csmyth3025

Your post raises two questions: What "uncertainty of the subsurface" are you trying to assess? and, To what "very interesting and powerful idea" are you referring? At the risk of showing my ignorance (which is difficult to hide, in any event), this paper is written in such an obfuscating way that I wonder if it's a legitimate research paper or a comupter generated hoax. Chris

...So, lets do some math: (4/3)(pi)(3189.05 km)^3= ~1.36x10^11 km^3. (~1.36x10^11 km^3)(1000%)=~1.36x10^12 km^3 ((~1.36x10^12 km^3)/(4/3pi))^1/3= ~6873 km. This radius is about 8% larger than the Earth's current mean radius. It would seem that, using your numbers, an expansion of 1000% is a (very slight) overstatement. Does saying that the Earth has expanded by only 800% in the last 300 million years make the expanding Earth hypothesis any more plausible? Chris

The pressure at the center of the Earth is the result of ~6x10^24 kg of mass pressing down on it from all sides. By what mechanism do you suppose that this compressing weight has been reduced over the last 4 billion years? Aside from the problem of the overlying mass, there is also the problem of the sheer volume of expansion needed to support an expanding Earth hypothesis. As Moontanman points out, this expansion would have to be by a factor of 1000. The only possible way the interior of the Earth could expand this much is if it was vaporized. Here, again, you're left with proposing some means by which the temperatures inside the Earth could be so great as to vaporize nickel, iron and silicates at high pressures, yet leave the surface of the Earth as a shell of solid material. Have the proponents of the expanding Earth hypothesis addressed these seemingly insurmountable objections? Chris

If I'm travelling in a tunnel at ~500 km/hr with a very complex system of equipment and infrastructure ensuring my safety, I won't be comforted by the knowledge that my mode of transportation was implemented using "...the cheapest way possible..." If the government is involved in the construction and operation of the system, bungling bureaucracy is almost guaranteed. Having said that, I would like to stress that I actually like the idea of a maglev/vacuum tube transportation system. It's just that I don't think proposing it as a cheaper alternative is very realistic. Convincing the bureaucracts, politicians, and the public that spending more money for an innovative (aka: no track record for cost of construction and operation and no proven reliability) is the show-stopper. It can be done, but the convincing is a big hurdle to overcome. Chris

When you say "molecular atoms" I'm guessing that you mean those elements that normally occur in molecular form - O2 being one example. There are other elements, such as argon (a so-called "noble gas"), that naturally occur in monoatomic form (individual atoms). There are several types of molecular bonds - covalent bonds and ionic bonds being the most well known from high school chemistry classes. Wikipedia has an article on molecular bonds that provides short descriptions and links to more in-depth articles. It can be found here: http://en.wikipedia....nding_in_solids Chris

Your question mark indicates that you don't understand the reply. I think timo has explained it rather clearly. Time and space are both components of spacetime, but time is not space. Try to think of it this way: Hydrogen and oxygen are both components of water, but hydrogen is not oxygen. The Higgs boson is not the quanta of time. It is a boson: (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosons ) and, specifically: (ref. http://en.wikipedia....Higgs_mechanism ) Chris

You seem to be making the conjecture (or asking the question) "...[what] if time is space..." I see no reason why these two concepts would - or should - be the same thing. Spacetime as a unified concept is not the same as saying that time is space. Chris

I think you can get a fair idea of the type of system you're thinking about here: http://www.swissmetr...content/details This SwissMetro site has links to pages on the technology, safety, cost ("Kosten"), etc. The cost in 1997 Swiss francs was estimated to be about 25 billion Swiss francs for about 400 km of line (about 62.5 million Swiss francs per km). If my math is correct, this works out to about 102.6 million Swiss francs per mile. At a current exchange rate of 1.42 Swiss francs per pound Sterling I think this amounts to about 72 million pounds per mile. Keep in mind that this is a very preliminary 14 year old estimate made by proponents of this project. Wikipedia also has a short entry on this project: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Swissmetro Chris Edited to add cost per mile.

I believe that it's generally accepted that "...what forces planets together in original formation..." is gravity. I don't think you'll find anyone in this forum that considers this idea speculative. Can you provide a reference for your statement: "...If those temperatures go down, the molecules density is forced to decrease and the result is an increase in volume..."? Chris

If the cost of the West Coast mainline (train track, I assume) upgrade is estimated at 13 billion, I'm sure a vacuum tube/maglev construction will cost many times that amount. Your talking about massive amounts of new infrastructure and an enormous amount of equipment that isn't "off the shelf" but is unique to this project. "Unique" means "more expensive". Chris

lol thats so true I believe you're mistaken about the observer. He would pass through the center of the Earth and continue on to the South poll (neglecting air resistance, of course). Unless he grabs on to something there, he will then fall back to the North pole, etc. Chris

Nicely put MigL. Chris

One of the reasons that I wondered if the mass of quarks, electrons and neutrinos is irreducible has to do with big bang nucleosynthesis. As I understand it, at the end of this very early stage of the universe there was a smattering of matter left over after all of the particle-antiparticle annihilations were done. This smattering is all of the matter in the universe today. Antiparticles can annihilate our matter particles today - but we have to make them artificially. As far as I know, there isn't enough antimatter in the universe to cancel out the matter. Are there other ways to transform massive particles into massless particles (photons)? Chris Edited to correct spelling error.

I just recently became aware of the following: (ref. http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Quark#Mass ) This new (to me) information certainly blurs the line between what I once thought I could correctly call mass and what I could call energy. I am well aware that these terms are considered by physicists to describe two different aspects of essentially the same thing (E=mc^2). Still, this description of hadrons somehow comes as a surprise to me. So now I have to think of protons and neutrons and, indeed, atomic nuclei as a mixture of nearly 99% binding energy and a little more than 1% "mass". Is this 1% mass irreducible or can it also be converted into an equvalent amount of energy? I must admit that this whole energy<-->mass thing is starting to confuse me. Chris

I'm amazed at how this thread got so distorted away from the OP (sumarized above). My answer would be: Yes, the universe is huge. Yes it can be infinite (but it could also be finite). The boundary of the observable universe is currently about 46 billion light years away from us in all directions according to current estimates. A boundary beyond this distance - if it exists or if it doesn't exist - is presently unobservable and, therefore, unknowable. Any speculation about whether a boundary exists outside our observable universe is not science - it's speculation. As to the final question, I think that it's already been pointed out that if the universe is infinite then for any two points (pieces of matter) that are distant from each other there will always be an infinite number of points even more distant. Chris For all we know there might be a brick wall out there somewhere enclosing our universe. Don't try to trick me with your "...what lies beyond that wall..." question 'cause it's bricks all the way out from there! Chris

As a non-scientist I don't understand what force you're proposing that will confine 1000 electrons and 10001 positrons in a volume that is about 1.7 femtometers in diameter. I ask this because, as I understand it, the strong nulear force is barely able to confine no more than about 92 protons (with a single positive net charge each) in a stable configuration in the nucleus of an atom. Aside from this seemingly impossible task, it's my understanding that electrons and positrons attract each other (because of their opposite charge). It's also my understanding that when an electron and a positron collide they annihilate each other producing gamma ray photons (or other particles in the case of certain high energy collisions). I take it that this phenomenon has not only been experimentally verified but that it's utilized in practical applications: (ref. http://en.wikipedia....on_annihilation ) Chris

This discussion seems to have reduced itself to the question of whether the interior of the Earth has increased in volume over time. Apparently the question of whether the Earth has gained non-trivial mass is not an issue - all parties agree that it has not. Let's concentrate on this issue. Light Storm has proposed that the interior of the Earth has expanded as a result of cooling. I know of no physical mechanism that supports this claim. It's now up to Light Storm to present some physical process or theory that explains this phenomenon. Chris

.....Ah, you said one of my earliest objections. What I didn't account for was the pressure of the interior mantle and cores. Apparently when you cool something that is under enough pressure (350 gigapascals) it tends to significantly change it's density. When you cool it. The density decreases and, along with it, pressure. I looked up a research paper on the subject... honestly... the math went way over my head. Links to papers mentioned: http://www.me.ucsb.e...mputational.pdf http://www.me.ucsb.e...core_mantle.pdf The links you've provided have nothing to do with an expanding or even a contracting Earth. These papers discuss the possible energy source of the Earth's geodynamo - which produces the Earth's magnetic field. If you're going to cite papers in support of your point of view, you should at least understand what they're about - even if you don't understand the math they employ. Your claim that "...Apparently when you cool something that is under enough pressure (350 gigapascals) it tends to significantly change it's density. When you cool it. The density decreases and, along with it, pressure..." is simply not true of the Earth's core - which is gravitationally compressed by the 6x10^24 kg of the Earth's mass. Chris

I've read through this thread out of curiosity. I was unaware that an "expanding Earth" theory even existed. Two pages of comentary and numerous links have convinced me that the proponents of this idea are as sincere in their belief as they are wrong. I have no idea why anyone would believe that the scientific community would conspire to hide the fact that the Earth is expanding if there was a shred of evidence supporting this notion. Ultimately, this theory ignores the inescapable fact of gravity - as your post points out. The Earth is essentially a ball of gravitationally bound material that, if anything, will shrink (slightly) over the eons of its existence as its core cools. Chris Edited to correct spelling error

I believe that the current approach to "space mining" is the capture and extraction of usable materials from near Earth asteroids (NEA's). The intent is to use this material to further the exploration and exploitation of space as a living and working environment. I don't think that those proposing space mining intend for this activity to supply the Earth with a significant alternate source of mineral resources. You might want to take a look at the Wiki article on this subject: http://en.wikipedia....Asteroid_mining Chris

After viewing the lecture given by Prof. Krauss (YouTube video in previous post by ydoaPs), it's obvious that I need to read up on the current thinking on this subject. Chris

There are plausible conjectures that our universe may have formed out of nothing. For example: (ref. http://www.lifesci.s...ibbin/cosmo.htm ) The implications of such conjectures are that that our universe (and, perhaps, others) may have formed out of nothing. I'm not aware that the majority of the mass of an atom is attributed to quantum fluctuations. Chris

I think that to the ordinary layman anything that has no end point can be defined as infinite. This definition is not quite exact, though. For instance, the surface of a sphere has no end point and yet is a finite (closed) surface. Chris

Physicists have studied Einstein's interpretation of the photoelectric effect for over 90 years. They have subsquently taught their students this interpretation. Presumably these teachers are confident that they understand the logic and experimental evidence supporting this theory. How is it, do you suppose, that you're the first person to discover that this interpretation is wrong? Do you feel that no one else has been smart enough to realize that Einstein's interpretation is wrong? Or, perhaps, do you think that the scientific community has just been turning a blind eye to Einstein's mistake all these years? Chris

I think the observable universe fits your description. Chris