Ubjon wrote:So how this does theory explain volcano formation?

It's not a theory - it's an entry in the "Mind Buggeringly Stupid Delusions of the 20th Century." competition.
(Actually, it's probably Victorian in origin, like so many things modern crackpots espouse.)

I still stand by my earlier assessment: Why waste time trying to prove or disprove that there is a mechanism for Earth Expansion, when it has not yet been shown that there even IS expansion?

This cuts both ways: EE proponents mush first solidly show supporting data for any expansion; while opponents can't just think the absence of a mechanism in itself goes all the way in disproving expansion (having said that, any lack in prior plausibility for expansion mechanism certainly raises the bar on the evidence required by EE proponents to support their hypothesis; and it is not up to opponents to falsify EE, it's up to proponents to 'prove' it)

ginckgo wrote:I still stand by my earlier assessment: Why waste time trying to prove or disprove that there is a mechanism for Earth Expansion, when it has not yet been shown that there even IS expansion?

This cuts both ways: EE proponents mush first solidly show supporting data for any expansion; while opponents can't just think the absence of a mechanism in itself goes all the way in disproving expansion (having said that, any lack in prior plausibility for expansion mechanism certainly raises the bar on the evidence required by EE proponents to support their hypothesis; and it is not up to opponents to falsify EE, it's up to proponents to 'prove' it)

Lets be fair. Let them produce one then work on the other. Doesn't matter which.

PleaseReadThis wrote:Here is a chart of the detectable flux of cosmic rays at various energies from the "cosmic ray" wiki page:

By Sven Lafebre - own work, after Swordy.[1], CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1555202

Looks like there are all sorts of particles with more than 155 GeV. While this might not amount to enough to account for the mass needed, it shows qualitatively that the Earth is not a closed system and maybe we just haven't found all the contributors.

Electron volts are both a unit of mass and a unit of energy according to mass-energy eqivalence given by Einstein's famous formula. For a photon of 155 GeV to give rise to a particle of equivalent mass, the entire energy of the photon must be converted to mass and the mass must not immediately decay!

For such high mass particles not to immediately decay, they must be stabilised somehow. The only method which we know of to stabilise such particles is to ensure that their surroundings are at or above the same energy level. In other words, what you're proposing is that the entire Earth be constantly bathed in photons of 155 GeV or above.

from Norton et al 2015, the average solar photon is approxomately 1.86 eV. That means, in order to produce the energies that you are so blithely referring to, we would need a flux from high energy cosmic rays approximately 83 billion times that which the sun is currently delivering to us.

At this point, I shall restate my earlier comment.

". Were such energies present in any significant amount on, in or around the Earth then we would have far more serious things to worry about than the mere expansion of our globe."

Just A Theory wrote:In other words, what you're proposing is that the entire Earth be constantly bathed in photons of 155 GeV or above.

I just did a little bit of research. This translates to a temperature of approximately 1.7 trillion Kelvin. Expanding Earth proponents would be wise to invest in ceiling insulation and a good air conditioner

Manticore wrote:

Ubjon wrote:So how this does theory explain volcano formation?

It's not a theory - it's an entry in the "Mind Buggeringly Stupid Delusions of the 20th Century." competition.
(Actually, it's probably Victorian in origin, like so many things modern crackpots espouse.)

It's more like a conclusion based on simple observation

Almost like someone blew up a balloon to half capacity then painted it and waited for the paint to dry. Then the balloon was blown up to full size. The expansionist can show you how the paint used to make a solid shape while none expansionist just says stupid things like the garbage posted in the quote above.

Hello All! Miss me?

I think I'm about 300 pages behind... can anyone give me the highlights?

A simple observation like the entire universe rorating around the earth, and just as whacked out.

RS

theropod wrote:A simple observation like the entire universe rorating around the earth, and just as whacked out.

RS

The simple observation was the the earth and planets rotated around a star

it was the 'belief' that the universe rotated around the earth and that this couldn't possibly be wrong that was 'just whacked out'

*Edit - See my quote under this line

Light Storm wrote:
I think I'm about 300 pages behind... can anyone give me the highlights?

300 pages of people asserting the earth is expanding but, refusing to provide any evidence that it is or evidence of how it happens.

Nothing has changed.

Sendraks wrote:

Light Storm wrote:
I think I'm about 300 pages behind... can anyone give me the highlights?

300 pages of people asserting the earth is expanding but, refusing to provide any evidence that it is or evidence of how it happens.

Nothing has changed.

The evidence is the planet it's self. Like Looking a geode and wondering how small it might have started.

There are a lot of idea's on how it happens

The sun for example has been known to send have solar flares directed at the earth bombarding it with immeasurable amounts of energy/particles. Only... it doesn't only hit the earth, but all the planets in it's system.

Light Storm wrote:

The evidence is the planet it's self. Like Looking a geode and wondering how small it might have started.

That's just speculation. Not evidence.
That's no more compelling than a theist saying goddit and then saying is "all around you."

Light Storm wrote:There are a lot of idea's on how it happens

Ideas are not evidence.

Light Storm wrote:The sun for example has been known to send have solar flares directed at the earth bombarding it with immeasurable amounts of energy/particles. Only... it doesn't only hit the earth, but all the planets in it's system.

Again no evidence presented for weather this had led to earth expanding in any sort of way that fits with the notion of the "continents winding back to sphere."

Sendraks wrote:

Light Storm wrote:

The evidence is the planet it's self. Like Looking a geode and wondering how small it might have started.

That's just speculation. Not evidence.

Your saying the Earth is speculation?

Sendraks wrote:
That's no more compelling than a theist saying goddit and then saying is "all around you."

lol, that made no sense what so ever.

Sendraks wrote:

Light Storm wrote:There are a lot of idea's on how it happens

Ideas are not evidence.

How the earth grew, and how it could still be growing is unknown and subject to brain storming idea's. You would have to recognize that the Earth did grow, and is possibly still growing before you could get to this point.

Sendraks wrote:

Light Storm wrote:The sun for example has been known to send have solar flares directed at the earth bombarding it with immeasurable amounts of energy/particles. Only... it doesn't only hit the earth, but all the planets in it's system.

Again no evidence presented for weather this had led to earth expanding in any sort of way that fits with the notion of the "continents winding back to sphere."

Are you saying solar wind doesn't exist? I don't blame you, scientists admittedly denied it's existence right up until a measuring device smacked them in the face with indisputable evidence. Before that, anyone who suggested solar wind as a thing was labeled a crack pot. Considering these type of facts are only now being understood post-space age. The concepts of an expanding earth theory are still in there infancy.

Note... the idea of Solar wind started on the 'observations' about what could be causing comet tails to always point away from the sun. The mechanisms suggested got laughed at by people who said there was no evidence to support it.

Light Storm wrote:
Your saying the Earth is speculation?

Claiming the earth is "evidence" for an expanding earth, because you're wondering "How small it started" is speculation.

Light Storm wrote:lol, that made no sense what so ever.

That sounds like a "you" problem,

Light Storm wrote:
How the earth grew, and how it could still be growing is unknown and subject to brain storming idea's. You would have to recognize that the Earth did grow, and is possibly still growing before you could get to this point.

In order to recognise something, you require evidence.
Thus far no one has presented any evidence that the earth did grow as the expanding earth idea suggests or that it is still growing.

Ideas are not evidence.

Light Storm wrote:
Are you saying solar wind doesn't exist?

No. Nothing in what I wrote is remotely like that. I suggest you avoid trying re-interpret what I said into your own imaginings, as means to ignore responding to what I actually wrote.

Light Storm wrote:Note... the idea of Solar wind started on the 'observations' about what could be causing comet tails to always point away from the sun. The mechanisms suggested got laughed at by people who said there was no evidence to support it.

Note.... at no point did I write anything about denying the existence of the solar wind.
Note... you have failed to respond to what I actually wrote.

Welcome to the EE thread. It’s been this same bullshit over and over and over for years now. Nothing ever changes. The whole thing was started specifically to troll this forum and it hasn’t improved one iota since.

RS

Light Storm wrote:Looking a geode and wondering how small it might have started.

Not really surprising that you don't know how geodes form either.

theropod wrote:Welcome to the EE thread. It’s been this same bullshit over and over and over for years now. Nothing ever changes. The whole thing was started specifically to troll this forum and it hasn’t improved one iota since.

RS

Don't be too down on it: I've actually learned a lot about plate tectonics through others' explaining sciece to the trolls - much like I learned new facts about evolution from the creationism threads

Light Storm wrote:solar flares directed at the earth bombarding it with immeasurable amounts of energy/particles.

"Immeasurable"?!? if that is so, how can you make any prediction about its consequences for matter accretion?

Either way, matter will only end up at the surface - which will have no effect on expansion.

Energy - as large as the amounts may seem - is negligible relative to the existing mass of the earth

ginckgo wrote:

Light Storm wrote:solar flares directed at the earth bombarding it with immeasurable amounts of energy/particles.

"Immeasurable"?!? if that is so, how can you make any prediction about its consequences for matter accretion?

Either way, matter will only end up at the surface - which will have no effect on expansion.

Energy - as large as the amounts may seem - is negligible relative to the existing mass of the earth

I'm referring to the energy of a solar mass ejection aimed at the earth. It mostly hit's us in the form of energy. A lot of it can pass right through the earth. There is time where the earth is in a positive polarity and it bounces most of it away. We also know there is times where the earth is in a negative polity and attracts that stuff towards it like a whale eating up krill.

Ever stop to ask yourself... how much do we know about the inner core of the earth? We know it's growing. The general belief is it's due to cooling, but really that is a best guess as we are still not fully sure what it's even made of. Just that it has a density 'like' iron.

Is it really to far fetched to believe that their might be a process in play that converts energy to mass inside planets that allows them to grow over time?

Thommo wrote:

Light Storm wrote:Is it really to far fetched to believe that their might be a process in play that converts energy to mass inside planets that allows them to grow over time?

Yes.

wow... didn't even hesitate on that response... I can tell you put some deep thought into it.