Printer's Devil on 20/3/2006 at 13:16
The mass of Earth increases with every meteor that successfully enters the atmosphere and lands. I can't remember if it's a significant increase, but there you are.
d0om on 20/3/2006 at 13:22
The universe IS growing in this way, according to the Hubble constant. Distance gets larger over time. However, the strong electric and gravitational forces which hold the Earth together are so much stronger that the Earth isn't going to balloon up because of it.
Theories where the hubble constant increases over time though predict that when it passes a critical value then planets get torn away from stars, even higher and planets seperate into small rocks, and eventually atoms get torn apart.
Nothing about an inflatable Earth though :(
Epos Nix on 20/3/2006 at 13:52
The Hubble constant (being an observational figure) would be the result of, not the contributing factor of what we are talking about here, providing Neal's theory were accurate.
Agent Monkeysee on 20/3/2006 at 16:59
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Keep in mind there doesn't have to be an influx of matter. An influx of energy will do, with celestial bodies acting as energy converters, producing obscene amounts of hydrogen, thus increasing the overall amount of matter in the universe.
What the fuck is this shit.
Honestly, did a bunch of you get together on IRC and decide this should be a pseudoscience board? Between this, the medical research thread, and the 9/11 thread I'm about to firebomb this place.
Paz on 20/3/2006 at 17:07
Next week: the amazing healing properties of crystals.
Guest appearence by Derek Acorah.
trevor the sheep on 20/3/2006 at 17:39
Quote Posted by "Epos Nix"
Keep in mind there doesn't have to be an influx of matter. An influx of energy will do, with celestial bodies acting as energy converters, producing obscene amounts of hydrogen, thus increasing the overall amount of matter in the universe. The question then remains as to where the energy would come from.
Inline Image:
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/9342/harry7qx.gifEpos Nix on 20/3/2006 at 20:25
Clearly thinking = bad. Personally though, I'd rather be known as one who thinks yet is wrong than one who merely parrots information and is "right".
That said, I like new theories like Neal's, especially when what he comes up with makes some amount of sense. I'm not a fan of how a presents his findings, but the findings themselves will do. From my perspective nothing should be dismissed outright, no matter how absurd it may sound. The person who dismisses everything is no closer to finding the truth.
RyushiBlade on 20/3/2006 at 20:59
Don't get me wrong, Epos. I don't dismiss his entire theory. I do believe something is wrong with the way we currently think about both universe expansion as well as plate tectonics. I'm not saying his theory is 100% right, but I'm also not saying it's 100% wrong. My biggest concern is the simple fact of the planets increasing in size by such an enormous amount. I just can't believe this, no matter how perfectly plates fit together. It doesn't, to me, make sense.
For example, say energy was being converted by stars into Hydrogen. All of that Hydrogen won't automatically be sent to all the planets; it makes sense to assume every planet, or atleast every terrestrial planet, is growing. It also won't be evenly distributed, accounting for (more or less) equal growth in planets. And, lastly, Hydrogen is very, very light. You need supernovae and the ilk to convert hydrogen into the heavier elements - and you need heavier elements to increase a planet's gravity by such large amounts (especially when that planet has grown by 30%).
I feel like I'm making a fool of myself, as if somehow I've got all this wrong. I've been interested in a lot of topics in my life - astronomy, geology, evolution, quantum physics - but never really had a firm grasp of any one field, especially the last. Still. I'd gladly learn from anyone, if what they have to say makes sense.
trevor the sheep on 20/3/2006 at 21:00
We've got nothing against thinking. Just when you do it.
Edit: Damn my snappy reply ruined by poster above
Epos Nix on 20/3/2006 at 22:00
Quote:
And, lastly, Hydrogen is very, very light. You need supernovae and the ilk to convert hydrogen into the heavier elements - and you need heavier elements to increase a planet's gravity by such large amounts
I ask this because I'm curious, not because I claim know something:
The Earth's core is mostly iron, correct? If I understand correctly, the basic elements that comprise Earth's structure were converted via gravity and heat from gaseous clouds formed during the creation of our Sun, or something to that effect. I can't see how a core of iron was instantly converted from this cloud, so I'll have to assume our core forming as it is was a very gradual process. Is it possible then that our entire planet, from the inside out, is in a constant state of matter conversion, causing lighter elements to become heavier, thus packing the core of the planet tighter and tighter which ultimately causes the entire planet to become heavier and "grow"?
