HappyCoder

2012 also happens to be an election year, coincidence?

I am getting the feeling you are doing exactly that for the Expanding Earth theory. I also get the explanations for plate tectonics. I just think the expanding earth makes more sense. I don't think I am doing a good job conveying what I see. Look at my last post and read over it again. Hopefully you can see how nicely it fits together. True, but if both the Pacific and Atlantic are influenced by the same influences then they should yield similarities. I don't really think all expansion could have happened in one ocean. Imagine a cross section of this happening. A rock ring around the earth. A break happens on one side. Now in your mind try to straighten out this ring without breaking the other side. Keep in mind it is made out of rock, and not rubber. I guess I haven't done a very good job showing that I do know some things about plate tectonics. You may understand Tectonics better than me but you do not understand the expanding earth better than me. I think that the earth is expanding not because I don't understand tectonics interpretations of evidences. I think the earth is expanding becuase I do know tectonics interpretations and I think the expanding earth can explain evidences much better. I guess I didn't explain the mountain forming process well enough. Going back to where that curve that collapses. The continent has a larger surface area than the curve of the earth below it. Parts of the continent are pushed downward from gravity. Because the continent has more surface area the process of parts of the continent falling results in these parts also pushing outward. This sideways pushing results in compressing another part of the continent pushing it up. Read over my last post again. I am hoping you see how nicely that fit together into one simple idea. The earth is expanding. I think the expanding earth theory is a much simpler idea than plate tectonics. Taking a fresh slate, evaluate the evidence I posted. It is obvious the Atlantic was closed. There is matching outlines, young ocean in the middle, and fossil evidence that joins it up. The Pacific shares all of these evidences too. It only makes sense to assume that both the Pacific and Atlantic were closed, and the fact that the age of the oceans match would mean that they were closed at the same time. If you want to reject the evidence for a closed Pacific then you also reject the evidence for a closed Atlantic and you will need additional evidence for a closed Atlantic that doesn't exist for the Pacific. Compare how mountains formed for both plate tectonics and expanding earth. Plate tectonics does not offer one consistent explanation for mountain building. This just adds complexity to the idea of a fixed size earth. Expanding earth offers one explanation for mountains. You tell me that different evidences I posted are irrelevant. Is that just your way of justifying ignoring it? When looking over my last post don't ignore any part and try to see how well it all fits together. Even if it is not correct you should see how well it all fits together, and how simply it fits. I know you would not accept me saying measurements indicate an expanding earth without backing it up. Please hold yourself to the same standard.

To appeal to the people who want some evidence for an expanding earth I am going to put down what I have found. As you read through this I want you to take the evidences and try to see the big picture. Most of the things I have found don't prove anything on their own but as evidences are added a clear picture begins to come into view. I realize that many of the evidences I will point out will have alternate explications, but I want you to look at the big picture. Here is a simple picture I put together illustrating what a perfectly rigid continent would look like on an expanded earth. Please note two things. One thing is that the edges of the continent are lower then the center of the continents. Look at any continent and you will find that the centers of the continents are higher than the edges. The other is the angle formed between the continent edge and the ocean floor. Notice how the angle formed could be mistaken for a subduction zone. Another thing about the curve, becuase continents cannot hold that shape becuase of the forces of gravity, the curve will collapse with the expansion of the earth. This is what forms mountains. For one thing it is a consistent explanation for every mountain range. This explanation for mountain forming is also very consistent with what can be observed with actual mountains. It is consistent with the fact that the Himalayas and the Rockies are roughly the same age. It is consistent with the fact that larger continents tend to yield larger mountain ranges. Age of the seafloor This is the age of the seafloor around the world. Please note the continuous ridge that circles the globe. Notice how the ridge matches with the outlines of nearby coastlines. Look at the ridge to the west of South America. Notice how well it follows the coastline of South America. Also notice how the age range of the Pacific matches that of the Atlantic as well as every other ocean in the world. There is nothing on the ocean floor that is older than 180 million years old. The oldest of the crust is near the continental crust and new crust is being formed at the ridges everywhere on the globe. This data is a perfect match for an expanding earth. This data was discovered after the proposal of an expanding earth. Look at the indent on the east side of South America then look at the outdent in Australia. Notice how they fit together. Just like South America and Africa fit together. Another thing about South America and Africa. If you try to piece them together, there is a spread. If you like up the top, but bottom doesn't connect. If you like up the bottom, the top doesn't. If they are curved to a smaller globe, they fit on the top and the bottom. Take a look at this paper. The trans-Pacific zipper effect. It goes into matching outlines but it also addresses the fact that there are fossils that are found on either side of the pacific and nowhere else in the world. Just like fossil evidence, matching outlines, and seafloor age data provides evidence for a closed Atlantic. This same evidence applies to the Pacific. 180 millions years ago the Pacific was closes, just like the Atlantic. Pangaea existed, it just wrapped around the entire earth when it was smaller. Another insight fossil evidence offers is the larger size of creatures that existed millions of years ago. While most of them where not massive, the average size of creatures was larger than that of the average size today. Dragonflies, elephants, and crocodiles among other animals all have ancestors that are larger than their descendants today. Another interesting thing to note is that Ganymede (Another Picture) and Mars both show signs of expansion. With Ganymede, just look at the edges of the dark areas and how they match up. Even better than the image of Ganymede is the one of Mars. The image I linked to show the elevation of mars. Notice how the higher crust has more craters. More craters means older crust. This means that the higher crust is older, just like earth. All these small details all coherently fit together under the assumption that the earth is expanding. I don't need you to start telling me alternate explanations to what I outlined. Just read over this a few times and try to get the big picture.

So subduction put related fossils into Australia and South America? Yes I have heard of subduction. That is where solid rock will bend at an angle of about 45 degrees, although the angle varies, and then straighten back out into a straight line again.

I don't think this fossil evidence has anything to do with plate tectonics. If there is a simple explanation that allows the pacific to be open, please, enlighten me.

Do not change the subject. If you were following this thread at all you would know I was told I need evidence before I start speculating about mechanisms. Now you are telling me I need a mechanism before I can begin considering evidences. Now to get back on subject. Evidence for expansion.

No, people asked for evidence and I gave it to them. I don't want people to just ignore it or change the subject. Agian

I guess I didn't make it clear that I wanted somebody to explain how that evidence backing the expanding earth could fit into plate tectonics.

explain.

I recognize that my ideas are probably wrong. I am trying to move toward an explanation for expansion. One that is better than hollow earth, pair production, volume only expansion, and the idiotic meteor one. So what advantage did the large size bring the dinosaurs? Then what happened to that advantage? I think an increase in gravity would make a good selection pressure. The very fact that average size as well as upper extreme size of species has declined over the years should mean something. I do offer evidence. Just becuase you reject it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What about the groups of sister taxa line both sides of the pacific. I have not heard an good explanation that calls for a static sized earth. You mean the ridge that is surrounded by new crust that gets older as it gets further away from the ridge? That Ridge?!? Was it a creation zone up until it recently flipped into a subduction zone? I thought science was supposed to come up with models that were predictable. I don't see what you are getting at here. Becuase the earth is not a balloon. Well it has seemed that my ethos have flat lined. Although I think they were probably like that from the start. No matter what I could say you would immediately assume it would be wrong. I am getting the feeling that you don't find me very intelligent. I can see why you would. I know how dumb some people look when trying to back something like the moon landing hoax. I can see why you would see me in that same light. One thing I still need you to explain to me is this. "What about the groups of sister taxa that line both sides of the pacific. I have not heard an good explanation that calls for a static sized earth." And as a side note I am sick of responses that tell me i'm wrong and don't go into any detail why. Edtharan is the only person making responses that are any good.

Try this one. So how is near identical evidence for a closed Atlantic and Pacific translate into evidence for two completely different histories for each ocean where only the Atlantic is closed? Or how the continent bounce doesn't exist.

Really I cannot do this because I don't have enough data. I don't have access to the data used for GPS systems and the equations used to calculate earth positions. I don't have the means to come up with data. What I don't understand is how you ignore the evidence for a closed Pacific. Especially when the same evidence can be used to prove a closed Atlantic. The earth is expanding. I don't know how long it will take science to come around. Just remember this. Maybe it will be proven within our lifetimes. Then you can look back and think, remember when I was convinced that it was impossible for the earth to expand. Remember when I though that continents floated around and crashed into each other and that solid rock would bend at around a 45 degree angle and straighten back out again.

Just the number of similarities between the Atlantic and the Pacific is enough to convince me. This is a good introductory video. I know that youtube videos do not make good science but this is just a primer. If you go to the web site there are some scientific papers that Dennis McCarthy has done. If you follow the mid ocean ridges they circle the entire globe. Every ridge is connected. I have a hard time visualizing how continental drift can account for this. It fits very nicely into an expanding earth. The average size of animals millions of years ago was larger. Some of the dinosaurs would so large that some paleontologists believe that they would have to be slow moving because their they would have weighed to much to move quickly. Other paleontologists say that based on bio-mechanical studies. That these large creatures were very active. Two contradicting views that both seem to be correct. This paradox can be cleared up with an expanding earth. A smaller earth means less gravity so these creatures can be both large, and active.

I'm not saying that this mass travels with the earth. I am saying it would pass through the earth. I imagine this happening where there is dark matter distributed throughout the galaxy. In fact I imagine there is a complex system of dark matter circulating through the galaxy. It starts with the black holes in the center of the galaxy. As matter is pulled into the center of the galaxy it compacts into the black hole. There is sometimes a phenomena that occurs where matter can be seen spewing out of these black holes perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy. I think that dark matter is constantly coming out but on occasion it is thick enough to condense into visible matter. This matter will curve around and fall back towards the plane that the galaxy lies on. This would kinda look like a magnetic field. As it passes through the plane the galaxy lies on the mass of surrounding objects disrupts its heading and throws the dark matter into complex orbits around any nearby objects. Only these orbits run perpendicular to the plane the galaxy lies on. As dark matter passes through planets from top to bottom this matter become converted into standard matter. I also visualize this effect will induce forces on the mass in passes through perpendicular to the velocity of the dark matter and some other vector. I am not sure what other vector to cross the up/down vector with. Either way I think that the force induced is what causes objects to be put into orbits as well as account for their rotation. This would explain the flat shape of galaxies as well as the circular orbits that objects in the galaxies. I know, I just want to get a feel for what people think about this idea. Although the poll is going how I expected it to, but I will just quote you on this one. "Theories aren't decided by popularity." There is evidence for an expanding earth. I am not going to go into that because it would probably just turn into the previous thread and get closed.

I know I have discussed the evidence for an expanding earth in the past and got nowhere mostly because there was no explanation for the mechanism. I have been working through an explanation for it and I think I have come up with something that fits into my understanding of science. For starters you all know what particle colliders do. The take charged particles and accelerate them to as near to light speed as possible then collide them together to see what they break up into. It's known that particles will even do this naturally in the upper reaches of the atmosphere. My thoughts are if there is a way to break up subatomic particles into elementary particles. Shouldn't it be possible to assemble them back together as well? The other half of my idea involves dark matter. It has mass, but does not interact with electromagnetic fields thus allowing it to pass through earth. It should be possible that dark matter could assemble together to form electrons, protons, and neutrons depending on what exactly dark matter is. This idea also is consistent with the data for the expanding earth. It has been found that the earth would be expanding exponentially. This indicates that the rate of expansion is related to the size of earth. A larger earth would have a stronger gravity to pull in more dark matter and the earth would also be a larger target for the dark matter to pass through. I am assuming that there is a couple of things wrong with this hypothesis. What I want to do is find out what is wrong with it so I can improve this idea or shoot it down entirely and try a different approach to find a mechanism for an expanding earth.

Okay, so it has been stated that plate tectonics can explain more that earth expansion. Could I get some examples. (I'm not doubtfully I just want to see if the could also fit into EE) A reason I would think evidence would fit with plate tectonics is because it has had a huge head start in terms of man hours put into connecting evidence to the theory. I would imagine that plate tectonics and EE have a lot of evidence that would fit both theories. It is in the evidence that there is conflict that we could really determine what system is correct. I agree with that. It doesn't match with our current understanding but I am not going to let the absence of an explanation under our understanding equate to me thinking there is no explanation at all. The way I see in the evidence makes me believe the earth is expanding.

*Sigh* Well i'm no scientist so I really don't know how to jump through these different hoops or what hoops to jump through. I know what I know but I don't think it is worth my time to get involved with the politics of science.

The interface looks too cluttered to me. Those demonstrations were planned out and both the user and the computer seemed to know exactly what they wanted. I don't really want an interface like that. I am more for function than form. EDIT: Although there are some nice looking functional things that would be nice, but I would want them without excessive eye candy.

Can't get any of the videos to play smoothly. They do look interesting, I will try them again later.

How is it better? Age of the seafloor This image alone has so many elements that indicate the earth is expanding. Initially one would think with plate tectonics that the Pacific is older than the Atlantic. Of course this is not the case. Instead the age is the same for both the Atlantic and the Pacific. A perfect fit for the Earth Expansion theory. Of course plate tectonics has been modified to take this into account. Saying we really cannot predict the age of the seafloor and that it is just a coincidence that the age of the Atlantic and Pacific match exactly. Look at the mid ocean ridge that is to the west of South America. Notice how it matches the outline of South America. Just like the ridge west of Africa matches. Now you cannot tell me that that image fits plate tectonics better. Even if plate tectonics was correct that image still fits the Expanding Earth Theory better. Expanding Earth Here is a picture I made. It shows how a continent would look now if it were to stay perfectly rigid. The center bows outward and the edges are lower. Of course continents cannot keep their shape as the earth expands show the high parts in the middle will collapse slowly as the earth expands. This is what forms mountains. This is why edges of continents are low elevation and the center is of higher elevation. This explains the formation of mountains on every continent. One simple consistent explanation. This is why there are larger mountain ranges on larger continents. Another thing to note in that picture. Notice how the edges of the continent when the earth is larger form an angle with the ocean crust. Notice how looks kinda like a subduction zone. This is something I noticed myself. I was doing some thinking about it and noticed that the larger the continent the steeper the "subduciton zone". I can't find a good datasource to see if my prediction matches actual data. One inconstancy I found was that Japan has a really steep "subduciton zone" but if you look at the age of the seafloor to the west of Japan you will notice how it is young. That would mean that Japan was connected to the rest of Asia around 50 million years ago. That steep angle was formed while it was part of a very large continent then broke off later once that angle was formed.

I think this game idea would work better in a more modern style game. That way you can have a long overly dramatic cut scene where you see the history of this Darwin character. I think that is should be a clone of Darwin only he is the result of a genetic experiment. First Darwin's DNA is used to grow the first set of clones only they induce more mutations than those that happen naturally. They then artificially select the clones that hold the characteristics of the product they want. You could even fight this creature multiple times in the game, each time it is a little stronger. I think that would fit a little better.

Please elaborate.

I was watching an episode of Nova on global dimming. The process in which particle pollutants are put into the air and block out the sun so light can't hit the ground. One result of this is water evaporates at a slower rate. This is where my thoughts come in. What if global warming is a result of global dimming. Because water is evaporating less this causes means less cooling of the air near the surface of the earth. The heat energy from the sun is still being absorbed by the earth just in the atmosphere from particle pollutants rather than the surface where water can evaporate to cool the earth. This is of course just an idea of mine. I don't have much knowledge about global warming and global dimming and the mechanisms behind them. I do believe my reasoning is good but am not sure if there any data that will disprove this idea. I know there is a correlation between CO2 and atmosphere temperature but I have not seen any sort of information that would indicate the direction of causation. I want to hear your thoughts and maybe shed a little more light on this idea.

When I first heard of this theory I thought it was dumb. Like everybody else I thought, "How could the earth get bigger" but in the video it said that the earth will all fit together and that all the oceans were the same age. This made me want to learn more about this theory. I wanted to know if that was all available evidence or if it continued further. With further investigation I found that a smaller earths means less gravity and that means bigger dinosaurs. The dinosaurs were large. I found that according to the EE theory larger continents will form larger mountains. This is true. I found that there are fossils that match up east and west of the Pacific ocean, just like the Atlantic. The more I thought about this theory and compared it do what I say on the earth the more it made sense. I am now convinced that the earth is expanding. I was able to sift through the evidence myself and come to this conclusion. Lets take a scenario where a guy comes up to you holding a sphere. You find that on this sphere there is mud caked on the outside but only scattered around it. You find that these pieces of mud fit together on all sides. You also find that the stuff between the pieces didn't exist 20 minutes ago but the mud has been there for hours. Now when this guy asks you how this sphere come to this configuration what would make more sense. A) The sphere was smaller, the mud was caked onto it. Then the sphere expanded pulling apart the mud and forming the young spaces in between. B) The sphere was the same size. All of the mud was caked on randomly then the mud started to travel around the sphere. The mud crashed on one side of the sphere then broke apart, traveled to the other side then crashed there. The mud than broke apart again is currently in the process of crashing on the opposite side again. The space between the mud is constantly recycling and it just so happens at this instant that the space in between happens to be the exact same age. Any reasonable person would choose A but for some reason science has picked B.

I have a few questions about anti-matter that I was hoping some of you could answer. First of all what processes do we know about that create generate anti-matter and what circumstances create better conditions for the anti-matter to be generated. And what particles does that include? I have heard about electron/positron pair production but what about proton/anti-proton? Secondly I have heard about a hypothises about neutron/anti-neutron occilation where a neutron can become an anti-neutron and vise versa. What is the standing of this theory?