LHC@home

just curious, anybody have any opinions or comments about this growing planets and moons stuff

---

just curious, anybody have any opinions or comments about this growing planets and moons stuff

Junk.

If the earth is growing, where is the matter coming from?

Why is it that the Pacific is shrinking measurably? Where is it going?

As I said: junk!

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

Dust from space, tons of the stuff each year

---

Junk.

If the earth is growing, where is the matter coming from?

Why is it that the Pacific is shrinking measurably? Where is it going?

As I said: junk!

Maybe/Maybe not.

Question 1.
The amount of debris that hits the earth from space each year is rather large. Not all reaches the ground in fact most burns up in the atmosphere but that matter is still added to the earth total.

Question 2.
The Atlantic is growing as caused by the mid Atlantic oceanic ridge. ie Europe and the Americas are getting further apart. The pacific plate is moving roughly NorthWest to compensate, look at the San Andreas Fault and the Hawaian Islands for evidence, while the Australian plate is moving NorthEast. This adds up to a shrinking Pacific ocean.

I don't beleive it myself.

But it is not quite so obviously wrong as it sounds at first. Let's do a "what if" on it rather than dismiss it out of hand.

Dust and debris from space would not affect continental drift - just coat everything (land and ocean bed) with the same extra depth of material. The new material would then get weathered, etc, but would not truly enter the geology till it got subducted and heated.

The solar system is about 5000 million years old. Let us suppose to get some numbers to start from that the Earth formed then, but was half its current radius, ie half the current surface gravity.

(This approximation is only true if the density is constant, ie the average density of the little Earth is the same as today's big Earth, and therefore the same as the density of the in falling material.)

Suppose again that it grew evenly in terms of its radius since then. The Earth grows at 50% of its current radius in 5000 million years, = 1% in 100 million years.

That is 64km in 100 million years, is 64 mm in 100 years, or around 2/3rds of a mm per year. We certainly would not notice this by unaided human senses, but surely the effect would be noticeable from accurate measurements (eg of gravity at the surface in 2000 as compared with the value in 1900).

To put it another way, to gain one metre of extra radius takes 100,000,000 / 64,000 years, which is about 1500 years.

The circumference of the Earth's orbit is pi x 100 million km, so in that time the Earh has travelled 1500 x pi x 100 000 million meters, = 500 million million metres. The average density of what we are sweeping up is therefore about 1 part in 2000 million million by volume (*). Anyone know if this is anywhere near the volumetric density of the little particles in the solar system? It is not exactly a sand storm, but it still sounds rather high to me, as a gut feeling.

Finally, if the Earth has gained half its radius since it was formed, then it has gained 7/8ths of its mass in that time. (Gravity is proportional to radius, but mass is proportional to radius cubed, if density is constant). Would we expect to see steady shifts in the shape of our orbit as the majority of the mass came in? I would, as a gut feeling.

Judge for yourselves, or use Google to look up some of these figures. Personally as I said, I don't believe it


(*) the area sweeps out a volume which is proportional to distance travelled, and the depth of new material falls all over the area. The fact that the area is changing therefore conveniently drops out of the equation. The factor of 4 arises as the area of sweep is a circle or radius R, wheras area of the drop zone is a sphere of radius R. Area of circle = pi * r squared, surface of sphere = 4 * pi * r squared, hence factor of 4.

---

Hi - I'm new here :)

Um ... I'm wondering if the earth would be shrinking?

Most of the earth is magma ... it keeps cooling over time .. cooling things often are smaller than when they were hot.

Just a thunk of mine!

---

.... [snip] ......
The pacific plate is moving roughly NorthWest to compensate, look at the San Andreas Fault and the Hawaian Islands for evidence, while the Australian plate is moving NorthEast. This adds up to a shrinking Pacific ocean.

I thought the Pacific Plate was expanding East/West from a great rift going North/South.

The Australian Plate is moving North, 5cm a year. If it were moving NE, New Zealand, New Caledonia, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tahiti, Tonga and Fiji would be getting squashed much more than they are now. I think.

Oh, nearly forgot: PS: I think Neal Adams studied at the Erik von Daneken University Teknika Polika, School of Para-science.

---

Click here to join the #1 Aussie Alliance on LHC.

Has anyone else read the junk science referred to?

There are mentions here of subduction zones, rifts, matter from space, etc., but the gist of the article is that there are no subduction zones, and that the earth is growing from the extra crust arising at places like the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

This being the case, my original points stand:

Where is the matter coming from?
How can the Pacific (amongst other places) shrink in any direction without a subduction zone?

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

/This article does not lay it all out but I will. Earth's surface... they properly say, rifts and spreads and THEY, the scientists of Earth have not faced the simple fact that the Earth is growing!...that will all change, now...!"

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!
/
great bullshit
(I am studying geology, so I know something about it ;))

---

As with all great conspiracy theories, the mass of educated people must protect the innocent and naive from the real truth lest panic ensue.

There is where the problem lies. It is simply not possible to have a large number of people keep anything secret for any length of time. The longer the time kept and the greater the number of people that know the "truth", the shorter the time it can be withheld.

---