i worked hard on birth of earth and reach to conclusion reg birth of earth.
1. all meteroids and asteroids are seed of planets after germination some seed converts in big planets and here universe is soil of that seeds where thet are germinating in.
i hope this my theory will suit to all geologist searching on it.if you are still not satisfy with my theory pls tell me good sites where i can lauch my discovery.waiting serious reply
thanks
regs
suresh bansal

... Seriosly are you JukriS?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=63291

How can u explain the germination of an asteroid in current scientific language?!

How can u explain the germination of an asteroid in current scientific language?!


Why, Silicon-based life, of course! (like in that Star Trek episode)

No he is actually talking about asteroids growing into different planets and he's calling it germination. In a way, asteroids can grow into planetesimals and eventually planets but I don't even think he's talking about this. Please explain sureshbansal!!!!!!!!!

Where'd the asteroids come from?

Baron Max

From heavy elements cast off in supernovas presumably

From heavy elements cast off in supernovas presumably

Where'd the supernovas come from?

And just so we don't have to continue this little back n' forth game, tell me where the very first "anything" came from. When we can do that, then we can, perhaps, begin to assemble all the pieces. But first, don't we have to have the pieces?

Baron Max

But first, don't we have to have the pieces?

Baron Max

Not really, science has resigned itself to never knowing what happened before or what caused the big bang. We know quite well about the causes of most things a few seconds after the big bang however. We know how supernovas come about for instance.

We can also get the pieces through observation and experiments. Something like backward engineering, which can take longer but sometimes is the only way.

Not really, science has resigned itself to never knowing what happened before or what caused the big bang. We know quite well about the causes of most things a few seconds after the big bang however.

Interesting viewpoint, but it ignores the fact that much of our science is based on the laws of physics .....one of which says you can't create something out of nothing. So for science to basically say that the universe was nothing, then POOF, it was something sorta' stretches those laws of physics to the limit (or beyond?), wouldn't you say?

Baron Max

for science to basically say that the universe was nothing, then POOF, it was something

Where does science say that?

ProtoEarth: Rotating clouds of dust, rocks, and gas, composed of hydrogen and helium produced in the Big Bang, as well as heavier elements ejected by a supernova explosions, continued to rotate, as gravity and inertia flattened it into a protoplanetary disk oriented perpendicularly to its axis of rotation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth

No he is actually talking about asteroids growing into different planets and he's calling it germination. In a way, asteroids can grow into planetesimals and eventually planets but I don't even think he's talking about this. Please explain sureshbansal!!!!!!!!!
yes i am saying meteroids are seeds . asteroids are first step and ultimately convert in big planet.see the following logics


SOME LOGICS THAT EARTH IS LIVING THING LIKE TREE AND ITS BIRTH IS FROM SEED.
1. IT IS EXPANDING LIKE LIVING THING
2. IT HAS SKIN OR CORE THAT ALL LIVING THING HAS.
3. IT HAS MOUNTAINS SAME TREES HAS TREE KNOT.
4. ITS CORE HAS TEMPRATURE LIKE ALL LIVING THING.
5. WHEN WE SEE THE MAP OF EARTH IT SEEMS IT HAS EXPANDED FROM SMALL GLOBLE WNEN SEE THE LAND AREA
6.IT HAS CRUDE OIL SAME TREE ABSTRACT MILK OR WAX OIL
7.STROKE OF EARTH QUAKE IS STOKE OF EXPANTION.
8. IT HAS GRAVITY
LOT OF OTHER SIMILARTIES ARE THERE SHOWING BIRTH OF PLANETS ARE LIKE BIRTH OF PLANTS.
SURESH BANSAL
+91 9814058342

Where'd the asteroids come from?

Baron Max
1. because meteroids are seeds of planets and asteroids are germinated form of meteroids.planets produced their seeds as they are like tree.
actually this whole process is like forest. tree produce seeds and seeds produce tree

yes i am saying meteroids are seeds . asteroids are first step and ultimately convert in big planet.see the following logics


SOME LOGICS THAT EARTH IS LIVING THING LIKE TREE AND ITS BIRTH IS FROM SEED.
1. IT IS EXPANDING LIKE LIVING THING
2. IT HAS SKIN OR CORE THAT ALL LIVING THING HAS.
3. IT HAS MOUNTAINS SAME TREES HAS TREE KNOT.
4. ITS CORE HAS TEMPRATURE LIKE ALL LIVING THING.
5. WHEN WE SEE THE MAP OF EARTH IT SEEMS IT HAS EXPANDED FROM SMALL GLOBLE WNEN SEE THE LAND AREA
6.IT HAS CRUDE OIL SAME TREE ABSTRACT MILK OR WAX OIL
7.STROKE OF EARTH QUAKE IS STOKE OF EXPANTION.
8. IT HAS GRAVITY
LOT OF OTHER SIMILARTIES ARE THERE SHOWING BIRTH OF PLANETS ARE LIKE BIRTH OF PLANTS.
SURESH BANSAL
+91 9814058342

i can not understand exact question. pls explain again

Not really, science has resigned itself to never knowing what happened before or what caused the big bang. We know quite well about the causes of most things a few seconds after the big bang however. We know how supernovas come about for instance.

Where'd the supernovas come from?

And just so we don't have to continue this little back n' forth game, tell me where the very first "anything" came from. When we can do that, then we can, perhaps, begin to assemble all the pieces. But first, don't we have to have the pieces?

Baron Max
this is difficult question like hen comes before or egg comes before.

this is difficult question like hen comes before or egg comes before.

Not really - the egg came first. Hen is a chicken, which is a bird, which evolved from dinosaurs (they laid eggs), dinosaurs evolved from reptiles (they lay eggs), which evolved from amphibians (lay eggs), which evolved from fish (lay eggs). Easy.

BTW - You've emailed me several times and posted on the GeologyRocks forum on this. I know that I and a number of our members have been patient and pointed you towards reading such as plate tectonics and the early history of the Earth. Clearly, you just ignore them. I strongly suggest you read a few geology textbooks. If you don't have access, read the tutorials on GeologyRocks, Wikipedia and other reputable websites. You'll soon see why your idea is codswallop.

You'll soon see why your idea is codswallop.
Which explains succintly and exactly WHY he won't read the books...

jsispat, in 5 years you're going to look back at these posts you made and wonder "What the hell was I talking about??"

ProtoEarth: Rotating clouds of dust, rocks, and gas, composed of hydrogen and helium produced in the Big Bang, as well as heavier elements ejected by a supernova explosions, continued to rotate, as gravity and inertia flattened it into a protoplanetary disk oriented perpendicularly to its axis of rotation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth

if earth formed throw acceretion theory that its surface should be like a tennis ball not like it have

1. because meteroids are seeds of planets and asteroids are germinated form of meteroids.planets produced their seeds as they are like tree.
actually this whole process is like forest. tree produce seeds and seeds produce tree

planets produced meteroids and meteroids germinated in meteroids.

It is the text of a Monty Python gag?

if earth formed throw acceretion theory that its surface should be like a tennis ball not like it have

Well, that's pretty silly!!

Question 1: Do you know absolutely nothing about geological forces such tectonic plate movement??

Question 2: Are you over the age of 13??

Pls follow the link for snaps related to my idea for more clarification...


http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08242&f=240px-treeknot292.jpg

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08242&f=15042008423241.jpg

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08235&f=taxus_wood1161.jpg

Pls follow the link for snaps related to my idea for more clarification...


http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08242&f=240px-treeknot292.jpg

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08242&f=15042008423241.jpg

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08235&f=taxus_wood1161.jpg

Those links don't add anything.

Meanwhile, can you not answer simple, direct questions???????????

Those links don't add anything.

Meanwhile, can you not answer simple, direct questions???????????
if latest scientific theory is true than pls tell me how different different pockets of minerals are there in one planet. how different different layers arise of iron and other of nickel and other of rocks.it means our planet is living thing and growing like tree and its birth if from seed or asteroid.
if earth is dead and formed throw acceration than composition of whole planet should be one and its shape also should be odd not like orange.

"Lavas from Hawaiian volcano contain fingerprint of planetary formation"

Read more (http://news.uchicago.edu/news.php?asset_id=1398)

if latest scientific theory is true than pls tell me how different different pockets of minerals are there in one planet. how different different layers arise of iron and other of nickel and other of rocks.it means our planet is living thing and growing like tree and its birth if from seed or asteroid.
if earth is dead and formed throw acceration than composition of whole planet should be one and its shape also should be odd not like orange.

And yet you STILL cannot answer the two simple questions I asked you. Are you classified as having a mental disorder? And that's a serious question - I'm not joking.

jsispat, in 5 years you're going to look back at these posts you made and wonder "What the hell was I talking about??"

if you can spare just one hour for me . pls go to near the tree having wax and there should be also one slice of trunk or log cutted from both side and compare with earth may be possible that you can be little agree with me.

Well, that's pretty silly!!

Question 1: Do you know absolutely nothing about geological forces such tectonic plate movement??

Question 2: Are you over the age of 13??
yes i know about plate tectonics but not so scientfically.
2. yes i am more than 13 year.

yes i know about plate tectonics but not so scientfically.
2. yes i am more than 13 year.

Then you are either not much over 13 or else you were severely shortchanged on your education. I say that not as an insult but only because your entire approach to this is very child-like and displays a great lack of basic education.

but my idea that birth is living thing like tree is more accurate than latest threotical theory.

but my idea that birth is living thing like tree is more accurate than latest threotical theory.

No, that's nothing but your opinion. And you are the ONLY one who thinks that.

It doesn't fit at all with the solid information we already have - in fact, it's not even an idea at all - it's nothing more than a child's pipedream.

dear members again i request you pls forget the current earth theory just for few hours only and than think only my theory i hope result will come. i am requesting to forget current theory just for few hours not forever again you can adopt it.

No good will become of this.

dear members again i request you pls forget the current earth theory just for few hours only and than think only my theory i hope result will come. i am requesting to forget current theory just for few hours not forever again you can adopt it.
The problem with your theory is that it makes no sense at all. It's the kind of idea I might toy with while totally wacked out on LSD, knowing even then that it's totally ridiculous. It's an amusing 'what if' idea at best, something you might write a poem about or make a painting of.

It's not just a language barrier either, I completely understand what you're getting at. It's just wrong, that's all. :shrug:

now it is proved by nasa that size of planets decised by inner forces not by outer dust clouds etc. my theory also says that earth is living thing like tree and growing same way like tree.

i think i gave birth to the earth this morning with my poo!

i worked hard on birth of earth and reach to conclusion reg birth of earth.
1. all meteroids and asteroids are seed of planets after germination some seed converts in big planets and here universe is soil of that seeds where thet are germinating in.
i hope this my theory will suit to all geologist searching on it.if you are still not satisfy with my theory pls tell me good sites where i can lauch my discovery.waiting serious reply
thanks
regs
suresh bansal

I haven't read anyone elses replies here, but a while back, i calculated it must be something like:

1,110,500,409,001

BUT/.//////// I forget now how i devised the number. All i do know, is tha i based it on the evaluated age of the universe, which is something like 15,000 million years, due to the ratio of accretion processes.... I need to find where i wrote that down now...

I haven't read anyone elses replies here, but a while back, i calculated it must be something like:

1,110,500,409,001

BUT/.//////// I forget now how i devised the number. All i do know, is tha i based it on the evaluated age of the universe, which is something like 15,000 million years, due to the ratio of accretion processes.... I need to find where i wrote that down now...
all continents are bark of earth as tree also have bark.

Why, Silicon-based life, of course! (like in that Star Trek episode)

all continents are bark of earth like bark of tree

Where'd the supernovas come from?

And just so we don't have to continue this little back n' forth game, tell me where the very first "anything" came from. When we can do that, then we can, perhaps, begin to assemble all the pieces. But first, don't we have to have the pieces?

Baron Max

all continents are bark of earth like bark of tree

How can u explain the germination of an asteroid in current scientific language?!

all continents are bark of earth like bark of tree

Where'd the asteroids come from?

Baron Max
planets prodces meteroids and after germination meteroids converts asteroids and after that asteroids convert planets. most of asteroids became dead after big bang.

ProtoEarth: Rotating clouds of dust, rocks, and gas, composed of hydrogen and helium produced in the Big Bang, as well as heavier elements ejected by a supernova explosions, continued to rotate, as gravity and inertia flattened it into a protoplanetary disk oriented perpendicularly to its axis of rotation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth


all continents are bark of earth like bark of tree

all continents are bark of earth like bark of treeAnd as I have commnunicated to you in another place, you sir are barking mad.

For the last time like bark of tree makes this a simile, a figure of speech, a metaphorical expression. It is not reality.

Jsispat, I will humor you..

Trees grow from the inside out.
They take in the building blocks for growth through their roots and out of the air (with their leafs).
Where does the Earth get its building blocks for growth ? Remember, it must be growing from the inside out to be like a tree.

Where does the Earth get its building blocks for growth ?

from the ether that scientists call empty space. 7 earth's, 7 heavens, 7 layers. quran.

from the ether that scientists call empty space. 7 earth's, 7 heavens, 7 layers. quran.

How, not where..

Jsispat, I will humor you..

Trees grow from the inside out.
They take in the building blocks for growth through their roots and out of the air (with their leafs).
Where does the Earth get its building blocks for growth ? Remember, it must be growing from the inside out to be like a tree.
i mentioned that earth is like a tree and growing like tree in forest. doest mean that earth is made of wood having leaves and roots. i mean patteren is same only.
i also mentioned that universe is like a soil for planets helping growing planets with the help of sun.
i also mentioned that continents are like bark of tree. plates of bark is shrinking and plates of earth is expanding.

Jsispat, I will humor you..

Trees grow from the inside out.
They take in the building blocks for growth through their roots and out of the air (with their leafs).
Where does the Earth get its building blocks for growth ? Remember, it must be growing from the inside out to be like a tree.

earth quakes are signs of expantion of earth or growth of earth from inside.

i mentioned that earth is like a tree and growing like tree in forest. doest mean that earth is made of wood having leaves and roots. i mean patteren is same only.
i also mentioned that universe is like a soil for planets helping growing planets with the help of sun.
i also mentioned that continents are like bark of tree. plates of bark is shrinking and plates of earth is expanding.

earth quakes are signs of expantion of earth or growth of earth from inside.

I'm sorry, but you didn't explain a thing.
The question was that since trees grow from the inside out where the Earth gets its materials for growth.
The only alternative is that the layers get, or have been, deposited from the outside. But this contradicts your theory.

I'm sorry, but you didn't explain a thing.
The question was that since trees grow from the inside out where the Earth gets its materials for growth.
The only alternative is that the layers get, or have been, deposited from the outside. But this contradicts your theory.
yes true tree grow from inside and same earth grow from inside and earth quakes are example of its expantion from inside.
if you say earth grow but takes material from out side kindly expain it .

yes true tree grow from inside and same earth grow from inside and earth quakes are example of its expantion from inside.
if you say earth grow but takes material from out side kindly expain it .

No, I'm asking you to explain where the Earth gets its materials for growth.

No, I'm asking you to explain where the Earth gets its materials for growth.
sir i already expained that universe is like a soil where this planets grow with the help of sun . means planets are getting energy from universe with the help of sun. earth quakes are example of its growth or expantion.

No, I'm asking you to explain where the Earth gets its materials for growth.
continents is a bark of earth like bark of log of tree.

Chanting is meant to be in the Religion forum.

No, I'm asking you to explain where the Earth gets its materials for growth.
i think you are on right track to ask such a questions. i think my theory is so deep most of people can not understand this. i need your help to expore this theory.
you can directly mail also for quick replt
jsispat@gmail.com

sir i already expained that universe is like a soil where this planets grow with the help of sun . means planets are getting energy from universe with the help of sun. earth quakes are example of its growth or expantion.

You said the Earth grows from the inside out. How do the materials for growth get on the inside ?

continents is a bark of earth like bark of log of tree.

i think you are on right track to ask such a questions. i think my theory is so deep most of people can not understand this. i need your help to expore this theory.
you can directly mail also for quick replt
jsispat@gmail.com

I'm ignoring this..

i think you are on right track to ask such a questions. i think my theory is so deep most of people can not understand this.

Truthfully, your "theory" is so thin that even a schoolchild can see right through it.

I honestly believe you are in serious need of the attention of doctor in the mental health field. Unless it's all just a joke, no sane person could continue to carry on like you are doing.

You said the Earth grows from the inside out. How do the materials for growth get on the inside ?.
for this you have to answer. how tree grow when material is not coming from outside but energy is coming from inside.pls tell me in detail.

Truthfully, your "theory" is so thin that even a schoolchild can see right through it.

I honestly believe you are in serious need of the attention of doctor in the mental health field. Unless it's all just a joke, no sane person could continue to carry on like you are doing..
pls try to understand this topic in depth only not normal topic.if you are a just theoretical student or teacher this is nothing only.

.
for this you have to answer. how tree grow when material is not coming from outside but energy is coming from inside.pls tell me in detail.

Huh ? A tree gets it's building materials from the ground through it's roots and from the air through it's leaves.
I told you that already.

Now kindly show us the roots and leaves of the Earth..

The key to believing this idea is to smoke a LOT of weed before hand. An epic amount.

The key to believing this idea is to smoke a LOT of weed before hand. An epic amount.

Or just be out of your mind chronically.

The key to believing this idea is to smoke a LOT of weed before hand. An epic amount.

:roflmao:

.
pls try to understand this topic in depth only not normal topic.if you are a just theoretical student or teacher this is nothing only.

There is NO "depth" to it - it's just nonsensical ramblings by someone who has absolutely no scientific knowledge of ANY kind!!

You might as well give this up - not a single person here is going to support you or this idiotic idea of yours. It's nothing more than a fairy tale someone might tell to very small children.

Huh ? A tree gets it's building materials from the ground through it's roots and from the air through it's leaves.
I told you that already.

Now kindly show us the roots and leaves of the Earth..
i already mentioned that earth is a living thing like tree not means that earth has wood ,leaves,roots etc. only meaning is patteren is same.
reg breathing ; it is true that i also accept that all living thing makes breath and earth also should breath and grow. on this point i need help of scientiest only to prove it because i clear you that i am not educated man and without any facility to prove it that earth is breathing like tree. pls help me on this matter.
i think earth inhale from one pole and extraxts air from another. anyway can you help me on this matter.if this point is proved than what is left every body will agree with me.

i already mentioned that earth is a living thing like tree not means that earth has wood ,leaves,roots etc. only meaning is patteren is same.
reg breathing ; it is true that i also accept that all living thing makes breath and earth also should breath and grow. on this point i need help of scientiest only to prove it because i clear you that i am not educated man and without any facility to prove it that earth is breathing like tree. pls help me on this matter.
i think earth inhale from one pole and extraxts air from another. anyway can you help me on this matter.if this point is proved than what is left every body will agree with me.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere.
You say they Earth acquires it's building materials through breathing through the polar regions. You mean it breaths solar radiation ? And where is the breathing hole ?

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.
You say they Earth acquires it's building materials through breathing through the polar regions. You mean it breaths solar radiation ? And where is the breathing hole ?

i asked for your help on this issue of breathing of earth. this is the point i am studing but i have no facility or any book. i have not read any single book nor i have. pls help me on this issue. but i agreed earth might be breathing like tree. may be tide system related with this matter.maybe megnatic area will be part of breating system. pls help me on this issue.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.
You say they Earth acquires it's building materials through breathing through the polar regions. You mean it breaths solar radiation ? And where is the breathing hole ?
can you expain me that where is breathing whole of tree or plant

i have not read any single book
Well that explains a few things...

Try the internet, there's lots of free information on it. Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org) might be a place to start.

i asked for your help on this issue of breathing of earth. this is the point i am studing but i have no facility or any book. i have not read any single book nor i have. pls help me on this issue. but i agreed earth might be breathing like tree. may be tide system related with this matter.maybe megnatic area will be part of breating system. pls help me on this issue.
If you can help me with an issue I have..
I have this theory that green bottle flies can read an understand English.
I have meticulously observed their behavior and they really seem to understand it !
Can you help me understand how they do it ?

can you expain me that where is breathing whole of tree or plant
On the leaf surface. They are called stoma's on the upper surface and airspaces on the underside of the leaf.
See image:

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/plants/gifs/leafcrosssection.GIF

I believe what this fellow,jsispat, is trying to describe is this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

For those open to new ideas he also makes interesting cases (with same visual manner of proof) for mars(the huge canyon), and the moon which I find the most convincing because some of the "craters" on the moon are HUGE compared to the moon as a whole! An impact creating a crater that big would have blown the moon to pieces. Did we all not witness what happened when the comet hit Jupiter? Tremendous energy!
Not to be discarded lightly in my opinion considering we cannot drill that far to actually KNOW.

And as far as where the volume comes from I couldnt tell you, but hey thats just ONE more thing we dont know. Whats new?

I believe what this fellow,jsispat, is trying to describe is this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI


Amazing. Where does the water come from?

Was that sarcasm?

If so ill answer your question with another.

Where did the water come from in plate tectonics theory? And why wouldnt that work for this theory?

If you can help me with an issue I have..
I have this theory that green bottle flies can read an understand English.
I have meticulously observed their behavior and they really seem to understand it !
Can you help me understand how they do it ?


On the leaf surface. They are called stoma's on the upper surface and airspaces on the underside of the leaf.
See image:

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/plants/gifs/leafcrosssection.GIF
when there is autum and no leaves than how they breath without leaves.

when there is autum and no leaves than how they breath without leaves.

They don't.

Now what about my question ? Please help me out.

They don't.

Now what about my question ? Please help me out.
if they do not breath during autum than how they survive for life.
2. reg green bottle fly understand english. than what make you so strange. elephant is more enteligents for making sum and deduction. it has better brain.same green bottle flies may be found in english speaking area or understand different language.

if they do not breath during autum than how they survive for life.
2. reg green bottle fly understand english. than what make you so strange. elephant is more enteligents for making sum and deduction. it has better brain.same green bottle flies may be found in english speaking area or understand different language.

They sort of go into hibernation, they survive on stored nutrients and water.

About the flies..
The strange part is that I live in The Netherlands and the flies don't seem to understand Dutch at all, only English :shrug:
Please help me understand this ?

Was that sarcasm?

If so ill answer your question with another.

Where did the water come from in plate tectonics theory? And why wouldnt that work for this theory?
It was a serious question. In the plate tectonics theory Pangea was a massive continent surrounded by a massive ocean. In this 'growing earth' theory, the whole surface of the planet used to be covered with one massive continent, and as the earth grew the water just sort of appeared.

They sort of go into hibernation, they survive on stored nutrients and water.

About the flies..
The strange part is that I live in The Netherlands and the flies don't seem to understand Dutch at all, only English :shrug:
Please help me understand this ?
there origin may be from english speaking country and there mother toungue may be english that is transfering from mother. simple.

It was a serious question. In the plate tectonics theory Pangea was a massive continent surrounded by a massive ocean. In this 'growing earth' theory, the whole surface of the planet used to be covered with one massive continent, and as the earth grew the water just sort of appeared.

can you send me current earth growing theory.if you also belive that earth is growing from where mass is coming from outer side or inner foces resposible for growth. if inner forces resposible for growth means earth is a living thing like tree that is my main theory

there origin may be from english speaking country and there mother toungue may be english that is transfering from mother. simple.

Hmm I haven't thought about that yet I must admit.
So the origin of Dutch green bottle flies must lie in Great Britain then, yes ?

can you send me current earth growing theory.if you also belive that earth is growing from where mass is coming from outer side or inner foces resposible for growth. if inner forces resposible for growth means earth is a living thing like tree that is my main theory

I posted the video for this already pat. Here it is again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

And again check out the other videos for the moon(my fav) and mars.

Hmm I haven't thought about that yet I must admit.
So the origin of Dutch green bottle flies must lie in Great Britain than, yes ?

duh!

Hmm I haven't thought about that yet I must admit.
So the origin of Dutch green bottle flies must lie in Great Britain then, yes ?

It possibly lies in GB but other psooibilities include the US, Canada. Austraalia. NewZealand and India. Is it possiblr to determine the accent ?

This talk of trees reminds me of a case of Dutch elm disease. My tree did not understand Dutch. I know this because I spoke to it on a number of occasion, just as Prince Charles talks to his tomatoes.

It possibly lies in GB but other psooibilities include the US, Canada. Austraalia. NewZealand and India. Is it possiblr to determine the accent ?

This talk of trees reminds me of a case of Dutch elm disease. My tree did not understand Dutch. I know this because I spoke to it on a number of occasion, just as Prince Charles talks to his tomatoes.

No, sadly I cannot determine their accent as they have never spoken.
It just seems they understand written language.
Like when I write on a piece of paper "Buzz around in front of the window" they do it.
Another time I wrote down "Don't sit on my food". I tell ya, don't give them any ideas..

No, sadly I cannot determine their accent as they have never spoken.
It just seems they understand written language.
Like when I write on a piece of paper "Buzz around in front of the window" they do it.
Another time I wrote down "Don't sit on my food". I tell ya, don't give them any ideas..

It never occutred to me to wtite something in Dutch. It's too late now as the tree has been felled and used for firewood.

I was barking up the wrong tree.

It never occutred to me to wtite something in Dutch. It's too late now as the tree has been felled and used for firewood.

I was barking up the wrong tree.

Well, I don't know if that would have worked.. flies at least have eyes.
Trees have neither ears nor eyes..

Well, I don't know if that would have worked.. flies at least have eyes.
Trees have neither ears nor eyes..
Does that mean the earth doesn't have eyes and ears either?

Does that mean the earth doesn't have eyes and ears either?

I don't know.. I've never seen them..
Maybe jsispat has an answer to that.

Well, I don't know if that would have worked.. flies at least have eyes.
Trees have neither ears nor eyes..


Why rule out telepathy. In this instance one could write something on a piece of paper and stare at it intently till the tree got the message.

There is , of course, also the possibility that the tree was a Branch Dravidian in its last incarnation. One should rule nothing out.

Why rule out telepathy. In this instance one could write something on a piece of paper and stare at it intently till the tree got the message.

There is , of course, also the possibility that the tree was a Branch Dravidian in its last incarnation. One should rule nothing out.

This is true, but how to find out ?

/lmao

brilliant!

This is true, but how to find out ?Before modern telephony was developed one could have made a trunk call to the tree. (One wonders if xylem and phloem are corruptions of "dial 'em" and "phone 'em".)

Before modern telephony was developed one could have made a trunk call to the tree. (One wonders if xylem and phloem are corruptions of "dial 'em" and "phone 'em".)

lol :D

I think jsispat must've gotten the message by now.. :D

lol :D

I think jsispat must've gotten the message by now.. :D

Slight correction: trunk call are made by elephants.

Slight correction: trunk call are made by elephants.
can you send me current theory about trunk calls by elephants?

can you send me current theory about trunk calls by elephants?T[u]sk, t[u]sk.There is no current theory, since the process is not electrical in nature.

Well this discussion is WAY off topic, and has resorted to mocking an individual whose english is not so good.
hooray elitism

Well this discussion is WAY off topic, and has resorted to mocking an individual whose english is not so good.
hooray elitism
No, it's not mocking someone whose English isn't very good.
It's giving up on someone that
1. comes up with a completely ridiculous idea,
2. then never supports any of it with even the tiniest bit of evidence,
3. still ignores everybody else's thoughts on the matter
4. and keeps insisting that he's right despite the numerous people that have pointed out why he is not.

And how is it mocking ? My "theory" is equally wacky as his. Maybe he's mocking us..
Behold:
If you can help me with an issue I have..
I have this theory that green bottle flies can read an understand English.
I have meticulously observed their behavior and they really seem to understand it !
Can you help me understand how they do it ?

reg green bottle fly understand english. than what make you so strange. elephant is more enteligents for making sum and deduction. it has better brain.same green bottle flies may be found in english speaking area or understand different language.

About the flies..
The strange part is that I live in The Netherlands and the flies don't seem to understand Dutch at all, only English :shrug:
Please help me understand this ?

there origin may be from english speaking country and there mother toungue may be english that is transfering from mother. simple.

LOL those quotes ARE funny... but still...

Did you watch that video I posted enmos?

Interesting viewpoint, but it ignores the fact that much of our science is based on the laws of physics .....one of which says you can't create something out of nothing. So for science to basically say that the universe was nothing, then POOF, it was something sorta' stretches those laws of physics to the limit (or beyond?), wouldn't you say?

Baron Max

terrific stuff here...

LOL those quotes ARE funny... but still...
Well, that's the kind of dude you're dealing with here..

Did you watch that video I posted enmos?
It was.. funny.
They misrepresent the continent sizes and continually morph the continents to make a fit. It's a deliberate hoax.

They misrepresent the continent sizes and continually morph the continents to make a fit. It's a deliberate hoax.

Actually this is a theory that has been around since the early 1900's. I suggest further research. Start here.

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

Actually this is a theory that has been around since the early 1900's. I suggest further research. Start here.

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

I suggest you start reading from "Criticism" onwards..

It is pseudoscience at best.

Plate tectonics has its criticisms as well, and really isnt scientifically testable in anyway. Sounds like you are learning only what fits into your paradigm.

Plate tectonics has its criticisms as well, and really isnt scientifically testable in anyway. Sounds like you are learning only what fits into your paradigm.

Fine..

Im not saying I necessarily think this is true, Im just trying to get people to realize that knowledge is ALWAYS changing and to stay stagnant in thought is the worst things humans can do.

We have seen many times throughout history of those who made the claim that something was impossible and ended up being wrong, and those who we thought crazy for thinking of an idea so far fetched it must be impossible (but actually ended up right).

I believe that saying ANYTHING is impossible is foolish, because with that claim you are basically saying you have all the knowledge in the universe.

Plate tectonics has its criticisms as well, and really isnt scientifically testable in anyway. Sounds like you are learning only what fits into your paradigm.

Yes you can. Europe and US are moving away from each other according to plate tectonics. Place a GPS receiver on each side. Wait for 10 years. Look at results, low and behold a 25cm further apart.

(see for example:
Author(s): Geirsson, H; Arnadottir, T; Volksen, C, et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH Volume: 111 Issue: B9 Article Number: B09407 Published: SEP 28 2006

Title: Results from geodetic measurements in the western part of the African-Eurasian plate boundary
Author(s): Bastos, L; Osorio, J; Barbeito, A, et al.
Source: TECTONOPHYSICS Volume: 294 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 261-269 Published: SEP 15 1998

Title: A high-resolution model for Eurasia-North America plate kinematics since 20 Ma
Author(s): Merkouriev, S; DeMets, C
Source: GEOPHYSICAL JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL Volume: 173 Issue: 3 Pages: 1064-1083 Published: 2008
)

This matches rates gleaned from looking at magnetic reversals and dating of the oceanic crust and using vector-based methods and knowledge of other plate movements.

From USGS site (which I can't link to 'cos of the stupid 20 post rule)

Space-geodetic data have already confirmed that the rates and direction of plate movement, averaged over several years, compare well with rates and direction of plate movement averaged over millions of years.



What specific criticisms are there for plate tectonics? There are no major one as far as I know. Please do list the, I'd be interested to know. Expanding Earth simply does not match the evidence and in fact a lot of evidence contradicts it (past orogenies, for example - how do plate collisions occur on an expanding earth?).

Yes you can. Europe and US are moving away from each other according to plate tectonics. Place a GPS receiver on each side. Wait for 10 years. Look at results, low and behold a 25cm further apart.

This also supports expanding earth theory you realize that? I suspect Asia and California are ALSO moving apart.

Expanding Earth simply does not match the evidence and in fact a lot of evidence contradicts it (past orogenies, for example - how do plate collisions occur on an expanding earth?).

What evidence directly conflicts with expanding earth theory?
And to answer your second question, there are no plate collisions according to this theory.
If subduction zones actually existed why is there such a stark difference between the age of dry land and ocean floor? One would expect some land masses to subduct and therefore be much younger than we see today, comparable to that of the sea floor.

Mountain ranges are formed by the "folding" of the land as it is twisted by expansion. This is why the age of the land on one side of the mountain range is the same age as the opposite side. (Two seperate land masses colliding you would expect different ages)

Arrgh, stupid 20 post limit on link posting. But this is post 20...

This also supports expanding earth theory you realize that? I suspect Asia and California are ALSO moving apart.


Nope, the Pacific is getting smaller. Just have a look at Keary and Vine (Global Tectonics).



What evidence directly conflicts with expanding earth theory?


The fact that the UK has undergone at least 4 orogenies. How can an orogeny occur, if the Earth is constantly getting bigger, nevermind 4 on what is a tiny island!


And to answer your second question, there are no plate collisions according to this theory.
If subduction zones actually existed why is there such a stark difference between the age of dry land and ocean floor? One would expect some land masses to subduct and therefore be much younger than we see today, comparable to that of the sea floor.


Again, the evidence for subduction zones is quite extraordinary.

see: http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/tutorials/plate_tectonics_evidence


Mountain ranges are formed by the "folding" of the land as it is twisted by expansion. This is why the age of the land on one side of the mountain range is the same age as the opposite side. (Two seperate land masses colliding you would expect different ages)

Errr...mountains form by collision, therefore compression, not expansion. You therefore get lots of thrust faulting, which thrust units over others. The ages of rocks in the Himalayas are all sorts of ages (see a map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/2_6_tectomap2.gif). See, complex faulting structures, Precambrian to fairly recent stuff, ophiolites (i.e. oceanic crust) - everything you'd expect from a tectonic collision. No offence, but I think you need to read up more on plate tectonics and geology in general.

If subduction zones actually existed why is there such a stark difference between the age of dry land and ocean floor? One would expect some land masses to subduct and therefore be much younger than we see today, comparable to that of the sea floor.

Sorry forgot to answer this bit.

Nope, you wouldn't expect that. The continental crust is less dense and generally thicker (i.e. hard to subduct) that oceanic crust, therefore it's oceanic crust that gets subducted. You might then say, "why is the Earth not covered in continental crust then?". The continental crust is eroded (wind, rain), brought down to the sea by rivers, dumped in the ocean and...subducted with the oceanic plate! Actually, not all of it is. Sometimes it's scrapped from the plate and forms the accretionary wedge, which is in the fore-arc basin.

This is weird, I dont know if you guys remember jsispat talking about holes on the poles, but check out these NASA photos I found with the auroras at the south pole.

http://www.holloworbs.com/Antarctic%20aurora.htm

AND a movie directly from NASA themselves.

http://www.nasa.gov/mov/133778main_FUV_640x480.mov



Nope, you wouldn't expect that. The continental crust is less dense and generally thicker (i.e. hard to subduct) that oceanic crust, therefore it's oceanic crust that gets subducted.

Can you please list where the current subduction zones on the Earth are? I did a google search and really couldnt find much except one possible candidate. All I found was what subduction zones were, not WHERE they were.

Also I find it quite convenient that when two landmasses collide they always form mountains. Can you tell me the exact process why they always push each other up? I would imagine slight differences in vertical position of the landmasses relative to one another, tension, and density differences would produce subduction on land at least ONCE. But we dont see that. Please explain.

Can you please list where the current subduction zones on the Earth are? I did a google search and really couldnt find much except one possible candidate. All I found was what subduction zones were, not WHERE they were.

Around the Pacific ocean. Hence why it's getting smaller.

There's also a subduction zone under the Himalayas, a small one under southern Europe and another in the Caribbean.

Map: http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/world5.gif


Also I find it quite convenient that when two landmasses collide they always form mountains. Can you tell me the exact process why they always push each other up? I would imagine slight differences in vertical position of the landmasses relative to one another, tension, and density differences would produce subduction on land at least ONCE. But we dont see that. Please explain.

There is subduction - of the oceanic plate of one or both of the masses. This is where things get really complicated :) This is the cutting edge of research as we only really have the Himalayas to go on at the present time and understanding exactly what is going on is complicated.

This page (http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/tutorials/plate_tectonics_introduction) has a simple diagram (fig 4 C) for "simple cases".


For more complex example, look at the Iapetus: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118846697/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

(Translation: it subducted one way, then starting subducting the other way!).

However, there are more complications as other continents were involved: http://jgs.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/149/6/871

The geological history of Cyprus is also worth a look at if you're interested in subductive processes.

Again, read up some text books. Keary and Vine (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1405107774/geologyrocks-21) is an excellent start.

HTH

thanks for little suporting somewhere.
again i am putting my very simple points because i am not educated or never i read books pls see again.
1. our planet earth has so well managed layers like log of tree so earth is a living thing like tree. here point is not 100% tree means having leaves ,roots etc but patteren is same. so my theory totally different from current theory that looks very unpracticle.
2. if we see all continents from map it is good practicle eveidence also support that its expanded from small globe and growing.
3. if we see bark of tree which is growing also ,see the same results of continents.
4. it means continents are shrinking like bark and earth is growing in bigger size.
5. earth quakes are also example of its expantion.
6. i earlier told that i am without any facility or lab so i have not any scientifically points to prove but i have lot of visual points supporting my theory and asking you help for me only.thanks

thanks for little suporting somewhere.
again i am putting my very simple points because i am not educated or never i read books pls see again.
1. our planet earth has so well managed layers like log of tree so earth is a living thing like tree. here point is not 100% tree means having leaves ,roots etc but patteren is same. so my theory totally different from current theory that looks very unpracticle.
2. if we see all continents from map it is good practicle eveidence also support that its expanded from small globe and growing.
3. if we see bark of tree which is growing also ,see the same results of continents.
4. it means continents are shrinking like bark and earth is growing in bigger size.
5. earth quakes are also example of its expantion.
6. i earlier told that i am without any facility or lab so i have not any scientifically points to prove but i have lot of visual points supporting my theory and asking you help for me only.thanks

Your "visual points" in support of your crackpot idea are nothing more than an overactive imagination and a result of an uneducated mind.

Read some books!! Go to school!!! Get and education - and THEN talk. Right now you are doing nothing but promoting a fairy tale.

Plate tectonics has its criticisms as well, and really isnt scientifically testable in anyway. .Utter crap. Apart from the fact that we can measure the motion of the plates and have measured the motion of the plates, there are a host of other observations and predictions that have validated the concept.

My apologies to geologyrocks who has dealt with the inane point from EndLightEnd in much more detail and with much more patience than I felt inclined to use. I posted in a kneejerk reaction to a foolish statement.

Sorry forgot to answer this bit.

Nope, you wouldn't expect that. The continental crust is less dense and generally thicker (i.e. hard to subduct) that oceanic crust, therefore it's oceanic crust that gets subducted. You might then say, "why is the Earth not covered in continental crust then?". The continental crust is eroded (wind, rain), brought down to the sea by rivers, dumped in the ocean and...subducted with the oceanic plate! Actually, not all of it is. Sometimes it's scrapped from the plate and forms the accretionary wedge, which is in the fore-arc basin.
1. first my point earth is living thing so it is growing also. we should not neglect the very clear evidence that all continets were jointed at early stage.old skin of earth at early stage to whom i say it bark of earth, started shrinking also. actually the whole process is like expantion of log of tree and its bark is shrinking when log is growing.
final i mean our planet is expanding but continents are shrinking time to time.
inner forces in the earth are responisble for growth.
when earth started germinating from its seed that is meteroids its weight was in few kilo grams only.
valcanoes are like eruption of wax from log of tree.

You really should learn a few more english sentences.

You really should learn a few more english sentences.
yes correct.wants support ,thanks

There is subduction - of the oceanic plate of one or both of the masses. This is where things get really complicated This is the cutting edge of research as we only really have the Himalayas to go on at the present time and understanding exactly what is going on is complicated.

See this is my problem. You tell me its all figured out and I should blindly believe what you do (and I AM familiar with plate tectonics, but I also know we learn alot of crap in schools), and when I probe into the intricacies you tell me its complicated, or we dont know yet.
What if I told you mountains were a result of "folding" of the land. Just like if you start moving a piece of paper in different directions. Is this not also a viable explanation? If so tell me exactly why it cannot be so.


Utter crap. Apart from the fact that we can measure the motion of the plates and have measured the motion of the plates, there are a host of other observations and predictions that have validated the concept.

Motion of the plates can be made to fit in Expanding Earth just like they were for Plate Tectonics if someone wanted to work it out. And none of the other observations rule out the expanding earth (Expanding earth DOES allow for subduction zones! there just has to be more growth then subduction). This is science remember?

Even taking readings from earthquakes from the opposite side of the Earth fits E.E. theory because there is a "darkspot" where earthquake vibrations dont get through which scientists explained away as ultra dense spinning iron core. (which we supposedly get our magnetic field from too, but hmm mars is COLD and DEAD and still has a magnetic field) but this dark spot can also be explained by a hollow core.
(Interesting note the moon resonates for hours after an impact, much like a hollow bell)

SEVERAL other direct observations neither prove or disprove the theory, it just lines up.

I understand you grew up learning plate tectonics, so did I. But were not here to discuss why Expanding Earth is wrong (any fool with a textbook can do that), were here to discuss how it MAY BE right. Get outside your thinking box.

See this is my problem. You tell me its all figured out and I should blindly believe what you do (and I AM familiar with plate tectonics, but I also know we learn alot of crap in schools), and when I probe into the intricacies you tell me its complicated, or we dont know yet.
What if I told you mountains were a result of "folding" of the land. Just like if you start moving a piece of paper in different directions. Is this not also a viable explanation? If so tell me exactly why it cannot be so.




Motion of the plates can be made to fit in Expanding Earth just like they were for Plate Tectonics if someone wanted to work it out. And none of the other observations rule out the expanding earth (Expanding earth DOES allow for subduction zones! there just has to be more growth then subduction). This is science remember?

Even taking readings from earthquakes from the opposite side of the Earth fits E.E. theory because there is a "darkspot" where earthquake vibrations dont get through which scientists explained away as ultra dense spinning iron core. (which we supposedly get our magnetic field from too, but hmm mars is COLD and DEAD and still has a magnetic field) but this dark spot can also be explained by a hollow core.

SEVERAL other direct observations neither prove or disprove the theory, it just lines up.

I understand you grew up learning plate tectonics, so did I. But were not here to discuss why Expanding Earth is wrong (any fool with a textbook can do that), were here to discuss how it MAY BE right. Get outside your thinking box.
montains are result of shrinking land not folding.
2. globe is expanding and continents are shrinking at a time. i mean double action.

2. globe is expanding and continents are shrinking at a time. i mean double action.The continents don't shrink, and the globe doesn't expand.

I'd say you have little idea of what's going on beneath your feet, actually.
How about up in the sky? You know why there's a sun up there (when it isn't dark, right?), or why the moon is a lot closer than the sun is, all that stuff?

See this is my problem. You tell me its all figured out and I should blindly believe what you do (and I AM familiar with plate tectonics, but I also know we learn alot of crap in schools), and when I probe into the intricacies you tell me its complicated, or we dont know yet.
What if I told you mountains were a result of "folding" of the land. Just like if you start moving a piece of paper in different directions. Is this not also a viable explanation? If so tell me exactly why it cannot be so.

Err...no. I did not tell you accept blindly. I gave you a few papers and a text book that describes the evidence behind Plate Tectonics. Not at High School level, but higher-level undergraduate (at Edinburgh Global Tectonics is a 3rd/4th year text (from a 4 year degree)). The papers were gleaned from a quick search on Web of Knowledge. There's a lot more!!!

You can say "what if", but where's the evidence? How do you explain the granitic inclusions with simple folding as you describe? There's a bunch of other stuff too, but to give you comprehensive lists would take hours and, frankly, I have better things to do.




Motion of the plates can be made to fit in Expanding Earth just like they were for Plate Tectonics if someone wanted to work it out. And none of the other observations rule out the expanding earth (Expanding earth DOES allow for subduction zones! there just has to be more growth then subduction). This is science remember?

Err...they kind of do. We know the UK has "migrated" from the southern hemisphere to the current position and on the way has collided with several other continents. In other words plate tectonics. You can say this doesn't contradict EE, but given the Earth is not currently expanding, it's not exactly the simplest explanation is it? None of the other planets or moons in the solar system are expanding either. Put simply there is no real evidence for EE.

Even taking readings from earthquakes from the opposite side of the Earth fits E.E. theory because there is a "darkspot" where earthquake vibrations dont get through which scientists explained away as ultra dense spinning iron core. (which we supposedly get our magnetic field from too, but hmm mars is COLD and DEAD and still has a magnetic field) but this dark spot can also be explained by a hollow core.
(Interesting note the moon resonates for hours after an impact, much like a hollow bell)

You see statements like this show your lack of real knowledge and understanding. The earthquake shadow is the lack of S-waves and a refraction of P-waves. The S-waves cannot pass through the liquid outer core. The refraction is due to the change in density. If it was hollow there would be no waves at all. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/glossary.php?termID=170&alpha=S

Mars does have a mag field but it's a lot weaker. This fits with Mars being dead.

The Earth also resonates after a large quake. This is due to earthquake waves bouncing around.


SEVERAL other direct observations neither prove or disprove the theory, it just lines up.

No it doesn't line up.


I understand you grew up learning plate tectonics, so did I. But were not here to discuss why Expanding Earth is wrong (any fool with a textbook can do that), were here to discuss how it MAY BE right. Get outside your thinking box.

Actually, I'd rather do proper research (my day job), give people actual facts and knowledge that research (not just mine ;) )has shown (my "hobby": www.geologyrocks.co.uk) and in my "spare" time make sure that when people search for geology terms they don't come across crap like EE without the evidence and thinking behind current theories. The reseaon I pointed out textbooks is that you clearly don't have much (if any!) geological training and textbooks are the place to start.

If you're here to discuss why it might be right then you're not doing science either. You should question why it might not be right and picking holes in the theory. If you can't find holes (and several folk here have found several!), then you have an acceptable hypothesis. You haven't found anything that contradicts plate tectonics, which is not surprising given the thousands of geologists working on it that have a lot more knowledge, experience and understanding than you have.

First off geology, I appreciate the patience, lots of people on this forum are assholes....

How do you explain the granitic inclusions with simple folding as you describe?

Did a google search, couldnt find exactly what granitic inclusions were specifically, can you elaborate on what this is?


You can say this doesn't contradict EE, but given the Earth is not currently expanding, it's not exactly the simplest explanation is it? None of the other planets or moons in the solar system are expanding either. Put simply there is no real evidence for EE.

Simplicity doesnt make a theory right. And as far as the evidence goes, if the moon isnt expanding how do you explain the huge "impact craters" that are 1/3 the size of the moon? An impact that large would have blown the moon to pieces, watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBT8KyWVxj8


The S-waves cannot pass through the liquid outer core. The refraction is due to the change in density. If it was hollow there would be no waves at all.

Fair enough.:)


Mars does have a mag field but it's a lot weaker. This fits with Mars being dead.

No it doesnt, currently our explanation for our magnetic field is the dynamo action of the iron core. They found venus does NOT have a magnetic field (which I think is BS) although it has a similar iron core, but because the rotation period is so slow it has NO magnetic field whatsoever.
A long time ago scientists made the claim Mars core was no longer active (a "dead planet"), so where is this magnetic field coming from?:shrug:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/magnetic/MagEarth.html


The Earth also resonates after a large quake. This is due to earthquake waves bouncing around.

Theres a difference between resonance and waves bouncing around.
And since the moon is so much less dense than the earth, the vibrations SHOULD dissipate more quickly right?

You haven't found anything that contradicts plate tectonics, which is not surprising given the thousands of geologists working on it that have a lot more knowledge, experience and understanding than you have.

You havent found anything either that says ABSOLUTELY expanding earth is false. (ive seen several holes, but every theory has holes:rolleyes:)
Give me ONE example that works only for Plate tectonics that would not work for Expanding earth. One convincing example is all I ask.

Did a google search, couldnt find exactly what granitic inclusions were specifically, can you elaborate on what this is?

Granite is emplaced during orogenic events. The granite arises from partial melting of crust (either kind) or secondary melting of continental crust. The granite cools at depths ~1.5km (which can be derived from grain size and mineralogy). This kind of stuff is covered in basic text books.



Simplicity doesnt make a theory right. And as far as the evidence goes, if the moon isnt expanding how do you explain the huge "impact craters" that are 1/3 the size of the moon? An impact that large would have blown the moon to pieces, watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBT8KyWVxj8


The moon isn't expanding as we can measure the size and it's not expanding. The large craters you show on the "informative" video are mares - volcanic eruptions. Essentially a lake of basalt. They formed ~3Ga (which can be dated from crater amounts and from radiometric dating). Again, basic textbooks contain this info.


No it doesnt, currently our explanation for our magnetic field is the dynamo action of the iron core.

Correct


They found venus does NOT have a magnetic field (which I think is BS) although it has a similar iron core, but because the rotation period is so slow it has NO magnetic field whatsoever.


Incorrect, it has a very weak field: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/venus_mag/


A long time ago scientists made the claim Mars core was no longer active (a "dead planet"), so where is this magnetic field coming from?:shrug:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/magnetic/MagEarth.html


This is current research. http://mgs-mager.gsfc.nasa.gov/Kids/magfield.html


Theres a difference between resonance and waves bouncing around.
And since the moon is so much less dense than the earth, the vibrations SHOULD dissipate more quickly right?


The moon is only less dense as it doesn't have an iron (i.e. v. dense) core compared to the Earth. The moon has a similar composition as the Earth's mantle.



You havent found anything either that says ABSOLUTELY expanding earth is false. (ive seen several holes, but every theory has holes:rolleyes:)
Give me ONE example that works only for Plate tectonics that would not work for Expanding earth. One convincing example is all I ask.

The problem here is that EE is so woolly it doesn't provide any specific testable hypotheses that can't be explained by other means. The other problem is that what I consider convincing (as a geologist with >15 years experience) is not what you consider convincing. Let's try anyway:
- subduction of spreading ridges - if spreading > subduction, then a ridge should not get subducted.
- distribution of earthquakes and volcanoes
- the lack of sea floor older than Jurassic (this would imply that expansion starting in the Jurassic)
- The complete removal of ancient oceans (Tethys, Iapetus, Rheic etc)
- ancient palaeogeographies gleaned from the rocks (http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm)

There's a few lines of what I would consider evidence. There's still the trifling matter of actually explaining where the extra mass comes from for the Earth to expand...

Now you have to return the favour - one (convincing) line of evidence that plate tectonics is wrong, please.

Granite is emplaced during orogenic events. The granite arises from partial melting of crust (either kind) or secondary melting of continental crust. The granite cools at depths ~1.5km (which can be derived from grain size and mineralogy). This kind of stuff is covered in basic text books.




The moon isn't expanding as we can measure the size and it's not expanding. The large craters you show on the "informative" video are mares - volcanic eruptions. Essentially a lake of basalt. They formed ~3Ga (which can be dated from crater amounts and from radiometric dating). Again, basic textbooks contain this info.



Correct



Incorrect, it has a very weak field: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/venus_mag/



This is current research. http://mgs-mager.gsfc.nasa.gov/Kids/magfield.html



The moon is only less dense as it doesn't have an iron (i.e. v. dense) core compared to the Earth. The moon has a similar composition as the Earth's mantle.




The problem here is that EE is so woolly it doesn't provide any specific testable hypotheses that can't be explained by other means. The other problem is that what I consider convincing (as a geologist with >15 years experience) is not what you consider convincing. Let's try anyway:
- subduction of spreading ridges - if spreading > subduction, then a ridge should not get subducted.
- distribution of earthquakes and volcanoes
- the lack of sea floor older than Jurassic (this would imply that expansion starting in the Jurassic)
- The complete removal of ancient oceans (Tethys, Iapetus, Rheic etc)
- ancient palaeogeographies gleaned from the rocks (http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm)

There's a few lines of what I would consider evidence. There's still the trifling matter of actually explaining where the extra mass comes from for the Earth to expand...

Now you have to return the favour - one (convincing) line of evidence that plate tectonics is wrong, please.
1. moon has same compostion like earth true. because it is born by seeds produced by earth. here meteroids are seed from which all planets take birth.
2. i can not still understand that why astronomer negleting very clear evidence that all continents were jointed at early stage of earth.

Granite is emplaced during orogenic events. The granite arises from partial melting of crust (either kind) or secondary melting of continental crust. The granite cools at depths ~1.5km (which can be derived from grain size and mineralogy). This kind of stuff is covered in basic text books.




The moon isn't expanding as we can measure the size and it's not expanding. The large craters you show on the "informative" video are mares - volcanic eruptions. Essentially a lake of basalt. They formed ~3Ga (which can be dated from crater amounts and from radiometric dating). Again, basic textbooks contain this info.



Correct



Incorrect, it has a very weak field: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/venus_mag/



This is current research. http://mgs-mager.gsfc.nasa.gov/Kids/magfield.html



The moon is only less dense as it doesn't have an iron (i.e. v. dense) core compared to the Earth. The moon has a similar composition as the Earth's mantle.




The problem here is that EE is so woolly it doesn't provide any specific testable hypotheses that can't be explained by other means. The other problem is that what I consider convincing (as a geologist with >15 years experience) is not what you consider convincing. Let's try anyway:
- subduction of spreading ridges - if spreading > subduction, then a ridge should not get subducted.
- distribution of earthquakes and volcanoes
- the lack of sea floor older than Jurassic (this would imply that expansion starting in the Jurassic)
- The complete removal of ancient oceans (Tethys, Iapetus, Rheic etc)
- ancient palaeogeographies gleaned from the rocks (http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm)

There's a few lines of what I would consider evidence. There's still the trifling matter of actually explaining where the extra mass comes from for the Earth to expand...

Now you have to return the favour - one (convincing) line of evidence that plate tectonics is wrong, please.
reg your point that from where extra mass is coming for expantion of earth.here my theory exact fit that earth is a living thing like tree. like for expantion of tree inner forces are resposible for growth of log. same inner forces are responisble for growth of earth because it is living thing. here universe is like a soil for earth where it is growing and getting energy with the help of sun.pls see link also for more clarification .
http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08242&...reeknot292.jpg

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08242&...2008423241.jpg

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08235&...s_wood1161.jpg

all continents were jointed at early stage of earth.For what it may be worth, the continents are made out of lighter minerals from the mantle, that differentiated and rose to the surface (a process that continues today).

The current spread or distribution of these minerals - the continents - is nearly at a maximum - the expectation (prediction) is that in ~15 million years, give or take, the spreading or divergence will stop.
Then subduction will begin to draw them all back together - in another ~250 million years there will be a supercontinent much like the one all the contemporary ones were a part of before they started to break up (rift and spread apart).

The break-up and reassembly of continental crust is believed to have occured many times over the known geological history of this planet.

Check out what "continental rifting", or "supercontinent cycle" means.
The East-African rift-valley is where that continent is currently breaking apart - it will be an inland sea like the Red Sea is eventually (in a few tens of millions of years).

See if any of this, ah, "grows" on yer.

P.S. Astronomers know all about this, or most of them have heard about it. It's well-known, and well-understood. It's called "an accepted theory", BTW.

For what it may be worth, the continents are made out of lighter minerals from the mantle, that differentiated and rose to the surface (a process that continues today).

The current spread or distribution of these minerals - the continents - is nearly at a maximum - the expectation (prediction) is that in ~15 million years, give or take, the spreading or divergence will stop.
Then subduction will begin to draw them all back together - in another ~250 million years there will be a supercontinent much like the one all the contemporary ones were a part of before they started to break up (rift and spread apart).

The break-up and reassembly of continental crust is believed to have occured many times over the known geological history of this planet.

Check out what "continental rifting", or "supercontinent cycle" means.
The East-African rift-valley is where that continent is currently breaking apart - it will be an inland sea like the Red Sea is eventually (in a few tens of millions of years).

See if any of this, ah, "grows" on yer.

P.S. Astronomers know all about this, or most of them have heard about it. It's well-known, and well-understood. It's called "an accepted theory", BTW.
100% same that bark of tree is breaking apart and same process is going on with log of tree. can you give some serious intention on bark of tree.
same valcones erupt from log of tree.again check this link. i agreed crust is lighter material but it doest mean the process is same you are saying. process of my theory is also possible
http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08242&...reeknot292.jpg

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08242&...2008423241.jpg

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs128&d=08235&...s_wood1161.jpg

process of my theory is also possibleSo is the possibility of me setting a piece of granite on fire with some matches.

i can not understand the exact meaning.i understand that you are saying my theory is imposible.is it

My only advice is: publish the thing.
But check out the granite and matches too, as a sort of field test.

Motion of the plates can be made to fit in Expanding Earth just like they were for Plate Tectonics if someone wanted to work it out. And if you can show me data that reflects plate movement that is consistent with an expanding Earth (i.e. differential rates of subduction and drift of relevant plates.) then I shall happily stand corrected.
This is science remember?
And my understanding is that the science ruless out an expanding Earth.
Even taking readings from earthquakes from the opposite side of the Earth fits E.E. theory because there is a "darkspot" where earthquake vibrations dont get through which scientists explained away as ultra dense spinning iron core. .The shadow zone is inferred to be due to refraction by the core. While the core is belived to be largely composed iron and nickel its spinning character has nothing to do with this shadow zone. Moreover it spins at pretty much the same rate the Earth does. The magnetic field arises from the jointlaction of this rotation and the circulating of the liquid (molten) outer core. The molten character of the latter is revealed by the failure of S waves to penetrate it.
(which we supposedly get our magnetic field from too, but hmm mars is COLD and DEAD and still has a magnetic field) .But it is not a dipolar field, is very weak and is a residual field trapped in magnetic minerals within lavas erupted when there was an effective core originating field.

but this dark spot can also be explained by a hollow core.The dark spot can be explained in that way, but not the presence of P waves arounf the anticentre. There existence wholly invalidates a hollow Earth - not to mention a host of other data.

SEVERAL other direct observations neither prove or disprove the theory, it just lines up.It doesn't.

I understand you grew up learning plate tectonics, so did I.No I didn't. I grew up learning landbridges, expanding Earth, contracting Earth, isostasy gone wild; and witnessing the unfconfortable expressions on the faces of lecturers who were in the full howling gale of a paradigm shift.
were here to discuss how it MAY BE right. Get outside your thinking box.I've been there, done that. Got the T-shirt, did the thinking in the late sixties and had another look in the late seventies. I don't need to revisit it unless someone produces new data. The parrot is dead.

One convincing example is all I ask.There might just be one.
Astronomers use the Earth's surface as a baseline to measure the wobble (precessional rate of change, nutation) in the Earth's rotation. The points, used as references, outside the system (as far outside as possible) are things like quasars and any regular kinds of events out there in the cosmos; to have, to describe or measure, a fixed external frame (an inertial frame, in fact). It's about as inertial as you get these days.

It has to account for the few cm. of drift [annually] between various "fixed" points, on that surface. That's pretty convincing to me (and I sniff solder fumes occasionally).

For what it may be worth, the continents are made out of lighter minerals from the mantle, that differentiated and rose to the surface (a process that continues today).

The current spread or distribution of these minerals - the continents - is nearly at a maximum - the expectation (prediction) is that in ~15 million years, give or take, the spreading or divergence will stop.
Then subduction will begin to draw them all back together - in another ~250 million years there will be a supercontinent much like the one all the contemporary ones were a part of before they started to break up (rift and spread apart).

The break-up and reassembly of continental crust is believed to have occured many times over the known geological history of this planet.

Check out what "continental rifting", or "supercontinent cycle" means.
The East-African rift-valley is where that continent is currently breaking apart - it will be an inland sea like the Red Sea is eventually (in a few tens of millions of years).

See if any of this, ah, "grows" on yer.

P.S. Astronomers know all about this, or most of them have heard about it. It's well-known, and well-understood. It's called "an accepted theory", BTW.
so according to you tree log has also white crust . the lighter material flown to out side the core means tree log is dead.

jsispat: The planet you and I, and everyone are stuck to, is not alive.
Rocks aren't alive, volcanoes aren't either. The sea has a lot of live things in it - mostly tiny one-celled things. The surface of the land has live things on it, including us, and we know there are bacteria living way down beneath the surface in some of the rocks.

Rocks are not living, are they? When did you last see a rock cross the road?
Or buy a Big Mac and eat it?

jsispat: The planet you and I, and everyone are stuck to, is not alive.
Rocks aren't alive, volcanoes aren't either. The sea has a lot of live things in it - mostly tiny one-celled things. The surface of the land has live things on it, including us, and we know there are bacteria living way down beneath the surface in some of the rocks.

Rocks are not living, are they? When did you last see a rock cross the road?
Or buy a Big Mac and eat it?
true rocks to whom we have aproch is dead but we have not aproach to real layer of earth that are alive. we have aproach only dead skin that is why we do not know about that earth is a living thing.

we have aproach only dead skin that is why we do not know about that earth is a living thing.How can you be certain that we've only found "dead skin"?
Or certain that we will find a "living" part of the planet one day?
If it looks dead (it isn't eating its Big Mac, or following you across the road to the McDonalds), it probably is dead.
So when will we find this living part, you think? How much longer?

Th Earth is not alive by definition. Enough said.

I dont think we know enough about life to have a good definition of it. All we know is life on this planet and EVEN that we still have not learned everything.

Take a look at this picture of the ocean floor map showing the various ridges located in the oceans.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif

Now if the pacific ocean was getting smaller as EVERYONE seems to be claiming it is, then why is the spreading of the mid ocean ridge in the pacific GOING FASTER than the spreading in the Atlantic? (You can tell by the color gradients)

Furthermore this picture only seems to show ridges that spread, where are the subduction zones?
Look at how much sea floor has been newly created in the last 70 million years. If subduction was taking place it seems the continents should be MUCH smaller than they are today. (Or are continents immune to subduction?) There is no evidence to suggest that the continents themselves are being replenished like the sea floor.

So what gives? WHERE are the subduction zones on this map?

I dont think we know enough about life to have a good definition of it. All we know is life on this planet and EVEN that we still have not learned everything.
Well then, what can we do but try our best to find out about it and update our definition along the way ?
If, as you say, we don't know enough about life to have a good definition you can certainly not know that the Earth is alive.

Take a look at this picture of the ocean floor map showing the various ridges located in the oceans.

Now if the pacific ocean was getting smaller as EVERYONE seems to be claiming it is, then why is the spreading of the mid ocean ridge in the pacific GOING FASTER than the spreading in the Atlantic? (You can tell by the color gradients)

Furthermore this picture only seems to show ridges that spread, where are the subduction zones?
Look at how much sea floor has been newly created in the last 70 million years. If subduction was taking place it seems the continents should be MUCH smaller than they are today. (Or are continents immune to subduction?) There is no evidence to suggest that the continents themselves are being replenished like the sea floor.

So what gives? WHERE are the subduction zones on this map?
Not this again ! :bugeye:

Not this again ! :bugeye:

Are you going to answer the question, or avoid it? If the pacific is getting smaller, why is the rate of new ocean floor being created HIGHER there?
Where are the subduction zones to cancel expansion?

Are you going to answer the question, or avoid it? If the pacific is getting smaller, why is the rate of new ocean floor being created HIGHER there?
Where are the subduction zones to cancel expansion?

Because the Earth is alive.

*sigh* You done?
Answer the questions?
Do you not know? Then dont post smartass remarks.

If the pacific is getting smaller, why is the rate of new ocean floor being created HIGHER there?
Where are the subduction zones to cancel expansion?Subduction is a crock, then?
So how do you explain the fact that the ocean floor is oldest at the margins, but no older than ~200my? Why isn't there some 4.5b yr old ocean floor somewhere?

Subduction is a crock, then?
So how do you explain the fact that the ocean floor is oldest at the margins, but no older than ~200my? Why isn't there some 4.5b yr old ocean floor somewhere?

Did I say it was a crock?
I simply asked where the subduction zones where, I was TOLD they were in the pacific because its "shrinking" but when I looked up a map of the ocean floor I found an EXPANDING mid ocean ridge.

And there isnt a 4.5Byr old ocean floor, because as the creator of the video I posted earlier stated, expansion has only been happening for about 70Myr, as indicated by the ages of the new material near the mid ocean ridges.

So again I ask, where are the subduction zones? Why are continents seemingly immune to subduction?

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

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

Subduction zone located right ON TOP of the expanding mid ocean ridge? That doesnt make sense.
And that subduction zone is MUCH smaller than the entirety of the pacific ridge.

Both subduction (at continental margins, and deep trenches) and ocean-floor spreading occur simultaneously, all over the surface. All the time.
They aren't the only dynamics, either. It's somewhat more complex than just the two things, in some kind of cyclic equilibrium.

Why don't you read some of the hundreds of thousands of online articles. You found the mid-oceanic ridge map, didn't the site have anything to say about subduction?

Can you explain why the continents are almost at the limit of divergence? Or what the tectonics model predicts will happen in ~12-15 mil yrs, or ~240 mil later?

How can you be certain that we've only found "dead skin"?
Or certain that we will find a "living" part of the planet one day?
If it looks dead (it isn't eating its Big Mac, or following you across the road to the McDonalds), it probably is dead.
So when will we find this living part, you think? How much longer?
pls see the following points
1. i am not educated just small businessman so facing the technical language problem.
2. i have already attached the links of log of tree. actually i am comparing the birth of earth like birth of tree, because every log of tree has same core and crust like earth and well managed layers that earth also has.
3.tree log has bark same we have continents or bark of earth , and we have only aproch to that bark only or shrinked skin or dead skin.
4. plate tectonics is also part of my theory. i also accept plate tectonics.
5. in earlier stage of earth expantion was very fast because of growing time.
6. i have not read anywhere that earth is expanding and continents are shrinking . these are only my views.
7. better is if some one monutely watch the log of tree and after cutted it also.
8. universe is like a soil where planets are growing with the help of sun and perparing there food also and growing

Well, there you go then.

Subduction zone located right ON TOP of the expanding mid ocean ridge? That doesnt make sense.
And that subduction zone is MUCH smaller than the entirety of the pacific ridge.

It does in a plate tectonic paradigm: subduction is > spreading rate. The subduction eventually caught up with the spreading ridge and down it goes... It does not make sense in an EE paradigm (i.e. EE is wrong). This was one of the points I gave earlier as to how EE is inconstant with the evidence...

What you actually mean is: "That doesn't make sense to me". It makes sense to me (and other geologists all over the world).

That is a small segment of the whole subduction zone around the entire pacific. Evidence:
- Mountain ranges around whole pacific
- Earthquakes around whole pacific
- volcanic activity around whole pacific (which is different kind to that on ocean ridges - compare Mt St Helens to a spreading ridge).
- Ocean trench around whole pacific
- Imaging of subduction slab around whole pacific (by gravity, seismic tomography, moment tensors, location of earthquakes (Benioff Zone))
- Relative plate motions (calculated from the magnetic stripes, Hawaiian hotspot, GPS, etc)
- The existence of andesitic volcanic islands (like Japan and the Aleutian's - go read about their geologic history or better yet go and look at it yourself!)

Here are some nice videos (after all, it's easier than actually reading stuff or going out into the field to do some research...): http://emvc.geol.ucsb.edu/downloads.php#RegionalTectGeolHist

It does in a plate tectonic paradigm: subduction is > spreading rate. The subduction eventually caught up with the spreading ridge and down it goes... It does not make sense in an EE paradigm (i.e. EE is wrong). This was one of the points I gave earlier as to how EE is inconstant with the evidence...

What you actually mean is: "That doesn't make sense to me". It makes sense to me (and other geologists all over the world).

That is a small segment of the whole subduction zone around the entire pacific. Evidence:
- Mountain ranges around whole pacific
- Earthquakes around whole pacific
- volcanic activity around whole pacific (which is different kind to that on ocean ridges - compare Mt St Helens to a spreading ridge).
- Ocean trench around whole pacific
- Imaging of subduction slab around whole pacific (by gravity, seismic tomography, moment tensors, location of earthquakes (Benioff Zone))
- Relative plate motions (calculated from the magnetic stripes, Hawaiian hotspot, GPS, etc)
- The existence of andesitic volcanic islands (like Japan and the Aleutian's - go read about their geologic history or better yet go and look at it yourself!)

Here are some nice videos (after all, it's easier than actually reading stuff or going out into the field to do some research...): http://emvc.geol.ucsb.edu/downloads.php#RegionalTectGeolHist
can you provide me some reasons that why we we consider that earth is dead .

can you provide me some reasons that why we we consider that earth is dead .

If I remember correctly, living things have to do 5 things to be considered living:
- reproduce
- eat
- expel waste
- respond to stimuli
- regulate their own body

These could be wrong as I've not done biology since school ;)

The Earth doesn't reproduce (I've seen no baby Earth's around...), eat, expel waste or respond to stimuli. It kind of regulates itself (as do many complex systems). In short, the Earth does not fulfil all the criteria for being alive. The fact that it's composed of minerals (by definition inorganic, regular arrangements of molecules) also points to the fact that it's not alive. It doesn't grow (expand or shrink). It's been here for 4.6 billion years (or 4,600,000,000 years), as have the rest of the planets in this solar system. In short, it's a sphere of rock, floating in space, with a thin coating of life on the surface (or top few hundred kms).

Please, read some reputable webpages - you've been given plenty of links on this forum, in other fora and by email by lot's of people - go read them. Absorb and understand. Your "theory" is incorrect and has no basis in evidence other than vague coincidences and spurious observations. Really, I've been a geologist for 14+ years, have read the books you haven't, and have spent > 6 years doing geological research. Trust my expert opinion (you should be glad of this, it usually costs a lot of money to get such an opinion!) - your theory is incorrect.

Subduction zone located right ON TOP of the expanding mid ocean ridge? That doesnt make sense.
And that subduction zone is MUCH smaller than the entirety of the pacific ridge.

Just to show some very recent research on subduction zones in the Pacific, this was in my inbox yesterday:


Rapid change in drift of the Australian plate records collision with
Ontong Java plateau pp754-757
Geochronological data on hotspot volcanoes in eastern Australia are presented, which reveal a strong link between collision of the plateau with the Melanesian arc and motion of the Australian plate. The timing and brevity of this collisional event correlate well with offsets in hotspot seamount tracks in the Pacific, including the archetypal Hawaiian chain, and thus provide strong evidence that immense oceanic plateaus can contribute to initiating rapid change in plate boundaries and motions on a global scale.
Kurt M. Knesel, Benjamin E. Cohen, Paulo M. Vasconcelos and David S. Thiede
doi:10.1038/nature07138
Abstract: http://ealerts.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/emmm0SoGhl0HjB0B2bS0Eu
Article: http://ealerts.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/emmm0SoGhl0HjB0B2bT0Ev


See another line of evidence for subduction! Geochronological data on hotspot volcanoes. Seriously, how much evidence do you want? the literature is full of it. A search on Web of Science with "subduction" in the title gives 3260 result. I have a PDF of the 1st 50 (including abstracts) if you'd like. I tried to upload it, but it failed...

I thought it might be of interest to see how EE was examined in the literature too. Trying the same exercise for "expanding earth" produces 52 results. A quick scan reveals some very old papers (60's & 70's), which are discussed EE. Some more recent (80's) from the Journal of Indian Geology which appear to be debunking it in terms of energy requirements and few more obscure articles. However, the older papers (which span '63 to early 80's - 1981 appears to be the last credible article) are very insightful. It appears that EE was seriously considered in the early 70's (few publications in Nature), but evidence since then has simply discounted it - projections for change in Earth's radius since the Devonian is less than 0.1cm/yr, which means that although a possible expansion of 1000km might be possible, this is too small to account for the present ocean basins, even if they started growing in the Devonian (which they didn't). Coupled with major ocean basins being present during most of Earth's history, the stability in the volume of the hydrosphere and countless other arguments, meant that EE died a death (although very long and lingeringly!).

The point I'm trying to make here is that if you actually did some research, the answers you seek are right there, laid out clearly, for anyone to read (if they have access ;) )

If I remember correctly, living things have to do 5 things to be considered living:
- reproduce
- eat
- expel waste
- respond to stimuli
- regulate their own body

These could be wrong as I've not done biology since school ;)

The Earth doesn't reproduce (I've seen no baby Earth's around...), eat, expel waste or respond to stimuli. It kind of regulates itself (as do many complex systems). In short, the Earth does not fulfil all the criteria for being alive. The fact that it's composed of minerals (by definition inorganic, regular arrangements of molecules) also points to the fact that it's not alive. It doesn't grow (expand or shrink). It's been here for 4.6 billion years (or 4,600,000,000 years), as have the rest of the planets in this solar system. In short, it's a sphere of rock, floating in space, with a thin coating of life on the surface (or top few hundred kms).

Please, read some reputable webpages - you've been given plenty of links on this forum, in other fora and by email by lot's of people - go read them. Absorb and understand. Your "theory" is incorrect and has no basis in evidence other than vague coincidences and spurious observations. Really, I've been a geologist for 14+ years, have read the books you haven't, and have spent > 6 years doing geological research. Trust my expert opinion (you should be glad of this, it usually costs a lot of money to get such an opinion!) - your theory is incorrect.
1. tree or plants are alive.did they fulfill all requrements of alive.
2. i have already given all explantion that fulfilling all requirement of alive of earth.
3. i have mentioned that earth is produced from seeds that are meteroids and planets also produce that seeds out of very few can germinate.
4. universe is like a soil for planets and they sre growing in that soil with the help of sun they are making there foods and eating.
5. actual the whole process is like a growth of tree in forest same process planets growth in universe.

If I remember correctly, living things have to do 5 things to be considered living:
- reproduce
- eat
- expel waste
- respond to stimuli
- regulate their own body

These could be wrong as I've not done biology since school ;)

The Earth doesn't reproduce (I've seen no baby Earth's around...), eat, expel waste or respond to stimuli. It kind of regulates itself (as do many complex systems). In short, the Earth does not fulfil all the criteria for being alive. The fact that it's composed of minerals (by definition inorganic, regular arrangements of molecules) also points to the fact that it's not alive. It doesn't grow (expand or shrink). It's been here for 4.6 billion years (or 4,600,000,000 years), as have the rest of the planets in this solar system. In short, it's a sphere of rock, floating in space, with a thin coating of life on the surface (or top few hundred kms).

Please, read some reputable webpages - you've been given plenty of links on this forum, in other fora and by email by lot's of people - go read them. Absorb and understand. Your "theory" is incorrect and has no basis in evidence other than vague coincidences and spurious observations. Really, I've been a geologist for 14+ years, have read the books you haven't, and have spent > 6 years doing geological research. Trust my expert opinion (you should be glad of this, it usually costs a lot of money to get such an opinion!) - your theory is incorrect.
moon is the baby of earth.
actual moon is germinated from seed produced by earth.

moon is the baby of earth.
:roflmao: :cool:

So the moon is alive as well then huh.. ? How does your theory account for that one ?

Ok geology Ill submit for now, but Im still gonna be looking for something else.

I want to go back to something you said about the moon earlier...

The large craters you show on the "informative" video are mares - volcanic eruptions. Essentially a lake of basalt. They formed ~3Ga (which can be dated from crater amounts and from radiometric dating).

If they had formed so long ago, why is there such a significant lack of craterization apparent ONLY in these huge areas?

Craters are all over the place on the moon, but almost completely absent within these mares, as if it is new material.

I havent found a sufficient explanation yet.

Ok geology Ill submit for now, but Im still gonna be looking for something else.

I want to go back to something you said about the moon earlier...



If they had formed so long ago, why is there such a significant lack of craterization apparent ONLY in these huge areas?

Craters are all over the place on the moon, but almost completely absent within these mares, as if it is new material.

I havent found a sufficient explanation yet.

There was a period of heavy bombardment of planets in the first 600Myr or so of the solar system. This finished at around 4Ga. As the mares are ~3Ga, they have very few craters. The same is true for other planets. Look at Mars' northern volcanic plains - almost crater free compared to the south. Same reason. So you are right - it is new material.

Why are the mares only on the side facing earth?

So what gives? WHERE are the subduction zones on this map?

They're simply not marked.

http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/dtam/data/ftp/gtam.gif

Why are the mares only on the side facing earth?

Probably because that's the side that the lunar crust is thinnest on.

There is at least one mare on the far side, it's just smaller.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDqskltCixA

Probably because that's the side that the lunar crust is thinnest on.

There is at least one mare on the far side, it's just smaller.

Link?

Link?

It's pay per view, but http://rimg.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/extract/60/1/221 talks about the crust being 15km thinner on the near side then on the far side (which makes sense, when you think about it).

It has also been suggested that the difference in distribution of vulcanism might be due to the difference in the distribution of radioactive elements (a heat source) observed by the Lunar Prospector mission

Finally, the video is factually inaccurate.

There are several maria on the far side, they're just not as extensive.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Moon_PIA00304.jpg

Why are the mares only on the side facing earth?In addition to the other replies note that this may be a) pure chance b) significant in some other way we haven't determined yet.

I'm not sure when tidal lock set in, but if it preceded mare eruption then tidal heating superimposed on legacy temperatures would likely have been higher on the side closest to the Earth and so vulcanism would have been more sustainable. (Pure speculation!)

From center layer (carbon) to near surface (silicon)

Carbon 440 miles thick
Nitrogen 243 miles thick
Oxygen 174 miles thick
Florine 19 miles thick
Neon 50 miles thick
Sodium 22 miles thick
Mg 14 miles thick
Alumin. 83 miles thick
Silicon 2.7 miles thick

In my assement of the moons compostion, it appears that the center of the moon is, or the majority of the moon is of gaseous elements,(or liquid in normal state) where the gas portion of the moons interior comprises 486 miles of the radius of the moon. The moon appears to be a mere shell.

This type of condition is suggestive of a early formation with the earth, having a slow seperation rate from the proto-earth.

So it also seems that the moon would have out gasing marks on its surface.

The thickness of the aluminium on the moon is as thick as the aluminium layer on earth, so the moon really could absorb asteroid strikes.


DwayneD.L.Rabon

From center layer (carbon) to near surface (silicon)

Carbon 440 miles thick
Nitrogen 243 miles thick
Oxygen 174 miles thick
Florine 19 miles thick
Neon 50 miles thick
Sodium 22 miles thick
Mg 14 miles thick
Alumin. 83 miles thick
Silicon 2.7 miles thick

In my assement of the moons compostion, it appears that the center of the moon is, or the majority of the moon is of gaseous elements,(or liquid in normal state) where the gas portion of the moons interior comprises 486 miles of the radius of the moon. The moon appears to be a mere shell.

This type of condition is suggestive of a early formation with the earth, having a slow seperation rate from the proto-earth.

So it also seems that the moon would have out gasing marks on its surface.

The thickness of the aluminium on the moon is as thick as the aluminium layer on earth, so the moon really could absorb asteroid strikes.


DwayneD.L.Rabon

:confused:

http://www.godigitalscrapbooking.com/forum/images/smilies/lmao.gif

what about my theory that earth is alive and growing day by day by absorbing energy from universe with the help of sun.

http://codebloo.net/stuff/picard-headesk.jpg

Well jsispat
when looking at the earth as a living form, it depends on what stage you are determing it as a life form.

within the solar system it would be considered a organ such as a heart or liver. A organ that interacts with the other planets in our solar system. The role of a organ is to complete a specific proccess such as the secreation of a chemical that the body or another organ is dependant upon. making survival possible.
If we look at the earths as a organ then the communication or reaction that makes it a member of the solar system, the reaction that other planets are dependant upon would be a gravitional signal or pretubance. in such a view the moon would play a significant role.
Certainly the world exspans and contracts and has oscilation/vibration simular to a organ of a living body such as the liver.

Generally speaking the earth is contracting becoming denser overtime as it approachs the sun, the center of solar gravity. evenso there are conditions that cause the earth to exspand.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

But not by much; the sun changes its diameter too, and shrinks and expands over time - just not by a whole lot relative to its overall size (the earth's orbit is changing slowly too, and so is the moon's).

Because all of them are in a state of elastic equilibrium, which depends on a number of influences, which change over time - if our star and the planets bound to it passes through a region of the galaxy that has significant background levels of hydrogen and other gases, it gets bigger (OMG Edit: the star, not the solar system), by absorbing some of the gas, and dust, or anything else in it's gravitational path. But not by very much.

But not by much; the sun changes its diameter too, and shrinks and expands over time - just not by a whole lot relative to its overall size (the earth's orbit is changing slowly too, and so is the moon's).

Because all of them are in a state of elastic equilibrium, which depends on a number of influences, which change over time - if our star and the planets bound to it passes through a region of the galaxy that has significant background levels of hydrogen and other gases, it gets bigger by absorbing some of the gas, and dust, or anything else in it's gravitational path. But not by very much.
if gas and dust resposible for increasing mass than surface of earth should be like tennis ball. there should not be different differnt pockets of minerals and layers.

http://codebloo.net/stuff/picard-headesk.jpg

very funny. i am sorry .

there should not be different different pockets of minerals and layers.But there are, so saying "there should not be layers" means you have a bit of explaining to do.

Alive, as you really should know, means "respiring" and reproducing individual offspring.

The moon is not the earth's offspring and it isn't growing in the same sense as we do; it's done all the growing it's going to do for now.

That's in a different sense to the sense biologists use when they talk about humans, or any other living thing.

You really should know this, you know? You seem to be capable of understanding some of what others have posted here; what have any other forums been like for you?
There are search engines, and there's plenty of stuff to look at. People who have studied this planet a lot closer will tell you it isn't alive or expanding.

But there are, so saying "there should not be layers" means you have a bit of explaining to do.

Alive, as you really should know, means "respiring" and reproducing individual offspring.

The moon is not the earth's offspring and it isn't growing in the same sense as we do; it's done all the growing it's going to do for now.

That's in a different sense to the sense biologists use when they talk about humans, or any other living thing.

You really should know this, you know? You seem to be capable of understanding some of what others have posted here; what have any other forums been like for you?
There are search engines, and there's plenty of stuff to look at. People who have studied this planet a lot closer will tell you it isn't alive or expanding.
thanks for sugestion.it is true that i am facing language problem and i am not qualified in geology that is why i can not give proper reply.
rest with these type of threads i understand that till today people do not know much reg formation of earth. there are big gap between diiferent different theories. i still stand earth is a living thing like tree. we are not aware because we are living on its bark or dead skin.
it may be possibe that earth growth is very few now according to age but at earlier stage or young age of earth its growth was very rapid.

very funny. i am sorry .

pls see the bark of tree same as continents or bark of earth
http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs130&d=08342&f=800px-pine_bark_tecpan_guatemala323.jpg

reg attachment of log of tree. pls consider it continents of tree as earth has same.

Pls follow the link below and quote.

http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=22391_pic_122_399lo.JPG

http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=22391_pic_122_399lo.JPG

We can also get the pieces through observation and experiments. Something like backward engineering, which can take longer but sometimes is the only way.

Pls follow link below.


http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=22391_pic_122_399lo.JPG

Where does science say that?


Follow the Link

http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=22391_pic_122_399lo.JPG

jsispat, in 5 years you're going to look back at these posts you made and wonder "What the hell was I talking about??"


http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=22391_pic_122_399lo.JPG

Jsispat, I will humor you..

Trees grow from the inside out.
They take in the building blocks for growth through their roots and out of the air (with their leafs).
Where does the Earth get its building blocks for growth ? Remember, it must be growing from the inside out to be like a tree.


Pls follow the link


http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=22391_pic_122_399lo.JPG

It possibly lies in GB but other psooibilities include the US, Canada. Austraalia. NewZealand and India. Is it possiblr to determine the accent ?

This talk of trees reminds me of a case of Dutch elm disease. My tree did not understand Dutch. I know this because I spoke to it on a number of occasion, just as Prince Charles talks to his tomatoes.

Follow the Link

http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=22391_pic_122_399lo.JPG

terrific stuff here...


http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=22391_pic_122_399lo.JPG

Your "visual points" in support of your crackpot idea are nothing more than an overactive imagination and a result of an uneducated mind.

Read some books!! Go to school!!! Get and education - and THEN talk. Right now you are doing nothing but promoting a fairy tale.


http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=22391_pic_122_399lo.JPG

Probably because that's the side that the lunar crust is thinnest on.

There is at least one mare on the far side, it's just smaller.


http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=22391_pic_122_399lo.JPG

From center layer (carbon) to near surface (silicon)

Carbon 440 miles thick
Nitrogen 243 miles thick
Oxygen 174 miles thick
Florine 19 miles thick
Neon 50 miles thick
Sodium 22 miles thick
Mg 14 miles thick
Alumin. 83 miles thick
Silicon 2.7 miles thick

In my assement of the moons compostion, it appears that the center of the moon is, or the majority of the moon is of gaseous elements,(or liquid in normal state) where the gas portion of the moons interior comprises 486 miles of the radius of the moon. The moon appears to be a mere shell.

This type of condition is suggestive of a early formation with the earth, having a slow seperation rate from the proto-earth.

So it also seems that the moon would have out gasing marks on its surface.

The thickness of the aluminium on the moon is as thick as the aluminium layer on earth, so the moon really could absorb asteroid strikes.


DwayneD.L.Rabon

http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=22391_pic_122_399lo.JPG

Pls follow the link


http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=22391_pic_122_399lo.JPG

lol

I know what you meant.. it's just that it's bollocks.

lol

I know what you meant.. it's just that it's bollocks.
can you expain your view reg earth formation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet#Formation

http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=22391_pic_122_399lo.JPG
http://img166.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc820&image=64734_barkearththeory_122_820lo.jpg

Not really - the egg came first. Hen is a chicken, which is a bird, which evolved from dinosaurs (they laid eggs), dinosaurs evolved from reptiles (they lay eggs), which evolved from amphibians (lay eggs), which evolved from fish (lay eggs). Easy.

BTW - You've emailed me several times and posted on the GeologyRocks forum on this. I know that I and a number of our members have been patient and pointed you towards reading such as plate tectonics and the early history of the Earth. Clearly, you just ignore them. I strongly suggest you read a few geology textbooks. If you don't have access, read the tutorials on GeologyRocks, Wikipedia and other reputable websites. You'll soon see why your idea is codswallop.


funny how the question is the answear

http://img166.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc820&image=64734_barkearththeory_122_820lo.jpg
it is no strange if a tree has no cracks in its bark. it depends upon the cast of tree. there may be some planets having no cracks on its bark.or super continent or smooth surface. but most tree out of all has cracks on their bark.

it is no strange if a tree has no cracks in its bark. it depends upon the cast of tree. there may be some planets having no cracks on its bark.or super continent or smooth surface. but most tree out of all has cracks on their bark.
Some planets are made of gas, how do you explain that with a tree analogy?

Buy it a Big Mac - with fries?

Some planets are made of gas, how do you explain that with a tree analogy?
first you have to give me evidence of gas planets.

first you have to give me evidence of gas planets.
http://www.spacegazer.com/images/photos/ObservingJupiterBig.jpg

http://www.spacegazer.com/images/photos/ObservingJupiterBig.jpg

pls send me wikipedia of gas planets .

pls send me wikipedia of gas planets .
Please go to wikipedia and type in "gas giants"

[QUOTE=Xelios;1979167]Please go to wikipedia and type in "gas giants"[/QUOTE
there are two types of tree
1.may be that type of planets whose bark is seprated due to expantion or old age. same is happening with trees also.

the bonkers thread that never dies

and has never made it to pseudoscience

jsispat, did you ever visit this forum in the past, long before you started posting? I just wondered if you had run across an individual called Happeh. You remind me of him.

This thing is still running???

Egad! How long does it take to kill an absurdity??????????????

That was why I asked about Happeh. Do you remember him. He could tell whether or not someone masturbated from the orientation of their body as seen in a photograph. Masturbation, he claimed caused cancer, AIDS, unethical business behaviour, and made you go bald. On balance he presented a lot more evidence in support of his arguments than jsispat has managed for his.

That was why I asked about Happeh. Do you remember him. He could tell whether or not someone masturbated from the orientation of their body as seen in a photograph. Masturbation, he claimed caused cancer, AIDS, unethical business behaviour, and made you go bald. On balance he presented a lot more evidence in support of his arguments than jsispat has managed for his.

Oh, yes - I remember him all TOO well and would rather just forget.

And I agree. This joker jsispat has not and can not present even the slimmest of evidence to support his very childish thoughts. He reminds me very much of how a tot of 6 would try to explain the workings of a telephone or TV.

earth is growing throw biological process is not chilidish.

earth is growing throw biological process is not chilidish.

It most certainly is.

Along with you and your total lack of education.

You should really, really try going to school. Are there none available where you live?

It most certainly is.

Along with you and your total lack of education.

You should really, really try going to school. Are there none available where you live?
many thanks for sugestion. but there are no school on earth who have 100% correct knowledge of planet formation.
continents have been seprated from each other . design of continents show such a clear evidence of earth expantion but no body seriosly taking.

many thanks for sugestion. but there are no school on earth who have 100% correct knowledge of planet formation.
continents have been seprated from each other . design of continents show such a clear evidence of earth expantion but no body seriosly taking.

Do you really believe that!? You don't think that all those thousands of scientists who study Earth Science haven't considered expanding earth? Read my posts above re: Expanding Earth theory - it's been considered. The evidence (which is much, much more than "it looks like the bark of a tree") simply does not match. People have given you lots of ideas to read up on stuff, I suggest (again!) you do this. Here's a list of evidence you haven't considered:
- composition of the Earth (more than just layered - the actual chemical composition, including mineral phase transitions in the mantle)
- current plate motions
- the fact that rocks in a particular area show transitions across climate belts
- current earthquake and volcano locations
- location of mountain belts
- the age of the oldest ocean crust
- etc, etc...

continents have been seprated from each other . design of continents show such a clear evidence of earth expantion but no body seriosly taking.
Plate Tectonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_plates). Huge swaths of the Earth's crust float on the liquid magma beneath, like ice bergs floating on the ocean.

This guy can't be real.

Perhaps I'll be banned for saying this, but why is this dude still allowed to post here ?
He should be doing his homework !

Plate Tectonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_plates). Huge swaths of the Earth's crust float on the liquid magma beneath, like ice bergs floating on the ocean.

The mantle is not liquid - it's solid. The crust does not float in that sense. It behaves in a ductile fashion on a geological timescale (and hence there are convection cells) and like a solid rock on short timescales (and hence there are earthquakes). Think silly putty: pull it slowly and it stretches and blobs, a bit like a very thick liquid. Pull it quickly and it snaps, like a brittle solid.

The mantle is not liquid - it's solid. The crust does not float in that sense. It behaves in a ductile fashion on a geological timescale (and hence there are convection cells) and like a solid rock on short timescales (and hence there are earthquakes). Think silly putty: pull it slowly and it stretches and blobs, a bit like a very thick liquid. Pull it quickly and it snaps, like a brittle solid.
You're right, geology is not my field :p

Do you really believe that!? You don't think that all those thousands of scientists who study Earth Science haven't considered expanding earth? Read my posts above re: Expanding Earth theory - it's been considered. The evidence (which is much, much more than "it looks like the bark of a tree") simply does not match. People have given you lots of ideas to read up on stuff, I suggest (again!) you do this. Here's a list of evidence you haven't considered:
- composition of the Earth (more than just layered - the actual chemical composition, including mineral phase transitions in the mantle)
- current plate motions
- the fact that rocks in a particular area show transitions across climate belts
- current earthquake and volcano locations
- location of mountain belts
- the age of the oldest ocean crust
- etc, etc...
pls see the attached topic published in paper. there is little differance that according to topic meteroids broght amino acid neccesary for porteins. bit i said meteroids are them selves seeds of planets and earth is formed throw this biological process.

http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=08396_Picture_001_122_1176lo.jpg

pls see the attached topic published in paper. there is little differance that according to topic meteroids broght amino acid neccesary for porteins. bit i said meteroids are them selves seeds of planets and earth is formed throw this biological process.

http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=08396_Picture_001_122_1176lo.jpg


So your seriously suggesting that planetsimals are somehow inseminated by meteoritoids?

And that this causes the planets to grow? o_O

yes, We are very serious from last 21 years

Please see the attached topic published in the paper. There is little difference between the idea - presented in this paper - that meteoroids brought amino acids neccesary for the formation of proteins and my idea that the meteoroids are themselves seeds of planets, and Earth is formed through this biological process.


I have taken the liberty of rewriting your comments so they are intelligible. I realise English is not your native language, but surely that is all the more reason to use a spell checker and make an exta effort to be correct.

There is every difference between these two things. There is no similarity between them, except in your mind's ignorance.

There is an interesting set of factors at work here:
1: The blatant stupidity of your thesis, which lacks any supporting evidence at all.
2. The incompetent way in which you have presented this thesis.
3. Your refusal to correct your ignorance despite repeated recommendations that you do so and plenty of suggestions as to how you might do it.
4. Your abominable typing, spelling and grammatical errors.

In combination they lead me to believe you are a well educated psychology student who is conducting a field test into the way people deal with fools on the internet. I hope you will let us all know when you publish your results.

He should have posted it in Philosophy.

He should have posted it in Philosophy.

can you send me good link.

can you send me good link.
This should explain it if you watch it to the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

"I am gonna make you cry"

You mean that bit ? LOL :D


Uh.. or was was that "Never gonna make you cry".. I forget.. lol

earth has biological growth only.meteroids are seeds of planets.

Will a moderator please step in, close this thread and ban jsispat.

jsispat I have reported your last post for repetitive stupdity and requested that you be banned. You refuse to learn, you refuse to listen. You are either extremly stupid or extremely rude, either way you are out of place even on this forum.

Maybe just ignore it, as in: do not respond?

I am genetically presdisposed not to ignore stupidity.

I am genetically presdisposed not to ignore stupidity.

As am I. This nonsense has gone on FAR too long.

my theory that meteroids are seeds of planets from which planets take birth. mr. breslow also proved that meteroids have amino acid which is neccesary for producing proteins and proteins are neccessary for life.
as i am saying meteroids are seeds of planets and seeds have amino acid to produce proteins. it indicates that meteroids are seeds.although BRESLOWS's topic has different meaning . but at some point it indicate toward my theory also.see topic again
http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=08396_Picture_001_122_1176lo.jpg

The only connection is in your mind. Go away.

dear members,i am considering in my theory that meteroids are seeds of planets.
and following topic has some help with my theory that meteroids are seeds of planets.http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php...122_1176lo.jpg

Not Found

The requested URL /img.php...122_1176lo.jpg was not found on this server.
Apache/2.2.3 (CentOS) Server at img134.imagevenue.com Port 80

dear members,i am considering in my theory that meteroids are seeds of planets.
and following topic has some help with my theory that meteroids are seeds of planets.http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php...122_1176lo.jpg
Topic is about meteors being seeds of LIFE, not PLANETS. Try again (or better yet, don't).

Topic is about meteors being seeds of LIFE, not PLANETS. Try again (or better yet, don't).
i know also that this topic says meteroids broght the seeds of life.
but if we see as my theory that meteroids are itself seeds of planets. this topic also help in my theory that meteroids may be seeds of planets as they have amino acid.

Not Found

The requested URL /img.php...122_1176lo.jpg was not found on this server.
Apache/2.2.3 (CentOS) Server at img134.imagevenue.com Port 80



Pls use this link below to open


http://img226.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=11724_Picture_001_122_394lo.jpg

i know also that this topic says meteroids broght the seeds of life.
but if we see as my theory that meteroids are itself seeds of planets. this topic also help in my theory that meteroids may be seeds of planets as they have amino acid.
It doesn't help your theory, because amino acids aren't necessary for a planet to form. In fact, Earth is the only planet we know of with amino acids on it. If amino acids were part of 'seeds of planets' they would be on every planet.

Pls use this link below to open


http://img226.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=11724_Picture_001_122_394lo.jpg

LOL
See what Xelios said.. the article doesn't support your "theory" in any way.

Thread is too long for a later comer to read all. Link:
http://img226.imagevenue.com/img.php..._122_394lo.jpg
worked for me and seems only with small impossibilities in part about presumably ingested molecules converting the pre existing life on Earth to L (instead of R) isomers. I.e. I can believe it possible, but unlikely, that rudiments of bio-geneses did come from space, but somewhere life originated from non-life.

I can even believe that a small mass, which could be called an asteroid or meteorite could have wandered into our solar system, and helped "nucleate"a planet, but that too is very unlikely. Certainly the fact that all recovered ones have the same age strongly does indicate they are the residue of some now fragmented planet, not the cause of planet formation.

Is this jsipat character claiming something more than that these two improbable possibilities did happen? If not, what is all the reaction about?

Sorry, but I would like to know, without reading most of what seems to be a pointless thread. - Thanks in advance for help me avoid that.

jsispat claims the Earth is 'alive' and that it grew from a seed meteor. The 'evidence' for this is that Earth has a crust like a tree has bark and so the Earth must be alive also. Other similarities between the Earth and living organisms have been offered. He is a grade 10 nutter. (Or see my alternative 'psychology student' hypothesis in post #231.

Thanks.jsispat claims the Earth is 'alive' and that it grew from a seed meteor. ...Well that is obviously false. Living organisms reproduce their own kind. Earth did not send several meteors out of the solar system (Pioneer 1 being the first thing Earth sent out, but is not a "meteor."). Thus, if life was seeded on Earth by some extra solar visit, it was by some rocket ship crashing (or soft landing on it) long ago. Yes, that must be it as it explains why the "sperm of life" did not get cooked on the way down thru the atmosphere. :eek:

I wonder how long it will take Earth's "distant children" to evolve their own "jsipat" to tell them the truth? :shrug:

Thanks again for bringing me up to speed on this important thread. :rolleyes: