| Author |
Message
|
| noob |
 Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:15 am Post subject: is earth growing? |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Posts: 19
|
i found this short (9min) animation on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI
about growing of earth. in short, video is claiming that pangea was not continent, but only surface on planet.
professional opinion?
sorry for my eng, cheers 
_________________
"We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology.
We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology."
-C. Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Zitterbewegung |
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Posts: 222
|
You should ask yourself this:
Where should the matter to pull this off come from. There is no supply of new matter from outer space except in the imagination of the people claiming the earth is growing. They have to resort to an explanation that is highly questionable like absorption of Neutrinos in the earths core. There is not a single shred of evidence for a mechanism like that and it also runs into trouble explaining where the water for the oceans came from after the earth started expanding. If it wa there in the first place there should be signs of a global flooding.
So: NO, the earth is not growing.
_________________
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| The Matt |
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 162
|
| I could talk all day about that is wrong with this, but I won't. Early on he says clearly that there is "no twisting... no form fittting, no altering of shapes and sizes". He is lying. Just watch the video carefully, particularly around 1 minute 44 seconds. He magics huge islands out of nowhere and distorts, twists bends and resizes the landmasses to make sure thet they fit. You can make any random shapes tesselate perfectly if their shapes and sizes can be altered as you wish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Total Science |
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:29 am Post subject: Re: is earth growing? |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 201
Location: N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
|
| noob wrote: |
i found this short (9min) animation on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI
about growing of earth. in short, video is claiming that pangea was not continent, but only surface on planet.
professional opinion?
sorry for my eng, cheers |
It's correct.
"The idea of an earth which is constant and unchanging has been restated so often throughout history that it has now become established as a firm fact. It needs no proof -- which is lucky since there is none." -- Stephen Hurrell, engineer, April 2006
Subduction is a myth.
"People don't want to see it. They believe in subduction like a religion." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1981
Want proof? The oceans are newborns.
Click on the image to view it at its original size
_________________
"The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Total Science |
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 201
Location: N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
|
| Zitterbewegung wrote: |
You should ask yourself this:
Where should the matter to pull this off come from. There is no supply of new matter from outer space |
It's called pair production and was discovered in 1932 by Carl David Anderson, the youngest Nobel Prize winner in history.
"The creation of electron–positron pairs constitutes an example for the conversion of energy into mass." -- Jörg Eichler, physicist, March 2005
| Quote: |
except in the imagination of the people claiming the earth is growing. They have to resort to an explanation that is highly questionable like absorption of Neutrinos in the earths core. There is not a single shred of evidence for a mechanism like that and it also runs into trouble explaining where the water for the oceans came from after the earth started expanding. If it wa there in the first place there should be signs of a global flooding.
So: NO, the earth is not growing. |
I feel sorry for you religious types.
_________________
"The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dishmaster |
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1312
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
|
| Total Science wrote: |
It's called pair production and was discovered in 1932 by Carl David Anderson, the youngest Nobel Prize winner in history. |
Oh please, you need at least 1.22 MeV of energy for every pair. This is actually a vast amount of energy. And where does the antimatter particle (positron) go? Is it stored somewhere? If not, it will annihilate very quickly with another electron again, so you get a mass equlibrium. Not to mention the hard gamma radiation it would produce.
Then again, electrons have a negligible mass compared to the heavy atomic nuclii of the Earth's element abundance. How should these be produced, for which much more energy would be needed? Even the sun cannot do this.
The answer is simple: The submarine surface is so young, because it is built by material that rose by convection form the inner Earth. The movements of the continents can actually be measured.
http://cddis.nasa.gov/926/slrtecto.html
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_10121569?source=rss |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tenderheart bear |
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:28 am Post subject: Re: is earth growing? |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 22 Sep 2008
Posts: 90
|
| noob wrote: |
| professional opinion? |
Hi noob,
We can safely say that no one (but a few fringe characters with no background in geology) believes in the expanding Earth hypothesis. Plate tectonics is the only model for crustal movement accepted by professional geoscientists, and the only model capable of coming close to describing the dynamic Earth system.
Cheers,
-thb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 4561
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
as per usual Wikipedia is your friend and reasonably impartial guide
ironically, the expanding earth hypothesis suffers from the same deficiencies that were originally thrown up by the detractors of the continental drift hypothesis, i.e. a lack of a mechanism explaining why the earth should be expanding + any evidence that any such expansion has taken or is taking place
_________________
how about visiting a foreign country, like Philosophorum ? plenty of møøse there ...
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting, and less interesting than drinking a beer  (although that's still moderately interesting) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Total Science |
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:02 pm Post subject: Re: is earth growing? |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 201
Location: N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
|
| tenderheart bear wrote: |
| noob wrote: |
| professional opinion? |
Hi noob,
We can safely say that no one (but a few fringe characters with no background in geology) believes in the expanding Earth hypothesis. Plate tectonics is the only model for crustal movement accepted by professional geoscientists, and the only model capable of coming close to describing the dynamic Earth system.
Cheers,
-thb |
You make science out to be a fundamentalist religion. For your infomation that is not the case. Scientific truth changes over time.
"We have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter which science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions that we draw." -- Alfred L. Wegener, astrophysicist/geoscientist, 1928
If you have any clue who Wegener is perhaps you'll modify your opinion.
_________________
"The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988
Last edited by Total Science on Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Total Science |
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 201
Location: N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
|
| marnixR wrote: |
| as per usual Wikipedia is your friend and reasonably impartial guide |
If Wikipedia is impartial then I'm a Roman Emperor.
| Quote: |
| ironically, the expanding earth hypothesis suffers from the same deficiencies that were originally thrown up by the detractors of the continental drift hypothesis, i.e. a lack of a mechanism explaining why the earth should be expanding + any evidence that any such expansion has taken or is taking place |
The mechanism is called pair production and was discovered in 1932 by Carl David Anderson, the youngest Nobel Prize winner in history.
"The creation of electron–positron pairs constitutes an example for the conversion of energy into mass." -- Jörg Eichler, physicist, March 2005
_________________
"The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 4561
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
| Total Science wrote: |
| If Wikipedia is impartial then I'm a Roman Emperor.. |
what did you say your name was again ? Caligula ? 
by impartial i mean that Wikipedia attempts to reflect the mainstream scientific consensus, and does give reasonable coverage of alternative explanations + they don't have any particular axe to grind
as for electron-positron pairs, don't they usually annihilate each other shortly after the pair formation ?
_________________
how about visiting a foreign country, like Philosophorum ? plenty of møøse there ...
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting, and less interesting than drinking a beer (although that's still moderately interesting) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Total Science |
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 201
Location: N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
|
| marnixR wrote: |
| Wikipedia attempts to reflect the mainstream scientific consensus |
That's the problem. The "mainstream scientific concensus" has a history of being 100% wrong.
"The history of science demonstrates, however, that the scientific truths of yesterday are often viewed as misconceptions, and, conversely, that ideas rejected in the past may now be considered true. History is littered with the discarded beliefs of yesteryear, and the present is populated by epistemic corrections. This realization leads us to the central problem of the history and philosophy of science: How are we to evaluate contemporary sciences's claims to truth given the perishability of past scientific knowledge? ... If the truths of today are the falsehoods of tomorrow, what does this say about the nature of scientific truth?" -- Naomi Oreskes, geologist, 1999
| Quote: |
| and does give reasonable coverage of alternative explanations + they don't have any particular axe to grind |
Nonsense. I can tell you that they do have axes to grind and there is gross inaccuracy, censorship, and politics involved. Wikipedia is edited by humans, not angels or gods.
_________________
"The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 4561
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
| Total Science wrote: |
| Nonsense. I can tell you that they do have axes to grind and there is gross inaccuracy, censorship, and politics involved. |
any particular experiences that you want to share in this respect ?
oh, as for the consensus being 100% wrong, i think darwin's theory of natural selection has withstood the test of time pretty well
_________________
how about visiting a foreign country, like Philosophorum ? plenty of møøse there ...
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting, and less interesting than drinking a beer (although that's still moderately interesting) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Total Science |
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 201
Location: N.Y.C. (U.N.-Occupied Territory)
|
| marnixR wrote: |
| oh, as for the consensus being 100% wrong, i think darwin's theory of natural selection has withstood the test of time pretty well |
In other words, scientific concensus was 100% wrong for thousands of years before Darwin. However, animal and plant breeders were well aware of domestic selection before Darwin.
_________________
"The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 4561
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
| Total Science wrote: |
| In other words, scientific concensus was 100% wrong for thousands of years before Darwin. However, animal and plant breeders were well aware of domestic selection before Darwin. |
not sure whether this is the correct way of putting things - the state of affairs prior to darwin can hardly be seen as a scientific consensus, more like a muddle of a variety of opinions
+ breeders may have been aware in a myopic sort of way of the power of selection, but very few really took this to the more generic level that is typical of a scientific enquiry
_________________
how about visiting a foreign country, like Philosophorum ? plenty of møøse there ...
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting, and less interesting than drinking a beer (although that's still moderately interesting) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
