Earth growing and matter creation.

[Radiation]

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?

 

[Radiation]

It seems the OP would like this thread re-opened as he wishes to respond and discuss it further after all, best of luck

Thanks, nice one.

 

[Radiation]

I didn't make sixty seconds, typical new-age conspiracy pseudo-science.

How is it a conspiracy? Call it pseudoscience all you like though if thats how you feel.

"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.

I posted this in the other thread as it was a good one to ponder...

"Ok take general relativity for example, I believe someone mentioned in the other thread how the guy believes the planets orbit along magnetic lines of force, gravity is taken to be bending space time but scientists still don't know exactly what gravity is, here is another idea, gravity is essentially magnetism, you think of a magnet as having poles and it will either attract or repel another pole, however put a piece of metal near it and it will only attract, this is whats likely happening as net effect that’s especially noticeable over long distances on a large enough mass like a planet, so what about space bending etc, well it’s exactly what you would expect to see, space is also believed to be filled with dark matter, which I take as another name for the ether, so you could say that’s actually whats bending or simply anything that passes through it, the idea that space aka nothing can bend is silly at best."

From the wiki page a nice consice dissmisal.

I would agree that some of his ideas are flawed but how do you explain how the land on earth really does fit together so well on a smaller planet?

One idea that doesn't require matter creation is that a lot of material has accumulated over time, theres even a theory that we had another icy planet in the solar system which broke up and much of it landed on earth causing the planet to swell, theres a lot of water under the land, perhaps it swelled up in a sense, also things like how the dinosaurs were so large compared to things living today, smaller planet equals lower gravity which means larger animals?

Its a common theme with trolls, they find something that they know everyone will disagree with, post it and then find somewhere new to cause a stirr.

The cheek of calling me the troll when I genuinly posted something I thought was interesting, there are however plenty of cheap comments in this thread.

I did not dismiss the issue "because it is easy", I don't think any of us did.

We dismissed the issue because the theory is completely unscientific.

Edit: On a seperate note, why do conspiracy theorists and people into "alternative science" always bring up the "you ignore it because the truth hurts and/or it's easier to live in ignorance" rubbish when they are dismissed or backed into a corner? That's an ad hominem fallacy for a start.

Why do people met with alternate views react so strongly if it’s a load of rubbish? Also always going to extremes to make it look even worse and paint either the person or subject with the same brush.

 

[Radiation]

1) people have long ago came up with the theory that gavity is magnetic, so they and others did experiments and found it wrong,

2)They have a pretty good idea what gravity is, but without a lot of experience degrees and phd's you and me arn't going to understand it, same with the bending space thing, you've basically just said Steven hawking and numerous other increadably intelligent and well educated men are "silly"

3) if it is magnetic why do man made non magnetic objects orbit ? Along with natural non magnetic objects, why doesn't iron fall faster than any other element s it should be affected by the field more.

Does the idea of space aka nothing bending seem more or less likely than just the appearance of bending?

My guess is that its some general or net effect causing gravity, I wouldn't say its bending space time at all, why would matter have such an effect? Unless you believe in a kind of stuff filling space that causes the appearance of bending space time, call it dark matter or ether or whatever you like.

 

[Radiation]

Space is far from "nothing" if it was nothing then what is it expanding into?

And again if you merely say that nothing is the absence of mater and energy, but that volume of "space" still exists is still there, still measurable, therefore it is not nothing, if it was nothing it wouldn't be there and would be unmeasurable.

Thee universe is far more complex than just mater + energy.

Again this is something I can't explain to you As i do not understand it.

But first googeing gives

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe

So yopu think that Einstein and nearly every other physicist to follow is wrong? and that everything is so much simpler?

Also why have you missed out all the parts of my post that go against growing earth theory ?

You just seam to be rejecting the "alternate theory" to yours out of hand...

I thought i already made it clear i don't take the growing earth theory very seriously as im more interested in the idea of matter creation and the physics side of things he brought up in the radio talk.

I don't have a problem seeing space as nothing ignoring what it may be filled with, if space can bend then surely that would mean its more than nothing and perhaps should be called by another name, ether maybe?

I edited my last post to address question about how this is a conspiracy theory, I missed it the first time.

Obviously a poor choice of words on his part and I doubt he was claiming a real conspiracy, its still just an alternate theory.

At first I found it amusing that you continually posted what can only be described as half-baked conspiracy/alien/pseudoscience theories etc... now I find it all a bit worrying as it's obvious you actually believe all of this stuff.

I don't believe everything but I try to form a better picture of the true state of things than science can or bothers to offer, I also take this sort of thing more as entertainment than seriously, kind of like scifi except the people making it believe its true so they're far more into it and you never know there could be grains of truth to be found.

You seem to be confusing philosophy with science. Asking why would matter have such an effect is not a scientific question. Science provides mathematical models and is not there to provide an ontology i.e. it does not have to be accurately describing reality at all.

Then it’s a poor thing, perhaps we need a new branch of science that will piece together the whole puzzle to get a more true picture of things then put it forward in a way that can be understood easier?

I'm still waiting to hear how dinosaurs and trees managed to live under the ocean.

You're suggesting they did?

MOST of it fits together, but that is primarily because of plate tectonics...

Thanks that was an interesting read.

You know, if you want to criticise general relativity, you should probably learn about it first.

Same goes for everything else in science.

Sure I could learn more science and I try to but I know enough to criticise it if I wish to, no one has explained why it makes more sense than the alternate theory, im not saying it doesn't work but is it the true picture of things?

If I asked which seemed more likely, space bending or just the appearance that space is bending, which would you say?

Now take that for what it is and imagine both theories were equally well advanced within science, which would likely it be?

 

[Radiation]

"Poor choice of words"? I seriously hope that you're pulling my leg.

The video explicitly states that the world was "small enough" to be one continent (how he views it) while the dinosaurs were still on it. This brings up two questions: -

a.) The volume of water that the oceans have would've likely covered the entire planet if the world was that small. How did the dinosaurs, trees, and other animals manage to evolve and to survive?

b.) If this is not the case, and all that water wasn't there, then where did it appear from?

Actually the idea of no ocean is quite absurd now that I think about it so even if it later arrived it misses the point that life almost certainly must have evolved in a large body of water.

Anyway, why is it that you think your idea is more likely? Can you actually give a reason other than "it seems more likely?"

No. Imagine a set of axes, like you'd have on a graph – x and y for example.

Now take this graph or set of axes and distort it; this is in essence what the distortion of space-time is. There doesn't have to be anything on the graph for you to distort it.

Besides, this 'ether' concept was explored during the latter part of the 19th century and was found not to work.

See here for more.

Because both work but one is more realistic, if light passes through the area of effect it would certainly look like its bending but why do they need to come up with the idea of space itself bending and not just the appearance of it on anything thats passing through?

Just like an electromagnet is used to bend the electron beam in a crt, but this works over large distances at low levels, i believe its some net effect or wave like effect we're seeing from magnetism.

I mean think about it, magnetism is everywhere right, light for instance is vibrating magnetism, now the raw magnetism of a large object must produce some kind of net effect we call gravity, not the bending of space aka nothing.

 

[Radiation]

The appearance that the light is bending? The reason scientists say that it can be looked on as proof of space bending is because photons are mass-less particles.....so there's only 1 obvious explanation really.

Also you seem to have it fixed in your mind that space is "nothing"......

Mass-less particles? Here i thought light was electromagnetism...

Space is nothing, just because you can move about in it doesn't make it less so, unless the definition of space includes everything within it then that stuff can bend sure.

 

[Radiation]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Yes it looks like a particle but is a spike or burst of waves, its still very much electromagnetism is it not?

Because this is what our observations indicate.

You really need to learn about physics before you can comment on any of this.

Observations and models may look right but it doesn't mean they're showing a true picture of things.

 

[Radiation]

No, light is quantised and consists of particles. These particles can be described by waves, however.

This is what quantum mechanics is all about (a quantum being a single unit of something, for example a photon is a quantum of light).

If you want direct evidence that light is quantised, read up on the photoelectric effect.

You have to quantise stuff to be able to measure it usefully, but they are still waves travelling through a medium with the characteristics of particles with no mass.

 

[Radiation]

...you mean they are mass-less particles with the characteristics of waves.

If you want to get right down to it then everything is made up of waves at the smallest levels.