Earth

[Giganticpull]

Is the earth swelling? all discoveries of the ancient world seem to be buried under sediment after sediment of soil, even if one factors in redeposited soil moved about by the wind, it could not explain the pure layers of particular soil contained in the sediments, so the earth must be swelling.

[Turtle]

Is the earth swelling? all discoveries of the ancient world seem to be buried under sediment after sediment of soil, even if one factors in redeposited soil moved about by the wind, it could not explain the pure layers of particular soil contained in the sediments, so the earth must be swelling.

 

while the earth receives a thousand or so tons of meteoric dust daily, it is not otherwise swelling. deposition and erosion of sediments vary widely but there is no such contradiction as you assert.

 

Meteor Dust on Earth @ Earthfacts.net

 

ps here is a usgs .pdf document on sedimentation rates at a single relatively restricted area. it will give you however an overview on how geologists make this determination.

 

Geological Processes and Sedimentation Rates

Edited April 1, 2012 by Turtle

[Eudoxus]

Nope.

 

19th century scientists don't understand the earth

Scientist proposes expanding earth hypothesis to account for continental drift

Much debate

Plate tectonics developed, more useful and coherent theory than expanding earth

Expanding earth theory abandoned due to violating the laws of physics and insufficient evidence

Fifty years pass

Nutjob on the internet discovers theory, decides that science stopped advancing day expanding earth was proposed

Shouts about it on forums

Other guy hears, believes, and makes a slick video on youtube

Stupid people watch, and believe

Collective IQ of everyone else goes up (spot the joke ;))

 

Fin.

[Eudoxus]

As for your specific thoughts on erosion and deposition:

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sedimentary+cycle

[OnlineMathsTutor]

Hello,

 

 

Could you please elaborate this topic that says "Earth is swelling" What do you mean by this?

[CraigD]

Could you please elaborate this topic that says "Earth is swelling" What do you mean by this?

The claim that “the Earth is swelling” is equivalent to the claim “the volume of the earth is increasing” and “the radius of the Earth is increasing”.

 

Taking “increasing” to mean “significantly increasing”, this claim isn’t scientifically credible, nor supported by evidence. Several variations of it have long histories of acceptance in various fringe, pseudoscientific communities.

 

As the earth is gaining mass from infalling meteors (about 1,000,000 kg/day), it is gaining mass. Assuming its average density remains constant, we can calculate that is very slowly, insignificantly “swelling”: in 10,000,000,000 years, it’s mass will have increased by about 0.00006%, its radius by about 0.00002%, which is about 1.3 m.

[Moontanman]

Is the earth swelling? all discoveries of the ancient world seem to be buried under sediment after sediment of soil, even if one factors in redeposited soil moved about by the wind, it could not explain the pure layers of particular soil contained in the sediments, so the earth must be swelling.

 

 

Best way i know of to put the idea the earth is expanding to rest.

 

[belovelife]

we have had this discussion before,

 

i remember saying that my atomic model provides a mechanism for this happening

 

[Moontanman]

we have had this discussion before,

 

i remember saying that my atomic model provides a mechanism for this happening

 

 

 

And in what thread did you show evidence of this?

[belovelife]

from what i recall the debate went as follows

 

topic brought up

 

topic discussed,

 

topic ended

 

with visualizations of the earth crust movement to form a pangea, but in a shpere

 

but now i can bring up another discussion about the coronal mass ejectoin nature of our star

 

and the nature of entropy of matter

 

in which case, as larger nuber periodic elements decay into smaller elements, the amount of space it occupies is larger

 

because you have multiple atoms instead of a single atom

[Moontanman]

from what i recall the debate went as follows

 

topic brought up

 

topic discussed,

 

topic ended

 

with visualizations of the earth crust movement to form a pangea, but in a shpere

 

but now i can bring up another discussion about the coronal mass ejectoin nature of our star

 

and the nature of entropy of matter

 

in which case, as larger nuber periodic elements decay into smaller elements, the amount of space it occupies is larger

 

because you have multiple atoms instead of a single atom

 

 

Belovelife, even if that were true it's also true that most elements the earth is made of do not decay. in fact the percentage of the earth that is made up of elements that decay is quite small, much less than 1%...

 

If you think you have the evidence to assert what you imply feel free to start a thread or show me the old thread...

Edited August 21, 2012 by Moontanman

[belovelife]

wouldnt the fact that they decay, point to the a surface collection of elements that do not?

 

in otherwords, they decay in the core of the planet, releasing heat, keeping the magma inside of the planet hot

 

and as they reach a small enough atomic number that is stable in less dense conditions, they stabalize,

then at the point of a volcanic erruption or other event similar to that, they reach the surface

[Moontanman]

wouldnt the fact that they decay, point to the a surface collection of elements that do not?

 

in otherwords, they decay in the core of the planet, releasing heat, keeping the magma inside of the planet hot

 

and as they reach a small enough atomic number that is stable in less dense conditions, they stabalize,

then at the point of a volcanic erruption or other event similar to that, they reach the surface

 

 

Belovelife, the Earth is not expanding, if anything it is contracting but the rate of contraction is so small as to be indistinguishable from being static. The Earth never had a large percentage of radioactive elements, the earth is cooling slowly over time, not heating up. We can measure the earth to a very small degree and it is not expanding.

[belovelife]

Belovelife, even if that were true it's also true that most elements the earth is made of do not decay. in fact the percentage of the earth that is made up of elements that decay is quite small, much less than 1%...

 

i think that is an assumption that has been made

 

since we have not been in the core of the planet, we can not say 100% that there are not higher tier periodic elements

 

while we find a variety of elements on the surface, only points to the fact that these elements are stable in stp

 

any other statement made, cannot be backed up by scientific proof

[Moontanman]

i think that is an assumption that has been made

 

since we have not been in the core of the planet, we can not say 100% that there are not higher tier periodic elements

 

while we find a variety of elements on the surface, only points to the fact that these elements are stable in stp

 

any other statement made, cannot be backed up by scientific proof

 

 

Yes they can, we know the conditions inside the earth, we know the density, pressure and temperature and we know what could or could not allow those conditions to exist. They do not point to the earth being made up of anything but a tiny percentage of radioactive elements. Interestingly they do point to some odd things though, like there being enough gold in the earths core to pave the planet with about .5 meters of gold.

[belovelife]

yes but we havn't been there, nor have we created higher tier elements and kept them at the conditions present in the core of the planet

[Moontanman]

yes but we havn't been there, nor have we created higher tier elements and kept them at the conditions present in the core of the planet

 

 

just because we haven't physically been there doesn't mean we do not know what is there...