Earth growing and matter creation.

Radiation

Radiation

Radiation

Soldato
Joined
12 Oct 2003
Posts
4,027
I thought this was interesting enough to have its own thread, it was in reply to the possibility of how oil could be being created in the earth but im really more interested in the stuff contained in these videos.

Earth is Growing
A short video on how the earth could in fact be growing.

How is it this seem so plausible, could it be because its true?

The Growing Earth Pt.1 (Radio)
This is a radio talk that contains all the really interesting stuff, give it a listen when you have time, its worth it.

One of the points was on how its been found by scientists that matter is created and instantly destroyed all the time in what appears to be empty space but as you probably know space is never quite empty of energy and stuff, quite amazing really.

Could this temporary matter be partly the cause of the missing dark matter and or the repulsive force of dark energy?
 
wtf
go back to your loony bin, it fails on so many levels. You would have to be the most gullible person in the world, to even have a second look at that. Nothing interesting about it at all.
 
Last edited:
I didn't make sixty seconds, typical new-age conspiracy pseudo-science.

If the earth used to be that much smaller then it would've been pretty much covered with ocean, and I love how it plainly and simply asks you to totally ignore facts such as erosion and tectonic plate collision.

It even says "blah blah" when listing such phenomena, very scientific. :rolleyes:

The conspiracy threads on OcUK are getting out of hand. Total logic deficit.

P.S. In before space lizards did it.
 
Last edited:
"Adams believes there is no such thing as gravity and so-called "electromagnetic lines" are responsible for the orbit of planets, because they contain iron."

haha - awesome.
 
The Growing Earth Hypothesis is considered pseudoscience, because an alternative model of physics was created by Adams solely in order to explain how the earth grows. In his own words: "I thought, you know, there must be a theory out there that explains that and that's how I'll start my little adventure. I will try to explain how it's possible for earth to grow by taking out books that everybody else has and reading them and trying to find theories that might explain this" (from roughly 35:55 into this interview [11]). Also, it completely disagrees with the huge amounts of experimental evidence which forms the basis of General Relativity and the Standard Model as well as with geodetic and geophysical observations.

* 10 years of continuous monitoring of the Earth's gravitational field by an international network[12] of ultra sensitive Superconducting Gravimeters[13] robustly demonstrates that terrestrial gravity has not increased and accordingly, there has been no growth.[14][15][16]
* Stars, including the sun, blast out large amounts of photons which in Adams' theory would continuously create huge amounts of protons and electrons from the hypothetical prime matter filling the universe. This has never been observed. [17]
* Adams believes there is no such thing as gravity and so-called "electromagnetic lines" are responsible for the orbit of planets, because they contain iron. Yet, man-made non-ferromagnetic objects still manage to stay in orbit. Also, the world's ocean tide can be observed to be under the influence of gravity every day, even though water is not ferromagnetic.
* The medical imaging technique relies on electron-positron annihilation to form two gamma photons of 511 keV, while the growing earth theory is based on the suggestion that they are converted to "prime matter". [18]
* The International Terrestrial Reference Frame for the Earth in 2005 actually shrank a very small amount (0.2 ppb which would be equivalent to a 5mm reduction of diameter) from the reference frame in 2000.[19]
* McElhinny et al.[20] used paleomagnetic data to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius. This constraint would preclude the dramatic increase in radius required by any expanding earth hypothesis.
Click to expand...

From the wiki page a nice consice dissmisal.
 
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! *cries*

Sorry, I was slightly interested to see how far fetched the idea was but I didn't realise it was that far fetched. The no subduction 'theory' (I put ' '' because there is no evidence whatsoever for the 'theory' and sooooo much evidence against it) really wasn't what I was expecting. :D

No ocean during the period of the dinosaurs? Well the deep sea sediment, fossils and the other polethora of evidence for deep sea being around at that period begs too differ. (In fact I am going off in a couple of weeks to map some of this very sediment, so if it's not there I'll be back and apologise, but don't hold your breath)

Very little ocean crust older than 70 million years? That's because the majority of the older stuff would have been subducted, and it's not true anyway, because almost half the ocean crust IS older than around 70Ma. And i'm pretty sure peridotite isn't 'more than twice as dense as solid granite', not that that matters because granite doesn't usually come from peridotite (where would the quartz in the granite come from, as there i very little/none in Peridotite). Rocks under high pressure and temperature don't behave in the same way as rocks on the surface (this has been proved in multiple lab experiments).

How does the author of the video account for what happens at subduction zones then, for example accretionary wedges, distinctive metamorphic patterns and mineral assemblages, the very odd geothermal gradients (odd if you discount subduction as the cause), and the magmatsim in these areas? If there was no subduction or plate tectonics then none of these would exist. All igneous rock is not the same, and it's very easy to tell where the source magma came from (i.e. its source rock) by it's composition and properties.

Most of his arguments that he uses are actually generally used as arguments FOR plate tectonics. I could carry on and write a 10 page argument as to why that is wrong but I can't be arsed as it's so farsical and I have only just finished uni for the year. And why is it always americns who think up these things?
 
funnyRetarded_thewinnerisyou.jpg
 
people knocked vertical tube farms which are capable of growing the same amount as a 300 acre farm, but on less than one square meter of land. Of course some people said it would be vulnerable in a strong wind, but for goodness sake, whose to say there’s going to be a strong wind?
 
Isnt the map shown in the first video, of the sea floors age correct, namely because of mantal plooms that have been forcing magma out of the sea floor for millions of years, thus causing the plates to seperate evenly in opposite direction, i.e continental drift. This surely explains why the sea bed is younger in the centre of the atlantic, and not because the world has been growing and stretching.
 
davethe11 said:
people knocked vertical tube farms which are capable of growing the same amount as a 300 acre farm, but on less than one square meter of land. Of course some people said it would be vulnerable in a strong wind, but for goodness sake, whose to say there’s going to be a strong wind?
Click to expand...


They probably did, but I dont see the relevance that has to this idea?
 
ChroniC said:
Isnt the map shown in the first video, of the sea floors age correct, namely because of mantal plooms that have been forcing magma out of the sea floor for millions of years, thus causing the plates to seperate evenly in opposite direction, i.e continental drift. This surely explains why the sea bed is younger in the centre of the atlantic, and not because the world has been growing and stretching.
Click to expand...

Yeah thats right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom