Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Can Gravitational Bodies Grow?

  1. #1 Can Gravitational Bodies Grow? 
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    In the absense of destructive exogenous collision/impact events with other major gravitational bodies, do gravitational bodies grow over time with the accretion of mass (i.e. the attraction of interstellar dust particles and iron meteorites such as those found all over the surface of Mars today), just as black holes grow and accrete mass from stars? And does that mass accretion accelerate over time as more matter is captured by the ever increasing gravitational field?

    "My research, based on irrefutable evidence of constant accretion of meteorites and meteor dust, concludes that Earth began as an asteroid remnant of an earlier comet captured by the Sun. The proto-planet then grew over uncountable years (possibly many more than the 4.5 Ga now believed) in an accretion process that is still underway and will continue into the future at an accelerating pace because of Earth’s constantly increasing mass and gravitational power." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005


    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Can Gravitational Bodies Grow? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    In the absense of destructive exogenous collision/impact events with other major gravitational bodies, do gravitational bodies grow over time with the accretion of mass (i.e. the attraction of interstellar dust particles and iron meteorites such as those found all over the surface of Mars today), just as black holes grow and accrete mass from stars? And does that mass accretion accelerate over time as more matter is captured by the ever increasing gravitational field?
    No.

    This will only occur if there is material within gravitational range of the accreting body that can be accreted. That ceased to be the case to any siggnificant degree in the solar system by the end of the Late Heavy Bombarment Phase.I dare the say the asshole will say gravitation has no range limit, to which I say, if you can talk about gravitational bodies I sure as hell can talk about gravitational ranges.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Can Gravitational Bodies Grow? 
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    No.
    Why not?

    This will only occur if there is material within gravitational range of the accreting body that can be accreted.
    This contradicts your hasty no statement.

    That ceased to be the case to any siggnificant degree in the solar system by the end of the Late Heavy Bombarment Phase.
    Ah so you don't believe in shooting stars, meteorites, or potential impacts?

    I dare the say the asshole will say gravitation has no range limit, to which I say, if you can talk about gravitational bodies I sure as hell can talk about gravitational ranges.
    I'm sorry but calling someone an "asshole" is not a scientific or logical argument.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Spreading those ideas among different threads does not increase their credibility. An answer to this was already given here:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...13533&start=30
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    An answer to this was already given here
    I'm not looking for "an answer." I'm looking for the truth.
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Can Gravitational Bodies Grow? 
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    .I dare the say the asshole will say gravitation has no range limit, to which I say, if you can talk about gravitational bodies I sure as hell can talk about gravitational ranges.
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    — Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzz

    Hello Total science

    You are right Earth has grown through the last 5 billion years.

    Our solar system every so often goes through glouds of matter and nebulae as it moves around the spiral of the Milky Way and not only that it has evolved from a Supernovae resulting in a nebulae that has supplied matter to all the planets including the Sun.

    How much it has grown is another issue?


    Does the earth's mass increase? Even in insignificant quantities?
    http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae75.cfm


    The Earth gains mass each day as a result of incoming debris from space. You may have even seen evidence of this activity in the form of a 'falling star', or meteor, on a dark night.

    While the actual amount of added material depends on which study you look at, an estimated 10 to the 8th power kilograms of in-falling matter accumulates every day. That seemingly large amount, however, IS insignificant compared to the Earth's total mass of almost 10 to the 25th power kilograms.

    In other words, Earth adds an estimated one quadrillionth of one percent to its weight each day. I don't know of any counteracting mass LOSS mechanism of any consequence.

    Over 5 billion years it all adds up.


    http://hometown.aol.co.uk/__121b_/no...m0oR4Jhg3dkQ==
    What is the mass of the earth
    The mass of the earth is approximately 6x10^24 kg . It also gains mass each day, as a result of a daily bombardment of thousands of tons of meteorites and meteor dust. This daily influx of extraterrestrial meteorites and dust amounting to ~275-50,000 tons per day (NASA) must increase the total mass of the Earth. Of course comparatively speaking this accretion is tiny on a daily scale in comparison to the total mass of the earth, but on a geological scale the effects can be dramatic.

    Asteroid breakup likely cause of past mass extinction on Earth
    http://machineslikeus.com/asteroid-b...-on-earth.html

    ACCREATION---A NEW THEORY OF PLANETARY CREATION
    http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_1.htm

    The preceding evidence of Earth’s growth by accretion of extraterrestrial matter and accelerating expansion made it obvious to me that our planet was not rapidly created 4.5-4.6 Ga (billion years ago) in its present size, shape, volume and chemical composition as decreed by the Kant-Laplace Nebular Hypothesis, nor as recounted in Genesis in the Bible.
    ACCREATION OF THE EARTH AND SOLAR SYSTEM: A new cosmology Copyright 1999, Lawrence S. Myers

    Accreation (creation by accretion) is a byproduct of 35 years of research and study that proved Earth's diameter has expanded rapidly in the past ~200 Ma. In that relatively short period of geologic time all of today's oceans, and most of the water that now fills them, have been created by melting and expansion of Earth's core. (See http://www.expanding-earth.org)
    The Nebular Hypothesis postulates that the Earth, and eight other planets of our solar system, were formed by rapid gravitational collapse (amalgamation) from an immense cloud (nebula) of gas and dust surrounding the Sun. Formation of the nine planets supposedly occurred simultaneously in a relatively short period of time 4.5-4.6 billion years ago (Ga) in a process that generated an enormous amount of heat and resulted in proto-planets that were initially molten.

    Long-term variations in the impact cratering rate on Earth
    http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/co...stract/140/1/7

    Lunar and terrestrial impact craters, the terrestrial stratigraphic record of impact events, and astronomical observations of Earth-crossing asteroids and comets provide the primary evidence for evaluating the past and present flux of bodies impacting Earth. Variations in this flux on 105, 106, 107 and 108 year time scales are expected on theoretical grounds; 106, 107, and 108 year variations appear to be reflected in the crater and stratigraphic records. The available evidence suggests that, late in geological time, comets have produced about half the impact craters on Earth >20 km in diameter and nearly all craters >100 km in diameter.

    Systematic imaging of the Moon by the Clementine mission has enabled a thorough reexamination of the stratigraphic classification of Eratosthenian (3.2 to 0.8 Ga) and Copernican (0.8 Ga to the present) craters (McEwan et al. 1998). Further, it is now clear that the age of Copernicus, 0.8 Ga, probably is close to the Eratosthenian-Copernican boundary. The mean rate of production of craters >20 km diameter in the past 0.8 Ga may have increased by 40% over the mean rate in the previous 2.4 Ga, although the difference is within the statistical uncertainties (Table 1). A larger increase in the cratering rate is suggested by the spatial density of small craters on the ejecta blanket of Copernicus.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Qualify your posts Harry. Again it is fancyful conjecture. How much has the moon grown? Where, oh where does all this accretion material come from? How could enough material accrete for significant growth over the last 200my, while extinction events do not support the kind of scale needed? How could anything survive in fact. The amount of energy created by such large scale bombardments would certainly have created long term nuclear winters, which would have killed everything.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Can Gravitational Bodies Grow? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    That ceased to be the case to any siggnificant degree in the solar system by the end of the Late Heavy Bombarment Phase.
    Ah so you don't believe in shooting stars, meteorites, or potential impacts?
    Ah, so you don't understand the meaning of the word significant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    I'm sorry but calling someone an "asshole" is not a scientific or logical argument.
    I wasn't using it as a scientific or logical argument, but as a means of venting my frustration at your intransigent ignorance. It fullfilled this function perfectly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    I'm not looking for "an answer." I'm looking for the truth.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Harry Costas,

    I spoke with the smartest physicist I know today, namely J. Marvin Herndon, and here is what he wrote me:

    "For the past 50 years or so, scientists have been talking about dust condensing at low pressures and gradually becoming pebbles, then boulders, etc. and building planets. While that process goes on to some extent, it would lead to oxidized planets without massive cores. I think in the main the planets rained out of the centers of giant gaseous protoplanets, which would account for their massive cores and, in the case of Earth, for her two component surface."

    I therefore fall back on Excess Mass Stress Tectonics (EMST) as the most valid theory and logical explanation for mass accretion in the core: http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/200...eismology.html
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    While the actual amount of added material depends on which study you look at, an estimated 10 to the 8th power kilograms of in-falling matter accumulates every day. That seemingly large amount, however, IS insignificant compared to the Earth's total mass of almost 10 to the 25th power kilograms.

    In other words, Earth adds an estimated one quadrillionth of one percent to its weight each day. I don't know of any counteracting mass LOSS mechanism of any consequence.

    Over 5 billion years it all adds up.
    Do the math! If you sum this up, you get somthing like kg which is still less than 0.01% of the total mass of the earth. And by the way: it is only the last 180 Mio years we are talking about. See also my estimate on the significance of the numbers here. See also my previous post for a reference of the past development of mass infall.



    Accreation (creation by accretion) is a byproduct of 35 years of research and study that proved Earth's diameter has expanded rapidly in the past ~200 Ma.
    The Nebular Hypothesis postulates that the Earth, and eight other planets of our solar system, were formed by rapid gravitational collapse (amalgamation) from an immense cloud (nebula) of gas and dust surrounding the Sun. Formation of the nine planets supposedly occurred simultaneously in a relatively short period of time 4.5-4.6 billion years ago (Ga) in a process that generated an enormous amount of heat and resulted in proto-planets that were initially molten.
    This is not just a postulate. Current research shows that circumstellar discs of gas and dust as a byproduct of star formation are depleted and eroded relatively quickly (observations). These are the reservoirs of the planet formation. The timescales depend on the stellar mass, but as an upper limit you can take 1 billion years for the least massive stars. Recent results also show that planets already form at a very early stage, i.e. a few million years after the central star begins to form and a long time prior to the hydrogen burning phase (also observations). There is no reason to believe that the development of the solar system was any different.

    Just another thing: Please, be careful with the terminology. "Accretion" has a slightly different meaning in astrophysics than just infall of mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Can Gravitational Bodies Grow? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    What I'm understanding here is that the time since the planets formed is too short for a substantial enough amount of matter to have fallen into the sun's gravitational range.

    This still leaves an interesting question: Where did all the initial matter come from, before the formation of the sun and planets? It would have to have accreted from somewhere in some kind of process, perhaps spit out of the core of the galaxy as a mass?

    I don't buy the idea that the solar systems we see throughout space are all the results of different stars going super-nova, because that doesn't leave one very essential question unanswered: where did the massive stars that had those super novae come from? They have to have originated from some kind of accretion themselfs, no?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: Can Gravitational Bodies Grow? 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    What I'm understanding here is that the time since the planets formed is too short for a substantial enough amount of matter to have fallen into the sun's gravitational range.

    This still leaves an interesting question: Where did all the initial matter come from, before the formation of the sun and planets? It would have to have accreted from somewhere in some kind of process, perhaps spit out of the core of the galaxy as a mass?

    I don't buy the idea that the solar systems we see throughout space are all the results of different stars going super-nova, because that doesn't leave one very essential question unanswered: where did the massive stars that had those super novae come from? They have to have originated from some kind of accretion themselfs, no?
    Great questions! You have tackled some of the most challenging research areas in modern astrophysics, to which the final answers have not yet been found. Here is a short summary on what seems to be secured knowledge:

    1. The material to form stars can be found in giant clouds in interstellar space. They contain considerable amounts of gas (mostly hydrogen) and dust (carbon and silicates) of hundreds or even many thousands of solar masses. Star formation takes place in such clouds. A well known example is the Orion nebula. How these clouds actually form is still not known. These clouds apparently stay stable for a long time, but can eventually start to collapse due to self-gravity. This leads to a disruption of the cloud in smaller cloudlets from which the individual stars form. The role of supernovae is relatively small. They contribute the heaviest elements and can trigger the gravitational instability of clouds. But they can also stop or prevent star formation, when they disrupt these clouds. However, most of the cloud material is probably provided by the stellar wind of normal stars.

    2. The first massive stars only consisted of hydrogen an helium. According to current theory, they were probably quite different to what we know from stars today, i.e. much more massive and much larger than the most massive stars today. Because of this, they also evolved differently and extremely fast so that non of these - if they ever existed - are present anymore. This is the main obstacle in this field of research. The second generation stars, however, have been found already a while ago. They contain very little amounts of heavy elements and form the globular clusters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Can Gravitational Bodies Grow? 
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    so you don't understand the meaning of the word significant.
    Bedout and Chicxulub were insignificant? Tell that to the trilobites and dinosaurs.

    I wasn't using it as a scientific or logical argument, but as a means of venting my frustration at your intransigent ignorance.
    Does the ignorance of Socrates frustrate you as well?
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: Can Gravitational Bodies Grow? 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    so you don't understand the meaning of the word significant.
    Bedout and Chicxulub were insignificant? Tell that to the trilobites and dinosaurs.
    Significance in terms of mass added to the total mass of the Earth is not equal to significance in terms of damage done to life on the surface. Ophiolite stated that the mass added since the late bombardment was not significant. Perhaps you can show data contradicting this, but talking about extinction events is not a rebuttal of his point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Can Gravitational Bodies Grow? 
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Bedout and Chicxulub were insignificant? Tell that to the trilobites and dinosaurs.
    In terms of adding mass to the Earth, yes. it would take 60,311,347 Chicxulub sized impacts to increase the mass of the Earth by just 1%.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: Can Gravitational Bodies Grow? 
    Forum Sophomore Total Science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by Total Science
    Bedout and Chicxulub were insignificant? Tell that to the trilobites and dinosaurs.
    In terms of adding mass to the Earth, yes. it would take 60,311,347 Chicxulub sized impacts to increase the mass of the Earth by just 1%.
    Point taken. How many moon sized impacts would it take?
    "The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzz

    One theory states that our solar system has its origin from a supernova that left a dense core that developed a solar envelope. The rest of the matter from the Nebulae at random and controlled by gravity sinks such as the planets and the Sun collected to those gravit sinks. Close to 5 billion years of evolution resulted in what we have now.

    The first few hundred million years would have been the main impact.


    Kalster you make statements without any form of back up.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Kalster you make statements without any form of back up.
    Which statements? It is funny that you call me out Harry. One thing you have yet to realise is that just because some guy claims something does not make it valid points to consider. All ideas aren't created equal. You don't seem to be able differentiate between bad and good data, but do seem to prefer the controversial. While it is not a good thing to totally ignore non-mainstream ideas, it does not mean that we should give all ideas equal credence, especially when they ignore plain evidence. The accretion conjecture you posted is one such example. I simply does not fit the evidence and conveniently ignores or dismisses contrary evidence.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Kalster


    You said
    All ideas aren't created equal. You don't seem to be able differentiate between bad and good data, but do seem to prefer the controversial. While it is not a good thing to totally ignore non-mainstream ideas, it does not mean that we should give all ideas equal credence, especially when they ignore plain evidence. The accretion conjecture you posted is one such example. I simply does not fit the evidence and conveniently ignores or dismisses contrary evidence.
    This is what I mean.

    Please support and expalin what you say.

    Just saying it does not support it.

    If you think I said something that disagrees with you. Than please supply evidence or links or logic to explain.

    What is controversal? Funny word.

    When cosmology is a science of mostly unknown and supported by ad hoc ideas.

    I see it as science if you can support it, than its science.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Let me refer you then to a thread regarding the growing earth conjecture in the earth sciences section.


    is earth growing?

    Along with many other good points by the other participants in the thread, I posted a link I found to direct evidence against a growing earth on page 5.


    What is controversal? Funny word.
    Yeah funny. I meant controversial. These include the black hole particle jets, a non-BB universe, etc. These are not well supported by evidence, but you often post them as such. That is why you should qualify whether the links you post are mainstream or not.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •