| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » The Earth Is Growing
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Tom |
 Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| tadchem |
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 20, 9:04 pm, "Tom" <Nos...@eatme.com> wrote:
This was once a semi-credible theory, disproved in 1959-1960 by data
gathered during the International Geophysical Year.
There are still a few cranks who ignore all data to the contrary and
the numerous physical problems engendered by the hypothesis and
continue to purvey this gross error. The flat denial of the existence
of subduction zones, in spite of the data from myriads of earthquakes
and tsunamis to the contrary,
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/world/seismicity/
is stupidity of nearly criminal proportions. One need merely note on
the maps at the above site that every region where there are non-
superficial earthquakes (depths >35 km), they are adjacent to areas
where earthquakes appear at shallower depths so that the three-
dimensional distribution of deeper earthquakes lies on various curved
and inclined planes, called subduction zones.
Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is not.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| john |
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 20, 8:07 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 20, 9:04 pm, "Tom" <Nos...@eatme.com> wrote:
Well this guy thinks so anyway. ;o)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI&feature=related
This was once a semi-credible theory, disproved in 1959-1960 by data
gathered during the International Geophysical Year.
There are still a few cranks who ignore all data to the contrary and
the numerous physical problems engendered by the hypothesis and
continue to purvey this gross error. The flat denial of the existence
of subduction zones, in spite of the data from myriads of earthquakes
and tsunamis to the contrary,http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/world/seismicity/
is stupidity of nearly criminal proportions. One need merely note on
the maps at the above site that every region where there are non-
superficial earthquakes (depths >35 km), they are adjacent to areas
where earthquakes appear at shallower depths so that the three-
dimensional distribution of deeper earthquakes lies on various curved
and inclined planes, called subduction zones.
Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is not.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
so which way is it archaeologists dig
to find previous 'culture' |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Florian |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 20, 9:04 pm, "Tom" <Nos...@eatme.com> wrote:
Well this guy thinks so anyway. ;o)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI&feature=related
This was once a semi-credible theory, disproved in 1959-1960 by data
gathered during the International Geophysical Year.
There are still a few cranks who ignore all data to the contrary and
the numerous physical problems engendered by the hypothesis and
continue to purvey this gross error. The flat denial of the existence
of subduction zones, in spite of the data from myriads of earthquakes
and tsunamis to the contrary,
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/world/seismicity/
is stupidity of nearly criminal proportions. One need merely note on
the maps at the above site that every region where there are non-
superficial earthquakes (depths >35 km), they are adjacent to areas
where earthquakes appear at shallower depths so that the three-
dimensional distribution of deeper earthquakes lies on various curved
and inclined planes, called subduction zones.
To be more accurate, what happens at Wadati Benioff Zone (WBZ) is that
the top layer is overiding the lower one. See for example the multiple
WBZ in the Philippines where young crust overides older crust:
<http://nachon.free.fr/GE/pacific/Philippines.jpg>
Oh, and Neal Adams is a crank. We agree about that.
--
Florian
"Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée;
ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme
une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Thomas Heger |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Tom" <Nospam@eatme.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:480be808$0$7066$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
It somehow an outcome of my own model to expect something like that. Its
very strange, but I guess its right.
Thomas Heger |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Darwin123 |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 24, 5:30 pm, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI&feature=related
There are supernovae, that seem to be
the end of a star. But those are rare, hence the average star is quite old
(only few die).
False conclusion. Few stars will die by becoming supernova.
1) Stars reform from the remnants of old stars. Therefore, many stars
may be young and just formed from the remnants of stars that have
disintegrated.
2) Many stars die by emitting planetary nebula, thus disintegrating.
The star becomes a red giant, and the outer layers of the red giant
come loose to form planetary nebula. What is left at the core is
either a white dwarf or a neutron star. There are plenty of those
observed. Most of the material has dispersed to become new stars.
3) Some stars die in a series of novas, thus disintegrating. A nova is
not a supernova. It is much weaker. However, a few of those kill the
star. The center of the star will become a brown dwarf. Most of the
material has dispersed to become new stars.
4) Just a very few stars are destroyed by supernovas, thus
disintegrating. Some of the material is left over at the core,
becoming black holes or supernova. Most of the material is dispersed
to become new stars.
So if new stars are forming all the time, is it any wonder that
most stars are relatively young?
How come, they dont run out of fuel?
Quote: Cosmology is realy a bunch of ad hock assumptions and bad >intuition.. 
You haven't raised the bar any. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Henry |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 20, 6:04 pm, "Tom" <Nos...@eatme.com> wrote:
Interesting movie.
Where dio the water in the oceans go? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Florian |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Thomas Heger <hballo@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: "Tom" <Nospam@eatme.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:480be808$0$7066$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Well this guy thinks so anyway. ;o)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI&feature=related
I guess that guy is right.
It somehow an outcome of my own model to expect something like that. Its
very strange, but I guess its right.
Thomas Heger
Neal Adams is a crank. Most of his videos are fantaisists, except that
based on the age of the seafloor that should be approximatively correct.
That model was first proposed by Yarkovsky a russian physicist and
Mantovani a geologist in the late XIXth century.
It was strongly pushed by one of the founder of plate tectonics Sam
Carey during the second part of last century:
<http://microlnx.com/expansion/rogue_scientist.htm>
Giancarlo Scalera, an italian geophysicist, is the most active proponent
of the model at this time:
<http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/1152/1/A%20SOUND%20IDEA%20..
...pdf>
--
Florian
"Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée;
ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme
une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Thomas Heger |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI&feature=related
I guess that guy is right.
Its somehow an outcome of my own model to expect something like that. Its
very strange, but I guess its right.
Thomas Heger
Neal Adams is a crank. Most of his videos are fantaisists, except that
based on the age of the seafloor that should be approximatively correct.
look at my new presentation about my own idea
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
made this morning, so its far frome being finished.
He might be a crank, but there are more things strange in cosmology. I.e.
the earth is slowing down. That is strange, since there is no possible
explanation. Not much, but the earth is quite huge and slowing down would
mean lot of momentum and nowhere to put it.
There is the question of the size of the dinosaurs. Could be, that they were
that big, because there was low gravity and died out once there was more.
Next question is the age of the stars. There are supernovae, that seem to be
the end of a star. But those are rare, hence the average star is quite old
(only few die). How come, they dont run out of fuel?
Cosmology is realy a bunch of ad hock assumptions and bad intuition.. ;-)
thomas heger |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Thomas Heger |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Neal Adams is a crank. Most of his videos are fantaisists, except that
based on the age of the seafloor that should be approximatively correct.
There is an other argument in favor of that guy: he is a worldfamous drawer.
You may think that is not that important in physics. But he is realy famous
and hence will have some abilities of imagination. He will only trust his
eyes and his fantastic ability to think in pictures. I guess he has this,
and this is a very useful thing to have in sience. Thats useful, because he
will only trust his own mind what he sees, No argument of the mathematical
kind could convince him (me neither). So he can't make falts due to believes
in theories of what so ever kind. He wants only good pictures. So he
produced some and that is something he is world famous for.
Thomas Heger |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Thomas Heger |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: False conclusion. Few stars will die by becoming supernova.
1) Stars reform from the remnants of old stars. Therefore, many stars
may be young and just formed from the remnants of stars that have
disintegrated.
2) Many stars die by emitting planetary nebula, thus disintegrating.
The star becomes a red giant, and the outer layers of the red giant
come loose to form planetary nebula. What is left at the core is
either a white dwarf or a neutron star. There are plenty of those
observed. Most of the material has dispersed to become new stars.
3) Some stars die in a series of novas, thus disintegrating. A nova is
not a supernova. It is much weaker. However, a few of those kill the
star. The center of the star will become a brown dwarf. Most of the
material has dispersed to become new stars.
4) Just a very few stars are destroyed by supernovas, thus
disintegrating. Some of the material is left over at the core,
becoming black holes or supernova. Most of the material is dispersed
to become new stars.
So if new stars are forming all the time, is it any wonder that
most stars are relatively young?
How come, they dont run out of fuel?
Cosmology is realy a bunch of ad hock assumptions and bad >intuition..
You haven't raised the bar any.
Thats exactly what I mean.
So what do you mean, by stars being created out of old stars?
Why had one star to burn out but the remanecent builds new ones?
How could a star create dust?? I.e. the sun dies in a few billion years.
Than it exploses somehow and create a lot of something in a kind of cloud.
And then? Next star is I gruess three lightyears away. How could that
possibly attract that dust and then why doesn't that fall into the star??
What kind of dust do you think remains from a brown dwarf? And how could
that explode: Ain't stars build out of light elements to power fusion. Old
stars should have more heavy elements, but how to revert that process?
there is something called solar wind. That seem to'blow' away from the sun.
How could gas move the other direction? An other mystery is, why fusion is
so slow. In films hydrogen bombs looked more 'fierce'
....
Thomas Heger |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Androcles |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Richard Henry" <pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:70d760a8-0505-4d85-9aa0-9372879d4b09@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 20, 6:04 pm, "Tom" <Nos...@eatme.com> wrote:
| Interesting movie.
| Where dio the water in the oceans go?
They dio doi oceans odi water oid. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Florian |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Thomas Heger <hballo@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI&feature=related
I guess that guy is right.
Its somehow an outcome of my own model to expect something like that. Its
very strange, but I guess its right.
Thomas Heger
Neal Adams is a crank. Most of his videos are fantaisists, except that
based on the age of the seafloor that should be approximatively correct.
look at my new presentation about my own idea
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
made this morning, so its far frome being finished.
He might be a crank, but there are more things strange in cosmology. I.e.
the earth is slowing down. That is strange, since there is no possible
explanation. Not much, but the earth is quite huge and slowing down would
mean lot of momentum and nowhere to put it.
Tranfer of momentum to the moon (tidal effect) is part of the
explanation. Growth would be another part, though, gain of momentum is
necessary to maintain (and likely!) increase the orbit.
Quote: There is the question of the size of the dinosaurs. Could be, that they were
that big, because there was low gravity and died out once there was more.
Two limiting factors for big beast: gravity (obviously) - oxygen level
Quote: Next question is the age of the stars. There are supernovae, that seem to be
the end of a star. But those are rare, hence the average star is quite old
(only few die). How come, they dont run out of fuel?
Cosmology is realy a bunch of ad hock assumptions and bad intuition..
Don't think so. Stars are dying and are created all the time.
If there is planetary growth, we can imagine that this growth go on
through giant planet, brown dwarf etc.
At some point the matter produced in stars is recycled in to new star
system, which elements grow and so on...
The universe (that of matter) would somewhat expand by seeding.
I see it like crystal growth and seeding...
--
Florian
"Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée;
ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme
une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Florian |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Richard Henry <pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:
You actually mean where did it came from? How was it produced?
that is indeed a very interesting question.
--
Florian
"Toute vérité passe par trois phases. D'abord, elle est ridiculisée;
ensuite, elle rencontre une vive opposition avant d'être acceptée comme
une totale évidence" - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Darwin123 |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 24, 6:12 pm, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: False conclusion. Few stars will die by becoming supernova.
1) Stars reform from the remnants of old stars. Therefore, many stars
may be young and just formed from the remnants of stars that have
disintegrated.
2) Many stars die by emitting planetary nebula, thus disintegrating.
The star becomes a red giant, and the outer layers of the red giant
come loose to form planetary nebula. What is left at the core is
either a white dwarf or a neutron star. There are plenty of those
observed. Most of the material has dispersed to become new stars.
3) Some stars die in a series of novas, thus disintegrating. A nova is
not a supernova. It is much weaker. However, a few of those kill the
star. The center of the star will become a brown dwarf. Most of the
material has dispersed to become new stars.
4) Just a very few stars are destroyed by supernovas, thus
disintegrating. Some of the material is left over at the core,
becoming black holes or supernova. Most of the material is dispersed
to become new stars.
So if new stars are forming all the time, is it any wonder that
most stars are relatively young?
How come, they dont run out of fuel?
The fusion process is not completely efficient. The efficiency depends
on the way that star died.
For example, stars of a certain mass range that includes our
star will die when the star becomes a red giant, and then the outer
layers detach to form planetary nebula. Surely a lot of the fuel gets
used up. But as the star expands and cools, the fusion process slows
down. Much of the hydrogen is turned to helium, and to heavier
elements. A lot of hydrogen is left in the planetary nebula.
As another example, consider a star that goes supernova. Yep, a
lot of fuel gets used up. But a traumatic explosion like that is not
likely to be efficient because it takes a very short time. The fuel is
burnt at a fast rate, but there isn't enough time to use it up.
Actually, they have calculations that show this. Many numerical
simulations of these processes have been performed, the numerical
results published, undergraduate textbooks written, and summaries of
the conclusions presented in popularized science books for school
children. You can't call assumptions ad hoc unless you know what the
assumptions are. You don't even know the conclusions, so you questions
were based on your own strawman theories.
Quote: Cosmology is realy a bunch of ad hock assumptions and bad >intuition..
How would you know? You haven't read any of the descriptions, not
even the popularized science ones. Otherwise, you would be asking
about the assumptions rather than the mechanical description. You
didn't even know that most stars die by means other than super nova.
What are your assumptions?
Quote:
You haven't raised the bar any.
Thats exactly what I mean.
So what do you mean, by stars being created out of old stars?
Why had one star to burn out but the remanecent builds new ones?
Because the material that dispersed.
How could a star create dust??
Its called nuclear fusion. The star is very hot, and turns
hydrogen to helium, helium and hydrogen to lithium, etc. Of course,
while the star is hot these elements remain a gas. However, the
current theories of stellar formation (based on evidence you have a
right to dispute) say that in most cases the outer layers of the star
disperse and cool. As the material cools, these elements have to
condense into the solids. Iron is created by the red dwarf in its
final stages, and by supernova. Of course the iron was a vapor. Our
sun contains large amounts of iron. One of the largest spectral bands
from our sun is from iron vapor. However, eventually our sun will
become a red dwarf. Then the outer layers will disperse into very cool
planetary nebula. That iron is going to condense into solid iron. Iron
can't remain a gas at cold temperatures. And then it will become a
type of iron meteorite.
The theory is the elements are made in gas form inside the star,
and then condense when the elements leave the star. What do you think
will happen to the iron in the sun when the material cools down? What
are your ad hoc assumptions?
I.e. the sun dies in a few billion years.
Quote: Than it explodes somehow and create a lot of something in a kind of cloud.
Somehow? All the books on the subject describe the process,
although sometimes in a skimpy way. Will you read at least the popular
level material before you criticize?
For a star that is much heavier than ours, the star starts to use
up its fuel by fusion and cool. When it has used up a lot of its
hydrogen, so that the hydrogen is diluted by heavier elements, the
star cools suddenly and shrinks catastrophically. However, as it
shrinks the gravitational pressure goes up, and some of the fuel that
is left starts the reaction again and the heat goes up in one big
explosion called a supernova. There is a small core in the middle that
doesn't go anywhere, coolects most of the heavy elements, and becomes
a neutron star or black hole. Most of the material, which is mostly
hydrogen but enriched in heavy elements, becomes a nebula. From that
new planets and stars can form.
Quote: And then? Next star is I gruess three lightyears away. How could that
possibly attract that dust and then why doesn't that fall into the star??
First, everything has gravity including the atoms and dust
particles. Second, the inverse square law of gravity basically extends
forever. In mathematical terms, the inverse square law of force has a
total cross section of infinity. Third, given enough time, the gas and
dust will consolidate all by itself. Of course, the chances of it
consolidating on core of the old star is miniscule because it is so
small. What happens is the unused hydrogen and other elements
consolidate to form a new star and maybe some planets.
The dust is made from the heavy elements created by the old star.
A really new star, made from the original hydrogen, could not have
planets or produce dusty nebula. The star was made of material
produced soon after the Big Bang (or inflationary equivalent of the
BB). That would be mostly hydrogen and helium (look up Gamow for some
early calculations, and even popularized accounts). There would be no
dust or any significant quantity of heavy elements unless stars WERE
using up hydrogen. Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphurus and sulfur
were NOT created from hydrogen by BB or the localized analogs
presented by modern theories. Those elements are us.
However, when the star gets used up most of the heavy elements
would stay at the core. Only some of it would go into the material
that dispersed. We are made of the heavy elements that dispersed.
I think you have this idea, not gotten from textbooks, that our
star was one of the first stars made. Maybe not true.
Quote: What kind of dust do you think remains from a brown dwarf?
What do you mean left over? The brown dwarf doesn't explode?
The brown dwarf is simply a star with lots of heavy elements that
cooled down, maybe left over from novas. Small stars would form brown
dwarves. A brown dwarf is really just a VERY large planet. However,
the lighter elements (hydrogen etc) will diffuse from the brown
dwarf.
You haven't read a thing, haven't you? Oh, I don't call you stupid
just lazy.
Quote: And how could
that explode: Ain't stars build out of light elements to power >fusion.
The fusion produces the power for the explosion. The star shining
is caused by a small rate of fusion. If the rate is speeded up, like
by a sudden collapse, one gets a large rate of fusion. This fast rate
generates the energy for the explosion.
Stars were not built, they formed by gravity. They have lots of
hydrogen because most everything in the universe right now is still
hydrogen. However, stars have heavy elements in different quantities.
Our sun is mostly hydrogen and helium. However, it has a spectral band
showing the presence of iron. For what purpose was the iron placed in
our sun? It may be useful on earth but it doesn't do anything for us
in the sun.
Quote: Old
stars should have more heavy elements, but how to revert that process?
there is something called solar wind. That seem to'blow' away from the sun.
How could gas move the other direction?
For hot gas, the motion is outward. The sun is hot due to fusion.
When it cools down, it will go the other direction. Our solar wind
consists mostly of hydrogen, by the way. That material will be part of
what makes a new star. The
Quote: An other mystery is, why fusion is
so slow. In films hydrogen bombs looked more 'fierce'
...
In a supernova, the fusion is even fiercer than in the hydrogen
bombs. Its slow when the heat is large enough and spread out enough to
keep it slow. When the fuel runs out though, it will fist slow down
and then blow up. Think of rolling a stome up hill. When you get to
the top, you may be at your slowest. But the energy will be returned
to you quickly once you are over the top.
You don't sound like you are really interested. Maybe the
qulity of your sarcasm would improve if you actually read something. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:28 pm
|
|