I liked the social commentary more than the explanation of the theory. Excellent points you make there.
I'd have to see some pretty convincing evidence to explain how the earth's surface could have remained solid through an expansion event like that though.
Hi all, just trying to spread the word about a new community site we're putting together based around our planet - earth-forums (dot) com. Take a look if you'd like!
Interesting video by the way! An interesting theory :)
If EE was true, then there would be no subduction of the plates, only expansion? Yet there is subduction of the plates, so what crust is being created is being destroyed at the same rate. Subduction and collision of plates forms mountains too. How would mountains form in an expanding earth, especially ranges that are quite young like Himalayas; that if they had magically been there since earth formed, would have eroded down by now. Top of Everest being limestone, was ocean floor at one time.
differing densities across the surface could do it. mountains dont grow but the areas around them dont expand at the same rate and essencially fall away.. just a hypothosis not that i believe this really. i do find it very interesting. also i find the idea likeable that we are matter not withn the universe but of it.. if its expanding why the hell should we not? and it we are more dense than space why wouldnt it carry other matter away at faster rates? hmm
is it possible that the iron in the mantle of the earth is heated up by the immense heat generated by the core of the earth, thus making it more like a balloon. I really don't know for sure but i'm guessing the specific heat is low enough.( in respect to a planets core)
Great quote at 1:58 "its amazing that people shift from religious thought to scientifc thought and are still assholes" Very true! As an aspiring physicist I hope to remember these words forever and to keep a truely open mind.
Thanks for the great video and perspective.
Also, can explain why the word consporacy is used to title nearly every video on this subjct. Seems silly to me.
Great quote at 1:58 "its amazing that people shift from religious thought to scientifc thought and are still assholes" Very true! As an aspiring physicist I hope to remember these words forever and to keep a truely open mind.
I agree that new theories should be given a chance. After all Darwin died with people thinking he was a complete nutcase. However, for a theory to be scientific it can't just be made up out of thin air and completely ignore any evidence to the contrary.
Change the earth's expansion timescale to an exponential curve of 6000-30,000 years and the world wide flood view of Noah is vindicated. It explains where all the water went.
Check out D's Theory of Gravity, and How cosmic gravity works; and I will show you without a doubt how it is a definite that the earth grew. This will pull Einstein, Newton, and all the physicist together to debate this topic. The earth grew; and this means that there in fact was a time where all the land was connected. The reason the world do not want the Pangaea Eurasia theory to fall apart is totally political; not scientific. This is why they invest to protect it. Scientifically; Earth grew!
There is no doubt in my mind; the planet grew. The question is why. It has nothing to do with the planet; it has everything to do with the condition of outer space. I have been researching gravity for 10 years now, and I have derived a theory that outer space is not a vacuum, and it is composed of matter that physically pushes on matter at a uniform constant; and that is why all planets are round. This same force created the conditions of earth core, and it's surface. I call it Particle X.
With the crust hardening due to cooling, and pressure building up in the inner core. Heat began to expand the mantle, as the inner core released fragments that burned their way upward creating rifts in the mantle; thus expanding the earth. These rifts were later filled in with the debris that fell back to earth along with other natural erosion and weathering that was washed into the sea or crevices above sea level. This shaped earth as we see it. There is a logical explanation for all of this.
Earth started out as a molten ball of elements. After these elements began to cool, the surface flashed over first, and earth was a hot ball of rock like the moon with no separation. Over time, this newly formed crust began to split, and the molten rock began to release it's gases and created the atmospheres, that later created the seas. the seas further cooled the crust, and then the planet went through a growth spur as heat in the core built up against the cooling crust. This expanded earth.
My Question is this. How exactly was the planet earth formed? This will explain to us whether the planet is growing or not. I have my theory. The way that earth was formed is the same way every other planet known to science formed. This is why all planets are round; the conditions of space shaped them. the only thing that makes earth different is it's atmosphere and the reactivity of it's core that is responsible for volcanic reactions and earthquakes. The Earth grew and is still growing.
Einstein thought energy and matter were the same thing. Experiments show he was right. If the Earth is being hit by sunlight and being bombarded with an array of wavelengths from all manner of sources, isn't it possible this energy (atleast some of it) is being converted into matter? A small amount of matter can produce a large amount of energy, so, then, a large amount of energy can be converted into a small amount of matter- continually. Speculate on the quantity's, sure. Isnt this possible?
Expanding Earth is not revolutionary or new, it was first thought of in the 1890s. In the 1960s it was REJECTED in FAVOUR of the more supported-by-evidence notion of tectonic subduction!
Secondly, a number of people keep saying that there is no evidence for plate tectonics. On the contrary, mapping earthquakes along the western side of the Pacific 'ring of fire' match the huge, 11km trench, and satellites have measured the continental drift TOWARDS
@PopeBarley eachother, not just away as would be true if expanding Earth were true.
Thirdly, when he shows the 'see how the continents fit together bit' he forgets the continents do not stop at the coastline. The 'continental shelf', as it is known, extends up to hundreds of miles off of a visible shoreline.
Fouthly, where did the new mass come from? If matter is spontaneously being formed it breaks conservation of energy, one of the most fundamental laws of physics. Also,
@PopeBarley if the Earth's mass was increasing, it's gravitional pull would have increased, pulling the Moon out of orbit! As it is, the Moon is moving further away.
Fifthly, fossil recrds show at no point marsupials ever had the opportunity to roam feely over Australia, South America, etc. In fact, none of Addams' claims are supported by the fossil record.
Sixthly, that multicoloured map where he shows the age of rock. Note the the youngest rock (red) is at the mid ocean ridges and
@PopeBarley the oldest rock (blue) is at the trench; signature detail of a subduction zone!
As for the 'assholes declaring him stupid', when it comes to science this guy goes in the face of so many establsihed principles to preach a theory which was rejected in favour of plate tectonics. If people are aggravated by anything it is the fact that many people take on his 'revolutionary' idea without investation, as a 'bringing down the man!' kind of thing, like a religion, as opposed to making
@PopeBarley an informed decision after analysing these facts,as people should for a scientific principle. So the only conclusion anyone with any rudimentary knowledge of geology will know Adams is completely wrong. We're giving expanding Earth a chance, and it just doesn't hold water. No more than it did 120 years ago.
I'm sorry for the essay and I'm happy to reference if you want.
I think this theory is really clever and it would have probably gained support if it came before plate tectonics.
essentially though, we can measure the movements of continents quite accurately now, and if this theory were true, all continents would still be seperating. however they are not and we have areas where we can measure continents coming together or drifting across each other.
Some marine fossils found at high altitude r too young, according to this model water wud've lowered by then
I would concur with your assessment of the reaction to Neal Adams.
If you want to try to understand the underlying physics of how the Earth can expand, have a look at the work of Nassim Haramein.
I for one think that the evidence of the Earth expanding is logical and explains the 'plate tectonics' better that the currently accepted hypothesis, which it is because no geologist has yet proved it!
The main fact that lead me to conclude that the expanding earth theory is correct is that animals millions of years ago were MASSIVE. Which is indicative of significantly lower gravity. That there are no peer review means nothing to me because the scientific establishment has for thousands of years sought to destroy advancements in understanding that are beyond their preconceptions. Tesla was a genius but he was so ridiculed by academic scientists in Europe he moved to the US.
@Choros22 Yet their bone density was within the realm of the gravitational constant. EG the calculated mass density was equivelent to provide support to a gravitational constant that is measured at 32Ftsec. Tesla is a non sequitor and provided AC power. He had a number of good ideas yes but very few were practical or even had the possibility of working. That there are no peer review works means simply that there is no evidence to support it.
@Choros22 By the way, a trademark of a pseudo science is "A conspiracy to maintain silence or a status quo" Just keep that in mind when you encounter ideas.
My personal favourite is things like noni juice and wheatgrass juice. Assertions of Conspiracies to keep you ill etc.
I agree with you mate. Personally I reject Expanding Earth out of the absence of evidence that is not explained by the current theory of plate tectonics. That all of the assertions offered in Expanding Earth were better evidenced and demonstrated utilizing the Plate Tectonics theory are considerations that must be given. That there is also a lack of peer review work since the 60s is also a consideration I take. That no Geologist (Save one) supports The theory to this day is meaningless though.
Accepting the possibility that we may very well be just like Plato's slaves chained to the ground staring at figures on the wall which are merely shadows cast upon the cave wall believing that is reality.
Anyone who should break their chains and discover the truth about the shadows and then want to free their former fellow slaves... Many of the slaves would ridicule the bringer of truth... they would be lambasted and shunned.
How dare they drag us kicking and screaming into the light of day?
Plato's cave is his best work imo, what I consider is that there is no light of day available to humans and that we have to make do with what we have. We might be watching shadows dancing on the walls of the cave but the only issue with those transifxed upon the shadows is their attitude towards the enslavement of their senses: they attempt to impose their myopic perspective as truth.
EE theory was popular in the 30's and 40's until the U.S. military released the maps of the Oceans surface. Those maps showed the Spreading Ridges and Subduction Zones which were not explained proposed by Carey or EE. All science is based on data. A scientist is a slave to data, nothing else. Neil Adams has hijacked the EE theory and added revisions which are all manifested by him. He has no data evidence for his additions, and mocks scientist in his videos. That's why people don't like him.
@Purcia222 "A scientist is a slave to data" or to his own interpretation of some data, whether accurate or not (the Bible is data for some people). Have you ever heard of the theory of linguistic relativity? Benjamin Lee Whorf development of the "new principle of relativity, which holds that all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe..." Those who imposed Earth as the center of the Universe were back on data, sky observation and measurements.
@Congamako I get your point, and it is a valid one, but I disagree with your two analogies and how they are relevant to what I was saying in this comment. When I use the word "data" I'm talking about information gathered by experimentation and used to form conclusions. The Bible is not based on experiments, it's based on human interpretation of events. Geocentrism was based on data, but not complete understanding of that data, which I think is your point about maybe we are not.........
@Purcia222 understanding the data and we are making false interpretations like Ptolemy and the Greeks. I disagree. Plate Tectonics is based on some pretty good "data". We can track plate movement by GPS. We can plot earthquakes and reveal subduction zones. If we can track plate movement, than we should be able to track "expansion" if it were happening. It's not according to "data". And don't get me started on Paleozoic Ophiolites, cause those pretty much debunk EE if you know your geology.
The main problem i see now with this hypothesis is that we can actually measure the earth accurately enough these days to know it isnt expanding at the moment.
Second problem is that we actually do measure drift of the continents, and drift is not in just one direction, there are subduction zones, something this hypothesis cant predict.
In conclusion my objection to this hypothesis is not emotional, but factual.
I wish only the best to everyone who wishes to know if it is possible that earth grew. I will be sticking around only for final thoughts. Periodically I will return, but my life has just got more busier and I need to handle a lot of business now. I have posted more than enough in my free time here, but now my energy will be needed elsewhere. But any questions to me about this topic, I will definitely be looking out for them. thank you all. I will see you all when I can. Any last thoughts?
My independent question to JudeccanBreed is, considering all the info I have posted in support of the growing earth, and it's survival of refute, what personally do you have to say about the possibility that the earth may have grown? My speculation about your answer is that you'll say, no geological province in the pacific, I'm arguing out of ignorance. Am I right? Like I said, the split may have started in the pacific and the billions of years filled the gap. The Atlantic is more recent.
@AhmidShamahd It is possible that the continental spread started in the Pacific, and then again in the Atlantic. The rate has slowed down over time due to the cooling of the mantle and depletion of the core due to volcanic eruption. This is why the planet is not spreading at the rate it was then. Now it is 6-10 cm a year. when the earth way young, it is possible that it was an expansion of 60-100 cm a year, and possibly much much more. but who can tell, at this point were all speculators.
@AhmidShamahd typo, I meant 7500km. Maybe you should read go straight to the source rather than debating people on youtube (it will get you no where). I just came here with one simple question. You did not provide a satisfactory answer. I also note you have ignored my original point on the first law of thermodynamics. Growing earth remains junk science.
@JudeccanBreed While you are telling me to read, did you read? First of all, I knew it was a typo, I cut and pasted it in my reply; READ. Second of all, I provided a satisfactory answer; I said perhaps the split started in the Pacific and billions of years of time filled the gap; READ. Third of all, I did not ignore your original point on thermodynamics, everything I posted is within the rules of thermodynamic law, this may be hard for you to understand; But READ. you are obviously just angry.
@JudeccanBreed Basically I said "NO". There are 2 or 3 posts with the answer "NO" in it. I am not an archaeologist, and if you are talking about sources with this information in it; that means somebody else already found it and you don't need to ask me. So the fact that you possibly feel that no proof of basalt connection in the pacific means no connection ever is still bias to all the other proof. Like I said, perhaps the split started in the pacific and eons of time filled the gap. that's it.
@JudeccanBreed Well, if you feel that you can ride that concept of pacific basalt connection to the end, and that will give you your victory; go ahead. It's still a weak argument, considering the billion of years of time, and still in my opinion a dead horse. There's tons of other reasons and proof of how it expanded and you're still looking for something familiar. If you saw the answer you wouldn't recognize it. This is limited thinking. but if this brings you victory take it. its an empty one.
@JudeccanBreed You state that I ignore your point on thermodynamics as if I transgress the bounds of it's barriers. Could you please show me how any of my examples defy the law of thermodynamics and how? I know I am a firm supporter of thermodynamics. I do not believe I am defying it's principles. Since I don't see it, and I posted a lot of ammunition that you can use against me, show me how I am not abiding by the laws of thermodynamics. All of my argument are based on thermo-equilibrium.
@JudeccanBreed Just another question. Did you notice that @ 7,500 km it took 75 million years? That is why I posted it again. It had nothing to do with me not reading your post, or me not reading in general. I re-posted what I did to show that simple math put scientist off by 10 million years. that's a big number. And like I said then, if Asia was approaching the direction of India and the south pole then; based on plate tectonic's continent placement theory of Pangaea, why has it stopped now???
@JudeccanBreed "based on plate tectonic's continent placement theory of Pangaea, why has it stopped now???"
"who said it has?"
Ummm, Billions of years of time to finish it's possible journey, the world as we see it today, the map, Hubble, Anybody in Asia not leaving their house to go skiing right outside their front door all year around... Once again you missed my point. My point was, India did not move north to crash into Asia in the first place. Asia went north & the south pole went south.
@AhmidShamahd "My point was, India did not move north to crash into Asia in the first place. Asia went north & the south pole went south."
well then maybe you should have said that to begin with, instead of posting a cryptic strawman that makes you appear totally ignorant of the standard model.
@JudeccanBreed "well then maybe you should have said that to begin with, instead of posting a cryptic strawman that makes you appear totally ignorant of the standard model."
I thought you were bright enough to catch on; on your own based on the content within the response. I didn't know you believed everything you heard, even if it was sarcasm or a cryptic joke.
@AhmidShamahd "Did you notice that @ 7,500 km it took 75 million years? That is why I posted it again. It had nothing to do with me not reading your post, or me not reading in general. I re-posted what I did to show that simple math put scientist off by 10 million years"
that is just a back of the envelope calculation done by me. I actually had a second look at actual scientific papers (try it some time) which said it varied between 6 and 20 cm/year
"I actually had a second look at actual scientific papers (try it some time) which said it varied between 6 and 20 cm/year"
You have to love scientists. They are worse than politicians, always changing what they say. It went from 0-10 mm to 6-10 cm and now you say 6-20 cm annually. After a while, they will be saying the earth is growing, and maybe then you will believe. Einstein said the universe was expanding. Scientist refuted him in his day. Guess what, he was right. ( :-)
"I admit, laziness on my part. I should have double checked before posting" and "I know your not an archeologist, I can tell your not a geologist either."
Well, here is the truth. Laziness on your part is a factor. Any scientist will tell you research is based on consistent results. Exceptions are their own field of study and do not speak for the commonly consistent results of any given situation. therefore, it's meaningless to point out exceptions; they are usually rare.
@AhmidShamahd I see you are really struggling with the real issues if you have to keep on bringing the argument back to something I admitted I was wrong on. You do recall the LIST of facts you were incorrect on yes? or do you need reminding.
@JudeccanBreed "You do recall the LIST of facts you were incorrect on yes? or do you need reminding."
Well, I asked you to go over them and show me how I was wrong, and you have yet to do it. So, no, I do not recall the list of facts I was incorrect on, and the ones I do recall, were so minor it didn't even matter, and definitely didn't take away from the point. So yes, I do need reminding. Do your best, or your worse; whichever is better. Don't forget questions about the rules thermodynamics.
Imagine that there are puzzle pieces that fit exactly together a wrinkled (yet one piece) of carpet. When the carpet is stretched and pulled flat, the pieces are separated and maintain perfect form. The water fills in the gaps at proportional rate of expansion to keep the puzzle pieces in perfect form. Makes perfect sense...
All gravitational centers grow in mass and volume.
If, a feather turns into the mass of a hammer before hitting the moons surface, it will fall at the same rate as the original feather, but with much more damage to the moon. An orbiting gravitational body creating atoms from "dark matter" within, will also be gaining momentum. And that, is what keeps everything from collapse, in the universe. Added momentum from internal atom creation.
Anyone debating the topic of whether or not the earth is growing, Cut and paste
Conspiracy of Science - Earth is in fact growing
into your You Tube search bar and just watch the video and listen to the man. If you still have questions, consider the comments on this page that gives a hypothesis of explanation, and theories of possible evidence. Just check it out, with a selectively permeable receptive mind. if it don't make sense, express why, if it does, explain how. this is how people grow.
@AhmidShamahd Wegner used matching geology on either side of the Atlantic (ie geological provinces, fossil formations etc) to show that they were once joined together. No such evidence exists for the Pacific. The growing earth hypothesis also violates the laws of thermodynamics.
@JudeccanBreed Two very important points missing in this statement about Wegener. 1, He died in Greenland, and never finished his research. 2, After his death fossils were found proving a mass pacific connection. The Tyrannosaurs Rex fossils have been found in the Americas, and also in east Asia Mongolia. How did T-Rex get from America to Mongolia? Did they swim the Pacific, Did they walk through Europe to Mongolia? Or at one point, was Asia and N. America connected? All are possible.
@JudeccanBreed My point is this, Animal Fossils play a small role in this type of research; because you then have to account for the animal's behavior and migratory patterns. Without prior knowledge of this, how is it not safe to assume that the earth spread and the species were split from one landmass to many? This backs both theories. However, look at the trees. The redwood and chestnut tree of America and China has the same genus. However, one would possibly say humans influenced this fact.
@JudeccanBreed Now lets look back in history. Who planted a redwood forest in America or China? What was the tree true origin? We have to accept that data has been tampered with by both man and animal, so all we can attempt to do is follow the trail, and hope we correctly recognize the source when we think we see it. This is why we have attempted to use carbon dating to depict time of possible origin. Fossilized redwoods of China and America both carbon date to about 35 million years old each.
@AhmidShamahd I will keep this simple. In South America there is a geological province called the Parana Basalts. Before the Americas rifted from Africa/Europe the Parana Basalts were connected to the Etendeka Basalts found in southern Africa. There were one and the same and hence prove the Atlantic was once closed. Can you name a geological province found on the margins of the Pacific continents that prove the Pacific was once joined? Simple Question.
@JudeccanBreed I will keep it simple. It is estimated by scientist that it took approximately 3.5 billion years for earth to cool down from being a molten ball of rock and allow life to be inhabitable. That is why the Precambrian period is the oldest record in the mesozoic era. This planet in one point was almost completely covered in water and marine life dominated. This is why you find most prehistoric marine animal fossils on the land. The land below this sea was the world to come.
@AhmidShamahd Again more corrections: the time it took for earth to cool was from 4.6 byrs to 3.8 byrs, not from 3.8 onwards as you say; the Precambrian refers to the the time eras between the Cambrian (542 Myrs) to the beggining of the Archean (3.8 byrs); the Precambrian is not a part of the mesozoic era (65 - 251 Myrs); the occurance of marine fossils on the continents is entirely consistent with accretion of colliding continents
@JudeccanBreed C-mon lets seriously think about this. 75,000 kilometers @ a max of 10 cm a year. Yeah right. Something else accelerated the continents to their current position, and plate tectonics wasn't it. Like I said, when the coasts rubbed; how long did it take the rocks to climb miles into the air @ 10 cm a year. If it took a max of approx 1 billion years to get there, how long did it take to push upward to form mountains against erosion and weathering? doesn't make sense. not possible!!!.
@JudeccanBreed Now about the other corrections you made to my statements. I said approx 3.5 billion years to cool, and you said 3.8 - 4.6. Well 3.5 is about 4 billion years; my obviously dated figures are not that far off. and that few hundred million to 1 billion years later I spoke of projected a date of 4.5 billion years from the origin, a difference of 0.1 billion yrs from the date you projected. Hands down you are right about the mesozoic era, I haven't studied it since I was a kid.
@JudeccanBreed But consider this, The Archean era you speak of is the age of proto-bacteria. Prokaryotes of the form Archea today are the common ancestor of modern day bacteria. These are lifeforms that can live in extreme heat environments without oxygen. They gave rise to marine life. their dwelling place is in water. they do not fair too well on land. This is why when the earth landmass changed so to did their world. This planet was always mostly water. But at one point there was no water!!!
Now, lets think about this, Before the planet cooled down, and before the gases settled to make the atmosphere, and before the atmosphere above the solid mass mixed to make liquid seas, before the Archean era, how did this planet look? This planet at one point was a solid ball of molten and vapor elements. The vapors cooled first and liquefied, thus cooling the molten materials later. So, how did the planet get from this form to the form we see today? This is the question we are really asking.
@JudeccanBreed But to answer your question is to say this. Science does not have any proof today that the pacific was ever connected. I do not have any proof that there was ever a connection. But consider the billions of years that could have destroyed this proof. It has been a long time since the continents first started to shift. What proof is there to back that what is stated about the earth growing didn't happen? It is all possible, and all the supporting evidence is probable.
@JudeccanBreed After a few million years to a possible 1 billion years later, the core split, a rift opened up under the mega-ocean, and magma started to spread the ocean floor, and drive the once solid mass apart into sub divisions that would allow the water level to recede into them and create land above the ocean. This gradual receding of the ocean off the land gave rise to terrestrial life. Terrestrial life evolved and adapted to the changing earth, hence the age of the dinosaurs.
@JudeccanBreed Over time, there is significant evidence that the earth has experienced many impacts from heavenly bodies. This is also a possibility as to why the continents shifted as they did. This is what possibly changed the environment and gave rise to the age of mammals. And as for pacific human inhabited provinces before the split, it is possible that the split happened before human civilization began. maybe the planetary split started in the pacific before humans even arrived in general.
@JudeccanBreed Just because you can't find signs of human life in a place does not mean they were ever there. It is possible that humans were not present when the pacific spread began. This is a weak argument. It has nothing to do with the earth growing. It is like saying if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it does it make a sound? This is starting to sound like an old time argument when the majority believed the earth was flat. Boy were they wrong. Earth possibly grew.
@JudeccanBreed So finally, to give a reply to your question regarding the geological province on the margins of the pacific, the answer is, I can't. I guess I won't convince you. But I am not here to convince anyone. I am here to debate what everyone else is here to debate; is it possible that the earth grew? I believe it is, and everything I've posted was in support of that. Is it possible that it's plate tectonics? of course; it's just that I'm not convinced that plate tectonics is the reason.
@JudeccanBreed 35 million years ago should automatically rule out human involvement as to how the trees jumped continents. We know that humans later planted more trees as colonialism began, but there were already trees of this species indigenous to both areas; China and America. So as far as fossils go, maybe Wegener was looking in the wrong place. Did he consider the trees and plants of different areas? This would have given him his answer if he did. This earth without a doubt expanded.
@JudeccanBreed So, the truth is, there is fossil evidence of both animal and plant life that supports the existence of an ancient Trans-Pacific landmass connection; thousands to millions of years before earth came to the point we know and see it today. If this is evaluated scientifically it all adds up. It is a lot more sensible than the plates of the continents sliding into and rolling under the mantle, that is 3X denser than marble. What proof is there to back this theory of plate tectonics?
@JudeccanBreed You say the growing earth hypothesis violates the law of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is all about thermo-equilibrium. How does the earth expanding violate this law? Say the earth was a ball of compressed burning gases in the beginning. If these burning gases cooled enough to mix and became liquid, wouldn't they also gain mass? If these liquids mixed to become solids wouldn't they also gain mass? Think about this. Heat distorts composition. without heat, composition equalizes.
@JudeccanBreed there is no violation of scientific law here. What is happening here is you have thermodynamics at work with thermal pressure at the core, and this matter is pushed to the surface and introduced to atmospheric pressure. Now the rules of barometric's apply. This is all chemistry, not physics or dynamics of any sort. Everything calculated at this point is elemental. This planet is one huge compressed zipper folder. with every volcanic eruption a new file simply is unzipped.
@JudeccanBreed But I want you to explain to me how it violates the law of thermodynamics; what law or laws it violates, and how it violates them, and why. If you can produce this information, and any supporting data, I will admit I was wrong. But I am telling you, you are going to need a very well structured scientifically backed and proven argument to do so. Because if it's not thermal activity and volcanic action that caused this phenomenon what is it? look at plate tectonics theory; its Crazy
@AhmidShamahd I assumed when you said "growing earth" you meant gaining matter. The first law of thermodynamics states that matter/energy cannot be destroyed or created. No one, in the history of mankind has ever witnessed evidence contrary to this law.
@JudeccanBreed Sorry so late, got caught up over the weekend, still busy, will respond. off to class. respond when I get home. will explain everything mentioned in your comments to the best of my ability. thank you.
@JudeccanBreed You posted, "I assumed when you said "growing earth" you meant gaining matter." No, I meant transformation of compressed heat rated matter into expanded solid mass at sea level temperature and atmospheric pressure. When molten material comes to the surface it absorbs oxygen and carbon gas from the atmosphere. The final product is rock denser in quantity and larger in volume than the thermal molten rock at the core. almost everything that burns absorb oxygen and carbon gas.
@AhmidShamahd "When molten material comes to the surface it absorbs oxygen and carbon gas from the atmosphere. The final product is rock denser in quantity and larger in volume than the thermal molten rock at the core"
Some of what you say is correct. When a molten rock erupts (eg mid ocean ridge basalt) it interacts with the ocean water, changing its density and volume (eg serpentinite). It does not become denser.
@JudeccanBreed When a molten rock erupts (eg mid ocean ridge basalt) it interacts with the ocean water, changing its density and volume (eg serpentinite). It does not become denser. basalt (3.3g.cm^3) + H2O = serpentinite (2.7g.cm^3)... well 2 things here, you give an example of how one type of rock interacts with water and lose mass. 1, Water changed the original composition and the rest was carried away and not counted, and 2, it never touched the surface, this is what happens below sea lvl.
@JudeccanBreed in your example, water; a liquid re-arranged the composition of a liquid metal. this is like one liquid interacting. Both basalt and serpentine are amorphous rocks. the composition is not consistent. The final product is how one group of elements react with water versus the other. this is why you get different types of composition within these rocks. none of them are exactly the same in configuration. however, when heated, they both release water and C02 gas. this is the point.
@JudeccanBreed You gave an example of rock that composition was changed by water. The effect of water on molten rock has nothing to do with it's trip to the surface. When molten rock pushes to the surface, super hot gas and thermal heat follow. This traveling causes the mantle and crust to divide. this division which is liquid in the beginning hardens to a solid denser than the liquid that caused it. this is what causes the expansion. what escapes is as good as ash. Its not why the earth spread.
@JudeccanBreed These rocks that are studied post activity and post eruption give clues as to what is possible. In nature they can take on infinite configurations, especially where carbon is a factor. The system in which they form is consistent; however the final product is not. The molten material at the core of the earth is not evenly mixed. The products created will not all be the same. this example means nothing. Now, can you show me how it can reach the crust without spreading it? impossible
@JudeccanBreed This statement shows that you missed my point. You talk of basalt, which is an igneous rock. ONE OF the densest; not the densest, but one of them, and then you talk of serpentine, which forms as a result of oxidation and how the density changes from 3.3 to 2.7 g/cm3. Well did you know that in this process there is a paralleled volume increase of about 40%? This proves me right. You get expansion of molten rock above sea level. note, all are denser than "molten rock at the core"!!!
@judeccanBreed Look up serpentine on wikipedia under formation where it clearly states The density changes from 3.3 to 2.7 g/cm3 with a concurrent volume increase of about 40%. this is one example, there are more. This is achieved by the rock absorbing water and expanding. Theres a lot of water at the bottom of the ocean, and volcanic rock does cool off in the seam created by under water eruption, and sit there long enough to absorb water and expand... Do your own research, don't keep asking me.
@AhmidShamahd I'm well aware of the expansion and density change of basalt to serpentinite (as it was I that pointed out the rock types to start with). My question was in regards to your statement:
"You get expansion of molten rock above sea level. note, all are denser than "molten rock at the core"!!!"
exactly which molten rock type is denser than "molten rock at the core"?
@JudeccanBreed "exactly which molten rock type is denser than "molten rock at the core"?"
you misunderstood the statement. I said all rocks in the mantle and on the crust are denser than molten rock. How hard is that to understand? I bet everyone else who read it would've understood it. That is a simple one and you failed to connect. How can you grasp a complex theorem like earth expanding at this rate? If I were you; I'd hold on to that pacific geological province point for dear life too. (:-)
@AhmidShamahd "I said all rocks in the mantle and on the crust are denser than molten rock."
No need to get defensive Ahmid, I was just seeking clarification from a badly versed sentence. I do find it hard to understand because NOT all rocks in the mantle and the crust are denser than molten rock. For instance: the rock formation known as the Rooiberg volcanics in South Africa acted as a low density carapace above the dense magmas of the Bushveld Complex (look it up)
@AhmidShamahd when a dense magma reaches a density equilibrium with surrounding country rock, it will tend to move laterally (instead of vertically) and form an igneous structure known as a "sill"....So you see, not all "rocks in the mantle and on the crust are denser than molten rock".
I know your not an archeologist, I can tell your not a geologist either.
@JudeccanBreed "I know your not an archeologist, I can tell your not a geologist either." and also, any geologist would agree that magma releasing from the core has to split the magma and break the crust of the earth. It traveling laterally after this means nothing, because it started at a point of reference thousands of kilometers away and created a broadening gap on the way up. That gap does not close. It plugs at the surface and hardens to make new rock and expand the mantle. prove this wrong
@AhmidShamahd "also, any geologist would agree that magma releasing from the core has to split the magma and break the crust of the earth"
well no they wouldn't because they will tell you that magma does not come from the core. This is a common misconception that you appear to have bought into. Magma, typically forms within 10km of the surface of the crust.
"well no they wouldn't because they will tell you that magma does not come from the core. This is a common misconception that you appear to have bought into. Magma, typically forms within 10km of the surface of the crust."
You are right about this, I slipped.
I meant, "any geologist would agree that lava releasing from the core has to split through the magma and break the crust at the surface of the earth"
Sometimes I run out of room and cannot post my thought in full detail.
@AhmidShamahd "any geologist would agree that lava releasing from the core has to split through the magma and break the crust at the surface of the earth"
lava is simply magma that has simply been extruded on the surface. You will need to correct this again.
@JudeccanBreed "lava is simply magma that has simply been extruded on the surface. You will need to correct this again."
I corrected it, I did it before I saw this post. I called it molten rock because I admit, I do not know what it is called. Could you please tell me? O.k, maybe my wording is a bit off today, and I admit I do not know all of the correct terminologies to define the matters, however, does this destroy the point, before or after I correct myself? tell me how and give me examples.
Magma = melted/molten rock + any crystal fragments that have not been melted (ie due to high melting temperatures) and occurs below the surface (eg granite magma chamber)
Lava = magma that has been extruded on the surface i.e. from a basaltic volcano (think of Hawaii)
Unless you count the outer iron liquid core, geophysicists theorize there is little molten material below 10km.
@JudeccanBreed "Unless you count the outer iron liquid core, geophysicists theorize there is little molten material below 10km." This is what I was talking about, only a little different. From my understanding, the inner core was liquid, and from here all of the thermal activity of the earth was projected. Are you telling me that the inner core is not liquid? I get an even more elaborate picture from your explanation of this; however, it is still in support of the earth expanding. I'll explain.
@JudeccanBreed In my theory, liquid inner core material escaped and made it's way to the surface by super hot pressurized gas circulated through molten chemicals acting as a drill against the mantle, burned it's way upward; releasing gas and water at the surface. And now you tell me it's a solid mass. Now I see super hot material under super intense pressure melting it's way up to the surface, losing pressure at the surface and expanding. Either way it goes, you get the same effect; expansion.
@AhmidShamahd I'm probably wrong about my assessment, This was my first try attempting to grasp how volcanic action actually works. Could you...
JudeccanBreed, please put into words and describe in details how this solid mass gets from it's origin to a volcanic eruption? I will do my independent research as well. I am honestly just extremely curious as to how this is possible right now, and I am willing to listen. So far, it sounds within the realm of possible. I'm not going to rule it out.
@JudeccanBreed "Unless you count the outer iron liquid core, geophysicists theorize there is little molten material below 10km." I did my research. I found that seismic waves were used to depict the contents of the outer and inner core, and that the solidity of the inner core has been difficult to establish, because the elastic shear waves, that are expected to pass through it are very weak and difficult to detect. What if the inner core is totally gaseous, and they are catching the reflection?
@JudeccanBreed I'll explain. the solidity of the inner core has been difficult to establish, because the elastic shear waves, that are expected to pass through it are very weak and difficult to detect. What if the inner core is almost totally gaseous, and they are catching the reflection of the waves passing through gas, hyper bounced to the other side, some absorbed in the liquid outer core, and only part of it's being reflected back through the gas and being read on the side it entered?
@JudeccanBreed The inner core is believed to consist of an iron-nickel alloy, and may have a temperature similar to the Sun's surface. And also, the range of pressure in Earth's inner core is about 330 to 360 gigapascals (3,300,000 to 3,600,000 atm), and iron can only be solid at such high temperatures because its melting temperature increases dramatically at these high pressures. Either they are missing something, or something is wrong with their theory about the core. I'll explain in detail.
@JudeccanBreed If the inner core of the planet is solid they should have no problem getting a reading. It would easily depict that the inner core is denser than the outer core. the faint reading is more consistent with the inner core being gaseous, and hence, the statement of the temperature being about the same as the surface of the sun. Yet, this inner core remains solid. Very possible, but I'm not buying it. This is what I'm talking about when I say the info supporting tectonics don't add up.
@AhmidShamahd "solidity of the inner core has been difficult to establish, because the elastic shear waves, that are expected to pass through it are very weak and difficult to detect."
of course they are difficult to detect, they cannot pass through the liquid outer core. Geophysicists know its solid due to the velocity of compression longitudinal waves (not elastic shear waves as you correctly pointed out).
@JudeccanBreed I did my research and now I can explain. All points are still valid. Part #1.
Inge Lehmann, the only Danish seismologist in her day, uncovered an anomaly. P-waves, that should have been deflected by the core, were recorded at seismic stations. She then theorized that Earth’s center consisted of two parts: a solid inner core surrounded by a liquid outer core. Lehmann’s hypothesis was confirmed in 1970 when more sensitive seismographs detected waves deflecting off this solid core.
This led to the concept of the Lehmann Discontinuity, named in her honor, which defines the barrier between the solid inner core and the liquid outer core. But today, new finds have reduced the original meaning of the term to define the abrupt increase of P-wave and S-wave velocities in the vicinity of 220±30 km depths. It appears beneath continents, but not usually beneath oceans, and is not consistent in global positioned routine studies; a lot of hit and miss. Why?
The inner core represents less than 1% of the volume of Earth, and only a few seismic waves ever reach it and return to the surface. The inner core is a small target for seismologists, and seismic waves are distorted by passing through the entire Earth before reaching it. This fact has also lead to much controversy concerning the inner core. New finds and readings in this area of seismology consistently emit back head scratching results and New theories have been derived.
Some of these theories are, “The inner core may be partially molten." "It may be composed of a phase of crystalline iron." It has also been proposed that "The inner core is a viscous fluid or a metallic glass." Either way, this is my point. There is still uncertainty regarding the nature of the core. It 's possible that I'm also correct, "Gas plays a role"; explaining the abrupt jump in P-wave frequency. But we will go with the 1940 theory as a standard; It's Solid Iron.
So, this is what I'm saying. Everything I said about molten rock rising from the core is still factor-able; because the inner core accounts for only 1% of earth's mass. In this, both are possible; for gas and molten material to push it's way up, and for a super hot solid shard to break from the inner core and melt it's way up; with molten rock from the outer core following behind, reach the near surface, lose pressure, and then melt also; I agree, both are very possible.
So my point is this. However compressed material from the core reach the surface, it has to pass through the mantle and crack the crust. This passing through the mantle ans crust causes it to divide; whether on land, or under the sea. This dividing of the mantle, and the crust causes the earth to expand. My thoughts about molten material reaching the surface from the core was right but worded incorrectly. I should have said and posted, molten material from the outer core.
So everything I previously posted still carries the same weight. The only word that is missing is outer, which should have been attached to the word "core". So, whichever seismic wave reaches the inner core doesn't matter here; it is less than 2,500 kilometers in diameter, which is nothing compared to the volume of the outer core, or the 12,700 kilometer diameter of earth. The only thing important about the inner core here is the pressure it's under and the heat it emits.
So like I said, molten rock and super hot gas from the outer core splits the mantle, and breaks the crust. Occasionally a solid shard breaks from the inner core and through buoyant pressure is pushed to the surface as it passes through the outer core, thus splitting the mantle, and arriving at the crust, where it loses it's super high pressure, and melt because of the heat still contained within it's composition. Either way it goes, this activity causes earth to expand.
@JudeccanBreed This is one of the last things I have to say on this topic. I knew about the use of compression waves to test for a solid core. The reason I didn't mention them was because I needed to research them more. I found that they too also turn back indefinite results, and do not paint a clear picture that the core is totally solid. This is why new speculations have arisen amongst scientific authorities in this area. watch out, a new revolution in plate tectonics theory may be on the way.
@JudeccanBreed I am basing my statement of a possible revolution on the fact that compression waves also return a faint reading. This is why I said, "If the inner core of the planet is solid they should have no problem getting a reading" I said this with l.c. waves in mind. This is why I gave my theory that maybe there is gas under extreme pressure at the core. Gas under extreme pressure would liquefy. However, it is also possible for gases to mix, and form solids under pressure. just theory.
@JudeccanBreed This is why I asked What if the inner core is almost totally gaseous, and seismologist are catching the reflection of the waves passing through gas, being hyper transported to the other side of the outer core, some being absorbed in the liquid, and the rest being ricochet off the other side, and hyper reflected back through the gas, and being read at the station on the side it entered? I have no way of knowing how these machines work. I just want to know is it possible?
@JudeccanBreed But back to the earth growing. With all of the evidence collected, cross examined, and reviewed, I still see it scientifically possible; especially given billions of years to work. If you look at the human body in it's current adult form, it is amazing. A mother forms a solid sphere shaped cell with no subduction. However, 1 sperm from father causes it to unfold into you. The universe forms a planet. however, 1 element from the energy forces causes it to unfold into earth; Water.
@JudeccanBreed "well no they wouldn't because they will tell you that magma does not come from the core. This is a common misconception that you appear to have bought into. Magma, typically forms within 10km of the surface of the crust."
I found another mistake in my point. I meant, "any geologist would agree that lava releasing from the core has to split through the mantle and break the crust at the surface of the earth"
I am slipping badly, and I admit it. Sorry, Ill shape up. Im still rusty.
@JudeccanBreed "Magma, typically forms within 10km of the surface of the crust." You may be right, the word magma wasn't supposed to be present anyway. I meant the travel of molten rock from the core through solid rock in the mantle caused a widening in the mantle that will cause the earth to expand, and cap off at the surface, and harden to fill the gap. This process is what possibly caused the earth over time to get bigger. Volcanic activity was much more frequent on a thinner mantle and crust
@AhmidShamahd "You may be right, the word magma wasn't supposed to be present anyway. I meant the travel of molten rock from the core through solid rock in the mantle"
Well, the standard model suggests that it isn't molten material that rises from the core, but anomalously hot (and hence less dense) material that rises (due to bouyancy) through the mantle. Once it reaches crustal levels, the pressure on this hot solid rock is significantly reduced and this causes it to become molten.
@AhmidShamahd there are three ways to melt mantle rocks 1. Heat them up 2. add a volatile (i.e. water) and 3. significantly reduce their overlying pressure.
So just to summarise, it isnt molten magma or lava until the very final stages of its ascent (ie within 10km of the surface.)
@JudeccanBreed So let me get this right, you are telling me a solid mass pushes it's way through solid rock that is denser than it is, all the way to the surface, loses it's form because the pressure reduces, and then melts, builds up more pressure in pockets; thus feeding a volcano, and then erupts through volcanic eruption as lava? Sounds great, but it is also the same thing I said, but in a different light; I will explain the relationship and correlate without changing my words.
@JudeccanBreed One of my first posts back on the scene here was,
"Most chemicals that are solid and liquid at room temperature are liquids and gases at the core. Gases are highly compressible. The cooling of these elements causes them to gain mass." And now you explain to me this. I always pictured it as a tightly compressed ball of liquid burning it's way upward, and now you tell me it's a solid. This only means one thing, the heat and pressure are more extreme than I had anticipated.
@JudeccanBreed "well no they wouldn't because they will tell you that magma does not come from the core" Not totally accurate, Magma does come from the core. There are pockets and beds of magma in the mantle that feed volcanoes constantly. They channeled upward from the core. The mantle itself came from the core. The mantle thickened as a result of the core cooling. The crust is what created the core. Earth was a molten ball of elements. The crust cooled first, this is what trapped the heat in.
@AhmidShamahd "Do your own research, don't keep asking me."
I have to ask the same question because I never get a satisfactory answer. Its a common tactic of pseudoscientists to baffle by bullshit and avoid the topic at hand.
@JudeccanBreed This is the key point you missed. I said, "When molten material comes to the surface it absorbs oxygen and carbon gas from the atmosphere. The final product is rock denser in quantity and larger in volume than the thermal molten rock at the core" Note, basalt is denser than molten rock, Serpentine is greater in volume than basalt, but not as dense. Both ere denser than molten rock, they are solid, that's why. and note, when basalt absorb water it's volume increases. look at this!
@JudeccanBreed This is what you are missing. No matter is lost. When the rocks absorb water and gases they expand. When they expand they lose density, but not volume; by area. They get bigger above sea level because they are in an environment where they can spread out without extreme heat and pressure. other elements allow them to spread out, whether it be in the form of gained moisture or added elemental composition, they grow after they leave the furnace of the core of the earth. It's a fact.
@JudeccanBreed Under plate tectonics theory, the plates role into and under the mantle thus pushing landmasses apart at a rate of 1-100 mm a year; yeah right, i'd buy that for a dollar! There is no indication that the plates gain or lose altitude with this tumultuous rolling activity that has enough force to slide a continent. At this rate, it would have took an eternity for India to crash into Asia. And if it did, at 100 mm a year, it would have took another eternity for the mountains to form.
@AhmidShamahd "At this rate, it would have took an eternity for India to crash into Asia. And if it did, at 100 mm a year, it would have took another eternity for the mountains to form."
argument from ignorance. Just because you don't understand it, does not mean it isn't so.
@JudeccanBreed You also posted it was an argument of ignorance concerning the exaggerated span of time it would have took India to crash into Asia. Well lets do the math. 100 mm = 10 cm. 100 cm = 1 meter. 1000 meters = 1 kilometer. 1 kilometer = 1 million millimeters. Therefore it would have took between 10 thousand and 1 million years for India to move 1 kilometer. Pangea maps place India south of Africa near Antarctica. Asia is over 10,000 kilometers away. Do the math.
@JudeccanBreed If you will do the math you will see that at a rate of 1 kilometer in 10 thousand years, it would have took India 100 million years to travel 10,000 kilometers to reach the coast of Asia at the soonest, and at 1 kilometer in 1 million years, it would have took India 1 billion years to travel 10,000 kilometers and reach the coast of Asia. The earth is dated to be between 8000 and 400 million years old; 4.5 billion if you count the time that it was a burning ball of molten rock.
@AhmidShamahd How is a question an argument from ignorance (please read the definition). A few corrections. The earth is supposedly 4.6 byrs old (based on age of earliest meteorites from this solar system); the oldest terrestial mineral is 4.1 brys old; the oldest rock is ~3.8 billion years old; The distance travelled by India to Asia is more like 75,000km; the rate of movement was between 6-10 cm^yr; and according to the standard theory it took ~65 million years (well within the ballpark!)
@JudeccanBreed Now about the age of the earth. First of all, all dates are speculation. Second of all, the fact that your dates are different than mine does not mean I am incorrect, it only means that scientist have changed the dates again, probably due to new data; thanks for the update. And about India's collision into Asia, scientist might be wrong and update this later but, the earth is approximately (40,075.16 kilometers) and approximately (40,008 km) at the poles. Lets calculate shall we.
@JudeccanBreed But first, before we recalculate, you asked how was a question an argument from ignorance? I never said that about you, that's what you said about me. I simply said you had a weak argument about the pacific spread, that is all. You told me to look it up, and I did. Argument: A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate. b. A quarrel; a dispute. c. Archaic A reason or matter for dispute or contention: Note, Your question is your argument. I will further explain.
@JudeccanBreed A question is defined as: a. An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply. b. An interrogative sentence, phrase, or gesture. Your question was is there a geological province in the pacific that connects like the basalts in the Atlantic? This question was the basis of your argument: discussion/debate/dispute. I used the word correctly. Sorry, like I said, there weren't any humans around to collect samples of the pacific split; this doesn't mean it didn't happen.
@JudeccanBreed the truth is this, human presence or human involvement does not stop nature. Nature does what is done whether humans record it or not. The fact that we don't have any proof of the pacific land connection does not mean it never existed. It only means that over the billions of years the water eroded and whether-ed away the proof. This is highly possible, and well within scientific reasoning. What really makes one viewpoint better than the other is support and evidence. that is all.
@JudeccanBreed In this theory that the earth is growing, there are tons of evidence but only grams of support. This is why I am looking at it so closely. What if it had the support that plate tectonics had? There is no scientific proof to back the method behind plate tectonics, all there is, is speculation and possibility. what scientific evidence is there today to prove that the method in which plate tectonics works is indeed the true mechanics behind the continental movement? There is none!!!!
This has been flagged as spam show
I liked the social commentary more than the explanation of the theory. Excellent points you make there.
I'd have to see some pretty convincing evidence to explain how the earth's surface could have remained solid through an expansion event like that though.
LlamaTheory 4 months ago
Comment removed
LlamaTheory 4 months ago
Comment removed
LlamaTheory 4 months ago
watch?v=RTckFl0jPN8&feature=channel_video_title
claim the right of the security of your person !
free humanity here we come love you all !!
it's all common law U.C.C code all commerce law look it up, free information free your mind ! free the WORLD !!
demented669 5 months ago
christ they all fit together because they did!!!! it was surounded by water.where did all the water come from???
daveeol 6 months ago
Luv the accent.
fullmetal515 7 months ago
trolls are going to troll.
moriljules 8 months ago
Hi all, just trying to spread the word about a new community site we're putting together based around our planet - earth-forums (dot) com. Take a look if you'd like!
Interesting video by the way! An interesting theory :)
hoppimike 8 months ago
If EE was true, then there would be no subduction of the plates, only expansion? Yet there is subduction of the plates, so what crust is being created is being destroyed at the same rate. Subduction and collision of plates forms mountains too. How would mountains form in an expanding earth, especially ranges that are quite young like Himalayas; that if they had magically been there since earth formed, would have eroded down by now. Top of Everest being limestone, was ocean floor at one time.
georgetcr 9 months ago
@georgetcr
differing densities across the surface could do it. mountains dont grow but the areas around them dont expand at the same rate and essencially fall away.. just a hypothosis not that i believe this really. i do find it very interesting. also i find the idea likeable that we are matter not withn the universe but of it.. if its expanding why the hell should we not? and it we are more dense than space why wouldnt it carry other matter away at faster rates? hmm
joppadoni 7 months ago
@georgetcr they day i discovered adams i posted these questions and was immediately berated and shouted down.
cruciphile 7 months ago
is it possible that the iron in the mantle of the earth is heated up by the immense heat generated by the core of the earth, thus making it more like a balloon. I really don't know for sure but i'm guessing the specific heat is low enough.( in respect to a planets core)
Pref4n 9 months ago
Great quote at 1:58 "its amazing that people shift from religious thought to scientifc thought and are still assholes" Very true! As an aspiring physicist I hope to remember these words forever and to keep a truely open mind.
Thanks for the great video and perspective.
Also, can explain why the word consporacy is used to title nearly every video on this subjct. Seems silly to me.
SC2Addict 10 months ago 2
Great quote at 1:58 "its amazing that people shift from religious thought to scientifc thought and are still assholes" Very true! As an aspiring physicist I hope to remember these words forever and to keep a truely open mind.
Thanks for the great video and perspective.
SC2Addict 10 months ago
its not that his theory at face value is different to current thinking that makes people angry at neal adams, at first glance its pretty clever.
Its that he backs up his theory with claims that are known to be false, and parades them as absolute fact.
for instance claiming that there are only divergent zones between plates (as convergent or transform faults wouldnt fi his model).
I also pointed out that the 'shallow seas' on an earth that size would be over 10km deep....
haz020190 10 months ago
@haz020190 this ofcourse was explained away with complicated physics that only he can understand (even though he has no education in physics)
haz020190 10 months ago
PLASMA CORE! Can't get a Magnetic field outta molten/spinning metal?
SonofCastille 11 months ago
I agree that new theories should be given a chance. After all Darwin died with people thinking he was a complete nutcase. However, for a theory to be scientific it can't just be made up out of thin air and completely ignore any evidence to the contrary.
jaykulls 11 months ago
good video :D
Angelty78 11 months ago
Change the earth's expansion timescale to an exponential curve of 6000-30,000 years and the world wide flood view of Noah is vindicated. It explains where all the water went.
thewordofgod2010 11 months ago
Check out D's Theory of Gravity, and How cosmic gravity works; and I will show you without a doubt how it is a definite that the earth grew. This will pull Einstein, Newton, and all the physicist together to debate this topic. The earth grew; and this means that there in fact was a time where all the land was connected. The reason the world do not want the Pangaea Eurasia theory to fall apart is totally political; not scientific. This is why they invest to protect it. Scientifically; Earth grew!
AhmidShamahd 11 months ago
There is no doubt in my mind; the planet grew. The question is why. It has nothing to do with the planet; it has everything to do with the condition of outer space. I have been researching gravity for 10 years now, and I have derived a theory that outer space is not a vacuum, and it is composed of matter that physically pushes on matter at a uniform constant; and that is why all planets are round. This same force created the conditions of earth core, and it's surface. I call it Particle X.
AhmidShamahd 11 months ago
@AhmidShamahd particle X... how original.
CropJ 11 months ago
With the crust hardening due to cooling, and pressure building up in the inner core. Heat began to expand the mantle, as the inner core released fragments that burned their way upward creating rifts in the mantle; thus expanding the earth. These rifts were later filled in with the debris that fell back to earth along with other natural erosion and weathering that was washed into the sea or crevices above sea level. This shaped earth as we see it. There is a logical explanation for all of this.
AhmidShamahd 11 months ago
Earth started out as a molten ball of elements. After these elements began to cool, the surface flashed over first, and earth was a hot ball of rock like the moon with no separation. Over time, this newly formed crust began to split, and the molten rock began to release it's gases and created the atmospheres, that later created the seas. the seas further cooled the crust, and then the planet went through a growth spur as heat in the core built up against the cooling crust. This expanded earth.
AhmidShamahd 11 months ago
My Question is this. How exactly was the planet earth formed? This will explain to us whether the planet is growing or not. I have my theory. The way that earth was formed is the same way every other planet known to science formed. This is why all planets are round; the conditions of space shaped them. the only thing that makes earth different is it's atmosphere and the reactivity of it's core that is responsible for volcanic reactions and earthquakes. The Earth grew and is still growing.
AhmidShamahd 11 months ago
Einstein thought energy and matter were the same thing. Experiments show he was right. If the Earth is being hit by sunlight and being bombarded with an array of wavelengths from all manner of sources, isn't it possible this energy (atleast some of it) is being converted into matter? A small amount of matter can produce a large amount of energy, so, then, a large amount of energy can be converted into a small amount of matter- continually. Speculate on the quantity's, sure. Isnt this possible?
kaderoder 1 year ago
Ok, I don't fully know where to start.
Expanding Earth is not revolutionary or new, it was first thought of in the 1890s. In the 1960s it was REJECTED in FAVOUR of the more supported-by-evidence notion of tectonic subduction!
Secondly, a number of people keep saying that there is no evidence for plate tectonics. On the contrary, mapping earthquakes along the western side of the Pacific 'ring of fire' match the huge, 11km trench, and satellites have measured the continental drift TOWARDS
PopeBarley 1 year ago
@PopeBarley eachother, not just away as would be true if expanding Earth were true.
Thirdly, when he shows the 'see how the continents fit together bit' he forgets the continents do not stop at the coastline. The 'continental shelf', as it is known, extends up to hundreds of miles off of a visible shoreline.
Fouthly, where did the new mass come from? If matter is spontaneously being formed it breaks conservation of energy, one of the most fundamental laws of physics. Also,
PopeBarley 1 year ago
@PopeBarley if the Earth's mass was increasing, it's gravitional pull would have increased, pulling the Moon out of orbit! As it is, the Moon is moving further away.
Fifthly, fossil recrds show at no point marsupials ever had the opportunity to roam feely over Australia, South America, etc. In fact, none of Addams' claims are supported by the fossil record.
Sixthly, that multicoloured map where he shows the age of rock. Note the the youngest rock (red) is at the mid ocean ridges and
PopeBarley 1 year ago
@PopeBarley the oldest rock (blue) is at the trench; signature detail of a subduction zone!
As for the 'assholes declaring him stupid', when it comes to science this guy goes in the face of so many establsihed principles to preach a theory which was rejected in favour of plate tectonics. If people are aggravated by anything it is the fact that many people take on his 'revolutionary' idea without investation, as a 'bringing down the man!' kind of thing, like a religion, as opposed to making
PopeBarley 1 year ago
@PopeBarley an informed decision after analysing these facts,as people should for a scientific principle. So the only conclusion anyone with any rudimentary knowledge of geology will know Adams is completely wrong. We're giving expanding Earth a chance, and it just doesn't hold water. No more than it did 120 years ago.
I'm sorry for the essay and I'm happy to reference if you want.
PopeBarley 1 year ago
@PopeBarley shut up
CropJ 11 months ago
I think this theory is really clever and it would have probably gained support if it came before plate tectonics.
essentially though, we can measure the movements of continents quite accurately now, and if this theory were true, all continents would still be seperating. however they are not and we have areas where we can measure continents coming together or drifting across each other.
Some marine fossils found at high altitude r too young, according to this model water wud've lowered by then
haz020190 1 year ago
good points that you've made.
I would concur with your assessment of the reaction to Neal Adams.
If you want to try to understand the underlying physics of how the Earth can expand, have a look at the work of Nassim Haramein.
I for one think that the evidence of the Earth expanding is logical and explains the 'plate tectonics' better that the currently accepted hypothesis, which it is because no geologist has yet proved it!
ArchytypeNet 1 year ago
You're the boring guy... I won't even watch the rest... geez.. o.O'
TheZeldd 1 year ago
is a good theory. would like to find out more about it..
toadinthehole84 1 year ago
dude you know that for the earth to move like that and for the waters to flud , the heat must have come from somewere !
m4ktub 1 year ago
The main fact that lead me to conclude that the expanding earth theory is correct is that animals millions of years ago were MASSIVE. Which is indicative of significantly lower gravity. That there are no peer review means nothing to me because the scientific establishment has for thousands of years sought to destroy advancements in understanding that are beyond their preconceptions. Tesla was a genius but he was so ridiculed by academic scientists in Europe he moved to the US.
Choros22 1 year ago
@Choros22 Yet their bone density was within the realm of the gravitational constant. EG the calculated mass density was equivelent to provide support to a gravitational constant that is measured at 32Ftsec. Tesla is a non sequitor and provided AC power. He had a number of good ideas yes but very few were practical or even had the possibility of working. That there are no peer review works means simply that there is no evidence to support it.
danschaoticmind 1 year ago
@Choros22 By the way, a trademark of a pseudo science is "A conspiracy to maintain silence or a status quo" Just keep that in mind when you encounter ideas.
My personal favourite is things like noni juice and wheatgrass juice. Assertions of Conspiracies to keep you ill etc.
danschaoticmind 1 year ago
I agree with you mate. Personally I reject Expanding Earth out of the absence of evidence that is not explained by the current theory of plate tectonics. That all of the assertions offered in Expanding Earth were better evidenced and demonstrated utilizing the Plate Tectonics theory are considerations that must be given. That there is also a lack of peer review work since the 60s is also a consideration I take. That no Geologist (Save one) supports The theory to this day is meaningless though.
danschaoticmind 1 year ago
@danschaoticmind
Choros22 1 year ago
@Choros22
danschaoticmind 1 year ago
We are back to Ptolemy days of Earth in the center of the universe, if we still stick to plate tectonics.
lexwalker2 1 year ago
Accepting the possibility that we may very well be just like Plato's slaves chained to the ground staring at figures on the wall which are merely shadows cast upon the cave wall believing that is reality.
Anyone who should break their chains and discover the truth about the shadows and then want to free their former fellow slaves... Many of the slaves would ridicule the bringer of truth... they would be lambasted and shunned.
How dare they drag us kicking and screaming into the light of day?
batfly 1 year ago 4
@batfly
Plato's cave is his best work imo, what I consider is that there is no light of day available to humans and that we have to make do with what we have. We might be watching shadows dancing on the walls of the cave but the only issue with those transifxed upon the shadows is their attitude towards the enslavement of their senses: they attempt to impose their myopic perspective as truth.
gratex 1 year ago
EE theory was popular in the 30's and 40's until the U.S. military released the maps of the Oceans surface. Those maps showed the Spreading Ridges and Subduction Zones which were not explained proposed by Carey or EE. All science is based on data. A scientist is a slave to data, nothing else. Neil Adams has hijacked the EE theory and added revisions which are all manifested by him. He has no data evidence for his additions, and mocks scientist in his videos. That's why people don't like him.
Purcia222 1 year ago 5
@Purcia222 It's not a fascinating sociological mystery.
Purcia222 1 year ago
@Purcia222 "A scientist is a slave to data" or to his own interpretation of some data, whether accurate or not (the Bible is data for some people). Have you ever heard of the theory of linguistic relativity? Benjamin Lee Whorf development of the "new principle of relativity, which holds that all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe..." Those who imposed Earth as the center of the Universe were back on data, sky observation and measurements.
Congamako 6 months ago
@Congamako I get your point, and it is a valid one, but I disagree with your two analogies and how they are relevant to what I was saying in this comment. When I use the word "data" I'm talking about information gathered by experimentation and used to form conclusions. The Bible is not based on experiments, it's based on human interpretation of events. Geocentrism was based on data, but not complete understanding of that data, which I think is your point about maybe we are not.........
Purcia222 6 months ago
@Purcia222 understanding the data and we are making false interpretations like Ptolemy and the Greeks. I disagree. Plate Tectonics is based on some pretty good "data". We can track plate movement by GPS. We can plot earthquakes and reveal subduction zones. If we can track plate movement, than we should be able to track "expansion" if it were happening. It's not according to "data". And don't get me started on Paleozoic Ophiolites, cause those pretty much debunk EE if you know your geology.
Purcia222 6 months ago
The main problem i see now with this hypothesis is that we can actually measure the earth accurately enough these days to know it isnt expanding at the moment.
Second problem is that we actually do measure drift of the continents, and drift is not in just one direction, there are subduction zones, something this hypothesis cant predict.
In conclusion my objection to this hypothesis is not emotional, but factual.
Freeze01 1 year ago
I wish only the best to everyone who wishes to know if it is possible that earth grew. I will be sticking around only for final thoughts. Periodically I will return, but my life has just got more busier and I need to handle a lot of business now. I have posted more than enough in my free time here, but now my energy will be needed elsewhere. But any questions to me about this topic, I will definitely be looking out for them. thank you all. I will see you all when I can. Any last thoughts?
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
My independent question to JudeccanBreed is, considering all the info I have posted in support of the growing earth, and it's survival of refute, what personally do you have to say about the possibility that the earth may have grown? My speculation about your answer is that you'll say, no geological province in the pacific, I'm arguing out of ignorance. Am I right? Like I said, the split may have started in the pacific and the billions of years filled the gap. The Atlantic is more recent.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd It is possible that the continental spread started in the Pacific, and then again in the Atlantic. The rate has slowed down over time due to the cooling of the mantle and depletion of the core due to volcanic eruption. This is why the planet is not spreading at the rate it was then. Now it is 6-10 cm a year. when the earth way young, it is possible that it was an expansion of 60-100 cm a year, and possibly much much more. but who can tell, at this point were all speculators.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd typo, I meant 7500km. Maybe you should read go straight to the source rather than debating people on youtube (it will get you no where). I just came here with one simple question. You did not provide a satisfactory answer. I also note you have ignored my original point on the first law of thermodynamics. Growing earth remains junk science.
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
Comment removed
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed While you are telling me to read, did you read? First of all, I knew it was a typo, I cut and pasted it in my reply; READ. Second of all, I provided a satisfactory answer; I said perhaps the split started in the Pacific and billions of years of time filled the gap; READ. Third of all, I did not ignore your original point on thermodynamics, everything I posted is within the rules of thermodynamic law, this may be hard for you to understand; But READ. you are obviously just angry.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd I'm not angry, I just couldnt be bothered reading 13 posts in reply to a simple question and still not get a answer. Here it is again:
Can you name a geological province on the margins of the Pacific that prove the Pacific was once closed (and hence the earth grew by 2/3's)?
(here's a hint, the answer can be "yes" or "no" - no need to post 6000 characters again)
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Basically I said "NO". There are 2 or 3 posts with the answer "NO" in it. I am not an archaeologist, and if you are talking about sources with this information in it; that means somebody else already found it and you don't need to ask me. So the fact that you possibly feel that no proof of basalt connection in the pacific means no connection ever is still bias to all the other proof. Like I said, perhaps the split started in the pacific and eons of time filled the gap. that's it.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Well, if you feel that you can ride that concept of pacific basalt connection to the end, and that will give you your victory; go ahead. It's still a weak argument, considering the billion of years of time, and still in my opinion a dead horse. There's tons of other reasons and proof of how it expanded and you're still looking for something familiar. If you saw the answer you wouldn't recognize it. This is limited thinking. but if this brings you victory take it. its an empty one.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed You state that I ignore your point on thermodynamics as if I transgress the bounds of it's barriers. Could you please show me how any of my examples defy the law of thermodynamics and how? I know I am a firm supporter of thermodynamics. I do not believe I am defying it's principles. Since I don't see it, and I posted a lot of ammunition that you can use against me, show me how I am not abiding by the laws of thermodynamics. All of my argument are based on thermo-equilibrium.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Just another question. Did you notice that @ 7,500 km it took 75 million years? That is why I posted it again. It had nothing to do with me not reading your post, or me not reading in general. I re-posted what I did to show that simple math put scientist off by 10 million years. that's a big number. And like I said then, if Asia was approaching the direction of India and the south pole then; based on plate tectonic's continent placement theory of Pangaea, why has it stopped now???
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd "based on plate tectonic's continent placement theory of Pangaea, why has it stopped now???"
who said it has?
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed "based on plate tectonic's continent placement theory of Pangaea, why has it stopped now???"
"who said it has?"
Ummm, Billions of years of time to finish it's possible journey, the world as we see it today, the map, Hubble, Anybody in Asia not leaving their house to go skiing right outside their front door all year around... Once again you missed my point. My point was, India did not move north to crash into Asia in the first place. Asia went north & the south pole went south.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd "My point was, India did not move north to crash into Asia in the first place. Asia went north & the south pole went south."
well then maybe you should have said that to begin with, instead of posting a cryptic strawman that makes you appear totally ignorant of the standard model.
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed "well then maybe you should have said that to begin with, instead of posting a cryptic strawman that makes you appear totally ignorant of the standard model."
I thought you were bright enough to catch on; on your own based on the content within the response. I didn't know you believed everything you heard, even if it was sarcasm or a cryptic joke.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AhmidShamahd "Did you notice that @ 7,500 km it took 75 million years? That is why I posted it again. It had nothing to do with me not reading your post, or me not reading in general. I re-posted what I did to show that simple math put scientist off by 10 million years"
that is just a back of the envelope calculation done by me. I actually had a second look at actual scientific papers (try it some time) which said it varied between 6 and 20 cm/year
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed
"I actually had a second look at actual scientific papers (try it some time) which said it varied between 6 and 20 cm/year"
You have to love scientists. They are worse than politicians, always changing what they say. It went from 0-10 mm to 6-10 cm and now you say 6-20 cm annually. After a while, they will be saying the earth is growing, and maybe then you will believe. Einstein said the universe was expanding. Scientist refuted him in his day. Guess what, he was right. ( :-)
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd I admit, laziness on my part. I should have double checked before posting
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed
"I admit, laziness on my part. I should have double checked before posting" and "I know your not an archeologist, I can tell your not a geologist either."
Well, here is the truth. Laziness on your part is a factor. Any scientist will tell you research is based on consistent results. Exceptions are their own field of study and do not speak for the commonly consistent results of any given situation. therefore, it's meaningless to point out exceptions; they are usually rare.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd I see you are really struggling with the real issues if you have to keep on bringing the argument back to something I admitted I was wrong on. You do recall the LIST of facts you were incorrect on yes? or do you need reminding.
very sad this is your best argument.
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JudeccanBreed "You do recall the LIST of facts you were incorrect on yes? or do you need reminding."
Well, I asked you to go over them and show me how I was wrong, and you have yet to do it. So, no, I do not recall the list of facts I was incorrect on, and the ones I do recall, were so minor it didn't even matter, and definitely didn't take away from the point. So yes, I do need reminding. Do your best, or your worse; whichever is better. Don't forget questions about the rules thermodynamics.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Back to me and thermodynamics. Here are the laws.
0th. If two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, then they're in thermal equilibrium with each other.
1st. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.
2nd. Spontaneous natural processes increase entropy overall.
3rd. As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum.
Now here are the laws; show me the ones I've broken & how.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
Imagine that there are puzzle pieces that fit exactly together a wrinkled (yet one piece) of carpet. When the carpet is stretched and pulled flat, the pieces are separated and maintain perfect form. The water fills in the gaps at proportional rate of expansion to keep the puzzle pieces in perfect form. Makes perfect sense...
Stevo70Chev 1 year ago
It's simple.
All gravitational centers are in orbit.
All gravitational centers grow in mass and volume.
If, a feather turns into the mass of a hammer before hitting the moons surface, it will fall at the same rate as the original feather, but with much more damage to the moon. An orbiting gravitational body creating atoms from "dark matter" within, will also be gaining momentum. And that, is what keeps everything from collapse, in the universe. Added momentum from internal atom creation.
rongrite 1 year ago
i can control my fingers with my thoughts.
rongrite 1 year ago
Anyone debating the topic of whether or not the earth is growing, Cut and paste
Conspiracy of Science - Earth is in fact growing
into your You Tube search bar and just watch the video and listen to the man. If you still have questions, consider the comments on this page that gives a hypothesis of explanation, and theories of possible evidence. Just check it out, with a selectively permeable receptive mind. if it don't make sense, express why, if it does, explain how. this is how people grow.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd Wegner used matching geology on either side of the Atlantic (ie geological provinces, fossil formations etc) to show that they were once joined together. No such evidence exists for the Pacific. The growing earth hypothesis also violates the laws of thermodynamics.
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Two very important points missing in this statement about Wegener. 1, He died in Greenland, and never finished his research. 2, After his death fossils were found proving a mass pacific connection. The Tyrannosaurs Rex fossils have been found in the Americas, and also in east Asia Mongolia. How did T-Rex get from America to Mongolia? Did they swim the Pacific, Did they walk through Europe to Mongolia? Or at one point, was Asia and N. America connected? All are possible.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed My point is this, Animal Fossils play a small role in this type of research; because you then have to account for the animal's behavior and migratory patterns. Without prior knowledge of this, how is it not safe to assume that the earth spread and the species were split from one landmass to many? This backs both theories. However, look at the trees. The redwood and chestnut tree of America and China has the same genus. However, one would possibly say humans influenced this fact.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Now lets look back in history. Who planted a redwood forest in America or China? What was the tree true origin? We have to accept that data has been tampered with by both man and animal, so all we can attempt to do is follow the trail, and hope we correctly recognize the source when we think we see it. This is why we have attempted to use carbon dating to depict time of possible origin. Fossilized redwoods of China and America both carbon date to about 35 million years old each.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd I will keep this simple. In South America there is a geological province called the Parana Basalts. Before the Americas rifted from Africa/Europe the Parana Basalts were connected to the Etendeka Basalts found in southern Africa. There were one and the same and hence prove the Atlantic was once closed. Can you name a geological province found on the margins of the Pacific continents that prove the Pacific was once joined? Simple Question.
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed I will keep it simple. It is estimated by scientist that it took approximately 3.5 billion years for earth to cool down from being a molten ball of rock and allow life to be inhabitable. That is why the Precambrian period is the oldest record in the mesozoic era. This planet in one point was almost completely covered in water and marine life dominated. This is why you find most prehistoric marine animal fossils on the land. The land below this sea was the world to come.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd Again more corrections: the time it took for earth to cool was from 4.6 byrs to 3.8 byrs, not from 3.8 onwards as you say; the Precambrian refers to the the time eras between the Cambrian (542 Myrs) to the beggining of the Archean (3.8 byrs); the Precambrian is not a part of the mesozoic era (65 - 251 Myrs); the occurance of marine fossils on the continents is entirely consistent with accretion of colliding continents
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed C-mon lets seriously think about this. 75,000 kilometers @ a max of 10 cm a year. Yeah right. Something else accelerated the continents to their current position, and plate tectonics wasn't it. Like I said, when the coasts rubbed; how long did it take the rocks to climb miles into the air @ 10 cm a year. If it took a max of approx 1 billion years to get there, how long did it take to push upward to form mountains against erosion and weathering? doesn't make sense. not possible!!!.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Now about the other corrections you made to my statements. I said approx 3.5 billion years to cool, and you said 3.8 - 4.6. Well 3.5 is about 4 billion years; my obviously dated figures are not that far off. and that few hundred million to 1 billion years later I spoke of projected a date of 4.5 billion years from the origin, a difference of 0.1 billion yrs from the date you projected. Hands down you are right about the mesozoic era, I haven't studied it since I was a kid.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed But consider this, The Archean era you speak of is the age of proto-bacteria. Prokaryotes of the form Archea today are the common ancestor of modern day bacteria. These are lifeforms that can live in extreme heat environments without oxygen. They gave rise to marine life. their dwelling place is in water. they do not fair too well on land. This is why when the earth landmass changed so to did their world. This planet was always mostly water. But at one point there was no water!!!
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
Now, lets think about this, Before the planet cooled down, and before the gases settled to make the atmosphere, and before the atmosphere above the solid mass mixed to make liquid seas, before the Archean era, how did this planet look? This planet at one point was a solid ball of molten and vapor elements. The vapors cooled first and liquefied, thus cooling the molten materials later. So, how did the planet get from this form to the form we see today? This is the question we are really asking.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed But to answer your question is to say this. Science does not have any proof today that the pacific was ever connected. I do not have any proof that there was ever a connection. But consider the billions of years that could have destroyed this proof. It has been a long time since the continents first started to shift. What proof is there to back that what is stated about the earth growing didn't happen? It is all possible, and all the supporting evidence is probable.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed After a few million years to a possible 1 billion years later, the core split, a rift opened up under the mega-ocean, and magma started to spread the ocean floor, and drive the once solid mass apart into sub divisions that would allow the water level to recede into them and create land above the ocean. This gradual receding of the ocean off the land gave rise to terrestrial life. Terrestrial life evolved and adapted to the changing earth, hence the age of the dinosaurs.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Over time, there is significant evidence that the earth has experienced many impacts from heavenly bodies. This is also a possibility as to why the continents shifted as they did. This is what possibly changed the environment and gave rise to the age of mammals. And as for pacific human inhabited provinces before the split, it is possible that the split happened before human civilization began. maybe the planetary split started in the pacific before humans even arrived in general.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Just because you can't find signs of human life in a place does not mean they were ever there. It is possible that humans were not present when the pacific spread began. This is a weak argument. It has nothing to do with the earth growing. It is like saying if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it does it make a sound? This is starting to sound like an old time argument when the majority believed the earth was flat. Boy were they wrong. Earth possibly grew.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd please answer my question regarding geological provinces on the margins of the Pacific. It is the only way you will convince me.
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed So finally, to give a reply to your question regarding the geological province on the margins of the pacific, the answer is, I can't. I guess I won't convince you. But I am not here to convince anyone. I am here to debate what everyone else is here to debate; is it possible that the earth grew? I believe it is, and everything I've posted was in support of that. Is it possible that it's plate tectonics? of course; it's just that I'm not convinced that plate tectonics is the reason.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed 35 million years ago should automatically rule out human involvement as to how the trees jumped continents. We know that humans later planted more trees as colonialism began, but there were already trees of this species indigenous to both areas; China and America. So as far as fossils go, maybe Wegener was looking in the wrong place. Did he consider the trees and plants of different areas? This would have given him his answer if he did. This earth without a doubt expanded.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed So, the truth is, there is fossil evidence of both animal and plant life that supports the existence of an ancient Trans-Pacific landmass connection; thousands to millions of years before earth came to the point we know and see it today. If this is evaluated scientifically it all adds up. It is a lot more sensible than the plates of the continents sliding into and rolling under the mantle, that is 3X denser than marble. What proof is there to back this theory of plate tectonics?
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed You say the growing earth hypothesis violates the law of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is all about thermo-equilibrium. How does the earth expanding violate this law? Say the earth was a ball of compressed burning gases in the beginning. If these burning gases cooled enough to mix and became liquid, wouldn't they also gain mass? If these liquids mixed to become solids wouldn't they also gain mass? Think about this. Heat distorts composition. without heat, composition equalizes.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed there is no violation of scientific law here. What is happening here is you have thermodynamics at work with thermal pressure at the core, and this matter is pushed to the surface and introduced to atmospheric pressure. Now the rules of barometric's apply. This is all chemistry, not physics or dynamics of any sort. Everything calculated at this point is elemental. This planet is one huge compressed zipper folder. with every volcanic eruption a new file simply is unzipped.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed But I want you to explain to me how it violates the law of thermodynamics; what law or laws it violates, and how it violates them, and why. If you can produce this information, and any supporting data, I will admit I was wrong. But I am telling you, you are going to need a very well structured scientifically backed and proven argument to do so. Because if it's not thermal activity and volcanic action that caused this phenomenon what is it? look at plate tectonics theory; its Crazy
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd I assumed when you said "growing earth" you meant gaining matter. The first law of thermodynamics states that matter/energy cannot be destroyed or created. No one, in the history of mankind has ever witnessed evidence contrary to this law.
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Sorry so late, got caught up over the weekend, still busy, will respond. off to class. respond when I get home. will explain everything mentioned in your comments to the best of my ability. thank you.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed You posted, "I assumed when you said "growing earth" you meant gaining matter." No, I meant transformation of compressed heat rated matter into expanded solid mass at sea level temperature and atmospheric pressure. When molten material comes to the surface it absorbs oxygen and carbon gas from the atmosphere. The final product is rock denser in quantity and larger in volume than the thermal molten rock at the core. almost everything that burns absorb oxygen and carbon gas.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd "When molten material comes to the surface it absorbs oxygen and carbon gas from the atmosphere. The final product is rock denser in quantity and larger in volume than the thermal molten rock at the core"
Some of what you say is correct. When a molten rock erupts (eg mid ocean ridge basalt) it interacts with the ocean water, changing its density and volume (eg serpentinite). It does not become denser.
basalt (3.3g.cm^3) + H2O = serpentinite (2.7g.cm^3)
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed When a molten rock erupts (eg mid ocean ridge basalt) it interacts with the ocean water, changing its density and volume (eg serpentinite). It does not become denser. basalt (3.3g.cm^3) + H2O = serpentinite (2.7g.cm^3)... well 2 things here, you give an example of how one type of rock interacts with water and lose mass. 1, Water changed the original composition and the rest was carried away and not counted, and 2, it never touched the surface, this is what happens below sea lvl.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed in your example, water; a liquid re-arranged the composition of a liquid metal. this is like one liquid interacting. Both basalt and serpentine are amorphous rocks. the composition is not consistent. The final product is how one group of elements react with water versus the other. this is why you get different types of composition within these rocks. none of them are exactly the same in configuration. however, when heated, they both release water and C02 gas. this is the point.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed You gave an example of rock that composition was changed by water. The effect of water on molten rock has nothing to do with it's trip to the surface. When molten rock pushes to the surface, super hot gas and thermal heat follow. This traveling causes the mantle and crust to divide. this division which is liquid in the beginning hardens to a solid denser than the liquid that caused it. this is what causes the expansion. what escapes is as good as ash. Its not why the earth spread.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed These rocks that are studied post activity and post eruption give clues as to what is possible. In nature they can take on infinite configurations, especially where carbon is a factor. The system in which they form is consistent; however the final product is not. The molten material at the core of the earth is not evenly mixed. The products created will not all be the same. this example means nothing. Now, can you show me how it can reach the crust without spreading it? impossible
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed This statement shows that you missed my point. You talk of basalt, which is an igneous rock. ONE OF the densest; not the densest, but one of them, and then you talk of serpentine, which forms as a result of oxidation and how the density changes from 3.3 to 2.7 g/cm3. Well did you know that in this process there is a paralleled volume increase of about 40%? This proves me right. You get expansion of molten rock above sea level. note, all are denser than "molten rock at the core"!!!
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AhmidShamahd "You get expansion of molten rock above sea level. note, all are denser than "molten rock at the core"!!!"
please give examples (and their respective densities)
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@judeccanBreed Look up serpentine on wikipedia under formation where it clearly states The density changes from 3.3 to 2.7 g/cm3 with a concurrent volume increase of about 40%. this is one example, there are more. This is achieved by the rock absorbing water and expanding. Theres a lot of water at the bottom of the ocean, and volcanic rock does cool off in the seam created by under water eruption, and sit there long enough to absorb water and expand... Do your own research, don't keep asking me.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AhmidShamahd I'm well aware of the expansion and density change of basalt to serpentinite (as it was I that pointed out the rock types to start with). My question was in regards to your statement:
"You get expansion of molten rock above sea level. note, all are denser than "molten rock at the core"!!!"
exactly which molten rock type is denser than "molten rock at the core"?
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed "exactly which molten rock type is denser than "molten rock at the core"?"
you misunderstood the statement. I said all rocks in the mantle and on the crust are denser than molten rock. How hard is that to understand? I bet everyone else who read it would've understood it. That is a simple one and you failed to connect. How can you grasp a complex theorem like earth expanding at this rate? If I were you; I'd hold on to that pacific geological province point for dear life too. (:-)
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd "I said all rocks in the mantle and on the crust are denser than molten rock."
No need to get defensive Ahmid, I was just seeking clarification from a badly versed sentence. I do find it hard to understand because NOT all rocks in the mantle and the crust are denser than molten rock. For instance: the rock formation known as the Rooiberg volcanics in South Africa acted as a low density carapace above the dense magmas of the Bushveld Complex (look it up)
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd when a dense magma reaches a density equilibrium with surrounding country rock, it will tend to move laterally (instead of vertically) and form an igneous structure known as a "sill"....So you see, not all "rocks in the mantle and on the crust are denser than molten rock".
I know your not an archeologist, I can tell your not a geologist either.
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed "I know your not an archeologist, I can tell your not a geologist either." and also, any geologist would agree that magma releasing from the core has to split the magma and break the crust of the earth. It traveling laterally after this means nothing, because it started at a point of reference thousands of kilometers away and created a broadening gap on the way up. That gap does not close. It plugs at the surface and hardens to make new rock and expand the mantle. prove this wrong
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd "also, any geologist would agree that magma releasing from the core has to split the magma and break the crust of the earth"
well no they wouldn't because they will tell you that magma does not come from the core. This is a common misconception that you appear to have bought into. Magma, typically forms within 10km of the surface of the crust.
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed
"well no they wouldn't because they will tell you that magma does not come from the core. This is a common misconception that you appear to have bought into. Magma, typically forms within 10km of the surface of the crust."
You are right about this, I slipped.
I meant, "any geologist would agree that lava releasing from the core has to split through the magma and break the crust at the surface of the earth"
Sometimes I run out of room and cannot post my thought in full detail.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AhmidShamahd "any geologist would agree that lava releasing from the core has to split through the magma and break the crust at the surface of the earth"
lava is simply magma that has simply been extruded on the surface. You will need to correct this again.
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed "lava is simply magma that has simply been extruded on the surface. You will need to correct this again."
I corrected it, I did it before I saw this post. I called it molten rock because I admit, I do not know what it is called. Could you please tell me? O.k, maybe my wording is a bit off today, and I admit I do not know all of the correct terminologies to define the matters, however, does this destroy the point, before or after I correct myself? tell me how and give me examples.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd "tell me how and give me examples."
Sure.
Magma = melted/molten rock + any crystal fragments that have not been melted (ie due to high melting temperatures) and occurs below the surface (eg granite magma chamber)
Lava = magma that has been extruded on the surface i.e. from a basaltic volcano (think of Hawaii)
Unless you count the outer iron liquid core, geophysicists theorize there is little molten material below 10km.
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed "Unless you count the outer iron liquid core, geophysicists theorize there is little molten material below 10km." This is what I was talking about, only a little different. From my understanding, the inner core was liquid, and from here all of the thermal activity of the earth was projected. Are you telling me that the inner core is not liquid? I get an even more elaborate picture from your explanation of this; however, it is still in support of the earth expanding. I'll explain.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed In my theory, liquid inner core material escaped and made it's way to the surface by super hot pressurized gas circulated through molten chemicals acting as a drill against the mantle, burned it's way upward; releasing gas and water at the surface. And now you tell me it's a solid mass. Now I see super hot material under super intense pressure melting it's way up to the surface, losing pressure at the surface and expanding. Either way it goes, you get the same effect; expansion.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd I'm probably wrong about my assessment, This was my first try attempting to grasp how volcanic action actually works. Could you...
JudeccanBreed, please put into words and describe in details how this solid mass gets from it's origin to a volcanic eruption? I will do my independent research as well. I am honestly just extremely curious as to how this is possible right now, and I am willing to listen. So far, it sounds within the realm of possible. I'm not going to rule it out.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed "Unless you count the outer iron liquid core, geophysicists theorize there is little molten material below 10km." I did my research. I found that seismic waves were used to depict the contents of the outer and inner core, and that the solidity of the inner core has been difficult to establish, because the elastic shear waves, that are expected to pass through it are very weak and difficult to detect. What if the inner core is totally gaseous, and they are catching the reflection?
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed I'll explain. the solidity of the inner core has been difficult to establish, because the elastic shear waves, that are expected to pass through it are very weak and difficult to detect. What if the inner core is almost totally gaseous, and they are catching the reflection of the waves passing through gas, hyper bounced to the other side, some absorbed in the liquid outer core, and only part of it's being reflected back through the gas and being read on the side it entered?
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed The inner core is believed to consist of an iron-nickel alloy, and may have a temperature similar to the Sun's surface. And also, the range of pressure in Earth's inner core is about 330 to 360 gigapascals (3,300,000 to 3,600,000 atm), and iron can only be solid at such high temperatures because its melting temperature increases dramatically at these high pressures. Either they are missing something, or something is wrong with their theory about the core. I'll explain in detail.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed If the inner core of the planet is solid they should have no problem getting a reading. It would easily depict that the inner core is denser than the outer core. the faint reading is more consistent with the inner core being gaseous, and hence, the statement of the temperature being about the same as the surface of the sun. Yet, this inner core remains solid. Very possible, but I'm not buying it. This is what I'm talking about when I say the info supporting tectonics don't add up.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AhmidShamahd "solidity of the inner core has been difficult to establish, because the elastic shear waves, that are expected to pass through it are very weak and difficult to detect."
of course they are difficult to detect, they cannot pass through the liquid outer core. Geophysicists know its solid due to the velocity of compression longitudinal waves (not elastic shear waves as you correctly pointed out).
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed I did my research and now I can explain. All points are still valid. Part #1.
Inge Lehmann, the only Danish seismologist in her day, uncovered an anomaly. P-waves, that should have been deflected by the core, were recorded at seismic stations. She then theorized that Earth’s center consisted of two parts: a solid inner core surrounded by a liquid outer core. Lehmann’s hypothesis was confirmed in 1970 when more sensitive seismographs detected waves deflecting off this solid core.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Part #2.
This led to the concept of the Lehmann Discontinuity, named in her honor, which defines the barrier between the solid inner core and the liquid outer core. But today, new finds have reduced the original meaning of the term to define the abrupt increase of P-wave and S-wave velocities in the vicinity of 220±30 km depths. It appears beneath continents, but not usually beneath oceans, and is not consistent in global positioned routine studies; a lot of hit and miss. Why?
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Part #3.
The inner core represents less than 1% of the volume of Earth, and only a few seismic waves ever reach it and return to the surface. The inner core is a small target for seismologists, and seismic waves are distorted by passing through the entire Earth before reaching it. This fact has also lead to much controversy concerning the inner core. New finds and readings in this area of seismology consistently emit back head scratching results and New theories have been derived.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Part #4.
Some of these theories are, “The inner core may be partially molten." "It may be composed of a phase of crystalline iron." It has also been proposed that "The inner core is a viscous fluid or a metallic glass." Either way, this is my point. There is still uncertainty regarding the nature of the core. It 's possible that I'm also correct, "Gas plays a role"; explaining the abrupt jump in P-wave frequency. But we will go with the 1940 theory as a standard; It's Solid Iron.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Part #5.
So, this is what I'm saying. Everything I said about molten rock rising from the core is still factor-able; because the inner core accounts for only 1% of earth's mass. In this, both are possible; for gas and molten material to push it's way up, and for a super hot solid shard to break from the inner core and melt it's way up; with molten rock from the outer core following behind, reach the near surface, lose pressure, and then melt also; I agree, both are very possible.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Part #6.
So my point is this. However compressed material from the core reach the surface, it has to pass through the mantle and crack the crust. This passing through the mantle ans crust causes it to divide; whether on land, or under the sea. This dividing of the mantle, and the crust causes the earth to expand. My thoughts about molten material reaching the surface from the core was right but worded incorrectly. I should have said and posted, molten material from the outer core.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Part #7.
So everything I previously posted still carries the same weight. The only word that is missing is outer, which should have been attached to the word "core". So, whichever seismic wave reaches the inner core doesn't matter here; it is less than 2,500 kilometers in diameter, which is nothing compared to the volume of the outer core, or the 12,700 kilometer diameter of earth. The only thing important about the inner core here is the pressure it's under and the heat it emits.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Part #8.
So like I said, molten rock and super hot gas from the outer core splits the mantle, and breaks the crust. Occasionally a solid shard breaks from the inner core and through buoyant pressure is pushed to the surface as it passes through the outer core, thus splitting the mantle, and arriving at the crust, where it loses it's super high pressure, and melt because of the heat still contained within it's composition. Either way it goes, this activity causes earth to expand.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed This is one of the last things I have to say on this topic. I knew about the use of compression waves to test for a solid core. The reason I didn't mention them was because I needed to research them more. I found that they too also turn back indefinite results, and do not paint a clear picture that the core is totally solid. This is why new speculations have arisen amongst scientific authorities in this area. watch out, a new revolution in plate tectonics theory may be on the way.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed I am basing my statement of a possible revolution on the fact that compression waves also return a faint reading. This is why I said, "If the inner core of the planet is solid they should have no problem getting a reading" I said this with l.c. waves in mind. This is why I gave my theory that maybe there is gas under extreme pressure at the core. Gas under extreme pressure would liquefy. However, it is also possible for gases to mix, and form solids under pressure. just theory.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JudeccanBreed This is why I asked What if the inner core is almost totally gaseous, and seismologist are catching the reflection of the waves passing through gas, being hyper transported to the other side of the outer core, some being absorbed in the liquid, and the rest being ricochet off the other side, and hyper reflected back through the gas, and being read at the station on the side it entered? I have no way of knowing how these machines work. I just want to know is it possible?
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed But back to the earth growing. With all of the evidence collected, cross examined, and reviewed, I still see it scientifically possible; especially given billions of years to work. If you look at the human body in it's current adult form, it is amazing. A mother forms a solid sphere shaped cell with no subduction. However, 1 sperm from father causes it to unfold into you. The universe forms a planet. however, 1 element from the energy forces causes it to unfold into earth; Water.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed "well no they wouldn't because they will tell you that magma does not come from the core. This is a common misconception that you appear to have bought into. Magma, typically forms within 10km of the surface of the crust."
I found another mistake in my point. I meant, "any geologist would agree that lava releasing from the core has to split through the mantle and break the crust at the surface of the earth"
I am slipping badly, and I admit it. Sorry, Ill shape up. Im still rusty.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed "Magma, typically forms within 10km of the surface of the crust." You may be right, the word magma wasn't supposed to be present anyway. I meant the travel of molten rock from the core through solid rock in the mantle caused a widening in the mantle that will cause the earth to expand, and cap off at the surface, and harden to fill the gap. This process is what possibly caused the earth over time to get bigger. Volcanic activity was much more frequent on a thinner mantle and crust
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd "You may be right, the word magma wasn't supposed to be present anyway. I meant the travel of molten rock from the core through solid rock in the mantle"
Well, the standard model suggests that it isn't molten material that rises from the core, but anomalously hot (and hence less dense) material that rises (due to bouyancy) through the mantle. Once it reaches crustal levels, the pressure on this hot solid rock is significantly reduced and this causes it to become molten.
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd there are three ways to melt mantle rocks 1. Heat them up 2. add a volatile (i.e. water) and 3. significantly reduce their overlying pressure.
So just to summarise, it isnt molten magma or lava until the very final stages of its ascent (ie within 10km of the surface.)
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed So let me get this right, you are telling me a solid mass pushes it's way through solid rock that is denser than it is, all the way to the surface, loses it's form because the pressure reduces, and then melts, builds up more pressure in pockets; thus feeding a volcano, and then erupts through volcanic eruption as lava? Sounds great, but it is also the same thing I said, but in a different light; I will explain the relationship and correlate without changing my words.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed One of my first posts back on the scene here was,
"Most chemicals that are solid and liquid at room temperature are liquids and gases at the core. Gases are highly compressible. The cooling of these elements causes them to gain mass." And now you explain to me this. I always pictured it as a tightly compressed ball of liquid burning it's way upward, and now you tell me it's a solid. This only means one thing, the heat and pressure are more extreme than I had anticipated.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed "well no they wouldn't because they will tell you that magma does not come from the core" Not totally accurate, Magma does come from the core. There are pockets and beds of magma in the mantle that feed volcanoes constantly. They channeled upward from the core. The mantle itself came from the core. The mantle thickened as a result of the core cooling. The crust is what created the core. Earth was a molten ball of elements. The crust cooled first, this is what trapped the heat in.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd "Do your own research, don't keep asking me."
I have to ask the same question because I never get a satisfactory answer. Its a common tactic of pseudoscientists to baffle by bullshit and avoid the topic at hand.
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JudeccanBreed This is the key point you missed. I said, "When molten material comes to the surface it absorbs oxygen and carbon gas from the atmosphere. The final product is rock denser in quantity and larger in volume than the thermal molten rock at the core" Note, basalt is denser than molten rock, Serpentine is greater in volume than basalt, but not as dense. Both ere denser than molten rock, they are solid, that's why. and note, when basalt absorb water it's volume increases. look at this!
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed This is what you are missing. No matter is lost. When the rocks absorb water and gases they expand. When they expand they lose density, but not volume; by area. They get bigger above sea level because they are in an environment where they can spread out without extreme heat and pressure. other elements allow them to spread out, whether it be in the form of gained moisture or added elemental composition, they grow after they leave the furnace of the core of the earth. It's a fact.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Under plate tectonics theory, the plates role into and under the mantle thus pushing landmasses apart at a rate of 1-100 mm a year; yeah right, i'd buy that for a dollar! There is no indication that the plates gain or lose altitude with this tumultuous rolling activity that has enough force to slide a continent. At this rate, it would have took an eternity for India to crash into Asia. And if it did, at 100 mm a year, it would have took another eternity for the mountains to form.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd "At this rate, it would have took an eternity for India to crash into Asia. And if it did, at 100 mm a year, it would have took another eternity for the mountains to form."
argument from ignorance. Just because you don't understand it, does not mean it isn't so.
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed You also posted it was an argument of ignorance concerning the exaggerated span of time it would have took India to crash into Asia. Well lets do the math. 100 mm = 10 cm. 100 cm = 1 meter. 1000 meters = 1 kilometer. 1 kilometer = 1 million millimeters. Therefore it would have took between 10 thousand and 1 million years for India to move 1 kilometer. Pangea maps place India south of Africa near Antarctica. Asia is over 10,000 kilometers away. Do the math.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed If you will do the math you will see that at a rate of 1 kilometer in 10 thousand years, it would have took India 100 million years to travel 10,000 kilometers to reach the coast of Asia at the soonest, and at 1 kilometer in 1 million years, it would have took India 1 billion years to travel 10,000 kilometers and reach the coast of Asia. The earth is dated to be between 8000 and 400 million years old; 4.5 billion if you count the time that it was a burning ball of molten rock.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@AhmidShamahd How is a question an argument from ignorance (please read the definition). A few corrections. The earth is supposedly 4.6 byrs old (based on age of earliest meteorites from this solar system); the oldest terrestial mineral is 4.1 brys old; the oldest rock is ~3.8 billion years old; The distance travelled by India to Asia is more like 75,000km; the rate of movement was between 6-10 cm^yr; and according to the standard theory it took ~65 million years (well within the ballpark!)
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed Now about the age of the earth. First of all, all dates are speculation. Second of all, the fact that your dates are different than mine does not mean I am incorrect, it only means that scientist have changed the dates again, probably due to new data; thanks for the update. And about India's collision into Asia, scientist might be wrong and update this later but, the earth is approximately (40,075.16 kilometers) and approximately (40,008 km) at the poles. Lets calculate shall we.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed But first, before we recalculate, you asked how was a question an argument from ignorance? I never said that about you, that's what you said about me. I simply said you had a weak argument about the pacific spread, that is all. You told me to look it up, and I did. Argument: A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate. b. A quarrel; a dispute. c. Archaic A reason or matter for dispute or contention: Note, Your question is your argument. I will further explain.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed A question is defined as: a. An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply. b. An interrogative sentence, phrase, or gesture. Your question was is there a geological province in the pacific that connects like the basalts in the Atlantic? This question was the basis of your argument: discussion/debate/dispute. I used the word correctly. Sorry, like I said, there weren't any humans around to collect samples of the pacific split; this doesn't mean it didn't happen.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed the truth is this, human presence or human involvement does not stop nature. Nature does what is done whether humans record it or not. The fact that we don't have any proof of the pacific land connection does not mean it never existed. It only means that over the billions of years the water eroded and whether-ed away the proof. This is highly possible, and well within scientific reasoning. What really makes one viewpoint better than the other is support and evidence. that is all.
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago
@JudeccanBreed In this theory that the earth is growing, there are tons of evidence but only grams of support. This is why I am looking at it so closely. What if it had the support that plate tectonics had? There is no scientific proof to back the method behind plate tectonics, all there is, is speculation and possibility. what scientific evidence is there today to prove that the method in which plate tectonics works is indeed the true mechanics behind the continental movement? There is none!!!!
AhmidShamahd 1 year ago