Can Gravitational Bodies Grow?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by OilIsMastery, Sep 30, 2008.

  1. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    In the absense of destructive exogenous collision/impact events with other major gravitational bodies, do gravitational bodies grow over time with the accretion of mass (i.e. the attraction of interstellar dust particles and iron meteorites such as those found all over the surface of Mars today), just as black holes grow and accrete mass from stars? And does that mass accretion accelerate over time as more matter is captured by the ever increasing gravitational field?

    "My research, based on irrefutable evidence of constant accretion of meteorites and meteor dust, concludes that Earth began as an asteroid remnant of an earlier comet captured by the Sun. The proto-planet then grew over uncountable years (possibly many more than the 4.5 Ga now believed) in an accretion process that is still underway and will continue into the future at an accelerating pace because of Earth’s constantly increasing mass and gravitational power." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Yeah, he sounds reliable, being both a cryptologist and a geoscientist and saying "Irrefutable evidence".... Doesn't explain the structure of planets' interiors or the lack of dust on the surfaces of planets.

    Yet another example of you having no clue about geophysics.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Ok. Here's why this is moronic.

    1) We already know that "The proto-planet then grew over uncountable years (possibly many more than the 4.5 Ga now believed) in an accretion process". This is accepted. But the last period of any significant accretion was ~4.5bya.

    2) "still underway and will continue into the future at an accelerating pace because of Earth’s constantly increasing mass and gravitational power."

    This is absurd because we know the approximate rate of mass infall (< ~40000 tons per year?) and that it will decrease over time as there is less and less material in our general neighborhood, discounting the occasional passage through a galactic region of denser interstellar medium.

    40000000 kg/yr / 6e24 kg = 6.6e-18% of earths mass per year. over 4.5e9 years thats about 3e-8 or 30 billionth's of the earths total current mass.

    Fuck. This is just rediculous.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    I'm confused. What does this have to do with oil?
     
  8. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Nothing except what's leaking out of three of the four cylinders in OIM's head.
     
  9. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Note footprint in powdery dust.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    :crazy: LOL.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2008
  10. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    So let me get this straight. All of the meteorites, including Chicxulub, in the past ~4.5 billion years have had a net mass of zero? Fascinating.

    So no more meteorites will ever hit the earth and a black hole is impossible?
     
  11. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    What? Not zero you dimwit. Just incredibly small compared to the mass of the planet.


    WTF? Again for the gray-matter impaired:

    Meteors will continue to hit the earth with the same microscopic effect as usual.

    And what does the fact that a black hole can violently accrete material (like whole stars at a time in some cases) have to do with the fact that the earth is NOT a BH and is in a wasteland of available material to accrete (thankfully)?
     
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    That's not what he's saying at all you dishonest toad.

    He's saying the same thing that I am - that when compared to the mass of the earth, it's negligeble.
    As a percentage, it's marhin of error material.
    Even at 40,000,000 kg/year over a period of 4.5Ga, that's 'only' 18,000,000,000,000,000 kg.

    18,000,000,000,000,000 kg IS insignificant when compared to 5,970,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg, it equates to 0.0000003% of the earths mass, in other words, to directly measure the change in the earths mass over the last 4.5 Ga, we would need to be able to measure the earths mass to an accuracy of better than 300 parts per billion.

    This is the same as measuring the mass of a 100kg person to an accuracy of 3 Micrograms.
     
  13. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Everything.

    "Generally in science, whenever new advances are made, old ideas should be re-examined in light of those advances. In the case of the abiotic origin of natural gas and petroleum, that is especially true, as the advances made pertaining to the processes operant during the formation of the solar system, and to the composition and dynamics of planet earth, all appear to greatly enhance the prognosis for those abiotic resources." -- J. Marvin Herndon, geophysicist, September 2006
     
  14. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Yet it does have mass and gravity, no?

    I guess shooting stars, meteorites, and impact crators are just a figment of my imagination. Thanks for clarifying.
     
  15. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Certainly. Are you the least bit concerned with the relative magnitudes of the effects you're talking about?

    Errr... no. Again, do you concern yourself with the basic arithmetic of scale at all?
     
  16. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    That's really funny from someone who has repeatedly failed to grasp basic concepts relating to orders of magnitude.
     
  18. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2008
  19. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Observational evidence: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041019082930.htm

    Grown? Yes. Grown!!!

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114203718.htm

    Embryos? Yes. Embryos!!!
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2008
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Once again, OIM is barking up the wrong tree.

    Once again, OIM is appealing to ignorance, and presenting logical fallacies.

    OIM would have the casual reader of the thread believe that those of us arguing that the earth has not grown substantially in the last 4-4.5 Ga some how deny that the earth was formed through accretion.

    Quite simply, this is not the case.
    Perhaps the opposing argument would be best stated as 'Since the end of the late heavy bombardment' although arguably even the large heavy bombardment would not have resulted in a substantial increase in mass (There were only an estimated 22,000 odd impacts).

    The simple fact of the matter is that citing articles that discuss accretionary theory does nothing to contradict the statement that "The earth has not grown substantially in the last 4.5 Ga" and certainly does nothing except illustrate the original posters ignorance when posted as opposition to the statement "The earth has not grown substantially in the last 620 Ma".

    However, I feel compelled to point out that, generally speaking, the theories hold that the impact that is thought to have caused the moon is believed to have occured 4.533 Ga, and the accretionary phase was all but over and done with by 4.5Ga.

    So once again, OIM is trying to mislead the casual reader, and is arguing against an argument that no one saying he is wrong is making.
     
  21. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    So how do you account for the age of the oceanic seafloor spreads?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    We've already had this discussion.

    We've already established that oceanic crust - in the form of Ophiolite sequences, significantly older than that currently present, exists incorporated in crustal squences.

    A simple fact that you have never been able to explain with your... Ideas.

    "The late Neoproterozoic rhythmite data do not support significant change in Earth’s moment of inertia and radius over the past 620 Myr." - George E Williams, 1999.
     
  23. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Do you or do you not believe in the the carbon dates of core samples of oceanic seafloor spreads? Yes or no?
     

Share This Page