Expanding Earth?

[EStein]

Neal Adams said:Is Einstein wrong about time, space and the speed of light? I'm afraid he is, but he started with bad information. It was a waste of his, and our, time.

 

On his mass energy equivalence fromula, E=MC^2 , I'm sure the survivors of Nagasaki and Heroshima would say that he was at least somewhere in the ballpark on that one.:)

[arkain101]

I noticed a few things and I am working on some things that would end up showing how things may be wrong about about time, space and the speed of light in the logic of how we interpret the results we find.

 

Now that I got the free time I can begin working on a good description of this possiiblity. I hope I am wrong, and most likely am, but it keeps me entertained.

[EStein]

I noticed a few things and I am working on some things that would end up showing how things may be wrong about about time, space and the speed of light in the logic of how we interpret the results we find.

 

Now that I got the free time I can begin working on a good description of this possiiblity. I hope I am wrong, and most likely am, but it keeps me entertained.

But the speed of light measured every which way is one of the most documented constants in the universe. This is not to say it has always been the same in the past but it would do you a lot of good to review the history of the measurment of the speed of light and Maxwell's Equations from which the speed of light can be directly derived before you think of tackling that puppy. Your thinking may be a little too Newtonian. Mr. Einstein has some very elementary thought experiments that will go a long way in loosening those mental bonds.

[arkain101]

Yah I have been down those roads.. heheh.. I understand what you mean, but I got a few tricks up my sleave that I would like to try out. All progress is the making of a NEW path that can be either with or against the current direction.. So in a sense new ideas :friday:

[paigetheoracle]

___Nice job JayQ!:) ___Inviting the fella back!? To what end? Set him up for some more pummeling? I think not.

 

Poor bastard! Been there myself - in fact I still am there!

 

___The 'subduction' question aside for a moment, there is a matter of fact he has exposited that everyone seems to miss, or at least not address. To whit the fit of continents. What he has shown is that the continents don't just fit up South America-to-Africa etc. as in the texts, but they fit up on the Pacific sides as well. This appears to contradict the Pangea idea with a single continent on one side of Earth & the rest ocean. How else to explain fits all-round unless Earth were smaller?

___From listening to his radio talk I understood him to say he can't find anyone who has compared the rocks on either side of the Pacific "joins" as has been done between S. America/Africa.

___I think it's an interesting idea that deserves better than angry diatribes & insults. Science for everyone, remember? I did after all put it in the Strange Claims; hell, I'm going looking for Bigfoot tomorrow for crying out loud.:hihi: :hyper:

 

I came across the same idea in Nexus Magazine last year but it was by two Australian brothers I believe: Did he get the idea from them or did they get it from him or is like Wallace and Darwin, getting the same idea at the same time because they both followed the same links to the same evidence and came up with the same conclusion?

 

Loved the logic of Panagea! It's like the models produced to show really eccentric orbits for the planets, rather than accept the simple truth that the Earth moved round the Sun and not the other way around ('Oh what complex webs we weave, when others we try to decieve' Robbie Burns?).

 

How orthodoxy strives to hold onto its position, despite evidence that shows its views are totally unfounded (Jobsworths defending their cushy little numbers and dominant positions, rather than bending to the truth - understandable but science didn't get where it is today from burying its head in the sand - it got there through lifting up its head and opening its eyes).

 

Blessed are the intellectual rebels because they open our minds to new possibilities!

[Eclogite]

How orthodoxy strives to hold onto its position, despite evidence that shows its views are totally unfounded

Are you suggesting you find Adam's ideas convincing and conventional plate tectonics wanting?

If not, what are you saying?

[paigetheoracle]

Are you suggesting you find Adam's ideas convincing and conventional plate tectonics wanting?

If not, what are you saying?

 

Yes, I suppose that is what I am saying or to put it another way I find his ideas convincing but I don't find plate tectonics totally out of the picture, just not as convincing with regards to movement mechanics as his theories: The Mid-Atlantic ridge to me has always seemed more a split in the Earth caused by expansion and the supposed plates altogether look more like a muffin crust, where as the substance bakes, it cracks to allow for further growth (expanding gases under heat, leading to explosive release of matter, when more gradual release is curtailed, in the form of volcanic eruptions).

 

If the plates are just floating, why do they move? Conventional wisdom would say they are moving away from the subduction zones but even that would imply expansion because if it is coming from all directions surrounding a continent, then the pressure has to push it in and upwards or down and inwards: Simple experiment. Put a piece of cardboard inbetween your left and right hand and push. If the plates are pushing apart continually and they surround the continents, what other conclusion can you come to? If I'm missing something let me know.

[Eclogite]

If the plates are just floating, why do they move? Conventional wisdom would say they are moving away from the subduction zones but even that would imply expansion because if it is coming from all directions surrounding a continent, then the pressure has to push it in and upwards or down and inwards: Simple experiment. Put a piece of cardboard inbetween your left and right hand and push. If the plates are pushing apart continually and they surround the continents, what other conclusion can you come to? If I'm missing something let me know.

You are only missing one thing: an understanding of plate tectonics. I do not have the inclination to educate you at this point. There are a slew of sites on the internet with excellent treatments. There are any number of popular books on the subject. There are thousands of research papers, again, many of them available on the web.

I recommend a serious study of some of these resources. The gaps in your thinking will then become apparent.

As a starting point the central theme of plate tectonics is that it is not about continents, it is about plates - hence the name. They are not pushed on from all sides. Examine the three types of dynamic plate boundaries: divergent, convergent and transform. If you understand those you understand why your last three sentences are incorrect.

[paigetheoracle]

If you understand those you understand why your last three sentences are incorrect.

 

You mean 'may' be incorrect as this is just a theory and yes I am familiar with the terms used, even if I'm no expert. I can't fault your logic but it is based on the belief that the continents are plates as you say - what if they are not? What if this belief is based on appearance and conjecture, that may itself be erroneous? (I'm not saying it is but like all these discussions on religion, progress comes from doubt and exploration that proves/disproves a theory, not certainty).

 

As for covergent, divergent and transforming plates, that is just a reading of the facts presented that while being neat, may later in time turn out to be misinterpretations of data (Seen it before and will see it again as that is the nature of reality). Not saying you are wrong but I see the fight people go through to get their ideas accepted or even looked at and how the detractors have their motives for doing this as do the promoters of new ideas and it is more about animal behaviour (dominance) than rational thought: This site isn't bad from that point of view I must say as I've seen posts that aren't always coherent but they get allowed anyway. Having said that I see drug related stuff is getting shoved under the carpet (only used cannabis twice and not a great drinker as I prefer my life clear, so that I can percieve reality as it is, as near as possible as it's my greatest teacher about man and existence itself as well as their relationship to each other but I wander from the point of this thread, so I'll stop now. Adieu).

[NAdams]

Prior to the acceptance of plate tectonics an Expanding Earth and a Shrinking Earth had both been proposed to explain global tectonic features.

 

One general observation: the highly dismissive tone used by Adams of conventional wisdom is a technique used by pseudoscientists, but should have no place in a serious presentation of hypotheses. I think it detracts from the attention that his proposal may merit.

 

This is not quite a disproof, but I am puzzled as to how he accounts for the observed motions of the plates. He roundly decries as nonsense the notion that tectonic plates exist and can move around the planet, yet we have carried out measurements of this movement. It matches the theory. This single suite of observations appears to invalidate his hypothesis.

Hi , Neal here

Gosh , I think that I proposed a single suite of observations and they prove my hypothsis .

Actually , it's not my hypothsis , at all. It was first proposed in '74 by

Professor Sammuel Warren Carey , a Geologist , associated and teacher at the University of Tazmania . He wrote an incredible book about it all and

by golly he did the work . It was taken very seriously by the whole Geologicical community , made the papers and everything . That's how I

heard about it. You wouldn't know it now but everyone who was aware , talked about it ,...and him . Time has dulled it , of course.

Truthfully the discussion about this started in the sixties .

Fact is , I could see it perfectly and with tracing paper and various size balls I verified it . I was slowly stunned to my soles. What did this mean to science? ............I waited , The theory of subduction was" discovered".

A decending slab was "seen" at the benioff area.

To understand my frustration and ire ...let me tell you what subduction and the Pangea theory was .... Back then.

The continents and the oceanic plate , they said, were floating on a sea of magma. I actually have an old atlas that shows this ,..molten lava under everything. They said the continents slowly swirlled around "Willy-nilly bumping and crashing" like bumper cars in a carnival." Made me nuts. They said the oceanic plates dive under the continental plates.

Was it subduction alone that did in Carey's theory?

Of course not, It was this, not just from Geologists, either.

If the Earth grew ....got bigger ....where did the extra mass come from?

You know why the advocates of this Carey theory call it Earth Expansion?

Kinda funny , if you think about it .

It avoids the extra mass problem . Hey. it blew up, who cares how .

It's like the big Bang , it blew up ,...no need to explain it , Boom.

Know what's happened to the Subduction Theory?

Well, it's still just a theory.

Turns out From seismic studies that the asthenosphere has only 4 precent magma and mostly around the rifts. The same studies say the continental plates are 70 miles thick and go down into solid material below that . So much for "swirling around" , So much for "Diving under".

Then Some Geologists began using "Compression Zone" in place of Subduction. Then in 2002 a group reported that the Equator was getting larger each year for several years,

35 years ago I knew this growing Earth would survive , but someone had to show and prove that matter could and did get made, Inside the Earth

and the Earth grew.

I decided to do that job ,....since no one stepped up and volunteered.

Neal Adams

[Turtle]

Hi , Neal here

... Turns out From seismic studies that the asthenosphere has only 4 precent magma and mostly around the rifts. The same studies say the continental plates are 70 miles thick and go down into solid material below that . So much for "swirling around" , So much for "Diving under".

Then Some Geologists began using "Compression Zone" in place of Subduction. Then in 2002 a group reported that the Equator was getting larger each year for several years,

35 years ago I knew this growing Earth would survive , but someone had to show and prove that matter could and did get made, Inside the Earth

and the Earth grew.

I decided to do that job ,....since no one stepped up and volunteered.

Neal Adams

 

 

Hi Neal; Turtle here. I'm just one in the stack that Earth sits on.

 

Do you have some reference link to support the boldened claim?

 

As I understand the descriptions of the mantle, it is largely stiff (or 'plastic'), not the 'runny/swirly' lava you imply. Subduction is well documented, and it's not just oceanic plates that subduct as you say.

 

You have proved nothing yet, and only misrepresented what the best of our research indicates is the case for plate tectonics to date. Science is always ammendable, and adding to theory is not predisposed to throwing out previous theory that is well supported. :cup: :rolleyes:

[NAdams]

I came across the same idea in Nexus Magazine last year but it was by two Australian brothers I believe: Did he get the idea from them or did they get it from him or is like Wallace and Darwin, getting the same idea at the same time because they both followed the same links to the same evidence and came up with the same conclusion?

 

Loved the logic of Panagea! It's like the models produced to show really eccentric orbits for the planets, rather than accept the simple truth that the Earth moved round the Sun and not the other way around ('Oh what complex webs we weave, when others we try to decieve' Robbie Burns?).

 

How orthodoxy strives to hold onto its position, despite evidence that shows its views are totally unfounded (Jobsworths defending their cushy little numbers and dominant positions, rather than bending to the truth - understandable but science didn't get where it is today from burying its head in the sand - it got there through lifting up its head and opening its eyes).

 

Blessed are the intellectual rebels because they open our minds to new possibilities!

I have been working on this for 40 years

Sammuel Warren Carey originated the theory in the mid-70's

It was spoken about and debated before that .

Shot down , I decided it needed a broader and more complete theory . That's what took so long, If you think about it, a growing Earth implies so much , that a growing Earth is just the tip of the iceberg.

In fact it changes science from bottom to top.

If ONE planet grows..........They all grow , if they grow the moons grow , Meteorites grow, suns grow, Solar Systems galaxies , and , by extention the universe grows.

This means No Big Bang, Heh , that's going some . But it's worse ,

It means matter can commonly be created. That is, instead of magically exploding into existance, which is the current sophisticated theory

If true , new textbooks all around.

Neal Adams

[NAdams]

Neal Adams says..."The interior of the Earth, the core is filled with super-heated gas and plasma with no solids and gravity is inverted, cause no solids."

Since when did Newton fall into disgrace? If I recall, Newton proved with the calculus that gravity above the surface of a spherical mass varies inversely as the square of the distance of the radius. Below the surface, it varies inversely as the distance from the surface to the center of mass. At the center, the gravity=0. Inside of a spherical shell, the flux lines cancel out and gravity=0. There in no gravity "inversion" unless you want to call an extreemly small centripetal force due to the earth's rotation an inversion. Variations in density shouldn't matter. Where am I wrong?

 

Lets do it by steps ! common response is usually Geavity pushes to the Eathh's center

1. YOU know that if Earth is empty Newton 's theoretical experiment

mathematically says no gravity anywhere in the hollow Earth ,...correct?

no matter how big the space.

3 Now , if you are on the inside surface , and the earth is spinning ,

centrifugal force , at the equator will throw you outward by that small amount,...Do you agree?

Neal Adams

 

Finally, new thought. Using Newtonian math for the point that

the gravity between Earth and the moon equals out and one is weightless ,

scientists found the math didn't work . The question is why and how this was so. It affects the other example. Personally I don't know the answer, But when I find an inconsistancy , I slip my finger into it to hold it open , until I know why.

Neal Adams

[Turtle]

Finally, new thought. Using Newtonian math for the point that

the gravity between Earth and the moon equals out and one is weightless ,

scientists found the math didn't work . The question is why and how this was so. It affects the other example. Personally I don't know the answer, But when I find an inconsistancy , I slip my finger into it to hold it open , until I know why.

Neal Adams

 

Something is surely slipped into something here Neal. I re-read the thread having realized I started it, and your posts do nothing to support my original suggestion that you had some interesting things to say.

 

Again you offer no links to any of your claims about other researches. What scientists found 'the math' doesn't work? What math? Where's a link? You have so many inconsistencies posited we need two hands of fingers and then some to plug the dike.

Wild speculation that attempts to throw out peer reviewed results is no less wild speculation if it took 40 years or 40 minutes. Where's the beef Neal? :D

[NAdams]

Something is surely slipped into something here Neal. I re-read the thread having realized I started it, and your posts do nothing to support my original suggestion that you had some interesting things to say.

 

Again you offer no links to any of your claims about other researches. What scientists found 'the math' doesn't work? What math? Where's a link? You have so many inconsistencies posited we need two hands of fingers and then some to plug the dike.

Wild speculation that attempts to throw out peer reviewed results is no less wild speculation if it took 40 years or 40 minutes. Where's the beef Neal? :D

 

I'm sorry that my methods of doing thinge are not the same as yours . They are not , clearly.

I have a suggestion , instead of throwing out broad general comments refering to nothing I am aware of, in particular , simply ask a question ,and I will do my very best to answer it. Why don't we start with

The part about "...throwing out Peer reviewed results."

Regards

neal Adams

[Turtle]

I'm sorry that my methods of doing thinge are not the same as yours . They are not , clearly.

I have a suggestion , instead of throwing out broad general comments refering to nothing I am aware of, in particular , simply ask a question ,and I will do my very best to answer it. Why don't we start with

The part about "...throwing out Peer reviewed results."

Regards

neal Adams

 

Now there's some roundiloquence. :D Let's combine the peer review thing with a restatement of my earlier question "Do you have some reference link to support the boldened claim?", where the the claim I refer to is your statement "Then in 2002 a group reported that the Equator was getting larger each year for several years, ..."

 

What group? Using what measurements? Made how? Where? When? How often?

[NAdams]

gotta love Jimmy Neutron!

The animation no matter how convicing could have been rigged numerous times to fit - but at the same time if it where true, do we really now how the surface of a planet would behave while it is expanding.. I would also like to see a scientific explanation for this overall decrease in density within the planet

Ah ...This may be true , but it's not , I did not only "allow " the pieces to go together but .....I did not rotate continents , change their shapes or sizes , I did not lower or raise , anything ,

When magnetic striping proved Spain rotated down over thus and so time by 30 degrees , we rotated it back, and so on . there is the rainbow map from the USGS, It actually shows this mass was here at this time and that was there at that time, etc,

Moreover the rifting cracks in the undersea plate show direction that plate movement took. In each and every case we followed the map , the most brilliant one is the Marie Tharpe undersea map . You can find it easily on the internet.

Those lines show direction . So we followed that direction completely .

Then besides the direction lines we completely followed the rainbow time bands around the earth. With two perfect guides and a set of rules and a dedication to all of it we began . You could say we had a map and we followed it..