Simpleton Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 No, not even close. I don't find the poll fair. If I could, I whould have anwered "may be possible". So my answer is yes. I do not know the activation energy required for hydrogen and oxygen to make water, but I think that there are a lot of energies available up there in the earth magnetic field to make it happen. Therefore, to me this possibility exists, till I get to know better some day.
Klaynos Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) It is much speculated by 'normal' geologists that the Earth does indeed have a nuclear reaction occuring at the core which 'powers' plate tectonics. There would be a large neutrino flux if this was the case. This is not observed, this with the seismic data, the mass of the earth (and the energy required for a fusion core, a fission core with the energy to cause any expansion is still out ruled by the first two) means that the idea of a nuclear core or even current natural reactors of any significance is completely and utterly blow out of the water. see here:http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/1.htm and scroll down a bit. I can't find what you're talking about and this is in no way a scientific source. Not wrong - I am not trying to disprove that plate tectonic theory could result in these effects, merely that EET could have the same. I think what others were getting at is you need a distinguishing prediction. Yes, there would have been even with EET, but they would have been smaller seas. Warm shallow seas in fact. The where was the water? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI don't find the poll fair. If I could, I whould have anwered "may be possible". So my answer is yes.I do not know the activation energy required for hydrogen and oxygen to make water, but I think that there are a lot of energies available up there in the earth magnetic field to make it happen. Therefore, to me this possibility exists, till I get to know better some day. This formation method would not be sufficient for the quantities of water found on earth. I think you're right the poll is not correct, as with most layman polls of this type, the only really fair anaswer is: "yes it is possible but the evidence currently available shows that it is not the best option" Edited June 9, 2009 by Klaynos Consecutive posts merged.
D H Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 References: You missed a key reference, Ophiolite. M.W. McEhinny, S.R. Tayor, D.J. Stevenson (1978) Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant, Nature 271, 316-321. New estimates of the palaeoradius of the Earth for the past 400 Myr from palaeomagnetic data limit possible expansion to less than 0.8%, sufficient to exclude any current theory of Earth expansion. bombus: You need to refute this paper. He uses data already in existence from geologists, i.e., the ages of the areas of crust. Correction: Adams cherry picks data already in existence. He uses only data can be contorted in a way the bolsters his conjecture. Data that contradicts hist conjecture ((e.g. the Burgess shales, subduction) don't exist. 2) If planets expanded like stars, they'd have fusion in their core, and thus gasseous cores. We KNOW from seismic density readings that this is not the case.[/quote']It is much speculated by 'normal' geologists that the Earth does indeed have a nuclear reaction occuring at the core which 'powers' plate tectonics. Bzzzt, wrong. We do not like fallacies at this site. You are intentionally conflating fusion and fission here. 'Normal' geologists post nuclear fission, not fusion, in the inner core of the planet. This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch. The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open.[/quote']That's a bit unfair! I am simply trying to point out that EET should be investigated further rather than simply being dismissed by those without the patience to look into it. EET has been investigated and has been falsified. It's proponents are mostly cranks, religious nuts, and comic book artists. There also exists a tiny, tiny handful of scientists who ascribe to this failed conjecture. Guess what? That is true of any breakthrough theory. It takes a long time to become proficient in a field of science. This can make scientists who invested their entire career in a falsified concept forget they are supposed to be scientists. This happens all the time. There is no mechanism for EET that doesn't break the laws of physics, there is tons of evidence against it, and there is no evidence for it that isn't explained by the prevailing theory. EET has had its day, and it failed. There is a difference between being open minded and being stupid. You are demanding that we be stupid.
bombus Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 You missed a key reference, Ophiolite. M.W. McEhinny, S.R. Tayor, D.J. Stevenson (1978) Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant, Nature 271, 316-321. New estimates of the palaeoradius of the Earth for the past 400 Myr from palaeomagnetic data limit possible expansion to less than 0.8%, sufficient to exclude any current theory of Earth expansion. bombus: You need to refute this paper. 0.8% seems quite a lot to me! Correction: Adams cherry picks data already in existence. He uses only data can be contorted in a way the bolsters his conjecture. Data that contradicts hist conjecture ((e.g. the Burgess shales, subduction) don't exist. Can you prove this? Bzzzt, wrong. We do not like fallacies at this site. You are intentionally conflating fusion and fission here. 'Normal' geologists post nuclear fission, not fusion, in the inner core of the planet. How old are you? EET has been investigated and has been falsified. It's proponents are mostly cranks, religious nuts, and comic book artists. There also exists a tiny, tiny handful of scientists who ascribe to this failed conjecture. Guess what? That is true of any breakthrough theory. It takes a long time to become proficient in a field of science. This can make scientists who invested their entire career in a falsified concept forget they are supposed to be scientists. This happens all the time. There is no mechanism for EET that doesn't break the laws of physics, there is tons of evidence against it, and there is no evidence for it that isn't explained by the prevailing theory. EET has had its day, and it failed. There is a difference between being open minded and being stupid. You are demanding that we be stupid. No. That you be open minded. You CLEARLY have not even bothered to read up on the subject. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedTry here instead http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6520/GETtext.html#Contents
D H Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 0.8% seems quite a lot to me! You must be joking. The EET proponents talk about the Earth's size increasing by a factor of 8, or 800%, and in a much shorter time span than 400 million years. Moreover, that 0.8% represents an upper limit. They did not say the Earth has increased in size by 0.8%. They said that it is not possible for the Earth to have increased by more than 0.8%. The Earth staying the same size is compatible with their findings. The Earth increasing in size by 800% is not consistent with their findings. How old are you? If you want to be taken seriously you need to get serious. You completely distorted claims by geologists that nuclear fission is responsible for some of the Earth's heating as an argument for fusion. Some EET proponents claim nuclear fusion as the driving mechanism for the expanding Earth. There is no basis for such claims. Nuclear fusion and fission are completely different things. A nuclear fission process inside the Earth is completely consistent with the laws of physics and with observed geology. Nuclear fusion inside the Earth is completely inconsistent with the laws of physics and with observed geology.
UC Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 No. That you be open minded. You CLEARLY have not even bothered to read up on the subject. Random geocities sites are hardly valid evidence.
Mokele Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) He uses data already in existence from geologists, i.e., the ages of the areas of crust. No, he's pulling it out of his ass. Want to convince me otherwise? Get him to put his full dataset out online. That's how science works. see here:http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...pad/8098/1.htm and scroll down a bit. A geocities page? Are you freaking serious? You need a serious course in what a "reputable source" is. Not wrong - I am not trying to disprove that plate tectonic theory could result in these effects, merely that EET could have the same. Except that it couldn't for many, many reasons laid out in this thread. And, since you see to be ignoring it, the way you do science is to look for differences, and test those. What's the point of a theory that gives all the same answers? Yes, there would have been even with EET, but they would have been smaller seas. Warm shallow seas in fact. The video you linked to explicitly stated "no water", and your idea of the water resting on top doesn't hold, either. Ahem. I don't think I have claimed anything of the sort. Yes, you have. It follows directly and indisputably from your claims. You're just too blinded to see it. So suppose 'A' levels in Physical Geography and Biology, plus a 1st Class Honours degree in Applied Ecology doesn't count? I know my stuff thank-you. That is why I know that EET should be considered and not laughed out of court. Evidently not. ------------------- In light of bombus' continued refusal to listen to evidence, willful ignorance, avoidance of questions, total lack of understanding of the scientific method, and general intellectual dishonesty on the subject, this thread is closed. Edited June 10, 2009 by Mokele
Recommended Posts