Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 148 of 148
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Were the continents once gathered by Equator?

  1. #101  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Is there evidence for an impact 175 mya and what about the paleomagnetic, lithographic, and fossil evidence of older supercontinents such as Rhodinia?
    The configuration of cratons in rodinia (no h) matches that of the cratons when both the pacific and atlantic were not open yet, thus supporting the expanding earth model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Is there evidence for an impact 175 mya and what about the paleomagnetic, lithographic, and fossil evidence of older supercontinents such as Rhodinia?
    The configuration of cratons in rodinia (no h) matches that of the cratons when both the pacific and atlantic were not open yet, thus supporting the expanding earth model.
    Expanding earth fails due to the spontaneous mass generation problem that has not been solved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Is there evidence for an impact 175 mya and what about the paleomagnetic, lithographic, and fossil evidence of older supercontinents such as Rhodinia?
    The configuration of cratons in rodinia (no h) matches that of the cratons when both the pacific and atlantic were not open yet, thus supporting the expanding earth model.
    Expanding earth fails due to the spontaneous mass generation problem that has not been solved.
    Does dark matter fails due its true nature that has not been solved? I don't think so.

    We know that dark matter does exist because we can observe its effects.
    We know that earth does grow because we can observe its effects.
    There is strictly no difference from a scientific point of view because both conclusions (dark matter, earth growth) are the result of the scientific inductive method.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Is there evidence for an impact 175 mya and what about the paleomagnetic, lithographic, and fossil evidence of older supercontinents such as Rhodinia?
    The configuration of cratons in rodinia (no h) matches that of the cratons when both the pacific and atlantic were not open yet, thus supporting the expanding earth model.
    Expanding earth fails due to the spontaneous mass generation problem that has not been solved.
    Does dark matter fails due its true nature that has not been solved? I don't think so.

    We know that dark matter does exist because we can observe its effects.
    We know that earth does grow because we can observe its effects.
    There is strictly no difference from a scientific point of view because both conclusions (dark matter, earth growth) are the result of the scientific inductive method.
    Whe have not observed unequivocal evidence of the earth expanding to the method and degree needed for EE to work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Is there evidence for an impact 175 mya and what about the paleomagnetic, lithographic, and fossil evidence of older supercontinents such as Rhodinia?
    The configuration of cratons in rodinia (no h) matches that of the cratons when both the pacific and atlantic were not open yet, thus supporting the expanding earth model.
    Expanding earth fails due to the spontaneous mass generation problem that has not been solved.
    Does dark matter fails due its true nature that has not been solved? I don't think so.

    We know that dark matter does exist because we can observe its effects.
    We know that earth does grow because we can observe its effects.
    There is strictly no difference from a scientific point of view because both conclusions (dark matter, earth growth) are the result of the scientific inductive method.
    Expanding earth, I had never heard of before. Its interesting because the early-earth [according to all the picture books] was molten rock throughout, and so, would have been bigger than it is now because of thermal expansion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by mise
    Expanding earth, I had never heard of before. Its interesting because the early-earth [according to all the picture books] was molten rock throughout, and so, would have been bigger than it is now because of thermal expansion.
    Actually, it is an entirely different theory. You can read a description of the theory in that scientific publication:

    http://www.earth-prints.org/handle/2122/1152
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by mise
    Expanding earth, I had never heard of before. Its interesting because the early-earth [according to all the picture books] was molten rock throughout, and so, would have been bigger than it is now because of thermal expansion.
    Actually, it is an entirely different theory. You can read a description of the theory in that scientific publication:

    http://www.earth-prints.org/handle/2122/1152
    Publication yes, peer-reviewed, no
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Whe have not observed unequivocal evidence of the earth expanding to the method and degree needed for EE to work.
    Actually there are unequivocal evidence. For a demonstration, let's start with the lithosphere global recycling hypothesised by plate tectonics theorists.

    so, the hypothesis is that accretion of lithosphere at mid ocean ridge is balanced by recycling at subduction zones. The question is: are subduction zones equivalent to a global recycling factory?
    Let's look at a clear example, that I used in an earlier post (In this thread; posted on Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:29 am):

    In the growing Earth theory, some mantle currents rise up to the surface, spread, and intrude/bury the lithosphere they found on their way. A seismic Wadati-Benioff zone (subduction zone in plate tectonics) forms at the front of the current where it meets the old lithosphere. Arc volcanism happens at the front of the current because the lithosphere that get progressively buried by the current wedge get dehydrated as it reaches some depth, and the fluids released decrease the melting point of the mantle located in the wedge, leading to formation of magma that rises up to the surface (volcanoes). Here is an example of these currents, intruding the atlantic in between South America and Antartica, with a volcanic arc (Sandwich Islands) and a benioff zone at the tongue of the current:



    There no lithosphere recycled but the one that the mantle flow found on its way.

    We can also visualize these tectonic flow using GPS if they are partly emerged. In the following figure, each vector represents the annual displacement of a GPS station. Here again we recognize the subduction zone just south of Greece/crete, that does correspond to the front of the flow, and here again, there is not more recycled lithosphere than the one met by the flow.



    Same observations in the Philippines where we can clearly identify successive mantle extrusions at the margin of older lithosphere:



    And here again there is no more recycled lithosphere than that engulfed by the extruded mantle. It follows that there is no global recycling of lithosphere at subduction zones.

    Here is another scheme showing that a subduction zone cannot even balanced the lithosphere created in the back-arc.



    So as we've just seen, the subduction process cannot recycle the lithosphere at a global scale, and thus cannot balance the lithosphere accreted at the mid ocean ridge.

    It follows logically that Earth increases in surface by at least the surface created at mid ocean ridge. That implies that Earth increases in volume.
    We can also conclude that Earth increases in mass, because if it was just a volume expansion at constant mass, it would mean that earth density would have been about 40 only 250 millions years ago, or that surface gravity would have been about 40 m.s-2 at the same period since Earth doubled its radius during that timespan (see PhD thesis of James Maxlow available online here for growth measurements ; link to pdf file at the top left).

    Science at its best.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109 The No-subduction theory should explain why Japan 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    The No-subduction theory should explain why Japan suddenly skid 2,40 meters Eastwards, towards America, the 11 of March...

    For more than four years, Florian plagues us wih his personal delirium : as he has no knowledges nor practice in Geology nor in Mechanics, he does not fully understand the subductions, so he concludes that subductions cannot exist, and subsequently, that the Earth should be in expansion for the last 200 millions years of its existence.

    Completely mad...

    Florian has his own personal room in the Museum of science-pretending impostures :
    http://deonto-ethics.org/impostures/...oard,21.0.html

    Florian has pretended to reinvent all the phyics, really all, just to allow his theory of inflating planets.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau View Post
    The No-subduction theory should explain why Japan suddenly skid 2,40 meters Eastwards, towards America, the 11 of March...
    Snip the delirium...
    It is not about subduction, but about the amount of recycled seafloor at a Wadati-Benioff zone.
    For the Tohoku Earthquake, what skid Eastwards (and by about 40 meters!) is not Japan, but a part of the forearc of Japan (See this map of coseismic displacement).

    M8.9-Japan-Tohoku-slip.jpg

    The point is that the mobile arc progresses toward a static ocean floor. So, yes, there is recycled seafloor (the part that got buried under the mobile arc), but the recycled crust is limited to what got under the mobile arc.
    Globally, the limited amount of recycled seafloor is dramatically inferior to the amount of new seafloor produced at mid ocean ridges.
    It follows that the surface of Earth is globally increasing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    It follows that the surface of Earth is globally increasing.
    Why? Surely the pressure on expanding plates is also pushing tectonic plates sideways and contributing to the increasing height of various mountain ranges. The Himalayas, the European Alps and the Andes are all increasing in height - or, in the case of the Alps, height increase is for the time being offsetting the mass lost by erosion. If the Africa plate speeds up its northwards movement, the height increase could exceed the losses from erosion.

    Himalayas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Are The Alps Growing Or Shrinking?
    The Andes Mountains to Double Their Height in 4 Million Years - GreenPacks
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    It follows that the surface of Earth is globally increasing.
    Why?
    Because the global balance is positive (More crust generated than destroyed).

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Surely the pressure on expanding plates is also pushing tectonic plates sideways and contributing to the increasing height of various mountain ranges. The Himalayas, the European Alps and the Andes are all increasing in height - or, in the case of the Alps, height increase is for the time being offsetting the mass lost by erosion. If the Africa plate speeds up its northwards movement, the height increase could exceed the losses from erosion.

    Himalayas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Are The Alps Growing Or Shrinking?
    The Andes Mountains to Double Their Height in 4 Million Years - GreenPacks
    Even if orogenesis resulted from large lithospheric plate convergence, it would still be insignificant in regard to the amount of crust surface generated at Mid Ocean ridge. In anyway, orogenesis results from tectonic flow, not from plate convergence. So the surface balance for orogenesis is positive or null at best.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Why have none of the satellites and other man made objects in orbit reported this expansion, or had serious problems due to the change in diameter of the earth, and the change in volume/mass?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Expanding Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Need to put the thing o a diet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Paleoichneum
    Why have none of the satellites and other man made objects in orbit reported this expansion, or had serious problems due to the change in diameter of the earth, and the change in volume/mass?
    Hadn't thought of that. Considering how sensitive the GRACE satellite measurements are - identifying the displacement of water from ocean to land in wet La Nina years as well as the uplift/sinking of land masses due to rebound - you'd think they'd pick up the gravitational signals of displacement or expansion of volume/mass under the ocean.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Why have none of the satellites and other man made objects in orbit reported this expansion, or had serious problems due to the change in diameter of the earth, and the change in volume/mass?
    They do. But the interpretation is bogus. Wu's GRL paper is typical in that regard (See HERE)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    This wiki page is a joke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Paleoichneum
    Why have none of the satellites and other man made objects in orbit reported this expansion, or had serious problems due to the change in diameter of the earth, and the change in volume/mass?


    Hadn't thought of that. Considering how sensitive the GRACE satellite measurements are - identifying the displacement of water from ocean to land in wet La Nina years as well as the uplift/sinking of land masses due to rebound - you'd think they'd pick up the gravitational signals of displacement or expansion of volume/mass under the ocean.
    It has been done for the sumatra earthquakes: Crustal Dilatation Observed by GRACE After the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake Shin-Chan Han, et al.Science 313, 658 (2006)


    It showed that a large mass moved up and away from the arc toward the ocean=> overduction, not subduction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    But the earth must be gaining mass. It is essentialy a giant dust mop sweeping space. The tons of space debris it picks up each year does not cease to exist once it falls from the sky. The increase is no doubt small, measured in mm per year but surely it is measurable?
    I don't see this as altering the plate tectonics model at all but it seems like bad science to ignore it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    But the earth must be gaining mass. It is essentialy a giant dust mop sweeping space.
    But we also lose infinitesimal amounts of stuff from the atmosphere as well. It's not at all like the picture some unscientific people come up with of gases "leaking" from the top of the atmosphere, but there is some loss of molecules. I've never checked the measurements but my initial expectation is that it'd be a bit like the Alps - what they gain in height from tectonic pushing they lose from erosion and washing away of soil and rocks so the height is unchanged year to year. The material we gain from meteors for example, would very easily be matched by constant infinitesimal losses across the very, very large surface of the top of atmosphere. There isn't really a surface there - once you're more than 450 km above the earth's surface there's just a gradual merging of atmosphere with space.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    So basicly we don't know if we are gaining or losing material? Seems like a worthy question to try to answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Seems like a worthy question to try to answer.
    Well, it's mostly answered by the lack of discrepancies in the GRACE satellites data.
    Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    If the earth were gaining or losing mass, that would show up, one way or another in gravity measurements. I've seen nothing in these reports (though I don't follow all of them, I'm mainly interested in ice, oceans and rainfall/precipitation) to indicate that there are any puzzling data that need reconciliation with a changing mass of the earth itself. Anyone who has such data could give us a link.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    But the earth must be gaining mass. It is essentialy a giant dust mop sweeping space. The tons of space debris it picks up each year does not cease to exist once it falls from the sky. The increase is no doubt small, measured in mm per year but surely it is measurable?
    I don't see this as altering the plate tectonics model at all but it seems like bad science to ignore it.
    Meteorit dust is negligible. It represents only a few km over the lifetime of Earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Seems like a worthy question to try to answer.
    Well, it's mostly answered by the lack of discrepancies in the GRACE satellites data.
    Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    If the earth were gaining or losing mass, that would show up, one way or another in gravity measurements. I've seen nothing in these reports (though I don't follow all of them, I'm mainly interested in ice, oceans and rainfall/precipitation) to indicate that there are any puzzling data that need reconciliation with a changing mass of the earth itself. Anyone who has such data could give us a link.
    GRACE is designed to measure variations at the surface of Earth (like that induced by the sumatra earthquake). It is not designed to measure a global increase of Earth's mass. It is not so simple to make such a measurement because surface variations are order of magnitude larger than a global variation, simply because the change occurs evidently closer to the satellite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    It is not designed to measure a global increase of Earth's mass.
    That would only be a problem if this increase was instantaneously spread equally over the whole of the earth's surface.

    Seeing as the whole of your argument is that this expansion occurs in specified, restricted locations, the satellites would certainly pick up something in those locations that wasn't happening elsewhere.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    It is not designed to measure a global increase of Earth's mass.
    That would only be a problem if this increase was instantaneously spread equally over the whole of the earth's surface.

    Seeing as the whole of your argument is that this expansion occurs in specified, restricted locations, the satellites would certainly pick up something in those locations that wasn't happening elsewhere.
    You're mistaken. The gain has to be inside the planet not at/near the surface, because what you see at the surface is the result of advection from deep.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    This would still destabilize orbits due to the change in mass and diameter of the earth.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    This would still destabilize orbits due to the change in mass and diameter of the earth.
    The orbit depends on the momentum of the system, not just the mass. And we do not know how the momentum evolved.
    As a reminder, if Earth was reduced to a football but with the same orbital velocity, then the orbit would be unchanged.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    This would still destabilize orbits due to the change in mass and diameter of the earth.
    The orbit depends on the momentum of the system, not just the mass. And we do not know how the momentum evolved.
    We know very well the momentum of the artificial satellites that we placed into orbit, and the changes in the mass and diameter you suggest for an expanding planet would have destabilized them already.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The gain has to be inside the planet not at/near the surface, because what you see at the surface is the result of advection from deep.
    Let me get this straight. You're saying that the magma inside the planet is creating additional material which is then advected to the surface.

    Is that what you mean?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    This would still destabilize orbits due to the change in mass and diameter of the earth.
    I thought you meant Earth's orbit, not that of satellites. I remind you that the orbit of satellites is much more destabilized by events at the surface of Earth. That's why they are used for climate science for example.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The gain has to be inside the planet not at/near the surface, because what you see at the surface is the result of advection from deep.
    Let me get this straight. You're saying that the magma inside the planet is creating additional material which is then advected to the surface.

    Is that what you mean?

    There is only magma near the surface of the planet. As a reminder magma is formed by partial melting of a rock, usually no deeper than 200 km.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    There is only magma near the surface of the planet. As a reminder magma is formed by partial melting of a rock, usually no deeper than 200 km.
    That doesn't address the question I asked though.
    Is it your contention that additional material, of any kind, is being created within the earth's interior?
    And that additional material is then brought to the surface by various means?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    This would still destabilize orbits due to the change in mass and diameter of the earth.
    I thought you meant Earth's orbit, not that of satellites. I remind you that the orbit of satellites is much more destabilized by events at the surface of Earth. That's why they are used for climate science for example.
    No they are not destabilized by surface events. That is why they are still in orbit.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    There is only magma near the surface of the planet. As a reminder magma is formed by partial melting of a rock, usually no deeper than 200 km.
    That doesn't address the question I asked though.
    Your question made no sense knowing what is the origin of magma.

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Is it your contention that additional material, of any kind, is being created within the earth's interior?
    It is not a contention, but an inference that additional material is added inside Earth. Otherwise, how could you explain the large increase in surface without significant increase in surface gravity over time?

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    And that additional material is then brought to the surface by various means?
    By advection, according to buoyancy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    This would still destabilize orbits due to the change in mass and diameter of the earth.
    I thought you meant Earth's orbit, not that of satellites. I remind you that the orbit of satellites is much more destabilized by events at the surface of Earth. That's why they are used for climate science for example.
    No they are not destabilized by surface events. That is why they are still in orbit.
    Make a comprehending effort please. Surface events (like say a storm, or a drought) affect much more the mass that the satellite "see" under it than a global increase of Earth's mass, because the latter is insignificant at our timescale compared to the change of mass distribution due to these surface events.

    So, if these surface events do not destabilize satellite orbits, how a global (albeit slow) increase of earth's mass would destabilize them? Your argument is bogus.

    You should better look at the evidence supporting the large surface increase of Earth if you want to understand the foundation of this theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    This would still destabilize orbits due to the change in mass and diameter of the earth.
    I thought you meant Earth's orbit, not that of satellites. I remind you that the orbit of satellites is much more destabilized by events at the surface of Earth. That's why they are used for climate science for example.
    No they are not destabilized by surface events. That is why they are still in orbit.
    Make a comprehending effort please. Surface events (like say a storm, or a drought) affect much more the mass that the satellite "see" under it than a global increase of Earth's mass, because the latter is insignificant at our timescale compared to the change of mass distribution due to these surface events.

    So, if these surface events do not destabilize satellite orbits, how a global (albeit slow) increase of earth's mass would destabilize them? Your argument is bogus.

    You should better look at the evidence supporting the large surface increase of Earth if you want to understand the foundation of this theory.
    Storms etc do not affect the overall mass or volume of the earth, and take place far below the obits of the manmade satellites. An overall increase mass and volume of the earth will as it will affect the trajectories needed for the satellites to maintain safe orbits. The annual outpouring of lava globally is enough "new mass" to make an overall increase noticeable.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    1 Ugly MoFo warthog213's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by Helge Aspevik View Post
    Here is a theory there I suggests
    that instead of Pangaea the continents formed a
    belt around the equator, spun out as the earth cooled,
    as a centrifuge would.

    I presents redrawn maps
    to show how this concept would handle the magnetic
    orientations and transcontinental chemical parallel
    features, etc. I am sure that this is
    the only way the continents could possibly form.

    If you take a closer look at Gondwanaland who is the best evidence for Wegener`s theory, you can see the ONLY thing I have done, that is to move Gondwanaland away from Eurasia to explain those heavy
    mountain ranges there. The geoligist today have no explanation for this mountains over Eurasia today!

    To get North-America close to Europa, I only had to move Gondwanaland so far that all landmass on earth form a belt along Equator before N. America and Europa fits togheter as Wegener told us.

    That is the only thing I have done to get an explanation for the enormous mountain ranges we talk about. The result of this total necessary movement:

    Pangaea did NOT stretch from pol to pole on one side of the Earth, but was a belt along Equator. That explain tropical forest there where we find ice today as Svalbard and Antartica and so on.

    My theory is only a litle movement at Gonwanaland and that`s all.

    It takes 28 minutes to read the theory. You can find it here: www.aspevik.net
    This theory makes a lot of sense during the formation of the earth but to explain the reasons for shifts and mountains since then i'd like theorize this.... Over the years since the earth formed it has experienced quakes, tsunami's and many other effects of nature.... Now every once in awhile our planets align with other planets and our sun creating a shift in the earths balance by gently pulling on the plates that cover the earth thus creating the effects which we so often see here on earth.... Which in turn has slowly created the mountain ranges and valleys we see near them.... And could possibly account for the shifts in the continental plates which many beleive have occured since the earth formed.... An idea like this falls into line with-in the forces of nature and makes more sense as the changes would for the most part be subtle enough that life could continue....
    And also the mountains formed due some makeup such as iron content or something which has a greater pull than other places on the earth which in turn makes even more sense....

    Or perhaps it works in the reverse by dropping/lowering or equalizing our earths gravity to let this occur....
    Last edited by warthog213; January 5th, 2013 at 03:28 PM.
    (warthog) an ugly little animal in Africa that is hunted, killed and eaten by lions.

    Sorry i'm no scientist so don't expect me to use those terms which scientist use
    to explain things.... I am only an observer of things....

    Every dream i've dreamed isn't the life I live in....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by warthog213 View Post
    This theory makes a lot of sense during the formation of the earth but to explain the reasons for shifts and mountains since then i'd like theorize this.... Over the years since the earth formed it has experienced quakes, tsunami's and many other effects of nature.... Now every once in awhile our planets align with other planets and our sun creating a shift in the earths balance by gently pulling on the plates that cover the earth thus creating the effects which we so often see here on earth.... Which in turn has slowly created the mountain ranges and valleys we see near them.... And could possibly account for the shifts in the continental plates which many beleive have occured since the earth formed.... An idea like this falls into line with-in the forces of nature and makes more sense as the changes would for the most part be subtle enough that life could continue....
    And also the mountains formed due some makeup such as iron content or something which has a greater pull than other places on the earth which in turn makes even more sense....
    That's not a theory. That's a hypothesis.

    At these scales, the properties that we are familiar with on our scale simply are too weak. Not subtle, as you say, but weak. And easily overwhelmed entirely by other local forces.
    For one thing, a planetary alignment would be very quick. We'd be aligned and then- we wouldn't be. Even considering the very massive weight of the other planets, you also must consider the very massive distance. The effects of Jupiter alone would be negligible. And it dwarfes all of the other planets.
    There wouldn't be a subtle tugging that would alter plate tectonics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Make a comprehending effort please. Surface events (like say a storm, or a drought) affect much more the mass that the satellite "see" under it than a global increase of Earth's mass, because the latter is insignificant at our timescale compared to the change of mass distribution due to these surface events.

    So, if these surface events do not destabilize satellite orbits, how a global (albeit slow) increase of earth's mass would destabilize them? Your argument is bogus.

    You should better look at the evidence supporting the large surface increase of Earth if you want to understand the foundation of this theory.
    Storms etc do not affect the overall mass or volume of the earth, and take place far below the obits of the manmade satellites. An overall increase mass and volume of the earth will as it will affect the trajectories needed for the satellites to maintain safe orbits.
    The surface events affect the mass distribution at the closest possible distance from the satellites. I remind you that gravitational attraction obey an inverse square law, so the closest the mass change, the larger the effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    The annual outpouring of lava globally is enough "new mass" to make an overall increase noticeable.
    No it is not.
    Hypothesizing a daily constant input of material (not a given), an average radius increase of 2 cm (average calculated over millions years not truly representative of yearly increase) and a constant density, the ration of yearly change in mass would be (63781000.2^3-63781000^3)/63781000^3=10-8.
    That corresponds to about 10 µGal per year. By comparison, during the Bhuj earthquake (2001), the gravity change was about 400 µGal. Monsoon related changes are usually about 10-80 µGal.
    And keep in mind that the 10 µGal figure is for a steady, global and symmetrical increase in mass while we know that the growth is episodic and without symmetry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    1 Ugly MoFo warthog213's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by warthog213 View Post
    This theory makes a lot of sense during the formation of the earth but to explain the reasons for shifts and mountains since then i'd like theorize this.... Over the years since the earth formed it has experienced quakes, tsunami's and many other effects of nature.... Now every once in awhile our planets align with other planets and our sun creating a shift in the earths balance by gently pulling on the plates that cover the earth thus creating the effects which we so often see here on earth.... Which in turn has slowly created the mountain ranges and valleys we see near them.... And could possibly account for the shifts in the continental plates which many beleive have occured since the earth formed.... An idea like this falls into line with-in the forces of nature and makes more sense as the changes would for the most part be subtle enough that life could continue....
    And also the mountains formed due some makeup such as iron content or something which has a greater pull than other places on the earth which in turn makes even more sense....
    That's not a theory. That's a hypothesis.

    At these scales, the properties that we are familiar with on our scale simply are too weak. Not subtle, as you say, but weak. And easily overwhelmed entirely by other local forces.
    For one thing, a planetary alignment would be very quick. We'd be aligned and then- we wouldn't be. Even considering the very massive weight of the other planets, you also must consider the very massive distance. The effects of Jupiter alone would be negligible. And it dwarfes all of the other planets.
    There wouldn't be a subtle tugging that would alter plate tectonics.
    Please tell us what properties we are truely familiar in their entirety and what scales that exist that are 100% accurate and not a Hypothesis.... You see this the problem with science, it can make something like an HD television but it can't accurately predict nature and its effects.... You see there was an alignment this past weekend and there was a quake in Alaska.... Its simple as this, the planets energy feilds align throwing a ripple effect across our solar system in different ways which has its different effects here on earth "some may push and some may pull" And every quake there has had a different set of alignments with-in our solar system which have been occuring for a very long time over and over again.... And there are hardly any ways to check and see if a mountain raised or lowered by any small amount.... And theres no one watching this where most of these quakes occur.... Its my theory that this what has occured here on earth as well as all across the entire universe in every solar system.... Why do I think this, "because it fits into the form of nature" which is ever present everywhere.... Only a few places on earth has this measurement ever been recorded or measured.... Now thats info that you can wiki for real answers....
    Further proof that radical changes have taken place here on earth is that the dinosouars ceased to exist during their period of life.... This may have occured due to an ice age which would kill them or by some other means like a comet/meteor hitting the planet causing the air to drop of or lower or even become so filled with debris that most of larger species died off.... And we know today that recoving evidence of such things is a difficult task.... Thus we must theorize and not know the answers.... There are astriod belts with-in our solar system and missing spaces where planets may have existed once upon a time.... Its truely hard to say what is fact and what is fiction at this point of our civilation here on earth.... But I do know that I hope man exist long enough to answer these questions because we all want to know the truth, "right"
    (warthog) an ugly little animal in Africa that is hunted, killed and eaten by lions.

    Sorry i'm no scientist so don't expect me to use those terms which scientist use
    to explain things.... I am only an observer of things....

    Every dream i've dreamed isn't the life I live in....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    1 Ugly MoFo warthog213's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    147
    thCA7H9KOE.jpg
    I beleive this picture here to be a forming galaxy.... You can clearly see it forming its sun in the center and other bodies around it....

    This is an image from the hubble telescope off the web.... Feel free to check out some of those images, because we all know a simple picture is worth a thousand words.... There are many types of these photos and you'll notice that there only certain shapes which are formed as a general rule which I find interesting.... Te one in this picture is somewhat similar to our own milkyway.... But appears to be still forming, which is why I saved this one.... Billions of years from now there may be life somewhere inside this picture....
    (warthog) an ugly little animal in Africa that is hunted, killed and eaten by lions.

    Sorry i'm no scientist so don't expect me to use those terms which scientist use
    to explain things.... I am only an observer of things....

    Every dream i've dreamed isn't the life I live in....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    1 Ugly MoFo warthog213's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    147
    <strong><img id="vbattach_1621" class="previewthumb" alt="" src="http://www.thescienceforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1621&amp;stc=1" attachmentid="1621"><br>I beleive this picture here to be a forming galaxy....&nbsp; You can clearly see it forming its sun in the center and other bodies around it....<br><br>This is an image from the hubble telescope off the web....&nbsp; Feel free to check out some of those images, because we all know a simple picture is worth a thousand words....&nbsp; There are many types of these photos and you'll notice that there only certain shapes which are formed as a general rule which I find interesting....&nbsp; Te one in this picture is somewhat similar to our own milkyway....&nbsp; But appears to be still forming, which is why I saved this one....&nbsp; Billions of years from now there may be life somewhere inside this picture....</strong>
    Attached Images
    (warthog) an ugly little animal in Africa that is hunted, killed and eaten by lions.

    Sorry i'm no scientist so don't expect me to use those terms which scientist use
    to explain things.... I am only an observer of things....

    Every dream i've dreamed isn't the life I live in....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by warthog213 View Post
    I beleive this picture here to be a forming galaxy.... You can clearly see it forming its sun in the center and other bodies around it....
    That image is of two galaxy's colliding.

    It is not an image of a "galaxy forming" although you could technically call it that as the matter of each converges into one large galaxy.

    A galaxy does not have a central sun and bodies around it- it has a galactic center and is composed of stars and solar systems, dark matter and even black holes and some evidence suggests anti-matter may be hovering in regions of many galaxies due to the presence of supermassive black holes (Hawking radiation).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    1 Ugly MoFo warthog213's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    147
    And you know this to be fact because you have been there correct ?
    (warthog) an ugly little animal in Africa that is hunted, killed and eaten by lions.

    Sorry i'm no scientist so don't expect me to use those terms which scientist use
    to explain things.... I am only an observer of things....

    Every dream i've dreamed isn't the life I live in....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by warthog213 View Post
    And you know this to be fact because you have been there correct ?
    Yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by warthog213 View Post
    thCA7H9KOE.jpg
    I beleive this picture here to be a forming galaxy.... You can clearly see it forming its sun in the center and other bodies around it....

    This is an image from the hubble telescope off the web.... Feel free to check out some of those images, because we all know a simple picture is worth a thousand words.... There are many types of these photos and you'll notice that there only certain shapes which are formed as a general rule which I find interesting.... Te one in this picture is somewhat similar to our own milkyway.... But appears to be still forming, which is why I saved this one.... Billions of years from now there may be life somewhere inside this picture....
    You are off-topic. Why don't you open a new discussion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by warthog213 View Post
    Please tell us what properties we are truely familiar in their entirety and what scales that exist that are 100% accurate and not a Hypothesis.... You see this the problem with science
    I would say this is the problem with people who refuse to accept the scientific method.

    The only options if we refuse to apply the scientific method are to guess wildly or remain ignorant.
    Neverfly likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
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
  •