Several astronomers believe that near-black holes exist but not black holes. You can still have highly compressed objects and maybe even event horizons without assuming that everything compresses to a geometric point. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of David Rankin Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 11:16 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Expanding Earth? (Black Holes) Woops. Sent back an unmodified email. Not sure how that happened. For the most part I am just regurgitating what I have seen on science shows and learned in class. I am not saying we should pay the guy no heed. I found his arguments intriguing, I just feel these issues have been explained better and more accurately than what he has come up with when talking about the Geology of our planet. A little rant here. Expressing some frustration, maybe stoke an interesting conversation to get some feedback that might help me and others that have the same issues gain some clarity. I am going to look up that article in Scientific American, sounds fascinating. Black holes are a crazy idea to me. I am not saying I don't agree with the theory, but when you hear astrophysicists try to explain what they are, it just seems like jibberish. A finite universe with points of infinite density that eat everything they come in contact with. What is it to punch a hole in space and time? I just seems like these theories at some point take a turn for the radical and almost fanciful. On that note, there is so much evidence that black holes are real. They have video of starts at the center of the milky way accelerating to insane speeds and whipping around a point in space where there appears to be nothing at all. I just can't wrap my mind around a lot of these theories. Hubble discovered the expansion of space, maybe we are looking at it from the wrong angle? I also don't understand how space can be empty. It just seems like there should always be something there (heretical?). What are forces, really? It sometimes seems like just because someone gave a discovery a name, we know "what" it is. On that point, what is it to even know what anything really "is"? Its all very confusing to me. There seems to be some foundation of mutual understanding, or acceptance, of the unknown, that we build on to create our understandings. It makes me think that there are HUGE discoveries still waiting to be made. David On 1/17/2011 10:43 AM, Don J. Colton wrote:
"It is my understanding that gravity can counter-act, and even overcome the expansion."
To my knowledge no one has rigorously demonstrated this to be the case although it is assumed. The big bang theory claims that space between objects expands but not the objects. However, many scientists now believe that space itself is not really empty. A recent article in "Scientific American" postulated that black holes cannot exist because space itself is only compressible up to a certain point. This leads to the question why does only space expand? Or is it really expanding?
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of David Rankin Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 5:26 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Expanding Earth?
Robert:
It is my understanding that gravity can counter-act, and even overcome the expansion. Which is why they theorize that Andromeda and the Milky Way will someday collide even though the space between them is increasing.
I'm bored, might as well.
Disclaimer. I make no claim to be an expert in Geology, it is just a passion and if you see any mistakes, please feel free to correct me.
Expanding Earth Page:
_"this crust is being made daily at rift cracks that snake around the earth's mid- oceans. But how could all these rifts continually spread apart...without the Earth growing? Ah....that is the question....isn't it?"_
Subduction. This explains the phenomenon of volcanic arcs along subduction zones. The fact that the crust is subducting and causing the melting point of peridotite to decrease and reach temperatures hot enough to cause volcanic arcs where ever there is a subduction zone. Also explains why the majority of the earthquake activity on the planet is along the plate boundaries, and more specifically, subduction zones. The Oceanic crust is being forced under the lighter continental crust. These are thought to form and go away as convection patterns in the mantle change, which also explains how and why a continent can rip apart like is happening with the East African Rift as I type these words. If a new convection current show up under the middle of a continent, the continent is slowly ripped apart, a marine transgression takes place, and a new ocean is born with a new mid ocean ridge directly under the new convection.
_"How did the two sides of this higher crust spread apart?_"
If you build a sand castle on the beach and let water surround it, the first thing that happens is a sand castle continental shelf. Continents have active and passive margins, this is explained below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_margin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_shelf
_"We further argue that if you were to shrink the sphere of Earth ... by letting the oceanic plate re-enter the rifts they erupted from, over time ... the continental crust would easily and completely fit back together, and this solution satisfies all questions of tectonics, science, geology, paleontology, theoretical and practical physics, cosmology, and subatomic physics. Pretty simple actually."_
A lot of assumptions are made here. Touching a few points that jumped into my head. First is the study of paleo-magnetism. Polar movement isn't only recorded in the oceanic crust, but also on land in a lot of sedimentary and igneous rocks. There is ample proof via these studies that entire continents have rotated, and moved around erratically. This would include the relitavily recent and fast movement of India into Asia. There is also no explanation of how mountains are formed, like the largest int he world, if the Earth just expanded and there were no continent to continent collisions.
_"Pangea theory which insists ... that the continents float willy, nilly about the Earth, spinning, sliding, bumping, and crashing like bumper cars in a carnival. (That's a common description ... which some geologists are currently backing away from... in small numbers.) The Pangea theory says the Earth was assembled 4.5 billion years ago in a "universal instant" from debris ... _"
This is almost Comical. First of all, Pangea was the second super continent, the first is refered to as Rodinia. More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodinia
The theory states the the earth was mostly covered in water, and volcanic activity formed many island arcs, which eventually crashed together forming the bedrock of what we now have as the continental crust of the continents. This also explains why major earth quakes happen in places that seem to have no fault lines at all, like the New Madrid earthquake. The theory is that there are weaknesses between the original contact points of these building blocks that still move from time to time. This bedrock then started to collect the massive ammounts of deposition resulting in the large am amount of sedimentary rock we have.
_"Geologists then say, that once assembled into planets, moons, and suns...this activity gave us a molten (from all the friction of assembly) differentiated Earth. Differentiated ... like in a caldron...melted in that, the lightest material rose to the surface ... which was presumably granitic rock ... then down to basalts ... then heavier silicates at the bottom, or core, you have iron and the heavier elements._"
This is a pretty widely accepted theory, which also explains why we find asteroids that are made of everything from soft rock to the hardest metals. The failed planet between Jupiter and Mars was once thought to have some pretty large bodies trying to form in it. As they crashed together and heated up, they differentiated much like the earth has with the denser metals being more affected by gravity, sinking to the center, and the lighter material staying on the outside of the object. As these large objects cooled and started to break up, we end up with meteorites made of metal, and some made of stone.
He is acting like the Mantle and the Crust are these fixed layers that have no interaction at all. The mantle is made of the same material the crust is, it is just under much more pressure and much hotter. They think it is the consistency of a thick flowing plastic. Some geologists even theorize that once oceanic crust is subducted, it may subduct all the way to the outer core of the earth before becoming totally molten again.
_"Pangeaists...insist...against all reasonable symmetries, that all the continents moved to one side of Earth about 600 million years ago, (pick your own time, (it's all a "guessing game") they gathered together on one side of the Earth, and for some unexplained reason stayed on that side for 400 million to 600 million years. Sound incredible?"
_He goes on to mention Rodinia, and place it before Pangea. Half lives is no guessing game.
_"First: Continents do not subduct under other continents as originally proposed! Geology has come to slowly agree with this.We know this for many reasons, the most important being that the granitic rock of the continents cannot subduct, because it is too light to do so._"
Hogwash. I would challenge anyone to find any noted Geologist that things subduction is a fantasy.
Evidence for subduction:
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_55165.htm
Another point is the depth of earthquakes can be measured. It is clear from how deep some earthquakes happen that subduction is taking place.
_"Let us consider... away from the continents we find volcanic island chains pushing upward out of the oceans, and right next to these volcanic islands... we find trenches, which indicate subduction or pushing down. Sort of makes sense, doesn't it?_"
I guess he's talking hot spots here. Easily explained once again by convection in the mantle. There is one hot convection spot under the Hawaiian chain that has remained stationary as the Pacific plats has moved over it. You can easily trace the movement of this plate by the ancient islands now swallowed by the sea, which also shows a very sharp turn at one point.
_"The fact is most, if not all, the mountains on Earth were created since 200 million years ago, and most of them are 60 million years old and younger. The Rockies are under 60 million. The Andes are under 60 million._"
A sad but true fact. Mountains tend to be young...because it rains.
Another thought, I have no math or foundation for, is density and gravity. I was under the impression that gravity was pretty strong, and tends to pull objects that are trying to expand, in. Im sure this alone could mathmatically prove the earth cant "expand" becasue of some unknown force or internal pressure? - that might cause it to do so. This guy is creative, but everything he says is contrary to the current model of geologic change of the earth.
There is only one way that deep sea fossils end up thousands of feet up at the top of mountains.
David
On 1/14/2011 4:03 PM, Robert Taylor wrote:
Everyone who believes in an Expanding Universe raise your hand
Ok, Good.
For those with your hands up, how many of you believe that that expansion
is
accelerating? Keep your hands up, everyone else put your hands down.
OK, very nice.
For those of with your hands still up, How many of you believe this expansion affects Planet Earth and the rest of the solar system, keep your hands up.
OK, so we have a small group that believes that the Earth is actually expanding along with the rest of the solar system. Amazing.
So the rest of you believe the Earth is not affected but a process that astronomers see happening every day through-out the Galaxy. A process
that
was first discovered by Edwin Hubble.
So all of you that don't believe in main stream science and deny that the Earth is expanding why do you think Earth is an exception from the rest of the Universe.
I'll take your answers in writing.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Mark Shelton Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 12:43 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Expanding Earth?
Hi, All
I was talking to a fellow astronomer the other evening and he told me to
go
to a web site and check out expanding earth, mars etc. theory.
Here is the link:
http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html
This is kind of an interesting Idea.
Any comments
Mark Shelton _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com