a new twist- Earth is growing

[purple raevyn]

I'm totally jumping on this guy's bandwagon. I never could quite understand the theory that earth's surface is made of plates that slide all over the place like bumper cars, hence this mkes sense on so many levels. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI for those who still wonder bout the formation of mountains check this out: http://www.continuitystudios.net/mountains.html

[Adam]

Oh my days! That guys voice in the second one, made me want to shoot myself! - And if that were all true where the hell did all the sea come from?

[thegnome54]

That's pretty stupid, if you ask me. We've got plenty enough evidence of subduction zones, suture zones, etc. Also, like Adam said, where the hell does the extra matter come from?

[ClouD]

That's pretty stupid, if you ask me. We've got plenty enough evidence of subduction zones, suture zones, etc. Also, like Adam said, where the hell does the extra matter come from? Where does any matter come from. What a question... You ask as if pretending you believe she has an answer? I envy your ignorance, more than mine.

[Howie]

Teutonic plates? That is old accepted news. Interesting new theory. http://images.google.com/images?q=Te...mages&ct=title What makes new mountains? , earthquakes, volcanoes? Sharp digital images making old science obsolete, perfectly.

[Carôusoul]

Does this really belong in philosophy? Could we maybe get a move to extended discussion?

[Howie]

Where does any matter come from. What a question... You ask as if pretending you believe she has an answer? I envy your ignorance, more than mine. Not from between your ears. That is a valid question. He does not ask where matter itself comes form. The "extra matter" ya know the matter it would it would take to constitute the expansion. Magma? pphhht.

[thegnome54]

That is a valid question. He does not ask where matter itself comes form. The "extra matter" ya know the matter it would it would take to constitute the expansion. Thank you. Not to mention, with a different mass the Earths' orbit would have been markedly different, and the moon might not have even been held in orbit around us. The whole thing is just kind of under-thought. I hate it when people come up with ideas so ridiculous that they have to spend all of their time explaining them to people and never get around to actually thinking it through themselves. i.e. Plato and his 'idea world' bullshit.

[Cyclic13]

It may seem odd or hard to believe to those pathologically thinking inside the box, but really, it is no more unfathomable or hard to believe than a complex living organism growing from a single cell or our entire universe expanding outward from a singularity in space. What sense does any of it make? Exactly... it doesn't. It's so funny to me when people act as if they have it all figured out. Such arrogance is actually wrought from a desperation to make sense of it all, and a clear lack of understanding of the experience. Continuing to search for answers outside will always inevitably find you scratching your head in humility and dismay. Scientists and other bean counters need to learn how to get down off their high horse from time to time...

[thegnome54]

It may seem odd or hard to believe to those pathologically thinking inside the box, but really, it is no more unfathomable or hard to believe than a complex living organism growing from a single cell or our entire universe expanding outward from a singularity in space. What sense does any of it make? Exactly... it doesn't. It's so funny to me when people act as if they have it all figured out. Such arrogance is actually wrought from a desperation to make sense of it all, and a clear lack of understanding of the experience. Continuing to search for answers outside will always inevitably find you scratching your head in humility and dismay. Scientists and other bean counters need to learn how to get down off their high horse from time to time... That's a horrific analogy. An organism collects matter from its environment to incorporate into itself so that it may grow - it's called 'eating' (or phagocytosis, if you're tiny). The Earth does not eat. It's all fine and dandy to call rational people 'bean counters', but then you must admit that you lack common sense and the ability to use scientific reasoning.

[juroara]

sweet! I love stuff that upsets science, true or not either way it challenges us to look further for the truth. as for the analogy of the cell eating and then growing - biology is much more complicated than that. by saying the analogy isn't right you are saying we consume an equal amount of mass that is required to grow that mass. but that just isn't true. its not just eat A and gain A. otherwise we would all gain what we eat in a day. there is energy involved, a form of matter. And there are certainly a lot of life forms that seemingly grow more than the mass they are consuming. energy may not create matter, the matter might have already been there - but energy in a sense does create energy! I mean if we could put the sun in a box to measure the energy it generates which box would have more, today's or tomorrow's? Is the sun creating matter, no. But it is creating energy. Why would the core of the earth be so different? What happens when energy becomes static? What happens when the energy, cools down?

[thegnome54]

its not just eat A and gain A. otherwise we would all gain what we eat in a day. It is eat A gain A, at least until the unusable matter is got rid of. there is energy involved, a form of matter. And there are certainly a lot of life forms that seemingly grow more than the mass they are consuming. I don't believe so - this would require the life forms to create mass from energy, which does not happen regularly at macro scales. I mean if we could put the sun in a box to measure the energy it generates which box would have more, today's or tomorrow's? Is the sun creating matter, no. But it is creating energy. The sun does not create energy, it converts matter to energy - matter is technically energy to begin with, so any measure of the sun's energy would have to take into account the mass of it as well. [/QUOTE]Why would the core of the earth be so different? What happens when energy becomes static? What happens when the energy, cools down?[/QUOTE] The core of the Earth does not harbor massive amounts of nuclear fusion reactions - BIG difference there, to begin with. I don't quite follow what you mean by energy 'cooling down'. Are you referring to entropy?

[R.D.735]

The main problem, as I see it, with the growing-Earth hypothesis is that the physical evidence of such an expansion would be etched into every geological formation on the planet. Even if there was a mechanism by which the Earth could expand, the formation of minerals, ores, and volcanoes would have been drastically different, as would the creation and progression of fault lines. As it happens, the theory of plate tectonics has been confirmed by measurements of tectonic plates moving in relation to each other, as well as observations of the stress patterns in rocks taken from fault zones. The growing-Earth theory is aesthetically pleasing, but it fails to account for observation and fails to predict new phenomena.

[Cyclic13]

Horrific, eh? Under whose authority, exactly? If you want to get down to the nitty-gritty, your explanation does absolutely nothing to tell me about why it does what it does, or why the universe came out of the singularity. All the scientific method has ever done is just dress up the great mystery in a frilly bow tie of verbose meaninglessness. Attaching inert symbols, formulas, and characters to something like a bird fluffing it's feathers to make itself look bigger than it actually is- Inherently without meaning. As I said before, at 15, you lack the experience and inner understanding to comprehend or reflect on the why, and you currently get your kicks from, and feel it necessary to scientifically explain how things operate as if it reveals to us the why through these cold-calculating observations. Sorry, but your wrong... and it doesn't. You see, the thing is, you are actually more closeminded than I, in that regard. I have been using common sense, and I don't discount the results reached through scientific method. I just take those practical truths for what they are... at face value. Ever-changing, and forever flawed interpretations of infinity. Did you look into DMT yet? The current materialistic ways of the west are afraid to delve any deeper down that rabbit hole so they made it the most illegal substance in the world, even though it's what you naturally produced in your brain during meditative states, and REM sleep. How redundant. It's funny how many scientists are doing the same thing that happened to them long ago. Back in the day, scientific study of cadavers used to not be allowed by the catholic church since it countermined their beliefs, and now the same thing is happening within the scientific community because they don't like how certain studies countermine their previous results. Naturally, for most cold-calculating bean counters, when reality doesn't fit into a nice cozy little box they get scared. Just because you been granted the ability to memorize many terms and formulas doesn't put you in a different bracket of understanding. I think, it's high time you come down off your high horse and face that fact because you are extremely too arrogant for a 15 year old.

[jacobo]

they claim no tectonic movement but don't explain why we have ACTIVE fault lines and ACTIVE volcanoes. they say that the earth is expanding but don't offer a theory as to how or why. *waits for al gore to jump in and make a documentary*

[Howie]

they claim no tectonic movement but don't explain why we have ACTIVE fault lines and ACTIVE volcanoes. they say that the earth is expanding but don't offer a theory as to how or why. *waits for al gore to jump in and make a documentary* Ha ha exactly! Right. As thegnome54 pointed out, it was so poorly thought out, that as I began to post, the things in question mounted so fast, I quit. Teutonic plates? That is old accepted news. Interesting new theory. http://images.google.com/images?q=Te...mages&ct=title What makes new mountains? , earthquakes, volcanoes? Sharp digital images making old science obsolete, perfectly. --------------------------------------- Bad analogy or good, let's stay on topic no? Which analogies often work better if they are in a similar broad base of the topic discussion.

[Man of Shred]

Interesting. A self proclaimed re incarnation of Edgar Cayce was talking about this very thing. I'm not sure excactly where it s but he talks about it in his interview on youtube with coast to coast. here is the first part http://youtube.com/watch?v=WUcVqG0AF50

[Cyclic13]

LOL... I was listening to that right now actually. I'm on part 2. Synchronicity

[thegnome54]

Horrific, eh? Under whose authority, exactly? MINE. THE EARTH DOESN'T FUCKING EAT. Listen, just because I'm using 'science' doesn't mean that you can discount obvious logical truths as 'bean counting'. Organisms grow through the gathering of new materials, and the Earth, which happens to be floating around in a near-vacuum, does not do so. Your analogy is terrible. I don't care if you enjoy rebelling against science for some strange reason, that does not give you license to ignore this simple truth. If you want to get down to the nitty-gritty, your explanation does absolutely nothing to tell me about why it does what it does, or why the universe came out of the singularity. The only 'why' which is relevant to apply to the universe is the scientific - the mechanical - why. If you ask "why", you imply purpose. Purpose can only be inferred when a sentient being has done something - applying this concept to the universe at large is fallacious, unless you believe in creationism, which is a whole other can of worms. If you want to go even deeper, then even human actions can be theoretically explained on a purely mechanical level. Our emotions and our constructs are held within our brains, which are material objects and should follow natural law. All the scientific method has ever done is just dress up the great mystery in a frilly bow tie of verbose meaninglessness. Attaching inert symbols, formulas, and characters to something like a bird fluffing it's feathers to make itself look bigger than it actually is- Inherently without meaning. Do you know how a computer works? I'm going to assume that you don't, because to do so would require knowledge of these meaningless symbols you speak of. How about a toaster? Maybe? Science is useful. Science is the only way which we can gain proper knowledge about the world around us, and it works. That's what it's all about. If you don't like the fact that we have to use symbols and formulas to approximate the complexities of this world, then you can go ahead and go back into the woods to play with sticks. Like I've explained, science does not answer questions of 'why' in the sense you're using it - because those questions are fallacious. If you come up with answers for those questions on your own, fine - whatever makes you happy... but those answers are also fallacious and inherently useless. Science is about making useful models of the world which allow us to predict how it will behave and create useful technology. You 'why' nonsense will never approach the usefulness of this process. You see, the thing is, you are actually more closeminded than I, in that regard. I have been using common sense, and I don't discount the results reached through scientific method. I just take those practical truths for what they are... at face value. Ever-changing, and forever flawed interpretations of infinity. Though ever-changing and flawed, all scientific results hold some element of reality. You simply cannot throw away an entire theory and the data which supports it because it is 'ever changing and flawed' - your new theory will have to explain WHY the old one actually worked, as well as WHY it didn't. Did you look into DMT yet? The current materialistic ways of the west are afraid to delve any deeper down that rabbit hole so they made it the most illegal substance in the world, even though it's what you naturally produced in your brain during meditative states, and REM sleep. How redundant. I did look into DMT. I obviously do not know enough about physiology and neuroscience to comprehend the effects it has on the brain (and no one does, at this point in history). However, I would think that the simplest explanation of this phenomenon is just that all human brains are very similar, and this drug affects some part of our brains which is responsible for generating the feeling we get in the presence of an authority. We are pack animals, and perhaps some part of our brain has evolved like this in order to keep the social order in place inside of a pack. The root of the matter is, though, that I don't know. And neither do you. So please stop using the fact that this drug is illegal as if it's evidence towards its validity as a soul-freeing chemical - it's illegal because it's a psychotropic drug, not because it makes you visit God. Neither of us know, and that's as far as our conjecture on this matter can really go at this point. (If I do make it into neuroscience, I might look into this and get back to you ) Just because you been granted the ability to memorize many terms and formulas doesn't put you in a different bracket of understanding. I think, it's high time you come down off your high horse and face that fact because you are extremely too arrogant for a 15 year old. For the record, I actually have a terrible memory. I can't remember nearly any equations, and have to resort to actually understanding the concepts behind them well enough that I can re-derive them when necessary. I fail to see how I am on a high horse here - you're the one claiming to have such a deep understanding of the world and talking down to me because of my age. I'm well aware of my limitations, and my exploits on this forum do not reflect arrogance, only curiosity (as far as I'm concerned). I think you're too arrogant for a human being, really. You seem to be discounting science as a whole just because you think you've found some secret understanding that places you above the rest of the rational human race. Everyone wants to be special, everyone wants to be ahead of the system, and some people think that no one has disregarded the system before because no one was clever enough - this is simply not true. No one has completely disregarded the system because no one was foolish enough. Some people have revolutionized it, yes - but those people explained the successes and failures of the old system in good detail. You can't just ignore everything we've accomplished as a species and run off to your room to meditate and expect to gain more understanding than anyone in history.

[Cyclic13]

I never said or implied it eats. The essence of my posts were straightforward and clearly missed by your attempts at trying to one up people and throw your condescension around, yet again. I'm not going to bother taking apart how many times you falsely assumed things I meant or said, because there are too many to even start... First know good, then do good

[thegnome54]

It may seem odd or hard to believe to those pathologically thinking inside the box, but really, it is no more unfathomable or hard to believe than a complex living organism growing from a single cell or our entire universe expanding outward from a singularity in space. The singularity was allegedly extremely dense - the Earth would not start out extremely dense and then randomly expand. Organisms eat and grow - the Earth doesn't. Ergo, the Earth expanding is definitely more unfathomable and harder to believe in light of our current understanding of the universe, along with the overwhelming evidence of continental shift. Nice ad hominem, by the way I totally wrote all of that to insult you, and I'm glad you didn't take the time to respond meaningfully or anything.

[Cyclic13]

I wasn't about to take my time, and point out where and how you nitpicked and misread what I wrote. Obviously, I was talking about the unfathomable nature being prevalent in all facets of reality... be it explained, or unexplained... rational, or irrational. And, for the record, I never claimed to know all the answers.

[grasshoppa]

OK ok, the earth doesn't eat. It can still be a giant plant...Rather unlikely as it is mostly molten rock with a bit of grass ontop.

[thegnome54]

I wasn't about to take my time, and point out where and how you nitpicked and misread what I wrote. Obviously, I was talking about the unfathomable nature being prevalent in all facets of reality... be it explained, or unexplained... rational, or irrational. And, for the record, I never claimed to know all the answers. SolSkye, no matter how 'angry' or 'arrogant' you perceive me to be, I'm really just looking for an interesting discussion. Of course you don't have to answer everything I said, I just feel like I took a while to put my ideas forth and it's a little frustrating to have them all be summarily dismissed by you accusing me of trying to 'one-up' you. If you feel that I've missed your points or misinterpreted things you've said, by all means correct me - I'm not trying to misread you just to piss you off or anything. OK ok, the earth doesn't eat. It can still be a giant plant...Rather unlikely as it is mostly molten rock with a bit of grass ontop. Well, plants technically 'eat', too. They do harvest energy from the sun through photosynthesis, but photosynthesis needs water and carbon, among other things, to occur. They basically use the sun's energy to stick things together into carbohydrates, then break these apart later, like batteries of a sort. However, they still need the matter in the first place - they don't use the sun to get bigger, just to keep cellular operations going.

[Cyclic13]

Spontaneous DNA, The Rapture, and The Rise to Fourth Density Oh, and this is for you gnome HERE