| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » The Earth Is Growing
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Darwin123 |
 Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 25, 7:03 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: -we humans have a tendency not to see what we don't want to see.
Have you looked into yourself carefully? You may be surprised by
what you haven't seen before.
Quote: A good sientist is not prejudiced. So as a good sientist: think about the
pro and cons and not about what you seem to know.
Then, as a good scientist you should seem to know something before
you think about the pros and cons. Most of the stuff you said doesn't
seem to imply knowledge of anything. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Thomas Heger |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
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...
-we humans have a tendency not to see what we don't want to see.
A good sientist is not prejudiced. So as a good sientist: think about the
pro and cons and not about what you seem to know.
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
Look at this please. Just finished it
Thomas Heger |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Darwin123 |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 25, 1:51 pm, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:2da82e90-218c-4ca2-9bd8-e16a15de715f@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
I confess that I am guessing. But this is how it goes. Someone is guessing
and gets proven to be wrong. You can't prove something is right, you can
only guess. But thats the difficult part. You may prove me wrong, if you
like.
Thomas Heger
Guessing is obviously the easy part. Making an unquanitative guess is
very easy. Proving a guess wrong, though, may be very difficult when
the guess is ambiguous and poorly expressed.
Do you know anything about "seeding and crystallization"? I have
read about crystallization, and there a billions of ways a crystal
forms. In my work on crystal defects, I had to read up on these
processes.
You did not make a real guess. You compared the process to another
set of processes that you know nothing about. To show you what I mean,
do you have any idea how a crystal seed facilitates the growth of a
crystal? You know the crystal grows around the seed, but d you have a
clear picture of how such a thing occurs? I mean real crystals growing
from a real fluid.
A scientist makes such a comparison for pedagogical reasons,
trying to explain to a layman. However, generally he knows about the
thing he is comparing it too.
To show you what is wrong, I'll simply reply to your literal
comment. No, the star is not a crystal since there is no periodic
lattice of atoms. If the sun had such a repeating lattice of atoms,
the spectral lines seen on the sun would reflect the band structure of
a crystal.
I proved your precise statement wrong. However, really answering
this way is stupid. Neither of us have a picture of what you really
meant by "seeding" and "crystallization." I responded in terms of what
I know. I am not a cosmologist, but I know about the spectra of
crystals.
There were at least three ad hoc assumptions that you made.
One, you probably have a picture in your mind as to how crystals form.
You assume that your picture is correct. Two, you assume that the
reader of your post knows nothing about crystals. I know just a little
about cosmology, but I know a lot about crystals. Third, you assume
that scientists do not examine their assumptions. This is a
projection, since it is obviously you who don't examine your
assumptions.
Next time, make a comparison with something you know a great deal
about. Because it is not really a guess if compare something you don't
know to something else you don't know. It is called faking. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Thomas Heger |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Darwin123" <drosen0000@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:2da82e90-218c-4ca2-9bd8-e16a15de715f@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Apr 25, 7:03 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
-we humans have a tendency not to see what we don't want to see.
Have you looked into yourself carefully? You may be surprised by
what you haven't seen before.
A good sientist is not prejudiced. So as a good sientist: think about the
pro and cons and not about what you seem to know.
Then, as a good scientist you should seem to know something before
you think about the pros and cons. Most of the stuff you said doesn't
seem to imply knowledge of anything.
I confess that I am guessing. But this is how it goes. Someone is guessing
and gets proven to be wrong. You can't prove something is right, you can
only guess. But thats the difficult part. You may prove me wrong, if you
like.
Thomas Heger |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Nicolas Krebs |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Florian écrivit dans l'article
news:1ifx72r.1rqkxozub1wwbN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
Quote: Neal Adams is a crank.
fr Sans commentaire.
en No comment.
--
(...) conquis toute la géologie. Toute ? Non ! Car quelques irréductibles
partisans de Samuel Carey résistent encore et toujours (...) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Nicolas Krebs |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Florian |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Darwin123 <drosen0000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: 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.
Is there any evidence that stars can eject material at earlier stage?
I mean, is it possible that some material can get sufficient momentum
during a solar eruption like this one:
<http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/flare.gif>
--
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 4:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Darwin123 <drosen0000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: You did not make a real guess. You compared the process to another
set of processes that you know nothing about.
Thomas did not make that comparison. I did.
You should pay attention to whom you're responding to.
Quote: To show you what I mean,
do you have any idea how a crystal seed facilitates the growth of a
crystal? You know the crystal grows around the seed, but d you have a
clear picture of how such a thing occurs? I mean real crystals growing
from a real fluid.
Jeez, of course I do, I'm a protein crystallographer.
--
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: Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 24, 5:55 pm, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
Does he think in three dimensions? I doubt it. One can be a
fabulous portrait painter, or comic book artist, and not think in 3D.
A lot of the work of scientists concerns three dimensional motion.
Some of them can't picture well in three dimensions, but their
mathematical ability makes up for it. They use equations to model the
third dimension. However, I know real top scientists who can imagine
in three dimensions.
As an example, consider plate tectonics. The problem for many
people is the motions involved are not just those that parallel the
earths surface, but motions that involve the third dimension. Some of
the motions in a convection cell are helical. The magnetic field of
the earth is generated by solids and liquids that are moving in a
helical path. One can't get a self perpetuating magnetic field, one
that can suddenly change direction, without helical motion. Also, many
of these plate collisions involve three dimensional interactions.
The same happens in the field of meteorology. It is almost
impossible to imagine in pictures the formation of a storm system
unless one thinks in three dimensions. For instance, the question I
used to have is "what is the difference between a warm front and a
cold front?" Superficially, the answer seems easy. However, for a
while I couldn't believe that a warm front could exist at all. I now
understand it, after a couple of years sporadically looking at
pictures in meteorology books. Picturing a warm front forming doesn't
make sense unless one imagines a helical motion. There are no helical
motions in two dimensions.
I suspect a lot of these "expanding earth" advocates really have
this problem. They are trying to "flatten" the motion of the earths
interior to the surface. Some scientists use abstract mathematics to
characterize three dimensional motion. The Expanding Earthers want to
avoid mathematics and avoid three dimensional pictures.
Being a cartoonist doesn't mean one knows everything about art,
let alone science. Believe me, I like comic books. The only problem I
have with them is that the pictures are so flat! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Florian |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Darwin123 <drosen0000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: I suspect a lot of these "expanding earth" advocates really have
this problem.
Really?
Let's see how you manage to see in 3D from a 2D map:
<http://nachon.free.fr/isochrons/antarctic2.png>
Can you retrofit the contintal lithosphere from the isochrons?
Tell me how it is possible to retrofit all masses around antartica
without shrinking the globe?
I work all the time in 3D, and I assure you that it is geometrically not
possible to do it.
--
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 |
|
| Androcles |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
news:1ig3sre.avbjhx1rsxbshN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
| Darwin123 <drosen0000@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
| > I suspect a lot of these "expanding earth" advocates really have
| > this problem.
|
| Really?
|
| Let's see how you manage to see in 3D from a 2D map:
|
| <http://nachon.free.fr/isochrons/antarctic2.png>
|
| Can you retrofit the contintal lithosphere from the isochrons?
|
| Tell me how it is possible to retrofit all masses around antartica
| without shrinking the globe?
| I work all the time in 3D, and I assure you that it is geometrically not
| possible to do it.
|
If I take part of your skin away you won't grow new skin;
instead your whole body will shrink to fill the gap. You are an
idiot, a ranting lunatic with no brain at all.
*plonk* |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Florian |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Androcles <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
Quote: | Really?
|
| Let's see how you manage to see in 3D from a 2D map:
|
| <http://nachon.free.fr/isochrons/antarctic2.png
|
| Can you retrofit the contintal lithosphere from the isochrons?
|
| Tell me how it is possible to retrofit all masses around antartica
| without shrinking the globe?
| I work all the time in 3D, and I assure you that it is geometrically not
| possible to do it.
|
If I take part of your skin away you won't grow new skin;
instead your whole body will shrink to fill the gap. You are an
idiot, a ranting lunatic with no brain at all.
*plonk*
What a moron he is. Bon débarras.
--
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 |
|
| Nicolas Krebs |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Darwin123 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 25, 5:36 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
Quote: Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.
Is there any evidence that stars can eject material at earlier stage?
I mean, is it possible that some material can get sufficient momentum
during a solar eruption like this one:
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/flare.gif
Actually, yes. A lot of material leaves the sun through the solar
wind. This solar wind is enriched contains hydrogen and a small amount
of the heavier elements. However, it is rich in hydrogen compared to
the sun because at a given temperature, the heavier nuclei move
slower. So the sun is becoming even more enriched by heavier elements,
and is cooling down by the solar wind.
I am not expert. However, I think the process of ejecting a solar
wind in some ways in analogous (or even homologous?) to the formation
of a red giant. The outer layer is being ejected and some of the
particles will find themselves in orbit or buoyantly supported at
distances farther than the sun. As the sun runs out of hydrogen, more
and more material will be found at farther distances from the sun.
More of the heat will rise by convection to the outer part of the sun
while the center cools. Eventually, the outer part will come off.
However, the first few steps in the formation of the outer layer would
be the making of a solar wind.
And yes, I am partly making this up. This is consistent with the
popularized versions of stellar formation that I read, although they
didn't have details. If a scientist wants to correct my rather
heuristic description, tell him to go ahead. I have been wrong
before. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:01 am
|
|
