• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Growing Earth / Expanding Earth Hypothesis (Earth Getting Bigger?)

GadaffiDuck said:
I was being somewhat facetious about static and dynamic pressure. Also, the solar wind acts with the Earth's heliosphere - this is complex and it is too late for me to do the research. Anyhoo, Energy reacting with the Earth is not the same as energy becoming matter.

... :D
Click to expand...
Quite. The amount of Solar and Cosmic radiation, energetic enough to create new particles and matter, adding to the Earth's mass, must be miniscule and far outweighed by the amount of particulate matter being captured by the Earth's gravitational and magnetic fields, as it rolls through Space.

Not to mention all the meteoric debris slamming into us all the time.

Is the Earth's collective mass growing, or shrinking (as our atmosphere slowly boils off into Space due to that same Solar and Cosmic radiation, as well as the effects of the vacuum of Space)? Some scientists have probably done the math (hotly disputed, of course).
 
ok this for me boils down to how old is the earth
and is it warm?
the biosphere is protected by the magnectic feild around the planet
this isnt making me feel cold

the rest is obvious
 
misterwibble said:
Plate tectonics alone don't explain the discrepancy in the ages of the ocean floor and the continental crust.
Click to expand...

Yes it fucking does.
Click to expand...

Cool your jets, MW, and pay attention to what I said. Plate tectonics was first proposed by Wegener at the turn of the century, long before subduction. Plate tectonics concerns the construct and activity of the sedimentary and rock layers of the Earth. Wegener was practically laughed out of science when he propose PT then, and he took it with him to his grave.

Plate tectonics was embraced almost half a century later, about a decade after Sam Cary proposed Expanding Earth. Expanding Earth or Growing Earth does not refute the plate tectonic construct of the Earth. It's contention is only with some of the theories derived from it, such as subduction.

You can make any assertions you like, but when you ignore evidence such as analysis of seismic waves showing subducted plates intruding into the mantle, then frankly you're applying wishful thinking or your theoretical model over actual observations.
Click to expand...

I have seen the seismic wave analysis, MW, and frankly the conclusions drawn from them, as if to assert that they indicate subducted plates is pathetic. An outrageous attempt to force evidence into fitting a preconceived theory. Of course, using Photoshop to make those graphs helped the brainwashing process by implying sesmic waves detected rectangular slabs in the mantle. No such thing was detcted there and you and everyone else has bought this malarkey as if to prove that we've finally detected a subducted plate. I'm sorry to say this but there's too much rubbing each other's backs going on in science and too much manipulation of questionable evidence to pull the community line.

But my problem isn't with the deceptive way the information is being presented. I'm more concerned with how science, meant to be a developing study, has come to an almost static state of belief in itself, bordering on the type of religeous zeal that's makes its worshippers blind.

I'd advise all of us to remain free thinkers and not react automatically as fanatic believers. There are new discoveries to be made in science and you cannot become party to them if you vehemently argue outdated theories as a zealot of the scientific community.


What next? "There is no spoon."? FFS!
Click to expand...

This, MW, is exactly what's wrong with science. Is this your great contribution to knowledge? Pathetic unwarranted ridicule of someone you disagree with in a discussion?

What insecurity or ignorance are you trying to hide with such tactics?
 
ok ill live and die as im told
if im allowed
good night and whatever
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Quite. The amount of Solar and Cosmic radiation, energetic enough to create new particles and matter, adding to the Earth's mass, must be miniscule and far outweighed by the amount of particulate matter being captured by the Earth's gravitational and magnetic fields, as it rolls through Space.
Click to expand...

Unless we consider the intensity of the EM field at the core of the Earth, far greater than cosmic radiation. The Earth, riding an Electro-Magnetic line/field around the sun, has its highest EM intensity at its core. Much greater than anything at the surface or in the space around it. This would certainly be enough to generate new matter particles at a far greater rate than a cosmic ray experiment in a lab.
 
TinFinger said:
ok ill live and die as im told
if im allowed
good night and whatever
Click to expand...

Sleep well, Tin. The Earth has a self-sustaining mechanism and appears to be made to support our survival on it. If it grows, then so do all of its systems. Just like you and I do.
 
MichealNetzer said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Quite. The amount of Solar and Cosmic radiation, energetic enough to create new particles and matter, adding to the Earth's mass, must be miniscule and far outweighed by the amount of particulate matter being captured by the Earth's gravitational and magnetic fields, as it rolls through Space.
Click to expand...

Unless we consider the intensity of the EM field at the core of the Earth, far greater than cosmic radiation. The Earth, riding an Electro-Magnetic line/field around the sun, has its highest EM intensity at its core. Much greater than anything at the surface or in the space around it. This would certainly be enough to generate new matter particles at a far greater rate than a cosmic ray experiment in a lab.
Click to expand...
Its just possible your getting your Gravitational and Electromagnetic fields mixed up, of course?
 
Very late and the jack is flowing. Good point Pietro. Also, I dind't think magnetic energy accumulated at a central point - it doesn't work like that . As I understand fields, to enclose a field of force one would have to generate a field in four dimensions and somehow (?) fold it on itself, thus forcing it into two dimensions. How?
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Its just possible your getting your Gravitational and Electromagnetic fields mixed up, of course?
Click to expand...

It's possible but not likely. You must imagine I'm aware that gravity is understood to be a force other than Electro-Magnetism.

But I believe there's no such conclusive proof and that there are indications that point to all such energy forces being basically one force, manifest differently, depending upon the conditions and phenomenon under which they're manifested.

So, I believe gravity to be Electromagnetic in nature.
 
Could you explain these indications? While a unified theory may be desired, gravity does not appear to be EM in nature at all.
 
GadaffiDuck said:
Very late and the jack is flowing. Good point Pietro. Also, I dind't think magnetic energy accumulated at a central point - it doesn't work like that . As I understand fields, to enclose a field of force one would have to generate a field in four dimensions and somehow (?) fold it on itself, thus forcing it into two dimensions. How?
Click to expand...

It's not enclosed GD. We know, for example, that a magnet has a electromagentic fields emanating concentrically from it. At certain distances, the magnet has a greater pull than others. These fields become weaker as we recede from the magnet.

The sun works much the same way. At certain lines around it, the field is strongest. That's where the planets ride, on those lines.

So the EM field at the core of the Earth isn't only dependant on what's at the core, it's also a function of the center of the Earth riding the highest intensity of the EM field line around the sun.
 
I agree that magnetic effect decreases over distance (probably an inverse square law or something) - but that is nto the same thing as saying that, if I understand your logic, at an area underneath the most powerful concentric ring the magnetic pressure somehow conspires to act as a holding cell allowing positrons and electrons to do the jiggy jiggy that you previously mentioned. I don't beleive it works like that. You appear to be proposing something that sounds like magnetic density, which sounds like a confusion of gravitational effects - the conclusion being something akin to a reverse blackhole (spewing matter). There are probably something like 6+ contributing factors to the earth's magnetic field (hell, maybe 12 - will check).

How long have you held these views and what inspired you to this type of thinking? :D
 
GadaffiDuck said:
Could you explain these indications? While a unified theory may be desired, gravity does not appear to be EM in nature at all.
Click to expand...

It maight not appear to be EM in nature because of it being an accumulation of the same EM force through such a large mass as the Earth has.

The basic and strongest force we see in the universe is a pulling attractive force. We see it in the Atom, in the Proton which pulls through the its positive Electromagnetic charge and rides an Electron at its outer edge. The Electron is negative in charge and has no such pull itself, it's held in orbit around the atom by the Proton's pull.

Atoms accumulate together and tend to attract more atoms. They seek them out and pull them into them. That's how matter bonds. It's the same base force.

So when we stand at the surface of the Earth, we're experiencing the accumulated Electromagnetic pull of all the EM force within all the atoms under us all the way down to the core of the Earth.

Add to this the basic Em force on which the planet is riding and we may not be able to detect it as Electromagnetic, yet, but the nature of the atomic structure and the EM charge it sports, is good enough reason to consider that gravity is an accumulation of that force.

Then there is the electromagnetic pull at the Northern Pole. That's clearly electromgnetic in nature and it has a gravitational pull.
 
GadaffiDuck said:
How long have you held these views and what inspired you to this type of thinking? :D
Click to expand...

I really don't like science too much, GD. I'd much prefer to think and study history and social evolution. But science has become a part of it for me because I've felt how it's become a social construct and how too many theories are based on a "council of agreement" phenomenon. Sometimes when the big council wants to stay on top, it'll knock down little guys who are making sound observations.

Snce beginning to study it about 15 years ago, I've run into too much of this strong-arming in the discussions I've had. It made me suspicious enough to look into things more. I believe there's a lot more to learn and that we need to open the horizons a little.

I've found Im not the only one. There are a lot of certified scientists who feel the same.
 
I have no problems with questioning current wisdom; but do feel as though one must wear the appropriate suit when doing so. I wonder as to your theory of atomic bonding. Electrons can share bonds if a shell is incomplete, for example, on the second electron tier of a carbon atom, there are four available spaces; thus 4hydrogen atoms can bond - producing methane. I think you are confusing classical laws of physics and thermodynamics with quantum theory e.g. the solar system model of an atom (which is a very poor image of an atom).
 
GadaffiDuck said:
... I don't beleive it works like that. You appear to be proposing something that sounds like magnetic density, which sounds like a confusion of gravitational effects - the conclusion being something akin to a reverse blackhole (spewing matter). ...
Click to expand...
There's a few theories about a blackhole at the centre of the Earth, perhaps even powering the Earth's internal fires.

This is a jolly good article and well worth a read:

http://www.kressworks.com/Science/A_black_hole_ate_my_planet.htm

The Earth's core is really too small to generate enough energy to convert to matter using electromagnetism, or gravitational forces. The math is all wrong.

The Earth does sweep up a lot of high energy particles from the Solar Wind, because of its electromagnetic field though. In fact the Earth's EMF helps protect us from a lot of hard radiation.

And, lightning sucks up a lot of Solar Wind powered ionization, that would otherwise make satellite communication and the like impossible, by creating a 'safety zone'.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7122
 
Superb article. Perhaps it should be given a thread for posterity?
 
GadaffiDuck said:
I have no problems with questioning current wisdom; but do feel as though one must wear the appropriate suit when doing so. I wonder as to your theory of atomic bonding. Electrons can share bonds if a shell is incomplete, for example, on the second electron tier of a carbon atom, there are four available spaces; thus 4hydrogen atoms can bond - producing methane. I think you are confusing classical laws of physics and thermodynamics with quantum theory e.g. the solar system model of an atom (which is a very poor image of an atom).
Click to expand...

It is not truly a poor image of an atom. Perhaps simplified, but not poor.

The atom is made more complex due to the bonding processes and mechanism, but at it's root, the binding force works in the same way.

The positively charged atom nucleus creates an EM field around it. It is a pulling force, like a magnet. that's all it is. When two atoms bond by sharing electrons, it is this same force which is binding them. The electron is the medium which binds the two atoms through this one basic force. There is no other force. This is why Quantum theory makes this comparison to the solar system model. The construct of the atom is more complex but the binding force remains one basic force.

But I'm open for a discovery of some other force or energy in the universe. I simply haven't seen anything convincing to indicate there's more than one. The only other challenger is Gravity, which, for all intents and purposes, is only theorized to be a separate force because it was born prior to the discovery of the atomic structure to the universe. We appear to have carried it around as extra baggage since, reluctant to adapt it to new observations and discovery. And so, it remains a mystery that we'll fumble in the dark with until we realize that the simplest answer is likely to be the most true.
 
Interesting. But all my books on quantum say that the solar system model is poor. And offer good explanations for why (which I am happy to discus at a later point - v.late and not exactly sober). I will talk about bonding later as well.

I was wondering, at asocial level (by way of psychology) the marketing and PR behind your web site. You are clearly passionate about expounding your views and take good natured joshing very well. However, I note that your strap line (revolution) has the intriguing 'e' in order to highight evolution. Further, you mention apocalyptic (followed by pheonix), while cultivating what appears to be a messianic look. I was wondering if this was intentional, or just happy coincidence? What effect do you hope that your 'look' and message give out? No offence is meant by teh above, I'm merely curious (business development, marketing and PR used to be my main bag) :D
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
The Earth's core is really too small to generate enough energy to convert to matter using electromagnetism, or gravitational forces. The math is all wrong.
Click to expand...

Dirac, predictor of the discovery of antimatter, or the positron, once said that if all the math was taken out of science in the last 100 years, we'd lose about 3 weeks of research. The universe long preceded our forays into math and is not bound by them.

Mathematical formulas alone cannot bind the behavior of the universe. It's a vanity to believe that any equasion forces nature to comply to it.

The size of the Earth's core is relative to the Earth and it's developmental mechanisms. If the Earth developed gradually, as we see everything else does, then it would possess the mechanism necessary to allow it to develop and grow.

The Earth does sweep up a lot of high energy particles from the Solar Wind, because of its electromagnetic field though. In fact the Earth's EMF helps protect us from a lot of hard radiation.

And, lightning sucks up a lot of Solar Wind powered ionization, that would otherwise make satellite communication and the like impossible, by creating a 'safety zone'.
Click to expand...

But there is a greater pull than the surface EM force of the Earth, and it's in the sun. What keeps the planets in a constant orbit on a constant line around the sun? What creates the proportionate distance of the planets from the sun. This arrangement strongly resembles EM fields around a magnet. We can pretend it's something else more complicated, but why would the universe be so complicated if it already has a fundemental force beginning at the core of the atom and carrying through up to the largest celestial bodies?

It's not the Earth's core alone that harnesses this force, rather that the core of the Earth is also riding the highest intensity charge of the EM fields around the sun.
 
MichealNetzer said:
Dirac, predictor of the discovery of antimatter, or the positron, once said that if all the math was taken out of science in the last 100 years, we'd lose about 3 weeks of research. The universe long preceded our forays into math and is not bound by them.

Mathematical formulas alone cannot bind the behavior of the universe. It's a vanity to believe that any equasion forces nature to comply to it.
Click to expand...
This betrays a complete misunderstanding of maths and acience, I'm afraid. Mathematical formulae do not constrain the universe in the way you imply. But if they are found to be descriptive of the universe, as far as we can tell, then pushing the maths further may lead to further insights into the the nature of reality. But if pushing the maths further results in contradictions then that mathematical model has to be discarded, or at least modified.

Mathematical and physical laws are descriptive, not proscriptive.


Earlier you said:
I really don't like science too much, GD. I'd much prefer to think and study history and social evolution. But science has become a part of it for me because I've felt how it's become a social construct and how too many theories are based on a "council of agreement" phenomenon. Sometimes when the big council wants to stay on top, it'll knock down little guys who are making sound observations.

Snce beginning to study it about 15 years ago, I've run into too much of this strong-arming in the discussions I've had. It made me suspicious enough to look into things more. I believe there's a lot more to learn and that we need to open the horizons a little.
Click to expand...
Your dislike of science has distorted your view of it. It is not a monolithic set of hard beliefs, but a hot bed of continual debate. There'll be consensus on some things for a time, but sometimes ideas do change, and radically. There always have been scientists on the fringe of the mainstream - sometimes their ideas are justified, but often not.

Science is based on facts, and new evidence, not just new ideas.
Just because a new idea is different doesn't make it right.

As I see it, GE centres on Plate Tectonics. At least everyone seems to agree the ocean floors are young and spreading. GE splits from current thinking by refusing to accept subduction zones.

Everything else (comments on quantum physics, EM fields, and other even more arcane topics) is just smoke and mirrors.

Lots of professional geologists and geophysicists have good reasons for believing in subduction zones (and, quite rightly, resent less informed outsiders denying this).

Prove subduction zones do not exist, and I'll consider your ideas a little more kindly.
 
Quite Right Rynner i'm always amazed at the amount of abuse science recieves despite the fact that its based on controlled experimentation, trial and error, facts and figures. But the peole that attack it never seem to offer the the same level of evidence for there theorys. I've had a look a look at a number of the articles on the website and woolly thinking as you put it earlier seems to be putting it mildly.

Gradually, small, medium-sized, and huge dense blobs of hot dark matter, prime matter, and/or neutrinos coalesced to start the formation of our Moon, the Earth, and our Sun. The more dense dark matter began to evolve into less dense elements which initiated the growth/expansion process.

Our Moon. With small size and minimal gravity our Moon failed to retain the power to segregate into mantle and core. Instead, as the elements developed and the Moon cooled, a crust developed. It trapped a huge volume of gas, which eventually exploded creating thousands of huge craters over the entire Moon's surface. With further growth/expansion as the dense dark matter evolved into less dense elements, more pressure built up in parts of the Moon, creating thousands of fractures which allowed molten magma to flow out creating the maria and obliterating the older explosion craters beneath the maria. Lingering volcanism persisted until all of the dense matter evolved into elements and there was no energy for growth/expansion remaining after about 2.5 billion years. So our Moon became a dead planet, yet still retains some heat in the subsurface
Click to expand...

This quote seems to sum up the website. It seems to be just some idea that popped into this guys head and offers absolutley nothing in the way of evidence. It completley ignores the now generally accepted facts of the moons creation not as a single entity like the earth and the planets but because the earth in its early history was hit by a mars size object and the debris from the resulting collision formed the moon (hence the high magnesium levels and lack of iron in the moons formation. How did they come to these conclusions? Hard fact based science. By years and years of study, experimentation, cold hard fact based science, not to mention the bravery of certain individuals to actually dare to visit the moon.
I always wonder why these sort of sites only ever offer thoughts and ideas but never any facts. Why don't you try and go to the moon or into spce yourselfs to prove your theorys (oh wait you can't can you because you don't like science so that rules out engineering to build an ship, maths to make sure you get to the moon and not be shot off into space, chemistry to study any samples you might bring back, biology to keep yourselfs alive on the trip etc etc)
In fact if your distrust of science is so great you should be living in a cave and living off the land or can't you see the irony of using the internet to spread your ideas?
 
Where else does this expansion model lead - is everything going to keep expanding? if everything expands at a uniform rate, how will we know? If the Earth is expanding due to vast amounts of created matter, does that mean that the earth is going to explode? Maybe the end result, billions of your earth years into the future, is a giant rocky dyson sphere...all matter has been pushed to the edges leaving a habitable interior for the supermen of tomorrow (ooh, good schlock film title, that) :D
 
Just as long as you write in a part for Tommy Cruise, he's very cheap at the moment, GD

And Dr MNetzer
So, we're in this 'Go Large' Universe, right? Just how big could an Atom (of Hydrogen, say) get? And if it's all relative (like I suspect), how would we know?

There is some great -a little fringey- geophysics in all of this, along with some nice speculation

Ever outward!

:splat:

PS: Professor Sam Carey info here:
http://www.science.org.au/academy/memoirs/carey.htm

Or try:
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/carey.html Great man! Great Science!
 
Note: The science isn't too difficult!
Click to expand...

What, no expanding multi-phasic singularity anomalies? :lol: Aw, I just got me my pile of fiziks books too...shoot. Quantumly leaping to a southern hick state :lol:
 
Sorry, not much call for expanding multi-phasic singularity anomalies 'round here.

Hang on, could have one in the shed...

Southern hick state?

* 'Splash looks out Window * It's those bloody bosons again!
 
erm...souther hick state ....completely crap quantum style joke that backfired and has demonstrated itself to be 0 on the funnyometer :cry:
 
* 'Splash thinks about trying to explain own lame Higgs Bosun and spin, quantum state change dynamics and North South direction, joke. And gives up, realising that it was particulary confusing and wasn't all that funny in the first place *
.
:?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top