SkyWalker
observing y'all from my UFO. inevitably coming dow
- Local time
- Today 8:33 AM
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2010
- Messages
- 986
-
OK, it's on.
Expanding Earth theory! (WOW!)
- Thread starter SkyWalker
- Start date
Cogwulf
Is actually an INTJ
That's a load of complete bullshit.
One point is that he keeps stressing the fact that the sea floor is much younger than the continents. This is because the oceanic crust is continually subducted and remade.
Fish fossils are found inland because there were once inland seas in some places, and in others seabeds have been pushed up when mountains were formed.
He says subduction is impossible because the magma is twice as dense as granite. Firstly the sea floor is made of basalt which is denser than granite. Secondly the magma is viscous, not solid, and thirdly the magma beneath the crust is actually moving. And fourthly we can actually measure subduction happening.
He doesn't think the sea floor has enough energy to push down into the mantle, but he still believes it has enough energy to move the continents.
I'm not even going to bother talking about the problems with how the earth could actually expand.
Also, he makes no attempt at explaining the Himalayas
One point is that he keeps stressing the fact that the sea floor is much younger than the continents. This is because the oceanic crust is continually subducted and remade.
Fish fossils are found inland because there were once inland seas in some places, and in others seabeds have been pushed up when mountains were formed.
He says subduction is impossible because the magma is twice as dense as granite. Firstly the sea floor is made of basalt which is denser than granite. Secondly the magma is viscous, not solid, and thirdly the magma beneath the crust is actually moving. And fourthly we can actually measure subduction happening.
He doesn't think the sea floor has enough energy to push down into the mantle, but he still believes it has enough energy to move the continents.
I'm not even going to bother talking about the problems with how the earth could actually expand.
Also, he makes no attempt at explaining the Himalayas
gcomeau
Active Member
- Local time
- Yesterday 11:33 PM
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2010
- Messages
- 160
Because the planets are in fact God's inflatable balloons for his kid's birthday party. Duh.
(To seriously address "expanding earth"... umm, what Cogwulf said basically. It's ridiculous nonsense.)
Cogwulf
Is actually an INTJ
That's just empty pseudo-science.
(did you see what I did there?)
Besides, the earth is actually filled with hot mozzarella.
warryer
and Heimdal's horn sounds
- Local time
- Today 2:33 AM
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 676
Earth would have to be heating up and/or spinning really fast to expand. Really fast meaning: fast enough that mass on Earth would have a tendency to move out (due to centrifugal force) from the surface rather than inwards due to gravity.
From various sources:
Current Land Surface area = 150,000,000 km^2
Current Average Earth Radius = 6371 km
If earth expanded then the current land surface area should be about the same as it was before it expanded. Erosion I can't imagine accounting for more than ~1% of the area so, this should prove to be fairly accurate.
Old Earth Radius = 3455 km
This represents a volume increase of 627% (from old to new). So one of three things happened according to this theory:
1)Earth did in fact expand and the density dropped inversely to the volume increase. I would imagine that the Earth would not have an atmosphere if it was spinning so fast to counteract gravity.
2) Earth suffered a serious impact (to maintain density). It would have been struck by an object much larger than itself.
3) Combination of 1 and 2.
Also, dinosaurs were around 230 million years ago. So between then and now is when the planet started expanding and growing water. Earth is ~4.5 billion years old.
It's an interesting thought and, I appreciate the novelty of the thinking.
From various sources:
Current Land Surface area = 150,000,000 km^2
Current Average Earth Radius = 6371 km
If earth expanded then the current land surface area should be about the same as it was before it expanded. Erosion I can't imagine accounting for more than ~1% of the area so, this should prove to be fairly accurate.
Old Earth Radius = 3455 km
This represents a volume increase of 627% (from old to new). So one of three things happened according to this theory:
1)Earth did in fact expand and the density dropped inversely to the volume increase. I would imagine that the Earth would not have an atmosphere if it was spinning so fast to counteract gravity.
2) Earth suffered a serious impact (to maintain density). It would have been struck by an object much larger than itself.
3) Combination of 1 and 2.
Also, dinosaurs were around 230 million years ago. So between then and now is when the planet started expanding and growing water. Earth is ~4.5 billion years old.
It's an interesting thought and, I appreciate the novelty of the thinking.
Cogwulf
Is actually an INTJ
Apparently their theory is that matter is somehow spontaneously synthesised within the earth.
Trebuchet
Prolific Member
It was good animation, I must admit.
I'd never heard this idea before today. Pretty funny. Especially the part about scientists making a fundamental discovery about the universe, and conspiring to cover it up rather than publish and get Nobel prizes, grant money, fame, and a better understanding of nature. And why? Because they are afraid of invalidating past science! They'd rather be wrong, and invalidate all of their future science, too.
That would be just like when that mob of scientists silenced Einstein to hide the idea of relativity. They had to protect Newtonian physics. Oh, wait, they didn't do that.
I'd never heard this idea before today. Pretty funny. Especially the part about scientists making a fundamental discovery about the universe, and conspiring to cover it up rather than publish and get Nobel prizes, grant money, fame, and a better understanding of nature. And why? Because they are afraid of invalidating past science! They'd rather be wrong, and invalidate all of their future science, too.
That would be just like when that mob of scientists silenced Einstein to hide the idea of relativity. They had to protect Newtonian physics. Oh, wait, they didn't do that.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
What happened to the watter in the animation.
If no watter was on earth as is shown 70 million years ago, then where did it come from.
I don't think dinosaurs could survive or evolve on a planet with 95%(?) oceans.
If no watter was on earth as is shown 70 million years ago, then where did it come from.
I don't think dinosaurs could survive or evolve on a planet with 95%(?) oceans.
ApostateAbe
Banned
I think this theory would have been persuasive before anyone thought of tectonic plates. When presenting a new scientific theory, it helps to explain much more of the evidence better than the old scientific theory.
This theory seems to require an almost complete lack of oceans at the time the continents were merged. Wherever all of the water may have been, the problem is that we have abundant fossil records of oceanic organism that date back well beyond the separation of Pangaea.
What explains the drastic change of density of Earth?
The theory would predict that the length of a day would be significantly shorter with a small Earth, the same as an ice skater who spins faster by bringing her arms closer. Is there evidence of a shorter day?
What evidence does this theory explain that the established theory of tectonic plates does not?
This theory seems to require an almost complete lack of oceans at the time the continents were merged. Wherever all of the water may have been, the problem is that we have abundant fossil records of oceanic organism that date back well beyond the separation of Pangaea.
What explains the drastic change of density of Earth?
The theory would predict that the length of a day would be significantly shorter with a small Earth, the same as an ice skater who spins faster by bringing her arms closer. Is there evidence of a shorter day?
What evidence does this theory explain that the established theory of tectonic plates does not?
fduniho
The Brain
- Local time
- Today 2:33 AM
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 27
I find I have a tendency to want to trust Neal Adams, because I have grown up regarding him as one of the greatest of comic book artists. He even drew the first Batman comic I ever read, and he is one of the people responsible for rejuvenating Batman after all the campiness of the 1960's. And it is his vision of Batman that largely influenced the recent Batman movies, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Still, I know intellectually that this is not a good reason to regard him as a scientific authority. The theory is an interesting one, and it does look like the continents fit together. He does mention shallow seas, which should answer the question about where the water was. The idea of an expanding earth is not completely ridiculous. Its gravity is going to pull in debris from space, and that may accumulate over time, increasing the size of the planet. In the interviews I've heard with him about this, I think he has mentioned something about particles from the sun increasing the size of the earth in its core. But I'm not sure about the details here or if I remember correctly. Anyway, it's an interesting theory. Not having a background in geology, it is difficult for me to fully evaluate his theory.
menaceh2k
Member
Sounds like we need a stupid/BS science section/sub-section.
I do love the fact that every-time a theory has 0 proof and is completely BS, its suddenly a conspiracy that is being suppressed by the scientific community. Hollow earth, inverse universe, creationism, etc etc.
I do like how prefaces this video with "please notice there is no subduction". oh you mean one of the primary engines behind plate tectonic. sure sure, do tell.
Oh one day bill nye the science guy will be syndicated on cartoon network, and pseudo-science will no longer exist. Unfortunately if we don't stop these people from peddling their snake oil, this will be though in schools as an alternative earth science course. SMH
Oh god this man is defending his theory on youtube....so did all the other planets expand too, what the earth closer to the sun, how does the moon fits into this...arg
I do love the fact that every-time a theory has 0 proof and is completely BS, its suddenly a conspiracy that is being suppressed by the scientific community. Hollow earth, inverse universe, creationism, etc etc.
I do like how prefaces this video with "please notice there is no subduction". oh you mean one of the primary engines behind plate tectonic. sure sure, do tell.
Oh one day bill nye the science guy will be syndicated on cartoon network, and pseudo-science will no longer exist. Unfortunately if we don't stop these people from peddling their snake oil, this will be though in schools as an alternative earth science course. SMH
Oh god this man is defending his theory on youtube....so did all the other planets expand too, what the earth closer to the sun, how does the moon fits into this...arg
Agent Intellect
Absurd Anti-hero.
This began with a strawman argument from incredulity (land floating around - a double whammy fallacy) and then proceeds to not explain how this hypothesis doesn't break the law of conservation of matter. Everything else he talked about is just as easily (if not more easily) explained by plate tectonics.
Lostwitheal
Mr. LoveRobot
- Local time
- Today 8:33 AM
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 562
*grabs a shovel*
SkyWalker
observing y'all from my UFO. inevitably coming dow
- Local time
- Today 8:33 AM
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2010
- Messages
- 986
I dont know if it is true, but I like it because it does make sense, as Neil Adams says it: even a child can see that the continents fit together on all sides. (Also very convincincing images of other planets & moons available as well.)
An image (video even) says more than a thousand words of modern scientific blabla rationalities.
I like it that Neil does not have herd mentality to assume only what the majority says, whether true or not, his theory has to be seriously considered at least. The fact that it is not even considered feels wrong to me, in this it is kind of a "conspiracy" against his theory, so i understand those words.
You dont need hocuspocus explanations for it, there could be a very simple reason for it, for example this:
Earth (any planet or moon) attracts a lot of debris from space. It is known that Earth gets heavier by this, but the average we know of is not enough for the giant increase in size that Neil is talking about. But who says that the size increase is lineair? Why the hell do we assume this increase in size is liniair or even predictable?? Maybe in the last ages not much debris fell, but in the past lots of debris fell?
Also there have been huge impacts with big bodies once in a while, these would be exceptions that add up to the average debris that also fell.
Then later gravity will pull the mass back to spherical shape, making some parts of the surface "crack". Or maybe this doesnt even take that long, maybe the force of impact of a huge body just makes it all crack.
And all these people who talk about where the water would have been: I dont think there is any way to prove that there was lots of water on Earth initially? The water could just as well have fallen from the sky, a huge ice body could have hit Earth. (which would be a nice explanation for Noah's flood story which is in all cultures in various forms and older than the bible)
An image (video even) says more than a thousand words of modern scientific blabla rationalities.
I like it that Neil does not have herd mentality to assume only what the majority says, whether true or not, his theory has to be seriously considered at least. The fact that it is not even considered feels wrong to me, in this it is kind of a "conspiracy" against his theory, so i understand those words.
You dont need hocuspocus explanations for it, there could be a very simple reason for it, for example this:
Earth (any planet or moon) attracts a lot of debris from space. It is known that Earth gets heavier by this, but the average we know of is not enough for the giant increase in size that Neil is talking about. But who says that the size increase is lineair? Why the hell do we assume this increase in size is liniair or even predictable?? Maybe in the last ages not much debris fell, but in the past lots of debris fell?
Also there have been huge impacts with big bodies once in a while, these would be exceptions that add up to the average debris that also fell.
Then later gravity will pull the mass back to spherical shape, making some parts of the surface "crack". Or maybe this doesnt even take that long, maybe the force of impact of a huge body just makes it all crack.
And all these people who talk about where the water would have been: I dont think there is any way to prove that there was lots of water on Earth initially? The water could just as well have fallen from the sky, a huge ice body could have hit Earth. (which would be a nice explanation for Noah's flood story which is in all cultures in various forms and older than the bible)
gruesomebrat
Biking in pursuit of self...
Lostwitheal, make sure you get enough of that mozzarella for a couple lasagnas. I need some lasagna.
menaceh2k
Member
Oh it gets better,
So after seeying this post last night, I commented on Mr. Adams youtube page and we had a series of back and forth. They went something like this.
1. Mr. Adam does not believe in the big bang theory
2. he does not believe in any of the laws of thermodynamic (he calls it science fiction) so yes no entropy/no conservation of energy.
3. He believes that matter is being generated from the center of the earth, causing its growth.
4. The solar system grows together simultaneously at an exponential rate.
5. That the earth will eventually turn into Jupiter and Jupiter once looked like the earth.
6. he believes that at its core, an atom is made of " the Electron-Positron Pair"
does not believe in the subatomic particle, well at least he does not belive in quarks:
well, there you have it. I did not try to shoot his theory down, i just wanted te see his top down approach. I did ask him about the starting point and he did not yet answer. why am I arguing with a.....hmmm not crazy, but misinformed individual. because I dont want the expanding universe to be thought in schools, once politicians decide to make another play at the under educated masses. I never called anyone on creationism and looked what happened. What i suggest is first try to understand the core of their argument and get them to spill out all of their fallacies. at its core he does not believe in basice newtonian physics or relativity. Yes we will find that the current state of the universe is not what we believe it to be, but at least scientific theories are based on some form of experimentation. Or an attempt is made to question the theory. hmmmm...the internet is safe for another .00000000000004 of a second thanx to me.
So after seeying this post last night, I commented on Mr. Adams youtube page and we had a series of back and forth. They went something like this.
1. Mr. Adam does not believe in the big bang theory
2. he does not believe in any of the laws of thermodynamic (he calls it science fiction) so yes no entropy/no conservation of energy.
3. He believes that matter is being generated from the center of the earth, causing its growth.
4. The solar system grows together simultaneously at an exponential rate.
5. That the earth will eventually turn into Jupiter and Jupiter once looked like the earth.
6. he believes that at its core, an atom is made of " the Electron-Positron Pair"
does not believe in the subatomic particle, well at least he does not belive in quarks:
well, there you have it. I did not try to shoot his theory down, i just wanted te see his top down approach. I did ask him about the starting point and he did not yet answer. why am I arguing with a.....hmmm not crazy, but misinformed individual. because I dont want the expanding universe to be thought in schools, once politicians decide to make another play at the under educated masses. I never called anyone on creationism and looked what happened. What i suggest is first try to understand the core of their argument and get them to spill out all of their fallacies. at its core he does not believe in basice newtonian physics or relativity. Yes we will find that the current state of the universe is not what we believe it to be, but at least scientific theories are based on some form of experimentation. Or an attempt is made to question the theory. hmmmm...the internet is safe for another .00000000000004 of a second thanx to me.
Cogwulf
Is actually an INTJ
A lot of people like this seem to group all scientists together as a single entity. They believe that for some reason every single scientist would conspire together towards the same goal.
SkyWalker
observing y'all from my UFO. inevitably coming dow
- Local time
- Today 8:33 AM
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2010
- Messages
- 986
So Mr. Adams is kind of bitter? Maybe?
Well I like him anyway, he is original
He's probably not stupid, he just has a different system in his mind than what you are used to.
also speaking for myself: i studied quantum mechanics and related things up to M-theory, but it actually does not make sense: the more you try to undestand it, the more you reject it. neil is like me that he likes to cut straight through rational crap with simple stuff (like rejecting subatomic particles as you say). i guess thats why i like him, he's not insecure about his intelligence. he just says: if i cannot make sense out of it then i just dont believe in it. more people should do that.
(his theory might be false, but it should also be considered that his theory might be true)
Well I like him anyway, he is original
He's probably not stupid, he just has a different system in his mind than what you are used to.
also speaking for myself: i studied quantum mechanics and related things up to M-theory, but it actually does not make sense: the more you try to undestand it, the more you reject it. neil is like me that he likes to cut straight through rational crap with simple stuff (like rejecting subatomic particles as you say). i guess thats why i like him, he's not insecure about his intelligence. he just says: if i cannot make sense out of it then i just dont believe in it. more people should do that.
(his theory might be false, but it should also be considered that his theory might be true)
Cogwulf
Is actually an INTJ
I have no words to describe how that comment makes me feel.
Trebuchet
Prolific Member
I once spent a semester with about 40 people who thought this way. They decided that if they didn't understand relativity, it was false. This actually came up, because I was the one physics major in the class, and I'd taken some relativity, and so they decided I was the enemy. I found there were a lot of things they didn't understand, not just physics, and so they rejected lots of true things.
So no, lots of people do that already, but fewer should.
gcomeau
Active Member
- Local time
- Yesterday 11:33 PM
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2010
- Messages
- 160
I do, but I think I might get banned for writing them down...
Logic
Banned
Hmm, this is actually somewhat explainable.
Why would the earth continue to expand like this?
Well, it may have something to do with the heating and cooling of objects.
Ex: If you take an object and cool it, it shrinks, and when you heat it, it expands. It may mean that the internal temperature of our Earth is rising.
I am not too sure though lol. If this is true then maybe global warming is a product of this?
Great video though Sky, very interesting.
Why would the earth continue to expand like this?
Well, it may have something to do with the heating and cooling of objects.
Ex: If you take an object and cool it, it shrinks, and when you heat it, it expands. It may mean that the internal temperature of our Earth is rising.
I am not too sure though lol. If this is true then maybe global warming is a product of this?
Great video though Sky, very interesting.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
Kitty currently can't do math/biology. Why dinosaurs so big? Gravity on earth less back then? giraffe = 20ft tall.
SpaceYeti
Prolific Member
The Theory doesn't state Earth gained mass, it says it gained size. In fact, because the same mass was a smaller planet by this theory, objects on the surface would have felt a stronger pull from gravity, not weaker.
However, while this theory is interesting, there's a reason it's not actually accepted any more. Plate tectonics explain everything this would, except better.
However, while this theory is interesting, there's a reason it's not actually accepted any more. Plate tectonics explain everything this would, except better.
Hadoblado
think again losers
- Local time
- Today 5:03 PM
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 7,065
I really like this thinking. I'm surprised I haven't heard of this before!
It has a lot of face validity, which as we all know is the only one that counts!
Ima gonna grab this VOD and go troll some people on facebook with it
It has a lot of face validity, which as we all know is the only one that counts!
Ima gonna grab this VOD and go troll some people on facebook with it
addictedartist
-Ephesians4;20
I dont think its fair to say a person and a solar sytem and the universe can grow but a planet must stay the same size.
SkyWalker
observing y'all from my UFO. inevitably coming dow
- Local time
- Today 8:33 AM
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2010
- Messages
- 986
There is also a theory that Earth REALLY had less mass (not just less volume), thus less gravity, and that's why the dinosaurs could get so big.
And that actually makes a lot of sense...
Because this is a well-known problem in dinosaur research:
- T-Rex was muscular and clearly built for speed.
- Yet, when T-Rex would have moved his head a little too fast, his neck would break.
The bones are not strong enough for the weight & speed combination!!!!
So was Earth's gravity less when dinosaurs were around? Is that the reason T-rex did not break his neck? That would explain it!
Also it is known that dinosaurs roamed all over the Earth, thus there were no seperating oceans. Pangea (one continent in the middle) would explain this, but one continent in the middle does not make sense if this continent fits together on all sides! As Nail says: even a child can see that.
I think Earth was just some swamps & lakes (no big oceans) in dinosaur era, and I actually think that it is probably true that gravity was less.
How that would be physically possible, I dont know, but debris from space seems the most simple plausible explanation for that. Even though not much debris falls nowadays, in the past it could have been different. even lost of extra water could have been brought that way.
And that actually makes a lot of sense...
Because this is a well-known problem in dinosaur research:
- T-Rex was muscular and clearly built for speed.
- Yet, when T-Rex would have moved his head a little too fast, his neck would break.
The bones are not strong enough for the weight & speed combination!!!!
So was Earth's gravity less when dinosaurs were around? Is that the reason T-rex did not break his neck? That would explain it!
Also it is known that dinosaurs roamed all over the Earth, thus there were no seperating oceans. Pangea (one continent in the middle) would explain this, but one continent in the middle does not make sense if this continent fits together on all sides! As Nail says: even a child can see that.
I think Earth was just some swamps & lakes (no big oceans) in dinosaur era, and I actually think that it is probably true that gravity was less.
How that would be physically possible, I dont know, but debris from space seems the most simple plausible explanation for that. Even though not much debris falls nowadays, in the past it could have been different. even lost of extra water could have been brought that way.
addictedartist
-Ephesians4;20
I agree I think our minds have to grow to adopt such theories but to me they are plausible but does that mean that new continents will volcanically erupt from the ocean floor? will other planets experience the same thing, and be able to harbour life or already have been able to and since went the way of the dinosaur?
Zmaster
Member
- Local time
- Today 2:33 AM
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2011
- Messages
- 63
Its a known fact that the principle element of the sun is Hydrogen. Perhaps 500 million - 1 billion years ago the planet was basically a smaller frozen wasteland. Hydrogen coming from the sun has infact warmed up the planet. Maybe in another 30 million years our planet will be like Venus and become unbreatheable because the surface atmospheres. It might grow to not support life anymore. Hopefully we will have built a space cruiser by then or mentally evolved to no longer need bodies!
Cogwulf
Is actually an INTJ
No No NO!
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
This is why it (the theory) is found stupid.
The continents spread in the video: Baby's eat to grow - Food is consumed not painted on the surface.
The Real Theory: Magnetic folding on the sun every 26,000 years creates Huge Bursts of magnetic radiation.
The core of the earth is plasma (energy converts to matter on the interior surface of the planet(plasma to atoms)) That feeds on the 26,000 year energy cycle.
Watter comes from commits or by the process of Abiogenic petroleum origin
Mayan Calender predicts birth deformity's from magnetics (citation Cliff High).
Atlantis/past civilization record destruction events (earth expanded more violently in the past).
This is a more elaborate explanation - Not necessarily correct. (Sounds less stupid to me personally)
warryer
and Heimdal's horn sounds
- Local time
- Today 2:33 AM
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 676
A known fact? Can you show me a source? Id love to know where you got this from.
Cogwulf said:
reminds me of:
[bimgx=250]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThm2kVRC_ujFIMU_d_e3y19wRwcazCbivh-2zOjnY7Cg9OgZHB[/bimgx]
Zmaster
Member
- Local time
- Today 2:33 AM
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2011
- Messages
- 63
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/15dec_solarflaresurprise/
Pure Hydrogen coming from the Sun, if it can occur now it could have occured over the last 500 million years to warm the planet and increase the volume. I'm just saying that the original video of this post is not as unrealistic as it might seem. Also that can explain the increasing amount of water over time because hydrogen burns in the atmosphere with water as a left over byproduct.
Pure Hydrogen coming from the Sun, if it can occur now it could have occured over the last 500 million years to warm the planet and increase the volume. I'm just saying that the original video of this post is not as unrealistic as it might seem. Also that can explain the increasing amount of water over time because hydrogen burns in the atmosphere with water as a left over byproduct.
Cogwulf
Is actually an INTJ
Hydrogen doesn't just magically warm us. It "burns" in the sun and this is what warms us.
We only have a finite amount of oxygen in the atmosphere for hydrogen to burn with to produce water.
Warming alone will only make a very small change to the size of the planet.
And the earth is constantly being warmed by the sun, and it is losing heat at exactly the same rate, if once every million years it received extra heat, it would just cool down to the same level again.