Thread: a new twist- Earth is growing

Well, if you've at all followed my previous posts, you'd know I try and equally believe and disbelieve everything at all times. I don't need to grasp the logic or lack of logic behind a theory to entertain a thought... there are truths in non-truth... and non-truths in truth. Biased and/or Blind belief in one or the other is a different thing all together, though. I look at life no different from a movie. Imagine if you had to subscribe to each idea presented in a movie, or see if they 'checked out' before you watched it. That would be and is unequivocally lame. I find it best to go through life as if watching a movie, you run into less self-imposed road blocks along the way.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

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...

Sorry, you never said what you think about this? What do you believe personally?

I don't like these types of argument. You're just as bad as the global sceptic, but on a whole other plane. Sure, lets throw out documented, tested knowledge. Cus it doesn't make sense to me.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

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 doesn't make sense to your simple little mind, but it does to other people. It does to the scientists who study it. Hell, it makes perfect sense to me, because I have learnt about it passionately. It does make sense, and just because you can't get it it doesn't somehow make it invalid.

I love the way you don't actually say why it doesn't make sense. Like, why not? It makes sense just like 2+2=4 makes sense[rational axioms, upon which the rest of logical conclusion is based]. It equally has perfectly corresponding results in the real world, leading us to believe it to be true, and sorry but thats the most sensical thing your likely to find.

You remind me of some woman I met who believed that televisions were proof of alien encounters because we could never ever make something that complex, and it was so massively beyond us. I'm not going to explain why this is laughable, cus you should be able to see for yourself, but yeah. Look at yourself for a moment.


I can understand you, sometimes I want so much to find something denying science, to give some meaning to us, something more to throw off the cold harsh reality. But remember, that is what it is, reality. LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT AND STOP CREATING THINGS DESPERATELY TO GIVE YOUR LIFE MEANING.

Originally Posted by juroara

sweet! I love stuff that upsets science, true or not either way it challenges us to look further for the truth.

Seriously. Wtf. What do you think 'science' is? A set of laws that the squares have set out. Like a religion? NO. I hate this conception of science as some kind of religion-like entity. Now read this and never forget it, please.

-Science: A method of reaming about the world by applying the principles of method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways

So in essence, science is simply making observations leading us to the truth.

So when you "love that stuff that upsets science" you realise your essentially saying you "love that stuff that isn't true". SRSLY.

Science by definition is the conclusion of logical truth from valid method. To throw this out is to throw out any last hope we have of understanding and truth. I'm sure this seems tempting, so you can live in a hppy little dreamworld, but reality, yknow.

Originally Posted by juroara

but energy in a sense does create energy!

Please please please don't mean this in the sense I think you do. New energy cannot be created, as stated by the law of conservation of energy. I suggest you look it up.

Originally Posted by juroara

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.

THE SUN IS NOT F'IN CREATING ENERGY.

IT IS TRANSFORMING MATTER INTO ENERGY.

THERE WOULD BE MORE ENERGY IN TOMORROWS BOX, AND LESS MATTER EQUALLY. LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY, LOOK IT UP IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY.

Originally Posted by juroara

Why would the core of the earth be so different? What happens when energy becomes static? What happens when the energy, cools down?

Well, the core of the earth would be so different to the sun because the core of the earth is not the sun. The core of the earth is essentially made up of metals. There is no nuclear reactions here. no sir.


The sun, on the other performs nuclear fusion. A wholly different thing indeed.

Your basic lack of understanding is equivalent to someone samying anything hot looking must be like the sun, lulz.


I will not address the concept of energy cooling down. cheers.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Seriously. Wtf. What do you think 'science' is? A set of laws that the squares have set out. Like a religion? NO. I hate this conception of science as some kind of religion-like entity. Now read this and never forget it, please.

So, so glad that I am not alone in this frustration.

I see how this becomes a loaded gun here. I myself feel pretty defensive about some of the posts made.
Let's keep it at a level of discussion that I don't have to Moderate.
Direct, disparaging comments to other members warrants Moderation.
SO please. No tiny little mind, or arrogant little 15 year old and pathetic etc. They are all pretty demeaning.
Please edit this out or I will have to thanks

Carôusoul
Although your posts are pretty direct and forth coming, I find a lot of truth in them. I agree with you.
I feel if you take the stance that Solskye has admitted to taking, which is a belief of equal or neutral more or less, no? Then you will remain stagnant.
Happy maybe. You have chosen one scientific principle > The path of least resistance.
What good is thinking outside the box if you never make a choice of logic?
There might as well be no box. Think inside outside or no box at all. You can have all the variables you wish and let them all stream by you.

"Brilliance is not thinking outside the box, it is realizing there is no box"

Originally Posted by thegnome54

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.

Eating isn't the same as photosynthesis. They are two different methods of acquiring energy. Although I understand your point, and I also disagree that the earth is growing.

I don't understand how it can get bigger. If all those tectonic plates were fused together at one point that would mean that the earth would have to suddenly enlarge itself for them to separate itself and then shift about.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

I don't understand how it can get bigger. If all those tectonic plates were fused together at one point that would mean that the earth would have to suddenly enlarge itself for them to separate itself and then shift about.

AND every geographical feature there in!!!!

Just to contribute a little to what's being said; from what I understand, the whole science of plate tectonics is actually very shaky. Here's what my Geography teacher said about the subject:

'So basically what I have to teach you is that convection currents in the mantle is what drives tectonic motion. Unfortunately experiments have been carried out to try to find such convection currents, but... it looks as if there aren't any. However the plate tectonic theory is pretty hard to explain without them, so just write this in your exam, because it's what the mark scheme says you'll get marks for'.

So there you are.

The expansion theory could be pretty easily proven if you look at the fossil types at the coasts. If the correct types match up to where they once were, then the theory is probably true.

If would be very helpful to this discussion if somebody could find a link to some fossil type data, actually. There's probably quite a bit of it around.

There we go... someone with an open mind enough to entertain the thought. That's all it takes.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

There we go... someone with an open mind enough to entertain the thought. That's all it takes.

I have a perfectly open mind to entertain the thought, and I have. All the evidence points against it, so, I assume it isn't true. That isn't not having an open mind SolSkye, that is denying what is evidently wrong.


Xox: I don't quite know wassup with your teacher, but really fails to explain away fault lines and the absolutely clear geographical evidence we see everyday. Also, if you think about it logically; this means not think about it trying to burn whatever is accepted; convection currents make absolutely perfect sense, if you take the time to understand the causes and effects of them. They are a rather hard thing to prove, thinking about them, but the effects of them we can prove, and also the cause, so I think that has a far better justification than new theories with 0 evidence.

I know it would be nice for this theory to be right, I understand your desire for the accepted to be worong, and there to be a bit more mystery in the world, but, accepting any old theory isn't the way, and more often than not scientists have it right I'm afraid.

I notice people are not basing this theory on pure evidence, they're basing it on knocking of the established tectonic theory. Which really shows
the quality of the argument.

Originally Posted by Xei

Just to contribute a little to what's being said; from what I understand, the whole science of plate tectonics is actually very shaky.

Yes, Very shaky from what they say.!

I notice people are not basing this theory on pure evidence, they're basing it on knocking of the established tectonic theory. Which really shows
the quality of the argument.

It would be nice to see otherwise.
Are we suppose to except this or any notion on a whim?

I did not have all the missing installs for the mountain idea.
What did it add?
A few Things I have wanted to add that it may have covered.
-The Himalayas and the Andes are still growing in height. As seismologist and other scientist have measured.
The Smokey mountains, which they have concluded the oldest mountains are not only absent from growing but withering down with age.
The questions this raises in my head are:
● If the earth were expanding, all geographical features would react in a similar fashion

● The Smokeys have been considered the oldest because of the age of the rock among them.
If I picture this in my head, as a ball or sphere, all mountain ranges would lower, no?
How would they be positioned so if this new theory were embraced?

● How have scientist located many crustaceans that were once at the bottom of the ocean floor at the tops of many of these mountain ranges? If it were not for tectonic plates colliding and pushing forward?

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I have a perfectly open mind to entertain the thought, and I have. All the evidence points against it, so, I assume it isn't true. That isn't not having an open mind SolSkye, that is denying what is evidently wrong.

Well put.

"I notice people are not basing this theory on pure evidence, they're basing it on knocking of the established tectonic theory. Which really shows
the quality of the argument. "

Well, when a new theory on gravity comes out, you can bet they will test it against the theory of relativity and nuetonian law.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

"I notice people are not basing this theory on pure evidence, they're basing it on knocking of the established tectonic theory. Which really shows
the quality of the argument. "

Well, when a new theory on gravity comes out, you can bet they will test it against the theory of relativity and nuetonian law.

Well, of course they will.

What they will not do, however, is somehow feel they can prove the new theory simply by attacking the old one. It needs to be able tos tand on its own two feet.

This is exactly what growing earth cannot do.

Just to clarify, I personally think this theory probably isn't true, just because I know virtually nothing about plate tectonics and the vast majority of experts say that the theory is incorrect.

Xox: I don't quite know wassup with your teacher, but really fails to explain away fault lines and the absolutely clear geographical evidence we see everyday. Also, if you think about it logically; this means not think about it trying to burn whatever is accepted; convection currents make absolutely perfect sense, if you take the time to understand the causes and effects of them. They are a rather hard thing to prove, thinking about them, but the effects of them we can prove, and also the cause, so I think that has a far better justification than new theories with 0 evidence.

He didn't say the Earth was expanding, he just said that there aren't any convection currents.

You can't say they exist just because they would be a nice explanation for why the plates keep moving around.

Fact is that experiments which would confirm their existence have not, so the only thing that one can do is discount the theory and look for another.

"There were no oceans just shallow seas." So were did 98 % of the earth's surface come from?
Not melting if, like he says that marsupials and roamed this ENTIRE area! Trying to debunk the theory that would arise on how many mammals got to where they did.
"Dinasaours roamed ALL over this world" <glich> on theUPPER Tectonic plate.
"On a much smaller planet." XEI. meaning what?

Who says that they ever had to fit - "perfectly?"

"Yes some erosion, landslides, blah blah" Ha ha insignificant? Over millions of years?
Not to mention our earth was much more active at it's younger birth of a planet.

I personally think this theory probably isn't true

I can't really make myself much clearer than that, Howie.

Saying 'I was told there isn't any gripping evidence for it being convection currents which drives tectonic activity' is not the same as saying 'the Earth has somehow doubled in size in the last 2m years', is it?

Please read my posts properly before heckling me.

Originally Posted by Xei

Just to clarify, I personally think this theory probably isn't true, just because I know virtually nothing about plate tectonics and the vast majority of experts say that the theory is incorrect.

Cool.

Originally Posted by Xei

You can't say they exist just because they would be a nice explanation for why the plates keep moving around.

Fact is that experiments which would confirm their existence have not, so the only thing that one can do is discount the theory and look for another.

Now. Wait just one minute. I have just looked into this business, I essentially know about convection currents from college, but, as always, detail is needed so..

It actually makes perfect sense.

Material near the surface of Earth, particularly oceanic lithosphere, cools down by conduction of heat into the oceans and atmosphere, then thermally contracts to become dense, and then sinks under its own weight at convergent plate boundaries.

This subducted material sinks to some depth in the Earth's interior where it is prohibited, by inherent density stratification, from sinking further.

This stoppage creates a thermal boundary layer where sunken material soaks up heat via thermal conduction from below, and may become buoyant again to form upwelling mantle plumes.


Of course we can't physically take apart the earth and put our hand inside to feel the movement. So if thats the attitude you take, youll never be convinced, but we can see the exact same effects in the world around us and controlled laboratory reproductions of the same conditions.

Ever heard the phrase, "heat rises"? heh.

Equally it is common sense,. due to the fact that tectonic plates are essentially fully proved and they do move, hence this makes perfect sense, it isn't lacking in anything whatsoever. To believe that it somehow doesn't stand up is merely wishful thinking on your part.


In short; I'm sorry if its kinda uninspiring, but I think we can safely say the scientists and geologists win this round (y)

Originally Posted by Xei

I can't really make myself much clearer than that, Howie.

Saying 'I was told there isn't any gripping evidence for it being convection currents which drives tectonic activity' is not the same as saying 'the Earth has somehow doubled in size in the last 2m years', is it?

Please read my posts properly before heckling me.

I am not heckling.
You posted, "He didn't say the Earth was expanding, he just said that there aren't any convection currents."

He did begin by saying "a much smaller planet"
So I ask you, what would that mean? It must have enlarged, correct?

I have posted so many wholes in HIS story.
I am not willing to discount the idea by any means.
But I am dome here, until some logical argumentation comes forth to or against the idea.

Ugh, stop with the patronisation, how many times? Can't you read?

I'M JUST RELAYING WHAT MY GEOGRAPHY TEACHER SAID.

Okay!? Yes, I've known what a zarking convection current is and how they work since I was about 12, no, you don't have to tell me that 'heat rises', yes, I know that tectonic plates exists and that they move around, and no, I don't have some kind of burning feud with plate tectonic theory of all things, and why you'd think I do bemuses me entirely.

I'm just saying. My Geography teacher said. That they did experiments. To find convection currents. And they weren't there.

It doesn't follow that I'm a dumbass.

He did begin by saying "a much smaller planet"
So I ask you, what would that mean? It has enlarged, correct.

gg Howie but if you had actually read the post fully as I'd requested you'd know I was talking about my teacher, who never said anything like that.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm just saying. My Geography teacher said. That they did experiments. To find convection currents. And they weren't there.

I can't really say anything until I see these, if you could maybe ask him sometime, how to find them on the internet or anything, it would be appreciated.

Otherwise, don't worry.

Sorry, I quit Geography.

It annoyed me because it was so speculative. I now just take Maths, Chemistry, Physics and Biology.

no worries.


I'm sure if something really substantial in the field turns up countering it, I'll hear bout it.

There are of course other reasons that the plates might move aside from convection, such as gravity pulling plates down into the mantle where there are subduction zones.

Originally Posted by Xei

gg Howie but if you had actually read the post fully as I'd requested you'd know I was talking about my teacher, who never said anything like that.

I am raising a simple question.
You began your post speaking of the theory, that is what I read into. Then you quoted who, Xox? a teacher?
then he! Who is he?
Am I to presume the ladder in quotes, is pertaining to your comment, and he is the teacher?
gg. sorry

Originally Posted by Howie

I am raising a simple question.
You began your post speaking of the theory, that is what I read into. Then you quoted who, Xox? a teacher?
then he! Who is he?
Am I to presume the ladder in quotes, is pertaining to your comment, and he is the teacher?
gg. sorry

Not to be tangental, but this is Xei, not to be confused with Xox. two different people. I made that mistake. heh.