jsispat

I have new theory regarding birth of earth. Pls see below point wise.

1. Earth has biological growth like a tree and meteoroids are seeds of planets.

2. only some meteoroids can germinate in asteroids and some asteroids can convert in big planets only

3. Earth has bark like a tree and this bark is separated from each other. Continents is a bark of earth.

4. Earth is a result of one meteor only. It is germinated from single meteor.

5. Earth has all minerals same required by living thing.

6. Different different pockets of minerals shows that it has biological thing only. No other theory applicable of earth formation if it has different different pockets of minerals

7. Meteors contain amino acid shows that they may be seeds. Because seeds always contains amino acid.

8. Resin erupting from log indicates toward volcano.

9. Some knots or uplift on log of tree indicates toward mountains.

10. Log of tree contains core and crust.

11. Black lines indicate toward plate tectonic.

12. this is complete mechanism of planet formation

I have lot of another visuals logics proving my theory correct.pls see if these points attract you.

Regs

Suresh bansal

+919814058342

pls see attached links for more clarification

Core Crust

http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php..._122_572lo.JPG

Asteroid and Plant

http://img44.imagevenue.com/img.php?...JPG&loc=loc731

Seeds and Meteorids

http://img185.imagevenue.com/img.php..._122_366lo.JPG

Bark of Tree and Earth

http://img17.imagevenue.com/img.php?..._122_801lo.JPG

Volcanoes

http://img128.imagevenue.com/img.php...122_1119lo.JPG

SUBDUCTION ZONE OF TREE SNAPS

http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php...122_1064lo.JPG

BARK OF TREE

http://img34.imagevenue.com/img.php?...pg&loc=loc1170

What are some common things between all living organisms?

 

Growth

Reproduction

Metabolism

 

Well lets look at these.

 

Metabolism:

With metabolism, energy and material enter the organism and then it uses these in biological processes that allow it to grown and reproduce. Without Metabolism, an object might grow (as in crystals, or through accretion as in dust bunnies), but growth its self does not designate something as being alive.

 

An object can also reproduce without being alive. If you break a dust bunny into two parts, then this is a form of replication, and each can then grow. But dust bunnies are not alive, they are just bits of fluff and dirt sticking together into a ball (you can find them under your bed, or many other places in your house).

 

So, growth and reproduction are not necessary direct indicators of life. However, if they are combined with a metabolism, then this is a good indicator of life (but not a perfect one as someone might be able to point out an exception). But, without a metabolism tied to growth and reproduction, the object can't be considered alive.

 

So the question comes down to: Does the Earth have a metabolism?

 

Is there any material that the Earth gets from outside? Yes, asteroids and meteors fall to Earth all the time.

 

Is there energy that reaches the Earth from outside? Yes, sunlight form the sun reaches the Earth.

 

Do these things interact in a way to cause the Earth to grow by changing the make up of the matter (re ordering it), or allow it to reproduce?

 

No.

 

There is no chemical reaction driven by the energy of the sun that causes the make-up of the meteors change from being "Not of Earth" to being "Of Earth". This means there is no metabolism occuring, and without that metabolism, the Earth can not be alive.

 

Secondly:

 

You are making a logical fallacy: Equivocation. This is the fallacy that goes: because two things are similar in some properties, then it must logically follow that they are the same.

 

This is not true. I am sure that it would be easy to come up with a list that shows that I (or anybody else) have many things in common with a pig. But does this mean that I am an actual Sus scrofa domestica.

 

I don't think so. For one thing a Pig might have some trouble typing on a computer keyboard...

 

Just because things have some similarity (the bark of a log, or the layers in a tree are similar to the fact that the Earth has a crust and is layered), does not mean that they must therefore share other properties (being alive).

 

I always remember the Movie "Shrek", where Shrek is trying to tell Donkey that Ogres are complex in their emotions. He uses an Onion as an example of how Ogres have layers to their emotions. But Donkey makes this exact same mistake with the Equivocation logical fallacy.

 

Donkey thinks that because onions have layers and Ogres have layers then other things that have layers is what Shrek is talking about, and starts talking about cakes.

 

This is particularly relevant as you keep bringing up the claims about layers and crusts as being indicative of life because trees have it. Well so do Cakes.

 

Does this mean that the Earth is a cake? It might be a Rock Cake? But are Cakes alive? Do they grow, do they have seeds. Can you plant a choc chip from a cake and grow a Cake Bush?

 

No

 

Get it? Just because two things have some properties in common (or in the case of Earth and trees, a superficial appearance of commonality), does not mean that they are the same or share other properties in common (like being living - or choc chips).

 

None of us are denying that both the Earth and Trees share some superficial similarities. But, because Equivocation is a logical fallacy, we can then not just assume that because they have these similarities that they also share other similarities.

 

We have to prove that the processes that led to those particular features have the same causes in both cases. As the layers in a tree are caused by the growth and division of cells in the wood of the tree, and the layers in the Earth are caused by the settling out of different materials due to differences in their densities, we know that although they might have a similar appearance, they are actually not the same things as they have different causes.

many thanks for detailed reply.here is my reply

1. i know rocks are dead where we have aproach but we have not aproch to real layer. we have only aproach upto bark of earth that is dead only.when we more clarification reg inner core only than we can find cellular body of earth

2. we have not only two three visual similarties but we have lot of similarties that earth and tree.

3. reg current theory honestly doest looks practical. how big bang and how well managed layers occured and how different different pockets of mineral etc. even particular shape also create confusion,earth quake are cause of expantion only.see the continents monutely seems earth expanded from small size and inner forces resposible for expantion only. because at earlier stage it looks super continents and broke only after expantion of globe. continents seems contracting.

4. i feared of long mail that you may annoyed this. forgive me i am feared.

5. plate tectonic is very important part of my theory.

6. pls help me on this matter with cool mind only.

That's not how it works. The Earth being alive is your crackpot theory, you have to provide the evidence for it.

 

This does not mean pictures of sap leaking from a tree or bits of rock that look like acne.

sap leaking from tree is just example that also valcanoes erupting from globe.this is also one of visual similarties that earth is living thing like tree.actually valcano activites is common for most planets and heavenily body same common for trees.

yes actually, as i have said before, we have evidence of it by observing protosolar systems around other stars.

 

solar systems start out as a cloud of dust and rock and gases which soon collapses into a disc because of collisions and preservation of angular momentum. collisions take place within the disc and larger lumps form. the heat of collision makes them liquid. over time these larger lumps will clear out their orbits of debris and when the collision rate becomes low enough, the planet will cool as it radiates more heat than it gets from collisions. a crust forms from lighter chemicals floating to the top cooling and solidifying. given enough time the mantle and core would cool down enough to solidify.

 

i can't post all the evidence we have because there is too much of it. we can look at the moon and measure the age of craters which tells us that there were a LOT more collisions a few billion years ago, hence more stuff on the planetary plane. we can look inside our own planet and tell its structure and how hot it is.

 

the evidence is stacked against you, unless you can think of a new way to explain EVERY observation then your idea that the earth is alive is wrong.

 

similarities do not prove anything. my cousins kid has a book shaped like a digger. is it a digger? no. does the kid really wish it was a digger? yep.

i do not want all evidence but request you to pls send two or three very solid evcidence. thanks for long discussion and cooperation i apericiate you.

yes, there are pockets of minerals in the earths crust but this is due to it being solid. the minerals are deposited in the crust by volcanic activity and the heavier minerals are brought up by convection currents within the mantle. and binding with other elements to form a less dense compund.

 

for example, sulphur is a solid at room temperature, bind it with oxygen and suddenly it is a gas which is much less dense than sulphur.

 

we understand the geochemistry of earth very well and it is nothing like biochemistry. go read a beginners geology book.

is it scientifically proved that earth formed by in this method only ?

it is possible. but it won't be random directions. the lighter stuff will go up and the heavier stuff down. the bigger the density difference the faster they will do this.

 

this happens in labs all over the world and in chemical plants all over the world. it happens in the seas and it has even been observed happening in lava pools.

 

all it requires is fluidity and time. the innards of the earth have got these in buckets.

but i understand as people say that there is layer of nickel equaly managed out side the earth. but there are different different pockets of mineral in crust of earth. i understand that different differnt pockets of mineral seems odd than heavier lighter theory.pls re think by your self honestly. pls trust on yourself only that it looks practical. even if practical, we 100% surely can not say earth is dead, because same minerals pockets are available in alive things and they are not from heavier lighter process.

yes it is. it is perfectly possible. all you require is a difference in density and some time. the heavier stuff will diffuse down and the lighter stuff will diffuse up.

 

infact, this exact process is used in iron smelting to seperate the iron from the slag. slag is less dense than molten iron so it floats up and the iron sinks, the slag is drawn off the top and the iron off the bottom.

 

essentially this is what is happening inside the earth only more complex as the earth has far more substances in it.

 

although, i will admit this isn't the most popular method for separating metals in alloy as it would take millions of years of settling time. luckily, the earth has had more than a few million years to get around to it.

 

less dense things floating has been exploited by us for millenia why do you refuse to believe that this is what is happening in the earth?

agreed heavier stuff down and lighter stuff up.but if we put one concentrate in one box. it is also possible that in one direction iron will float,another direction zn will float and other direction,meganese will float. actual we have different different pockets of mineral in our planet.

jsispat, I still don't think you understand how this works:

 

If you are going to suggest that the Earth is alive, or has a cellular structure, it is up to YOU to provide an explanation as to how its mechanisms work, it is up to YOU to show how the observed evidence supports the theory, and it is up to YOU to show how this theory is better than the current one.

current theory says layers of earth are because heavier stuff down and lighter stuff up.but if we put one concentrate in one box. it is not possible that in one direction iron will float,another direction zn will float and other direction,meganese will float. actual we have different different pockets of mineral in our planet.there are lot of flaws in current theory if we consider it honestly.

That's not how it works. The Earth being alive is your crackpot theory, you have to provide the evidence for it.

 

This does not mean pictures of sap leaking from a tree or bits of rock that look like acne.

o k i lossed the battle. if earth is not alive than it is dead only. so pls supply me some solid proves that earth is dead only.

What about Jupiter's moon Europa? It's water and covered with an ice crust.

 

 

 

Because it's made of rock.

o k i agreed. but my point is we have only aproach to limited portion of earth i mean we have only aproch upto dead skin of earth . we know nothing about the inner layers that are also of rock or cellular body.

That is only because the lake is just a part of the surface of the sphere that is the earth. The earth crust is all about the core. About 2 billion years ago during "snowball earth" the ice "skin" did cover all the earth. Not a living process, but a natural one.

 

 

 

Well, then, the earth's crust is not "well managed" according to you. It's a hodgepodge of different materials unlike the highly organized tissue that is your skin. In some places the crust is solid granite -- like the Canadian Shield. In other places it is limestone. In no two places is the crust exactly the same, as you would find in skin. If you take a cross-section of your skin on your thumb, back, inside of the knee, and sole of your foot, you get the same cross-section. But take a cross-section of the earth's crust at any two places on the surface and it is different.

 

 

 

I never said the tree was dead. In fact, I never commented on it at all. The processes that form tree rings is different than the processes that form the layers within the earth. Tree rings are formed by living cells. The layers of the earth's crust are formed by different density materials under gravity. Apples and oranges. It is you who is trying to say they are the same.

 

 

BTW, the "crust" or bark of a tree is dead. Just like the stratum corneum that is the outermost layer of your skin is dead. Or didn't you know that?

according to current theory if we put a same concenterate in box as ealier stage of earth and put it to cool dowm iron ore layer nickel layer and lighter material layers will be seprated.which is not possible to seprate alloys from concentrate.

can you tell me solid reasons that earth is not alive and dead.

Yea, but WHERE are these nutrients supposed to come from??? The tree gets its nutrients from the gound right? So where does the earth get its nutrients from then?? There is no ground, just space - which is NOT feeding matter into the earth.

i have already mentioned in my earlier postings that here universe is a soil where these planets germinating ang growing.

So basically, what you are saying is that all you have is an argument from incredulity, and you can't provide any explanation for your alternative idea.

no i am saying that i have lot of visual logics that fit in my theory but for scienctifically logics i need some technical help for that.

My new theory is that it would be better if iron and steel scrap were dropped into the ocean to provide minerals for fish. I don't really know anything about iron and steel scrap or importing and I've never read any books about the subjects, but it just seems to be an intelligent assumption that more iron in the water would mean more iron in the fish, which would make it better for us to eat and make the fish healthier and us as well.

 

People all over the world will see that I'm making them healthier and will pay me more for dumping the iron and steel scrap into the ocean than I would have made selling it. Since I will be buying all the scrap, iron and steel production will have to pick up worldwide, providing more jobs and revenue. Now my theory is creating jobs, too. And more iron and steel being produced means more scrap I can dump into the ocean. Soon humans will be so healthy we won't need to go to the doctor anymore.

 

And this was done just from my own intelligence. I didn't need to study anything about iron and steel and importing. If it makes sense to me it must be right.

very very hot like core

prove it. show us some evidence that the earth is alive. "its structure is similar to that of a tree" does not in anyway constitute evidence.

i think now we are coming on point only.

i have already mentioned that i am a small business man only and not having any lab or technical assistance. i mean it is very difficult to provide any scientically proof without any help of technology. but i have lot of visual similarties and common kmowledge with inteligency only.for which i need help of people .

reg visual similarties pls see the following links.i also mentioning you that current earth formation theory doest looks practical just theoratical only.how such well managed layers possible without any growth of living thing. this point is not matching with current theory.looks very odd. another hand all living thing has well managed layers that earth has.

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08242&f=240px-treeknot292.jpg

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08242&f=15042008423241.jpg

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08235&f=taxus_wood1161.jpg

No and no.

 

 

No.

 

 

 

Show mechanisms and evidence for them, then you get promoted to "maybe".

i think now we are coming on point only.

i have already mentioned that i am a small business man only and not having any lab or technical assistance. i mean it is very difficult to provide any scientically proof without any help of technology. but i have lot of visual similarties and common kmowledge with inteligency only.for which i need help of people .

reg visual similarties pls see the following links.i also mentioning you that current earth formation theory doest looks practical just theoratical only.how such well managed layers possible without any growth of living thing. this point is not matching with current theory.looks very odd. another hand all living thing has well managed layers that earth has.

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08242&...reeknot292.jpg

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08242&...2008423241.jpg

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08235&...s_wood1161.jpg

Is the earth expanding, or gaining more mass? Isn't every planet doing the same? I mean where does all the meteorites and space dust go, if not to earth and other planets, attracted by our gravity. That theory is obviously lunacy though.

if earth gaining more mass it doest mean that meteroids or dust can not come to earth.

Many people study certain fields in science only partially and then, due to some misunderstanding or lack of comprehension, they decide that it must be wrong and they devise an alternate "theory" that makes more sense to them. You are telling us that you've never studied at all what thousands of people have devoted their lives to studying, never even opened a book on the subject, but you have a better answer than all those other people who have put in literally millions of hours of study and experimentation.

 

Your idea fits a pattern that pleases you but it is hardly science and doesn't answer ANYTHING better than theories that have been thoroughly observed, researched and argued between scientists the world over for a long time.

actually i am importing iron and steel scrap from most of countries for india from last 10 years. and basically i have been commerce student .

By absorbing nutrients from the ground and gaseous matter from the atmosphere. Also by being alive and carrying out complex and very apparent biochemical processes.

same process is hapening with earth for growth of it because earth is also a living thing like a tree.

jsispat, please not that this does not in itself generate matter, it is the method by which nutrients a gases are fixed into the mass of the plant, the process in itself does not generate any new matter or mass at all.

o k my only point is same process of growth hapening with earth as well as with plants.

The Earth is NOT like trees.

i thnik there is very big gap in understanding. my point doest mean that earth is like tree but my point is earth is a living thing like tree and growing same like tree.

I would be very interested in where you read information regarding shrinking continents. If you could post link to that reference it would be helpful even if ends up being bogus or not it would be interesting to read.

 

Continental Drift and Expanding Earth can co-exist... In theory, re-curvature of the earth could be the mechanism for sub-duction.

 

The only current major issue I have with subduction is that the age of the sea floor is less than 200 million years old. Which suggests that subduction is happening in a uniform manner. That rock must be completely erased and replaced with new rock within 200million years otherwise we would have found traces of much older sea floor bottom which in turn would suggest a much more faster movement of subduction. Why are we not seeing the seafloor move and subduct at rates faster than what would be required in a perfectly uniformed subduction pattern?

 

The sea floor map clearly indicates ( due to the age of the rock ) that the sea floor must be created at los angeles and subducted towards Japan...

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif

 

Yet the Plate tectonic theory clearly shows a subducting plate in the North American West Coast region... Juan de Fuca Plate is supposedly subducting the material there when in reality it should be creating new material like it's being created at the mid ocean ridges.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Fuca_Plate

 

However I guess this could be perceived as a reversal of plate movement as well. In theory this movement could suggest that the pacific plate is moving east... but... Geodesy information shows the pacific plate moving away from North America ( North West )

 

http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html

 

If the Juan Plate is subducting along the North American West Coast... which it is according to the GPS data... where is the ocean ridge with volcanic activity on the west side of the Juan plate? It's sort of in the general area but not where I would expect it to beaccording to the GPS maps, the Wiki Entry and the Sea Floor Map... and it continues up the west coast. Now... Why does the section north the Juan Plate where the rift continues show lack any sort of subduction zone to eat up that new material? The North American Plate moving west where new material is being created. This area should be sub-ducting. Shouldn't it?

 

In an expanding earth... Recurvature of the earths surface would solve this problem easily. And the buckling of the crust in that area would be clear indication that the Canadian Rockies should be rising in height ( which would fit PT theory as well ) But can PT justify the rising rocky mountians due to sea floor spreading? And if the Rockies are not rising can it justify the last of a subduction area when new material is being generated?

 

Can it be that simple? It's absolutely not obvious to me that Exapnding Earth can be Ruled out or Plate Tectonics can be ruled out... Both theories fit... I would appreciate links to any material which suggests otherwise. I am still learning.

i have never read any book reg geology and i am a business man only. reg continents are shrinking and earth is expanding. actual there is also little differance that earth already has expanded or still expanding . this is sure at time of birth of earth its weight was in few kilo grams only.all this is my views and idea by my own inteligence only.so i can not supply you more links. for my theory pls see BIRTH OF EARTH.

jsispat, if planets grow from meteroids, where does all the extra mass come from? Also, where do the elements come from which are found on planets like Earth, but not in meteroids?

before reply this question i have to ask one question.

1. tree take birth from small seed and from where this extra mass is coming for it growth ? pls reply.

Both of these responses are irrelevant. Remember what YOU asked: "can you tell me any single thing having skin and made by nature only and is dead."

 

Insane alien gave 2. Both are analogous to the crust of the earth. Most of the rocks in the crust are oxides, like aluminum oxide forms on the surface of aluminum. OR the crust is composed of granite, which is indeed cooled lava. The cooled lava is less dense than liquid lava, so it "floats". Another example would be the thin sheet of ice over lakes and streams. That is a "skin" over the water.

 

All of these are examples of "skin" or crust being made by natural processes only without being alive.

 

BTW, we also see layers in ice cores and in types of sedimentary rocks called varves. These are formed by seasonal processes (not life). In the case of the ice cores you get a layer of dust in summer and then a new layer of ice from the winter snow. In the case of varves it is organic material from falling leaves and decaying vegetation in the fall and then a layer of sand from inrushing streams in the spring.

 

The generalized "layers" of the earth are formed by simple differences in density of materials under the influence of gravity. The most dense material is in the core (liquid nickel-iron), with successively less dense materials as you move outward. The gasses of the atmosphere, of course, are the least dense.

 

As I said, there is quite of bit of existing data that falsifies your idea. But, if you really feel you have the data that makes it valid, submit it for publication.

reg ice on lake is totally diiferent example only. because crust is covered all sides of core like tree also or any living thing but ice is on top of lake not like roll.

reg rock with almunima oxide i also do not understand the correct example because all living thing has very well managed crust or skin that rock do not have well managed.

tree log has core and crust according to you it is dead.

If there were no subduction zones, then this would be true. But, there are known subduction zones around the Earth (Where the Indian plate meets the Eurasian plate - and it is forming the Himalayas as it does so, The Nazca plate and the South American plate and it is forming the Andes, The Pacific plate and the North American plate -Japan and the pacific rim, and so forth).

 

There are plenty of measured subduction zones around the world that completely invalidates his claim.

 

The fact that the crust gets subducted means that you can have one part of the crust at a rift producing more crust, and in another part it can be subducting and removing crust. The result of which is whatever is on that crust will slide away from the rift and towards the subduction zone. That is exactly what plate tectonics is. You don't need to then have an expanding Earth to explain it.

 

If there was an expanding Earth, and we had subduction zones, then you would expect that the rate of plate production would have to be much higher than the rate of subduction. However, measurements taken at these zones do not show that the crust is being produced fast enough to overwhelm the rate of subduction. The rate of subduction matches the rate of production.

 

This means that the surface of the Earth is "Expanding" at the same rate that it is "Shrinking", thus no net expansion is possible. If no net expansion is occuring, then the Earth can not be Expanding.

 

 

He paint the tectonic theory as a ridiculous picture (without really explaining why it is ridiculous) as an argument against it. This is a logical fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule .

 

Just because he can make it appear ridiculous does not mean that it is. In fact it is just as easy to make his arguments (expanding earth) appear just as ridiculous (Party Balloon anyone?). But notice that no one here has use those kinds of arguments against the Expanding Earth theory. We have shown though other means that it is ridiculous, but we have not made the argument against it: that we can make it appear ridiculous that it must therefore be false.

 

 

Umm, the reason that there is less of them now is that they have gone into making all the planets...

 

And the reason that there was 21 comets in the Shoemaker-Levi 9 comet that struck Jupiter was because the mass of Jupiter broke the comet into all those pieces due to the tidal forces.

 

Also, that Comet was not an Asteroid. Asteroids are made of mainly Iron and Silicon, Comets are made of Ices, some of which are very volatile and will evaporate as the heat from the sun warms it. Comets can be considered as a loosely bound (but very large) snow ball that has pockets of rapidly expanding gas due to it begin evaporated ices) that is trying to burst out from it. No wonder that the comet shattered into 21 pieces.

 

Actually, some asteroids are not much more than loosely bound gravel. These tend to shatter when they approach a planet (or anything with strong gravity), and fragment into the gravel. We see these as meteor showers and such.

 

So, just because this guy is cherry picking his data (solid meteorites) does not mean that there is not other types. And these other types violate his claims. Again proving him wrong.

 

He is right in that most Meteorites (that is meteors that reach the ground) are mostly solid iron, but the reason that they can reach the ground is because they are solid. All that not so solid space junk does not reach the ground, but just because it doesn't reach the ground does not mean that it is not up there.

 

But, all that aside, how does he go from 21 comets hitting Jupiter to "they were bigger in the past"? Is it just me or is this a really big Non-Sequetur?

 

 

Man he builds a great Strawman.

 

First, the rocks that make up the surface of the Earth can be recycled, they can be pushed under other crusts and then brought back to the surface (volcanoes), also the lands can be twisted and folded. In fact, if this weren't the case, then all the granite rocks on the surface of the Earth would have to be 4.5 billion years old. But the are not. This proves that either new granite is produced, or that it gets recycled.

 

This means that not all the Granite that is on the surface today had to be there 4.5 billion years ago.

 

In fact, Granite can form from Basalt given the right circumstances (temperature and pressures) and it is well know to do so.

 

So, it is possible that there was no granite 4.5 billion years ago, and all of it was produced later as part of the normal geological processes. The Surface of the Earth did not have to "be coated completely by a 2 – 4 mile crust of light granitic rock". Which completely blows his "Strawman" argument out of the water.

 

Now, even if the Earth was covered with Granites, the movement of the plates would push parts of this Granites together (raising them up as mountains, and subduction would drag some of it underneath the crust to be "recycled" as magma or metamorphosed into other forms of rock. And this explains why granite does not cover the entire surface of the Earth (we have lost some through subduction and the rest has been mashed together in the form of continents).

 

 

Yes, it can't just get subducted beneath Basaltic rocks as it is too light, but it can be subducted beneath other granitic rocks and this can push it far enough down to melt. Once it is melted, convection currents can then take it deeper into the Earth.

 

So even though it can't be subducted directly beneath Basaltic rock, it can be subducted beneath granitic rock and then melted and drawn deeper into the Earth.

 

 

Well so much for his conclusions then. Granite can be subducted.

 

 

 

Seriously, really?

 

First:

In pair production you create a pair of particles. One of which is Matter, the other is Anti Matter.

 

If Antimatter cones into contact with matter, then it will annihilate, destroying the Antimatter and the Matter it comes into contact with releasing energy.

 

Now if this is going on in the centre of the Earth, then we either should see a lot of antimatter flying away form Earth (and would have to explain how it gets the energy to do so where as the matter does not), or the amount of Matter being produced would equal the amount of Antimatter and then the Antimatter and Matter would be annihilated back into energy (thus no increase of matter).

 

Second:

It takes a lot of energy for Pair production. E=MC^2

 

The amount of Energy required fro pair production is equal to the Mass of the Matter multiplied by the Speed of Light squared. And remember, if you are using pair production, you have to make 2 particles (both matter and antimatter).

 

Lets do a back of the envelope calculation:

Let us assume that the Earth has twice the volume (hence the mass) that it had at some point in the past. Today it is about 5.9736×10^24 kg (well use 6X10^24 as this is a back of the envelope calculation).

 

So this would mean that half the mass was around 3X10^24 kg. We need to account for the same amount in an increase

 

Now, as the Earth is made up of Matter rather than Antimatter (if it was made up of even a small portion of antimatter then there would literally be an "Earth Shattering Ka-boom"), we will need to produce twice this 3X10^24kg, giving us a total of 6X10^24kg of matter needing to be produced.

 

Hang on, this means that there must have been an equal amount of matter to the current mass of the Earth produced to allow the Earth to double it's size.

 

Ok, I'll let that slide for now as we are interested in the amount of energy involved.

 

Ok, so we have worked out that we need 6X10^24kg of mass to be produced. So we multiply this by the square of the speed of light (300,000km/s X 300,000km/s = 90,000,000,000 km/s).

 

This gives us a value of: 540,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules! Holy batman!

actually there are two activities are going on earth. one earth is expanding and continents are shrinking.

jsispat, you do know we have tons of evidence for continental drift and zero of shrinking continents(unless they are on colliding plates, the subcontinent of india is shrinking in area as it builds up the himalayas).

 

also, as has been explained to you many many times, the earth is not a tree.

if you agree that the subcontinent of india is shrinking in area as it builds up the himalayas).

100% same activity is going on bark of tree and we can not neglect that all continents were jointed with each other at early stage. same is happening with bark of tree.

reg almunium oxide is not proper example becuae it is part of earth only.

reg lava it is a surplus material in the body of earth and should be errupt out. this is like a peak only

or it could be because gravity is a uniform attractor.

 

 

 

err, i don't know where to begin on how wrong this is.

1. first my point earth is living thing so it is growing also. we should not neglect the very clear evidence that all continets were jointed at early stage.old skin of earth at early stage to whom i say it bark of earth, started shrinking also. actually the whole process is like expantion of log of tree and its bark is shrinking when log is growing.

final i mean our planet is expanding but continents are shrinking time to time.

inner forces in the earth are responisble for growth.

when earth started germinating from its seed that is meteroids its weight was in few kilo grams only.

valcanoes are like eruption of wax from log of tree.

i also belive that earth is expanding because if we see world map it is clear indication that all continents joints each other long time ago.

but my theory little diffent that earth is expanding but continents are shrinking also. this all is like a log of tree 100% same bark of log is shrinking and log of tree is expanding at same time.

yes it may be possible that core of earth has very low temprature that we are thinking about.

2. reg temprature of magma and lava . it is extra material which should be erupt out for the life of earth. this is like a peak comes out side from human body.this is manfatured only in mantle.

may be death of our planet

uh... no.

 

the earth 'grew' when asteroids smashed into each other and stuck together. it is not alive by any definition of the word.

 

there was no germination. i'm not even sure how planets would do the nasty.

 

meteroids are not seeds. they are rocks.

 

no attched photos. but the earth is not growing in layers. the layered structure in earth is entirely due to buoancy. when you put mercury water and oil into a container these wil for a layered structure but they are not growing like that.

 

the core is red entirely due to the heat. if it was not hot it would be dull grey. the crust is brown, not white.

 

i don't see any logic in this. Also the initial premise is wrong. therefore applying logic leads to nonsense.

 

it sounds like you have thought 'hmm... planet... plant... the sound similar so they must be the same thing!'

i agree that asteroids smashed each other but this is death of extra asteroids otherwise there will be flood of planets in universe.

2. reg your idea if we put mercury and oil in one container there will be layers but this doest prove that earth formation like this way only.tree log has layers like same earth . according to you tree has made like current theory of earth formation.

can you tell me any single thing having skin and made by nature only and is dead.

I don’t know if the earth fits the criteria of being “alive” or not. Your idea reminds me of the gaia hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

 

In terms of planetary and solar system “growth”, I’ve always wondered what the long body of the solar system looks like. For example, Jupitor the planet, is starting to look like a mini-sun, with it’s moons starting to look like planets. Was the sun once a planet and the earth once a moon for that planet? Will our moon eventually develop an atmosphere, begin to rotate and start behaving like a planet to it’s sun, the earth. Do the moons throughout the solar system represent "new growth"? Instead of singing in the shower, these are the notions that go through my head.

yes according to my theory one day moon will develop its own atmosphere and become planet of sun.our moon is produced from seeds from earth only.

After the discussion in that other thread of yours, how can you still believe this?

because current theory of formation of planet doent seems practical.if we think ourselves only and honestly. i think current theory is just theroatical and tranfering to each other nobody bother.

actually every living thing has skin that all planets also have.

2. all planets have particular shape it also help my theory that earth is a living thing and growing.

3. all living thing erects the surplus material like peak from human body and wax from trees same valcanoes erupt from earth .