Earth Growing

[D H]

The mass has not changed (other than by more solar wind becoming water and any meteorites).

I refuted your solar wind nonsense a few posts back. You did nothing to challenge my rebuttal. So why are you bring it up again?

 

Mass gain from meteorites and dust does occur, but it is very small.

 

 

The temperature of the core is rising.

Nonsense.

 

This is not so in the core. The heat has nowhere to go in any hurry. The tempratures at the surface layers decreases over time, and since the Earth formed, thickens the crust slowly. In the core heat is trapped and takes time to reach the surface.

More nonsense.

 

Temperatures can be millions of degrees, while we presume it is cooling instead.

Nonsense is way too nice a word for this garbage. This is excrement. A temperature in the millions of degrees would mean that the Earth's core is plasma at an extremely high pressure. The combination of pressure and temperature would vaporize the Earth and blow the Earth away. The D'' layer would need to be made of unobtainium to keep those high temperatures and high pressures at bay.

 

 

The heavier elements have sunk and tend to have the more radioactive isotopes, perhaps all isotopes for elements like uranuim. Who presumed the core is only molten iron, yet uranium ore exists at the surface.

This is a straw man. Nobody presumes the Earth's core is only molten iron. It is mostly but not entirely iron and nickel, and it comprises a solid inner core and liquid outer core. Scientists know this from seismograph returns from earthquakes. The techniques are very similar to those used to "see" a fetus or tumorous mass via ultrasound.

 

That some of the Earth's heat flux arises from radioactivity is known. Some of this heat might be produced by fission rather than radioactive decay. The Oklo reactor is direct evidence that natural nuclear reactors can exist. However, fission, even deep in the Earth's core, would produce observable signatures in the form of anti-neutrinos. The observed flux of geo anti-neutrinos rules out a sizable (> 3TW) natural nuclear reactor at the Earth's core.

 

 

The planet grows from the mid ocean ridge found in every ocean, and the basins are basalt, new at the ridge, and up to 180 million years old at the edges of continents. On the contrary, rocks as old as the Earth exist only on the continents. Pangea and Gondwanaland make no sense. Why come together to split up?

Plate tectonics is that answer to your questions. It explains exactly why the oceanic crust is young, continental crust is old. It explains not only why Pangea formed and broke up but also why the six or so supercontinents that preceded Pangea formed and later broke up. It makes an immense amount of sense. It is the grand unifying theory of geology.

 

 

The continents jigsaw together into the entire planet without oceans, 55% of current radius!

Only with a wildly vivid imagination, plus an incredible ability to ignore discrepancies, plus an equally incredible ability to ignore evidence of widespread oceans for the last three plus billion years.

 

There is no certainty of tectonic plate boundaries

For the most part, yes, there is. Are the boundaries known perfectly? Of course not. Nothing in science is known perfectly.

 

nor of the causes of the greatly insufficient subduction sites

What is this insufficient subduction to which you refer? Citation needed, please.

 

 

I'm a nut.

Finally, a fact with which we can all agree.

[Pymander]

That's not the only problems it needs to solve. Where did all the new mass come from? Because either the Earth was on a heck of a diet back then, or someone needs to explain away the four fold higher surface gravity at the time.

 

In order for the gravity to remain relatively constant over the intervening 180 million years, the earth would need to have had 1/4 of the mass it does now. That's not an insignificant problem to surmount. Essentially, you're trying to prove that the earth went from roughly the same radius as Mars and a little more than twice the mass to the size it is now in 180 million years.

 

And that's AFTER blooping off 5% of it's total mass at the time as the moon (unless you're saying it, too, is gaining mass).

 

So we have the earth gaining (if my math is right) 55,300,000,000,000,000 kgs a year. That's roughly 1.8 million kgs a second worldwide. I think we'd have noticed by now.

 

The mass of the Earth has hardly changed (other than from solar wind becoming water and from meteorites). The temperature of the core is rising. Reactors produce unprecedented amounts of heat from fuel slowly. Atom bombs do it quickly. Slowly decaying uranium, thorium, potasium and whatnot on the surface is also decaying, but the heat disipates into space. This is not so in the core. The heat has nowhere to go in any hurry. The tempratures at the surface layers decreases over time, and since the Earth formed, thickens the crust slowly. In the core heat is trapped and takes time to reach the surface. Temperatures can be millions of degrees, while we presume it is cooling instead. The heavier elements have sunk and tend to have the more radioactive isotopes, perhaps all isotopes for elements like uranuim. Who presumed the core is only molten iron, yet uranium ore exists at the surface. Uranium is the heaviest element occuring naturally because its half life is relatively long. Since supernova created these elements until the present, all with suffiently long half lives will still exist, and plutonium with half life 2000 years will be all gone. The earth has been cooling its skin for 4600 million years. From the moment the crust thickened volcanoes would have vented this heat in large numbers originally but not very big. It is now 20 miles thick under continents, but only about five under oceans. Volcanoes are now few and huge. Instead rifting, like the Great African Ridge (a new future ocean), vents much of this heat, and is caused by expansion. The planet grows from the mid ocean ridge found in every ocean, and the basins are basalt, new at the ridge, and up to 180 million years old at the edges of continents. On the contrary, rocks as old as the Earth exist only on the continents. Pangea and Gondwanaland make no sense. Why come together to split up? The continents jigsaw together into the entire planet without oceans, 55% of current radius! There is no certainty of tectonic plate boundaries, nor of the causes of the greatly insufficient subduction sites, nor of their nature as such rather than rifting or both. This speculation long preceeded The Geological Map of tThe World, and should, like much else, never have been set in stone. Why do they do this?

 

The Moon has not likely been ripped out of the Earth's core materials where the heavier elements would be. It therefore seems to lack tectonic activity. The ring of fire seems a little isolated to account for all necessary subduction activity. Then, what happened to the planet that is now asteroids. And why is someone who questions current but transient 'scientific' opinion a fruit loop. Some theories (Pacific caused by throwing off of moon, bats are primates, KT extinction caused by supernova, etc) seem to have been correct to me and then changed, some like pterosaurs could not fly went the other way. To be an immaculate sheep, one must first of all be a sheep - Albert Einstein. Too bad about the bomb. We likely would still call "time and space not real" theories (once occult) woo woo. He was no sheep and very woo woo, and both were a necessary part of his genius. Yet I've seen him portrayed as an aetheist 'reasoning' with a priest, in a school propaganda doco. Not much more can be accomplished here, check out the plethora of leads I've supplied, if you want to lose the derails in your tracks, and think for yourself. I just can't see how anyone can look at The Geological Map of The World and not believe in expansion tectonics. Then ... Jesus performed miracles, and the authorities vied with him and had him murdered, or is that myth? Are you absolutely sure? So Jews don't really exist either and the Bible was written by J.R.R.Tolkein. Again, the Constantine bull (Nexus again, also read Uncensored and Atlantis Rising, some makes sense, some does not (to me))doesn't wash after the Gospel of Thomas was discovered. Cool. I'm a nut. People, life, the universe and / or God (by any name) must make sense to YOU.

 

...if thou art true to thine self, the stars in their

course will fight for thee; but if thou art upon those ways

that make for question marks here as to thy veracity, thy

sincerity, thy ability, as to thy consideration of each and

everyone in the proper sphere that touches each proposition

coming before self, then - as it were the moon and the sun

are set upon thy efforts, and the darkness of trouble and

discord arises from those seeds of uncertainty that bring

distressing experiences in the activities of all.

From Edgar Cayce reading 257-162

 

 

 

[ACG52]

And your reply is to simply paste together your previous posts?

 

Nut indeed.

[Greg H.]

<snip all the repeated crap>

 

 

People, life, the universe and / or God (by any name) must make sense to YOU.

 

...if thou art true to thine self, the stars in their

course will fight for thee; but if thou art upon those ways

that make for question marks here as to thy veracity, thy

sincerity, thy ability, as to thy consideration of each and

everyone in the proper sphere that touches each proposition

coming before self, then - as it were the moon and the sun

are set upon thy efforts, and the darkness of trouble and

discord arises from those seeds of uncertainty that bring

distressing experiences in the activities of all.

From Edgar Cayce reading 257-162

 

 

 

 

Your woo has no power here. Come back with a substantive response to the challenges indicated, or kindly admit that your theory is a load of horse droppings and abandon it.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Pymander, the rules dictate that you present evidence or models to support your contentions, and that you respond to criticism of your thesis. If you cannot or will not, the thread will be closed.

Responding to this mod note in lieu of discussing science will be taken as a sign that the thread is to be locked

[Moontanman]

I think it's amazing how this stunningly stupid idea keeps popping up... I can't even see how it could be misunderstood data, nothing points to it's validity... everything points to it being horse feathers... I love the idea that somehow gravity was lower 180,000,000 years ago due to the Earth being smaller and that allowed dinosaurs to be large and how does the creation of the moon have anything to do with the earth 180,000,000 years ago? I've honestly tried to see how this idea could gain footing in the modern world and I can't see it.. it truly make no sense at all... Although some creationists seem to really be pushing this...

[D H]

I think it's amazing how this stunningly stupid idea keeps popping up.

This expanding Earth concept isn't a new revolutionary idea. It is an old idea, long since falsified. I can somewhat understand scientists such as S. Warren Carey, and through him, James Maxlow. It's sad, but some scientists refuse to acknowledge paradigm shifts in their field. They instead hold tight to falsified notions because of some emotion, irrational attachment attachment to those old ideas. This kind of thing happens all the time with paradigm shifts in the sciences. Poincaré completely rejected Cantor's notion of transfinite numbers. Fred Hoyle held tight to his steady state universe theory long after it had been falsified. Albert Einstein could never quite accept quantum mechanics and coauthored the EPR paradox paper to try to debunk QM.

 

 

Although some creationists seem to really be pushing this...

It's part of the overall "throw excrement at the wall of science and see what sticks" philosophy that appears to predominate amongst many creationists. Creationists glom onto fringe/crackpot scientists such as Tom Van Faldern, Halton Arp, and Maxlow because in the minds of creationists these crackpot notions cast doubt on science as a whole. If the expanding Earth nonsense is correct, then a whole lot of paleontology and the proof it offers for evolution goes down the drain. For example, expanding Earth says that the 505 million year old Burgess shales must be wrong somehow because there were no oceans 505 million years ago. One problem with this line of thinking: It is expanding Earth nonsense that is wrong. The dates attached to and the significance of the Burgess shales are just fine.

[Pymander]

This expanding Earth concept isn't a new revolutionary idea. It is an old idea, long since falsified. I can somewhat understand scientists such as S. Warren Carey, and through him, James Maxlow. It's sad, but some scientists refuse to acknowledge paradigm shifts in their field. They instead hold tight to falsified notions because of some emotion, irrational attachment attachment to those old ideas. This kind of thing happens all the time with paradigm shifts in the sciences. Poincaré completely rejected Cantor's notion of transfinite numbers. Fred Hoyle held tight to his steady state universe theory long after it had been falsified. Albert Einstein could never quite accept quantum mechanics and coauthored the EPR paradox paper to try to debunk QM.

 

 

 

It's part of the overall "throw excrement at the wall of science and see what sticks" philosophy that appears to predominate amongst many creationists. Creationists glom onto fringe/crackpot scientists such as Tom Van Faldern, Halton Arp, and Maxlow because in the minds of creationists these crackpot notions cast doubt on science as a whole. If the expanding Earth nonsense is correct, then a whole lot of paleontology and the proof it offers for evolution goes down the drain. For example, expanding Earth says that the 505 million year old Burgess shales must be wrong somehow because there were no oceans 505 million years ago. One problem with this line of thinking: It is expanding Earth nonsense that is wrong. The dates attached to and the significance of the Burgess shales are just fine.

 

'Creationists' choose what they call symbolic (eg. being born again) and what they call literal (the garden of Eden). Science compounds hypotheses on flawed hypotheses (big bang, asymmetric matter - antimatter, dark matter, dark energy, neutrino, followed by more neutrino rediscovering itself than Madonna (zero rest mass, own antiparticle, now it has mass, now it is a transformer), gravitons, particles with mass being speed of light forces to maintain time/space and thereby c, composite particles being fundumental,etc), interpret a handful of numbers, which isolate variables more or less successfully, to support anything but hypothesis number one. This does not even bring into the question the demons none of us can yet control except by denying them in ourselves, and projecting the same at others as brothers in arms. Einstein had problems with more than quantum theory and Shroedingers elaborate particle/probability model. I have read enough of his work to know that he did not sling off at those who threaten his smugness, because he didn't have such as I have just witnessed, if any. He said much more by omission, much that is not understood, and much about the very philosophy of science, its (valid) methods as well as its (severe) limitations. Science sees through a microscope but is bewildered when it looks through a telescope, both metaphorically, and quite literally. Do not be too proud of this technological marvel you have created. Its power is insignificant compared to the power of the Force. That is plagiarism! Today I see the exploitation of science against humanity, and Einstein's more subtle works becoming slowly understood and a threat to such as use ... what to achieve their ends, and by the same as means, and no government not under that power? Wealth panders only to selfishness and irresistably invites abuse - Albert Einstein. Make no mistake, great achievments have been made, with much dedication, and always the scientist stands on the shoulders of giants - paraphrasing Isaac Newton. But if you educate a devil you get a clever devil. And knowledge and power become constructive or destructive in direct proportion, depending on application for the benefit of the few or the many (Spock). Mostly, the beneficiaries of the science created by honest men, conscientiously attempting to assist and advance humanity, are as human as anyone else. The existence of one who could say "the Lord of this world cometh, and he hath nothing in me" is simply denied.

[D H]

'Creationists' choose what they call symbolic (eg. being born again) and what they call literal (the garden of Eden). Science compounds hypotheses on flawed hypotheses (big bang, asymmetric matter - antimatter, dark matter, dark energy, neutrino, followed by more neutrino rediscovering itself than Madonna (zero rest mass, own antiparticle, now it has mass, now it is a transformer), gravitons, particles with mass being speed of light forces to maintain time/space and thereby c, composite particles being fundumental,etc), interpret a handful of numbers, which isolate variables more or less successfully, to support anything but hypothesis number one. This does not even bring into the question the demons none of us can yet control except by denying them in ourselves, and projecting the same at others as brothers in arms. Einstein had problems with more than quantum theory and Shroedingers elaborate particle/probability model. I have read enough of his work to know that he did not sling off at those who threaten his smugness, because he didn't have such as I have just witnessed, if any. He said much more by omission, much that is not understood, and much about the very philosophy of science, its (valid) methods as well as its (severe) limitations. Science sees through a microscope but is bewildered when it looks through a telescope, both metaphorically, and quite literally. Do not be too proud of this technological marvel you have created. Its power is insignificant compared to the power of the Force. That is plagiarism! Today I see the exploitation of science against humanity, and Einstein's more subtle works becoming slowly understood and a threat to such as use ... what to achieve their ends, and by the same as means, and no government not under that power? Wealth panders only to selfishness and irresistably invites abuse - Albert Einstein. Make no mistake, great achievments have been made, with much dedication, and always the scientist stands on the shoulders of giants - paraphrasing Isaac Newton. But if you educate a devil you get a clever devil. And knowledge and power become constructive or destructive in direct proportion, depending on application for the benefit of the few or the many (Spock). Mostly, the beneficiaries of the science created by honest men, conscientiously attempting to assist and advance humanity, are as human as anyone else. The existence of one who could say "the Lord of this world cometh, and he hath nothing in me" is simply denied.

 

Two comments:

1. Thanks for that completely meaningless, paranoid rant. It helped me get a picture of why some are attracted to this expanding Earth nonsense. It's not a pretty picture.

 

2. Instead of posting nonsense, why don't you try answering the questions posed to you?

[ACG52]

Nothing in the preceeding post has anything to do with the subject of the thread.

 

It's just meaningless word salad.

[Moontanman]

It is an odd mindset that complete nonsense answers any question...

 

I have to admit I have had fundamentalist family members approach me with such a meaningless tirade and then act as though they have said something profound...

[Greg H.]

Do not be too proud of this technological marvel you have created. Its power is insignificant compared to the power of the Force.

 

Did you seriously just quote Darth Vader in your word salad?

Dude.

 

 

And then you go on to misquote Spock.

depending on application for the benefit of the few or the many (Spock)

 

You know, basing scientific arguments on science fiction is not normally acceptable. You do know that, right?

Edited July 15, 2012 by Greg H.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

OK, then. Closure it is.

Do not re-introduce the topic.