percentage of Earth Scientists believe in it. Science is the quest for pure knowledge, there isn't a conspiracy to make one theory more accepted than another.

-Tzale
--
-Virtual Pirate-


Smatchimo
Professional Genuine Image Verifier
Premium
join:2004-08-20
Walnut Creek, CA
·Comcast

said by Tzale See Profile :

"It has been disproved..."

"...there isn't a conspiracy to make one theory more accepted than another."

You said that in the same paragraph btw...
--
`~You can't have "manslaughter" without "laughter"~`

leopolrj

join:2004-06-16
Dallas, TX

reply to DataDoc
Hmmm, the problem with the expanding earth theory seems to be that it ignores rather obvious constructs on the earth's surface that can't be explained by expansion. The mass accretion aspect seems way off. Looking at the earth-moon system, it seems fairly obvious that the earth can't be increasing in mass in any meaningful way. Due to tidal transfer of angular momentum, the moon's orbit is very slowly receding from earth. Any significant mass increase on earth would offset or perhaps even reverse this.

As for dark energy and dark matter, they remind me a lot of the "luminal aether" theories that were accepted as valid up until relativity. My guess is that some fundemental discovery awaits that will that will make these explanations seem silly to future physics students, much like the aether seems silly to us now.


Shriyash
Sungazer
Premium
join:2005-02-23
PuNe, InDiA
reply to DataDoc
Fascinating subject, rational discussions, i like it!!


Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online

reply to Smatchimo
said by Smatchimo See Profile :

said by Tzale See Profile :

"It has been disproved..."

"...there isn't a conspiracy to make one theory more accepted than another."

You said that in the same paragraph btw...
Yeah, your point?

My point was made quite clearly... This is BS Science, hell, it isn't even Science... It is simply BS masquerading as a Scientific theory.

Why the majority of people in this thread would believe it simply because there is a cool video posted, is beyond me... People spend their entire lives studying how all this works, and a few of you guys think you are qualified to say that the traditional views on this subject are BS... For one, I am not a scientist, I'm just stating my views... The difference between myself and others in this thread is that I am actually thinking about it, rather than sitting here and accepting what is fed to me via a slanted video.

-Tzale
--
-Virtual Pirate-


Sly
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Johnson City, TN
clubs:
·Packet8
·Callcentric
·Comcast Formerly ..

said by Tzale See Profile :

People spend their entire lives studying how all this works, and a few of you guys think you are qualified to say that the traditional views on this subject are BS... For one, I am not a scientist, I'm just stating my views... The difference between myself and others in this thread is that I am actually thinking about it, rather than sitting here and accepting what is fed to me via a slanted video.

-Tzale
I agree with what you are saying... but "qualifications" are purely speculative. I don't think you meant it this way... but there is no way in hell I am going to let someone think for me, including doctorate level mind lemmings. Just like I don't believe every cool video I see on the internet, I don't believe every article that comes out of Scientific American or National Geographic either. Thinking for yourself is becoming a lost art. It's easier to assimilate and indoctrinate than it is to truly educate.
--
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
- Plato -


Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online

said by Sly See Profile :

said by Tzale See Profile :

People spend their entire lives studying how all this works, and a few of you guys think you are qualified to say that the traditional views on this subject are BS... For one, I am not a scientist, I'm just stating my views... The difference between myself and others in this thread is that I am actually thinking about it, rather than sitting here and accepting what is fed to me via a slanted video.

-Tzale
I agree with what you are saying... but "qualifications" are purely speculative. I don't think you meant it this way... but there is no way in hell I am going to let someone think for me, including doctorate level mind lemmings. Just like I don't believe every cool video I see on the internet, I don't believe every article that comes out of Scientific American or National Geographic either. Thinking for yourself is becoming a lost art. It's easier to assimilate and indoctrinate than it is to truly educate.
yes, of course...

The thing is that no human has the ability to be an expert on every subject under the sun, so we need to make educated choices as to what is accurate and what isn't. I prefer to side with the thousands of scientists around the world who has studied this subject, and know better than me. A few "quack" scientists shouldn't be accepted right away, though it is important to keep an open mind... For example, our Physics today might be all wrong! Who knows!

-Tzale
--
-Virtual Pirate-


Franz
Mad A
Premium
join:2003-06-24
Saint Louis, MO
·Charter Pipeline

reply to DataDoc
here is the vid for those who didn't see the first one before it went down.

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

--
SOCOM3: Franz-, MGS3: Franz-, Xbox Live: Franz1, V pillars, video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=
Forums » Tech and Talk » Talk » 56k Lookout (Broadband Heavy)[video] public farting »
« Why people hate tech support, and why tech support hates peo  
page: 1 · 2 · 3


Friday, 04-Dec 23:54:53 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [163] Comcast Releasing Promised Usage Meter
· [145] Avast Antivirus Has Gone Mad
· [126] Comcast Makes NBC Universal Acquisition Official
· [104] Graduate Student Unveils Sprint's GPS Sharing With Feds
· [101] Google Invades ISP, OpenDNS Turf With Google Public DNS
· [83] FCC Ponders Moving From PSTN To IP Voice
· [81] Latest Consumer Reports Survey Not Kind To AT&T
· [77] The Bandwidth Hog Does Not Exist
· [74] Sprint Defuses GPS Privacy Media Bomb
· [70] Baltimore To Ban Lazy Cable Installs
Most people now reading
· False positive in Avast! or is it real? [Security]
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· Farewell [Bell Canada]
· 3.x Feral Druid - Bear Tanking Guide [World of Warcraft]
· Using AirMax to provide triple play services? [Wireless Service Providers]
· Google takes aim at browser redirection [Security]
· [Unlock] TUTORIAL: VONAGE WRTP54G/RTP300 WITH 5.01.04 [VOIP Tech Chat]
· Connecting to Google Voice Via SIP [VOIP Tech Chat]
· IPComms Free DIDs now with sip registration maybe?? [VOIP Tech Chat]
· IMG 1.7 (IMG Updates and Discussion) [Verizon FIOS TV]