Light Storm

A fetis is not a life of it's own but an extension to the mother. In my opinion for the line debate of pro-choice vs pro-life is Birth. For that reason, I'm pro-choice by default. What happens to a life after death is irrelevant.

One of the greatest things about forums is people are not responding to people, they are responding to comments made. I would never take criticism personally here, it's not like there taking it out on my parenting, work, or general outlook on life. They are responding to the comments, and not who I am. I would never personalize a comment on someone else either, but I will carry out pretty strong opinions on what people have to say

Prejudices are what fools use for reason. lol... I didn't even know there was a reputation system in place, looking at mine I concluded 'Figures' lol

I used to play Online chess all the time, and hours drifted by in minutes. I realized that it just wasn't the same as in person, board game chess. I think if it's worth getting together for, it's worth playing

I tried google fight as the end all for vs. question... but sadly, it seems to be broken

I second this statement... Our atmosphere is basically acid to anything without millions of years of evolution. Also the Earth is not what it once was for the development of new species. Like the foundation of a new city, in the beginning there must have been a huge race and fast development in new species and evolutionary leaps with each new generation. I know in a single human life, where not going to see much change in the environment around us, but it feels like life is not striving forward like it did in Jurassic times.

Under 2. Empirical Modelling of Geological Mapping (2.6.5) Geologist James Maxlow discusses the Tectonstratigrapic Development f India (44) of his Thesis. "...In contrast to conventional plate tectonic reconstructions, India on an expanding Earth remains attached to the Asian continent throughout Earth history. Extensive periods of polyphase extension-orogenesis-extension and epi-continental basin development within Eurasia to the north, geographically isolated continental India from the elevated Asian continent during much of Earth history... " ~James Maxlow Figured I would offer you an alternative perspective.

/Agree If a meteor is big enough, and hits the ground fast enough the ground can liquified into a molten state which would leave evidence similar to that as a volcano, but they are very different.

Time doesn't exist outside the human imagination. There is no set future or past, there is only present, and the present is always changing.

GPS Data sets seem to support an expanding earth The data is often corrected as a 'mistake' because how can the earth be expanding? I put up a list of arguments which supports the expanding earth... and still... your saying I've offered up nothing. Re: cap'n refsmmat The hubble telescope seems to also suffer from 'orbital decay' blamed on 'drag' Apparently if it's not re-boosted by a shuttle or other means, it will re-enter earth's atmosphere sometime between 2019 and 2032. Ref: http://en.wikipedia....e#Orbital_decay Here is a an idea... look at his thesis. If you go into his thesis... Go to Chapter 3 part A p72-82 It's honestly to much information in regards to that summary you've been quoted to just copy and paste onto the forum. I think we first need to re-define what I mean by cooling. The inner Core of earth has a temperature similar to the surface of the sun 5778K. I'm not meaning it's freezing like liquid water into an ice cube, rather that the Earth is slowly loosing it's internal heat over time. Like a fire in a furnace going out, but it's got a long ways to go before it goes cold. By being hotter, it could maintain a higher density. But without the heat, the material density is going to compensate. "Little is known about how the inner core grows. Because it is slowly cooling, many scientists expected that the inner core would be homogeneous. It was even suggested that Earth's inner core may be a single crystal of iron;[13] however, this is at odds with the observed degree of disorder inside the inner core.[14] Seismologists have revealed that the inner core is not completely uniform and contains large-scale structures that seismic waves pass more rapidly through than others." Ref: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Inner_core "Though nearly pure iron, the outer core is thought to have the consistency of water, and convection in the outer core is thought to create the Earth's magnetic field. At the bottom of this ocean of iron, however, iron crystals settle out onto the inner core, causing it to grow at a slow rate of perhaps an inch every 50 years." ~Ref: http://www.berkeley....egacy/iron.html

Re: Klaynos As I explained to mooeypoo... (who not unlike moontaman likes to use Neal Adams credibility to bring down the theory before hiding behind a demand of peer reviews) Expanding Earth and Plate Tectonics share the same evidence. The only difference between the two is the Expanding Earth accepts that the Earth has been changing in size and Plate Tectonics assumes the size is static. Re: Moontanman Your main proponent Neal Adams? He does not agree with EE. He is lobbying for GE! (Growing Earth). He's not even a scientist and you want to label him the main proponent for Expanding Earth... your embarrassing yourself. Do you know the difference between Growing Earth and Expanding Earth? Expanding Earth is an increase to earths volume, but not an increase in mass. If you scratch the surface on Adams you learn a few things 1. He is not a geologist, physicist or even a scientist. 2. He has a deep rooted love for the works Of Professor Samuel Carey (who was a famous Geologist). 3. It was Careys belief that subduction was a myth, and based on the evidence of his time, he was right in saying so 4. It was Careys belief that new matter must be forming at the centre of the earth and speculated that the answer for additional mass may help us understanding the creation of matter in the universe for an expanding universe. Wanting to take it to the next level, Adams looked into the detailed works of famous physicists (Carl David Anderson) and found pair production. He then surmised that the universe is made up of (prime matter). I lovingly rename it to 'magic matter!' that is totally un-dectable. This magic matter is transformed into real matter at the cores of celestial bodies. If magic matter didn't break the majority of everything we know about how the universe works, I might entertain the idea for an increase in Earth mass. Wow... your as good at reading as you are at math. At no point have I stated agreement with an increase to Earths mass. I've readily told others, including yourself, if the Earth was increasing in mass, I would need to know where it was coming from. I even went as far as verify that statement with references to the layers of lunar dust on the moon. So... unless you can learn to stop putting words in my mouth, please stop posting. In Conclusion... Before you go poking fun at Adams, consider readying Careys book on Expanding Earth first, it will help you understand the scientist behind the cartoonist. Hopefully this concludes any more back and forth about Neal Adams explanations. Have you looked at the GPS data? Re: Swansont I gave the community a list of evidence, I've made follow up references to the post. Still, it remains un-addressed. Lets ask 'Spyman' Speculation Question: If the Earth Rotation was slowing down due to an expansion of the earths size, and the moons recession from the earth was a result of the Earths slowing rotation, how much would the earth be expanding yearly? I've also put the question to Donald L. Hamilton, I'll post a response if I get one. If the answer works out between 11 and 22mm a year, would move this post back into Earth Science? Or would the idea of continuing to entertain this subject be to much of an embarrassment for your forum? Re: Cap'n Refsmmat You told me "If the Earth expands but its mass remains constant, there will be no change in the forces on an orbiting satellite, and so the satellite will remain in the same orbit even as the Earth expands upwards to meet it. Eventually the Earth would be large enough that it will strike the orbiting satellites. and asked Is there evidence that this effect occurs?" I then made reference to one of the oldest satellites in space. Not only is it slowing down every year, but it's life expectancy has dropped exponentially from early predictions. So, is there evidence that this effect occurs... apparently. The rate the moon moves away from the earth is fixed and measurable. Why would I create a model that would demonstrate otherwise? However, it would be interesting to learn the Moons recession may be the result an expanding earth and not the cause of earths declining rotation. Wow.. I'm sorry if you didn't understand the data set. I've gone through those numbers with a Geologist to understand better where Maxlow was coming from. Maybe you should try doing the same. True... at atmospheric pressure... you're still not accounting for the enormous pressure the Earth is under Make yourself a nice ball of plastic wrap Regardless of temperature... You can crush all that mass into a tiny ball. When you start releasing the pressure from the outside, the tiny ball will expand in your hands. There is no magical increase in plastic mass Due to the core temperatures, pressures and densities of the earth, an expansion would result in cooling and a decrease in density. Or the resulting of cooling is decreasing the density which would result in an increase to volume of all the existing matter underneath our 1% surface material. Want to compare numbers on how much Earth is under pressure compared to how much isn't.

I just couldn't resist

The Drake Passage near Antarctica, if memory serves it was named after a pirate who had successfully gotten through it without his ship getting obliterated. In addition to the regular geographical nightmare of that cross over between oceans, Rogue Waves would make the best sailor scream like a school girl.

Re: Cap'n Refsmmat Out of interest, I wanted to look into the earliest results from Satellites that have been in space for a long time. I looked into Vanguard 1. Not only has it been in space since 1958, it's original orbit was predicted to last 2,000 years. But apparently 'Atmospheric drag' is slowing it down every year. This drag due to 'radiation pressure' has apparently reduced it's orbit life time to 240 years. Sadly, we lost communication with it in 1964, but it would be interesting to know how much it's slowing down per year, and if it's 'mysteriously' loosing orbit by several mm per year. Or, it's related to gravity. As the earths rotation slows it's angular momentum drops. The moons momentum would compensate by rising to the same amount. With the increase in speed, it's going to move further away from Earth. Why is the earths rotation slowing down? Have you considered the idea that an Expanding earth might have something to do with it? The rotation would be effected by the volume increase. Well, Maxlow has put the numbers on his thesis, Have you tried going through them to see his breakdowns? I'm sure I've already made links to it on previous posts. But if you want to see the honest to God GPS data sets, this is a good starting location WOW... they have really improved the map since I last looked at it http://sideshow.jpl....mbh/series.html With several spot checks, the data matched up with Maxlows at that time. Maxlow is more interested in the HEIGHT increases over the LAT, LON shown on the pretty map. http://sideshow.jpl....bles/table2.txt Re michel12345 Ever bounce an iron ball off the ground? It's able to 'bounce' because at the moment of intact the molecules push them selves together, the spring off the ground is the molecules quickly re-setting their original density. Put solid iron under enough pressure and the effect will not only decrease the volume but increase heat of the object As it's gets hotter and the molecules move more quickly, the pressure is able to pack them closer together Decreasing the heat will increase the volume as it's density is able to return to normal Made sense to me Re: Spyman Speculating: No, every engine needs fuel. Energy in any form is not limitless. It is more likely the cores of the earth will calm down to a point where volcanic energy ceases to exist on the surface. The surface will get thicker inwards. We will loose the oceans as the crust takes them back. Nothing good for humans after that. For the record: I do not support Adams explanation for 'Planet Growth' as it grossly to break the rules of thermodynamics The video was meant as an 'overview' of how the continents fit back together on a smaller globe... that is all. Give this video a try: Skip ahead to 3:59... and Adams will shrink his animation model on both sides without spinning the globe I personally prefer Maxlows Globes as he put extensive research into every aspect of dating back the globe by closing the newest to oldest surface material. Keep in mind that everyone agrees the atlantic did no exist 250 million years ago.. Even that little globe... The map of the age of the sea floor does not support this at all...Take a look at Antarctica for example on the Pangea model, we see it pushed southward away from the massive Pangea, across an ocean floor no one seems to have even a speculative map for. Now... if we close The Atlantic by the measurements of the sea floor... And looking at this map, it would appear that everything comes back together connecting to the Arctic. Biological evidence laid out by Dennis McCarthy also supports a closed pacific. This to me is the driving evidence for a smaller Earth... How... Speculation at best... but I think the question of how should be taken more seriously. Before one can ask this question, they have to take a good hard look at the age of the sea floors not only in the atlantic, but on a global scale. When you say 'ancient' how many millions of years ago are you referring to... exactly? 2 Thousand years ago? in the time of Ancient Greece? roughly 22meter difference on a global scale. Is that really going to effect the solar eclipse when you compare it to the size of the moon? Your much better at math then anyone else here Hope you don't mind, but I've created a copy of it for future reference. RE: Moontanman Interesting... more fancy cross sections not really based on any real locations anywhere that discuss rifting and subduction. It's from about 7:19 and on that have HUGE problems with in regards to plate tectonics. I mean... come on... basically portrays the earth as a giant lava lamp where continents are spinning, changing size, turning into play-doh and playing bumper cars... and yet you poke at Neals video like it's ludicrous. What's sad to me is that a non-scientist cartoonist can see the elegance and simplicity of the expanding earth model in comparison to that jumble of horse crap. A room full of you scientifically inclined here can't get why. By the way, my favourite Plate Tectonic Video is this one Quote: "If your confused... join the club, even the earth seems confused" (at 2:26, you can start to see some rifting lines on the ancient floors... they just seem to move them around randomly like they aren't really important. Sadly, all there location do not work even at an imaginary stretch with the current age ocean floor maps)

Re: Cap'n Refsmmat No one has addressed a summary of evidence already laid out. If there is no counter argument to them, one assumes they agree with them Ref: Post #49 Where is this additional 'mass' you speak of come from? When we landed on the moon, we observed a layer of lunar dust. That was the result of new incoming matter on the moon since it was a proto state. This should conclude there is not enough inbound matter from space to justify any expansion to the earths 'mass'. Interestingly enough, your objection does raise a good question. I was interested in learning if Satellites take longer to get around the earth on a yearly basis, even if it's only by a minuscule amount of time. Unfortunately, it seems the equations used to determine how long it takes also assume a fixed earth radius. I've already answered questions about the moons relationship with Earth. James Maxlow has gone into detail on several of these points about how we measure the earth. What about past measurements of Earth radius? "Palaeomagnetic measurements were first used during the 1960s to early 1970s to establish an ancient Earth radius. This information was then used in an attempt to resolve debate once and for all on whether the Earth radius is increasing or not. The outcome of this research was the conclusion that Earth radius is not increasing and this has of course since swayed popular opinion towards Plate Tectonics, without fully appreciating the implications of the outcome. While the various researchers went to great lengths to present quality data and sound methodology, it should be realized at that time there was very little agreement as to what a potential Earth expansion may or may not have been. What the researchers failed to comprehend was the significance of magnetic pole locations determined from conventional palaeomagnetic formulae. These are virtual pole locations, not actual locations. Because of this oversight they then made incorrect assumptions regarding application of the ancient latitude and colatitude to determine radius. When the Expansion Tectonic magnetic pole locations for Africa are correctly used, the palaeomagnetic data, in contrast to published conclusions, conclusively quantify a Triassic Expansion Tectonic Earth radius. This, in conjunction with the diametrically opposed North and South Pole plots, represents definitive proof in support of an expanding Earth. " ~Ref: James Maxlow What about space geodetic measurements? "Space geodetics is modern technology that uses satellites and radio telescopes to routinely measure the dimensions of the Earth and plate motions of the continents to sub-centimetre accuracy. During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were established to form a global network, the global excess in radius was found to be 18 mm/year – i.e. the measurements showed that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year. This value was considered to be "extremely high" when compared to expected deglaciation rates during melting of the polar ice-caps, estimated at less than 10 mm/year. The researchers in fact "expected that most … stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr" and went on to recommend the vertical motion be "restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr". This recommendation is now reflected in current mathematical solutions to the global radius, where global solutions are effectively constrained to zero. These recommendations are justified from a constant Earth radius Plate Tectonic perspective. The 18 mm/year excess was considered to be an error in atmospheric correction, so was simply zeroed out. What must be appreciated is that without an acknowledgment of a potential increase in Earth radius NASA had no option but to correct this value to zero, and hence adopt a static Earth radius premise. From an Expansion Tectonic Earth perspective, however, the 18 mm/year excess equates with a present day value of 22 mm/year increase in Earth radius, determined independently from measurements of areas of sea floor spreading." ~Ref: James Maxlow

**delete ** copy post

I'm sorry... 1000% you say If we close the surface material of the Earth that is less then 300 million years old the planet has roughly 50% it's current radius 3189.05km So lets do some math... 3189.05 x (1000%) = 31,890.5km Yah... so according to your math, apparently I'm saying Earth is currently somewhere between the size of gas giant Uranus and Saturn. As I seem to be the lobbyist here, it is up to me to present evidence for an Expanding Earth I presented a list of evidence on post #49 If you do not agree with points made, it's now up to members to dispute them So far, no one has disputed any of them By the way, crying "no no no" while pounding your fists and feet on the ground and putting "extraordinary" lies and claims in my mouth is not going to refute the expanding earth theory in my eyes. I'm doing my best to support my perspective, please respect that and I welcome rational counter arguments.

This is why I said it's hard for us to imagine high pressures inside the earth... It's so far outside of our environment, it's hard for us to even imagine. The fact is, you can compress any matter Water will compress about 10% at 30,000PSI I'm pretty sure most 'scuba gear' would also be obliterated at 30,000PSI The deepest part of the ocean exerts a pressure of over 15,000PSI Physics Reference: http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae15.cfm At the centre of the Earth, your going to find pressures over 350 gigapascals or or 50,763,208.2psi That is more then enough to not only crush anything man made, its enough increase the density of solid metals together.

Interestingly enough, what forces planets together in original formation remains somewhat speculative. Did you know that? We have discovered over 500 candidates for extra-solar planets. Some things that we know is that in some of the youngest stars have rather massive rings on debris and gas that are highly reflective. Around middle age stars like ours, they are finding planets with highly elliptical patterns, or hot Jupiter's. The highly elliptical patterns was an unexpected discovery which increases the uniqueness of life of this planet drastically. Around some much older stars, they have even found evidence for rocky planets. Six candidates as "habitual zone" planets (KOI 326.01, KOI 701.03, KOI 268.01, KOI 1026.01, KOI 854.01, KOI 70.03) are all almost twice the size of Earth. Interesting No, The moon did under go some expansion over the past 4 billion years, Currently the planet exhibits no volcanic activity Currently The planet is tidal locked with Earth It's my opinion that the internal engine that fuelled the moon is spent and the planet is dead. The matter can no longer expand by a changing density. Yes, despite anything you say about expanding earth theories, the sun will expand exponentially Before you ask 'oh where does that mass comes from?' you should be aware that sun expansion will not be an increase in mass either just an increase in volume as the density becomes increasingly lower. In the case of planets and stars as discussed above, the only thing increasing is volume as density decreases You obviously don't read my replies, I've already answered this question once. Ref: #36 Re: jhnmichle Plate Tectonics seems to allude to an infallible system of 100% recycling of the internal energy of the planet. Looking at how other planets have evolved and expanded Earth may unfortunately have a very different fate then we think. We seem to be under some kind of illusion that we have billions of years before the sun expands into a red giant. If the Earth is Expanding and the densities of the cores are changing, Earths fate may end up looking more like Mars in the not so distant future. IMO: Breakthrough evidence suggests Mars once had ocean which covered 1/3rd of the surface (Mars ocean hypothesis). What happened to all the water? The internal engine of Mars was not only smaller then Earths, but it cooled down much faster. Like Earth, Tectonic spreading is very evident on Mars. It may have also expanded over the last few billion years as well. However, the planets engine has probably cooled to a point where it can no longer expand the planet. The crust has become thick enough that the planet has very little volcanic energy left on the surface. If the density became large enough under the surface, like a massive sponge it could easily take back the water and it probably remains in the surface material. Ref to Mars Ocean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Ocean_Hypothesis Re: michel123456 You're still ignoring the importance of pressure. It's hard for us to imagine the effects of massive pressure on solid matter, but it is pretty key. Lets take one cup of water for example. At our sea level, it is pretty difficult for us to crush it's density closer together to use up less volume. But if you could magically teleport 2 miles down to the bottom of the ocean, and scoop up 1 cup of water, the density is higher then it is at the surface due to the weight of the ocean above it. Magically teleport back to the surface and that 1 cup of compressed water will expand and spill over the edge of the cup. Under higher temperatures, the molecules of matter can pack closer together under high pressures. If those temperatures go down, the molecules density is forced to decrease and the result is an increase in volume. Re: Moontanman Really? What link is that exactly?

Imagine how much different the equations might have been if they had factored in the possibility that the earth was half the size it is now in that predication.

As I stated above, I'm not as astrophysicist. That would be an excellent question for one "If the Earth was the size of mars 300 million years ago, how fast would have been spinning" I'm sure someone would have a real fancy equation based on the equator from the centre and able to account for the reduction in planetary spin over time. Here is a reference from 'Earh's Slowing Rotation' 'Chapter 13' "Tracing these tiny milliseconds back for 4.5 billion years adds up to a very significant amount of time for a solar day. I have determined that the day/night rotation was 63,000 seconds shorter than the present 86,400 seconds it is today. This would put the Earth's rotation at about 6.5 hours per day/night cycle, when it was created, 4.5 billion years ago." James Maxlow uses Geological, Geographical and Geophysical Evidence in advanced detail "All rocks contain an immense amount of geological, geographical and geophysical evidence which, to the trained eye, has a complex but variable history of formation, metamorphic change, chemical and erosive weathering, climatic influence, biotic activity and metallic worth to tell us. Using the models shown in Figure 3 we now have a platform on which we can piece together this physical evidence so as to locate the ancient poles and equators, distributions of exposed lands, mountains, ice-caps, seas and shorelines, the distribution, dispersal patterns and extinction histories of flora and fauna, the ancient climatic zones - ranging from polar ice-caps to equatorial zones, and the formation and distribution of metallic and hydrocarbon resources." ~James Maxlow James Maxlow also used Ancient Magnet Poles as Evidence "The published ancient magnetic pole information (the location of ancient magnetic poles established from measuring the remnant magnetism in iron-rich rocks) in particular provides conclusive evidence in support of Expansion Tectonics. When this magnetic pole data is plotted on Expansion Tectonic models it demonstrates that all pole data plot as diametrically opposed north and south poles for each model. These models show that the ancient North Pole was located in eastern Mongolia-China throughout the Precambrian and Paleozoic Eras. As the continents slowly migrated south, during subsequent increase in Earth radius, there was an apparent northward polar wander through Siberia to its present location within the Arctic Ocean. Similarly, the ancient Precambrian and Paleozoic South Pole was located in west central Africa, and, as the continents slowly migrated north, there was an apparent southward polar wander along the South American and West African coastlines to its present location in Antarctica. The locations of these magnetic poles, as well as the derived ancient equators, independently confirm the model reconstructions shown in Figure 3 and again suggest that Expansion Tectonics is indeed a viable process." ~James Maxlow That is before he goes into Acient Geography, Ancient Biography, Ancient Climate and various other aspects you obviously haven't bothered to read for yourselves. He also rips apart current methods of measuring the earth, and why the conclusions are wrong. Dennis McCarthy focuses on 1. Young Oceans "As predicted by expanding Earth theory, all current seafloor in the world is young (less than 200 million years old.) This was not expected given the conventional view of the time: continental fixism." 2. Matching Trans-Pacific Outlines "The continental outlines that bracket each ocean, Pacific included, fit together like pieces of a puzzle." Ref: http://www.4threvolt...e/Biogeogr.html 3. Trans-Pacific Biotic Disjuntions "The regions that interlock along matching outlines (New Zealand - South Chile; Tasmania and South-central Chile, etc.) share hundreds of poor-dispersing sister taxa found nowhere else in the world. The distributional problems created by the hypothesis of a now vanished pre-Pacific superocean are overwhelming. The webpage link above focuses on this evidence." 4. The Dinosaur Circuit "Even in conventional reconstructions of the Late Cretaceous, North America and East Asia were connected by the Bering bridge while South America and Australia were both connected to Antarctica. During that same time, a great number of terrestrial taxa including the largest of dinosaurs moved between South America and North America -- and Australia and East Asia. This requires direct terrestrial connections completely around the Pacific, confirming its smaller size." 5. Simple Geometic Problems "In the Cretaceous, both the Pacific plate and South America were connected to Antarctica. Since that time North America and its Bering region has moved away from South America while South America has moved away from Antarctica, requiring that the distance between Antarctica and the Bering regions is greater today than in the Late Cretaceous. The Pacific has expanded north-south since that time. It has not significantly contracted as static radius assumptions require." Ref: http://www.4threvolt...cCarthy2005.pdf Finally 6. He details the successful expanding Eath predictions vs. post-hoc plate tectonic explanations "While many "surprising" geophysical discoveries were predicted by expanding Earth theory, plate tectonics has had to develop new hypotheses to explain the problematic observations. " Ref: http://www.4threvolt...ence/Table.html There are various other forms of evidence used for justify that the earth has expanded over the past 300 million years. But if the two above aren't enough to convince you this subject doesn't belong under Pseudocience I don't know what could.

ffs "The Earth does not have gravity because it spins. The gravitationalattraction between the Earth and a person on the Earth depends only onthe mass of the Earth, the mass of the person, and the distance betweenthe Earth's center of mass and the person's center of mass.However, the force a person's feet exert on the ground (i.e., theperson's weight) does depend on the Earth's spin. What if the Earthstarted spinning faster and faster? At some speed, the Earth'sgravitational force would not be enough to keep us on the surface.We'd fly off into space because the acceleration (v^2/r) required to keepus moving in a circle of the Earth's radius at the rotational speed of theEarth would be greater than the acceleration of Earth's gravity.The figure 9.8 m/s/s is a measured value, and it includes the effect ofthe Earth's spin as a small correction. If the Earth were not spinning,the measured value would be .034 m/s/s larger. If the Earth were spinningso fast that a day took only five minutes, then the gravitational accelerationwould be spent entirely to keep us moving in a circle, and we'd all feelweightless.Here are the numbers and equation I used:radius of Earth: 6.4x10^6 metersspeed of object at the equator: 465 m/sacceleration required to keep an object moving at speed v in a circle of radius r:v^2/rTim MooneyBeamline Controls & Data Acquisition GroupAdvanced Photon Source, Argonne National Lab"

Re: Swansont I'm not an astro physicist, but last time I checked, the conclusion was the earths rotation is slowing down. "The Earth's rotation is slowing but at a much slower rate than 1 leap second every so many years. The length of time it takes the Earth, at the present time, to rotate once is 86,400.002 seconds compared to 86,400 seconds back in 1820. The rotation has slowed roughly only by 2 milliseconds since 1820. That seems like an insignificant amount of time BUT over the course of the planet's entire lifetime, it has had very profound effects on the geophysics of the planet." Ref: http://novan.com/earth.htm I honestly forget what the rotation of the planet was concluded to be 300 million years, but I do remember it being between 6-12 hours faster then it would be today. That math (which has nothing todo with EE Theories) works for the expanding earth theory better then it does for plate tectonics. I don't think you been reading Maxlow's theory very well, I believe his official response is, and I quote "Because the Earth has always been considered the same size since creation; from either a cosmological or religious point of view, it has not been necessary to ask this question. Because the question has not been asked, or taken seriously, where the additional mass comes from remains speculative." ~James Maxlow I read that as "I don't know!" an answer I'm perfectly happy with based on the evidence supporting expanding earth. Wanting a better answer then that, I looked into research done into understanding the earths core. Aside from really fancy data from very sophisticated shock wave machines, our understanding of the inner workings of the earth is equally speculative. With the Russia Kola Superdeep Borehole aka "Well to hell" project, they where able to drill over 9km into the earth before the drill was damaged beyond repair. That is the deepest we have ever been, the project had shattered many geology based predictions about what would be at that depth. The project was slated to go 15km. Considering the Earths crust is between 100-200km.... lol, we literally haven't even scratched the surface. Re: Chris I understood what the papers where about, and I knew they where not about any expanding earth theories. I was primarily interested in the parts that discussed the cooling effects on the earths core. Forgive me if I don't understand that math... I like to think I'm pretty good at math, but not that good. Re: Moontanman Interesting Evidence for a closed Atlantic Evidence for a closed Pacific (at the same time in history) Do you need more? Please see previous reference to Dennis McCarthy in an earlier post Interesting Yes, with the exception of the $40 peer reviewed plate tectonic pdf. Still, other references only included fancy cross sections I'm sure I could easily pass a test on. I'm not interested in seeing any more cross sections, rather, a map of the ocean floor 250 million years ago, with the rifting and counter matter eating subduction lines that evenly work with the geographically age maps of today. Please keep in mind that plate tectonics is way older then the new map of the age of the ocean floor, and completely took the geological community by shocking surprise. I have found a lot of great animations that show the formation of earth via plate tectonics, but every single time, the ocean floors are covered by water. Hiding it doesn't make it valid. Expanding Earth Theories don't need to hide the evolution of of rifting lines, for that matter, it's pretty much the main argument in the theory for an expanding earth. No... cross sections no longer count... normally aren't even based on real location What is that supposed to mean? Who attached the shards of the earth to a larger sphere? Your analogy falls badly but the idea of plate tectonics explains why the Earth looks that way. The upper plates of earth come together on a smaller globe. If you want to run the experiment yourself, cut the continents out of a map, and see for yourself how they can come together. Or watch the video made by the cartoonist on OP. The same thing can be said the other way. The notion that the earth didn't expand over the past 250 million years is an assumption, not backed by evidence. Yes 1. It does stretch the continents out... I think Neal did a video on that as well, but if you want to hear it from a scientist, you need to look up the works of Vedat Shehu. I imagine one way to test the idea would be to inflate a ballon to half density, cover it in wet mud, wait for it to dry and become solid, then blow it up to max capacity. I think you can imagine the results as well as I can, the hard mud would crack and break at it's weakest points in be lifted up in chunks more then an even distribution pattern. 2. The same thing can be said for subduction, if the earth eats it's self at the same rate it creates new surface material, why does it not take the continents with it? What will happen to Hawaii when it reaches the subduction zones? Cartoonists ref : Scientists ref: Shehw, Veduh (2005), The Growing and Developing Earth, page 115. Have you factored in planetary spin? If the Earth was half the size, and it's spin was twice as high, gravity would be about the same as it is now. Earth spin is not directly responsible for gravity but it does factor in a small part of the correction. "The figure 9.8 m/s/s is a measured value, and it includes the effect ofthe Earth's spin as a small correction. If the Earth were not spinning,the measured value would be .034 m/s/s larger. If the Earth were spinningso fast that a day took only five minutes, then the gravitational accelerationwould be spent entirely to keep us moving in a circle, and we'd all feelweightless." ~Tim Mooney http://www.newton.de...99/phy99x82.htm Regardless of who was the biggest, elephants have a substantial percentage of health problems related to there feet and hind legs. Look it up. This is somewhat off topic and just an observation. Because there was question about the earths orbit in relation to the sun. If the earth was smaller, it would have a tighter orbit. One of the points addressed was radiation exposure. My response about the size of creatures was to imply that higher radiation exposure might have had something to do with it. Someone once said to me 'Planets can't change orbit' ...My response to that was ' and why can't they? 'That is James Maxlow's response to people that are under the presumed assumption that our orbit to the sun is infallibly stable. Your going to run with the argument that Proto Earths Core was less dense then it is now? While original crushing accretion was sweeping up the solar system of massive debris from the stars formation... When the entire crust of the earth was so hot it was liquid molten magma? So hot that it would liquify debris in space to form our moon.... Good luck! Funny, I would could say the same thing about Plate Tectonics... I mean... You will stand side by side with a creationist and agree that the Earth was made the size it is, and has not changed at all in some 4 billion years. Maybe you should agree with them that humans have always had this same average hight to. Re: Chris Further study of the earths core is needed strictly guessing Eastimates vary on core density... but here is a good starting point Continental Crust: 2.7 to 3.0 Oceanic Crust: 3.0 to 3.3 Mantle (silicates): 3.3 to 5.7 (increasing with depth?) Outer Core (liquid): 9.9 to 12.2 Inner Core (solid): 12.6 to 13.0 If the mantle was more compressed with a higher density into the outer core, and the outer core was packed as a higher density into the inner core. So, my guess would be the inner core changing from a super dense state into a less dense state adding to the outer core. The outer core transforms from a super dense state to a mantle state. The mantle, transforms from it's dense state to the crust state, thus, adding to the expanding earth. Orbital spin and velocity around the sun have a factor on earths gravity.

I would expect most people to employee there own level of critical thinking. To be able to question for themselves assumptions laid out by others. When someone tells me something is 'fact' and someone else say's it's 'myth' I want to collect the information for myself, weigh the pro's and con's to my own end and judge for myself on what makes more sense. No Question, peer reviews are absolutely important. In fairness, James Maxlow is fully support by his peers in the field of 'expanding earth'. For that matter, he displayed on his page a letter he received from S. Warren Carey that even he had no question that James Maxlow was the successor to his own work. One hell of a Kudos if you ask me by a fellow peer. So in your opinion... If a Christian says "God made the earth in 6 days!" You would say, "You need a peer to back up that statement" and 50,000 Christians stand up behind that one Christian and say in unity with one another "We support the statement" only then... it would be okay for you to accept it and not derive your own opinion? I wouldn't care if I was the last person on earth that didn't agree with creationism, to me, the immutable laws of the universe can teach me more impressive and exalted lessons than any holy book of all the religions on earth. First and for-most, I would arrive to my own decision about a subject before listening to others opinions.

Just a tidbit about earth adding on mass: "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. " Ref: http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae75.cfm