PDA

View Full Version : Anyone seen this: Growing Earth



angrynight
2007-Apr-23, 08:04 PM
I don't believe the nonsense, but it is amusing and infuriating at once:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

or the website of this guy:

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

Shalamar
2007-Apr-23, 08:20 PM
I don't believe the nonsense, but it is amusing and infuriating at once:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

or the website of this guy:

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html


My brain tried to shut down upon reading that site.

So.. it seems he thinks the earth GROWS over time, pushing the tetonic plates apart. Riiight.

Now I'm no geologist, but wouldn't this cause the oceans to become shallower over time, and give us more usable land? AND we wants students to show this to their profs. That would fail a lot of poor kids for even considering, unless it was shown 'for a big laugh'.

Fazor
2007-Apr-23, 08:27 PM
I'm skeptic of any "science" paper that begins with the likes of


First… it’s important to understand that this is the most profound disagreement in all of science in a century and a half… and, even so, it is the tip of the iceberg, the ramifications of this disagreement will change everything we know in science, top to bottom.


Guess it's every scientist's dream to "Change the face of science as we know it". :sigh:

hplasm
2007-Apr-23, 08:27 PM
Ha! It's obvious that the Earth is just breathing in...

:whistle:

Fazor
2007-Apr-23, 08:41 PM
The more and more I read, the more wonderful quotes I come across.


But meteorites aren’t loosely assembled. They’re solid. Some are solid unrustable iron!

Iron that doesn't oxidize in an atmosphere void of oxygen?! Amazing...

Forskern
2007-Apr-23, 08:43 PM
A lengthy thread with the main actor himself:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=45836

Van Rijn
2007-Apr-23, 11:31 PM
A lengthy thread with the main actor himself:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=45836

In which he shows he doesn't understand some rather basic concepts.

Forskern
2007-Apr-24, 05:06 AM
In which he shows he doesn't understand some rather basic concepts.

Such as grammar? :P

Occam
2007-Apr-24, 06:05 AM
I don't know, he may be onto something. If the earth and everything on it is expanding, it certainly explains my waistline.

Gillianren
2007-Apr-24, 07:05 AM
Such as grammar? :P

Oh, yeah.

Serenitude
2007-Apr-24, 07:07 AM
Such as grammar? :P

Yes, but correcthim on..... this.... and he'll, remind, you, that he gets paid,, a signifigant.... amount of money,,, to write like this,,... so it must beyou.

Maksutov
2007-Apr-24, 07:18 AM
Yes, but correcthim on..... this.... and he'll, remind, you, that he gets paid,, a signifigant.... amount of money,,, to write like this,,... so it must beyou.Yes, another product of the SSOBD*.















*Shatner School Of Bad Acting

general_fault
2007-Apr-29, 05:50 AM
perhaps we should do our own experiment,
1: inflate a ballon to half full
2: draw a picture of what earth was supposed to be at beginning of time
3: inflate ballon to maximum
4: examine and draw conclusion

Gillianren
2007-Apr-29, 06:26 AM
That it's an experiment that doesn't prove anything?

Look, as I've said repeatedly, we've observed subduction happen, and since "subduction doesn't happen" is a main tenet of this particular belief, we don't really have to do much to prove it's wrong.

A_C_C
2007-Apr-29, 01:32 PM
Sad, I used to admire Neal Adams, back when I only know him as an artist, not as the kook that he is now.

general_fault
2007-Apr-30, 12:37 PM
the experiment proof that earth is not expanding like a baloon,but my friend have you heard of lapindo incident ?
basically people there are drilling for oil, but instead they find mud flow which getting bigger, until now as you were reading..., after few month the ground around the drilling location actually drop, sink, and causing damage to roads, houses, and even blow one of the gas pipes.

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

"The accident occurred because the ground subsided 2 m (6.5 feet) due to the significant outflow of mud and water, and a dike collapsed causing the state-owned Pertamina gas pipeline to rupture."

this proof that earth ground is consisted more than a rock and dirt, but also mud, and these mud also support the rock and dirt above it, and if the mud expand so does the ground.

that's my expanding earth theory is...

publiusr
2007-Apr-30, 07:11 PM
The Earth will get heavier, then shrink a bit as it collects more dust from space---and cools.

Not noticably however.

mugaliens
2007-Apr-30, 07:58 PM
The Earth will get heavier, then shrink a bit as it collects more dust from space---and cools.

Not noticably however.

Hmmm... If it gets heavier, then it'll probably sink a little lower in the heavens, huh?

Hmm...

publiusr
2007-Apr-30, 08:07 PM
Not exactly. Its gravity well will sink ever so slightly into the "rubber sheet" fabric of space model.

Been awhile since Q gave it a good Armor-All coating. Space is like vinyl roofs for cars. It needs to be moisturized.

MG1962A
2007-May-03, 07:54 PM
Funny, I struck a proponent of this idea on another forum. All fire and brimstone he was, till asked him what caused the Himilaya Mountains. He aint been back yet lol

Fazor
2007-May-03, 08:18 PM
this proof that earth ground is consisted more than a rock and dirt, but also mud, and these mud also support the rock and dirt above it, and if the mud expand so does the ground.

The mud is not expanding; it's flowing from an area of high pressure to an area of lower pressure. It's the same thing as shaking a 2-litre bottle of soda then opening it. This is all explained in the wiki article you linked us to.

Furthermore, you describe local houses and roads as collapsing into the ground. This is because, as I just stated, nothing is expanding. The mud moved out of the underground pocket, the earth above fell into the newly formed hole and filled it back in. You are left with the same thing you started with, just things are displaced.

general_fault
2007-May-05, 12:05 PM
The mud is not expanding; it's flowing from an area of high pressure to an area of lower pressure. It's the same thing as shaking a 2-litre bottle of soda then opening it. This is all explained in the wiki article you linked us to.

But the mud weren't soda, and i bet the pressure were coming form the ground above... that's why after the mud were flowing out, the ground collapsed, and one more thing... why mud isn't stopped yet ?

Gillianren
2007-May-05, 07:24 PM
The mud is not expanding; it's flowing from an area of high pressure to an area of lower pressure. It's the same thing as shaking a 2-litre bottle of soda then opening it. This is all explained in the wiki article you linked us to.

But the mud weren't soda, and i bet the pressure were coming form the ground above...

Why do you bet that? What knowledge of geology do you have that suggests it?

Jeff Root
2007-May-06, 04:28 AM
I'd bet that the pressure was from the weight of the ground above
the mud, too.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Fazor
2007-May-06, 05:21 AM
I'd bet that the pressure was from the weight of the ground above
the mud, too.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Yes, and the atmoshpere.

general_fault
2007-May-06, 02:34 PM
I don't have any degree in geology but who need a degree to use logic anyway ?

only 3 possible reason for the pressure :
1. from above the mud
2. from surrounding area of the mud
3. from below the mud / core of earth

but from the actual ground collaps I believe the pressure was from above.

general_fault
2007-May-06, 02:44 PM
if you choose no.3 then you'll support the growing "core" of earth theory (like a ballon) !

if you choose no.2 then why is the ground collapsing and the mud are still flowing ?

hhEb09'1
2007-May-06, 03:14 PM
I don't believe the nonsense, but it is amusing and infuriating at once:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

or the website of this guy:

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.htmlFrom the website:
So to make it visually clear, if you took the water away what you would see as you go out into the ocean a distance is, the Continental Shelf would suddenly drop away and down like a ridge in Arizona., except it would go straight down for two to three miles, as if it was suddenly broken off.That is a common notion of the continental shelf, but it is not nearly as abrupt as that. From this wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_shelf), "The continental slope is much steeper than the shelf; the average angle is 3°, but it can be as low as 1° or as high as 10°."

Pictures of the continental shelf profiles contribute to this misunderstanding because their scale is often greatly exaggerated in the vertical direction--otherwise, the illustration would look a lot like a flat line, with a slight bend in it. Ordinary automobiles can go straight up a 10° incline with not too much trouble, and that is mentioned as a maximum.

Fazor
2007-May-07, 02:31 PM
if you choose no.3 then you'll support the growing "core" of earth theory (like a ballon) !
if you choose no.2 then why is the ground collapsing and the mud are still flowing ?

I think you're misunderstanding pressure. Deep within the ground, the pressure is much higher than it is at the surface. (pressure at the surface is not zero, air has weight you just don't notice because we have evolved to compensate). When the company drilled, they opened a path from the liquid mud from an area of high pressure to this area of lower pressure, thus causing the mud to flow to the surface. As the resevoir of mud evacuated, it left a hollow pocket that was no longer able to support the surface above it, and so the land caved in. The fact that there's still flowing mud simply means there's a vein of it that has yet to equalize in pressure. This is the same thing that happens with oil and other fossil fuels under the earth (and it's not uncommon for ground to collapse once a pocket becomes hollow. It's also pretty much the same mechanism that's at work with volcanoes (with the added componant of thermodynamics).

general_fault
2007-May-07, 03:35 PM
"As the resevoir of mud evacuated, it left a hollow pocket that was no longer able to support the surface above it..."

so the mud were actually supporting the ground above it, and getting the pressure because they were burried underground, that I concurs thank you. :)

about volcanoes... i cannot even imagine what happen when a volcano errupt, how they getting those enormous force and how they actually spreading landmass from the inner ground to outerground and actually creating island (hawai ?). is it possible for an underground volcano ? which will inflating the ground above it.

Kesh
2007-May-07, 04:50 PM
about volcanoes... i cannot even imagine what happen when a volcano errupt, how they getting those enormous force and how they actually spreading landmass from the inner ground to outerground and actually creating island (hawai ?). is it possible for an underground volcano ? which will inflating the ground above it.

Yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera). As to "spreading landmass" such as in the case of Hawaii, well, just imagine a pile of sand. Now pour more sand on it and the pile gets higher. In the case of volcanic islands, an undersea volcano erupts. Magma pours out and cools. Later, the pressure builds, the volcano erupts and more magma pours out and cools. Eventually, as the layers build up, the volcano becomes tall enough to break the surface of the ocean, thus becoming a volcanic island.

Of note, all of the Hawaiian islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_Islands) were formed over the same magma pocket. However, it's because of the movement of the Earth's crust that you see a chain of them. The westernmost island formed first, but it had moved off the main magma pocket before it got any larger than it is. The "big island" of Hawaii is the only currently active island in the chain, sitting right on top of the magma chambers.

However, I don't see what this has to do with the "expanding Earth" theory.

Fazor
2007-May-07, 06:05 PM
However, I don't see what this has to do with the "expanding Earth" theory.
I think he's assuming that the core expands, which pushes out the lava creating the islands, and that the core must be "growing" in order for the cooled/formed lava to be replaced by new lava.

I've never studied geology extensively, but I believe the lava is "replenished" as rock from the (mantle?) becomes heated and melts back into magma. Like a cycle of heating, eruption and cooling, then more heating. Just like glaciers are a cycle of freezing, thawing, and re-freezing. At least, I imagine that's how the cycle goes.

Gillianren
2007-May-07, 09:39 PM
I've never studied geology extensively, but I believe the lava is "replenished" as rock from the (mantle?) becomes heated and melts back into magma. Like a cycle of heating, eruption and cooling, then more heating. Just like glaciers are a cycle of freezing, thawing, and re-freezing. At least, I imagine that's how the cycle goes.

Quite right. See, the problem is, he never considered subduction to be real. Which is just silly--and flies in the face of evidence. But all that magma is just plate that's been subducted and remelted.

You don't have to bother imagining these things. Other people have studied them; if you read even a children's geology text (available at your local library), you can learn instead. Imagination is great--I hope to make my living at it soon!--but it does have its limits.

hhEb09'1
2007-May-08, 12:41 PM
Quite right. See, the problem is, he never considered subduction to be real. Which is just silly--and flies in the face of evidence. But all that magma is just plate that's been subducted and remelted.But we're talking about the Hawaiian Islands--the magma there is not from subducted plates.

Fazor
2007-May-08, 01:56 PM
You don't have to bother imagining these things. Other people have studied them; if you read even a children's geology text (available at your local library), you can learn instead. Imagination is great--I hope to make my living at it soon!--but it does have its limits.
LoL you seem to have picked up on my bad habit of using phrases like "I imagine" and "I could be wrong" even when I'm not imagining or know I'm not wrong. One of my many stupid quirks.

Gillianren
2007-May-08, 08:25 PM
But we're talking about the Hawaiian Islands--the magma there is not from subducted plates.

Yes, it is. It's not from subducted plates in its area, but the constant supply of magma even after magma has been reduced in the system by becoming, you know, land has its origins in subducted plates. That material goes into the mantle; it doesn't just stay where it is. It moves as forces within the Earth cause it to move.

AstroSmurf
2007-May-08, 10:29 PM
I'm just curious if the "recycling" has run a full round yet, or if the Earth is still too young for that. My geology knowledge is admittedly terrible, so I'll hold off even guessing. Still, the cycle that pushes magma up to form new islands is undoubtedly fed by subducted material, so it evens out.

Gillianren
2007-May-09, 12:20 AM
I'm just curious if the "recycling" has run a full round yet, or if the Earth is still too young for that. My geology knowledge is admittedly terrible, so I'll hold off even guessing. Still, the cycle that pushes magma up to form new islands is undoubtedly fed by subducted material, so it evens out.

My geology information fits into the category of "really good for a layperson," but I don't know the anwer to that one, either.

PhantomWolf
2007-May-09, 12:51 AM
It would seem the answer is possibly. The assummed age of the planet is 4.5-4.6 billion years, but the oldest rocks we have found are only 3.6 billion so that would suggest that most of the rock from the first billion odd years has undergone recycling. However rock crystals have been found that date back to the Earth's first rocks, so it seems that some rocks have esacped the recycling, or those that were around at the time have been destroyed in other means and then reformed at a later date. I'm sure that a geologist would be able to tell you more. I think we have one on the board somewhere.

Swift
2007-May-09, 03:58 AM
It would seem the answer is possibly. The assummed age of the planet is 4.5-4.6 billion years, but the oldest rocks we have found are only 3.6 billion so that would suggest that most of the rock from the first billion odd years has undergone recycling. However rock crystals have been found that date back to the Earth's first rocks, so it seems that some rocks have esacped the recycling, or those that were around at the time have been destroyed in other means and then reformed at a later date. I'm sure that a geologist would be able to tell you more. I think we have one on the board somewhere.
Not a geologist, but that is my interpretation - most of the Earth's surface has been recycled with some rare exceptions.

JonClarke
2007-May-09, 10:02 AM
The problem is with the use of the word "recycled".

There are essentially no rocks older than ~4.0 Ga. (and very few older than about 3.6 GA) There are older mineral grains indicating that there were crustal rocks about. However it is thought that the bompardment rate was such that the crust as a whole was constantly being mixed back into the upper mantle before this time. At least, that is my understanding. This is true crycling with differentiated upper crustal crocks being recycled back to their original compositions

Stricly speaking ocean crust is not recycled. When ocean crust is subducted it undergoes partial melting. the partial melt is enriched in lithophile elements and forms the andesitic rocks of island arcs. The dense residue is resistant to melting and continues sinking through the mantle. Relicts of subducted slabs can perists in the mantle for 100's of My and have been imaged using seismic tomography. Their ultimate fate is not known. They may eventually be re-assimilated back into the upper mantle, but they may also keep sinking into the lower mantle, causing the anomalously cool zones detected using seismology.

Continental crust is not recycled at all. It is too bouyant to be suducted and has grown continuously over time, although not at a constant rate. This is why we have are areas of Archaean crust (>2.5 Ga) preserved, some rocks going back to 4.0 Ga and mineral grains of even older material.

Jon

hhEb09'1
2007-May-10, 06:47 PM
I'm just curious if the "recycling" has run a full round yet, or if the Earth is still too young for that. My geology knowledge is admittedly terrible, so I'll hold off even guessing. Still, the cycle that pushes magma up to form new islands is undoubtedly fed by subducted material, so it evens out.I wondered what it would mean to "run a full round" and I think you might be interested in the theory of supercontinent supercycles--there is evidence that the supercontinent has split apart, rejoined at the opposite sides, split apart again, more than once. Would that qualify as "run a full round"?

AstroSmurf
2007-May-10, 06:51 PM
I meant if there is material being ejected in volcanic eruptions (and other such processes) that has previously been part of the lithosphere and absorbed into the mantle through subduction. The alternative would be that the oldest subducted material is still well below the surface and won't be reemerging for a long time.

zenbudda
2007-May-10, 09:38 PM
perhaps we should do our own experiment,
1: inflate a ballon to half full
2: draw a picture of what earth was supposed to be at beginning of time
3: inflate ballon to maximum
4: examine and draw conclusion

this can't be an accurate description can it? the core would force the layers of mantel underneath the ripping surface back to the top. a baloon does not have the same contruction as dirt,rock,molten layers as earth does.

hhEb09'1
2007-May-15, 02:12 PM
Yes, it is.Sorry, missed this one before. A commonly-held theory is that the source of hotspots (as opposed to the Ring of Fire volcanoes) is at the core-mantle boundary, and the material is from the core itself--and is not connected with subducted slabs at all. There are alternative theories, not as widely held, but at best it seems we can only say maybe it is.

I meant if there is material being ejected in volcanic eruptions (and other such processes) that has previously been part of the lithosphere and absorbed into the mantle through subduction. The alternative would be that the oldest subducted material is still well below the surface and won't be reemerging for a long time.Ah. Yes, there is evidence of a complete cycle then, in that sense. The volcanoes in the Pacific margin Ring of Fire appear to be the result of remelt of subducted slabs that has risen back to the surface.

this can't be an accurate description can it?No, it's not. A balloon with continents drawn on it would blow up to look like itself, just bigger, with the continents bigger as well. The expanding earth theories have continents approx. the same size, as the earth expands--thus, they completely covered the earth when the earth had half the radius it does now.

Forrest
2007-Jul-02, 09:32 PM
Now I'm no geologist, but wouldn't this cause the oceans to become shallower over time, and give us more usable land?

Of course, you assumed that this growth would only produce the elements for land mass but not the elements for the ocean. Why?

captain swoop
2007-Jul-02, 09:42 PM
well then the atmosphere would become thinner, or is that being produced as well?

aurora
2007-Jul-02, 10:19 PM
is it possible for an underground volcano ? which will inflating the ground above it.


Yes, it is possible. In Hawaii, for example, almost half of the magma never reaches the surface. It intrudes into fractures, resulting in inflation of the mountain.

As to your other posts, though, existence of a pressurized well (whether mud or water as in an artesan well) does not prove that the Earth is expanding. In the artesan wells I have seen, the water is under pressure because it has a hydrostatic head -- in other words, the driving force is gravity.

And has been noted, if the Earth is expanding, you would have to explain subduction.

You may want to consult a physical geology book.

dgavin
2007-Jul-04, 07:33 AM
"As the resevoir of mud evacuated, it left a hollow pocket that was no longer able to support the surface above it..."

so the mud were actually supporting the ground above it, and getting the pressure because they were burried underground, that I concurs thank you. :)

about volcanoes... i cannot even imagine what happen when a volcano errupt, how they getting those enormous force and how they actually spreading landmass from the inner ground to outerground and actually creating island (hawai ?). is it possible for an underground volcano ? which will inflating the ground above it.

Yes, those underground volcanoes are called Magma Pools (or Pockets).

There is swelling occuring at the Three Sisters Uplift area. And periods of Uplift, then subsidence at Yellowstone Caldera.

Hawaii and Yellowstone are fed by a process called Hot Spot Vulcanism. Basically hot plumes of magma from the core hit the lithospere at those points, because of the heat, some of the lithospere is melted making these areas of the crust thinner. The oceanic Crust is normaly about 7 miles (11 km) thick. Around the hawaii area it's as thin as two miles (3 km), and around Yellowstone the normaly 30 mile (48km) thick continetal crust is only 7 miles(11 km) thick. When volcanoes occur at these ares the lava(magma) is relativly fluid, and less explosive.

However subduction area volcanoes occur where the oceanic plates are subducted under the continetal plates. The movement and pressure cause the water to super heat to the point it melts both plates. Because this magma has large quntities of super heated water (that wants to expand into steam), it's force up through the crust along fracture zones, typically forming secondary pools only 2 to 10 miles from the surface. It's this sort of pooling action that causes uplift area's such as at the Three Sisters Uplift area. When this secondary pool has enough presure itself, the magma pushes up and punches through the crust. Forming the stratavolcanoes common along the subduction zone areas. Because of the high amount of pressurized water in this kind of less fluid magma, when it does erupt to the surface, the water tends to convert to steam almost almost instantly, leading to the more explosive eruption of these types of volcanoes. Mt. St. Helens is a good example of this.

hhEb09'1
2007-Jul-04, 01:38 PM
Hawaii and Yellowstone are fed by a process called Hot Spot Vulcanism. Basically hot plumes of magma from the core hit the lithospere at those points, because of the heat, some of the lithospere is melted making these areas of the crust thinner. The oceanic Crust is normaly about 7 miles (11 km) thick. Around the hawaii area it's as thin as two miles (3 km), and around Yellowstone the normaly 30 mile (48km) thick continetal crust is only 7 miles(11 km) thick. When volcanoes occur at these ares the lava(magma) is relativly fluid, and less explosive.Sort of. :)

The Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980 is said to have blasted 1 cubic kilometer of material, so it makes a nice metric derived unit, the MSH. The three Yellowstone (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/history.html) eruptions were 2450 MSH (2.1Mya), 280 MSH (1.3Mya), and 1000 MSH (.640Mya). Big explosions, then.

Damien Evans
2007-Jul-04, 02:07 PM
Sort of. :)

The Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980 is said to have blasted 1 cubic kilometer of material, so it makes a nice metric derived unit, the MSH. The three Yellowstone (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/history.html) eruptions were 2450 MSH (2.1Mya), 280 MSH (1.3Mya), and 1000 MSH (.640Mya). Big explosions, then.

hmm, extrapolating that timeline to the present seems to indicate it could blow again soon, glad i don't live in North America

Nicolas
2007-Jul-04, 04:04 PM
Between the last two there was 660 MY. Between the third and second most recent one 800MY. That's 730MY on average. It's been 640MY. So on average calculated by 2 interexplosion data points, it will explode again in 90 million years. When taking the lower boundary of the spread seen in this dataset of 2, it will explode no earlier than in 20 million years. So even if you live in NA, this huge dataset of 3 eruptions shows that you have nothing to fear. Indeed, that it would be great if mankind was still around when it finally explodes ;).

But that said, I do know what you mean. :)

Gillianren
2007-Jul-04, 06:08 PM
If it blows, we won't be the only ones suffering.

That being said, I think three data points are too few to extrapolate from. If it goes, it goes, and I don't think any of us have any real way of knowing when.

Jim
2007-Jul-04, 06:32 PM
Just the same, I intend to be out of town that week.

dgavin
2007-Jul-04, 06:43 PM
Well true, Caldera collapses (Yellowstone, Newberry) produce huge amounts ash fallout.

However Caldera collapses are theorized to happen over long time frames. Days to Months, as opposed to the explosive eruptions that are produced at stratavolcanoes.

A good analog of the St Helens versus Yellowstone would be a full vacum cleaner bag with an M-80 going off in side (For St Helens) and 1000 full vacum cleaner bags being sqeezed by a perforated concrete slab over them (Yellowstone).

Yes Yellowstone would make much more of a mess, but the exposive force of it is not proportional to a Stratavolcano. For example the Pyroclastic Flows of Yellowstone's last eruption reached a distance of 60 miles from the eruption. St. Helens explosive Pyroclastic Flow reached a distance of 10 miles from the eruption.

For a better gauge the Pyroclastic Flow from when Mt Mazama Composite volcano(Crater Lake, OR) exploded, that reached some 130 miles distance from the eruption and was 50 cubic Kilometers of material. It completely wiped out 53,000 square miles of forest! This was a rare combination event, where an explosive eruption was then followed by a extramly fast (explosive) caldera collapse. http://craterlake.wr.usgs.gov/geology.html

However climate wise, Caldera collapses (like Yellostone) are much more devestating as the amounts of material propeled into the atmosphere is a few orders of magnatude larger. It just isn't done as explosively.

Nicolas
2007-Jul-04, 07:50 PM
That being said, I think three data points are too few to extrapolate from. If it goes, it goes, and I don't think any of us have any real way of knowing when.

That was the subsurface message of my post as well :).

Swordfish
2007-Jul-06, 07:31 PM
That was the subsurface message of my post as well :).

:doh:

Haven't we already done a geologic pun thread?

Lurker
2007-Jul-07, 09:41 PM
I'm just curious if the "recycling" has run a full round yet, or if the Earth is still too young for that. My geology knowledge is admittedly terrible, so I'll hold off even guessing. Still, the cycle that pushes magma up to form new islands is undoubtedly fed by subducted material, so it evens out.

Uh... this is a difficult one. The material at subduction zones rises through the continental crust in large plutons of magma and erupt forming mountains at the subduction boundaries. A classic example of this is the Cascade Mountain Range along the northern coast of the United States.

The Hawaiian islands are produced by what are thought to be deep mantle plumes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_plume). Althought this theory has come more intensely debated in recent years, the basic concept is that these are apparently stationary hotsopts in the earth's mantle which makes them a somewhat anomalous feature of plate tectonics. Since the hotspots are stationary, it is the movement of the plates that causes an island chain to form. The Hawaiian islands in association with the Emperor Seamounts present a very nice diary of the movements of the movements of the Pacific place over milllions of years. It provides a fine record for the inner workings of plate tectonics.

Another fascinating example of what may be a deep mantle plume, that is very close to home is, Yellowstone park. Yellowstone park proper is the most recent calderia of this plume that has been blasting through the north american plate like a blow torch for millions of years forming a number of earlier yellowstony type calderas and carving much of the snake river plain. There have been a number of yellowstone type eruptions in the past and there will be more in our future although there seems to be little chance of such an eruption in the foreseeable future.


Edited to Add:

uh... in regard to the original topic of this thread. If the earth were actually expanding, this would be wll documented by measurements of geodessic points located all over the world.

EDG
2007-Jul-08, 04:46 AM
uh... in regard to the original topic of this thread. If the earth were actually expanding, this would be wll documented by measurements of geodessic points located all over the world.

The Earth is smaller than assumed - New measurements show a difference of several millimeters - http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=23015

Kinda blows the whole "growing earth" argument away really. :)

JonClarke
2007-Jul-08, 08:34 AM
Well true, Caldera collapses (Yellowstone, Newberry) produce huge amounts ash fallout.

However Caldera collapses are theorized to happen over long time frames. Days to Months, as opposed to the explosive eruptions that are produced at stratavolcanoes.

The longer time frame is simply because the eruptions are so much larger in terms of volumes of material erupted and energy released.

Jon

hhEb09'1
2007-Jul-08, 02:48 PM
The longer time frame is simply because the eruptions are so much larger in terms of volumes of material erupted and energy released. I think dgavin's point was that the hotspot eruptions don't scale by amount of material, that they are less explosive. Hence, Crater Lake (50 MSH) reaching out 130 miles, whereas Yellowstone (2500 MSH) only 60 miles.
For a better gauge the Pyroclastic Flow from when Mt Mazama Composite volcano(Crater Lake, OR) exploded, that reached some 130 miles distance from the eruption and was 50 cubic Kilometers of material. It completely wiped out 53,000 square miles of forest! When I just went back to look at this, I realized that pi times 1302 equals 53093, that's a nicely symmetric explosion, not at all like Mount St. Helens, right?

dgavin
2007-Jul-09, 02:00 AM
I think dgavin's point was that the hotspot eruptions don't scale by amount of material, that they are less explosive. Hence, Crater Lake (50 MSH) reaching out 130 miles, whereas Yellowstone (2500 MSH) only 60 miles.When I just went back to look at this, I realized that pi times 1302 equals 53093, that's a nicely symmetric explosion, not at all like Mount St. Helens, right?

The Pyroclastic blasts from it were fairly semetrical yes. Trees were not simply blast over like with St. Helens, but were completely -Incinerated- up to 40 miles distance, the Rouge River Valley being a notable example where evidence of this was found. It was from this that the 130 mile blast radius was deduced. The blast from the final collapse has been estimated at 10,000 Megatons, compared to Krakatua's 200 Megaton Blast.

The Ash fall was however not semetrical.

To the East it inudated Eastern Oregon, Idaho and Montana almost completely with huge quantities of ash, and even covered Yellowstone park in inces of ash fall.

"The eruption of Mt. Mazama (about 6,600 years ago) was one of the most spectacular eruptions known from the Cascades. About 97,000 cubic yards (75 cubic km) of material was ejected, leaving behind the scenic basin of Crater Lake. The ash blanket from Mt. Mazama covered western Montana, and compacted ash thickness exceeding 15 inches (40 cm) have been noted west of Augusta, MT. Ash thickness between 4 and 8 inches (10-20 cm) have been noted near Great Falls, and the blanket thins eastward (Lemke and others, 1975)" - Source http://dma.mt.gov/ Volcanic Hazzards Research

To the west. It covered all of Western Oregon, including parts of the Coastal Mountains up through Washington and into Canada.

The eruption was witnesed by early native americans. Archaeologists have found sandals and other artifacts buried under layers of ash, dust, and pumice from this eruption approximately 7,700 years ago. To date, there is little evidence indicating that Mount Mazama was a permanent home to people. However, it was used as a temporary camping site. To this day some Native Americans refuse to look at the lake itself, even in photographs, as to do so would bring death.

The following is the Legend of the Eruption translated to English from the Makalak (Klamath) Natives.

The spirit of the mountain was called Chief of the Below World (Llao). The spirit of the sky was called Chief of the Above World (Skell). Sometimes Llao came up from his home inside the earth and stood on top of Mount Mazama, one of the highest mountains in the region. During one of these visits, he saw the Makalak chief’s beautiful daughter and fell in love with her. He promised her eternal life if she would return with him to his lodge below the mountain. When she refused, he became angry and declared that he would destroy her people with fire. In his rage, he rushed up through the opening of his mountain and stood on top of it and began to hurl fire down upon them.

The mighty Skell took pity on the people and stood atop Mount Shasta to defend them. From their mountaintops, the two chiefs waged a furious battle. They hurled red hot rocks as large as hills. They made the earth tremble and caused great landslides of fire. The people fled in terror to the waters of Klamath Lake.

Two holy men offered to sacrifice themselves by jumping into the pit of fire on top of Llao’s mountain. Skell was moved by their bravery and drove Llao back into Mount Mazama. When the sun rose next, the great mountain was gone. It had fallen in on Llao. All that remained was a large hole. Rain fell in torrents, filling the hole with water. This is now called "Gaywas" (Crater Lake).

dgavin
2007-Jul-09, 02:53 AM
Any way I should get back to the point of the thread.

Mud Volcanoes and Water/Ice Volcanoes are driven by the same mechanics as a Caldera Collapse. The main difference being that the mud (unless it happens to be at Yellostone park) is not full of superheated water or other gasses, therefore it doesn't erupt explosively.

As soon as they drilled to the Mud Pocket, they in effect opened up a vent for the mud to erupt out of. They knew from siesological readings in that area there was a huge amount of fluid down there. They though it was oil, and well, now they have mud on thier faces.

It is by no means a pressurised pocket of mud caused by an Exapnding Globe. Everything is presurized by gravity and the crust above it at that depth, and if it has a vent it errupts if it's not solid. There are even such things as Sand Volcanoes in some deserts.

If enough erupts, the ground collapses in to fill the empting chamber of fluid.

Oil fields used to also collapse after draining them. That is why now, they are injected with water to keep the capvity full and prevent ground collapse.

hhEb09'1
2007-Jul-09, 03:55 AM
If enough erupts, the ground collapses in to fill the empting chamber of fluid.

Oil fields used to also collapse after draining them. That is why now, they are injected with water to keep the capvity full and prevent ground collapse.I hadn't heard about that. Do you have some additional info?

dgavin
2007-Jul-09, 04:31 AM
I hadn't heard about that. Do you have some additional info?

Here you are, these articles cover various forms of ground subsidence. You'll have to scroll down to the oil wells part.

http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol204/subsidence.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/subsidence?cat=health

There have been a few detructive ones as well, usually caused by broken water mains or storm drains carving out a hallow, which the ground eventually cavaes into.

hhEb09'1
2007-Jul-09, 04:47 AM
Here you are, these articles cover various forms of ground subsidence. You'll have to scroll down to the oil wells part.

http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol204/subsidence.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/subsidence?cat=health

There have been a few detructive ones as well, usually caused by broken water mains or storm drains carving out a hallow, which the ground eventually cavaes into.I meant the part about now, they are injected with water to keep the capvity full and prevent ground collapse. Your first link only mentions the possibility, and one attempt in the late fifties, unsuccessful at returning the ground level.

In fact that link says

Fluid withdrawal problems are complicated in the United States where laws are in conflict. Rights to withdrawal of an underground resource like water or oil usually take precedence over the rights to sue for damages that might result from subsidence. So, I'm wondering just how much replacement is actually done. I didn't think it was common.

Some methane wells are produced by water injection, but that's a different thing.

dgavin
2007-Jul-09, 05:59 AM
Yes, but if you re-read that you will find that they significantly reduced further subsidence.

Water Injection in oil wells has two purposed actualy, one is to keep the ground from collapsing(subsiding), but the major reason for it is they can get more oil from those pools by water injection.

Google on "oil field water injection" and you will find tons of examples.

hhEb09'1
2007-Jul-09, 04:44 PM
Google on "oil field water injection" and you will find tons of examples.How many of them are to deal with subsiding though?

dgavin
2007-Jul-09, 07:39 PM
Replaceing the Oil with water deals with subsidence sort of by defualt. But thats not the driving force of it's. It became common in the 80's when it was discovered they could extract much more oil by doing this.

So the drivinging force behind water injection is profit, not preventing subsidence. Less subsidence is sort of a bonus that comes along with it.

I think there has been a case or two where the water injection actualy overfilled the oil chambers and caused low level earth tremors.

3488
2007-Jul-10, 12:51 AM
Here in the UK, we are seeing students deserting mathematic & the sciences in droves to take up cheap, trendy, useless courses.

Science laboratories in universities are closing as there is not enough money to fund them.

As a result, we will be short of engineers, technicians & we get nonsense like Expanding Earth.

Have these people not heard of Subduction Zones?

The Earth has not changed size significantly since its birth.

Ocean floor spreading is matched by the suduction of plates.

Next thing that the Expanding Earth advocates will be telling us that the Earth is hollow & that it is populated by aliens & that Elvis Presley has moved in with them.

Andrew Brown.

Lurker
2007-Jul-10, 12:58 AM
Here in the UK, we are seeing students deserting mathematic & the sciences in droves to take up cheap, trendy, useless courses.

Science laboratories in universities are closing as there is not enough money to fund them.

As a result, we will be short of engineers, technicians & we get nonsense like Expanding Earth.

Have these people not heard of Subduction Zones?

The Earth has not changed size significantly since its birth.

Ocean loor spreading is matched by the suduction of plates.

Next thing that the Expanding Earth advocates will be telling us that the Earth is hollow & that it is populated by aliens & that Elvis Presley has moved in with them.

Andrew Brown.
Damn it man!! Don't spread these rumors... Elvis Presley was brought over in the emergency room. He's now a vampire in Lousiana... :neutral:

hhEb09'1
2007-Jul-10, 01:33 AM
As a result, we will be short of engineers, technicians & we get nonsense like Expanding Earth.

Have these people not heard of Subduction Zones?One of the leading proponents of continental drift lectured tirelessly on it in the fifties, and inspired some of the early plate tectonic workers. He eventually rejected continental drift, and came up with the expanding earth hypothesis. It's been argued back and forth by some of the best engineers.

aurora
2007-Jul-10, 02:38 PM
One of the leading proponents of continental drift lectured tirelessly on it in the fifties, and inspired some of the early plate tectonic workers. He eventually rejected continental drift, and came up with the expanding earth hypothesis. It's been argued back and forth by some of the best engineers.

I don't know why an engineer would be arguing about it, except maybe to consider whether all of our orbiting satellites could detect an expanding earth.

maybe you meant to say geologist?

hhEb09'1
2007-Jul-10, 03:03 PM
I don't know why an engineer would be arguing about it, except maybe to consider whether all of our orbiting satellites could detect an expanding earth.

maybe you meant to say geologist?I might've, but I was responding to 3488 who used "engineers, technicians" and that reminded me that a lot of the alternative discussion has occurred in journals of the petroleum engineers.

jsispat
2008-Aug-11, 06:57 AM
A lengthy thread with the main actor himself:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=45836
earth is expanding because it is living thing like tree. here universe is soil for earth and growing with the help of sun.
pls give me contact details of adam neals.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-11, 07:39 AM
earth is expanding because it is living thing like tree. here universe is soil for earth and growing with the help of sun.
pls give me contact details of adam neals.

uh huh.

Laguna
2008-Aug-11, 07:40 AM
uh huh.
Better drop it, we already struggled through this....

tnjrp
2008-Aug-11, 07:56 AM
Upon reading the subject, I thought this guy (http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l2) has broken through here (he apparently has some "believers" on YouTube...).

Of course with his theory, it's not just Earth that's growing...

Neverfly
2008-Aug-11, 07:59 AM
Better drop it, we already struggled through this....

<chuckle>
I'm a naughty boy!

Dirty Dirty Dirty! Come Here Fry!

The Backroad Astronomer
2008-Aug-11, 08:01 AM
<chuckle>
I'm a naughty boy!

Dirty Dirty Dirty! Come Here Fry!
tell us something we don't know.:D

Neverfly
2008-Aug-11, 08:07 AM
tell us something we don't know.:D

You're dirty too.

Laguna
2008-Aug-11, 08:11 AM
You're dirty too.
tell us something we don't know. :lol:

Neverfly
2008-Aug-11, 08:14 AM
tell us something we don't know. :lol:

LOL
C'mon, this is BAUT.

I really can't think of ANYTHING I can say here that someone else doesn't already know.

The Backroad Astronomer
2008-Aug-11, 08:25 AM
I really can't think of ANYTHING I can say here that someone else doesn't already know.
Leading me to an Ad hom trap.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-11, 08:29 AM
Leading me to an Ad hom trap.

Drat.
I should have used bacon instead of cheese.

The Backroad Astronomer
2008-Aug-11, 08:31 AM
bacon

Grashtel
2008-Aug-11, 10:52 AM
earth is expanding because it is living thing like tree. here universe is soil for earth and growing with the help of sun.
pls give me contact details of adam neals.
What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Remember that by the rules of this forum you are obligated to answer direct questions such as this one.

Neverfly
2008-Aug-11, 11:10 AM
What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Remember that by the rules of this forum you are obligated to answer direct questions such as this one.

Because trees have rings and so does the Earth.
Happy 5th birthday Earth!:D

Laguna
2008-Aug-11, 11:11 AM
What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Remember that by the rules of this forum you are obligated to answer direct questions such as this one.
Nooooooooo, noooooo, oh no, please no!!!!
We already had to suffer from his evidence here...
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/75062-birth-earth.html

Van Rijn
2008-Aug-11, 11:19 AM
Upon reading the subject, I thought this guy [link removed - I don't want to advertise it - VR] has broken through here (he apparently has some "believers" on YouTube...).

Of course with his theory, it's not just Earth that's growing...

Oh, he's around. Every so often he tries to advertise his web site again in the ATM section, changing the subject slightly to try to get around the thirty day rule.

Van Rijn
2008-Aug-11, 11:24 AM
Nooooooooo, noooooo, oh no, please no!!!!
We already had to suffer from his evidence here...
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/75062-birth-earth.html

Yes, this fellow has already admitted he can't support his idea scientifically, but naturally that didn't stop him. There is simply no point in discussion.

tnjrp
2008-Aug-11, 11:43 AM
Oh, he's aroundMight've know :sick:

I've been given to understand he's gotten the boot from a number of Finnish boards because of doing exactly what you describe. The latest one hit is the Finnish UFO Research Association, as it happens... I suppose they may like him more than most tho.

BertL
2008-Aug-11, 02:57 PM
earth is expanding because it is living thing like tree. here universe is soil for earth and growing with the help of sun.
pls give me contact details of adam neals.
Neal Adams. Not Adam Neals.

Lepton
2008-Aug-11, 03:07 PM
Yes, it is. It's not from subducted plates in its area, but the constant supply of magma even after magma has been reduced in the system by becoming, you know, land has its origins in subducted plates. That material goes into the mantle; it doesn't just stay where it is. It moves as forces within the Earth cause it to move.

I can't figure out how without subduction there can be any convection. Then again, I can just imagine the problems seismologists would have if the growing Earth joke were true.

Lepton
2008-Aug-11, 03:11 PM
I'm just curious if the "recycling" has run a full round yet, or if the Earth is still too young for that. My geology knowledge is admittedly terrible, so I'll hold off even guessing. Still, the cycle that pushes magma up to form new islands is undoubtedly fed by subducted material, so it evens out.

Some mineral crystals have been dated OLDER than the oldest rock on the surface (Acasta Gneiss in Canada's Northwest Territories) so I would tend to think that is a good possibility.

Lepton
2008-Aug-11, 03:12 PM
It would seem the answer is possibly. The assummed age of the planet is 4.5-4.6 billion years, but the oldest rocks we have found are only 3.6 billion so that would suggest that most of the rock from the first billion odd years has undergone recycling. However rock crystals have been found that date back to the Earth's first rocks, so it seems that some rocks have esacped the recycling, or those that were around at the time have been destroyed in other means and then reformed at a later date. I'm sure that a geologist would be able to tell you more. I think we have one on the board somewhere.

Rocks in the Acasta Gneiss in Canada have been dated at over 4 billion years.

Lepton
2008-Aug-11, 03:20 PM
The Earth has not changed size significantly since its birth.
The moon was an insignificant hunk of rock?

classic
2008-Aug-11, 04:42 PM
With the laser reflectors on the moon, this should be easily verifide. Maybe the moon isn't really moving away from the Earth. The Earth is really shrinking.

Lepton
2008-Aug-11, 04:53 PM
With the laser reflectors on the moon, this should be easily verifide. Maybe the moon isn't really moving away from the Earth. The Earth is really shrinking.

It's that darn black hole in the Earth's core :lol:

Tinaa
2008-Aug-11, 05:47 PM
Thread closed. This is a one year old thread resurrected to discus an ATM topic. The expanding earth idea has been thoroughly discredited.