Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere. Yes or No ?

Yes
29
16%
No
128
72%
Yes But...Add your reason
11
6%
No But...Add your reason
10
6%
 
Total votes : 178

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6561  Postby Florian » Oct 06, 2012 11:00 pm

Weaver wrote:
Pretty nice in this hole, I must say. Almost seems like - what is it, the opposite of a hole? Hill?

Since you seem to like his hole so much, you're welcome to stay there forever. :lol:
In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind. Louis Pasteur.
User avatar
Florian
 
Posts: 1590
Male

France (fr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6562  Postby Weaver » Oct 06, 2012 11:06 pm

So no admitting you were wrong, or apologizing?

Yet you are the one constantly crying "misrepresentation".

:picard:^3
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 50
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6563  Postby Florian » Oct 06, 2012 11:37 pm

Florian wrote:


Nope, this sentence is clearly wrong! Carbon monoxyde does not combine with oxygen to form ozone. What's eventually happening is a sequence of reaction starting from CO, and leading to the formation of free oxygen as an intermediate product. This free oxygen can combine with O2 to form ozone. And this sequence of reaction is more likely happening in the troposphere than the stratosphere anyway.


OK, I found the correct sequence in Reeves et al (2002) JGR 107,D23, 4707, doi:10.1029/2002JD002415.

This reaction happens in the troposphere as I suspected and the funny part is that the initial reactant is stratospheric ozone (!).

So we have in the stratosphere:
O3 + hv -> O(1D) + O2
O(1D) + H2O -> 2 OH (hydroxyl radical)

then OH radicals sink in the troposphere and the sequence can continue:
OH + CO -> HO2 + CO2
HO2 + NO -> NO2 + OH (regeneration of the hydroxyl radical at this step)
NO2 + hv -> O(3P) + NO (yet another photoreaction)
and finally O(3P) + O2 -> O3

So CO combines with hydroxyl radicals, not with O2.

Weaver wrote:So no admitting you were wrong, or apologizing?

Back to your hole! :lol:
In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind. Louis Pasteur.
User avatar
Florian
 
Posts: 1590
Male

France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6564  Postby lucek » Oct 07, 2012 12:29 am

Weaver wrote:So no admitting you were wrong, or apologizing?

Yet you are the one constantly crying "misrepresentation".

:picard:^3

Again why I don't bother with trolls.
Next time a creationist says, "Were you there to watch the big bang", say "Yes we are".
"Nutrition is a balancing act during the day, not a one-shot deal from a single meal or food.":Sciwoman
User avatar
lucek
 
Posts: 3641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6565  Postby lucek » Oct 07, 2012 12:38 am

Role in ground level ozone formation
Main article: Tropospheric Ozone
Carbon monoxide is part of the series of cycles of chemical reactions that form Photochemical smog. Along with aldehydes, it reacts photochemically to produce peroxy radicals. Peroxy radicals subsequently oxidize nitrogen oxide (NO) to nitrogen dioxide(NO2).[40] Although this creation of NO2 is the critical step leading to low level ozone formation, it also increases this ozone in another, somewhat mutually exclusive way, by reducing the quantity of NO that is available to react with ozone.[40]

Simplified, the net effect of the ozone cycle is:
CO + 2O2 → CO2 + O3


Same link

Dudely wrote:One of the lightest of these is carbon monoxide, which is unstable and forms carbon dioxide and ozone as soon as it has a chance.


You know if I didn't know better I'd say he was correct.

And hey

Wow that looks correct too.
Next time a creationist says, "Were you there to watch the big bang", say "Yes we are".
"Nutrition is a balancing act during the day, not a one-shot deal from a single meal or food.":Sciwoman
User avatar
lucek
 
Posts: 3641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6566  Postby Just A Theory » Oct 07, 2012 2:32 am

Florian wrote:
What a surprise! All of them have a tail well below 5 km/s, the escape velocity for a 2-fold lower surface gravity.
Conclusion: a 2-fold lower gravity does not affect significantly the retention of Earth's atmosphere.


A pretty, but pointless, effort. You neglected to mention all of the other effects of reduced gravity which have been elucidated in this thread already. Which is typical of you and other EE proponents - you focus on one small portion of the whole system and ignore anything that does not fit with your preconceived ideas.


:smug:
Now you can go back under your rock.


It's warm and cozy under here. But, most of all, it's also free from pseudoscientific assertions. :whistle:
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1369
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6567  Postby Darkchilde » Oct 07, 2012 9:16 am

Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:And of course, the main problem you have with EE still has not any hypothesis at all: where does the extra mass come from? What kind of mass is it? How is nucleosynthesis achieved? How are the various materials distributed at the right places?

So, despite the expanding Earth theory is based on a wide range of observations, make testable and verified predictions you still deny its existence because the theory fails to provide a mechanism.
You apparently deserve 10 points at the crackpot index (n°17) .


There is no fucking evidence for EE. You are just grasping at straws.

Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:Gravity comes next: it is not just the Earth/Moon system; it is the whole Solar System that would be affected, at least in the neighborhood.

Great, you just realized that the solar system has logically dramatically evolved.


Of course it has evolved, noone has ever denied that. Every system evolves. It just does not produce matter out of nowhere as you claim.

Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:Not to mention, that since escape velocity would be reduced, more of the atmosphere would escape from the Earth's gravity.

Debunked, see HERE
That's 2 points.


You have forgotten though, that the atmosphere is not static, and that even in the upper atmosphere there are currents of air, etc. etc. So, your model is inadequate.

Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote: Also, solar wind would hit the upper atmosphere and strip it more easily, because the magnetic field would not be as strong; [...]

Another vacuous claim about the strength of the magnetic field. That's another 2 points.


Really? The strength of a magnetic field depends on the flow of electrons; less mass, less available electrons to produce a magnetic field. So, the strength of the magnetic field would be reduced. And do small magnets that are available like in fridges have the same strength as the Earth's or the Sun's? Of course not. If your claim is that magnetic field strength does not depend on mass, check again.

Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:[...] molecules in the upper atmosphere would easily gain escape velocity from the solar wind. Let's not forget that the solar wind has a very high velocity [I think it's something like 400 km/s]. Now, for anyone who has seen collisions between two balls, like in snooker for example, can imagine what can happen when a particle from the solar wind hits a particle/atom/molecule in the upper atmosphere, where there is also no to little friction! Which means that we would not have any atmosphere today. Unless of course, the interior of the Earth had all the oxygen and at some point when the Earth stabilized at its present mass, released it, and we suddenly had ozone layer etc.

Apparently you don't know that atmospheric oxygen comes from photosynthesis, thus from H2O.


Oh! My oh my. Plants need carbon dioxide to convert to oxygen via photosynthesis. And where did that carbon dioxide come from? According to you, it just appeared fully formed in the interior of the Earth so that it could come out of volcanoes and other geological features so that plants would be able to photosynthesize it...

Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:Also, there are a lot of early migrations in a star system at the early stages of formation, and the Earth might have been flung and be a trans-Neptunian object during the early stages, because of its smaller mass.

Yes, there are clues that planets migrate in a star system. Like I said earlier, the evolution of some planets implies that star systems are much more dynamic than previously thought, and that their evolution is ongoing, not limited to the early stage of formation.


Not just clues, there are several star systems that display this. Plus there are some indications of such migrations in our own solar system. And guess what? None of these indicate any mysterious increase in mass! In fact, all simulations that have been done were with today's masses.

I have a couple of articles about the Kuiper Belt, but Nature's site is down at the moment and cannot link.

Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:Oh, the problems of EE keep coming, and guess what: they are NOT geology problems, they are PHYSICS problems.

You still confuse problems that are fatal to a theory with the new perspectives that arise when a new emergent theory maturates. Yes, EE is very fertile theory, who would complain about that?


No, I am not confusing it. You have not provided anything that can be remotely considered as evidence for EE. Nowhere in space we have seen any object suddenly gain mass from your unknown mechanism. All volume/mass changes are accounted for by the physical processes we already know. Find the mechanism by which mass can be added, nucleosynthesized and distributed at the right places, find evidence of growth by your unknown mechanism of mass addition in any body outside the Earth and solar system, and then we can talk. Until you give me that kind of evidence, I will not accept EE.

You have not shown at all that the Earth has expanded. All you have is a far-fetched hypothesis with no basis in physical reality.

Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:I am not going to totally waste my time with pseudoscientific bollocks.

What you call "pseudoscientific bollocks" is actually your own phantasms.


No, they are yours. You are here and insist on EE. But, nowhere there is even one body outside the Solar System that is increasing in mass by your unknown mechanism. PT explains most things without recourse to breaking all known physics as EE does. And some of that physics is quite fundamental, like the conservation of mass and energy, which EE seems to be breaking.
User avatar
Darkchilde
RS Donator
 
Posts: 9015
Age: 49
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6568  Postby Florian » Oct 07, 2012 1:46 pm


Nope. It is chemically incorrect to claim that CO combines with oxygen to form CO2and O3.
The correct claim is that CO combines with HO to produce CO2.
In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind. Louis Pasteur.
User avatar
Florian
 
Posts: 1590
Male

France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6569  Postby Florian » Oct 07, 2012 1:48 pm

Just A Theory wrote:
Florian wrote:
What a surprise! All of them have a tail well below 5 km/s, the escape velocity for a 2-fold lower surface gravity.
Conclusion: a 2-fold lower gravity does not affect significantly the retention of Earth's atmosphere.


A pretty, but pointless, effort. [...]

An effort that demonstrates that one more time, most of what you say is bullshit. Point made.
In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind. Louis Pasteur.
User avatar
Florian
 
Posts: 1590
Male

France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6570  Postby Florian » Oct 07, 2012 2:43 pm

Darkchilde wrote:There is no fucking evidence for EE. You are just grasping at straws.

Amen, preacher… or not, because I am a skeptic.

Darkchilde wrote:
Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:Not to mention, that since escape velocity would be reduced, more of the atmosphere would escape from the Earth's gravity.

Debunked, see HERE
That's 2 points.


You have forgotten though, that the atmosphere is not static, and that even in the upper atmosphere there are currents of air, etc. etc. So, your model is inadequate.

Currents of air at about 5 km/sec in the stratosphere? Whatever. I'm quite impressed by the fuckwitteries that you are able to invent in the hope to escape that hole.

Darkchilde wrote:
Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote: Also, solar wind would hit the upper atmosphere and strip it more easily, because the magnetic field would not be as strong; [...]

Another vacuous claim about the strength of the magnetic field. That's another 2 points.


Really? The strength of a magnetic field depends on the flow of electrons; less mass, less available electrons to produce a magnetic field. So, the strength of the magnetic field would be reduced. And do small magnets that are available like in fridges have the same strength as the Earth's or the Sun's? Of course not. If your claim is that magnetic field strength does not depend on mass, check again.

Yet another proof that you have a very poor understanding of Physics. The strength of the magnetic field at Earth's surface range from 25 to 65 microtesla while the strength of a fridge magnet is about 5 milliTesla. Yep that's 2 order of magnitude.

Why? because the distance to the source of the magnetic field also counts!

Since the source of Earth's magnetic field is the outer core, the distance between the outer core and the surface is also important in determining the surface strength. Should I remind you that this distance was smaller for Earth in the past?

The point is that this prediction that Earth magnetic field would have been so dramatically weaker so that solar wind erosion would have rip off the atmosphere is yet another vacuous claim.

Darkchilde wrote:
Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:[...] molecules in the upper atmosphere would easily gain escape velocity from the solar wind. Let's not forget that the solar wind has a very high velocity [I think it's something like 400 km/s]. Now, for anyone who has seen collisions between two balls, like in snooker for example, can imagine what can happen when a particle from the solar wind hits a particle/atom/molecule in the upper atmosphere, where there is also no to little friction! Which means that we would not have any atmosphere today. Unless of course, the interior of the Earth had all the oxygen and at some point when the Earth stabilized at its present mass, released it, and we suddenly had ozone layer etc.

Apparently you don't know that atmospheric oxygen comes from photosynthesis, thus from H2O.


Oh! My oh my. Plants need carbon dioxide to convert to oxygen via photosynthesis. And where did that carbon dioxide come from?

Not from atmospheric oxygen!

Darkchilde wrote:According to you, it just appeared fully formed in the interior of the Earth so that it could come out of volcanoes and other geological features so that plants would be able to photosynthesize it...

:roll:
Atmospheric CO2 comes from volcanic outgassing, and is formed by the oxydation of carbon in the mantle…

Darkchilde wrote:
Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:Oh, the problems of EE keep coming, and guess what: they are NOT geology problems, they are PHYSICS problems.

You still confuse problems that are fatal to a theory with the new perspectives that arise when a new emergent theory maturates. Yes, EE is very fertile theory, who would complain about that?


No, I am not confusing it. You have not provided anything that can be remotely considered as evidence for EE.

Vacuous preaching again.

Darkchilde wrote:Nowhere in space we have seen any object suddenly gain mass from your unknown mechanism.

it is not sudden, it takes eons.


Darkchilde wrote:All volume/mass changes are accounted for by the physical processes we already know. Find the mechanism by which mass can be added, nucleosynthesized and distributed at the right places, find evidence of growth by your unknown mechanism of mass addition in any body outside the Earth and solar system, and then we can talk. Until you give me that kind of evidence, I will not accept EE.

yet again the crackpot claim on the mechanism...

Darkchilde wrote:You have not shown at all that the Earth has expanded. All you have is a far-fetched hypothesis with no basis in physical reality.

Vacuous preaching again.

Darkchilde wrote:
Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:I am not going to totally waste my time with pseudoscientific bollocks.

What you call "pseudoscientific bollocks" is actually your own phantasms.


No, they are yours. You are here and insist on EE. But, nowhere there is even one body outside the Solar System that is increasing in mass by your unknown mechanism. PT explains most things without recourse to breaking all known physics as EE does. And some of that physics is quite fundamental, like the conservation of mass and energy, which EE seems to be breaking.

And again the eternal vacuous claim that EE breaks conservation laws.
Congratulation, you're piling up the crackpot points at an unprecedented rate.

Darkchilde, please display some maturity instead of stamping like a frustrated child. What about abandoning your mantras to discuss geological science? There is plenty interesting scientific stuff to discuss.
Last edited by Florian on Oct 07, 2012 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind. Louis Pasteur.
User avatar
Florian
 
Posts: 1590
Male

France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6571  Postby lucek » Oct 07, 2012 4:15 pm

How can a even a troll really say that Co gaining oxygen and producing CO2 and O3 isn't the same as
Next time a creationist says, "Were you there to watch the big bang", say "Yes we are".
"Nutrition is a balancing act during the day, not a one-shot deal from a single meal or food.":Sciwoman
User avatar
lucek
 
Posts: 3641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6572  Postby Darkchilde » Oct 07, 2012 4:16 pm

Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:
Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:Not to mention, that since escape velocity would be reduced, more of the atmosphere would escape from the Earth's gravity.

Debunked, see HERE
That's 2 points.


You have forgotten though, that the atmosphere is not static, and that even in the upper atmosphere there are currents of air, etc. etc. So, your model is inadequate.

Currents of air at about 5 km/sec in the stratosphere? Whatever. I'm quite impressed by the fuckwitteries that you are able to invent in the hope to escape that hole.


Did I say anything about air current velocity? I just said that your model represents a static atmosphere, and that there are more considerations to make. Why don't you model the same atmosphere with the Earth's gravity and see what happens. Plus escape velocity diminishes as you go farther and farther away from the Earth's surface. The 5 km/s is for the surface. Gravity diminishes with the square of distance.


Florian wrote:
Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote: Also, solar wind would hit the upper atmosphere and strip it more easily, because the magnetic field would not be as strong; [...]

Another vacuous claim about the strength of the magnetic field. That's another 2 points.

Darkchilde wrote:
Really? The strength of a magnetic field depends on the flow of electrons; less mass, less available electrons to produce a magnetic field. So, the strength of the magnetic field would be reduced. And do small magnets that are available like in fridges have the same strength as the Earth's or the Sun's? Of course not. If your claim is that magnetic field strength does not depend on mass, check again.

Yet another proof that you have a very poor understanding of Physics. The strength of the magnetic field at Earth's surface range from 25 to 65 microtesla while the strength of a fridge magnet is about 5 milliTesla. Yep that's 2 order of magnitude.

Why? because the distance to the source of the magnetic field also counts!

Since the source of Earth's magnetic field is the outer core, the distance between the outer core and the surface is also important in determining the surface strength. Should I remind you that this distance was smaller for Earth in the past?

The point is that this prediction that Earth magnetic field would have been so dramatically weaker so that solar wind erosion would have rip off the atmosphere is yet another vacuous claim.


Of course, the strength of a magnetic field diminishes with distance! Which is a point against EE, as the strength of the magnetic field, would have been even less in the magnetosphere of a smaller Earth, not a point for it. Why don't you model what would happen with less gravity and a smaller magnetic field?

Mercury's magnetic field is at 300 nT at the Equator! Mecury is so much smaller, and has a much smaller magnetic field. Which blows your assertions to bits.

Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:
Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:[...] molecules in the upper atmosphere would easily gain escape velocity from the solar wind. Let's not forget that the solar wind has a very high velocity [I think it's something like 400 km/s]. Now, for anyone who has seen collisions between two balls, like in snooker for example, can imagine what can happen when a particle from the solar wind hits a particle/atom/molecule in the upper atmosphere, where there is also no to little friction! Which means that we would not have any atmosphere today. Unless of course, the interior of the Earth had all the oxygen and at some point when the Earth stabilized at its present mass, released it, and we suddenly had ozone layer etc.

Apparently you don't know that atmospheric oxygen comes from photosynthesis, thus from H2O.


Oh! My oh my. Plants need carbon dioxide to convert to oxygen via photosynthesis. And where did that carbon dioxide come from?

Not from atmospheric oxygen!

Darkchilde wrote:According to you, it just appeared fully formed in the interior of the Earth so that it could come out of volcanoes and other geological features so that plants would be able to photosynthesize it...

:roll:
Atmospsheric CO2 comes from volcanic outgassing, and is formed by the oxydation of carbon in the mantle…


Exactly, which according to you, half of it came from some mysterious mass addition, which nucleosynthesized carbon and oxygen, and also made it into carbon dioxide... in conditions where nucleosynthesis cannot happen!

Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:Nowhere in space we have seen any object suddenly gain mass from your unknown mechanism.

it is not sudden, it takes eons.


Let's just say it takes eons. What makes it start and what makes it stop? Why don't we see more black holes then, if stars etc. gain this mysterious mass?

Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:All volume/mass changes are accounted for by the physical processes we already know. Find the mechanism by which mass can be added, nucleosynthesized and distributed at the right places, find evidence of growth by your unknown mechanism of mass addition in any body outside the Earth and solar system, and then we can talk. Until you give me that kind of evidence, I will not accept EE.

yet again the crackpot claim on the mechanism...


It is not crackpot, since you cannot explain how bodies gain this mass.

Florian wrote:
Darkchilde, please display some maturity instead of stamping like a frustrated child. What about abandoning your mantras to discuss geological science? There is plenty interesting scientific stuff to discuss.


No, the problems of EE come from physics not geology. You have to explain the physics, you have to find the mechanism of mass addition, explain how it does not violate conservation laws, explain all the various physics.
User avatar
Darkchilde
RS Donator
 
Posts: 9015
Age: 49
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6573  Postby Florian » Oct 07, 2012 4:54 pm

lucek wrote:How can a even a troll really say that Co gaining oxygen and producing CO2 and O3 isn't the same as


:naughty:
CO does not combine with O2 but with HO to produce HO2 and CO2 as shown in Reeves et al (2002).

In the troposphere it is short lived and spatially variable, since it combines with hydroxyl radical to produce carbon dioxide and peroxy radical (HO2)[1].
Last edited by Florian on Oct 07, 2012 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind. Louis Pasteur.
User avatar
Florian
 
Posts: 1590
Male

France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6574  Postby lucek » Oct 07, 2012 5:02 pm

Florian you are such a troll. Changing Wikipedia to agree with you really?


Reminder to everyone Wikipedia frowns on Vandalism.
Next time a creationist says, "Were you there to watch the big bang", say "Yes we are".
"Nutrition is a balancing act during the day, not a one-shot deal from a single meal or food.":Sciwoman
User avatar
lucek
 
Posts: 3641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6575  Postby Florian » Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm

Darkchilde wrote:
Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:
You have forgotten though, that the atmosphere is not static, and that even in the upper atmosphere there are currents of air, etc. etc. So, your model is inadequate.

Currents of air at about 5 km/sec in the stratosphere? Whatever. I'm quite impressed by the fuckwitteries that you are able to invent in the hope to escape that hole.


Did I say anything about air current velocity? I just said that your model represents a static atmosphere, and that there are more considerations to make.

Really? How would currents of air contribute if not by supplying the lacking velocity?

Darkchilde wrote:Why don't you model the same atmosphere with the Earth's gravity and see what happens.

Ask that to Just of Theory, it was his claim that the retention was enormously different with a 2-fold lower gravity. I already made his Maxwell distribution curves...

Darkchilde wrote:Plus escape velocity diminishes as you go farther and farther away from the Earth's surface. The 5 km/s is for the surface. Gravity diminishes with the square of distance.

It is already included. The escape velocity is 11.2 km/s at the surface and an 10.7 km/s at 500 km from the surface. You could have check that by yourself. Anyway...

Darkchilde wrote:
Florian wrote:
Yet another proof that you have a very poor understanding of Physics. The strength of the magnetic field at Earth's surface range from 25 to 65 microtesla while the strength of a fridge magnet is about 5 milliTesla. Yep that's 2 order of magnitude.

Why? because the distance to the source of the magnetic field also counts!

Since the source of Earth's magnetic field is the outer core, the distance between the outer core and the surface is also important in determining the surface strength. Should I remind you that this distance was smaller for Earth in the past?

The point is that this prediction that Earth magnetic field would have been so dramatically weaker so that solar wind erosion would have rip off the atmosphere is yet another vacuous claim.


Of course, the strength of a magnetic field diminishes with distance! Which is a point against EE, as the strength of the magnetic field, would have been even less in the magnetosphere of a smaller Earth, not a point for it. Why don't you model what would happen with less gravity and a smaller magnetic field?

Mercury's magnetic field is at 300 nT at the Equator! Mecury is so much smaller, and has a much smaller magnetic field. Which blows your assertions to bits.

And Venus has none despite it is slightly bigger. The strict correlation you make between the strength of the magnetic field and size is way too simplistic.

Darkchilde wrote:
Florian wrote:
Atmospsheric CO2 comes from volcanic outgassing, and is formed by the oxydation of carbon in the mantle…


Exactly, which according to you, half of it came from some mysterious mass addition, which nucleosynthesized carbon and oxygen, and also made it into carbon dioxide... in conditions where nucleosynthesis cannot happen!

You'll go nowhere if you persist in inverting the logical flow. The premise is the evidence supporting the increase in Earth's size. All the rest is a sequence of logical inferences from the premise.

Darkchilde wrote:
Florian wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:Nowhere in space we have seen any object suddenly gain mass from your unknown mechanism.

it is not sudden, it takes eons.


Let's just say it takes eons. What makes it start and what makes it stop? Why don't we see more black holes then, if stars etc. gain this mysterious mass?

The frustrated child reappears. We can't answer these questions before we understand the underlying physics.

Darkchilde wrote:
Florian wrote:
yet again the crackpot claim on the mechanism...


It is not crackpot, since you cannot explain how bodies gain this mass.

Denying a phenomenon supported by evidence with verified predictions is crackpottery, independently of the knowledge of the underlying physics.

Darkchilde wrote:
Florian wrote:
Darkchilde, please display some maturity instead of stamping like a frustrated child. What about abandoning your mantras to discuss geological science? There is plenty interesting scientific stuff to discuss.


No, the problems of EE come from physics not geology.

You have to explain the physics, you have to find the mechanism of mass addition, explain how it does not violate conservation laws, explain all the various physics.

No, I particularly don't have to do that at all to support EE because geology fully supports it.
Jeez, nobody had to show how the Sun formed to prove that it exists, but following your flawed logic, the Sun did not exist 2000 years ago, because nobody knew how it formed… Go figure why you dug that hole...
In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind. Louis Pasteur.
User avatar
Florian
 
Posts: 1590
Male

France (fr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6576  Postby Florian » Oct 07, 2012 6:40 pm

lucek wrote:Florian you are such a troll. Changing Wikipedia to agree with you really?


Reminder to everyone Wikipedia frowns on Vandalism.

Vandalism?!
Pfiuuuu you're such a witchhunter that you deny the peer-reviewed paper cited in reference of this wikipedia article.
And what a surprise, the page has now been reverted to the the incorrect sentence. That is vandalism!

Scary! What do you reserve next for me, the stake?
In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind. Louis Pasteur.
User avatar
Florian
 
Posts: 1590
Male

France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6577  Postby Ironclad » Oct 07, 2012 7:14 pm


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
Lucek, in THIS POST you described another member as a troll. This is in violation of the FUA, particularly part 1.2.e.
Please read through the FUA & avoid posting personal insults in the future.

Accept this Modnote as an advisory.

do not discuss this moderation within this thread, if you want to discuss this then PM myself or another moderator.




!
MODNOTE
Florian, in THIS POST you are provoking a member - this is contrary to the FUA 1.2.e.

Also, in THIS POST you are using personal insults towards another member - this is contrary to the FUA 1.2.c

Yet again you are found making provocative remarks towards members, HERE. Again, in violation of the FUA (1.2.e)

You have been advised to follow the FUA, and very recently too. You are now issued with a warning. You now have two (2) active warnings. Please, read the FUA & remember to address the post not the poster in your exchanges.


do not discuss this moderation within this thread, if you want to discuss this then PM myself or another moderator.


Thread is now unlocked.
"If there was no such thing as science, you'd be right " - Sean Lock

"God ....an inventive destroyer" - Broks

Image
User avatar
Ironclad
RS Donator
 
Name: Nudge-Nudge
Posts: 21587
Age: 15
Male

Country: Wink-Wink
Bahrain (bh)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6578  Postby Just A Theory » Oct 08, 2012 9:52 pm

Florian wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:
Florian wrote:
What a surprise! All of them have a tail well below 5 km/s, the escape velocity for a 2-fold lower surface gravity.
Conclusion: a 2-fold lower gravity does not affect significantly the retention of Earth's atmosphere.


A pretty, but pointless, effort. [...]

An effort that demonstrates that one more time, most of what you say is bullshit. Point made.


Clearly you use the term "demonstration" in a different manner to its customary usage. You only "demonstrated" by ignoring all of the other implications of a smaller Earth. That is, you cherry picked data to support your conclusion.
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1369
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6579  Postby Just A Theory » Oct 08, 2012 9:56 pm

Florian wrote:No, I particularly don't have to do that at all to support EE because geology fully supports it.
Jeez, nobody had to show how the Sun formed to prove that it exists, but following your flawed logic, the Sun did not exist 2000 years ago, because nobody knew how it formed… Go figure why you dug that hole...


Once again, you present a flawed analogy.

Thousands of years ago, it's true that no one knew how the Sun formed. However, the level of scientific knowledge at that time did not preclude formation of the Sun, they were just mistaken about the mechanism of formation.

Contrast with EE which requires a source of matter under conditions that do not allow for nucleosynthesis and for a scenario from which accretion has already been excluded. That is, to make a direct comparison, no one knows how the Earth expands but the level of scientific knowledge at this time precludes expansion of the Earth. It is therefore a requirement for EE proponents to demonstrate how the current scientific thinking is erroneous or incomplete.
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1369
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#6580  Postby Florian » Oct 08, 2012 10:43 pm

Just A Theory wrote:
Florian wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:
Florian wrote:
What a surprise! All of them have a tail well below 5 km/s, the escape velocity for a 2-fold lower surface gravity.
Conclusion: a 2-fold lower gravity does not affect significantly the retention of Earth's atmosphere.


A pretty, but pointless, effort. [...]

An effort that demonstrates that one more time, most of what you say is bullshit. Point made.


Clearly you use the term "demonstration" in a different manner to its customary usage. You only "demonstrated" by ignoring all of the other implications of a smaller Earth. That is, you cherry picked data to support your conclusion.

I do not ignore the evidence supporting the expansion of Earth. You do.
In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind. Louis Pasteur.
User avatar
Florian
 
Posts: 1590
Male

France (fr)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 4 guests