Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: blackhole on March 17, 2009, 06:04:38 am
-
THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI&feature=related) is probably old, but I can't resist pointing out a couple of recent comments made on the video:
Stars form from aggregate gases,&change sizes during their existence. Its not a big leap to accept that planets can expand through some kind of fundmental molecular reaction at the core.
There are thousands of volcanoes around the world forcing gas, lava, and pressure OUTWARD.
Others say Pangea on a normal sizd Earth would have made a lop-sided Earth, this undeniably contradicts the balancing effects of gravity.
Ow.
conde and Colton and hammer Do you boys KNOW WHERE MATTER COMES FROM?? Hmmmm
MAGIC? Big Bang? GOD? POOF?
It's MADE!
Where????
Where we can't SEE IT,...like NOT IN SPACE. well, that's not true. Some IS made there, I mean a lot!
We DO have a ****LOAD of MATTER, don't we??
It's made, where we can't SEE the process, in the Plasma outer core of the Earth begun at the inner core!....NO?
Do YOU,....know where it's made?? Con? Colt? Hammer?
That's why those BALLS are there, To make more matter.
Ow.
-
wat
-
conde and Colton and hammer Do you boys KNOW WHERE MATTER COMES FROM?? Hmmmm
MAGIC? Big Bang? GOD? POOF?
It's MADE!
Where????
Where we can't SEE IT,...like NOT IN SPACE. well, that's not true. Some IS made there, I mean a lot!
We DO have a ****LOAD of MATTER, don't we??
It's made, where we can't SEE the process, in the Plasma outer core of the Earth begun at the inner core!....NO?
Do YOU,....know where it's made?? Con? Colt? Hammer?
That's why those BALLS are there, To make more matter.
But it doesn't make a bit of difference guys. 13.8 billion years gone remember, the balls are inert.
...seriously, that theory is so full of holes that shooting it down would be a coup de grâce, but I'll just point out the various places on Earth where it can be observed that tectonic plates are actually gliding towards each other, as opposed to his theory where all the plates would move apart from each other... These places are called mountain ranges and subduction zones and they're all over the world, and they seriously don't fit in Mr.Adams' hypothesis. In addition to that piece of evidence, note that he doesn't even attempt to explain the mechanism how the matter is created - it's one form of the God of the gaps* - and moreover in cosmological scale he does nothing to explain the observations about accelerating expansion of universe despite the significant mass increase based on his hypothesis.
It's a hypothesis that relies on flawed observations (including only accepting observations that fit the hypothesis and ignoring the evidence to contrary) and in fact I can't really tell if the site is a joke or if he's as serious as the timecube guy, but as far as scientific value goes... I would value this hypothesis around the same as timecube. If he's serious, he's made up his mind and no evidence contrary will convince him otherwise because it's a conspiracy from the science community at large to conceal the "fact" that they actually don't "know" anything... :rolleyes:
I've had interaction with guys that have their pet theories, and without exception they have proven themselves not worthy of notice or acknowledgement. At least Mr.Adams doesn't butt into forums trying to spread his gospel of "new physics", unlike the trolls that come into a certain Finnish science magazine's forum (which most of the time revolves around anything by science), start spamming a LOT of threads on how their new idea of everything explains everything with a single principle (execpt they can't explain the principle in any scientific manner and when asked questions about it, it turns out that this idea/principle can be adapted to fit every situation...).
*God of the Gaps in this case takes the form of an unknown mechanism that creates more mass to "explain" the observations; it's the same thing really, actually with the same religious connotations too - since Mr. Adams believes in his observations (and ignores evidence to contrary) he has to believe that something makes those observations possible, so he invents an unknown mechanism of making the "observations" possible. It's a belief system built on cascading evidence and if he were to question the integrity of his "observations", the whole hypothesis would become as meaningless to him as it is to anyone with some basic understanding of geophysics (and astrophysics for that matter).
But, again I need to invoke Poe's Law (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law) and point out that I have no way of knowing if this is just an elaborate and realistic parody or a real tin foil hat on a roll.
-
I'm a geologist.
The Earth is not expanding.
If you disagree, please reread.
-
Very Nice
-
Wow.....
I think a few of my brain cells committed suicide. :blah:
-
It reminds me of the Flat Earth (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/) conspiracy theory.
-
Stand by...
http://xkcd.com/258/ (http://xkcd.com/258/)
There you go. :nod:
-
It's amazing that this could actually be true. :rolleyes:
-
I know where matter comes from.
-
WHY DID I WATCH THE WHOLE THING???
-
You're a masochist. Why don't you come over later? :3
-
It's too far and I'd rather not infringe on Tura's... business.
-
But the world is growing.
-
No it isn't. :p
-
Oh. Well, I guess that means you have to be my gimp, then.
-
Well I suppose the Earth is heading towards middle age and things aren't quite as trim as they used to be.
:)
-
's the Big Rip, and we're all screwed.
-
Earth is growing at a rate of a millimeter per 10,000 years.
-
how?
-
Picking up cosmic dust?
-
Earth is growing at a rate of a millimeter per 10,000 years.
I call [citation needed] on that one.
-
Earth is growing at a rate of a millimeter per 10,000 years.
This sounds very familiar somehow.
-
Earth is growing at a rate of a millimeter per 10,000 years.
This sounds very familiar somehow.
I got it out on some book I read years ago.
-
Meteorites. The solar system never truely stops forming.
But anyway, even if that "growing earth theory" were true, what's the point to it?
-
Yeah, well, but most of them burn up in atmosphere, most of the resulting dust either stays in the Atmosphere or rains into the Oceans. For this stuff to affect a planetary body with a radius of ~6400km, there would have to be rather more of it than we are seeing, I believe. Plus, estimates on that scale (a millimeter per 10000 Years?) are far too small to be accurate, really. (Makes me wonder how they arrived at that conclusion in the first place)
-
It's not measured (there's no way in hell to do so), so it's calculated. The average rate of material hitting Earth can be figured to some degree of accuracy from observations of meteor showers, bollides, and impact craters from the past. Figure the volume of that material and then compare with the volume of the Earth. It'll be a ridiculously small number, but it's still a number.
-
Given a millimeter every 10000 years, and the fact that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, this comes out to:
45000000000/10000 = 4500000 mm, or 4500 meters, or 4.5 kilometers. Given a current radius of 6400 km and the volume of a sphere being 4/3(pi)r3, we get an initial volume of 1095751614231813000000, and a final volume of 1098066219443523500000, which is a difference of 2314605211710521300, or 0.2% of the earth's total volume.
Put more simply, 4.5 km is a 0.07% change in the earth's diameter over 4.5 BILLION years.
It doesn't f-cking matter
-
Worse still, it only takes a few really potent volcanic eruptions to balance out the difference.
-
Worse still, it only takes a few really potent volcanic eruptions to balance out the difference.
Not to mention all the material that makes up the satellites, probes, and other junk we've shot into orbit. An amount far too small to even bother calculating, but that's still mass that has been completely subtracted from the Earth.
-
until their orbits decay
-
until their orbits decay
Well, yeah. But then you've got things like Voyager probes. We ain't getting those back any time soon, what with the Klingons blowing one up and the other falling into a black hole and merging with a super-advanced race of sentient machines.
-
Not to mention the junk we've left laying around on the moon and Mars, it's all tiny, but it all adds up, in fact, no longer being a closed loop is one of the major resource concerns about colonizing other planets, hence all the experimentation with building and growing things in space. The first priority of any colony would be to become self-sufficient.
Edit: Oh, and he forgot Ice Ages.
And I love the way Antarctica jigs around and changes direction twice in order to avoid hitting South America ;)
-
From now on, anything that I consider idiotic will get a reference to this "conspiracy" theory. :lol:
-
One thing I will say is that when the Earth reached its smallest size, the first though that crossed my mind was 'a little bit bigger and that would make a good planet for the MediaVPs' :nervous:
-
Dear Sara,
I don't really know how to tell you this, I’m joining the Convent. I think I realized it When i threw out your sock drawer at the mental hospital and I saw you hit on my other girlfriend. I'm sure you're open enough to understand that your driving sucks. I'm returning the couch cushions to you, but I'll keep your car as a memory. You should also know that I told in my confession today about the moose poaching and you ruined my attempts at another world war.
Please don’t hurt me,
Thomas
:rolleyes:
-
We probably lost way more mass via impact ejecta during early formation than we ever have or probably ever will put into space (especially if you count the moon, which the most accepted current theory states is just a big chunk of ex-earth), but of course, that was all more than balanced by the massively increased additions that those impacts were causing back then vs. now.
But anyway, even if that "growing earth theory" were true, what's the point to it?
Well, if it was correct (it isn't), then we'd need to totally redefine our understanding of tectonics, which has been the defining broad geological theory of the past half century, and has explained pretty much everything about the gross formation of the earth. Granted, there are still a few areas that don't quite add up (mantle plumes and hotspots being the big ones AFAIK) but they really just require slight refinements of the theory to fit that we're yet to properly confirm.
But, as i say, it's not true. We had the epanding eartn theory explained to us in second year as a sort of humorous aside - it's quite literally a joke in the broader geological community. As has been explained, you can pretty much puncture it with subduction zones.
-
We probably lost way more mass via impact ejecta during early formation than we ever have or probably ever will put into space (especially if you count the moon, which the most accepted current theory states is just a big chunk of ex-earth), but of course, that was all more than balanced by the massively increased additions that those impacts were causing back then vs. now.
But anyway, even if that "growing earth theory" were true, what's the point to it?
Well, if it was correct (it isn't), then we'd need to totally redefine our understanding of tectonics, which has been the defining broad geological theory of the past half century, and has explained pretty much everything about the gross formation of the earth. Granted, there are still a few areas that don't quite add up (mantle plumes and hotspots being the big ones AFAIK) but they really just require slight refinements of the theory to fit that we're yet to properly confirm.
But, as i say, it's not true. We had the epanding eartn theory explained to us in second year as a sort of humorous aside - it's quite literally a joke in the broader geological community. As has been explained, you can pretty much puncture it with subduction zones.
Which theory exactly says that the moon was a part of the earth? To me it seems very unlikely--to have a satellite so large, so stable, and so close all at the same time. Listening to theories and all, it makes most sense to me (who isn't a physicist or anything) that a collision occurred and the big stable and close moon was the remnants, perhaps of that other planet's core. Then again, there's intelligent life on Earth, so using that as a comparison, I suppose a microplanet could, by freak occurance, be trapped as our satellite.
-
One of these? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Formation) Especially the "giant impact"-Hypothesis.
-
In a nutshell, the idea is that way back when (as in, after the ball of rubble phase, but probably not too long after) while the earth was still heating up and the solar system was still full of junk, something roughly the size of mars collided with the earth, and pretty much ****ed the earth's **** right up, knocking off the debris that would eventually form the moon.
[EDIT]Yeah, beaten to it. Giant impact is the proper name.
-
I always kind of wondered what something like that would look like from ground zero, as it were (ignoring the fact that (a) There'd probably be so much atmospheric disturbance that you wouldn't be able to see anything and (b) You be dead afterwards.), but lets face it, it must have been a pretty spectacular sight..
-
I always kind of wondered what something like that would look like from ground zero, as it were (ignoring the fact that (a) There'd probably be so much atmospheric disturbance that you wouldn't be able to see anything and (b) You be dead afterwards.), but lets face it, it must have been a pretty spectacular sight..
Actually considering there was no breathable atmosphere on earth at the time, you'd be dead before and while it happened as well :P
-
Zomg! One more reason to make a time machine. ;)