Science and Spirituality

[MHz]

LOL one look at the maps and I'll stick with the expanding theory.
Jurassic
I'll find a time in an animation that would take it back 160 million years. 35-45 seconds in the first example.
You should take the time to watch some of those small segments. The theory works quite well for other visible bodies in our solar system. That big trench on mars and the Grand Canyon are cracks rather than erosion by-products. I also like their explanation for the folding that resulted in mountains and hills. (as it expands the crust at some point has to flatten out to fit the larger radius). Like breaking a chicken egg into 7 pieces and then fitting it on a slightly larger egg, it needs new cracks before it fits like a glove, the new breaks (in the interior) would be mountains and hills because of folding.

expanding earth theory - Google Video

 

[Dexter Sinister]

LOL one look at the maps and I'll stick with the expanding theory.

Why, because it's easier to understand? It leaves more unexplained than it explains, and requires a lot of ad hoc hypothesizing of unknown mechanisms to make it work at all. The people who promote that theory can't even agree among themselves about what's going on. Some say the earth's radius has increased by 40 to 50 percent in the last few hundred million years, some that it's only 20%, some say there's no subduction, some say there is but just a little bit, some postulate some unknown mechanism of mass creation inside the earth, some postulate that the gravitational constant is variable over geologic time scales... That's crackpot stuff. You really believe the foolish maundering of a comic book artist over the consensus view of thousands of professional geologists?

 

[darkbeaver]

That's not really a fair characterization of science. Some answers start out as unsupported, and become accepted as the evidence comes in. Most answers start out as unsupported and stay that way, because the evidence doesn't sustain them. There have been three major paradigm shifts in science within my lifetime, that started out as flimsy hypotheses that the data eventually verified or pointed to a different conclusion.


1. continental drift: first proposed by Alfred Wegener in the 19th century, when it was laughed at, but when the data came in in the mid-20th century, it was accepted almost instantly and the whole science of geology was revolutionized.

2. the asteroid impact K-T extinction event: first proposed by a father and son team, the Alvarez's, dad a physicist and son a geologist, and it too was vigorously resisted, until data from all over the world confirmed the existence of an iridium and ash-enriched layer at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary and the impact site was found in Central America.

3. #2 above led to the hypothesis that all major extinction events were due to impacts, on the basis of that single example, and it became conventional wisdom for a while, until it became clear the data did not sustain that conclusion, and the real cause of most extinction events--there are at least five major ones we know about from the fossil record, and a dozen or so minor ones-- was global climate change.

That's how it works Beave, that's how it's always worked. Science is overflowing with ideas and hypotheses, some of which will prove to be right, most of which will prove to be wrong. The test is what do the data show, what does nature actually tell us when we probe it. Your favourite electric universe theory, for instance, remains on the fringe because it has not produced the data and rigorous analyses necessary to make it acceptable. Every web site about it you've ever pointed us to is almost entirely qualitative, scornful of the accepted paradigms, a little bit paranoid, and a little bit cranky. Those are the hallmarks of pseudoscience, and the IEEE engineers you're so fond of quoting are not physicists, they don't seem to grasp that the electromagnetic phenomena they can produce on a lab bench do not scale up to the size of the cosmos. It's all based on qualitative analogies with small scale phenomena, if it looks like X it must be X. They may be right, but they haven't made their case in an acceptable way, and conventional physics easily falsifies some of their core claims.

They do scale up and very nicely, and the models predictive qualitys far exceeds those of the big bang model and that is the source of the scorn of accepted model. You know full well that acceptance is not always supportable by observation we do not have to mention acceptable paradigmns that have not survived the observations and the predictions of thier competeing theories. One recent extinction event suggests very strongly of gravitational change as being responsibe for the extinction of megafauna.
As for my characterization of science useing dung it's actually meant as a high compliment. Crap is part of the very food chain that sustains us. Without crap there is no life as we know it and in truth it's study is one of the keystones of science. I should have thought that was beyond debate.

 

[MHz]

Why, because it's easier to understand? It leaves more unexplained than it explains, and requires a lot of ad hoc hypothesizing of unknown mechanisms to make it work at all. The people who promote that theory can't even agree among themselves about what's going on. Some say the earth's radius has increased by 40 to 50 percent in the last few hundred million years, some that it's only 20%, some say there's no subduction, some say there is but just a little bit, some postulate some unknown mechanism of mass creation inside the earth, some postulate that the gravitational constant is variable over geologic time scales... That's crackpot stuff. You really believe the foolish maundering of a comic book artist over the consensus view of thousands of professional geologists?

Taking the easy route isn't in my character, that doesn't mean the simplest answer should be discarded either. I'm pretty sure each different terrain would involve a different 'force' but all the 'little problems' could be settled in a few days tops. The increase would be the width of the current oceans, the water in those 'cracks' would have covered the existing land that we have today. As the rifts got wider the dept of the waters would have receded from the highest portions of the crust, creating dry land. That we can find expansion joints means there is a force that makes magma come out of the mantle at a slow rate in many areas of the world, we don't have to know the exact mechanism.
What mechanism causes a lighter material to sink into a much denser material? An outflow of magma under the Rockies could cause buckling 1,000 east of the crack (pushes up before going sideways). The way that is currently explained is a shallow subduction, basically the crust that goes under doesn't 'melt' when surrounded by liquid magma, science is so wonderful at times. An upflow from the lower mantle would put 'extra' pressure on any portion of the crust (flow against an object), much like a hand pushing up toward the surface in a pool of water, that is going to create an uplifting (wave).
As the crust cools it should also shrink. That we have expansion joints and volcanoes proves that pressure is there, and it could flus a tiny bit over time. Without vents it might simple get hotter on it's own, that means expansion and pressure on the crust.

In that link you provided it has India breaking away Africa, there should be a crack at India's southern coast line yet there isn't.

The guy who did the animations didn't come up with the original theory he just did the ....animations.
Science should have come up with continental drift when somebody first saw a map that had Africa and South America on it.
"the consensus view of thousands of professional geologists" it wouldn't be the first time they were sent back to square one, that above anthing else would cause resistence to a 'new more accurate theory'.

The expansion seems to be fairly slow and constant, that would still result in the same activity as we have today. The flattening would result in much greater changes over a very short period. After a certain amount of expansion from today the forces on the North American Plater would be like pressure lifting up on the East and West coasts. Someplace between the two the crust would snap. If it was from the Great Lakes to the Gulf the bottom of the crust would drop towards the core but because of the depthn of the crust there would be buckling on the surface. That is just an example, in reality that same area (lakes to the gulf) might be a spreading zone that would eventually become part of the oceans.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Neither Mhz nor the Beave understand enough science to have an opinion worth taking seriously on these things.

Beave: what's the source of the potential differences that drive the plasma currents the electric universe theory claims are everywhere? Why does the map of the cosmic microwave background produced by the COBE and WMAP satellites not show the filamentary structure we'd expect from such currents? Synchrotron and brehmstrallung radiation from them should make them the dominant features of such a map. Why if the sun has a large positive voltage as the theory claims does the solar wind consist of equal numbers of positively and negatively charged particles flowing away from it? Half of them should be going the other way. Why aren't the galaxies strung out like beads on a necklace along the plasma currents and all oriented at right angles to the current direction? You did not adequately respond to such challenges in your now defunct "better theory about coal" thread (at least defunct as far as I'm concerned, I'm not going back in there), so here's another opportunity. Show me the math, give me the references.

Mhz: What's the mechanism causing the expansion of the planet? Where was all the water in the oceans before the planet expanded? Has the mass of the earth increased with this expansion? If so, where did the extra mass come from, and why did the earth's orbital parameters not change? If not, why not? Has it become less dense? What could cause that? Why are there mountains? An expanding earth with a fixed land area couldn't form them, there'd be no forces of compression or uplift.

You guys have not a clue what you're talking about and don't know enough science to understand how wrong you are.

 

[MHz]

Neither Mhz nor the Beave understand enough science to have an opinion worth taking seriously on these things.

Well I'm utterly shocked that you would think that of DB that way, not so shocked as you have put me in the back of the science classroom a long time ago.

Beave: what's the source of the potential differences that drive the plasma currents the electric universe theory claims are everywhere? Why does the map of the cosmic microwave background produced by the COBE and WMAP satellites not show the filamentary structure we'd expect from such currents? Synchrotron and brehmstrallung radiation from them should make them the dominant features of such a map. Why if the sun has a large positive voltage as the theory claims does the solar wind consist of equal numbers of positively and negatively charged particles flowing away from it? Half of them should be going the other way. Why aren't the galaxies strung out like beads on a necklace along the plasma currents and all oriented at right angles to the current direction? You did not adequately respond to such challenges in your now defunct "better theory about coal" thread (at least defunct as far as I'm concerned, I'm not going back in there), so here's another opportunity. Show me the math, give me the references.

I would go with a different binder. The expanding Earth theory is not dissimilar to the big band. The big bang should have left 'core' behind just a star going nova does. The expulsed material would radiate out from that point in a variable %age of consisity, hence strings of connectivity as far as heavenly material is concerned. On a smaller scale the expansion of the earth might be a scale model of how the sun ends (an explosion and a very dense tiny ball where the centre of the sun was) and the earth ends. At some point the expansion would create a less dense mantle. That would mean the heat would not be transferred as effieiently and the crust should get thicker because the liquid currents that flow from the core to the crust (core is the hottest part), along the bottom of the crust and then back to the core. If that slows Ice should be able to form at the poles. The thicker the ice the more it acts like a 'blanket'. The sun would create higher temperatures nearer the equator because the sea levels woul be lower and the lower into the crust you go the hotter it gets. Dead Sea level is hotter that Sea Level. That allows the sun to heat the rocks so the core can release it's heat where the ice has plied up. That ice limits how fast the 'global temperature' can change. When you rub a ballon on your hair it is onlt that very part that will result in it sticking to a wall. Turn it 180 deg and it won't even stick. Black holes might have something similar to our magnetic shield. Does the sun have NS polarity?
Does any of that fit in with your theory DB? Sitting at the back of the room meant I could no longer hear the 'correct answer'.

Mhz: What's the mechanism causing the expansion of the planet? Where was all the water in the oceans before the planet expanded? Has the mass of the earth increased with this expansion? If so, where did the extra mass come from, and why did the earth's orbital parameters not change? If not, why not? Has it become less dense? What could cause that? Why are there mountains? An expanding earth with a fixed land area couldn't form them, there'd be no forces of compression or uplift.

Heat is a good way to expand a liquid (mantle and towards the core). The amount of total heat gathered each year from the sun might be equal to the expansion rate for the next year, measured in inches.
If you have a shallow waterproof box that can slide sideways in one directions. (width increases)and you add some stiff material to a specified height and then added some water that covered all the still material to a specified depth. When you slid the box apart the stiff material would break at a new crack, exposing the bottom of the box. Water would rush into that crack, the water over the stiff material would not be as deep because some has gone into the new crack. The further the box expanded the more water the crack would hold and the more stiff material would be exposed (if it had simulated hills and mountains the exposure to air would be gradual).
This lump of dough is only so big. Heat can swell a liquid yet mass never increases. Weight can add mass, heat (and cold) only affects volume which varies with tempertature. If a liquid gets hotter it expands.

Once all the materials were gathered on earth that was our mass (pretty much the same today), our orbit was set. The ratio of water being gas/liquid/solid may change the weight of all water is still the same. Would the atmosphere be 'thinner' if lots of water was tied up in ice?
The rifts should keep expanding as long as the sun has the ability to heat the mantle (the easier anser compared to the core creating it's own heat. There should come a point where there is a balance and then if it cools will it shrink any?

The crusts would still have to conform to a shape determined by the mantle. If the earth has 7 major landforms when the earth is dai X. A nice consistant 50k. As the expansion progressed the crust no longer 'fit consistantly' (soccer ball onto a basketball). Those plates need to be 'flattened', glue some thick foan to a curved thin plywood and when you try to remove that bend (ply being the lower crust) the thick foam (actual crust) should come under compression and possible even buckle and fold. Most likely rather quickly (snap compared to a long drawn out process). Manle uplift currents (the starting point of any rift) could certainly have enough uplift to create the Rockies where they are close to the crack. Futher away from the crack uplift could also be a factor but flattening of the crust could also account for some 'hilling'.

You guys have not a clue what you're talking about and don't know enough science to understand how wrong you are.

Contrary to popular belief shoving my brain up an gnat's ass is not the same as putting a 'bb' in a boxcar.
BTW a male (MHz)and a female {DarkBeaver}are called 'you people' not 'you guys'.