Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:58:00 -0700
In article <1i1gieu.omegyf178k3iaN%first_name@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
first_name@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian) wrote:
Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1i1f8ui.v66sk51bd830gN%first_name@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
first_name@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian) wrote:
George <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'll repeat the question for those who may not have understood it. So
where is your data that shows that the mass of the Earth has increased?
Jeez, are you slow. Surface increased so volume increased. Then either
mass increased and gravity increased, or density increased and gravity
decreased.
Run that by me again?
Sure.
Surface increased then volume increased.
Do you mean "then" to denote two distinct events in time, or to mean
"therefore"?
Two possible explanations for a
volume increase:
1 - Volume increase is due to density decrease. But it means that
density was much higher in the past which means that gravity was also
much higher. That hypothesis is ruled out by the gigantism of past
fauna/flora.
Also, there's no way for matter to have been 8x as dense.
2 - Volume increase is due to matter creation. It follows that gravity
changed with a rate depending on the density of created matter.
So how was the matter created?
Considering d the average density and g the gravity at the surface, then
g=Gm/r^2=G.d.V/r^2=(G.d.4pi.r^3)/(3.r^2)=4/3.pi.d.G.r
It follows that if d remained approximatively constant, then the gravity
increased linearly with the radius of the planet.
But you have no independent evidence for that.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ?Chris L.
an important web site: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Florian
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- References:
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: George
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Timberwoof
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Jo Schaper
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Florian
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Timberwoof
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: J . Taylor
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Jo Schaper
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: J . Taylor
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Timberwoof
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: J . Taylor
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Timberwoof
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: George
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Florian
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: George
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Florian
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: George
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Florian
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Timberwoof
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- From: Florian
- Re: evidences against subduction theory
- Prev by Date: Re: The Earth is smaller than assumed
- Next by Date: Re: evidences against subduction theory
- Previous by thread: Re: evidences against subduction theory
- Next by thread: Re: evidences against subduction theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading