Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Search Forums
Custom Search
Who's Online
1 registered (Revlgking), 82 Guests and 7 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Reality?
by Bill
Today at 06:54 PM
vast water reservoir hidden beneath the earth
by Bill S.
Today at 04:47 PM
Experiment with pendulum - FLAT GRAVITATION
by Orac
Yesterday at 09:05 PM
Printed Prosthetic Hand
by Bill S.
Yesterday at 09:32 AM
Three brothers paradox Marosz's explanation
by newton
Yesterday at 01:07 AM
Ultra fast camera & [0/1 ] Michelson Morley
by newton
04/22/14 03:41 PM
Top Posters (30 Days)
newton 96
Orac 69
paul 66
Bill S. 47
Revlgking 34
Topic Options
#40964 - 10/13/11 09:23 PM Earth/Universe Expansion?
Mike Kremer Offline

Megastar

Registered: 10/16/04
Posts: 1696
Loc: London UK
I may have mentioned this theory some time ago within Scienceagogo. I am not sure.
However I hope you will find this theory and film re the slow expansion and separation of our Earths continents over millions of years, as interesting as I do.
This (slow) expansion, going 'hand-in-glove' with the expansion of the Universe....accounts for the separation of not only our Earths land/masses/continents.
But also accounts for all land masses growing apart on all other Planets and even Stars in our Expanding Universe.

It does away with the theory that there was a single Supercontinent called Pangea.
Plus it gives a far better logical reason, just why the minerals found along the West Coast of Africa, are the same as those
found along the East coast of South America,...and similar dual-locations.
As well as accounting for the same variety of tree fossils found in the Antartic being the same as trees found in South America.
This is a very good logical and interesting theory, much improved by its author...Neil Adams...over the past few years.
Its the sort of theory that you might consider over your weekend Sunday lunch, and wonder whether the Earths expansion
could be tied into the Universes overall expansion?

Enjoy the Film

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ



Edited by Mike Kremer (10/13/11 09:33 PM)
Edit Reason: Rehashed my first Para
_________________________
.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.



Top
Of Interest?
#40971 - 10/14/11 01:49 PM Re: Earth/Universe Expansion? [Re: Mike Kremer]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2800
Loc: Essex, UK
Thanks Mike, interesting film. I wonder what Preearth's comments will be.

My first question would be; if the Earth is growing, where is the extra matter coming from?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#40979 - 10/15/11 12:48 AM Re: Earth/Universe Expansion? [Re: Mike Kremer]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1784
If the best that people can do in the pursuit of scientific knowledge is to watch videos like that, then there's no hope for them. Rather than expose a scientifically ignorant population to this kind of BS, people should be encouraged to study the fundamentals of real science. Yet another truckload from the worlds hotbed of conspiracy theories.
_________________________
Redshift: - the faster you drive toward a green light, the more likely it is to turn red - Murphy

Top
#40998 - 10/15/11 07:36 PM Re: Earth/Universe Expansion? [Re: Mike Kremer]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2800
Loc: Essex, UK
Fair comment, Rede, the theory probably has more holes than a colander, just have a care how you bandy about the term “BS”, I’ve just given Rev the go-ahead to call me BS. frown
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41001 - 10/15/11 11:20 PM Re: Earth/Universe Expansion? [Re: Bill S.]
Mike Kremer Offline

Megastar

Registered: 10/16/04
Posts: 1696
Loc: London UK
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Fair comment, Rede, the theory probably has more holes than a colander, just have a care how you bandy about the term “BS”, I’ve just given Rev the go-ahead to call me BS. frown


Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

In reply to Bill S.

Yes, as you say Bill S. it amost certainly true that Neil Adams video has very many holes in it.
But I dont knock him for putting his theory about. One should allow him (or anyone else, for that matter) to express their theory, however strange, unusual, or unreal it seems to be.
Man is a thinker, and should be allowed to think, and put down their thoughts in writing.
Especially if it relates to the Sciences. Since the truth in science is either decided by the majority, or by the agreement of those groups of scientists, with that specialised knowledge.
I mention that above point because, if someone expresses a new theory in Engineering, or Chemistry....it is very quickly proven to have a truth value or not.

Not so with Sciences like Earth and the Universe...these theorys and truths will eventually be decided by others.
We should discuss, disect and offer alternative and additional ideas, to Neil Adams expanding Earth Theory. Its not fair to any theorist to poo poo their idea, by stating that it exposes a scientifically ignorant population this kind of B Sh..
I dont think any one can prove absolutely, at this present time just exactly how the Continents came about in their present positions.
Many people have tried.....all the ****ologist, the famous the infamous, and even Preearth. So I dont Poo poo any ones theory, since others will eventually decide the more likely truth.
Having said all that I suppose I should add any ideas I have to the melting pot.

I actually think that there are many items related to the expanding Earth theory, techtonic undersea spreading, plus subduction, even preearths idea of a collision, (although on a very very much smaller scale than he asserts).

I would like to add that I would like Neil Adams to produce a video that INCLUDED all the continental shelves of the Continents.
Since they are part of all continents it would seem to make more sense when the 'shelves' came together.
Now since all Continents would now be a little larger......His Earth expansion theory would be physically much LESS, and therefore much more acceptable, as a theory?

I admit I find the concept of undersea spreading, by Adams expansion, or by the hot welling up of magma, far more acceptable in my mind, than our Earths cold hard surface rocks subducting, or another words sinking into the much
denser rock we are floating upon..

Could undersea spreading, which is not unsimilar in concept to Neil Adams earth expansion, be related to the expansion of the Universe.?
Since the Universe is expanding, there is the distinct possibility that gravity is lessening over millions of years??
Could this be a reason as to why the Moon has been moving away from our Earth by an inch a year, for millions of years.
If Gravity is weakened, then anything molten (produced when Gravity was stronger) will expand as Gravity weakens...won't it? Discuss ..pro or con?

Would'nt a higher gravity produce stronger and thicker animals, also trees and plants??
They would have to stand up to stronger gravity? Discuss?
Would'nt low or almost non-existent Gravity, favour spores or bacteria?

I mention all of the above thoughts to show ...whether realistic or not, or whether they come from a scientifically ignorant population or not, all have some merit for discussion.

_________________________
.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.



Top
#41006 - 10/16/11 06:01 AM Re: Earth/Universe Expansion? [Re: Mike Kremer]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2800
Loc: Essex, UK
Mike, I agree absolutely that people should be able to publish and discuss their ideas and theories, however strange they may seem. If you have been following the threads such as those in which Preearth, Finiter, Khalid Masood and others have been posting, as I suspect you have, you will be aware that I like theories that are not mainstream, and encourage their posting.

I stand by my “fair Comment” relating to Rede’s post, because I believe that he, like everyone else, has a right to express his feelings as well as his academic thoughts. I also believe that he will be quite willing to have his thoughts and feelings dissected and discussed. IMO, one of the good things about SAGG is that it lets posters express strong feelings, sometimes even exchange insults, without taking draconian action. Often, when the dust settles, valuable discussion can be resumed.

You raise some interesting points in your post, some of which I would like to return to after due thought.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41009 - 10/16/11 12:24 PM Re: Earth/Universe Expansion? [Re: Bill S.]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 1246
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Ok, I went and wasted 10 minutes watching the video. I found nothing in it that came any place close to, no nothing that even touched on, reality. The first big question that comes to mind is, Where did the extra mass come from? According to the video the Earth has roughly doubled in size in the past 600 million years. That involves increasing the mass by a factor of 4 during that time. Apparently this comes about by a wave of the presenters magic wand.

There was mention of the expansion of the universe. Well, that is an old idea. It is called the Steady State Universe. Look at here at Wiki for a discussion of the Steady State Universe. The SSU recognizes the expansion of the universe and postulates that new matter is created to fill the empty spaces as the galaxies separate. The SSUs inventors calculated how much new matter is required to match the expansion rate of the universe. According to the Wiki article the amount required is "one hydrogen atom per cubic meter per billion years". I'm afraid that the amount required for Adams' idea is a lot more than that, so it isn't compatible with the expansion of the universe either.

I hate to have to say this about somebody, but his hypothesis seems to be the outpouring of a loon, or a troll.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#41010 - 10/16/11 04:26 PM Re: Earth/Universe Expansion? [Re: Mike Kremer]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2800
Loc: Essex, UK
In keeping with my belief that discussion is, generally, preferable to rubbishing, I would like to add a few questions.

1) We have still not addressed the problem of where the extra mass comes from. Granted, the mass increase is nowhere near as great as that proposed by Mark McCutcheon in The Final Theory, but it still has to come from somewhere. As Bill points out, even if the SSU theory is correct, that falls far short of the requirements of this theory.

2)
Originally Posted By: MK
I admit I find the concept of undersea spreading, by Adams expansion, or by the hot welling up of magma, far more acceptable in my mind, than our Earths cold hard surface rocks subducting, or another words sinking into the much denser rock we are floating upon.


Would I not be right in thinking that in plate tectonics theory it is the up-welling of magma that initiates the movement of plates by causing a slope down which the plates slip under the influence of gravity? As preearth will probably read this thread, I should note that I am not saying “this is what happens” as I lack the maths to attempt either to prove or disprove it. I am simply asking if this is an explanation widely accepted by geologists.

3)
Originally Posted By: MK
, far more acceptable in my mind, than our Earths cold hard surface rocks subducting,


Would the friction involved, plus the heat of the mantle material, not ensure that the subducting plate margin was neither cold, nor particularly hard?

4)
Originally Posted By: MK
Since the Universe is expanding, there is the distinct possibility that gravity is lessening over millions of years??


I can understand that the expansion of the Universe would lessen gravitational attraction between galaxy groups, but I fail to see how this would lessen gravity within the galaxy groups; much less diminish gravity within a massive body.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41015 - 10/16/11 10:27 PM Re: Earth/Universe Expansion? [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 1921
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Back from conference ... and I see we have a new discussion from Mike.

I had a problem with the extra mass (obviously) but the thing that hit me was does the theory require extra mass?

I have seen reports of the earth changing shape (this is way outside my area)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0807_020807_earthgirth.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/earthandsun/earthshape.html

Originally Posted By: Bill S

Would I not be right in thinking that in plate tectonics theory it is the up-welling of magma that initiates the movement of plates by causing a slope down which the plates slip under the influence of gravity?


Correct the process is called ridge pushing and the edges are forced under the continental plates being lighter and they therefore hang down also dragging the plate via slab pull.

Since the advent of GPS we have the movements of the Earth for the last 15 years (http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html)


Originally Posted By: Bill S

Would the friction involved, plus the heat of the mantle material, not ensure that the subducting plate margin was neither cold, nor particularly hard?


Again I am no expert in this field but the current view is the subducting crust is deflected down at quite an angle in the Benioff zone it is not just being forced underneath so to speak.
(http://myweb.cwpost.liu.edu/vdivener/notes/subd_zone.htm)

Perhaps someone can tell me if we have any empirical data or proof of the Benioff zone that I don't know sorry Bill S.
_________________________
No layman has ever changed science, get a degree before you try and fix or rewrite science please.

Top
#41027 - 10/17/11 10:25 AM Re: Earth/Universe Expansion? [Re: Bill S.]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1784
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
...just have a care how you bandy about the term “BS”, I’ve just given Rev the go-ahead to call me BS. frown

haha...awfully sorry Bill, won't happen again.
_________________________
Redshift: - the faster you drive toward a green light, the more likely it is to turn red - Murphy

Top
#41031 - 10/17/11 10:48 AM Re: Earth/Universe Expansion? [Re: redewenur]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 1921
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Blaming others for your bad choice of user name Bill S :-)
_________________________
No layman has ever changed science, get a degree before you try and fix or rewrite science please.

Top
#41032 - 10/17/11 12:52 PM Re: Earth/Universe Expansion? [Re: Mike Kremer]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2800
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
Blaming others for your bad choice of user name Bill S :-)


I'm sharing responsibility. Why blame myself if I can find someone else to blame? Anyway, I think my parents should take some blame, especially as they are not around to objest. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41062 - 10/18/11 09:04 PM Re: Earth/Universe Expansion? [Re: Orac]
Mike Kremer Offline

Megastar

Registered: 10/16/04
Posts: 1696
Loc: London UK
Originally Posted By: Orac
Back from conference ... and I see we have a new discussion from Mike.

I had a problem with the extra mass (obviously) but the thing that hit me was does the theory require extra mass?
............................................>
......................................>
.............................>


Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

Replying to Orac.

Certainly every one has a problem as to where the Earth gets its extra mass for the expansion theory to work?
Then you cleverly ask the question "does the theory require this extra mass?"

This together with your National Geographic item (below) started me thinking.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0807_020807_earthgirth.html

It it possible that your fantastic glib answer is not a product of fantasy, but could actually be solved using some well thought out semi-scientific ideas?
Ideas that are typical of those that come out of the pages of SAGG, and are discussed daily.
I put some thought into Orac's suggestion....and am suggesting some analogys that might have some merit, for discussion...(if proved true?)

I'm suggesting that Gravity...that is Gravity caused by physical mass, is felt in virtually all directions, by any smaller mass/body, in the larger mass's vicinity.

Now the Victorians produced perfect lead shot for their muskets, by dropping beads of molten lead from a tall 'shot tower'.
On its way down to the ground, the molten lead assumed a perfect spherical shape, as it cooled and solidified.

My analogy is:- drop down globules of an aireated rubber solution, From a (taller) tower,which in its turn will form spherical balls of aireated rubber.
Which will form into small sponge rubber balls as evaporation sets in..

Now comes the crunch...I am suggesting that if these spong rubber balls were taken to a place where there was less Gravity... they would expand.?
(Forget about the air in the sponge rubber ball. Since it would be auto vacuum'd out, or replaced, according to where or what gasses were present in this theoretical place of lesser Gravity) Air/gas, is not part of this theory.

Furthermore I am suggesting that all molten Earthlike rocks and magma, will tend to expand as Gravity weakens.
i.e Any molten material might well expand as gravity lessens.... but that solid rock would definately not be noticable

Orac also put up the interesting National Geographic article.....that the Earth's Girth is Bulging....inspite of the fact that the earth should be getting rounder at the Poles due to the release of pressure of the polar caps, melting, or PRG.

And while the scientists are as equally uncertain as to the effects of a changed Gravity field that is more oblate, the change in shape curiously coincides with a span of years in which the world's timekeepers have not had to add any leap seconds.
So no leap year seconds added for a number of years, I suppose that means the Earth is not consistently speeding up or slowing down in the long time.
(slight rotational anomalies are due to Earthquakes and similar are not counted)

So if the Earth is neither speeding up or slowing (as proven by the non addition of leap seconds?) And yet the Scientists state that the Earth is bulging
around the equator.
Now like a spinning ice skater.....if she puts out her arms, she slows down!!.

So if the Earth is getting bigger around the Equator and is still spinning at a constant rate. .....That does not Make a lot of sense.
So what is going on?
Dare I suggest a simplistic answer?
Remembering that the moon is receeding from us at almost an inch a year.
It can only be caused by a weakening of Gravity?
With less gravity there is less 'Frame rate wrap around tugging' of a spinning Planetary object.
So with a minute increase in Earths equator (=slowing) and the lesser frame rate wrap around (=faster).......The two forces cancel each other out.

With the Moon receeding, the equator bulging, the weaker frame rate wrap, the heavier boned animals and larger trees in the past, might bring us back to
the possibility that gravity is weakening? It does seem to be the only catch-all solution?

It might even bring us back to reconsider Neil Adams unsubstantiated expanding Earth theory.....that is so disputed at this present time.

Right or wrongly I must admit I would like to see Neil Adams produce the expasion of the earth which includes all the continents, Continental Shelves included.
It would seem to make more sense and also lessen the amount of expansion his theory requires?

I have a number of other items I would like to comment upon, but alas I do not have the time at present. Prehaps later.
Without exception ...I have and enjoy reading everyones contribution to this contraversial item.

_________________________
.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.



Top
#41067 - 10/19/11 09:09 AM Re: Earth/Universe Expansion? [Re: Mike Kremer]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 1921
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Actually you do not even need to evoke gravity which is very weak compared to pressure and temperature to get core to expand I can do it a much more compelling way which may have been scientifically observed :-)

(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7307/full/nature09257.html)
(http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5981/1014.abstract)

Background (http://www.pnas.org/content/99/22/13966.full)

Quote:

The conventional explanation of the formation of the solid inner core involves slow cooling and crystallization. Because the melting temperature increases with pressure, the core will solidify from the center outwards. But this effect also means that as pressure increases because of accretion, the core can pressure-freeze when the Earth reaches a critical size, unless there is a large amount of superheat. Although we know that the magnetic field is ancient and that a solid and growing inner core may be essential to its existence, it is possible that catastrophic events such as the Moon-forming impact may have caused the inner core to reform one or more times. Initial superheat and episodic growth will possibly resolve some of the current energy problems (ref. 20, and D. Gubbin, D. Alfe, G. Masters, D. Price, and M. Gillan, unpublished work). A growing inner core is needed to power the current dynamo, but rapid cooling may have powered the ancient dynamo (D. Gubbin, D. Alfe, G. Masters, D. Price, and M. Gillan, unpublished work). The inner core may, therefore, be much younger than the Earth. The heterogeneity and anisotropy of the inner core may help constrain its apparently complex history.



So if the solid inner core is heating up and getting bigger guess what that means and a lopsided core means you have a cam effect in play !!!!

Lets just hope there wrong about the blow up bit I mean it is 2012 next year :=)

If we are going to go out there to the fringes of science lets at least do it with the best science we have available to us smirk
_________________________
No layman has ever changed science, get a degree before you try and fix or rewrite science please.

Top
#41077 - 10/20/11 02:18 PM Re: Earth/Universe Expansion? [Re: Mike Kremer]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2800
Loc: Essex, UK
Orac, your links account for the changing shape of the Earth, but not for an overall size increase. Surely that would require additional mass.

Regarding the Benioff zone; if I remember correctly, the main evidence comes from the study of earthquakes.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41079 - 10/20/11 07:30 PM Re: Earth/Universe Expansion? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3229
have you ever considered that the earths core is carbon?

Perhaps Diamond ?

carbon has no melting point.

Quote:
At atmospheric pressure it has no melting point as its triple point is at
10.8 ± 0.2 MPa
and
4,600 ± 300 K
(~4,330 °C or 7,820 °F)
so it sublimates at about 3,900 K.

Carbon sublimes in a carbon arc which has a temperature of about 5,800 K (5,530 °C; 9,980 °F). Thus, irrespective of its allotropic form, carbon remains solid at higher temperatures than the highest melting point metals such as tungsten or rhenium. Although thermodynamically prone to oxidation, carbon resists oxidation more effectively than elements such as iron and copper that are weaker reducing agents at room temperature.



it stands to reason that the elements with the highest melting points would solidify before other elements would solidify and would therefore become more massive and would gather together in chunks and be pulled toward the center of earths gravity.

iron and nickel would become gaseous under high temperatures and low pressure and would not move toward the earths center of gravity it would probably expand and move towards the earths surface.

its just a thought , theres nothing to back it up that I can link to , and I have never heard of it before.

it just seems logical to me.






_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#41087 - 10/21/11 10:55 PM Re: Earth/Universe Expansion? [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 1921
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Orac, your links account for the changing shape of the Earth, but not for an overall size increase. Surely that would require additional mass.


Look again at the work Bill S the crystalization process

http://heresalink.com/be352a or
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14678004

The paper http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/359

On August 30 2011, Professor Kei Hirose, at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, became the first person to recreate conditions found at the earth's core under laboratory conditions.


Edited by Orac (10/21/11 10:56 PM)
_________________________
No layman has ever changed science, get a degree before you try and fix or rewrite science please.

Top



Moderator:  Amaranth Rose II, Kate, Mike Kremer 
Newest Members
Braden, ThothThisThrough, Matthew_Owens, Huynh Phu Dat, pmb
680 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2013 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.