Birth Of Earth

[jsispat]

I have some new ideas reg birth of earth. Can u pls comment on it .

 

 

1. earth is living thing like plants and growing.

2. so its birth is also from seed and universe is soil where it germinated

3. all meteroids are seeds of planets but out of very few can germinate.

4. pls see ate attached snaps these are attached snaps of cutted log showing its growth of tree and same way earth is growing layerwise. white layer is crust and red is core like material of earth.

i have more logics also

thanks

suresh bansal

[insane_alien]

uh... no.

 

the earth 'grew' when asteroids smashed into each other and stuck together. it is not alive by any definition of the word.

 

there was no germination. i'm not even sure how planets would do the nasty.

 

meteroids are not seeds. they are rocks.

 

no attched photos. but the earth is not growing in layers. the layered structure in earth is entirely due to buoancy. when you put mercury water and oil into a container these wil for a layered structure but they are not growing like that.

 

the core is red entirely due to the heat. if it was not hot it would be dull grey. the crust is brown, not white.

 

i don't see any logic in this. Also the initial premise is wrong. therefore applying logic leads to nonsense.

 

it sounds like you have thought 'hmm... planet... plant... the sound similar so they must be the same thing!'

[stevo247]

I don’t know if the earth fits the criteria of being “alive” or not. Your idea reminds me of the gaia hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

 

In terms of planetary and solar system “growth”, I’ve always wondered what the long body of the solar system looks like. For example, Jupitor the planet, is starting to look like a mini-sun, with it’s moons starting to look like planets. Was the sun once a planet and the earth once a moon for that planet? Will our moon eventually develop an atmosphere, begin to rotate and start behaving like a planet to it’s sun, the earth. Do the moons throughout the solar system represent "new growth"? Instead of singing in the shower, these are the notions that go through my head.

[Klaynos]

Stars form in rather different ways to planets, although more similar to the gas giants than earthlike planets.

 

The mass difference between the gas giants and the sun is enormous, and the gas giants are not really gaining mass... They may even be losing it...

 

The moon has an atmosphere. If the earth was a star, ignoring the rest of the solar system, the moon would be no different than a planet.

[insane_alien]

Was the sun once a planet and the earth once a moon for that planet?

 

no, the sun and planets condensed out of a nebula that was formed from the death of a previous star.

 

Will our moon eventually develop an atmosphere, begin to rotate and start behaving like a planet to it’s sun, the earth

 

the moon will never gain an atmosphere, it is too small. and it is rotating. its just tidally locked with the earth so the same face always points towards the earth. it rotates at exactly 1 rotation per lunar month.

 

Do the moons throughout the solar system represent "new growth"?

 

no, the moons formed at pretty much the same time as everything else in the solar system.

 

when the sun dies the inner planets will be destroyed and the outer planets flung into space.

[jackson33]

no, the sun and planets condensed out of a nebula that was formed from the death of a previous star.

 

the moon will never gain an atmosphere, it is too small. and it is rotating. its just tidally locked with the earth so the same face always points toward the earth. it rotates at exactly 1 rotation per lunar month.

 

no, the moons formed at pretty much the same time as everything else in the solar system.

 

when the sun dies the inner planets will be destroyed and the outer planets flung into space.

 

Interesting, I happen to agree for the most part, but wonder if you agree with yourself...

 

When a star dies, turning to debris, wonders through space picking up other such debris, eventually the process to star formation should begin. I also feel Molecular clouds even the GMC are generally found around galaxy for that same reason. Our star being the results of that process. The problem is, when a star burns out, its a result of depleted hydrogen, there is very little left to become part of the remaining cloud ie nebula. This is where I feel sure we differ. IMO, of elements can breakdown in the formation, where heat and pressures could be extreme even to what creates the star. Any other explanation, would infer untold planets or other junk in the new system, which is still a possibility. Today however and presumably near in formation our star makes up 99.95% of all mass in our system and at one time predominately hydrogen...

 

One question, are you saying no 'tidally locked' moon cannot have an atmosphere or just ours. Doesn't our moon have a day/night or rotate to the suns effects, or are you suggesting as most would its long lost its magnetic field.

 

To the author of the thread; This same subject and method offered have been made on many forums and over many years. If there is a point to the offering, I have yet to see it...but looking forward to one.

[Klaynos]

The problem is, when a star burns out, its a result of depleted hydrogen, there is very little left to become part of the remaining cloud ie nebula.

 

This is incorrect.

 

The amount of hydrogen in the fusion area of the star, becomes too low to continue fusing. The amount of hydrogen in the star overall is still ENORMOUSNESS! Stars then tend to throw off their outer layers, or go supernova, depending on the type of star... From all the junk thrown out nebula form...

 

We know the quantities of the elements in stars, and their remnants quite well, we're rather good at spectral analysis, and can even have a damn good guess at the amount of hydrogen gas that the light has travelled through before it gets to us!

 

We also know AMAZINGLY well the energies required to break elements up, and the energies produced from supernova and other stella mass loss systems...

[insane_alien]

The sun dies because of depleted hydrogen content in its core. the composition of the star will still be primarily hydrogen.its like extinguishing a candle by putting it under a glass. when the fire goes out there will still be oxygen, just not enough to sustain the flame. the star blowing up is like lifting the glass up a bit. look up solar system formation

 

One question, are you saying no 'tidally locked' moon cannot have an atmosphere or just ours. Doesn't our moon have a day/night or rotate to the suns effects, or are you suggesting as most would its long lost its magnetic field.

 

i'm saying that no body without a large enough gravitational field can aquire an atmosphere. I did say that the moon was rotating, it was the entire purpose of that bit. the moon doesn't have a magnetic field like the earth, this has been directly measured, this has nothing to do with the existance of an atmosphere.

[jackson33]

The said, current theory says a star will change its attitude by its current core (by age) structure. As it gets lower on hydrogen, more helium, it will expand, allowing hydrogen back in (effectually), again shrinking and so on, at least a couple times. My point was and is, that hydrogen is somewhat depleted, certainly from what it was when formed, probably to a much greater degree than you all are suggesting. Since regardless, how I stated the scenario, I had little doubt in getting any confirmation on the 'potential' restructuring of elements in the formation, to allow for what our system had to form from or what may occur in all new stars.

 

Its my understanding atmosphere can be, with less mass, but will be limited to the gravity by distance from the surface. Also that magnetic field, in effect protects solar activity from there destruction. To some degree the limits of an atmosphere are found on earth, with some being obvious about 500 miles out, with our gravity and a still rather sound MF. Mars on the other hand, percentage wise less distance out and being torn apart by solar activity, having lost its MF. Think the our cores completely gone or at best patchy. There is also a natural loss, from velocity of the orbit or the trail effect, which requires a natural production, which small objects and small planets or moons may not or do not have.....IMO.

[insane_alien]

The strength of the magnetic feild has little to do with it. it is primarily the gravitational feild strength of the planet that governs whether there is an atmosphere or not.

 

take venus as an example, similar to earth in gravitational pull, no magnetic field, substantial atmosphere. according to your hypothesis that the atmosphere is magnetic field dependant, there should be no atmosphere on venus. specially as it receives more solar wind.

[jackson33]

I have not said, gravity is NOT important to an atmosphere, in fact it is. What I am saying is that one can exist on smaller objects, whether called an atmosphere or a halo. I also believe the MF is important to maintaining that atmosphere, where solar winds or solar energy can effect. (Interaction)

 

Venus, is effected by both with its lost MF, as is Mars suffering decay. Venus atmosphere is extremely think, has a natural mean to maintain its CO2 based atmosphere and rotates very slow. Venus takes about 243 Earth days to rotate one time, actually retro to ours, the sun and 6 other planets. Solar winds/energy effecting the sun side only, where build up can occur on the dark side. Its BP's are (I think) 90 times ours, making it as a near solid to those effects.

 

There are many articles, suggesting what would happen if Earth loses it MF, nearly all suggesting atmospheric decay, over time. Some even suggest that losing MF is in progress or that a shift, which should occur, will not this time. Its certainly off schedule.

[jsispat]

I have a new idea regarding BIRTH of EARTH and We want this idea to be registered in any institution because every idea take time to prove and if my idea prove then the reward should be given to us so i want that this idea should be registered and Published so can anyone tell me where i can registered this idea and where i can publish this ? . Pls see below the idea.

 

1. earth is living thing like tree and expanding day by day.

2. meteroids are seeds of differrent differrent planets. which germiate in universe and converts in big planet after growing.

3. here universe is as soil of tree for planets

4. earth quakes are stroke of its expantion time cycle.

5. earth is infected planet due to loss of imunisation of climate change because we live on it.

summarry; birth and growth of every planet is as forest on earth.there are two system of birth.

1 birth from female

2. birth from seed germination and second system is applicable reg birth of planets too.

so these type of ideas are in my mind for which i am thinking about from last 21 years.so pls help me reg this.

[doG]

Try sending a public news release to The Onion. They cover discoveries like this.

[lucaspa]

jsisipat: Find a geological journal like The Journal of Geology or Geology. Look up the "instructions to authors". Write up you idea in that format and submit it for peer-review. That is how you "register" an idea in science: publish the idea in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

However, don't be surprised if the paper is rejected. Offhand, I can think of quite a bit of existing data that falsifies your theory.

[timo]

1) Publish in a journal (already mentioned) or deposit suitable documents at a notary. Alternatively, set up a homepage and put the stuff there. Don't forget to pay the bill for the HP.

2) Consider doing arts rather than science if acknowledgement for your creativity is what you are striving for. Music, filming, painting, sculpturing, ... .

3) Reconsider making money with your creativity. Your points sound like a strange synopsis of "Ghost in a Shell" and "Final Fantasy".

[swansont]

Mod note: Similar threads merged

[jsispat]

uh... no.

 

the earth 'grew' when asteroids smashed into each other and stuck together. it is not alive by any definition of the word.

 

there was no germination. i'm not even sure how planets would do the nasty.

 

meteroids are not seeds. they are rocks.

 

no attched photos. but the earth is not growing in layers. the layered structure in earth is entirely due to buoancy. when you put mercury water and oil into a container these wil for a layered structure but they are not growing like that.

 

the core is red entirely due to the heat. if it was not hot it would be dull grey. the crust is brown, not white.

 

i don't see any logic in this. Also the initial premise is wrong. therefore applying logic leads to nonsense.

 

it sounds like you have thought 'hmm... planet... plant... the sound similar so they must be the same thing!'

i agree that asteroids smashed each other but this is death of extra asteroids otherwise there will be flood of planets in universe.

2. reg your idea if we put mercury and oil in one container there will be layers but this doest prove that earth formation like this way only.tree log has layers like same earth . according to you tree has made like current theory of earth formation.

can you tell me any single thing having skin and made by nature only and is dead.

 

I don’t know if the earth fits the criteria of being “alive” or not. Your idea reminds me of the gaia hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

 

In terms of planetary and solar system “growth”, I’ve always wondered what the long body of the solar system looks like. For example, Jupitor the planet, is starting to look like a mini-sun, with it’s moons starting to look like planets. Was the sun once a planet and the earth once a moon for that planet? Will our moon eventually develop an atmosphere, begin to rotate and start behaving like a planet to it’s sun, the earth. Do the moons throughout the solar system represent "new growth"? Instead of singing in the shower, these are the notions that go through my head.

yes according to my theory one day moon will develop its own atmosphere and become planet of sun.our moon is produced from seeds from earth only.

[insane_alien]

i agree that asteroids smashed each other but this is death of extra asteroids otherwise there will be flood of planets in universe.

 

i said planets FORMED by asteroids smashing together, not that.

 

tree log has layers like same earth

 

trees have layers because of yearly growth patterns. the earth has layers because of gravitaional settling similar to the mercury/water example. they are not the same thing at all.

 

according to you tree has made like current theory of earth formation.

 

not at all. trees are formed by a very different process. this is obvious as we do not see saplings crashing into trees at tremendous speeds when we enter a forest.

 

however, we do see protoplanets being formed by the accumulation of rocks and dust in protosolar systems adding credence to our current theories of planet formation and pretty much discounting your ... exotic idea.

 

can you tell me any single thing having skin and made by nature only and is dead.

 

aluminium forms a thin skin of aluminium oxide on exposure to air. cooling lave forms a skin(crust) of solid rock.

 

yes according to my theory one day moon will develop its own atmosphere and become planet of sun.

 

suuuure...

 

By the way, have you considered a question i asked you a while ago?

 

Do you consider lava to be alive as it composes the innards of the planets?

[jsispat]

reg almunium oxide is not proper example becuae it is part of earth only.

reg lava it is a surplus material in the body of earth and should be errupt out. this is like a peak only

[YT2095]

Thread Moved.

[DrP]

Write up you idea in that format and submit it for peer-review. That is how you "register" an idea in science: publish the idea in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

.

 

Yea... good luck with that jsispat!

[lucaspa]

reg almunium oxide is not proper example becuae it is part of earth only.

reg lava it is a surplus material in the body of earth and should be errupt out. this is like a peak only

 

Both of these responses are irrelevant. Remember what YOU asked: "can you tell me any single thing having skin and made by nature only and is dead."

 

Insane alien gave 2. Both are analogous to the crust of the earth. Most of the rocks in the crust are oxides, like aluminum oxide forms on the surface of aluminum. OR the crust is composed of granite, which is indeed cooled lava. The cooled lava is less dense than liquid lava, so it "floats". Another example would be the thin sheet of ice over lakes and streams. That is a "skin" over the water.

 

All of these are examples of "skin" or crust being made by natural processes only without being alive.

 

BTW, we also see layers in ice cores and in types of sedimentary rocks called varves. These are formed by seasonal processes (not life). In the case of the ice cores you get a layer of dust in summer and then a new layer of ice from the winter snow. In the case of varves it is organic material from falling leaves and decaying vegetation in the fall and then a layer of sand from inrushing streams in the spring.

 

The generalized "layers" of the earth are formed by simple differences in density of materials under the influence of gravity. The most dense material is in the core (liquid nickel-iron), with successively less dense materials as you move outward. The gasses of the atmosphere, of course, are the least dense.

 

As I said, there is quite of bit of existing data that falsifies your idea. But, if you really feel you have the data that makes it valid, submit it for publication.

[jsispat]

Both of these responses are irrelevant. Remember what YOU asked: "can you tell me any single thing having skin and made by nature only and is dead."

 

Insane alien gave 2. Both are analogous to the crust of the earth. Most of the rocks in the crust are oxides, like aluminum oxide forms on the surface of aluminum. OR the crust is composed of granite, which is indeed cooled lava. The cooled lava is less dense than liquid lava, so it "floats". Another example would be the thin sheet of ice over lakes and streams. That is a "skin" over the water.

 

All of these are examples of "skin" or crust being made by natural processes only without being alive.

 

BTW, we also see layers in ice cores and in types of sedimentary rocks called varves. These are formed by seasonal processes (not life). In the case of the ice cores you get a layer of dust in summer and then a new layer of ice from the winter snow. In the case of varves it is organic material from falling leaves and decaying vegetation in the fall and then a layer of sand from inrushing streams in the spring.

 

The generalized "layers" of the earth are formed by simple differences in density of materials under the influence of gravity. The most dense material is in the core (liquid nickel-iron), with successively less dense materials as you move outward. The gasses of the atmosphere, of course, are the least dense.

 

As I said, there is quite of bit of existing data that falsifies your idea. But, if you really feel you have the data that makes it valid, submit it for publication.

reg ice on lake is totally diiferent example only. because crust is covered all sides of core like tree also or any living thing but ice is on top of lake not like roll.

reg rock with almunima oxide i also do not understand the correct example because all living thing has very well managed crust or skin that rock do not have well managed.

tree log has core and crust according to you it is dead.

[lucaspa]

reg ice on lake is totally diiferent example only. because crust is covered all sides of core like tree also or any living thing but ice is on top of lake not like roll.

 

That is only because the lake is just a part of the surface of the sphere that is the earth. The earth crust is all about the core. About 2 billion years ago during "snowball earth" the ice "skin" did cover all the earth. Not a living process, but a natural one.

 

reg rock with almunima oxide i also do not understand the correct example because all living thing has very well managed crust or skin that rock do not have well managed.

 

Well, then, the earth's crust is not "well managed" according to you. It's a hodgepodge of different materials unlike the highly organized tissue that is your skin. In some places the crust is solid granite -- like the Canadian Shield. In other places it is limestone. In no two places is the crust exactly the same, as you would find in skin. If you take a cross-section of your skin on your thumb, back, inside of the knee, and sole of your foot, you get the same cross-section. But take a cross-section of the earth's crust at any two places on the surface and it is different.

 

tree log has core and crust according to you it is dead.

 

I never said the tree was dead. In fact, I never commented on it at all. The processes that form tree rings is different than the processes that form the layers within the earth. Tree rings are formed by living cells. The layers of the earth's crust are formed by different density materials under gravity. Apples and oranges. It is you who is trying to say they are the same.

 

 

BTW, the "crust" or bark of a tree is dead. Just like the stratum corneum that is the outermost layer of your skin is dead. Or didn't you know that?

[jsispat]

That is only because the lake is just a part of the surface of the sphere that is the earth. The earth crust is all about the core. About 2 billion years ago during "snowball earth" the ice "skin" did cover all the earth. Not a living process, but a natural one.

 

 

 

Well, then, the earth's crust is not "well managed" according to you. It's a hodgepodge of different materials unlike the highly organized tissue that is your skin. In some places the crust is solid granite -- like the Canadian Shield. In other places it is limestone. In no two places is the crust exactly the same, as you would find in skin. If you take a cross-section of your skin on your thumb, back, inside of the knee, and sole of your foot, you get the same cross-section. But take a cross-section of the earth's crust at any two places on the surface and it is different.

 

 

 

I never said the tree was dead. In fact, I never commented on it at all. The processes that form tree rings is different than the processes that form the layers within the earth. Tree rings are formed by living cells. The layers of the earth's crust are formed by different density materials under gravity. Apples and oranges. It is you who is trying to say they are the same.

 

 

BTW, the "crust" or bark of a tree is dead. Just like the stratum corneum that is the outermost layer of your skin is dead. Or didn't you know that?

according to current theory if we put a same concenterate in box as ealier stage of earth and put it to cool dowm iron ore layer nickel layer and lighter material layers will be seprated.which is not possible to seprate alloys from concentrate.

can you tell me solid reasons that earth is not alive and dead.