space_ninja Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Expanding earth! Why isn't this theory the official theory of how the landmasses look the way the do today? I mean, anyone with a brain, some logic, and a open mind knows this must be the case. I came across a good movie that explains this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Magically generating huge amounts of mass from nowhere is generally frowned upon. If that's not a good enough reason to disregard it, I can give you a dozen others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
space_ninja Posted April 20, 2007 Author Share Posted April 20, 2007 Do you really belive that our science today has figured out the absolute truth? Ever heard of thermodynamics or whatever it is called in english. There is alot of junk and propaganda science out there. Governments could have reasons to hide this truth. Hah just look at global warming, everyone is being brainwashed to think that co2 is the main gas that causes global warming, it's WATER FFS! wake up and think logical people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 oo oo how about the fact that pythagoras calculated the diameter of earth to within a few kilometers of what we know it to be today? the error he got is well within the error margin for his measurements and its enough to bork expanding earth because the earth should have been well smaller than that. also, what about the observed subduction zones and the mid atlantic ridge? the growing himalayas as well. dear god the stupidity. it hurts my hungover brain. Do you really belive that our science today has figured out the absolute truth? Ever heard of thermodynamics or whatever it is called in english. There is alot of junk and propaganda science out there. Governments could have reasons to hide this truth. Hah just look at global warming, everyone is being brainwashed to think that co2 is the main gas that causes global warming, it's WATER FFS! wake up and think logical people! if i said what i wanted to say to you right now i would probably get a lifetime ban so i won't. seriously, we know science doesn't have the perfect view of reality but it is a self correcting and working approximation of reality. as new evidence is uncovered the theories are adapted to explain this. expanding earth is discarded through actual observations of geological processes, and the fact it requires massive amounts of matter to be deposited on the earth with no obvious source and the planet is much colder than it would be if it were falling from space. also, there is no government propaganda here. what would the political purpose be? the continents have not moved very far in the 200,000 years humans have been here and insignificantly in the past 100 years which would actually matter for political reasons. as for global warming, there are a multitude of factors and CO2 is the one that has increased the most. thus it has the greatest effect even though it is not the most effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Appeal to conspiracy is not a particularly convincing way to explain a lack of evidence for your strawman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 dear god the stupidity. it hurts my hungover brain. Ditto, actually. It's not so much the "theory." I mean, it's obviously wrong when you think about it, but it does make a certain intuitive sense, and it could be instructive to explain its flaws. It's the "anyone with a brain, some logic, and a open mind knows this must be the case" part that just makes me want to go back to bed. That it was then followed by aggressive conspiracy theories makes me glad I was initially rude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Solar orbit might be a problem too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Solar orbit might be a problem too. not so much our orbit around the sun but the moons orbit around us (or lack thereof if it was true) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Our orbit around the sun would be the bigger issue considering how huge the temperature change would be if our orbit changed that dramatically. This thread is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 well, the orbit around the earth wouldn't be affected much if the earth maintained the same velocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriggerGrinn Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 He who accpets his stupidity finds much growth from his submission and obidience. Biologists developed theories that suggest their may have been a requirement for a lower gravity force in the time of which large bodied dinosaurs and other such creatures like the wolly mamoth and the giant sloth, and other legendary such creatures walked the planet. Their bones structure and suggested heart size gives strong evidence that without alternative bilogical systems like secondary hearts and the ability to breath in their bones and or have multiple stage lung systems like some birds today alot of complications would arise. Physics would suggest on the contrary that it would require a larger diameter prehistoric earth in order to develope a lower force of gravity. A scenario of which would require a hotter tempeature in the core of the earth and a thinner crust. Tests have shown that materials that heat up in free space expand dramatically, due to the fact that much of the bonding of materials is due to the chemical bonds which work in cooperation with the gravity force to hold things in a static form. With the heating of material the bonds weaken and the material expands, as it does gravity has less domination over the size of the liquid body that the earth once was, and still mostly is. The earth has actually infact shrunk in accordence to the theory at a rate which is difficult to put a date on. Expanding earth is the wrong term. Dynamic earth is well known. We just happen to live such a short period of time that it seems like a rediculous idea... But there is suggestive evidence that due to the large size of early life on the planet a lower gravity or larger earth, is a considerable postulate to consider. Also there are suggestive legends of large giants of men that walked the earth.. living long, long lives... All theories have been improved upon.. its stupidity to suggest speculation of current thesis's is stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 okay trigger, i'll accept that the earth can vary in size due to known phenomenon(thermal expansion, bombardment and i'll even through in the creation of decay products, two atoms have more volume than 1 usually.). The only one that seriously changed the size of earth was bombardment in the early life of the planet. it took earth from a dust particle to what it is today. in that stage it did expand. although at that time it was a ball of molten rock. as it started to cool it would have contracted but it was also still being bombarded so the effects would negate each other and probably lean towards expansion. since the large majority of the earth (mantle downwards) is still pretty damn hot from the bombardment i think we can assume that it isn't varying much in terms of temperature so thermal contraction isn't going to be very noticable even over a billion years or 2. either way, if the earth expanded from a pangea in the time of the dinosaurs call it 128 million years ago. to the size it is today the shear amount of mass needed would have liquidized the earth again. and we can only assume that the earth was even smaller than that before, so maybe 3 billion years ago earth would have been smaller than an atom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 well, the orbit around the earth wouldn't be affected much if the earth maintained the same velocity.If it kept the same velocity, then were would all the extra momentum come from? I'm pretty sure if an independent object in motion were to suddenly gain mass then its velocity would decrease in direct proportion so that m*v would remain constant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 tree, i think we're trying to apply proper physical laws to unphysical situations here. i was thinking that maybe the extra mass would have came from space dust colliding with the earth(even though there isn't enough up there) so it would already have a decent momentum. although, that would just have buried all the land. if the earth just ind of gained mass in situ then who the hell can say what would happen. things don't just expand from the size of mars to the size of earth without any addition of material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnF Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 You're all forgetting something... What if as the Earth gets bigger, so do the rulers and tape measures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now