Travel West to SPOC?

Excellent resource, thanks Patrick!

It looks like the sun will be darn low nearing the end of the event, for us here in northern Utah. Anybody have plans to travel westward a bit for this?

On 1/13/11, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote:

...

Nice website for the event:

http://www.transitofvenus.nl/details.html

_______________________________________________ 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

Tahoe looks like fun. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:39 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Transit of Venus On 1/13/11, erikhansen@thebluezone.net <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:

...

Travel West to SPOC?

LOL, a bit further than that. I was thinking more like Reno! _______________________________________________ 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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3376 - Release Date: 01/12/11

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

Road Apples Horse feathers Tea Party Science DT --- On Thu, 1/13/11, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Expanding Earth? To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, January 13, 2011, 12:27 PM I only skimmed it, but I didn't see one mention of subduction anywhere.

I'm extremely skeptical.

On 1/13/11, Mark Shelton <woodturninginc@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

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

_______________________________________________ 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

Another case of intellectual “delirium tremens”. Where do these people come from? They have way too much time on their hands if they’re coming up with this phantasmagoric blather. They need to get a job. By the way, how did those marine fossil assemblages come to be at the top of the Himalayas if plates never crash into one another? I guess those mollusks just felt frisky one day and climbed to 29,000 feet. Under this guy’s theory how did the Himalayas arise? I suppose ‘they were inordinately high to begin with’ would be his reply. Remember, he said plates never run into each other, they only “grow” apart. Chuck replied he did not see the word subduction in the little bit that he read. Had he listened to “Press Clip #0” he would have found out why. The guy completely discounts subduction from the rip. If you discount subduction, then Wegener’s theory wouldn’t make a lot of sense. I had to temper my intellectual pursuit at this point. I was beginning to wretch. Oh, sorry. I got a little carried away. What’s my comment: It’s nonsense. Dave On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Mark Shelton wrote:

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

Thank you all for the comments. When my friend told me about this I was skeptical. It just did not make sense to me. I watched the video's in the link I sent and it was entertaining. Just did not make a lot of sense. What is sad is I think my friend really believes this and he is no dummy. Mark ________________________________ From: David Rankin <David@rankinstudio.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thu, January 13, 2011 4:43:33 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Expanding Earth? I'm doing my minor in Geology. I share your sentiments Dave. David On 1/13/2011 4:20 PM, Dave Gary wrote:

Another case of intellectual “delirium tremens”. Where do these people come from? They have way too much time on their hands if they’re coming up with this phantasmagoric blather. They need to get a job.

By the way, how did those marine fossil assemblages come to be at the top of the Himalayas if plates never crash into one another? I guess those mollusks just felt frisky one day and climbed to 29,000 feet. Under this guy’s theory how did the Himalayas arise? I suppose ‘they were inordinately high to begin with’ would be his reply. Remember, he said plates never run into each other, they only “grow” apart.

Chuck replied he did not see the word subduction in the little bit that he read. Had he listened to “Press Clip #0” he would have found out why. The guy completely discounts subduction from the rip. If you discount subduction, then Wegener’s theory wouldn’t make a lot of sense. I had to temper my intellectual pursuit at this point. I was beginning to wretch.

Oh, sorry. I got a little carried away. What’s my comment: It’s nonsense.

Dave On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Mark Shelton wrote:

...

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

How does the song go? "and still a man believes what he wants to believe and disregards the rest".

I have been surprised by the beliefs of many people I consider smarter than me. It does seem far to many people don't trust science. Thank you all for the comments. When my friend told me about this I was

skeptical. It just did not make sense to me.

I watched the video's in the link I sent and it was entertaining. Just did not make a lot of sense.

What is sad is I think my friend really believes this and he is no dummy.

Mark

________________________________ From: David Rankin <David@rankinstudio.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thu, January 13, 2011 4:43:33 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Expanding Earth?

I'm doing my minor in Geology.

I share your sentiments Dave.

David

On 1/13/2011 4:20 PM, Dave Gary wrote:

...

Another case of intellectual “delirium tremens”. Where do these people come from? They have way too much time on their hands if they’re coming up with this phantasmagoric blather. They need to get a job.

By the way, how did those marine fossil assemblages come to be at the top of the Himalayas if plates never crash into one another? I guess those mollusks just felt frisky one day and climbed to 29,000 feet. Under this guy’s theory how did the Himalayas arise? I suppose ‘they were inordinately high to begin with’ would be his reply. Remember, he said plates never run into each other, they only “grow” apart.

Chuck replied he did not see the word subduction in the little bit that he read. Had he listened to “Press Clip #0” he would have found out why. The guy completely discounts subduction from the rip. If you discount subduction, then Wegener’s theory wouldn’t make a lot of sense. I had to temper my intellectual pursuit at this point. I was beginning to wretch.

Oh, sorry. I got a little carried away. What’s my comment: It’s nonsense.

Dave On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Mark Shelton wrote:

...

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

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

Robert, I figured you were trying to stoke an interesting conversation. I like a good challenge to what I see as current understanding. I know our "facts" are always subject to change :) Plate Tectonics actually does exist on Europa, but it's mantle is liquid water, and its plates are ice. I think I remember my astro 101 teacher saying something about the Valis Marineris. He mentioned a theory about Olympus Mons causing uneven stress on the crust and "ripping" apart the valis Marineris. I don't know if I buy that or not. One of my friends pointed out it looks like a "grazing impact" from a meteor, and I think I found a site where someone theorized about an asteroid like moon in retrograde orbit smashing into mars at a low angle. Its been shot down by anyone I've brought it up to. I remember learning that Mars didn't have the mass to retain its internal heat like the earth has. Maybe this lack of mass and heat never really got enough convection going int he mantle of mars to cause a crust thin enough to break up and move around? On the flip side, if the earth expanded, and mars is so similar, why wouldn't we see the exact same evidence he is claiming exists here, on mars? I agree that a lot of breakthroughs come from the fringes, at some point, big steps are made though. I really think the expanding earth theory doesn't explain much of what is observed. The guy states that the lithosphere is riding around on the oceanic crust. This is not true. At some point the oceanic crust gets thrust down deep into the mantle and is totally recycled. The Atlantic and pacific ocean basins are not "meeting up" under the Americas. Some part of the lithosphere sits on or very near the mantle. The ocean floors are made up of young rock because the rock is being generated at the mid ocean ridges. It spreads on the order of cm a year. It wouldn't then last for billions of years between continents before being recycled back into the mantle at an active margin. There are also differential rates observed in different ocean basins. This is all probably a byproduct of a dynamic mantle. An interesting note. The mid ocean ridges are huge mountains. As the fresh magma rises and goes through a process of adiabatic decompression, it starts out very buoyant and not as dense as it gets as it cools off. This is why the ranges are there, and as you move from them, they taper off. This process is only a function of the temperature though, so if the rates the ridge is making new crust increase, the mid ocean ridge ranges get wider. This displaces more water, and also increases volcanic activity at the active plate margins. The effect is higher ocean levels and more CO2 in the atmosphere. Sounds a lot like what the late cretaceous was like. David On 1/14/2011 6:52 PM, Robert Taylor wrote:

Thanks David, I enjoyed reading that.

A part II on this and perhaps what I find more fascinating is that this theory seems to explain aspects of Lunar and Martian geology that can't be explained by Plate Tectonics, because there isn't any there.

Valis Marineris has always bothered me. I never liked the water theory as the valley is just far too wide to have been caused by water. If you haven't looked at the Adam's videos that refer to Mars and the Moon from the original post's link I invite you look at them, if nothing else they are a different way to explain them.

Also I don't like that we have expansion joints in both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans that appear to expand into each other, and why are the Ocean floors made up of such young rocks? They should be much older if in fact the continents have been drifting for as long as the Plate Tectonics Theory would have us believe. We have rocks on land that are Billions of years old, yet right off shore they are no older than 125 million, does that make sense? Subduction should provide a more even transition in the age of rocks. Certainly the Pacific Ocean's floor should be much older than the Atlantic Oceans floor, but it's not. I am still lost as to why we didn't figure out the South America and Africa fit together until about 70 years ago, every school child knew it, hmm, our maps weren't that bad in the 40s and 50s. Plate Techtonics is still a very young science.

http://geology.about.com/library/bl/maps/blseafloorage.htm

BTW: Adams is not the only person studying the expanding Earth theory, there are others, it is not as fringe as you might think. I personally don't have any issues with the current Plate theories although I try to be open minded. Often the real breakthroughs come from the fringe, ask Galileo, or Einstein, or Hubble who were all ostracized by the mainstream at one point in their careers before they were shown to be correct.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate, I think it's a fascinating theory and may be correct about a few things, but I'm not a Geologist, although I do know a few if that counts.

Bob

-----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.

_______________________________________________ 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

I have sat on the sidelines on this one so far but feel compelled to jump in now. I haven't looked at the original post or the web site that talks about the expanding universe applying to the Earth. But lets look at it this way: 1. The previous comment made about having rift zones with new oceanic floor forming in both without having Earth expansion could be. But while new oceanic crust is being formed throughout the mid oceanic rift, older crust is being destroyed by subduction. This is well evident by the violent volcanism along the subduction zones. 2. There is no evidence of the Earth having gone through our currently experiencing expansion. Granted on the large scale, the universe is expanding but its individual components remain static in volume. If everything in the universe were expanding (including Earth) there would be no relative expansion and it would only appear that the speed of constants such as light was slowing down. Do I make sense with this? Rodger -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Robert Taylor Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 6:53 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Expanding Earth? Thanks David, I enjoyed reading that. A part II on this and perhaps what I find more fascinating is that this theory seems to explain aspects of Lunar and Martian geology that can't be explained by Plate Tectonics, because there isn't any there. Valis Marineris has always bothered me. I never liked the water theory as the valley is just far too wide to have been caused by water. If you haven't looked at the Adam's videos that refer to Mars and the Moon from the original post's link I invite you look at them, if nothing else they are a different way to explain them. Also I don't like that we have expansion joints in both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans that appear to expand into each other, and why are the Ocean floors made up of such young rocks? They should be much older if in fact the continents have been drifting for as long as the Plate Tectonics Theory would have us believe. We have rocks on land that are Billions of years old, yet right off shore they are no older than 125 million, does that make sense? Subduction should provide a more even transition in the age of rocks. Certainly the Pacific Ocean's floor should be much older than the Atlantic Oceans floor, but it's not. I am still lost as to why we didn't figure out the South America and Africa fit together until about 70 years ago, every school child knew it, hmm, our maps weren't that bad in the 40s and 50s. Plate Techtonics is still a very young science. http://geology.about.com/library/bl/maps/blseafloorage.htm BTW: Adams is not the only person studying the expanding Earth theory, there are others, it is not as fringe as you might think. I personally don't have any issues with the current Plate theories although I try to be open minded. Often the real breakthroughs come from the fringe, ask Galileo, or Einstein, or Hubble who were all ostracized by the mainstream at one point in their careers before they were shown to be correct. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate, I think it's a fascinating theory and may be correct about a few things, but I'm not a Geologist, although I do know a few if that counts. Bob -----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. _______________________________________________ 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

"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

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

Well I think Bob's conclusion:

" 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." Is a flawed conclusion. Did Bob get enough in writing on that? 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

I think a few things are being confused here. The strong force (atomic bond) is separate from the weak force (molecular bond) is separate from Gravity which is separate from dark energy (force expanding the universe) which are separate from electro magnetism. Gravity alone can hold the planets in orbit, but cannot break "the weak force" that holds our irregularly shaped bodies together. On 1/14/2011 6:58 PM, Dave Gary wrote:

Whoa there, Robert. By your reasoning why aren’t you expanding? What makes your body an exception to the rest of the universe? Somewhere, you’ve experienced a major logical disconnect. Space-time is expanding, not the contents themselves which are embedded within space-time. Hubble’s observation and Neal Adam’s fantabulous jabberwocky have nothing in common. As they say in the military, ‘man, you need to flush out your head gear’.

Dave On Jan 14, 2011, at 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

No worries Kim. You and I may differ here. I like Grassy Knoll type theories (Yes, I believe Oswald did it), to a point, I don't believe them but they are interesting to listen to from social science perspective as well as a logical argument. Adams has a unique way of explaining plate evolution, I thought it rather creative and elegant, worth a second look as opposed to just blowing it off as pseudo-science before we know anything about it because it doesn't conform with orthodox science is missing the fun. Cosmological Expansion: No Adams didn't bring that in but I was waiting for it, I brought it in as teaser and to muddy the water. Bob -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Kim Hyatt Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 8:33 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Expanding Earth? My apologies to Robert if my comment sounded demeaning. Didn't mean to. I, too like a good polemic now and then. I can't get the right plugin to load to be able to view Neal Adams' videos, but what I could read sure sounded off-the-wall. I admit that as soon as I read anything that even approaches a shooter-on-the-grassy-knoll mentality I tend to dismiss anything else that person may have to say. (Adams, not you Robert.) Anyway I didn't see that Adams was trying to compare an expanding earth to cosmological expansion. Did I miss something? I think Stephen had a good question, and I don't have an answer. Can anyone else address that? Kim

Most likely, he is. I’ve expanded, considerably, and rather quickly. Almost akin to inflation it’s been so rapid. However, it’s not a space-time thing. It’s an ingestion thing. Another curious thing he may notice is that hair won’t seem to grow on his head any longer, but seems to grow just fine on his back. That one has me stumped. Dave On Jan 15, 2011, at 4:44 AM, Me Siegfried wrote:

What makes you think that he's not expanding?

Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless

-----Original message----- From: Dave Gary <davegary@me.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sat, Jan 15, 2011 02:00:11 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Expanding Earth?

Whoa there, Robert. By your reasoning why aren’t you expanding? What makes your body an exception to the rest of the universe? Somewhere, you’ve experienced a major logical disconnect. Space-time is expanding, not the contents themselves which are embedded within space-time. Hubble’s observation and Neal Adam’s fantabulous jabberwocky have nothing in common. As they say in the military, ‘man, you need to flush out your head gear’.

Dave On Jan 14, 2011, at 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

Thank you, Chuck, for rubbing that in right after Christmas. ;-) Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 7:47 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Expanding Earth ? I guess I'm running counter to the observational evidence for an expanding universe. I've lost considerable mass in the last year (60 lbs.), and at 52, still have a full head of long, thick hair. ;o) On 1/15/11, Dave Gary <davegary@me.com> wrote:

Most likely, he is. I've expanded, considerably, and rather quickly. Almost akin to inflation it's been so rapid. However, it's not a space-time thing. It's an ingestion thing. Another curious thing he may notice is that hair won't seem to grow on his head any longer, but seems to grow just fine on his back. That one has me stumped.

_______________________________________________ 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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3386 - Release Date: 01/17/11

High. Didn't think about that. Maybe Donner pass would offer a splendid view. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 12:28 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Transit of Venus How's the western horizon? On 1/13/11, Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:

Tahoe looks like fun.

_______________________________________________ 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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3376 - Release Date: 01/12/11

On 13 Jan 2011, at 07:08, Chuck Hards wrote:

It looks like the sun will be darn low nearing the end of the event, for us here in northern Utah. Anybody have plans to travel westward a bit for this?

For me it's a question of "Is it worth the effort?". Even from SLC we'll see 1st and 2nd contacts when the Sun's over half way up the sky. We'll even see minimum separation though only 15° above the horizon. Going to the west coast will put the Sun a bit higher in the sky but there's no place in the continental US where 3rd or 4th contacts will be seen. One could travel to BC or Alaska where the entire event will be above the horizon but chances of clouds are 50% higher than here in Utah. Hawaii is another possibility with all of the event being visible from there (though egress is very low in the sky). Plus the chance of clouds is a few percent less than here. Were it happening in cold weather months I just might consider Hawaii but going there in June does not appeal to me. And, besides, is it worth all of the cost and hassle of going a great distance just to see Venus travel a little further across Sol's disk? To me it's not. Weather permitting I'll almost certainly go to SPOC and use the refractor and DayStar filter. Even from there the Sun will still be at least a few degrees above the local horizon at minimum separation. Plus right as the Sun is setting Saturn will be about 1/3 of the way up the eastern sky making it a good target to close the day's festivities on. All-in-all, 2012 is shaping up to be a pretty big deal. Annular eclipse in May, transit of Venus in June and the End of the World (part 2) star party in December. patrick

Aloha YUP Hawaii is a gathering place for those involved in the Venus Transit if anyone in SLAS is interested in seeing the transit from Hawaii let me know, we'll make room for you. The Mercury Transit was big here on Haleakala even w/ the unexpected 55mph winds see ya soon. Aloha Rob