The Earth is expanding

Author: Somebody

Posts

Total: 59
#31
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Somebody
Nature doesn't understand imbalance. Everything in nature is perfectly balanced. Nature doesn't understand pulling. This is a human concept and has nothing to do with nature. Nature only pushes. Thus, your understanding if incorrect and influenced by centuries of previous nonsense and stupidity.
That’s nice.

Nothing you said showed anything I said was wrong.

Topic's author
#32
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Ramshutu
You are asserting that the Earth was once imbalanced which is a logical fantasy because nature wouldn't allow such a state to exist. Note - This is a low IQ interpretation of my last statement for slow learners. lol
#33
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Somebody
You are asserting that the Earth was once imbalanced which is a logical fantasy because nature wouldn't allow such a state to exist. Note - This is a low IQ interpretation of my last statement for slow learners. lol
No I’m not.

But, if I were I would not assert that the earth was once imbalanced. It’s still unbalanced. The North Pole, wanders and wobbles cyclically for the very reason that the earth isn’t fully balanced. It can’t be.

What I was doing, is pointing out three fundamental problems with the claim you just made:

1.) Planets have gravity, a force that pulls mass towards the Center - something your rather silly analogy omits.

2.) Change in spin does not add or remove energy from the planet, so cannot change orbital distance - despite your nonsense claims otherwise.

3.) Even If one continent stuck out by 20km, that’s such a minor amount compared to the diameter of the earth, it would still be close to perfectly balanced.



#34
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Somebody
All animals?? This is completely untrue. Humans have not decreased in size. Nor have many other species, horses and giraffes, for instance.

And look at dinosaurs, the biggest creatures too ever roam the Earth..They appeared 240 million years ago. That is only 5 percent of the Earth's lifetime, which means that the Earth did most of it's expanding before dinosaurs. This completely contradicts your statement that an expanding Earth causes a decrease in animal size

I responded to all points in your post #16. To summarize:

1. You claimed that only one continent would cause the Earth to be unstable. That is simply not true. You went on to claim the Earth is perfectly balanced. The is not true, either.

2. You claimed that one continent was statistically impossible. I asked what statistical test you used. You have not responded.

3. You claimed that all animals have gotten smaller. I named at least two that have not. I also brought up the fact that the largest creatures on Earth only appeared after 95% of Earth's history, which directly contradicts your claim that an expanding Earth causes animals to get smaller. You have not provided an explanation for this.

Furthermore, you have yet to answer whether you stand by your previous claim that the rate of the Earth's expansion has increased exponentially. 

#35
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stronn
I  know there aren't any proper issues to discuss on the forum these days - but there's no point engaging with loons.
#36
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@keithprosser
There's something to be said for ignoring crackpots, true.

Unfortunately, crackpot ideas sometimes have a way of spreading, especially pseudoscientific ones. While actual science prevails in the long run, pseudoscience can do short-term damage to public scientific literacy, and should therefore be opposed.

I have no illusion that I will change Sombody's mind one iota, but my posts aren't really for him, but for casual readers who may happen upon this thread.

#37
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stronn
I'd just explain his error this way:


Topic's author
#38
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Stronn
1. The facts - The dinosaurs were very big
                - The mega fauna were smaller than the dinosaurs but larger than present animals
                - The current animals are on average all smaller than the mega fauna

Now can you put these into chronological order and tell me if there is a pattern of gradual size decrease with increasing time or not?
Thus, any fool can plainly see that as time progresses animals are gradually getting smaller due to something. That something can only be gravity which would slow large animals down and make them easy prey for other species.  Thus, humans killed off all the mega fauna because they were slow and easy to hunt.

 2. The laws of probability prohibit the unlikely formation of a planet with one ocean and one continent. The odds of this occurring is so unlikely that a probability ratio of 1000's of billions to one is likely. Note - There is no logical story line of how this could have occurred. Whereas, an expanding Earth has a logical story line. The continents are the original Earth which expanded and the cracks filled with water. Now, that makes sense! But how in the hell would a planet with one ocean and one land mass form? Thus, its an illogical assumption in other words.

3. Why do all the continents fit together like a jigsaw puzzle when you take away the oceans? This is the biggest piece of evidence that there is of an expanding Earth. Thus, by reversing time we can see that the oceans slowly grew and spread between the cracks of the expanding Earth.

4. Where did all the extra mass come from?
Nobody really knows for sure but there are plenty of logical possibilities.
(a) Our solar system moves through the galactic centre plane every 30 million years. Sometimes we may pick up a few stray meteors and some dust as we travel through. This would cause intermittent or irregular planetary growth periods.
(b) The growth could be from aether inflow which we call gravity. This could cause quantum like increases at regular periods when pressure builds up and is released suddenly. Thus, planets act similarly to atoms in this respect. This fits into my fractal theory of the universe.

Don't worry about Stronn readers. His ideas are as old and as extinct as the dinosaurs. Science is full of mistakes and is as corrupt as any mafia organisation. Don't be bullied and intimidated by his comments. I am a real scientist and he is not.
Topic's author
#39
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Stronn
Quote "I have no illusion that I will change Sombody's mind one iota,"

English class for kindergarten students.

I have no illusion that ONE DAY, I will change Somebody's mind, MAYBE EVEN JUST one iota,
#40
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Somebody
1. You completely miss the point. Even if animals have been getting steadily smaller since the dinosaurs, that is only 5% of the Earth's history. During the other 95%, animals were getting bigger. Yet you claim the Earth has been expanding the whole time.

2. You keep saying "the laws of probability" like that means something. It means nothing unless you state exactly which law(s) are being violated and how. It is also clear that you have only a cursory understanding of probability by the way you say "unlikely" and  "impossible" as if they were interchangeable.

3. Expanding seafloors due to plate tectonics explain quite well why continents fit together like jigsaw puzzles.

4. There is no extra mass to account for because the expansion in the last 20 years is accounted for by thermal expansion due to a warming planet.

5. Once again, you have failed to answer whether you stand by your claim that the rate of the Earth's expansion has increased exponentially.

#41
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Somebody
I have no illusion that ONE DAY, I will change Somebody's mind, MAYBE EVEN JUST one iota,
Huh?
#42
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Stronn
(4) isn’t quite true. As well as thermal expansion, many parts of the northern hemisphere have been “expanding” due to a process called post glacial rebound.

During the last ice age, most of the northern hemisphere was under a lot of ice; the pressure contributed to these continents sinking. Once the ice melted, these land masses rebound slowly, contributing the land “expansion” talked about.

Somebody is still completely wrong - but it’s a really interesting process, it’s worth mentioning.
#43
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
Ok, I stand corrected. 

It's still true that the overall mass of the Earth is not increasing. In fact, it is actually decreasing by about 55,000 tons per year, mostly due to atmospheric escape. That seems like a lot, but is negligible compared to the Earth's mass.

#44
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Stronn
Thats pretty interesting, that does seem like a logic but is probably not much more than the weight of a small building! Is that before or after accounting for accumulation of solar system dust?
Topic's author
#45
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Stronn

#46
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
It's a net loss. The causes of changes in the Earth's mass are, in order of magnitude:

1. Atmospheric escape (100,000 tons/year loss)
2. Cosmic dust and meteorites (45,000 tons/year gain)
3. Global warming (160 tons/year gain)
4. Decelertaion of Earth's rotation (16 tons/year loss)
5. Radioactivity (16 tons/year loss)

The net loss of 55,000 tons/year is only 10^(-17) the total mass of the Earth.

It is interesting that 3 and 4 are due to the equivalence of mass and energy.
#47
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Somebody
See my previous post. The Earth loses more from atmospheric escape that it gains from cosmic dust and meteorites. The article you cite only tries to estimate the latter.
Topic's author
#48
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Stronn
So, according to your nonsense information the Earth is isn't expanding its shrinking. lol 
So, I guess its over to you now, to prove that the Earth is shrinking. lol So what evidence do you have of this shrinking? lol

Can you explain how global warming causes a loss of global mass? Where does this mass go to? lol
#49
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Somebody
The Earth is currently expanding by 0.1 mm per year. It is also losing 55,000 tons per year of mass. Size and mass are not the same thing.

Global warming does not result in a loss of mass. It results in a gain of mass. It's a direct result of the equivalence of mass and energy described by E=mc^2. A warmer Earth means the Earth has absorbed more energy, which increases its mass..
Topic's author
#50
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Stronn
Global warming does not result in a loss of mass. It results in a gain of mass. It's a direct result of the equivalence of mass and energy described by E=mc^2. A warmer Earth means the Earth has absorbed more energy, which increases its mass..

Good to see that you believe in the aether. Your on my side now. Welcome to the team. lol




#51
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Somebody
Nothing in what I said mentioned anything about Aether. Aether does not exist.

Since you've ignored virtually every refutation of your OP, I'll assume that you concede that it is not true.
Topic's author
#52
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Stronn
You are right. You didn't say it directly but you implied its existence unknowingly. Quote - "Heat becomes mass."
#53
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Somebody
No, mass/energy equivalence does not imply an Aether. If you assert that it does, then you need to actually provide logical steps that lead to your conclusion.

Topic's author
#54
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Stronn
The sun is evidence. Two particles of aether which are spinning at the speed of light are pushed together and stop spinning which releases and creates heat, light and leaves a hole in space that we call a 'neutron'. The remaining particles rotate or (orbit) around this hole which is called an atom. Thus, E=MC squared becomes a mechanism rather than just an abstract equation.
#55
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Good thread. Good back & forth. Ramshutu wins.  More topics like this pls
#56
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
 More topics like this pls
next week - spontaneous human combustion.

Topic's author
#57
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@oromagi
I thought Saddam Hussein was dead?


#58
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@keithprosser
Man, when I was a kid I could not get enough SHC.  I’d love that
#59
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Somebody
Uh oh.  The fact that u don’t recognize the incomparable Al Swearengen redounds to yer discredit everlastingly. “Leviathan fuckin smiles”