The earth is growing?

[09'Z28]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

It stops, I hope? I'd hate for the planet to expand till we're just a cloud of debris....

Don't worry, none of us will be around for that

[Rallysport]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Interesting...If I were to guess "why"...I'd say the core(s) of the earth are getting less dense. Clearly you can't make matter...and I doubt that much junk crashed into the planet over such a 'short' period of time...so the mantle must be expanding -- that's actually pretty cool.

The water? There's tons of crap (gases, too) hidden in the mantle. If it becomes less dense, it will release that stuff -- most of it was probably hydrogen and oxygen to begin with. Which when combined, we all know makes water. (Not to mention the ice-balls hitting the planet over those millions and billions of years)


It stops, I hope? I'd hate for the planet to expand till we're just a cloud of debris....

So, there is no global warming causing the oceans to rise afterall??? Ha Ha Ha! Screw you, Al Gore!

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Kyle2k

That is exactly my point in the question. Glass IS a liquid, you can't ignore a physical property just because you don't perceive it.

true but Pangea can be seen to fit together much better than the outer sides of the would be super continent than the same mass shrunk to a little ball. It well could be, I'm certainly no Steven Hawking but my moneys on the current theory making more sense.

But it IS God who has ulimtate control. I beleive he set forth the things in a motion to which, like the perception of time we spoke of, we can't comprehend the way he can.

[Milk 1027]

The sun grows. So why not the earth?

[Kyle2k]

Darn that God guy, he is like a person that pretends to be your friend, but won't share any secrets with you.

[manimsoblack]

Originally Posted by camaro_corvette

LOL, you must be bored

this is how i spend my days.

Originally Posted by Kyle2k

This makes me very curious. Based on this hypothesis then, it would mean Mars would have to be considerably younger than earth correct?

First thing that came to mind when i saw that the first time.

Originally Posted by Kyle2k

That is exactly my point in the question. Glass IS a liquid, you can't ignore a physical property just because you don't perceive it.

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Interesting...If I were to guess "why"...I'd say the core(s) of the earth are getting less dense. Clearly you can't make matter...and I doubt that much junk crashed into the planet over such a 'short' period of time...so the mantle must be expanding -- that's actually pretty cool.

The water? There's tons of crap (gases, too) hidden in the mantle. If it becomes less dense, it will release that stuff -- most of it was probably hydrogen and oxygen to begin with. Which when combined, we all know makes water. (Not to mention the ice-balls hitting the planet over those millions and billions of years)


It stops, I hope? I'd hate for the planet to expand till we're just a cloud of debris....

True i remember i watched a special on rocks a few weeks ago where they said that certain types of rock over time create molecules of water since the gases trapped inside them combine because of the extremely high pressure within the rock and when they're split it releases it into the atmosphere. Also all the gnarly amounts of sulfur and hydrothemal fluid coming out of the underseas vents eventually makes it up into the atmosphere and with nowhere to go they stabilize. So very possible.

Also it the theory stands true we might be able to hop on over to mars. At least till the sun expands and devourers the terrestrial four. In fact come to think of it the fact that the sun expands in such a way and Jupiter and saturn are supposedly expanding, it would make sense that we would too.

Originally Posted by Rallysport

So, there is no global warming causing the oceans to rise afterall??? Ha Ha Ha! Screw you, Al Gore!

Global temperature variance will still affect the icecaps and sea levels. I just think the whole human cause global warming thing is a bunch of propaganda, though i can't figure to what end. If for whatever reason i somehow win a nobel prize i'll toss it if there's no further conclusive evidence to prove that gore was actually right. Plus nobel invented dynamite... see the irony.

[manimsoblack]

Originally Posted by Kyle2k

Darn that God guy, he is like a person that pretends to be your friend, but won't share any secrets with you.

Until you die.. if you followed the rules. though you won't remember having done any of it. At least according to my mormon friend. We actually had this discussion today.

[Xanthos]

Heh. Its an interesting theory. I could believe it.
- Xanthos

[CamaroSpike23]

its a plausible theory, no doubt.


now true or false:
Air is a fluid?

true

[Xanthos]

Completely true.

All gases are fluids. Fluid =/= liquid, necessarily.
- Xanthos

[duder4thgen]

Originally Posted by Rallysport

So, there is no global warming causing the oceans to rise afterall??? Ha Ha Ha! Screw you, Al Gore!

One thing I never got about this global warming thing, if water expands when it freezes into ice, how is melting it going to cause the oceans to rise?

[Mr_Draco]

Originally Posted by manimsoblack

Notice he doesn't mention where the water is coming from? Or maybe it's just obvious and i'm a bit dense. lol.

Bah it's all hogwash. There is a lot of sites on google that debunk this theory.

As for the water. I found this;

"Q. Relative to your videos, I have one question... As the land goes back together, the ocean seems to disappear. What happened to the water? Weren't the oceans displaced over the land?

A. In making the video I had to ignore the water level completely. And I did. Because if I focused on that. nothing about the upper tectonic plates would make any sense."

So in order for his theory to work, water couldn't have existed on Earth until it grew. But this goes against the scientific findings that prove water existed on earth for a billion years.

Another thing, with his shrunk Earth, Earth would not have had enough gravity to hold on to much less create the atmosphere that it did when it did. In order for his theory to be partial correct, the Earth would have had to reach the size it is now hundreds of millions of years before Pangaea existed as there was an atmosphere and animals living on Pangaea. This would had 1 billion - 1.5 billion years to the age of the Earth. Since we know with fairly scientific certainty the age of the Earth and the length of time it takes for the processes to take place, there isn't enough time in the time frame for this theory to do what he claims it does. Considering Neal's main goal of creating this theory was to debunk what we currently believe about tectonics and about Pangaea, this little detail collides with this theory.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Mr_Draco

So in order for his theory to work, water couldn't have existed on Earth until it grew. But this goes against the scientific findings that prove water existed on earth for a billion years.

No, he didn't say for it to work...he said for it to make sense. He's proposing an entirely new theory about the earth's history, and current tendancys. It would become a tad confusing if then started to explain how the entire planet was once covered with water....

Originally Posted by Mr_Draco

Another thing, with his shrunk Earth, Earth would not have had enough gravity to hold on to much less create the atmosphere that it did when it did.

Mmm...but who said the 'mini'-earth had the same size atmosphere as we have right now? When the planet was formed, presumably it had NO atmosphere to speak of...And remember -- the whole premise for this theory has to be that the mantle is becoming less dense, and expanding. As it does so, it releases lots of gases, contributing to our atmosphere and growing it, too.

Originally Posted by Mr_Draco

In order for his theory to be partial correct, the Earth would have had to reach the size it is now hundreds of millions of years before Pangaea existed as there was an atmosphere and animals living on Pangaea. This would had 1 billion - 1.5 billion years to the age of the Earth. Since we know with fairly scientific certainty the age of the Earth and the length of time it takes for the processes to take place, there isn't enough time in the time frame for this theory to do what he claims it does. Considering Neal's main goal of creating this theory was to debunk what we currently believe about tectonics and about Pangaea, this little detail collides with this theory.

His theory says that the entire planet was pangaea at one point. Technically...he's stating that there was no super-continent called pangaea. It's not entirely unbelievable that this was the case. As the atmosphere formed, and the animals evolved, they too could have existed. Plus -- his theory states that this was a time-curved process; it started very slow and accelerated.

Also...what do we really know? I'm not being a smartass...I've often wondered about this. Science...is theory. There are no 'facts', but 99.9% conclusive theories. Is it completely impossible to think that the earth is older than we think it is? Most definitely not!! This idea is meant to collide with exisiting theories -- clearly there's an influential faction who widely discounts this idea as false and silly. Otherwise it would at least be a footnote in science classes....but we said the same when it was proposed the earth was round -- "what foolishness, I can clearly see it ends at the horizon"...and the same when it was proposed that we weren't actually at the center of the universe "But I see the sun move, and I don't feel myself moving!".

[kdbolt70]

I guess my biggest problem with this is that there is a finite amount of matter that makes up the earth. How does that "expand"? For the earth to the double in size, wouldn't it need twice the matter it originally possessed? Or is this assuming the matter of the earth is itself expanding, becoming less dense?

Also, how did the Himalayas get created? he said there was no great raisings of land.

Also, why does Mars "HAVE" to follow the exact same principal as earth? Why MUST there be plate tectonics on mars?

I apologize if any of these were already answered, didn't read everyone's comments.