Hello people.
This is my first ever post on the forum I would just like to introduce myself.
I have an O'level in chemistry. Thats it. No PHD no years of exerience, nothing realy. Ive been reading a bit on this, tonight for the first time. And to me it makes perfect sense.......... Please read on.
I dont know about physics, I'm not even quite sure how an internal combustion engine works, but what I do know is that if you take a gas and cool it, it condenses, (becomes liquid, I think. There you go thats about the extent of my knowlege.)
This being the case......
If earth was created Billions of years ago, soley of gasses and stardust, with the aid of gravity, it would have eventually created a mass yes (the Earth) surrounded by gases (Y/N?).
We are told that the "universe" is expanding, along with our galaxy, therefore the Earth is moving away from the Sun right? Eventually these gases surronding the earth would have condensed, to create a liquid covering the entire Earth. (Y/N?) (basic laws of chemistry and physics).
If the continual movement of the Earth moving away from the Sun caused a reduction in gravity then the Earth Would expand causing rifts in the upper crust allowing the liquid to subside, and the land mass to reveal itself.

Please tell me if I am talking from my BUTT, but if this is not a reasonable hypothesis then it goes against the laws of chemistry and phisics in my understanding.
Please excuse my spelling and grammar. I'm having trouble editing the post. Thanks for listening.

Apparently the force of expansion we have observed is weaker than the force of gravity over less-than-intergalactic distances. So the expanding universe wouldn't move the Earth away from the Sun.

Also, we don't observe the Earth moving away from the Sun, and we don't observe the Earth's diameter increasing.

And, even if (for some reason) the Earth did move further from the sun, it wouldn't affect the Earth's self-gravity.

Welcome to BAUT, tomsolomon. You might want to check out the Question and Answer section for astronomy questions, but you're right that "expanding Earth" arguments belong in this section.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

E=mc².........

The basic scientific pricipals, and common sense state, that the Earth at some time in its early life should have been covered completely in water.
Forgive my naivity, but I would have thought that this simple fact would have been obvious the most experienced of minds.

Common sense tells me that we cannot know one way or the other, in the absence of information about the original amount of water and the lumpiness of the surface.

I don't know about this idea being commonsense. By the time the Earth was cool enough to allow water to condense & form liquid pools on the surface, I think there would have been enough tectonic activity & also collisions from space in the early 'dirty' solar system, for there to be rises, shallows & deeps - ie. the water would have collected in the lowest points leaving quite a bit of solid surface clear.

Add to that the ongoing evaporation/condensation cycle & I don't think it's quite so 'commonsense.'

Just my opinion.

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

Hi tomsolomon, and welcome ...

OK ... you've revealed that your education is limited ... and your knowledge is limited (eg, not all gases become liquids when cooled - it is also pressure-dependent, something that you should have picked up in Chemistry class) ...

Not really - "stardust" and gas, yes ... but also a lot of ices ... and the process of planetary accretion also included objects which of themselves comprised considerable mass ... the early gaseous envelope (sometimes called the first atmosphere) was thought to have been lost ...

These two are not connected in the way you think - as I understand it (which is hardly at all) universal expansion does not apply at scales of galaxies; certainly not at planetary distances ... shifts in the orbital distance of the Earth/Moon around the Sun are related to perturbing effects on gravity, with minor influences due to changes in mass over time ... the net effect is infinitesimal, and not always in the same direction (ie, the Earth/Moon system is not always moving away from the Sun) ...

You might want to check those basic laws - there are quite a lot of gases which have not condensed to create a liquid ... you're breathing some of them ... certainly, a lot (but not all) of the water vapour condensed out, and yes, the primordial ocean was thought to have covered at least 90% of the surface of the Earth - it covers roughly 70% now ...

The Earth's position in relation to the Sun has virtually no bearing on the Earth's gravity - the best you can expect is a reduction in solar tides ... the reduction of ocean surface coverage is not caused by an expanding Earth - it was caused by a contracting Earth (I bet that raised your eyebrows), a cooling Earth (if you want some basic chemistry and physics, there it is ...), and by a collection of processes which we can call plate tectonics, which includes rifting, but also includes orogenies and subduction - neither of which can be explained by an expanding Earth ...

perhaps you need to improve your understanding of both chemistry and physics, and toss in a little geology and planetary evolution ...

__________________

Another thing that concerns me is the fact that some believe there was a single land mass on one side of the planet.
Ok lets take a car wheel for instance.
If you do not balance a car wheel correctly when you travel along the wheel wobbles, and at speed in some cases, quite severly. Surely this cause the Earth to traverse around the Sun in a spiraling orbit.

While there are factors which cause the Earth to "wobble" on its axis, the placement of continental masses is likely to be the least of them ...

It's common to think of continental masses as these incredibly huge unwieldy objects which must upset the planet - it doesn't matter how many times we are told that, at comparable scales, the Earth is smoother than a billiard ball, it remains unbelievable because we can see a mountain that rises five miles into the air, but we can't see that the centre of the Earth is 6000 miles away ... it doesn't matter that the continents are the least dense components of the solid Earth, because rocks are so heavy ...

If you shaved all the hair from one side of your body, would you have to compensate for that, or would you lose your balance and tip over?

__________________

Thats quite a bad analogy realy. Would it be fairer to say "If you took all the liquid from one side of your body would it affect you balance?"

you believe that the continents are about 40% of the mass of the Earth?


actually my analogy was still overstating the relative impact ...

__________________

Ok many thanks for clearing up a bit for me. Just a couple more things though.
Nibiru... Does it in fact exist?
According to Mayan history we are near the end of a epoch denoted by the end of the cycle of the Mayan calander. Could these two events be connected and how will the lining up of the galaxy, and possibly (speculation) the movement of a large interstellar body passing through or solar system, affect the state of the planet.
Armaggedon does not realy interest me, but I was just curious as to whether these events would have any affect and would they be noticeable?

Ding!

Be right back...

Edit: Back.

Please review the articles in the topics in this list, and do let us know what aspects of the year 2012 predictions we at BAUT Forum have so far failed to address.

1. 2003 no, 2012 si
2. 2012
3. End of Mayan Calendar
4. Pole shift / Planetary alignment 2012?
5. 2012 alignment question
6. about the Mayan 2012 item
7. 2012 Debunking?
8. Possible asteroid impact in 2012?
9. 2012 asteroid?
10. We don't have to worry about 2012!
11. More on 2012 from India Daily
12. 2012 Completion of conspiracy?
13. Here's what's REALLY going to happen in 2012...
14. crop circles, Planet X and 2012
15. Planet X, crop circles and 2012 cataclysma
16. According to the Mayans, what will happen on 23rd Dec. 2012?
17. More 2012 Nonsense
18. NEO 2012?
19. Dangerous NEO in 2012?
20. Christmas 2012
21. 2012 mayan calender end of world
22. Regarding the supposed polar shift/new ice age in 2012
23. New 2012 threat?
24. 2012 look at this thing on the sun
25. Russian Expert Predicts Global Cooling from 2012
26. Pole shift idea origins
27. Dec 20 2012
28. 2012 Stuff
29. Horizon Project-New End of World Scare?
30. Date: December 21st 2012
31. Earth passing thru Galactic center in 2012 - didn't that already happen?
32. 2012: What do you think well happen (if anything)
33. So what will we see in 2012?
34. Galactic Tsunami?
35. Plane of the ecliptic of the galaxy?
36. Earth's Magnetic Field & 2012
37. 2012?
38. Any truth to this?
39. How can the sun be aligned with Galactic centre?
40. the whole 2012 poles flip nonsense
41. Planet X Official Advertisement
42. What year are we in
43. Quick question about the sun
44. Galactic Alignment
45. Books of 2012! -
46. 2007 = 2012
47. Return of Planet X By Rand
48. Don Alejandro - Mayan Elder.
49. Toutatis 4179: 2012?
50. Galactic Alignment in 2012 ?
51. Solar Storms
52. A real prediction!
53. NIBURU - Brown Dwarf, The DESTROYER
54. 2012 Galactic Alignment
55. Not 2012 again! But I cant help it~
56. New evidence for 2012 TEOTWAWKI!!!
57. this may be a silly question but...
58. Just to know if this is true
59. Just Wondering...
60. Planet X/Nibiru, is it real?
61. Youv heard this a million times.
62. Nibaru or Planet X
63. Mayan calendar
64. 2012 Article?
65. can i say something please on planet x
66. Nibiru
67. The growing earth.... :P

Thanks!

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Well, this is a very different topic ...
and well covered elsewhere, I believe (and 01101001 just illustrated) ...

__________________

The old addage is obviously true then....
It only takes one time.
One post and already I'm in the Troll hall of fame.
Very interesting reading if your paraniod or smoke lots of pot.
Unfortunately I'm not in either of those catagories, I was a little premature in voicing my opinions, (maybe I should have done a little reading beforehand. But who reads the instructions before playing with the toy.
My appologies for getting off on the wrong foot, I will think twice before putting it in my mouth again.

To be fair, it was more than one. Apology accepted. Welcome to BAUT!

As for the expanding-Earth idea, look for nearly any thread started by ExpErdMann, our resident expanding-Earth proponent.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

All else aside, what I am realy curious about is the way sound affects things. I know from personal experience, listening to music can cause a curious effect on the body, whether it be chemical or spiritual, nothing else I have experienced in life can produce anything near this experience (not even narcotics).
They can't hear you scream in space, is a fair enogh assumption, but what about white noise? And I did read something somewhere about string theory. These would sort of suggest that sound of some sort (maybe beyond our reconing) has some influence on our reality.

again, this is a very different topic ...
and, if you want people who have an interest in string theory (and vibrations), rather than people who have an interest in planetary science, to respond, I'd suggest framing this post as a question in a new thread ...

__________________

actually, reading from another post on this site a while ago, we are getting closer to the sun

and doesn't this whole condensing work for all gases, i've never had the thought to ask if all gases have a liquid form (now that i think about it i geuss they'd have to)

and if they condensed it would be a slow (because we're not moving closer by much) and it would just rain down (if my question about all the gases having a liquid form holds water)

__________________
SAO <3's S.C.W.

Again - not all gases pass through a liquid phase when cooled; because pressure is also a factor ...

example 1. Carbon dioxide normally passes from gas-solid (or solid-gas); liquid CO2 needs about 5atm pressure ...

example 2. at something like 0.15atm, water does not have a liquid phase ...

(note: someone may want to correct the figures - I didn't look them up)

__________________

Just a point to give some idea about the size of Earth. The crust (the bit we live on plus what's under the seas) varies a bit in thickness - from about 25 miles to maybe 60 or so. Under that there's the mantle (there's an upper & lower mantle) then outer core & inner core. The core has a radius of over 2100 miles & it's iron, heavily compressed due to the mass of Earth. (ie. it weighs a lot)
The Earth is about 7900 miles diameter at the equator. So, the 'skin' of the Earth, the part that would purportedly throw the earth into a wobble, is the floating bit (ie. lighter part) at the surface & it's 2% or less of the diameter.

So Gondwanaland is feasible without necessarily throwing the Earth into terminal wobbles. Imagine having a spinning orange with some mould on one side - would the mould actually destabilise the orange?

What music does to the mind would seem to be a very different subject to either what you can hear in space or whether strings actually make a sound as they vibrate.

If a scream can't be heard in space, how would one hear white noise? There is no difference (apart from means of production) & neither has the medium to transport it.

If strings make music, it is unlikely they do it solely in 3D space & quite possibly we can't hear it due to the frequency - humans hear a pathetically small range of Sounds, just as we see a pathetically small range of frequencies of Light.

It would help if you asked a question & stuck with it for a time, maybe discussing & contributing to the evolution of the thread rather than changing from one thing to another without proper response to what has been offered.

You'd also get better response if you asked each subject in it's own thread - there are those here who would probably contribute on the music question but they don't see it - they see a thread called 'The Growing Earth' & pass right on by.

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

I'm curious to know where you get these numbers from ...

__________________

Also, the Earth is the only planet in our solar system to have a fragmented crust, other planets show evidence of volcanic activity, but they have a singular unbroken upper crust. Just what I've viewed on documentaries, if this is right? As I said I'm an observer not a researcher.
My appologies I will start a seperate thread for the string post.

Well, let's disregard the four largest planets, and concentrate on those bodies in the solar system which have definable solid surfaces ...

what do you mean by fragmented crust and singular unbroken upper crust?

As far as I know, surface studies of Mercury have barely begun, but there are indications of crustal fractures and structural shifts ...

Venus has anything but an unbroken upper crust ...

Mars has two distinct surface types, analogous to continental and oceanic crust forms on Earth ... as does the Moon, Ganymede, Titan, and possibly others ...

Europa seems to be completely covered in ice, but even that is fragmented ... Io is so active and covered with debris that we can't really tell ...

Some of the outer satellites have been so fragmented that they look like crazy paving ...

__________________

Because Tectonic activity has ceased on a planet like Mars doesn't mean it was never there.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Google - one site was http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...h/Inside.shtml & another was http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo.../interior.html. Also looked at http://geography.about.com/od/learna...earthfacts.htm

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

Just for fun, you may enjoy knowing that liquid helium does not have a solid phase at 1atm pressure, no matter how much you cool it.

hmm ... OK ... thanks for that ...

it seems I confused miles/km in an earlier post ...

but 25 - 60 miles for crust is not supported by any of those sites ...
the first one mentions 6 - 90 km (~ 4 - 54 miles), though doesn't indicate where the 90km bit might be ...

__________________