Please excuse if I break some BAUT by-law but I have been reading the previous thread on Expanding Earth. (Neal's science is wrong, but his observations of spreading on Earth and many other solar objects is excellent)
On response echoes my own thoughts and I quote
Quote:
...since you claim then that some land parts, which are now on totally different continents, would have lied close to each other, and would have need to have similar features. Same deposits of material, same magnetic field orientation for rocks that are same age, etc.
In the pangea model, these parts had not been connected and would not need to show of similar features.
So the existence or absence of such features would be good material that could either falsify or support your theory.
|
NEAL ADAMS expanding Earth model
May I ask are there any studies done on this?
On the same thread the Neal Adams camp gets itself in knots because they have to deny subduction. But IMO subduction is real. Perhaps initiated by the shrinkage of the Earth. Magma convection currents are logical also.
One feature of the spreading is the observation it is more on larger bodies. This prompted Neal's group to postulate exponential expansion, which lead them o6n a wild goose chase for esoteric matter creation (not that ordi6nary matter is not esoteric in itself
.) In fact producing hydrogen in a nuclear-type reaction explains this distribution since on smaller bodies more H is lost to space due to lower gravity. On the other hand larger bodies retain this hydrogen. Jupiter atmosphere is mostly Hydrogen as is Saturn's. Of course you ca6n argue that the Gas Giants always had a H/He atmosphere and perhaps they did.
Of note is that the spreading is not accompanied by evidence of subduction on smaller spheres, suggesting no shrinkage and/or less active cores. Unsurprising, as smaller bodies will cool quicker and lose hydrogen faster.
I was intrigued by my discovery of micro black holes
Quote:
|
In theory, a black hole can have any size or mass above the Planck mass.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole
My point is - since black holes of any size are theoretically possible, could they in fact be the seeds of gravitational accretion? The bigger the hole the bigger the star or planet? And is it possible that black holes or neutron 'clumps' are gradually turned into hydrogen by neutrino capture?