stretch marks - by jstnomega
TTK12G3 on 20/3/2006 at 22:05
[QUOTE=]In order to hide the terrible truth (terrible???) that the Earth is growing, "the scientific community" insisted on the concept of "subduction" and has for over 30 years. A concept that is totally untrue and unscientific and well, stupid!
Since the vaunted "subducting plates" were hidden under miles of water, proof, real proof was not forthcoming. So we've had decades of "subduction theory." One plate slides under the other. What???
What the hell is this crap?!
"OMG
teutonic plates, what?"*
TTK12G3 on 20/3/2006 at 22:09
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
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"?
How the fuck can something "pack" and become denser and at the same time "grow"? Moreover, matter cannot form from nothing. You cannot totally destroy something as the matter simply converts into something else. Likewise, you cannot make something heavier without adding something to it.
Stitch on 20/3/2006 at 22:23
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Clearly thinking = bad.
Big, bold thinking is only fruitful if it is accompanied by actual knowledge of the topic at hand. You have to have a proper understanding of the box before you can even attempt to think outside it.
You, however, obviously do not have this knowledge. You are the equivalent of a six-year old postulating that erections are solely designed for catapulting M.U.S.C.L.E. men across the bathtub.
You were doing so well as a lurker.
RyushiBlade on 20/3/2006 at 22:25
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
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"?
As far as I know, no. It takes huge amounts of energy to convert matter from one element to another. Only stars are able to fuse elements together. In the beginning there was only Hydrogen (and possibly Helium?) The stars, with their intense gravity and heat, were able to fuse Hydrogen atoms together to form more complex, heavier, and denser elements. Planet cores just aren't hot enough and don't have the gravitational power to fuse elements together.
All of this means that the elements present when our solar system formed had already been part of other stars. All of our iron, for example, was fused by distant stars billions of years ago. When these stars died, the elements were expelled and, eventually, collected together to form a nebula. Over time, the nebula once more formed a star and planets.
Edit:
Stitch, don't be so mean. People can think inside or outside whatever geometric shape they wish. It doesn't necessarily have to be a box ;)
TTK, I think Epos Nix was assuming that more complex atoms equals a bigger atom, which is more or less true. Iron is far bigger in physical size than Hydrogen. But because energy is used to fuse the elements together, and because the Earth's core is more or less a closed system (atleast, it doesn't gain much matter over time, if at all), the size will mostly stay the same
if fusion could take place.
d0om on 20/3/2006 at 23:55
Iron is actually far smaller than hydrogen per mass.
This should be obvious from the fact that one isn't very dense, and one is very dense and heavy.
This entire theory is a load of crap.
Agent Monkeysee on 20/3/2006 at 23:58
STARS DON'T CONVERT ENERGY TO MATTER YOU JACKASSES
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
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"?
NO NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO
'sup page 2 :cool:
TTK12G3 on 21/3/2006 at 00:02
Quote Posted by RyushiBlade
Edit:
Stitch, don't be so mean. People can think inside or outside whatever geometric shape they wish. It doesn't necessarily have to be a box ;).
*snickersnickerlaugh*
Quote Posted by RyushiBlade
TTK, I think Epos Nix was assuming that more complex atoms equals a bigger atom, which is more or less true. Iron is far bigger in physical size than Hydrogen. But because energy is used to fuse the elements together, and because the Earth's core is more or less a closed system (atleast, it doesn't gain much matter over time, if at all), the size will mostly stay the same
if fusion could take place.
OK, I lashed out a bit. Its just that some of the topics of my science essays usually used that concept as a base and after two years of I'm not going to let someone dismiss them with a crappy "theory". It just kinda pisses me off when people hop over it. Its a basic concept anyway.
RyushiBlade on 21/3/2006 at 01:01
Quote Posted by d0om
Iron is actually far smaller than hydrogen per mass.
This should be obvious from the fact that one isn't very dense, and one is very dense and heavy.
This entire theory is a load of crap.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Hydrogen has only one orbital with two electrons, IIRC. Iron has... Well, a lot. The point is, the atomic radius increases and so Iron is, physically, larger than Hydrogen.
Are you saying 1kg of Hydrogen takes up more space than 1kg of Iron? Because I suppose that's true. But then, I assumed we were talking about the number of particles.
I'm afraid I've lost myself :erg:
SubJeff on 21/3/2006 at 01:03
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
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"?
Gene Ray wanted your 4 corner day phone number. I TOLD HIM TO STUFF HIS WORD-GARBAGE WHERE HE WAS EDUCATED STUPID.
More please. I like this stuff. It's Burrowesk in its craziness.
SubJeff on 21/3/2006 at 01:04
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
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"?
Gene Ray wanted your 4 corner day phone number. I TOLD HIM TO STUFF HIS WORD-GARBAGE WHERE HE WAS EDUCATED STUPID.
More please. I like this stuff. It's Burrowesk in its craziness.
Naked Mr America, full of self bone love etc etc