Birth Of Earth

[Sayonara]

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

 

That's not how it works. The Earth being alive is your crackpot theory, you have to provide the evidence for it.

 

This does not mean pictures of sap leaking from a tree or bits of rock that look like acne.

[DrP]

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.

 

What about Jupiter's moon Europa? It's water and covered with an ice crust.

 

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

 

Because it's made of rock.

[insane_alien]

not possible to seprate alloys from concentrate.

 

yes it is. it is perfectly possible. all you require is a difference in density and some time. the heavier stuff will diffuse down and the lighter stuff will diffuse up.

 

infact, this exact process is used in iron smelting to seperate the iron from the slag. slag is less dense than molten iron so it floats up and the iron sinks, the slag is drawn off the top and the iron off the bottom.

 

essentially this is what is happening inside the earth only more complex as the earth has far more substances in it.

 

although, i will admit this isn't the most popular method for separating metals in alloy as it would take millions of years of settling time. luckily, the earth has had more than a few million years to get around to it.

 

less dense things floating has been exploited by us for millenia why do you refuse to believe that this is what is happening in the earth?

[jsispat]

That's not how it works. The Earth being alive is your crackpot theory, you have to provide the evidence for it.

 

This does not mean pictures of sap leaking from a tree or bits of rock that look like acne.

o k i lossed the battle. if earth is not alive than it is dead only. so pls supply me some solid proves that earth is dead only.

 

What about Jupiter's moon Europa? It's water and covered with an ice crust.

 

 

 

Because it's made of rock.

o k i agreed. but my point is we have only aproach to limited portion of earth i mean we have only aproch upto dead skin of earth . we know nothing about the inner layers that are also of rock or cellular body.

[Sayonara]

jsispat, I still don't think you understand how this works:

 

If you are going to suggest that the Earth is alive, or has a cellular structure, it is up to YOU to provide an explanation as to how its mechanisms work, it is up to YOU to show how the observed evidence supports the theory, and it is up to YOU to show how this theory is better than the current one.

[jsispat]

yes it is. it is perfectly possible. all you require is a difference in density and some time. the heavier stuff will diffuse down and the lighter stuff will diffuse up.

 

infact, this exact process is used in iron smelting to seperate the iron from the slag. slag is less dense than molten iron so it floats up and the iron sinks, the slag is drawn off the top and the iron off the bottom.

 

essentially this is what is happening inside the earth only more complex as the earth has far more substances in it.

 

although, i will admit this isn't the most popular method for separating metals in alloy as it would take millions of years of settling time. luckily, the earth has had more than a few million years to get around to it.

 

less dense things floating has been exploited by us for millenia why do you refuse to believe that this is what is happening in the earth?

agreed heavier stuff down and lighter stuff up.but if we put one concentrate in one box. it is also possible that in one direction iron will float,another direction zn will float and other direction,meganese will float. actual we have different different pockets of mineral in our planet.

 

jsispat, I still don't think you understand how this works:

 

If you are going to suggest that the Earth is alive, or has a cellular structure, it is up to YOU to provide an explanation as to how its mechanisms work, it is up to YOU to show how the observed evidence supports the theory, and it is up to YOU to show how this theory is better than the current one.

current theory says layers of earth are because heavier stuff down and lighter stuff up.but if we put one concentrate in one box. it is not possible that in one direction iron will float,another direction zn will float and other direction,meganese will float. actual we have different different pockets of mineral in our planet.there are lot of flaws in current theory if we consider it honestly.

[Sayonara]

Still not feeling that you really understand how to provide an alternative theory.

[insane_alien]

it is not possible that in one direction iron will float,another direction zn will float and other direction,meganese will float

 

it is possible. but it won't be random directions. the lighter stuff will go up and the heavier stuff down. the bigger the density difference the faster they will do this.

 

this happens in labs all over the world and in chemical plants all over the world. it happens in the seas and it has even been observed happening in lava pools.

 

all it requires is fluidity and time. the innards of the earth have got these in buckets.

[jsispat]

it is possible. but it won't be random directions. the lighter stuff will go up and the heavier stuff down. the bigger the density difference the faster they will do this.

 

this happens in labs all over the world and in chemical plants all over the world. it happens in the seas and it has even been observed happening in lava pools.

 

all it requires is fluidity and time. the innards of the earth have got these in buckets.

but i understand as people say that there is layer of nickel equaly managed out side the earth. but there are different different pockets of mineral in crust of earth. i understand that different differnt pockets of mineral seems odd than heavier lighter theory.pls re think by your self honestly. pls trust on yourself only that it looks practical. even if practical, we 100% surely can not say earth is dead, because same minerals pockets are available in alive things and they are not from heavier lighter process.

[Sayonara]

It's an ongoing process. The Earth is not completely static.

 

Movement and change alone DO NOT DENOTE LIFE.

[insane_alien]

yes, there are pockets of minerals in the earths crust but this is due to it being solid. the minerals are deposited in the crust by volcanic activity and the heavier minerals are brought up by convection currents within the mantle. and binding with other elements to form a less dense compund.

 

for example, sulphur is a solid at room temperature, bind it with oxygen and suddenly it is a gas which is much less dense than sulphur.

 

we understand the geochemistry of earth very well and it is nothing like biochemistry. go read a beginners geology book.

[doG]

but i understand as people say that there is layer of nickel equaly managed out side the earth. but there are different different pockets of mineral in crust of earth. i understand that different differnt pockets of mineral seems odd than heavier lighter theory.

 

Wow, you're the first person I ever met that hasn't heard of things like planetary convective flows and volcanism...

[foodchain]

but i understand as people say that there is layer of nickel equaly managed out side the earth. but there are different different pockets of mineral in crust of earth. i understand that different differnt pockets of mineral seems odd than heavier lighter theory.pls re think by your self honestly. pls trust on yourself only that it looks practical. even if practical, we 100% surely can not say earth is dead, because same minerals pockets are available in alive things and they are not from heavier lighter process.

 

Yes, the earth has differentiated in time due to various forces like gravity. Its core, or active core I think produces a dynamo effect which brings about the magnetosphere, which protects us from the deadly solar winds! I guess you can say the earth has evolved in time, but I think this is as close as it gets to being life, besides being natural.

 

I think some new form of a nano scale phenomena has been found in some geologic activity, but its basically carbon based and appears to be completely devoid of life, yet it still gets some attention in regards to origin of life issues.

[jsispat]

yes, there are pockets of minerals in the earths crust but this is due to it being solid. the minerals are deposited in the crust by volcanic activity and the heavier minerals are brought up by convection currents within the mantle. and binding with other elements to form a less dense compund.

 

for example, sulphur is a solid at room temperature, bind it with oxygen and suddenly it is a gas which is much less dense than sulphur.

 

we understand the geochemistry of earth very well and it is nothing like biochemistry. go read a beginners geology book.

is it scientifically proved that earth formed by in this method only ?

[insane_alien]

yes actually, as i have said before, we have evidence of it by observing protosolar systems around other stars.

 

solar systems start out as a cloud of dust and rock and gases which soon collapses into a disc because of collisions and preservation of angular momentum. collisions take place within the disc and larger lumps form. the heat of collision makes them liquid. over time these larger lumps will clear out their orbits of debris and when the collision rate becomes low enough, the planet will cool as it radiates more heat than it gets from collisions. a crust forms from lighter chemicals floating to the top cooling and solidifying. given enough time the mantle and core would cool down enough to solidify.

 

i can't post all the evidence we have because there is too much of it. we can look at the moon and measure the age of craters which tells us that there were a LOT more collisions a few billion years ago, hence more stuff on the planetary plane. we can look inside our own planet and tell its structure and how hot it is.

 

the evidence is stacked against you, unless you can think of a new way to explain EVERY observation then your idea that the earth is alive is wrong.

 

similarities do not prove anything. my cousins kid has a book shaped like a digger. is it a digger? no. does the kid really wish it was a digger? yep.

[Klaynos]

The astro group in my school actually spend quite alot of their resources on protoplanets and imaging these disks around early stars... they really do exist and it is where planets come from... There's LOTS of evidence for this, and no evidence whatsoever for your idea...

 

Planet formation theories have to full fill certain criteria, the two of these I can remember off of the top of my head are:

 

There is no planet formed in the asteroid belt.

There is enough time for Juipiter to grow before the observed maximum age of the disks.

 

Your idea does not fit these or the others, or the observed evidence as well as the current theories let alone better. Therefore you're wrong.

[jsispat]

yes actually, as i have said before, we have evidence of it by observing protosolar systems around other stars.

 

solar systems start out as a cloud of dust and rock and gases which soon collapses into a disc because of collisions and preservation of angular momentum. collisions take place within the disc and larger lumps form. the heat of collision makes them liquid. over time these larger lumps will clear out their orbits of debris and when the collision rate becomes low enough, the planet will cool as it radiates more heat than it gets from collisions. a crust forms from lighter chemicals floating to the top cooling and solidifying. given enough time the mantle and core would cool down enough to solidify.

 

i can't post all the evidence we have because there is too much of it. we can look at the moon and measure the age of craters which tells us that there were a LOT more collisions a few billion years ago, hence more stuff on the planetary plane. we can look inside our own planet and tell its structure and how hot it is.

 

the evidence is stacked against you, unless you can think of a new way to explain EVERY observation then your idea that the earth is alive is wrong.

 

similarities do not prove anything. my cousins kid has a book shaped like a digger. is it a digger? no. does the kid really wish it was a digger? yep.

i do not want all evidence but request you to pls send two or three very solid evcidence. thanks for long discussion and cooperation i apericiate you.

[Klaynos]

i do not want all evidence but request you to pls send two or three very solid evcidence. thanks for long discussion and cooperation i apericiate you.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310191

[jsispat]

That's not how it works. The Earth being alive is your crackpot theory, you have to provide the evidence for it.

 

This does not mean pictures of sap leaking from a tree or bits of rock that look like acne.

sap leaking from tree is just example that also valcanoes erupting from globe.this is also one of visual similarties that earth is living thing like tree.actually valcano activites is common for most planets and heavenily body same common for trees.

[Edtharan]

i do not want all evidence but request you to pls send two or three very solid evcidence. thanks for long discussion and cooperation i apericiate you.

What are some common things between all living organisms?

 

Growth

Reproduction

Metabolism

 

Well lets look at these.

 

Metabolism:

With metabolism, energy and material enter the organism and then it uses these in biological processes that allow it to grown and reproduce. Without Metabolism, an object might grow (as in crystals, or through accretion as in dust bunnies), but growth its self does not designate something as being alive.

 

An object can also reproduce without being alive. If you break a dust bunny into two parts, then this is a form of replication, and each can then grow. But dust bunnies are not alive, they are just bits of fluff and dirt sticking together into a ball (you can find them under your bed, or many other places in your house).

 

So, growth and reproduction are not necessary direct indicators of life. However, if they are combined with a metabolism, then this is a good indicator of life (but not a perfect one as someone might be able to point out an exception). But, without a metabolism tied to growth and reproduction, the object can't be considered alive.

 

So the question comes down to: Does the Earth have a metabolism?

 

Is there any material that the Earth gets from outside? Yes, asteroids and meteors fall to Earth all the time.

 

Is there energy that reaches the Earth from outside? Yes, sunlight form the sun reaches the Earth.

 

Do these things interact in a way to cause the Earth to grow by changing the make up of the matter (re ordering it), or allow it to reproduce?

 

No.

 

There is no chemical reaction driven by the energy of the sun that causes the make-up of the meteors change from being "Not of Earth" to being "Of Earth". This means there is no metabolism occuring, and without that metabolism, the Earth can not be alive.

 

Secondly:

 

You are making a logical fallacy: Equivocation. This is the fallacy that goes: because two things are similar in some properties, then it must logically follow that they are the same.

 

This is not true. I am sure that it would be easy to come up with a list that shows that I (or anybody else) have many things in common with a pig. But does this mean that I am an actual Sus scrofa domestica.

 

I don't think so. For one thing a Pig might have some trouble typing on a computer keyboard...

 

Just because things have some similarity (the bark of a log, or the layers in a tree are similar to the fact that the Earth has a crust and is layered), does not mean that they must therefore share other properties (being alive).

 

I always remember the Movie "Shrek", where Shrek is trying to tell Donkey that Ogres are complex in their emotions. He uses an Onion as an example of how Ogres have layers to their emotions. But Donkey makes this exact same mistake with the Equivocation logical fallacy.

 

Donkey thinks that because onions have layers and Ogres have layers then other things that have layers is what Shrek is talking about, and starts talking about cakes.

 

This is particularly relevant as you keep bringing up the claims about layers and crusts as being indicative of life because trees have it. Well so do Cakes.

 

Does this mean that the Earth is a cake? It might be a Rock Cake? But are Cakes alive? Do they grow, do they have seeds. Can you plant a choc chip from a cake and grow a Cake Bush?

 

No

 

Get it? Just because two things have some properties in common (or in the case of Earth and trees, a superficial appearance of commonality), does not mean that they are the same or share other properties in common (like being living - or choc chips).

 

None of us are denying that both the Earth and Trees share some superficial similarities. But, because Equivocation is a logical fallacy, we can then not just assume that because they have these similarities that they also share other similarities.

 

We have to prove that the processes that led to those particular features have the same causes in both cases. As the layers in a tree are caused by the growth and division of cells in the wood of the tree, and the layers in the Earth are caused by the settling out of different materials due to differences in their densities, we know that although they might have a similar appearance, they are actually not the same things as they have different causes.

[jsispat]

What are some common things between all living organisms?

 

Growth

Reproduction

Metabolism

 

Well lets look at these.

 

Metabolism:

With metabolism, energy and material enter the organism and then it uses these in biological processes that allow it to grown and reproduce. Without Metabolism, an object might grow (as in crystals, or through accretion as in dust bunnies), but growth its self does not designate something as being alive.

 

An object can also reproduce without being alive. If you break a dust bunny into two parts, then this is a form of replication, and each can then grow. But dust bunnies are not alive, they are just bits of fluff and dirt sticking together into a ball (you can find them under your bed, or many other places in your house).

 

So, growth and reproduction are not necessary direct indicators of life. However, if they are combined with a metabolism, then this is a good indicator of life (but not a perfect one as someone might be able to point out an exception). But, without a metabolism tied to growth and reproduction, the object can't be considered alive.

 

So the question comes down to: Does the Earth have a metabolism?

 

Is there any material that the Earth gets from outside? Yes, asteroids and meteors fall to Earth all the time.

 

Is there energy that reaches the Earth from outside? Yes, sunlight form the sun reaches the Earth.

 

Do these things interact in a way to cause the Earth to grow by changing the make up of the matter (re ordering it), or allow it to reproduce?

 

No.

 

There is no chemical reaction driven by the energy of the sun that causes the make-up of the meteors change from being "Not of Earth" to being "Of Earth". This means there is no metabolism occuring, and without that metabolism, the Earth can not be alive.

 

Secondly:

 

You are making a logical fallacy: Equivocation. This is the fallacy that goes: because two things are similar in some properties, then it must logically follow that they are the same.

 

This is not true. I am sure that it would be easy to come up with a list that shows that I (or anybody else) have many things in common with a pig. But does this mean that I am an actual Sus scrofa domestica.

 

I don't think so. For one thing a Pig might have some trouble typing on a computer keyboard...

 

Just because things have some similarity (the bark of a log, or the layers in a tree are similar to the fact that the Earth has a crust and is layered), does not mean that they must therefore share other properties (being alive).

 

I always remember the Movie "Shrek", where Shrek is trying to tell Donkey that Ogres are complex in their emotions. He uses an Onion as an example of how Ogres have layers to their emotions. But Donkey makes this exact same mistake with the Equivocation logical fallacy.

 

Donkey thinks that because onions have layers and Ogres have layers then other things that have layers is what Shrek is talking about, and starts talking about cakes.

 

This is particularly relevant as you keep bringing up the claims about layers and crusts as being indicative of life because trees have it. Well so do Cakes.

 

Does this mean that the Earth is a cake? It might be a Rock Cake? But are Cakes alive? Do they grow, do they have seeds. Can you plant a choc chip from a cake and grow a Cake Bush?

 

No

 

Get it? Just because two things have some properties in common (or in the case of Earth and trees, a superficial appearance of commonality), does not mean that they are the same or share other properties in common (like being living - or choc chips).

 

None of us are denying that both the Earth and Trees share some superficial similarities. But, because Equivocation is a logical fallacy, we can then not just assume that because they have these similarities that they also share other similarities.

 

We have to prove that the processes that led to those particular features have the same causes in both cases. As the layers in a tree are caused by the growth and division of cells in the wood of the tree, and the layers in the Earth are caused by the settling out of different materials due to differences in their densities, we know that although they might have a similar appearance, they are actually not the same things as they have different causes.

many thanks for detailed reply.here is my reply

1. i know rocks are dead where we have aproach but we have not aproch to real layer. we have only aproach upto bark of earth that is dead only.when we more clarification reg inner core only than we can find cellular body of earth

2. we have not only two three visual similarties but we have lot of similarties that earth and tree.

3. reg current theory honestly doest looks practical. how big bang and how well managed layers occured and how different different pockets of mineral etc. even particular shape also create confusion,earth quake are cause of expantion only.see the continents monutely seems earth expanded from small size and inner forces resposible for expantion only. because at earlier stage it looks super continents and broke only after expantion of globe. continents seems contracting.

4. i feared of long mail that you may annoyed this. forgive me i am feared.

5. plate tectonic is very important part of my theory.

6. pls help me on this matter with cool mind only.

[D H]

Why is this thread still alive? It's rather obvious that the OP is not paying attention to the critiques.

[Sayonara]

Agreed.