said by Sly :

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.

said by Tzale :

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

said by Smatchimo :

You said that in the same paragraph btw...

said by Tzale :

"It has been disproved..."

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

said by ZOverLord :

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?

said by ZOverLord :

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.

How does gravity make the distance between points a to d increase?

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.

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.

said by dolphins :

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

said by dolphins :

As for why dinosaurs were so huge contributes to the idea that the earth was indeed smaller and had less gravity.

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.

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.

said by Nightwing :

Isn't that called something like the conservation of matter law?

said by dolphins :

If that's true, then what fills the void where the magma has been displaced?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

said by benm3218 :

Okay, so please don't turn thi sinto a belief bashing... because i want this thread to stay open.

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.

said by Sly :

Do they? Where did you read that people believe the Earth is gaining mass? Volume? Possibly. Mass? No.

said by haamster :

Plus, in order to support this claim, the proponents say the earth is not only gaining volume, but mass.

said by cbabbman :

to say that the water was 'inside' the earth and expelled by volcanoes means that you must put physics aside and believe that water is compressible.

the theory is bullshit

said by haamster :

Snapshot away.

It was edited for math since it seems quite difficult to find a concensus on the surface area and average diameter of the earth.

Looking at my post again, I could edit it for a particularly blatant grammatical error, but I'll leave it since it would distress you so.

said by cbabbman :

to say that the water was 'inside' the earth and expelled by volcanoes means that you must put physics aside and believe that water is compressible.

the theory is bullshit

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.

This seems like it should be way down on the simplest solution scale.

said by dolphins :

Had to open with IE. Firefox won't open it for me.

Back to the theory; when you apply Occam's Razor, it has to be true.

Edit: Occam's Razor simplified: "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

said by Nightwing :

That was really interesting and quite believable, but could I wish I could ask that guy where the trillions and trillions of gallons of water came from to fill in the oceans.

said by Nightwing :

That was really interesting and quite believable, but could I wish I could ask that guy where the trillions and trillions of gallons of water came from to fill in the oceans.

said by Locutus65 :

Firefox opens it fine for me