MrGamma Posted August 3, 2008 Posted August 3, 2008 (edited) Please share you opinions about this topic as I would like some insight from an Astronomy/Cosmology Perspective. It details the thoery that all planets in our solar system are growing. The Growing Earth ( Neal Adams ) Mars The Moon Europa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH_5SFHXSzo Ganymede Here are links which show that current science is not accurately measuring the current size of the earth. If you have any resources which suggest otherwise please share them. The Earth is Smaller than We Thought http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63519 Global Warming Science http://www.globalwarming.org/node/143 Why is Earth's Girth Bulging? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0807_020807_earthgirth.html More Stuff... The Earth is Expanding ( James Maxlow PHD ) NOAA Map of Sea Floor... http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif Raw GPS Data Resource. http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html Neal Adams Radio Interviews ( touches the possible physics behind the theory ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMlSm5fDEXQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmMUyrJo_Q0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIxAH4_FEd8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXU02mhc3Y Edited August 3, 2008 by MrGamma
D H Posted August 3, 2008 Posted August 3, 2008 Moved to pseudoscience. There is no plausible physics behind these speculations. Just to name a couple of non-plausible ideas, positrons do not turn into protons and there are no magnetic monopoles. There is no plausible geology behind these speculations. The plate tectonics model is falsifiable but has not been falsified. To the contrary; the plate tectonics model is very well-documented and very well-observed. Neal Adams' stuff falsifies itself. For example, if the Earth and Moon are increasing in mass the Earth and Moon would be moving toward each other rather than away from each other. Videos are a terrible mechanism for communication scientific ideas. Videos by a comic book artist, doubly so.
MrGamma Posted August 3, 2008 Author Posted August 3, 2008 (edited) [*]There is no plausible geology behind these speculations. The plate tectonics model is falsifiable but has not been falsified. To the contrary; the plate tectonics model is very well-documented and very well-observed. Dr. James Maxlow ( geologist ) provides a lecture which applies real world climactic data, magnetosphere data, and rock age data against the model. He also provides a theoretical construct regarding how the planet grew but due to his PHD in geology he does not delve far into physics. The lecture begins here. Magnetic Poles Data Crustal, Magnetic Poles, Ancient Geography, Ancient Climate, and Machanism for expansion. [*]Neal Adams' stuff falsifies itself. For example, if the Earth and Moon are increasing in mass the Earth and Moon would be moving toward each other rather than away from each other. The Moon is indeed moving away from the earth. What implications does this have? If the earth is indeed growing how can you explain the moon moving away from the earth? http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-8692963.html Additionally. This link shows that NASA has detected a growth in the earths radius at a rate of 18mm a year. 2minutes into the lecture Dr. James Maxlow quotes Nasa on a growth of 18mm per year. Videos are a terrible mechanism for communication scientific ideas. Videos by a comic book artist, doubly so. I have provided references to videos, lectures, articles, radio interviews and I have provided links to valid resources providing statistical information from authoritative resources such as NASA and NOAA. Moved to pseudoscience.[*]There is no plausible physics behind these speculations. Just to name a couple of non-plausible ideas, positrons do not turn into protons and there are no magnetic monopoles. I am not a physics major and that is exactly what I was hoping to gain insight on in here. But as you see I did not post this in the Physics forum. I postedit in the astrology and cosmology forum. In any event the radio interviews delve into the mechanisms for the growing earth from a physics standpoint and the Dr.James Maxlow (PHD) lecture proposes to explain it as well although he does admit he is not certain. Edited August 3, 2008 by MrGamma
Klaynos Posted August 3, 2008 Posted August 3, 2008 Been there, done that, got the t-shirt and it says "THE EARTH IS NOT EXPANDING" http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29580 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31232 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29580 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26087 There is NO evidence that the earth is expanding, the videos are completely and utterly unfounded. There are NO peer reviewed articles that support you. The earth is NOT expanding...
MrGamma Posted August 3, 2008 Author Posted August 3, 2008 There is NO evidence that the earth is expanding There is clear evidence that the earth is expanding. Geographical, Space Geodesy, Climate Data, Ect... NASA is quoted as having detected a radial increase in the Earth at a rate of 18mm per year since 1993. It's in this lecture series right here by Dr.James Maxlow. 2 minutes in. What do you not consider evidence? And what does it take to have a Book published by a DR with a degree in PHD to meet the peer review system?
Klaynos Posted August 3, 2008 Posted August 3, 2008 It takes to have actually been peer reviewed... I think we might be talking about 2 different theories, 18mm is not much, what are the errors on this, how many measurements were taken, over how many years?
MrGamma Posted August 3, 2008 Author Posted August 3, 2008 (edited) It takes to have actually been peer reviewed... I think we might be talking about 2 different theories, 18mm is not much, what are the errors on this, how many measurements were taken, over how many years? 18mm is actually 4mm off what the Expanding Model predicted it needed. The measurements come directly from NASA... Using their Space Geodesy Program. It's called VLBI (Very Long Base Interferometry). Basically... VLBI has been capturing geometirc data about the earth with precision since 1993 using about 400-500 base stations around the world. GPS uses the VLBI system. Please do watch this video two minutes in for the full details. Robaodo and Harrison of NASA are quoted as recalibrating their systems to zero to accommodate for the radial increase. We've been collecting the information all along. The Earth is Growing. The system we use for GPS has just been set to zero ( -18mm ) the same way somebody sets a scale to zero before they use it. Edited August 3, 2008 by MrGamma
Klaynos Posted August 3, 2008 Posted August 3, 2008 What are the errors on the prediction and measurement? If they're off the prediction is wrong. It's well known the earth fluctuates somewhat that's different to "growing" though...
D H Posted August 3, 2008 Posted August 3, 2008 Dr. James Maxlow ( geologist ) provides a lecture ... Stop with the videos already! How about a paper in a peer-reviewed journal? If you can't find any (you won't), how about any written material? Neal Adams' stuff falsifies itself. For example, if the Earth and Moon are increasing in mass the Earth and Moon would be moving toward each other rather than away from each other. The Moon is indeed moving away from the earth. What implications does this have? If the earth is indeed growing how can you explain the moon moving away from the earth? That is the point. The Earth and Moon are moving away from one another by a very well-explained mechanism. If the Earth and Moon were getting more massive they should be moving toward one another. They aren't. Additionally. This link shows that NASA has detected a growth in the earths radius at a rate of 18mm a year. 2minutes into the lecture Dr. James Maxlow quotes Nasa on a growth of 18mm per year. How about an article from NASA itself, rather than a crackpot saying that NASA said the Earth's radius is growing at 18 mm per year? I have provided references to videos, lectures, articles, radio interviews and I have provided links to valid resources providing statistical information from authoritative resources such as NASA and NOAA. The only references you provided in support of this concept are videos and their ilk. None of the articles that you posted mention this concept whatsoever.
MrGamma Posted August 3, 2008 Author Posted August 3, 2008 (edited) What are the errors on the prediction and measurement? If they're off the prediction is wrong. It's well known the earth fluctuates somewhat that's different to "growing" though... Please watch that video... It says... 17 years prior to 1993 NASA was capturing geometrical information and in 1993 they used this information to calculate the radius of the earth. They recalibrated their systems to remove the -18mm increase. Essentially they have 17 years of data which says the earths vertical movement has been changing 18mm per year with an error rate of 3-4mm. Since 1993 they have been collecting thesame data but they have adjusted their systems to remove the 18mm per year change effectively to "Zero" their machines to fit a fixed earth model. This VBLI system is what other satellite measuring systems are calibrated from. GPS ( Global Positioning System ), and SLR (Satellite Laser Ranging) included. The error rate is 3mm - 4mm... Which basically turns to the 18mm into 22mm to match Dr.Maxlows requirement almost exactly. How about an article from NASA itself, rather than a crackpot saying that NASA said the Earth's radius is growing at 18 mm per year? They are quoted within the video. I am sorry but I do not have a direct line to NASA. Would they even publish that sort of information about their systems if I were to call up and ask them How does one find a statement like that from 1993? Any help would be appreciated. I am starting a personal project of my own to translate the GPS data to a 3d model for the web using VML and SVG. Any leads would help. Do you think the Statement is forged? How does one prove or disprove that? And if they forged it? Wouldn't they be a candidate for fraud charges? Can somebody in the scientific community forge a quote from NASA and get away with it? Edited August 3, 2008 by MrGamma multiple post merged
Dak Posted August 3, 2008 Posted August 3, 2008 if the earth and moon were increasing in size (mass? cant be arsed to watch all the videos tbh) wouldn't that slow down their spin, preventing them from becoming tidally locked?
Sayonara Posted August 3, 2008 Posted August 3, 2008 Is this 18mm a year supposed to be an average unilateral increase in the Earth's radius, or is it actually referring to an increase of the equatorial bulge due to some kind of flattening effect? After doing some research on the web it seems that this is just the product of someone's imagination. Even Maxlow can't be bothered citing a source for his 18mm claim, and NASA don't appear to have anything to say about it. What do you not consider evidence? OK, I'll make a video and post it on youtube. In this video I shall make the claim that NASA reported the Earth's radius increases by 36mm a year. Now who are you going to believe? Obviously you have already chosen your source but hopefully you see the point. And what does it take to have a Book published by a DR with a degree in PHD to meet the peer review system? Firstly science books and 'science' books are not peer-reviewed, so never take them at face value. Secondly, anyone with sufficient academic stamina can get a PhD. Some people even buy them. I suggest that if you are going to pin your reputation on someone making a controversial claim which is based on hearsay, you look into their background and track record carefully first.
MrGamma Posted August 3, 2008 Author Posted August 3, 2008 (edited) Firstly science books and 'science' books are not peer-reviewed, so never take them at face value. You will have to forgive me... I am fairly new to the peer review system... in fact... I would have trouble recognizing a proper scientific paper... This link is to what I believe is a scientific paper... It speaks about the effects a growing earth has on the gravity satellites. How does one know if it is peer reviewed or not? Giancarlo Scalera - ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 49, N. 2/3, April/June 2006 http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/1066/6/20%20Scalera.pdf After doing some research on the web it seems that this is just the product of someone's imagination. Even Maxlow can't be bothered citing a source for his 18mm claim, and NASA don't appear to have anything to say about it. He sites the source of his claim in the video... it is quoted from... "Robaodo and Harrison of NASA ( 1993 )" Edited August 3, 2008 by MrGamma multiple post merged
Klaynos Posted August 3, 2008 Posted August 3, 2008 That is indeed a peer reviewed journal, knowing is mainly experience, you also get a feel for how well respected certain journals are compared to others. Geophysics isn't my area so I dunno about this one. It talks about the glacial rebound which is something I've read about before, which is todo with how as the icecaps melt the pressure exerted on the crust changes position so some areas of the crust push out whilst others go in. It's not a true 'growing' earth. The journal is not listed in any of my geophysics journal lists though... which is worrying :|
MrGamma Posted August 4, 2008 Author Posted August 4, 2008 (edited) The journal is not listed in any of my geophysics journal lists though... which is worrying :| Why is that worrying... do you think it's a forgery? Or is it just because it's a publication originating in Italy and it's obscure. if the earth and moon were increasing in size (mass? cant be arsed to watch all the videos tbh) wouldn't that slow down their spin, preventing them from becoming tidally locked? I'm not sure... I heard one person mention that perhaps the Moon's distance from the sun is more like a frequency of sorts... that it's distance and orbit is not dictated by mass but rather the "frequency" or polarization of sorts. But I really am just starting to learn so I have no idea and I am certain I am not accurately reproducing their statement. But your right. Currently this appears to be the major flaw in this whole thing, that and the matter generation at the earths core. Besides those two things everything else in this theory has proven to be possible thus far. Or at least everything I have investigated. ( mostly geography and geodesy ). I am really uncertain as to how accurate the moons distance from the earth measurements are though... I am really not trusting the whole "calibration" of the satellites system at this point. I mean... if the Earth was indeed growing... how would that effect our measurements of the Moons distance from the Earth? Right? I did chat with somebody who said that the moon moving away from the earth will cause it to spin faster and eventually this will cause "storms" on the surface of the earth. Edited August 4, 2008 by MrGamma multiple post merged
Klaynos Posted August 4, 2008 Posted August 4, 2008 It's worrying just because you'd expect a "good" journal to be there, it might not be because it might not be an english language journal or some other reason.... All orbits have a frequency associated with them, the earths around the sun is about 365.25days.... It's also true that if you work out this frequency, you find that it's dependent only on the height of the orbit, not on the mass of the orbiting object.
MrGamma Posted August 4, 2008 Author Posted August 4, 2008 It's worrying just because you'd expect a "good" journal to be there, it might not be because it might not be an english language journal or some other reason.... I'm not sure how to interpret that... maybe the paper is no good or maybe the scientist is considered "psuedo"??? I am curious how one finds a scientific paper. Somebody has made reference to what I think is a real scientific paper. I can't find it on Google... What would be my best bet to get ahold of this material. Are there online scientific journal resources out there? This is the reference. 13. Hayford, William W., et al. Is Subduction a Real Phenomenon? -- New Problems and Paradoxes about the Trench-arc-backarc zones.. 32nd IGC, Post-Workshop PWO 09, New Concepts in Global Tectonics, Urbino, Aug 29-31, 2004. All orbits have a frequency associated with them, the earths around the sun is about 365.25days.... It's also true that if you work out this frequency, you find that it's dependent only on the height of the orbit, not on the mass of the orbiting object. This is very interesting to know... Thank you...
Klaynos Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 I'm not sure how to interpret that... maybe the paper is no good or maybe the scientist is considered "psuedo"??? It's a difficult thing to interperat, I'm not sure either. I am curious how one finds a scientific paper. Somebody has made reference to what I think is a real scientific paper. I can't find it on Google... What would be my best bet to get ahold of this material. Are there online scientific journal resources out there? This is the reference. 13. Hayford, William W., et al. Is Subduction a Real Phenomenon? -- New Problems and Paradoxes about the Trench-arc-backarc zones.. 32nd IGC, Post-Workshop PWO 09, New Concepts in Global Tectonics, Urbino, Aug 29-31, 2004. This looks like it might be a paper from a conference, given the very specific dates, and the name "New Concepts in Global Tectonics, Urbino". So it might be a little harder to find. My first port of call is google scholar: http://scholar.google.co.uk/ But that fails all I can find is: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=9623495 The second method is to find the journal or in this case conference website and search that... A quick google of 32nd IGC found: http://www.32igc.org/home.htm Now, after wandering around the website I can find PWO 09, which is "post congress workshop 9" Which has the tittle given in the second bit of the reference... PWO 09 - NEW CONCEPTS IN GLOBAL TECTONICS: EMPHASIS ON SOME FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS IN GEOLOGY But I still can't find the abstract for the tittle that the reference gives first... http://php4.cineca.it/32igc/pdf/guida/abstract_ws.pdf page 1357 onwards, notice that the workshop has alot of abstracts associated with it. his is very interesting to know... Thank you... Happy to help
D H Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 It's worrying just because you'd expect a "good" journal to be there, it might not be because it might not be an english language journal or some other reason....[/quote']Why is that worrying... do you think it's a forgery? Or is it just because it's a publication originating in Italy and it's obscure. More that it is a minor publication, and as such the quality of the papers and the quality of the peer-review tend to be suspect. I heard one person mention that perhaps the Moon's distance from the sun is more like a frequency of sorts... that it's distance and orbit is not dictated by mass but rather the "frequency" or polarization of sorts.All orbits have a frequency associated with them, the earths around the sun is about 365.25days.... It's also true that if you work out this frequency, you find that it's dependent only on the height of the orbit, not on the mass of the orbiting object. That is true for the Earth's orbital rate about the Sun, but that is because the Earth is so much less massive than the Sun. In general, the period of two bodies orbiting about their center of mass due to gravity is [math]P=2\pi\sqrt{\frac{a^3}{G(m_1+m_2)}}[/math] where [math]P[/math] is the period, [math]a[/math] is the semi-major axis (this is the radius of a circular orbit) of the orbit, and [math]m_1[/math] and [math]m_2[/math] are the masses of the bodies. I am really uncertain as to how accurate the moons distance from the earth measurements are though They are extremely accurate. We know the distance to the Moon to millimeter level accuracy, thanks to retroreflectors left on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts. One of the consequences of this so-called expanding Earth theory is that to conserve angular momentum, the Moon would have to be moving closer to the Earth. Conservation of angular momentum is one of the fundamental laws of physics. The angular momentum resulting from the Earth and Moon orbiting each other is [math]l_{\text{orbit}} = m_Em_M\sqrt{\frac{Gr_M}{m_E+m_M}}[/math] The Earth and Moon also have angular momentum due to their rotation about their axes: [math]l_{\text{rot}} = I_E\omega_E + I_M\omega_M[/math] Increasing the Earth's mass (and size) would increase both the Earth-Moon orbital angular momentum the Earth's rotational angular momentum. Something has to give, and the only thing left is the Earth's rotation rate. The Earth's would have to slow down considerably to account for a significant increase in the Earth's mass and an increase in the Earth-Moon separation. We know the Earth's and the Moon's rotation rates and the Earth-Moon distance to extremely high levels of accuracy. The evidence flies in the face of this theory. I did chat with somebody who said that the moon moving away from the earth will cause it to spin faster and eventually this will cause "storms" on the surface of the earth. That the Moon is moving away from the Earth means the Earth's rotation rate has to be slowing down, and it is. It's conservation of angular momentum again. The Earth spun considerably faster hundreds of billions of years ago. So, what causes this? It's not a change in the Earth's mass. Its the tides. If the ocean bed were frictionless, the tidal bulge would be perfectly aligned with the Moon. The ocean bed is not frictionless. This does two things. The tides moving against the Earth's surface slows the Earth's rotation rate. At the same time, the tidal bulge on the side of the Earth closer to the Moon is a bit in front of the Earth-Moon line, and this continuously gives the Moon a little boost of energy. The end result is a transfer of angular momentum from the Earth's rotation about its axis to the Moon's orbit about the Earth. ======================================================= There are many, many problems with this expanding earth hypothesis. One is the mass itself. Where does it come from? Physicists have been pondering the deep nature of matter for some time now, and no one has seen a positron turn into a proton. It does not and cannot happen. Another problem is the angular momentum problem I just described. Yet another problem is that the tectonic plate model of geology fits very well with observed behaviors and with the fossil record. How in the world does this expanding earth model explain the Burgess shales? One final problem, and this is the biggest one of all. Suppose we truly had found that the Earth was indeed increasing in mass to the extent expounded in this hypothesis. Such a result would not be published in some obscure journal. It would be published in one (or both) of Nature and Science, the two scientific journals at the top of the scientific journal pecking order.
MrGamma Posted August 7, 2008 Author Posted August 7, 2008 (edited) Increasing the Earth's mass (and size) would increase both the Earth-Moon orbital angular momentum the Earth's rotational angular momentum. I'll admit... I'm a programmer... My math and physics are not at a level where I can even begin to understand the orbital calculations. But in English... I gather that if the gravity field is intense enough... objects snap to an orbital "frequency" but with smaller gravity fields they "fluctuate" or at the very least change... More that it is a minor publication, and as such the quality of the papers and the quality of the peer-review tend to be suspect. I've been learning how to guage the legitimacy of scientific peer reviewed papers and it would appear it has mostly to do with citations it references and the publishers themselves. Can you shed some of your insights onto the legitimacy of these papers. This guy attacks the intergrity of paleomagnetic evidence. Seismic measurements of the plates and even subducting Benioff zones of earthquakes. "Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat" David Pratt © 2000 (First published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 307-352, 2000) http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm Also... This paper mentions that they cannot with any accuracy determine if the earth is growing or not. "THE HYPOTHESIS ON THE EARTH'S EXPANSION IN THE LIGHT OF SPACE GEODESY RESULTS" Acta Geodyn. Geomater., Vol.2, No.3 (139), 95-101, 2005 http://pecny.asu.cas.cz/CEDR/download/Bajgarova_Kostelecky.pdf Physicists have been pondering the deep nature of matter for some time now, and no one has seen a positron turn into a proton. I completely understand that Physics are pondering matter creation. I have only just begun to learn that they are reproducing the effects with gamma rays. But I still have much to learn. But Somebody passed me this saying that they may have created matter from energy. "Proton-antiproton pair production in two-photon collisions at LEP" http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003hep.ex....6017L Also... This article is way over my head but I thought anybody who actually understood physics might enjoy it... Does it even suggest that matter creation could be occurring within the earth due to a gravitational field? It's a little Greek to me... ( I'm really just posting it so I can come back to it later and not lose it. ) On the Possibility of Matter Creation/Destruction in a Variable Gravitational Field http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9911025 How in the world does this expanding earth model explain the Burgess shales? Basically... On a smaller earth... the seas were displaced to cover the continents. At one point the water covered the earth. That explains why we find all of the fish fossils on land. The age of the sea floor in every part of the world is no less than 200 million years old and that's why we will never find any trace of ancient lofe past that point. Is that what you meant? How does Plate Tectonics explain it? Where did all the water go is another question you can ask... because in my eyes... I don't think there is enough polar ice cap to melt to cover all of the earth. ( But I have not researched that yet ) One final problem, and this is the biggest one of all. Suppose we truly had found that the Earth was indeed increasing in mass to the extent expounded in this hypothesis. Such a result would not be published in some obscure journal. It would be published in one (or both) of Nature and Science, the two scientific journals at the top of the scientific journal pecking order. That article by the Italian gent didn't say the earth was growing. He was just running tests on the effects it might have on the gravity satellites. He suggested that something regarding the technology should be readjusted to make sure it could detect it I think. It was alot of math and physics which I really couldn't understand in full.. I am just paraphrasing... That seems to be my biggest concern... This news release says that we haven't truly been measuring the earth correctly in the past. Combine that with inconclusive results in the other papers and it creates possibility. I understand that lack of evidence is not proof of concept... but lack of evidence might be a good reason to consider the possibility. http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63519 Happy to help I sort of found out from somebody else that that last paper "NEW CONCEPTS IN GLOBAL TECTONICS" was more of a flyer being distributed at a conference rather than a real paper... So I am not using it for reference... Thanks for the links... I think it's also important to note that all island arc systems are a curved chain of volcanic islands with a trench on the convex side and volcanoes on the concave side. Plate Tectonics says it's sub ducting plate thrusting under the island, bending down to form a trench ( sometimes at an angle of 5 degrees to depths of 10km ). Why does it form a curve if a plate is scraping underneath an island and why doesn't some of the plate scrape off onto land. Because it's the land ripping apart. On a globe this size it makes a curved shape. All Volcanic island systems look like this. I have not found one single exception yet. The trench is the earth splitting apart at the mantle. And the volcanoes on the concave side is where the stress is released and the volcanoes erupt. Do your research on that one. Any map will work. You will find no logical alternative. Guaranteed. Edited August 7, 2008 by MrGamma multiple post merged
D H Posted August 7, 2008 Posted August 7, 2008 But in English... I gather that if the gravity field is intense enough... objects snap to an orbital "frequency" but with smaller gravity fields they "fluctuate" or at the very least change... There is no snapping here. This is simple Newtonian mechanics. I've been learning how to guage the legitimacy of scientific peer reviewed papers and it would appear it has mostly to do with citations it references and the publishers themselves. Can you shed some of your insights onto the legitimacy of these papers. This guy attacks the intergrity of paleomagnetic evidence. Seismic measurements of the plates and even subducting Benioff zones of earthquakes. "Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat" David Pratt © 2000 (First published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 307-352, 2000) http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm All it takes here is a quick google for the journal name. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Scientific_Exploration, The JSE was initially established to provide a forum for three main fields that had largely been neglected by mainstream science: ufology, cryptozoology, and parapsychology. They have also published papers, essays and book reviews on alternative medicine, astrology, consciousness, reincarnation and other paranormal phenomena. Also... This paper mentions that they cannot with any accuracy determine if the earth is growing or not. "THE HYPOTHESIS ON THE EARTH'S EXPANSION IN THE LIGHT OF SPACE GEODESY RESULTS" Acta Geodyn. Geomater., Vol.2, No.3 (139), 95-101, 2005 http://pecny.asu.cas.cz/CEDR/download/Bajgarova_Kostelecky.pdf This article is a bit better. The journal is at least indexed by GeoRef. However, it is not one of their priority journals. A couple of points. First, this article only concerns itself with the size of the Earth, not the Earth's mass. Secondly, this article is essentially making the same kind of "god of the gaps" argument that creationists use to argue against evolution. The problem with such arguments is that science fills in those gaps. Take for instance one of the articles you cited in your first post: The Earth is Smaller than We Thoughthttp://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63519 If you take that article at face value, it says the Earth is shrinking, not expanding. What is really happening is that our ability to measurement the size and shape of the Earth is improving. "Proton-antiproton pair production in two-photon collisions at LEP"http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003hep.ex....6017L I mentioned earlier that one of the fundamental laws of physics is the law of conservation of angular momentum. Another such law is conservation of energy. Mass is energy, as demonstrated quite well at the end of World War II. Colliders do this all of the time. They do not violate conservation of energy. Also note that the this article does not discuss conversion of a positron into a proton. Positrons are leptons while protons are baryons. One will not and cannot turn into the other. Also... This article is way over my head but I thought anybody who actually understood physics might enjoy it... Does it even suggest that matter creation could be occurring within the earth due to a gravitational field? It's a little Greek to me... ( I'm really just posting it so I can come back to it later and not lose it. ) On the Possibility of Matter Creation/Destruction in a Variable Gravitational Field http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9911025 No. The Earth does not have a significantly varying gravitational field. How in the world does this expanding earth model explain the Burgess shales?[/quote']Basically... On a smaller earth... the seas were displaced to cover the continents. At one point the water covered the earth. That explains why we find all of the fish fossils on land. The age of the sea floor in every part of the world is no less than 200 million years old and that's why we will never find any trace of ancient lofe past that point. Is that what you meant? How does Plate Tectonics explain it? Where did all the water go is another question you can ask... because in my eyes... I don't think there is enough polar ice cap to melt to cover all of the earth. ( But I have not researched that yet ) The Burgess shales are about 540 million years old and are one of the most remarkable fossil finds ever. These fossils mark what is called the Cambrian Explosion, when sea life rather suddenly transitioned from very primitive forms into all of the basic forms of life present on Earth today plus a whole lot of oddball life forms. There was no life on land 540 million years ago. Every single Burgess shale fossil is some form of sea life. So where are these fossils? At about 8,500 feet above sea level in the Canadian Rockies. The plate tectonics model explains quite well why the oldest part of the ocean floor is a mere 200 million years old. The ocean plates are primarily basaltic rock while the continental plates are primarily less dense granitic rock. The lighter continents literally float on top of the denser oceanic crust. As the plates move around, it is inevitably the oceanic crust that subducts into the Earth because of this large difference in density. The movement of the plates is a bit random over long periods of time. Continents can merge, covering up all signs of the ancient ocean that used to separate them. Continents can also split along rift boundaries, creating new oceans between formerly conjoined plates. Since it is the ocean floor that inevitable subducts into the Earth, this random jostling means that oceanic floor has a rather short life span. That seems to be my biggest concern... This news release says that we haven't truly been measuring the earth correctly in the past. You're looking at things wrong. Our ability to measure practically everything is improving over time. Combine that with inconclusive results in the other papers and it creates possibility. I understand that lack of evidence is not proof of concept... but lack of evidence might be a good reason to consider the possibility. No. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. Pinning a goofy model on lack of evidence is, in general, a bad idea in science because the evidence will appear in time as our measurements get better and better. Intelligent advocates of religious belief quite some time ago saw the same kinds of arguments made with regard to religion as problematic. Such arguments are called "god of the gaps" arguments, and the problem is that science has a tendency to fill such gaps. You still have not addressed the two biggest problems with this goofy model. (1) Where does the mass come from? Any proposed mechanism flies in the face of physics, which is the most thoroughly vetted of all sciences. (2) If scientists had indeed found that the Earth were expanding, the results would be trumpeted in the most important journals rather than skulking about in obscure and/or psychoceramic journals. A couple of examples of this are the Michelson-Morley experiment and the discovery that the ocean floor is quite young. The Michelson-Morley was supposed to measure the speed of the Earth with respect to the luminiferous ether. The experimenters instead obtained a completely unexpected result: The speed of light was apparently constant. The negative result garnered a lot more publicity and interest than would have a positive result. The same thing happened with measurements of the ocean floor in the mid 1900s. Geologists had every reason to suspect that the ocean floor was the oldest of all rock. This discovery was one of the major drivers in the development of the plate tectonics model. Scientists love bizarre, unexpected results.
MrGamma Posted August 7, 2008 Author Posted August 7, 2008 (edited) The Burgess shales are about 540 million years old and are one of the most remarkable fossil finds ever. The science you are referring to is called Biostratigraphy. They make an assumption that they have a clear picture of the fossil record. They use the fossils they find to date the rock sediment. If the fossil is found outside a previously known period in time in a previous sediment then the rock must be dated within the time the species was found ( in other rocks of similar nature ). If a species thrives in an isolated climate or region for an extra few hundred million years they don't really seem to care... How do you say +/-540 millions years of accuracy/stupidity? The plate tectonics model explains quite well why the oldest part of the ocean floor is a mere 200 million years old. The Expanding Earth has been around since the 1930's... maybe sooner... it was at one point in time the favored theory until this "proof of concept" refuted it... McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316-321 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v271/n5643/abs/271316a0.html This Growing Earth theory may be a real possibility... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_Earth_Theory Anyways... I'm sort of tired... I learned a few months worth of physics this past week and I still have no idea how to argue physics with you. Maybe in a few months I will try to argue orbit trajectories and such but for now I have to start work again or I'll loose my clients. Did you know they found water on the moon? http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/07/09/moon-water.html Does this put a kink in the whole astro/physics theory where they estimated the moon formed in the orbit of earth when a asteroid slammed into it and knocked a good chunk out of it? You're looking at things wrong. Our ability to measure practically everything is improving over time. This GPS NASA data... Can you tell me which way the South American Mountains are moving and how fast? http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html (1) Where does the mass come from? Any proposed mechanism flies in the face of physics, which is the most thoroughly vetted of all sciences. I posted the journal already. I really want to post another but I think I can save it for later... more "effect". "Proton-antiproton pair production in two-photon collisions at LEP" http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003hep.ex....6017L (2) If scientists had indeed found that the Earth were expanding, the results would be trumpeted in the most important journals rather than skulking about in obscure and/or psychoceramic journals. Remember that journal you said you sort of recognized but it wasn't in the priority list. Read the conclusion or cliff notes at least. What is a priority list? Is it like the army? The paper goes to the senior officer for review? Honestly... I am learning as I go... I had no idea... Scientists love bizarre, unexpected results. Sure... I'm still learning... Edited August 7, 2008 by MrGamma
Sayonara Posted August 7, 2008 Posted August 7, 2008 Posted by you in another thread: I would rather not waste anybodies time until I've had a chance to go over more of the basics. It's a solid plan.
Recommended Posts