-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Growing earth Theory
- Thread starter Don-Sama
- Start date
SagansHeroes
New Member
I know that something like 30 millions tons of space dust get added to the earth every so often (I can't recall if it was year or decade or century etc.) But the earth has such a large surface area that it isn't noticeable. Having said that I didn't watch the video and am not entirely sure what it's saying/pushing.
[Edit] - Watched, I am no geologist but many of his things don't add up, none more so than no explanation of how/why, just "this is different a H'yuck"
I'll briefly list the points I made in the comments;
A) the ocean floor would also be constantly covered up by underwater volcanoes as well as tectonic plates
B) this video does not explain where all the extra earth/water came, from.
C) the earth IS unique, in that it has two cores (compared to other rockies) thanks to the interplanetary collision between Thea and Pimitive earth that formed the moon
D) if this was true, you would have won a Nobel Prize.
I would also add that he conveniently warps merging coastlines when they get close together so that they all fit. I definitely don't buy into it, but it is an interesting alternative hypothesis I guess... There is still a LOT we don't know about the earth, for example we have never been able to drill through the crust to see/test what is really happening, and there are many unexplained mountain ranges/earthquakes in areas that are no where near a fault line. 2-3 weeks after moving to Australia I experienced 2 earthquakes (none since) and Australia doesn't sit on ANY fault lines.
[Edit] - Watched, I am no geologist but many of his things don't add up, none more so than no explanation of how/why, just "this is different a H'yuck"
I'll briefly list the points I made in the comments;
A) the ocean floor would also be constantly covered up by underwater volcanoes as well as tectonic plates
B) this video does not explain where all the extra earth/water came, from.
C) the earth IS unique, in that it has two cores (compared to other rockies) thanks to the interplanetary collision between Thea and Pimitive earth that formed the moon
D) if this was true, you would have won a Nobel Prize.
I would also add that he conveniently warps merging coastlines when they get close together so that they all fit. I definitely don't buy into it, but it is an interesting alternative hypothesis I guess... There is still a LOT we don't know about the earth, for example we have never been able to drill through the crust to see/test what is really happening, and there are many unexplained mountain ranges/earthquakes in areas that are no where near a fault line. 2-3 weeks after moving to Australia I experienced 2 earthquakes (none since) and Australia doesn't sit on ANY fault lines.
D
Deleted member 499
Guest
Oh no, not Neil Adams :facepalm: Expanding Earth was thoroughly dismissed in the 60s. This guy also shows his complete ignorance of what plate tectonics actually says with the comment "you are asked to believe that the continents swim or drift about willy nilly bumping and crashing as if they were on a greased ........(Can't make out the word)" hmmmm, no that's not what plate tectonics says.
1. There's no mechanism: In order for the Earth to expand it requires either a) The average density of the Earth to decrease in which case the expansion would slow over time or b) Matter to be created in the core.
2. "No crust older than 200 ma" Well yes but fucked if I know how that supports an expanding Earth. We know that the density of oceanic lithosphere increases over time as it cools until it eventually becomes more dense than the mantle below it, causing it to sink. This process takes about 180 million years on average. Also "not one square mile of old oceanic crust" (these are from the comments btw)? The guy has obviously never heard of ophiolites, which I find surprising for a guy who claims his pet hypothesis overrules all of modern geology. Ophiolites are areas of old oceanic crust that have been thrust up on to land. The Bay of Islands in Newfoundland and the Ballantrae ophiolite in Scotland are both related to the closure of an ancient ocean called the Iapetus and are dated at (if I remember correctly) about 450 million years.
3. "No subduction" as if that supports his idea. Unfortunately we can image subducting slabs using seismic tomography, seismic reflection profiles and earthquake distributions. It's not some tenuous idea dreamed up to support a failing hypothesis, it's a real, observable process.
http://www.humboldtfog.org/Tomo Dapeng Zhoa.pdf
http://www.geophys.geos.vt.edu/hole/ccss/buskeCCSS.pdf
http://lithosphere.gsapubs.org/content/1/3/131.abstract
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~abers/papers/Abers++ThermBEAAR-06EPSL.pdf
Expanding Earth fails to explain deep focus earthquakes whereas plate tectonics can be used to predict the locations and suggest a variable mechanism dependent on depth.
4. No explanation of supercontinents prior to Pangaea, except we can geochemically match up sections of flood basalt which clearly used to be together and are now not in a way a single expansion can't explain.
5. The clear collisional nature of India is inexplicable on an expanding Earth.
6. Plate movement can be measured to a pretty accurate level using GPS satellites or a process called very long baseline interferometry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_long_baseline_interferometry (I realise it's wikipedia but it's a good description of the method). To my knowledge these methods do not show an expansion of the Earth, nor do the plates move at the same rate or in comparable directions as would be expected on an expanding earth.
That's enough for now, you could pretty much write a book on why Neil Adams is wrong. I'm sure people can add to this list pretty easily.
1. There's no mechanism: In order for the Earth to expand it requires either a) The average density of the Earth to decrease in which case the expansion would slow over time or b) Matter to be created in the core.
2. "No crust older than 200 ma" Well yes but fucked if I know how that supports an expanding Earth. We know that the density of oceanic lithosphere increases over time as it cools until it eventually becomes more dense than the mantle below it, causing it to sink. This process takes about 180 million years on average. Also "not one square mile of old oceanic crust" (these are from the comments btw)? The guy has obviously never heard of ophiolites, which I find surprising for a guy who claims his pet hypothesis overrules all of modern geology. Ophiolites are areas of old oceanic crust that have been thrust up on to land. The Bay of Islands in Newfoundland and the Ballantrae ophiolite in Scotland are both related to the closure of an ancient ocean called the Iapetus and are dated at (if I remember correctly) about 450 million years.
3. "No subduction" as if that supports his idea. Unfortunately we can image subducting slabs using seismic tomography, seismic reflection profiles and earthquake distributions. It's not some tenuous idea dreamed up to support a failing hypothesis, it's a real, observable process.
http://www.humboldtfog.org/Tomo Dapeng Zhoa.pdf
http://www.geophys.geos.vt.edu/hole/ccss/buskeCCSS.pdf
http://lithosphere.gsapubs.org/content/1/3/131.abstract
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~abers/papers/Abers++ThermBEAAR-06EPSL.pdf
Expanding Earth fails to explain deep focus earthquakes whereas plate tectonics can be used to predict the locations and suggest a variable mechanism dependent on depth.
4. No explanation of supercontinents prior to Pangaea, except we can geochemically match up sections of flood basalt which clearly used to be together and are now not in a way a single expansion can't explain.
5. The clear collisional nature of India is inexplicable on an expanding Earth.
6. Plate movement can be measured to a pretty accurate level using GPS satellites or a process called very long baseline interferometry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_long_baseline_interferometry (I realise it's wikipedia but it's a good description of the method). To my knowledge these methods do not show an expansion of the Earth, nor do the plates move at the same rate or in comparable directions as would be expected on an expanding earth.
That's enough for now, you could pretty much write a book on why Neil Adams is wrong. I'm sure people can add to this list pretty easily.
First thoughts:
NONONONOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BURN IT WITH FIRE!!!
Second thoughts (now that rational functioning has returned):
This guy is a complete moron, and thats being nice! Faja did a very thorough responce to neal adams blatant bollocks however there are some very old sediments (possibly meta seds i'm not sure off the top of my head) in green land, if memory serves they're about 3 billion years old and on a plate tectonics conference i attended a few months back it was suggested that this might be evidence of the oldest ophiolite on the planet. Key thing is it might be, it's some very old pieces of rock and the examination will have to be done carefully on it but even if it isn't an ophiolite it is still some damned old rocks!
NONONONOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BURN IT WITH FIRE!!!
Second thoughts (now that rational functioning has returned):
This guy is a complete moron, and thats being nice! Faja did a very thorough responce to neal adams blatant bollocks however there are some very old sediments (possibly meta seds i'm not sure off the top of my head) in green land, if memory serves they're about 3 billion years old and on a plate tectonics conference i attended a few months back it was suggested that this might be evidence of the oldest ophiolite on the planet. Key thing is it might be, it's some very old pieces of rock and the examination will have to be done carefully on it but even if it isn't an ophiolite it is still some damned old rocks!
nasher168 said:
I had a bit of an exchange with him or one of his sycophants a while ago and it was an exercise in futility. I mentioned the phenomena of plate tectonics deniers at my plate tectonics conference and it made them all laugh and they said that those people shouldn't call themselves geologists any more.
unholydh said:
NNNnggghhhh!!!!!!
NONONONONOOOOOOO!!
If that's true i'll let radon have his way with me, thats how likely it is.....
But on a serious note, NO!
Science wouldn't work because it DOESN'T FIT IN TO THE EVIDENCE!
*taps around on her computer*
Scienentific method says F&%* OFF!!!
unholydh said:
I'll show you how best to use a greased skillet and this shite........
Womble said:
Whoa, chill... I think you misunderstood me. The video claimed that the theory would change every other aspect of scientific theory concerning everything else (From the smallest particle to the largest, I think he said). I asked a rhetorical question about how it would do so. I completely realize that the theory he puts forth is complete unsupported and doesn't make any sense. I was just pointing it out.
Don't hurt me! (lol)
D
Deleted member 499
Guest
unholydh said:
Well conservation of matter would be out for a start. I suspect with the "every other scientific theory" comment he was just trying to make it sound more dramatic, but I'll have a go.
*Suspending reality for a while* If the Earth was expanding and they could establish a rate then it would set an upper age limit for the Earth. As this would be substantially less than the current age (in this video the Earth would have expanded by about 4 times in 200 million years) and, as there would have been no water 200 million years ago it screws around with abiogenesis and evolution simply through time constraints. You don't get primitive life until you have water simply for support purposes. So the entirety of evolution would have had to occur within ~1/23 of the time currently thought to have been available. Secondly, the same idea would cast doubt on the reliability of radiometric ages of the Earth. If those were wrong then either the decay constants were wrongly calculated originally or they change. If it's the latter, considering the decay constant is a fundamental property of the atom based on probability rather than physical conditions I would imagine there would be some repercussions to quantum theory (although I don't know enough about quantum theory to say that for certain).
*Back into reality* Bear in mind the last paragraph was total speculation and someone will probably come along and correct me but it's intended as a general idea of how it could be linked in to other theories although all the links are pretty tenuous anyway.
unholydh said:
fair enough
Womble said:
Take some deep breaths, the stupid will go away soon.
Commander Eagle
New Member
No, it won't. Don't lie to him.FAJA said:Take some deep breaths, the stupid will go away soon.
Commander Eagle
New Member
Yep. I just didn't believe it.Womble said:
There are rules to the internet, you know...
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
Commander Eagle said:
Yea.
Rules are Rules.
All Women are Men, and all children are FBI agents. All female images and videos are either shoop'd or traps until confirmed with time stamps on tits, and a shoe on the head.
I'm not sexist, but those are the rules. :|
AllMakesCombined
New Member
There are actually 2 growing earth theories I've come across on the internet. The other one says that the earth is actually expanding, with the expansion constantly accellerating, and this is why we have gravity. Why don't we appear to be shrinking? Simple, we expand along with the earth, so relatively speaking, we are the same size. I have to find a link to this somewhere, it's some pretty silly shit. Almost as wacky as hollow-earth.