Earth growing and matter creation.

[Tefal]

you know, some people still believe this too .

surprisingly though, it was never a popular theory despite the myth that most people used to believe it.

 

[Richdog]

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?

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.

 

[AGD]

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.

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.

 

[Darkwave]

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

 

[Amp34]

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?

MOST of it fits together, but that is primarily because of plate tectonics. A scientist called Wegener (although not the first he was the scientist who investigated it seriously and gets most of the credit) noticed this in 1915. He then used fossil evidence and geological evidence to back up his theory, slightly different to plate tectonics, called continental drift. No one took this theory seriously, until the 60's when echo sounding of the Atlantic showed a mountain range under the sea. Then a scientist called H. Hess realised this was where the sea floor was spreading and that the sea floors were moving towards submarine trenches. He is the one that proposed subduction, and against many objections (there were LOTS of scientists that didn't agree with him and looked for evidence against it) his theory has gone from strength to strength. It has been tested multiple times and hasn't failed yet.

The general gist of the process is that an ancient sea floor is subducted fully and two pieces of continental crust crash into each other (pushed by expansion via rifts either side of them. Eventually a rift valley forms on this land 9for various reasons), creating volcanism and splitting (rifting) of the continental plate. The rift fills with water and extrudes mafic (dense low silica) rocks forming a new ocean floor and forcing the two comntinental masses apart. Diagram. This is how the Atlantic was created, and why Africa and South America look like they join together. Before the Atlantic almost all continental crust resided on a single continental mass called Pangea, which split up a couple of hundred Ma ago, which is why a large proportion of continntal land seems to fit together. Animated Gif

Have a look on Wikipedia, it's a wealth of information and broadly correct.

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?

There is a very strong theory that during the early years of earth (around 4.5 Billion years ago), whilst it was still moltern(ish) another planet the size of Mars crashed into it, destroying both. The debris then reformed (due to gravitational attraction) into the Earth and the moon. Evidence for this is that the rock on the moon and earth is identical in composition and it also explains why we have an inner planet like we do, with heavy elements (iron) in the centre and lighter elements (silica etc) at the crust. Maybe that's what you were thinking of? If there was one big crash how would the earth have slowly increased in size, and a crash big enough to release that much material (that could be reabsorbed over that amount of time) would either have left a huge clue to it's happening or destroyed the earth completely.

If space debris was the cause of the increase in earth size over the period mentioned it would be immediately obvious (actually probably not, due to us not being around, as life, especially complex life, doesn't like being smashed around by meteors) with distinctive deposits (horizons [very thin layers] of shattered quartz crystals and high concentrations of a trace metal) present all over the rock record. This isn't the case, there are a few deposits but I very muh doubt enough to be from a constant bombardment.

The general consensus as to why dinosaurs (and insects, feet long dragon flys etc) were so big is that the huge amount more oxygen in the atmosphere (relative to today) made it easier for bigger life to exist. Evolution probably played a part, animals generally get bigger the more mature their species is (if their environment allows it). Examination of dinosaur bones has shown no indication (that I know of) of a reduced gravity. Large dinosaur bones are generally huge and heavy, like you would expect.

 

[V4NT0M]

I like the way in the video he seems to think that all of our science is wrong because of this growing earth theory, but surely if it was wrong none of our technology would work because it's based on incorrect scientific principles. Surely when scientists say that x theory is true, then test it they would find out pretty soon by recreating experiments that they were wrong? Or does every scientist know the 'truth' and just lies? Either way it makes little sense

 

[Tefal]

Or does every scientist know the 'truth' and just lies? Either way it makes little sense

**** their on to us, run!

 

[Inquisitor]

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.

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

Same goes for everything else in science.

 

[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?

 

[Darkwave]

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.

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

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

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

You're suggesting they did?

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?

 

[Inquisitor]

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

I would say that neither you nor I are sufficiently qualified to make that judgement. Besides, it's meaningless to talk about the 'likelihood' of things like that in the first place, since any evaluation of probability has to have a basis in theory and/or empirical observations. Since you've taken both hypotheses out of context and isolated them from any surrounding theory or evidence, you just can't talk meaningfully about their probability.

However, if you start looking at the theory and evidence supporting each hypothesis, then you'd find, unsurprisingly, that the vast majority of it would be supporting general relativity.

Remember that general relativity has been the focus of almost a century of scientific research and experiment, whereas your proposal was just made up by some guy

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

That's kind of like saying "if trees were purple, why would they be purple?" There's no meaningful answer to that, sorry.

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

 

[Ex-RoNiN]

Science provides mathematical models

Wrong

and is not there to provide an ontology

Wrong

i.e. it does not have to be accurately describing reality at all.

Correct

 

[Inquisitor]

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?

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.

 

[Monkey Puzzle]

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

The vast majority of it is "poorly worded".

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?

The only thing I could see would be from repeated massive ice comets, which have now, rather improbably, stopped hitting the earth.

If the entire earth was covered with a single continent you'd also expect to see remnants of this in the genetics of the land-based creatures and spread of certain genes across where the pacific continent edges had been joined prior to expansion, compared with the spread of genes limited to around the American pacific edge and Asian pacific edge but not between. No idea whether these fossils exist or not, or if there's enough genetic records to track whther they were joined...

 

[Tefal]

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?

Why change it's name??

Ether is already used anyway its a carbonyl group (R - C - O - C - R ).

 

[AGD]

Wrong

Sorry, I do physics, should have said physics not science!

Wrong

I stick by the point that science is not there to provide an ontology. Philosophers can interpret successful scientific theories to do so but this is outside the realm of science in my opinion.

Correct

Thank you!

 

[Monkey Puzzle]

Why change it's name??

Ether is already used anyway its a carbonyl group (R - C - O - C - R ).

Is that why asteonauts wear those sealed suits? To stop them getting wasted on the ether?

 

[Ex-RoNiN]

Sorry, I do physics, should have said physics not science!

Fair enough in that case!

I stick by the point that science is not there to provide an ontology. Philosophers can interpret successful scientific theories to do so but this is outside the realm of science in my opinion.

I think I will take my remark back on this - ontological questions have to be addressed when choosing your research methodology, but you are quite right that the output of your research does not change your selected ontology, but rather your output is interpreted in the light of your choices made, non?

Having said that, isn't there a chicken-before-the-egg kind of problem with positivism and natural sciences? In that, the expansion of natural science made people aware of the fact that a positivistic view might be feasible?

Similarly, did not changes within Social Science (Sociology in particular) lead to the 'discovery/establishment' of "post-modernism" and "feminism" (although, in my opinion, their merit as ontological views is extremely low, some authors do think they are valid constructs).

Going back to whether it is science's role to provide ontological updates - you are right, that's not sciences' role.

Thank you!

 

[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.

 

[gurusan]

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"......