hahahaa Weaver.



What is the subduction rate at Chili?

Wow, 7 guests and Blackbart. They are quiet.

Newstein wrote::grin: hahahaa Weaver.



What is the subduction rate at Chili?

What is the force keeping the core in your "hollow Earth" model from expanding once the pressure of the "outer shell" was released?

Given that you claim no mass was added during the supposed expansion, the core must have been at far, far greater pressure in your paleo model than in the real one.

So what kept it from expanding massively once the outer shell - which is precisely what provides the pressure - was "lifted" off during the expansion you claim happened?

Newstein wrote:Wow, 7 guests and Blackbart. They are quiet.

Well, I've always taken pride in not giving a shit quietly.

Newstein wrote:Ow yes. I have the data. The 'movement' of the plates are exactly the rate of plate expansions

So what does that equate to in terms of earth expansion?
And is this corroborated by data from GPS satellites or, even more basically, the flight times and fuel consumption of aircraft? Or indeed, the travel times over long distances for any mode of transport?

Weaver wrote:
What is the force keeping the core in your "hollow Earth" model from expanding once the pressure of the "outer shell" was released?

So what kept it from expanding massively once the outer shell - which is precisely what provides the pressure - was "lifted" off during the expansion you claim happened?

It's not that the outer crust 'snapped' from 'releasing of the pressure'. Maybe 180 million years ago, when the Earth started to grow, it was in an increased status of earthquakes. But the expansion is so slow that you don't even notice except a few earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
The force come from the inner sun/core and repells mass. I'm not an astrophysicist, but i'm sure there is a scientific explanation for that. The inner core of expanding suns turn into a white dwarf that expels all surrounding mass.
So if you want to know how the inner core works, you have to master the concept of white dwarfs.

http://www.gemini.edu/node/122

Sendraks wrote:

Newstein wrote:Ow yes. I have the data. The 'movement' of the plates are exactly the rate of plate expansions

So what does that equate to in terms of earth expansion?
And is this corroborated by data from GPS satellites or, even more basically, the flight times and fuel consumption of aircraft? Or indeed, the travel times over long distances for any mode of transport?

All added surface to the Earth means expansion. We see the speed of spreading on the map. The Pacific ocean is clearly growing faster than the Atlantic. Most likely coincidence. Continent formation is purely random.

Newstein wrote:...
The first man who steps from the darkness into the light gets all my credits.

Who gave you credits? I'd like to know because I have a strongly worded letter for that individual.

Look I didn't write this but it's EXACTLY what i'm saying. Expanding and hollow Earth

"Planetary nebulae often form around stars which expel mass rapidly late in life as they evolve into white dwarfs. This image was obtained using the University of Hawaii's Hokupa'a adaptive optics system on Gemini North.
Observations and theory give strong evidence that all stars expel a large fraction of their mass throughout their lifetimes. The most intensive phase of this mass loss takes place during a star’s late evolutionary phase. When a star nears the end of its life, its central region contains less fuel for hydrogen burning and the core region contracts until the temperature gets high enough for the nuclear fusion of helium to begin. The structure of the star changes dramatically as hydrogen in the shell surrounding the core also begins burning. Depending on the star’s initial mass on the main sequence (where a star spends most of its hydrogen-burning lifetime), it then enters an unstable period where variations in its temperature, radius and luminosity occur. This can result in structural changes in the star, such as the loss of its external layers."

newolder wrote:

Newstein wrote:...
The first man who steps from the darkness into the light gets all my credits.

Who gave you credits? I'd like to know because I have a strongly worded letter for that individual.

Send it to me, I will pass it to him. PM me

Newstein wrote: We see the speed of spreading on the map.

If we "see" the spreading then that should be corroborated by everything I mentioned in my post.

Newstein wrote:

Weaver wrote:
What is the force keeping the core in your "hollow Earth" model from expanding once the pressure of the "outer shell" was released?

So what kept it from expanding massively once the outer shell - which is precisely what provides the pressure - was "lifted" off during the expansion you claim happened?

It's not that the outer crust 'snapped' from 'releasing of the pressure'. Maybe 180 million years ago, when the Earth started to grow, it was in an increased status of earthquakes. But the expansion is so slow that you don't even notice except a few earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

That doesn't address the question.

The force come from the inner sun/core and repells mass.

Oh, so now we're back to making shit up again?

I'm not an astrophysicist,

No shit!

but i'm sure there is a scientific explanation for that.

I thought you were the only scientist in this thread?

No, there is no scientific explanation for your nonsense claim.

The inner core of expanding suns turn into a white dwarf that expels all surrounding mass.
So if you want to know how the inner core works, you have to master the concept of white dwarfs.

http://www.gemini.edu/node/122

That isn't how white dwarfs work. They don't simply "repel mass" around them - though they are formed as the core of stars whose photospheres have blown off (NOTE - nothing about them forming inside solid planets), they don't "repel mass" - in fact, they have very strong gravitational fields.

Congratulations for so neatly exposing yet another realm of science you clearly know little to nothing about.

EDIT - the link you posted does not support your claim. The paper in that link notes that white dwarf stars expel a large amount of mass during their evolution from main belt star to white dwarf - but that does not mean they "repel" mass. You are misrepresenting the actual science because you think a simplistic similarity means it supports you. You are (again) wrong.

Is he confusing "white dwarf" with "white holes"? I'm sure he's mentioned the latter before as being inside the earth.

Which obviously makes his idea so much more compelling, what with it hinging on something purely hypothetical and never observed.

Yeah, I think he is.

Hey, Newstein, here's another tidbit about white dwarfs which proves you wrong.

Some white dwarf stars accumulate mass from companion stars (NOTE: they are NOT repelling mass, but attracting it via their quite strong gravitational fields). Occasionally, this added mass overcomes the collapse resistance of electron degeneracy pressure - and the result is a Type 1a Supernova.

http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/mobi.php?p=whitdwar.htm

"The contraction of the inner parts of the star releases heat which causes the outer parts to expand and gently get blown away to form a so-called planetary nebula. In this way the gas of old stars is released and can be formed into new stars.
The inner part of the star continues to contract until it reaches the size of the Earth. Then its atoms are crushed together so tightly that their electrons begin to overlap. Because two electrons cannot occupy the same space, they repel each other. This is called the exclusion principle. The electrons cannot be compressed further and so create a force called degeneracy pressure. This small squashed cinder of matter is called a white dwarf star, although it does not shine like a normal star."

So it is "heated gas that expands"? Ok ? I'm ok with that. It's a lie, but it explains at least the expansion of the Earth

Newstein wrote:but it explains at least the expansion of the Earth

No, no it doesn't. Because the earth's crust isn't gas that is getting gently blown away.
In addition, the gravity of earth is not in any way like that of a white dwarf.

Newstein wrote:http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/mobi.php?p=whitdwar.htm

"The contraction of the inner parts of the star releases heat which causes the outer parts to expand and gently get blown away to form a so-called planetary nebula. In this way the gas of old stars is released and can be formed into new stars.
The inner part of the star continues to contract until it reaches the size of the Earth. Then its atoms are crushed together so tightly that their electrons begin to overlap. Because two electrons cannot occupy the same space, they repel each other. This is called the exclusion principle. The electrons cannot be compressed further and so create a force called degeneracy pressure. This small squashed cinder of matter is called a white dwarf star, although it does not shine like a normal star."

So it is "heated gas that expands"? Ok ? I'm ok with that. It's a lie, but it explains at least the expansion of the Earth

Notice that nothing there says that white dwarfs repel mass.

And no, it does not explain the expansion of the Earth. Notably, the Earth is not a main-belt star, and the core of the Earth is not the same as the core of a main-belt star which eventually forms the white dwarf.

I doubt the surface of a white dwarf could sustain life.

Yeah - the coldest one found so far is well over 5,000K surface temp.

So, would this EE idea apply to other rocky planets that have been observed in the Universe?