For the science minded smokers out there, check this guys theory out.

[Greenplease]

So yeah, he thinks that the planet earth is expanding in a similar way to how the actual universe is expanding. Personally I don't think it is really possible, but he explains himself pretty well, my main gripe is that his timelines seem to short, he says that 200 million years ago the earth was 40% smaller and that oceans didn't exist! I mean is that really a possiblity? Would we have the wild life and in turn would the human race exist without having an ocean in the first place? How would the weather and climate cycles have functioned without and ocean? Which is such a vital part of our eco-system? Anyway have a look, it is interesting none the less.

Link: http://www.expanding-earth.org/

Vid:

http://[youtube]oJfBSc6e7QQ&feature=related[/youtube]

What do you think?

 

[assasinofyouth420]

Nice theme music. I think hes a quack. Ill have to ask my geology teacher about this.

 

[bird mcbride]

The Earth is constantly gaining mass on a daily bases. Anybody should be able to understand that. We have countless small bits of material coming through our atmosphere from space all the time. Because Earth has gravity it attracts these materials. The ultimate destruction of the planet is when Sol super novas.

 

[Nunotmp]

pretty interesting..

 

[Greenplease]

The Earth is constantly gaining mass on a daily bases. Anybody should be able to understand that. We have countless small bits of material coming through our atmosphere from space all the time. Because Earth has gravity it attracts these materials. The ultimate destruction of the planet is when Sol super novas.

Ok this is undisputable, and he explains that as playing part of the increase in mass and size of the planet, it's funny though, why has no other scientist recognised this? If it is so abhorrently obvious? But what about the no oceans theory? I mean, ecologically is it possible? Is there someone on here who has an idea or two about it?

 

[Greenplease]

Nice theme music. I think hes a quack. Ill have to ask my geology teacher about this.

Yeah maybe he's crazy, but what I really want to know is, if this theory of his is physically/ecologically possible, it would mean that tectonic plates are increasing in size, or there are more appearing. It would also mean that things in the last 200 million years have changed so so quickly, which kind of contradicts theories of evolution and timelines, species have lasted longer than 200 million years, species that needed a complete eco-system ocean and all!
I don't know, I think that he is maybe just spitting fire. It probably wont take long to prove him wrong.
If I (someone who has fairly limited knowledge on these subjects) can point out simple faults like this, then someone with a high amount of knowledge could probably do better!

Anyway, who knows?? Tell me!!

 

[BobBanana]

um.. ..lol

 

[researchkitty]

This theory is wrong. Theory is much different than law. In theory you have to say that "if X happens, then Y must happen", and it should. However, the universe is not perfect (and could be created as a result of only FOUR atoms being made incorrectly, which kick started the big bang).

Lets talk about how the earth was made. It was made by a bunch of space dust from our star being born. The hydrogen and helium reacted and formed heavier atoms. The earth at the time when it finally settled was likely completely covered in water. 100%. Why? Land is heavier, and sinks in towards the center of the earth, naturally water goes to the top. Air above that. Easy! The Earth was like this UNTIL............. An large space mass, an asteroid, collided hard with earth and split a big part into the moon, and the rest into the Earth. The moon stayed close by (although its moving, not going to be there forever), and the IMPACT of when the asteroid hit the earth is what knocked the land mass ABOVE water (we call them continents, now). This also knocked the Earth off its axis.

This guys animation is cute but you can see all the plates changing size and shape when it makes them "magically" come together. This guys theory was disproved numerous times over the years, Stephen Hawking himself has even called it out as "imaginitive". While Neal Adams (the guy whose theory is wrong) speaks in a nice soft spoken and reasonable voice, he's just still wrong. Quantum Physics have changed a lot.

I doubt this guy even knows that Einstein has MULTIPLE theories of relativity. A cute perspective from someone not familiar with planetary formation, the universe in general and its origins, and for someone who wants to make a few bucks on YouTube.

And the earth doesnt get bigger because of solar winds throwing new particles our way -- we lose just as much as we receive, and only as a result of the magnetic poles of the Earth is the reason we can even keep the atmosphere here to begin with.

Ask me some astronomy or universe questions, you'd be surprised how much I read this shit.

If you have 64 minutes to watch a REAL YouTube video on how the Universe was *actually* created along with the current implementations of string theory and the Universe in 10 dimensions (not just 4D like we live in now (time is a dimension)).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[youtube]7ImvlS8PLIo[/youtube]

 

[mrboots]

Well, I cant deny that all the continents fit together pretty nicely. But conventional science says that too, they called the continent "pangea" the super continent. They say there was one huge continent surrounded by a huge ocean. If this guy can make a video that explains how the earth is getting bigger, I'll check it out. He also needs to explain where all the water we have came from.

 

[researchkitty]

Yeah maybe he's crazy, but what I really want to know is, if this theory of his is physically/ecologically possible, it would mean that tectonic plates are increasing in size, or there are more appearing. It would also mean that things in the last 200 million years have changed so so quickly, which kind of contradicts theories of evolution and timelines, species have lasted longer than 200 million years, species that needed a complete eco-system ocean and all!
I don't know, I think that he is maybe just spitting fire. It probably wont take long to prove him wrong.
If I (someone who has fairly limited knowledge on these subjects) can point out simple faults like this, then someone with a high amount of knowledge could probably do better!

Anyway, who knows?? Tell me!!

Nothing increases in size. Things are moving farther apart. This is a fault of his theory from 2007, of course. The universe is expanding only at the critical rate in which it can expand without anti-gravity (gravity and anti-gravity are two forces of the Universe, both extremely weak, one million million million million million million times (something like 1 with 24 zeros) weaker than the force that binds the strings of the fabric of the universe. If anti gravity was any stronger, it'd recollapse to the big bang (or a singularity, technically, which at the point of a singularity all thiings of which we know cease to exist because the laws of the universe change and there's no past to go back to). The universe expanding does not mean that we gain size, or gain more mass. We dont, we're the same size, same height, same everything.

We are the shit created from the universes initial explosion. We're literally the byproduct of dust and heat from the big bang.

In fact, your LEFT hands particles are as old as the universe itself. So are the rights. (I say particles, not atoms, as atoms are created by particles and heat). I say left hand, because your RIGHT hand is different somewhat. Your left hand is from the explosion of one star, and the right hand likely contains none of that stars particles! We're a byproduct of multiple stars exploding then eventually finding a way to reproduce and evolve into us. Same particles, just different arrangement.

Fucked up, eh?

 

[researchkitty]

Well, I cant deny that all the continents fit together pretty nicely. But conventional science says that too, they called the continent "pangea" the super continent. They say there was one huge continent surrounded by a huge ocean. If this guy can make a video that explains how the earth is getting bigger, I'll check it out. He also needs to explain where all the water we have came from.

Water is a byproduct of billions of years of asteroids bringing it to the earth and leaving it for us. Its not a part of the initial Earth forming, and had to happen after the asteroid now known as The Moon collided with Earth. When that collision happened, all of the water would have been baked off of the earth into space and then new asteroids bring more deposits of it to us over time. It was a hot, firey molten planet. Nothing more nothing less. Its also where our DNA comes from, if you believe in the seed theory that our initial root of DNA from Earths tree came from space asteroids.

 

[mrboots]

If you don't have time to look at researchkitty's video, this map shoots a big hole in this guy's theory too. He only talks about the rifts in the center of the ocean, that are expanding. He skips the part about the borders of the tectonic plates coming together, like along the west coast of south america, where one plate is slipping under the other.

 

[researchkitty]

I should note now that i've dropped 4 replies here that I'm not a physicist. I read a lot, and that's where it comes from. I love theoretical physics and the universe. I'm probably wrong on aspects of my posts, in some form or another, mostly in technical wording or a better typed explanation, but not enough to invalidate them, only to correct and update the information later.

 

[researchkitty]

If you like god, check out 17:00 in the 64 minute video I posted above. "Stars died so you could be here, forget Jesus!"

 

[mrboots]

Water is a byproduct of billions of years of asteroids bringing it to the earth and leaving it for us. Its not a part of the initial Earth forming, and had to happen after the asteroid now known as The Moon collided with Earth. When that collision happened, all of the water would have been baked off of the earth into space and then new asteroids bring more deposits of it to us over time. It was a hot, firey molten planet. Nothing more nothing less. Its also where our DNA comes from, if you believe in the seed theory that our initial root of DNA from Earths tree came from space asteroids.

Thats where I thought the water came from, comets and asteroids from very early in the formation of the solar system. There's no way we could have got all the water we have now in "only" 200 million years like this guy implies, right?

 

[researchkitty]

Thats where I thought the water came from, comets and asteroids from very early in the formation of the solar system. There's no way we could have got all the water we have now in "only" 200 million years like this guy implies, right?

The Moon cooled off and stopped being on fire over 4 billion years ago. The water is from basically after the Earth fully cooled off and could contain it in a liquid environment. Figure that to be probably 3 billion years ago. The mass growth that is now our continents on the lumpy side of the earth from after the Moon/Asteroid collision would remain the same if the water wasnt present to screw up the surfaces force.

Remember, we werent created by the big bang. The big bang is just an explosion. The sun converting hydrogen to helium and forming a nuclear furnace is what creates the 'lighter' byproducts such as carbon nitrogen and oxygen. Only because stars exploded is why we exist now.......... Stars explode, create the water, water freezes on the stars dust as it carries it into open space, stars dust eventually form planets and voila.

Now, one common theory AGAINST this is that the water would have formed on the Earth when it was created. This is not technically true because until the earths core was solidly formed and cooled off is when it began to create the magnetic shield keeping an atmosphere, then water falls on earth and stays here. And then we're created. An organism splits, and then eventually mutates. The mutations that were condusive to its environment survived and continued to reproduce and mutate into what we are now. Most mutations never live, but the few random ones out of millions or billions are the ones that created us, eventually.

 

[mrboots]

So man didn't magically appear 5000 years ago? And women a week later out of Adam's rib?
Good sience Kitty, I'll check that video out later, I have to get a little work done today.

 

[researchkitty]

So man didn't magically appear 5000 years ago? And women a week later out of Adam's rib?
Good sience Kitty, I'll check that video out later, I have to get a little work done today.

Correct! The currently oldest human skeletal remains we've found date to 160,000 years old. Dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, but in television they show a lot of humans running around for some reason.

 

[researchkitty]

I was thinking more about this over the afternoon too and it made me think of the connectivity of sciences....... There was a hot debate of if the Earth was really 6,000 years old once. Obviously, we know better now. The theory was made with circumstances that worked for the theorist at the time. The one theory that is featured in this post, that guy made a connected set of certain circumstances that apply to how his model wants to work. I mean, I love reality, that's why I'm here. But reality also dictates the law of connected science. If any one part of the universe disagrees with a single part of theory, his theory is wrong and cant be correct. The theory should be modified so that it then fits into the circumstances that make the theory more correct. The theory could still be wrong then, and it may take an infinity of more theories to finally get one thats mostly right.

Keep the talk going its fun :>

 

[ANC]

[video=youtube;SkfbCgG72jg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkfbCgG72jg[/video]