Expanding earth

[Ophiolite]

I much rather believing that your distortion of my nickname is a mistake, rather than an attempt at ridicule, in light of the post.

So I'll forgive you in advance.

An error on my part. The brain perceives patterns and meanings where none exist.

How I love that statement, wow. "I meant to say what I said". Remind me never to ask clarfiication from you. All you had to do is say "you misunderstood me" and explain what you meant. Saying "I meant what I said" as a response to someone telling you that they didn't understand you is really not helping.

I repeated my opening statement because it was made several weeks ago and I certainly wanted to remind myself of precisely what I had said. I felt and still feel that the statment was sufficiently precise. I offered an amendment because the reaction to my posts suggested my meaning was not being accurately conveyed. I'm sorry you found this attempt at clarification was structured in an unappealling manner. I would be uncomfortable using your suggested approach: to say 'you misunderstood me', seems too presumptuous.

I understand your point, but we don't like "back then", we live now.

I am not sure who 'we' is in this context. And it is 'back then' that I am discussing. All geologists live in the past.

We weren't ridiculing the theory ITSELF. We're ridiculing the person who makes this claim *in our current day*, in light of our current scientific knowledge.

Yet, as noted, Bascule has clearly implied that he considers the theory to have been inherently and obviously absurd even 'back then'. I don't expect you defend Bascule's position, but if you would at least recognise it we could move on.

[mooeypoo]

Ah, let me nip the misunderstanding bush in the bud and apologize in advance, before we end up deteriorating into something we both didn't mean.

 

I misunderstood you. Sorry about that. I was also probably a bit too defensive. Sorry about that too.

 

I didn't understand you, but I also might have jumped to conclusions and went "on the defensive", which, inevitably, led you down the same path.

 

So. sencere appologies.

 

I stand by my opinion that the theory might have been logical in the past, but it's quite okay to declare it absolute absurd today.

 

I also understand that you didn't react to *this* notion, but to another, and so I guess we were talking on two different subjects.

 

In any case, let's continue in the good note of this debate and not let 'quick conclusions' (on my part, I admit, as well) deteriorate it.

 

Cheers,

 

~moo

 

p.s:

I understand your point' date=' but we don't like "back then", we live now.

[/quote']

I am not sure who 'we' is in this context. And it is 'back then' that I am discussing. All geologists live in the past.

Actually, I had a typo.. it was supposed to be "... we don't *live* "back then"...' which makes it less generalizing and a bit more to the point I was going for.

Sorry 'bout that.

[Ophiolite]

Thank you for your positive remarks.

In any case, let's continue in the good note of this debate and not let 'quick conclusions' (on my part, I admit, as well) deteriorate it.

The only thing is, I can't remember what we were talking about.

[HappyCoder]

Check this out, from the awesomeness of the "Skeptic's Guide" - an interview with Neal Adams: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcastinfo.asp?pid=51

 

Pretty.. uhm.. sad.

 

~moo

 

Just listened to this...should have listened to this sooner...At first I think he started off okay. Then he started trying to explain physics...Uranus orbiting because of a magnetic field? He pretty much went downhill from there, Wow. I think he is getting desperate trying to find an explanation for the expanding earth. Some of his statements sound so ridiculous that it makes it hard to listen to anything he has to say. I have come to the conclusion that an expanding earth with our understanding of science now is false. Because of the single but major problem that it has no way for the expansion to happen. I still personally believe there is good enough evidence for an expanding earth that it still is open as a possibility in my mind. I guess science with plate tectonics theory can model our earth the way it is now with more plausible means for plate movement so unless physicists are able to come up with some way for the earth to be expanding it is invalid. I hope you can at least see what I mean for the evidence for expansion and not see me as an idiot, though looking back at me coming so boldly I probably did seem like quite an idiot. I am still going to look into plate tectonics, there is a lot of information out there. Maybe I could find some explanation for why the age of the ocean is the same for the atlantic and pacific. That seems like quite the coincidence for the atlantic age pattern to be caused by spreading and generate the same pattern with the same age as the pacific only the pacific pattern is caused by the oceanic crust moving around subducting and such. I will accept the idea of subduction but I have a hard time seeing how that could form the age patterns for the ocean crust like that. I hope you see what I mean.

[mooeypoo]

HappyCoder,

 

I'm glad to see you write this, but I may surprise you when I say that this isn't because you changed your mind but rather because you seem to have a better grasp on what Science is in terms of evaluating theories.

 

The entire point of Science is that you examine the available data and then reach a conclusion as to which theory is more plausible. Of course, there are levels of plausibility; We no longer claim that the theory of Gravity is "plausible" - it's plausibility is 99%+.. but it is still a matter of plausibility, and that's the point.

 

A Scientific theory needs first and foremost to explain *itself*, and then explain a phenomena. It cannot just stand on its own without explanation. However, that doesn't mean that you can't -- or 'shouldn't' -- research the available theories and figure out if they have holes in them, where exactly, and even try to devise new theories.

 

That's how you get a Nobel prize..

 

I am not too well versed in Geology, so I can't answer your questions, but I'm sure with some research, you'll find the answers, even if you end up disagreeing with them. And who knows.. maybe one day you'll devise a better theory, that explains things better, and we'll see you in the Nobel Prize awards.

 

Good luck, and welcome to the fascinating (and sometimes frustrating) world of Scientific Thinking.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

My observations: apart from multiple other problems, we would see it expanding from our satellites. A difference between an expanding earth theory and plate tectonics, is that plate tectonics predicts plates crashing together and forming stuff like mountains, whereas expanding earth would tend to flatten things.

[mooeypoo]

Not if the expansion is miniscule.

 

But this can be calculated. Let's see (I suck at math so help me out here). What are the proposed hypotheses for this theory:

 

 

1. The Earth's expansion let do the separation of Pangea to multiple continents. Pangea is estimated to exist approximately 250 million years ago.
   
2. For the sake of calculation, I propose to take the distance between Africa and America as it is today: 7946.3 km
   (Source is crude calculation. I used http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/calculate-distance.html to calculate the distance between "Douala, Cameroon", to "Natal, Brazil". I chose these cities out of a visual inspection of the map.)
   

 

NOTE: This is a very CRUDE assessment, meant for the sake of very general stipulation of what "rate" would the earth "expand" in case it does (and I don't support it does for OTHER reasons). I am not posting this as proof for or against, but rather as a mental excercise. If you have ideas on making this 'experiment' better, do share.

 

Anyhoo, so we have 7946.3 km distance in 200 million years.

 

So, 7946.3/200,000,000 = 0.0000397315 km/year

 

0.0000397315 km/year * (1000 m / 1 km) * (1 year/360 days) = 1.103652777e-4 m/days

 

But that's still very small.. let's try to quantify it a bit better still:

 

1.103652777e-4 m/days * (100 cm / 1 m) = 0.0110365277 cm/days

 

This is tiny, but I imagine we should have still figured it out.

 

The first satellite photos of earth was 1959. Let's see how much the earth should've "Expanded" since:

 

I'm using 2007.8 so that I don't use 2008, although we almost ARE at 2008.. my attempt to be at least PARTIALLY accurate.

 

2007.8-1959=48.8 years

 

48.8 * 0.0000397315 km/year = 0.0019388972 km = 1.9388972 meters.

 

The only question is for this hypothesis -- would we have noticed?

 

I think that even only by Eclipses we would have.. the eclipse - in case the earth IS expanding - would start as totally partial and end with the earth covering the entirety of the sun. The "eclipse" will "grow" with the earth. We would have noticed *that* almost for sure, seeing as we notice tiny tiny changes in far-away stars eclipsing one another (and use this information to define a binary system and find planets in it).

 

So.. I'd say that since we didn't see this growth, the theory is bunk, but since this is a VERY crude assessment, I wouldn't say it's a "definitive" proof.

 

There are other definitive proofs, anyways, but this was a nice exercise in any case.

 

~moo

[Reaper]

My observations: apart from multiple other problems, we would see it expanding from our satellites. A difference between an expanding earth theory and plate tectonics, is that plate tectonics predicts plates crashing together and forming stuff like mountains, whereas expanding earth would tend to flatten things.

 

 

To add to this about satelites, we should also be able to view its gravitational effects. If the Earth was expanding, we would have to have had fix the orbits of the satelites once every few months or so.

 

 

========================================

 

Other than that, I kind of find this whole idea silly. The Earth is a solid object and is very dense. Unless the Earth had less mass back in the day, I don't see how this could be possible.

[mooeypoo]

To add to this about satelites, we should also be able to view its gravitational effects. If the Earth was expanding, we would have to have had fix the orbits of the satelites once every few months or so.

 

 

========================================

 

Other than that, I kind of find this whole idea silly. The Earth is a solid object and is very dense. Unless the Earth had less mass back in the day, I don't see how this could be possible.

 

That.. actually.. could be another nice excercize in math.. I volunteer to try, but I'll have to do that in a few hours.

 

Do you guys think that taking these 'assumptions' and doing actual calculations for them - even if the calculations are a bit 'off' because of the general state of the hypotheses - is something that is helpful to show the relevance of this theory?

 

I thought it was but I am not sure the result is all that much "accurate" to use as a counter-point... what do you think?

[jsispat]

i also belive that earth is expanding because if we see world map it is clear indication that all continents joints each other long time ago.

but my theory little diffent that earth is expanding but continents are shrinking also. this all is like a log of tree 100% same bark of log is shrinking and log of tree is expanding at same time.

[insane_alien]

jsispat, you do know we have tons of evidence for continental drift and zero of shrinking continents(unless they are on colliding plates, the subcontinent of india is shrinking in area as it builds up the himalayas).

 

also, as has been explained to you many many times, the earth is not a tree.

[Klaynos]

i also belive that earth is expanding because if we see world map it is clear indication that all continents joints each other long time ago.

but my theory little diffent that earth is expanding but continents are shrinking also. this all is like a log of tree 100% same bark of log is shrinking and log of tree is expanding at same time.

 

Evidence wins, you loose.

[jsispat]

If there were no subduction zones, then this would be true. But, there are known subduction zones around the Earth (Where the Indian plate meets the Eurasian plate - and it is forming the Himalayas as it does so, The Nazca plate and the South American plate and it is forming the Andes, The Pacific plate and the North American plate -Japan and the pacific rim, and so forth).

 

There are plenty of measured subduction zones around the world that completely invalidates his claim.

 

The fact that the crust gets subducted means that you can have one part of the crust at a rift producing more crust, and in another part it can be subducting and removing crust. The result of which is whatever is on that crust will slide away from the rift and towards the subduction zone. That is exactly what plate tectonics is. You don't need to then have an expanding Earth to explain it.

 

If there was an expanding Earth, and we had subduction zones, then you would expect that the rate of plate production would have to be much higher than the rate of subduction. However, measurements taken at these zones do not show that the crust is being produced fast enough to overwhelm the rate of subduction. The rate of subduction matches the rate of production.

 

This means that the surface of the Earth is "Expanding" at the same rate that it is "Shrinking", thus no net expansion is possible. If no net expansion is occuring, then the Earth can not be Expanding.

 

 

He paint the tectonic theory as a ridiculous picture (without really explaining why it is ridiculous) as an argument against it. This is a logical fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule .

 

Just because he can make it appear ridiculous does not mean that it is. In fact it is just as easy to make his arguments (expanding earth) appear just as ridiculous (Party Balloon anyone?). But notice that no one here has use those kinds of arguments against the Expanding Earth theory. We have shown though other means that it is ridiculous, but we have not made the argument against it: that we can make it appear ridiculous that it must therefore be false.

 

 

Umm, the reason that there is less of them now is that they have gone into making all the planets...

 

And the reason that there was 21 comets in the Shoemaker-Levi 9 comet that struck Jupiter was because the mass of Jupiter broke the comet into all those pieces due to the tidal forces.

 

Also, that Comet was not an Asteroid. Asteroids are made of mainly Iron and Silicon, Comets are made of Ices, some of which are very volatile and will evaporate as the heat from the sun warms it. Comets can be considered as a loosely bound (but very large) snow ball that has pockets of rapidly expanding gas due to it begin evaporated ices) that is trying to burst out from it. No wonder that the comet shattered into 21 pieces.

 

Actually, some asteroids are not much more than loosely bound gravel. These tend to shatter when they approach a planet (or anything with strong gravity), and fragment into the gravel. We see these as meteor showers and such.

 

So, just because this guy is cherry picking his data (solid meteorites) does not mean that there is not other types. And these other types violate his claims. Again proving him wrong.

 

He is right in that most Meteorites (that is meteors that reach the ground) are mostly solid iron, but the reason that they can reach the ground is because they are solid. All that not so solid space junk does not reach the ground, but just because it doesn't reach the ground does not mean that it is not up there.

 

But, all that aside, how does he go from 21 comets hitting Jupiter to "they were bigger in the past"? Is it just me or is this a really big Non-Sequetur?

 

 

Man he builds a great Strawman.

 

First, the rocks that make up the surface of the Earth can be recycled, they can be pushed under other crusts and then brought back to the surface (volcanoes), also the lands can be twisted and folded. In fact, if this weren't the case, then all the granite rocks on the surface of the Earth would have to be 4.5 billion years old. But the are not. This proves that either new granite is produced, or that it gets recycled.

 

This means that not all the Granite that is on the surface today had to be there 4.5 billion years ago.

 

In fact, Granite can form from Basalt given the right circumstances (temperature and pressures) and it is well know to do so.

 

So, it is possible that there was no granite 4.5 billion years ago, and all of it was produced later as part of the normal geological processes. The Surface of the Earth did not have to "be coated completely by a 2 – 4 mile crust of light granitic rock". Which completely blows his "Strawman" argument out of the water.

 

Now, even if the Earth was covered with Granites, the movement of the plates would push parts of this Granites together (raising them up as mountains, and subduction would drag some of it underneath the crust to be "recycled" as magma or metamorphosed into other forms of rock. And this explains why granite does not cover the entire surface of the Earth (we have lost some through subduction and the rest has been mashed together in the form of continents).

 

 

Yes, it can't just get subducted beneath Basaltic rocks as it is too light, but it can be subducted beneath other granitic rocks and this can push it far enough down to melt. Once it is melted, convection currents can then take it deeper into the Earth.

 

So even though it can't be subducted directly beneath Basaltic rock, it can be subducted beneath granitic rock and then melted and drawn deeper into the Earth.

 

 

Well so much for his conclusions then. Granite can be subducted.

 

 

 

Seriously, really?

 

First:

In pair production you create a pair of particles. One of which is Matter, the other is Anti Matter.

 

If Antimatter cones into contact with matter, then it will annihilate, destroying the Antimatter and the Matter it comes into contact with releasing energy.

 

Now if this is going on in the centre of the Earth, then we either should see a lot of antimatter flying away form Earth (and would have to explain how it gets the energy to do so where as the matter does not), or the amount of Matter being produced would equal the amount of Antimatter and then the Antimatter and Matter would be annihilated back into energy (thus no increase of matter).

 

Second:

It takes a lot of energy for Pair production. E=MC^2

 

The amount of Energy required fro pair production is equal to the Mass of the Matter multiplied by the Speed of Light squared. And remember, if you are using pair production, you have to make 2 particles (both matter and antimatter).

 

Lets do a back of the envelope calculation:

Let us assume that the Earth has twice the volume (hence the mass) that it had at some point in the past. Today it is about 5.9736×10^24 kg (well use 6X10^24 as this is a back of the envelope calculation).

 

So this would mean that half the mass was around 3X10^24 kg. We need to account for the same amount in an increase

 

Now, as the Earth is made up of Matter rather than Antimatter (if it was made up of even a small portion of antimatter then there would literally be an "Earth Shattering Ka-boom"), we will need to produce twice this 3X10^24kg, giving us a total of 6X10^24kg of matter needing to be produced.

 

Hang on, this means that there must have been an equal amount of matter to the current mass of the Earth produced to allow the Earth to double it's size.

 

Ok, I'll let that slide for now as we are interested in the amount of energy involved.

 

Ok, so we have worked out that we need 6X10^24kg of mass to be produced. So we multiply this by the square of the speed of light (300,000km/s X 300,000km/s = 90,000,000,000 km/s).

 

This gives us a value of: 540,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules! Holy batman!

actually there are two activities are going on earth. one earth is expanding and continents are shrinking.

 

jsispat, you do know we have tons of evidence for continental drift and zero of shrinking continents(unless they are on colliding plates, the subcontinent of india is shrinking in area as it builds up the himalayas).

 

also, as has been explained to you many many times, the earth is not a tree.

if you agree that the subcontinent of india is shrinking in area as it builds up the himalayas).

100% same activity is going on bark of tree and we can not neglect that all continents were jointed with each other at early stage. same is happening with bark of tree.

[Klaynos]

The Earth is NOT like trees.

[MrGamma]

i also belive that earth is expanding because if we see world map it is clear indication that all continents joints each other long time ago. but my theory little diffent that earth is expanding but continents are shrinking also. this all is like a log of tree 100% same bark of log is shrinking and log of tree is expanding at same time.

 

I would be very interested in where you read information regarding shrinking continents. If you could post link to that reference it would be helpful even if ends up being bogus or not it would be interesting to read.

 

Continental Drift and Expanding Earth can co-exist... In theory, re-curvature of the earth could be the mechanism for sub-duction.

 

The only current major issue I have with subduction is that the age of the sea floor is less than 200 million years old. Which suggests that subduction is happening in a uniform manner. That rock must be completely erased and replaced with new rock within 200million years otherwise we would have found traces of much older sea floor bottom which in turn would suggest a much more faster movement of subduction. Why are we not seeing the seafloor move and subduct at rates faster than what would be required in a perfectly uniformed subduction pattern?

 

The sea floor map clearly indicates ( due to the age of the rock ) that the sea floor must be created at los angeles and subducted towards Japan...

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif

 

Yet the Plate tectonic theory clearly shows a subducting plate in the North American West Coast region... Juan de Fuca Plate is supposedly subducting the material there when in reality it should be creating new material like it's being created at the mid ocean ridges.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Fuca_Plate

 

However I guess this could be perceived as a reversal of plate movement as well. In theory this movement could suggest that the pacific plate is moving east... but... Geodesy information shows the pacific plate moving away from North America ( North West )

 

http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html

 

If the Juan Plate is subducting along the North American West Coast... which it is according to the GPS data... where is the ocean ridge with volcanic activity on the west side of the Juan plate? It's sort of in the general area but not where I would expect it to beaccording to the GPS maps, the Wiki Entry and the Sea Floor Map... and it continues up the west coast. Now... Why does the section north the Juan Plate where the rift continues show lack any sort of subduction zone to eat up that new material? The North American Plate moving west where new material is being created. This area should be sub-ducting. Shouldn't it?

 

In an expanding earth... Recurvature of the earths surface would solve this problem easily. And the buckling of the crust in that area would be clear indication that the Canadian Rockies should be rising in height ( which would fit PT theory as well ) But can PT justify the rising rocky mountians due to sea floor spreading? And if the Rockies are not rising can it justify the last of a subduction area when new material is being generated?

 

Can it be that simple? It's absolutely not obvious to me that Exapnding Earth can be Ruled out or Plate Tectonics can be ruled out... Both theories fit... I would appreciate links to any material which suggests otherwise. I am still learning.

Edited August 4, 2008 by MrGamma

[iPeppers]

Is the earth expanding, or gaining more mass? Isn't every planet doing the same? I mean where does all the meteorites and space dust go, if not to earth and other planets, attracted by our gravity. That theory is obviously lunacy though.

[Klaynos]

Is the earth expanding, or gaining more mass? Isn't every planet doing the same? I mean where does all the meteorites and space dust go, if not to earth and other planets, attracted by our gravity. That theory is obviously lunacy though.

 

There's a bit of mass gain due to collisions, but it's not very large.

[MrGamma]

Is the earth expanding, or gaining more mass? Isn't every planet doing the same? I mean where does all the meteorites and space dust go, if not to earth and other planets, attracted by our gravity. That theory is obviously lunacy though.

 

Trust me... it's drives you crazy trying to figure out who has the right information... do psuedoscience/science a favor... never ridicule it because if you do it just makes it twenty times harder to see the truth...

 

Somebody who ridicules reeks of insecurity... and try arguing to win one simple fact that proves your point... firing twenty arguements at somebody is a sure way to offend them and it makes you look like an insecure jerk... in most cases though you'll lose the not so important points and then your credibility takes a dive... and the other side gains converts... provide the facts only... anything else feeds psuedo-science and in the end turns both camps into a farce... let people make up their own minds... and your bound to find more people who find the right information....

 

Ridiculing and going for the hard sell... is generally a bad idea... calling it lunacy only makes people think that genius is associated with lunacy... attacking peoples credibility as a last ditch effort to prove your point is bar none the worst thing to do... attacking them straight up is twice as worse... because it's not science... it becomes a philosophical/political war... and dare I say... everyone should be talking science not Scientology...

 

I hope that makes sense to you... Do they teach ethics in science classes? Or do they do things like look at old viking maps of the world and have themselves a good chuckle?

 

And to answer your question... yes... mass does accrue due to gravity and solar dust, meteors, ect... it's rather insignificant for Earth ( maybe 40,000 tons / year )... but I imagine over a few billion years it might add upto something depending... Research Jupiter and Matter accretion... they appear to be doing alot of research on that planet...

Edited August 5, 2008 by MrGamma

[iPeppers]

calling it lunacy only makes people think that genius is associated with lunacy

 

I thought genius was associated with lunacy. I mean, almost everyone who has ever been called a genius has also been known to be quite insane. It's a fine line of fun for everyone!

[jsispat]

The Earth is NOT like trees.

i thnik there is very big gap in understanding. my point doest mean that earth is like tree but my point is earth is a living thing like tree and growing same like tree.

 

I would be very interested in where you read information regarding shrinking continents. If you could post link to that reference it would be helpful even if ends up being bogus or not it would be interesting to read.

 

Continental Drift and Expanding Earth can co-exist... In theory, re-curvature of the earth could be the mechanism for sub-duction.

 

The only current major issue I have with subduction is that the age of the sea floor is less than 200 million years old. Which suggests that subduction is happening in a uniform manner. That rock must be completely erased and replaced with new rock within 200million years otherwise we would have found traces of much older sea floor bottom which in turn would suggest a much more faster movement of subduction. Why are we not seeing the seafloor move and subduct at rates faster than what would be required in a perfectly uniformed subduction pattern?

 

The sea floor map clearly indicates ( due to the age of the rock ) that the sea floor must be created at los angeles and subducted towards Japan...

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif

 

Yet the Plate tectonic theory clearly shows a subducting plate in the North American West Coast region... Juan de Fuca Plate is supposedly subducting the material there when in reality it should be creating new material like it's being created at the mid ocean ridges.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Fuca_Plate

 

However I guess this could be perceived as a reversal of plate movement as well. In theory this movement could suggest that the pacific plate is moving east... but... Geodesy information shows the pacific plate moving away from North America ( North West )

 

http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html

 

If the Juan Plate is subducting along the North American West Coast... which it is according to the GPS data... where is the ocean ridge with volcanic activity on the west side of the Juan plate? It's sort of in the general area but not where I would expect it to beaccording to the GPS maps, the Wiki Entry and the Sea Floor Map... and it continues up the west coast. Now... Why does the section north the Juan Plate where the rift continues show lack any sort of subduction zone to eat up that new material? The North American Plate moving west where new material is being created. This area should be sub-ducting. Shouldn't it?

 

In an expanding earth... Recurvature of the earths surface would solve this problem easily. And the buckling of the crust in that area would be clear indication that the Canadian Rockies should be rising in height ( which would fit PT theory as well ) But can PT justify the rising rocky mountians due to sea floor spreading? And if the Rockies are not rising can it justify the last of a subduction area when new material is being generated?

 

Can it be that simple? It's absolutely not obvious to me that Exapnding Earth can be Ruled out or Plate Tectonics can be ruled out... Both theories fit... I would appreciate links to any material which suggests otherwise. I am still learning.

i have never read any book reg geology and i am a business man only. reg continents are shrinking and earth is expanding. actual there is also little differance that earth already has expanded or still expanding . this is sure at time of birth of earth its weight was in few kilo grams only.all this is my views and idea by my own inteligence only.so i can not supply you more links. for my theory pls see BIRTH OF EARTH.

[Phi for All]

i have never read any book reg geology and i am a business man only.

all this is my views and idea by my own inteligence only.

Many people study certain fields in science only partially and then, due to some misunderstanding or lack of comprehension, they decide that it must be wrong and they devise an alternate "theory" that makes more sense to them. You are telling us that you've never studied at all what thousands of people have devoted their lives to studying, never even opened a book on the subject, but you have a better answer than all those other people who have put in literally millions of hours of study and experimentation.

 

Your idea fits a pattern that pleases you but it is hardly science and doesn't answer ANYTHING better than theories that have been thoroughly observed, researched and argued between scientists the world over for a long time.

[jsispat]

Is the earth expanding, or gaining more mass? Isn't every planet doing the same? I mean where does all the meteorites and space dust go, if not to earth and other planets, attracted by our gravity. That theory is obviously lunacy though.

 

if earth gaining more mass it doest mean that meteroids or dust can not come to earth.

 

Many people study certain fields in science only partially and then, due to some misunderstanding or lack of comprehension, they decide that it must be wrong and they devise an alternate "theory" that makes more sense to them. You are telling us that you've never studied at all what thousands of people have devoted their lives to studying, never even opened a book on the subject, but you have a better answer than all those other people who have put in literally millions of hours of study and experimentation.

 

Your idea fits a pattern that pleases you but it is hardly science and doesn't answer ANYTHING better than theories that have been thoroughly observed, researched and argued between scientists the world over for a long time.

actually i am importing iron and steel scrap from most of countries for india from last 10 years. and basically i have been commerce student .

[iPeppers]

That had nothing to do with what I said, jsispat.

I was merely asking if dust and meteorites could account for the earth growing,

and I got my answer awhile back.

[Phi for All]

actually i am importing iron and steel scrap from most of countries for india from last 10 years. and basically i have been commerce student .

My new theory is that it would be better if iron and steel scrap were dropped into the ocean to provide minerals for fish. I don't really know anything about iron and steel scrap or importing and I've never read any books about the subjects, but it just seems to be an intelligent assumption that more iron in the water would mean more iron in the fish, which would make it better for us to eat and make the fish healthier and us as well.

 

People all over the world will see that I'm making them healthier and will pay me more for dumping the iron and steel scrap into the ocean than I would have made selling it. Since I will be buying all the scrap, iron and steel production will have to pick up worldwide, providing more jobs and revenue. Now my theory is creating jobs, too. And more iron and steel being produced means more scrap I can dump into the ocean. Soon humans will be so healthy we won't need to go to the doctor anymore.

 

And this was done just from my own intelligence. I didn't need to study anything about iron and steel and importing. If it makes sense to me it must be right.

[jsispat]

My new theory is that it would be better if iron and steel scrap were dropped into the ocean to provide minerals for fish. I don't really know anything about iron and steel scrap or importing and I've never read any books about the subjects, but it just seems to be an intelligent assumption that more iron in the water would mean more iron in the fish, which would make it better for us to eat and make the fish healthier and us as well.

 

People all over the world will see that I'm making them healthier and will pay me more for dumping the iron and steel scrap into the ocean than I would have made selling it. Since I will be buying all the scrap, iron and steel production will have to pick up worldwide, providing more jobs and revenue. Now my theory is creating jobs, too. And more iron and steel being produced means more scrap I can dump into the ocean. Soon humans will be so healthy we won't need to go to the doctor anymore.

 

And this was done just from my own intelligence. I didn't need to study anything about iron and steel and importing. If it makes sense to me it must be right.

very very hot like core