http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/growingearth

I found this interesting because in school, I was taught about the spreading and subversion of tectonic plates. Without that, then the question of what is fueling the growth?

That's ridiculously cool.

I wonder how long it will be before it's no longer habitable.

I am glad you showed that video, It answered allot of questions I had about tectonic shift.

Probably around the same time the sun goes boom. I'm guessing gravity will lower unless matter is being added. If no matter is being added, then it will become less dense, as well as moving living creatures further away from the core. I'm just wondering if the iron core of the earth will become liquid before our sun goes boom.

I do not think the earth is growing. Cause to make that lava that pushes threw the technonic plates they need rock. And that "rock" is the earth we are standing on. So if you think it goes in this cycle.

Earth goes deep into ground from earth quakes or techtonic movement[[]]Earth melts[[]]Earth becomes lava[[]]Pressure builds up underneath and pushes the plates causing earthquakes[[]] See first sentence.


And also we are losing land due to buildings and higher population. Cause when that cement or concreat is layed down on that earth and cured, that land is unusable for plant growth or anything of the like.

(Sorry if its a little vague)

Humans are Parastites, we feed off of a planet until it is no longer inhabitable. In the future I think we'll be forced to move from planet to planet until we find one that can withstand out "needs".

We already found one, and that place is Mars.

And that is exactly what we will do with Mars, we will poison it too and when its reasources are used up. We will move to another planet, which is highly understandable cause we should be able to master space travel by then.

Fool! I declare bullshit upon thee!

Ok, so this guy managed to take perfectly real scientific points, and then twist them around so horribly that they barely made sense anymore. I would not be surprised if someone made this movie as a joke. His main point, that all the undersea earth was only seventy million years old, is because all the older shit melted. Then out of cracks in the ocean, the magma comes up and out and it pushes outwards. Yay, earth science class!

And really, how much do you expect to prove on animations that you made yourself!? "Look! I didn't animate any subduction in! That means it didn't happen!"

Not to mention that its off a comedy website.

That was the first thing that was screwed up in my eyes.

Total b.s., but still pretty cool to watch.

And evenif it was real, why does this even matter? He keeps on making it sound like a conspiracy theory. What's the conspiracy?

The conspiracy of the scientists wanting to keep the truth about the growing secret for no apparent motivation!

The world isn't flat Grym! I knows because of the round shadow cast on the moon, just trust me on this. Wait wrong thread.
Seriously I like the Expanding-earth theory, and it is not unfounded.

1. Ok, when did I ever even imply that the earth was flat, ever?
2. It is not unfounded? Ok, type me the evidence.

Whica wahhhh?

actually (FACT) the world is expanding in a certain aria. (FACT) the earth is also shrinking on the opposite side of the world through what some people call "bottomless sink holes". its just reusing the earth it brings in, its like those slushy machines. As more comes out more comes in. the core will eventually stop turning, but only when the enormous amount of heat around it disappears and it hardens. But that is up there with the sun taking a big exploding nap. besides if the earth was that much smaller originally, then water would have covered every thing (and when i say every thing i mean so much that land life would still to this day be comparably immatures to what it si now), our moon and planet orbit would be more like a a dual rotation than just the moon around us, and if the earth had really expanded this much during any time period, earth quicks would open up HUGE (we're talking contental sized) caves that would span miles, not in tunnels but shear rooms could easily fit states. why? because if the earth doubled in size this would leave gargantuan hallows in the mantle and crust. it just does not make much sense if you think of it that way. the contents may be moving becous of this intake, out take action (that is completely possible) but the planet it self has changed very little (if at all) were size is concerned. If you really think about it , the whole earth expansion theory falls apart.

Humans are Parastites, we feed off of a planet until it is no longer inhabitable. In the future I think we'll be forced to move from planet to planet until we find one that can withstand out "needs".


that may be true, but it may also be extremely wrong. what happens if we run out of junk before our "jump to light speed"? we roll over and die? No! We adapt and learn who to reuse what has been used. im not saying there wont be war, im not saying it wont be hard, but i (despite the fact that i do belive that all humans are crazy) have a strong faith in the human race and we will, as a race, advance and adapt. Anything is possible, after all i've heard of a time when people never thought a human could ever take to the skies, and look who wrong they are now. Never lose hope on your fellow man, other wise whats the point of continuing our existence?

No we're not. We're Nature at its finest.

All aspects of Nature attempt to subvert and use the other parts. Of course, since all parts of nature do it, it usually swings in round abouts. Predators too good? Well, they'll overeat their prey and start to starve. Your predators suddenly started dying off? Time for a population boom!

Human beings, and especially cities, are the finest example of Nature at work. We are so damn good at subversion, control and adaption that we've managed to turn the very rock we live on to our purposes. Each time we skirt with disaster, we skitter back from the edge and push on further. We are the inevitable result of Nature being itself. It's not Man against Nature. It's Nature biting itself in the ass.

I say we'll all be dead by the time this is anywhere near coming around.

Maybe you.

I'm immortal.

Well of course I wasn't talking about you.

Just making sure, Grymsicles. Just making sure.

Really. It makes me ashamed to see you making assumptions like that.

Shame is good.

It's somewhere on the path to spite.

I imagine teenage angst is somewhere near the beginning, then?

Only grudgingly.

Those who have a natural affinity to be spiteful have the ability to bypass teen angst and instead develop a an early hatred against those with a knack for behaving unbelievably stupid.

It's like art.

Anybody can do it. Most people can learn to do it well. With enough dedication, half of everyone can master the intricacies of the craft.

But only some are born to it.

Spite is just an annoyance. Don't waste your time with something so petty.

I have done more research on the expanding earth theory and I love it more and more, it simply makes since in every way. I have no way to prove the theory wrong because there is nothing wrong with it, and trust me if there was something critically wrong with this theory I will find it.

Spite is a way of life.

Much like materialism of Buddhism, only older.

You seem to contradict yourself

I'm pretty sure that spite isn't the topic he's loving more and more.

Oooooo a conspiracy theory...

What!? How can he not!

Maybe we should amend that to include a "yet".

Goblin just said everything I believe about the human race myself. And that animation was so fun to watch! Not to mention it looked like everything fit perfectly together. Could be some cosmic coincidence, like the moon being in exactly big enough and exactly far away enough to perfectly blot out the sun during a solar eclipse. As much as I regret it, I have to call BS on it. I stopped really listening to it the moment he said 'the details don't work'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory

___________________________

Arguments against subduction

Expanding Earth Theory challenges the existence, or at least the extent, of subduction in global tectonic theory. Exponents contend that in order for subduction to cause the Earth's size to remain fixed, the exact same amount of crustal material appearing at the mid-ocean ridges must be subducted. There is no agreed mechanism for such a correlation between the two processes.

1. The mid-ocean ridges are greater in length and area than the known subduction zones and circle the entire globe in several configurations. Proponents of an expanding Earth argue that in order for the crustal material appearing there to subduct equally into the known zones, some evidence of a bottle-neck pile-up of oceanic crust should be visible nearing these subduction zones. Yet the entire ocean floor is smoothly surfaced, free of oceanic slab irregularities, indicating harmonious spreading unencumbered by such a process.
2. Subduction only occurs on one side of subduction zones, so the "other side" should show evidence of being much older. In some cases (where two oceanic plates come together) no such evidence is visible. However, this is explained in plate tectonics by the assumption that in some cases, the direction of subduction changes.


Arguments for subduction

Since the 1970s, a vast amount of evidence was found in structural geology, seismology, petrology and isotope geochemistry that subduction is at least to some extent taking place. It is still very hard to calculate the global rate with which material subducts. Proponents of the expanding Earth theory claim the existence of subduction does not necessarily rule out expansion of the planet, but the existence of a mechanism by which the Earth can keep its crust size constant is a significant problem for the expanding earth theory and is one of the major reasons why it was abandoned. Observations seen as evidence for subduction include:

1. The existence of Wadati-Benioff zones, elongated regions of high seismic activity within the crust and mantle that are explained as huge shear zones. These zones are located beneath oceanic trenches and seem to indicate a slice of crustal material is moving downward through the mantle. They form one of the best arguments for subduction.
2. 3D models of the mantle made with seismic tomography show cold zones of sinking material exactly in the regions where plate tectonics predicts slabs of crust are subducting into the mantle.
3. Petrologic research of rocks from mountain belts has yielded countless pressure-temperature-time paths. Paths for the axial zones of mountain belts (the metamorphic core) show many mountain chains went through a period of "deep burial". This is explained by plate tectonics (subduction followed by obduction). The existence of eclogite in many mountainbelts indicates material was "pushed" to depths far into the mantle (depths up to over 200 km are found). In plate tectonics this is explained by the slab pull force which occurs at mid-ocean ridges.
4. The existence of major geologic shearzones (sutures) in most mountain belts. Paleomagnetic and mineralogic studies show the rocks that are now lying next to each other were originally thousands of kilometers apart. In other words: a piece of the crust is missing. Structural geology has shown these missing pieces of crust are not located directly underneath the shearzones or laterally. Instead, they seem to have moved along the sutures into the mantle (this is supported by shear indicators in the shear zones). This is again strong evidence that subduction took place and mountains form by the "continental collision" of tectonic plates.
5. Rare earth isotope compositions of volcanic rocks that formed above subduction zones are similar to those of sediments on top of the subducting plate. If there are lateral differences in the isotope composition of sediments on subducting plates, these lateral differences are also found back in the composition of the magma that rose from the deeper part of the subduction zone.

___________________________

From what I can tell, the main beef between the two is the rate of subduction/obduction vs rate of crust creation. I compare it to a joke I heard once, about the existence of hell.

I sincerely doubt that the rate of sub/obduction is equal to the rate of creation, simply because perfect is to convenient to accept. So that means that either sub/obduction is occurring at a greater rate, or a lesser rate to creation, meaning it is either growing, or shrinking.

One of the places they went wrong is claiming that the earth's smaller stature allowed for the dinosaurs' large sizes. It seems like the opposite should be true, as gravity isn't calculated by volume alone, its density is a major factor. If the earth had the exact same mass, but displaced a smaller amount of space, then its gravity should be increased. Its core and magma should be hotter as well. (if I'm wrong about this, I'd love to be corrected)

BTW: The joke went (as much as i can remember)

A professor asked a class to use physics to explain the existence of hell. One of the students wrote in...

If hell exists, then it must be expanding in order to accommodate the arrival of new souls. If hell is expanding slower than the arrival of new souls, then it will become hotter and be under greater pressure until all hell breaks loose.

If hell is expanding faster, then it will be under less pressure, and be cooling until hell freezes over.

I am led to believe that hell has indeed frozen over as Jenny Lincoln said "it will be a cold day in hell before I sleep with you Jimmy", and seeing as i hit that, and hit it good, hell must be expanding faster.

the Earth gains I think it's 20 metric tons of material each year from accumulation of cosmic dust and asteroids or meteorites.

Source?

Me?

Yes. I assume you didn't just pull that number out of your ass, right?

Something I learned in astronomy. Earth is the largest of the terrestrial planets hence we have the greatest pull on anything passing through the inner system. Most things that come into orbit of Earth are grains of sand or a little bigger and believe it or not NASA and other agencies track them. It's just a rough estimate based on the amount of debris in orbit around Earth and the number of meteorite strikes each year, not just impacts but when they vaporize in our atmosphere the dust eventually settles. I don't know exactly who came up with the estimate but I can ask around with some Astronomer I know and let you know.

Good idea.


Which is where the theory for Pangea comes in to play.


Of course he did. He shits numbers, remember?

QUOTE(Grym @ Mar 2 2008, 02:51 AM) [snapback]168186[/snapback]

Which is where the theory for Pangaea comes in to play.

Sorry no, the Pangaea theory involves way too much shuffling around, spinning, cutting up and drastic relocating. The fact they fit together perfect when the planet shrinks works to disprove the Pangaea theory not support it.

Har har har.

There is no proof to the claim that they "fit together perfectly on a smaller planet". So far, all I've seen is speculation. Yes, speculation. One guy saying that doesn't make it proof.

Y'know, the tectonic movements don't only move the plates, they alter their shape. So, when the African tectonic plate collides with the Eurasian, we get the Alps. Meaning, the shape of the continents has been altered.

And I always had a bit of trouble seeing Pangaea from the continents we have now anyway.

Well, try tearing a sheet of aluminum foil apart, crumple the pieces and then try to put it back together. You can bet you're not going to get the original sheet.

Now straighten the pieces back as much as they go, and you'll come close to the original sheet when you put them back together. Of course, since their shape has been altered, you can no longer get entirely there.

A big part of the problem I had was a lack of effort, I'll admit.

They floated the theory to me, it seemed to fit so I accepted it in the lieu of other theories. Really, there wasn't a lot more to it than that. My interest in things like this aren't that deep. I prefer looking into human affairs.

Even before I knew about Pangaea I could see how well South America and Africa fit together.

Any child could, the growing earth theory is better than the Pangaea theory in that everything fits together if you just remove the oceans. Then the over whelming evidence of extreme expansion under the see combined with the lack of any major seduction evidence on the earth. This evidence would drive any rational thinker to realize the growing earth theory is more credible than Pangaea theory. It just makes since.

Face it, this was the biggest discovery in Earth Science since we discovered the world was round because of the round shadow the earth casts on the moon.