Earth growing and matter creation.

lol fair play to him though, it was a far more promising post than a spec me thread, I haven't listened to the radio link he posted yet but put it in my bookmarks incase the joke's on me lol
 
Ulfhedjinn said:
Sooo... Who thinks that Radiation is actually going to post in this thread again? :p
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

:p
 
It seems the OP would like this thread re-opened as he wishes to respond and discuss it further after all, best of luck:)
 
Radiation said:
You can dismiss it all you like, it is easier to after all, however closing discussion on it without my chance to respond is low even for these forums.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Ulfhedjinn said:
I didn't make sixty seconds, typical new-age conspiracy pseudo-science.
Click to expand...

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

aardvark said:
"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.
Click to expand...

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."

Tefal said:
From the wiki page a nice consice dissmisal.
Click to expand...

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?

Anim said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Ulfhedjinn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

You didn't read amps post did you?

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.

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?
Click to expand...


It doesn't fit together if you have to keep half the oceans inplace.


You've got to remember all of this has been debated by people with multiple degrees, phd's and decades of experience in this field they all found it lacking and to be incorrect, hence since we have no training or indeapth educatyion in the area we can only choose to believe the majority supported perr reviewed version of events or a single man and a few youtube video's. I know which one I believe.

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
Click to expand...

That planet would have had to be in pretty much the same orbit as earth for that to happen, plus there would be lots of evidence of such collisions.

When you say the water swelled up what exactly are you talking aboout the water that was already here swelled up to the surface then somehow a few trillion tons of rock filled in the gaps underneath?


also things like how the dinosaurs were so large compared to things living today, smaller planet equals lower gravity which means larger animals?
Click to expand...

I'm no biologist s no idea, but why would lower gravity = massive big muscular creatures surely it would equal very lean creatures due to needing less muscle move.


"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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
you're really clutching at straws here radiation - i'm afraid the theory is nonsense and can be proven to be nonsense in about 5 minutes by anybody with a reasonable understanding of science - the guy who came up with the idea is a delusional fruitcake, there are many around, sometimes they are difficult to spot, but this one isn't.
 
Radiation said:
How is it a conspiracy? Call it pseudoscience all you like though if thats how you feel.
Click to expand...
00:50 on your first link says as follows: "There is a kind of conspiracy of silence among certain scientists. They know, but are not telling you, that the upper tectonic plates of the earth also join in the pacific. Not partially, they join totally. You are asked to believe that the continents drift about willy-nilly, bumping and crashing, as if they were on a grease skillet. This is not true."

This is a conspiracy theory! Not only that but scientists don't "ask you to believe" anything, they publish their findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals that are entirely accessible to the public for individual criticism.

Radiation said:
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.
Click to expand...
One is a logical fallacy, one is saying "it's bad science". There's a difference.
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
Does the idea of space aka nothing bending seem more or less likely than just the appearance of bending?
Click to expand...

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...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom