Re: evidences against subduction theory


"Florian" <first_name@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1i1h416.r3fagflkwtbrN%first_name@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Surface increased then volume increased.

Do you mean "then" to denote two distinct events in time, or to mean
"therefore"?

I stand corrected: Surface increased therefore volume increased.


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.

Though, James Herndon published a paper supporting this hypothesis.

http://understandearth.com/WEDD.pdf

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

The following is taken from a San Francisco Chronicle article by Keay
Davidson describing that test[1]:

One of Herndon's leading critics is planetary scientist David Stevenson
of the California Institute of Technology. He says in an e-mail: "Herndon
is a solid and knowledgeable person when it comes to (nuclear) reactors.
But the amount of attention this (georeactor) idea has received is out of
proportion with its plausibility. ... It's not complete nonsense, but it's
highly unlikely. There are many instances in science where this happens.
This one has merely received more attention than most.
"The idea is based on two very dubious propositions: (a) That uranium (or
any heavy element) would naturally go to the center of the Earth. This is
almost certainly untrue. It is a misunderstanding of chemistry and
statistical physics at a very fundamental level. (b) That there is
something about Earth's heat flow or helium that is so wildly discordant
with our usual ideas that it requires an outrageous hypothesis to explain
it. This is incorrect."

I don't buy it, because I don't think that decompression would occur
over billions years. Moreover, decompression would be unique to Earth
while there are some clues of expansion of other telluric planets (Mars,
Ganymède, Europa...)

Not.

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?

Don't know. More Science is needed to figure it out.


Well? Get busy, Floppy. If more science is needed, why are you wasting
your time (and everyone elses here) posting this nonsense on usenet?

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.

Independant from biomechanics? No. But If people were seriously looking
for direct evidences of gravity increase, they may find some.

Well, get to it. Where does the mass come from, floppy? You claim
increased mass, so prove where it comes from. It's your claim, so its up
to you to find it.

George


.