Birth of Earth

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by sureshbansal, Feb 19, 2007.

  1. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    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
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    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.
     
  8. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    You really should learn a few more english sentences.
     
  9. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    yes correct.wants support ,thanks
     
  10. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    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.
    (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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2008
  11. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    montains are result of shrinking land not folding.
    2. globe is expanding and continents are shrinking at a time. i mean double action.
     
  12. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    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?
     
  13. geologyrocks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    66
    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.




    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.

    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.


    No it doesn't line up.


    Actually, I'd rather do proper research (my day job), give people actual facts and knowledge that research (not just mine

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )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.
     
  14. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    First off geology, I appreciate the patience, lots of people on this forum are assholes....

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


    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

    Fair enough.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    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

    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 havent found anything either that says ABSOLUTELY expanding earth is false. (ive seen several holes, but every theory has holes

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
    Give me ONE example that works only for Plate tectonics that would not work for Expanding earth. One convincing example is all I ask.
     
  15. geologyrocks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    66
    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.
     
  16. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    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.
     
  17. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    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
     
  18. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2008
  19. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    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
     
  20. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    So is the possibility of me setting a piece of granite on fire with some matches.
     
  21. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    i can not understand the exact meaning.i understand that you are saying my theory is imposible.is it
     
  22. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    My only advice is: publish the thing.
    But check out the granite and matches too, as a sort of field test.
     
  23. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    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.
    And my understanding is that the science ruless out an expanding Earth.
    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.
    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.

    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.

    It doesn't.

    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.
    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.
     

Share This Page