Re: Mass increase is inferred.
- From: first_name@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian)
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 00:39:25 +0200
josephus <dogbird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Use your brain. The data, i. e. the seafloor isochrons combined with theno there is not. absolutely there can be no increase of mass because
absence of large recycling of the ocean crust as assumed by PT, show
that there is a gain of surface, therefore a gain of volume.
the moon has not collided with the earth. that is what happens because
the MOON is just fast enough to remain in orbit, if the mass increases
and the Moon is too slow it will "fall" toward the earth. that has not
been seen, if anything, the moon is receeding.
Here you're speculating that a gain of mass would not be associated with
a gain of momentum. You have absolutely no data to reach a conclusion
because you have no data on the matter generation mechanism either.
Either there is a density decrease or mass increase. As a densitymagic quibbles. mass changes will throw the earth/moon out of
decrease means a larger paleogravity that is not compatible with past
Fauna, there is necessarly a mass increase.
ballance. the moon will be too slow and will collide with the earth.
it has not been seen. increased mass, density etc all violate basic
physics and chemistry.
No, because there is absolutly a source of energy. Find that source.
Sidenote: In ether-sink theories, matter is made of condensed and
organized ether. This organization results in a decrease in pressure
according to Bernoulli's principle. Therefore, any massive particle
generates a low pressure. Accumulation of matter generates huge
depression resulting in the gravity phenomenon. Gravity combines the
gradient of pressure in the ether and a spiraling inflow of ether. The
more massive, the stonger the flow and there you go with the gain of
momentum.
Of course, none of the above form a theory. But it could constitute a
good track.
This is the reason why I said that a mass increase is inferred by theit matters that you evade the question of where does that mass come
data.
Now we have no data to assert how, where and what kind of matter is
generated.
Do you finally get it or are you really the bonehead you look alike?
PS: YOu have a problem with your Caps key.
from. I know about stellar processes as an astronomer a star converts
H to He. and has a Carbon to Oxygen to Nitrogen cycle that sheds iron.
enough iron accumulates and as the star cools off it collapses and
explodes in a cataclysm createing different elemens above iron and the
dust it throws off is the stuff you are made of. that process lights up
STARS. the earth is too cold. you are left with MAGIC.
There is no magic. There is an explanation but we don't know it nor have
the data to find it yet. Do you get it or should I use caps as well?
no other expaination exists.
Jeez, then you should quit your job! That's your job to find the
mechanism behind earth expansion, because the observations are clear.
The Earth has significantly expanded. Denying the obvious won't change
it. period.
--
Florian
"Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles"
Voltaire vs Maupertuis/Leibniz/Meister
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Mass increase is inferred.
- From: josephus
- Re: Mass increase is inferred.
- Prev by Date: Re: a good university?
- Next by Date: Re: The important question for the Expanding Earth believers.
- Previous by thread: Continental drift is baseless when people could move between continents in the Carboniferous
- Next by thread: Re: Mass increase is inferred.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
