RUS New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 19 of 46«1217181920214546»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Off-topic Discussions » Conspiracy Theories (And UFOs, ancient astronauts, and other such things.)
Conspiracy Theories
Antza2Date: Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 12:54 | Message # 271
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
Finland
Messages: 1049
Status: Offline
Quote (expando)
I believe that is what happened to the Dinosaurs, the earth expanded and the increase in gravity caused the larger dinosaurs to die out. Neutrinos from the sun interact with the hydrogen plasma core of the earth creating new simple and low elemental material (such as water), over time the pressure builds up and the earth suddenly expands (and violently). Most people believe the core of the earth is filled with iron and denser materials, this is not the case, the core of the earth is filled with the lightest elements, but under great pressure. This is logical to assume because at the center of the earth, there is no gravity, gravity tempers off half way through the earth's mass. The hydrogen core of the earth captures passing neutrinos and converts them into mass


No offence, but that is almost as ridiculous as the hollow earth theory. If you have any knowledge on how physics and geology work, you know that this is not possible. You can test this bu placing liquids of different densities in a jar. The heaviest liquids always settle under the lighter ones.





Go to antza2.deviantart.com for cool photos!
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 13:08 | Message # 272
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
Quote (expando)
this is not the case, the core of the earth is filled with the lightest elements, but under great pressure.


I'm sorry but what?

This is the biggest load of nonsense I have read in quite some time. Physical evidence contradicts any such notions.

Rather than type this all out I'll use wikipedia article on it and you can check the sources.

Quote
Core
Main articles: inner core and outer core

The average density of Earth is 5,515 kg/m3. Since the average density of surface material is only around 3,000 kg/m3, we must conclude that denser materials exist within Earth's core. Further evidence for the high density core comes from the study of seismology.

Seismic measurements show that the core is divided into two parts, a solid inner core with a radius of ~1,220 km[2] and a liquid outer core extending beyond it to a radius of ~3,400 km. The solid inner core was discovered in 1936 by Inge Lehmann and is generally believed to be composed primarily of iron and some nickel. In early stages of Earth's formation about 4.5 billion (4.5×109) years ago, melting would have caused denser substances to sink toward the center in a process called planetary differentiation (see also the iron catastrophe), while less-dense materials would have migrated to the crust. The core is thus believed to largely be composed of iron (80%), along with nickel and one or more light elements, whereas other dense elements, such as lead and uranium, either are too rare to be significant or tend to bind to lighter elements and thus remain in the crust (see felsic materials). Some have argued that the inner core may be in the form of a single iron crystal.[3][4]

Under laboratory conditions a sample of iron nickel alloy was subjected to the corelike pressures by gripping it in a vise between 2 diamond tips, and then heating to approximately 4000 K. The sample was observed with x-rays, and strongly supported the theory that the earth's inner core was made of giant crystals running north to south.[5][6]

The liquid outer core surrounds the inner core and is believed to be composed of iron mixed with nickel and trace amounts of lighter elements.

Recent speculation suggests that the innermost part of the core is enriched in gold, platinum and other siderophile elements.[7]

The matter that comprises Earth is connected in fundamental ways to matter of certain chondrite meteorites, and to matter of outer portion of the Sun.[8][9] There is good reason to believe that Earth is, in the main, like a chondrite meteorite. Beginning as early as 1940, scientists, including Francis Birch, built geophysics upon the premise that Earth is like ordinary chondrites, the most common type of meteorite observed impacting Earth, while totally ignoring another, albeit less abundant type, called enstatite chondrites. The principal difference between the two meteorite types is that enstatite chondrites formed under circumstances of extremely limited available oxygen, leading to certain normally oxyphile elements existing either partially or wholly in the alloy portion that corresponds to the core of Earth.

Dynamo theory suggests that convection in the outer core, combined with the Coriolis effect, gives rise to Earth's magnetic field. The solid inner core is too hot to hold a permanent magnetic field (see Curie temperature) but probably acts to stabilize the magnetic field generated by the liquid outer core. The average magnetic field strength in the Earth's outer core is estimated to be 25 Gauss, 50 times stronger than the magnetic field at the surface.[10][11]

Recent evidence has suggested that the inner core of Earth may rotate slightly faster than the rest of the planet.[12] In August 2005 a team of geophysicists announced in the journal Science that, according to their estimates, Earth's inner core rotates approximately 0.3 to 0.5 degrees per year relative to the rotation of the surface.[13][14]

The current scientific explanation for the Earth's temperature gradient is a combination of heat left over from the planet's initial formation, decay of radioactive elements, and freezing of the inner core.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth

That hypothesis is complete fantasy and based on nothing more than a fantasy. Plus if the core were lighter materials there would be no magnetic field, no magnetic field means no protection from solar storms, atmosphere would be stripped away, no more life, and Earth would end up looking a lot like Mars.

The core would have to be some sort of Metal or metal composite, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about it.
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
Having lighter materials in their cores has nothing to do with their mass or pressure. This is due to the outer Solar system being much more deficient in heavier elements, so there are primarily only lighter elements to work with. Also, due to their mass they can hold a much higher proportion of gases (in the astronomical sense) than smaller worlds, giving them an even greater proportion of light elements to heavy ones. However the densest materials would still collect at their centers.






Expanding Earth is no more valid than young Earth, flat Earth, hollow Earth.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB


Edited by DoctorOfSpace - Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 14:45
 
werdnaforeverDate: Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 13:53 | Message # 273
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 897
Status: Offline
Quote (DoctorOfSpace)
The only planets with enough mass and pressure to have primarily lighter materials in their cores are the Gas giants and even they still have rocky central cores.


I thought some had diamond cores, due to the extreme pressure.
 
apenpaapDate: Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 14:16 | Message # 274
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
Quote (expando)
the earth expanded and the increase in gravity caused the larger dinosaurs to die out.


A larger Earth would decrease the gravity, not increase it. The force of gravity is divided by the square of the distance to its origin, which means if you get twice as far away from the Earth's core (provided you're above ground in both situations) gravity decreases four times. Hence why Saturn, despite its gigantic mass, barely has higher surface gravity than Earth: it's a very diffuse planet, which places its surface very far away from the core, while Earth is dense. Unless Earth's mass also magically increased (which would require a far more powerful wizard than the one who was just increasing its volume, since it's breaking even more serious laws of nature), expanding Earth would have a decreasing surface gravity.





I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 14:39 | Message # 275
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
I moved this to the Conspiracy Theory (and other fringe stuff) thread since it has nothing at all to do with video games.

Quote expando
the earth expanded and the increase in gravity caused the larger dinosaurs to die out

If the Earth expanded, the gravity would decrease, not increase. If you're referring to forces caused by a rapid and violent expansion, then those would be different, and would still ultimately be overshadowed by the ensuing seismic forces from such a catastrophic event. Also, if the Earth expanded then there would be massive, obvious, and unmistakable geological evidence (which there isn't).

Quote expando
Most people believe the core of the earth is filled with iron and denser materials, this is not the case, the core of the earth is filled with the lightest elements, but under great pressure.

Besides the fact that this is in direct opposition to the laws of physics, and every theory of planet formation based on those laws, actual observational evidence strongly contradicts this. We can actually map the interior of the planet and discern the properties of the layers by studying the propagation of seismic waves. From this we know that the core of the planet is very dense.

Quote expando
This is logical to assume because at the center of the earth, there is no gravity

There is gravity there, and everywhere else in the known universe, there is simply no weight, and this is true only at the exact center. Once you move away from the center, the weight increases and pulls you towards the center, so things are still drawn there. And in any case the interior layers of the Earth are under immense pressure.

Quote expando
The hydrogen core of the earth captures passing neutrinos and converts them into mass

No natural process could possibly have led to the Earth having a hydrogen core.

Quote DoctorOfSpace
The only planets with enough mass and pressure to have primarily lighter materials in their cores are the Gas giants and even they still have rocky central cores.

Having lighter materials in their cores has nothing to do with their mass or pressure. This is due to the outer Solar system being much more deficient in heavier elements, so there are primarily only lighter elements to work with. Also, due to their mass they can hold a much higher proportion of gases (in the astronomical sense) than smaller worlds, giving them an even greater proportion of light elements to heavy ones. However the densest materials would still collect at their centers.

Quote werdnaforever
I thought some had diamond cores, due to the extreme pressure.

Diamond is composed of carbon, a relatively light element. Diamond cores/planets would form only on planets composed largely of carbon.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 14:44 | Message # 276
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
Having lighter materials in their cores has nothing to do with their mass or pressure. This is due to the outer Solar system being much more deficient in heavier elements, so there are primarily only lighter elements to work with. Also, due to their mass they can hold a much higher proportion of gases (in the astronomical sense) than smaller worlds, giving them an even greater proportion of light elements to heavy ones. However the densest materials would still collect at their centers.


In some sense thats exactly what I was meaning to say. You can verify that from Antza tongue But you are much better at wording it than I am so I'll swap in what you said and fix my post.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB


Edited by DoctorOfSpace - Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 14:45
 
werdnaforeverDate: Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 15:07 | Message # 277
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 897
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
Diamond is composed of carbon, a relatively light element. Diamond cores/planets would form only on planets composed largely of carbon.

You're right, of course. I think it was 2061: Odyssey Three, where diamond fragments of Jupiter's core were on Europa.
 
expandoDate: Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 18:44 | Message # 278
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Australia
Messages: 87
Status: Offline
apenpaap, I am not saying that the earth expanded without increasing it's mass. Earth increased it's mass via accretion of matter inside the earth. Likely this mass is accumulated from neutrinos that pass through the earth, it has been well documented that neutrinos are absorbed by the earth such as the Homestake Gold mining neutrino experiment where they directly detected the impact of passing neutrinos.

Doctor,
Quote
That hypothesis is complete fantasy and based on nothing more than a fantasy. Plus if the core were lighter materials there would be no magnetic field


Yes, please ignore Jupiter who's Core is Hydrogen (the lightest element by a factor of 4) and has a magnetic field over 10 times the strength of Earth. wink

About the gravity in the Earth. Imagine a elevator that descends directly to the center of the earth from the surface. Would the effect of gravity keep increasing until reaching the core of the earth? Perhaps not, likely the gravity would keep increasing until halfway where the effect of gravity would tamper off until the centre of the earth is reached.

BTW, I object to the post being moved to the conspiracy thread, the original reply was made in a gaming thread where I backed up a comment where gravity would be too great for large creatures. Hardly call this conspiracy.





"Religion is regarded by the common people as true - by the wise as false - and by the rulers as useful."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca


Edited by expando - Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 18:55
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 18:52 | Message # 279
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
Quote (expando)
Yes, please ignore Jupiter who's Core is Hydrogen (the lightest element by a factor of 4) and has a magnetic field over 10 times the strength of Earth.


I didn't ignore anything and I am far too tired to argue this moot point since I posted the information on gas Giants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen

Quote
Metallic hydrogen is a state of hydrogen in which it behaves as electrical conductor. This state was predicted theoretically in 1935, but has not been reliably produced in the laboratory experiments due to the requirement of high pressures, on the order of hundreds of gigapascals. At these pressures, hydrogen might exist as a liquid rather than solid. Liquid metallic hydrogen is thought to be present in large amounts in the gravitationally compressed interiors of Jupiter, Saturn, and some of the newly discovered extrasolar planets.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
Antza2Date: Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 18:56 | Message # 280
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
Finland
Messages: 1049
Status: Offline
expando, please understand that the densest material always settles at the lowest level. Rocks don't float on water (or on hydrogen).




Go to antza2.deviantart.com for cool photos!
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 19:03 | Message # 281
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (expando)
Yes, please ignore Jupiter who's Core is Hydrogen

Jupiter's core is not hydrogen (it might be, but most models indicate that it is actually rocky, and if it isn't it would be due interior processes having taken place after formation, which would be specific to very high mass planets and thus not applicable to Earth). You are thinking of the interior regions surrounding the core, which are liquid metallic hydrogen. It is because the hydrogen is in this special state that the magnetic field can exist.

Quote (expando)
Perhaps not, likely the gravity would keep increasing until halfway where the effect of gravity would tamper off until the centre of the earth is reached.

Of course it would, no one disputes that. That does not change the fact that the force of gravity always pulls towards the center wherever you are, which is what causes differentiation in the first place.

Also, I would like to point out that the amount of mass added to the Earth by neutrino accretion is negligible, and is outclassed by many orders of magnitude by the amount of mass gained via collection of space dust and meteoroid debris (which if I remember correctly is something like 400 tons per day).

Quote (expando)
BTW, I object to the post being moved to the conspiracy thread, the original reply was made in a gaming thread where I backed up a comment where gravity would be too great for large creatures. Hardly call this conspiracy.

The subject of this discussion is the expanding Earth hypothesis, which has naught to do with video games. And if you read carefully, you will see that this thread is not just for conspiracy theories, but for fringe ideas in general. This definitely belongs here.

To the point: if you have actual evidence to support this "expanding Earth" hypothesis, present it. Otherwise you are just advocating that the tooth fairy's diet consists primarily of glue or that dark energy is caused by llamas.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM


Edited by HarbingerDawn - Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 19:05
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 19:08 | Message # 282
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
Jupiter's core is not hydrogen (it might be, but most models indicate that it is actually rocky, and if it isn't it would be due interior processes having taken place after formation, which would be specific to very high mass planets and thus not applicable to Earth). You are thinking of the interior regions surrounding the core, which are liquid metallic hydrogen. It is because the hydrogen is in this special state that the magnetic field can exist.


Which is what I was talking about in my post. I was not talking about Jupiter or other gas giants, my context was about Earth.

I guess from now on I am going to have to go word by word and be as specific as possible and probably avoid posting when I haven't slept in over a day or more.

Quote (HarbingerDawn)
Also, I would like to point out that the amount of mass added to the Earth by neutrino accretion is negligible, and is outclassed by many orders of magnitude by the amount of mass gained via collection of space dust and meteoroid debris (which if I remember correctly is something like 400 tons per day).


Quote
"BBC recently asked physicist and Cambridge University professor Dave Ansell to draw up a balance sheet of the mass that's coming in to the earth, and the mass going out to find out if the earth is gaining or losing mass. By far the biggest contributor to the world's mass is the 40,000 tonnes of dust that is falling from space to Earth every year. 'The Earth is acting like a giant vacuum cleaner powered by gravity in space, pulling in particles of dust,' says Dr. Chris Smith. Another factor increasing the earth's mass is global warming which adds about 160 tonnes a year because as the temperature of the Earth goes up, energy is added to the system, so the mass must go up. On the minus side, at the very center of the Earth, within the inner core, there exists a sphere of uranium five mile in diameter which acts as a natural nuclear reactor so these nuclear reactions cause a loss of mass of about 16 tonnes per year."





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
expandoDate: Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 19:58 | Message # 283
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Australia
Messages: 87
Status: Offline
Quote
To the point: if you have actual evidence to support this "expanding Earth" hypothesis, present it.


I think the best evidence is the way the continents match together on a smaller globe.

You may visit Lawrence S. Myers site, has a lot of compelling information.
http://www.expanding-earth.org/

Quote
On the minus side, at the very center of the Earth, within the inner core, there exists a sphere of uranium five mile in diameter which acts as a natural nuclear reactor so these nuclear reactions cause a loss of mass of about 16 tonnes per year.


I did not know they were claiming that, I always thought the heat of the earth must come from the radioactive decay of matter but I thought the establishment claims the earth is still cooling down from the frictional heat generated at it's creation.





"Religion is regarded by the common people as true - by the wise as false - and by the rulers as useful."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 20:32 | Message # 284
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (expando)
I thought the establishment claims the earth is still cooling down from the frictional heat generated at it's creation.

No. It has been known for centuries that frictional heating alone would have rendered the Earth cooled solid many ages ago. So we have known since the 1800's that another mechanism was at work. It wasn't until the turn of the 20th century and the discovery of radioactivity that we knew what it was. However, most of the radioactive heating comes from various elements scattered about the core, not just that lump in the middle (if indeed it exists). I have no idea why you thought that the general claim was something other than radioactivity; that has been the leading explanation for generations.

Quote (expando)
I think the best evidence is the way the continents match together on a smaller globe.

This can also be explained by the existing theory of plate tectonics, which has other supporting evidence as well. Citing that as compelling evidence is like me citing it being 10 degrees warmer yesterday as evidence that it was 1000 degrees warmer a few months ago: one does not necessarily follow from the other, and since a better explanation exists to explain what happened and since what I would be proposing is in fact impossible, we can discount the idea altogether.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
WatsisnameDate: Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 23:17 | Message # 285
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
Quote (expando)
Perhaps not, likely the gravity would keep increasing until halfway where the effect of gravity would tamper off until the centre of the earth is reached.

Of course it would, no one disputes that. That does not change the fact that the force of gravity always pulls towards the center wherever you are, which is what causes differentiation in the first place.


Actually, (and this is a very minor nitpick but I feel it's interesting enough to go over), the effect of gravity does not increase as you go down for any point in the journey. The gravitational field inside a uniform sphere is linearly proportional to the distance from the center. So if you were to dig a hole down to the center of the earth, gravity would decrease linearly for the entire way down. Now for the real Earth, because the core is denser than the mantle, the relationship is a bit more complicated and you get a less than a linear drop-off, until you reach the core/mantle boundary where it is then linear.

Your point about differentiation is spot on though. smile

expando, I am sorry, but your 'expanding earth' hypothesis for the extinction of the dinosaurs has no basis in reality, as quite a few people here have demonstrated. If you are interested in understanding the Earth and the universe as it really is, then you should get your information from the people who study it for a living, ie scientists. You should not get your information from websites with multicolored all-caps text with phrases like "DON'T CONTINUE FOOLING YOURSELF".

I'd like to give you a demonstration to get you thinking about what constitutes a credible source -- this is a very important skill to have. Please do a search on Google Scholar for "Expanding Earth", and see how many relevant papers it returns. Notice how few of them there are? And they're all from the 1970s or 80s? There's a reason for that. It's because when Plate Tectonics was first getting serious scientific consideration, a few stubborn individuals held on to the idea that all of geologic history could be explained without plate movements. (They were a very small minority). This "expanding earth" theory is one of the left-over ideas they came up with. It is an old, fundamentally flawed idea and no geologist or astrophysicist active in the peer-reviewed literature today takes it seriously. We understand planetary processes and history far better than that.

Lastly, since nobody appears to have said it yet, what killed the dinosaurs (as well as about 75% of all species...) was an impact event with an asteroid. There is extremely compelling evidence supporting this, which includes the remnant of the impact crater (the Chicxulub Crater), an ejecta blanket enriched with iridium which coincides with the extinction event (it is so profound that this was known to geologists as the separation of the Cretaceous and Paleogene strata layers well before they even understood its significance as an impact event.), and many other localized geologic features such as tsunami debris. You can read up on it here on wikipedia, or if you prefer more trustworthy scholarly sources I can point you to those as well.

Please share what your thoughts are on this information and don't hesitate to continue asking questions. smile







Edited by Watsisname - Wednesday, 23.01.2013, 23:22
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Off-topic Discussions » Conspiracy Theories (And UFOs, ancient astronauts, and other such things.)
Page 19 of 46«1217181920214546»
Search: