Ko0K on 21/3/2006 at 01:45
I'm a geologist, but I've not learned any new theories since I graduated from school, other than those regarding the discipline of geology in which I'm specialized. As such, all I can tell about the nifty video clip is that it looks 'interesting.' One thing to keep in mind is that the theory of plate tectonics was also laughed at when it was first introduced to the professional community. Earth sciences are constantly being updated by new findings, and what's accepted as a conclusive explanation today may be considered obsolete in a matter of a couple of years. There will always be people who laugh at anything that doesn't make sense in their narrow minds. Trust me, nobody gives a shit about those people, unless THEY are the ones doing all the work to advance these sciences.
P.S.: According to magnetometer studies and rock formation correlations, the matching shorelines of different continents can be more effectively explained through plate tectonics than the process of expansion shown in the video. Furthermore, the current model of plate tectonics has been studied and accepted world-wide by authoritative earth scientists, based on countless pieces of evidence. I really don't believe the current plate tectonics theory will be replaced by this one any time soon, if at all, but it's still refreshing to see alternative explanations.
P.P.S: This guy apparently doesn't care much for subduction simply because he doesn't see the evidence, but I think he should've done more research. Seismic refraction data, geo-chemistry data, the simple fact that earthquakes are being generated along 'convergent' plate boundaries, etc., etc... All he needs to do is look to find the evidence that gave birth to the current understanding of our planet.
P.P.P.S.: (
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1999/ofr-99-0132/)
Para?noid on 21/3/2006 at 02:30
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
STARS DON'T CONVERT ENERGY TO MATTER YOU JACKASSES
Other way round am I rite
Edit wait they just convert matter into other matter and produce energy as a result of this process am I rite
RyushiBlade on 21/3/2006 at 03:12
Yes. Stars convert elements to different elements through fusion (and I think they may even split elements). This fusion produces energy, best seen in solar radiation.
Epos Nix on 21/3/2006 at 03:17
This is per (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction) Wikipedia:
Quote:
Earth is the only planet where subduction is known to occur; neither Venus nor Mars have subduction zones. Without subduction, plate tectonics could not exist and Earth would be a very different planet. Without subduction zones, Earth's crust would not have differentiated into continents and oceans and all of the solid Earth would lie beneath a global ocean.
I'm confused.
He links to (
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0510/17marsmap/) this article which contains the quote "Scientists first found evidence of plate tectonics on Mars in 1999", which directly contridicts the above Wikipedia quote. Now, I know Wikipedia isn't the final say in anything really, but I have to assume it reflects the current understanding. So, who's right here? Ko0k... you know of any explainations?
And btw, the bully tactics are rather tiresome. You'd think that after several years of visiting these forums, certain forum-goers would have gotten that sorta stuff outta their systems, but I guess not. :erg:
Ko0K on 21/3/2006 at 03:44
Whoever said that Earth is the only planet where subduction has occurred better be making that assumption based on hard data, which, as far as I know, are far from abundant to date. As far as I know, while they made some major discoveries regarding Martian plate tectonics, they haven't really talked about subduction all that much.
"mars plate tectonics subduction"
Using the above keywords, Google turned up this article, which I thought was interesting:
(
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/93/931206Arc3014.html)
Quote:
On the opposite side of the north pole, two subduction zones, deep trenches where old crust is forced back into the planet's interior, were established. One was situated in the Tharsis region, where the planet's largest volcanoes are now located.
P.S.: It does make me wonder why the guy decided to refer to the region as "the opposite side of the north pole," as opposed to simply saying "the south pole."
Fafhrd on 21/3/2006 at 04:55
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
I didn't quite get into the jist of Neal's arguement when I posted that. His explaination as to the increased size of the Earth is due to literal growth, not expansion. Basically, everything, from the smallest of atoms to the largest of galaxies is growing exponentially. The reason? The universe itself is growing.
If this were the case, (which, as has already been explained, it isn't) there wouldn't be any evidence of the expansion, geological or otherwise, because the atoms' placement in relationship to each other is static, and we, as observers, would be subject to the expansion as well, so for all intents and purposes, there wouldn't be any expansion.
To use your crappy balloon analogy, draw a circle on a balloon, and blow into it, but make sure that YOU'RE getting larger, and the room is getting larger, and the planet and everything else is getting larger at the same rate as the balloon, and the circle would look, to you, the same size as it was when you drew it.
Universal expansion is observable because we can SEE the galaxies, not the stars, not the planets, the GALAXIES moving away from us and from each other.
Epos Nix on 21/3/2006 at 05:14
...unless whatever it is that is fueling this expansion affects larger bodies, ala gravity, moreso than small.
And yea, the balloon thing was crappy ;)
Agent Monkeysee on 21/3/2006 at 05:19
Quote Posted by Para?noid
Edit wait they just convert matter into other matter and produce energy as a result of this process am I rite
Yup. The idea that stars convert energy to matter is ludicrous on its face. If it did that it wouldn't be a FIREY BALL OF NUCLEAR HATE.
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
And btw, the bully tactics are rather tiresome. You'd think that after several years of visiting these forums, certain forum-goers would have gotten that sorta stuff outta their systems, but I guess not. :erg:
Actually it's several years of hanging around that has developed this behavior.
I have no problem explaining this stuff to people who are genuinely curious and don't know what the fuck. But you're speaking on subjects you clearly know nothing about with authority. You're speaking with authority is bad enough, but you're doing so as support for a "theory" which is patently bullshit and I just don't have any patience for it anymore. Do your own homework. It's not like it's even difficult to find this stuff out, the basic mechanisms of stellar fusion are a Google search away, as is the composition and nature of Earth's core.
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
...unless whatever it is that is fueling this expansion affects larger bodies, ala gravity, moreso than small.
Jesus stop. Ignoring the fact that gravity affects everything the same, we see galaxies moving away because
they're not expanding in relation to the intervening space. If they were expanding you wouldn't see a proportionally greater red-shift at greater distances, nor would you see a decreasing density within galactic space. You're flatly contradicting yourself in trying to support this crap. There would be no conceivable mechansim for expansion that affects larger bodies greater than smaller bodies without either a) the larger bodies being composed of larger constituent parts (e.g. atoms/particles) in proportion to their expansion factor which is clearly not true or b) larger bodies must exhibit significant density loss with respect to smaller bodies in proportion to their expansion factor which again clearly isn't true.
Fafhrd on 21/3/2006 at 05:31
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
...unless whatever it is that is fueling this expansion affects larger bodies, ala gravity, moreso than small.
No, because it's the atoms that are growing, the size of the object composed of the atoms makes no difference.
For this theory to be correct, we'd not only be able to see galaxies moving away from each other, but we'd see the galaxies themselves expanding, as well as the distance between stars within our own galaxy increasing. We can't see that, ergo: bullshit.
[edit]bah, Monkeysee beat me to it with bigger, more correct words.[/edit]
Epos Nix on 21/3/2006 at 05:33
Quote:
But you're speaking on subjects you clearly know nothing about with authority.
No, Ko0k is speaking with authority... I'm just speaking. I never claimed to know anything about this. However, if an idea pops into my head I like to relay it as best I can. Sometimes it makes me sound as if I know what I'm talking about just because I'm trying to make myself sound less confusing. Obviously it has bad side effects :sweat:
If I enter a discussion it's to share ideas, not lumber over other forum-goers with my "genius" or authority. Sorry if it offends.
